4.10 Official Release

[Furio]

Originally Posted by JAMF

I wonder how much of that reasoning is based on the view angle being the field of view and the head position... without taking into acount the amount the eyes can turn . Try looking behind you with shoulders locked to the back of a chair, like being strapped into an aircraft seat. Your real FoV will see 360 degrees.

This is true only for young people with good “neck swivel”. And while looking to the far rear, you loose binocular vision, because nose blocks one of the eyes. The whole topic of vision is a complex one. Surely 6DOF would be cool, but to be realistic it should be severely restricted. Shoulder harness apart, fighter cockpits were tight and cramped, and there was no much way to move around.
I fly with an old motorglider, and I must wear my cap with visor turned to the rear, just to have a little movement.
Perhaps, asking for a 6DOF within a restricted box could reduce some of the developers worries about unfair advantages (and obtain a better realism).

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by Barnowl

Have the rockets been changed? Every time I fire them now they hit below the sight line, what ever covergence I set.

From Readme:

Added Wind effect to bullets, rockets and bombs.
Added random dispersion for rockets.

Dunno, if it can explain your observations.

[Xallo]

Is VisibilityDistance=3 the maximum? It feels like things pop up later then I remember it (2 years since I've flown it though). But smaller cities seems to pop up when you are almost too close to adjust your path to bomb specific targets.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Use VisibilityDistance=3 in conjunction with LandGeom=3 and goes without saying, works only in Perfect mode aka HardwareShaders=1. The popping up of towns and other items is like a ring around your plane and usually the pattern is irrelgular. How I bomb is that I align way out from target to the general direction of target and then finetune closer in as you can usually see a town as a lighter patch in the "flurry" landscape far away.

I suspect this object thing popping up very close is due IL-2 is more CPU heavy than GPU. No matter what monster GPU you have Berlin will choke your system. What would help might be that TD could assign more work to the GPU and make IL-2 code run on more than one core effectively evening out the work load for smoother gameplay in object intensive areas. Would be a great thing

[Xallo]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Use VisibilityDistance=3 in conjunction with LandGeom=3

Thanks a lot! I had landgeom=2 will try it out later today

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by Furio

This is true only for young people with good “neck swivel”. And while looking to the far rear, you loose binocular vision, because nose blocks one of the eyes. The whole topic of vision is a complex one. Surely 6DOF would be cool, but to be realistic it should be severely restricted. Shoulder harness apart, fighter cockpits were tight and cramped, and there was no much way to move around.

We are simulating a day in the life of a WW2 pilot and I don't know if there were any of ages above 40. If we were simulating a pilot of that age, your 'avatar' would maybe be assigned a desk job as a CO.

Loosing binocular vision is a moot point, since 3D displays have an even lower market penetration than, oh... pick a piece of hardware we flight simmers use. With monocular vision, one still can determine where that dot on your six is.

The restriction of movement should be a "box" defined per plane, as we all know they varied from bf109 tight to P-47 roomy. If future simulations were to have this limitation, it would be nice to have the possibility to toggle for harness slack or tight, giving a large and small "box" respectively. Slack harness manoeuvres would have the dangers similar to reality. The view limitation should naturally be investigated on a case-by-case basis, taking real circumstances into account. Like for instance sitting on the parachute gives an approximately 4" or 100mm higher line of sight through the gunsight and out onto the wing, making mistakes of simply setting the viewpoint "x" distance a thing of the past.

[JHartikka]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

Check the new English readme! Basically, try dropping a bomb from under 25 metres (or higher if you are in a dive).

Now bombs have a safety feature, in case they should fall when being loaded.

Yes, it is a safety delay that prevents bombs from exploding when bombing low. Alas, it also prevents low bombing, too! In recent 4.10m mission I was advised to drop from minimum alt of 500 meters..! For precision bomber, denying 'jabo' bombing this is like denying fighter pilot from shooting closer than 500 meters to target..!

In reality, bombs were fused for each mission bombing style. Original makers of IL-2 flight sim have made very fine bomb bounce modeling to enable low accuracy bombing styles like ground 'slide bombing' and ship 'bounce bombing' or 'skip bombing'. Now all these low bombing styles are denied from us with the 4.10m safety fuse!

If there are bomb salvo settings, please let pilots set them! Safety fuse style forced 'idiot bombing' modes are good for AI pilots, but many human pilots like to learn precision bombing the real way - low! So please either remove that safety fuse from the next patch or let people set it with other bombing salvo settings -quite like in reality..!


All the Best,

- J. Hartikka -

IL-2 Virtual Bomber Pilot

Finland

Links: Weapon control mode to set SALVO to drop any number of bombs individually or at desired intervals - http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.ph....html#msg33351

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by JHartikka

Original makers of IL-2 flight sim have made very fine bomb bounce modeling to enable low accuracy bombing styles like ground 'slide bombing' and ship 'bounce bombing'. Now all these low bombing styles are denied from us with the 410m safety fuse!

no they didn't.

because in reality this type of bombing never happened.

[JHartikka]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

no they didn't.

because in reality this type of bombing never happened.

U trying to rewrite history I guess..?

In reality, bombs were fused with suitable fuse delays for each mission. 4.10m style safety delay fuses were used for high level bombing. Precision low bombing fuses were different to level bombing fuses. For example, Finns sometimes precision bombed bridges low with a group of Blenheims carrying bombs delayed for 30 secs with no initial safety delay. This allowed the bomber group to drop bombs quickly and accurately low and the whole group would we away before the bombs exploded 30 secs later. A 4.10m style forced safety fuse would have prevented bombs from exploding.

U.S. bomber pilots were notorious for their 'skip bombing' tactics - flying fast very low over sea to bounce bombs from water to the side of a ship - which are said to have made Japanese ship crews very scary for American bombers during latter part of war. Bombs would not have worked with a 4.10m safety fuse.

'Slide bombing' was used at least by German 'Jabo' pilots with ground battle versions of FW's, for example. They would approach the target very low almost parallel to ground and drop bomb so it would slide on ground to hit the target. Bombs were furnished with delay fuses for these low bombing styles of course. No 4.10m safety delay was set to these fuses, either!

I bet some readers of this thread know more examples of low bombing practises. 4.10m style safety fuse could of course not be used for these bombing styles because it would have prevented the bomb from exploding in target. That is why I would like to ask to please remove the safety fuse from 4.10 patch...


Regards,

- J. Hartikka -

IL-2 Virtual Bomber Pilot

[robtek]

In Il2 the bomb never "slides" but always bounces if the angle is right.
And skip-bombing is still possible by dropping from 30m in level flight!
Also the fuse delay is still working as usual, only the arming delay is added.