Given the choice, I'd rather have more variety of surface ships than have them more artificially intelligent.

well, its an interesting request non the less.

having ships trying to evade when your dive bombing them would be fantastic, of that there is no doubt.

whether its remotely possible for TeamD to do i have no idea.....

A possible workaround to that could be to try to time a mission so that when the strike group arrives the AI ships will begin a zig zag course.. I have seen this in coops before..

And it's a pain to get it to work out properly.

I'm not trying to show off here, but I have built hundreds of missions, and have come to that workaround. However, timing it properly can be a real pain. So the ships will normally begin their evasive moves before the correct moment, and even without paying attention to the attackers direction at all.

Results with that workaround are not entirely bad, don't get me wrong. But if the feature could ever be implemented to some extent, it would awesome.

I'd rather have the effort put into some IJN heavy cruisers, and battleships that actually saw more than two combat actions.

of course, thx for ns-23...

but another load, it's was NOT ns-37, it's was n-37 - principal difference, and if DT really wants give to us prototype of yak-9ut with n-37 + 2 b-20, it's need to do correctly...

differences of cannons look here...

maybe, b-20m and n-45 can be as "what if" too...:)

good... did not know...

you not understood, i talk about yak-9 with VK-105PF...:) maybe it's my fault, sorry...

all principal changes for yak-9p with VK-105PF it's second shvak instead UBS...

if it's not hard, i think, DT can give this load for yak-9 1942 for us, or how another airplane... easy "what if"...:) i all time wanted try this, but NO any mods...

plus, of course, were many similar not serial yaks, but maybe this is too...

and how this plane can be use in game or online? in serious online (wars i mean) it's CAN be use, trust me;) ("front tests", prize etc)... like i-185 now...

How about we wait and see what triggers we will eventually get in 4.13?

To both: I just made a suggestion. With all due respect, considering it or not falls entirely within Team Daidalos.

I'm not going to defend my points, nor going to start a discussion about it. I perfectly understand your comments about the idea, and I know that you don't mean bad, but it seems you are making it just too relevant. Please note that I didn't try at any point to make some sort of demand out of it, and I apologize if I made it sound like that (I'm from Uruguay, so you'll have to excuse my English).

I trust TD has a traced route, and will only pay attention to crazy stuff like mine if it doesn't strive too much from what's already planned.

Ah yes... NS-37 versus N-37. I'd have to look at my notes again to be absolutely sure. I think both versions of the cannon were fitted at one time or another. I think the NS-37 was fitted at one point during the prototype stages which is why it was included (and the game codes for that cannon already exist). Please double check but I don't think the N-37 was available until 1946?

N-45 was another optional armament addition but I also think that was post war as well. I'm not sure about that. The focus in my mind was definitely on aircraft and armament types that exists during the war and saw use.

As for the Yak-9P I was thinking about the all metal version that was the immediate successor and follow on to the Yak-9U. I didn't realize you were talking about the earlier Yak-9P. Is it based on the early Yak-9U prototype with VK-105PF? Didn't some of these early Yak-9U's make the front line? That may be the type that could be done rather than the P model? I understand the interest in the unique armament configuration. What visual external differences existed to fit the second ShVAK? Any pictures? I'm curious if nothing else.

I think it's a good suggestion BlackFox. There essentially is no AI for the ships right now beyond their guns and waypoint following. I suspect this would be a much larger undertaking... nothing exists at present so it'd have to be all new. I think it'd have to include things like avoiding other ships as right now the ships will run straight into each other if you set the waypoints.

AI and code development would be done by people with different skillsets than building ships fortunately so we could have cake and eat it too. But I think in both cases the outlay of time is significant which is why we aren't seeing a ton of new ships for example.

Any late war British fighters....

Spitfire XIV & XVI
Gloster Meteor
Spiteful
Tempest II
Typhoons
Late mark Mosquitos

Tempest II is post war, fyi, didn't quite make it into service in WWII

Sirens off after Start, ecxept another wave of enemy ac is incoming when you land.
Its annoying to come home after a cleansweep and the sirens are still buzzing.

The Tempest II was in limited production in 1944, and would have been used against Japan had the war continued.

In a hypothetical IL2: Operation Downfall/Japan 1946 add-on I'd want it along with the F7F, F8F, P-47N, P-51H, Kikka, A7M Reppu, etc.

Oh that would be fun wouldn't it? I remember playing the Aces of the Pacific: 1946 expansion pack back in the day. Maybe 1992? It was great to have that what-if setup.

I still want too many historical aircraft before that, but it would be cool!

Would be possible in the next update to do the follow:

1. Model frozen carburator (right now, winter map, radiator fully open, descending from 6000 meters i manage to drop oil temperature below zero with not a single complaint from my engine)

2. Asign axis to radiator (and independent to engine as well when necessary)

3. Diferencial brakes in planes which had them (like b17)

5. More stages in the compressor for planes like b17 or p47 (or if possible the possibility to link them to an axis)

6. Mixture slightly more complex ( I am not asking for full realism, I know it will be impossible to model every plane accurately, but flying russian planes over 4000 metres it does not matter if you choose 80%, 60%, 40%, no difference whatsoever)

7. If a plane got hit and black smoke are coming out from the engine will be possible to accelerate the temperature increase and engine damage in the p39 and possible the spitfire? or is it realistic the go and go and go...

8. Hidraulic presure damage modeled? (gear drop when hit at certain spot)

9. Bullets ricochet from impact.

That's all for now. Thanks for reading!

Will TD introduce fuel limitations due to loadout selection? The Ar234 for example could only load 2,6t of fuel instead of 3,1t when it carried 3xSC500. This carries over to pretty much every plane in game and would certainly add to realism.

in fact tested only n-37 + 2xb20 (prototype of yak-9ut) and ns-23 + 2xb20 (in serie), "bible for yak-fans" (i mean, А.Т.Степанец, it's our reality without any big modern reseaches in archives) talking us about only n-37...

other sources and info from old game, mainly, repeat or very, very questionable... or just wrong...

plus, just logic - new weapon (ns-23 and b-20)... and old , heavy ns-37? what for?


of course, start of serial production in 47, but here question about correctness for prototype of yak-9ut in game...

or n-37, or nothing (n-37 was "ready" and tested in 44-45, so, why not?)...

plus, we must remember what WW2 end in september 1945 (Japan crushed by great USSR-blitzkrieg etc), so, all questions about perfomances, weapons etc must be looked from this position too...


well, some info about n-37 (more, in something like "Пушки для боевых самолетов, Автор: А.Э. Нудельман") - В апреле 1944 г. был изготовлен первый экземпляр пушки Н-37, а в августе 1944 г. были завершены наземные государственные испытания патрона и пушки. Первые летные испытания проводились на Як-9Т и Як-9УТ в марте 1945 г. Пушка была установлена в моторе. В дальнейшем летные испытания проводились на МиГ-9.


some info about first aut'45-tests of yak-9 with vk-107a (it's yak-9u, "эталон 1945г.") with 2xb-20 + b-20 (b-20 can be changed to ns-23, n-37)...

and - and other words about n-37 in yak-9p tests after end of war...

b-20 and n-45 only "what if", of course... and, maybe, mainly for yak-9p vk-107a...


agree, but sometimes, "easy" (i mean, historically correct + easy to do for game, by ingame tools too) things may be include, why not?


first yak-9p was yak-9 (yak-9 1942 in game) with vk-105pf and second shvak instead UBS (1 shvak with 120-140 rounds + second shvak with 165 rounds), he was tested in spring of 43 and was recommended for production...

and...

about name yak-9p for yak-9p with vk-105pf - about name yak-9p for yak-9p with vk-107a - how say to us all sources - little external differences (some differences of gun port for shvak, and maybe without armor glass because it was prototype or because no armor glasses at the moment), similar perfomance (only little unstability on low speed when firing and +10-15 kg of weight to mass)...

well, you can read all this self anytime (1 photo here) - here or here...

While I like the new AI I still have a huge beef with them.. I am so sick and tired of being in a 4 on 4 QM and having all the enemy attacking me at once and every time I tell the AI to attack they say "Roger I got you covered.." and they just fly around.. There is no reason why I should have 3-4 AI on me when I am in a flight of 4 set to Ace.. It drives me nuts.. that is one thing that really needs to be fixed.. Yes the AI is more challenging but the friendly AI needs to be brought up to speed.. either they are trying to go aftr your target.. or they are flying wing for the guy shooting you down.. now in a 1 vs two.. when you are on them.. they are great.. very challenging.. almost like a live opponent.. but those friendlies... ARRGGHHH!!!!!! Put the lot of them before a firing squad.. Every now and then when the conditions are right.. and I have no idea what they are .. they will actually cover me.. but it is very inconsistent..

+1!

Ki-44
 

Does that mean it will be AI only when introduced? What about for 4.13?

Bf109 G4 why not?
 

Would be good to have an alternative to the Bf109G2, why not give us a G4? It would give something less dominant between 42 and 43...

Ships
 

What I have never quite understood is why there is no AAA defence on the freighters. Maybe a standard 20mm on the bow and stern as this was a fairly standard calibre for all beligerents.

Does the B-29 3Dmodel need any rework? THe grey disc of the prop spinning looks over-done?

Just saw the latest update, love you can pick skins for static aircraft. Lots of good stuff for FMB............. BUT.......... and it's big BUT, I'd still like to see a gui button for formation style. Don't see why it would be hard to do, you can pick the formation you are leading in game with Tab/comms. I'd like to be able to set all of the flights I make into the correct formation type for the mission. Instead of SBD's forming in Finger four to the left for all flights I'd like to make them form up in eschelon left and right, attack planes usually flew in eschelond. I'd like to make Vic flights for BoB missions, etc....etc...etc....

a gui switch in FMB to do this would be a very powerful mission building tool

Been asking and hoping now for years that this would finally get done before IL-2 is given up on and no longer modded.

So if you guys can swing it I'm sure it would be a very appreciated option for mission builders.

Thanks

Hoss

Some Ju-88 Heavy fighters, Ground attack &/or Night fighters

Request: A selectable "blank" in the fields "Staffel" and "Nummer" in the loadout-screen of dogfight missions.
Why: Because I want to be able to find the carrier with my own skin.

What I mean?
On a dogfight map, where your homebase has a country (any country except "none") you are forced to select a "Staffel number" and a plane "number". But if you want to fly with a skin, that already has a number on it, your plane shows two numbers in game (= ugly). Well, as a mission-builder you can tell me "just select 'none' in the coutry-field, when you set the homebase on the map". But that's no option. If you want to receive the signal from the directional beacon of an US-carrier, you have to fly as an US-country (USAAF, USN, USMC). Just a red homebase with country "none" does not work.

Engine startup of P-51B and C (and RAF-Mustang) shows smoke only on one side of the enginge. Would be nice to see this corrected.

Just curious but shouldnt the fokker dxx series planes have some type of adjustable prop pitch and radiator control/cowl flap etc? Seems wierd a 3 bladed metal prop and no pitch adjustments, maybe its coded like the sm-79 a 2 speed?

They did a lot of research on the plane, so I would be surprised if they missed something like that. One sign that a prop can change pitch is the presence of counter-weights at the hub.

Here is a Dutch Fokker with variable pitch prop:

http://www.zap16.com/zapp/wp-content...kker-d-xxi.jpg

Here is a Danish one with fixed-pitch prop:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...-d-xxi-006.jpg

And Finnish:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...8FR-110%29.jpg

I think that someone at DT copied an existing D.XXI in a museum, as the cockpit model in the game matches it perfectly. That version probably had a variable pitch prop. So maybe, the Finnish cockpit represents the wrong one, but the Finns could have kept the extra levers....I don't know who is right, but the functionality of the Finnish D.XXIs is correct.

Cargo loadout for the Ju52 please.

Hi dear Daidalos Team
Before all, I want to thank you for your wonderful work you are doing with this already wonderful game.
It is a pleasure to see that there is a team dedicated to make this simulation even better.
Each time I watch your videos on Youtube, I am so amazed by your work!

I have 2 requests:
*Be able to close the canopy gunner on bomber (D3A, B5N, SBD and the G4M). It is very agreable to be able to close the canopy during the flight. The aircrafts look much more realistic.

*And do a cockpit for the outstanding PO2/U2. It is a great ground attack plane! I am teaching how to pilot to friends (including my nephews) and a plane like this one is an excellent trainer. Between 30000 and 40000 were built!

That would be so nice!!
Thanks you very much!

TD - a request which I'm certain is already on your agenda?

You've made the B5N flyable, you cannot leave the TBD all alone in the realm of AI? Balance must be restored to the universe, the Devastator needs to live, to sing, to dance with that Mk13 torpedo hanging so deftly from its bowel. With the Kate and the Devastator as flyables, this sim will finally shun it's Grumman induced bruises and rise as the Pacific gem we all dreamed it could one day be.

Excuse me for being so verbose, I'm moved by that video of a flyable Kate.

TD, love your work, really do.


#Cough# and the observer's seat on the Beaufighter #cough#

From it's...bowel? Do you mean belly? :)

Yes, you're right. Perhaps if we were to use anatomically correct analogies, the torp would hang from the "belly" of the Devastator but would reside within the "bowel" of an Avenger?

the 4.12 update is looking good! will we see the new 109`s and p47`s cockpits in 4.12 or 4.13 :-P

Well, the Devastator carried its torpedo partially internally, since it was sunken into a well on the plane's belly.

Perhaps it's sort of hanging part of the way out of its bowels, like something hanging from a dog's hind end before it scoots across the rug. :shock:

Better than that, why not the Coastal Command version where the observer had a machine gun. Why model a crew station where you can't do anything?

But, I'm going to cut TD a lot of slack. They've done wonderful work to make a number of long-standing AI planes flyable and we keep pestering them for more, more, More!

I'm guessing that they plan to eventually create crew stations for most of the planes in the game, and will also improve some of the older/uglier 3d models and cockpits. Give them time to work their magic.

Remember, though, that creating each crew station takes a lot of work and the necessary pictures and data aren't available for every crew station for every plane. For that reason, I can't imagine that planes like the Me-323 will ever be flyable.

+1 for Kukuruznik

When player's number two
 

Would be possible to fix in some way number three and four of same flight foolishly following player when he's #2 of a formation of four during landing (or, in general, when #1 has been shot down)? This causes almost always a landing accident to them, often involving player, since AI tries to stay close in formation during player's landing. Player has no way to issue orders to AI since they're grayed-out in related menu. Curiously, this AI fixation for close vicinity doesn't happen when player's #4.

S!
GB

Fixed for 4.12, in general, player will have more communication options in 4.12

1+ 1+ 1+ :razz:

I've been away for a couple of years...did the proposed 'triggers' for the FMB ever get implemented?

+1, yak-7b without gargrot and bf109g-4 it's what really need for historical correct soviet-german front'43...

and, maybe, it's time for correct 1.3/1.42 ata perfomance...

I have one, simple wish for 4.12 - remove the lettering "MISSION COMPLETE" flashing right in the middle of the screen. Please.

Sorry for bother again, but there is one from the list of sugestions I would like a word from Daidalos and it is about engine temperatures. Is there any plans of get even more realistic this IL2 aspect? I mean, as I explained in a previous post, in the current situation the lower temperatures of the engine (i.e. long descent with cowling flaps open in a winter map) has no impact on the engine. I am not asking for a "plane by plane" acurate behaviour, a more "one fits all" will make me a happy man.

Here are two of mine:

• Tighter AI formations for heavy bombers (i.e. B-17s and B-24s)
• Elimination of the irritating wing over or flip over effect every time a plane flies over a WP.

Just in case it's already possible in QMB but I missed it.....is it possible or could we have the player not always lead the flight and maybe be No.2 (wingman) or 3 or 4 in the flight?

Currently I am always the leader unless I go into FMB? So it would be great from the drop-down menu to have a switch in Aircraft Customisation (where you choose the skins) to have a switch that lets you choose which is the Players plane?

Cheers, MP

4.12 Complete?
 

I posted this in Update Discussion and Feedback, but it probably belongs here.

+1

+1

Any chance of more than 4 controllers?

oh, sorry, i use only main sources (some books and tables) and only now again read one "fresh" monograph about 9 - more pictures of yak-9p vk-105pf here...

well, really, difference is gunport and little another geometry of nose part without blister for UBS...

it's too much for ignore of changes or no, don't know now, anyway, it's choice of DT...


and little more about production of early yak-9 (yak-9 1942 in game) - in 42 only 59 from 459...

so, maybe, really need for lot of 9's with perfomance'42 (2870 kg - 515-520 km/h at SL - 17.5-18.5 sec - 5.1 min/5000), perfomance'43 (2870 - 530-540 - 17 - 4.9/5000)...

something like this, ONLY if early yak-9s in 43 have 2 fuel tanks in wing and not be yak-9d in fact with more fuel tanks (so, i can be wrong, when some days ago write about yak-9 1943... too much details here)...

anyway, early yak-9 with better perfomance can be etalon or plane with very good quality (i think so)...

Nav Lights Not Bright Enough
 

I realize that the decision may have been to cater to the online DF crowd, but as it stands now, the navlights/landing lights are nowhere near as bright as they should be.

To be honest, they are pretty useless.

Can we find a 4.09m - 4.11.1 happy medium? Or create an option?

I'm not asking for Christmas trees in the sky, but they are so nerfed right now, you can't see/communicate at all via your lights at all. Just can't see them.

Waypoints in COOP still don't update correctly.
 

Please see this post:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=265

Hello all.

Could you make undercarriage legs more accurate in Tomahawks?

http://www10.speedyshare.com/file/2f...alVsInGame.jpg

These in game are to long or the dampers are to hard.

Was a great surprise for me too.
Maybe addition of SB2C?

Would be great if we could fly a flying boat from IL2....

I daydream of the day that TD is finally released from the shackles of NG and finally allow IL-2 1946 to live up to its best potential as "The Best" combat flight sim ever.

Hmm flyable TBF and etc

please, put this map in the incomming 4.12 patch :
http://i56.tinypic.com/110dw2h.jpg

Is that the Alps?

Also is there any way of contacting the third party that is sprucing up the P-47 and seeing how close we are? I'd love to see that baby treated right ;)

ki-61 tei or ki-61-II

What map is that?

What is "this map"? Kind of hard to tell there.

I'd love to see a Ki-61 Tei variant. Most numerically produced and fairly important to have. Ki-61-II KAI would be interesting but insignificant historically. I'd still love to see it.

Map
 

A new battle of britain map featuring england, english channel and western france and add a spitfire mk1 and a BF-109E3

:-P

One note regarding the request for a 'One-stop-patch' or 'Mega-Patch' from 4.07 to most actual one: We are not able to provide this in an easy way, due to the large file size, that it would have. Pls understand, we would have to share it (plus the small ones!) with all the offerers (mirrors), prior to each release - and thats not very handy, if not impossible.

There are people who compile such patches after us releasing the single ones and that is just great (thanks!) and proved to be enough, as they can be found easily in the web.

EDIT: Thanks for all the inspirations here! We do read it, but cannot answer each. Sorry!

+1

+1

+ a lot.

I think that a Horsa glider would be useful both for a fun mission and for mission builders SEOW etc

Gliders
 

Horsa is a great idea! And how nice would it be, if we had DFS-230 gliders. And more, if Ju-52 or Ju-87 could tow it. One really small improvement in comparison with all the work on 4.12: 900 l drop tanks for Bf 100 and Do 217?

Thinking along the lines of tow-able gliders, it would be cool to have a tow-able glider that had to be shot for target practise, while being towed?

If there was some way to have a scoring system set up so that it couldn't be destroyed, but the amount of hits on target could be given...that would be cool?

Almost like some way of counting the hits in Arcade Mode and reporting them as hits at the end of your gunnery mission?

Cheers, MP

It would look nice from a new P-47 cockpit ;)

Bombsight HUD
 

Sometimes i like to fly with the option "NO HUD LOG" turned on (turn it on conf.ini). I think that this option will now be part of of the difficult option inside the game, on version 4.12. To control the bombsight with this option on its almost impossible! Is there any way of solving this problem, without having to reprogram the bombsights? Maby alowing HUD only for the bombsight?

Not that this is very important, just asking...

Thank you team Daidalos.

Two old things that come to mind
 

Hi Team Daidalos,

there are some old things that could need some good fixing from you guys:

Yak3 main undercarriage wheels still show through the wing roots, sad for the 3 is really one nice AC :(

Bf109 Revi glass parts turn to opaque metal color with weird and not nice texture when the gunsight is hit.

And requests :-) :

along with better (higher) positionned gunsight for P51B and correct wings, it could be nice to have a mirror inside cockpit.

Chassis sounds when landing and taking off could add some life to these two important moments!

I'd go for the Waco CG-4 Hadrian, it was used in more operations than the Horsa.

The DFS-230 was under development by 1c back in the day, but nothing ever came of it. It would be very nice indeed to have a smaller, early war Luftwaffe glider.

Even cooler would be if some of the gliders in the game were flyable.

Would it be possible to increase the pop-up distance of ground objects?
I always found the sudden pop-up of objects annoying.

La7 oil radiator smoke location
 

Another thing that could be corrected easily is the location of oil smoke for La7: it appears exactly there where the La5 radiator would be. Problem is that La5 and La7 cannot share common location for the smoke effect since the La7 had its radiator located far behind under the fuselage and not directly under the Ash82 engine as is now.

Yokosuka D4Y

Hi Team Daidalos

Would it be possible to look into the gunsight possition on the P47-D10 and P47-D22? It is quite apparent that this is set much too low. The sight glass is mostly filled with engine cowling and the virtual pilot drops his head possition down as he moves his head forward to look through the gunsight. There is no way to use full sight deflection!

No pilot would go into combat with his sight setup like it is in the razor back P47's. If I was a CO and my P47s were delivered in this condition I would order the crew chiefs to make new sight brackets before I cleared these aircraft to fly!

The sight needs to be moved up so at minimum the bottom of the sight glass clears the top of the engine cowl. Obviously the location of the pilot's head possition will need to change too when he looks through the sight.

While we are at it the early razor back P51's could use the same sort of loving.

Cheers and thanks in advance.

Leady

All the evidence here.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-Mk-III-Forums

Cheers

Leady

+1

Amen to that request!

So sad that we seem to be very rare, we that like these two legendary birds :(
BTW a new P47 cockpit will be built by TD, hopefully there will be a new one for the razorbacks too.

Didn't realize the P-51B/C were so wrongly modelled. So add the gunsight to the wings and we'll get that bird sorted out!

Since we are discussing new cockpits for the P-47's.....Is it possible to add the M or N variants for 4.13 or is that crossing into "Northrop Grumman territory?"

+1 for P-47N. But "M" isnt too important I think. A "C" would be much better.

The gunsight reticle of all airplanes in the game was slightly lowered after the 6 DOF was impletemented in 4.11. Just as you said, no real pilot would enter combat with that kind of setup.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk 2

Bingo... but years ago we did manage to get Oleg to give us the P-47D high boost model which is closer to the P-47M in performance.

I just want to mention that in the P-51 B/C the cockpit coaming extends horizontally, but in the P-51D the coaming is sloped and is taller nearer to the pilot.

Therefore, relative to the pilot The gun-sight is at the same height in both planes. In both planes in Il-2, the gunsight view needs to be raised.

So, to reiterate: Raise the gunsight and the pilot camera view in the P-51B/C. Raise the whole cockpit model including gunsight, and pilot camera view in the P-51D (or raise the edge of the coaming if cockpit is already correct).

I don't recall this being the case.

oh, +1...


and i think, need to correct damage model, especially for laggs and yaks...

i mean, we have no damage of oil cooler for yaks (in general and if i'm not wrong, we have only damage of prop pitch (or cylinders?), and fuel leak for yaks)... for laggs we have strange damage of oil cooler (very rarely, if i not forgot), and, maybe no damage of prop pitch... plus, strange damage of fuel tanks only from cannons fire (if not wrong)...

maybe, something more? (only without water coolers, it's problem for all aircrafts)...

if i not wrong, yak-2 and 4 fly in war not so much, and were not mass aircrafts... had many not solved problems etc...


if we start talk about...

better include in game some very important "early" aircrafts like su-2 (used not so mass like il-2, but long time and sometimes very well in many roles - and this is why he must be in wishlist for 4.1x), early series of pe-2 and pe-3 (lot of rockets and bombs), not so mass ar-2 etc...

plus, of course, u-2/po-2 - LOT of planes and LOT of combat sorties in war (in battle of berlin too:))... here we can hope, just need to pray Sita & co...

next, late aircrafts like tu-2 and some a-20 and b-25 (sometimes very important aircrafts for USSR, i think, especially for naval aviation and long-radius aviation, and just good planes with lot of guns and bombs), other series of il-2...

and after this, yak-2,4... r-10... SB-2 with m-105... li-2, who was used how bomber... er-2... ut-1b... little serie of pe-2 with m-82f and, maybe, vk-107 (maybe i'm wrong here, just read interview)... etc, what i can forgot...

Just for the record, Republic Aircraft was never part of the N-G portfolio. It got bought out by Fairchild, which then merged with Dornier and then went bankrupt. It then got bought by a investment company which sold off the pieces to an Israeli company.

So, it's probably safe for TD to proceed with reworking the P-47 cockpits.

Or maybe not. Bf109F4, composite picture, 4.05 over 4.11 , gunsight at exactly the same place as it was.

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/8960/411over405.th.jpg

I'll leave it to you to check other flyable planes in the game 'cause the first one I tried disproved your claim, not that I'm surprised . :)

Aircraft Carrier Facelift
 

Here is another possible area for fun/improvement: facelift for the aircraft carriers. Make them more realistic looking by including deck carts, personnel in appropriate uniforms, operating catapult and elevators. How about different paint schemes like dazzle? Real-life carriers were crowded places, unlike the way they seem to be in game. You could force returning planes to circle while other operations are taking place on the flight deck. We might also consider a more realistic damage model that includes holes in the wooden American decks, flames and explosions. Aircraft carriers were particularly vulnerable when fueled and armed aircraft were concentrated on the flight deck prior to launching a strike. How about a landing officer who waves planes off when approaches are not safe - he could be audio only if the animation of a human figure is not practical. How about a ship that turns into the wind for flight operations and escorts that actually follow it? How about more aircraft on deck than presently possible? How about an online aircraft carrier that models realistic procedures and stresses teamwork? You could model a battle like Midway online with the opposing ships searching for each other and launching strikes. How about orders that come through speakers like "pilots, man your planes"? How about a scramble mission for the carriers on QMB with the goal of stopping suicide planes or perhaps torpedo attacks.

I have had a lot of fun playing with the flattops and ships in general over the years! The guns and flak in particular are just great fun.

I seem to be just full of ideas tonight and I am actually sober, believe it or not! Sorry. Of course I realize that this would represent an awesome amount of work for someone who has far more computer knowledge than I do... In fact, I am now realizing that you could actually create/develop a whole new version of IL2 just focusing on carrier warfare alone if you had a team/budget/interest to do it. And since this is my fantasy, I could hire a star legal team to sue NG for interfering with my freedom of expression and tie them up in court for years and create bad PR for them to boot. Have I accidentally wandered way off topic? Perhaps, but I share these ideas here because, after all, this is a suggestions thread for individuals who have a passion for the game and its potential.

I too would like a flyable official release of the me410
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg
http://www.rdox.info/0.jpg

Yes please !!!

Dear Team Daidalos!

First of all thank you for your hard and excellent work on IL-2! The ole' girl keeps on kickin' thanks to you.

But I too, would like to make an ubiquitous wishlist.


- First of all, improvements on the Ki-61.

The errors of the modeled plane are all already wonderfully collected and organized here by a more knowledgable fellow (I think s/he was active here as Billfish? Don't quote me on that, though): http://78sentai.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=401

While at the Ki-61, it would be nice to have the TEI (KAIc) variant of the aircraft.

This site (http://lemairesoft.sytes.net:1945/we...91.html#100078) has detailed production data, and it clearly shows that it was a significant (if not the most significant) variant of the aircraft.

This (http://markkaiser.com/japaneseaviation/hien.html) site has some detailed drawings of the variant. As I understand the fuselage was lengthened and had some other minor differences from the previous variants, but the relatively little work needed to (re)model the aircraft would make it possible to have a mostly needed (and missed) subject available in the sim.


- Improvements on the dynamic campaigns.

While the stock DC's are somewhat adequate, I think they're now not equal and don't reflect the quality work of TD.

The Ostfront add-on campaigns come to mind as the finest examples of what could (or can) be achieved by the DC engine. Historical, varied and had nice briefings.

Also new campaigns could be better, if tailored to specific squadrons. These are all layman wishes as I am not knowledgable of the inner workings (and behind the scenes aspect) of the subject.

Furthemore, it would be excellent to have the new aircraft and maps (especially the Solomons) included in officially released dynamic campaigns .

As I understand, renewed work by a community member has been started on the DC engine, and some third party campaigns are already available, but I (and probably many more) still solely fly stock and offline, so it would be a most worthy addition if successful official contact could be made with these third parties and the work incorporated in future releases of TD.


- Flyable flying boats

While these are not as critical for inclusion as some other subjects already requested and worked on, this wish is solely a product of my fascination for these remarkable type of aircraft and I do hope someone with a more keen expertise in computing and 3D arts shares this esteem with me.

As for the specific type, I really don't have a preference, I could do with any of them as the inclination of the team permits it. (But to be specific, the Catalina, Emily, Sunderland or the Do 24 comes to mind)

On a more objective note, these aircraft could make an already finely diverse game more varied, thanks to their type specific nuances, attributes and mission types, like recon, sub hunting, search and rescue etc. I understand that these need to be modeled and worked on for a finely tuned experience and maybe not many others share this strong interest in them, but maybe I could put a bug in the team's ear.


- Flyable Me-210/410, SB2C (+D4Y and B6N)

I see that this is really a lot to ask, but I too, like many others on this board, feel the absence of these aircraft (especially the first two) on the flyables list. If time and possibilites permit it, please consider them modeled and included.

I added the japanese aircraft as nice to have, but not critcal. I think there are some wonderful publications and sources to help model them, albeit unfortunately, the majority of them are only available in japanese.

I am still awed and happy, however, to see the B5N (and Ki-45) flyable in 4.12., so I am going to have my japanese fix for a long time.


- Philippines map

The Philippines would make it possible to simulate the important battles of Leyte Gulf. I understand that more assets are needed to make this fully possible (with some untouchables...), and warships are among the hardest and the most time consuming subjects to model in 3D, but I do hope that in the future, the Pacific War could be rounded more and more in addition to the most fine additions already available (or soon to be available). Secondly, as far as I know, japanese materiel are not limited by unfortunate agreements, so it seems possible to fully have, for example, Kurita's force to attack (or to die by...) on the american side.


- All models available in the model viewer

This is not really critical, but maybe it could be done relatively quickly and it would be nice to have. Sometimes I find myself in that corner of the game and sadly noticed that apparently not everything is viewable, but I really like to admire the eyecandy done by others. I think no accompanying text is needed, as it would be time consuming to write them and all info can be easily reached on the internet for a basic overview on the specific types.


- Weapon group selection

It seems to me some aircraft, like the FW-190 and Hs-129 (probably others too) had historically different onboard options for which weapons to fire. This option would be most useful ingame for the two mentioned types, especially if someone would like to use MG and AC ammunition more rationally and to preserve ammo for each type. (Too often I am left with no MG151/20 ammo onboard the Henschel while trucks could be dealt with using accurate 7,92 fire, for example.)



Excuse me for the long list, but I too, like many others, get a little too eager while writing these, and I hope I don't come off as too demaning.

Thank you for your already wonderful work, and whatever plans you have under your sleeves, I am sure they will be definately worth the wait.

Looking forward to 4.12. and beyond.

Cheers,
Buren

http://imageshack.us/a/img526/1581/tom4.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img842/5682/k...pe97transd.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img44/888/198...subishif1m.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img174/7874/glenre8.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img337/251/sb2ccor839026fk3.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img255/9085/s...ss71939xt4.jpg

transport for Great Britain and Japan

Hot plane
 

[QUOTE=ElAurens;469416]http://imageshack.us/a/img526/1581/tom4.jpg

:twisted: