could you look in the .50cal Browning AAA gun ( the one with white tracers) please ?

and give it at least the max range of a 20mm AAA gun. in the moment al AAA-guns with this weapon are shooting right to the moon.......................... i know i can limit the range ;) , but if that would be done by default it would reduce the work while missionbuilding :)

Could you, please, remove the stupid random pilot kill bug, when no bullets hit your airplane, but you get killed in the cockpit by one magic bullet. Thank you in advance.

With the new selectable positions (ie gunner) in a dogfight game, have TD looked at making the bombardier the only person able to use the bombsight?

As I understand it you can select the bombardier position in a co-op. However, the person who is piloting the plane is the only person able to use the bombsight. Thus in reality making the bombardiers position a nose gun position.

the pilot is the only one who can select the bombardier position

useful info about planes at the moment that you need
 

One thing that usually annoys me when flying dogfigths is that, at the moment of choosing the plane that i am going to use, i have a big selection of planes to choose but for most of them i dont know very much.

I propose to put, in the arming selection screen of each plane, a new button that could present the information about the plane that is already developed for the "view object" section. Even this information could be complemented by some kind of "pilot notes" section with info about specific aspects of the plane such as altitude for supercharger, armament selection, corner speed, gauges positioning, ...

This aditional information, that is not included in the present view objects section, could be developed by players and sent to TD for verification and integration in new patch releases.

best wishes and my gratitude to TD and MG

trulu

There is no random pilot kills in game as far as I know.

One bullet in the head is more than enough for an instant kill, what do you expect, health bar which is reducing with every hit in the body?

If we do something than we will make it even harder, current model is already way too forgiving when it comes to Pilot wounds.

FC

I think this person is talking about the sniper bomber rear gunners.

I want to see a Lancaster in the sim, because with six rear-facing fast firing 0.303s that is going to be a fighter pilot killer par-excellence, way above realistic bomber defence abilities.

The Lancaster is going to utterly destroy the current model of the bomber gunner AI, it just can't continue as it is with that amount of firepower. The Fw 189 is currently the most unreasonable fighter killer, but any british heavy (Stirling, Sunderland, Lanc, Halifax) is going to make even that look anaemic.

AI aircraft keep attacking ground targets until they are destroyed by the flak or SET ground targets are destroyed, or they have any weapons left and still have fuel to go home.

We could sure use a switch

A switch to set AI to drop bombs, and shoot off all weapons on first pass,except guns of course.

The number of passes over ground targets could be set for 1 or 2 passes kinda thing.

When you read historical accounts the pilots preferred to drop all ordinance and rockets on first pass, because attacking ground and water targets were the extremely dangerous missions. First attacks were safest, but after that the ground guns were better focused to attackers.

In the mission builder, if you turn the guns aways from the direction of attacking aircraft in the FMB setup the guns will turn when the attack comes. By having the guns set this way it does slow do the ability of flak from destroying all the attackers on the first pass. A second pass from the same attacking direction is much more suicidal for air attackers.

Also, it would be a plus to have AI continue or return to base after they have dropped ordinance, and still have ammo in guns for additional combat.

Now, if you SET a ground attack waypoint in FMB the attacking aircraft continue their attacks until they run out of all ammunition or fuel. The attack will continue as long as SET targets are not destroyed.

This would be a nice addition for Offline mission builders.

Exactly FC99. Some of you old timers may remember that Oleg posted very long ago at UBI about this and said that if he made the pilot's "DM" realistic, no one would fly the sim.

I don't claim to be an oldtimer on the forums. From a bomber, a fighter, head on, is a target of what? five square metres? ten square metres? Of which the pilots head is about 1/25 square metre. So when the bombers are hitting the fighters, one hit in 20? hits the pilots head, always killing him.

It's not the damage model of the pilot that's wrong (could be wrong, could be right, I don't mind it as it is), it's the frequency with which the pilot is hit which is absolutely out of order. This is not new, and not unique to IL*2, CFS1 used to have the same problem, there it was usually the engine that was hit (as is also often the case in IL*2), but the result was the same, the bombers got away too easily.

When bombers were sent unescorted by any side, in the real WW2, they were hacked down. The way it is in IL*2 and CFS1, the sensible thing would be to send bombers unescorted, they would destroy the fighter forces that opposed them.

Sorry for the rant, this has been bugging me for a long time.

Good suggestion! I second that.

Bye,
Insuber

One thing that usually annoys me when flying dogfigths is that, at the moment of choosing the plane that i am going to use, i have a big selection of planes to choose but for most of them i dont know very much.

I propose to put, in the arming selection screen of each plane, a new button that could present the information about the plane that is already developed for the "view object" section. Even this information could be complemented by some kind of "pilot notes" section with info about specific aspects of the plane such as altitude for supercharger, armament selection, corner speed, gauges positioning, ...

This aditional information, that is not included in the present view objects section, could be developed by players and sent to TD for verification and integration in new patch releases.

best wishes and my gratitude to TD and MG

trulu

Yes, excellent idea! This would help very much with aircraft selection

I would really like it if you guys updated the F-8 view, so it stays level with you when diving and climbing with a plane.

This would be wonderful if we could have it in 4.10.

I currently have it mapped to my second trigger button, because I like to fly outside the cockpit.

S!


Owl

I wish ..

If you could..

Fix the FW 190´s taxing power. :confused:

Check P/W ratio vs other planes. :!:... Many planes P/W

I like ...

mathematics/physics.

:confused:

It's the well known and longly debated acceleration issue of the FW190, Jumoschwanz did extensive tests (check the Ubi US forum), and the Würger is the worst one by far. The common objection against the correction of that regard the overall balancing of strengts and weaknesses to keep a more or less balanced game.

Regards,
insuber

You mean that all these years the FW190 has been underperforming?

You can find "underperforming" or "wrongly modeled", or "porked" aircraft everywhere in the sim. Especially if you look at them out of the context of the overall plane set. Every aircraft's fan boy base has their favorite complaint. I know, because I champion my favorites as much as anyone does. However, and this is the important bit, taken as a whole the sim does a very good job of putting the aircraft in their proper place vis-avis their adversaries.

Just my thoughts after 8+ years of playing.

And really the FW 190A series are far from being the most problematic.

The worst IMHO, in no particular order:

P38 rate of climb. (underperforming)

P38 compressability (too pronounced at low altitude)

A6M series speeds. (too slow)

A6M roll stiffness at speeds. (too early an onset)

Wildcat top speed. (too high)

Hellcat top speed of late version. (too low)

Ki 61 turn/maneuverability. (underperforming)

P40 series turn/maneuverability (underperforming, P40 should out turn Spitfire I and II below 15,000 ft. Hawk 75 was even better.)

Ki-100. Underperforming in general, especially maneuverability.

All bombers. Too robust. (The in game version of the death star)

Control surface
 

Hello

When you are playing on a LAN configuration, your companion doesn't see the surface movement of your plane. Example: If you move your ailerons the other person doesn't see the movement.

It is possible to fix this?

I will list what the other person can see on a LAN game.

Ailerons NO
Rudder NO
Elevator NO
Folding Wing YES
Open canopy YES
Tail hook YES
Flaps YES
Lights YES
Radiator NO
Landing gear YES
Spinning wheels YES
Spinning propeller YES
Guns (all) YES
Bomb bay door YES

Thank you

there was a time when
Ailerons
Rudder
Elevator
were visible in multiplayer - it was deleted to save traffic.

Bomber gunner AI, shoots in opposite direction to enemy or doesn't allow for convergence.

Stuka AI don't evade attackers, just flies straight and level to oblivion.

.

This has possibly been requested before, but in case it hasn't, can something be done about AI planes flying on indefinitely after the pilot has bailed? It doesn't always happen, but when it does it deprives you of a legitimate kill, unless you want to go chasing after it rather than engaging sensible targets. I doubt that many WWII aircraft would have behaved like that in real life.

Why not? If a pilot made a decision to bail while no crucial flight systems were damaged... for example instruments and oxygen, then correctly trimmed the aircraft would have no problems flying on until the fuel tanks were empty or another mechanical failure occured.

There's a fairly recent story of an aircraft that flew with their dead passengers and pilot due to hypoxia, for hundreds of miles before running out of fuel and crashing.

Maybe the moment of bail out should be considered a kill. or PK.

Autopilot on or off?

Even if perfectly trimmed, I doubt there are many WWII aircraft that would remain that stable after the pilot had bailed - this will alter the balance. Unless someone can produce evidence for unmanned, non-autopilot WWII combat aircraft flying on for any length of time, I'll assume it is a bug. I certainly can't trim most aircraft to show the stability needed in IL-2, even without allowing for the destabilising factors a bailout would cause.

Another factor to consider is that the safest way to bail from most single-engined fighters was to roll inverted first. In any case, why the heck would anyone bail from an aircraft with only instrument or oxygen system damage? If the plane is sufficiently undamaged to remain flying unmanned, why not stick with it? (actually, the oxygen failure case is probably one where bailing would be a dubious decision - if you open the chute high you risk hypoxia, and if you don't you may pass out on the way down...)

This has probably been brought up before but can we get left and right wheel brakes mapped to the rudder pedals, i.e diff. braking.

Again on Breda SAFAT ...
 

Dear DT,

Some months ago I asked about the possibility to review the Breda Safat 12.7 issue. Even if they weren't very powerful, they look really too weak in this game, alterating in the end the balance with contemporary fighters, and stealing most of the fun of flying certain planes.

We have now some new interesting experimental data by TinyTim, showing that the Il2 Breda SAFAT are some 75% weaker than the well known Anthony Williams' table calculations. The effectiveness of BS and UBS are respectively 36 and 97 in those tables, and 7 to 33 in Il2 according to TinyTim's findings. It's 1/3 instead of 1/5.

TT found experimentally that in Il2 you need an average of 79 bullets to kill a plane with a BS, vs 28 bullets for the UBS and 39 for the M2. I think that this says it all.


Other machineguns are affected as well by this issue. Herebelow the link to the UBI forum discussion.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...9271044048/p/2

I know that you have too much to do in too little time, but a good look at the weaponry of this game would be wortwhile IMHO :). Maybe starting from uf_josse work... ;).

Regards,
Insuber

What a great idea, the Catalina would be perfect to go along the new SAR mechanics that have been shown.

or Russian MBR-2 ... Greate plane too ;)

I'd like to see improved ground handling. A lot seem very reluctant to steer with differential breaking.

Dear Team Daidalos,

I've been following the progress of your work ever since patch 4.09 was announced - in fact, I had send some requests via email quite a while back. In any case, I say this just to let you know I appreciate all the work that's being done and I've checked what you've said on the issue I'm about to point out -

AI (nearly) unlimited ammo, no overheat, no blackouts is the single greatest issue of Il-2. I've been flying since the days of Forgotten Battles and more actively since 1946 was released, almost exclusively offline and I can honestly tell you that the quirks in the AI that allow it to "cheat" greatly reduce the immersion and overall enjoyment. I would dare to say that there wouldn't be a single complain from the Il-2 community if the AI was given an overhaul that allow for engine overheat, limited ammo and blackouts. As an option setting, at least.

I can't count how many times I've attacked an AI plane only to have it pull an incredible manuevre that I can't follow due to G-force blackouts, or have had to evade the constant stream of bullets the enemy fighters carry (the last is especially unnerving on planes that historically had low ammo loads, such as the Yaks).

So far, the G-force effects you plan to implement sound more scary and potentially irritating than useful, if they don't affect the AI planes. It's already way more capable than a human player with its lighting time reactions. Having it "cheat" to compensate for less intelligence than a human (that is a general problem of AI, not just Il-2, of course) doesn't help though.

I don't know, the improvements such as radio navigation, AI visibility etc. sound great, but with the AI in its current state it feels like Il-2 is incresingly geared for online play where everyone's on an equal footing regarding flight mechanics.

Please, consider revising some of the AI plane quirks such as non-overheating engine, no-blackouts and huge ammo supply.

After 10 years of IL2, regardless of how many aircraft we have someone always wants more aircraft.

I realize converting a non-flyable isn't as big a job to build as a plane from scratch. It is just that for all the requesting I've often wondered just how interested those users are and remain interested if they do get what they request.

Was it really worth it for some developer to spend a huge amount of time trying to supply those requests? Seriously, I've often wondered why don't developers make a response to those requesting such things and spell it out.
The Il2 is certainly no exception of course. Every air combat and flight sim is plagued with requests for new and flyable aircraft, EAW, BOBII WOV, WW2 Fighters, FA-18, FS2004, CFS2,CFS3,FSX and on and on.

There are so many additional very valuable things that could be added to a sim like IL2, i.e, AI performance, additional programming in FMB, etc. All things that make the game/sim more exciting and interesting.

TD is pumping out so much stuff, this posting probably won't change anything. I'm basically trying to say, that it takes alot of time to address many requests, and users should reluctantly make requests.... unless they are very determined to use what they request more than a couple time.

I am not speaking for TD. I am speaking for myself in this thread.

Amphibious aircraft cannot be accomodated by the game engine. An aircraft must be either a land plane, or a seaplane, it cannot be both. Hence if you took a PBY and made it a seaplane in the game engine and lowered the gear and tried to land at an airfield the engine would register it as a crash and you would in all likelyhood explode. The reverse is true if you made the PBY appear as a land plane to the game engine and had the gear up and landed on water the game would see it as ditching and the plane would sink.

Don't worry, I am perfectly aware how much time new flyable require to create, especially multicrew aircraft. I have not demanded that a Catalina is supplied, but merely commented that I think this would be a fine choice. Especially considering this it would be a fairly unique, yet quite significant, aircraft. As I understand it, DT is going to add some more aircraft. As resources are limited, so is the number of potential new aircraft. With my comment I wanted to express that I prefer those last few aircraft be somehow unique, yet significant WWII aircraft, rather than more of the already very numerous fighters.

I do not seriously expect to ever see a PBY in Il-2 and I will not lose sleep over it.

Question about multi-crew.
Will be accessible bombardir(navigator) sight for player-gunner? Or it is planned?
Thanks.

I used your posting to focus on an ongoing discussion topic we have all read thousands of times before.

Posters are just expressing themselves.

No harm done, no dev takes on a project he/she doesn't want to do anyway.

The purpose of my posting was just to infer there are many more substantial things that could be done with IL2. Things that would make the IL2 dramatically more exciting and interesting than new aircraft or objects.

Rumanian fighters :)

as we have now the marvelous looking Odessa map :)
how it is about to have a "second" look behind the rumanian fighterseries IAR 80/81

it would be nice to get a IAR 80A for the 1941 operations.
these variant was more often build as the IAR 80 AFAIK.
the difference would be to have 6x .303 MGs instead 4 and to have a normal REVI , like already in the two 81 fighterbombers.
3D work would not be needed, the third gunbarrel would not look out of the wing , "just" a new skin would be needed , and as said, the cockpit could be used from the IAR 81s

ammoload seems to high for the .303 MGs, now it is 1000rounds per gun !!
500rounds should be more correct..........................

and if this small fighter could carry 250rounds per gun for its MG151/20 in the IAR 81C ?!?!?


its not important, just if someone in TD has the interest and the time :) as this lovely small fighter has now with the map found its "huntingground" :D


EDIT:
found this site aboutt he IAR 80
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazin..._eng_iar80.htm

looks like i was wrong in thinking the 6gun variant was more often build than the 4gun one............ anyway, would be a nice to have ;)
it says 600rpg in the IAR 80
and 400rpg in the IAR 81 for the light MGs.

the actual 350rpg in the IAR81A for its heavy MGs seems correct , even in game it is modelled as the MG131 not a "13,2mm" Browning.

and the ammoload for a the ICARIA 20mm canons of the first IAR81C is announced with 120 rpg , so i guess a MG151/20 armed should also have 120rpg.

and btw:
" In a dive it is outclassed by the Bf 109E, because it lacks an automated propeller pitch regulator." <- OUTCH :D

Yeah, this is a major issue IMHO, I have posted on the topic before, I really like work that TD is doing and I hope that the G and stress related changes will be incorporated into the AI, along with a more realistic flight envelope for the AI, as it is now many of the missions, esp. Pacific fighters ones are a little absurd in the way they play out.

JUst a minor correction here. Burdokva suggests that AI aircraft have '(nearly) unlimited ammo'. Though it seems that way when they are chasing you, I'm fairly sure they actually have the same limits as player-controlled aircraft. I did a test some time back (I can't remember which aircraft), and they seemed to have exactly the same loadout. In some situations, you can get an AI aircraft to waste its entire ammo in a futile attempt to shoot you down while off-aim. For example, if you are in a P-40 and get into a turning fight with a Bf-109, he may get on your tail, but as long as you maintain a minimum-radius turn, he will expend his ammo just beyond your outer wingtip. Unfortunately for you, this wont help if another AI spots you circling and draws a bead from a distance...

Not sure if somone told before (and to less time to search now): Positionlights are to much visible at daytime. Maybe work of positionlights should be changed.

Until now, every player in a coop-mission turns on his lights if fighting against AI. Means for other coop-players, that it's clear who is human and who is AI. I would like it better, if the "light-advantage" could be eliminated/reduced.

Another interesting plane to fly is the G.55.

Didn't see it anywhere so here it goes...

Is it possible for the mission log to show which side the plane is flying?

Something like the ground objects have, 1 for red and 2 for blue...

Extracting the squad names and assign them to each side is quite boring when you try to build a parser. There are other solutions to this, but that should change some of the things needed on campaign mission build.

I'm also dealing with this issue with the development of a third party app I'm working on. My solution will be to check what plane type the user is using. Since on all team based realistic servers I've seen, or will join, one can only use aircraft that belong to the side in question. I.e. Luftwaffe planes = blue side.

Don't have to check every single model out there, the model line is enough. For example, if the string contains "Ju-88", "Bf-110", "Spitfire" it can be any of the different model variations of those lines of aircraft.

In dogfight servers with rotating maps, it would be nice to have an initial briefing period to discuss roles, assign tasks and avoid the lone wolf shows; some could go to level bomb, some to strafe and other to cover. A blue leader and a red leader could drive the briefing.

Just a thought ...

Bye,
Insuber

I'm not interested for myself, I'm offline only, so far; however, what about planes that are multi-side, particularly the Gladiator, Hurricane and Buffalo (there may be more, but if so I don't remember which)?

Good question. :mad: I don't know what to do about those.

Gladiator should be no problem unless server has both Africa maps and Winter War... Hurricane too played a very minor role even by our standards during the Continuation War. Buffalo is no problem, as the export Brewster and thr NAVY one are different aircraft, in IL2 and will be in SOW's add-ons. :rolleyes:

Hawk 75 , DB7, D.520 and MS.406 will be more troublesome though... But I'm pretty sure they'll have a solution, coming if not already.

In order to play competitive online events, especially carrier battles, it would be nice if enemy airbases could be hidden on the briefing map in DF-mode as an option. As such, the position of enemy carriers could be hidden on the map and the search for them would be part of the expierience. I suggest that players would be required to launch the game with an extension ("-blue" or "-red") in order to be able to see and select airbases of their own side. Joining without any extension in the executable would result in seeing no bases at all, in order to protect the important intel of base position from players that forgot to launch the game with the appropriate extension.

Above mechanics would be an additional mission option. Default behaviour would remain the same as it is now.

Hello Team Didalos ! I have a question:
Is it possible to change vehicles behaviour in IL2?
Seems like vehicles primarily use roads to move instead of way points. They always aspire to move by roads. So to force vehicles to move out of the roads map makers have to set way points very often what makes a mission file very lage. I suppose this behavoiur is wrong vehicles should move point by point and use logic of path search only in case if there is a impediment on the route like forest or river or lake etc.
Another one issue caused by this aspire - tank column not changes formation from march to battle in case if enemies are in sight.
Thank you.

Just have a drop-down box on the interface to select these aircrafts' nationalities. :)

There are many solutions allready implemented, one of the best is the original from Dutertre, using the landing coordinates of each flight to establish sides.
But now with Zuti moving front, this could become somewhat tricky...

Another one is to get all the squads available, and assign side with them, but... sometimes there are new squads added, so... here we goes again...

I don't see no "final solution" to this, unless it is reported on the log file.

Hi all from Daidalos dev. team.
Firstly, I want to thank You all for the outstanding results You've achieved so far, but I must admit, that I sorely miss the Do-17 and b-26 Marauder - these planes would almost complete this sim and were in fact used in greater numbers through out the entire campaigns...

This is simply a humble request, from a great fan of Team Daidalos work and only meant as further inspiration, but i know, You've got a major workload already and have heard requests like this a thousand times (just wanted to bump this a bit)...


DK-nme

Hi guys -

As a static campaign builder, i'm endlessly frustrated by the odd way in which ranks are assigned to the flight positions:

Rank 1 (Flight Sergeant/Flight Officer/Oberfeldwebel) : Plane 16 (last guy in the squadron)
Rank 2 (Pilot Officer/Second Lieutenant/Leutnant) : Plane 4 (last guy in squadron commander's flight)
Rank 3 (Flying Officer/First Lieutenant/Oberleutnant) : Plane 14 (wingman to flight 4 leader)
Rank 4 (Flight Lieutenant/Captain/Hauptmann) : Plane 2 (squadron commander's wingman)
Rank 5 (Squadron Leader/Major/Major) :Plane 13 (flight leader of flight 4)
Rank 6 (Wing Commander/Lieutenant Colonel/Oberstleutnant) :Plane 5 (flight leader of flight 2)
Rank 7 *highest* (Group Captain/Colonel/Oberst) Plane 1 (squadron commander)

In the RAF a Flight Lieutenant should be leading the sections, i.e planes 5 and 9 if a Sqn/Ldr is leading a full squadron (12 a/c). However getting to Flt/Lt (rank 4) rank you are still only ever a wingman when you should be leading 3 other a/c! Even on a 16 plane formation - as in the USAAF - flights of four should be led by a Cpt. Also Rank 3 (Flying Officer) should in those four ships be leading the 2nd element or planes 3, 7, 11 & 15 (which in the current setup are completely inaccessible to the player) with the wingman position being made up with Ranks 1 & 2.

Is there anyway you could correct this odd positioning, or if not, provide a tick box in FMB whereby the mission builder could override the campaign positioning of a player and force the campaign to put the player in an aircraft that the mission builder selects? It would make for far more realistic campaigns and a more flexible system - a Flt/Lt (rank 4) could be leading a 4 ship mission one day, then be leading the 2nd or 3rd Section behind the Sqn/Ldr (rank 5) doing as his name implies, leading the squadron, the next mission.

As an aside, the 3d model of the default P-40E/M is quite ill proportioned - too much dihedral on the wings, too large nose and too short a tail; is there any chance of having it re-done?

Many thanks for your consideration and the fantastic work you have already given us! I'm very much anticipating the delights of 4.10.

Regards,

Tom

Since the DM of ships is limited in complexity, it would be nice if a damage randomisation factor could be introduced for ships. For example the fleet carriers currently take exactly 8 250kg/500lb class weapons in the same hull segment to sink, or the CVE take 3 250kg/500lb bombs. This often makes attacking ships a game of numbers, because you can determine exactly how much explosive you need to sink which ships. In my oppinion this predictability is quite unrealistic and takes away from the fun. I would suggest to add a 50% variation to DM strenght for each ship, so each individual ship has a random hull strenght between 50-150% at the start of each mission. That way you never know exactly what it takes to sink a target.

Of course a complex ship DM would be preferable, featuring things like compartments, fires, fuel and magazine explosions, fuel vapors, damage control parties etc. But I think we can agree that this is out of scope, so the suggestion above would be a neat low cost solution.

Mbot

Do you have any idea how many compartments are in an A/C carrier?

You could actually bomb the smack out of a carrier for days and it might not go down, unless you hit right spots.

The Hornet at battle of Santa Cruz took so many hits and was still afloat. It was ordered to scuttle her, and she was still afloat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...a_Cruz_Islands

I'm just saying it wouldn't be much fun, if you never sunk the ships.

Afterall, it was pretty important warships stayed afloat. There were alot of men on those ships depending upon the ship to take them back to home port. So, ships definitely were designed to take a great deal of punishment.

I don't think you got my point. The USS Franklin, a very though Essex class carrier, almost went down by two 250 kg bombs. The Hornet took a myriad of bombs, air and ship launched torpedoes to finally sink. How much damage a ship will take is a very complex question, but from a pilots point of view it is ultimately pretty random. That is the reason for my suggestion.


http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...ank1945diw.jpg

There are many things that would be nice to randomize, but this is problematic online. If each client calculates some thing, the random factor would need to be synchronized over the net.

A packet that includes the seed for randomization, thereby syncing it for all, perhaps? Or let server handle ship bomb/torpedo damage? The delay involved when hitting a ship would not too unrealistic.

Yes that was my thought as well. When the mission gets loaded, the host generates a damage modifier (lets say between 0.5 and 1.5) for each ship and sends it to the client as part of the mission. No idea if that is feasible though :)

Hi!
In Addition to my last Post this will be very cool to see more vehilce columns instead of just IL2 stock. Columns like at ADW server for example. Or to have some logic that can made possible to create colmuns in FMB. And the distance between single units in the column should be increased too - because it is too simple to destroy native columns with something like AJ or PTAB.
Thank you.

Russian planes facelift?
 

Hello TD,

are there any plans in the future patches to make a facelift of the old russian planes? Like the ability to open canopy and have more active/movable parts in the cockpit to give feedback to the pilot?

I really welcome e.g. the addition of Fairey Swordfish or Curtis Hawk in 4.10, but these planes could be easily used in the upcoming SOW:BOB. Conversely, I fear we will not have any other eastern front simulator in the forseable future and therefore would be glad if you could bring the old planes up to the standards with the newer ones.

Thank you for your marvelous work!

FrankB, I'm pretty sure someday the East will be depicted properly in Storm of War as well.

It'd be a shame to see such a vast part of history relegated to Il-2 while everyone else gets ported in Storm of War.

If you ask me, I'd put the east right after Korea. With a Moscow map, please? :mrgreen:

I prefer East despite of Korea

P-40E, M and M 105
 

Will we ever get a working fuel gauge with these aircraft?

Actually I just watched a training film from a DVD on the P-40E and later variants. There were at least three fuel tanks mentioned (fuselage tank, forward wing tank, aft wing tank) when the fuel tank selector switch was shown and also all three fuel gages were shown in the movie (fuselage and forward wing tank and aft wing tank) during the cockpit checkout.

Fuselage Tank - fuel gage on left side of dash/control panel to the left of the turn and bank indicator and above the flap/gear indicator.
Forward Wing Tank - fuel gage on the floor, the one we have in the game that doesn't work and is just right of center.
Aft/Rear Wing Tank - fuel gage on the floor, adjacent to the one we have in the game, but just to the left of center.

It would be nice to get working multiple fuel tanks guages like the P-51. This would certainly be better than the current warning (idiot) light telling you that you NEED TO LAND VERY SOON and is essential especially if you are going to use the P-40E & M on the Slot map.

I've changed my opinion about 'Sniper' AI gunners since I started flying a few bomber missions and jumping to the back seat.

Despite controlling the aircraft with my right hand and the gun with the mouse in my left hand, I found it surprisingly consistant hitting attacking fighters as they attack at relatively shallow angles and slow closing speeds as they climb up to attack me from the rear.

And I'm not an expert and haven't been trained in arial gunnery

I think the old tailer gunner AI's need to be given a break, and pilots need to re-assess their tactics attacking bombers!

Cheers!

Personally, I don't like to fly bombers or use turret guns, but my kid brother does, so I set him up with a QMB mission in a B-24 vs 16 Normal AI Zeros on full realism settings. I was fully expecting him to get annihilated but he shot down 5 Zeros with the tail gun before running out of ammo, then switched to the belly turret and shot down another 3, finally limping back to base on only two engines but with a tally of 10 Zeros killed, and the remaining 6 having all taken varying degrees of damage.

Given those results, I would agree that maybe the gunner AI isn't so unfairly overpowered, but it still seems to get me everytime I'm feeling lazy and can't be bothered to set up an attack run properly.

Anyway, if I ever do fly a bomber online, I know who I want covering my ass :)

Those results are however totally unrealistic, in the real war that wouldn't have happened.

Though I do note that that is with 0.5 inch guns, which makes it a bit more tolerable.

I do sometimes suspect that in single player mode the game adjusts the AI's performance to what it thinks the player wants, like Quake does, which I suspect results in changed hitting power for guns (friendly guns changing power seperately from to enemy?). I don't know what's going on, I do know some missions the enemy "can't hit a barn door", some the friendlies can't, some both can't, some the enemy can't miss, and it doesn't seem to vary within a mission and seems non-randomly related in a series of missions (this is mainly in Forgotten Battles automatically generated career missions).

Wasn't this dealt with in the 4.09 patch release

To go into further detail on that battle, the B-24 entered combat with an altitude advantage, dived through the Zeros climbing headon attack and then continued in a shallow dive, meaning the Zeros took a very long time to close to effective range, leaving them as sitting ducks as they slowly closed in from dead astern.

Real pilots would not behave in that way, so yes the combat results were unrealistic, but I think that if real pilots chose to attack a well armed bomber such as the B-24 in that fashion then they would probably meet a similar fate, so I think the issue there was with pilot AI, rather than the hitting power of the guns.

If the Zeros didn't have cannon, that might be almost plausible, but they do. Even coming in from dead astern, one Zero outguns one Liberator. Undefended bombers in daylight in WW2 were shot down. The US planes using 0.5 inch guns were better defended than most, but they still needed to fly in formation, and needed escorts.

Kate and TBM
 

G`day

I wonder if it is possible to make the TBM and Kate torpedo bombers player flyable?

The TBM is out, due to a legal issue (do a forum search for 'Grumman' to find out more).

AS for the Kate, if there is sufficient detail available to do a proper cockpit etc, it should be possible, but whether TD do it or not is really up to them, as with all the new aircraft they do.

Just a note about the Corsair F4U. I was chatting (for a couple hours..) to a Corsair F4U pilot (Korea) who flew them off carriers (about 30 miles off shore). He mostly did ground pounding. Anyways, he was teling me about how much power it took to pull the F4U off the deck of a carrier, and the loadouts it could lift, under what conditions, windspeed, and lots more..

Basically I wanted to say since the pacific aircraft have been included since Forgotten Battles, Pacific Fighters, I really wondered if it was that hard to get a decent load of bombs and fuel off the deck. He told me that unless the carrier was moving fast enough and/or had enough headwind for lift, it was almost impossibe to get the Corsair off the deck without going into the drink/ so it seems it is like in real life lifting off a carrier. Though, it still maybe not as perfect as it could be. Especially since in this sim, if you carrier is sitting still it will not have the lift as in real life.

The WEP power is not mdelled as wel as real lif eeither, he said you could never use 100% power as it was too much and you could not go 100% very long at all when you did.
He told me about straffing and dropping napalm. He also knew Pappy Boyington, and didn't have anything good to say about him at all! I can't repeat what he said..

Lots of info... more info about diving cpeeds, stall speeds, and lotts more. Stall speed was maybe 75mph, because he would strafe about 30 feet off the deck at about 85 mph with combat flap. You could not point the aircraft straight down in a long dive. He started flying at age 12 crop dusting and was accepted into officer training as a pilot at age 17! Of course he did not say it that way he said it was really %%%$$###%$%%% wild that he was only F%$%##g 17!

Lots more, but mostly stories, trying to think of useful info for modeliing the aircraft in this sim. And yes, flak can and does blow the engine completely off a plane! The engines in the 1943 F4U did not have an electric start and it was known that the people who started the engine by pulling the props could lose their arms if the engines spit back and spun backwards.

enough for now..
cya later..

anybody remember some of the cccp field mods of THE P40, HURRI, P39 and so?

think that all the gunnery and loadouts of the patch goes in one direction

Such as...?

S!

Dunno what game this questioning guy is playing but there is field mod P40(engine) and Hurricane(Russian cannons + guns) etc. Does he talk about ant-gravitation devices and lazors?!:-P

Well, adding six RS-82s to the Hurri IIb and FieldMod comes to mind. :cool:

Well if it was actually done IRL, why not? I'd assume it would be relatively straightforward to do. Hopefully the AI will have been sorted by then so they don't proceed to attack tanks with .303s when out of rockets, but otherwise, I'd say it would be a nice option. The hurri would make a nice ground attack plane, though cannon would be more useful, as the RAF figured out.

There was a field mod not aded to the game for the P40. The removal of the sheild behind the seat (60 lbs). it cut 60 lbs and added much needed clmbing speed.

just saying..

I'd love to have the re-geared supercharger that many P-40 users in both the Pacific and Med used. Seems the mechanics changed the ratio of the supercharger to yield 72" of manifold at low levels. This gave the V-1710 an output of around 1500~1600 BHP.

Now wouldn't that be special!

:grin:

A weakness of Il-2 has always been the visibility model of ships. I understand that this was borne out of performance considerations, still the implementation was pretty a big compromise. With more processing more available today I think it would be worth it to redesign this aspect, to increase ship visibility to a more realistic level and make a more refined scaling of LODs.

Please see here how it is currently seen in Il-2. The ships are from left to right: CV Essex, CV Shokaku, BB King Georg V, DD Fletcher.


http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/...stance_5km.jpg

http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/...stance_9km.jpg

http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/...tance_10km.jpg

http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/...tance_11km.jpg


The switch from ships, to shadow, to dots within 9 to 11 km is very abrupt and very close to the ships.


I suggest to following adjustments:

1. Increase draw distance of wakes. This should actually be one of the first features visible of a ship.
2. Increase view distance of the lowest LOD ship model.
3. Implement an additional, very low detail, generic LOD for large, medium and small ships. I think visibility out to 20-30 Km would be appropriate for the big hulls.
4. Draw distance of shadows can be cut significantly. The shadow LOD currently seems to act as a substitute to a low geometry LOD (although not very convincingly). In view of the adjustments above, this could be dropped.


Thanks for your considerations.

I don't know how well this would work in comparison to the rest of the aircraft from the same period, since it would have the same overheat/engine damage model shortcomings as the rest of the sim's planes. 72 inches is P51D class manifold pressure, but in real life you couldn't hold it for more than a minute or so.

If we get such a modified P40 in IL2, everyone will be happily cruising at 72" MAP all day long, so i doubt many servers would use it for balance reasons.

This got me thinking, are there any plans from TD to revisit some of the engine management details? I'm not expecting a complete rework of course, maybe just some tuning to overcome the most unrealistic bits. Thanks for all your work ;)

Rising Sun.
 

Its refreshing to see that there is still a lot of life in this venerable Sim, team Daidalos amazing work certainly helps to make the wait for SOW and beyond easier.

The aircraft in the Pipeline certainly open opportunities for a wind range of Med. scenarios (Like the Raid on Taranto) and even Spanish civil war ones.

Now to my point, a couple of years back Pacific Fighters was released, while being a really good game on its own it conveyed a feeling that something was amiss compared to Il-2 Forgotten Battles, the planeset had some holes and some Iconic Ships were replaced by generic placeholders.
Why in some cases understandable (like for the ships stationed in Pearl Harbor).
The lack of flyable torpedo and Dive bombers (Where is the Helldiver ? and the Yokosuka D4Y Judy ?) as it seemed related to an rather unfortunate licensing quarrel which shook the development and finances of the Sim.

My question is how are your plans for the PTO ?. Is there a chance for you to implement something there or would you be skimming a murky legal boundary ?.

On a personal level and purely from the game-balance perspective. (Not realism in this case) when playing online I sometimes feel that the japanese side (Jaaf) lacks some dedicated mid war heavy bomber interceptors.
Namely the Ki-44 Shoki and the Ki-45 Toryu (Both build in sizeable numbers) which even when not flyable could be a good addition to extend the variety of the planeset.

Thank you for your gallant effort and keep up the good work

Kind Regards Hunger

Would be created in the next versions a new Bomber for the germans? The VVS has the A-20C which is great with his FAB 1000,and fast,and can attack other bombers.
But the germans with the JU-88A4 can't make anything of it (except attacking with the 2X2000 SC)

The PTO has a major problem ... it's called Northrop - Grumman I won't go into details but this one seriously limits the potential projects to begin with (i.e. TBF and derivates plus most US Navy ships). Not to say the PTO won't be touched at all (i.e. the Slot map will be made official) but ATM there's no "plan" since we are arms-deep into 4.10.

Is there a possibility to get working speed and altitude instruments for the bombardier in the g4m (Betty)?
Also in the cockpit i haven't found a correct working speed indicator above 300km/h.
Afaik the IJN used knots to measure airspeed and in knots the airspeed indicator would have the range it should have.

It is truly a shame that the Northrop-Grumman "situation" also affects ships and especially the critically important Yorktown class carriers (Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet). If I remember correctly, there was even once a dev update for PF with WIP screens of the Yorktown.

Still, some nice USN ships might still be possible. A quick wiki search (obviously not a reliable source for such delicate matters) revealed the following shipyards other then Newport News worked on major warships:

New York Naval Shipyard:
- BB-55 North Carolina
- BB-61 Iowa
- BB-63 Missouri

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
- BB-56 Washington
- BB-62 New Jersey
- BB-64 Wisconsin

Norfolk Naval Shipyard
- BB-60 Alabama

New York Shipbuilding Corporation
- BB-57 South Dakota
- CVL Independence Class

Fore River Shipyard (General Dynamics)
- BB-59 Massachusetts
- CV-7 Wasp


So out of these it might be possible to build at least one fast Battleship (class). The Wasp might be an interesting option. Next to do service in the Med (which seems to be a Daidalos Team pet theater :) ), it is also very similar to the Yorktown class, though smaller. So it could also act as generic carrier to substitute the Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet. Of course assuming that General Dynamics are not jerks like NG... With this ships, the USN fleet would already be in pretty good shape.


Anyway, I am looking forward to 4.10 and what what DT has up their sleeves next.

I believe that most of the shipyards you have listed do indeed fall under the N-G umbrella, owing to decades of mergers and corporate takeovers.

It's really a sad situation.

Even the Navy yards? If so this is indeed a sad affair.

The wake is visible before the ships at distance, unless the speed of the ship is so slow there is no wake.

Yes, thats how it should be. The screen shots above were made while flying away from the ships. So it's not in Il-2.

Could you possibly comment on whether or not the Ki-61 in the sim is being addressed in any form in 4.10?

K2

AFAIK not yet.

Rgr. Thank you.......pity.

K2

Would it be possible to increase the number of aircraft in a flight?

Now the limit is a max of 4 per flight. A max of say 10 would be brilliant.

This request relates to offline play & it relates to A/I communication.

Example: When you are in a DGEN campaign & you are of lower rank & not leading an element, lets say you are no 8 in an 8 man flight the A/I will call out enemy contacts, ie "enemy fighters 12 oclock". However if you are leading the element the contacts will not be called, however the fighters in your element will break to attack, so as a flight leader you have to watch them as well as search the skies

Can we have that corrected so any A/I pilot can call the contact as well can they call a break when you get bounced?

The other issue I have seen is the A/I pilots saying I am going down ect, when there plane hits the ground. Can this trigger be changed so the A/I comms starts when their plane loses a wing or is on fire ect

Kennel

With you adding the Slot map to the game are there any plan to have the B5N2 (kate) to the game, without this jap aircraft and it make it a one side battle when it come to making carrier campaigns and with out the Kate being available and it make it hard for this being an aircraft that play a major part in the Solomon island campaign.Jap carrier aircraft suck when it come to a descent pay load and when it come to attacking the heavy ships and near impossible to damage or sink.

I think the biggest problem with the Kate is the lack of a surviving example and enough cockpit resources to accurately model it. That was the issue a number of years ago.

It great to have aircraft historically accurate and i like it but the moment they added the Ta153,Ho-229 and Lerche the game it means crap, these aircraft don't make it past the drawing board.Then there other aircraft were the cockpit that are not historically accurate and it would be impossible so have an other would not hurt.
Have the Kate with a cockpit that like it should be there would do more for the game being historically accurate them not have it there at all, let face it the japs don't fight any campaign without the Kate being in it and not have one that you can fly just make impossible to keep any mission accurate. Other than the zero the kate was used more then any other aircraft they had.

There are enough references out there to make an accurate cockpit (Google for "Maru Mechanic").

I'm not sure this is the right forum thread to post/request this, but I've been playing a number of Regia Aeronautica campaigns and I was wondering if it would be possible to have the CR.42's propeller fitted to the G.50. Both planes had the A.74 engine and the same prop historically and the little spike spinner on the G.50 is a total immersion-killer for campaigns. Since the object is already in IL-2 would it be a lot of work to fit the G.50 with a more accurate prop?

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Hi team daidalos! First of all: thanks a lot for the great 4.09 patch you've delivered. I can't wait for 4.10.

One request: could you remove the "sonar" please? The ability to hear nearby planes + other sounds is completely unrealistic, it makes bouncing people very difficult, when in RL most guys being shot down never saw let alone heard the bandit behind them. It's been requested before, and maybe it's a relatively easy fix. Erich Hartmann scored 352 kills, most of them from 50-100m distance, and noone ever heard him ;)

S!