Hi guy's!

i'm here to ask you for a new map!
don't worry, i think that it will be very easy to create!
I like too much Pacific battles!

Coral Sea was the most equal battle fought in this war!
same number of ships, planes and crews ability.

In il2 there is not a good map (except only coral sea only water :D).
now i see that you had create the slot map, that is very nera to coral sea!

this is what happened:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Coral_sea.jpg

so, i think that will be easy to create!
only sea on south! north east taked from the slot!
only port moeresby must be create!

what dou you think about?

Do you have any idea how long it took to do The Slot map? Moreover do you understand how large the map you are proposing would be?

This is 9 months to a year's work for a true high quality map.

Map making has it's issues.

Facts are most people doing a game like IL2 aren't interested to fly for an hour (in real time) to a battle engagement location. Most users always bump up the speed between waypoints now.

Mission Builders will tell you that players want to engage in combat at most within 15 minutes, and prefer less time.

Staying true to maps is almost... not necessary. IL2 are not like a MSFT or XPlane flight simulation. Flight simulation is altogether different. Navigating from location to location and flying charts is a big part of the flight simulation experience.

Map builders don't take away from the experience for air combat type players with smaller maps. Look at Online maps as a good example.

Staying true to real world dimensions should not be a factor for IL2 and air combat games. There should be enough distance on maps for an immersive feel, but beyond that real distances shouldn't be a factor.

I have flown some very long missions online on the Slot map in the H8K Emily. Because of the threat of interception we flew a very long, out of the way mission profile to bomb Henderson Field. Navigated using compass headings and stopwatch, as there was nothing but water, 7000 meters below us.

It was very satisfying to do, but I would not want a steady diet of it.

Unfortunatly i've not idea about time needed to create a map!
So, THinking postive i say....they had create the slot, surely there are no problems creating coral sea!
But i'm the first to say...."if it need too many time, it have nosense" and nine months are very very much.

i hope that some day, some crazy guys will create this suicidal long range map! :D


AFter my strange request, i want say tank oyu to all Daidalos tema that is putting some new linfa into il2 game

It's true that very long flights are very boring... But it's always fun to have a long hard dogfight:grin:! Until you've run out off ammo:-x

I know that i'm founding something different from great number of players, may be!

me and my team (and other teams flying with us) try to fly great (and if possible long) missions where 64 (or 128 player if possible) take off at same time, with same target!
For those are needed big maps, where you can use a bit o tactic!
but i know that it is not renumative work a lot of months only for few players!
and actually the large part of players in il2 are playng dogfight or maximun 1h missions!

Off course not all long missions are boring. Some long missions can be interesting to, like some missions with many planes and the same target, which you said.

What about the He 219 'Uhu'? A nightfighter campagne would be nice:grin:. Some He 219's were based at bases in Holland, but then a map of Holland has to be made first.

Are you planning something about 16:10 support?

Have you considered the possibility to make one of the ship in the game driveable by the player, it should be possible since:
a) the movement on the water surface of a man-able object, is already supported by the game engine, as seaplanes demonstrate
b) the ship can be considered by the game logic, as a seaplane and assigned standard controls to, and the eventual cannon turret considered a gunner position

the ship, at least when piloted, could perform evasive maneuvres from torpedo bombing as well as attacks to other ships not running in a straight line, ecc.

I do know nothing about game structure and about what is doable and what isn't, but regarding to the 3D model I think it can be taken a ship's 3D model already existing in the game even the simpler one.

Anyway, thank you Team Daidalos for all the effort and new stuff you are about to put in the new patch

Yea it would be very needed adition.

16:10 and better FOV support is very needed.


Comon it is manageable - some moders make it but i think people need it in original IL2.

This is a flight simulator, not a ship simulator. :rolleyes:

This is a flight simulator, not a ship simulator. :rolleyes:

1+

Er.. So here is the requests thread, eh? Well.

Reload ammo and fuel after landing without ending the mission single player or multi.

I don't know how accurate it is to have pilots land, refuel and rearm, and then takeoff again - but it sure would be sweet in all modes of play.

What ever happened to triggers?
 

We were told about the much needed Event Trigger system that would be in 4.09.

But it wasn't in 4.09, isn't in 4.10 and seems to have been swept under the rug.

What's the deal?

The triggers were never promised for 4.09!
They were promised for a later, unspecified date!

As robtek said, the triggers were never promised for 4.09. Also, just where is it stated that they would not be in 4.10?

Aviar

Sure it is, but it happens also to be the best air war simulator there is, with a good deal of ground and sea objects availability.

Giving some coordination to ground objects is somewhat difficult, but being capable of giving some pre programmed behavior to a fleet, like take evasive maneuvers or something like that, will really change the challenge of taking naval targets, and make much more interesting flying over sea battles on the sim.

I agree that piloting the ship is a bit more than reasonable right now. But the posibility to override the set WP on the .mis file with some kind of order to a fleet or a single ship, will really change the game a lot.

Those who like SEOW system will really apreciate the impact of such a possibility. They allready have poeple that enjoy playing the ground controller and else, so this is the kind of add that increases imersion. Nothing else.

Do you ever tried to hit a sheep that is taking evasive maneuvers? It is just possible to do it by arranging timing, but they are not true evasive maneuvers... worst... WP allow ships to make some very close moves that are faraway from reality. Even torpedo runs considered ship maneuverabilty to fire torpedos, affecting group tactics. A single plane hitting a ship with a single torpedo speaks very bad of the ship captain.

Ship simulator ?

I don't think most understand what it would take to make ship simulator that would be required by users of an application like IL2-SOW. Just think about the penchant for detail, physics,modeling,etc. that are expected by our users.

Map areas would have to have topology for below and above water.

Getting in and out of harbors would require "Pilots", etc.

As it is the ships are mostly targets, which doesn't require anything close to what would be required for a deployable ship or fleet by users.

There are plenty of ship simulators already available, some are very sophisticated as well.

-----

I might enjoy a Killer Whale simulator, where I could go around and harass the water underworld in packs.

Even in Silent Hunter 4, a dedicated submarine combat sim, player controlled surface ships done to the fidelity of the US fleet boats are pretty much beyond the ability of the game engine. There is simply too much to model for a large surface combatant ship. I'd say it's on the order of 100 times more complicated than a crewed multi engine bomber in IL2/46.

I agree on the ship simulator definition. But giving some simple behavior like the landing path that appears when you reach an airbase, that apply to aircraft and humans, when flying offline, doesn't appear to be that much.

Right now, the ship intelligence won't allow them to avoid a ship wreck spoted from 5 Km away. They will just collide and get sunk.

Yes, when you make a mision, you just take care that they don't overlap their paths when swimming straight.

The trouble is that ground objects happen to do the same, with the little difference that they didn't sink, nor explode! They just start a pre-defined process of avoiding the obstacle(ramming it a lot), and resume their path.

Even making them crossing a bridge without getting stuck, is a tough task.

All this "funny" behavior ruins the immersion a lot, at least, it does for me.

Having a ground unit avoiding your straffe pass, by moving before you get an absolutely clean shot is really much more lively than allways hitting sitting ducks, or ducks marching in a row. The code needed for that? The same as allready implemented on landing aircraft, but with a different trigger situation.

Like triggers present in game? The tanks changing their formation from a line abreast to a diamond box.

I saw you are gong to add other Ju-88 versions.
It would be nice if the heavy fighter version could be included.

Indeed that would be cool! Ju88C for mid-war heavy fighter, Ju88G after the radar sets are implemented (square tail and rear canopy will require rework) and the Ju88S would be nice as a late-war bomber(new bombsight & nosecone). I hope DT's busy schedule will be able to include these.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

JU88C V Beaufighter? who would win? :grin: just kidding but here's some interesting reading -

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/stor..._9781846039836

I always thought the Condor legion dominated the fascist air arm kill rate but maybe not?

hi all nice to see the fairey fulmar in the sim hope we get it as flyable also is there news on how big the 4.10 download will be?

Nice there are two new FAA planes for IL2.
Maybe more should come,like Fairey Firefly and Barracuda.

IDK if these updated are only for IL2,but planes like Ki-45,G3M and D3Y would be awesome too.

Agree on the Japanese aircraft. Both the IJN and Imperial Japanese Army Flying Corps are sorely in need of bomber and attack types.

Add to that the dubious 3D modeling and FMs of the current Japanese single seaters, it makes flying for the Emperor a very difficult, if heroic, enterprise.

France

D.520 (for France,Vichy,Romania and Italy)
Potez 630
Breguet 693
Bloch M.B.210

Poland

P.23 Karas
P.37 Los
P.50 Jastrzab
LWS 6 Zubr

UK

Fairey Firefly
Fairey Barracuda
Vickers Wellington
Avro Lancaster
Short Stirling
Boulton Paul Defiant
Westland Lysander
Hawker Typhoon

US

B-26 Marauder
SB2C Helldiver

Germany

He-115
Ju-188
Do-17Z
Ju-88 heavy fighter versions (C?)

Italy

Piaggio P.108
Cant Z.1007 Alcione
Cant Z 501 Gabbiano
Re 2005

Japan

Ki-45 Nick
G3M Nell
Ki-67 Peggy
A7M
Ki-49 Helen
D4Y1 Judy
D4Y3 Judy
P1Y Frances

The rest maybe, but only eight of those were produced, and none flew operationally.

Wikipedia agrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_A7M

Neither for IL2 1946?

Have you actually bothered to read past threads that discuss the amount of work needed to add a single aircraft to IL-2, meeting the necessary standards? Anyone can come up with a wish-list, but try to be a little realistic.

I think it's more like "any one of these would be nice" than "give us these, then", Andy. :)

If that is what he meant, then I apologise.

I just don't want this forum to end up like AAA, where anyone who sees a vaguely WWII-related aircraft says 'gimme this'. TD are doing it for free, and should be thanked for what they do, not snowed under with unrealistic requests. Come to think of it, I'd apply that to 1C:Maddox too, and they will (hopefully) get paid for it.

All the same, I wanna Walrus! ;)

Something else I was thinking about posting. The damage modeling for the Ki-27 seems a little odd to me. A cannon surely destroys it but light machine guns seem to have little effect. It rarely lights on fire and it seems much tougher than other planes of a similar year. The Ki-43 is much weaker and easier to set on fire for example.

It's not just the setting on fire. It's the other components. Is it in some way flawed or meant to be this way?

If they could add all,it would be superb,but even if they add only one of these,would be already a large step toward making IL2 a richer WWII combat sim.

Oh yes,and land vehicles,artillery and ships?I believe they are far less complicated to add ingame than planes(?)

Ki-61 error thread updated.....

http://78sentai.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=401

K2

Wow, the current sight reticle could not be more wrong could it?

bf110, I'm just curious why you did not mention the early B24s. They're not one of my fav a/c, but I was just wondering since they were used by UK as well and had several roles.

Much agree on the B26. If this is not the best sim for high-alt heavies, than the mid-alt B26 would seem a good fit and is an odd omission, especially since it has one of the simplest cockpits and canopies from what I can tell from literature.

Well,there´s the Beaufighter too,that is from 1944 in IL2,but was used extensively in the early and mid war.
But I believe a newer plane version can be used for earlier missions,if there isn´t any older version.You use the earliest version of Bf-109E for Poland,but I believe luftwaffe used the B and C versions.

Actually, as far as it goes on the wish list, I would rather just see a cockpit added to the B-17 and B-24, rather than lots of new aircraft added. However, given the chance, I would love to see the B-26 in the sim.

Just adding a flyable 4-engine bomber would be a great official add-on and look back in the Ubi threads to see it has been one of the most requested additions for a very long-time.

Cheers, MP

There is already the TB-3 as a flyable four engine bomber,but one of the B s would be awesome,specially the B-17,to play as gunner.

Hello,

I agree that the B-24D and B-26 would make excellent additions (as AI) to the game. I also second the motion for an early mark of the Beaufighter (this matters especially to me since I have been flying over the Med a lot recently). I am more hesitant to support cockpits for 4-engine bombers as I understand they involve exponentially more work than single or even two seaters do. If adding a B-17 cockpit means we won't see 3 or 4 other planes in the sim then I am against it. The best bet for 4-engine cockpits may to co-ordinate with the various modding teams out there and see if the existing B-17/B-24 cockpits can be bought up to DT standards.

Fafnir_6

Request: Skinnable Static Aircraft
 

I have a request for an upcoming DT patch (I'm not sure if it has been requested before). Would it be possible to add the ability to skin static (stationary) aircraft in the FMB? I am running a Cyrenaica (Libya) 1940 dogfight server with restricted 1940 British/Italian plane sets and the parked Blenheims at the British base with their Finnish Camo is a real immersion-killer.

Cheers and thanks for any response,

Fafnir_6

It would be great to see the B-26 Marauder added to the sim... even if just AI. I wonder if Team Daidalos would have the same issues that 1C ran into with Copyright infringement if they did tackle the Marauder?

Billfish I've been wondering about something Ki-61 related. You mentioned in your posts about the Ki-61-Id (Id was called "Tei" right?). Would the Id be difficult to add and would it have any sort of performance advantage over the earlier Ki-61s? I'm thinking about multiplayer scenarios where it would be nice to have a intermediate level aircraft in those early 1944 scenarios.

Why the hell a cockpit would be copyrighted?
It´s from a plane with more than 50 years old,and that was made for the Navy.

I would like to ask a question about new g loading limits in 4.10: All fighters with no bombs, no rockets and no fuel tank ll have the same structural g loading in service limits, i mean 8G? Or this structural limit ll vary from aircraft to aircraft based on its project? For example, russian and japanese fighters wooden builded ll have minor structural in service limits?

There ll be some kind of reference where i ll known about my aircraft limits? Thank you!

Did you scan copyright as "cockpit"? I'm talking about the Marauder overall... which was designed over 50 years ago for the USAAF.

The 'copyright' saga is long-winded and confusing, and nobody directly involved seems able to comment on it - possibly as a result of a settlement in a legal case. You might get a clue as to what it is all about from here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...hlight=grumman

Messy, unjustifiable, but something that 1C:Maddox have to take care over.

Now that was the cumulus of avarice.
So many games,movies,drawings,comics have pacific airplanes,planes that have more than 60 years and are (obviously) not produced anymore.Do Grumman still even exist?

Unfortunately, yes. As a legal entity. Or at least, a legal entity exists that holds the rights to 'Grumman'. I know it's c**p, you know it's c**p, but the legal system upholds it.

William Shakespeare Henry VI, Part 2,

- would it be possible to give bombers like the He111H-6 and Ju88A-4,loaded with 4 "heavy" bombs outside, when bombing level with automatic a short delay between the release of each bomb, or at least a pair of them ?
in the moment it is most anoying as they are releasing all 4 SC500 together as example and are so more or less a point attack weapon ............................. :(

-perhaps the low level turbulences below 350m could be restrictet to the weather settings rain/snow and thunderstorm ?

Er, why? If anything, I'd say IL-2 undermodels such effects.

I was kinda hoping that Team Daidalos being (I think) independant of 1C and also creating content on a not-for-profit basis might change things slightly for them. They could also avoid using any trademarked names and stick with the USAAF B-26 designation.

I remember well the ridiculous days of the Northrop Grumman dispute. I can understand wanting to protect intellectual property but I also understand that common sense is an uncommon commodity.

+1 the Shakespeare quote.

You would be wrong. In real life, the only way you would get such turbulences is if you would be flying between buildings and there was a strong wind blowing.

im flying a lot Bf110G-2 in VOW "R" online war in the moment - holy crap, is this thing wobbling in the actual gameversion .................................................

Meh,so it´s better to stay away from US planes.
Does France,Poland,UK and Italy have those issues?

Oh yes,and BTW,is the Sabre protected too?It´s a quite famous fighter,and it would be an interesting plane for IL2 1946...

Ive a question about ZUTI's moving dogfight server that's coming in 4.10.

Will we be able to set a spawn time for flights we set up, like how the V-1 system works?

No... just the US.

Fortunately we do have a large number of US planes (although not a complete list and I'd love to see some more) and there are quite a few other types that can be explored still. There are some notable British, Japanese and Italian types that could still use some looking at.

As you said,IL2 have some 70% of the planes used on war by them.
Some planes used in Pacific Theater are not included,but,anyway.

Nations that are in most need of planes by urgency:France > Italy > Poland > Britain.

BTW,I would like to ask if pilots when fall over the water (without parachute) could have the same effect (but with smaller magnitude) of when a bomb or plane hit the water.

The American legal system is copyright obsessed, they recently changed the law at the request of Disney to extend copyright to 95 years for corporations with an option to renew after that.

Ironically it goes completey against the original views of the US founding fathers who basically believed copyright should quickly evolve to public domain after the creator has had a reasonable chance to benefit from their ideas.

Personally I believe if Americans start to see their own favorite historical aircraft disappearing from games and the model shelves in hobby shops because of the stupidity of litigious US lawyers trying to make a few quick bucks well thats America for you :D


Meanwhile ... here is the top of MY wish list for a future patch :D

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/312090-2/BV-138%23

Not until they've made me a Walrus, Mr Galway. ;)

MSFT and many other flight sim games have a workaround.

They opened up the sim to 3rd parties that provided free aircraft. It is real hard to make a legal issue out of stuff created by "individuals" that make no money from their creations.

Anytime commercial enterprises have gotten involved the patent and copyright junk became an issue.

I don't know if TD could be considered a commercial enterprise, but maybe because it is a team effort involved with a commercial enterprise it might be an issue.

SO... I"d say if Oleg opens up the SOW for aircraft builders and doesn't put his name to anything or credentials anything I'd say suing 3rd party individuals wouldn't be much of a payback for the patent and copyright holders.

Remember, most legal stuff associated with copyrights or patents on old stuff is just not worth pursuing unless the so-called violators are making money from the stuff.

Hydroplanes!That´s good for an European naval campaign.

Well generally it doesn't go as far as suing. Its your classic stand over tactics. "Regardless of whether we have a legal claim or not we will hold up your products release for 2 years until some obscure overworked local magistrate/judge gets time to look at our case OR you can settle out of court and the problem goes away". Which generally means a tricky work around like TD are a third party with no money is going to fail. as i suspect the real the issue is the threat of time consuming litigation rather than it actually making it too court :D

The other option for adding aircraft from litigious companies in America is home made 3rd part aircraft however personally i have little interest in user generated aircraft without some central authentication. This stems from being introduced to the flight sim community during the 90's and early 2000's where everything from the Starship Enterprise to Harry Potter broomsticks was available to download, many aircraft were "corrected" to match anecdotal and movie performances and 9 times out of 10 the downloads crashed your system anyway :D It got to the point where people were actually excited to see paid addons of up to $100 per aircraft because at least paid addons promised some hope of quality and the possibility addon might actually work :D

I think Grumman may have inadvertently done a great service to the historical understanding of WWII. By discouraging concentration on the easiest market - US 'planes that won the war', and instead forcing 1C:Maddox and later TD to look at a broader range of aircraft, they have effectively counteracted the 'Tom Hanks' factor that reduces the entire period to a simplistic morality tale. Of course 1C:Maddox were trying to run counter to this from the start, but the threat of legal action if they followed the Hollywood line helped keep them on their course.

A sim with no Grumman aircraft in it its a darned sight more realistic than one where only Grumman aircraft win.

+1 :grin:

In a few other unnamed, old but still surprisingly popular, sims, the Grumman, North American and Republic aircraft can do pretty much anything they want. In one game the P-51 easily outturns the Zeke, and ripping wings off 190s takes about 5 hits. They market that game as the most realistic and the very most historically accurate PC flight simulation ever, still, with a monthly fee, and it sells.

Galway

You do have a point about all the 3rd party aircraft. I remember a corsair I enjoyed that was starwars. The darn thing could shoot down enemies at 3,000 meters, fly at 600 knots and all you had to do was half-way target the enemy for kills.

Oleg, did turn up the whole air combat situation a notch with quality standards for online play.

I remember the MSFT Zone as a wild west anything goes online action. All influenced by no quality standards for online play. I gave up on the Zone faster than drinking my first spoonful of Cod liver oil.

Still, I think there are ways to do things... and there are ways to get things done. Certifiable aircraft for online play could probably be handled by some 3rd party group similar to a TD that doesn't actually furnish aircraft, These groups would have a look at your 3rd party aircraft and suggest compliance changes for meeting online compliance standards.

These groups could be advisory to sites like hyperlobby before admitting specific aircraft to participate on their servers.

I'm saying... there are workarounds, but legitimate companies will have to satisfy their own thinking about risk vs. reward to determine just how far they will go.

Here is a request that does not involve new planes.....

Is there any way to add a new 'Difficulty' option that allows External views Only while on the ground?

It may seem an odd request but while I am happy playing 'Full Real' I often find myself joining an unfamiliar map and having no idea where my spawn point is in relation to the runway (or runways) From the cockpit it is impossible to see where I should be going and more than once I have taxied to the wrong end and found myself taking off in the wrong direction and meeting someone coming the other way. On one recent occasion I could not find the runway at all so just took off where I was and discovered I had just taken off across a grass field. On another recent occassion I decided it must be a grass strip and tried to take off and just ripped off my undercarriage because I should have used the levelled grass runway I had failed to find :-)

I don't think anyone would get any unfair advantage from external view while on the ground and in real-life no pilot would be taxiing out while unaware of the airfield layout.

If you are worried about people taxiing while in external view because they are not skilled enough to do it from the cockpit then restrict the external view to only work when the speed is zero.

The Ki-61-I-Tei / Kai / 1d, had some aspects of it redesigned which would affect performance.....However know ALL of the Hiens in the sim have errors not touched on in which alters combat performance.

First off, pilot armor, fuel tank armor, radiator armor, all evovled and strengthened throughout the Ki-61-I series of 4 types. In the sim as far as I can tell they are all the same.....Next, as fuel tank armor increased, capacity decreased. Add to that the Ko had a fuselage tank. Weights were rather consitant from the Ko-Hei in that as armament and armor grew larger fuel capacity shrank.

As to the Tei, though seeming rather similar it had some significant changes made. Systems were simplified and improved, the tailwheel was finally fixed (in the sim only the Ko's retracts which is wrong), and maintenence was improved, and the Hei's fuel tank fire suppression system remained........As to performance it's armor would be like the Hei's for the most part. However armament changed in which 20mm Ho-5 cannon were added to the fuselage, Ho-103 retained in the wings. The 20mm round was longer then the 12.7 of the Ho-103, so to that end the fuselage was lengthened, and ultimately the tail was "upsized" for balance and control all in all increasing the length .19m. Those various changes bumped up the weight of the Tei by roughly 350-400Kg.. That is a significant change, so naturally it would not climb as well or handle the "same" though the larger tail made up for some of that and it ultimately lost 10km/h off its top end speed.

In the end however, it was produced more by itself then the Ko-Otsu-Hei versions combined. The most common Hien of the war, and for all intensive purposes the last as the Ki-61-II never made it into true production and release to units.

K2

Maybe in the future, but not in IL2. The Grumman planes were already in the sim when 1C:MG shot themselves in the foot with bad legal advice.

It was more a question of timing. I don't think anyone involved thought that the extent of Grumman's claims is justified, but AFAIK they got in touch with Ubi shortly before release of PF so they caught everyone on the wrong foot. Checking Grumman's claims would have cost time, time that Ubisoft either didn't want to spend or didn't have (for it would cost a lot of money to hold the release machinery). Had that happened months earlier then I'd bet that a judge would have told Grumman where to shove its claim (keyword: dark and smelly place, no sun).

Well, I do hope the entire Grumman affair can be turned around.

Why?

After B0B. the next theater will be the Med. You cannot have Med Ops without the Grumman F4F Wildcat/Martlett for Operation Torch, and it's use by the Royal Navy in general.

Any aircraft from any country that is kept from us because of these petty legal concerns is a loss to all of us.

No single country won the war on it's own, and no country could have won without the help of all the others involved.

the story is not 'ignorance of history need not repeat the same mistakes.
But strangely human mistakes are repeated forever and ever in history.
should review and understand the causes and reasons for injustice and motivation strategies that lead the human race to make history war. studying the history and 'an experience the history and' the meaning of what we today.I Young people are obliged to know the story because 'history and you learn new ideas for the future.

guys, any news from Caspar? I emailed him and PMd him, but got no answer yet. Is he ok? :confused:

Damn,not in my classroom...
To the hell with Grumman,what about other planes,like italian,french,polish and english?

This is RARE the last photo ww2 of Piaggio p 108 and Pilot BRUNO MUSSOLINI the son of BENITO MUSSOLLINI dead during landing in Pisa yes the piaggio P.108 operating especialy in GIBILTEIR and after go to ENGLAND for battle of brittain but the incident of BENITO MUSSOLINI'S SUN BRUNO abborted the piaggio p108 heavy bombers mission in ENGLAND.


please loock this is original photo and rare of ww2:
http://www.gavs.it/FotodelNonno/Phot...8_polidori.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...verdi_1938.JPG

incident and dead of Bruno Mussolini Code Number of airplane is 22003
http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/pi..._mussolini.jpg

The other day I was browsing update info on one of my previous favorit games; BattleField 2 - Forgotten Hope mod. There was an announcement that the mod team had to pull release of a new western front map, namely "Ramelle". It was Mr. Spielburg and Hanks who objected to the use of that map with the name as they had copy writes to the whole "Ramelle"-thingy. Ok, Ramelle never existed irl, neither the town or the battle.. But hey, I wonder which Spielburg/Hanks and Co. employee who sits and playes BF2/FH2 mod and .. "Wait a sec, my boss owns the rights to all and anything related to "Saving Private Ryan" and "Ramelle".. I'm gonna tell my boss!"

I think the 1C company has done well because 'it happens that a society' made in USA type Microsoft or other companies 'program a simulator or a game that covers the whole globe puts priority' ever U.S. aircraft and vehicles ignoring many important aircraft and aircraft by European or Japanese or Russian or other programs then Microsoft made in USA lack of instructions in various European languages often neglecting the Italian or Russian or greece giapponese.Ok not why there must be a hatred between different companies' programming all over the world but there must be a mutual respect and cooperation to meet global and European standards than those uses or other countries. can be is not clear despite the translation.

Everything ok. No worries.
I'm sorry for the late respronse, but real life issues let the Re2000 and 'forum looking' stuff step back a little.
I got all (though I never get eMail notifications about new PM's ... stange).
Will answer you straight tomorrow.

Thanks!

EDIT:
Its a bit inofficial (I just didn't ask), so I hope Martin will not call for my head...
But as last week there was no update, I guess its ok:
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7416/render8.th.jpg



;-)

Erm, wotizit? I'm not that good at cockpit recognition, at least with the sometimes-obscure (to a know-nothing like me) stuff that TD seem to like producing.

You know FH2?Sgt.KAR98 here.I thought that was a joke...
Well,there a lot of other mods for BF2 and 42 that didn´t had those things but surely if they discover,the developers WILL have,but I wont say their names cause,you know,maybe they are watching us.

YT is also a large territory of copyterrorism.It ´s pretty much like Africa during the 19th century.Everybody want a (bigger) slice of the gold mine.

Back to topic,the P.108 would be a great add on.Including it´s Artigliere version.

...dude, read what Caspar is talking about..

Re. 2000? I thought that was going to be AI only in 4.10?
If it is flyable, even better.:D

Thanks for the update, Caspar. I've been doing the Cyrenaica, 1940/1941 jazz with some buddies online for a while and this would add some spice to the server. I am very much looking forward to flying a Reggiane (best-looking Italian planes and that's saying something IMHO).

Cheers and thanks,

Fafnir_6

its already AI in 4.09 ;)

We planed to make all the new AI-planes, brought with 4.09 final, flyable. This will not happen, as we are already late. At least for Fiat G.55 I am sure, its not flyable with 4.10. Re2000 is also already late, but as we have a delay anyway, I hope it can still get squeezed in. No guarantee on this though.

But if not with 4.10 , then with 4.11 for sure. ;)

and Polikarpov R-5 can be flyable? After a while

Hi,

I was wondering whether perhaps some of these suggestions could be considered at some stage:

* Textured/weathered insignia
* Less restricted Trackir view (not necessarily 6DOF)
* Review Focke Wulf 190 gunsight position (i know there's been allot of debate regarding this in other forums, but there is proof to back it up)

I found a picture of a Fw-190 A-5 / A-6 cockpit, maybe it will help. http://www.bredow-web.de/a_Fw190_-_Cockpit.jpg

I want to fly the G.55.
It´s far better than MC 205,and according to a Luftwaffe contest,the MC 205 was the worst,the G.55 was average and the Re.2005 was the best.

Thanks mate, it's actually quite interesting - when you go looking for 190 cockpit photos on the net, there aren't any I've found yet that aren't like that

http://warrelics.eu/forum/military_p...a3_cockpit.jpg

www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/fighters/focke-wulf-fw-190d.asp

http://aircraft-cockpits.com/ww2_fw190.htm

http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugze...DTMB/Index.htm

Is it possible for Team Daidalos to make a small italian campaign for IL2?
Italian battleships,tanks,some more RN vessels,RN aircraft.
I guess it won´t threat SoW,because the MTO and Italy Online maps are somewhat generic and SoW must have a lot more of features than IL2.

BTW,is it possible to have a Spain map for a Spanish Civil War campaign?

[QUOTE=nzwilliam;157739]Thanks mate, it's actually quite interesting - when you go looking for 190 cockpit photos on the net, there aren't any I've found yet that aren't like that

http://warrelics.eu/forum/military_p...a3_cockpit.jpg

www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/fighters/focke-wulf-fw-190d.asp

http://aircraft-cockpits.com/ww2_fw190.htm

http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugze...DTMB/Index.htm

It's true that there aren't much pictures of that gunsight.
Maybe this would be an idea for the future: The Bv 246 "Hagelkorn" gliding bomb.
A few pictures:
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/images/fw190a8_02.jpg
http://www.luft46.com/missile/bv246-3.jpg
http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgur...26tbs%3Disch:1

i would recommend to stop the Fw190 BAR discussion.

we had it several times in UBI Zoo years ago , here a 52pager :D http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...m/60110323/p/1 , the most belived that the Fw190 Bar is moddeld wrong in game -. the reflection of the thick armoured windshield is missing.
BUT nothing will change - i doubt Oleg would allow that even DT !!!!

lets wait for his SoW Fw190A , sure it will come once a day in the future ;)

Bessarabia map and DGen
 

Hi,
I would like to know if it could it be possible to make the Bessarabia map usable with DGen ?

Daidalos has no means to do any work on DGen since it's Starshoy's tool and he is unavailable and has vanished without a trace months (or years) ago. Sorry.

Hello,

I find Lowengrin's DCG to be superior to Dgen in most respects. Go to www.lowengrin.com to get the latest version (freeware). There are a multitude of interesting add-on campaigns there as well, for both the stock and modded versions of IL-2. Perhaps DCG can be made to be the default campaign generator for IL-2 instead of DGEN? It has a DGen replacement mode already.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6