And to follow my other post, is it possible to add an antialiasing option in the game menu, to make a kind of antialiasing emulator (forced antialiasing?) for people who don't have this kind of option.

thx

Anti-aliasing is more a function of your video card than the game engine. Are you having difficulty enabling it? Maybe someone can help you turn it on for your system. Any AMD/nVidia card around in the last 5-6 years can do a variety of anti-aliasing levels and types.

I have Intel HD Graphics that doesn't allow antialiasing, it's why I want to know if it's exist something to emulate antialiasing. But if not, I will stay like that.

Did a quick search. Apparently most of the Intel HD Graphics series do not support full screen anti-aliasing which is what you'd want to do with IL-2 (and other games). So there's likely no way for you to get anti-aliasing with that card. I've seen some graphics programmers use pixel shaders to emulate anti-aliasing but I have no idea what level of difficulty that would pose in the IL-2 environment. I'd also question if that method would also rob the Intel HD of most of it's graphics performance anyways... they are great cards for accelerating office applications, windows, HD video, that sort of thing and doing it on very little power but when it comes to games they are lacking.

lol, thx for the answer, it's very bad that graphic card can,t be upgrade like you want.

Hi,

daidalos team, hope you read my post about water texture and reflection in water... Whatever, it's not about that why I'm here today. Many servers online don't approve base camping and straffing with gun enemy plane on the ground.
I have some suggestions to add in the online options :

- no straffing :

Option that when it's checked, you can be hit by bombs, crash, etc. but if an ENEMY shoot you with bullet when you are at base, you are invincible. It could be better than be banned, because for me, straffing with gun it's really nice. You just see the bullet arriving in your face and you have the takeoff very fast. Like real life.

- No base camping :

When this option is checked, you have about 10 minutes for base camping (destroying DCA, hangar, etc.) and after that, you have a message in your screen "Leave enemy base (2 minutes left)" or something like that. It could be better than be kicked.

thx

Silly option.

If you cannot attack a base with guns, then you should be able to attack it at all.

I understand that some servers do not allow base attack at all as they are trying to simulate longer distances, but on the whole it's just a juvenile approach. If you don't want a base attacked add enough flak to cover the base properly. Then if someone is successful at attacking the base it will be well deserved.

I think the whole no vulching is silly full stop, but its up to each server how they run themselves, and you should abide by the server rules, as they've spent the time and effort (and money) to build the missions and to put the server up.

Personally i think if you design a mission to have several airfields on each side heavily defended by flack, its next to impossible for one side to cap the other, and if they manage it, kudos in those circumstances.

Wars hell after all.

Exactly Fruitbat.

Well put.

:cool:

yeah, but if they add this kind of option in the game, it will be better, like that I will not be kick from the game. I hate the "no vulching" server, but all servers are using that.

Well, ElAurens and fruitbat, I respectfully disagree. Setting up various airfields with lots of AAA to effectively prevent/severely reduce vulching eats resources which can be put to much better use when this necessity is replaced by a simple rule. Just the other day I came across a large enemy fleet and when the AAA started firing, and promptly the chat got flooded with complaints about lag.

Vulching doesn't work in a-historical circumstances. Many dogfight servers have short flying distances (less than 50km) so one team can effectively camp the other team and all it does is prevent players from having a decent time and ultimately from the server being popular.

Saw it happen all the time in the early days. The servers that are still around don't allow vulching and aggressively kick those who do.

The servers where it makes sense to do so have more realistic flight distances. You have to cover considerable territory to make it to the enemy base and should you get there and decide to attack that seems fair enough but you'll have to brave the AAA and then the prospect of flying 100km on a damaged airframe. With the longer distances it makes it nearly impossible to have full time camping over an enemy airfield.

And do you know if it can be possible to make smoke shadow in directX mode?

I'd like to see longer wakes after the ships. More realistic.

In 4.13 Could be adresssed the Ju52 + glider issue?

Thats in 4.12.

although this'll be for 4.13, can we model 3 things which if i am correct were present on most or at least many planes in ww2:

separate fuel tanks: (so that if i get hit to a non self sealing tank in a bomber for example i am not basdically as good as dead unless im close to home base)......currently (to my knowledge) once a single leak is made it seems to affect every tank in the plane at once....i mean didnt almost all planes have devices set up to keep something like this from occuring?

engine fuel cutoff switch: (so the engine fire can be put out and not be a ticking time bomb waiting to explode exentually).....i mean no fuel to engine means fire has nothing to burn (well maybee oil or some engine parts could be flamable but thatd eventually run out unlike now with the indefinite unextinguisheable fires)

fuel dump: (so when we take very heavy damage we could dump some fuel).....im pretty sure most bombers had such an option as im sure i read somewhere that if a ju88 (maybee he111 dont remember) lost an engine immediate fuel dumping was necessary to loose enough weight to keep it afloat at least some amount of time.....im pretty sure fighters may have lacked such a feature at least some of them but still would this be hard to accomplish? im not sure how complex this would be but id love to see the option to dump some fuel from a specific or if necessary all tanks.....



a few more unrelated things:


can we add an option (within reason) to have crews shift positions incase one dies? (a good example would be the ju88...if you for example loose the top rear firing gunner why cant another crew member switch to that position?).....ofc it wouldnt be possible with a gunner in a ball turret or tail mount that is inaccessible from inside but is planes with historically switcheable crew positions can this be done?




also not sure if this was ever mentioned but could we get 2 top gunners in the ju88?

i know it was often historically limited to one in order to save weight but with just a single top gunner the ju88 is not exactly very hard to kill.....heck ive gotten killed so many times by having some guy just park himself a bit above and spam all his ammo into me with the gunner doing absolutely nothing to them.....at least 2 would make it a bit harder to attack....

personally id prefer it to be loadout based (such as a light bomb load like 2 or 4 sc250s would get the gunner, while maxed loadouts like sc1000s or 2000s would have him removed to save some weight)......




regardless if any of this gets into the game, i still have to say u guys at DT are doing a great job improving the game immeasureably especially with all the cool stuff in 4.12....

Could you please, please, pleeeeeze make the new mixture axis available through DeviceLink, too? For those of us, who use more than the supported 4 game controllers (and therefore have to use e.g. YaDeLi), this would be just wonderful!

Artist

Most planes didn't have the fuel dump option. There were a few like the PZL P.24 (where you could jettison the entire fuel tank), however.


Actually, tanks full of Avgas sort of act as flotation devices since oil is less dense than water.


This might be an option for some planes. For example, if a left waist gunner gets killed, it should be reasonable for the right waist gunner to take over against attacks against the left side, or vice-versa.

But, against this, there's currently no mechanism for damage to flexible guns or turrets jamming. Assume that the hit that killed the gunner also rendered the gun station inoperable.

If you want more realism, though, you'd need to have some roleplaying aspects, such as keeping track of which crew have which skills. Realistic simulation of multi-crewed aircraft would be a lot of work. But, it would be cool to track things like intercom failure, frostbite, oxygen failure, etc. which plagued bombers crews. It would also be nice if you could command crew to do things like bring ammo to compatible gun stations where's run out (and keep track of ammo for flexible guns), unjam bomb bay doors, release stuck bombs, render first aid, put out fires using hand-held extinguishers, etc.


Or, allow a single gunner to switch between the two guns.

Even so, I don't think it would help much. A single rifle caliber MG with a very limited arc of fire isn't that effective a defensive weapon and an extra one won't help. Any fighter pilot worth his wings should be able to make an attack on a Ju-88 which avoids the rear cockpit guns.

Despite that, the Ju-88 was a relatively fast, tough plane. I prefer attacking He-111 to Ju-88.

+1

But, it depends on how fast the ship was going and how big it is.

Of course, what would be really cool is if ships could try to take evasive action against bombs and torpedoes, making the wake effects look like period pictures.

Me gusta, that would be really cool addition!

Even so, oil/avgas are not lighter than air.
As such, draining both tanks(which would simultaneously fill them with air) would make for more effective floatation and less weight(thus higher on the water) than leaving them full.
Reducing overall mass would also reduce the damage caused by the initial impact into the water.

I remember seeing something about a carrier pilot who had a lightning strike take out most of his instruments.
He actually found the carrier at night because he followed the algae churned up in the wake of the ship. So presumably large ships would leave behind quite a trail(even if not exactly a wake).

Morane ms 406 cockpit
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerofos...12/3686786710/
http://www.airventure.de/hilzingen02...-Cockpit-R.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b3...406cockpit.jpg

Anything than instant explosion would be an improvement.


Having built one such mission, yeah, it indeed it a tedious task. Non the less, if we could have at least proper banking and turning simulated followed by proper curved wake texture it would add so much to those who build such missions.


Here is one idea for bomber pilots, especially since B-24 is being built now: ability to control or give some kind of input to our gunners (e.g. range at which they start firing, hold fire, scan the horizon / return to cruise mode* etc.), perhaps even have AI gunners calling out spotted bandits.

* This alone would add so much immersion to those flying bombers in formation.

for 4.1x...

about m-105 engines and these, i think, important yaks...


at first, what i found about engines (few of various pics attached)...

m-105p/pa – 1020-1050 hp at sl (nominal power, + 5 min. forzash with 1100 hp only before 200? m)...

m-105pf - 1210 hp at sl (nominal)...

m-105pf2 (vk-105pf2) - 1290 hp at sl (nominal)...

next, we know what in 44 yak-9 (m,d,t) in good condition had 525-545 kph at sl and >537-540, maybe, because new prop (like vish-105v4 for la-5fn/7)... well, anyway, 110 hp gives for yak-1,7,9 in 42-43 - only my opinion - around 15 kph (in total, confirmed in one document, later about this and yak-7b/lagg-3 in 42)... so, if pf2 really had 1290 hp, this engine can give for yak-9 with middle speed 537 around 10 kph, ie, 537+10=547 for normal yak-9m with pf-2 in autumn-winter'44 and later, or 550-555 kph for best yaks...

maybe, this simple calculation sometimes little wrong, but, anyway pf2 really gives for serial yaks better performance - well, i think, it's important like f-4 1.42? ata in early 42 - and it's reason why we need this yak in game, especially, because need do only other performance...

other reason, yak-3, la-7 and especially yak-9u were new types with some defects sometimes, and, if i'm not mistaken, not most mass fighters even in 45, so, better versions of really mass planes it's not whims or something like this (this i can say and about la-5f with metal spars)...

well, maybe, it's why even bf 109 with mw-50 and fw 190a 1.58/1.65 ata especially as F/G, besides poorer quality of german planes in 44-45, were not so dangerous for these yaks... but it's only my simple theory...


in ideal, if i'm not mistaken, need other number of shells/rounds for weapon (like 120/220 or 140/220 or 135/240 etc), some types of bombs and more correctly performances in total (for example, now wrong weight 3029 kg instead around 3050-3090 kg)...


and... just, remind and for start...

here most correctly drawings - how said at scalemodels.ru - for some series of yak-9t/m/dd (initials of the author, with same forum, in drawings)...

i hope, it's helps if DT wants change 3d model (or someone like JapanCat:)), especially, because we can see what front bulletproof for many yaks in game wrongly...

hmm, maybe, all the same, these yak-9p m-105pf, yak-7p m-105pf and yak-9s and other similar, mainly, experimental yaks must wait... better do something like yak-7b or ki-44 or a-36 etc etc etc... maybe, chance have only yak-7p with 3 shvaks - together with new yak-7b - because (it's only from one source) he "returned in 1 AR (air army) and could be used in combats after elimination of defects" (for prototype, how with yak-9k, was used repaired yak-7)...

Wreckage of other airplanes can hit other airplanes, example, one airplane explodes and its wreckage could hit other airplanes.

sry for my bad translate english

It could be nice too to be able to shoot torpedoes with your bullet to destroy them.

I also miss the possibility of shooting down the BAT bomb. As it glides pretty slowly, it's frustrating to see bullets gone through doing no harm :/

Did this ever happen in real life?
Torpedoes do not generally run on the surface but at a set depth.

True. Some fuel systems actually route exhaust gasses into the fuel tanks as a fire protection (the layer of CO2 and other gasses prevents a spark in the tank from igniting the fuel). In a few cases, there are fuel bladders which collapse as the fuel empties, so they wouldn't provide flotation.

This is a bit of an unusual situation, since bioluminescent plankton don't appear in all waters, and they continue to glow for a while after they are agitated; possibly even after the ship's wake has subsided. (And damned lucky for the pilot!)

Even so, big ships traveling at speed leave long wakes. It would be wonderful if ships in IL2 looked like this:

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/a/ea_herr/Friday13th.jpg

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/a/ea_herr/NightFight2.gif

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...01/f003725.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...01/f004845.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...01/f057576.jpg

Note long wakes at high speeds and evasive action to avoid bombs and torpedoes.

Of course, realistically, it's not "vulching" or "camping," it's AIR SUPERIORITY!

Since WWI, it's been standard practice for air forces to try to destroy enemy planes on the ground or as they're taking off. If you can manage a sneak attack that takes out an enemy's air force on the ground; you're doing an effective job as an air force commander.

Sure, it's not a fair fight, so that makes it less fun. But, in that case, why not just allow players on a server to just spawn in the air at a decent altitude and airspeed? It seems simpler than elaborate rules forbidding vulching and camping.

With the previous posts idea, How about an online option to stand around of the airfield in camera view, so you can look around and when it's clear, spawn your plane tpo fly.

Being able to record with this would be nice for a ground crew perspective ;)

All of the above is allready implemented.
You can collide and just loose surfaces, you can cut your enemy in halft or rip of wings under the danger of exploding.
Pieces of ac will inflict damage or down other ac.

This will not work, your ammo is far supersonic and colapses entirely when protruding the water surface.
Torpedos sneak also to deep for pistol (subsonic) ammo.

I know it but if a wing of B24 ripped in fall hits you, nothing happens, by I saw...

Another wish is the external ordnance can be hit, yesterday flying in La7 vs Ar-234 with 3xAB500 and I didn't know what happened with AI's, they just flew leveled, like drones and I can pratice shoot, and I tried to hit a bomb and nothing happens, as if the bomb was not it there. I know if a bomb was hit, probably wouldn't explode but at least would come off from the wing. :confused:

sry for my bad english.

Hi,

It's not for 4.12, but for 4.13... If possible <------> For OpenGL 2.1

It could be nice to fixe some glitch/bug for low graphic card.
- Better clouds
- 3D water even if you are not in perfect (you can add other switch in the display setting for water quality).

Check that

http://image.noelshack.com/minis/201...3-grab0000.png

Well, I know it's way too late for 4.12, but... for 4.13 (eh, should it be called 5.0? :rolleyes:)
The current maps, either in-briefing and in-flight are next to useless for the level bomber, especially in the crosswind. We even do not have the marker bombs to check the aiming, whereas they were in use in WW2.
E.g, It's nice to have the FAB-x000 in say Pe-8, but I do bet that before using it the navigator was using the marker to do a last-minute adjustments of the bombsight.
Ok, I do understand introducing the marker bombs is likely too much pain.

But maybe it is possible:
1.to replace the maps - to replace the old bitmap ones with the better-resolution ones, probably generated from the terrain? It would be fantastic to be able to read the heights from the inflight map using the mouse.
2.To introduce the simple aiming aids - the TAS conversion table, the altimeter and the airspeed indicator that are visible when looking in the bombsight, all of them graduated in the same units as a bombsight? And the direction and speed of the wind?
---------------------
One more request is for introduction of RRABs for Soviet bombers, They were extensively used during the Winter War.

And ZAB's - towards the end of WW2.

Good suggestions. There are a lot of gaps in IL2's simulation of level bombing operations. After all, it was never envisioned as a high altitude level bombing simulator!

Winds blowing at different speeds at different altitudes have yet to be modeled in the game. In particular, you don't have the effects of the Jet Stream modeled at stratospheric altitudes. That was a big problem, especially for some U.S. heavy bombing operations.

Also, while IL2 does a good job modeling cluster bombs and similar explosive submunitions, it doesn't do such a great job with smoke bombs, flares or incendiaries. Likewise, there's no provision to ignite flammable objects, such as wooden buildings, so incendiary munitions are a moot point.

And, as you said, a number of targeting aids used for level bombing aren't readily available in the game.

The problem is that doing any of these changes right - so that when you drop an incendiary bomb on a building it actually starts a fire which spreads - requires a massive amount of work, almost turning IL2 into a different simulation.

this particular point is not true, however, i agree that there are many things that could be done to improve flying bombers in the game, a height tool in the fmb for briefings would be particularly useful imo.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...grab0083-3.jpg

Yes, thats right, wind speeds are modelled, but some Pursuivant suggestions are very good.

Here an example of the multiple target marking sistems/navigation aids used by the Bomber command.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/target.html

A quick question, is wind modelled on bombs as they fall?

Yep

I think good request is:
- adding earlier versions of some aircrafts (Bf-109D-1, E-1, Bf-110B-1, C-1) which fights in the early stage of war, and some new planes, e.g.:
Polish
-PZL.37 'Los'
-PZL.23 'Karas'
French
-Dewoitine D.520
-Bloch MB.152
British
-Fairey Battle

I hope this is interesting request for us. You're doing great work, Team Daidalos!

My bad for missing the wind height and speed option in the FMB. Let's hope that it allows for even more dynamic weather effects later on.

That's a nice link!

Looking at it, it seems that it wouldn't be that hard to model the various Pathfinder techniques.

1) H2S - Just create a modified view of the regular map, so that it looks sort of like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ay_Cologne.jpg

All you need to do is treat water as black areas, land as dark gray and buildings and bridges (or just city plates) as speckled and streaked white.

This view wouldn't be much different from "radar" map views produced as mods.

And, of course, you have a signal emitted from the plane when it has H2S turned on, which allows it to be tracked by German nightfighters carrying NAXOS.

2) OBOE - This is very similar to existing navigation aids in the game and would be very easy to implement. You have two signal beacons - one from the CAT station and the other from the MOUSE station. As long as the game detects that the plane is flying at the correct distance from CAT it sends one tone. Too far away and it sends another tone, too close and it sends still another tone.

When the plane gets near its target, the game sends the MOUSE warning signal as long as the plane is on the correct course indicated by CAT. The game then has the plane release its markers according to the signal sent from MOUSE.

3) PARRAMATTA - This is nothing more than Mosquitos or other bombers loaded with marker flares, so it's just a loadout option. It's easy to implement, since flares can be modeled in the game. Just get the right colors of yellow, red, blue, etc.

Operations with follow-up Pathfinders re-marking the target can be created using the FMB.

4) NEWHAVEN - This is just another use of the parachute flares loadout. The FMB can be used to create the full effect, with the lead aircraft dropping parachute flares and follow-on aircraft dropping marker flares.

5) WANGANUI - This is basically the same as NEWHAVEN, except that the parachute flares are dropped from a higher altitude and more of them are dropped.

To get the whole night bomber effect, you'd also want:

A) Clouds, smoke and haze as placeable objects. This simulates smokescreens, smoke from fires or the ubiquitous haze which blanketed most 1940s era cities. All are useful visual navigation aids and countermeasures against precision bombing.

B) Large, high fires as placeable objects. This simulates the massive fires caused by incendiary bombing. It would be even more impressive if you could get turbulence effects above really big fires, simulating the effects of the rising heat column on air density and firestorm effects. This was a potential hazard for low-flying incendiary bombers - particularly the B-29s operating over Japan.

C) Rework existing fires so that they last longer. Realistically, even a small house fire can burn for hours and the rubble can remain hot for days.

D) A rework of static objects to indicate whether they're flammable or non-flammable. Flammable objects continue to burn if they get hit by an incendiary, otherwise, the fire goes out.

E) The possibility of flames spreading to nearby flammable objects.

F) The option of having city lights on. Later in the war, the Germans realized that it did little good to black out their cities due to accurate Allied bombing radar and other path-finding measures. So, they just turned the lights back on, since it made it easier for their own nightfighters to navigate and to see enemy aircraft. It also helped flak crews to see British planes due to their shiny black lower surfaces.

Something for our friends at TD to keep in mind for patch 4.12 +n! :)

Seconded.

Smoke
 

Jes I think this is one big gap in this sim.
I'd like to see also Smoke Type 8 and 9, first a large stripe of Smoke eventually combinde with points of fire and the second for a larger area, like a whole village or a perimeter choice parameter setting tab for a whole city covered in smoke.
This should be influenced by the set wind (neglect gust and turbulences ;) )
I just tested it again, when I set wind to 15ms all types of smoke still go straight upwards. Looks odd.
Also the range of visibility of existing and smoke types needs a little adjustment.
I think 200 - 600 m is not enough for the yet existing.
Especially the denser types need at least 10km, the new objects according to over all visibility like morning fog or rain, 30km with clear weather.+1 Could lead one plane in the prop wash of an other and cause collisions.
Especially hit vehicles (not only for bombing missions) should burn long with a dense black smoke.Pursuivant, I follow ;)

Fokker D.XXI & P-36 Hawk Campaigns for the Finnish Dynamic Campaign would be utterly awesome.

agree, great ideas Pursuivant!!!
I guess that presition in nigth bombing, was very poor. I imagine myself trying to hit accurately a target in night enviroment ( a realistic one) and it seems very dificult to achieve in this conditions, if the target wouldn t be a big area. so, we need a big target object, that could resist some impacts. IIRC HFSX has something like it.
By the way could you post a link to mods that reproduce radar please?



There are some nice sugestion here, but I think that almost all are FPS killers, and DT is very carefull with this parameter.

I don't have an exact link, but searching on Special Aircraft Service or IL2 Free Modding ought to give good results. It was one of the first map view mods, so it's probably an easy effect to create.

Agreed that big fires and lots of lights might be FPS killers - especially if they all generate light and shadow effects. Placeable haze, smoke or clouds shouldn't be any more of a frame rate killer than ordinary clouds - as long as they're static effects. Dynamic clouds or smoke could be a problem.

I wonder if it might not be possible to automatically place haze over cities in certain weather conditions as part of the city plate or cloud mapping.

Long-lasting, spreading fires would be the biggest FPS killer. You'd have to make them very simple in appearance, with no actual sprites, to keep them from killing the game. At long distances, it would make a lot of sense to just make a big fire a 2-dimensional "sheet" which alternates between two different levels of transparency or two different color patterns to get the flickering effect. Like at 2:37 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FD1IXWqKos

Let's focus on the simple things.
One more time
1. The appropriate page of the bombsight table (corresponding to altitude and IAS/TAS) when looking in the bombsight shown somewhere in the corner of the "eyepiece" view/
2. The map which allows reading of the target elevation easily (not as if you are dead drunk).
3. Maybe, if there is some possibility - a few buttons which will allow releasing the ordnance from the specific hardpoints.

There is a plenty of space in the navigator's bombsight view, around the eyepiece. No need to be stuck to button controls only.

One aferthought. Maybe TD could put aside a special button for releasing the marker bombs in the "eyepiece view". And hard-code the marker bombs - nor in the way as ordinary bombs are coded, rather as the object which has a ballistics of say 250 kg bomb which appears right below the plane, causes no damage, but produces just the flash and a short-lived smoke cloud.

FMB
I'd like to see indicators of altitude above terrain during transparent stationary runways placement.
It's not so easy to understand if all the stationary runway parts are at terrain level or above it.

Here I was going to collect my 'pieces of Zero' for my collection, and i get tripped by an ant. ;)

Would it be possible to smooth off the transition between land planes (geography sense)

Track from V4.11.1m

At the point 2 disagree. I like to recover intel about the target. Maybe a map with an aproximate height, in 10 or 20 meters intervals with a relief not so detailed.
I didn t understand the point 3 salsero, sorry, not english speaker. It ss like a preset releasing point?

This!!!
If this is doable, a TI bomb could be tracked by the eventlog and even give points to the pilot for a hit.

BTW I realize that a lot of people like the day/night level bombing, that also allows nigth figthing. Hope 4.13 brings more of these. I know, I know I m asking too much, but as we say around here, dreaming is free!!!!

G-55 cockpit! Any chance to see it?

My guess is that we won't see any more new cockpits for 4.12.

But, for future patches, there's no reason why the G.55 shouldn't be flyable. One of TD's goals is to make more of the planes flyable without resorting to mods and there's plenty of documentation for the G.55's cockpit (including at least one surviving airplane!).

Would it be possible to introduce the landing gear indicators on the wings of the Spitfire MK V and other appropriate marks? The Il-2 has wing indicators.

I believe at some point the level stabiliser was changed so only (level)bombers could employ it.

This makes sense. However, some aircraft like the Bf-110, Do-335, Ar-234 and others(He-111?) had an actual built-in autopilot.

CoD for example simulates the single axis autopilot in the Bf-110.


Are there any plans to introduce similar functionality to il2?

I know it can be done via devicelink, as demonstrated by FS~Daedalus' excellent C-1 Autopilot for the B24, but some form of in game implementation would make things much simpler and better integrated.
Even if it's greatly simplified, it would add real world functionality to these planes while still requiring proper engine(and in case of single axis, trim) management rather than having the AI fly your plane entirely.

It's pure eye candy, but would it be possible to have different default paint schemes for planes in Southwest Pacific Theater? From 1943 on RNZAF, RAAF and USAAF planes all had white tails and (sometimes) white diagonal recognition strips on their planes.

Also, would it be possible to improve the default numbers on the Soviet Aircraft? At least later in the war, it appears that Soviet planes had numbers which looked a lot "prettier" than the numbers in the game, sometimes with elaborate serifs:

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/VVS1/Yak-9D0-1.jpg

http://www.goaviator.com/wp-content/...sociation1.jpg

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/7771/kozhedubfi2.jpg

http://www.allworldwars.com/image/077/IL-2Bg.jpg

http://www.small-wonder.org/Books/Il..._Air_126_2.jpg

Personally, I think that the elongated numbers shown in the first picture are most distinctively Russian, but I'm no expert.

Markings and camo is a big bugaboo for me as well. Oleg's response was always that IL-2 was an aircraft simulator and not a marking simulator but I would have loved to see them pay more attention to them from the beginning.

TD has made some great strides but I'd love to see more default skins covering more time and theatre periods. The code is now in place but getting together a cadre of skinners to do all of the work isn't exactly an easy thing to do. It is a lot of work and to do it right it should be coordinated.

I believe it was Cpt Farrel who did all of the German aircraft... top to bottom in one of the recent updates. Which is why all of the German aircraft are now A) Excellent and B) Very consistent. I'd love to see that done again for all other types.

Point 2. If you have ever seen a good topo map (I bet you did) - you know that finding out the height above sea level usually is not a problem. However in Il2 the maps are very heavily "pixelated" and you generally neea to count the number of horizontals from the neares water level - which is not easy on some maps, Especially on recent ones. So I would prefer the maps with 5x resolution OR the vector maps OR the "elevation reader" tool.

Point 3. Suppose you are flying a TB-3 carrying 4*FAB-500 and 20*FAB-100. Now you have no choice but to release 500 kg bombs first and then 100 kg. I do doubt that it was not possible to vary - say, to release 2*100 to hit the minor target or to check the aim, then 500s, then remaining 100 kgs.

I completely agree. There are a number of planes greatly in need of better skins (A6M!!!). If TD is interested in adding better default skins, I am sure the guys at Axis&Allies Paintworks are willing to help.

here very helps - sometimes even with descriptions, manuals, etс for our performances and FM - peoples who love models, even 1c did, does and will do 3d models with help and consultation of these researchers...

for example, work for yak-1/1b, i think it's could be very helpful if DT will do new markings...

have and other works, but, if i'm not mistaken, they are not finished how and "yak-1"...

New numbers for Soviet aircraft would probably be easier than new default skins for every Allied aircraft in the SW Pacific.

Edit: Looking at the default numbers for Soviet aircraft in 4.11, they're not fancy, but they have been improved for most planes. The only plane which still uses the old "Comic Sans Serif" number markings is the I-16.

If there's a complaint, it's that the default numbers are a bit smaller than they were historically on most WW2 era Soviet planes.

But, it seems that there was no standard for Soviet aircraft numbers or squadron markings as there for most other air forces. Numbers were sometimes applied at the factory, but more often applied at the squadron level, sometimes with no sequential order. Furthermore, the "font" used for the numbers, and its size, could vary widely.

The location where numbers was applied could also vary - nose, fuselage or tail were all options. Color was usually white, occasionally rimmed with some other color, or occasionally yellow or red. Blue or green seem to have been rare, although anything might have been possible.

if you about real life, yes, although i'm not specialist in this question, apparently standards are often not respected, we even have a bad joke - "там где заканчивается порядок - начинается военная авиация" - ie in VVS no order...:)

so, it's can be not easy...

and just for fun, naive soviet pin-up...

More than the I-16... they show up on a bunch of aircraft including early Yaks. The size correction might not be a possibility as you'll get unpleasant stretching.. but the font itself could be done more historically.

Dear Team Daidalos
I have some further slight suggestions which came up recently.

1.) If I bellyland a stricken plane with engine allready dead, the prop does not need to bend like if its spinning blades hit the ground.

2.) In FMB if I open an existing mission and pick on one of the allready existing waypoint or object, it would be great if the "viev-object" pane pops up automatically.

Did not mean to disturb..... and away ;-)

The reason all the blades bend back is because there are only two damage states for props; Undamaged or Bent Back(Wooden props may break instead, but the issue is the same).

As you can't just bend the blade that's actually touching the ground, it's either all or none.


For this to change, either multiple prop models need to be modelled for various damage states, or the blades made individual parts.
Even if the old models are reused and adapted this is not a small task.

In addition, for full realism the unbent blades should rotate downward(provided the engine isn't seized up).


Another feature would be in-flight prop damage, where the propeller could get unbalanced and induce vibration at higher RPM.
This could be done with a damage texture so the pilot knows why the effect is produced.

Change pilot (keys) in game.
 

I think i mention this before(sorry), but here it goes: I have assigned several pilots (key and axis assignements, like the ones when we "create new pilot" comes John Mad Doe by default). I have more that one pilot because of the types of aircraft i fly.
E.g.: if i fly bombers, i have assigned all those keys for the bombsight, and if i fly fighters, the same keys are assigned to diferent things.

My wish is: When flying, can we be able to change the selected pilot? If i am online and i forgot to change the previous pilot,(or playing in turns with a friend in my house), i have to close the game, open it offline select the pilot i want and connect to server again.

Maybe this is not very difficult to implement... ... and it is painfull to change keys one-by-one each time i change fighters to bombers.

Please Team Daidalos include radiator and mixture axis in device link:grin:

I second that motion, as usual!

@jayrc: Great! That's what I created YaDeLi for!

+1. Having multiple keyboard assignments and being able to link them to a particular pilot profile would be a good thing.

I wonder if it already exists in the GUI preview that TD released?

The ability to change pilot profile once you start a campaign should be easy if you do it between missions - since all the program is doing is linking to a particular data file.

Likewise, it should be easy to alter difficulty options once you start a campaign, as long as you do so between missions. (This would sometimes be a real convenience, such as when you realize that a particular mission was designed for options such as Padlock On or No Clouds, but only after you're a couple of missions into the campaign!)

Changing pilot profile, difficulty options or other campaign information is probably more difficult, since I think that the program takes GUI, mission and campaign data and uses it to generate the mission. At the very least, you'd need to reload the mission - which certainly isn't possible for online play!

For offline play, I could see an option where the computer saves the mission in progress rather than just quitting the mission. The program could then give you the option of altering the mission parameters (using the FMB?), pilot profile or difficulty settings. Once you've done that, the program could give you the option of reloading the mission you saved (and possibly altered), starting the original mission from the beginning, or deleting the saved mission.

For coding, I could see data capture when saving a mission being treated as a "snapshot" of the data captured using .trk or .ntrk files.

In case of dead engine belly land, the prop could stay undamanged, the blade damaged IRL is not seen from cockpit and would just protrude ground in F2 mode.
Just saw it on NG-TV. The story of the Lockheed Electra which lost No.4 Prop in flight.

Edit.:

This accident does not show up in this list.
Eventually made up.

Is Tunisia map still being developed?
I imagine some of the new ground objects shown recently in the 4.12 preview are part of this project? If so, are we getting any new vehicles, too? A column of British-looking trucks is badly needed for all MTO scenarios, a sort of generic vehicle which is neither US nor Russian.

Just want teh patch.

central tunisia map is on hold. Basic structure is complete but it needs texture and object placement. The new objects are not 100% related but migth return useful. There were some important roman sites in the area, Sbeitla being one of the most famous.

Too bad but thanks for the heads-up, much appreciated.

Some next generic MTO objects - buildings, accessories are in WIP. With template from North Africa/Tunisia.

Request Priority For Landing And Light Guns
 

Offline, I have noticed damaged AI piloted planes flying the pattern waiting their turn to land at an airport only to crash before their turn comes up. I wonder if it would make sense for AI aircraft to request landing priority in cases of low fuel, damage or wounded crew?

I have read that 8th Airforce B-17's shot off flares near the field when they were returning with wounded crew.

On a separate topic, I have also read that some American control towers used light guns with green, red and white colors to communicate with aircraft that did not have radios. I do not know if other countries also used this system but it might be fun to incorporate it into the game.

It seems this system is still in use. While browsing youtube I came across the following video about landing an aircraft with full electric failure. The tower uses such a colored light to instruct it(Even if it's not very visible on camera).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbbWblgGtwY

Edit: And an intructional video on the subject from my youtube suggestions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owQuyF89meM

from "yak-9" by Yakubovish (personally i can't say what it's really good book, but would be happy if someday can take a look at documents which he used, apparently, lot of answers to lot of questions), photo on page 39 (attached + photo of cockpit of, apparently, just yak-9), and in captions to photo - "ammo counter in cockpit of yak-9t"...

apparently, looks like german ammo counter, but circle instead bars...

+1 This has been requested before, along with improvements in when and how AI crew choose to bail out, ditch or crash land.

It wasn't just B-17 that dropped flares to indicate wounded aboard and request priority landing. It was standard operating procedure for all U.S. bombers as a method of keeping radio silence (it kept the enemy from knowing that they'd damaged bombers/wounded enemy aircrew).

I wouldn't be surprised if all air forces did it.

The ability to drop flares would be extremely welcome and will be necessary if TD ever decides to take the sim in the direction of artillery spotting or high altitude night bombing operations. It's also easy to model - mods that allow you to do it have been around for years.

Coded flares were used by all air forces, for a number of purposes. Not only could control towers shoot off flares (as IFF, direction signals or communications tools) but planes could drop flares for the same reasons.

Another use of flares which would be useful in the game and probably easy to implement is the the ability to drop flares to make friendly flak stop shooting. It's simpler and quicker to drop a color-coded flare than to try to get radio contact with every flak station.

Positionslights on self-built-airfields
 

would it be possible to bind the positionlights ([Static]-Smoke.Smoke$Smoke11 up to ...$Smoke15) to the "[Born Place]" in the same way as to the "regular" airfields ?
so that even may request via radio to turn lights on at self-built-airfields too ?
right now they "shine" permanently.

In general it would be nice to have time controlled lights.
Where lights can be set to illuminate from/to a certain time in the object window.

This would prevent them from staying on during the day, and allows airport illumination to be automated.

They could also serve as a beacon in SAR missions, or to indicate an air to ground target that is "painted" at a certain time(though this would work best with triggers).

Another nice feature would be blinking lights, where an interval can be set in the object window.

This ability could also be used for time-controlled fires. You could set the time that fires (especially large fires) burn to simulate firefighting, fires going out naturally or just to save computer resources.

You could set a time as a mission trigger or make it player controlled - either in the GUI or, if appropriate, in the game.

The ability to trigger lights could also be used to trigger other events, such as shooting flares or turning on searchlights.

It would also be cool if planes could trigger events by flashing their navigation or landing lights, by dropping flares or by waggling wings. For example, if your radio is out the ground control could flash a signal at you. You'd respond by waggling wings or flashing lights and the ground station would acknowledge it.

Even cooler would be the ability to have Aldiss lamps in the game, so that ships and ground stations could send Morse code messages to planes and vice-versa.

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

Hand-held Aldiss Lamp here:

http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Aldis%2...y%20pistol.htm

Actually, this web site is a pretty good resource for 1930s & 1940s era ATC procedures. Lots of good ideas for modders or our beloved DT.

Just to make sure my voice is out there. I would really like to see differential braking with the ability to add to an axis controller (toe brakes).

I thought that was implemented with 4.11

Not with two separate toe brakes.

.ffe
 

Please add more FFB effects (turbolence, pilots body movements G-forces)

Thanks!

I don't know if it's too late for 4.12, but please consider treating all airborne objects - like parachutes, V-1 rockets or barrage balloons - as aircraft. That is:

* The option of automatically indicating their identity and/or range.

* The option of padlocking them as if they were aircraft (i.e., using the F4 rather than F5 key).

* The option of viewing them using the F2 or F3 keys (if not already an option, as is the case with parachutes).

This seems trivial, but I think that aerial objects can be padlocked at greater distances than ground objects and it also affects AI attack routines.

* And, since I'm griping about padlocking, how about the option to ID padlocked ground or sea units and/or give a range to them, just like they were air units?

* Finally, how about treating V-1s as a different class of objects than just ground objects or bombs for scoring purposes? After all, Allied pilots who shot down V-1s treated them as a different class of "kills" than ground units like trucks or trains.

That reminds me:
- Remove padlock completely from the next version.
- Erase the whole concept of padlocking from human consciousness.

Hypothetically, that's a great idea, BUT:

1) Without padlocking, how do you quickly command AI planes?

After all, a real human pilot could tell another human pilot - "Attack the column of T-34's 200 meters south of the ridge line." or "Attack the trailing Fw-190 in the formation at 9 o'clock low just outside of the low squadron of B-17s."

IL-2 AI doesn't have that level of sophistication, nor does it have any ability to command AI by voice.

2) Without padlocking, how do you deal with the limitations of computer graphics?

A human with great vision is going to be able to pick out little details at a distance which are necessarily simplified by the IL2 graphics engine - things like flashes of light on canopies, national markings, and so forth. A trained human is also going to be able to estimate range to a particular object and do things like estimate its speed, direction of travel, likely course changes, etc.

Padlocking allows you to keep track of a particular plane (or vehicle) despite the fact that the game doesn't give you the same visual acuity and visual clues that a real pilot would have.

So, to some extent, padlocking is realistic in that it gives the player the same information a real pilot would have - like the g-force indicator in the "wonder woman" view cockpit.

I don't like padlocking much either, but until we get God's Own Flight Sim, which gives the player 3-D vision, photoreal scenery, high-poly models with no LoD needed, photoreal skins, a graphics engine which can perfectly render objects, light and shadow with no loss of detail at a distance we still need padlocking.

There should just be more command options for AI. For Example: Attack-->Ground-->Tanks-->7'o clock. Then your wingman/flight/squad would try to locate tanks in that direction and attack.

Would be useful for attacking enemy airfields - now you have to be in FlaK range until you can tell them to attack FlaK. With the command Attack-->Ground-->FlaK-->12'o clock given a few kilometres before reaching that base the whole flight could attack simultaneously - thus giving the FlaK more targets to chose from and possibly decimating FlaK opposition in the first attack.

Or if encountering two flights of enemy planes on different bearings advise them to try to attack the more dangerous one first or or....

Great idea!

That would be convenient. Of course, what would be even more convenient would be a point and click padlock system using the mouse. As more folks get Track IR or equivalent, head movement can be controlled by TIR, plane controls can be controlled using HOTAS, rudder pedals and keyboard and padlocking can be controlled with the mouse.

Would be okay too.

But the original idea was to have a system of commanding the AI without the use of padlock.

And there could be much more information AI radioes to the player. Useful things. For example contact reports. Of course inaccurate ones, if done right depending on level of AI. Imagine coordinated attacks! And imagine flying to Grid XXYY and find nothing there - because they AI gave you an inaccurate report! Immersion.

These are good ideas. There are mods which represent ground control which vector you to a particular grid, so it shouldn't be that hard for AI planes to radio contact reports. Making AI ground control or planes give ACCURATE reports is a bit trickier.

Right now, the AI can just tell you that there are "enemy fighters" or "enemy bombers" with no more information. I can't tell you how many times I've had to jump out to map view to figure out which "red-1" was being attacked and here the heck they were on a large map.

It would be a lot more immersive if you had radar stations which could give you info like, "Tophat to Rabbit-1. Multiple inbound bogies, Angels 15, heading 85 degrees, 20 miles SE of Canterbury. Vector 125 degrees." or a pilot who could give you a contact report like, "This is Razor-1. We have 10 Me-410s, Angels 20, eastbound over Munster. Attacking now."

I'd settle for a simple "This is Pumpkin - engaging <number of> enemy <planetype> at <coordinates>" planetype beeing fighters/bombers.

If done to the max, then an ace AI would 95% of the time give spot on reports -maybe even get the specific planetype, a veteran say 70%, and regular and novice even less. And novice should make greater range of errors, worst case estimating half/double of actual enemys, no type or wrong one, and coordinates of by 10 km or so.

There is just that much that could be done with radio, right now its more a nuisance(bleiben sie auf kurs zum kuckuck...or the endless landing communication).
Yeah, right now I think about 80% of them are Red flight - more unique codenames would be really nice - besides from beeing realistic. And I don't think it would be that difficult to do.
Yes please. That way you could get (parts of) the picture of whats happening beyond your visual range - but there would still be fog of war.

Stronger Ho-5 20mm cannons on the KI-84 Ib would be nice. The 4 cannons on that thing do less damage than 2 MG151/20. They may have been weaker in RL, but by that much?