apologies in advance if this has been deal with before (and i've searched the thread numerous times and can't find the post I think was posted on this), but would it be possible to enable externally viewable moving control surfaces (not just flaps like right now? so also rudder and ailerons?)

don't ask me where i heard this, but apparently this was disabled for smoother FPS in online play years ago... don't think this should be a problem now. is there any easy way to re-enable it?

just a question about the FLAK AI.

did you have changed anything ? my observation is that it sometimes does not shoot at all or opens fire with delay . and yes, targets are in range .

just wondering.

This may be a very stupid question but.....


I was about to install Lowengrins DCG and reading the blurb about airfields being taken etc I suddenly remembered that one of the videos for 4.10 also showed airfields being taken which seems to indicate Dynamic campaigns being part of 4.10s upgrades.

Is 4.10 going to duplicate/incorporate enough Dynamic Campaign features to make it worth me waiting for 4.10 before getting involved in DCG? Lowengrins site has a recent conversation where he tells someone that in his DCG recce flights have no impact on the ground war (yes it does affect carrier battles) but one of the 4.10 videos shows spotter planes guiding in the artillery so does that mean 4.10 includes a better DCG or is it just showing dynamic things that can happen within a single mission but not necessarily any Dynamic *Campaign* functionality.

Even if I am being stupid about the above questions it does look like 4.10 will alter how the existing DCG missions play eg the ability for two enemies to pass each other unaware if there is heavy cloud must make some missions play very differently.

That was for ZUTI's MDF. It's essentially an online tool.

As I said we didn't do any work on DGen since we neither have the source code nor do we have a means to contact Starshoy.

This makes me also think, in online battle, when a twin-engine has one engine out, all the other players will see it with both engines stopped. Could you also fix this ? Thank you very much.

This is too bad csThor... :(
Thanks Fafnir_6 for your answer I'm gonna check lowengrin site :)
No conflict with DGen? Does it replace it? If yes, what about my campaigns in progress?

Has anyone ever thought of a non-flyable Junker JU 290?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nkersJu290.jpg


From the wiki:
"The A-3 version followed shortly after with added navigational equipment and probably the heaviest defensive armament of any World War II aircraft; it was fitted with two hydraulically-powered HDL 151 dorsal turrets armed with 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons, with a further 20 mm MG 151/20 and a 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine gun fitted in a gondola beneath the nose, and a 20 mm MG 151/20 fitted in the tail operated by a gunner in a prone position. Two 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131s were also fitted in waist positions (Fensterlafetten). The A-3, along with the A-2, also featured large auxiliary fuel tanks in the fuselage. Both types retained the rear loading ramp so that they could be used as transports if need be."

Would be nice to battle a formation of them.

No problem. DCG does indeed replace DGen, provided you activate that mode in the menus of the DCG application (which you must run to setup things). Many (all?) of the stock campaigns that came with IL-2 will then show up as being managed by DCG when you select them in the campaign generation screen in IL-2. The basic framework of the campaigns remains the same but you can really fine-tune the degree of fighting, the roles of the various planes, usual transit altitudes for each side...All sorts of stuff. DCG tracks all air, land and sea losses and you can activate an option which places artillery & tanks at contested areas of the map. Destroy the enemy's stuff and you can affect the outcome of that battle. The randomness of the outcomes of these battles coupled with high combat density (many planes) on faster computers, delivers a feeling of immersion that DGen simply cannot.

As for in-progress campaigns...I'm not sure if they will work. I'd suggest backing up your user directory before attempting to run them with DCG. If they don't work you can always disable the "replace DGen" option in DCG and restore your user files.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

P.S. DCG also has an NGen replacement mode for online campaigns...I haven't tried it yet.

P.P.S. Zuti's mod is for Online Dogfights only (not campaigns) but it does incorporate many DCG-like features. It'll rule having that in the stock game. Thanks, DT :).

thanks a lot Fafnir_6 :)

Team Daidalos, will setting Triggers be available in patch 4.10?

Thanks in advance.

Also, I noticed that the Spitfire Mk VB/VC doesn't have the possibility to carry bombs ingame.

Both the Mk VB and VC were able to carry bombs. (Two 250-pound bombs or one 500-pound bomb).

Could you please change the weapon loadout TD?

Great work, thanks for all you've done.

Three requests, one tiny, two more involved:

1) Please correct the default early war U.S. markings. They are historically incorrect and ugly as well.

2) Please incorporate some method of determining the G forces on the pilot (if not the plane). As it stands, you don't know how many Gs you're pulling until your plane stalls or you start to black out. Human beings are quite good at detecting changes in acceleration, and a trained pilot can estimate approximately how many Gs he's pulling. "Seat of the pants" flying depends on feeling such changes in G forces.

At the very least, consider it as an option for the "no cockpit" view, which already gives you a nice little graphic which shows the orientation of your plane with respect to the earth (That is, a "gravity meter" which always tells you which way is down.)

3) Would it be possible to make the "tracking arrows" which are visible in the no-cockpit view an option which can be turned on or off for ANY cockpit view? For example, "no cockpit" + "no tracking arrows" or "cockpit view" + "tracking arrows."

+1
And add my thanks. What I like of the Pursuivant’s post, is the use of the word “option”.
Reading through all the threads, you rarely see common visions and shared opinions. Any change is destined to make some people happy and some other people unhappy, but to add options will be good for everyone.
An example? I don’t like the “propeller effect” just in front of windshield. As a private pilot, I’ve flown many different single-engine planes, and the propeller becomes (faintly) visible only in particular lighting conditions, and under particular sunlight angles. If there would be the option, I surely would turn OFF the propeller effect.

I agree 100% with this. While not a pilot, I have flown many times in the front seat of a single engine aircraft, even once in the waist gunner position of a B-25. The propellor disc is essentially invisible in almost all conditions. I do find it comical that in the modded side of the game, they have chosen to over emphasize the prop effect. I think they have seen too many movies and have not spent any time in real aircraft.

Another issue with the prop graphic effect is how it's relative size changes. Go external and draw an imaginary line from the outer diameter of the prop disc to the pilot's eyes. Now look at the prop from inside. It is far smaller from the cockpit view, which is wrong.

Will the new updates have graphics improvements?
Like,the water,effects...?

Except the brighter high-altitude sky... no.

The P-40N discussed in the 4.10 thread surely is the most produced and widely-used single-engine fighter still missing from the game. We had a similar situation with Ki-43-II years ago, being IJA's main fighter from 1943 to 1945, it only appeared in game way after Pacific Fighters was released.

After all, putting any new plane or map in game (officially, with DT & 1C approval and standards) will require tremendous work. However, we have still a few "issues" with the existing aircraft. Here's my short wish list for 4.11+:

1) Correction of late Bf 109G variants. Currently the G-6/AS is modelled as a plane that is closer to G-10 in real life performance, instead of just a G-6 with smoothed cowling and DB605AS-engine, with larger supercharger providing increased power in altitude and higher full throttle alt. This model did not have MW50, and such model would usually be called G-14/AS. However, it really doesn't represent that either, because current G-10 is faster from around 6500 m and up.

The REAL full throttle heights for DB605 variants, from http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm:

DB 605A-1 (in game variants: G-2, G-6, G-6 late): 5700 m
DB 605AM (G-14): 4000 m
DB 605AS (REAL G-6/AS): 8000 m
DB 605ASM (REAL G-14/AS): 6400 m
DB 605DB (G-10, K-4): 6000 m
DB 605DC (K-4 C3): 4900 m

I didn't test the top speeds in game, but from Il-2 Compare you can clearly see the difference. "G-6/AS" has top speed in 6000 m, while the FTH of DB 605ASM was 6400 m. Usually these should be about the same, or top speed alt should be a bit higher, but definitely not lower. For comparison, for G-10 in game top speed occurs in 7500 m, which sounds it could be right for -ASM engine.

It could be that current G-6/AS and G-10 performance have been mixed up, and only renaming them to G-10 and G-14/AS (respectively) would make it much closer. In addition, a real Summer 1944 no-MW50 G-6/AS high-alt figher would be really nice.

Other variants seem to be rather realistic performance-wise.

I brought this subject up several years ago in Ubi forums, but Oleg was propably already busy with BoB, so I had no reply. Now that DT is bringing more loadout options for 109s, I'm hoping that their relative performance could be also checked.

Here is my original post from Ubi forums, made in April 2006: :rolleyes: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...924#3501074924

2) After that rather long request, here's a simpler one: proper Tempest Mk.V variants with 11lbs & 13lbs boost engines.

Good source:http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...tempest-V.html

This was also discussed many times in Ubi forums, but with no result. The current Tempest is a 9lbs boost early variant, while the most common one was the 11lbs, 13lbs appearing in late 1944 when 150-octane fuel was available. If some (not DT I hope) of you think "this is not needed" and "no chance, learn to fly", then, well... it has worked before, we have Spit 25lbs, Mustang Mk.III, P-47D Late and P-38L Late. Most of these are just such late war increased performance variants, that are not only realistic, but also for some reason controversial among some players. Surely, the 13lbs Tempest would propably be second to only Mustang MkIII in sea level speed, but it did it in real life too.

The original Tempest request thread from 2007: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...2021058625/p/1

I know really well that BOTH of these corrections/additions have been already implemented in certain mods, but as their performances are being altered back and forth and lots of other new variants added all the time (including some which never and have no place in game), I really hope something could be done officially, by the marvellous team called Daidalos. I see no point having 38 different 109 versions (with mods), of which I know some never flew, some are just cosmetic or not even that, and some are just plain wrong.

I hope something could be made, and hopefully this atleast sparks some discussion. If I'm "beating a dead horse", please just say it and I will stop immediately.

Best wishes, and keep up the good work.:cool:

Koivis

I have done a search but cannot find the video showing the AI triggers that TD are thinking of implementing in the future, so forgive me if this is an obvious question.

Does the AI trigger only affect Ai planes? or is it planned for it to be used for ships, artillery, flak, armour etc.

If i remember from the video, the bi-plane flying over a trigger point enabled an artillery unit to fire at a target, so i am assuming the artillery became 'live' when the trigger point was reached, is this correct?

regards

slipper

about the B-25J AI:
could it be changed to a "normal" bomber AI, like the B-25C has.
or "just" ad a new plane ,perhaps called Mitchell Mk.III, just a copy (if time, removed .50cal browning side "bumps" would be nice :) ) of the B-25J but with the mentioned bomber AI.

the actual AI behavior of an attack plane is often anoying.

The movies of the Triggers are here:

http://simhq.com/_air13/air_420b.html

Metric instruments for Finnish Brewsters
 

Is there any chance TD could change the Speedometer and the Altimeter in the Finnish Brewster to metric units as it most probably was the case with the Finnish B-239? Sources state that planes used by the Finnish AF were modified with these instruments; it's quite unnerving to fly them with knots and feet indications on servers without speedbar.

Gloster Meteor
 

This question may have been asked before, but why do we not have the Meteor in the game. After all it was the only allied jet to actually enter squadron service in WWII and it was produced in two marks,(F.Mk I with 616sq. in July '44, F.MkIII with the same squadron in January '45). I know we have the P80 but this 'plane took no part in WWII so it's only suitable for the 1946 part of the game and the Meteor was still flying so it would be useful for post 1945 ops.
So is there any chance that in the future Team Daidalos might consider filling this gaping hole in IL2's planeset?

something about the FMB:

would it be possible to ad a timer in a corner of the screen when starting a mission out of the FMB to test it ?
the given waypointimes are mostly totaly incorrect ......................

it would help to "time" the missions.

Indeed,Meteor was the only allied jet to enter WWII,it could be useful for custom and 1946 missions.Maybe the Vampire too.

And BTW,TD,is it possible to add bombs for the YP-80 in a future release?

ADDITIONAL ROCKET FOR INSTANT TAKE OF IN SHORT RANGE.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/sha...-1234S-009.jpg

YP-80 IN ITALY:

http://www.1stfighter.org/photos/P80inItaly.html

I wish to have FUEL management on il2, with it's correspondent change in FM. I know, is difficult and very very unlikely to be implemented, that's why is a wish.

Dear Team Daedalus remember the post I sent you on BUNKER ITALIAN I ask if and 'can do (should be as simple as 3D construction since it is a hemisphere).
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=8815&page=63


other thing I ask and if it 'possible to the catapult launch system on at least one ship.


Daidalos team lacks a second important weapon you know please tell me what'?.................... .
now I can tell you.
A widely used weapon in World War II yes.
THE MINE.
there are landmines.
anti-tank.
anti-ship.

http://www.gonews.it/foto/mine_antiuomo_figline.jpg
ANTI MAN-ANTI TANK
http://www.fernandotermentini.it/tc-6.jpg
ANTI TANK
http://www.icsm.it/articoli/ri/minenavali/mina7.jpg
ANTI SHIP
THIS IS THE LINK:http://www.icsm.it/articoli/ri/minenavali.html

I suppose you could have the magnetic mines that were used in arial mine laying? They would work quite well as the ships generally move in straight lines, though it wouldn't be very authentic.

Impossible to do now, there is not enough info about flight performance. I was trying to make an extrapolation years ago but ended without a reliable result (there are no climb data, speed performance varies a lot between individual tests and a couple of differences between Sabre IIA/IIB/IIC is unclear). I'm afraid it will stay this way until someone digs at least one climbchart from british archives (any volunteer?).

Would it be possible to add .jpg images to mission briefings?
Sometimes it's hard to understand objectives fully. It would be nice if we can embed small images, for example to show player position in the formation, screenshots of target area and landmarks for navigation, and so on.

Just wondering in a future patch if it may be possible to tweak the take-off positions of the aircraft so that we could at-least have aircraft taking off in pairs side-by-side?

I managed to do this the other evening by setting up two aircraft on the runway in FMB. I was Aircraft position two. I then started the engine, pulled alongside the first aircraft and matched it as it took off. Was long winded, and sometimes it appeared as though the breaks were permanently on as I couldn't exceed 50 k/mh, but eventually I made a synchronised take-off with another aircraft.

Is there any possibility of this in IL2 so that two aircraft can be placed side-by-side so they take-off under manual or AI flight?

Secondly what chance of the F-86 Sabre and Mig-15 making a future update for Korean War possibility?

Cheers, MP

Been playing with some of the DGEN campaigns recently and ive been thinking about something.

Once you complete a DGEN mission you are shown a de-briefing screen showing your flight path, and actions that took place during the mission. Would it be a possibility to add a de-briefing screen on completion of a single player mission, or even other missions like online dogfights and co-ops?

I remember I tried to do that in FMB.It could work the same way as placing planes on carrier and gliders to tow planes.
If so,the Hurricane MK I could also take off from merchant ships.
http://www.bookpalace.com/acatalog/HardyHurri.jpg

http://pic90.picturetrail.com/VOL237.../379566969.jpg

I do believe that the Zuti Moving Dogfight function that will be incorporated in 4.10 has the carrier catapult mod in it.

I know it does in the modded versions of the sim.

Airdropped mines were also used against land targets in the UK during WWII.
I think there were two types, Luftmine A (LM-A, 500 Kg.) and Luftmine B (LM-B, 1000 Kg.)

Sorry the for the ignorance,but what is this Zuti Moving Dogfight Server?

And again I ask:is DT adding only airplanes and a few maps and working on the IL2 engine or they are going to work on ground objects,vehicles,ships,arty?

This is my first post here. I very much admire your work on the patches, especially the features that you see in no other simulator, like guided weapons. Therefore I am wondering whether you would consider making a Bachem Natter in a future patch. It would be a unique experience to be launched vertically, perhaps be guided to the target bombers by autopilot, fire the R4M rockets at a bomber and then bail out.
I don’t know whether a realistic Natter is possible, but I hope it is an option. Classic Publications released a comprehensive book about this ‘manned missile’, which was tested successfully and was on the verge of becoming operational when the war ended. As far as I know the only reason why it was never deployed was that the location where the first production examples were stationed was not attacked by U.S. bombers at the time.

Bachem Natter tests were "successful" only with unmanned prototypes, or manned gliders (no rocket start). On the first piloted test flight, the plane went out of control and crashed with test pilot killed. Natter "operational" story ended here, but still interesting to see how it would fly in IL2.

In short it's a mod that allows AI to operate in dogfight servers, just like they do in a coop. So, you can have moving ships, vehicles, AI aircraft in the sky, etc... just like in a coop, but you can land and refly, and join at any time like a DF server.

In the modded side of the sim it also includes a catapult mod for aircraft carriers, so you can get very heavily laden aircraft off of carries much easier. Also since the carrier can now be made to move on it own, you have the added wind over the deck to assist in take off and landing.

For me the best part is attacking moving truck columns, tanks, and trains.

This will change the way we see "dogfight" servers. Coupled with the ability to have multi human crewed aircraft in DF, it will totally revolutionize IL2.

Hello!
Help to adjust please conf.ini
I would want that I had a greatest possible drawing.
My videocard: Nvidia GeForce 9800GT 1024Mb.
What I should write down?

Still a good plane for 1946.

There are many more obvious choices, though, even if you're just talking about 1946 aircraft. Avro Lincoln, Tempest II, de Havilland Hornet, de Havilland Vampire, Gloster Meteor, P-47N or even P-72, Mitsubishi A7M, Nakajima J9Y, Kyuushuu J7W, Fiat G.56, and many more.

Oxygen onboard
 

Hi all.
Thanks to Daidalos for the work made on our favourite simulator.
I read many messages on this forum about development, users have ideas, sometimes good sometimes completely useless, but at least they write.;)
Among all these ideas, I look for a long time somebody who wants to develop the management of the oxygen onboard.
We try to improve many things, but often we miss the main part so that we can call il-2 sturmovik a flight simulator!!!
The research of realism in piloting is often difficult, effects of acceleration and applied forces cannot be easily passed on to the virtual pilot.
I’m thinking about the management of the oxygen, it should not be complicated to set up for developers as Daidalos.:cool:
Until now, pilots using any aircraft can cross low levels at high altitude without worrying about consequences. We can find certain planes had been deprived of pressurization system and additional oxygen supplies at more than 10,000 feet during an infinite time without that the virtual pilot is penalized, example with the P-400.
The hypoxie is very dangerous, very dreaded phenomenon and many pilots paid it of their life during the Second World War.
The idea is to limit the high altitude (over 10000 feet) to the aircraft which has no mechanism of breath assistance or which the reserves are empty.
How?
Quite as when a pilot is hurt you can see a screen effect, after some minutes over the acceptable limit of altitude, the player sees his capacities decreasing then losing consciousness. If urgent measures are not taken, he eventually dies in flight.
An additional management in the interface of planes armament would be needed and it could also be a part of provisioning in the moving dogfight, for example.
Maybe this subject was already evoked otherwise here is an additional idea; we can discuss it if some people are interested.

Thanks to all!

Please excuse me for my English; I write more often in French, it is easier for me!:grin:

Can I get some team members to email me? I've lost my OS hard drive (not work, but all contacts/links/emails and such). In a nasty twist, I went to my old PC to try and recover some, but it had died sometime this week without my noticing. My backup drives are ok.

No more Seagates for me.

GERMANY, ITALY and JAPAN to 1943-1944 were planning a surprise attack on American TERRITORY, namely the goal was to hit the town 'in New York.YES TARGET IS NEW YORK 60 year first BILL LADEN 11 sectember 2001 attak.

Dear Daedalus team we have maps in the major-2 but lacks the maps where there were actually battles and air raids like the raid on Taranto, which destroyed 70% of the entire Italian Navy attack similar to Pearl HARBOUR.Infatti L 'attack on Taranto was claimed by the Japanese copying the tactics and the element of surprise and attack.

OK, now I wonder ......
TO IL2 not exist 'trace of American territory even a piece of coast. World War II the U.S. territory has suffered attacks and pointless to hide or disguise or tell a falsehood'.......... IS American territory has suffered attacks by both attempts .......GERMANY:
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_390

http://www.project1947.com/gfb/antiplofer.htm

JAPAN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks...g_World_War_II

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured...cent-theaters/ (WATCH THESE PICTURES ARE REALLY BEAUTIFUL REALISTIC WATCH THE EFFECT OF AN EXPLOSION WATCH THE SMOKE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO6-96Pyi0o

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/j...alloon/bo9.jpghttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367585/posts

ITALY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSjv86aUluk

Were still evaluated and planned actions in Freetown (the main hub for the Allies) and up into the Hudson River in New York but were never realized. He was also planning action to force the port of Gibraltar in broad daylight. In particular, the action against the New York Harbor was evaluated both as single-handed action of the X ª MAS Flotilla, the prospect of mission support for action by the Royal Air Force named Operation S. In this case, a submarine of the Tenth would have made a supply in the Atlantic Ocean as a technical stop for CANNOT Z.511 flying boat. The idea was considered too risky, and the Royal Air Force subsequently opted for a non-stop mission with a four Savoia-Marchetti SM95, but action was never completed. The action in the solitary X ª MAS Flotilla provided, after crossing the Atlantic began in Bordeaux, the way to the port of New York by the submarine Leonardo da Vinci, be amended by removing the cannon on board, would carry a mini submarine. This mini submarine, called the CA, then he went up the Hudson River from Hamilton to the Port of New York to release the Group's operational range that would attack a skyscraper in the city. The attack would be of great importance from a psychological standpoint, it was in fact to show the Americans that were not safe even at home, but this mission was in draft because of the armistice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...o/16b3a8cd.jpg



REQUEST MAP TO NEW YORK AND COAST

Dear Team Daidalos,

two questions, if you don't mind - are there any plans to make the Letov S.328 (new AI in 4.09) flyable in future patches, with a new cockpit?

Second, have you considered a central Balkans map? That's one importaint theather than saw the use of many aircraft in various Allied and Axis nations, yet we don't have any maps to recreate one of the many campaigns in the region.

you should do historical research on the areas of air war.

1 - to find the places where we were the aerial battles all over the world during World War II.

2 - check the places where there were raids and naval engagements large entities'

3 - find out if there are alternative missions under military secrecy during the Second World War.

there 'need to make maps of a large enough area to find places where there have been clashes air war or air raids and insert in IL-2 map of the exact place to place without being huge sites.

It's a matter of taste and, as far as I am concerned, also what is already available in other simulators. There are a very good P-74N and P-72 in FS9 that also work in FSX.

Yeah, but in FSX etc. you can't shoot anything down.
The Natter might have some novelty value for a couple of flights but I think most people would get bored with it pretty quickly. Launch vertically, one pass, fire rockets, bail out, thats about it for the mission.

It's very much easier to create aircraft for FSX, just the visual model and some animations, no damage model, no weaponry that actually does anything, and there is no particular quality standard for flight models. Why don't you ask an FSX modder if they'll create a Natter mod?

TANKS DAIDALUS TEAM i loock your photo to SIMHQ link your work very good and all developers of all world please support the daidalos team for any helping and any problem DAIDALUS you is a FUTURE for IL-2 i play to this game from 2004 and IL-2 have a long longevity the good WORK during most most time.

Classe littorio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyPAq...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inH-l...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SqBd...eature=related

I suspect we will be seeing a lot more the the Italian Navy in the second installment of Storm Of War.

;)

no EIAurens no no ITALIAN NAVY not are important in SOW no but ITALIAN navy are important in mediterrain war and battle of atlantic is difficoult renconstruction italian battle ship cruiser in 3D very very difficoult and complicate in future whit a SECOND PATCH OF SOW in mediterrain area?

Xilon said some things I wondered also.IL2 1946 haves no USA based maps (except Pearl Harbor,but I mean mainland).An invasion of US would be interesting for 1946,but probably not NY,because I suppose the city was already huge in the 40s.LA would fit for a japanese invasion.

The Regia Marina could have better participation in IL2.Some ships,bombers and with the MTO and Italy Online maps,it would be enough.
I don´t believe people will not going to get SoW just because of that.IL2 and SoW also have Spitfires and Bf-109,still that,I suppose nobody will regret getting SoW.

SoW is a series of sims, the battle of britain is just the first instalment in this series. I think that what El Aurens means is that the MTO is a possibility for the second installment and you will have to wait for that to get your Italian naval ships and a good MTO map. Then I'll climb into my stringbag and attack 'em at Tarranto

NEW YORK.

ITALIAN project is attak NEW YORK whit a U-BOAT LEONARDO DA VINCI
and mini U-BOAT model C-A.
sorry i have this link NEW YORK foto ww2 in italian lenguagge.

http://www.francescoargento.it/il_porto.html

impossible new york city in il-2 sturmovivk very impossible request aborted but loock this link is interresant.

about the weather...
 

Will it be possible to set cloud ceilings as part of the mission builder one day? I think it would be great to, for example, build a mission where there is a low cloud ceiling to contend with. I'm not sure where Daidolos is on developing the weather, but I thought I'd ask this.
Flyby out

Actually Flyby, I expect that is a step too far for the current (old) IL2 engine which struggles with some of the latest (unofficial) additions.

I would love to have multiple layers of solid cloud so that it would be possible to fly into an overcast, come out above it and have a complete solid cloud layer underneath.

The only way I can see this happening (at the moment) would be to replace the land terrain with a cloud terrain, then have air-starts only, and then you could have a a 'Blind' layer of cloud to fly up and through, which would give the appearance of two layers of cloud that you are flying between. The problem then being, if you get shot down you would explode on the ground 'cloud' layer :(

Multiple cloud layers are something I hope to see in SoW though for sure!

Cheers, MP

hi MP,
If ya don't ask, they can't tell ya "no". ;) I've actually posted a similar question in "ask Oleg". I'd sure like to see that happen (probably more so than all the work on the ground vehicles).
Flyby out

It's a fair point. I can appreciate that the detail being added is incredible, but I'd much rather have incredible environments to fly in first, then have uber detailed stuff to blow up and strafe on the ground. So cloud layers, sky boxes and weather effects (snow,rain, hail on the cockpit) are what I'm looking for initially.

Cross-fingers TD can do the cloud-layers....but It's wishful and hopeful thinking I think :(

Cheers, MP

I would like to see, in future patches, is much more of the AI planes becoming flyable.
eg. Storch, B-17, B-29, C-47, some of the earlier planes, etc. (Or in my case, I'd like to see ALL of the AI planes flyable.;))

Hehe... who wouldn't? :-P

I wouldn´t.

I want to fly all planes and more

could the head position of the Mc202&205 in the cockpit be overworked ?

more like the Mc.200 series. that the headarmour is not right behind your eyes.........

Agreed. The Me262A could use this for the non-gunsight view as well.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Going to ask something simple now.

Can the Ohka pilot skin be changed?It´s using the same one of the american pilots.I guess the kamikazes had an specific suit.

There's an important loadout for the Fw 190 F-8 that's yet to be modeled: the Panzerblitz anti-tank rocket. From what I've read 190s were equipped with this weapon from early 1945:

http://www.luftwaffen-projekte.de/lw...lkrak/pd88.jpg

While you are at it, could you build correct WfrGr21? The ones we have in game are way too small..

correct size
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b.../newwrgr21.jpg

new vs old
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b.../th_WrGr21.jpg

BTW,FW-190s could carry Panzerfausts,is it that true?

? No

A great idea. While you're at it, could you also remove the hungarian fin flash on the default German skin for the Fw190F-8? Having a German Fw190F-8 campaign where all the German F-8s have a Hungarian tricolor on the fin really kills immersion.

Cheers and thanks for all the wonderful patches,

Fafnir_6

I hope the Spitfire Mk VB/VC will finally be able to carry bombs (2 x 250 / 1 x 500).

Mark V's:

http://www.killifish.f9.co.uk/Malta%...20Spitfire.jpg

http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/h...omb-711028.jpg

I thought 1x500 was for b and c, but 2x250 only for c. B-Wing would not support the wing bomb racks. Am I right? Also, were the 2x250 used in service or was it just a short term trial?

Warnings from crewmembers
 

Maybe this is totally impossible but I will ask anyway:-

Is it possible for AI crewmembers on a bomber to warn you when they see a con? I would have thought in real life the pilot would have some warning before he hears the guns open up. While it would be great to have 'Tail gunner here. Contacts at 7 0'clock!', just a simple anonymous 'Contacts skipper!' would be useful. Just one warning when a contact first gets close enough for the gunners to start swivelling.

I know it sounds impossible but I worked in IT for a long time and frequently people came to me with a request that started 'It probably isn't possible but..' and it was something that was actually quite trivial. Conversely I also used to get requests that started with 'I just need a simple fix' that turned out to be near impossible :-D Anyone would think having airstarts above 2000m would be trivial but I believe you when you say it isn't :-)

Here is a request that sounds easy but you will probably tell me is hard to do :-)

Can we have marker flares? I mostly fly bombers or Jabo in goal driven servers such as Warclouds and with the graphical limitatations of IL2 sometimes it can be hard to see where the target is early enough to get lined up and dial in the bombsight settings. It would be great if a Mosquito could dive in at low level before the bombers and drop marker flares or smoke bombs to mark the target. If we had a loadout that produced the same sort of tower of smoke a crashed plane does but in red or blue it would help the bombers greatly.

Just some random thoughts for 4.11 :-)

Well, now you're talking about weapons for the Fw-190, I would like to see the Bv 246 "Hagelkorn" to be modelled too. This was a gliding bomb.
A few pictureres and info:

http://users.atw.hu/priskos/Alakulat...elkorn_350.jpg
Here it's mounted under a He-111.

http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=h...26tbs%3Disch:1

http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=h...26tbs%3Disch:1

Yes, you are right. The 2 x 250 Vc combination was used intensively in Malta.

Quote:

European operations had taken precedence over those in the Middle and Far East theatres. The first overseas deployment of Spitfires as fighters took place on 7 March, when 15 tropicalised Mk Vs carrying 90-gallon slipper fuel tanks took off from the flight deck of HMS Eagle bound for Malta, 600 miles (960 km) away. Subsequent deliveries in the same manner turned the air battle for Malta in the RAF's favour. One aircraft suffered fuel-feed failure and became the first Spitfire without a hook to land on an aircraft carrier. By August, the Spitfire had entirely taken over the air defence of Malta. To relieve the aircraft carriers from their ferry role, Spitfire Mk VCs were fitted with an extra internal 29-gallon tank and an external jettisonable 170-gallon tank. Armament was reduced to two machine guns. In this form, the aircraft were able to fly the 1,100 miles (1,750 km) from Gibraltar to Malta, where the extra tanks were removed and the armament refitted. These flights commenced in October. Malta-based Spitfires of 126 Squadron were the first to carry two 250lb bombs, which they did during operations over Sicily.

Talking of Malta,does a Malta map are in plans for SoW?
If not,it would be perfect for a italian campaign.

SoW the series, or SoW:BoB the first instalment? As I understand it a Mediterranean sequel/upgrade/version is a likely follow-up, but BoB is what it says - the Battle of Britain - and any maps will reflect this. Exactly how big they will be hasn't been revealed, but I'd think stretching to Malta would be unlikely.

Apparently the likely SoW Mediterranean follow-up is one reason TD haven't been permitted to produce a proper Med map. :(

Thanks for the details, Hawker17!

The concept was a failure as the accuracy was lousy (to put it mildly) and the Hagelkorn never made it past the testing stage. I don't think it's worth modeling.

chronological list of all military operations.in the WORLD WAR 2.
chronological list of all military operations.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_military_operations[/urlhttp://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_di_operazioni_militari_durante_la_seconda_gu erra_mondiale

chronological list of all military operations.in the WORLD WAR 2.
chronological list of all military operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ary_operations

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_d...uerra_mondiale

THIS IS TOTAL LIST OF WW2 SHIP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_ships

you chose the important ship.

I would like to have a (decent) flyable C-47/R4D/DC-3/Dakota.
With decent I mean not the horrible contraptions those modders made of it (sorry to talk about mods here), i'am just a Gooney-bird fan :-)

Would you mind not being so inconsiderate and posting such a huge image directly in this forum?

yes LUKEFF sorry for big immage but is very beautifull.

No,I say Malta in the SoW plans of Mediterranean.

TD should add everything of Mediterranean and Italy that Oleg is not going to use for SoW.You ask why I just don´t get SoW.Because IL2 is already almost-complete,and that gives more opportunities for an italian campaign.

TD have to get approval from 1C:Maddox over this sort of thing. It isn't up to them. We should be grateful that they are being allowed to do what they are, not asking for more where there may be a possible conflict of interest.

Any chance of getting the option to load the US Pacific Theater belting of 1-1-1 (tracer/AP/Incendiary) added as an option for the 0.50 cal.

Ta 152 wing fuel tanks
 

jsut wondering if any consideration has been given to correcting the Ta 152H1, giving it a centreline drop tank and unprotected wing fuel bags :D

from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_152

Fuel capacity was 595 L (157 US gal) for the H-0 model, with the option of a 300 L (80 US gal) drop tank on the centerline. The H-1 model carried an additional 454 L (120 US gal) of fuel in six unprotected bag tanks in the wings; typically, one of these tanks was used to hold the MW 50 methanol-water mixture and another for GM-1 nitrous oxide. The H-1 could also carry a 300 L (80 US gal) underbelly drop tank.

Simulation Wrapper / Unattended run
 

Hi,
I fear my question is a bit off topic but this thread is the best I could find for it.
I am thinking on a way to make simulation runs on a given coop-mission to determine whether the mission is balanced or not (resp. how unbalanced it is).
My first approach is a kind of wrapper script that starts IL-2 with maximum time acceleration, waits till IL-2 ends, gathers the mission result out of eventlog.lst and starts IL-2 over again for the next run. After that, the statistical evaluation of the gathered data is done (e.g. BLUE won the mission xx.xx% of the time, with an average of y% for RED and z% for RED planes lost; something like that...).
Now my question: Are there (undocumented?!) command line options or some kind of config file to make IL-2 start a given mission with all-AI-pilots, maximum time acceleration (perhaps even more than 8x) and end after a given (in-game) time?
Perhaps there are some other ways to realize what I am thinking of so feel free to make other suggestions.
Thanks for your time and thoughts,
Hellfire

Maybe TD could include Re 2001 and 2005 too...

Having the rear gunner seat available in the Beaufighter?

I know you don't want to added 6DOF for trackir but would it be possible to add Z (zoom) profile to the game, It would make easier to zoom in on the instrument, help with formation flying and zooming in on aircraft to identify easier with out having to us a switch .

i read this idea in the RiseOfFlight forum.

how's about a map APP for iPhone/Touch/Pad.
with all official il2 maps and some features like marking points (normal waypoint, target and so on) that can be set on the map.
:D

I am shure it's been mentioned before, but then it can't be mentioned often enough:

LET THE REAR GUNNER CALL OUT CONTACTS !!!

Something like "Enemy near!"
Later the direction could be added :-D

+ 1000000000000000000

Windscreens were invented to make us see MORE (on the sides), NOT LESS (on the top). Please please update IL2 in tune with the modern times where wide-screens are progressively more and more available...

It is an issue that affects a very wide audience, some of whom are not even aware of the issue (ie that they are loosing top part of an image if they do not play with black borders)... Once people are shown the difference, it is pretty unanimous that this issue is pretty huge...

I feel like starting a petition or something:)