And for those who may not be familiar with it's appearance, here's a photo.
Such a beautiful aircraft! :)

I would like to see a flyable B-17/B-24/ or a B-29. Also, I wanted the Throttle system fixed on the Fw-190A-4 because I notice it only reaches up to 88% when it should have been reaching a 100%

B-24D is in build and the throttle on the 190 is correct as the boost is limited. ;)

-further development of nightfighter tehnique and navigational aids
-flyable Ki-45 (or D4Y) :)

All of the above...

Per this shot above .. How hard would it be to give us the ability to actually name a profile for joystick 1-4? Even if it were to be done in the config file. That way instead of 1-4, I could name a profile for a specific plane.

I have news for you .. it wasn't just 109 pilots .. I read in several accounts from some well known aces .. that they used trim as well. Your life was on the line .. you used anything available to make sure that you got back home and that you killed the guy trying to kill you before he could do the same whether it was trim or flaps or whatever as long as it was doable. Cycling the throttles to turn better on the P-38s was not in the books .. but guys did t all the time in dogfights to help them turn better..

WOW!!! I had no idea!! What yeah .. PITA is right..

Kay thanks DD (:

Cross post for this thread, plus some additions.

My "most wanted".

1. Please please PLEASE give us FOV ranges and options. 20 - 170 in 5 degree increments, and increase/decrease FOV in 5 degree increments is much needed. My three flying FOVs are 60, 120, and 155 as an example. It's totally dependent on the user's setup and resolution. Mods and tools somewhat cover this, but each have drawbacks and there's no substitute for real in-game support.

2. Please make the game more friendly for ATI/ATI Crossfire users. I play different games frequently, and having to manually go into the control panel and turn Crossfire off just for IL-2 is a bit tedious. Also there shouldn't be any reason with modern cards ATI users can't run the same bells and whistles as Nvidia users. Not asking for optimization, just the ability to run same maxed settings.

3. Please incorporate the functionality of the outstanding "Mission Pro Combo" into the game. http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=18353.0 This mini-mod is wonderful, but the menus are always messed up, too small to read, smashed together, etc.

4. Please increase the number of available aircraft slots for modders by a large amount. It would appear some of the larger mods are approaching or at the limit and are having to "prune" some aircraft here and there in order to be able to fit them all.

5. A generic "level autopilot" for every aircraft. Just want something that will hold a plane's altitude and direction (accounting for crosswind as well). Don't want it to touch engine settings, radiator, pitch, try to follow waypoints, or anything. Just straight and level on the heading. If speed drops and it can't maintain altitude, then keep the plane level and same heading, but let it sink at whatever rate it needs to sink at.

My "nice to have but not as badly needed" list.

6. Catapults and specific keys for catapults (NOT chocks in/out). The mini-mod with HSFX that uses chocks is decent, but something officially and built into the game by TD would be wonderful.

7. The ability to 'back up' an aircraft. This one may be a bit controversial, but it's something I've consistently wanted, especially after landing on an aircraft carrier. Maybe think of it logically as the deck crew or ground crew pushing or tractoring the plane around. Maybe make it so that the engine needs to be off and this mode is "toggled", when on the plane moves very slowly and is controlled by rudder and throttle? A logically extension of this idea would be the simple ability to fine tune an aircraft's position when on the ground and power off. I am NOT in favor of a simple "reset position" key combo that puts the plane back into a take off position on the carrier, as again I'd like this to be useable on land as well.

8. Angled-deck carrier with catapults (see pt 5). The models you guys make are second to none. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Antietam_%28CV-36%29 I realize the core game is WW2 specific with the few 1946 "additions", but post WW2/Korean War mods are great and just scream a need for these.

9. Option for "rearm", "repair", "refuel" through comms menu to ground ctrl when landed. I think UP3 has this, and thought it was a great idea. This could potentially be mission specific, only available at one's home airport, at friendly airports, etc. The level of "repair" could be variable, such as quick repairs only, full repairs, etc etc. "Re-arm" could be guns only, bombs only, both, etc. "Refuel" could be the same, 100%, 75%, 50%, external stores, all, etc.

10. A "lean out window" key to angle view to partially see around the nose for tail draggers, like pilot does in this vid here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQxb-V-rZqA
Or make it a function of the 6DOF use, at the extreme left or right side of the cockpit allow for "leaning" out the window when it's on the ground and under certain speeds.

Doing things like this to a 10 year-old game are exceedingly difficult. DT would have to write the entire code from scratch. Il-2 just simply wasn't made to run on modern hardware (ironic, isn't it?).

This is probably another inherent fault of an old game engine that was not anticipated to model more than 20 or so aircraft. DT had to do some serious rework of the code just to get more toggles in the realism settings (the old limit was only 32, I think).

It's pretty easy to taxi if your head is to one side or the other and you zig-zag, which is what most pilots do anyway. It could be useful, but not every plane has opening canopies anyway. This feature would be most appreciated in the Yak, which for now has no way of allowing the pilot to see the fuel gauges.

Dripping with irony! The thing is, I don't believe a major re-write or even really any "optimization" is needed at all. I've got dozens and dozens of older games from '99 on up that work with crossfire on, but don't really benefit from it at all because they're so dang old.

Point is, if it's not a lot of effort (relatively speaking), it's something I'm lobbying for.

Also true and understand, but as above if it's feasible, it'd be greatly and widely appreciated, since all the major mods would benefit from it.

Aye, the zigzag taxi works and it's historically accurate, but it's still a bit of a pain. Short of modeling a ground crew sitting on the wing (sarcasm), having a "lean out" view function with be the next best thing.

Having dudes on the wing would be really cool. That would require a bit of AI programming though, as it has to "see" obstacles and intersections and give the right instructions to the player.

You only get perfect in Open GL, don't know if that's been said. No perfect for DirectX.

I will agree to this PROVIDED that TD accurately and in high detail models the sheer, unadulterated terror on their faces when I take off with them still sitting on the wings.

Of course! How could I have forgotten?! :-P

P-47 tweaks

1. auto prop pitch settings. I have tried to set this and it does not work.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sq5...20P-47&f=false

2. API and APIT ammo

3. New cockpits and textures

4. Overheating... the Jug seems to overheat faster than other radial engine planes and takes longer to cool down.

5. Acceleration.....all planes i tested seem to accelerate at the same rate. granted these were rudely done but still might need to be tested.

6. Energy retention for zoom climbs?

did I say API and APIT ammo? hahahaha

I know this was already mentioned.. probably by me , but just to keep it in the mix, can you fix the FFB bug that knocks out the FFB if you WIN Key or ALT+TAB out and come back in? This also happens if .. say you are flying and the sim reverts to the desktop and you have to bring it back.

If you turn off FFB in the sim no problem .. you have stick forces and even if you WK or AT out and come back in you still have them.... but if you have FFB turned on and you do tat you loose everything .. stick forces, gunshake, stalls & buffets .. all of it.

FMB option to set the type of formation your flights will form in. As of right now you can't do that. You can change "Your" flight but not any others. Being able to set a finger four right or left for a flight of 16 would be nice. It would look natural, instead of the whole flight being in right echelon or left echelon. Diamond formations for Bombers would be nice to set up a Box. It seems like it should be an easy fix since the player can set his formation once airborne.

You'll have to wait on the Force Feed back crap Barry, this is much more important.................

Some good stuff there! I'd love to see API and APIT (some sort of late war loadout option?) as part of the belting.

I did want to say that Acceleration I tested online with a few guys using a couple of different methods and it was definitely different between types of aircraft. It wasn't a huge difference between them but I sometimes think that my reading in a book about acceleration difference and actual differences were actually quite small.

Bomb salvo option and the info on which angle will the automated bombsight release start releasing the bombs once on the bomb run. Simple. :)

I'd like to see three .50 cal "types" modelled based on when the aircraft type entered service. E.g. F4F3 & F4F4 have "early" guns, P-47D-10 has "mid" guns, P-51D-20 has "late" guns and so on. (To try and keep it simple.)

Pre & early war - belting: (AP ~ I ~ AP ~ I ~ T x repeat), RoF 750rpm (480rpm synch)

Mid war - belting: (API ~ AP ~ I ~ API ~ T / alternating with APIT x repeat), RoF 780rpm (540rpm synch)

Late war - belting: (API ~ API ~ API ~ HI ~ APIT x repeat), RoF 840rpm (540rpm synch).

Where:
'AP' is the M2 Armour Piercing round
'I' is the M1 Incendiary round
'T' is the M17 Tracer round
'API' is the M8 Armour Piercing Incendiary round
'APIT' is the M20 Armour Piercing Incendiary Tracer round
'HI' is the M23 'enhanced' Incendiary round

For details of the composition of these rounds, see this post!

Don't get me started on rifle calibre weapons! They need serious fixing up too! ;)

Weapons effective
 

I wish weapons more efficient. I feel the callibers are so weak.
Other day, I spent all 7mm ammo to destroy a truck ( fw190 a4).

Cordially,

10000+ I agree more than a 100 percent. It seems like that I have to hit the enemy plane with all my ammo. I remembered one time I had used all my ammo on one buffalo MK and it didn't go down (Ki-43 is the plane I used).

Not every pilot scored ten kills in one sortie ;) Even the top aces managed only one kill in ten sorties on average. The vast majority of pilots never got kills.

Aerial gunnery shouldn't be too easy. With small caliber weapons you're only poking holes in the plane. You must be able to hit specific points within the plane, such as the pilot, fuel, coolant, and oil lines, etc. Don't expect to shred wings off with rifle-caliber rounds!

+1 for that one ->


Please include drop-tanks for the Fw-190A8 & A9

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/r...rofilett_1.jpg

and also include drop-tanks for the Ki-43 II & III

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...r/oscar026.jpg

I'd like to see some tracks of you shooting that much in an enemy aircraft and it not going down.

That said... there are many stories from WWII that support the notion that light calibre machine guns were insufficient to bring down the better constructed and better armored aircraft. Here's one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Johnson

Exceptional but not entirely unheard of.

The Buffalo Mark I which I presume you were flying against was one of the better protected Buffalo models (also one of the heaviest) and in general it was fairly well constructed. I'm not surprised that it would take a significant number of bullets to bring down. Particularly if the shooter were engaging from dead 6 and firing into the fuselage instead of aiming for the engine or wing roots where the more vulnerable components are.

What does shortchange the lighter calibres are some of the smaller finely detailed damage model components. The kind of thing they did right away with Cliffs of Dover but just weren't part of the original IL-2.

Could DT change bomber formations so that when a number of flights are "set" together, they are stepped slightly (by about 15-20 metres)?

This would:

1.) Make the formations look much more realistic, and

2.) Reduce the number of silly-looking collisions that occur when the bombers are forming up.

Could the Ju 87 and Ju 52 be able to tow gliders?
Could there be 900 l drop-tanks available for Do 217 and Bf 110?

Flyable me 410/210! And as much western single player campaigns as possible!

I'm sorry if this has been posted already; can't find it through searching the forums:

Some way of setting the speed bar permanently so I don't always have to hit the correct key three times to get rid of it completely? Or at least set it to the type of measurement I prefer, i.e. MPH instead of KPH?

Regardless, Thank You to TD for your current, past, and upcoming work on IL2!

Had the same thought earlier today, and I'll take it one step further. I set the speed bar to whatever measurement system my current plane uses.

If the game could remember speedbar settings per aircraft, like it remembers which loadout you selected in the quick mission builder, that would be most excellent.

+1!

Like that idea a lot so simple and straightforward

Some small objects for the FMB
- Lights in blue and yellow
- Pylons such as those at the Reno Air Races

What's wrong with the existing ones?

The reno pylons stand only about 50 ft tall (Home pylon little taller).

IIrc the game's race pylons are somewhat about 160 ft tall.
They work, no doubt, but as I work on a reno race course for several years now (little tweaks here and there, continueing to put in more detail, and the lack of time, and with very much time inbetween, thus the "years"), it always bugged me to not have the correct pylons.

It's a little detail and in no way "needed" for the game, besides that there might be VERY few others who'd like to see such an object.

But its "4-12 wish list", so why not express this little wish ^^

A Reno map to go with them would be pretty sweet :)

This may already exist .. but how about a way to set the default speedbar (as in mph,kph,tias etc) in the config file. At one time there was a mod for this.. I think it was either FC or the guy who made the by directional radiator mod ... I can't remember his name to save my life.. but there was a HUD mod I think it was called.. that allowed you to do that and you could set it in the config file.. That would be another great feature that shouldn't be too much trouble to add.. also how about the openable canopy thingy on more planes. There was one that conflicted with some other mods.. but if it were added to the stock sim .. I know that is a small thing that to many may seem inconsequential but those are the nice little touches that keep this sim so great IMO.

I'm guessing that this will be next to impossible to do, but it would be great if when you are flying western allied planes, the maps/grids were in miles and the icons (if using) in yards.

Be a real nice touch, its a bit of a pain when flying in a SEOW or something similar, your gauges are in mph, but the grids are in km, especially doing blue water nav.

Just a dream i know.....

Link to videos about guncameras. Images are better then words. Please, watch the video and see il2 weapons are weak for destroy.

Against airplanes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ec4t...eature=related

Against ground:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x13u...eature=related

Cordially,

Wow!! This company is opening ask their fans for wish list?!!!
YOU GUYS ARE THE BEST!!!!!!! I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!!! I hope Bioware can do the same for Mass Effect 3 endings.

OK, I'll participate here too. OK, here it goes.
My wish for later version of the game are:

1: Since the current game already has 6 axis for the TrackIR, I hope Developing team can consider to give us the realistic bombsight for Pe-2

2: Realistic Mixture control

3: Tu-2 flyable

4: Realistic bomber crewman option for multiplayer. So we can let the forward gunner to be the bombardier.

5: The Soviet DGen campaign is not complete, after you take the Lvov back, the next campaign is Berlin. What about the liberation of Poland? Hungry? Romania? Yugoslavia?

6: The 3 Axis power, Italy is the only one which does not have a DGen Campaign of its own. Can we have a Italy campaign, please?

7: Full Britain DGen Campaign, from North African to Operation Touch to Sicily landing to Liberation of Italy.

8: Beaufighter flyable, I mean the version with defencive gunner.

9: New high resolution detailed Lavochkin fighters models and cockpit models.

Thanks for consideration. Thanks a lot, much appreciated.

The area I feel is lacking is UK/USA fliable bombers.

So my wishlist is pretty simple.

Mosquito BIV
Wellington MKX and GR Mark XIV
Avro Lancaster BI BI/III(special - Bouncing and Earthquake configurations)
B17 (any)
Ju88 C/G NF

Actually the B-24 is being built actually so there is a flyable bomber US bomber in 4.12 and also I agree that we would need to strength the weaponary stuff. To me, it seems it takes a hundred to a million bullets to take down a plane.

You keep saying that... lets see a track of it taking that many :)

1) More options for ground AI-units (tanks and vehicle's platoons). Especially for distances between units in formation, type of formation, open fire range, speed, attaching/detaching units (to each other) and so on.

2) Triggers for ground units (for advanced battle logic)

3) Some new ground units
- Platoons, companies and other smaller groups of infantery (to get them into "trenches")
- Self-propelled artellery (like Wespe, Hummel, Priest & other).
- Platoons of APC (for example SdKfz 251)

4) Night fight things like "Lichtenstein", "Ground service - Pilot" communication system, flare bombs and everything..

5) More maps
- Poland
- Belorussia
- Northern Germany with Denmark and Norway
- Holland

Few interesting ideas
 

Hello pilots
I have a few good ideas to be implemented on the next update.

1. The R/R/R (Rarm/Refuel/Repair) option will give to the game a more "life" and realism.

2. Weather or climatology:
2.1.Variable random weather in the middle of a mission.
2.2. The wind is a very important fact in the game. Wind can change any time no matter the weather.
2.3. When raining, the runway should be slippery.
2.4. Since you can have mirror (inside the cockpit), this could be a very good idea to have puddles on the runway reflecting the objects (e.g.: airplanes, trees, building, etc.).

3. Pilot head movements:
3.1. With the new options that you can see the head movements of your colleagues, the gunners should have the same effect. I fly with 7 friends in a local network, some of them are my gunners (B-25), others are my wing men and the rest my "enemies". The gunners don't have this privilege.
3.2. Since you can "move" your head (mouse, TrackIR or other devices), should be implemented the possibility to put your head outside your cockpit to taxi in a better way and realism.

4. Vehicles:
4.1. When you area in FMB and want to have vehicles (cars and/or trucks) they should be put in randomize movement within a specific area to have more "life" and realism and at night they turn on their lights.

5. The AI Aircraft doesn't are affected by torque, the only one to have this great effect is the TB-3 (the bomber with four engines). In take off, is beautifl to see this lady dealing with torque and is very good effect. The rest of the AI airplanes doesn't have it.

I think some of this ideas can be implemented on the next updates or give a new ideas to develop other good stuff.

Thank you.

*chuckles* bit off target.. but seems about right to me...

Hit the right parts and down she goes, which is how it was in the war, especially with .50 and .303 bullets which relied on either hitting something vital ( crew/engine/turning the tanks to sieves) than blowing the thing apart. Shoot a B17 with 20mm or 30mm and if it takes more than half a dozen your doing it wrong!!!

Thanks Katier :)

Also I would like to see some german projects like:

the Me-328 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_328

The Me-264 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_264

The Fw-300 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_300

The Junkers 290 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_290

@Katier
- Wellington early version is on the way, but only AI is planned
- B-17 as flyable is in wip, but still more work to do
- Lancaster not started, I hope that will be later
rest nope

@Pershing

3) I had wip a Nashorn anti-tank hunter, never finished, maybe one day (it´s a type Hummel but with other AT gun)
4) who know :)
5) Western Europe map in future ...
(Bohmen und Mahren - Czech map is on the way, near Poland)

rest nope

@P-38L

- Refuel&Rearm one day can be, repair no.

Thanks for the update!:grin:

Team D: :shock:

What is the update status on Torpedo planes like B5N, B6N, TBF-1, TBM...
Will we ever have them as flyable?--

also how hard is it to incorporate new planes into the dynamic campaign, does that involve creating a new Dgen?
(I tried adding your new planes, [like the Fokker, Pe-8, Il-4, Hs-129] to the game campaign but was not able to get this to work :()

:!::!:

one more question: - Can ships be sunk by gunfire - and if not, can you add this to the Simulation?

thanks ---

Yes they can. As an example, I have sunk torpedo boats with gunfire (4 cannons) from a Tempest. However, anything bigger than that probably will not sink with gunfire alone.

Aviar

Kawanishi H6K "Mavis" flying boat!

must have

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3396/hidrohs1.jpg

i'm not part of DT but about Dgen Generator i know something...

in topic near by Asura working on new Dgen Generator ... new Dgen supported many new plane from 4.11 and Mods ...
may be DT look closely at his work ... i hope so ..

and for example i can fly in Dgen company in my SB with that new Dgen...

Thank you for the info! This must be the first time we heard something official about future maps, very much appreciated.
Pershing is right that a Belorussia map is badly needed, if only for Barbarossa scenarios.

AFAIK there is one Belarus map in the works by a 3rd party map-maker. If it meets the requirement for textures and objects it could be a welcomed addition...

Yeah I heard the story of that P-47 pilot, I think I'm aiming at the wrongs spots then.

Agree with the D-520 and M.B. 152 because we need more French fighters and more French bombers. Don't have anything I like to concern about ships. Also I now there is a tunsia map for mods and I agree about the Anchorage,Aleutian Islands map is what we need for 4.12

Probably :) If you want to start a separate topic on effective gunnery I can try and put together a few pointers. I find most people in general tend to spray rather than aim and they tend to begin firing well beyond the effective range. I started this way as well. My little mindgame I play with myself is when I think I'm in range... I hold my breath for a quick moment and then open fire. Gives myself time to mentally calculate the deflection and it means I'm that much closer to the target.

The rest is technique. I'm sure several would be willing to help you out.

K, you can do that Icefire

IMHO the problem with firing at close range in this game is that aircraft, when hit, tend to explode mid-air, much too often to my taste. I've ruined many of my offline campaigns this way, caught in the blast of my exploding adversary. I daresay this feature is exaggerated and could be toned down a little.

Ok, here is my ultimate wishlist for all remaining IL-2 development life:

At least 92 men, with experience in game development, with their own work-place, which includes all necessary hardware and software, willing to work for free at least 18 hours a day, no days off, no vacations, capable and willing to obey orders of their respective leads, whatever those orders could be (in strictly professional sense, offcourse), without questioning them. All workers should posses extensive knowledge of aerospace engineering and military history.
This people should include following specialties:

2 low-level graphics/sound/hardware programmers
20 Java programmers
20 3D modlers
50 2D texture srtists

As a bonus, would be nice to have a top-level US-based lawyer firm, ready to work on the same conditions, as listed above. It's task would be to represent interests of DT, Maddox and 1C against Northrop-Grumman corp.

With this resources, I can assure you, every and each wish, listed in this topic would be added to the game quickly and easily!

PS In ideal case, I would like to double the number of workers, I listed and add to them some super-model secretary with big boobs, willing to obey any orders (in any sense), a coffee machine, a Bentley car with a driver and a skyscrapper office, all for free, obviously. Yet, I know, it's hardly possible, so, I can go with just the basic list.

I would be happy with the super-model secretary... :mrgreen:

yeah, this is in IL2 development really miss :grin:

I can't, I'm married. ;)
Moreover, I don't like too much Bentleys... Could I have a Ferrari instead? :mrgreen:

hahahahahaha tooo funny.

Well... Let's say so: there are many men out there, who don't see a connection here. :twisted:

In a Bentley one can ride on a back seat... with the secretary. While Ferrari (most of them, at least) doesn't have the back seat at all.

Lucky me, the only thing on that list I have is a coffee machine.

LOL... that's what I call a true professional!

Although DT have worked miracles so far, I don't think anyone expects DT to do anything and everything...a wishlist is fun to make, and it's not to be taken as a demandlist. It's a daydream put into writing, not strict orders to be followed.

I think everyone understands that the work is hard...Don't take offense at our long lists, please! :-P

As much as I like playing in new planes, I'm more into gameplay enhancements so I'd like to see the following:

1) Support for large resolution monitors

2) Planes appear larger than 1 pixel at distance (impossible to see planes at distance on large res monitors atm)

3) Reload, Rearm and Refuel

4) Able to spawn in as a gunner in dogfights

Obviously, this is just a wishlist :)

Good job on 4.11 btw, classic patch.

Well, actually, I don't drink coffee at all. So, I am not even sure, why I would need that. But anyway. :grin:

I believe, my wishlist fits that idea exactly.

Ditto. :cool:

btw my personally wish is from first days existing IL2 was have in game flyable P-61 and Do-24. P-61 was dismiss due NG issue ...
And above Do-24 and campaing in East India in Dutch army still stay question mark :grin:

I will just repear what I say before to be sure that it's not lost:

1. Perfect water in DirectX
2. OpenGL working correctly with Intel HD Grpahics
3. New smoke effect.
http://www.johnwallin.net/site/misc/...ens/smoke1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8R3W...layer_embedded
4. New crater
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/newcrater.jpg/
5. Forced antialiasing option for the people who don't have Nvidia card.

Do24....Awesome choice! Triggers and new mission objectives such as recon and water-rescue would really make it shine!

I'm wondering what you guys feel about "study sims" and Il-2. Games like DCS:Black Shark model one airplane, but with a lot of precision and features. You guys are doing a lot of great work updating CEM, but it would be an immense undertaking to make global updates that update each plane and to make sure it all works. What if, instead, one plane was picked to have a super-accurate cockpit and engine/systems management. The Catalina, for instance, had a reputation for being extremely difficult to fly because of the complexity of systems management. The Tempest has the busiest cockpit in the game, but only a few features are ever explored.

This would also be perfect for the Dornier 24 which had a multitude of systems. I realize this is sort of CloD territory, but who knows how long it will be until proper East Indies scenarios could be made (We would need an SDK without the map-size limits imposed, and aircraft SDK or other tools).

Once again, this is just thinking out loud, but it's cool to hear your ideas :)

Sorry to disagree. No, this smoke does not look real, since it's too thick and weighty. It will look real above a volcano.

-

Ok, but do you agree with me that we need new smoke effect?

Yeah, we do need new smoke and fire effects

If this future patch will have some "Nigthfigters love" (I don t know really if this is correct, apologize me if this is not true) and with the inclusions of navigation aids in previous patch, will be posible to add "OBOE"??? It is not very diferent that the other navigation sistem I think...
there was a german system like OBOE usedin BoB...i can´t remember the name...I´ll google it.

It depends. If the new smoke effect is better, more like the real thing than the stock one is, then yes, of course. However, the new effect may be worse. For instance, the flames in IL2 CoD, despite being technically more sophisticated (such as having more particles to calculate) and thus more refined, are in fact worse than those in IL2 1946.

Japan
I would like the Ki-44 as this was such an important IJAF fighter especially in home defence. Japancat's mod looks good and perhaps it could be ported across. The Judy and Kate would be good too but I don' know how much cockpit data is out there
Italy
A flyable Fiat G-55 would be great - I remember that someone was working on the pit.
Germany
Flyable Me210 would be nice too
USA
Helldiver - if permitted by licensing issues
UK
Late mark Spitfire (there seems to be some good modded ones out there) and Hawker Typhoon (probably a lot of work needed)

Please add widescreen support in the next patch. It's not nice to have those black strips in 1920x1080.

Although the game does lack true widescreen support, you can eliminate the strips by modifying the Config.ini:

Do not open the video settings area in IL-2 after you do this as it will overwrite these changes back to an IL-2 default.

The only problems with this are that the speedbar, comms menu, and map will continue to be rendered in a 4:3 aspect but I find that a small annoyance.

Is there a way to implement 3D support (shutterglasses)? That would boost interest in IL2-FB.

Ability to use 2048x2048 textures on aircrafts, objects and terrain.

Take a gander at this, I think it's what you're referring to.

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/board,201.0.html

I realized today that no matter what aircraft, I can stand on the brakes or abuse the crap out of them when landing and they'll never overheat or fail (explode, catch fire, melt/shred tires, etc).

I think it'd be wonderful if in the future this could be modeled. It's probably way too involved researching brake data per aircraft, but one can still dream. :cool:

For miracles please refer to BenedictXVI[at]vatican.va. :rolleyes: Ideas like that are way out of line with the basic characteristics of the engine, which is in its second decade and already prehistoric in PC terms. Just because modern hardware can deal with that it doesn't mean the engine is up to it.

Yeah that wold be nice .. but I agree with you .. maybe not next to impossible .. but too much work for the team to have to do on every map. There would be so much that would be affected by that.

How do you know? Did you try it? Were FPS drop down drastically?

A PC game is a sum of several parts and all need to be in balance to run smoothly. As it is the engine already has issues with some of the largest maps if you put a lot of objects in them (because of memory). Fixing that is already a little delicate but what you asked would require so much memory that it would essentially require a rewrite of the engine (which, obviously, is totally out of question). Do not expect 2012 features in a PC game engine that was written more than ten years ago. That is not going to work.

I suggest you do yourself a favor a get a decent PC.
Do you have the slightest idea what exactly you are requesting?

Regarding the smoke and crater effects those look pretty good but do they always look good or just from certain perspectives? I suspect some really good things can be done with the effects. I have seen some mod effects that look brilliant in places but less effective in others.

As for some other points you may be asking for impossibilities.

DirectX is a compatibility wrapper meant to get the lower spec systems running the game rather than offering the maximum capability. IL-2s engine was written with OpenGL in mind. In DirectX mode the IL-2 engine talks to OpenGL and then a third piece of software intercedes and translates the various calls to something DirectX can understand. It's sort of cool but it's designed to give the bare minimum experience.

OpenGL working with Intel HD is a Intel problem. Intel cards have always had quite a bit of trouble with anything that uses OpenGL. My understanding is they use the bare necessities for basic compliance and that is it.

I am curious about forced anti-aliasing for people who don't have nVidia cards. What is that about?

The problem is he wants the game to run perfectly at a million hojillion FPS, at max settings, on his work-oriented laptop with crappy integrated Intel graphics, which are NOT designed for gaming at all. He started a thread on this IIRC a month or two back, but I could be confusing him with someone else. The anti-aliasing is probably more of the same, wanting his Yugo to run like an Porsche. /facepalm

Indeed the Intel HD graphics are a tiny bit better than the older Intel GMA cards of yesteryear but not by much. Enough to accelerate Windows Vista/7 and offload some of the HD video requirements from the CPU...definitely a smart move even on a business class machine but they definitely are not oriented towards gaming. Even less so towards simulation gaming which is another level of requirements up in my mind.

I think it telling that IL-2 1946 is based on code over 10 years old and yet it will still take everything you can throw at it. I acknowledge that it doesn't support newer standards at the base level and yes it has been upgraded, but in terms of the raw GPU, CPU, and memory throughput... the old IL-2 still requires serious hardware.

An idea for a future patch which may be very simple to implement. When selecting aircraft, for QMB or multiplayer, can we have small country flags by the aircraft so we know which country they come from and also maybe a small fighter or bomber icon depending on it's roll?

I know some will say I should know my aircraft better, blah de blah de blah... but I'm sure many of us don't have the time or inclination to memorise the (now) exhaustive list of options.

I play LAN with a friend. And typically our conversion goes like this:

Me: Ok, lets have russian vs german, 1943 aircraft only
friend: Ok
Me: Ok, I'll go in the Yak-3, choose an axis aircraft
friend: Which aircraft are axis? Is this axis?
Me: Don't know
friend: Is this one axis
Me: Not sure

You get the picture.

I know we could exit the server and go into the museum to check, but my idea of small flag & aircraft role icons next to the aircraft designation codes would be extremely helpful and a better way to do things.

I don't find it difficult to recognise from which country an aircraft comes, and what about captured aircraft?
Maybe there could be an option like: Only show German planes - only show fighters - only show bombers - only show Russian bombers - show all planes. Or something like that. I don't think this is high priority for TD, but for new pilots this would make it a little easier because there are so many planes :grin:

Volcano ash has a different color and texture. More like an oil-rig fire. :)

Anyhow, something that would be very nice indeed, and possibly not too hard to implement, is multiple smoke/fire effects.

That way, you could model white smoke from a smoke shell, gray smoke from a building fire, black smoke from an oil fire and colored smoke from smoke grenades or air show smoke generators.

Likewise, for fires, you could have small fire (campfire), big fire (burning airplane) and really big fire (burning building).

Yeah, I just knew someone would say that. :rolleyes: There are no doubt many enthusiasts here on the forum. Congratulations to you sir. But for the more casual player that doesn't have a degree in WWII aircraft, I'm telling you, it would be useful.

Also, after my revisit (LAN play) last night. I still don't understand why the multiplayer setup screen is so limited. For example, why can't I choose not to have enemy flak? Why can't I specify the weather? It can all be tailored to your desires in the quick mission builder. So, why not in multiplayer? When you want to fly head to head against a friend, the flak becomes an annoyance.

You can delete the flak in the full mission builder. There is no QMB for online scenarios. I'm sure one of the stock multiplayer scenarios has no flak. If not, it should be easy enough to delete the units you want to - literally five minutes of work.

Although I already know most planes in the game like the back of my hand, I do agree that it would be a nice feature for new players.

Engine IS ALREADY up to it.


It runs smooth, looks cool and dandy, does not affects FPS and sure is great overall. It even runs with 4094x4096px textures.


Here is the example map and needed files for download:


http://dispersalfield.ru/main/index....c,705.120.html



There are new ground textures, plane texture, and even new tree textures (those are looking wonderful, almost as some ground first person shooter game). Bear in mind that the textures are made in short time and by the person who is not genius in graphic editing, and are just for showing, it can be much better. (and yes, there is new way for making Bump textures, so that maps are looking way better than anything in Clod with its shiny dds textures. (let alone plain IL2)





You either don't have knowledge of what you are talking about, or you are lying (for some reason . . . ) Engine has problems with many objects, but not because of textures. If you have one house with one texture, and you place it thousand times on the map, it's texture still takes ONLY ONE slot in graphic memory, there is no 1000 textures for 1000 houses, it is one (1) texture. So, what did you tell in those two posts are just as Americans would put it: bunch of horse hockey :)


But, you and TD guys already knew that :) And for the new textures too, since you are already dismissed them when they was showed to you, for some reason. (strange are the ways of the dark side).


1. So, you (and TD, and I don't care if you are not TD) know what you are doing and dismissing this for some ominous reason (such as phasing out IL2 in favor of Clod, and if that is the case, all of us here are being duped and fooled around)


2. Or, you (and TD) don't know what you are doing exactly (and that could be even the worse then the first)


Sorry for little bit lose tongue, but you will delete this post anyway (again: strange are the ways of the dark side) as any other I made recently . . .