Yep. If it was easy, you would have already done it. There were a LOT of changes between the B-24D and B-24H or J models and lots of little changes between different production blocks. It must have given USAAF supply officers and crew chiefs ulcers.

Anyhow, I was just being a smartass/greedy beggar. Thanks for your incredible work on the B-24D!

From all of us, thanks.

I simply cannot believe the quality of the work that is the B24. Monguse and team, you will be immortalised as part of the IL2 Legend. Congratulations on the release of your amazing project.

And thank you! From the bottom of all our hearts, thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much.

~S~

I feel deeply indebted to you, Monguse, BusterDee and the other members of your team.

Artist

Great job
 

I want to congratulate you for such excellent work and achievement.

B24 is an amazing bit of work.. An online battle with a different person in each position would be quite an adventure.....

Agree on Sperry Ball, but not on top. Martin was used on short-lived gunship version of B-17 (B-40?). The normal top turret was a Sperry, which was very different.

This is the most incredible work of art I've ever seen on IL2 !
it goes beyond any expectation !
thx Monguse and everyone who gave us this gem

Woowww !!!! Tks B)

:rolleyes:

Stunning aircraft!
It must fly as good as it looks.

A few things come to mind when seeing this work of art;

-A bombardier that can also move to the co-pilot position.
In case the pilot gets killed and to assist with flying.

-Also it would be good if we get a (ingame) checklist with the V speeds for birds like this. Low speed during landing with the wrong flap setting simply means you will crash.

-A clickable cockpit would be perfect for this aircraft.

Great to see this masterpiece finally get implemented, i followed Monguse's thread intently since its inception.

Fantastic work guys!

I am speechless, this is truly an outstanding labour of love! It definitely shows.

Looking forward to fly countless hours with the B-24. This might be flagrant to some, but I always favoured the '24 at the expense of its Boeing contemporary.

Consider me hyped.

p.s.: I wish there are going to be several stock missions (even perhaps a campaign) dedicated to the aircraft. Perhaps taking advantage of the larger maps. (e.g.: the Solomons)

Also, are there plans about a dedicated manual to the B-24, with an elucidation of the new features coming with it, the aircraft's peculiarites, historical practices regarding formations, bombing etc.?

In any case, again, excellent effort. Thank you very much for you hard work!

marvellous work on the B24 looks really good and really nice to have another heavy ingame. Looks intimidating to fly especially with the more complex bombing system really looking forward to how it compares with the Pe-8 in regards to how it fly's as that is the only other modelled modern heavy(TB-3 can't really be included)

Thank you guys for the B-24, its absolutely brilliant!

I wonder if it is possible to enhance il2fb engine to enable 4K/UHD resolutions? Pixel count should be not that much different then in some multihead resolutions, but engine being relatively (to CoD/BoS) lightweight should help it run at such resolutions even on reasonably powerful middle cpu/gpu configurations. Drooling imagining how it might look on some 50" UHD TVs that become more and more common with some being cheaper then 30" WQHD monitors.
Other question regarding engine - can fov settings be changed to link to vertical height, not horizontal width of resolution? Should made big pile of fov changer mods redundant for any wide screen resolution (including for few newest monitors of 21:9 aspect ratio, like newest dell 34" of 3440x1440) even at default zoom/fov settings.

Drooooooooling :D Guys, that B24 is truly legendary.

well, if we can get working Norden what about properly working K-14 gunsight ? Not to mention british Ferranti Mk II GGS for Spitfires...

What about upgrade old map textures? Endless green fields look bad.

Would just like to say my much felt appreciation to Monguse and all of the Team D guys for making the B24 happen.

And everything else that you keep adding to the game.

Really amazing stuff, Thank you so much guys.:cool:

I second that sentiment; I've never been a heavy kinda fella but I could be converted given the arrival of the Liberator and the new norden functionality - top work 'Guse & co!

2 throttles, 4 engines...
 

For people that have devices for 2 throtthe axis, will it be implemented some feature to control left engines with one axis, and right engines with the other?

Have you tried YaDeLi? - offers just that

By all means, give Yadeli a go. It's a neat application and does much more than combine axes.

However, on this occasion TD has got you covered from IL2 4.11 onwards:

Team Daidailos - According to Oxford - State of perfection.

However, on this occasion TD has got you covered from IL2 4.11 onwards:[/QUOTE]

Ah, ok, thanks, i have heart of this at the time it came out, but i had the idea that it was ment only for 3 engine aircrafts, i didnt read it carefully or payed atention. Sorry. :(

Dear Team Daidalos, MERRY XMAS!!!
Best regards...
GROHOT

Jake and Liberator!
 

Wow,

Just missed a couple of weeks: Jake and Liberator (!!!), plus bombing changes!

Incredible, you guys are truly brilliant, we love you, thank you so much. :)

Seaplane landing behavior
 

new jake looks awesome but has anyone noticed when seaplanes land they cut off their engine and glide in?? This was a recurring in and out glitch since the early pacific fighters days, seems it sback, not a show stopper but maybe something to look into?

This is not a glitch. The AI lands with engine on, if landing waypoint is on a water airfield. It considers a landing waypoint, set away from any base, as crash landing waypoint and acts respectively (no matter, if it is water landing with a seaplane - it still a crash landing, if it is not on an airfield).

Looking forward to the next 4.13 update :)

So what your saying in FMB terms is if there is a water based airfield symbol on the map it will land with engine on and if just set to land on water anywhere it glides in, fascinating, i stand corrected. Tried it with a fixed seaplane spot and it works fine, but if emplacing test runway 4 the plane glides in.

Is this about dogfight mode..?

Maybe jumping the gun here, but this dual control code would seem to open up the possibility of permitting dual control flight training. Tiger Moth, Harvard p6 could be used to create scripted missions, ai/player, to get newcomers to the game up to some kind of base level, in flying and basic acm. This would rectify the games abandoment of training missions that occurred very early in the games history. Someone has to do the missions of course and agreement about what they should be....but would add to the game greatly.

Also tried this.
With several AC and also with a Catilina.
Tried to force it to land on a landbased airstrip, since I thougt it had retractable wheels.
But it allways come down on the nearest larger open water, on rivers its not clear, sometimes it happens to meet water by accident mostly it just lands on flat land or crashes on not so flat land.
If it lands on flat land, all the men jump out and run, if it touches down on land but slips so far that it happens to come to a halt on water, they remain inside.

fmb possibilities
 

To make a mission where rufe takes off from water near a ship filling in as seaplane tender,conducts its mission, how to get it to land engine running to near ship. Since there is no seaplane point I tried test runways 4_6 but no luck with landing engine on. Test runways were set to same color as player and linked in landing tab. Is there a tip or trick to obtain a seaplane airfid on any map with water??

Can you please elaborate on the Co-pilot / Nosegunner / Bombadier relationship now?

1. In Coop mode, who can occupy which spots?
2. What are the restrictions?
3. Can pilot still switch to nosegunner and bomb and have copilot pilot aircraft?
4. Can copilot switch to nosegunner and bomb and have pilot pilot the aircraft?
5. If pilot moves to rear-gunner, can copilot move to pilot spot? Meaning, are they considered "hot seats" or...?

The fly in the ointment here is that there are no Tiger Moths or Texans (Harvards) in the stock sim.

1. Im am pretty sure each is a different slot now. So on the planes which had all three positions then in coop you can have three different players in each position.

I would assume switching positions would be the same as it is now.

Of course I could be wrong here so please feel free to correct me if I am.

"The fly in the ointment here is that there are no Tiger Moths or Texans (Harvards) in the stock sim. " Well, there is that, but there wasn't much point in adding them to the sim, to be fair, without the possibility of dual control. There is a model of the tiger moth in the wild so to speak, perhaps it could be added without to much work? IIRC, flying it was the nearest thing to hanging around I've experienced ingame, it was that slow.

That B-24 just blew me away, amazing work. Will we have AI copilots that can fly while we aim bombs or vice versa?

1. Pilot can occupy all free seats except co-pilot's seat. Everyone else can occupy all free seats except pilot's.
2. Normal restrictions like before. Also when gunner/bombardier is manned by one guy IRL, human player will occupy both seats at the same time.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. No.

Exellent news, finally I could maybe make my german alternative history campaign with the he 177.:grin:
For the N1K1-Ja,it's a good idea but what about the "normal" waterbased
version?;)
Thanks for everything you have done for us. :D

I registered mainly to congratulate you on your excellent published work.

Also I admit I haven't been through all 25 pages of this thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I was really pleased to see in the Copilot preview video that the HUD was in Imperial units.

Does this mean it will be an easily selected option in 4.13?

Once again, many thanks for your excellent work, past, present & future.

Best regards,

Balla. :cool:

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you bind the "Toggle Speed Bar" key, you can toggle between Metric/Nautical/Imperial/Off settings for the speedbar.

IL2 should also remember which setting you used last. So if you have it set to imperial in one game, it should start out that way in the next.

Thanks for that info.

I had discovered that after my post. :eek:

Balla. :cool:

The last Video is a forestep for trainer aircrafts! :grin:

Very sweet! The amount of work required to make the co-pilot stations functional must have been huge. Thank you TD!

Actually, it pretty much makes training planes possible, as long as you count the student pilot as a "copilot" and allow the pilot to instantly override copilot control inputs. A flyable U-2 trainer would be quite welcome, since they were occasionally used as co-op and night harassment planes.


Co-pilots also makes fully-functional Norden type bomb sights possible, since the pilot can temporarily grant the bombardier the ability to "fly" the plane, but with control only along certain axes (pitch and yaw).

Additionally, it makes bombardier/pilot cooperation possible for non-Norden type sights, since bombardier commands to the pilot are nothing more than delayed input, short-lived flight control commands. As a bombardier, it allows you to "control" the pilot using a variant of trim tab commands for the rudder and elevators.

I hope we will get some trainer for il2, it would spice up this still very good old sim.

I have offered TD my help to build the trainer Me-262, if it makes sense or not, doesn`t matter. I want that plane and as you guys know it, do it yourself ;)

Unfortunately, not for me.

Just found IRL:
When fuel dumps or fuel trains got hit, it would be great if we had some real real great firework like the Dakota train incident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxkUhVswF5U

can I hope in a fast travel option? Its lack is what kept me from playing campaigns and shelve my copy of il2 1946 :(

There's time acceleration and a timeskip option already - not sure how you can really go beyond that :confused:

Actually, there is the fast travel of combat flight simulator that skipped right before the action.

Time accelaration isn't really cutting it. It still takes quite a bit of time and its not without its faults. You need to have auto pilot on who is actually starting to fight by himself. You die and then you have to do the whole process again.

I have never heard of timeskip. :|

Bind a key for timeskip... it disables the video rendering and renders the scenario out as fast as your CPU will allow. Unlike with games of old... IL-2s scenario is a persistent world while you're playing it. All tanks, vehicles, aircraft and such that are in motion will stay in motion and so the biggest problem preventing the game from going any faster is that your system just will not be able to do all of the calculations that rapidly. I'm sure there's an acceptable loss of precision to a certain point and the timeskip is fixed at that. But it can't go faster.

Still if you're not using the timeskip then maybe you should try. It's a bit dry seeing as the screen is black but it does work.

+1

We need an even bigger, denser smoke and fire effect than we currently have in the game. It would be realistic and meaningful for game play, since big smoke columns can be been for miles and can obscure the ability of bombers to bomb accurately.

It would also be nice to have persistent smoke and fire effects linked to specific targets which could be placed by mission builders, possibly with a setting for how long they will last, to simulate things like destroyer smoke screens.

The only drawback is that really huge smoke or flame effects might slow the game to an unacceptable degree.

While the smoke effects from damaged ships are pretty good, in some cases they could be even bigger, to simulate really massive fires like those that engulfed the USS Franklin (skip to 1:16 on the clip):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTAViMX-w6c

or Tirpitz (skip to 0:56):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pv5Aw4WiOg

Smoke and fire for burning oil tanks and cities should be massive!

For example, the bombing of Ploesti (skip to 4:38 to get a sense of the intense smoke):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDLLoAqum3k

Or the bombing of Tokyo (skip to 2:34 to get a sense of the smoke and fire effects):

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

You do realize that smoke and fire effects like you are asking for would grind most computers to a standstill, yes?

HSFX 7 has "improved" (more and larger) smoke and fire effects, (no where near like real life though) and everyone I know has had to turn down some settings to maintain acceptable frame rates. (usually anti aliasing needs to come down).

Computer "gaming" is still a world of compromise for developers. There are lots of things that have to be balanced to give a good overall experience.
Do you not think that they would give us these things if they could?

Yes. That's the problem. But, I wonder if there aren't different ways to create large smoke effects.

For example, rather than having smoke from a static source generated by sprites to create dynamic smoke (which kills frame rates if duplicated or enlarged), perhaps it would be possible to create a "static smoke" effect which consists of a simple rectangle or inverted conical polygon which is "skinned" with a series of series of static images to create the illusion of roiling smoke from distance. If done right, it could look good.

At a distance, it might be possible to simulate large fires using 2-d images (like the old smoke trail effects from IL2 4.10 or earlier), changing to 3-d sprite-based dynamic smoke only when planes get close.

For overcast smoke or haze, it would be easy to just change the color of an existing cumulus or light cloud object and allow mission builders to place it at ground level. The option of allowing mission builders to place clouds to recreate cloud conditions over a target or in a dogfight area would also be nice to have.

For haze

We have some nice new smoke effects in 4.12... Smoke12 is particularly good at simulating large scale smoke effects... the sprites are large but look good enough both at close range and at a distance. They can be seen VERY far away.

Agreed, and thanks to DT for them! I guess if you place enough of them together you can get Ploesti-like effects. Several on a large ship give "close enough" "Franklin-like" effects. I've certainly had trouble targeting certain areas of tank farms or ships due to the thick black smoke, which is quite realistic.

Of course, come to think of it, a lot of the big smoke and explosions on the Franklin were due to secondary ordinance and av-gas explosions from the Franklin's own stores. Giving mission builders the ability to place a delayed explosive, fire or smoke effect on a ship would simulate those things. Realistic for simulating carriers like the Franklin and the Japanese carriers at Midway that got caught with their planes rearming and refueling, as well as tankers and ammo ships.

My thoughts
 

This going to sound strange but I'd like to see some improvements in Camera views.

Firstly I'd love to be able to cycle through the ships in the game, the same as with aircraft.

And have like a "Battle Cam" which jumps from firing aircraft to firing aircraft. Those that play Strike Fighters would be familiar with this when pushing F12.

Any updates on the new P-40 series???

It would be nice if they can increase th acceleration limit beyond 8x. IIRC correctly some old sims like ETW allowed time acceleration of even 64x.

Not really.
On Approach its just about 4 km until visibility starts.
In vicinity it looks a bit thin.
Departing visibiolity range ist about 9 km.

You can see them grids away...10+km for sure.

My List:
 

My List: :cool:
1. The ability to tailor Kills in a pilots career information so that "Training" kills can be deleted or categorized... Both Air and Ground.
2. Additional maps for the Pacific. Leyte gulf, Luzon, Corregidor, Kwajalein, Ulithi, Tokyo.
3. Redo existing maps of the Pacific.
4. Additional Named/Numbered Essex Class Carriers... including stationary ships.
5. Half sunken battleships, destroyers, frigates, etc. For pearl harbor and other battles.
6. Improvement in the NTRK files to make them editable.
7. Concur on the Taxi-in addition.
8. Give the campaign creator full control over which aircraft the "pilot" will fly in. So that he knows where the "pilot" will be. It will allow senior pilots to fly as wingman without having to create two separate flights. The same way it works in the Full Mission Builder.

Thanks for considering these. Great Job.
Bonz...

6. Won't be possible. The NTRK format is essentially a packet recorder. It's linear data in, linear data out.

I'm looking into mapping again... I thought about a China map but it's a bit overwhelming as I don't know the history of the battles very well.

If any of those listed above were to be done as maps... size? Key positions (airfields, other features), etc.? It seems to me like Leyte would be easier than Tokyo for example (although it would be appealing for missions around the 244 Sentai - also... Ki-61-I-Tei for the love of pete :)).

Yeah, curious about that, too. And I'm really hoping for the once-coming fixed-wing models.

Hey guys bombing changes are wonderfull!!! Most of them are a dream come true. Thanks boys!
Are you still working in triggers and Airborne radar? ship debries? Thanks again!
Happy new year for you!

Maybe a fueltank gauge for the p-40?

:confused:

New cockpit was mentioned too. I'm sure it will ne fixed there.

I'm pretty sure the gauge is on the current Hawk 87, it's just that it's location prevents it from being seen, owing the the view limitations of IL2's cockpits.

The gauge for the main (center) tank in on the floor ahead of the joystick.

A real pilot would only have to lean a bit to see it.

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/c...ockpit-800.jpg

Here is a photo of a real P 40 N cockpit.

On the floor, just ahead and to the right of the joystick is the fuel gauge for the main tank.

You know they fixed that issue a couple of patches ago? :cool: You can now lean forward, side to side, etc? So you can see the gauge just fine now but its non-functional. Doesn't move regardless of fuel state.

Like I said... I believe the plan is new P-40E/M external model and cockpit as well. It's basically going to be a new plane.

Any updates today?

DT isn't robot team) ... holidays..

I'm pretty sure that even with TIR seeing that gauge is nigh on to impossible.

I'll fire up the game and have a look later today.

of course it will be deducted from your salary...

So yeah, early Yaks, Fiat G.50, late P-40s and the F6F Hellcat don't have fuel gauges. It's a drag, because I don't want to fly a plane that doesn't show fuel. A workaround would be to put the fuel level as an individual hud option like the speedbar. Wouldn't have to update the F6F cockpit at all, heh, heh, heh.

This is a good idea, especially since the gauges for some aircraft are hard to read without looking down and zooming in.

To expand on it, maybe it would be possible for the player to choose the gauges which appear on the speedbar, such as oil pressure or engine temperature. There should also be an option for listing cooling vent, prop pitch and flap states on the speed bar.

Alternately, the player could get periodic updates on fuel state as HUD messages. This would be particularly useful if you get a fuel leak hit, since sometimes it's hard to determine if the fuel leak is something you can ignore or an indicator that it's time to run for home. For example, "fuel leak, 50% fuel" followed a few seconds later by "fuel leak, 45% fuel" is a lot more helpful that just a single "fuel leak" message.

And, related to HUD messages, it would be nice if the player (or server admin) had more control over HUD messages and how long they persist.

For example, I often open my radiator vents before I go into combat. Later, when my engine inevitably overheats and I get the "engine overheat" message, I will accidentally close my radiator flaps because I forgot they were already fully open. The ability to make the "radiator vents open" HUD message "sticky" would be a useful aid to memory.

More realistically, pilots had no way of knowing if an enemy was destroyed unless they saw it for themselves or had confirmation by from a friendly source. To help preserve "fog of war" server admins or mission builders could disable the "enemy plane (or whatever) destroyed" in the HUD.

helldiver in 413?
 

over at M4T there is a new set of pics has quad 50 on trailer and a helldiver???

http://www.mission4today.com/index.p...wtopic&t=18076

There is no DT logo on the Helldiver shot, and I for one do not remember seeing this in a DT update, so take it with a grain of salt. Not sure what the endgame is for "Saldy" but I'm fairly sure it's just a game. A wankers game.

Yeah, that Helldiver looks decidedly low quality, and it doesn't look like any other 3Ds Max rendering from DT that I've ever seen.

I just love the music used in these updates...

There was a Helldiver was released before Christmas by IL2 Free Modding and mirrored on the SAS site. That might be the picture you're seeing. While we can hope that TD will be releasing an "official" Helldiver, I'll believe it when I see it.

The only official DT updates are posted on this site, in the respective thread, by the Daidalos.Team user. Anything else, posted elsewhere is not official and has no relation to a current DT add-on.

But there is a Helldiver on the pipeline....:)
And a lil bird tell me that besides the Helldiver there are a D-520 and a He-112 as third parties projects. Am I Right Mr. SaQSoN???

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=960
I hope this cockpit to be ready for 4.13

There are a lots of WIP stuff at hands of DT and 3rd parties, however, all this is irrelevant to the content of DT addons, unless and until it is posted as official update.

Neither DT members, or DT 3rd parties have strict deadlines for their projects, unless a certain subject is adopted for an upcoming add-on. Usually, this happens when this subject is 99% ready and it's author(s) shows determination and ability to complete it in a relatively short time.

And only when this selected subjects reach alpha-test, or even beta-test stage, they get a chance to go into our public updates.

As for the other stuff - it may never be finished at all, due to various reasons, over which only authors may have control. Therefore, we do not publish any official info about such WIP projects. Otherwise, people may get a wrong impression, that DT promisses to include subjects, which may never be actually finished.

thanks for your very clear answer SaQSoN!
A last one question: Time ago, DT published updates for a future patch regarding some wonderfull features: Triggers, Ship Debries and Airborne radar. ARe these still WIP? or were cancelled?

бог mmy! только lods, чтобы закончить сову?
И, пожалуйста, не совпадайте на мне, я использовал переводчика!

Thanks for this policy. Over the years I've seen way too much "vaporware" on mod sites, where some enthusiastic young would-be modder gets a copy of GMax or Blender and tries his hand at making some sort of grandiose object like a 4-engined bomber. Usually, these projects die somewhere around the unskinned LoD0 model, once the modder realizes there's far more to making add-ons for IL2 than meets the eye.

Even experienced modders or mod teams can run into problems that result in a project being abandoned, like Oceanic Mod Team's gorgeous, but never released, Boomerang and Whirlwind projects that went off the rails when an earthquake destroyed their files.

TD is very conservative in their policies, but they are very reliable and produce first rate work, and I thank them for it.

Those updates were shown before we adopted the said above policy, thus they demostrated quite unfinished work. I can not tell you, what is the status of those, as I am not involved directly in development of any of those.

True 100%


Ok Mr. SaQSoN! Thanks for your answer!

One more thing to the above: both DT members and 3rd parties are, obviously, free to post their personal WIP info (unless it does not affect others work and interests).

So, the pictures, re-posted by someone recently on the M4T forum are really a WIP shots, posted by DT members for their private use. However, they should not be regarded as related to the upcoming add-on, untill and unless it is stated in the official update on this site.

Regarding 3rd parties works, theres enought info about modelling new aircraft and objects in the il.2 modelling bible, but what about maps? The game map´s specs has been published in the SAS forum IIRC, but, there are no tutorials, or tools for map making. There are a lot of talented modders, maybe if you release the tools, or the tips, a lot of new maps will be available. The "microden" way, seems to be precise but, I think that it isn´t the method used in oficial maps. Please consider it.

All you need for map making is Photoshop (or similar program) and a modded game. May be, also some additional small tools, which also available for modders for a long time now. Anyone, who really wants, can build new maps already and can find enough info on how to do it.

One question just out of curiosity, because in the past I've worked professionally with geographic data:

Were the original IL-2 maps also build using SRTM data converted in Mircrodem, or was other data or another methode used?

I don't know.

I can only say about the Kiev map, in which I took part as a 3rd party dev. It didn't use SRTM data, it's elevation was created manually, using 1930s-40s topographic maps.