I'm afraid that's not the way file extensions work. The extension does not determine the content of the file. In fact, it doesn't even determine the type of file it really is(In theory the header does, even though Windows uses the extension).

To make sure I'm not misinforming anyone, I tested your theory.
As I expected, recording an ntrk manually saves an ntrk file in a binary format. I.E. not a human readable plaintext file.
Saving a track at the end of a mission and renaming it to .ntrk however, doesn't even save as an ntrk extension.
.trk is automatically added to the filename you entered(I.E. test.ntrk.trk).
The resulting file is a text file with a structure similar to an FMB mission.

Edit:
I've noticed what appears to be a bug/inconsistency in the FMB: If the waypoint type is set to landing, both height and speed will be set to 0, when switching the type back to a normal waypoint, only height will be reset.
Speed will remain at 0(though will reset to the lowest speed possible for that type of aircraft if changed to anything below it, as is normal behavior).
This causes the aircraft to fall immediately after spawning(Engines running, can of course be recovered from if altitude is sufficient).

Also, if either an AI or player aircraft is spawned with only a single waypoint, set to landing, the aircraft will spawn on the ground with running engines.
As it is a landing waypoint, speed cannot be set.
Height can be set to any value and will only reset in certain cases to 12000m. However, this will not change the spawning altitude(It remains at 0).

Edit #2:
Not a true bug, but if the screenshot mode(ScreenshotType) is set to 2, a TGA and a Jpeg screenshot are saved with sequential filenames(grab0000.tga, grab0001.jpg). As these screenshots are the same image(with different compression/formatting) would it not make more sense for them to have the same name/number(I.E. grab0000.tga,grab0000.jpg)?
I'm assuming mode 2 calls functions for a tga screenshot and a jpeg screenshot in sequence, causing them to "see" the previous image, regardless of extension, and setting the number ++.
If possible, these could be integrated into a single function or made aware of extensions.

Hi,

There's a minor graphic bug with certain jetty and break-water objects.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...k/grab0027.jpg

The texture disappears at a certain distance.

Concerning the first point, if I remember correctly, it's been like that since day 1. That doesn't mean it couldn't be changed.

Concerning the second point, I believe some mission designers use this 'feature' to attain certain effects in a particular mission. I'm not sure what you would want changed and what you would hope to achieve that cannot be simulated through the FMB right now.

Aviar

Does it also happen on Perfect?

Concerning the Hs 129 B-2. On the Arming screen, when choosing any loadout with either Mk 101 or Mk 103, neither Gunpod shows up on the picture. (See attached screenshots.)

Aviar

Not a bug. Since the pod is part of the skin and can be skinned it unfortunately doesn't show up in the arming screen. In the mission it's there.

I can't run perfect mode on this machine.

Just noted an issue with the plane list in online missions.

If you add another plane to an already existing plane set, say 5 planes and you add a 6th one, the "new" plane doesn't fall in its usual place in the list.
Instead it gets just added at the end of the list.
In the plane list in FMB it orders just as usual and how everybody is used to, but contrary to that, in the actual mission itself it's as explained at the end of the list.

So far I wasn't able to work arount this, even to the point of stipping the entire plane set and readding the planes again one by one.
I have to admit though, I didn't build the entire mission again from scratch so don't know if that would "fix" it, but highly doubt that would be worth it.
Neither do I know if this is related to 4.11 or was there earlier.

Thx guys

I've started to notice this recently and I suspect (although I haven't tested yet) that it only happens if you enable limited armament options. I forget the name of the exact checkbox but it's the one that lets you set plane limits for armaments and numbers. TBH I had dismissed this as me being a little bit too OCD... but if other people notice it then that changes things! :)

It seems as though Icefire is thinking you mean one thing and I am thinking you mean something totally different. So I am not sure now what you are saying.

Look at the first screenshot on the left. This is an Aircraft list for a coop mission. You can see how the flights are kind of scrambled...not in order. Is this what you are talking about? If so....read on.

If you look in your mis file near the top, you will see the flights listed here:

[Wing]
USA_BG_307z00
15AF_325FG_0HQ00
15AF_325FG_0HQ01
USA_BG_307z01
8AF_056FG_0HQ02
USA_BG_307z02
USA_BG_307z03
15AF_325FG_0HQ02
8AF_056FG_0HQ03
8AF_056FG_0HQ00
15AF_325FG_0HQ03


So, what I have been doing for many years is basically putting this list in the order that I want. You can take this list and make it look like this:

[Wing]
USA_BG_307z00
USA_BG_307z01
USA_BG_307z02
USA_BG_307z03
15AF_325FG_0HQ00
15AF_325FG_0HQ01
15AF_325FG_0HQ02
15AF_325FG_0HQ03
8AF_056FG_0HQ00
8AF_056FG_0HQ02
8AF_056FG_0HQ03


Now, look at the second screenshot. After you make the changes, this is what the Aircraft list in the coop will look like. I'm thinking that is more to your liking.

So the process is simply using Copy/Paste for individual flights and moving them to the position you want. Just be smart and make a copy of the mis file before making any edits. This way you have a backup in case you make any mistakes.

I do hope this has been a help to you. If I got it all wrong...oh well...maybe it will help someone else.

Aviar

You're right Aviar !

I indeed forgot to mention I'm talking about DF missions, where you access the plane list via the arming screen.

As mentioned by IceFire, the possibility of the plane limitations causing this, I have missions with either type.
Both resulting in the same behavior to as planes getting added to the bottom of the list (inside the mission itself).
Whereas they fall in place in the FMB just as usual.

It's by far not a major issue but this way, looking for a specific plane, you are required checking in its normal spot and at the bottom of the list.

In addition to this, the line in the conf.ini, for either having the planes sorted as usual or alphabetically, seems to only apply to the QMB but not to online missions (again, just tried DF).
Don't know if it's intendet to work that way or not.

Thx for giving your thoughts on this !

I don't know if it was mentioned before, but...

In QMB, often there's an aircraft with it's nose stuck in the ground (like it crash landed), since the begining of the mission. If you cicle through enemy planes, there it is. Usually I've seen Bf109s, but today I saw a pink untextured Mosquito. And it was making gun sounds like there were some ground units near it. But it was outside the map area, with nothing nearby. This case was with the Bessarabia map.

Changed the map to Slovakia Summer. The pink untextured Mosquito was still there, but no sounds. Changed to Normandy 1 map, and it was there but with its belly to the ground.

When you reset QMB, and with other configuration of aircraft (both friendly and enemy) strange crashed planes may not appear...

Digged out an old one.

The BK 3.7 for the Bf110 still fires below gunsight center.
Tested with 100, 200, 400, 800 meters convergence, all same result.

The BK 3.7 for Hs129 however seems to be alright, goes high over gunsight center for 100m (crossing center at 100m I'd say), slightly high past 200m (again I guess crossing center at 200m) and further out it's very well centered.

As for the BK 7.5 on the Hs129 B-3, that one behaves the other way round.
It goes low on short convergences and climbs with longer convergences until it hits gunsight center at ~700m.

Tests were done on the ground with chocks set, so slightly elevated barrels. I don't know how much gravity comes into play for this setup, but it was the best way having a still and stable platform to observe the tracers.
If the ballistics are intented this way let me know, else I'd say the BK 3.7 (Hs129) is right, both others are off.

All have a nice weekend !!!

I wasn't sure if it was the limitations but I had assumed it might be the case. I will do a little more testing on this if I have a moment.

Oh good, it's not just me. :)

Actually, my OCD is the default naming convention in the folder\file view architecture.

One of these days, I'm gonna have a HUGE aircraft re-naming session so all my lists are ordered perhaps by country or manufacturer name...

:razz:

Try it inflight at targets. Watching tracers is not a good test.
I see no problems with aiming and hitting.

Hi DT,

Holes are missing in damaged P-40 (I believe M in this case) :

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...k/grab0028.jpg

Textures of placards by the engine controls in the Pe-2 cockpit are flickering:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...k/grab0029.jpg

Back from some quick tests I just did.

This time I set up a FMB mission with 4 B-29 as "Target Drones" and a Bf110 / Hs 129 for me (both armed with BK 3.7).

Bf110:
Ordered the 4 B-29 to fly a straight path across the map with 400 km/h at 1000m altitude.
Convergence for cannons was set to my usual 400 meters (didnt test other convergences now).

According to Wikipedia the BK 3.7 used in the Ju87 had a muzzle velocity of 780 - 1170 m/s, so I estimated a rough 950m/s (const.) for this test.
For the projectile to cover 400m it takes ~0.42 seconds, where the B-29 covers ~50m. So I took my shots from ~350m distance, primarily aiming for the engines 2 and 3.
Result was the bullets going too low, no hits unless I aimed over the wing or when my aim was sluggish and I didn't keep the plane stable. I took about 30 to 40 shots.
In addition I discovered a pattern, every 3rd shot goes sligtly low but still low, the 2 shots in between go way low.

Hs 129:
Adjusting the bombers' speed to 300 km/h and after taking the moving system into account again, I took my shots from about 360m.
This time aiming for engines 1 and 4.
5 shots 4 dead or burning engines, with the sight right on the engine nacelles. I give that one missed shot to my sluggish aim again.
In total I did about 10 shots with the Hs 129, but it got clear early that the bullets went where I aimed.

I might do more testing when there is more time, but so far my first impression got confirmed.
I even think taking a moving system into the equasion with muzzle velocity, travel time and bla wouldn't be necessary, but hey.

Once time permits and I did more testing on this, I will report further results.
In the mean time, maybe someone else could try some testing too, so we get more results from more than just 1 person.

So far thx all, have a good evening !

I tried all in a fast rough test at ground targets and recieved very high percentage of hits.
There is some random dispersion, which may influence.

However, it will be looked into. Thanks!

Thank you Caspar !

I don't think my tests are the all and end of how to test stuff.
Maybe I'm really missing something or doing something wrong, I'd not take bets that the error isn't on my end.
It's just the the way how well the BK3.7 of the Hs129 alligns with the sight and with the Bf110 I always have the feeling and observe my shots traveling below gunsight center,
that makes me scratch my head.
I just like to point out stuff that I notice, even if this leads to the confirmation that all's right the way it is and it's just me at the end having trouble aiming with the BK3.7.

Thank you all, you do a marvelous job !

Just wanted to report a small issue with the Do-335A-0.

I've seen them on fire until the end of a mission and they never explode. In the screenshot you will see one where the pilot has already ejected. I watched this one burn for a good 20 minutes until the mission was ended.

Aviar

But others explode very fast and the sphere of ejected debris is large.
Dont let a I-16 or a Mig3 fill the reticle when you shoot. Prepare for the chute, if you do.

The slipball of Bf-109s from G6-Late up to K4 C3 won't be centered until their airspeed reached 640 km/h. Historically, the rudder trim tab of Bf-109s should be trimmed for coordinated cruise at 400 km/h.

This isn't just the Do-335. A number of planes seem to burn forever without exploding or falling apart. In the past (although, admittedly not with the 4.11 patch), I've seen He-111, Ju-88 and G4M bombers burn for long periods of time.

I think that there's a bug in the programming, since fire either causes an explosion fairly quickly or else it goes on for minutes without damaging the plane.

Realistically, even if there isn't an explosion, a big fire should weaken the plane's structure to the point where it fails. While I believe that it's impossible for fire to spread in IL2, it should be possible to make fire damage the plane in the location where it's burning and adjacent parts, with damage increasing as the plane burns.

This actually brings up an interesting question: is the AI aware of fire extinguishers?
The Do-335 has them for both engines, and I've used them to successfully put out fires.

There are a few other planes(TB3 for example) with engine fire extinguishers built in, but I don't know whether the AI uses them.

I have to admit that was a very interesting question. You can actually see the extinguishers activate so if the AI did use them I assume we would see evidence of that. However, I haven't ever seen this action from an AI.

Aviar

Hello, first post here, even if i'm a long time Il-2 user.
Congrats for the patch, DT keeps giving new life to Il-2. ;)

Even if it's not strictly related to 4.11 (was already the same in previous patches), the SM.79 damage model should be revised. Currently it's a flying tank, completly off for a plane largely made of wood and fabric. It's really hard shoot down a SM.79 using planes without cannons (i.e. Huricane) and also with 20mm one have to expend a lot of ammo on it. I took a look on the armour values in the fmd and some of them are in fact higher than B-29 ones! The SM.79 has been detailed very much and is very nicely crafted in every other aspect, is a shame the DM has been overlooked.

This has been in question before and its all down to how you attack the SM.79 with mg's

Read this thread it contains the information you need :)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=10343

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrvWwm1TqGk

Could you possibly provide a quick fix for the new lighting effects, namely restore the old ones? The new "changes to darkness of night" are terrible. I have to skip every third mission or so because it's too dark to fly. The sky is strangely dark with white clouds or the other way around. Clouds are occasionally solid brown, or white on top and coal black when you look at them from below. Quite distracting.
Yes, I know it's been reported before.

Of course you are correct. This problem has affected a number of my coop missions. As you mentioned, DT is aware and so there is not much more we can do.

I think we need to be patient and let DT handle the situation. We all want 4.11 to be perfect, but these things take time. Hang in there.

Aviar

What's wrong with this? Clouds do look clearer from top when there is a full moon. And IL2's nights are always full moon...

The start of the mission is at 14:15 (02:15 PM), that's what's wrong with this.

AI and Formation Flying
 

Flying the Beaufighter on the Burma map both Pedro & myself had grey square patches on the cockpit glass instead of the bullet holes.

Also Would it be possible to put a map dimmer in the next update as in night flights the regular lighting on the map messes up your night vision ?

This is a bit old, but I was wondering if we could get a proper configuration file for the i-15 in order to select whether or not it carries wheel spats. I think a few other planes are missing this feature, but I can't remember which.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...grab0006-1.jpg

This is achieved by pressing Shift F1 from the bomber's chair ;)

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...grab0005-1.jpg

Iron sight is kinda useless on the MC 202 (not a good photo, but the aim point is too high)

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...grab0004-3.jpg

Large hole in the Yak-9

Tanks driving under a bridge:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...grab0000-3.jpg

Tail-wheel retraction issue:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...grab0001-2.jpg

In the Bf-110, the damage pattern in the wingtip disappears as the camera gets closer. I did not realize anything was wrong with my plane until I zoomed out!

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...grab0003-1.jpg

I've heard it said that the default camera position in the Tempest is too far aft which makes the headrest appear too large.

I'm unsure as if this is the right thread or not. If it's not, then I trust the mods will move it as necessary.

I have a part-question/part-seemingly bug/possible feature request to report on.

When I'm flying in offline campaigns in career mode, I've noticed a number of times that I've shot the bejeezus out of other aircraft, yet not been given kill credit when they go down. I started paying more attention during the missions, restarted careers with all the allowable views enabled. What I found was that even if I pumped an enemy full of lead to the point where the engine's quit and they've got the canopy open with arms flapping trying to escape, I still won't get the kill credit if a friendly so much as puts a single shot into them before they go down. In essense, what I see is I do maybe 75% plus of the critical damage to a single plane, and a friendly will come along and do the other 25% after me yet get the credit. I tried the converse a few times as well, wait for a wingman to shoot the piss out of somebody, then as they were heading down I'd swoop in and give them a few shots. In most of the cases I get the credit. Another irritating thing is sometimes I'll shoot up a bad guy enough that they'll go down, but they won't nosedive in, they'll kinda belly flop it on a flat piece of land, maybe a few chunks come off, etc. I don't get kill credit for those, when the plane's clearly a write off and loss.

So, in summary, it *seems* to me that the formulae for calculating who gets credit for kills and when is either wrong in some ways or incomplete.

My questions then become, is it just me? Am I wrong here? I don't think I am, given my highly unscientific testing... Is it handled differently for online and offline play? (I don't play online)

Possible courses of action as I see it:
- Team D could document some kind of short 'n sweet write up on how this mechanic works for our education.
- Fixing any wonky or weird code mechanics so kill accreditation is more accurate. (bug fix request?)
- Fleshing out the code mechanics so that kill accreditation is more accurate. (feature request?)

Cheers all :cool:

Whacker: I take it you don't fly online all that much? :)

We call it kill stealing and it's sort of a blight on some online matches. I've observed the AI closely and they behave like humans up to a certain point after which they are much more fair. If the enemy aircraft has initiated the bailout or if the pilot is dead the AI will stop firing and ignore the plane. They will also ignore if there is a wing or the entire tail section is missing.

Otherwise they continue to shoot.

To some degree this "bug" is a historically and very human type response. The bigger problem isn't really the AI doing this but the scoring involved and that's where the game part of this comes in. It would be nice to share points relative to the amount of damage that one aircraft has dealt to another aircraft. So the magic BB for the steal is no longer a problem.

The AI are SUCH point whores! ;-)

Cloyd

@ Ice

No mate, I don't fly online at all. But I have certainly read enough around the various forums to get a feel for the big ticket items the online guys deal with. I'm glad you posted though, it somewhat validates in my mind the idea that the kill credit code could use a little massaging and/or tweaking.

Giant wall of text follows:

Core logic ideas:

1. Whomever causes the most damage to critical systems gets the kill credit.

Reasoning/Logic - Seems pretty straightforward to me, whomever caused the most hurt should get the credit. If I've pumped enough lead into the bad guy to the point where he's leaking fuel out of all compartments, engine's seized up, missing huge chunks of control surfaces, and he's coasting trying to get distance, that's one written off plane in my view. If someone comes along after and puts two 20mm rounds into him while he's coasting and doesn't damage or destroy what I've already destroyed, that's not entirely fair to me since I put him out of action to begin with.

Example in numbers. Say I shoot up Mr. bad guy. I cause his engine to 100% quit working. 100% damage to all fuel tanks so they are leaking. 50% damage to all controllable surfaces. 100% damage to the hydraulics system. 66% damage to weapons (4 of 6 guns are broken). My fearless wingman comes along and pops him with those 20mm shells and does another 25% damage to the controllable surfaces, and puts the remaining 33% of weapons out of action. In this case, I should get the kill credit.

2. Whomever kills the pilot gets the kill credit.

Reasoning/Logic - This would be a "final nail in the coffin" kind of scenario. A dead pilot essentially guarantees that the plane is going to crash and burn hard with no potential of repair or salvage. This could POTENTIALLY not be fair. Taking my previous scenario, I do the damage percentages to Mr. Bad Guy. Fearless Wingman comes along and puts 2 20mm shells into his cockpit, doing 100% damage to the pilot and removing him from this cruel, pixelated world. One could argue that even though I shot the crap out of Badguy's ride to begin with, he COULD try and coast it back across enemy lines, belly flop it in such a manner that it's mostly intact, and it COULD get drug back to an enemy airfield and repaired to be back in the action again. I don't know if I like this idea or not. This potentially leads to point 3:

3. Share kill credit under certain circumstances.

Somewhat subjective here. Say Fearless Wingman and I both do roughly the same amount of damage to critical systems in Mr. badguy's plane. He crashes it. Seems logical we should both get credit for that. Say we have the above scenario, where I do tons of damage to critical systems and Fearless Wingman comes along and snipes him dead with 2 shots. Should we share credit? I'm leaning towards probably, he wasn't likely going to get anywhere after I was done with him, Fearless Wingman just sealed his and his ride's fate to be sure.

When should kills NOT be shared? Bears some discussion IMO. Say pilot A gets in a few lucky shots off the first pass and pilot B's engine quits, but everything else is intact. Let's say he did 100 pts of damage total to pilot B. Pilot C could wait for pilot B (who is maybe an AI pilot?) who's now flying nice and level steadily descending as the AI tends to do and not bailing out. He proceeds to do 1000 points of damage to this nice, steady, level target and causes tons of other critical systems to fail and maybe even kills the pilot. Is it fair that he should get full credit or partial credit for the work pilot A did? Should pilot A be penalized for not following up and ensuring pilot B is dead? I don't know.

When should kills not be counted?

Best things I can come up with:

1. Badguy gets shot to bits BUT makes it back to an enemy airbase and lands with gear down. IMO shouldn't be a kill, even if the plane is a write-off.
2. Badguy struggles back to within a certain distance of an enemy airbase and manages to flop it in the grass mostly intact WITHOUT catching it on fire. What defines mostly intact? Dunno, maybe call it a certain percentage of the airframe intact? If he flops it and one wing comes off and it lands upside down with a ruined engine, could they get it back in the air? Possibly. If he flops it and the engine's ruined but the airframe remains intact, could it be back up in the air? Sure.

When should kills always be counted?

1. If they put it in the drink. Yeah, one could theoretically recover a plane from shallow water and get it back in the air, but it's extremely costly, time consuming, and effort intensive. I would submit for our game's purposes that any plane that goes in any body of water as a result of enemy fire gets counted as a kill, plain and simple.


Overall Assumptions - Ignoring certain "reality" aspects such as requiring a witness to claim a kill.

Too complicated. 50/50 always.

Historically, some allied units sliced the pie more finely than that, with pilots getting a 1/3 or a 1/4 of a kill. But, whatever works. Any partial kill credit would be an improvement.

Mostly, though, I'd love to see some consistency. Sometimes, I'll kill a plane and I'll get an instant "enemy destroyed" message. Other times, with equivalent damage, and equivalent circumstances, I'll get nothing until the plane actually crashes, giving "friendly" planes ample time for vulching.

It's definitely a bug with the programming. It's a very old bug; it's been the second biggest offliner complain for a decade.

By comparison to the now fixed AI problems (THANK YOU TD!) it should be easy to instantly assign kill credit when a plane catches on fire, blows up, falls apart or has the pilot killed.

How about a system where kills are only credited if it can be verified by at least one other friendly pilot or ground troops?

That could be cool. You could "claim" a kill in a post-mission drop-down list, and it only counts if an AI was around to see it and survives to "tell" about it.

I suppose humans could verify, but witnesses could leave the game, lie if they have a spite issue, or forget to report, etc. Splitting a kill 50/50 (or even 25/75, etc) automatically based on damage done would be just fine. However, you wouldn't want the guy who gets in a couple peashooter shots just as the opponent hits the ground to get a half, or even quarter, of the pie. :cool: But it's better than nothing.

Also, I think point structure for ground targets could be re-worked. I mean, an aircraft carrier is worth 700 points....a bomber is 400. It's much easier to shoot down two bombers than one carrier, and a carrier could have 2000 points worth of planes in its hangar or on the deck. Fuel stores and "infrastructure" should also count for something and be target-able by AI (and I know about the whole hiding the truck in the building thing, but that's not very cool 8-)).

I disagree completely. Someone who randomly comes along and puts a single 7.92mm round, or two, or three, or ten, into the flaming hulk that I just shot up shouldn't get an iota of credit. Hence my earlier thoughts. If kill stealing is a problem online that others have indicated, then this also would be further argument against a simplistic 50/50 split.

Seconding all of this, great ideas.

That's what I said ;)

My fault then. To be fair to myself, you did kinda contradict yourself a few times, so I was confused. Focused on what I thought the gist of your response was.

I posted this issue before in the 4.10.1 bug report, not much changed, so here I go again for 4.11.

The fuel quantity of the P-51D-20NA is somewhat off.
Inspired by the thread about the wrong fuel for the Betty I did some testing again and notived not much change to the last time I checked it.

In short:
Test was a simple runtime check on the runway with 51" 2600rpm (70% for both).
100% fuel should be a ful auxiliary tank (85gal) and 2 full wing tanks (92gal each), giving 269gal total.
With this much fuel the engine ran at the given settings for ~152 minutes, burning ~1.77gal/min.
The auxiliary tank, from the time the needle started to move emptied in ~55 minutes, saying its 1.55gal/min.
Adding 2 drop tanks and lifting the fuel to 419gal total, engine ran for ~212 minutes, burning 1.98gal/min.

There are some possible error sources. I did the test with all available fuel quantities (100% - 10%) and there are more oddities !

No range tests done yet due to lack of time at the moment.
If you, TD, are interested in all the test results for all fuel quantities, let me know and by the end of the month I will do range tests as good as I can and write a comprehensive summary of all the results.

Wish you all a relaxed sunday !

^^^^what he said!!!^^^^^

Disappearing of user created bases can be avoided by turning "realistic navigation" off.

thanks from Air Chief Marshal Bozo
 

Thank you from the RCAF_FB ~S~

thanks from Air Chief Marshal Bozo for your help ~S~:-P

The FW190-D9 '44 engine overrevs in power dives, this results in engine damage in prolongued dives. RPM reaches 3400 instead of 3250. This used to happen with the TA152-H in 4.10 and earlier, but never to the D9.

Here's a track: http://www.mediafire.com/file/5jmz9r...ngine_bug.ntrk

No idea whether the D9 '45 has the same issue.
Would be great if you guys could have a look at this.

You really shouldn't be doing a "power dive". The air rushing over the propeller is going to impart a pinwheel effect, making it spin faster. If you have the power set to a high level, the Kommandogerat in German aircraft will keep the RPMs high too (reducing prop-pitch with high manifold pressure causes over-boosting and quickly damages or destroys the engine). The Kommandogerat is a mechanical system and probably not "smart" enough to keep power and RPMs at a specified setting when in extreme modes of flight (ie, dive).

Reduce power in a dive; problem solved.

For allied planes you must reduce power and prop-pitch in a dive. However, Il-2 doesn't care if prop-pitch is too low with respect to power. In effect, you only have to adjust prop-pitch and leave power alone.

However, it's not really fun to cheat :-P and it gives one a better impression of how much easier it was to manage German aircraft engines.

I think DT mentioned that at some point this would be fixed, and that "power dives" won't be possible in any aircraft as they are now (don't quote me on that though).

Cant Z.506B can't take off
 

Hi, I'm new here. Many thanks to DT for their excellent work!

Problem confirmed. Something is seriously not OK with 506B's flight model. With 50% fuel and 50% bomb load it is unable to take off at all. And if the next waypoint is above ground, it continues its way like a land vehicle. Funny to see a floatplane strolling around in the desert... :rolleyes:

I saw something recently that struck me as a bit odd.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/7564/grab0000a.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Black smudge on the right rear stabilizer? Dunno what that means... Damage? Partial damage? Complete damage, shot out (like the rudder)?

Edit - Spoiler tags don't seem to work here, sorry about image size.

Geez, how big is your monitor? :shock:

That probably a mistake in the alpha-channel. There should be a hole there with a black ring of burnt metal or fabric, like the rudder.

We have a winner :)

There are a bunch of much worse damage models if you look closely. Mostly with older aircraft and IL-2 originals. It's somewhat inconsistent... the IL-2 itself and the Bf109E have some great detailing while others are broken or poorly done.

One of my faves is the misaligned texture for the damaged fuselage access panel on the LaGG-3. :shock:

3 x Viewsonic VA2702w's fed delicious pixels by several ATI 6970's. Hence all my clamoring for the much wider FOV range support.

I've also been petitioning for the game to be a bit more ATI friendly. Don't expect miracles and all kinds of optimization, but there shouldn't be any reason why ATI users can't run water=4 when the Nvidia crowd can. :-|

Yeah, ATI glitches in IL-2 are a major downer: weird blue glow and impossibility to use perfect water without "blocky text" syndrome.

I doubt DT can do anything, and I doubt ATI will do anything for such an old game.

EDIT - for those with slow connections (not me, but they're out there) it would be nice if you cropped and re-sized the image next time.

ATI Radeon Sapphire HD3870 512MB -- Water = 2 -- MTO Map
No weird effects. No blocky text etc.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...Image01-25.jpg

OpenGl entries in conf.ini as follows:

That damage texture problem has been there for years. I assumed that it was meant to be that way. A lot of the older planes have really ugly damage textures.

The original skin artists went crazy with the black airbrush tool in Photoshop, so rather than getting realistic "chewed up aluminum" damage textures, damaged planes look like they've been attacked by killer fungus.

And I'd disagree that the Bf-109 has great damage modeling. Sure, on the E series the engine cowl gets knocked askew and you can see the engine, but the perfectly circular "sooty craters" in the wings are neither realistic nor attractive. (Note: I once found a Russian picture of tests of cannon shells against the Bf-109 wing, which is obviously where the original artist got the idea. The only problem is that the tests had the cannon firing at wings turned perpendicular to the cannon shot! So of course the resulting explosion looked nice and round. Entry from a less acute angle would give irregular-shaped entry and exit holes.)

Fw190 a5 weapons
 

Hi,
I noticed this inaccuracy:
The mission was a bombing with a U17-type configuration (see screen shot).
As you can see, the menu choice of weapons, the two guns are visible outside.
As before take off the two cannons are no longer visible (see screen shot).
Why?
I think that in the configuration U17 were removed the guns outside.
In this case the error is only in the menu screen to choose the weapons.

Thank you for reply.

This is going to be a longer one and mostly not related to 4.11 directly, but as there is no other bug report thread I will post it here.

As we all are now required to fly with more attention to our engines and temperatures,
I noticed some things with instruments whereupon I (briefly) checked all cockpits.

The results:

A20:
- Carb Air Temp needles are free floating in the instruments (no attachment to a shaft)

F4F / Fm2:
- Oil Pressure runs counter clockwise
- Fuel Pressure remains low

F6F:
- Underbelly cowl flap "opens" to the inside
- Fuel Pressure gauge works as fuel quantity gauge (on that note I didn't find a dedicated fuel gauge)
- Oil Pressure goes off the limit all the way to maximum indicatable by the instrument

I-250:
- Free floating needles for Oil and Coolant Temperatures
- Oxigen Quantity needle missing

IL-10:
- Oil and Coolant Temperature needles free floating

P-38:
- Fuel needles flicker against each other when overlapping

P-51:
- Free floating RPM needle
- Compass needles flicker against each other when overlapping
- Altimeter needles free floating
- Carb Air Temp needle free floating

Pe-2 (110 + 350) + Pe-3 bis:
- Missing needle for Air Pressure

SBD:
- Oil and Fuel Pressure too high

Yak:
- Fuel Pressure needle low and not moving when engine runs
- (Yak-1B only) Fuel Pressure needle on the wrond side (ccw)

A6M:
- Fuel Pressure needle not moving when engine runs
- Oil Pressure goes all the way to max indicatable
- Oxygen Quantity 0 (maybe intended this way)

Bf109:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs

D3A:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs
- Oil Pressure goes all the way to max indicatable
- Orange lever to the left is translucent from the top, looks like its placed upside down, the bottom wouldn't matter to be translucent

Fw190:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs
- (A-4, -5, -6) MG warning lights are lit until nose ammo is empty (maybe correct, but in my eyes a warning light should indicate the other way around)

He111:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engines run
- Oil Pressure goes all the way to max indicatable
- Bombsight elevation indicator on the LotFe runs the wrong direction (indicates 60° when bombsight actually faces straight downwards)

Hurricane Mk.I:
- No needle for Oil pressure
- Fuel Pressure moves with boost (maybe intended this way)

Ju87:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs

Ju88:
- Oil Pressure goes all the way to max indicatable

Mc202:
- Manifold Pressure needle rotates aroung the wrong axis (Y axis instead of Z axis (Z pointing out the instrument))

Ta152:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs


It may be quite likely that I simply misunderstand how some instruments work or what they are supposed to indicate (quantity wise).
Or if some things fall under the advise "please don't go by cockpit gauges, they aren't always accurate".
Please correct me if things in here are wrong either way !

Good day everyone !

I don't know if this has been already mentioned, but the behaviour of AI escort fighters needs looking at. When enemy fighters attack the bombers they are set to, they go into the same pull-away-and-get-altitude routine they do when they're on a normal patrol point - i.e. they leave the bombers to get blown out of the sky.

Makes all escorted missions unplayable really.

please more tech info and fix to track recording
 

Hi all, I put this here although it could also be categorized as a wish-list:

1. As complex engine management has become more crucial than ever before, a bit more technical info on flyable planes would be all the more welcome. (Type of propeller, RPM limits, recommended supercharger stages as per altitude, etc.) I'm sure most of these specs are known and used to model flight characteristics, so why not could they become common knowledge? (BTW, the old object viewer is completely obsolate at the moment, why not to use it for essential info?)

2. It has been reported many times that recorded tracks (also ntrk ones) do not show exactly what was showing in real time. Is there any hope/chance that it could be fixed?

3. I encountered similar problems in 'live' QMB missions. I experimented a bit with various fighters in a 4 to 4 situation, being all other settings equal for both parties. The planes were on AI, I only watched the combat from outside, then changed plane types, and repeated. On the 3rd or 5ft run I observed planes firing into the air while others, being a mile away, reported being shot at. I'll try to document this space warp with Fraps (since game-intern recordings are unreliable).

Anyway, thanks DT!

A/C Freezing up in flight
 

I've only been able to find one post that spoke of aircraft (AI) freezing up in flight. Unfortunately, now I can't find that post. Hopefully this isn't beating a dead horse, and instead helping out.

I've got a .ntrk of a QMB mission (I don't remember which map) where the lead Mosquito of the second flight just freezes up. I've also seen this two other times. I don't have the details of map/setting/etc. but I'll make sure to record it if I see it again.

Dead pilots can move their head.
I reviewed a track recorded online and saw that head motions of the guy i had PKd were still being transmitted.

Walking Dead meets IL-2?

Is it better like this ?
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/a...1220-16-09.jpg
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/a...1220-16-40.jpg
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/a...1220-16-59.jpg

Hi !

It's not a bug, I experienced this "issue", which is not really one, in my Fw 190 & Ta 152 modpack, the MgFF of the Fw 190 A5 aren't loadouts like external Mg151/20 as on the Fw 190 A8, these are only simple meshes that you make appear-desappear in the java classes regarding the loadout you choose, as you can see it work perfectly ingame, that it's the most important thing, but not in the menu screen where you choose the loadouts because in it you see all the meshes, hidden or not, which compose the plane.

Wrong statistic in 4.11 Campaigns while NTRK recording
 

Dear DT Members, yor job is really fantastic, your new putch 4.11 is really great, THANK YOU! However some bugs take place unfortunately. One of them has recently detected by me. Please, see description below and please forgive my possible mistskes in English (I'm not native speaker).
BUG NAME:
Wrong statistic in 4.11 Campaigns if NTRK record is ongoing while exit from the mission.
Error description:
If we play any campaign in 4.11 and NTRK record is ongoing while our exit from the mission, the player will be credited with the loss of his aircraft.
Explanation of error:
The course of "investigative experiment":
1) Start any campaign (screenshot 1)
2) Turn on the NTRK record, immediately turn it off (screenshot 2) or don't make record at all.
3) Exit from the mission and evaluate the results of flight (screenshot 3) - players aircraft lost -0 (that's truth).
4) Repeat the same mission, turn on the NTRK record (screenshot 4) and exit the mission, while the track record is ongoing (as always before)
5) Then evaluate the results of flight (screenshot 5) - aircraft lost players - 1, although we did not turn on the engine at all, and in fact player's aircraft hasn't any damage.
Now (at 4.11), such event has place always, when any player forgets to turn off the NTRK record before exit.
The stability of detection:
Always.
Screenshot or video:
Attached.
Software version, hardware configuration, OS version, third-party software (running at the time of display): not affected. There weren't such cases in previous versions of the game.
Is it possible to fix it?
Thank you in advance.
Best regards.

Multi-colored tires
 

Has anyone noticed the tires on F4Fs. They look like AC skins look when they no longer fit the airplane. Any solutions, or ideas?
Thanks

umm, mine are fine:confused:

That's interesting. The tires are flawed, as I said, no matter what skin I add. The tail wheels are merely white, uncolored, outlines. Have you any ideas about causes or solutions?
Thanks for your response.

Just to add, the wheels affected are those, like the F3f and Buffalo varient that visibly retract into the fusilage sides. Also, many tailwheels have no color. I can't see a pattern with the tailwheels. I don't know where to look for a problem.

Looks like something got corrupted in your install. You might have to uninstall and re-install.

My wheels all look fine as well on F4F and F6F variants.

Thanks for yet more great work. I was wondering about the effectiveness of the 'Limited Ammo' in the Weapons and Stores section of the Difficulty setting. I was hoping it would limit the aircraft ammunition to something around real life level but to me they still seem to have a huge amount of ammo to expend.

Real life ammo count is exactly the effect of that difficulty switch. Maybe you're lucky to be in aircraft that carry large amounts of ammo, or you're just an incredibly good shot so that you simply don't need a lot of ammo.

Planes that are fairly short on ammo are the Yak's, if you want to try them.

Static respawn.
 

In IL2 1946 4.11m version.
Some static objects like AAA guns or cannons respawn after being destroyed.
It happend that I destroy some static objects.
I shoot them.
They burn. Server display Ennemy AAA destroyed.
After some time they respawn and open fire again...
Is it a bug.
If yes is it fixed in 4.11.1m ?

Thx all for your great job.

I assume you're playing online.

The host can implement an AI respawn time into the mission. There is no bug.

Thanks Luno13.
I found the parameters in the [RespawnTime] section.

me-109 squadron sign
 

4.11.1 AI / Jet bug:

Jets like He162 and Me262 can't take off anymore. They overheat when they're half way the runway and have diffculties gaining altitude. They fail to climb and/or their engines catch fire. Tested with he162 and single mission 'rapid strike mission'. With the rapid strike mission, the first he162 cannot gain sufficient alititude and crashes into the woods at the end of the runway.

edit: small correction. Bug is also present in 4.11 + hotfix. Base closure with YP80 catches fire when taking off and 'rapid strike' mission produces the same result. I.e. he162 is unabnle to take off and it's engine starts to burn.

Rgs,
Mark

I just made tests and I have no issues with the jets. Make sure to increase power slowly. Too fast and the engine will catch fire.

Also, I tend not to add more than 80% power, to avoid overheating.

Acceleration is slow, and jerking the plane off the runway won't help. I pull back on the stick just enough to raise the nose. The plane will roll on the main wheels until it's "ready" to fly, and will lift off on its own at the right speed. Raise gear immediately, lower the nose to accelerate and raise flaps in increments.

Luno13,

Manually there will be no problem with any jet I guess and I think it's the auto pilot that messes it up some how.

I tested the he162 'rapid strike mission' with auto pilot enabled for take off. I checked a couple of times and nearly all of them crash into the hillside.

Please check if you get the same behavior with this mission.

Rgs,
Mark

The Heinkels indeed crash, but it already happened in 4.09. Do you know the last version it worked with? Overheat in 4.11 came too quick for some jets, but this was corrected in 4.11.1 and should no longer be an issue. I haven't seen one catching fire on take off, yet.

There is no bug here. The jet AI takes off perfectly fine in 4.11.1. Even the Player's plane (in offline missions) will take off correctly if the Autopilot is used. I'm not sure what your problem may be.

I tested the Rapid Strike mission and the jet AI all take off just fine. However, they do crash into the hill. This may be due to new FM's.

I tried a quick workaround and it worked. Just open the mission in the FMB and give all the 262 and 162 flights 65% fuel instead of 100%. This makes them lighter and they don't crash anymore.

Aviar

I did not test it with 4.09, so I can't confirm that.

I tried the misison on 4.11 + hotfix and 4.11.1 only. With both versions they crash into the hillside. I'm not sure if overheating has been fixed for jets yet when auto pilot is in control. The overheating warning appears too early I guess.

To check overheating and autopilot behavior, I did some other tests with other fighters as well (Do335-v13 and La7 from single mission section all with AP enabled) and they never seem to overheat. Not during take off and not while they fly their waypoints. In this mission La7 never overheats, and if it does then only during engaging enemy fighters and for a very short duration.

With the Do335 mission, it reached 550 IAS all along it's waypoints and an overheating warning message never appeared.

I can't assess if this is 'real' or not. I just find it weird that some planes, when flown by AP do not have any overheating issues, while some others have them so quickly.

Rgs,
Mark

Aviar,

It looks like these new patches thus created some incompatabilities with older missions which need fixing. Either by changing the missions or having another look at the overheating and AP engine management part.

Is it realistic a He162 overheats when it's only halfway the runway on take off?

I'm not aware of any new FM's for these planes. Did 4.11.1 introduce a new fm for these types?

Rgs,
Mark

Bug's been present at least since 4.09.
FM's haven't been changed for the He 162 for ages.
Overheat in 4.11 didn't work well with AI for some jets.
Overheat in 4.11.1 works with AI in all jets.
Jet engines overheat differently than piston engines, both in real life and in game.

To sum it up, either the He 162 FM needs to be fixed in which case real life data on low speed acceleration, handling and take off distance would come in handy, or very simple, the mission needs to be adjusted.

Unless you want to research He 162 performance, don't spend sleepless nights over the issue.

I have a problem with the Quick mission builder. It gives me a blank screen when ever I click the button however this was before the release of 4.11.1 and I'll soon post a picture to show my problem.

Have you tried deleting the .last.quick file from the Quicks folder in your il-2 installation?

They don't. As I stated earlier, in my version of 4.11.1, the 162's do not overheat and take off with no problems. The AI takes off just fine and you can take off manually with no overheating.

Maybe you have a corrupted install? I don't know.

*Are you sure you installed the 4.11.1 patch correctly? Does it say 4.11.1m when the game is loading? There was an overheat issue with the jets in 4.11 but it's fixed in 4.11.1.

Aviar

Okay. To verify I completely reinstalled 4.11 and hotfix and 4.11.1 on top of that. I can confirm the he162 indeed does not overheat on take off, but still crashes into the hills ;-)

Not sure what's different this time and what I saw. I only had the modified exe from mod 4.11 (ton) and the soundpack, nothing else. I'm now back with a completely standard and default install of 4.11.1.

Thanks and regards,
Mark

Ps. If I remember correctly, I was sober at the time I tested this. Can't be sure of course. Too drunk most of the time.

I've noticed a strange behavior of AI controlled Fw190 A-4 on the Kuban map in QMB.

Part of the problem happened with other planes on other maps, and also in FMB.

Just choose a flight of one (or even four) Axis Fw 190 A-4 (Ace) and start a QMB Scramble mission in Kuban Map.
The airfield in question is near Anapa.
As soon as the mission starts, let the auto pilot take control.
After the flight, when the aircraft reaches its landing pattern, it will land far before the strip on the descending part of a hill. When it finally reaches the airfield strip, it will take a tour there and visit most parking spots before finding the right one and stops. While it's doing that, the other planes in the flight will follow the pattern landing down the hill, but only untill the airstrip is reached, when they just disappear because the first plane is still fooling around the airfield. They will never reach their parking spots.

I've seen this behavior in other missions. One I can remember was a Heinkel 111 fooling around the airfield and eventually crashing into default airfield objects. But in the case above it seems the problem is the airfield, as the aircraft takes off from one airfield and lands on another (the one by the hill). Tested with Bf 110 G-2 on the Kuban map and the same happened. The same situation in Crimea map, for example, does not happen.

In other 4.11.1 news, I'm still having quite a bit of trouble getting the AI Tse-Tse Mosquito (Mk.XVIII) to attack ground targets.
Has anyone else had any luck?
In air to air they do okay, except that the .303 and 6pdr don't converge, no matter what you set in the pre-flight... The .303 seem on target but the 6pdr seem to be angled down. (Wasn't there a Bf-110G gunpack that did the same once upon a time?) Is this a feature perhaps? I just want to see a 6pdr shell hit something... ;)

P.S. Great work TD and thanks!

I was playing someone's template mission set on the D-Day, the invasion of Normandy...

Although landing crafts and other allied ships do fire on the German artillery standing on the top of the beach hills, these German artillery units cannot fire down on the landing crafts, but only on the ships far away from the shore. Maybe they cannot angle the guns down, to aim at the allied forces down on the beach.

(Sorry, I've posted this reply on the wrong place again - the wish list for 4.12. Should have posted it here in the first place).