OK, I took myself some time for testing.
Runway 1 and 2 (static ships) are not even to the ground.
Planes set on them will bounce when loading and crash immediately.

OK, I found out, since its in the choice box of ships, you need to treat this runways like a ship and assign the starting point to the runway icon.

Runway 3 and 4 5 & 6 work.
You can arrange 3 and 4 with many of them to larger areas and set take of to start waypoints.
5 and 6 are large flats, they work.
Most important, what I learned, by default, they are assigned to the red party.
This does not work with blue party planes unless you change the runway to the same colour as the aircraft or neutral.
Then you can proceed as it was a real airport.
Now you can create yor airport with runways and taxiways and stuff.

Sometimes it takes a little time :-)

Thanks SPAD, this solved the problem.

I wished placing the runways would automatically remove the random trees. At the moment I am trying to build the historical airfield at Losonc/Lucenec on the Slovakia map, but all suitable locations are crowded with trees.

At least on the P-400 and the Ju-87D2 fuel fires continue even after the plane is out of fuel!

On the P-400, fires continue even after the plane is completely submerged! (And this isn't just a cool "oil fire on the water surface effect, it's a flame effect which emerges from the plane).

V1 Rocket launchers not appearing online
 

Tested on 412.2
Tested a mission today with V1 launching.
Offline in multiplay they work as intended.
Loaded onto an online server, the launch ramps do not appear and no rockets are launched.

I remember the V1 launchers were working online back around 4.09 - 4.10

More mirror stuff: I just noticed that the circular mirrors of P-47D and P-47D-27 don't block the sun. It would appear that the earlier model rectangular mirrors work ok.

P-40E fuel gauge doesnt work.
When the low fuel light goes on, the fuel gauge says its at 50%.
When running out of fuel it goes from 50% to 0.
Also the low fuel light says slo instead of low.

Yak-1B and I-16 mixture levers dont move/work.

After a few QMB dogfights i see that the AI pilot doesnt bail out of his burning aircraft and keeps maneuvering.

The Fulmar can fire its guns with wings folded. Also, artillery that requires a spotter will continue to fire on targets after the spotter aircraft is shot down.

B-29's rear gunner's head disapears when he's killed.

No it doesnt disappear. Its behind the body. I think it should not be fixed. Quite cool :grin:
Anyway, I think a 20mm, maybe even a 12.7mm should be able to to decapitate the gunner.

Bridges destroyed offline, cannot be destroyed online
 

Setting Bridges as targets for an online mission.

Tested in IL2 multiplay the bridge is destroyed by 2 x 1000lb bombs, the target is closed.

When tested online with the same loadout, the bridge cannot be destroyed.
The target cannot be closed.

This has been tested over several days with no change in the result.

It works fine for me. Using IL2 Dedicated Server 4.12.2m.

Merry XMas all.

Thanks for the great work TD :). Enjoing IL-2 since it's first hour (more than 10 years ago).

In MDS (hosted dogfight Mission with 4 - 10 players) the position of a moving carrier is not on the same place for all players. It seems that the position is not synchronized on the clients. I can regularly see planes spawning (and take off or land) from an invisible deck appearing some hundred meters behind or in front of the carrier (it moves with it). For the Client which takes off, everything looks normal, but on the other machines the carrier is not on the same position.

The Problem exists already since carriers can move in df-missions (afaik). I thought it's not a bad Moment to report it now. I hope it can be fixed with one of the next patches.

Has anyone seen the same Problem so far? I don't think I'm the only one with this Problem, am I?

I have seen it in track playbacks; because tracks are essentially network packet recorders, yes. It's a confirmed "bug."

Albeit a cosmetic one, but still fairly significant when/if you consider movie making or something like that.

We run a dozen scenarios that utilize aircraft carriers on Battlefield1 and at no point have I seen this particular issue. We've faced our share of challenges, many stemming from MOD use (HSFX was particularly bad, we've found SAS to be very much more compatible), but not this one.

This is a 4.12.2 dedicated server running the stock game only with FBDj running as our server daemon (not that that part should make any difference). No issues with clients.

Are you running a dedicated server?

missing markings for france and new zealand in h75a4 and mohawk

@IceFire: Ist a no-mod clean IL-2 Installation, version 4.12.2m, which is hosted on my own machine (via hyperlobby), played with two or three friends. It happens in every mission with a moving carrier. I can send you the sample Missions, if you want.

Biggest difference is that you're running a server while playing the game and we have a dedicated server. That may be where the bug exists.

I suspect the mission file wouldn't reveal all that much. Standard home base with a carrier in its circle? No overlap?

N1K1-Ja

Not sure if this was posted yet but, the cockpit slides forward when AI N1K1-Ja is taxiing (repeatable. Kyushu/Ayisha Airfield 3/45).
[IMG]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...-C/niki-ja.jpg[/IMG]

Looks OK at my computer, but the reticle is way to bright on the N1K1.
You cant aim throug it.

I have noticed that for the winter objects 118 and 119 (barrels) and 123 (tank) the summer textures can be seen at a certain distance.

I am not sure if this is an old problem or caused by the new textures.

Yes, that's correct. Nothing special here. Hosted Mission, as you describe it. Perhaps too many objects on the map, not sure... :???:

a great bug is on the P-39 when the engine is on fire the pilot gets hit something that shouldn't happen acording to the cutaways and wikipedia and if the aircraft moves forward (i think there is no reverse but anyway).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=41511

I find little unfortunately bug.
Customization.ini doesn't work.
I have this file in folder I-16 type 6.
I can editing and save this file.
But when I Alt+Tab from game to Windows I don't see any files in Cache folder...
You have too this problem on 4.12.2?
How version work correctly, only 4.09?

The instructions in the customization.ini are a bit unclear. When you select a custom paintscheme, then alt+tab from the plane selection menu, only a folder called I-16type6 appears in the Cache folder. It seems that you have to actually hit the Fly - button, then alt+tab. Then a new folder appears, with a name something like -8853136334215745202, whis is the checksum.

Btw, alas, customization doesn't seem to work on dogfight servers, only on singleplayer or coop missions.

Dear Janosh, doesn't work now too.
I think maybe something problem in instalation or something else...
I want reinstall Il-2 and try again on 4.09, 4,10, 4.11, 4.12 etc.

Indeed, on winter maps the legacy winter textures for some ground objects are shown (the old airfield building textures, old barrel textures, etc.) but on summer maps the new textures for those same objects are shown.

rework the canopy for h75, p40b p40c tomahawks and flying tiger. it is different from outside and inside view

It just came to my attention, that Artillery like 15cm guns dont fire at ships, whilst ships fire as long as it takes to take the guns out.

Incorrect. I just made a quick test mission (4.12.2m) and that particular unit does fire on enemy ships (see screenshot).

The enemy ship(s) in your mission may be out of range.

Aviar

V1 Rocket and Tracks
 

Slight netcode tweak/check.

An airborne V1 rocket will not be captured in an NTRK recording (if started when V1 is in the air).

Also... would love ground object camera mode (or at least, V1 Rocket camera mode).

:)

Oh, really, but if I take howitzers they dont adjust and they need direct sight.
Also the Karl Gerät does not fire over hills, lke it should

A small visual glitch, on the type C and E wing Spitfires no empty 20mm casings are visible coming from the ejector chutes.

He-111H6 torpedo runs and the QMB
 

Team Daidalos,

I first noticed a problem with the He-111H6 and it's ability to do torpedo runs after the release of 4.10. I created a QMB pack called "Torpedoes Away" that uses several maps all centered on torpedo run missions. During testing, design, and troubleshooting, I noticed that the H6 model will not perform torpedo runs accurately during any QMB mission. They just drop their torpedoes from cruising altitude and speed at the "target" waypoint. What makes this more unusual, is if I take that QMB mission and import it directly into Single Mission, they do the run just fine, but it just doesn't work in the QMB. I've tried dozens of alternate waypoints, and in all cases all the other torpedo capable aircraft will do a good run, but those H6's still refuse to cooperate. I've attached a zip file that contains a .ntrk that I just made, as well as the QMB torpedo pack for you to take a look at. Please let me know if there is any other information you need. Thanks for your time and work!

P.S. I did submit this error with 4.10, but never heard anything about it, so I thought I'd just repost it in case it got missed.

Tim

Car column cannot be damaged by bombs while static
 

Soviet Studebecker Rocket Launcher Column.

When used online,
It can be damaged when moving,
but it will survive direct hits undamaged by bombs when the column is waiting static at a waypoint.
Yet is vulnerable to cannon or machine gun fire from aircraft when static.

Sorry, but my test results in an online coop mission were different than yours. I bombed the static column with two 1000 lb. bombs from a P-38L. As you can see from the sequence below, the bombs made a direct hit and took out several vehicles.

The column had been stopped for at least one minute.

Are your bombs actually exploding? Can you post a screenshot with your bombs exploding near the column with no damage to any vehicles?

Aviar

The mission is up on a running server.
I will try to get pictures next time it comes up.
The server does not allow external views when flying.
I have dropped 1000kg bombs on them, which destroys all the surrounding buildings and leaves a crater, but leaves the vehicles intact.
I've then strafed them, and bullets work fine on them.

The situation has been : Flying AR234 with 1x1000 +2x 250 SC bombs(long fuse).
First drop is the 2x250kg onto static rail wagons and trucks, A lot of damage done. Turn back and drop the 1000kg on the convoy.
Explosion seen on the convoy, but no damage.
First few times I put it down to "maybe bad aim" but the crater indicated a hit. It started becoming a persistent event.

I have hit these same convoys when they're moving.
Bombs seem to work on them at that stage.


But this is not the first time I have encountered such a problem.
Tested offline on the multiplay, the IL2 game features work.
Once up on a dedicated server, they don't work.
I've had to scrap missions because of this.

The V1 launchers are no longer in game.
Some Bridges can no longer be damaged or destroyed.

I'll test this issue with the Studebaker rocket launchers online soon.

What other features? The V-1 issue is there. Not confirmed yet on this one. What else?

You may be correct that this may be a DS issue. Let's see what DT has to say about it. My experience with DT is that they like to see proof of reported bugs. My advice is that you try and get screenshots or a track that can then be sent to DT.

Have you tried this scenario with other columns? It would be useful to know if other columns are also affected.

Aviar

Please do that. I have seen this "indestructible" vehicle columns a few times, and it turned out to be the location in which they were was to blame, not the vehicles themselves - and IIRC it seemed like there was some invisible net or trees above them, and from some angles the were partially touchable - it may be different in your case though.

The other one I found was bridges.
The large box girder type.
First test of the mission is offline in multiplay.
Set up as targets, a couple of 1000lb bombs could destroy the bridges.
Once on a dedicated server, the same direct hits did nothing to the bridges.

Maybe servers can choose to multiply the strength of bridges.
If they do, the server operators never mentioned it.

The same mission has T44 tank columns, which show no problems.
One or two tanks can be destroyed with a single bomb run.
There are also various German supply columns in the same mission, none of which display the same effect as the Studebecker column.

The Studebecker columns at this point have parked themselves in the main streets of Lucenec on the Slovakia winter map.
I've never had a problem with bomb runs against vehicles in streets until this one.
I came back with an Me262/2a, dropped bombs into the street, and nothing destroyed, then turned back and fired the 108s at it, and I get Enemy vehicles destroyed.

It could be the buildings either side.
There are two columns, two different streets. Same thing happens.

I am going to try and get the mission put up looped on a test server so I can get a track or pictures.

A twist.
 

Got it up on a test server, the result was the whole convoy went up with one hit.
Went back to the public server to try and repeat this.
2x 250 kg bombs knocked out 2 trucks, came back around and the 1000kg did nothing but destroy buildings either side of the street.
Repeated the attack on the second convoy with 1000kg
and got this result.
This is what I have been seeing for some time.
Track is included.

Images are taken from the .ntrk using external view.
1. Point of impact on road. SC1000
2. The bomb goes off, damage to buildings can be seen happening for some distance.
3. The crater with trucks undamaged.

This is nothing new with SC1000kg

It been messed around with too much and is now classed as a demolition bomb.

Vehicles in towns (targets) will survive but buildings wont.

It just plain silly whats been done to the bombs and torps of late.

There's no hard and fast guide to whats been done and any recommended method of their usage has extremely inconsistent results.

Good thing is you can always go back to the old arming system and turn off bomb fuzes & fragile torps but you cant change the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the SC1000 & SC2000 bombs.










.

There was time for one sortie after that.
The bombs took out the whole convoy.:confused:
It could be the proximity of buildings.
Like most flyers of IL2, I know what happens, but not always how.

The 1000 knocks out tanks on the open road, being a demolition bomb, it should be no more effective than a 500 at that task.

During testing of a new mission type for Asura's DGen we have discovered a FMB problem. When the campfire object "vehicles.stationary.Campfire$CampfireAirfield " is set to "Army: Red/Blue" and the mission saved, the campfire will be automatically reset to "Army: none" when the mission is opened again in FMB.

Reticle change in .ntrk
 

TD!

I've just flown a 1937 I-16; my wingman and I against a couple of Finnish Gladiators. I started a .ntrk as soon as the mission started (QMB). Unfortunately, the recording shows the wrong gunsight... one with a cover (the long tube kind... sorry if I don't remember the name).

Also, was it just my terrible gunnery skills (which are truly terrible) or did the Gladiator I followed to the deck seem "nigh invincible"? I know that particular I-16 I was flying didn't have very powerful guns, but this seems just a bit ridiculous.

I've attached the .ntrk to this post if you'd like to see it... but I know you guys are all pretty busy.

Thanks!

Its much more effective if used vs german planes, but indeed, ShKAS needs fixing. The problem is that you can fire it all the day, while doing minimal damage, just like the MG15/17 or .30 Browning. Seems like rate of fire isnt modeled properly.
ShKAS should run out of ammo very quickly, but in exchange, should do massive damage compared to guns mentioned above.

Based on a test firing, QMB stats, wikipedia and calculations, I say that the ShKAS rate of fire is modeled correctly, at least on paper. But I would have to fire and hit with every round to be sure...

Gladiators may well feel overly strong, being able to fly while looking like Swiss cheese, but it's possible that nothing vital was hit. But it's actually like breakfast cheddar. You poke it and you get cheese on your fingers: firing from behind, you don't have the option to aim precisely at a weak spot. I thought I was aiming well with Cr.42, and shot at the fuselage, seemingly wasting tons of ammo, but a lucky close range short burst from a different angle took out the Gladiator's wing.

Wing mounted ShKAS are tricky weapons, especially with a plane that has poor gunsights, high instability and no elevator trim. The key is to set weapon convergence to much less than 150m and fire at close range. With a bit of luck and an angle that just exposes e.g. the target's engine, even a short burst does the job.
The problem is that even AI may start evading properly once you get to an effective range. And that imho is what makes early 109 sauerkraut guns (e.g. if the cannon is damaged) sometimes feel underpowered, too.

Something that IL2 doesn't model, or model well, is the fact that many 1930s era planes which had fabric over wood or metal frame construction were actually quite resistant to gunfire.

Many bullets would just punch through or shred the fabric without hitting any part of the frame. Additionally, explosive rounds might not be triggered if they just hit fabric. Or, if they do explode, they just blow away the surrounding fabric with little actual damage to the airframe (since there is very little solid structure to contain the blast and increase its intensity).

So, it's realistic for planes like the Cr.42, Gladiator or Hurricane to still be able to (sort of) fly if their fabric is shredded.

Obviously, any hit of that sort will cause increased drag, though. Also, hits to the wings can easily cause strips of fabric to tear away due to slipstream effects, causing bigger problems in maintaining lift than the same damage to a monocoque or metal-skinned plane.

Yep, but what about the Wellington? They do fly with 1/3 (or even more) of their wing surface gone due to MG hits. They are not like cheese, they're like flying skeletons.

Keep in mind that those are graphical representations of damage, and don't necessarily correlate to actual damage. For example, maybe you hit the Wellington's wing with one bullet just enough to do some damage, and the graphical representation of that damage looks like you hit it with dozens of bullets. The 109's wing's damage is another good example of this: you hit it hard with a single machine gun bullet and you might get those two basketball-sized holes to appear that look like they could have only been caused by cannon shells.

That's one of my points. 'Cause it means that the graphical representation is disproportional to the actual damage. My other point is that the Wellington is nearly invulnerable to structural damage. I've never ever succeeded in bringing down a Wellington other way than by flaming its engines, no matter whether I used HMGs or cannons. Dunno whether it's realistic, hence my question.

Wellington's were known for their battle toughness...

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

The graphical representations work like this. There are 3 states of damage: 1) Undamaged 2) Light damage 3) Heavy damage

All of these states are done by the visual artist for the model. If the artist overdoes it a bit on any one of these it may make it look worse than it actually is. The damage states give you a clue as to how much damage you've done but not the full picture.

As always, it's best to do damage to vulnerable areas. Particularly on bombers you aim for fuel tanks, engines and the cockpit. You avoid firing on the structural elements as many bombers are fairly tough and aircraft like the B-29, Wellington, B-17 and others were well known for being able to absorb incredible punishment and still staying aloft.

This is also the reason that destroyed planes sometimes seem to have damage that should allow the plane to still fly. For example, many planes could still fly (sort of) with the outer third or quarter of one wing removed, but in IL2 they cannot.

And, if possible, try to attack a bit from above, below or to the side so you maximize target area and have a better chance of hitting vulnerable areas, rather than just chewing up the plane's tail or the trailing edge of its wing.

The exception is for head-on attacks where you want to try to align yourself perfectly with the oncoming enemy plane so you don't have to correct for deflection in the very limited time you have to shoot. Otherwise, when making a head-on, try to attack from slightly above and to the target plane's left side, so you have the best chance of hitting the pilot and the port side engines and fuel tanks.

If you go online, you can sometimes find field manuals which show a certain plane's weak spots. If that information isn't available, it's generally a good strategy to aim at the wing roots, since there will usually be a fuel tank there. Also, if you miss slightly, there will usually be a fuel tank or bomb bay in the plane's fuselage, right where the fuselage and the wings cross (typically, that's the plane's Center of Gravity).

Finally, give yourself a bit more lead than you expect when making high deflection shots against bombers. Most of the really vulnerable stuff (cockpit, engines, fuel tanks) is up front.

Hits to the rear fuselage are mostly a waste of ammo. About the only thing that's a really good target in the rear of the plane are the rear gunners. Take out the tail gunner or top gunner and if you choose your angle right you can get in close to deliver the coup de grace without getting zapped by the bomber's other guns.

Thanks for the info! Anyway, admitting that my gunnery and attack skills are mediocre at best, you can see on the attached image that first I disabled the tail gunner, went closer (<150m), and attacked exactly those vulnerable parts you suggested (cockpit, wingroot, engines). I was flying a Tomahawk IIRC. Probably my attack was not steep enough to hit anything vital well inside the plane's structure, but I'm pretty sure that the engine cowlings (which remained intact) got the same amount of bullets as the inner wing area nearby.

Looks like your bullets went all over the place. And If you really flew a Tomahawk, then it is not the best idea to attack from behind, Wellingtons and other tough planes,e. g. He-111, SM79 ... can soak up lots of non-cannon size bullets if they come from behind - but a few well placed bursts into the cockpit or engines do the trick.

Edit:
Just tried it myself, one long burst form ~200m and closing into the the Wellingtons right wing, and the inboard and outboard fuel tank burned, as well as right engine dead.

It looks like heavy damage to the plane's fuselage and inner wings, but no concentrated hits on any vital part of the plane.

If you really want to know where your bullets go, and what effect they're having on your target, play using Arcade mode. To set it up, edit your conf.ini file so that Arcade=1.

Once it's set up, any bullet that hits its target will show as a big arrow stuck through the plane, and any cannon shell that hits will show a "star" of arrows. If you inflict serious damage on your target, you'll see a cartoon "thought bubble" over the plane when it suffers a crew hit or critical or fatal damage. It's a very good training aid to improve your deflection shooting.

And now an actual bug report. It seems that the RPM gauge on the Tomahawk MkIIb is miscalibrated. When you throttle back the engine and the prop pitch, the needle goes "below zero" and hovers near the 18,000 rpm mark.

When you put the plane in a long dive with 100% prop pitch, such that you're above 730 kph and the plane is buffeting due to compression, engine RPM hover at just over 6,000 rpm.

From your screen shots I see a lot of damage to both sides of the aircraft as well as a lot of damage across two different fuselage areas and the back elevators as well. To me it looks like you spread a lot of firepower across the entire aircraft... against something like the Wellington or even a Heinkel or Ju88 its not often going to be enough to cripple.

Pursuivant is right that coming in from an angle is the best approach. I prefer above because you are able to put fire from an angle into the fuel tanks and engines and you have speed to disengage and position for a second attack. Dead 6 (or right behind) is a bad place to be because of defensive fire and because you're wasting a lot of bullets on structure that doesn't matter as much.

With a P-40C (Tomahawk II) you also have somewhat limited firepower. A pair of .50cals plus four .30cals. The .30cals pretty much don't count against anything except the engines and fuel. The .50cals will do structural damage, however, you only have two of them which is enough weight of fire to matter against a fighter but not enough to matter against something as well constructed as a Wellington. With cannons you can be indiscriminate because a high explosive 20mm or especially a 37mm will blast whole areas of the plane and cause structural and system damage. With machine guns you want to aim for things that matter.

So try and come in from an angle (use deflection shooting), aim for fuel/engines/cockpit and concentrate fire in one area. Pour it on. All into the engine or into the wingroot. If you make more than one pass then put your shots into the same area.

It's especially bad vs. the Wellington because there's a power turret in the tail with twin guns and a very good field of fire.

If you do have to hang out behind a bomber and can't overtake them quickly (about 50-75 kph faster), try to hang out at 300-500 m and take "sniper" shots at one of the engine nacelles. Usually there will be a fuel tank behind or adjacent to the engine and you might get lucky and start a fire.

Ideally, you'll have your guns converged for your preferred firing distance before you take your sniper shots. This is particularly important for planes with wing-mounted guns, less so for planes with nose-mounted cannons or with guns in the wings which are mounted quite close to the fuselage.

If you have to get within 300 m, try to shift around after each shot you take and don't stay in one place (relative to the bombers gunners' point of view) for more than a second or so. Plan your shot at a vital part a second or so in advance as you jink around above and below the gunner's field of fire and make "snapshots" as your target comes into your sights.

Also, practice your gunnery. Try to challenge yourself by taking increasingly tricky high-speed, high deflection shots. Just set up an easy mission in the QMB, give yourself unlimited ammo and go.

If you're not used to how a particular plane's guns work, there is a program called "Sniper's Corners" which turns an Excel spreadsheet into a sort of gunnery calculator. Using it, you can get a sense of how much lead you need to give a target in different attack scenarios.

More to the point, in IL2 the entire P-40/Hawk 87/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk series is very vulnerable to damage from the front. Just about any bullet in the nose is going to kill the engine and/or oil coolant system. Bullets that miss those systems WILL go through the windshield (where the armor glass isn't modeled) and will kill the pilot. If that doesn't happen, your control cables will get hit. I can't count the number of times I've quit a P-40 bomber intercept mission with the pilot dead, engine stopped and/or control cables severed.

If you can learn to live with its crummy high altitude performance and vicious spin recovery characteristics, the P-39/P-400 or P-63 are my bomber interceptors of choice. Even better, for some reason IL2 does a poor job of modeling hits to the guns in the P-39/P-400s nose, and the hits to the oil/coolant system take 20+ minutes to finally kill the engine, so you can take a lot of abuse and keep on blasting away. Your only risk is a pilot hit through the windscreen (again, bulletproof glass and armor plate between the cockpit and the nose guns not modeled).

But that's not an excuse to just hang out behind a bomber formation and soak up bullets. Practice your deflection shooting!

Thanks guys for the advice, but as I wrote, first I took out the tail gunner from a quick pass from upper right (hence the damage on the right elevator and on the tail section on the fuselage), then I cut back on throttle and sneaked closer, hanging around in a distance of about 150 to 200, yo-yoing from upper right to upper left, aiming at vulnerable parts, but I didn't have a rudder pedal in those times, so I had to rely on a sort of spray and pray tactics. What astonished me, and it was my original point, that the Wellington LOOKED severaly damaged, and still it flew. I think its damage layer is a bit overdone.

Possibly a matter of taste... but I think the artist was trying to show the unique construction off the aircraft.

Wellington battle damage sometimes looked like this:

http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploa...ire-damage.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...ellington1.jpg

Remember, in a typically constructed aircraft using monocoque design the external skin is supporting the load (like an egg). With the Wellingtons geodesic construction, its the framing under the skin that keeps it together. The skin can be torn of burnt off which looks horrible but it doesn't mean that the airframe wasn't still capable of being held together.

BTW: I did some shoot em up with the Wellington tonight and the point you want to aim at is the wings on the outside of the engine. The fuel tanks don't take too much before they light on fire.

OK, thanks a lot for the pictures, now I see it was my ignorance that misled me: I simply didn't take into consideration that it was an uncommon construction with uncommon (and therefore 'unbelievable') damage resistance. :)

And of course I should have studied the plane's general design: I expected the fuel tanks inside, not outside the engines... :oops:

Yep. Almost too easy to set them on fire. Amazingly tough airframe, amazingly vulnerable fuel tanks. They light up just like Bettys (G4M1). I'm assuming that the early versions didn't have self-sealing fuel tanks. Assuming it's not an error in modeling, it was badly misplaced design priorities by Vickers.

Agreed. Not sure if its meant to be that way or not but they are surprisingly easy to bring down if you aim for just on the outboard of either engine... the crew will bail fairly quickly.

I had a weird bug in il2 sturmovik while flying online with other 40 pilots. I do not know if it was because of the hsfx7.01 or because of the 4.12.2, but what happened was my bombs exploded just when they hit the ground although I had selected the electric fuze (long). You can see in the video below I have selected the long fuze before releasing the bombs so the delay should be 8 sec, am I right? but as you can see at the end of the video the bombs exploded just when they hit the ground killing me in the process. The game was in full real and obviously the fuzes were activated.

I have tried many times after the incident to reproduce the same incident offline with no success.

Can anyone bring some light into this mystery? It is in Spanish I am afraid, but it is explained above.

Video

Launch your stock game and repeat the procedure that killed you before.

Launch HSFX 7 v.x repeat again and see if it still persists.

If its not killing you instantly in stock game and it is isn't killing you in HSFX 7 v.x then there probably is a server client and or client to client mismatch in HSFX 7 v.1 or v.2 you have to make sure everyone's on the same version or low level bombing becomes a mess.

If the server allows stock 4.12.2 clients with HSFX 7 clients this can be the problem also.

Edit:

Just to add it was to do with the bomb synchronization TD did between clients seeing the same as each other when bombs hit the ground, this causes the "low level insta death" of the person dropping their bombs if the clients game versions are mismatched.

When the Wellington is very heavily damaged, such that both the left inner and outer wings are completely blown away, the damage end cap for the left inner wing is still visible.

When the nose (forward fuselage) is blown off and the nose gunner/bombardier is killed, rather than vanishing the body remains suspended in space ahead of the rest of the plane.

Kursk map, Quadrant H3:
There is a rail bridge in place of a road bridge - roads lead to and from it, so it is neither usable for trains or vehicles

The opposite is in Normandy maps. There is road bridge instead of a rail bridge south of Caen. I reported this more than year ago and nothing happened.

Many maps have bugs, but none was fixed.

Yep

When 4.13 comes out (in two weeks, for sure), we'll see what happened to them ;)

Maybe those misplaced railroad bridges and buildings represent the work of the French Resistance!

Very clever Maquis, to replace a road bridge with a railroad bridge and to make buildings straddle the rail line, rather than just using dynamite!

:) :) :)

Again Kursk map:
Quadrant E7 near Dimitriev-Logovskiy - there is a road bridge where a rail bridge should be. This makes the western part of the railroad network pretty useless.
Quadrant F3 near Lgov - rails across a river without a bridge - not tested if trains will drive across despite that.
Quadrant I3 there is a railway crossing with a road, but instead of going across the road, there is a gap in the rails. Now the western part of the railroad network is totally useless.

I'm a bit astonished noone ever discovered this or if so it wasn't corrected

"Next Enemy View" key still shows the "Stationary Camera View" in adition.
Think there is no reason for this anymore since 4.12v provides a key to cycle through cameras.

There are several such bugs on the Kurland Peninsula map as well. At least two airfields (Cranz and one other I can't remember at the moment) have AI parking nodes on a taxiway, resulting in AI aircraft taxiing and crashing into other AI machines parked on the taxiway, rendering those airfields all but useless for AI aircraft.

A rail line in the mid-eastern and north-eastern part of the map is missing bridges, rendering those rail lines useless.

When ejecting from a He-162 with the engine on fire, the pilot's "life" stays attached to the plane not the pilot figure until you fall out your eject seat in midair. Just like the third person view during ejecting. Can this be corrected?

The same happens with the Do-335. The aircraft remains controllable as long as the pilot is attached to the falling seat(IIRC you can actually switch back to F1 cockpit view during this time).

Presumably there's a technical reason for this, as most of these advanced features seem to work around engine limitations.

Hi TD!

I think that a subtle fine tunning is needed on "Takeoff Line" and "Landing Straigh in" features.

Takeoff Line:
Whenever the leader (plane 1) is not the first to get airborne the flight goes into a mess as soon as it reaches the second waypoint (normfly) in which the AI planes are firstly instructed to keep formation (whatever the type). Usually one or more planes crash to the ground while trying to find their place through erratic flight behavior. I wonder if it would be possible to make the leader begin takeoff procedure some seconds before the others to avoid the mess...
(BTW, the leaders should always go first don't you think so? :mrgreen:)

Land Straight in:
Planes land too close to each other to the point that some of them start chewing the tail of the guy ahead.
I've found that "plane 4" uses to be the trouble maker because I don't notice this problem when I set the flight with only three planes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obs. v4.12..............The Best Patch Ever!!!:grin::grin:

I agree with both of these points. I've seen each one many times and it would be nice to fix them if possible.

Aviar

There is a problem with planes taking off big US carriers, most of the times one or two aircraft will crash into the superstructure deck. As Japanese carriers have much smaller superstucture deck, their planes don't crash into it.
It began since 4.12 or 4.11 I think as in old Pearl Harbour everything worked fine. It's very frustrating, hopefully the AI for US carrier take off can be revised.

Some of the planes always used to clip the islands when taking off, but for some reason they didn't crash when they did. A fix that means the aircraft taking a better route along the deck may therefore involve finding and fixing a bug in the original code, so it's probably not simple to do.

Hi please attach the mission here or copy and paste it.

thanks

i dont read before, and i have a problem. Already install 4.12.2 and touch all off labels on the HUD, but i still see the identification labels of the aircraft i see and i cant quit this! what im missing??? :confused:

There's a shortkey for changing icon types, default is Ctr-I, IIRC.

Mistakes on Slovakia Online map
 

1- At location 47000 54300 is a little village. Its name (Velke Ostratice) is located at 52500 53000.
2- The railroad is broken from Slovenska Lupca to Lucatin at location 121300 67700.

One of the most beautiful map of the game.

Thx.

Back to abusing fighters by flying them badly against bombers. This time it's the Ki-61-II Otsu's turn.

Normally, I wouldn't complain about critical damage to the pilot, cooling systems and engine from the front, since even the best armored Japanese planes weren't armored as well as those in the West, but . . .

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1402964416

Please notice the Aileron Control hit when neither of the two bullets passed anyplace close to the aileron controls or cable runs! That's a definite error in the DM! (While it's blocked by the speech bubble, the tail end of the bullet path gets nowhere near the cable runs.)

Compare this to a 3-view of the actual airplane:

http://airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ki61/ki61-2.gif

You'll notice that the aileron cable runs are just ahead of the flaps towards the wing's trailing edge. Bell cranks and so forth are directly beneath the pilot and a bit ahead.

The Pilot Killed result is legitimate - no armor glass on this airplane, and the bullet would have missed the glass anyway.

Both hits were from a Ace Wellington III tail gunner, with two different bursts. Shots were from approximately 250 m against a slightly maneuvering target more or less to the bomber's 6 o'clock. Very impressive shooting, but at least it's not a 600 m sniper shot that penetrates a fuel tank or armored firewall to take out the pilot.

More fighter abuse. This time the victim was a P-39Q-10.

What I intended to demonstrate was the relative difficulty of damaging the nose-mounted guns on the P-39 series, but what I got instead was a nice example of some weird damage modeling I'd previously missed.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1402967321

Notice the fatal bullets in the center of the picture - the first hit just ahead of the air intake, the second just a bit behind it. On the P-39Q, both would be solid engine hits (both were fired from about 150m by yet another Ace AI Wellington III gunner), but rather than showing any sign of engine damage I instead got a massive fire which started instantly after just two bullet hits!

I guess it could happen if a fuel line was severed and sprayed hot fuel on the engine, but it seems weird that there was just fire and not engine problems.

Prior bursts of fire from ahead and below managed to not hit the radiator or oil cooler systems. That was just luck, not bad modeling.

There is a thread on this P39 problem.
Lots of fire and smoke with no real damage at all.
The P39 has been frowned upon and even banned from missions on some online servers because of this.
There have been and probably always will be pilots that game the system with it.
Using it to feign serious damage and relying on others not wanting to be kill stealers.

Yep. But that's a different issue. As you said, the P-39, P-400 and P-63 series are notorious in the game for smoking easily, but not losing power or failing.

In this case, the P-39 was unusual in that it instantly burst into flame after just one or two rifle-caliber bullet hits for no logical reason. But, since it is a P-39, I probably could have flown it for several more minutes with no loss of power to the engine, though!

By contrast, the Alison engine P-40s, which used the same damned engine, are remarkably vulnerable to engine damage - just about any hit will kill or seriously damage them.

What I'm trying to do with my series of screen shots is clearly demonstrate places where existing DM is outright wrong or fails to adequately model armor, armor glass and self-sealing fuel tanks.

More fighter abuse. While the early war Japanese fighters are justifiably modeled as being fragile and flammable, there are a few DM problems.

Here is a picture of some cockpit hits (Ace Wellington III gunners at ~250 m range). While the picture doesn't clearly show it, none of the bullets which penetrated the cockpit touched either the pilot's leg or any part of the joystick, bell-cranks or cable runs for the aileron controls!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403386593

I can accept that the DM has to have a bit of "fudging" in it to reflect hits on a moving target such as a pilot, but elevator, aileron and rudder controls mostly stay in one place, so I think that this is a clear case of how the "critical hit zones" for hits to control surfaces are far too big, or are otherwise badly modeled for many planes in the game.

And, here is Exhibit A as to why IL2 gunners are far too hard to kill. The explosion is from a 20mm cannon shell, just a foot from the gunner's head! While the game models shrapnel hits against aircraft and ground targets reasonably well, it obviously doesn't model blast concussion effects against human targets. Realistically, the upper half of the gunner's body should have been reduced to paste.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403386891

Swapping over to the Soviet fighters. Here's an example of the level of toughness I think that an inline engine fighter should have against long-range rifle caliber bullet hits.

The target is a Yak-1, the gunners are more of those crazy accurate Wellington III Ace tail turret guys, this time doing their thing at ranges of anywhere from 700(!!) to 300 m against a slowly maneuvering target.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403464421

What you will notice is absence of smoke and flames, and an engine which still runs pretty well.

This picture actually represents the second and third bursts of long-range gunfire into the engine. The first burst had about 3 scattered hits into the engine block, all hits which would have had a Bf-109 or P-40 engine shut down cold or spewing clouds of black smoke.

A fourth burst of gunfire actually shut down the engine, but I was able to start it back up and continue the fight. A fifth burst of 3-4 shots eventually made the engine lose enough power that I couldn't keep up with the bombers, but I was still able to fly back home.

Further testing basically proves the same thing - the Yak-1 DM makes its engine a lot tougher than other contemporary inline engined planes. So, there is at least one inline fighter in the game which doesn't die instantly when it gets hit in the nose. I will leave it to TD to determine if this is intentional or not.

a)We noticed an issue with carrier starts since the latest version in coop online play. The planes start airborne but not from the assigned carrier anymore.
The relates to AI and player squadrons.

We discussed about that issue already in the DCG Forum of Lowengrin.com as we expected DCG to be the bugger but none.

Of course this relates to stock 4.12.2 (mod versions also).


b)Is there any chance to receive a trigger to enable and disable bomb ballistics of 4.09 in an upcoming patch?

Can you post a mission so we can test it please. Thank you.

Aviar

I seem to abruptly explode within seconds of engine damage in the P-39. Honestly, I feel much safer in a Ki-43 at this point, given how easily the Cobra becomes a fireball. :(

That doesn't match with my experience. Typically, the P-39/P-400 series is damned near invulnerable to engine damage.

OTOH, I guess that once the engine catches on fire, it explodes fast. Realistically, that seems unlikely given that the fuel tanks and engine on the P-39 were separated (engine in the body, tanks in the wings), but at this point, nothing would surprise me about how crappy the P-39 DM is.

Playing with the P-39D-1, I regularly get unstoppable fuel leaks following just one rifle-caliber bullet hit (i.e., EXACTLY the sort of damage self-sealing fuel tanks were designed to cope with), fuel tank fires following just a couple of rifle-caliber bullet hits from different burst (again, EXACTLY the sort of damage self-sealing fuel tanks are designed to cope with), but near invulnerability to engine damage (despite coolant leaks and smoke) and gun damage.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403848095

Note two shots right down the barrel of the 20mm cannon, yet the gun keeps on working!

I also get fuel tank leaks even from bullets no place near the tank:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403847783

Notice leak in starboard side wing fuel tank despite complete absence of nearby bullet hits!

Also, coolant leaks from hits to the engine which are no place near any coolant lines:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403847783

Kind of a crummy screenshot, but you'll notice that none of the shots is anyplace near the P-39's coolant systems, and the bullet that allegedly holed the engine is at such high deflection that it probably would have missed or ricocheted off of the P-39-D1's engine block.

Not that those coolant leaks do anything, mind you, but if they don't do anything at least TD could make them go away.

Of course, those amazing sniper AI gunners don't make things any easier:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403847783

"Wonder Woman" view of the opposition shooting at me in a P-39. Note the Ace Wellington III tail gunners shooting and scoring hits at over 600 m range against a small and (somewhat) maneuvering target!

FWIW, I will point out that historically doctrine was for bomber gunners to hold their fire until the enemy got within about 300-500 m because fire beyond that point was ineffective. :(

On the theory that Soviet inline fighters might be a bit more "durable" than their Western or Axis counterparts, I flew some missions using the LaGG-3 Series 3, against my nemesis the Ace Wellington III squadron.

As with the Yak-1 series, I was gratified by the ruggedness of the Klimov engine, which was able to absorb 5-6 times as many hits as those powering inferior planes such as the P-40, P-51, Spitfire or Bf-109, with only a slight coolant leak which didn't diminish performance at all:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403850536

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403850536

Additionally, you will notice that the pilot was only very slightly wounded by a clean shot to the chest at about 300 m by a rifle-caliber bullet, despite the lack of armor glass in the LaGG-3. Obviously, the copy of Das Kapital in his breast pocket saved him from more serious injury! (In fairness, I later collected a leg hit which slowed me down a small bit, and ultimately succumbed to a head shot, so LaGG pilots aren't invulnerable.)

Had I been flying a Decadent Capitalist Imperialist fighter, the results would have been very different! Truly the designs of the Revolutionary Proletarian LaGG design bureau, and the Inspired Labor of the Peasants, Workers and Soldiers, have yet again proven their worth in the Glorious Defense of the Motherland against the Fascist Butchers!

Mind you, I'm not saying that Soviet inline engined fighters are deliberately tougher than their foreign equivalents, but given that the notably delicate (at least in IL2) Bf-109 and P-40E series were modeled in the game at roughly the same time as the Yak and LaGG series, I'm thinking there are some mistakes in DM which make the Soviet fighters a bit too tough, and the Axis and Western fighters a bit delicate.

Additionally, while the screenshots don't show it, it seems to be virtually impossible to get a leak or fire in the LaGG-3's wing tanks. On a different flight, my LaGG-3 was turned into a sieve due to engine and wing hits, yet all I got was smoke from the engine (but no noticeable loss of performance). Ultimately, what got me was another head shot; the plane was flying just fine before that, and actually performed some impressive posthumous acrobatics before it finally crashed.

And about those Ace gunners . . .

Head shot against the pilot of a maneuvering Me-262 traveling at nearly 650 kph, at over 350 m range, at the extreme edge of the Wellington's front turret arc of fire, at what had to be at least 60 degrees of deflection when the gunner began to track me, and which was still 20 degrees or so of deflection at the time of the hit. Screenshot was taken a second or so after the kill; I was slightly climbing and banking at the time.

Realistically, I'm not even sure that the Wellington's turrets can track that fast, nor would the gunner have much chance to acquire his target and aim against such a fast-moving and distant target.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403857587

That's the sort of accuracy that aerial gunners could only dream about during WW2, but in the skies of IL2, it happens every day.

At least the damage modeling was good this time - the bullet just missed the armor glass behind the pilot's head.

P-39 and P-63 engines just got the same coat of Adamantium paint when assembled or painted on Russia that the local planes, be sure.

From a post I made several years ago:

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=17831.0

"The DB and Jumo engines cook very quickly when damaged, if the engine is smoking it dies in 3 or 4 minutes (depends on the power setting), if you are leaking it start to overheat pretty quickly at combat power and dies in 5m top, only going to cruise power give you more time to escape, but in no way you can pull the crazy stunts the P-39/63 does at full power when leaking or even smoking.

Very few times I got a engine instantly stop with the dead prop, but it happens, sometimes I saw hits then a high pitch from the RPM controller going out of control and the engine seized. The radial engines can survive hits and still work for long times, giving less power off course (less pistons working) if you are not loosing much oil or fuel (usually the fw190 get the fuel lines leaking on the cowling and even when the engine still works you loss all your fuel in 3m). Sometimes I noticed hits on La-5 cowling (little bullet holes) and no leaking whatsoever but that could be right or error on the damage decal.

There are several DM errors on the planes, a structural weakening MOD by damage limiting the maximum G stress allowed would fix for example when you put 1 or 2 MK108 shells in a P-51 wing or P-47 mid fuselage (did that yesterday) and the damn plane keep fighting, turning, diving at full combat power. Only showing some holes on the skin instead of breaking the plane. The now very limited G stress will only allow for a escape run, if the plane keep tryng to fight, it should break right there. So the errors on the DM would now be atoned at least in a simple and broader way. No need to check and fix every f%&%ck·$ing plane DM."

and

OK guys, after 90m of searching, quick resume:

OIL (pilot manual) 9.4 gallons (35.58 Litres) for the P-39 L/K
P-39Q 8.2 US Gallons (31.04 Litres)
P-63 used the same engine (more advanced model only) and similar airframe, couldnt get the manual but from all the warbirds I found OIL tank info, they were pretty much equal size, even the P-38 had a similar sized tank for each engine to the Spit or Mustang

For comparison:
The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 US gallons of oil.

Bf-109G2 One light-metal oil tank, type NKF. Oil capacity 8.1 gallons (30.66 Litres) with an additional air space of 1.3 gallons.

The Mustang III with maximum fuel load has between 1.5 and 1.75 the range of a Spitfire IX with maximum fuel load. The fuel and oil capacities are 154 gallons and 11.2 gallons respectively, as opposed to 85 gallons 7.5 gallons of the Spitfire IX, both without long-range tanks
NOTE: PROBABLY IMPERIAL GALLONS BECAUSE 7.5 Imperial gallons = 9.00712816 US gallons

SOURCES:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/tec...nfo-10838.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...ons-20503.html
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_tri..._WdimPerf.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-tactical.html

So.....can we get a ending to the "Highlander" Allison engines now??? By the way, the oil tank on the P-39 is behind the engine, close to the tail, so when you get a 6 o clock shot at them that is the first thing to get screwed.

AND REMEMBER GUYS THAT BESIDES THAT "BUG" I WAS WONDERING ABOUT A "COMBAT DAMAGE REDUCING G STRESS ENVELOPE LIMIT" MOD

"Highlander" Allison?

You have obviously never flown a P 40 in this sim.

It's the king of the rifle caliber one shot insta stop.

To me, the strangest thing is how different the engine damage models of the P39 and P40 are, despite the engines being the same. Flying the P39 you almost never have time to bail out after the engine is seriously hit, which seems to be after fewer hits than other engines. The P40 loses engine power frequently, but it's engine never blows up killing the pilot like the P39s engine always does. All of this from playing single player, mostly in the Forbidden Battles careers.