|
Ejection from aircraft
It's too easy to eject from an aircraft......
Fighters - in order to eject you have to first open/eject the canopy before actually exiting the plane? Bombers - if pilot is killed, the remaining crew can't leave. Have to eject for any member of the crew I suggested a long time ago on the old pacific fighters website, that depending on damage to the aircraft, the canopy sticks & has to be released manually, like damaged landing gear has to be lowered manually. In some cases damage caused the canopies to jam & possibly not release so an element as to whether the canopy would open or not could be built in. |
Quote:
If the pilot is killed you are stuck in the plane with no way to eject. :( Another thing that I would like to see is an adjustment to the no parachutes function. Right now you can't eject from a fighter or bomber when this option is utilized. That is fine when you are in flight but if you have safely landed the plane there is no way to get out of it. You have to end the mission or you could end up burning up in the plane when IRL you would have exited it if you weren't trapped in the plane due to a hard landing/crash landing. Wheels |
Quote:
Agreed on work required, but I think heavy bomber is much more needed than yet another fighter plane(s), gain/effort ratio would be much bigger. Quote:
|
And I agree with Martin :-P
The problem is that a heavy bomber needs a much different environment than even the tactical ones we have. IMO the only bombers worth working on are those tactical ones since they did missions which can be depicted in this game - unlike those of the heavies. For them the whole issue of briefing (with pics or schematics of the target zone), targeting itself (viewing distance, group dropping by AI, question of points and/or medals/promotions in campaigns etc) and a number of additional problems (radar, interceptor AI, formation size and type ...) would have to be solved before even the first plane would be ready. For me the Il-2 engine is best at tactical level (not to say it couldn't be enhanced a bit) and close air support. PS: Lesni - wrong avatar. Didn't you see the correct one @ the daidalos board? ;) |
Some of the mod maps are 1:1,so there could be a case for heavy bombers.I have regularly flown long missions lasting hours in the He111 and Ju88.Full switch with map reading,timings and dead reckoning is very absorbing.
Still,SM79 is the new best for me,and I certainly thank DT for that! |
I too have flown very long missions online on the "Slot" map in the "Emily". Hours of navigating by compass heading, speed and clock.
A very different kind of flying, and rewarding when the bombs hit their target. So don't discount heavy/long range bombers out of hand. |
Billfish
The seabees built entire bases within 3 days to 3 weeks. They had roadwork equipment. A frontend loader could easily fill a bomb crater in a couple of hours... even back in 1940s. |
Or a scenario that would test the most patient player. If a surfaced sub could be made to dive when threatened, a heavy, low flying bomber with radar could search for subs, while radar-equipped JU-88s out of Lorient search for the bomber. If cargo ships could be triggered to die when a sub is in the area, then everyone has a cat-and-mouse mission. Maybe throw in some radar-equipped stringbags flying off a navigable Bogue-class "jeep" carrier, itself subject to sinking, bobbing in the seas so severely that even the strinbag is a handful.
Add a little fog or poor light and, bingo, sheer madness. I want a Dunkeswell/Lorient chess game :) |
I don't know if anyone posted this question (btw I don't believe nobody have), but I want to ask if you will correct combat AI in one of next patches, because this present is unfightable.
|
Alien, I think this is already being made. I don't remember the exact nickname, but I do remember that there was someone with something (what an exact description, don't you thin? :rolleyes:) related to "AI" on the signature.
Sorry for my poor memory, I suck with names... But, well, I hope we get some improvements on the AI, for sure. |
Henschel Hs 123
My apologies if this has been mentioned previously within this thread -it's long so I haven't had the chance to read everything- but would Team Daidalos consider including the Henschel Hs 123?
While only 39 were operational in 1939, it was the Energizer Bunny of the Luftwaffe. They tried to retire it over and over and over again, but they kept pulling it back into service because it was extremely good at what it did. They even tried to start manufacturing it again in 1943 which is really saying something... Just food for thought. |
About the Ki-21 again
Well, I haven't exposed argumentation previosly.
As for myself I think we need this plane. It was the mainstay of the IJA for early and mid war and was used until the end. The IJA doesn't have any attack aircraft in the sim, only figthers. And it's really a shame we have to use the G4M in army online missions. Please team Daidalus, try considerate give the IJA this bomber. It's a very noble task you gonna be doing by finally giving the army their own attack plane. I know people are asking for endless stuff, but I think you should considerate this request before definitely let this force without any significant bomber and thefore attack aircraft. |
Quote:
|
6dof new patch
Will 6dof, IR TRACKER be created in the new patch for IL2 Sturmovik? This will breath new life in game.
|
Is the type of gunsight on the Fokker D.XXI Sarja 3 Late chosen at random somehow? About half the time when I select this plane I get a version with a reflector gunsight, while sometimes the same plane can be found with a telescopic sight of the type found on many early war planes, including the D.XXI Sarja 3 Early.
Not only does the game appear to "pick" the type of sight at random, but it is possible to get different aircraft in the same flight with different sights. The last mission I flew had the no.2 and no.3 aircraft in my flight equipped with reflector sights, but the my plane and the no.4 had a telescopic sight. |
It's all in the manual ... :mrgreen: But yes, there's a 40% chance to get the more modern Revi. You can also tell the program which one to use based on the skin. The HOW is also described in the manual for 4.09. ;)
|
Quote:
Is there any chance of the other three D.XXIs being made flyable at some point? I'm having a lot of fun flying the Finnish models against the new Russian fighters, even if it is a big challenge because the I-15bis is impossibly agile and the D.XXIs armament is too light to pull off the kind of snapshots I usually use against I-153s and I-16s, but it would be nice to try using the Dutch D.XXI against Bf109Es and Bf110Cs. |
Quote:
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...omposite-2.jpg http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...omposite-3.jpg |
Quote:
What's the twin engined Biplane in the right centre of the lower image? Not a reflection on your modelling skills, which are clearly superb ;) but I thought I knew my 1930s aircraft and I don't recognise this one. In what form are you thinking about releasing about these aircraft? IE via Daidalus Team in an official patch, or one of the mod sites? Either way, I will be looking forward to the completion of this project with much anticipation. |
Quote:
OMG!!! O_o!!! |
My request regards the Breda SAFAT 12.7 guns; I believe there is a large consensus that they are way too weak. In particular the belting is definitely wrong, as it doesn't include at all the incendiary rounds. The following thread explains the issue.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2845 Just a quote from a post of uf_josse: "... Believe me or not, but i think not the right place to expose code of the game.... But, belting is AP /HET (with explosion radius of 4 cm, instead 15 for the US m.2 with similar power) and APT No API, no APIT.... era pictures show clearly API and APIT in belt with a more probable belting with API/APIT/HET.... (what i have done). So, clealy undermodeled..... ". The belting correction (and the correction of the radius of damage as well) would re-equilibrate the early war scenarios and add more interest to the dogfights. Thank you, Insuber |
Quote:
Regarding SAFAT too weak, I think a table in post #5 in thread you linked explains it. |
Quote:
LesniHU, Thanks for the answer. I understand that there are practical obstacles. And, far from me the idea to start a dispute about that ... But please take the time to read the whole thread mate. The table explains that SAFATs are weaker, but the ingame guns are way too weak, and this is the opinion of a lot of people. Moreover, regarding the in-game damage radius of 5 cm vs 15 cm of the Brownings ...is it realistic that the Browning is 9 times more effective than the Breda? I don't think so. Regards, Insuber PS: From the same website of the table : "The Italian Breda-SAFAT was the main weapon of Italian fighters in the early years of the war, and most (CR.42, G.50, Re.2000, and C.200) carried only two. Unfortunately for them, it was not a very good gun. It fired a Vickers 12.7 x 81SR cartridge, the same as adopted by the Japanese Army for the Ho-103, but the Japanese gun was lighter and fired faster. The Breda-SAFAT was reliable and accurate, however, and its ammunition was considered very effective" |
Quote:
The large twin-engined biplane WIP is the Curtiss Condor, which China used in modest numbers as a transport/bomber. My next project is a FIAT CR.32 - used by the Chinese in small numbers. Then, the export version of the P-26, also used in small numbers by the Chinese. |
Hello uberGeezer,
If you are serious in your 3D modelling for IL-2 and want to stick to the official IL-2 tech specifications in terms of polycount, LODs, textures, material setup, internal parts, etc. contact us at daidalos.team@gmail.com We can take a look at one of your models and give you our best feedback if you are heading the right direction. If you make a historical plane completely and within proper technical guidelines, we will insert it into the game, program its FM and release it in our future work. No strings attached. |
I'm not sure how practical this is or how hard it would be to implement this request but here goes.
When a airfield is under attack (sirens going) the icon for that airfield on the field selection screen flashes. (and maybe in the inflight map) This would give people some warning if vulchers are hanging around the field and would give people in the air a sort of priority-defend-airfield sort of message. What do people think? |
Quote:
Thank you very much! If you need any help, I have a Maru Mechanic (part of a high aclaimed Japanese and unfortenetely only Japanese writen military aviation book series) edition about the Ki-21. It features a complete diagram of the aircraft in full color, and a highly detailed cockpit drawing in color as well. The colors are historical accurated based on reports and interviews with veterans. I can obtain detailed images of all instruments, have books of them, and try find or buy everything in case of you need something else more as reference. I don't speak Japanese but can easly find someone who speaks if you don't also. Just PM me if this stuff is needed. |
Posted this in the wrong thread. Sorry.
But still... I'll repeat it here. Is there a chance of improving the P.11c we have in game? I think it is slightly undermodeled, and the cockpit simply does not match even the lowest quality examples in the sim -looks like something from another game. Apart from that, since Santa Claus is back in town, I think we need TBD Devastator, SB2C, Nick and Judy for the Pacific component of the game. The Aichi D3A2 would be also a nice addition -being the most frequent version in the Pacific War, their number doubling that of the previous D3A1 version. P-40N is also sorely needed there. Making cockpits for MS.406 and Curtiss fighters would "complete" the Finnish side of conflict, while busting tanks in a Hs 129 must be big fun. But please, oh, please, the plane that I can't believe it's not in yet, is Dornier Do 17Z. And... fix the AI. Specially gunner AI. I hate it. All it wrapped in colorful paper and tied with a lace. Thank you. :-) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great stuff I know many would love to have myself included (add a Ki-48 & Ki-51 in there and call it plane pron!). In kind, the late 20's-1930's IMLTHO had some really wild varients.....Though not applicable to the sim, I've often thought how much fun it would be to have a combat simulation with them. SOmething of a cross between WWI & WWII some of the variations just crazy. Great stuff! K2 |
Read from a few different posts that AI improvement will be one of the focus areas in future patches. Is there any plan on which aspects of AI behavior to improve upon?
IMHO there are at least several areas that can use some fine-tuning: 1) AI gunners on bombers – too accurate at times, and their aim appear not to be affected by condition of the bomber (e.g. when the bomber is executing high-G maneuver) 2) Fighter AI – rely all too frequently on the 360 degree barrel-roll as defensive maneuver. Could use a wider repertoire. 3) Fighter AI – appear to automatically detect player’s presence behind them when at relatively close proximity, even in their blind spot (e.g. lower six o’clock position). It is difficult to surprise the AI regardless of experience level 4) AI can see through cloud and is not affected by low visibility environment 5) AI chooses forest and town to belly land instead of road or relatively flat area When reading WWII fighter pilot memoirs, one often come across passages of how they 'sneaked up on' inexperienced enemy pilot for an easy kill, or how when the situation got tough they would use cloud cover to aid escape. Improving on these would I believe greatly help realism in offline missions. One also wonders how far we can improve the AI in the game without severely affecting performance. For example, would it be possible to code advanced maneuvers and ‘doctrinal training’ into AI behavior? E.g. head-on or high-side attack on bombers with strong rear armaments, entering into a luftberry circle for mutual defense (at least for inexperienced pilots) or executing a ‘Thach Weave’? Any other areas of AI behavior that can be improved? Cheers, |
Quote:
What would be also wonderful, would be a G3M1 Nell as this plane was in a lot of early war missions, like the sinking of the Z-Fleet of Singapure. Never hoped to see that many possible new planes for this sim any more. http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m.../Comics/11.gif |
Sorry if this has been answered before: the Fokker D.XXI should have 4 guns, as mentioned also im the 4.09 guide. The in-game Fokkers have got only 2 guns. A mistake or I'm missing something ?
Regards, insuber |
Insuber, the cowling guns on the D XXI are very deep in the fuselage and fire through quite long blast tubes between the cylinders. It is very hard to see the muzzle flash.
The guns are indeed there. This came up over at UBI and one of DT pointed it out. |
Quote:
Thank you ElAurens. I'll check better. Regards, Insuber |
Change file format of skins
First, I would like to thank Daidalus Team for their efforts and continuous work on IL-2 :-)
I have one suggestion for future versions: Change the skins file format from BMP to PNG. A quick test on a fresh 4.09 install shows that I have about 2 GB of data in the PaintSchemes folder. I then ran a batch conversion of all BMP files to PNG, and the result is about 480 MB. I guess the choice of BMP was natural as a lossless format when IL-2 was first released, since few tools supported PNG back then. But now PNG is widely supported, and provides a lossless format and a nice size reduction. |
Mhondoz,
Actually, because they are 8-bit .bmp, not 24-bit true color, they reasonable size .. 1024x1024 is 1026kb .. same .png is 457kb though .. don't quite see how you got a 75%+ reduction .. should be 45% or so My unmodded 4.09m is 5.20GB .. 1.78GB in skins My modded 4.09b1 is 10.2GB .... 1.71GB in skins It's not a bad idea to go with .png, but unless you have alot of custom skins in .. saving some 800MB by my calculations then I suppose, everyone would need to convert ? |
Wing guns on the Fokker D.XXI
Quote:
You will find the the 4 wing gun version of the Fokker D.XXI under 'Allied aircraft' and the the 2 wing gun version under 'Axis aircraft'. DFLion |
"unless you have alot of custom skins in"
My Paintschemes folder has 18,8GB on it :shock: But, dude, it's worth it :mrgreen: Well, maybe the .PNGs could work. I don't actually care, anyway :-P |
WWFlybert,
You are right :oops: First, I checked the size of the whole PaintSchemes folder, and this was about 2 GB. Second, I converted all BMP files with the batch conversion tool in IrfanView. But since many of the skins has the same name (void.bmp), when dumped to the same destination folder of converted skins a lot of files were overwritten. That made the PNG folder a lot smaller than it should be, and my hope for size reduction was too optimistic, sorry about that and thanks for correcting me WWFlybert. :-) I have now realized that IrfanView has an option to create new sub folders in the batch conversion, and I have done the test again, so this result should be more accurate: http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...bmp_vs_png.png Not so large difference as before, but still significant I think. A change to PNG could be carried out as part of the installation process of a new patch, like the 4.09 default skins patch. Then all default skins in BMP format could be deleted and replaced with PNG. Reducing download and installed size. Custom skins would not be touched, but over time custom skin providers could start to supply their skins as PNG. Just a thought ;-) |
Default skins are hardcoded and stored in an entirely different format so there is nothing to change here. The only things that make your skins folder bloat like that are custom skins. :)
|
Ahh I see :-) I thought the default skins were in the Skins folder too. The 1.70 GB skins are installed with a clean 4.09 though, no custom skins installed.
Thanks for the clarification csThor. :-) |
regarding image file formats ..
one problem with .png is that it changes the palette indexes when converting, which might then cause a programming problem with the graphics engine .gif on the other hand, retains the same 256 color palette as 256 color .bmp and retains the same transparency index 1024 x 1024 .gif about 561kb .. not quite the reduction of .png, but consistant indexed palette with .bmp I think it's a moot point however .. try to buy a desktop HDD less than 250GB these days ! |
Quote:
|
don't know if this was asked but why wasn't 6DOF implemented in the 4.09m?
|
Firstly thanks for continuing olegs fine work. Secondly im sorry if this has been posted before but trying to read through 55 pages will make my eyes bleed! Anyway my question to you is are there any plans to improve the damage caused from the 0.50cals in american planes? At the moment in my p51 i consider my self lucky to smoke a 109 let alone shoot the bugger down, where as in a spit mk9e which houses the same browning mg its a different story. Oh and 4 less of!! It would be nice if the 50's could be beefed to somewhat close to fearsome capability then i would be gratefull! Btw just in case some smart arse is out there. I shoot at about 6/7 % air gunnery. ;-). Also im no expert of ballistics but it is the general consensus of the il2 community that the 50's in american planes are not quite right. Thankyou for listening and look forward to your reply.
|
Just heard some interesting news that "josse's weapon mod" was included in 4.09 is this correct? If so please ignore my previous post.
|
Wild Weasel, I don't feel anything close to that regarding to the .50 cal.
A short burst and a 109 looks more like swiss-cheese rather than an aircraft. I've never seen any complaint about the .50 cal. before, only about the .303. |
.50 cals
I do notice certain things are different. Like some VVS planes got the buzzsaw 20mm, then you have the emil 20mms that shoot just as slow as the 30mm wing cannons. There's that blue 20mm that fw 190 inside wing guns that really works great, even the BF109 F4 has one of that type. . .
I think they wanted a variety and adjusting the way the differences of guns. Like the Russian 20mm was essentially a 12.7mm machine gun tooled to fire larger rounds, so it shoots faster etc. Granted it might favor certain planes, but there's situations where certain guns work best in. They've got 75 page threads on this in the ubizoo. But .50's work, just in close. Set convergence to 150m and open up around 150m and they will saw off stuff, flame things out, etc . .. Even the FM wildcat with 4 .50s do a number when close. While its not as quick as P-47's . . . The reason why the SPit IXe does more damage is it also has 2 x 20mm hispanos. ok granted that close range really sucks against AI because the modern jet fm the fighters have or the one shot one kill gunners on vet or ace, but vs people its ok to close in. And to make full use of the P-51, the three way trim . . . to fly american you have be a very good pilot. Since I'm not I just use the P-40 because I like it and Wildcat since that was the first plane I could carrier land (the Dauntless was close second but the SBD 3's lack of gunsight and disorientation from sitting up mode). P-51's a mystery. Someone mentioned in the UbiZoo they even had modded P-51's so people can get their History Channel on (History Channel has several shows like Dogfights that say P-51s can outturn anything and outperforme anything in West Euro theater and P-47s regularly shot up Tiger Tanks with their API etc). But thats what makes this game so awesome. Team D wishlist . . . For some reason the Wildcat seems to fly like the Hellcat. FW 190 cockpit adjustment Add Japanese push prop Kyushu J7 W1 Shinden Add F8F bearcat Add A-1 skyraider make flyable torpedo bombers flyable fiat g55 german ground attack rockets torpedo fw-190 include more pac theater torpedo / dive bombers in planeset (flyable) Flyable kamikaze (explosive laden planes) and Ohka rocket because some people online prefer ramming to gunning. more maps would be cool (Italy) oh that German catapult Zepplin carrier and navalized 109's and 190's :) ok this is too much to ask. |
How long will 5.0 patch be released ? Sorry for my bad english !
|
Quote:
As you can tell its not my ability as a pilot thats in question here. It is however my lack of experiance regarding actuall combat in r/l which is why i posted my original question. Regarding ammo belt set up etc. |
Quote:
1. 4.09 was planed and completed as a finalisation of the Beta (plus some save new content) - nothing more. Experimental/new issues where out of question. 2. the implementation of 6DoF support would mean changes to code files - which we will not do without Olegs permission and as far as we know he never supported the idea of having 6DoF in Il-2 3. the ingame cockpits are not prepared for 6DoF - lots of them (especcially later ones) look ok though with that 6DoF mod, but some just don't Some big remodeling of old ones is necessary, if really considering a 6DoF-implementation - and there wasn't time for this anyway 4. 6DoF may be judged as too big advantage for players with equipment like TrackIR i.e. - so in case of a fair gameplay we would need to care for good alternatives (i.e. mouse or keys) for those without such stuff, which is also time consuming. Gameplay and balancing is a difficult topic. My personel oppinion is indeed, that 6DoF adds a lot of atmosphere fo a game like Il-2 and I would be glad to see it implemented, and I guess most of our team think the same. Thus we have this topic in mind and discuss about it from time to time. Still its all much more than just a decision about including what we like... |
"I do notice certain things are different. Like some VVS planes got the buzzsaw 20mm, then you have the emil 20mms that shoot just as slow as the 30mm wing cannons. There's that blue 20mm that fw 190 inside wing guns that really works great, even the BF109 F4 has one of that type. . ."
Those Emile guns are 15 mm only. And they are fed via drum, not belt, so the ammo count is very low. You would want a low RoF if you ask me. All the RoF, speed and energies of the bullets are modeled to be historically accurate, not to fit a perception. .50 cals have no problems for me. I fly low caliber guns almost exclusively, so I'm more used to them. They 100% get a Bf109 or even Fw-190 smoking at the very least. In the Pacific scenarios, it usually takes only a second to dismember a zero or similar plane. They are a kinetic energy weapon. Cannons use explosions to do the work. For the .50 cals to work, you can't just click off a couple rounds at a time like with cannons. They are like a buzzsaw, not a sledgehammer. Practice shooting your targets at convergence (use icons at first to help you gauge distance, then get rid of them if you please). Recommended convergence for US WWII pilots was about 250 meters. |
Quote:
|
sweet
Wild Weasel, didn't mean to question your flying ability. Sorry if the post came out like that.
I didn't see the spit part mentioning hispanos so I answered. I used to read alot and post in the ubizoo before I got banned there (I think because I mentioned AAA alot or kept jocking (giving attention to) this realistic sound mod that unfortuately crashes IL-2 every so often). They've got some mustang drivers over there (I remember the guy's called wright and he's got a south park avatar) that had whole list of mustang tips, but the most important was the 3 way trim. THey've had millions of threads with American planes .50's not right but the guys whose fav planes are the US ones, and get lots of kills in them. Usually frequent the full cockpit / realistic servers where they BnZ to the fullest and they've said nothing wrong with the .50's, just gotta get in close. They prefer to set convergence at 100m and often wish they could set it at 50m . Romanator21: thanks for the tips. Usually if I fly American, I fly the Wildcat, and set my convergence around 150 or 200 m and wait until wingtips of the zero or fighters touch the edges of the sight and open up. I normally fly Luft or VVS. I'm more of a cannon pilot. In regards to the different cannons and RoF's I just noticing them, not complaining per se, but if the emil is supposed to fire like that historically, that's great Il-2 has that. |
The problem with P-51 and 0,50 cal in game is simply - stability during manouvering and aiming ( shoting). The problem is that when you try in P-51 aim target there is a lot of unstability in all axis and most your bullets dont hit the target in point just spread over the sky.
We know that P-51 had problem with longitudinal stability when had full fuselage fuel tank behind the pilot - beacuse CoG was backward. When these fuel tank was below 50% stability problems should gone. Thats why P-51 pilots when had these tank near full filled ( was restriction to fill only 3/4) they firstly empty these tank even before drop tanks. Why P-51 in game had these problem all time? I find what is reson of these. RL data for P-51 claim lenght of these plane = 9.83 m In game all P-51 have lenght = 9.38m. These look like "czech error". What would happend if we correct these value to RL data without even changing CoG value ( COG for P-51 is 0) Woala P-51 would be more stable during manouvers and aiming and now your bullets will hit target more focusing and precisly. I tested it and it really works for these plane. I could say that even API ammo belt is not really need now. I remember very good that before some of patch 4.XX P-51 was more stable in aiming and was really effectivnes weapon agains german planes. These was change in some patch many time ago - so it could be that these error cause it. The same is with P-47 roll rate at high speed. After the same patch P-47 loose their roll ability at high speed and 1C never correct these. Dont know really why beacause is rather simply change. |
@hiro, no offence taken mate, i was going to post again appologising that i may sound arrogant or offended and that i didnt mean to.
@kwaitek , thanks for an interesting read, i shall try and implement your advice old bean. Its nice to know that sometimes , its not necessarily pilot error that is the problem. It also explains why the 50's on the spit are much more potent. Cheers! S~ |
Hello
Hello. Team Daedalus.
Thank you very much for your wonderful IL2. I'm Japanese. I can't speak English. English of chance translation. I'm sorry. I question. Several Japanese airplanes have a defect. Is there a correction plan ? Thank you very much. JapanCat.:) |
|
Quote:
LOL.. I just saw that Kwiatek said the exact same thing... ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
FC |
Quote:
If not then it really shows how much he actually cares about accuracy doesn't? |
Quote:
What do you mean by "I tested it and it really works"...You did some unauthorised game modification? PS:Also what do you mean by "czech error"? Sorry but a lot of unclear things I see in your post. |
Yes
I was laughing at the "Czech error" myself.
It's what? And it could be miscontrued so many ways. Like saying KI-61 has many "German Errors" in its design. What? About the P-51 some guys say the wobble it has is because it has 3 way trim and its needs 3 way adjustment and have no complaint about it, some said it sucked but were 'taught' how to fly it (I think Wright32 in ubizoo had some posts on this), and work it. Also online the P-51's guys usually spank me, and I see they have no trouble with their wobbles and gun me down. Other guys say its not realistic and is the wobble master and its very difficult to play. It flies fine for me in the Sim. However I am not a mustang expert nor have I flown in one, but the Rata and Chaika are more unstable that the mustang untrimmed . . . The Corsair wobbles too, not like the Rata or Chaika. It's managable. The FW-190 cockpit . . .arrgh but there's experten handing ppl their azz's in them . . . One thing I notice is the Hellcat, it just a faster version of the Wildcat . . . So much, I'd be cool if they added a bearcat, Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden, Skyraider and Mixmaster (just cause it has a hiphop name) while fixing the 109 (I think someone in TEAM D said that), Hellcat, and other planes . . . while making all planes flyable J/K. G55 / TBF, Kate n Jill . . . But I would like to venture and hope that BOB SOW will take this suggestion. Not just for the 109 but do involved research each of the a/c 's FM put in the sim, the detail in the post is long but really nice: Quote:
|
Quote:
Anyway, every source I can see states the length of the P-51D as 32ft 3in, which is about 9.83m, so if it's wrong in the FM data, I don't see why it shouldn't be changed. |
On the subject of night fighters, I'd like to see the Bolton-Paul Defiant, known to Luftwaffe night bomber crews as "The Steel Bat".
It would make for a good two player team mission aircraft needing one player to pilot and one player to operate the turret guns. The Blenhiem II and Blenhiem IV night fighters with belly mounted gun packs would be another interesting aircraft to fly. The Bristol Beaufighter was a more successful night fighter than the Mosquito. On the subject of the few WW2 fighter aircraft that aren't in IL-2 yet, any chance of the Chinese Airforce lend-lease Republic P-43 "Lancer" and Vultee P-66 "Vanguard"?? |
If the P-51 is 9.83 instead of the 9.38 defined in the Il2 code. That is a very bad miss.
[youtube]f0sgH3OGO0M[/youtube] The difference in the P-51 = almost 18 inches. That has got to affect COG, the way fuel loading affects performance and handling of course. |
Quote:
Also as such,he should know very well that the P-47 and P-51 are not the only planes who are experiencing flaws in their flight and damage models. There are German,British,Japanese,Italian,etc planes who have such problems aswell,so this post of his does sound a bit one sided. Also I'm very sure that Kwiatek knows,that the "hacked" version of the game is coming with unofficially reworked FM/DM's,who differ from the original ones.This is one of the hundred risks that the end user is taking when he chooses to use the broken code,and if this error is present in the P-51 FM,then it might be coming from there./I talk from myself/experience in this paragraph/ ;) Anyway,Daidalos Team knows very well what's right and what's not in this game and be sure that we're doing whatever we can to make this game better,and that this report will be checked. EDIT:About the "Czech error" thing,I think that it's not good idea to use something that most people will not understand and also which cannot be well translated exactly to the language you're talking.Please take in account that the bigger part of DT are Czech. |
Quote:
|
Hello David603,
I know very well what I'm talking about,and I bet you do too. There's no reason to play blind here. |
Quote:
I still dont happy with actual situation with all these mods story for these game beacuse it divided and spoiled online playing. But until now there were not other option for correct many things. I still think that these things should be made for offical patches not in mods way but as i said there were not other option for now. Quote:
I made many performance corrections for mosty western fronts planes ( both side) which would be relased as a new sloted planes ( stock ones was not touched) not only for P-51 but also for Fw 190 A series ( e.x. corrected 1C poor acceleration for these planes), Spitfires and 109s. Base for these corrections were original German, British and other documents not russian books. I saw many people were are very happy with these changes from both sides. They love new acceleration of Fw190A, performacne differences between Spifire MK1 and 109 E and many other things. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sry these is my fault i just used my country common sense of these "error" Here is little explanation of these "common use" pharaphase http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=687074 I hope TD would make these game better and try to achive more historical and obcjetive performance of these all beautifull planes then 1C did. I wish You all the best. 303_Kwiatek |
Quote:
|
Kwiatek,
I didn't know the expression "czech error", but to all good willing people who want to "correct" DM and FM "mistakes", I can tell another figure of speech: you are throwing out the baby with the bath water. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/...the+bath+water Regards, Insuber |
Quote:
|
Quote:
without the fix these planes are worthless,,, and the people that are pissed are the people who fly the enemy side of the war, because they lost the advantage of having a plane that wasn't porked, stomping the crap out of the plane that was always porked.. booo hooo, shed me a tear.. thanx to some good people these injustices are being being resolved and corrected.. |
@Kwiatek,
I see your motives and understand them,I cannot question them but I also believe that some of the actions you took are wrong. Anyway,we at DT do know very well what in this game is in need of correction and it's not only the flight;damage;weapon models.Far more things beyond the "modder" knowledge have to be corrected/updated in IL-2. My advice to the whole modding community is to restrict their attempts to "fix" the "hard code" things like the flight model (for example).You cannot calculate the polars,so basically you're doing nothing.Leave the things as they are,because this way you're bringing more harm than help here. I will repeat that DT knows better than anyone,what has to be done and we have the best data to back up our actions.If you want something to be fixed,report it to us and do not fix it by yourselves. This is the correct way for something to be "fixed" in IL-2,if it can be called that way. @David603, I see that this type of things are not clear to you,I'll be more than happy to enlight you for some of them via PM or e-mail,but this topic is not the place for this type of discussions. |
I wonder if the people raving about the "fix" for the P-51 (FM and API) really understand the impact such changes to 1 plane does to the gameplay as a whole?
All thats left is the wing sheere in high speed manouvers and we will have a real clown wagon in the game. (Lerches new cousin maby?) I met lots of P-51 online who doesnt seem to have any problems whatsoever, flown correctly blue side cant even tuch it. Im not saying the changes isnt needed but if one changes 1 ac all the rest needs to be fixed to, and i do mean ALL. All the "faults" are there for a reason, at least thats what i think. Easy fix: Change the visibillity of 50 cal tracers and include a readme on joystick settings and 99% will think P-51 is completly reworked. Keep up the good work DT and see u soon in SoW. :) |
Quote:
In Ultrapack we still have the stock FM by Oleg and additionally the "corrected" versions by Kwiatek. I personally think that Kwiatek has done an excellent job on the Focke Wulfs and the Spit MkI and Bf109 E1, E3, and E4. as far as I can comare them to historical data and IL2 compare. However, if you have substantial and maybe even constructive critics, I invite you over to Ultrapack forum to discuss what went wrong with Kwiateks reworking. There is a thread in the FM topic where you can see the data in IL2 compare. Best regards, Emil |
Emil,did you bothered to read between the lines in my post?
Also please remove the link leading to the site with unauthorised content,it's not appropriate posting it here. Thank you. |
Yes I did.
Did you bother readig between my lines? Anyhow the invitation still stands especially if a constructive discussion comes out of it. I know you have a hard time with mods for some reason. And I do understand your reasons and would underline many of them. Yet still you(TD) have the chance to correct errors in the FMs DMs etc. and you did with some of them. I would appreciate if you took a closer look at what Kwiatek did and would at least consider his councel. I personally think he did a great great job there. The only problem is that his models aren´t standart. I would love to see all FMs to be as historical correct as possible. TD has the chance to do that finally. Thank you for your attention. |
Hello Emil,
if you and others at UP have any ideas and suggestions about this type of requests toward DT,please send your constructive ideas and request list to DT e-mail. And I'm sorry but I'll have to refuse your kind offer toward me to visit your boards and discuss,because I personally don't have neither the will or the physical time to do this. Best reguards, Bulgarian. |
It may turn out there are some corrections that could be made to Il2 in many places, not just aircraft. You can suggest changes, but arguments are not the right way to go at it.
TD has plenty to do as it is with all the requests made on these boards. Rome was not built in a day, and for all the requests for changes I'd say it will take awhile. Also, priorities of TD are their own. If you want to argue, do that among yourselves somewhere else. Then after you refine all the details with adequate facts you might present them carefully in a posting. Do the research yourself, before you make claims and statements that are unsubstantial. Don't provide links either, do the research and prepare a decent written explanation corroborated by references. You will get alot further with that. TD doesn't have time to research your links and guestimates. Basically, if you do enough work to substantiate your claims and reference it well enough it would make sense for TD to look into it. Herein is a very good thing, the TD has the oversight and go ahead from Oleg and we have gotten a much needed upgrade to IL2. Have respect and appreciate that we have an interested group (TD) that has Oleg's approval and support. This is a very exceptional benefit to our community. |
Quote:
|
AI during landing
I read somewhere that TD were looking into possible changes to the AI in the game, and I was wondering if there was any way of improving the AI of friendly a/c during landing ?
At the moment if I am No 2 and my flight of four are coming in to land , then No 3 and No 4 just follow me and can quite often crash instead of getting into the landing pattern. The only way I've found to get round this is to hit the Autopilot, and after my a/c starts following the landing pattern then 3 and 4 ignore me and start landing ( then I can switch Autopilot off ), but if I forget it can quite often result in a/c losses that should never happen. As a small expansion to this request, as in the above scenario if No 1 lands then No 2 becomes leader but cannot issue orders for 3 and 4 to "return to base". Likewise, if the leader is shot down during a mission, then the next numbered a/c becomes the new leader but can't issue any orders. Is there any way TD could come up with a fix for that ? As an offline flyer a fix for either or both of the above would be very welcome, but I have no idea whether it would be easy, difficult or even possible to do. Thanks for taking the time to read this. |
Quote:
(#1) 1st Wingleader - (#2) Wingman 1 (#3) 2nd Wingleader - (#4) Wingman 2 So instead of #2, the pilot who should become responsible for the flight, should be #3 instead. At least, thats what it would be like on german swarms - I'm not sure how it was at other nations. However, if it was different, then the whole issue would become more complicated. But I agree, its odd, like it is now. Not having any control or any influence on the behaviour of the other pilots in a flight is unrealistic. Aboput your other points I do not have a clue, I guess, somebody of our team should know better. |
I'm not sure if yet requested: on screen display of value of flaps movement in degrees or percentages (degrees more logical but probably a lot of work - aircraft specific) if using an axis on a controller, like power or proppitch has. Somehow the words "combat flaps", "take-off" and "landing" don't show.
An axis for radiator flaps would be cool, same for mixture. I building my own HOTAS, believe me I have enough axis now :D And again, would be nice if the option exists the external cams don't focus on men hanging in parachutes. I want to see the planes going down. Ever shot a C47 with the max amount of paratroopers? :mrgreen: Is cooling system damage actually modelled? In the bf109G2 manual there exists a valve to close and bypass a damaged wing cooling pod. Never looked at the gauges to see values dropping though, been flying radials too much. Keep up the good work, I was and am very impressed and happy with the patch! |
Beauie
TD, many thanks for the good work. I see this thread includes requests so here is one that has been on the minds of many of the Oceania based simmers:
The visibility from the Beaufighter Mk21 is seriously hampered by the omission of the rear observer position. This is the only aircraft I know of that has been officially released without a full complement of seats modeled. It always felt like half a plane. Fixing this omission would be greatly appreciated by many. For your consideration |
Quote:
After I posted I was just thinking the same thing that #2 shouldn't be second in comand anyway, and was going to make that my point in my next post, but you beat me to it :cool: The whole promotion thing for the player seems a bit strange in IL2. In a German campaign for example, if the player starts at the lowest rank ( I usually do, as I like to work my way up the ranks ) it would be expected to start as #8 and as you improve move up to #4 or #2 but still as a wingman. Then after a couple of promotions, say to Leutnent, you would move to #7 with your own #8 wingman. However, in IL2 you will still be a wingman at the rank of Hauptman, which I doubt would ever have been the case in reality, and then at the next promotion you are suddenly in command of the whole schwarm ! If that could be fixed it would make a big difference to the immersion factor in an offline campaign. I know TD must be overwhelmed by suggestions, but if we don't ask then we won't get. I will say thanks in anticipation that you even consider it. |
Quote:
|
hi team daidalos when is 5.0 update due out? next year? two years?? and what will be in it. thanks
|
Quote:
Anyway, I'm sure that one of the DT members will appear soon to explain more about these features and any other projects they are working on at the moment;) |
Please add a command for AI level bombers to drop bombs upon release of lead aircraft's bombs, something like "drop on my mark".
|
What is the purpose of the new QMB's "Pos." box and categories "N, A, B"? Clearly it has something to do with starting positions, but I can't understand.
|
Quote:
A-Advantage, your flight starts behind the enemy D-Disadvantage, enemy starts in your six. Quote:
FC |
58 questions|wishes from sukhoi.ru community were translated and e-mailed.
Here is the list in English (bottom of the posting). http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showpost....63&postcount=1 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Could someone make a Antartica Map?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.