Well then i guess here's something we disagree with. I fly the planes i enjoy to fly and honestly the stuka is one of them. I even fly the il2 alot especially considering its pits are really badly modeled in comparison to for example the hs129 or pe8

i know not everyone agrees but what is the harm in adding planes if it takes little to no effort. I never said anything about you needing to fly them. Im just extremely dissapointed about all the epic ai planes which we cannot personally pilot without mods, which i sortof gave up on considering that all my fav servers block them.

but to each his own, i just fail to see how anyone would say that adding aircraft is a bad idea, who cares if the pits are crappy, at least let those who arent picky with detail pilot them, and let those who are cockpit nuts fly those planes which have high level of detail, noones stopping you from not flying a certain plane you feel is not high enough resolution, but again not adding planes does limit many of those who arent as picky.

As a side note, if you love extreme detail why dont you get Il2 cliffs of dover. That game has a very minimal plane set but each plane has extreme detail and high res textures. The only thing keeping me from getting il2COD is the lack of many plane choices, ohh and the fact it has to use steam when u have no intention of going online. Although i use it for MP only games, steam is byfar horrendous for those who prefer not to have to use 3rd party crap to boot a SP game.....

Well I do have COD, however I have had nothing but trouble getting it to run anything like Il2-46, and when I almost did get going, then Steam shut me out and it took more than a month to get access back (the customer support frankly stinks), then my PC died and I had to rebuild it. Il2-46 and ROF where the first things I put back on and have slowly been re-loading my other sims back on as well, but I’m so p’off by Steam that I’m reluctant to reload COD. And like yourself a love the variety available in Il2-46, but just wish all the cockpits where to the same standard across the sim so I could love them all equally.

Amen.

For sure.
Heck the 109's have hardly been touched. Biggest reason I got into using mods were the beautiful 109's compared to the awful stock versions.

I would really like to see the Hawker Typhoon modelled. It would make a great mid-war combatant over France against Bf 109's and Fw 190's.

Having just finished reading Roland Beamont's superb "My Part Of The Sky" all I can think of is Typhoons!!

This should be a really easy addition to make for the game but it would be an incredibly useful addition for all Movie-makers.

Basically you create an invisible aircraft and make it neutral so it isn't targeted by Allied or Axis aircraft. IT IS ONLY FOR OFFLINE PLAY!

This then allows you to 'film' footage without the camera aircraft getting in the way of the shots. It allows the most beautiful sweeping shots of aircraft as the players aircraft is invisible and doesn't get in the way of the locked F6 view.

Here's an example of what it looks like, why it is incredibly useful and why I hope it will be considered for addition to the offline play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W-8OZkdVx4

Cheers, MP

PS> I would like to know if this is at-least something that can be considered? I doesn't need any modelling, it just needs to be an invisible aircraft, with no engine sound, no Polygons and neutral so it isn't attacked by enemy aircraft.

Cheers

Nav Lights Tweak Request
 

As it stands now, the navigation lights are virtually useless.

I would like to request that they be brightened/enlarged so they can at LEAST be seen somewhat like they were in 4.09m. Perhaps not QUITE as bright, but surely there can be a compromise.

As it stands now, there is absolutely no purpose to them whatsoever.

If nothing else, a conf.ini entry, or a difficulty option?

old_navlights 1/0

1 = 4.09m behavior
0 = 4.12+ behavior

?

Ki-44
 

Any news if my favourite Japanese fighter the Ki-44 will make it into 4.12 as AI or ideally flyable?

Land-based artillery (howitzers, mortars) having the capability of indirect fire on the map would sure be nice, with the ability of mission builders to specify a target area for particular battery (while risking the abuse of some very unrealistic applications of artillery by some mission builders! :)). Currently, ship guns fire at targets beyond visual range, or at least a very long way, but land-based guns won't fire at anything unless it's directly in front of them.

+1!

A map of France like WestFront 44 would be the perfect match for a Typhoon. I don't see it happening however, due to obvious content limitations.

If TD says it is possible to include a map like that, I'm in for any help needed :D.

Definitely and a late mark Spit

Any news on the Whirlwind & Lancaster that are in the works?

Just a note on the AI's a/c control..

Would it be possible to make the AI a/c control a bit smoother...
It's control is currently a bit primitive in such that it 'over controls' then 'over corrects' resulting in jerky movements.

In the instrumentation/control industry this is called PID, which smooths out 'overshoots' - overcontrol in the AI's case.

:)

I agree...

Is it possible to integrate this 1/1 map of North Africa (from the Suez Canal to Tripoli) into the next update?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC3NEnpliSo
I found it in here:
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,16159.0.html

Cheers.

A beautiful map
 

Hello Team

First of all, thank you for all your development and nice work.
To continue with this upgrades I have a little request if it is possible.

1. Add the Zapolare map.
http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php?topic=1814.0

I think is one of the most detailed maps from this simulator.

2. Please, add the R/R/R (Rearm/Refuel/Repair) option to have in the game. This will give to the simulator a more realistic experience.

Thank you very much.

1- Human pilots fly and fight as they want, but the ability to use the taking off and landing flaps in fight by AIs is unrealistic.
The worst is the usage of this flaps with Spitfires and Hurricanes.
2- How many left hands have an AI ?
One for the throttle, an other for the treams and may be a third for flaps trigger. I forget the fourth used to open thermos flask of tea or coffee.
3- In the same way some AIs seem have more than a pair of eyes. Some of this pairs must to be used to keep watch on wingman or leader, ennemy planes, instrument panel and thermos flask of tea or coffee. I forget one needed to aim the target.

Adolf Galland (One of the best) don't take off with is cigar because he haven't a hand free to light it when fighting and a pair of eyes to watch closely if the ashes fall down on his boots...

I really think that the TD made a good job with AIs and I'm assured that they can improve AIs behavior to have them more realistic. IL2 is the best after more than ten years and we still use it because it is more a sim than a game. So don't be afraid TD you can increase it realistic aspect.

Thanks for your work.

Really???????

I mean its fun, but realistic certainly not.

The worst moment for the AI is when 'bandits' are called out. They all get crazy, scatter, chop throttles, drop flaps, roll, barrel and frequently crash into one another. Absolute chaos.

I would like to add my voice to support higher resolutions, FOV fixes and widescreen support. Almost everyone is now at least using a widescreen monitor, while many are venturing into triple screens with the advent of Nvidia surround and other widescrren graphics displays. Modders have come up with various solutions, but it takes time, and it would be great to see a native support for Nvidia and crossfire.

I see a mistake on the map for sure. The port of Alexandria is suppose to be spelled Alexandria, not Alejandria :!: so someone better fix that map first before its imported to the patch. The City (or port) Alexandria was named by Alexander the Great in Ancient times and the City name never changed once in history and into WWII so that's the mistake I point out.

For the AI, would it be possible to keep them from spamming their ammo at longer ranges then are normally effective?

I rarely if ever fire at a plane at past .2KM, and especially the shkas stream is just waste at .6KM or farther.

Ive been playing some offline campaigns honing air combat skills and just hate watching the stream of shkas from well out of effective range.

Im not sure how exactly it can be edited but it would make the most sense for the ai to differentiate cannons from mgs and at the same time engage fighters much closer while attacking bombers from farther off to avoid their defenses

Again im not 100% sure how realistic pilots do it but i personally find the spamming of ai to be a bit annoying and ofc it always if fun to laugh at the pilot who just watsed their entire clip trying to hit me from .6KM away....



Ohh also one more thing that drives me nuts is the MG81 on bombers, shooting from farther away then the bullets themselves even go. Id personally increase the mg81's range and firepower just a bit to make it a useful weapon for defensive fire. But as it is i have to say at least make the turrets not shoot unless target will actually be hit by a bullet or 2.....

Ohh and im not sure if i mentioned this before but please add a 2nd top gunner to the ju88 especially the late torp one which doesnt have a bottom gunner

Come to think of it this would be my number one wish above all else, so it’s a very big plus 1 for native wide screen for me as well.

I always use 1920x1080 and the narrowed vertical FOV that results from using this resolution can be a tad annoying, and it’s especially noticeable in the already very limited FOV of the Hs-129.

I also like to Shift F1 on landings and take-offs so I can see more of the instruments, but at 1920x1080 even that is still is not enough (I like to be able to see the three green).

Alternatively if true native wide support can not be provided could the end user be able to increase the max FOV to regain the clipped vertical FOV at 1920x1080, or at the very least make this an option for the Shift F1 view?

Due to their agreement with 1C, DT can't do anything which competes with future Storm Of War releases - that includes the Mediterranean Theater.

Hmmm.. They're about to release a central Tunisia map. Isn't that the Mediterranean Theater?

Looks like there is some new negotiating necessary.

It may have been mentioned in the 600+ posts (good luck reading through that TD!)

AI, is there any news on an update to the spin/roll/spin/kamikaze - crash into ground or Spin/roll/climb/roll/climb/roll/climb....bye-bye!

I think I mentioned the hope for an updated P-47 cockpit and increased loadout?

Agree about native 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 (player choice I know about FoV cut-off)

Is it possible to update the old maps with the Slovakia Summer and Winter textures (where possible?)

The Alps to be included?

Cheers, MP

Some (if not most) original maps are so pitifully small and ugly by current standards that it would make more sense to create a new map of the same area from scratch. I don't mean to say the old maps didn't serve their purpose - only that they were made for computers of the era long gone.

I would like to see the New Guinea New Britain Map in 4.12 since it has been complete for a long time and I already have a bunch of missions for it, (hint, hint, nudge, nudge)

:grin:;):cool::-) :confused: :-P

That's funny !!

Il2 lacks of 2 things IMHO:
-Radar, that it s a WIP by DT I think.
-Recce camera. My wish is a recce camera. I dont know how, maybe a modified bombsight, a super zoom view, perhaps as loadout of a few planes as Spitfires, Fockes, P-38 or Mosquitos...A real recce mission, that makes you sweat, get in the bad guys nest, take a few shots and get away as quickly as you can. Could be very usefull for campaings in coop mission, I know several ones that could take benefit from an adition like that.
I really don t know if DT members read this thread, but I will be glad to collect info if needed.
A very good web about aerial recon:
http://www.airrecce.co.uk/index.html

I would like to be able to script a precise sequence of AI's maneuvers in QMB, or at least FMB. For example: "Enemy plane does a split-S then climbs steeply to a speed of 250km/h, then performs a chandelle to the right."

Now you caught my attention! :) Could we see some pics?

Absolutely! :)

Well, I might have forgotten or overread, if any of the posters on 64pages of wishlist have mentioned to implement Checkyersix' Command& Control Mod 2.0. This would bring a friggin lot of immersion and all kinds of radar and whatsoever... if possible and unless there is some animosity between checkyersix and TD...

Eventually add the space until south of Bougainville for the jap version of operation vengeance...

Is't possible to randomize the clouds location. We can change the clouds altitude but missions after missions on a same map they are always in the same places...

AFAIK night-fighter tehniques are allready considered and in development by the TD.

about bombers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr--WmpDr_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R5IOo5AgwU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rb2-UrYqn8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFoX2bYlSx8

also as ive recently really got into dogfighting and not just bombing stuff, could we have a early war bf109?

maybee a B model or at the least something that was equipped with just mg17s like the early pre war bf109s

i know a few were used and it would really fit biplane missions as the early 109s were used during that time

not that i dont like the emils, but it would also be cool to see some more variety of older models especially pre war ones

and while im at it please add a spit mk1, like a version without cannons. This would fit into the makeshift BOB campaign im working on especially early on. (for anyone whos interested im working on a stock map and just simulating the BOB theatre as obviously il2 cod doesnt allow us to make any BOB content officially) id love to get il2 cod but i hate steam for anything that is not a MP only game, so i guess it wont happen.

As far as I know, DT cant add anything from CoD due to the agreements with ubisoft/1C. So no Spit Mk.1, no Do-17, and not even Bf-110C4.

I think we need a "taboo list", with a list of forbidden content (like CoD aircraft, Korean war, or NG aircraft).

Hopefully this list won't include BoF aircraft like Dewoitine D. 520.

about fighters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiZ9AO7_z44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WljkYNI50U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRWtZxgWrN4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy6yXKlnoNg

- Separate difficulty settings for external/internal - airplane/ground units padlock.
If that's not possible, then fix the padlock system so that locking on units beyond visual range is not possible. (Including clearing the padlock at the start of a new sortie in dogfight servers)

- Posibility to use the gunner positions when mouse=1 in conf.ini

- He 112 B

- PZL P.24

- A-36 Apache

A big thanks to Team Daidalos for all the great work they have done and continue to do for this great sim!

about russian fighters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWs8v-2mGtw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GR6EfPj2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZqLZp7e_eQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bk2b9hrMw

It's not a mistake, that's how Alexandria is spelled in Spanish, and the reason why is because the maker of this map is from Spain, look at his You tube channel ; http://www.youtube.com/user/RedEyeJir He's also used Spanish article for some city names like "El" Cairo.
The map's German name; Afrika, or city name pronunciations in Spanish, it's still geographically accurate, an indispensable feature for campaigns. I'll take that map over a generic-one fits all- dessert map of nowhere.

Cheers.

Fiat G-55 flyable!!!
Since arriving S.M.79 we haven't a new Italian aircraft flyable!

http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Italo/G55-2.jpg

about P-38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBI_ZInBKy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz17_rEOXNk

about german fighters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0HILUciXxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X50uuLYDQoM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3YPtrR1RI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCs_9sPtlRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_yz_FLSvaI

Pardon me my slowness, but what exactly about them all? And what are those videos have to do with the topic, called "4-12 wish list"?

Or, in a short words, what the heck are you trying to say by flooding this thread with youtube links?

01.07.2012

time for a new update ghihi ;)

to fix some mistakes in the upcoming update....

What mistakes?

lagg3 and me109e machine guns, mig flying in dogfight and some more....

There are no mistakes with the things you listed. Unless you can clearly describe a mistake exactly what it is and provide documents (meaning, written/printed official test results, not propaganda movies), proving the mistake exists.

"Vague" doesn't even begin to describe the above statement, which the author presents as evidence of "mistakes". Especially the "some more" part.

No one argues against critical analysis (which the above is certainly not), but make at least make a small effort at validating your case. Others would be more willing to listen and think about what you say, regardless of whether they agree or not.

Look i just put some documentaries about planes of ww2 so if they are based in reality then the planes in game need some work to be more realistic but i don't know if that can be done and i don't have official documents to argue

What the Heck are you talking about?
What do you think is off?
Can you please state your case and remove your spam posts?

Documentarys can even say that the Spitfire won the BoB alone shelby. I wouldn't just present a case with a few TV programs. If we paid attention to that we would be flying the "Dogfights" series UFOs instead of realistic, believable planes that actually obey pshysics.

So unless you can provide official documents, or test results, as many others have done, I'm afraid you won't get much luck in being paid attention to.

There are still things to review, no doubt about it, but youtube documentarys don't help the process.

Hey DT mail sent!

"Be more realistic" is about as vague as you can get. The best and only way to make anything more realistic is to delve in to the detailed technical specifications. You can certainly use anecdotal evidence to provide some level of flavour and to get the average person a general idea of "how things really were" but ultimately, in a simulation, you need to rely on numbers. The harder the number (i.e. the more quantifiable) the better.

That's why we try and dig up test pilot reports, scientific testing results, data tables, etc. to get the best possible result. It's extremely difficult to model something that is 60 years old with some details washed away with time but on the whole, WWII is extremely well documented, and it's easy enough to get most of the details right.

Not to offend but a couple of TV documentaries are good fun to watch but of little value in simulation discussions. The detail levels required for simulation are much too high for the average TV documentary... it's the wrong audience. Even for us simulation pilots... "flying the aircraft" is great but there is a whole other level going on underneath in computer code that is well above and beyond the average simulation pilot. Nevermind the average TV watcher.

Like when they talk about G-Models the keep showing E- Models or when talking about the 410 showing a Ju 88 or so?
This movies are full of some mistakes...

Don't get me started on "Dogfights". My mood turns foul just thinking about it. To think that many naively devour everything that show tosses them, ugh! It's not just the "pirouetting P-51" episode, either. There are egregious offenses over multiple episodes.

A prime example of gaining ratings at the expense of everything else.

A smashed-windscreen visual effect would be a nice addition. In real life hits against armor-glass windscreens (from rear gunners, debris or head-on passes) often resulted in smashed windscreens, nearly obliterated forward view but no actual penetration into the cockpit. However, in the game such hits are shown as simple bullet holes. Not very realistic IMHO.

+1

It could be based on the oil splash effect, and cued whenever the cockpit takes heavy damage.

New ships (IJN & USN BBs, IJN and RN CAs, IJN CL & CLV, and SS).

Definitely,We need more German Ships for sure. Also we need more Destroyers like a generic Destroyer for The US navy, Japanese navy, and the British and the German Navy. Also, We lack French Warships in the game. Also can we have Axis transport ships so we don't have to use the Allied transport ships ?

Also I can we fix the icon issue for Japanese planes ? When ever I select a blank skin for a Japanese plane, the Japanese icon doesn't show up. For example, it happen to the Ki-61 , the Ki-84, and A6m Zero.

Could we have SAAF (South Africans) added to the list of air forces, please? They played important part in MTO campaigns.
Also, desert/MTO skins for static Hurricanes, Blenheims, and for Matilda tanks.

I guess Martin Maryland would be too much to ask? :)

SAAF air force ? Definitely 10000000000000000000000000000000 +

I don't think that these requests would specifically interfere with the ban on MTO content and they'd be very easy to do. They already exist as mods.

There are a lot of early war British bombers which aren't in the game, and it would take a massive amount of time and effort to model them all.

The Martin Maryland would be a good choice if we had to pick just one, since it served with France as well as the UK - thus giving us a "French" medium bomber.

The infamous 'ban on the MTO content' must be some kind of urban legend - not long ago DT announced that central Tunisia map is in the works, hopefully to be released with 4.12.

That does sound like a good idea. I know the markings difference is subtle but well worth it. I've been doing some RAF and Commonwealth markings and scheme research. I'll add RAAF to my list if I get a chance to ever finish that... I'd love to see some basically good official markings for RAF aircraft that are standardized across the board. A lot of models were set up with 2 point rather than 3 point markings (i.e. top and bottom of wings plus fuselage) but we can try.

Any South Africans around to record a speech pack? :)

sound of weels inside cockpit.
 

Not very important, but if it is easy to implement, i would like to ask team Daidalos to add the sound of the weels touching the ground to inside the cockpit. They can only be eard from the outside view. When performing a very smooth landing we have almost no info if the plane has already touched the ground. I have assisted some landings in the co-pilot seat of twin engine small planes, and i heard the squeak of the weels touching the ground. And at that stage of the flight the engine is not making big noise... Plus on real life planes there is felt a little vibration that can not be felt on the game, so i think it would be nice,... the sound allready exists on the game. Ok, not so realistic if we land on a grass airfild, but the sound is also there on the grass...

Head over to SAS. Plenty of South Africans there.

Cloyd

Not that a South African specific pack would be bad (it'd be great to have)... But aren't there at least one SA speaker in the GB pack? I know there is a Canadian and perhaps an Australian. RAF squads did tend to get a fair mix from the commonwealth.

I like it this is a nice idea, only down side is when I balls up a landing with a bumpsie - daisy affair i.e. Squelch.....squelch.....squelch.....rumble.....squ elch.....rumble :)

it would be great to see Gyro gunsights in the spitfire :-P [with out using mods]

I guess mission builders would appreciate not only the introduction of SAAF, but also adding more USAAF units, esp. from the 12th Air Force, to the FMB list. And Free French squadrons. I’m no expert on the French, but I'll be happy to prepare a list of USAAF units for inclusion, if it can help.

An improvement of the views system can be' interesting. The possibility to exclude padlock only for planes. Ground targets are way more difficult to spot and some servers will appreciate the possibility to exclude padlock for planes and live it for tanks.
Bb

How many years for a Flyable B 17 Cockpit?

With a dedicated team of a minimum of two working on just the B-17, and doing all the stations needed to make it proper for DT's high specs, I'd say two years. And that would be for the simpler E model, not the more difficult G with chin turret. And I'd be very happy with the E as we actually have the maps to use it on.

Midway, The Solomons, and soon, New Guinea/New Britain. Also a real map of Java would be good for it too as a squadron of 17Es and P40s was sent there very early on to act as a delaying action till we could build our forces in Australia.

Salute!

I know many like the addons like HSFX, UltraPack, etc ... I however, am a fan of the game Vanilla, always preferable, I think it brings less bugs, setting a best performance of the aircraft settled, a behavior for the game engine generally more effective, etc..
My Daidalos Team's Wish List for IL2FB begins by placing historical maps such as the Invasion of England, simple things that are not built to be present in the addons ...
Would like a further limitation to the roof of historic flight of the aircraft, which would allow a more real way to fly where it really would appreciate the possibilities and the knowledge of the plane ...
Stock sounds better resolved, more immersible!

Daidalos Team Thanks for the huge and constant work.

However the channel map will not make it to DT yet

Yep we would definitely need more French Squadrons because there was more than one squadron in the French Air force in WWII

One thing i would like to see as a mission builder is the ability to have composite flights, at several points in the war in missions i would like to make more accurately there were mixed planes flying in units, Bf109E1's and E4's, Spit MkII's and Vb's, razor back 51's and bubble tops etc.....

would be a nice feature if its possible.

(i know some of the examples i mentioned aren't in the stock game, they were just some of the first that came to my head, but there are many examples that are in the stock game planeset).

cheers fruitbat

Reading the new, superb "History of the Mediterranean Air War 1940-1945" by Christopher Shores I learned, to my surprise, that Marylands were used as improvised long-range fighters, quite successfully intercepting Ju-52s bringing supplies from Crete to the Western Desert - that is, until they were decimated by Ju 88C-6's of I./NJG 2.

Did I allready mention my wish, that the Magnetos should be set to off when starting from an Airfield with skills set to complex engine management?

+1, would love to see this.

1. possibility to add objects to the map dynamically. by this I mean it would be cool to add objects to the map at mission's runtime. it can be done via server's console: you type smth like "create xxx", where xxx is description of what you add in XML/JSON/INI format.
example: we need to to add AI path (in mission-file style):

to do that we type (or send via socket) to console such string (JSON format as example)

and after that new AI appears in currently running mision ({...} is left not to do bigger mess)

2. Introduce clear identification of AI in mission's file and in server's log.
the problem: when some event happens with AI vehicle, you can not identify that vehicle by reading server's log. E.g.:
here pilot with nickname "username" shots AI Bf-109G-2, but there no info about AI: no wing name, no position in wing, no team info. If I shot AI, so server's commander can not know what to do: give me points for the enemy kill or give me penalty for the friendly kill. So, it's would be cool to have smth like that to be logged instead of the example from above:
where II_JG5_210 is wing name and 0 is a position in that wing. And this should be applied to the ground AI too.

3. Add server console command to get planes' positions.
There is command
to see user's statistics. I suppose there should be a command like this
to see user's current position. Similar command should be to see AI vehicles' positions too. Of course, now X,Y,Z position and current direction can be obtained from UDP packets on the server side. But it looks like a dirty hack and this is bad, because using PCAP library to look through packets needs system's administrative rights.

4. Is using JVM 1.3 still OK? There 1.7 exits for about 1 year already.

5. Is it possible to get current set of map's images? There's a software "MapTools" and it has images of maps and of terrain heights in PNG format. But as I can see, this soft is not updating any more. It should be nice to have always up-to-date images set. And it would be nice to have 100% correspondence between maps and their's images. I mean: if you have a road on a map, and you have that's map image, and you want to place a vehicle on the road using the image, you must be sure that vehicle will appear exactly on that road but not moved some [kilo]meters to the bottom or so. And it would be really grate to have all possible info about map stored in XML, for example.

6. Vehicle and weapon comparison system. I know that info about vehicles, weapons and objects can be obtained by dumping java classes from the memory. Using those classes we can calculate how powerful vehicle's gunnery is. You need to calc number of guns, number of shells, and using TNT_equivalent we can say how powerful some vehicle is. It's really a hack work that looks like Sisyphean toil. It would be cool to have some convenient way to compare one tank to another, one bomber to another bomber, one fighter to another fighter. As I said, it can be done manually, but the way is really weird.

7. Is it possible to get some server's console-interaction protocol or API? When we connecting to the server console's socket, we can send and get text string to fulfill some requests. But it's bad, because server needs to parse text request, process it, serialize result to text again and send it back to socket's client, where it will be deserialized from text. Is there some way to operate with standard data types or some structures or objects? And is it possible to output log messages not only to the log file, but to some another socket also?

----
I'm developing modern server commander and those points are really important. I can provide my help if it needed.

Sorry, I've a little problem with my pics...:(

Additional Aircraft Appropriate Tactics For AI?
 

How about some additional aircraft-appropriate tactics programmed into the AI? For example:

1. FW-189 would circle around tightly while under attack taking more advantage of its great manoeverability.

2. F4F pairs would perform Thach Weave to counter manoeverability of Japanese fighters.

3. IL-2 would perform defensive Lufbery Circle and also Circle of Death manoever.

@lebobouba try pasting just the links to the screens between [img] and [/img], delete the HTML

It's not just the Fw-189. Unless they're flying in formation or are making a bomb or photo-recon run, just about any multi-engined plane piloted by a competent pilot should try to move defensively when it's attacked.

For example, Saburo Saki had great praise for the pilot of an Australian PV-1 Harpoon who managed to evade his guns for 10 minutes before Saki finally shot him down. Apparently, the doomed Harpoon pilot made the very most of his plane, varying the power to each engine to perform literally death-defying maneuvers.

Also, any aircraft which encounters flak should take evasive maneuvers if possible. Against heavy flak, this include things like randomly changing direction and/or altitude (by +/- 125-150 meters) every 20-30 seconds.

The ability to command planes under your command to perform historical team maneuvers like the Thatch Weave, Lufbery Circle or Circle of Death, as well as basic fighter tactics like the "drag and bag" or "boxing" an opponent caught in a 4-1 fight, would be very welcome.

Other commands which would be useful would be the ability to command planes under your command to attack from a particular direction - i.e., "2 o'clock high" and to attack a particular formation of planes rather than just your padlocked target (or the ability to padlock multiple targets simultaneously).

This would allow you to split the defensive fire of bomber formations by giving commands like "Section 1 - attack high bomber formation from 2 o'clock high. Section 2 - attack high bomber formation from 12 o' clock level. Section 3 - attack low bomber formation from 10 o'clock low. Section 4 - attack attack low bomber formation from 12 o'clock level."

Wish we had Bristol Bombay for transport duties in MTO (DGen campaigns need transport aircraft for transfer, intercept and paradrop missions) – AI only, of course.
Arguably the most famous desert interception – Bf 109s of JG 27 shot down the Bristol Bombay of No 216 Sqn carrying Lt.Gen. William Gott who had just been appointed commander of the 8th Army.

I agree with that and I just posted a thread about it in the 4.12 discussion well I only request it and I didn't put the picture in it.

Following a test of the new 4.11 view settings on the Skies of Valor server, I noticed that many players are asking a setting able to exclude just external padlock.
Actually this is not possible. If you totally remove padlock no Track IR users are badly handcapped and also it is really hard (for all) to distinguish between friend or foe small ground targets.
Map design can limit this, spacing the ground troops, but this really interferes with the creation of live environments were tanks and troops are enough near to fight.
If you remove external enemy view and leave padlock enabled you still have the possibility to fight externally in arcade way, following targets continuously with no possibility for them to escape and this is a thing that most pilots do not want, because if not hardcore, they're enough mature to appreciate challenging environments.
The IL2 community is old, there are not so many rookies around, most appreciate challenging environments.
Hope it can be done with the new patch, just to complete the optimum work done on the view settings with 4.11.
BB

I agree. :grin:

Heres a request for a "small" change in the gui.

When using Full Mission Builder View/Object/Show you will always see the object displayed in its Summer skin.

Could this be changed so that if you are on a Desert or Winter map you would see the object in the Desert or Winter skin, as appropriate?

This only affects the drop down viewer. The object appears ok if you zoom into the map.

Ashe