Not really sure adding more layers in the FMB menus is terribly necessary. More trouble than it's worth, really. Once you use the FMB a few times you become very familiar where most everything is anyway.

As for the gear suggestion: Manually operated gear was a relatively labor-intensive procedure, and repeatedly pushing a key is a good way of simulating this. The suggestion of simply holding down a key for a few seconds in this regard is pointless, and defeats the purpose. Now, on the other hand, your suggestion would be an excellent idea for some of the Russian aircraft, where the pilot actually had to hold a controller in place to fully actuate the gear and flaps; that is something I would love to see implemented!

It would sure help the learning curve, though!

If not sub-menus, then possibly a search option or an auto completion feature, so that you can type "Jadgpanther" or just "Jadgp" and you're taken to the first relevant option.

Spektre's idea about allowing more than 4 objects to be placed is good, especially if it allows you to do things like place an entire tank company, artillery battalion or heavy bomber wing in historical formation with one click.

It would also be cool if you could add your own custom formations to the FMB, to simulate specialized formations. That would save the trouble of having to reenter the information or mess with cutting and pasting information from other missions.

It also gets the time required about right.

In some cases, manually operated gears could be dangerous. For example, in the F4F, if the landing gear wasn't locked (or even if it was but the forces were extreme) under G-forces the gear could extend violently, and the spinning crank handle could injure the pilot's leg! Experienced F4F pilots learned to position their leg to keep the crank from spinning before they entered a high-G maneuver which was likely to make the gear extend.

+1 on this idea!

I like the idea of a search function but I'm not sure I would welcome the added menus. This might be power user versus casual FMB user but adding that many menus would slow me down.

I do like the idea of a formation building function. So you could specify 12 or 16 bombers or something like that and then you told them to hold a box formation. That'd be nice!

I'm not sure how much reworking would be required to do that...

Well its annoying but I like that it was added because it shows me that the dev's paid attention to detail and were interested in trying to replicate a hand crank.

Mixed battery F6F-5
 

Suggestion: Mixed Battery gun configuration

Detail: It has been a historic fact that the F6F-5 Had a mixed battery of four 12.7mm machine guns and two 20mm cannons on the inner wings. While only some were manufactured with all six as 12.7mm. I have attached a snap shot from the Naval Historic Center that details this along with some VERY helpful flight data information which would aid in a more improved flight model. Classname could be F6F-5mb


PM me if you want the whole article. I have to e-mail due to forum upload limitations.


http://s7.postimg.org/8kl131dpn/Capture.jpg
http://s8.postimg.org/tc6qu1yph/Capture.jpg

This would make a very cool mod, but I believe that any official improvements or changes to Northrop-Grumman planes are off limits due to the consent decree.

We're any standard F6F-5s equipped with this mixed armament? I've seen dozens and dozen's of pictures of Hellcats and never seen this on a regularly equipped F6F-5. The F6F-5/N with radar pod was equipped in such a way.

Also not sure if we can make modifications to any thou shall not be named aircraft manufactured by this company...

Presumably, the U.S. Navy first did tests with the mixed 20mm cannon/0.50 caliber MG armament, and then added the radar pod to make the nightfighter variant, so "day fighter" versions of the F6F-5 with mixed armament existed.

Even if this variant never made it past the testing ground, it's still a cool idea, and would make Hellcat a more effective bomber interceptor.

But, like I said, it's a cool MOD idea. DT can't touch it due to the consent decree. Talk to the excellent people at SAS or Free Modding.

Can we have an update?
We have nothing since January. :(

MDS FoW Recon Options
 

A Request for,
FoW option for recon spotted units (ground, ships, aircraft, etc.) to stay on the map for x amount of time after the recon plane moves out of the range it can spot the unit. And even better, a time stamp option adjacent to the spotted units icon on the map, and also, along with options for the units type, heading and speed stamp as of the last sighting adjacent to the spotted units icon.

+100500

Can we have pictures, videos or something else?

I'm dying!!!!!!!!!

He112 When?
 

Dear Team Daidalos,

I know that you were offered and accepted the He112 and that you will included it in one of your new patches. I would like to ask you if it will be in the 4.13 or 4.14.

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,28629.0.html

Thanks a lot and keep on with this amazing simulator :-P

like i said on SaS you need ask not DT ... ask Author of model ...

as far i know author of he112 have conversation with DT some about year ago ... model was checked and given some advice to author of model ... from that time i can't see any movement ...

would be really good if work on that plane will be continue ...

all possible... but most likely in 4.14 ...

From my recollection, the 20mm's gave a lot of trouble at higher altitudes due to the actions freezing. The only Hellcats I have ever read about using the 20's were the night fighters, as they were intended to be bomber interceptors and it was considered worth the trouble to use the cannons (The base where they were trained is close to me and I have a book that is locally published that goes into great depth on the subject). Otherwise the light construction of the typical Japanese aircraft rendered the 20mm not worth the trouble.

All of that said, I also think we'll have to look to the mods to make this a practical addition to IL2.

When 4.13:confused:
In 2 weeks:twisted:

Maybe they are skipping 4.13 to do 4.14?

Maybe they just shelved the whole thing, and moved on to a different project. We haven't had an official update since mid January, and it is the end of July now.
:confused:

e-mail them and see if they need help with anything ............

:)

My last two e-mails to TD, in which I had offered some additional data for the units lists, weren't answered, so I guess they are no longer checking their mail account.

believe me ... they are here ... they are read ... but not have enough strength answer to everyone ....

4.13 really almost finished ... team have not anything new to show ... some small features which invisible to the naked eye.... nothing Huge and exciting like B24 or something similar ...

So sad that I don't know how the whole thing work. I would like to help, but if it's dead, it's sad :(

Patience is a virtue gentlemen, the average length of time between TD patches has been 15-17 months. Unless I'm mistaken it's only been 9 months since 4.12 was released. So I would suggest that we still have some time to enjoy the sights and sounds of all we have prior to the next round of mission updates needed to account for all the new content.

5 year without stopping .. it's hard ...

did you know that collect of content for 4.13 was started the day after release of 4.12

Life always gets in the way

Frequent patches are nice, but when you run long campaigns, they are a nuisance.

Anyway, it will be good to show some future activity without promissing nothing, just to keep people interested.

Any TD post will generate at least 300 answers inside some tenths of topics.

I think the "Impatience meter" concerning to a new update release ranges in accordance with how much people play the game.
Current average time between updates is quite good for me, considering that real life commitments cause that I usually play only some few hours weekly, and two weeks or more without playing is a common instance.
Given this, I find myself still enjoying features from the last update when the new one is being released.
And considering that those guys are offering everything as a pleasant gift I must say that I'm very satisfied!

Yea I said "help with anything" and not "your thing" :)

I'm sure there's read me's that needs language checks or some mission testing needed to make sure everything debugged correctly perhaps ?

&

Better to offer help than sit here bleating like sheep "wheres v4.13" etc etc etc

:)

So DT is there anything we can help you with ?

As far i know Juri_JS is work in some kind cooperate with Asura in his new Dgen engine ... i think in his letter was somthing interesting ...

help with that http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=192349 )))

Apart from mountains and hills, all the maps in Il-2 are flat. However, in real life, the Earth is more or less round, so for 4.13 all the maps should be slightly curved as well.

I know what you mean, but it probably can't work with the game engine. The altimeters, and the air pressure, probably work on the height above a flat plane, if you curved the map in the middle the height at ground level would probably be above the service ceiling of most aircraft.

No way!!

A curveed horizon effect at higher altitudes would be enough, and it is allready there.

I really wish to kow how much altitude difference there will be on our maps sizes in between map borders and map center... actually is not that difficult to calculate, but it won't improve the game a bit.

The only advantage I could imagine is getting lost behind the horizon flying low, but that distance is far greater than 10Km, so, I don't see the point.

These are not jetliners, they are short range fighters, and attack aircraft, on reduced scale maps.

Its is the must important think ? Seriously !

Arguably too far beyond the practicality scale to be a worthwhile implementation for the majority of maps in the game, save for the Solomons and similarly ginourmous maps. Even then - unless your're flying up in the "direct-to" business jet flight levels of FL380 and higher - the visual difference would be negligible. Also, the way the game models visibility would have to be rebuilt. Not really worth the trouble.

Also, "more or less round"...? Lol.

The south pole is more or less cold... :-P

It's an imperfect sphere:

It is very close to the ideal sphere.

It could be nice to have a patch where you can play without disc :)

I'm not sure that TD are allowed to mess with copy protection features.

Anyhow, the mod that allows you to play without using a disc is readily available. It's a tiny file that overwrites the stock file and has no other effect on game play. It also appears to be stable even when older versions of the mod are added to newer patch versions.

While these days I play an otherwise stock version of the game, I still use the no CD mod for convenience and to save wear and tear on my original game discs.

Just buy the game at GOG. It's just ten bucks (when it is not in a sale, then is even cheaper), and it's an updated, DRM-free copy you can download anytime, anywhere, and play.

Who is GOG. I would like to recommend non-steam version to a friend.

Good Old Games: http://www.gog.com/

That GOG.com sounds fine, but he want's it today. Anyone know where can get a download version of Il2 Sturmovik 1946 - non steam?

GOG(Good Old Games) only does downloads, go to this page to buy and download IL-2 1946.

Unlike steam, you don't need any additional software, it just installs and plays.

Auto Radiator Controls Wish List
 

37. Auto / Analog radiator control function, for the switching of the radiator control directly between analog or auto radiator control without going through the digital preset radiator positions as currently is. Similar to Autoprop control.

Co-pilot function
 

Hello Daidalos Team.

First of all let me thank you for all this great job you have done to the best flight simulator of all times.

I have a question: viewing the new option that you are going to implement on the simulator to have co-pilot seat activated, are you going to put this option in the Pe-8 and the TB-7 M-40F too? Both airplanes have co-pilot on their cockpits.

Thank you very much.

its not official opinion ... just my own ..
Pe8 and TB7 wouldn't have pit for second pilot ... by two reasons ...
1. in game we didn't have pit for second pilot ... (didn't have 3D model for it)
2. Unlike TB3 or B25 or B24 or other plane with two pilot ... TB7 and Pe8 have very not ergonomically positioned of secondary pilot place, right behind seat of first pilot ... from that place extremely hard to piloting the plane

in 75-80% it will be almost blind fly.

Not sure it will be used, the co-pilot seat, but the human bombsite seat + human pilot could be :)














.

IF (and a really big if)
OculasRift support were to be implemented,
and some sort of animation or such for both players and/or player pilot and bot pilot, to be implemented,
which would be a lot of time and coding...

More planes without much effort.
 

This idea is based on having less AI airplanes and more flyable aircraft. Maybe some of these can be implemented.
The way to do it is to get on an AI plane and make it flyable based on the model that is flyable.

------------------------------------------------
B-25J-1NA, 1944 (Flayable)
B-25C-25NA, 1943: move the top turret a little back of the airplane.
B-25G-1NA, 1943: same as above and delete the front gunnger position and add more guns.
B-25H-1NA, 1943: just delete the front gunner position and add more guns.
------------------------------------------------
Bf 110 G-2, 1943 (Flayable)
Bf 110 C-4, 1940: just open the cockpit of the gunner.
Bf 110 C-4/B, 1940: same as above.
------------------------------------------------
D.XXI sarja 3 EArly, 1939 and D.XXI sarja 3 Late, 1941 (Both flayable)
D.XXI Danish, 1938; D.XXI Dutch, 1938 and D.XXI sarja 4, 1941: just add the cockpit from the one of the above airplanes and make some minor modifications.
------------------------------------------------
IL-4, 1942 (Flayable)
DB-3F, 1941: just add the cockpit from the above airplane.
------------------------------------------------
G4m1-11, 1941 (Flayable)
G4M2E, 1945: just add the cockpits and perhaps more power.
------------------------------------------------
J8A, 1937 (Flayable)
Gladiator I, 1937: just add the cockpit.
Gladiator II, 1938: put a three blade propeller and perhaps more power.

Make flayable in all weather conditions the J8A, 1937 that only is shown in snow weather, same as the I-15bis (skis), 1937; I-16 Type 24, 1939; I-16 Type 5 (skis), 1935 and the I-16 Type 6 (Skis), 1937 airplanes.

A J8A, 1937 for aircraft carrier just add the arresting hook.
------------------------------------------------
He 111 H-6, 1941 (Flayable)
He 111 Z Zwiling, 1942: just add the same cockpit and 4 or 5 more seat for the second fuselage. The center fifth engine can be calculated proportionally with the other four engines.
------------------------------------------------
MC.202 Serie VII, 1942 (Flayable)
MC.202, 1942: just add the cockpit.
------------------------------------------------
Hawk 75A-4, 1940 (Flayable)
Mohawk IV, 1941: just add the same cockpit with minor changes and perhaps more power.
Sarvanto D.XXI: just add the same cockpit with minor changes and perhaps modify the power.
------------------------------------------------
Mosquito FB VI, 1943 (Flayable)
Mosquito B IV, 1941: just add the same cockpit.

A Mosquito for aircraft carrier just add the arresting hook and folding wings.
------------------------------------------------
Hawk 75A-3, 1940 (Flayable)
P-36A, 1938: just add the same cockpit and perhaps modify the power.
------------------------------------------------
Re.2000, 1940 (Flayable)
Re.2002, 1943: just add the cockpit with minor changes and modify the power.
------------------------------------------------
SB 2M-100A, 1937 (Flayable)
SB 2M-103, 1938: just add the same cockpits with minor changes and modify the power.
------------------------------------------------
Thank you, and wishing that some of these ideas can be implemented.

HFSX has implemented some of these already I believe.
Anyway, almost all aircraft are flyable with HFX7.

Ultimately, there is a limit to the total number of aircraft that can be added to the game, so the designers have to choose their models carefully. Every new variant of a popular plane like the Bf-109 or B-25 potentially prevents an entirely new plane from being added.

It's also useless (at least in the game) to add variants of an existing plane which varied only in minor details, such as positioning of a single turret or changing from 12-volt to 24-volt electrical systems.

It's arguably also not worth it to add variants which didn't see service or only saw limited service.

I believe that TD has a long-term project of adding cockpits and crew stations to existing non-flyable planes. The problem is that modeling a cockpit or crew station is as difficult as modeling the airplane itself, and in some cases references for cockpits and crew stations are hard to find.

So, unless some talented 3d modeler steps up to make the job go faster, it's going to take a while to get new flyable planes in the game.

How many mb will the patch be when it is out?

Why ?

to write it on my old dvd? or i need a new one? i shall see

There's a problem with doing it that way. You end up throwing accurately reproducing the aircraft out the window.If you want to fly all of those you can with HSFX as they don't mind so much.

With the TD patches the idea is to follow the design goals of the original product closely. Flyable aircraft are accurate or reasonably accurate. A Bf110C-4 would be great... but it needs a new cockpit. RAF Gladiators would have different gauges, gunsights, etc. The SB-2M-103 I think is probably getting a flyable in short order... with a revised and accurate cockpit.

void skins

Some conversions are likely to be easier than others, however.

For example, I don't believe that the layout of the cockpit in the J8A was any different from the Gladiator I, and many of the gauges that would have been used for the Gladiator already exist in the cockpit model for the early marks of the Spitfire or Hurricane. Likewise, the Gladiator would have used the same reflector sight (if it was equipped with such) as the Hurricane or Spitfire.

So, it wouldn't be as hard to transfer RAF gauges and gunsights to the J8A, repaint the cockpit, and call it a Gladiator I.

But, cockpit conversions where there was additional equipment added, or where the cockpit layout was changed are basically a whole new airplane.

The easy planes to add to the game are planes that have changes to armament or powerplant but few changes to external model and no changes to the cockpit or crew stations. For example, it's no surprise that the very first modded plane to appear was the Spitfire Mk I - same cockpit and engine as the Mk II, minimal changes required to DM, FM and physical models to reflect the switch from cannons to MG.

It's true... some types are MUCH easier than others while others are essentially requiring the construction of a whole new cockpit or aircraft model.

Remember folks... you don't just build one model. It's a dozen models per aircraft. Levels of detail, damage, pieces that break, the damage model, etc. And then you have to make sure all of the hooks to the engine are animated and done properly (so gear drops, flaps move, fire comes from the right spots).

I've seen just enough to know it isn't easy.

Whereas people once gathered here in hoards,
silence has descended upon these boards.
And there is a temper, a patient wait
as the B24 and its ultimate fate
are determined by those gracious volunteers
from whom a word would perk our humble ears
and set our ghastly fears aside
that the work has fallen by the wayside.

:grin:

its easier to use a usb pen drive, i use a 64gb one with the whole game on it.

:)

thanks Team Diadaloss
my 2560x1440 monitor rocks with this update!

thank you daidalos team for this 4.13 guide :)

Wow, really excited about the revamp of level bombing in 4.13, looks good.

Ummm...

No P40 N?

No updated model for P40 M?

Am I to understand that the new P40 E model is external only, so it has the old cockpit model?

:(

Thank You Daidalos Team!!
 

Wow, thank you, thank you, Daidalos Team!!
This is (4.13) looking really good.

Hopefully the flyable 177 will make it in time, if not, then later.

:cool: :D

Now, can start the conception of a new set of CH HOTAS map files for 4.13...

Nice to add the ju-88 variants but it seems to missing the c-6 variant . I hope to see it someday. And thank you for add fixes for old maps and new maps in this update

Hi Team, question; any plans for an updated Damage models, i.e. bullet holes on the fuselage? real time more dynamic?

Fabulous, amazing, wonderful etc.

As always.

Thanks for the update TD!

Its really good to see the new Ju-88 variants!
In the future (4.14), would it be possible to add later He-111s too? Like H-11 or H-16.

Will we get the He112 in the 4.14? We need another German fighter ...

You better should ask - "will we ever get 4.13?")

Yes we will. When is the question.

That's a sweet patch guide, DT! Is there any chance we might get screenies of the new Ju88 variants? I am particularly interested in the Ju88A-5 late, Ju88C-2 and Ju88P-1.

Thanks and looking forward to the patch,

Fafnir_6

Just made my day TD, just made my day...

Yes, we need another German fighter, but definitely not the He-112. Ju-88C6, Me-210/410 is far more important, or a flyable Bf-110C4.

I think the He-112 is under construction & this plane would feature more in the Romanian theatre of WW2

I'm more curious about the apparent delay in getting the P40N, even though we are getting, after several years, the New Guinea/New Britain map, where this type played a major role.

The He 112 is interesting, but it was a bit part player, whereas the P40N was the most produced version of the P40 and was widely used in the air campaign in the South West Pacific.

C´mon guys...we got news from DT and they get complains...Any news are good news. AFAIK there are a lot of projects still in the pipeline, but for example, the He112 is a 3rd party one, so a player wanted to build it, sent to DT, they accept it and that was all...Was a personal choice from the modeller. If anyone it s interested in a specific plane, can walk the same path...I d love to see a lot of planes myself, but I don t have the modelling skills..
I guess there is a "nacth pacht" still in process...Airborne radar, Lancaster, Uhu, Ju 88C6, a new Mossie NF plus the He 112, the Dewo adn some other lovely plane. Go DT!

Some pictures from a Russian source of WIP models for 4.13 and future patches... http://vk.com/topic-4113931_28963847

Make your own or pay someone to do it, seems to be the way forwards to get what P40 you want in the game if its not already listed in here > http://vk.com/topic-4113931_28963847


This post would be of interest to me for example.

Alexander Krutov

Guys .... I have A question ... I Daily Communicate with one 3D modeller ... he is doing very GOOD work ...
His work already presents in IL2 ... he working with many projects ... But now he and many seating witout without job ...
I have already ordered the Production of the New External model for U-2 by him ... by standart price ... like Ik3 or He177 .. . Almost finished and he That model ...
May be we can order from HIM B17? original cockpit for B17? or any Other model? some New Donation project like He177? any opinions?


:)

Alpha, the P40N was shown in an update some time ago, when the new P40 models were announced. It is shown on that Russian forum that was linked above.

I asked because it was not mentioned in the pdf. patch update.

And I assure you I am not the only one that wants it.

Why the snark?

If I had asked for another Bf 109 version nothing would have been said.

Not a negative comment by me just a way forward to get what you want in the game, TD do free modding for us some stuff needs paying for by 3rd party professionals/amateurs so funding them is an option.

Unless you can personally contribute for free patience is a virtue :)

I contribute to Hyperlobby for online flying to continue there and help any 3rd party projects that are relevant to the continuation of IL2 1946

have fun

.

Alpha, I think we're all old enough to know and to accept that we can't get all the toys we want for this Christmas, but asking doesn't hurt anyone and means that we're still curious about the whole thing. So asking is humane, and clear answers would be most welcome. If free modding is not actually 'free', then let's talk about it.;)

Wow Super Rude response Super Mod

So where can we request another P40 version if not here

Sorry for the Question Just wondering what happened to the 1C Forums Used to be friendlier

Some great stuff there. Congratulations to the team. May I ask, what scale is the PNG map?

I'm glad to see the engine damage mods to the P-40, the Spitfire and the P-51.

I hope that TD will keep on bug stomping flawed damage models, particularly those for the older planes in the game. (*AHEM* - P-39/P-400)

Calm down guys, its ok ;)
Maybe Alpha was in a bad day.
The P-40 is coming, don't worry. Just from modelling to integration, we had long delays (me too). Im sure head of DT will arrange things nicely.
Once the first P-40 is published, the rest is not that far...

Well, If we get more realistic bombsights, can we also get more realistic gyrogunsight next time ? It was used in Spitfires not only in P-51's...

Some later model Spitfires used it for sure. If we got a Spit XIV it'd be pretty much guaranteed to be there. I suppose it could be added into, say, the 25lb boost versions of the IX that we have.

Still requires modeling a new gunsight object to fit into the cockpit. Someone could do it... :)

You need to read whats posted in these threads correctly.

Nothings changed still the same "where's my free stuff" posts.

Thanks for the heads up and the great work.

In fairness, one could understand the tone of Alpha's responses. Can't blame him. There's little worse than working on a complex and in-depth project over a long period of time, requiring hundreds - if not thousands - of hours of work, going back and pulling hair countless times to correct unanticipated or stubborn issues/results/etc., and making sure that what you're putting out is just right, all while not charging a cent for it...

...only to have a handful of protests - and some flippant comments - over what isn't there.

Appreciation for what has been given freely
 

I have owned IL2 since it first came out and bought every upgrade they produced until it was passed to Team Daidolas.

Since then I have been stunned at what has been achieved with the patches they have bought out and offered to us. After 10 years this game is still my absolute favorite simply because of the number of ways it can be played
My favorite challenge has always been Night-Fighting so since seeing the latest you-tube release, I am over the moon so to speak. The Liberator model is stunning and the new bombing options will add so much to this part of the simulator.
My Thanks and Appreciation to the Team:grin:

on 4.13 release
 

I want to endorse Migman's comments above.
TD's enhancements to Il2 continue to make it the greatest flight sim ever.
I cant believe the generosity of TD in their dedicated support for the wondrous virtual world that we now have in "Il2 Sturmovik" !!
FtF
ps & thanks of course to Oleg for making it, and all the independent modders as well

They were common let's say since summer 1944, so I think they should be present in all IXe versions.

But I was talking about proper function ie. ability to set distance. Right now we get only "Sight distance increased / decreased". But what distance ? 300m ? 500m ?

I can't wait for the Ju-88P-1, N1K1-J and the new P-40E

well said Migman!
TD's work has been fantastic - and continues to make this the greatest flight sim ever!
ftf

Just wondering...

So it looks like we are getting a flyable Ju-88P1. And since it has similar nose as the C6, it may have similar cockpit too. Then this means that we will have a small chance of a flyable C6a (day fighter) in 4.14? All it needs is adding 3 MG-17 and one MG-FF. It would be incredibly awesome...

Correct me if I wrote bullshit here...

The C-6a is the most wanted Ju88 in my book. I'd love to have that aircraft. Maybe we'll see it sometime!