This is the MOST awesome news I've read in 10 years.

At last something is going to be done to improve the FMB.

My major interest in IL2 has always been building missions and campaigns. The old MSFT CFS2 and Jane's WW2 fighters has always been the benchmark mission builder tool.

It would be world class awesome to just have an FMB equal to those old sims.

Hi, thanks for your input. We've been descussing this problem recently and certain CEM upgrades are being considered.

Great! Thanks for considering these ideas, and great work on the patches.

Hi there DT, are you planning to use/upgrade to a more recent version of Java in the foreseeable future?

If I understood correctly the JVM used is still a 1.3.1 (went EOL in 2006 already), and a lot of improvements have been made in the last years on the Java side, we could probably get a boost in performance without too much work on your side (but I'm not a Java expert so be patient if the situation is not so simple).

Thanks.

Radiator handle in Tempest
 

The radiator handle does not move in the tempest cockpit when the radiator control is adjusted, there is no animation. Not a big deal but bad for closed pit.

missing pe-2 gunner
 

hi daidalos is there any chance of you putting the missing playable lower/rear gunner in the PE- 2 bomber

I don't know if this has been addressed before or not, and it is a small thing... but can we drop the m in the version number when it comes up on the splash screen? Remember that was a throwback to the days when you could run two versions of the sim.. either PF standalone or PF merged.. That is no longer the issue so can we just start calling the versions ver X.xx ... ? I know it is a small thing and I asked tghis question a while back but I cant find the reply or the post...

AI behaviour
 

I think the single biggest change to improve Il2 would be better AI behaviour, I was reminded of this during a recent campaign mission where my flight of 10 corsairs loaded with bombs never made it to the target (like every bombing mission) because halfway there the whole squadron decided to dogfight (turn fight) with 6 zeros, getting all shot up of course due to terrible tactics. So after the very first mission half your squadron is missing! I find this happens on nearly every campaign during the first 2 or 3 missions, you lose half your squad due to the AI automatically turn fighting with any plane it sees. I know Il2 has unmatched realism in the department of WWII aircraft modeling/flight etc., and many other areas, but where it lacks in realism is in the actual historical outcome of combats, for example P-51/P-47/Hellcats getting decimated, whereas light, turning planes such as La-7, Zero and others become super planes, all due to AI tactics, not the aircraft modeling.
I"m also tired of fighting AI with "super laser aim", super climb/speed abilities and psychic senses, the AI don't act as if their people flying planes, managing everything in the cockpit, looking around etc. Its like flying against Skynet, lol! Well, I do enjoy online flying but the single player has so much potential that is untapped due to these issues.
I know its hardly a new subject but I think with better AI the whole sim experience would be muuuch better. I know rowans BOB had very good AI and I remember that being much more fun in a dogfight. I know the AI mod has been very well received, so why not take that mod and get the developer (Cert?) involved in the next official patch instead of duplicating efforts.

This has always been one of the things that moves me away from running stock. I do a lot offline.. and I know the subject of mods is taboo here.. but the AI has been one of the biggest holes in the stock sim since it's inception.. it is good at times... but moree often than not I find my wingman flying wing to the guy shooting me down.. or warning me as I go spiraling off into the dirt with one wing. The AI mod helps.. but I sioncerely hope that an official fix can come from 1C.

I've been paying attention to the superb detailing on the G.55 and while doing so I noticed a bug in the shadow LOD.

When landing if you watch the shadow of the extended landing gear on the right side of the plane you can see that there is something weird going on with the shadow. If I could hazard a guess it's probably a incorrect rotation point. I actually thing there maybe more wrong with that side of the landing gear but it is harder to see. The detailing on the rest of the aircraft is superb... just one of those little things!

Hi, I hope I did`nt miss this info, if so, sorry for asking, but what I`m interested in is a info about the work of team didalos.

I have already seen the short clips on youtube, they are great!!! I realy enjoy the 4.09 patch! It was long awaited and it is much better than I expected so I`m very interested in some updates of your work!

Best regards

Martin

Hi just a request. For training purposes would it be posssible to let ordinance leave a smoke trail? I'm useless at anything other than skip bombing and would find it useful to help me understand whats going on with my ordinance post release.

Just an Idea.

Cheers and thanks for all the good work.

A Request

In the controls section we are able to bind a key for "toggle mirror" so we can turn it on or off. I am aware that mirros do effect FPS but being able to turn the mirror on & then off is "unrealistic". The plane is either equiped with a mirror or not.

Currently you can turn the mirror on to check your 6 & then switch it off so it does not effect your vision at medium to high 12 oclock.

To stop this, could you have a setting in the config file so you could either set the mirror on or off. I ask this because having a mirror helps with rear view, but has a disadvantage because it obstructs forward view on some planes & to me it makes sense if the mirror stays in position for the duration of the mission & you cant magically turn it off to free up forward views

Kennel

Spit cockpits
 

This has probably been noticed already but the spitfire V cockpit is positioned too high in relation to the wings and nose, you can't see the nose out the front and the wings are way below. Most of the other spits are fine, there are also texture errors on the canpoy frames of the spitfire cockpits, such as the IX and v, usually on the lest side frame.

+1！

There should always be a mirror model on the top of the cockpit no matter the mirror function is on or off.

Another request :)

Would be possible to allow player's plane to start the mission from parking for the coops and singles without using workarounds?

Thanks.

Don´t know if its easy or not to do what you ask yomesmo, but its usually not a good thing to start the mission from parking when it was made to start fron runaway, because it destroy the coordination of events on the mission.

Could you please specify in detail what is possible today and what the workarounds are? Thanks. We may take a look at this.

This could/should be done only for human controlled planes not AI.

Hi,

on the by.sturmovik.de:21004 Server is actually the MTO Map running.
The Airfield in H2 is used by the italians and my squadron comrades and i have found that it is quite impossible to taxi from the western spawn positions to the runway because of invisible bumps.

I guess that by warkarounds he means that you have to open mission on the FMB and modify the flight in order for it to start from taxi, instead of directly from the runaway.
For what i understand he want to select take off from runaway or taxi as an option like you have in Falcon 4, when you start the mission.

Check out this mission yomesmo and see if that it what you have in mind. This was done years ago with what we have now.

Hello DT !

Just a little request for Coop missions:

Could it be possible that static or running tanks do not try to shoot down enemy planes flying over them, using their main guns? This is a very funny and amazing behaviour, away from real world !!

This is quite common in On Line gaming, in which a column of tanks, advancing to attack an enemy position, when attacked by fighter-bombers, forget to fight against other enemy tanks or anti-tank guns and turn their turrets and level their guns aiming and shooting at the planes !! With little success I would say, but, this diverts them from their main target, the enemy ground units.

I don't mean armoured Flak vehicles as Wilberwind, Ostwind etc. but common tanks like T-70, T-34, P-IVJ etc. You can see them if you take a track and watch it from a ground camera.

Thank you again for your excellent work, and please, keep it on, you have given us back the illusion and interest into IL-2 Shturmovik !! :)

Well........... ;) What about it?

It is from the real world. Tanks were often using main guns to shoot low flying planes. You can find this in many IL-2 pilot's accounts.

Excuse me, but I consider very improbable that a main gun of a WWII tank, can track, aim and hit a flying plane, moving at, let's say, even as low as 200 Km/h. They had neither tracking capacity (slow moving turret, small elevation angle of the gun), nor aiming devices (sights) to predict a succesful shot, nor suitable ammo (too big caliber with no proximity fuzes) to get a hit :)

So the probability of a hit in RL was really very very small, close to zero.

Of course, some tank crews might have shot their main guns to planes to boost their morale, but this would be the only effect they could get. IMHO, hits shouldn't be as common as in IL-2 are. Perhaps 1 in millions , but I think it wouldn't justify to include this as a normal behaviour of the AI tanks in this Sim :) . Specially if there are other enemy ground units nearby which are shooting to your tank ! :)

Pilots may got hit by heavy AA guns, or medium AA guns (37-40 mm) ,and light AA (20-25 mm) indeed.

I have to say that I consider a privilege to be answered by the own famous Mr SaQSon, :), glad to meet you, Sir

Just as a funny picture of this, here you can see a iL-2 track in which a row of 20 T-70 tanks shoot a flying Stuka. Same happen with Panzer-III and Il-2, for instance.

After 3 minutes of shooting, the Stuka gets her tail and leg blown off. At minute 6, another hit blows her wing.

Given every tank is shooting more or less every 6-8 seconds, in total about 500 tank shots were needed to hit severely the plane, and another 500 to shot it down (25 shots/tank for first hit, 50 shots/tank the final hit).

Good aim, isn'it? :)

I forget the AI ratio for artillery and armour but I remember it being done not on a 1 to 1 basis, the reason was to cut down on placing too many AI objects and causing stutters from the CPU calculations.

This was a long time ago when systems were 16/32/64mb GPU and processors were @ 1500- 1800 mhz but don't quote me on exact numbers here :)

1 tank = 4
1 AAA = 3
4 AI Bombers = 8

Oleg said regarding bombers the AI capability was to simulate you attacking a larger formation with half the aircraft, again don't quote me directly as this was along time ago.

So regarding tanks and artillery and AI behaviour it might be the TD.DT guys can "officially" do something.

What's often? And are there any accounts on successful use of this?
To me it seams to be a specific thing that may have happened just on the Eastern Front. It's similar to all the planes dropping bombs just in pairs because the Russians did so.
Seriously, the problem is that tanks act like AAA installments as soon as planes come close. They forget about everything while attacking planes. Not to mention that I've had quite some unbelievable "killed by tank main gun" situations in multiple years of Il-2 experience. They hit at any angle they can shoot at, regardless of the target's parameters. But this is a general AAA problem which just becomes most obvious by the tank gunnery.

If that's right, it should be changed to 1:1 immediately. I remember we had bullet packages of 1:2, 1:3 and even 1:4 or 1:5 in the first Il-2 versions. They all were changed to 1:1 except the MG 17.

I flew a mission with 50+ bombers some weeks ago in an online coop. No problem. But it would have been 5+ years ago. But now, we all have better rigs that can handle more stuff. Get rid of any "packaging" things and make it more realistic 1:1. I'd even drop the graphics for it if it would be too slow then. I don't have the most recent hardware, but I run '46 with LandGeom at up to 150fps now. I know that others already had this 3-4 years ago with expensive rigs at that time. But now you'll spend some 500-800 bucks for a complete rig that has this power.

Often enough for the Soviet command to issue a recommendation to never build an attack pattern on a tank column along this column, which would give tanks more time to aim at attacker.

The most peculiar account of a Sturmovik pilot, downed by a tank, I found in Drabkin's book "I fought in Sturmovik". The guy was attacking German tank column going along it and from behind. When he started to turn his plane for a second approach, banking it to almost 90 degree right in front of the column, his plane was hit in a fuselage by 88mm AP shell right between him and his gunner. The shell passed through canopy, main fuel tank, blowing out all fuel and exited through the bottom of the plane. Fortunately for the guy, no fire was started and no controls were damaged.
Having only about 3 minutes worth of fuel, he managed to crash land his plane close to friendly troops and returned with his gunner to the airfield on foot. The plane was also salvaged few days later, since Germans were retreating from this area.

And there were few more accounts where pilots claimed, they saw tanks shooting at them, when they were flying low, attacking tank/vehicle columns on march.

PS Obviously, IRL hardly a tank, engaged in a ground battle would try to attack a plane, flying above. This only happened, when tanks didn't have any other target, i.e. on march, mostly. In the game the AI for ground units is simplified to save processing resources for a more important tasks. So they just choose a nearest enemy target, disregarding it's value, or danger level. That is why, they will shoot at you, instead of the enemy tanks, when you are flying too close to them. But that's a game, after all.

Direct hit by 88mm round and still flying :shock:?!

Well, Il-2 vs. Panzer is just a regular tank battle then :mrgreen:

As I wrote, fortunately for them, it was AP shell, it just went through the plane not even noticing it. If the tank gun was loaded with the HE ammo, they'd be blown to pieces.

I remember in WWIIOL I shot down a low flying bomber in a Panzer II :grin: I had to react very quickly, rotating the turret correctly and keeping a steady stream of 20mm shells on him and nailed the sucker right in the wing root.

Need help and information!!!

http://forum.aviaskins.com/showpost....&postcount=206

any information about cockpit Il4 or DB3...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFUoDp9di5Y

Ah, thanks for the info. Could this be changed maybe in future?

I don't remember such happenings in Il-2... AFAIR all tank gun hits in Il-2 are explosive on planes.

I don't know.

In the game all ground unit guns from 20mm and larger have HE ammunition. The DM and physics modeling for ground units is also very simplified, as their main purpose is to serve as targets and/or entourage for a players flying their planes. And for this role such simplified modeling works fairly well.

In Otto Carius Book, he tales of his gunner getting annoyed with an attacking il-2, and opening fire with the main gun on it scoring a hit, and downing it.

He says that he never heard of nobody else doing this nowhere in the war, and that it was an extremely lucky shot. Keep in mind that Otto Carius gunner was an extremely good marksman at that period.

On the other hand, with burst firing canons like the kwk20, an uncareful pilot could have a very bad time. And if they happen to be succesfull it is quite difficult that someone could just know what really downed the aircraft.

Still the big problem here is that moving ground units have unlimited ammo, so they fire allways and forever. That would be a great change on this subject.

P-51D-5 fillet
 

Can the tail fillet be removed on the P-51D-5? it shouldn't have one.

In general german commanders would have forbidden to use their precious ammo on such questionable targets. Often enough they had to keep their gunners from firing on distant targets because the probability of a hit was too low and they never knew if they would get ammo supply afterwards. I, personally (and not as a DT member), think this shooting at aircraft should be removed because it's a useless drain on CPU cycles and also often enough spoils the ground aspect. I often make missions for my own amusement, go to great lengths to set up a decent ground battle and then find out that the tanks don't do what they're supposed to because of the aircraft above.

That was exactly my point. and what I kindly requested from DT

This il4 pit, will it be a new addon from Tea Didalos? is it offical? :confused:

I have mixed feelllings withs this, since shelling tanks with bullets will surelly enough shatter the nerves of their crews. Airplanes disturbing an attack, even if they don´t score kills, will diminish the tank crews effectiveness, by making much more difficult to spot enemy firing positions, and keep their commanders ducked in, effectively blinding them.

Since on il-2 minor ground units breakings are not simmulated, because they are absolutely digital, alive/dead, this habit of stopping and trying to fire on low flying aircraft with the main gun of tanks is not that bad. Yow really give a better chance to defending positions on destroying the attacking tanks by getting them distracted from their original "purpose", and exposing them to ground AT fire for some more time.

Maybe it could be arranged for tanks to change their moving behavior while threatened by aircraft, but don´t try to shoot at aircraft. Something similar to the code implemented on trucks that made peolple run out of them. They allready have something like that since they change their line formation to a diamond shapped one when being attacked by air, or when they get on gun range with any enemy ground position, and they are not on a road.

It is not official and not a part of DT effort. However, DT will be glad to provide any possible technical support to this model author and will include this model in an official add-on, in case it's author will finish it and will want to provide it to DT for this purpose.

how about any information support? :)
if you have some kind of information about il4 cockpit, can DT give that to the author? (blueprints, foto... or other...)

@ mkubani

thank you for the information, I`m very happy to see new and more stuff for il2 coming from your team. Would welcome a similar information politic like Maddox provided to us since il2 starts rising on the horizont :cool:

don`t take it too serious I fly il2 since 4.09 nearly every day! You have done a great job!

We plan to start posting some public development updates of our current work on 4.10 patch maybe even starting this week.

We will check if we have any IL-4 references.

That will be great! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

That´s really good news Mr. Kubani!! (Radar status please!)
Can we have maybe Oleg´s fridays & DT´s Thursday?

I didn't read through the 85pages of this thread so maybe it has been asked before:

Could the logic for the radiator be changed so that it can be controlled with an axis or at least with different keys for open and close? It's the only thing that stops me from switching off all the on-screen comments which are a real immersion killer.

Thanks a lot for your efforts, looking forward to 4.10

Tbag, we will take a look at this. It's a good idea. Thanks for the tip.

Smoother framerates
 

Would it be possible to fix the jerkiness and slow framerates when perfect water and shaders are used? I can run Crysis just fine but 9 year old Il2 cannot play without jerkiness, I dont like having to play with reduced graphics settings when my pc is quite capable of running the hardware shaders. Probably a tall order but great work otherwise!

Thanks Martin :)

GOOD news! :)

GREAT NEWS!!! :) we will be waiting... :)

We have sent him some references. Hopefully, they will be useful somehow.

Thank you very much!!! :)

Hi, just to let you know.
I have scanned some info (including sketches) on Soviet Rotating-dispersing bombs (РРАБ), that is 8 pages from the Pyrjev and Reznichenko's book on the bombs. Unfortunately at the moment I am extremely busy and cannot thanslate anything.
What should I do with the scans?

Still though.. Iagree with Thor.. and the odds of actually hitting a moving aircraft with a tank round even a big slow moving bomber.. were miniscule..

He he, or put up a public bugzilla server and let all the 10 years of personal opinions regarding what is a bug and what is a feature flow free ;)

It is very troublesome when you forget to connect the Track Ir, and you have to disconnect and reconnect,could it be fixed? Also would be interesting if we could turn on/off forcefeedback using a key
Thanks

I have one small request, when you take a look on the weapon attachments on the Betty, you can only see 2 bombs but it has a fully load of much more. But all hag on the same position of those two bombs.

Just my 2 cents

Hi I have one more question, hope it was not questioned before if yes so sorry ;-)

Do you have plans to implement some US Navy planes into the game? or making the Avenger flyabel, Devastator or some more?!

best regards

Martin

I have mentioned this in the development news thread and not sure if it has been mentioned before:

A map of Norhtern Australia. Update the Beaufighter to have the rear gunner selectable. And the Boomerang and Wirraway as flyable aircraft.

Good work guys, and thanks very much for your work to keep this great game going.

Not likely, after the Grummann sue against our dear developper for using their WWII planes in Pacific Fighters. Rumours went that OM swore that no more US planes would be included in their simulations ... But maybe the situation has changed, who knows.

Ins

New news today,no?
;)

There was a problem with the brand "Grumman" they printed it on the box without asking, if you use only the military code for a plane all is fine cause there is no copyright ;)

There's unfortunately more to that, but details aren't to be discussed in public. Let's just say staying clear of anything Grumman (even if the connection is remote) is in this case the better part of bravery. I don't think anyone at Maddox Games and 1C is keen to test just how far DT could go with this before Grumman's lackeys begin to stir again. :(

S!

Aces High 2 uses their planes, but only the designations like F6F-5 etc. Not the company name, done so since release of AH. Have they made a deal with G or not, dunno. Just for comparison.

You could have Grummans but you must pay for it, as DT patches are free it's impossible for us to pay big money to Grumman. I'm not prepared to sell my house and live in cardboard box just to give Il2 community few planes.:grin:

This issue sadly also is with all american battleships.

Will the flashing black box when hardwareshaders and use3renders options set to 1 be corrected in any new patch (4.10, 4.11, ...)?

More info need i think.

S!

Ain't the Use3Renders for multi-display? And more info on hardware would help helping ;)

Multi monitor support is on the way in SoW unless TD address the problem in future 1946 updates :)

have a look here at an old topic.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...5/m/4521077615

Any chance we could get the BETAB-750DS? It would be great to see on the AI aircraft (especially if dispersion/ballistics was included).

For those who don't know these were the Russian equivalent of the Tiny Tim, rocket powered bunker busters used in the Baltic theatre:
http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/Ordnance/Betab/

The Il-4 is by far the best ballanced bomber (ie. larger bombload than the Il-2 or Pe-2, good defensive coverage for the gunners, decent durability and handling - a real choice pick).

It was not. Tiny Tim was a rocket, which flew in a relatively horizontal trajectory. It's engine was fired during initial part of it's route.

Whilst BETAB DS was a bomb, which used to fall vertically, like any other bomb. It's rocket engine was used to accelerate the bomb on the final part of it's route to target, in order to give it more penetration power. According to some sources, it's velocity upon impact was about 3M.

Thanks for the correction (, although, it could be argued that they are still equivalent given that both were primarily deployed against concrete bunkers). If anything, it makes this rare weapon even more interesting.

If you setup in conf.ini hardwareshaders=1 and use3renders=1 you will get a flashing black box in the left bottom square of the screen when you are inside the cockpit.

In two engine aircrafts usually the texture of the cockpit overrides the effect, but in single engine it's present.

You don't need any special hardware to test it. Just change the options.

I've reported it to Oleg team in version 4.08m, I see that is not corrected in 4.09. As Team Daidalos will continue working in IL-2 series I report again with the hope it will be solved some day.

So you are using a single monitor or multiple monitors ?


If a single monitor try

use3renders=0

My setup for 22" Samsung tft

[window]
width=1680
height=1050
ColourBits=32
DepthBits=24
StencilBits=8
ChangeScreenRes=1
FullScreen=1
DrawIfNotFocused=0
EnableResize=0
EnableClose=1
SaveAspect=0
Use3Renders=0

I use multiple monitors, if not I had not reported this issue. Others reported the issue in this forum (and in ubisoft forum) before me.

Have a look here.

http://www.kegetys.net/forum/index.php?topic=999.0

I have tried the FOV across 3 monitors and it works.

or

Also

I like the Wii remote head tracker he's using too :)

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/th2go/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk3ixRVwNkA

You didn't understanding me. I haven't any problem running multimonitor on Il-2. I used it more than a year ago in Il-2.

The problem I reported is if you enable multimonitor (use3renders=1) and you enable perfect mode (hardwareshaders=1) when you are in flight, inside the cockpit view, in the bottom left square of the screen appears a flashing black box that makes imposible to fly.
Resuming it's not posible to fly in perfect mode when multimonitor is enabled. And this is the issue I hope TD will resolve in next patches.

Ok

Now I see exactly what you are saying, the confusion was I ran it in perfect mode with no black box in the corner on a Matrox triple head setup.

I provided links in case you hadn't been through the process.

@Vgilsoler: please put a screenshot ;)

Any chance of setting the speed in QMB? 300Kph seems a bit slow :)

F6F ammo loadout has been wrong since the day PF was released. 400rpg is correct for a firing time of ~30 seconds on all six MG. Also, the Hellcat's too slow. Il2 WEP numbers only match RL Military Power numbers; so effectively, the only F6F IL2 has ever had is "F6F-3_Early".

Just a request. :)

Some good ideas
 

Hello

Just a few requests or ideas:

1. When using trackIR you move your own head to look around your cockpit, the head of the pilot should move too when viewing from another airplane, the same case when you put Autopilot, you can see the movement of the pilot when in F2.

2. In Microsoft Flight Simulator when you park your airplane near to a fuel station you can refuel your airplane. Actually you can see the moving neddle of the fuel gauge moving while that. What about to do the same thing when you get closed to a specific location on the airport to refuel and even reload ammo, or change it, repairs and heal.

3. When you create a mission you can park for scenery purposes some stationary airplanes, but they ar useless when you want some help. Well instead of using stationary airplanes, they can be airplanes just waiting to fly at specific time or for a specific order. Mean while you can select the livery you want for all "Stationary aircraft". They will "look" more realistic even when they are been attack for other airplanes representing some damage instead of inmediate damage.

4. The possibility to use a C-47 to carry boxes containing ammo, fuel, spare parts to be used in point 2 of this text. If the airplane is destroy the airport while flying to that specific airport, that airport could not offer that load.

5. For engine management the HOTAS to control independent engines using: power, propeller and mixture. When using pedals (my case) the option to use break wheels to each corresponding left and right break, not just one break for the two main landing gears.

I think these are some good ideas.

In one of your after 4.09 videos you showed a 110 with radar. Does this mean you will also include other radar types such as used in Beaufighter night fighters, Mosquito nightfighters?

also will you include bombers radars such H2s and Gee?

This is I get when perfect mode and use3render are enabled. Look the left bottom square. I also discovered that in moscow winter map it doesn't happen, but in Crimea, Slovakia, Kiev, Berlin (and I suppose others) do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoF1_WuuNX0

This are the conf.ini sections about graphics. Maybe we should continue the discussion in the other topic about bugs ...

[window]
width=3840
height=960
ColourBits=32
DepthBits=24
StencilBits=8
ChangeScreenRes=0
FullScreen=1
DrawIfNotFocused=0
EnableResize=0
EnableClose=1
SaveAspect=1
Use3Renders=1

[GLPROVIDER]
GL=Opengl32.dll

[Render_OpenGL]
TexQual=3
TexMipFilter=3
TexCompress=0
TexFlags.UseDither=0
TexFlags.UseAlpha=0
TexFlags.UseIndex=0
TexFlags.PolygonStipple=1
TexFlags.UseClampedSprites=0
TexFlags.DrawLandByTriangles=1
TexFlags.UseVertexArrays=1
TexFlags.DisableAPIExtensions=0
TexFlags.ARBMultitextureExt=1
TexFlags.TexEnvCombineExt=1
TexFlags.SecondaryColorExt=1
TexFlags.VertexArrayExt=1
TexFlags.ClipHintExt=1
TexFlags.UsePaletteExt=0
TexFlags.TexAnisotropicExt=1
TexFlags.TexCompressARBExt=1

TexFlags.TexEnvCombine4NV=1
TexFlags.TexEnvCombineDot3=1
TexFlags.DepthClampNV=1
TexFlags.SeparateSpecular=1
TexFlags.TextureShaderNV=1

HardwareShaders=1

Shadows=2
Specular=2
SpecularLight=2
DiffuseLight=2
DynamicalLights=1
MeshDetail=2
VisibilityDistance=3

Sky=2
Forest=2
LandShading=3
LandDetails=2

LandGeom=2
TexLarge=1
TexLandQual=3
TexLandLarge=1

VideoSetupId=17
Water=3
Effects=1
ForceShaders1x=0

PolygonOffsetFactor=-0.15
PolygonOffsetUnits=-3.0

Copied from my simHQ post:

Hello,
I want nicely ask if it will be possible to fix default skin assigement for player AC. When there is defined custom skin in mission, last player choosed skin always override that one from mission. Even if i keep skin on default in arnamaent customization screen then it not select to mission defined skin. For me correct behavior will be it is always overriden by misson skin on mission load and user can after that change it in customization screen. Hope it makes sense. It really bugging me.

Mission designer skin selection is totaly overriden with my last selected skin or stays on default for that AC. It happens only for player playable AC. AI planes have skins assigned ok. And i want it for all options. You can specify custom skin with markings on/off in editor. It dosent matter. Its not that i cant change to custom skin in customization screen. It is about that this is not done automaticaly when i enter mission breefeng. It should default to mission designer selected skin with option to change it as it is now.

Thanks for feedback and good luck with next patches.

Spitfire cockpits
 

The textures in several of the spitfire cockpits have this error around the frame.

Can you do something about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjTPhoyXHUk I mean, can you increase the distance from which objects are visible so that "poping from nowhere" won't happen in such cases? Maybe a switch in conf.ini?

P.S. this is a feature request :)

+ 1,000,000 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bombing at 3000m+ is close to impossible now...

Hello Daidalos

Many people are not used to alter *.ini files (especially older people). So my "most wanted" requests would be:

1) Put a switch in the settings window, where we can set if HUD/Chatter/Chat-Windows etc. is visible during flight or not (some people fly only with cockpit-instrumenst for immersion). --> Maybe then we need a second switch, where you can define if "chosen HUD setting" ist mandatory (means set by the host/server) or optional for players.

2) Integrate a GUI for new resolutions (wideview screens, aspect ratio, etc.)

Thanks very much Daidalos for your efforts!

Fliegergrüsse, Wolkenbeisser

Would it be possible to have a separate bomber position for CooP missions.

Instead of the pilot only using the bombsite, the pilot could have a toggle switch to allow a gunner into the position to take the bombsite, there would be no need for the bombardier to use pilots controls as most would be on TS/Vent comms and could call the speed and heading adjustments to the pilot, that would make it easier to create the position unless its possible to give control to the bombadier then that would be also better

If the bombardier gets killed control resumes to the pilot.

Also as a side note is it possible to have the pilot return to the pilots position if he's killed in a tail gunner position ?

Cheers

Hi TD, I was flying today an intercept mission against a Tu2 biplane with a P11 in VOW reloaded. I couldn`t down this bird even as I rammed it with my gear, no part flew of. But I los my gear and nearly 30 percent of my bullets hit this plane and no smoke, no fuel leak nothing.. even a scratch.

Maybe it plays a secondary role but could you please check this bird?! Seems like its modeled and programmed very rough. Something isn`t right with it, it`s very tough for a biplane with such a "fragile" structure.

Best regards and big fan

Martin

P-11 was corrected by one talented modders - he made new hit boxes ( which in default version were very poor) also he made some visual corrections. Planes also got new FM which from begging was very bad. Accelaration in take off in stock version was really absurd. P-11 which was adapted in RL for very short take off at grass AF ( 100m take off distance) in game need all 1 km runway to take off. Also these plane could dive with near 700 km/h - stock have engine overrevive at 450 km/h - which is way to slow.
The reason is just wrong moddeling for fix prop in stock game. It is totaly wrong. Stock fixed prop have too bad acceleration for planes and also overrevive too fast in dive for all planes. Example if you put such prop to Spitfire MK1 early which IRL could reach maximum level speed 560 km/h and far more in dive - in IL2 with such prop plane cant even reach its top speed not mention of dive.

But some good people make it in right way.

I wonder if DT Team couldn't use these great work with P-11C and aslo new Rumunian version P-11F in offical patch?

We are not going to use any 3rd party FM right out of the box. If there are problems with some planes we are open to discussion and if request is accompanied with reliable RL data than there is no reason why not to correct most glaring mistakes.

Changes in 3d model must pass quality check and if things are done correctly they can be accepted. Keep in mind that at least 90% of modded 3d models are not good for some reasons. Models have to be done properly in 3ds max format, various hacks are not acceptable.

All content have to be intellectual property of model maker or he has to have permission form original maker to use his stuff. No stolen textures and models from other sims.

BTW prepare everything you have about Spit MkV, they are first in line for rework, I'll start the thread at UBI later today.

FC

Ad to Spit MKV

I will send you all most important what i have.

Ad to P-11
As i know changes was made in Gmax ( i mean new hitbox etc) - so it it would be a problem to implement them into game?

Ad to P-11 FM - we have P-11 manual with all data and performacne. Also we have idea how to fix these stock fixed prop issue if DT is interested in ?

Sugest a REVISION on FM and GUNS (shells velocity), hope you can check that too.

Possible make more parameters for external view?
It very important thing for DF servers. Because then this view enabled you my find enemy aircraft by view on enemy. It's gives many problems for bombers and surprise attacks.
How about add more view configuration in game parameter like:

- view on all
- view only on allied planes
- view only on self

May be simple add this option in game and server conf.ini

It will be add for DF servers with externals view more deep gameplay.

P.S. Sry my bad english.

And it would be nice have implement for Wide Screen View 16:10 support.

It have to be change some things and also little more FOV from 90 till 100.

Actually it is possible but only by some mods. It would be nice to have it in stock version without any mods.

Hello Team Daidalos!

I would like to make some requests for your next update.

Please make smokes visible at greater distances.
The smoke from crashed aircraft is only visible from about two kilometers, other smokes from about 3,5 km. It would be great if those values could be set to something more realistic, like 25km.

Please increase the quality of the smoke and please try to decrease the workload on the computer, so the game will stop stuttering on older PCs when there are more than 10 smoke sources. I mean the ground dust from planes that are taking off, too.

Please increase the quality of the shadows of the older planes, like the Yak series and the BF109 series.


Please think about my requests and have a happy developing,

[BFs]Sonko from www.battle-fields.com