Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

[Lucas_From_Hell]

"
Focke-Wulf 154
Focke-Wulf 187
Focke-Wulf 189
Focke-Wulf 200 'Condor'
Blohm & Voss 141
Dornier 17
Heinkel 177
Heinkel 115
Heinkel 219
Bachem 349 'Natter'
Arado 196
ME410
Lancaster
Halifax
Wellington
B17
B29"

You forgot the MiG-21, the B-2 Spirit, the 14-Bis, the Wright Flier (that could be called "Wright Slow-faller", as it didn't actually flew, it was something like a slow fall), the Spitfire 1st prototype and the Volkwaffe (link below, for those who haven't seen it yet)

Now, are you talking seriously, mate? Half of these did little if anything in the war, or did something but not enought to force a whole team to dedicate their times to make them. I think the major problem is: most of these aren't even modeled in-game. Other thing: most of them remained prototypes or came too late or in too little numbers to do anything...

Plus, Oleg already commented about making large aircraft flyable: too difficult to model. If it's too hard to model ONE, imagine modeling all these you suggested!

I'm sorry if I'm wrong and Daidalus is willing to do include such planes, but, honestly, I don't think it worth the workload that comes along.

Plus, some of the RAF bombers (and Luftwaffe night-fighters) you requested were mostly used at night, and it's a little bit hard (and boring) to do a long (read "never-ending") mission in the darkness, and with almost nothing to entertain you... C'mon, what do we have? Flak? Can only ruin your work. Night-fighters? I suppose you've read "Enemy Coast Ahead", right? So, by the book you can see how rare was to find one.

I would suggest you to leave all this stuff to Storm of War instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk52tDKELdQ

(link for "Volkswaffe" video)

[robtek]

@Lucas from hell

you are exagerating!
There are just 4 prototypes from 17 planes.

Focke-Wulf 154; Prototype
Focke-Wulf 187; Prototype
Focke-Wulf 189; 864 build; in game
Focke-Wulf 200 'Condor'; 263 build; in game
Blohm & Voss 141; Prototype
Dornier 17; 2055 build; missed by many, many people
Heinkel 177; 1140 build; missed by many, many people
Heinkel 115; 223 build;
Heinkel 219; 279 build;
Bachem 349 'Natter'; Prototype;
Arado 196; 541 build; in game
ME410; 1189 build; almost in game (Me 210)
Lancaster; 7377 build; missed by the brits
Halifax; 6176 build; missed by the brits
Wellington; 11461 build; missed by many, many people
B17; 12731 build; in game
B29; 3970 build; in game

Quote:
[...Now, are you talking seriously, mate? Half of these did little if anything in the war, or did something but not enought to force a whole team to dedicate their times to make them. I think the major problem is: most of these aren't even modeled in-game. Other thing: most of them remained prototypes or came too late or in too little numbers to do anything...] end Quote

such sentences disqualify you as a serious discussion partner!

[mkubani]

It's my personal opinion that heavy bombers in IL-2 would never be used in their historical role and flown the real "hardcore" way because it is very time consuming, difficult, not much rewarding and last but not least for most virtual players boring to fly long missions. I think this would be especially true online. And the workload needed to accurately model a heavy bomber interior is enormous. So the return on time/energy investment is very small. I think it's enough to have heavies as AI only for 99% of all players.

Martin
Daidalos Team

[ElAurens]

Flying the modded game I have done several multi hour missions in the H8K "Emily" flying boat on the 1 to 1 scale "Slot" map online. I can assure you that after all that time over open water, navigating with a stopwatch and compass headings only and delivering the bombs on target, it was very satisfying.

There is room in this sim for long range aircraft, and there are folks who are interested in flying them in a realistic manner.

Do we need a dozen different types of heavy bomber and recon aircraft? No. But to have some is a good thing. And more very large maps to use them on.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by mkubani

It's my personal opinion that heavy bombers in IL-2 would never be used in their historical role and flown the real "hardcore" way because it is very time consuming, difficult, not much rewarding and last but not least for most virtual players boring to fly long missions. I think this would be especially true online. And the workload needed to accurately model a heavy bomber interior is enormous. So the return on time/energy investment is very small. I think it's enough to have heavies as AI only for 99% of all players.

Martin
Daidalos Team

100+

We need work done on the program core, ai performance and mission builder more than we need another bomber. We need to get this sim more fully featured for users to more effectively enjoy the sim online and offline.

My gosh what a mission builder tool like in the old MSFT CFS2 or Jane's WW2 fighters would do for this sim. Of course, we'd also need better tools to make mission building more efficient for humans to program it.

How many times have you flown a computer generated mission, spent an hour and then it put you into some world class uber stupid situation. How many times have you been following some stupid AI leader and couldn't advance in the campaign... because you couldn't succeed following the AI idiot.

I think the tool for applying keyboard commands could use a major overhaul...etc. I can think of a thousand things that would make this sim more interesting, immersive and exciting for users than more aircraft. Then of course... I have been doing this virtual air combat thing for over 10 years. I've used and currently own just about every air combat sim that is worthy of note.

Thanks to TD we'll have a sim worthy of a new retail release soon.

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by mkubani

It's my personal opinion that heavy bombers in IL-2 would never be used in their historical role and flown the real "hardcore" way because it is very time consuming, difficult, not much rewarding and last but not least for most virtual players boring to fly long missions. I think this would be especially true online. And the workload needed to accurately model a heavy bomber interior is enormous. So the return on time/energy investment is very small. I think it's enough to have heavies as AI only for 99% of all players.

Martin
Daidalos Team

disagree. Try to fly an online multihour mission (with human navigator onboard and if possible a gunner or two too), its different world, much more team oriented, based on responsibility and certainly not boring.

Agreed on work required, but I think heavy bomber is much more needed than yet another fighter plane(s), gain/effort ratio would be much bigger.

Originally Posted by Billfish

Would really like to see an option to have bomb craters last indeffinitely.........It's a critical aspect of base attacks forcing aircraft to have to divert to other bases. I say option in that I understand the logic of them filling in....Yet it would have great value in most missions in that it adds to the realism.

In kind, a static crater "object" would be a great addition.

We are already working on this, but long lasting craters pose big performance hit (what is probably reason for their short duration in game).

[csThor]

And I agree with Martin

The problem is that a heavy bomber needs a much different environment than even the tactical ones we have. IMO the only bombers worth working on are those tactical ones since they did missions which can be depicted in this game - unlike those of the heavies. For them the whole issue of briefing (with pics or schematics of the target zone), targeting itself (viewing distance, group dropping by AI, question of points and/or medals/promotions in campaigns etc) and a number of additional problems (radar, interceptor AI, formation size and type ...) would have to be solved before even the first plane would be ready.

For me the Il-2 engine is best at tactical level (not to say it couldn't be enhanced a bit) and close air support.

PS: Lesni - wrong avatar. Didn't you see the correct one @ the daidalos board?

[JG52Uther]

Some of the mod maps are 1:1,so there could be a case for heavy bombers.I have regularly flown long missions lasting hours in the He111 and Ju88.Full switch with map reading,timings and dead reckoning is very absorbing.
Still,SM79 is the new best for me,and I certainly thank DT for that!

[ElAurens]

I too have flown very long missions online on the "Slot" map in the "Emily". Hours of navigating by compass heading, speed and clock.

A very different kind of flying, and rewarding when the bombs hit their target.

So don't discount heavy/long range bombers out of hand.