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

[jermin]

Please let us concentrate on how to improve the quality of original IL2. Most of my squadmates prefer an official enhancement pack over a user-made MOD pack. The fact is that there are still quite a few players playing unmodded IL2 on Hyperlobby. If TD clears all the old bugs and injects new features into the game, I will be more than thankful. Once can still get quite a lot fun from current version.

One of my many requests to TD is please fix the high altitude (over 8000m) performance of German planes. Most of them can not execute a level flight without using elevator trims. And the engines of late-war 109s tend to overheat very quickily at that height even with MW-50 disengaged.

[XB-49]

I have heard from someone over at another site that Team Daidalos have taken over construction of the 777 Studios TBD-1 Devastator. May I ask if this is true?

Thanks in advance,
XB-49

[mkubani]

Look here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=8815&page=67

[XB-49]

Originally Posted by mkubani

Look here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=8815&page=67

Thank you Mkubani. Its too bad that the TBD will be and AI only craft. Ah well, its looks like we will have to wait for Ranwers (over at AAA) to make us one.

XB-49

[Eldur]

Just one more thing came to my mind concerning CEM: The turbo supercharger lever. I anxiously awaited the not so easy to control turbo supercharger control right before FB came out with the CEM and P-47 announced and was kind of disappointed that this had not been modelled back then. The P-38 would have the same control. I've seen that in a real P-47 training film (no. 107-c - how to fly the P-47, high altitude flight and aerobatics) that I found on the net around that time (p47highfly.avi, can't find a link anymore). Basically it's needed to control the exhaust waste gates (and therefore the amount of exhaust that drives the supercharger) while climbing and then reducing the manifold pressure to keep the supercharger impeller below 18250rpm.

Originally Posted by lep1981

Something that REALLY bothers me from IL2 is the score system. ...

Oh yes... that one needs a complete overhaul. I just would say it is a real issue because many people are "score driven". Getting a proper scoring for my efforts gives me a good motivation. And the worst killers are things like "only 10% score because you have no fuel left or your engine ran dead" while I still managed to bring the plane back in one piece with a nice landing. You can get the most score now by just bailing out. It would be cool to get score for returning a badly damaged plane back to the base alone.
I had proposed quite some stuff ages ago in the ORR. Too bad the Ubi forum staff deleted it so I can't dig it out anymore. One thing was that the weapon usage should be taken into account for scoring as well as effective hits with these. WarBirds had this and even the good old Dynamix series (Aces and Red Baron) had a score system based not just on kills, but also on gunnery and bombing skill. And some kind of "kill sharing" across those who shot at the target, split up considering how critical the damage they did each. So if pilot A shoots up B's controls and then C comes and severs B's wing off, A should still get some score for doing that critical damage instead of giving C all the score. That would also get us rid of those "that kill stealer just sprayed some ShKAS at the burning wingless wreck just to get the kill"-situations. I think everybody hates getting his kill stealed. Should also be considered while revamping the AI. They like to steal kills, too.

[mkubani]

@Zorin, here are the specs:

LOD_0 polycount:

1. Smaller bombs/rockets (below 200kg) - up to 200 triangles.
2. Medium bombs/rockets (between 200 and 1000kg) - up to 300 triangles
3. Larger bombs (1000kg and larger), torpedoes, guided bombs, etc. - up to 500 triangles.
4. Racks/pylons – as simple as possible – 50 triangles

Other LODs polycount:

Each subsequent LOD should have less, or equal to 50% of the previous LOD polycount.

4 distance LODs (LOD_0,1,2,3), 3 shadow LODs, each shadow LOD based on normal LOD with previous number (i.e. shadow LOD_0 is based on normal LOD_1, shadow LOD_1 is based on normal LOD_2 and so on).

Use alpha-channels to save polygons by cutting openings and complex shaped parts (like windmills, propellers, etc.) out of simple flat 3D objects.

It is enough to use 12-sided cylinder for virtually any bomb, or torpedo model. Keep polygon count as smaller, as possible, making small parts with either alpha, or texture. Keep smoothing groups set correctly.

Texture sizes for LOD_0: 128x256, 256x256, or 256x512. It is preferable to use same texture for several different bombs. Texture reduction by 50% for other LODS -> e.g. 256x256 -> 128x128 -> 64x64 -> 32x32. Tip: Use a bit of sharpening effect after you resize the textures for smoother texture transition (no sharp to blurry effect).

Use 1-sided material for most parts and 2-sided material for any part with alpha-channel. No alpha-channel textures after LOD_1

[Eldur]

Here's another thing that could need some rework. Those screens are pretty old, I think they're even from the good old Il-2 w/o FB. But still, this has never been changed so even now it's an issue after all.

Screen 1
Screen 2
Screen 3
Screen 4
Screen 5
Screen 6

The planes don't differ much my size, but the farther one gets away (which makes the engine show the less-poly LOD levels), the bigger some planes grow while others don't. I think both the 109s and Stukas as well as the Las suffer the most from this problem, but there are others, too - mainly the oldest planes we have.
I'd say this is lots more important than reworked cockpits.

Originally Posted by Daiichidoku

about the fuel leak bug:

i do remember that 190s (and P47s), after one patch, would catch fire VERY easily

I remember some other problems, but this definately would need some testing again to proove. Especially the P-47 is well known for having the "one 7.x shot - engine dead" syndrom, but a lot of other planes have similar issues.
Another thing that comes to my mind are just completely wrong things like the A6M5b's lack of 2nd cowling MG (7.7mm) and generally the 5s and later models' lack of sealing fuel tanks. But it could be that the late Zero fuel tank issue has been fixed already.

Originally Posted by Red Dragon-DK

Have DT any plane, to correct the the sound in the game? ... I have add 2 videos that I fell are woth listen to.
...

Wow those are 1000 times better than the ones that are in the mod packs. But still I think this shall be still a mod then so anybody could just install it if he wants. I've seen the files of the sound mods and this looks 100% to me like the MSFS sound system, with just like 4 different samples for different rpms. I remember Oleg saying that he does not use such techniques, but rather a very complex system that mixes lots of mini-samples to generate engine sound. After all I like the sound of the original 1946 a lot more than the sound of all those mod packs, even if there are less different ones. Just because the quality is better by ages. I still wonder why some individual sounds have been removed ever since. Does anybody remember the good old I-16 sound when it became flyable in Il-2? Or the P-39 sound? Those and some more (Il-2!!) where great, but got dumped in FB without a reason. I also liked the Il-2 Me-262 sound a lot more than the one we have now. I was so deep and cool, not that high pitched sound which always reminds me of the MSFS Learjet (and the modded jet sounds are even more awful than that).

€dit: Just found another bug... I tried a single F4U-1C vs 2 A6M5, 2 Jills and 2 Vals... I got the fighters while the others tried to land... in the water! Where are the carriers? I've uploaded the quick mission as well.
I noticed that my waypoints were not synchronized with the allied carriers. I think this issue did not exist prior to 4.09m.

click to see
QMB mission

Originally Posted by Voyager

On the fuel drain debate, I believe the argument is that planes with multiple discrete fuel tanks a catastrophic hit in one tank would most likely drain just that tank, rather than the entire fuel system, but with the basic limitations of the Il-2 engine, a catastrophic hit in one tank would behave as a catastrophic hit in all fuel tanks. This is true for all aircraft in the game; it shows up most often on the US aircraft, because the USAAF and USN fighters have 3-4 times the max fuel of other comparable aircraft.

Correct. But I doubt that we will see a change here in Il-2. But I would be more happy that it it actually will happen sometime. As far as I remember the FW-190 had a special issue that no other plane had - and I don't know if it got fixed. This was the instant emptiness after 20mm AP hits. One of these could mean that 400+ litres of fuel were gone in a matter of like 5 seconds. That was definately wrong. But I think that had been changed though I'm not sure.

The "burning planes" was the same sort of thing. When someone sprung a leak, you could light it off by firing tracers through the leak cloud, and it would burn until the plane exploded, or the fuel ran out. People just noticed more often on the 190 and P-47, because those two took a whole lot more damage to bring down than other planes, but I found you could do the same thing to 109's, and pretty much anything else that took more than two burps of 0.50 cal. Was great fun until they fixed it.

Oh yes. I loved that. I don't like that "95% of airkills due to wings shot off" thingy we have right now. Those burning shot down planes had a more realistic touch somehow. I also barely remember a really hard to master FM and especially ground handling (which was superb when getting used to) in one of the first FB patch betas that had been leaked. That was an experience that clearly showed that it's possible to have more sophisticated FM physics than we actually have now. In fact, it was a bit like what Rise of Flight is now in FM terms, just by the feeling.

Originally Posted by ECV56_Guevara

+100

+10000. TD deserves their own Ready Room subforum. Not just a single thread.

Originally Posted by csThor

Why should the G-4 be heavier than the G-2 (except a tiny bit from different radio, sturdier landing gear and larger tyres)? According to the info I have the take-off weight of a G-2 is around 3100kg, the same applies (to the little information I found in a quick search) to the G-4. I mean even the G-6 is only 50kg heavier than a G-2 ...

Too bad the differenct between G-2 and G-6 seems to be a lot more in 46. The performance of these 2 planes differ more than the one of the I-16 compared to the Me-262, just to exaggerate it a bit . I think you know what I mean. Oleg officially stated once that the gun bulges lower the top speed by 6km/h and the fixed tail wheel does so by 13km/h (or was it the other way round?). Apart from that, the 50kg more shouldn't drop the climb rate by 25-30%. After all the G-6 just feels a lot heavier in all respects. Interestingly it's pretty much dead on when compared with the G-2 + gunpods. In that case they perform almost the same, with very little difference. And that makes me think that the G-6 have the performance that a G-6/R6 should have. For me this is one of the very few major FM flaws.
And I agree with the G-4. It doesn not make sense to have it, unless we had to play around with the radio (and it would actually make a difference somehow). And I doubt that any plane in 46 has individual gear strength, most probably they're all the same.

Originally Posted by =FPS=Salsero

Well, the "blue" pilots say that in the game difference between G2 (helicopter with a tiny gun) and G6 (steam roller with a BIG gun) is quite big thus G4 may well fit in between.

I've seen "red" pilots, too, saying the same. And the gun makes not much difference, because there's a lot less ammunition which compensates for the bit heavier gun.

MG 151/20 = 42,5kg
One shell = 220g (projectile is 115g)
Gun + 200rd = 86,5kg

MK 108 = 58kg
One shell = 480g (projectile is 330g)
Gun + 65rd = 116,2kg

So it's ~20kg difference. Data source: http://www.adlertag.de/waffen/waffen.htm

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Weapon correction concerning muzzle velocity, frequency, belting sequence.

2 things that should be looked at are the UB muzzle velocity (you can see it's something like twice the ShKAS value in MiG-3, and UBs have an extremely high range) and the MG 17 Rate of Fire (it's still with 2x packages AFAIK, some others had been changed when FB came out).

Originally Posted by Daiichidoku

i will have to get the actual info on it, but apparently it has been proven with plenty of documentation that the P47 bomb loadout is incorrect

in game is 2x500lbs on wings + 1x1000lbs on centreline rack

IRL loadout is 2x1000lbs on wings + 1x500lbs on centreline rack

+1

Generally, the loadouts should be overhauled. There's lots of work to do, but it's worth it as it will "renew" some of the planes completely. I've got a nice list for German planes somewhere... I'll dig it out and post it here when I find it

€dit: My post grows bigger and bigger, but I don't want to multi-post

Originally Posted by Daiichidoku

also, as someone a few pages pointed out, having a P80 with tip tanks and dive brakes would be wonderful

while speaking of jets, id like to ask for consideration given to the Go-229

That P-80 would be a P-80A and not the YP-80 we have. It should also feature up t 2x 1000lb, TT rockets and 8 HVARs.
I'd also like an upgraded Go-229. Basically it should have the option to have 4x MK108 with 90rpg and a bombload of 1000kg carried on 2 ETCs on the engine housing next to the big front wheel. After all the project required it to carry 1000kg of bombs, have a 1000km range and 1000km/h speed. This shouldn't even be a new plane. Just change it.

Originally Posted by csThor

As far as chinese markings go I am afraid our hands are in binders. According to Oleg the game would be instantly banned in China if national-chinese markings were included. I don't think he'd allow this.

It would have been banned in Germany with Swastikas so there should be a way to get around this, too.

[David603]

Originally Posted by mkubani

@Zorin, here are the specs:

LOD_0 polycount:

1. Smaller bombs/rockets (below 200kg) - up to 200 triangles.
2. Medium bombs/rockets (between 200 and 1000kg) - up to 300 triangles
3. Larger bombs (1000kg and larger), torpedoes, guided bombs, etc. - up to 500 triangles.
4. Racks/pylons – as simple as possible – 50 triangles

Other LODs polycount:

Each subsequent LOD should have less, or equal to 50% of the previous LOD polycount.

4 distance LODs (LOD_0,1,2,3), 3 shadow LODs, each shadow LOD based on normal LOD with previous number (i.e. shadow LOD_0 is based on normal LOD_1, shadow LOD_1 is based on normal LOD_2 and so on).

Use alpha-channels to save polygons by cutting openings and complex shaped parts (like windmills, propellers, etc.) out of simple flat 3D objects.

It is enough to use 12-sided cylinder for virtually any bomb, or torpedo model. Keep polygon count as smaller, as possible, making small parts with either alpha, or texture. Keep smoothing groups set correctly.

Texture sizes for LOD_0: 128x256, 256x256, or 256x512. It is preferable to use same texture for several different bombs. Texture reduction by 50% for other LODS -> e.g. 256x256 -> 128x128 -> 64x64 -> 32x32. Tip: Use a bit of sharpening effect after you resize the textures for smoother texture transition (no sharp to blurry effect).

Use 1-sided material for most parts and 2-sided material for any part with alpha-channel. No alpha-channel textures after LOD_1

Since you are talking about polycounts, do the old LOD_0 limits of 3500 polys for single engined aircraft and 5000 polys for twin engined or bigger aircraft still apply, or have these been revised?

Reason I'm asking is that I want to build a Supermarine Spiteful, with the hope of getting it released through DT eventually (very busy at University), and obviously the more polys I get to play with more likely it is that I'm going to be happy about the finished result.

I know the Spiteful isn't a WWII aircraft, but since it was built (admitedly in very small numbers), it has a lot more of a right to be in the sim than many of the 1946 aircraft, so I would like to give this a shot.

[Eldur]

Originally Posted by Eldur

I've seen that in a real P-47 training film (no. 107-c - how to fly the P-47, high altitude flight and aerobatics) that I found on the net around that time (p47highfly.avi, can't find a link anymore).

Found part 107-b (stream): http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-47.html

[Seeker]

Are there any planes to update the campaign engine so we can actualy use the new planes?

And an improved FMB would be great. I've heard rumours of an FMB+, but I haven't been able to fly it yet.