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

[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.

[ramstein]

DD team,
is it possible to program the AI planes not to Kamikazee you in a dogfight... it's not realistic!
they will head-in you in a dogfight much of the time,,,

thanx,

[Zorin]

This comparison shows the result of following TD rules set for ordnance meshes regarding texture size and triangle count. As you can see, the details had to be deleted, along with the refined transition of shell body and rear assembly. Additionally, due to the fact that the tail assembly should be created via Alpha Cut, the skin had to be resized to 256x256, yet including an alpha channel keeps it equal with the 512x512 skin that doesn't need a Alpha channel.

Further more, the next smaller bomb needs to be build with less than 200 triangles, which can only be achieved by reducing the 12 sided cylinder base mesh, which in turn leads us back to the eight sided cylinder the old mesh was represented by.

Let us not forget that all bombs should at best share the same skin file. This leads us to having the same tail assembly on all bombs (historically incorrect), the same lettering (historically incorrect) and a further reduction in skin quality, to keep the resolution on different sized bomb bodies equal.

I don't see the point in spending month on research and building to end up with something that looks like build in the year 2000. That is no my idea of improvement.

My models have been in game with all mod packs and as separate downloads and therefor are in use by, most likely, every MOD user out there and not ONE has had a complaint so far. They were used on simulated mass bombing raids and had no negative effect, so why should I not build them the way I did?

Just give me ONE GOOD reason.



Let me add as a final note: I highly appreciate your work, the insight you want to give us and I usually am the last person not to follow given rules, but I need to see at least a tiny bit of good reason in it. This is sadly, and I'm being honest, not the case here.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Let me add as a final note: I highly appreciate your work, the insight you want to give us and I usually am the last person not to follow given rules, but I need to see at least a tiny bit of good reason in it. This is sadly, and I'm being honest, not the case here.

Zorin, thank you for investing your time and trying it out and the comparsion shown is also very much appreciated.

The reason you're asking for is very simple: it makes no sense to waste such a huge amount of polygons (and therefore PC's resources) on details like bombs etc.

The bomb is just a bomb that hangs and then it flies down as you drop it, there is not much time to examine how beautiful the fuse is nor to read the stuff written in army stencil font around it. This is not the improvement we need, mate.

The technical specifications were not set by DT, they exist from the day 1 and the've been raised according to modern PC's specs since. These are very reasonable. Unfortunately, your work is a still massive overkill and it's not acceptable at all - especially for a low priority models.

Thanks very much for trying anyway, I am sorry that you're not willing to revise your otherwise great work in order to be (perhaps) included in an official release. But I completely understand that modelling within specs is very demanding task and requires a really skilled modeller.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by Robo.

But I completely understand that modelling within specs is very demanding task and requires a really skilled modeller.

Could you stop this offensive nonsense!

I can easily stay within the limits, but as you can see in the comp, there is no point in it.

Besides, ordnances should never be low priority, it is like designing a beautiful car and putting wooden wheels from an old carriage on them. The game environment needs to be coherent in quality.

You are also discrediting all the skin creators and movie makers out there, by saying this game is not about the visual quality. Really, you lot need to change you tone and rethink how you approach US as target audience.

No one in his right mind would insult someone who spent ages on researching and building stuff for your game and offering it FOR FREE like you did by constantly questioning his abilities. At least in my profession, which is all about design and customer care, this would get you fired and not in a deciders position.

Think about it, you lot have been very fortunate to be in the position you are in now, perhaps owning up to it is in order...

[Bulgarian]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Could you stop this offensive nonsense!

"Offensive nonsense"?

Zorin,Robo is nice with you.Noone here is talking to you in offensive manner.Actually it's only you who is posting the offensive content here.
Stop acting pessimistically.

Originally Posted by Zorin

The game environment needs to be coherent in quality.

IL-2 already is.
But since you're introduced so well to the 3D modeling,you must make the difference between Game Industry/Developing and CGI Industry/Developing!
The thing we're doing here,is Game Industry and Developing.You follow the technical specs,or leave.Simple as that.
It's a rule that is set by the game engine itself,and it's capabilities.We can't do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Zorin

it is like designing a beautiful car and putting wooden wheels from an old carriage on them.

Ferrari are building a sport car using this method,but what's the connection between this and the topic here?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Could you stop this offensive nonsense!

Excuse me please, but what do you mean?

I believe I approached you in a very polite manner, I complimented your work and expressed my pity that you're not willing to revise it in order to be used in an official patch. I also answered your question and named you a reason why the models need to be done in certain way. If there is anything else you saw in my previous post, you happened to add it yourself (and I am quite wondering why...)

If it's the quoted sentence that made you feel offended, I assure you I was not referring to you personally. It is indeed a simple fact that it requires great skill to do a good low-poly 3D model and stay within limited specs perserving great looks. Wouldn't you agree with that?

You probably feel insulted by what I wrote because you found yourself in that rather innocent remark of mine, but I did not mean to insult you and I really had no intention to argue with you about anything.

I would also like to remind you that I am what you call 'skin creator' and I assure you that exactly the visual appearance of the game is my only area of working within DT.

I do not wish comment anything you wrote in anger in this thread because it would not lead anywhere, I'd just like to repeat that simple question:

Would you mind trying to reduce the amount of polygons of your bomb models as per specs given, so the Daidalos Team can include them in the next patch, please?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Zorin

...This comparison shows the result of following TD rules set for ordnance meshes regarding texture size and triangle count...

Could you show us wire frame views of these two meshes, Zorin?

[Viikate]

Those bomb meshes are pretty clean & nicely done. I value a good reseach and doing something properly than doing something with "frankenstyle". So Zorin is on a right track here.

I'd say that the bombs are just slightly too "fat" and feel like unfinished & un-optimized. Most don't have any LODs or shadows meshes and textures don't really need to be that big. This is a flight sim, not an ordinance sim. Is it really necessary to see all small prints on a bomb, but you cannot see equally big texts on a plane?

Pretty much all bombs could be optimized with small work to be few hundred polys lighter. I modified for test one Luftwaffe bomb and in five minutes it lost about 200 polys without changing the shape at all.

Well 200 polys for modern GPUs is nothing, but if everyone ignores the specs and go totally overkill with polycount & texture size, then we will soon have sim that doesn't run well on older PCs. This isn't overkill, but something like over 1000 polys for cannon barrel or ~200Mb textures for pit is.

Here's another quick edit of that US bomb:

378 polys, 256x256 texture (no alpha layer). Just by removing obsolete polys and mapping it so that it wastes less space so text can be bigger. Basic shape is still same. Same number of "cylinder" segments, except in the front where they are not needed.

After all this is old game with many very low poly planes. I don't see much point of attaching something high poly to a low poly plane (1000 poly cannon barrel is good example). It's all about keeping the balance with existing stuff.

[mkubani]

Zorin,

let's summarize.

1. You have asked TD for specs - we have provided them to you within 24 hours.

2. I have asked you if you model all required LODs - you did not answer.
(We have checked your LW bombs - only 1 LOD out of 4 is modelled)

3. I have asked you for a model sample - you did not send us anything.

4. One of our members spent his free time to search for your models, downloaded it, and reworked it to show you how the model and texture could be optimized quite significantly without any major loss of quality. Viikate can send you the model as a sample reference if you want.

From the very beginning we have acknowledged you have done a very good research job. You have met the historical accuracy and quality requirements, but as I told you already few times, you have overdone it and did not finish your models properly from the technical aspect.

I am finished with this topic Zorin. We have showed you how your work could be improved. It's not personal, it's pure technical. You have a good opportunity to learn more lean 3D modelling techniques and we have no problem supporting you on this. However, if you just keep fighting back, it will be impossible to find a common language.

Please, keep in mind that the 3D modelers at TD are either professional or semi-professional and worked on several commercial or non-commercial projects for IL-2 and SoW. So, I dare to say we know what we are talking about when it comes to modeling for IL-2. Thus, we will provide constructive criticism when we see a need for it.

Last but not least, the offer still holds. If you change your mind and will align your work with the posted specs, we will have NO PROBLEM with adding your work to our patches. So, it is your call.