Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[IceFire]

Not that I'm expecting this to happen at all... but I love new planes and I'm really really really excited about the Hs129 and I-15bis flyable but there are two others that I'd really love to see that would nicely plug a few holes for me and my campaign building experiences.

I'd love to see a Typhoon... practically speaking I'd love multiple variants but if I had to choose one then then the Normandy invasion Mark IB Late with 3 or 4 bladed propeller and bubble canopy would be my choice. Armed with either bombs or rockets.

I'd also love to see a Spitfire Mark F.XIV or FR.XIV (with bubble canopy and cameras)... mostly to plug the holes on my Storm Clouds campaign (3.0 anyone? ) but also because it'd be a much greater challenge to fly with the powerful Griffon engine.

Something that I just wanted to get out there. You may now resume your regularly scheduled programming

[Oktoberfest]

Hello,

just a simple question : Is anything planned to improve the skin resolution on the aircrafts.

I'm asking this because I wanted to implement a nose art on the skin of the Bf110, and when flying luftwaffe you have to paint it directly on the skin, but the definition is so bad that all what came out of it was a bunch of pixels vaguely remembering the shape of a woman...

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Originally Posted by Oktoberfest

Hello,

just a simple question : Is anything planned to improve the skin resolution on the aircrafts.

I'm asking this because I wanted to implement a nose art on the skin of the Bf110, and when flying luftwaffe you have to paint it directly on the skin, but the definition is so bad that all what came out of it was a bunch of pixels vaguely remembering the shape of a woman...

What editing software are you using? I use either CS3 or CS4 and I have had no problems.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by Oktoberfest

Hello,

just a simple question : Is anything planned to improve the skin resolution on the aircrafts.

No. 1024x1024pxl is standard and its already quite large. Remember that each of the skins is 1MB is size. So in the sense of multiplayer its acceptable with a decent visual quality. Personally I'm curious how SoW will handle this.

[JG53Frankyboy]

as it looks like the Team is overworking the westernfront fighter planes (Spit V, Spit IX'42, Fw190A-4 full boost , 109 series) perhaps it would be nice also to look on the american fighters there.

my "suggestions" would be:
- give the P-47D-22 the same performance as the D-27. So both can be used side by side if wanted. As it was in real btw. So it would be nice for a missiondesigner to choose betwenn a Razorback and a Bubbletop Thunderbolt without having differences in the Performance.
at the moment the D-10 and the D-22 are performing almost, if not at all, the same...... useless to have two Razorbacks in my opinioin.
-ad the armamant "aditional Ammo & Droptank"
-change the P-51D-20 to a 150octan boost version (like the Mustang III in comparison to the P-51C) and leave the P-51D-5 as it is.

and about the two Hellcats ( with the same performance), would it be too dangerous (Grumman wise...... ) to change something already existend , like the F6F-5. To name it, to give it a better perfomance to have a 1944 Hellcat.
The two identical (beside the small windows ) F6F are, well, one is actially useless to have

[=BLW=Pablo]

hello guys
S! Daidalos Team

i have another question

as you can see here
http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,1758.0.html

I did the FW-190 A8/A9, without the rack of bombs.



would be possible to create a new option for loudout FW's A8 and A9?
we could call lightened loudout (field mod)

the 3d modeling work is done.
and I would be happy to donate to you if they have interest.

sorry my bad english

[ben_wh]

As we know, there are a lot of talented modders out there who have been developing new planes, maps and other content for the sim. However as pointed out by TD, some of these do not adhere to the standard used for other content currently in-game (e.g. polygon counts, FM)

My questions are:
1) Is there a set of published 'specs' for modders to follow for developing new content? (plane, map, FX, sound, etc.)

2) Is there an established process for modders to submit their content to TD for assessment to be included in official patch? Normally, a spec sheet would accompany the submitted content with key info (e.g. polygon count) to reflect compliance with standard specs.

This way the community can benefit from the products of the creative energy from modders, and TD can maintain control on the quality of content going into official patches, while TD members can focus on core improvement areas in their plan.

Quite possibly such process is already in place but then I do not have visibility into the inner workings of the patch development process. Just curious.

Cheers,

[JG53Frankyboy]

a small one:
would it be possible to set the existend "Blenheim-Singapore"-skin as the default one for the Blenheim Mk.IV for ALL maps except the Finnlandmaps please ?
This little plane is a so important plane in early campaigns - the finnish skin looks mostly ugly in the MTO, Malaya, Burma, Normandie ......................... and to set it manually not always helps (and is often annyoing............. )

because of the comming SoW:BOB to ask for a flyable one is sure out of possibilty - unfortunatly - as i said, a often forgotten, but so important bomber in early war scenarios.

[daidalos.team]

The specs for 3D modelling are generally known and quite clear. They have been put together by 3rd party modellers several years ago while they were submitting planes directly to Maddox Games. They have been even posted on several mod community sites. Unfortunately there are very few modelers who have the patience to follow and stick to them.

In general we are open to cooperation with serious and dedicated modellers, progammers and texture artists who can get the job done within specified/agreed parameters. We are looking for those who are able to create complex modelling or programming usually from scratch rather than modifying existing IL-2 content.

1. The first step is to contact us via email: daidalos.team@gmail.com We have already communicated this before.

2. Then we do a technical evaluation and give our honest feedback to the author on his project. If we recognize a perspective development, we offer our further cooperation.

3. Then we provide our remote support/tutorials through our private development forum where we can discuss technical stuff only.

That's how it is working right now and it is quite productive.

Originally Posted by ben_wh

As we know, there are a lot of talented modders out there who have been developing new planes, maps and other content for the sim. However as pointed out by TD, some of these do not adhere to the standard used for other content currently in-game (e.g. polygon counts, FM)

My questions are:
1) Is there a set of published 'specs' for modders to follow for developing new content? (plane, map, FX, sound, etc.)

2) Is there an established process for modders to submit their content to TD for assessment to be included in official patch? Normally, a spec sheet would accompany the submitted content with key info (e.g. polygon count) to reflect compliance with standard specs.

This way the community can benefit from the products of the creative energy from modders, and TD can maintain control on the quality of content going into official patches, while TD members can focus on core improvement areas in their plan.

Quite possibly such process is already in place but then I do not have visibility into the inner workings of the patch development process. Just curious.

Cheers,