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

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by MBot

What a great idea, the Catalina would be perfect to go along the new SAR mechanics that have been shown.

After 10 years of IL2, regardless of how many aircraft we have someone always wants more aircraft.

I realize converting a non-flyable isn't as big a job to build as a plane from scratch. It is just that for all the requesting I've often wondered just how interested those users are and remain interested if they do get what they request.

Was it really worth it for some developer to spend a huge amount of time trying to supply those requests? Seriously, I've often wondered why don't developers make a response to those requesting such things and spell it out.

By that I mean... Making the PBY flyable, at least the one in IL2 will take approximately 190 hours of work, and I'll have to acquire 4 java addons to make it happen. Then I'll have appx. 200 hours in beta testing.
So... if you really want this aircraft will you please send a donation to my website at --- allreadyoverworked.com for at least $10 USD. At least, I'll believe my work is worth at least what is donated.

I't really like to do this for you... so please send your donations ASAP, and I will ASAP your flyable PBY.

The Il2 is certainly no exception of course. Every air combat and flight sim is plagued with requests for new and flyable aircraft, EAW, BOBII WOV, WW2 Fighters, FA-18, FS2004, CFS2,CFS3,FSX and on and on.

There are so many additional very valuable things that could be added to a sim like IL2, i.e, AI performance, additional programming in FMB, etc. All things that make the game/sim more exciting and interesting.

TD is pumping out so much stuff, this posting probably won't change anything. I'm basically trying to say, that it takes alot of time to address many requests, and users should reluctantly make requests.... unless they are very determined to use what they request more than a couple time.

I am not speaking for TD. I am speaking for myself in this thread.

[MBot]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

After 10 years of IL2, regardless of how many aircraft we have someone always wants more aircraft.

I realize converting a non-flyable isn't as big a job to build as a plane from scratch. It is just that for all the requesting I've often wondered just how interested those users are and remain interested if they do get what they request.

Was it really worth it for some developer to spend a huge amount of time trying to supply those requests? Seriously, I've often wondered why don't developers make a response to those requesting such things and spell it out.
The Il2 is certainly no exception of course. Every air combat and flight sim is plagued with requests for new and flyable aircraft, EAW, BOBII WOV, WW2 Fighters, FA-18, FS2004, CFS2,CFS3,FSX and on and on.

There are so many additional very valuable things that could be added to a sim like IL2, i.e, AI performance, additional programming in FMB, etc. All things that make the game/sim more exciting and interesting.

TD is pumping out so much stuff, this posting probably won't change anything. I'm basically trying to say, that it takes alot of time to address many requests, and users should reluctantly make requests.... unless they are very determined to use what they request more than a couple time.

I am not speaking for TD. I am speaking for myself in this thread.

Don't worry, I am perfectly aware how much time new flyable require to create, especially multicrew aircraft. I have not demanded that a Catalina is supplied, but merely commented that I think this would be a fine choice. Especially considering this it would be a fairly unique, yet quite significant, aircraft. As I understand it, DT is going to add some more aircraft. As resources are limited, so is the number of potential new aircraft. With my comment I wanted to express that I prefer those last few aircraft be somehow unique, yet significant WWII aircraft, rather than more of the already very numerous fighters.

I do not seriously expect to ever see a PBY in Il-2 and I will not lose sleep over it.

[BM-03]

Question about multi-crew.
Will be accessible bombardir(navigator) sight for player-gunner? Or it is planned?
Thanks.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by MBot

Don't worry, I am perfectly aware how much time new flyable require to create, especially multicrew aircraft. I have not demanded that a Catalina is supplied, but merely commented that I think this would be a fine choice. Especially considering this it would be a fairly unique, yet quite significant, aircraft. As I understand it, DT is going to add some more aircraft. As resources are limited, so is the number of potential new aircraft. With my comment I wanted to express that I prefer those last few aircraft be somehow unique, yet significant WWII aircraft, rather than more of the already very numerous fighters.

I do not seriously expect to ever see a PBY in Il-2 and I will not lose sleep over it.

I used your posting to focus on an ongoing discussion topic we have all read thousands of times before.

Posters are just expressing themselves.

No harm done, no dev takes on a project he/she doesn't want to do anyway.

The purpose of my posting was just to infer there are many more substantial things that could be done with IL2. Things that would make the IL2 dramatically more exciting and interesting than new aircraft or objects.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Rumanian fighters

as we have now the marvelous looking Odessa map
how it is about to have a "second" look behind the rumanian fighterseries IAR 80/81

it would be nice to get a IAR 80A for the 1941 operations.
these variant was more often build as the IAR 80 AFAIK.
the difference would be to have 6x .303 MGs instead 4 and to have a normal REVI , like already in the two 81 fighterbombers.
3D work would not be needed, the third gunbarrel would not look out of the wing , "just" a new skin would be needed , and as said, the cockpit could be used from the IAR 81s

ammoload seems to high for the .303 MGs, now it is 1000rounds per gun !!
500rounds should be more correct..........................

and if this small fighter could carry 250rounds per gun for its MG151/20 in the IAR 81C ?!?!?


its not important, just if someone in TD has the interest and the time as this lovely small fighter has now with the map found its "huntingground"


EDIT:
found this site aboutt he IAR 80
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazin..._eng_iar80.htm

looks like i was wrong in thinking the 6gun variant was more often build than the 4gun one............ anyway, would be a nice to have
it says 600rpg in the IAR 80
and 400rpg in the IAR 81 for the light MGs.

the actual 350rpg in the IAR81A for its heavy MGs seems correct , even in game it is modelled as the MG131 not a "13,2mm" Browning.

and the ammoload for a the ICARIA 20mm canons of the first IAR81C is announced with 120 rpg , so i guess a MG151/20 armed should also have 120rpg.

and btw:
" In a dive it is outclassed by the Bf 109E, because it lacks an automated propeller pitch regulator." <- OUTCH