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

[FC99]

Originally Posted by Fall_Pink?

Huge changes and new standards? Could you elaborate a tiny bit on that?

I can think of a lot of things but have no idea if then can be made at all when the whole thing keeps on running on a single core. I mean, a lot can be improved w.r.t. things like 'to know when and how to engage or disengage', Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, Situation Awareness/Assessment and Prioritization, Training level and Proficiency, Moral, RL tactics and so on, but that would truly mean a huge undertaking. It would however change the game radically (running at 1 fps)

Hi,
I'm old enough to remember days of ZX80 Even than you could find very exciting and interesting games. It is all about imagination.

IMO today PC are so powerful that most of game designer took a Hollywood approach in game making. Let's put as many special effect as we can and forget about the substance. Unfortunately that approach work very well. I'm somewhat disappointed to see how much are players influenced with Hollywood BS but that doesn't mean that DT will follow the same route.

We have few ideas that will make AI more interesting IMO, we will not make dramatic changes in code but I believe that several small changes can change game experience a lot. IMO it's all about creating illusion, we don't have to make smart AI, we only need to make player think that AI is smart.

Originally Posted by Eki

A suggestion for the next patches: If you start working with the GUI, could you add a possibility to save ip-addresses of different multiplayer servers into a some sort of list under the multiplayer menu? That would really help those who don't use Hyper Lobby. Currently you have to copy-paste or write the ip address every time you want to change the multiplayer server.

We will try to do something about it.

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Approach patterns - the large semi-circle for landings not sensible or realistic.

Flying around in approach pattern circles , especially when the enemy is so close to the airbase, i.e., Henderson field,Guadalcanal. would not have been too dangerous. Straight in and straight out approaches was the only way to avoid small arms fire.

Consistent circular fixed patterns also overlap when several airbases are in close proximity.

Straight in and straight out with holding patterns further away from the airbases would make more sense.

We have made several landing patterns, which one will be used depend on mission maker, that change will be included in 5.0 probably.

You will be able to chose between:
1.Normal Left
2.Normal Right
3.Short Left
4.Short Right
5.Straight In

All of them accessible through FMB.

FC

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by nearmiss
Approach patterns - the large semi-circle for landings not sensible or realistic.

Flying around in approach pattern circles , especially when the enemy is so close to the airbase, i.e., Henderson field,Guadalcanal. would have been too dangerous. Straight in and straight out approaches was the only way to avoid small arms fire.

Consistent circular fixed patterns also overlap when several airbases are in close proximity.

Straight in and straight out with holding patterns further away from the airbases would make more sense.
We have made several landing patterns, which one will be used depend on mission maker, that change will be included in 5.0 probably.

You will be able to chose between:
1.Normal Left
2.Normal Right
3.Short Left
4.Short Right
5.Straight In

All of them accessible through FMB.

------------------ Excellent!

[nearmiss]

I remember building a campaign for 1943 in the Kuban. I gave it up, because there were no possibilities for implementing tactics.

Pokriskinin developed very successful tactics flying the P-39 and P-40 against the FW190 and 109s. His flight groups flew in tiered altitudes. The higher altitude flights delayed entry until the furrball has progressed enough for them to use their altitude (E advantage) to successfully combat the powerful nimble german aircraft. These were not elaborate tactical schemes, but they were very effective.

In the Il2 it doesn't matter where you position the AI they all drop into the furrball from all levels. This is suicide against the German aircraft, which are mostly successful in those engagements. It doesn't matter what skill level you applied the german aircraft were always the winners.

I gave up on the campaign, because I wanted to produce a winning campaign for users flying Russian side in the P-39 and P-40.

---------------------------------------

I don't know if this is possible, but I've often wondered why we can't have despawn waypoints to get unnecessary aircraft out of the mission. I remember crashing them into mountains and stuff to free up the FPS.

---------------------------------------

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

I remember building a campaign for 1943 in the Kuban. I gave it up, because there were no possibilities for implementing tactics.

Pokriskinin developed very successful tactics flying the P-39 and P-40 against the FW190 and 109s. His flight groups flew in tiered altitudes. The higher altitude flights delayed entry until the furrball has progressed enough for them to use their altitude (E advantage) to successfully combat the powerful nimble german aircraft. These were not elaborate tactical schemes, but they were very effective.

In the Il2 it doesn't matter where you position the AI they all drop into the furrball from all levels. This is suicide against the German aircraft, which are mostly successful in those engagements. It doesn't matter what skill level you applied the german aircraft were always the winners.

I gave up on the campaign, because I wanted to produce a winning campaign for users flying Russian side in the P-39 and P-40.

---------------------------------------

I don't know if this is possible, but I've often wondered why we can't have despawn waypoints to get unnecessary aircraft out of the mission. I remember crashing them into mountains and stuff to free up the FPS.

---------------------------------------

After hosting 1000's of coops I cant get humans to use those tactics let alone AI

The AI behave as most humans do and attack everything they see no matter what.
Usually after they have died they make a comment about bad mission because they died so fast, followed by my usual comment:
"did you read the brief"
"ermm what brief"
"well if you stayed with your flight instead of taking off along the taxi way...........etc etc etc"

My old Sunday campaigns had some disciplined pilots who would fly high/low tactics and they were very successful in this method, flying 4 high 4 low sweeping out targets areas, same for mud moving too using 2 up 2 down attack plan.

Unfortunately there were the points mongers that just attacked everything and usually died or bailed out as a result of "no tactics" and a must kill everything mentality pretty much like the AI at times.

Hopefully the AI has developed into something a bit more controllable from the FMB point of view and should be interesting building missions again.

[FC99]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

I don't know if this is possible, but I've often wondered why we can't have despawn waypoints to get unnecessary aircraft out of the mission. I remember crashing them into mountains and stuff to free up the FPS.

Why are unnecessary aircraft in mission at all Anyway, I think that despawn waypoint would not be too hard to make but I would like to hear explanation where and when you need something like that, just out of curiosity.

FC

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I think (I only THINK) that what nearmiss mean is those flights that are only necessary for a short period of time, like that pair of fighters who will do a low pass over the runway when you are taking-off, that bomber that will do only a single pass, that enemy that will pass close to you with the aim of dragging you off the planes you should escort so that his friends can have a easy ride when attacking the bomber, that sort of stuff that add much to the immersion but kills the frame rate.

I guess these are situations when it's worth having a despawn waypoint. If I misunderstood you, Nearmiss, sorry.

[nearmiss]

Lucas you are right on.

We are currently restricted on the number of aircraft we can have in the air, along with other moving objects. It varies, but it can be problem in missions.

FPS is affected by number of aircraft. If you have a bomber raid, and the bombers fly off what do you need them for anymore. If your action area is where the bombers dropped their bombs and enemy fighters jump into the contest they can eat up the FPS. Then you couple that with a dozen or so bombers flying off into the sunset with no value to your mission, along with some moving ground objects ...you have FPS slow downs and jerky flying. This can make the difference in the quality of graphics you select for your missions. You cannot select video quality levels as high as you would like in many situations.

Also, after your bombers are gone and still in the air eating FPS you cannot introduce new aircraft or objects without hit on FPS. So, you limit your mission.

Effectively it is all about FPS and the number of moving objects you can have working simultaneously in missions.

I know all this may be for naught in the SOW, but we are talking about IL2. I'm beginning to see on the horizon a lot more of IL2 than I would have ever thought, especially since you guys have dropped onto the scene with Oleg's blessing. So what if we only have 8 poly aircraft graphics. I've been enjoying this old sim for a long time as is. Now that DT is taking such an interest to make such excellent changes in the IL2 the prospects are exciting.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I totally agree with you, Nearmiss.

And, in my case, this FPS thing just kill it for me. Why? Because I'm a graphic addict. I just can't turn the graphics down. It's a war crime! A game that delivers beutiful images not being pushed to its limits?!

[Aviar]

As a player and mission builder, I'll tell you one thing that has driven me crazy all these years. There is no dedicated command for the camera view. The player needs to cycle through all the enemy planes in order to get the camera(s) view. Very frustrating.

I know that the camera's were not part of the original IL-2 and Oleg was reluctant to add new commands or change the GUI. However, since it has been mentioned that the GUI will be changed, maybe we can get a dedicated command for the camera(s) view?

Aviar