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

[KG26_Alpha]

Quote:
Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces.

No problem, we will replace it with PK.

Quote:
Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

I don't see a problem there, FW have self sealing tanks which stops some fuel leaks just like in any other plane with self sealing tanks. Completely realistic IMO.

FC

.................................................. ..............

Lets hope your not doing FM & DM just AI on your team then.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Quote:
Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces.

No problem, we will replace it with PK.

Quote:
Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

I don't see a problem there, FW have self sealing tanks which stops some fuel leaks just like in any other plane with self sealing tanks. Completely realistic IMO.

FC

.................................................. ..............

Lets hope your not doing FM & DM just AI on your team then.

+1

[rakinroll]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

.................................................. ..............

Lets hope your not doing FM & DM just AI on your team then.

Amen!

[MicroWave]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Quote:
Antons losing all 3 control axis from a single shot even with pushrod accuated control surfaces.

No problem, we will replace it with PK.

Quote:
Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks or what I call a fuel leak bug which empties the plane in a matter of minutes.

I don't see a problem there, FW have self sealing tanks which stops some fuel leaks just like in any other plane with self sealing tanks. Completely realistic IMO.

FC

.................................................. ..............

Lets hope your not doing FM & DM just AI on your team then.

Sorry to disappoint you.
FC's comments although harsh, are spot on from what I've seen.

@all
Please, when you would like to make a suggestion or ask for a fix, add some documentation. It is impossible for us to follow every discussion in all forums.
Il2 world is 'object rich' with all the benefits and problems this 'richness' brings. You can use Daidalos Team e-mail to do that (we would also prefer comprehensible subject title).
I need to state that we can't add/fix everything. Some things will take precedence over the others based on complexity of the issue, new quality this issue can bring into the sim, available time and personal preference.

Now, I would like to add some comments of my own about accuracy issue raised by JG27CaptStubing.
I haven't investigated all the possibilities and some of it comes from my bad memory.
Each gun type is represented by it's own class. In each of them there is just a type of bullet(s) (weight, initial velocity, explosive power if any, RoF, visual effects, etc). IIRC, trajectory of all these is calculated in one (1) piece of code for all guns without discrimination towards 0.50s or any other gun. From this point of view, I find it very hard to believe that 0.50 have accuracy problems.
Proper testing environment to prove that there is an accuracy problem might be difficult to achieve. I don't think that it is possible to compare different guns in combat due to different bullet characteristics, the fact that different planes require different firing solutions, etc.
For example (disclaimer: I fly like a brick) when I fly FW190s I prefer to take larger lead and let the target fly through the bullet stream (that doesn't happen as frequently as I would like to). There is plenty of ammo in those birds and I try to use B&Z (badly). As a result, my hit rate with FW190s is smaller than with, say Bf109s. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that online statistics is not the proper testing environment.

So, is there a problem with bullet trajectories of 0.50s in Il2 that you can document? Is there a problem with planes or their flying characteristics with this armament that would lead to accuracy problems (I think you mentioned some wobbling)?

[ramstein]

Does this mean, the P51 balance from the center, behind the seat fuel tank, can be corrected by having the center (fuselage) fuel tank drain first? The plane is horribly out of balance. It flies like crap until somone cares to fix this problem. Over the years everyone else refused to fix it.

Along with crappy guns that need corrected. They don't have the punch they should.

The P47 roll rate is one more problem that needs fixed, it needs to roll faster as it did in real life.

Those are the two most important items for most of the pilots for American planes.

If there is going to be work done, can we asked these items please be addressed?

is this true more work wil be done on IL-2?

Or are late comers asking for the things that data was supplied for for many years, yet Olegs team never fixed.. all of the data was supplied over these past years...

thanx..

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by MicroWave

Sorry to disappoint you.
FC's comments although harsh, are spot on from what I've seen.)

Please elaborate. In what way?

You can just sit there an ignore it all you want but anyone who has flown the Anton series over the years can tell you first hand it has a fuel leak bug. It's your choice if you want to investigate it. I could care less about the lack of professionalism.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

@all
Please, when you would like to make a suggestion or ask for a fix, add some documentation. It is impossible for us to follow every discussion in all forums.
Il2 world is 'object rich' with all the benefits and problems this 'richness' brings. You can use Daidalos Team e-mail to do that (we would also prefer comprehensible subject title).
I need to state that we can't add/fix everything. Some things will take precedence over the others based on complexity of the issue, new quality this issue can bring into the sim, available time and personal preference..)

Clearly you have your own agenda.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

@Now, I would like to add some comments of my own about accuracy issue raised by JG27CaptStubing.
I haven't investigated all the possibilities and some of it comes from my bad memory.
Each gun type is represented by it's own class. In each of them there is just a type of bullet(s) (weight, initial velocity, explosive power if any, RoF, visual effects, etc). IIRC, trajectory of all these is calculated in one (1) piece of code for all guns without discrimination towards 0.50s or any other gun. From this point of view, I find it very hard to believe that 0.50 have accuracy problems.
Proper testing environment to prove that there is an accuracy problem might be difficult to achieve. I don't think that it is possible to compare different guns in combat due to different bullet characteristics, the fact that different planes require different firing solutions, etc...)

Testing aye?

Here is an old 35 page thread on Ubi that talks about the tests and some of the findings. It was ignored as usual.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t.../979109092/p/1

Gibbage did quite a bit of testing and it does show out of all the guns the 50s have had an issue with dispersion. It's still present today.

It's one of many threads brought up about the 50 cal.

[csThor]

Now, Capt, there is no need to go the "sour grapes" way already. You're obviously passionate about the P-38 and everything pertaining to it, but that doesn't mean DT has to and is going to jump just at your request. You see there are thousands of people with thousands of ideas what can and should be corrected in which way - which translates into thousands of folks pulling DT's attention into thousands of directions. And we @ DT are damned already because we can't please them all. Does that mean we're ignorant or that we don't care about accuracy? No, most certainly not.

I, for example, am glad that I can't code worth a damn so I do not envy the FM and coding guys one bit.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by csThor

Now, Capt, there is no need to go the "sour grapes" way already. You're obviously passionate about the P-38 and everything pertaining to it, but that doesn't mean DT has to and is going to jump just at your request. You see there are thousands of people with thousands of ideas what can and should be corrected in which way - which translates into thousands of folks pulling DT's attention into thousands of directions. And we @ DT are damned already because we can't please them all. Does that mean we're ignorant or that we don't care about accuracy? No, most certainly not.

I, for example, am glad that I can't code worth a damn so I do not envy the FM and coding guys one bit.

There are No Sour Grapes here... Just a natural response to FCs blunt we will switch losing all three Axis in the FW to a PK. Lame response and shows very little respect for those that are aware of the problems.

I really doubt there are 1000s of people pulling DTs time at the moment. This is a very tiny community. There is a reason why some of them are in here looking at comments and responding.

In terms of the 38 you can look at the earlier posts and I'm glad some testing was done. At least it shows a willingness to look at issues that were raised some time ago and were blown off. I doubt we will see anything change per the norm even with documentation.

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

Please elaborate. In what way?

You can just sit there an ignore it all you want but anyone who has flown the Anton series over the years can tell you first hand it has a fuel leak bug. It's your choice if you want to investigate it. I could care less about the lack of professionalism.





Clearly you have your own agenda.




Testing aye?

Here is an old 35 page thread on Ubi that talks about the tests and some of the findings. It was ignored as usual.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t.../979109092/p/1

Gibbage did quite a bit of testing and it does show out of all the guns the 50s have had an issue with dispersion. It's still present today.

It's one of many threads brought up about the 50 cal.

And now what - Oleg listened to threads complaining about .50 cals (aka .50s are porked), at first people complained that dispersion was too much and wanted to remove the shotgun effect, now I've seen threads where people (like you) complain that there is no shotgun effect with .50 cals and now they are less accurate and have less hit rate. So what do you want now? Daidalos team will change dispersion of .50 cals to higher level and people will start to complain that they have not enough hitting power, in next patch lower the dispersion and people will complain they are not accurate and again again changing things just because you think that it should be changed based on your experience and hit percentage. This is no criteria of changing things in this game. DT has to take a side in this and there will always be people not happy with current state. If you want a change, do some serious testing and please make a new thread and don't make 36 pages .50 cals flamewar thread out of DT ready room.

[Voyager]

Don't know if this has been proposed before, but would it be possible to make the P-51 fuselage fuel tank a Weapon Loadout option? Sort of as a stop-gap for the P-51 CoG issues, until the SoW engine is done.

As I understand it, one of the reasons the P-51 is spiny is because the 85 gallon fuselage tank was installed without any counter balance to it, and adversely impacted the loaded CoG because of it. Typically pilots would drain it before moving on to the drop tanks, but limitations in the Il-2 engine prevent fuel tanks from having independent CoG effects or complex CoG effects.

The idea is have one CoG mapping for the P-51 with the 85 gallon tank starting full, and have a second CoG mapping for when the 85 gallon tank starts empty, on control which one is in use the same way the 109 field mod kits are currently handled. You do start to run into the exponential loadout issue the late war German, but the P-51's only have four loadouts apiece currently.

The real question is, how hard a fix is it? Is this something that's deeply buried in the flight model, and can a loadout flag even change something like that? Is this a five-lines-of-code sort of change, or a suicide-watch-on-the-dev-team sort of change?

Harry Voyager

I almost hesitate to even propose this: it just feels like something that is far less simple than it seems on the surface.