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

[Tempest123]

Okay, back to the point of this thread, I have another small request, the default skins for the A6M zero's are not so good, particularly the A6M5 and up, especially considering the other Japanese aircraft have some excellent skins. There are lots of great skins out there from Jaypack44 and others, and it would be nice to have some better ones as default given that this is the "de facto" japanese fighter for most of the war. I hope the pacific aircraft don't get lost in the endless "VVS vs Luftwaffe" debate.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Tempest123

Okay, back to the point of this thread, I have another small request, the default skins for the A6M zero's are not so good, particularly the A6M5 and up, especially considering the other Japanese aircraft have some excellent skins. There are lots of great skins out there from Jaypack44 and others, and it would be nice to have some better ones as default given that this is the "de facto" japanese fighter for most of the war. I hope the pacific aircraft don't get lost in the endless "VVS vs Luftwaffe" debate.

So the A6M5 was missed in the big 4.09 default skin download ?

[Tempest123]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

So the A6M5 was missed in the big 4.09 default skin download ?

AFAIK the 4.09 skin pack did not include pacific aircraft, probably because most of them are newer models and didn't really need new default skins, except for those zekes...

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

You know... i was thinking...
I was thinking what kind of values did the Original "old" Il2 Sturmovik circa 2001 had for the bombs. I always had the impression that its feeling is still somehow "better" in the "Simulator" aspect.
Anyway, i was curious to see the "old" data and then maybe there would be one more argument to Fix at last the same "bug", "political correct", "biases", [put the correct name here], that plaque the current release.
And guesss what. What kind of data do you think i found? Normally i should have found more or less the same data like the current right?
Well...

BINGO!

Lets see the Bombs data, shall we?

___________FAB250____SC250

Radius:_____50m_______77m
HE_Weight:__120kg_____130kg
Weight:_____250kg_____248.2kg


___________FAB500____SC500

Radius:_____77m_______82m
HE_Weight:__275kg_____220kg
Weight:_____500kg_____500kg


___________FAB1000___FAB2000___FAB5000

Radius:_____150m______300m______750m
HE_Weight:__555kg_____1025kg____3260kg
Weight:_____1000kg____2000kg____5000kg


These was the data for these bombs back in 2001. There were no bigger German bombs than the SC500 in this release.
They look beter for sure, the are more aligned with internet
data found for these bombs, plus the FEEL better.
No more MOABs with >3 times bigger the explisive radius for ANY nation, not just Russians.

And now here are the "miracusly", "political corrected", "buggy", [enter proper word here] data from current release:
While for smaller bombs they are mostly untouched, when it comes to the bigger ones, they are grossly changed:


(Same data from 2001 release)
___________FAB250____SC250

Radius:_____50m_______77m
HE_Weight:__120kg_____130kg
Weight:_____250kg_____248.2kg


(The FAB has been increased dramatically while the SC500 is the same)
___________FAB500____SC500

Radius:_____250m_______82m
HE_Weight:__275kg_____220kg
Weight:_____500kg_____500kg


(Here we see that the FAB1000 has almost get 4 times the radius it has in 2001 data)
___________FAB1000____SC1000

Radius:_____500m_______168m
HE_Weight:__555kg_____630kg
Weight:_____1000kg_____1090kg


(Again FAB2000's radius got 4 times bigger than it was in 2001 release)
___________FAB2000____SC2000

Radius:_____1100m_______275.8m
HE_Weight:__1025kg______975kg
Weight:_____2000kg_____1950kg


(And now here comes the MOAB or FOAB, no comments )
___________FAB5000

Radius:_____2500m
HE_Weight:__3260kg
Weight:_____5000kg

So, what happened? I am asking you. Either:
A) STRICKING, as MW says, data has seen the light that confirms these changes, or
B) game just had to get, "political correct", get "bugs", "biases", [put the appropriate word here].

There is a unique opportunity to correct these "bugs". We have not only data from the Internet that suggests it but also the Data from the game itself before it went
"politicalcorectized" and things "went south". (or should i say "east"? )

If Td has not the will nor the skill or the patience to correct these things then other people will do.

For me and believe for most of the people it is essential to correct EXISTING game Bugs, not jusat add new planes or features.
Fix the bombs, guns, never overheating planes, etc... (the list is big enough) and
then import new stuff also. But closing the eyes to such things it is not the best way to deal with these facts.

Its high time to fix the eternal game's "bugs".

That was it gents

P.S.

@MW
WHO is "blathering"? I see you loose your temper,

I asked you, and gave you data about this, what you are going to do for certain Sniper-Cannons and you didn't reply but only said "one plane with a sniper out of 300 is not big deal).

I asked what are you going to do with the >3 times bigger bombs of the same bomb category-weight and you said there are data for this, yet again you provided none to justify this odd, at least, issue while you asked me to give you data to justify my claim that there is not possible to have same weight and category bombs to differ so much.

Now i have also presented to you earlier data from IL2 before they went "buggy", and i will also provide some Internet to justify that there was NO such a Hige Difference in the Same Weight Bombs.

I asked WHERE did you find data or WHAT data did you find to make the majority of the Pylons in IL2 to weight from the 150kgs they weighted until 4.09b patch to 15 kgs in the latest. Again you provided No Data for this but only "demand" data from others.

I asked indirectly what you are going to do with some "odd" data in guns of the same caliber that although differ only in less than 10% they have almost twice the difference in their penetration ability and the damage they can cause and i got no reply.

Now i am asking what are you going to do with the never overheating planes and the overheat issue for many planes.
And obviously if you will fix the wrong damage model of the SM-79 which is hard like a granite and nearly impossible to shot down with MGs.

@El-something:
There is no need to reply your "objective post", really. Keep on like this.

@HansBurger.
Yes i am aware of what you are saying about the interpretation of game's data by game's
engine. But its the same when you deal with absolute values.
You have 5 lets say and it get interpreted by game's engine as 6
So by having 10 it will get interpreted like 12, etc...
If we correct these values then we are closer to get the best outcome.
~S~

P.S.2
The "Original" Il2 2001 era had also more appropriate values for the guns also. Maybe you should REALLY consult its data MW, i can send you the data, just ask

P.S.3
The German MG151/20 20mm also had the correct Mine-Shells in the 2001 Era release, but it lost these when things "went east"

EDIT:
And i also asked What are you going to do for the Zero-weight bomb and rocket pylons and i got no reply either.

[csThor]

The last few pages are a perfect example why I never bothered with Mods:

Self-proclaimed experts who insinuate they've been fed pure wisdom instead of milk as a baby and who attack people bringing up very real concerns (DATA?).

EDIT:

How about this: For future FMs we throw darts over our shoulder at a dart board. What the dart hits is the value we enter. Ridiculous? Of course, but exactly the same credibility as some of the people here suggest. Even when the data currently in the game looks "irrational" we still need accurate and plausible data to change it. Otherwise ... well it'd be back to throwing darts. Nuff said ...

[bigbossmalone]

well, i didn't provide any data for my ship padlock request, which is in amongst those pages, as well....hope that's not included, lol
but seriously, it already works 'to a small degree'....is it asking to much to make it work properly, or at least a reply in either affirmative/negative....
i've requested this for a long time now, and repeatedly been ignored.......am i expected to provide some kind of padlocking 'data'?
if it can't be done, i'd be happy if someone just said so, at least i could be put out of my misery.....

[pupo162]

Being myself a mod hater, i have to agree with hades...

i mean, c'mon, he presented Data over Data, wich actually goes along my personall expirence in game. Team daidalus response was just childish here

I dont you grown up MEN, jsut make an arangemente go to a teamspoeak server and have a talk, it would be the best for this sim, if hades actually is able to prove he is right, with all the data and facts im sure he cllected, to TD then, wahts the problem of correcting it?

there is no bias here, jsut a sim...

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by csThor

The last few pages are a perfect example why I never bothered with Mods:

Self-proclaimed experts who insinuate they've been fed pure wisdom instead of milk as a baby and who attack people bringing up very real concerns (DATA?).

EDIT:

How about this: For future FMs we throw darts over our shoulder at a dart board. What the dart hits is the value we enter. Ridiculous? Of course, but exactly the same credibility as some of the people here suggest. Even when the data currently in the game looks "irrational" we still need accurate and plausible data to change it. Otherwise ... well it'd be back to throwing darts. Nuff said ...

In fact TD, you do NOTHING at all!!!

You keep fussing about the bombs, while there is no comment about the guns the snipers, the non-overheat issues, wrong engines, wrong power settings, wrong cockpits, wrong FM, etc..

Team Daedalus, you were the ones that the community hoped for to correct these errors and you could.
But you prefer to sit in your ivory tower and ignore all the named facts.

I´m sorry to say that, but judging by your reactions in this thread (and also others), you lost your professional reputation and your credibility.

Shame, shame, shame.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

In fact TD, you do NOTHING at all!!!

You keep fussing about the bombs, while there is no comment about the guns the snipers, the non-overheat issues, wrong engines, wrong power settings, wrong cockpits, wrong FM, etc..

Team Daedalus, you were the ones that the community hoped for to correct these errors and you could.
But you prefer to sit in your ivory tower and ignore all the named facts.

I´m sorry to say that, but judging by your reactions in this thread (and also others), you lost your professional reputation and your credibility.

Shame, shame, shame.

LOL...

are you a TD member? Do you know what TD is doing/changing/adding? Not to my knowledge. So, how can you say that TD is doing nothing???

please...

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

In fact TD, you do NOTHING at all!!!

You keep fussing about the bombs, while there is no comment about the guns the snipers, the non-overheat issues, wrong engines, wrong power settings, wrong cockpits, wrong FM, etc..

Do we really need be here on standby hitting F5 constantly in case Hades has posted something demanding for answers? I already answered to Hades that he is wrong about the maxDeltaAngle causing the sniper effect, but he refused to acccept this. Not my problem if Hades cannot analyse the code enough to find the real problem. Using same logic as Hades, I could equally say that if I set the ammo count to zero, the problem is fixed. So "the ammo count ALSO plays significant role in this aspect."

Wrong cockpits? Did I miss something?

For 4.09 TD proposed to MG that 15kg might be more better value for a generic pylon weight and it would solve the overweight problem of planes with lots of small pylons (8 rockets for example). Not that this was very relevant fix, since we planned already back then to set all individual pylon weights.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

I asked WHERE did you find data or WHAT data did you find to make the majority of the Pylons in IL2 to weight from the 150kgs they weighted until 4.09b patch to 15 kgs in the latest. Again you provided No Data for this but only "demand" data from others.

Do you really think that there is actual data that states that generic weight for all pylons is 15kg. It's simple approximation based of the fact that most of the pylons are simple rocket rails or small wing bomb racks.

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Team Daedalus, you were the ones that the community hoped for to correct these errors and you could.
But you prefer to sit in your ivory tower and ignore all the named facts.

Well would you change something like the MK 108 power value just because someone states that:

"While historically 4 shots were needed to down a B-17.
In game you need around 10."

So the problem is with the MK 108 and not with the B-17 DM? If we would just blindly change the MK 108, it could have very dramatic effect when shooting small fighters.

BTW Emil. Are you 100% sure that the power variable in MK 108 round is the full weight of explosive content. When you view the decompiled code, you only see the final value of 42 grams. In the original source code the final value comes from formula or several values, just like the caliber (which has nothing to do with actual caliber).

So far this thread has provided ZERO real credible reference about any bomb blast radius. No real credible hard data, no change. TD gets huge amount of e-mails from people asking to change this and that. Most of them are asking us to change something that would have really big effects in game without ANY real references. Just like this thread lately.

Mods have a luxury of begin uninstallable (plus there are also many mods that restore the original FM or original weapon parameters). Any change in the patch is something that is permanent for the players who don't use mods. So we don't change something very lightly just because some guy comes here to say that he has decompiled the source code and knows that wrong variable X is causing problem Y.