Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-30-2013, 01:06 AM
Oscarito's Avatar
Oscarito Oscarito is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nic727 View Post
New camera for bombs, rockets and torpedo (that will be amazing for mini-movie)
Wow! Some update video about this feature would be great...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-30-2013, 04:46 AM
GROHOT GROHOT is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Russia, Moscow
Posts: 38
Default

Well, when I see new movie from 4.13 I wanted bombing any object.... BOMBING, BOMBING AND BOMBING!!! (Like "Learning, learning and one more time lerning" (c) Vladimir Lenin)

Last edited by GROHOT; 12-06-2013 at 07:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-02-2013, 04:14 PM
major.kudo major.kudo is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jami View Post
SEP 39-42

DE total flight hours: 240 hours
DE total operational flight hours (fighter): 90 hours
UK total flight hours: 200 hours
UK total operational flight hours (fighter): 50 hours

OCT 42 - JUN 43

DE tot.: 200 h
DE tot. ops (ftr): 50 h
UK tot.: 340 h
UK tot. ops (ftr): 70 h
US tot: 275
US tot. ops (ftr): 75 h

JUL 43- JUN 44
DE tot.: 175 h
DE tot. ops (ftr): 20 h
UK tot.: 330 h
UK tot. ops (ftr): 70 h
US tot: 325 h
US tot. ops (ftr): 120 h

JUL 44- MAY 45
DE tot.: 120 h
DE tot. ops (ftr): 10 h
UK tot.: 330 h
UK tot. ops (ftr): 90 h
US tot: 390 h
US tot. ops (ftr): 170 h
In 1941, average IJN pilots were flying over 800h before first air combat.
They think that is "Average".
But in 1944, average Japanese navy's pilots are fling only 200h before first air combat.
Kamikaze's crew also had the pilot of less than 200h.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jami View Post
I'm American. I don't speak a word of Japanese. There's no need to apologize for having the courage to use a foreign language.
I got courage, thanks to you.
However, English is difficult for me.
So, in the Future, difficult things will draw with a picture.
For example,
this.
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/Fighter_2.jpg


Quote:
Originally Posted by =FPS=Salsero View Post
At the moment the level bombers are probably the most handicaped pilots.
I hope this.
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/bombardier.jpg
I want to play this in mltiplayer games.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-02-2013, 05:52 PM
majorfailure majorfailure is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by major.kudo View Post
I got you in your first post, but the drawing is just hilarious. And yes it would be nice to have battles end without one side totally wiped out. Tactical retreat is a word that is currently not in the AI's dictionary - they only try to run when they are already in too deep.


Quote:
Originally Posted by major.kudo View Post
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/bombardier.jpg
I want to play this in mltiplayer games.
Strange, never had this feeling. Have you ever tried this:
1.Find out at what %throttle and altitude your plane reaches what speed after ~10 mins flight -in QMB.
2.Fly towards target, accelerate with more rpm than needed for bombing, until you reach your bombing speed, then throttle back to desired rpm.
Meanwhile input data into bombsight -works from pilots seat.
3.Trim plane
4.Engage Level stabiliser
5.Switch to bombardiers seat, set bomsight to maximum useful forward elevation, towards target.
6.Correct your flight path with rudder trim -and rudder trim only!, or if target is too far off left/right, disengage level stab and adjust flight path.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-02-2013, 08:43 PM
sniperton sniperton is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 253
Default

Great drawings, major.kudo!! Even my wife enjoyed them very much, and understood in a moment what you mean. Could we get some more, please?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-02-2013, 09:05 PM
anikollag anikollag is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 44
Default

Thanks for update!
Vierling and camera for the bombs:
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-03-2013, 04:45 PM
Jami Jami is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 18
Default

Thanks guys for your comments of AI skills. You have given great ideas and suggestions so far, but I hope that still more people would take part to this conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-04-2013, 02:03 AM
Igo kyu's Avatar
Igo kyu Igo kyu is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jami View Post
Thanks guys for your comments of AI skills. You have given great ideas and suggestions so far, but I hope that still more people would take part to this conversation.
Why do we need more agreeing? They are right, or at the very least, what they suggest would be much nearer the truth than what we currently have.

Or are you hoping a lot of people will disagree, because you don't like what has been said?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-04-2013, 07:41 AM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igo kyu View Post
Why do we need more agreeing? They are right, or at the very least, what they suggest would be much nearer the truth than what we currently have.
I'm hoping that folks from TD will read this, pick up on the data and ideas we've presented and make them their own.

In fairness to TD, I think that the work they've done on AI in 4.12 and 4.13 is magnificent. Due to their hard work, it's now actually challenging to fly against Average or better AI.

Even better, at least in 1 vs. 1 combat, planes actually behave like they were reported to do so historically. For example, fly a single Average AI Spitfire Mk IX vs. a single Ace AI P-47D-10 and you'll usually get the same results that Robert Johnson described flying a mock dogfight against a Spitfire pilot.

My only complaints are that AI still has some trouble with squadron level tactics, AI at all levels is more aggressive than they were historically - at least in QMB missions, and badly damaged planes still make stupid decisions (e.g., not immediately trying to run for friendly territory when badly damaged, not having the crew bail out until it's too late when flying over wooded or hilly territory).

So, while I might seem like I'm complaining, I'm actually trying to further "polish the gem."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-04-2013, 09:55 AM
Jami Jami is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igo kyu View Post
Why do we need more agreeing? They are right, or at the very least, what they suggest would be much nearer the truth than what we currently have.

Or are you hoping a lot of people will disagree, because you don't like what has been said?
Well, I was actually the one who started this conversation and I couldn't agree more those things that has been said untill now. And Pursuivant just was quick enough to tell my thoughts about polishing this great sim.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.