I don't have a PC like that, so I'd be against killing the original system requirements.

Mistel
 

Is there any chance to take a look at the FM of the FW190 part of the Mistel? Also, to make the mistel flyable by AI planes??

So, what's a good number?

When downloading 3d files in other formats and playing around with 3d stuff on my own, it seems like ~1 M is about right for just a reasonably detailed vehicle model. Perhaps double that for textures and animation info. Is that too much?


Could be updated to better explain:

1) Limitations of NG agreements and restrictions of 1C contract.
2) How to produce ground objects. (There is a mod guide to doing this, which is decent.)
3) How to produce ships (AFAIK, there's no guide for that).
4) How to produce maps. (There are some good mod guides, but it would be nice to have an official explanation.)

Removing every extraneous vertex you can is just good modeling practice.

But, since you mention it, I think there are some modeling tools which weren't available in 2003. A revised IL2 Modeling Bible could explain which modern techniques aren't acceptable. (For example, sub-surface smoothing modifiers can make a model look really good, but they also vastly increase the number of polygons.)

small request, the grass runways are impossible to see in summer and winter, and given the pop-up in textures at short distances and the penalties for landing off-grass in IL2 makes it that much harder.
Can the textures be "browned up" a bit, to simulate mud/dirt and make finding it easier?

attached pic, but you all know what I mean, the aerodrome is right in front of the plane.

Could you possibly introduce a new type of ground object in form of large patches of desert shrub (and I do mean large) so that we can cover with them at least parts of the "Sand of Time" desert map (the only desert map integrated into the DGen so far) to make it look more like Tunisia?
Also, we could do with some new British and French vehicles/armor (also the so-called supply columns); as for now, it's tough to make a decent-looking 1940 western front campaign when all allied vehicles are either Russian or American.

@Pursuivant:

For the better connectivity and infos, I added our eMail adress and the link to the modeling bible to my signature. You will find everything you need there!

It doesn't need to be explained everywhere else, especially not here, where it get lost imidiatly after a few further postings.

A small, but much-needed addition. Thanks!

I second this!!! Or any other measure that has a higher contrasting effect between landing strip and surrounding texture as a result.

How about including the P-51 A's from the SAS site? Or the P-61 from same site?


DK-nme

The P-61 "Black Widow" was made by Northrop, hence it will never be in an official release.

I second the addition of the P 51 A, however.

Dear DT, the current build of the D.520 also does not fit your standards? (((

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...html#msg206383

French fighter extremely needed in the IL2!!!

No, they admit they have exceeded the poly count. But I agree, french fighters, or better say french planes, are really missing in Il-2...

too bad(

I have to agree with DT that this is just lazy modeling. I've played around with producing 3d models of single-engined fighters and it's EASY to stay within 3000 polygons and get a reasonably decent-looking plane.

9000 polygons is just ridiculous, and probably means that the people producing the D.520 relied heavily on what Blender calls "sub-surface mesh" modifiers. (I'm not sure what they're called in payware programs like 3ds Max, Maya or Autocad). That's a time saver, and allows anyone to produce decent looking work, but makes for excessively big models.

A bit of history on D.520 from TD's point of view. We have cooperated with the author and reviewed the original 3D model of D.520. It was his first model in 3D Max if I recall correctly. There were many beginner mistakes and we have suggested to him it would be easier to make a new mesh from scratch than to try to fix paintfully the old one. He did start to model from the scratch again and we have granted him an access to our 3rd party development forum in order to guide/help him through the modelling process. He has never used this opportunity to share his WIP work with us. Others did and a good example will be an upcoming model of Ki-45.

Is the F-82 Twin Mustang and/or the Ki-83 out of the question for Il-2 1946?

As you may recall the F-82 Twin Mustang has already been modeled for "Project Galba" the Korean War sim that Luthier's own studio was working on before he took over Cliffs of Dover in total.

I suspect that makes it off limits to TD, and will also make any Korean War aircraft that isn't already in IL2 also off limits to TD.

The Ki 45 will be an excellent addition BTW, but I hope it will be flyable and not just AI, as the Japanese side is really lacking in aircraft.

it's a sad (

Output
 

Dear DT, I have some idea. It will be nice to have output from lights, altimeter, speedmeter... etc. It will give us posibility to create realistic cockpits for IL2. But i know its hard but it will kick IL2 to the next gen.

Sorry, my english isnt very good.

Doesn't the devicelink interface do exactly that?

You seem to be jumping to conclusions here which, unless you have seen the model mesh, you cannot be sure about.

9000 polys does seem high but it may be because the modeller has used them to include higher levels of detail than is found on the stock models. Without seeing the model mesh you cannot be sure.

Experiments by others have shown that the number of polys in the model has very little effect on the fps in game. What seems to be more important is the size of the textures used to skin the model.

I'm looking forward to the D.520, whether modded or official.

Ashe

For example
swordfish kate Ju 52 C47 fliable any news about avengers problem ?

True, but looking at screenshots the model is very smooth in the same way that I've gotten using "sub-surface mesh." Also, the D.520 has very smooth lines. It would be hard to add that many polygons modeling airscoop, tailwheel, engine exhausts and so forth. So, my semi-ignorant guess is that most of the polys come from smoothing out the lines of the wing and fuselage.

Don't get me wrong, the D.520 model is very nice looking and I look forward to flying it, but I think that had the modeler been willing to work a bit harder he could have made it to DT's standards. After all the MS.406 is a very similar looking plane and it was modeled to IL2 standards back in the IL2 Sturmovik era.

This is very interesting indeed. Do you have a link to details of these experiments?

Fair comment.

The original ones I am thinking of related to in-game testing of a scratch built Lancaster model. The LOD0 model was, from memory, greater than 20000 polys.

Very recently I have been trialling an IJN Kongo BB made by others.
The LOD0 model for this was around 160000 polys !!!
I didn't expect it to work, but it did. FPS was 65 on my mid level system compared with 62 for the stock HMS KGV model. Beta version available here: http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...html#msg207259

The high polyon models may work with the game (although it wasn't programmed to necessarly do so). The difference will get clear, if you have lots of that models in one scene.

But your statement, that large textures have a bigger impact than more polygons, is generally correct.

axis little problem.
 

Sorry if this was reported before. Could someone check the engine one axis and engine one prop pitch: if it is set to simetric it runs ok, but if the simetric switch is turned of, the values start from 10 or 11%. When i am throttling up it stays on 0%, i keep mooving the lever... and suddenly BANG 11%!
It is not serious stuff because we can use the simetric switch, but if it is not very dificult to solve it i woul appreciate.

Thanks to DT, and the community.

Presumably, this was a closed beta-test of Oceanic Team's Lanc.

Do you know if there were any other factors which could have contributed to better or poorer fps, like map or visibility levels? (In a cleverly-modeled sim, I could see a Lancaster model with 20k polys being a lot easier on FPS at night.)

Maybe this has to do with differences between ships and planes in the game. For one thing, a fair bit of a ship model is hidden below the waterline. Another factor is that ships don't move or maneuver nearly as fast as aircraft.

Mind you, I'm not trying to dispute you, I'm wondering if the IL2 engine handles ships (limited AI and maneuverability, often seen at lower LOD levels) compared to aircraft.

If you're right, then it makes a whole lot more sense for TD to cap the total number of pixels in textures, rather than the total number of polygons in the model. IIRC, currently texture size is 125 pixels squared for ground objects, 250 pixels squared for vehicles, and 1026 pixels squared for vehicles. I don't know what it is for ships, but I could see total pixels being huge for a big ship.

Perhaps the limit on polygons for models is more part of the "non-compete with CloD" part of TD's agreement with 1c than an actual limit of the game engine.

In fact its correctly:

128, 256, 512, 1024 pxl square (I guess, because of the 32bit game structure), while for ground objects 256pxl or below is still standard, but can be increased to 512 pxl square, if reasonably.

1024pxl square is max, preferibly 512pxl square... you can have as well one large and few smaller textures for one model though.
Polylimit for larger ships is ~5000 to ~8000 tris, depending on object size and complexity.



No. That has nothing in common. Its rather, that the engine is build for it, so its the best to keep it, so its on the save side. And also because the game has already so much content, that it would go inharmonic looking, if new content would be made with higher standards. And its maybe understandable, that we are not able to remodel every existing content in game to higher standards. That would mean a new game (what CoD is in fact).

But the stock model, HMS King George V BB has 20016 polys for the LOD0.

and the stock model, HMS Illustrious CV has a LOD0 of 16815 polys.

-- So would it not be reasonable for modellers to take these as a guide rather than be limited to 8000 for a capital ship?

In the work I have been doing I have used HMS KGV as the principal guide to model size and structure with the result:

HMS Warspite BB - LOD0 15998 polys
RM Caio Duilio BB - LOD0 19386 polys

If used correctly by mission builders there would not be lots of these models in a scene and if realistically spaced only one of the models would be displaying at high lod level at a time. -- unless your doing a Pearl Harbour scenario I guess.

When used in the game the biggest fps hit is seen when the AAA all opens up at the same time from multiple warships. This is not related in any way to the complexity of the 3D model itself, just the effects generated by the number of guns.

Ashe

Well, I have different models then. :grin:


Well... most of the ship models (and especially higher poly ones) came with Pacific Fighters and were 3rd party work. So I suppose, the 3rd party people didn't care to orientate on the given limits and the models were nethertheless pressed into the game with one eye shut (due to the well known time and money problems, that Luthier had with PF). But thats just a theory of mine.
As well it could be, that with Pf the limits were raised - without me knowing about it.
However, you are right, current work should orientate on the given and I see no problem with higher polycount for big warships/battleships, as they rarly come in dozens.

However... it must be reasonable! And if you think about it, its expectable, that the King George V is rather high poly, with all the masses of tiny anti-aircraft weapons on deck (the AA guns on the after deck alone are already ~1000 tris). Marat on the other side is 'naked' and can live with a third of the polycount.

While Warspite is still ok, being the same category as KG-V, the Caio Dulio is IMHO over the edge.
The trick is, not to look for the maximum limit, but for the average values - these to orientate on.

See here the numbers of a few of the bigger stock ships (only LoD00, NULL mesh deleted) - in order of polycount decreasing:

King George V. - 15867 tris
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/5391/kgvi.th.jpg

Illustrious - 11444 tris
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/8254/illy.th.jpg

Tirpitz - 8020 tris (!)
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9297/tirp.th.jpg

Kent - 5961 tris
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3420/kentg.th.jpg

Niobe - 4080 tris
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8831/niobeb.th.jpg

Marat - 3845 tris
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8384/maratp.th.jpg

Illmarinen - 3036 tris
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3237/illma.th.jpg

Note, how the rather small destroyer is higher on polycount than the battleship Marat. As I said, its depending on size and complexity, if its really reasonable.

S!

Since we are working on this (I guess)...

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachmen...9&d=1315981769

Why not try to do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE8M1...eature=related

This would be an very interesting addition!

This or a future patch...

:)

Sweden Joins the Axis
 

You may as well, then, add Switzerland to the Axis because their banks were so involved with NAZI finances and hiding stolen gold etc.
This is not meant to be sarcastic or in any way deprecating, but I think it is better for the game to treat Neutral nations as just that. Also, consider that escaped prisoners and downed airmen or pilots flying damaged aircraft on occasion tried to make it to both of the Countries because the chance of authorities turning a "blind eye" to their presence was good. Some were able to rejoin their respective National forces from these Countries. I expect that demonstrates their neutrality.

It would be interesting to have the option for any country to be "red", "blue" or "neutral". There were plenty of situations during WW2 when allies accidentally fired on each other when enemy planes were near. In one incident German fighters actually triggered a fight between U.S. and Soviet fighters while getting away unscathed themselves!

The whole Swiss and Swedish neutrality issue is a can of worms that should not be opened. There are far more important issues on TD's plate.

Is the Birdcage F4U & F4U-4 Corsairs denied to be put into IL-2 1946 by Northrop Grumman?

Yes. At best we can give the Corsair Mk I a dedicated US paintjob and pretend it's a birdcage Corsair. More is not possible.

Ah ok thanks, I thought it could of been a possible project for TD but that's now nipped in the bud :(

For those of you calling for high poly warships... I encourage you to arrange a dozen KGV's in a harbor in some sort of mooring formation like you might see in any major port. Then fly over that mass of ships.

Even my latest PC which can handle Battlefield 3 on Ultra... balks at this and my frame rate drops from 140+ to the mid 20s at times. Double the number of polys on a ship and do the same thing and I just can't see it happening. The game engine wasn't designed to handle it.

By the way, we could use some more variety of other surface vessels: more types and sizes of merchant ships, large troop transport, tugboat, self-propelled river barge and Asian sampan;
Another thing is to make the in-game rivers navigable - most of them look neither too narrow nor too shallow for that; is it feasible?

Arranging 12 KGV's in harbour sounds a bit unrealistic. After all only five of the class were built. ;)

At Pearl Harbour battleship row had seven BB's.
At Taranto there were 6 BB's.
In May 41 the British Mediterranean Fleet had 4 BB's and a CV operating out of Alexandria.
Operation Pedestal - 2 BB's and 4 CV's

The greatest impact on FPS is due to AA fire, not the ship model, but this can be tuned down in the Mission Builder.

Using the existing KGV model as a guide for future work seems reasonable to me.

Ashe

Fine... put 5 KGV's plus a dozen destroyers and support vessels :) FPS drops significantly on even the best systems.

AA fire is a big hit but the models themselves bottleneck the graphics system as well. Obviously as a mission builder you design around these kinds of limitations but it's unhelpful if the limits go up too far as they become prohibitively difficult to build enjoyable experiences for a wide variety of players. The KGV is finely detailed but I don't think, with the current engine limitations, there should be any huge bump in detail level above and beyond.

This is also why, for example, I don't model entire front lines worth of fighting in any of my campaigns. I saw someone do it once and I remember the slideshow that I experienced as a result.

Hi all i saw a post about mods i have made and i would like to explain some things about them:
P11F-modified stock P11c
RWD-10 build from scratch by me (~3200 poly) made for PAT aerobatic team.

PZL23B and PZL42 (~7000 poly) build by Fatman and Lucas for Targetware adopted by me.
R-XIII`s ( ~14000 polys) build by Empeck for FSX adopted by me.

I have permission from authors to use their models and they send me their orginal files to work with.

When i get them for adoption i had to made their internal structure no different than stock models to make them work in game ,so i have made LODs,caps,shadow,colisions boxes and hitboxes.Cockpits were also made to be functional.Knowing that polycount of those models is higher than game specs they are available as MODS only.Game seriously lack of polish planes so this was only way to get them in.

To make TD life easier(they already have things to do)dont ask them to include my mods into official patches.

Less polys than KGV. :-)

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f.../image23-2.jpg

+1

I'd love to see more boats and small ships in the game. They were much more common prey for strike fighters and attack bombers.

A large troop transport would be sort of interesting, but the really big troop ships didn't usually get that close to enemy planes. Smaller troop transports would be welcome, though. I believe that there are some modded LSTs and other US transport ships.

I believe that it's currently possible for rivers to be navigable. Actually, one of the issues with many maps is that the rivers are too wide.

Currently rivers are not navigable, unless they're as wide as Volga.
Recently I've been flying some south-east Asia scenarios and it struck me how dead the rivers look; in real life they would be teeming with water traffic. In his book "Into the Teeth of The Tiger" Donald Lopez wrote that they frequently flew interdiction missions against Japanese sampans, because due to scarcity of roads, rivers were main traffic routes.
Another thing is the odd color of the rivers in the PTO scenarios; I imagine they're more like muddy brown than cobalt blue.

Quick question about high-poly-count models.

Do you actualy recognize in-game the intricate details of those models?

In my case I see the dot, then it turns into a cluster of dots from which you can start guessing the size of the aircraft/ship, then you get an actual mini model where you can be 100% sure about the type and Blam! You are past them.

Somewhere between seeing the identifiable mini model and the you-are-past-them moment there is a point where you can for a split second see all the details, but I am usually quite busy with aiming to appreciate the true replica of every screw on board.

Is my Samsung Syncmaster 713BM LCD too slow/blurry given the current standards?

What is your definition of High-Poly? I have suggested that the polycount of the stock KGV is what should be used as a guide for capital ships. Late war ships inevitably have a higher polycount due to the increase in AA guns. Also any modelling of the IJN BB's with large pagoda style bridge structures will be a serious challenge to the poly budget.

As to whether or not you see the detail I guess with many ships you will only see it at the last second of a strafing, or skip bombing run, but certainly you would expect to get a close up view of a carrier as you approach for landing, so I would suggest that this level of detail is not unreasonable.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f.../image24-2.jpg
HMS Eagle CV - Polycount 16848 (inc. gun crew)

Ashe

Is it possible to have the P-47M and N versions?

Pity. I thought they were.

This would be true for any major river. There was, and is, a lot of traffic along major European rivers like the Rhine and the Danube. Europe also had a fair bit of barge traffic along its extensive canal systems. From 1943 to 1945 there were lots of Western allied fighter bomber strikes against river and canal traffic, as well as canals and lock systems themselves.

This is sort of fixable. I believe that river color textures can be selected by the map creator. I've seen modded maps where the rivers are muddy brown.

Sadly, it's harder to get mixed water effects, like where a river meets the ocean, producing a mixture of muddy and clearer water.

Water color is unique per map, you cannot change it.
Whyt you can change is the water ground texture in areas of rivers, but rivers have to be shallow then everywhere.

Hi DT,

Really loving the work so far, and I hope I can offer some ideas for future updates. It's a bit of a long list, but I'm not making any demands:

- Windsock model that can be placed to show the wind direction on a specific mission (wind is constant over the whole map anyway unless it's gusting). Dynamic windsock would be nice too. This would be useful for coops especially.

- Bomb-bay door function for the planes that had it. These would have to be affected by airflow in a similar manner to gear/flaps (they couldn't be opened beyond a certain speed). Also, a toggle for bomb salvo release on planes with automatic bomb-sights - ie short, medium, long (large cluster vs. spread out).

- Similarly to the above, a feature which limits how far cooling flaps could be opened based on airspeed (maybe a jam, tearing off, or snapping shut?).

- Gunners and observers which call out enemy fighters and give updates periodically or when requested (ie, "He's on our five! Now he's on our six o'clock low! Break left! Pull up!"). This is especially important on the Beaufighter when flying long closed-pit sorties.

- Some love for reconnaissance aircraft! Namely, game-play elements for such unarmed aircraft: Bomb-drop button activates camera. An invisible object is placed in the target area. If the player aircraft takes a picture over the object at a certain altitude(based on camera focal length), he gets points. Taking the photo at the wrong altitude or when jerking the plane leads to blurriness and taking the photo with the wrong exposure could lead to a washed-out or too dark image. The AI can also complete objectives in this manner, or the player gets points for successfully escorting AI reconnaissance aircraft. On the next mission offline, the player can click a button which shows the photo that was taken on the last one. Online, the player or AI lands and the photo appears in the briefing screen and helps bombers know what to aim for.

- Some love for bombers!
- Area bombing "target" which allows for city and industrial targets and point values for specific objects such as oil tanks.
- Bomber pilots could use more incentives online: currently, any aircraft destroyed on the ground is only 20 or 30 points.
- Point sharing for torpedo-bombers: currently in coops everyone wants to be the last one to drop a torpedo in order to get the points for sinking a big ship, or the main target is abandoned in favor of one-hit targets like merchants.
- Small formations: currently a lot of online players fly bombers alone and are massacred by fighters. It would be great if one, two, or three AI aircraft could spawn with the player, making an element or flight, and follow him to the target. The player could chose his position in the formation so that other players don't always know which bomber to shoot first (ie, always killing the player's lead plane to break up the formation). Also, incentives could be placed for escorts to take time to ensure their bombers make it back!
- Troop concentrations and livestock objects: A lot of troops moved on foot during the war and the Germans and Russians in particular used lots of horses to move supplies around. Troop camps or marshaling areas could be placed to give a target for fragmentary AB bombs, for instance (gore isn't a necessary feature).

- Switchable fuel tanks and manual fuel pump. It's annoying to have all of one's fuel leak or burn out when it would have been possible to switch to the undamaged tank and pump fuel from the leaking one. Also, medium fires (black smoke) always progress to full fires (yellow flames). Either the appearance of the medium-level fire needs to change or a random progression of fire size could be implemented. Also, emptied fuel tanks continue to burn at full force.

- Flag signal officer model on aircraft carriers: An invisible glide-slope is projected from the back of the carrier. Based on the player's position, the flags change, telling the player if he's too slow/fast, too high/low, etc.

- Catapults from carriers and capital ships (would require some seaplane models for the latter).

- Water geysers which affect aircraft flying through them. Sometimes, ships would fire their guns into the water with the intention of having an attacking aircraft hit the fountain and crash or at least temporarily lose control.

- Aircraft fragments from an explosion cause damage if collided with. If a wing is chopped off at the root, the wing stays in one piece rather than always disintegrating into its 4-5 constituents.

- Simple self shadowing. I heard a rumor that it's possible in Il-2.

- Simple exhaust flame graphic for night operations. It doesn't need to be tied to CEM like in Clod.

- Fuel grade load-out option for mission builders. Low octane results in reduced power output and maybe a "dirty" exhaust smoke effect.

- More advanced reliability set by mission builders: some aircraft were more prone to engine or structural failures than others, especially new types. Aircraft can lose wings or tail, get oil spills, or even total seizures. Guns also could jam, and some jammed if fired at high G.

- Option to change high-altitude clouds for a mission. Currently there are three types (common type for most maps, one for Slovakia and Bessarabia, and clear for the MTO).

- Wake turbulence from aircraft. This would have a big effect on formations and close-in shooting/maneuvering.

- Reload feature for drum-fed rear gunners. Graphical representation like in Clod isn't necessary, just a key press and wait two seconds to begin firing again. Currently, ammo drums disappear one-by-one in the He-111, but not in planes like the Betty.


Cockpits:
- Adding periscope in soon-to-be featured Il-4 to Pe-2.
- Observer for Beaufighter or a version with a gunner.
- Rear gunner in Il-2 "field-mod".
- Mosquito Mk.IV (glass nose).
- G4M2, also with "normal" load-outs.
- Su-2

Aircraft:
- New slot Beaufighter Mk.X (nearly identical to Mk.21 in game which was Australian licensed model. Differences in engines and armament).
- Default 4x mg for I-16 type 24 (some sources state that the original mg armament was modified with cannons. Others state type 28 was identical to type 24 except for the upgraded cannon armament). The type 29 had 2x mg and 1x hmg under the nose.
- R-10
- Ki 51 or the similar Ki-30 or Ki-15.

It is possible to create missions with moving ships on narrow rivers but it cannot be done with Full Mission Builder. You need to manually text edit the mission file to add the ships and waypoint coordinates. Also useful for creating moving ships in the narrow fiords on the Norway map, or for making ships run close to the beach on amphibious operations.

The problem seems to be related to limitations of the Full Mission Builder, not the Game Engine itself.
Since this is the request thread could I request that this feature be fixed in FMB?
Also on some maps, like Berlin, there are bridge objects which are impassable to vehicles.
Would it be possible to fix these?

This example shows gunboats on the NW Europe map. Take care to avoid bridge piers when plotting waypoints. :)

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f.../image26-2.jpg

Sounds great but a little tricky; how do you do it? :eek:

You use a stationary ship object to generate coordinates for the ship route and then cut and paste text to convert the stationary objects to a moving ship.

Step 1 - You need to know the correct format for the ships you intend to use so load a map with open sea and create a mission using each ship which you will want. Plot two waypoints for each ship and save the mission. In the [Chiefs] section of the *.mis file you will find the text you will need. For may example with two gunboats:

Now open the mission you want to add ships to in FMB and create waypoints for the ship routes using a stationary ship object. Save the mission and look at the text for the stationary ships:

The waypoint coordinates are shown in green. You need to select this block of green text and copy it.

Now paste in the code you previously saved for the moving ships:

Replace the coordinates in the [Chiefs_Road] section with the coordinates from the [NStationary] section. A text editor which can cut and paste blocks of text is useful here. I use TextPad. Delete the lines from the NStationary section. You will end up with:

For the two ships in column formation only the start and end waypoints need to be separated. I made this adjustment "by eye".

To try it out create any mission on the NW Europe map and paste my final text into the [Chief] section. You will see the boats if you use the static cameras.

For me one of the single most important features to greatly enhance offline flying would be the AI loosing sight of player's plane, I can't recall how many times I was chased by 20 planes across the whole map. I truly also hope that with new AI's shooting abilities it won't be able to seen through clouds...

Italian flottiglia X-MAS in the LA SPEZIA port http://eleri.interfree.it/ilterzonan...as_452-555.jpg
Battle in the volga
http://rusnavy.com/images/pic-grem.jpg
HUDSON RIVER
http://www.blitzkriegbaby.de/waves/hudson.jpg

Thank you Asheshouse, it works :) However, I second your request wholeheartedly that this feature be fixed in FMB!

Great !!! Thanx

Will these waypoints dissappear again once I open the mission in FMB, in case I want to edit something else?

No. They do not disappear, but you cannot select or edit them in FMB.
The rest of the objects can be edited normally.

Ashe

Asheshouse, since you are the inventor of that trick (hats off to you) and you know inside out how it works, maybe you could upload some map templates with river traffic?

I'm not the inventor, just the message bearer. I learnt it from someone else when I was struggling to plot ship routes in the Norwegian Fiords.

Ashe

Here is another function which the game engine can handle but the FMB does not. Switching trains across sidings. Again you can do this by manually editing the *.mis file. Train scheduling is fun :-). Try and avoid collisions. Maybe this could be enabled in the FMB?

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f.../image26-3.jpg

The scene is in the central dock area of the NW Europe map. Here is some text to paste into a mis file to enable the scene. You also need to set up a static camera. Three trains are running on the same track, but each train is switched to a siding to enable them all to enter the unloading area. Similar system could be used to allow trains to pass each other where there is a passing loop at an intermediate train station.

The rail network is roughly on a 5m grid so you can zoom in on the FMB map and make a note of the coords for each corner.

Unlike ship waypoints, if you load this back into FMB the manual edits will be lost. FMB will just read the first two waypoints ignore the rest, so keep a backup of the train text.

Ashe

Hey Ashe, in the ,,Big E'' campaign available at M4T, creator makes some flights of planes which don't take off or do it with delay, something like triggers, but it's just a trick, not game feature. Do you know how to do this? It'd be very useful to make some missions with i.e. realistic airfield strafing.

v4.10 already has Stationary Aircraft as an option in FMB.

You misunderstood me :D I mean he created planes which don't take off or do it with delay, but aren't static planes and can be placed on a carrier as well. I know about static plane objects lol.

If I may interject. It's easy to set a delay time for a flight. Just change the Start time of the first waypoint.

As far as planes spawning but not taking off, this can be done with a little 'trickery'. Veteran mission builders know all these tricks. I've also been able to make AI planes spawn on the runway, start their engines, sit there for a designated time and then take off. This is done with a lot of imagination and sometimes many hours of testing.

Aviar

So how to do this?

Excelent suggestions. Especially the recon. Form day one, that the recon funvtion needs to be improved.
Caspar it´s doable any of these, I mean technically?

I believe that it's also possible to use this trick to get barges to navigate canals.

Something that would be useful for a future patch would be "templates" which allow mission builders using the FMB to do the various cool things described by Asheshouse and others. For example:

Ships and boats navigating fjords, harbors, canals and rivers.
Conveys zig-zagging in a realistic way.
Trains switching tracks in train yards.
Planes taxiing on runways.
Tank companies advancing or retreating in historically correct fashion (i.e., in "line abreast" or by "bounds" with one tank in each pair providing an overwatch for the other).

Of course, if the templates get too complex, it might be simpler to just fix the FMB.

Torpedo boats for all nations that used them would be welcome additions to the game, since they were common targets/antagonists of strike aircraft and fighter bombers. In addition to the X-Mas and other Italian motor torpedo boats which saw extensive service in the Mediterranean, it would also be wonderful to see various forms of German E-boats/schnellboots, British MTB and RAF rescue launches, U.S. PT boats and Japanese Shinyo suicide boats.

But that's a mighty long wish list.

Windsock: A simple version of this exists as a mod, in that there are windsocks modeled at different levels of "fullness". A simple windsock which automatically displays the correct model in the right direction based on wind speed and direction probably wouldn't be that hard, but would require some coding. A truly "dynamic" windsock which reacts to variable wind speed and direction would be a lot of work for not much gain.

Available in the stock game for all of the flyable planes, but I'm not sure if they're affected by airspeed.

Might be under development for the 4.11 or future patch.

I'd like to see more variability in bomb spread, at least for medium and high altitude bombing. Right now, it is possible to "put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet". In real life, things like variable air density, variable wind speed and direction, vibration and imprecise altimeters meant that bomb accuracy was a lot lower, even under ideal bombing conditions. A simple randomization function for every X meters that bombs fall would be a good, simple fix.

Or, possibly cooling flaps/shutters might be jammed or not be able to open/close completely due to damage.

Sort of implemented in the current game. In theory, a tail gunner will call out the vector of incoming fighters and tell you to break left or right (then cuss you out when you do!) but it doesn't seem to be implemented for all two-seater planes, and it certainly isn't implemented for multi-gunner bombers. Perhaps a review of coding for multi-seat planes?

Currently, there's no command which will allow you to ask various other planes to repeat their message or update their status or than repeating the same order.

Getting fancier with the crew intercom voices or adding new gunner/crew commands would require a lot of new programming, as well as a serious reworking of the voice packs. Consider all the pertinent messages the various crewmen on a B-17 or Pe-8 might give during a mission!

Even worse, think of all the commands the crew might give if they were to coordinate gunnery! Consider just this command: "Nose here. Incoming bandit, 1 o'clock high. Tailgunner, get him as he passes." That's 7 different routines the AI has to figure and 7 different phrases the voice-pack has to parse. Multiply that by 11-13 for the crew of a heavy bomber and you've got literally thousands of different permutations!

That's the reason the game's called "IL-2 Sturmovik, not "B-17 Flying Fortress"!

Some cool ideas there. But, most players don't care about any plane that doesn't have guns or bombs on it.

Points for Recce: Points for flying over a map point can currently be implemented in FMB for passing over a waypoint as a mission objective. But, it would be nice if the FMB could assign different values for doing so (other than just putting a bunch of mission objective waypoints really close together).

Taking Pictures: Currently you can take pictures of the ground in IL2 with a single press of a button. That button is called PrtScn! :). To get moving footage of the ground, just set up a bombsight view (if the plane has one) or a "straight down" pilot view with cockpit off and have the game record a .ntrk or .trk. But, having the game automatically set up to give you a still shot of the ground in black and white or black and white movie camera footage would make the movie makers very happy.

While TD is at, perhaps they could add a gun camera view - black and white camera offset from the cockpit, with blur effects when the guns fire or the plane pulls gs!

Point Values for Infrastructure: A simple way to give "value" to ground objects would be "point markers" for 10, 20, 25, 50, 100, etc. points which FMB users could place under infrastructure targets. They'd be as hard to destroy as unarmored vehicles or armored vehicles and could also trigger various effects like smoke, fires or explosions of various sizes. Currently, the only way to do this in the FMB is to put a vehicle (or multiple vehicles) within an infrastructure target.

Ground Killed Planes: Planes destroyed on the ground were, paradoxically, always counted as being less valuable than air-to-air kills, even though they were often harder to achieve. So, the 20-30 points for a ground kill vs. 100 for an air kill is sort of realistic. Anyhow, static aircraft are way too easy to kill.

Sharing Kills: Point sharing for any sort of "kill" is on everyone's wish list. Figure out how to implement it and "vulching" will be a thing of the past. Figure out how to implement it so that it's historically accurate for each air force and you're a coding genius!

Unrealistic Torpedo Bomber Behavior: Going for small ships you can take out with one bomb/torpedo is a potentially historically valid choice. Fatal damage to a ship wasn't always obvious, since fire or flooding could take hours or even days to kill a ship. Pilots in subsequent attack waves might see the main target(s) all on fire and "sinking" because they were down at the bow or stern, and decide to take out undamaged ships instead. Cautious/ cowardly pilots might be deterred by intense AA from a capital ship and decide to take out something less well armed.

Small Bomber Formations: Small formations are already available as a coop option. Just have the server admin specify that bombers only fly as flights, and that human players should choose the lead bomber if they want to be flight leader. If you want to be sneaky about letting other players know which plane you're in, don't fly lead. For dogfight servers, flying solo is the name of the game. Get some friends who also want to fly bombers, have them spawn when you do and form up once you're in the air.

What would be nice would be mechanisms for players to take over command of a flight if lead AI planes are shot down or turn back.

It would also be nice if the lead bomber had the option of commanding the other planes in his flight/squadron/group to drop bombs on his command.

Incentives for Escorts: Incentives for escorts bringing the bombers back are already available in some online campaigns, and the admin of a well-run coop server can make escorting bombers worth your while in subsequent missions. Complaining about lack of teamwork on a dogfight server is futile.

People and Animals as Targets: Troop concentrations, cavalry, horse-drawn vehicles and livestock are all available as mods. They look a bit funny when they move, but they're otherwise beautiful. The problem is that adding human or animal targets to the game would alter IL2's ESRB rating, so they cannot be added to any official patch.

Fuel Tanks: Fuel tank switching, fuel shut-offs and manual fuel pumps would require massive recoding of the game. Currently, all fuel tanks drain at an equal rate. Load balancing if fuel tanks drain at a different rate, figuring out flow rates for pumps, recalculating performance based on differential fuel use/loss, figuring out damage to fuel pumps/shutoffs, and so forth would be a massive headache.

Fires: Fire progression is also poorly modeled. Sometimes small fires (black smoke) takes unrealistically long to progress to full fires, sometimes a full fire will burn for hours without spreading or damaging adjacent structures. Sometimes an empty fuel tank will continue to burn (remember, all tanks on the plane drain equally, so it's actually burning the fuel in all your other tanks). Also, there's only two different sizes of fire: "small" and "large." But, some features of fires are very well modeled. At times, if you use fire extinguishers or dive hard from a high altitude, fires will go out. Sometimes they will restart.

LSO: An LSO would be a nice feature, but it would require a lot of modeling and coding for relatively little gain. Although it is possible to place objects on a carrier deck, creating an animated figure which would respond to your plane's actions would be a lot more work. Currently, very few objects in IL2 are animated, or can be animated. (Notice all those stiff, board-like flags on ships in IL2?) Anyhow, not all nations used LSOs, some just used glide slope indicators or lights which indicated whether you were cleared to land or not.

Carrier Catapults: Carrier catapults have been successfully implemented as a mod. Basically, you give the plane a short-lived emergency boost or RATO which simulates catapult take-off (but without all the steam coming from the deck).

Catapult Rails: Catapults from launch rails are trickier, since I think that the game interprets contact between the launch rail and the plane as a collision, and I think that the game might have trouble figuring out how to launch a plane at a non-parallel angle to the ship.

A workaround might be some kind of modified "air start" where the plane has the ability to hold station at some angle with respect to the ship, and actually launches a foot or so above the end of the launch rail.

Alternately, catapult rail launch might work from a stationary ship as long as you define the plane as "air starting" a foot/meter or so above the launch rail. Anyhow, possibly workable, but lots of work for not a whole lot of gain. Consider, there are currently only three planes in the game which were catapulted from rails: Ar-196, Hurricane & MBR-2. Only one is flyable in the stock game.

Water Geysers: More typically, water geysers represented undershooting the target. Guns big enough to cause explosive effects will damage targets near enough to be hit by them, which is the same as getting hit by a column of water. The big problem is that there are only two sizes of water geysers in the game: small arms and bombs. Big guns or big bombs should produce bigger geysers.

Aircraft Fragments Causing Damage: Big enough airplane parts already do cause damage if you hit them.

Aircraft Fragments Falling Apart: Rarely happens, usually when there's an explosion just as the plane starts to fall apart. Could possibly be dealt with using coding, but then the game would have to keep track of each falling object rather than just one. Lots of work for little more than eye candy.

Self Shadowing: Probably doable, but: Huge increase in frame rates. Potentially lots of coding. Mostly eye candy. Might conflict with CloD "do not compete" agreement.

Exhaust Flames: Realistic exhaust flames tied to engine RPM/fuel mixture and start-up procedure have been available as mods for quite a while, although not for all planes. My ignorant guess is that DT will address the issue if they ever tackle night fighting/night bombing ops. Of course, most planes designed for night fighting had exhaust dampers.

Fuel Grades: Another wish list favorite, right up there with APIT 0.50 caliber loadouts for U.S. fighters and dynamic weather. Easily modeled by giving planes that had the capacity to use 100 or 120 octane fuel their own flight model, but that doubles or triples the number of FM "slots" required. Might be better handled by new coding. Opens up a whole can of worms over low octane/high octane FM performance.

Realistic System Reliability: Modeling realistic systems failure - instruments, fuel, oil and hydraulic lines and pumps, controls, etc. - would be a massive coding job. Realistic engine reliability is a small step towards modeling this. Realistic damage to airframe and control surfaces due to overspeed and g-forces is nicely modeled in the current game. Guns sometimes jam on their own, especially at high g's, although jamming could be better simulated when shooting at high altitude (guns iced up or lubricant froze) or when shooting inverted (some guns were more prone to jam if you did this).

Cloud Types: One step towards another usual wish list suspect: dynamic weather. High cloud types (i.e., the wispy cirrostratus clouds you see far above you even at high altitude) would be the least of it. Mods which allow moving clouds, multiple cloud layers, colors and thickness have shown it's possible, but they're still very crude.

Wake Turbulence: Available as a mod. Nice little effect. Relatively easy to implement, although I'm not sure that the mod can tell the difference between the sort of turbulence the engines of a B-29 would produce and those produced by the engine of the Fi-156!

Reloading Drums: Reloading any ammo would be welcome, since many guns were fed from ammo drums/boxes which could be reloaded. Currently, IL2 treats all flexible/turret gun ammo as one big belt. At the very least, there should be a feature which tells the game that one belt/box is out, making the gun shot shooting for X number of seconds before it can shoot again. Coding ammo drums/boxes vanishing would be a nice touch. Many planes for Pacific Fighters were rushed. Flyable He-111 was later work. The attention to detail shows!

IL-4, Pe-2 periscope: Other than being cool eye candy, what would this get you? Currently the game gives you an option of external views which sort of simulate periscopes.

Beaufighter Observer/Gunner: Would be welcome. It's strange that the stock Beau doesn't have a gunner.

IL2 Field Mod Gunner Position: Do you really want to simulate the world's worst job? Would require creating rear gun cockpit and there might not be sufficient references to do so.

Mosquito Mk IV: DT has said they plan to make cockpits for a lot for current planes to make them flyable. Perhaps this one will be on their short list.

G4M2: Probably easy enough to rework cockpits for this one. Increased loadouts would be easy to do. Experimental belly pack full of explosives, intended for kamikazes, would be a nice addition.

Su-2: I think that a cockpit is in the works for this one.

Beaufighter Mk.X: Available as mod. Easily added.

I-16 type 24 4MG: Easily added as new weapon loadout option.

R-10: Possibly a cockpit in the works for this one.

Ki 51, Ki-30 or Ki-15: I think that at least one of these is in the works by an independent mod team.[/QUOTE]

I vote for more AI-only reconnaissance aircraft - they make great targets :) For example, Hs 126 would be a nice addition for early war campaigns. And of course some more Japanese bombers (for the same reason): Ki-30 Ann, Ki-48 Lily and G3M Nell.

Touch up the old Fiat G.50, cockpit and externals. It really needs it.

This is the first time I've heard about it. Are you sure it isn't a mod?

Well, it doesn't need to be that complicated. As long as any one gunner is alive and "sees" enemy aircraft, there can be a general call-out. At the very least, just one line "Enemy spotted!" will do just fine.

That's why you make a system of points: incentive for those that need it. But I imagine that there may be more interesting projects. I was probably over-reaching with reconnaissance objectives as nothing like that has ever been done in a game before anyway...but I would be quite happy to fly transport duties too in a Ju-52 or C-47, or tow gliders in a Pe-8 (now possible) or He-111 Z or in a formation with 3 Bf-110s...Or even gliders themselves!! (with points bonuses/incentives for online players for landing and delivering the goods).

Interesting tidbit, but online is a different world, and people do things for slightly different reasons.

Good point. But ships have guns in Il-2 too right? Some players will want to be cautious or avoid the BBs outright. But in the game there is literally no point to attacking a BB, whereas in reality, there would be some alternate source of motivation.

This was possible a few years ago, and I have done it, but the online community is shrinking. Also, why settle for a three plane formation with friends when you can have a 12 plane formation with AI and friends?

Well, there is indeed a greater sense of camaraderie in coops, but that's because everyone waits for ten minutes in the lobby, and all spawn at the same time. Dogfights have way more potential because the player can join or leave as his/her schedule permits. I don't expect a perfect finger-four from complete strangers, but a point system with adequate rewards could serve as an incentive to do something else than just fly directly to the enemy lines at full power and get shot down in three minutes.

I'm not familiar with all of the legal issues, but what about the modeling of pilot death in Il-2? The pilot can slump in his chute, crumples when he hits the ground, the screen goes red to black as he bleeds out, fleeing truck drivers can be strafed, and the game displays certain online status messages such as "X turns Y into a heap of meat!" . Are these not a part of the rating? Again, graphic gore isn't necessary, but maybe the horse and infantry can just disappear, fall over, or stop moving?

I agree, but something should be done about the practical death sentence of getting a fuel tank leak or grey smoke when over enemy territory.

There is a nice ILS feature in Il-2 now. When the player is to the right of the glide slope, long beeps play, to the left, short beeps, and right on the money, a long tone. This is inherently all an LSO would have to do... just with an infantry figure and flags. I guess putting that on a ship would be harder, but not every object on ships is static (guns).

I was never aware of that. As far as I can tell, a nearby explosion causes the damage, but not impact with parts.

I wasn't expecting dynamic weather (quite a coding challenge I bet) but at least user-selectable high-alt clouds in the same way we can select low alt cloud density and height.

Completeness.

It's fun for a masochist like me - the later gunners didn't have it easy either. As for cockpit, it shouldn't be different from stock. A hole was cut and a canvass strap was used as the seat. This is the same in all Il-2s in the game. The guns can come from the TB-3.


Again, these were just ideas and suggestions. I know it's not a perfect world with infinite resources and manpower (and if it was, I would have the skills, time, and passion to program things myself). DT are working hard, and they've added a lot of features we'd never thought we'd see, and more surprises are coming. It's difficult to not get hopeful once in a while :cool:

It might be good to spread the love a little... the Luftwaffe already has two recce aircraft although the Hs 126 is a very interesting type on it's own. The Piper L4 was used quite a bit by the Western Allies who currently have zero recce types.

Additional flyable Japanese bombers would definitely be a good thing. There are quite a few types and it might be nice to see something other than the G4M1 all the time. It was used well into 1944 and probably into 1945 (alongside the newer G4M2 variants) BUT some variety would be great and the Ki-21 is currently not flyable for online scenarios.

Great idea! Generally speaking, this sim fares much better with low-altitude, eastern-front-type, tactical fighting. It just wasn't programmed for high-altitude massive combats and it shows. That's why I'd rather see some more early-war Japanese bombers - or French, for that matter (Potez 63, please) - than a Lancaster, even though I agree it's a beautiful aircraft :)

Putting around in a storch or a piper would be a blast I think in Il2, coupled with the the recon target. Could be some fun missions, STOL -style

The L5 Stinson was/is in one of the mod packs, as is the Storch.

You are nothing but a target in one.

The sim is not sufficiently realistic enough to make using them anything but a suicide mission.

I did manage to hold off two A6M3s in the Stinson in an online campaign for several minutes. It was fun, but the outcome was never in doubt.

Even the largest of maps in the sim tend to concentrate the action in one or two areas, hence there is no where to hide, and certainly no where to run at 100 mph.

I have one request that should be fairly easy to implement.

Could you please add some very basic tiles we can place as objects in the FMB for dirt roads, paved roads and rail tracks?

Make them height and pitch adjustable and we mission makers should be able to cope with most topographic situations on the maps and have a very powerful tool to create our own railyards and villages.

As a flyable it'd be almost pointless but as an immersion factor in campaigns and single missions having recce aircraft can be very useful. Especially if a recce aircraft can be set to operate as an artillery spotter. Mission objectives could be to protect the spotter aircraft on it's mission from enemy aircraft... that sort of thing.

But your right... as a flyable... doesn't work in very many situations.

I could imagine a setup of a multiplayer dogfight map with a larger number of moving ground targets (i.e. tank battle or artillery), whose positions are almost not known (i.e. through a fastly moving front). So a human controlled spotter plane could be VERY important for reporting positions. Most online experience, that i have is: "I join the server, having no clue, where to go (I know, where the fixed ground targets are, but I don't know, if they are still intact), choose to just dogfight in a fighter, get bored and leave".

It doesn't need to be necessary, that the spotter pilot reports via chat manually (on online servers the communications is quite poor usually). Ones his plane comes in range of view of ground targets, the message could be send automaticly (with a randomly success rate) - similar to the trigger feature, that we presented a long time ago. Such a message could be: "John 'Player' Doe (Fi 156) reports: armored collumns at A5/6".
This would also work for other AI ground units, as artillery, which can start to fire then and fight the enemy ground targets.

Just brainstorming...

Two good posts here. But you must remember that the "Oleg flak" will make quick work of a slow mover like a Storch or Stinson, trust me, I know... :grin:

Now maybe when the flak gunners can no longer see through clouds, trees and other terrain features like say, oh, mountains, it could work.

;)

Could you possibly fix this 'glow effect' of the Zero gunsight and make it look like the Ki-61's 'clear' gunsight? Unless it can be tweaked somehow but I don't know how. In the pics it doesn't look like much but in the actual game the difference is considerable.

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7910/gunsights.jpg

That's realistic. Slow, lightly-built and low-flying equals dead.

The only defense that artillery spotter aircraft had against intense flak was running away as fast as they could while calling in artillery fire.

But your point about AAA in the game being able to see and shoot through clouds and trees, and "see" (if not shoot) through mountains is valid.

Keep the glow effect, just change the reticle to correct one, please...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EayasHQYEGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsVg8F91t8

dFrog, in the clips you linked the gunsight is (obviously) glowing but it's not blurred and that's what I would like to see fixed :) When you fire a long-range burst, for example trying to hit a bomber's engine from a distance, the Zero's blurred gunsight becomes a nuisance.

He's right... the Zero gunsight has a overdone glow effect while the Ki-61 version has more of the appearance as that shown in the videos.

That said I'm not sure if the Ki-61 has the right gunsight reticle either. I thought it should look like the one that the Ki-100 uses. I could be wrong but I remember that being part of the long list of grievances about the Ki-61s modeling accuracy.

other gunsights have problems too
 

Hey,

+1 for A6M gunsight fix.

What about the P51B/C gunsights that are put too low? Same for Razorback Thunderbolts...

Any chance to fix that? That would be very nice!

Anyway, please keep doing the good work and making our IL2 1946 love story go on and on TD, you guys rock :) We are so lucky to have you!

S!

I requested it too (and still am :) ) +1

I think all the P-47s cockpits could use a makeover. They are the worst in the stock sim IMHO.

That's because it's not finished and is missing textures (like the seat). Not sure if it can be touched due to the N-G legal issues.

But the P-47s were built by Republic. A long dead company.

Long dead companies are sometimes bought by other companies (like NG). But in case of the P-47 its all clean.
I agree, it could need a rework. There is a nice looking mod out there, but unfortunately its totally NOT made to standards and thus useless for us.

Dear Team, I have a question about a possible map. I know that the Channel Front is off-limits due to an agreement with Oleg's crew but here's a map which has nothing to do with BoB nor the Channel itself. I'd call it the North Sea front.
It offers so many possibilities - from the Blitzkrieg in the West through early RAF raids, large 1943-44 air battles of the 8th AF vs. Luftwaffe, Market-Garden, until practically VE-Day (in some of the areas on the Dutch coast the Germans held out well into 1945). Any chance?

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/3...coastahead.jpg

Could you also take a look at the fiat cr42 gunsight view position?

The vision when you are in gunsight position is even worse than the normal view...

Just raising it a little bit so it would actually be possible to aim, and so the wings dont fill up the entire screen.

Thanks

Yes, it would be great to get this function one day! E.g. like it is already realized to command the dropping of fuel tanks. By the way, bomb release upon the formation leader's order was the tactics pretty widely employed in RL during WWII.

Best regards

I would love that map. I could fly over the town I live in :)
If TD makes this map it would be nice to include the Bunkers on the Afsluitdijk. There are Dutch bunkers which are called Kazematten. When the Germans began to make the Atlantikwall they made new bunkers. So there's a difference between 1940 and 1944.
The red dot shows the place where the bunkers are on the Afsluitdijk. If somebody needs more info, just ask me :)

And the province Flevoland wasn't there in the WWII, you can see it on old maps of the Netherlands.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...es_-_ln-en.jpg

Since there has been some suggestions for the P-47...My suggestions/requests are

1. To have the P-47s machine guns all fire with one trigger/button instead of two separate triggers.
2. A fly able P-47M and N models, unless NG has already denied us that right.

That's all I have at the moment, anything else I can think of I post here :P

All my guns on the P47 fire with the same trigger. You don't have your's mapped properly in the config. Actually I have 3 triggers mapped. One that fires all guns (my main trigger on the stick) a button for cannons only and one position on a hat switch for machine guns only.

Also the P-47D Late is very close to P-47M performance.

I'd still rather see the correct bomb load out for the 47. One 500 under the fuselage and one 1000 under each wing.

I don't care if it breaks missions that were made 5+ years ago.

The point im trying to make is, The P-47 only had 1 trigger to fire its guns IRL so why do you need to have 2 trigers for all 8 mgs??? It doesnt make sense.