I suppose he have it in 3ds format if it is done in Gmax, he can send it to daidalos.team@gmail.com for evaluation. I tried P11 in game and it has worst DM of all planes I know, if done properly this one have good chances for inclusion.

We know about problems with fixed pitch propellers. I was not working on it so I can't tell you what is done.

Possible, maybe not for 4.10 but almost certain for 4.11

It's impossible to do all you want :grin: That would require some serious magic, improved quality and decreased workload don't go hand in hand. Honestly, this is an old game, going deep into game engine is not really worth it. We are not focused that much on graphics enhancements, SOW is around the corner and ,IMO, only thing that can make Il2 interesting in future is hardcore FM.

FC

Good news, thanks.

S!

Even IL-2 is not getting any graphical enhancements, would it be possible to at least take a look so newer graphics cards would be better supported? It is quite harsh to blame ATI for bad drivers if ATi is not talked with. It is a 2-way road of communication. Both ATI and nVidia have very powerfull cards these days so maybe a small check IF something could be done? IL-2 is maybe not graphically eye candy these days, but does it's job admirably still.

About new features. Seems some nice items are coming in, like revised FM's etc. How about DM of bombs? Now, for example, a 500kg bomb landing within 5m of a tank merely makes a nice explosion effect and the tank..well..merrily drives on. It would trip it over and/or incapacitate, even kill the crew. Just an example.

Keep up the good work..

You should at least put some work into higher visibility ranges, especially for the bombing sight. You don't need to make better smokes or anything that's too much work.
We have 72km Perfect, but can't see a smoke trail at 3km, or targets in the bomb sight while flying at 3000m+ (at least not early enough to get a steady course).

As I was looking trough your future updates, I saw the nightfighter feautures for the 110. Do you have any plans for the 262 nightfighter? We have the body already and now we need a second seat, a bit enthusiaism and luck :cool:

This most probably cannot be implemented with the 4.10 anymore, but for 4.11... I know, that the Yak series are not too popular amongst most onliners(even most higher realism servers are strictly west front), but could it be possible with reasonable workload to fix the cockpits and gauges at least in Jak1, Jak1B, Jak7s and Jak9s? I mean, more detailed cockpit and fuel gauges! :grin:

Something here: http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/Y...uges/index.php

The Jak series is extremely common in online wars... People flying it have to be good at Maths because sorties almost never last less than 40min if you happen to not get shot down and flight distances are usually more than 40km at least, relying on the warning light in the 9 series is not enough. :)

Jak-1B has a 3d model bug in the cockpit too, look at the armour glass and canopy frames behind the seat...
Edit/Delete Message

Dear Eki. :grin:

Your link seems to be broken.

There is a fuel gauge in the Yak-9/3 series, it is the upper right hand gauge that is graduated from 0 to 300 (L?).

Tempest, only Jak-3, Jak-3P and Jak9U and UT have the fuel gauge. The rest(11 or 12 versions) which are way more used dont...

Viikate, here:

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/Y...uges/index.php

Aaa, k , I don't fly the yak very much. I am wondering what is the designation of the aircraft called "P-47D", we have the D-10/-22/-27 and then one just called the "D", is it a D-30?

It's been a long time, but I think it is the P-47D-27 using higher octane gasoline (late war). The P-47 is in need of much help: wrong loadouts, bad cockpit, horrid default skins, etc...

I'm fairly certain that early Yaks had the fuel guages on the wings, rather than on the instrument panel. Whether adding them would be a practical proposition I don't know.

Yeah, thats probably the reason they werent originally modelled... :grin:

Hi

I have a few suggestions for the team to work on, all related to bomber operations and AI.

First I would love for there to be a command to order AI bombers to bomb on my command when I am the squadron leader.

It would also be great to be able to order specific aircraft in my flight to go home when they have sustained damage.

I would also like the AI aircraft to go home of their own accord when they suffer damage. Such as when a bomber loses one engine or a fighter's only engine is streaming that wispy smoke. It's only a matter of time until the engine conks out but the plucky AI still pushes on with the mission!

More AI improvements related to survival. When a plane is having to make an emergency landing in the field - it would be better for them not to land in a forest! If they can't make it away from the forest - they should bale out.

Thanks for reading.

might I add...
 

Is it possible for a human pilot to assume command of a flight, squadron, or group as a natural progression if the AI leader is shot down, and the human pilot is next in command? Just a thought?
Flyby out

Team Daidalos,

Thanks for all your amazing work, I'm hugely excited about the AI and radio navigation changes. This sim just gets better and better.

If you could give us proper mixture controls on US aircraft I'd be over the moon. If (one day) the use of Auto Lean allowed us to reduce fuel consumption and extend range then I'd be wetting myself. The ability to switch between fuel tanks with a fuel booster pump switch to avoid feed problems during switch over would also improve immersion no end.

I'm sure I can't be the only one who longs for a pilot work load approaching that of real pilots. Managing fuel consumption and watching temps and pressures was an important part of any mission and forgetting procedures really could be life threatening. This kind of thing also keeps your mind occupied on long missions.

Finally, one of the most critical things that is preventing the flying of realistic historical missions is the inability to save state mid-mission. This would allow longer missions to be flown over several sittings for those of us with limited time. I do realise that this is probably way too complex a request but if you don't ask....

Thanks again for your efforts. Whatever new features you can provide for us will be very much appreciated.

Just in case you were unaware,
regarding fuel transfer..

we, the whole community that cares.. has asked for the ability to chnage the fuel tanlk feeds on aircraft, especially on the totally porked P51, whose wrong modelling has the center fuel tank draining last, which is totally wrong,, and should and was always drained first, due to horrible handling with a full fuselage fuel tank..

This problem has been going on for at least 5 years.. so yes, everyone has already asked for what you asked for... but the more the merrier in our quest to fix this huge problem..

FYI

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think that IL-2 models CoG changes with decreasing fuel load. Perhaps TD can enlighten us on this?

In any case, do you want the CoG further forward to increase stability, or further back to increase manoeuvrability? People seem to complain about both.

As for whether the P-51 is really 'totally porked', there seem to be differing opinions. I'd say in it's proper context, as a long-range escort fighter, working at high altitudes, it is fine.

Check this video, I have done it.
Theres some bugs with the "ramps" over the land & water
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlWU8LUTaqs

:D

it's not a question of what we want, it's a question of being modelled correctly, to match the real world fm/dm, as historic as it is and was in real life..

I agree, but I don't think that saying the P-51 is 'porked' without saying how is particularly constructive. You seemed to be suggesting that the aircraft was modelled with the CoG too far back. Moving it forward will increase stability, but reduce manoeuvrability Is that what you want?

As for matching the 'real world', I think IL-2 did a reasonable job when it was written, though there have been disagreements about particular aircraft. It is unlikely that TD are going to do anything fundamental to the basic flight model engine, though they have said that they may look at adjusting particular aircraft provided sufficient documentation is given. Simply saying 'it's porked, fix it' isn't likely to achieve a great deal.

What is it you think is wrong? If you can at least indicate where you think the faults are, perhaps others can chip in with their comments.

Effects of different fuel loads are modelled, just take a few planes for a spin at 50% fuel, like the p-47, its much livelier without all the extra weight. I don't know about CoG changes, but it does affect the performance of the aircraft.
I have a request for TD, I would like to see some more information on the mission breifing maps, such as waypoint altitudes, rendevouz points, flight plans of other squadrons/aircraft involved in the mission, options to see recon photos etc. As it is now the map is pretty useless, as is the in-flight map, there is no information about targets, bearings to targets, altitudes, go/no decision points etc.

Something that bothered me on this sim from time zero, is it possible to made the gunners to give you a message like: "Bandits! 8 o'clock" or else... instead of just seeing a phatom moved gun trying to aim on an enemy plane that you haven't seen before? specially on planes like il-2, or the Ju-87 where you don't even see the phantom moved gun...

It gives much more immersion offline, and it really helps a lot when flying online on dogfight servers. On coops you could allways use a human gunner, but that is not so often either.

Actually only the gunner of the il2 at least insults you a beat, but no usefull data on incoming enemies.

why should I re-write everything that has been written for all these years... maybe you were nothere al these years.. in this community, I have no clue.. but it has all been said and done.. and everyone that has been here knows it,,

I am not going to write anymore.. no reason to.. I was only reminding the gentleman who asked for the fuel loadouts to be fixed and made changleable from tank to tank that this has already been brought up and asked for for many years..

I used this long ongoing discussion as an example..

now you want me to bring it all up again, 5 years of al the data put together again,
no way Jose..
it's a been said, done, and overwhelming proven as histroical fact on how a particular plane used it's fuel out of which tanks, first to last, and how the handling changes..

If you guys want to go through all the documents,, many of which were professionally packaged by engineers and pilots, were submitted for changes in code.. go do it.. you must have not been here while it was all happening.. either that or you were not paying attention..

The End..

Sorry, Ramstein, I don't think TD work that way. I certainly wouldn't. If somebody requests a change to an aircraft FM, it is down to them to provide the data to explain why. Do you expect TD to be experts on 5 years of postings on half-a-dozen different forums?

As for the specific question of the P-51 handling changing due to fuel balance, I've seen no evidence that IL-2 models this. Certainly manoeuvrability increases with reducing inertia (and maximum speed increases too, though only noticeably at high altitudes, as should be expected). I can't detect any obvious stability changes with fuel load in the P-51, and if this is correct any change to the FM CoG is either going to reduce stability or manoeuvrability under all fuel loads. Which is it you want?

bf110g r/o missing seat
 

can they put in the r/o seat in the bf110g BEFORE the radar update and how about having the bf110c flyable :)

HI DT grat Work!
Just asking...it´s possible to include the Oboe ? it´s a bit similar to the navigation guide systems that are planned for 4.01

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not... if it has please bear with me.. but can the FFB issue be finally fixed? The FFB issue that results in loosing total FFB (stick forces, gunshake EVERYTHING.. you wind up with a completely loose stick) if you ALT+TAB or WIN key out of the sim.. and often I have to do that.. in order to get my mouse to move. I think pre 3.0 that didn't happen.. I just turned off my FFB.. I primarily use the stick forces.. but it would be nice to be able to use it without that happening...

Hello and thank you for upgrading the best flight simulator of all times.

I have some requests that should be taken as ideas:

1. Moving head when you use your POV or TracKIR in replay or from outside from another player that can see your head movement.

2. The possibility to have HOTAS the mixture.

3. As I know you are going to implement R/R/R what about an option to Heal, everything is red when you are wounded.

4. The real use of selectable tanks.

5. Variable weather while you fly (random).

6. Lights that iluminate the objects near to them. As an example if I place a light near to a house, that light doesn't iluminate the house or the road or any object near to it.

7. Animals that move ramdomly in an area you select when you program a mission in FMB. Like a circle or square. Animals like cows, horses, bulls or any other.

8. Bigger trees. Taller trees.

9. When you use pedals the option to activate the left or right break, the game has only one pedal for break.

10. Get rid of stationary aircraft and put instead AI Aircraft that can fly at certain moment or when you ask for help. If the AI Aircraft can land and park, they can do start engine, taxi and fly. That way too you can select any skin or livery in those airplanes. If you don't need them, they will stay there.

11. Instead to use the "I" to start an engine, to have to do all the necessary steps to start a real engine. Battery, magnetos, primer, starter, avionics, wait for warm engine, etc.

I hope some of these ideas will help.

Thank you

A lot of what you mentioned is probably way outside the limitations of the game engine, particularly 1,4,5,6,10,11. As for 3 I imagine this would be the case already. As for 7, I can't imagine why you would need it. The Il-2 engine does not handle a great multitude of objects anyway.

Who knows, maybe DT can do it. I rather doubt it's possible though.

As for 8, trees are pretty big, but the normal positioning of the camera makes everything seem small, because rather than at eye level it sits maybe 4 meters up. Park a plane next to a tree and let a pilot jump out, and you will be able to measure the relative size between the figure (who is also rather large) to a tree.

You can have asymmetric braking by pressing the rudder key and your brake key together. Release the rudder key to have braking on both tires.

The way that brakes are currently modeled is correct for Russian aircraft, and those of some other countries as well.

Hop in a Mig 3 (any version) and hit your brakes. You will see a small lever on the control stick in the cockpit operate. This is the brake controler. Once hydraulic pressure is applied via this lever it is sent to one side or the other by a proportioning valve attached to the rudder pedals.

Do remember that IL2 was originally designed as a one plane, ground attack sim.

After being shot up and chased halfway across a map last night only to shot up on the runway (The attacker continued his attackrun into the concrete next to me by the way) I remembered how much I enjoy a good vulch every now and again!

As a bit of fun would it be possible to replace the spent ammo cases with feathers when the guns are fired over an Airstrip?

Cheers!

Would it be possible to have the return of blood splatters on the canopy when a pilot/gunner is wounded/killed?

All the development updates being posted are showing great things. I'm really looking forward to the next patch. Thanks for all of TD's efforts.

A little request to consider. I'd love to see the PBY Catalina flyable, especially the amphibian version so that you could land on both land and water. With the existing work going into ship DM's there is bound to be more demand for Search and Rescue capability.

Ashe

Catalinas would be fun for single player campaigns and missions. They could carry a mix of bombs and torpedos and flying the way they do would make it quite a challenging affair to survive a campaign in one.

On the other hand, this would have to be specifically tailored and balanced by the mission designer. For example, in an online environment i wouldn't bet on them being very popular.

They're one of the slowest types ever built, with a normal cruise speed between 95-105 knots IAS, maybe 120 knots for short periods of time before overheating and they don't even have flaps. I did a 10-hour simulated flight in one from Bahamas to St.Martin on a friend's PC, but that was on FSX and we could save mid-flight to continue another day. It's a fun bird to fly, stable, pondering and with a lot of character, but not exactly what i'd like to fly into a flak protected zone :lol:

Could work well for patrols hunting U-boats but then again, this would have to be scaled appropriately as not many people would be willing to fly for 10 hours to see a single U-boat or none at all. The range on that thing is insane however, we started that 10-hour simulated carribean tour i did with my buddy on full tanks and after landing it was still more than half-full.

They were used as airliners in Australia back in the day and i think they still hold a record for longest flight times among commercial passenger airlines, with routes as much as 20-22 hours long :eek:
I wouldn't mind flying a coastal command campaign in a catalina :grin:

S!

Jacques Costeau had a Catalina, always admired it in his TV series as a kid..Oh the times :)

I don't know if the engine permits that, but what I would like to see is the ability to turn external sounds completely off - or at least to be able to dampen them with some *.ini setting. Yeah, I know about attenuation setting in the conf.ini - but after extensive testing of different settings I haven't found any difference in the ability to hear external sounds with EAX on.

I would welcome some mearly 110`s , early birds are very interesting in VOW and personaly they are far more challenging

Ramstein has had this discussion with people several times... you're not the first if my memory serves :)

According to what Oleg said years ago the CoG does not change with different levels of fuel in the tank. The weight does change and so the handling of an aircraft certainly does change overall but the CoG does not shift. Again, this is what I had heard so I'm relaying the information third hand but it was from a first hand source originally.

The fuel tank indicator in every plane is therefore (unless new information is presented) graphical only. The same "issue" exists for any aircraft with multiple fuel tanks. The Tempest for instance empties out of the main tank first with the wing tanks still having fuel available but the CoG never changes.

This had been explained ad naseum years ago but some are still convinced that the graphical indicator has an impact on flight model.

The CoG of the Mustang could still be wrong... but the fuel tanks are inconsequential.

The new Spitfire MkXVI mod has a FM that models a CoG shift as the fuel tanks empty. I'm not quite sure how the effect is achieved but it is certainly possible.

indeed, the BF110C/D/E and the Blenheim IV would be fantastic as flyable planes - espacially as this game looks like that it got beside the easternfront (as its main scenario) also a very good second "main"- scenario, the MTO !! :)

building COOP MTO stuff for VOW"R" is a lot of fun.

but, heaving SoW:BOB in mind, i doubt they would get a clearance for these planes :(

Triplehead2go on "perfect" settings
 

Team Daidalos, if you could incorporate a fix like Sans FoV changer plus the ability to run perfect settings in Triplehead2go (without the flashing textures) it would make IL2 perfect for a growing number of multiple display users.

At any rate, you guys have already gone more than the extra mile for the community so thank you, thank you, thank you.

OC

In 4.09 on new Italian planes was installed new version of Breda MGs(yeah, with better performance). You plan install them on all Italian planes?

One very important request.

Please fix the pilot kill issue of the Ju88. I know from studying the mesh that there is no armor whatsoever present and the clip-hooks up front are not positioned correctly as well.

Especially seeing that you plan to introduce a new Ju88 variant, it would be a shame to see this problem carried over to that plane.

Talking of Malta and italian planes, I just read an article in Miliary Aircraft on the Air war over Malta - the hurricane years. Apparently the British had a policy to shoot down any rescue planes and tagged a few Cant Z.506 B float planes. As it seems to be a variant of the SM79 i was wondering if this could be added?

Also, allowing the AI in IL2 to send rescue planes for downed pilots would be so sweet! :grin:

Thanks

.

This is wrong. Better to say that the Z.506B was similar, but not derived, to the Z.1007

ok, similar, thanks.

Cannot wait for 4.10! :grin:

Could ground troops be added, ground troops that can move and fire?

It would be amazing for simulating ground battles

Dear Team D,

It's good to see that you do respond to members questions, and for that I have to give much Kudos. There is nothing more frustrating than question after question sitting unanswered and many people guessing at what an official answer could be.

So, here's my question.

There are currently a lot of people suffering with the ATi drivers for Radeon cards, I know that this is not your problem and ATi (I understand) are currently working on fixes.

What I would like to hear an update on, is work on dll files for IL2.

I think the last updates were in March 2008, and lets be honest, many things have moved on since that.

Here is a post from the ATi driver thread from Flanker 35 talking about the dll files;

"Did some testing last night with Catalyst 10.1 Hotfix drivers and different DLL-files of IL-2 floating around. To see which ones would give best image quality and performance. Quite surprising results as average framerates were within 1-2fps between ALL of them with same settings applied to the graphics card. The most recent dll-files caused terrain to flicker and corrupt, but setting Catalyst AI ON solved that. Catalyst AI just has a negative impact on FPS, it drops and noticeable in heavier scenes of The Black Death. But average FPS was with ALL 53-54FPS at 1920x1200 32-bit, Perfect etc. Will post my test setup later today for reference.

A few pointers though. If using AntiAliasing EdgeDetect with 4X and AA Mode at Performance, there is only a very small hit on FPS, maybe 1-4fps. So a very well implemented thing. With Adaptive or SuperSampling almost the same, maybe slight stutter. But need to run more tests to verify this. Anisotropic filtering, if application controlled, gives worse image quality than overriding it with CCC. IL-2 seems to use 2x Anisotropic only. I ran tests with 16x and there was a difference in the water shimmering.

Catalyst AI is a bit complicated issue. Some DLL's required it to be at Standard at least to get normal graphics(terrain only). Some dll's worked normally and faster without it. Catalyst AI at Advanced caused water to look like it was "pixelated" or covered with small squares. So I settled with a set of dll's that gave best image and performance without Cat AI.

The variation of error messages in console with different dll's was wide. Some gave a lot of them, most only the clamped error now and then. So a set of new dll's for IL-2 would clearly help users to get more out of IL-2, but that is up to TD/MG to decide Test results with settings and conf.ini later today..still at work..meh!"

Now, there is a lot of testing going on there, and it seems that some dll's are still causing issues.

Currently while running a clean install of 4.09 and the latest 10.2 and having an older 9.1 atioglxx.dll file in the 1946 folder, I get the oddest effect when flying over summer or winter landscapes. It can happen at a random time, but the ground goes Deep Blue/Black in colour, all the objects stay correctly coloured, but after about 10-seconds the game CTD's.

I have to wonder if this is a dll or driver issue?

Either-way, would it be possible to have a look at updating the dll files to help out the faithful?

Cheers, MP.

Sorry for post this here, because it´s not related to Il2.
I think Daidalus team do so good job that maybe they could do payware third-party add-ons for SOW series expanding the 1C universe to Vietnam for example.
They are even planning to release radar and nightfighter operations for Il2 (remarkable)
Something to think about,maybe?

I have a request for DT, can the guns of an aircraft be listed in the loadout screen instead of the word "default". There are so many aircraft in Il2, and not all of them are in the "view objects" screen, so often I have no idea how many guns and what calibre are on a plane unless I go to wikipedia or another source.
Another request would be a "check six" view, just a key that quickly pans over your right or left shoulder and back again, currently it is 3 or 4 hat switch movements to look back and then 3 or 4 to look forward again, this would reeeeaaallly help from getting disoriented in dogfights.

Hello TD! I have a question: Is it possible to made an option of dedicated server to disallow for a user to enter the Refly menu while aircraft is not stopped or not crashed. Just to made the game more real and exclude aircrafts disappearing when entering the refly menu after bail out or pilot's death.
Thank you.

PS: And another one: Is it possible to made trees in forests consist not only of horisontal layers wich cannot be seen if you fly lower then top of them. Because there are many cases when you fly at extremeley low altitudes and cannot even see that there is a forest in front of you. Just to add two vertical two sided sprites to models of trees in forest.

With all the incoming improvements to the nighttime environment, I'd like to make a request for a new effect: exhaust flare!

Hello TD!
Another one question. Is it possible to add an availablity to choose gunnery payload for big calibered aircrafts such as Yak-9K - seems like shells of a cannon cames in some unpredictable way - fougasse or armour-piercing. To split payload type into 3:
1. fougasse
2. armour-piercing
3. fougasse and armour-piercing one by one (as it made on LaGG-3 IT)

yea i heard about exhaust flare from british bombers giving away their posisions and stuff... but with this game i think the distance modeling (making things less detailed the further away they are, rather than just smaller) it wouldn't have the same effect?

1) One thing that has always bothered me and the rest of the Il2 world is the small vertical & Horz slider bars on the sides of the FMB. Often very hard to click on them to scroll, because they are so small. You have to be right on top of them to slide.

2) Another thing big issue is having individual set start times on objects.
If when we select a group of objects it would be nice to be able set all the start times/clocks/facing direction at the same time for all objects. This may require a further filter, because some users may want to select what is already set and accept those parameters. When moving a group of buildings mission builder would probably want to move everything the way it is set. When working with artillery or other objects the start time/delay, facing direction would be nice to set all at once.

3) Object spinners are difficult, because we now have so many aircraft/objects. We could use some sort of filter and sort that makes it more efficient to select objects, especially aircraft. I'm sure if you want to pursue this you could get some very good feedback on this forums for a few best ways to set it up. Regardless, anything would be an improvement.

4. Artillery, tanks and weapons selection is difficult because you have to research country,etc. It would be nice if these objects were limited by country they were used by. If there is crossover that would be fine. It is too easy to pick wrong weapons, tanks, vehicles,etc for country without some type of filter.

5. A great help would be having aircraft filter for year aircraft was used first time. Possibly a time for each mission could be defined in basic mission setup this way only aircraft that were first introduced in that year or earlier would be available for choice. It is too easy to pick late model aircraft that were not available at the time of the mission. I realize this might take a bit of research, but I think if you were interested to do this many people would be glad to help with the database on this forums.

6. A mission scenario builder briefing form tool. It would basically be a form that mission builder would fill in for each mission. The map, the time of day, the year, the month, the type of mission, etc. This way all the basic information that was necessary would be supplied in the form. Then the narrative information would be in a text box of the form. Creating the mission explanation is a very tedious part of building missions, a form would facilitate a comprehensive standard briefing with allowance for special information. This would become valuable over time as mission builders would have uniformity of information in all briefings. As it is, we are often handicapped in missions because the mission builder has left out important information or you cannot understand the briefing well enough.

couly you change the attack AI of the A-20C and B-25J to a normal bomber AI please ?
its very anyoing to see them behave like a IL-2 as soon as any enemy groundobject is around the attackwaypoint :(

+1

I would add a simple wish for future FMB. Could it be possible to make bigger the size of the first "loading mission" window in FMB ?. Every time you open FMB or you want to open a mission file, it shows a very small size, and you have to click very accurately on the corners and drag to expand the columns. If not, it is hard to surf through the folders and find the right file. See what I mean:

Original size:

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...ar07/FMB-1.jpg

My suggestion:

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...ar07/FMB-2.jpg

Thanks a lot.

+1 again !

And please, don't allow such bombers to roll like the hell when attacked by fighters or taking extreme AOA to allow their dorsal gunners to hit the attackers :)

Hello TD

i just want you to fix the Bug with the Ju88
1 Bug Crew dies very quick! a little crash and all dead....very anoying
2. Bug, fix the gunner ;) it is sure possible!

Greetings

+100

as already said on the previous page

FAE Cazador

When IL2 was released around 10 years ago most users were on 800x600 and 640x480 screen sizes. I recall using 640x480 when I first used IL2, and when I got a better graphics card I move to 800x600.

My gosh I went through graphics cards like peanut butter sandwiches.

The FMB box was big enough then, as were the little slide bars I mentioned.

It is probably reasonable to say, nowadays small screen size is a thing of the past.

Most of us are on digital monitors. I say that, because the need for memory, processing power and high quality graphics is just a basic requirement for enjoying Il2. The IL2 is very improved with higher quality systems and all users are constantly making upgrades as they are able.

Still would like a Northern Australia map. Philippines as well?

When building high altitude interception missions, with small maps where bombers couldn't take off inside it's limits, there is also no "logical" place to land them.

Is it possible to make a WP where they just dissappear from the map when they reach it? Like landed AI aircraft on runways a while after they make full stop?

Now they just start to fly in circles going down until crashing on the ground.

There are many workouts on this, but none really nice.

This has been discussed many times, since IL2 was first released.

Effectively, we need a DE-SPAWN waypoint.

This way when an aircraft flight reaches the de-spawn waypoint it is gone.

We have been crashing aircraft we wanted to remove from missions into mountains for over 9 years. LOL

Thanks for the memory jogger, it would be great if TD could do this.

There are probably 1,000+ IL2 users that build missions that would be utterly overjoyed with a de-spawn waypoints.

I think abouyt the many times have I have built missions with a bunch of bombers that dropped their bombs and headed for home, eating up all my FPS in the process.

Yeah, I usually plow the "no longer needed bombers" into mountains, if there are any to crash into.

Just an small request, enough with the thrusdays updates and give us the patch, the wait of BoB is deadly, and Il-2 helps me to accupy mi mind! :D

IIRC I said long ago that I tried to make it, it works and will be included, most likely in 4.10.

FC

FC99

Sorry, I guess I forgot or didn't read your response regarding this.

This one fix alone will be an excellent improvement.

Thank you, very much. We have needed this one fix for so long.

:o
It would be nice when you stop the plane in the base(not in the main runway)

Maybe you could take abit more space and explain better what you are saying?

First of all ,sorry .
It is hard to explain this stuff when you dont know how to explain it well.
Let's see.

I suggest that you make a de spawn zone, for disconnect of the server when you have landed correctly,it gives more options if a plane is attacking your base and it wants to attack you when you are landing.

Also makes the game more realistic,you can not just dissapear in the middle of the main way, and it will make the people land better,this makes an interesting option, add a penalizer when you have a bad landing or bail

(The actual system makes that the pilots who have defeated some other aircraft or ground target gain 100% of points when you lands ,50% bailed,10% KIA. In my opinion, you do not have to defeat another aircraft to modify your points ,)

http://i45.tinypic.com/cnllg.png

If you still do not understand something tell me

I know it quite well, that has been also my background, flying IL-2 from the first Demo version :) . Good old times! :)

And that's because I kindly ask DT to improve this.

Also my right hand is probably less accurate than 10 years ago, using the mouse, and I feel a bit dumb expanding the windows :)

FAE -no sweat

Just thought it might help to explain. Afterall, there a plenty of newbs doing IL2 now, since the sim has been reinvigorated with the patches and stuff.

I moved to a Kensington Trackball about the time I started IL2.

The Carpal tunnel thing I fixed real well. I started flying IL2 with left hand on trackball. It didn't take anytime to get real good with the left hand. It was a bit awkward at first.

Now when my wrist starts to pain a bit I switch hands. I still have to do IL2 with left only, but I think nothing of doing any of my regular computer work with either hand on the trackball.

I like trackball, because I can move the ball with my fingers. I don't have to move my arm. The trackball keeps my wrist from getting involved and aggravating wrist nerves and joints. I have a newer model of the trackball with a rubber pad where I place the base of my palm. I just wiggle my fingers around on the trackball and barely move my wrist.

Great for registration or precise movement as well. I can use in CAD, to real advantage.

Yes I know it very well. Some years ago I had a broken bone in my wrist in an accident so I had my wrist plasted for some weeks. But as I could not stand without flying IL-2 so long time :) , I learnt to use the joystick with my left hand and after quite a lot of crashes, I finally got good also. But then I had the plaster removed and switched again to right-hand drive :)

It is amazing how human being can overcome difficulties :grin:

By the way appart from trackballs, ergonomic mouses like this can help you:

http://www.ergonomicsnow.com.au/prod...se_Optical.jpg

And sorry for the Off Topic)

Now on that patch 4.09,there is an italian bomber and two more italian planes.
More italian planes like P.108,SM-82 Canguro,more French planes,like D.520,Bloch MB.210,Po-63-11 and polish planes,like PZL 37 Los,P.23 Karas,P.62 (for 1946).

And more ground vehicles for US and Britain and some for France and Italy.

Questions For Team Daidalos: New Structual G-Limits
 

The March 4, 2010 4.10 patch update outlines plans concerning new structural G-limits for flyable planes.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=12568

Even in 4.09 we can see the AI performing questionable maneuvers (that a human pilot would not or could not ever pull off) with no apparent penalty to the pilot nor the plane.

I was wondering about these new structural G-limits for flyable planes. This will place more restraints on human players. I'm fine with that, but my concern is about the AI.

My question for Team Daidalos is this. How will these new G-limits affect the AI? Will they be subject to the same limits as human players?

While we are on the subject of AI, I wanted to ask one more question that has been a concern since day one. It's well documented that the AI can cruise on 100% throttle and boost endlessly without penalty of engine overheat/damage. Will this ever be addressed?


Aviar

For the most part AI is restricted way more than humans, when it comes to BS maneuvers humans are much bigger problem than AI.

There will be limits for AI too, we will probably leave possibility for AI to even exceed limits and break plane from time to time.

We can change that but is that really necessary?

FC

if you have to ask....

YES! it's necessary! the AI are an important component in this sim.

Oh,yes,and Gloster Meteor and Fairey Swordfish,and the Battleship Bismarck for a "Sink the Bismarck!" mission.Maybe one of the finn submarines.

Isn't the Bismarck in the game anyway?

Also, there is a Gloster Meteor being made by a modder that may end up being in an official patch since the creator is working within official limits and has previously offered some of his work to TD.

The Swordfish already exists and is easily found if you know where to look;)

Quote from Aviar:

While we are on the subject of AI, I wanted to ask one more question that has been a concern since day one. It's well documented that the AI can cruise on 100% throttle and boost endlessly without penalty of engine overheat/damage. Will this ever be addressed?

Response from FC99:

We can change that but is that really necessary?
----------------------------------------------

I'm almost shocked by your reply/question ("We can change that but is that really necessary?").

I'm not sure if you are simply joking........?

Most players would like to play on an 'even field' when it comes to AI. I mean, if I have LIMITED ammo, I don't want my enemy AI to have UNLIMITED ammo. If I have to manage my engine heat so I don't damage it, I expect the AI to be under the same rules.

If the AI can go faster than me simply because it doesn't have to worry about engine damage, that is simply a cheat. If this could be 'fixed', I cant imagine why anyone would ask if it was "...really necessary...".

I'm really dumbfounded by that response. I expected more from a DT member.

Aviar

If you select 'limited ammo' in difficulties, the AI also have limited ammo... If you don't believe me, set up a QMB mission with a few friendly AI fighters with limited ammo loads (early Yaks/Laggs for example), against a lot of enemy bombers. Then watch them fly home when they run out of ammo.

The engine overheat issue is different, an ideally needs fixing, but I think it is probably more complex than a simple 'tweak' will deal with.

Oh man Andy....that was an analogy, not an example of what is in the game....(I need a 'Just Shakes Head' smilie inserted right here...).

Aviar

To be honest, Aviar, I thought it was strange that you wrote this - but I have seen noobs making the same statement. Maybe we should best avoid analogies, and replying to them late at night when the brain is on less than 100% throttle ;)

I suspect the changes to AI that are coming with the 4.10 patch will have some fairly fundamental effects on the game anyway, so it might be best to see how it pans out before trying to fix anything else.

Well, maybe I didn't understood you. If you were talking about AI flying at full power
for a long periods of time than I agree with you, for their cruising speeds that's up to mission maker to worry about.

AI cheats but it is not worse than humans and you can bet that we will have some epic whining if same rules are applied for AI and humans.

Cheats are necessary evil in simulations, there is no sims that don't cheat in one way or another, only thing developers can do is to make cheats more or less obvious. Of course they can say that they don't cheat but that is for commercial purpose only, trust me.:lol:

FC

As asked by Azimech (thanks for reminding us of adressing this, it always bugged me a lot), I'm posting it here.

Team Daidalos, is it possible to either remove (or assign it to a different function) the parachute view from the "F2 section" (not sure about the exact term)?

Specially on missions involving big raids with bombers (therefore with large crews), having to filter all the parachutes to be able to look at the aircraft can be quite annoying and time-consuming (in a small scale).

As shown in this thread, it's a common thought that solving this minor issue would save us from some stress (specially in big missions).

Maybe there could be a separate key assignment to "Parachute View" instead of removing it completely, I'm not sure. But we have to agree that having a camera on pilots hanging on their chutes (well, at least with the current pilot and parachute models) doesn't add much to the simulator (and even if it adds, we have to agree that having a "Ground Object View", for example, is way more useful in many ways).

I take no credit for this suggestion, it was Azimech's request that made me post it here.

Regards,
Lucas

Hi DT;

Curious if any of the Ki-61 issues discussed would be addressed in 4.10?

(as those are just a few and I have a whole slew of Ki-43 & Ki-21 issues to discuss as well).

K2

Windows 7 64bits
 

Helo to all

Is there any chance to use the game on Windows 7 64 bits?

I have tried all the options suggested on different forums about this topic and nothing work.

Is there any update or patch to this?

Thank you

i have no proplems with win7 64bit , the point that causes proplems is my ATI card - mostyl solved with using the 9.10dlls in my gameinstallation folder. seldom i have CTD.



i mostl propably repeat it, even myself ;) - PLEASE look behind the italian 12,7mm SAFAT if possible , its a mess in the VOW"R" online war where the italian fighters are flown a lot in the moment.........................

Some wishes for future releases:

1. If possible, try to do something for the DF map spawning problems where player spawns in front of or over other player taxing into runway resulting into explosion where both get destroyed. Best way would be to fix the code so that such spawning is not possible or e.g. as a workaround when player has chocks on others could roll throught them

2. There has been a lot of discussion about game sounds in the past years within community.

Would it be possible to totally block outside sounds when in pilot position ?? (or in other positions exists in plane)

I presume that in real life a pilot could hear only the engine noice of his own plane having difficulties even to hear radio communications. Now in IL-2 you can hear someone sneaking to your six giving you an unrealistic early warning or even fiddling with sound settings you can hear outside sounds far away. I don't have anything against birds singing in the outside views but within a plane current sounds are bit odd to me.

Request for He111's ground handling fix.

Hi

Can you put the ground handling back to what it was before the v4.05m (IIRC)

Its the only twin engined tail dragger to have the "over/under sensitive" taxi effect.

I think it was porked when they were messing with SoW effects in IL2 1946 back then.

Thxz

P40 fuel gauge
 

Hi Team Daidalos,
first I want thank you for your great work :grin:. I don't know if this has been asked yet, can you fix the fuel gauge of the p40 in the next future releases?

Thank You

Team Daidalos, thank you for all your hard work on this already wonderful flight sim. You all have proven your ability to think outside of the box and really make this into a fantastic simulation. I have a few requests/suggestions that may or may not be achievable, but at least I will have tried.

1. Could you incorporate the wind mod into the game, and maybe put some kind of control for it into the GUI somewhere?

2. For carrier operations, it is very difficult to taxi on a carrier deck when the weather is selected to be poor or worse, and almost impossible for AI to manage it. Would it be possible to separate the sea state effects on the ship from the weather? Make them independantly selectable?

3. Lastly, would it be possible to attach navigation lights to ships? If so, could the status of those lights be selectable in the view object window in the FMB?

Another good planes for the last days of war campaigns would be Lancaster,Wellington,Stirling...

I think that those two options would be great.

For the carrier ops a selectable wind direction would help. I think having the wind in poor conditions coming from up to 60 degrees left or right if ships head (i.e current ships heading.) would aid in being able to get airborne and taxi somewhat more successful.

This would mean in FMB you will need to set wind direction and speed and then set your ships direction to suit.

100 pages, whew, you guys have a lot of requests. I hate to add to the pile, but here goes:

1) I've noticed on several planes that even while parked the variometer (vertical airspeed) indicator shows a descent. This can lead to problems when cruising, or when trying to attain a maximum airspeed in tests (indication of 0 m/s climb actually corresponds to a slight ascent).

2) I was testing the DM effects on the SBD for fun, when I noticed a strange occurrence:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/grab0020.jpg

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...s/grab0022.jpg

This happened 5/5 times I made the test. It's rather unfair that wing damage which would normally leave the plane still flyable now guarantees that the engine seizes up.

about the SM79:
perhaps ad an additional "cockpit"-position that aimes with the Torpedosight.
at the moment it is nice that you can set degrees, but useless because you cant get it in sight.

not realy needed, true - but if you have the time :)

I am thrilled by the inclusion of The Slot map. Finally, one of the most important maps of the PTO will be available.


Considering that the Pacific theater is rather lacking in Il-2 and that it will probably be revisited very late with SoW (Med and Eastern Front are always mentioned first), are there any special plans by Daidalos Team to give it some special treatment? Would be lovely to shorten the years until the PTO reappears with SoW.

Map wise, The Slot is obviously a big step already. Team Pacific has a New Guinea/New Britain map in the works, would that be a possible candidate for future inclusion even though it is made in reduced scale? Or would that be off limits?

Are there any plans to add new ships? Many important warships are missing, though I understand that there are legal limits for some of them. But what I think would be even more important would be a wide selection of smaller ships and crafts as targets, like barges, tugs, trawlers, LST, LCT, LCI etc. For a map like The Slot, ships are the primary ground targets.

I was pleased to see the improved effects for sinking ships (life boats, debris). Are there further plans to improve the damage model of ships? Strafing ships was an important practise in the war, which currently does not translate very well in Il-2 (has no effect except for some hard to destroy AA-guns on newer models). For example a 1-in-50 chance to cause a catastrophic fuel or ammo explosion when strafing small crafts would be great. This would be a great reason to keep strafing targets of opportunity, you would never know if you are lucky. It would also be nice to add ship damage to the scoring (to be usable in online wars and dynamic mission creation).

Lastly I would like to suggest to make open AA-mounts on ships very easy to destroy, but also revert them back to action again after perhaps 60 seconds. This would be a fine simulation of gunners taking cover when under attack or fresh operators replacing fallen gunners. This would allow us to suppress the ships defenses for a short amount of time. The current damage model of destroyed AA-mounts and smoke could be replaced with an intact mount but without crewman. If the Il-2 code allows, the gun could still be completely destroyed with sufficient fire.


Anyway, these are just some ideas. Thanks for your great efforts.