spitfire MK14
 

I have a dream, of flying a spitfire with a griffon engine,could that be materialised?

+1

Simple map trigger to fire weapon 1+weapon2.
All 8 mg fire at same time with one trigger.

Sokol1

I pull my main trigger and all 8 guns fire, as in real life.

But thanks to the wonder of modern computers and a CH Hotas I have the ability to fire cannons and machine guns seperately. On the P47 one set of the guns is mapped in the game as "cannons". This was done so that they could have their convergance set to two different distances, which was done by some pilots historically.

It's a feature, not a bug.

Shared by many :)

A more demanding and challenging Spitfire to fly would be interesting.

Not like it is already around as a MOD for donkey's years... Only someone at TD would need to take a look at it and polish it to make it fit. They have all the talent and insight they need.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...itfire_1_n.jpg

Build by me, in case anyone remembers.

The only spit in IL2 worth flying!
I cant believe some people haven't used these aircraft yet.
Thanks much Zorin.

Don't you mean the Late 47D is close to the 47N ,as the M model didn't really get out of limited production, mostly due to problems with it's engine.

Also their is a P-47N at SAS and it is vary good. Really like the tail warning radar. Cheers

Any chance of any early version P-38s ie. E,F,G, and H models?

The P-47M was powered by an R-2800, just like the D or N.

Yep your right I was thinking about the J model. My mistake. Cheers

You should get in touch with the third party developers group if you're at all interested. I'd be thankful! :)

Wasn't there an actual Spitfire XIV variants been designed for IL-2 a few years ago that didnt make it or am I imagining things???

I can remember seeing a Spitfire XIV though?!?!?

PEACE! a 4.11 patch MOD friendly OK?

It would be nice to have a way, if you are flying lead in a level bomber, to have a way to tell the other planes in your flight to release their bombs. Either via a new command to your flight or via some sort of key-bound toggle "FlightReleasesBombsOnPlayerRelease" on/off.http://www.quandulps.info/5.jpg
http://www.bingertoday.info/huang4.jpg
http://www.bingertoday.info/huang3.jpg

Even so, the P-47M was an operational plane and did see service in greater numbers than some planes in the game.

P-47N is a welcome addition, but to get it up to DT standards, it would need a new cockpit with working navigation aids.

My choice for a new P-47 would be the P-47C-5. This was the main P-47C variant and was one of the first U.S. fighter planes which could accompany U.S. heavy bombers all the way into Germany. While it's not not the late war hot-rod that most IL2 fans want, it's probably one of the most important variants of the "jug".

These all exist as mods, designed by Gibbage, who did the P-38s in Forgotten Battles. They work well, but I don't know what's become of Gibbage, or if he'd want his mods to become official.

Do they really? Then I must be in the minority. I guess you mean the online crowds. Anyway, I'd rather see a French fighter of 1940 vintage than another late-war 'hot-rod'.

Fw190D9 fuselage texture bug? invisible part
 

And what about repairing the Dora fuselage that is dissapearing at some distance? anyone else has this bug?

I have that too. I think everyone has it :mad: It would be nice to be solved.

Another request for TD (i'm so greedy:))
 

It would be so nice indeed.......

Oh, and by the way, please TD, please give us droptanks (on ETC501) for Fw190A8, Fw190A9, and the Doras.

And what about finding a way to stop firing MG and wingroot Canons with the same trigger on the Fw190? Why not make one trigger for all canons, and one for MG just like with any other aircraft in the game?

I often asked myself why it was modelled this strange way?

Thanks for the work so far TD :) Would it be possible to get the game to recognize for than 4 controllers?

Because that was how the triggers in the Fw 190 worked? The cowl guns and the inner MG 151/20 were on the same trigger circuit whereas the outer pair of cannons had a separate trigger.

TY
 

Interesting, thanks. Ha! i knew there was a good reason ;)
I always thought that the Fw190 had a kind of selector enabling the pilot to chose between any weapon combination possible. I was wrong.

Thanks for correcting me :)

Hey TD don't worry this is my last question/request
 

I've been thinking recently: what about making the pilot die more often in crashlandings? I noticed that one could survive really bad take-offs and landings (think crash in the water), when the aircraft collide with the ground at high speed, the aircraft sometimes rolling on the floor and ending on its top.

Wouldn't a pilot die or at least be seriously injured by such accident? I'm not sure but in the original IL2 it seemed that TO and landing accidents were less forgiving. Not sure though...

Wouldn't it be nice to have something like a realistic accident injury option in the difficulty menu.

What do you think?

PS Also making the pilot die when bailing out, when it is obvious that he hits aircraft parts too violently (wing, propeller (ouch:)))?

I actually fixed this for UltraPack 3.0 together with early Spitfire Mk.IX wing LOD and some other similar bugs. If you want, I can pack those fixes and send them for Team Daidalos, but it needs some extra work since they are currently among many fixes for mods. Then they just need some testing in stock IL-2 and conversion of meshes from text to binary format.

I have also improved damage visuals of Bf 110, Me 210 and Blenheim, so I can also send them if you are interested:

Before:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/raukorpi/Me-210_before.jpg

After:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/raukorpi/Me-210_after.jpg

Hi Birdman86!
 

Hi Birdman86,

I'm really impressed by this community and especially by how nice (and gifted) people like you share their work with us, poor mortals. That is really why i love this game.

Great job you did there, sir!

So many thanks for your work, for answering, and for offering your help with such class :)) Please send your work, that would be very nice :)

The Fiat G.50 also has this problem.

Which problem? Damage texture or 3D issue?

Wile we are on the subject of Italian fighters could you folks make the MC series a bit more maneuverable. By every account I have read our MC 202-205s should turn at least on par with the Spitfire V. Thanks

I agree that a hard ground loop or flip could injure or kill crew, yet it only seems that crew are killed if the plane explodes. This would be a nice little bit of realism.

(The most famous death of this type was when a A6M2 pilot tried to make a force landing on what he though was solid ground on an Akutan Island in the Aleutians. He broke his neck when his plane flipped, allowing the Americans to capture their first intact Zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akutan_Zero).

This would also be a nice touch, but it would be much harder to implement. The bailout sequence is a stock animation and the animated pilot doesn't have a damaged model.

Another option that would be nice is if the player controlled when his parachute opened.

I'm with you in that I like my early war and obscure aircraft, but then I've always been a sucker for rare birds. And, I'm just as eager as you to see a flyable French fighter.

The quick and dirty way would be to just make the MS 406/410 and Hawk 75 flyable.

Another quick method of getting a France 1940 plane into the game would be to slightly modify the A-20C into the Douglas DB7.

That which is seen in the Me-210 screenshot. The wing spars become visible through the skin.

Will investigate. Thanks!

hi how about putting the missing rear bottom/side/ gunner/ro in the PE2 can this be done maybe in 4 .12? :neutral:

Not to seem ungrateful, but while it's an improvement that AI gunners don't shoot down friendly planes, is there any progress on the two big AI gunnery issues?

1) AI "radar" and perfect situational awareness.

Enemy planes can see and shoot you through clouds and darkness. Enemy pilots always know when you're sneaking up on them and never lose track of where you are.

2) "Sniper" AI gunners who are immune to the effects of G forces, wounds, sudden maneuvers by the pilot and the effects of slipstream at high speed.

All covered! ;)

Hi Pursuivant,

thanks for the link.

I guess you're right about the bailing out sequence, never thought about that this way...

+1 for the chute opening controlled by player, that's actually a very good idea: sometimes weird (and fatal) things happened to me because of the lack of such an option, if you see what i mean :))

+1 also for the "neck breaker" option as a consequence for violent to moderate ground loops or flips as you say. We definitely need something like this!

Little thing i noticed and other remarks
 

The cockpit view of Fw190A8 shows a normal straight Fw190 canopy, but external view shows the late war bubble canopy. anyone have that?

The canon shells exploding look like fireball when they should look like flashes. The fireball (yellow orange colour if you see what i mean) lasts far too long and this gives too much time advantage to know if the target is hit or not.

On the other way, the HMG hitting don't produce small smoke puffs as they should, and the debris are too strange looking (vey bad quality) and actually less visible than the cartriges ejected by a firing plane.

When following a smoking aircraft from too close, we should have oil spots on our windshields, wouldn't that be nice ?

Just some ideas and opinions. TY Team Daidalos for working and to allow us to make requests

The problems with special effects you've described have been solved by a number of special effects mod packs. I'm particularly fond of the the Holy Grail and Potenz effects pack because the developers did a very good job of trying to make the IL2 effects look like actual gun camera footage.

TD has previously vetoed volumetric smoke from aircraft due to performance issues on older computers, but fixes to make cannon and MG hits look better are easy to implement and don't impact frame rates.

Likewise, it's an easy fix to remove the stock "ugly green footballs" debris effect and replace them with better looking graphics. A cool touch would be a sound effect of debris impacting your plane, although realistically if you're wearing headphones and sitting next to one or more aircraft engines you're not going to be hearing anything but your radio and your engines!

Oil splashes on the windscreen from following a leaky aircraft too closely would require more work and more graphics files. Basically, you'd have to add some graphics effects, write code which links to them and applies them under the right circumstances, and then recode every cockpit for every flyable plane in the game!

But, you make a valid point. It opens up the whole issue of "crud on the windshield" ranging from insects to oil, to ice. On the inside of the cockpit, there's the possibility of condensation or ice on the inside of unheated cockpits, blood from wounds (or messily killed crew members) as well as smoke and fire. All realistic bits of "eye candy" which would improve authenticity.

There are mods out there (by Wolfighter) which give very nice oil splash and blood splash effects for some cockpits, but that's due to damage to your plane, not to a nearby plane.

Hi

Is it yet possible cockpit precipitation renders can be implemented along with better weather options ?
eg:
Light/medium/heavy > with option for lightening on/off

Also ground take off dust removed when raining (the big frame rate killer).

Snow/Rain and other elemental glass effects, debris including oil water from enemy etc etc.

For future updates of course not v4.11

Thanks

The dust shouldn't necessarily be removed for wet weather, it should just change color to represent water or snow spraying.

Also, the amount of dust/water/snow flying around should depend on the map.

On a hot North African desert, Russian steppe or Pacific island map, there should be huge clouds of dust if you take off or land from a dirt or PSP runway, very little if you take off or land on a concrete runway.

Likewise, vehicles moving on dirt roads or off-road should also generate huge clouds of dust.

For snowy or wet maps, there should be smaller amounts of blowing snow/water vapor if you take off or land from a dirt or PSP runway, and maybe a small amount for a concrete runway.

Vehicles on roads or off-road should generate minor amounts of spray.

A nice touch would be to make it so that you can skid on a wet or frozen runway, regardless of what material it's made from.

You mean the raindrops on the windscreen? I remember those from the IL-2 demo. I forgot about those...

Isn't the Mossie the only plane that has these? Along with wipers?

Yes it was there years ago iirc.

Stock Mossie has "automatic" windshield wipers.

I just retested on the ground and up to 150 mph they work.

It has the wipers but not the raindrops.

If you can find an old copy of the IL-2 demo (I'm sure it's still floating out there). Set up a QMB mission with rain or thunderstorm and check out the raindrops hitting the wind screen. It was taken out for some reason but I can't remember the details... some sort of graphics card issue.

TD, I have a request.

Could you please introduce an overall player limit for each team along with a limit of plane types that can be set in the FMB mission profile?

This would result in a dramatic decrease of unbalanced teams in online servers and would be highly appreciated by all online pilots.

No, it wouldn't.

Pardon me?

You said it would be appreciated by all online pilots. Fact is it would not.

Players who deliberately unbalance teams and enjoy such battles I do not even regard as worth mentioning. There is no lesser being on earth than a player like that.

Haha! I never knew about this. Thanks guys! There is even a sound file for the wiper!

Just fired up the Demo version and there's no rain on the cockpits, static or when flying.



Prangster did a nice job on the Mossie.




.

Dear DT, how about the following:

Train platform guns with 3d gunners (not those ‘remote-controlled’ Flak 30s)
New damage model for train boxcars, so that, when destroyed, they don’t look like a string of crumpled cardboard milk boxes

US PT (Patrol-Torpedo) boats - like the one commanded by JFK himself (PT-109) – which were heavily engaged in the Solomons
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...icialModel.jpg

generic Japanese cruiser
British AA heavy gun (3.7 inch perhaps),
French Char B1bis tank (or similar)
German light reconnaissance vehicle, like Sdkfz 222
A column of generic allied trucks which don’t have U.S. white stars all over them

Dear Lagarto, how about the following: you get yourself a 3D Max and Photoshop and start modelling things on your list?

Release Date
 

Hi Team Daidalos,

Amazing contribution to the flight sim community. A couple of questions from a newbie.

1. Estimated release date for 4.11

2. I have just discovered the "perfect" settings conf.ini discussion and am pleased to say I have had a good improvement in graphical performance. Will 4.11 bring anything new that may help game performance?

3. Do you think that 1946 is maxed out as far as graphical representation goes?

thanks

Hmmm.. this is a request thread, isn't it? By suggesting these things, I show my interest in DT's work. So, what is your problem?

I got no problems. But, see, DT members have told many times here and everywhere, that DT's resources are quite limited and DT is not able to produce many new stuff internally. Actually, the team is already hands full with their current projects.

So, by continuing posting things, like, "hey guys, why didn't you make {place your favorite addition here}", or "how about you make {place your favorite addition here}", or, "you should add...", you either show complete ignorance towards what DT members say, or (if you say, you know, what they are telling) imply, that DT has no own clue about what may/should be added to the game.

Now, if you post something like "Hey Santa, I wish {place your favorite addition here} was in the game by Christmas" - that's fine. But when you say, "hey guys, how about you make, what I want?", the only reply you may hope for is "how about you make it yourself?"

No, there are three replies they can and should give. Either: "Good idea, we will add it to our list for consideration" - "Thanks, it is already part of our list for consideration" or "Sorry, this will not be dealt with by TD."

Simple as that. No need to get nasty on people who react to the very name of this thread.

We can not read the minds of TD members and only know what they are up to when they release a news update.

Lagarto wrote: "How about the following:" ie, a suggestion, and not a demand.

He did not do what many have done here which is "DT, why isn't this plane in the game? It's super important! This is an outrage to my nation and people! How dare you not work faster!"

There are a lot of good ideas in this thread that I'm sure must have inspired someone. DT have a ton of stuff to work on, but they've delivered miracles thus far. Under such circumstances, it's hard to not have a few things on the "wishlist".

Engines repeatedly catching fire:

I always wondered if this is a bug or a feature.
When an engine gets damaged to a certain degree it will catch fire no matter what you do.
If you to cut the fuel(0%throttle) and manage blow the fire out and cool the engine down - how can this thing light up again and again?
I mean, there's neither fuel nor any hot parts like the exhaust. :confused:

From TD side, requests and questions are most welcome. If it's a great idea and not too much work, it might even be in the next patch (not 4.11 any more, but you get the idea), if it is just more contents and requires much work, then the chances for that are much smaller.

But still, it would be great if a larger part of the community would make the 3D models of the items they want in the game, because it is a fact that out of all the desired contents, TD can maybe deliver 1% on their own with each patch. 3D modelling (and other aspects) takes a lot of time, and cloning hasn't been invented, yet.

What about Random skill and number option in QMB
 

Hi Team Daidalos,

What about not knowing the skill, numbers and aircraft of AI enemy we will face (in the QMB): for instance having the possibility to chose random as an option for aircraft and skill.

There could be a "random" option along with the usual rookie/veteran/ace, in the form of a interrogation point (?) in the list of ac and in the number box (1,2,3,4, or ?).

You know this kind of thing could really change the old and dusty habits in the qmb, and really make the surprise rise again!

You already know you rock!;)

I like that idea lots a randomized aircraft selection would be interesting as well if it chose from Allied and Axis aircraft(I mean if it were Axis it would chose only axis aircraft)

want something - it's easy

want something, and be able to do what you want - it's hard to

to do something by the standards of the IL2 - even more difficult

who doubts the fact that it is not easy, try it

DT - a group of enthusiasts ... and they work at their own pleasure, and doing in the first place then that is interesting by itself ...

SaQSoN says a little brutal, but he says is true - if you want to do something qualitatively for the IL2 ... except for yourself, nobody will do it

Has there been any thought of incorporating gun jams? Also, the possibility for structural failures as a result of a prolonged bursts from the Il2-3m's main guns?

Up till now, gun jams, damage and structural failures have been implemented only as a concequence of players mistakes. This is game-design.
However... technical reason for such issues could be implemented, so these things would happen randomly. While this would be part of realism and maybe wanted by a number of players (offline players I suspect), it could exist only as an option.
I am interested in how many players are willing to be forced to end a campaign unsuccessfully, after having done alot of missions, although they did nothing wrong - only because a random happening?
I think before this question isn't fully evaluated, these considerations cannot be go to a high priority status.

As maybe not everyone knows, SaQSon has his own kind of express things. Additionally, the language barrier here let us understand different things ("requesting" or "demanding").

The posting of Lagarto wasn't understood by me as a demanding (and I hope, its the same with the team).
And as JtD already said, the truth in SaQSons speach is: we could do more with professional help from extern.

Good ideas! :-P

please check the hit point of aircraft especially in wings, because, if you are doing a roll and get a hit by a 20mm or high caliber, your plane is forced to roll to another side beacuse impact force, but after that impact you cannot roll you plane for about 0.5sec~, in other words, you freeze to that interval, and this can change the situation of the combat, i didn't know if this happen only here, i usually fly in the spit, and always when get hit of 20mm (30mm or high rarely the wing wont broke) in a roll i cannot continue the roll immediately.

thanks.

sorry for my cr** english..

Caspar - since you mentioned being able to do more with external help - I was wondering if DT and mod makers are mutually interested in joining efforts. I'm aware that many 3D models are not up to your standards but what about maps? I've seen some WIP screenshots of Donbass (eastern Ukraine) and Caucasus maps, for example. Is there any chance that you incorporate them into your future patches? I hope the subject is not too sensitive to discuss it here :)

That's a bit acerbic. Lots of people don't understand just how much work it takes to create a ship or plane in IL2.

Also, GIMP is free and does most of what Photoshop does. :)

For 3d modeling, 3DS Max educational version is free to students and staff of educational institutions.

+1!

I fondly remember the ability to encounter random planes and random skill levels in CFS2. For IL2, there are third party mission editors which already implement this (UberDemon's QMG), so it's definitely doable.

http://uberdemon.sushicereal.com/index2.html

And not just random plane types and skill levels, but also random heights, maps, starting times, weather conditions and just about everything else.

Especially regarding 3rd party maps, there is something going on, yes. No more details. ;)

OK, Caspar. I'll ask directly. Why TD does not want to make certain "things" ? There have been many requests or wishes for e.g. Hurricane Mk.IId or Mk.IV. Yes, they exist as mods, but this is no option for users, who do not want to use them.
As far as I can see, TD has never made anything what allready exist as mod, it was allways something else. For example manual bomb bay doors. Will we ever see this made oficial or never, because it was made first as a mod ? I just like to know...

Caspar, are there certain standards a map has to meet to be included in an official patch, comparable to the standards for new aircraft?

I'll try to answer:

@ dFrog: making a mod is much easier and less time-consuming than a properly built model. You mention the Hurricane IId. If you check the Vokes filter on the modded model, you'll recognize that it is just the mesh of the Spitfire Vc copied there, IIRC with no LODs at all.

As already said, there are few 3d modellers within DT, they (we all) work for free in the spare time so we would like to retain the freedom to choose what to model. A help from the community would be more modellers willing to work under specs. The few that decided so are doing an outstanding job! ;)

@ Juri: yes, there are some specs also for maps. I'm not an expert so Caspar can be more precise. Anyway, here are some tips:

Generic:
- maps representing WW2 scenario or pre-WW2 conflicts are welcomed. However, regions under 1C veto are not allowed. These are currently the English Channel, the MTO and Korea; Situation could change in the future but is is hard to say at the moment;
- Map should be 1:1 scale and possibly not too large;
- Size should depend on object count. For comparison, take Solomons map as an extreme limit;
- Maps with reduce scale are ok if distances involved are too large;
- Rivers should be at sea level. Isolated lakes can be at higher altitude;

Objects:
- custom objects should be made under specs, both polycount and texture-wise;
- Objects coming from other games are not allowed;
- Re-textured objects with binary meshes are not allowed;

1.Textures:
1.1. File format should be standardized, (large TGB, smaller TGA, add bump and tree sub-textures for each main texture)
1.2. Roads, hedgerows and other similar and prominent terrain features of the textures should be tile-able between different textures. Would be even better, if painted roads will (sat least partially) fit into map road grid.
1.3. If RL photo was used to create texture, any buildings and other anthropogenic features, except roads, should be removed from the texture (a blurred "shadows", where buildings are supposed to be may be left only).
1.4. Last, but not least: all textures within one map should be in relatively same color gamma. Bump maps from different textures should also be unified (without large difference in contranst between different files).

2. Texture placement on the map:
2.1. Textures with noticeable structure (like fields, for instance), which produce pattern effect should NOT be placed alone. Instead a random mix of 2-4 similar, but different textures, which has tile-able edges should be used.
2.2. Rivers MUST have an underlying textures along whole it's length.
2.3. Textures and objects should be placed in realistic manner, resembling real life. Like: no fields on steep slopes; fields are usually separated from rivers/sea with a grassy or forested area; hill tops use brighter textures (due to fewer water supply) and so on.

3. Other stuff:
3.1. Far map texture should be produced after final texture placement.
3.2. Preferably that user map images would be made in standard IL-2 manner.

I am not anyhow connected with TD so I can't speak for them, but it is obvious that there are so many requests that one could work on them for the whole lifetime and still not be finished, so it is a matter of priorities.

Also I would say TD is focusing more on generic issues (e.g. navigation in 4.10 which required coordinated changes all over the code) than specific ones (adding one more plane to the list of, um, more than 100 others).

Do not make me wrong, If I received the Hurri you are talking about, I would be of course grateful for it, but I appretiate TD for doing changes none of the modders is capable of.

You are wrong, for example the bomb fuze delay first appeared as a mod.

If you read the forums carefuly, you will see the TD are open to 3rd party development. The main issue seems to be the modders usualy have no interest/will/skills/whatewer to bring the work up to TD standards so it could be included in the official patch.

As a proof you can look around these forums you can see B24 and other planes being developed by 3rd parties and scheduled for inclusion in subsequent patches, so that is definitely not a problem.

Don't take me wrong, I really appreciate all the effort TD is putting into this game. I just wonder why some versions of already existing planes are still missing. For example brits are still missing ground attack plane - Typhoon or Hurricane Mk.IId
One more question - MTO ban includes whole Mediteranean or just some areas ? I'm still hoping for Avia S-199 and map of Syria - Palestine - Egypt area.

Yes. There have to be correct texture and file type and size, not too much objects (I have no numbers in mind at the moment) and not too much size (although the reasonable size of the map depends also on objects density). I.e. Bessarabia was to big, so the object density had to be reduced a bit, on the other side the large Solomons map is ok, since it has a low density.
And finally, it shouldn't contain modded objects (naturally), except, if such objects are delivered together with the map as a full standard 3D model, so we can include it. Roads and rails all must work. Same for bridges. Rivers have to be on 0m level.
Well... such stuff... Gitano has already told the most details.

EDIT: 1:1 scale is not a requirement, but nice to have. We even would accept a pure fun-map, if its well made.

But generally you have to care for less points in map making, compared to aircraft modeling.

Well, that is not true in its core. If we could, we would do everything, that can be considered as 'missing'! Most issue contrary to that is: not enough manpower and not enough time.

As for the Hurri IID and the manual bomb doors, I think both have very good chances for future implementation anyway. Just be patient pls. The day, that we say: "Thats it, folks!" - that day you can start to complain. ;)

Good to hear, looking forward...

Thank you Gitano and Caspar for your posts, very interesting and informative. I'm a little unhappy about the ban on the MTO, which means no Sicily/Malta map, as I understand it. I sincerely hope the 1C has some good reason for it, like an MTO extension pack for ClOD (although I doubt such an add-on would make any sense at the current state of things).
I'm also curious about the maps' size limit. The stock maps are generally small but I thought it's because they were made with 2001/2003-era PCs in mind. The present-day computers surely can handle much more but perhaps the game's engine can't?

Okay, thank you for the reply!

Hmm... We'll, I was thinking about situations which are primarily the fault of players:
- The structural failures in the Il-2 3m were a result of prolonged firing of the NS-37 (typically in a dive).
- Gun jams could also happen as a result of gun overheating, high-g maneuvers or flying too low. So, how you fly matters.


On the other hand some types of guns were notoriously prone to jamming. This didn't typically lead to the lost of a plane, but it did sometimes force pilots to abort attacks. In most cases it lowered effectiveness by causing one (our of several) guns to become unavailable before it had fired off all of its rounds.

The ShKAS had "48 ways of jamming". The Mk-101 and Mk-108 were also notoriously prone to jamming (one of their downsides vs. the Mk-103). The BK-5 was rarely able to fire off all of its ammunition.

However, these guns could and did prove to be extremely effective weapons. They just weren't 100% reliable and every few missions a pilot would carry some of his ammunition home.

So, it is really just a random factor effecting overall firepower.

If you don't mind, I could put together a poll to see what people think of the idea?

Like Lagarto said,

Thanks to Gitano and Caspar for very helpful information. It should be a sticky post somewhere, along with the other DT limits and standards.

I'd also like to see further clarification as to how broad the ban on MTO maps, equipment, etc. is.

Does the ban on MTO maps just include Northern Africa, or Greece, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily, Italy, Spain, Corsica, Southern France, the Balkans and the Holy Land as well?

What about late war maps which include parts of northern Italy, but which focus on the Western allied attacks on occupied Europe, such as Corsica, Southern France, Yugoslavia or Austria?

Finally, the ban on MTO equipment seems pointless, since most major Italian aircraft are already in the game. If they're not in the game, they could be legitimately modeled because they were used elsewhere in Europe, or could have been used by Italian forces engaged in Russia. The CANT Z.506 will be something of a test case - mostly used in the Med., but also used by the Germans in the Baltic. The Italian vehicles will be another test case - mostly North Africa, but also used in Russia and France.

As for U.S., British and German equipment, just about every vehicle or plane which saw action in North Africa also saw action elsewhere in the world - or could have.

My guess is that Oleg mostly intended the ban to apply to areas of the MTO which saw action from 1939-41. Mostly Libya and the Western Desert of Egypt, but possibly also Greece, Malta, Gibraltar, Sicily and Sardinia.

I already don't like it. Jeez, people were freaking about the 2sec arming feature and now you want to jam their guns?!

Anything that improves realism is fine by me.

For people who don't like it, there should be a button to turn it off.

If you look at the first video, you will see that bomb fuses have changed. You can select low level, delay, and long delay fuses. ;)

Also, I don't see why this can't be an option. This could fall under the general category of "reliability" to include engines, airframes, and weapons.

I for one, would vote for such features, even if it makes campaigns and missions more difficult.

What about a failing interrupter gear? In Il-2 now you'll never shoot your propellor off. What about making this an option for reliability or damage?

oh yess, Gimme some gun jams :))
 

+1

Same here, gun jamming, especially caused by high g and frame stress, will considerably improve gunnery realism and overall difficulty, this by making firing windows less wide under very high gs, it would be a good addition to structural G limit that tend to be a greater problem for boom-and-zooming pilots (less sensitive for turn-and-burner as far as i experienced).

A new cowling for FW190A? new MiG3? P39 missing frame?
 

Any possibility to have a new 3D work for the Fw190A (cowling is to wide open)? I once saw a mod correcting this. Also the ETC501 rack is weird and could need refinements...


A new Mig3 model would be nice too, i saw a russian mod greatly improving it, would be nice if it could be implemented in, what do you think?

There is a missing metal frame in the P39 cockpit view, giving more visibility:

http://i803.photobucket.com/albums/y...Airacobra2.jpg


Thank you guys for reading this topic!

Does anyone know what variables AI planes are actually effected by FM wise?
We constantly see AI flying with perfect trim, no overheat ect but are their planes effected by the same environmental, structural & g force limitations.

The reason I ask this is I once tried to dive away from an AI LA7 in a 190D9. The LA7 followed me down, if this was online the LA7 would have torn its wings off, however it was offline so LA was in good condition even though I had the dora at 900kmh when diving away.

An idea would be to have the difficulty settings we apply to ourselves apply to the AI as well, but one would assume this would be a massive code re write.

pilot-copilot changes in coop missions.
 

Dont know if this was discussed before, sorry if it was: Would it be possible to the pilot of a bomber, to deliver control to other crew member? And then regain it when he wanted to, by pressing some key? Would it be very dificult to do it in the game-coding? And could we have access, in a recording, to the views of the cockpit of other players/AI, just instead of external views?

This are not requests... just questions of someone that is allready very gratefull with Team Daidalos work.

Thanks guys!

Autopilot
 

Hi all,

Don't know if this has already been discussed here too, but I would like to know if there will be any improvements on the autopilot system. It's kind of common that my plane breaks formation, do not follow the leader or the waypoints, or even puts nose down straight to the surface when on autopilot...

Thank you very much for keeping working on this great game!

To make things more clear:

1st of your question is about human bomber crew in COOP, where pilot and gunners/bombadier can switch positions by will during flight?
2nd of your question is about just watching others (for teaching issue maybe)?

So far no issues with autopilot has been recognised. It generally follows waypoints (note: it also flies back if you have missed one) and starts attacks on enemy planes.

This was asked for years ago but was told netcode blah blah blah by Oleg and team, since then most of the "netcode blah blah impossible" remarks have been proven otherwise especially friendly outside views only and take off outside views etc etc which were asked for years ago also and are now in v4.11.

So it should/could be possible to hand the bombsite and ac controls over to a crew-member or at least let them have the bombsite controls and you pilot making adjustments on comms :)