There's a cheat that lets you fly around without fuel and without your engine ever overheating that works on stock servers, I've seen it discussed on a Russian server forum, maybe that's what Deagle_Bubi is talking about.

Cargo and passengers
 

Hello Daidalos Team

What about to make flyable de Ju-52 to transport Cargo and/or passengers. And the ability to fly online and, on a local network the crew can play as a passengers, and they can be seated next to the windows and enjoy the fly.

If they want they can jump from the airplane with parachutes.

Transporting cargo can be used to make a mission to carry on some supplies and count as a target to get points.

Thus, it would be the only flight simulator to have the option of flying as a passenger.

Thank you

That's not the worst either. Unfortunately I'm not sure how much can be done with the source code wide open like it is.

that not exactly Ju52 .... buuuut .....




oh sorry wrong Pict ))

Li-2 flyable!!!! Thanks Sita!!!

i'm just have started ...)

i must say, you are very clever) to identify plane by engine control)

That's not proof that such cheat exists.

Of course, it's logical that if you fly without fuel (it's spelled "gliding"), the engine won't run, and therefore it doesn't overheat.

Flyable C47 where you need to drop paratroopers over enemy base :)

Speaking of C47s, I've noticed that if you have icons on, the C47 and Li-2 are both labelled 'Douglas'. Didn't they used to be labelled 'C47' and 'Li-2', at one time, or am I remembering wrongly? The other DC3 variant, the L2D, gets its own label.

There's some inconsistencies in some of the labelling... but it wasn't too unusual for aircraft to sometimes be identified by their parent companies. A few updates would be good to label the C-47 and Li-2 specifically. The IL-4 is also labelled as a DB-3 which is appropriate for the earlier versions but not for the IL-4 version which is otherwise represented separately.

Very minor corrections.

Lol, wow.

Sita is psychic.

Today I want to talk about the futur. What about a new engine for v. 5.00?

I was looking at some Warthunder screenshots and I know this game is arcade, but the graphics are amazing. I was thinkg about we could take a graphic engine like Unreal Engine 4 or just making a new version of the current Il2 engine... (for that we should just take two years without Il2 1946 update and just focus on improving the game engine) The only thing I don't know is how to completly update the game like that? Maybe a new disc version like a completly new game, but just called Il2 Sturmovik?

There are the pictures I was looking to :

http://warthunder.com/upload/image/1...0/25041411.jpg
http://warthunder.com/upload/image/1...0/25041414.jpg
http://warthunder.com/upload/image/1...0/25041412.jpg

Frankly, I never thought that War Thunder's graphics - while nice - were all that great (mine are at full-sliders at monitor resolution), especially in the resolution for most of it's aircraft textures, which seem primitively low (though it's a big help with optimization). War Thunder's graphics leaves room for improvement by contemporary standards.

It does feature a lot of new effects like light ghosting, bump mapping, etc. and some other fluff like Sepia, Vignettes, and other filters. I will say that the terrain is quite nicely modelled when cranked to full terrain resolution, however.

At any rate, talking about implementing such drastic changes and building a new environment using IL-2's antique engine is pointless, and it's been discussed before. It's like trying to compete in modern motorsports by installing a turbocharged hybrid V6 with KERS into an old Lotus 49. Cool to talk about and carry out, but ultimately pointless and wasteful and, in the case of IL-2, hardly possible.

In this case, it's just smarter and more economical to build a new game from a clean sheet, as has already been done with BoS. Besides, the modding community has produced some very good maps and effects that maximizes IL-2's capabilities and, in some ways, stresses them. That is about as much as one can expect from this old girl.

Keep in mind that the IL-2 environment is more than twelve years old now...

Yeah, you are right about the engine is too old to change everything like that.

Whatever, I don't really like the economic model of Battle of Stalingrad, because I have Rise of Flight and it's annoying that you need to buy the game 2 or 3 times if you want to play on a different account than your brother.

It's just a wish, but what I would like is a complet remake of Il2 1946 with the name of "Il2 Sturmovik" and being made by fans and for fans. Make the same things as IL2 1946 with a lot of free contents, etc. For the moment it's only a wish, but who know, maybe in 5 years :) (or in two weeks)

nic727,

I think you will find that the title "IL2 Sturmovik" for your proposed fan built sim would get you in front of a copyright judge in short order.

Just sayin'.

What we have now with the original sim, and it's expansions and the work of TD is all we will ever have, and it looks increasingly like we will never see it's equal.

The reasons for it are many and well known to anyone that cares to put an objective eye on the situation of the genre in the wider sphere of electronic gaming, and to be honest about the actions/wants/rants of the player base as well.

We have lived through a golden age, we will not see it's like ever again.

Be sure.

http://imageshack.com/a/img633/7756/4aTdJS.jpg

If we ask to 1C?

Whatever, we can always make a game with a new name, but I like Il2 Sturmovik. lol

1C would defend their claim on the title pretty vigorously I would imagine...

Especially since they have a retail product bearing that name currently selling (IL-2 Stumorvik: Battle of Stalingrad).... http://il2sturmovik.com/

I know that, but my first idea was to remake the game with modern graphic. It was not to make a full new game, yes it can, but my idea was that it could be published by 1C and made by Daidalos Team and some fans.

Are you aware, that remaking the game with modern graphic is pretty much equal to making a full new game?

yeah... whatever. :)

and not to menschen it take less for Microsoft Office and Dragon speak to make those programs and they charge way more on avrg. $75.00 and sell way more.

I don't here people crying about those being to expensive.

The guy wants a premium product, worth of thousands of hundreds of man-hours of work for free. DT is great, they surely can make it in no time, since, as everybody know, they don't need to sleep, eat, or care about their families!

Don't ruin his sweet illusion, please.

Sleep, food and family are totally overrated things, that only keep unworthy minions from working 24/7.
So can we please have our perfect graphics simulation, and by christmas this year, and while you're at it, why don't you add ALL the missing planes... And for free of course, we'll promise we'll contribute not a single thing to your effort - and if you only forget to fix ONE little bug, we will cry bloody havoc.

No really - I'm looking forward to the next patch - and I'll gladly and gratefully take all the FREE content you provide. This game is still alive - lets keep it that way for some more time.

I never asked them to work 24/24 and 7/7... It was just an idea to make something modern with our favorite game. It can be in spare time like they are doing right now, or it can be a completely new team of volunteer. I could be in, but not now, maybe in two years. But like I wrote before, it was just an idea.

It's a nice sentiment. But you have to realize that building a whole new game from scratch, as done by volunteers, would take many years. It's problematic because by the time such a project was brought to fruition... the technology would be out of date again and it'd look aged.

There are plenty of indie game developers out there, small 2-3 person teams, but they tend to do small scale games. Certainly nothing approaching simulation level. It's complex stuff.

I think we have to be thankful we have something as solid as IL-2 1946 to work with. It's not as pretty as the newer stuff but the basics of it are still solid.

If we want to talk about visual upgrades... then upgrading the stock texture artwork for vehicles, aircraft, and the maps would go a long way to making the game look more beautiful without a game engine re-write. Something that can be done piecemeal.

Nic, you're missing the point.

The near-whimsical manner in how you talk about it glosses over the sheer scope of the task. Imagine the suggestion of building a brand-new modern nuclear aircraft carrier for the U.S. Navy on an old structure (with boilers) that was originally built as a seaplane tender, and that it could just be done by a bunch of hobbyists on their own spare time. As absurd as that sounds, that is akin to the sheer lopsidedness of your suggestion.

It's fine that you're so impressed by War Thunder's visuals (though there are better options available in that regard...), but that's an entirely different game, much more current, and with it's own structure specifically built to handle those visuals that you like so much.

IL-2's environment can indeed be improved, but overhauling it to such a degree would constitute an entirely new product (i.e. BoS, Eagle Dynamics, etc...), and renders the idea of doing such work in IL-2 redundant.

Hello! :)
I would like to ask DT, what is estimated time of the 4.13 release?

About this 'upgrading engine' discussion... I'd imagine, that there are people out there, who could programm external approaches, which work with the game graphics as they are... say like postprocessing etc. We have Bloom effects already available for DirectX ... something like that.

Hey Caspar! Where were you :-P? Get back to work!
Seriously, for some people effects are at the top of the requests. For other of us, there is no need to improve them. A few days ago I reinstalled Age of Empires II, just to play a few games again. It was a classic, of course there new games of the same genre, but AoE still got something.
I want more inmersion but in a different way, perhaps airborne radar, navigation aids, manable flak.
Caspar, please, tell us.. will be a surprise in the patch???


How is Shinden going?
Lanc?
Uhu ?
520?
86?
115?
Potez?

LoL :D

If so - it would be a surprise for me too. :D

I must admit, I'm a bit out of the current development, just because of private issues... almost since a year now. Have some minor projects ongoing, thats all. Hope, I can catch up some (not so far away) day.

we miss U Caspar)

I've wondered how much it would cost to buy the "old" IL2 Sturmovik franchise from its current owners. If the sale was done right, the new owners might be able to get around the ban on Northrop-Grumman "intellectual properties."

But, I think that IL2's graphics are "good enough" and that you really don't want to improve them that much.

Things like dynamic lighting and photorealistic models and scenery are mostly eye candy which just slow down frame rates and increase development time. They make for pretty pictures and aid immersion when you're flying around, but you mostly don't notice them when you're in a dogfight.

IL2:CloD failed in part because its developers concentrated on the graphics, at the expense of the things that made IL2 great - smooth gameplay, a solid mission editor, and enough maps and a big enough plane set to keep fans interested.

While it's too soon to tell, it also seems like IL2:BoS might fail for similar reasons - too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough attention to the things that keep fans interested.

IL2 and similar flight sims have lasted as long as they have because they're graphically simple enough that it's relatively easy to add content. IF IL2 gets any graphics upgrades, they should be simple things that reflect improved computer power and which improve the COMBAT experience.

for me the only thing that must be done is the historical rework of the stock maps

Agree

The patches have been of a very high quality in my opinion, and I want the team to keep 4.13 up to the normal standard. I am prepared to wait.

Currently in full mission editor it's possible to make big formations of fighter planes only if they carry bombs, because if they don't have bombs, then second, third and all other flights will circulate above the first flight in escort pattern.
Could DT fix this please!

None rings true for me. If clubbing seals is most important, then 46 should still be good enough. In my opinion, CLoD failed simply because it was forced out the door against the developers wishes. I'm buying other sims just to help keep the genre alive. What keeps me away from playing them is that they are not enough like CLoD. Defending a score is fine, but I want to defend a city that looks like a historic city. The visible history is the draw for me.

Who would be interested in buying the old IL-2 franchise?

Alright, I agree that some of the cities look a bit lame. Cities like Berlin should have city blocks rather than individual houses. That might also aid frame rates.

But, what I was getting at was that, as a matter of priorities, what would make the sim more "immersive" for a hard-core WW2 history geek, improvements to the flight models or improvements to graphics? Both are important, but which is more important?

It seems to me that the main things that make the newer sims like RoF, CloD, IL2:BoS which are beyond the capabilities of IL2 are the things like dynamic lighting and self-shadowing.

Below that, there are lots of little (or not so little) graphics tweaks that affect combat which might be possible:

* More and bigger clouds reflecting different weather types. Could also represent fog.

* Placeable clouds.

* Placeable smoke or dust clouds. Important for daylight bombing. Really important for desert maps, which we'll be getting with 4.13.

* Large, long lasting fires to aid night bombing and to make "pathfinder" missions worthwhile.

* Simple sun-glare effects to make distant planes more visible.

* Better contrails - can be set to appear at different levels and can be set to last longer, so we can see images like this:

http://contrailscience.com/wp-conten.../stpauls2.jpeg

I have no idea. It depends on the price and who the fans are. Obviously, anyone who buys it would have to love the game rather than make a quick buck off of it. It also depends on what the restrictions on the sale would be.

I just wrote a post longer than yours. Luckily, it was not longer than the DEL key.

For me, most of the visuals in IL-2 are great, given the limitations of lack of dynamic lighting and self shadowing. Some of the later maps like Slovakia and later mod maps really show what can be done in landscaping terms within the limits of the game engine.

Having done a little map building work in the past the greatest flaw to me is the inability to make roads and railways follow true curves. This just looks plain wrong even from a distance.

Other lesser issues include inability to represent small rivers (and streams), lack of proper modelling of river banks, rail cuttings and embankments etc and consequently the unrealistic appearance of bridges which all have steep approach ramps rather than blending into the surrounding land.

-- and while I'm on a role, all bridges and therefore rivers having to be fixed at sea level.

Yea local weather would be cool too :)

But !!

Isn't it still the only game having collision damage with bridges, buildings and trees ?

...that you can't really see from the side. I really sometimes wish there were no collision model with those trees.

That would all be on my list.

Ah, those trees are one of my fondest memories. I was flying with 242 at the time, and there was a Squad who generally gave us a shellacking. One meet, we outnumbered them and thought we actually had a chance. They stayed out of sight 'til we ran out of gas, then they bombed our airfield as the last guy (our CO) was landing. I tried to take off again from the apron.

All I got for my troubles was a mouth full of those trees.

Great work guys!

I don't know if I'm late. Anyway may you also add this italian fighter?
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,37239.0.html

Thank you

[QUOTE=Asheshouse;707827]For me, most of the visuals in IL-2 are great,

Having done a little map building work in the past the greatest flaw to me is the inability to make roads and railways follow true curves.
---------------------------------------

There are curved roads here:
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...,39938.24.html

in Bee's Rabaul. Scroll down.
cheers,
Ibis.

I am aware of Bee's excellent map. --- I even get a mention in the credits ;)

What Bee has done provides a good visual mod but loses the stock game functionality of road and rail, like auto placement when map building and auto tracking of the route by vehicles when mission building.

What may be needed is similar to what is in Clod, in that road and rail appear to be defined by freeform splines which then control the placement of road/rail plates and also control the vehicle movement, but that would require some serious coding input.

Option to Place Height of Objects in FMB
 

After doing much searching, and not understanding the inherent limitation of placing height of objects until finding this post at SAS.
Yes, this would be greatly appreciated to have the option to place height for all objects, as case in point,
On the MTO map, at a certain desert castle, it would be really nice to mount small AA artillery on top of the castle wall towers. Would also make it possible to build ship yards as proper (ships in dry dock).
Maybe something Daidalos Team could/would look into?

For reference;
and reply by SAS~Malone
Reference also from SAS
FMB Tutorial 06 - Advanced Objects Tips

All water in 1946 and earlier versions of IL*2 is at sea level. I don't know why that was originally chosen, but it makes a lot of things/dificult or impossible that might otherwise be possible or even easy.

Many older games with 3D maps have this limitation (e.g. the Total War series).

The 3D shape of the landscape is generated from a greyscale elevation map, where zero elevation (the darkest black) is defined as water, while the rest of pixels are used to define terrain elevations. This way, you can create pretty realistic flatland landscapes with lakes and canals, and pretty realistic hilly landscapes without rivers, but it's impossible to create a realistic river valley where the water comes down to sea level.

There must be some workarounds. I've seen mountain lakes (water on a non-zero elevation level) on some modded maps, but generally it seems to be a game engine limitation that all water is always 'flat' and on the same elevation level.

That should not be a problem, raise the terrain a bit and you dont need to terrible working bridges!

About mountain lakes .. and rivers .. I can life without them .. but those bridges ... arrrggg :(

ski yaks etc
 

Is there any possibility of 1941-2 yak or il2 on skis for 414 or beyond? Or a I-16 24 on skis?

Do you mean a Yak-2? They were nearly all destroyed in the opening days of Barbarossa so it'd be pretty obscure.

It looks like IL-2s were trialed with skis so it could be a thing. I don't think the I-16 Type 24 was ever fitted with skis but my information could be incorrect on that.

The skis were largely a detriment to performance and outweighed any advantage they had in airfield operations. Sounds like they ditched them pretty soon after they were introduced. The ones we have in game are fascinating to fly given how poorly the aircraft that have them fitted suffer.

A great idea
 

As far as I know, the delay of the 4.13 update is because the He-177 is not flyable yet. We have waited for more than a year. My idea is release the great 4.13 update with the AI He-177 to start enjoying those great facts according with the 4.13 pdf document. The He-177 can wait to be flyable for the 4.14 update plus another great items created for DT. Thank you.

Hi P38 ! I dont think so about He177 flyable!

Hola P-38 no creo que este demorandose la salida del parche por la inclusion del He 177. Debe ser muy dificil planchar todos los bugs del B24 cuatrimotor supongo. Saludos.

No, we have been waiting for 2 weeks

Another Ideal for maybe 4.14
 

In FMB, in the Date/time dialog box, a box giving the historical sunrise & sunset times for the day selected, and the Full Moon, New Moon dates for the year and month selected.

I'm compelled to agree.

4.12 was released without the (very badly needed) remodelled P-40, a plane which was originally intended to be released with 4.12. Not to mention that the P-40K will apparently never be in the picture, considering it's importance in the PTO throughout 1942-43, but that's another matter...

While it would be most welcome in the game, I believe that most would happily accept 4.13 without the He-177, an aircraft that was almost as dangerous to it's own crews as it was intended to be to ground targets, saw only very limited production, and saw more use as a hack than a bomber.

I can guarantee that it's not the He177 holding anything up. The AI model was implemented a while back. Still testing and crushing bugs through the whole thing.

I think there was hope early on that Macwan's new P-40s might make 4.12 but as it was there was not much time and lots more to do. They are gorgeous in 4.13 and it's great to have them.

I wouldn't discount the P-40K, L, N or any other model. Macwan is pretty passionate... it's just a matter of how much time is available.

An odd choice if you think about it, because very few (none?) of the original IL2 maps featured areas which were at sea level.

Thank you!
 

Hey TD!

Happy New Year for you guys (never too late)!

Thank you very much for the update. It's good to hear from you, and that old lady is receiving all the care she deserves.

More than ever excited with 4.13, and with the promising new content.

batistadk

Hi TD,

Good to hear from you guys. It all sounds great! Thanks for the update.

Cloyd

Happy new year!
 

Hello TD

It is nice to hear good news. Happy new year to you too.
Thank you for the update.

update? what update?

This one:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...8&postcount=13

Just a quick status update.

Thank you!

Can't wait :P

If this thread is the right one to post wishes for the future patches, I would like to have an option in FMB to have planes already damaged at the start of the mission. For mission building it would be great to choose between light damage (just some bullet holes in fuselage) / medium damage (bigger holes in fuselage and wings and shattered cockpit glass) / heavy damage (all previous damage plus a small trail of smoke or fuel leaks).
Thanks DT!

+1.

As it stands, if you want to start the game with damaged planes you need to set up a scenario where the planes go through an area of heavy flak first, and hope for the best.

A better option would be to have a "damage brush" option that allows you to assign light or heavy damage to a particular plane part, as well as assigning critical hits like gun jams, oil, fuel or coolant leaks, and pilot or crew injuries.

I suspect it's possible to assign this sort of damage in an internal "debug" mode, but nobody's yet created a mod to make it available to the masses.

After all these years...it s incredible how good ideas are still coming. Maybe are not doable but some of it are amazingly simple. I enjoy reading the forum in the suggestion topic, and find a lot of good points, like Vendigo and Pursuivant one.

It would be really cool if we could select between hiding numbers on planes or hiding their national insigna. Another option that I would like to see in next patches is the possibility to have random numbering on each plane instead of the current system where every flight has number 1, 2, 3, 4 ,etc.

In QMB, once I set up a mission with various formations of aircraft. All skinned and set at the right skill and loadouts, it would be really great if there was a "Reverse Teams" button that switched the sides from allied to axis. So that I could quickly and easily experience the same mission from different sides.

The numbers for Soviet planes could also use an upgrade. The current font looks like poor cousin to Comic Sans.

Yep. Got sick of that "slapped on" painted look years ago. Been using Mat Manager for the better part of seven years now, and it goes a long way in improving most numbers and decals in the game, but it doesn't convert numbers on aircraft introduced after Aces released their final version of Mat Manager.

Mat Manager is/was wonderful, but like you said, it's getting old.

I haven't yet implemented them in my installation of the game, but I came up with much more "Cyrillic" looking numbers based on the stencils applied to some Yak aircraft. I've only got them as .tif or .jpg formats rather than as an actual font, though. See the attachment below.

TD is welcome to them. PM if you want them.

Alternately, it would be fairly simple to rip off some off some of the more interesting Cyrillic serif fonts; since there was a subtle but distinct "Soviet" style of typography. This site has lots of interesting possibilities.

http://smashinghub.com/30-free-russian-fonts.htm

Kremlin Imperial and Kremlin Advisor have numbers that are fairly close to stencils in pictures I've seen.

I just had a 96MB update to IL2 1946 on Steam, game's version is still 4.12.2M...
wut

Update synopsis to begin 2015
 

I'd like to suggests a small synopsis by team D that outlines where the development for 4.13 sits as we enter 2015. I have been away for a bit and removed from actively participating in the forum. Between discovering that we have been targeted by the spammers and attempting to stumble through the 108 odd pages of this section, it ain't exactly enlightening as much as it has been blurry and confusing. :lol:

If anyone wants to do me the kindness of catching me up with all this I would be appreciative. I feel like my house was broken into while I was out.

Cheers
Oh Chute!

After 3 alpha and 2 beta versions they are testing a Release Candidate. This was reported nearly two weeks ago:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=40957&page=2

So I think it will be out in another two weeks. Really ;)

Catch up by reading the read me files for the latest releases.

I will back this up 100%.

I would not care if I had to use the graphics and plane-set from the original IL2 Demo, I want a bug-free and accurate flight simulator, not a Hollywood action movie.

All of the problems with IL2 and the community that has flown it have roots in poorly executed wet-dreams by hackers and modders more interested in themselves and entertainment than flight simming.

Request for TrackIR users

-option to set TRack-Z axis to control (smooth) zoom FOV

with
-on/off option for Track-Z controls zoom out to wide view
-on/off option for Track-Z controls zoom in to close (gunsight) view


like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS1yYGtzZ9A

Thanks

in2weeks?

Yep, pretty sure...2 weeks...😁

Well, it's going into two years. Maybe that can be the new catchphrase instead?

"Two years. Surely." :razz:

Two years?... Or through twenty? Or two hundred... or through two thousand years?... :shock:

I personally would prefer to leave it like "2 weeks". Since that does not sound as a very long time. Also when it is shifted to another two.:grin:

It's said that waiting makes the heart grow fonder, so...

It has been a little over 15 months since v4.12.2 was released at M4T.
Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:39 pm (Pacific Standard Time). :cool:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.p...etails&id=4407

So far the longest time between patch releases for 1946, that I know of at just over 21 months, was between the v4.09 beta release and the v4.09 Daidalos Team release.
4.09 Beta Out!!! (12-26-2007, 11:54 PM) http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2462
4.09 Official Release (10-02-2009, 06:32 AM) http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=10276


Wheels

Is the final Readme out soon?

Any news about 4.13?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=40957&page=2

I meant something fresh..

well

unless you want a blow by blow account of the monotony of testing over and over again ............

rest assured when something is ready to show you it will be in the thread I linked

there's nothing worse than constantly being asked the same thing over and over again



:)

We are close to RC2 version. Most bugs was fixed, now working on fixing new map.
Sorry for long delay.

Thanks Magot for the news!!!
You know how kids are when they have to wait for something!!!!

From where I stand no apology is necessary magot.

You guys are doing this on your own time, for free, and have to sneak in the work between the issues of real life that we all deal with, and still you are able to bring us large improvements to what is still the best WW2 air combat sim of all time.

I think some of the members of our little community don't understand this.

Even from what little I have helped out in the past, I understand just how hard what you folks do can be.

You have my thanks. Carry on as best you can.

This.

There are still Things in 4.12 i haven't even tried yet. ><