i hope this will be the final version :)

we all hope in it)

Final version of what ?

of the RC

I'd love to test it, I've been playing Kerbal Space Program since late 2012 after flying the IL2 series almost a decade. Maybe the update will pull me back in?

If you like, try Orbiter 2010 for a more realistic approach to simulated space travel. It requires commitment on the user's part to "study up" before you can think about a rendezvous with the ISS, but it is well worth it and extremely rewarding, especially if you're using a downloadable third-party spacecraft, which are often of a higher fidelity and more realistic than the default DeltaGlider. There is also an Orbiter 2015 in current beta development.

Kerbal is fine, but I found it too simplified, and it omits key features of orbital mechanics to that end.

Yes, Orbiter is great. Super-immersive and intellectually satisfying. :cool:

Orbiter is an absolute GEM of a simulator. Highly recommended and its incredible that its free!

From one of the few pilots that still fly stock and not HSFX, thank you guys for the new patch. Especially enjoyed flying my Cr-42 around the new Tobruk map.
Everything is awesome. Now to go make some missions.

I have DVD version of 1946, but purchased the Steam version of 1946 as well.

Will the Steam version automatically update via Steam as at present it hasn't?

Yeah, I've used Orbiter for years, but wanting the same as Harvester, only with him having the brains and resources to really build a game.

But it's the mods that really kicks KSP into a new level, and it's a start to even more greatness. Orbiter too omits N-body physics, at least in KSP a modder is working on it. Surely one day our machines will be powerful enough for fluid dynamics.

Right now I'm working on building piston engines (already invented the KSP turboshaft engine). Once the plugin for ignition timing is ready, we'll start building planes with them, 1903 style. We expect a technological race and in 5 years we'll have a multiplayer game where you have pilots flying the hardware we invent, build and refine.

But first ... 4.13 time!

Is anyone here? nobody's said anything in two months.

umm hello?
 

the last post in the reply thread was two months ago... plz no let die D:

4.13 is out ... time to go forward )

Go forward to 4.14?

4.13.1 at first ...

413.1
 

Can you guys put the old p40 stationary back into the FMB, as it stands now we have the old p40 flyable but when looking at stationary planes on older missions there is no way to remove them except to manually edit them out in note pad in the mis file.

Thanks Sita You guys are the best

Group selecting them works just fine too.

Yes, Indeed, they really are the best.
By their work and dedication, they make our awesome IL2 even better.
I love flying with B5N, new russian bombers...
I LOVE their work
Il2 is still alive thanks to them!

4.13.1... sweet

LOL, I bet that without them, IL-2 1946 would sitll be alive, and that the mojority of its players nowdays would not abandon it if it were still 4.09m stock game.

If you decorate a tree, you don't say that "you" make the tree alive. It's the quality of Oleg's IL-2 that lets it be alive, not the "official" modders.

TD did far more to this game and community than Oleg ever did! So please, refrain from such statements...

Totaly agree!!

TD did so much, and put so many new features into the game where Oleg said there is no time for, or is impossible ...

Thanks TD

These discussions always seem foreign to me. I don't think my work for TD is better than Oleg's. I don't think I'm better than modders, and I DO understand I am not that different (though I'm a turtle to their rabbit). I don't add detail because I'm better; I do so because I am an inexcusable eye-candy junky. Between the volleys, I see a family of fans. My brother and sister argued like masters. Because they knew I had no skills in it, they just let me stand back and smile. I may sound stupid, but I'm smiling now.

If I can wander off target for a minute (and don't take this as my next project--I'm just interested), has anyone ever seen pictures of the MK IV radar installation in the Defiant cockpit? Please PM me if anyone has a lead. I don't want to steal this thread.

Hey guys I need your help,
Since the last patch, I cannot taxing properly.
I mean I can not turn left and right anymore.
I use the "wheel brake" button and the rudder to turn usually, now it is not working anymore.
It happens with Pe8, Il4, B5n, D3A.
How do you do? thanks you very much for your help :-P

yes we know about that issue ... in list ....

Thanks Sita !
Maybe make a "left brake" button and a "right brake" button as we have already those axis

Change the default take off spawn point position towards the rear end of the carrier deck.

For the old and non-tech geeky, what am I looking at?
I see that the before and after vids are different, but what's changed or happening?

hard to see that in video ... but now in ships all gun are firing... with normal rate of fire ...
before that for example quad gun turret firing by one barrel but with x4 rate of fire ...

it was a try to compare old and new version

Any map upgrades forthcoming?
 

Just curious as to whether there will be any map fixes or upgrades or new maps etc in 413.1 Im wanting to do some 42 new guinea missions of IJN landings at Buna etc and Oro bay anti shipping attacks but the current maps have only parts of whats needed or have a years later airfields everywhere etc. Also Goodenough island stranded troops and allied landings etc.

Turrets & gunners now under independent fire control
Firing solutions are independent rather than en-mass

like one of my friend discribe it ))
mg fire was:
---------------------------------------
=> => => => => => => => => => => =>

mg fire now:
---------------------------------------
=> ----- => ---- =>
=> ----- => ---- =>
=> ----- => ---- =>
=> ----- => ---- =>

wow nice work.

A welcome improvement to ship "AI" behavior.

Also, it sounds like another step towards getting Flak Towers into the game.

Looking through the i18n file, I noticed an omission in the US 15th AF order of battle, possibly the most famous US fighter group of them all, the 332nd FG "Red Tails" AKA "Tuskeegee Airmen".

Here is suitable data, if any DT member wishes to add the following units to the regInfo.properties file:

15AF_332FG_99FS 332nd Fighter Group, 99th Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"
15AF_332FG_100FS 332nd Fighter Group, 100th Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"
15AF_332FG_301FS 332nd Fighter Group, 301st Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"
15AF_332FG_302FS 332nd Fighter Group, 302nd Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"

regShort.properties data:

15AF_332FG_99FS 99th FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_100FS 100th FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_301FS 301st FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_302FS 302st FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF

Copyright-free squadron patch art here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/332d_E...erations_Group

Done ... wait till 4.13.1)

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/...shjb46mjk.jpeg

Had to Sita / DT :c)

Looking forward to this.

Thanks!

If it would be useful I can add further Allied units which served in the MTO.

Maybe not for 4.13.1, but here's a complete and corrected Order of Battle for the USAAF 15th AF, which was based in Italy from approximately 1943-45.

Changes:

* Many units added
* Some group nicknames changed or removed to reflect WW2-era names (many bomber groups were deactivated after WW2, then later reactivated as transport units)
* Some WW2-era nicknames added.
* Bombardment Groups equipped with B-17 or B-24 are designated as (Heavy), per period practice.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the following existing entries in the RegInfo and RegShort files should be removed, since the squadrons are assigned to the incorrect group. I've removed them from my updated OOB.

15AF_450BG_716BS 716th BS, 450th Bombardment Group, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_717BS 717st BS, 450th Bombardment Group, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_718BS 718d BS, 450th Bombardment Group, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_719BS 719d BS, 450th Bombardment Group, 15th AF

Wing size, number of planes and aircraft formations
 

Is there a way to increase planes in wings from 4 to 8 or even 12..16?

With larger wings, bigger formations would be possible and easier to craft.

Currently, the mission builder options are very rich but it is still very cumbersome to create missions with large formations that should stay together.
An increased wing size would help to keep aircraft together.

In my opinion, missions with the many wings needed for large formations are difficult to create and handle with the tiny wing size of 4. Even 16 planes begin to cause some trouble as there are already 4 wings doing essentially the same (rout or target).

Maybe the larger wing size should only be used for bombers or some kind of formations like the V, echelons or lines / columns.

I am not sure if this has already been raised.

The possibility of increasing the size of a single formation to 16 would be welcome since that would allow even the largest squadrons to be assigned to a single unit.

What would be really helpful in the FMB is if the mission builder had the option of specifying the number of flights within a formation and then the formation of each flight.

For example, if you just want 12 planes in one big echelon, you specify "1" for the number of flights, and then "echelon left" for flight formation.

But, if you wanted 12 planes in four flights of 3 "vics" - typical of many bomber squadrons, you specify "4" for the number of flights then specify that each flight takes a "Vee" formation.

Given enough formation options, you could model just about any formation used.

Obvously, a graphical user interface where you can use a mouse to set spacing, formation, etc. for an entire squadron would be most flexible, but I'm not sure that poor old IL2's interface is up to the task.

To keep different squadrons together, there should be a command in the FMB, for "hold formation with X".

Possibly, the list of player commands could include an option that allows a sufficiently high-ranking pilot to command other squadrons to join his squadron and follow his orders.

I was just thinking it would be nice if we could have the ability to attach the home base to a formation of bombers, so when you respawn on a server like setting, you are spawning near enough to them to protect, not spending 5 min trying to catch up to them, all the while watching them get picked off by enemy fighters in the distance.

It would also be good for target practice, though you'd be shooting down friendlies, (just turn off their chute and there will be no witnesses).

Cheers!

**edit** Should be in "beyond 4.13" thread

Well, the question is: how this larger wings will fly...
I do some missions occasonally (just for own usage) and keep wing size of 3, not more. Because wings of 4 behave crazy sometimes, planes collide too often.

Actually, only fighters were flown by fours.
Bombers wings were a three plane formation.

I generate a three bomber wing, and then edit the mis file, and copy paste the flight, doing some minor changes in height, X, and Y. I ussualyy rerun the mission once or twice just to check htat they don´t colide between themselves while reaching WP's.

There should be an option to have either 1, 2 or 3 plane "default" formations within the FMB, and possibly even the QMB.

From there, you could choose squadron or section formation based on base formation.

1-plane base formations: echelon left or right, line abreast, line astern, "loose deuce" ("rotte"), Vee ("Kette"), loose/modified Vee, gaggle (no formation).

2-plane base formations: echelon left or right, line abreast, line astern, "loose deuce" ("rotte").

3-plane base formations: Vee ("kette"), loose Vee/modified V, echelon left or right, line abreast, line astern, Shotei (rear 2 planes weaving behind leader), "Section and Stinger left" (2 plane line abreast, 1 plane stepped back and to the left and above), "Section and Stinger right".

Division/Squadron formations based on 2 plane sections: echelon left or right ("rotte"), "finger four" ("schwarm"), line abreast, line astern, diamond, square.

Division/Squadron formations based on 3 plane sections: echelon left or right, line abreast, line astern, diamond.

Options:

Step plane/section/division up (5 m increments)
Step plane/section/division down (5 m increments)
Step plane/section/division forward (5 m increments)
Step plane/section/division back (5 m increments),
Set plane/section/division as weaver - i.e., will weave back and forth at rear of formation to improve chances of spotting enemy AC).
Maneuver as: Plane/Section/Division/Squadron (i.e., planes will hold formation with formation leader as best they can rather than maneuvering on their own).
Fluid Fighter Tactics: Y/N (If this option is checked fighters within a section or division will use "fluid pair" or "fluid four" tactics, taking turns in attacking and switching lead as necessary.)

del ...

Low level attack profile needs tweaking
 

Ever notice the low level attack behavior of the A20 series? When dropping regular bombs or para frags the ideal solution is to drop and get out quickly,no return to strafe etc. unfortunately both A20C,G drop and sometimes climb while dropping parafrags and then go every which way and return to strafe until all target destroyed or they get shot down. I think that the fm for these needs tweaked to reflect a more historical drop and keep going waypoint/ordnance driven fm. Also there is no way to set ai bomb fusing, try a 200/400 meter low level bomb run with b25C and watch your ai flights blow themselves up over enemy airfields and shipping. Perhaps a use of torpedo plane fm could be triggered by ordnance selected etc. parafrags drop puts planes into line astern and they have to climb to avoid plane in fronts bombs, or if using waypoint normfly put the formation to finger four or line abreast a waypoint before thru a waypoint after target. Also needed are A20C and B25C gunships for the PNG maps. For ground objects camouflaged junks and barges and Maru ships in varying paint schemes, last,lci, hospital ships etc. thanks TD for reading and for all you've done for us.

TBF's do the same thing. They will drop bombs, and get good hits, but then turn around and start strafing random targets until all are destroyed by enemy AAA.

Even more annoying is when light bombers try to strafe with LMGs. The result is predictable...

Realistically, AI attack programming has to take degree of opposition into account. When opposition was weak (i.e., number of hostile AAA or fighters in the area are low), attackers historically did loiter over their target and make repeated attacks. Otherwise, they made "one and done" attack runs, like you describe.

I notice that AI for certain medium bombers - A-20, B-25, maybe others - has them programmed to perform "belly checks" (i.e., 360 degree rolls).

The A-20 was NOT fully aerobatic, so it shouldn't perform this maneuver. Other bomber types probably shouldn't perform this maneuver unless all their crew members were properly strapped into seats. Otherwise, you risk injuring unsecured crewmen, or even ejecting them from the plane!

That bomber behaviour, is there even before TD.

B25's also do that.

They are coded to behave like the IL-2. They perform as an assault aircraft (Sturm), not as a Bomber.

Changing that AI personality behaviour may be possible by making it an option. At least, as a simple solution.

Making them evaluate AA density, would be a whole different story.

Yep, R-10, Su-2, they are all prone to perform pathetic strafing attacks after dropping their bombs, even against tanks.

Another completed and corrected Order of Battle, for 4.14 or later.

This one is for the US 5th Air Force and its predecessor, the US Far East Air Force. The latter saw intense action in the Philippines, on Java, and in Northern Australia in late 1941 and early 1942.

Note that the following "5th Air Force" units, are incorrect and should be removed from the OOB:

5AF_417BG_453BS
USA_FG_008_FS_030z

The 453 Bomb Squadron was never attached to the 417 Bomb Group.
The 30th Squadron was never attached to the 37th Fighter Group. Instead, it was attached to the 6th AF and spent the war guarding the Panama Canal.

For history geeks, there was a brief but intense campaign on Java in early 1942, with a similar plane set to what the Flying Tigers encountered in Burma during the same time period. But, unlike the Tigers, the Allies basically got their collective asses kicked.

It would be way cool if at least a partial map of Java made it into IL2, both to allow campaigns based on the heroic US 19th Bomb Group (Heavy), the US 17th Pursuit Squadron (Provisional), and the equally heroic but doomed ML-KNIL. FWIW, this campaign produced America's first ace of World War 2, LTC Boyd "Buzz" Wagner.

Anyhow, here's the OOB:

Sources for my OOB are USAF Official Histories, fact checked against other reliable sources.

In particular, the books "They Fought With What They Had" and "Every Day a Nightmare" were useful for figuring out the FEAF OOB for the Defense of the Philippines, Java and Darwin.

Another expanded and corrected OOB, this one for the 7th USAAF and its precursor, the Hawaiian Air Force.

The USHAF was mostly destroyed on the ground during the Pearl Harbor attack. The 7th AF was peripherally involved in the Battle of Midway and later supported the 5th and 13th AF in operations against Japan.

This OOB omits some units which never saw combat.

USA_FG_015_FS_012z - This is a duplicate entry and should be removed

In regards to train videos, great presentation, as a closert train buff especially in regards to the DR loki's, t's a very welcome refresh, would have liked to see a BR52 (especially the condensing one) in the mix, but happy with what's been done none the less.

.....condensing one? I here you ask.......

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...NIBM10LCcVlYxw

By the way, I'm curious why was the Br55 chosen as the representative class of Axis loki ?

My goodness, after seeing the train videos I am very happy!

Being a bit of a railway nut, seeing that the coupling rods and motion was animated was just pure joy! :grin:

I would guess it might have something to with the age of the locomotive type, something that would fit the earliest scenarios in IL-2 that still saw use throughout the war. Where as something like the Kriegslok/DRB Class 52 didn't see service until 1942.


If one were to make a suggestion for the future..

I think adding in a British loco set would be nice too. Something that could be used as the allied loco type on the new Tobruk map as an example (or indeed, any other western front map). The type of locomotive best suited would probably be a Stanier 8F (first introduced in 1935) that was used quite a bit by the War Department early on before being replaced by the WD Austerity 2-8-0 (which was first introduced in 1943).

Actually the vast majority of the DR rolling stock dated from the 20's and 30's and in some cases from before WWI, much of it being incorporated from the multitude of the pre-nationalised railways companies and authorities that existed across Germany, like the Prussian State Railways. But it's true the modern types like the BR52, 44, 01 hail from the late 30's and early 40's.

During WWII the DR also acquired extra stock from the occupied territories, much of it purchased originally from Germany or built under licence pre-war (including polish, etc versions of the BR55).

The BR 55 (G8.1) was used for heavy freight due to it's relatively heavy weight and to a lesser extent for some passenger services on main lines. But I can think of quite a few other types that have similar spec's from the same period and available in similar or even greater numbers. So I was just intrigued to here from the creator(s) why the they picked the BR55.

Ah, fair enough. I'll admit German locomotives/locomotive usage isn't my strongest side of things.

So, it appears we are about to recieve totally reworked trains with newly added in armored trains, and ships have also had their mutli directional fire capability as well as rate of fire for each tube. wow, ship attacks now will be harder than ever.
Also that same person on you tube has a take off video of a PO-2? Will this be flyable in 413.1?

Very good presentation.

So... since we can have lights on moving chiefs...

*cough* night-carrier ops *cough*; however, they'd have to be different objects of course, because sometimes you would NOT want lights on a carrier.

But still.

Very cool.

While beggars can't be choosers, if we get new objects it would be nice if each nation had a distinctive pattern to its ground vehicles - as an aid to mission builders and strafers.

For example, British CMP pattern truck - very distinctive.

+1 for the amazing work on the new train models. Not only do they look great, but the ability to have moving parts on ground objects opens up a host of possibilities, like flags that wave, windsocks that move with the wind, or possibly even Landing Signals Officers on carriers.

Wow, absolutly great detail on the wheels and moving parts, very nice animations!

Guys you outdo yourself with each update!!!!!! :grin:

Thanks alot for keeping this sim so alive!

.....all we need now is Train in the Target drop down option in QMB, it would be great to have dedicated train busting missions for both Axis and Allied sides.

Or maybe just have more trains populating the maps when Bridge is selectected as the target.

.....re trains, here's a (although modern) reference tube for military steam, it gives a little bit of an idea of what WWII transport must have been like.

Again I think the rail upgrades are great, many thumbs up, yet and I think maybe it's been mentioned here before that it's a pity the smoke can't be a lighter grey or even white, additionally extra steam coming out of the valves onto the track bed would complete the package, maybe one day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AchAsfv632E

Maybe in the world of IL-2 coal is so abundant that they don't bother with efficient firing, or the quality of said coal is just rubbish? ;)

On another more serious note, I do agree it would be nice to have the smoke in a grey/white colour.

Nice video you linked, by the way. Definitely saving that one.

not quite right like in that video from Spudkopf ... but we don't forget about steam)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUHnR...ature=youtu.be

That's cool thanks, but it does beg the question, that if you can have the steam from the valves then, why not have white or grey smoke coming from the stack?

Yes smoke is too dark maybe ......... perhaps coal grade was poor back then :)

Black is good... Easier to spot those trains on dark background.
We need them not for travelling but for hunting. :-)

I know you were being silly, but even low grade lignite coal burns with a grayish yellow color. It just produces less energy as it burns. A good example is any color picture of a Chinese or Soviet-era Eastern European coal-fired factory.

Anything that's powered using decent coal should have a gray smoke cloud.

We need more and different smoke colors. Black for oil/fuel fires, and burning vehicles, dark gray brown for dirty coal-fired smokestacks and building fires, light gray for steam, clean-burning coal smokestacks, and wood fires, plus colored smoke for air support and supply drop missions.

As for trains, since you can have steam jets emerging from the pistons, why can't you have BIG jets of steam shooting out of the smokestack and boiler when the train is destroyed?

+1. Dark smoke makes locomotive busting even harder at night.

During WW2, steam locomotives could sometimes also be detected at night due to sparks rising up the chimney from the firebox, and the glow from the firebox when the stoker opened the door to shovel in more coal.

Hehe

well just google train smoke, you can choose between white, grey or black, or perhaps all three shades together.

Perhaps some extra coding to randomize the smoke effects, I'm sure TD would appreciate that suggestion :)

Here's my complete USAAF Order of Battle for IL2, as RegInfo.properties, and RegShort.properties files.

Assuming it's possible to add more squadrons to IL2 without blowing it up, its my little bit to make the game better.

This file includes every flight squadron from every US Army Air Force which served in a combat zone, and corrects a few problems with existing USAAF units.

Nomenclature and organization follows period USAAF practice, although information about wing, division, etc. is omitted. I've tried to use consistent spelling and abbreviations in order to make it easier to find units.

Some of the unit names are quite long, since they include information about squadron, group and Air Force, as well as supplemental info like bomber group type. They could be abbreviated a bit without losing data.

What's New:

US Bombardment groups included bomber class in their name - Dive, Light, Medium, Heavy, or Very Heavy - and I've added all that information to the RegInfo file. Given the hundreds of possible bomber units, this makes it easier for mission builders to choose appropriate squadrons when making bombing missions.

I've added headquarters squadrons to all Groups where it is appropriate. These squadrons mostly weren't flight squadrons, but were responsible for the squadron commander's and flying staff officers' personal aircraft, as well as aircraft which had yet to be assigned to a squadron, and the inevitable "hack" aircraft which were used for liaison and training.

I've added all the combat support aircraft squadrons which were directly attached to a particular Air Force, including liaison, rescue, transport, and weather squadrons. These will be handy now that we're getting a flyable C-47/DC-3. I've also added Pan American Airways and CATC (China-America Air Transport Corporation) which were civilian outfits which contracted with the 10th USAAF to transport personnel over "The Hump" to and from China.

I've added several early war precursor units to the "numbered" air forces, like the Middle East Air Force and the China Air Task Force. These will be handy for mission builders building 1942/early 1943 scenarios.

I've duplicated squadrons which were moved between different air forces as needed, in order to give a full order of battle for each air force's entire existence. For example, one unit started with the US Far East Air Force in 1941, was moved to the Middle East Air Force in 1942, then went to the 12th USAAF in 1943, and finally the 15th USAAF in 1944!

Finally, I've included a short list of units which I believe should be removed from the game. These are units which either never existed or never served in the formation to which they were assigned in the game.

Reworked trains is really nice! thank you DT for your efforts! I hope to see it soon on my pc :)

littel up ...

Trains and Tanks look great.

I was a big WW2 buff growing up, (focused mainly on the air, and pacific, but I would think I would have seen photo's of these trains in some book). Did the Germans have a lot of them? And were they effective, I know Europe have a extensive rail net work, but they are still limited to that network, and I would assume fairly easy to find from the air, and destroy.

Great Work TD!

Music from Canada

Armored trains were relatively rare units, and were mostly useful for defending strategic points along rail lines, and for anti-partisan ops (to defend against saboteurs attempting to destroy rail lines). There were used by Germany and the USSR on the Eastern Front and by Japan in China.

As air power got better, armored trains became less effective both because they could more easily be destroyed by air, and because larger bombs could easily destroy railroad tracks.

Once "locomotive busting" ops got really well developed in the later war years, locomotives and rolling stock had to be well camouflaged and/or hidden in tunnels or deep culverts to hide them from view.

Questions for TD:

I'm currently working my way through the Australian, New Zealand and UK orders of battle, with an eye towards "improving" them like I did for the USAAF.

1) Is this effort useful or am I wasting my time? Can more units be added to RegInfo/RegShort without blowing up the game or making it too slow to load?

2) If I add new units to the game, is it required that I add squadron crests (seldom used on actual aircraft) and/or fuselage letter codes?

With time, I can add this info for most units.

3) Many Australian and New Zealand units served with the RAF. Some ML-KNIL (Dutch East Indies AF) units served under RAAF control. How should I include these units in the game?

If you're choosing a squadron in the QMB or a campaign, it makes more sense to include RNZAF, RAAF, etc. units under the appropriate nationality.

But, if you're choosing a squadron in the FMB, it makes more sense to include those units under the appropriate controlling formation (i.e., RAF or RAAF).

In terms of the game, you need the appropriate nationality in order to get the correct language pack to load.

4) Would there be any interest in adding other British Commonwealth nations to the game? If there's interest, I could do orders of battle for Canada, India, South Africa, and possibly Rhodesia. Units from those nations served in the Middle East, Italy, Europe and/or Pacific, mostly under RAF command.

By default, these new nations could use US, UK, Australian or NZ voice packs until you get actual, proper voice packs. (US voice pack for Canada, NZ voice pack for SA & Rhodesia, UK voice pack for India. Apologies to any actual Canadians, South Africans, Zimbabweans, or Indians reading this.)

5) Would there be any interest in adding China to the game? I can add the 1941-1945 "Nationalist" Chinese (Republic of China AF) squadrons. Currently, my USAAF OOB includes a few Chinese American Composite Group squadrons which historically carried the Nationalist AF insignia, like the AVG did.

6) Would there be any interest in adding Manchukou or other minor Allied and Axis nations to the game? I can provide national insignia and perhaps OOB info, but obviously not voice packs.

Missing Axis Nations which fielded Air Forces: Bulgaria, Iraq, RSI (Repubblica Sociale Italiana), Vichy France.

Missing Allied Nations which fielded Air Forces: Belgium, Brazil, China, Canada, Czechloslovakia, Denmark, Free France, Greece, India, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, Yugoslavia.

Hello))

it's interesting) ...


but at first i must say that in 4.13.1 already added some about 900 differnt squadrons maded by our closest ally Motorhead VMF-214 ...

so at current moment USAAF theme is closed at some about 90 percent
ws added all squadrons which was really in battles ...
( no any transports or Recon squads )

also ... was maded and added in 4.13.1 all(or almost all squads ) for RAFs/Canada/New Zealand/Australia/South Africa/The Indian Air Force/Polish and French squads ... (French for 1939 till 1940 time period)

in that case ... from what you prupose ... you can pay attention on following things ...


Missing Axis Nations:
- Bulgaria
- Iraq
- RSI (Repubblica Sociale Italiana)
- Vichy France

Missing Allied Nations:
- Belgium
- Brazil
- China
- Czechloslovakia
- Denmark
- Free France
- Greece
- Mexico
- Norway
- Philippines
- Yugoslavia

remark: Free France squadrons under RAF control is added in 4.13.1.

but i must warn you ... that in current moment we didn't think about adding new Nations ... but if it will be made properly .. i think it wuold be not hard to add it in patch .. if it wil be made correct ..

in fact ... all that work with new squads deserve to be new DevUp)))

Motorhead VMF-214 made HUGE work with it...

for greece check here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Italian_War
The Royal Hellenic Air Force (Ellinikí Vasilikí Aeroporía, RHAF) had to face the numerically and technologically superior Regia Aeronautica. It comprised 45 fighters, 24 light bombers, nine reconnaissance aircraft, about 65 auxiliary aeroplanes and 28 naval cooperation aircraft. It consisted of the 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24th pursuit squadrons, the 31st, 32nd, 33rd bomber squadrons, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th military cooperation squadrons, the 2828 Independent Military Cooperation Flight and the 11th, 12th and 13th naval cooperation squadrons. At the outbreak of the war the operational combat fleet of the Greek Air Force counted 24 PZL P.24 and nine Bloch MB.151 fighters, as well as eleven Bristol Blenheim Mk IV, ten Fairey Battle B.1 and eight Potez 633 B2 bombers.[83] Serviceable ground attack and naval support aircraft included about nine Breguet 19 two-seater biplane bombers, 15 Henschel Hs 126 reconnaissance and observation aircraft, 17 Potez 25A observation aircraft, nine Fairey III amphibious reconnaissance aircraft, 12 Dornier Do 22G torpedo bombers, and 9 Avro Anson maritime reconnaissance aircraft.[84] The main air bases were located in Sedes, Larissa, Dekeleia, Faleron, Eleusis, Nea Anchialos and Maleme.[83]

Britain

On 22 October 1940, six days before the Italian invasion of Greece, despite the Italian invasion of Egypt, the RAF Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Middle East in Cairo was ordered to prepare squadrons for Greece, based on Ultra decodes and other sources that an Italian invasion of Greece was imminent.[85] The RAF first sent 30 Squadron, consisting of one flight of Blenheim IF night fighters and one flight of Blenheim I light bombers, that were based at Athens-Eleusis airfield.[86] Soon afterwards, six Vickers Wellington medium bombers were detached from 70 Squadron and a flight of Blenheim Is from 84 Squadron arrived. All RAF assets were placed under the command of Air vice-marshal John D'Albiac.[87] The RAF aircraft participated in the Greek counter-offensive that began on 14 November, with No. 84 Squadron operating forward from Menidi.[88] A few days later, the Gloster Gladiator fighters of 80 Squadron moved forward to Trikala, causing significant losses to the Regia Aeronautica.[89] 211 Squadron with Blenheim Is, followed before the end of November, joining 84 Squadron at Menidi and 80 Squadron moved to Yannina, about 64 kilometres (40 mi) from the Albanian border. In the first week of December, 14 Gladiators were transferred from the RAF to the RHAF.[90]

So, it sounds like someone else has already done the work.

But, did he get the early war units rather than just the "numbered" USAAF air forces?

Did he correct errors in the existing order of battle?

My work might aid his work there.

I've added all the transport, liaison, recon, and air rescue squadrons to the USAAF OOB, but only when they were actually in combat.

Do these designations include wing and command information, or is it just a list of numbered squadrons? The first is better for both players and mission builders.

So, RAF and RAAF squadrons composed of foreign personnel, but under RAF or RAF control, should be listed under RAF or RAAF listings.

But, by doing that, you'll have the wrong language pack! Your Czech and French squadrons flying for the RAF will speak British English, and your Dutch squadrons flying for the RAAF will speak Australian dialect English!

Getting unit information is easy. Getting unit badges and squadron codes might be harder. Voice packs would be the most difficult since it requires getting fans who are fluent in the appropriate languages to do voice recordings.

Currently, there is an "all nations" mod which does a very good job of adding new nations and insignia to the game, but isn't so good for units and squadron insignia.

Adding the Greek campaigns to the game would be hard. You'd have to add so many new objects, maps and aircraft that it would almost be a whole new game!

It makes more sense to just add the Greek squadrons which served in the RAF, with the appropriate awards, voice packs, etc.

Getting squadron names/numbers, ranks, awards, and national markings graphics for small air forces is easy. Getting squadron insignia is harder. Getting squadron codes and command hierarchy info is even harder, sometimes impossible. Info on tactics, readiness, training levels, etc. is also hard to find.

i must say few words about Motorhead VMF-214.

he is very good company maker .. you can find his works on Aviaskins ...

some time ago he realized that he need for his campaings some squads which isn't in il2 .... and he spend some about two years for it ...

my point is ... he added mosty that squads which he considired like important for company makers ... and for his self at first ...

and now his answer for your questions ...



early war units was addad only that which could be used and useful in some campaings ...




yep ....


i added Transportation squads that I need to campaign intelligence and other similar there to a minimum. Well, it makes no sense add all connected Squadron, which flew some L-5, the Sentinel, because the aircraft will be only a few times.


No signs of belonging to the wing and the more command is not present. In contrast to the USAAF, RAF squadrons, most of the war more than once
transferred from one wing to the other. In this situation, it makes no sense to add more of the same squadron with only a postscript to a different wing.



As far as I know, foreign pilots in the RAF specifically studied English. French or Polish, then again, if I am not mistaken, all
It is forbidden to use in radio, not to create chaos in communication with ground controllers.



you are going to use the fact that the offer to add?
you are going to do the campaign on a high level of detail, and will use all of these connected and rescue squads?

It seems that he's spent a lot more time and effort on the project than I have, so I'll defer to him.

Fair enough. Many of the early war units I added would mostly be useful for modded maps, like the US Far East Air Force. US Middle East Air Force and Hawaiian AF would be useful for existing maps, however.

Transport squadrons become important if there are flyable C-47 in the game. Liaison squadrons are mostly valuable to modders because there are no L-5 or other "grasshopper" aircraft in the game. For now, they could be left out.

Good point. I'd only ask that each squadron be labeled with the general type of aircraft they flew, so you don't have to be a military historian in order to put together a plausible RAF, RAAF, or RNZAF order of battle.

They studied English, but it is difficult to master a foreign language with just a few months of daily lessons squeezed in between other aspects of operational training.

For intra-squadron communications foreigners in the RAF or RAAF often reverted to their native language. But, they had enough English that they could understand and send messages in English to Ground Control Stations or other units, and make themselves understood in English when needed.

In those cases, realistically, you'd have have "mixed" voice packs - with native language for "individual" or "squadron" commands like "Break Left" or "Anybody help me!" but accented English for commands from a squadron to other units, (like, "Thanks for joining us!"). Ground control commands would be in British-accented English.

There's a great scene in the "Battle of Britain" film, where members of No. 303 (Polish) squadron serving in the RAF deliberately ignore their leader's orders - given in English - and attacks a German plane using Polish to communicate among themselves.

Point taken. I'll work on campaigns, not Orders of Battle.

My favourite one.
"Nemtsy, nemtsy !!!" - agitated Polish pilots
"Stop. That. Polish. Chatter. And steer two three zero.." (with stiff upper lip)
"Repeat pliz..."
:grin:

https://youtu.be/yXf1bhEEXd0

There was one lucky armored train during seige of Sevastopol in 1941-1942.
It has survived from Nov 1941 until the days of the 3rd (and final) German sturm in June 1942. 100mm marine guns, 7.62mm and 12.7 mm machine guns, mortars. Two engines, workshop and team of repairmen. Camouflage adapted to season and terrain. Local landscape and tunnels (there are 5 of them near the city) allowed the train to escape and hide after raids.
It has been damaged and blocked inside of rail tunnel after another Luftwaffe attack. Germans has restored and requipped the train and used it until May 1944.

Wiki (Russian):
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%96...D0%B7%D0%B4%29

Yep. That's the one.

There's a lovely documentary on 303 squadron here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptijNcDanVw

Over time, the "bloody foreigners" in the RAF learned more English, if only to help them buy beer and meet English women, but I'm sure that the temptation to revert to native language in emergencies must have been huge.

For the RAAF, things might have been a bit different, since some of the RAAF (NEI) squadrons only had Dutch pilots, but Australian gunners and ground crew! I'd think that there's much more incentive to learn the language if you need to make yourself understood to your crew and mechanics. (That, and the Dutch seem to have a genius for learning other people's languages. :) ).

Getting historical voice packs for the RAF and RAAF foreign squadrons would be a real challenge, and I'm not sure IL2 is up to it.

You'd need to add South African, Canadian, Rhodesian, and even Caribbean-accented English to the existing UK, Australian and New Zealand voice packs to represent all the Commonwealth nations, plus Accented/Bad English packs with American, Czech, Dutch, French, Greek, Irish, Norwegian, and Polish accents to represent foreigners who flew with the RAF!

Dear Sita & Team
just seen your post of March 7th: "Few shots new ground units from 4.13.1 update"
what beautiful & wondrous vehicles you are producing!!
congratulations for all your past & future work - and may there be more of the latter!!
yours, f_t_f

Thanks for your Kind word Sir))

Train sources...
 

Hello TD.

What a great job with the latest ground units. Some of them were very outdated, as the BT and KV tanks; as well as new variants, that are always welcome. About the trains, just one word: marvelous.

And as a source, in case you don't know it, try this website: www.o5m6.de Lots of Soviet and Lend-Lease vehicles profiles, including AFVs, trucks, ships and, of course trains. Hope it helps.

Keep up the good job. Best regards,

batistadk

itteresting page) Thanks)

Not so outdated for Spanish Civil War, Sino-Japanese War/Nohomon, Winter War, and early war scenarios. :)

This is an excellent site. In particular, it's good for "soft" vehicles, like Artillery Tractors (hint, hint!)

http://www.o5m6.de/RussianTractors.html

http://www.o5m6.de/stz-5.html

Its sister site, for the Germans and Italians (a few Western allied vehicles) is also excellent:

http://www.german.o5m6.de/

I mean, outdated in-game models. I hope we get some axis vehicles treat too.

Towed artillery, is it possible to include these as either static or moving vehicles?

stugumby said
Towed artillery, is it possible to include these as either static or moving vehicles?

:idea:
...what ever happened to the towed and manable AAA. Am I missing it? Thought there was a American 4x (somecaliber) that we were able to "fly"
:confused: