A big hello to everyone !!:grin:

I'm reading this forum for quite a while already and now finally registered to participate.
(In case i find somewhat like a welcome thread, I'll soon further introduce myself there :))

First off a big THANK YOU to Team Daidalos, you guys do a great job !
Like many I'm very impatient for the patch, but take your time to do it right !

I'd like to throw in just a little idea too.
For a long time im working on a Reno Air Race map and so far im already very pleased with it.
Only thing left would be pylons like they really are at Reno (normal pylons and home pylon), unlike the 50m tall pylons that already are in game.
I don't know if there is anything copyright on them, but maybe there are more people who'd like to have them so it might be worth considering to add them to the FMB,
in case it's not too much work for just 2 objects for a rather small ammount of people air racing.

Let me know please what you think about this humble idea.

Many happy landings and greetings to all
-=MadCat=-

Take off and landing
 

First I would like to thank Team Daidalos for their work on Il2.

Ive got a few suggestions:

1)Bumps in grass runways.

Right now the grass runways are way to smooth.

2)Option to set the weather, winddirection and windstrenght at the airfield or aircraftcarrier.

Something like in MS flightsimulator where you can adjust weather and wind at diffrent weather stations.

3)Ground effect during landing.
Right now, you just have to wait untill the right time to flare, and you will land no matter what, even at higher speeds.

The problem with bumpy runways is that the aircraft in the sim seemingly have frozen suspension systems. The oleo struts have no compliance at all. The smallest of bumps sends you careening out of control or, flipping you over.

One of the limitations of a 10 year old game engine.

Ground effect is already modeled.

Groundeffect
 

MS flightsimulator 2004/X has the best groundeffect model i think.

Is it possible to rework the game so that you can pause the game while the mini-map window is open? Currently, you must close the mini-map window before you can do so.

Have you ever noticed, that you have only one cloud layer ingame?! the one at nearly 7000m doesn`t count, if you look outside you have different hights of clouds and they are moving with different speeds and sometimes directions, but that could be to much.

What I try to ask is, is it possibel to create a visualy more complex cloud system?

Since I understand that DGEN cannot be modified anymore since starshoy is no longer around, and the offline campaigns in IL2 are getting a little old. Is it possible to incorporate Lowengrin's DCG into IL2 instead, I know it works fine now, but I mean to place it in the game in a more "official" integration so that it can be the new campaign engine, I think it would be nice to be able to use some of the new aircraft and options in campaigns, as well as all the options that DCG offers right in the Il2 interface instead of having to run two programs.

Hello,

I approached Lowengrin with this idea a few months ago. He seemed fairly enthusiastic about it and he has been in contact with DT regarding other matters. My guess is that any announcement made concerning the possible replacement of DGen with DCG will come after 4.10's release (here's hoping). The current DCG already has DGen/NGen replacement mode so it should be able to keep the old campaigns workable.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

P.S. DT does listen to the posts here. A while back, I asked for both an Italian-version propeller spinner for the G.50 as well as corrected LOD0 3D models of the engine nacelles on the Bf110G. Viikate's recent flurry of 4.10 screenshots shows that both of those items have been implemented. I may not have been the only person asking for these, but the sim is better off as a result. Cheers and best wishes to DT!

There´s an interesting plane that can be added for Pacific campaign,but I dunno if it´s worth the effort.

CaC Boomerang
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...WM_0408%29.jpg

"I approached Lowengrin with this idea a few months ago. He seemed fairly enthusiastic about it and he has been in contact with DT regarding other matters. My guess is that any announcement made concerning the possible replacement of DGen with DCG will come after 4.10's release (here's hoping). The current DCG already has DGen/NGen replacement mode so it should be able to keep the old campaigns workable."

Thanks for the reply! I really like DCG, it is much more dynamic than Dgen and I think the whole community would benefit from the face lift that it would give to the offline game. Great work by DT, I think someone else has asked this already but can we donate money to DT in some fashion?

Agreed!...On all points except the donation thing. I believe the structure of the agreement DT has with Maddox Games is such that they cannot accept any money for their efforts (which doesn't really seem fair to DT, but this is a reality of the arrangement).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Although a mediocre fighter, the Boomerang gave fairly good service in the army co-operation role. It had to! At the time there was very limited options available to the RAAF. My favourite was 'Hep Cat'!

If we want an Australian fighter how about a CaC CA-15 for a 1946 senario

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2/20/CA-15.jpg

Kind of like an Australian Hurricane?

nah ... if anything the Boomerang was closest in performance to the Brewster Buffalo. Slightly lower top speed but better guns (20mm) and better rate of climb. The Buffalo had a lower wing loading.


CAC Boomerang ***
Powerplant: 1,200 hp (895 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radial engine,
Empty weight: 5,373 lb (2,437 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,699 lb (3,492 kg)

Maximum speed: 305 mph (265 knots, 491 km/h) at 15,500 ft (4,730 m)
Range: 930 mi (810 nm, 1,500 km)
Service ceiling: 29,000 ft (8,800 m)
Rate of climb: 2,940 ft/min (14.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 34.2 lb/ft² (167.1 kg/m²)

Armament
2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano or CAC cannons
4× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns
Bombs: Could be fitted when the large drop tank was not carried



F2A-3 ***
Powerplant: 1,200 hp (895 kW) Wright R-1820-40 radial engine
Empty weight: 4,732 lb (2,146 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 6,321 lb (2,867 kg)

Maximum speed: 284 mph at sea level, 321 mph at 16,500 ft (457 km/h, 516 km/h)
Range: 1,680 mi (2,703 km)
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,144 m)
Rate of climb: 2,440 ft/min[5] The initial rate of climb would be further reduced with completely full petrol tanks.</ref> (744 m/min)
Wing loading: 24.1 lb/ft²

Armament
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 machine guns
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 machine guns
2 × 100 lb (45 kg) underwing bomb


EDIT:
The Boomerang would be a great addition for us Aussies .. but really wouldn't interest anyone else much :D

It only ever flew for the RAAF as far as I know and is going to perform pretty much like the Buffalo in game.

Talking of FM's.

The Fiat G55/56 were, according to all sources, on the same level as the toughest American steel - and spits.

Can't feel too much of that in the game though.

Indeed,the Boomerang remembers a lot the F2A.Is it a licensed production that got some modifications?

And the G.55 was regarded as the best italian fighter from WWII.I guess even germans were impressed with it.
On a comparative list,the G.55 had an excellent performance,Re-2005 had good and MC-205 was average.

No its derived from the CAC Wirraway which was a license built variant of North American's NA-16/18 trainer. I suppose in a way its a sister aircraft of the T-6 Texan :D I have seen one closeup in real life, hangered in Toowoomba QLD.

Anyway in game terms ... its performance is close enough to the Buffalo that a Buffalo skin hack can substitute fine for the CAC Boomerang.

Long term if some enthusiastic fellow Aussie built one it would be a nice Pacific theater add on (and I may even be able to get some photos of the Toowoomba one) but its not really an aircraft for TD to make a big priority.

http://www.oceanicwing.com/boomerang.html may be will be interesting ...

Replacement of DGen with DCG will be VERY welcome. Offline really need a lift! :)

BTW,TD,the mounted guns of some planes,like bombers,dive bombers,have no recoil,like the IL-2 tail gun.
Is recoil for those MGs going to be added in some version?

Hi,

One small thing I notice is fighter bombers do not drop their extra fuel tanks when they attack ground targets. This would be a fairly easy thing to fix I guess.

Rgs,
FP

First many thanks to TD for there tireless work in keeping this sim going! now ive read alot of post on this thread and some have touched a little on it and i do know its too late for my queston to become reality in 4.10 but in the next patch is it in the works or has it been discused giving us Jug lovers a true M ?

Keep up the good work guys :)

M? I thought they go only up to DD?

I just want to see hydraulic failure, as seen in guncam footage, and on the zero on the main menu of sturmovik, and burst tyres in the game if its possible at all.

A fixed mounted MG has barely any real 'barrel rise' recoil, right? But vibrate at the speed of the firing rate at least, which they don't do. They do feel more like projectors rather than machine guns.

Agreed, some kind of camera/model movement effect would make it a lot more immersive.

Not a bad suggestion. However, we don't know how problematic it is to implement. And non-pilot positions probably have very low priority for the developers.

Tasty. As realistic damage modeling as possible has always been one of my higher wishes. It is so much fun to deal with all the types of system failiure that can occur.

Any chance of an Update guys??

Haha! Good one Viikate. Personally I'd like to see the time spent on the multitude of missing early war types.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

I would not mind seeing some more bombers, espically for the Germans and Italians. Like the DO-217 for the germans and the Fiat BR.20 and Cant Z.1007 for the Italians. Just some more bombers in general would be nice.

Just got hold of a copy of the second IL2 demo, and the amount of torque modelled is much more than is in 4.09. With airframe stresses being introduced in 4.10 any chance we could have the torque put back to the more, IMHO, accurate earlier levels? The demo is great fun to fly by the way. Thanks for all of your hard work btw.
Regards

Do-217 Featuring in 4.10,but as a.i
Z.1007,same
BR.20,SoW matters.Forget it.

It would be nice to get some more loadout options for Mosquitos, like drop tanks and rockets for the FB, and larger size bombs such as were used later in the war.

Another question: Will Zuti's MDS be available for offline missions or campaigns? I'm making a guadalcanal campaign and it would be nice to have the ability to land in the middle of the action and refuel and rearm. This would also be good for Blitzkreig campaigns i.e stukas landing rearming, and taking off again to strike more targets in a short time frame.

unstickied thread?

The mod version of Zuti's MDS allows this, so I don't imagine the functionality will have been removed in the official version.

K thanks, I've never tried the mod version, so I might give it a whirl.

DT 4.1x Request: New sounds
 

Hello all,

I am wondering if DT would consider working with some of the sound mod makers out there (Jafa, Tiger33, et al) to replace the sounds of stock IL-2 in some future patch. If not, what are the issues that would impede such a cooperative effort?

The sounds of IL-2 have always been the sim's weakest spot (I think most users would agree after using one of the sound mods out there). The impact of better sounds is significant in terms of immersion and would contribute greatly to the simming experience of all IL-2 users with no performance hit. Heck, even Jane's World War II Fighters from 1998 had infinitely better sounds than stock IL-2 has today.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

True,but someone said that the sounds that have on internet for IL2,god knows who made them,recorded or such thing.
Still,I totally agree with replacing the sounds.

To be honest the original IL2 sounds work better on my system than the 1946 ones. As far as 4.09 is concerned the 4.09 sound DLL's do not work at all with my older Athlon and I needed to put the 4.07 DLL back.


In terms of meeting user expectations ... the tricky bit is most users expect the same sounds they hear during a flypast at an air show. The sounds inside a cockpit are quite different to the sounds an observer on the ground hears.

In players expect to hear the same sounds they hear in movies or at air shows (the distinctive growl and whistle of a DB flying past for example) they are bound to be disappointed.

Hello,

I'm not sure about the performance of 4.07 sounds versus 4.09 ones, since I didn't notice any change in performance between them on my old Athlon 1800XP (but then I wasn't really looking). I haven't had as many sound reliability problems with 4.09, if memory serves. What sound card/chipset do you have? In my request, I was more interested in how the engines/guns sound rather than the software mechanics of the rendering of said sounds.

I agree that some users' expectations may be unrealistic, but I suggest you play/watch youtube of Jane's (it should run nicely on your Athlon) or try the modded IL-2 on a faster computer (performance degration due to mods are not due to the different sounds but to other stuff). You'll see then what can be reasonably expected sound-wise from a flight sim. Stock IL-2 sounds...SUCK... There is no other way to put it after experiencing some of the other flight sim sounds out there. I personally feel that effort put towards fixing this is not wasted (plus most of the content creation is already done).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Don't expect it (to put it mildly). DT doesn't have the expertise in this area and I doubt any of these "Soundpacks" do not contain samples that weren't taken from gawd-knows-where.

I cannot comment on the quality of the 4.09 sounds as they do not work on my system. However this argument is usually not about quality its about the type of sounds.

I agree that it is simply totally impossible for the makers of those/any sound packs to have had access to recordings from inside the cockpit of aircraft which in many cases have not been flyable for 40 years.

Even where they are flyable the sounds will be usually those of a restored warbird with a similar but usually not identical engine running at reduced boost for safety recorded from outside the aircraft.

Unfortunately these inaccurate soundpacks are exactly the type of sounds that the average person thinks sound "fantastic" in a flight sim. They expect the sort of outside sounds you hear in movies or when standing on the ground at an airshow watching a flypast. Historically correct sounds will not make these people happy.

Come on, guys! I'm sure the makers of the various soundmods would be able to point DT to their reference material (videos/sound files/etc), if asked. I think you would be surprised just how much accurate reference material is out there for this. If you are worried about ACCURACY then I would think you would be clamouring for a new sound scheme for stock IL-2. According to the current stock game, a BMW801-powered Fw190A/F sounds EXACTLY like an IAR8x or Hs129B both of which used different propellors and entirely different (Gnome-Rhone) engines. All axis inline engines apprently sound the same according the stock IL-2 regardless of model or whether or not they were built by Junkers or D-B. They also sound like R-2800 radials for some reason. The Fiat A.74 in the CR-42/G.50/C.200 sounds the same as the American engine in the Brewster. The list goes on and on. I would suggest replacing all sounds that can be proved, at least in part, by the available references. Any sound mod sounds that are un-referenced could be left out in favour of the original stock IL-2 sounds. Keep in mind that the key element of engine sounds is the combination of engine exhaust note, propellor pitch/type and whether the plane is multi-engined or not. Reasonable extrapolation can be made for engine variants or for aircraft equipped with the same engine/prop combo.

My two cents,

Fafnir_6

Edit: I see no reason why aircraft and gun sounds could not be subject to the same vetting process that is currently in place for aircraft flight models in terms of references. This way we could strive to provide IL-2 users with the most accurate sounds (backed by the available references) with the acknowledgement that IL-2 is a simulation and that, given the massive scope of the sim, complete fidelity to wartime aircraft performance and sounds is next to impossible but that we will try to emulate them to the best of our ability and knowledge. I agree that for some types of aircraft, no references of reliable quality are available, but to eliminate new sounds for better known aircraft because of this is preposterous. The crappy sounds of stock IL-2 is one of the main reasons I use mods (the others being better campaign generators, map repaints and some of the effects).

Some sounds are well know,like Bf-109 DB engine roar.

One plausible problem is copyright. Mod makers could perhaps have ignored this, but anything official can't, which means that sounds taken from a mod would have to be certifiably copyright free before they could be used, and that's probably not possible.

Very true. This is why mod makers would need to reveal all their sources prior to their sounds being considered for a future patch. References such as a you tube video or amateur recording should be admissable but any sounds ripped from Jane's, for example, would need to be disqualified.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Just what proportion of mod 'in cockpit' sounds are based on actual in cockpit recordings? Though stock IL-2 sounds may be lacking authenticity, this doesn't make the mod sounds right. I'd say if new sounds are required, we'd need to start from scratch.

EDIT
YouTube is hardly a source for reliably copyright-free resources. And not exactly high quality either.

I think the argument here is that sounds, of any sort, of actual wartime aircraft (inside & out) cannot be recreated in most cases. As a result any in-game sounds are just a best-guess. This is certainly true of mods but I think some also forget that this is true for the stock sounds as well. By this reasoning, both sounds sets are of equal (dubious) authenicity. However, one sounds set (the mods) sounds far more accurate as far as external sounds are concerned (this would be the easily recordable airshow sounds poo-pooed by an earlier poster). The modded internal sounds, in most cases, try to take the exterior sound and muffle/distort them as you would expect (guess) them to be in cockpit. The result is a varied and not unbelieveable (while not necessarily authentic) array of interior sounds that can enjoyed by all. The stock sounds, meanwhile, do not maintain particularily good fidelity to easily recordable exterior sounds and the interior sounds are generic and boring between the many different types of aircraft we have in game. I think value would be added by incorporating modded sounds into stck IL-2.

As for Youtube, I agree that copyright is often trampled there as well. But there is a difference between ripping a sound out of another simming product (direct copying) and listening to a Youtube sample (copyrighted or not) and trying to make your own synthesized sound (created in Goldwave or whatever) match what you hear as closely as possible. I would say that the latter would be admissible.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

P.S. Awesome discussion we are having here, thanks to all posters :)

Just off topic a bit but the P-40E and M external models are very badly out of proportion, incorrect tail and nose lengths and wing dihedral. The P-40B and C models (and tomahawks) look wonderful though. Is this because the E and M where done earlier by different modelers?

My understanding is that the P-40E/M was done by Radek for the original IL-2 "back in the day", prior to the release of Pacific Fighters. The P-40B/C were Pacific Fighters additions, if memory serves. I believe Oleg & co. were aware of the errors in the P-40E/M 3D models but never had the time to fix them due to the development of Pacific Fighters first, and then Storm of War later. Development screens of DT patch 4.10 have shown (Ju88, Bf110G, G.50, etc) that they do these sort of fixes. Hopefully they can find time in their busy schedules to give the P-40E/M (and possibly add the most-produced P-40N while they're at it) some love. May I also add that the landing gear of the P-40s seem a little bit duck toed? I haven't had time to really examine them closely, but they seem to be twisted slightly outwards in the extended position. Perhaps the animation can be tweaked at some point.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

I have flown in a real B-25. I know what that sounds like.

It's quite simply the loudest thing I have ever experienced short of a Nitro fuel dragster, or firing an M1 Garand without hearing protection.

Neither the mod B-25 sounds or the stock are anywhere close.

If it were accurately modeled two things would happen.

1. We would all go deaf. (Most survivng B-25 crewmen are).

2. Our speakers would be destroyed in short order.

Warbirds are not quieter inside than a flyby is. They are exponentially louder. Hearing protection is an absolute necessity.

Trust me here, you do not want the sim to have realistic interior sounds. The only way you could even begin to approximate it is to have your system volume cranked to 11 on speakers, and then wear a proper real flight crew headset so you could hear the radio, etc...

Talking of B-25,it would be nice to fly the earlier B-25 versions,for Pacific,North Africa and European campaigns.

BTW,El Aurens,does it sounds like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEDt3J7E-B0

A lot like that yeah. :cool:

The microphone on the camera was clipping as it was unable to cope with the high dB levels in the cockpit.

I also rode in the left waist gunner position and it was unbearable back there as well.

I rode in the Yankee Air Museum's B-25D "Yankee Warrior". We had a 45 minute ride along the Ohio shore of Lake Erie.

http://http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6808/b252.jpg

I think that for a totally realistic sound set we would need very a expensive sound synthesizing software suite that takes into account displacement of engine and a whole lot of manifold pressure and RPM ranges, along with propeller type/dimensions and external air conditions, then apply all that to mathematical functions that describe the properties of air waves and finally, match the results to what we know sounds like it in reality.

It could probably be done with today's computers and come very close to reproducing what the real thing sounded like. It would also probably be something as expensive and needing just as long a time to be coded as the rest of the simulator, so i guess we won't see it :grin:

As for noise levels, it depends on a lot of things. In the B-25 video you can see the hair of the guy in the back moving in the wind, so i guess the sound is louder because they are flying with the side window open. Not to say that the sound wouldn't be loud in any case, these were some huge engines and they were mostly tuned for performance, operating with unsilenced mufflers, but the effect is probably exaggerated a bit by having the window open.

Also, just like in motorbikes and cars, an air-cooled engine will have more of that "thump-thump-thump" sound (especially at lower RPM), just like the old VW beetles and air-cooled chopper bikes like the Harley models, while a liquid-cooled engine exhibits less of a "thumping growl" and more of a high pitched "whine".

Finally, the use or no use of noice cancelling headphones is another variable, but i don't know how well WW2 headphone sets were in that regard.

All in all, there's quite a lot of variables to get it right without devoting increasing amounts of time to it.

A usefull patch would be, regarding the previous posts, that NO external sounds are heard in the cockpit, except maybe really close heavy AAA bursts.
So, no more "sound radar" to watch one's back, only team-mates and the Mk1-Eyeball.

+1000

I was about to write the same thing - not to mention that in some planes you can hear others further away than in another ... real immersion killer

Outside view sounds can be as real or fancy or whatever but inside cockpit you cannot hear anything but your own engine as descriped in this thread earlier.

Blackdog_kt, most of my flight was in the waist gunner's position, no windows open anywhere on the aircraft, and you could not hear yourself think. If I wanted to communicate with one of the other passengers in the compartment, we would have to take our ear protection off and literally scream at one another to be heard, and we were only sitting a couple feet apart. Having the side window in the cockpit slid back would not change anything.

Please don't let this become another of those topics where a simmer sitting at his computer in his comfortable envirionment "probably" knows better than someone who has actually been there and done it. We have enough of that nonsense when it comes to FM debates, don't we?

I'm not happy with the game sounds myself, but it is my impressions that mods just aim to provide "cooler" sounds at the expense of "more realistic" ones. It would be nice to see them improved, but if you want to do it right, it's quite a task.

Hello,

El Aurens, you are absolutely correct about the ambient noise levels in the cockpit. I stand by my earlier assertion that stock/modded interior sounds are all just best guesses by their respective makers (I'll amend that now to say that they are adjusted to save our hearing/speakers as well). If the modded sounds interior sounds don't bear any resenblance to the sound in the video, what is to stop the sound maker from dropping the gain of the sound in the video (or perhaps make a new recording with a very low-gain microphone/recording system since B-25s are still flying) and adjusting his/her in game interior sound for a given plane to match the recorded sound to the best of his/her ability. Surely this would be the closest we could get to proper interior sounds. There are many warbirds still flying that we could potentially get a low gain recording system in for a flight. I'll look into what recording system would be best for this (this need not be prohibitively expensive, I think).

As for exterior sounds, the mods have it right. I have heard Spitfires fly in RL and the stock sounds bare no resemblance to the real thing. The same goes for P-51s, Bf109s and other still flyable warbirds.

If replacing the interior sounds is untenable (I don't think it is when you have youtube cockpit vids and if we could make special recordings) then perhaps just the exterior sounds could be replaced since these are much easier to record and get very accurate.

@robtek: While you are correct that you shouldn't be able hear anything other than your own engine/guns in cockpit, it is still worthwhile to overhaul the exterior sounds for offliners such as myself who like to watch other planes fly around/fight during a long flight.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

tbh, i use the stock sounds in game, rather than the sound mods. some are good, like the whistle tone of the 109, but some are just so awful it ruins it. the canned hit sounds for one. and whilst the mods sound good on flypast, i cannot help but think they are using up resources for things that you simply would not be able to pick out over the headphones, RT and general roar of being in a cockpit. essentially they are superfluous.
i'd agree with that. it would be an immense task to improve and maintain the same standard across the board that *some* of the sounds mods have added.

almost SoW proportioned in fact.

which begs the further question - would the effort be wasted?

I know what you mean. I wasnt' referring to your flight but mainly to the video posted, where it seems that they are flying with the cockpit windows open and the question naturally pops up into mind..."is it really that loud with windows closed as well?". Judging from what you say, it seems to make little or no difference.

@MD_Titus: I agree that the quality is not uniform across each sound mod (I think this is true of all mods). This is partly why I proposed a vetting process for any new sounds coming into the sim. Any sounds that are awesome and will add much to the simming experience will be incorporated while, the lower quality samples could be rejected in favour of the stock sounds until a better sound can be made.

You may be right about system resource usage in sound mods that contain additional flypast programming (which sounds phenomenal, btw) such as the Tiger33 mod. Perhaps this could be implemented as a toggleable option in the sound setup screen (it is certainly worth adding for those with faster machines).

I also agree that replacing all sounds accurately in IL-2 is an immense task. I suggest replacing them piece by piece rather than a wholesale conversion to Jafa or Tiger33. This way we can have the vetting process take place over a long period of time without unduly straining the resources of a small development team. This would be the only way to maintain quality control and get patches released in a timely fashion, IMHO.


@El Aurens & Bf-110: The answer to recording loud cockpit sounds is here (we could probably use attenuators,if needed):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdhguvIr5Jg

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Ah, K that's right I forgot that the P-40 was one of the original Il2 planes, thanks.

No worries, man! I believe the P-40E/M may have been part of the Forgotten Battles release around 2003/2004?? Anyway, it could do with a wee facelift. Motion seconded :).

Fafnir_6

Hello again,

I have a small request for a future DT patch. I've been flying the J8A in a Finnish campaign and I have noticed a small anomaly which can perhaps be corrected. When parked, with the engine stopped, the propellor of the J8A is a wooden fixed pitch propellor that is tan in colour. When the engine is running, the spinning texture of the propellor is black with yellow warning tips. Would it be possible to make a tan-coloured spinning propellor texture without warning tips to maximize the J8A's immersion factor?

Thanks very much,

Fafnir_6

Just to give a try:

- Set in "Controls" the option of FOV "Extra Wide", like 115º, and the subsequent implements betwen this new FOV setting and "Wide" FOV.

Simple and "life changing" feature. Thanks.

A minor adaptation, nonetheless welcome:
a correct Revi for J8A.
Could not remember hearing of a finnish Galdiator being rigged with a japanese sight...:confused:

Fafnir and Schnaps .... i have asked about the J8a before ... apparently the J8a fixes are already under way:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...785#post170785

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDKlbe-51U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuB5S...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3aCy8OZ1-Y

Anything is possible , dont let the nay sayers tell you otherwise :rolleyes:

So? It's a mod. Heard it before. Nothing special. All the major mod packs attempt improved sounds, this is not news to anyone.

By the way, all those P40s trailing exhaust smoke, totally wrong effect.

Ever seen a P40 fly? I have. They do not trail black exhaust smoke.

No Allison engined aircraft do.

More flights of fancy from kids making mods that have seen too many movies.

`Oh please ... give your big mouth a rest , not only do you have no idea what your talking about or who your talking to but going for one joy ride and a spectating at airshows dose not make you an expert on jack but what you clearly are is just another arrogant anorak at 1c , now run along to wiki little man and prepare your retort. :rolleyes:

I for one truly hope that the amazing efforts by jafa and tiger to improve the sounds in IL2 will become in some form, part of an official update by TD. Then, I'm sure certain whiners will be posting here telling us what a great improvement to the sim it's inclusion has been.

Why do you come to advertise your mods in thread called “QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons”. Was your post intended as a huge middle finger towards Maddox Games basically saying that “haha, I stole your code and intellectual property I and can do better job than you”?

Exactly how many hours have you flown with these vintage WW2 fighters, so that you are qualified to say what sounds correct INSIDE the pit with proper headgear on? I personally have zero hours, but I can get you few opinions from guys who know what they are talking about. I have already heard one verdict and it was pretty much inline what ElAurens already said. Stock is less wrong when inside the pit.

_spot

d We all know you make mods, but besides that, do you think it's appropriate to come to the official 1c forum and post this, I mean what kind of reaction did you expect? Sorry but I have no patience for people going "internuts", and no desire to see this forum turn into trash talk. Please respect this forum and if you don't like a certain comment, step up and try to resolve the issue constructively or don't answer back at all. We're all trying to have fun here, so don't take things so seriously.

LOl. thats normally how it works here.

I think the reason he posted is not to "advertise" his mods, but to show what can be done. It's not like he's getting paid for them after all. That said, it's a bit in poor taste to come and "flaunt the wares" in a thread were it's specifically stated in the title that only official modifications are supported.

In any case, just because something is an unofficial mod doesn't make it more wrong or right than something that is an official mod. That's what patches are, official mods. Some things are better with the stock game, some are better with the modded game and all this is a matter of taste. For some "better" means historical, for others "better" means "what i saw in the movies as a kid, the same movies that made me interested in aviation". If people are free to decide if they want to fly with wonder woman view and unlimited ammo, then they should be free to decide if they want to fly with realistic sounds or hollywood sounds, no big deal.

I'm glad SoW will have built-in support for this kind of thing so that everyone can load up whatever they want, then maybe have each server enforce its list of approved modifications just like it's done with the difficulty settings.
Then we might be spared having to explain at each and every turn that game customization does not necessarily equal cheating. :rolleyes:

If anything, it gives people more stuff to play around with in a 10 year old simulator and that's good for the developers too. It's about being able to separate what's positive and what's not. Cracking the game code? Bad. Customizing the game through use of said code, so that people still keep flying IL2 after almost a decade? A positive side effect of a bad thing.

The thing is, as much as i like IL2 it's getting a bit long in the tooth and i'll take anything i can get to spice it up. Just because i like to fly full switch doesn't mean i won't try out something else once in a while. In that sense, i'm happy both for the officially supported work of team daidalos as well as the unofficial work done by hobbyists in the community.

Nobody's forcing anyone to use something they don't like after all ;)

Agreed. Some of the best games that have the longest "play life" are games that are easily modded. As users, we start thinking "Good game, but it would be better if...". And then we find that some modder had the same thought.

I've played in a lot of competitions where a "mod" was the standard for the competition (and reduced cheating). Mods can also fix obvious mistakes in the original.

Splitter

Awesome! I had no idea this was underway. DT never ceases to amaze. Thanks for setting us straight :).

@EL Aurens, Fireflyerz, Viikate, etc: Oh my god...What have I started? :(

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

I mean no disprespect to anyone, but we all know what the mods sound like, I have a mod install on my machine. It's OK, mostly because of the array of aircraft that are flyable.

Is it the best thing since sliced bread, no. It's an alternative and nothing more.

Jaffa, your personal attack on me just proves my point better than anything I could write.

And no, P40s do not trail black smoke. Only restored Bf 109s that are run over rich to save their irreplaceable DB engines show that, and B52s and F4 Phantoms of course.

If you think my info comes from wiki then I suggest you know even less than you purport to.

Have a nice day.

I think i'm going to agree on the black exhaust trails being a function of too rich a fuel mixture. However, there are some cases where it might be realistic to see this.

It has been observed by allied pilots, when 109s or 190s suddenly went to full throttle when bounced.
The reason is probably that they didn't have digital computers but analog auto-mixture systems, so it took some time for the mixture to stabilize properly. So, when they went from economy/patrol cruise to full throttle in the blink of an eye sometimes a black trail could be observed, but it went away as soon as the auto-mixture stabilized to the correct value.

I don't remember where i saw it (that's my main problem really, i have a good memory but i don't keep a list of references handy for flight sim forum debates :grin: ), but it was cited by experienced allied pilots as a means of understanding when the German fighters advanced to full throttle. Of course, it could probably be used by experienced German pilots as well to mask their change in power settings by advancing the throttle smoothly in order not to give off the tell-tale smoke trail, thus fooling the allied pilot into thinking they were still milling about at cruise settings ;)

Oh for gods sake man , your post and many others you wrote was arrogant and pigheaded and your not alone there are many others here just like you that just want to slam any opinion that is not there own you will not get away with it with me, if you can behave in a mature way then we will get along just fine ,if not...... its up to you.
I put the vids up to show that SOUND realisim can be gotten close to even with the limited Prs of il2 ,its not advertising , as these sounds are not on release and nither myself nor Tiger33 need to advertise anything.

Ps, you spelt jafa wrong there is only one -F-

Jafa's sounds aren't far off, if we allow for the way the sound is recorded in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCrKD...eature=related

JAMESON uaooooooo bellissimo your video i have sensation stay in copitch of p40.
the sound is realy is good but i send a rumor of a BEEEEEB BEEB.
BUT WW2 airplane have a CLACSON? beeeeb beeb? Klaxon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDKlbe-51U


Nice vid, awfull flyby sounds.

Imo, if im allowed to have one that is.

I sec the sounds is ok the next it sounds like a syntheziser is doing the job, sounds very od in my ears.

Sorry I spelled your name wrong Jafa. No slight was meant.

As the biggest hold up to "better" sounds in official releases is really copyright issues, could you tell us where your sounds come from?

Are you spending tens of thousands of dollars to record actual aircraft?

That is pretty consistent with what I have found when comparing the mod sounds to youtube videos (not scientific, I know). I continue to be amazed. Great work by the modders!

That is only an issue if he uses a direct rip of the sounds from videos/audio files not of his making. If he uses sound synthesis software to approximate the sounds in the video then there should be no copyright issue. How do you do it, Jafa?

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

No, even that is not an issue , it only becomes one when you are trying to turn a profit directly from the first party s material without there consent.
As for my source I will tell you this , ive worked in aviation for 20 years I fly I jump I fix, my father was also involved as well so I guess you could add another 20 on to that, this probably accounts for 60 % of what I use the rest is more often than not offered but sometimes as with the napier sabre you must use archive material and guess work as there are at this time none still running , though I hope that Kermit will put this to right in the near future.
Now its my turn , how important is realistic sound to you ?, to me it is 51 % of the immersion, do you want to see the same original sounds released with SOW as were first released with il2...?

Thank you.

Last question first. I doubt that any of us want unrealistic sounds, but you must remember that Oleg's company is indeed a for profit business, so any intellectual property, including sounds, have to have proper attribution and be free of copyright issues or they simply cannot be used. We don't need another Northrop-Grumman fiasco.

So, your sound files are recordings you have made personally?

Indeed, which software suite did you use to make the sounds? Inquiring minds wish to know (there is a 426 Hemi exhaust note needed for my Roadrunner in Need for Speed :)).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

So far with all the mods I've tried, everyone seems determined to dampen or completely mute the propellor sound, which I personally like very much. In one of the mods I took a soundeditor and had to amplify it with 400% to get it to the original level.

And I can't really find evidence these shouldn't be used. Every time I hear a turboprop passing by, first I hear the props and later, much fainter, the turbines.


Something completely different:

Has anyone mentioned mixture control and the associated behaviour yet? I love the upcoming multiple engine prop/power/radiator controls but accurate mixture control would add so much more. Currently the strange effect of reaching 5 km of altitude and suddenly having a drop in power and a trail of black smoke, is far from reality.

Also, probably written before, a number of craft aren't perfectly modeled on the supercharger/turbocharger thing. For example, the P47 has an extra turbocharger control lever and RPM gauge for the turbo. Both the F4U and P47 have additional intercooler flaps and dito control. Although the F4U has automatic intercooler capability, the pilot manual warns of situations where manual operation is mandatory.

During testing with the F4U, the Carb Heat warning light (temperature of the air inside the intake manifold) never turns on. Even if at sea level and 60 inches of manifold pressure, I switch from neutral blower(1) to low(2) or high(3), pressure never exceeds 60 inches which seems a bit odd: AFAIK a carburetted supercharged engine does not use an automatic pressure-relief valve. I guess that engine temperature is modeled purely by measuring the oil (or coolant) temperature while in real life, detonation was/is a serious threat to engine health, often melting holes through the top of the pistons, even if coolant or oil temperatures are well within operating standards.

AFAIK the only planes that have damage modeled through something different than overspeed, battle damage or overheat are planes with MW50 and even that is not done correctly. In real life one chooses a pressure setting with the throttle, say 1.8 ATA, and before that switches on the MW50 accordingly. In the sim you switch on the MW50 and suddenly the ATA increases.
What in real life happens is that the amount of air that is compressed increases, but the pressure stays the same, only due to the charge cooling effect of the water and thus the lowered temperature of the air between supercharger and cylinders. It's even worse: take a K4 and start the engine with throttle at 0%. Watch the manifold pressure. Now switch on the MW50. You'll see the increase in pressure while engine RPM stays the same. This is wrong.

It would be better if we have a HUD warning telling us the temperature in the intake manifold is too high, so the pilot can lower throttle OR lower supercharger stage OR open intercooler flaps OR engage water/MW50/fuel injection, or all of them.

Cylinder head temperature (CHT) is a different story, as this is controlled by manifold pressure, engine RPM, IAS, mixture setting and cowl flaps a well as atmospheric condition like humidity or rain. This can be measured roughly with coolant/oil temperature, but not always. Fast increases in CHT can happen if the engine RPM is too high, IAS is too low, the mixture is too lean and temperature in the intake manifold is not even at max, while the heat capacity of the oil/coolant system takes time to catch up with the true condition in the cylinder head(s) and produces an incorrect reading, depending on the placement of the temperature sensor.

If we want even more realism we would have to remember notes for each plane separately, which includes the max amount of manifold pressure, engine RPM and mixture/blower/intercooler setting for every given situation, like shown in various movies on YouTube. The single switch "Complex Engine Management" may not be enough as a lot of people would want a mix of settings or wouldn't want to remember notes for the odd type they fly occasionally.

The wiki on turbochargers:
"Pilots must make smooth, slow throttle adjustments to avoid overshooting their target manifold pressure. The fuel mixture must often be adjusted far on the rich side of the peak exhaust gas temperature to avoid overheating the turbine when running at high power settings. In systems using a manually-operated wastegate, the pilot must be careful not to exceed the turbocharger's maximum RPM. "

I understand that proper turbo/supercharger/intercooler/mixture control for each plane is a lot of work and maybe even beyond the capability of the IL2 engine. But it can be nice to have. For example on full realism dogfights with the F4U against lower performance planes like the KI-61 with some DB interpretation of the Kommandogerät, this can even out the odds if a pilot isn't proficient with engine management.

At least a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking warning or high intake manifold temperature warning coupled with gradually increasing engine damage would be really nice to have.

I'm not sure how to embed them so I post the links instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0BYq3yevs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcGoc7P1MnA

Ohw, this one is funny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y3v1-WMJS8

This one explains in more detail the operation and control of the turbo in the P47:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NWaHlnI_LQ

And more on YT, of course :)

So far my plea for increasing the realism on engine management, as an option for the freaks :)

That's exactly the kind of things i'ld like to see modelled and the reason is that it gives us more ways to screw up...more chances of a mistake means more variety in battle damage or more time spent looking inside the cockpit to prevent that damage, which will result in more succesful bounces, just like it used to be in reality ;)

However, i believe that it's beyond the capabilities of the IL-2 engine or the time needed to do it is too much. Just the amount of controls that need to be mapped would be about a dozen (increase/decrease for each control) and then, not every plane has every kind of control. Plus, not every virtual pilot has a HOTAS with 30 separate command combinations and since IL-2 doesn't support mouse clickable controls, it would make for an extra 10-15 keybindings on an already crowded keymap configuration.

Not to mention that some things are highly individual between different aircraft, for example mixture. Some have full manual control, some have fully automatic and some have semi-automatic (like the US birds where you choose between 2-3 presets:cut-off,auto lean,auto rich, full rich). In order for this to be modelled in a fully realistic manner, the mixture increase/decrease commands would have to be coded for each aircraft individually. For example, in a plane with manual mixture control an increase command would be moving the mixture lever gradually, but in a US fighter it would need to move only between the 3-4 discrete steps, and so on.

It's one of the reasons i'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of SoW however.

I see the problems involved so I only advocate the following:

Mixture only becomes a problem when a plane reaches critical altitude, since almost all flyables have a supercharger or turbocharger.

1. Correction of the MW50 problem.

2. Higher resolution mixture control.

3. The adding of engine knocking/detonation/whateveryoucallit. This can be done quite easily, every plane has a maximum allowable manifold pressure, beyond that a sound sample could be added, together with a slow decrease in engine power, say 1% per minute for a slight boost over the red line, to 10% p/m loss of power for let's say 20 inches above the red.
And a warning on the HUD.
This is where the water injection/MW50 comes in, where instead of calculating complex matter IL2 never had to worry about like intake manifold temperature, switching on these systems virtually just lowers the manifold pressure by substracting a predefined value, but not for the pilot who still sees the original value on the gauge. Once the tanks holding the MW50 or water are empty, the predefined value is added again and engine knocking commences. That's pretty easy, compared with implementing radio navigation :)

Since most planes do not have these systems, other planes can have a small bit of this effect by increasing the mixture/Erhöhte Notleistung, essentially extra cooling the charge before it enters the cylinders, at the cost of higher fuel consumption. That is why I would like to have mixture control with a better resolution, seen on the HUD as percentages above or below "normal" (in technical terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichi...f_common_fuels )

These solutions only work until critical altitude is reached and overboosting values cannot be reached anymore. Above that rich mixture or Erhöhte Notleistung become a burden quite quickly, still cooling a bit but lowering performance steadily with altitude.

This is also why running with high manifold pressure, a too lean mixture again leads to engine knocking, since the cooling effect of the vaporization of the fuel is less.

That's actually a solution that could work, never thought of that.

I once had a Citroën DS 21 Pallas semi-automatic 1968, running on LPG. The engine is a 2.1 liter 4 cylinder. I asked too much of that engine, so one day I started to lose power at high speed. Looking in the mirror I saw big plumes of blue smoke appearing, and extra intermittent power drops started to appear. After that I lost cylinder number 2. Examination proved the ignition timing was wrong, I burned a hole in the top of that piston. Those intermittent power drops were the result of engine oil being pushed out of the oilpan and into the intake manifold through the breather, at some moments choking the engine. Coolant temperature was always OK. Even on 3 cylinders the car was quite quick though, and a joy to drive. Even if the engine sounded a bit rough.

This is not comparable with super/turbocharged aircraft engines, car engines have their oil vapors fed back to the engine by law, burning them with the fuel/air mix. Since almost all aircraft engines use dry-sump lubrication, there isn't much oil to lose, except the oil mist in the crankcase that will be pushed past the other pistons due to the supercharged pressure in the intake manifold: the flow passes the intake valve and goes through the hole in the piston, into the crankcase.
The engines that spray a jet of oil against the bottom of the piston for additional cooling will lose oil, through the piston hole, at a disturbing rate. The risk of explosions in the crankcase increases dramatically because of the stoichiometric mix of fuel and air in case of a carburetted engine. In case of fuel injection, which happened right into the combustion chamber after closing of the intake valve, the risk of explosion is negligible.


Other forms of damage that can appear from engine knocking:

*Shattered ceramic isolators on the spark plugs/ Melted spark plugs. Since every engine has two spark plugs per cylinder, this will lead to only a slight decrease in power unless both fail, that's a lot of unburned fuel in the exhaust manifold. P47/P38/B17/B24 hate that, can lead to explosions in the exhaust manifold or turbocharger in extreme cases.

*Holes in the cylinder head. In case of a water cooled engine this will lead to excessive loss of oil due to supercharger pressure blowing past the intake valve and through the hole, under the camshaft cover. Will probably produce a lot of oil on the windscreen. In case of a carburetted engine: explosions through the crankcase breather can produce engine fire. Explosions under the camshaft cover may warp or dislocate the camshaft cover, may lead to engine fire and rapid loss of oil, in case of inverted V12's the scavenging pump will not return the oil to the oil tank, worsening the problem.

Sometimes the explosions rupture hoses between engine and oil tank: instant loss of oil pressure OR the scavenging pump leaks the oil into engine bay instead of refilling the oil tank.
Carburetted radials will blow huge amounts of explosive mixture in the engine bay and the spark plugs will ignite it, engine fire unless enough airflow past the cylinders.
Fuel injected radials will less easily catch fire and less severe due to injection when the piston is already half past it's compression stroke and the intake valve is already closed.

*Damaged bearings of the piston rod (clunking sound until the rod or piston breaks).

*Damaged bearings of the crankshaft (again clunking sound, shaft may break in two or engine block may burst, even explode).

*Damage to the valves/ valve seats. Will lead to backfires, loss of compression and possibly engine fire.

Some of these symptoms are comparable with running too long with high CHT or prolonged over-revving.
IL2 only drops power, plays a sample and ultimately stops the engine. In real life, engine fires were a big and common problem. IL2 doesn't model engine fire caused by abuse by the pilot.

In case you have a hole in your piston or cylinder head and don't want a burning or exploding engine: lower manifold pressure so it's under ambient air pressure, let the engine suck for it, fresh air from outside will flush the crankcase. And lean the mixture. If you're flying a multiple engined plane: cut off fuel and feather the prop.

Something else to consider: High manifold pressure combined with low engine RPM increases the risk of engine knock. Another reason why running with too much prop pitch, apart from the high torque, is terrible for your engine.

These suggestions made by other people I'd like to include in my wish list:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1292

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1170

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1244

And of course, AI engine overheating. Which is already done in some form but I can't link to that since it's on a mod-forum. Send a private message.

I'm really liking what you're thinking Azimech. I only wonder if the Il-2 engine can handle those things - it's a little hard to predict sometimes. It can model radar, but not the speed of sound...

Switching gears, I've got a rather unusual request:

So, we're all aware of the "UFOs" that are part of the game. Now before I go further, let me say that I support the idea of including them in order to test the limits of the FM. However, we can agree that these planes are a little "out there". For instance, dare I say it, the Lerche, which never made it past the sketch-on-a-napkin stage of development.

Oleg said something along the lines that if the Germans used their most powerful piston engine, it wouldn't get off the ground, and so his team modeled it with more powerful engines.

I agree with that, but at this point it climbs faster than a Me-163.

However, the plane can still lift off the ground with a little less than 50% power.

So, why not pork the engines a bit so that they develop the equivalent of 60% power or so? To test this, I flew a QMB, scrambling against 4 Yak-3s. I used this power setting as my absolute upper limit, and I still rose fairly quickly. But after leveling out, I realized my speed was not much better than any normal prop-plane, and my maneuverability wasn't phenomenal - I actually had to work for a kill. It's harder to conserve energy, and what you lose will not return to you so quickly. The fight becomes more interesting, and losing even one engine will make it impossible to land the recommended way.

All in all, it gives this fantasy plane more plausible behavior - and makes it a little more fun.

What do you guys think? :)

*ducks and hides

I think the engine can't model engine damage they way it happens in real life. I think it can model engine damage as if it were battle damage using a variable counter for the percentage the maximum manifold pressure is being exceeded and the time being done so. This would simplify things a lot.

The problem with engine knock is that the "pinging" sound can be heard from the engine of a car, it cannot be heard inside an aircraft. The planes with a CHT gauge can have a clue, because engine knock increases CHT sharply, which leads to more engine knock and at the end pre-ignition, which destroys the engine within seconds. During engine knock the engine starts to sound increasingly rough, adapting the sound engine to incorporate that, is a challenge and probably will not be done. So the overheating message combined with the manifold pressure should give the pilot it's clues what is happening, and that should be enough (unless a HUD warning is an option).

I also understand now that adjusting mixture to prevent these problems is a complex task as well, it can prevent engine knock but can also increase the risk. Probably beyond the scope of what is possible (and probably will meet a lot of resistance from our community), not everyone is interested in engines as I am.

So TD, what do you think? As an optional switch I mean. Has this already been done in some form or would it be nice to have this included in the future?

sarebbe possibile per voi creare missioni con C47 e Ju 52 come aerei da trasporto in diversi teatri di guerra?

Chiunque può creare missioni, sia tramite il Qick Mission Builder che tramite il Full Mission Builder. Bisogna però tener presente C-47 e Ju 52 non hanno il cockpit e quindi non sono pilotabili.