Sorry to say but that is complete nonsense. There actually isnt even a "diameter" variable for any of the aircraft weapons, only a "calibre" value which itself is linked to armour penetration and not the actual calibre.

And I also believe that people have a point here about the bombs, there are very large discrepancies between the bombs of all the various nations (wether its Soviet, US, UK, German, Japanese,...) and wether this is actually realistic should be proven with proper data.

Oh man, what are you talking about 57mm?
Which game do you fly?

You apparently haven´t looked into the data of IL2.

In IL2 the MK108 is:
HE(-M)-T
500 m/s
42 g Explosives

historically the MK108 has these values:
HE-(M)-T
540 m/s
85 g (various fillings including TNT, Penthrite wax, and a mix of 75% Hexogen, 20% Al, 5% wax)

and

HE(-M)-T
330 g
505 m/s
72 g (various fillings including TNT, Penthrite wax, and a mix of 75% Hexogen, 20% Al, 5% wax)

While historically 4 shots were needed to down a B-17.
In game you need around 10.


Now please, don´t come with the Luft-wining argument again.
If you want to talk about facts then let´s talk about fact!

Another fact is that the FAB bombs were not always modeled with a super-huge bombradius.

Now I know what ElAurens is talking about.

He is talking about the caliber value, not knowing that the caliber value isn´t representing the caliber.

Amusing.

At best.

Hence once 4.10 is released I am done with mods forever.

Don't agree with that, sorry. If these weights are accurate:

__________________Fab1000___________SC1000
Weight of HE_______555 kg___________630 kg
Weight of Bomb___1000 kg__________1090 kg

...then both bombs are roughly 60% HE and 40% casing, which makes them blast fragmentation munitions. Pretty much all air delivered bombs are, apart from fuel-air munitions that don't use frag at all, and use different explosive material, and work on a different principle.

My only comment on the radius issue if that given the weight of frag material and HE is roughly the same, you'd need a huge step-up in HE specific power to extend the lethal radius (to a common damage criteria) out by a factor of three. The only 'historical data' needed to settle this issue is the nature of the HE mixes used by the FAB and SC series. If the specific powers are similar, than one is way wrong.

I discourage posting too much info on this topic, specifically any effectiveness calcs. Even if you know the science of all this, keep it offline please as this knowledge kills people everyday.

Yes El- and it is a matter of perspective. As knowing your flavour from the Ubi boards, I know that cuts both ways.

You can look at the data, interpret that, then feed it to testers as a group, get a consensus on performance. So nothing is done in a vacuum. So what in your opinion sucks about it? Is it one-sidedness in general, or your one sidedness?

Okay, back to the point of this thread, I have another small request, the default skins for the A6M zero's are not so good, particularly the A6M5 and up, especially considering the other Japanese aircraft have some excellent skins. There are lots of great skins out there from Jaypack44 and others, and it would be nice to have some better ones as default given that this is the "de facto" japanese fighter for most of the war. I hope the pacific aircraft don't get lost in the endless "VVS vs Luftwaffe" debate.

So the A6M5 was missed in the big 4.09 default skin download ?

... but reading your previous post, same question for you.

Now, it is very simple to have an objective idea on this subject. Hades has some data, according to quality control follows by DT, I can't imagine that setting of the game cannot be justified by relevant data. Put these data on the table and this point will be closed very quickly.

AFAIK the 4.09 skin pack did not include pacific aircraft, probably because most of them are newer models and didn't really need new default skins, except for those zekes...

You know... i was thinking...
I was thinking what kind of values did the Original "old" Il2 Sturmovik circa 2001 had for the bombs. I always had the impression that its feeling is still somehow "better" in the "Simulator" aspect.
Anyway, i was curious to see the "old" data and then maybe there would be one more argument to Fix at last the same "bug", "political correct", "biases", [put the correct name here], that plaque the current release.
And guesss what. What kind of data do you think i found? Normally i should have found more or less the same data like the current right?
Well...

BINGO! ;)

Lets see the Bombs data, shall we?

___________FAB250____SC250

Radius:_____50m_______77m
HE_Weight:__120kg_____130kg
Weight:_____250kg_____248.2kg


___________FAB500____SC500

Radius:_____77m_______82m
HE_Weight:__275kg_____220kg
Weight:_____500kg_____500kg


___________FAB1000___FAB2000___FAB5000

Radius:_____150m______300m______750m
HE_Weight:__555kg_____1025kg____3260kg
Weight:_____1000kg____2000kg____5000kg


These was the data for these bombs back in 2001. There were no bigger German bombs than the SC500 in this release.
They look beter for sure, the are more aligned with internet
data found for these bombs, plus the FEEL better.
No more MOABs with >3 times bigger the explisive radius for ANY nation, not just Russians.

And now here are the "miracusly", "political corrected", "buggy", [enter proper word here] data from current release:
While for smaller bombs they are mostly untouched, when it comes to the bigger ones, they are grossly changed:


(Same data from 2001 release)
___________FAB250____SC250

Radius:_____50m_______77m
HE_Weight:__120kg_____130kg
Weight:_____250kg_____248.2kg


(The FAB has been increased dramatically while the SC500 is the same)
___________FAB500____SC500

Radius:_____250m_______82m
HE_Weight:__275kg_____220kg
Weight:_____500kg_____500kg


(Here we see that the FAB1000 has almost get 4 times the radius it has in 2001 data)
___________FAB1000____SC1000

Radius:_____500m_______168m
HE_Weight:__555kg_____630kg
Weight:_____1000kg_____1090kg


(Again FAB2000's radius got 4 times bigger than it was in 2001 release)
___________FAB2000____SC2000

Radius:_____1100m_______275.8m
HE_Weight:__1025kg______975kg
Weight:_____2000kg_____1950kg


(And now here comes the MOAB or FOAB, no comments ;) )
___________FAB5000

Radius:_____2500m
HE_Weight:__3260kg
Weight:_____5000kg

So, what happened? I am asking you. Either:
A) STRICKING, as MW says, data has seen the light that confirms these changes, or
B) game just had to get, "political correct", get "bugs", "biases", [put the appropriate word here].

There is a unique opportunity to correct these "bugs". We have not only data from the Internet that suggests it but also the Data from the game itself before it went
"politicalcorectized" and things "went south". (or should i say "east"? :) )

If Td has not the will nor the skill or the patience to correct these things then other people will do.

For me and believe for most of the people it is essential to correct EXISTING game Bugs, not jusat add new planes or features.
Fix the bombs, guns, never overheating planes, etc... (the list is big enough) and
then import new stuff also. But closing the eyes to such things it is not the best way to deal with these facts.

Its high time to fix the eternal game's "bugs".

That was it gents :)

P.S.

@MW
WHO is "blathering"? I see you loose your temper, ;)

I asked you, and gave you data about this, what you are going to do for certain Sniper-Cannons and you didn't reply but only said "one plane with a sniper out of 300 is not big deal).

I asked what are you going to do with the >3 times bigger bombs of the same bomb category-weight and you said there are data for this, yet again you provided none to justify this odd, at least, issue while you asked me to give you data to justify my claim that there is not possible to have same weight and category bombs to differ so much.

Now i have also presented to you earlier data from IL2 before they went "buggy", and i will also provide some Internet to justify that there was NO such a Hige Difference in the Same Weight Bombs.

I asked WHERE did you find data or WHAT data did you find to make the majority of the Pylons in IL2 to weight from the 150kgs they weighted until 4.09b patch to 15 kgs in the latest. Again you provided No Data for this but only "demand" data from others.

I asked indirectly what you are going to do with some "odd" data in guns of the same caliber that although differ only in less than 10% they have almost twice the difference in their penetration ability and the damage they can cause and i got no reply.

Now i am asking what are you going to do with the never overheating planes and the overheat issue for many planes.
And obviously if you will fix the wrong damage model of the SM-79 which is hard like a granite and nearly impossible to shot down with MGs.

@El-something:
There is no need to reply your "objective post", really. Keep on like this.

@HansBurger.
Yes i am aware of what you are saying about the interpretation of game's data by game's
engine. But its the same when you deal with absolute values.
You have 5 lets say and it get interpreted by game's engine as 6
So by having 10 it will get interpreted like 12, etc...
If we correct these values then we are closer to get the best outcome.
~S~

P.S.2
The "Original" Il2 2001 era had also more appropriate values for the guns also. Maybe you should REALLY consult its data MW, i can send you the data, just ask :)

P.S.3
The German MG151/20 20mm also had the correct Mine-Shells in the 2001 Era release, but it lost these when things "went east" ;)

EDIT:
And i also asked What are you going to do for the Zero-weight bomb and rocket pylons and i got no reply either.

The last few pages are a perfect example why I never bothered with Mods:

Self-proclaimed experts who insinuate they've been fed pure wisdom instead of milk as a baby and who attack people bringing up very real concerns (DATA?). :roll:

EDIT:

How about this: For future FMs we throw darts over our shoulder at a dart board. What the dart hits is the value we enter. Ridiculous? Of course, but exactly the same credibility as some of the people here suggest. Even when the data currently in the game looks "irrational" we still need accurate and plausible data to change it. Otherwise ... well it'd be back to throwing darts. Nuff said ...

well, i didn't provide any data for my ship padlock request, which is in amongst those pages, as well....hope that's not included, lol
but seriously, it already works 'to a small degree'....is it asking to much to make it work properly, or at least a reply in either affirmative/negative....
i've requested this for a long time now, and repeatedly been ignored.......am i expected to provide some kind of padlocking 'data'?
if it can't be done, i'd be happy if someone just said so, at least i could be put out of my misery.....

In fact TD, you do NOTHING at all!!!

You keep fussing about the bombs, while there is no comment about the guns the snipers, the non-overheat issues, wrong engines, wrong power settings, wrong cockpits, wrong FM, etc..

Team Daedalus, you were the ones that the community hoped for to correct these errors and you could.
But you prefer to sit in your ivory tower and ignore all the named facts.

I´m sorry to say that, but judging by your reactions in this thread (and also others), you lost your professional reputation and your credibility.

Shame, shame, shame.

Being myself a mod hater, i have to agree with hades...

i mean, c'mon, he presented Data over Data, wich actually goes along my personall expirence in game. Team daidalus response was just childish here :(

I dont you grown up MEN, jsut make an arangemente go to a teamspoeak server and have a talk, it would be the best for this sim, if hades actually is able to prove he is right, with all the data and facts im sure he cllected, to TD then, wahts the problem of correcting it?

there is no bias here, jsut a sim...

LOL...

are you a TD member? Do you know what TD is doing/changing/adding? Not to my knowledge. So, how can you say that TD is doing nothing???

please...

I see what TD is ignoring (in most replies in a very downward way).

That´s what is annoying.


I kind of like Pupos proposition.

why not get on TS and speak personally about the mentioned problems, that might weaken the fronts and can only benefit the IL2 community.

Since when is TD required to communicate each and every bit of internal discussions and since when are we supposed to cater to everyone's pet whims?

Fact 1: We can't do everything at the same time.
Fact 2: We can't do everything within a heartbeat.

Seriously, just because you don't get a "Yes, we'll change this and that" reply it doesn't mean the issue is not on our scopes. But knowing flight simmers and especially this community we prefer to look into the issue privately to avoid flame fests which serve no purpose (other than stroking some people's egos) and which are essentially counter-productive. And the first step for any such work is establishing a consistent data fundament to work with. :)

What are you doing,DT?One years more,Where is the 4.10?Tell us,plz!

Where? He presented false and incomplete information about source variables without understanding what they mean. All of this flavored with wild accusations.
No matter how fishy they look (and some of them do look fishy) what matters is ingame performance (test), comparison to historical evidence and game limitations.

We collect historical references on subjects we think might be wrong on our own. If you want to see some issue addressed sooner, it is by far the easiest way for us if you perform ingame tests and provide historical documents. We don't care who provides those data if everything is reliable.
That's the normal procedure for any "Bug report" for any game.
If you don't want to help, the issue goes at the end of the cue.

Now, you tell me how you want us to respond when someone comes along and says "something looks fishy, fix it!"?
Our experience is that in 90% of cases such claims are false.

And what are you doing, Flying? Tell us plz!;)

I agree.
As soon a line of code (or data) is added, changed, … people doing that is a “self-proclaimed expert” and IMHO, modders but also DT enter in this case.
I don’t think is a good idea to separate people in two categories, modders on one side, DT on other side.
All these people try to improve IL2 and, at this point, maintain FB still alive. So, for me, real argumentation, can be only done around data and, probably, some compromises to implement them in order to match the game engine.

DT mail has been around for a while. We already adviced people to justify requests sent with hard data, and some did. Depending on manpower etc, some changes are being done. Please bear in mind that we do not have a public forum, which is good otherwise there would be hundreds of threads like this one, and we would spend most of time replying to questions, requests, etc.

NONE OF THE DATA IS FALSE!!!

The data presented is in game right now.

I personally don´t expect you guys to jump up correct things right away.
But explaining you won´t do anything since the info comes from a modder is ...


All the Data given is factual data and not fictional data as you would like to see it.

If you need a secretary who is making a list of the named bugs, just say so.
I wouldn´t like to do it, but before everything is forgotten and swept away, I will do it.

What did you want to say?:rolleyes:

No it is data from a "source" which can't be cross-checked and which may be based on faulty data to begin with. Do you see our problem? We don't know where that data came from (and I am not talking about Hades posting it here) and therefor we can't judge how reliable it is.

So do you call me a "liar" now? At first you said that things like the Sniper ShVAKs 20mm gunner in Pe8 is "not a big problem" and you did not deny the meaning of the "delta angle" error. So, if does not indicate the Accuracy (dispersion) of the gun, please enlighten us, oh wise one, please. We are 'imbeciles" so we rely on your wisdom. Please, what does the "angle error" mean?
And for bombs you said that it is the way they are, so you confirmed the data are correct. But now you come here and accuse me of being a "liar". Please, oh wise one, enlighten us what these parameters mean? Please do, since we are so ignorant.

So, despite they "look" "fishy" they are "correct". And then, how come and in the 2001 Original IL2 release these values Did NOT look "fishy" ?
could you explain please? Since you are the wisdom-holder.
Moreover people DO confirm these largely false data. They can "FEEL" them but they have not the data to support their feeling. Now they have.
Could you also explain to us ignorants, the meaning of the Bomb values i posted? Please?

Really? So, where are Your Historical sources for the pylons you made to weight 15 kilos? Can we see your "Sources" please?
Can we also see your sources that start the mentone bomb and rocket pylons to have Zero weight?
Moreover can you show us your "sources" that justify the Double-Penetration value of some Weapons? Lets say the ShKAS over the .303 Brownings. can we see that please?
Also, can we see your sources that proove the data from the 2001 release about Bombs as FALSE while the current game data be regarded as corrrect?

Please, as i wrote above: can we see your data about the 15 Kgs pylons and for the Zero-Weight pylons also? Also about the guns, Bombs, etc....

Many people have informed you for the many bugs that this game suffers, but you did nothing.

It does not only "looks" fishy, it FEELS "fishy", it IS Wrong! Like the overheating issues, the extraordinary destructiveness of Certain Bombs, Weapons, etc...

With such an attitude, i am not surprised ;)

Documentation ive found about the bf109K4, shows the iL2 bf109k4 has a lower speed compared to the real bf109k4 data.

The blue line shows 100% power, ingame.
The black line shows 110% power with mw50, ingame.

Ive tested the ingame data provided by IL2 compare, and i managed to hit a "brick wall" at 3km with a topspeed of
~640km/h TAS. (at 110% power + mw50) This is also shown with the IL2 compare data.


The green line shows 100% power, real data.
The red line show 110% power with mw50, real data.

Aircraft takeoff weight is ~3400kg (including 400kg fuel) for both the IL2 bf109k4 and the real bf109k4.



In the second thumbnail ive included the real levelspeed data (green and red), with the ingame levelspeed (black and blue).


All speeds shown in the levelspeed graphs are TAS.

Do we really need be here on standby hitting F5 constantly in case Hades has posted something demanding for answers? I already answered to Hades that he is wrong about the maxDeltaAngle causing the sniper effect, but he refused to acccept this. Not my problem if Hades cannot analyse the code enough to find the real problem. Using same logic as Hades, I could equally say that if I set the ammo count to zero, the problem is fixed. So "the ammo count ALSO plays significant role in this aspect."

Wrong cockpits? Did I miss something?

For 4.09 TD proposed to MG that 15kg might be more better value for a generic pylon weight and it would solve the overweight problem of planes with lots of small pylons (8 rockets for example). Not that this was very relevant fix, since we planned already back then to set all individual pylon weights.

Do you really think that there is actual data that states that generic weight for all pylons is 15kg. It's simple approximation based of the fact that most of the pylons are simple rocket rails or small wing bomb racks.

Well would you change something like the MK 108 power value just because someone states that:

"While historically 4 shots were needed to down a B-17.
In game you need around 10."

So the problem is with the MK 108 and not with the B-17 DM? If we would just blindly change the MK 108, it could have very dramatic effect when shooting small fighters.

BTW Emil. Are you 100% sure that the power variable in MK 108 round is the full weight of explosive content. When you view the decompiled code, you only see the final value of 42 grams. In the original source code the final value comes from formula or several values, just like the caliber (which has nothing to do with actual caliber).

So far this thread has provided ZERO real credible reference about any bomb blast radius. No real credible hard data, no change. TD gets huge amount of e-mails from people asking to change this and that. Most of them are asking us to change something that would have really big effects in game without ANY real references. Just like this thread lately.

Mods have a luxury of begin uninstallable (plus there are also many mods that restore the original FM or original weapon parameters). Any change in the patch is something that is permanent for the players who don't use mods. So we don't change something very lightly just because some guy comes here to say that he has decompiled the source code and knows that wrong variable X is causing problem Y.

Bug-List:

- many (often in game used weapons) don´t use historical values
- MK108 has less destructiveness than in RL(4 hit to down a B-17) in the weapons classes and in empirical testing (check Flying Guns of WW2, Anthony G. Williams / http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon)
- MG151/20mm s.o., (5hits to down a fighter 25 hits to down a B-17 (check Flying Guns of WW2, Anthony G. Williams / http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_151_cannon)
- .50 cal Browning s.o.
- FAB bombs destruction radii are a lot higher in late game patches than i the first game releases without referencing how and why
(an interesting point here is that the first game-release had the MG151/20mm weapon-classes closer to RL than they are now)
- some Russian rear-gunners have 0 dispersion on mobile mounted gun
- La series uses later engines than available at the period
- I-185 71A the spawn temperature is beginning at 110°C and when heating up and when running up the engine the temperature runs down to 20°C and stays there.
NO OVERHEAT!
- Bf-110 G2 the ATA pressure is with 73% throttle indicating your are in the war-emergency-power.
- some of the Instruments put into German planes were not available at the time the plane was produced
- Bf-109 uses a ridiculous climb-rate that is one third bigger than in RL
- FW have too low acceleration at low speeds

Then this proves my point perfectly and shows that German SCs were NOT pre-fragmented from inside the body to produce thousands of small fragments that cover larger areas and can cause damage way beyond the ranges of the blast effect. You pics shows huge chunks of the body and not fragments. Sure they would kill, but they don't cover any big are and wont fly as far small ones.

I did not refuse anything. I also stated 2 Different things that:
A) The ShVAK 20 mm cannot has ZERO dispersion value when it mounts Defensive Flexible Installations, and this is WRONG! It makes this weapon to behave like a Sniper gun! What did you Not understand?

B) I also stated that the "angle error" also plays Significant role in the Sniper effect, and i told you to Change this to a large value and you won't get EVER hit by a Defensive Gunner even if he is an "ACE:. What, again, you did not understand?
I stated this because many guns have too small dispersion values, they are even more accurate than they are when the fire from Fixed positions like wings or propelor-hubs.
Can you deny this also? I can write data for this in no time ;)

If i understand correctly, i have said something like this to Justify the NEED to CHANGE the WRONG sniper-values for Flecible Defensive Cannon Installations. I hope i am clear.

Overheating issues maybe? Wrong indications from instruments maybe?


So you Confirm that you do "approximations" already, not backed-up by any Real Data. But when i talked about "approximations" based on game's data for Same weight, family, caliber, for weapons and/or bombs you got Screamed about "Reliable data".
Thank you Viikate for confirming that you also do approximations, be that good or bad. When you do it, its good, but IF someone else do it, then "it/he is bad".


There are numerus Pilot reports from WWII and documantaries stating this.
Yest you deny this. Perhaps we should just do an "approximation".
Maybe you are right.

We are being testing all the game's guns for a long time, close to year and came up that "if" you put real life data then you need around 1-2 30mm hits from close range to shot down a fighter. It complies Perfectly with WWII war reports, pilots accounts and documentaries.

It is. You say it is not the HE content? Interesting. Then, what is it then?
OR you are saying that other values play importand role in this, which is of course true.

True, it is what i wrote just above. That "many values are responsible for weapon's destructiveness".
So, where are the news about this?

Please, could you just show me CREDIBLE data that makes the 2001 data for the Bombs to be False while to justify the current data as correct? Please?

I have talked for Very Specific Things and Very Specific game data.
I doubt that you had any kind of request like this.

~4 times bigger the blast for certain bombs and almost twise the destruction of certain guns, Zero weight Pylons, Never Overheating Issues, etc are something "very light"?

Ok, i understand now your logic.
Keep up the good work.

Late war instruments put into early war planes(found for German side, haven´t checked for any other planes)

FHere you use an estimated value that seems credible.
With the FABs you don´t


I bet it would be hard to find in any book or the internet, I guess.
But one could do an active search and send emails to Flugwerk in Germany and others.

The weapon was developed as a private venture by the company in 1940 and was submitted to the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM—Reich Aviation Ministry) in response to a 1942 requirement for a heavy aircraft weapon for use against the Allied bombers appearing en masse in German skies by then. Testing verified that the autocannon was well-suited to this role, requiring on average just four hits with high-explosive ammunition to bring down a heavy bomber such as a B-17 Flying Fortress or B-24 Liberator and a single hit to down a fighter. In comparison, the otherwise excellent 20 mm MG 151/20 required an average of 25 hits to down a B-17.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon



I don´t really care a lot what is coded how.
What do care about is the outcome.
Il2 is supposed to be a simulation (I hoped it was), so let´s simulate that a B-17 can be downed with Mk108 4-5 bullet-hits average or 25 MG151/20mm bullet-hits.
I trust in your abilities and your tools.

It has proven that the FAB values were changed during the game developement without an referencing.

I don´t expect you to jump on every train passing by.
But I would expect at least some consideration and valid points.

I'm not at liberty to discuss internal game mechanics with you. Just let me remind you of your posts recently:
1) B20 is used on Russian bombers and it is the cause of Sniper gunner accuracy. You failed to mention there are a number of Luftwaffe guns with the same entry.
When proved to be false, you continue
2) AHA, but there is another Russian gun which is used on one plane.
I performed ingame tests and didn't notice observable effect, if any when changing the variable. Something you could have done instead of barging in like a cowboy.
You also failed to mention that there is another gun with that entry that is used by a Luftwaffe plane.


Again, I'm not at liberty to discuss internal game mechanics with you. I can confirm that some of the bomb parameters look odd. At this moment it is unclear how they affect the game. Therefore it is not clear if, and to what value they should be changed.

Yes they are considered as accurate. Until proven otherwise. The proof consists of performing (preferably repeatable) ingame tests and gathering historical info. Some physical interpolation and interpretation can be used if historical info is incomplete.

We have significant amount of sources regarding pylon weights and pylon weights will be changed in 4.10. I believe it was announced already?

I'm not familiar with the subject.

No. Those numbers were changed by 1C/Maddox and I have no reason not to trust them without a concrete proof that they are wrong. See one of the answers above.

As I said, pylons weight are changed in 4.10, no point in discussing 4.09. I can also confirm that 15kg pylon weight is a bug and was brought to our attention by someone performing ingame tests.

I beg to differ.

And what is right then? The rest is just assorted pile of complaints with zero value. No surprise.

I keep myself out of that other 'discussion' and pick a sympatic request:



There is a long time plan to rework default skins systematicly.
To have best results, we prefer to have done them nation-wise, by one or two skinners per nation only. This is a huge task (with not so high priority though), either by painting work and organizing work. What we will not do, is picking out single plane types (except if that planetype is fixed also in the model like i.e. Hs129) and asking authors for single skins.

But you are right, there are some wonderfull skins out there.

Emil, could you make a list of incorrect instrumentation (planetype + instrument)? That might be helpful for our cockpit 3D gurus.

I hope I'm not putting my foot into my mouth here but the pylons were a special case. When the issue was raised (just prior to 4.09) we didn't yet have the authorization of Maddox Games to continue development so, while we certainly wanted to do it right from the start, we were still in legal limbo and couldn't. Back then our core team didn't have the tools yet, either. But now, as Microwave said, 4.10 will bring individual pylon weights so the issue will be settled.

General comment: Damage modelling and especially weapon effects are not an exact science. Statements such as "5 hits were enough to down a B-17" should not be understood in absolute terms. Sometimes a single hit may be enough, sometimes ten hits aren't enough. That's Murphy for you ...

About bombs. Well some feels abit wrong some feels useless etc.

I have been folowing this debate abit, but in general talking about bombs are talking about different cars. The structure of bombs are a nightmare to follow since they change in some way every 6th month of the war.

German multipurpose bombs was not fragmentet (or many of them was not) The germans used a 5 step fusing instead so the bomb detonatet in 5 stages (5 series fusing)

This in general gave about the same result as a fragmentet bomb.

Again the Germans had SD, SC, PD and AB bombs and in many cases there is versions up to mark III of the same bomb. Each version with some modifications (effect)

With all these bombs, and the limitet versions made ingame you have to do a compremise, you cant have them all (sad actualy but well)

If you look at the games versions of bombs and how they work they are a decent compremise for all these bombs. It could be better, but again, we want it all, but have to patch what we have.

I have only talked about German bombs here, all fighting nations made and used bombs in many many variations, think of the task going through 2000-2500 different bombs and then implement the "fair" changes.

At the end i agree that some bombs feels wierd, especially when you know abit about bombs, but i live with it because i understand the insane ammount of researtch it would take adjusting them. A dummy bomb is actualy not a dummy, its a fairly complicatet device when you look at fusing and structure....A German fragmentation bomb is around as effective (90%) as a American, Russian or other bomb. The problem "tuning" it would be what version should you adjust after, year? Fusing? Mark number?

well enough stupidity from me....

Ltbear

I guess you still don't understand that there is no correct answer for the pylon weight if it is one single values for ALL pylons (except those few mentioned before). Therefore it is approximation.

This is same as trying to find a value that is a result of every possible calculation that the current math knows. So was 150kg more correct value for the average rocket rail/bomb rack than 15kg. This change was bad in your opinion? It should have been heavier than 150kg so you have more to whine about?

So your assumption and claim that i am a "liar" and these values mean something else are not valid since you don't provide any credible answer or data.

I did Not say this. I only stressed that there is a Cannon that has Zero dispersion value when it used in Flexible Defensive Installations. And that this Value makes it behave like a Sniper-gun.

I would really appreciate to tell me what this gun is. If it exist though and used in a bomber, why don't you fix this also?

Nope, i accidentally posted another Cannon wich happened to be first in my folder-sorting by date. So i clicked this instead of the correct one.
If you like it or not i won't loose sleep over it.


Check what i wrote above. And again i did not say that it is used in More than one planes. I just gave an example of how many "unoticed" bugs exist in game. And you intent to do Zero to fix them.

Wait! This is importand. So you say that by Changing the delta angle error you didn't notice any "observable" effect, right?
If you DO confirm this then i will have a test with people and then they can post here about their experience. I can send you an example also.
Also this will prove that you lack the appropriate knowledge to fix game's bugs.


See above. If yes then why Don't correct this also?


See above. You gave no valid reason to deny my explanation about the values in the Bombs.

I am sure that many people will confirm this and i doubt that you haven't encounter this. Just do an Experiment yourself. Put targets and check the destructive radius of the bombs. Easy.


So BOTH the 2001 Values AND the current ones are accurate? So, 1 equals to 4 and 2 eguals to 8 ?


can you post any ? Yet again you have failed to provide any credible data for anything i have questioned you.


Ok, so you don't know about the "penetration" values of the bullets and the in-game damage. Anyone from TD who is experienced with this please?
I would really appreciate this info.

So BOTH Values the 2001 era AND the current ones are the Correct?
So 1 equals to 4, 2 to 8, etc ? See a couple of answers above.

At least you have admitted that you did an "approximation" based on how you "felt" about these values. We'll see when 4.10m comes out. Fair enought. It is the Only straight answer from you until now. Thank you for this.

So you say you don't see any complains for Specific issues/bugs at all? Not even in the current thread?
What can i say if you cannot see.

Right is what is Right, what Feels right over the years. Right is every issue that people gained data for. And if people complain over the years for Certain aspects and we Also have now Proof with Numbers that support their Feeling, there no other option than to be a Valid Complain, a Valid issue. Now why you don't like to address it or fix it it is not of my concern. I only pointed these out with In-Games Data which you cannot deny.

Unfortunately not, ;)

well, my request about the ship padlocking problem seems again to have been brushed aside, yet a request for yet more skins makes the grade for a reply? wow.
sure, there are many beautiful skins out there, and the more the merrier, but is that really a gameplay-critical request, and not yet just more eye-candy?
what i am asking is something tha will be appreciated by many players, especially those less-fortunate ones who do not have the luxury of a head-tracking TrackIR system, or such......a proper useful fix to something that seems to be broken.
it's also not taking sides, as it will be equally useful for blue or red players, i'm sure, lol.
surely, after trying to make this request for over a year now, someone would at least have the courtesy to answer?
i mean, it really only needs to be a one-word reply, such as 'yes, no' or ''maybe, we'll see'......for a group that professes to not have the time to reply to everyone, i don't see how much time it would take for at least a simple acknowledgement of this request, yet there are lengthy 'quote/replies' concerning these other weapon issues....i don't get it.
is no-one interested? and here i thought, as 4.10 is apparently a bit more focussed towards ships/ship battles, it might be a pertinent request...

I do understand this perfectly but the problem here is that this is the ONLY thing you understand about the problem. And it is completely wrong way to solve it.

I'm willing to remove any changes we did to encounter the "sniper issue" and replace them with your large dispersion values that "fixes the problem". But I guess we need to write in readme that "Sorry about the gunners. We know that they cannot hit anything now, but this had to be done because Hades said so".

So please tell me those large dispersion values that fixes the problem.

I had a faint flashback that I have talked with you about this before. Or at least someone requested it and I checked the code and what it would take to make it. Simple change would have enabled it, but then AI would treat ships as different kind of targets and results might be unwanted, so it would need to be changed "more safely" -> more work.

oooh forgot to my post above.

The Germans used powdered aluminium that increased the explosive effect...

The brittish had shortage of aluminium and therefore most of it whent to munitions for the RN. Its actualy first in 1944 that British bombs are considered as effective as the German counterparts....

Im not native englsih speaking but im talking about alumised explosives <--- that is a huge factor allied vs German bombs....

WHO said that this is the ONLY issue about the Sniper gunners? Please DO read again what i posted.

Yet again, i did not say this. Can't you read? Its not my fault.

Nice, ;)
So are you threating me now that "You will remove this feature because of the "evil" HaDeS who posted some really existent issues"? So that community will "hunt down poor HaDeS because we could not answer his questions"?
Nice "mature" way of thinking.
Post more like this Viikate :)

So do you Deny that Guns in Flexible Gun Installations have Less dispersion value than they used to have when mounted in Wings or in engine cowl?

You Intentionally Mixing 2 Different things, and yet you Threaten me also.

So, i repeat just in case you Understand:

Dispersion value for Guns and the AI Skill regarding Gunners are something Completely Different that affects Different game's classes BUT the Dispersion Value of Guns is Related with their Accuracy either they are Manned by AI, Rookie or Humans.

Clear now?
Good :)

Cheers, :)

Interesting how you managed to find that quoted text from my post, but i cannot seem to find it. Let's see... i'll quite my self. I said that

"I'm willing to remove any changes we did to encounter the "sniper issue" and replace them with your large dispersion values". Isn't this exactly what you have been requesting for the past 4 or 5 pages? That the dispersion values should be increased to fix the sniper issue? If you really think that this is the correct way to go then, I'm willing to try it. Please read this carefully so that you don't see any death threats here.

i mnot Emil ;) and sure you ment something different , but the Speed gauges in the Ki-27, D3A and G4M have all knot scalas but are reading km/h - so, at 300 and 330(Val and Betty) the scala is at its end :(

low speed bf109K4
 

Documentation ive found about the bf109K4, shows the iL2 bf109k4 has a lower speed compared to the real bf109k4 data.

The blue line shows 100% power, ingame.
The black line shows 110% power with mw50, ingame.

Ive tested the ingame data provided by IL2 compare, and i managed to hit a "brick wall" at 3km with a topspeed of
~640km/h TAS. (at 110% power + mw50) This is also shown with the IL2 compare data.


The green line shows 100% power, real data.
The red line show 110% power with mw50, real data.

Aircraft takeoff weight is ~3400kg (including 400kg fuel) for both the IL2 bf109k4 and the real bf109k4.



In the first thumbnail ive included the real levelspeed data (green and red), with the ingame levelspeed (black and blue).


All speeds shown in the levelspeed graphs are TAS.

thankyou, Viikate, for your reply, i appreciate it.
just thinking a bit more on this, currently the way the AI treat ships as targets is pretty atrocious, to say the least. perhaps it would be worthwhile to look into this at some point in the future?
perhaps giving ships the same sort of properties as regular ground targets would be a simpler solution? probably not, but a solution somewhere along those lines...
i realise the implications might be problematic for torpedo bombers, but for most other kinds of planes, the way they attack ships currently leaves a lot to be desired, so it might actually be a case of killing two, or more, birds with one stone, if this can be looked into.

i really hope you guys can investigate this a bit more at some point down the road.
thanks for listening.

Check P M :)

K, thanks for the reply

S!

Really funny to read that the SC is considered less damaging because it has not a "pre-fragmented" shell. Bomb's destructive power is not measured by shrapnels only as their density decreases over distance rather quickly and shrapnel is not the main damage for a big bomb. The blast alone and it's pressure kills far out, damages/weakens structures to various degrees that can cause secondary explosions, collapses etc. increasing the destruction that the bomb detonation started. And also converts anything loose(stones, pieces of glass etc.) to a shrapnel.

Seems pretty useless to debate over a game that is 10+ years old, riddled with bugs/features/whatever. The engine alone can cause some of them and some are because of human error or whatever. Maybe TD could consider looking into issues as they have the tools and data as someone of the team members said.

Hades, I admire your effort to bring the most historically realistic aspects to the game, especially in terms of FM and DM. But do you think it's quite impossible to make everyone united in this sensitive matters? Firstly, people have never been united on the ultimate answer of the question: what should it be in real life? You got 1001 theories, twice that number of counter-proof. Secondly, we normal people never know what really happend inside the game engine. You proclaimed that Russian bombs have twice larger effect radius than German ones, TD said that those numbers don't always say the truth (but refuse to give the right numbers). I, having no idea of java or IT, cannot say who is right and who is wrong.
But, since you have the tools to change it (with mods), I'm pretty sure that you'll change it sooner or later, no matter which outcome of this discussion is. So, what's the point of bring up the whole debate? Those who think you're right (including myself), just use the mods. Those who believe in Oleg, don't use it. Isn't it the win-win situation? Everyone got his candy. Remember, IL-2 is just a game. No one will punish you for having the wrong data of bomb blast radius.

And some words for you DT. Your works have brought the ten year old game a new life. You've done, are doing and can do things that we never think that's even possible. So my big big thank you for all of you. I know you intend to fix some old issues regarding DM and FM. Just my humble suggestion: leave it alone. It's not the matter of "can you do it", but "what should you do". As I said above, this matters are extremely sensitive. I've read numerous threads debating about FM and DM in ubi forum, and not one of them came to a consensus, or even a compromise agreed by both sides.

Yes, less damaging at the extreme lethal radius of the bomb. Lets say that the 2.5kg charge that you experienced would have been cased in pre-fragmented metal body. Would you have still liked to stand 300 meters from it knowing that it will throw thousands or tiny pieces of metal at you? In this case (very far from the explosion) which would have killed more likely? Fragments or the pressure from the blast?

I always look with suspicion at performances charts. In my old club, we had two planes of the same type (don’t ask me which type, I won’t tell you). If you look at the published performances a cruise speed of 137 knots is listed. Our examples cruised much more sedately at 115 and 110, the older one being faster and having also a better climb rate (1,000 fpm versus 800).

Another interesting example: most sources agree in saying that the F4U Corsair was faster than the F6F Hellcat. It’s surprising, if you consider that both planes had the same engine and prop, a similar weight and wing area with the same airfoil. US Navy was puzzled, to say the least, and delivered a Corsair to Grumman, asking to make the Hellcat equally fast. Grumman test pilot discovered that the two types had exactly the same combat performances, and maintained formation at all altitudes with similar power settings, with only slight advantages and disadvantages changing sides with altitudes. The Corsair airspeed indicator, however, was constantly reading 18 mph faster than the Hellcat. The reason was traced down to an incorrectly positioned static port on the Hellcat’s fuselage. The fault was remedied, but the Hellcat speed remained listed as slower forever (and the F6F in PF is accordingly “porked”).

Who is telling this tale? Corky Meyer, Grumman test pilot who flew extensively both types (read in “Corky Meyer’s Flight Journal”, pages 68-69).
Is this fact hard enough to ask TD a fix? Perhaps yes, but I don’t feel it’s so important. What matters, in my opinion, is that published performances can vary for a lot of reasons (including different testing standards) and that a general consensus is hard to reach.

Oh yeah,how are going the parallel projects,like Pe-8 and IL-4?
Any news?

EDIT

Is there a way for IL2 to have a poland map?It was a combat zone not only at early war but at late as well.
And earlier versions of the Bf-109.

S!

Viikate, if you read what I wrote the fragment pattern is most effective at close range and they disperse very fast and small fragments lose their energy faster than bigger ones etc. Quite a lot of factors to take in account, we did calculate those in EOD training ;)

Also remember that the big bombs like 250kg or above did not explode on the surface but slightly below it as they did penetrate ground before fuze did fire the explosive. Some lighter bombs like 50kg and 70kg had the "rod fuzes"(found no better word quickly) that made them explode near or over the surface to maximize shrapnel effect. And yes, I would have stood there 300m away even the 2.5kg PETN would have been in a casing. Well beyond the dangerous radius :)

Anyways, a PC game can never simulate the complexity of armament, just some things of it. Add to that my work in military and voilá..you get the pic ;) Tieto lisää tuskaa.

sir. The werry design of the bomb is an important factor, how it was cast etc....

German bombs was cast so they had a thick nose and a thick end, so the explosion would find the thinnest place to get out. The werry aloy of steel used was also a factor and the most important part is that aluminum powder adds gigantic to the power of the explosion. Its not about fragments alone, its about the structure of the bomb it self and what kind of explosive used..

If you go by the basics of the power of the explosive used, some German bombs(not fragmentet) was considered 80% more effetive as british fragmentet bombs....this was design and the chemestry the germans used in the bombs......

Please.....fragments dont meen better bomb as pr word........we are not talking about IED`s but highly effective aerial bombs....

werry fast example

you have a 100KG fragmentet bomb, standard impact detonator in there you have TNT as explosive

leathel radius would be around 250-300m then you have to add the depth of impact and the angle of the explosion, plus fragment mass and energy.

You have a 100KG hole case cast bomb, standard impact detonator, in it you have a mix of TNT and aluminum powder..

The force alone from the explosive would make it atleast 50% more powerfull than the fragmentet.

Bomb casing is thinner to the sides, so the angle of the explosion is not as steep as the fragmentet one, so you have a more directet explsosion to the sides with atleast 50% more power...

It will move more soil in a greater area. The presure wave alone would cover the fagmentet bombs 250-300m

A bomb IS NOT ABOUT grooves in the casing, a bomb is about design and explosives......

To make the best bomb you need the perfect combination between design and chemicals......

The Germans got more destructive power out of a solid casing using design and better explosives than the allied did with average explosives and a better casing.....

a fun little example....(laying on the ground )

you can survive a handgrenade that is fragmentet in a distance of 3 m

A hole casing handgrenade you need to be 5 m away

you have a better kill zone with a fragmentet bomb, but a full casing bomb will take 15% away of lethality but add lethal distance so you loose 15% in outch but add 30% to the outch distance...

Your standard hand grenade is built to limit the effective radius of the fragments or else it would kill the user too often.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m61.htm
See that fragmentation coil there. It is limiting the fragment killing radius to few meters.

Here is some calculation for the same grenade in ideal conditions without the fragmentation coil. 185g of Comp-B should be enough to give 2g fragment 480m/s speed at 100m.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/...s/Warheads.htm

Flanker since you've calculate these before then could you perhaps calculate the same thing with 2500g and 300m

If you still after calculating it say that 2500g of explosives cannot deliver deadly fragment to 300m, next step is to take this to Mythbusters. ;)

Some more interesting reading:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/bombs.htm

Blast is caused by tremendous dynamic overpressures generated by the detonation of a high explosive. Complete (high order) detonation of high-explosives can generate pressures up to 700 tons per square inch and temperatures in the range of 3,000 to 4,500º prior to bomb case fragmentation. It is essential that the bomb casing remain intact long enough after the detonation sequence begins to contain the hot gases and achieve a high order explosion. A consideration when striking hardened targets is that deformation of the weapon casing or fuze may cause the warhead to dud or experience a low order detonation. Approximately half of the total energy generated will be used in swelling the bomb casing to 1.5 times its normal size prior to fragmenting and then imparting velocity to those fragments. The remainder of this energy is expended in compression of the air surrounding the bomb and is responsible for the blast effect. This effect is most desirable for attacking walls, collapsing roofs, and destroying or damaging machinery. The effect of blast on personnel is confined to a relatively short distance (110 feet for a 2000 pound bomb). For surface targets blast is maximized by using a general purpose (GP) bomb with an instantaneous fuzing system that will produce a surface burst with little or no confinement of the overpressures generated by excessive burial. For buildings or bunkers the use of a delayed fuzing system allows the blast to occur within the structure maximizing the damage caused by the explosion.

Fragmentation is caused by the break-up of the weapon casing upon detonation. Fragments of a bomb case can achieve velocities from 3,000 to 11,000 fps depending on the type of bomb (for example GP bomb fragments have velocities of 5,000 to 9,000 fps). Fragmentation is effective against troops, vehicles, aircraft and other soft targets. The fragmentation effects generated from the detonation of a high-explosive bomb have greater effective range than blast, usually up to approximately 3,000 feet regardless of bomb size. The fragmentation effect can be maximized by using a bomb specifically designed for this effect, or by using a GP bomb with an airburst functioning fuze.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/35978019/T...-December-1943

"SC designates a thin wall high-explosive bomb, achieves its effect chiefly by blast."

All this data is a smoke screen that doesn't explain the huge differences in the blast radius of relatively similar bombs, i.e Fab 1000 vs SC1000

This reminds me of the Iraqi military communication officer who denied the presence of the American forces having penetrated Baghdad when you could clearly see behind him the advancing America forces.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it is probably a duck.

There have been numerous flight model error brought out by experienced individuals on many occasions. The most notable for me is a statement by a P-38 driver (in the book "Fork-Tailed Devil: The P-38" written by Martin Caidin) that states he could out turn a 109. No way you're going to do that in the game.

I also find it rather ironic the condescending attitude towards "Moders". Consider the roots of TD.

One needs to recognize the type of "Moder" that we have in IL-2 versus other arcade games. The Moder for IL-2 tends to be historically motivated and not out to simply create a "cheat".

Fragments can kill if they hit, and if they are fast enough and heavy enough.

The probability of that for a bomb depends upon the size of the fragment and the range. If the fragment is very small, it will run out of kinetic energy before it gets too far from the bomb. If the fragment is large, then for a given size of bomb, there will be fewer fragments than with smaller fragments.

A hand grenade can kill out to 60yards. With 36? fragments in one grenade, you have to be pretty unlucky to get hit at 60yards.

The purpose of the fragmentation coil on a hand grenade is to provide the fragments, not to limit the fragmentation range in some way.

Your link to the Gurney equation covers the fragmentation part of the picture theoretically but note that the calc is per fragment, and there are a lot of 2g fragments in a fragmentation coil. The 5m statistic is just that; it is probable that enough frags will hit you to kill you at under 5m, injure you badly at under 15m, but might injure you to some degree a lot further out than that. Last time I threw a hand grenade I put something solid between me and the bang. Much safer than statistics..

The Gurney equation doesn't cover blast effect.

S!

I brought up this thread with fellow EOD/armament personnel at work, showing replies of TD regarding bombs. Verdict: stop talking about things you know a squat of. After looking at the radiuses in IL-2 questions were: what is this based on? How do you define destruction range? What damage is considered? Which formula was used to get such results, what parameters are taken into consideration..and many more. You might know the inner works of IL-2 etc. but seemingly there is not a single guy in the team knowing more than theoretical things, nothing about RL application of explosives. Or am I wrong?

In IL-2 the bombs of ALL nations could use a closer check to determine how they are modelled. This has nothing to do with blue or red, I am beyond that crap. If there is an error or discrenpacy in data then a check is not a bad thing..I think no-one would disagree with that?

I rest my case here. It is useless to argue.

Fully agreed. It is a question of credibility. I think that this "problem" could be fixed very quickly, if data are available.

As i mentioned in my original reply i understand the problems about changing values because of the gigantic task it is to go through 2000-2500 models of ww2 bombs...

My problem is that my english dont cover what i want to say and therefore i have to with draw from the discution.....

All i can say that i know is clear is that a bomb is not only about fragments, it is more complicatet than that. I wish i had the English to make my point...

Im a "fan" of TD and in general im am happy with the work they do and i will rest my case with that. Maby in one or two years my English have improved enough lol...

Catch a great day all....

LTbear

In theory, I agree. But the explosive experts probably don’t know a squat of simulation. The very same argument can be used about aerodynamics. For example, I’m not convinced at how the trim works in Il2. In real life it has mainly to do with stick forces, that can’t be modelled at all. I understand that to work efficiently with a sim has its own rules and requires its own competency.

Is expected some screenshots or something?
How is the progress of the bugfixing?
Thanks

lol
by that logic we don´t touch anything, since the process is so complicated that it might affect Idon´t know what.

In fact it is very simple.
This is what a FAB 500 looks like:

Relevant here is the highlighted/bold passage that needs to be adjusted to a credible or even better a historical value.

Blablabla, personal attacks, blablabla.

Is it so hard to provide data for something you want to see changed?

"This is wrong, fix it." does not work.

"Here's what it historically looked like." is the important part. And that's what still is missing.

Or how about proving the game workings with the "range" by blowing up a dozen cars from 500m away with a FAB 1000? Doesn't work? Oh boy, if only it had been tested before starting a debate.

Is it so hard to provide data for in-game values ? I'd like to know where the TD's ultimate truth came from...

You think it´s bla bla?:

http://188.40.123.132/images/BlasEffect.jpg

And since you still might think this is only bla bla, a bit more plastic comparing SC1000 with FAB1000:
http://188.40.123.132/images/BlastRadius.jpg


I think the last example makes quite clear why 555kg explosives in a FAB1000 shouldn´t cause such a big difference in blast radius compared to 630kg in a SC1000.

Do you have the game? Why don't you test for yourself?

You do not understand. I'd like to know their sources of data they implement into the game. Books, graphs, etc.

I have a small request for Ju87's 37mm cannon effects...because there is a small difference between ones in game and real ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK...layer_embedded

You should ask 1C Maddox games, not TD.

Of course we have sources for everything, that WE implement or change. I'd even say, the biggest collection about everything. I'm always astonished, what our 'delivery boys' dig out to every theme. XD

But we will definitly not start to prove here everything before you. Either you believe, that we do the most possible to have a realistic simulation, or you just don't. Its up to you. We won't beg for.

Beside the fact, that you take propaganda material for realistic display... what do you mean? The splashes? They are shooting into water. At barges.

Propaganda or not,it shows the effect of the weapon.

Thought the numbers in SC and FAB meaned the weight of the explosive amount there is in the bomb.
FAB-250 = 250Kg of TNT...

No, it's roughly the weight of the whole bomb. FAB250 had about 115kg of explosives.

We HAVE TO BELIEVE...hm...nice. Why don't YOU believe when someone posts any data ? Are we something less than you ? No matter if you like it or not, you're modders just like the others, creating your own pack...

I can't believe the amount of negativity in this thread. It boggles the imagination. Daidalos Team has given so much to the community already (patch 4.09). Nobody denies this. They will continue to deliver massive improvements to the whole IL-2 community provided they don't give up in disgust after reading all the negative, character assassinating, childish and just plain impolite posts here. Modders of any kind, DT or not, will only work on things that interest them. This has been the rule since soundmod came out in 2008. I don't understand how all the angry people here (many of whom are heavily involved with their own mod-packs, which are used by thousands of people) feel they can demand changes from DT in such a disrespectful manner. This is a "requests" thread, not a "do-it-now-or-else-you-suck" thread. Never lose sight of this. Frankly, I'm surprised DT still bothers to respond here.

Fafnir_6

No demand from my side, only requests. ;)

+1

But keep in mind the 99.9% of other Il2 players who are not posting here and just out there enjoying il2 while 4.10 is in the works. People need to relax about this stuff, I don't know what it is about internet forums that gets everyone so worked up, someone should fund a study about this :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REy5h...eature=related


anywhoo wayyy OT

I know :\. I just pine for the atmosphere of the beginning of this thread where the requests and discussion were so polite and respectful and everyone had a feeling that we were getting somewhere.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

All I want for xmas is a round engine that starts like this ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcX0KGIBwk

:D

Because we are responsible for the results!!! The initial developer gives his good name on everything we do, so we must be 100% sure, that everything is done correctly. There is no space for 'believing'.
The only thing, YOU could loose, is maybe only your fun.

Suspicious issues will be taken care of, sooner or later. No matter if its bombs or whatever.


We are not modders! We are developers. We are official, we have the tools. We have to care for sensible matters. We have big responsibilities. No matter, if you like it or not.

And what we are not at all: a toy for you!
Luckily you alone (or you handfull) are not representing the community.

And you should work on your selfesteem.

To all:

We apprecciate your requests, we recognise them, we discuss some of them (not all, sorry), we even work on them (some, not all). Priorities of such are set by ourself (you might agree on this being our good right).
We know, that the people here posting, are a low percent of the whole community, and we try to judge from this, what is best. Few individuals, that are kind of offending us, will not be taken as 'the community speakers'.

And we will try in future, not to be drawn into such situations like this again.

All I wanna say, is: we are there, we read you, even, if we do not answer everything.
Please feel stimulated to continue requesting in good manners.

I am an new member of this forum and after reading it, I register.

I have understood that these two positions cannot be merge to a real discussion around data.
In fact, putting emotional apart, we have to live with this situation. Nevertheless, to be positive, it shows to me, that what is remaining of IL2 community, after 9-10 years of life, is composed by very motivated guys and it is a very good point.

So, let’s go and wait for 4.10 release.

The splashes result from the use of ordinary HE flak ammunition as opposed to the tungsten-cored AP shell the gun fires in Il-2 (and in real life when used against tanks). Since the 37mm guns of the Ju 87 do not contain HE shells this effect is neither necessary nor realistic.

Historical comment: What you see in the video is a one-time exception to the rule. This was the only time the tank-busters were instructed to attack such targets and later the Luftwaffe could not afford to employ them in any other role but hunting soviet tank formations.

S!

Wasn't Rudel credited for over 70 barges/boats destroyed with his "Stuka with long sticks" as Russians called him. That would indicate there was more than one instance attacking them with the 37mm cannons. In his book he tells about this "boat hunt" quite well.

Will TD include toe brake function to separately left and right? Now it only affects both brakes with one brake pedal, if you have one like on CH Pro Pedals. Sure not a show stopper, but a good feature to have giving more control.

Agree with that mate. I have the rudder pedals for the X-52 and one toe pedal is wasted :)

I was using the phrase "one-time" on a more global scale. The number of missions flown against soviet landings in the Kuban delta in these nutshells is insanely small when compared to the anti-tank ops flown throughout the last two years of the conflict. :)

You mean, only one pedal is definable to breaks?

You can assign only one axis to brakes via GUI, or multiple axis if you manually edit file of controls. However, with multiple axis assigned to brakes, the last axis, whose value has been changed, has effect on brakes. I.e., if you press both pedals fully and then release one of them, brakes will be released too.

As for differential braking, some planes had separate brake pedals and others had single brake lever and differential braking was achieved by moving pedals like using ruder.

S!

As Zaltysz said. Would be great if we could assign left and right toe brake. csThor, got it :) They flew over the swamps or area with high grass or something hunting the boats. I recommend reading Walter Wolfrum's just released book of his life, he also refers to Rudel and not in a very positive way mostly even he acknowledges his achievements.

Yes, only one pedal is definable to breaks in game.

Which is historically CORRECT for most of the aircraft in game.

Allowing Cessna style differential braking for all aircraft would not be historical, though of course a FEW major aircraft modeled DID have the two toe brakes, it was a new innovation at the time and only appeared on a few aircraft.

Ideally of course we should have toe brakes for the aircraft that had them historically and a single brake control for the rest. that however is probably unnecessarily complex.

This is by no means a priority request but it does appear that there are a few aircraft that are incorrectly armed. There may be good reasons for this but I wanted to pose the question.

My focus is on the Yak-9UT which there is unfortunately not very many resources out there on. The in-game version has a pair of ShVAK 20mm cannons in the nose and a single 37mm cannon in the hub mount which IL-2 Compare lists as Sh37ki. Although difficult to track details... we *think* that the correct armament should be two B-20S cannons in the nose (instead of the ShVAK) and one NS-23 cannon in the hub mount.

The discussion that we had was here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17554

Also that indicates that there are a number of other types with incorrect armament. The Ki-43-II has Browning .50cals when they probably should be the same Ho103 as in the Ki-61 and Ki-100. The J2M3 and M5 aren't quite right either.

I didn't know some of this until just recently. References difficult but some are probably more obvious than others.

If it's possible, it should be attempted IMHO. Not top priority, but someday in another patch?