Any chance of looking at late-war 109's "concrete elevator(tm)" ?

I recall some long threads which suggested that it was implemented for a km/h speed when it should have been for the same speed in mph. I don't know how true this is, but it has always seemed a rather unlikely "feature".

I think the "concrete Elevator" of the Bf's is related to TAS instead IAS as it should be.

That was my impression too. I haven't flown them much apart from single player campaigns (i usually fly 190As), but recently i was practicing coops with a friend of mine who's a new convert to IL2 and i got some stick time with various models.

My numbers here are approximate because i just hopped in and started flying, i didn't do any detailed tests. In any case and with some approximation, it seems that down on the deck and up to 3000m of altitude it starts getting heavy around 400km/h IAS. If you go higher however, for example 6000m or more, it gets heavy at 300km/h IAS or less which doesn't make much sense since the air is actually thinner up there, so that leads me to believe that it's probably triggered by TAS and not IAS as it should be.

If i remember to do it later on tonight i'll try to run a rough test on QMB: start a mission at 3000m, go to wonder woman view where TAS is displayed, dive and try to pull out at 400km/h TAS or so, then repeat the same starting at 7500m.

Ive tested this with the Bf109G10 with 50% fuel, but this is probably the same for the other G/K 109s.

At 1630 m i get 4.8 G when pulling out of the dive at 400 km/h TAS.
At 6730 m i get 3.0 G when pulling out of the dive at 400 km/h TAS.

This gets worse when altitude increases.

And what does that mean to you?

The 109 elevator becomes heavy at high speeds, but 400 km/h is not high speed. Some 109 elevators and ailerons (later ones) are becoming too much heavy and too early. I think his concerns is about that. And IL2 manual asks for fly the 109 above 450 km/h when attacking.

Frequently i have my controls stuck at speed around 450 (or 500 km/h considering TAS at 4k). I do not think 450~500 (or even 550) km/h are high speeds (to me medium range speeds).

Maybe 109 model was made considering Carson appointments, but that was too much controversial and he contradicts its own info:

http://mitglied.multimania.de/luftwa...on/Carson.html

Carson says that at 400 mph = 640 km/h the stick force (for ailerons) is 20 pound= 9,2 kg per g. Lets consider the same for the elevators. Then to pull 5g ~ 45 6g ~ 55 kg (Ow what "incredible" force), and to pull the stick back is even more easy that to push it to sides since you can add the strenght of your entire body. Even i, and i am not very well fit can pull this weight in such position (109 had inclined sit position, this would help). Weekend gym users can pull much more easyl. And if you consider fighter pilots are well fit, pull even 70 kg is not difficult (ok, if not sustained at least for the duration of the manouver, we must differ hold a force for longer period and few seconds in a brake manouver).

And since you are constraining all your muscles, this would help the pilot not to blackout.

I suggest you take some force measurement device put it in the wal, put yourself in cockpit like position and see how much you can pull using only the force your arms, then use your torso too.

IL2 Bomber Bugs
 

I agree with you! Here is the fusing bug among three main cases related to improving IL sim to get 'bomber work' properly realistic as it was during the harsh years back then:

1. Bomb SALVO settings.
2. Fuse settings for pilot.
3. Missing bomb damage after pilot hit.

Nr 1 means that this otherways truthful sim has a queer property of dropping bombs as pairs. I guess that we are rather unanimous that back in those days bomb effect was with all efforts maximized. It would have been unprecedentedly foolish to waste bomb effect by dropping bombs as pairs into the same spot! Luckily, there already is a fix available for this IL sim 'idiot pairs of bombs' dilemma so it should not be very difficult to set correct with some future patch, I hope! :)

Nr 2 means of course that for every mission bombs were funished with a fuse best suited for that particular mission. Again, bombs were never carried to be wasted in those days! It was crew's choice to say the last word about fuse that would be best for the mission. Pilot select should be the case with this sim, too, if we wish to further keep the sim historically accurate instead of becoming just another fancy game?

Nr 3 is the IL sim curious feature that bombs released before but exploding after flak or enemy interceptor has hit the bomber pilot do not cause any damage. In reality, bombs of course were quite as dangerous even after the aircraft that dropped them was hit!


Best regards,

- J. Hartikka -

Finland

Attached a wartime photo of men gathered to a supply of 1000 kg bombs on airfield of Joensuu. There is a collection of other original wartime photos that I have scanned on messages http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...d=1#post210220 and http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...782#post213782 and http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...588#post216588

Ok. But for the manouver you can use both hands. I think i can pull 50 kg for some seconds. At 500 km/h the force must be somewhat less for 6g.

Without going into how the game models forces on stick (i think it's a fixed amount for one hand only for all aircraft), i think the main issue is that the 109's elevators lock up in almost level flight above 6000km but they don't do the same at lower altitudes, even at higher IAS values.

This is what's causing me to think that maybe TAS is being factored into the "stiffness" calculations instead of IAS as it should probably be in reality.

At high altitudes TAS is much higher than IAS. With the sim's 109s you can maneuver just fine at more than 400km/h IAS on the deck, but you can't do the same up at 7000km or so. I'm not an aerodynamics expert but i've studied physics in university for a few years, so i treated it as a deductive experiment, started comparing the two situations and tried to find out what's similar and what's different in each one.

Well, if the maneuver is similar, the G pulled is about the same and IAS is the same, what else is there that changes when you go from low to high altitude? Air density, which is actually why your IAS gauge shows lower than what you're really doing (TAS).

It seems like the speed threshold for elevator stiffness is based on TAS in the sim, which is like ignoring the air density at the given altitude. This also seems contrary to some well established aviation standards. Nowadays, in the age of inertial navigation systems, GPS and automated flight management systems, it's easy as pie to know an airplane's true airspeed and even it's ground speed.
Even a cessna pilot has this much information available to him: the IAS and compass readings (which provide the indicated speed vector) are fed to the GPS unit, the GPS unit already knows the aircraft's true path from the satellite and its rate of change (the real speed over the ground), so by subtracting these two vectors the GPS can also tell you the wind direction and speed.

And yet, even today, the primary speed indicator on all aircraft, from cessnas to airliners to fighters, shows IAS even when it's easy to show TAS or GS. Why? Because IAS tells us how the aircraft feels the air around it, which is a direct measure of how well it will respond to a given maneuver. If the air is not thick enough at high altitude and the pilots sees a GS or TAS of 400km/h, he might be tricked into pulling hard into a maneuver and stalling, but if he sees an IAS of less than 200km/h this is his indication that the aircraft will feel mushy. In a sense, IAS is not so much about how fast you travel but if the air around you is dense enough to support a given maneuver.

I have the feeling that in general, aircraft who fly at different altitudes and true airspeeds will more or less fly the same if they can maintain the same IAS. Ok, maybe a higher altitude/higher TAS scenario means more Gs needed for the same change of path, but that's just what it says: you will need to pull harder or for a longer time. It doesn't however reflect on the actual effectiveness of the controls to let you do that. Simply put, if there's enough air particles to hit a deflected control surface the aircraft turns around a certain axis at a proportional rate.

In fact, i've seen some manuals for high flying general aviation aircraft that advise the pilot to always use the autopilot above a certain altitude, because the thin air presents less resistance to control deflection and thus makes it easier for the pilot to overcontrol. So for example, if it needs a force of 5kg to move the ailerons to the stops at 5000ft, it could only need a force of 1kg to do the same at 25000ft. This balances out and in fact overcomes the reduced efficiency of the controls, to the point that autopilot use is mandatory in order not to over control the airplane: it's harder for the control to effect the same change of roll/pitch/yaw for a given deflection due to the thin air, but it's easier for the pilot to reach and surpass that deflection, again because of the thin air.

To sum up, it feels like in IL2 the 109's controls need a higher force to be deflected when flying at higher altitudes due to TAS being factored into the calculations. From reading those manuals it seems that airplane control stiffness in general is mostly dependent on air density/IAS and not TAS, actually making it easier to deflect the controls at higher altitude, but not as effective for the same amount of deflection. Of course, the big question is "how much does each effect cancel the other out, or under what conditions does one of them prevail?", i wish i knew the answer to that ;)

If all this is true (corrections are more than welcome, i'm not claiming any expertise here, just a basic understanding of a few physics variables), the way it would be modeled in IL2 would be that when flying high our aircraft would need bigger inputs but it would be easier to reach them. Essentially, the maneuvering cap during high altitude flight would not be the needed forces on the stick but the control stops.

Me 109 F/G:
"- What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pull it out of the dive."

-Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Asuming this is true airspeed. Currently when flying a bf109G at 7000m, at 600 km/h TAS or ~410 km/h IAS, the elevator/aileron controls stiffen considerably, making maneurvering impossible. This is ~80km/h below the speed stated by Franz Stigler.

At all altitudes the bf109F/G/K elevator becomes unusable between 550-600 TAS.
This should be at least 680 TAS, because at 680 TAS speed the stick force increased but the controls didnt lock up.

Blackdog explained all in his last post.

everything has to do with the speed provided no real speed, or perhaps think that a pilot is calculated at all times the real speed to make a move, that is really dumb

The TA152H does 750km/h at 12km alt.
If this where indicated airspeed, then it could break the sound barrier.

Yes, if you observe in IL2 your stall IAS is quite the same at any altitude. Why not elevator stiffness based on IAS?

A few more maps for QMB. I'm gettng bored flying over the same terrain as I do my warm up and practice flights.

Thanks.
S!

You can create your own using the FMB if you don't want to wait.
A little help about new QMB | Adding your favorite map to the Quick Mission Builder

I don't think Daidalos Team would mind the help if anyone feels inclined to create more missions for the QMB. ;)


Wheels

Blackdog your are correct. it is TAS related not IAS related as it should be. I don't think it can be easily fixed however. Probably an entire FM engine rewrite. This has been known about for sometime but not sure if admitted too. It is not just a 109 issue it is an issue for every aircraft. Test for yourself in any aircraft. The G that can be generated at 400km/h at 5000m and 400km/h at 100m is very different. High speed aerodynamics are not a factor at these altitudes or speeds. The problem that this creates is that you have variable G v stick position for a constant IAS with increasing alt. Not ideal for fighting and if not fixed in CoD is a glaring error.

As for fixes. Get rid of sonar sounds. The only thing you should hear in a WW2 piston engined fighter is the engine, radio and perhaps the sound of taking a hit.

Can the fuselage crosses on the K-4 be changed to white instead of the current black?

Not at the moment. Unfortunately Il-2 doesn't allow for three individual national marking types on an aircraft (fuselage and wings underside share the same NM). To change that would take a lot of work and if that workload is justified is questionable now that the successor is in sight. :-?

because not added the missing nation in the mission and campain?
because not added new pilot skin it uk us jp- to ru fr hu de?
this work i simple.

some interesting pictures... may be will be useful...
http://777avg.com/omegasquad/

At the risk of suggesting something that makes for a massive workload, how about the defaults of the the default country have insignia 'on skin', i.e like the current Tempest or the P-47/P-51 amongst others, but keep a separate 'blank' default skin for other countries which apply the MATS as per usual, but keep the MAT applied lettering/numbers for both. This would also sort out dodgy roundels on most RAF types too.

Any benefit to this?

Hmmm, my wishlist......... Well then
1.) The Re-2002 and Fiat G.55 (all models, especially the new ones) Flyable
2.) All B-25s Flyable
3.) Gyro gunsight for late model P-47s
4.) TBF Avenger flyable
5.) Proper load outs for late P47s concearning rockets on zero length launchers
6.) The DD-652 Ingersoll skinned on one of the Fletcher class DDs (my grandfathers Tin Can) ;) said it was a wish list
7.) An official Typhoon
8.) More ships of all types
9.) Merchant ships with their own AA guns, as was historical

That does it for me, if half of the stuff here made it in, I would never whine again, promise ;)

Unfortunately not. It would involve the very same amount of work in fact to modify the overlays. There's a bit of "devil in the details" so to speak ... :-?

Okay.

Any thought given to changing the fuselage and underwing crosses to the black/white cross? It seems to have been a valid marking for K-4s.

Not really. Historically the background colour decided which simplified Balkenkreuz was to be used - light background (i.e. RLM 76) means black simplified Balkenkreuz and dark background (i.e. RLM 83) means white simplified Balkenkreuz. To be historical we'd need to have three separate NM slots per aircraft ... but as I said this is questionable ATM. :(

Hello TD and thanks a lot for your work ;

So my question is : Will you add Japanese planes in future updates ? just a question

My request is : Please change the AI , it really kills immersion as it is , i'm aware of the cpu limitation and that the AI will never be in the same conditions than the player , but i'm' sure it is possible to make it less ridiculous as it currently is , it is great that they don't see through clouds now , i'm grateful , but i think we should go further , what needs to be improved is to cut the ability of the AI to fly like UFO's as much as possible ( dives at mach 1 with fragile airplanes , climb like a helicopter at low speed with a 6 ton aircraft or when they overstep by a huge margin the speed limits and maintain ridiculous energy while doing crazy manoeuvres etc )

I'm not asking for a perfect AI respecting law of physics rigourously like the player has to , or having black outs etc ... , i know it is technically not feasible , i just ask for an AI using better tactics , for instance an AI that boom and zoom with Any plane like real pilots , an AI that is possible to surprise (veteran or not , pilots were humans ) and an AI that doesn't have the UFO zoom climbing script Veteran/Ace currently have which is a complete immersion killer . AI has to be smarter or at least if it 's not possible to make it smarter , make it so it doesn't cheat physics as much as it does currently and still make us believe we are in World War II and not star wars , the skill level "rookie-average-veteran-ace" should reflect the AI pilot skill and not the ability of his plane to enter the matrix :)


Anyway I know many posters here play online and may not bother about my request , but really i"m pretty sure more than 2/3 rd of players are offliners and changing the AI would make a HUGE difference for the majority of the community , many of us work and have a family life with demanding schedule , so we play essentially when we can and offline is where we spend by far the most time , so please anything that improves the offline experience would be amazing , thank you very much for your work TD and good luck ;)

My WishList:

Updated eventlog output that lists:

When a player damages a ship(Chief or static) with bomb/rocket. Currently you only get an eventlog entry when the ship is destroyed. Something like: "xyz_static damaged by pilot:plane at xcoord ycoord"


More damaged by messages when a pilot damages another aircraft. Currently it shows a lot of damage messages in chat, but it would be great to have those in the eventlog as well.


Flyable B5N2


Thanks for all the updates you have delivered so far...

i love to see a flyable wellington and halifax bomber in the sim :) i also like to see some of the older cockpits made better and some new gun sounds in 4.11

There are mods that gives you the opportunity to fly em, i just dont dare to post the name of em here :P

i wish the modders and TD could merge and focus on keeping this sim truly alive, rather waging wars on what to use :/ cause thats whats going on right now

P-39 F

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/...p-39f1_953.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/...p-39f2_151.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/...p-39f3_195.jpg

P-39F

P-39F-1
Bell Model 15B, production variant with three-bladed Aeroproducts constant speed propeller, 12 exhaust stacks; 229 built.

TP-39F-1
One P-39F converted as a two-seat training version with additional cockpit added in nose— no armament.

P-39F-2
27 conversions from P-39F-1 with additional belly armor and cameras in rear fuselage.

Name: Bell P-39F Airacobra Bell P-39F Airacobra
Original title:
Original Name: Bell P-39F Airacobra
Category:
Category: Fighter Fighter Aeroplane
Manufacturer:
Producer: Bell Aircraft Corporation, Buffalo , New York , USA (USA)
Production Period:
Production Period: DD.MM.1942-DD.MM.YYYY
Built pieces:
Number of Produced: 229
The first take-off:
Maiden Flight: DD.MM.YYYY
Crew:
Crew: 1
Basic charaketeristika:
Basic Characteristics:
Takeoff and landing:
Take-Off and Landing: CTOL - Conventional Take-Off and Landing CTOL - conventional take-off and landing
Leaf arrangement:
Arrangement of Wing: monoplane monoplane
Arrangement of the airplane:
Concept Aircraft: Classical conventional
Chassis:
Undercarriage: Retractable Retractable
Landing gear:
Landing Gear: Round Wheels
Technical data:
Technical Data:
Empty weight:
Empty Weight: 2460 kg 5423 lb
Takeoff Weight:
Take-off Weight: 3558 kg 7845 lb
Maximum takeoff weight:
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 3719 kg 8200 lb
Wingspan:
Wingspan: 10.36 m 34 feet
Length:
Length: 9.19 m 30 ft 2in
Height:
Height: 3.78 m 12 ft 5in
Wing area:
Wing Area: 19.79 m 2 213 ft 2
Wing loading:
Wing Loading: ? kg / m 2 ? lb / ft 2
Propulsion:
Propulsion:
Category:
Category: Piston piston
Number of engines:
Number of Engines: 1
Type:
Type: Allison V-1710-35 on the performance of 846 kW
three blade propeller adjustable Aeroproduct 0-35 "target =" _blank "> Allison V-1710-35 power 1150 hp
three blade propeller adjustable Aeroproduct
Fuel tanks capacity:
Fuel Tank Capacity: ? ?
Outputs:
Performance:
Maximum speed:
Maximum Speed: 579.4 1) km / h 4572 m 360 1) miles in 15000 ft
Cruising speed:
Cruise Speed: ? km / h? m ? in mph? ft
Rate of climb:
Climb Rate: 12.9 m / s 2540 ft / min
Time to exit height:
Time to Climb to: 9.1 min to 6096 m 9.1 min to 20000 ft
Operational ceiling:
Service Ceiling: 9784 m 32100 ft
Range:
Range: 965.6 km 600 mi
Maximum range:
Maximum Range: ? km ? me
Armament:
Armament: 1x 37 mm cannon fixed Oldsmobile T-9 in the axis of the propeller
2x 12.7 mm machine guns fixed Browning M2 into trunk
4 x 7.62 mm machine gun fixed in the wing Browning

226 kg bombs 1x fixed 37-mm Oldsmobile T-9 cannonn
2x fixed fuselage-mounted .50 caliber Browning M2 machine gun
4x fixed wing-mounted .30 Browning Machine Gun

500-lb bombs
User states:
User States: USA (USA)
USA (USA)
Note:
Note: 1) 539 km / h in 1525 m, 521 km / h 7625 m 1) 335 mph at 5000 ft, 324 mph at 25000 ft

The F to D differed from the version using a new hydraulic propeller Aeroproduct maintaining a constant speed. Another noticeable change on sight was modified exhaust system, which accounted for Model F series of 12-exhaust openings on each side of the engine.

I would very much like it if you guys touched up the model greatly, smoothing it more, and perfecting shapes, thinning the radio line, and fixing the tessellation in some areas such as near the prop cone. Thanks guys - Oh yeah and make sure it gets its own FM!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Just curious - do you happen to have access to a copy of JaPo's book on K-4 camo and markings? There is, for instance, a K-4 of 9./JG 77 (White 3) which has the black/white fuselage cross. Nothing can be seen of the underwing crosses, but the authors have also interpreted is a black/white cross.

EDIT: there are other photos in the book which show underwing black/white crosses.

No I don't but TBH arranging the markings is always going to be an exercise in making a generic application which will not fit all possible exceptions.

Concerning repeated requests for Mod content
 

I saw a post on the first page requesting the inclusion of Canons map, nothing against Canon but his map contains too many "Mod" and "borrowed objects" to be used by TD.
I would suggest the 352nd map for two reasons 1. less objects (better framerates) 2. textures are closer to IL-2 standards. The only way you will see any Modded content from outside of TD is if they submit it to TD themselves, you can't just request they include it and in this there may be some difficulty as there are some Modders in the community who are unlikely to cooperate this way even though some of these are quite attractive. I would suggest if some of you want these things bad enough that you contact them and request they do so properly rather than make suggestions here. Just my 2 cents

What I would like to see is the inclusion of work made out of the limits of the original limitations, for example, number of polygons on an aircraft or in the cockpits, to include planes and remade cockpits WELL ABOVE the standard of the game. The fact that PCs are now much more powerful that what was available in 2001 or 2003 would make this changes available, even for today's average PC. Mine is 3 years old and runs with mods like remade cockpits and 3D of new models without trouble.

hi all what is the best setting for the joystick dead band and filtering??:?

To pull this particular tooth once and for all there will not be a map of the Channel area in Il-2 in a patch released by TD. This was specifically mentioned in the agreement with 1C.

Not gonna happen. Team policy is to do things by the book and only include stuff that fulfills the tech specifications. 250MB+ cockpit textures or 20000 poligons aircraft are simply a waste of PC ressources, especially when a similar result can be achieved with a lot less texture size and poligons. It just takes more work.

You're in the wrong thread.

OK, no problem.

1. FW190A8 FW190A9 need correct Revi circle.

Aiming point of all guns on the FW190A8 FW190A9 is below the center of Revi circle.

FW190A6 that is OK.

2. Online sever forbidden wingtip smoke, Review need add the wingtip smoke.

if the records could provide wingtip smoke for aircraft , that would be better to review the quick records of fight.

3. Improve the guns efects (Flash and smoke hit, tracers smoke...), thanks!

4. Navigation need trainning staff ( Movie, Records......).

Apart from bug-fixes that have already been mentioned, the only real issue with the game is the AI. It is better with bomber accuracy (no more of that sniper thing), but it would be good to stop AI from constantly flying faster and making those irritating barrel rolls. The friendly AI could use some tweaking as well - bastards keep stealing my kills, no to mention shooting me up in the process.

Claymore's pits are not only about textures, it's about the whole recreation of all the things that are missing in Oleg's cockpits : gauges, lights, switchs, etc.

But still he exceeds texture limits by the factor of 10 to 15. That's the issue here ... ;)

But they are so niiiiiice ! :P

I mean, really, it's now up to CoD level! With so much detailed informations and everything !

What about the AI ? Will you improve it ?

mixture axis?
 

Are you planing to put mixture in axis, like you did to radiator?
If you dont, well, at least i want to tank daidalos team for radiator axis and multi throttle! :)

Hopefully an easy one - could you please remove the coloured spinners for the Il-2's? This will be a big improvement for us Sturmo flyers.


Not so easy - longer vehicle and tank convoys would be much appreciated by mission builders - especially ones that are longer than the average bridge length, so we can make convoy movements look much more realistic, and not have the pauses/traffic jams between consecutive convoys as they stop at each bridge.


Finally, if you're making more current AI's flyable, I'd most like to see the Me-210, Su-2 and Tu-2 made flyable as they all offer good utility for creating missions.

Anyway, thanks for your work, it's much appreciated.

I'd like to see a LAND command for the AI so that your wingman will no longer keep following you down and crash behind you.

Claymore's FW190 cockpit fit perfectly 2005 PCs. Some other cockpits don't, but his do.

I think we all deserve better AI.

Isn't there a "return to base" command that essentially achieves this?

Please correct me If I'm wrong.

Fafnir_6

You are correct about the return to base command, but it can only be used if you are the leader at the start of the mission.
If the leader is shot down, and you become leader then the ai will follow you (sometimes into the ground) but you can't issue commands to them.

Would be nice if it could be fixed.

It exists, but not accessible if you're not flight leader. If your leader dies, other planes follow you, and sometimes land after you do, many times die flying at stall speed without gear with you until you land/they crash. A mod solves this (frog formation mod) btw.

A request for TD's consideration in 4.11:

Request for Landing Lights to be usable and confirmed when you're on the ground and stationary? Sometimes you need them to Taxi to the runway and performa a takeoff.

I'd still love to see a flyable Typhoon Mark IB someday. Maybe in a future IL-2 release or... probably more likely... Cliffs of Dover addon.

Really I love any new content so I'm pretty much happy no matter what gets released. Bring it all on :)

Ahh, I see about the "return to base" command. It should be added to the Rottflieger menu as well. A worthy request to be sure.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Overhaul of damage modelling.

I'm probably barking into the moon I know since it would mean a gargantous amount of work, but DM in my opinion really is lagging badly behind any other major aspect of the sim in term of quality.

perfect mode for 3 displays?
 

It would be pure joy to see IL-2 in perfect mode on 3 displays without that little flickering black square at the lower left corner. SANS FoV Changer conquered the tie fighter appearance where the wings used to stick forward on the outboard monitors but it would be great to see IL-2 in perfect mode again.

Light bombs
 

German and soviet light bombs very needed for night missions.
Could you think about things like these ones:

German light bombs, for example, LC50F
http://bodenplatte-45.narod.ru/fschl...mbe-lc50f2.jpg

Soviet light bombs (no pictures, but I'll provide all required data if you have interest):

SAB-15
SAB-25
SAB-50-15
SAB-100-55

Thanks for 4.101 TD!

I can nag/moan/whine about 4.11 now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smaller patches.

Bf109k4C3 without mw50.

Bf109K4 with 2000 hp DC engine+mw50, 1,98 ata version.

Bf109G10 with 2000 hp DC engine+mw50, 1,98 ata version.

The stiffening elevator syndrome of the bf109s should be at about 500km/h IAS at all altitudes.

Bigger Normandy map.

West Germany map.

Bigger smoke collumns that follow the direction of the wind, instead of going straight up.

Smoke plume effect after a bomb hits the ground or building.

Tanks with AA mg guns.

Onboard rectangular mirror for p-51D.

P47D-40RE version with gyro gunsight.

P-47D with a green seat and armour plate instead of red.

6DOF track IR.

Spitfire XIV version with mark II gyro gunsight.

Improved Spitfire FM handling. (CoG is too much near the tail.)

Flyable Fiat G.55.

Red or green smoke flares for ground target marking.

Improved AI. (AI crashes into the ground too many times.)

Destroyable runways.

Flakpanzer IV ostwind.

2cm flakvierling.

Bigger dust clouds on desert maps when taking off.

More cloudcover, and with different shades instead of just white.

Coolant leaks.

Pitot blockages, when flying trough an explosion or a cloud of debris.

Headshake or pov shaking on landing, depending on airspeed and rate of descent, during rough landings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This might not fit in one patch though.

Again, thanks for the good work TD, its much respected.
:cool:

The F6F speed at altitude could be corrected , would be awesome if Team Daidalos could fix it for their next updates , thanks a bunch for your work TD :cool:

Impaler - What would the P-51K bring to the table that isn't already covered in the two D versions? Aside from a slightly different bubble canopy and a couple of other differences the only real thing that separates the D and the K is the factory it was made in.

Also I think you mean Spitfire XIV :)

Yes you are right. P-51D/K versions are the same.
And i mean the XIV spit.

I completely stick with Impaler's list some posts above. Great suggestions, very tempting! :grin:

What I'd like to add myself to that list is only one more thing:

- Fiat G.55 (all versions) flyable


DT already made it rather clear that there's worked on cockpit models for this plane already, but I just want to make sure...

Gyrogunsight for Spitfires as they were first operational planes equiped with it.

This would really take the cake--

New Engine Sounds

New Map Textures

New Skins

New Effects

I would like to see more Japanese aircraft, at the moment we are missing some important types.

I know it is a lot of work to build a completely new plane, but maybe it is possible to add more variants of planes we already have in the game, this would require only small changes to existing aircraft models.

The plane variants I am thinking about are:
Ki-43-III
Ki-61-I-Tei
Ki-61-II
Ki-100-I-Otsu
D3A2
G4M2
G4M3

Maybe they can be done without too much work.

It's true that with COD looming , it would be great for the IL-2 sim to expand the Pacific Front , as we'll probably have to wait many years before the Pacific theater gets integrated to COD

All the information on a network
 

Hello
When you are playing on a local network there is a missing parameter. The movement of the surfaces of your plane doesn't show up from the other players.

When you move the ailerons of your plane, the other players doesn't see that animation or movement. I know that there is a lot of information through a network but what about to have the possibility to turn on or off that option?

There is a lot of other games that show all the animation on a network, why this great simulator don't?

And this option could be activated via user, or the decision from players playing on a local network, not from Internet.

Thank you

whats next?))) what 4.11 will bring to us? ))

It would be nice to have a thread in which we can see what's getting into the new patch. And just a suggestion... a few significant upgrades are better than a hole bunch of huge modifications, so if patch 4.11 doesn't bring so many changes it's ok, as long as we don't wait for a whole year to get it.

EDIT: I would appreciate an option to see all icons white in the radar for the MDS. Having friend/foe identification in a melee as in the actual radar seems too much for the time.

Unfortunately one squadron needs one set of files per fuselage code. I'd rather not make any more duplicate entries than there already are. The list is long enough, don't you think? ;)

1) 6DOF
2) 6DOF
3) 6DOF
4) 6DOF
5) 6DOF
6) 6DOF

AND THE WINNER IS.....

THE ONE 6DOF !!!!

:-P



http://blogs.rpp.com.pe/apuntesdemil...ar-166x300.jpg



.

Torque effect
 

Hi :)
Searching for more realism and physics:
The only AI Airplane that has the torque effect when takeoff is the TB-3 (the one with four engines). It is beautiful to see this airplane in takeoff from a static camera, you can see the torque effect.
The rest of the AI Airplanes seems to bee perfectly trimmed and doesn't show or have the torque effect.
Perhaps you can add this effect for the rest of the AI Airplanes.
Thank you ;)

I wold love to see some of the better done mod varients added to the sim.. not only Mustangs but some of the others as well..

I would also like to see some different loadouts on the Jugs & Ponies.. How about some rockets for the Mustangs.. and the other rockets for the Jugs as well.. instead of just those tubes..

I would also like to see in the joystick settings.. Instead of Joystick 1, 2 etc... the ability to name the profile whatever you want.. that way you can create a profile and assign it a name according to the plane.. I would also like to see the bi directional minimap function added to the stock sim as well..

Actually we only have the No. 1 PRU RAAF in the game ATM. Just took a look and was puzzled that I didn't find No. 1 Sqn RAAF at all until I looked at the PRU and saw the PU fuselage code. ;)

Here is some information that one of our members found:

The 'PU' code currently used actually applies to No.1 PRU Squadron.

No.1 Squadron used (at various times) A, US and NA. 'A' was allocated to the initial delivery of Hudson's received by Australia in 1939. The code 'US' was assigned to No.1 Squadron in April 1940, just prior to it's move to Singapore in July 1940. It retained that code throughout the disastrous Malayan campaign and it's return to Australia (or what was left of the Squadron) at the end of March 1942; whence due to the very high losses it had suffered the Squadron was disbanded.

Upon it's being reformed with Bristol Beaufort light bombers in December 1943, No.1 Squadron was allocated the code 'NA'. It operated the Beaufort out of Darwin against the Islands to the north until January 1945, whence it was the first RAAF Squadron to convert to the de Havilland Mosquito FB.VI.

The 'NA' code saw the longest use with No.1 Squadron, although 'US' certainly reflects the more dramatic and tumultuous period of it's service in WWII.

The "PU" code was allocated to No.1 Photo Reconnaissance Unit (PRU). This Unit was formed at Laverton, Victoria in June 1942. It's role was to perform long-range strategic or tactical photographic reconnaissance missions. It's initial equipment was six Brewster Buffalo fighters with guns and armour removed and extra fuel tanks installed. The Unit moved to 32 Mile Airfield at Coomalie Creek, Darwin (later named Hughes Field) on 19 Agust 1942. From there it conducted reconn flights over the Timor Sea and DEI Japanese-held Islands to the north west. In time it collected a motley selection of aircraft including the above mentioned Buffalo's, plus Wirraway's, P-43 Lancers and P-38 Lightnings. Rarely did it's TOC inlcude more than six aircraft at any one time.

In May 1944 No.1 PRU received it's first PR.40 Mosquito's. The greatly increased range of the Mosquito allowed 1 PRU to fly as far afield as the Balikpapan. And when it moved to Biak it could overfly the Halmaheras and the Philippines.

On 9 September 1944 No.1 PRU was disbanded and from it No.87 (PRU) Squadron was formed. At this time the Squadron code was changed from 'PU' to 'QK'. No.87 (PRU) Squadron performed the same role as 1 PRU for the remainder of the War.


The information was in two separate posts. So I guess that the game in a sense is historically correct if you were to fly as No. 1 PRU.

If you were to visit our Squad's site (www.raafsquad.com) you would see that we use four different squadrons with No1 Sqdrn being our CO's squadron.

So with this information would it still be possible to either, add a No1 Squadron, and leave the current No. 1 PRU as is. Or remove the PRU and replace it with a new No. 1 Sqn RAAF?

We thought we would just ask and see how things went.

~S~

Adding No. 1 Sqn RAAF isn't a problem, but we can't remove any unit already in the game due to backward compatibility issues.

So which code should I use for No. 1 Sqn RAAF? ;)

Ignore.

I would like to request the following "improved payloads" for the FB.VI Mosquito, the P-47D-10 series onwards and the P-51D-5 series onwards (including the Mustang Mk.III).

FB.VI Mosquito
It's current loadout in the game is:
extra ammo;
2 x 250lb bombs (interior);
4 x 250lb bombs (2 interior, 2 exterior);
2 x 500lb bombs (interior);
4 x 500lb bombs (2 interior, 2 exterior).

In reality the FB.VI was also equipped to carry, in lieu of the external bomb loads (but in addition to the internal bomb loads):
8 x 60lb rockets OR
2 x 50 imp gal external underwing fuel tanks (droppable) OR
2 x 100 imp gal external underwing fuel tanks (droppable).

The P-47D-10 Onwards
Too numerous to mention all the various loadouts in the game (which is quite comphrehensive). However there are some loadouts missing, such as:

108 gal tank - introduced in September 1943
150 gal tank - introduced from 20 Feb 1944.
10 x 5" HVAR rocket.
First trialled by the 513th Squadron, 406th Fighter Group on 29 July 1944 against ammunition trucks at Gavray, France. The 5" HVAR was developed in response to the poor showing of the M8 4.5" tube rockets, which were hard to aim, had poor flight characteristics and had an noticable impact on the aircraft's flight performance.
The success of the 5" HVAR led to their being widely used, the usual load being 8 rockets per wing (although 10 could be carried). This did preclude any bombs or underwing fuel tanks being carried, although a centreline fuel tank or up to a 1000lb could be carried.

P-51D-5 Onwards
Current loadout in the game is:
2 x 250lb bombs
2 x 500lb bombs
2 x 1000lb bombs
2 x 75 gal tanks

In addition to the above the P-51D-5 onwards and the Mustang Mk.III could carry the following:
6 x 5" HVAR rockets
6 x 60lb rockets (Mustang Mk.III)
(Plus a centerline fuel tank or up to a centerline 1000lb bomb)
2 x 75 gal tanks
2 x 108 gal tanks (also used by the P-51 C model)

No.260 Squadron RAF was the first Mustang unit to use rockets (British 60lb version) in April 1944 over Italy.No's 213 and 112 Squadrons followed suit in July.

The USAAF P-51 equipped units commenced using the 5" HVAR's about the same time as the P-47 units ie from August 1944 onwards.

Hope these armament additions can be included in 4.11.
Cheers :)

Request for the FW 190 F8

Would it be possible to include panzershrek rockets as a loadout option for the 190 F8? Or would this require a new 190 F9 jabo variant?

'Redout' when inverted in normal flight, full 'redout' seems to come on very quickly.

You said it better than I did..

I wanted to draw attention to another issue that is worth looking at.

R_Target has done some very good research (as far as I can tell) on the F6F and it's top speeds. It's been long held in my head (and based one some preliminary tests) that the F6F was a little on the slow side. Target has gone and done some good research and has some specific numbers:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...5041070725/p/1

It's definitely on the slow side and not by a little bit. Worth looking over the data.

Hi Thor. Just spotted some RAF squadron codes that are incorrect:

No. 487 Sqn RNZAF (FB): currently 'OU' (duplicate of 485 Sqn) -> should be 'EG'

No. 601 Sqn RAF (F): currently 'LO' (duplicate of 602 Sqn) -> should be 'UF'

Also any chance of getting the regiment badges removed from all RAF a/c? They were the exception during wartime.

Fenrir, Smouch ... Thx. Will modify the incorrect codes and add No 1 Sqn RAAF. :)

http://www.mission4today.com/images/.../icon_pray.gif

Cheers mate

~S~

It would be nice, if you add forgotten Polish planes - PZL.37 "Los" or PZL.23 "Karas", ald flyable french MS.406. Cheers, best regards!

I agree that the Typhoon would be a worthy addition to the game if only because of its great historical importance. But I would like any computer model we get to properly reflect the "warts" of this flawed aircraft - relatively unreliable motor, vibrations, weak tail sections, cockpit fumes etc.

Please revise the Spitfire landing characteristics to improve energy absorption and prevent it kicking into ever-increasing lurches to destruction (and some other aircraft ?)

Please revise the size of the Tempest backplate to give a more realistic rear view. The result may not be 'to scale' but the inability to look around it is not realistic, it is said to have had a very good all-round view).

If it won't condemn my other requests to the bin, 6DOF. Much work has already been done in the community. There is another thread and poll demonstrating the majority feeling of the community and it's acceptance of very minor graphics oddities over the obsolete fixed-head view which simply no longer rates a place alongside all the other great improvements to this wonderful old sim.

Hi!

I dont know if this request was already posted: to make V-1s a target creating a entry into the eventlog when a rocket is destroyed ;)

It is possible?

:)

The thing that I want the most is often the most forggetten part of IL-2. I wish to have more advance ship damage models. Also how about make it possible to choose a skin for a ship so you could have USS Essex class as a ship and then choose a skin. I would want t so you could make custome ship paint schemes. I would love to see the USS Enterprise class in IL-2 since it is so famous yet not in the game. Also I would request more ship functions like catapults fir carriers that have them. Also if possible deck elevators so you could take off 32 planes off one carrier with the aircraft being brought from below decks. It would be extremely cool to have a flyable Helldiver. I want more ships like the USS North Carolina, IJN Yamato etc etc etc. Also instead of just sleep for the ships add stages of alert so you can control the total number of guns on the ship. I personally want more ship upgrades. :grin: please put these in future updates and hopefully by 4.2 we will have all these features. Thanks.

Another request: more variants of the bf-110. As I understand, it was used on the esatern front in decent numbers up to 1942, and in versions prior to G as well.

It's one of those bits in the game that are from the manufacturer which took legal action against Pacific Fighters, so it's not likely to be in an official patch.