Hey TD how about removing the frame from the minimap? I mean... do we really need it?

I would like to see a semi transparent mini map, so it could stay opened when needed without blocking the view. It could even be a little bit smaller.

A Gloster Meteor?

Please add the Panzerblitz rockets for FW 190F.

Afaik, this bug is related to low quality sound settings. And as far as i am concerned - I don't care.
Do you really feel you get less kills because of this bug? C'mon...

I think that Papa has a valid point. The sonar is highly unrealistic. I run sound at full quality settings (SB audigy) and I can hear tailgunners from like 500 meters from me. In a real plane you can't here anything unless it is few meters from you. I would implement it as an option - something like realistic sounds on (no sonar, no external sounds)/off (the current state).

Impossible or just a matter of what price?

The former ... because of the latter. :-|

Tank damage
 

Hello, in this tread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29683 is a conversation about tank damage, which is very simple right now.
I think it would be a good idea to split the damage in two parts, without making the damage model too complex: Damage to the armour and damage to the tracks.
When the armour is destroyed, the whole tank is destroyed, but in some cases it is hard to do. When the tracks are destroyed the tank is useless and I think tracks were much easier to destroy than armour.

What do you think?

Is like millions of dollars that NG wants for licensing?

I thought so...
Any hint about the ammount?

I am in favor for keeping the frame on the minimap - to me the frame adds to realism.

- A better option would be a frame on/off toggle.

I'm a guy who prefers the IL-2 map to be a simulated piece of paper.

Another wish for the minimap for me is to able to drag it off the primary monitor to one of my side monitors on a triple-head setup kinda like jamming it into the cockpit somewhere. =P

yes!

There are enough of us here, perhaps a fund raiser is in order?

+1

Well the wish list is nearly endless and I am unpolite enough to express it ;-)
What comes in mind:
Late Hawker Biplanes...
Bf108 (or is this part of CloD?)
Early 109s (C&D models)
The original He111 with regular cockpit on top
Flyable Vought Kingfisher from catapult.
Martin Marauder
Martin Mars (just eye candy)
Lanc
Halifax
Stirling and the little ugly ducklings like Hampden and so (targets)
He 177 (Eye Candy)
Bloch 131 & 174 (Eye Candy/Victim)
Bloch 150er
Dewoitine 520
Breuget 690
Lockheed L-18
Lockheed A28 Hudson
Curtiss C46 Commando
Curtiss Helldiver
Objects with names and content groups for easier Mission Building.
Artillery: Stock Fla-Platoons/ with rangefinder and all the stuff you need to operate a Battery including tow trucks, generators, dug-in barracks (saw this on pictures and here in Vienna remained some of those stock fla Barracks as "small garden" homes in the suburbs, where the batteries were located)
Pov Range increased 10%-105% with smooth zoom.
Command transfer, when leader was killed.
Possibility of commands of subalterns like: "break away" in case of danger for AI teammates.
A larger map of Mountainous area (at least 4 times as large as the Online 4 Map) with a canyon worth its name!
Correct me please, if I forgot something ;-)

I dont mean to stress your patience ... I forgot the thing that inflicts the immersion the most:
The smoke columns of damange, may it be ships or crashed aircraft or whatever:
Let them be bend and dispersed with the wind.

yup!

I would contribute...Say, did DT work out that donation thing yet?

If you have realistic bomb fuses difficulty option enabled you can select three types for fuses for most bombs:

Instant: Bomb explodes on impact, or almost immediately after. The time you are selecting (0.0, 0.3... etc) is the "delay" after impact. These bombs require a long arming time, and thus altitude.

Delay: Bomb has a moderate arming time, and moderate delay after impact (~4.0 seconds or so). depending on the situation, these are best for mast-height skip bombing (mast-height is 100 m).

Low level or long delay: Bomb has a very short arming time. That means you can drop it from 20 meters (or less in some cases). However, the delay is very long (7.0+ seconds) to allow the aircraft time to escape from the blast.

German bombs have an electric fuse system which allows the pilot to change the parameters in flight. You must assign a key to use this (mine is Ctrl+B).

In any case, you can view the drop parameters for any weapon by pressing the TAB key while in flight. This gives the arming time and drop height (and for torpedoes, drop speed). This assumes you are flying straight and level, and not diving, which would obviously shorten the available arming time for the bomb. Even if you have the same fuse selected (low-level, for instance) the arming time will not be the same for different bombs (ie HE 250kg or HE 500kg).

Hope this helps.

+1
I also have a two screen environment. I like to vote for the possibility to move the map as well as the toolboxes of the FMB to the second screen and eventually expand them to full size.

I think a viable third option would be to size down the border on the map to something more reasonable. It is unnecessarily thick IMHO.

I tried a few google searches to find some reference pictures on the styles of map cases used but the best I could find so far was on e-bay.

Soviet Pilot map case

I'm guessing there were many styles used. If anyone has some good references I'd be kinda curious to see.

lol talk about IL-2 minutiae =)

But hey, were just "talking" right ?!

What really strikes me about this topic is that silly map case was one of the things that really struck me as cool when I first started playing IL-2 for some strange odd reason. LOL

Like it was a WOW!! factor for hyper-detail realism that I still think is very cool.

But I'm all for player options as well!

And by the way, minimap mouse wheel scrolling in 4.11 is totally FTW !!

http://www.rkka.ru/uniform/images/vvs_26_bw.jpg

Great photo! I love it!

Yes I agree that the map itself was a nice touch and I think at the time it was not too bad but it just looks fuzzy and stretched out on a big monitor. Something with less of a border (but still looking a bit like the one in that photo) might work. I wish I had the Photoshop skills to put something like that together.

How many wishes do we get? :grin:

after 10 years practice, I still have not mastered hitting the radiator key the correct amount of times to open or close, and have to go through the cycle several times to get where I want. I'm not sure I'll be any better at it with another 10 yrs practice. Would it be possible to have a radiator close button? That would be mint.

+1 on new maps textures if possible. It seems to me that would have the greatest impact on the overall look of the sim. Hope something could be worked out with some of the very impressive mod textures out there now.

for my last wish, I want 100 more wishes :-P

Not everyone uses mods so I figured I would post some screenshots. It looks like what the modders did was remove the frame and slightly increase the overall size of the map.

Personally, the difference doesn't seem to be that much and the stock map has never bothered me one bit.

However, if time and effort WERE put into changing the map, I think something real useful should be done. Something like making the size of the map customizable by the user...similar to the new feature we have now for the File Save/Load dialog box in the FMB.

So then we would have a map sized to each player's needs and also be able to move and place the map anywhere on the screen (a feature we already have now).

*Another cool idea would be to have a custom key command that would bring up an enlarged view of the map, possibly covering the entire screen. This would simulate the pilot taking his map and bringing it up to his face to look at it. This map would have a default view that was zoomed out so you could instantly get a 'big picture' of the area, similar to what a real pilot would see on his own map.


Aviar

Just drop the thought. We are not going to touch anything remotely NG-related with a ten-meter-pike.

According to an unverified source ;) 1C paid something like quarter million for all NG products, included into the PF release.

I wonder, if that fund riser would be as successful, as this:

http://www.destructoid.com/double-fi...s-221395.phtml

:grin:

Seriously, though, DT is not in the position to negotiate anything with NG. That should be done by 1C and Ubi, but I doubt, they would want to move a finger for good old IL-2...

Let's get this straight. Northrop Grumman have made it clear that 1C will have to pay a ridiculous sum of money for the privilege of illustrating the role of Grumman in WWII, and people here are suggesting that we should pay them? Yeah. Like there is nothing better we could do with the money...

Actually, with the sort of money they are demanding, we could probably fund an advertising campaign to point out how they are exploiting a past history funded via taxation to rake in profit, and how they'd rather hang on to their 'intellectual rights' than allow anyone to learn about the realities of WWII, even if only indirectly. In any case, there are plenty of things that IL-2 needs that don't involve paying off sharks - if their shareholders think that writing NG out of history is a sensible policy, let them...

I've merged the 4.12 wish list threads it makes no sense fragmenting the requests :)

So have a careful look for your previous posts before thinking they've been deleted.

Thanks.

+1

Frankly, yes.
I'm not always in a position that allows me to attack with an idling engine. And a LOT of players use the sonar. I know because those guys never execute kick turns to check their 6, yet you can never surprize them from a deep 6 position approaching on full/combat power. However, if you approach with an idling engine you bag them easily. You don't even need to hide into their deep 6, you can approach their 6 at co-alt, even if they fly planes that have perfect view to the back (LA7, Yak3).

It is frustrating to sneak in on a guy's deep 6 and have him execute a perfect breakturn because he heard you.

It's a ridiculous bug that should be removed.
Players who want a radar can play on servers with open-pit + externals.

S!

I'd rather contribute money to pay 1C for their consent to include the Channel stuff into the IL-2.

where is my topic of 4.12 wishlist... I had a lot of wish that I updated each day or each 4 days. It disapeared???



Whatever,

I said:
- DirectX perfect setting with the use of software that you integrate in the game to have 3D water or Intel HD graphic compatibility with OpenGL 2.1
- More options in the option list in the game
- New smoke effect from 3rdeye or make your own but it's need to be realistic
- Antialiasing option in game
- Great-Britain battle take this map if you can : http://352ndfg.com/vb/content.php?213vor http://allaircraftsimulations.com/fo...ic.php?t=19663
- Retextured default map : http://allaircraftsimulations.com/fo...efault#p361458
- Retextured forest to look more realistic than invisible tree when you are near ground.
- New textures ; http://dispersalfield.ru/main/index....pic,705.0.html
- New Intermittent Smoke Tracer http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,2491.0.html
- New cloud texture
- New desert texture (Online desert) : http://allaircraftsimulations.com/fo...39&hilit=Avala
- Tunisia map : http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php?topic=3838.0 check other patch for new link too. http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=5250.144
- New iwo Jima texture : http://allaircraftsimulations.com/fo...o+jima#p310999
- New Hawaii map with new runway texture : http://allaircraftsimulations.com/fo...hawaii#p357477 -- http://allaircraftsimulations.com/fo...?f=126&t=21776
- Tarmac texture : http://allaircraftsimulations.com/fo...tarmac#p113376
- New flaks ; http://allaircraftsimulations.com/fo...94d7c622221e2a

- http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=600.0

The title of the thread has changed to merged meaning the wish lists have been combined, I have posted in this thread here > http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=130





.

I think this is the point where some mods could be allowed to the official release. The sounds and effects should be a priority here - UP3 has some nice sounds and HSFX uses the awesome flyby mod, which is the best sounds I've ever heard in a sim. As for effects, the Plutonium package is pretty much the best and most realistic thing out there, with intermittent fire, wind affecting smokes and many more. Plus they're not very system taxing if at all. Anyway the spiralling 2d strings of smoke need to go.

One thing I would like to see is a look at the La-5s and 7s as well as the later Yaks - these planes are just too good. I know the official charts depict them as awesome, but in reality they had many problems due to poor production quality, often failures and bad conditions for the pilot (50 degrees C in the cockpit cooked pilots). The old IL-2 had it right as a 190 could easily own a La-7 at high altitude, now it's the other way around.

+1

Just in case people have forgotten what sort of sleazy disgusting corporate lowlives they are proposing sending money to ...

What changes do you propose and to which aircraft and based on what test information? The La-5 has three versions represented in-game (+1 if you consider the La-7 as part of the La-5 lineage which it is mostly) and the Yak has 17 (+1 if we include the jet based Yak-15).

DT will absolutely not take any sound samples from "somewhere" and plug them in simply for the fact that there may be a potential for a copyright infringement lurking in the background. What an individual does on his PC is his own problem, but DT has contractual obligations to 1C and has to do things by the book. Just to make that absolutely clear.

And as for the effects - I'm not the one to judge them from a technical POV but I don't think they follow official guidelines and limits so they'd have to be reworked if not redone from scratch to fit the limits DT works with.

Could a toggle for "3rd Party Sounds" be added to the sound settings, perhaps with a disclaimer stating something like "By enabling this, you (the user) take full responsibility for copyright infringement in the use of 3rd party sound samples"? When enabled, this setting could make the IL-2 sound engine look to a special user-installed directory for alternative sound samples. DT would not make an alternative sound scheme (my understanding is that they don't have much expertise in sound engineering anyways). Any alternative sound samples would be provided by the user and in conjunction with the disclaimer, transfer all responsibility for copyright infringement to the user rather than DT/1C/Maddox. This would allow the user the freedom to pick the sound scheme of their choice and absolve 1C/Maddox of any legal responsibility that way. I think this is the only way to make the whole IL-2 community happy with sounds.

Just a thought,

Fafnir_6

No.
Why?
Because you would enable you to turn off your own engine sound - which would lead to the sonar problem-> You'd be flying a glider and hear any enemy planes approaching you from behind.

TD, please consider modelling the movable horizontal stabilizers for Bf-109s so that "elevator trim" control won't be delayed on them.

I want better damage model and nice looking cokpits for all the planes available.

This person obviously wasn't around during the RBJ 'trim on a slider' days. ;)

(The 1% of players who know what I'm talking about, raise your hand.)

Aviar

If you're flying off-line, who cares if you take advantage of the "sonar" bug?

If you're flying on-line, the server administrator should be able to control sound levels, allowing or disallowing "sonar" as he wishes.

I don't see the "sonar bug" as being in any way incompatible with user-customizable sounds.

While I have tremendous respect for TD, I think that they're being unreasonably cautious about allowing user-developed sound packs.

User-created sound packs are perfectly legitimate and legally defensible. Already, IL2 allows you to add in custom music, which is much more of a source of copyright violations and legal action than sound effects.

Should TD be silly enough to produce their own sound pack, consider:

Copyright on sound effects is much looser than copyright on other recorded works. While it's a copyright violation to use sound effects from a copyrighted work (e.g., a movie or piece of music), copyright courts have been very reluctant to allow copyrights on sounds produced by particular types of machinery. For example, a few years ago, Harley-Davidson got smacked down in U.S. court when it tried to copyright the distinctive sound of its motorcycle engines.

The sounds produced by by Axis equipment WILL be in the public domain, as spoils of war. This means that all the sounds of German, Italian, Japanese, Romanian and Hungarian WW2 equipment will be copyright free.

The sounds of any equipment produced by state-run industries, such as Soviet-produced equipment, will be in the public domain. This means that any Soviet equipment sounds will be copyright free, as will the sounds of equipment produced by other governments' state factories (e.g., the sound of the U.S. atomic bomb or the M1 Garand rifle).

Sounds recorded by radio or movie broadcasts which are now in the public domain are copyright free. This means that you can use any sound from old newsreels and training films without infringing on copyright. This goes double for Axis- or state-produced media.

Sound recorded by private individuals and released into the public domain are copyright free. All you need to do is send a few recorder-equipped IL2 fan-boys to some air shows and a some WW2 reenactment events and you have all the airplane engine and machine gun sounds you want.

So, there you are.

Bat Turn.

ah ... the glory days when RBJ reigned supreme in the skies of HL

Whilst I was never keen on the exact solution implemented, the fact that people actually went as far as mapping the TRIM to their joystick instead of the elevator when flying online was really a sign of a problem.

You, Sir, are unreasonably trusting when it comes to the potential of greed within the human race. ;)

We're playing it by the old maxime "Better safe than sorry" and no amount of bemoaning that will change it. Some of us have signed a contract with 1C which means in the worst case 1C could roast them over a fire if they wanted. But hey, anything's possible as long as you're not responsible, isn't it? :roll:

I've all too wary of copyright trolls, and I understand TD's reluctance to do anything which will get them in trouble with 1C.

But, I still don't understand why 1c allows users to add their own music to the game - and potentially risk the wrath of the RIAA - while they won't allow users to add their own sound effects.

LOL. 109 pilots in WW2 did use "elevator trim" to help with turning. And there wasn't any delay between the movement of the trim wheel and the horizontal stabilizer in real 109s. ;)

Speaking of which: some years ago, when we were making those add-ons for IL-2 with Ilya, one guy from Poland was threatening 1C with a lawsuit, demanding royalties... Because on one plane from the add-on we had a camouflage pattern, which, apparently was also published in his book. This wasn't some unique paint job, just a standard camo scheme, used on this plane, which was also published in a number of other books and in original government-issued painting instructions for the aircraft type.

Obviously, he had no legal basis under such claim and he was politely asked to f off. But hey, who needs all that crap? So, unless DT would have a permission from every and all authors of a content, this content will not be included.

I don't know about the technical questions pertaining to this issue so I can't say whether that's even possible or not. My reply was to the repeating question why DT won't include "existing soundpacks".

You clearly have not been playing this game long, or flown a real aircraft (Even in a Cessna you wind on trim to keep a turn level).

There were literally dozens of threads and hundreds if not thousands of posts about the issue back in the early days. It would be stupid to restart the whole ridiculous thing over again now.

Here are the basic facts ...



BEFORE TRIM DELAY WAS INTRODUCED
- tapping the keyboard was reasonable realistic it took a few seconds to get full trim
- trim on a slider was definitely unrealistic as you could instantly go from full up trim to full down trim (whereas in a real aircraft, even with powered trim it takes several seconds to change), furthermore many people claimed in the IL2 flight model full elevator PLUS full trim incorrectly had MORE effect than full elevator alone. If that was true it was clearly wrong.
- players with trim on a slider had a big advantage over players using the keyboard

AFTER TRIM DELAY WAS INTRODUCED
- adjusting trim by tapping the keyboard is now extremely hard as the program stores up "excess taps" and plays them back after a delay. The change was really bad for people without a HOTAS
- the trim delay fixed the online cheating problem and trim on a slider now works reasonably historically. You move the slider and the trim moves about the rate it does with a real trim wheel or electric trim



Two sorts of people where annoyed at the change:
1. online points whores who had been using instant trim change to get an unfair advantage over people with no HOTAS
2. people wanting to do fine trim adjustments (for example offline players doing formation flying) with just the keyboard

Everyone else was happy as the only other alternative seemed to be to remove the capability to put trim on a slider at all.

The whole farce was teh result of a few people exploiting a flaw in the FM, the fact that sliders could change trim instantly.

I'm curious how come you could overlook the time Russian and USAF pilots spent in moving so many levers in the cockpit during combat while overemphasize the advantage of mapping elevator trims onto a rotary axis. It is also not realistic to map all those lever controls onto HOTAS switches and/or axes.

And please bear in mind that flight sim is not supposed to be played on keyboards. Because no WW2 pilots used keyboards to fly a plane. :-P

The whole point of the "sound engine" is to keep the online experience cheat free, there was an early re-write of the sound engine to stop online sound hacking.
Personally the sound engines fine for me.
I have >>> http://uk.store.creative.com/sound-b...n/1-21093.aspx

With >>> http://www.awd-it.co.uk/logitech-g93...g-headset.html

I have no gripes with the stock sounds, the mod sounds are repetitive in the cockpit, the flyby's the best part of it but unless your movie making what's the point ?

Most want the modded sounds because they are using cheap onboard sound chipsets, and want the lazy way out (let someone else fix it) rather than make an upgrade.

A sound plugin might be an idea that the user decides what sounds to use offline, but online I would rather the games sound engine handle things,
at least the movie makers get the best of both worlds from a stock install.







.

You should have mentioned that.

trim.exe :rolleyes:


I know of only one pilot who used flaps(not even trim). He got killed in Africa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8

PITA.

Here is one more:

Transferring your loadout / squadron / fuel / fuse etc settings to other players on the server for a joint strike with your friends who wish to have the same loadout as you.

I've got a cheap sound card and speakers, and it's not the sound quality that bothers me, it's the fact that so many sounds in the game are wrong.

I know what a 0.50 BMG or a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine should sound like. Having poor imitations for those sounds, which sound like a manual typewriter or a lawnmower, grates on me. Even with crap sound equipment I can tell the difference. If I had a $10,000 octupel, immersive, surround-sound, high-fidelity sound system the size of a closet, it would just make it worse.

But, it's dead issue because TD doesn't want it done. I disagree, but I respect their decision. I'll just use the good sounds for when I fly the modded version.

Request: marker smoke
 

Request: smoke for marking ground targets with delay time. We can already place the white narrow smoke object, it looks like a white phosphorus marker, but what would be cool is if it could be timed to appear at intervals after the mission start. I see missions with well concealed/camo'ed objects getting marked by ground troops, or a support plane. At the moment I play lots of games attacking ground units that are, frankly, too easy to spot from the air. I've always wanted to do a Burma mission with camouflaged Japanese targets getting marked for the B-25H's 75mm gun. Regular smoke with delay would be useful too.

Sigh....

It is because of sound mods that the community mod packs (UP, HSFX) will always be around - the stock sounds just don't satisfy a large part of the IL-2 community (me included). Swiss, I understand your concern about silent engines. CsThor, I completely understand why DT doesn't want to include community-made sounds mods because of legal concerns. The only people I don't understand are those who are satisfied with the stock sounds - but this is an opinion. Cliffs of Dover shipped with many engine sounds that seemed right out of IL-2. The result, a public outcry resulting in 1C/Maddox redoing a host of engine sounds ( the DB601 is acceptable now methinks). This is clearly a weakness of the IL-2 franchise. This is also an annoyingly difficult issue to address. I suppose we could have the option of having a toggle for selecting user sound samples only for single-player mode. This would somewhat satisfy me because I rarely play online but it still feels incomplete. For multiplayer, I guess the question is why do people care if someone is using silent engines sounds...Doing so means you are a cheater and a loser besides (and you are missing the point of a high-fidelity flight simulator). Are people's egos so tied up in their online performance stats that it is a big issue if a sonar-user kills them a few extra times? It has been stated that you can tell when someone is using sonar in multiplay. You'll know who they are and if they shoot you down, you'll know it was done unfairly. I'm still pushing for a toggle to select alternate sound samples from special location for both single and multiplayer. Everyone seems to have a position in this debate and this is mine. Hopefully a new way can found to make everyone happy with the stock game because I would be all ears.

Cheers and sorry if I seem grumpy,

Fafnir_6

I can really assure you that an U$S 65 X-Fi, will be a big surprise. I was surprised myself, specially with headphones. From starting the engine to hitting the trigger. Before that, all engines were almost equal, and all canons too.

It also makes a big difference with mods.

I wish Do-217 and Do-17 become flyable... And He-111H22 mb...

Map light Dimmer control.
 

On night missions the Map lighting pays havock with your night vision ,a dimmer key would be a real help.

Possebillity of makng 3 point landings with Me-109 G6:grin:

Is that working radar for nightfighters be available for 4.12 or is that project shelved?

Please if it possible remove the micro stuttering and the "Memory could not be read "error .....i think "Memory could not be read" error is related to micro stuttering!....Thank you!.Team Daidalos good job!

I asked this before without getting an answer from TD.

Can you implement a new bomber version of the Ju88 and He111 respectively?

The He111H-11 or H-16 could be easily created out of the H-6/H-12 models we have in game and would therefor only require little 3D work, mostly swapping of existing gun models, and altered FM to represent more powerful engines.

Same applies for the Ju88-A-4 fieldmods and late variants, which were upgunned and are as easy to create.

I think if someone is willing to do the modeling work to standards then the new types would be accepted. I'd love to see a Ju88C-6 for some east front train busting and strafing.

It's possible in the game to do so. Maybe I don't understand your question. Here's a track:

http://www.mediafire.com/?8dw6bmm7t95z0t2


- New He-111s and Ju-88s are always welcome! I could really look forward to seeing a Ju-88 G-6 or a Ju-188/288/388 series. Older model Do-217s would be cool, as well as solid-nose radar-equipped night-fighters.

- If night fighters become a reality in the game, it would be great to see some exhaust-flames on most aircraft (these were apparently very useful in giving away a plane's position). Exhaust shrouds or blanking strips could be an option on certain aircraft lie the Ju-87, Bf-110, Hurricane, Fulmar, etc. These could be objects tied to a specific skin.

- None of the Ki-46 variants in the game have rear guns. These were optional, and were carried on some aircraft.

- I was wondering if maybe there could be a key for "gunsight on/off", or maybe a couple buttons which allow the user to change brightness. This could also be used to move an iron sight out of the way (A-20, CW-21). There are controls for adjusting the K-14 gyro-sight, so maybe these could be applied to other adjustable sights (wingspan, range).

- It would also be nice to have some control of mixture control in US fighters and others. Currently, we have auto-rich, but the auto-lean would be useful to improve endurance, and idle-cutoff can be used to turn off the engine (in my experience, aircraft engines are usually turned off by starving it of fuel).

- Right now, magnetos are just eye-candy. Maybe a simplified start-up sequence could be implemented (depending on the mission). The player turns on both magnetos, opens the fuel cocks and presses "I". The mags are tested by switching to M1, then both, then M2, then both. If the RPM drops a bit, they're working fine. If the player selects M1, and RPMs don't drop, it's possible M2 isn't grounding, and the engine has been operating on M1 alone. The player can select M2, and if the engine cuts out, it's confirmed that it's not working. If the player is quick enough, he can switch back to M1 and the engine will start up again. It's then his decision as to whether or not to fly the mission, or postpone it.

- Finer mixture control, at least in increments of 5% like power and ppitch, and/or as a slider control. Proper mixture use would allow maximum RPMs as set by the player. Too rich, and RPMs drop and fouling of the spark plugs results. Too lean, and the engine gets hot.

- Implementation of guns reliability could be cool. For instance, early Hispanos apparently had a tendency to jam when fired in a high-G turn. The nose-mounted high-caliber cannons in some Russian tank-busting planes failed, or damaged the engine, due to vibrations. Some planes also had controls to clear the guns in case of a jam. Reliable guns like the Browning .50 cal can really shine, in comparison to other types.

I mention this because we now have a beautifully modeled anti-shipping Mosquito with a gun prone to failure in slips. 8-)

This would, of course, have to be a difficulty option to allow some players to skip the possible frustration of having their guns quit suddenly.

- Addition of drum reloading feature. Defensive guns stop firing unless the player presses a button to switch out ammo drums (the AI can do this too). This could be interesting for airplanes with manually loaded main weapons such as early Ki-45s (single round), early Beaufighters (drums), and early Bf-110s (drums).

- Flyable early Bf-110s: mainly for Eastern front scenarios. I realize that CloD has the Bf-110 D and E which can't be touched, but maybe the C variants could be done?

- Beaufighter Mk.X: it should be a simple change from the Mk.21. Some proper default skins for FAA missions would be welcome instead if this is not possible.

- 3D models for start-up vehicles and personnel. When the user presses "I", a vehicle or person spawns to start the engine, then drives away to a designated spot on the airfield. I-16s had a keyed spinner which was started by truck. Bf-109s had a crank which spun up a flywheel.


Thanks again for the work so far! Can't wait to fly the Ki-45 and B-24 in 4.12 :grin:

Historically, the Luftwaffe pilots tended to raise the tail of the 109 early and rotate late and also tended do 2 point landings at a relative high speed (with the corresponding problem of aircraft being damaged in runway overruns). it seems to have been common Luftwaffe practice to fly the 109 that way.

On the other hand the Finish air-force apparently (with different training and operational guidelines) regularly did 3 point landings and takeoffs in their 109s. I am not sure if the lower approach speed caused the Finns any issues.

Another little detail:

I've noticed in some CoD videos that some bombs can be dropped individually (In Il-2, these would both be released together).

Skip to 2:35 for an outside view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA3Wc_apBfU

Also, in Il-2, when using auto-bombsights, the entire stick of bombs is released at once.

It would be great if a salvo selector or some other mechanism could be implemented.

+ 1000

Also for manual release if possible.

Wishlist:

True Thrust, True Drag, True Weight, True Airspeed, True Altitude to come out in DeviceLink to support performance analysis tools (Specific Energy charts, etc.).

Ability to change the HUD text size.

I could do with something smaller - maybe the same text that we have on the console (Shift+Tab)?

The ability to change the "black screen of death" into something else.

Options:

1) A player- or server-controlled image.

2) The QMB or campaign mission briefing window.

3) Another crew position in the same plane, or another plane, so you can continue the mission.

Ok let´s go again whit requests...
 

That´s my list:
Flyables:
- G-55 (the best italian fighter is not flyable in game)
- Morane-Saulnier 406-410 (we don´t have any french plane flyable in game)
- Hawk-75
- HS-123
- Do-217
- B-24
- B-17

New Planes:
- More versions of Ju-88
and some than whit big guns:

BK 5

http://i11.tinypic.com/2rm06x4.jpg

Pak 40 75mm
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/aww2/ju88p/ju88p-2.jpg

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/9...hhhhhhhne6.jpg

Ju-88P-1 III/KG 1, eastern Front November 1942.
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/aww2/ju88p/ju88p-c1.jpg

Dusenkanone Duka 88

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/366/dukado7.jpg

two MK 103 in a underbelly pod:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/aww2/ju88p/ju88p-4.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9117/ju88p33we0.jpg

- He-177 Greif
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW/He177-A5-12.jpg

And some guns in loadouts:

http://i17.tinypic.com/2uiyueq.png

http://i17.tinypic.com/29ojvrs.jpg

- He-111H-20 whit new cockpit and Fieseler Fi 103 V-1
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...Dp-SwFvEIX3GUQ

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...29eZzJw77Sk9hw

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...QZcK1fPyM0Q7ko

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/562/ajyan8.jpg

Reworked cockpit for:
-BF-109 (the more important german fighter have this terrible cockpit)
-Mig-3
-La´s
-Yak´s
-P.11c
-Ju-87
-He-111
-IL-2

Night fighters:
-BF-110G-4NF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg76J...yer_detailpage

My wishlist for 4.12 :grin:

one or two new aircrafts from this list :

D.520
M.B.152
Loire 130
Westland Lysander
Westland Whirlwind
Hawker Typhoon
Bristol Beaufort
Do 18
Do 24
Heinkel Uhu
Hs 126
Curtiss Helldiver
Lockheed Hudson
Vultee Vengeance
Vought Kingfisher
Mitsubishi Nell
Mitsubishi Pete
Aichi Jake
Airspeed Horsa
Waco Hadrian

(question : are Glenn Martin aircrafts allowed ?)

New Features :
-extended DM models for ships
-New effects for ships (oil, fire...)
-submarines escaping/diving ability

one or two new ships from this list :
Dunkerque (with Loire 130)
Lorraine Class
Mogador Class
Vittorio Veneto
Conte Di Cavour
Pola Class
Scipione Africano Class
Yamato
Kongo Class
Prinz Eugen
Ark Royal
Repulse
County Class
City Class
Lexington / Saratoga (allowed ?)

one or two new maps from this list :
Lybia
Tunisia
Sicily, South Italy
Kunming, Yunnan (allowed ?)
Anchorage, Aleutian Islands

Big stuff. But I'm rather realistic, 1 or 2 per categories is enough for me. :grin:
(ok I now, maps..)


Cheers !


Macwan.

Abracadabra!

Now go to your FMB and check the ship list. Your wish is fulfilled. I am a great magician, am I not?

Wooowwww !

You're right, you're a magician. :shock:

:grin: Yeah my bad, I don't now why I didn't remember them. maybe I made a confusion with another ship class. Thx for update and cheers ! :)

Macwan.

Always so talented! :cool:

Yeah, human nature at it's best: you already have so lot, you don't remember, what exactly you have, but still you want more. :grin:

The rest of the list is superb Macwan. Very much the kinds of things I'd love to see as future content additions. Definitely lots of work to produce even a bit of that but well worth thinking about.

Preview of the hinted at new sounds in an upcoming update video.

Is there any idea yet when the next patch will be released?
I assume there will be some bug fix version before 4.12.

ps. no hurry for the people actually developing IL2, your work is appreciated.
Just it would be nice to know something about your planned schedules.
A new version before summer?

Ah ah, of course, always more ! :grin:
Actually, my main wish is to complete more theaters like PTO/MTO and naval ops. They are at different levels of completion, Eastern Europe Theater being obviously the top one (what's the name ? IL2 Sturmovik ? Hhhmm, ah, yeah, this makes sense :grin:) )

@Icefire
yep, big stuff. The maps are very relevant, but they're such a big piece of work. Let's hope DT to find someone who has skills, time and will to produce maybe one of them. So difficult. :confused:

Cheers !

Macwan.

Triggers, fmb needs triggers come on it will open up tons of opportunities. Makes me want to ditch il2. I'd rather have Putin over no triggers.

I don't know if it's been asked for already, but the ability to switch between fuel tanks would be nice.

Also, Il-2 compare for 4.11 says the clipped wing Spitfires are only 2 km/h faster than the non-clipped variants. Books (like the ones by Alfred Price) state they should be at least 5 mph faster (8 km/h). Not too big, but every bit helps when you're Spit isn't the fastest plane in the game.

Hi there,
I´m new to this forum, but longtime IL2 offline player.
I could not agree more to those who wish for new maps. Southern and Western Germany would be wonderful (think about the big air raids on industrial complexes, Mannheim, Pforzheim, the JG 44 and, and, and ... and Heidelberg is such a lovely view :)). Also Italy and the Balcans would be a real treat. I can imagine it is tons of work, but ... pleeaaase.
Another thing I would rather have than still more versions of still more aircraft is an updated data base.
But whatever the TD guys do: MANY THANKS FOR YOU WONDERFUL WORK!

Is there a way you could create a night fighter version of the Me-110 with the radar antenna on the front, and slanting music cannons firing up at an angle?
Plus there is the He-219 night fighter that would be great at night too...
Thanks!

Is there a way you could create a night fighter version of the Me-110G-4/R3 for us?
It would have the option of the "slanting music" of two 20mm MG FF cannon firing up at an angle from the fuselage aft of the cockpit... plus the Radar antennas would show too.
Then there's the need for the most deadly night fighter made in WW II... the He-219B-3
These two aircraft would complete the night fighter capability in IL2-1946... Thanks!

Hello,

You can expect the Bf 110 night fighter in our future patches along side more night fighter features. He 219 is not planned.

I am curious to know if you have night fighters from other nations planned as well? The Beaufighter and Mosquito have obvious potential. The one purpose built NF for the USA was the P-61, which won't make the game. Perhaps the night fighting version of the F4U? The P-70 (A-20 variant) would make a nice addition as well.

Corsair and Hellcat NF versions are out for the same reasons as the P-61.

Are there any plans to re-texture the oldest and ugliest-looking cockpits, especially the Bf 109 series? Tx in advance

+1

I wasn't aware that Vought was bought out by the folks that are now NG. That sucks. That eliminates every single night fighter the USN fielded in WWII. I guess the only US night fighter left is the P-70. Have to admit, an A-20 with 20mm gun packs on the sides is an attractive thought. :D

guys, I don't know if this has been proposed or it's in the plans already, but have you thought about a general revamp of the effects i.e. smoke, tracers, explosions etc? That would add SO much to your work and would definitely revamp things!
Also fixing 3d models and FMs of at least the most popular planes (i.e. FW190 and Bf109), there's a lot of outstanding work that has been done with mods, I'm sure that if you could implement these improvements you'd do a great job with it! :-)

Any chance of a de Havilland Hornet being developed in a future patch? I've been in love with this aircraft for years, and flying the Mossie (good as it is) just doesn't do it for me anymore. The Hornet would provide a nice balance against the later German aircraft such as the Do 335 and the Ta 152.

Like the F7F Tigercat, the Hornet really was a supreme example of twin-engined power; and could just about hold it's own (if flown correctly) against any aircraft of the WWII era. Additionally it also was developed for carrier use - a nice addition for the FAA. Here's some info on it's peformance figures against contemporary challenges.

Hornet F.1
Speed sea level: 392mph
Speed at altitude: 472 @ 22,000ft
Initial climb: 4,650ft/min
Normal range: 1,710 miles/with drop tanks 'no data'

Spitfire XIV
Speed sea level: 375 mph
Speed at altitude: 448 mph @ 26,000ft
Initial climb: 4,580ft/min
Normal range: 460 miles/with drop tanks 850 miles

Tempest V
Speed sea level: 392 mph
Speed at altitude: 435 mph @ 17,000ft
Initial climb: 4,700ft/min
Normal range: 740 miles/with drop tanks 1,450 miles

P-47D-22
Speed @ 5,000ft: 363 mph
Speed at altitude: 435 mph @ 30,000ft
Initial climb: 3,120ft/min
Normal range: 475 miles/ with drop tanks 1,250 miles

P-51D-NA
Speed @ 5,000ft: 395 mph
Speed at altitude: 437 mph @ 25,000ft
Initial climb: 3,475ft/min
Normal range: 850 miles/ with drop tanks 1650 miles

F7F
Speed sea level: 366 mph
Speed at altitude: 434 mph @ 22,200ft
Initial climb: 4,530ft/min
Normal range: 1,200 miles/ with drop tanks 'no data'

Do 335A-1
Speed sea level: no data
Speed at altitude: 474 mph @ 21,325ft
Initial climb: no data
Normal range: 1,280 miles/with drop tanks 'no data'

Fw 190D-9
Speed sea level: 357 mph
Speed at altitude: 426 mph @ 21,654ft
Initial climb: 3,120ft/min
Normal range: 520 miles/with drop tanks 'no data'

Ta 152H-1
Speed sea level: 357 mph
Speed at altitude: 465 mph @ 29,860ft
Initial climb: 3,445ft/min
Normal range: 755 miles/with drop tanks 1250 miles

Me 109K-4
Speed sea level: 378 mph
Speed at altitude: 452 mph @ 19,685ft
Initial climb: 4,820ft/min
Normal range: 366 miles/with drop tanks 635 miles

And to finish off I can't think of a better way than with some words from Eric 'Winkle' Brown, who was very impressed with the Hornet. Note that Eric is discussing the performance of the Sea Hornet, which was some 800 kg heavier than the F.1.

"...the next two months of handling and deck landing assessment trials were to be an absolute joy; from the outset the Sea Hornet was a winner!" "The view from the cockpit, positioned right forward in the nose beneath a one-piece aft-sliding canopy was truly magnificent. The Sea Hornet was easy to taxi, with powerful brakes... the takeoff using 25 lb (2,053 mm Hg, 51" Hg) boost and flaps at one-third extension was remarkable! The 2,070 hp (1,540 kW) Merlin 130/131 engines fitted to the prototypes were to be derated to 18 lb (1,691 Hg, 37" Hg) boost and 2,030 hp (1,510 kW) as Merlin 133/134s in production Sea Hornets, but takeoff performance was to remain fantastic. Climb with 18 lb boost exceeded 4,000 ft/min (20.32 m/sec)"... "In level flight the Sea Hornet's stability about all axes was just satisfactory, characteristic, of course, of a good day interceptor fighter. Its stalling characteristics were innocuous, with a fair amount of elevator buffeting and aileron twitching preceding the actual stall"... "For aerobatics the Sea Hornet was absolute bliss. The excess of power was such that manoeuvres in the vertical plane can only be described as rocket like. Even with one propeller feathered the Hornet could loop with the best single-engine fighter, and its aerodynamic cleanliness was such that I delighted in its demonstration by diving with both engines at full bore and feathering both propellers before pulling up into a loop!"

And

"Landings aboard Ocean had been made without any crash barrier... Yet, in the case of the Sea Hornet, I had felt such absolute confidence that I was mentally relaxed... Indeed, there was something about the Sea Hornet that made me feel that I had total mastery of it; I revelled in its sleek form and the immense surge of power always to hand..." "Circumstances had conspired against the Sea Hornet in obtaining the recognition that it justly deserved as a truly outstanding warplane...in my book the Sea Hornet ranks second to none for harmony of control, performance characteristics and, perhaps most important, in inspiring confidence in its pilot. For sheer exhilarating flying enjoyment, no aircraft has ever made a deeper impression on me than did this outstanding filly from the de Havilland stable."