I have a request about fighters AI.

I think AI fighters gun shooting is too exact. I think that is not "average" pilot.
Now, AI fighters are hit by other AIs shoot Before maneuver.
Usually AIs maneuver is too late. And attacking AIs shots are too exact.
Therefore, If 16*P-51Ds VS 16*Bf-109s fight, only 5 to 6 planes survive slightly.
Other 25 planes are crash.
I think this is not "average" air combat.
I have some books about air combat. But such a battle is not indicated.

So, I request more poor gun shooting fighters AI.

I am Japanese. Sorry my poor English.

To follow up on my thread, I've recently learned that from 41 until about 1944, Soviet pilot training was terrible.

Due to lack of fuel and planes, many pilots only got about 9-10 hours TOTAL flying time in transitional or advanced trainers and that concentrated just on takeoffs and landings. Acrobatics were prohibited because it increased the risk of accidents.

Nominally, pilots got 20-55 hours of advanced training in type (per central planning documents here (in Spanish):

http://www.rkka.es/Estadisticas/VVS_stat/05/05_09.htm

English translation:

http://translate.google.com/translat...05%2F05_09.htm

In 41- to early 43, many pilots got NO training time in the type of aircraft they were to fly into combat. The luckier ones might have a few hours of familiarization training with their unit.

They got NO training in deflection shooting, much less shooting at aerial targets.

That speaks to a need to either: a) Nerf Rookie AI even more than it already is, b) create a new class of AI pilot below Rookie, as I have proposed.

While I understand the difficulties of AI programming, I think it would be a relatively easy task to create "untrained" level AI.

1) Make it so they don't lead their targets at all, start shooting at twice the appropriate range, and make sure that their cone of dispersion (or whatever) is 25-50% greater than Rookie level AI.

2) Give them virtually no spotting ability outside their 315-45 degree forward arc (i.e., anything outside of 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock).

3) Give them a 2-3 second delay in responding defensively to attacks from behind.

4) In combat, they use the pre-4.12 Rookie AI model. Additionally, they will only use horizontal "turn and burn" tactics, regularly using energy-bleeding high speed turns that result in loss of airspeed and high speed stalls.

5) If assigned as wingmen, they will blindly stick to their leader, not maneuvering defensively if fired upon, and always playing "follow the leader" - not adapting their maneuvers to the leader's movements (i.e., always following the leader rather than swinging wide or slowing to avoid stalling in a turn or split-s or leading the leader to catch up to the leader and keep station after he turns).

By contrast, in the ETO Western Allied pilots were consistently better trained, except for Early to Mid 1940 when the UK rushed some very inexperienced pilots into the BoB (with 10-20 hours flight time in type). To my mind, this is what Rookie AI levels actually represent.

Luftwaffe pilots were, on average, well trained until JUL 43 with hours of flight time equivalent to rookie US and UK pilots. After that, flight hours fell to the equivalent of what Soviet pilots were getting, although Luftwaffe student pilots still got some aerobatic and gunnery training until the basic training program was shut down in mid-44.

Data here (taken from a table so slight errors are possible):

SEP 39-42

DE total flight hours: 240 hours
DE total operational flight hours (fighter): 90 hours
UK total flight hours: 200 hours
UK total operational flight hours (fighter): 50 hours

OCT 42 - JUN 43

DE tot.: 200 h
DE tot. ops (ftr): 50 h
UK tot.: 340 h
UK tot. ops (ftr): 70 h
US tot: 275
US tot. ops (ftr): 75 h

JUL 43- JUN 44
DE tot.: 175 h
DE tot. ops (ftr): 20 h
UK tot.: 330 h
UK tot. ops (ftr): 70 h
US tot: 325 h
US tot. ops (ftr): 120 h

JUL 44- MAY 45
DE tot.: 120 h
DE tot. ops (ftr): 10 h
UK tot.: 330 h
UK tot. ops (ftr): 90 h
US tot: 390 h
US tot. ops (ftr): 170 h

Data taken from here - site login required to view attachment:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...twaffe-lxx.jpg

Detailed breakdown of Luftwaffe pilot training hours here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...efeatgaf03.jpg

The new update is awesome. That's what I saw :

- New bombing change that looking awesome!
- New aircraft sound (?)
- New camera for bombs, rockets and torpedo (that will be amazing for mini-movie)
- New sound for explosion

4.13m will be amazing!

Very interesting update :)

Indeed, very interesting.

~S~

Very cool! Lots of minor much asked for changes. Thank you!

As an additional idea, since it is now possible to drop/shoot single rockets, bombs or torpedos, would it be possible to have failure to release?

That is, faulty triggers to fire rockets, or faulty release mechanisms for bombs and torpedoes.

Would probably be the only map I would fly!! :cool:

New bomb release modes, great. No more accidentally releasing the big bang on a single truck, or accidentally releasing the small ones in a big target -and having to fly back to drop the main course.

New explosion sounds? Sound cool -and thats on headphones.
And are the engine sounds the future stock ones?
Does all parameters online are the same for all players mean that there will be no more delay between visible explosion and real explosion of delay timed bombs?

And last can we have the patch for this christmas?:grin::grin::grin:

Before 4.13, Ace pilots had near perfect gunnery skills. With the 4.13 patch I'm seeing AI at all levels shoot longer bursts without correcting their aim - even at Ace level. Human players can observe whether their gunfire hits and correct their aim or stop shooting if it's obvious that they can't hit a target (e.g., too far away, not enough lead on the target).

I'm also seeing AI shots that miss pass to either side of a target, but not above or below it, which means that AI might still be correcting for the ballistics of their weapons to an unrealistic degree.

But, when AI hits, there doesn't seem to be as much dispersion of gunfire as there might be and they don't tend to make improper corrections for deflection shots that result in subsequent shots missing.

I agree. This makes for better game play, but situations where one or both sides suffered massive losses in a dogfight were, historically, very rare. And, of course, historically you never had 32 Ace pilots fighting each other.

I'm not sure it's the gunnery model thats at fault, but the level of aggression.

Rookie or Average pilots should be quite reluctant to attack large formations of enemy planes unless they have a clear advantage (i.e., from above and to the rear of the target). They should shoot from too far away and break off the attack too soon.

Also, AI at any level is much better at maintaining "situational awareness" of multiple aircraft than humans are.

Realistically, any Veteran or better pilot should try to exit the "furball " (mass turning dogfight) to gain better Situational Awareness, then choose a single target and follow it using B&Z or turn fighting tactics.

This matches the historical tactics of just about every high scoring ace - avoid the furball, orbit above it and pick off enemies who have lost SA from above and behind

At any level of AI, each plane in a dogfight after the first should create an increased chance that AI loses SA with respect to one or more planes. Losing SA with respect to a nearby enemy plane (say within 1 km) should make a Veteran or Ace pilot react defensively, including breaking off an attack unless by continuing the attack would also be a defensive maneuver (i.e., gaining separation from the "lost" enemy plane's last known position).

I'm American. I don't speak a word of Japanese. There's no need to apologize for having the courage to use a foreign language.

Wow! Some update video about this feature would be great...

Well, when I see new movie from 4.13 I wanted bombing any object.... BOMBING, BOMBING AND BOMBING!!! (Like "Learning, learning and one more time lerning" (c) Vladimir Lenin)

I agree. Maybe even parachute failures to spice things up.

Thank you for your hard work TD!

The new bomb release modes are awesome, a feature that was really missing until now!

This is just how human rookies behave when they start IL-2 combat flights. I've seen this during last three months when two new members joined our squadron. They are quite helpless against rookie AI pilots in 4.12. This is also just like the air combat descriptions you can find in the memoirs of WWII fighter pilots aces. I have read several english, japanese, german, french and finnish books of them.


This training hour information is interesting - many thanks for it. I think it can be used with human rookie IL-2 pilots, too. After 200-300 flight hours a human rookie may reach the limit of average - I think.

So if DT would take the skill levels of AI pilots under new consideration it would be great news for human IL-2 rookies and for us who like to build realistic missions of WWII air combats.

Exactly why I proposed them! :) It's good to know that IL2 rookie pilots behave just like their historical predecessors. It certainly speaks to the sim's accuracy in terms of flight and gunnery models. Lucky for IL2 rookies that death, injury or capture is just a temporary inconvenience![/quote]

I disagree, a IL2 rookie gets much more time in combat and much more gunnery practice so their combat skills advance much more quickly. Remember, that for real pilots, most "combat flight hours" are spent traveling to and from the combat zone. Combat time is very short - perhaps as little as 2-3 minutes long. "Dogfights which last 10 minutes or more are very rare and generally only occur when you have a single combat between two highly skilled pilots.

By contrast, an IL2 novice who just sets up QMB mission after QMB mission and does nothing but practice combat techniques is going to have Average or even Veteran level gunnery and bombing skills after just a few hours of play. SA might still be crummy and landing, takeoff, navigation and formation flying skills will be shaky at best, but at least they will be able to fight!

Combat sim pilots who have been flying realistically in online settings for over a decade will have combat skills far better than most historical aces. If you could transport the best of this bunch back to 1915 or 1939, assuming they had the physical and emotional fitness to actually fly combat missions, they would quickly become leading aces.

As for mission building. Here is are rules of thumb that I've read for skill levels and which I use to design missions:

Rookie - Straight from training. Regardless of the number of flight hours they have, their Situational Awareness and ability to perform in combat are untested. They will be at the bottom level of statistical effectiveness with their weapons (1-2% hits by gunners, 10-25% accuracy for level bombing)

An experienced pilot just converting to a very different type of aircraft might also start at this level unless they have extensive combat experience. For example, a bomber pilot's SA isn't going to be nearly as good since has learned to rely on other crew to keep a lookout for enemy planes and he hasn't had to engage in dogfighting.

Average - 5 combat missions. Improved SA, demonstrated ability to cope with combat conditions. I'm not sure what the loss rates are from Rookie to Average, but a significant number of combat pilots don't make it. They're either found unfit for combat and are relegated to other duties, or they get killed, crippled or captured during one of their early missions. Combat veterans with experience in other types of planes (e.g., a fighter pilot converted to bombers or vice-versa) usually start at this level, although there are some gaps in skills.

Veteran - 25-50 combat missions, depending on intensity of combat. Further improvements in SA and combat skills. At this level, however, many combat aircrew will start to show psychological deterioration due to onset of PTSD, especially in units where there are heavy casualties. Historically, there was also significant attrition of aircrew (10%+) before the survivors attained this level of skill. Fighter pilots at this level will have shot down at least one plane. Attack pilots will have destroyed multiple ground targets. Gunners and bombardiers are at the maximum level of statistical effectiveness (5% hits for gunners, 50-90% bombing accuracy for level bombers). Most aircrew will top out at this level.

Ace - As for Veteran, but this level should be reserved for fighter and attack pilots who show an unusual level of aggression, skill and situational awareness that places them in the top 5% of combat pilots. Bombardiers, bomber pilots, navigators and gunners shouldn't advance to this level unless they are somehow "legendary." For argument, let's say this level applies to the top 5% for bombardiers and gunners.

Fighter pilots will have destroyed at least 3 planes (historically 5% of all fighter pilots claimed over 40% of enemy planes destroyed, but many potential aces were kept from getting 5+ planes by lack of targets. Viz. some late WW2 U.S. pilots who didn't make ace status during that war, but went on to become aces in Korea). Their gunnery, flying and bombing skills won't be any better than Veteran, but they have a higher level of Situational Awareness and tactical ability that sets them apart from the rest.

Yes, I agree.

I think here you are too optimistic (...just a few hours of play...). According to my own experiece of flying IL-2 and monitoring the "fighter pilot careers" of my friends it'll take a bit more, but I might have been a little bit pessimistic. I agree that they can fight after few hours of practise, but they'll lose most of their dogfights.
I agree the rest what you say concerning real human pilots of WWII.

I hope this group of fans will sponsor someday He177a1 nad he177a5
Are the DT members have the willingness to model some piston engine planes of the year 1946?

At the moment the level bombers are probably the most handicaped pilots.
While aiming - they cannot see anything. They have to have the prinded-out bombing tables and conversion handy; and mph/kmh tables as well, plus they hardly can see any terrain. The navigator position in TB-3 was actually PRAISED for a good visibility from it -- all-round and extensive bottom glazing. In game it looks and feels more like flying in a tank - you can not look out, and most of the screen is the interior of a navigator's cabin. The same applies for of most other bombers, by the way.

Maybe there is a possibility to make a navigator workplace to look something like below - with most info at hand, and a possibility in an instant to switch from a bomsight view to the navigation view. And the full set of bombsight controls, so the navigator is not forced to memorize lots of keys.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...7&d=1372067086

I think having the map and tables would be nice, but the widescreen view seems excessive and could affect performance for some (rendering two views).

Anyway, I just want to mention that you guys are doing a great job once again. The planes, cockpits, and objects look fantastic and the bomb settings are really useful.

In 1941, average IJN pilots were flying over 800h before first air combat.
They think that is "Average".
But in 1944, average Japanese navy's pilots are fling only 200h before first air combat.
Kamikaze's crew also had the pilot of less than 200h.


I got courage, thanks to you.
However, English is difficult for me.
So, in the Future, difficult things will draw with a picture.
For example,
this.
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/Fighter_2.jpg


I hope this.
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/bombardier.jpg
I want to play this in mltiplayer games.

I got you in your first post, but the drawing is just hilarious. And yes it would be nice to have battles end without one side totally wiped out. Tactical retreat is a word that is currently not in the AI's dictionary - they only try to run when they are already in too deep.


Strange, never had this feeling. Have you ever tried this:
1.Find out at what %throttle and altitude your plane reaches what speed after ~10 mins flight -in QMB.
2.Fly towards target, accelerate with more rpm than needed for bombing, until you reach your bombing speed, then throttle back to desired rpm.
Meanwhile input data into bombsight -works from pilots seat.
3.Trim plane
4.Engage Level stabiliser
5.Switch to bombardiers seat, set bomsight to maximum useful forward elevation, towards target.
6.Correct your flight path with rudder trim -and rudder trim only!, or if target is too far off left/right, disengage level stab and adjust flight path.

Great drawings, major.kudo!! Even my wife enjoyed them very much, and understood in a moment what you mean. Could we get some more, please?

Thanks for update!
Vierling and camera for the bombs: :grin::grin::grin:

In terms of IL2 skill levels, I'd call most pre-1942 IJN pilots Veteran, with a higher than average number of Aces. A pilot straight from training school would be considered "Average."

Yep. Midway and the battles of attrition in the Southwest Pacific decimated the IJN's pilots. (It wasn't helped by the IJN high command's stupid and callous personnel policy. Rather than rotating its best pilots out of combat, using them to train new pilots, then promoting them and using them as squadron leaders for the next generation of pilots, the IJN neither promoted nor rotated its its best people.)

In IL2 terms, I'd guess that IJN pilot quality was as follows:

33 to mid 1942 - 20% Average, 70% Veteran, 10% Ace.
Late 42 to late 1943 - 40% Average, 55% Veteran, 5% Ace.
Early 1944 - 40% Rookie, 40% Average, 15% Veteran, 5% Ace.
Mid 1944 to 1945 - 60% Rookie, 15% Average, 20% Veteran, 5% Ace.

Similar percentages might apply for the IJA and the Luftwaffe.

These numbers are not only based on IJN training hours, but also the fact that (at least according to one author on Fighter Tactics) there are no "average" fighter pilots. After 10 combat missions, all pilots become "veteran" in terms of being able to survive to the end of their next mission.
But, despite that, only 5% of all pilots have the "Ace Factor" that results in them claiming more than 2-3 kills.

Well stated!

What you're asking for is historically realistic levels of damaged and destroyed planes in AI combat.

I think that the problem is that IL2 vastly overstates your typical pilot's level of aggression and situational awareness (i.e., the ability to mentally track a plane when when the pilot can't see it, and understand its energy state and its pilots intentions.). While that makes for great fun, it seriously messes up dynamic campaign results and isn't historically realistic.

Historically, in WW2 when there was a squadron vs. squadron level fight between Average pilots, here's what happened:

1) If one side had a tactical advantage, they would "bounce" the opposing side, with each pilot diving on a victim and shooting it up before disenaging - possibly for another attack. Simultaneously, the disadvantaged side would maneuver to escape.

2) If there was no tactical advantage, a "furball" (a melee involving multiple planes) between would briefly develop.

But, here's why IL2 AI is so much more deadly than real life.

1) Diving bounce. Pilots are going to be attacking at high speeds than normal, leaving less time for them to aim and fire and possibly making them mistake target speed and distance. Gunnery accuracy will suffer accordingly due to the somewhat unfamiliar situation. Some pilots will also hesitate to shoot or fail to shoot at all, either due to nerves or moral qualms about killing.

Average or better pilots will also be thinking about the possibility of an ambush by a hidden "high squadron" of enemy planes. They are much more likely to go for a single pass that allows them to disengage. They will then regain altitude and continue on their mission.

The defending planes suffer the emotional shock of being attacked from surprise. They will maneuver defensively seeking to escape. They will not attempt to reengage their attackers until they gain a significant tactical advantage. They are very likely to lose contact with their attackers before this can happen. If the defenders appear to be outnumbered, they will not reengage.

The exception is that an attacking ace might stick around to fight rather than immediately disengaging, while a defending ace will ignore odds that are against him both in terms of numbers and position.

An "ace quality" leader (e.g., someone like Werner Moelders or Hubert Zemke) is critical here, since his aggression will carry over to the rest of the planes in his squadron. In that case, the entire formation might come back for another attack or stick around to dogfight. "Solo aces" like "Buzz" Buerling might carry on the attack after the rest of their formation disengages.

2) Furball. Pilots in a furball have almost no Situational Awareness due to the massive number of planes around them. They're constantly maneuvering and looking around both to avoid colliding and to avoid being a target, which leaves no time for shooting. Furthermore, most shots taken in a mass dogfight will be very short bursts of fire at high-deflection targets. Simultaneously, due to the constant risk of colliding or being shot at, every pilot is going to be trying to exit the furball. They will attempt to disengage, calm their nerves, gain altitude and regain formation before attacking from a more favorable position. Typically, this means that both sides will disengage with no further contact with that particular enemy formation.

Untrained and Rookie pilots will attempt to disengage from the furball in stupid ways that leave them open to easy shots. For example, they might fly directly away from an attacker to their rear instead of making a diving break. Average or better pilots will plan their disengagement in a more intelligent fashion. Veteran or better pilots will not attempt to disengage if it is actually suicidal to do so.

Ace pilots will attempt to avoid the furball, taking a position above and outside it. If their plane allows, they will use Boom and Zoom tactics to pick off enemy planes at the edge. Otherwise, they will pick a plane exiting the furball in a low energy state and "bounce it" using maneuver tactics to engage and destroy it. The will then disengage, regain altitude and repeat.

Once the furball or "bounce" breaks down into single fights or section vs. section fights (i.e., 2 vs. 2 or 4 vs. 4) separated by at least 2 km, standard fighter tactics apply, but all but Veteran or Ace pilots will be seeking to disengage unless they have a clear advantage over their opponents.

In terms of AI programming:

1) It ought be possible to "overload" the SA of an AI plane. The number of planes (or formations) each AI pilot can keep track of without being able to see them is limited by skill level. I propose 0 = Untrained or Rookie. 2 = Average, 4 = Veteran, 12 = Ace, Unlimited = Superhuman.

When SA gets overloaded, unless the pilot is actively maneuvering to avoid an attack who is shooting him, he must maneuver defensively. First, he maneuvers to check his 6 o'clock, then he maneuvers to regain visual confirmation of all planes he knows to exist (due to visual detection) in excess of his "SA Overload." He will automatically "mark off" planes reported to have crashed or which are farther away than about about 3 km visual range, considering them to be out of combat.

2) It should take AI (pilots and gunners) some amount of time to to "line up" a shot once a plane enters their field of view. I propose: 3 seconds = Untrained or Rookie, 2 = Average, 1 = Veteran, 0.5 = Ace, 0 = Superhuman. The exception is that Average or better pilots can still "line up" shots against an invisible enemy as long as it is within half their SA Overload limit. For example, an Average pilot can still line up a deflection shot against an enemy which has passed under his nose.

Average or better pilots and gunners can still make "snapshots" against targets which suddenly appear right in front of them (i.e., within 50 meters), but their accuracy will be much less than with aimed shots. Reaction time should be about 150 milliseconds for most pilots, perhaps a bit faster for Veteran or Ace (fighter pilots are already selected for good reaction times and 150 ms is better than average). Superhuman should have no delay due to reaction time.

The act of maneuvering defensively or scanning for targets lost due to SA Overload prevents a pilot from aiming and "resets the clock" for the time required to make an aimed shot.

3) There needs to be some sort of "pilot morale" that makes pilots reluctant to attack large formations of enemy planes, especially when outnumbered, except for a single attack from an advantaged position, followed by an attempt to disengage.

Extreme failure of pilot morale should also result in shots taken from extreme ranges, followed by breaking off the attack prematurely.

Single fighter pilots will be unlikely to attack formations enemy fighters regardless of advantage. Instead, they will attempt to disengage and call for reinforcements. The exception is that Veterans might attack when outnumbered up to 4:1 if they "know" can safely "bounce" the formation and safely get away. Aces will attack unlimited number of enemies in this fashion.

Formations of fighters will be a bit more aggressive when attacking if outnumbered, but they will still be quite cautious. Anything more than about 2:1 odds will result in all but the most desperate fighter pilot calling for assistance rather than attacking. Anything over 1.5: 1 will result in a quick slashing attack followed by an attempt to disengage, rather than attempt to "furball." Even Aces will be cautious here (the most aggressive "Ace Leader" will be reluctant to risk the lives of his less talented squadron mates).

Formations of fighters can still be quite aggressive against attack or bomber plane formations.

Against attack planes, anything but an Untrained pilot will attack normally as long as the planes remain in formation. Once they start maneuvering or shooting back, he will treat them like fighters.

But, against heavy bomber formations, fighters will be much more cautious. Pilots whose morale doesn't fail will always make straight-in attacks from the front, high-side attack from 2-4 o' clock or 8-10 o'clock, or a fast diving attack from 4-8 o'clock. In all cases, the attack will carry the attacker past their target in a dive. They will then disengage and attempt to regain advantage. Only Rookies or Untrained pilots will attack directly from the rear or will pull up directly above a bomber formation. Pilots whose morale fails will make attacks at extreme range and will maneuver so that they never get within 300 m of the enemy's guns.

To amend my previous post

* There should also be a Difficulty option button, or a choice for mission builders in the FMB, to ignore any changes that make AI realistically cautious. Lots of missions would just suck if AI planes cared about living to fight another day.

* It goes without saying that any human player will be "Ace level" in terms of aggressiveness. Even an absolute beginner who can barely take off, and who has never heard of deflection shooting, inherently gets the concept of "carry through with the attack once you have started it," and will fearlessly make solo attacks against vast formations of enemy planes.

Since I seem to be hassling the poor TD AI programmers, I'll continue with ideas on how to "customize" pilot characteristics. Some of these factors are already in the game, even if they aren't obvious to FMB builders.

Information is partially cribbed from Mike Spick's "The Ace Factor" but some is my own ignorant opinions.

First of all, pilot skill isn't a monolithic quality. The best combat pilots aren't necessarily the best acrobatic pilots, or the best test pilots. Instead, there are several factors that make an Ace combat pilot:

Bombing Ability

Courage/Aggression - The willingness to engage the enemy and the ability to not panic in a crisis. In a broader sense, the ability to face danger on a regular basis without developing PTSD. Perhaps the most important factor in making an ace.

Deflection Shooting - The ability to make "snap shots" at a maneuvering target using guns. Most aces had this ability at a high level.

Distance Vision - Most aces had superior distance vision, but not all.

Flying Ability - Acrobatics, formation flying and so forth. Surprisingly, many skilled aerobatic pilots never became aces. No known test pilot became an ace, although many aces went on to become successful test pilots.

Leadership Ability - The ability to use other pilots' skills to best ability and to train new pilots. This ability was possessed to a high degree by "Ace Leaders" like Werner Moelders or Hubert Zemke. Formations led by an "Ace" level leader will be more aggressive and will use more effective tactics.

Luck - The ability to avoid injury and critical hits to vital airplane systems, as well as a "6th sense" which lets you detect danger just before you get attacked. Realistically, there's no way to prove that "Luck" exists, but there's a fair bit of evidence that many aces had more than their fair share of it.

Marksmanship - The ability to hit with long range low deflection shots. Few aces had this skill, mostly they just got close to their target and blasted them. There were exceptions, however, who could regularly hit their target at 600+ meters or bring down an enemy with just a few well-placed shots.

Mechanical Ability - the ability to notice and repair mechanical problems and make the most an aircraft's systems. Most aces had some degree of mechanical ability.

Physical Fitness - The ability to withstand repeated or prolonged High-G maneuvers. Important for any combat pilot, but not all aces were in top physical condition. On the other hand, some aces like Ulrich Rudel were fitness fanatics.

Navigation Ability - The ability to know where you are and to use navigation aids to avoid getting lost or colliding with the ground.

Reaction Time - Most aces had average or better reaction times.

Rocket Shooting Ability

Situational Awareness - The ability to mentally keep track of aircraft and formations of aircraft, as well as their energy state, when you cannot see them. The second most important factor in making an ace.

Tactical Ability/Combat Experience - The ability to "keep your head on a swivel" to avoid being surprised. This includes understanding of the limits of your plane and the enemy's plane, including things like turn speeds, arcs of fire and service ceilings. Knowing capabilities and limitations of enemy AAA and ground targets. Ability to use wingmen and other elements of your formation to best ability in combat. Ability to detect enemy ambushes and intentions. Ability to set up ambushes. Aces had this quality at a high level.

Torpedo Dropping Ability

This would be a great addition
Another scrolldown for agressivity levels, from "timid" to "mad rush"
So if you have the skill rookie or average, it will have the whole range, whilst veterans will not have "mad rush" level, just ending with "agressive"
Aces will start with level "cautious" and end with "agressive" .

I agree with you. Those Percentages are almost same with my anticipation.


I agree. AI don't do tactical retreat.
AI does not fear losing a life. And AIs squadron leader does not think for the next battle.

-

I think big cause of AIs problem is "too exact deflection shooting".
Rookie, Average, Veteran,Ace, difference is hardly seen by all levels.
Because all skills pilots are do deflection shooting similarly.
Deflection shooting is very high technique.

I propose the next.

Rookie - Not do deflection shooting. It may be made very rare. However, it hardly hits.
Average - Rarely does deflection shooting. Inaccurate and will seldom hit.
Veteran - Sometimes do deflection shooting. And sometimes hit.
Ace - Use deflection shooting.

However, In recollection of real Ace pilots, I think they like very short-range fire than deflection shooting.

Thanks guys for your comments of AI skills. You have given great ideas and suggestions so far, but I hope that still more people would take part to this conversation.

Why do we need more agreeing? They are right, or at the very least, what they suggest would be much nearer the truth than what we currently have.

Or are you hoping a lot of people will disagree, because you don't like what has been said?

Remember, there are different types of deflection shots. A deflection shot at a target 100 m away from its 5 or 7 o'clock (i.e., 30 degrees or less deflection) where your speed is almost the same as the target's is very different from a "crossing shot" at a target 300 meters away, going 500 kph, from its 3 or 9 o'clock (90 degrees of deflection).

While we're mostly in agreement, consider the alternate scheme

Untrained - Doesn't do deflection shooting. Aims guns right where the target is, ignoring things like deflection, target speed and bullet drop. Starts shooting from well outside of effective range of guns. Shoots long continuous bursts of fire that that jam guns.

Rookie - Doesn't take deflection shots from more than 45 degrees "angle off", has trouble with calculating target range and speed, leading them to vastly underestimate lead required for shots with more than 10 degrees of deflection. Might start shooting well outside effective range of guns, especially against large targets. Likely to use long continuous bursts of fire that jam guns.

Average - Doesn't take deflection shots from more than 60 degrees "angle off," has some trouble calculating target range and lead for shots with more than 20 degrees deflection. Occasionally shoots outside of effective range of guns. Sometimes takes long bursts that jam guns.

Veteran - Doesn't take deflection shots from more than 75 degrees "angle off" has some trouble calculating target range and lead for shots with more than 30 degrees deflection. Uses short "ranging bursts" to judge if fire hits, then attacks using repeated bursts of 1-2 seconds. Gun jam unlikely.

Ace - Doesn't take deflection shots from more than 90 degrees "angle off" (i.e., will shoot at target from any angle). Has some trouble calculating range and lead for shots with more than 45 degrees deflection. Uses short "ranging bursts" to judge if fire hits, then attacks using repeated bursts of 1-2 seconds. Gun jam unlikely.

Also, a possibility is that a pilot's chance to hit with a deflection shot might be something like SQRT ((100 - degrees of deflection) * modifier for pilot skill / modifier for range to target / modifier for size of target / modifier for target speed relative to attacker) = % chance of hitting. That is, even a rookie ought to be able to get a fair percentage of hits with a low deflection shot, but even an ace ought to have trouble hitting with a high deflection shot against a fast-moving target.

Additionally, all but Ace pilots should be much more timid about getting close to their enemies. Rookie to Veteran should try to shoot from the default convergence ranges for their guns - typically 300 m.

And, now that I think of it, only having fighters attack from the convergence range of their guns is a great way to make IL2 AI combat less lethal. For example, British doctrine in 1939 was to have their guns converge at 450 yards! In mid 1940 this was amended to 250 feet. This despite the fact that your typical rifle caliber MG isn't that effective against against aircraft beyond 100-200 m. By contrast, most aces preferred to have their guns harmonized to converge at 50 (Erich Hartmann) to 150 m (James Lacey and a number of USAAF aces).

Given that just about every list of advice for novice fighter pilots from Boelke's Dicta on emphasizes the need to get close before shooting, that implies that most pilots WEREN'T getting close. Making a Rookie to Average pilot start shooting at 500 m and stay outside of the gun convergence point (e.g., at 300-400 m) would make "Average vs. Average" combats much less lethal, even without fixing deflection shooting.

I'm hoping that folks from TD will read this, pick up on the data and ideas we've presented and make them their own.

In fairness to TD, I think that the work they've done on AI in 4.12 and 4.13 is magnificent. Due to their hard work, it's now actually challenging to fly against Average or better AI.

Even better, at least in 1 vs. 1 combat, planes actually behave like they were reported to do so historically. For example, fly a single Average AI Spitfire Mk IX vs. a single Ace AI P-47D-10 and you'll usually get the same results that Robert Johnson described flying a mock dogfight against a Spitfire pilot.

My only complaints are that AI still has some trouble with squadron level tactics, AI at all levels is more aggressive than they were historically - at least in QMB missions, and badly damaged planes still make stupid decisions (e.g., not immediately trying to run for friendly territory when badly damaged, not having the crew bail out until it's too late when flying over wooded or hilly territory).

So, while I might seem like I'm complaining, I'm actually trying to further "polish the gem."

Well, I was actually the one who started this conversation and I couldn't agree more those things that has been said untill now. And Pursuivant just was quick enough to tell my thoughts about polishing this great sim.

no update this Friday...

:(

:(

What about night fighter and radar :))))))))) ?

Update is ready, but we experience small technical problems with uploading it. It will be up, as soon, as the problem resolved.

Thanks for the heads up

We would like to post an update but the thread is locked.

While waiting it to be opened, we would like to post this as an update:
http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/bombardier.jpg

Thanks to major.kudo :D

Great update guys, thanks. I've never really got to grips with the bombing side of IL2, but I'm gonna have fun learning. Can't wait.

http://gachopin.no-ip.info/kudo/bombardier2.jpg

IL-2 1946 is very fun and interesting.
I'm wishing IL-2 1946 to become a more good game.
I think, everyone in this forum are same.

I will write hope and proposal sometimes.
If you think "this is bad idea" or "this is impossible idea", ignore please.
But if you think "this is good idea", please use irrespective all or parts.

Hey TD, it's terrific when you know you know, but you can't remember. Don't torture me more: what music is it there on the update video? :confused:

That video was glorious, both the features and the music.

The most exciting feature for an admittedly casual pilot like me is the course autopilot.
Did you show all aircraft that have it in the video? If not, disregard this, but if so, will it be implemented later on?

The BF110 had the PATIN autopilot(CLOD simulated this), and so did the Do-335(it has the controls integrated into the yoke, though no gauges).

Viola: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheher...msky-Korsakov)

The 1st movement, 'The Sea and Sinbad's Ship', is the backing for the video and is one of my favourite romantic pieces; the 2nd movement known as 'The Kalendar Prince' I also recommend.

TD, I speak on behalf of all bombadiers in saying that this update will be the single best piece of work done to improve this Sim since its inception. I also speak for everyone else in saying that this update will be the best piece of work done to improve this Sim since 4.12!

A question - will the B24 also be arriving with all the bombadier updates?

Firestorm,


The US bombardier stuff you saw like the Norden and Intervalometer came the B24D parts and yes, the B24D is in our build however we need to add and tweak a few things here and there.

Stay tuned for more updates.

Fascinating and technically challenging to implement no doubt!!

question 1, how does this effect x-4 and hs/fritz x type misisle/bombs, still steer them by adjust distance and side slip?

question 2, video showed 180 mph IAS in b-25, bombardier had a guage showing 240 TAS which they then inputted, will there be a table or guage change for Axis planes as well, and for Russians too? cant wait for the new stabilizer though, thats the sweet spot as you lock into your bomb run on line with a real pilot... wow great stuff TD.

Outstanding!! It is a logical progression of this sim considering where it is in it's lifespan.. after adding aircraft and maps.. this is the next logical step ... adding more precision and more immersion.

Bombsight updates look great. What are the three little lights in the Soviet bombers at the end of the video?

Navigator looking at bombsight and get correcting direction of flight by pushing buttons and lit that three lamps ... and pilot flight right or left o directly ahead) ... nothing more))) in our planes all was simple)

Fully workable Norden bomb sight! WooT!

For planes that don't have the Norden or its equivalent, will there be a method for the bombardier to communicate with the pilot?

Can you fly as a bomber pilot while an AI bombardier gives you commands? (e.g., "left, steady, up, right, steady, bombs gone")

Guys, did you actually watch the video to the end?

No. Or not yet, at least.

I saw videos.
Excellent.
"The bomber festival" will in coming. I polish my foot pedal and wait for the v4.13.

Yes. I just wasn't sure if the displayed messages represented confirmation of changes to bomb sight settings or messages sent to the pilot.

I imagined that you clever TD guys would have thought of commands from bombardier to pilot.

I can understand the delay in setting up the pilot's ability to respond to voice commands from the bombardier, however. Not only do you have to record a new voice actor (bombardier) for each nationality, but you also have to link that new voice actors scripts into the program. Lots of work for a tiny bit of extra immersiveness.

Anyhow, 4.13 looks to be "the high altitude bomber update."

The bombsights are fantastic... If only we would have new flyable LW bombers!

Anyway, big thanks to TD! :)

That's great to hear Monguse, many thanks for the response and sincerest gratitude for your amazing work. Looking forward to the next set of updates.

Concerning the Norden Bomb Sight, I'd like to mention this great lecture (again, as it has been mentioned here in this forum before...).

I'm really liking what I see in the last video updates!

Just a couple of questions:

- Is there any way that we can view the bombing objectives from much far away? It feels strange when you have to wait for the building or wathever to pop up before you can set the crosshair. Perhaps we can have new objects with lower level of detail but higher pop up range that we can put under or inside the bombing objectives.

- Is it possible to have a new quick mission template for high level bombing? with the airport missions your plane or formation spawns very near the objective and you have little time to give orders to the formation and set up your bombsight.

Thank you TD!

The "ring" where the terrain and buildings are drawn in a circle around your aircraft is an annoying visual peculiarity/legacy of the game from years ago to reduce GPU loading.

Would be cool to have larger "key" objects be drawn without the "ring" collectively popping objects in as you progress over towns and cities.
Also
Usually in my missions there's camera at the target area to study the layout and recon of the objective.
And
A image in the mission briefing of the intended target would also be cool.









.

Thanks! And now I recommend something: Vladimir Bortko's TV-Series based on Bulgakov's 'Master and Margherita'. 1st movement is performed and conducted there by a certain 'Johann Strauss' on the ball organized by Woland. When I fly offline, Radio Roma is broadcasting Wagner's Walküre, Act 1st, conducted by Barenboim in the Scala... I'm perverted, I know... :grin:

For the Soviets, certain Shostakovich and Prokofiev pieces are both contemporary and appropriate. The music is also within in the public domain.

I'm particularly fond of the Lieutenant Kije suite (and sometime fly using that as my pilot name, since it's highly appropriate for a heroic but fictitious Russian junior officer.)

Latest update on bombardiers is simply fantastic, i expected this feature for so many years ! :grin:

An idea based on the bomber.
 

The bombardier will have part of the controls to fly the airplane. Well perhaps this new command will develop the following feature.

1. Pilot:

a. Full control of the aircraft.

b. Will be assigned a key combination to cede control of the aircraft to a bombardier or the copilot. This feature also applies if you are using the aircraft as a trainer of another pilot. When assigned to copilot control, the pilot is disabled in controls surfaces and engines, can only manipulate other aircraft functions such as lights, radio, flaps, landing gear and others. The pilot may get at any time full control of the aircraft.

c. The player who is playing the pilot roll is the only one who has the key combination to cede control.

d. At the time of bombing, the pilot must cede control of the plane to the player who is in the position bomber. This is done so that the player in the role of bomber aircraft to control speed, altitude and route.

2. Co-pilot or student:

a. While the pilot is flying the aircraft, the copilot can not use commands engines or control surfaces. He or she can only use the other functions, such as lights, radio, flaps, landing gear and others.

b. If the pilot dies, the copilot happens to have complete control, including key combination to give to the bomber.

That's a cool idea. For players, it might be simpler for pilots to have a single command and submenu.

Cede Command of airplane
|
|----> 1) Copilot
2) Bombardier (for planes with Norden bombsight or equivalent).

Pressing the same key again = "take over command of plane."

And, as P-38L says, this key opens up the door to two-seater training aircraft where the back seat pilot can give or take control of the plane from a student pilot. Pretty keen for a plane such as the U-2/Po-2!

Or in a long mission you can split the flight time... Very usefull also if one needs to go to the bath room, or dinner, the other crew member can carry-on.

On AI related notes: While personally I thought 4.12 AI is quite decent, Corsairs and Hellcats are still quite insistent on turn fighting with Zeros and the likes... The only AI controlled plane I know that accurately use energy/BnZ tactics is the Fw-190/ possibly P-47...

The old 4.07 AI also have a slightly better BnZ routine I believed, BnZ planes with E advantage used to be one of the toughest opponents I've faced. Whenever they have the chance, they immediately build up E and bounce you, and they always bounce with such discipline that they looses little E. Now... I recount them not fighting with as much efficiency, once the AI looses a certain amount of E, they'll not attempt to to recover that E advantage and began to very fool-hardy turn fighting against their opponent. One very big example is the Bf-109 AI which more or less insistent on turn fighting rather than captivating it's E advangate, while the 109 is a decent turn fighter, it is an even better energy fighter.

Also the biggest flaw with the AI ever since 4.07 remained: AI have a habit of remaining steady and maintained a level flight path even when being shot at by someone 50 meters away... You would think that every pilot once being shot at by something so close would flip out almost immediately? There should be a check routine to determined whether or not the AI is being shot at, unless the AI have enough E to extend away from the attacker (highlighted because this is of extreme importance to BnZ only planes), it would immediately engage in defensive maneuvers in an erratic fashion.

Well... That's all the complaints I have for now, it always profound me how you guys managed to think of everything...!

Are you sure it is low speed turn fighting? AI F4Fs do turn fighting vs. A6M, but at speeds where an A6M has trouble following because of the increasing control stiffness. They use their roll advantage a lot - at high speeds the Zero's roll rate is strongly reduced- and as Aces usually they best you if you try to follow - if you ever enter a rolling scissors maneuvre with an AI Ace F4F at speeds above ~400kph -you are already dead.

I do not agree. I shot down countless of AI Wildcats in low speed turn fight in an A6M. What they really like to do, is diving from high altitude, then suddenly doing an 50g turn, (AI g immunity) to get on your six.

To return to my favorite topic of picking on the P-39 series, I suspect that there are LOT of DM errors. While I haven't actually hacked the game and taken a look at the P-39 DM, I've flown the plane enough in arcade mode and gotten shot up enough that I have some pretty shrewd guesses as to what's wrong. Comments are based on cutaway drawings of the P-39 by Aeroplane press and the P-39N and P-39Q pilot's manuals.

1) The cannon ammunition hopper wrapped around the barrels for the fuselage-mounted 0.50 caliber MG. But, in the game, hits to this area incorrectly disable both .50 caliber MG, rather than eventually causing the cannon to jam.

2) Since I don't believe that the cannon ammo was belted, hits to the cannon ammunition feed shouldn't result in an immediate jam. Instead, you should get a jam after X number of rounds of ammo have been fired (simulating ammo which won't feed properly due the damage).

3) Ammunition hoppers for the fuselage-mounted 0.50 caliber guns were mounted just behind the forward armor plate. Hits from the side or rear which penetrate the cockpit without hitting the pilot should have a chance of hitting these assemblies, resulting in a gun jam.

Realistically, the fuselage 0.50 caliber MG guns (and the 37 mm cannon, but not the 20 mm cannon) could be manually charged by the pilot, so there should be some chance that he could clear a jam by recocking the guns and ejecting a dud or damaged cartridge.

Wing guns were charged manually using a charging handle located on the cockpit floor, so it should be possible to recharge these guns in flight.

It might have also been possible to fire the fuselage guns separately from the wing guns or cannons, of fire any two of those three combinations, rather than the two fire selection options IL2 currently offers.

4) It looks like someone has modeled the oil cooler intake vents (along the fuselage on the leading edge of the wings and extending through the wing to either side of the cockpit) as the actual coolant system. That is, hits to what was actually empty space give you a leak!

5) It seems as if the damage models for the oil radiator (i.e., oil cooling system) and engine coolant system (i.e., the coolant radiator) are combined and conflated. They were actually separate systems.

6) Hits to the small cylindrical oil coolers mounted mid-wing right next to the fuselage, and a bit ahead of it should result in an oil leak, not a coolant leak.

Additionally, there was a large oil tank mounted directly behind the engine.

Hits to the oil system should have the usual effects on a liquid-cooled engine - drop in oil pressure, rise in engine temperature, accompanied by the screeching sounds of a dying engine, and finally the engine seizing up.

As it is, the P-39 seems to be immune to oil leaks.

While there's no way for the game to model it, leaks should result in big oil stains on the underside of the fuselage behind and beneath the oil cooler and/or underneath the engine, rather than the typical black engine smoke (oil never touches the hot engine block, so it never has a chance to smoke). This could be faked using the severe damage textures for the affected areas.

7) Hits to the rectangular engine coolant system mounted directly behind and below the cockpit, and beneath the engine, should result in a coolant leak. This should produce white smoke, which emerges from beneath the plane - out of the rear radiator vents, not from the engine as is currently modeled.

There was also a large coolant expansion tank mounted behind the engine. Hits to this system should result in a coolant leak which appears to emerge from the engine compartment.

Coolant leaks should have the same effects on the engine as for any other liquid cooled engine - drop in coolant pressure, more gradual rise in engine temperature, eventually resulting in rapid engine overheat and the engine seizing up.

As it stands, the P-39 seems to be immune to coolant leaks.

8 ) Hits directly below the pilot's compartment should have a minimal chance of causing a fuel leak, since there were just thin fuel lines (leading to the engine and to the drop tank) and a small auxiliary fuel pump in that area. Hits to this area, especially by rifle caliber bullets, seem to be far too likely to cause leaks. The fuel selector switch was located on the floor of the pilot's compartment, so should be partially protected from hits to the front by the armor plate protecting the cockpit.

9) The P-39 had three fuel tanks (left, right and reserve), distributed between 6 fuels cells on each wing (12 total). Tanks were mounted in the middle of the leading edge of each wing and extending back to the main spar. On a detailed diagram of the P-39, you can see the filler caps for each tank as a series of circles on the leading edge of the wings.

It appears as if the reserve tank was a single cell set closest to the pilot on the left wing.

The origin point for "pinhole" leaks to these cells is set too far back and inward on the wing. Furthermore, there is only one origin point for fuel tank leaks on either wing, not multiple points.

While it's up to TD how complex they want to get about modeling fuel loss, the existence of 12 fuel cells, not just one, and three different tanks (not two), means that it should be harder for a fuel tank leak to run you out of fuel. Even in the absence of a shut-off valve for each fuel cell, multiple tanks are going to slow the rate at which fuel leaks from the entire system. (Since the rate of fuel drain is limited by the rate of fuel drain from cell to cell, as well as the size of the hole in the tank.)

The P-39 had both engine-driven and electrically-driven fuel pumps, so, like most planes of the day it had the ability to pump fuel from tank to tank.

10) The ammunition runs for the wing-mounted 0.50 caliber guns ran along the main wing spar, just outboard of the fuel cells, extending outward to with a meter or so of the wingtips. On a diagram of the P-39, you can see the ammunition run access panels as a rectangle usually in the same area as the national insignia markings. In the game, hits far inboard and to the rear of where the ammo runs and guns actually were will cause a jam to one or both wing-mounted guns! Hits to the area where the ammunition runs actually are have no special effect.

11) Hits from the front, which realistically would only hit the reduction gearbox or propeller blade controls, cause the engine to smoke. Realistically, a penetrating hit to the gearbox would result in loss of engine power without causing smoke or (less likely) will make the plane vibrate due to unbalanced gearing or make the engine seize up.

12) The reduction gear gearbox was armored and there was an armor plate directly behind the propeller, which not only protected that assembly, but also provided some protection to the gun compartment - at least against attacks from the front. This does not seem to be modeled in the game.

13) Penetrating hits to the engine compartment, even from 0.50 caliber or heavier bullets, have no chance of making the engine quickly lose oil and/or stop working. Realistically, they would crack the engine block and/or penetrate one of the engine's cylinders. Any hit to the engine, no matter how severe the damage, seems to result in little loss of power.

14) Glancing hits from rifle caliber bullets, which strike the engine at a highly oblique angle from the side and penetrate the the engine cover, are TOO effective at causing the engine to smoke or lose power, when realistically they wouldn't penetrate the engine or would ricochet.

15) While I've mentioned it before, the various armored bulkheads don't appear to be modeled in the game. Historically, there were armored bulkheads behind the oil tank and coolant expansion tank, which also protected the engine from the rear. Then there was an armor plate between the engine and the pilot (contiguous with armor glass directly behind the pilot's head), then another armor plate (contiguous with an armor glass windscreen) just ahead of the cockpit, as well as the armored reduction gear box and the armor plate behind the propeller.

16) Armor diagrams for the P-39 (from the pilot's manual) show that it provides complete protection to the pilot from directly to the front and slightly above (about a 10-15 degree arc extending forward from the top of the windscreen), yet in the game it is possible to kill the pilot from this angle.

17) Radiator and oil cooler venting was controlled by a lever mounted next to the pilot's seat, which just allowed "open" and "closed" options, rather than the standard 5 step "pivot" from fully open to fully closed and back again provided by the game. While I might be incorrect in my reading of diagrams in the pilot's manual, it also seems that the oil coolant shutters and the radiator coolant shutters were different systems.

18 ) I'm not sure if Il2 dynamically models CoG changes due to expenditure of fuel and ammunition, but it should be slightly easier to get a P-39 out of a spin if there is less fuel in the tanks and less ammunition in the wing guns. (Less mass for centripedal force at a distance from the plane's CoG.) This is mentioned in the pilot's manual. (OTOH, if you follow the suggestions in the pilot's manual you can actually get a P-39 out of a spin if you have sufficient altitude. So, I think that the P-39 Flight Model is pretty good.)

No update this week?

Not to worry. Its susually either time zones or errors in the uppload. Should come out this evening if I am correct.

Cool :)

The update was ready at mid-day Friday, but the guy, who has a key to the update thread is curently unavailable. :) Update will be posted as soon, as the thread will be unlocked.

Yesss one of my wishes comes

Nice addition of an important Japanese aircraft. Thanks and plerase keep them coming TD!

Thanks again TD. You guys are the best

Good to see the Pacific (and floatplanes!) getting some love.

AI only?

That would be my guess. Cockpits are the hardest thing to model.

To make sure the cockpit works right, I've noticed that TD will release a new plane as an AI first, then make it flyable in a later patch.

Well I fight high and slow (if that makes sense to you...), so 400 is the maximum speed I usually get mid combat since the Sakae doesn't accelerate well pass this point... In reality the AI are more then gladly to cut throttle, set take-off flaps, and deliberately bleed E in order to turn fight at even slower speeds... AI particularly love to bleed E in rolling maneuvers, they almost always chop throttle and open full flaps to cause an overshoot... this might work against a P-38, but against the Zero, a masterful piece of art in quick acceleration and deceleration.................. :(

The main strength of the Zero is rapid acceleration, quick climb, and control sensitivity in said climb (perfect combination for a spiraling climb)... So as soon as Hellcats/Wildcats/Corsairs made any attempt to turn fight at ANY speed, the Zero (players and AI alike) can easily gain altitude and E advantage... This means AI Hellcats are much underprivileged because their AI patterns are not capitalizing the advantages of the in game Hellcat... This is a problem from the original game as well...

It is not uncommon for Rookie AI Zeros to score a favorable kill ratio against Ace AI Corsairs, even though Zeros were supposed to be inferior in both plane and skills... In reality, against people well flown Hellcats and Corsairs preys upon Zeros.

This makes it particularly tough for me as a person who enjoys offline custom missions to recreate the sense of futility of struggle of real life Zero pilots. Especially if one can kill Hellcats and Corsairs in droves...

In contrast, I've once fought FW-190s in the stock Blinding Sun campaign and the experience has been exceptional, the 4.07 AI was smart enough to keep E and avoid turn-fighting my Yak... The LW creates a sense of absolute dominance in the campaign, which is exactly the kind of experience the campaign makers are trying to deliver... Unless AIs are correctly tuned to use American Navy planes correctly, many custom made campaigns for the game are not expressed to the fullest...

(Note: I haven't tested to see how 4.12 AI handles the FW much... They still seem to obliterate me pretty well, but I felt the difficulty fighting them is reduced... or is that simply because my skills have improved?)

Okay then it may very well be that our different fighting styles influence the AI's behaviour, usually I fight in a Zero as fast as the plane allows, and I live with the unresponsive controls, its not stellar but it makes sure noone sneaks in behind me.
I've tried the slower fighting, it becomes the Zero well - BUT the AI is so darned clever in teamwork, and their wingmen/second element/flight most of the times keep their E advantage, and if I follow them, I usually get my kill at the cost of an AI in perfect position to strike. If the AI tries rolling scissors on me, I just zoom past and above them - or when there is ample seperation to the other AI I try to cut across their pattern.
Yes the spiral climb works pretty good, and when the AI are directly below, pounce on them, and get back up.

There seems to be a pattern there, and it is the AI are not good at using faster planes against slower ones. It happens sometimes that AI Ace Zeros get caught by co-E F4Fs, for no reason at all. And I've seen quite more good AI Bf109 F/G getting shot down by P-40s or even Hurris then I'd think should have.
Though I must say, generally in the all AI F4F vs. A6M duels the more experienced side wins.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this. Here are a few things that I would love to see in 4.13:

1. Please add 2nd crew member to TBD, TBF-1c, TBM-3. Currently only TBF1 has 2nd crew member and can use level bombing sight and ventral gunner.
2. Please add a radio command that you can use to order your wingman to RTB. Currently you can order the whole flight to RTB, not individual wingmen. Also, would it be possible to make your wingman to RTB when you request permission to land? Because currently if you land, your wingman will follow you until got too low and slow and crash without any reason.

Lately played some older early war missions.

There is no clear procedure for the SPB.
The I-16 must not have further waypoints then the one after the disengagement waypoint. If you want them to fly home after their mission, the stay fixed to the TBM, even if it is shot down.

Even the disengagement has no clear rules.
Sometimes they dont disengage, whatever you do with the missionbuilder. Sometimes they do, even if you follow the same mission building procedures.

They should automatically disengage when the TBM is attacked.

Oh yes, and even the rookie I-16 has godlike deflection shooting skills.
If you've got one on your back, you should have had a good ammount of energy advantage or you are dead within some seconds. You can only sacrifie your wingman and run.
They turn on a penny, they accelerate like hell, climb like there is no tomorrow and shoot rather accurately. They usually kill you when you try to outrun or outclimb them at ranges of around 700m, Ace AI does that at 1K with one short burst.

Or is it real that you have a 15:1 disadvantage in a E4 against them.

This planes are not flyable and never will be. If you are talking about mods, please, contact the mod author. Why do you posting this in the DT thread?

Yesss another wish comes

[QUOTE=SPAD-1949;512442]
Oh yes, and even the rookie I-16 has godlike deflection shooting skills.
If you've got one on your back, you should have had a good ammount of energy advantage or you are dead within some seconds. You can only sacrifie your wingman and run.
They turn on a penny, they accelerate like hell, climb like there is no tomorrow and shoot rather accurately. They usually kill you when you try to outrun or outclimb them at ranges of around 700m, Ace AI does that at 1K with one short burst.
QUOTE]

Yes, this should be corrected as soon as possible. It makes no sense to use I-16s in missions any more because they are unreal overwhelming. There is a big difference between 4.11 and 4.12. I really hope that DT will downgrade to 4.11 in this case - and check other planes, too.

The B24 is a masterpiece!:grin:

Congratulations to the B-24 design team!

Now all we need is for someone to model the other 5 crew stations needed for the B-17! :)

Don't get greedy. :D

Can't wait to fly the B-24. Finally an allied heavy with a decent bombsight. Great work and thanks to the team that made the cockpits&stations for this beauty.

[QUOTE=Jami;512450]They increasingly became owerwhelming since 4.10, but with 4.12 they are a real threat.
You cant even come over them by energy advantage, because they turn so fricking fast, you cant fly out a shooting solution with the overspeed you need to get out of their range of kill, if you overshoot (and you will overshoot)
Some versions are not that hard, but especially the SPB Model 24 is not surviveable.

Yes, many hands on this one (and still growing). For my part, you're welcome.

5? i think six minimum ... or even more

Well, B-24 is just awesome. But... I wonder... in Avia B.534 there is a very nice animation of moving ammo cartridges when firing guns. Why this animation was not used in B-24 when there are so many ? If you can do it for one plane, why not for this ?

Yeah, I know. I'm nitpicker. :wink:

dFrog

Glad you asked about the articulated ammo belt and ammo considering I have been wrapping my head around that issue.

If you take the low ball approach like hiding part of the ammo belt, it painfully become obvious that using TrackIR with 6DOF the user is aware of the missing belts and it blows the "magic".

The only real solution is to have a fully articulated (albeit simple polys) animation with again a fully articulated simplified ammo.

Given that, now you know why the B25J waist and A20 ventral position never had the articulated ammo belts installed.

All I can say is maybe one day.

Congratulations to Buster and Monguse. Your hard work and many thousands of hours have paid off.. I look forward to making use of the B-24 in online and offline scenarios!

You're right. My point was that a number of those gun stations can be reused.

Sperry Ball Turret, Martin Top Turret - B-17

Sperry Ball Turret, Martin Top Turret, Consolidated Tail Turret (as nose turret and tail turret) - B-24H.

Guys, I don't have any words to say you...
THIS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see something beauty like parrallel universe!!!
Give me that plane please for Christmas flying over Europe!!!

Pursuivant

For a proper H model we need to model a new A-6B for the tail a new Emerson A-15 front turret, new cockpit, and totally new bombardier station and update the top turret to an A-3D. If we keep it to an earlier block, we wont have to stagger and enclose the waist.

As for the ball in the waist, the ball retraction cylinder, torque retraction need to be redone.

For the external model, we would need to remove the bombardier low viewing windows, fix a few things here and there and update the skin texture itself.

So all in all:

New/Updated pit
New bombardier area
New waist (depending on the variant we want)
Update Top Turret
New Emerson A-15 front turret
New A6B tail.
External model changes to reflect the H block we want.

OK, thanks for explanation. I'm not fan of planes with more than 2 engines, but this one is really nice piece of (tremendous amount of) work.