Anyone had any luck upgrading to 4.10m directly from the Steam install? I downloaded it last night so I could have a fresh install to start with. Here's what I did, and what happened:

1. Downloaded IL-2 from Steam.
2. Ran the steam .exe, and 4.09m loaded up fine.
3. Copied the "IL2 Sturmovik 1946" out of steamapps into my "C:\Games\IL2 410m" directory.
4. Ran il2_410.exe from the torrent from here and exported it to the new directory.
5. Ran the il2fb.exe in the folder... but this didn't work because apparently the 4.10m patch doesn't change the .exe... so I...
6. Copied my il2fb.exe file from my "C:\Games\IL2 409m" directory.
7. Ran the il2fb.exe in the folder. The 4.10m splash screen loaded up, and it got up to 95% and then just hung there for like 10 minutes before I decided to End Process on it (which left my desktop resolution at 1024x768 instead of 1920x1200, by the way... GOD this game is old).

So where did I go wrong? I also tried copying over my 409m conf.ini and users folder and that just seemed to make things worse... so the above list is what I would assume is the "sure fire" way to go about getting this to work. But it don't. :(

At a guess, the problem might be due to putting the patch .exe into the directory you are trying to update. That isn't necessary (it allows you to select the correct directory when it starts), and maybe causes difficulties.

I installed 4.10 over a IL-2 in German because i selected a wrong language during instalation. I am lazy and do not want to install al again. How can i translate it to english?

Try this:
Open conf.ini in text editor. Find [rts] section. Add this line
locale=en
or replace the similar line in that section with the above.

It works, thank you!

Thank you for this patch it has been fun again
:cool:

twin engine
 

Being a BF110 fan, I looked forward to the release of the HS129.

What I would like to see next (being an optimist) is an FW189 & ME210/410.

If TD are looking into an BF110 nightfighter, then a HE219 would be welcomed.

Turns out the problem I had was that the old il2fb.exe that I copied over was the 6DoF modded version, which is not compatable with 4.10m apparently. Game starts up just fine and then locks at 95%.

Anyone know if there is already a 6DoF mod for this version, and if not, when one might get made? I really miss being able to look over the dash in the Bf109.

This is definitely the wrong place to ask for mods!!!

I would like it too, but as long as it isn't officially approved, it gives a select few a huge advantage, compared to the ones that play the official 4.10.

Is it still Hyperlobby that is the main tool for online flying?

I've been away a few years, but 4.10 got me back into the seat!

Yes it is, link:
http://hyperfighter.sk/modules.php?n...p=getit&lid=16

do you know any site that have so many east front missions, channel missions, finland missions for any version (4.08 4.09) (not mission4today: crappy site)

The only time it would give a select few an advantage of any kind is if you are playing cockpit only... and even then it isn't really a HUGE advantage. And being able to tip your head is a lot more realistic than literally rotating your head around your eyeballs.

I just got my sim stuff hooked up again now that I've moved into a new place, so I can survive long enough to wait for either for 6DoF to get hacked in again or just wait for SoW to come out.

There wasn't any problem with 6DoF, if it only was even for everyone (also those without a device). This is more important than any cockpit glitches.

With that logic, every HOTAS owner is a potential cheater, since we don't have to slam the keyboard all the time :)

But if 6dof was integrated in the 4.101 (or 4.11) It would leave the fair playing field open for all.. to buy a Track Ir. A device I can't fly WWII sims without!

Edit:> I play only cockpit view (wish there was a toggle for outside view only when weight on wheels, since some planes are horrible to get out on the runway)

Maybe add hold mouse middle button as a 'poor mans TIR'?

Yes, thats a difficult discusion. 6DoF is a very powerfull feature (people won't demand it for nothing).

Thats not a bad thinking at all. ;)

This is indeed a thorny issue. TIR is quite an advantage, but there are lots of folks who do not use it that are supremely successful in aerial combat. One of my squad mates, BlitzPig_Raven, uses his mouse with his left hand to look around and he is a deadly opponent.

Personally I don't see 6dof as a deal breaker, and if you are honest about it, it does let you look around in ways that a real human could never do, unless you had a meter long neck made of rubber.

;)

I agree with both previous posts. This topic was discussed many times, and I believe that only a compromise solution has any possibility to be implemented. The solution I favour is to maintain 2 degrees as it is now, but allowing three pivot positions instead of one. 4.10 has two very good examples in the I15 and CW21 cockpits. In the I15, moving to side gun-sights allows to look around struts and almost straight down the fuselage side. In CW21, pilot’s head moves a little up, allowing a beautiful sight above the nose, that’s a dream for landing (and taxing!).
The pics below show the difference. They were taken at the same moment, with the game paused.

I played air warrior back in those days, and did pretty well in the 2d cockpit, and have seen youtube vids of guys using snap views extremly well, but I still hope for official 6dof support.

I'd say 6 DOF and a lack of four engined bombers plus the mere existence of Canon's map will keep the Mods servers populated.

Which is a shame; because that means there will still be compatibility problems and religious wars.

The argument that 6 DOF is not for all is completely specious, as has been pointed out, why not disable HOTAS and high end graphic cards? Nothing is "for all", there's no comunism in hardware marketing!

I'd have happily dropped all the nav aids and funky cruise missile bombs for a unified "scene".

It's not that difficult to understand why 6DOF is problematic. For once a number of cockpits would need a major makeover. And - just like Caspar said - we'd need to have a similar system (i.e. lean left/right) for non-TIR users. Not everyone has the 150€ for a little bit of electronics. We simmers are often accused of elitism, I suggest we don't prove that statement any more true, okay? ;)

I see the 4.10 as a pretty successful attempt to bringing the crowd alive again, like Falcon:AF did for the falcon community.. a few steps forward, a few steps back.. but a stable, common, platform.

I know FF 5.x, and the age of F4:AF got people sliding on in different directions, but that took a few years.

Cosmetics, which are not a deal-breaker. I doubt anyone with 6DoF will demand every bit be fixed. He will fly his favourite aircraft regardless of cosmetics.

By that backward reasoning, just like banning HOTAS use, the game should be limited to a fixed res and 4:3. I wouldn't be able to fly in 48:9. :( ;)

So no one has heard of the cheap/free alternatives called freetrack or FaceTrackNoIR? A webcam can be found dead cheap.

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

You guys do know that Storms of War is going to have full 6DoF, right? Is that going to have some lean system for non-head tracking players? I seriously doubt it.

Yeah, some cockpits are going to have some faces not textured when seen from some angles, but I think given the fact we are all playing a flight sim from 9+ years ago I think aesthetics aren't the most important factor when playing.

And then of course others have already pointed out that there's plenty of other hardware advantages that are fully supported out of the box.

So yeah... There really isn't a reason to not have 6DoF, either in an official patch or having this or any future patches compatible with current 6DoF mods.

Was there an actual effort to disable the 6DoF mod in this patch, or was it just an accidental side effect? I'll point to the first paragraph again if you guys did this on purpose for no other reason than "Some people are poor and it isn't fair."

S!

Built a FreeTrack device for less than 10€ and the software is free so hardly can talk about elitism there. In the "other version" I use to play has no problems with Bf109 and 6DOF if AHS rings a bell ;) But I see the point, would require quite some amount of work to go through most of the cockpits for one feature.

Still..6DOF + proper wide screen support would be nice at some point :)

I downloaded the mod, then installed it, now IL2 won't run :(

It's not just a matter of faces not being textured, it's a matter of them not being there at all. Big open gaps that IMO look very ugly. (I modeled the He 162 pit, so I know ;) ).

Hello TD!

Thank you for 4.10.

TS

Huh? Not at all! We are guilty only of one: we do not care about compatibility with 'the ones not to be discussed here'.


I suppose, you mean, you downloaded the 'patch', right?
As you call it 'mod', I further suppose, you are used to 'mods' and therefore didn't install the 'patch' over a clean 4.09m version of your game?

Most, if not all, gaps are no more (they've been fixed), simply not (yet?) in DT's IL2. 6DOF is not only (to a small extent IMO) more efficient, it's much more immersive.

This is very true, no way 6DOF actually adds to realism, strapped in his seat the pilot most certainly couldn't look around like that.
I see how it's more fun and immersive as it gives you higher 3D impression so to say so one may have that "in the game" feeling, but strictly realism-wise with current implementation gives you more "I'm sitting in a plane in the museum" kind of realism instead of "I'm flying in combat"...

I am pretty shure those pilots tightened their straps when it became necessary!!
To have situational awareness (being able to look around, especially at the 6 o'clock position) adds very much more safety in a combat flight as being securely strapped to a plane.

there is evidence in Julius Meimberg´s Biographie 'Feindberührung' where he forgot to strap shoulder belts back on prior a belly landing.

Had alot of headache after ramming into his revi.

He statet that weeks before he didn´t strap on shoulder belts because they limited his ability to look around in his systematic manner.

So: 6DOF adds alot of immersion. Even without historical proof it would provide a more realistic trace of objects in the game. Better when taxiing, for open formations, for sa, what else does one need to be convinced?

Plus: it´s already there!!!

Tradeoff is so minor that I really would enjoy seeing 6DOF in a official release. Especially because modded servers with 6DOF would provide a more realistic and more immersive gameplay. I think the absence of 6DOF in official patch will be a showstopper for non-modded servers in the long run.

If any further demo of why 6DOF is necessary for realism, it's due to the inability of dev, to date, to give a sense of steroscopic view in games.

Try this experiment: put your hand vertically (as a shark fin) in front of your eyes, between you and something small (that is a few meters in front).

Focus on your hand---->you don't see that small thing behind your hand, your hand looks solid.

Focus on infinite---->your hand looks half transparent, you see that small thing behind it.

It's exactly the same with cockpit bars, when you focus on them you should see them, when you focus on infinite you should see the sky behind those bars.

Since this effect of stereoscopy is missing in every simulator, 6DOF is the "easy" solution to overcome this omission, you lean to see behind the bars. Same can be done on some aircraft with shift+F1 even in 2DOF, but not in every aircraft (shift+F1 leaving one or more bar in the same blindspot direction), plus the abrupt transition is (imho) much less immersive.

I wonder how much of that reasoning is based on the view angle being the field of view and the head position... without taking into acount the amount the eyes can turn . Try looking behind you with shoulders locked to the back of a chair, like being strapped into an aircraft seat. Your real FoV will see 360 degrees.

Have the rockets been changed? Every time I fire them now they hit below the sight line, what ever covergence I set.

Thanks TD!!

Bomber Pilot About The New 4.10m Patch
 

I really appreciate your voluntary team work team for developing this extraordinary IL-2 flight simulator and game! You are working with correct spirit of realistic touch to history and flying! Here are my first impressions as a bomber pilot about the new 4.10m patch.


Good new things in 4.10m:

- Fine new planes, these are always welcome, thank you!
- More selection of difficulty settings for added realism.
- Possibility to set channels to navigate by radio station direction finding.


The Bomber Faults in 4.10m:

- New safety fuse (bombs that require some time to cock) prevents low precision bombing.
- Most bombs are still launched as pairs, not one by one.


Suggested improvement to fix safety fuse low bombing fault:

The new 4.10 m bombs safety feature that require some time to cock bombs prevents the way of low precision bombing like 'slide bombing', 'bounce bombing', 'skip bombing' and in general all low delay precision bombing modes. Bombs just won't any more explode when hitting targets low..! This safety fuse alone makes 4.10m for an advanced bomber pilot unusable. I still have to keep to 4.09m to practise bombing... :(

In reality, bombs were fused with suitable delays for each mission. For example, Finns sometimes precision bombed bridges low with a group of Blenheims carrying bombs delayed for 30 secs with no initial safety delay. This allowed the bomber group to drop bombs quickly and accurately low and the whole group would we away before the bombs exploded 30 secs later. A 4.10m style forced safety fuse would have prevented bombs from exploding.

To preserve low precision bombing methods in IL-2, I suggest to either remove the new 4.10m bomb safety fuse, or better still, to let pilot set the safety fuse on or off.


Bomb SALVO Fix to Consider for the Next Patch?

The otherways very realistic IL-2 has got from its beginning one great bomber reality flaw: The bombs are always dropped as pairs only. There is no chance to set bomb SALVO for bombing drops individually, one by one, as in reality. :(

It may seem a laborious job to set all bombers for one by one bomb SALVO. However, there are good news: It already has been done! :grin:

There already is a 'Weapon Control Mod' to fix IL-2 bomb SALVO built by ZloyPetrushkO that has proved to work well. I have test flown with it for months and have only good to say about it. The Weapon Controller lets pilot set into IL-2 conf.ini file the SALVO to drop any number of bombs individually or in pairs or at desired intervals! Now this is like it was done by the bomber crews!


Bomber Pilot's Wish Nr.1 :!:

Maybe you could consider to add this 'Weapon Controller' bomb SALVO fix to next IL-2 patch..? If not yet to 4.10m, maybe the one after it?

This is a shy bomber pilot's wish who would like this flight sim keep and improve its fine feeling of reality!

More about the 'Weapon Controller' to fix the IL-2 flight sim bomb SALVO on another thread.



Best Regards for Fine Work! :grin:

- J. Hartikka -

IL-2 Virtual Bomber Pilot

Finland

Agreed with that. There’s another example of an unrealistic effect we take for granted: the zoom forward.
Our real life eyes are obviously unable to perform such feat, but they see much better details such as instrument dials, and they are able to focus o a restricted area, such as when you look in the gun-sight.

This is true only for young people with good “neck swivel”. And while looking to the far rear, you loose binocular vision, because nose blocks one of the eyes. The whole topic of vision is a complex one. Surely 6DOF would be cool, but to be realistic it should be severely restricted. Shoulder harness apart, fighter cockpits were tight and cramped, and there was no much way to move around.
I fly with an old motorglider, and I must wear my cap with visor turned to the rear, just to have a little movement.
Perhaps, asking for a 6DOF within a restricted box could reduce some of the developers worries about unfair advantages (and obtain a better realism).

From Readme:


Dunno, if it can explain your observations.

Is VisibilityDistance=3 the maximum? It feels like things pop up later then I remember it (2 years since I've flown it though). But smaller cities seems to pop up when you are almost too close to adjust your path to bomb specific targets.

S!

Use VisibilityDistance=3 in conjunction with LandGeom=3 and goes without saying, works only in Perfect mode aka HardwareShaders=1. The popping up of towns and other items is like a ring around your plane and usually the pattern is irrelgular. How I bomb is that I align way out from target to the general direction of target and then finetune closer in as you can usually see a town as a lighter patch in the "flurry" landscape far away.

I suspect this object thing popping up very close is due IL-2 is more CPU heavy than GPU. No matter what monster GPU you have Berlin will choke your system. What would help might be that TD could assign more work to the GPU and make IL-2 code run on more than one core effectively evening out the work load for smoother gameplay in object intensive areas. Would be a great thing :)

Thanks a lot! I had landgeom=2 will try it out later today

We are simulating a day in the life of a WW2 pilot and I don't know if there were any of ages above 40. If we were simulating a pilot of that age, your 'avatar' would maybe be assigned a desk job as a CO. :)

Loosing binocular vision is a moot point, since 3D displays have an even lower market penetration than, oh... pick a piece of hardware we flight simmers use. With monocular vision, one still can determine where that dot on your six is. ;)

The restriction of movement should be a "box" defined per plane, as we all know they varied from bf109 tight to P-47 roomy. If future simulations were to have this limitation, it would be nice to have the possibility to toggle for harness slack or tight, giving a large and small "box" respectively. Slack harness manoeuvres would have the dangers similar to reality. The view limitation should naturally be investigated on a case-by-case basis, taking real circumstances into account. Like for instance sitting on the parachute gives an approximately 4" or 100mm higher line of sight through the gunsight and out onto the wing, making mistakes of simply setting the viewpoint "x" distance a thing of the past. :cool:

410m Safety Fuse Ruins Low Bombing
 

Yes, it is a safety delay that prevents bombs from exploding when bombing low. Alas, it also prevents low bombing, too! In recent 4.10m mission I was advised to drop from minimum alt of 500 meters..! For precision bomber, denying 'jabo' bombing this is like denying fighter pilot from shooting closer than 500 meters to target..! :mad:

In reality, bombs were fused for each mission bombing style. Original makers of IL-2 flight sim have made very fine bomb bounce modeling to enable low accuracy bombing styles like ground 'slide bombing' and ship 'bounce bombing' or 'skip bombing'. Now all these low bombing styles are denied from us with the 4.10m safety fuse!

If there are bomb salvo settings, please let pilots set them! Safety fuse style forced 'idiot bombing' modes are good for AI pilots, but many human pilots like to learn precision bombing the real way - low! So please either remove that safety fuse from the next patch or let people set it with other bombing salvo settings -quite like in reality..! :grin:


All the Best,

- J. Hartikka -

IL-2 Virtual Bomber Pilot

Finland

Links: Weapon control mode to set SALVO to drop any number of bombs individually or at desired intervals - http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.ph....html#msg33351

no they didn't.

because in reality this type of bombing never happened.

Precision Low Bombing Examples - No Safety Fuse Allowed
 

:-P U trying to rewrite history I guess..? :rolleyes:

In reality, bombs were fused with suitable fuse delays for each mission. 4.10m style safety delay fuses were used for high level bombing. Precision low bombing fuses were different to level bombing fuses. For example, Finns sometimes precision bombed bridges low with a group of Blenheims carrying bombs delayed for 30 secs with no initial safety delay. This allowed the bomber group to drop bombs quickly and accurately low and the whole group would we away before the bombs exploded 30 secs later. A 4.10m style forced safety fuse would have prevented bombs from exploding.

U.S. bomber pilots were notorious for their 'skip bombing' tactics - flying fast very low over sea to bounce bombs from water to the side of a ship - which are said to have made Japanese ship crews very scary for American bombers during latter part of war. Bombs would not have worked with a 4.10m safety fuse.

'Slide bombing' was used at least by German 'Jabo' pilots with ground battle versions of FW's, for example. They would approach the target very low almost parallel to ground and drop bomb so it would slide on ground to hit the target. Bombs were furnished with delay fuses for these low bombing styles of course. No 4.10m safety delay was set to these fuses, either!

I bet some readers of this thread know more examples of low bombing practises. 4.10m style safety fuse could of course not be used for these bombing styles because it would have prevented the bomb from exploding in target. That is why I would like to ask to please remove the safety fuse from 4.10 patch... :grin:


Regards,

- J. Hartikka -

IL-2 Virtual Bomber Pilot

In Il2 the bomb never "slides" but always bounces if the angle is right.
And skip-bombing is still possible by dropping from 30m in level flight!
Also the fuse delay is still working as usual, only the arming delay is added.

You are misinformed, or better to say, your information seems to be not very detailed.
Such lowest attacks as your described, happend very seldom, as it was most dangerous for the plane, that did it (i.e.bombs could bounce back from water or surface and hit the plane itself). I think, you overestimate, what you call 'very low'. In a WW2 plane, flying 400km/h and more, even 50m is very low!
Most players used this tactics, because it was too easy. I'm quite glad to see someone addicted to bombing (as most players only seem to be 'fighter jockeys'). The more you should be happy about doing it more the real way.

The 2second fuse arming is a very average number (thats why it was chosen). Most times were larger - depending on bomb size and blast radius.
Its still not a perfect display, its still very abstract, but its much more realistic than before and thus playing will be more realistic. We really digged into that topic, reading and discussion as much information as possible (not just stories). We wouldn't do this only by 'guessing'.

EDIT: BTW - this feature was included by one of your compatriots. :)

Need server realism setting info
 

I've already posted about this in the general Forum and in over 20 views not one answer, in trying to set up a server on FBDJ - I and my squadmates cannot find any reference to where the settings for difficulty ie:

difficulty GLimits 1
difficulty Reliability 1
difficulty RealisticPilotVulnerability 1
difficulty RealisticNavigationInstruments 1
difficulty NoPlayerIcon 1
difficulty NoFogOfWarIcons 1

are supposed to go, can someone who is familiar with the FBDJ please provide this information? Without it all these great features are not available. I would have thought that it would be easier to find this..

Posted your question on our board, Krt_Bong. :cool:

Your remark would be ok if ships reacted to bombs in a realistic manner. In reality, the blast of a bomb next to a ship would cause a shockwave damaging the integrity of the ship hull, causing the metal to be torn appart, leaks, etc. In IL2, only a bomb that end glued to the hull will cause any damage.

In reality, pilots could suppress the ship AA guns by straffing the crew operating it, and then torpedo bombers or skip bombers could attack the ship with no or less risk to the aircraft, what you can't do in IL2 because the damage model of the ship doesn't include any crew. With your parameters, the attack of ships is way more difficult as it was in the reality because AA can't be suppressed. Flying at 30 - 50 meters to skip bomb while the AA is firing at you (with of course sniper AAA as we have in IL2, which is, like the AI gunners, totally unrealistic) is suicide.

Fuses should be at least settable by the pilot, like convergence.

Don't forget that more extensive changes to ship DMs are already planned for 4.11. Perhaps this fusing feature would have been better left out until these DM changes were added.

Yep, it should have been done the other way round. And please do the same for tanks. When I drop 1 ton of bomb at 10 meters from a tank, the tank might not be destroyed, but I'm sure the crew is at least wounded by the shockwaves, if the tank is not flipped upside down !

Yes, we need better DM modeling for tanks and vehicles, its not realistic to have only 2 damage states, 'undamaged' and 'destroyed'. For example, aircraft in Il2 have to loiter around (esp. if using gunpods) and pick off each individual vehicle until it reaches the destroyed state, same thing with bombs, a near hit does not do much if any damage to tanks.

What about the 2 secs for dive bombers? How is a Stuka or Pe-2 meant to operate?

what should be the proplem with the 2sec fuze and divebombers ????

perhaps you released your bombs much to low in the 4.09 past ?? ;)

I'd say that they have a minimum safe pull-out altitude which ensures the 2 sec. timeframe for fusing.

even more having the new G limits in mind..................

anyone else has the "proplem" that the "automatic AI" setting (when you swithing between the more seater positions) is not working like in 4.09 anymore ?

No its working. You can disable it though.

i dont get it :(

Ju88, automatic switch is ON - switch to gunner, you can aim, but the pilot is going AUTO :(
MOST annoying in a bombrun..

automatic switch OFF, you switch to gunner, you fly the plane, but you can only control the gunner if you manually disable the "autopilot" of the specific gunner station.
when you retrun to pilot the gunner STAIS "autopilot disabled"...........


in 4.09 you had not to switch off (and on before leaving the position !) the AI of the gunnerstations. There was a setting in what you couls change in every gunnerstation, you had instant control of this station and you were still able to control the plane.

i cant manage to get this setting in 4.10 anymore.....
any help , when there were no changes from 4.09 to 4.10 ?

This happened to me with the 4.10 installation!
In your controls section do you have a 'autopilot automation' option (or similar,sorry can't remember the exact wording)
I had to assign a button to it again to make it work.

no, it works online, but not offline out of the easy mission builder at least.....

never flew offline campaigns :D

Pretty sure my problem was with flying in the QMB as well.

elsewhere on the forum someone answered my question;
"the simplest way of getting the proper difficulty settings into the dedicated server is to start the game, fly a quick mission with the wanted difficulty, go into "settings.ini" of the user in the /users folder and look for the [difficulty] section. You'll see a line that reads single=xxxxxxxxxx, with xxxxxxxxx being a number. You copy that number and put it into the confs.ini of the dedicated server, under the [NET] section in a line difficulty=xxxxxxxxxx.

Another way is to edit the server.cmd file, where you can list all difficulty settings seperately with for instance "difficulty GLimits 1". If you want to know the names of all settings, enter "difficulty" into the server console."

I relayed this info to the Guys who have access and assuming they understood it properly they made the adjustments and we still can't get the beacons to function, they will if I run the mission from my own PC but not on the dedicated Server.

edit- problem has been solved
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17968

put it in the Users/doe/settings.ini and it works in the server

More than 2 secs
 

TD, I appreciate your work, and I very much appreciate the effort towards greater realism. As far as I had time to check out, there are so many little improvements... Together, they make up for a clearly improved game play. THANK YOU!!

The only thing that bugs me in the new patch is ...yes, again - the 2 seconds bomb fuse arming time.

I don’t care for my fighter-bombing habits or easy gameplay, all I have in mind is realism.. And there, I do have my doubts about the 2 seconds limit.


O.k., now we understand better. You have studied and discussed the matter, and now, for the sake of realism, you don’t want people to bomb from ridiculous heights. This has been a nuisance, I agree. You say that at 400 km/h, even 50 m is very low. Agreed.

You also admit that the 2 seconds fuse arming time is “a very average number”. In other words, it’s a fancy value, a compromise. So your objective is educational rather than strictly historical. Did I get that right? :o

I acknowledge your research work and your good intentions, but mind it’s still a fancy value. You roll over J.Hartikka, a dedicated virtual bomber pilot, who obviously spent some time investigating the subject, without even asking for his credentials or reference material. You just ignore the questions of Ian Boys, a renowned veteran of the sim, not exactly a dumbhead. There was this other guy, Wutz, a real-life EOD expert...
What makes you so sure about this two-second feature?

Let’s take the example of dive bombing and do a bit of physical calculation:
Let’s assume a moderate dive angle of 45° and a speed of 500 km/h.
...Well, if you allow me to skip the mathematical details, here’s the result: 197 meters, roughly 200 meters minimum height for “dropping the egg”.
My in-game tests have confirmed this very limit. Of course it is considerably higher for steeper dive angles and higher speeds, getting close to 500 m for an assumed 90° dive.

It’s similar for another classical tactic, the low-level attack (no matter if it’s skip-bombing, slide-bombing or any other technique of the kind). A minimum drop height of 20 or 25 m would be alright by me, but this turns out to be not enough. Even 50 m are not enough. In IL-2 V 4.10, it’s got to be more to succeed. But then, you’re giving away the advantages of this approach altogether, i.e.
A) high precision on target
B) low vulnerability to enemy flak
C) the element of surprise

From a logical point of view, there’s nothing to gain in such a long fuse arming time if you already have a 1.5 or 2 seconds delay set in the triggering mechanism. At least, this is true for all the examples cited in the 4.10 manual. Same thing for the case of a bomb bouncing back up on you from the ground. If this happens, you have been too low, definitely...
What has all this got to do with the fuse arming time? :???:
Maybe there is something to it that I am not aware of, I don’t know...

Haven’t found sufficient historical evidence yet, it’s not so easy. One or two instances of personal testimony or original film footage won’t do here. I won’t be impressed either with historical instruction manuals or official guidelines.. The really interesting thing here is what was actually done on the front in WW II. So many examples show us that this was two different pair of shoes.
The issue is where the critical downward limit was and whether or not this limit was dictated by a 2 second fuse arming time.

I feel it would be impertinent to make any suggestions here after you spent so much effort and discussion on the subject. If you reconsider the whole thing or not, I’m just confident you know what you do and where you’re driving at.

Let me conclude with my congratulations
:grin:
GREAT WORK!

Ritchie

Glance at Low Flying History of a War Going Nation
 

Thank you for detailed answer Caspar! :)

In average, yes, the 4.10m style 2 sec Safety Fuse may be quite OK and realistic for strategic bombing of cities of the style that major war going nations used to do during war.

It also is considered a fact that vast majority of the air bomb tonnage was dropped in WW II massive strategic city raids during latter part of the war and that these bombs used in strategic bomb raids were equipped with safety delays.

So by this reasoning one could indeed force a 4.10m safety delay as an obligatory 2s bomb delay for all 4.10m players..! ;) However, there was at least one minor war going nation with alternative bomber practise, too...


Lots of Fighter Books - But Where Are Bomber Books?

You and Ritchie are correct also about the difficulty of finding info about the subject. It is very easy to find literature about fighter activities. If one wants to get info about wartime bomber work, it get hard. One really must dig the sources up to find original stories or reports told or reported by bomber crews.

As far as you try find bomber related historical evidence from internet you are left with very little to read. Sometimes one has to go back to an old and almost forgotten source of information: A Book. That, together with magazines, was the information media used before Internet took over as the main information 'Googling' source.

In my country, bomber pilots were in the 1930's trained among other skills for low flying. For example, I have read books about Blenheim crews training low flying in all weather, in rain, in snowfall, even in fog. They trained to read terrain and map by flying low both in luminous summer nights and in ever dark winter days and nights - and there was no GPS in those days!


Bombers Trained Low

They trained flying low over lakes, then over fields and finally low over forests. The altitude limit was clear: As close to treetops as you can get, or preferably below treetops whenever you can get... Even Finnish black and dark green camo painting was optimized to conceal a low flying plane against dark shadows of our spruce forests.

Bomber crews continued practise low flying during war because low flying it was found a good tactic to help keep concealed and even survive enemy fighters by diving to treetops.

Not without casualties, of course - Scattered remains of a Finnish DO-172 bomber lie in the bottom of the nearby lake bay of Kirkkolahti, Liperi. Its props hit surface of lake during a low flying training run and the pilot was forced to emergency landing in water.


Accidents More Dangerous Than Enemy?

However, a lot more bomber crew souls were saved thanks to good low flying skills during actual combat operations than were lost in training. Rather few Blenheims were shot down by enemy fighters and flak. Still more amazing with Finnish JU-88's and SB2's - none of them were lost to Russian fire!

Most bomber accidents were reported due to unreliable wartime engines failing on start or because of other regrettable technical failures related to poor 'Ersatz' building materials of those times of shortage about almost everything. Low flying accidents appear not be significant related to accidents due to the wear and tear of wornout precious planes always too few in number...

Some accidents were of course due to human errors. For example, another of the several plane ruins in my neighbourhood is that of a Ju-88, nr. JK-254, that fell to flat spin because of a fresh pilot inexperience in formation flying and crashed in water in Rauvanlahti, Liperi. That Ju-88 formation was on the way to help stop invading enemy tanks in the Battle of Tali and Ihantala which one of the biggest battles in North Europe. Enemy was stopped with efforts.


Fly and Bomb Low or High?

While Russian bomber groups were usually reported to quickly drop their bombs and turn together to escape at the same altitude as soon as they spotted Finnish fighters, Finnish bombers usually would spread out to try escape with help of clouds or by diving low to mislead enemy interceptors and, if succesful, to regather later or to continue the bombing mission each on its own. Needless to say, the bomber crew decided their bomb SALVO themselves unlike IL2 allows us do... :cool:

Bomber crews were sometimes practically grown together. For example, reconnaissance specialized bomber pilot Ville Salminen used to fly his hundreds of far reaching flights with his familiar crew whenever possible. His crew was his eyes. They would quickly and exactly tell as well the position of enemy fighters approaching from any direction or the direction of flak for the pilot to decide how to dodge. He was particularly skilled with flying on treetops. He is known to have survived a group of attacking first line Russian fighters merely by dodging them with his twin motor DO-172 bomber - by a tale told after war by a Russian fighter veteran. Salminen is one of the pilots I am interested in and sometimes trying to imitate his flying style, with my far inferior experience and talents of course.

Salminen and other recon pilots used to carry bombs to disturb enemy by bombing emerging targets during their recon missions, too. These surprise raids were usually ex tempore low attacks against enemy supply trains or convoys. He was an expert by good training and hard practise. His superiors would even deny him joining fighters to keep a good bomber pilot. He was awarded a Mannerheim Cross for good reason concerning his reconnaissance flight credits. Many of these flights were so confidential that they were not even recorded into squad flight diary.


Modern Traces of Low Flying Skills

Even in our days I got a comment of a Finnish Air Force trained friend of mine who had witnessed a NATO air excercise: "They flew nothing but high", was his not so admiring comment about the foreign air force flying style. So there appear to be some traces of traditional flying habits of a remote northern country still left even in its safety stressing peacetime air force... ;)




Yes Ritchie, there is a vast amount of historical knowledge either lost or forgotten or concealed from our eyes..! Years ago I got a rare glance at an old wartime 'Official-Use-Only' labeled tight print illustrated catalogue of fuses - only fuses and nothing else. My eys opened to see the incredibly numerous selection of these small components of warfare that are normally hidden from our eyesight. Unfortunately, that catalogue has gone lost after its firearms specialist owner departed from this world, but the history still remains as well as my astonishment at it.

The last wars of this country were a shared effort to defend the nation from unwanted liberator takeover. Whole nation did everything it could to keep its way of living. We call that 'Spirit of Winter War'. If there was something needed for defence not available, it was designed or substituted or copied to meet the needs of the fighting young men on the front. Industry made a huge effort to support the battle with its production, not minding expenses, rewards or even getting payments for its bills. The industry provided anything that was desperately needed. Including fuses.

Looking it from this wider perspective, it is ok to permit us the one and the only correct 4.10m 2 s safety fuse that is common for all IL-2 virtual pilots. However, restricting to just one fuse for everyone in the virtual wars will not invalidate the fact that in real world other fuses existed back then and still exist. So let's play the virtual 4.10m wars with the one-for-all 4.10m safety fuse and enjoy - it will anyway not change the reality of vast selection of fuses used by each war going nation back in those days..! ;)


Regards,

- J. Hartikka -

History Addicted Virtual Bomber Pilot

Finland

Photo Appendix: A few bomber related photo copies from the wartime album of my uncle Toivo. He served during war on the nearby airport of Joensuu as a Blenheim mechanician. The cylinder that seven man are cheerfully riding on in one of the photos is a 1000 kg bomb. A taking off Blenheim is equipped with ski landing gear. Dornier DO-172, Nr. DN-55 is in winter camo. Shot down and captured bombers like this DB-3 were repaired and 'recycled' into use to get more desperately needed planes. JU-88 with a curious unknown gun installation pointing from its nose is possibly some special field modification. '

More wartime photos on messages http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...782#post213782 and http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...588#post216588


P.S. I am still playing with 4.09m to feel more real with fuses... ;)

excellent, love the fulmar, didn't realise it was so fast! :grin: well fast compared to my Hs 129.

Realistic torpedos is a real pain though, trying to keep height, speed and aim the aircraft .. toooo hard! :(

He111

fly the SM79, its performance equals perfect its torpedolimits ;)

its a 20mm MG-FF, a very common modification on Ju88s on the easternfront !
like in the ingame Torpedo Ju88s , very they are unfortunatly almost senseless (in game !) :(

i realy wish for a new Ju88 variant , perhaps called "Ju88A-4 mod", with such a MG-FF in the nose (means also NO Lotfe !) , no divebrakes (they were often removed) and overworked bombloadout options (get rid of these 18 and 28 SC50 loadouts, in game only the second bombbay is working. and that carried 10 SC50).
The Cockpit, if im not totaly wrong, could be the same as the torp Ju88 :)

Such equipted Ju88 were VERY common at the easternfront !

Hi Ritchie!

A compromise, yes. But the intention wasn't 'to teach them right', or such (to get the bad sound out of 'edjucational'). It was rather a logical step, after torpedos got a rework, closer to their historical equivalents, so did the bombs and first thing, that was noticed, was 'there is not fuse arming delay!'. So it was introduced. Thats simply as it is. We didn't expect a discussion like that, really! In fact, I was personally worried by the outcome it would have regarding the gameplay (mission building) and wanted it to be an option. But it wasn't seen as too critical. So desicion was made to have it like it is now.

Oh, we always ask for, better to say demand reference material if someone wants to point us where we went wrong. That was said already often.

No I didn't. I am just not each day online here. Its not my job. I would go insane, if I read each page myself.
I just try to keep communications up occationally, while most of us are too busy with the interim patch. I just am not very good at it, as I have no clue about most issues.
I try to transport a bit of our intern thinkings/discussions to here. I cannot talk about everything of course.
This discussion is already on three places with voluminous postings and its quite hard to follow.
I know Ian very well (guess he knows me too), I know he is a capable fellow and I didn't meant to ignore him. Even more, as he got an answer by 1.JaVA_Sjonnie, which I find quite adequate.



That sounds quite realistic. If I remember correctly, dropping height in Ju87 was ~500-1000m. So with 200m you are on the extrem lowest edge of what is possible, but still...



Sure. Advantages, that real pilots didn't have. Not as it was in game.
I am well aware, why it was so favoured by many virtual pilots. ;)
People were used to be able to sink large ships alone. Its no longer this way.
It wasn't directly intended, but as an automatic result, it is quite good.

Disadvantage now is, that its not correct for a few types of bombs (mostly small and smallest), for some its not historical at all, as there were types, that didn't have the possibility for fuse arming at all.
However, you could have all your mentioned advantages back, if fuse arming times would be correct for indivial bomb types, but still you wouldn't be able to sink ships alone, because they are simply too small to sink them in one run.

Its a security installation. I can imagine more than one situation, where its logical/practical to have. Individual nations wouldn't have invented and used it, if it was for nothing. :)
We didn't invent it for the game, it was already there back then.


Thats why we use, what we have. Paper is the best ressource we have, maybe its not THE best, but better than guesses. If there are better ressources, we use them. (BTW: show me a valid photograph of a Hs129B-3 with a ZFR 3 B or test results scans and you'll get one!)

Of course it was not! Its a compromise.
Maybe we will refine it, but thats out of my knowledge currently.

Hi JHartikka!

Thanks for your posting. I do not feel to be able to answer your (long) posting now equally to Ritchie's, but let me say, I have read it all and as I said, I really welcome players, addicted to bombing (not the usual type of player)!

Thanks also for your interesting stories and the pictures!

Please - if you find any reliable ressource for what finnish pilots used regarding fuse arming time, then don't hesitate to share it.
We are not too proud to recieve convincing material and probably be ablte to change things to a more correct way.

C.

@JHartikka
Thank you for sharing and posting those photos from your Uncle Toivo. Those personal treasures are always appreciated.

On a related note, is the B-3 cockpit different from the B-2?

(I don't have Il2 installed on my computer).

2 more secs
 

Hi Caspar,

many thanks for your detailed answer. Very much appreciated.
Sorry if I sounded a bit impatient. Of course it’s alright if you take your time, I’d hate to see you go crazy, can understand that... :-x

I gave some points of view on this one 2 seconds issue, I see it’s adressed seriously. Couldn’t demand more.

:idea: We have a huge military history archive here in my home town, one of the biggest in Germany (Militärhistorisches Archiv Freiburg). I’ll go there and see if I can find something relevant about the topic. I don’t promise anything though due to restrictions on my time schedule, and after all, this probably is a case of needles in a haystack.

@J.Hartikka
Thanks for your interesting contribution!

Ave
Ritchie

I am curious. Given the new torpedo restrictions w/speed, why would it be an "improvement" to have the divebrake removed from the A-17 model? Anybody?

Found that when I was very excited to sink something...NOT anymore!

Acceleration and deaccelaration in game is not the same as in real.
As example remember how difficult it sometimes is to lose Speed during a landingapproach......

And in a Multicrew torpbomber the Pilot was often supported by a crewman/copilot who told him speed And height!


These Ju88 modifications for "easternfront" Planes were usefull because the Lotfe bombsight And the divebrakes were not needed in the more commen lower level kind of operations they flew. And if there was a mission about Levelbombing the Units always still had some Ju88 without the 20mm canons but with Lotfe that acted as leadbombers than :)
But the time of steap dives was over anyway... the plane got heavier and heavier and the AAA was much to dangerous. Swallow dives were what was used than,and therefor no divebrakes were neide.

Allow me to sound stupid (I'm good at it). I was looking at the QMB and went straight to the option which I understood was being included, where a player could have 32 v 32 aircraft. I only see 4 aircraft per slot, so a total of 16 v 16, which is what was already there?

Did the feature not get in, or is it still being worked on?

Just asking for clarity, cheers, MP

You should have a Next button in the right bottom corner. It leads to another window where you can set additional 4 flights per each side.

On the bottom right corner you'll see a button called "Next"

Enjoy

Sven

Edit: Whoops TD was there to save the day before me! Anyway, 4.10 still fascinates me every single time I take to the air, good work!

Yes it is. Mainly differences are in the panel layout and the gunsight.
But they are rather small.

Thank you, I was just expecting a drop-down of 8, not 4....damn that pesky 'Next' button!

Cheers, MP

Cool, thanks. I'm sure you guys have seen the one (that I know of) cockpit photo of a B-3, so I was wondering if that was taken into account when modeling it.

Flying the HS-129 is some real fun, this evening I noticed something rather funny but at the same time really clever!

I don't know if this was always the case since I don't shoot up trains that much, but have a look. You'll see it soon enough.

Any possibility to get the performance values of 4.10 planes into IL-2 Compare file format? (the same way you provided them for 4.09m)

I'm not sure why but I finally have the settings I wanted; due to the improved Joystick Screen or if something has changed in the FFB code, but my MS FF2 is more precise and force feedback stronger than ever!

http://www.iamboredr.com/files/e73c2f6cbe9b.jpg

I Love it! Thanks TD!

Парни, когда следующий патч? When will b next patch?
 

дорогие друзья, когда планируете следующий патч? уже случится до выхода боб?

с уважением.

Can someone pls tell me what makes FW wing so sensitive for -G?

What is -G level for FW, La and Spit?

Thanks team Daidalos! I downloaded 4.10 and 4.101 yesterday. Great fun! The Henschel is a rude plane:)

Can someone tell me which volume control determines the volume of the radio beacons? I can just barely hear them when even fairly close to the boat. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for a great patch!!

6DOF is only a debate if you don't have it
 

I have my FAA and TC pilot's licenses, I ALMOST finished my Commercial license (but ran out of money), and my best flying buddy got his aerobatic rating because he is crazy.

You can turn your head, you can look behind you, you can move around. I was flying two weeks ago upside-down in a Citabria and tried it. Even checked through an aileron roll. You just don't tighten the shoulder straps as much. I also still retain my hands in flight, so I can tighten and loosen as required. Admittedly, it doesn't feel so good upside-down to be hanging in the seat a little loose, but if my life depended on it I am sure I could deal with it.

I use TrackIR, because it feels like I am really in the plane. Ever try pulling the Johnson-bar flap handle in a Piper Cherokee sitting bolt upright? It's just not realistic to expect that my head won't move around.

Legit downloads (direct2drive, UbiShop) are 4,08m

Ok... I've got the original IL-2 1946 in the box. Can I just install from the box then install 4.10, then 4.101?

Or...

Do I need to go back earlier to 4.08, 4.09, 4.10, 4.101?

Looking for the easiest/cleanest way to update...

megapatch over at Mission4Today will do it in one.
Good hunting.

You need to apply all patches consecutivly (4.08, 4.09, 4.10, 4.101) and make backups in between!

• IL-2 1946 in the box is 4.07
• The patch 4.08 is on the CD/DVD
• Theres a post in another thread with links to 4.09, 4.10, and 4.101 (here)

Artist