That's what I've always suspected for the older maps that came with the first Il-2 and Forgotten Battles.
Maybe this explains the relief height inaccuracies that can be seen on some of these maps. For example parts of the Balaton map seem to be too flat, especially the Bakony region north of lake Balaton.

Load up your game, go into the quick mission builder, select Hawk 75A-3 or A-4... await pleasant surprise.

Thinking about doing a new map? I've been looking into the details myself...

What about mohawk?

My own map building attempts were very disappointing. I once had created a map of the northern Kuriles, but when I first opened it in FMB the scale was completely wrong. The islands were much too small and the hills too high. I was unable to fix the problem and that was the end of my career as a map builder.

China.

Nuff said.

But SRTM data isn't perfect either, since it represents the way the world looked ca. 1990-2000 or even later. After WW2, there was a lot of growth and development in the USSR, China and Europe, and even in the Pacific, so you always have to go back to WW2-era maps to make sure that you've got your towns and cities the right size and to be sure that things like reservoirs and coastlines were actually there in the 1940s.

As an example, I believe that the CoD team wasted a lot of effort creating the "footprints" for British towns and cities based on current data, forgetting the fact that the landscape of the UK is incredibly different from the way it looked 75 years ago.

As another example, volcanic eruptions have made some major changes to the coastline of Hawaii and Rabaul since WW2.

I suspect that might be too difficult for my first go around. A lot of roads and towns and such... I'm thinking of Leyte perhaps. A lot of ocean and only some roads and towns in one area.

Which part? There's a heck of a lot of China to model!

It's also a bit trickier to get right because in addition to the massive development which has taken place in China over the last 30 years, during WW2 the Chinese breached levees along the rivers as they retreated, leading to a lot of flooding that isn't shown on immediate post-war maps.

Related to that, parts of China have wet and dry seasons, so maps of riperine areas during the wet season would look very different from the same map during the dry season. (Technically, this is true for other maps as well, for example, a map of Russia during the spring thaw should have the rivers at a higher level, with flooding along bottomlands.)

Next, the landscape of China can be very diverse, and IL2 maps are quite limited in the number of textures they can use.

And, finally, there aren't a whole lot of good, Oriental/Chinese objects or buildings in the game, so any would-be China map-maker would also need to research and create things like walled 1930s era Chinese villages, Chinese temples and pagodas (different from Japanese), Chinese city objects, etc.

My ignorant guess is that places like Hong Kong and Formosa would be easiest to model in terms of getting the water features right, but you'd have to do a lot of editing of SRTM data as compared to WW2 era maps to scale the urban area down and to get the coastlines back to their 1930s configuration.

I'm sure it's on the list somewhere.. just needs the British specific bits.

Using modern SRTM data provides an excellent and fairly quick start. Having done that its fairly easy to overlay historical maps in photoshop to adjust coastlines and river lines.

Getting the position of road and rail and urban boundaries right is not so easy due to the limitations of the game engine. The best you can aim for is just to get the right feel.

The biggest contribution to the appeal of a great map is probably the production of new artwork for ground textures and the inclusion of bump maps.

This is part of the Rabaul map by Bee. (still WIP)

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...ps06d16fe6.jpg

Looks good Asheshouse! Is that from the Team Pacific N-G map?

The thing that 4.13 and beyond really need are some great new maps. I see lots of stuff in development that go into Mod packs but I really wish they would make sure they were ready to go (no copyrighted textures, etc.) and offer them up for inclusion in an official map.

We need stuff for online dogfights, offline campaigns, online campaigns, etc. We have a good selection but there are, of course, more out there.

Asheshouse is right about SRTM data. A map could be built quickly from them. The difficult, or better say, time-consuming part is what follows. In particular, detailed maps with historical airfields and dedicated buildings and textures (e.g. Slovakia) may take a many-people team years of research and work.

On the other hand, I guess that adding another generic-looking map with textures and buildings from the current stock game will rise lots of eyebrows to say the least.

My (personal) two cents.

Hope to see soon new development update

The image above is from the Rabaul map I'm working on. I haven't seen anything from the PNG group for some years.

The above map was originally an abandoned early alpha from a Japanese group. It's accuracy was very poor and I've been working to get it right,
down to the individual named streets in the township. Using period maps, strike photos and topographical information I've also been able to reproduce
the damage to airfields and installations, to represent how the area looked in 1944 when it was under seige.
It's strictly a mods-on prject though, and utilises techniques and resources outside the default game.

Some more pics from various stages in the map's development if you're interested.

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...ps89af706d.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...ed_IV/15-4.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...ps9e2a6e6c.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...ps4514bf26.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...ps73f2357b.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...ps2f0c90a3.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...V/grab0273.jpg

I'm disappointed to hear its a MOD only product... but it certainly looks stunning.

That looks AWESOME Feathered IV!!! Can't wait to see it in game.:grin:

If I understand correctly, Feathered is offering his beatifull map:

Feathered_IV -- can you say what the copyright status is of the ground textures which you are using. I understand that you are generally not using stock textures. Are they original artwork?

I guess the build relies on "modded" objects, or re-skinned stock objects? -- but I guess that need not be a major problem.

The curved roads which appear in some of the images will not permit automatic route tracking in FMB, but they do look much better than the stock linear roads.

For a map like Rabaul, the inability to get vehicle columns to track properly isn't that much an issue, since the main targets of Allied strikes on Rabaul were Japanese airfields/aircraft and shipping.

An early P-38 F/G/H would go great with this map ;)

Hi Ash, the textures are all-new that I've made myself. Craters are part of the landscape texture, as the object ones never seem to look right.

Good point. The "angled" roads hurt the landscapes IMHO.
If I could choose I would prefer only curved roads in all maps, like those in the pics.
Of course it is necessary to add more waypoints since automatic route tracking is out of question but even so the game would have a better looking...

And what about campaign generators like DCG or DGen? There are waypoint number limitations per section IIRC. Good-looking roads would be pure eye-candy if no vehicles used them. :confused:

Any word on the new P-40's? I hope there aren't any problems with the new models, I really hope, they are coming, because I plan to use them in my solomon-campaign.

Btw: Early P-40's lost the tailwheel lock within one of the last patches - intention?

Noted in testing and yes this was intentional. The P-40 had a steerable tailwheel rather than a lockable one. Its not fully modelled but the P-40 does seem to have an easier time of it on the ground than many... so there may be a halfway measure in there somewhere.

A possibility would be to change the way that ground vehicles turn in IL2, so that rather than pivoting, vehicles make turns that follow an arc. Then, each curved road section in the game could be given the same arc of distance as a vehicle is programmed to follow during its turn maneuver. No only would this allow nicer looking roads, it would also make for more realistic looking vehicle movement.

Another possibility might be to program vehicle movement so when ordered to follow roads or railroads, they will follow a particular color "painted" on the map, or to follow roads according to map c (or whatever map layer is used to lay out roads). Likewise, boats could be ordered to follow rivers or coastlines using the same routine.

But that might be very heavy on CPU resources if you have lots of vehicles in the game, since each vehicle would have to check map c as it moves then calculate the angle it must turn to follow a particular road.

This option would also potentially negate the need for waypoints when following roads, except to make a vehicle stop or to go in a certain direction when two or more roads meet.

Guys, Guys, Guys,

Much of what you are asking for in these very complicated "wants" would mean a complete rewrite of the game engine, in essence a completely new sim.

Do you not understand that IL2 is very very old already and we are lucky to have a very talented group of volunteers who manage in their spare time to keep this old girl alive a little bit longer?

Some of the things I see you asking for are just outside the scope of a volunteer team who do this for the love of it.

I count my lucky stars every morning when I check the forum that it is still here at all, what with the publisher actively supporting a new sim that is meant to replace IL2/46 and CloD, and actually make money for them.

Be thankful for what you have.

Copy that ;)

Co pilot
 

How about possibility to fly in co-pilot for school? Bombers apart, there will be a/some dedicated aircraft (Tiger Moth, Texan, etc.) with this dual-seat capabilities?
Should be wonderful and could fix a lack coming from firs release.
Thx 4 your work;)

All this talk about traffic on curved roads in this game is nice and all, but...

When the game was first in development - or any game simulating a physical environment, for that matter - the environment, or world, was created as a platform with certain rules that all objects within it has to follow. How everything moves in the environment is dictated by rules formulated by the mathematical framework of that environment. IL-2s linear road traffic is one of the manifestations of that.

If one wants to go in and reinvent how road traffic moves in the game, he must go in and rewrite how that part of the environmental framework is built and how it functions, including all mathematical functions associated with the change (the "rules"). In other words, it isn't simply a matter of just telling traffic to follow curves or a color, instead of straight lines, as has been mentioned, but actually rebuilding the environment that allows for road traffic to follow curves.

As can be imagined, it would be a disproportionately large and complex task for such relatively minor effect, and one that carries prohibitive risk since making such a fundamental "core" change introduces the chance of unintentionally altering other parts of object interaction with the environment. Also, it also involves yet another instance of having to go in and change someone else's code, potentially without notes or guidance, and this is something that most coders try to avoid if they can...

Considering it's age, the current road system, while it's not aesthetically perfect, works well. If efforts are made to change how it works then it would obviously be more efficient to just increase way-point and road data resolution to something finer than the - IIRC - 200 meter minimum that the current environment enforces. If doing that risks breaking the world, though, it is probably better to leave it alone and work with what you have.

That's the problem with a lot of suggestions, not just on this thread but also one the "wish list" thread and many request threads I've seen on modding sites. Without understanding how the game is coded, fans have no way of knowing what's an easy change for the developers to made, what's "hard but doable" and what's impossible.

I take it as a given that TD's folks evaluate all those requests in light of their superior knowledge of how the game actually works. Some things, like realistic interactions between heavy bomber crews, NG-copyright content, or massive changes to how graphics work in the game, fall into the "never going to happen" category. Most fall into the "nice idea, but too much work/not something I want to do." category. A very few, ideas, however, fall into the "That's a great idea and it would be easy to implement." category, or even better, "We've been looking for a solution to that problem and you've just found it."

very good update. Will this plane have as an option four bomb racks under the wings as the N1K1-Jc did?

Only two.

Nice AA gun!

Very Nice Job!
Beautifull Airplane!
Thank´s TD!!!

Looks fantastic and that towed quad 50 will really shred a low flying jabo.

On the N1K planes how did the cowling guns transpire, if im tracking this right the 1st version had them the 2nd didnt and the 3rd removed the holes in cowling? Reason for my confusion is the fighters that did have mg had the backplates/buffer assembly in the cockpit, example ki-43 series.

Wooooowww tks :)

Looks great!

Looks great!

Thank you for the updates TD, Im looking forward to next weeks update :)

Thanks for the update DT,

Question, will the Quad 50cal gun be part of a convoy, or have it's own truck to pull it, and if either, will the player be able to "drive" the truck to where they want, or will they be in the gun, with no control over movement around map beyond preassigned way points?
I see it has legs for stability, is it going to be a stationary object? Or will those be retractable?

Thanks again,

il-2Crew

I haven't flown much over the last year due to my late wife's passing and my Father who was a WWII vet passed away a month later. I was in a hell hole for awhile.

Then I met a new lady and came back and gave 4.12 a go.

WOW!!

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...smG1qes3o2.gif

Cheers!
Wolf

Any N1K I think will be a real fan favourite. Some of the players on BF1 request maps specifically because they have the N1K... so more versions the merrier!

Glad to hear that your out of the hole Arctic wolf and hope you have a better year.

It's good to have you back, Wolf.

~S~

Glad to hear you, Wolf.
Be happy with new lady!
And I sad about the death of your father.
Veterans go away in infinity...
Best regards, GROHOT

I'm sorry for your father wolf who was in a real wwii battleground.Unfortunatly even the most worthy men pass away.

Does anybody else hope to see the monster JU-390 in the skies of IL-2?
Even in 4.14 it will be nice to see some flyable beasts (ME-323,JU-390,B-17,B-29) by the way if you happen to make the B-29 flyable you should add a bomb (you know what i'm talking about ☢

If you really want that, I think mods do have it.
I wouldn't add it to IL-2, for me its beyond the scope of the game, as this is a tactical combat flight sim, and weapons off mass destruction are best left out. There would be serious balancing issues IMHO.

The B 29 is available in HSFX, with the Atomic option.

The Bomb is very undermodeled, I suspect because of computer performance issues.

If you really feel the need to drop massive ordnance, the Pe8 with it 5000 kilo
bomb is already in the game and the bomb does far more damage than than the "atom" bomb in mods.

The B 29 is an interesting aircraft to fly, and is in another world compared to any other bomber in the sim, as it should be.

Simply don't add the Atomic bombs to its load outs!!

ok with the ☢ bomb if you don't want it don't use it.
In mods the UP3 and HSFX cockpits are lame.
I know that the game might be affected by this ☢ bomb,anyway with or without it the B-29 would be awsome!
As for the PE-8 with the FAB-5000 is great but I'm greedy on power of destruction,I accept it.

mission builder
 

Mission builder editor

The file selector frame is, initiallly, too small.
Whenever I enter the into mission editor i have to extend the frame.
It would be nice that file selector remember the last frame size...
...or increase the default frame size.

+1

And it would be nice, if I paste a set of copied objects, that the entire Set of objects can be rotated keeping its relative orientation towards each other.

Eg.: If I create a AAA position with 4 guns, sandbag barriers, tents and trenches, copy it to another point and want to change its orientation, this does not work.

Each object rotates around its original insert point.

Under "Edit" "Rotate Objects" you can toggle this behaviour. The only issue is that it doesn't remember what you select between loading the FMB so you have to recheck it every time you load up the FMB.

yesterday i told you about nice bombers,today i have another idea which will be an easy job for TD the YAK9-UT NS-45 version (the UT had a lot of mods on its main cannon).
The yak9k is good but the U series has one more cannon and better perfomance.
This exists on mod UP3 but it's not as it should be.
and yes the ut can bring this cannon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-9#Variants

Possible, yes! The Yak-9UT originally arrived with a very strange armament combination and back a few patches ago we did some research to make sure that it was accurately armed. The NS-45 came up in research and it would be possible to fit it to this aircraft, however, at the time the goal was to avoid any 3D mesh changes and that would have required the addition of a muzzle break on the end of the cannon barrel. So we didn't do it.

If someone wanted to do the work then it could be done very easily.

It's pretty rare that such a modification was done. As it stands, I'm not sure if that version ever reached a combat unit or was used at all.

Does anyone know when the Ki-44 Tojo Ki-67 Peggy and D4Y Judy might appear in the unmodded game? I know they already exist as mods. On a similar point I saw that Japancat has made new versions of several in-game aircraft, is Team Daidalos in touch with him about the possibility of porting those over?

Thanks Daidalos Team for all your wonderful work!
The copilot feature is very good! I really love it!
You guys are awesome!!

The Po2 cockpit made by Sita is ready, the exterior model just needs a rework!
why not make it flyable?
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachmen...0&d=1346005669

Po2 yes please!!

just because of it ... because External model not good enough ... rework External model is not so simple... in some cases more easier do a new external model from scratch ..

TD has a policy of requiring mod-makers to contact them about including their creations in the game.

Also, any proposed add-on has to meet TD's very high standards, as well as clearing copyright. Many mods, while superficially good-looking, have lots of hidden problems, or don't meet the required standards for one reason or another.

I think that TD can easily copy the muzzle break of yak9k to the yak9UT when ns-45 is selected,anyway if you know what 3d engine i have to use and which are the model's path i will try to do the job. :grin:

Any update this week?

i hope to hear some news from these
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=155

I suggest that we send all the recon planes find them.This will be dificult i don't know who kidnaped TD but i will find him.He will be happy if some welding will fix him.

now more seriously i have no idea i sent them a message about it but no respond

Yes those especially :)

will 4.13 have new map?

I love the feature that allows to create formations of up to 16 planes by clicking "set target". But it has a major issue. If you have a formation with 16 planes and for example number 5 gets shot, 6, 7 and 8 will crash into 2, 3 and 4. It's easier to understand if you see it happen, so i made a video on this issue. Please, fix it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1X2FV2vv8

never spotted this before. I gave it a go and yes this is a great error!

No anything update yet?

Yes update yet something no ?








.

No news is good news. TD said that they wanted to get the 4.13 patch out relatively quickly and I think they're doing just that. They've given us "teasers" of all the features they're going to add for 4.13, and for the last few weeks they've probably been "stomping bugs" prior to final release.

2 week ;)

Jk ... love your work :)

Will the new P-40s make it too 4.13?

Hope so. The poor P-40E and M series have the most innacurate 3D models out of any aircraft in the game. I'd love to see them updated.

Aren't the new P-40s being done by an outside developer? If so, that puts the project beyond TD's control.

I'm guessing that we WON'T be getting new P-40s in the 4.13 patch, since they haven't been shown in any of DT's teaser videos. I'd love to proven wrong, though.

Thats a huge exaggeration, there are other models which are far worse than the P-40s, like the He-111. But anyway, Im also looking forward, would be awesome if they were in 4.13. Especially if the K and N variants would be included too! :)

You don't remember the He 111 from V1.0 do you?

Now that was an awful model.

Currently the worst models in the sim are indeed the Hawk 87s and, interestingly enough, the IL2, with the Mig 3 a very close third.

Not sure whether they are in the right order but good nominations ...

1) Do hope to see the new P-40 3D models making it to 4.13

2) There is a mod (by Aviaskins team) which gave the MiG-3 a new look ...

http://zargos-skins.net/images/visio...-1rouge-01.jpg

3) Curiously, it is the namesake of the sim - the mighty IL-2 - that has not received much cosmetic upgrade, stock or mod.

Also its missing some skis too :)

http://www.wio.ru/gal2a/bomb2/il2-rs132ski.jpg

Just about all the models from the original IL2 game are showing their age. Not only are the models blocky and in some cases inaccurate, in most cases the DM are wrong as well (e.g., engines that are very likely to stop instantly if they get hit, very high chance of getting multiple control surface disabled results, poorly modeled armor plate and armor glass), and butt-ugly damage textures (notably the Bf-109 heavy damage textures which literally make the plane look like moldy Swiss cheese, although the IL2 and MiG3 damage textures aren't far behind).

Also, while I respect DT's reasons for not making changes (requirement that IL2 run on 15 year old hardware), just about all the planes in the game could benefit from a few extra polygons around the engine and wheels. Mods to improve cowling and wheel appearance really make old models such as the Ju-52 look better.

good old times... Original He-111 wasnt much better than the one in European Air War. (Microprose) :)
And yes, the Mig3, how could I forget that! Its indeed a terrible model.

Pursuivant

Until DT works on the issue, there is a solution that may help (at least partly) address this if you use mod - from vpmedia who did a lot of fantastic skins for IL-2.

http://www.mission4today.com/uploads...p_bf109dmg.jpg

Link: http://www.mission4today.com/index.p...etails&id=1876

Cheers,

I don't know, I'd put the MiG-3 as 1st, the P-40 actually has some semblance of curves somewhere :-P

MiG-3 and IL-2 definitely do need a revamp, however. Looking at the IL-2 and IL-10 side by side is painful, and the MiG looks like it's made of Lego.

I don't if thats correct but mig3 model lools like it was included in il-2 sturmovik 1.0 i don't know i began with 4.7 and one of my first impresions was the mig3 realy poor model.I hope for a new one in 4.13.1

Its is the most important think to revamp aircraft .... ??? IL2 isn t going to look like COD .. but we can work whit the gameplay ... don t you think ?!

Of course revamping aircraft isn't a #1 priority, but there are some that have aged horribly and are looking extremely out of place next to planes that have been added more recently (see IL-2 vs IL-10). It would be nice to see some of these planes brought up to par with current appearances.

I'm not screaming that 1946 needs to look as pretty as CloD or War Thunder, and I never expect it to be, but a bit of consistency would be nice. This doesn't have to completely displace TD's efforts in improving the game itself, either - bear in mind a lot of modeling has been done by 3rd parties iirc, point in case Macwan's P-40 revamp.

Needs a Lancaster Bomber
an English Channel Map would be good two but it's less important

Actually, I'm glad, in some ways, that IL2 doesn't look like CoD or even the forthcoming Battle of Stalingrad game. Many of the graphical features in those games aren't necessary for a realistic combat flight sim and just use CPU power and take developer time which could be used elsewhere.

IL2 strikes the right balance between "eye candy" and accurate flight performance and damage models.

While there are many ways in which IL2 could be more realistic, I don't really care about things like photorealistic textures, super high polygon count models, or self-shadowing cockpits. Instead, I'd far prefer a flight sim where the developers made absolutely sure that the planes flew, took damage and interacted with their environment just like the real planes did.

The only reason why I've suggested that DT improve the old aircraft models is because it's easy and modders have already done most of the work.

More realistic damage textures would be welcome because they help you determine where shots have hit and how badly damaged an aircraft is. Currently, the damage textures only tell you roughly where you hit and roughly how bad the damage is, because there are only "light" and "heavy" damage textures which are activated when a certain area of a plane is hit.

of course developers should pay more attention on phisics but mig-3 , p-40 and il-2 needs better 3D models they are square in some places.
By the way,avaibility for nose arts on all aircrafts (the most aircrafts had) would be another great idea in terms of graphics.

The problem with the current ability to place nose art on a plane isn't just that it's limited to certain planes, but that it's also limited to just certain parts of certain planes.

While it might be tricky to implement, I can think of two small "eye candy" to improve the current ability to place nose art.

First, the ability to put custom markings, like nose art, anywhere along a plane's fuselage without having to create a new skin for it. This would allow not just placement of the sort of nose art used by most of the Western Allies, but also unofficial markings placed on the fuselage (usually just ahead or behind the cockpit) or tail, as was done by some Soviet and German pilots.

Second, the ability for the game to automatically apply "kill flags" to some player-specified portion of his plane before each mission in a campaign.

As always, there should be option buttons to restrict these options to Air Forces where nose art or kill markings were used historically, and to allow a server host to disallow nose art/kill markings.

Eye candy = Woow ... but its still doesn t look great ( Limited by the polygone (forget your cockpit modder ... ) ... not like COD )

Gameplay = Woow ...and here come to many player

Bug fixing? Baby sitting? What is going on?

Lol

I want to know too. When will be the next 4.13 dev. update?

Two weeks?

While I sincerely doubt my modded IL2 install will ever leave my HD, I am truly excited for BoS. Rise of Flight was a real jump in flight sim fidelity, and it does run well on moderate systems like mine.

AMD Dual Core 2.5 Ghz
nVidia 9800GT 512MB
3GB RAM

It has been stated by 777 that if your system runs RoF, it should run BoS just fine, and that is exciting news to me. CloD is beautiful, but not nearly as functional IMO.

The argument of eye candy vs. content has been going on since the beginning of flight sims, and personally I don't really think the two are that far from each other in effect. All those high fidelity models help with immersion, as do self shadowing cockpits and all the 'little things' that help you forget your sitting in front of a screen.

What TD have done with this 10 year old game engine is nothing short of spectacular. IL2 is so large in scope that I don't think anything will ever really replace it, and with every TD patch it gets better and better.

Any update on 4.13's progress? The last update is a little over a month old.

I've purchased BOS, but I agree with the above post.

Calm down lads, I'm pretty sure the update is reaching its final stages. They are probably doing tests and bug fixes before release which usually takes alittle extra time.