There are No Sour Grapes here... Just a natural response to FCs blunt we will switch losing all three Axis in the FW to a PK. Lame response and shows very little respect for those that are aware of the problems.

I really doubt there are 1000s of people pulling DTs time at the moment. This is a very tiny community. There is a reason why some of them are in here looking at comments and responding.

In terms of the 38 you can look at the earlier posts and I'm glad some testing was done. At least it shows a willingness to look at issues that were raised some time ago and were blown off. I doubt we will see anything change per the norm even with documentation.

You might want to go back an read what I said because what you think I'm asking for from DT is quite the opposite.

The biggest issue back in the day was syncing and hitting power. Hitting Power IMO is there. I can easily Dewing a FW if given a good profile and I hit at convergence so they hit plenty hard. Its matter of looking at the dispersion issue. It was noted in that 36 page thread on UBI that for what ever reason the 50s had one of the largest patters in the game. That includes all other MGs. Has it been corrected? The only thing that thankfully has been done is the desyncing of the weapons.

Hmm I guess I'm not the only one that knows this problem along with a zillion other FW drivers over the years. I will put together a track then maybe just maybe it will get looked at.

What a bunch of arrogant and disrespectfull MF-ing whiners!!!!
S... the F.... up!!!!

:grin: you can't use us, be sure, but you can research and document problems."I'm right because I've been flying this sim from demo days" is not valid argument, if that is only backup people have than their request will be ignored.

We don't have any hidden agenda, our agenda is clear and transparent, we are making best possible sim out of Il2 engine, we don't work for money, we don't have to care about the balance and we don't have to care about red and blue side. Historical accuracy is the only thing that matters.

If you honestly check this thread you can see that we are dealing with issues that are proven beyond the doubt like compressibility and mach limits.

What we don't want to do is to make changes based on popular myths.

Polite and serious questions will get serious and polite response, I will not waste my free time on political correctness and whiners who can't backup their claims with facts.

Most talked doesn't equal real, some of the most talked things are pure myths.

Talkin' about agenda :), same thing we can say about FW190 or any other plane in game, there are always people who can't accept reality.

There is nothing in game code that would make FW190 any different than other planes with self sealing tanks, if you don't believe LesniHU and me than take a look at game code yourself or find somebody who you trust and ask him to check code. If you find an error I'll correct it.

Perceived difference is more likely caused with the fact that FW is extremely tough plane which will fly long enough for big fuel leak to happen. You will not get it that often in Bf109 simply because you will be blown out of the sky after first burst.

Here are few screenshots with P-51D losing all fuel too. You can see that I rotated wing 90deg to make it easier to hit fuel tank, in normal wing position it is way easier to cut off whole wing than to hit tank strong enough to produce big fuel leak.

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/357/79586554.th.jpghttp://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9648/70813376.th.jpghttp://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8037/13234481.th.jpg

I guarantee you that every plane with self sealing tanks behave the same, main difference is that some carry more fuel so it takes more time for whole fuel to leak.

Finally somebody who understand that there is no any practical difference between losing all three controls and losing elevator and ailerons.

More dangerous with 100%, more forgiving with low fuel. Nothing "uber" just slightly different and more interesting to fly.

FC

FC99 don't put words in my mouth please.

I think developers should be more kind and carefully on their answers for these expected requests/complaints. We are (at least i am) learning/reading very useful infos here. Regards...

I can see why Oleg stopped interacting with people on forums.

I totally respect his decision to do that.

Without him, our options are limited severely for quality WWII sims in the future.

I patiently await this patch and the next sim.

Can we please drop the insults? I thought there were mostly adults here. :???:

i thought that trading 3 control axies for PK was quite teh funneh :D


about the fuel leak bug:

i do remember that 190s (and P47s), after one patch, would catch fire VERY easily
after an outcry, the easy-fire stopped after the next patch..funny thing was, the "fuel leak bug" appeared then, as light puffy cloud at engine area trailing light smoke...IMO, as a "feelings experten", this was the same fire from before but cosmetically changed from fire to smoke to appease/fool the whiners

the really funny thing was, i found, that 2 patches later, the exact same thing could happen to (at least) all the other US types, F4Us, P47, P51, P38

in any event, it is what it is, i dont see why any type with seal-sealing tanks could not suffer catastrophic failure and lose all fuel in short order IRL...its annoying, but live with it, and set your glide hdg towards home



about TD looking into CoG issues with P51 (or any other type for that matter), AFAIK, il2 does not model separate fuel tanks in P51, hence there is no real problem in that regards?

People tend to resort to name calling when they don't know how to properly put up an argument to the issue raised. It's easier just to sweep it under the rug and call it whinning. What I find funny about all this so called whinning some how slowly but surely we see things change. I would say for the better to be honest. Getting rid of the muzzle flash during daylight is a great example. Also when others have been presented with documentation it's often overlooked as being Propaganda. What ever...

Typical closed minded stuff we've seen from day one.

It's okay you go back to what you think is important... After all this is about you and your efforts.

Us whinners will go back to the shadows where we belong.

I will adultly and polite ask a question to the TD



Have DT any plane, to correct the the sound in the game? I feel no matter what you correct in a P51 or what aircraft you ad to the game I miss the feeling of sitting in a aircraft, simply becarse of the ingame sound we have today. As an exampel what Im aiming for, I have add 2 videos that I fell are woth listen to.

My best regards


http://vimeo.com/6667705


http://vimeo.com/6682092

ok, I said I will elaborate, I will.
How to "kill" proof, shown in math to make it as simple as possible:
statement X*X=3*X
counterexample: X=2 => 2*2=3*2, not true => original statement incorrect
That is what I did in first reply.
your statement: accuracy of weapon X is too low because hit ratio is low
my counterexample: X=BK3.7 => hit ratio of X=BK3.7 is low but its accuracy is fine => logic behind original statement incorrect
It cannot be more simple. Will continue below.


Yes. It did not take much for me to figure out that your claim that "Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks..." are in fact common selfsealing tanks which behaves same way as other planes' tanks. That selfsealing works, contrary to your claim. Then I invested hour of my life to make actual flighttest showing selfsealing in action and post results, BTW something YOU could do too before even posting it. Then FC99 invested time of his life to make actual flighttest showing another plane leaking all fuel in matter of minutes, something YOU could do too before posting. I hope this will finally end the story and that I will not hear anything about hidden agenda or conspiracy.

You pointed several problems, ok, I did not comment them because either someone other did or I do not have all info at hand. I did not comment compressibility. I did not coment Hellcat performance. I did not comment .50 accuracy (!) (read this sentence again please) - what I did is that I killed your "proof". Before I could comment gun accuracy I would have to learn much about ballistics, rigidity of gun mounts, wings and nose and much other things. If you want .50 more accurate, you will have to do the same. Alternatively you can find historical documents and recreate test in game.

When you try to base .50 accuracy claims on hit ratio, I think its clear you can't be taken seriously. You really want to read in next readme "accuracy of .50cal increased because JG27CaptStubing's hit rate with them was lower than supposed"?

You're not acting like an adult, either, CaptStubing. :rolleyes:

For example regarding the 0.50 issue you want to raise you pointed us at a 5-year old 35-page thread at the zoo. Now where is the documentation in that? Where is the exact naming the issue? Are we supposed to read your mind or should we bring out the crystal balls to ask the forefathers if they know what you mean? I - personally, not as a member of DT - do believe that the issues on the Fw 190 should be at least looked at, but regarding the 0.50s I'm simply at a loss. Apart from the seemingly missing M8 loadout (IIRC, that is) I don't know what is it exactly that puts some folks on edge. Is it dispersion (remember that was changed way back after a load of whining at the Zoo)? Or what is it? I, for sure, don't know so I don't see what the fuss is about. :confused:

Then I don't know what you are complaining about? The dispersion pattern of .50 cals was 20 mils, after lot of demanding on ubi Oleg decided and changed it to 8-10 mils in a patch (I don't remember exactly which one was it). Now people complain that it is too tight. I hope that now the case of .50 cals is closed to you :)

Dear DT, some of you have stated that the way to get a bad/erroneous behavior fixed is to provide "actual data", sounds reasonable.

But what does constitute enough "actual data" to ask for a change?
For the Macchi 202/205 the FM seems underrated (turning performance above all).
Unfortunately tabular data or nice graphs so readily available for American planes simply aren't there.

What can be found though are reports (like the classic Feb'43 Guidonia one with comparison against the FW and 109) and interviews of actual pilots that flew those planes or against them in combat.
I'm willing to start to collect this data and make it available if this can trigger some modifications on your side.
What do you think?

I suppose green light was given by Oleg as there are hints about possible changes in CoG modeling in the future. Or I am mistaken?

Actually, the best fly by sounds iv heard so far from all the soundmods.

On the fuel drain debate, I believe the argument is that planes with multiple discrete fuel tanks a catastrophic hit in one tank would most likely drain just that tank, rather than the entire fuel system, but with the basic limitations of the Il-2 engine, a catastrophic hit in one tank would behave as a catastrophic hit in all fuel tanks. This is true for all aircraft in the game; it shows up most often on the US aircraft, because the USAAF and USN fighters have 3-4 times the max fuel of other comparable aircraft.

The "burning planes" was the same sort of thing. When someone sprung a leak, you could light it off by firing tracers through the leak cloud, and it would burn until the plane exploded, or the fuel ran out. People just noticed more often on the 190 and P-47, because those two took a whole lot more damage to bring down than other planes, but I found you could do the same thing to 109's, and pretty much anything else that took more than two burps of 0.50 cal. Was great fun until they fixed it.

The issue with the P-51 CoG is that as I understand it, Il-2 models the plane's fuel tank system as a single larger fuel tank placed at the aggregate CoG of the entire system, and as a consequence, all tanks are treated, in effect as though they were being drained equally. On most planes that is fine, because the fuel system as a whole is balanced around the aircraft's Center of Gravity. The P-51's is not. The Mustang has two 540lb (245kg) fuel tanks placed in the wing spars, placed very close the to CoG, and in the P-51B-10, they added a 3rd 510lb (230kg) fuel tank behind the pilot, about 3-4 feet behind the CoG. Picture, if you will, a P-51 with a 500lb bomb hung off of the radiator.

The upshot of this is, during flight, the center of mass of the P-51's fuel system move forward several feet during the first third of the flight, and then for the next 1,200 miles, just wobbles right a left a bit, as the pilot juggles the wing tanks to keep some semblance of roll balance.

Actually, after reading through all of what I just wrote, I just realized, a balanced fuel system isn't going to induce large CoG shifts as it drains. Does Il-2 even have the capacity to model CoG shifts as the fuel system empties?

Harry Voyager

Addendum: If you guys are able to produce a solution for the P-51 CoG, could you flow it over to the BoP dev team? At the moment, the P-51D is about the only USAAF fighter they've got right now, it could really use that balance fix.

Voyager said:

"Actually, after reading through all of what I just wrote, I just realized, a balanced fuel system isn't going to induce large CoG shifts as it drains. Does Il-2 even have the capacity to model CoG shifts as the fuel system empties?"

Precisely and at present no, IL2 doesn't vary C of G for fuel burn off.

Which is why comments like the P51 (at present) flies like crap because the C of G with the rear fuselage tank and its incorrect feed schedule are wrong shows a basic lack of understanding of the how the stock IL2 fuel system and C of G model is used. It also shows (imo) a lack of understanding of Pitch stability and the effect of C of G has on it.

One thing IL2 can do is vary C of G dynamically as a function of weapons use. If you want to get a feel for what flying with an Aft C of G in a fighter is like in IL2 then try this.

Jump in the YAK 7B set 25% fuel and 128 Ptabs. This results in a C of G way aft as the PTABS are internally stored aft of the cockpit.
Go for a fly to get a feel for it . Then do a 1 v 1 with a comparable opponent. I think you will agree its not pleasant to fly in this configuration. Drop the PTABS the C of G moves forward to a more respectable position and pitch stability improves dramatically and it becomes a comfortable old Yak again.

The P51 with fuel in the fuselage tank will behave similarly. So if modeling C of G movement as a function of Fuel usage is achieved, and manual fuel tank selection is possible in IL2 (so as was done IRL the Fuselage tank can be selected to feed first) then P51 pitch stability is going to be a whole bunch worse than what you now have in Il2 with fuel in the fuselage tank. As the fuselage tank fuel is burnt pitch stability will return to something close to what we now have in game.

The P51 with fuel in the fuselage tank was not a pleasant aeroplane to fly the various Flight manuals are full of advice like:

RAAF P51 Flight Manual AP780 :
When the fuselage tank is full, the aircraft is longitudinally unstable in all conditions of flight and tends to tighten up in turns .... no maneuvers other than gentle turns should be attempted.

USAAF AAF Manual 51-127-5 (PG 67)
Be especially careful in handling the stick when the fuselage tank contains more than 25 gallons of gas. In this case the flying characteristics of the airplane change considerably....The weight of this fuel shifts the centre of gravity back so the airplane is unsuitable for anything but straight and level flight.

....With the fuselage tank full the centre of gravity of the airplane moves back so far that it is almost impossible to trim the airplane for hands off level flight.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding this exactly. Currently the P-51 CoG is where it would be when the fuselage tank is empty?

What is making it so spin happy then?

low speeads and quike inputs on the joystick will cause it to snap roll..

Have you thought of adding the CA-13 Boomerang to 5.0 the Australian built fighter that fort over New Guinea ?
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/j...hilboomber.jpg

Yawn.. Please define "fine"

Just because you show some silly statement in math doesn't give any documentation or prove otherwise. "am I and others supposed to take your word for it?" Hmm suspect as usual. You can't because what your stating has nothing to do with the 50 cal...

Orginal statment still stands until you provide some actual test documentation. See how what you want is a double edge sword? The simple fact is a 5 year old thread with several tests done and screen shots you just want to go with whats what.

Lets just leave the 50s alone. Get to work and fix the damed Mach problem that I pointed out earlier.

Fantastic then. You have proven me wrong. Thank you for your testing. I feel much better now knowing this isn't a problem anymore.


Sure sure I will get right on that. I know you can't comment on compressibility because you probably don't have the documentation to back it up as presented earlier in the thread and by others. It's okay you comment on what you can.

I'm sure you and some others won't take me seriously because you specifically feel that you're better now that you're part of DT. What I find odd about all this is when I pointed out other problems ie the Mach issue somehow it came out to be true. So I guess I'm only partially wrong in all my emotions and other claims right? Grab a glove and join the game. I only make claims to improve the game. Oddley enough it's aligned with the betterment of the game. So relax turbo and take it out of gear.

Capt Love

There are plenty of screen shots and tests done to prove just that. It took an army to get some positive changes. Just like the nonsense about the muzzle flashes not be able to be addressed until a new game engine. Funny stuff aye?

It's pretty simple. I raised an issue and RC just want to sweep it under the rug.

Again I raised and issue with the the 38 and it's great to have an actual dialogue instead of being met with insults and name calling. Who is behaving like a child? I have yet to call anyone anything.

Again I mentioned certain planes breaking the sound barrier... Someone looked into it and low an behold 3 planes do it regularly so what gives? Does everyone need some sort of documentation to point out flaws with this sim? No I think not. The list is on going.

COG for the 51 is a great example. It's a well known issue that the plane models only one tank and all three tanks drain from that in order to determine COG. Funny enough that plane flies like garbage because the center tank doesn't drain first.

Is the sim perfect no but now that some effort is being put towards some new releases... Let's fix some of the most nagging problems of the sim before introducing more issues with other planes.

Seriuos Diversionary Question ~ Take Two
 

TD, 97% of active IL-2 players will appreciate whatever you do to improve the sim .. no user can insist on anything .. you aren't getting paid for this

what I'm curious about, is that just a few weeks ago, the next upgrade patch was going to be 4.10 .. then it changed to 5.0

4.xx would be upgrades to IL-2 1946 .. so ..

would not 5.0 be considered a major revision usually reserved for new DvD release ?

Ah so you go to a doctor, give him a phone number and say "Call my family. They know the symptoms I've been showing." ? That sounds silly, doesn't it? But this is exactly what you're doing right now. You still haven't said upfront what you think the issue here is. No airy pointing at ancient threads, no vague statements as "There are plenty of screen shots and tests done to prove just that." Why is it so hard to say this and this may be a problem and I suspect that and that may be the reason? :rolleyes:

And regarding adult behavior ... No, you haven't resorted to namecalling, but when reading your posts I couldn't help but "see" the major pout on your face.

Hey Capt. stubing, you arrogant b@stard, STFU!!!!

That 5 year old thread is from time approx 14 (fourteen!) patches ago. I did some tests and IvanK did some, I looked in the code too, but will not spend my time presenting results because you are still in 2004 set not to believe anything else that you already "know".
I did not comment compressibility because IvanK already did. FYI I already had these data before 2007 when I first modeled compresibility in il2 engine and effort to implement it to DT patches was already running for some time before this thread even started.
Otherwise you are right, I should get to work, I already wasted too much time on this conversation. Thank you for your participation in this thread.

Its hard question what is enough and what not. Combat reports have no value when comparing turn performance, you never know enough about the adversary. Performance can be estimated from airframe geometry and engine power but that usually does not take details into account, so every report from test done under controlled conditions helps. We welcome your effort, but please be prepared that it can end in conclusion "not enough data to support such change" or "we think explanation is different" or other dead end. Please use DT email for further communication.

Why not just put a thread for each aircraft type in a forum, instead of one big mess? Someone get creative and make it so the powers that be will be happy with the forum thread structure for these aircraft fix requests..


example:

Thread 1:
aircraft a) needs wings fixed. Supplied data.

Thread 2:
aircraft b) needs guns fixed, supplied data.

Thread 3:
etc..

Thanks LesniHU, it'll take a while to put together all the data... hopefully you (DT) are gonna be around for a long time so it's not a problem :)

Don't worry, I'm prepared and ok with a rejection if the data doesn't convince you, it's part of the game but I still believe it's worth a try.

I am really disappointed when reading comment from all sides (allies&axis) who flew the 202/205 describing them as "flying beautifully" and then go to IL2 basically finding myself on a truck with wings :rolleyes:

Further communications will be by email, have a nice Sunday.

Ummm since the only one that fits that description would be you(no disrespect to LesniHU) I would say that is it then :D

[youtube]9Cfu9ojyCJw[/youtube]

Hate to rain on the parade, but.....

It really doesn't matter how much users vehemently complain and voice opinions. Oleg and his team are still the final authority on approved modifications to IL2.

If Oleg wants the big frame bars in FW190, it means we'll still have them.

COG,fuel leaks,etc. will still have Oleg oversight.

DT can make changes, but if Oleg approves or not is still the question.

So, I wouldn't get too worked up with demands and long-winded explanations about what needs a fix. I suggest if you have requests make them known, with some good references that corroborate your requests.
If you don't have the facts lined up properly all the verbiage and whining will only make requests suspicious.

In reference the P51's CoG. Since it is established that CoG does not change with fuel use, is it possible that the P51's CoG is simply placed incorrectly in the model to begin with? Perhaps in some attempt to replicate some of the P51's instability when rear tank is full? And what we feel in game when only 25% or less of fuel is on board is simply the lower weight of the aircraft with the CoG still in same (incorrect?) place?

If an earlier P51B or a P51A were modeled without the rear tank, where would the CoG be placed vs. the ingame P51s we currently have?

And why not do an early P51B without the rear tank? Or even better a P51A (Mustang I). It would be the fastest aircraft in the ETO below 15,000 ft. in 1943.

+1!

With roundabout 300 aircraft types that would be a huge amount of threads. :shock:

true, but common sense cna make it manageable;

a separate forum for ac types by family, and then only for flyable types

yak

la/lagg

mig

po

spits

hawker

mossie

38s

bell

north american

grumman (can i say that? :P)

40s

47s

messerschmitt

folke wulfe

heinkel

junkers

macchi

G.50

nakajima

mitsubushi

tonys


just a list off the top of my head, but shows it could be quite manageable

would only be relatively few types per thread, except yaks (which i dont think has too many problems) or 109s perhaps....but still worth considering IMHO

The point of talking about the old thread was to illustrate just how much of an issue it was at the time. That isn't to say it's not an issue now. It took quite a bit to get some changes implemented some of which were made public and some weren't.

I'm glad you guys are working on the compresibility portion of the sim. It's clear the sim was meant to be a tactical ground pounding sim with little in the way of coming close to Mach. I'm glad to see some attention was made to high Altitude performance and the addition of high performance aircraft. It's clear some more attention would be good. It's obvious from a testing perspective without the tools there aren't any maps with standard temps and pressures to do some actual testing. None that I know of at least. Hopefully some of these third party tools will mature and you guys will have a positive effect in this regard. Then there can be no whining.

I certainly hope you guys have the opportunity to address some of the issues raised wheather you think they are there or not. The fact is if you look you will find fault with some of the modeling of this game. It's after all a 40 dollar game not a multi million dollar study sim.

I hope that some of the built in limitations of DM FMs can be expanded and modeled so the sim reaches yet another level beyond what we have today.

Good luck in your efforts.

Not sure what you're talking about.... Written word is difficult to interpret so I think it's really difficult to understand someones intent especially in a world where we hit the submit reply button all too quick.

The point of pulling up the old thread was that there is a very LONG history when it comes to discussing the 50s. No I don't need them to hit like 20mms. Like everyone who flies IL2 we all want some semblance of reality. Make sense?

This whole concept of proving stuff is a double edge sword. In some cases it goes to the extreme and in the past even when Oleg was presented with information it was often overlooked or pass off as Propaganda. That's not made up stuff. I can actually understand why he took a stance at some point. A lot of stuff can be presented and it comes across as just being a Feeling or without basis. The fact is people have experience with the sim for the past 8 years and several patches and know the history and can see with their own eyes what's actually happening. Do a little testing in QMB and bingo there is your proof. Sadly some things will get overlooked but over all I think it's made IL2 what it is today.

In order get good data as inputs to future work, I think you need your own forum, moderated by you. I don't think you'll get much value out of one thread on this forum anymore.

With your own forum you could have public and private sections for different groups, and folks would be happier about providing data and engaging in a meaningful discussion

+100

This is an excellent suggestion and something this sim has needed for some time. I think a simpler way to do something like this would be to allow server side settings for two types of points systems.. Team points or individual points. If I recall correctly MSCFS1 used to have a similar feature.. If set for individual points then each individual would receive points according to what the individual has done. If set for team points the points would be totaled for Blue & Red.I also think that the points system of numbers should just be scrapped.. and the symbols used.. Like in QMs.

I hope a moderator comes by and cleans up this thread.. it is really sad to see the direction some have taken it in.


The problem is not the forum it is the people posting and what they choose to post. This will happen anywhere it is allowed to proliferate as long as the same people are in the threads.

If they do the Allison Mustang, we definitely want the [url=http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_2.html]Mustang Mk IA[/i], now with cannon!

After IvanK's post about the CoG being where it would be with the empty tank, I went back and did some flying and maneuvering in the P-51D-20 with 100% fuel, and found that while it was still snappy and spin-happy, it doesn't get into the tail down spins that it used to, and correction is generally quick if you cut the throttle, so it looks like the CoG issue has been fixed; I'm just behind the times. It looks like it's the natural snap stall being exacerbated by torque that's driving the spin behaviour now. Seems a bit much, given the low power to weight ratio of the plane, but then again, it had a smaller tail than was perhaps needed. I do know that starting with the XP-51F, the tail surfaces got much taller, so I'd have to dig into it a lot more than I'm really interested in to say anything meaningful on that.

Harry Voyager

Daidalus Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

This is now a question/request and answer thread only.

If you get an answer from DT that you don't agree with do not start an argument.

If DT doesn't answer to suit you, then make a posting and corroborate your facts with reference data. If DT doesn't agree the second time forget it, and remember the DT is working for free to accomodate our community. They don't have to put up with flak.

Ki-61 Windscreen Oiling......
 

For some time I made the request (in Oleg's Ready Room) that the windscreen oiling of the Ki-61 be relooked at in that on many levels it is not an upright V like the allies used, yet more so in the regard that how the oiling system is laid out it is also very different then the BF-109.

In a nutshell, it would be very difficult to impossible to oil the windscreen in a Ki-61, all other aircraft except twin engine aircraft would be worse.......

I'd like to see if DT would be willing to look at the data and documentation.....If so, I'd be glad to post it again.........This should be a rather simple fix to a glaring error with the Ki-61 that would help make it more realistic........In kind removal of the venturi above the air intake would be appreciated (only 3-5 Ki-61 EVER had them).

Please let me know if DT would be willing to look at this information.....Thanks for the work.

K2

A scoring system like BF2's Reality Mod would be more than OK.

Team mates nearby get points for support. Suppressing an enemy gets you points. Downing an enemy does not give you best points. Etc. A lot of good ideas there but, I don't know if IL-2 can do it.

My only comment on the 50Call debate.

In static tests just done using P51 against target 1000feet away directly along the Mean Fixed Boreline with convergence set to 305metres. 100% of impacts fell in 6mill group.

USAF Harmonisation requirements as laid out in USAF Air Force Manual 335-25 Fighter Gunnery Section 3-4 Paragraph requires 100% CEP at 8Mills with 75%CEP at 4mills for 50Cal.

So dispersion is within USAF spec.

Fini

sure, every piece of info, backed up by tests and/or hard data will be looked at :), if you are more comfortable use the DT email...

cheers

Next 3 questions:

1. There is some mod which allows moving trains/ships etc in dogfight mode, are there any plans for the the official implementation of it?
2. Very popular request is to limit the information given on the plane types that are flown by the adversaries in dogfight, any plans to implement it?
3. Are there any plans for tight integration with a free server commander (FBD)?

Previous batch of questions:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=266

@ Salsero

I hope you don't mind when I give my personal opinion. At least on some of the questions, that is.

1.) Bf 109 G-4 - IMO not worth the workload since it is essentially the same as a G-2, just with FuG 16, larger wheels and a stronger main landing gear.
2.) Fw 190 D-11 - extremely rare late-war type, ATM there is more important work on existing types and historically relevant types to be done.
3.) Yak-1 Model 1942 - I agree. Should close a gap in the planeset.
4.) I have no idea if the engine can even handle such "Lego airfields", but I doubt it. My guess: don't hope for it.
5.) Regarding deactivated 3D features: No idea. This is one for the coders.
6.) Murmansk map - no idea. Don't think so, though.

As I posted in a thread here that the guns are not historically correct.

If I name true numbers from different reliably sources, will you consider correcting them?

We'll need a little more specific info on what you consider not correct. ;-)

I been asking if DT would do anything about the sound in the Sim?

Regarding the 109 G4. I deffently disargee. We need it more, than we need biplane. Why do DT think we need more biplane?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=8815&page=32

Sound is an issue due to the way the engine works. The default sound isn't well liked, but it does some things very well and very subtly, which the soundmods apparently don't do at all (sense of speed etc). Plus we're not sure Oleg would agree with us taking a look at it.

On the G-4:

With nearly all the relevant 109s in game adding a version with only minor differences (not to say irrelevant in the sense of gameplay) to a version already in-game it's simply a question of effort vs gain. And here the gain is nearly nil. The biplanes present in 4.09 were made by 3rd Party Modellers and were ready to be included - and they were of special interest to those who made the Slovakia maps.

Regarding Bf 109G-4, as explained by Thor, it is 99% the same plane as G-2. We could add it, but at the moment it is not on our priority list. You can substitute G-2 for G-4 without most players not even noticing the difference. But I doubt you can substitute a G-2 for any biplane or other plane that will come in 4.09 or next patches. ;)

Changing sounds is a sensitive issue which is being discussed privately within our team. Nice sounds are not always the realistic sounds. We do have a member in our team who has first hand experience with WW2 plane sounds from the cockpit.

Team Daidalus,

I know patience is a virtue (Zen....), but when it 4.09 actually available? It's been quite some time since readme and pdf were announced en these F5 actions are killing me ;-)

Thanks and regards,
Mark

Thanks for the answers. I just hope you would be so cind to look into the sound issus. I simply just dislike the ingame sound so mutch, so I would never go back to it. The sound from the video I put in, are the most realistic sounds I have ever heard. If you have something sounding even better It would be fantastic.

The poor sound in the game and the lack of support of 6 d.o.f, I belive was the main facktor for modding got started. Now a lot of other stuff are available like the moving objekts on a dogfightserver.

Cheers

Rationale for G4 was to have a plane that will be notably heavier than G2, but not as heavy as G6, and without 30 mm gun.

Do you want to get the full list of "easy conversions"?

I will be absolutely happy to hear your commments for the other suggestions :)
Including the new airstrip.

Why should the G-4 be heavier than the G-2 (except a tiny bit from different radio, sturdier landing gear and larger tyres)? According to the info I have the take-off weight of a G-2 is around 3100kg, the same applies (to the little information I found in a quick search) to the G-4. I mean even the G-6 is only 50kg heavier than a G-2 ... :confused:

Well, the "blue" pilots say that in the game difference between G2 (helicopter with a tiny gun) and G6 (steam roller with a BIG gun) is quite big thus G4 may well fit in between.

Weapon correction concerning muzzle velocity, frequency, belting sequence.

The changes are in most cases minimal but should done.

Also concerning some load-outs.

@ Salsero

I'd say taking a hard look at the G-6 FM is the right way to go, since I think this one has issues that need to be solved. G-2 will have to be looked at, too, but isn't as questionable as the G-6.

@ Emil

I'll leave that to the coders. I'm too dumb for that. :mrgreen:

i will have to get the actual info on it, but apparently it has been proven with plenty of documentation that the P47 bomb loadout is incorrect

in game is 2x500lbs on wings + 1x1000lbs on centreline rack

IRL loadout is 2x1000lbs on wings + 1x500lbs on centreline rack

also, as someone a few pages pointed out, having a P80 with tip tanks and dive brakes would be wonderful

while speaking of jets, id like to ask for consideration given to the Go-229;

while its in the realm of "what if", IMO it would be reasonable to have an additional Gotha model with uprated turbines

beyond me why it wasnt done for 1946, and i imagine it would not be an overly huge task for DT to implement (?)

would be nice to look into the Gotha's air brakes as well, at one time they were very effective, then after a patch they became pretty much useless altogether

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_4.html

Underwing pylons were introduced on the D-15-RE and D-15-RA production blocks. These enabled a drop tank or a bomb to be carried underneath each wing in addition to the stores carried on the belly shackles. Fuel changes had to be made to incorporate plumbing for the underwing tanks. Bomb selection increased to two 1000-pound or 3 500-pound bombs, with maximum bombload being 2500 pounds.

Hi all
You could correct bomb loadout in spitfire mk vc 2/4?

In the simulator is only selectable default armament (canons only), when this bird could transport two 250 lbs or one of 500 lbs bombs.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...eet.asp?id=489

and...

Aircraft Guide.pdf of il2 :rolleyes: :grin: (one 500 lbs only)

Now this is the way to help DT to respond, and possibly address your issues.

We cannot expect DT to chase all over the web trying to address requests and questions that aren't documented.

Is it possible add support for Jabo load out on the Doras?

Fw-190D-9/R-5 option

Any possibility of a response to the questions posed by lep & I? (Hope I don't sound combative.. don't mean to..)

Actually I believe the score system is for the dustbin, but I'm afraid it would be pretty far down on the priority list.
BTW never thought anyone cared for those scores. :shock:

About the fuel tanks, do you think it would be possible to separate the fuel tanks in the FM ?

I fly the 110 quite extensively and I get hit in the tanks eventually. When one tank is hit, the whole fuel is escaping, no matter if just one tank is hit or I have underwing tanks.

Other thing, would it be possible to introduce a fix for aircrafts about burning fuel tanks. Usually, when a fuel tank is on fire en multi engined aircrafts, all the fuel runs out. Instead of extinguishing the fire, the plane just continue to burn until it eventually explode. But, if there is no more fuel in the tank and you can extinguish the fire by diving faster than 400 kph, thefuel tank shouldn't take fire again, right ?

Other problem on the 110, sometimes, one of your engine gets litteraly blown off the aircraft. If the falling engine catch fire, then your aircraft will be contaminated by the fire even if the engine is miles away, this eventually leading to a fuel tank fire and boom.

At last, a final fix I would like to see on the P38 : online, it can fly forever with a burning engine. It can also fly at over 380 kph on only one engine (whereas a Bf110 will struggle to stay in the air). Can you please fix this DM issue ?

Thank you.

Dear Team D,

Perhaps you would consider making AI level bombers* drop their bombs when the
human formation leader drops his or an easy command to make the AI level
bombers drop their bombs. It is currently very hard to get them to do this and
if you do manage it, they all leave the formation as soon as they drop. In other
words, leading AI level bombers is currently a broken feature, even tho we have
dynamic level bomber campaigns.

Thankyou for your consideration of the matter.


*He111, Ju88, TB3, Pe2, B25, A20 etc.

yet it kinda catches fire rather easily, dont cha think?

if anything, the 38 has poor DM, LMGs can ridiculously remove its rather large and robust elevator, and its two tailbooms, with separate control runs share the same target box, meaning that what IRL would be a minimal chance for losing elevators or rudders happens WAY too often in game


RE: single engine speed on P38;

from a pilot operating manual:

(I) PERFORMANCE - The airplane flies well on one engine. Using normal rated power, it will climb to about 26,500 feet, and can be flown at more than 255 mph (true speed) in level flight at 20,000 feet.

and from a pilot training manual:

"You will find that the P-38 flies very well on one engine. Using normal rated power, it can climb above 20,000feet and have a TAS greater than 225 mph"




note that it says "normal rated power" = MIL power, not even pushing it to WEP
in-game we run almost constant WEP

380kph = 234 mph


the Bf 110 is simply not in the same league as the P-38 and should really not be compared

unhooking gliders would be nice aswell

I could see it being a very good thing especially in teamplay..

Hello Team,

Thanks for the work on our latest update. I am very appreciative of your hard work. I don't wish to put the cart before the horse, and I realize your team has many issues to deal with currently regarding future updates. I understand that at least for now the FM and other parts of the game are locked. However, once you have approval from Oleg, I hope to see many more possibilities for the future of the game. I will be happy with any update, and I understand that other things have priority, but here is a list of updates that in my (humble, and not very knowledgeable) opinion are achievable:

Addition of torque/P-factor increase as a function in the difficulty menu.
Increase of the difficulty of Bf-109 ground handling.
Conversely, a fix of the He-111 ground handling (unless this is accurate)
A fix of the overheating issue in the Grumman Hellcat
Move the Center of Gravity slightly forward to reduce the 'wobblies' in the P-51
Use existing cockpits with modifications in existing AI aircraft: ex: B-25 variants, P-36 using P-40 cockpit, other instances of the MC.200, G4M2, Beaufighter, Mosquito, Gladiator, early Bf-110, etc.
Modify existing models and use existing cockpits with modifications:
Ju-88C, Hurricane MkIID, 2 seat Yaks, A-36, A-36 w/4x Hispano, etc.
Brand new cockpits for existing AI:
Pe-8, Su-2, R-10, Ms-406, B5N, Ki-21, A5M, IL-4/DB-3, SB-2, Tu-2, Ms-210/410, Fw-189, Fw-200, Po-2, Li-2, C-47, Junkers 52, etc.
New Aircraft: :)
Reworking of existing 3d models: Mig-3, Il-2, possibly Bf-109, etc. (low priority)

And of course, the changes to AI as you know about, and as others have requested.

Once again, thanks Team Daidalos, I am looking forward to whatever work you put out for us demanding gamers! :grin:

Any chance of fixing the AI for gliders, so that you could specify a landing point and flight path way points? I never could get my Pegasus Bridge mission to work properly.

Ashe

Got link?

Hello all,

before the patch is made available for public download, we would like to set up as many mirror servers as possible. Those who can help us and provide such a service, please drop us an email at daidalos.team@gmail.com (if you haven't done so yet ;) )

Thanks a lot.

I need a quick correction to a French 4.09 readme. Who can assist here please? Drop me a PM with your email. It's urgent. Thanks a lot.

if the patch was just released with whatever servers that are already available, then people would gladly put it up on Torrents and you wouldn't need to keep asking for servers..

IMHO

Not everyone uses torrents. We will arrange mirrors first and then it can be put on torrents.

Concerning the change of flight-models:
Is this a I wish to boost my favourite planes session?

If there´s anything to change to to unrealistic modelling please ad a reliable link!

Was there a problem with the original? Please check your DT email.

Torrents?

I've used torrents and had issues. The problem with torrents is all the hackers and crackers that want to cause problems get in the mix with legitimate downloads. They poke in their poison, and you never know what you are getting unless the torrent site allows comments.

There is so much bootleg software on torrent sites. Putting legitimate software up for torrent downloads seems IMO to be an encouragement for software piracy.

I'll download from just about anywhere to keep from using torrents.

I should say... if my only choice is a torrent then I'll deal with downloading that way. I've got a couple spyware scanners and anti-viruse I'll run on the file before I open it. Nuttin' to it.

well, as long as excuses are put up to not use valid solutions, then I guess we will just not use other valid options..

As an old online air wars pilot, I can say that "Kill Stealing" causes bad feelings, argues, quarrels, and bad words in on line servers. And very frequently, I should say. From the old VEF, VOW and Bellum days to the present =BY= Airwar, ADW etc. I think, this is not so often in normal Coops in which maybe many pilots are friends or they know each other.

"Kill stealers", shooting at burning planes, or planes without pilot, who bailed previously, or shooting at broken planes falling down in pieces or even to planes with a stopped engine, get and unmerited kill.

AFAIK, IL-2 is now giving the kill to the pilot who hits the last impact on the E/A before it is desroyed. This is the root of the problem. Let me know if I am wrong.

IMHO this could be easily solved by:

1) Once a plane caught fire, or had a broken wing or tail, or motor hit and stopped, (not intentionally) or without pilot, or with 3-control lost, no further impacts on it are taken in account to give the kill.

2) If several pilots hit a plane, the Sim could count and store how many impacts or how much damage was caused by every pilot in a 0-100% basis. (I don't know if this is possible, with the Sim Engine, anyway). Of course the damage from of a 30 mm shell or from a 7.62 ball, is not the same and may be should be taken in account (I do no know how, however).

3) Once the enemy plane hits the ground and is officially lost, all pilots who shot to him in "good" condition are credited on the screen by the message "xxxxx was shot down by pilotA and pilotB and ....etc"

4) Regarding points, if shooting down an enemy fighter worths 100 points, every pilot would get points as: 100*(% damage produced).

For instance , if:

Pilot A caused 70% damage, gets 70 points
Pilot B caused 30% damage, gets 30 points

This should be stored also in the Coop.txt file, to allow on line war parsers or dogfight servers to use this info in the best way.

From all said here, I think this could help on line fair-playing and IMHO it should deserve a good order of priority, more than other plane or technical-related issues, as it affects directly people mood and behaviour.

Thanks for your efforts, mates, and sorry for my long speech and not too good English.

nearmiss,

I respectfully disagree .. whoever seeds a torrent has control of the content, and the particular name and it's MD5 hash can be published as the 'official' torrent.

I can almost guarentee 4.09m official will end up on the torrent tracking sites anyway, it's wiser to have a known good version made available, than to risk multiple copies showing up that could conceivably be "poisoned' .. though I can't imagine why anyone would poison a legal and legitimate file.

Once the 'official" torrent is up, and dozens download and seed, from that point another differrently named 4.09m won't attract use anyway.

And no matter what you download from anywhere, it's wise to run a good anti-virus scan on the archive .. btjunkie.org does have "verified by the community" numbers and comments.

I can almost guarentee also, that no matter how many mirrors you set up, I'll be lucky to pull down 100kbs, where through a torrent and sufficient seeds, I get about 300kb/s (2.4Mbits), my maximum download speed.

TD .. how big is 4.09m in a .rar or .zip file ?

I think this is a good idea, and possibly the only *easy* one

though *historically* a confirmed victory usually did go to the last pilot that caused damage, and the pilots were more concerned about knocking the enemy's plane out of action than getting credit for the kill

none-the-less, people play for different reasons, and if a dogfight server's purpose is for pilots' bragging rights on stats, there's nothing "wrong" with that format and your idea above would be a great improvement to reduce arguements and real hostility between players

IIRC, something like 560MB.

AFAIK in RAF and USAAF statistics, if several pilots shot down a plane and this was confirmed, all got 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of a kill, depending if 2, 3 or 4 pilots were involved into the kill. So you can find pilots with 15+1/3 , or 7+3/4 kill, or other even funnier fractional numbers.

In the Luftwaffe, once big USAAF and RAF, hard-to- kill, well defended, though bombers B-17, B-24 etc. started to attack, even a more complicated system was developped to credit the german pilots: from just having got a bomber separated from its "box" or formation, to finally make it crash into the ground, all pilots involved were credited, retributed and decorated according to their contribution.

"1) Once a plane caught fire, or had a broken wing or tail, or motor hit and stopped, (not intentionally) or without pilot, or with 3-control lost, no further impacts on it are taken in account to give the kill."

Indeed, I would also add "Pilot Killed"

Request for options in future versions of IL2 that may promote better team play and/or a more enjoyable online experience.

Option to Hide Score Column while playing online
The option for dedicated dogfight servers to hide the players score column from players while flying online. This option might help eliminate some of the bad behavior of those seeking to fluff how they look on the scoreboard and promote better team play. It also may eliminate some of the bickering about score/points that players get tired of listening to.. It may also attract more players to fly online. This increase of online players could come from players who previously left online play because the above mentioned issues. There are also new players who hesitate to come online to play because they may be embarrassed by their online score. Either way it would be a nice option for the admin of a server to have. (Regardless of the split points debate/resolution)

Who Won in an online dogfight??
Who Won? - The ability for the server to show which team won in an online dogfight server across the center of the screen like it does in a coop. Currently this can not be done without the use of 3rd party tools. Even then it doesn't show across the center of the screen like a COOP and it's only seen by those displaying multiple lines of chat.

(How this was not included in the original game baffles me. Spend years to make a game that pits two teams against each other and then when the battle is over don't show them who won. Then throw in a convoluted scoring system that only shows the individual players score and lets see how well they work together as a team... Oh and lets give them chat so they can spend all night bickering about who stole what.)

Option to Ban a player from chat... Chat blocker.
Some players wont stop talking, some players never have anything nice to say and others complain all evening. It would be great for an admin of a server to be able to block certain players from typing in chat or auto-kick them each time they use chat. We don't want to ban them from the server because we love to shoot them down...we just want them to be quiet.


In order to improve online TEAM play the focus needs to be on the TEAM win.
Improved team play will reduced the individual bickering.

The chat bar should be filled with phrases like "Thanks for clearing my six" instead of the garbage that scrolls by currently.

Please considered these options for the future
-Show which team won
-Option to hide player's score.
-Option to ban from chat.

oh .. excuse me for not being aware of that .. I am quite less knowledgable about WWII airwar and aircraft than I am regarding WWI, where officially acknowledged victories were assigned to a single pilot or gunner, and usually only where the death of the enemy pilot was confirmed.

I suspect (but don't know for sure) that the number of hits each pilot makes on an enemy plane is part of the raw server data, seeing as you can pull up stats like hits/shots fired .. even if that is so, it seems it might be difficult to parse, compile and display proportional kill credits under the current scoring system, especially in a dogfight / respawn scenario

Always good that all that contribute get credit however, be that *historical* or a gameplay issue

IMO = In my opinion. I've used them before, and gotten all kinds of junk in them. The bad part... it often took several days to get the file fully downloaded because people weren't seeding. Then when I spent all that time the file has some bad Pelosi in it.

I remember getting DLLs that were disguised as system dlls and corrupted the Pelosi out of my system.

So, no I would prefer not to use Torrents. Yet, if they were put up by trusted members of the Il2 community I would probably be fine with torrents.

Did I read this correctly? P-61 Black widow? If this is even a possible project; what a long awaited boost for the PTO guys and gals. So to get back to the Q & Request part of this thread. More PTO and ETO objects, tweeks, maps ect please. I do know where to get a fix for my interest, however if someone on your team can send us a T-bone if U get a chance. What a wonderful world this can be. S! 99th_Jaguar

Quite frankly:

No scoring system in Il-2 will do anything to make players fly for the team. Most players just want to be [Insert favourite WW2 Fighter Ace here] reborn and give diddly-squat about history, circumstances, tactics or even teamplay. Only server-admins can influence this via server setup and mission, but even their powers are limited.

Re ETO and PTO: Hold your horses, folks. Just because there's a planetype floating around doesn't mean it's in development, close to completion or that DT is already testing it. I hope I'm not saying more than I should but at the moment DT is not completely sure how much can be done regarding Western Europe and the PTO objects because of <cough> ... circumstances ... <cough>. There's some uncharted territory yet to be explored in this regard.

And I am very pleased to know that... ;)