@Letum

2,8-3G means nothing in the Game,
if this will be not fixed you are unable to make good defensive figures at medium speeds!
Other flyable Bombers can all pull more G than the 111H2 and it looks uneven in my eyes!
If 2,8-3G for he111h2 is realistic number, than i think many other planes need a negative fix! ;)

I have found some data for the He111 here :
http://www.bredow-web.de/Sinsheim-Sp..._111_h-16.html
there one can read :

Safe load factor in recovering in relation to the aircraft center of gravity:

2,9 g at 11,6 tons
3,1 g at 11,0 tons
3,4 g at 10,0 tons
3,6 g at 9,5 tons

If thats the safe figures the damage should occur at much higher g-loads.

Av, can you get AI planes to despawn in MDS? I can't.

Empty TO weight H-2 in game: ~12 tons.
TO weight H-2 with 8x250kg bombs: ~14 tons
Safe g-limit when applying RL data: ~2.8g / 2.4g against structural damage
Safety factor in Germany at that time: 1.5 to complete failure.
Instant failure for in game weights: 4.2 g / 3.6 g

Summary: He 111H-2 failing at about 3 g -> ok.

Always despawn for me, and I didn't do anything magic. Just checked the appropriate box.

If 20% difference is ok for you????
Fully loaded with 100% fuel it should share its wings, or else, at 3.6 g, not 3.
And sincerly, fully loaded with 100% fuel we have only at the start.
Do ALL bombers have their limits below the real data or only some??

No, there should be chance of it shedding wings eventually from 2.8 g onwards. They should certainly fail at 4.2g (empty, 100%).

I tested all the He 111 variants and found some interesting results:

He 111 H-2, empty, 10% fuel: 2,8/4,2
He 111 H-2, 8xSC250, 100% fuel: 1,9/2,8 (<- is this the ~3G you got?)

He 111 H-6, empty, 10% fuel: 5,1/7,6
He 111 H-6, 1xSC2000, 100% fuel: 3,3/5,0

He 111 H-12, 1xFritz-X, 100% fuel: 3,5/5,2

It seems that H-2 and H-6&12 have totally different G-limits. H-2 is indeed more fragile than the link posted by robtek suggest, but then that data is for H-16. H-6, on the other hand, is amazingly durable. In empty loadout and with low fuel, I managed to get the wings off at over 6G, and even that needed some "softening" first. I'm thinking that both could be wrong, but any plane modelled with too low G-limits is not good for the game.

EDIT: the way to test these is very simple. Turn on the no-cockpit HUD view, dive, pull up slowly. When the G-number display turns red, you are within 25% of the service limit. Service limit = red number / 0,75; break limit = service limit x 1,5.

Maybe it's possible for me to ask a couple of veterans from 322Squadron how they trimmed the various Spitfre types and how the ladies behaved.

Some of the veterans I spoke with a couple of years ago I asked how she flew... they all gave the same answer more or less.. 'she flies as she looks'

*ot* great pictures ivank. Got more?

Hi TD,

got a graphics bug: in the early spitfire MkIXc, with the rounded vertical tail, the last LOD that casts shadows, is missing the shadow for left wing mid(?) section.

Cheers!

OK, thanks for clarification. I might have done something wrong with new installation.

1. AI
2. No Radar
3. Yes


**EDIT: I attached 2 text files. They are the mis contents for 2 test missions (Coop and DF). I could not upload the missions themselves because this forum does not support rar files. I'm sure you know how to make these into a playable mission. Just copy the text into a blank mis file.

When you start either mission, just check your map and soon you will see the recon plane spot the moving targets. You will also see that the other recon plane does not spot the ships right below it.

In the DF mission, watch the C-47. It will land, park and despawn. (You asked me about despawn in another post....yes it works.)


Aviar

Sorry for my bad English, I hope sense of the bug report will be clear:


Serious network bug with "Test Runways" (from a class "Stationary Ships") placed on a land

Any players connected to a server 4.10m, cannot appear now on a strip "Test Runway" placed on a land, cannot take off as usually and now ALWAYS appear in air. This new bug is "network" because arises only in online: in air throws only the players connected to a server. In the patch 4.10m "Test Runways" work online only in the event that under their centre there is a water (if there is no water under center of the "Test Runway" - then this "Test Runway" throws all players in air).

The same "Test Runways" in the same places of a map works fine in 4.09m. Players never appeared in air if "Test Runways" was located on an equal surface of the land (except for cases of an arrangement of a "Test Runway" on a hills).



Thanks to a bugged patch 4.10m now it is IMPOSSIBLE to create the worked online airdromes "Test Runways" placed on a land. Any "Test Runways" under which centre there is no water, throw up now the connected players in air.

With a patch 4.10m now there is no a possibility to add for network game new airdromes on a land =(((
WE DO NOT WISH TO APPEAR IN AIR!!!



Thank you TD very much for all your hard work. But many of us continue to use 4.09m and wait hotfix for 4.10m which will return all as earlier (worked "CheckRunTime=2", worked "Test Runways" placed on a land, and some other things which do not work now in 4.10m).

May have been reported already, but if you are in a Jet (Ar-234 and He-162 tested) and you let the AI takeoff, the engines will catch fire. Curiously, the other AI planes (non-player) this doesn't happen, only your own plane.

That's an old issue from long ago.

Aviar

Not a really big deal, would be if it happened to the non-player planes (obviously).

BUG: In an online game using a dedicated server with multiple targets for both sides to destroy, the game erroneously announces "RED WON" or "BLUE WON" when there are still many targets left to destroy.

I have never seen this announcement before in the online game, even though it is common in the offline game. It is very confusing as everyone stops playing, thinking one team has won, when they haven't. I have looked carefully at the target setup and can't see the problem. This has occured on more than one map. Here is the relevant section of the .mis file from one of them. This map announced 'RED WON' when Red had not won. If there is something I need to do differently in in the mis file, please advise. If not, this is a bug.

[Target]
1 0 0 0 500 126561 151887 500
1 0 0 0 500 67550 158981 500
1 0 0 0 500 108473 235433 500
1 0 0 0 500 71583 224151 500
1 0 0 0 500 68763 220959 500
1 0 0 0 500 78701 206214 500
1 0 0 0 500 83588 208925 500
1 0 0 0 500 72772 196655 500
1 0 0 0 500 95995 211405 500
1 0 0 0 500 85077 183711 500
1 0 0 0 500 90794 184815 500
1 0 0 0 500 87141 167354 500
1 0 0 0 500 96864 164910 500
1 0 0 0 500 102221 152155 500
1 0 0 0 500 106744 154120 500
1 0 0 0 500 62526 216413 500

Av,

Thanks very much I'll give them a try.

ian

G-forces: Does turbulence create G-forces in IL-2 engine, or is it cosmetic? Will turbulence encountered at the end of a dive, cause the aircraft to break into pieces?

Reading your post i'm not too sure Sean, were you in the spit or in the O2 ? I know you fly warbirds occasionnally, did you fly the spit and does it really need much down trim, even at slow speeds and/or low power ? Pilot's notes are quite evasive on the matter.

S!

Well, for you guys complaining of the trim. Have you ever cared to look at the TRIM GAUGE in the Spitfire cockpit? I flew the Sissyfire and trimmed for fast cruise, the needle was less than half the range of the gauge and with less speed close to 0 position. And when had the trim at around 30% of the gauge reading the elevator was at roughly same position as in the photo above. I use trim on a slider, not tapping a key. Compare to FW190 that has the trim gauge too just aft of the throttle marked with an "alpha" sign. In Sissyfire the gauge is below the gear lamp indicator on left side.

Hi Av,

OK, I tried your missions and they did work, so I saw how it should be. I tried mine again and it works fine for Red now (using IL-2 s2 as spotter) but I can't get it to work for blue with either Ju-87B2 or Hurri1 as spotters.

I reckon it might be something as daft as the order you put the things in the game, like with gliders.

Anyway, it's driving me nucking futs.

Can I send you my mission please? Might be something dead obvious ....

ian

If you post the entire mission, I will look at it for you. Otherwise, it's hard to evaluate.

Aviar

Still having no luck with recon. And you can assign a Komet as recon but not a Fw-189. How is that?

Hi Folks,

first: Thank you so much!

Second: Are there DeviceLink set()-keys available for the new "Multi-throttle/prop support and radiator axis"?

I am using a G940 (ID 1, 2, and 3) plus Bodnar's BU0836A (ID 4) and I feed all of their axes to IL-2 through DeviceLink (the first because of the Reversal Bug, the last because IL-2 does not recognize the fourth device...)

oj123

Sorry Ian, but I couldn't get your mission to work. It looks like a bug in MDS. It should be reported.

I could get the red recon working and the blue recon working, but not both at the same time. I tried a lot of combinations to try and trick it into working, but there is a bug in there somewhere.


**EDIT: I got it to work! I really don't like to fail so I went back to try something else. Try adding both the red and blue recon planes in BOTH recon lists. This worked for me. This is still an MDS bug and should be reported to Zuti/DT. However, this may be a good workaround for now.


Aviar

I don't know what are you implying by your post, but the comparison with FW shows that for a trimmed flight at 100% throttle, FW shows very small displacement of the needle, and it surely needs much less trim than the Spitfire.

I don't know who is a vintage plane pilot here, but as far as I know, a plane never needs much trim for a cruise flight. If you need to trim your plane so much for a cruise flight, it is a very bad design. People can hate the Spitfire here as much as they want, but it was a very well designed airplane, which is confirmed if nothing else then just by its longevity in service.

I don't think that TD should base the FM of a spit on a few photos of in-flight spitfire; and that doesn't explain the fact that it rolls like crazy all the time to the right.

Still no comment from TD on this. I would say they compiled 4.10 with a wrong version of the FM, that's all.

...."I don't think that TD should base the FM of a spit on a few photos of in-flight spitfire..."

They don't, the images were provided as a response to this thread to indicate typical Spitfire Elevator position in a trimmed 1G cruise state. There are plenty of other images around of Spits in the Luft showing this elevator deflection.

No Rollnloop .. I should be so lucky :). The Spitfire pilot is a friend who provided me with the images from a photoshoot.

Thanks gabe!

if you test the fw you will see that full elev trim in either direction only moves the gauge to~1/2 the scale deflection whereas spits move to full scale deflection, so there is much less movement to see. it has been that way for as long as i can remember.

as a side note to this- how many people use the recomended setting for takeoff trim of ~1 div nose down trim for take off in spits?(from pilot's notes MKV)

OK, just to confirm a bug and workaround - recon planes for Red and Blue need to be added to BOTH red and blue lists. Otherwise only one side works.

Thanks Aviar!

No Maps Icons setting doesn't apply to targets
 

Possible bug with regards to the No Maps Icons difficulty setting. With this selected, target icons are still visible on the mini-map when hosting a dogfight or coop map. If the target is a moving ship or convoy this total defeats the Fog of War recon options as everyone always knows exactly where the objective is as the target icon position constantly updates on the mini-map.

I know they don't mate, and I realize now that what I said was uncalled for, so I do apologize. TD does a lot of great work, and they surely do not deserve any complaints from us.

In all honesty, I can't really say if the elevator trim is ok or wrong, I just don't have the info to be the judge of that.

However, the roll just seems suspicious to me.

I tried a Bf109 and a FW190 and for both of them there is a throttle setting and a speed at which they fly without roll, even though they don't even have a rudder trim, much less the aileron trim. In both cases, I just played with the throttle, and kept the pitch at "auto". No rudder input at all and plane elevator trimmed for level flight.

I managed to stop the roll in FW190 completely at about 70% throttle and a stable speed of 420 kph IAS at 1500m. In Bf109G2 it was more around 80%, there was side slip and the roll didn't go completely, but was at least like the roll of a trimmed-out Spit VIII in 4.09.

I tried then the Spit VIII in 4.10 and found that no matter what I do with the throttle or pitch, it just rolls to the right at the rate of about 3 deg/sec (very rough observation) at comparable level speeds.

If I was to guess, I would expect that a plane like this should be able to fly perfectly trimmed at about 2500-2600RPM and Boost of +8 (a guess).

It certainly seems strange that a plane with a rudder trim is harder to fly than ones without. Even rudder trim doesn't help with the roll, since if I make it stop rolling, I have a considerable skid... I am definitely not flying optimally.

Could it be a slight mistake in the "DefaultAileronTrim" setting? A wrong sign maybe?

For a Spit VIII 4.09 it was 0.015, what is it now, if I may ask?

Again, really thanks to TD for all the great things in this patch, can't wait to play another SEOW with 4.10 and all new features!

Cheers!

This is not a 'bug' in 4.10. It was exactly the same in 4.09m. Even then, it was never considered a 'bug', but a 'feature'...at least that's what Oleg always used to say....:mrgreen:

If you are the person actually building the mission, what you can do is designate the Target as 'Hidden'. In that case, the Target icon will not appear on the in-game map.


Aviar

It has been reported some times already but not confirmed being a bug, or I missed it.

In Home Base Properties, when using "MODIFY COUNTRIES" is does save the first time and adding the [BornPlaceCountries0] to the .mis file. However editing the mission again in FMB requires to set the countries again, because if you leave it untouched if editing your mission, this parameter is not saved.


BL

Recon plane set in FoW, enabled Aircraft limitations, added the Recon plane to a HomeBase with option Empty and droptanks. Plane still has mgs/cannons available.

Am I doing something wrong? I don't want mgs and/or cannons available.


BL

I believe this has already been confirmed by DT.

Aviar

Currently, Primary target labeling is enabled on the map. Primary targets are set as Destroy Target Ground. How to hide this labeling on the DS using IL2SC?


BL

TY. Scrolled through 44 pages and should have missed it, while I did read the reports about this.


BL

It works. Modify the plane loadouts on the Home Base settings screen:

-Check the box for 'Enable Aircraft Limitations'.

-Click the Aircraft tab.

-Select your desired plane.

-Click Modify.

-Place the loadouts you want available in the 'Selected loadouts' column.

-Save the mission.


Aviar

The level flight of the aircraft depends on fuel, ammunition (C.G moves slightly), speed, altitude etc. Stop complaining about level flight and learn how to trim your aircraft. The aircraft, even the noobiesfire, do not fly alone. :mad:

Sometimes time i think the guys would like to take off, put the legs above the table, the hands behind the head and then light a cigarrete and smoke while the aircraft flies... Maybe you would like to read a book or go to the kitchen and make a snack.

I don't know if this is new in 4.10 but I noticed when using the nav lights during the day this very bright, whiteish blue light shines in the cockpit and all over the wings of the plane during the day...but when I do a night mission there is no light at all shining from the nav lights.

They are just nav lights I doubt they would be that bright during the day at not reflect off the plane at night.

Just a flying note for people citing the downward trim needed on a spitfire to fly level:

-Airfoils gain lift the faster they travel through the air (this is how an airplane is able to take off in the first place), how much lift is based on a number of things including the type of airfoil and shape and area of the wings

-The faster an airplane goes, the more it wants to climb, and the more downward trim is necessary to take the pressure off the control column. (to a point, at very high speeds, shock waves form and this is different, but this is beyond "normal" flight speeds, and usually occurs to piston aircraft only in a dive, and depends on the airfoil shape, ex. p-38.)

-As an airplane slows down, the opposite is true, thus more back pressure is needed, and thus nose up trim.

-As such an airplane in high speed level flight has a nose level angle depending on the aircraft, and in slow level flight an aircraft has a nose up angle. The slower an aircraft travels (i.e the lower the thrust), the greater the Angle of Attack its wings need to hit the air to maintain the same lift and level flight. The Angle of Attack can only be increased to a certain point, beyond that the air separates from the airfoil, becomes turbulent and the wing stalls, no matter what the speed. This is why you can stall a P-51 in a high speed turn (maximum AoA exceeded), do a "snap roll" in a Fw-190, and also the reason the 109 has slats (to keep the air from separating away from the wing surface, thus delaying a stall).

-Many computer simulations don't model this correctly, or if they do it is at least partially. In cruise flight, each change in power setting requires re-trimming the aircraft to relieve the control forces.

-The behavior of the spitfire is normal, and surprisingly, this should also be the case with most of the other planes in the game. An aircraft can fly level at a range of attitudes depending upon its speed.

Thanks for clarification :)

Example mission (attached) showing a bug with "Test Runways" placed on land
(this bug arises online at all connected players)

With 4.10m "Test Runways" do not work, if their centre is over a land (airfields at K-14, L-14, M-14 in attached mission). All players throws up in air and nobody can normally take off with such "Test Runways".

With 4.10m "Test Runways" work as usually if their centre is over water (airfields at K-13, L-13, M-13 in attached mission). All players appear on a strip and can normally take off from these "Test Runways".

All these "Test Runways" (no matter: over land or over water) worked fine with 4.09m. Players did not throw up in air with 4.09m.


Note: height is 0 meters for all places, everywhere a horizontal flat surface. But "Test Runways" placed on land does not work correctly with 4.10m (with patches 4.08m/4.09m all was excellent).

4.10 is supposed to be installed only over a clean 4.09.

Don't ask here (the board is hosted by 1C and the guys are quite allergic to Il-2 mods) but where you got the mods from. :)

Sent you a PM. I don't think MOD discussions are allowed in this forum.

hi all was any thing done [updated] to the JU88-A4 cockpit in the 4.10 update?? if it was i can not see it :(

get shot down by spits a lot?

that would be nice, especially for larger maps where you just want to climb out nice and steady, maybe nip to the loo, make a rollie etc. i've found that trimming the plane for a slight climb, with a bit of slip to counter the torque roll, whilst reducing throttle/pp a bit so the torque effect is a bit less to be quite effective. that or wedging a bit of card in the base of the stick to keep the wings level.
the spitfire has always needed nose down trim to maintain level flight though, hasn't it? is the level of trim that much different?

The pitch trim, can be adjusted, only it is much more pronounced now, but ok...

I am much more worried about the roll which is un-trimmable right now in the Spitfire.

For people who fly a bit and fight in small dogfight arenas that is not really much of a hassle, but for people who fly a 2-3h long mission in SEOW and navigate over very long distances, this is a much bigger problem.

If you have money rudder pedals are a nice solution. Most of the difficult is to try to counter sideslip in the joystick. Using the pedals you just need to hold your legs in a right position.

S!

So people complain now when they actually have to fly the Sissyfire? It was a plane like the rest of them, without a fly-by-wire ;) The trim tabs on ailerons, or any other control surface, were set to a certain speed where they kept the plane in a more or less trimmed state. Exceed this speed and it begins to roll/yaw/pitch and you need to counter it, either with trim if applicable or applying countering force with controls. This seems the case in 4.10m, which is good!

Same applies for Bf109 for example, it was trimmed with the aileron/rudder tabs to a certain speed, say 300km/h or cruise speed, where minimum input was needed. Many pilots state they needed to counter the changed trim especially as there were no pilot controlled rudder/aileron trims but only for elevator. In IL-2 you have always needed to fly the Bf109 due this, so if I need to fly a Sissyfire it is nothing different to me.

Just wait for SoW and we will need a brigade of Whambulances with the new FM if it is that complex as Oleg has stated. No more ridiculous planes on rails, which is good. US planes had the luxury of having all control surfaces trimmed and even boosted.

TD added some more pilot work and whining ensues. I wish all the planes would behave the same, requiring more pilot input so you can not just set the plane to fly and go eat lunch ;)

Well I got pedals, but I am not seeing this roll as an issue of discomfort for me or anyone else, but I tend to think: would they build a fighter, that was supposedly very easy and pleasant to fly, and yet make him need control inputs throughout the flight?

Come on, which other plane in IL-2 needs constant control input at cruise conditions? I-16?

Now I really miss my "Spitfire Story" book that is back in my home country, but even in wiki you can find some things like this:

Edit: If TD finds the little tests I posted earlier useful, it would be great; otherwise I really don't want to bother here anymore with people who don't read whole posts, and just reply based on some keywords that tick them off.

Found a bug/glitch in the take off procedure of the Lerche. Once you apply the chocks in, the aircraft will act like a UFO, it's a bit difficult to explain, hence I have the track here in my attachment, this saucer behaviour will only work when you have both engines on, you will also become invulnerable to the ground.

I dont know if this was always this way, but I think I have used the chocks before.

The Spitfire always used to roll to the left AAAALLL the time in Il-2, as I recall, like the aileron trim tab hadn't been set. I stopped flying it in campaigns because my wrist started hurting. It's always been a problem with the Spit in Il-2, hasn't it? What's different now, other than the degree of elevator trim required?

Except for me and and a few other from what I can gather in this thread the Spitfire is rolling to the right. As the spinner is turning clockwise the torque effect should be causing the Spitfire to roll to the left.

Does anyone have an explanation for a roll in the direction of the prop?

well the altimeter now reads 1000's m
peil compass has improved function

There are trim tabs, adjusted on ground in such a way, that the plane flies steady at cruise speed. Below cruise speed it should roll to left, above CS it should roll to right. Is it that way?

No, it isn't

The only time I can make a spitfire roll to the left is when it is below 280kph IAS and no rudder trim has been used. That can be obtained in a stable manner only in a trimmed climb, and the moment I use rudder trim to neutralize the side slip, it starts rolling right, even at that speed.

Maybe there is something wrong with my install, or with my joystick? Strange, that all other planes seem to be acting normal...

Hello,

Many thanks for the great improvements of 4.10, TD. You`re moving the game a great way closer to the reality.

I noticed night enviroment had been reworked as I flew the ILS test mission few times. Now night is much darker then before 4.10, but it seems to be achieveded by overall reduction of brightness.
1.
As it was mentioned in a post before, nav-lights and runway lights are very difficult to see in distance of just few kilometers during darkness, much harder then during daylight. Especially when using wide FOV.
Even though it should be the opposit, during clear night you can see aircraft nav-lighys in 20 km at least, landing lights or runway approach lights even more (just quick estimate).
2.
Cockpit instruments are VERY dim and hard to read even if lit during night.
3.
On-screen messages (throttle, flaps, etc.) tend to blind you with their brightness when the rest of the environment and cockpit is dark.
4.
Even though night is really dark and clear, stars are hard to see.

And the last and maybe least important.
I`d like to ask if B-25 could have woking landing lights.

Sorry for my English :rolleyes:

Not confirmed - worked perfectly here with chocks and without.

NEW BUG REPORT

S-80 torpedo boat - front gun only fires forwards even when plane is off to one side. It also fires 14 torps in a few seconds though it only has 2 torp tubes.

I did it again and still doing the same, we must be doing something different.

Make sure invulnerability is OFF, otherwise wierd stuff happens.

Curious if damage model for cargo ships was changed. I'm practicing offline dive bombing with stuka 1x250 kg and 3x250kg. Sometimes I get hits dead center with fireball explosions, but no kill message. There is damage and it smokes, but doesn't sink. Does it take bigger bombs now?

I think I have found a bug in FMB, please excuse me if this is already posted.
In Stationary Ships the Runway objects show the invisible ones as a red square or rectangle - unfortunately they are visible in the mission as well, the moving Ships also have these objects and can be placed with waypoints.

Faustnik
 

Some of the IL-2 planes do not have radiator damage models and this is a bug. These are the:

Hurri II
Mc.202
Mc.205
Yak (all models)
LaGG-3 (all models)

Some similar planes that have radiator damage models and work correctly are the Hurri I and the Mig-3.

Anyway, radiators are interesting! :D

Thanks for the reply Casper.

I am unable to get into any state where the aircraft rolls to the left without control input.

There appears to be no regime that causes the aircraft to fly without rolling to the right.

I have tried a range of speeds and power settings as well as 3 different sticks :)

Can you give the settings for what DT considers Cruise as a basis for futher testing?

I have been using +4 lbs boost and 2650 RPM as the cruise setting based on Spitfire Vb Pilot Notes.

I would be quite happy if I could fly straight at cruise speed, I have no problem with having to use the ailerons to stay straight in other scenarios.

Kind regards

Wedge

havent touched that button in years mate;) Was flying full real with externals to tape it.

Old bug with Dora: if you look at its side at 90 FOV from around 250-400m, one part of fuselage near the tail will look transparent.

---

Unrecoverable freezes are very frequent in MP. Especially in Spits vs BF109 server when player count > 50. Game completely freezes and needs to be killed via taskmanager. Usually multiple players are affected at once (or almost at once). Sometimes, the frequency is as high as one freeze every 10-15 min.

I saw your other post, but since we're getting no info from TD, we can at least discuss this ourselves :) You can request lights anywhere, but they get activated only when you hear "Roger" in response to the request. I was asking whether the distance from the lights when they will actually be lit is set, and to what value, and if we could change that distance to something reasonable (like inner or outer marker).

In general, I don't have a clue how those dim lights they've put into the mission would be of any use. Nowadays rwy lights are directional and not dimmed in any way, in WW II - I don't know, but the lights that you've added to the mission look more likely and are more useful.

Oh and one other thing DT, can we please get the landing lights for B-25?. Here's one B-25 J that definitely has them...

http://www.maam.org/wwii/images/b25_flight_2.jpg

4.10 facts and Bug list:

- visibility problem (problems spoting contacts in the far distance like in 4.09)
- spitfire with that huge wings got NO STALL in vertical climb with speed of 150-160 km/h
- physics and aerodinamics historically incorrect
- damage model spitfire vs. damage model FW-190 or 109 (WHAT THE ****)
- spitfire with that huge wings and cannons sticking out of the wings CAN follow FW-190 who is diveing from 3.0 alt, speed 800 km/h and over, get in shooting position and shoot it down - IMPOSSIBLE.
- P-47 large piece of heavy metal outturning FW-190 D9 but with no problem-hahahahaha NOT

I see spitfire pilots complaining about spitfire. Stop complaining about UNREALISTIC wonderplanes like spitfire because a 10 year old kid with a keyboard can beat ace BF-109 pilot with that Spitfire or Lavochkin. My question is, how the hell whole RAF was destroyed in reallife when here Spitfires and Lavochkins got Star Trek technology in Il-2 sim? Doing turns, rolls and then pushing up to shoot a target that have 1.0 more alt than him. What machine have power like that? Not even one, not even todays machines have power like that.

I like structural damage in 4.10. I'm looking forward to these things to be fixed. TD be very carefull with these things, IL-2 is classic. I am back for more testing of 4.10. All in all thank you for your constant work on IL-2!

Rainmaker: That is not a 'bug list' nor is it a facts list.

I don't have the knowledge nor the numbers for telling you a complete answer to that Spitfire issue. I tested myself and its seems as Spits start rolling to the right from ~300km/h TAS and above.
On the other side, I don't even know, if the Spits in game even had an aileron trimtab.

Thus I cannot explain, if or how the things, seen in game are connected to historical display. But responsible members of the team are aware of the discussion here.

Really cool answer, thanks.

Just noticed small bug in 4.10 radio comms. Switching between enemy and friendly frequency no longer works. Its still tuned on friendly one. I checked new navigation on/off. Same bug. Confirmed it works ok in 4.09. This is not bug but small request. if its possible to make me-163 land outside airfield runway. I want make campaing where you take off from concrete runway and land along it at marked grass strip next to runway. Now it bumbs till it flip over make it unable to land on grass outside runway. If its easy for next patch as Komet is little bit special.

Lol, so the whole RAF was destroyed eh? ........what?

What exactly are you asking? I used the Landing Lights when I was testing the problems with the Blind Landing mission so I could watch the B25 approach from a camera on the threshold and see what range the threshold lights came on. They may not illuminate the runway but AFAIK they never have on any aircraft in IL2.

Lol. :lol: He obviously heard the same propaganda that German BoB pilots heard.

double lol:grin:

even more so where you compare it to the luftwhiner, sorry i mean't luftwaffe.

You have used the "Navigation lights", a green, red, and white light at the wings and tail, didn't you?

The "Landing lights" are white focused lights, much like a car headlight, which indeed light up the runway, or ground, when you are low enough.

It is a completely different command, and B-25 doesn't have it, in spite of having it in RL.

Thank you for your time. :grin:

Ok, good to know my posts were not counted as "rant" or "whine". :o
Thx for the effort! :)

Added ReFly parameters in conf.ini.
When plane/pilot is heavily damaged, the refly button does not appear.

Got this reported from the WarClouds server, didn't reproduce it myself.

parameters set are:
[NET]
reflyKIADelay=5
maxAllowedKIA=5
reflyKIADelayMultiplier=2.0
reflyDisabled=0


BL

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7410/luftwaffle.jpg


http://http://img10.imageshack.us/im...luftwaffle.jpg

:grin:

Some say that during the Battle of Britain when Hitler and Goering decided to change the strategies and to bomb London instead of maintain the pressure over the RAF, the last one was almost colapsed.

One or two more weeks and RAF would be out of action. Churchil was very happy with the "geniality" of the Fuhrer. :cool:

1) Dowding has always strenuously denied that the RAF was ever in serious danger of not being able to keep putting up sufficient fighters.

2) You are talking about a bombing campaign that , although causing a lot of damage and temporarily restricting operations at various airfields, was in no way an indication of the Spitfires lack of dogfighting abilities.

You forgot the British counterpart:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m...y_spitfire.jpg
:-P

Hello TD

Loving 4.10, especially the beautiful I-15bis and the new FMB features.
Spotted a small issue in the time/date feature (which is a great addition). It only seems to save 2 out of the 3 elements, sometimes just one. The day of the month always seems to save alright, sometimes the month saves ok but the year resets itself to the default 1940.

Occasionally it resets everything to default (15/7/1940, I think)

I found this while working on the map Online 3, unfortunatly had'nt had time to test it across other maps yet- sorry if i've been, er, premature about reporting this.

Cheers

Ted

We certainly received some strange aircraft via lend-lease. :-P

Has anyone else experienced frankly dreadful performance of the Me-262A-1a with the R4M rockets loaded? I couldn't get it to climb above 25,000ft with the rocket loadout. I don't know whether it's a 4.10 issue or not but I still thought it was strange how much they affected performance.

I agree on this one, I request an increase of viewable distance for Light Emitting Objects like fires, search lights, runway lights, but also smoke, independent of viewable distance of objects like buildings. The searchlights reflecting in the clouds are a nice feature, Imagine large fires doing that.
I remember a game called "Driver" where you would race around town, and you spotted cars in the distance approaching you, then at a distance of less than 200 meters suddenly the headlights faded on. Always hated that.

Another curious detail was when flying high alt and passing a bomber, that after reaching a certain distance between myself and the bomber, the condensation stripes disappeared totally as they were switched off by the program. It eats less cpu cycles, that's true, but I wish it could be different.

I have no problem reading my instruments at night. But some planes did have a knob to regulate the power of the UV light. I can imagine such a thing too complex and too much work to be implemented.

Landing lights are a tricky thing though. At one point I scrambled while runway lights and landing lights switched on. My AC started rolling but because the landing light is a fixed texture, didn't see the runway surface change. I became disoriented because I thought my brakes were on, and drove off the runway. My fault, I scramble without them now, they're called LANDING lights anyway.

Something else: I request a feature if not already done so: In loadout options of you AC, let people fix their own standard trimming options for every flight and every type like pilots did on the ground. Let them figure out their preferences through trial and error. Don't make an option for saving preferences, let them write them down (it's only three small variables anyway). If you want the trim discussion to stop, this is your ticket :)

The main thing that I would say about the landing lights on the actual aircraft is that they don't really seem to actually light anything up except the side of your aircraft, making them utterly pointless. There's currently not much use for them even in pitch darkness other than to make your position very obvious. You can see this simply by sitting on the runway in darkness and turning on the landing lights. No visible effect on the lighting of the terrain can be seen. Not really an issue in pre 4.10 versions, but now that we have real dark nights it would be nice to have lights that actually light up terrain.

My last 2 cents on landing lights - they do have some effect in Il-2, but much smaller than in RL. In real airplanes landing without a working landing light in the night is considered an emergency procedure, and in anything faster and less sturdy then a small piston airplane it is very tricky (unless you have radar altimeter, that can be useful). Frankly, in B-25 mission I practiced over and over, the bigger problem were the invisible runway lights. You do need some visibility even for precision approaches nowadays, CAT I (which is basically what we have for B-25s) calls for 200 feet vertical and 550m RVR/800m visibility. Though if I had an option to either risk it and follow an imperfect GS all the way to the ground, or ditch in the South Pacific, I would take my chances with the approach :D.

Also, I can't remember anyone answering the questions I had in the beginning - what is the glideslope angle used and how far from the runway I need to be for the "tower" to activate the runway lights (and if this value can somehow be changed by mission builders)?

+1 for these ideas, excellent. Yes the visibility distance for night lights needs to be increased, and that pre-trimming idea is a good one. And yes, the landing light in Il2 will actually have to work now and illuminate the ground for the pilot prior to landing, not just be a shiny texture.

4.10, installed over a working 4.09 just won`t start.
I have no idea what is going on.
4.07 works
4.08 works
4.09 works
4.10 does not work
?

I do have the No-CD thingie.
Anybody in the know or is this a bug?
Always the same error

[Jan 5, 2011 2:40:38 PM] ------------ BEGIN log session -------------
[2:40:38 PM] OpenGL provider: Opengl32.dll
[2:40:39 PM] OpenGL library:
[2:40:39 PM] Vendor: ATI Technologies Inc.
[2:40:39 PM] Render: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2400
[2:40:39 PM] Version: 3.3.10071 Compatibility Profile Context
[2:40:39 PM] Extensions: GL_AMDX_debug_output GL_AMD_conservative_depth GL_AMD_debug_output GL_AMD_draw_buffers_blend GL_AMD_name_gen_delete GL_AMD_performance_monitor GL_AMD_sample_positions GL_AMD_shader_stencil_export GL_ARB_blend_func_extended GL_ARB_color_buffer_float GL_ARB_copy_buffer GL_ARB_depth_buffer_float GL_ARB_depth_clamp GL_ARB_depth_texture GL_ARB_draw_buffers GL_ARB_draw_buffers_blend GL_ARB_draw_elements_base_vertex GL_ARB_draw_instanced GL_ARB_explicit_attrib_location GL_ARB_fragment_coord_conventions GL_ARB_fragment_program GL_ARB_fragment_program_shadow GL_ARB_fragment_shader GL_ARB_framebuffer_object GL_ARB_framebuffer_sRGB GL_ARB_geometry_shader4 GL_ARB_half_float_pixel GL_ARB_half_float_vertex GL_ARB_imaging GL_ARB_instanced_arrays GL_ARB_map_buffer_range GL_ARB_multisample GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_occlusion_query GL_ARB_occlusion_query2 GL_ARB_pixel_buffer_object GL_ARB_point_parameters GL_ARB_point_sprite GL_ARB_provoking_vertex GL_ARB_sampler_objects GL_ARB_seamless_cube_map GL_ARB_shader_bit_encoding GL_ARB_shader_objects GL_ARB_shader_texture_lod GL_ARB_shading_language_100 GL_ARB_shadow GL_ARB_shadow_ambient GL_ARB_sync GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp GL_ARB_texture_buffer_object GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_compression_rgtc GL_ARB_texture_cube_map GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_texture_env_combine GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3 GL_ARB_texture_float GL_ARB_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_ARB_texture_multisample GL_ARB_texture_non_power_of_two GL_ARB_texture_rectangle GL_ARB_texture_rg GL_ARB_texture_rgb10_a2ui GL_ARB_texture_snorm GL_ARB_timer_query GL_ARB_transform_feedback2 GL_ARB_transform_feedback3 GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_ARB_uniform_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_array_bgra GL_ARB_vertex_array_object GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_program GL_ARB_vertex_shader GL_ARB_vertex_type_2_10_10_10_rev GL_ARB_window_pos GL_ATI_draw_buffers GL_ATI_envmap_bumpmap GL_ATI_fragment_shader GL_ATI_meminfo GL_ATI_separate_stencil GL_ATI_texture_compression_3dc GL_ATI_texture_env_combine3 GL_ATI_texture_float GL_ATI_texture_mirror_once GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_bindable_uniform GL_EXT_blend_color GL_EXT_blend_equation_separate GL_EXT_blend_func_separate GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_EXT_blend_subtract GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_copy_buffer GL_EXT_copy_texture GL_EXT_direct_state_access GL_EXT_draw_buffers2 GL_EXT_draw_instanced GL_EXT_draw_range_elements GL_EXT_fog_coord GL_EXT_framebuffer_blit GL_EXT_framebuffer_multisample GL_EXT_framebuffer_object GL_EXT_framebuffer_sRGB GL_EXT_geometry_shader4 GL_EXT_gpu_program_parameters GL_EXT_gpu_shader4 GL_EXT_histogram GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil GL_EXT_packed_float GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_pixel_buffer_object GL_EXT_point_parameters GL_EXT_provoking_vertex GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_secondary_color GL_EXT_separate_specular_color GL_EXT_shadow_funcs GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_subtexture GL_EXT_texgen_reflection GL_EXT_texture3D GL_EXT_texture_array GL_EXT_texture_buffer_object GL_EXT_texture_buffer_object_rgb32 GL_EXT_texture_compression_latc GL_EXT_texture_compression_rgtc GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc GL_EXT_texture_cube_map GL_EXT_texture_edge_clamp GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_env_combine GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3 GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic GL_EXT_texture_integer GL_EXT_texture_lod GL_EXT_texture_lod_bias GL_EXT_texture_mirror_clamp GL_EXT_texture_object GL_EXT_texture_rectangle GL_EXT_texture_sRGB GL_EXT_texture_shared_exponent GL_EXT_texture_snorm GL_EXT_texture_swizzle GL_EXT_timer_query GL_EXT_transform_feedback GL_EXT_vertex_array GL_EXT_vertex_array_bgra GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_KTX_buffer_region GL_NV_blend_square GL_NV_conditional_render GL_NV_copy_depth_to_color GL_NV_explicit_multisample GL_NV_float_buffer GL_NV_half_float GL_NV_primitive_restart GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap GL_SGIS_texture_edge_clamp GL_SGIS_texture_lod GL_SUN_multi_draw_arrays GL_WIN_swap_hint WGL_EXT_swap_control
[2:40:39 PM] Size: 1024x768
[2:40:39 PM] ColorBits: 32
[2:40:39 PM] DepthBits: 24
[2:40:39 PM] StencilBits: 8
[2:40:39 PM] isDoubleBuffered: true
[2:40:39 PM]
[2:40:39 PM] *** Looking for Advanced CPU Instructions...
[2:40:39 PM] [x] PentiumPro
[2:40:39 PM] [x] Multimedia (MMX)
[2:40:39 PM] [x] 3D (SSE)
[2:40:39 PM] [x] 3D (SSE2)
[2:40:39 PM] [-] 3D (3DNow)
[2:40:39 PM] ColourBits 32, ABits 8, ZBits 24
[2:40:39 PM]
[2:40:39 PM] *** Looking for Render API Extensions ...
[2:40:39 PM] [-] 'GL_EXT_paletted_texture' extension - Palettized textures (8 bit RGBA palette).
[2:40:39 PM] [-] 'GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array' extension - Compiled Vertex arrays.
[2:40:39 PM] [-] 'GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint' extension - Frustum clipping optimization.
[2:40:39 PM] [x] 'GL_EXT_secondary_color' extension - Secondary Color for 3D fog & specular optimization.
[2:40:39 PM] [x] 'GL_EXT_separate_specular_color' extension - SeparateSpecular for 3D fog & specular optimization.
[2:40:39 PM] [x] 'GL_ARB_multitexture' extension - Multitexturing.
[2:40:39 PM] [x] 'GL_EXT_texture_env_combine' extension - Multitextures advanced combining for special effects.
[2:40:39 PM] [-] 'GL_NV_texture_env_combine4' extension - Multitextures advanced combining for special effects.
[2:40:39 PM] [x] 'GL_EXT_texture_env_dot3' extension - Dot3 Bump advanced combining.
[2:40:39 PM] [-] 'GL_NV_depth_clamp' extension - Corrects Shadows rendering
[2:40:39 PM] [-] 'GL_NV_texture_shader' extension - NV Pixel Shaders
[2:40:39 PM] [x] 'GL_ARB_texture_compression' extension - Saves texture memory by 400%
[2:40:39 PM] [x] 'GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic' extension - Anisotropic texture filtering.
[2:40:39 PM]
[2:40:39 PM] Maximum texture size : 8192
[2:40:39 PM] Maximum simultaneous textures :8
[2:40:39 PM] MaxAnisotropic (1.0 = none) : 16.000000
[2:40:41 PM] SectFile load failed: null
[2:40:41 PM] java.io.FileNotFoundException
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SFSInputStream.<init>(SFSInputStrea m.java:65)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SFSReader.<init>(SFSReader.java:19)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.loadFile(SectFile.java:157 )
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.loadFile(SectFile.java:136 )
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.<init>(SectFile.java:108)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.rts.SectFile.<init>(SectFile.java:68)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.checkCustomAirIni(GUIQ uick.java:1339)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.<init>(GUIQuick.java:1 477)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUI.create(GUI.java:158)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:70 0)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:35 7)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.MainWin3D.beginApp(MainWin3D.j ava:211)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main.exec(Main.java:420)
[2:40:41 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.GameWin3D.main(GameWin3D.java: 235)
[2:40:42 PM] Main begin: n must be positive
[2:40:42 PM] java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: n must be positive
[2:40:42 PM] at java.util.Random.nextInt(Unknown Source)
[2:40:42 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.mapChanged(GUIQuick.ja va:960)
[2:40:42 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUIQuick.<init>(GUIQuick.java:1 682)
[2:40:42 PM] at com.maddox.il2.gui.GUI.create(GUI.java:158)
[2:40:42 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:70 0)
[2:40:42 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main3D.beginApp(Main3D.java:35 7)
[2:40:42 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.MainWin3D.beginApp(MainWin3D.j ava:211)
[2:40:42 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.Main.exec(Main.java:420)
[2:40:42 PM] at com.maddox.il2.game.GameWin3D.main(GameWin3D.java: 235)
[Jan 5, 2011 2:40:42 PM] -------------- END log session -------------

Edit: solved by downloading again!

Another 4.10 bug with me-163 komet. Player AP is unable to take off. it constantly on/off engine and just ride on ground. in 4.09 all ok. AI AP is ok.

Does anyone have a problem with german jets catching fire prior to takeoff in 4.10?

That happened in 4.09 also if you moved the throttel too fast ahead. If that is the issue you are talking about, that is right the way it is, as those early jet engines could only excellorate very slowly compared to modern jet engines.

Nah I think he means something which has been mentioned many times before in this thread, that is when you switch to AI or something that the engines will catch fire.