don't want to be arrogant, but IL-2 1946 and throughout the series, this intended for people who love the simulation, and the truth go see ho fly des of the external view is a bit out of IL-2, for that you have Wings of prey, fits better with your profile of arcade...


almost all here are people who look the more possible real, and what your ask for is out of the reality... We want things to be real, requests as you make no sense in a simulator... Anyway if you want one thing well, you have the mods, who has one that lets you choose the view you like, even see the plane give in...so please leave the job to the developers for the fans of the flight simulation.

A simple "hold your fire" for your gunners would be nice when flying a multicrew plane..

I don't know if this is possible but a tighterning of radio controls to speed up the process of radio orders such as a Rainbow 6 or SWAT 4 style ring with radio options to make the process a mulipul process to something quicker insted of tab and numbers one button and a few clicks just to speed up the process of orders

Well, there is a hotkey in your key settings, to shut up the gunners.
No reason to make things more complicated. :rolleyes:

Well, thats not entirely true.

1. As developers we have of course take care of every aspect of the game, inlcluding the arcade options.

2. If you look into the Hyperlobby i.e., you will see, that there are always many 'cockpit off' - servers, so it cannot be that unpopular.

3. Especially for new players, the arcade options can be very helpfull.

4. In case of Wiskey-Charlie I can understand it: he wants a propellar, but no struts (which he has as a massive contruction, I guess?). I just wonder, are you playing with lots of monitors, so you do not need to rotate the ingame view?

However, in case of a propellar, visible in so called 'wonderwoman' view, I think it has a low priority, if ever considered, because the use of it is low level (in fact only for such cockpit builders).


EDIT: and at least its a valid request, what in fact this thread is for. ;-)

Caspar or anyone from the team, could you possibly specify which areas are off limits for future development of maps? Is it really true that Malta and Sicily are excluded due to some plans of the 1C?

I've asked for these before, perhaps someone will be interested this time around:

1) Improvement to offline AI: a) Smarter dogfighting behavior. b) AI gunners are still too effective, especially when shooting while the plane in maneuvering. c) AI planes don't suffer from engine overheating. d) AI pilots are immune to redout/blackout.

Since there are mods out there which already address many of these issues, I KNOW it's possible to fix them, it's just a matter of making those fixes a priority.

2) The ability to turn realism options on or off from some planes but not others. For example, you could give an advantage to one side by giving them unlimited ammo or unrealistic engine, guns or blackout behavior, or you could make things more challenging for yourself offline by giving AI planes advantages that you don't have.

3) Separate unlimited gun ammo from unlimited rockets/bombs. If you fly with unlimited ammo, it makes some strike fighter campaigns unplayable since you can never jettison your stores when you need to dogfight or run for home.

4) Parachutes and Parachute Behavior. A) Color-coded cargo parachutes. B) Different colored parachutes for different nationalities - as was sometimes the case historically. C) The possibility of aircrew colliding with aircraft parts when bailing out. The bail out animation ignores the aircraft model. D) The possibility of parachute failure, particularly if the crewman is wounded. E) The ability to control the height at which your parachute opens. Realistically, if you open your 'chute at 10 km you'll die of hypoxia before you ever reach the ground.

5) The ability to drop flares for signaling.

6) Allow planes with damage, low fuel or wounded crew to make priority landings.

7) Aircraft fires that spread and which damage surrounding components. I get sick of watching flaming bombers travel for tens of kilometers with no structural damage to the wing or fuselage.

8 ) More intelligent crippled aircraft AI behavior. Crew in burning aircraft should usually try to bail out immediately. Crippled planes close to friendly territory should take slight risks to crash land or bail out over friendly territory. Planes over water should try to ditch close to land or have their crew bail out over water. Planes that can't maintain altitude should try to make a forced landing in the most favorable terrain possible, rather than just flying into a mountain or forest.

9) Chance of "friendly fire" - especially from AAA and bomber gunners, but also possibly fighters from different units or nations. Ideally, some planes would be more immune to friendly fire than others. For example, the P-38 and the big Allied 4 engine bombers were recognizable enough that their own troops generally didn't shoot at them. On the other hand, the P-51 Mustang looked enough like the Bf-109 that it was the victim of numerous "friendly fire" incidents. Chance of mistakenly opening fire could also be based on unit skills - veterans are better at aircraft ID than rookies. Taking this idea further, there could also be a risk of "friendly fire" against allied ground targets.

10) Ground control which allows forward air controllers, radar vectoring, etc. There is a mod which does this already.

11) A change in the way that kills are handled. A) You ought to be credited with shared kills and probable kills. B) Ideally, there would be multiple systems for claiming kills which model historical practices for various nations.
C) User customizable kill markings, which ideally would be automatically applied to your aircraft. D) Different kill/mission markings based on your nationality/theater. If I'm flying for the US or UK I don't want to see little red stars. Likewise, if I'm flying for Japan, I don't want to see German style "hash marks."

12) Fire, Smoke and Fog: A) Ground fires which spread and go out. B) Big user-placeable fires. C) The ability to place burning buildings/objects in the FMB. D) Big user placeable smoke clouds like those seen over burning cities. E) Big user placeable smoke plumes like those generated by burning ships, to simulate things like oil well fires. F) User placeable dust/smoke layers. That would allow you to use the FMB to do things like creating the sort of gigantic dust clouds which obscured visibility during Kursk and similar battles, or the sort of smoke pall which obscured visibility over burning cities. G) User placeable cloud/dust/smoke layers. Ideally, you'd be able to select height, cloud thickness, cloud type, degree of coverage, type of precipitation, cloud size and location. CFS2 had this function 10 years ago. H) Amount of dust/snow generated by planes or vehicles should depend on map, weather and terrain type. Planes using dirt fields in dry, hot conditions should generate masses of dust, planes using concrete fields in damp conditions should generate almost no dust. Vehicles traveling across the dry desert produce huge dust clouds, those traveling on paved roads will produce none.

13) Floating aircrew. A) Create floating aircrew models for nationalities other than the US and Japan. B) Remove the Japanese figure's samurai sword - it's not there in the cockpit or the parachute model! C) Where appropriate, create multi-crew raft objects. D) Allow floating aircrew/raft figures to be placeable objects in the FMB.

14) Add a V-1 interception mission to the QMB option. Allow the user to set the number of missiles they wish to intercept, their height, etc.

15) Loadouts: A) Increase loadouts for planes to cover all/most historical possibilities. This would make a lot of modded aircraft obsolete, since many of them just increase the number of available loadouts. B) Split loadouts for guns from loadouts for bombs/rockets/torpedoes. This would allow theater or unit specific ammo beltings and shut up some of the whining about whether certain weapons are over or under powered. c) In the weapons.ru settings list default armament rather than just stating "default" - it's not that hard to describe "6 .50 caliber MG" or "4 Hispano 20mm cannon".

16) Fuel and Aircraft performance: A) For planes where it was historically available, allow the possibility of 100+ octane fuel with associated performance boost. That would shut up a certain number of "chart wars". B) Have a setting in the QMB or FMB which allows the user to slightly improve or degrade aspects of aircraft performance to simulate worn out, badly maintained or malfunctioning aircraft. This would also shut up a lot of the chart wars and would negate the "need" for a number of FM tweaks. C) Have an option in the FMB which allows the designer to place damaged flying aircraft, or pre-set damage to the aircraft or its systems at some point during the mission. This would be handy for "escort the crippled bomber" or "in flight emergency" missions.

17) New Aircraft: Rather than adding new planes to the sim, why not rework and add important variants of existing craft? That's what people really seem to want. If you look at the modded versions of the game, you'll see loads of variants for the more popular planes - P-38, P-40, P-47, P-51, Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf-109, Fw-190, Me-262, Yak series and whatnot. These aren't (all) just souped up late war versions, either. Instead, at least some represent downgrades, prototypes or earlier versions. Since they require minimal 3D, FM or DM work, it would be easy to massively increase the number of planes in the game just by adding these variants. For each release, TD could give all the important variants for one popular plane, or part of a series. For example, in one release you could rework all the marks of Bf-109F, after that you could release all the variants of the P-47, and so on.

The Brewster Buffalo series could use a review, since the same model is used for all the variants and the differences between the 239, F2A, Buffalo MkI and 339 variants aren't well modeled. Likewise, the P-40 series needs a fix for the wings, and there are lots of P-40 variants that still aren't in the game. Also, consider that the Soviets and British often had their own Field-Modded or special versions of U.S. Lend-Lease planes. For example, it would be nice to have Soviet versions of the A-20, equipped with Soviet ordinance, guns, fuel and turrets.

Another group of planes which is popular among modders, and which fills a real niche, is carrier-based or seaplane variants of existing planes. It wouldn't be much effort at all to model the Sea Hurricane or Sea Gladiator series, nor would it be hard to add floats to the Swordfish. Likewise, modeling the proposed carrier-borne versions of the Bf-109 and Ju-87, with or without an actual Graf Spee for them to fly off of, would be a real winner.

18 ) Ground Vehicles and Guns: Make it so that guns don't shoot at downed airplanes. Have ground vehicles swerve around disabled vehicles and other obstacles rather than "playing bumper cars".

19) Improved modeling of damage to control surfaces: Instead of just having surfaces "damaged" or shot away, make it so they can be jammed instead. Basically, three failure modes instead of one: missing/partially missing, unresponsive/fluttering, jammed. I'm not sure if it's modeled, but some planes suffered from aileron reversal or control flutter at high speeds.

Any plane has flares if you carry a flare gun or parachute flares with you.

Kill marking :)

Do you mean autopilot automation "off"? Or something else?

I've already asked about the meteor... they said no:(

What about a spitfire 1,2 or Va

Would it be conceivable to enlarge skins, using two 1024 x 1024 instead of one?

It would make a huge difference for surface detail and would maintain a healthy distance from Cliffs of Dover (for commercial reasons).

In terms of plastic models, CoD could be considered as 1/24 scale, forming a collection of few models of the higher quality.

Present day Il2 could be considered 1/72 scale, smaller and less detailed models, but numerous, with the potential for a complete WW2 collection.

With two 1024, Il2 would go to a sort of 1/48 scale, being still manageable for average skinner, and (I believe) no problems for today computers.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=12568

Are you still doing the ship damage (Life boats come off sinking ship nd send up flares, floating debris) mentioned here.

Can you make the MiG-9M, which featured an ejection seat and RD-21 engines, the RD-21 being an afterburning variant of the RD-20 / BMW-003. It should be quite easy since you already have the model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-9

Curious if there are any plans to replace a few horrible or old default skins that are still kicking around? I'm thinking aircraft like the Ju52, Li-2, Po-2, Buffalo Mark I (someone probably put that one together in a real hurry) and the P-47D-10 and D-22 Pacific skin.

Also the Spitfire IX series with clipped wing retain the old default skin while the non-clipped versions have a different one.

I've mentioned we need FMB improvements several times.

I don't have the COD yet, but from what I'm reading the Triggers,Events and scripting would be darned awesome tools to have in the IL2 TD versions. The FMB has always been half done in IL2.

I don't know if those tools can be implemented, but Oleg did mention he was staying very close to the IL2 FMB.

The future of IL2 is far from done. The BOB COD is only one battle of a huge war. The IL2 covers a large part of it, and it will take years for COD to approach the same resource levels.

Personally, I enjoy the Pacific war and it maybe at least 3 or more years before COD progresses to that point.

Weather
 

1. Randomize and variable weather while in a mission or flight. You can take off in a sunny day and finish in a rainy day.

2. Wind is very important. Sometimes when you fly in a sunny day you can be hit by wind and shake the airplane.

3. Torque. The AI airplanes doesn't have torque effect except the TB3-4M (The one with 4 engines). When you see this airplane taking off is beautifull because you can see the realism produced by the torque effect.

4. All the AI airplanes land the same perfect way. Randomize performance and ability should be implemented when AI landing.

5. When in a LAN you cannot see the movement of airplane surfaces of other players. I know is a lot of information but should be implemented in a on or off option in the conf.ini file.

6. No more stationary airplanes. Instead of that use normal airplanes to be placed by the user in FMB, using the livery of your choice. This will add more realism when be attacked. The actual stationary airplane is destroyed inmediately and all the airplanes stayed the same way of destruction. If use normal airplanes the destruction will be different allways.

7. If an AI airplane can land and park, should be start, taxi and take off to help you or to join to attack. This airplane shoul be used the same way in the request number 6 of my list.

8. Vehicles. Actually you must draw the path of the vehicles, when the veiche finish its path, stops forever. What about to implement vehicles that are constantly moving in a path with randomize movement like stop and move. Imagine this in a city.

I hope some of this ideas should be implemented in future updates.

Thank you.

Now you got me by surprise. I was sure, there was an option "Toggle gunners on/off" (I'm even sure I mapped it to Shift+T), but now I cannot find it in the key setup. :confused:
Seems as I gave you a wrong answer. I will doublecheck.

Is there a plan to correct the angle of the P-40 wings ???

Pit Builders & arcade wonder women view
 

I love the sim too. Have spent many hours trying to make IL2 feel as real as is possible. Even took a flight in a WWII trainer last year to find out how it should feel. Pilot let me take the controls for about five minutes. Have been working hard to customize my peripherals to simulate the feeling of these controls and have to say I think I have done a pretty good job of it. Is VERY close indeed.

The virtual pits are very well done (great art no doubt). I have flown many a times using the virtual pit. But to each his own, we pit builders feel that the physical pit is more realistic. If the instrument panel is built correctly and your monitor is at the correct height, the instrument panel blocks out the bottom portion of your view the same as does the virtual pit view, really no difference in view at all.

Am still learning how to make videos, I am not Steven Spielburg but here is a video I made yesterday while flying "Facing into the wind campaign" (excellent campaign thanks icefire). I made it to show my friend across the pond the improvement of gauge needle motion after upgrading PC. Imagine what it would look like seeing the prop turning. Would be better. Note also that this is not the exact view I see, is hard to hold the camera where my head is because of the confined space in the pit. When filming the monitor I have to hold the camera in front of my face vs where my head is.

Pit Builders are IL2 fans too :)

(ooops you tube is restricting viewing outside us because of sound tract copyrights , will try to fix later)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSLLa-aWpF4
Hi Casper, thanks for reply. I think many pit-builders myself included fly mostly campaigns offline. Yes, flying with three monitors. I use trackIR sometimes, but do not have to have it. I know we are minority, but can't hurt to ask.

Thank you Wiskey-Charlie for sharing this vid, amazing rig and a sense of realism! I guess that other guy, lothar, simply didn't understand your post :)

for those unable to view Whiskey Charlie's vid of his setup, here's an older one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSkWKjp52B0

back to his original idea. yes it's a nice idea, it also could have uses for movie makers and might be useful to those making the transition from 'wonder woman view' to pit on

Why? Who want Zoom axe - just accept this feature.
In 6DOF is one important thing - zoom in/out. If use only zoom - no changes with cockpits is needed.

May I request the following be included;

1 x movable navigation degrees protractor.

http://www.bepreparedtosurvive.com/C...Protractor.jpg

I think if the P-40s are going to get corrected then they may as well go whole hog and fix the dihedral problem, the missing internal wing components for when the plane is damaged and maybe a few other small visual issues that the aircraft has. Plus... add a couple more versions :D

Yes, I'd like to see the P-40E, M, & M-105 dihedral and other model issues fixed as well! Possibly loadouts could be considered as well if this can be done at the time. :cool:

The looks of the early P-40 (B, C & Tomahawks etc) put these 'Kittyhawks' to shame! :o

For icing on the cake a couple more P-40 versions F (short fuselage Merlin), K (short fuselage Alison with modified fin), L (long fuselage Merlin) and N ('featherweight' & regular) would all be really nice! ;)

Spitfire I & II are off-limits because they "compete" against Cliffs of Dover. Later versions of the Spitfire are probably OK. The only real limitation is that there were zillions of different Spitfire variants.

Dynamic weather might make IL2 "compete" against CoD, so it might be out for that reason. That said, weather in IL2 is something of a weak point. There are sims older than IL2 which have better meteorological effects.

I think that sometimes AI planes do crash, especially if they are flown by rookies. I agree that it would be cool if AI planes came in a bit high, low and/or fast especially under difficult conditions or when flown by inexperienced or wounded pilots.

Alternately, have stationary plane models JUST for planes that aren't flyable in the game and which aren't likely to be encountered in combat situations. That way you could shoot up an airport full of trainer or liaison type planes.

you gonna fix the fw190 FM?

+1for all of the above

1) Can you stop this from happening?

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/7564/grab0000a.jpg

Pilotless, shot-up AI planes flying endlessly in perfect trim, even though they lack most of their control surfaces?

2) How about some adjustable settings for the AI in the difficulty panel: AI engine overheat on/off, AI G-force limits on/off, AI Stalls & Spins on/off?

Could it be possible to tweak some aircrafts' FMs?

E.G, I was dogfighting in a Ta-152H against La-7s and I couldn't catch up with them, or hardly with the MW50 activated... I mean, isn't the 152 supposed to be faster? Of course, the La-7s were doing impossible acrobatics, without any G-Locs and yet still faster than me...

I love this game but sometimes I feel like some planes are too powerful, and others not enough, historically speaking.

Thanks. :)

Another example, I was intercepting B-17s in a 190, suddenly one of them did a beautiful barrel roll, as fast as my plane, then flew straight to the ground. We reached a maximum speed of 620Km/H and yet the B-17 was totally ok, with its mighty gunners firing at will. Then it hided in a cloud and I lost it. :D

I have dozens of examples like this, that make me feel I'm playing something that is all but a flight sim.

bomb release cue
 

It would be nice if there was some visual cue regarding bomb release (head dipping or plane shuddering slightly on bomb release maybe?)

If that's too complicated regarding the mix of Jabos/Dive Bombers/level Bombers, then just raising the volume of the bomb release sound (It's a very, very low volume now) would be good.

Thanks again TD!

At what altitude were you flying the Ta152H? That plane is configured for high-altitude fighting, while the La7 for low to mid.

The window says 4.07m but I believe the most recent data has been loaded.

Did I mention changing the AI code so that once a plane catches fire one the the following will happen:

1-The pilot will bail .. within 5-10 seconds.

2-The plane will nose down and go into a dive for the ground because .. number one did not happen.. which would mean tat the pilot was either dead of mortally wounded and incapable of controlling the plane.

3-The plane will explode.

But the plane will NOT

1-Turn on it's attacker or his wingman.. or some other aircraft and start to attack it.

2-Just fly off burning in the sky.. sometimes for quite a while..

Also related. He-111 Z Zwillig. Abandoned, missing right half (except tailwheel!) still flying.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c337/MF--C/he111z.jpg

What would you think about to create the C and E version of the He-111???
B
http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/he111b_3v.jpg
C
http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/heinkel/he111c.jpg
E
http://kits.kitreview.com/images/he111ereview_box.jpg

This is a bird for the early war fans among us.

The game as it is now is a mixture of fabulous looking airplanes, the new ones like the Hs 129, and the old airplanes that look and sound just awful. Could you please fix that issue?

This may be a stretch, but I was wondering how realistic it was to go over the visual representation of damage.

Currently a broken spar results in the wing fracturing into 4 or 5 parts. It looks unrealistic and gives the wrong impression of the effectiveness of cannons (one or two rounds appear totally disintegrate a wing or tail rather than just weaken a spar to the point of failure).

I was wondering if this could be fixed because I noticed that the Yak-1 has a 3 part wing that can come off in one piece if struck at the root. It seems odd that this feature wasn't applied to other planes. It would help realism a lot.

Giving these fragments a collision box would also be great. Considering that there is now the G-limit feature which "bends" the airframe rather than breaks it, I wonder if it would be possible to offer a new type of collision model which takes into account energy (speed and mass) of impact and decides whether or not to simply damage, or tear off, parts of another plane.

I wonder
 

I wonder if...

1) Its possible to fix the damage model on the P-38's twin tail booms. From what I understand it has never been programed as separate tail booms as far as the damage model is concerned. It has more than one rudder and the tail, it seems to me, gets damaged soooooo easily. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the P-38 was one tough mother!

2)A more realistic or different sound for the bending airframe. At present it sounds like loosing an aileron. IT's confusing.

3)You could kill the external padlock exploit used by many pilots to "Lock ON" to any enemy plane beyond visual range. That or kill the enemy plane external view for online play, or make enemy external views an option to be turned off. This drives me crazy. Any one can find you any where. That ain't right.

4)The ability to earn half credit on a kill. This would make life better for all pilots using 50 cals. At current you can smoke an engine, blow off ailerons, elevators, rudders, put holes in a wing, injure a pilot, and set the enemy on fire, but it all means nothing if some looser with a 30mm canon saws off the wing of all your hard work.

5)DELETE THE 185. What a stupid, magical piece of... er.. know what I mean? Or at least make the engine the completely unreliable P.O.S. it historically was.

6)Left and right break pedals? It would make taxi far more realistic.

Ty for 4.10.1 I love what you've done so far. Especially with the menu's and the new programmable joystick axis. Also the g-limit for all AC is greatly appreciated. All great fixes.

Poor/blind weather?

I still can see the ground at 2 kilometers altitude. :rolleyes:
In my opinion weather effects are really something that needs a priority fix .

I was always asking for two things only- the rest can be done via MODs.

1. Proper wide screen support instead of heaving to rely on Sans FOV Changer or live with chopped off top of the screen.

2. Add button to remove icons from replays.

Fov
 

+1 !!!!!!!!!

6DOF support, even if it's very restricted move.
I'm too tired of dodging cage bar with toggle gunsight key.

Not meaning to sound rude but have you tried flying on full realism servers or servers with higher realism settings? Half your gripes would be voided by that as

- there typically are no external views on these servers
- there wont be anybody equipped with a 30mm on your side when flying most aircraft armed with .50cal MGs only
- there wont be any I-185 aloft

Especially the latter seems to be an "arcade server" problem. Only a handful of the I-185 fighters were produced and the M-71 engine utilized on the projected production model was found to be extremely unreliable up to the point that not only the fighter itself but also further development on the engine was seized altogether.

Other typical "arcade" fantasy planes include the MiG-3U and I-153P which you could also count in real life on two hands

1.) A cockpit for the upcoming Hs 123 - this is a great aircraft to be made flyable as it adds a lot to early to late war scenarios.

2.) Smaller fonts for the menus (without mods needed).

3.) Widescreen support.

4.) Reinstate the need for engine warm-ups immediately after engine start.

This used to be in IL-2 early on in the game's life, but was removed at some point through patching. The Bf 109E, for example, needed to idle at around 700RPM until the oil temperature reached 30 degrees Celsius.

5.) 6DOF track IR

6.) Dual pedal breaking.

In-plane altimeter
 

Hi guys,

I know you've done great work in the past. I have a request, could we have an in cockpit altimeter that doesn't stop at 30,000 ft in the climb ? E.g. in allied aircraft. As far as I'm concerned it would be a 'nice to have' it's not a show stopper.

Cheers

rodgdodge

Thank you for the response. I understand that many of my suggestions/gripes are solved by flying in full switch servers. And I have recently taken up flying in full switch servers.

I thought perhaps that the "arcade" pilots could benefit from such changes. I realize that it would take a considerable amount of work to make certain changes. The external padlock beyond visual range is a loop hole that I'm sure was never intended to be a part of the game. In my opinion it's a glitch and an issue that deserves resolution. I'm not the only arcade pilot who feels this way. IF this is a difficult issues to resolve then please by all means move on to more pressing matters. However if turning off enemy external views is an easy fix, then why not?

Don't "arcade" pilots deserve an honest hunt?

I think thats the one biggest flaw with arcade servers, the redundancy of the whole map icons thing... i think if you have no enemy icons on the map, you shouldn't be able to just switch to the enemy plane to see where they are on external view, their the same thing, except even worse, switching to an enemy plane on externals, you will know exactly where they are, AND can also see their altitude, and therefor always maintain an advantage.... and that should never happen.

I agree. On servers with outside view enabled, it's impossible to maintain any kind of surprise. I feel that F5, F6, etc should be lumped in with "no padlock on" difficulty, and that external views should have the option of being limited to friendlies only.

I found this link and I think it will be quite helpful for new aircraft cockpits.

http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/co...-aircraft.html

Hope this helps and please fix the Go-229 to be Ho-229 and able to carry a bomb load. Thanks

Eagle out.

Please excuse me if this has been asked before. Are there plans to update the landscape textures of the old maps?

The newer maps like Slovakia or Bessarabia have very good looking textures and I think most of us would like to see the same quality on the other maps. Especially the Pacific maps look quite ugly and some have completely wrong textures (Chichi Jima).
In my opinion better map textures would be one of the biggest improvements for the game.

Probably the oldest request of all, but after many months of holding back I have to ask you to look one more time at the low speed turn performance of the Spitfire, particularly the IX. In 4.10 the low speed turn performance of the IX was considerably improved, which was a surprise as it was widely regarded as too good to be true in 4.09. I have no issues with the Spitfire having a better turn rate than the 109 - it should - but when airspeed falls and AoA increases that big wing should produce a lot more drag than it does. But the Spitfire seems to retain energy very well, and pulls off high AoA turns that no other aircraft can follow. In short, the energy retention of the Spitfire isn't realistic, and as it's such an important aircraft in the game I think you need to look at it again.

Yes, yes, yes (standing ovation!)


DK-nme

6 dof
 

Any chance of 6DOF implementation for use with trackir and anothers similar devices ?

+1

Also I'd like to have the online scoring system reworked, instead of the last one that scores a hit gets the points, I'd rather see the number of hits and/or the total damage that has been done. Or maybe a style of distributing the points like the RAF had. I flew online yesterday, first time in ages, and was promptly irritated with the kill stealers. And when I was shooting a bf-110 a single bullet hit the B25 that was spiraling down without it's tail, so I was credited with a friendly kill. Pretty annoying!

My requests:
-please make full normal widescreen support (there are lot of problems with it) to have normal option and no changes in conf by player,
-better Messerschmits cockpits (G-versions)
-there is a bug - if you take, as a first plane to fly in your game (multi), the AI plane - controls are not working

Airframe Limitations.

Having flown 4.101 for some time now I have to make a few comments regarding the Airframe Limitation. While I like the premise behind having airframe limitations I have a problem with it's current implementation.

Sure one can just go easier on the controls to prevent some sort of overstress of the plane but given there isn't any Real feedback letting you know the plane is being over stressed I think it's rather poor. Flashing the little G is a bit silly given they didn't have G meters in the planes and most pilots could feel the plane and their bodies and know when to back off.

I don't have a better solution at the moment but there has to be a better way of letting the pilot know you're about to bend the plane.

One addition that may or may not help the above issue, but I think it would be welcome anyway, is increased "head-shake". Currently, pilots in IL-2 have necks of steel, and when in gun-sight view, there is no movement at all. Leaning forward doesn't make one impervious to G's.

This sounds obscure to me. As far as I know, there’s no reason a “big wing” should produce more drag in a turn than a small one.
As a rule of thumb, you look at wing loading (Kgs x square metres, or lbs x square feet) to evaluate stalling speed, but you must look at span loading (Kgs x metre, linear, not square) to evaluate efficiency and low drag in a turn.

My feeling is that Spit FM is pretty good, and that we should look with suspicion at our feelings without hard numbers.

aircraft ceiling
 

First greetings for excellent work in the community IL-2 Sturmovik!

I imagine different altitudes for each plane, following the historical characteristics of each aircraft...
It will be fantastic!

Salute!

There is a sound of the airplane squealing when you stress it, but I agree that there's not much sense of G forces, other than blackout/red-out, in full cockpit view. I lobbied for some sort of "g-meter" in full cockpit view back before 4.10 was released, and it is present in the "Wonder Woman" view, but no joy for full cockpit.

I argued along similar lines; human beings are pretty good at sensing G-forces. The only limitation is that it might take some experience to figure out how much force corresponds to 2 G, 3 G and so-on. This isn't so much of a deal for overstressing the airframe, though, as for perceiving that your airplane is about to stall. Historically, "seat of the pants" flying meant that you could tell when your airplane was dropping out from under you, about to go into a stall. There are also minor vibrations and other sensations which are communicated to your body through the seat which you don't get in a game.

I'd suggest an "overspeed" or "overstress" warning on the HUD in the cockpit view. You can turn it off if you want to if you believe that "full realism" means limiting yourself to the feedback provided by your computer screen, speakers and joystick.

There is a modded form of the MiG-3 with an all new 3d model. It's gorgeous. Lets hope the creators give it to DT for inclusion in a later patch. I believe there are also modders out there reworking some of the other early 3d models.

There are also a number of modded cockpits which vastly improve on the stock cockpits, but they tend to be a bit hard on frame rates since they use much more detailed textures.

Personally, I don't see the point of having a generic "P-47" as well as actual named P-47 variants. The older model should either have its exact model specified or it should be retired.

I'd like something like that, too, both for online and offline.

The only problem is that, realistically, you'd need at least 3 kill-scoring systems, reflecting various attitudes to kill confirmation and kill sharing. The current system, not surprisingly, is most like the one used by the Soviets during WW2. The German system should be stricter about confirming kills and shouldn't allow kill sharing. The UK and US systems would be about like the German system, but allow shared kills and might give you credit for "damaged" and "probable" kills. The Japanese system would be much more generous, allowing you to claim a kill for just about any airplane you damaged.

Realistically, you'd also need to claim your kills under most systems and there should be provisions for overclaiming (especially by bomber crews).

Practically, it would be damned nice to get immediate credit for a kill once one of these things happen:

1) Pilot killed.
2) Uncontrollable fire started (or any fire started if no fire extinguishers).
3) Crippling damage scored (e.g., wing blown off).
4) Crew bails out.
5) Plane crash lands/ditches in water.

It's a pain in the *ss having to wait for an downed plane to hit the ground, possibly at the mercy of vulchers, after you've taken it out. It's also a pain having to wait around for the computer program to notice that a plane has ditched or crash landed.

As usual, for optimum user-friendliness/coolness, it would also be nice if you could control kill claiming conditions via the UI or server set-up controls, possibly as yet another "realism setting."

Not a priority, but I was wondering if there were any plans to include more gliders in the game? I believe that way back when someone at 1C had a DFS230 in the works.

Due to lack of engines and (usually) lack of guns, they might be easier to model and code than other aircraft. My wishlist, in no particular order: DFS-230, Waco CG-4A Hadrian, Airspeed Horsa, Go242 and Antonov A7. I'm not greedy though, any one from the list would be cool. :)

Also, how about more loadouts for existing cargo types in the game? Nothing fancy is needed, just extra mass simulating various weights of cargo, with the assumption that the loadmaster has done his job properly.

If you wanted to get fancy, though, you could give the C-47/DC-3 and Li-2 bomb loadouts, as were sometimes improvised in the field, and you could create bomber versions of the Ju-52.

Hello!
Before anything else I want to congratulate the team of Daidalos, for excellent work in patch 4.10.1

I would like to know of the possibility of a change in FMB. I wish I could change the speed of cars and tanks, as is already done on ships. Without this modification is impossible to make huge columns of cars moving because they just run over.

I look forward to more news. I know it's not easy for you to handle it alone but I hope you understand that I love this game and want a constant evolution.

open canopy and doors at all airplane including also bombers.

More ideas, suggested by others in the past, but worth repeating:

1) Static ground objects which carry point values, both for campaigns and for ground attack or bombing missions. No new objects needed to be coded, just create invisible destroyable "value boxes" which can be put inside of existing static objects in the FMB, based on soft vehicles, tanks and various sorts of ships.

2) Explosion effects which can be set or triggered in the FMB. Base them on various forms of bombs, have a way that they can be placed inside static objects or vehicles, then link the condition that triggers them to either a time, movement of another object or destruction of the object to which they're linked. This would simulate things like ammo or fuel dumps, vehicles filled with explosives or fuel and vehicles hitting mines.

3) Empty fuel tanks objects which are much harder to destroy.

4) More airfield equipment objects - bomb dumps, bomb carts, fire trucks, bulldozers and dump trucks (for filling in bomb craters), starter trucks, tractors, engine heaters, fuel trailers, engine hoists, mobile workshops, etc. This is the sort of infrastructure you take out during an airstrike on an airfield in addition to aircraft, buildings and runways.

The previous post reminded me of another small request an oppertiunity to target factories for point value to simulate large bombing raids. Also try to sort out some of the issues of large formations in QMB as when I flew in a 18 plane bomber raid a collision on the way to the target destroyed a 1/3 of the force

Can you tell us the specs of the mission?

Yep a mixed formation attack on Slovakia Summer map, target airfield with at a height anything from 500m-1000m flying allied side. large formation of consisting of PE-8 ,SB-100, PE-3, TB-3 (what I was flying) and sometimes added IL4/DB-3 as well plus about 16 enemy fighters 109, G50, and similar early war aircraft.

Anything else wanted?
also might be worth looking at the A.I behavior on landing as A fair amount of planes which are undamaged have flown in the the hills around one of the airfields in my experience

Ive seen the same problem with the AI.
It was on the Dday map, during low level ground attacks with only 12 aircraft involved.
During the attack two Beaufighters collided with each other, and two Typhoons crashed into the ground after firing their rockets.

Ok then lets look at some hard numbers. Take a Spitfire-F-IXc-M61-15 with full fuel and turn the engine off, and glide at 280kph (160mph). Measure the rate of descent passing thru 2000m (5.1m/sec). This aircraft weighs 3377 kg in game.

Now try the same with a 109G2, you'll find this lighter aircraft (2846kg) has a much higher rate of descent of 6.2 m/sec at 280kph.

That Spitfire wing is really something...

If you want to compare minimum sink rate between different planes, you should do so at – you guess – their minimum sink rate speed, and the same you should do to compare best L:d.
Now considering that Spitfire has a wing loading of around 130 kg per square meter, while the Messerschmitt is around 190, the best glide and minimum sink speeds are surely vastly different. Your test, performed at an arbitrary speed, doesn’t demonstrate anything meaningful. Moreover, the data provided (just weight and speed) are not enough to attempt any comparison.

A serious evaluation of Spitfire’s energy retaining capability is beyond my competence and – I suspect – beyond yours. In any case, you can make your attempt and send your report to Daidalos Team.

I set up the Normandy QMB map as well as modifying the Slovakia QMB. The AI in some situations gets a bit weird especially at certain starting altitudes. The will launch attacks on a target, destroy the target and try to fire rockets/shoot guns at a second target...except they are too close to the ground and they crash. Similar problems on any QMB or mission anywhere with the AI. When building in the FMB you can tweak the attack altitudes by situation to lessen the chances but the AI will still do it sometimes.

To some degree this is quite "normal" as it happened in real life and if you watch human pilots online the effect is quite similar. On the other hand the AI does it in a very unconvincing way :)

BTW: We have no Typhoons... only Tempests. Would love to see some Typhoons one day :)

I has a question to DT. When you gays fixed broken P-51D-20AN gun sight? After patch 4.09 release its doesn't work.

I made a comment about the Spitfire's performance in this thread, which is for 'Questions and Requests Only'. You chose to comment on it. I made the mistake of responding to you. Well, I've made my input to 4.11, thank you. If TD want to discuss it with me, they know where to find me.

You chose to write in a public forum, making statements that looked to me technically not correct. I questioned them on technical ground, and if my words sound in any way offensive, I apologize, of course. However, I maintain my technical points.

It’s your right to make any input you want, that’s out of question, and this is my last comment on this topic.

Any possiblity of a "Bombenabwurfgeraet" like in CloD in future patches?

I want, I want! :-P

Another idea: rework some of the uglier/less realistic-looking damage textures, especially for older planes like the MiG-3 and Bf-109.

At least get rid of the sooty crater look. Real bullet/cannon hits shred aluminum and blow off the paint, revealing the bare metal below. They don't leave perfectly round, black-edged holes.

Radar for night fighters. Please.. Please...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg76J...yer_detailpage

Please, we need this radar for night missions...

another nice new idea would be a greater varitiy of formations Vs and various other formatons the ablity for the ai to do box formations would really add to relialism

Not sure if mentioned, but spawns in aircraft bays/parking, and need to taxi for SP campaigns/missions to complement a more robust ground ATC.

My question regards the Mosquito ground handling. To me perior to patch 410 series it didnt sway and bobble all over the runway at take off. Now, at least to me acts like the heinkl ehe-111 did before it was corrected. Can your development team take a look at this?

Don't know if it's been mentioned already, but:

>Curtis SB2-C Helldiver. Either flyable or AI.

Just one more conspicuously absent aircraft from the Pacific...

Thanks SO much for the Douglass Devastator in 4.11. Wonderful addition!

Could you please add an Italian Dynamic campaign for us who like Italian aircraft. I am considering on starting an Italian squad so all spots open.

ALL planes now behave like He-111 did, so be happy with that. Even worse - like drunken mules. It's "extremely funny" to see TB-3 uncontrollably rotating whilst on the runway, engines off. It seems that terrain now is made of hi quality Teflon (tm) :)

And I say nothing about taking off with pedals. Il-2 itself seems to be not responding to them on the ground, so I am using the keyboard.

You should add Switzerland to the allies (they shot down 11 Luftwaffe aircraft). Also Sweeden for suppling the axis.

Also add a few more allied and axis countries if they aren't added

The Swiss also shot down Allied aircraft.

AXIS POWER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers

ALLIES of WWII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II

Participants in World War II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partici...n_World_War_II

My personal wishes are fly-able Douglass Devastator and Henschel Hs-123. I reaaaaaaally want them sant...ehr Team D!:)

It sure would be a help of the FMB was improved. It might be too much to ask, but if the FMB improvements in COD were applied to IL2 it would push the IL2 to a much higher level game play.

I know many that became disillusioned with the FMB in IL2 and long ago moved onto other things. The FMB in IL2 has never been adequate, and working with it is so tedious and time consuming.

Two major improvement areas needed in IL2 - AI performance improvements and the FMB.

I was under the impression that FMB upgrades had been a key feature in the 4.10 patch?

Greetings People...I started ww2 flight simming with a game called aces high, three years ago....i got 1946 in preparation for the cliffs of dover...something i would like to see in 1946, that is also in aces high would be PB1 rockets for the FW190 (and what ever other planes used them). In aces high they have 12 rockets (6 under each wing) and they are designed for armor. otherwise im very impressed with this game and the fact that it has such a dedicated and talented team continuing to expand and improve on an already great game, well dont TD and Oleg and company...

here is some more information,
Copy-n-Pasted from a website that used "German Aircraft Weapons of WWII", by Ellis Kalhsberg, as a source.

...
One of those was the Panzerblitz 1 rocket. Developed by Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabrik, the Panzerblitz (Pb1) was a more successful missile than the Panzerschreck 1 that preceded it. The rocket consisted of an 80mm mortar grenade (Gerat M8 -Device M8) mated with the R4M air-to-air missile. In 1 Sept 1944, four Pb1 launch rails were installed under the wing of Fw-190F-8 Werke Number 733705 for trails. Tests showed the rockets could be launched from about twice the distance from the target (about 200 yards) as the Panzerschreck but with a maximum target approach speed of 305 mph, the aircraft was vulnerable to ground fire.

The number of rockets fitted beneath each wing rose to six and finally standardized on eight very late in the war. Not surprisingly, the smaller warhead penetrated only 90mm of steel. At first, the rockets were fired in two salvos, but later launched in pairs. On 1 January, 1945, the pilot of an Fw-190F-8, equipped with the Pb 1, crash landed near Asche, Holland, giving the Allies their first glimpse of the new weapon system.

Production of the Fw-190F-8/Pb 1 received high priority and, by February 1945, 115 aircraft were so equipped. Meanwhile, the infamous SS-controlled factory near Brno, Czechoslovakia, were producing missiles at the rate of 16,000 a month. By February, 1945, some 43,850 missiles had been manufactured. The PB1 type was replaced by Panzerblitz 2, a modified R4M with a Panzerschreck warhead, capable of penetrating 180mm of armor, but that is another story. The Panzerblitz 1 system also equipped a small number of BMW 801 TS powered Fw-190F-9 aircraft that started leaving the Arado and NDW production lines in October of 1944.
...

Another source says [oh, yes, conflicting info. How typical wouldnt you say?] that that both the Pzrschreck and Pnzrblitz were 88mm and that the Pb1 did have an AP and not an HE warhead on it. - "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII", edited by Chris Bishop.

P-40 3D model fix and improved DM is my request

1+ ;)

I have only one request - it's the question "WHEN?"))

I support this message +1