Fix the Mc202 Cockpit/Revi, pleeeease.

It would be nice to see the Sweedish J-22 fighter on the axis side. Also add Sweeden to the axis, they supplied germany with war material (such as coal).

Sweedish J-22? :confused: is this?
http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/jakt/113J22_113-1358.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyua9...eature=related

and this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2S6E...eature=related

and also this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZcVo...eature=related

Sorry for the source, but i read on wikipedia that due to the changes the
Finnish made on the Fiat G50, it was alot slower than the original Italian version

430–450 km/h compared to 484 km/h

Not sure this is correct but if so,
could it be made faster when the nationality is Italian?

The first vedio is the correct one. It would be nice if Daidlos team would add a neutral group of countries such as Switzerland and sweeden.

I ment the first vedio on the top of your vedios and guests the picture above was correct.

Another thing that would be nice would be opening up the default skin for replacement or editing. If possible, this should be done in a way that doesn't affect the appearance of other default skins online, ie. replacing the default skin with a pink one in order to spot online players more easily.

If not, please continue to update the default skins for some of our older planes as well as adding alternates for winter, desert, and pacific maps.

Secondly, I was wondering if it would be possible to expand the visibility distance for those running in "Excellent" or "Good" in addition to "Perfect" settings. I can't run perfect because my card doesn't run Open GL, but I think it can handle increased visibility distance/loading buffer size. It's a little displeasing to see shape-shifting mountains and obvious pop-in of objects as I fly around them.

He129
Proppitch assigned to an Axis

The way it is right now, I'm pretty sure no one uses it.
What sucks even worse is the fact i cant really tell whether manual is on or off without proppitch% on display.

I use it, generally for cruise. From what I've been told, manual settings were never used on the Hs-129. Activating this gives you access to max power, but if you're not careful, you risk ruining the engine. It's also a lot of workload during hairy ground attack missions.

The current system approximates the real thing which had switches rather than a lever. Just check your manifold pressure and rpms.

I see what you mean with regards to setting manual though - there is no hud text indication. It only tells you when you've switched to auto. However, if you look on the instrument panel, you'll see two red switches: up means manual, down is auto.

But I suppose an option is always possible for those who want it.

Uh, yes, I know how it works.
I actually intended to use the manual PP as some kind of an airbrake, diving from 800m @ 40° builds up speed fast - and that's the angle you need for later tanks with the MK.
Not sure if this really works, but right now it's just a joke.


It get'0s even worse if you look at the logic of it:
We have several dozens of aircraft in the game - pp can be adjusted for ALL of them via an Axis, makes things simple right?
But no, just because the freaking Henschel uses a switch, now we have to assign keys to it - I don't have any freaking key left for it! I am going to use another profile for single plane either.
It just makes everything unnecessarily more complicated - and no, it does not add to "immersion" at all.

Sorry, no insult meant. However, your wording is misleading:

From that I assumed you didn't know how it worked, but, I apologize.

You're the second person I've seen post about how few keys there are on a keyboard...Frankly, I'm surprised. I have no problems whatsoever, and I could easily program twenty more commands. I imagine that we have similar keyboards. If a dummy like me can do it, I'm sure you can.

Well, I don't know of another axis plane that uses toggle switches in the cockpit like the Henschel. Maybe I'm wrong? In that case, then I sure wouldn't mind if DT added keyboard controlled pitch settings for those.

There I disagree. However, as I said before, I don't see anything wrong with an option. I'll keep mine the way it is, you assign an axis. Everyone's happy. It's just up to DT if they think it's fair in an online scenario.

Anyway, I was just trying to help, not start an argument in any way. Let's see what DT come up with.

Events/Triggers
 

I used to play (and program missions in) MS CFS Series and was particularly attracted by the way CFS2 Mission Builder worked with events and triggers. It opens so much more possibilities for different situations than we have with IL2 FMB.

Any chances?

Otherwise this is the best combat flight simulator I've ever played! Keep up the excellent work!

The problem is - I would need them on the stick(throttle), fast change.
Probably not so important anyway.
I was just pissed because I wrecked the engines several times right before I posted.
Easy. ;)


Got a new need:

Fiat G55 in standard 4.11 - beautiful fighter and sooo rocks, given you take the fm from hsfx....

Future development
 

For me a good future development woud be Attack on the West 1940

France

Hawk 75
D520
Bloch 152, 155
MS406
Potez 633
Potez 63.11
LeO 451
Farman 222
Amiot 143
Mureaux 117

UK
Battle
Lysander
Hampden
Wellington
Whitley


Belgium
Fox II & VI

Holland
Fokker G1
Fokker TV

Germany
Do17
Hs126

Big wish list, but with a map and career would be fun

There are of course many other aircraft but these are already in place


For China in the future

Hawk75M
Mit Ki51
Mit Ki30
Kaw Ki36

External padlock
 

Hi, is it possible to add (to patch 4.11) to difficulty menu one additional switch for F6 EXTERNAL PADLOCK,ENEMY AIR? I know that if I switch off NO EXTERNAL VIEWS, switch it off EXTERNAL PADLOCK too, because sometimes is nice to have external views (for recording videos etc.) but external padlock no, it's like radar. Thanks.

Actually what needs to be implemented are external views for your aircraft only, with no external padlock, and the ability to also have externals only when on the ground.

There are ways to do this that cannot be spoken of here, but I see no reason why this cannot be offered to the stock game.

As we have no "ground crew" which in real life would help with ground movements the external view while only on the ground would be a very helpful thing.

Well, mods can now be discussed, if that's what you mean, El. I guess there are lots of differing opinions on how to change it.

Sometimes F6 view is useful for movies. Personally, I would like to have it under the "no padlock" switch, or possible under its own. Normal padlock doesn't work unless you're actually looking at the target. That could be applied to F6 as well so that it can't be used unless you know where everyone is first. But of course, there are so many ways to do this...but as long as there's an option that keeps the current setup, almost everybody will be happy I think.

I also agree that it would be nice to have outside view activate after landing. It would be nice to see what happened or what is still happening after I've landed, crashed, bailed, etc. during an offline campaign.

Can I request that someone have a look at the coding for the MG-FF (really it's a MG-FF/M) in-game? It's been a widely circulated complaint that sometimes a MG-FF hit will cause a plane to roll uncontrollably. It and the VYa 23mm are the only two cannons in game to cause this effect to the best of my knowledge.

In the 20mm category no other gun does it.

Typically happens online. I'm sure most people have experienced it...

That's quite a wish list! Some of these might run up against the non-compete clause of DT's contact with 1C.

Hawk 75, et al - There are mods that do this but no proper cockpit.
MS406/410, etc. - ditto
D520 - In development as a mod.
Bloch 152, 155 - ditto.

Potez 633, Potez 63.11, LeO 451, Farman 222, Amiot 143, Mureaux 117 - Nothing serious ever proposed as a mod. If they exist, they're secret projects. French planes aren't very popular, even though the French had some competitive designs. That's what you get when your army serves as a speed bump for the Wehrmacht.

Battle, Wellington - Available as a "frankenplane" mod, but no proper model or cockpit.

Wellington - Included in IL2:CloD, so off limits to DT.

Lysander, Hampden, Whitley - Nothing serious ever proposed as a mod. If they exist, they're secret projects.

Fox II & VI - I believe this is in the works as a mod.

Fokker G1 - Exists as a "frankenplane" mod, but no proper model or cockpit.
Fokker TV - Not heard of development on this one.

Do17 - Included in IL2:CloD, so off limits to DT.
Hs126 - Not heard of development on this one. Relatively minor type in a vast armada of German types. Not on my top 10 for Luftwaffe planes to be added to the game.

Mitsubishi Ki-51, Ki-30 - Exists as a "frankenplane" mod, but no proper model or cockpit.

Ki-36 - Not heard of development on this one. There's a whole load of Japanese planes that aren't in the game. Personally, I'd like to see a flyable B5N Kate and B6N Jill, an (official) Ki-44 and the G3M Nell, Ki-49 Helen, Ki-67 Peggy, H6K Mavis , P1Y Frances, Q1W Lorna and D4Y Judy, but that's just me.

The Hawk 75 is a plane that comes up time and time again in these discussions both here and at M4T, i guess 'cos it was used by so people in so many theatres.

It tops my list of AI a/c to make flyable.

The 2 AI planes I would request would be the Lanc and the G3M Nell - both a massive amount of work, for sure. These two bombers would open up alot of scenario possibilities for missions/campaigns.

Also, any chance of bombs for the Hurri MkIIc? A MkIV with universal wing and rocket/bomb/40mm Vickers loadouts would be tasty as well...but i'll be asking for the moon on a stick next...

Cheers

Ted

FMB improvement:

The ability to DE-SPAWN flights of aircraft in missions at some trigger point, altitude, defined area, specific timeout or waypoint, etc.

After the bombers have dropped their bombs and turned for home most of the time they are away from the action areas, but they affect FPS until they are gone completely.

I remember building missions where I ran the bombers into the side of a large hill,etc. Sadly, you had to hear all their radio comms during the process. LOL

Anyway, it sure would be nice to just have specific flights just disappear when they reach the specific postition.

A new map?
 

Hi folks.

First of all, I'd like to thanks Team Daidalos for the good job on 4.11 development. It shows IL-2 1946 is not dead at all, and will be in our PC's for a good time from now.

I'd like to know if you plan to add some new map at 4.11 patch. The Salomons Pack in 4.10 was a pleasant surprise, for sure. It would be nice to see a new map with Team Daidalos quality pattern.

Thanks in advance, and good job for all of you!!!

Cheers.

batistadk

Oh,frankenplanes are...I got it...

I saw a He-59 that turned me on.
Hope to see more naval combat in IL2.Specially european naval battles.

Hello everyone,

I have a small request to make of Daidalos Team... Would it be possible to update the LOD0 of the legacy Macchi C.202 from the original IL-2 (the AI -only one) with that of the more recently added C.202 serie VII? I've been replaying a bunch of old DGen campaigns and the Italians showing up in the old low-detail C.202 is a real downer. Would doing this be a simple cut & paste job or is there a lot more to it?

Thanks for everything,

Fafnir_6

I wonder if it might be easier to replace the one with the other in the DGEN settings rather than swapping the models.

I'm curious if there are plans for some more default skins being improved on some aircraft.

Some key ones in my mind:

- Spitfire Vc 2 cannon versions have RAAF Pacific scheme at the moment. A desert scheme would be nice. A Europe scheme would be nice too!

- He111H-2 and H-6 could use an upgrade.

- SBD-3 and SBD-5 share a skin right now. It'd be nice if the SBD-3 had a Midway scheme and the SBD-5 retained it's late 1943 scheme which works well.

- Ju52s are used all over the place and easily have one of the worst looking default skin these days.

- Most or all of the A6M Zeros

- Pacific theater P-47D-10 and D-22 have very old default skins. I don't believe they are even accurate. Updates there would be great.

- B25J has a weird shade of green applied. I've never seen B-25s painted that colour. Maybe in VVS service? A typical USAAF olive drab would be a nice change.

- Seafire in Pacific markings look medicore at best. It'd be nice to have the proper British Pacific fleet scheme applied.

- Spitfire VIIIs don't have as good a default skin as the IX and Vb series do at this point. It'd be nice to see Pacific/MTO/Europe schemes setup.

Just some thoughts that have been burning a hole through my mind recently while flying online. Suggestions only of course.

Yep. I'm surprised that it hasn't officially made flyable. Right now, the modded version just uses the P-40 cockpit, which isn't quite right.

If it's made flyable, it would also be nice to see at least one fixed landing gear version. Currently there's a modded P-36H, but the gear isn't very good.

The Lancaster has been "in progress" as a potential mod for years, although there are "frankenplane" versions of the Wellington, Stirling and Halifax.

I haven't heard anything about the G3M being started as a mod project, much less an official one. Early war bomber aircraft just aren't as appealing to most modders as late-war/post-war fighter types.

The whole Hurricane family has been done as mods, with full historical loadouts. Most of them are quite good. They'd be on my short list of "mods to make official" if I ran the zoo.

A lot of planes could be asked, actually. Interesting list, if you add the Spitfire Mk.1 and a Channel map, you have the Battle of Britain !

Could add :
-Boomerang
-Wirraway
-A-26
-Curtiss Helldiver
-Vultee Vengeance
-reworked C-47
-P-47N
-P40 F/L/N
-A-36 / P-51A
-C-45
-C-46 Commando
-Lockheed Hudson
-Lockheed Ventura
-Vindicator
-Privateer
-Catalina (early models)
-Coronado
-Kingfisher
-Fairey Barracuda
-Firefly
-Fulmar
-Albacore
-and those I forget

Plus missing japanese planes, especially bombers.
I don't know the feasability of a chinese campaign.

Would need :
-Curtiss Shrike
-Hawk III
-Westland Wapiti
-Dewoitine 510
-Ki-10
-P-66
-DC-2
-He-111P (not sure of the version any more)
...at least...

So many things to do.

But so many things already done... ! :grin:

Cheers !

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=188

;-)

You sir have made this Curtiss fanboy's day.

:cool:

Ye-gads! The Hawk 75: thats superb news; you've made my day!

Beautiful looking cockpit....wow great update, thanks. We're pretty damn spoiled really.


The Sino-Japanese War is a big area of interest for me; thanks to some of TD's work (I-16 Type 5, I-15bis, as well the existing stuff like J8A/Gladiator) it seemed to me it was now possible to model - in the stock game - some of the core actions of the CAF from Nov. 37 (when the I-16 first saw action with the Soviets and the CAF 4th PG) right up to late '41 and beyond, if i was willing to live with some aircraft hacks and put some effort into giving stock maps a psuedo-Chinese look....in fact, if i was willing to live with loads of compromises!

This is what i've been coming up with:

http://www.mission4today.com/index.p...wtopic&t=10423

For me, the key aircraft to add for China scenarios would be the Hawk III, Ki-10 and G3M, although obviously the aircraft you listed would be the ideal set. Then theres maps - which would either be pretty darn big, or many smaller ones.

I'm making tentative steps towards learning the skills which i hope (probably far, far in the future) could contribute a little to bringing some of this China content to stock IL-2. Theres some intimidatingly great China stuff out there in the mod community....i'd love to see some of it in the stock game one day.

In the future, CAF fans have got the Hs-123 and SB to look forward to....and the Hawk 75! Bonanza!

@Pursuviant: thx for the reply

Cheers

Ted

Rather than repost....request for smoke effects
 

Should have posted here rather than main forum:

It has long been a real irritation for me when flying IL2 to see Modded versions with superb smoke effects.

I can appreciate that this may be an issue with Contrails as these could easily overload the Graphics engine so these could be kept 2D, but in close-combat the 2D sprite of Smoke is such an immersion killer I wonder if it is possible to consider allowing 3D smoke into the simulation?

The difference would be substantial and a real welcome addition....as would tracer smoke from wings..etc, etc.

Could DT ever consider this please?

A close-up example of engine smoke can be seen from 1m 30s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrAga9BkmLQ

And here is the promo for more effects at his website....this guy does incredible work:

http://youtu.be/QNKeEK34EC0

Cheers, MP

Excellent effects, something we needed long ago.

Sometimes it's easy to fall into the trap of static thinking. The reason we didn't have those effects years ago..= FPS has always been an uphill battle.

Hardware just couldn't keep up with what we could imagine and create.

I always felt we should battlefield smoke that was like a fog that just hung over the battlefields in some situation. It has always bugged me to fly into an area we planned to bomb and everything was easter bunny clean and pristine.

No question effects like these are needed in all variants of Il2 - COD.

Artillery fire has always required a clear line of sight to fire on targets and the distance is very short (Gun to target). By that I mean if you were 200 yards from a target you must have line of sight to the target, and if a little hill is in the way you cannot shoot over the hill and hit the target.

In other words... artillery in IL2 can be described as cannons shooting like rifles. If you can't see it you can't shoot it.

Often, I used Flak guns. They were designed to shoot up, when the shells came down they exploded. So, I used them often to create the effect of artillery.

I don't know it it's possible in IL2, because someone on the development team long ago mentioned it wasn't possible. ---- Is it possible to have artillery that shoots like real world artillery from great distances. Artillery rounds should follow a defined arc path and shoot over hills, through trees and stuff to hit targets. It has always been an immersion killer to have enemy artillery within sight of the air base they were blasting.

Real world of battle, Artillery has always been way behind front lines. IL2 artillery has always had to be placed right in the thick of battle to work. Therefore, for the most part artillery was just used to create some effects of explosions and such.

In one development update movie from before 4.10 (Triggers), you can see artillery shooting over an hill after a recon plane found some enemy targets. :-P

Watched few videos from this effect mod. Here is my personal opinion: can not say, I like all of them. There quite a few great ones, but also a number of rather unrealistic ones as well.

I liked most the smoke effects, some ground explosions and ship bow wake. They are really great and are much of an improvement over the stock ones. But fires (either static, ground, or from aircraft), ship gun smoke and certain ground explosion effects aren't any better, then default ones. Some - even worse.

I didn't realize that. I always wanted to set up an artillery lines reasonable over 2 KM distance from battle areas, regardless of terrain.

Artillery doesn't have to be most precise in an air combat sim, because it is more for immersion. First person shooter games require a different artillery where locations can be pinpointed to knock out targets.

I'd just like to create battlefields where artillery is shooting at targets, enemy aircraft are trying to destroy the artillery, etc.

Nothing to do with precision, just creating the effects of battle fields even if the artillery has some randomness about hitting targets.

Il2 did this, but the distances were too short and the artillery was very darned effective at hitting targets in short distances line of site. So all the effort to setup artillery was pretty well a waste of time, the artillery targets were destroyed so quickly the immersion factor was pretty well nil.

Again... I use the heavier 88 and 85 MM flak guns within short distances to shoot at each other. It is funny you can actually drill down on an artillery to 3d and see the enemy flak gun from the gun you drill down upon. Still the flak guns shoot way up in the air and shells come down and eventually destroy the other flak guns. What a hoot, but a decent workaround to create the effects of artillery pounding the battle field. I usually line up about 20+ blue guns pointed in the direction of their counterpart, about 20+ red guns. Then set them on a time out so they start when your mission advances to the action area. It takes the flak guns several minutes to destroy each other, because the targeting is not good. You can get a very good battlefield under siege with flak guns used in this manner.

The explosions they make are pretty good and they look very good in low light conditions. I usually set the timeout so that as the player is approaching the battleground areas there are explosions going off all over the area. It looks like a battle is going on and the player is getting ready to enter a HOT zone.

If we can use artillery to work at greater distances we can accomplish these battleground views, and better still the remote artillery can be a target area as well.

Just ask to integrate the best and not the worse. That would already be an improvement. Nothing is perfect in this world and the better is the enemy of the good.

korean war?
air sim

My system already get onto its knees from the stock effects. Especially the dust from starting planes. And no! I cannot live without 8x Antialiasing. :D

+10000000!!

Is going to be an airborne radar in 4.11?
Thanks and keep the good work!!

Maybe an effects switch could be added though...enable or disable 3D smoke effects like those shown and gun-tracer?

Cheers, MP

Antialiasing and clouds/smoke effects in IL-2 do tend to bring a system to it's knees. Only my very latest graphics card purchase seems to be unphased by 8x antialiasing :)

Still... a switch to turn on or off a few extra visuals might be a nice addition. Replace some flat bitmaps with particle smoke for example. Just a thought :)

On the tracers... like in the real world, gun tracers were set in the payloads. Night fighters didn't use tracer payloads, because they didn't want the enemy to know where they were.

As far as smoke effects... I always thought for the most part the smoking and fire were determined by the damage modeling.

I think it would work if we have smoke and fire as moveable objects.

Smoke and fire objects would be like vehicles with timeouts and such. That way you could arrange the fires and smoke to slowly move and heat up things in a pre-set pattern. It was just a way to make battlefield hot zones.

Also, when you left the action area where the smoke and fire moving objects had finished their little routes they wouldn't affect the FPS. I don't know, how to terminate them. It never was addressed so it didn't need a solution. LOL

This could still work, and be alot better than continous burning and smoking, which does affect FPS for many.

I do think fire and smoke that is created by bombing and strafing should clear itself after a certain amount of time. That might even be controlled by the type of weapon payloads used.

If you mean the building of a 1940's map of Holland, I think that would be terrible. Already in those days Holland was very dense in the amount of cities, towns and villages, rivers and roads. And to do it even semi-accurately would cost years. And I live here, IMHO the ugliest country on the planet. Compare it with Slovakia, probably the best map in the game, Holland is almost totally flat, almost half of it beneath sea level (can the IL2 engine do that? don't think so) with a huge number of dykes and would have ten times the amount of communities, even if the Slovakian map is only a small part of the country. Essentially, it would be like flying over the northern part of Crimea but with a larger framerate drop because there are tens of thousands of houses everywhere you look.

TD is plannig a review of in game balistics? Some aircraft, even for larger weapons, had less dispersion and gravity effect over the bullet trajectories. Anyone can comment about this?

I thought ballistics are based on the weapon used, not the plane.

TD is 6DoF our of limits? This is one of the best features of mods imo...

Having lots of small settlements dotted about is not a problem in FPS terms. What matters is the number of objects appearing in your screen viewport at any one instant. Also adding the auto-generated trees to the settlements has minimal impact. What causes the problem is creating large cities, like Rotterdam, but these problems can be reduced by making new models where each city block is a single model instead of made up from lots of separate houses.

Holland may be pretty flat, though it does have a few gentle hills, around Arnhem for example, but the map can be made more interesting than the stock Crimea map by careful use of ground textures showing field patterns etc. Most of the earlier stock maps are pretty boring in ground texture terms and it has been shown that their appearance can be greatly enhanced by changing the textures and adding bump mapping.

Ashe

The speed of the Ki-84 will be lowered to the Japanese best of 624km/h?

The George and the Jack also need corrections.

Can you give an estimate on when the new revised damage model for the ships and other naval crafts will be introduced?

TD says that not change balistics, damage or fms for the aircraft but i known they changed. The poor P-40 in 4.09 in 4.10.1 is a superb machine with that new .50s. They are better than cannons, cripple engine with a single burst and frequently. Easy to hit, easy to damage. :evil: Second Tony Willians machine guns are inferior than cannons but known they decide to turn them more deadly because some whinners. Can i have this AP bullet properly modeled in my aircraft too? The cannons are almost imposible to hit at high speeds except the spitfire cannons (where you aim they hit) and this .50 (ok they are fast and easy to hit but this new armor piercing is ridiculous, too good)

Before the F-4 was much superior than P-40 like in reality, now the P-40 is kicking F-4 ass. The P-40 was not a aircraft i feared before now yes. I am curious to see 4.10.1 compare, but we do not have it until now.

I've always been amazed at how so many people like those P40s. I remember doing a campaign years ago in New Guinea flying P40s.

Those darn things climbed like a rock, but that had the most incredible roll rate.

I read somewhere they put Merlins in P40s, which were the same as the ones in the P51-D. That might be a good combination, since the P40s were just lumbering louts. IMO

You are saying about the old P-40? Old P-40 are poor. This new ones are too good. My opinion... No problem, i ll just have to fight the P-40 as i fight thes spits. I usualy subestimate the P-40 but now they are not as they are before, i ll take more care next time. Before i usualy did a rope a dope easily in the P-40 now its not a good manouver against him.
Next pacth problaby the hurricane ll behave the same way. It always this way... I ll be prepared.

:rolleyes:

The P40 has never been able to compete against a well flown BF 109 F in this sim.

NEVER.

It still cannot. It is slow in the climb and does not have the power for sustained low speed turning, even though it is a good turner, for a short while anyway. It does have a good rate of roll, which is historically correct, and it is good in the dive, which again is historically accurate.

It has a stout airframe, which again the real aircraft had.

It has a glass jaw engine which is not in line with the historical record.

Sorry if you don't like the AP loadout for the M2 Browning, but hey, that's what the USAAF typically loaded, so again historically accurate. If you think that six of them hitting in convergance won't hurt then you have no clue sir.

And if you doubt the effectiveness of the P40 than I suggest you do some research into the 325th. Fighter Squadron, USAAF, "The Checkertail Clan".

Nearmiss, the Merlin engined P40s were really little better than the Allison engined ones, as they did not have the two stage supercharger like the Spitfire and later, the P51 had.

Ok. I am complaining about the P-40 being loaded with .50 AP but effectiviness of the .50 itself.

Discuss with the specialist, not with me:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Bye.

Apparently you did not read this paragraph for comprehension, though I suspect that English is not your native language, so I do understand that we may have a language barrier as well, so I will repeat the important part:

"The answer to this apparent contadiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effectivie against fighters..."

A lot of inline-engined planes suffer from this, then again although the P40 triggers the grey smoke in the same fast way as the 109 for example, it still runs much longer from my experience online, but that is just an observation.

I read but in IL2 actually the .50 are more effective than 20mm and this is not the case. Few hits of .50 are doing much damage. I personally hit two 30 mm shells in a spitfire and she continued to fly normally.

A snapshot of cannons do not disable a plane or rip wings easily now. Another day i take a snapshot of .50 and ripped my wings. Next mission, a snapshot from more than 400m and my engine out.

So the .50 was effective but should be less effective than cannos and actually they are more effective than 20mm since they are disabling engines and taking controls too easy. I think it is necessary a good tracking shot at point blank range to .50 be really effective, acctualy single snapshot are too efective frequently.

The conclusion is: .50 are less efective than cannos, period.

p.s.: easy to use "ad hominen" argument when you are lacking of it.

Well i see one of the tracks where i was fighting the p-40 and changed my idea of their performance but not about the .50 effectiveness.

I was in a g6, with two gondolas and forget to drop the droptanks. Hehe... Ok maybe i missed the p-40 performance and continues to be crap, as it should be (Why? BFs fucked the Tommys in north africa) like before. :cool:

But my comments about .50 i maintain. They are too much effective now since frequently i see disabling engines and controls with snapshots. I guess the p-40 hit 2 bullets in ac in this track (engine down).

One of the more prolific map-modders did a test map of the Netherlands and came to the conclusion you did.

The best you could do to build a frame-rate friendly map of the Netherlands is to create a "Netherlands-like" map, with slightly higher elevation than in real-life and drastically lower population density.

Off-limits per DT's agreement with 1C.

Is there a way to make the AI a bit more realistic?

I mean, I must confess I'm getting tired of those stupid unrealistic maneuvers, they never have any G-Locks, they continue to fly with un-flyable aircrafts, etc, etc...

The best is still : OK, I take plane "A", against AI plane "B" : whoa, the plane "B" is much better! Let's switch! Now I take the "B" one and give the AI the "A" one. Whao, the plane "A" is much.. wut wat? wtf?

Especially since I've reinstalled RoF, having such a crappy AI becomes even more visible and annoying.

I'm happy we got finally rid of the snipers gunners, I hope we won't have to wait another decade before having a decent AI.

Thanks.

As I recall there were mods released some time back that were improvements to AI performance.

I don't think they were applied to TD updates. I believe they were included with several of the consolidated mod packages.

Note: You're experiencing placebo effect. When someone told me that they thought that some guns were now more effective than they had been in the past I checked with the guys who work on armament on Team Daidalos. No changes to the any weapon values (outside of the Italian machine guns) at all to the best of their knowledge - they would know.

The .50cals were always effective at dealing with the early Bf109 models... disabling controls and damaging engines were their specialty since whenever the point harmonization was introduced (was that AEP days?). In online scenarios with the P-40 up against the Bf109F-4 I always felt like I had a solid chance on either side of the battle... the 109 was better but it was wise not to get cocky. I suspect you came up against someone who:

1) Knew what they were doing
2) Had fine tuned their convergence settings
3) Could aim

Makes all the difference.

When you know what you are doing you can even defeat Ki-84s in a P-40M.

Indeed.

I bagged a 109 K4 with a P40M a couple years back. He gave up every advantage he had to try and be sporty with me on the deck. I refused to play the scissors game with him. Whenever he dumped flaps and pulled hard enough to pop the slats I gently pulled up and used my roll rate to come down on him and peck away at his wings. After about the third or fourth cycle of this he simply could no longer maintain control because of the damage to his wings and he spun in because he was too low to recover.

It was really nerve wracking to do and I was sweating bullets afterward, but it was so satisfying to beat the uber plane with a Hawk.

You gotta love people who rush to a conclusion over something that they have no clue of. There were no changes to existing aircraft weapons in the 4.10/4.10.1 patches, only fixes to aircraft that were using the wrong weapons (Yak-9UT, MS406/410, ...) - everything is just your imagination!

As to the P-40s, they are all too slow at sealevel, too heavy (by about an average of 250kg) but on the other hand climb way too fast at altitude (RoC actually rising from sea level to FTH which is BS).

And as to the .50CAL it still has an HE round in its belting when there were none of these or at least not in wide spread use - should be replaced with an API round! But then again also the MGFF/M and MG151/20 have incorrectly modelled mine shells (around 11g explosive when it should be 18,7g), same but to an even greater extent for the Mk108/103 (45g vs 72g). Hispano rounds have the least lifetime of all cannon shells (2s which results in their very poor range), MG15 and MG81 missing any kind of round beyond pure AP (no incendiaries), etc...

Well, last 4 times i got shoted by .50 cals happened the things:

1. Hit in a zoon climb by one or two bullets at a range of .6 km shot from a p-40 sitting like a duck. Instead i was climbing i was at 300 km/h. The p-40 stalling. Result: Engine down and it was not a long burst (one or two hits)

2. Hit in a power dive at a range of .5 or more and gaining separation fast. Single burst. Result: Wings off (was not due speed, my speed was around 600 km/h)

3. Hit in good turn rate turning (at 380 km/h) by a P-51 zooming from high altitude. Was not a tracking shot just a snapshot. Result: elevator destroyed. Second pass another snapshot, ailerons e cannon jamed.

4.Hit in a turning power dive, snapshot again. Lethal loss of control.

All the four time killed by a single snapshot. Sorry but the .50 are more effective than cannon. Not a mere coincidence.

p.s.: more than one time i hit ac with 2 108 and she continued to fly. Yesterday i hit a spitfire with 4 20mm. He escaped in a loop and landed in a no active airfield. After 4 20mm the spit makes a loop and land easily?????????? One single .50 snapshot and lethal lost of controls???? Every snapshot a control or weapond damaged? In the other way lets be rightouss, i was hit yesterday by a spitifire with several hits (do not known if hispanos or brownings .303; but at least one or two were hispanos bullet), i continued to fly with some difficult manouvering to frustrate the efforts of my enemy until i was saved by another fighter. conclusion: by my personall experience last weeks this .50 making more damage than the cannos in game.

Maybe i am very unluck.

Are you kidding? .50 then is the perfect weapon, easy to hit and superior damage for each bullet put in the target. No compromises.

I am not sure it is a placebo effect.

I recommend you fly planes armed with .50ies once in a while. That helps to cure wrong perceptions.

But if you consider the hispano is faster (more muzzle velocity) than they are in reality the distance the bullet travels is longer in a interval of time. In my opinion the the hispano has not poor range. They have the range normal for a cannon and are less affected by gravity in its trajectory due to the higher speed. However you see in that link i posted before that the hispano MK V had 830 m/s for muzzle velocity and german 20mm 800 m/s for mineshells (standart ammunition for cannons). Not much difference however the trajectories of german 20 mm and hispanos are very different. The german suffers much more the gravity effect.

860 m/s was for the hispano MK II, that crap cannon that jammed a lot.

I flied and ripped a 109 wing in a 2 seconds burst. Maybe i was lucky this time.:cool:

Do not believe? I do not need to say nothing anymore. I present the new .50 some say they are still the same. Just my imagination. Ok they this are good tracking shots, for sure this should shot down a ac nut the point is this the .50 are not the same. And a snapshot can not disable a ac every time. Old .50 were crap but now they are way too good.

You see: the .50 are too effective againt bombers (and that was b-52). You can not do better with cannons against that b-52. This is not the real thing. Cannons are better this situation.

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

The video title is sarcastic.

4-6sec bursts with correct convergence settings, targets on static course, what the hell are you on about? The outcome would be the same with any weapon set and it is how it is supposed to be by being historically correct.

There is nothing wrong with the .50s, they have been like this before. I could show you several P-51 videos dating back 1 or 2 years with the exact same outcome.

That 109 wings off received a 4-6 second burst? Ok. But how about the situation the .50 are taking out controls and engines in snapshots too easily.

No I don't believe for two reasons:

1) Nothing you've presented has anything verifiable about it. If we're going on feeling alone... what you've done there is the same as what I could do for the last several patches.

2) The values haven't changed. They are still the same as they have been for a long long time.

Until you present something that shows that in 4.09 you can't do something and in 4.10.1 you can... there isn't much of an argument worth having.

I may have posted this before but could someone on the team have a close look at the MG-FF and VYa 23mm (hub mounted only it appears).

Both of these cannons can sometimes cause player aircraft in mutliplayer to go careening out of control. Typically it's a 60 or 90 degree uncontrolled roll away from the blast. It tends to be made worse when hit on the extremities (such as the outer wings). It's a unique situation that is not seen in other weapons. I'm happy to provide tracks of the situation if need be...

Try a A6M5 versus a A-20 and watch what happens when hit. Doesn't seem to work on AI aircraft.

This happens with hispano too, mainly when they hit the 190 near the wingtips. Well i end my discussion about this here. I give all my arguments and if i continue they ll become boring and the repetitive. Complaining too much ll not change to much since the programmers are the owners of the truth.

S!

Wishlist: Night fighting + svastikas
 

Hi everyone,

IMHO, the following improvements would be fine in future upgrades.

Night fighting:

The best soft&screen combination will never get close to RL night vision (RL move detection by human eye in the dark). As a compensation, exhaust flames would benefit in-game night fighting (and be historically accurate, as early night fighters used to detect ennemy A/Cs by this mean - among others).

Radar antennas (and exhaust flame suppressors) on night fighters would be great. Either as separate A/Cs or option (in the weapon list?).

Svastika:

I don't know if this respects the national legislations forbidding the public display of the svastika, but an option enabling the svastika to show on German & Finnish A/Cs when markings are selected would content the players interested in historical accuracy, and respect the convictions and sensibility of other players.

---

A/Cs:

Of course, I'd like more. AFAIC, the game misses seaplanes, British bombers, Italian, French or late war German A/Cs. I guess there as as many A/C wishlists as players...Keep it that way, Team Daidalos, you're doing fine!

And that equipped all British cannon armed fighter throughout the war with the exception of the Tempest and very late model Sea/Spitfires...

The jamming problems occured mostly in cold air at high altitudes with the very first versions of the Spitfire (Ib, IIb) and were later solved by sending exhaust gases through the wings to heat up the cannons.

I can already say that this won't happen. Due to the russian law situation it could create all kinds of unpleasant problems for 1C so we were asked not to fiddle with the swastika situation.

And I repeadly strongly suggest to use such brilliant extern tools like MAT manager to handle such issues. ;-)

Were you flying against player-controlled or AI planes? Ace level AI has unrealistically tight bullet dispersion along with extremely good accuracy, which allows lethal shots like you described.

True! By the Mark V version of the Hispano the autojammers were removed because the cannons were extremely reliable by that point as well. Obviously confidence improved as the cannons were refined.

Svastika
 

Not really an issue. And, as you write, MAT Manager (or Photoshop) does the job.

Any feedback as for night fighting?

Svastika
 

Not surprised. I give up the idea with no regrets then. This is cosmetics anyway.

Any comment on my 1st suggestion (regarding night fighting) welcomed.

No Korean War,but,Spanish Civil War?
Hope it's not a can of worms...

That topic will be more adressed in future. But its still lotta work to do to have it the proper way. So no details yet.

No special plans towards Spanish Civil War, although I agree, with relative low efforts, there could be a working scenario, primarly it needs a proper map.

I don't understand why people still bitch about the lack of swastika.

It is a symbol related to politics. What do politics add to a flight simulator? Let me answer that, just one thing: More problems...

There are a large number of modded maps for Spain which look good, if the modders agree, perhaps they could become official.

More ideas:

1) Make the red and blue target locator/tracking arrows separate from the no cockpit view. Allow them to be turned on or off either as a keyboard command or as a difficulty option. That way, the tracking arrows could be turned on when the cockpit view is on or turned off when the no cockpit view is on. This feature is available in CloD and might be an unused feature of IL2.

2) Allow the game to be paused while the map view is active.

3) Allow ships and stationary ground objects (i.e., buildings) to appear on the mini-map. Also have a switch so that ships and stationary objects don't appear on the mini-map, while planes still do (to simulate radar which can't pick up low-lying objects).

4) Provide a difficulty option which allow objects on the mini-map to remain hidden or unidentified until identified by a friendly unit (ship, vehicle, plane, etc.) equipped with a radio. This would represent the need to visually identify "bogies" picked up by ground-based radar.

I don't get it either. I hope it's just a desire for realism, not an actual desire to glorify fascism. Anyhow, if you want the hakenkreuz or realistic Finnish markings, just use one of the however many skins there are out there, Mat manager, or one of the various mods which allows politically incorrect markings to be displayed.

This option gets requested a lot, mostly by people who don't realize that the swastika is outlawed in some countries and is considered to be in extremely bad taste in many more. If DT had a FAQ, it should be right up there with other things that cannot be included in the game.

It is about history. Like it or not all German planes had a hakenkreuz painted on their tail. How about flying without any national markings on russian planes, because comunism was evil?

At the risk of breaking a site rule, even the British Fleet Air Arm was known to use the swastika. This is a Blackburn Dart landing on HMS Furious in 1926. The use of the swastika by Finnish Air Forces pre-dated the rise of the nazi's in Germany. However laws are laws and some national sensitivities are understandably greater than others.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/f...titled-1-9.jpg

Don't click on the link if you might be offended.

No it is not about history it is about politics. The luftwaffe symbol is there, so you instantly know that this plane belongs to Germany. That is enough for a flight simulator.

And the fact that you already gοt into politics discussion (the communism comment) confirms that I am right.

http://www.fredscorner.nl/hello_kitt...redscorner.jpgThe swastika is outlawed in several countries. Companies selling products must respect those laws or have problems. Who cares enough about a stupid swastika to create problems.

Basically, some people stupidly fixate on something like the swastika that means nothing. They just want to create issues for complaints.

Why not put a picture of "Hello Kitty" on the tail of your Axis aircraft. It would mean just about as much, and maybe even get a smile from the dude that blasts your butt out of the sky.

Swastika
 

GENTLEMEN, LET'S FORGET ABOUT SVASTIKAS!

I'm sorry my first post generated such a squabble. I didn't mean to, and I thought my 2 previous posts made my point clear: I consider this a side issue of the game, and as it would be outlaw, the question is over (and thus any debate in this place is of questionable interest, IMHO).

I created this situation against my will. So I'll try to put an end to the argument and bring everybody round:

A famous pioneer airman said: "The first guy who painted a roundel on an airplane is a criminal".

I ain't sure, but it may be famous Brazilian pilot Alberto Santos-Dumont, who was horrified by the use of (unarmed) airplanes for military purpose when WWI started, and even more by the use of armed airplanes when they appeared. As some of you may know, he ended committing suicide, depressed by incurable disease (sclerosis) and supposedly also by the use of aircraft in warfare.

---

I'd be pleased to see my 2nd initial topic debated with even more enthousiam (see next post).

Fly Me to the Moon
 

The AI nav lights issue correction paved the way to better night flight experience.

I think making exhaust flames visible could be the next (easy?) step which would notably improve night fighting.

I don’t fly at night in IL2. Not because I ain’t interested, but because I don’t see I damn thing - not to say downward. Any feedback on this?

On the other hand, AIs seem to be owl-eyed. Before thinking of blinding them, the next step IMO may be to give the player a chance (to spot exhaust pipes - as RL early night fighters).

Your opinion? Any other idea to improve night flying, fighting or bombing?

Coloured flares for ground target marking
Ammo crates and fuel tanks wich can explode
Bigger smoke plumes that follow the wind direction
Turn/slip indicator mounted on the P-47 gunsights
Bigger tracers for the 50.call mgs
Option to select tracer rounds or normal rounds
Larger normandy map
West Berlin map
Multi crew
Flyable Lancaster

...Wellington, Defiant, He-219, Ju-88C/G
Non-flyable Hampden, Stirling
Radar antennas for Bf-110, Fw-190, Ju-88, Ar-234 (+ Coastal Command Wellington and Liberator)
Exhaust flame suppressors...