Ju-88 fighter version?
 

More seriously, is there any chance that DT continues to forge ahead with Ju-88 versions?

The torpedo bomber is a brilliant addition. The fighter-bomber (JU-88C) would be a fine continuation.

The Ju-88C was notably used over the Bay of Biscay, flying anti-shipping patrols, fighting British and American antisubmarine aircrafts, escorting Fw-200 or providing boats (and mainly U-boats) with air cover.

It was also used as a night fighter, and the Ju-88G as well.

The G-series is quite different (new fuselage, vertical stabilizer of the Ju-188...), but the C-series is based on the A-series, the main visible differences being the solid metal nose and the suppression of the ventral gondola.

Wellington and Defiant are presumably off-limits because they appear in ClOD.

Radar antennas/night fighter versions exist as mods for many aircraft (Mosquito, Bf-110, Ju-88, Ar-234) and look pretty good.

Exhaust flame suppressors presupposes exhaust flames. Again, there are some very nice effects mods that accurately simulate exhaust flames, at least for some of the single-engined fighters.

I know... I'm afraid CoD might kill any further development of aircrafts on Western front for IL2, especially early war's. Let's hope MTO doesn't know the same fate.

AFAIC, I'd love to fly CoD, but I'll wait a debugged and enriched "v.7" version (the like of 1946). Not to mention I'm not willing to buy a new laptop right now. USD 800 or so +50 is a bit too much a price just for a game, as great as it may be.

Yep. I gave them a try. There's OK. But...

I stopped using mods. I prefer to devote the little time I can to play, not to instal and fix. I waited the official fix for AI nav lights to enjoy it, although I had had a taste of it when trying mods.

So radar antennas as part of the next official update would be nice.

I'm not aware that anyone "official" has ever said that. However I'm also not aware that anyone is actually modelling these at the moment so the question is a bit academic.

I'd also like to see a Hampden bomber, but preferably flyable.

British bombers are hole which needs to be covered as all the other major forces German, Russian (in the latest patch and the PE-2) American the lack of a British medium bomber(a Heavy would be better)

Hello everyone,

I have one small request for a future DT patch regarding the Ju87D-3, Ju87D-5 and Ju87G-1. Later in the war, many of these aircraft were operated from rough fields with the wheel spats removed. Would it be possible to make wheel spats optional for mission dates of 1943 onwards? Perhaps this could be selected/randomized using skin checksums (like the gunsights in the D.XXI)?

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Actually I'd like to see all those "random" options that are tied to certain skins, mostly only offline, made options in the setup screen and have them able to be used online.

I want my wheel spats on the I-15bis. They just look so cool.

yeah I like that as well I much prefer the Revi on D-XX1

I agree. None of the Fab 6 is a bit rough (medium bomber: Wellington, Hampden, Whitley; heavy bomber: Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling). 1 heavy would be nice (logicaly the Lanc); 1 medium (logically the Wimpy) and 1 heavy very nice.

I believe the Lancaster, Halifax and Wellington already exist as mods...

Can I start off by saying that I'm very impressed with the MDS features included in 4.10 and beyond. Looking on to 4.11, could I make a request of TD:

When a static carrier is sunk, the homebase attached to it is not disabled but rather facilitates airspawning. This is very unrealistic as it suddenly gives the advantage to those who can airstart. Would it be possible to eliminate the spawn options from the carrier HB as soon as that carrier is sunk?

Please let me know if this is already doable and I'm missing something. Thanks in advance,

The most straightforward would be the Blenheim but due to COD that would be a no go. (the mod pit seems rather good but no evidence of gunner or bombardier position) Unless Im wrong there and the Blenheim could be added as a flyable, Also another good addition would be a clear nose mossies with a Norden you have good pathfinder missions. But would love a lanc, Wellington ect

AFA British planes are concerned, I would love even oddities like the Bombay or the Seafox... Being realistic*, I think you're right: a flyable version of the Blenheim (and the Swordfish) and glass-nosed versions of the Mosquito would already be great.

*The unsoluble plane controversy

Being new to this forum, I may be wrong, but I understand so far that:

1) Some planes cannot be expected for legal reasons. Simple.

2) There are as many wishlists as players. I guess they may be aggregated to a certain extend: Polish players would like to see more Polish planes, Italian players more Italian planes, Japanese players more Japanese planes etc. Marketing suggests that the majority has the priority: if the Spit Mk.XIV is the most popular request, it’s legitimate to consider it first.

3) Another marketing aspect, IL-2 is almost dead as a commercial product, as opposed to CoD. I think we already can consider ourself lucky to have a wonderful DT to keep upgrading the official game. But it cannot be infinite. I perfectly understand that priority should be given to new versions of planes already being in the game.

4) New early-war British planes are unlikely to appear (I don’t write “no chance” because the Swordfish unexpectedly shew up) because of the agreement between DT and 1C not to develop elements relating to the BoB. This is worth commenting a bit:

Of course I’d like to see better DM, objects definition etc. in IL-2. We know the price: more CPU ressources. I don’t expect it, and I don’t ask it: IL-2 is a generation, CoD is the next one. The gap is obvious and CoD sells itself just on this - to me at least. But, for this very reason, I doubt BoB elements in IL-2 are that a threat to CoD sales. Of course, CoD focuses on this ground. Given the broadness of 1946, there are enough other fields to explore first and/or deeper. But deciding that a Channel map or a He-115 in IL-2 is a threat to CoD is IMO excessive, as the conclusion of a wrong market analysis.

I also read the Russian front and Pacific theater are exclusive axes of further developments. This would be a step back. The game started on Russian and German planes (Russian front), evolved with American and Japanese ones (Pacific), OK. But were added British, Polish, Italian planes, opening opportunies (Mediterranean theater, campaign of Poland, Western front…) - and gaining new players, like me. Strengthening all aspects of the game and extending them (night fighting, maritime operations - more seaplanes?) is legitimate in respect of the variety of players, IMHO.

---

Don’t take this too seriously. I’m just paving the way to my own wishlist… ;)

Always someone wants more aircraft.

I remember it from MSFT CFS1,CFS2,CFS3,IL2 1.0 up todate.

It doesn't matter we have a huge number of aircraft in IL2 and it's never going to finish.

I spent over 3 years with IL2 building missions and flying the year 1941-1942 on the Kuban map right after Barbarossa. I had all I could do with the aircraft that were available and the one map. The terrain was mixed and the aircraft were fast enough and hard hitting enough to enjoy.

The IL2 is a huge application with enormous object library.

Naw... I really should keep shut, because I know it's just the nature of the beast. Everyone wants some new aircraft, object or map thing we don't have. LOL

I want to see viable improvements within the core programming, the fmb and the things that really make the sim experience more exciting like the recent release of navigation.

Agree. 6DOF, better AI etc. before any new crate.

I have been doing a little more research and apparently the Fiat CR.42 could benefit from this as well.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

The Ki-27 also had a couple wheel-spat configurations.

Of course we do. And thinking deeply about it why not? Variety is the spice of life and having so many types of aircraft available to us means that the variety is extremely good here. We can realistically and accurately simulate so many areas of the war now. There are still some holes and missing types that I'd love to see filled in... realistically not every gap will be filled in (that'd be just too much) but I do love getting new aircraft to fly. It makes my experiences enjoyable and opens up new options for mission building for both online and offline.

Adding more of the same doesnt equal better gameplay in my oppinion.
Its fun for missionbuilders yes, but why do we need more airplanes if most arent even used by the majority.

I gave up flying iL2 because ive mastered my favored aircaft, and i dont want to invest time in mastering another 1000 other aircraft.

Unless there will be really new stuff like multicrew, and new maps, i think most people will move on to something else.

In your opinion of course.

Personally new aircraft have been one of the hooks that have kept myself and most of the guys I fly with in the sim for 9 or 10 years.

New aircraft have the opportunity of opening new areas of operation, or making some of the ones we have actually useable.

For instance just a couple more Imperial Japanese aircraft could finally make the CBI/Asia/Pacific theater a really doable thing. The new soon to be flyable Hawk 75 opens the door to operations in the Netherlands East Indies, even without a proper map of Java or Borneo. Not to mention more varied choices for the Winter and Continuation Wars, and the Battle of France.

Even with all the planes we have there are several gaping holes in the plane set that if filled could insure a few more years of viability for the orignal IL2 franchise.

Not all of us care about late war operations over Europe you know.

I only fly 1940-1945 ETO aircraft yes.

Adding indiscriminatly new aircaft and content only makes it difficult to understand wich part of iL2 is going to be improved.
I think that it would make more sence if we get udates (new aircraft, maps etc.) for all 3 theaters of operation. This will satisfy more people and will improve iL2 as a whole.

for example patch 4.11 could contain the following:

new ETO map
new PTO map
new Eastfront map

one new flyable ETO aircraft
one new flyable PTO aircraft
one new flyable Eastfront aircraft

improved ETO aircraft cockpit
improved PTO aircraft cockpit
improved Eastfront aircraft cockpit

4.11 Requests - Redwulf_42
 

Some suggestions for your consideration:

1. Differential Braking for both Rudder Pedals - I use pedals in game and fly Cessna 172P a bit in real world. Currently (to my knowledge) you can only assign one pedal brake and it only becomes differential (side to side) at full rudder extension.

2. Toggle button for Combat Flaps Only - I occassionally jam my flaps in combat by inadvertently double clicking the flap down button. I often hear others complaining that they've done the same as well.

3. Assignable fuel loadouts for planes in dogfight servers - As is done in the coop servers. In Redwulf we strive to keep things historic by flying full switch (or nearly full switch) and by using historic plane sets. We also horse around alot. In my opinion, fighters with a 25% full load would have historically been on a return leg to base or hanging near a friendly base over friendly territory. If folks want to fly that way for improved turning capability fine, but I'd like the option, to set full fuel loadouts for our missions.

4. Hi-res National Markings - The plane skins and cockpits have improved dramatically since the game was released in 2001. But the national emblems (crosses, roundels, red stars) seem jagged and un-weathered when you zoom in on the planes in F2 mode.

Thanks very much for your hard work on the sim!

S!

Redwulf__42

On some planes, apparently differential braking was achieved with a single handbrake (sometimes mounted on the control column), and by deflecting the rudder one way or another. Not many planes used toe brakes at the time, as far as I know.

You forget that DT has limited resources. In addition, they are working for free and only do stuff they wish to do (in their free time). They are sometimes able to add mods from third parties (such as the Pe-8 ) but the sheer amount of stuff not in IL-2 already means that many potential additions will not be added in a DT patch. Besides, mandating a rigid mix of potential additions for all future patches will restrict the work allowed and likely drive some of the talented DT team members away (something none of us wants). If you have something (map, aircraft, cockpit, game function, etc) you want in a future DT patch, you can do the following: 1) Request the desired feature here 2) If DT doesn't have the time or interest to do this themselves, see if someone in the greater IL-2 modding community is willing to work on it, co-ordinating with DT to comply with DT's legal, contractual, specification and accuracy standards. If you do this, I think you will find success. I haven't heard of any DT compliant, third party mods that have been turned down by DT. Be prepared for a bit of a wait, though...:)

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Hi Team Daidalos, was wondering if any of you had a view on the above ideas/requests. fully appreciate if not possible to do or if there is a good argument not to (bandwidth/server load was mentioned as this was apparently a feature that was disabled in one of the first few IL2 patches (anyone any idea which one?) - surely though 10 years later this would not be a problem?)

Many thanks for all your hard work, fantastic results!

if you look at the latest dev update you will see that point one has been confirmed as being part of 4.11 with added confirmation that head movement will be also included

? sounds great - but can't find the update you are referring to - any chance for a linky? can only see this: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20318 but no reference in it?

edit: OK, after some digging think you were referring to this, at 5:10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNjbe...mbedded#at=309
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=182

one word: FANTASTIC. Thank you TD. One last Q - what about rudder?

I think realistically as part of a true development group that was salaried and on a project timeline this would make a lot of sense. Very logical. I even thought about things that way myself.

From what I can see, within the TD group they do focus some efforts on specific areas, however, some of the content that we see is from external contributors with TD support. They work on whatever they want to work on... largely because it's hours and hours of their own time and effort spent researching, modeling, coding, etc.

The interest would lessen (IMHO) if a more rigid structure was imposed.

We seem to agree :).

Fafnir_6

I'd just like to see the P-38 Mesh remodelled so that the skin isn't reversed on the opposite side, this way Historically accurate markings can at-last be added to the P-38.

This has been one of the reasons I don't use the P-38 very-much as I hate to see numbers reversed on the opposite side of the aircraft due to the 'Mirror' Mesh.

Rather than asking for a new MTO Aircraft, this would be a great addition and allow some great skinning opportunities?

I'm just asking ;)

Cheers, MP

I agree sir.

The P38, together with the P40E and M are about the worst models in the sim at this point.

Much as I like to see new aircraft being added, certainly I'd rather see new cockpits for the game's oldest models, like the Bf 109 series.

Mig-3, Ju-52, Li-2/C-47/L2D, PBN

I forgot the MTO.

R-10. Hands down.

In a few planes the gunsight is only slightly above the engine so its
pretty much inpossible to see anything that happens underneath your crosshairs.

So my question, could you consider changing the seat/gunsight position of the
razorback p-47's, the mig's and perhaps the ki61?

I know a slight correction was done on the Mc202 and it makes a huge differance when aiming

Thanks

The tempest should be altered as it was implemented incorrectly when it was launched I remember Gibbage being unhappy that the seat was changed and it lost it rear view due the increased closeness to the rear plate (unless ive missed something and its been changed already)

Would this be realistic though? I'm all for changing pilot's POV if it is wrong, or if historically seat and sight positions could be altered to give the pilot optimum field of view, but not if it would be unrealistic.

That would be Alex Voicu who did the Tempest. Gibbage did a great many other aircraft.

The original positions for the Tempest cockpit were changed at the last minute and that is part of the reason why rearward visibility is poor. It's tricky because the interior struts can block the fuel indicators in some positions as well.

Not sure what it takes to alter the viewpoints. The cockpit may need to be recompiled to do that.

Couldnt agree more and im not talking about the Fw190 for instance.
I noticed the seat/sight position of the later p47 versions are higher than the razorback ones, making the earlier models alot harder to aim with.

Just a quick request - please could you set the Burma map to a PTO map so we no longer get D-Day stripes on the static C-47's.

Thanks.

I think this request can go to 4.12, But I though of adding Neutral countries Sweeden,Spain, and Switzerland to the game. also a new feature that would pick the oppenent would face from which side (either Allied or Axis). Also For the Neutral country feature that I would like to see from the feature that you have the enemy's planes which you could pick the enemy and players country.

More FMB ideas:

1) Standardized convoys of ships.

2) Ability to "program" ground vehicle or ship to take evasive action without having to assign waypoints. For example, you could have a vehicle or convoy stop and start, swerve, make random turns or perform similar evasive action while still traveling along a more or less straight line.

3) Ship and vehicle convoys which follow simple "follow the leader" and station-keeping "flocking" behavior when they change direction, allowing them to automatically keep formation when they turn.

Along with #2 that you mentioned, maybe subs that can dive. The standard response to sighting a plane was to crash dive - only when the sub was stuck on the surface for various reasons including reloading externally mounted torpedoes, or fueling next to a "milk-cow" was AAA used. There were specially built flak-boats which conning towers with multiple quad AA installations, to project other u-boats, but these were very unsuccessful.

But yeah, +1 on the pre-built ship convoys and simple ship AI that takes evasive action (to an extent - sometimes ships had to stay in line no matter what). This would make situations like the battle of the Bismark Sea possible in which Beaufighters struck convoys with rockets, destroying flak and bridges. Anticipating a torpedo attack, all the ships turned 90 degrees to face the Beaufighters to reduce the area that could be hit. But by doing so, they exposed themselves to attacks from B-25s which were carrying bombs.

This is impossible to replicate in Il-2 because the ships have no AI (you would need to time the way points perfectly) and because it's impossible to inflict damage specifically to guns, bridges, etc.

Actually it is possible to damage specific guns and bridges on most ships.

Manoeuvring ships in particular if used with the MDS and with ntrk playback would be 5.0, requires so many changes that downwards compatibility is hardly possible, if at all.

Still, it would indeed add a lot to naval battles.

like lots the idea of ship A.I also the option for ships to be a target on QMB would be great (Crimea map and other with ships).
Another nautical item which would be good would be LSO on RN and USN ships (ranwers has something in WIP in SAS forum which would fit the bill whicyh also add crew to the deck of carriers an option would be great to ground crew visible). More planes would be welcome especially British and French.

Or even a little 2-d graphic showing an LSO with moving arms, like the one in Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator 2.

Mods exist which add static ground crew, deck crew, etc. to the game. They look good in screenshots, but seem a bit eerie in the actual game, since they don't move. In some cases, non-moving aircrew can also be an obstacle. While it would be very cool to have moving people who behave in a realistic fashion, I think that it's beyond what's possible for IL2.

There are a few French planes in the works, at least as mods. I know that there's a D520 and perhaps an Arsenal VG33 which have gotten to the advanced 3d design stage. Perhaps the authors are collaborating with TD?

For British planes, it would be really quick and easy to put tailhooks on the Gladiator and the Hurricane to make the Sea Gladiator and the Sea Hurricane, although you'd need to tweak existing cockpits as well. Other than that, the RN is doing reasonably well for its mainline carrier-based aircraft, unless you want to model relative failures like the Skua, Roc and Albacore.

For RAF aircraft, there are still a lot of types which could be modeled, although I think that there's a certain amount of nervousness about not competing with CloD add-ons. Within the existing plane set, it would be easy enough to add the later marks of Hurricane and very welcome to have a flyable Blenheim, although that would require a lot of work. Key types not yet modeled in the game, or in progress as outside projects, include the Typhoon, Sunderland and Halifax.

Rather than having actual AI, would it be possible to have pre-programmed movement paths in the FMB which fake AI? For example, have an option in the FMB which allows you to automatically give a ground unit or ship a zig-zag path or move forward in a series of loops instead of having to input dozens of waypoints?

One "pseudo AI" pattern which ships could use is already in the game - the "race track" or "loop" pattern adopted by fighters when escorting heavy bombers.

Some ideas/suggestions for Team Daidalos:

- An option to automatically record all gameplay (offline/online) in .ntrk tracks (instead of .trk, which seem to be broken many times) without the requirement to press the record button.

Also this auto-record should work when you use the TimeSkip button (I guess with a new ntrk file each time you timeskip). I don't think there is a disk space problem nowadays. The user will be able to delete everything later. Maybe also add a separate folder for auto-records, and maybe include date in the filename.

I have lost too many great moments due to standard .trk bugginess.


- Some engine sounds have gaps in their loop. The spitfire/p51/tempest sound for example, "cracks" periodically (every ~2secs, more easily heard when on high rpm).


- A slight cockpit revamp for the very very very old planes would be welcome (109, ju87, yaks, migs). They somewhat look out of place compared to the rest.


- Bug: AM Radio Music can be heard from external view.


- In addition to toggle radiator button, is it possible to add separate open/close buttons (not axis)?


- Option to make PanView camera movement smooth (how much it turns depends on how much time you press the direction) instead of using steps.

Thanks.

This has been said before and it needs to be said again. This game needs native 6DOF.

When 4.10 came out the people I play with and I decided to try playing without mods. Those of us with head tracking can't stand to be without it. We don't care if some of the cockpits aren't optomized for it, we just want the ability to move our damned heads from side to side and zoom so we can see past the cockpit braces. We want to see compasses behind the bloody flight stick and boost gagues behind cockpit re-enforcements.

So we install mod activators and fix the russian language problems it brings and deal with compatibility issues because 6DOF really is that neccesary.

So suck it up and give 6DOF to those of us who want it. We'll cope with the incomplete cockpits, it hasn't stopped us from wanting 6DOF before we found ways to mod it in.

As for the whole 'unfair advantage' argument, go ahead and tell me that TrackIR with 2DOF isn't already an unfair advantage over people who have to use a hat switch or mouse to look around. By that reasoning TrackIR support shouldn't be there in the first place.

How about a new damage model for the trains? As for now, a destroyed train looks very much like a string of crumpled cardboard boxes - not very realistic IMHO.
It would also be nice to have crewed AA guns on those trains, not those "remote-controlled" cannons.

"Toggle Gunsight" can help.

I have idea for FMB, please add this text as default to field for mission briefing in FMB (Edit -> description -> full description). THX

<ARMY NONE>

</ARMY>
<ARMY RED>

</ARMY>
<ARMY BLUE>

</ARMY>

Or neutral countries can have a different color like yellow and the allies should be blue and Axis should be red.

Quick question: Has there been any thought of adding a QMB option that allows one to select between two templates with different densities of anti-aircraft guns?

The original Il-2 demo had this feature.

It seems particularly important with the I-15 and other slow aircraft - where '43 or '44 era anti-aircraft cannons can make some quick mission maps unflyable. It would be great to be able to choose between lots of cannons or just a few MG-42... With 3rd party QMB missions, one could even exploit such a feature to select between 1942 era ground targets and the 1946 era ones... or select between light anti-aircraft guns (low-altitude) or heavy anti-aircraft artillery (for the Pe-8, TB-3, Il-4 and B-25 high altitude runs). This way the player could choose whether to only burden the processor with the right kind of guns.

So my suggest for a QMB the AAA option:
None vs. Light AAA vs. Heavy AAA

(or if you want to get fancy increase to five options instead of three: None vs. Light AAA early vs. Heavy AAA early vs. Light AAA late vs. Light AAA Heavy)

YESSS THOSE DUMB THINGS ALWAYS SNEAK UP ON ME.. :( and im like WTFFF lol
:confused:

I would love to see the P-61 BlackWidow and i know people have been saying this forever but we need American heavy bombers or atleast some new B-25s :)

Being a Northrop product means we will never have the P61 in an official release.

Regarding graphic options and other stuff
 

Is anyone working on getting the conf.ini only graphic options (like water=x Forest=3) into the game GUI as options ?

Currently the options for forests are reset, also the landgeom detail option "3" (for the increased view distances) cant be set, it would be cool to have something like "detailed options" button where one could select forest/water/landgeometry.

On another note: Is the old IL2 style widescreen support planned to come back or is that impossible (buried in the code) ?

Just fire up the original il2, a complete fullscreen mission editor , neatly positioned speedbar/infobar (as I understand these can be repositioned with configuration options in the future ?).

Thats stuff that would motivate me to start coding for il2 :)

Looking forward to any additions to the state of the AI (supercheck6 and cloud-o-vision come to mind), maybe some time a option for deteriorated aircraft setting (90% performance), this could be very nice for external campaigngenerators....

aah the possibilities...

Keep up the good work and thx for caring !

We need a dynamic Western Front Campaigns for Germany,France,United States, and United Kingdom.

also I would say the invasion of Poland wasn't included so you can add that to the western Front Campaign ?

Dynamic campaigns are outside Daidalos' scope for the moment. Simply put DCG is an external program and DGen is property of Starshoy who never parted with the sourcecode and has been unreachable for years.

Cough...Replace DGen with DCG...cough. The DGen replacement mode means that all the old DGen campaigns will still work. DCG is wonderfully configurable (to address any potential concerns) and is still evolving, so all the new features implemented in previous DT patches are readily available. Sticking with DGen hobbles the potential of DT-patched IL-2. Go with a living, evolving campaign engine rather than a dead one. I believe we have discussed this before ;).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

That, IIRC that is, already works with DCG as it is. No need for Daidalos to do anything. DCG will remain an external application each user can download and install at their leisure.

Making DCG "official" would allow developers other than Paul Lowengrin (creator and maintainer of DCG) to update DCG, and would also allow improvements to DCG to happen in parallel with updates to IL2, rather than afterwards.

Damage model for ships
 

How about little improvement of ships's damage model (cariers, battleships, destroers)? I've noticed that, for example, aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious) after taking SC1000 becoming on smoke, bringing down by the striken side, BUT 100% of it's AA guns still working fine! Though we know that historically in most cases AA firepower was significantly decreased after taking bombs/torpedoes/large-caliber shells hits.

How about the Swordfish MK I should be flyable, it should make the torpedo bomber players happy (;

Also, add the Fokker G.I Heavy fighter. It was flowen in WWII by the dutch and the luftwaffe. However, the Netherlands(or Holland) used the Foker G.I Heavy fighter the most and please add the He-219 Uhu. It was introduced in 1943,and can fill the whole in the German twin engine aircraft a little.

I'd love to see a suppression script (eg. simulating the wounding or killing of AA crew and a delay while new crewmembers replace the gunners).

I love what ZloyPetruskO did with the ground based AA (although it could do with a bit of work - especially regarding night combat).

Baring a change of heart on the part of the company or a reasonable court decision overturning the previous rulings...

Any thoughts on integrating DCG?

NIGHT ATTAK ............ ATTAK TO TARANTO BY WOLF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPcBW0vSiQU

We also need rockets for the FM-2.

from the stationary plane spawn, I would like to request that when the player is in a stationary plane, the numbers of the stationary plane should be the same.

Some method to set the altimeter to zero before taking off? Sometimes there is a difference between the height of the airstrip and the height shown on the altimeter (sea level?). By the time you return to land, you've forgotten or can't remember what the difference between the initial altimeter reading and "true" zero was. I've noticed that it is, on occasion, nearly 100m. It would make landings somewhat easier!

Maybe an easy change?
 

There might be a minor change that would add another useful vehicle to IL-2.

In the past, I have used the BA-64 as a substitute for the Sk Kfz 222. It doesn't have a red star painted on it, and its armament is reasonably similar, though the wrong color tracers.

But I could not use the BA-10 as a substitute for the Sd Kfz 231 (6-rad) or the Sd Kfz 232 (6-rad). Is it possible to remove the red star on the BA-10 object skin? That would permit such a substitution.

Alternatively, the B8 Greyhound could also be used without the white star. Not as good visually as the BA-10, though.

Armored cars were used extensively by the Germans, yet they are not as well represented as the Russian armored cars. An 8-rad vehicle would be a whole new vehicle. And the Sd Kfz 250 is missing as well.

Perhaps the removal of the red star on the BA-10 would be a simple change?

Hi Daidalos Team
love what you have done.

With the next patch would it be possible in the fog of war to added to added aircraft limited to the number of aircraft lost for each side and limited the number of pilot killed or captured for each side and when either side has be exhausted it a in game message which side has won. Also if you can it would be good to be able to have the option to tick if AI aircraft and pilot count and the same with static aircraft.

Also in targeting option when making a mission work great but you can set it one side only.
This would help to make mission building easier if this option can be set of both side in stead of only one.

Also would it be possible to have a trigger option so if a target is attack the AI react that you setup for this will change from there flight way points go and give air or ground cover.

And also the same with ships so if they come under attack they make a turn to the port or the starboard.

Also the option to set way points for ship able to have then zig zag or not tricking and option between each way point.

1st off. One of the major gripes I’ve found with the single player campaign mission is the fact that you have to at least land or complete one of the mission objectives before you can advance to the next mission.

I’ve recently found my old Microsoft CFS2 and I loved its single player due to the fact that even if you fail miserably in a mission as long as your not KIA, MIA or captured you can go for the next mission. Everyone has a bad day occasionally and I would like that to be recorded.

As it is now I lift, follow the objectives, shoot a couple planes down and sometimes am forced to bail/ditch before the kill limit for advancing is done or our friendly bombers take to long to do their run. Now I have to redo the mission and am able to get half a dozen kills because I know where and when they show up.

2nd It would also be nice to have several missions where our objective doesn’t meet several enemy planes. every sortie with 4 or 5 kills gets to be repetitive.

Taking a look at a couple of the German aces and I’ve noticed they have, say 800 sorties of which 250-300 of them they made contact. It would be great to have half a dozen sorties where we don’t manage to find anything to shoot. And would add to the realism factor as you don’t KNOW that you’ll find anything that particular sortie.

Cheers and thanks for reading.

Uncheck "No instant success" option in the difficulty.

I agree, but a lot of players would be bored. You can't expect any changes to DGEN because the designer has disappeared. As for hand made campaigns, well, you might be forced to build one yourself with those parameters.

May I ask what difficulty level you play on? I find that I don't rack up such scores because I'm trying to cover my wingmen as much as possible (I'm usually the last one in the flight). The last mission I flew in DGEN was escort in the Brewster. We had Moranes also with us. When we encountered Polikarpovs, the Moranes went in first and did most of the work. My flight leader did manage one kill. I personally saw no action that trip and had a warm cup of tea back at base. :) No bombers or escorts were lost.

We can't make Battle of France campaigns without the Bloch MB.153, Bloch MB.154, and the Bloch MB.155

And maybe, add a Junkers 290 or Junkers 390 maybe for 4.12.

Personally, I'd just settle for a flyable MS 406 and MS410 with a realistic cockpit (with instruments printed in Finnish, Bulgarian and French please! :) ).

FWIW, there are independent efforts to create both the D.520 and the MB.151-155 series which are reasonably far advanced. I have no idea if they'll ever be part of an official release, though.

There have also been attempts to create some of the other French planes in the 1939-40 order of battle, but these are at the "maybe some day" stage.

Anybody got any disadvantages for the Ju 290 and Ju 390 bombers for 4.11/4.12 ?

No objections!, you can start modeling Ace1staller! thanks for all your efforts...... :rolleyes:

Dampened landings
 

Without severely delaying the next update, is there any way to soften/dampen the 'bounce' inherent in the landing gear all aircraft in general when landing?

Disadvantages no, objections yes! These aircraft totaled perhaps 70/72 examples, (including prototypes, pre-production aircraft and the various types that were built). Why waste time on such a minor player? What I'd rather have is a He 177.

Indeed... there are still some major types that are totally unrepresented at this point. In the European conflict the Me410 and Hawker Typhoon Mark IB stand out as types that served in the hundreds and thousands from the midpoint of the war until the end.

We still don't have the P40 N, the most numerous sub type, and the fastest P40.

Well okay, what are the mod tools I'll need ?

For a start: 3D Studio Max, version below 9 (don't mix with 2009) - I heard it's free for educational purposes;
Adobe Photoshop, or other raster image editor - again, there are few free programs, similar to Photoshop in functionality.

and "stone ass" :D main tool for mod maker :D

Both of these exist as mods. The Me410 is nicely done and is based on the Me210. The Tiffie is only a frankenplane, though.

This also exists as a Mod. Given that it's externally just about identical to the other later P-40s, no 3d modeling is needed. All that's necessary is a new skin and new FM/DM.

The latest version of 3D Studio Max (2012) is free for educational purposes, but only if you're affiliated with a recognized educational institution. The license is for something like 3 years.

Be warned that, even with the new versions of 3d Max, it's a frustratingly difficult program to learn. It's allegedly very powerful once you know how to use it, but it takes a LONG time to even figure out the basics. It's like trying to learn to fly on your own using a Boeing jumbo-jet.

Only if you are modeling the very earliest production block. All subsequent blocks (the vast majority of Ns produced) had a very different canopy and cut away in the area behind the pilot to increase rear visibility.

Simply taking our horrid, and very incorrect P 40 M, and calling it an N is not acceptable. The Ns had bomb racks on the wings, and could and did carry rockets too...

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg14/...jpg&res=medium

Few ideas.
 

Hello and thank you for all the dedication on the best flight simulator of all times.

I have a few ideas, they are not requests, perhaps one or more could ring any bell.

1. It is possible to add the Rearm, Refuel, Repair or even re-heal option, ?

2. Variable weather in the middle of a mission. e.g. If you start your mission in a sunny day, perhaps half hour later starts to rain.

3. To add randomly wind gusts. In some cases when you are on final, wind appears and hit the airplane.

4. All the AI Aircraft take off and land the same "perfect" way. The only airplane that has the torque effect in take off is the TB-3 (the one with four engines) all the rest are -in a bad way- perfectly trimmed.

5. When F2 (outside view) is used, the camera is stuck to the airplane. What about to add a camera that follows the airplane, like the same effect when you are viewing an airborne airplane from another airplane; you can see how the airplane "floats". This will give more realism when the player are creating movies. A key combination could be Alt+F2 or any other available.

6. Independent brake pedals.

7. Real airplanes as stationary airplanes. Why?
a. You can use any livery (skin) you want.
b. When the enemy attacks, the airplane will be destroyed more realistic.
c. In dogfight you can depend of all the remain "new stationary" airplanes are in the airport.
d. If you crash your airplane, you can choose of any of remain airplanes. If you design your mission with 4 stationary airplanes, means that you can crash only 4 airplanes, after that you wont be able to fly again.
e. If the enemy destroy one or more of the "new stationary" airplanes you lose the option to use "that" especific airplane.
f. If an AI aircraft can land and park. They can taxi and take off, that means that you can request for help and one of that stationary airplanes will be an AI aircraft.

Большое спасибо.

I agree, the P-40N is one of the most important versions and dare I to say... also the ugliest one!

Yes, the canopy is much different than all other versions. Thanks for jumping in, ElAurens!

My pleasure.

I do get passionate about my P40s...

:grin:

Gladiator/s
 

How about flyable Gladiator MkI's and MkII's with instrumentation in English? The J8A is okay - but would be even more immersive with anglicised instruments.

*Animation of the blades when pitch is changed
*Spitfire MKI, XIV and XVI.
*Rework some cockpits if possible...
*Mixture adjust for all planes with this opition
*Check Spitfires FM

its my requests...


*here, some references for FM, i dont know if that are same in the game...

Spitfire MKI
Spitfire MKIIA
Spitfire V
Spitfire VIII
Spitfire IX
Spitfire XIV




sry for my bad english


thanks...

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that later block P-40Ns had a different canopy.

Agreed. I think that there's evidence of earlier P-40s carrying rockets, too. In any case, I think it's a common and simple enough field mod to give P-40E and F series planes Soviet, British and/or American bombs and rockets.

Unless your native language is Swedish. But, agreed, a flyable Glad MkI or MkII (and even better, the Sea Gladiator) would be a welcome addition.

But, if Diadalos Team just concentrated on making existing non-flyable planes flyable, they'd be at work for years.

Exists as mod. Off limits for DT because it overlaps with IL2: Cliffs of Dover (formerly IL2: Storm of War).

These all exist as mods. Actually, some of the Mk VIII and Mk IX variants exist as stock planes. Agreed that it would be nice to have the Griffon-engined Spitfires in the game.

The only problem with the Spitfire series is that there were more than 20 variants and many sub-variants, I think that there were something like 100 different versions in all. That's even more variants than the Bf-109 series!