Hear hear!

@Bearcat

Of course is counter productive this discussion when you find out that ZUTI and others are in TD :D... But was a bit hard to pull that info out. At least for me... I wasn't aware that that was the case. What I knew was the projected atitude Bulgarian and other TD put out apparently just for decieving us all :P .

If ZUTI is in TD... I can rest asure. His MDS has all the chances to become main stream and will avoid conflict with further patches.


P.S. Lets not forget the work of sHr! ;)

Of course Zealu, it's just one big conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Again, read the SimHQ interview more carefully, ok? We didn't provide the email contact for no reason.

Ordnance Drop....
 

Though I cannot speak for all aircraft, I can for the Japanese of which I imagine most are the same. Regarding external ordnance stores the process works as follows:

1. Via a remote switch (in IJA aircraft seen as a box with varied switches, the Hien next to trim), the circut is energized for one or all external stores solenoids.
2. A button upon the stick is then pressed when ready to drop that store, and the solenoid fires releasing the locking mechnism, causing the ordnance to fall.
3. If only one not both/all stores were selected, then the process could be repeated for the other(s).

The primary issue I have with this is, we should NOT have a separate button/switch/control for drop tanks and bombs......The drop mechanism simply drops whatever is there.

So I'd like to request the "Fire Weapon 4 (Drop Bombs) & Drop External Tanks" controls be combined

The second issue may be too complex for the sim.....That being as described above either or all stores could be dropped (normally if only one the side that would counter torque would be second).

So, I'd like to request that either one side at a time be dropped rather then both........OR........ that it could be made selectable (utilizing the unused button from above)

In other words, if you wish to drop store 1 you hit "fire weapon 4", then Weapon 5 for the next, 6,7,8....Whatever, and naturally a "Drop All External Stores" button.

Thanks for your consideration.

K2

You misunderstood me... but maybe all was due to some language barrier and insufficient explanations. But all is fine now!

Cheers!

Ok, now I have a request myself.

After having spent a fair amount of time with the loadouts and ordnance models in-game, I can only come to one conclusion: "Chaos"

There are tons of weird reuses of meshes that need sorting.

The FAB-50 is a 100lb for the US or a 50kg for the Italians.

The torpedoes are shared through out nations and mixed on different planes.

75% of all the other ordnance objects are plain wrong in shape, size and positioning on the plane or inside the bomb bay.

Please, get this in order.

Have you thought about submitting your ordnance meshes to TD, Zorin, they're excellent?

Hello Zorin,

I can tell you right now that we won't spend time on remodelling the loadouts.

I know you have done an extensive work on it and I don't doubt they are historically correct. The problem is (and I have told you this before over PM) that your work is overdone and out of the tech. specs even for SoW engine. If you are willing to reduce the polycount of your models to a more acceptable levelm, we can discuss it further. That's all I can suggest.

And AFAIK the damage radiuses of different bombs are also chaotic, with e.g. US 500 lbs bomb less effective than 250 one.

Regards,
Insuber

I respect that. This doesn't mean I appreciate nor agree on that stance, but it is not my decision.

All I know is that ten-thousands of people use my MODs and not a single one has complained about them slowing down their game, reducing their frame rates or any other form of impairment in game play.

Therefor I have no reason to start at point blank again to produce a product of lesser quality.

Well. if u think the tech specs makes "your" work low quality, u can allways submitt it to MS.

They dont seem to worrie much about poly counts. (I think they WOULD worrie about copyright issues though)



I mean, why on earth would u listen to somone with full access to the game code.



jeeze.



Sillyness aside. The man is TELLING u the specs for work implemented in the game, and u argue with him?

You are missing the point here. It has never been about being a know it all. My work has proven its validity and therefor gives no reason to question its suitability for the game.

If, during the extensive testing, there would have been a single sign of impairment in game play, I would have adopted, but as that wasn't the case I had no reason.

Sry, edited my post before i saw your reply, got said what i needed to say (blow of steam)

Point beeing: u know what i takes to get your work implemented in the game, take it or leave it. Simple.

If they change thire minds about tech specs/poly counts, im sure they will let u know.



:)

Well said. :)

Zorin, ok, let's close it this way:

1. If there is an exception given to you with your high poly loadouts, why shouldn't other people ask for the very same exception (with high res. textures, etc.)? Why shouldn't we then accept a 20k poly plane model with 2048x2048 textures to match your high poly loadouts? This is the point you might be overlooking.

2. You are telling me that following the specs would require from you to start from scratch. We both know it is not true or it should not be true depending on how you have done your homework. Because if you have made your models properly (in terms of LODs), you should have at least 2 more LODs after your high polygon LOD_0 models for each loadout. So maybe your LOD_1 or LOD_2 (if you have them) could just fit within the normal specs of the game. I don't know, you tell me.

3. And let's be reasonable. How often do you look at the loadouts from such a close distance to even appreciate such high fidelity? This sim is intended for virtual flying, not for taking screenshots. I am 110% for historical accuracy and quality (trust me, maybe even more than you are!), but I am also against wasted HW/SW resources. I dare to say you could do a very similar quality job on your loadouts with 30-40% reduction and most people wouldn't even notice the difference.

In conclusion, you have done a great historical job, no doubt about that, but you did not implement it properly for the IL-2 environment. And it puzzles me even more because I have mentioned this to you few months ago already. All I can say, please think about point #2.

This is the primary problem with 1c. The unwillingness to push poly count is really hurting them.

Oleg generally gets it right. But on this issue he is wrong.
The mod community has done a tremendous amount for the game. They have done MANY things we were told were impossible to be implemented. Why ? cause Oleg was unwilling to push high poly - so as to keep the game playable on base systems. His choice - but not the right one for many vpilots.

I urge ALL modelers and coders to reject low poly restrictions.

I keep hearing about Cinematic or HD quality sim. Well my response is that it won't be built on 15 inch monitors :rolleyes:

Stop coding for 2004 systems.

For official patches no work will be accepted if it doesn't fit technical requirements for Il2. It's very simple really, out of specs=out of the game and this rule is not going to change.

How about stop making 2009 models for 1999 game engine?

Two points:

1. Regarding the modelling specs - DT is not going to reject a plane that might be 30-40% over the polycount limit, if it is made properly and the increase is justified. But yes, we will reject planes that are 300 or 400% over the limit. These limits were respected by DT for 4.09 modelling. And I don't see reports coming in that the new plane models look obsolete or ugly because of the lower poly limit used.

2. Many times, the inexperienced modelers sort of "hide" behind the increased polycount. I am saying it in general, no finger pointing. Believe it or not, it is actually harder to model low-poly when you have a limited modelling budget (polycount) and tech. specs to follow. Take a look at the Gladiator or Fokker XXI models. They are +- within the original specs and they look perfect. Show me a high-poly model made for IL-2 that could beat them. It's about modelling skills, not about polycount.

** Regardless, I am happy to have your work. My comments are meant to inspire - not negate your efforts. Please keep up your great work.


.
.

Your work has proven its validity on a forum where the folks tend to clap to any sh***y looking stuff presented as new MOD. If that's enough for you, that's allright. But if you want to do a proper job, you simply gotta stay within the specs given and it's not too difficult to do it once you've got all the LOD's ready. ;)

The DT gentlemen have a very valid point here.

Many of the new, high poly visual effects, particulary explosions and fires, are pretty big frame rate killers. When you have several players online attacking an airfield, for example, the drop in frame rates is totally unacceptable, yet the mostly offliners who make these things have no clue what their pretty explosion effects are doing online, as they never fly there and never check their frame rates.

I realize that for the offline majority of modders and mod players this is not an issue, a stutter or ten is of no consequence, but online it is death.

Protos,don't try to make a point when you're not prepared with the situation,ok?
First I want to point out that I (as some other DT members) were on the both sides of the fence.
Anyhow,I can tell you that 70% of the subjects that are still using mods,are less then 16 year old.I don't have anything against the youngsters (I'm 19),but they don't know what is quality and what isn't,in the game industry.So they're happy with everything they get.

The ungrateful to mods left quickly IL-2 and the gaming at all,just when the mods came up.Why?'Cause they're mature,and respect the official devs.
I don't know about you but as many others (who aren't here now),I'm around this hood for a long time and I can tell you that 80% of the dedicated IL-2 gamers are long gone.Most of them are now playing RO.

Please stop these non-senses.Noone is holding DT back!
DT is simply following the tech.specs,created by lots of programmers/coders/3D modelers/3rd party modelers and many other people who worked for years over the IL-2's official development.

Now,Protos,in order to make the said above clear to you,I'll try to generally explain you what official game development term means.

The main idea of the game development is to keep the 3D models with reasonable (meaning to keep the model with as low polygon level as possible,without damaging the model's appearing) amount of polygons,so there will be more physical and memory space for effects,and other cookies.
Take for example Crytek 2 engine.FYI it's the engine,powering Crysis game sequel.Anyhow,even there with that powerful new engine,the team that developed Crysis was still keeping strict laws on the polygon level,otherwise there wouldn't have been those nice big explosions,great graphics,large world,physics and so on,that I bet a lot of people here enjoyed.
I don't think you have noticed that the weapons in crysis were "low poly",right?
All this wouldn't 've been possible if the Crysis team was thinking the same way as some/most of your beloved modders do.
Don't doubt in my words.Many other games (actually all) were created in the same way.The creator of the maps,3D models and textures of HL-2 and the rest of the sequel,was/is a Bulgarian.I personally have spoken to him about this type of things and it is true,believe it or not.

The key to develop a game is the following of strict rules,and not doing whatever you like to.

With thus said,I hope that the problem with the "low poly" jargon is settled up,and that It's not about "poly count",but simply about following the tech specs for the particular game engine. ;)

Clearly I hit a nerve.

Take a breath my boy and don't take yourself so seriously. Save your strength for the ladies.

** I think you might have been all of 9-10 years old when I started flying this game ;)

2 cents...

Beeing a part of the J8A project (not modelling though) I can assure you that hi poly count equal better quality is pure nonsense (balance of course). My dear friend Mr Haddock's work, who is a professional Art Director and head modeller in the gaming industry for some major titles for many many years, on the J8 is evidence enough. I even recall a long vivid conversation with him after the first specs of SOW were presented and his immediate reaction was "Why this high polycount"?
Zorin's work is indeed impressive, not only the actual models but more so all that research to be true to history. I am indeed hoping he will listen to TD team.

Still I can only refer to Haddock's professional insight. Not beeing a modeler (as some others who have commented this issue) I leave this topic for further discussion between those who actually know what they are talking about.

No..It's just you,your ignorance and your pure arrogance.

LOL @ your pain

It looks that the errors in the explosive power of different bombs are not an issue here. Nevertheless they should be easy to identify and correct. For instance, recently someone who poke into the code said that the Russian bombs have twice the damage radius of other countries' ones.
My experience is that a Japanese 250 kg bomb falling few metres from a tank doesn't destroy it. I cannot believe it.
DT what is your opinion on that?

Regards'
insuber

@Bulgarian: I appreciate your explanation, it is very interesting to learn these kind of "behind the scene" logics.

Keep up the good work,
Insuber

that's right with lots of weapons, if you don't have a direct hit, they will not even scratch the paint..

also with bombs on submereged submarines, even a direct hit does little..

Please let us concentrate on how to improve the quality of original IL2. Most of my squadmates prefer an official enhancement pack over a user-made MOD pack. The fact is that there are still quite a few players playing unmodded IL2 on Hyperlobby. If TD clears all the old bugs and injects new features into the game, I will be more than thankful. Once can still get quite a lot fun from current version.

One of my many requests to TD is please fix the high altitude (over 8000m) performance of German planes. Most of them can not execute a level flight without using elevator trims. And the engines of late-war 109s tend to overheat very quickily at that height even with MW-50 disengaged.

I have heard from someone over at another site that Team Daidalos have taken over construction of the 777 Studios TBD-1 Devastator. May I ask if this is true?

Thanks in advance,
XB-49

Look here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=8815&page=67

Klunk, say hello to Daniel. I hope he is doing fine. He was very supportive when we started to model Avia B-534.

I will, was a long time ago we spoke, he is quite busy with growing family :)

You know what, how about you post here exact figures TD wants to see for Ordnance meshes. I will then make you a set of examples. So I highly doubt that anyone will accept a octahedron to represent a ROUND shell these days.

Just a suggestion, as the idea comes to my mind:

There's already a check for each plane to consider if killing it is a vulch or not. That one is 1 while the plane is still on the ground until it reaches something like 1G stall speed (I once managed to take a FW-190 with full flaps and extremely low speed to >2000m and it was announced as a vulch as someone shot me down... was like never above 140km/h or something like that). And it's set to 1 again when the plane lands.
Basically there should just be an option to take a slot in multi-crew aricraft that have this vulch state = 1 which means they're still on the ground. That would make FBD dogfight servers a lot more interesting as the gunners somehow seem to fail badly when the plane is controlled by a human pilot as opposed to the uber snipers they are in an AI-flown plane. (That should be another issue to look into, as well as AAA accuracy)

A tuned CEM would be welcome. Right now many planes don't even have mixture control, as even the real German planes have a lever that has similar states like the US planes which are Idle Cutoff, Auto Lean, Auto Rich (+ everything in between these 2 modes) and Full Rich. And some planes have strange settings limited to either 120% (for just the first 600-800m of altitude) and 100% (for anything above) which seems more to be a second low alt WEP function than a mixture control. And even planes that have full control, like the Yaks for example, mixture control doesn't affect fuel consumption at all.
Not to mention the temperature model. A 1500hp engine just shouldn't overheat at 8000m where it's maybe less than 1000hp at full throttle with a manifold pressure a lot below max. while it's like -30 to -60°C outside.
And I'd like to have a real use for the magnetos switches. They're in since FB 1.0 or something like that, but pretty much useless as they're set to "both" already when a mission starts, so you just have to "I"gnite your engine(s). Mixture should be a 0% then, too. Just to have a complete sequence to start the engine.
Radiator controls that are not just R, but more like one key to open, one to close, one for auto on/off and maybe even an axis would rock. Generally it would be nice to have a mixture axis too. The best would be individual engine control axes as well as axes for "left engines" and "right engines". A lot of people with throttle quadrants would love this. I don't have one but I may buy one then :D

Now that's a real issue that needs to be adressed. But it should be possible while they alter the AI visibility to get real night fighting action without wonderwoman NVG AI units. That's a general AI problem in fact. I even remember situations where I was alone on a DF map for testing it. I took a plane and wanted to take off. Too bad for me, I placed some enemy battle ships within like 20km distance to the base, with some 200-400m-ish hills in between. As soon as my plane spawned, they started attacking me making it impossible to taxi to the runway and take off without taking serious damage. Not even a radar could make this possible in reality.

Ok, I will.

I suggest also that you send us your 1-2 models + textures and we will try to reduce it according to what we consider satisfactory for IL-2. You have our email.

That would be perfect. Asked for this ages ago. Some other things come to my mind, an excerpt of an Oleg Interview prior the PF release:

None of these are in yet. Especially the last one is a definate must.

Some of the above mentioned things will be included in next patch.

That sounds promising! Thanks a lot.

You could try to disable that "plane is landed and will be removed" feature. I think an AI unit will use less CPU power when it has landed compared to while it's still active. I often use the QMB with Crimea, flying for Axis attacking the airfield to try out new stuff. And I often see bombers landing and then disappearing. They should stay, so I could drop a bomb on them. Fighters should try to take off again if enemys come within a visibility range. Maybe even with the usage of longer taxi ways as runway because of emergency. But it would be enough if they just try to take off normally then.

I don't like 98% of the mods because the don't meet the standards. But I also like your decision to have a look at the really good things.

That sounds good. The best would be: Default = no despawn (that's what I said above) with a despawn option in waypoints to get rid of unimportant objects. I remember missions impossible to win because the cargo planes that needed to be shot down despawned at the end of their route after landing, just because dogfights with the escort fighters took too long.

€dit: I just see SlipBall's avatar:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/image.p...&dateline=2007

Exactly that instument needs fixing on some FW-190s. The ball is not moving, neither is the needle. I think it was an issue with the later models (A-8, F-8, maybe Doras and even the Ta-152s). I think there are quite some more instruments malfunctioning (example: FW-190 ammo counters should show wing cannon ammo, for MGs there are just that 2 "empty lights") or even just "dead" (Bf-109E MG FF ammo counter for example). Would be great if they'll get fixed eventually.

That's less than two weeks at least http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...very-happy.gif

Good point. Basically the AI uses lots of cheating to compensate for the "lack of skill", though I found the AI in Il-2 series, especially in the later versions to be good enough (I haven't seen any better yet) to be a competition even without those cheat boni. Some of them are InstaAim (approach an Il-2 from 12 low and pass below, coming up behind him and you'll see), UltraRangeRadar (they keep following you even with like 20km distance where you can't see a dot anymore, and you can watch them *directly* reacting to your maneouvering at any distance in Ctrl+F2), unlimited ammunition (and I think fuel, too), increased thrust at low speeds (try to stay in formation after take off in offline missions) and probably some more.
Any units have some uber tricks. I still have to "lol" when I remember how one single tank shot me down 3 times in a row with it's main gun's first blow while flying a 109F-4 trying to kill some trucks around. That's nothing to happen in reality. Not to mention that it needed a 5-dicit count of Flak shells to down an airplane. Not rarely the AA units do so with less than 5. I know that we can't put hundreds of guns on a map for performance reasons, but the effectiveness of a single gun is amazingly incredible and for me it's a killer.

Thank you Mkubani. Its too bad that the TBD will be and AI only craft. :( Ah well, its looks like we will have to wait for Ranwers (over at AAA) to make us one. :)

XB-49

Just one more thing came to my mind concerning CEM: The turbo supercharger lever. I anxiously awaited the not so easy to control turbo supercharger control right before FB came out with the CEM and P-47 announced and was kind of disappointed that this had not been modelled back then. The P-38 would have the same control. I've seen that in a real P-47 training film (no. 107-c - how to fly the P-47, high altitude flight and aerobatics) that I found on the net around that time (p47highfly.avi, can't find a link anymore). Basically it's needed to control the exhaust waste gates (and therefore the amount of exhaust that drives the supercharger) while climbing and then reducing the manifold pressure to keep the supercharger impeller below 18250rpm.

Oh yes... that one needs a complete overhaul. I just would say it is a real issue because many people are "score driven". Getting a proper scoring for my efforts gives me a good motivation. And the worst killers are things like "only 10% score because you have no fuel left or your engine ran dead" while I still managed to bring the plane back in one piece with a nice landing. You can get the most score now by just bailing out. It would be cool to get score for returning a badly damaged plane back to the base alone.
I had proposed quite some stuff ages ago in the ORR. Too bad the Ubi forum staff deleted it so I can't dig it out anymore. One thing was that the weapon usage should be taken into account for scoring as well as effective hits with these. WarBirds had this and even the good old Dynamix series (Aces and Red Baron) had a score system based not just on kills, but also on gunnery and bombing skill. And some kind of "kill sharing" across those who shot at the target, split up considering how critical the damage they did each. So if pilot A shoots up B's controls and then C comes and severs B's wing off, A should still get some score for doing that critical damage instead of giving C all the score. That would also get us rid of those "that kill stealer just sprayed some ShKAS at the burning wingless wreck just to get the kill"-situations. I think everybody hates getting his kill stealed. Should also be considered while revamping the AI. They like to steal kills, too.

@Zorin, here are the specs:

LOD_0 polycount:

1. Smaller bombs/rockets (below 200kg) - up to 200 triangles.
2. Medium bombs/rockets (between 200 and 1000kg) - up to 300 triangles
3. Larger bombs (1000kg and larger), torpedoes, guided bombs, etc. - up to 500 triangles.
4. Racks/pylons – as simple as possible – 50 triangles

Other LODs polycount:

Each subsequent LOD should have less, or equal to 50% of the previous LOD polycount.

4 distance LODs (LOD_0,1,2,3), 3 shadow LODs, each shadow LOD based on normal LOD with previous number (i.e. shadow LOD_0 is based on normal LOD_1, shadow LOD_1 is based on normal LOD_2 and so on).

Use alpha-channels to save polygons by cutting openings and complex shaped parts (like windmills, propellers, etc.) out of simple flat 3D objects.

It is enough to use 12-sided cylinder for virtually any bomb, or torpedo model. Keep polygon count as smaller, as possible, making small parts with either alpha, or texture. Keep smoothing groups set correctly.

Texture sizes for LOD_0: 128x256, 256x256, or 256x512. It is preferable to use same texture for several different bombs. Texture reduction by 50% for other LODS -> e.g. 256x256 -> 128x128 -> 64x64 -> 32x32. Tip: Use a bit of sharpening effect after you resize the textures for smoother texture transition (no sharp to blurry effect).

Use 1-sided material for most parts and 2-sided material for any part with alpha-channel. No alpha-channel textures after LOD_1

Here's another thing that could need some rework. Those screens are pretty old, I think they're even from the good old Il-2 w/o FB. But still, this has never been changed so even now it's an issue after all.

Screen 1
Screen 2
Screen 3
Screen 4
Screen 5
Screen 6

The planes don't differ much my size, but the farther one gets away (which makes the engine show the less-poly LOD levels), the bigger some planes grow while others don't. I think both the 109s and Stukas as well as the Las suffer the most from this problem, but there are others, too - mainly the oldest planes we have.
I'd say this is lots more important than reworked cockpits.

I remember some other problems, but this definately would need some testing again to proove. Especially the P-47 is well known for having the "one 7.x shot - engine dead" syndrom, but a lot of other planes have similar issues.
Another thing that comes to my mind are just completely wrong things like the A6M5b's lack of 2nd cowling MG (7.7mm) and generally the 5s and later models' lack of sealing fuel tanks. But it could be that the late Zero fuel tank issue has been fixed already.

Wow those are 1000 times better than the ones that are in the mod packs. But still I think this shall be still a mod then so anybody could just install it if he wants. I've seen the files of the sound mods and this looks 100% to me like the MSFS sound system, with just like 4 different samples for different rpms. I remember Oleg saying that he does not use such techniques, but rather a very complex system that mixes lots of mini-samples to generate engine sound. After all I like the sound of the original 1946 a lot more than the sound of all those mod packs, even if there are less different ones. Just because the quality is better by ages. I still wonder why some individual sounds have been removed ever since. Does anybody remember the good old I-16 sound when it became flyable in Il-2? Or the P-39 sound? Those and some more (Il-2!!) where great, but got dumped in FB without a reason. I also liked the Il-2 Me-262 sound a lot more than the one we have now. I was so deep and cool, not that high pitched sound which always reminds me of the MSFS Learjet (and the modded jet sounds are even more awful than that).

€dit: Just found another bug... I tried a single F4U-1C vs 2 A6M5, 2 Jills and 2 Vals... I got the fighters while the others tried to land... in the water! Where are the carriers? I've uploaded the quick mission as well.
I noticed that my waypoints were not synchronized with the allied carriers. I think this issue did not exist prior to 4.09m.

click to see
QMB mission

Correct. But I doubt that we will see a change here in Il-2. But I would be more happy that it it actually will happen sometime. As far as I remember the FW-190 had a special issue that no other plane had - and I don't know if it got fixed. This was the instant emptiness after 20mm AP hits. One of these could mean that 400+ litres of fuel were gone in a matter of like 5 seconds. That was definately wrong. But I think that had been changed though I'm not sure.

Oh yes. I loved that. I don't like that "95% of airkills due to wings shot off" thingy we have right now. Those burning shot down planes had a more realistic touch somehow. I also barely remember a really hard to master FM and especially ground handling (which was superb when getting used to) in one of the first FB patch betas that had been leaked. That was an experience that clearly showed that it's possible to have more sophisticated FM physics than we actually have now. In fact, it was a bit like what Rise of Flight is now in FM terms, just by the feeling.

+10000. TD deserves their own Ready Room subforum. Not just a single thread.

Too bad the differenct between G-2 and G-6 seems to be a lot more in 46. The performance of these 2 planes differ more than the one of the I-16 compared to the Me-262, just to exaggerate it a bit ;). I think you know what I mean. Oleg officially stated once that the gun bulges lower the top speed by 6km/h and the fixed tail wheel does so by 13km/h (or was it the other way round?). Apart from that, the 50kg more shouldn't drop the climb rate by 25-30%. After all the G-6 just feels a lot heavier in all respects. Interestingly it's pretty much dead on when compared with the G-2 + gunpods. In that case they perform almost the same, with very little difference. And that makes me think that the G-6 have the performance that a G-6/R6 should have. For me this is one of the very few major FM flaws.
And I agree with the G-4. It doesn not make sense to have it, unless we had to play around with the radio (and it would actually make a difference somehow). And I doubt that any plane in 46 has individual gear strength, most probably they're all the same.

I've seen "red" pilots, too, saying the same. And the gun makes not much difference, because there's a lot less ammunition which compensates for the bit heavier gun.

MG 151/20 = 42,5kg
One shell = 220g (projectile is 115g)
Gun + 200rd = 86,5kg

MK 108 = 58kg
One shell = 480g (projectile is 330g)
Gun + 65rd = 116,2kg

So it's ~20kg difference. Data source: http://www.adlertag.de/waffen/waffen.htm

2 things that should be looked at are the UB muzzle velocity (you can see it's something like twice the ShKAS value in MiG-3, and UBs have an extremely high range) and the MG 17 Rate of Fire (it's still with 2x packages AFAIK, some others had been changed when FB came out).

+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Generally, the loadouts should be overhauled. There's lots of work to do, but it's worth it as it will "renew" some of the planes completely. I've got a nice list for German planes somewhere... I'll dig it out and post it here when I find it :D

€dit: My post grows bigger and bigger, but I don't want to multi-post :D

That P-80 would be a P-80A and not the YP-80 we have. It should also feature up t 2x 1000lb, TT rockets and 8 HVARs.
I'd also like an upgraded Go-229. Basically it should have the option to have 4x MK108 with 90rpg and a bombload of 1000kg carried on 2 ETCs on the engine housing next to the big front wheel. After all the project required it to carry 1000kg of bombs, have a 1000km range and 1000km/h speed. This shouldn't even be a new plane. Just change it.

It would have been banned in Germany with Swastikas so there should be a way to get around this, too.

DD team,
is it possible to program the AI planes not to Kamikazee you in a dogfight... it's not realistic!
they will head-in you in a dogfight much of the time,,,

thanx,

This comparison shows the result of following TD rules set for ordnance meshes regarding texture size and triangle count. As you can see, the details had to be deleted, along with the refined transition of shell body and rear assembly. Additionally, due to the fact that the tail assembly should be created via Alpha Cut, the skin had to be resized to 256x256, yet including an alpha channel keeps it equal with the 512x512 skin that doesn't need a Alpha channel.

Further more, the next smaller bomb needs to be build with less than 200 triangles, which can only be achieved by reducing the 12 sided cylinder base mesh, which in turn leads us back to the eight sided cylinder the old mesh was represented by.

Let us not forget that all bombs should at best share the same skin file. This leads us to having the same tail assembly on all bombs (historically incorrect), the same lettering (historically incorrect) and a further reduction in skin quality, to keep the resolution on different sized bomb bodies equal.

I don't see the point in spending month on research and building to end up with something that looks like build in the year 2000. That is no my idea of improvement.

My models have been in game with all mod packs and as separate downloads and therefor are in use by, most likely, every MOD user out there and not ONE has had a complaint so far. They were used on simulated mass bombing raids and had no negative effect, so why should I not build them the way I did?

Just give me ONE GOOD reason.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...inW/comp_d.jpg

Let me add as a final note: I highly appreciate your work, the insight you want to give us and I usually am the last person not to follow given rules, but I need to see at least a tiny bit of good reason in it. This is sadly, and I'm being honest, not the case here.

+1 about the weight of MG151 and MK108. The weight for German planes equipped with MK 108 should all be fixed.

And G2 and G6 should only have 376kg difference in weight:

a, New radio set
b, Larger, non-retractable tailwheel*
c, 13mm HMGs and their belt covers, or 'bulges'

* In fact, late G-2s had the same arger, non-retractable tailwheel as well, so in practice the only difference between was a quite insignificant 50 kg weight increase, and -9 km/h loss of top speed due to the cowling bulges. But in the game the difference between G2 and G6 in handling is unreasonably large.

And about the muzzle velocity of MG151, it is considerably slow compared to Hispano V in the game. While in real life the difference is only arround 20 m/s. Within a range less than 300 meter, there should be virtually no diference in the lead for the same shooting scenario. But in the game the Hispano on Tempest requires much less lead than MG151 when firing. It also seems to me that the MV of MK 108 is too low. Please fix these problem in the incoming patch.

How something "seems" to you or to me is of no importance.

It either matches the correct numbers or it doesn't. So if you cannot post actual numbers, both for the real weapon, and it's velocity in game, you have no leg to stand on here.

Hence even though it "seems" to me that the MK 108 is grossly over modeled in the game, you won't here me begging for a change based on my feelings.

So you are a member from TD or are you a moderator of this forum? If not, I won't provide any real data for you. And, please remove the offensive tone in you post.

P.S. I think TD should have a hell lot more data that what I got from Internet.

Zorin, thank you for investing your time and trying it out and the comparsion shown is also very much appreciated.

The reason you're asking for is very simple: it makes no sense to waste such a huge amount of polygons (and therefore PC's resources) on details like bombs etc.

The bomb is just a bomb that hangs and then it flies down as you drop it, there is not much time to examine how beautiful the fuse is nor to read the stuff written in army stencil font around it. This is not the improvement we need, mate.

The technical specifications were not set by DT, they exist from the day 1 and the've been raised according to modern PC's specs since. These are very reasonable. Unfortunately, your work is a still massive overkill and it's not acceptable at all - especially for a low priority models.

Thanks very much for trying anyway, I am sorry that you're not willing to revise your otherwise great work in order to be (perhaps) included in an official release. But I completely understand that modelling within specs is very demanding task and requires a really skilled modeller.

Considering that the MK108 is a HighExplosive and Mine-projectiles weapon belting that makes this kind of damage with a single shot:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg

I don´t think it´s "grossly over modeled" in game. In my opinion it´s a bit undermodelled.

Muzzlevelocity:
ingame: 500 m/s+525 m/s (the game uses 2 tiype of bullets)
real 540 m/s

Rounds:
50 ingame
65 in real

Rounds/Minute:
in game 600 rpm
in real 660 rpm(The rate of fire was to be improved to 850 rounds/minute later but not in game)



http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html
http://www.bredow-web.de/Luftwaffenm...ig_mk_108.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon

Could you stop this offensive nonsense!

I can easily stay within the limits, but as you can see in the comp, there is no point in it.

Besides, ordnances should never be low priority, it is like designing a beautiful car and putting wooden wheels from an old carriage on them. The game environment needs to be coherent in quality.

You are also discrediting all the skin creators and movie makers out there, by saying this game is not about the visual quality. Really, you lot need to change you tone and rethink how you approach US as target audience.

No one in his right mind would insult someone who spent ages on researching and building stuff for your game and offering it FOR FREE like you did by constantly questioning his abilities. At least in my profession, which is all about design and customer care, this would get you fired and not in a deciders position.

Think about it, you lot have been very fortunate to be in the position you are in now, perhaps owning up to it is in order...

There is a little issue, yes. But I don't think it's just 50 rounds. In which plane? I've counted 65 in the 109s, but I think it's just 50 in the FWs. And there it should be more maybe. I know just the exact max load for the MG FF since A-5 which is 90 and not 60.
The MK 108 issue is just that the HE round does very little damage while the MG round is the killer it's supposed to be. Usually I shoot off the first bullet of the first 2 MKs in the 262 and have a mix of 2 MG and 2 HE then everytime I shoot and it does pretty well then. If I don't some of the hits I achieve do very little damage which accounts to the HE rounds.
A simple belting with MG only would fix this issue easily.

"Offensive nonsense"?

Zorin,Robo is nice with you.Noone here is talking to you in offensive manner.Actually it's only you who is posting the offensive content here.
Stop acting pessimistically.

IL-2 already is.
But since you're introduced so well to the 3D modeling,you must make the difference between Game Industry/Developing and CGI Industry/Developing!
The thing we're doing here,is Game Industry and Developing.You follow the technical specs,or leave.Simple as that.
It's a rule that is set by the game engine itself,and it's capabilities.We can't do anything about it.

Ferrari are building a sport car using this method,but what's the connection between this and the topic here?

Excuse me please, but what do you mean?

I believe I approached you in a very polite manner, I complimented your work and expressed my pity that you're not willing to revise it in order to be used in an official patch. I also answered your question and named you a reason why the models need to be done in certain way. If there is anything else you saw in my previous post, you happened to add it yourself (and I am quite wondering why...)

If it's the quoted sentence that made you feel offended, I assure you I was not referring to you personally. It is indeed a simple fact that it requires great skill to do a good low-poly 3D model and stay within limited specs perserving great looks. Wouldn't you agree with that?

You probably feel insulted by what I wrote because you found yourself in that rather innocent remark of mine, but I did not mean to insult you and I really had no intention to argue with you about anything.

I would also like to remind you that I am what you call 'skin creator' and I assure you that exactly the visual appearance of the game is my only area of working within DT.

I do not wish comment anything you wrote in anger in this thread because it would not lead anywhere, I'd just like to repeat that simple question:

Would you mind trying to reduce the amount of polygons of your bomb models as per specs given, so the Daidalos Team can include them in the next patch, please?

Could you show us wire frame views of these two meshes, Zorin?

Since you are talking about polycounts, do the old LOD_0 limits of 3500 polys for single engined aircraft and 5000 polys for twin engined or bigger aircraft still apply, or have these been revised?

Reason I'm asking is that I want to build a Supermarine Spiteful, with the hope of getting it released through DT eventually (very busy at University:(), and obviously the more polys I get to play with more likely it is that I'm going to be happy about the finished result.

I know the Spiteful isn't a WWII aircraft, but since it was built (admitedly in very small numbers), it has a lot more of a right to be in the sim than many of the 1946 aircraft, so I would like to give this a shot.

you may have an issue with 108s in game, i wont dispute that

however, using this photo to prove a point is invalid, did you know that for this test, they hung the mk 108 round in the middle of the fuselage and then detonated it?
it was not fired into the fuselage

ty for the P80 correction :)

id have to find the source again, but AFAIK the proposed armament for Gotha was 4x mk103, not 108s
perhaps there was many proposals :D
i fear that impelmenting any of these would require undue work to produce, id be quite happy with a simple eninge upgrade for more power, which should be a relatively esay task for TD (correct me if im wrong, TD!)

David, before you start, please judge honestly and objectively:

1. How much free time you have to finish the model in a reasonable timeframe (6-8 months)

2. Your experience in 3D modelling. People can very rarely get it right in their first project.

3. I would estimate you could use 4-4500-polys for this plane.

Those bomb meshes are pretty clean & nicely done. I value a good reseach and doing something properly than doing something with "frankenstyle". So Zorin is on a right track here.

I'd say that the bombs are just slightly too "fat" and feel like unfinished & un-optimized. Most don't have any LODs or shadows meshes and textures don't really need to be that big. This is a flight sim, not an ordinance sim. Is it really necessary to see all small prints on a bomb, but you cannot see equally big texts on a plane?

Pretty much all bombs could be optimized with small work to be few hundred polys lighter. I modified for test one Luftwaffe bomb and in five minutes it lost about 200 polys without changing the shape at all.

Well 200 polys for modern GPUs is nothing, but if everyone ignores the specs and go totally overkill with polycount & texture size, then we will soon have sim that doesn't run well on older PCs. This isn't overkill, but something like over 1000 polys for cannon barrel or ~200Mb textures for pit is.

Here's another quick edit of that US bomb:
http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/~vii...b378_polys.jpg
378 polys, 256x256 texture (no alpha layer). Just by removing obsolete polys and mapping it so that it wastes less space so text can be bigger. Basic shape is still same. Same number of "cylinder" segments, except in the front where they are not needed.

After all this is old game with many very low poly planes. I don't see much point of attaching something high poly to a low poly plane (1000 poly cannon barrel is good example). It's all about keeping the balance with existing stuff.

1. I currently manage to fit in a fair amount of simming around the rest of my life, so I should be able to find at least an hour per day if needed to work on this aircraft.

2.This would be my first Il2 standard aircraft, but I have a reasonable amount of experience in 3D MAX, also one of my Uni classes is Computer Science, so I can always get advice from lecturers and other students if needed. I also have a friend who is very good with computers (Uni put him into second year of Computer Science because they judged that with his level of experience he did not need to go though first year), and he has said he would be happy to help out.

3.Thanks

Zorin,

let's summarize.

1. You have asked TD for specs - we have provided them to you within 24 hours.

2. I have asked you if you model all required LODs - you did not answer.
(We have checked your LW bombs - only 1 LOD out of 4 is modelled)

3. I have asked you for a model sample - you did not send us anything.

4. One of our members spent his free time to search for your models, downloaded it, and reworked it to show you how the model and texture could be optimized quite significantly without any major loss of quality. Viikate can send you the model as a sample reference if you want.

From the very beginning we have acknowledged you have done a very good research job. You have met the historical accuracy and quality requirements, but as I told you already few times, you have overdone it and did not finish your models properly from the technical aspect.

I am finished with this topic Zorin. We have showed you how your work could be improved. It's not personal, it's pure technical. You have a good opportunity to learn more lean 3D modelling techniques and we have no problem supporting you on this. However, if you just keep fighting back, it will be impossible to find a common language.

Please, keep in mind that the 3D modelers at TD are either professional or semi-professional and worked on several commercial or non-commercial projects for IL-2 and SoW. So, I dare to say we know what we are talking about when it comes to modeling for IL-2. Thus, we will provide constructive criticism when we see a need for it.

Last but not least, the offer still holds. If you change your mind and will align your work with the posted specs, we will have NO PROBLEM with adding your work to our patches. So, it is your call.

@David, all I can suggest is to follow the IL-2 modeling "bible" that is commonly available. It has been put together by 3rd party modelers for a reason. So follow it. When you finish your basic plane model and texture mapping, send it to us and we will give you our honest evaluation and will suggest what to improve or what to do next.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/waffengo.jpg
That or the 2x MK103 we have already.

The thread below has been updated once again, this time with a very glaring error within the cockpit (a rather large control that never existed, it actually being American)

http://78sentai.org/forum/viewtopic....1&p=1934#p1934

K2

What have you done with the Ta-152C?

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/ta152c-perf.jpg

Ta-152C wing area corrected from Fw 190D-9 values (~1.2m²) -> slightly improved turn performance

It climbs worse and is a lot slower now. Pretty useless...

€dit: OK, doesn't seem to be that much off:

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/page154chart.jpg

It's too slow at high altitudes at least. And the Chart is for Sondernotleistung.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/63...ctionspeed.jpg

Here's the max speeds for Kampfleistung and MW-50. So it's quite OK down low (oh yes, it was too fast), but at altitude, it's not.

Thanks, I already have the modeling bible, so I will get back to you as soon as I have something worth showing.

I almost forgot... is it possible for you to fix the "FFB goes off when Alt-Tabbing"-bug? This is really nasty, and no other sim I tried so far has it.
Another simple thing: Do you often see yourself twiddle with the throttle just to get it exactly at 50% or some other value? Why are there just increments of 2-3%? I'd like to be able to set it at a desired value without rocking it forth and back until I can have it at 100% instead of 99 or 101. If you can change this, just do it :D. Basically it would just mean to have a more precise polling of the inout axes. This would also be nice for the control axes.

This would actually be great... it is something that was not always in the sim.. I think after one of the 3.xx patches it started..

I would also like to know if it is possible to alter the scoring system as well.. but I am thinking in terms of adding a two tiered server settable scoring system... as in Team scores or individual scores. If you could make it like the scoring system in the QM mode.. where numbers are no involved.. but icons per item... and perhaps make them smaller to reflect the potential for greater numbers in a team environment.. I think that would be great. In CFS this was doable.. you could set the type of scoring in the beginning of a mission to either team or individual.. in the FFA (free for all) rooms we went in it actually encouraged team play to some extent...

Widescreen support
 

Would it be possible to implement widescreen support in IL2? I realise there are many priorities for TD, but if this was possible then I think many people would be completely stoked.

It would be fair to say that the majority of IL2 players these days are using a widescreen.

There is a chap who has created a workaround, which works quite well, however native support would be simply terrific.

Many thanks.

Indeed a great idea.

It's sort of irritating to have a big screen and not being able to use it at its best.

I can't use 1920 x 1080 on Windows Vista Home Premium even with Conf.ini tweak (reason unknown), and this just annoys me...

I've had this for a longer time... I even remember firing up the old Il-2 and having this issue, just because I clicked my desktop while it was still loading.

As for the score system... it really has to be sophisticated. I've had some "ideas" saved somewhere in a txt file if I'm not mistaken. When I find them, I could put them in here.

I don't think so... but the amount is increasing as it's getting harder and harder to get 5:4 or even a 4:3 screen.

And please get around the issue that FOV is defined by the width which basically means the wider the screen, the less you see. Wide resolutions do NOT add FOV to the left/right, but they substract FOV at the upper and lower edges. If you've got a display with Pivot function, try it out at 1200x1920 instead of 1920x1200 and you'll see what I mean. I've still got some images showing the issue in a 9:16 resolution:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

I've been trying hard in the QMB to get a Revi Fokker with no luck. Is it possible to get it at all? I always end up with the scope sight, no matter what.

I second that. I dug out the good old Aces of the Pacific for some "instant action" and even there it's possible to sneak up sometimes. That's 17 years old. But hey, I shot down Nishizawa in a single CAP mission twice. That made me rofl. Not even Chuck Norris could do that :cool:

How did you do that, and did it actually show on screen? I've got a pivoting 1600 x 1200 LCD, I tried that and it didn't work. I'd be prepared to play Oblivion and my other games at 1200 x 1600 so long as I could fly at 1200 x1600 in IL*2. If I recall correctly the left of the screen was brighter, which isn't ideal, but I'd really like a higher rather than a wider view in IL*2.

I've done a screenshot of that, because it's great! I'd be very happy if it would be changed to that muzzle flash behaviour in other planes with "hidden" weapons like the 109/Yak engine cannons or guns put behind the engine in a similar manner.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/dxxi.jpg

And yes, I've gotten the Revi finally. Obviously just refly won't produce another sight, one has to start loading all over.

And I've nearly come across another problem, which should be easy to fix. The screenshots start at grab0000.tga *every* time I fire up Il-2, resulting in overwritten screenshots. Apparently, recording quick tracks inflight does not overwrite existing files as it's clever enough to look what's there already and take the next free number. And that's exactly what I expect from the screenshot feature as well.

I've got a CRT and it could show me such a resolution, although it was completele out of aspect and halfway off the screen. For making screenshots it was sufficient :D.
For your display the conf.ini should have this:

[window]
width=1200
height=1600
ColourBits=32
DepthBits=24
StencilBits=8
ChangeScreenRes=1
FullScreen=1
DrawIfNotFocused=1
EnableResize=0
EnableClose=1
SaveAspect=0
Use3Renders=0

Maybe you need to set ChangeScreenRes to 0.

The brightness issue comes from the TN panel type. It's the same issue with up/down in default alignment. A MVA/PVA panel would "fix" this, but it's quite expensive.

I just came across this... will there be more new default skins in future? Some are really bad, especially the A6M skins.

HDD space is not really the point, as it's widely available. But they have to be loaded into RAM. The smaller they're in file size, the more fit in. By the way, is it possible for the DT to do something about memory usage? More and more systems around have bigger amounts of RAM that is not used. Some stuff could be loaded right away if there's enough free space to avoid stutters.

Thank you Eldur, however I am perfectly aware of how an FOV works and cannot see how I had demonstrated a misunderstanding.

You might wish to have a look at San's fix for IL2, which illustrates the issue quite succinctly.

As for wide-screen uptake - I haven't seen a CRT in the UK for years and personally sold off my last Iiyama I think 3 years ago.

I don't care for a debate about this; I merely wish to ask TD if they could consider implementing wide-screen support.

Oh yes, A6M roll rate... top speed compared to Wildcat... missing gun in the A6M5b... probably more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...-surprised.gif

I just tried this and flying at sea level with 30% I could hold some 140-150km/h. Gave full throttle, kept the cooling shutters closed and the climb rate gauge rocketed up to somewhat above 20m/s while I tried to keep 150km/h. I could also achieve it with ~200km/h.

PS: Why do you model extra Ski versions? Wouldn't it be easier to handle it like other planes that come with Skis on winter maps already (BI-1 and some others)? Or is there a difference in FM? Haven't had the time to test this yet.

I like the idea of improving the 1946 part as much as improving any other historical part, but I think they should still concentrate on fixing things, adding loadouts and such, then adding some historical stuff and last add some new 1946s.

And the Bearcat is not alone... other Pacific '46 planes would be the F7F Tigercat, F4U-4 and F2G Corsairs, P-80A, Nakajima J9Y Kikka, Mitsubishi Ki-83, Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden, Mitsubishi A7M Reppū and probably others. Not to mention British planes and other US Planes that could have seen service in a longer war. But basically, for many of them the lack of sufficient information makes it hard to model them properly, especially Japanese cockpits...

I remember I've read that in case of Seafires they used to lower the flaps, then some ground crew held wooden chocks in the flap slots, followed by the pilot raising the flaps again. The chocks then held them at a "take off" position. All they had to do after takeoff was lower them to get rid of the chocks and raise them completely.

In flight you could still lower them and raise again after some seconds which is already possible in Il-2 series. I also use short flap lowering on these planes. But don't do it for too long.

The program logic would be similar to the SM.79 propeller pitch modeling for the axis, so it's rather easy to implement. Early 109s should have such a propeller setting, too. The Auto Pitch wasn't in the 109s even in the E-4, but I think it has been in the later E models out of factory and many E-4s had it fitted later. Could need some references here.

I'd welcome that. I hope we'll see the hardcore version of this (each single button does what it is supposed to). German planes also have selecton systems which don't work in Il-2. A lot of them can be seen here:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/ins...haltkasten.htm

The ASK 190 as found in the FW-190F series is *very* interesting.

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/ins...50834-0alt.gif

You can put the center switch to the left which drops all *selected* ordnance at once. The selection can be done by pressing the 8 buttons. The upper ones are for wing stations (so each of the 4 SC50 you have can be selected separately), the lower ones are for the fuselage rack, also 4 for the case you've got that 4x SC/SD 50/70 /AB24t loadout.
When the center switch is set to the right, you can do the Reihenabwurf, which means it will drop the bombs one after another. Again you have to select which ones like above, but there's also a second switch to the right. Up position is automatic, which probably will release them with a single trigger press and the lower position is Einzel, which supposedly drops them one-by one either when the trigger is held or pressed multiple times (rather the latter one, but I don't just know it).

There are other devices that could be modelled as well, like the ZSK 244 which is used to "program" the bomb fuse. I don't know what it exactly does though, but there should be information availabe.

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/bomben.jpg

I'd be glad to have at least a very simple setup in Il-2 to make use of bomb selection, for all planes that had such feature IRL.

1. Select the bomb type if there's a mix in the loadout (e.g. 1 SC500 + 4 SC50), or all together
2. Select the drop count, either 1, pairs or all of the type
3. Select whether they're dropped at once or slightly delayed with a fixed time interval like 50 or 100ms

I'd let the really complex modeling of all these switch boxes go in SoW, but this simple setup as suggested above would make Il-2 a lot better for ground attack actions.

I'd also like to propose a similar control for the guns, as many planes like the German ones (SKK224 in 109E for example) or the US ones (P-39 has 2 selector switches on the left dashboard for activating wing guns, fuselage guns and hub cannon) had the option IRL. I'd go for a single gun trigger and some selector switches (3 should probably enough for all planes + 4th for external gondolas which Il-2 already has, though it's pretty useless).

That all would leave us 2 triggers, one for guns and one for ordnance with the possibility to select which weapons are triggered by them. I know some planes like the Il-2 have a split trigger which is basically 2 triggers (most probably the reason for the current trigger system), but selecting a gun setup and then firing would also simulate the press of just one of these. Most planes did not have separate gun triggers, but selection switches. You could also keep the split triggers and model the above suggestions jsut to the planes that had such. Would probably be the best solution.

I've also found the loadout sheet I once made out of various sources that were spread around at several Il-2 forums. Would be great if that one could be used and expanded for other planes to be incorporated into further development, especially new bomb types like the AB24t.

loadouts.zip

While searching the above, I've come across some good research work done on the 109 performances (by wastel). I thought it might be useful, if you don't have it already.

bf109analyse.zip

Good point. Especially "full real" pilots won't even see their loadout, only when it's haning on their close flying wingmens' planes. I'd say a little bit more of graphical quality wouldn't hurt though. But such a fidelty like in LOFC where the Su-25 alone has 50k polys and the bombs are modelled very fine in a sim where the biggest planes don't exceed 1/10th of the polycount just is off. I don't want to carry bombs around that have more polygons than my plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...very-happy.gif. Most bombs look OK already, some could need rework, especially the AB thingies...

I think there are 2 problems. First is the damage itself. I remember Oleg telling that it's done by 2 things, the explosion itself and fragments hitting other things. Some bombs seem to do a lot of explosion damage (Russian an US are pretty good) while other hardly do, but have some fragments doing some. BUT: The fragments have to hit, otherwise nothing happens. And there are not so many fragments actually, because of limited CPU power. I've seen FAB-5000 (the Pe-8 thingy) exploding on a parking field of an airfield full of trucks, tanks, static planes and such and it barely did any damage to most of them (some close to the impact point were unharmed, but others 50m away were destroyed, quite randomly), and no damage at all to the tanks. The detonation wave alone should have destroyed everthing.

And the second point I don't just think, because I know. And this is the *major* issue with ground objects DM. The only objects where this not applies are ships and of course active (piloted or AI) planes. Their behaviour in terms of damage is extremely simple. Basically, all you have to do is do damage until it reaches 100% and the target is dead. Some have damage resistances in form of armour (tanks and ships), some have target areas that can be taken out separately (guns on ships). But every "destroyable" part (or whole object in most cases) shares the problem. Any damage done is lost - forgotten after a short time. You can try this out with a Ju-87G, shooting T-34s. You need to hit it in a 30° dive at the back 2 or 3 times to kill it. Try hitting just *once* and redo the whole thing. You will do that until you run out of ammo, and apparently without doing any damage. Just because it resets to 0% after each pass. This seriously needs to be fixed, as it would make things a lot more realistic and easier. What If I drop a bomb for example that visually did no damage? Actually it did, but not enough - and it's being resetted. If it wasn't, I could easily finish the targets off even with short bursts of MG17 where I would need some 5-10 MG151/20 hits normally.

Try uninstalling all FM changing mods. Type 5 in my clean 4.09 needs 71s to reach 1000m and 139s to 2km - less than 15m/s (these numbers are from my tests; I had radiator open). Ski version has even less performance due to increased drag.

From my experience with Ju87G (and trust me, I have a lot of hours in it :-)) there is only one way to destroy T34 every time, hit it to top armour. Angle does not matter (extremely flat angles will do, but they are hard to hit), distance does not matter (1.5km+ will do nicely). One hit is enough. Hits to front/rear/sides have no effect. I never noticed any sign of forgetting damage (or maybe sign of any other damage done except which kills it outright), but I can't be 100% sure that it is not there.

I don't use any mods. Just have a separate installation for trying them out. But like 98% of it doesn't fit to the standards, and I don't want to fly "Frankenplanes".
I also tested it again... have to say I had 25 or 50% fuel at the first test and I did it now with 100%.

Took me ~67 seconds at 150km/h to climb to 1000m and slightly longer (~71 seconds) at 220km/h. So it's just what you got, which is definately OK. But the gauge went as high as 20m/s. Probably it is wrong then. Or I can't read it correctly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...very-happy.gif

While I spead of the climb gauge. There is an error in all these gauges. They show -1m/s when it's actually 0 (you'll see it when being on the ground). At any other value, it's 1m/s less than the actual value. Should be fixed ;).

Track for the curious (with a curious landing) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies...-surprised.gif

OK, but the problem with the damage resetting still is there. Should have taken another example :D - Could be that I had the Bf-110 with BK 3.7 in mind, most probably that's it.

€dit: You changed the Ta-152C... what about the H?

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/ta-152-turn.jpg

I remember Oleg said before the AEP came out that it would be able to turn as well as the La-7, as it's turning performance was 17s in ground level and 17,8s at 1000m during a left turn (Oleg's figures). I can't even get close to that, and apparently not even flaps can help (see the figure). Especially at slow speeds (which is anything below 380km/h in that plane) it doesn't want to turn at all.

€dit 2: I almost forgot... would be nice to have a 10.000ft hand marker in the altitude meters ;).

You are right. The gauge scale isn't exactly linear, so it shows slightly too much. 12 o'clock should be 15m/s but it looks more like 17 in the texture.

Another request for TD. Would you please fix the elevator trim deay with all Bf-109 variants? The trim system in the current game has a 10-sec delay before trim action is fully applied. But it has been confirmed that the full travel of trim wheel only takes 2 seconds. Would you please change the delay as per reality in the next patch?

Best regards,

It would be nice, if TD could share with us some of the things they have already done that will be in the first patch.

It would be nice if they could set up a website with a ToDo so we can see what they actually are planning to do.

One thing I 'd like ot see is a way to set the altitude of an air spawn point on a dogfight map when using the test runways that give air spawns.

It would be nice to have say, bombers that would spawn at 7000 meters and IL2s spawn at 1000 or less and have a nice gui tab to set that.

A website is just alot more work. IMO, it would be best for TD to concentrate efforts on developing the patch.

All that is needed is an occassional posting with a list of things planned. If more explanation is needed a simple note beside the item should be fine.

Suggestion

One locked sticky thread called "Daidalos Team's Progress" with only one post that they can continually edit/update. It might contain a list as follows.

Known issues being worked on. (not all known issues and complaints)

Known issues fixed and to be included in next patch.

Features and Items to be included in the next patch.

Above patch dependent on Oleg's approval.

By having one locked sticky thread with one post saves visitors from having to scroll through pages to see whats going on... as well as from sifting through pages of non-team posts suggesting things ...like this.

:-)

Happy Holidays to All

HB

Yes, a progress thread will be nice.

The AI really needs some work... Just flew a mission and told my wingman to attack fighters. What did he do? He attacked some ground target instead... they're completely unable to follow commands it seems... this is just silly.

I'm not sure if this has already been asked and I've read quite a few pages but I thought I'd have a go at this anyways.

The Spitfire Vc 2 and 4 cannon versions have a cockpit bug that has been present since they were introduced. The view is too high in relation to the rest of the airplane. If you sit in a Spitfire VIII and then in a Spitfire Vc you'll notice that the wing is further away and that the nose is not visible nor obscuring any view.

Is this something that can be fixed for the next patch? It's something that has bugged me for years and I accepted that maybe it would never be fixed but I now have a tiny bit of hope.

Thanks!

A fix for the Spit Vc cockpits is being considered :)

Could you have a look into the Me-163 and BI-6 lag problem? Both planes produce heavy lag online, especially in DF missions. BI-6 is extremely bad. If one is there, it's unplayable for anyone on the server, a true lagfest. As soon as nobody flies one, it's perfectly lag-free (if there's not another lag source). The BI-1 doesn't produce anything like this, so it can't be just a rocket engine issue.

Thank you! That is all I can ask for :)

Constant Speed Props
 

Hey, I just noticed a lot of confusion in the forum regarding what a constant speed propellor is and how it works. I think the messages in flight in IL2 are misleading on aircraft with a CSP. The propellor (RPM) control works correctly in cockpit, and you should be watching the tachometer to set this control.
However the message is Prop Pitch 100%, 90% etc. which is useless for a CSP because 1: you are not setting prop pitch, you are setting RPMs and 2: the percentage values are the wrong units of measure anyways. The messages should read RPM 2350, RPM 2500, RPM 3000 etc.

For an aircraft with a variable pitch prop (not aircraft with a CSP!) the messages should read "prop pitch 100%- or Full Fine, or 30%-Coarse of something such as this. Also just a slight bug but in some spitfires (VIII) Automatic prop control is OFF by default, and in some (IX) it is ON by default. Not a huge deal but its an extra button press at the start of the mission to regain manual control. I think all aircraft with a CSP should be set to Automatic prop control OFF. Alright, thats it! Great work on continuing with IL2 by the Daidalos team.

I think if it was RPM: 100% etc., that would be fine. It's easy enough to understand that the percentage is of maximum governed RPM. Explicitly stating the RPM setting chosen would be fairly pointless in my opinion, especially when you consider that max RPM varies between aircraft. If you're going down that route, you may as well ask for the "Throttle" message to read "Manifold Pressure" and to be measured in inches of mercury, relative pounds per square inch or atmospheres. Leave that to the gauges, I think. :)
As for changing the message "Prop Pitch:" to read "RPM:" or "Governor RPM:", I agree completely, it would definitely help to dispel the huge amount of confusion which for some reason seems to surround constant speed propellers in this game. I agree also on the messages for variable pitch propeller equipped aircraft, but it's worth considering the effort required in programming to display a different message depending upon the propeller type of the aircraft all for such a trivial result. Might be the reason that there's only the one slightly misleading message to begin with.

Yeah, I agree that it was probably an issue in the game because the same key binding is used for RPM and prop pitch control and I suspect you can only have one message that is displayed for that one key or slider (however WEP/MW50/Water injection etc. has a different message, but same key, on different aircraft so I could be wrong). I think as long as the message says "RPM" somewhere it would help, its something that has bugged me for while. Yes agree there is no need to get too complicated with the messages because the more advanced players are looking at the gauges anyways.

Found part 107-b (stream): http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-47.html

Are there any planes to update the campaign engine so we can actualy use the new planes?

And an improved FMB would be great. I've heard rumours of an FMB+, but I haven't been able to fly it yet.

Improved FMB is in the works.
Can't answer on the other question at the moment.

Hi, thanks for your input. We've been descussing this problem recently and certain CEM upgrades are being considered.