Rommel... nice to see you! how are you? ... write to me in skype ... i've got something to show to you Mate)

btw its still unclosed question ... just like He177 ...

that guy now seating without job ... and i think that it's opportunity for IL2 community to get a B17 ... or any othet model ...

Channel map please, still have time to add this. We will have to be dependent on mods for this ? (HSFX, UP3, TFM...)
You do not add because the Cliffs of Dover exists ? We have Stalingrad map and it does not hinder the BOS sale (Battle of Stalingrad)

sorry my english.

:grin:Do-217 cockpit!!!! Please!!

Or if you mean new planes, then Me-410 or Spitfire XIV!:grin:

Or cockpits for any other plane that doesn't yet have one, especially any of the late-war Italian fighters.

Seriously, a cockpit for a single-engined plane would be a manageable project for a professional 3D artist working on his own.

Manage a project like collect funds, hiring a modeller etc..could be hard. I think it s a better option support actual project:
https://sites.google.com/site/he177a3r2greif/
The fastest it is made, the fastest we can try another one.
When this will be finished, maybe we could ask the same project managers to try again, they have an invaluabel experience doing this.


By the way: what a nice video rommel!!!
DT could you briing us more info about the actual state of development of airborne radar?
Sorry if my english isnt ok.

i know modeller... which now seating without job ... can do everything you want ... we can hire him ... he already have expirience in work for Il2 1946 ...

Im looking forward to all the good things to come
 

it seems we are about to be blessed with more goodness from TD! Im gonna really have to train hard to use those newer bombsights, some of it looks similar and others will take a while to master. hopefully there will be training vids for them in game or on you tube shortly after release. Im definitely gonna have to rethink my keys assignments.

More good things await, im thinking positive and would really like to thank TD for their efforts, as a mission builder I can only imagine the endless testing and what iffing they go through to bring us this content for free and on their own time. Many players dont realize what a 40 min mission entailed, sometimes up to 5 or more hours to tweak and make it feasable.
And just for curiosity what exactly is a ju88a5 late, im at the wikipedia level for my basic data since all my squadron books got water damaged years ago. And P-1 is a 75mm gun attack plane, C series is heavy fighters?

ty rommel, but my czech isnt very good lately :-P


Can anyone translate please?

Google Translate is your friend (sort of).

Not really much to report that's not in the video, other than reporting that the mod initially had four variants of the FuG 220 radar, and that some unofficial work has been done on a cockpit for the Lancaster bomber.

Thanks Pursuivant. Yes,sort of... Google translate is awfull translasting to spanish. And also with English I guess, so sometimes is easy to lost the original sense of a post, that s why I allways choose to translate direct from english or ask for a direct translation.


DT: Show us the Lanc please please please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not sure that the Lancaster is a DT product, even as a third party add-on. It might just be a mod.

As the Pe-8 and B-24D projects show, properly integrating a heavy bomber in the the game is a massive undertaking. We'll be lucky to get a flyable He-177 into the game with the 4.14 patch, at this point a think that even an AI Lancaster is a pipe dream.

Pursuivant, I knew that the Lac was oficial . Yes, it is a dream come true.

Found some references to the JU88 types.

The Ju88A5 series had a greater wingspan and larger bombload capacity than the A4. Because of this it was slower than the A4.
Can't find a description of a late A5, but usually it's an adaptation to overcome the performance shortcomings of the regular model.
The A5 is also depicted as having an extra forward MG in the nose glazing.

The A6 is depicted as carrying balloon cable cutting device across the front.
It is described as unwieldy.

Im not sure, but I think this isnt correct.

A5 late = A4, but with weaker engines, and weaker defensive armament (MG-15 instead of MG81)
A5 early is the same, but without armored glass for the rear gunners.

Somewhere between A1 and A5, 6 feet of wingspan has been added to the Ju88.
unfortunately it doesn't say exactly when.

I saw a ju88 pack on sas, they seem to be the same as upcoming?

link please)

ju 88 pack
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,42126.0.html

yep ... it's almost same thing ... Author of both is Yt2...

The early A models had shorter wings and the A-4 redesigned them with added length. The A-5 was a stopgap model introduced when the A-4s engine developed problems in the early stages so the A-5 was effectively somewhere between an A-1 and a A-4... apparently the longer wingspan lead to better handling and so it was liked better than the A-1.

Anyone else having problems downloading the PDF for 4.13. I right click to save on the link and there's nothing there!

It appears offline at the moment.

Tried for the last 3 days, I suppose patience is a virtue!! I'll keep trying.

Hmmm, now that Yt2 is cooperating with TD, can we expect new He-111 variants in the future? He did a brilliant He-111 pack, with lots of different variants, and lots of fixes to the original models, it would be really good to have at least the He-111 H11 or H16 in addition to fixed/enhanced H2 and H6 models.

i hope so)))

Can anyone please repost the 4.13 WIP-readme-pdf?
TIA
Now that it works again: Thanks

V4.13 User Guide preview
 

Thanks Alpha for the 4.13 User Guide preview.
Good to see a AI Ju88C2 (early night fighter). All flyable aircraft looking forward to fly, especially the Liberator (my father flew one in WWII).
I am glad to see you have put a bomb load on the Dora. What about a centre drop tank too?
I am very happy with new maps especially New Britain & New Guinea 43/44 - I am currently working on a large Zero campaign in this area. Good to see Tobruk.
You have a typo under 'New Ground Units' 2cm Flak 38 Vierling' is repeated twice.
All bombsight mods look very good.
Just like everybody else, I would like to see the following AI aircraft, Lancaster, Kawasaki Ki48 II (Japanese medium bomber).
Flyable aircraft - Typhoon, Spitfire XIV, Zero A6M3 'Zero-Sen' (with rounded wing tips), Radar equipped night fighters - Mosquito, Ju88C6 etc. etc.
DFLion

Great news the vertical alignment of the bombsight in 4.13.

The next great thing I'd like to see related to bombing is a "flag like marker" that would appear on impact and mark where the bomb contacted the ground. (training bomb, if you wish) and if that was able to log its position on eventlog - even better.

That would really facilitate training as it would allow us to better judge the training bomb runs by seeing a mark that is in sync (servers/clients) what doesn't always happen in tracks and all clients.

Nicely done, guys!
té mais
tityus

Hi
I would suggest some improvements to the IL-2:

- Channel Map;
- Add radiator axis device link;
- Implement mixture axis;
- Implement more than 4 game controller (today IL-2 is limited only 4 devices);
- Possibility to open map second monitor.

The best regards

=BLW=Ecosta

wow, coolness!

Am looking forward to this update and the added goodies for Il-2 Sturmovik/1946! :grin:

How difficult would it be to increase the limit of time compression? For some of the larger maps x8 isn't enough, at least for me. It would be great if the limit is raised to x16 or x32

You can choose extra fast time compression with black screen by pressing Ctrl+F (but I am not sure whether I assigned that button combination myself or it was pre-assigned).

Any word on the scale of the New Guinea map?

should be 3:4 scale

Keep in mind that some planes didn't have fine control for the radiator/cowling flaps. Some had fixed slider settings, others just had "open" and "closed" positions.

But, even if there's not axis-like control for radiators, a long-standing bug is that you can always cycle through the radiator control settings as if they were on a pivot rather than a slider, in a way that's unrealistic for the mechanical controls involved.

That is, you should only be able to go from 0-100% open (possibly in steps) and then back from 100-0%. Currently, you can go from 0-100% open (in steps) and then immediately back to 0%.

Again, not all planes had the option of allowing infinite levels of control over mixtures. Some just had "lean" or "rich" options, and some had automatic mixture controls. This is well modeled in the game.

This is an interesting idea. What would make it more useful is the option of having a different point of view (not just full map view) on the second screen, so that you could say, get a sense of what your tailgunner sees. In any case, this option could be seen as an unfair advantage in online play, so should have the option of being disabled in server settings.

Currently, the map overlay slightly interferes with your vision in one way or another, which is, IMO, realistic, since pilots had to split their attention between flying the plane and looking down at a map on a knee pad if they wanted to navigate.

A fun feature that would be extremely helpful for bombers and night fighters, would be the option of getting more functionality from the other crew members, in addition to just shooting or dropping bombs.

Most of these "role playing" or "housekeeping" functions don't require animation, just adding the appropriate options to the commands menu, and maybe a bit of programming.

All Crew

Can inform the pilot of damage to parts of the plane the pilot can't see, but which they can.

Can render first aid to wounded crewmen in their compartment rather than doing their main jobs.

Can extinguish cabin fires if hand-held fire extinguishers are available rather than doing their main job.

Can inform the pilot of the location of friendly and hostile planes WHEN ASKED (not just randomly calling off the positions of other planes in the sky like they do now.)

Bombardier:

Arms bombs - Realistically, this could take considerable amount of time and a bit of risk since the bombardier sometimes had to work on a narrow, cramped catwalk in the bomb bay.

Navigator:

Can inform you of your exact location, temporarily allowing the pilot to see names of map features, or the map, even when that information isn't normally available. (Realistically, there is also the possibility that the navigator is wrong, in which case you get the wrong names, and possibly even the wrong direction on the map!)

Once you have a location fix (correct or incorrect), you can request ETA to a particular location at a particular airspeed. Again, realistically, this information might be incorrect.

This same info could be obtained by any plane if you've got Ground Control Intercept.

Flight Engineer:

Can automatically trigger fire extinguishers to extinguish engine fires.

Can automatically shut down and feather props on damaged engines.

Can inform the pilot of rates of fuel or oil loss due to damage.

Can inform the pilot of remaining flight time before an engine will stop due to oil or fuel loss.

Can inform the pilot of engine overheat or overspeed problems.


Radio Operator:

Can communicate with friendly radar and GCI facilities.

Can report that the radio is damaged/destroyed/isn't working.

Can try to fix damaged or destroyed radio equipment (a small chance)

Can report jamming attempts.

Can send out SOS messages that increase the chance of rescue in campaigns, should the plane ditch at sea or in an unpopulated area.

Note that unless some other crewman can operate the radio, a dead or badly wounded operator means that the pilot loses all benefits of having a radio.

It is 75% scale, and it's still a huge map.

:cool:

These two would be useful and maybe not too hard to implement since crews call out hostile planes already and all planes seem to have generally the same damage model. For example:

Command: Damage Report
Answer from crew: minor damage to outer left wing, missing left elevator

Command: Nearest Hostile Location
Answer from crew: Enemy fighter at 4 o'clock

I am not sure if possible but maybe lining pilot eyes camera to bank indicator.
It gives great effect in Lock On series.
Basically when bank is out of neutral (total G is not directly down) pilots head is banking to keep summary G pointing directly down (in relation to head).
It is pretty natural since if you try flying straight but with non-zero bank you will put your head to keep it straight related to what you feel and not to where cabin floor is.

obviously some limits are required as person cannot bank head more than let's say +/- 90 degs but also I have not seen bank indicato that goes that far so still coupling camera to bank indicator should work.

The problem with that is when the game brings you back to real time when approaching an enemy and if you have realistic navigation on, you have real trouble figuring out where you are. It's virtually impossible when you are flying over water.

Just finished the PDF, looks good DT, not a bomber lover, but B-24 looks great, and the new sights/w the co-op options adds a new level of realism. And I'm looking forward to gunners having to rearm/reload cartridges.

A nice 19 pages of some thing to look forward too.

Thanks

Can you DT please make AI planes request runway lights to turn on during landing and take-off (should work when stationary lights are assigned "red" or "blue" side).
Currently it's only the player who can use the langing lights by radio command.

wonder what the ordinance cam will look like
 

Was just thinking about the upcoming ordinance camera, wonder how it will track a torpedo and the circling torpedoes? sea level? 100m?

i downloaded the 4.13 guide, and i'm only at page 2... thank you very very much to TD and all involved!! great job! :D

edit: ... pe-2 bombardier position...new official campaign... uprising '44... tobruk map... wow!

Useful information on fires and fire suppression systems in aircraft:

http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research.../Chapter-2.pdf

Mostly applicable to post-WW2 aircraft, but some discussion of WW2 era technology, and plenty of explanation and diagrams on where and how fires start on aircraft. The section on ballistically-induced fires is most relevant to the game.

Thanks Gitano!

So.. When do we get the patch..? May be just cut off WIP part and release the finished?

beta test is in the process now ..

We apreciate your hard work very much!!!

Beta testing is like counting water.

Take your time, get it right.....
8-)

Looking forward to 4.13
 

I hope you are all furiously testing 4.13. My father is 93 years old and he flew the B24L for the RAAF in WWII Pacific. I am going to show him this aircraft (B24D) flying in the flight sim, and I will give you all a full report on his observations. My father really liked flying the B24. Thankfully my father is mentally excellent, though his old body is starting to fail?

I am currently testing a 36 mission Campaign (Zero-Sen) on the Japanese Zero fighter, covering the attack on Pearl Harbour to the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. I was slightly devastated when you announced a map of New Britain would be included in 4.13 (back to the drawing boards). I will issue a version 1 of his campaign in Mission 4 Today, then rework Version 2 using the New Britain map.

DFLion

Sounds interesting, were currently sorting maps and skins to accommodate the new B24 :)

Monguse has been quite persistent with his updates and new skins.....

Thanks G :)

Quite topical, the Sunday that just passed was the 70th Birthday of this B24 A72-176, being restored in Werribee, Victoria, Australia:

http://b24australia.org.au/home.html

T'was a great day out for the kids and us enthusiasts alike.

Shouldn't we get the cockpit for the SB-2-103?

yep...

How come the development page hasn't been updated to say that it'll be a newflyable?

Well then how come you guys haven't updated the development page to say that it'll be a new flyable? And shouldn't we be seeing the update come out in the next few months?

Yes, that's coming in 4.13. :)

I love flying the SB-2 thanks to the quality of it's interior. The cockpit, nose gunner/bomb aimer, and the upper and lower rear gunner positions are all extremely well done. The IL-4 and PE-8 interiors are equally nice.

I didn't even get into level-bombing in IL-2 until flying these machines when their interiors became available.

Can't wait to see the M-103.

If your father finds ANY of it acceptable, it will make up for years of pain building it ;)

Since copilot is being implemented, what a hoot it would be to have you both take her for a spin.

For all marks of the La-5, and any other plane where the pilot had the option of manually or remotely charging (i.e., cocking) the guns, there should be the possibility of eliminating "gun damage" results by recocking the guns to eject damaged shells, at least for hits to the ammo trays. The problem there is that the game would have to distinguish between hits to ammunition and ammo containers, and hits to the gun itself which it currently doesn't.

Any plane capable of recocking its guns should have a chance to overcome a "gun jammed" result by ejecting dud shells. This would be easier to implement, since it doesn't require any changes to DM, just binding a key for the new command and a small routine which gives the player some chance to fix the jam the first time, and progressively worse chances for repeated attempts.

Just the thought of that actually brought tears to my eyes, and I don't even know these guys! It's just amazing how much a few talented people have been able to wring from this old girl. I hope it goes on for a long time.

I know what you mean with this but I think this would be useful in cases where the gun has actually jammed (perhaps due to overheating or reliability issues) which isn't in IL-2 1946 right now. The guns jammed is really because the gun mechanism or the barrel was "destroyed".

So what we'd need first is reliability type things (length of firing duration, heating, etc.) implemented and then another mechanism to unjam them.

Which I suppose could all be done.

I agree that there's really no good way to realistically model gun damage in IL2, largely because it would have to dynamically track ammo in ammo trays. Given the work that would entail, it would be effort better spent to model fuel transfer and dynamic CoG.

The second issue I mentioned is a bit more doable, since occasionally you'll get a gun jam result without damage, especially if you shoot in a high G turn. To my mind, that indicates a simple stoppage which could potentially be cleared.

IL2 doesn't model gun stoppage due to gun overheat. You can hold down the trigger all day (at least with unlimited ammo) and the guns will keep shooting.

What IL2 could possibly do, although it would require lots of DM work, is distinguish between the gun and feed mechanisms and the ammo supply. Once you've got that modeled, you can then have three types of gun hits: "Gun destroyed," "delayed gun destroyed" or "jam."

Gun destroyed represents an unfixable hit to the gun or ammo feed mechanisms which instantly renders the weapon unusable.

Delayed gun destroyed represents damage to ammunition or ammo feed mechanisms which will make the gun stop working at some point in the future. Basically, you lose some percentage of your remaining ammo, or the gun stops working after x more seconds of shooting. There might be a small chance that you could unjam such a problem.

Jam represents a simple stoppage, or a damaged bullet which can be fixed by recharging the guns.

While it might not be best practice, the quick(ish) and dirty method of getting more accuracy in gun hits would be to just assign percentages to each kind of hit, perhaps based on bullet type.

For example, a hit by a heavy MG bullet might have a 60% chance of a gun destroyed result, 35% chance of delayed gun destroyed, an 5% chance of stoppage, while a light MG bullet might have a 40% chance of gun destroyed, 25% chance of delayed gun destroyed and 35% chance of stoppage. No actual data for any of these things, though, I'm making up numbers here.

A bit of research shows that the problem of overheating is actually hugely overrated - at least for WW2 and later aircraft weapons. I know that this is contrary to popular wisdom, but bear with me.

Realistically, an airplane just doesn't carry enough ammo for the barrel to overheat to the point where it destroys the barrel. Machine gun manuals since WW2 are pretty consistent that you can shoot for up to a minute on full auto before you need to change the barrel. But, most aircraft only carry enough ammo for 5-30 seconds of full auto fire. So, in most cases, you don't have enough ammo to overheat the gun. (That said, for optimum barrel life, gunners tried to keep their bursts short - 2-3 seconds normally, 6-9 seconds maximum.)

Second, the steel used to make the barrels is designed to stay tough at up to thousands of degrees C, and there actually isn't enough energy generated by the bullets and propellants to melt the barrel. There's a huge difference between abusing the gun to the level that the barrel needs to be replaced and abusing it to the point that you blow up the gun or physically melt the barrel.

As an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGAwrmOapb4#t=110

Notice that the gun shoots continuously for over 2 minutes before it fails (at about the 2:20 mark).

It's also worth pointing out that the gun barrel never gets much above a red heat, which means 500-800 *C, when high temperature steel needs to get to 1,300 *C (white heat) in order to melt.

Third, in the interval between the point where you need to change the barrel and when the gun blows up, the main problem with barrel overheating is going to be loss of accuracy. Since there are plenty of other factors which are more important in determining gun accuracy in air combat, it seems pointless to model it. If DT wants to make gunnery in the game harder, they'd be better off modeling gun vibration and slipstream effects.

A possibly more important issue would be "cook off" where the heat of the weapon causes a bullet entering the chamber to automatically ignite, making the gun "run away" and shoot uncontrollably until it runs out of ammo.

Interesting. I had always read about how pilots were told to fire in short bursts... not because it was better for aiming but for the barrels themselves. Maybe it was for preserving them over service use rather than in combat stoppage... I don't know.

Anyways, I think it's good and interesting stuff to think about.

Primary cause of mg stoppages is failure to extract,then failure to feed. M2 50 cal is known to heat up and rip the rim off the cartridge case, bolt goes back case gets rim ripped away and fails to extract. Next cartridge is already removed from link and gets shoved into hole from previous casing stuck in chamber. Now fails to feed,you can try to recharge but not gonna work since rimless brass can't be extracted. Will need ruptured casing tool and remove barell to fix.
M2 fires from a closed not open bolt.

I have asked many times for Mg's and cannon to be modeled more historically, after the bomb loadouts were messed about with the fighters weapons were never "corrected" you can currently unload all mg's with no penalty.

Cheers

Probably a lot of time spent on the bombing features that were heavily requested. Not as many people think about the gunnery.

There's still the issue of a half dozen weapons not actually having been modeled. The Japanese aircraft are the worst in this respect... the two very different Type 99 cannons (99-1 and 99-2) are both represented by the MG-FF/M in code. The Type 89 machine guns are either a Vickers K or a MG17 depending on the aircraft. It's not even consistent... for the longest time the Ki-43-II had Browning .50cals with yellow tracers instead of the very same Ho-103 machine gun that the earlier Ki-43 and other Japanese Army aircraft had.

That all blows my mind :) They really coded Pacific Fighters in a hurry with little research. Some Russian types were badly setup too... those have been fixed thankfully.

One item that just came to me while playing.

There is no axis control for "Left engines" and "right engines"
I can control each engine separately - that is fine in 2-engin birds but in PE-8 i cannot really trim yaw by putting slight difference in power to one side.

I can do this by mapping "select lef/right/all engines" to buttons/keys and I do so. Beacuse of this inability to control left/right power via axis multi throttle controls is useless for me and I do not plan to invest in throttle quadrant just to be used on 1-2 planes (+B24 in future).

I prefer to keep second throttle to set pitch insetad.

Is this what you're looking for?

Great - that is exactly what I was looking for. I must have missed it :)

It's been and still is a mess, I concur. To mention one more glaring inaccuracy - Ki-45 historically carried a Ho-3 20mm cannon, but in the sim Ho-5 is modelled in its place. The difference between the two is something like the difference between Mk108 and 103: 20 x 94 (84.5 g) vs 20 x 125 (164 g).

Luckily a fix for this is mentioned in 4.13.

The main concerns with prolonged bursts aren't barrel damage (although dumping the entire belt isn't great for the barrel), it's runaway guns in closed-bolt weapons like the M2. The chamber heats up enough that when the next cartridge is fed into place, it overheats and fires without the hammer dropping, which cycles the weapon and causes another round to feed, which fires... you get the idea.

The Korean-era P-51 pilots manual explains burst lengths and runaway gun heat issues.

Good catch. I didn't know about that one but I'm sure the guy who put together the Ki-45 clearly did but it took some extra time to get the gun sources into place I imagine.

I've been hunting for reliable information on the Type 99-1 and 99-2 but no luck.

Actually, I'm quite sure that the IL-4 and PE-8 cockpits were from a 3rd party. Or maybe I'm getting mixed up with a mod that made it compatible with 4.09. But I hate the 100A with the dumb bare metal. I want powerful inlines and real camo!

Lots of third parties worked with TD directly to get their stuff included. The IL-4 cockpit was from an artist and the Pe-8 was a bunch of paid artists plus a dedicated researcher who collected community donations to pay the artists to do the job.

Both SB-2s are great inclusions into the game. The inline version will be nice to add as a feature. Any famous SB-2 missions I can build? I was thinking of trying to do something with the M-103.

The big reason was to prevent jams, for the reasons that others have mentioned. The other big issue was conservation of ammunition - since planes never carried enough of it.

My guess is that preserving the life of the gun was less important, since even if you fry an entire machine gun, it's a trivial expense compared to the cost of an airplane.

This the "cook off" problem I described, but your explanation is better.

Link? All I could find online is the 1945 P-51D manual.

Yeah, the two weapons really are like a day and night; Ho-3, shooting with lower ROF but much harder hitting being a lot better suited for ground busting or anti-bomber missions compared to Ho-5.

Generally I find airwar.ru an excellent treasure of knowledge. They have extensive article on Type-99 as well, unfortunately only in russian:

http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/type99.html

Lots of numbers, lots of pics too.

That is the best information I've seen anywhere in a long time. Thanks!

Hello, I wonder if it's possible to add in the command console in a system dedicated to kick players who do not respect the rules of a server servers because there is no nescessidade to put a password on the server.

Anyone have also some information about 4:13 when going out?

Thank you :)

Requests and inquiries
 

Hello, I wonder if it's possible to add in the command console in a system dedicated to kick players who do not respect the rules of a server servers because there is no nescessidade to put a password on the server.

Anyone have also some information about 4:13 when going out?

Thank you

When it's Done™, Soon™, or two weeks™. Pick your favourite :)

Personal thinking 4.13 won't be released until a little after IL-2 BOS 1.0 is released for the public, which is not too much of a bad thing, more time for bug squashing and polishing....

Will HSFX work with this patch when it will come up?

Probably not, as usual, due to amount of new content.
But HSFX team will certainly release a new compatible version within days after the new patch is made available.:wink:

By the time of korean war new aircraft like f-86 sabre used upgraded fiftycal AN/M3 Browning.

This weapon had boosted feed mechanism and higher rate of fire compared to ww2 era Mustangs.

F-80 shooting star also used AN/M3.

Did legacy era propeller aircraft get upgraded or retrofitted with newer AN/M3?

Im thinking mustangs and corsairs used in korea...

The F8F Bearcat was fitted with AN/M3, as was the F-82 Twin Mustang. The F4U-5 Corsair was fitted with 20mm cannons.

Allegedly, after 1945 the USAF standardized on the AN/M3 for all its planes, but I haven't found a reliable source for that info.

I'm not sure if there was a change with it

How much longer do you think 'til this update will be hitting the shelves?

So how much longer 'till the 4.13 update will be hitting the shelves?

Two weeks. :-P

Give it some time folks. Testing and solving bugs takes a while.

EXCELLENT!!!


Or weeks at the most. They are usually pretty godd with it. That is one reason why I prefer HSFX as far as mods go. I have a seperate insdtall for SAS though because I like some of their stuff too.

Dang, BC. Thought you jumped ship.

Nice to see ya.

Certainly it's not for 4.13, but it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to create the various radio navigation/blind bombing aids that were used during the "Battle of the Beams" over England and Germany during 1940-41, and afterwards.

Nothing would be needed in terms of graphics, but new "beam lines" would need to be added to the appropriate maps, and some programming and research would be needed. Possibly it would be necessary to set up new features in the FMB to allow mission builders to center blind bombing aids like Knickbein, X-Gerat or Gee over a particular map location.

While it might be too much work to figure out all the Gee charts for a particular map, it seems like it wouldn't be too much trouble to model Lorenz, Knickbein, X-Gerat, Y-Gerat, and so forth, since they were automated systems that just produced dots, dashes or steady tones depending on the plane's location.

Jamming systems against these blind bombing aids would take more work in terms of programming.

Ground controlled blind bombing or radio navigation systems would also take more work, since there would be some AI and voice-programming work required.

Adding these blind bombing aids would make it more fun to fly night bombing missions, because you could actually find your target.

Long range radio navigation systems could also be used to make large and otherwise featureless maps, like a hypothetical map of the North Atlantic or Western Approaches, interesting.