Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

[Red Dragon-DK]

I will adultly and polite ask a question to the TD



Have DT any plane, to correct the the sound in the game? I feel no matter what you correct in a P51 or what aircraft you ad to the game I miss the feeling of sitting in a aircraft, simply becarse of the ingame sound we have today. As an exampel what Im aiming for, I have add 2 videos that I fell are woth listen to.

My best regards


http://vimeo.com/6667705


http://vimeo.com/6682092

[csThor]

You're not acting like an adult, either, CaptStubing.

For example regarding the 0.50 issue you want to raise you pointed us at a 5-year old 35-page thread at the zoo. Now where is the documentation in that? Where is the exact naming the issue? Are we supposed to read your mind or should we bring out the crystal balls to ask the forefathers if they know what you mean? I - personally, not as a member of DT - do believe that the issues on the Fw 190 should be at least looked at, but regarding the 0.50s I'm simply at a loss. Apart from the seemingly missing M8 loadout (IIRC, that is) I don't know what is it exactly that puts some folks on edge. Is it dispersion (remember that was changed way back after a load of whining at the Zoo)? Or what is it? I, for sure, don't know so I don't see what the fuss is about.

[ivagiglie]

Dear DT, some of you have stated that the way to get a bad/erroneous behavior fixed is to provide "actual data", sounds reasonable.

But what does constitute enough "actual data" to ask for a change?
For the Macchi 202/205 the FM seems underrated (turning performance above all).
Unfortunately tabular data or nice graphs so readily available for American planes simply aren't there.

What can be found though are reports (like the classic Feb'43 Guidonia one with comparison against the FW and 109) and interviews of actual pilots that flew those planes or against them in combat.
I'm willing to start to collect this data and make it available if this can trigger some modifications on your side.
What do you think?

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by ivagiglie

Dear DT, some of you have stated that the way to get a bad/erroneous behavior fixed is to provide "actual data", sounds reasonable.

But what does constitute enough "actual data" to ask for a change?
For the Macchi 202/205 the FM seems underrated (turning performance above all).
Unfortunately tabular data or nice graphs so readily available for American planes simply aren't there.

What can be found though are reports (like the classic Feb'43 Guidonia one with comparison against the FW and 109) and interviews of actual pilots that flew those planes or against them in combat.
I'm willing to start to collect this data and make it available if this can trigger some modifications on your side.
What do you think?

Its hard question what is enough and what not. Combat reports have no value when comparing turn performance, you never know enough about the adversary. Performance can be estimated from airframe geometry and engine power but that usually does not take details into account, so every report from test done under controlled conditions helps. We welcome your effort, but please be prepared that it can end in conclusion "not enough data to support such change" or "we think explanation is different" or other dead end. Please use DT email for further communication.

[ramstein]

Why not just put a thread for each aircraft type in a forum, instead of one big mess? Someone get creative and make it so the powers that be will be happy with the forum thread structure for these aircraft fix requests..


example:

Thread 1:
aircraft a) needs wings fixed. Supplied data.

Thread 2:
aircraft b) needs guns fixed, supplied data.

Thread 3:
etc..

[Daiichidoku]

Originally Posted by ramstein

Why not just put a thread for each aircraft type in a forum, instead of one big mess? Someone get creative and make it so the powers that be will be happy with the forum thread structure for these aircraft fix requests..


example:

Thread 1:
aircraft a) needs wings fixed. Supplied data.

Thread 2:
aircraft b) needs guns fixed, supplied data.

Thread 3:
etc..

+1!

[csThor]

With roundabout 300 aircraft types that would be a huge amount of threads.

[ivagiglie]

Thanks LesniHU, it'll take a while to put together all the data... hopefully you (DT) are gonna be around for a long time so it's not a problem

Don't worry, I'm prepared and ok with a rejection if the data doesn't convince you, it's part of the game but I still believe it's worth a try.

I am really disappointed when reading comment from all sides (allies&axis) who flew the 202/205 describing them as "flying beautifully" and then go to IL2 basically finding myself on a truck with wings

Further communications will be by email, have a nice Sunday.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by csThor

You're not acting like an adult, either, CaptStubing.

For example regarding the 0.50 issue you want to raise you pointed us at a 5-year old 35-page thread at the zoo. Now where is the documentation in that? Where is the exact naming the issue? Are we supposed to read your mind or should we bring out the crystal balls to ask the forefathers if they know what you mean? I - personally, not as a member of DT - do believe that the issues on the Fw 190 should be at least looked at, but regarding the 0.50s I'm simply at a loss. Apart from the seemingly missing M8 loadout (IIRC, that is) I don't know what is it exactly that puts some folks on edge. Is it dispersion (remember that was changed way back after a load of whining at the Zoo)? Or what is it? I, for sure, don't know so I don't see what the fuss is about.

There are plenty of screen shots and tests done to prove just that. It took an army to get some positive changes. Just like the nonsense about the muzzle flashes not be able to be addressed until a new game engine. Funny stuff aye?

It's pretty simple. I raised an issue and RC just want to sweep it under the rug.

Again I raised and issue with the the 38 and it's great to have an actual dialogue instead of being met with insults and name calling. Who is behaving like a child? I have yet to call anyone anything.

Again I mentioned certain planes breaking the sound barrier... Someone looked into it and low an behold 3 planes do it regularly so what gives? Does everyone need some sort of documentation to point out flaws with this sim? No I think not. The list is on going.

COG for the 51 is a great example. It's a well known issue that the plane models only one tank and all three tanks drain from that in order to determine COG. Funny enough that plane flies like garbage because the center tank doesn't drain first.

Is the sim perfect no but now that some effort is being put towards some new releases... Let's fix some of the most nagging problems of the sim before introducing more issues with other planes.

[WWFlybert]

TD, 97% of active IL-2 players will appreciate whatever you do to improve the sim .. no user can insist on anything .. you aren't getting paid for this

what I'm curious about, is that just a few weeks ago, the next upgrade patch was going to be 4.10 .. then it changed to 5.0

4.xx would be upgrades to IL-2 1946 .. so ..

would not 5.0 be considered a major revision usually reserved for new DvD release ?