Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[David603]

Originally Posted by jermin

TD, I strongly request you to lock the game codes for multiplayer in the next patch. This will keep all kinds of FM/WM/DM mods away from the online play and eventually bring the whole community back into one piece.

However, you can keep the single player open to mods for those offline players.

I doubt that TD would want to do that, and anyway it would be pointless.

If the 4.10 patch prevented mod use online, then mod users would not install the 4.10 patch, at least not in the form provided by TD.

All that would happen is the mod pack creators would either mod the 4.10 patch to undo the changes to net code or they would open the patch, take the new content, and add it to the existing mod packs, thus bypassing any changes to online coding.

Either way, all it would do is ruin the currently very healthy relationship between TD and the mod community.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by jermin

Well, Blackdog is not playing online. So it is understandable that he doesn't know what the situation has been on HyperLobby.

If you have chance to log into HL, please go there and see how many servers there are enforcing CRT checking, and how many of them are populated.

'Let people use what they want to use and fly in the appropriate servers.'

- Log into HL by yourself and see what most of the players there want to use.

Do you think a hacker will be stupid enough to play in servers with CRT=2?

Maybe you misunderstood. I said i'm not flying online because of internet problems. I didn't say that i've never flown online. When i did it, i was usually on warclouds and on the warbirds of prey (spits vs 109s and zekes vs wildcats) servers.
Maybe i'm not a hardcore online flyer, but in more than 100 hours of online flying during the last couple of years, i've seen maybe 2-3 cases suspicious of cheating, which were not definitely proven either. There once was a case (pre-CRT=2) on a server where someone was caught, the players submitted tracks to the admins and he received a permanent ban on his IP. Problem solved.

Bottom line is, you can't force people to fly the way you think is right, they'll keep flying the way the want to anyway.

And finally, i agree that's it's better to keep good relations between TD and the unofficial add-on makers. If you "ban" all of these guys do you think they'll work with TD in the future? Nope, they won't. I'd rather have them free to do their thing and contribute, i can choose what i want to install and sometime, someone's work will be of a high enough standard and be included in the official updates.

Take a look at the moving AI units on dogfight servers for example. Where do you think this started? Unofficial add-ons. If the TD patches disabled compatibility with these add-ons, do you think the creator of this new feature would work with TD and agree to have his work included in an official patch? I say let each one of them do their thing and come up with their own stuff, when appropriate their will combine forces and you'll get it all in one nicely rolled-up package, ready to install, while the impatient ones will scour forums to download and install manually.

These guys are not antagonists, they are a bunch of people that daily release and test new features for us. Heck, even one player that goes to the trouble of making a modded install work, provides feedback and technical data, is like a play-tester for you. Why should we stop them from what they are doing when it's obvious that we can all benefit from it?

What i mean to say is, don't underestimate the amount of synergy and the potential benefits for the community from these two groups (official and unofficial add-on makers) having a healthy relationshipt. In plain English, if it wasn't for mods you probably wouldn't be getting moving AI for DF mode in the following TD patches.

[Baron]

Is there a way to fix the bug where some planes explode, when on fire, as soon as u bail, Bf109 beeing the obvious one.


If not a bug, whats the thinking behind such a "feature".


Lost count of how many times my pilot burns to death staying inside the pit or get blown to bits the second he bails.

[Qpassa]

when will be the release of the 4.10?
It is expected to create a mega-update? Now you have to install 4.08-4.09-(4.10)

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Baron

Is there a way to fix the bug where some planes explode, when on fire, as soon as u bail, Bf109 beeing the obvious one.


If not a bug, whats the thinking behind such a "feature".


Lost count of how many times my pilot burns to death staying inside the pit or get blown to bits the second he bails.

I'm failing to see where the bug is here. At a certain point when a plane is on fire it will explode... pilot in the plane or not. The pilot cannot bail out if there are extreme G forces involved as well thus any delay in getting out can be attributed to that.

Coincidence is not a bug Well... you can take that one up with the universe if you want.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I'm failing to see where the bug is here. At a certain point when a plane is on fire it will explode... pilot in the plane or not. The pilot cannot bail out if there are extreme G forces involved as well thus any delay in getting out can be attributed to that.

Coincidence is not a bug Well... you can take that one up with the universe if you want.

Its not like im asking to be able to fly arround all day long on fire. If u flew the BF alot u would know what im talking about

If i didnt know better i would say that the explosion in the Bf was triggered by the fact that u press Ctrl+E and bail and i fail to see how thats a feature and not a bug.

Fact is, if Bf109`s caches on fire u are pretty much deat unless u bail within 2 sec flat, unlike many other ac`s, that, while they do explode, they do so mostly when they hit the ground.

Like i said, if it is a feature it would be intresting to know the thinking behind the fact that a few select ac`s, Bf109 in perticular, explodes just a few sec after caching fire (without exeption in my experiance) when most dont. I mean, fire is fire, right?

I mean, even the Ki84 can have fire in the wings that goes out on its own, enebeling the pilot to bail or even make it home again, thats just not the case with the Bf109 once on fire. If u are fast enough and lucky u will make it IF u press refly, again, fast enough, and thats just "gaming" the game in my book.

[Flanker35M]

S!

I think the bashing of modders should be quitted and talks of "locking up" IL-2. Sit on a branch high up in a tree and saw it off would describe that best I believe TD and modders talk a lot more "behind the curtain" than in the open as community turns to a zoo if words mod or similar are said out loud Look at MDF..made by ZUTI. Now coming to an official patch! That is co-operation and improvement of the game. It is damned great to see how much TD does for IL-2.

Regarding the 6DOF..if they are worried by the issues, which I believe are mainly the holes etc. in 3D, those can be solved. Look at AHS on the Bf109, works perfectly with 6DOF. Again modders that have fixed these issues could help TD..win-win again

TD and community both do great work for one and SAME passion: IL-2 My 2 cents..

[brando]

Originally Posted by Baron

Its not like im asking to be able to fly arround all day long on fire. If u flew the BF alot u would know what im talking about

If i didnt know better i would say that the explosion in the Bf was triggered by the fact that u press Ctrl+E and bail and i fail to see how thats a feature and not a bug.

Fact is, if Bf109`s caches on fire u are pretty much deat unless u bail within 2 sec flat, unlike many other ac`s, that, while they do explode, they do so mostly when they hit the ground.

Like i said, if it is a feature it would be intresting to know the thinking behind the fact that a few select ac`s, Bf109 in perticular, explodes just a few sec after caching fire (without exeption in my experiance) when most dont. I mean, fire is fire, right?

I mean, even the Ki84 can have fire in the wings that goes out on its own, enebeling the pilot to bail or even make it home again, thats just not the case with the Bf109 once on fire. If u are fast enough and lucky u will make it IF u press refly, again, fast enough, and thats just "gaming" the game in my book.

Have you flown the P-39 Airacobra much? Or the Spitfire, or the Hurricane? What I mean is, they all exhibit the behaviour you are talking about. That is, they catch fire and explode almost immediately, usually, especially in the Airacobra, at the point of bailing.
I have often wondered whether it's the act of jettisoning the canopy or opening the door, thus admitting a rush of air, that causes the fire to go out of control and detonate the fuel tank? I suppose it would depend on the location of the fuel tank that has ignited - which would account for why the Spit, with its tank in front of the pilot, is less prone to exploding as you bail (though the pilot is likely to become severely wounded or dead very quickly).

What I'm saying is that this modelling, right or wrong, is not confined to the Bf-109.

B

[Baron]

Ok, didn`t know that. Am a 99% blue flier, but its "nice" to know its not an oddity confined just to one ac.

If its correct or not is another issue.


would still be intresting to know why it is like that, if there is any kind of logic thinking behind it or if its just "like the way it is"



Edit: All i know is that the Spit especially, will blow up if one hit the tank directly.