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

[koivis]

The P-40N discussed in the 4.10 thread surely is the most produced and widely-used single-engine fighter still missing from the game. We had a similar situation with Ki-43-II years ago, being IJA's main fighter from 1943 to 1945, it only appeared in game way after Pacific Fighters was released.

After all, putting any new plane or map in game (officially, with DT & 1C approval and standards) will require tremendous work. However, we have still a few "issues" with the existing aircraft. Here's my short wish list for 4.11+:

1) Correction of late Bf 109G variants. Currently the G-6/AS is modelled as a plane that is closer to G-10 in real life performance, instead of just a G-6 with smoothed cowling and DB605AS-engine, with larger supercharger providing increased power in altitude and higher full throttle alt. This model did not have MW50, and such model would usually be called G-14/AS. However, it really doesn't represent that either, because current G-10 is faster from around 6500 m and up.

The REAL full throttle heights for DB605 variants, from http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm:

DB 605A-1 (in game variants: G-2, G-6, G-6 late): 5700 m
DB 605AM (G-14): 4000 m
DB 605AS (REAL G-6/AS): 8000 m
DB 605ASM (REAL G-14/AS): 6400 m
DB 605DB (G-10, K-4): 6000 m
DB 605DC (K-4 C3): 4900 m

I didn't test the top speeds in game, but from Il-2 Compare you can clearly see the difference. "G-6/AS" has top speed in 6000 m, while the FTH of DB 605ASM was 6400 m. Usually these should be about the same, or top speed alt should be a bit higher, but definitely not lower. For comparison, for G-10 in game top speed occurs in 7500 m, which sounds it could be right for -ASM engine.

It could be that current G-6/AS and G-10 performance have been mixed up, and only renaming them to G-10 and G-14/AS (respectively) would make it much closer. In addition, a real Summer 1944 no-MW50 G-6/AS high-alt figher would be really nice.

Other variants seem to be rather realistic performance-wise.

I brought this subject up several years ago in Ubi forums, but Oleg was propably already busy with BoB, so I had no reply. Now that DT is bringing more loadout options for 109s, I'm hoping that their relative performance could be also checked.

Here is my original post from Ubi forums, made in April 2006: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...924#3501074924

2) After that rather long request, here's a simpler one: proper Tempest Mk.V variants with 11lbs & 13lbs boost engines.

Good source:http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...tempest-V.html

This was also discussed many times in Ubi forums, but with no result. The current Tempest is a 9lbs boost early variant, while the most common one was the 11lbs, 13lbs appearing in late 1944 when 150-octane fuel was available. If some (not DT I hope) of you think "this is not needed" and "no chance, learn to fly", then, well... it has worked before, we have Spit 25lbs, Mustang Mk.III, P-47D Late and P-38L Late. Most of these are just such late war increased performance variants, that are not only realistic, but also for some reason controversial among some players. Surely, the 13lbs Tempest would propably be second to only Mustang MkIII in sea level speed, but it did it in real life too.

The original Tempest request thread from 2007: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...2021058625/p/1

I know really well that BOTH of these corrections/additions have been already implemented in certain mods, but as their performances are being altered back and forth and lots of other new variants added all the time (including some which never and have no place in game), I really hope something could be done officially, by the marvellous team called Daidalos. I see no point having 38 different 109 versions (with mods), of which I know some never flew, some are just cosmetic or not even that, and some are just plain wrong.

I hope something could be made, and hopefully this atleast sparks some discussion. If I'm "beating a dead horse", please just say it and I will stop immediately.

Best wishes, and keep up the good work.

Koivis

[slipper]

I have done a search but cannot find the video showing the AI triggers that TD are thinking of implementing in the future, so forgive me if this is an obvious question.

Does the AI trigger only affect Ai planes? or is it planned for it to be used for ships, artillery, flak, armour etc.

If i remember from the video, the bi-plane flying over a trigger point enabled an artillery unit to fire at a target, so i am assuming the artillery became 'live' when the trigger point was reached, is this correct?

regards

slipper

[JG53Frankyboy]

about the B-25J AI:
could it be changed to a "normal" bomber AI, like the B-25C has.
or "just" ad a new plane ,perhaps called Mitchell Mk.III, just a copy (if time, removed .50cal browning side "bumps" would be nice ) of the B-25J but with the mentioned bomber AI.

the actual AI behavior of an attack plane is often anoying.

[Hawker17]

Originally Posted by slipper

I have done a search but cannot find the video showing the AI triggers that TD are thinking of implementing in the future, so forgive me if this is an obvious question.

Does the AI trigger only affect Ai planes? or is it planned for it to be used for ships, artillery, flak, armour etc.

If i remember from the video, the bi-plane flying over a trigger point enabled an artillery unit to fire at a target, so i am assuming the artillery became 'live' when the trigger point was reached, is this correct?

regards

slipper

The movies of the Triggers are here:

http://simhq.com/_air13/air_420b.html

[Holgersson]

Is there any chance TD could change the Speedometer and the Altimeter in the Finnish Brewster to metric units as it most probably was the case with the Finnish B-239? Sources state that planes used by the Finnish AF were modified with these instruments; it's quite unnerving to fly them with knots and feet indications on servers without speedbar.

[robday]

This question may have been asked before, but why do we not have the Meteor in the game. After all it was the only allied jet to actually enter squadron service in WWII and it was produced in two marks,(F.Mk I with 616sq. in July '44, F.MkIII with the same squadron in January '45). I know we have the P80 but this 'plane took no part in WWII so it's only suitable for the 1946 part of the game and the Meteor was still flying so it would be useful for post 1945 ops.
So is there any chance that in the future Team Daidalos might consider filling this gaping hole in IL2's planeset?

[JG53Frankyboy]

something about the FMB:

would it be possible to ad a timer in a corner of the screen when starting a mission out of the FMB to test it ?
the given waypointimes are mostly totaly incorrect ......................

it would help to "time" the missions.

[bf-110]

Originally Posted by robday

This question may have been asked before, but why do we not have the Meteor in the game. After all it was the only allied jet to actually enter squadron service in WWII and it was produced in two marks,(F.Mk I with 616sq. in July '44, F.MkIII with the same squadron in January '45). I know we have the P80 but this 'plane took no part in WWII so it's only suitable for the 1946 part of the game and the Meteor was still flying so it would be useful for post 1945 ops.
So is there any chance that in the future Team Daidalos might consider filling this gaping hole in IL2's planeset?

Indeed,Meteor was the only allied jet to enter WWII,it could be useful for custom and 1946 missions.Maybe the Vampire too.

And BTW,TD,is it possible to add bombs for the YP-80 in a future release?

[Xilon_x]

ADDITIONAL ROCKET FOR INSTANT TAKE OF IN SHORT RANGE.

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by koivis

2) After that rather long request, here's a simpler one: proper Tempest Mk.V variants with 11lbs & 13lbs boost engines.

Impossible to do now, there is not enough info about flight performance. I was trying to make an extrapolation years ago but ended without a reliable result (there are no climb data, speed performance varies a lot between individual tests and a couple of differences between Sabre IIA/IIB/IIC is unclear). I'm afraid it will stay this way until someone digs at least one climbchart from british archives (any volunteer?).