beyond 4.13

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Tolwyn

One of my long-standing complaints is the way DT has "made things darker" is too dark.

For many missions, I think you're right.

On the other hand, us folks living in areas of significant light pollution forget just how dark the night can be.

Realistically, if you're flying at midnight, in January, under a thick overcast, on a moonless night, over the blacked out skies of London, Berlin, Moscow or Helsinki, the sky is going to be pitch black.

In the summer, the night will look a bit more like the current IL2 default.

Under a full moon on a clear night during the summer, there should be a bit more light than IL2 currently allows.

IL2's night sky graphic could also be more realistic - with far more stars in the sky (even if they're not realistically modeled). Under really dark, moonless skies, clouds above you should appear as black silhouettes, and there should be enough visible stars that you should be able to detect nearby aircraft above you because they're silhouetted against the stars.

As to human vision, IL2 doesn't model the effects of dazzling and loss of night vision which occur when someone is exposed to very bright lights at night. Furthermore, it doesn't realistically model the loss of color vision that humans experience at night (we lose more of our ability to see colors at bottom of the color scale - red, yellow and orange), and our loss of ability to track moving objects in dim light.

IL2 also doesn't model the effects of high altitude and injury on night vision acuity. The eye is an oxygen-hungry organ, and when oxygen is in short supply, it's one of the first organs to be shut down. Even mild hypoxia can play hell with your night vision.

The simplest method of modeling the night sky might be to give mission builders or players some control over how dark the world is, and how much sunlight appears over the horizon.

[ECV56_Guevara]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

The simplest method of modeling the night sky might be to give mission builders or players some control over how dark the world is, and how much sunlight appears over the horizon.

This!
In fact, I can´t guess if it´s the simpliest, but the best method.
Anyway, night enviroment, 100% dark could be usefull only in a "Night combat enviroment" So DT....

[Daniël]

A few moths ago there was a thread on lighting conditions at night. Here's the link for anyone interested: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...705#post708705

[P-38L]

The landing light from an airplanes illuminates the ground, trees, house and objects (that is why we use light).

At night, if you put light objects in a city, they don't illuminate anything... why? For example: You put an open hangar and put a white light object inside the hangar, it doesn't illuminate the surrounding area.

All the cities at night seems abandoned.

It is possible to add the same behavior of a landing light in light objects?

[P-38L]

Some people say that comparisons are odious. But if we do not compare, we do not learn.

This magnificent flight simulator should have more options. I list some of them.

1. Aircraft as the Li-2 and Ju-52 should be flyable. This has a very important reason. Not just for the fact of having more planes available to the user.

2. The flight simulator should have the option to get off a plane (like a normal person) and walk / run to other aircraft available, stationed on the ground. This is the case of a damaged aircraft landed without possibility of reuse. With this option, the pilot can continue the mission. Then at the airport should be placed more planes available.

3. The flight simulator Prepar3D version 3, you have the option of walking / running and giving you more choices. No one has criticized the new option; on the contrary, it gives more options in game performance. If someone does not like this option, then, do not use it.

4. Returning to the theme of point 1, the Il-2 and Ju-52 aircraft they could carry as passengers for the other players (while in the air, enjoy the flight as passengers). The plane lands, the passengers get off, head for its warplanes and mission continues. My colleagues in the office dream of this option to be passengers while one of us is flying the plane (we are 10). Imagine the view from the windows. Maybe if in flight, the plane is damaged by the enemy, passengers (fighter pilots) could skydive, once they land, head towards the base (walking or...).

5. An important issue is the choice of refueling on land or aircraft carriers. Likewise, the reloading of ammunition plane or change the type of weapons such as bombs, torpedoes, rockets, etc. For this, the pilot should take the plane to an area intended for this and ask this service. You could get off the plane while you wait.

6. What about the option of driving a vehicle (like a Jeep) to get from one point to another? Also able to handle artillery?

I know many people disagree with what I have shown here. But if this flight simulator focuses only on having more flyable aircraft and nothing else, users begin to lose interest in the game. Maybe this is not my case, because I love this flight simulator.

Thank you very much

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by P-38L

1. Aircraft as the Li-2 and Ju-52 should be flyable.

Li-2 will be flyable. But I hope Ju-52 never will be! Its not important at all. Because we dont have any proper mid-war german bomber! Or other far more important planes are missing: flyable Tu-2, Helldiver, Ki-44, Spitfire XIV just to name a few... There arent too much people working on this sim anymore, and in my opinion, making a flyable Ju-52 instead of the planes above, would be just a waste of time and effort.

[Sita]

Ju52 is really interesting plane ... and for counterbalance to Li2 it would be really nice to have it ...

also in SCW it was used like a bomber plane ...

[Marabekm]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Li-2 will be flyable. But I hope Ju-52 never will be! Its not important at all. Because we dont have any proper mid-war german bomber! Or other far more important planes are missing: flyable Tu-2, Helldiver, Ki-44, Spitfire XIV just to name a few... There arent too much people working on this sim anymore, and in my opinion, making a flyable Ju-52 instead of the planes above, would be just a waste of time and effort.

I disagree.
The sim currently has plenty of fighter, ground-attack and bomber aircraft. Sure it is missing some but we can work with what we have.
What the sim is missing is the flyable reconnaissance and transport aircraft. These also played a vital roll. And while perhaps less exciting would still be fun to fly.
Any news on the 4.13 bug fixes?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

But I hope Ju-52 never will be! Its not important at all.

Because the Ju-52 was just a boring cargo aircraft that never saw action over Denmark, Norway, the Hague, Eban Emeal, Crete, Cap Bon, Stalingrad, or Berlin.

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Because we dont have any proper mid-war german bomber! Or other far more important planes are missing: flyable Tu-2, Helldiver, Ki-44, Spitfire XIV just to name a few...

I'd love to see all these planes in the game, too, but beggars can't be choosers. Any new flyable planes, even "boring" transport aircraft, are welcome.

[Nil]

Originally Posted by P-38L

1. Aircraft as the Li-2 and Ju-52 should be flyable.

2. The flight simulator should have the option to get off a plane (like a normal person) and walk / run to other aircraft available,

4. Returning to the theme of point 1, the Il-2 and Ju-52 aircraft they could carry as passengers for the other players

Originally Posted by Sita

Ju52 is really interesting plane ... and for counterbalance to Li2 it would be really nice to have it ...

Originally Posted by Marabekm

I disagree.
What the sim is missing is the flyable reconnaissance and transport aircraft. These also played a vital roll. And while perhaps less exciting would still be fun to fly.

All has been said.
The problem is that we need a bigger daidalos dev team.