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

[Hawker17]

Also, I noticed that the Spitfire Mk VB/VC doesn't have the possibility to carry bombs ingame.

Both the Mk VB and VC were able to carry bombs. (Two 250-pound bombs or one 500-pound bomb).

Could you please change the weapon loadout TD?

[Pursuivant]

Great work, thanks for all you've done.

Three requests, one tiny, two more involved:

1) Please correct the default early war U.S. markings. They are historically incorrect and ugly as well.

2) Please incorporate some method of determining the G forces on the pilot (if not the plane). As it stands, you don't know how many Gs you're pulling until your plane stalls or you start to black out. Human beings are quite good at detecting changes in acceleration, and a trained pilot can estimate approximately how many Gs he's pulling. "Seat of the pants" flying depends on feeling such changes in G forces.

At the very least, consider it as an option for the "no cockpit" view, which already gives you a nice little graphic which shows the orientation of your plane with respect to the earth (That is, a "gravity meter" which always tells you which way is down.)

3) Would it be possible to make the "tracking arrows" which are visible in the no-cockpit view an option which can be turned on or off for ANY cockpit view? For example, "no cockpit" + "no tracking arrows" or "cockpit view" + "tracking arrows."

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Great work, thanks for all you've done.

Three requests, one tiny, two more involved:

1) Please correct the default early war U.S. markings. They are historically incorrect and ugly as well.

2) Please incorporate some method of determining the G forces on the pilot (if not the plane). As it stands, you don't know how many Gs you're pulling until your plane stalls or you start to black out. Human beings are quite good at detecting changes in acceleration, and a trained pilot can estimate approximately how many Gs he's pulling. "Seat of the pants" flying depends on feeling such changes in G forces.

At the very least, consider it as an option for the "no cockpit" view, which already gives you a nice little graphic which shows the orientation of your plane with respect to the earth (That is, a "gravity meter" which always tells you which way is down.)

3) Would it be possible to make the "tracking arrows" which are visible in the no-cockpit view an option which can be turned on or off for ANY cockpit view? For example, "no cockpit" + "no tracking arrows" or "cockpit view" + "tracking arrows."

+1
And add my thanks. What I like of the Pursuivant’s post, is the use of the word “option”.
Reading through all the threads, you rarely see common visions and shared opinions. Any change is destined to make some people happy and some other people unhappy, but to add options will be good for everyone.
An example? I don’t like the “propeller effect” just in front of windshield. As a private pilot, I’ve flown many different single-engine planes, and the propeller becomes (faintly) visible only in particular lighting conditions, and under particular sunlight angles. If there would be the option, I surely would turn OFF the propeller effect.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by Furio;

don’t like the “propeller effect” just in front of windshield. As a private pilot, I’ve flown many different single-engine planes, and the propeller becomes (faintly) visible only in particular lighting conditions, and under particular sunlight angles. If there would be the option, I surely would turn OFF the propeller effect.

I agree 100% with this. While not a pilot, I have flown many times in the front seat of a single engine aircraft, even once in the waist gunner position of a B-25. The propellor disc is essentially invisible in almost all conditions. I do find it comical that in the modded side of the game, they have chosen to over emphasize the prop effect. I think they have seen too many movies and have not spent any time in real aircraft.

Another issue with the prop graphic effect is how it's relative size changes. Go external and draw an imaginary line from the outer diameter of the prop disc to the pilot's eyes. Now look at the prop from inside. It is far smaller from the cockpit view, which is wrong.

[bf-110]

Will the new updates have graphics improvements?
Like,the water,effects...?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by bf-110

Will the new updates have graphics improvements?
Like,the water,effects...?

Except the brighter high-altitude sky... no.

[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