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

[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..

[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.

[Brain32]

Originally Posted by FC99

There is nothing in game code that would make FW190 any different than other planes with self sealing tanks, if you don't believe LesniHU and me than take a look at game code yourself or find somebody who you trust and ask him to check code. If you find an error I'll correct it.

Ummm since the only one that fits that description would be you(no disrespect to LesniHU) I would say that is it then

[nearmiss]

Hate to rain on the parade, but.....

It really doesn't matter how much users vehemently complain and voice opinions. Oleg and his team are still the final authority on approved modifications to IL2.

If Oleg wants the big frame bars in FW190, it means we'll still have them.

COG,fuel leaks,etc. will still have Oleg oversight.

DT can make changes, but if Oleg approves or not is still the question.

So, I wouldn't get too worked up with demands and long-winded explanations about what needs a fix. I suggest if you have requests make them known, with some good references that corroborate your requests.
If you don't have the facts lined up properly all the verbiage and whining will only make requests suspicious.

[ElAurens]

In reference the P51's CoG. Since it is established that CoG does not change with fuel use, is it possible that the P51's CoG is simply placed incorrectly in the model to begin with? Perhaps in some attempt to replicate some of the P51's instability when rear tank is full? And what we feel in game when only 25% or less of fuel is on board is simply the lower weight of the aircraft with the CoG still in same (incorrect?) place?

If an earlier P51B or a P51A were modeled without the rear tank, where would the CoG be placed vs. the ingame P51s we currently have?

And why not do an early P51B without the rear tank? Or even better a P51A (Mustang I). It would be the fastest aircraft in the ETO below 15,000 ft. in 1943.

[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.

[Daiichidoku]

Originally Posted by csThor

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

true, but common sense cna make it manageable;

a separate forum for ac types by family, and then only for flyable types

yak

la/lagg

mig

po

spits

hawker

mossie

38s

bell

north american

grumman (can i say that? )

40s

47s

messerschmitt

folke wulfe

heinkel

junkers

macchi

G.50

nakajima

mitsubushi

tonys


just a list off the top of my head, but shows it could be quite manageable

would only be relatively few types per thread, except yaks (which i dont think has too many problems) or 109s perhaps....but still worth considering IMHO

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by LesniHU

That 5 year old thread is from time approx 14 (fourteen!) patches ago. I did some tests and IvanK did some, I looked in the code too, but will not spend my time presenting results because you are still in 2004 set not to believe anything else that you already "know".
I did not comment compressibility because IvanK already did. FYI I already had these data before 2007 when I first modeled compresibility in il2 engine and effort to implement it to DT patches was already running for some time before this thread even started.
Otherwise you are right, I should get to work, I already wasted too much time on this conversation. Thank you for your participation in this thread.

The point of talking about the old thread was to illustrate just how much of an issue it was at the time. That isn't to say it's not an issue now. It took quite a bit to get some changes implemented some of which were made public and some weren't.

I'm glad you guys are working on the compresibility portion of the sim. It's clear the sim was meant to be a tactical ground pounding sim with little in the way of coming close to Mach. I'm glad to see some attention was made to high Altitude performance and the addition of high performance aircraft. It's clear some more attention would be good. It's obvious from a testing perspective without the tools there aren't any maps with standard temps and pressures to do some actual testing. None that I know of at least. Hopefully some of these third party tools will mature and you guys will have a positive effect in this regard. Then there can be no whining.

I certainly hope you guys have the opportunity to address some of the issues raised wheather you think they are there or not. The fact is if you look you will find fault with some of the modeling of this game. It's after all a 40 dollar game not a multi million dollar study sim.

I hope that some of the built in limitations of DM FMs can be expanded and modeled so the sim reaches yet another level beyond what we have today.

Good luck in your efforts.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by csThor

Ah so you go to a doctor, give him a phone number and say "Call my family. They know the symptoms I've been showing." ? That sounds silly, doesn't it? But this is exactly what you're doing right now. You still haven't said upfront what you think the issue here is. No airy pointing at ancient threads, no vague statements as "There are plenty of screen shots and tests done to prove just that." Why is it so hard to say this and this may be a problem and I suspect that and that may be the reason?

And regarding adult behavior ... No, you haven't resorted to namecalling, but when reading your posts I couldn't help but "see" the major pout on your face.

Not sure what you're talking about.... Written word is difficult to interpret so I think it's really difficult to understand someones intent especially in a world where we hit the submit reply button all too quick.

The point of pulling up the old thread was that there is a very LONG history when it comes to discussing the 50s. No I don't need them to hit like 20mms. Like everyone who flies IL2 we all want some semblance of reality. Make sense?

This whole concept of proving stuff is a double edge sword. In some cases it goes to the extreme and in the past even when Oleg was presented with information it was often overlooked or pass off as Propaganda. That's not made up stuff. I can actually understand why he took a stance at some point. A lot of stuff can be presented and it comes across as just being a Feeling or without basis. The fact is people have experience with the sim for the past 8 years and several patches and know the history and can see with their own eyes what's actually happening. Do a little testing in QMB and bingo there is your proof. Sadly some things will get overlooked but over all I think it's made IL2 what it is today.