Official 1C Company forum

Official 1C Company forum (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/index.php)
-   Daidalos Team discussions (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/forumdisplay.php?f=202)
-   -   4.13 development update discussion and feedback (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40958)

daidalos.team 11-01-2013 05:37 PM

4.13 development update discussion and feedback
 
Hi, gents!


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40957


Feel free to give us your feedback to our development updates .


Thx! :cool:







.

shelby 11-01-2013 06:21 PM

What about P-40s

Furio 11-01-2013 07:54 PM

Thank you for the news. The He177 looks great!

RegRag1977 11-01-2013 08:08 PM

I'm impressed!
 
I'm really impressed guys,:shock: 4.13 dev update already and what is more with such a nice model, wow!

No need to precise you TD guys rock 8)

Notorious M.i.G. 11-01-2013 09:40 PM

He 177 looks beautiful, good to see some stuff on 4.13.:grin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by shelby (Post 510620)
What about P-40s

2 weeks

Gel-ler 11-01-2013 10:36 PM

Great Work!!!
We apreciate your hard work very much!!!

julien673 11-02-2013 02:09 PM

Woooww Tks :)

Tempest123 11-02-2013 04:15 PM

Woot, that is a really nice looking Heinkel, I'm impressed with the level of quality of TD updates, great work.

Airway 11-02-2013 04:50 PM

Awesome surprise!

Wonderful 3D model! And I would like to say, too pretty to leave it with the AI alone ;)
Make it pilotable, would be my wish :grin:

Team Daidalos is awesome. What adress to send the Christmas Whisky bottles to?
;)

nic727 11-03-2013 12:18 AM

That's amazing...

Next is a flyable B17? lol

ECV56_Guevara 11-03-2013 12:53 PM

Great to see you around again DT!
There s no easy way to say it...so...here I go:

Show us the Helldiver!!!!! ;)
:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin:

PS: Show us the Dewo!!!!

:grin::grin::grin:

fruitbat 11-03-2013 01:29 PM

Is there any news on the Team Pacific New Guinea map? Might this make its way into 4.13?

anikollag 11-05-2013 05:55 PM

News are always welcome. Thanks. He 177 is beautiful!

gauderio 11-06-2013 04:20 PM

Request for 4.13
 
Please:

Me and other Brazilian pilots talked about ideas to 4.13

- Effect of the sun in the cockpit as it is in Cliffs of Dover

- Define the tracers bullets with a single color for the aircraft (allied or axis) not to be identified from afar by the color of these tracers. (yellow would be the ideal color – yellow color for all tracers. Or red color.) This will add more realism for a true simulator.

- More realism option (host can set a EXPERT MODE in which the written indicator of the position of the flap, engine on/off, engine overheat and other can be switched on/off). Also bring more realism.

- Add new flyable aircrafts (G.55 for example)

- New maps (especially English Channel)

That's it.

Sorry my english and thanks.
:-P

Daniël 11-06-2013 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gauderio (Post 510754)
Please:

Me and other Brazilian pilots talked about ideas to 4.13

- Effect of the sun in the cockpit as it is in Cliffs of Dover

- Define the tracers bullets with a single color for the aircraft (allied or axis) not to be identified from afar by the color of these tracers. (yellow would be the ideal color – yellow color for all tracers. Or red color.) This will add more realism for a true simulator.

- More realism option (host can set a EXPERT MODE in which the written indicator of the position of the flap, engine on/off, engine overheat and other can be switched on/off). Also bring more realism.

- Add new flyable aircrafts (G.55 for example)

- New maps (especially English Channel)

That's it.

Sorry my english and thanks.
:-P

Hi gauderio,

The colour of the tracers actually depends on the material used in the tracers. For instance, the green tracers of some Russian guns use barium to give the green light to the tracer. Phosphorus gives a red light to tracers I believe. Different countries used different materials in the tracers, so I think the current tracer colours are realistic.

KG26_Alpha 11-06-2013 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniël (Post 510759)
Hi gauderio,

The colour of the tracers actually depends on the material used in the tracers. For instance, the green tracers of some Russian guns use barium to give the green light to the tracer. Phosphorus gives a red light to tracers I believe. Different countries used different materials in the tracers, so I think the current tracer colours are realistic.

Perhaps the distance visibility of the tracers especially at midday -/+ a few hours should be reduced.





.

shelby 11-07-2013 03:15 PM

About He-177 variants and the he177 b-0 was a 4 engine bomber
http://www.bw-hilchenbach.de/He__177__1.jpg

SaQSoN 11-07-2013 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shelby (Post 510796)
About He-177 variants and the he177 b-0 was a 4 engine bomber

All He-177 variants were 4-engine.

swiss 11-07-2013 05:20 PM

I must come to the conclusion maybe shelby is made of Xilon and raaaid dna. ;)

Florinm352 11-07-2013 05:21 PM

Please, TD, show some love to the old aircraft in the Sim, bring them up to date, PLEASE, they look and sound pitiful!

ddr 11-07-2013 05:35 PM

thank you DT for new development! seem to me it will be another great patch! :)
i hope to see (someday) some enancement on vehicles/train skins and models, and on older planes, bye!

_RAAF_Firestorm 11-07-2013 11:43 PM

DT, I'd like to ask a sensitive question regarding 4.13 and this is by no means a complaint or a criticism, it is intended to help plan out our squad server mission updates over the next 6-12 months:

The time lapse between major patches to date has been in the order of 15 to 17 months (for 4.10 to 4.11 to 4.12). Projecting this trend out places 4.13 release at around October to November 2014. This is of course dependant on the volume of planned content and the availability of TD resources. Is the above assumption realistic or can we can expect a smaller patch released earlier?

Appreciate all your hard work and amazing contributions, looking forward to your feedback.

ThePilot4ever 11-08-2013 06:21 AM

Thankyou Team Daidalos for keeping this old game spinning. I was in shock when I one day realized that my DVD version was completely outdated and that you had added lots of new aircraft amongst other things. Ever since I have come here like a child before christmas, looking for any news and sneakpeeks that you release (The He-177 being my favorite so far).

Request wise I don't want to go on some huge rant, so i'll keep it as simple as I can.

First off, my favorite feature is extra plane content. Tough I simply love the new smoke and fire effects and the skids and all that from the latest update, I can't help but point out that I simply love new aircraft, wether it be flying them, or riddling them with bullets.

So with that said, I have also noticed that some of the aircraft you add are made by seperate modders. Some of the planes being released by Modders (sutch as those from SAS) can be exceedingly irresistable to fly (or shoot). However, my modding escapade came to a quick end, probably due to my own incomepetence for modding, lol.

Basically what I would like added at some point, if modders allow it, would be the 1956 Korean war pack and/or that Spansih Civil War pack with allot of nice old aircraft. Tough I smell this to be invalid due to them running on a seperate mod engine.

If not possible, its pretty mutch the basic requests from here: B-26, More Fokker Types, A few Capronies, Helldivers, Lancasters, The Battle (maybe a bunch of british bombers), P-61, and so on.
Note: Please don't take this as a demand. I am quite happy with what you chaps at Team Daidalos are currently adding. Not to mention that I am still enjoying your previous patch.

Have a nice day, and good hunting!

ThePilot4ever

SaQSoN 11-08-2013 07:14 AM

ThePilot4ever, DT is always open for cooperation with 3rd party modelers, willing to contribute their creations for the official add-ons. However, their models, maps and what not should comply with 1C:Maddox and DT technical and quality requirements, which not always true for the planes and other objects, released as mods. Some authors are wiling to rework their models, but this takes quite some time, some other - have no desire, or time to do that. That is why it often takes much longer for a new plane to appear in the official release, then in a mod. And that is why some objects from mods do not get in at all. And the third reason for a mod not to get into the official release, is the fact that some mod authors do not want to see their work in the DT add-ons.
Next, DT, releasing official add-ons, has to follow certain rules, which would not allow inclusion of copyrighted material, which often get into modded IL-2 from MS Flight sim (or other games) without even notifing their original authors and owners, let alone getting their permission. Adding such stuff into the official IL-2 may bring serious leagal and financial problems to 1C and DT members. Obviously enough, DT tries to avoid at all costs getting their rears fried by lowyers. ;)
Finally, about jet era planes. DT memebers believe, that this topic does not belong to the WWII simulation and should be kept apart, may be in a new game, or in a separate installation, even using IL-2 engine. However, DT members do not have posibility, time and desire to support more then one game at a time. So we would gladly leave it for others.

daidalos.team 11-08-2013 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _RAAF_Firestorm (Post 510817)
DProjecting this trend out places 4.13 release at around October to November 2014. This is of course dependant on the volume of planned content and the availability of TD resources. Is the above assumption realistic or can we can expect a smaller patch released earlier?

We always wanted to keep shorter intervalls between patches, but the sheer availability of new features made us wanting more than what was good for our deadlines. Now with 4.13 we again approach it as to be a rather smaller patch with a closer relase date and I hope we can keep it that way this time. :rolleyes:

BTW: New update available!

gaunt1 11-08-2013 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daidalos.team (Post 510836)
BTW: New update available!

YEEEEEEESSSS!!!! N1K1J flyable! Thank you TD, thank you!!! :grin:

nic727 11-08-2013 09:30 PM

No Kickstarter to help daidalos Team? :D

ECV56_Guevara 11-09-2013 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nic727 (Post 510854)
No Kickstarter to help daidalos Team? :D

It s a very good idea.
I really like DT answering questions in here. I know, that time here is not time working in the patch, but I still like it.

wheelsup_cavu 11-09-2013 05:00 AM

Always liked the Japanese planes. 8)


Wheels

_RAAF_Firestorm 11-09-2013 06:30 PM

Thanks for the response TD.

Tempest123 11-09-2013 06:39 PM

love those Japanese planes, I know its not included but the float version N1K1 is such a unique plane, there's a photo around of one with a contra rotating prop, looks massive with the giant conical spinner.

felix_the_fat 11-09-2013 10:24 PM

By George, yes!!! this is just wonderful !!
thanks TD, for all your past & continuing great work.
No further words are needed:
when it comes to flight sims, your Team [plus Il2] are just the best ever!!
yours, Felix

Tempest123 11-10-2013 12:58 AM

particularly good website: http://www.ijnafphotos.com/

*{64s}Saburo 11-10-2013 08:09 AM

the kyofu N1K1 will be in the next patch 4.13 or not?

*{64s}Saburo 11-10-2013 08:21 AM

Is it possible to review the 3d engine cowlings of ki-46 and ensure that the glass roof of the ki-84 opens. there is also the fact that the sight of the guns back and d3ys d4ys does not appear in the cokpitt.

RegRag1977 11-11-2013 02:55 PM

Awesome
 
Pit for N1K1j!!!!!!!!!

Thank you, this is awesome news :)

Tolwyn 11-11-2013 05:00 PM

Disagree on new lighting effects. Some of us fly this sim under the original system requirements, or close thereto.

If you want new eyecandy, fly COD. Don't "eyecandy" this sim to the point where people can't run it on their machines.



Quote:

Originally Posted by gauderio (Post 510754)
Please:

Me and other Brazilian pilots talked about ideas to 4.13

- Effect of the sun in the cockpit as it is in Cliffs of Dover


:-P


Tempest123 11-11-2013 11:47 PM

This has probably been asked a million times but is there any updates to the dynamic campaign engine coming? To include the new features I mean.

julien673 11-12-2013 12:56 AM

Still dreaming about Night fighter, nice work by the way :))

Juri_JS 11-12-2013 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest123 (Post 510962)
This has probably been asked a million times but is there any updates to the dynamic campaign engine coming? To include the new features I mean.

Yes, but Team Daidalos isn't directly involved, it is an independent project.

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,20104.0.html
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=30765

Sita 11-12-2013 01:40 PM

Asura near by Team))

Fighterace 11-15-2013 02:46 PM

May we have an updated look at the new P-40s? :)

GROHOT 11-15-2013 06:52 PM

:(Today is friday, but nothing news about patch content...

ThePilot4ever 11-15-2013 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GROHOT (Post 511113)
:(Today is friday, but nothing news about patch content...

Not to worry. Time zones tend to differ. Also, they didn't promise anything ;)

daidalos.team 11-15-2013 08:22 PM

Indeed a bit late today (some people will just sit at their breakfast right now though), but there it is! ;)

shelby 11-15-2013 08:42 PM

At last the flyable IK3 comes

Fighterace 11-15-2013 10:11 PM

In short, you guys are amazing!!!

nic727 11-16-2013 01:25 AM

Hahaha, when I read the word "bird" I thought they added dynamic birds in the game lol...

But nice cockpit and plane :)

RegRag1977 11-16-2013 07:25 AM

International morning news
 
Extremist simers newspapers the Daily Whiner and the Holly Mustanguishness to rectify ideologic stance following mass protests this week: "TD won teh war™"!
Political movement, "Occupy Virtual Pits: we are the "zero" percent" whose participants wear the famous Oleg Maddox mask shocked public opinion yesterday after some were chanting "Salute to our kings: TeamDaidalos!" "Down with Democracy, we want new flyables"!

Thanks TD!

Flash news: German Bundeswehr trying new Blitzkrieg military agression tactics in Russia in order to get the Patch already reached Moskow:

video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IYnRQJas0

sermen 11-16-2013 07:33 AM

Maybe I will try here :) As I posted maybe a year earlier... The wings of Yak-3 VK-107A needs to be changed! They still have the size and shape of Yak-9U which is incorrect. Yak-3 VK-107A had the same shape of wings as Yak-3 (but all metal in later series). I think it is very important because Yak-3 VK-107 is the only aircraft in game whith such a big bug :) In my opinion it's model was created "as fast as possible" in order to be ready for VVS'46 release. Ok here is the blueprint showing correct model:
http://s18.postimg.org/s73t5utzt/yak...107a_small.png

igorlikesP-38 11-16-2013 08:06 AM

Dear Team Daidalos,

many thanks for the flyable IK-3. I guess most of us players and aviation history buffs from former Yugoslavia will really appreciate your hard work. Now we will be finally able to reenact some of the April war 1941, defence of Belgrade flights, that I used to read so often about as a teen.:grin:


P.S. Please, I do not want to be rude or disrespectful to you, but can you add in future patches flyable M.S.406/410- it really was an important fighter for both France and Finland (it would be a great add on for Finnish missions);)

Juri_JS 11-16-2013 08:37 AM

The Ik-3 cockpit is looking really nice, but I doubt it will be flown very often, as long as we don't have a Yugoslavia map in the game. To some degree this problem also exists for the He-177. I know it saw a limited use on the eastern front, but its main area of operation was western Europe. Unfortunatly there is no map in the unmodded version of game showing both parts of England and continental Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I love having these new planes in the game, but please Team Daidalos don't forget that we also need the necessary maps to build historical accurate missions for them.

daidalos.team 11-16-2013 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juri_JS (Post 511144)
Don't get me wrong, I love having these new planes in the game, but please Team Daidalos don't forget that we also need the necessary maps to build historical accurate missions for them.


Both projects, IK-3 cockpit and He177 were - like also other projects - initiated (and maybe donated) by extern groups (like squads or communities) and our Team 'only' took care of integration, programming, FM etc. ... and testing, quality control and some correctings in the models. Sometimes the responsible modelers are part of the team, sometimes not. However, these models would have existed anyway, even if the we never would have chosen them to be build - so they were low hanging fruits - why not pick them up? ;)

Proper maps would be good though.

ThePilot4ever 11-16-2013 12:14 PM

On the subject of maps, I wonder if, for example, someone made a map of Southern England or Battle of britain related planes sutch as the Anson, Do-17 or MK.1 Spitfire.
Would you be able to add those despite Cliffs of Dover being released? Or would that not count due to the fact that COD runs on a brand new engine. Still, I wonder some times.

Asheshouse 11-16-2013 12:23 PM

Its great to see more of the AI aircraft getting authentic cockpits. Each new flyable aircraft provides a new perspective on the sim. Many thanks to all of those involved.

SaQSoN 11-16-2013 12:36 PM

Actually, the whole IK-3 project (external and cockpit) was sponsored by a group of IL-2 fans, who wanted to see this plane in the game. They collected all possible historical reference, they could find and hired a 3rd party modelers (paid by donations from this group), who built the 3D models according to the DT standards.

DT is responsible only for the game integration (programming, animation, FM), which was done for free, as usual.

The story behind He-177 and Pe-8 are exactly the same. So if you want a specific plane in the game you have 3 ways: wait until DT may be, some day will include it; build the model yourself (according to the provided by DT technical specs) and supply it to the DT; hire someone, who will build this model for you.

SPITACE 11-16-2013 02:48 PM

Great news about the 4.13 update :-P I love to see the wellington flyable in the sim maybe one day :cool:

Bouma004 11-16-2013 10:58 PM

Please Daidalos team we want just one true French fighter of WW2 ! please just one ! ;)

MS 406, D520 or MB152

Pershing 11-17-2013 04:02 AM

IK-3? Better than nothing)

shelby 11-18-2013 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaQSoN (Post 511156)
Actually, the whole IK-3 project (external and cockpit) was sponsored by a group of IL-2 fans, who wanted to see this plane in the game.

I hope this group of fans will sponsore someday the IK-2 and the Ikarus S-49

Sita 11-18-2013 09:35 AM

1 Attachment(s)
and that Ikarus

sniperton 11-18-2013 09:43 AM

1 Attachment(s)
and cockpit...

Draken 11-18-2013 04:04 PM

I wish that the .ntrk files could be read backwards , please . This would be very useful for movie makers .

EJGr.Ost_Caspar 11-18-2013 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sita (Post 511236)
and that Ikarus

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...usonicarus.jpg

:grin:

GROHOT 11-18-2013 05:10 PM

Please give me drive this bus tonight?!

gauderio 11-20-2013 04:59 PM

Effect of sun
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolwyn (Post 510950)
Disagree on new lighting effects. Some of us fly this sim under the original system requirements, or close thereto.

If you want new eyecandy, fly COD. Don't "eyecandy" this sim to the point where people can't run it on their machines.



Simple, this effect could be chosen in the "video options" menu (or other menu: Landscape high settings).
- Enable effect of the sun
- Disable effect of the sun

Is this possible ? Do this and make it on/off in the video options ?
Who has a modest videocard just might disable the option.
I also have a modest video card (Radeon HD 5450) Basic U$ 25,00. My IL2 is in High settings with this modest videocard.

This effect is very beautiful and is a major cause of most pilots i know likes the Cliffs of Dover and the Battle of Stalingrad. They all have the same opinion "The IL2 1946 would be perfect with the effect of the sun".
These are the conversations that we always have on Ventrilo.

Thanks again and consider the possibility.
;)

Fighterace 11-22-2013 01:03 PM

can we get a 4.13 update video :P

GROHOT 11-22-2013 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fighterace (Post 511390)
can we get a 4.13 update video :P

No video - sad, but maybe patch on christmas better than video today?:-P
This just my IMHO...

GROHOT 11-22-2013 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar (Post 511253)

thank's for hint about next dev.update. In your picture same ground object:D

shelby 11-22-2013 04:52 PM

Glad to see more armored vehicles and they are the most needed for the ground attack missions. I hope to see much more in the future

RPS69 11-22-2013 06:32 PM

On the ground objects, german armored cars like SdkFz 222, 223, or 231, are a must for early war scenarios. Even for desert scenarios.
They were extensively used on the first period of the war. Not all AFVs are tanks!

Baddington_VA 11-23-2013 12:50 AM

2cm Flak 38 Vierling
At last.
A much overlooked yet almost iconic flak weapon.
Targets are going to look a whole lot better..

Fighterace 11-23-2013 01:19 AM

Great work as always TD

BadAim 11-23-2013 01:21 AM

Love the tank destroyers! This will give (Western) Allied ground forces a much needed balance against the Germans.

The FlaK Vierling shall cause Allied ground pounders much angst!

Very nice update boys. :)

JollySam 11-23-2013 03:32 AM

I have a suggestion, if I may. I hope this is in the right place.

As you know, the American side in this game doesn't have their own battleship model, but rather a reskinned British 'King George V' class battleship with a Stars and Stripes at its mast. This works rather well, I think.

Why not do the same for the American destroyers and submarines? You could copy them, paste a Royal Navy Ensign over the Stars and Stripes, and release them as 'HMS Destroyer Generic 1', 'HMS Destroyer Generic 2', and 'HMS Submarine Generic'.

It just seems strange that though the British have aircraft carriers and battleships in this game, they have no smaller ships to escort them.

Just a simple, visual-only addon, but I think RAF and Royal Navy mission makers would appreciate them.

Thanks alot, keep up the good work! I can't wait for 4.13 to arrive.

acepilot1 11-23-2013 06:24 AM

Verry good work Daidalos Team ...
 
First of all greath to see the He-177 comming in to the flight sim. Evry new aircraft is a plus point for the flight sim.
Also greath to see some more ground vehicles comming in , verry welkom are all the M10 and M36 models ...

Thanks to the Daidalos Team ...

Pershing 11-23-2013 06:37 AM

Great to see 2cm Flak 38 Vierling and Jagdtiger.
Hope that someday we will see Hummel, Wespe, Priest and air-correction-fire facilities.
Thanks DT!

Tempest123 11-23-2013 11:20 AM

The Skoda is such a weird looking vehicle, its like it was made by daleks or something.

Asheshouse 11-23-2013 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollySam (Post 511418)
As you know, the American side in this game doesn't have their own battleship model, but rather a reskinned British 'King George V' class battleship with a Stars and Stripes at its mast. This works rather well, I think.

Well, apart from the fact that it looks nothing like any US battleship which ever existed.

daidalos.team 11-23-2013 07:42 PM

Indeed! It was a faulty solution back then, made for PF on the bondaries of the NG issues... we don't want to repeat something like this.

Pursuivant 11-23-2013 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daidalos.team (Post 511447)
Indeed! It was a faulty solution back then, made for PF on the bondaries of the NG issues... we don't want to repeat something like this.

Subsequent to the consent decree, the Abiding Evil that is NG sold Ingalls Shipyards (and basically, all its surface warfare assets) to another company. Perhaps that modifies the consent decree and makes U.S. ships possible.

If TD doesn't want to mess with that, consider modeling U.S. ship types built entirely by U.S. Navy facilities which were never owned by NG.

For example, Mare Island Navy Yard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Island_Navy_Yard

A useful early WW2 type built here would be the Wickes-class "four stack" destroyer.

Or, if you want the USS Oklahoma, the USS Colorado or the USS California:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...ng_Corporation

Bankrupt about 45 years ago and never owned by NG.

Or, for the USS New Mexico, USS Tennessee, USS Iowa or USS Missouri:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Navy_Yard

Again, bankrupt about 45 years ago and never owned by NG (although the USS Arizona was built here yet somehow the legal eagles at NG claim copyright protection on her).

Or, perhaps look at ships built in shipyards once, or currently, owned by General Dynamics, which seems to be much saner regarding copyright issues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_Ri...ilding_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_Iron_Works

That would give you a very impressive roster of U.S. BB and CA types.

Asheshouse 11-24-2013 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 511457)

A useful early WW2 type built here would be the Wickes-class "four stack" destroyer.
-----------------

Again, bankrupt about 45 years ago and never owned by NG (although the USS Arizona was built here yet somehow the legal eagles at NG claim copyright protection on her).

We already have the Wickes Class in the game, USS Ward and USS Dent.

I believe that NG's USS Arizona copyright is limited to drawings they prepared of the wreck site. This would be an entirely reasonable claim, subject to the terms of their appointment to carry out the survey.

IMO a later class, such as the USS Washington (North Carolina Class), built at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, would be more useful for mission builders.

JollySam 11-24-2013 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daidalos.team (Post 511447)
Indeed! It was a faulty solution back then, made for PF on the bondaries of the NG issues... we don't want to repeat something like this.

This is a WW2-era game that involves the 'Third World War', Russians flying Superfortresses, and flying machines that never existed off a drawing board. I don't think 'a British flag on an American ship' is such an offensive idea in comparison. Plus, I'm pretty sure that at least one of those two destroyer types was used by the Royal Navy anyway.

A 'faulty solution'? Not really, I was trying to make a suggestion that would save you a load of work.

KG26_Alpha 11-24-2013 08:55 PM

Hi

Probably "work around" would be better than "faulty solution" as a comment on this.

Please allow for language differences on the forum as its a worldwide collective here
and the meaning is not always an intended offence caused to other forum members
due to language differences.

Il2 series has had lots of workarounds in the FMB due to copyright issues with aircraft and other objects,
I see no problem tagging shipping with Red Blue or Blue Red whatever gets the mission done.

Thanks










.

IceFire 11-25-2013 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollySam (Post 511474)
This is a WW2-era game that involves the 'Third World War', Russians flying Superfortresses, and flying machines that never existed off a drawing board. I don't think 'a British flag on an American ship' is such an offensive idea in comparison. Plus, I'm pretty sure that at least one of those two destroyer types was used by the Royal Navy anyway.

A 'faulty solution'? Not really, I was trying to make a suggestion that would save you a load of work.

I don't think its such a bad thing to put a different flag on in a pinch. If it's possible to have a proper British Destroyer as an escort ship then that'd be much more ideal of course.

I would like to point out that Russian Superfortresses in a hypothetical scenario isn't so far fetched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

847 Tu-4 copies of the B-29 were produced. The last was retired in the 1960s.

Pursuivant 11-25-2013 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheshouse (Post 511470)
I believe that NG's USS Arizona copyright is limited to drawings they prepared of the wreck site. This would be an entirely reasonable claim, subject to the terms of their appointment to carry out the survey.

Given that the survey was probably recent (i.e., within the last 20 years or so), I'll give the NG devil its due for that. OTOH, other "birdcage" superstructure battleships, such as USS Oklahoma or USS Nevada which were present at Pearl Harbor look to be fair game. They would be acceptable stand-ins for ships such as the USS Arizona for anyone other than WW2 battleship geeks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheshouse (Post 511470)
IMO a later class, such as the USS Washington (North Carolina Class), built at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, would be more useful for mission builders.

I completely agree. Pearl Harbor was a unique situation which doesn't really lend itself to long term campaigns. The salvageable ships from that attack were eventually refitted with very different superstructure and armament, so any "Pearl Harbor" battleships are only good for scenarios set on December 7th, 1941.

It would be much more meaningful for Mediterranean or European campaign builderrs to have the order of battle present at Taranto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto) or Midway, especially the smaller ships which were more common and make better targets for strike fighters.

Pursuivant 11-25-2013 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollySam (Post 511474)
This is a WW2-era game that involves the 'Third World War', Russians flying Superfortresses, and flying machines that never existed off a drawing board.

Let's just pretend that all the "fantasy-waffe" planes in IL:2 1946 never existed, along with the re-flagged King George IV.

But, the idea of being able to reflag ships is a good one.

Would it be possible to have user-designed camouflage schemes and flags for ships and perhaps other ground objects?

After all, you can have user design skins for aircraft, so why not ground vehicles? That way, skinners and mission designers could create theater or campaign specific skins for them and could "reflag" ships as necessary for various scenarios.

It's not even unrealistic. Some varieties of ships served with multiple nations. Others were close enough in appearance that they can stand in for different types.

Jami 11-25-2013 06:42 AM

First of all thanks for the hard work you are doing to keep this sim alive. The new planes and effects are great and the details as taxi to take off offer new possibilities for us mission builders etc.

But there is one thing annoys me and my squadron: the skill levels of AI fighters are too close to each other. So would it be possible to make rookies really rookie (like they really were) and aces may stand where they are. The random skill variation inside the main category makes AI pilots act almost like humans and that’s really a nice feature, but to my mind you’ll face more good skilled AI pilots than bad within the category. I don’t believe that in real life any rookie has been able to take full advantage of his plane’s all features and performance. In addition rookie’s shooting skills are amazing.
My squad has been flying IL-2 about 1500 h together since 2007 and we have seen this sim becoming better year by year. But now the problem is how to give our human rookies possibility to get in this world of air combat without feeling frustrated and hopeless when meeting AI rookies. I don’t want to lose them to War Thunder or similar unrealistic games. Even our most experienced members who have been flying several sims for 15 years think that AI rookies are unrealistic.

So I really hope to see that you’d expand the skill categories so that the rookies are real rookies with small variation and the ace AI pilots stand where they are at the moment - average and veteran somewhere between those. After that it makes sense to build and fly missions with all skill category AI pilots. My squad likes to fly historical or semi missions and we have built over 300 missions based on the memoirs of WWII pilots. And as you very well know there were many more really poor rookies than skilled aces in the skies those days.

majorfailure 11-25-2013 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 511501)
Would it be possible to have user-designed camouflage schemes and flags for ships and perhaps other ground objects?

+1

And while we are talking ships, I'd really like to see a few more cruisers and or destroyers. But what I feel is really absolutely necessary is a few more different merchant ships, and if only reskinned ones. Though a really big fleet oiler wouldn't hurt, either.

Asheshouse 11-25-2013 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 511500)
I'll give the NG devil its due for that. OTOH, other "birdcage" superstructure battleships, such as USS Oklahoma or USS Nevada which were present at Pearl Harbor look to be fair game. They would be acceptable stand-ins for ships such as the USS Arizona

NG's copyright cannot extend beyond the reproduction of the drawings they have produced. They have no copyright on images or models of Arizona, unless perhaps if the model is based entirely on their drawings. Their work was carried out for the National Park Service which is responsible for the Arizona site. More here: http://proceedings.esri.com/library/...cs/pap2025.pdf

Incidentally, there is a mod model of the USS Arizona in existence, made by Gofo. He also created models of USS Colorado and USS Tennessee, however they do not comply with stock game model specs. (Polycount too high and texture files too big -- no damage model and other minor things).

ben_wh 11-25-2013 05:30 PM

Would love to learn more about the status of the New Guinea/New Britain map that we have heard of for years.

This map, if made in the same quality as the Solomons maps, can be the centerpiece of 4.13 - at least in the PTO perspective.

http://www.warwingsart.com/TDWIP/NGNB/NGNB_Map_00.jpg

Cheers,

Pursuivant 11-26-2013 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jami (Post 511503)
But there is one thing annoys me and my squadron: the skill levels of AI fighters are too close to each other. So would it be possible to make rookies really rookie (like they really were) and aces may stand where they are.

Isn't this already possible in the FMB?

Since AI has gotten so much more human, I'd love to see more AI levels: "untrained" and "superhuman."

Untrained would be for pilots and gunners "straight from the farm" who have insufficient hours of training to be effective in combat.

While they can perform basic maneuvers, they will have some trouble with formation flying, regularly stall their plane during high performance maneuvers, will have virtually non-existent SA, bombing and gunnery skills, except maybe against bombers.

They should show lack of familiarity with the aircraft, doing things like not handling prop pitch or superchargers properly, and possibly damaging the engine with improper throttle changes. If IL2 modeled it, they'd also damage the engine by stressing it before it was fully warmed up.

In combat on their own, they'd use something like the old rookie AI model - basically flying around doing nothing, but with excessively aggressive attacks on obvious targets that can't shoot back. They'll badly overshoot B & Z attacks and might high speed stall due to aggressive turns in turning fights.

Against bombers, or any other target that throws a lot of bullets, they should be excessively timid. They either don't engage at all or attack from extreme range.

Gunnery and bombing skills should be abysmal. They should have no hope of hitting with a deflection shot more than 10-15 * "angle off," and they should regularly shoot at extremely distant targets (300+ m) without correcting for ballistics. Against large targets, they will lead the target as if it were much smaller and closer. They should also hesitate for a few seconds while they line up their shots, even easy shots. This makes snapshots impossible and makes collisions with enemy planes more likely

Bombing will be from extreme range without correcting for wind or target movement and with insufficient correction for airspeed and altitude.

When fighting as part of a squadron, however, Untrained pilots should spend far too much time trying to hold formation and sticking closely to their leader's tail while doing almost nothing useful as a wingman. When formation flying, they should have virtually no SA to their rear.

This level of AI would be appropriate for many German and Japanese pilots in late 1944 to early 1945 and many Soviet pilots in 1942 (and some in 1943) and some UK pilots in mid- to late 1940.

Superhuman would be based on the old model Ace AI - perfect engine management, SA, bombing and gunnery skills as well as improved resistance to G-forces, limited only by the AI's new inability to see through obstructions. Basically, "Terminator" flying an airplane. It would specifically be designed for players looking for an extra challenge, or to make the best historical aces, like Erich Hartmann or Hans Wind, suitably scary.

Currently, Rookie AI seems to be about right for gunnery accuracy from bombers. Average, Veteran and Ace bomber gunners are too effective. Remember, the best that any flexible gunner could do was about 5% hits, and in the game hits from rifle caliber MG seem to be too effective at penetrating armor and engine blocks, starting fires, and inflicting airframe damage.

As for fighter and attack planes Rookie to Average pilots don't seem to be aggressive enough, but their gunnery skills seem to be alright.

I'd prefer a Rookie or Average fighter pilot model where the AI has a tendency to be too aggressive - opening fire too soon, jamming their guns by making long bursts (if IL2 modeled that), bleeding off energy in turn fights with excessively sharp turns and overshooting targets in B & Z fights.

Rookies should also have a distinct preference for "turn and burn" dogfights, even if their plane isn't suited for it. Basically, every noob maneuver that seasoned online players laugh at.

If IL2 modeled it, Rookies might also forget to charge their guns, or otherwise prepare their weapons, prior to combat. They should also have a somewhat higher chance of attacking friendly planes, especially less familiar allied types or easily-confused types (e.g., Typhoon vs. Fw-190 vs. Lagg-5, P-51 vs. Bf-109G vs. Yak series, SBD vs. A6M series).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jami (Post 511503)
. I don’t believe that in real life any rookie has been able to take full advantage of his plane’s all features and performance. In addition rookie’s shooting skills are amazing.

What would help is more clarification from TD about what the different AI levels mean.

In defense of current Rookie AI, any military pilot who makes it through advanced training and type familiarization is going to be proficient in formation flying and advanced combat maneuvers. What they're going to lack is real-life gunnery experience (or, often any sort of gunnery experience), tactical knowledge and Situational Awareness.

Pursuivant 11-26-2013 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by majorfailure (Post 511504)
I'd really like to see a few more cruisers and or destroyers. But what I feel is really absolutely necessary is a few more different merchant ships, and if only reskinned ones. Though a really big fleet oiler wouldn't hurt, either.

I agree. Most plane to ship violence during WW2 wasn't against carriers or battleships. Instead, they were anti-shipping strikes or opportunistic attacks against the smaller ships and boats that made up the bulk of each country's navy.

I'd love to see a lot more ships of 5,000 tons or less, as well as lots of little ships and boats, such as patrol boats, trawlers and junks, which could be destroyed using MG or 20mm cannon fire.

I don't mind the relative lack of merchant ship types, although perhaps the Japanese freighter model could be scaled down to make a new coastal freighter type.

majorfailure 11-26-2013 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 511519)
I agree. Most plane to ship violence during WW2 wasn't against carriers or battleships. Instead, they were anti-shipping strikes or opportunistic attacks against the smaller ships and boats that made up the bulk of each country's navy.

Not only that, in nearly any task force there were destroyers/cruisers for ASW and FlaK support. And convoy escorts were destroyers or even smaller slower vehicles. For lesser targets as marine artillery support, it was destroyer and cruiser fire used (Japanese shellings of Henderson field e. g.).
Any new cruiser/destroyer could be used in more than a few scenarios, while battlships are always limited in that aspect.
And then there is the aspect of beauty, and you can say anything but some of these Japanese WW2 cruisers just look graceful, elegant, yet powerful and menacing.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 511519)
I'd love to see a lot more ships of 5,000 tons or less, as well as lots of little ships and boats, such as patrol boats, trawlers and junks, which could be destroyed using MG or 20mm cannon fire.

For those a ability to reskin them would at least allow for some different look.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 511519)
I don't mind the relative lack of merchant ship types, although perhaps the Japanese freighter model could be scaled down to make a new coastal freighter type.

I just don't like that every bigger merchant vessel of every nation looks entirely the same.

Vs. AI Rookies, they seem okay to me when considering shooting abilities, they shoot at far too great distances and usually miss. Maneuvering wise, hmm could be a little less skilled, but okay for me -at least they stall and crash sometimes. My impression is, that their SA is still too good, and that rookies should lack most in that department - and should more frequently not see the enemy sneaking up on them, especially when targeting one bandit themselves. I mean, thats what happens to any novice of this game, isn't it?

sniperton 11-26-2013 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 511518)
Against bombers, or any other target that throws a lot of bullets, they should be excessively timid. They either don't engage at all or attack from extreme range.

On the other hand, veteran and ace AI shouldn't venture to attack Betties and Wellingtons from level six and without a major speed advantage. Still, they are prone to do so, particularly at low altitudes. They level out well behind the bomber and try to close up in crossfire. Instead, they should dive on the bomber and use their deflection shooting skills. Pitifully, they do not seem to sport against bombers what they do sport against fighters. No head-on attacks, no side passes, only what also a rookie human does.

Jami 11-26-2013 02:05 PM

Many thanks Pursuivant for your "analysis". I couldn't agree more.
That kind of changes would give this sim a huge boost to even more realistic air battles and most of all this would give human rookies a chance to enjoy this great sim and possibility to develop their own skills little by little. The threshold to come into this sim as newbie is getting too high.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuivant (Post 511518)
As for fighter and attack planes Rookie to Average pilots don't seem to be aggressive enough, but their gunnery skills seem to be alright.

Have tried to fly against 2-4 I-16 with somewhat equal plane for example Hawk 75, MS406 or B-239? I have found them very aggressive and skilled even as rookie. I think that an average or better human pilot should be able to beat four rookie AI pilots with equal or even worse plane.

sniperton 11-26-2013 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jami (Post 511529)
I think that an average or better human pilot should be able to beat four rookie AI pilots with equal or even worse plane.

Really? I think in RL "an average or better human pilot" should never get into a situation where he alone has to fight 4 (four) enemy fighters at the same time, no matter how unskilled they are. Not even Luke Skywalker would do that. ;)

Jami 11-26-2013 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperton (Post 511530)
Really? I think in RL "an average or better human pilot" should never get into a situation where he alone has to fight 4 (four) enemy fighters at the same time, no matter how unskilled they are. Not even Luke Skywalker would do that. ;)

I agree that "should never...", but sometimes you can't help it. According to memoirs of WWII pilots they often faced situations where they had to fight against overwhelming enemies. Of course in the sim this depends on mission maker plans, correct/incorrect timing and how has the human pilot managed so far.

sniperton 11-26-2013 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jami (Post 511531)
I agree that "should never...", but sometimes you can't help it. According to memoirs of WWII pilots they often faced situations where they had to fight against overwhelming enemies.

Yep, and some of them even survived... Anyway, your point was that an average pilot "should be able to beat" 4 AI fighters in a 1 to 4 engagement. My point is that it wouldn't be realistic.

Jami 11-26-2013 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperton (Post 511532)
Yep, and some of them even survived... Anyway, your point was that an average pilot "should be able to beat" 4 AI fighters in a 1 to 4 engagement. My point is that it wouldn't be realistic.

Ok, this is not worth arguing. Let's be happy with our own opinions... :D


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.