PDA

View Full Version : Top Three Fixes for 4.09



Pages : [1] 2

BD_Gryphon
05-26-2007, 09:12 PM
Please post your top three fixes for 4.09

Dont ask for new maps or aircraft, just state what needs to be done to take what we have now closer to perfection

My top three are:

1. 50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed.
2. Spitfire LFIX models need the Merlin 66 engine model not the Merlin 63 that all the MkIx Spits (except the MkIx25LBS) seem to share
3. B25 bombsight speed entry says TAS MPH but it seems to be TAS KTS in reality (15% difference)

FE_pilot
05-26-2007, 09:36 PM
They need to fix:


1. The speed advantage the AI has plus the negative G dives that they perform.

2. The Ju-87G gun pods have a slower ROF then what it was in real life.( Oleg, the axis need a good tank buster to). That needs a fix.

3. The IL2 37mm gun needs to have correct damage model.( i don't think it was able to penetrate the armor of a King Tiger in real life.)

I can think of many more but these will do if they are fixed.

jermin122
05-26-2007, 11:17 PM
50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed.

Do you mean P51 or P47? The firepower of P51 is of course weaker.

However, 0.5 seconds burst of P51 can easily set any Bf109 on fire or heavy smoking.

Pollack2006
05-26-2007, 11:23 PM
The .50s are fine.

BD_Gryphon
05-27-2007, 12:23 AM
Well I would like to point out that even though my issue is with 50 cals vs German aircraft, not 50 cals in general, I do not agree with the last 2 posters.

tigertalon
05-27-2007, 01:30 AM
.50 cals still miss incendiary power while their armour piercing and structural damage inflicting ability are awesome, even overrated possibly. Looks like their ammobelt is ball-ball-ball-IT, instead of API-API-API-APIT. Just in case anyone interested missed test tracks I posted here some months ago:

http://files.filefront.com//;7546121;/ (3.5 megs)

Compare the P-39Q-10 track (.50 cals) with any of other three with light MGs.

GH_Klingstroem
05-27-2007, 05:54 AM
Personally I would like the spread of the 0.50s to be wider...
Try this: Go offline take a spit and use ONLY four 0.30s. Now fire at ur target from ANY angle and notice that u will score more hits on ur target. U will see more sparks and flashes.
Ok the 0.30s are weak so they dont cause much damage but imagine now if they were .50s of the p51!!
Now take a p51(any version) or a p47 and notice that its MUCH more difficult to score hits!
The reason for this is easy.

Back in 2004 I think it was, people complained that the 0.50 were to weak for various reasons (remember in those days we didnt have much "aileron damaged, elevator damage, rudder damage").. Well Oleg was persuaded to make the 0.50s have less spread in order to give the .50s a better punch when they actually did hit. Oleg himself even said that this wasnt going to be realistic but he did it anyway. Think Leadspitter persuaded him saying that some US aces in the war had a smaller spread cause they were so good at aiming anyway.

But now in 4.08 the .50 rounds themselves do more damage so I think we can go back to having a better spread of the .50s like the 0.30s of the spits and p39s.

As it is now when flying a p51 or p47 your target must be EXACTLY on the pipper in the gunsight(the little dot) or all of ur rounds will miss, we all know how difficult that is!
However if they had the same spread as the 0.30s of the spits and p39s etc etc they would cause ALOT more damage! Sure they would be more spread out over your target but that is more realistic!
Ok instead of just answering to this, TRY it first and THEN come back with your opinion.
I fly the P51 ONLY when im online and know this AC very well, and I think the .50s are fine when you hit with them but it needs more spread, just a tiny bit! A good trick is also to come back on convergence to maybe 150-175m.

i200th_Sakagawa
05-27-2007, 06:50 AM
seting for japanese OHKA sucide bomb.In FMB you cant delay ohka to first ground attack way point ist just set for default and Betty will realise ohka after ~5 minutes whatever you will do so its unable to do long flights with them to cower flight of bettys with ohkas.Repair it its realy big bug because ohka is now un useble.

Pollack2006
05-27-2007, 06:58 AM
Ack...didn't mean to turn Gryphon's thread into a .50s discussion. So with that in mind i'll throw my top 3 fixes/tweaks into the hat....

1: Spawn stutters/pauses online (or whatever causes them)

2: Adjustable font size for chat-bar and HUD. Also user can position HUD messages wherever they want on screen.

3: Radiator controls; open and close incrementally instead of having to cycle through all settings.

Manu-6S
05-27-2007, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
1. 50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed.


Oh God...

In RL they rarely lost wings and flamed... usually they smoked. Too much History Channel for you I guess.

My 3 request (but I know no 4.09 will come out):

1: Elevator stiffness of BF109 is wrong in a range 250-300 Km/h (actually 450-500, in RL 650-700 but using two arms you can still fly it)

2: Add Spitfires models the weight they miss to make them fly like they do now. (CHEATS)

3: Hellcat DM is too strong in my opinion.

PS: But my dream is a new FM for Antons... that model is so bugged... (it was not only fast in RL).

VW-IceFire
05-27-2007, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
1. 50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed.


Oh God...

In RL they rarely lost wings and flamed... usually they smoked. Too much History Channel for you I guess.

My 3 request (but I know no 4.09 will come out):

1: Elevator stiffness of BF109 is wrong in a range 250-300 Km/h (actually 450-500, in RL 650-700 but using two arms you can still fly it)

2: Add Spitfires models the weight they miss to make them fly like they do now. (CHEATS)

3: Hellcat DM is too strong in my opinion.

PS: But my dream is a new FM for Antons... that model is so bugged... (it was not only fast in RL). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spitfires are missing weight? Thats the first time I've heard that.

Hellcats DM is too strong? If its to be weakened then the tail section has to be strengthened. Its always falling off.

DVX_immortal
05-27-2007, 08:19 AM
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/chambon/time/43mussolini.jpg
MUSSOLINI ESCAPE.


ADDED new station of refuel point in all airports.
REFUEL
CHARGE THE MUNITIONS AND ARMAMENTS.

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S: (but I know no 4.09 will come out)

Can you share the source of this information?

Gitano1979
05-27-2007, 08:23 AM
1) Loadouts for 109's, 190's, early Spits, Mossie and any other i forgot;

2) a "non-derated eastern front jabo" FW-190A-4, with better throttle response (any 190);

3) unlock spawning points in coops from airfields, so human players can taxi to runway.

DKoor
05-27-2007, 08:43 AM
I'm sorry but I disagree with .50cal being weak.
It's in fact very powerful weapon.
The bad side of it is that you need enormous time spent practicing shooting with it because you must know where they are going to after you fire them, they aren't very visible so target tracking isn't easy.

I flew Vs people who are excellent with P-47 and P-51, and around 4 out of 5 times my ac is disabled (for further combat) after they make one pass on me.

Just.... those weren't mudmoving arcade battles at 500m alt, but high alt fights..... where ac such is P-47, P-38 or P-51 excel.
On high speeds they are very stable and you practically can't shake them off at alt.

SUPERAEREO
05-27-2007, 08:49 AM
I'd suggest:

1) Stop Ju.87 rear gunner to be able to shoot through the fuselage

2) Stop gunners on B-25 and Boston to be able to shoot their own plane to pieces: this in reality was impossible since all allied bombers were fitted with fire interrupters to avoid this evenience (this happens on the Me.110 as well, but only in part, if one tries to shoot off his own tailplane, one can hear the bullets hit but no damage ever happens).

avimimus
05-27-2007, 09:06 AM
I seriously doubt that these could be fixed:
1. Make AI fighters be able to randomly retreat (as a *.ini option)
2. Make bridges, trains and buildings more durable (I know that trains could be fixed as they were durable in the original Il-2)
3. Something Oleg wants

Brain32
05-27-2007, 12:07 PM
2. Spitfire LFIX models need the Merlin 66 engine model not the Merlin 63 that all the MkIx Spits (except the MkIx25LBS) seem to share

I just don't understand while people write such things as above??? Pure BS, how did you came to that conclusion, a womans intuition?

BD_Gryphon
05-27-2007, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:

I just don't understand while people write such things as above??? Pure BS, how did you came to that conclusion, a womans intuition?

You take the IL2 performance data out of IL2Compare, and plot it in Excel alongside the real life data from www.spitfireperformance.com (http://www.spitfireperformance.com)

This reveals the supercharger profile that Oleg used when he modelled the MkIX. It helps settle the endless arguments about whether the Spitfire is overmodelled. In other words, you use the best data available, compare A to B, and reach a conclusion. Sorry you didnt understand.

i200th_Sakagawa
05-27-2007, 01:53 PM
Manu-6S you are my hero and also will call mainly spit mkVII is overmodeled now i dont know what they did but they touched something and now mkVII is much better than was.I noticed really big difference in stall fight(really dificoult to stall now)and much much engine power keeping in low speeds when you climbing

JG4_Helofly
05-27-2007, 03:26 PM
1. Correct climb rates for all planes
2. Correct turn times for all planes
3. Addition of important loadouts

If not in iL2 than in BoB.

Manu-6S
05-27-2007, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by i200th_Sakagawa:
Manu-6S you are my hero and also will call mainly spit mkVII is overmodeled now i dont know what they did but they touched something and now mkVII is much better than was.I noticed really big difference in stall fight(really dificoult to stall now)and much much engine power keeping in low speeds when you climbing

I always claimed that G2 was uber too in is energy retention, above all before 4.08... and some weeks ago I posted my experience in training with my squad flying 109F4 vs SpitVc (we usually fly this matchup).

With 4.08 I FEEL (note, a FEELING generated by the constant training flying these planes) that planes in general retain more energy than before (look at Antons).

But I feel the game very different, above all Spit's FM: before 4.08 their FM was "strange" in energy retention, NOW I really HATE them.

Using proper tactics Spits, with their energy retention,can stand up in a ratio of 1/4 against Antons (Some week ago my squad, flying A8 took more the 20 minute to bring down Fenrir, Gryphon's mate... he has all my respect because he really knows how to energy fight, something that many Spits pilot don't know (thks God!) because their plane did not need that to be deadly).

The weight issue is only a guess that I have since the Lagg episode (and I would add G2 too): they retained too much energy because of lower weight. I FEEL that the same is for Spit FM (dives like a bugged Anton, zooms like a BF109)

I really can't wait to see the plane's data (REAL numbers) inside IL2 code... It will be fun.

About Hellcat: I just was thinking about a 3th request (knowing that will be no change at all, I WISH: Oleg needs only to finish SoW now), so I remembered some fight I took with F6 (with and against) where those planes didn't go down easily if hitted with cannons: instead I proved something like 0.50cal-vs-Anton... but Japanese planes had 20mm... and the same a week ago in Spitvs109 DF server (flyng a BF.. but with one 20mm I can understand...)

About the 4.09: It's a wish... as I said before Oleg needs only to develop Sow... I don't want another patch to see Spit stronger... (and maybe a K4 who doesn't climb like now... I KNOW IT IS OVERMODELLED, but look at my first request).

i200th_Sakagawa
05-27-2007, 05:13 PM
my last word in this topic.Fully agreed with JG4 and Manus.Also hate spits FM now its ridicules what for they touched it i have no clue.SOO EASY TO FLY IN SPITS NOW BUT MABYE THIS GAME IS CREATED FOR NOOBS.cheers chaps

DKoor
05-27-2007, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
1. Correct climb rates for all planes
2. Correct turn times for all planes
3. Addition of important loadouts

If not in iL2 than in BoB. +1

....and Kate pit, please, too. Since no US carrier torp bomber will made it in. Avenger pit or Devastator would be a blast tho.

pilot_p-38
05-27-2007, 10:46 PM
Please get rid of the airplane's labels when you see a movie or replay saved.

Because of the size of some monitors the user have to use the labels to identify clearly the allied or axis planes, but for the recorded movie the program should not present that labels.

Thank you

jermin122
05-28-2007, 05:04 AM
Elevator stiffness of BF109 is wrong in a range 250-300 Km/h (actually 450-500, in RL 650-700 but using two arms you can still fly it)
Bump!

My 3 requests:
1. MW50 should have a cooling effect for the engine, not a heating effect as in the game.
2. Increase the low speed (0-100 km/h) acceleration performance of A9, 40% throttle can hardly push it forward.
3. Change the DM of all 109s. Just several hits of .50 can set it on fire or heavy smoke.

alert_1
05-28-2007, 06:19 AM
1/ Corrected FM of Me109G6/G6 Late:it should be only about 50kg heavier then Me109G2/G4 and very close performancewise (climb/turn)
2/ Full rated BMW801D2 on Fw190A4 (2700rev/min) and 1780 hp instead of 1580 we have now!
3/ Jaerer notleistng for Fw190A8 (2050hp) instead of only 1800hp we have now..
That's all folks...

Col._King
05-28-2007, 08:44 AM
~S~

Please fix the too fragile tailsection of the P-38.

Thank you.

DKoor
05-28-2007, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Col._King:
~S~

Please fix the too fragile tailsection of the P-38.

Thank you. +1

38 disintegrates too easily http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WOLFMondo
05-28-2007, 09:28 AM
1. A Sabre IIB Tempest V
2. Late war Mossie
3. True 16:10 widescreen support.

joeap
05-28-2007, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

I always claimed that G2 was uber too in is energy retention, above all before 4.08... and some weeks ago I posted my experience in training with my squad flying 109F4 vs SpitVc (we usually fly this matchup).

With 4.08 I FEEL (note, a FEELING generated by the constant training flying these planes) that planes in general retain more energy than before (look at Antons).

But I feel the game very different, above all Spit's FM: before 4.08 their FM was "strange" in energy retention, NOW I really HATE them.

Using proper tactics Spits, with their energy retention,can stand up in a ratio of 1/4 against Antons (Some week ago my squad, flying A8 took more the 20 minute to bring down Fenrir, Gryphon's mate... he has all my respect because he really knows how to energy fight, something that many Spits pilot don't know (thks God!) because their plane did not need that to be deadly).

The weight issue is only a guess that I have since the Lagg episode (and I would add G2 too): they retained too much energy because of lower weight. I FEEL that the same is for Spit FM (dives like a bugged Anton, zooms like a BF109)

I really can't wait to see the plane's data (REAL numbers) inside IL2 code... It will be fun.

About Hellcat: I just was thinking about a 3th request (knowing that will be no change at all, I WISH: Oleg needs only to finish SoW now), so I remembered some fight I took with F6 (with and against) where those planes didn't go down easily if hitted with cannons: instead I proved something like 0.50cal-vs-Anton... but Japanese planes had 20mm... and the same a week ago in Spitvs109 DF server (flyng a BF.. but with one 20mm I can understand...)

About the 4.09: It's a wish... as I said before Oleg needs only to develop Sow... I don't want another patch to see Spit stronger... (and maybe a K4 who doesn't climb like now... I KNOW IT IS OVERMODELLED, but look at my first request).

I agree with your points, especially about the Spits and G2 but not about the Hellcat, I don't think you have enough evidence to claim it is "too strong." I have no problem knocking them down in my offline Japanese campaigns. Not had the chance to hit them in online combat yet as I have flown mostly Euro maps.

Kurfurst__
05-28-2007, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Spitfires are missing weight? Thats the first time I've heard that.


Mk VIIIs seem to have the same weight as Mk IXs... despite having 50% more fuel etc. That clearly seems to be wrong.

BSS_Vidar
05-28-2007, 12:19 PM
1. Include 50cal API... I've flown with the current 50cal, and against it. It hits adequatly for a (GP) General Purpose round, considering a single GP round shatters a 3 ft thick block of concrete from 1500m. We all know API was the standard load out in both theaters, so lt's get it added in. API will improve realizm.

German nickname for the P-47: "The Buzzsaw"

2. Fix the Zekes dive issues. Ailerons SHOULD freeze above 200 kts indicated, Elevator should lock up above 250. However, rudder should remain effective throughout all speed regimes. I've had the Zeke in 350+mph dives with only some degridation to flight control inputs.

3.F6F-5 Hellcat's virticle climb capabilities and energy retention needs improving. If an M5 with roughly the same energy state went to the virticle fight engaged with an F6F-5, the Zeke could not out climb it.

F6F note: The Hellcat had only 2 flap settings: Up, and Fully Extended. However, once in a fight, they were deployed. The rigging used on the flaps allowed the flaps to real in and out at any deflection due to whatever speed regine they were in. (The closest thing to the first fly-by-wire reactionary system) but without the fly-by-wire avionics technology.

4. The Spitfire: Good lord! Add some weight or something. The Spit was only slightly more manueverable than a 109 due to the large wing. However, the 109's flaps kept it in the fight.

S!

Manu-6S
05-28-2007, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
I agree with your points, especially about the Spits and G2 but not about the Hellcat, I don't think you have enough evidence to claim it is "too strong." I have no problem knocking them down in my offline Japanese campaigns. Not had the chance to hit them in online combat yet as I have flown mostly Euro maps.

You will find them in Spitsvsbf109 In one of the mediterrean maps (if I remember well with G2, bf110 and spitVc(4)... Gryphon sure can tell you better).

I believe that my opinion on Hellcat'DM is surely not stronger than my opinion on Spits: in a tournament I took down 2 Hellcat with a Rufe but the last one I spend all my ammo until I cut his controls.

I admit that I flyed them (and against them) something like 1% of my time in IL2 since I, like you, prefer western front (and I'm proud to never have flyed a Spit in the last 100 mission in the server above http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ).

SUPERAEREO
05-28-2007, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by alert_1:
1/ Corrected FM of Me109G6/G6 Late:it should be only about 50kg heavier then Me109G2/G4 and very close performancewise (climb/turn)



AFAIK it should be at least 268Kg heavier than the G-2, and I don't see how it could be otherwise...

SUPERAEREO
05-28-2007, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
I agree with your points, especially about the Spits and G2 but not about the Hellcat, I don't think you have enough evidence to claim it is "too strong." I have no problem knocking them down in my offline Japanese campaigns. Not had the chance to hit them in online combat yet as I have flown mostly Euro maps.



You will find them in Spitsvsbf109 In one of the mediterrean maps (if I remember well with G2, bf110 and spitVc(4)... Gryphon sure can tell you better).

I believe that my opinion on Hellcat'DM is surely not stronger than my opinion on Spits: in a tournament I took down 2 Hellcat with a Rufe but the last one I spend all my ammo until I cut his controls.

I admit that I flyed them (and against them) something like 1% of my time in IL2 since I, like you, prefer western front (and I'm proud to never have flyed a Spit in the last 100 mission in the server above http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I find that Hellcats burn beautifully when hit in the fuel tank with 20mm rounds - just my experience, and I haven't "fought" them that often, but shooting from a deflection they did not seem too hard to down (they had good armour front and back).

You should try a Spitfire sometimes, none of my business but I would not criticise any planes I have never tried in the sim myself...

No disrespect intended.

striker-85
05-28-2007, 01:16 PM
1) Fix the graphics problem when in Perfect Mode with Use3renders=1 (flashing black box in lower left corner)http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/452...501038135#4501038135 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/4521077615?r=4501038135#4501038135)

2) Enable device link while playing online to drive simpit guages.

3) Rewind capability while playing tracks.

MOH_Hirth
05-28-2007, 01:47 PM
1-6DOF... you can SEE IN YOUTUBE, is possible, I KNOW THE PROBLEMS, but let us this option, this can be in a unoficial addon.
This will give a big ingrease in realism sensation.
2- Cockpit P-36... only in dream.
3- Still FM revision work details.
Example: FW A9 have diferent propeler than A8, so this change anything...

Kurfurst__
05-28-2007, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
AFAIK it should be at least 268Kg heavier than the G-2, and I don't see how it could be otherwise...

Historical TO weights, clean :

G-2 : 3037 kg
G-6 : 3100 kg

Spaturnio
05-28-2007, 02:48 PM
I'm pretty new, or better, I've been away for long, since IL-2 first release, so pardon me if the issue I suggest have been already discussed.

1946 Patch 1.08

1) Bf-109E7 has GM1 available but the engine gets out of action as soon as GM1 is switched off.
This happens every time I tried it.

2) Cr.42 seems to me to float forever once the engine has been switched off/disabled: true, this is very light biplane, but by bo means it is a glider!.

Wishlist:
He-129 B2 version with either MK101 or Mk103 30mm anti tank gun, and, possibly a cockpit.

Fiat G55 ?
Please?
Pretty please? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

alert_1
05-28-2007, 03:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by alert_1:
1/ Corrected FM of Me109G6/G6 Late:it should be only about 50kg heavier then Me109G2/G4 and very close performancewise (climb/turn)



AFAIK it should be at least 268Kg heavier than the G-2, and I don't see how it could be otherwise...

LOL! having bad day at office? good joke though..

DKoor
05-28-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by alert_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by alert_1:
1/ Corrected FM of Me109G6/G6 Late:it should be only about 50kg heavier then Me109G2/G4 and very close performancewise (climb/turn)



AFAIK it should be at least 268Kg heavier than the G-2, and I don't see how it could be otherwise...

LOL! having bad day at office? good joke though.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey why are you quoting yourself? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

BTW when those exact numbers are mentioned...... well.... let it just be noted that 109G6 and 109G6 Galland hood aren't exactly the same models. Weight wise.

SUPERAEREO
05-28-2007, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by alert_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by alert_1:
1/ Corrected FM of Me109G6/G6 Late:it should be only about 50kg heavier then Me109G2/G4 and very close performancewise (climb/turn)



AFAIK it should be at least 268Kg heavier than the G-2, and I don't see how it could be otherwise...

LOL! having bad day at office? good joke though.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So the difference between a take off weight of around 2840Kg and one of 3125-3150Kg is 50Kg?

Sources differ, but the minimal difference I have found is 207 kilos, and it sounds optimistic...

Interminate
05-28-2007, 08:40 PM
No more lockups with sound of guns repeating. UGH! everything is beautiful until this moment. I hate that.

AMD 4800 dual core
2 GIG CORSAIR XMS ram
Nvidia 7800 GT 256 ram
MSI k8 plat mobo
FAT zalman heatsink 9500

Manu-6S
05-29-2007, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
You should try a Spitfire sometimes, none of my business but I would not criticise any planes I have never tried in the sim myself...
No disrespect intended.

Ehm Super... I told I never flyed it in my last 100 sorties in Spitvs109: yesterday blue pilots outnumbered the red so I took Red side... but flying a P51B instead of the SpitIX LF.

In my squadron we usually fly them in training against our 109 and sometimes in DF server too (in the past, for myself)

As I said before I have experience in them, but flying with energy tactics (those you need to fly german and american planes), and using such tactics usually they win (talking about SpitVb against F4... you can only survive extending if the spit's guy knows his job).

109 can still win if the spit's guy don't look behind himself (like usually they do in DF... How many kills the german do in DnB?)

And again, I have no problem in fight spitfires... they are my favourite preys: my problems with his FM is because when I flyed them I could do something unbelievable for a warbird... I'm talking about relative performance compared to the other planes ingame.

I'm not joking when I say you that in a sortie in Spit me or my teammates can kill enemies easier than with G2 (using the same tactics).

If I don't take Spit is because I think they are cheats and I would feel like a cheater (but I still respect people like Fenrir because he flyes it like a warbird and not like a tieFigher in the noob's style).

Yesterday I took a P51B and I made 3 kills in the first sortie (with the useless 0.50cal... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif ) and damaged other but not killed: using spit probably I could still kill them all but I wouldn't feel the satisfaction of a good SA and the deflection shooting at 800km/h.

XyZspineZyX
05-29-2007, 02:07 AM
Back onto topic

Fix the fuel guage on the 190s so 100% = 100% & 75%= 75% Currently 75% = 100% indicated fuel load out.

If the prop pitch cheat still exists with the Tempest then correct this.

Sort the loadouts for the 109 re the thread created by Dkoor

JG52Karaya-X
05-29-2007, 02:48 AM
Normal takeoff weight for the G2 was 3030kg and just under 3100kg for the G6, so not that much of a huge difference.

Given that the Russians have tested a captured G2 to perform a full circle in just 20,5 secs I refuse to believe that the G6 with some 50-60kg more would need 23secs (which it does ingame, thats more than a real G2/G6 with gondolas).

BTW the Bf109Fs are also slightly undermodelled with 20-point-something ingame whereas the F4 took just 19secs for a complete circle IRL

SUPERAEREO
05-29-2007, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Normal takeoff weight for the G2 was 3030kg and just under 3100kg for the G6, so not that much of a huge difference.



AFAIK the smallest difference in max takeoff weight I have ever found was 7055lbs (3200Kg) for the G-2 and 7500lbs (3402Kg) for the G-6, and that is the smallest difference I have ever found quoted... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

mynameisroland
05-29-2007, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by dasriech:
If the prop pitch cheat still exists with the Tempest then correct this. So I can A - historically run away from them in my D9 like I used too. Even though I know in WW2 the Tempest was faster.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Id like to see either a 11lb Sabre IIA or a Sabre IIB late war boosted Tempest. It makes me cry with laughter catching D9s in my April 1944 variant but Id like to have a 11lb boost model for map balance issues. It would stop Fw 190 pilots crying about cheaters every time they get caught by a 9lb Tempest and it would give the RAF a plane that pwoned the Luftwaffe fair and square.

Mysticpuma2003
05-29-2007, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
1. Include 50cal API... I've flown with the current 50cal, and against it. It hits adequatly for a (GP) General Purpose round, considering a single GP round shatters a 3 ft thick block of concrete from 1500m. We all know API was the standard load out in both theaters, so lt's get it added in. API will improve realizm.

German nickname for the P-47: "The Buzzsaw"



Also my No.1, cheers Vidar.

No.2: Please fix the too fragile tail section of the P-38.

Sort of agree with this, but I'd rather see it more damageable, in that it should take hits that can cut the centre span (so it can still fly), rather than the whole section falling off. Basically, you know that if you get hit in the tail....your bailing out!

No.3 Change the single animation for static aircraft and trains, so that instead of hitting them and in one-frame they change from perfect image to black smouldering wreck (even a moving train), they could be more like a respawned plane which falls apart when straffed or bombed. Similar for train, in that it could actually steam and de-rail, then explode.

I don't expect any of them, but I felt like entering into the spirit of the event.

Cheers, MP.

Pollack2006
05-29-2007, 03:54 AM
Mystic still has his exploding train fetish http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PBNA-Boosher
05-29-2007, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Spaturnio:
I'm pretty new, or better, I've been away for long, since IL-2 first release, so pardon me if the issue I suggest have been already discussed.

1946 Patch 1.08

1) Bf-109E7 has GM1 available but the engine gets out of action as soon as GM1 is switched off.
This happens every time I tried it.

2) Cr.42 seems to me to float forever once the engine has been switched off/disabled: true, this is very light biplane, but by bo means it is a glider!.

Pretty please? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Forget your wishlist and do a forum search.

#1 - The GM-1 can only be used above a certain altitude. I'm not sure what that is, 5k meteres?

#2 - Biplanes give a very high lift ratio, I'm not surprised it has an excellent glideslope. .

harryklein66
05-29-2007, 05:02 AM
1_fix the nav light issue for the IA

2_fix the P40B/C/H81 DM, where all the controls are destroyed with one hit

3_fix the Ki61 turn radius
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf

XyZspineZyX
05-29-2007, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
If the prop pitch cheat still exists with the Tempest then correct this. [So I can A - historically run away from them in my D9 like I used too. Even though I know in WW2 the Tempest was faster.]


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Id like to see either a 11lb Sabre IIA or a Sabre IIB late war boosted Tempest. It makes me cry with laughter catching D9s in my April 1944 variant but Id like to have a 11lb boost model for map balance issues. It would stop Fw 190 pilots crying about cheaters every time they get caught by a 9lb Tempest and it would give the RAF a plane that pwoned the Luftwaffe fair and square. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mynameisrolland
I did not make that statment, you added your words to mine, why?

Everybody gets shot down & shoots other people down thats part of the fun.

So can you take this red/blue wining cr@p to another thread, because generally its not the plane its the pilot & the tactics that are used

mynameisroland
05-29-2007, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by dasriech:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
If the prop pitch cheat still exists with the Tempest then correct this. [So I can A - historically run away from them in my D9 like I used too. Even though I know in WW2 the Tempest was faster.]


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Id like to see either a 11lb Sabre IIA or a Sabre IIB late war boosted Tempest. It makes me cry with laughter catching D9s in my April 1944 variant but Id like to have a 11lb boost model for map balance issues. It would stop Fw 190 pilots crying about cheaters every time they get caught by a 9lb Tempest and it would give the RAF a plane that pwoned the Luftwaffe fair and square. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mynameisrolland
I did not make that statment, you added your words to mine, why?

Everybody gets shot down & shoots other people down thats part of the fun.

So can you take this red/blue wining cr@p to another thread, because generally its not the plane its the pilot & the tactics that are used </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I added words to spell out what you meant. Basically you have probably been caught by Tempests and thought I bet that guy is using the ppitch cheat. You need to fly both sides mate before you jump on one particular plane having an 'exploit' The Dora 9 can use prop pitch too but I suppose being above the Blue vs Red stuff you would know thathttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SUPERAEREO
05-29-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
You should try a Spitfire sometimes, none of my business but I would not criticise any planes I have never tried in the sim myself...
No disrespect intended.

Ehm Super... I told I never flyed it in my last 100 sorties in Spitvs109: yesterday blue pilots outnumbered the red so I took Red side... but flying a P51B instead of the SpitIX LF.

In my squadron we usually fly them in training against our 109 and sometimes in DF server too (in the past, for myself)

As I said before I have experience in them, but flying with energy tactics (those you need to fly german and american planes), and using such tactics usually they win (talking about SpitVb against F4... you can only survive extending if the spit's guy knows his job).

109 can still win if the spit's guy don't look behind himself (like usually they do in DF... How many kills the german do in DnB?)

And again, I have no problem in fight spitfires... they are my favourite preys: my problems with his FM is because when I flyed them I could do something unbelievable for a warbird... I'm talking about relative performance compared to the other planes ingame.

I'm not joking when I say you that in a sortie in Spit me or my teammates can kill enemies easier than with G2 (using the same tactics).

If I don't take Spit is because I think they are cheats and I would feel like a cheater (but I still respect people like Fenrir because he flyes it like a warbird and not like a tieFigher in the noob's style).

Yesterday I took a P51B and I made 3 kills in the first sortie (with the useless 0.50cal... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif ) and damaged other but not killed: using spit probably I could still kill them all but I wouldn't feel the satisfaction of a good SA and the deflection shooting at 800km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Personally - and it is a personal opinion - I just think that in general middle and late marks Spitfires can do whatever Bf.109's can, with the added bonus of being able to turn tighter, but it was so in WW2 as well.

Using B'n'Z tactics against them (or Hit and Run if you prefer) is not only historically accurate, but also very sensible, I would not dream to try and turn with a Spitfire or a La-7 if I was in a Bf.109 (mind you, lately I use IL2 so little that I am a rather mediocre IL2 "pilot", I probably risk getting shot down by Pzl-11's even if I am flying a Dora).

Personally I don't think the Spitfires in IL2 are really that uber, and surely I would not call them cheats, but that is a personal opinion and would not want to start an inflamed debate.

Unfortunately the subject of WW2 planes' performance tends to create online teams of fans who claim the uberness of this or that plane, personally I believe in a more reasoned approach.

Also people tend to forget that most combats in WW2 took place with one of the parts in clear advantage, that WW1 style dogfights were quite rare, that often teamwork counted more than the sheer specifications of the plane flown and that co-alt engagements were avoided by everyone when possible, not to mention the fact that the rule really was "get in - fire - get the hell out of it" for pretty much everybody, since the imperative was to stay alive, not to score points.

Unfortunately we all tend to forget this, and I include myself in the number: how many times I started a turn trying to find that perfect firing solution when in reality I should have extended to come back a few minutes later with my altitude regained?

The sim does favour quick turning planes - all combat flight sims do - none of us is likely to feel sick or even to get internal bleeding after spending minutes after minutes in high-G manoeuvres, since we are sitting at a desk: in RL most pilots would rarely pull a turn of more than 2G, while in the sim continued 4G turns seem to be the norm, and these would quickly make any pilot feel unwell, even if they were trained to cope with the stress. Planes don't feel sick, they either can sustain the structural stress of hard manoeuvering or they can't, so in the sim we all very often do things that in WW2 would have appeared superhuman to any pilot.

Manu-6S
05-29-2007, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Personally - and it is a personal opinion - I just think that in general middle and late marks Spitfires can do whatever Bf.109's can, with the added bonus of being able to turn tighter, but it was so in WW2 as well.

With less diving ability: no Spit before the Griffon powered could catch a diving Bf109 (of the same year, ofcourse). Remember that Bf is smaller and with less drag.


Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Using B'n'Z tactics against them (or Hit and Run if you prefer) is not only historically accurate, but also very sensible, I would not dream to try and turn with a Spitfire or a La-7 if I was in a Bf.109 (mind you, lately I use IL2 so little that I am a rather mediocre IL2 "pilot", I probably risk getting shot down by Pzl-11's even if I am flying a Dora).


Infact you have to BnZ them to keep quite out of danger, surely the overmodelled elevator stiffness issue is a great limit for 109s.


Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Unfortunately the subject of WW2 planes' performance tends to create online teams of fans who claim the uberness of this or that plane, personally I believe in a more reasoned approach.


Totally agree, but this is not my problem: I look for realistic FM.. I'm not the person who think that all the red are uber and the blue are porked: the problem is that Red has tons of different planes while Axis has only 2 really important model. In both the sides there are uber and porked things... probably the only thing uber in the axis side is the overheat model and the climb rate of bf109... the Antons are quite porked because of his acceleration and turn ratio.

Red instead has american planes with some problems (performance and DM), Russian planes are old (tough speaking about DM... look at the B25...), english planes are really good except for modelling problems like Tempest's rear visual... the only plane ingame that really have no issue are Spitfires: zoom like bf, dive like fw190 can continuosly turn and turn losing half the energy you lose in a normal plane, auto stall recover...

No wait, they have a issue, the nose in the markVc... with cannons who point at 30? higher... but i don't think spit pilots cry about that.


Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Also people tend to forget that most combats in WW2 took place with one of the parts in clear advantage, that WW1 style dogfights were quite rare, that often teamwork counted more than the sheer specifications of the plane flown and that co-alt engagements were avoided by everyone when possible, not to mention the fact that the rule really was "get in - fire - get the hell out of it" for pretty much everybody, since the imperative was to stay alive, not to score points.


Ehm look at my stats in spitvs109... I tend to stay alive because of the things you are saying... but this doesn't mean that a Fw190 with 1500m of alt advantage must extend because it can't zoom without been catched by the spit in 10 seconds... how many times I tryed to loop over it only to see it making a 180? turn, zoom and almost at my high while i'm still tryng to put my nose down... Tempest can't, p47 can't, p51 probably can but it is another matter because it a great zoomer... something we couldn't say of spitfire with their great drag.


Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Unfortunately we all tend to forget this, and I include myself in the number: how many times I started a turn trying to find that perfect firing solution when in reality I should have extended to come back a few minutes later with my altitude regained?


Half of my KIA is for this... sometimes I lose my mind and I don't extend. The other half are B25 gunners and rammers.


Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
The sim does favour quick turning planes - all combat flight sims do - none of us is likely to feel sick or even to get internal bleeding after spending minutes after minutes in high-G manoeuvres, since we are sitting at a desk: in RL most pilots would rarely pull a turn of more than 2G, while in the sim continued 4G turns seem to be the norm, and these would quickly make any pilot feel unwell, even if they were trained to cope with the stress. Planes don't feel sick, they either can sustain the structural stress of hard manoeuvering or they can't, so in the sim we all very often do things that in WW2 would have appeared superhuman to any pilot.

Agree, like I said to you in the italian forum: I can't wait for a fatigue simulation... but you claimed that BnZer pilot suffered for G too: agree, but I prefer to be tired climbing away after a boom then to be still inside the dogfight after a tight turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
05-29-2007, 09:40 AM
P-38 Mach tuck should be related to Mach number rather than IAS.

Mach tuck could then be added to all other a/c at realistic Mach numbers.

If realistic Mach number effects cannot be produced within the game engine, the unrealistic effects should be removed.

JG4_Helofly
05-29-2007, 10:57 AM
@ Manu, I agree with you. I feel the same when I am flying against a spitfire, but it's a feeling and I don't know if it's realy ueber or correct.

Maybe Holzauge can help us with his C++ calculation to find out how a plane should dive and zoom.

There is also the very important fatigue we don't have in IL2 and we will not have in BOB according to an interview with Oleg. Such a fatigue model would greatly improve the realisme in the way people would dogfight. No more 10 min 5 G turns to escape from a diving enemy.
Many times this has been discused here, but nothing happened. Maybe we should write something to Oleg.
IMO such a fatigue model is one of the most important components to increase realisme after FM and DM.
Maybe we will see it later, who knows.

Pzyber
05-29-2007, 11:21 AM
I hope the damn AI rolling with TB-3 planes in Coop will be fixed. No human can roll like that.

Viper2005_
05-29-2007, 11:43 AM
Oh and AFAIK the He-162D's secondary effect of rudder should be reversed since it is a forward swept wing aeroplane.

In other words, starting from straight & level flight, if I apply left rudder, the primary effect should be a yaw to the left, but the secondary effect should be a roll to the right.

This is because in this case the effective sweep angle of the right wing is further reduced (forward = negative), so its effective aspect ratio decreases and therefore its lift curve slope becomes shallower. Therefore at any given alpha it generates less lift.

Meanwhile the effective sweep angle of the left wing is increased (aft sweep = positive), so its effective aspect ratio increases and therefore its lift curve slope becomes steeper. Therefore at any given alpha it generates more lift.

Thus, a roll to the right is generated. The higher the alpha (and thus the higher the demanded lift coefficient), the more powerful the effect, until at some point close to the zero beta (coordinated) stall the [b]left[/i] wing will stall, resulting in the aeroplane entering a flick roll to the left.

This behaviour would theoretically be accentuated by the application of right aileron. But you couldn't apply right aileron without entering a rapid roll to the right due to the "backwards" secondary effect of rudder in this case.

In addition to this, the flick would likely be relatively gentle when compared with a conventional aeroplane since the amount of lift produced by the right wing would be quite small at the point of departure.

The above observations are based upon simple theory after Kermode. I am quite tempted to build a model He-162D in X-Plane to further investigate the coupling effects of forward sweep.

Anyway, this theoretical behaviour is totally different from that exhibited by the He-162D flight model in the game (which seems identical to the conventionally swept He-162C). I suspect that there could be engine limitations associated with this, since the original game was not built with negative sweep angles in mind. Nevertheless, it's one of the issues that has bugged me since IL246 arrived.

Korolov1986
05-29-2007, 12:42 PM
HVAR for P-51 and P-47, Panzerblitz for Fw-190F.
Fix the P-51 exhaust clouds. Right side exhaust vents to the left!
Fix the ready screen bug in coops.

SUPERAEREO
05-29-2007, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Personally - and it is a personal opinion - I just think that in general middle and late marks Spitfires can do whatever Bf.109's can, with the added bonus of being able to turn tighter, but it was so in WW2 as well.

With less diving ability: no Spit before the Griffon powered could catch a diving Bf109 (of the same year, ofcourse). Remember that Bf is smaller and with less drag.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



That is true of the initial dive, but according to many, amongst whom the late Jeffrey Quill, the Spitfire could actually be dived as well as, if not better, than a Bf.109 in a sustained dive (let's not forget that the very strong wing structure of the Spitfire enabled Sqn. Ldr. Martindale to reach Mach 0.92 (approx 965Kph) in a dive with a Mk.XI in 1944, even if he had to land - with considerable skill - without reduction gear and propeller, and that the dive limit for the Mk.IX was of Mach 0.85).

The fact that wartime RAF pilots were not keen in engaging in a dive with enemy fighters is hardly surprising if we have to consider that most of the time they were engaging over enemy-occupied territory (another worry which is absent for simmers) and that altitude meant not only potential energy but also autonomy to get back home safely.

Scen
05-29-2007, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Please post your top three fixes for 4.09

Dont ask for new maps or aircraft, just state what needs to be done to take what we have now closer to perfection

My top three are:

1. 50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed.
2. Spitfire LFIX models need the Merlin 66 engine model not the Merlin 63 that all the MkIx Spits (except the MkIx25LBS) seem to share
3. B25 bombsight speed entry says TAS MPH but it seems to be TAS KTS in reality (15% difference)

Try flying Axis a little more as I think you will quickly change your mind about the 50s hitting power.

Manu-6S
05-29-2007, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
That is true of the initial dive, but according to many, amongst whom the late Jeffrey Quill, the Spitfire could actually be dived as well as, if not better, than a Bf.109 in a sustained dive (let's not forget that the very strong wing structure of the Spitfire enabled Sqn. Ldr. Martindale to reach Mach 0.92 (approx 965Kph) in a dive with a Mk.XI in 1944, even if he had to land - with considerable skill - without reduction gear and propeller, and that the dive limit for the Mk.IX was of Mach 0.85).

The fact that wartime RAF pilots were not keen in engaging in a dive with enemy fighters is hardly surprising if we have to consider that most of the time they were engaging over enemy-occupied territory (another worry which is absent for simmers) and that altitude meant not only potential energy but also autonomy to get back home safely.

They were not keen in engaging in a dive also because they badly damaged their planes for the high speed during the dive: you example is quite extreme.. I could make you remember too the Clostermann account with him and his wingman chasing a recon bf109 in their SpitVII (IIRC)... they catched the 109 but Clostermann was really lucky because he damaged his wings (badly) and firing with cannons he could rip his wings. His friend instead had to emergency landing for the damage his plane suffered.

You will agreed with me that it's not the same thing...

D-Shere
05-29-2007, 03:08 PM
Not sure if it is a bug, or something that is supposed to be, but the TA-152C seems to be missing the GM-1 system.

Codex1971
05-29-2007, 04:39 PM
Allow all 190's to reach their proper speeds using auto PP not manual PP.

Remove flap/slider exploit for Spits.

Stop AI from being able to see through clouds and their fuselage.

Expand weapon load outs for all planes.

SUPERAEREO
05-29-2007, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
That is true of the initial dive, but according to many, amongst whom the late Jeffrey Quill, the Spitfire could actually be dived as well as, if not better, than a Bf.109 in a sustained dive (let's not forget that the very strong wing structure of the Spitfire enabled Sqn. Ldr. Martindale to reach Mach 0.92 (approx 965Kph) in a dive with a Mk.XI in 1944, even if he had to land - with considerable skill - without reduction gear and propeller, and that the dive limit for the Mk.IX was of Mach 0.85).

The fact that wartime RAF pilots were not keen in engaging in a dive with enemy fighters is hardly surprising if we have to consider that most of the time they were engaging over enemy-occupied territory (another worry which is absent for simmers) and that altitude meant not only potential energy but also autonomy to get back home safely.

They were not keen in engaging in a dive also because they badly damaged their planes for the high speed during the dive: you example is quite extreme.. I could make you remember too the Clostermann account with him and his wingman chasing a recon bf109 in their SpitVII (IIRC)... they catched the 109 but Clostermann was really lucky because he damaged his wings (badly) and firing with cannons he could rip his wings. His friend instead had to emergency landing for the damage his plane suffered.

You will agreed with me that it's not the same thing... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mmm... a Spit Mk.VII had extended wingtips...

The Spitfire's wing were extremely strong since they had a front section intended to house the evaporation system for the Merlin, which initially was to be cooled by evaporation rather than by ethylene glycol. The extended wingtips of the Mk.VI-VII and of the initial production of the Mk.VIII were notoriously fragile under extreme conditions.

I am not being a Spit-fan, I am just saying what I know, or think I know until proved wrong.

TheBandit_76
05-29-2007, 05:18 PM
1) Realistic, visible tracers for the .50's

2) Realistic, visible tracers for the .50's

3) Realistic, visible tracers for the .50's

R_Target
05-29-2007, 05:47 PM
1. Correct speeds and loadout (6x400 rds.) for the F6F. And give it's stall/spin back to the P-39 where it belongs.

2. Increase Bf-109 elevator authority.

3. Proper incendiary damage for .50 cal.

MB80
05-29-2007, 08:08 PM
Fix the pilot seat of some planes, can't be true that you can kill the pilot with mg from 6 o clock because his head is above the seat-armor.
planes with this bug: FW190, P47 and some others
planes without the bug: Me109, Spit
If you don't believe this, use the editor, place your 111 behind a fighter and shot at the top of the seat.

Gunpods should also be fixed, the loss of alot of speed and maneuverability isn't true (109!!)

BD_Gryphon
05-29-2007, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by MB80:
Fix the pilot seat of some planes, can't be true that you can kill the pilot with mg from 6 o clock because his head is above the seat-armor.

I read in Johnny Johnsons' biography that when they tested the Spit seat armour they found MG rounds went straight through. It takes a lot to stop a 7.62mm / .303 round and seat armour generally wasnt effective before kevlar arrived. 50 cal will go right through any aircraft and out the other side, sometimes going right through an engine in the process.

BSS_Vidar
05-29-2007, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Please post your top three fixes for 4.09

Dont ask for new maps or aircraft, just state what needs to be done to take what we have now closer to perfection

My top three are:

1. 50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed.
2. Spitfire LFIX models need the Merlin 66 engine model not the Merlin 63 that all the MkIx Spits (except the MkIx25LBS) seem to share
3. B25 bombsight speed entry says TAS MPH but it seems to be TAS KTS in reality (15% difference)

Try flying Axis a little more as I think you will quickly change your mind about the 50s hitting power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do fly Axis more often. In a Dora, 2 Ponys were on my tail just hitting me over and over. I just pitched over and ran for home. They ran out of ammo and I made it back to base with all my flight controls and gas intact.

I worry a little with P-47's, a little more with a Spit on my tail, a little more with a Tempest on my tail, but I still tend to make it home more times than not in 190s. I ususally ignore P-51's and let them shoot away while I'm engaged. There is definatly an issue with the 190s DM in regards to 50 cal gunfire, with questionable effectivenes from 20mm hits as well.

API is needed - with appropriate DMs to reflect its effectiveness in this game. It was the standard load out, so why fight the issue if you really want realism.

Manu-6S
05-30-2007, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Mmm... a Spit Mk.VII had extended wingtips...

The Spitfire's wing were extremely strong since they had a front section intended to house the evaporation system for the Merlin, which initially was to be cooled by evaporation rather than by ethylene glycol. The extended wingtips of the Mk.VI-VII and of the initial production of the Mk.VIII were notoriously fragile under extreme conditions.

I am not being a Spit-fan, I am just saying what I know, or think I know until proved wrong.

It was the "new" Spitfire with extened wingtips, the one pressurised for really high altitude, so I believe it was the MkVII. I forgot is that the bf109 got fuel tanks on wings.

Probably nobody knows the real dive advantage of planes since many times we read this in pilot's account... maybe the faster diving plane was the one with the bravest pilot.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-30-2007, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by D-Shere:
Not sure if it is a bug, or something that is supposed to be, but the TA-152C seems to be missing the GM-1 system.

i would recommend to read the 4.08 README in your 1946 installation folder..........

SUPERAEREO
05-30-2007, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

(...) maybe the faster diving plane was the one with the bravest pilot.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


That seem to have been often the case, in real life...

Brain32
05-30-2007, 03:51 AM
I do fly Axis more often. In a Dora, 2 Ponys were on my tail just hitting me over and over. I just pitched over and ran for home. They ran out of ammo and I made it back to base with all my flight controls and gas intact.
Got track? Personally this is the greatest BS I've read in a while. Maybe you want to try it with me hitting you over and over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

ususally ignore P-51's and let them shoot away while I'm engaged.
ROFL, hope to meet you online in my P51 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There is definatly an issue with the 190s DM in regards to 50 cal gunfire, with questionable effectivenes from 20mm hits as well.
Yes there definitely is an issue, after the last whinage, FW's are ridiculously weak, I used to be carefull not to explode 109's in my face when flying Tempest, now I have to watch out for exploding FW's, good thing I'm used to long convergence on my Tempest so I can sharply brake away after carnage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Codex1971
05-30-2007, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
...In a Dora, 2 Ponys were on my tail just hitting me over and over. I just pitched over and ran for home. They ran out of ammo and I made it back to base with all my flight controls and gas intact....

In my experience that is the exception rather than the rule. Those .50 cals are plenty deadly, I would bet that most who say .50 cals are too weak don't have the correct convergence, the effectiveness just drops off beyond 250m, setting 100m to 150m is ideal.

MB80
05-30-2007, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
I read in Johnny Johnsons' biography that when they tested the Spit seat armour they found MG rounds went straight through. It takes a lot to stop a 7.62mm / .303 round and seat armour generally wasnt effective before kevlar arrived. 50 cal will go right through any aircraft and out the other side, sometimes going right through an engine in the process.

Then ask yourself why the seat armor stops the rounds in the game and why there are some fighters with the "headshot" problem. That's a bug, if we could kill every pilot through the seat I wouldn't mention it. But there are some fighters with effective armor and some with pilots which aren't small enough.

mynameisroland
05-30-2007, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Please post your top three fixes for 4.09

Dont ask for new maps or aircraft, just state what needs to be done to take what we have now closer to perfection

My top three are:

1. 50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed.
2. Spitfire LFIX models need the Merlin 66 engine model not the Merlin 63 that all the MkIx Spits (except the MkIx25LBS) seem to share
3. B25 bombsight speed entry says TAS MPH but it seems to be TAS KTS in reality (15% difference)

Try flying Axis a little more as I think you will quickly change your mind about the 50s hitting power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do fly Axis more often. In a Dora, 2 Ponys were on my tail just hitting me over and over. I just pitched over and ran for home. They ran out of ammo and I made it back to base with all my flight controls and gas intact.

I worry a little with P-47's, a little more with a Spit on my tail, a little more with a Tempest on my tail, but I still tend to make it home more times than not in 190s. I ususally ignore P-51's and let them shoot away while I'm engaged. There is definatly an issue with the 190s DM in regards to 50 cal gunfire, with questionable effectivenes from 20mm hits as well.

API is needed - with appropriate DMs to reflect its effectiveness in this game. It was the standard load out, so why fight the issue if you really want realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont you think its the Fw 190 thats the problem and not the .50 cal?

Lastweek I pumped 39 20mm shells in to a Fw 190 A8 until it finally burst in to flames. Yet 4 or 5 20mms in a Bf 109 would ruin its day. Its the same for .50 cals imo. Bf 109s go down so easily to them, you just need to fart in their direction in .50 cal armed plane and they get engine damage.

mynameisroland
05-30-2007, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:I'm used to long convergence on my Tempest so I can sharply brake away after carnage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What conv. do you use? I use 400, for long range, head on and deflecton shooting its great but up close its hard work.

Brain32
05-30-2007, 05:43 AM
I used to use 380m, but like you said when things get up close and personal, it can be frustrating, so now I'm at 250m, efective up to 400-500m(great for ju88's) but also down to 100m for those low speed twisting DF's that are very rare for me anyway. When you hit at or around convergence with 250m setting I guarantee you that mid air exploded FW's will not be a rarity, while fatal damage will occur on first burst in 90% of cases...

mynameisroland
05-30-2007, 05:50 AM
How does 250 m work during a turn? In a sustained turn the 400 m conv. requires less deflection to it a bandit pulling G than a 250 m convergence set up.

Bf 109s blow up nicely at my current set up as do Arados http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif The Fw 190 does too when caught in a manuver but when I overhaul them from dead 6 and they are presenting a small target I normally close in to be sure of hits - thats where the 400m conv loses out.

Im trying to weigh up the pros and cons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS I use 400m on the Hurricane IIC and it works wonders against the BF 109 F4

Gitano1979
05-30-2007, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:I'm used to long convergence on my Tempest so I can sharply brake away after carnage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What conv. do you use? I use 400, for long range, head on and deflecton shooting its great but up close its hard work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's also for me. I use 200m but often i get very close to enemies 50m or less and in the case .50 cause little damage.

So the point is not the .50's ineffectiveness but a wrong firing distance.

mynameisroland
05-30-2007, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by Gitano1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:I'm used to long convergence on my Tempest so I can sharply brake away after carnage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What conv. do you use? I use 400, for long range, head on and deflecton shooting its great but up close its hard work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's also for me. I use 200m but often i get very close to enemies 50m or less and in the case .50 cause little damage.

So the point is not the .50's ineffectiveness but a wrong firing distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. Convergance settings and hitting at convergence makes a HUGE difference fot the .50s this is mainly thanks to all of the whining to get their dispersion 'fixed' to tighter groups. Now you need to be an accurate shot to get maximum damage from them but when you do you can actually blow up Bf 109s

Mysticpuma2003
05-30-2007, 09:44 AM
To be honest, and I posted it before, I was also in the "The .50's are porked" Brigade, but then I started watching my tracks back.

At times when I was sure I'd waited for the correct moment to open fire, when the enemy was filling the gunsite, I'd open fire and watch as my multiple hits did barely any damage and the 190 and 109 would turn onto me until I was dead!

How could this be, "the .50's are porked!" I'd shout, and , well, no they aren't.

I watched my tracks back and was amazed to see my bullets converging about 40-50 metres short of the target, and while 2-3 would hit (giving speckled debris), most of them had spread out way before hitting my intended target and gone either side.

So what to do? Well I could get closer, and some guys do, but I prefer to see my deflection shot (personal preference, others are way better than me and know where the plane is in front of the nose) and so changed my settings to 250MG and 300C (even though they are all 50's!).

My first three sorties out were a revelation.
Destroyed were 3x190's and 1x109 on my first sortie.Second Sortie 2x190 1x190 and 1xJU-88 (head-on PK attack) and the Third Sortie 2x109's and another JU-88 along with 2x109's damaged while attacking a friendly.

All I'd say is set your convergence, watch your tracks and then post that the .50's are porked.....they're not...and I used to believe they were.

Now Armour Piercing incendiary in the load-outs on the Extra Ammunition as a sub-setting would be the best addition to the P-47 series since it was introduced...but the only reason I mention it is because this is a wish list for 4.09....so .50's porked....Nah! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

mbfRoy
05-30-2007, 10:35 AM
I agree, I fly reds only 99% of the time, and shooting at convergence range with 50 cals makes a HUGE difference. It can be very frustrating though, watching the sparks on the enemy plane and barely doing any damage because the target is a few meters further than expected. The only thing I can point out is that they dont SEEM to put other planes on fire as easily when compared to other planes (.303's vs Ju88 comes to mind)

D-Shere
05-30-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by D-Shere:
Not sure if it is a bug, or something that is supposed to be, but the TA-152C seems to be missing the GM-1 system.

i would recommend to read the 4.08 README in your 1946 installation folder.......... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Dratted readme's!

Codex1971
05-30-2007, 04:33 PM
If you want to fine tune your convergence, Dart has made a fantastic video explaining how it all works.

Unfortunately I've just checked his page and it's down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.darts-page.com

FE_pilot
05-30-2007, 05:12 PM
Dart and Joe_90 make some of th best tutorial videos around here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Darts videos showed me the proper way to land on a carrier. I still have trouble doing it, but at least now im not slamming into the back of the carrier like i used to.

Scen
05-30-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
If the prop pitch cheat still exists with the Tempest then correct this. So I can A - historically run away from them in my D9 like I used too. Even though I know in WW2 the Tempest was faster.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Id like to see either a 11lb Sabre IIA or a Sabre IIB late war boosted Tempest. It makes me cry with laughter catching D9s in my April 1944 variant but Id like to have a 11lb boost model for map balance issues. It would stop Fw 190 pilots crying about cheaters every time they get caught by a 9lb Tempest and it would give the RAF a plane that pwoned the Luftwaffe fair and square. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


pwoned the Luftwaffe doesn't really sound like "balancing" does it?

Plus why would you need a late war Tempest when you have the Spit +25 that pwones now?

How about having 4.09 go back and fix silly things like a single strike to a wing will disable all the flight controls for a heavily armored FW190 that used pushrods. Also wouldn't it just take out one Aileron not both? Hmmmm

How about Fixing the P38 Dive Problems once and for all by using real world data. How about fixing the ROC problems with the 38 while they are at it.

AI needs a good overhaul as well.

F6F and it's terrible slow acceleration problems with a 2000HP engine.

I can think of a bunch of things that need fixing instead of having one more high end Allied Plane added to the set.

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-30-2007, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I'm sorry but I disagree with .50cal being weak.
It's in fact very powerful weapon.
The bad side of it is that you need enormous time spent practicing shooting with it because you must know where they are going to after you fire them, they aren't very visible so target tracking isn't easy.

I flew Vs people who are excellent with P-47 and P-51, and around 4 out of 5 times my ac is disabled (for further combat) after they make one pass on me.

Just.... those weren't mudmoving arcade battles at 500m alt, but high alt fights..... where ac such is P-47, P-38 or P-51 excel.
On high speeds they are very stable and you practically can't shake them off at alt.

Exactly. You took the words out of my mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

jermin122
05-31-2007, 02:03 AM
I have to say Dart's tutorial videos are fantastic, especially the convergence one.

BTW, where can I download Joe90's tutorial videos?

Philipscdrw
05-31-2007, 07:56 AM
0) Get rid of the sound bug, where you can hear other aircraft, vehicles, and gunfire from the cockpit of the moving aircraft. Just make them inaudible except from external view, or when the aircraft is stationary with engines off!

That's the most immersion-breaking feature of Il-2 at the moment. I hate hearing the sounds of engines starting when I'm in flight. I can't hear an aircraft start from the other side of the airfield in real life!

1) Fix the Mosquito cockpit bar. The one above the gunsight, along the top of the windscreen, seems to be twisted upwards by 30?. Granted it gives a better view but it looks ugly...

2) Remove 'Flaps On A Slider' for aircraft which didn't have that kind of flap control. Infinitely variable flaps is realistic for, i.e., a Piper Cherokee, but not for a Spitfire!

3) Add the third hand to Imperial altimeters, the one which shows how many 10,000ft you've climbed.

4) Put units on the P-47's gauges - MPH, feet, feet per minute, gallons, etc...

5) put radiator control on a slider!

6) differentiate between manual prop pitch and manual constant-speed prop control, and explain exactly what the automatic systems in the Fw190, Bf109, late Spits etc actually do.

mynameisroland
05-31-2007, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dasriech:
If the prop pitch cheat still exists with the Tempest then correct this. So I can A - historically run away from them in my D9 like I used too. Even though I know in WW2 the Tempest was faster.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Id like to see either a 11lb Sabre IIA or a Sabre IIB late war boosted Tempest. It makes me cry with laughter catching D9s in my April 1944 variant but Id like to have a 11lb boost model for map balance issues. It would stop Fw 190 pilots crying about cheaters every time they get caught by a 9lb Tempest and it would give the RAF a plane that pwoned the Luftwaffe fair and square. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


pwoned the Luftwaffe doesn't really sound like "balancing" does it?

Plus why would you need a late war Tempest when you have the Spit +25 that pwones now?

How about having 4.09 go back and fix silly things like a single strike to a wing will disable all the flight controls for a heavily armored FW190 that used pushrods. Also wouldn't it just take out one Aileron not both? Hmmmm

How about Fixing the P38 Dive Problems once and for all by using real world data. How about fixing the ROC problems with the 38 while they are at it.

AI needs a good overhaul as well.

F6F and it's terrible slow acceleration problems with a 2000HP engine.

I can think of a bunch of things that need fixing instead of having one more high end Allied Plane added to the set. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit 25lb ? Whats that? I prefer to fly real fighters like the P51, P47 and Tempest. As it stands the Tempest we have is a April 1944 model. The Fw 190 D9 is fractionally faster than it because of that. If we had a 11lb Sabre II B model the Tempest would rightly be faster than the Fw 190 at low level.

Its not about game balance. If it was why introduce the Me 262 in to IL2? Its about historical accuracy. Fw 190 D9s outrunning Tempests on the deck is completely false and only exists in some Luftwhiners fantasy land.

P38s problems wont be fixed until we get a new engine.

Fw 190 control damage wont get fixed until we get a new engine.

F6F has slow acceleration ! Well look at the entire Fw 190 A series for a reality check there.

AI needs new programming see BoB

I can think of a whole bunch of Axis types we have in game that we could do without with.

Bf 109Z
Ta 152C
Bf 109 K4C3
Lerche
He 162
Ho 229
Ta 183

How many 1945 RAF or USAAF or USN types do we have ? More importantly how many existing planes models do we have that could be given the 45 treatment like the Luftwaffe fighters get?

P 51
P 47
Tempest

are all easy fixes, same 3D model just give us a newer variant.

Scen
05-31-2007, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Spit 25lb ? Whats that? I prefer to fly real fighters like the P51, P47 and Tempest. As it stands the Tempest we have is a April 1944 model. The Fw 190 D9 is fractionally faster than it because of that. If we had a 11lb Sabre II B model the Tempest would rightly be faster than the Fw 190 at low level.

Its not about game balance. If it was why introduce the Me 262 in to IL2? Its about historical accuracy. Fw 190 D9s outrunning Tempests on the deck is completely false and only exists in some Luftwhiners fantasy land.

P38s problems wont be fixed until we get a new engine.

Fw 190 control damage wont get fixed until we get a new engine.

F6F has slow acceleration ! Well look at the entire Fw 190 A series for a reality check there.

AI needs new programming see BoB

I can think of a whole bunch of Axis types we have in game that we could do without with.

Bf 109Z
Ta 152C
Bf 109 K4C3
Lerche
He 162
Ho 229
Ta 183

How many 1945 RAF or USAAF or USN types do we have ? More importantly how many existing planes models do we have that could be given the 45 treatment like the Luftwaffe fighters get?

P 51
P 47
Tempest

are all easy fixes, same 3D model just give us a newer variant.

My point is I would rather see some of the existing planes fixed before adding more planes to the set. Fix what's there.

You want to be able to out run and chase down FWs Okay... Fantastic. Not really needed as it's pretty easy to dispatch every Anton in the set with the current Tempest and if you have problems with the Dora you need to use better tactics.

Waist of effort IMO.

The servers I tend to frequent don't have any of the planes you mentioned in your list. I would stay away from the circus servers if you don't want to see fantasy planes.

In terms of not having decent planes in the Allied arsenal I think you need to go back and include the Russian Planes in the current set even if you don't fly them. There are more than enough high end "Allied" Planes. I think the reason there are more fantasy German planes is the sheer volume of Allied planes in set. Hence 1946.

Given your signature art you play on WC. Great I love the server too but there is a reason why you don't see 262s on the maps. They chose to stay balanced instead of historical. I think we know who one the war.

Saying we need a new engine to fix some of the current problems is well, silly... They said we would need a new engine to get rid of the muzzle flash. Last time I checked it's been fixed for some time now. That excuse is old. It's a software program and it can be modified.

bigchump
05-31-2007, 04:00 PM
Plz fix the "runway trees" problem. It's really an immersion destroyer.

Thanx,
bigchump

Diablo310th
05-31-2007, 06:27 PM
US 50 cal gets API-API-API-API-APIT loadout.

jermin122
05-31-2007, 09:13 PM
Roland, time to change you avatar.

msalama
05-31-2007, 09:16 PM
It's a software program and it can be modified.

Yes, but at what cost? Fixing old code is very taxing resourcewise - all the way up to a point where starting from scratch is actually more effective and thus cheaper in the long run.

The original IL-2 was meant to be a simulation of the namesake only, and from what I've heard the program still uses that same old non-modular core at its heart. Do you have any idea of how hellish is it to try and fix stuff like that?

Sorry if I sound like I'm chewing you a new a**ehole here. I'm not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's just that "oh, it can be modified" brings back a memory or two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-31-2007, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Please post your top three fixes for 4.09

Dont ask for new maps or aircraft, just state what needs to be done to take what we have now closer to perfection
My top three are:

1) Increase the P38J ROC by ~12% at all altitudes (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2042&sid=813cfc9c729cbbc28821b41aee4c15f2)

2) Decrease the Bf-109K-4 ROC by ~30% at mid altitudes (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1967&sid=813cfc9c729cbbc28821b41aee4c15f2)

3) Decrease the Bf-109K-4C3 ROC by ~20% at mid altitudes (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1965&sid=813cfc9c729cbbc28821b41aee4c15f2)

Scen
05-31-2007, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's a software program and it can be modified.

Yes, but at what cost? Fixing old code is very taxing resourcewise - all the way up to a point where starting from scratch is actually more effective and thus cheaper in the long run.

The original IL-2 was meant to be a simulation of the namesake only, and from what I've heard the program still uses that same old non-modular core at its heart. Do you have any idea of how hellish is it to try and fix stuff like that?

Sorry if I sound like I'm chewing you a new a**ehole here. I'm not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's just that "oh, it can be modified" brings back a memory or two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually yes I'm very aware of what it takes to maintain and update software. However I don't think the FMs are as complicated as you think. Change some parameters test and move on. Regardless of how much time is needed. The last time I checked I just RE-purchased the Entire Series again to get this kind of support. In fact I paid even more for the export version which again justifies me wanting more support. In fact not that it really makes a difference I've purchased this entire series 8 times over for all my buddies that are a bit more reluctant to make the purchase.

So I don't think you're being unreasonable but neither do I.

Scen
05-31-2007, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Please post your top three fixes for 4.09

Dont ask for new maps or aircraft, just state what needs to be done to take what we have now closer to perfection
My top three are:

1) Increase the P38J ROC by ~12% at all altitudes (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2042&sid=813cfc9c729cbbc28821b41aee4c15f2)

2) Decrease the Bf-109K-4 ROC by ~30% at mid altitudes (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1967&sid=813cfc9c729cbbc28821b41aee4c15f2)

3) Decrease the Bf-109K-4C3 ROC by ~20% at mid altitudes (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1965&sid=813cfc9c729cbbc28821b41aee4c15f2) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would also like to see Air To Ground Rockets added to the Luftwaffe's arsenal as well.

msalama
05-31-2007, 10:36 PM
However I don't think the FMs are as complicated as you think.

Depends on what we're talking about. I'd be _very_ wary of any global modifications whatsoever myself, because when you fix something all across the board you might very well end up _breaking_ something too. And even more so if it's an unmodular code base you're tinkering with!

But of course individual FMs should be fixed if and when they've been unambiguously proven as incorrect. No doubt about that whatsoever, though you still have to take the core engine limitations into account...

Scen
06-01-2007, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However I don't think the FMs are as complicated as you think.

Depends on what we're talking about. I'd be _very_ wary of any global modifications whatsoever myself, because when you fix something all across the board you might very well end up _breaking_ something too. And even more so if it's an unmodular code base you're tinkering with!

But of course individual FMs should be fixed if and when they've been unambiguously proven as incorrect. No doubt about that whatsoever, though you still have to take the core engine limitations into account... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hence testing...

If the code is that crummy then you're right its better to abandon ship. I don't think it is given how many planes there are in the set. I'm sure they anticipated scaling this thing after the first addon. Once it was prove we would buy I'm pretty sure they knew they could make it so they can tweak FMs. Just look at the volume of changes since the release including a completely new High Fidelity FM.

I think part of the challenge is each plane has its own issues and I'm sure they would like to move on to a new project and make more money. Fixing goofy DMs FMs and such should be a priority instead of adding new planes to the set. IMO

Daiichidoku
06-01-2007, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Please post your top three fixes for 4.09


1) add generic and/or "related" pits to all (or all but fighters) AI types..failing that, WW views enabled for AI types (all or all but fighters

2) P38 fixes; climb, low speed somersault issues, low speed torqueless stability (taken from same function/altered from lerche) addition, elimination/correction of compress./elevator authority issues...or add same effects as they applied IRL to every otehr type in game

3) DELETE POINTS SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
id rather have NO tally/rate/score system, and work it out in my head on on a piece o paper FFS

Manu-6S
06-01-2007, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However I don't think the FMs are as complicated as you think.

Depends on what we're talking about. I'd be _very_ wary of any global modifications whatsoever myself, because when you fix something all across the board you might very well end up _breaking_ something too. And even more so if it's an unmodular code base you're tinkering with!

But of course individual FMs should be fixed if and when they've been unambiguously proven as incorrect. No doubt about that whatsoever, though you still have to take the core engine limitations into account... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hence testing...

If the code is that crummy then you're right its better to abandon ship. I don't think it is given how many planes there are in the set. I'm sure they anticipated scaling this thing after the first addon. Once it was prove we would buy I'm pretty sure they knew they could make it so they can tweak FMs. Just look at the volume of changes since the release including a completely new High Fidelity FM.

I think part of the challenge is each plane has its own issues and I'm sure they would like to move on to a new project and make more money. Fixing goofy DMs FMs and such should be a priority instead of adding new planes to the set. IMO </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every plane has unique FM and a little change in the global physical engine will change the performance of these FMs in the engine.

So with every patch evry planes should be tuned to mirror his historic performance.

I wish that for SoW Oleg'staff will create a utility (for the delevoper only) to auto assign the new parameters by a unique performance scheme, so all the planes can be tuned in one time.

Scen
06-01-2007, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
Every plane has unique FM and a little change in the global physical engine will change the performance of these FMs in the engine.

So with every patch evry planes should be tuned to mirror his historic performance.

I wish that for SoW Oleg'staff will create a utility (for the delevoper only) to auto assign the new parameters by a unique performance scheme, so all the planes can be tuned in one time.


I'm not suggesting global changes with specific issues like ROC for the 38 etc.

Global most likely deals with Stalls Weight+Balance High Alt etc.

Fixing the F6Fs accelleration is specific to it's FM.

Fixing being hit in the left wing on the FWA9 shouldn't take out your Right Aileron but it does with the specific DM for that airplane. I can't name another airplane in the Entire Set that suffers from that type of damage can you?

My point is there are specific issues still left over that need to be addressed before adding even more airplanes to the set and it should be done considering we all just paid again for the sim.

Daiichidoku
06-01-2007, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
My point is there are specific issues still left over that need to be addressed before adding even more airplanes to the set and it should be done considering we all just paid again for the sim.

+ 1

this should have been done at least after AEP, before any other planes got in at all

msalama
06-01-2007, 03:44 PM
If the code is that crummy then you're right its better to abandon ship.

Yeah, but what if it isn't? All this non-modularity etc. talk is just hearsay anyway, so there's precious little (read: zip) we actually know about the product and its innate quality. So you've a point there, granted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


I'm sure they anticipated scaling this thing after the first addon.

One should definitely think so, yes. But then again lack of scalability would indeed explain a thing or two if one takes all the (sometimes quite abrupt and possibly unintended) changes in this sim troughout its lifespan into account...

And yet we have a beta-BoB:SoW FM engine in there now, too, so... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Thing is it's all guesswork, isn't it?


Fixing goofy DMs FMs and such should be a priority instead of adding new planes to the set.

Now this I agree with wholeheartedly. Be they Red or Blue above all what they should be is correct - or as close as possible in this context at any rate - before any new content whatsoever is added.

BrotherVoodoo
06-02-2007, 02:32 PM
It would be cool if the coop scoring system was more of a weighted nature. Ie. The ability to share kills. Or score on actual hits for each flyer. It is frusterating to put 99% damage on a plane to have an ai come finish it up with 1 shot and not get any credit.
Also it would be nice to make the chat and information hud less intrusive with smaller font, or the ability to have it fade after so long. Kind of an immersion dampener for me to see so and so dies a firey death for 5 mins.

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-02-2007, 05:04 PM
F6F and it's terrible slow acceleration problems with a 2000HP engine.

Heard that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Mysha76
06-02-2007, 05:23 PM
La can turns endlessly with full elevator. Even with bombs...
Time for change.

Interminate
06-02-2007, 08:09 PM
Did I mention no more lockups.

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-02-2007, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Interminate:
Did I mention no more lockups.

Afraid this may be on your end mate. I have not had a lockup in years. What are your system specs and config ini setup?

BD_Gryphon
06-02-2007, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Interminate:
Did I mention no more lockups.

I'm with Havoc; no lockups ever since I got a video card that could handle everything I threw at it

Interminate
06-03-2007, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Interminate:
Did I mention no more lockups.

I'm with Havoc; no lockups ever since I got a video card that could handle everything I threw at it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have plenty of Power and Ram, etc. Nvidia 7800 GT 256 should be plenty. Maybe its the built in audio card for MSI realtek. But you know, if it isn't one thing, its another. This computer was built long after pacific fighters.

BD_Gryphon
06-03-2007, 02:41 PM
Okay: lets get back on topic

Snodrvr
06-03-2007, 05:56 PM
My top three

(1)Fix bug on some maps and runways where planes (Usually Jets) are unable to start. I think it has to do with the map not having the runways set up properly, As to the game it's no different then trying to start a jet that you landed on a beach.

(2) Fix glitch where drop tanks disappear in game on several navy Planes when wings folded (specifically, the F4F-4)
(3)Fix Tailwheel lock Bug In B-25, The B-25 has no tailwheel, So I'm not sure why it can lock it. However, with the tail wheels locked, The plane becomes incredibly dangerous to taxi.

That's the only real glitchs I've found in the game. However, If we were to have this a wishlist for 4.09, I'd wish they'd add some type of Cockpit for the AI planes, Even if it was limited to looking through the B-25's Bombsight in the B-17, B-24, And B-29. After all, If I'm not mistaken the Norden was used in all 4 planes.

Interminate
06-03-2007, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Okay: lets get back on topic
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

EXcuse me, this is on topic. So don't try to deflect my opinion as to whats needed as unimportant. Who do you think you are, the il2-pope.
And my 3rd and final addition to this patch. No more lockups. Just tried a campaign again. Runs like butter and then, just as I'm lining up the perfect bomb run- eeek. this sim is a curse.

Brain32
06-04-2007, 02:10 AM
Try posting in Community Help sub-forum, your probelm may be solved with a simple fix like installing new video card drivers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Scen
06-04-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Interminate:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Okay: lets get back on topic
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

EXcuse me, this is on topic. So don't try to deflect my opinion as to whats needed as unimportant. Who do you think you are, the il2-pope.
And my 3rd and final addition to this patch. No more lockups. Just tried a campaign again. Runs like butter and then, just as I'm lining up the perfect bomb run- eeek. this sim is a curse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like you have a messed up installation and or patch somewhere.

I have been running this sim for several years and I have yet to have a single lockup. That's why most guys are saying it's most likely your system stability at fault. I say it's a messed up install.

Either way I suggest you do a complete uninstall blow out the directory and do a fresh install.

striker-85
06-04-2007, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
[3) DELETE POINTS SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!
id rather have NO tally/rate/score system, and work it out in my head on on a piece o paper FFS


This is an easy one to fix. Just don't press the S key of even better go into controls and un-map the stats key so you won't be tempted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif jk

BD_Gryphon
06-04-2007, 05:08 PM
EXcuse me, this is on topic. So don't try to deflect my opinion as to whats needed as unimportant. Who do you think you are, the il2-pope.

Okay, no problem. Please provide IP address so Oleg can get his programmers to de-bot de-frag and de-virus your computer, then install the correct drivers and a CPU temperature monitor (with audible alarm!!!!). Cant figure out why he didnt put that into the 4.08 code. Maybe in 4.09, eh?

BSS_Sniper
06-04-2007, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I do fly Axis more often. In a Dora, 2 Ponys were on my tail just hitting me over and over. I just pitched over and ran for home. They ran out of ammo and I made it back to base with all my flight controls and gas intact.
Got track? Personally this is the greatest BS I've read in a while. Maybe you want to try it with me hitting you over and over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

ususally ignore P-51's and let them shoot away while I'm engaged.
ROFL, hope to meet you online in my P51 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There is definatly an issue with the 190s DM in regards to 50 cal gunfire, with questionable effectivenes from 20mm hits as well.
Yes there definitely is an issue, after the last whinage, FW's are ridiculously weak, I used to be carefull not to explode 109's in my face when flying Tempest, now I have to watch out for exploding FW's, good thing I'm used to long convergence on my Tempest so I can sharply brake away after carnage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We don't need no stinking track! lol C'mon, you can't be serious? I've seen it and done it. It's rare that a 51 does any real damage. It's not a real threat.Besides, I see you're mostly refering to a tempest. Who can't get a kill in that? lol

BSS_Sniper
06-04-2007, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
...In a Dora, 2 Ponys were on my tail just hitting me over and over. I just pitched over and ran for home. They ran out of ammo and I made it back to base with all my flight controls and gas intact....

In my experience that is the exception rather than the rule. Those .50 cals are plenty deadly, I would bet that most who say .50 cals are too weak don't have the correct convergence, the effectiveness just drops off beyond 250m, setting 100m to 150m is ideal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's where you show your RL knowledge of the .50 cal. It has a max effective range of 1800 meters. Check it.

Sorry, don't want to get off topic.....

BSS_Sniper
06-04-2007, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Please post your top three fixes for 4.09

Dont ask for new maps or aircraft, just state what needs to be done to take what we have now closer to perfection

My top three are:

1. 50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed.
2. Spitfire LFIX models need the Merlin 66 engine model not the Merlin 63 that all the MkIx Spits (except the MkIx25LBS) seem to share
3. B25 bombsight speed entry says TAS MPH but it seems to be TAS KTS in reality (15% difference)

Try flying Axis a little more as I think you will quickly change your mind about the 50s hitting power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do fly Axis more often. In a Dora, 2 Ponys were on my tail just hitting me over and over. I just pitched over and ran for home. They ran out of ammo and I made it back to base with all my flight controls and gas intact.

I worry a little with P-47's, a little more with a Spit on my tail, a little more with a Tempest on my tail, but I still tend to make it home more times than not in 190s. I ususally ignore P-51's and let them shoot away while I'm engaged. There is definatly an issue with the 190s DM in regards to 50 cal gunfire, with questionable effectivenes from 20mm hits as well.

API is needed - with appropriate DMs to reflect its effectiveness in this game. It was the standard load out, so why fight the issue if you really want realism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont you think its the Fw 190 thats the problem and not the .50 cal?

Lastweek I pumped 39 20mm shells in to a Fw 190 A8 until it finally burst in to flames. Yet 4 or 5 20mms in a Bf 109 would ruin its day. Its the same for .50 cals imo. Bf 109s go down so easily to them, you just need to fart in their direction in .50 cal armed plane and they get engine damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif for the most part and minus the lack of API

My three:

1: API
2: Reduced contolability in zekes in a dive. They retain too much.
3: Fix the tailboom DM on the 38, if possible.

Manu-6S
06-05-2007, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Dont you think its the Fw 190 thats the problem and not the .50 cal?

Lastweek I pumped 39 20mm shells in to a Fw 190 A8 until it finally burst in to flames. Yet 4 or 5 20mms in a Bf 109 would ruin its day. Its the same for .50 cals imo. Bf 109s go down so easily to them, you just need to fart in their direction in .50 cal armed plane and they get engine damage.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif for the most part and minus the lack of API
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's almost the same DM of P47... except for engine DM.

Don't know if p47 lose controls easily, but FW190 does: and one single hole on the wing (even a hole from 0.303) can make you lose a great amount of speed = sitting duck.

But it also a matter of luck: some time ago I hitted a P51 with multiple 20mm and at least a 30mm from 7-8 o'clock and it only stalled for the hit, but no damage at all.

tigertalon
06-05-2007, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Don't know if p47 lose controls easily, but FW190 does: and one single hole on the wing (even a hole from 0.303) can make you lose a great amount of speed = sitting duck.


Exactly. After being hit by a single .50 cal round in a Fw190, I loose one (or all) of my controls or my gunsight is shot out or got that terrible FM after a wing damage or got a dramatic performance loss.... Whenever I am hit (be it with a single .50 round) my first priority is to try to RTB and survive.

Fw is a plane that is indeed very hard to inflict fatal damage to, yet it's one of the easiest to put out of fight. You only have to look at it through gunsight.

Scen
06-05-2007, 10:36 AM
See my post on page 5 and 6 of this thread


"Fix being hit in the left wing on the FWA9 shouldn't take out your Right Aileron but it does with the specific DM for that airplane. I can't name another airplane in the Entire Set that suffers from that type of damage can you?"

More specifically I'm not sure how all three controls can be severed a single pass. The Anton series used pushrods not cables...

I know it's tough bird to take down but as mention it's pretty easy to take out of the fight.

Manu-6S
06-06-2007, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Scen:
See my post on page 5 and 6 of this thread


"Fix being hit in the left wing on the FWA9 shouldn't take out your Right Aileron but it does with the specific DM for that airplane. I can't name another airplane in the Entire Set that suffers from that type of damage can you?"

More specifically I'm not sure how all three controls can be severed a single pass. The Anton series used pushrods not cables...

I know it's tough bird to take down but as mention it's pretty easy to take out of the fight.

More the once in my Ta152H (tests for a tournament) one single hit from a B25 (and I wasn't at his 6) made all my controls out (ALL the 3 axis!!)..

mynameisroland
06-06-2007, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Don't know if p47 lose controls easily, but FW190 does: and one single hole on the wing (even a hole from 0.303) can make you lose a great amount of speed = sitting duck.


Exactly. After being hit by a single .50 cal round in a Fw190, I loose one (or all) of my controls or my gunsight is shot out or got that terrible FM after a wing damage or got a dramatic performance loss.... Whenever I am hit (be it with a single .50 round) my first priority is to try to RTB and survive.

Fw is a plane that is indeed very hard to inflict fatal damage to, yet it's one of the easiest to put out of fight. You only have to look at it through gunsight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fw 190 is like Ki 61, easy to inflict damage upon and lessen as a threat but if you want to ensure the kill you have to spend a long time on its 6 increasing your vulnerability at the same time.

Give me an uber Bf 109 to shoot at any day. At least they are dead after one good burst.

Skoshi Tiger
06-06-2007, 06:25 AM
This may not be one of the top 3 fix's but it would sure be easy. The Spitfire MK-XVI was basically the same aircraft as the MK-IX except it had the Packard Merlin 266 engine.

The reason for the different designation was that the American engine required a different tool set and spare parts to the Roll Royce engines.

The performance was vertually identical.

So they could either make a copy the MK-IX or just change the text in the descriptions to say MK-IX/MK-XVI.

Generally the Squadrons getting replacement aircraft would swap over their entire contingent so the same squadron marking would still be appropriate.

Neet Hey! a new aircraft with no additional effort!

Manu-6S
06-06-2007, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Fw 190 is like Ki 61, easy to inflict damage upon and lessen as a threat but if you want to ensure the kill you have to spend a long time on its 6 increasing your vulnerability at the same time.

Give me an uber Bf 109 to shoot at any day. At least they are dead after one good burst.

Yes, but all depends by your mentality about mission: if you are one of the guys who cares only about kills you are right in your statement, but if you like coop (where your target is to accomplish the mission and not to kill at any cost) 0.50cals ALWAYS do a good job.

ImpStarDuece
06-06-2007, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
This may not be one of the top 3 fix's but it would sure be easy. The Spitfire MK-XVI was basically the same aircraft as the MK-IX except it had the Packard Merlin 266 engine.

The reason for the different designation was that the American engine required a different tool set and spare parts to the Roll Royce engines.

The performance was vertually identical.

So they could either make a copy the MK-IX or just change the text in the descriptions to say MK-IX/MK-XVI.

Generally the Squadrons getting replacement aircraft would swap over their entire contingent so the same squadron marking would still be appropriate.

Neet Hey! a new aircraft with no additional effort!

Merlin 266/V-1650-7 also has slightly different full throttle heights than the Merlin 66, and so performance was marginally different between the Mk IX and the Mk XVI.

Sort of like the difference between a Merlin 63A engined Mk IX and and a Merlin 66 engined Mk IX. Slightly differnt power outputs at different altitudes, leading to a 5-10 mph defecit or benefit, depending on height.

The only reasons I could think of to include the Mk XVI would be to give a Spitfire a bubble canopy version, with 75% more fuel (rear fuselage tanks) and a Gyro gunsight.

But it would still be the slow poke of the 1945 aircraft in the plane set, and probably not worth the hastle.

A Mk XII or Mk XIV though...

269GA-Veltro
06-06-2007, 08:20 AM
My fix is Kate flyable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A dream....

http://www.pacific-storm.net/articles/8-2b.jpg

http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Veltro/1.jpg

http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Veltro/2.jpg

http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Veltro/3.jpg

http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Veltro/4.jpg

http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Veltro/5.jpg

http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Veltro/kate1.jpg

DKoor
06-06-2007, 12:13 PM
+1 for B5N http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG4_Helofly
06-06-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Don't know if p47 lose controls easily, but FW190 does: and one single hole on the wing (even a hole from 0.303) can make you lose a great amount of speed = sitting duck.


Exactly. After being hit by a single .50 cal round in a Fw190, I loose one (or all) of my controls or my gunsight is shot out or got that terrible FM after a wing damage or got a dramatic performance loss.... Whenever I am hit (be it with a single .50 round) my first priority is to try to RTB and survive.

Fw is a plane that is indeed very hard to inflict fatal damage to, yet it's one of the easiest to put out of fight. You only have to look at it through gunsight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totaly agree.

With few small cal hits a fw loose very much speed, lift and often controles, but most time I die from a PK in the 190. I fly mostly on "wings over europe" server. I got killed 8 of 10 times by PK. I don't know if I was out of luck or if there is also a problem with armor plates in this plan. Btw, does any other aircraft in il2 have such en extrem DM?

tigertalon
06-06-2007, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
My fix is Kate flyable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A dream....



Whoah, that's some serious cockpit references there Veltro! I never knew it exists in such abudance...

R_Target
06-06-2007, 05:26 PM
Veltro, would you mind sharing the title of that book?

MB80
06-06-2007, 05:54 PM
There's no other plane with the FW190 damage model.. in Il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But wth happened to the Mk108? The 20mm Cannons are more effective than the 30mm atm. For example, it's possible now to hit a P47 or Spit 3 times with 30mm without heavy damage, no dewing, no control loss, no engine damage, no problems with the fuel, no pilot kill. If you use a FW190, the double hits with mk108 also don't kill a (late war) fighter. Wing, Tailhits without effect.. Maybe 2-4 hits of 20mm are needed for a dewing..

Gitano1979
06-06-2007, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Veltro, would you mind sharing the title of that book?

"Bunrin Do - Famous airplanes of the World": a very well done series of monographs (written in japanese).

Since i've known about these books, i consider the "lack of data" issue a real BS...

Manu-6S
06-07-2007, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
With few small cal hits a fw loose very much speed, lift and often controles, but most time I die from a PK in the 190. I fly mostly on "wings over europe" server. I got killed 8 of 10 times by PK. I don't know if I was out of luck or if there is also a problem with armor plates in this plan. Btw, does any other aircraft in il2 have such en extrem DM?

I was used to get PK too... now I use the double prudence than before... I pass the most of my time extending after the attack (but most of the time I got my kill yet).

I try to never have "something" at less then 300m behind me, and usually I can outrun him.

Gibbage1
06-07-2007, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
1: API
2: Reduced contolability in zekes in a dive. They retain too much.
3: Fix the tailboom DM on the 38, if possible.

I agree with all 3. .50's have a HARD time lightning up something like the G4M. The P-38's tail DM is a total joke. 1 20MM will detach the tail right off, or kill both the rudder and elivator. Any hits in the tail are fatle, and I have many many photo's of heavy damage on a P-38's tail and it made it home. I posted a track some time ago from the tail turret of a G4M. about 10 times in a row, 1-3 20MM hits in the tail killed it.

269GA-Veltro
06-07-2007, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Veltro, would you mind sharing the title of that book?

I don't know....i've taken these pics two years ago from the "old" Netwings modellers forum. At that time a flyable Kate was not a dream.

Scen
06-07-2007, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
1: API
2: Reduced contolability in zekes in a dive. They retain too much.
3: Fix the tailboom DM on the 38, if possible.

I agree with all 3. .50's have a HARD time lightning up something like the G4M. The P-38's tail DM is a total joke. 1 20MM will detach the tail right off, or kill both the rudder and elivator. Any hits in the tail are fatle, and I have many many photo's of heavy damage on a P-38's tail and it made it home. I posted a track some time ago from the tail turret of a G4M. about 10 times in a row, 1-3 20MM hits in the tail killed it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without really knowing my perception is the .50s hit plenty hard as I've been victim many times however I think the real culprit with strange things is the DMs.

The DMs IMO are all over the place. Some are more complete than others some are more complex than others.

Strange stuff going on.

I vote for a revamping of the DMs for all the planes. Yes I know it's a lot of work but it's been needing it for some time now.

Gibbage1
06-07-2007, 01:58 PM
I agree with you that most of what I see with the .50 cal is the DM. Like the .30 and .303's lighting bombers up easier, but it still makes things harder for the .50 cal armed aircraft.

Revamping the DM it out of the question right now. Any fixes that would be in 4.09 would need to be rather simple and easy to do. Changing the .50 CAL ammo too sport more API's would be easy. Right now, there are NO API rounds in the mix, just APIT and its only 1/4. I also still have no idea why HE is in the belt at all. I would still like to know a common US fighter belting though. I dont think APIT, AP, HE, AP was one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I would say replace the HE with an API and we will see a lot more fires.

Scen
06-08-2007, 11:42 AM
I agree... I would like to see all Allied aircraft belted properly.

The challenge will be that the DMs haven't changed so what is the over all impact of the change (no pun intended)

Without turning this thread into a .50s discussion my impression of them is that they hit plenty hard though visually they aren't impressive so the perception is they don't do much. Having been on the receiving end of them I can assure people that controls PKs and over all damage is there. One good pass from a 47 can usually kill or take a plane out of the fight.

I know it's not the same visually as 20mms or 30s however they are effective.

The right approach would be to look at both the hitting power and DMs. I think the last change to the .50s made them quite effective. I still say DMs are the problem. Removing HE and replacing API does make sense to me.

Someone needs to post some data that supports common Belting for Allied Planes.

Maybe BoB will give you some options for belting

tigertalon
06-08-2007, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I agree with you that most of what I see with the .50 cal is the DM. Like the .30 and .303's lighting bombers up easier, but it still makes things harder for the .50 cal armed aircraft.

Revamping the DM it out of the question right now. Any fixes that would be in 4.09 would need to be rather simple and easy to do. Changing the .50 CAL ammo too sport more API's would be easy. Right now, there are NO API rounds in the mix, just APIT and its only 1/4. I also still have no idea why HE is in the belt at all. I would still like to know a common US fighter belting though. I dont think APIT, AP, HE, AP was one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I would say replace the HE with an API and we will see a lot more fires.

A Ken Walsh, USMC ace quote:
"We had six .50-cal uns with 400 rounds per gun, and a rate of fire of 800 rounds per minute. Our belt loading was one incediary, one tracer and one armour piercing. A two second burst would fire 150 rounds, and the Zero, like mot Japanese aircraft, had no armour plating or self-sealing tanks. So, if you hit them, they'd burn, with their aluminium construction including magnesium parts, which added further fuel to the fire."

Tracer was probably incendiary as well, and even armour piercing could be API!


Originally posted by Gibbage1:I also still have no idea why HE is in the belt at all.

Maybe it has something to do with russian ammobelts, as .50cals il IL2 series were first modelled for P-39 lend lease if I am not mistaken. Russians were producing their own ammo for these weapons so this may explain the weirdness of having this ammobelt on other US planes.

Tailbutcher
06-09-2007, 04:12 AM
1- Slow down the Russkie 153 Biplane.It's really a joke when one of them runs you down and your in a F4
2- Slow down the I-16. No way in hell did it fly that well.
Note. Historically, both these planes were removed from front line service.
3-Add pilot fatique, and increase black out on sustained high G turns.

Gitano1979
06-09-2007, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Tailbutcher:
1- Slow down the Russkie 153 Biplane.It's really a joke when one of them runs you down and your in a F4
2- Slow down the I-16. No way in hell did it fly that well.
Note. Historically, both these planes were removed from front line service.
3-Add pilot fatique, and increase black out on sustained high G turns.

2) are you sure? Recently i saw a real wartime video on youtube showing how manouvrable the I-16 was.

3) Totally agree

msalama
06-09-2007, 09:22 AM
No way in hell did it fly that well.

You know what they say about a*seholes and opinions? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And besides, define "well". It's a manouverable bugger, sure, but so was its RL counterpart...

JG4_Helofly
06-09-2007, 10:31 AM
3-Add pilot fatique, and increase black out on sustained high G turns.

+1

tigertalon
06-09-2007, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Tailbutcher:
2- Slow down the I-16. No way in hell did it fly that well.
Note. Historically, both these planes were removed from front line service.


With every single realistic option that is ticked off in the settings, slower and more maneouverable fighters profit some and faster/climbers/divers loose some. Be sure you fly on a realistic server, and an I-16 is nothing but a pitiful target for Bf109F4. And as far as I know, they flew full switch in WW2. Hell, you have at least 100km/h speed advantage over it at any altitude!

Plus AI cheats big time in every plane.

fly_zo
06-09-2007, 01:46 PM
1. tune down Ai sniper gunners
2. tune them down some more
3. just a little bit more...

ok the game is fine now ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Korolov1986
06-10-2007, 03:32 AM
I've come back to revise my three fixes:

1. Fix the AI uber butt-radar detection mode. I'm tired of this 'feature'!

2. Force AI to follow the rules of physics. I'm tired of seeing AI being able to pull impossible maneuvers in a 450mph dive.

3. Hellcat ammo load properly configured, HVAR for P-51 and P-47, panzerblitz for Fw-190F.

Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

alert_1
06-11-2007, 05:05 AM
I16 was still used until 1944! And was pretty maneuvrable but quite hard to fly on the edge - if we would ehave servers with ON kill kickout for evening rule then I16 wouldnot be too favoured..

Scen
06-11-2007, 03:35 PM
I have a new one... Get rid of the ghost sounds in Multiplayer.

Scen
06-12-2007, 10:29 AM
Oh here would be a super nice to have for the last patch.

MultiCore Support. I know it would be really difficult to just add but in case the folks from Intel and AMD got a hold of them there could be chance. I know both chip companies are pushing for better support by providing tools/SDKs etc.

It would really help out with some of the current restrictions.

Blood_Splat
06-14-2007, 09:57 AM
Give the 109's windshield wipers to clean the oil splats lol. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

NN_EnigmuS
06-22-2007, 03:27 AM
More loadouts especially Panzerblitz for 190F8 or create a F9 with them hehe

MOH_Hirth
06-22-2007, 09:28 PM
Fast spin of spiner(centre of propeller), i see a 109G video and thath giro fast of spiral nose make will make a big improvement, today the hardware will easily suport this.

mynameisroland
06-23-2007, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Scen: Not really needed as it's pretty easy to dispatch every Anton in the set with the current Tempest and if you have problems with the Dora you need to use better tactics.

Waist of effort IMO.

Famous get out clause of a statement. The Fw 190 D9 is no problem to shoot down or catch. I never said it was. If you re read my posts Scen I said Im sick of Fw 190 D9 pilots complaining about cheaters when they get shot down.

If they get caught it has to be because of the PPitch cheat

Funny thing is even using a April 1944 Tempest the Fw 190 D9 is only fractionally (5km/h) faster when running away at sea level. So by using trim and closing your radiators it possible to run down Fw 190s with relative ease, especially when you have a little bit of height.

My point is that IL2 has a number of easy fixes which would satisfy 50% of the players. Late war allied types are there and only need to be given the correct performance. Likewise mid war GErman Planes like the Fw 190 and 109 need a boost too.

Id be more than happy to see Fw 190 A4 1.42 ATA and Bf 109 G2/6 at 1.42 ATA

But I cant stand this - its for game balance that plane X isnt in the game - or "if you cant do well in a April 44 plane against a Jan 45 plane you have to change your tactics" thats just BS wanting to preserve an A historical advantage.

I do well flying a Hurricane vs 1943 Axis types, but I still want to have the option of flying correct 44/45 contemporaries for all the over boosted German planes that we now have.

Ta 152 H
Fw 190 D9 44 ( did any service D9 reach such speeds at high altitude?)
Fw 190 D9 54
Bf 109 K4
Bf 109 K4 C3
Ta 152 C
Do 335

On the allied side we have P38 L Late, Mustang III and P47 D Late. As far as Im awar the only planes here which hit the correct numbers for a 45 allied plane is the Mustang III the others all fall short.

mynameisroland
06-23-2007, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by MB80:
There's no other plane with the FW190 damage model.. in Il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But wth happened to the Mk108? The 20mm Cannons are more effective than the 30mm atm. For example, it's possible now to hit a P47 or Spit 3 times with 30mm without heavy damage, no dewing, no control loss, no engine damage, no problems with the fuel, no pilot kill. If you use a FW190, the double hits with mk108 also don't kill a (late war) fighter. Wing, Tailhits without effect.. Maybe 2-4 hits of 20mm are needed for a dewing..

Ive been hit on the extreme tail section of my Tempest by 108s more than a few times and I rarely lose it. It I get hit behine the cockpit on the otherhand my plane blows in half. Mg 151's just chew off Tempest wings like there Spitfires.

Uncle_Stranger
06-24-2007, 11:02 AM
Will there be 4.09?

mvuk
06-24-2007, 11:22 PM
so is there any date of 4.09 patch

my 3 favorites for update http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
1. copy paste of objects in full mission builder
2. scrool zoom in full mission builder
3. window selection of multiple objects in full mission builder and ofcourse multiple selection with shift + object

thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stathem
06-25-2007, 03:38 AM
A rocket loadout for the Mosquito.

Scen
06-25-2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB80:
There's no other plane with the FW190 damage model.. in Il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But wth happened to the Mk108? The 20mm Cannons are more effective than the 30mm atm. For example, it's possible now to hit a P47 or Spit 3 times with 30mm without heavy damage, no dewing, no control loss, no engine damage, no problems with the fuel, no pilot kill. If you use a FW190, the double hits with mk108 also don't kill a (late war) fighter. Wing, Tailhits without effect.. Maybe 2-4 hits of 20mm are needed for a dewing..

Ive been hit on the extreme tail section of my Tempest by 108s more than a few times and I rarely lose it. It I get hit behine the cockpit on the otherhand my plane blows in half. Mg 151's just chew off Tempest wings like there Spitfires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same can be said being hit by 4 Hispano's... Never thought the FW was that fragile but it is against those cannons.

RamsteinUSA
06-25-2007, 05:27 PM
You want more German Planes when many of the American planes have problems and are incomplete? Where the flying $$#### is the smiley for this nonsense.. ??
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen: Not really needed as it's pretty easy to dispatch every Anton in the set with the current Tempest and if you have problems with the Dora you need to use better tactics.

Waist of effort IMO.

Famous get out clause of a statement. The Fw 190 D9 is no problem to shoot down or catch. I never said it was. If you re read my posts Scen I said Im sick of Fw 190 D9 pilots complaining about cheaters when they get shot down.

If they get caught it has to be because of the PPitch cheat

Funny thing is even using a April 1944 Tempest the Fw 190 D9 is only fractionally (5km/h) faster when running away at sea level. So by using trim and closing your radiators it possible to run down Fw 190s with relative ease, especially when you have a little bit of height.

My point is that IL2 has a number of easy fixes which would satisfy 50% of the players. Late war allied types are there and only need to be given the correct performance. Likewise mid war GErman Planes like the Fw 190 and 109 need a boost too.

Id be more than happy to see Fw 190 A4 1.42 ATA and Bf 109 G2/6 at 1.42 ATA

But I cant stand this - its for game balance that plane X isnt in the game - or "if you cant do well in a April 44 plane against a Jan 45 plane you have to change your tactics" thats just BS wanting to preserve an A historical advantage.

I do well flying a Hurricane vs 1943 Axis types, but I still want to have the option of flying correct 44/45 contemporaries for all the over boosted German planes that we now have.

Ta 152 H
Fw 190 D9 44 ( did any service D9 reach such speeds at high altitude?)
Fw 190 D9 54
Bf 109 K4
Bf 109 K4 C3
Ta 152 C
Do 335

On the allied side we have P38 L Late, Mustang III and P47 D Late. As far as Im awar the only planes here which hit the correct numbers for a 45 allied plane is the Mustang III the others all fall short. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BD_Gryphon
06-25-2007, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
You want more German Planes when many of the American planes have problems and are incomplete? Where the flying $$#### is the smiley for this nonsense.. ??

Define 'many'...??

mynameisroland
06-26-2007, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
You want more German Planes when many of the American planes have problems and are incomplete? Where the flying $$#### is the smiley for this nonsense.. ??

why are you quoting me when you say that?

tragentsmith
06-26-2007, 07:17 AM
I want the A2G rockets on the 110 they used on the Eastern front. That┬┤s 12 rockets under the wings, plus 2 sc 500 plus 2Mk108 plus 2 MG151.

At least we would have a plane not as fast as a 38 but with a similar offensive loadout.

Hedge72
06-26-2007, 01:14 PM
Though completely cosmetic, it is approaching 6 years in the coming; a proper N3-A aiming reticle for the P-39/400 gunsight would be beyond awesome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hedge

Pimpo
07-02-2007, 06:16 PM
PD 8.8 and Panzerblitz please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ParachuteProne
07-03-2007, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Please post your top three fixes for 4.09

Dont ask for new maps or aircraft, just state what needs to be done to take what we have now closer to perfection

My top three are:

1. 50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed.
2. Spitfire LFIX models need the Merlin 66 engine model not the Merlin 63 that all the MkIx Spits (except the MkIx25LBS) seem to share
3. B25 bombsight speed entry says TAS MPH but it seems to be TAS KTS in reality (15% difference)

This isn't a fix exactly & I'm not a programmer so I don't know if its a hard or easy task but I would like to be able to place an object/aircraft in FMB & be able to assign a few random start points so the scenario would be less predictable. You could still just use one set of waypoints to keep the overall destination the same.

Mark

Stuntie
07-03-2007, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
I've come back to revise my three fixes:

1. Fix the AI uber butt-radar detection mode. I'm tired of this 'feature'!

2. Force AI to follow the rules of physics. I'm tired of seeing AI being able to pull impossible maneuvers in a 450mph dive.

3. Hellcat ammo load properly configured, HVAR for P-51 and P-47, panzerblitz for Fw-190F.

Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I'd go with 1 and 2, but for 3 I'd substitute...

3: Reduce AI speed outside of combat (enemy sighted or reported within say 5 miles) to a more reasonable climb and cruise speed rather than full out.
This would enable Players to catch up with AI units, and also to allow AI units to form proper tactical formations rather than the line astern follow the leader that they often end up using.

Xiolablu3
07-03-2007, 11:00 AM
Some of these requests are hilarious.

A little tip :- When ALL THREE requests are for one sides planes then you should instantly ignore the post.

Klemm.co
07-03-2007, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
Give the 109's windshield wipers to clean the oil splats lol. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
I hope you know that the 109's (and I think the 190's too) had this feature in form of being able to spray some fuel on the windscreen to remove the oil. And yes that is totally needed. AND when the engine gets hit there is (should) not always oil be spraying on the windshield.
IIRC For the Ki-61 for example its totally wrong as BillFish demonstrated a while ago. The oil would spray downwards because of the way the engine was mounted or so.

faustnik
07-03-2007, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
More loadouts especially Panzerblitz for 190F8 or create a F9 with them hehe

More loadouts would be fantastic. Some very important ones:

Hurri IIB/C - bombs
Spit Vc - bombs
Bf109F4 - bombs, droptank
Fw190F8 - Panzerblitz
Fw190D9 - bombs, droptank
P-47, P-51 - HVAR(zero length)

NN_EnigmuS
07-04-2007, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
More loadouts especially Panzerblitz for 190F8 or create a F9 with them hehe

More loadouts would be fantastic. Some very important ones:

Hurri IIB/C - bombs
Spit Vc - bombs
Bf109F4 - bombs, droptank
Fw190F8 - Panzerblitz
Fw190D9 - bombs, droptank
P-47, P-51 - HVAR(zero length) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really perfect but you forget the 20mm on G10/G14 and Fw190A with two cannons and no under rack too.

Scen
07-10-2007, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB80:
There's no other plane with the FW190 damage model.. in Il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But wth happened to the Mk108? The 20mm Cannons are more effective than the 30mm atm. For example, it's possible now to hit a P47 or Spit 3 times with 30mm without heavy damage, no dewing, no control loss, no engine damage, no problems with the fuel, no pilot kill. If you use a FW190, the double hits with mk108 also don't kill a (late war) fighter. Wing, Tailhits without effect.. Maybe 2-4 hits of 20mm are needed for a dewing..

Ive been hit on the extreme tail section of my Tempest by 108s more than a few times and I rarely lose it. It I get hit behine the cockpit on the otherhand my plane blows in half. Mg 151's just chew off Tempest wings like there Spitfires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep I agree some odd stuff happening... 1 lousy 20mm from a Hispano and I loose a wing or loose all controls in any of the Anton Series.

Aymar_Mauri
07-10-2007, 08:02 PM
I hope this can still be done, although judging from the long time we've been waiting for it, I'm pretty sure nothing will happen... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Sorting out the ridiculous AI cheating to improve the overall experience and the sense of realism for full switch players in offline campaigns?

-Reduce the excessive G that that AI can pull to the maximum the player can support. I read that the player starts to black out at 5G so we could have:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>1- Ace AI = 5G max for 6sec max
2- Veteran AI = 4.5G max for 5sec max
3- Average AI = 4G max for 4sec max
4- Rookie AI = 3.5G max for 3sec max[/list]
-Use a same-for-all engine overheating feature for AI, creating a time limit for the AI to use 110% engine boost independent of plane:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>1- Cold engine = 2min max before reducing throttle to 100% and opening radiators to max
2- Warm engine = 40sec max before reducing throttle to 100% and opening radiators to max
3- Hot engine = 20sec min max before reducing throttle to 100% and opening radiators to max[/list]

pilot_p-38
07-10-2007, 09:58 PM
I only ask for a single one.

Get rid of the airplane labels automatically when you see a replay. That's it.

BrotherVoodoo
07-11-2007, 03:01 PM
Maybe it's already been mentioned but I would like to see support for more than four controllers.

smoker1963
07-12-2007, 02:26 AM
The most important of all - AI not being able to see through clouds!

I't not as difficult as it sounds, even a simple approximation such as an opaque radius around a cloud seed-point would be good enough to change AI behaviour to something more realistic.

The minimum distance from a line (of-sight) to a point is pretty easy to calculate, even for a fair number of clouds.

This is the one issue that completely spoils off-line play for me.

smoker1963 aka phoenix1963

Fighterduck
07-12-2007, 04:00 AM
i know its not a fix but i'd like to have another version of the B-25, meaby the G1 or the H1.

hendrix1998
07-13-2007, 01:22 PM
1: Later war Mosiqutios with More load out's e.g. Rockets and the Cookie bomb

2:Load Screen.

3: Be able to use the Windscreen wipers set to a key

hi_stik
07-13-2007, 03:15 PM
Hello everyone, I'd like to say that I have totally ignored the 9+ pages of posts in here, save for a couple, since most of them have gone off course and devolved into splatterfests.


I shall now post my 3 top fixes:

1. Make AI bomber crewment subject to the laws of physics. It's terrible irritating to attack a bomber pulling a 3G turn, and his tail gunner still merrily firing away at me, as if he's in some sort of Star Trek-ian type antigravity chamber. WHATEVER!

2. Create a playable system that allows multiple users to spawn on a carrier online, and not crash into each other, causing death and friendly kills galore. Perhaps making any plane on deck immune to physical damage, or a queue system, allowing one spawn to roll at a time, or perhaps an outside-view system, etc. Something has to be done here, it's a realism-killer to start a takeoff roll, only to slam into someone spawning in at that very moment...

3. Devise a scheme that allows the mapmakers/admins/HMFIC's to force online players to use specific skins and markings. It's terribly annoying to play on a full-real server, with specific forces fighting each other, only to have some massive butt-tool spawn in with the wrong markings. FOR EXAMPLE: Say a bunch of guys are playing on a server that rhymes with ''Dekes vs. Mildcats''. And some dude from China joins up, and starts flying a Type-0 Naval Fighter (a ''Deke'') with German markings. Man, that's annoying...

THANK YOU AND DRIVE THROUGH

Malefic1966
07-14-2007, 07:52 PM
Just three fixes on weapon loadout and I'll be happy.

1. FM-2 Wildcat - HVAR rockets (Dad flew them and I wanted them for a campaign I am working on.)

2. Panzerblitz for the FW-190F. Interesting possibilities there.

3. Any US plane capable of carrying a drop tank should have the ability to carry Napalm as a secondary use.

Interminate
07-14-2007, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Interminate:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
Okay: lets get back on topic
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

EXcuse me, this is on topic. So don't try to deflect my opinion as to whats needed as unimportant. Who do you think you are, the il2-pope.
And my 3rd and final addition to this patch. No more lockups. Just tried a campaign again. Runs like butter and then, just as I'm lining up the perfect bomb run- eeek. this sim is a curse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like you have a messed up installation and or patch somewhere.

I have been running this sim for several years and I have yet to have a single lockup. That's why most guys are saying it's most likely your system stability at fault. I say it's a messed up install.

Either way I suggest you do a complete uninstall blow out the directory and do a fresh install. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Its not drivers and its done this on two different systems. A curse i tell you.

Interminate
07-14-2007, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by BD_Gryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">EXcuse me, this is on topic. So don't try to deflect my opinion as to whats needed as unimportant. Who do you think you are, the il2-pope.

Okay, no problem. Please provide IP address so Oleg can get his programmers to de-bot de-frag and de-virus your computer, then install the correct drivers and a CPU temperature monitor (with audible alarm!!!!). Cant figure out why he didnt put that into the 4.08 code. Maybe in 4.09, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent, its about time.

Blondeknght
07-17-2007, 01:13 AM
1. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Require Oxygen at alt. or pass out/black out.

2. Outside views on full real after you get killed or bail, so you can watch the rest of the mission.

3. 3D Pilot with uniform and gloves to mimick the fight stick movements in the cockpit view.
(I know this is not a fix and it won't happen in any event)but, it would be nice.

Respectfully,

Blondeknght

Interminate
07-21-2007, 11:27 PM
Uh did I mention, no more lockups. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BrotherJayne
07-26-2007, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
I hope this can still be done, although judging from the long time we've been waiting for it, I'm pretty sure nothing will happen... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Sorting out the ridiculous AI cheating to improve the overall experience and the sense of realism for full switch players in offline campaigns?

If the AI also lost Ke through manuver's, that'd help too

Kongo Otto
07-29-2007, 10:50 AM
Who said there will be a 4.09 Patch???????

JG27_Dierk3er
07-29-2007, 10:54 AM
To fix in next patch:

- fix whining about .50 cal damage model

Thats enough! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Adam906
07-29-2007, 05:39 PM
1. I know its not a 'fix' in that sense and I'll probably get jumped on for this, but I'd like to see the Spitfire's engine performance really suffer and die in the same way and time-span of that of the 109 when it gets hit and trails smoke. If I get hit in the engine flying a 109 it's not long before things really get screwy: I certainly cant stay engaged and run the engine in combat mode like I've noticed online spit pilots doing. I have flown the Spit and notice it's engine can withstand damage better and can operate for longer trailing smoke than pretty much anything else in the game (even like-engined aircraft). Without starting the whole argument about historical accuracy and how wonderful the Merlin/Griffon was (not my intention), I just want this engine life turned down to force pilots to turn for home. I'm tired of being on servers where guys with smoked engines stay engaged cause they know they can still fly well enough with a smoking engine when in RL they would have turned for home as soon as the engine got hit. This is especially annoying when flying on servers labelled as 'Full Real.' If you got hit in the engine in Real Life - ie, 'Full Real' - you wouldn't have stayed, you would have run squealing for home. This is also linked to the fuel nozel on the windscreen for the 109. For a community that complains constantly about various Il2 v. RL issues, there sure is a lot of arcade mentality displayed online.

2. Fix the hitting power of the 108s please while at the same time proper belt loading of the .50s (I don't have a problem with the hitting power of the later)

3. Spawn points - what ground crew member preped an a/c facing away from the runway?

4. Vibrations in mirrors (or mirrors that don't reflect icons). I'm tired of aircraft breaking when attacking their six not because their a/c id is up to scratch but merely because they got a flash of a blue icon (Maybe this could be something in the difficulty screen than can be switched on or off to suit various servers or player's abilities)

For those of you so inclined, you may now commence unconstructive ridicule... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-30-2007, 09:03 AM
1. Faster Mosquito (later performance numbers than the one we currently have) it's ashame to only have it competitive in pre-43 maps when it was bloody-fast through 1945.

2. HVAR's for all aircraft that could carry them, including the P-47's and FM-2's. (get rid of those butt-ugly and performance-sapping tubes)

3. P-47D-22 performance close to equalling the P-47D-27 performance...because it really did.


I could go on about AI sharpshooters and AAA snipers and other small contrivances, but really...



TB

Kongo Otto
07-30-2007, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Dierk3er:
To fix in next patch:

- fix whining about .50 cal damage model

Thats enough! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Totally agree

ElAurens
07-30-2007, 05:16 PM
1. Fix overmodeled F4F/undermodeled A6M. Whichever it is, an F4F was not faster than an A6M in level flight at any altitude.

2. Ki61 was superior to P40 in maneuverability/turn time, and generally was a higher performer... Make it so.

3. Add a useful late war performance model of the Mossie.

Redwulf 32 - Nis
07-30-2007, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Blondeknght:
1. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Require Oxygen at alt. or pass out/black out.

2. Outside views on full real after you get killed or bail, so you can watch the rest of the mission.

3. 3D Pilot with uniform and gloves to mimick the fight stick movements in the cockpit view.
(I know this is not a fix and it won't happen in any event)but, it would be nice.

Respectfully,

Blondeknght

Agree with BlondeKnight on #2. Getting killed/having to bail in full switch means sitting the rest of the mission out with very little to do, especially as the host. It could be limited to friendly only to avoid to a certain degree the possibilty of team cheating via comms.

#1 Higher granularity on spawn time in the FMB. I've used ground skimming AI aircraft w. bombs and no fuel (they drop bombs when spawning) to simulate ground explosions going off. The 1 min. granularity limits you to setting all the charges off at approx. the same time. 10 sec. intervals would be nice here.

#3 Revert to the 4.00 beta FM's. In my opinion (no - no flame wars please) the to date most accurate ones.

Wurstschwuchtel
07-31-2007, 10:02 AM
Fix the BF109 F2 & F4 !!!
It was able to carry droptanks and sc250 / 4xsc50.
You can find informations about that in every good luftwaffe-books!

OldMan____
08-01-2007, 05:18 AM
Man, I come back after 1 year without playing and people are still complaining on .50s? oo my some things never change

R_Target
08-01-2007, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Dierk3er:
To fix in next patch:
- fix whining about .50 cal damage model


Also, please fix whining about whining.

Das_Morgoth
08-01-2007, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Dierk3er:
To fix in next patch:
- fix whining about .50 cal damage model


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Was sollen erst die Blauen Bomberpiloten sagen....alles Mutters÷hnchen ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AA_Absolute
08-01-2007, 01:46 PM
Remove sonic radar, no one pilot hear engine of another plane with own 3000hp engine in front.

JG52Karaya-X
08-02-2007, 04:26 PM
1- 20mm nose cannon by default for the Bf109G10/14 (this also plays into the reds ballpark, no more 30mm overkill online)
2- correct turntimes for both Bf109G6s
3- rocket loadouts for the Mosquito F.B., P51B/C/D and FW190F8

F16_Neo
08-07-2007, 11:31 AM
1. Multicore. Hate to see 50% of my cpu idling.
2. Better sound.
3. Carrier thing mentioned by hi_stik.

DDastardlySID
08-12-2007, 06:52 PM
1. Add a server variable so admins can choose to open Devicelink fully in multiplayer (or choose to block it, or open it partially). A devicelink key for radiator setting would be a really useful addition too.

2. Add an option to save a mission part way through. (I skimmed the whole of this thread and I can't believe nobody else asked for this).

3. Improve flexibility of control assignment (e.g. separate keys to open and close the radiator, separate keys for gear up and down, axis control of settings for multiple engines, independent toe brakes, an extra DOF for TrackIR control of zoom/FOV etc etc).

Cheers,
DD

P.S. If I had to pick a fourth, it'd probably be making all the other maps available in the quick mission builder.

M_Gunz
08-12-2007, 09:48 PM
1) Fix LOD's. Some are even out of order. ALL need to be on same level.

2) Ground color by separate palette that gets less contrast with amount of air between plane and ground.
-- difficult to explain, thicker low alt air washes out colors more than higher alt air.

3) External sounds all lower by distance square.

zardozid
08-12-2007, 11:01 PM
I don't know if this has been brought up but it really bugs me when the fighter coming twords me gets bigger and then smaller...

Their seems to be something wrong with the size scaling of airplanes coming twords me...first they are dots then really small planes then they jump 2 sizes (out of proportional scale) then they fall back in size to the proper scale...

It makes it really hard to aim when you can't tell exactly how far away they are... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

lorenai__
08-13-2007, 01:23 AM
please do something with the bots, or at least back their behavior up from 4.02. now i cannot outrun even a he-162 vs spit9-bots. they overtake me at 880km/h, damned cheaters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

potver
08-13-2007, 01:43 AM
If possible;

- Turn down the accuracy of the rear gunners
- Turn off Nav lights of bombers at night

MSA007
08-15-2007, 09:44 PM
When I fly Spitfire VIII in 1946,the external load options are only drop tanks.It could take the same bombs as IX in real world. An external bomb load could accommodate 1,000 pounds (1 x 500 lb bomb attached the centre bombrack. 2 x 250 lb bombs, one under each wing).All spitfires should also add 170 US gal drop tank and P51's landing gear was wrong on ground.

VFA-195 Snacky
08-20-2007, 09:06 AM
Fix performance issues with Hellcat and Corsair.

vonStahlhelm
08-24-2007, 03:17 PM
for me there is only one thing that needs to be fixed:
no more cheating KI.
i think thats the most important thing for the il2 series.
no more unrealistic detection of enemys, no more flight maneuvres wich are impossible for an human pilot etc.

JimmyBlonde
08-25-2007, 04:33 AM
Top 3 fixes.

1)AI

2)AI

3)AI

Don_X
09-20-2007, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by DDastardlySID:


3. Improve flexibility of control assignment (e.g. separate keys to open and close the radiator, separate keys for gear up and down, axis control of settings for multiple engines, independent toe brakes, an extra DOF for TrackIR control of zoom/FOV etc etc).

Cheers,
DD



axis control of settings for multiple engines:-

Do you mean other than "Select Engines Left"
"Select Engines Right"

Two Throttle, Pitch and Mixture assignments would be nice though (since there are no flyable 4 engine planes 2 would be enough)

separate keys for gear up and down- could always use Manual raise and lower.

independent toe brakes-brake + rudder has same effect,You could profile your HOTAS with this combo with Saitek, Thrustmaster or CH.

IDF_Raam
09-20-2007, 03:57 PM
allows multiple users to spawn on a carrier online -has been mentioned before

Zoom2136
10-02-2007, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Personally I would like the spread of the 0.50s to be wider...
Try this: Go offline take a spit and use ONLY four 0.30s. Now fire at ur target from ANY angle and notice that u will score more hits on ur target. U will see more sparks and flashes.
Ok the 0.30s are weak so they dont cause much damage but imagine now if they were .50s of the p51!!
Now take a p51(any version) or a p47 and notice that its MUCH more difficult to score hits!
The reason for this is easy.

Back in 2004 I think it was, people complained that the 0.50 were to weak for various reasons (remember in those days we didnt have much "aileron damaged, elevator damage, rudder damage").. Well Oleg was persuaded to make the 0.50s have less spread in order to give the .50s a better punch when they actually did hit. Oleg himself even said that this wasnt going to be realistic but he did it anyway. Think Leadspitter persuaded him saying that some US aces in the war had a smaller spread cause they were so good at aiming anyway.

But now in 4.08 the .50 rounds themselves do more damage so I think we can go back to having a better spread of the .50s like the 0.30s of the spits and p39s.

As it is now when flying a p51 or p47 your target must be EXACTLY on the pipper in the gunsight(the little dot) or all of ur rounds will miss, we all know how difficult that is!
However if they had the same spread as the 0.30s of the spits and p39s etc etc they would cause ALOT more damage! Sure they would be more spread out over your target but that is more realistic!
Ok instead of just answering to this, TRY it first and THEN come back with your opinion.
I fly the P51 ONLY when im online and know this AC very well, and I think the .50s are fine when you hit with them but it needs more spread, just a tiny bit! A good trick is also to come back on convergence to maybe 150-175m.

This can be "worked" around easaly in game... if you normally shoot at targets that are 150m in front of you set your convergeance to 250-300m. I know lots of guys on WC like 350m... for 50s...

Such a "work" around will only give you a horizontal spread.... so not really a kill box... but its a step in the good direction...

polak5
10-02-2007, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by jermin122:



2. Increase the low speed (0-100 km/h) acceleration performance of A9, 40% throttle can hardly push it forward.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Mastiff070
10-10-2007, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
1- 20mm nose cannon by default for the Bf109G10/14 (this also plays into the reds ballpark, no more 30mm overkill online)
2- correct turntimes for both Bf109G6s
3- rocket loadouts for the Mosquito F.B., P51B/C/D and FW190F8

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Mastiff070
10-10-2007, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by F16_Neo:
1. Multicore. Hate to see 50% of my cpu idling.
2. Better sound.
3. Carrier thing mentioned by hi_stik.

Dual ATI Cards optimization also?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

TheGozr
10-10-2007, 12:54 AM
Fix the Overcast fog ( too much ) would love to have the overcast clear
Fix longer distance draw objects like fake cliff etc..
Fix Sounds

RAF_Loke
10-10-2007, 01:37 AM
Yup fix the sounds legally http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Phil_K
10-11-2007, 04:42 AM
My main request is to fix the Mosquito damage model, which is ridiculous at present.

It should be a pretty tough plane, but just giving it a "normal" DM instead of a joke one would be a big improvement.

I can understand most of 1C's previous errors, but this was a big credibility-destroyer for me.

IDF_Raam
10-13-2007, 04:21 AM
Have the rear AI gunner warn about coming enemy aircrafts from behind - as it is today he keeps that info to himself, never warning the pilot, until opening fire.

ElAurens
10-13-2007, 09:35 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The observer on the Beaufighter especially needs this capability.

zxwings
11-12-2007, 12:53 AM
"1. 50 cal damage model still too weak against German aircaft. Most German aircraft absorb a one second burst of 50 cals, leak fluids, maybe smoke, but rarely is a wing lost or fire started. More consistency with WWII guncam footage needed."

The .50 in the sim is not weak at all. The damage effect you have described is, I believe, because your aim is not good enough.

TheGhostFiles
11-12-2007, 06:37 AM
1) P-51 should slightly out turn a 109 (With 20% flaps), and having more power, out climb a 109. The 109 would

stall before the P-51 B,C and D.

2) Hellcat is under powered. It should be able to outclimb with a zero. Here is one link

(http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/WW2Timeline/Pacific06c.html)

3) .50 cal Tracer smoke.

4) Longer visibility of tracers. P-51 Pilots often "Hosed-down" the target, watching where the tracers fell from

long distance. .50 cals seem to be potent at close range, but not a distance (say 300 yards)

5) P-47 can sustain incredible damage, as it was built to take punishment. Make the P-47 damage model to have

this strength. It was very difficult to shoot down, especially from the rear, and the pilot was protected by

armour plates. The P-47 could also fly with one JUG (piston) blown (rods sloshing/clanging around...) 109's have

been known to empty there guns without bringing down a P-47. P-47 can fly without its wingtips.

6) Spitfire VC4 has no NOSE!!!!

7) Spitfire VC4, when losing the tail section, is still shown in the mirror.



TOP 3:

- .50 cal Tracer Smoke
- P-51/P-47/Hellcat capability
- Spitfire VC4


GF

BSS_Sniper
11-12-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
1) Realistic, visible tracers for the .50's

2) Realistic, visible tracers for the .50's

3) Realistic, visible tracers for the .50's

The .50 tracers are fine. You can't see them all that well during the day in RL, from personal experience. At night, it's a different story. If anything, make the axis tracers dimmer.

Skoshi Tiger
11-12-2007, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The observer on the Beaufighter especially needs this capability.

Oh no! He's an 'Observer' only! There was nothing in the job description about saying anything!

Although an occasional manly scream of alarm or terror may be acceptable!

Skoshi Tiger
11-12-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by TheGhostFiles:
The P-47 could also fly with one JUG (piston) blown (rods sloshing/clanging around...) 109's have

been known to empty there guns without bringing down a P-47. P-47 can fly without its wingtips.

GF

I don't think the P47 is under modelled.

I've been know to empty my guns at all sorts of aircraft without bringing them down. It's especially embarassing when they're unarmed and on my own side!

Daiichidoku
11-12-2007, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The observer on the Beaufighter especially needs this capability.

Oh no! He's an 'Observer' only! There was nothing in the job description about saying anything!

Although an occasional manly scream of alarm or terror may be acceptable! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if he cant use a vickers 303 (an old thread here in ORR had pics of the real rear pit...and ive see nSS of a finished beau rear pit, with gun in stowed position), and cant even yell warning of an attack on 6 (the il2 gunner freaks when the runway is bumpy!)

at LEAST we should have been able to "de-bark" observor in weapon options, and save the beau 200lbs dead weight?:P

FluffyDucks2
11-14-2007, 02:38 PM
No doubt you and your "mod" pals will do your best to mess this up too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

TheGhostFiles
11-14-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
No doubt you and your "mod" pals will do your best to mess this up too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

LOL ROTF , http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif You kill me. The crying room is down the hall with the other kids, Fluffy Duckie.

BTW - I had over 200 downloads on the non-cheating sound mod, thank you very much.

GF

FickleFinger
11-18-2007, 11:56 AM
It would be nice to be able to control the gun
range while in the cockpit.In almost evey plane you see the dial right in front of you ,yet no control of it in flight.A pilot sould be able to change from close combat to long range to strife.To me this is the biggest miss to the perfect simm.I cant see it being to hard to be able to bind it to a key or an axies.

RAF_Magpie
11-18-2007, 12:33 PM
"1- Slow down the Russkie 153 Biplane.It's really a joke when one of them runs you down and your in a F4
2- Slow down the I-16. No way in hell did it fly that well."

Ok, First off, I've seen these buggers in real life, at the Warbirds over Wanaka airshow, and I can tell you YES THEY DID! The 153 - bloody fast for a biplane. The I-16 - VERY manouverable. These wee buggers deserve everybit of respect they can get.

RamsteinUSA
11-19-2007, 04:37 AM
P51 problem with cog/fuel fueselage tank bungled modelling and the fix.

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams06/shoc0623.htm

A Cautionary Note: The Aft Fuel Tank
The first thing you will want to consider is whether or not to fly with the aft fuselage tank filled. When even half-full, this tank had a severely adverse affect on the aircraft's handling. Only normal, conservative maneuvers were allowed with this tank full, as it moves the aircraft's center of gravity well aft. Unless you are planning a long-range ferry mission, it is recommended this tank be set to empty or nearly empty. Note: for "Auto Start", this tank must have enough fuel in it to get the plane started, as the simulator will NOT select either wing tank automatically. To get around this, start with five gallons of fuel in the center tank if you plan on using the "Auto Start" feature to start your aircraft.

ImpStarDuece
11-19-2007, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by TheGhostFiles:
1) P-51 should slightly out turn a 109 (With 20% flaps), and having more power, out climb a 109. The 109 would

stall before the P-51 B,C and D.

Based on what exactly? The 109s generally had better power to weight ratios and lower wing loading.



2) Hellcat is under powered. It should be able to outclimb with a zero. Here is one link

(http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/WW2Timeline/Pacific06c.html)



The official USN tests say that the Zero could out climb the F6F-5 until 14,000 feet and from then on the Hellcat held between 200-500 ft/min advantage.




5) P-47 can sustain incredible damage, as it was built to take punishment. Make the P-47 damage model to have

this strength. It was very difficult to shoot down, especially from the rear, and the pilot was protected by

armour plates. The P-47 could also fly with one JUG (piston) blown (rods sloshing/clanging around...) 109's have

been known to empty there guns without bringing down a P-47. P-47 can fly without its wingtips.



When, exactly, was the P-47 built to take damage from 20mm cannon fire? Certain sections, like the pilots seat, ammo boxes and the rear fuselage were fitted with 3/8 inch armour.

No A to A fighter is expressly designed to take damage and survive. Being agile and getting out of the way of the enemy is better than being armoured and having to suffer through it.

There are also pilot accounts of P-51s emptying their entire ammo loads at FW-190s and not bringing those birds down. Should they have the same damage model at the P-47, or a tougher one?

A Spitfire Mk V over Malta survived being hit 33 times by a Bf-109G and then clipping a wingman and losing its port wing tip. Should it also have the same damage model? Similarly, a Spitfire Mk XII survived 44 hits while on partol over France, including two 20 mm shells in its Griffon engine, and still managed to shake its FW-190 attackers at low level before flying the 85 miles back to base. Should all Spitfires and inline engined aircraft display similar properties, because of a few lucky incidents.

hi_stik
11-19-2007, 01:04 PM
no doubt...


FUNNY how you never read the pilot notes of the guys who did get blasted out of the sky...

Schuck
11-28-2007, 02:31 PM
The K4s top speed should be should be increased. It doesn't performe like it should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bf-109

chris455
11-29-2007, 10:41 AM
Almost every powerplant (at least on the allied side- I don't fly axis much, sorry)is too vulnerable to rifle caliber ammo,although these guns could and did destroy engines, it was exceptional that a single short burst would do so. In the game, it is virtually assured.
And PS the .50 are fine, don't mess with them!

GoNz0
12-07-2007, 10:13 AM
optimize the video so its not a slide show on a high spec system playing an aged game..

just fly over a city to see what i mean.

my 8800GTX grinds to a standstill... i payed for a card to run any game, and it does without issue until i load this.

AKA_TAGERT
12-08-2007, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Schuck:
The K4s top speed and ROC should be should be decreased. It doesn't performe like it should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bf-109
Fixed that for yah

Codex1971
12-08-2007, 07:00 PM
Nov 29

Originally posted by Schuck:
The K4s top speed should be should be <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">increased.</span> It doesn't performe like it should.

Dec 9

Originally posted by Schuck:
The K4s top speed and ROC should be should be <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">decreased.</span> It doesn't performe like it should.

Which one did you fix Target? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DuxCorvan
12-09-2007, 02:30 PM
lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Skunk_438RCAF
12-09-2007, 05:51 PM
http://www.ijeremiah.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mossie/model02.jpg

G884U2
12-14-2007, 12:04 PM
No sound lockups. Major problem with this software is sound lockups constantly. I have a very good rig, this should not be a problem and it it is.

Skunk_438RCAF
12-14-2007, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by G884U2:
No sound lockups. Major problem with this software is sound lockups constantly. I have a very good rig, this should not be a problem and it it is.

No idea what you are talking about mate. Maybe you should post this in the community help section?