PDA

View Full Version : my 4-11 dream list



stugumby
12-31-2010, 04:39 PM
1. maps, i'd like to see some of the new mod type maps introduced into the sim.
2. some type of hud display in TAS under any of the measurement systems, kph, knots mph etc, also map this to some type of open close bomb bay key, hit the doors key and up comes the TAS in the speed bar.
3. ground objects, i think we could use some type of airfield tugs, fire engines, follow me type jeeps/kubels.
4. planes, well i'd start with the hurricanes and think we need a mkIIC with bomb racks and do something with the fld mod, add any ordnance to it and if possible fix the ejection slots. And then the MKIV tank buster or just the D.
The twins could use some upgrading as well, make the mosquito bomber flyable as well as introduce the TSe Tse. Update the B-25's ordinance and/or make the strafers from ultrapack the new standard models. Update the FM-2 to carry bigger bombs and rockets, and integrate the P-38 and p-51 types from ultrapack, or just red o the ordnance on the existing models.

Basically what im dreaming about is a integration of the best of ultrapack/hsfx/SAS and others to be made into 4-11, and understand that some of this will never happen due to contractual/legal reasons.

M_Gunz
12-31-2010, 05:25 PM
I would purely love to see a visual slip-gauge of some sort on the HUD, even two vertical bars with a moving ball in between.

IRL you feel the direction of down change, the ball shows it but the pilot feels it. HUD Slip-Ball would partly make up for the lack of such input.

Ba5tard5word
12-31-2010, 06:15 PM
More maps would be great, but mainly I'd love making some AI-only planes flyable, like the G.55 and the Fulmar.

Making the AI better would be great too--taking away their endless barrell rolls and tendency to magically jump out of your sights when you are tailing them from an angle they shouldn't be able to see you from.

Polishing up the FMB would be great, like providing better menu sliders and making the way you pick nationalities simpler.

fabianfred
12-31-2010, 08:12 PM
The FMB triggers are eagerly awaited....

Of course the modders have already had the Hurri D for ages and a beaut it is on the Tobruk map with desert skins for vehicles and mod tanks like Grant, Crusader, etc.

jarink
12-31-2010, 10:02 PM
I would like to see TD concentrate on the game engine instead of spending time on new planes, weapons, maps, etc. There's a ton of good to excellent quality mod content, so why spend time reinventing the wheel?

My short list:
FMB triggers would be cool.
Improving the fidelity of ship DMs would be great.
As always, better AI (no seeing through clouds!)
More varied aircraft formations, preferably available in the FMB and through radio commands)
Improving (fixing) some of the 3D models and skin mappings (preferably without breaking current skins as much as possible) The B-17 is a great example that could use some help with the engine nacelles and control surfaces (which are mirrored even though left and right sides exist on 90% of the skins).

wheelsup_cavu
01-01-2011, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
I would like to see TD concentrate on the game engine instead of spending time on new planes, weapons, maps, etc. There's a ton of good to excellent quality mod content, so why spend time reinventing the wheel?

My short list:
FMB triggers would be cool.
Improving the fidelity of ship DMs would be great.
As always, better AI (no seeing through clouds!)
More varied aircraft formations, preferably available in the FMB and through radio commands)
Improving (fixing) some of the 3D models and skin mappings (preferably without breaking current skins as much as possible) The B-17 is a great example that could use some help with the engine nacelles and control surfaces (which are mirrored even though left and right sides exist on 90% of the skins).
+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Wheels

Wildnoob
01-01-2011, 08:29 AM
At momment, PTO:

Flyable torpedo bombers,
Ki-21 (the IJA really needs an attack aircraft)
G4M2 variant flyable
Ki-44 flyable
Drop tanks for the Ki-27 and Ki-44

Fox_3
01-01-2011, 10:02 AM
Panzerblitz rockets for the 190F8.

Zeus-cat
01-01-2011, 10:16 AM
Buildings that can be damaged or destroyed for points would be great.

tolodada
01-01-2011, 11:07 AM
and, please, not to forget 6dof ... the only reason why I am using mods ....

DKoor
01-01-2011, 11:26 AM
I have one weird wish... please make that TAXI or some another bare metal skin default for P-51D in ETO, I'm kinda sick of the olive camo for ETO.

To add salt to an open wound, if you select Great Britain or Russia default skin is bare metal "NYC TAXI".

I figure that is literally a few second job... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Please, I would <span class="ev_code_red">love</span> to see polished Mustangs in ETO as default, it is their "natural" camo and it's not like they weren't there in that "skin" in great numbers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif ...

FatCat_99
01-01-2011, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Making the AI better would be great too--taking away their endless barrell rolls and tendency to magically jump out of your sights when you are tailing them from an angle they shouldn't be able to see you from.

4.11 content is not fully defined yet but chances are that AI will be the main theme for 4.11

Uufflakke
01-01-2011, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
I would like to see TD concentrate on the game engine instead of spending time on new planes, weapons, maps, etc. There's a ton of good to excellent quality mod content, so why spend time reinventing the wheel?


Exactly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JV44_Wubke
01-01-2011, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by tolodada:
and, please, not to forget 6dof ... the only reason why I am using mods .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M2morris
01-01-2011, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I would purely love to see a visual slip-gauge of some sort on the HUD, even two vertical bars with a moving ball in between.

IRL you feel the direction of down change, the ball shows it but the pilot feels it. HUD Slip-Ball would partly make up for the lack of such input.

Good point. I put in my vote on that.
While In combat I am probably looking down at that slip ball more often than the other instrument.

M2morris
01-01-2011, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I have one weird wish... please make that TAXI or some another bare metal skin default for P-51D in ETO, I'm kinda sick of the olive camo for ETO.

To add salt to an open wound, if you select Great Britain or Russia default skin is bare metal "NYC TAXI".

I figure that is literally a few second job... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Please, I would <span class="ev_code_red">love</span> to see polished Mustangs in ETO as default, it is their "natural" camo and it's not like they weren't there in that "skin" in great numbers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif ...
That would be nice for the Ponies. They went with polished aluminum. They weren't tryin to hide from anything.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/planegeek/Oshkosh3.jpg



http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/planegeek/PicP51DBCJ.jpg

Treetop64
01-01-2011, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Making the AI better would be great too--taking away their endless barrell rolls and tendency to magically jump out of your sights when you are tailing them from an angle they shouldn't be able to see you from.

+1

This has been the single biggest need of improvement in the game for a long, long time...

ElAurens
01-01-2011, 06:58 PM
After coming back to the stock game again with 4.10, I am finding that the lack of various flyable aircraft is a huge impediment to proper mission building.

At a minimum we need as flyable:

Russian SB or DB bomber.

Blenheim.

KI-21.

No more prototypes, and please, we don't need any more Spitfires or 109s.

Oh, and FYI, the "UP P51s and P38s" were all originally done by the HSFX crew, and were purloined by UP after the fact and had their FMs changed to suit Hades' "feelings".

DKoor
01-02-2011, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by M2morris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I would purely love to see a visual slip-gauge of some sort on the HUD, even two vertical bars with a moving ball in between.

IRL you feel the direction of down change, the ball shows it but the pilot feels it. HUD Slip-Ball would partly make up for the lack of such input.

Good point. I put in my vote on that.
While In combat I am probably looking down at that slip ball more often than the other instrument. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

BTW yesterday I've flew FW-190A9, it has new and one of the coolest (=mean) looking default skins in the game.

So it can be done, there is a hope. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

mortoma
01-02-2011, 10:57 PM
My dream is for there to be no 4.11 at all!! Supposedly, 4.11 will be encrypted so well that neither HFSX or UP will be able to mix with it. As it is now, the mod people have to start all over from scratch and redo everything due to 4.10. The people at TD refuse to accept the reality that most people simply want more flyable planes. Who needs Fritz missiles or even G limits? As I and others are finding that our flying styles are not giving us any G limit problems, at least in fighters any way. Has anybody busted a G limit in any fighter yet unless they have tried hard to purposely bust their frames or spars? So far G limit has not made a real difference, so did we really need it?? I must have been flying within limits all along.

Within two days I went back to the mods again because of the sheer numbers of flyable planes at my disposal. Not to mention the fact that the original sounds in the stock game are the worse in simulation history ( sorry, Oleg! ) My lawn mower sounds more like an airplane than the ones in the stock sim do. I need the immersion of real piston engine sounds, thank you very much. TD did do a good job but it's just not what all of us wanted or needed. The CW and Re.2000 are nice but not enough to bring me back to stock. Sorry!!

Ba5tard5word
01-02-2011, 11:24 PM
Supposedly, 4.11 will be encrypted so well that neither HFSX or UP will be able to mix with it.

Where the heck did you hear that? That would definitely make me want to avoid the stock game, UP is great.

Ba5tard5word
01-03-2011, 12:40 AM
Also something I'd really like to see is the AI being forced to use engine management to a degree--could do it simply by forcing them to 70% power or something like that every few minutes instead of allowing them to use max power and max settings 100% of the time, which is annoying.

EJGrOst_Caspar
01-03-2011, 01:25 AM
My personel dream is a flyable Ki-44. Nothing else. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ElAurens
01-03-2011, 05:34 AM
Caspar, you have to admit that the Japanese side is clearly lacking in types that make proper mission building for Asian/Pacific theaters almost impossible.

EJGrOst_Caspar
01-03-2011, 08:56 AM
PTO is clearly underdeveloped.

MadMacgunner
01-03-2011, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
My dream is for there to be no 4.11 at all!! Supposedly, 4.11 will be encrypted so well that neither HFSX or UP will be able to mix with it. As it is now, the mod people have to start all over from scratch and redo everything due to 4.10. The people at TD refuse to accept the reality that most people simply want more flyable planes. Who needs Fritz missiles or even G limits? As I and others are finding that our flying styles are not giving us any G limit problems, at least in fighters any way. Has anybody busted a G limit in any fighter yet unless they have tried hard to purposely bust their frames or spars? So far G limit has not made a real difference, so did we really need it?? I must have been flying within limits all along.

Within two days I went back to the mods again because of the sheer numbers of flyable planes at my disposal. Not to mention the fact that the original sounds in the stock game are the worse in simulation history ( sorry, Oleg! ) My lawn mower sounds more like an airplane than the ones in the stock sim do. I need the immersion of real piston engine sounds, thank you very much. TD did do a good job but it's just not what all of us wanted or needed. The CW and Re.2000 are nice but not enough to bring me back to stock. Sorry!!

I donīt think same. Of course iīd like to fly more planes, like Re 2005 (a beautiful plane)or Do 217 (excellent characteristics in speed in some models)or perhaps some of the great allied four engine bombers. But not at the price of converting the game in a simply arcade.
G limits are great, and love the new navigation items (specially when i get used to them.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif)
These things make the simulator more challenging for all the people who would like to feel how a real pilot could feel flying those planes and not only to have a new skin with a cockpit from other planes, as a lot of mods do. I fly only stock. More planes does not make simulator best. Best flying characteristics and more realism (though not perfect yet, perhaps) really do.
Iīd even like printing maps with the scale so we could really use the navigation system (I canīt use properly with the in game map to get the flyng time, speeds etc...)

M_Gunz
01-03-2011, 11:07 AM
We have already gone through whole sets of planes from one patch being modeled more than the previous and waiting for updates, I doubt the stock models are all to the same completeness and detail level. It shows in the DM's. Just updating the stock models is a huge job, ask anyone who made stock IL2 models. Just checking is a lot.

Caspar, do you know if the biplanes model the high and low wings aerodynamics separately or combined?

DD_crash
01-04-2011, 08:50 AM
I would like to see a HUD showing trim positions and a wider view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

thefruitbat
01-04-2011, 10:44 AM
a widesceen option in the game that can be checked, that gives the same Fov's as 4:3 monitors have, so i don't have to use sans fov changer.

Messaschnitzel
01-04-2011, 11:51 AM
I've been playing 4.10 for about a week now, and I like the new additions to it. I thought that with the G limits option, I figured that I would be constantly going outside the envelope, but it turns out that apparently I wasn't. I'd have to purposely be more agressive a good bit past how I normally fly. What I'd like to see done if at all possible in 4.11:

Adding the modded engines and weapons sounds at least, if not the UP plane set.

Change the AI aircraft to not use constant 100% power.

Change the AI aircraft to include the G limits damage. What sometimes spoils the immersion for me is the idea that the AI aircraft like a Zero for instance can anytime go into a terminal velocity dive in order to get away, well past that of the F4U that I am following in and still manage to pull out intact while my ride is coming apart. I know this has always been the case for this game, so I figured out early on how to adjust my tactics to counter accordingly, but I would still like to have the satisfaction of seeing an AI Zero disintegrate due to airframe stress at least once without putting a round in it. If not, I guess I'll just have to be satisfied watching the AI planes schtupp the ground at low level after it makes some kind of aeronautical boo-boo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

On a side note: I remember one early patch where the AI (veteran or ace level) aircraft would wipe out and go into a terminal spin during a maneuver on occasion. For instance, I recall that I could shoot a burst slightly in front of the plane, which would most times cause it to turn away from its path. Instead, the plane would go into this abrupt unrecoverable spin. I don't remember if it was a constant and predictable action or not, but IIRC the behavior was gone by the next patch, and I have not been able to reproduce that particular AI spin again since then.

horseback
01-04-2011, 03:15 PM
Personally, fixing some of the most egregious AI behaviors sounds like a major task all by itself, and I am loathe to add to the burden, if it costs me a more reasonable/realistic offline experience.

That said, there are a number of older cockpits that are badly in need of an upgrade, both visually and in terms of the animation for trim or switch settings (or the ability to actually see key instrument dials because of the stick handle or gunsight placement). The old standbys from the original game, like the Yak and LaGG, plus the I-153 and the P-47 leap to mind as prime examples of this. They are noticeably cruder than most other pits and lack the practical 'operability' of most of their contemporaries in the game.

cheers

horseback

TheGrunch
01-04-2011, 03:21 PM
Agreed, horseback. I think something as simple, even as a revision of the default and gunsight view POVs for some of the original cockpits. The other thing that strikes me is the P-51B/C cockpit. Is it just me, or is the gunsight set waaaay too low compared to photos in the original aircraft?

WTE_Galway
01-04-2011, 04:09 PM
More flyable flying boats and floatplanes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.technologysite.org/PixFloatPlanes/ImagesFloatPlanes/02floatplanes.jpg

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/air-recent/dornier-24.jpg

http://www.letletlet-warplanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/dornier-do-x_1.jpg

http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/short_sunderland.jpg

ElAurens
01-04-2011, 04:30 PM
Agree 100% on the float planes and flying boats.

Currently there is only one flyable in the stock game, the A6M2-N. The Japanese employed a wide array of water borne aircraft for the entire war, as did many other combatants.

There are many seaplane bases on the maps, yet very little reason to use them.

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr143/mokyme/Japanese%20Flying%20Boats/H6K5_Mavis_Tulagi_Solonon-Is_194-1.jpg
H6Ks at Tulagi.

http://www.avionslegendaires.net/Images/Ge8n.jpg
Nakajima E8N "Dave"

http://semperparatus.com/images/soc-4_curtiss_seagull_uscg_cape-may-nj.jpg
Curtiss SOC "Seagull". Designed in 1933 and served through the entire war, longer than aircraft that were designed to replace it. They even shot down an A6M.

Ba5tard5word
01-04-2011, 04:43 PM
Personally, fixing some of the most egregious AI behaviors sounds like a major task all by itself, and I am loathe to add to the burden, if it costs me a more reasonable/realistic offline experience.

HB if you haven't already you might want to check out Ultrapack, it has a built-in AI mod that I think is a lot better than the stock AI. Fighter planes don't constantly do barrel rolls when you get behind them, which makes dogfighting with lower-caliber weapons less impossible. They also don't seem to constantly magically jump out of your gunsights the split-second you line up a shot. But they're still pretty competitive and I think might be a little tougher and persistent when they get on your tail.

Wildnoob
01-05-2011, 07:29 AM
Damn, I would love to see more floatplanes. Imagine tis F1M, I love this bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...72x4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQOTUo672x4&feature=related)

JG53Frankyboy
01-05-2011, 07:30 AM
i would like to see that the circles of "destroy ground" could made be bigger.

and a new target would be available. Wincondition would be the total weight or (selectable) number of bombs thrown in the target circle.
woukd be a nice addition for missionbuilding and high level horizontal bombers......and for TD's propably planed nightfighting/-bombing features in the future http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

i dont care the points the game gives its player !!

bolox00
01-05-2011, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
Agreed, horseback. I think something as simple, even as a revision of the default and gunsight view POVs for some of the original cockpits. The other thing that strikes me is the P-51B/C cockpit. Is it just me, or is the gunsight set waaaay too low compared to photos in the original aircraft?

it's not just you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
P51B/C sight should be N3 type and it's position should be higher.
MkIII would be very nice to have RAF reflector sight(was also a common field mod in ETO)
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff27/bolox00/P-51C/McCorkleincockpit.jpg

Dacripler
01-05-2011, 09:04 AM
^ I'm with fruitbat in giving an option to change the fov while in different aspect ratios.

While in a 16:9, I feel all too close to the gun sight while seated

We need to get those few degrees back to enable the game to play like it is in a 4:3

(Yes, I'm not a TIR guy)

Wildnoob
01-05-2011, 09:21 AM
I would love to have the A5M4 as a flyable aircraft. It was still in service with some IJN units at start of the war and would be a counterpart of the the CW-21.

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W/A5M-7.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W/A5M4-6s.jpg
http://www.roytassell.ie/images/Mitsubishi-A5M-claude.jpg
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W/A5M-10.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/5x4nyp.jpg
http://j.imagehost.org/view/0739/docu06237su

RSS-Martin
01-05-2011, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Agree 100% on the float planes and flying boats.

Currently there is only one flyable in the stock game, the A6M2-N. The Japanese employed a wide array of water borne aircraft for the entire war, as did many other combatants.

There are many seaplane bases on the maps, yet very little reason to use them.

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr143/mokyme/Japanese%20Flying%20Boats/H6K5_Mavis_Tulagi_Solonon-Is_194-1.jpg
H6Ks at Tulagi.

http://www.avionslegendaires.net/Images/Ge8n.jpg
Nakajima E8N "Dave"

http://semperparatus.com/images/soc-4_curtiss_seagull_uscg_cape-may-nj.jpg
Curtiss SOC "Seagull". Designed in 1933 and served through the entire war, longer than aircraft that were designed to replace it. They even shot down an A6M.

Oh yes! A Do 24 or a Mavis, and I wouldnīt give a care about fighters or bombers!
A Mitsubishi Pete
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/cdc263f1-1.jpg
A Do 24 here cockpit view:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/p008-1.jpg
A flyable H8K Emily not a frankenplane version
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/143kkev.jpg
or a pre war Blohm & Voss seaplane
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/nswa_schwabenland.jpg
A Ju52 as seaplane flyable
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/s_26_wasserflug.jpg
or something exotic a Savoia S55 which held several world records in the thirties.
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/s55m_siluro_mitragliatrice-1.jpg

JG52Uther
01-05-2011, 11:20 AM
Realistic engine/gun failures.
Now we have enforced realism for bombers,lets have some for the fighters as well:
You fly 45 minutes,and find your guns have jammed when you need them.
You are 100 KM's over the lines,when your oil pressure drops to zero,and your engine quits.
You take off,and your engine quits.
You get to high alt,then without warning your oxygen supply fails,and you die of ashyxiation.
Get rid of the refly button in dogfight servers.You die,or bail out,you have to leave the server and come back in,after losing all your precious points.
Sounds fair to me,after all,we are after realism.

RSS-Martin
01-05-2011, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Realistic engine/gun failures.
Now we have enforced realism for bombers,lets have some for the fighters as well:
You fly 45 minutes,and find your guns have jammed when you need them.
You are 100 KM's over the lines,when your oil pressure drops to zero,and your engine quits.
You take off,and your engine quits.
Get rid of the refly button in dogfight servers.You die,or bail out,you have to leave the server and come back in,after losing all your precious points.
Sounds fair to me,after all,we are after realism.
Have you read some of the explainations? Hilarious!

There's nothing historical or realistic about making the bomb casing decide the arming of the bomb as it does now in v4.10.

It was done to stop dogfight server idiots friendly killing with bombers at the spawn points. IIRC
If that where the reason then they would have to turn off all guns of aircraft on the ground as one sees more idiots blasting their guns while still on the ground than bombdroppers, at least on the servers I frequent.

Bremspropeller
01-05-2011, 11:33 AM
Get rid of the refly button in dogfight servers.You die,or bail out,you have to leave the server and come back in,after losing all your precious points.

Overkill, make only landings count, and we'll have a deal with everything else you said agreed as well.

BTW: proper Fw 190 Jabos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

andrew8412
01-05-2011, 11:52 AM
I'd like it to be made so that being shot down in doesn't disarm your torpedoes. As it stands if you're killed while they're in the water they'll collide with your target, explode but do no damage. I think we can all agree that it's extremely annoying in multiplayer.

EJGrOst_Caspar
01-05-2011, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by andrew8412:
I'd like it to be made so that being shot down in doesn't disarm your torpedoes. As it stands if you're killed while they're in the water they'll collide with your target, explode but do no damage. I think we can all agree that it's extremely annoying in multiplayer.

Wouldn't that raise the 'I don't care for my virtual life and just want to get that ship sunk, no matter, what' - fraction? Kamikaze's everywhere.
That question has two sides... so the answer must be something different. Something inbetween maybe.

JtD
01-05-2011, 12:44 PM
Lots of pilots sacrificed their lives just to get that one torpedo in. It's not that torpedo bombers achieved exceptionally high survival rates.

RSS-Martin
01-05-2011, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by EJGrOst_Caspar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by andrew8412:
I'd like it to be made so that being shot down in doesn't disarm your torpedoes. As it stands if you're killed while they're in the water they'll collide with your target, explode but do no damage. I think we can all agree that it's extremely annoying in multiplayer.

Wouldn't that raise the 'I don't care for my virtual life and just want to get that ship sunk, no matter, what' - fraction? Kamikaze's everywhere.
That question has two sides... so the answer must be something different. Something inbetween maybe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes so realism only when it suits certain people, otherwise anything goes.....
What about your "gun-slingers" at spawn that enjoy peppering everything that turns up?
As to the Kamikazes....frieghtfull......on most servers intentional ramming gets you kicked or banned, smashing into a ship might sink it or not but to what gain, pilot is dead so no points to be won....trying to reglement the game like that is not going to work. It is up to the people running the servers to remove nut jobs. Trying to prevent every possible loonies attempt at sabataging the game is next to impossible.

JG53Frankyboy
01-05-2011, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
..................<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There's nothing historical or realistic about making the bomb casing decide the arming of the bomb as it does now in v4.10.

It was done to stop dogfight server idiots friendly killing with bombers at the spawn points. IIRC
If that where the reason then they would have to turn off all guns of aircraft on the ground as one sees more idiots blasting their guns while still on the ground than bombdroppers, at least on the servers I frequent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i also cant belive this beeing true !!!!!!

Ba5tard5word
01-05-2011, 12:52 PM
Some Blohm & Voss floaties would be nice...maybe we should make a "Floatplanes Love" topic so we don't override this one with pics...

http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/air/d/bv/04596.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1980-117-01%2C_Aufkl%C3%A4rungsflugzeug_Blohm_-_Vo%C3%9F_BV_141.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1978-061-09%2C_Gro%C3%9Fflugboot_BV_222_%22Wiking%22.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-667-7142-24%2C_Flugzeug_Blohm_-_Vo%C3%9F_BV_238_V1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Blohm_und_Voss_Bv138.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-05-2011, 01:23 PM
Speaking of floatplanes, the Ar 196A is long overdue.

DKoor
01-05-2011, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Lots of pilots sacrificed their lives just to get that one torpedo in. It's not that torpedo bombers achieved exceptionally high survival rates.
+1

Man if anyone was dying in that bloody war it was the torp crate crews... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
First they were greeted by scrambling fighters then they were greeted by the wall of flak then they were greeted by hours of endless searching for their carrier even if they survived.
Sometimes I think it was miracle that they survived a few missions.

ElAurens
01-05-2011, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Speaking of floatplanes, the Ar 196A is long overdue.

Agree 100%. Not only could it be used in it's original role, but it would be an excellent stand in for a couple of Japanese types as well, seeing as it's unlikely that we will ever see any more new Japanese aircraft.

JG52Uther
01-05-2011, 03:07 PM
What is the problem with Japanese aircraft? Is it lack of references,or lack of American aircraft to fight against?

ElAurens
01-05-2011, 03:15 PM
I think it's just lack of interest by the folks that do the 3D modeling.

Always seems to be room for more ETO birds.

DKoor
01-05-2011, 03:35 PM
Two things about Japanese aircraft in IL-2: Ki-44 and B5N pit.
Then all the rest.

WTE_Galway
01-05-2011, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Blohm_und_Voss_Bv138.jpg

One of my favorite aircraft of all time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The bv138 has that real Nazi wunderplane look happening.

http://www.aircraftaces.com/photos/bv-138-1.jpg

... and whatever happened to Gibbage's plans to make the PBY flyable ?

RSS-Martin
01-05-2011, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Two things about Japanese aircraft in IL-2: Ki-44 and B5N pit.
Then all the rest.
You are forgetting the Ki21, the H8K all slapped with Betty pits which is as a go between just so bearable but otherwise ugh......
Bombers are really lacking badly, not one Japanese army bomber is flyable in the stock version, meaning Burma maps can be as nice as you like you never can make anything proper.

VW-IceFire
01-05-2011, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
My dream is for there to be no 4.11 at all!! Supposedly, 4.11 will be encrypted so well that neither HFSX or UP will be able to mix with it. As it is now, the mod people have to start all over from scratch and redo everything due to 4.10. The people at TD refuse to accept the reality that most people simply want more flyable planes. Who needs Fritz missiles or even G limits? As I and others are finding that our flying styles are not giving us any G limit problems, at least in fighters any way. Has anybody busted a G limit in any fighter yet unless they have tried hard to purposely bust their frames or spars? So far G limit has not made a real difference, so did we really need it?? I must have been flying within limits all along.

Within two days I went back to the mods again because of the sheer numbers of flyable planes at my disposal. Not to mention the fact that the original sounds in the stock game are the worse in simulation history ( sorry, Oleg! ) My lawn mower sounds more like an airplane than the ones in the stock sim do. I need the immersion of real piston engine sounds, thank you very much. TD did do a good job but it's just not what all of us wanted or needed. The CW and Re.2000 are nice but not enough to bring me back to stock. Sorry!!
With the G limits it depends on which server you fly on and who you're flying with. In my world I'm enjoying La7 pilots breaking wings doing high G turns at 750 kph while following my FW190 or Bf109 in a dive. Suddenly their airframe fails and they are sprawled all over the landscape. Another guy did a hard negative G push at 700ish kph in a Ki-84 and the tail came off under the pressure. The G force limits are great... I've always flown conservatively but others have really pushed what planes could do... now some will require a rethink and use more realistic tactics.

Where did you hear this about 4.11's encryption?

Flyable planes are cool and arguably everyone can do whatever they want. I don't like flyable planes with substitute cockpits and the like. I want the actual cockpit ... nor no although I've never had a problem with others using substitute cockpits and flying what were otherwise AI planes.

As for me I'd like to see the Typhoon, Ki-44, Ki-45, more Mossies, and a few Me410 variants including the bomber.

WTE_Galway
01-05-2011, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Where did you hear this about 4.11's encryption?


There was a thread on the 1C forum suggesting that as a way of "uniting" the community.

Generally most people agreed it couldn't work as those people that already left online play after the game was hacked (like myself) are never coming back and the remaining online community who tend to like the mods would almost certainly abandon vanilla 4.11 in preference for 4.10 + mods.

I do not recall anything from TD or Maddox games endorsing the idea. The original suggestion was just by some random with no official connection to the game.

In fact a comment was made by one of the TD members that TD made no efforts either way with regard to compatibility with mods. The comment basically said they did nothing to deliberately exclude mods but they also were not going to any effort to keep them compatible either. In essence they are ignoring mods and if any changes interfere with mods its accidental.

AndyJWest
01-05-2011, 11:46 PM
Yes, as WTE_Galway says, TD have given no indication at all that they are going to make modding 'harder'. There seems to have been a minor tweak with FM encoding in the last patch which some have interpreted as an attempt to 'stop mods', but given the ease with which it was cracked, I suspect it was more likely intended to ensure the 'modders' ensured their mods worked with the new patch: it actually may have aided the transition for mods, in that compatibility issues were addressed directly, rather than being trusted to luck. Given the confusion amongst mod users about what would work, and what wouldn't, I think TD probably made the correct choice, and had they continued with the old FM encoding, the mod community would have found it much harder to manage an orderly transition.

Wildnoob
01-06-2011, 08:07 AM
I already provide TD with reference material for the B5N and the Ki-51. I can provide more material, if necessary, and also for other planes.

Ah, the D4Y, the D3A2 (most produced version), the G4M2 at least, the Ki-21 and the Helldiver also should be in the list of new aircraft.

The Ki-84 top speed is too high, as it uses American data of trials with 140 octane fuel. The plane achives 687 km/h in the sim, while in reality, in the best Japanese conditions, it achived 624 (631 with a wheight reduced version in trials). Other Japanese planes like the N1K and the N1K2 also have this. It's necessary to check out if there's data avaliable of them with Japanese fuel.

While the speed of the A62M is probably incorrect as I already provide to TD on this (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm) document.

The Ki-61 is a plane full of errors, that are on it's paint, gunsight, loadouts and other things.

Another thing regarding Japanese planes, as I stated above with the Hien, is that most have incorrect cockpit colors. While not so necessary, if possible would be nice to give a correct paint job for the models.

RSS-Martin
01-06-2011, 09:25 AM
There is a great book called "Mitsubishi G4M Betty" by Martin Ferkl REVI Publications
Where you can find every detail one could desire. With the book is a large sheet with 1:72 scale plans of the G4M1-11 the G4M2-22, the G4M2A-24 and the G4M3-34.
I found this book very informative. Next on my list of to get is the one about the G3M1 Nell which is dearly missed for early war missions or pre WWII Sino-Japanese conflict missions of the late thirties.

Wildnoob
01-06-2011, 09:46 AM
Martin, I have that book as well. It's interesting.

Ah, the G4M have a torpedo sight, that should be add at least for our G4M1 Model 11.

Refereces for Japanese planes there are many around. Although some need to be researched in Japan itself. The Japanese Maru Mechanic books are probably the best one can find. They are excellent, because they provide stuff like colors of cockpits, which some are controversial or unknow, by veterans in tbe beautiful drawings in the first pages of each edition. Even if there's no conclusive evidence, this is better than nothing. I always go for the Maru's in the plastimodelism when this is the case, while most people, (usually with the philosophy of Allied second hand data about Japanese planes), keep saying there's absolutely no information, which as we can see is actually not truth.

Aardvark892
01-06-2011, 10:23 AM
I agree with anyone who says the AI needs work. They still zoom climb way beyond what's possible. More flyers would be cool, but not necessary in my opinion. Triggers? Definately. I can't wait for the upcoming radar.

RSS-Martin
01-06-2011, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Martin, I have that book as well. It's interesting.

Ah, the G4M have a torpedo sight, that should be add at least for our G4M1 Model 11.

Refereces for Japanese planes there are many around. Although some need to be researched in Japan itself. The Japanese Maru Mechanic books are probably the best one can find. They are excellent, because they provide stuff like colors of cockpits, which some are controversial or unknow, by veterans in tbe beautiful drawings in the first pages of each edition. Even if there's no conclusive evidence, this is better than nothing. I always go for the Maru's in the plastimodelism when this is the case, while most people, (usually with the philosophy of Allied second hand data about Japanese planes), keep saying there's absolutely no information, which as we can see is actually not truth.
I absolutely agree! Nice to see another fan of Japanese aircraft, as these have been given the underdog treatment for a very long time!
Are you familiar with this site?
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php
There you can get also lots of detailed answers.
I also like looking at these places for not so well known picture material:
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/summer-ochibo
http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~cocoro/index.htm (http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Ecocoro/index.htm)
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/index-E.html

My personal favorites I would really love to see would be either the Kawanishi H6K2
or the Mitsubishi G3M1

Ba5tard5word
01-06-2011, 12:39 PM
The CW-21 thread reminds me, a flyable P-36 Hawk would be nice.

larschance
01-07-2011, 09:12 AM
I agree the Hawk 75 would be nice to fly. It was the top scorer in the Battle of France Allied wise and was supposed to be a delight to fly. Also the D520 would be interesting especially as it flew for French, German, Italian, Bulgarian, Vichy French, and Free French air forces. If time can be spent on new aircraft types I would rather see more regular types rather than prototypes or one offs.

JG53Frankyboy
01-07-2011, 09:28 AM
its a long term agreement (let me guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) in this forum that to make the P-36/Hawk75 flyable would make a lot of sense !!

it could be used in so much scenarios/Maps:
for the french
finns
american over Hawaii
and british over Burma

to summarize, IF TD would choose this little bird, it would be very welcome !! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PhantomKira
01-07-2011, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I think it's just lack of interest by the folks that do the 3D modeling.

Always seems to be room for more ETO birds.

+1

Spitfires, more Spitfires, we never have enough of them! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I have a modded copy of 2.01, and now have an entire page of Spitfires. I can literally scroll to a point where I look at the drop down menu and see nothing but Spitfires. Alright already, we get the point. How about something else for a change?

Admittedly, most of them require very little (relatively speaking) of the modders, specifically FM tweaks to represent various engine installations. It's "easy", so why not? Understandable.

thefruitbat
01-07-2011, 09:47 AM
theres always going to be more spits and 109's than anything else, since they flew from the first day to the last day of the war, and both had numerous variants during the course.

and mission builders tend to want to have the historically right models going up against each other, rather than a bestish fit.

ElAurens
01-07-2011, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
its a long term agreement (let me guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) in this forum that to make the P-36/Hawk75 flyable would make a lot of sense !!

it could be used in so much scenarios/Maps:
for the french
finns
american over Hawaii
and british over Burma

to summarize, IF TD would choose this little bird, it would be very welcome !! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't forget the SAAF in Africa and the Chinese Air Force had them too.

Also the fixed gear 75H was used by Thailand and China, plus a few countries in South America.

In fact one can make a valid argument that the Hawk 75 served with more air forces than any other plane of the era.

Steven190
01-07-2011, 10:44 AM
I don't know why there is not a P61 in this game. There always has been talk about adding one but nothing has surfaced.

This is one that I would really like to see.

Other than this I have no complaines about what has evolved, this is a great game now and we enjoy flying it.

Thanks to all envolved.

Woke_Up_Dead
01-07-2011, 12:53 PM
I would like to see big, fluffy clouds, the kind you could circle and hide inside. Not just a layer of bad weather cloud at a certain altitude, or small single clouds that hide your for a second, but separated colossal mountains of cloud on a sunny day. Cloud shadows on the ground would be nice too.

More attention to the way the ground looks would be highly appreciated, start with fixing the "invisible tree" issue. I also don't like it when you approach ground targets in a city, and the targets clearly appear as pixles long before the rest of the city does. Maybe there should be neutral objects like civilian vehicles, structures, herds of cows in the field, that also appear as separate pixels from a distance.

I would also like to be able to see only my own plans in external views, without being able to spy on enemy planes.

VW-IceFire
01-07-2011, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I think it's just lack of interest by the folks that do the 3D modeling.

Always seems to be room for more ETO birds.

+1

Spitfires, more Spitfires, we never have enough of them! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I have a modded copy of 2.01, and now have an entire page of Spitfires. I can literally scroll to a point where I look at the drop down menu and see nothing but Spitfires. Alright already, we get the point. How about something else for a change?

Admittedly, most of them require very little (relatively speaking) of the modders, specifically FM tweaks to represent various engine installations. It's "easy", so why not? Understandable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unlike some types of aircraft the Spitfires, 109s, 190s, Zeros and other types were prolific aircraft that served the entire war and were modified and upgraded many MANY times. To someone like myself who builds a lot of online scenarios it doesn't go over very well when, for example, the 1941 version of something goes up against the 1943 version of something else.

That and it's not difficult to add relatively minor variations to the list. +10 new Spitfire variants would not equal +1 new type of something else. I know it's insane to have dozens upon dozens of versions but there were some large gaps in the Spitfire lineup performance wise that are now closed. Just like how adding the Yak-9M, Yak-7B 1942, LaGG-3 Series 25 and 33, Yak-9UT and others closed some small but important gaps in the Soviet fighter lineups.

CzechTexan
01-07-2011, 06:26 PM
First of all, THANK YOU TEAM DAIDOLOS! for keeping this sim alive and growing.

4.10 has some nice additions. I'm really enjoying the Re-2000. Especially like the two new test runways which cover a large area...no more putting several of the older test runways side-by-side! Solomons map is great (for those who don't use mods already).

4.11
1. Maps need to be updated with new textures. New maps are needed but I think the bigger issue is improving the ones we already have. New users might be more impressed with better looking maps. Changing map textures isn't very difficult (new mod maps are more realistic and easy to modify).

2. Make more A/I planes flyable... This is not a big request but more like "it would be nice to have."
Hawk-75 definately.

3. A/I improvements. We already know that's coming.

4. Secondary wishes...
P-51A
Ki-44
Both for Burma. I have not used the stock Burma map as much as I should but I surely would if we had the P-51A, Ki-44, and Hawk. By the way, Burma map could use a facelift like all other maps.

I use mods but also continue to fly stock IL2. A lot of other people don't use mods so I like to build stock campaigns for those people too. I just think the "look" of the game needs improving.

M_Gunz
01-08-2011, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PhantomKira:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I think it's just lack of interest by the folks that do the 3D modeling.

Always seems to be room for more ETO birds.

+1

Spitfires, more Spitfires, we never have enough of them! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I have a modded copy of 2.01, and now have an entire page of Spitfires. I can literally scroll to a point where I look at the drop down menu and see nothing but Spitfires. Alright already, we get the point. How about something else for a change?

Admittedly, most of them require very little (relatively speaking) of the modders, specifically FM tweaks to represent various engine installations. It's "easy", so why not? Understandable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unlike some types of aircraft the Spitfires, 109s, 190s, Zeros and other types were prolific aircraft that served the entire war and were modified and upgraded many MANY times. To someone like myself who builds a lot of online scenarios it doesn't go over very well when, for example, the 1941 version of something goes up against the 1943 version of something else.

That and it's not difficult to add relatively minor variations to the list. +10 new Spitfire variants would not equal +1 new type of something else. I know it's insane to have dozens upon dozens of versions but there were some large gaps in the Spitfire lineup performance wise that are now closed. Just like how adding the Yak-9M, Yak-7B 1942, LaGG-3 Series 25 and 33, Yak-9UT and others closed some small but important gaps in the Soviet fighter lineups. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And not having to make a complete new 3D model saves weeks of work.

ElAurens
01-08-2011, 08:00 AM
I completely understand the ease of adding a new Spit or 109 version, but while we have now filled all the tiny pidgeon hole sized gaps on the RAF and Luftwaffe sets, how about working on the the cavernous gaps in the IJAFC plane set? As in no Imperial Japanese Army Flying Corps attack planes of any kind which is the most important gap in their set if not the whole sim, in addition to the Ki-44.

Also I heartily second the P-51A/A-36. Another huge gap in the CBI and North African sets. It was also used with success by the RAF for harrassment raids over the continent. Fastest plane in Europe below 15,000ft when it came into service with the RAF.

RSS-Martin
01-08-2011, 08:29 AM
Also some proper ships are dearly needed, no more British battleships as stand ins for Pearl Harbour, a model of the Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales is also missing let alone that we have not a single Japanese battleship!

bolox00
01-08-2011, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
.... but while we have now filled all the tiny pidgeon hole sized gaps on the RAF and Luftwaffe sets, how about working on the the cavernous gaps in the IJAFC plane set?
.

while i don't disagree that PTO fans have valid reasons for asking to fill out their lineup, can you tell me how many BRITISH bombers we currently have? - looks like a 'cavernous gap'also to me.

VW-IceFire
01-08-2011, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I completely understand the ease of adding a new Spit or 109 version, but while we have now filled all the tiny pidgeon hole sized gaps on the RAF and Luftwaffe sets, how about working on the the cavernous gaps in the IJAFC plane set? As in no Imperial Japanese Army Flying Corps attack planes of any kind which is the most important gap in their set if not the whole sim, in addition to the Ki-44.

Also I heartily second the P-51A/A-36. Another huge gap in the CBI and North African sets. It was also used with success by the RAF for harrassment raids over the continent. Fastest plane in Europe below 15,000ft when it came into service with the RAF.
Well aside from the notable Spitfire HF.VIII with extended wingtips, bubble canopy XVI (which would be of limited use in IL-2 except for the added rocket rails) and the F and FR.XIV we do pretty much have all of the major Spitfire types covered now. Before there were some pretty big gaps but it's much much better now.

Couple of gaps in the FW190 lineup too.

The Japanese definitely have a massive lineup that isn't represented yet. That would be REALLY nice to have and would make for some interesting scenarios. I also wonder if anyone has contemplated doing a historical China map that would let us fully utilize some of these in their historical environments.

The Ki-44 and Ki-45 I'd most like to see. I would secretly hope for a Ki-21 Sally flyable but I'm not sure if resources exist for that. What other types would be especially useful?

The P-51A I would love to see but I suspect that some of the "issues" surrounding American types would make that difficult. I'm not sure if a appearance of the Mustang Mark I or Mark II would solve that problem or not. I'd love to have them.

Also... in those planesets the P-36 and the P-40N would be types that I'd love to have. Including the optional lightweight P-40N with only four .50cal instead of the six. I suspect that Curtiss aircraft may be more possible than other manufacturers.

Lots of cool aircraft out there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RSS-Martin
01-08-2011, 09:48 AM
Well in the stock version we have the Ki21 as AI, so what is needed is a proper cockpit and crew stations. Missing are various other twin or more engined aircraft, like the G3M1 for Sino-Japanese and early war missions, the Mitsubishi Pete, H6K Mavis, Curtis Helldiver, a flyable PBY, a flyable Do24 one of the few aircraft which saw service on the axis and allied side. A nice China map would be fantastic! Although there are rumours that China could have issues, as during that time the Chinese nationalists where in power.....well stupid politics....

VW-IceFire
01-08-2011, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Well in the stock version we have the Ki21 as AI, so what is needed is a proper cockpit and crew stations. Missing are various other twin or more engined aircraft, like the G3M1 for Sino-Japanese and early war missions, the Mitsubishi Pete, H6K Mavis, Curtis Helldiver, a flyable PBY, a flyable Do24 one of the few aircraft which saw service on the axis and allied side. A nice China map would be fantastic! Although there are rumours that China could have issues, as during that time the Chinese nationalists where in power.....well stupid politics....
I think it would be a problem if the Chinese Nationalist air force appeared in the game through official patch. If a map of China appeared with USAAF and RAF units fighting Japanese units I can't see there being a problem. We already have Manchuria in the game...

ElAurens
01-08-2011, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Also some proper ships are dearly needed, no more British battleships as stand ins for Pearl Harbour, a model of the Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales is also missing let alone that we have not a single Japanese battleship!

During the development of Pacific Fighters there were several screen shots of the IJN BB "Haruna" that was a work in progress. Nothing ever happened with it as far as I know.

One BB and one typical IJN cruiser, say the Takao, would really be enough to make realistic missions possible. That and the aircraft types previously discussed.

WTE_Galway
01-08-2011, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Steven190:
I don't know why there is not a P61 in this game. There always has been talk about adding one but nothing has surfaced.

This is one that I would really like to see.

Other than this I have no complaines about what has evolved, this is a great game now and we enjoy flying it.

Thanks to all envolved.


The P61 is built by Northrop.

No chance of a P61 in IL2.

Billy_DeLyon
01-09-2011, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by tolodada:
and, please, not to forget 6dof ... the only reason why I am using mods ....

Same here.

RSS-Martin
01-09-2011, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Also some proper ships are dearly needed, no more British battleships as stand ins for Pearl Harbour, a model of the Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales is also missing let alone that we have not a single Japanese battleship!

During the development of Pacific Fighters there were several screen shots of the IJN BB "Haruna" that was a work in progress. Nothing ever happened with it as far as I know.

One BB and one typical IJN cruiser, say the Takao, would really be enough to make realistic missions possible. That and the aircraft types previously discussed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well from that time I still have these screen shots of two Japanese ships that never made it into the game, that would open a lot of possibilities:

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/HP1.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/mo1.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/maya4.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/zerokan8.jpg
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/y62.jpg
There are a lot more detail shots, those ships looked really good, I always wondered why they where not included?

TheGrunch
01-09-2011, 05:37 AM
Because the poly-count is about 10000x too high, maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
01-09-2011, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
Because the poly-count is about 10000x too high, maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Exactly my thoughts... If you put that ship into the void without the terrain etc. you would probably get same FPS as with normal game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , probably even less.
Imagine running the game on your PC and simultaneous full cannon fire from that ship with full effects, man all PCs in your neighbor would start to stutter out of sheer sympathy towards their brother in pain http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif .

We need super mega xilon 400GhZ holos to run such things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

RSS-Martin
01-09-2011, 07:28 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

TheGrunch
01-09-2011, 10:15 AM
Maybe in 10 years' time, Martin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

PhantomKira
01-09-2011, 12:22 PM
Wouldn't it be something if IL2 were STILL being played by a large group in 10 years?! "Yeah, son, this game came out ten years before you were born, and it's still the best there is!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif (By the way, that's adopted son. Who has time for such things with IL2, anyway! (Double http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif)

Ba5tard5word
01-09-2011, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
Wouldn't it be something if IL2 were STILL being played by a large group in 10 years?! "Yeah, son, this game came out ten years before you were born, and it's still the best there is!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif (By the way, that's adopted son. Who has time for such things with IL2, anyway! (Double http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif)

Could be, if SOW keeps getting delayed! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

WTE_Galway
01-09-2011, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by bolox00:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
.... but while we have now filled all the tiny pidgeon hole sized gaps on the RAF and Luftwaffe sets, how about working on the the cavernous gaps in the IJAFC plane set?
.

while i don't disagree that PTO fans have valid reasons for asking to fill out their lineup, can you tell me how many BRITISH bombers we currently have? - looks like a 'cavernous gap'also to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem there is most of the Brit medium and heavies (Hampton, Halifax, Lancaster, Wellington etc) are BoB vintage and hence reserved for SoW.

TheGrunch
01-09-2011, 05:01 PM
Hmmmm, the Lanc and the Halifax weren't in service until after the BoB, although the Halifax not by much. I think it's more a question of difficulty. Modeling heavies is a big undertaking.

dpleus
01-12-2011, 07:55 PM
I'm happy to see the AI improvements. Additional A/C would be a nice bonus. Specifically the Typhoon. And if we're talking pie in the sky, why not a Whirlwind?

ilmavoimat
01-18-2011, 12:34 PM
Just a few;
1. Please improve the less than fabulous engine sounds.
2. Custom skins and unit markings on stationary aircraft.
3. Ju88C-6
4. Ju88C-6
5. Ju88C-6.......etc etc!!

JG53Frankyboy
01-18-2011, 12:52 PM
Ju88A-4 mod :
a MG-FF/M in the nose instead of the Lotfe bombsight and no divebrakes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

should not be much 3D work for TD as the torp Ju88 has already this gun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , and its rather useless there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif you cant worry the AA guys on the ships http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

bolox00
01-18-2011, 01:47 PM
i'm well aware of possible conflicts with CoD for the Welli and Hampden.
i'm also more than aware of how much work is required to get a flyable 'heavy' ingame.(but it is a dream list)
i was pointing out a 'bending of facts'

anyway, let's hope 4.11 has something for everyone(now that is a dream http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

Fenice_1965
01-18-2011, 04:15 PM
HE 219 uhu
RE 2005
G55
Geographically Realistic maps.
Multiple in game stick mapping. It would be nice to choose between different axes mapping (single or multiengine)

Woke_Up_Dead
01-18-2011, 04:25 PM
More randomness. For example, I don't want my engine to go from thick black smoke to fire to explosion in exactly the same amount of time each time it's damaged. Same thing for damage visuals, the holes in the wings look exactly the same for each plane each time they're hit.

VW-IceFire
01-18-2011, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Woke_Up_Dead:
More randomness. For example, I don't want my engine to go from thick black smoke to fire to explosion in exactly the same amount of time each time it's damaged. Same thing for damage visuals, the holes in the wings look exactly the same for each plane each time they're hit.
The engine damage smoke and fire are fairly random already. Can you repeatedly cause the same engine fire and same explosion period over and over again?

As for damage on the aircraft... the way IL-2 does it is based on whatever the 3D modeler has constructed on the aircraft for damage. It's an artistic process and the internal components that are modeled on some IL-2 models are only for that tiny section that is showing.

IL-2 Cliffs of Dover (formerly Storm of War) has all of the internal bits and pieces modeled so presumably we'll see a more randomized damage modeling there. For IL-2 1946 I think that is technically doable but practically not feasible.

DD_crash
01-19-2011, 02:31 AM
I would like to see Redko repainted maps to replace the stock textures.

Sillius_Sodus
01-21-2011, 10:18 PM
I'd like to see:

1) The smooth hat switch view scrolling that is available in Wings of Prey.

2) The ability to chose more than four aircraft in a flight, and preset formations for the fmb, i.e. if I'm building a LW mission where bombers are the target, it would be nice to have a selection called, say, 'bomber box' which would populate the map with a B-17 or B-24 bomber box formation. I know you can edit mission files in notepad to do this but it would be simpler to have presets for them.

TheGrunch
01-22-2011, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
1) The smooth hat switch view scrolling that is available in Wings of Prey.
Second this, I'm using JoyToKey at the moment to emulate mouse view scrolling on the hat-switch on my stick, but it would be nice if external programs were not necessary.

Sillius_Sodus
01-23-2011, 11:08 AM
I forgot a big wish in my previous post.

I hope TD doesn't get discouraged about all the excitement over Cliffs of Dover and stop making their great patches! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

thefruitbat
01-23-2011, 11:18 AM
Tempest @ 11 lbs boost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheGrunch
01-23-2011, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Tempest @ 11 lbs boost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
+1, what a monster that would be. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

thefruitbat
01-23-2011, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Tempest @ 11 lbs boost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
+1, what a monster that would be. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if i was being really cheeky, i'd like a 13 lbs, as there was a few of those running around at the end, but a 11 lbs will do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheGrunch
01-23-2011, 05:42 PM
The +11lbs was the most numerous version, to be fair. But then, while we're on the subject of most numerous versions, I'd ask for the P-40N more strongly if it didn't involve 3d changes as well as FM changes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
01-23-2011, 05:43 PM
+10000000000000 for the P40N.

VW-IceFire
01-23-2011, 05:55 PM
I'd love to see a revised P-40 lineup. With 3D upgrades and fixes (one of the least accurate 3D models in-game with that dihedral problem) to the previous versions and definitely a P-40N added to the list.

TheGrunch
01-23-2011, 05:56 PM
Somehow I thought you might say that, ElAurens! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif My hopes are resting more strongly on CoD's successors on that count. If they go to the Italy, the Med and North Africa like we've seen a few hints that they might, it ought to appear eventually. I guess it just wasn't enough of an Eastern Front aircraft for Il-2.

VW-IceFire
01-23-2011, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
Somehow I thought you might say that, ElAurens! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif My hopes are resting more strongly on CoD's successors on that count. If they go to the Italy, the Med and North Africa like we've seen a few hints that they might, it ought to appear eventually. I guess it just wasn't enough of an Eastern Front aircraft for Il-2.
I hope to be drowning in all of the interesting P-40 variants seen in North Africa if we do go there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
01-23-2011, 06:09 PM
Definitely need the F for the 325th. in North Africa.

thefruitbat
01-23-2011, 06:14 PM
more p40's would be nice to, fill in alot of holes in mission building for sure with the N and the F http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

@grunch, yeah i know the 11 lbs was much more numerous, think the 13 lbs was actually pretty rare, though not as much as the lerche!

TheGrunch
01-23-2011, 06:18 PM
Hahaha, that's for sure.

Anyway, back to the wishlist...any British twin with AI radar would be super-awesome.

RSS-Martin
01-23-2011, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
+10000000000000 for the P40N.

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
for a He111E that would nicely cover the Spanish civil war & the Sino-Japanese conflict.

RSS-Martin
01-23-2011, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
more p40's would be nice to, fill in alot of holes in mission building for sure with the N and the F http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

@grunch, yeah i know the 11 lbs was much more numerous, think the 13 lbs was actually pretty rare, though not as much as the lerche!
Well that silly UFO Lerche never made it off the drawing board, that, that thing was added is something I will never understand, there are hundreds of aircraft I would have given preference to, than that thing.

Erkki_M
01-23-2011, 11:03 PM
Fw 190 FMs fixed(abysmal low speed acceleration of Antons mainly, also too fast Doras). Fw 190 DM checked(both "glass wing" and the "I've put 150 50 cal rounds to it and it wont die" phenomena. While they're at it, engine cowling fixed.

Bf 109 G-6 to K4 flight models rechecked. G-6 was said to fly nearly identical with G-2(which is doesn't in the game) while the other late 109s are all off.

I'd like to see P-40N/K too, and a flyable Do 217. While a 1:1 Channel map might be out of question, maybe one of Eastern/North France?

And perhaps most importantly, more bombers. Beaufort, Baltimore, Do 17(or the 217), Il-4, Ki-21, anyone?

GH_Klingstroem
01-24-2011, 03:50 AM
1. I want longer sinking times for ships!! Maybe even seeing debris on the surface and some oil where the ship has gone down...

And of course and upgrade to the stock IL2 sounds....

thefruitbat
01-24-2011, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
1. I want longer sinking times for ships!! Maybe even seeing debris on the surface and some oil where the ship has gone down...



have longer sinking times in 4.10 already, no debris though.

RSS-Martin
01-24-2011, 06:13 AM
That with those ships, I wouldnīt make them sink all at the same speed. That should be more random. After all there are plenty of reports of some ships sinking within seconds, others staying afloat for days before going under. That should not be uniform, for all the same time. Also it would be neat if the tankers would burn, and not just sink like a freighter carring cement.

thefruitbat
01-24-2011, 06:29 AM
that would indeed be cool.

GH_Klingstroem
01-24-2011, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
1. I want longer sinking times for ships!! Maybe even seeing debris on the surface and some oil where the ship has gone down...



have longer sinking times in 4.10 already, no debris though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMG jut tested it and u are right! Takes alot longer for them to go down! Now lets hope some debris and maybe some bubbles or foam around the ship as it goes down... Doesnt have to be much but just something else but completely calm water the fw meters around the ship..

BigC208
01-24-2011, 01:56 PM
Native multimonitor support with field of view adjustment control.

R_Target
01-24-2011, 05:56 PM
It's never to late to get that Hellcat up to speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

thefruitbat
01-24-2011, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
It's never to late to get that Hellcat up to speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

+1

stugumby
01-30-2011, 04:01 PM
id also like to see a winter nw europe map,
a gun select/arm/safe switch, must charge guns to use or to clear a induced random jam.
Fuel tank selector to switch from drop to internal tanks before you drop your drop tanks.

DKoor
01-31-2011, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
It's never to late to get that Hellcat up to speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

+1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+2

I don't know if Hellcat is still ridiculously slower with WEP than without at best speed altitude... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
You actually had to wait until all WEP is depleted to achieve absolute Hellcat top level speed.

klonko
01-31-2011, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by stugumby:
id also like to see a winter nw europe map,
a gun select/arm/safe switch, must charge guns to use or to clear a induced random jam.
Fuel tank selector to switch from drop to internal tanks before you drop your drop tanks.

Beat me to it. I'd love a safety button added for the guns also.

Gunshi0891
01-31-2011, 09:39 AM
Ki-44 Shoki , B5N2 Kate and N1K1-J flyable please , we need more Japanese planes and still don't have the Avenger and Curtiss Helldiver flyable for the US side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Otherwise if it's not possible , at least give us a better AI , the current AI (veteran/ace) cheats on physics way over the top (if it was only a little , it would be ok ) and pull out ridiculous manoeuvres way too often , that doesn't make them harder to shoot down , just more annoying as it ruins immersion when they exceed by far the capabilities of their planes or simply ignore physics .

just give us back the original FB AI of the old days if it's not possible to improve the current one , as it was by far the best AI we've had , it was more credible in the way they flew and tactics they used and it was also actually possible to surprise them

Lixma
02-03-2011, 06:48 PM
Proper widescreen support.

Removal of virtual-head's view-limits...i.e let the user look where they want in-cockpit instead of bashing up against invisible barriers.

6DOF would be nice though I understand most cockpits aren't designed for it.

Smaller fonts for HUD/chat/on-screen messages etc.