PDA

View Full Version : Patch 4.11 Development Updates by DT



daidalos.team
04-07-2011, 03:06 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Dear IL-2 fans.</span>

A bit overdue to be posted here, since these informations were available for already a week on other places, thus we want to up for it finally - for those, who do not know yet - and create another place for our future updates on this topic.

This is the first, small development update of the 4.11 patch and some of its features:

New AI planes:
Henschel Hs 123
Rogožarski IK-3
Douglas TBD Devastator

New flyable planes:
Pe-8
IL-4

Other features:
Bomb fuzes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zY6X10zo4E

Notice that this is not the complete features list of 4.11. Just few things that can be shown now on video.

Daidalos Team would like to thank the following community members for their contributions.

IK-3: Zimbower & Turelio
IL-4: Vert
TBD: Jason from 777 Studios



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Update 12 May 2011</span>

Here is one of the new features in 4.11. Ability to use stationary planes as spawning points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNjbe2GqHB4



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> Update 3 June 2011</span>

Today we would like to introduce two new features in 4.11. Sorry no video this time. Later we might do more these mini updates with text only.

Difficulty menu changes:
In 4.11 the difficulty options are divided and grouped logically into five separate sub-pages for easier navigation. "Weapons & Stores" page has two new options and "Views" page has five new difficulty options.

Bomb Fuzes option:
When Bomb Fuzes is enabled, the arming dialog shows the new fuze selection combo boxes that were shown in earlier update and fuzes are active in the sim. When the option is disabled, the arming dialog shows same components as in 4.09 and bombs behave same way as in 4.09.

Fragile Torpedoes option:
When this options is enabled, the torpedoes can be broken easily when dropped and all the constraints introduced in 4.10 apply.

No Players Own View option:
When this options is enabled, the player cannot view his own plane in external view. However this has one exception. When player is on ground, he still can access the external view for easier taxing. As soon as the player gets airborne, he is forced back to cockpit view.

No Enemy Views option:
When this option is enabled, player cannot view any enemy external views. This also includes any static cameras which have different army color than player's own army.

No Friendly Views option:
Basically same thing as above, but for friendly external views.

No Aircraft Views option:
When this option is enabled, all aircraft (excluding player’s own) views are disabled.

No Carrier Views:
Normally the external views have always included aircraft carriers too. In some cases these views might reveal too much information for the players. When this option is enabled, the carrier views are not available.

Static cameras in 4.11 have new “army” parameter, so for example it is possible to add “red” camera to red home base which blue players cannot access. Later this might be used to create “recon cameras” that are enabled by certain triggered event or presence of recon plane.


Smart Axis feature:
Many players with dual throttle setup have realized that flying planes with more engines than two can be little hassle. If engine power 1 & power 2 axis are mapped the throttles, that still leaves two unmapped throttle axis 3 & 4 if player is flying 4 engine plane. In this case players usually needs to go to controls menu and map one throttle axis to the old power which controls all engines.

The smart axis feature notices the situation when player’s aircraft has more engines than mapped axis (both throttle and prop pitch). For example with four engines and two mapped axis, both left engines are controlled by one mapped axis and both right engines are controlled by the other mapped axis. In case of three engines and two axis, the center engine gets the average value between left & right engines, so all three engines are throttled up/down roughly same way.

Screenshots:

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/5849/diffpage1.th.jpg (http://img824.imageshack.us/i/diffpage1.jpg/)

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/1015/diffpage2.th.jpg (http://img860.imageshack.us/i/diffpage2.jpg/)

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2392/diffpage3.th.jpg (http://img824.imageshack.us/i/diffpage3.jpg/)

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/9949/diffpage4.th.jpg (http://img802.imageshack.us/i/diffpage4.jpg/)

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9997/diffpage5.th.jpg (http://img843.imageshack.us/i/diffpage5.jpg/)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Update 19 June 2011</span>

Greetings dear IL-2 fans. Another small text & pics only update today...

Control surface & pilot's head positions transfered over network

This feature was briefly demonstrated in the spawning video. So basically this means that online players will see other player's control surface movements and pilot's head position (where the pilot is looking) since this information is propagated over the network.


Mouse wheel zooming

This was also hidden in the spawning video and there is even more hidden features in that clip Simply put, this is normal mouse wheel zooming which works in FMB, mission briefing screen and in minimap. The view is zoomed centered on current mouse position; i.e. you place a mouse cursor where you want to zoom in and scroll the wheel.


Default skin changes

In 4.11 we added a small internal feature which allows us to determine in the code more freely which default skin should be used. Previously most planes simply had summer & winter skins and few planes had unique default skin for pacific maps. In 4.11 we have possibility to load certain default skin based on mission date, aircraft regiment, etc. basically any information available. For example a Bf-110 which belongs to night fighter regiment could have a black NF default skins while other regiments have a normal day fighter skin.

Previously we were reluctant to add new country specific default skins because this would have mean that the aircraft 3D meshes, material & damage textures would need to be duplicated. Now we can add new country specific default skins more freely without adding unnecessary content to increase patch size. Here is one example from 4.11:

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5772/countrydefaults.jpg

Other example for allied skins would be invasion stripes. Here is a pic of few allied stationary planes when mission date is pre-D-day:

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4306/alliedpredday.jpg

Same mission, but now with date that is after D-day:

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/7359/alliedpostdday.jpg

Another example of few pre-war skins:

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/4305/prewardefaults.jpg

And same situation with later mission date:

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/6839/defaultsp.jpg

Yellow eastern front markings are another good example. Here we can see few Finnish planes during Winter War period. Notice that there is no yellow eastern front markings visible.

http://img853.imageshack.us/im.../8753/faf1.jpg[/img] (http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/8753/faf1.jpg%5B/img%5D)

When we se a mission date which indicates a start of Continuation War, we get following default skins. Notice that this is historically correct situation for early Continuation War. Yellow eastern front markings have been introduced, but not applied to engine cowlings yet. In few cases the markings have been applied over old Winter War paints.

http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/3368/faf2.jpg

And if push the mission date little further, we get again correct default skins. Now the eastern front markings have been applied to engines and planes have received "war paints" instead of original French/ German/Italian colors.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5885/faf3.jpg

Skins shown here might not be the final ones.

Thanks to all the artists.
Cpt_Farrel
Emel
Hurri-Khan
Macwan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------



<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Update 2 November 2011</span>

Dear Il-2 jockeys!
Finally, after some time of silence, an official update again!

General overhaul of AI-behaviour

The following video gives a first impression of a lot of subtle or major changings we have done on the AI, so that it is behaving more like human players - so it is more comprehensible, more unforeseeable and more varied.
Thus it also will become a bit more challenging. This video shows the differences in aiming abilities between patches 4.11 and 4.10.1. More details will come soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcvrCfErUr4


More planes

CANT Z.506 'Airone' (AI only)
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8428/cant5061.th.jpg (http://img508.imageshack.us/i/cant5061.jpg/)
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9776/cant5062.th.jpg (http://img220.imageshack.us/i/cant5062.jpg/)

Mosquito FB Mk. XVIII 'Tse Tse' (flyable)
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/9636/moss181.th.jpg (http://img805.imageshack.us/i/moss181.jpg/)
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/2580/moss182.th.jpg (http://img809.imageshack.us/i/moss182.jpg/)

Two versions of the 'Toryu' (both AI only): Ki-45 Kai Hei ...
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8468/ki45hei1.th.jpg (http://img845.imageshack.us/i/ki45hei1.jpg/)
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1469/ki45hei2.th.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/ki45hei2.jpg/)

...and the Ki-45 Kai Tei
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7355/ki45tei2.th.jpg (http://img845.imageshack.us/i/ki45tei2.jpg/)
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4505/ki45tei1.th.jpg (http://img265.imageshack.us/i/ki45tei1.jpg/)


And as a bonus, the 3rd party author of the Ki-45, Kashiide, is also working on the cockpit, so it will probably be flyable for 4.12:

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8670/ki451.th.jpg (http://img525.imageshack.us/i/ki451.jpg/)
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8792/ki452.th.jpg (http://img213.imageshack.us/i/ki452.jpg/)
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9797/ki453.th.jpg (http://img341.imageshack.us/i/ki453.jpg/)
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7288/ki454.th.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/i/ki454.jpg/)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Update 28 November</span>


Hey there!

Today again AI is one topic of our update.
No longer will AI gunners behave like 'Duke Nukem' and violently shoot at any target, no matter, if some poor fellow is in the line of fire - or directly behind the target.
Means, line of fire check is ON, so much fewer friendly fire kills will appear. Still it is possible, but will happen very rarely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvqWR1N2muc



Furthermore we are proud to present 6 new AFV made for IL-2 by a 3rd party enthusiast modeler (thanks alot!):

Autoblinda
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/5968/autoblinda.jpg

Carro Armato L6-40
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/2660/caroarmatal640.jpg

Carro Armato 13-40
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9636/caraarmata1340.jpg

Semovente 47-32
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/3867/semovente4732.jpg

Semovente 75-18-40
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/852/semovente751840.jpg

Crusader III
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2158/crusaderiii.jpg

Each has 3 skin variants: desert, summer and winter. Except for Crusader, which has only desert skin, since it wasn't used anywhere else.

Await next update soon! Cya! ;-)
DT

berg417448
04-07-2011, 09:15 AM
Nice.

Sillius_Sodus
04-07-2011, 10:10 AM
Thank you for the update http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

It looks like there's a LOT of life left in this old bird!

I couldn't help noticing though, during the Devastator footage, the speed in the HUD was 290 km/h, I didn't think it could go that fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

I'm looking forward to downloading the patch, keep up the good work!

TipsyTed
04-07-2011, 12:39 PM
Wow, IK-3 actually made it into an official patch! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

70 years are passing right these days from the times these fighters were hopelessly trying to defend Belgrade.

Wildnoob
04-07-2011, 01:13 PM
WOUNDERFUL!

I always loved the Pe-8 and other Soviet bombers. And about the Pe-8, I don't know if it's in your plans, but late they had the Norden bombsight striped from LL planes placed in them. If possible, this would ne bice to be implemented.

Ah, and any word about a flyable B5N/6N, the Avenger and the Ki-21?

Keep up with the excellent work TD, the Sturmovik will live for much time yet!

Ba5tard5word
04-07-2011, 01:22 PM
Cool beans...I'll be interested to see what non-plane stuff is added. One or two new flyable fighters would be cool too...maybe a flyable G.55? Pleeease? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-07-2011, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:

Ah, and any word about a flyable B5N/6N, the Avenger and the Ki-21?



Avenger is restricted by the Northrop Grumman issue and never will officially happen to be flyable.
B5N and Devastator will probably adressed in a future patch.
No plans with Ki-21 yet.

DrHerb
04-07-2011, 04:05 PM
Thanks a million DT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

K_Freddie
04-07-2011, 04:54 PM
Well we can only say.. danke!!

Did you guys (at DT) get my email I sent about 2 weeks ago ??

Metatron_123
04-07-2011, 08:36 PM
Nice stuff! First flyable heavy bomber! It looks majestic!

Thanks very much

TipsyTed
04-08-2011, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
First flyable heavy bomber!

CoughTB-3Cough

Wildnoob
04-08-2011, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by TipsyTed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
First flyable heavy bomber!

CoughTB-3Cough </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First modern flyable HB. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sillius_Sodus
04-08-2011, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by TipsyTed:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
First flyable heavy bomber!

CoughTB-3Cough </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The TB-3 is not a heavy bomber, it's a flying condominium http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

RegRag1977
04-08-2011, 05:32 PM
Wow, this rocks!

Thanks TD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

deskpilot
04-09-2011, 02:58 AM
Thanks team daidalos. Now more than ever I am grateful that you guys are bothering to keep IL2 going. IL2 has enough in it to keep me going forever!

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-09-2011, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Did you guys (at DT) get my email I sent about 2 weeks ago ??

Not sure, I can have a look - what was the topic about?

jarink
04-09-2011, 06:05 PM
Wow! It's nice to know IL2 still soldiers on. What really amazes me is that not only is TD bringing in some more planes, but they are adding some options like the radio navigation in 4.10 and now selectable (and infinitely more realistic) bomb fuzing!

Thanks for the updates!

larschance
04-10-2011, 08:39 AM
Good work TD. Always nice to see new aircraft especially flyable ones.I too would like to try a flyable G55 and if possible a Reggiane 2005 to compare. How about the D520 which flew with several air forces. A long life to Il2! Cheers.

K_Freddie
04-11-2011, 04:02 AM
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 K_Freddie:
Did you guys (at DT) get my email I sent about 2 weeks ago ??

Not sure, I can have a look - what was the topic about? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All Info relating to creation of a Dgen.
I'd like to try my hand at this, as I've never been satisfied with the stock game and Lowengrin's DGens.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DKoor
04-11-2011, 02:08 PM
Lovely, many thanks to TD http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif .

This old PC of mine died few months ago on me so I'm unable to play any game on it... I think I'll buy new PC sooner than planned only to fly Pe-8 I love that big bird http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Again thanks to you guys in Team Daidalos!

Treetop64
04-16-2011, 12:18 AM
Something tells me that if PCs can still run 1946 ten years from now, I'll still be playing it.

Thanks TD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ilmavoimat
04-22-2011, 12:46 PM
Just add my two pen'orth to the 4.11 wish list;

1.Are there any plans by TD to improve the external modelling on the He111 to the same standard as the excellent Ju88 update?

2.Any chance that the Swordfish, Blenheim, Hawk75 and R5 might be flyable at some point in the future.

3.How about some second line types such as FokkerCX, Hs126, He46, He50.

4.Ju88C-6!!!!!! Go on, You know you want to!

Many many thanks for 4.10. Especially the NDBs, Lorenz and wind effects. This sim just gets better and better, and there's still plenty of life left in it yet.

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-23-2011, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by ilmavoimat:
Just add my two pen'orth to the 4.11 wish list;

1.Are there any plans by TD to improve the external modelling on the He111 to the same standard as the excellent Ju88 update?

2.Any chance that the Swordfish, Blenheim, Hawk75 and R5 might be flyable at some point in the future.

3.How about some second line types such as FokkerCX, Hs126, He46, He50.

4.Ju88C-6!!!!!! Go on, You know you want to!


1. No plans. New skins maybe.
2. partially yes ;-)
3. unlikely, but who knows?
4. Dunno. Maybe. The Ju-88 case is not closed at least.

Bremspropeller
04-23-2011, 06:39 AM
1. Some added loadouts for the Fw 190F-8, like 4x SC50 below the fuselage or 8x SC50 or Panzerblitz rockets
2. Cowling-rework for all Antons (similar to the mod)
3. Ability to sequence the bombs to be dropped independently:
- which bomb goes first (heavy one or light one)
- how many bombs will be dropped (one, two or all at once)

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

CrazyOWl
04-24-2011, 08:41 AM
Hi! for any chance any of this great updates
include on some way trackir 6dof. I have being flying for a long time in il2 and I whant to try the new stuff but I cant get use to not have 6dof and only rotation in trackir?

Can anyone point the way?

Thankz <S>

Crazyowl

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-25-2011, 07:44 AM
Patience to the people! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BWaltteri
04-25-2011, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by ilmavoimat:
FokkerCX

My ultimate dream. Winter War Finnish bomber campaign. Here I come.

ROXunreal
04-25-2011, 09:58 AM
Proper acceleration of FW 190's would be nice, especially on the ground...

Bremspropeller
04-25-2011, 10:51 AM
Forgot to mention proper loadouts on the Dora, such as

SC250
AB250
300l tank

Panzerblitz/ R4M as a possible bonus (R4M launchers were carried on some Doras)

Loadouts would also require a proper ETC 504 rack.

horseback
04-25-2011, 12:21 PM
My wish list still includes more realistic AI Gunners on multiseat aircraft. At the very least, the player should not receive the extra attention he currently receives from the AI gunners; it is obvious that they treat our AI wingmen quite differently (and more realistically), and at a minimum, I want equal treatment.

I recently engaged a Rookie Me 110G in a Mustang campaign, and had my engine disabled by the rear gunner from over 400m while the 110G was in a full hard 90° left banking turn; I was cutting the corner on him and was (I think, since he was hidden under my nose at the time) probably a couple of seconds from the point of making a deflection shot near my convergence range of 275m when my engine was hit.

I paused the game instantly at that point because I couldn’t believe that I’d been hit by the plane I was attacking; gauging relative positions showed the shots that hit me were fired from a range of about 430m. The rear gunner had to have his guns rotated almost fully up, such that a real human being would not have been able to aim over his sights at the point where my aircraft was going to be, ignoring whether he would be affected by a high G turn, or the range, which would make for a near-impossible zero deflection shot (aimed over the sights) from a stable platform in real life with those guns.

There was NO other plane within 1000m of either of us.

A real gunner, regardless of his skill level or training would not have been able to fire his guns because he would be trying to hold onto his seat under the pressure of a minimum of two or three gravities.

A real gunner, regardless of his skill or training, would not have been able to aim his guns because to see over his sights at his aiming point, he would have had to be lying on the floor of the cockpit.

A real gunner, regardless of his skill level or training, would not have been able to pick out his aiming point because of the extreme angle and high deflections in two geometric planes; it required him to have a precise knowledge of both his own aircraft’s (constantly changing) speed and direction, and the (constantly changing) speed and direction of the attacking aircraft.

A real gunner, regardless of his skill level or training, would not have been able to make the shot because it was simply <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">too far away to make from that gun mount on a moving platform, regardless of how stable it was, or the deflection angles involved.</span>

This was a Rookie. This is not an isolated incident by any means; in fact, it is the norm for Me 110s, which are vastly more dangerous from any rear angle approach than from head on. This is contrary to the historical record, to say the least, and should be changed, at least for offline fighter campaigns.

This goes beyond annoying for an offline campaigner who has the slightest familiarity with the historical record; I've put the game aside for months at a time in sheer disgust, and I'm not the only one. Who knows how many offliners bother to come back?

While we’re at it, some other suggestions:


1. Currently, you cannot disable an ai gunner’s guns; I have multiple tracks accumulated over the years which show rounds passing through barrels and main bodies of the ai’s flexible or turret guns and they are still blazing away later in the track. If they can disable my guns, why can’t I disable theirs?


2. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It takes multiple hits to the exposed portions of the ai gunner’s head and shoulders to kill or disable them;</span> I’m pretty sure that it was the rare gunner who took a 20mm, 12.7mm, or 7.xmm high powered round to the head or upper torso and stayed at his gun. Also, the skin of the fuselage that the gunners’ virtual bodies are concealed behind are currently treated like 30-40mm of angled steel armorplate, even when it was wood, aluminum sheet or even fabric on the real aircraft. To hit and disable a gunner, you MUST hit his exposed body or go through (unarmored) canopy or window glass. That’s a bit too much.


3. At this time, it appears that if the guns can be pointed in a given direction, even if the gunner could not see over the sights or even see your aircraft or that aiming point in space (because you, or that aiming point is hidden by the tail or fuselage relative to his head) when the gun is pointed in that direction, you are subject to the same levels of accuracy as if you approach from a dead six to those guns. Unrealistic. If he can’t see you and his aiming point over the sights, he shouldn’t be able to hit you, regardless of the range.

I know that I'm dreaming, but it's worth a shot to put it on the table.

cheers

horseback

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-26-2011, 09:43 AM
While many of your explorations are not much more than subjective impressions and leading you to simply wrong conclusions about what is realistic and what not - I can anyway already tell you, that we will implement more detailed AI abilities, regarding such things as visibility and forces.
AFAIK AIs gunners ability is already inflicted by damage (hurt gunners) with 4.10.

horseback
04-26-2011, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by EJGrOst_Caspar:
While many of your explorations are not much more than subjective impressions and leading you to simply wrong conclusions about what is realistic and what not - I can anyway already tell you, that we will implement more detailed AI abilities, regarding such things as visibility and forces.
AFAIK AIs gunners ability is already inflicted by damage (hurt gunners) with 4.10. If you’re going to call me a liar or imply that I’m fantasizing like an immature 13 year old, could you do me the courtesy of being specific, and proving or at least backing up your points?

• We know that the AI gunners treat the Player differently from his AI wingmen. It is not only an observable fact, there are mods that specifically address this, either ‘promoting’ your AI wingmen to player status and getting them shot down more often, from farther away and at more extreme angles, or ‘demoting’ the player to equal status as a target with his AI wingmen, which allows you to make closer approaches and get hit less often, not being hit unless you are much closer and within narrower (more reasonable) angles.

• I know from direct personal experience that it requires a great deal of skill to hit a static target less than 2m wide from over 200m away with a machine gun on a flexible mount with a single burst, as the ai gunners do routinely. When you and your target are moving at different angles and different speeds, your targeting solution becomes more difficult, not less. The historical record supports my experience & conclusions; postwar comparisons of known losses versus aerial gunners’ claims invariably show that the gunners overclaimed by a factor of at least ten to one (and very few of them had the unmitigated gall to claim kills at ranges over 200m).

• In nine years and literally thousands of Il-2 simulator ‘flight’ hours, I do not believe that I have ever ‘killed’ an ai gunner by hitting his ‘body’ through the skin or armored glass of his aircraft, or disabled his guns by hitting them with my own bullets, even though I have on countless occasions, put very accurate bursts into the gunner’s positions or their close vicinity where I would have a reasonable expectation that the rounds would pass through the skin of the aircraft into the gunner. It is in fact much easier to get a pilot kill than a gunner kill from any angle. If this has changed in any measurable way, it has not been noticeable in the twenty–plus campaign missions I have flown (and usually reflown multiple times after encountering bombers or multiseaters with defensive gunners) since Patch 4.10.

cheers

horseback

dpleus
04-26-2011, 03:57 PM
I do not disagree with you about a lot of what you've posted, but I have occasionally killed gunners. Never on a 110. I got the one shot in the prop kill the other night from a Betty rear gunner while he was at nearly 90 degree right deflection while I was angling away about 45 degrees from the flightpath. It was quite amazing.

EJGrOst_Caspar
04-27-2011, 02:40 AM
If you’re going to call me a liar or imply that I’m fantasizing like an immature 13 year old, could you do me the courtesy of being specific, and proving or at least backing up your points?

I didn't call you a liar, neigher implied anything. Please read my posting again. I won't go with this kind of discussion.
Your observations are not correct. Thats what I said. I don't need to spead my carpet of backups here in front of you, I know it well from our development work.
I don't care, if mods adress anything - in many cases they only do as if they would.
However, its a fact (and I agree with you), that AI has extraordinary abilities in extraordinary situations. This will be refined.

This is not a wish or whine thread BTW.

FatCat_99
04-27-2011, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
• We know that the AI gunners treat the Player differently from his AI wingmen. It is not only an observable fact, there are mods that specifically address this, either ‘promoting’ your AI wingmen to player status and getting them shot down more often, from farther away and at more extreme angles, or ‘demoting’ the player to equal status as a target with his AI wingmen, which allows you to make closer approaches and get hit less often, not being hit unless you are much closer and within narrower (more reasonable) angles. AI gunners in stock game doesn't treat AI and humans any different.



• In nine years and literally thousands of Il-2 simulator ‘flight’ hours, I do not believe that I have ever ‘killed’ an ai gunner by hitting his ‘body’ through the skin or armored glass of his aircraft, or disabled his guns by hitting them with my own bullets, even though I have on countless occasions, put very accurate bursts into the gunner’s positions or their close vicinity where I would have a reasonable expectation that the rounds would pass through the skin of the aircraft into the gunner. It is in fact much easier to get a pilot kill than a gunner kill from any angle. If this has changed in any measurable way, it has not been noticeable in the twenty–plus campaign missions I have flown (and usually reflown multiple times after encountering bombers or multiseaters with defensive gunners) since Patch 4.10.

Don't know about disabling the guns, (I'd have to check the code ) but you can kill or wound gunners with hits in any part of the body and if they are wounded their shooting ability is reduced. Also, pilots and gunners are treated equally, only possible difference can be in 3d model but in that case that will vary from plane to plane so it would be hard to make general conclusions.

All of the above doesn't mean that we are not making changes and adjustments to AI, in fact one of the main themes for 4.11 is AI behavior so you can expect lot of changes in that department.

FC

JtD
04-30-2011, 05:46 AM
I've shot guns off planes. Heinkel nose gunner, for instance. Hit the gun with a big shell, an it is gone.

Feathered_IV
04-30-2011, 07:45 AM
Odd. I've killed gunners many, many times over the last couple of years. The 110, Blenheim and SB-2 gunners are especially soft targets. From memory, the Hurricane, Ki-27 and Emil machine guns were the most effective.

larschance
04-30-2011, 09:59 AM
Reply
To check gunners effectiveness I suggest trying one on one offline e.g. Hurricane v He111 or Sptifire v Ju88 and try and pick off gunners one by one.Sometimes it works sometimes not. Do the gunners behave differently offline and online, single mission or career mission. I would have thought not. Although they can be unrealistically lethal in some scenarios you just have to find the target weak spots and be patient before you strike.

horseback
04-30-2011, 10:43 AM
I didn't say that I've never killed an ai gunner. I have not killed any <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">through the fuselage </span>that I am aware of; obviously, I don't have tracks of every minute of virtual flight since installing Il-2 '46, but those I have examined usually show either a gunner blazing away after I've peppered his vicinity pretty thoroughly, or in arcade mode, he stops shooting only after I've put three or more arrows <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">through that part of his upper body that is exposed above his guns</span>. I've never seen a gunner 'die' after being penetrated through the parts of his virtual torso concealed within the skin of the aircraft; I've always assumed that his torso is not treated as 'real' below that point.

"Tunnel" gunners, on top of being able to see & aim through the skin of the fuselage (given the ludicrous angles at which they will hit you), and being for all intents and purposes invisible to the player, are in my experience untouchable.

Feathered, try making those gunner kills with a Mustang, Hellcat or Corsair with your convergence at the historical setting of 275m or less; between the outrageous difficulties with centering your 'ball' on a maneuvering target and the treatment of wingmounted HMGs, they'll be shooting you down more often than they would in your mostly nose mounted sniper planes.

cheers

horseback

jortiz8
04-30-2011, 11:06 AM
Snow covered and grass airfields are hard to see when coming in to land. If I follow AI order of landing it is virtually impossible to see the field. I have to use zoom to get bearing and lineup. Any chance to remedy this problem. Need more contrast in runways.

Thanks TD for a great sim and support.

Bearcat99
05-01-2011, 09:09 PM
It seems to me that when I am running a QM offline that all the AI are gunning for me. If I have 4 flights of enemies .. it seems as if all of them are concentrating their efforts on me.. to the point where at times I have had an entire flight and half of another.. all after me.. in a 4v4 flight fight... Still looking forward to whatever you guys come up with...

horseback
05-02-2011, 05:01 PM
Well, if we know that the ai don't pick on the player or treat him differently from any other virtual airplane out there, we must assume that the player does something that causes the ai to direct their attentions to him.

I've changed deoderants twice now with no effect...moving on to mouthwashes.

cheers

horseback

EJGrOst_Caspar
05-03-2011, 01:08 AM
Its very simple: enemy AI is crying for help

So, the more dangerous you are for them, the more they will adress you. Or easier to say: if you shoot at one, you become the target of others imidiatly. Don't shoot and climb and you will be ignored mostly.

But if you watch the initial headon (in default setup), you can see that the AI is dividing their targets.

Messaschnitzel
05-03-2011, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by EJGrOst_Caspar:
Its very simple: enemy AI is crying for help

So, the more dangerous you are for them, the more they will adress you. Or easier to say: if you shoot at one, you become the target of others imidiatly. Don't shoot and climb and you will be ignored mostly.

But if you watch the initial headon (in default setup), you can see that the AI is dividing their targets.

I've noticed that same thing over the years, but never really given much thought to it. The best results I get before initial head on in the QMB is give my flight their orders, and then right after go into a shallow dive to build some speed, blow past the enemy planes without cutting loose, and once past I'll pull up considerably and roll back towards the fight where usually the planes will be chasing each other around at lower altitudes. If I let the enemy planes have some during the head on, I'll always have a couple of enemy gunning for me right after.

Hey Caspar, you guys should add this new AI order into the list:

"Run Forrest, Run!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Testus01
05-06-2011, 02:54 AM
AI offline are less attracted to you if you take them one by one starting with the last aircraft from the more distant squadron you see. So instead of attacking the first leader around, you will get more of them (and eventually survive in furballs) if you get altitude and avoid them and check where they are aiming to.
On the contrary, if you scratch six of them on an head on pass, you will be their 1st target (they don't talk to each other...). So showing off is not the best idea with 'skilled' or numerous AI enemies.
Mixing this logic with online possibilities is one of the great improvements Zuti's MDS mode (multiplayer dogfight) brought to the game.
Another logical answer to Bearcat is the Hyde park factor: the more you post, the more people recognize you...

Ba5tard5word
05-06-2011, 01:47 PM
I like the scramble feature in the QMB but I find it's pretty useless to use with enemy fighters because 90% of the time the enemy fighters will spawn so close to my airfield that they almost always shoot up my wingmen before they take off. I've complained about this before but never gotten any replies.

I'd like to be able to set distance for enemy fighters for scrambles, if you could put them slightly further away this wouldn't really be an issue.

Sometimes it's fun to have a challenge where there's a high likelihood that my wingmen get blown up on the ground and I have to take out 4 enemy fighters on my own, but it would be nice to have a choice about whether my wingmen have a chance or not.

thefruitbat
05-07-2011, 09:13 AM
you can edit the qmb missions in the fmb real easy, just move the enemy starting waypoints further out.

the QMB missions are found in,

IL-2 Sturmovik 1946\Missions\Quick

you can also add any map by making new ones to.

Ba5tard5word
05-07-2011, 05:32 PM
Fair point but if I do that I might as well run it in FMB. I'd just like an option for scramble distance, seems like it would be easy enough to do.

EJGrOst_Caspar
06-08-2011, 04:17 AM
Just a bump to pull this thread up - since there where a few news here meanwhile:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20318

For those, who do know know yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Oh... and BTW:

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/9760/h75fin.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/651/h75fin.jpg/)

This is a WIP shot and will probably not be in 4.11 but later.

Luno13
06-08-2011, 04:47 AM
Wow! Excellent news, this is a very badly needed cockpit!!

I have to say, it sure looks nearly done...If it's not going to make 4.11, does that mean 4.11 is right around the corner? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

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

EJGrOst_Caspar
06-08-2011, 05:20 AM
4.11 is currently locked for new features for testing and refining. And the lower part of the cockpit, you see there, is mainly untouched and from a different plane.

Luno13
06-08-2011, 01:17 PM
I see - I'm not too familiar with the appearance of the P-36 offhand, so it looked just about right to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I love your work, guys! Thanks!

mattinen
06-09-2011, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
My wish list still includes more realistic AI Gunners on multiseat aircraft. At the very least, the player should not receive the extra attention he currently receives from the AI gunners; it is obvious that they treat our AI wingmen quite differently (and more realistically), and at a minimum, I want equal treatment.

I recently engaged a Rookie Me 110G in a Mustang campaign, and had my engine disabled by the rear gunner from over 400m while the 110G was in a full hard 90° left banking turn; I was cutting the corner on him and was (I think, since he was hidden under my nose at the time) probably a couple of seconds from the point of making a deflection shot near my convergence range of 275m when my engine was hit.

I paused the game instantly at that point because I couldn’t believe that I’d been hit by the plane I was attacking; gauging relative positions showed the shots that hit me were fired from a range of about 430m. The rear gunner had to have his guns rotated almost fully up, such that a real human being would not have been able to aim over his sights at the point where my aircraft was going to be, ignoring whether he would be affected by a high G turn, or the range, which would make for a near-impossible zero deflection shot (aimed over the sights) from a stable platform in real life with those guns.

There was NO other plane within 1000m of either of us.

A real gunner, regardless of his skill level or training would not have been able to fire his guns because he would be trying to hold onto his seat under the pressure of a minimum of two or three gravities.

A real gunner, regardless of his skill or training, would not have been able to aim his guns because to see over his sights at his aiming point, he would have had to be lying on the floor of the cockpit.

A real gunner, regardless of his skill level or training, would not have been able to pick out his aiming point because of the extreme angle and high deflections in two geometric planes; it required him to have a precise knowledge of both his own aircraft’s (constantly changing) speed and direction, and the (constantly changing) speed and direction of the attacking aircraft.

A real gunner, regardless of his skill level or training, would not have been able to make the shot because it was simply <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">too far away to make from that gun mount on a moving platform, regardless of how stable it was, or the deflection angles involved.</span>

This was a Rookie. This is not an isolated incident by any means; in fact, it is the norm for Me 110s, which are vastly more dangerous from any rear angle approach than from head on. This is contrary to the historical record, to say the least, and should be changed, at least for offline fighter campaigns.

This goes beyond annoying for an offline campaigner who has the slightest familiarity with the historical record; I've put the game aside for months at a time in sheer disgust, and I'm not the only one. Who knows how many offliners bother to come back?

While we’re at it, some other suggestions:


1. Currently, you cannot disable an ai gunner’s guns; I have multiple tracks accumulated over the years which show rounds passing through barrels and main bodies of the ai’s flexible or turret guns and they are still blazing away later in the track. If they can disable my guns, why can’t I disable theirs?


2. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It takes multiple hits to the exposed portions of the ai gunner’s head and shoulders to kill or disable them;</span> I’m pretty sure that it was the rare gunner who took a 20mm, 12.7mm, or 7.xmm high powered round to the head or upper torso and stayed at his gun. Also, the skin of the fuselage that the gunners’ virtual bodies are concealed behind are currently treated like 30-40mm of angled steel armorplate, even when it was wood, aluminum sheet or even fabric on the real aircraft. To hit and disable a gunner, you MUST hit his exposed body or go through (unarmored) canopy or window glass. That’s a bit too much.


3. At this time, it appears that if the guns can be pointed in a given direction, even if the gunner could not see over the sights or even see your aircraft or that aiming point in space (because you, or that aiming point is hidden by the tail or fuselage relative to his head) when the gun is pointed in that direction, you are subject to the same levels of accuracy as if you approach from a dead six to those guns. Unrealistic. If he can’t see you and his aiming point over the sights, he shouldn’t be able to hit you, regardless of the range.

I know that I'm dreaming, but it's worth a shot to put it on the table.

cheers

horseback

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

I totally agree. The single most irritating feature in this otherwise right and honourable game is the overpowered AI gunnery. I for one would greatly appreciate a clear downgrade in the AI gunnery department.

Treetop64
06-11-2011, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by EJGrOst_Caspar:
Oh... and BTW:

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/9760/h75fin.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/651/h75fin.jpg/)

This is a WIP shot and will probably not be in 4.11 but later.

My...goodness...!

Do I dare hope?

Is that, that, a Curtis P-36 Hawk...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

arthursmedley
06-11-2011, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by EJGrOst_Caspar:
4.11 is currently locked for new features for testing and refining.

No chance of a form of 6dof for TrackIr being implemented anytime soon?

EJGrOst_Caspar
06-14-2011, 09:30 AM
We... however... care for that all our new cockpits would be able to meet an enhanced movment.

EJGrOst_Caspar
06-14-2011, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Treetop64:

Is that, that, a Curtis P-36 Hawk...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

No! Not yet. But it will be one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EDIT: in fact, its gonna be a Hawk75.

Ba5tard5word
06-14-2011, 12:16 PM
Cool, a Hawk would be pretty great.


Also I'm going to make Request for Fixing the AI #15414124081409184. I have been playing the stock game offline for a bit and the fighter AI just drives me batty the way it constantly does barrel rolls instead of making more realistic evasion maneuvers--I can't imagine that any pilot could make a constant barrel roll for 60 seconds then start doing a bunch of scissors maneuvers without barfing all over his pit! A downgrade of AI gunners would be good too. If a stock AI revamp could be done it's all I could ever ask of Team Daidalos...for me it's more of a priority than any new planes. I know it will probably never happen but I can dream...

horseback
06-14-2011, 04:00 PM
I’m going to have to recant a bit on the following:

2. It takes multiple hits to the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">exposed portions of the ai gunner’s head and shoulders</span> to kill or disable them; I’m pretty sure that it was the rare gunner who took a 20mm, 12.7mm, or 7.xmm high powered round to the head or upper torso and stayed at his gun. Also, the skin of the fuselage that the gunners’ virtual bodies are concealed behind are currently treated like 30-40mm of angled steel armorplate, even when it was wood, aluminum sheet or even fabric on the real aircraft. To hit and disable a gunner, you MUST hit his exposed body or go through (unarmored) canopy or window glass. That’s a bit too much. I recently flew an offline mission where I was able to pretty thoroughly perforate an He-111 with a couple of passes in a Mustang; as Caspar had stated that I was in error on some of my statements, I took the time to check the gunners’ status by pausing right as my aircraft made a close pass to the Heinkel as it started its long slow fall into the North Sea (I’d seen only one ‘chute, but any jumping crewmen usually means that the aircraft is done, so I figured I wouldn’t get bushwhacked) and used the F2 key to get an external view of my plane. I then rotated my view and pulled back through the Heinkel’s fuselage, and lo and behold, there were four ai figures slumped inside the fuselage (including the little sob who works the two side guns).

So at the very least, it appears that .50s/12.7mm HMGs will take the little buggers out if you hit them, at least in the He-111 (I have yet to silence a gunner on a Me 110 without blowing the whole airplane up or forcing him to bail out –after 7 or 8 years of shooting at the buggers, you’d think I would have nailed at least ONE—I’ve gotten lots of PKs against them). I’ve enjoyed considerably less success in a Hurricane campaign against the same models of He-111, but the .303 is a much smaller round (although with a higher ratio of incendiary).

Regardless, I still think that the ai gunners are several orders of magnitude more accurate than they should be, from inhumanly greater distances than can be justified in a realistic air combat simulation. I also feel that there are certain aircraft where the ai gunners are ‘enhanced’ well beyond the already excessive norm.

cheers

horseback

Treetop64
06-14-2011, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
I also feel that there are certain aircraft where the ai gunners are ‘enhanced’ well beyond the already excessive norm.

cheers

horseback

Pe-2/Pe-3 gunner immediately comes to mind...

Luno13
06-14-2011, 11:32 PM
On the other hand, the Pe-2 has wings held on by chewing gum. The Letov...now that has a gunner.

Ba5tard5word
06-15-2011, 11:05 AM
Every time I fly against a Pe-2 they always seem to kill my plane with one shot.

Phil_K
06-15-2011, 02:40 PM
Pe-2's aren't more accurate, they've just got very effective guns. Flying the gunner position is great fun in a Pe-2 - very easy to take out a Bf-109 or Fw-190 engine.

Of course, you don't get very much ammo.....

Treetop64
06-16-2011, 02:39 PM
One thing I've noticed is that the gunners consistently have some difficulty hitting you when you come in very fast from very high, say +1000 meters above him or more, and slightly from behind. Swooping down from above at 500 kph or more, and way above them gives you a relatively easy deflection shot and plenty of energy to go back up and come down fast again if necessary. Gunners have often failed to hit me in this situation, or didn't hit me enough to do any significant damage.

I've always opened fire from ABOVE and behind, and not DIRECTLY behind; doing the latter is inviting a bullet to the face. Moreover, my squad has recently been issued our first FW190s in the campaign and I've enjoyed a lot more success with this tactic since, as the Focke-Wolf just loves to dive! It's also a much tougher airplane and shrugs off hits that would cripple the Bf109s we used to have. The copious amounts of firepower certainly helps, too.

horseback
06-16-2011, 06:17 PM
Yeah, the 4x20mm armament of the 190 certainly helps put the BOOM! into 'zoom and boom'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Of course real life military needs didn't always permit one the leisure time to make a long diving attack (and real-life gunners couldn't individually hit the broad side of a barn at almost any angle outside of a level dead six or twelve).

cheers

horseback

JtD
06-16-2011, 10:30 PM
If that was true, one wonders why gunners weren't eliminated from bomber designs right at the start of the war.

AndyJWest
06-16-2011, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
If that was true, one wonders why gunners weren't eliminated from bomber designs right at the start of the war.
Arguably, they should have been: compare the cost-effectiveness of a Mosquito with a Lancaster.

JtD
06-16-2011, 11:16 PM
The Luftwaffe would have been screaming in fear about all these unarmed Mosquitoes...but since it is apples and oranges anyway, I'd rather look at the Il-2 evolution, where a gunner was added or the B-17 evolution, where gunners were added, or the B-24 evolution, where gunners were added, or the Pe-2 evolution, where guns were added, or ... you get the picture. Bombers operating mainly in daylight, had there defensive guns usually improved, not the type replaced with an unarmed design.

The Mosquito was as successful as it was not only because it was an excellent aircraft, but also very much because most of Germany's air defence focussed on the heavies.

Phil_K
06-17-2011, 03:37 AM
Playing Il-2, it's always worth taking on a rear gunner, especially one with a fairly weak weapon, because there is a 0% chance of you really being killed.

There's an interview with a Sturmovik pilot here: http://www.iremember.ru/letchi...iy-mikhaylovich.html (http://www.iremember.ru/letchiki-shturmoviki/khukhrikov-uriy-mikhaylovich.html)

On page 3, the Google Translate comedy English suggests that he considers the rear gunner to have been essential. In-game, I prefer the single-seat, because the game doesn't model the real use of the rear gunner - as a tool for warding off, inducing loss of nerve etc.

Ba5tard5word
06-17-2011, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Phil_K:
Playing Il-2, it's always worth taking on a rear gunner, especially one with a fairly weak weapon, because there is a 0% chance of you really being killed.

Not sure what you mean. While I attack bombers from dead six more than I really should (I get too impatient to gain altitude then dive on them like I should) but I get my plane messed up by rear gunners all the time, even if they have .30 cal guns. Engines smoke or get knocked out (esp with glassjaw planes like 109's or P-40's), fuel tanks get set on fire, and sometimes you get an instant pilot kill from just a few hits.

horseback
06-17-2011, 11:30 AM
Heavies vs light attack is apples and oranges.

The heavy bombers were designed, built and sold to the public before the war; no one had a clue what the higher performance monoplane fighter and radar would do to the belief that the bomber would always get through. Because the heavies represented such a huge investment in men, public treasure, material and political good will, it would have been a huge loss of face and possibly damaged public morale to admit that the bombers couldn't defend themselves without an almost equal number of long-range fighter escorts.

The USAAF heavies were almost able to defend themselves against single engined fighters once their formations reached the desired numbers, because their formations offered mutual protection and they flew much higher and faster than the RAF and Luftwaffe bombers previously used in the war. However, they were dependent upon the sheer numbers of guns, not the accuracy of the individual gunners--a single bomber or even a small formation of three or four was practically helpless against even one attacking fighter. There's a huge difference in the likelihood of being hit when forty guns are firing in your general direction than if there are only two or three..

Unfortunately for them, the Germans simply found ways to use stand-off weapons like rockets and heavy cannon mounted on high performance twin engined fighters beyond the range of the massed machine guns to break up the big formations so that the single engined fighters could chase down the singles and trios in relative safety.

Until the long range fighters could be delivered, the bomber commanders made what were essentially cosmetic upgrades in more guns and turrets, but to the end of WWII, if the bombers lacked an escort and met up with an Axis fighter formation, they suffered heavily.

When we talk about the Il-2, we're talking about low altitude, higher performance aircraft relative to the fighters, and they were still decimated with or without rear gunners in the absence of fighter escort when they ran into reasonably skilled fighter opposition. At best, the gunners made the pilots feel better (although I wonder how the gunners felt about it).

Again, though, we're talking about what was practically a cosmetic fix, even if the rear gunners were a more effective defense in the Sturmoviks than they were in the Fortress or the Liberator.

You hear very few real life accounts of fighters being driven off by defensive fire from an individual bomber or even a small formation, much less of fighters being shot down consistantly; it was the rarity of the occurance that made it noteworthy.

cheers

horseback

Bremspropeller
06-17-2011, 11:36 AM
At best, the gunners made the pilots feel better (although I wonder how the gunners felt about it).

Well, if I was the gunner, sitting behind 0.8mm aluminum-sheet or plaxi-glass wouldn't be too assuring to me in the face of cannon-armed fighters.

Phil_K
06-17-2011, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Not sure what you mean. While I attack bombers from dead six more than I really should (I get too impatient to gain altitude then dive on them like I should) but I get my plane messed up by rear gunners all the time, even if they have .30 cal guns. Engines smoke or get knocked out (esp with glassjaw planes like 109's or P-40's), fuel tanks get set on fire, and sometimes you get an instant pilot kill from just a few hits.

I mean you can still get up and have a cup of tea afterwards.

Phil_K
06-17-2011, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Heavies vs light attack is apples and oranges.

The heavy bombers were designed, built and sold to the public before the war; no one had a clue what the higher performance monoplane fighter and radar would do to the belief that the bomber would always get through. Because the heavies represented such a huge investment in men, public treasure, material and political good will, it would have been a huge loss of face and possibly damaged public morale to admit that the bombers couldn't defend themselves without an almost equal number of long-range fighter escorts.

The USAAF heavies were almost able to defend themselves against single engined fighters once their formations reached the desired numbers, because their formations offered mutual protection and they flew much higher and faster than the RAF and Luftwaffe bombers previously used in the war. However, they were dependent upon the sheer numbers of guns, not the accuracy of the individual gunners--a single bomber or even a small formation of three or four was practically helpless against even one attacking fighter. There's a huge difference in the likelihood of being hit when forty guns are firing in your general direction than if there are only two or three..

Unfortunately for them, the Germans simply found ways to use stand-off weapons like rockets and heavy cannon mounted on high performance twin engined fighters beyond the range of the massed machine guns to break up the big formations so that the single engined fighters could chase down the singles and trios in relative safety.

Until the long range fighters could be delivered, the bomber commanders made what were essentially cosmetic upgrades in more guns and turrets, but to the end of WWII, if the bombers lacked an escort and met up with an Axis fighter formation, they suffered heavily.

When we talk about the Il-2, we're talking about low altitude, higher performance aircraft relative to the fighters, and they were still decimated with or without rear gunners in the absence of fighter escort when they ran into reasonably skilled fighter opposition. At best, the gunners made the pilots feel better (although I wonder how the gunners felt about it).

Again, though, we're talking about what was practically a cosmetic fix, even if the rear gunners were a more effective defense in the Sturmoviks than they were in the Fortress or the Liberator.

You hear very few real life accounts of fighters being driven off by defensive fire from an individual bomber or even a small formation, much less of fighters being shot down consistantly; it was the rarity of the occurance that made it noteworthy.

cheers

horseback

Agree on the heavies. As for the Il-2, well everything I've read from veterans indicates that the rear gunner made a big difference. It might be Soviet veterans being unable to break the habit of towing the party line, but I'll have to go with their opinion rather than bloke-on-the-internet, I'm afraid.

Luno13
06-17-2011, 04:20 PM
Here's my take though - Gunners, while not altogether accurate, were at least a psychological tool. Fighters had to employ tactics such as attacking from the top, bottom, sides or front. You wouldn't want to take your chances of getting hit even if that chance is only 1/100.

Secondly, bombers had formations specifically designed to maximize defensive capability. Bombers almost always had an escort whose job it was not to shoot down enemy interceptors, but force them to break off the attack.

In Il-2 we have:

Pilots and AI who don't care about death. They will readily "taran" (collide with) your bomber just to get a kill. The sound of bullets pinging off their skin has no psychological effect (but only seems to send players into a blood rage)

Once you have a fighter on your six, he will shoot until you are dead, and then he will keep shooting at the falling wreck for good measure. He will never break off out of fear, because he has no fear, and he won't break off if he sees you are no longer capable of making it to the target, because he just wants his points or a tally.

Bombers don't fly in formation except in purposefully built coops or offline missions. While dogfights maps now have AI, you have to know where/when the bombers are going to spawn to hope to fly in formation. If you're fortunate enough to have friends who like bombers, you may get a 3-4 plane sortie going which is inadequate and only serves to attract more interceptors.

In Il-2, bombers don't get a real escort. Rather than keeping the interceptors wary, your AI escort will invariably get into a furball until they're all out of ammo, leaving you alone the rest of the mission. You may get lucky to have even one escorting fighter online for more than 15 minutes. If you're lucky enough to have a persistent friend, he will still get distracted in the same way the AI does when he encounters a contact.

In light of this, the little extra protection that guns provide is totally essential as a deterrent. Bombers simply have no other form of protection in this game.

Therefore, to keep everyone happy, I propose yet another difficulty option (we already have 3 pages worth!) "Realistic Gunners - On". When off, we have the default, marginally effective gunners. When on, we have realistic totally ineffective gunners. When switching to a gunner's position, mouse control reflects the weight of the gun or speed of the turret motors, and more head shake is imparted on the viewing camera. Currently, I can traverse a gun to its limits in a split second. So, there should be some slow-down or delay to represent inertia of a heavy weapon, and a speed limit for motorized turrets.

But I also propose greater incentives in general to fly bombers or escorts. Bombers should get a greater score for each ground target(let's be honest, points are what 99% of players are after). Escorts should get a score for keeping bombers alive, or negative score for letting them die. It would also be nice if a player controlled bomber could spawn each time with 2,3, or 4 AI wingmen. Having just 3 players flying bombers puts 12 planes in the air.

How's that? Fair? Not Fair? Outright stupid?

horseback
06-18-2011, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Phil_K:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Heavies vs light attack is apples and oranges.

When we talk about the Il-2, we're talking about low altitude, higher performance aircraft relative to the fighters, and they were still decimated with or without rear gunners in the absence of fighter escort when they ran into reasonably skilled fighter opposition. At best, the gunners made the pilots feel better (although I wonder how the gunners felt about it).

Again, though, we're talking about what was practically a cosmetic fix, even if the rear gunners were a more effective defense in the Sturmoviks than they were in the Fortress or the Liberator.

You hear very few real life accounts of fighters being driven off by defensive fire from an individual bomber or even a small formation, much less of fighters being shot down consistantly; it was the rarity of the occurance that made it noteworthy.

cheers

horseback

Agree on the heavies. As for the Il-2, well everything I've read from veterans indicates that the rear gunner made a big difference. It might be Soviet veterans being unable to break the habit of towing the party line, but I'll have to go with their opinion rather than bloke-on-the-internet, I'm afraid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, the gunners' positions were added about the same time that Soviet air power numbers rebounded and most of the German fighter JGs were pulled back for Defense of the Reich.

What you have is 1) fewer actual fighters to oppose the Sturmoviks, 2) more Soviet control of the local airspace and 3) toeing the Party line (remember, these are the survivors subjected to years of revisionism and not a little vodka).

See if you can find a copy of Red Star Against the Swasticka; it's a terrific story of an early war Sturmovik pilot who actually survived, almost ruined by an astoundingly turgid and tone deaf translation. However, if you can get past the Party slogans and poorly constructed sentences, you can find all kinds of interesting and revealing information. I suspect that you will change your mind about the Sturmovik gunners after that.

cheers

horseback

Treetop64
06-18-2011, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Luftwaffe would have been screaming in fear about all these unarmed Mosquitoes...but since it is apples and oranges anyway, I'd rather look at the Il-2 evolution, where a gunner was added or the B-17 evolution, where gunners were added, or the B-24 evolution, where gunners were added, or the Pe-2 evolution, where guns were added, or ... you get the picture. Bombers operating mainly in daylight, had there defensive guns usually improved, not the type replaced with an unarmed design.

The Mosquito was as successful as it was not only because it was an excellent aircraft, but also very much because most of Germany's air defence focussed on the heavies.

The heavies were the real enemy, as they were doing far more damage to the German infrastructure than anything else.

What made the gunners effective were the formations that the aircraft used during missions, not the daring and skill of gunners from any single aircraft. Formations were able to provide mutual fire support between five, eight, or more aircraft. It was the sheer volume of fire from multiple aircraft, and not the accuracy of fire from one or two ships, that provided the defense to the formations.

Unfortunately, IL-2 doesn't do a very good job of formating large numbers of bombers for mutual defense. So I'm guessing that the devs deliberately jacked up the gunners effectiveness to compensate.

horseback
06-19-2011, 12:03 PM
Unfortunately, IL-2 doesn't do a very good job of formating large numbers of bombers for mutual defense. So I'm guessing that the devs deliberately jacked up the gunners effectiveness to compensate. Actually, the origianl game was intended to be a 'one aircraft' simulator before it became an Eastern Front sim with a limited number of fighters and one and a half basic ground attack aircraft (the Il-2 and the FW 190); my theory is that Oleg and Co realized that realistic defensive gunnery would make the Il-2 missions 'unwinnable' against fighter opposition which would make for an unprofitable product (especially in Russia), so they simplified the hell out of the defensive gunnery model for both the Player and the AI, and never revised it in any meaningful way.

It was and continues to be the most 'arcade' feature of the basic product. Not even Wonder Woman view can compare.

cheers

horseback

daidalos.team
06-19-2011, 12:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> 1st posting in this thread was updated now to contain all previously made updates ... and a new one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </span>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treetop64
06-19-2011, 12:29 PM
You guys still hard at work, I see.

A big hearty Thank You to all the artists involved in the latest update!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Luno13
06-19-2011, 03:29 PM
Excellent news http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Treetop64
06-22-2011, 09:50 AM
I was wondering, why is this thread not stickyed...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Well, get on it, Mods! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

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

EJGrOst_Caspar
06-23-2011, 05:32 AM
Well... yes that would be fine. And instead the 4.10 update thread could be released from sticky.

FoolTrottel
06-23-2011, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by EJGrOst_Caspar:
Well... yes that would be fine. And instead the 4.10 update thread could be released from sticky. Done!

EJGrOst_Caspar
06-25-2011, 04:16 AM
Well... then thanks alot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

megalopsuche
07-20-2011, 08:56 PM
What's the word on the AI? Any plans to give the AI overheat limitations? Or what about having the same flight model limitations as the player?

RegRag1977
08-12-2011, 07:28 AM
I'm playing an amusing offline campaign at the moment....And i am thinking...

What would be nice is to make AI (ace/veteran) aim more accurately while shooting at human, i mean especially for low to medium deflection angles.

Also it would be nice to have it being able to follow tights turns (especially when Ai is flying the better turner) and to maneuver closer to the ground when attacking humans.

Making them bailing out automatically at a certain amount of damage and when above their lines could save their life too while preventing the squadmates kill stealing. (ie black smoke (staying in until fire and explosion), wing damage (stupid spin and crash) ).

But this is only a wish, you already do so much for this sim! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

EJGrOst_Caspar
08-15-2011, 02:41 PM
AI will get some very nice retouches indeed. Sorry, if I don't tell details here yet.

RegRag1977
08-23-2011, 06:13 AM
mmmmm, good to know....Can't wait to see that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

megalopsuche
09-05-2011, 08:38 AM
That is great to hear! Thanks for the update.

joeap
10-19-2011, 07:34 AM
Any news?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MiniPHANTOM-III
10-22-2011, 01:53 PM
When is this patch scheduled to come out? Can't wait for it!

daidalos.team
11-02-2011, 09:12 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Update in first posting (scroll down!).</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Treetop64
11-02-2011, 10:03 AM
Thanks for the update.

"General overhaul of AI-behaviour"

This can only be a good thing. Impossible to stress just how exceedingly long overdue AI behavioral tweaks are.

Nice to see the AI peel off separately when going after their target. Wasn't expecting that, and it was a nice touch.

Hope we get some tweaks to the AI evasive behavior soon, as that aspect really needs some work, particularly in regards to addressing the "perpetual, negative-G opposite rudder reverse chandelle maneuver thingy" that the higher skilled AI likes to use.

Like the "Dragon Killer". They were used quite a bit against B-29s.

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

megalopsuche
11-03-2011, 08:41 AM
Great news! What about the AI flight model? Will it have the same limitations as the human player?

FatCat_99
11-03-2011, 11:13 AM
AI is one of the main themes in upcoming patch and lot of changes have been made. Is it going to be perfect, certainly not but it will be very different than it was before. As patch is near, updates will be more frequent and you can expect to see some of the answers to your questions in future updates.

FC

RegRag1977
11-05-2011, 11:19 AM
What TD is doing looks more and more like a revolution! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Thank you so much guys for all the work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

TipsyTed
11-06-2011, 05:36 AM
This is going to be an epic patch, really. All the new flyables and AIs, behaviour addressed, all new external views restrictions, new default skin/marking according to mission date gem...

Pe-8 alone looks like a gargantous load of work, let alone the rest of the patch... Thanks chaps, looking forward to it.

larschance
11-10-2011, 06:48 AM
Well done to TD and crew for their continued work on this great sim. Do you know if the megapatch v4.10.1 will be updated to v4.11 or is that done by others outside the team.

Newflyer
11-10-2011, 07:06 AM
Loving the patch details. I mainly play offline dynamic campaigns so this patch seems amazing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif All your guy's hard work is appreciated! Wish more game developers cared about the fans as much as you guys lol

EJGrOst_Caspar
11-13-2011, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by larschance:
Well done to TD and crew for their continued work on this great sim. Do you know if the megapatch v4.10.1 will be updated to v4.11 or is that done by others outside the team.

The megapatch was done by someone different, but we are evaluating, if we will offer such a version too. Let see. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

daidalos.team
11-28-2011, 07:41 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> New update in first posting!</span>

RegRag1977
11-28-2011, 11:36 AM
Thanks TD, this is awesome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
12-06-2011, 06:19 AM
Good news TD.

That only leaves the Ki-44 to be desired http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

RainbowMoskito
12-12-2011, 02:53 PM
Hello,
could anybody give me the bf110 nighthunter mod for il2 for version 4.10 rc4?

This one, i have seen here today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg76JI8mbzk

Perhaps, its possible to get communication with a developer?
Thanks

Bearcat99
01-13-2012, 02:46 PM
It is here !!

woofiedog
02-02-2012, 09:03 PM
Thank's for a great update and all of the work that went into making this possible and all of the people involved with this project.

AndyJWest
04-24-2012, 08:00 PM
The 4.11.1 patch has now been released: fixing some minor problems introduced with 4.11m, and addresses other issues as well. Download sites listed here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31446

ReadMe here :http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31412

And don't forget to check out the new engine temperature guide (PDF added in main Il-2 folder). Temperature limits for all aircraft, one lots of other useful info.

Once again, TD have excelled. :cool:

MAILMAN------
06-24-2012, 10:39 PM
Why can't we move our heads side to side with canopy open and seat raised in the corsair (haven't checked the wildcat or zero). It is a useless feature when taxiing or landing on a Carrier deck because you can't lean right or left to view the deck around the nose.

EJGrOst_Caspar
07-13-2012, 10:54 AM
Why can't we move our heads side to side with canopy open and seat raised in the corsair (haven't checked the wildcat or zero). It is a useless feature when taxiing or landing on a Carrier deck because you can't lean right or left to view the deck around the nose.

Because that would need a large rework of the cockpits, if even possible - so we had to restrict the 6DoF feature to the normal PoV. Its the same issue with gunner positions. Raising your seat is an advantage even without 6DoF anyway.

VF-17_Jolly
08-01-2012, 09:21 AM
Hi brilliant job on the latest update keep up the good work and excellent news on the Wellington one of my favourite bombers.
One question is it possible to remove. or up the limit from just 4 usb controllers or maybe change the priority sorry about the spelling this is on a phone

cheers

woofiedog
10-08-2012, 10:36 AM
Fantastic updates and especially with the stunning cockpit work and widescreen view... Thank's! :D

fhirai
12-11-2012, 08:02 PM
Really liked the 4.11 update! Very nice job! :D
Is there any news about another Update?

BillyTheKid_22
01-21-2013, 08:20 PM
Done!!;)