Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Herra Tohtori on March 12, 2011, 08:23:00 pm
-
Well, since people talk about the other games they play, I might as well take my turn to promote one of my favourites ever.
IL-2 Sturmovik is a series of flight simulation games centered on and around the Second World War. Starting from the first IL-2 Sturmovik released in 2001, the game has been increasing in scope and diversity until the release of IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946 in 2006, which basically combined all the previously released versions into one package (which costs about ten dollars in GoodOldGames). The game is still being updated, the most recent patch was released earlier this year (version 4.10.1).
Being a simulator, this game does have a pretty steep learning curve, especially for the higher difficulty settings. But boy, is it a pleasure once you learn how to put your plane and bullets where you want them. The physics modeling has a very accurate feel to it, and although somewhat simplistic, the game also offers decent systems simulation and damage modeling. The environment is essentially entirely open; you're spawned into it and then you are free to do whatever you deem best to defeat your enemies. Learning tactics along with flying and gunnery skills will be essential to success in multiplayer, so it is recommended to use voice communications to establish teamwork with people on the same server - in-game chat bar is just too slow and cumbersome to use in the middle of flying most of the time.
As far as community additions go, there is a pretty thriving modding community that has added a lot of functional and graphical content into the game - such as cocpits for heavy bombers, 6DOF head tracking, etc. At the moment, the mods are in a transition period, since there is not yet compatible mod packs for the latest 4.10 patch of the game, but they are expected to be out within this month. The two most common mod packs (mostly equivalent to MediaVP's, upgrading the general outlook of the game but also adding certain pieces of content) are UltraPack and HSFX.
Multiplayer is most commonly managed via a program called HyperLobby, though my personal opinion on it is that it's utter ****e and I prefer to connect to servers with the game's own direct IP option.
Usually I fly on Fire Squadron's servers as FS~HerraTohtori: Either the less realistic but usually more action-packed Skies of Fire, or the more realistic although far cry from "full-real" server, Skies of Valor. Sometimes I have flown on UK Dedicated servers and also on WarClouds servers.
There is a wide range of servers around to satisfy whatever realism settings you prefer. Personally, I prefer servers which keep all the flight model realism options on. I don't have stong opinion either way about keeping the cockpits closed or allowing "wonderwoman view" (invisible plane with HUD, giving you free view into all directions), but I do prefer having external views enabled as opposed to full-real closed cockpit servers - simply because finding targets tends to be a bit of a chore on large maps with fully realistic options, especially if icons are also switched off.
For me, the multiplayer of this game offers an incredible amount of satisfaction. It's fun, but challenging; in addition to twitch skill it requires a degree of patience and thought into how you should fly, what targets to engage and what to ignore, how to stay alive and return to base safely... The multiplayer code is also incredibly robust and offers very good gameplay experience, which means small ping doesn't give that much of an unfair advantage - it helps some, but less than you might think. The servers I mostly spend time on are located in Chicago, giving me somewhere between 150-200 ms pings, and I find it perfectly acceptable.
The game also does have a lot of things to do off-line, but be aware that the AI planes tend to be cheating bastards and the offline dynamic campaigns tend to be extremely repetitive, while static campaigns are usually limited in length. The best thing to do offline is flight practice - there is, for example, a training campaign that gives you a set of missions with more or less tricky objectives. I've made videos out of a few of the missions on that campaign, if anyone's interested:
M01 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TBnlj2qHY) - Flying under bridges.
M09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omYq-ARrMk) - Challenging landing on short runway at bad weather.
M10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIsLuQ5a7LU) - Carrier landing and take-off.
M23 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNwJlzgihg4) -Take-off and landing with heavy plane and runways at the bottom of a sinkhole.
M27 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLZFludJlGI) - Maze navigation.
The game series is expected to expand in this month with the long awaited Storm of War: Battle of Britain IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover release. This game will concentrate on early war, specifically the Battle of Britain - the game has an entirely new engine, and is expected to serve as the platform for future add-ons and upgrades, which will hopefully expand the game's scope eventually back to what the 1946 features, and possible even as the engine to games featuring new theatres, such as Korean and Vietnam wars aerial engagements - but that remains to be seen!
The Cliffs of Dover is supposed to feature additional multiplayer options such as continuous maps running on servers for a long time straight, rather than maps that last for a set amount of time. It is also supposed to feature a story-driven single player campaign, which is sort of a new things for most flight sims (FS2_Open notwithstanding).
Will be quite a ride to get used to the new game, provided it's released in schedule - but meanwhile, 1946 is still a very very good game and I heartily recommend it to everyone who has a joystick and any interest in aerial combat simulations.
Sound off if you play this game!
-
This post is examples of the modest personal modifications I've done with this game:
I have a few what-if skins with a sort of modern digital camouflage patterns. I've made the camo patterns myself using existing camouflage designs as references. Most of them are made to resemble the Finnish M05 pattern and US MARPAT with various colour schemes.
M05 Woodland for Bf-109 G2 (the texture can be used with other 109's too but obviously details can be wrong then)
(http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/340/bf109g2m05woodland2.png)
(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7752/bf109g2m05woodland3.png)
(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7358/bf109g2m05woodland4.png)
(http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/969/bf109g2m05woodland5.png)
M05 Winter, colours based on the actual M05 Winter camouflage used by Finnish Defense Force. Pattern basically same as above.
(http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/3176/fw190a4winter2.png)
(http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/9761/fw190a4winter1.png)
(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/2020/fw190a4winter3.png)
M05 Desert for FW-190 A-4; camo pattern same as above, colour theme taken from this image:
(http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-16_in_KA2-Desert_lg.jpg)
Link to an interesting article about aircraft camouflage developement from which I picked that desert camo image (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/hyperstealths-fractal-camo-patterns-successfully-tested-for-aircraft-01716/)
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8089/fw190a4desert1.png)
(http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/597/fw190a4desert2.png)
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/5776/fw190a4desert3.png)
I don't know if M05 pattern has been done in desert colours by, say, Finnish peacekeepers in Afghanistan, but this is my take on what it could be like when used in airplanes.
Generic MARPAT camouflage for Bf-109 G-2
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7822/bf109g2marpat1.png)
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4914/bf109g2marpat2.png)
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4592/bf109g2marpat3.png)
MARPAT Desert version, based on one variation of desert fatigues used by US forces. This is a bit too pink to actually work on most IL-2 desert map, but I remember seeing a few maps where it would work ideally.
(http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4405/bf109g2marpatdesert1.png)
(http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/324/bf109g2marpatdesert2.png)
If anyone wants these skins, I'll upload them if requested. However, they do have visible seams on the top of the rear fuselage for both 190 and 109, and I don't really have any idea how to unseam it with the UVmapping being what it is...
Also just for fun, here are a few images I edited in GIMP:
(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/8012/bf109g2m05woodland4modi.png)
(http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/1660/bf109g2m05woodland3modi.png)
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8012/bf109g2m05woodland4modi.png)
(http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8012/bf109g2m05woodland4modi.png)
(http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/8012/bf109g2m05woodland4modi.png)
(http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9418/bf109g2m05woodland5modi.png)
(http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/9418/bf109g2m05woodland5modi.png)
(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/9418/bf109g2m05woodland5modi.png)
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9418/bf109g2m05woodland5modi.png)
I have also dabbled a bit with nose art, just to make it clear to myself how they work. Those who recognize all characters of internet fame get a cookie.
(http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/8238/noseart1.png)
(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1653/noseart2.png)
(http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4504/imabadperson.png)
Finally, a rare shot of a jet pilot doing what they do best: Trying to impress the local females on the palm beach.
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4096/grab0005.png)
Feel free to post other screenies to give an idea of how the game looks like! :)
-
i see guy fawkes.
-
I really wish I had Il-2, but at time I tried to buy it from GOG, I couldn't. Needless to say, I've played this sim before, and despite some generally-regarded-as-unrealistic-behavior by myself and some actual pilots I knew, it was truly enjoyable. If you like flight sims, you'll like Il-2.
As far as the learning curve goes, Il-2 isn't that bad. In fact, it's pretty easy. Note that I've not played with bombers or complex engine management, but the controls are easy master. Compare Il-2 to something like Falcon 4.0/FreeFalcon, and you'll have no choice but to agree. Flying the aircraft itself is the challenge in Il-2. I've always tried to play on full realism, despite the fact that many actually found "full realism" to be very unrealisic in some regards, especially in relation to stall characteristics.
-
Indeed...turn more than 1.1 / -1.1 G's and oh hello spin.
-
Indeed...turn more than 1.1 / -1.1 G's and oh hello spin.
Surely that is an exaggeration. :p
All you need to do is listen to your plane, and keep your turns coordinated to avoid tip stalling. It's in fact quite easy to turn hard enough to damage the airframe and/or blackout, and negative g's have even lower tolerance for damaging the airplane - although negative G spins are much more controllable and easily recoverable than positive G spins. Using engine torque, you can do all sorts of fancy stuff such as flying momentarily backwards horizontally, or traveling forward with the roof of the cockpit first. It can be a very effective way to make a fast chasing plane overshoot you, but most of the time it's useless in combat as it makes you lose all your kinetic energy very very fast..
Oh, I probably should mention that the latest patch added a g-load indicator on the HUD? And the loading tolerances are variable based on the fuel load and payload of the aircraft? Heavy bomb-laden plane can be damaged with loading as low as 3.5g's (depending on plane type as well), while the same plane with light fuel load and no bombs or external fuel tanks could easily take a 7g beating without overstressing the airframe. The duration of the excess loading also affects the amount of damage to airframe - sometimes you can cross the redline momentarily with no damage, sometimes you hear an ominous creaking sounds from the airframe, and sometimes you shed your wings...
The stall characteristics of the airplanes are actually fairly realistic, I think. You could try reducing the elevator control input curve around the deadzone to make the controller less sensitive, that might help you in controlling the plane. The latest patch also added support for multiple joystick profiles so that you can switch profiles between different planes, if you feel some planes work better with certain controller settings than others.
What sort of controller are you using anyway?
-
I DO actually have this game, though I feel somewhat ashamed to say that I've never actually played a mission in it, despite having owned it for more than three years now. I briefly played its predecessor, the first IL-2 and was somewhat discouraged by the steep learning curve you referred to. That said, I read about the various IL-2 later versions and its companion games such as Pacific Fighters, and was awed by the thorough nature of the planes it included. Then I found a copy of IL-2 1946 at my work and snatched it up right away. I've had it installed for some time, and have kept it updated, but I haven't found any patches more recent than a 4.09 Beta. Can you post a link to the 4.10.1, or its predecessors if it needs sequential updated? I currently have 4.08 installed.
-
Some very nice camo schemes there, Herra.
I've been playing this series for a few years now, and currently I play using the UltraPack mod, but only offline. I think that I would like to try a multiplayer game at some point but I'm not that savvy about dealing with servers, not to mention that I'm sure I'd be shot down pretty quickly, having only had an offline IL-2 experience so far.
I'll share a piece of advice that I have found useful, although I'm sure the more ardent IL-2 simmers here probably know of it already. During dogfights that involve chasing aircraft that are performing split-S's and making sharp climbs (i.e. fighting in the vertical plane), varying prop pitch (on those aircraft that have a variable-pitch propeller that can be manually controlled) in addition to managing the throttle can provide you with that little bit of extra energy. For example when following a diving, inverted aircraft (a split-S type maneuver), reducing prop pitch to about 80-85% can provide you with extra speed, which can then be useful whilst tailing the aircraft on the up-climb, but you have to remember to increase prop pitch again when climbing. You can also alter the pitch during the cruise to get a little more fuel efficiency. I have two buttons for controlling prop pitch in front of my throttle for ease of use.
Does anyone know if it's possible to have an IL-2 multi game in which you can have players acting as a flight crew, manning separate crew stations in bombers and suchlike? The second B-17 Flying Fortress game that Microprose made (The Mighty 8th) was supposed to have that feature originally but IIRC it was dropped from the final release.
EDIT: Actually I just looked this up and multi-player manned crew positions have been implemented since Forgotten Battles... :o
I should probably give multi a go.
-
Oh yeah, that's an old and useful skill I picked up a few years ago that a lot of people have forgotten about. Cycling to high RPM and idle throttle can also cause the prop to come as close as it gets to 'windmilling' and slowing the aircraft down, another trick I used to play (and is really effective) when executing a high yo-yo.
-
I DO actually have this game, though I feel somewhat ashamed to say that I've never actually played a mission in it, despite having owned it for more than three years now. I briefly played its predecessor, the first IL-2 and was somewhat discouraged by the steep learning curve you referred to. That said, I read about the various IL-2 later versions and its companion games such as Pacific Fighters, and was awed by the thorough nature of the planes it included. Then I found a copy of IL-2 1946 at my work and snatched it up right away. I've had it installed for some time, and have kept it updated, but I haven't found any patches more recent than a 4.09 Beta. Can you post a link to the 4.10.1, or its predecessors if it needs sequential updated? I currently have 4.08 installed.
4.09m Official Release thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=10276)
4.10 Official Release thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17765)
4.10.1 Official Release thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18751)
Some very nice camo schemes there, Herra.
I've been playing this series for a few years now, and currently I play using the UltraPack mod, but only offline. I think that I would like to try a multiplayer game at some point but I'm not that savvy about dealing with servers, not to mention that I'm sure I'd be shot down pretty quickly, having only had an offline IL-2 experience so far.
I'll share a piece of advice that I have found useful, although I'm sure the more ardent IL-2 simmers here probably know of it already. During dogfights that involve chasing aircraft that are performing split-S's and making sharp climbs (i.e. fighting in the vertical plane), varying prop pitch (on those aircraft that have a variable-pitch propeller that can be manually controlled) in addition to managing the throttle can provide you with that little bit of extra energy. For example when following a diving, inverted aircraft (a split-S type maneuver), reducing prop pitch to about 80-85% can provide you with extra speed, which can then be useful whilst tailing the aircraft on the up-climb, but you have to remember to increase prop pitch again when climbing. You can also alter the pitch during the cruise to get a little more fuel efficiency. I have two buttons for controlling prop pitch in front of my throttle for ease of use.
There's a few cases where adjusting propeller pitch can be useful:
1. Keeping your engine working at maximum powerband (best climb and fastest cruise speed).
This is useful in airplanes whose engines have a narrow powerband. Some engines have a wide power band, which allows more lax operation without too much performance penalty, but something like an F4U's Pratt&Whitney R2800-8W radials and some others in the plane, you can get quite a bit of performance boost if you manage to keep the engine working at its ideal power band (if I recall right, it's about 2700 RPM for R2800), since it allows the propeller to produce the maximum thrust at any given throttle setting, and also keeps the engine cool.
2. Achieving better acceleration when starting a steep dive.
Since the engines of WW2 planes did not give them all that high acceleration compared to modern jets, starting a steep dive from relatively slow level flight presents an interesting situation.
Downward forces include thrust and gravity, while upward forces include drag (this is a bit simplified, but works anyway).
Now, the airplane's acceleration downward depends on the sum of these forces. Basically the pilot can not affect the gravitational acceleration of his plane. However, he can adjust the thrust and drag of his plane.
However, as the airspeed of the airplane starts to increase, the constant-speed propeller operation might not be sufficient to keep the propeller spinning at ideal speed for producing maximum thrust with minimal drag. The engine will start to over-rev at steep dive before the constant speed propeller can catch up and increase the angle of the prop blades. In the nomenclature of IL-2 Sturmovik, this actually means decreasing the prop pitch value, so if you do that you can keep your engine closer to the ideal power band, and thus reduce the drag from windmilling propeller blades.
Another thing you can do during a dive to reduce drag is to retract cowling flaps, which are often kept open to keep the engine cool when operating at high power settings. In reality, cowling flaps (and radiator flaps) needed to be retracted at certain airspeed or their mechanism could be damaged (this functionality is sadly not represented in IL-2, and most of the time people end flying with radiators full open and engine at as high power setting as possible to avoid overheating (in most planes, 105%+WEP, in some planes 95%, in some even less - depends also on airspeed and altitude and ambient temperature, but that's another matter).
Anyway, as you don't want to overheat your engine in a dive, but closing cowling and radiator flaps can reduce drag, you can end up accelerating faster by reducing throttle and prop pitch, and closing cowling and radiator flaps during the fast steep descent.
When you approach your terminal velocity, setting engine back to maximum power and adjusting prop pitch for appropriate RPM's can give you a little more terminal velocity, but then you need to also open the radiators to avoid overheating.
It's a complex balance of variables.
3. Achieving maximum efficiency (range or flight time).
This can be useful for preserving a damaged engine, or cruising at maximum efficiency to save fuel, or for trying to stay in the air as long as possible with small amount of fuel onboard.
The idea of maximum efficiency is to optimize the traveled distance with consumed fuel, which is not easy. Setting up for maximum flight time on the other hand simply involves setting the engine at its lowest power setting that can support level flight...
On the topic of engine management there are a couple of other pointers.
Lowering the RPM's can be done with either reducing the throttle, reducing the mixture setting, or reducing propeller RPM's. Also, the most important instrument for measuring engine power is manifold pressure gauge, which essentially measures the amount of air going into the engine*. Forced induction engines have certain limits of operation, basically too high manifold pressure will make the engine blow a gasket or even disfigure the cylinder head or, in extreme cases, cylinder block itself).
The basic idea is that manifold pressure is the power gauge, and RPM's are used to adjust the engine to produce the maximum thrust. With manually selected supercharger stages you'll need to familiarize yourself to what altitude you need to engage each stage, but a good rule of thumb is that if manifold pressure stabilizes at higher value at high stage than low stage, then the higher stage is the better one.
Like said, though, running at too high manifold pressure can damage the engine, but I have never experienced engine failure due to too high manifold pressure, and you only fly a single airplane once - so fly it like you stole it, in reality your ground chief would be furious at you for ruining the carefully maintained engine, but in this game it really doesn't matter. It might matter in Cliffs of Dover if the physical weathering system does what I think it does (ie. reduce plane's performance based on how much it has been used).
Then there's also the adjustable mixture settings in some planes, which necessitate you using lower mixture ratio at higher altitudes. The mixture settings can also be used to run the engine at lean mixture at lower altitudes, in order to reduce fuel consumption and improve efficiency, but allegedly running at too low mixture can also damage the engine.
Most of the time it is pertinent to use as high as possible mixture, since that gives the maximum power from the engine at any given altitude, and maximum power translates to maximum thrust, and if you can mange your engine to produce even slightly more thrust than your enemy's plane, you'll end up slowly gaining energy...
Then there are the war emergency power devices, such as the auxiliary fuel booster pumps in Spitfires and other Merlin powered engines, option to increase throttle to 110% in some planes, Take-off/WEP boost in some planes, water-methanole injection, water injection, and nitrous oxide injection systems, which also need to be familiarized with as doing something like engaging or disabling MW50 system at high power setting can lead to serious engine damage due to sharp increase or decrease in manifold pressure.
So yeah, the complex engine management is something you should definitely read about. I make it sound more complex than its operation really is. If you're just beginning and need to first learn how to fly and shoot, you should pick an airplane with highly automatized engine management systems. Good options are:
Bf-109
Spitfire
FW-190
The planes that require the most engine management are the Soviet Yakovlevs and Lavochkins.
Does anyone know if it's possible to have an IL-2 multi game in which you can have players acting as a flight crew, manning separate crew stations in bombers and suchlike? The second B-17 Flying Fortress game that Microprose made (The Mighty 8th) was supposed to have that feature originally but IIRC it was dropped from the final release.
EDIT: Actually I just looked this up and multi-player manned crew positions have been implemented since Forgotten Battles...
Co-op multiplayer missions support this, but personally I have never really been all that interested in that. Sitting in a plane flown by someone else is not exactly what I'm interested in - and I'm not usually fond of flying bomber sorties either.
The problem with bombers is that sometimes gunners are super accurate and sometimes they can't hit an aircraft hangar if the plane was inside it, and they tend to attract noobs who just fly in hosing weapons at you and then usually ram you.
If there was support for really high number of players so that you could set up a large formation of bombers, with each having pilot, bombardier and gunner, attacked by a large formation of Luftwaffe fighters... that could be interesting, but most of the time there are no such high numbers of people around to get something like that done.
What I like is the dogfight maps and how they can be essentially turned into co-op maps if there are people willing to co-operate on your side. Many dogfight maps in Skies of Fire and all in Skies of Valor can be won by achieving certain goals first, such as destroying designated ground targes, instead of just concentrating on aerial combat.
I've been on a few organized bombing raids with escort fighters, and it's really a blast. Similarly, co-operating with wingmen on TeamSpeak makes the game a whole different experience.
*To be exact, manifold pressure measures absolute pressure at induction manifold.
On naturally aspirated engines, the engine is functioning as a vacuum pump, cylinders' movement creating suction of air into the engine. That's why on NA engines, manifold pressure always shows a reading lower than surrounding atmospheric pressure.
On forced induction engines, there's a compressor ahead of the manifold, and when the compressor is engaged, the absolute pressure at the manifold is higher than surrounding atmosphere.
This means that manifold pressure gauges don't work exactly the same with NA and FI engines. On naturally aspirated engine, the manifold pressure doesn't directly correlate with engine power. When flying straight and level, manifold pressure will decrease when engine power is increased, but it is also decreased when you climb - but engine power drops off at altitude because the atmospheric pressure drops as well. Basically, the pressure differential defines the airflow into the engine.
With forced induction engines, the pressure measured at the manifold gives a much more direct indication of amount of air available for the engine, as it's compressed before entering the manifold. It's still not a direct indicator of airflow volume through the engine, but it does have much more close relation to engine power than the manifold pressure on naturally aspirated engines.
-
That was an informative post. :yes: Some of those things I already knew about but you've explained them much better than I did in my post.
Does anyone know if it's possible to have an IL-2 multi game in which you can have players acting as a flight crew, manning separate crew stations in bombers and suchlike? The second B-17 Flying Fortress game that Microprose made (The Mighty 8th) was supposed to have that feature originally but IIRC it was dropped from the final release.
EDIT: Actually I just looked this up and multi-player manned crew positions have been implemented since Forgotten Battles...
Co-op multiplayer missions support this, but personally I have never really been all that interested in that. Sitting in a plane flown by someone else is not exactly what I'm interested in - and I'm not usually fond of flying bomber sorties either.
The problem with bombers is that sometimes gunners are super accurate and sometimes they can't hit an aircraft hangar if the plane was inside it, and they tend to attract noobs who just fly in hosing weapons at you and then usually ram you.
If there was support for really high number of players so that you could set up a large formation of bombers, with each having pilot, bombardier and gunner, attacked by a large formation of Luftwaffe fighters... that could be interesting, but most of the time there are no such high numbers of people around to get something like that done.
What I like is the dogfight maps and how they can be essentially turned into co-op maps if there are people willing to co-operate on your side. Many dogfight maps in Skies of Fire and all in Skies of Valor can be won by achieving certain goals first, such as destroying designated ground targes, instead of just concentrating on aerial combat.
I've been on a few organized bombing raids with escort fighters, and it's really a blast. Similarly, co-operating with wingmen on TeamSpeak makes the game a whole different experience.
Flying bombers is not always quite my idea of fun either, and being a gunner or a bombardier would mean that only the combat segments of the flight would be of any fun, and some gunner positions aren't always as effective as others, depending on the aircraft. But as you say, getting enough people together for a large bomber formation, maybe with escorts vs. a defending squadron could be interesting.
-
I purchased and started playing this a while ago, and found it good fun, though somewhat boring at times. The transfer airfield missions are a pain. I'm working my way through the Finnish Continuation War campaign in my ol' Gladiator MkII. I can survive most battles against the AI, and if I'm lucky I can get a fighter kill. I do a bit better on bomber intercept, with 1-2 kills.
I think the best part so far is learning the limits of my plane: top speed (slightly slower than the Russian I-16s I'm hunting, curse it!), stall speed, how hard I can turn without damage, how long I can push the throttle to 120% before the engine quits, etc.
I can land my biplane successfully without damage about 30% of the time. Fortunately, since you only have to be on the ground and not dead for a mission complete, that's not a game breaker for me.
In practice missions, I have not yet successfully landed on an aircraft carrier without flipping over.
I need more practice, for certain.
-
The only IL-2 I've played was BoP on the 360, and while I enjoyed it, I dont believe it was anywhere near realistic - which was to be expected given the limited space on Gamepads. While I'd like to say I enjoy realistic light sims, I really have no experience with them. If I were to pick up 1946 on GoG, would that be a good place to start?
-
4.09m Official Release thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=10276)
4.10 Official Release thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17765)
4.10.1 Official Release thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18751)
Thank you very much for your reply, though I have encountered a problem... the game itself seems to have a problem with Windows 7 (or at least 64-bit). I still had my old install from my XP days, which I had installed to a secondary drive. I thought that I'd better give it a whirl first to make sure it still worked, and I got a message about needing the install disk in the drive, so I found my disk and put it in the drive. Then i get a message about how it's a backup copy and not the real thing. So I thought that I'd just delete the entire program and install from scratch. Unfortunately, it seems that Win7-64 won't recognize the setup program as having anything to do. It comes up with Windows' usual are-you-sure-you-want-to-do-this-program message, which I acknowledged, and then it did... nothing. Any attempt to run the install program leads to no result at all. Any ideas? My only other option is a potential full emulation copy of WinXP which I am entitled to download given than I bought Win7 Professional instead of Home Premium, but I'd prefer not to have to take that step.
-
The installer program can be extremely, gnarly slow and there have been reports from people where it hasn't worked at all.
The problem seems to be (mostly) related on the autorun not working properly on Win7, so you can try starting the installer by directly starting a.exe, IL-2 Sturmovik 1946.msi, or one of the autorun.exe files in the 1031/1033/1036 directories.
It might be easiest to run installer on XP computer, copy game directory from there, paste that on your Win7 computer, then back-up the clean, unmodified install directory in case something goes wrong while installing patches or mods or what have you. If you're forced to run the installer on Win7... try the usual suspects: Run installer as administrator, disable UAC altogether, disable windows defender, firewall, and anti-virus progs while you're doing the installing, and try with the aforementioned direct installer links rather than the autorun setup.exe.
When you finally get the game installed, you can just get the no-cd executable if you're having trouble with the disk not getting recognized, it's a perfectly legitimate way to fix the game and get it working as long as you actually own the game...
-
I own this game, never played it though.
-
Thank you for your input.
-
I've dipped into and out of several campaigns. The only one I've put any real effort into is one in which I fly the P-40 for the VVS. I switched over to using the UltraPack mod part-way through it, and got distracted from continuing the campaign. Now most of the time I set up quick missions to fly, trying out different aircraft. There are plenty of other campaigns there, but I don't see myself attempting all of them.
I don't always get a kill in every mission, sometimes I'll be shot down and maybe bail out, or crash land. Transfer missions can be a chore, and yes, things can get repetitive. However, there are moments when I don't really care if I get splashed, because the dogfighting experience can just be so exciting in itself that I'll come away thinking it was a fun experience. Same can be said with just keeping a damaged aircraft flying as you limp back to base. My first encounter with Fw-190's in a P-40 was disastrous and got me shot down for the first time during the campaign. I tried the same mission again and again, getting shot down repeatedly, until one particular attempt when I lost most if not all of my wingmen, got badly shot up and then had to find an alternative friendly airfield, which I overshot and then crash landed beyond (I think I was gliding so I couldn't go around). And afterwards I thought, "well, that one was satisfying". Because of that I didn't really feel the need to restart the mission again to get a more favourable outcome in terms of my pilot's career. Although, to be honest, I was also feeling a little bored with getting repeatedly outclassed by a superior aircraft each time I tried it.
This is off-topic, but as it's also a flight sim which may be of interest to IL-2 players: has anyone tried Rise of Flight (http://riseofflight.com/en) yet? Been keeping an eye on its development since it was released, and I was contemplating buying the Iron Cross edition. I'm somewhat put off by the prerequisite of having to be connected to the Internet and logged in to play it, even offline during single player mode, but even if I do buy it I'll need to get a new system to run it well.
Edit made to last sentence for clarity.
-
Rise of Flight has that internet connection required DRM stuff and more importantly, only comes with a few aircraft by default. The rest of the airplanes you need to buy.
This means essentially that you get crap planes and if you want to stay competitive in multiplayer you need to pay more to access the better planes. :rolleyes:
Still waiting to see how IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover will work out. I hope they'll expand the game with proper add-on releases rather than individual planes or some **** like that. :nervous:
-
Rise of Flight has that internet connection required DRM stuff and more importantly, only comes with a few aircraft by default. The rest of the airplanes you need to buy.
This means essentially that you get crap planes and if you want to stay competitive in multiplayer you need to pay more to access the better planes. :rolleyes:
Yes, that's the other issue I have with it - paying for the extra planes. Some of those aircraft that you need to pay for to make them player-flyable are included in the default game as AI-flyable only (the Handley Page 0-400, for example), so in effect it seems you have to pay just to make them flyable. The developer seems to be loyal to its customers though, going by an interview I read recently. I'd really like to see them include the Bristol F.2B fighter at some point, but even then I doubt I'd acquire a copy, other things considered.
Still waiting to see how IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover will work out. I hope they'll expand the game with proper add-on releases rather than individual planes or some **** like that. :nervous:
Me too.
-
Ah, speaking of the VVS P-40 campaign...
...I had access to Il-2 in the "air science lab" at Embry, which was a simulator room where they'd teach pilot students. I started that campaign as a LaGG pilot, got owned by Bf-109E's, and then after recovery was transferred to the P-40. Aww yeah... Hands down, the '40 is my favorite Allied fighter of the war, and I was doing incredibly well... until I had to leave.
:)
-
That sounds cool. Are you an aeronautical student, Thaeris? You seem to be quite knowledgeable about aerodynamics/aircraft design.
I wonder if Jadehawk will chime in too; I think he works in the aviation industry, and he's made some skins for IL-2.
This may sound weird, but I also have a thing for the P-39. Granted, it has a tendency to enter a flat spin after stalling, but I like the visibility and the firepower it offers. Its nose-mounted cannon is somewhat slow-firing and doesn't have much ammo, but when it hits... :shaking:
-
Ah, speaking of the VVS P-40 campaign...
...I had access to Il-2 in the "air science lab" at Embry, which was a simulator room where they'd teach pilot students. I started that campaign as a LaGG pilot, got owned by Bf-109E's, and then after recovery was transferred to the P-40. Aww yeah... Hands down, the '40 is my favorite Allied fighter of the war, and I was doing incredibly well... until I had to leave.
:)
The P-40... well, it tends to be somewhat underpowered in the game. The late P-40M and Soviet Field Mod version are decent enough, but contemporary axis fighters (both German and Japanese) still own them in an equal advantage starting position.
The P-40 does turn good and dive good, though, so if you fly it right and don't allow the enemy to gain energy advantage, then you can do very well with it.
I, however, have attuned my gunnery reflexes for snapshots with 20mm cannons, and using wing-mounted .50-cals is rather hard for me. They feel so frustrating because even if they hit, they need much more hits than in real life to produce good damage. It's widely accepted that the .50-cal Brownings are nerfed in IL-2 - both in accuracy and damage - compared to most other weapons.
As a result, I tend to avoid flying most western allied planes, such as P-51, P-47, P-40 and what have you. The P-51 flies pretty nicely, P-47 is a brick under 5000 metres compared to other planes but absolute monster at higher altitudes, and P-40 is somewhat fragile and slow.
P-39 on the other hand tends to be a somewhat overmodeled aircraft. Especially the earlier versions and specifically the P-39 D-2. The cannon makes it more dangerous than the other American fighters that stick to MG's only for armament, but what I mean by overmodeling is that it can actually outrun the Bf-109 F-4 and Bf-109 G-2 models up to fairly high altitude.
This makes really no sense when you consider the powerplants of the respective airplanes. The P-39 had an Allison V-1710 V12 engine with a single-stage low performance supercharger, rated at 1,475 hp (1,100 kW) at 3,000 rpm at sea level and, due to the lack of multi-stage supercharger, the performance dropped off sharply at altitude.
My contrast, the Bf-109 F-4 had a Daimler-Benz DB-601E rated at "up to 1,350 PS (993 kW) at sea-level with 2,700 rpm" which is indeed less than the Allison engine's low altitude performance, but also "up to 1,320 PS (970 kW) with 2.700 rpm at 4.8 km altitude" which is significantly higher than the power produced by the Allison engine at similar altitude.
Then again, the AI planes have so much difficulty matching the tactical performance, flying and gunnery skills of real human player that they are forced to cheat atrociously. What I usually do offline is set myself against 16 AI planes of variable make and skill, then give myself unlimited ammo and fuel, and fight them.
Trying to use energy tactics against the AI is futile, and almost unaffected by what planes you choose to give the AI. I have experimented with giving them damned I-16's and myself a FW-190 D-9, and they can bloody keep up with it due to their unnatural speed and climb rate. I can run away from them in straight line, but I can't really gain a meaningful energy advantage for performing well set up attack runs against them.
Another example would be using an YP-80 jet against '42-'43 Spitfire models. It's just hilariously frustrating how little it seems to matter what plane matchups you use, the AI planes just have such a huge advantage, and it's not just the fact that they never overheat or blackout... they are using a different flight model for same plane, and that's one of the primary reasons I usually just use them for gunnery practice and elect to fly online rather than dynamic or static campaigns.
Again, I hope the Cliffs of Dover doesn't do the same mistake with AI planes. It's super-annoying when you know your plane should have superior speed and superior climb rate but you don't, not enough to make it matter anyway. The only real way to defeat a horde of AI is to get yourself a plane with superior turning performance, such as the La-7, Yak-3, Ki-84 or Bf-109G-2; with these planes, it's actually fairly easy to manage the AI planes, even at high numbers.
The AI is also woefully incapable of taking terrain formations into account. So, if you are trailed by a large number of aircraft, you can fly low towards a near-vertical cliff face, pull up near it and pass the top closely, and confused by your complex maneuver (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WronskiFeint), the AI planes usually smash into the cliff en masse; you can do the same thing with a mountain that allows you to fly around its peak. If you do it right and position the peak of the mountain between you and AI planes, it's fairly high odds that the AI, tracking you, will ignore the mountain and fly right into it.
I could maybe make a video showing this, it's fairly amusing to watch.
-
Since you mentioned the cheating AI in an earlier thread, I've begun to notice it as well but not to the same extent, you've obviously studied the quirks of this game deeply. Things like AI planes appearing to have their control surfaces fully deflected but somehow remaining very steady in flight. And times when they seem to cling to higher altitudes, leaving me to chase them around the sky for ages. On veteran AI level I've noticed them do this and it sometimes seems like they aren't interested in fighting, even if they have not taken any damage or used much ammo.
Didn't think they'd be susceptible to maneuver kills though. I remember pulling one off in Red Baron (managed to get him to hit the Eiffel Tower) and another one in MS Combat Flight Simulator (got an Fw-190 (I think) to collide with the Tower Bridge, but I think that one was more unintended).
-
Well, I'll make a video then and upload it to youtube. Should be amusing.
:)
-
I've had the original IL-2 for quite a few years, now, but I only played it sporadically. The same with 1946, which I bought from eBay early last year. I have had fun with it, although I play with some of the more realistic options turned off. I've only really played single missions - never had a go at one of the campaigns, but still, I can tell it's certainly a really good simulator. :)
-
That sounds cool. Are you an aeronautical student, Thaeris? You seem to be quite knowledgeable about aerodynamics/aircraft design.
I'm indeed a former aerospace engineering student. Unfortunatey, a nasty semester closed that door for the time being, as well as a possible future career in the Air Force. Aviation has and always will be a passion of mine, however. I'm currently back in my home state studying civil engineering.
-
Wronski Feint, or "Why I Don't Usually Bother With Offline Combat" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OC6c9pswQs)
Enjoy! :lol:
-
Straight out of Independence Day :lol:
Edit: Great, now I've been watching hilarious IL-2 crash videos for the past half-hour. :p
-
For crying out loud.... They really need to sort out that target fixation problem. :lol:
Also, good choice of music, but I reckon "Catch the Pigeon" would've been a good alternative. ;)
That sounds cool. Are you an aeronautical student, Thaeris? You seem to be quite knowledgeable about aerodynamics/aircraft design.
I'm indeed a former aerospace engineering student. Unfortunatey, a nasty semester closed that door for the time being, as well as a possible future career in the Air Force. Aviation has and always will be a passion of mine, however. I'm currently back in my home state studying civil engineering.
I see, actually I think I remember you mentioning that a while back. Good stuff, hope it goes well. :)
-
The installer program can be extremely, gnarly slow and there have been reports from people where it hasn't worked at all.
The problem seems to be (mostly) related on the autorun not working properly on Win7, so you can try starting the installer by directly starting a.exe, IL-2 Sturmovik 1946.msi, or one of the autorun.exe files in the 1031/1033/1036 directories.
A good piece of advice... 'when in doubt, choose "A"' Activating a.exe did the trick, though I have encountered one odd thing... there are fewer aircraft than I remember. I was pretty sure that there was a tail-first rocket-powered interceptor from the Soviets, then another version with ramjets on the wingtips... I don't see it this time. The install came in at v4.07, so I installed the 4.08 patch that I already had, then the 4.09, skins, 4.10 and 4.10.1 patches, but I still didn't see them. Am I getting confused with something else or is there a step I missed?
-
A good piece of advice... 'when in doubt, choose "A"' Activating a.exe did the trick, though I have encountered one odd thing... there are fewer aircraft than I remember. I was pretty sure that there was a tail-first rocket-powered interceptor from the Soviets, then another version with ramjets on the wingtips... I don't see it this time. The install came in at v4.07, so I installed the 4.08 patch that I already had, then the 4.09, skins, 4.10 and 4.10.1 patches, but I still didn't see them. Am I getting confused with something else or is there a step I missed?
Good to hear the installer worked after all.
Doesn't look like you missed anything, but just to make sure, check if your game actually starts as 4.10.1 now (it should be visible in the lower left corner of splash screen when the game is loading). When you install the patches, they automatically point to C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\IL-2 Sturmovik 1946\ directory, and if you installed the game into custom location you need to remember to change the directory for every patch, since the patch installers are essentially just self-extracting archive files and don't have any clever heuristics for sniffing out where your game is actually installed. So, it's very easy to install patches into wrong directory.
The planes you mentioned should still be there. They are the Russian rocket plane BI-1 and the ramjet-enhanced variant BI-6, and you can set plane list to "Alphabetical" or "Standard" in plane selection screen of Quick Mission builder. That might change where those planes are located.
On the other news, HSFX 5.0 has just been released, compatible with 4.10.1 patch. I expect UltraPack to follow soon.
-
There's a fantastic new trailer out there for IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. Very impressive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcm_5L6yZIY&feature=feedlik
-
That's rather cool. I hope I didn't see Spits flying in formations of four, though. :P
-
Quite off-topic, but speaking of Il-2 related videos, I got a great kick out of this notice-of-sorts for would-be modders...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOrm5__8af0&feature=related
:P Gotta' love the end.
-
That's one hell of a way to save fuel. :P
-
There's a fantastic new trailer out there for IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. Very impressive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcm_5L6yZIY&feature=feedlik
Now would probably be the time for me to buy a new computer. I'd like to wait and see what others think of it first before buying a copy, though.
I wonder how powerful the Browning .303 machine guns will be. I was reading a magazine article about the contribution of the Italian airforce to the campaign over Britain, and one of the pilots gave an account of how his parachute managed to prevent one of the bullets from hitting him in the back (I think he was flying one of those biplane fighters). I think I heard somewhere that a certain RAF officer had calculated that eight .303 machine guns was the firepower required to down a 1930's-era bomber, hence why the two main RAF fighters had that many (seems like a lot of guns when I think about it).
-
That's rather cool. I hope I didn't see Spits flying in formations of four, though. :P
It's been a while but the RAF adopted the finger four formation sometime during the battle. The vic formation was used at th beginning but I'm fairly certain by the end that was not the case. If memory serves :)
-
Really? Hmm, I suppose that would make more sense though. I could've sworn I'd read somewhere that Bader introduced it after the Battle as the 'Finger Four'.
I wonder how powerful the Browning .303 machine guns will be. I was reading a magazine article about the contribution of the Italian airforce to the campaign over Britain, and one of the pilots gave an account of how his parachute managed to prevent one of the bullets from hitting him in the back (I think he was flying one of those biplane fighters). I think I heard somewhere that a certain RAF officer had calculated that eight .303 machine guns was the firepower required to down a 1930's-era bomber, hence why the two main RAF fighters had that many (seems like a lot of guns when I think about it).
Well they also said that the optimum gun convergence range to take down bombers was 400-650 yards (Dowding Spread, to those in the know), and look how far that got them. ;) Admittedly they did change to 250 yards after No. 1 Squadron's experimentation in France.
-
You're right, I hadn't thought about convergence distance.
Really? Hmm, I suppose that would make more sense though. I could've sworn I'd read somewhere that Bader introduced it after the Battle as the 'Finger Four'.
I've read somewhere that the 'Finger Four' was established at some time during the battle.
Having done some experimentation, I can definitely see the AI cheating in effect, especially with regards to upping the performance of their planes to match (and maybe exceed?) that of the player's. I've just tried several attempts at using a MiG-15 to take on four Fw-190 D-9's with the AI setting on Ace level. To summarize, using the MiG's superior climb rate didn't help for long, and before long they were tailing me at about 500m behind and at about 510km/h. The AI is a Jedi, it seems.
-
AI waves hand: These are not the cheats you are looking for.
-
It could be me just not being used to squaring off against Ace AI - I usually set it to Veteran. I tried the same thing again but against earlier model 190's (A4's, IIRC) and I still lose. I can outrun them when straight and level, but when I have the altitude advantage, they can somehow gain height more quickly than I think they should. Also, to avoid unrecoverable spins I need to be a bit less heavy-handed with the MiG-15. It's best used for 'boom-and-zoom' tactics rather than turning and burning.
-
There's a fantastic new trailer out there for IL-2 Cliffs of Dover. Very impressive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcm_5L6yZIY&feature=feedlik
Now would probably be the time for me to buy a new computer. I'd like to wait and see what others think of it first before buying a copy, though.
I wonder how powerful the Browning .303 machine guns will be. I was reading a magazine article about the contribution of the Italian airforce to the campaign over Britain, and one of the pilots gave an account of how his parachute managed to prevent one of the bullets from hitting him in the back (I think he was flying one of those biplane fighters). I think I heard somewhere that a certain RAF officer had calculated that eight .303 machine guns was the firepower required to down a 1930's-era bomber, hence why the two main RAF fighters had that many (seems like a lot of guns when I think about it).
My guess is that the .303s will be slightly more effective than in IL-2 1946 simply because there are more damage areas modeled and the possibility for cascading failures caused by battle damage. On the whole they weren't found to be that effective which is why they rushed the deployment of a token few cannon armed Spitfires and Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain. It was a operational evaluation and the original Hispano design was a total failure in the wing installations (it was designed as a hub mounted cannon for French fighters).
-
I always thought it'd be cool during the Battle of Britain, to come across a partially damaged Me-109E or early F and cram its engine and weaponry into a Spitfire (which the Germans DID experiment with), retaining the 20mm hub cannon and cowling machine gun mounts, then rip out the wing guns and replace them with say a .5 cal and a 20mm in each wing. Now there's a combination of firepower and performance (for the day)!
-
My guess it that such a configuration would have some nasty side effects. As it was the Merlin was a solid match for the Daimler Benz aside from the inability to have a hub mount with a Merlin. Still I have seen a photo of a German captured Spitfire with a ... I think it was a DB603 fitted. Weird looking :)
The .50cal and 20mm in the wing did show up later (not everyone is aware) in the E type wing. Most of these were fitted to IX, XIV and XVI models (fully designated they were typically LF.IXe) although I believe the VIII saw them as well.
-
They actually put .50 cals into the wings? I was only aware of the 20 mil Hispano cannon from Mark V onwards, I believe.
-
They actually put .50 cals into the wings? I was only aware of the 20 mil Hispano cannon from Mark V onwards, I believe.
Yeah. The first Mark IX versions were basically Mark VC airframes fitted with Merlin 60 engine, which boosted their performance beyond that of the FW-190 A models which had been giving hard time for the Mark V's and even Mark VIII's. They proper Mark IX had pretty big modifications to its airframe, but the performance increase given by the new Merlin was such that they decided the rush the construction by fitting the engine into currently in-production Mk.VC airframes.
This resulted in Mark IXC with the Type C wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_%28late_Merlin_powered_variants%29#C_type), which was the "universal wing" for the late Spitfires, fitted with 2x20mm Hispano cannons and 6x.303 Browning machine guns (the wing also offered possibility for 4x20mm Hispano cannons without MG's).
Later Mark IX Spitfires had improvements to engine (Merlin 66 introduced injection carburetor which removed the negative G issues that the earlier Merlins suffered from), improvements in airframe integrity, control surfaces, and the Type E wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_%28late_Merlin_powered_variants%29#E_type) which was otherwise the same as C wing, but it had options for either 2x20mm Hispano and 2x.50 Browning machine guns, or 4x20mm Hispano, but the latter variant was not often used.
Interestingly, latest HSFX mod for IL-2 has a duplicate entry for Spitfire HF IX E; the first of them has C wing with .303 MG's, while the latter has E wing with two .50-cals and no outer MG's. So, the first one is mis-named (should be Spitfire HF IX C for C wing instead).
Clean unmodded Il-2 1946 4.10.1 has correctly named HF IX C and HF IX E. I am so far not very impressed with HSFX as a whole. Sure, it's better than unmodded simply by the virtue of adding a bunch of cool stuff, but there are some things that have a bit of a sloppy execution. :blah:
I'll likely move back to UltraPack mod when the new version is released.
-
Ah yeah, makes sense. Not surprised that the 4 x Hispano cannon version wasn't found in such a large quantity, can remember in 'Bader Wing' an incident where a Spitfire trialing Hispano cannons during the Battle had both cannon feeds jam during a dogfight.
Also, 'scuse my ignorance, but what's HSFX?
-
HSFX is a mod pack for IL-2 Sturmovik. Shorthand for History SFX Mod. It's sort of kinda similar to mediaVP's, except IL-2 modding community is not as unified as FSO modding community is. So, as a result there's two mod packs in primary use: HSFX, and UltraPack.
Both have their advantages and mostly contain same material.
-
Ah I see. Hmm, I have a feeling my download cap's going to be blown in the first hour if I purchase 1946. :D
-
HSFX 5.0 is 3.74 GB torrent download...
-
UltraPack mod site for those interested - I believe that the HSFX modpack is obtainable from there too, although I've not dabbled with it yet: http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php (http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php)
EDIT: To clarify, HSFX comes with UltraPack. You get something called UPswitcher with it, and that lets you switch between the modpacks - it seems that switching essentially installs one over the other. It's possible to have both mods installed if you make a copy of the UP-modded version and use the switcher on that one.
-
HSFX 5.0 is 3.74 GB torrent download...
And on top of that I have to actually download the entire thing off GoG. :P
-
Eh? I don't think you get HSFX from GoG...
Anyway I gave in and bought IL-2 Sturmovik 1946, about to fire it up. :)
-
Oh, I was referring to IL-2 and all of its expansions.
-
They actually put .50 cals into the wings? I was only aware of the 20 mil Hispano cannon from Mark V onwards, I believe.
Yep... Herra laid it out fairly well. There were a number of different configurations of armament for the Spitfire. The C type wing could (and did) accommodate four Hispano Mark II 20mm but this configuration was heavier and had an adverse affect on handling. The only combat that the four cannon version saw was at Malta to the best of my knowledge. Most of these were later reconfigured into the more typical two cannon and four .303 machine guns.
The E type wing came later. Strengthened to allow for better bomb carrying and fitted with two .50cal machine guns in the inboard cannon positions with the Hispano Mark II on the outboard positions (opposite of the C type).
There was also a trial of the Spitfire with six Hispano cannons and then when the Mark 21 and 22 were introduced with an all new wing they standardized on four Hispano 20mm again.
-
Two more innovative pilot skins:
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9691/trololot.png)
(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1236/rage1r.png)
(http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/7662/rage2t.png)
(http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8810/bailrage.png)
(http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5356/ragebail2.png)
(http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/9333/ragebail2b.png)
(http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/671/ragebail3.png)
And some gimped screenies...
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1565/grab0005crop.png)
(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4087/grab0002edited.png)
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1565/grab0005crop.png)
(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1456/grab0012cropedited2.jpg)
(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1015/grab0013edited.png)
-
(http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8810/bailrage.png)
It's like he's hanging out to say "get off my plane!" :P
-
Man, those Fw-190s look beastly in formation. Brings a tear to my eye. ;)
-
Hmmm... Here's some little known history:
After the war, the French Air Force (as well as the army, etc.) was quite strapped for resources upon being reformed. The Fw-190 was available, and if memory serves correctly, the fighter had been manufactured in captured factories previously. As such, the French continued to produce and operate the Fw-190 after the war. Given the tremendous quality of the fighter, that's quite neat to note. Unfortunately, it appears that engine problems meant that the type was not in service for long. You don't hear about post-war German aircraft in operation all that much...
The French also employed the venerable Panther medium tank after the cessation of hostilities.
-
Hmmm... Here's some little known history:
After the war, the French Air Force (as well as the army, etc.) was quite strapped for resources upon being reformed. The Fw-190 was available, and if memory serves correctly, the fighter had been manufactured in captured factories previously. As such, the French continued to produce and operate the Fw-190 after the war. Given the tremendous quality of the fighter, that's quite neat to note. Unfortunately, it appears that engine problems meant that the type was not in service for long. You don't hear about post-war German aircraft in operation all that much...
The French also employed the venerable Panther medium tank after the cessation of hostilities.
The Finnish Air Force operated their remaining Messerschmitt Bf-109 G2/6/8's as their primary fighter aircraft until mid-1950's when they transitioned to jets, starting from 1953, and the last Messerschmitt flight in FAF occurred in 1954. However, due to the limitations specified for FAF in the treaties, they were limited to no more than 60 aircraft and, interestingly according to wikipedia, "No weaponry of German construction or with German parts". How they managed to keep using the Bf-109's in respect to this limitation is beyond me.
At any rate, due to the pressure of the Soviets, almost all of these war planes were scrapped after they were retired, and the same fate befell to most aircraft used in the war - as an example there is only one Brewster B-239 airframe in existence, two intact airframes of Finnish Air Force Messerschmitt and one additional, partial airframe recovered from a crashed plane.
It was a blatant disregard for preserving important parts of history, but I guess since the planes were built and designed by Germans, it made them nazis to the Soviets just like Lotta Svärd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotta_Svärd) organization which was disbanded as a fascist organization (their symbol included a blue swastika much like the Finnish Air Force wartime insignia did). :rolleyes:
-
Well, Cliffs of Dover is to be frank in a really sorry state.
At its core are brilliant assets and concept, but riddled by engine performance issues and tons of bugs, and as a result I don't understand any other reason for its release than Ubisoft pulling the funding for continued developement, and the team was forced to rush it into a state where it barely passed Ubisoft's QA and was approved for publishing.
The game shouldn't have been released yet, and to be honest I have to wonder why exactly is the engine so atrociously poor. I mean, at low settings it doesn't look better than IL-2 Sturmovik, but manages to maybe achieve 5% of the playability of IL-2 1946.
If you don't mind buying a game essentially in beta (or even alpha) testing phase, then get it, if not for anything else you'll have an unforgettable experience trying to play the game. If you have a really modern rig you MAY have adequate performance... sometimes... but seriously, I have to still wonder where all the seven years were used on.
It's possible that they are trying to simulate way too many things for one frame and end up reducing performance as the game feverishly tries to calculate all the stuff it's supposed to, and refuses to advance to next frame before all is accounted for... and really, this isn't a good approach for a flight simulator. A flight simulator needs, first and foremost, good frame rates for playability (I would say minimum of 30 FPS, preferably at least 60 FPS) and other things scalable so that this frame rate can be achieved on minimum specification of hardware.
Well, I hope they fix the game even if it takes an engine rewrite, because the graphical assets are really something. Meanwhile, IL-2 1946 will remain the premier product on WW2 combat, if not for any other reason that Cliffs of Dover remains unplayable for most of its target demographics.
-
Well, I hope they fix the game even if it takes an engine rewrite, because the graphical assets are really something. Meanwhile, IL-2 1946 will remain the premier product on WW2 combat
How 'bout Wings of Prey?
-
Arcade game with limited simulation elements added, built on top of refurbished IL-2 engine, doesn't really cut it compared to IL-2 1946 with mods...
The Cliffs of Dover engine is a new engine with a lot more features - if it ever gets into a state where it can actually be used.
-
Well, I hope they fix the game even if it takes an engine rewrite, because the graphical assets are really something. Meanwhile, IL-2 1946 will remain the premier product on WW2 combat
How 'bout Wings of Prey?
Not really in the same league. But it does have shiny graphics :)
-
And quite good gameplay, and it actually runs fairly awesome. Although it is not as 'Hardcore' as the regular Sturmnovik, this is a great spin off (Wings of Prey is the PC port of IL2: Birds of Prey for the consoles). It should get more mention IMO.
-
I was looking forward to Cliffs of Dover. :(
-
Oh well. Perhaps they'll produce an expansion in the future that might also patch it up, hopefully.
I've been thinking of returning to European Air War, just to see what the mods are like. Although it is rather old. I always preferred it to Combat Flight Simulator 1, as I thought it created a somewhat more immersive WW2 atmosphere and the graphical effects were better. CFS2 was a big improvement on the original in those regards. Didn't bother with CFS3 because by the time that was released I had IL-2.
Apparently EAW still has a community behind it. Here's a screenshot thread at SimHQ: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3255403/Post_your_EAW_Screen_Shots.html#Post3255403
-
Well, I hope they fix the game even if it takes an engine rewrite, because the graphical assets are really something. Meanwhile, IL-2 1946 will remain the premier product on WW2 combat
How 'bout Wings of Prey?
Great sim. People say it's not but it's basically IL-2 (original) with better graphics and interface. IMO it's definitely worth the purchase, and I think they just removed the DRM as well.
-
I had BoP on 360. I never knew they did a PC re-release. Suppose that might be good entry point into the PC side of the franchise.
-
For those that don't know... IL-2s developers are a bit like Volition in days of old. They do stand by their product and will patch it until problems are resolved. It does sound like they were pushed to release before the game was fully ready... but fixes are incoming.
Lots of engine changes and optimizations are coming down the pipe in the next series of patches. There are also new multiplayer maps and two more versions of Bf109 (the E-1 and E-4 will be added). It's a bit of a rough beginning but I think it'll morph into something superb in the future.
-
You know what I miss?
I miss being able to jump to gunner positions like back in SWotL. Give me back my B-17 dammit.
-
That can be enabled by applying the mods mentioned earlier (UltraPack etc). All the B-17 gunner positions (save the radio operator's, and, I think, the navigator's - it probably depends on the variant you choose) can be manned that way.
-
For those that don't know... IL-2s developers are a bit like Volition in days of old. They do stand by their product and will patch it until problems are resolved. It does sound like they were pushed to release before the game was fully ready... but fixes are incoming.
Lots of engine changes and optimizations are coming down the pipe in the next series of patches. There are also new multiplayer maps and two more versions of Bf109 (the E-1 and E-4 will be added). It's a bit of a rough beginning but I think it'll morph into something superb in the future.
Oh, definitely - the graphical assets are superb, they just need to get the game into a state where it can actually use them (with appropriately powerful computer, of course).
And what comes to release of the game - the only plausible explanation is, despite what Maddox Games representatives say, that Ubisoft told them to push the game out or they were closing the money tap. It is not logically consistent for the team to work on a game for seven years and release a mess of a product that only properly runs on the most modern hardware (which is probably about twenty times more powerful than the most elite computer seven years ago).
So yea, I bought the game, hopefully the developers will have the opportunity to work it into a state where it works properly. I consider it an investment for the future - when the game matures, I'll still have it, and if it never does... well, I can shoulder loss of 35 euros (that's, like, five pizzas). :p
-
For those that don't know... IL-2s developers are a bit like Volition in days of old. They do stand by their product and will patch it until problems are resolved. It does sound like they were pushed to release before the game was fully ready... but fixes are incoming.
Lots of engine changes and optimizations are coming down the pipe in the next series of patches. There are also new multiplayer maps and two more versions of Bf109 (the E-1 and E-4 will be added). It's a bit of a rough beginning but I think it'll morph into something superb in the future.
Oh, definitely - the graphical assets are superb, they just need to get the game into a state where it can actually use them (with appropriately powerful computer, of course).
And what comes to release of the game - the only plausible explanation is, despite what Maddox Games representatives say, that Ubisoft told them to push the game out or they were closing the money tap. It is not logically consistent for the team to work on a game for seven years and release a mess of a product that only properly runs on the most modern hardware (which is probably about twenty times more powerful than the most elite computer seven years ago).
So yea, I bought the game, hopefully the developers will have the opportunity to work it into a state where it works properly. I consider it an investment for the future - when the game matures, I'll still have it, and if it never does... well, I can shoulder loss of 35 euros (that's, like, five pizzas). :p
But when the game matures, it will probably be cheaper :nervous:.
-
Which will also be less profitable for the developer as well as publishers. I couldn't give a rat's arse about Yubisofta (as the Russians charmingly call it), but I really rather wanted to risk getting incomplete, unfinished game if it was the only way to give maximal support for the developers.
Now, of course there was the option to purchase the Russian version of the game at about ten euros price (due to Russian circumstances the price of the game is much lower there - wage equivalent price is about the same) but I really didn't have the patience to jump through all the hoops that would have required - even if it would have yielded maximally profitable for Maddox Games that way rather than giving any money to Yubisofta...
Then again, they might simply need Yubisofta's money to keep developing the game, so that might be a valid reason to buy the game anyway.
It's all about risk assessment - or potential gains and losses of buying it now vs. buying it later.
Potential Losses Potential Gains
Buy it now ~20 € more expensive More profitable for publishers and developers
initially unplayable on my PC Improved chances of the game getting better long term support
Buy it later Ubisoft/1C pull the carpet under Less frustration trying to play the game initially
Maddox Games as the game flops Less expensive (by a factor of about three pizzas)
economically
The potential benefits of buying the game now in long term outweigh the risks of waiting until the price goes down; basically, waiting would have been more sensible for my wallet, but on the other hand I also want long term support and development for this product - and if the publishers decide the game isn't profitable to maintain and patch they'll pull the plug from it and leave Maddox Games all alone with hordes of angry flight simmers.
If the game still flops and all further developement falls through and doesn't ever materialize... then I at least know I tried to help, while if I had elected to wait, I couldn't help but wonder if my inability to part from 34.90 € was partially responsible for the demise of a game of great potential.
In proper context, if the whole game costs 35 euros like it did for me, that's about the same as ordering five pizzas from a local joint (~7 euros per pizza). From that perspective, it doesn't look such a bad investment even if I have to shoulder the potential losses - I can survive with three or even five less pizzas if necessary.
-
Ah yes. I am simply running on a budget of less then 30 euro's a month to spend on whatever I like, and I like to save whatever I got.
-
You know what I miss?
I miss being able to jump to gunner positions like back in SWotL. Give me back my B-17 dammit.
...Off-topic, but if you've got X-Plane, you might want to check X-Plane.org around this time - epic freeware B-17G is epic.
-
IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 + HSFX5: Alert Fighter Scramble! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJUpgpL3Q)
-
Nice shooting, you seemed to hit those MiG's right in their tailpipes.
Reminds me of fighting against the MiG-15's in Rowan's MiG Alley. I remember that tailing rookie-level AI MiGs at close range tended to result in their pilots ejecting rather than trying to dogfight, which was kind of hilarious but also rather disappointing. I doubt that happens in IL-2.
-
My opinion is that the AI is even worse with fast jet fighters than propeller driven planes. It probably wasn't designed for the speed and handling of the jets.
-
During the landing cycle in Cliffs of Dover, does the AI now restrain itself from making final approaches whilst there are other aircraft ahead that are either landing on or still on the runway? It's not a major problem, but it's one of those things that's been present in the IL-2 series for a long time, if not from the beginning. I also hope the AI has learnt to stop occasionally colliding with parked aircraft whilst taxiing, although I suppose accidents like that do happen in real life.
-
During the landing cycle in Cliffs of Dover, does the AI now restrain itself from making final approaches whilst there are other aircraft ahead that are either landing on or still on the runway? It's not a major problem, but it's one of those things that's been present in the IL-2 series for a long time, if not from the beginning. I also hope the AI has learnt to stop occasionally colliding with parked aircraft whilst taxiing, although I suppose accidents like that do happen in real life.
The most disastrous and deathly airplane accidents have happened whilst taxi-ing.
-
During the landing cycle in Cliffs of Dover, does the AI now restrain itself from making final approaches whilst there are other aircraft ahead that are either landing on or still on the runway? It's not a major problem, but it's one of those things that's been present in the IL-2 series for a long time, if not from the beginning. I also hope the AI has learnt to stop occasionally colliding with parked aircraft whilst taxiing, although I suppose accidents like that do happen in real life.
The most disastrous and deathly airplane accidents have happened whilst taxi-ing.
*one of the most.
http://toolkit.bootsnall.com/transportation-travel-guide/air-travel-guide/ask-the-pilot-collection/ten-worst-airplane-crashes-in-history.html
1. March 27, 1977. Two Boeing 747s, operated by KLM and Pan Am, collide on a foggy runway at Tenerife, in Spain’s Canary Islands killing 583 people. The KLM jet departed without permission and struck the Pan Am jet as it taxied along the same runway. Confusion over instructions and a blockage of radio transmissions contributed to the crash.
Also, Herra Tohtori, considering the sim was in development for about 7-10 years (Duke Nukem Forever being developed for 13 before receiving it's release date), I don't really blame Ubisoft for closing off the money tap. A sim as detailed as this new one could be developed for 50 more years I'm sure, considering what it simulates; every aircraft's internal structure is actually modeled (there is a 3D model underneath the skin you see in the screenshots, which is used to compute damage values), bullet holes are dynamically calculated vs. actual bullet impacts (so you can see that lovely structure), I remember during development there was a video each devoted to truck suspension modeling and animated grass moving in the breeze.
-
True that... the modeling level is insane and apparently things like moving weather fronts are not yet in. The engine has some serious life in it... in 10 years I hope we'll have a fantastic and very high quality experience. For now, like most sims, it's a bit tough on the system requirements but it's slowly getting fixed.
-
Yes, I quite agree actually. Ubisoft does have an obligation to make profit for its shareholders, and there does come a point where shoveling money to an eternity project like this can't be sustained any more with visible results... This debacle can't be blamed solely on any single party, it's a big mess on all involved companies - Ubi, 1C and Maddox Games.
-
I bought clodo 3 weeks ago but since i tryed it, i've not running it much, i got back to 1946 and the up2.01 and hsfx5.
I'm gonna wait and try again in 6/7 mounth, what is really blocking for me is the lack of force feedback support!
no force feed back in a ww2 sim is kinda meh! hell we're in the 21st century, unthinkable!
Anyway i'll give them time, and give my self time as i'm ruuning triplehead system, i have to change my graphic card ^^
i'm getting more fun with 1946 and its amazing plane set!