Jump to content
BlackSix

Thread to gather your suggestions

Recommended Posts

Type of improvement: Multiplayer snapping

 

Explaination of proposal:  client and server tick rates differ severely at many times and cause sputtering of player locations (snapping back and forth) when multiple planes are within visual distance of each other (1-2km is very noticable).

This was solved in part or completely in today's star citizen bug smashers episode as seen here (short video).  The request is to implement the same solution to the communications with the dserver.   

 

 

 

Benefits:  Possible that clients will no longer see other players' position snapping back and forth severely when flying close by and shooting at each other.  Currently, multiplayer is unplayable due to this for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Suggestion - Personal server management / connections filtering

 

- Add a packet loss filter threshold as an addition to the ping check. ( similar to ArmA ). This improves connection for everyone as opposite to balance it out between everyone in accommodation for a player with excellent ping but continuous packet loss. 

 

Warping and overall connection quality for everyone improves.

 

kickClientsOnSlowNetwork[] = { 0, 0, 0, 0 }; Defines if {<MaxPing>, <MaxPacketLoss>, <MaxDesync>, <DisconnectTimeout>} will be logged (0) or kicked (1) 
Edited by =LD=Hethwill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Multiplayer
Explanation of proposals: Enlist Mod-Enabled Servers for Players with Mods disabled.

Clearly make them identifyable, e.g. by a specific "Mods" Icon in front.

Benefits:
Server Operators can leave it up to the players whether or not to use Mods.

Players can choose themselves whether or not to play on Mod-enabled Servers even if they don't use mods themselves.

This doesn't make Mod-enabled Servers an "exclusive club" like it is right now, but gives players the power of choice.

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Forum, "Suggestions" subforum
 

Explanation of proposals:
Refurbish structure of "Suggestions" subforum by dividing it again into for example:
-Game mechanics
-Aircraft (in game)
-Miscellaneous
-Future additions (aircraft, maps, installments)

 

Benefits:
"Suggestions" subforum has become very confusing and quite some threads are repetitive.
Therefore many nice ideas and discussions become very easy to miss, which is unfortunate and counterproductive.
Categorizing will counteract by sorting very different types of suggestions from each other.

 

Edited by =27=Davesteu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: gameplay for VR
Explanation of proposals: Adding ingame head movement speed ( x,y ) slider to VR from 1x to 2x.
Benefits: As we know, tir and other headtrackers are able to watch behind with small head movement, and it gives quite a huge advantage against vr users ( along suberb spotting with normal pc screens ). So by adding ingame speed slider to 2x for vr users, we could have some of the headtracking advantage, by watching behind with 90 degree movement.

Then there would be choise for vr players to play for realism by 1x speed or having some competitive playing against headtrack users in multiplayer with 2x speed.

Edited by Macross
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Map change in Stalingrad career

Explanation of proposals: Currently in the Stalingrad career the map changes from summer to autumn with the beginning of the second phase August, 31st. With temperatures around 20°C, this seems a bit early for an autumn map. I would guess the correct time would be in October.

Benefits: Appart from historical correctness, it is really sad, that we fly only a few days on the beautiful summer map.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Correct assignement of targets for ground attacks on artillery positions

Explanation of proposals: When aircrafts fly ground attack missions on an artillery position, their task is, destroy as many artillery guns as possible, and if you can, supply trucks. They fly this mission, because the artillery guns are a big danger for the own ground troops. At the moment the main task for ground attacks is the destruction of the AA defense first and only then attack the artillery guns. This won't help the ground troops very much, as the light AAA is not a big issue for them. So fly there, bomb the hell out of the artillery guns, and get back as soon as you can.

Benefits: Military correctness. Do what is your duty and don't play around with targets, you were not sent to destroy. The order is not self protection ,because then it would be better to stay on the airfield, but help the ground troops.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Suggestion: Increase the default max latency setting to 500msec, before servers kick a player for high ping. Also, increase the warning to kick time from 5 seconds to 30 seconds (with repeated warnings) as often, the messages are read too late. Going beyond 550 is not be necessary to allow the entire globe to a server as there are practically no locations on Earth that exceed 550 msec to a destination that has a reliable, stable connection. Also, add an option for server operators to willingly reduce or increase the latency tolerance, so those who want to exclusively allow their servers to a low latency population (e.g. russians-only server hosted in moscow may want to have a ping limit of 120msec)

Reasoning: Currently as a Western Australian, there are no mainstream daytime servers that will accept me without likely kicking me within ten or so minutes from joining (namely TAW, Berloga and WoL, Berloga in particular will kick me within the first 10 seconds). The only solution I can probably get is to subscribe to a VPN service, and from what I know, and they likely won't work well becuase my connection always routes through hawaii via sydney to get out of the country, meaning that I'd have to pay for an expensive local VPN service if I want to achieve lower latencies. Something that I've also noticed, is that IL-2's netcode when it comes to angles, is that the games' netcode and client prediction does not compensate for angles, and I understand this is a very complex algorithm to write logic for (WT does imo, have the best netcode for dogfights, but it does come at a cost of the wobbly effect). But nevertheless, even if this is an issue, my main issue with IL-2 GB is the fact that I can't simply "just play" the game online during my daytime most of the time because the primary populated servers. Thus, the major reason as to why I don't play IL-2 is actually the lack of available populated servers that won't kick me for high latency.


There are free temporary-connection VPN services out there, but I've tried them, and knowing their locations, they aren't effective at all anyway and do little to improve my latency. By default, my connection in a nut shell, goes around the earth's equivalent circumference to reach the russian servers (perth/sydney/san fransisco/new york/EU/Moscow). Of course joining an empty server with no players is always an option, but seeding a populous game in IL-2 isn't effective until you gain at least 10 players on the server, and seeding a game with IL-2 is also made harder by the fact that the game isn't friendly to seeders either in both hardware and software restrictions. Of course, there are other ways to potentially fix low-population server problems, but due to the nature of flight combat simulators and their simple favour of "larger server populations," many techniques to encourage multiple server populations will likely not work well aside perhaps improved bot AI and a larger proportion of AI bots in each game. Decreasing the ping threshold will also split the community which can work negatively, and will most certainly, prevent me from playing IL-2 at all, if the US community were to be forced to be split from the russian community by latency restrictions alone, those who live in the middle/south east asian region that don't have priority direct or indirect connection to russia and its close connection hubs will suffer the most as they would probably not have low enough latency to connect to the US in the first place. (by the way, the "centre" of the globally-accessible internet population more or less geographically lies around New York, this means that NY actually provides most of the world the lowest latency (see the chart below), with those living in  Eastern Russia, the worst latency of about 380msec. I heard those living in south africa and India actually get pretty decent latency to NY of around 250 to 300. It also conveniently avoids most of the world's routing gap between europe and asia)

Benefits: Slightly more of the world will be able to play IL-2 at any time of the day, especially during the hours when there are less than 20 total players online. It will also reduce the discouragement of "wasting money on a game you cannot play during the day" excuse for people who live in my city and those who live in similar internet standard problems.

Also, here's a chart of the main city hub latencies:

Berlin (72AG), Moscow, St Petersburg (closest to vyborg afaik, which is where WoL is located), NY (the main location international american servers are hosted, especially those hosted by ufo), and Sydney (Unprofessionals' PUGs only). I forgot to list finland, my bad. Also, I'm fairly confident to say that malaysia, does not on average get 250 msec to moscow from most ISPs (they sometimes get 200msec from western kualar lumpur to eastern kualar lumpur!)

pBOeCH2.png

Edited by =BMAD=kirumovka
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, =BMAD=kirumovka said:

Suggestion: Increase the default max latency setting to 500msec, before servers kick a player for high ping. Also, increase the warning to kick time from 5 seconds to 30 seconds (with repeated warnings) as often, the messages are read too late. Going beyond 550 is not be necessary to allow the entire globe to a server as there are practically no locations on Earth that exceed 550 msec to a destination that has a reliable, stable connection. Also, add an option for server operators to willingly reduce or increase the latency tolerance, so those who want to exclusively allow their servers to a low latency population (e.g. russians-only server hosted in moscow may want to have a ping limit of 120msec)

Reasoning: Currently as a Western Australian, there are no mainstream daytime servers that will accept me without likely kicking me within ten or so minutes from joining (namely TAW, Berloga and WoL, Berloga in particular will kick me within the first 10 seconds). The only solution I can probably get is to subscribe to a VPN service, and from what I know, and they likely won't work well becuase my connection always routes through hawaii via sydney to get out of the country, meaning that I'd have to pay for an expensive local VPN service if I want to achieve lower latencies. Something that I've also noticed, is that IL-2's netcode when it comes to angles, is that the games' netcode and client prediction does not compensate for angles, and I understand this is a very complex algorithm to write logic for (WT does imo, have the best netcode for dogfights, but it does come at a cost of the wobbly effect). But nevertheless, even if this is an issue, my main issue with IL-2 GB is the fact that I can't simply "just play" the game online during my daytime most of the time because the primary populated servers. Thus, the major reason as to why I don't play IL-2 is actually the lack of available populated servers that won't kick me for high latency.


There are free temporary-connection VPN services out there, but I've tried them, and knowing their locations, they aren't effective at all anyway and do little to improve my latency. By default, my connection in a nut shell, goes around the earth's equivalent circumference to reach the russian servers (perth/sydney/san fransisco/new york/EU/Moscow). Of course joining an empty server with no players is always an option, but seeding a populous game in IL-2 isn't effective until you gain at least 10 players on the server, and seeding a game with IL-2 is also made harder by the fact that the game isn't friendly to seeders either in both hardware and software restrictions. Of course, there are other ways to potentially fix low-population server problems, but due to the nature of flight combat simulators and their simple favour of "larger server populations," many techniques to encourage multiple server populations will likely not work well aside perhaps improved bot AI and a larger proportion of AI bots in each game. Decreasing the ping threshold will also split the community which can work negatively, and will most certainly, prevent me from playing IL-2 at all, if the US community were to be forced to be split from the russian community by latency restrictions alone, those who live in the middle/south east asian region that don't have priority direct or indirect connection to russia and its close connection hubs will suffer the most as they would probably not have low enough latency to connect to the US in the first place. (by the way, the "centre" of the globally-accessible internet population more or less geographically lies around New York, this means that NY actually provides most of the world the lowest latency (see the chart below), with those living in  Eastern Russia, the worst latency of about 380msec. I heard those living in south africa and India actually get pretty decent latency to NY of around 250 to 300. It also conveniently avoids most of the world's routing gap between europe and asia)

Benefits: Slightly more of the world will be able to play IL-2 at any time of the day, especially during the hours when there are less than 20 total players online. It will also reduce the discouragement of "wasting money on a game you cannot play during the day" excuse for people who live in my city and those who live in similar internet standard problems.

Also, here's a chart of the main city hub latencies:

Berlin (72AG), Moscow, St Petersburg (closest to vyborg afaik, which is where WoL is located), NY (the main location international american servers are hosted, especially those hosted by ufo), and Sydney (Unprofessionals' PUGs only). I forgot to list finland, my bad. Also, I'm fairly confident to say that malaysia, does not on average get 250 msec to moscow from most ISPs (they sometimes get 200msec from western kualar lumpur to eastern kualar lumpur!)

pBOeCH2.png

 

 

Dear developers

Let this be a configuration item in the Dserver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Multiplayer
 

Explanation of proposals:

Add a command to the DServer remote console to forcibly end a player's mission. The command would take the client id and a string providing an explanation.

 

Example:

cmd: endmission cid/name explanation

response example: STATUS=1 (Player mission was cancelled)

response example: STATUS=10 (Player had not started a mission)

 

When that command is executed, if the player has spawned in a plane or tank, then that player's vehicle is despawned and the player is sent back to the map screen and a dialog box shows the explanation.

The purpose of this command is to allow dynamic campaign servers to restrict player's access to certain planes or configuration. Typically, this kind of server has a script running in the background on the server. The script parses the text logs to detect when players enter a plane, and in what configuration (skin, payload, weapon mods, fuel load). If a player is using a plane or configuration they are not allowed to, then that command would be called. Currently, the kick command can be used, but it's a bit excessive, as it forces a player to join again. Sometimes, players don't even know why they were kicked, leading to new attempts, with the same result, ensuing frustration on the player's part.


Benefits:

Give dynamic control to server scripts over players' access to planes on an individual level, in a way that is user-friendly and help avoid unnecessary kick-and-rejoin cycles.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, coconut said:

Add a command to the DServer remote console to forcibly end a player's mission. The command would take the client id and a string providing an explanation.

 

Although this:

On 5/22/2017 at 11:01 AM, LLv34_Untamo said:

Add corresponding RCON serverinputs to query/add/deduct personal/total resources from the airfield. This allows external command software to handle complex logistics logic.

...would give more options and also cater for what you suggested. "Resources" being planes / modifications / whatever.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement:               New command for new formation type


Explanation of proposals:         The sim has a command for the V-formation, but Finger Four was a more common fighter formation during WW2.

                                                       The Germans used Finger Four from the outset of WW2, Britain and USA followd in 1941 and Soviet Union in 1942/43.
                                                       Also Japan switched to Finger Four during the war. 

                                                       The V-formation command should be kept.


Benefits:                                       Historical accuracy. It would look very strange to see fighters flying in V-formation in Bodenplatte.

 

Finger Four:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger-four#cite_note-Bickers96p150-6

Vic:                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_formation

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Visualization/Graphics overlay


Explanation of proposals: Create an additional "object marker" for airplanes, but without names nor distance and about half of the triangle current size.

 

Benefits: This proposal is intended to be used in VR in single player mode.

VR is already very compelling but the images are still a bit blurry making it difficult to identify the airplanes.

I keep going back and forth with "object markers" on and off, because in VR the current format obstruct, spoil, breaks the immersion.

With a more subtle "object marker" the player could stay in one mode only, enhancing the immersion overall, till better VR devices, in regard to image resolution, comes to market.

proposal.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 4driano said:

Type of improvement: Visualization/Graphics overlay


Explanation of proposals: Create an additional "object marker" for airplanes, but without names nor distance and about half of the triangle current size.

 

I think the system in Rise of Flight was perfect: the plane is replaced with a black box when the object is too far away to identify, then resolves itself into the actual plane and a friend or foe marker as you get closer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: career mode, reduced cruise speed for missions with additional loads (eg.ground attack)


Explanation of proposals: For missions with additional loads cruise speed to be reduced to max. continous power (eg. 1.15bar for BF109-F2, 1.2bar for FW190-A5 U17) 


Benefits: unnecessary high engine temperatures during cruise to target to be avoided. (problem observed at ground attack missions with BF-109-F2 / SC250 and FW190-A5 U17 / SC250 + 4SC50), The use of combat power / emergency power for combat after cruise flight is restricted if temperatures during cruise flight are unnecessary high.

Best regards

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Graphic.
Explanation of proposals: Add possibility to open door in ju52 cockpit and look inside your plane.

Benefits: Visual and immersion.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Object marker/icons options

 

Explanation of proposals: Allow additional options related to icons;

1) disable arrows but retain the object markers

2) allow object markers to fade out when obscured by cockpit, fuselage or clouds.

3) allow friend/foe icons without aircraft type and distance data 

 

Benefits: Improved immersion and tactics without forcing players to disable icons. Some players (myself) find playing without icons too intimidating and don't have time to invest learning to identify types. When playing on a standard sized and resolution 2D monitor, some aids are necessary. However, I would enjoy icons that encourage me to play more realistically. 

 

1) removing arrows encourages situational awareness and de-clutters screen

2) forces realistic positioning above or below cloud layer to spot enemies. Allows AI to break engagement by retreating into cloud. Prevents using icons to lead target obscured by nose. Forces flying patterns (banks and rolls) that allow pilot visibility of target. 

3) Maintains some realistic uncertainty about enemy capabilities (eg; between FW190 A3 or A5)  while stilling aiding identification as foe. 

 

My goal is to one day play without aids on a big, high rez monitor or a future VR set. In the meantime, improvements such as this would improve the experience

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

type of improvement : career, user friendliness

 

explanation add a function to copy/paste your loadout to the whole flight when you are squadron leader.

 

benefits right now you have to edit each aircraft individually for correcting loadouts which is not handy at all. Especially since for bomber careers, fuel and bomb selection are almost always way off the mark. (3800 liters of fuel in all heinkels for a 35min sortie...)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Multiplayer

 

Explanation of proposals: Multiplayer In DServer.exe, please change logfile creation code from Windows API call "fopen_s" to "_fsopen" and enable shared read access to the logfile in order to give dedicated server operators a chance to see what's going on in realtime.


Benefits: Bughunting, Cheater detection, Stats creation etc... everything would be much improved and could happen "on the fly" and not just when the mission ends like it is now.

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Type of improvement: Multiplayer

 

Explanation of proposals: Multiplayer In DServer.exe, please change logfile creation code from Windows API call "fopen_s" to "_fsopen" and enable shared read access to the logfile in order to give dedicated server operators a chance to see what's going on in realtime.


Benefits: Bughunting, Cheater detection, Stats creation etc... everything would be much improved and could happen "on the fly" and not just when the mission ends like it is now.

 

Cheers!

Mike

The mission text log files are generated in relatively short intervals, 15 or 30 seconds, or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggested Improvement:  

 

Control keys/axis binding streamlining. 

 

Explanation of proposal: 

 

Reduce items that perform essentially the same function across the varying plane models from needing to be bound multiple times.

 

Example: 

The BF 109 and FW 190 Level Stabilizer may be of a different design method than the Vertical Trim on other planes, but it performs an identical function.  Still, it is needed to bind these items in separate places in the menu. Furthermore, the Level Stabilizer is an axis-bindable function whereas the other Trim controls are currently not. (I would like to see this fixed).

 

It seems to me that the menu is trying to illustrate the technical/design differences between how Plane X and Plane Y handle the same function.

In my opinion, that's best left to technical manuals that players can read if they so choose.

 

Benefits:

Increase ease of use.

Reduce custom keys/axis setup time.

Reduce redundancy of binding identical functions.

Reduce confusion about what a menu item does when there's an item of identical function on the menu page that is recognized by the player.

Make it easier for the player to create a more uniform control configuration across multiple plane models. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Type of Improvement: 

 

Multiplayer/COOP

 

Explanation of Proposal:

 

As there are a lack of user created missions for COOP mode (I cant find many), I think it would be a HUGE benefit for the COOP mode to add a mission generator (Im thinking career mode style). The host could set some parameters like time period and combat group and the mission would generate before users select aircraft. It could for example offer to pick at least one squad on each side. Perhaps the host could even pick the mission type prior or select from a list of options to have it randomly picked.

 

One example would be bomber intercept. Many other things would be going on at the same time like in career mode, but in the lobby, players could pick either intercepting fighters or the bombers that are to be intercepted.


Benefits:
 

It would make it much easier to jump in COOP mode and there would be endless possibilities of missions to play and each mission would be unique. It offers the ability to actually have a clear mission like in single player, but be able to play with a squad of friends both together and against each other. It would offer MP play for those that don't like the "chaos" of the popular multiplayer servers, without having to set up your own DServer and no need to create/find custom missions.

I think it would help to vastly improve the COOP mode and get more people to play together. Also perfect for training.

 

I am hoping that since the generator already exists in career, it would not require a huge amount of work to make it possible to use in the COOP mode, making it a small effort/big value feature.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of Improvement:  

 

Control binding functionnality.

 

Explanation of proposal: 

 

Even if it had been stated before by Han that number of controls was to be kept at a minimum to make things easier for newcomers,  the list is growing and will continue to do so as new planes and new types of equipment will be introduced (Turbocharger, custom command for jet engines, complex fuel managements, torpedoes for the pacific, tanks crew, etc...), there is no way around that.

 

What I suggest is to quickly reorganize the current controls by displaying by default all basic controls that a rookie needs to get airborne and have fun, then add a tickbox that will display advanced controls like separate left/right/middle engine controls, things like flaregun, gyro gunsight, specific camera controls, ... basically everything an advanced simmer would need to get the most out of his rig.

 

Benefits:

 

This will already simplify the current key bindings menu by hiding optionnal things that young simmers don't need to get used to the game.

This will allow devs to add commands that were requested by the community and were rejected for the sake of simplicity (like bombsight commands).

This will allow the development of existing commands without overloading the menu like in CloD for simulator enthusiasts (for example keep the toggle landing gear command in the basic menu, but add a separate extend landing gear and retract landing gear command in the advanced menu).

Edited by F/JG300_Gruber
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of Improvement:  

 

Reorganizing the menus under settings to be compliant with international words and categories for aviation!

 

 

Explanation of proposal: 

 

Divide the menu "Main controls" into several menu's to avoid long a confusing lists as the game get more controls AND doing it by using words taught in in flight-school.

 

 

Examples:

 

Primary Flight-controls

  • Elevator
  • Ailerons
  • Rudder

 

Secondary Flight-controls

  • Flaps
  • Air-brakes
  • Slats
  • Trim (Which we a shitload of different controls for)

 

Landing gear

  • Gear in/out
  • Gear breake
  • Other gear breakes etc.

 

Aircraft features

  • Lighting controls
  • Canopy controls
  • Avionic controls/Communication and Navigation
    • Radio
    • Compass
    • Map
    • Compass overlay (cheat)
    • Cheat messages (engine messages and warnings)

 

 

 

Benefits:

 

This will make it easier for long time simmers to get head or tails where to find the necessary controls.

 

It will make it less confusing for noobs as they get to learn the right names from the start and it will be easier for them when they search the names on the internet.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Logging
Explanation of proposals: In the current text log files, there's the AType:18 event to indicate when a pilot or gunner has bailed out, but there's no obvious link to the parachute object (which only seems to be logged if it gets destroyed). It would be old if the AType:18 event includes a field for the ID of the generated parachute.
Benefits: More accurate results from log files

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Career gameplay (difficulty level).
 

Explanation of proposals: Scale AI pilot level with rank.

In career missions, right now (v3.003) all AI pilots in a flight have the same level, based on the difficulty setting. My suggestion is to scale the pilot level with rank within every unit. AI pilots could have an average level based on the selected difficulty and apply +/-1 to highest (e.g. captains and mayors) / lowest (e.g. junior lt.) ranks.

In case non-player unit ranks are not tracked in the career, a "fake" rank can be assigned based on flight position, with some randomness.

 

EDIT: I've used "rank" as criteria for simplicity, but please read that as "the parameter or combination of parameters that best reflect a pilot's skill", and add some randomness.

 

Benefits: Gives weight to AI pilot ranks/experience, adds variety within the same difficulty setting, and it would make neighbour planes fly and fight a bit differently, giving a better impression during engagements.

Edited by yeikov
Added clarification on rank/skill
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Jettison option for German ER4 4x50kg Adaptor from ETC501 Rack

 

Explanation of proposals: ER4 4x50kg Adaptor which is suspended to universal ETC501 Rack should be jettisonable to increase performance in case of emergency. It's been used by Bf110, Ju-88 and Fw190. Suspended empty adapter decreases speed by a big margin (39km/h). Lack of ability to drop an empty adaptor is the reason it's not being used in MP.

It's also necessery to jettison the adaptor before an emergency belly landing.

Since jettison mechanics is already implemented into the game - with Bf-109G-14's Werfer-Granate 21 rocket launcher when you can jettison empty racks - it should be an easy task.

 

The emergency fuselage stores release handle "Rumplast".

Fw 190 A-6 handbook Teil 8B page 13 "Bombennotzug"

The bomb(s) is only armed after master arm on and selected fuze time (oV/mV) on the ZSK, since it's an electrical fuze.

The bomb can be dropped unarmed (one or both switches of) through the emergency handle, because the cable goes directly to the ETC-501.
The bomb can be dropped armed through emergency handle, if master arm is on and ZSK fuse is selected.

An exception is the ER4-rack (4x SC-50), it will be dropped unarmed through the emergency handle equally your settings (electrical wires will be ripped of by emergency release).

The military regulation for emergency drop was: on friendly territory drop unarmed, on enemy territory drop armed.

image.thumb.png.755d6254f1f5bbeb2ca32322ecdc98f0.pngimage.thumb.png.02683ef5778671274a56b61f9ca4c89e.png

 

Benefits: ER4 4x50kg Adaptor will be used by virtual pilots in MP.

Edited by bies
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bies said:

Type of improvement: Jettison option for German ER4 4x50kg Adaptor from ETC501 Rack

 

Explanation of proposals: ER4 4x50kg Adaptor which is suspended to universal ETC501 Rack should be jettisonable to increase performance in case of emergency. It's been used by Bf110, Ju-88 and Fw190. Suspended empty adapter decreases speed by a big margin (39km/h). Lack of ability to drop an empty adaptor is the reason it's not being used in MP.

It's also necessery to jettison the adaptor before an emergency belly landing.

Since jettison mechanics is already implemented into the game - with Bf-109G-14's Werfer-Granate 21 rocket launcher when you can jettison empty racks - it should be an easy task.

image.thumb.png.755d6254f1f5bbeb2ca32322ecdc98f0.pngimage.thumb.png.02683ef5778671274a56b61f9ca4c89e.png

 

Benefits: ER4 4x50kg Adaptor will be used by virtual pilots in MP.

Is this feature available on the real A-5?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EAF_Starfire said:

Is this feature available on the real A-5?

Yes of course, with the emergency fuselage stores release handle "Rumplast". Imagine emergency belly landing with this kind of plow.

Fw 190 A-6 handbook Teil 8B page 13 "Bombennotzug"

The bomb(s) is only armed after master arm on and selected fuze time (oV/mV) on the ZSK, since it's an electrical fuze.

The bomb can be dropped unarmed (one or both switches of) through the emergency handle, because the cable goes directly to the ETC-501.
The bomb can be dropped armed through emergency handle, if master arm is on and ZSK fuse is selected.

An exception is the ER4-rack (4x SC-50), it will be dropped unarmed through the emergency handle equally your settings (electrical wires will be ripped of by emergency release).

The military regulation for emergency drop was: on friendly territory drop unarmed, on enemy territory drop armed.

Edited by bies
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of Improvement: Control

 

Explanation of Proposals: Once HVAR rockets are implemented, it would be very nice to have  the ability to control their fuzes. I'll explain:

HVAR rockets came equipped with both a nose and a tail fuze. In the cockpit, there would have been a switch that allowed the pilot to choose between an "instant" fuze and a "delay" fuze.

 

Instant: Both the nose fuze and tail fuzes are armed. The rocket would explode instantly upon impact. The rocket basically acts like an HE shell. Used for soft targets.

Delay: Only the tail fuze is armed. The rocket would first penetrate a target, then explode inside. The rocket acts like an AP shell with HE filler. Used for armored targets.

 

In the case of the "Instant" option, the reason both fuzes were armed was:

A) For redundancy. If the rocket had a faulty nose fuze, then it would still explode as if the pilot had selected "delay".

B) For simplicity. Basically, all the switch did was make it so that the nose fuze would or wouldn't be armed upon launch.

 

Benefits: Not only would it be realistic, it would allow players to make much more effective use of their HVAR rockets.

 

 

 

Type of Improvement: Control

 

Explanation of Proposals: Make the gun sight range control "two-button" axis move in a linear fashion, at least when using a gyro gun sight. I use a hat switch for my gun sight controls, and trying to constantly adjust the range with the current system makes using the gyro gun sight almost not an option for me. This *move really slow at first and then move way too fast* makes it impossible to make small consistent changes. It takes what feels like forever to adjust the range by only 10 yards at first, then suddenly the range adjustment is moving too fast. So, you let go of the button and have to start over again with the moving really slow. It's clunky and impractical. 

 

Making the range axis move in a linear fashion would alleviate this problem.

 

Benefits: It would make using gyro gun sights much easier to use without having to assign the range to an actual axis. As the range closes, you could simply keep tapping whatever button you use.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×