Jump to content
BlackSix

Thread to gather your suggestions

Recommended Posts

Type of improvement: P-47D-28 Dorsal Fin Modification


Explanation of proposals: It is well known that after the P-47D's received their bubble canopy during the D-25 block, there was a loss of directional stability, due to the loss of aft keel area. The later D-30 block Thunderbolts came standard with a dorsal fin to remedy this issue. However, it is also well known and documented that many pre D-30 block Thunderbolts in the field received this Dorsal Fin as a field modification. I provided an image I edited to highlight the dorsal fin on a D-30 block Thunderbolt to this suggestion post.


Benefits: Historical accuracy, realism, and diversified gameplay. One of the interesting parts of aircraft modification in this game is the trade-off you get for each modification. It makes flying each aircraft more interesting and diversified. Not to mention that this was a particularly common field modification, and one might expect it to be among the other modifications present in-game. It is also something many are asking for, other than myself, and a common topic of discussion on these forums. Links to others asking for, discussing, or suggesting this modification are provided below: 

 

 

Thank you.

DorsalFinHighlight.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1. Type of improvement: Fairness/Historical accuracy


Explanation of proposals: Improved La-5F canopy with cut down rear fuselage


Benefits: From various sources online, all La-5's equipped with the M-82F engine were made with the improved glass canopy with improved rearward visibility, and even some equipped with the older M-82 engine were produced to such standards. This should be available in-game as a modification for the La-5, much like how the Fw-190D-9 has the option to install a bubble-top canopy. It would be historical and accurate to have this modification available for the La-5, and it would help improve the fairness of the game: basically all Bf-109's have the option to improve visibility through various modifications (whether through removal of the rear armor plate, or addition of a glass armor plate), while almost all Soviet fighters have abysmal rearward visibility. Having the option for the improved glass canopy would a massively useful addition to the La-5, improving fairness against Luftwaffe fighters, and would be historically accurate. It also just doesn't feel right flying a supposedly "La-5F" in Mid-Late war scenarios (1943+) while still using the terrible canopy from 1942, despite the improved canopy having had widespread introduction early in 1943. The La-5 is a collectors plane as well, so there should be no reason it can't have the same effort of adding a different canopy, as was done for the Fw-190D-9, done for it as well.

 

The Lavochkin La-5 Family: Addendum

 

2. Type of improvement: Fairness/Historical accuracy


Explanation of proposals: Glass canopy for Yak-1


Benefits: Many Yak-1's featured a rear glass canopy like on the Yak-7 (and pictured on the Yak-1 illustration below). Having this available as a modification for the Yak-1 in-game would be historically accurate and help improve fairness in the game against Luftwaffe fighters. All Bf-109's have the option to remove rear headrest armor, or install glass armor plates, while all early Soviet fighters (Stalingrad and earlier) save for the Mig-3, have abysmal rearward visibility that can only be negated through massive speed loss by opening the canopy. It creates a massively unfair advantage for Luftwaffe fighters, especially in online environments where situational awareness is paramount to success. It would be historically accurate to introduce a modification to simply change the material of the rear canopy on the Yak-1 from metal to glass, and is clearly feasibly to implement in-game as shown by the Bubble-top canopy modification on the Fw-190D-9, and this would also help make the game more balanced/fair.

 

1_47_b1.jpg

 

3. Type of improvement: Additional game content


Explanation of proposals: M-105P engine modification for Yak-1, Yak-7 and Lagg-3


Benefits: Having an air frame be able to fit different engine's is clearly doable in-game, as shown by the engine modifications for the Spitfire's (both Mk Vb and Mk IXe). That same type of modification should be available for the Yak-1, Yak-7 and the Lagg-3, where you can equip the earlier M-105P engine instead of the improved M-105PF engine. This would be historically accurate, and an easy way to add a ton more content to the early-mid war scenarios in-game, without having to create a bunch of new planes from scratch, essentially turning 3 planes to 6 variants. This would allow the planes to be used in earlier scenarios, such as using the Yak-7 as an early Yak-7 variants in the Battle of Stalingrad scenarios and campaigns. This ability to expand the plane set of the soviet fighters would also help introduce more variety and diversity to soviet plane selection, rather than having basically 3 extremely similarly performing (almost identical) Yak's (due to them all having the same engine). For online scenarios, and offline campaigns, this would massively improve plane-set selections available for Soviet forces. On a side note, using the earlier M-105P engine should help improve overheating problems on the Yak-1, which was not designed for the M-105PF and thus has insufficient radiators for it. Managing overheating better, despite performance decrease, could help buff the Yak-1 and allow it to stay in a fight for longer, giving it at least a minor advantage/tool to help fight against superior Luftwaffe fighters that outclass it.

Edited by Dirtbag_Jim
Adding content, improving formatting
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement:    Insufficient polygons  

Explanation of proposals:  see pics, I-16, 190A3, 190A5, P-47D-28, maybe more.
Benefits:  better gaming immersion, appropriate graphic quality.we dont need to save performance by these little things.

Il-2 2020-04-10 16-27-36 拷貝.jpg

Il-2 2020-04-10 16-24-42 拷貝.jpg

Il-2 2020-04-10 16-26-56 拷貝.jpg

Il-2 2020-04-10 16-28-49 拷貝.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement:  possibility of creating own ammo belts

Explanation of proposals: it would be nice to make own ammo belt, for instance selecting AP for AG missions, how many of them have phosphorus layer at the back of the bullet (marking bullets) etc...
Benefits: proper ammo for mission

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Hello,

 

Type of improvement: gameplay

Explanation of proposals: default skins with custom numbers/unit badges

Benefits: As other players don't see custom skins, helps with immersion allowing players on public server to get individual personalized skins. It helps to fly as units. The option exists on IL2 1946 and on Cliffs of Dover where it is appreciated. Option should include number/letters customization, colour of caracters, and possibly unit badges as on these sims. It doesn t cost much in performance/coding and I think greatly enhances multiplayer experience.

 

Thanks.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement:  Message in technochat when gun is reloading and reloaded.

Explanation of proposals: Well... having a message in technochat that says when the gun is reloading and when it's reloaded.
Benefits: I realised in 110 we have nothing except a tiny sound. Moreover (with BK37 and I think with MgFF on E2 too), after hitting the reload key, the reload randomly doesn't occur. Those message would help the pilot to confirm if the reload process started. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement:  Normal head movement when operating a gunner station in any of the bombers (SHIFT+T).

Explanation of proposals: Removal of the laggy view control when leaned to the gun in any of the gunner stations (SHIFT+T).
Benefits: Same view control as when not leaned to the gunsight. Not sure why moving your head closer to the gunsight would limit / slow down the head movement in the first place.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Correct engine to 110E-2

 

Explanation of proposal: Currently in game 110E-2 is using engine DB601A-1, designated DB601B for 110. This engine was used only on E-0/1 early series. Engine used in production E-2 was the DB601N with different reduction gear, designated DB601P. Reduction gear had ratio of 1:1,88 instead of 1:1,55 used in DB601N.

 

Benefits: Finally the proper engine for 110E-2 and a bit more performance. 

Edited by LLv34_Flanker
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Graphics/Gameplay 

 

Explanation of proposals: Fuel/Oil/Coolant Leaks from other Aircraft create a similar effect as Canopy "drops" effect

 

Benefits: My proposal is to extend the idea to any liquid that contacts to that surface. Many time we follow the six of a plane leaking fuel or other fluids into our faces. Would add a lot of "realism" if this is noticeable also when leaks of any kind from other planes contact the surface of our cockpit glass.

 

I understand that his could mean a lot of work from the Devs. (slightly different effects depending of the type of leak) But also will had a lot to the experience, and also another thing to be aware of inside any fight.

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

Type of improvement: Interface/Multiplayer

 

Explanation of proposals: Chance to mark and filter favorites servers in the multiplayer server menu pages.

 

Benefits: Best management of your "goto" servers and better usability.

Edited by HR_Grajo
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Improve Explosion Effects

 

Explanation of proposals: I don´t feel the actual bomb effects have the required realism.

 

Benefits: Since the pleasure of "blowing things up" is one of the most important part of war simulation, this feature should receive more attention and continuous development.

Some older version made by modders is having better Fxs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Type of improvement:

Relates to Tank Crew.  Please update (I.e. meaning “remove”) the AI units’ (e.g. tanks, artillery, AAA/flak guns, etc.) ability to see through and shoot through vegetation such as swaths of trees in a forest.

Explanation of proposals:

For large numbers of trees bunched together, if these could be treated like a large building structure from the AI perspective, they would likely not be able to see through them and subsequently fire through them.


Benefits:

The benefits include more realistic game play - right now it’s not realistic at all, as any time you as a human player get near enemy units that are on the other side of a block of trees, they fire at you and hit you, and you have no way of knowing exactly where they are, thus your return fire is often blind.  It is really hurting game play, and likely affecting sales as a lot of people may be hesitant to purchase with this AI flaw.  Please see this thread for more comments:  
 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/56719-ai-sees-through-vegetation/

 

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

AKA_Relent

Edited by AKA_Relent
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Category: Gameplay

 

Description: German planes should have a separate radio frequency for radio direction finding. For instance, from the Bf 109 G-6 and the Fw 190 A-5, there is a switch in the cockpit that the pilot had to switch to in order to receive radio bearing and range info and then switch again to receive audio transmissions from wingmen.

 

 

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Graphics

Explanation of proposals: Fileds and forests on the Arras map has to much alike green color pallete, becouse of that all ground futures blend into ich other. I think making green fields textures more light or forest much more darker would be beneficial to the game map. 
 
Benefits: more real like view of landscape, better navigation. nicer looking to human eye vegetation on the map

 

addiotnal adds:

FC HDR off 12:00 ,preset Ultra, gamma 0.8

gfYmM1M.jpg

 

Real life - In real life you can see how forests/ trees are more darker.

image.png.b3db5a443789abc73ee2471887eca5ee.png

 

image.thumb.png.29c33040986fd16b1321ae01eb1a0d07.png

image.thumb.png.873c867c60fa8cc4459d78a3312b0ba3.png

 

1w8lVJj.jpg

 

ROF HDR off 12:00 ,settings max out

9S93TT2.jpg

 

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Category: Gameplay

 

Description: include the callsign of the player's flight in career mode mission briefings, as well as the callsign of the flight being escorted or the escorts, where relevant.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement:

Control 

 

Explanation of proposals:
Provide an optional, small-sized and discretely placed visual representation of force feedback information, for non-force feedback joystick users. I imagine a feature similar to "easy" engine controls and compass, which would provide some reasonable visual equivalent of force feedback; like direction arrow and color gradient intensity. Anything would be better than nothing, so I will leave my definition of "reasonable" to you.

 

Benefits:

Allowing a player with no force feedback equipment to have a better clue of how he's handling the plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! 

 

Type of improvenent: Reduced radio chatter via channels

 

Explanation of proposal: At the moment you hear tankers calling out targets, damage and what not thru the radio regardless of range. In reality tanks used different frequencies than planes thus there was a need of so called command tanks/APCs or similar with multiple radio sets, making communication and coordination possible. 

 

It is quite distracting to hear your crew(multicrew planes), wingmen and tanks telling their stuff at the same time. Cacophony of voices at worst. 

 

This could be cured if tanks and planes had separate channels/frequencies on their radios as in reality. As there is no direct cooperation between AI tanks and the player, their messages are not needed. If this changed with Air Marshall or similar, then a selectable channel would do the job just fine, simulating a command vehicle. 

 

Benefits: Less noise and chatter when it is not needed. Realistic operations if cooperation between ground forces and planes is implemented though using proper channels/frequencies. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Multiplayer Gameplay

 

Explanation of proposal: After joining a Multiplayer-Server, players have to choose a side first, before beeing allowed to see any Map or Briefing details (see attached image).In the current verision of the game, you have to choose a plane first before beeing assigned to a certain team. After that has happened you get a time penalty when switching sides. But the penalty does not apply, if you haven't picked a plane already. So it is a common practice to click on an airfield of the opposing side first, to get some intel about your enemies, like how many players did spawn on a certain airfield or to look for hidden objectives, e.g. Paratrooper dropzones on Tactical Air War. Getting this kind of intel about the opposing team gives you an unfair advantage.

 

Benefits: With little effort, you get a lot more fairplay in multiplayer matches.
 

side.jpg

Edited by JG4_Knipser
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Gameplay - career


Explanation of proposals: Let us create and quickly apply our own preset configurations of payload/fuel/modification/skins (to our own craft as well as the whole squadron)

Benefits: Right now, the player needs to manually change the configuration before every mission. If they're the unit commander and want to apply changes to the whole squadron, they need to edit the configuration of EACH PLANE in the squadron before every mission, which is a rather mind-numbing task. If we could create our own presets, save them under a custom name, such as "ground attack, 60% fuel", "intercept, 40% fuel, gyro" etc.,  and apply them on a per-plane basis, or even to the whole squadron if we wish, all this can be avoided.

Edited by Justy89
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Quality of Life - Binding 


Explanation of proposals: Let us combine two buttons on the HOTAS to a single function

Benefits: Right now, the player only has the option to combing HOTAS button with a keyboard key, not another HOTAS button. This allows you to make combined binds like Left Shift + Button 1, but not the ability to have a "modifier" switch. My pinky switch on my joystick is used as a "modifier" for other simulators. I.E. if I am holding down the pinky switch, it allows me to effectively double the amount of buttons on my joystick by combining it with another button to make a new bind. Currently it is impossible to do this without a software to convert the modifier input to a keyboard input. I currently use Joy2Key to change my modifier button to "shift" key so I can have this desired effect. The benefit to having this behaviour out of the box would mean that users that are used to being able to use a modifier will have expected behaviour without having to search down a solution on the forum using third party software. This feature is already included in your competitors simulators and makes setting up controls a breeze. 

 

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

 

Type of improvement: Quality of Life - Binding 


Explanation of proposals: Let us have separate sets of bindings for each plane/type of plane. 

Benefits: Right now, the player only has the option to have one "set" of bindings. This creates complication when a user wants to switch to another type of plane that has more axis or different assignments for the buttons. The player is forced to go through the annoying process of creating a new set of bindings for a different plane. The benefit of this would mean players can get accustomed to more airframes with less time spent in the menus and more time spent flying. Once you have your preferred setup for each airframe, it would ideally never need to be edited unless a new hardware solution was found. For instance  users that have a dual throttle, but if  want to use it for 2-engine plane need to rebind each time. (because they use the second lever as a propeller pitch axis on RU&UK&US planes). Your competitor simulators already have this feature and makes for a more enjoyable experience when switching airframes "on the fly". I'm afraid that I fly the 109 almost exclusively because I can't be bothered to rebind my controls every time I want to try something new. 

Edited by squidboi
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Control.


Explanation of proposals: Separate "Wheel Brakes" control that doesn't affect toe brakes.


Benefits: Allowing people who have toe brakes on their rudder pedals and a brake lever on their joystick to not have the latter affect the former (for nitpicky realism reasons) but more importantly allow us to bind the Me262 front wheel brake to the joystick lever and let us use the front brake without applying the toe brake.

 

Currently I have to use a modifier (shift+lever) to do this.

This should be a pretty simple addition, right?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Damage model

 

Explanation of proposals:  Coming with the new generation damage system 

1)  A new updated fire model, where fire causes skin damage and structual weakening.

 

2)  Cutting fuel suply to an engine on fire to be effective at reducing-extinguishing the fire.

 

Benefits:  more realistic damage model that fits the new generation of damage models coming to IL 2. More realistic gameplay and new challenges ( to return the damaged plane) , Improved immersion, and a chance for twin engine planes( or triple engine) to return to base after one engine is set on fire.

Edited by INVADER_WARHAWK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of Improvement : GAMEPLAY

 

Proposals : For RRR, to be able to select how much fuel is 're-fuelled' at your pit stop. Either set in the properties box of the re-fuelling object, or be payer selectable at the time of cutting engine.

(If player selectable, the minimum allowed by the sever would have to be adhered to).

 

Benefits : Currently I run a sever with fuel locked at 33% and am introducing RRR into some maps. An amendment addressing the above would mean a player could stop and re-fuel to the mission makers specification. Not many will want to re-fuel to 100% on a dogfight server locked at 33%. Having said that, 2 or 3 flights could be had with that fuel load, but it would be better, in the case of my server, if I could specify re-fuelling to 33%.

 

Cheers,

S!

 

edit : I've just noticed you can stop / re-start fuelling - but it's so quick it can't be controlled. Thanks.

 
 
 
 

Type of Improvement : GAMEPLAY / MP

 

Proposals : To not only be able to lock fuel loads at a single value, but to also have the option to set a 'minimum fuel load'.

 

Benefits : Someone entering a server with, say, fuel locked at 50% - might want to fly with 100% for practice or whatever reason. Any disadvantage is with the player, thus sporting integrity is maintained !

 

Cheers,
S!

Edited by Zooropa_Fly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1)

Type of Improvement : Gameplay

 

Proposals : An option to not hear your pilot speak (or read it in the chat).

 

Hearing yourself spot fighters you can't even see, and, saying you are attacking when you are not doing so, is simply painful to parts of the brain. I'd say to just strip all that code out, but maybe someone likes to hear it, so just an option to mute it would be great please.

 

Benefits : Increased immersion, enjoyment and sanity. Reduced teeth grinding.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

2)

Type of Improvement : Gameplay

 

Proposals : An option to indicate to your AI flight that there is a bandit near/attacking when you are not the leader.

 

A radio call of 'check six' or 'contact spotted', just something to trigger defensive 'behaviour' in the AI. For 'realism' it could be a new hand signal or tied to a flare for VVS. Personally I would be happy to just have the call button for all , and I could just waggle my wings in 'role play' for the VVS at the same time. 

 

Benefits : Increased immersion, enjoyment, sanity and give purpose to flying a campaign. Reduced rage quitting and tears.

 

 

Edited by John_Yossarian
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of Improvement: Control

 

Explanation of propsosals: Allow us to choose how quickly we can adjust the gunsight's range without a slider. Right now if you bind two buttons to the "gunsight range adjustment" controls, then by default the gunsight takes about 8 full seconds to change from maximum range to minimum range. This makes it impossible to use your gunsight throughout a dogfight unless you have a HOTAS with an extra slider.

 

Benefits: This will allow players to have more freedom of how they can use their gunsight in an airplane.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Type of Improvement : Graphical interface/overlay

 

Proposals : A seperate option to display the radio calls and mission messages sperate to the rest of the HUD; to enable the HUD to be turned off but yet see critical messages for gameplay (leader commands/objective acheived etc..

 

Benefits : Increased immersion, enjoyment.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

2) Type of Improvement : AI Messages

 

Proposals : Notification of waypoint reached and that flight is turning, ideally with the new heading. Ideally audio file, but a screen message would be useful for now.

 

Benefits : Increased immersion, ability to keep woith flight when they make sudden moves, enjoyment.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2020 at 5:19 PM, squidboi said:

Type of improvement: Quality of Life - Binding 

 


Explanation of proposals: Let us have separate sets of bindings for each plane/type of plane. 

Benefits: Right now, the player only has the option to have one "set" of bindings. This creates complication when a user wants to switch to another type of plane that has more axis or different assignments for the buttons. The player is forced to go through the annoying process of creating a new set of bindings for a different plane. The benefit of this would mean players can get accustomed to more airframes with less time spent in the menus and more time spent flying. Once you have your preferred setup for each airframe, it would ideally never need to be edited unless a new hardware solution was found. For instance  users that have a dual throttle, but if  want to use it for 2-engine plane need to rebind each time. (because they use the second lever as a propeller pitch axis on RU&UK&US planes). Your competitor simulators already have this feature and makes for a more enjoyable experience when switching airframes "on the fly". I'm afraid that I fly the 109 almost exclusively because I can't be bothered to rebind my controls every time I want to try something new. 

 

Cliffs of Dover Blitz has a dead simple "save/load" keybindings button. Say what you will about that game's user interface, but it is very functional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of Improvement : Control

 

Proposals : Add individual feather-engine keybinds for each engine.

 

Benefits : Consistency with most other engine keybindings, which have duplicates for each engine. Feathering is available mostly (exclusively?) on twins, so there's almost never a reason to want to feather all engines.

 

This feature is a popular request, going back at least to 2014.

 

The new no-techchat option also makes this more pressing, as when playing without techchat there's no good way to check which engines you have selected.

Edited by Charon
  • 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

×
×
  • Create New...