Patch 5.103 has been released

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

On 5/18/2023 at 12:31 PM, catchthefoxes said:

Still no next great battles announcement?

Didn't your Mother ever tell you that if you dont have anything good to say, it's best to say nothing at all?

 

Edit: For the confused emoters, it's just a joke you didn't catch.

Edited May 20, 2023 by =MERCS=JenkemJunkie

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, catchthefoxes said:

Still no next great battles announcement?

They’re waiting until they have more to show you than simply some conceptual artwork, as was the case in the past. So you’ll wait longer, but when the announcement does come it will be significantly more impactful.

This is not a bad way to go about it in my opinion. Faith and patience.

 

 

[JediMaster]

As I've mentioned elsewhere before, if they mean to reduce the time frame between product announcement and release -no more 2+ yrs of waiting- that is welcome.

However, if they mean to move onto a new engine/product/series (derivative of this one or all new doesn't matter if the current engine won't be seeing those benefits and won't be "plugging into BoX as we now have it), I would like them to at least make a pre-announcement about that even if they're not ready to reveal a release time frame or what exact theater/era it will cover.

 

Will we get any more maps beyond the filling in of WWI Western Front? A "Battle of X" product like we've had before, or are they planning on striking off in a new direction?

 

I won't claim that is bad or good because execution matters more than the idea and while I've spent a lot on BoX series I don't expect it to continue forever. It's been a decade. At some point there will be limits of this engine that would be too difficult to correct without going to a new product or replacing a ton of the core which I'm guessing isn't seen as cost-effective as they wouldn't be able to charge for it really. Eagle Dynamics surprisingly is doing it but their products cost more so I think starting over for them wouldn't work.

 

That said, the idea of buying "Battle of Normandy 2.0" with the exact same planes and map but better graphics/physics/AI/performance doesn't really excite me. If they want to wall this off and just release new theaters and planes that no longer plug into BoX but instead start a new one, so be it, but just like they didn't duplicate Cliffs of Dover or North Africa I'd prefer all new stuff for it.

[LVA_Picard]

Just now, =IRFC=Gascan said:

Also excited to hear about the Handley Page O/100. I thought we had the O/400 model ?

Either way, I'm excited. Next year will probably be a real Bloody April 1917 with Nieuports, Harry Tates, and Fees against Albatrosen and Halberstadts. Don't get me wrong, Operation Michael has been fun to see the early 1918 plane-set, but I've been missing the older planes. If we're lucky, we'll get the D.III, DH-2, and Strutters out in time for the event, too. The Great War is really shaping up!

Exactly what i was thinking , especially the Nieuport 11 and 17  , this is what i was waiting fore . 

[ST_Catchov]

21 hours ago, =IRFC=Gascan said:

Also excited to hear about the Handley Page O/100. I thought we had the O/400 model ?

 

Obviously a typo. Reading between the lines I'm pretty sure they're referring to the Poll Giant Triplane Bomber. Unfortunately, the Great War ended before Germany could put it into production. Very little of the blueprints, flight specs or archival footage remain so I'm unsure how 1C will proceed? However, the short documentary below shows how it may have looked and possible flight characteristics for the devs to do a "what if" scenario. Which may very well lead FC into a whole new direction? 

 

 

Or perhaps they should just proceed with completing the Zeppelin Staaken R.VI which actually flew in WW1. I leave that decision to the devs.

 

[czech693]

Wow!  They had flying RV's in those days.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Thanks @Jaegermeister for the against the tides fix ?? It’s a pleasure explore the SSW in this campaign ?

Edited May 19, 2023 by JG4_Moltke1871

[TheSNAFU]

On 5/17/2023 at 6:54 PM, dburne said:

I have zero interest in air races.  I want just WWII combat action. I am sure there are plenty that do though, just not for me.

 

Agreed! And I don’t need any more planes or variants. Not sure what the thinking is but this game from a ww2 perspective seems dormant. Unfortunately I’m beginning to look elsewhere for my ww2 fix. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by TheSNAFU

[R7-S276]

First, I think if developers need income it’s probably a better choice from my point of view to create popular interest planes or maps than very specific one, they probably sell more flyable (all seats, pilot/copilot/bomber/navigator/radio/gunners) B-25 or B-26 than Ta-152 or IAR-80. Second, I like Il-2 for the realism, I already regret we have no access to all the cockpit functions like a real start checklist with clickable cockpit instead to just push the button and let the AI do everything, I am

affraid the idea of air race is the beginning of a slowly slide from an historical simulation to a console arcade game… wait and see (and pray) ?

[simfan2015]

Great roadmap for 2023, will be a day 1 purchase !

But what about AQMB support for FC I/II/II and TC ???

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, R7-S276 said:

I am affraid the idea of air race is the beginning of a slowly slide from an historical simulation to a console arcade game… wait and see (and pray) ?

 

It's a fun way for the developers and a popular device manufacturer to engage with the community - nothing unusual in that regard and something that happens with other titles as well.

[Sobilak]

23 hours ago, JediMaster said:

That said, the idea of buying "Battle of Normandy 2.0" with the exact same planes and map but better graphics/physics/AI/performance doesn't really excite me. If they want to wall this off and just release new theaters and planes that no longer plug into BoX but instead start a new one, so be it, but just like they didn't duplicate Cliffs of Dover or North Africa I'd prefer all new stuff for it.

P-51B and Spitfire Mk.V, Spitfire Mk.IX, Hurricane are must have for me, if there will be some BOX2.0. So Normandy 2.0, "Channel map" or something similar does really excite me.

[ZachariasX]

@Han, is there a specific source proving that the SSW D.IV has this rather unconventional stall charcteristic? In this sim, we already have the Camel being difficult on that regard in a way that is not really consistent to @Chill31's account of stalling it, and same goes for the Fokker Dr.I. The Camel being benign despite it having a "thin profile".

 

In case of the SSW D.IV, this behaviour I find remarkable due to the fact that the Gö180 profile is a very modern one and more efficient and having a higher Clmax than the pointy nosed profiles used so far by the Germans. Maybe @Holtzauge has some input in this, but this is strange.

[Holtzauge]

7 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

@Han, is there a specific source proving that the SSW D.IV has this rather unconventional stall charcteristic? In this sim, we already have the Camel being difficult on that regard in a way that is not really consistent to @Chill31's account of stalling it, and same goes for the Fokker Dr.I. The Camel being benign despite it having a "thin profile".

 

In case of the SSW D.IV, this behaviour I find remarkable due to the fact that the Gö180 profile is a very modern one and more efficient and having a higher Clmax than the pointy nosed profiles used so far by the Germans. Maybe @Holtzauge has some input in this, but this is strange.

 

Um, why did they change that? I mean so that there is no stall warning? Are there pilot accounts testifying to this? Just as you say @ZachariasX, the SS D.IV has a quite modern looking profile and why would it exhibit poor stalling characteristics? Would be very interesting to understand why they patched in this type of behaviour......

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Since the last patch the convergence always reset to unusual settings. I guess it’s a bug?

[Holtzauge]

11 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

Since the last patch the convergence always reset to unusual settings. I guess it’s a bug?

 

From the official 5.103 release notes "SSW D.IV stall behavior has been corrected (now the aircraft stalls without warning shaking)"

 

Question is then what is the basis for this change? Historical data? Pilots quotes?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

22 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

From the official 5.103 release notes "SSW D.IV stall behavior has been corrected (now the aircraft stalls without warning shaking)"

 

Question is then what is the basis for this change? Historical data? Pilots quotes?

Don't know where it came from but if you force SSW to  stall it is  just a drop of the  wing, you can hold the stick back longer time but it would not develop into spin. 

[Holtzauge]

9 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Don't know where it came from but if you force SSW to  stall it is  just a drop of the  wing, you can hold the stick back longer time but it would not develop into spin. 

 

Yes, and the post stall behaviour seems plausible to me: If you release the stick you get out of the stall.

 

In addition, if you cross controls you can get it to spin. But you can get out of the spin with expected control combinations: Stick forward and opposite rudder. All very plausible and what one would expect. So a lot of this is good I think.

 

However, what I don't understand is why they have removed any hint of stall warning. IRL this can be subtle like a minor stick shaking, or vibrations due to flow separation but in-game we have nothing now. At least nothing that I can detect?

 

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by Holtzauge

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

4 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

However, what I don't understand is why they have removed any hint of stall warning. IRL this can be subtle like a minor stich shaking, or vibrations due to flow separation but in-game we have nothing now. At least nothing that I can detect?

Yes most planes do have that warning, like buffeting. They wrote in description it has nasty spin characteristics, in the the game it doesn't, so maybe it is their way to adres it , don't give pilot any warning...

Edited May 21, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

Question is then what is the basis for this change? Historical data? Pilots quotes?

@Gavrick, can you enlighten us? The change is labelled as a "correction", this implies you have specific info on that, given such behaviour is certainly an outliner? Especially given the wing profile used.

[[CPT]milopugdog]

On 5/19/2023 at 7:50 AM, R7-S276 said:

I am affraid the idea of air race is the beginning of a slowly slide from an historical simulation to a console arcade game… wait and see (and pray) ?

Really? World of Warplanes is an arcade simulation, Ace Combat is an arcade simulation.

 

Let people have fun ffs. And who knows, maybe you'll like the air races if you try one.

[Styx13]

On 5/18/2023 at 12:54 AM, dburne said:

I have zero interest in air races.  I want just WWII combat action. I am sure there are plenty that do though, just not for me.

 

Couldn't agree more!

Congrat and happy to hear that Il-2 is still not a dead project. Maybe less WWI, more WWII could be better but... 

 

I know that the 80% of the focus is on the Multiplayer issues (with more and more new planes), but please consider to create a payware Single Player extension pack for those who likes to fly in SP. This should focus on the dynamic campaign generator system, the communication and the AI, because those are is still terrible.  

 

Many thanks for listening and keep up the good progress.  

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Why put Bofors L60 to WW1 Missions?

 

This screenshot from the new Gotha Mission "final solution" Also saw em in the last mission of "against the tides"

Remove please...?

 

[Charon]

Does anyone know what bombsight bug was fixed?

[JG4_Moltke1871]

46 minutes ago, I./JG3_Charon said:

Does anyone know what bombsight bug was fixed?

If you mean the "jumping" bug I don`t know.... But using bombsight with hidden interface works now.

[kraut1]

Maybe a new bug?

When I start a mission  (with a P40) with fuel 75% in the game the needle of the fuel indicator is on ca. 2 of 5 = ca.30%

And the fuel consumption shown in the indicator is extrem high, even with auto-lean, 2300rpm and 30hg boost.

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by kraut1

[LukeFF]

25 minutes ago, kraut1 said:

Maybe a new bug?

When I start a mission  (with a P40) with fuel 75% in the game the needle of the fuel indicator is on ca. 2 of 5 = ca.30%

And the fuel consumption shown in the indicator is extrem high, even with auto-lean, 2300rpm and 30hg boost.

 

If you think there's an issue, please report it in the Technical Issues section. ?

[FuriousMeow]

Regarding the SSW D.IV stall behavior correction, the in game description does state it has a sudden stall without warning.

[Jaegermeister]

On 5/21/2023 at 12:08 PM, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

Why put Bofors L60 to WW1 Missions?

 

This screenshot from the new Gotha Mission "final solution" Also saw em in the last mission of "against the tides"

Remove please...?

 

 

*Edit - It has been corrected.

 

Thanks for the report.

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Jaegermeister

[R7-S276]

20 hours ago, [CPT]milopugdog said:

Really? World of Warplanes is an arcade simulation, Ace Combat is an arcade simulation.

 

Let people have fun ffs. And who knows, maybe you'll like the air races if you try one.

this is exactly why I give my money to Il-2 and not World of Warplanes or Ace Combat ? (simulation versus arcade) 

[[CPT]milopugdog]

5 hours ago, R7-S276 said:

this is exactly why I give my money to Il-2 and not World of Warplanes or Ace Combat ? (simulation versus arcade) 

Cool. I'm just pointing out that the air races aren't going to cause a slippery slope into a compete genre and game mechanic change. 

 

Of all the things to complain about, you choose air races. The mechanics of which were introduced in 2016. I mean, C'mon man. Try a little harder. 

[IAmNotARobot]

20.05.2023 в 10:05, ZachariasX сказал:

@Han, is there a specific source proving that the SSW D.IV has this rather unconventional stall charcteristic? In this sim, we already have the Camel being difficult on that regard in a way that is not really consistent to @Chill31's account of stalling it, and same goes for the Fokker Dr.I. The Camel being benign despite it having a "thin profile".

 

In case of the SSW D.IV, this behaviour I find remarkable due to the fact that the Gö180 profile is a very modern one and more efficient and having a higher Clmax than the pointy nosed profiles used so far by the Germans. Maybe @Holtzauge has some input in this, but this is strange.

Siemens Schuckert D.III/D.IV (SSWD.III-D.IV, by P.M. Grosz, Windsock Datafile 29, Albatros Productions, Berkhamsted, 1998)

-  The D.III and D.IV spun without warning.

-  Spin recovery was quick and effortless.

[ZachariasX]

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate that.

 

[Sneaksie]

5.103b Hotfix

1. Gun convergence settings are stored correctly;
2. SSW D.IV appears in the game stats correctly;
3. Bofors AA guns changed to QF 13pdr 6cwt in the Gotha G.V and Handley-Page O/400 scenarios, as well as in the campaign Against the Tide;
4. Ar 234 B-2 and Me 410: target altitude setting range corrected for the BZA-1 bomb sight;
5. Ar 234 B-2: a small cosmetic change (button on the flight stick);
6. Bf-110E2 and G2: typos on cockpit placards corrected (Oyster_KAI).

[LukeFF]

Guys, we are drifting severely off-topic. Please stay on discussion or posts will continue to be removed. 

[FeuerFliegen]

On 5/23/2023 at 10:26 AM, Sneaksie said:

• Ar 234 B-2 and Me 410: target altitude setting range corrected for the BZA-1 bomb sight;

 

Thanks a lot!  Really appreciate this.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

On 5/23/2023 at 4:26 PM, Sneaksie said:

Ar 234 B-2 and Me 410: target altitude setting range corrected for the BZA-1 bomb sight;

 

13 hours ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

Thanks a lot!  Really appreciate this.

Also VERY happy about that ????

Now VERY comfortable to use and no lottery anymore to set the altitude without techchat ??????????

[dannybooze]

i dont see the i153 on this, is that for next year?

[sevenless]

13 minutes ago, dannybooze69 said:

i dont see the i153 on this, is that for next year?

 

Yes. Ta 152-H1, Spitfire L.F. Mk.IXc and I-153 are sheduled for 2024.

[Schmehl]

On 5/17/2023 at 10:35 PM, Voyager said:

I believe it is whether or not you set the in game HUD to hidden or not. Sounds like it would stay at what you last toggles it to rather than start in the state you set in the main settings. 

Referring to: Hidden GUI state will no longer persist across game restarts;

 

I toggled it off in the game settings, but it keeps turning back on every time I restart.  I fly in VR and it's a pain to locate the "I" key.  I hate to waste a button for this.  Anyone know how to set it off?

Edited May 30, 2023 by Schmehl