Update 5.203 has been published

[Voxman]

Flying one of the campaigns and noticed that the AA bursts audio volume have been turned down.  I like that.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

24 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

But what does the synchronization change?

the longest version (motor cannon) still is rated for 815m/s with the 91g shell. why should the 96g shell be even faster?

Its not only the shell that determines the ballistics, the guns properties affect it as well, and the patch note says the barrel in the synchronized version has a different length of rifling. I don't know the history behind it, I'm just going by the patch note.

[BubiHUN]

Synchronized ShVAK guns on all aircraft have the muzzle velocity of projectiles increased by 25 m/s, from 815 to 840 m/s due to the difference in the length of the rifled part of the barrel;

All Soviet aircraft from the middle of 1942 (except for I-16 and Il-2 rev. 1941) have late-type HE ShVAK ammo with increased weight to 96 g and increased explosive filling to 5.6 g;

Excuse me?
Where is the source for such informations?

[tattywelshie]

Wow, what an interesting update, and totally unexpected. Really intrigued to see how the new career system works, in theory it sounds fab, the perfect mixture between streamlining demands on our systems and introducing more randomness to the missions gets my vote!

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

21 minutes ago, BubiHUN said:

Synchronized ShVAK guns on all aircraft have the muzzle velocity of projectiles increased by 25 m/s, from 815 to 840 m/s due to the difference in the length of the rifled part of the barrel;

All Soviet aircraft from the middle of 1942 (except for I-16 and Il-2 rev. 1941) have late-type HE ShVAK ammo with increased weight to 96 g and increased explosive filling to 5.6 g;

Excuse me?
Where is the source for such informations?

the_emperor posted lots of sources for various rounds including the late ShVAK rounds in here: 

 

And 1C has their own stuff of course. But don't be too upset if you're a blue player, the buffed ShVAKs still only have ~1/4 of the filler the German 20s have.

Edited April 17, 2024 by =MERCS=JenkemJunkie

[LukeFF]

16 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Are there any "recommended" careers to best take advantage of the new mission sets? Maybe P-51 Squadrons as they do a lot of escorting? 

 

The IAR 80 squadrons also have a lot of escort missions.

 

14 hours ago, hootman said:

I recently was setting up a Normandy Campaign thinking of flying the 52, and when it wasn't available I researched also and came to the same conclusion. Also, I recall reading that the Allies had about 11,000 aircraft available for the Normandy theatre, and the Axis had about 800. Given that the Allies were actively patrolling and searching for anything in the air (which they had been doing since about January '44), I believe the Axis had only had 52's in the air for VIP missions, and even then probably heavily escorted. I'm quite sure it was safer and more efficient to transport supplies by ground. I can't imagine any supplies that were so important that they would have sent them by air, which would require escort to have a good chance of getting through. They just didn't have the assets to do that, it would make no sense.

 

Yes, the other thing is most of those Ju 52s by then were busy flying in supplies to surrounded garrisons in the East. 

 

8 hours ago, Koziolek said:

For the changes to be implemented, do we have to start a new career or can we continue the old one?

 

You can continue on with your current ones.

 

1 hour ago, the_emperor said:

But what does the synchronization change?

the longest version (motor cannon) still is rated for 815m/s with the 91g shell. why should the 96g shell be even faster?

 

The longer the rifling, the higher the projectile's muzzle velocity will be.

[Hanu]

33 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

The longer the rifling, the higher the projectile's muzzle velocity will be.

 

And there is usually a tradeoff for this.

[9./JG52Gruber]

Will the new system be adapted to other career mission types as well such as Free Hunt and Intercept? It would be interesting to have a high group covering you for both. 

[Geleitzug]

4. Career: added night variants of Attack Railway Junction and Traffic Interdiction missions;

 

Are those night variants available on all maps (especially Normandy) ?  Furthermore, would it be possible to add such night variants also to the AQMB ?

Edited April 17, 2024 by Geleitzug

[Zephyrus52246]

New campaigns and improvements!  Great news!

 

Jeff

[Roland_HUNter]

"All Soviet aircraft from the middle of 1942 (except for I-16 and Il-2 rev. 1941) have late-type HE ShVAK ammo with increased weight to 96 g and increased explosive filling to 5.6 g;"

With all due respect, what kind of ammunition do Soviet planes have in the game?
Because the late HEF (High-Explosive Fragmentation) ammo had ~4 g of explosive in it.
Only the late FI (Fragmentation Incendiary) ammo had 5.6g of explosive.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Geleitzug said:

4. Career: added night variants of Attack Railway Junction and Traffic Interdiction missions;

 

Are those night variants available on all maps (especially Normandy) ?  Furthermore, would it be possible to add such night variants also to the AQMB ?

 

Yes, they were added to Ju 88 C-6 Stalingrad and Kuban careers and Mosquito Normandy and Rhineland careers (Mosquito, mostly Traffic Interdiction missions now at night, maybe some nighttime railyard attacks but cannot recall right now).

 

BTW, the plan is to hopefully expand those nighttime attacks to other targets like airfields and troop concentrations (another thing Mosquito VIs were known for in 1944-45).

[the_emperor]

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

 

"All Soviet aircraft from the middle of 1942 (except for I-16 and Il-2 rev. 1941) have late-type HE ShVAK ammo with increased weight to 96 g and increased explosive filling to 5.6 g;"

With all due respect, what kind of ammunition do Soviet planes have in the game?
Because the late HEF (High-Explosive Fragmentation) ammo had ~4 g of explosive in it.
Only the late FI (Fragmentation Incendiary) ammo had 5.6g of explosive.

 

you can find that filling infos here

and its even more than just the 5.6g in terms of TNT equivalent. 

but why 840m/s muzzle velocity?!

I really would like to see the sources for that.  

[Roland_HUNter]

39 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

you can find that filling infos here

and its even more than just the 5.6g in terms of TNT equivalent. 

but why 840m/s muzzle velocity?!

I really would like to see the sources for that.  

Does not change on the fact what I just said/wrote.

[sevenless]

I am really glad they add new features and improvements into GB. Seems there will be some synergies from developing for the "New Project" and GB will benefit from it.

[the_emperor]

12 hours ago, LukeFF said:

The longer the rifling, the higher the projectile's muzzle velocity will be.

I have not seen a document, that gives the synchronised Shvak 840m/s and that it has a particular long barrel. 

[S10JlAbraxis]

Thanks appricate the updates to the career system - sounds promising!  Will give it a try this weekend.

[Mad_Maxican]

Hi All,

Need help please for VR:

Playing: Campaigns > Steel Birds > 02 Looking Back

it is ruining the game experience, I've achieved FPS 90 OK: but upon reaching combat zone FPS Drops to 45 & Stutters NOK

 

Vive Cosmos VR headset (1748x2064)
STEAMVR 2.4.4
Vive Console 2.0.23.2
fpsVR log attached

 

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
Motherboard Chipset: AMD B550      
System Memory: 32GB RAM Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 8GB(x4) DDR4-3600 DDR4   
Video Adapter  NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti  (12GB)
Samsung SSD 990 SCSI Disk Device

 

I was expecting this update to solve this issue.

Cheers.

Frametimes#Raw#2024-04-18T21_27_30.9849457+10_00.zip

[LukeFF]

11 hours ago, the_emperor said:

I have not seen a document, that gives the synchronised Shvak 840m/s and that it has a particular long barrel. 

 

Well, as others have alluded to, the team has access to documents that not necessarily have been released to the general public.

[ngabor]

Fantastic news, I can't wait to see it on all mission types, and I am very happy you are giving some much needed love and improvements to career missions!

 

Also since you are already working on career missions, please improve the way escort missions start and end. The way it is now is very unrealistic, impractical and immersion breaking. It would be so much better in every way, if it was done correctly:

• Mission start: Instead of the escorted flight flies to player's airfield and "picks up" the escort flight, the escort and escorted flight should have a rendezvous point at a convenient place (not far from player's base over friendly territory) where they meet at a given time. If the fighters are too early they can loiter, if late ... well then can catch the bombers/attackers following the waypoints.
• Mission ending: Instead of escorting the bombers/attackers back to the nearest available airport next to the player's base, the two flights should have a "separation point" at a safe distance over friendly territory. Reaching this point the fighter's mission is accomplished (if conditions have been met), and two flights can return to their appropriate, real home airfields. So bombers originally coming from airfields far back won't land in small frontline airfileds. 

I hope I am right to think, that this is would not be a huge task to accompish, and you can and will make this improvement. 

 

Cheers!

[Geleitzug]

23 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, they were added to Ju 88 C-6 Stalingrad and Kuban careers and Mosquito Normandy and Rhineland careers (Mosquito, mostly Traffic Interdiction missions now at night, maybe some nighttime railyard attacks but cannot recall right now).

 

BTW, the plan is to hopefully expand those nighttime attacks to other targets like airfields and troop concentrations (another thing Mosquito VIs were known for in 1944-45).

 

Thanks for this info, however, my question was more about whether it is in near future (or at all) intended to add nighttime attacks also to the Advanced Quick Mission Builder functionality for each of the attack/bomber planes on both sides (allies/axis)

[9./JG52Gruber]

39 minutes ago, ngabor said:

....

• Mission ending: Instead of escorting the bombers/attackers back to the nearest available airport next to the player's base, the two flights should have a "separation point" at a safe distance over friendly territory. Reaching this point the fighter's mission is accomplished (if conditions have been met), and two flights can return to their appropriate, real home airfields. So bombers originally coming from airfields far back won't land in small frontline airfileds. 

....

 

Fully agree with this. You can move the waypoint to a different area and if it's not over an airfield the bombers will just circle.

[LukeFF]

50 minutes ago, ngabor said:

Mission start: Instead of the escorted flight flies to player's airfield and "picks up" the escort flight, the escort and escorted flight should have a rendezvous point at a convenient place (not far from player's base over friendly territory) where they meet at a given time. If the fighters are too early they can loiter, if late ... well then can catch the bombers/attackers following the waypoints.

 

Both scenarios (the one you describe and how it is now) were actually both in use during the war. 

34 minutes ago, Geleitzug said:

Thanks for this info, however, my question was more about whether it is in near future (or at all) intended to add nighttime attacks also to the Advanced Quick Mission Builder functionality for each of the attack/bomber planes on both sides (allies/axis)

 

Ah okay. That I'm not sure of. 

[Tartopome37]

45 minutes ago, ngabor said:

Fantastic news, I can't wait to see it on all mission types, and I am very happy you are giving some much needed love and improvements to career missions!

 

Also since you are already working on career missions, please improve the way escort missions start and end. The way it is now is very unrealistic, impractical and immersion breaking. It would be so much better in every way, if it was done correctly:

• Mission start: Instead of the escorted flight flies to player's airfield and "picks up" the escort flight, the escort and escorted flight should have a rendezvous point at a convenient place (not far from player's base over friendly territory) where they meet at a given time. If the fighters are too early they can loiter, if late ... well then can catch the bombers/attackers following the waypoints.
• Mission ending: Instead of escorting the bombers/attackers back to the nearest available airport next to the player's base, the two flights should have a "separation point" at a safe distance over friendly territory. Reaching this point the fighter's mission is accomplished (if conditions have been met), and two flights can return to their appropriate, real home airfields. So bombers originally coming from airfields far back won't land in small frontline airfileds. 

I hope I am right to think, that this is would not be a huge task to accompish, and you can and will make this improvement. 

 

Cheers!

I agree. Have started a 1916 career and the first mission was bomber escort. Its just undoable now. With the bomber flying above your airfield you cant takeoff and climb to cover the bomber. They go far away by the time you level with them. I remember flown this type of mission in the past and the bombers was waiting for you on waypoint 2. I dont now if its a bug or intented but I think its a step back if its intented.

 

[Yogiflight]

33 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

1 hour ago, ngabor said:

Mission start: Instead of the escorted flight flies to player's airfield and "picks up" the escort flight, the escort and escorted flight should have a rendezvous point at a convenient place (not far from player's base over friendly territory) where they meet at a given time. If the fighters are too early they can loiter, if late ... well then can catch the bombers/attackers following the waypoints.

 

Both scenarios (the one you describe and how it is now) were actually both in use during the war. 

But surely attack aircrafts like the Hs 129 didn't pick up their escort at an airfield, which is a few hundred meters from the frontline as you have it for example in the first phase of BOS (and if I remember correctly if you fly the Bf 109 E7, in the first phase of BOM as well).

And for the other scenario, in the first phase of BOS I had renezvous with the Hs 129 at the frontline as well, although there was an airfield not far away.

[Charlo-VR]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Well, as others have alluded to, the team has access to documents that not necessarily have been released to the general public.

 

 

[JG4_Moltke1871]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Both scenarios (the one you describe and how it is now) were actually both in use during the war. 

This could be a solution for the Flying Circus scenarios where you have problems to catch up the bomber flight what arrives already in attack altitude the escort airfield.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 4/16/2024 at 3:52 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

This new "Dynamic resource allocation system" sounds big! Is there any way to use it in scripted missions? It sounds pretty useful to be able to dynamically scale the amount of objects depending on a user's system.

 

 

On another note, excited to see my Hürtgenwald campaign merged into the official game

If anyone finds any issues or bugs (which, let's be honest, is bound to happen despite my best efforts since nothing is perfect) or has any questions, be sure to say so in the campaign announcement thread

So @LukeFF, now that we have this campaign in the game, that's uses @Hamaha15's Rheniland map mod template, can we expect to see the Rheinland Map updated with the additional objects?

[ITAF_Cymao]

After the update in Stalingrad map summer and autumn I don't see the roads when I use the panzer.

Obviously I didn't have these problems before the update!

 

Edited April 19, 2024 by ITAF_Cymao

[=FB=VikS]

Hi All.

 

HE filling source is already quoted above, as about muzzle speed, here is it

source

 

data table for sync and motor version, with rifled barrel length noted and speed

 

PS: just in case - prev page of the same document have the data for wing-version with same data to compare versions:

 

[Avimimus]

Thanks for sharing! These historical docs are all really interesting.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, =DW=_Drewm3i-VR said:

So @LukeFF, now that we have this campaign in the game, that's uses @Hamaha15's Rheniland map mod template, can we expect to see the Rheinland Map updated with the additional objects?

 

That's up to the map design team, not me. 🙂 Stuff like this is also largely due to how soon the map modder(s) can complete their work.

[PatrickAWlson]

On 4/16/2024 at 3:49 PM, =USMC=DirtyT said:

I wonder how this will effect Pat Wilson's Campaign Generator? I know PWCG doesn't use career mode, but I wonder if some of the optimizations here could be implemented. I know PWCG already does a lot of this though too. 

 

Either way, looking forward to trying some new career stuff!

 

To the extent that this optimization is handled in game when the mission is running then it should be helpful for any mission.  If it requires  mission changes then not so much.

[pappy2]

Hello everyone,
thank you for this great update and congratulations again for all the hard work to make IL2 GB even better.
I'm not sure if I'm in the right place to request a quick mission creator fix.
In fact, this update now allows us to carry out glider towing missions with the C47.
But the formation adopted by the C47s for this mission is not the right one, in fact the planes fly in a “V” formation.
https://zupimages.net/up/24/16/g1jm.jpg
https://zupimages.net/up/24/16/3psr.jpg
https://zupimages.net/up/24/13/af9c.jpg
https://zupimages.net/up/24/03/xn21.jpg
On the documents as well as on the "GLIDER FLING TRAINING" the training adopted during glider operations was 
the "straight echelon" training. Glider pilots must, after dropping, make a left turn to find their landing zone.
In addition the release height is 2500 feet, which is not historically real because the instruction of C47 pilots is to 
release the gliders at 600 feet at 120 mph.
https://zupimages.net/up/24/16/srt2.jpg
To be more historically realistic, can you therefore modify the quick mission creator so that the glider missions are 
in right echelon, and reduce the glider release altitude to the maximum that the AI can do.
NOTE:
Concerning the parachutist or parachute supply drop missions, the formation adopted was 
the "V" formation of 9 (3 x 3) C47s with an altitude of 500 feet at 110 Mph Max.
https://zupimages.net/up/24/03/0ceo.jpg
Thanking you a thousand times in advance
Happy flying to you all

Edited April 19, 2024 by pappy2

[Jackfraser24]

I think we need a free hunt mission in AQMB.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

13 hours ago, =DW=_Drewm3i-VR said:

So @LukeFF, now that we have this campaign in the game, that's uses @Hamaha15's Rheniland map mod template, can we expect to see the Rheinland Map updated with the additional objects?

Actually, the changes in the Hürtgenwald campaign are mostly my own Hamaha kindly contributed the villages around Asch airfield but everything in the Hürtgenwald area itself was done by me.

 

To answer your question; Hamaha and I are collaborating on an updated Rheinland map. Whether or not that will be added to the official game is up to the Developers. Hamaha and I also have other things to do than modding, so it tends to go slow.

[69th_Panp]

13 hours ago, ITAF_Cymao said:

After the update in Stalingrad map summer and autumn I don't see the roads when I use the panzer.

Obviously I didn't have these problems before the update!

 

I have the same issue with not seeing the roads

[ZUGZulugwa]

AQMB is awesome. I dont need to skip days in career mode to get desired mission types.

 

In QMB we can have only 2 enemy flights down from 4. (And we could have 8 in IL2 1946 btw.)

Theres no need to limit quantity of flights in QMB mission builder.
Let everyone find its limit of computing power.

 

The players plane quickly disapears and mission ends after the crash, even if it mechanicaly still works and I can still have fun sailing in the river or any other stupid fun stuff doing donuts on the runway.

 

The heavier feel of ME262 and bigger energy loss from turning I will blame on my habit from flying with BF109 F2 at that time.

 

Ive noticed not just Shvak being stronger, but MK108 sets planes on fire much more likely.

I fly bomber hunting mission with ME262 every day.

Before the update I was seeing B26s, when I tickled them, having massive fuel leaks, maybe some fire, until they break apart.

After the update, planes are catching fire very lot.

Now MK108 feels like I remember from IL2 1946, very lot of  burning FUN.

 

So having B17s for enemy AI would be awesome, 4 burning engines mean double fun.

[FlyingNutcase]

On 4/18/2024 at 3:46 AM, tattywelshie said:

Wow, what an interesting update, and totally unexpected. Really intrigued to see how the new career system works, in theory it sounds fab, the perfect mixture between streamlining demands on our systems and introducing more randomness to the missions gets my vote!

 

That's what I wanted to say too, so I'll save the typing. Nice to see freshness blowing into the Career system. Hopefully it'll work to everyone's satisfaction and be expanded. No PC for me until probably Nov next year, so I'll continue to live vicariously through the forums and YT vids. Enjoy your flying chaps. ~

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, ZUGZulugwa said:

AQMB is awesome. I dont need to skip days in career mode to get desired mission types.

 

In QMB we can have only 2 enemy flights down from 4. (And we could have 8 in IL2 1946 btw.)

Theres no need to limit quantity of flights in QMB mission builder.
Let everyone find its limit of computing power.

 

The players plane quickly disapears and mission ends after the crash, even if it mechanicaly still works and I can still have fun sailing in the river or any other stupid fun stuff doing donuts on the runway.

 

The heavier feel of ME262 and bigger energy loss from turning I will blame on my habit from flying with BF109 F2 at that time.

 

Ive noticed not just Shvak being stronger, but MK108 sets planes on fire much more likely.

I fly bomber hunting mission with ME262 every day.

Before the update I was seeing B26s, when I tickled them, having massive fuel leaks, maybe some fire, until they break apart.

After the update, planes are catching fire very lot.

Now MK108 feels like I remember from IL2 1946, very lot of  burning FUN.

 

So having B17s for enemy AI would be awesome, 4 burning engines mean double fun.

 

Nothing was changed with the MK 108.