PDA

View Full Version : 4.10 Patch Update (Daidalos Team): Feb. 12, 2010



Aviar
02-16-2010, 07:50 AM
In case anyone missed (like I did) the latest 4.10 patch update from Daidalos Team:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/5121031528/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5121031528/p/1)


It looks like MDS (Moving Dogfight Server) is actually coming to unmodded IL-2. Also, work on the flyable Hs-129 seems to be coming along nicely.


Aviar

Aviar
02-16-2010, 07:50 AM
In case anyone missed (like I did) the latest 4.10 patch update from Daidalos Team:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/5121031528/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5121031528/p/1)


It looks like MDS (Moving Dogfight Server) is actually coming to unmodded IL-2. Also, work on the flyable Hs-129 seems to be coming along nicely.


Aviar

Choctaw111
02-16-2010, 07:58 AM
I was glad to hear that Oleg has confidence in TD in the quality of their work.
It is great to see that Il2 is still being improved upon.

Jumoschwanz
02-16-2010, 08:59 AM
Who is it that said "All good things come to those who wait."??

JtD
02-16-2010, 09:51 AM
The lack of feedback in somewhat strange. The MDF is a huge change to online play. Really huge. And also great.

JG52Uther
02-16-2010, 10:16 AM
Thank the modders,without whom we would have seen non of this stuff!

Aviar
02-16-2010, 10:23 AM
If you check out the earlier updates, it looks like the 4.10 patch will be incredible. In many ways, it will transform IL-2 into a brand new game.

The best part is, there won't be the online incompatibility headaches we have now with mods. Just install the 4.10 patch and play...just like the old days... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thank Oleg for continuing to give us free content and support for this great old game.

Aviar

SeaFireLIV
02-16-2010, 11:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:

Thank Oleg for continuing to give us free content and support for this great old game.

Aviar </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never have I seen a game so well supported for so long. Dare I say it, but sometimes I think it must be because Oleg`s from an old eastern block system and maybe capitalism hasn`t taken him quite as vigorously as his western counterparts who produce a game then stop supporting it after 6 months!

Although BOBWOV is the exception. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

thefruitbat
02-16-2010, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Thank the modders,without whom we would have seen non of this stuff! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ain't that the truth, particuarly to do with MDS, since zuti is a member of TD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

could also say the same for the new QMB, since Fatcat is a member too...

Uufflakke
02-16-2010, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:

ain't that the truth, particuarly to do with MDS, since zuti is a member of TD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

could also say the same for the new QMB, since Fatcat is a member too... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it? Good to hear 'cause both meant a lot for the modded IL2.
Still like the winter Slovenia map by Zuti. Downed a lot of planes there but crashed several times in the snow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

major_setback
02-16-2010, 03:46 PM
Of interest. This one was stated as being 'AI' in the patch in the original link.

Walkaround of the Polikarpov R-5:

http://www.google.se/imgres?im...mage&ved=0CAkQ9QEwAQ (http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/makarov_aleksey/r-5/images/r-5_03_of_20.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/makarov_aleksey/r-5/&h=860&w=1280&sz=238&tbnid=GM9HrhrhoiHmoM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpolikarpov%2Br-5&hl=sv&usg=__P3F7rkpttfIVXhGUy_cdww-0IIs=&ei=Yh97S-dVzOP5BvTWxb4I&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image&ved=0CAkQ9QEwAQ)

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/makarov_aleksey/r-5/images/r-5_14_of_20.jpg

thefruitbat
02-16-2010, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uufflakke:

Is it? Good to hear 'cause both meant a lot for the modded IL2.
Still like the winter Slovenia map by Zuti. Downed a lot of planes there but crashed several times in the snow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, Slovenia is imo probaly the best user made map, just finished flying a co-op on it with the dogz, with the sun rising over the mountains, just beautiful.

i agree with you about fatcat and zuti, both have created great mods in the past, and yes they are both involved with TD, which can only a good thing.

An improved QMB and moving dogfight servers have been wished for for many years and now look, thanks to mods, there now going to be in 4.10 (QMB as of 4.09), still theres at least 2 people in this thread who won't be able to see the forest for all the trees...

Sooocool
02-17-2010, 11:48 AM
Oleg, 1C, and Team Daidalos have already been so generous that Iím a little embarrassed to ask, but, is there any chance of a patch with 6DOF for TIR, for those of use who donít use mods?

AndyJWest
02-17-2010, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sooocool:
Oleg, 1C, and Team Daidalos have already been so generous that Iím a little embarrassed to ask, but, is there any chance of a patch with 6DOF for TIR, for those of use who donít use mods? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can I second that, and ask that you make it controllable by DeviceLink, for consistency with other aspects of control?

thefruitbat
02-17-2010, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:

Can I second that, and ask that you make it controllable by DeviceLink, for consistency with other aspects of control? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

for what purpose?

anyway, i'm pretty sure that 6dof won't happen for the forseable future, and iirc TD have already said that. Its one thing for it to be a mod, but there are to many slight graphical anomiles in some cockpits for it to become official, and would require a massive amount of work on the cockpits involved to resolve these issues.

AndyJWest
02-17-2010, 02:11 PM
TheFruitbat asks:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by AndyJWest:

Can I second that, and ask that you make it [6DOF] controllable by DeviceLink, for consistency with other aspects of control?

for what purpose? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the same purposes as any of the other DeviceLink control functions. Just as an example, I use a programmable gamepad joystick to emulate the mouse to control view direction, it would be nice to put other axes (moving the viewpoint) on the other stick.

I know there are issues, and not just re. graphical anomalies, but since M_Gunz asked for 6DOF, it seemed worth asking that it be done in a way consistent with the existing interface.

thefruitbat
02-17-2010, 02:55 PM
i was just curious, now i know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Treetop64
02-17-2010, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aviar:

Thank Oleg for continuing to give us free content and support for this great old game.

Aviar </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never have I seen a game so well supported for so long. Dare I say it, but sometimes I think it must be because Oleg`s from an old eastern block system and maybe capitalism hasn`t taken him quite as vigorously as his western counterparts who produce a game then stop supporting it after 6 months!

Although BOBWOV is the exception. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 on that for sure! MSFS is the only other example I can think of, and that went on for about 25 years from the early Sublogic days. Though admittely, that was a series of new releases, rather than a continual upgrade of the original code.

...though, one could argue that the MSFS series was technically a continual upgrade of the original code as well.

...though, it was mostly re-written on at lest three occasions, being incrementally improved between re-writes.

...but aren't there four different versions of IL-2, culminating in the current version 4.09?

Ok, I'm confused... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

rnzoli
02-18-2010, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The lack of feedback in somewhat strange. The MDF is a huge change to online play. Really huge. And also great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't know for sure, but maybe becase MDF is a huge change to dogfighters only, but not such a significant change to people playing co-ops/online wars on a regular basis.

JtD
02-18-2010, 03:19 AM
If they ignore the possibilities of the MDF, then no. If they realize what's possible, you might very well do online wars on dogfight maps and fly there instead of in coops.

I wouldn't know one thing that's possible in coops that's not possible with the MDF, but then I don't know MDF in details.

rnzoli
02-18-2010, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you might very well do online wars on dogfight maps </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think the online war creators are pondering over the possibilities, BUT, there may be issues with MDF. For example, can you mix AI and human players with MDF in the same flight? Or do you need to re-load the mission to re-spawn the AI component at their strating points?

Another aspect is that in an online war co-op, you know you start the mission together with 50+ friends maybe, same time. You have your battle plans, everyone is on TS, countdown starts, mission starts, heart pumping, as real and tense as it gets.

With MDF, you can simply join any time, crash any time, no coordination is needed, the stakes are low, can take things in a leasurely mood. t's "just" regular, casual dogfighting with nice moving targets, that's it.

Or?

Jumoschwanz
02-18-2010, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
...but aren't there four different versions of IL-2, culminating in the current version 4.09?
Ok, I'm confused... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original IL2 sturmovik came out in 2001. In 2003 IL2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles came out and was a re-vamp of the sim that was not compatible with the original.

In 2004 the Ace Expansion Pack came out, which was just a large pay add-on.

Later the same year Pacific Fighters came out, another payed add-on, which could be played as a stand-alone or as an add-on to the already existing sim.

This confused a lot of people as the version merged with the original sim had a number X.XXm, with the "m" after it, but the stand-alone Pacific Fighters was designated in it's patches by a number with no "m" after it. Anyway, 99% of people flew the merged version anyway the Pacific Fighters as a stand-alone was the real forgotten battle....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There was a small paid add-on next that was download only called PE-2 Peschka, which was sort of a debacle because it included "BoontyBox" anti-piracy software and created a big load of controversy.

In 2006 IL2 Sturmovik 1946 came out, putting all the previous releases and patches, plus new material all into one DVD that installed read as 4.07m. This was followed by official patch 4.08m, and then the Daidalos Team took over development of official patches and released 4.09m.

Between the release of the official 4.08m and 4.09m patches, some non-official add-ons for IL2 Sturmovik were released here and there on the internet that were not officially supported or sanctioned by IL2's creators or distributors, these have come to be known by the slang term "mods".

There are different "mod" packages you can install if you choose to, but none are compatible for direct online play with the official version of IL2 Sturmovik, and the different mod packs are not compatible with each other either!

IL2's creator's and distributors have stated their official position on MODS here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...3110283/m/7441010176 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7441010176)

Have a nice day.....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
02-18-2010, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
...t's "just" regular, casual dogfighting with nice moving targets, that's it...

Or? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is what you make of it.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-18-2010, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
...but aren't there four different versions of IL-2, culminating in the current version 4.09?
Ok, I'm confused... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original IL2 sturmovik came out in 2001. In 2003 IL2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles came out and was a re-vamp of the sim that was not compatible with the original.

In 2004 the Ace Expansion Pack came out, which was just a large pay add-on.

Later the same year Pacific Fighters came out, another payed add-on, which could be played as a stand-alone or as an add-on to the already existing sim.

This confused a lot of people as the version merged with the original sim had a number X.XXm, with the "m" after it, but the stand-alone Pacific Fighters was designated in it's patches by a number with no "m" after it. Anyway, 99% of people flew the merged version anyway the Pacific Fighters as a stand-alone was the real forgotten battle....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There was a small paid add-on next that was download only called PE-2 Peschka, which was sort of a debacle because it included "BoontyBox" anti-piracy software and created a big load of controversy.

In 2006 IL2 Sturmovik 1946 came out, putting all the previous releases and patches, plus new material all into one DVD that installed read as 4.07m. This was followed by official patch 4.08m, and then the Daidalos Team took over development of official patches and released 4.09m.

Between the release of the official 4.08m and 4.09m patches, some non-official add-ons for IL2 Sturmovik were released here and there on the internet that were not officially supported or sanctioned by IL2's creators or distributors, these have come to be known by the slang term "mods".

There are different "mod" packages you can install if you choose to, but none are compatible for direct online play with the official version of IL2 Sturmovik, and the different mod packs are not compatible with each other either!

IL2's creator's and distributors have stated their official position on MODS here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...3110283/m/7441010176 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7441010176)

Have a nice day.....http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice summary, good job! I would like to make one small correction, the link at the end of the post is NOT the official position of the creators or the distributor. It is only the official position of the Ubisoft forums staff and volunteer moderators.

thefruitbat
02-18-2010, 04:38 PM
have a nice day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Billy_DeLyon
02-18-2010, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sooocool:
Oleg, 1C, and Team Daidalos have already been so generous that Iím a little embarrassed to ask, but, is there any chance of a patch with 6DOF for TIR, for those of use who donít use mods? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also recall that DT has said this won't happen.. But I'll throw my +1 in the ring anyhow.

I'd happily go back to vanilla, except that I'm hooked on 6DOF now.

Jumoschwanz
02-18-2010, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

Nice summary, good job! I would like to make one small correction, the link at the end of the post is NOT the official position of the creators or the distributor. It is only the official position of the Ubisoft forums staff and volunteer moderators. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just so we understand you Shinjiro, you are saying that this quote from the linked thread above, stating that 1c(creators) and UBISOFT(distributors), saying that MODS are not officially supported by them, to YOU means that it is not their official stance.:

"BE AWARE THAT THESE MODS ARE NOT OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED BY 1C OR UBI AND THEREFORE, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO USE THEM YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. UBISOFT & 1C MADDOX GAMES ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ISSUES ARISING FROM THE USE OF SAID MODS TO ANY HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE OR DATA THAT MAY BE ON YOUR PC AND WILL OFFER NO ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING SAID ISSUES SHOULD THEY ARISE."

Thanks for clearing that up......????


And here all this time I thought I knew how to speak, read and understand English.

Jumoschwanz
02-21-2010, 09:09 AM
Hey listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch#p...9Xi9Nk&v=JxYGbszfEHs (http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=OgYM09Xi9Nk&v=JxYGbszfEHs)
S!

rnzoli
02-21-2010, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
...t's "just" regular, casual dogfighting with nice moving targets, that's it...

Or? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is what you make of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not really, the limitations or possibilities have a lot of weight in this. As I understand, you won't be able to lead a flight and AI flight on the MDF server, for example, which is quite a skill by itself and lends a hand in formation flying/fighting.

Just for comparison, IMO the real breakthough would have been a solution to join an ongoing co-op mission on any AI-controlled flight slot. You could get the same yellow countdown, with view control, but no other control inputs, to familiarize yourself with the situation of the AI pilot and then take over the controls from the AI pilot.

This would have helped co-op games gather more players on the way to target, instead of forcing new players to start late and try to catch up - or just fly alone or in pairs to/from the target, which is the trademark sight of an uncoordinated DF server.

Rjel
02-21-2010, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Thanks for clearing that up......????


And here all this time I thought I knew how to speak, read and understand English. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a mighty big chip you have on your shoulders there. Unless you're seeing something I'm not, that link appears to be what Bearcat wrote concerning the revised forum policy concerning mods, not what Oleg may or may not think.

What does it matter now? These arguments are old news. They were a year ago too. IL2 hasn't died the painful death that was forecast, has it? These forums are more alive now than they were in the months before the mods came along. There are more new members here now than I've seen in a long time. That's more money in Oleg's pocket which is always a good thing.

Urufu_Shinjiro
02-22-2010, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

Nice summary, good job! I would like to make one small correction, the link at the end of the post is NOT the official position of the creators or the distributor. It is only the official position of the Ubisoft forums staff and volunteer moderators. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just so we understand you Shinjiro, you are saying that this quote from the linked thread above, stating that 1c(creators) and UBISOFT(distributors), saying that MODS are not officially supported by them, to YOU means that it is not their official stance.:

"BE AWARE THAT THESE MODS ARE NOT OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED BY 1C OR UBI AND THEREFORE, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO USE THEM YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. UBISOFT & 1C MADDOX GAMES ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ISSUES ARISING FROM THE USE OF SAID MODS TO ANY HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE OR DATA THAT MAY BE ON YOUR PC AND WILL OFFER NO ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING SAID ISSUES SHOULD THEY ARISE."

Thanks for clearing that up......????


And here all this time I thought I knew how to speak, read and understand English. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of us have stuff to do on the weekend. Anyway, no that is NOT an official statement from either Ubisoft or 1C:Maddox Games. That is a statement from the moderation staff and the forum management, which is what I said the first time.

Ba5tard5word
02-22-2010, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so we understand you Shinjiro, you are saying that this quote from the linked thread above, stating that 1c(creators) and UBISOFT(distributors), saying that MODS are not officially supported by them, to YOU means that it is not their official stance.:

"BE AWARE THAT THESE MODS ARE NOT OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED BY 1C OR UBI AND THEREFORE, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO USE THEM YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. UBISOFT & 1C MADDOX GAMES ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ISSUES ARISING FROM THE USE OF SAID MODS TO ANY HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE OR DATA THAT MAY BE ON YOUR PC AND WILL OFFER NO ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING SAID ISSUES SHOULD THEY ARISE."

Thanks for clearing that up......???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is legalese which basically says "if you install the mods and it messes up your computer, it's your own responsibility."

It has nothing to do with the Ubi forum policy about discussion of mods here.

klemlao
04-03-2010, 05:00 AM
This post IS about 4.10 and I think it is has acceptable 'mods' references according to the forum position published last July (see link elswhere in his thread) so here goes.

Although I appreciate the new features of 4.10 I write the first part as a background to my disappointment regarding one aspect. I know I may be flamed for this but I am a member of the community too. btw, these are my views I do not write on behalf of my squad although I know their mixed opinions.

My squadmates hold divided opinions on the 'mods' question. The majority are very much in favour of them but in Hyperlobby servers we usually stick to 4.09m to avoid a split. Our own missions use both.

The principle reasons for liking the mods are, in order as far as I can tell, 6DOF, MDS, new maps, improved Flight Models (please don't start a side discussion on that) and new sounds. These are the main things that are welcomed.

In 4.10 I can appreciate the inclusion of MDS and the new G-limits will be interesting and a few 'fringe' aircraft are added but I cannot understand why 6DOF is still not even planned when it has already been achieved to an acceptable standard by 'the others'. It may not be pixel-perfect but it is a fundamental improvement and almost a 'given' in a current combat simulation.

If the work is too much then why do TD not talk to the 'modders' and see if there is any way to bring this into their next update?

EDIT: Shirinjo, in case you weren't aware.....
"There are different "mod" packages you can install if you choose to, but none are compatible for direct online play with the official version of IL2 Sturmovik, and the different mod packs are not compatible with each other either!"

The UP team have gone to great lengths to include 4.09m and HSFX in their listings, a welcome attempt to keep the community together although I would prefer one all embracing version.

Tooz_69GIAP
04-03-2010, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klemlao:

In 4.10 I can appreciate the inclusion of MDS and the new G-limits will be interesting and a few 'fringe' aircraft are added but I cannot understand why 6DOF is still not even planned when it has already been achieved to an acceptable standard by 'the others'. It may not be pixel-perfect but it is a fundamental improvement and almost a 'given' in a current combat simulation.

If the work is too much then why do TD not talk to the 'modders' and see if there is any way to bring this into their next update?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When 6DOF was first developed it was requested by many to be added into the game. The reason it wasn't added is because the 3D models of the aircraft were not built to the point where parts of cockpits, and external models as seen from the cockpits were rendered. There are gaps in most of the 3D models where in the normal pilot head position you would not actually see. Also, you must remember that IL-2 is a very old sim these days! First developed in 1999, and released in 2001, then re-worked in 2003. IL-2 is not a current sim and you shouldn't expect it to be able to use the most advanced features which are included in current day sims like Lock On or Rise of Flight, etc. It's just really quite naive to think that it can just be updated to compete with todays newer sims.

klemlao
04-03-2010, 08:54 AM
Tooz

I am well aware of the age, history and the stated limitations of IL-2 regarding further development. I also know it cannot be upgraded to compete on a point-by-point basis with current sims.

What I am saying is that the community has developed a passable impression of 6DOF which is a huge improvement over having my head welded to the seat back and adds another level of immersion.

What I don't understand is why TD won't look at this as most of the work has been done. My big complaint with the mods communities - including TD - is that they will not work together so we have a disparate range of mods (which UP have at least tried to package together).

While TD produce some no-doubt excellent add-on aircraft and maps, in terms of what the game as a whole delivers they are falling behind the community's desires and own efforts. Can they really claim to be the sole masters of upgrades when the community modders have left them behind? (and without ruining the game as was stated in the ubiforum's policy on mods).

BillSwagger
04-03-2010, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klemlao:

While TD produce some no-doubt excellent add-on aircraft and maps, in terms of what the game as a whole delivers they are falling behind the community's desires and own efforts. Can they really claim to be the sole masters of upgrades when the community modders have left them behind? (and without ruining the game as was stated in the ubiforum's policy on mods). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think TD actually takes a lot of consideration for what the community desires particularly for those who don't always use mods. You also have to consider that what they add to the sim is deemed "official" and so becomes the added bonus and expansion of the game.

I don't see modders ever having that capacity, but they can add what ever they want, and with somewhat more flexibility. More immediate changes can be made, and its sort of an all encompassing every evolving thing. Online, it seems the mods are very popular and participating in a game might mean using mods that you don't always agree with but the mod community also takes suggestions for improvements and generally will fix bugs or issues should they arise, so it seems.

The difference of course with the official stuff seems to be the addition of newer features that otherwise modders can't really create because they don't have the capacity to do so. Pluss what ever changes need to be approved and from what i understand what ever is not agreeable can be vetoed.

I think the answer to your question has more to do with the availability of different servers and which versions of the game they wish to use.


Bill

Romanator21
04-03-2010, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I am saying is that the community has developed a passable impression of 6DOF which is a huge improvement over having my head welded to the seat back and adds another level of immersion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DT works on a level much higher than "passable". While I agree that 6 DOF would be a great addition, even though I don't use it myself, how would people react if when installing the stock official version of this game that they found huge holes in the 3-d model? They would write off the game as half-ased junk. To me, whatever immersion gained from moving your head is lost by seeing gaping holes. To correct each cockpit (over 300 by now) to DT and Oleg's standards would take years at best.

thefruitbat
04-03-2010, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I am saying is that the community has developed a passable impression of 6DOF which is a huge improvement over having my head welded to the seat back and adds another level of immersion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DT works on a level much higher than "passable". While I agree that 6 DOF would be a great addition, even though I don't use it myself, how would people react if when installing the stock official version of this game that they found huge holes in the 3-d model? They would write off the game as half-ased junk. To me, whatever immersion gained from moving your head is lost by seeing gaping holes. To correct each cockpit (over 300 by now) to DT and Oleg's standards would take years at best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Romantors right. Its ok for a mod to be released which has errors, its another thing for an official patch sanctioned ultimatley by oleg to have the same errors.

If you read around its something team d have said they would like but...

X32Wright
04-03-2010, 07:37 PM
Realistically Oleg is only as good as his last game and if it is not up to par then that reflects more on oleg than any of us who can live with it.

For those who do not know how a 3D model in the game works, most of it involved removing 'polygons' to reduce the polygon count and most of the stuff we see there are actually 'clip maps' and 'textured squares with 'alpha channels' not real 3D geometry in most cases. In other cases (like in the I-185 cockpit) a 3D model was converted into a flat polygon and had alpha channels on them to make it look 3D but only looks correct from a single perspective.

WTE_Galway
04-03-2010, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I am saying is that the community has developed a passable impression of 6DOF which is a huge improvement over having my head welded to the seat back and adds another level of immersion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DT works on a level much higher than "passable". While I agree that 6 DOF would be a great addition, even though I don't use it myself, how would people react if when installing the stock official version of this game that they found huge holes in the 3-d model? They would write off the game as half-ased junk. To me, whatever immersion gained from moving your head is lost by seeing gaping holes. To correct each cockpit (over 300 by now) to DT and Oleg's standards would take years at best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Romantors right. Its ok for a mod to be released which has errors, its another thing for an official patch sanctioned ultimatley by oleg to have the same errors.

If you read around its something team d have said they would like but... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeming as the option is always there to use mods or create servers online that use mods ... the only "advantage" I see in making mods part of official releases is to force those evil recalcitrant anti-modders to use mods whether they want to or not.

In terms of 6DOF, well I suppose you could enable it to work with only those cockpits that are "complete" but I suspect that would not satisfy the OP and secondly most of the market for IL2 (despite delusions of many on this forum) fly OFFLINE and are blissfully unaware headtracking even exists.

klemlao
04-04-2010, 05:43 AM
Well, I won't drag this on any longer except to respond to the last few posts. I can see that the forum majority opinion is not in favour of 6DOF because of the problems in implementing it and TD's stated position.

I would just answer the following:
I think TD actually takes a lot of consideration for what the community desires particularly for those who don't always use mods. You also have to consider that what they add to the sim is deemed "official" and so becomes the added bonus and expansion of the game.
If TD and the others could work together then things like 6DOF would become 'official'.

DT works on a level much higher than "passable".
I had hoped that with some extra work on top of what has been done, 'passable' would become 'acceptable'. Perfection is the natural goal and there are a few fairly small holes in some cockpits I use and some are no more than a few pixels. I can only assume I am wrong to think these could be fixed. But I will say again that I would rather have a few small holes in extreme positions than have my head stuck on a ball-socket welded to the headrest. Not being able to look round in 3D is a far less 'perfect' simulation than seeing a few imperfections which I hardly notice anyway.
I suspect there are 300 aircraft but a lesser number of cockpits which may be duplicated and which have had work done already.

Its ok for a mod to be released which has errors, its another thing for an official patch sanctioned ultimatley by oleg
Yes, I understand, which is why I hoped some work could be done on this.

For those who do not know how a 3D model in the game works, most of it involved removing 'polygons' etc..
Yes I had assumed it was like that, they do not appear to be quite like the 3D cockpits in FSX.

the only "advantage" I see in making mods part of official releases is to force those evil recalcitrant anti-modders to use mods whether they want to or not.
No, it's about getting more out of this great old game which will go on long after SoW:BoB is released. SoW, although a major advance, will not initially have the scope and depth of IL-2. As each SoW theatre and it's aircraft are released their counterparts in IL-2 will be left behind by those able to run SoW and that will increasingly be the vast majority. In the meantime IL-2 will look increasingly less attractive, old hat and an unfortunate irritation for those that use SoW with it's 6DOF.

most of the market for IL2 (despite delusions of many on this forum) fly OFFLINE and are blissfully unaware headtracking even exists
This is possibly the crux of the matter. I find no attraction in flying off-line against my PC no matter how clever the AI algorithms are. For me it is a matter of pitting skills against live opponents in scenarios as near historical as we can get them and of course the more serious-settings Dogfight Servers. I confess I cannot understand the appeal of flying in a sterile off-line arena amd having a welded head is even less appealing now that 6DOF is available.

Thank you for your replies, I won't carry this on but I am surprised that there were none firmly in support of a real effort to introduce 6DOF.

WTE_Galway
04-04-2010, 06:27 AM
Don't get me wrong an official fixed version of 6DOF would be awesome.

I am just saying importing the current modded version of 6DOF seems pointless as its available as a mod for those that are happy with it.

klemlao
04-04-2010, 07:42 AM
I won't carry this on

Sorry, my last comment. I started by saying this whole mods issue has split opinions in our Squad although we have decided to stay with 'vanilla' TD for Squad nights. I expect it is the same in other Squads, some people are unofficial-mod-shy.

Apart from my own views above and our majority preference for mods including 6DOF, an 'official' 6DOF with the MDS would have overcome most if not all differences as we could have flown vanilla TD without missing out.