• News
  Forum: Important Information
  Last Post: arsay
  21.10.2024, 20:11
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 646
• Great 3D Site
  Forum: General Discussions.
  Last Post: nobita
  13.10.2024, 15:55
  » Replies: 59
  » Views: 22.537
• vietnam?
  Forum: General Discussions.
  Last Post: nobita
  07.08.2024, 05:14
  » Replies: 5
  » Views: 4.644
• Happy New year 2024 !!!
  Forum: Open Forum
  Last Post: anyatha
  25.07.2024, 04:29
  » Replies: 1
  » Views: 1.006
• AAS Was Undergoing Mainte...
  Forum: Announcements.
  Last Post: zche401895
  12.07.2024, 01:22
  » Replies: 9
  » Views: 19.296
• Aus traurigen Anlass!
  Forum: Important Information
  Last Post: wheelsup_cavu
  27.05.2024, 15:09
  » Replies: 1
  » Views: 961
• Happy Holidays - Thank yo...
  Forum: Canvas Knights General Discussion
  Last Post: wheelsup_cavu
  24.12.2023, 19:01
  » Replies: 13
  » Views: 15.725
• Hyperlobby updated to 4.3...
  Forum: Hyper Lobby
  Last Post: wheelsup_cavu
  24.12.2023, 18:34
  » Replies: 0
  » Views: 1.958
• Torrents Always Needed...
  Forum: General Discussions.
  Last Post: hassanraza78678690
  12.12.2023, 06:58
  » Replies: 3
  » Views: 4.081
• Say Thanks to IL-2 Modder...
  Forum: General Discussions.
  Last Post: nobita
  13.11.2023, 01:46
  » Replies: 21
  » Views: 29.451

• Forum posts:254.312
• Forum threads:24.344
• Members:475
• Latest member:Vageta2.0

Hi,

I have the following problem since installation HFSX 5.00 and 5.01:

My aerial victories are often not confirmed. So I get no counts on the carreer book. It might have to do with the fact that shot down aircraft often not disappear from the map, istead sneaking around on the place they hit the ground.
Additional, if the aircraft slam into the ground, the do not stop, instead sliding hundrets of meters over the ground, or, even better, ricochett back in the air, with the smoke trail it looks like a lauching ICMB out of its silo.
And, when landing, I always get landing clearance, and I have to be careful not to run in another aircraft on final.

Any suggestions?

S!

I made a small change in skin of Nael Minas Gerais CV, including the aircraft carrier symbol and letters identifying it. "The A 11". I also made the skin of Douglas AF-1 for the F9F2 Panther.

The skin for the CV should be placed inside the folder ... \ ColossusCVFamily \ 3do \ Ships \ NAeL_Minas_Gerais

To install CV's http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,8477.0.html
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/t ... #msg215437

Donwload Skin to CV: http://www.mediafire.com/?y95uatdatravnvk

Donwload Skin to F9F2 Panther: http://www.mediafire.com/?d2p5ays87m89vs5

HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!


Deutschmark

Do17 Z-2 Template[CLoD] By CheckMySix

Lines and Internals By Defaut





Skins Shown are included with Template.

I have incuded a psd Template For PhotoShop and an xcf Template for Gimp[Link Below].

Feel Free to use as you wish all I ask is
Please do NOT remove "Credit" Layer from
any Skins produced with this Template.
Thank You and
Have Fun
Regards
Keith :wink:


Download
Gimp...http://www.mediafire.com/?1qc8o70q3zbbdh5
PhotoShop...http://www.mediafire.com/?jx86prniuhix144
[For some reason these pages dont always load properly at first so just Refresh the page and this seems to solve problem]

Here is a good one that not many know.
Why was the rudder and rudder fin painted black on the Thunderbirds F4 slot plane?
It was the only time in Thunderbirds history that this was done.



I will give you the answer if no one can get it.
And where did I get the answer, it was back in 1970 when they told us why it was
painted black at a Thunderbirds air show.


Deutschmark

I'd like to discuss with you an idea that's been running throug my mind for a while, probably due to too many IL-2 sessions. :roll:

You know that, nowadays, all kinds of warplanes carry plenty of flares, chaffs, ECM stuff, and any sort of things that can in any way make it harder for enemies to aim and hit the plane.
During WWII instead, AFAIK, planes had nothing that could be properly called "counter-measures": survivability relied on armoured plates, rear gunners, performances, and pilot skill. The concept of "active defence" was yet to be refined.

Now, I wonder: why, at those times, did nobody think about using smoke as an "active defense" tool?

Let me explain the concept:

Imagine a fighter incorporating a small canister which, at pilot's command, can dispense a trail of smoke just like in aerobatics. But, in this case, the smoke would be dark and the dispenser would be set near engine exhausts. The canister wouldn't need to be large and heavy, since the smoke should last only for a brief moment.

Now imagine a hypothetical WWII air combat scenario, considering real life circumstances: no "IL-2 style" dogfight, but an engagement between two fighter formations, whose pilots are NOT natural born aces, just "average" pilots with limited combat experience, subject to adrenaline, stress, fatigue and fear.
At one moment in the battle, the fighter with the smoke device is attacked by a bandit coming from 6 o'clock, and can't shake it. The bandit closes in and starts firing, but the first burst either misses or causes little damage (remember, no aces here). Even so, the next one could be fatal.
So, at this point, the pilot plays his "last resort" trick: he hits the smoke, and the dispenser starts releasing a thick, dark trail that appears to come from the engine area. At the same time, the pilots heads the plane towards the ground, simulating a loss of control, and possibly diving into a cloud.
Now, imagine you are the pursuing bandit: you're chasing an enemy plane, overstressed for the ongoing battle and excited by the chance to score a kill, you fire, and see your target trailing smoke and heading downwards. Admit it: there's a chance for you to get fooled and think your opponent is already KO. This chance gets higher if the battle is not over and there are more enemies around to care about. If so, while you disengage the "smoking" plane, it can either run for safety or re-enter combat.

A thick smoke trail could disturb a pursuer's aim as well, but this is achieved only if the attacker straight into the defender's trail. This is unlikely for fighters, and bombers are better protected by tail gunners in that case.

That's it! So, what's your opinion? Could a defensive smoke dispenser have been effective in real life? Did anyone ever tried something similar? Should I spend less time after such things and more with my wife? :mrgreen: The discussion is open!

Coming soon to VSF P-80 Shooting Star for the up coming korea map.



Deutschmark

I really need a camera mod that let's me get good angles just like Pat_Smoke_Mod, but I don't want the smoke because it steals my throttle keys and I really need them

I Use 4.09 and HSFX

I'm trying to make an Alternate WWII History movie, and I can't get good angles with the default camera

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28633

Quote: Hi!

Today we have again a small update information. Within the last two weeks on the forums were going to your questions about current and future status of the project. Below I post a project manager answers - Ilya Shevchenko. Let's go:

1. Q : Are you planning multiple simultaneous cockpit cameras for use on multiple monitor setups, such as U-shaped forward-left-right views, as they existed in the original Il-2?
R : At a later time, yes. Have to warn you right away though. Each camera is processed individually. Two simultaneous cameras roughly slice the FPS roughly in half. Three cameras divide by three. This was not a huge deal in the original Il-2 since there were lots of FPS to divide. With CoD – when we have enough FPS to cut in three, we will.

2. Q : Will you reenable cockpit shake that existed in the earlier versions?
R : We actually removed it because the fans requested it.

3. Q : Will the dynamic stall be implemented in the Flight Model?
R : Yes, it’s one of the things the new FM programmer will work on.

4. Q : Are there any plans to add a new aircraft or modifications, equipment and other objects to Cliffs of Dover before the sequel?
R : Only new modifications of existing planes – of which there are very few left. Completely new aircraft or flyable versions of currently non-flyable planes are not planned for CoD.
New ground or other objects will not happen due to the fact that our previous attempts to add them were met with a universal “we don’t need this crap, why don’t you give us xyz instead” from the community. The ground modeling staff and myself have subsequently made the fully switch that department to the sequel.

5. Q : Will there be a working siren on the Ju-87?
R : Yes.

6. Q : Is there any news about the Su-26?
R : You'll get to fly it.

7. Q : Will the maximum altitude of the planes (ceiling) be raised to the historical values of ~10-11000 m? Today it is 7-8000 m for most planes, and much less for the Fiat G.50
R : Yes, it’s one of the things the new FM programmer will work on.

8. Q : Will the performances of the poor G.50 be upgraded to be closer to the real historical values? The G.50 maximum speed today is ~350 kmh at sea level against 407 kmh found in books and online references. The G.50 ceiling in game is some 5000 m, against 10500 m found in various sources.
R : Yes, it’s one of the things the new FM programmer will work on.

9. Q : Will the damage of a radiator by bullets produce a damage to the engine? Today you get the message "radiator leak" but the engine continues to run.
R : We’ll need to look into this.

10. Q : Will the AI crews of bombers be programmed to do their jobs? Will navigators navigate? Will bomb aimers guide the aircraft into the bomb run? Will observers report air and surface contacts etc? Or are the current crew statues considered to be adequate?
R : We are planning major improvements to the crew members for the sequel.

11. Q : Do you plan on adding bail animations and/or first person bailouts with the ability to look around when in a parachute?
R : We are doing a lot of animation improvements, including reverse kinematics, for the sequel. First-person bail out camera has been in the game for some time.

12. Q : Can you guys give us access to the AI programming functions, to can over-ride/improve them in 3rd party code (dll's)?
This would be a great step forward, as we have many users around here with good programming and flight sim AI development experience in order to start things moving in this direction.
R : Not at the moment. Need to have stable, easy-to-read code for AI first, otherwise I can’t even imagine the things we and you will develop in parallel.

13. Q : Will the UBI intro .wmv video issue be finally corrected? Today it clocks down the ATI cards to 2D-power saving mode, and gives really poor performances to the users that do not delete or rename it. That is most of ATI users I guess.[url="http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28054"]Can we have a static pic of the Ubi-logo instead of the video? That would save us from clocked down ATI-cards and you from programming a workaround.
R : We’ll have to look into this.

14. Q : Will the track recording be improved? Today the main issues are: need to exit from flight to start recording, need to manually type a track file name, need to exit again from flight to stop the video, frequent crashes in the procedure, frequent crashes when trying to record an avi from a track.
R : Low priority at the moment. Serious changes, especially changes to the overall procedure, are only possible in the sequel.

15. Q : Will the ghost dots issue be corrected? It's a actual ghosts or the disappearing of real targets online? Today in online servers you see far contacts which disappear when you close in. This can be fixed by MeshShowLod=1 but performance suffers. Will this be fixed?
R : We didn’t get to this yet. The dots are drawn by the part of the graphics code that’s been completely rewritten. We didn’t get to look into this particular issue with the new code yet.

16. Q : Will the GUI be optimized, to be less clumsy and more ergonomical (today you need several clicks to do simple things).
R : Yes, for the sequel. We’re currently moving to a new GUI platform that’s much easier to work in. We’re redoing everything.

17. Q : Will we see the coop mission in CloD, as it was in the old "IL-2"?
R : Don’t understand the question. The way we see it, CoD already has Il-2-style co-op. We are certainly not planning any major changes to online modes, GUI, or anything like that.

18. Q : Are you planning to assign precise control point of view (zoom) button or axis, as it was in the old "IL-2"?
R : We have tons of plans for improving cameras and views.

19. Q : Are you planning to transfer the new graphic effects (eg, weather) from future sequels into Cliffs of Dover?
R : We’ll work along the model similar to the old Il-2. There’s a single progression line from version to version dotted by sequels.
For example, we never released a patch for Forgotten Battles that contained new code from Pacific Fighters. The way to get it was to buy PF and merge it into FB. That’s exactly how it will be with CoD.

20. Q : Does Luthier understand how disappointed we will be if the sequels cannot be merged to give core improvements to earlier releases of the series?
R : Of course.

I don't have any news about the patch, sorry.

I don't have the game yet, because I don't have a good PC, but Luthier talked about futur sequel... He talked about a futur game or Il2 COD?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luyogqwV ... ature=plcp Another TD youtube video.