+1

as long as scalability is there, and that sort of option, such as 'aircraft/cockpit switching', and any others, should be server side setting online

it would never affect those who would not use it, and only opens the game to more ppl who would enjoy it, not to mention the existing players who would

cant see many if any "full switch" guys using it, even if it was a default setting...co-op guys would luv it, esp to continue missions when "their" pilot dies; arcade is a zoo anyhow, who cares, they will eat it up

the game should cater to the player, and allow him all he wants, or does not want





why would you write a basically detracting comment about it? if that you dont like it, you would rather deny it to others?
the qualifier is teh funneh, "personal opinion (not TD related)", yet no matter how you slice it, you are personally involved with TD....



i felt i had to challenge a seemingly needless negative comment, that already got a "+1", and simple sentiment can make things happen sometimes, not always for the best; im not trying to flame or fling here, csThor

I see your point Daii, but the real question is would it be a good use of TD's finite and voluntary time? Is there nothing else you'd like to see done before implementing this? I for one would love to see the improvements made by TD and the modders elsewhere organised and prioritised to address long standing and obvious flaws, like eliminating the java errors shown when the console is opened, fixing poor cockpit interiors or replacing the just poor ingame 3d models like the P40.
To be fair TD are trying to do this, but it's too haphazard in approach. Perhaps we should vote on things to be done, more votes, the bigger priority given towards doing it. A stickied page with a list of the biggest current outstanding bugbears according the "community", then we all vote on the what we'd all like to see done first.
I know the team feel they have the right to do what they want, it's their time, etc. But even from the earliest days of modding at AAA, no one has thought to sit down and work out a badly needed and publicly stated strategic development path, we just bumble on in piecemeal fashion. My 2 cents...

I agree. I think historical and realistic features must come first.

The +1 might have been in support of csThors comments :). Only Sita knows.
As he says csThor was expressing a personal view. In that sense I don't find the comments negative. All he is saying is that if the facility was provided he would never use it. That's fair enough. I guess I would probably use it 50%. Its nice when you are trying to simulate historical events to be able to participate from different perspectives within a single game session. At the moment I generally fly with the facility to view externals because I just enjoy looking at the other aircraft.

But if it was a choice between this and another superb aircraft there would be no competition.

Ashe

Daiichidoku

I wrote that my response was not TD related since I did not want it to be mistaken for the team's official stance. I can't even say if it's technically possible in Il-2 (what I know about missions and the way Il-2 behaves I seriously doubt it). For SoW it's a good idea (provided it can be switched off in difficulty options) but as jameson said there are already a lot potential consturction sites in the Il-2 engine and TD's coders are doing it in their freetime. Which, as you can guess, tends to be swallowed by that nagging sideshow called "real life". :mrgreen:

Thats right :D ... in support of csThor :)

i agree totally, i personally would like to see FM/DMs resolved first, and addressal of all (some very long-)standing issues known with IL2, THEN move on to the gravy; more new planes, objects, and other features

i understand however that new additions are exciting and keep higher interest in the game, and improve it of course

i dont really know if TD has a plan in this regard, or what it is...(any link to it?), but i imagine it is a reasonably common-sense approach...looks good so far

I believe TD have stated that it is their intention to address FM's at some point, it's just that now there are so many of them!
However it would be wonderful if TD stated they would devote their entire energies for one update, say 4.14 towards just this. On the dark side, I believe, they are addressing this problem by trying to fix fm's based on comparison to one "standard" aircraft whose flight model is well known. A spitfire IIRC. (MkV?) But again sheer weight of numbers complicates progress. There appears to be a healthy contact between TD and the modders so lessons learnt there will probably inform any official update at some point in the future. It's all ongoing as far as I know.
In respect of my earlier post, I in no way wish to stop any flow of input or ideas until "something is done!", just wish that TD would devote the main thrust of their endevours towards addressing outstanding perenial problems, and publicly state they are doing that.
Regards

Someone broke the silence,at last.

Something interesting too,altought I dunno how it can be made,is a weapon camera.There was a game called Strike Fighters which had a camera view that followed the bombs and missiles you released.