Originally Posted by soc5 (Post 90586)

Hello,
I am a big fan of il 2 sturmovik and am excited to be able to play on consoles since my computer is old and needs upgrading, the graphics are such a step up its amazing.
I played the demo and i thought it had huge potential, but there were some issues that I would like to comment on for possible fixes\
1. The hud should be more customizable in full hud there is too much screen clutter but in the minimal you can not see your engine power which is essential.
2. In third person view the airplane barely makes any noise and the engine noise is very weak unless you use wep
3. The look function does not work very well and is awkward to have to click the right stick, this hurts gameplay
4. The radio chatter is very repetitive and needs more variety, in the second mission of the campaign in the demo my partner kept saying "lower, lower" over and over again while the screen kept flashing the pull up sign, which incidentally would be great to have the option to remove since some missions require low flying
5.More camera options would be nice and in third person it would be convenient to have a more intuitive look around feature in which you can rotate around your plane instead of immediately turning the camera to the front of the plane
6. More customizable options ala pc, and the ability to map functions to buttons if you don't like the control scheme.
7.Better lock on tags, sometimes I couldn't tell which plane i was locked on to because it wasn't clear enough.
8. A replay feature

I love il sturmovik and hope that this game is a success and leads to future releases on consoles.

Originally Posted by SR91 Aurora (Post 90595)

If you're using the control pad, hold the right stick back. If you're using a flight stick, use the trees.

Originally Posted by David603 (Post 90599)

Very nice first post, and I agree with all your points.

Originally Posted by manintrees (Post 90607)

That was funny.

Hey Aurora, you stated in another post that your avatat is an image of a Spitfire "tipping" a V2-rocket. Are you saying that RAF pilots would actually fly alongside a V2 and make physical contact with it to steer it off its intended course?

Originally Posted by David603 (Post 90609)

It did happen several times, mostly when pilots ran out of ammo or their guns jammed, although it wasn't standard operating proceedure of course. Also, the rockets in question were V1 flying bombs, not V2s which flew too high and fast for any hope of interception. Think of V2s as the first ICBMs and you wouldn't be too far off.

Originally Posted by Swagger7 (Post 90610)

I heard that it was pretty common. The wings wouldn't actually touch, as the airflow from the fighter's wing was sufficient to push over the V-1 without making physical contact. Once the V-1 was tipped out of the horizontal, its gyroscopes would go berserk and it would crash. Intercepting V-1s often fell to Gloster Meteors, as they could match the buzz bomb's speed.

Originally Posted by manintrees (Post 90607)

That was funny.

Hey Aurora, you stated in another post that your sig pic is an image of a Spitfire "tipping" a V2-rocket. Are you saying that RAF pilots would actually fly alongside a V2 and make physical contact with it to steer it off its intended course?

Originally Posted by Swagger7 (Post 90610)

I heard that it was pretty common. The wings wouldn't actually touch, as the airflow from the fighter's wing was sufficient to push over the V-1 without making physical contact. Once the V-1 was tipped out of the horizontal, its gyroscopes would go berserk and it would crash. Intercepting V-1s often fell to Gloster Meteors, as they could match the buzz bomb's speed.

Originally Posted by P-51 (Post 90632)

Ohh spitfires were more than adaquate to catch up to one of these!