This sounds obscure to me. As far as I know, there’s no reason a “big wing” should produce more drag in a turn than a small one.
As a rule of thumb, you look at wing loading (Kgs x square metres, or lbs x square feet) to evaluate stalling speed, but you must look at span loading (Kgs x metre, linear, not square) to evaluate efficiency and low drag in a turn.

My feeling is that Spit FM is pretty good, and that we should look with suspicion at our feelings without hard numbers.

aircraft ceiling
 

First greetings for excellent work in the community IL-2 Sturmovik!

I imagine different altitudes for each plane, following the historical characteristics of each aircraft...
It will be fantastic!

Salute!

There is a sound of the airplane squealing when you stress it, but I agree that there's not much sense of G forces, other than blackout/red-out, in full cockpit view. I lobbied for some sort of "g-meter" in full cockpit view back before 4.10 was released, and it is present in the "Wonder Woman" view, but no joy for full cockpit.

I argued along similar lines; human beings are pretty good at sensing G-forces. The only limitation is that it might take some experience to figure out how much force corresponds to 2 G, 3 G and so-on. This isn't so much of a deal for overstressing the airframe, though, as for perceiving that your airplane is about to stall. Historically, "seat of the pants" flying meant that you could tell when your airplane was dropping out from under you, about to go into a stall. There are also minor vibrations and other sensations which are communicated to your body through the seat which you don't get in a game.

I'd suggest an "overspeed" or "overstress" warning on the HUD in the cockpit view. You can turn it off if you want to if you believe that "full realism" means limiting yourself to the feedback provided by your computer screen, speakers and joystick.

There is a modded form of the MiG-3 with an all new 3d model. It's gorgeous. Lets hope the creators give it to DT for inclusion in a later patch. I believe there are also modders out there reworking some of the other early 3d models.

There are also a number of modded cockpits which vastly improve on the stock cockpits, but they tend to be a bit hard on frame rates since they use much more detailed textures.

Personally, I don't see the point of having a generic "P-47" as well as actual named P-47 variants. The older model should either have its exact model specified or it should be retired.

I'd like something like that, too, both for online and offline.

The only problem is that, realistically, you'd need at least 3 kill-scoring systems, reflecting various attitudes to kill confirmation and kill sharing. The current system, not surprisingly, is most like the one used by the Soviets during WW2. The German system should be stricter about confirming kills and shouldn't allow kill sharing. The UK and US systems would be about like the German system, but allow shared kills and might give you credit for "damaged" and "probable" kills. The Japanese system would be much more generous, allowing you to claim a kill for just about any airplane you damaged.

Realistically, you'd also need to claim your kills under most systems and there should be provisions for overclaiming (especially by bomber crews).

Practically, it would be damned nice to get immediate credit for a kill once one of these things happen:

1) Pilot killed.
2) Uncontrollable fire started (or any fire started if no fire extinguishers).
3) Crippling damage scored (e.g., wing blown off).
4) Crew bails out.
5) Plane crash lands/ditches in water.

It's a pain in the *ss having to wait for an downed plane to hit the ground, possibly at the mercy of vulchers, after you've taken it out. It's also a pain having to wait around for the computer program to notice that a plane has ditched or crash landed.

As usual, for optimum user-friendliness/coolness, it would also be nice if you could control kill claiming conditions via the UI or server set-up controls, possibly as yet another "realism setting."

Not a priority, but I was wondering if there were any plans to include more gliders in the game? I believe that way back when someone at 1C had a DFS230 in the works.

Due to lack of engines and (usually) lack of guns, they might be easier to model and code than other aircraft. My wishlist, in no particular order: DFS-230, Waco CG-4A Hadrian, Airspeed Horsa, Go242 and Antonov A7. I'm not greedy though, any one from the list would be cool. :)

Also, how about more loadouts for existing cargo types in the game? Nothing fancy is needed, just extra mass simulating various weights of cargo, with the assumption that the loadmaster has done his job properly.

If you wanted to get fancy, though, you could give the C-47/DC-3 and Li-2 bomb loadouts, as were sometimes improvised in the field, and you could create bomber versions of the Ju-52.

Hello!
Before anything else I want to congratulate the team of Daidalos, for excellent work in patch 4.10.1

I would like to know of the possibility of a change in FMB. I wish I could change the speed of cars and tanks, as is already done on ships. Without this modification is impossible to make huge columns of cars moving because they just run over.

I look forward to more news. I know it's not easy for you to handle it alone but I hope you understand that I love this game and want a constant evolution.

open canopy and doors at all airplane including also bombers.

More ideas, suggested by others in the past, but worth repeating:

1) Static ground objects which carry point values, both for campaigns and for ground attack or bombing missions. No new objects needed to be coded, just create invisible destroyable "value boxes" which can be put inside of existing static objects in the FMB, based on soft vehicles, tanks and various sorts of ships.

2) Explosion effects which can be set or triggered in the FMB. Base them on various forms of bombs, have a way that they can be placed inside static objects or vehicles, then link the condition that triggers them to either a time, movement of another object or destruction of the object to which they're linked. This would simulate things like ammo or fuel dumps, vehicles filled with explosives or fuel and vehicles hitting mines.

3) Empty fuel tanks objects which are much harder to destroy.

4) More airfield equipment objects - bomb dumps, bomb carts, fire trucks, bulldozers and dump trucks (for filling in bomb craters), starter trucks, tractors, engine heaters, fuel trailers, engine hoists, mobile workshops, etc. This is the sort of infrastructure you take out during an airstrike on an airfield in addition to aircraft, buildings and runways.

The previous post reminded me of another small request an oppertiunity to target factories for point value to simulate large bombing raids. Also try to sort out some of the issues of large formations in QMB as when I flew in a 18 plane bomber raid a collision on the way to the target destroyed a 1/3 of the force