Suggesting to devs

[AutomaticAddict]

Also, I am trying to unlock the bombs for the p-51 mustang. I have the rockets and the forum states you must destroy 50 targets in strike to unlock the bombs but...machine guns and rockets do not reduce ticket count or even seem to damage the strike targets at all! Anton, how am i supposed to unlock the bombs? crash my plane into the target instead? please fix this so machine guns and rockets can reduce ticket count as well as bombs...thank you devs.

[atomschlag]

- ground targets in training mode
- controls remappable (rudder on shoulder, pov view without pressing stick)
- german plane cockpits
- more AI-only planes in training mode ( Ju-32, Me Gigant)
- unlocks online-independent (what about ppl who don't like multiplayer, don't have live?)
-realistic flight model without stall & spin for arcade mode
-realistic damage model for arcade mode
-possibility to check stats for unlocks

[fuzzychickens]

If you want to see more arcade players be able to make the transition to realistic and sim, plus improve the gameplay in arcade - one thing needs to be done.

Arcade: Use the SAME flight/damage model as simulator and turn off stalls/spins. Nothing more, nothing less.

People would actually use tactics in arcade - energy, realistic speed differences, turn rate differences. Plus it would be easier to finish off and get kills when your target can't take a smoking, swiss cheesed plane and still accelerate to 1000+ km/h.

Realistic: stalls on, but plane wont enter spin, or at least instant spin recovery if you let off stick.

Simulator: full difficulty


But if you really want to improve the sim, just COPY the selectable settings in the difficulty from the PC IL2 1946. Then everyone can play the game the way they want, and host games with the exact settings they want. Allow players joining to see what settings are before commiting to the game - just lke the pc game.

Plus, figure out a way we can join games already underway. This would end people sending you stupid arse messages about how you ruined their game because you left early - sometimes real life interupts and I don't put real life on hold for games.

[Ancient Seraph]

Originally Posted by fuzzychickens

(...)
Arcade: Use the SAME flight/damage model as simulator and turn off stalls/spins. Nothing more, nothing less.
(...)

Right.. so what do you suggest happens when somebody goes 90 degrees nose up?

[Das_Ubersoldat13]

I would like them to fix the Fw 190 Series.. it could TURN WITH the Spitfire MkV and was leaps and bounds better than the BF 109 in all areas of performance. So why on this game does it handle like a heavy beast? Did they accidently over load this one with fuel too? The Luftwaffe LOVED their Fw 190. The poilots loved the new fast extremely AGILE plane with incredible visibility. there was none of this plumiting to the earth like a stone if you tipped the nose down. Please.. You may not like Germany for what ever reason.. but respect their fighters. and PLEASE PLEASE FIX THE Fw!! I beg you.

[SgtPappy]

Actually in every test conducted by both the RAF and Luftwaffe that I've ever read, the 190 turned worse than any Spitfire. In fact, in RAF tests, for some reason, it turned a little better than a 109G.

But that's besides the point. For the record I DO think the 190 should turn better but it CANNOT turn better than a Mk.V given equal pilots with equal energy states.

If you're referring to the article where Johnnie Johnson was out turned by a Fw 190 in his Spitfire Mk.V, you are actually quite mistaken.

Now before you rant and go crazy, let me say it was TRUE that Johnson was out turned by that 190 in his Spitfire V. And I'm not making excuses here when I say that Johnson could have easily been tired or something, a fact we CANNOT simulate in any game with any degree of real accuracy.

In another excerpt from the same article, he states that the Spitfire IX out turned the 190 easily. But how does this make sense at all? A 1941 Spitfire Vb's wing loading is less than 27 lb./sq. ft when fully loaded with fuel and ammo. The Fw 190's is somewhere past 40 lb./sq. ft. The Spitfire IX's is somewhere around 30 lb./sq.ft. Wing loading is not the only factor in turning ability, but with WWII planes, it's generally a good indicator of turning ability. But with the Spitfire IX and Spitfire V having virtually the same airframe with the IX having much better performance, they should turn similarly. In fact, RAF tests say they turn the same.

You must remember all the factors that determine how a plane turns in real life. In the article, there is little to no indication of energy states, pilot condition (i.e. wounds, tiredness, etc.), pilot ability to sustain G's or aircraft condition. No two aircraft ever perform the same whether they both are Spitfire Vb's or Fw 190A-5's.

[Das_Ubersoldat13]

Originally Posted by SgtPappy

Actually in every test conducted by both the RAF and Luftwaffe that I've ever read, the 190 turned worse than any Spitfire. In fact, in RAF tests, for some reason, it turned a little better than a 109G.

But that's besides the point. For the record I DO think the 190 should turn better but it CANNOT turn better than a Mk.V given equal pilots with equal energy states.

If you're referring to the article where Johnnie Johnson was out turned by a Fw 190 in his Spitfire Mk.V, you are actually quite mistaken.

Now before you rant and go crazy, let me say it was TRUE that Johnson was out turned by that 190 in his Spitfire V. And I'm not making excuses here when I say that Johnson could have easily been tired or something, a fact we CANNOT simulate in any game with any degree of real accuracy.

In another excerpt from the same article, he states that the Spitfire IX out turned the 190 easily. But how does this make sense at all? A 1941 Spitfire Vb's wing loading is less than 27 lb./sq. ft when fully loaded with fuel and ammo. The Fw 190's is somewhere past 40 lb./sq. ft. The Spitfire IX's is somewhere around 30 lb./sq.ft. Wing loading is not the only factor in turning ability, but with WWII planes, it's generally a good indicator of turning ability. But with the Spitfire IX and Spitfire V having virtually the same airframe with the IX having much better performance, they should turn similarly. In fact, RAF tests say they turn the same.

You must remember all the factors that determine how a plane turns in real life. In the article, there is little to no indication of energy states, pilot condition (i.e. wounds, tiredness, etc.), pilot ability to sustain G's or aircraft condition. No two aircraft ever perform the same whether they both are Spitfire Vb's or Fw 190A-5's.

I didnt say turn better.. I said turn with.. meaning about the same .. it couldnt out turn..

[PhantomIIF4]

Has anyone suggested that we be given the ability to choose any plane in any single-player mission? I feel like being restricted to one plane type per mission limits the replay value? I figure that can't be a hard thing to implement in a patch.

Thoughts anyone?

[SgtPappy]

Originally Posted by Das_Ubersoldat13

I didnt say turn better.. I said turn with.. meaning about the same .. it couldnt out turn..

When people say that plane A turns with plane B, it means just as good, which in combat means that plane A can turn either slightly worse or slightly better sine it's impossible to determine if 2 planes ACTUALLY turn the same.

Just proving that the latter is false in our case.

Also, one more thing. I only rented the game for the PS3 for a day so far, had little time to play. So i got the demo. P-51D's cockpit is actually that of a P-47D series.

Actual P-51D cockpit from IL-2



BoP P-51D cockpit

[Malka4re]

look around the cockpit is a tap of the stick.