The Ultimate Question -- Ext Views vs Locked Cockpit

[dduff442]

This came up again in the weekly update thread and I thought I'd throw in an unfashionable point of view: external views are great. I've nothing against closed-cockpit servers -- they're certainly more realistic but this doesn't translate to more challenging or interesting.

External views + wonderwoman view allow for a (potentially) perfect dogfight where flight characteristics and technique are key. There's less randomness and the encounters actually look better. I'd never play an offline with external views active but a quick and easy 1 on 1 is great fun. Online with external views is great as well. 1-on-1 online has given me my greatest Il-2 memories.

dduff

Let the rage begin -->

[ATAG_Dutch]

This came up again in the weekly update thread and I thought I'd throw in an unfashionable point of view: external views are great. I've nothing against closed-cockpit servers -- they're certainly more realistic but this doesn't translate to more challenging or interesting.

External views + wonderwoman view allow for a (potentially) perfect dogfight where flight characteristics and technique are key. There's less randomness and the encounters actually look better. I'd never play an offline with external views active but a quick and easy 1 on 1 is great fun. Online with external views is great as well. 1-on-1 online has given me my greatest Il-2 memories.

dduff

Let the rage begin -->

No rage here mate!
As I said in the other thread; when online I prefer it, coz it's fun to do; and as you say, the view is grand.
This doesn't mean I'm a beginner, or a less than capable virtual 'pilot'.
I will have to try full cockpit online though, just to compare...........

[Splitter]

I think it's a matter of head tracking :).

Without head tracking, the full cockpit is unrealistic to "me". Can't glance down at the instruments. Can't look out at odd angles.

With Wonderman view, it's also unrealistic lol. Being able to see enemies that should be covered by the engine cowling. Flying straight and level and being able to look down and around.

I gotta take the time to get a head tracking system.....

I have tried both methods of flight and, here is a weird little thing, it's harder to be a good shot without the cockpit. Maybe the difference is the reticle. I dunno, but I know I am more accurate with the cockpit on.

Splitter

[robtek]

No problem, one can decide: game today or rather simulation.

[Qpassa]

Diference between game and simulator.
I use locked cockpit always, except videos

[K_Freddie]

Only real men (women) have a hood over their heads.. :grin:

..or shall we call it ... FULL REAL... da da da ..daaaaaaahhhhhhh
(wait for it)

[AKA_Tenn]

the only issue i have with external views is being able to switch to another teams aircraft, why bother having map icons off when u can just press ctrl+F2 and see exactly where the enemy is?

[ATAG_Dutch]

No problem, one can decide: game today or rather simulation.

Precisely. Do what suits your mood.

[Chivas]

Off-line use whatever view system you prefer. In on-line war servers I much prefer a closed cockpit. All the outside views provide to much information about enemy movements which totally kills immersion.

[WTE_Galway]

Wonder women view reminds me too much of playing Wing Commander III back in the 90's.

[Azimech]

I always use the cockpit but in offline play I'm aware that the AI uses Omnivision so I have a disadvantage. Still, WW view has these ugly arrows and instruments and it feels like I'm playing an arcade game. Online I want cockpit only and I even use it if other players use WW. That's my loss, I shoot better with WW.

The tophat switch is usually enough for me but my Track-IR will be attached again in a few days because glancing at the instruments takes a bit much time.

I've always been about cockpits and dashboards. I have an old car with a beautiful dash. Why? Because after the road the dash is the thing you see the most.

In the future there will be more and more reason to use the cockpit as the airplane systems increase in complexity and the standard 6 aren't enough anymore. Manifold pressure, manifold temperature, CHT, RPM, oil pressure, fuel pressure, hydraulics pressure, ammeter, voltmeter, oxygen reserve, navigation, outside temperature, coolant temperature, turbocharger RPM, trim/cooler/flaps indicators and all the warning lights will all have an effect on engine/flight/systems/pilot performance. You can't fly successfully with complex management on without checking your instruments every minute. Switching between WW view and cockpit all the time would be very disorienting I guess.

One thing I dislike in IL2 1946 is the HUD engine overheat warning while flying full real. For the same reasons.

But hey, I'm primarily a gearhead, then a pilot.

[IceFire]

I've flown both and closed cockpit is a totally different experience than with externals available and/or "wonder woman" view enabled. Both are fun, both are challenging, and it's great that we can have our cake and eat it too with these features.

[dduff442]

I always use the cockpit but in offline play I'm aware that the AI uses Omnivision so I have a disadvantage. Still, WW view has these ugly arrows and instruments and it feels like I'm playing an arcade game. Online I want cockpit only and I even use it if other players use WW. That's my loss, I shoot better with WW.

The tophat switch is usually enough for me but my Track-IR will be attached again in a few days because glancing at the instruments takes a bit much time.

I've always been about cockpits and dashboards. I have an old car with a beautiful dash. Why? Because after the road the dash is the thing you see the most.

In the future there will be more and more reason to use the cockpit as the airplane systems increase in complexity and the standard 6 aren't enough anymore. Manifold pressure, manifold temperature, CHT, RPM, oil pressure, fuel pressure, hydraulics pressure, ammeter, voltmeter, oxygen reserve, navigation, outside temperature, coolant temperature, turbocharger RPM, trim/cooler/flaps indicators and all the warning lights will all have an effect on engine/flight/systems/pilot performance. You can't fly successfully with complex management on without checking your instruments every minute. Switching between WW view and cockpit all the time would be very disorienting I guess.

One thing I dislike in IL2 1946 is the HUD engine overheat warning while flying full real. For the same reasons.

But hey, I'm primarily a gearhead, then a pilot.

I like night and instrument flying in Il-2, but somehow my enthusiasm wears off when I'm being shot at. Hopefully SoW will have some innovations -- g-limited or laggy artificial horizons etc. Errors in barometric altimeters will be there anyway given that weather is modeled.

Night flying in Blenheims or Bf-110s could be a real blast. I'm hoping for a 41-43 night campaign as the first expansion myself. Quirky analog electronics prone to odd readings etc. give the tech of the era a totally different feel from the digital world.

dduff

[dduff442]

No problem, one can decide: game today or rather simulation.

I get very uptight about a new sim campaign -- I train in the new a/c, avoid combat during practice (if you take off in a fighter with 1 wingman, you can 'dogfight' him) etc. It takes me weeks! That's why I enjoy a bit of gaming as well.

I have to say you hear a lot about the free-for-all ext views servers, but nearly all the flyers are at least ok. Without good technique and a bit of skill it's going to be painful flying online. Some of the players are outstanding in all categories, though I'm sure many play with locked cockpits as well.

dduff

[Azimech]

There probably is a niche for the types like Blackdog and me, who like to keep the aircraft systems harmonized to that narrow line of optimal performance, in a way learning to "feel" the engine what it can and can't do. The first period when complex management reaches it's new level, people without insight or knowledge will be fighting the aircraft much more than fighting others, like it will be with the new g-limits. In time, a few develop intuition and feel what to do, when to do it, without looking at the instruments. Experts on energy tactics and situational awareness will have a new challenge when faced with a flying Montgomery Scott. Those flying engineers won't need the cockpit view as much anymore but I wonder if they really bother about the help of Wonder Woman then. I think there will be a new class of players: full real pilots with a mix of hydraulic fluid and engine oil in their veins.

Personally I jumped with joy when Complex Engine Management was introduced and have never flown without it. Then my joy sank when I saw how limited it was.

[zxwings]

Wonderwoman view as in IL2 is very helpful in flight training and in the understanding of an aircraft's flight process. So it is very useful for offline use of a flight sim.

External views are clearly also necessary components of a flight sim in offline use - for instance, you certainly need the external views when you are studying a recorded tack of an online air combat.

~

[Azimech]

I think WW is useful for training only two things: learning to land a Corsair on a carrier and learning the difference in IAS and TAS for every altitude. Understanding the process of flying is done by reading IMHO, and the limited amount of instruments in WW can cause you to learn wrong. For example, it has no slip/ball and vertical speed indicator. Plus altitude is measured above ground level, so you still need the speedbar. But instead of looking at the ground altimeter, one learns it properly by examining the ground first, which falls under situational awareness.

Student pilots don't learn to fly in WW, they start with the Basic Six and LOTS of theory. Then again my father learned me to fly Flight Simulator II back in 1984, which had no external views, no WW and such graphics that flying the instruments was the only way to get it right. WW cannot ever compensate for lack of theory when learning to fly. And you learn quicker with the limited view a cockpit provides, you learn flight patterns.

One error I used to make was to attack in cockpit mode, then switch to F6 when the plane disappeared from direct view. Someone pointed that out. Nowadays I stay in the 'pit and roll/turn my plane so I can keep my eyes on him, and my flying has improved. If I lose him out of my sight, the lesson is that I didn't anticipate his move, or my actions were wrong, or both.

[SEE]

Since having 6DOF (Freetrack) I only use cockpit for both SP and On-line. Prior to that it was always 'open view' so having TrackIR or Freetrack is the enabling factor for me.

[JG27CaptStubing]

I like night and instrument flying in Il-2, but somehow my enthusiasm wears off when I'm being shot at. Hopefully SoW will have some innovations -- g-limited or laggy artificial horizons etc. Errors in barometric altimeters will be there anyway given that weather is modeled.

Night flying in Blenheims or Bf-110s could be a real blast. I'm hoping for a 41-43 night campaign as the first expansion myself. Quirky analog electronics prone to odd readings etc. give the tech of the era a totally different feel from the digital world.

dduff


Well 4.10 is supposed to include G limits in IL2. Laggy artificial horizons? Why would you model such a thing? What does it really add to the simulation and the game for that matter? What you have to check your Compass and fix precession errors or a tumbled Gyro? You would have to get current altimeter settings throughout the flight. Sort of a waste of programming effort for a combat sim don't ya think?

Look I understand adding small details can really add to the sim but the type of things that need to be added should be geared more towards playability.

We like the fighting so that's where the focus should be. Much better AI ones that can actually fight and think more like a real person. AI aircraft are pretty horrible in the game right now. They have been improved but they just don't behave like real people.

[dduff442]

Well 4.10 is supposed to include G limits in IL2. Laggy artificial horizons? Why would you model such a thing? What does it really add to the simulation and the game for that matter? What you have to check your Compass and fix precession errors or a tumbled Gyro? You would have to get current altimeter settings throughout the flight. Sort of a waste of programming effort for a combat sim don't ya think?

Look I understand adding small details can really add to the sim but the type of things that need to be added should be geared more towards playability.

We like the fighting so that's where the focus should be. Much better AI ones that can actually fight and think more like a real person. AI aircraft are pretty horrible in the game right now. They have been improved but they just don't behave like real people.

I more or less share your enthusiasm regarding attention to AI, but I think that perfect artificial horizons are a little too artificial. Even a single parameter -- a limit on the turn rate for a given instrument -- would be useful and easily done.

Likewise, less-than-perfect altimeters would seem to go hand in hand with dynamic weather. Remember that ground control may be able to tell you the pressure at ground level but they won't be able to tell you exact conditions over the target. This would be a serious concern for, e.g., Mosquito pilots on an Oboe-assisted bomb run when impact with the ground might be a serious concern. A drop of even 50m in the cloud base could also have serious consequences.

This seems trivial to implement once the weather system's already done, IMO. I'd support the idea of making these optional in the difficulty settings.

Night time is potentially a *whole new game* -- a whole new genre in fact. 40s technology is fascinating; it's quaint and baffling at the same time.

Broadly speaking, I'm all for granting CPU-intensive stuff similar priority to GPU-intensive stuff in the sim.

dduff

[MD_Titus]

This came up again in the weekly update thread and I thought I'd throw in an unfashionable point of view: external views are great. I've nothing against closed-cockpit servers -- they're certainly more realistic but this doesn't translate to more challenging or interesting.

External views + wonderwoman view allow for a (potentially) perfect dogfight where flight characteristics and technique are key. There's less randomness and the encounters actually look better. I'd never play an offline with external views active but a quick and easy 1 on 1 is great fun. Online with external views is great as well. 1-on-1 online has given me my greatest Il-2 memories.

dduff

Let the rage begin -->
tbh i go for cockpit on and externals on. middle of the road, fun and gives a sense of flying different aircraft, have to use the instruments etc etc. mainly use externals for looking around myself in flight, padlocking friendlies (a bit more realistic that f6 as it gives a simulation of being able to recognise friendlies as quick as an experienced pilot might) and finding those pesky ground targets.

and, as you say, no pit boils it down to dogfighting, in that there is no being surprised by, or surprising, the opposition.
No rage here mate!
As I said in the other thread; when online I prefer it, coz it's fun to do; and as you say, the view is grand.
This doesn't mean I'm a beginner, or a less than capable virtual 'pilot'.
I will have to try full cockpit online though, just to compare...........
crucial
you'll find the difference is that you spend a lot more time swerving around, clearing your six and scanning the sky. it does lead to an increase in tension, and elation at spotting someone, tracking them in their blind spot and blowing them to kingdom come without them having seen you.

Off-line use whatever view system you prefer. In on-line war servers I much prefer a closed cockpit. All the outside views provide to much information about enemy movements which totally kills immersion.
only if you use them as such. just because they are there doesn't mean you have to use the f2 then f6/ground unit lock thing to get a padlock on distant targets.

but then, doing so means that you aren't pratting around in a remote section of the map when the enemy is doing exactly the same in an entirely different portion of sky, on a half empty server... fumbling around for each other fruitlessly isn't that much fun. it becomes pretty much redundant if the server is busy or action is focussed around targets, and becomes a hindrance and fun-killer for bombers and jabos of course.

[Blackdog_kt]

I more or less share your enthusiasm regarding attention to AI, but I think that perfect artificial horizons are a little too artificial. Even a single parameter -- a limit on the turn rate for a given instrument -- would be useful and easily done.

Likewise, less-than-perfect altimeters would seem to go hand in hand with dynamic weather. Remember that ground control may be able to tell you the pressure at ground level but they won't be able to tell you exact conditions over the target. This would be a serious concern for, e.g., Mosquito pilots on an Oboe-assisted bomb run when impact with the ground might be a serious concern. A drop of even 50m in the cloud base could also have serious consequences.

This seems trivial to implement once the weather system's already done, IMO. I'd support the idea of making these optional in the difficulty settings.

Night time is potentially a *whole new game* -- a whole new genre in fact. 40s technology is fascinating; it's quaint and baffling at the same time.

Broadly speaking, I'm all for granting CPU-intensive stuff similar priority to GPU-intensive stuff in the sim.

dduff

Agree on all counts. Managing the aircraft sub-systems effectively does have a direct impact in your ability to perform combat tasks, hence it's not irrelevant. Difficult? Sure. Deserving separate on/off switches in the difficulty options? Definitely. But not irrelevant for a combat sim, not by a long shot.

[Splitter]

Agree on all counts. Managing the aircraft sub-systems effectively does have a direct impact in your ability to perform combat tasks, hence it's not irrelevant. Difficult? Sure. Deserving separate on/off switches in the difficulty options? Definitely. But not irrelevant for a combat sim, not by a long shot.

This. A fight MIGHT come down to how fast you can turn your plane, but getting to that point should be more difficult than pulling on the stick. At least the option should be there for those of us that want it (hopefully).

At my age (I'm not that old lol) I've learned that I will never have the fast-twitch skills of a 17 year old that has 7 hours to spend playing the game every day. Any success and enjoyment I have had in other games has come mainly from teamwork and being able to 'out think" the other guy. The devil (and enjoyment) is in the details for me.

Splitter

[Azimech]

Yeah I feel it too... reflexes are way down... at 33!

[MD_Titus]

but odds on familiarity and experience counteract the loss of reflexes, to a greater or lesser degree.

[Splitter]

but odds on familiarity and experience counteract the loss of reflexes, to a greater or lesser degree.

Oh yes! There is no substitute for experience.

Face off on a young guy (with a similar ping) in a one on one, surprise encounter in a first person shooter, and the advantage is his. He is probably a couple hundredths of a seconds quicker.

In a vehicle, things are different (real life too lol). There is a whole 'nother level of strategy and tactics. Plus, being able to predict the opposition's actions. That all comes with experience.

In my last gaming clan, the old guys did the strategies. Whenever we got a new map we were usually ahead of the opposing team. Of course, the young guys in our clan had to make up for our lack of skillz when the shooting started :).

BTW, for the other old timers, I am convinced that gaming keeps you young in ways. If you don't practice with your reflexes, they fail quicker. And then you are relegated to playing Minesweeper :).

I say all of that to say this: my guess is that there is a bit of an age gap as to who wants what in terms of realism (just a guess). The younger people probably want something that focuses more on the combat and shooting and graphics. The older guys probably want more "flight sim" realism. So maybe we all just tend to play to our strengths?

Splitter

[swiss]

I always use the cockpit but in offline play I'm aware that the AI uses Omnivision so I have a disadvantage.

The AI has no engine overheat, THAT pisses me of far worse.
But then again I, don't play offline. :)

[WTE_Galway]

What would be awesome is to allow Wonder Woman view but also make you much more vulnerable to pilot kills from headon because there is no engine in the way to absorb the hits.

[Azimech]

LOL

Yeah, maybe only hairspray.

[Erkki]

Full switch, Everything else is waste of time...

With ext views allowed, anyone with normal hand-eye coordination can easily achieve perfect SA. The game becomes a silly climbrace. Its anything but what real air war was.

EDIT: and no I dont use TrackIR. :D

[Azimech]

Climbrace? Well that may change in the future. Wrecking or damaging your engine will become a big risk like it was in the old days. Just keeping the engine at 103% with WEP won't work anymore, and I really hope servers will keep the open cockpit but combine it with the new complex engine management. Surely, all those fine people who don't check their instruments will drop like flies.

In the future, if someone is running from you, climbing or flying much faster than you and you know the capabilities of his ship compares to yours, take your time, keep you engine sound and cool but make sure he won't have a big energy advantage if he suddenly turns around. He's probably running his max, so take your time, he WILL slow down, either by disabling his WEP by hand or by having a hole in his engine.

But if your opponent has a much better climbrate because of his weight/hp ratio and say, more supercharger stages than you have, disengage unless you know he's a shitty BnZ'er. Mudmovers like the P39 already had a problem, they will have a serious problem.

Knowledge of your and his ship will be increasingly important.

[Flying Pencil]

This came up again in the weekly update thread and I thought I'd throw in an unfashionable point of view: external views are great. I've nothing against closed-cockpit servers -- they're certainly more realistic but this doesn't translate to more challenging or interesting.

External views + wonderwoman view allow for a (potentially) perfect dogfight where flight characteristics and technique are key. There's less randomness and the encounters actually look better. I'd never play an offline with external views active but a quick and easy 1 on 1 is great fun. Online with external views is great as well. 1-on-1 online has given me my greatest Il-2 memories.

dduff

Let the rage begin -->


Simple.

Let the mission creator decide.
If they want uber realism, lock into cockpit.
If they want Hollywood, unlock.

[MD_Titus]

Full switch, Everything else is waste of my time...

With ext views allowed, anyone with normal hand-eye coordination can easily achieve perfect SA. The game becomes a silly climbrace. Its anything but what real air war was.

EDIT: and no I dont use TrackIR. :D
again, closed pit snobbishness is breathtaking sometimes.

perfect SA means that it then becomes being able to fly ACM perfectly, to outfly your opponent with what you are able to do, rather than creep up and knife someone in the back without them seeing you. two different kettles of fish.

the real air war was hardly something to find enjoyment in. imnsho.
Simple.

Let the mission creator decide.
If they want uber realism, lock into cockpit.
If they want Hollywood, unlock.
for uber realism you'd better also strap a large incendiary device under your chair as well.

[robtek]

again, closed pit snobbishness is breathtaking sometimes.

perfect SA means that it then becomes being able to fly ACM perfectly, to outfly your opponent with what you are able to do, rather than creep up and knife someone in the back without them seeing you. two different kettles of fish.

the real air war was hardly something to find enjoyment in. imnsho.

for uber realism you'd better also strap a large incendiary device under your chair as well.

It seems that some people have to devaluate other people to polish their ego.
There is no such thing as "uber-realism", either you simulate as close as possible to reality or you play a game, it's that easy.

[WTE_Galway]

Babylon 5 Star Furies were based on IL2 no-cockpit view ...

http://www.isnnews.net/hyperspace/ea/eafury-a_lg1.jpg

[matsher]

Closed cockpit simply does not closely resemble "REAL" life simulation.
No matter how you guys would like to frame it.

The two vital immersion points are missing...
1. Sensation. - Sadly, we can never simulate the vast pressures on your body in
air combat, if you could feel the real effects of G, hardly any of us would turn like crazed raccoons. That goes for slip, and landing, turbulance and engine management... Its actually far easier to fly a real plane that it is to fly il2... You can feel a real plane, but you can't in il2...

2. Peripheral vision - Now this is something that can be addressed.
I love flying closed pit, especially with all the new graphic work that has been done in 4.09... But I also love WW view. That is all down to personal choice.
If Oleg could widen our views up/down & left/right everything would start feeling more real. We'd suddenly have a 'real' impression of how biiiiig the sky really is. No matter what view you prefer...

As for Views...

I have proposed an in between solution on the last friday's update (65% Transparent cockpit) and I'd like to have more feedback on it - it was 'improved' by a simple suggestion from Xnomad, cause many of you guys said my initial suggestion was naive would lessen Frame Rates. He suggested keep the cockpit on 100% but keep the enemy idents & tacking info moving through the cockpit.
It negates the argument about lessening FPS with the transparent cockpit having to render more 'sky'...

I'll upload the examples I made of both thoughts...

I have also added some direction and lead markers...
Notice how the direction and lead markers fade the further distance
away the target gets...

But to end...
What I feel is most important, as IL2 lifers and experienced flyers, is to grow a new generation of flyers and try and make it as 'easy'
to get hooked on the Maddox drug as possible... There will always be a purists way to fly as well as a casual way ...
Lets help new flyers get into the air to find theirs...

[MD_Titus]

It seems that some people have to devaluate other people to polish their ego.
There is no such thing as "uber-realism", either you simulate as close as possible to reality or you play a game, it's that easy.

swings and roundabouts old chap. doesn't feel nice either way, does it.

i wasn't seeking to devalue the skill it takes to fly full switch, merely stating the difference between the two ends of the option-spectrum. neither has more objective "worth" than the other, only subjective worth to the person holding the stick and dancing through the sky, either with a cockpit or a clear view. neither way is "better", only personally preferred.

what certainly isn't the case is to say either way is the "wrong" way.

indeed matsher, one of the critical elements we lack is the sensation of g-force. although i'm sure i've seen fairly effective motion-seats, as in rock you side to side kind of thing, and i vaguely recall a sort of waistcoat that had sections that inflated to give physical feedback. sort of for fps, so it would give a hit location feeling. it may sound -and look- daft, but playing whilst wearing some kind of g-simulating-suit would probably appeal to a hell of a lot of people.

[Flanker35M]

S!

The thing is that no matter how realistic modelling of AC we have we lack the G-forces. And oh boy do those tire you up! Been in planes and after a real "G-vitamine" dogfight you are worn out, sweat like a pig and breathe heavily. Not to mention the tension of the "fight". In every book from pilots I have read how they almost yelled at their opponent after a long fight, being tired and turns getting less tight etc. In most cases the pilots just flew away to fight another day.

So whining about realism in a GAME is hardly fruititious or useful. We can have well simulated things on certain things, but lack a lot to call it realistic. We have a representation of something that happened ages ago and should enjoy it that way. IMO there is no right way to play, everyone plays as they wish and have fun with :)

[dduff442]

I've no special preference for closed v open cockpit, but let's face it you don't hear open cockpit players declaring themselves superior to 'full switch' players.

Full switch more closely resembles reality (though some sort of stamina modelling would be a nice touch). It also places a premium on patience an guile.

External views allow beautiful, coherent and technically perfect energy fights. Executing a technically perfect scissors is next to impossible without ext views. You can't execute an energy efficient course reversal after a pursuit without ext views because you'll need to keep your speed up as you enter the turn to check your six. As well as adding new skills, closed cockpits introduce randomness due to restricted situational awareness.

Even though I've spent more serious game time with the cockpit locked, I have to say when I think of my favourite Il-2 memories they're nearly all associated with online fighting on open-cockpit servers: e.g. besting a pair of 190s, with one 'on the perch' and another attacking, in an La-5 using a fake defensive spiral (*). Various 1-on-1 grudge matches also spring to mind as well.

On one sortie when I didn't even make a kill, the teams were very unbalanced and I took off alone with 5 or 6 enemies straight overhead. Simply by F6ing through the enemies and manoeuvring defensively against the most dangerous opponent (or picking a compromise move if 2 or more were threatening), I made it to the top of the lot. Attacked, damaged 1 but then got frustrated by my own lack of success, sucked into a dogfight, lost energy and got shot down pointlessly. No kills, but still memorable.

OTOH, none of the things I described above (or below) would be possible without ext views. External views allow a purer game that's all about matching technique to the machine. I really don't understand why people don't get this or would seek to belittle the technique needed.

Now I enjoy 'full switch' campaigns offline -- I wouldn't play them any other way though I'm a bit perfectionist about them. They're more nerve-wracking but also messier. I feel bad when my little electronic wingmen get mashed while I fly pointless open curves checking my 6 every 2 seconds. Full switch has a special satisfaction but it's less fun.

dduff

(*Shhh! A trade secret. If approached head-on, fake a defensive spiral so that you're below your opponent as you pass. The idea is to time your spiral so that you're already climbing at that moment, keeping the turn nice and open and following up with a vertical climb & hammerhead; your opponent is sure to take the seemingly unopposed head-on shot, but this will drag him into a dive of increasing steepness as he tries vainly to track your approach. It's impossible for him to equalise energy after he's made this error.)

[MD_Titus]

I've no special preference for closed v open cockpit, but let's face it you don't hear open cockpit players declaring themselves superior to 'full switch' players.

Full switch more closely resembles reality (though some sort of stamina modelling would be a nice touch). It also places a premium on patience an guile.

External views allow beautiful, coherent and technically perfect energy fights. Executing a technically perfect scissors is next to impossible without ext views. You can't execute an energy efficient course reversal after a pursuit without ext views because you'll need to keep your speed up as you enter the turn to check your six. As well as adding new skills, closed cockpits introduce randomness due to restricted situational awareness.

Even though I've spent more serious game time with the cockpit locked, I have to say when I think of my favourite Il-2 memories they're nearly all associated with online fighting on open-cockpit servers: e.g. besting a pair of 190s, with one 'on the perch' and another attacking, in an La-5 using a fake defensive spiral (*). Various 1-on-1 grudge matches also spring to mind as well.

On one sortie when I didn't even make a kill, the teams were very unbalanced and I took off alone with 5 or 6 enemies straight overhead. Simply by F6ing through the enemies and manoeuvring defensively against the most dangerous opponent (or picking a compromise move if 2 or more were threatening), I made it to the top of the lot. Attacked, damaged 1 but then got frustrated by my own lack of success, sucked into a dogfight, lost energy and got shot down pointlessly. No kills, but still memorable.

OTOH, none of the things I described above (or below) would be possible without ext views. External views allow a purer game that's all about matching technique to the machine. I really don't understand why people don't get this or would seek to belittle the technique needed.

Now I enjoy 'full switch' campaigns offline -- I wouldn't play them any other way though I'm a bit perfectionist about them. They're more nerve-wracking but also messier. I feel bad when my little electronic wingmen get mashed while I fly pointless open curves checking my 6 every 2 seconds. Full switch has a special satisfaction but it's less fun.

dduff

(*Shhh! A trade secret. If approached head-on, fake a defensive spiral so that you're below your opponent as you pass. The idea is to time your spiral so that you're already climbing at that moment, keeping the turn nice and open and following up with a vertical climb & hammerhead; your opponent is sure to take the seemingly unopposed head-on shot, but this will drag him into a dive of increasing steepness as he tries vainly to track your approach. It's impossible for him to equalise energy after he's made this error.)

which i do find odd, as there are some exceptional open pit flyers about. exceptional to the point that they could hammer any challenger in that environment. less hubris, too busy having fun, dunno. but quite noticeable.

anyway, well said. there's a lot to be taken however you enjoy the software.