Dont worry, it'll be fine
 

I just dont understand what is so wrong with the detail in IL2...
it has mixture control, prop control, radiator/cowl flap control, super charger control, gunsight ranging control (on the P-51 sight), manual gear retraction...i'm probably leaving out a lot, but those come to mind the fastest.

If the detail that you are looking for is only found in ground ops and starting procedures, I'm not entirely sure that you know what youre asking for. If you want more complex engine start up, you are essentially saying that you DONT want you airplane to start up on the first try! I think complex radio management (ie, changing frequencies as in MS flt sim) is "immersive" perhaps, but you should only have to do it once per flight at start up to put in your flight com setup. Navigation equipment that helped you return to base or fly accross the map might actually be nice, but why would i want the ability to set in the wrong frequency...In all seriousness, go play falcon 4 or falcon 4 allied force and do the ramp start a couple of times

I think the emphasis on this next gen WW2 flight sim should upgrade first, the graphics. second the flight model/physics. third, damage model. fourth, AI. then multiplayer/campaign. if they get all of that nailed down and have a little spare time, hook us up with a little more detail. I just dont think that the detail should come at the cost of any of those items i just mentioned while meeting whatever deadline they have set. I think oleg is aiming for as much detail as he can cram in without undue delay to the sim.

@usagold2004
i can tell you what is wrong with tj´he detail in il2: i.e. it is much to hard to ruin your engine!!!!!
It misses completely the damage to an engine if it is run to cold.
If the mixture is too lean the engine must quit much sooner and not only overheat.
If you dive dowm from 6000m without load on the engine and open radiator flaps the engine would be much to cold to give power again after the dive without ruining it and so on and on.

A clickable interface is not an enforced cockpit interface. You can use the mouse or the keys or the HOTAS. I see some confusion from those that think it will remove detail from the sim and they will be forced into clicking the instrument. All that is being added is a hitbox around the existing instruments. How much time does it take to add a hitbox to a button? Taking the already moving items and adding a hitbox is not going to sink the boat in terms of time and work. We want hit boxes around the switches. Could we have that instead of an obscure varient of a jet from the Korean war. We are not, and nobody is, asking for rudder pedals controlled with a click or a mouse flight stick *already in the sim. It is the type of thing when someone asks you - what is the key for the bombsight? Just click on it. It is to operate the switches not used as often without having to remember something like keypressing left cntrl right shift numpad 2 then right alt left shift 2 because you don't have room for it on your HOTAS. The result is a combined interface. Sometimes it is better to click or faster to hit a key. It isn't an argument for one way of interfacing. We are just asking for a hitbox and that detail will not come at the cost of any of those items you already enjoy.

But you won't get it.

Haha.

All of this debate, just goes to show that we know next to nothing about what will be included in SOW. I know that Oleg is very busy, but for a game that is planned to be released this year, sure would be nice to hear some detail's from him.

About ten minutes per button, and that's before you connect it to the code base, which would take a lot longer. You've got what 50? 100? "button"s you want clickable? Add in the code at the back end and you may be looking at a "man year" (yeah, mythical). It would be expensive.

To say that, you must have missed all pre-release and post-release communications around IL2 fm by Oleg. You also must have missed all endless ORR wars around fm particular points, at the time Oleg still answered on forums... before getting so bothered he stopped answering..

For Oleg, fm fidelity is a major communication argument... and even more a reason to be proud (everybody as an ego).
For sure it is for him a sale argument, and one of the main.... is he right or wrong to think that?... that's another point.

As far as I know, Oleg has never said "why" the SU-26 in any comments anywhere. I remember the speculation threads on "why" such a aircraft would be included. The vast majority of those posting were not pilot's, and really not qualified to judge fm, or to speculate that the SU-26 would provide a proof. Oleg is a pilot, he is already comfortable with his product. And he must get a good chuckle from time to time, reading the whine post on fm. I am also a pilot, and the fm in game represents the four force's acting on flight very well. He has said (quoted) that he would like to attract the MSFS users and developers, so I believe the SU-26 is included just for that goal. I'm sure someday Oleg will reveal his reason, we will just have to wait for that.:)

As long you say it's your oppinion and not a fact... no problem with me.
Based on all Oleg's interventions on forums, I stand on my oppinion.