yeah the thing is when the plane shakes so do you therefore the effect of the jolting is minimized, in the video the camera is on an imaginary rail and the plane bounces around it, also the video was much smoother and seemed very good, also it didnt sound like their was a ton of bricks in the cockpit getting shakin by a paint mixer, but alas i have faith oleg will fix this issue being it was WIP when released

Looking at the amazing detail of the spitfire cockpit and then comparing it to the more recent cockpit of the heinkel 111 it does appear that the heinkel seems massively inferior in detail, ok I know this is only a WIP but the difference is staggering.

Since SoW will feature winds, buffeting, wind gusts etc... I advise you to re-think your statement.

Wind changes around around Dover cliffs are something to think about alone. How would you simulate strong wind at your 6 OC and sudden loss of lift? Surely the cockpit wouldn't shake and it would feel as if you were flying on a cloud or should I say pillow. Anyone who has ever experienced landing in bad weather knows what I mean.

And mind you - this is heavy maneuvering featured in the video.

Actually, if you mean the recent screenshot of the He111 interior where the Spitfire is crossing head on from 10 o'clock, there's not much of the He111 cockpit visible (at least not instruments).

If my memory serves me right, all that is visible is a few of the circuit breaker switches and part of the throttle quadrant. I wouldn't worry to be honest, since we have another recent screenshot to judge progress. The recent Blenheim cockpit shot was right up there with the Spitfire one in terms of cockpit image quality.

The video do bring home that aiming while throwing you kite around isn't going to be easy.

Not BS, this is the effect of G's on the airframe, but your eyes will compensate for the shake watching the monitor, just as the pilots eyes did in his shaking airframe. lol

Unrealistic? Really? It was actually the part of the video that I was most impressed with. It seems like a better solution than having a 'fixed' POV that's (to use your analogy) like having a camera on a tripod. Obviously the game needs a 'camera' otherwise you wouldn't be able to see and having one stuck to the pilots face seems like the best place for it. As for the real BoB pilots not having cameras stuck to thier faces; They didn't need to because they had eyes. Is flyby view therefore not needed as it's unrealistic? And god knows how all those BoB pilots had room in the cockpit to use thier mouse.. Is there a mouse mat in that spit cockpit?

This forum never ceases to amaze me with what people will complain about.

If it's not trees, it's tracers or fire... or video cameras if that is the fashionable thing to discuss :)

Welcome to IL-2 forums. It's been like this since 2001!

The 'trees' thread is a personal favourite of mine..

Thanks, been lurking for a while and am actually a Birds of Prey (PS3.. don't laugh!) player who's waiting for SOW as an excuse to buy a good PC (come on Oleg!).

I come here specifically for the SoW bashing.. it's funny.

Meh, I think the environmental aspects are really important to the game; if you live and have flown over blighty, seeing envronmental pieces that looks wrong can ruin the immersion a bit. But let's not split hairs; one persons meat is anothers poison.

Personally, I don't care about what the camera is like. Either way when flying a sim on the PC you are at a disadvantage to real life where you have periphieral vision. It really makes a big difference.