However most amusing is that Gaston has not even given the game a try, nor is he interested in playing now or in the future either Il-2 or any other flight sim.

Hes just a troll.

-Thank you for your information.

Assuming the character of the FW-190A, as it stands right now, is indeed as "most" Il-2 players (except K_Freddie) say it is:

-Poor low speed horizontal maneuvers. (Less sustained turn rate than Me-109G)

-Good high speed maneuverability, especially so on the vertical.

Conclusion:

-A specialized "Boom and Zoom" fighter (a "floret" in Rall's words)


Then confront that to the reality:

-Very good low-speed horizontal maneuverability. (Lesser initial turn start likely, but better than Me-109G when sustained)

-Poor high speed maneuverability on the horizontal, at least after the A-4 model, and poor to extremely poor on the vertical for all Antons... (220 m extra drop after nose-level from 1500 m 45° pull-out: Soviet summary)

Conclusion:

-A specialized low-speed horizontal turn fighter that mostly avoids vertical maneuvers. (Indeed a "Sabre" in Rall's actual words)


The current simulated FW-190A does not just have FAILINGS: It is the near-exact OPPOSITE of the real thing, if "most" players here are to be believed...


So KG26_Alpha is saying that despite people with better sources than me presenting a similar case years ago, the better initial FW-190A moved AWAY from where it should have gone?

I have a hard time believing that play balance is a major commercial argument over accuracy for such an elaborate game.... Isn't accuracy a major selling point of Il-2? (Given what I know of miniature modeling, and how my accuracy concerns are treated, I must be naive...)

And people are wondering why I am not interested in playing this game?

FYI, I am also a miniature modeler for some years now, spending a LOT of effort on correcting various awful 1/48th scale WWII kits by Hasegawa and Tamiya, even some of the best not being in fact much better than the worst, and I have also spent a LOT of time (14 years total) on my boardgame to ensure it captures as closely as possible the true character of each type:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...708#5031083708


And so you will have to excuse me if my time is not so unlimited as to play a game that makes the flight models go worse as time goes on, and is vague enough to get things precisely upside-down as to their basic character...

Read what the pilots have to say, and don't worry so much about how I spend my time...

And JTD still has to explain why a LEFT turn is a vertical loop...

Gaston

After following countless pages...It looks like we have and extra dimension to the art of aerial warfare.

To summarise..
1) Gaston, not having flown IL2 (or any real a/c ?) has put countless hours into documentary research
2) Gunz, Kettehunde, and others who has put the same hours into projects and the engineering side of flight, and maybe a bit more RL flight
3) The rest of us, who've built up many hours IL2 flight time (and RL time).

It sounds like the same argument that has existed during any conflict. Essentially all are correct to certain degrees. The Analyst, The Engineer, The Pilot.. all essential to obtaining the perfect aircraft in development.

The difference is that we all do not have a common foe (and there never will be), so we're divided in our approaches.
:grin:

Gaston - You should get IL2-1946 and give it a go :)

I have no idea why this thread keeps going

Sadly, people are like that. You see a nasty accident up ahead, so you slow down to take a look...

It's fun to go around in circles :!:

As in.....DOGFIGHTS!!! :-D

Snoopy vs the Red Baron </daft song>

Yeah.. it actually happens, although one does not like to believe so, but there it is. ;)