This was a real downer for me in X-Plane for when I first tried it. Birds everywhere flying irradically and hitting ground and environment randomly without much bird-like behaviour. Even a bigger setback were the 'airportdeers' running around around the planet finding the green grass of the airfields. One would assume that if a deer hears roaring engines it'd run 10 miles non-stop instead of enjoying the sight of airplanes operaring while having a snack in the middle of all that.

I assume you can set them off etc so it's not that big of a deal overall, but the overall takeaway is that if you don't plan to do it properly in par with all the aspects of the sim don't do it at all. But knowing the quality of work so far with Maddox releases I have no fear of that.

+1 Or is it 2,3...er4? arg, me too..... Edit: and I'm even one post to far down.

Ooh, shiney!

http://www.edupics.com/spitfire-figh...ane-t12812.jpg

...erm, not. Have to agree with everyone here, although the engine can clearly cope with shiney planes, it's just not necessary.

I also like the idea of including birds around airfields and "other" low altitude scenarios (like strafing "targets" on a beach covered in sea gulls_lol). I dont remember what Oleg said about birds and such...I think he said it was possible but not planned for initial release (?). I "think" that different birds (and other flying creatures like bats) fly differently, in different situations...so the animators would have to do their homework (lol)...

Imagine this scenario...your sitting in your aeroplane waiting for flight instructions and bombs start falling around you. As you watch the explosions around you, you an see flocks of startled birds taking flight from the trees around the edges of the grass field.

Seeing that there are forest wardens who keep birds and other animals away from todays airports, I wonder if that would not have been the case during the 30s and 40s as well.

Bird strikes were a threat that the aircrews were aware of and why increase the risk by allowing birds to hang around the airfields?

Yea, of course they did...but no system is perfect. Bird strikes was still an issue, maybe "more" common on improvised airfields...but their are other situations where birds become an obstacle. Low altitude chases, is one example...

You're blowing that way out of porportion and really shouldn't go to insults to make your point, if you're mad, keep it to yourself mate, this is a forum for discussion of the game, not your thoughts on me. Why your post even still exists boggles me. But you have me so wrong. have to say I appreciate everything Oleg and his team are doing and have yet to do. I love IL2 and can't play anything else without feeling like I'm downgrading. But I should be able to freely discuss what I think of these updates, shouldn't I?

If you read the whole post you would read that I wrote I know matte-like paints were used for planes in WW2, it only makes sense. However, not all planes are matte painted, and beside that minor detail, matte paint STILL does not give off a flat-plastic look. airplane metal, painted or not, has a texture, unless polished. You are focusing on the paint which is not the whole focus of my post.

Anyway, if Oleg came to me and said "Implement this.." I would say: "I've been dreaming to!"

Aaannnnd, its okay. :)

It was a bit of knee jerk post and for that I apologise but it did rather sound like you were on the attack yourself. I'll try to stick to the facts this time.

The paints used at this time of the war were called non-specular and were specifically designed so as not to reflect light. You'll be hard pressed to find an example of a BoB era aircraft that doesn't use non reflective finishes I think.
The paint contains angular particles which scatter light and this produces quite a rough surface which attracts dirt. I've used the same stuff on my jeep and can testify that it has no sheen at all but is a complete pain to keep clean. The only way you'll get a sheen from it is when something is rubbed against the flat finish or oil/grease is applied and wiped away.

So...on well used aircraft you may see a slight sheen around panels which are handled regularly and in engine areas where oil spills etc. are rubbed away but most of the airframe should be very flat and non reflective.

I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of warbirds that are operating at airshows today use non-original finishes. These aircraft are investments and the correct non-specular paint attracts dirt and is more porous than the satin and gloss varieties so it doesn't protect the metal as effectively.

I'm not a great fan of the BoB Memorial Flight's Lancaster finish as it looks quite different to the dull/stained look of the wartime birds but at least the aircraft is well protected.

Sorry for my rant but I do feel strongly that Oleg has got the look of the non-specular early war finishes pretty much bang on.

A quote from a site discussing wartime finishes:
"Non-specular or flat finishes were desirable to the glossy, and matte finishes of the pre-war era aircraft."

A quote from a wartime specification:
"All paint used should be non-specular in nature. All parts and fittings should be dulled down, so as not to reflect light"

I recall a number of strips in western NSW where we had to do a low flypast to get the sheep off the runway before attempting to land :D Admittedly they got off the strip pretty quick when a 172 came roaring past.

I was landing on a grass strip one time in a 172 when I noticed something on the runway.

"Is that an animal of some sort?" I asked my girlfriend in the co-pilot seat
"I don't know" she replies.

As we get closer, I see none other than a large tractor mowing the runway.

Just thought I'd share and contribute to the potential realism of this sim :-P

You have to mow it sometimes haha!