I think Blackdog's (and several others) point is that it doesn't really matter how each individual prefers to play the game, so long as they buy it and enjoy it enough to tell their friends about it thereby subsidizing the development of the game that we want to play.

I'm all for as much realism as possible, but I just don't see how making the difficulty scalable hurts anyone, anyone at all.

Or am I responding to the wrong argument? These things can get quite hard to follow.

That's exactly my point BadAim. I don't care if my friends never fly full real. As long they enjoy the game enough to buy it and fly it at their preferred difficulty settings, they help fund the next expansions for us ;)

It is not as simple as "let everyone select the difficulty they want".


1.
There is a portion of the market that wants to be able to boast about "beating a game on the hardest settings" without actually putting too much effort in. It's considerations like that that which has led to the "dumbing down" of quite a few games.

Examples include Gothic III where a very well thought out combat system in Gothic II and Gothic I was replaced with US style "stand next to the monster and mouse click as fast as possible", the more recent versions of the Warhammer tabletop game franchise and of course the classic dumbing down of D&D in the recent 4th edition.


2.
The issue arises of how many people will use a feature versus the work involved implementing it.

If for example the work involved in realistically simulating the effect tire pressures have on takeoff means losing an entire extra aircraft and only a handful of users will ever check those tire pressures before takeoff, the feature is best left off, at least initially.




PERSONALLY I am interested in as much "realism" and "immersion" as possible and for example in Il2_1946 fly with cockpit on and LHS speed-bar and RHS HUD turned off :D However there is a limit to what can be implemented in a mass marketed game.

Good points Galway. In fact, i suspect there's quite a portion inside the sim community who also subscribe to the mentality you laid out in your first point.

A few months back some of us started asking if it's possible to implement certain features, some of which have been confirmed by the check six interview as being entirely possible under the new engine.

What happened was that an interfacing issue (clickable cockpits being unrealistic and clunky) was used as a red herring to throw the discussion off from the important issue...that some people who are content to fly full switch in IL2 and wish to keep flying that way, would lose the full switch "boasting rights" if SoW came with more options to tick that would make it more difficult.

In fact, the debate only died down completely when the check six interview was aired and such features were described as being already in the engine.

hehehe... boasting rights for full switch. That's a funny thought!

Well, it's called boasting only by those who don't take on the challenge :-D

I'm sorry mate but "we" who? You really switch off your propeller plane by cutting the mixture? That is one helluva dangerous game man.. If I did something like this with my instructor would have kicked my ar$e, you switch off the engine by bringing the engine to idle and cutting both magnetos off, that is like the first thing they teach you..
I think you are a bit confused about the use of batteries and generators on aeroplanes. Just like in a car, a battery is used for startup and operating electric/electronic parts, but the alternator (or generator) does the rest (from the P-51 Mustang manual):

The electrical system runs off the battery until the engine reaches 1500-1700 RPM, when the generator is cut in by the voltage regulator. Power for the electrical system then is supplied by the generator.


besides, if memory serves, back in WW2 they already made use of dry batteries, so there was no "icing" problems. If the generator fails the engine simply quits, the battery doesn't replace its work.

I don't mean to tell anyone off, but guys, please check your sources and info before posting stuff, if there's one thing that is worse than lack of information, that is the wrong one! Think of the sake of the simulator, not just the fact that you want to say yours about a subject.

SJ

Watch this excellent training video for the P47 from 21:55: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y3v1-WMJS8
And that's not the first time I've seen or read that kind of shutdown procedure.

Maybe your plane has a different engine? What is meant for a Lycoming or Continental might not apply to a Wright or Pratt.


Where did I state it otherwise? The subject was a dead generator during flight.

EVERY kind of battery, dry or fluid, loses capacity when the temperature drops.
And fluid batteries only freeze when they're flat. If charged, the freezing point is well below 0 C.

Anyway, would be strange don't you think? Starting the engine from battery, thus operating all systems, until the generator kicks in. Why do you assume that everything will stop if the generator dies? I wouldn't fly a plane that's so poorly engineered!

And the engine doesn't quit, because magneto's use their own power.
From the wiki: "Because it requires no battery or other source of energy, the magneto is a compact and reliable self-contained ignition system, which is why it remains in use in many general aviation applications."

I have experience on small engines like the Lycoming and Continental and on P&W Wasp and RR Merlin, and the procedure is the same on all. The one you see in the training video is a military procedure, but the engine is considered switched off when the magnetos are off. If you move the propeller of a plane that has just stopped and the magnetos are on, it's very likely the engine might have some pistons firing. The choice of cleaning the explosion chambers depends also on the weather and temperature conditions.
Magneto switching is a very important part of the preflight checks, before take off you bring RPM well below idle and try running the engine on one magneto at a time, all you should get is a circa 100 RPM drop. If your engine quits with just one magneto off it means that the one that is on is faulty.
A dual magneto system is not meant to burn mixture better, it's a redundant system to have extra security.

yes, dead generator means dead systems. Game over.

the batteries used on aeroplanes were meant to operate at low temperatures.

..then you don't want to fly in most WW2 planes or light sport aviation planes. If your generator fails your battery won't be able to run your systems for long. Most of the engine ancillaries like magnetoes and primary pumps (at least in WW2 planes and light aviation) are actually connected and powered by the engine by means of reduced gearings, but you will still need the generator to run other components (flaps, aux pumps, ligths, gunsight, some instruments, radio, some cooling systems etc..)

does wiki mention the fact that some systems that keep the engine running and performing adequately need electricity? You mentioned the FW190 kommandgerat which I think it's the perfect example.

S!

Even a modern jet works like that these days. If generator(s) fails then the battery keeps most important systems(back-up ones) working for about 15-30min, so not bad design. But you lose anything else requiring higher voltage so basically a jet is rendered to fly on mechanical system if there is one. The plane I work on has this.