Climbrace? Well that may change in the future. Wrecking or damaging your engine will become a big risk like it was in the old days. Just keeping the engine at 103% with WEP won't work anymore, and I really hope servers will keep the open cockpit but combine it with the new complex engine management. Surely, all those fine people who don't check their instruments will drop like flies.

In the future, if someone is running from you, climbing or flying much faster than you and you know the capabilities of his ship compares to yours, take your time, keep you engine sound and cool but make sure he won't have a big energy advantage if he suddenly turns around. He's probably running his max, so take your time, he WILL slow down, either by disabling his WEP by hand or by having a hole in his engine.

But if your opponent has a much better climbrate because of his weight/hp ratio and say, more supercharger stages than you have, disengage unless you know he's a shitty BnZ'er. Mudmovers like the P39 already had a problem, they will have a serious problem.

Knowledge of your and his ship will be increasingly important.

Simple.

Let the mission creator decide.
If they want uber realism, lock into cockpit.
If they want Hollywood, unlock.

again, closed pit snobbishness is breathtaking sometimes.

perfect SA means that it then becomes being able to fly ACM perfectly, to outfly your opponent with what you are able to do, rather than creep up and knife someone in the back without them seeing you. two different kettles of fish.

the real air war was hardly something to find enjoyment in. imnsho.
for uber realism you'd better also strap a large incendiary device under your chair as well.

It seems that some people have to devaluate other people to polish their ego.
There is no such thing as "uber-realism", either you simulate as close as possible to reality or you play a game, it's that easy.

Babylon 5 Star Furies were based on IL2 no-cockpit view ...

http://www.isnnews.net/hyperspace/ea/eafury-a_lg1.jpg

Closed cockpit simply does not closely resemble "REAL" life simulation.
No matter how you guys would like to frame it.

The two vital immersion points are missing...
1. Sensation. - Sadly, we can never simulate the vast pressures on your body in
air combat, if you could feel the real effects of G, hardly any of us would turn like crazed raccoons. That goes for slip, and landing, turbulance and engine management... Its actually far easier to fly a real plane that it is to fly il2... You can feel a real plane, but you can't in il2...

2. Peripheral vision - Now this is something that can be addressed.
I love flying closed pit, especially with all the new graphic work that has been done in 4.09... But I also love WW view. That is all down to personal choice.
If Oleg could widen our views up/down & left/right everything would start feeling more real. We'd suddenly have a 'real' impression of how biiiiig the sky really is. No matter what view you prefer...

As for Views...

I have proposed an in between solution on the last friday's update (65% Transparent cockpit) and I'd like to have more feedback on it - it was 'improved' by a simple suggestion from Xnomad, cause many of you guys said my initial suggestion was naive would lessen Frame Rates. He suggested keep the cockpit on 100% but keep the enemy idents & tacking info moving through the cockpit.
It negates the argument about lessening FPS with the transparent cockpit having to render more 'sky'...

I'll upload the examples I made of both thoughts...

I have also added some direction and lead markers...
Notice how the direction and lead markers fade the further distance
away the target gets...

But to end...
What I feel is most important, as IL2 lifers and experienced flyers, is to grow a new generation of flyers and try and make it as 'easy'
to get hooked on the Maddox drug as possible... There will always be a purists way to fly as well as a casual way ...
Lets help new flyers get into the air to find theirs...

swings and roundabouts old chap. doesn't feel nice either way, does it.

i wasn't seeking to devalue the skill it takes to fly full switch, merely stating the difference between the two ends of the option-spectrum. neither has more objective "worth" than the other, only subjective worth to the person holding the stick and dancing through the sky, either with a cockpit or a clear view. neither way is "better", only personally preferred.

what certainly isn't the case is to say either way is the "wrong" way.

indeed matsher, one of the critical elements we lack is the sensation of g-force. although i'm sure i've seen fairly effective motion-seats, as in rock you side to side kind of thing, and i vaguely recall a sort of waistcoat that had sections that inflated to give physical feedback. sort of for fps, so it would give a hit location feeling. it may sound -and look- daft, but playing whilst wearing some kind of g-simulating-suit would probably appeal to a hell of a lot of people.

S!

The thing is that no matter how realistic modelling of AC we have we lack the G-forces. And oh boy do those tire you up! Been in planes and after a real "G-vitamine" dogfight you are worn out, sweat like a pig and breathe heavily. Not to mention the tension of the "fight". In every book from pilots I have read how they almost yelled at their opponent after a long fight, being tired and turns getting less tight etc. In most cases the pilots just flew away to fight another day.

So whining about realism in a GAME is hardly fruititious or useful. We can have well simulated things on certain things, but lack a lot to call it realistic. We have a representation of something that happened ages ago and should enjoy it that way. IMO there is no right way to play, everyone plays as they wish and have fun with :)

I've no special preference for closed v open cockpit, but let's face it you don't hear open cockpit players declaring themselves superior to 'full switch' players.

Full switch more closely resembles reality (though some sort of stamina modelling would be a nice touch). It also places a premium on patience an guile.

External views allow beautiful, coherent and technically perfect energy fights. Executing a technically perfect scissors is next to impossible without ext views. You can't execute an energy efficient course reversal after a pursuit without ext views because you'll need to keep your speed up as you enter the turn to check your six. As well as adding new skills, closed cockpits introduce randomness due to restricted situational awareness.

Even though I've spent more serious game time with the cockpit locked, I have to say when I think of my favourite Il-2 memories they're nearly all associated with online fighting on open-cockpit servers: e.g. besting a pair of 190s, with one 'on the perch' and another attacking, in an La-5 using a fake defensive spiral (*). Various 1-on-1 grudge matches also spring to mind as well.

On one sortie when I didn't even make a kill, the teams were very unbalanced and I took off alone with 5 or 6 enemies straight overhead. Simply by F6ing through the enemies and manoeuvring defensively against the most dangerous opponent (or picking a compromise move if 2 or more were threatening), I made it to the top of the lot. Attacked, damaged 1 but then got frustrated by my own lack of success, sucked into a dogfight, lost energy and got shot down pointlessly. No kills, but still memorable.

OTOH, none of the things I described above (or below) would be possible without ext views. External views allow a purer game that's all about matching technique to the machine. I really don't understand why people don't get this or would seek to belittle the technique needed.

Now I enjoy 'full switch' campaigns offline -- I wouldn't play them any other way though I'm a bit perfectionist about them. They're more nerve-wracking but also messier. I feel bad when my little electronic wingmen get mashed while I fly pointless open curves checking my 6 every 2 seconds. Full switch has a special satisfaction but it's less fun.

dduff

(*Shhh! A trade secret. If approached head-on, fake a defensive spiral so that you're below your opponent as you pass. The idea is to time your spiral so that you're already climbing at that moment, keeping the turn nice and open and following up with a vertical climb & hammerhead; your opponent is sure to take the seemingly unopposed head-on shot, but this will drag him into a dive of increasing steepness as he tries vainly to track your approach. It's impossible for him to equalise energy after he's made this error.)

which i do find odd, as there are some exceptional open pit flyers about. exceptional to the point that they could hammer any challenger in that environment. less hubris, too busy having fun, dunno. but quite noticeable.

anyway, well said. there's a lot to be taken however you enjoy the software.