I'm curious where this concern of people going berserk and wacking bunch of civilians in game comes from?

If that's possible it takes a certain type of character or certain amount of boredom / frustration to do that. And meeting civilians on flight sim is quite rare compared to your average 'go crazy' titles like GTA.

Does the mere chance of being able to kill civilians actually enable possibility for bad ratings / bad publicity ? I very much doubt that and would like to see collateral damage as it realistically should be and I think we're pretty safe with that. I also don't have any issues with blood / bullet hits if such is decided to be modelled realistically.. that could be disabled with a setting or whatever to let the kiddies play too.

Flight sims are a different genre and shouldn't be viewed as down and dirty war games.

Blood and gore are available in enough games to satisfy blood lusts, so why would we want IL2 SOW turned into such?

I'd like to see more mud, crud, blown up stuff, bomb craters in action areas. I'd like to see airbases that were slosh mud, and experience some uncontrollable ground conditions.

I'd love weather changes on the fly for sure, but hearing people scream and seeing them blown to pieces... parts and blood everywhere doesn't really add to experience of this game genre.

We need something like the "Buttkicker" for those people that really want to experience the horror of war. Maybe instead of attaching a harmless vibrator to the seat of the player we should have a shocking device that mounts on your cranial extremity. Then when you get shot you get a healthy jolt of harmless, but adequate electricity. Continued shocks of course might result in messing your pants, but you would learn to commiserate with war victims over time.

When AI people are being blown to bits, that is the stuff for pre-teenagers We need something with real grit, if we want to get war like immersion.

Odd - just because there is an extra couple few hundred metres difference in distance killing dozens of people using half a dozen machine-guns is "comparatively bloodless". This before adding rockets, bombs and napalm.

Hi Oleg,

I wonder if the AI of ground vehicles will be enough intelligent to react to approaching planes, for instance by dispersing or looking for cover in woods.

Both in Il2 and ROF the ground convoys today look completely dumb.

Cheers,
Insuber

As a pilot of any aircraft you rarely see any gore anyhow, it's one of the things mentioned in a lot of interviews with veterans thankful for that(Machine vs Machine).
Also if you look at phyco logical effects after fights/wars for fighters pilots they are a lot less than compared to ground troops which have to see a lot of stuff up close in a DIFFERENT way.

So any gore or such would be both rather unrealistic and unnecessary.

In IL-2 the tanks break their formation... better than nothing :-P

+1 :|

They turn in this video, play it in 720 and you can see. At 360 it's not so evident.

As far as people dying I'd imagine something similar to what we have now in IL2 for the pilots would be the best solution, that is when a person dies they just go limp - no blood or flying body parts or anything over the top just a basic "hey, you died".

The bodies, of course, would disappear after a short time. Or another work-around is to use the "run away" trick where the AI would always see you coming and they'd scatter, I think this would especially be cool for animals, I imagine buzzing a herd of sheep like a helicopter herder
http://www.herding-dog-training-bord...01_300x162.jpg

The parts about the mud, smoke, grime, and that sort of atmospheric sort of additions I think are great. I could do without the gore.. but the other bits and pieces would be great additions to the graphics.