My problems with the game so far.

[Duguall]

I thought about posting in suggestion to devs, but this is more of me ranting about problems than suggesting what should be.

First thing I noticed, in 1946 you had the ability to change your FOV to the point you can see the whole dashboard albeit tiny, while it hindered my accuracy a bit I still liked the ability of glancing at the gauges I need without having to change my camera with the quirky camera controls of the ps3 controller.

Second, short take offs. Being able to amp it up to WEP faster than a ferrari and taking off with no penalties I expect from Arcade mode, not Simulator.

The ability to use any of the flaps whether your gear is down or not.

After respawning after a crash, your flaps stick to landing/combat instead of reseting to Raised if you have changed them before crashing.

Also after respawning, your engine goes to whatever the game sets the default at to whatever your controller or throttle is set at, causing a rocking as your plane throttles extremely fast.

Things that a friend of mine said but might be too late to fix for some of them:

Ailerons, rudder, and gear don't seem to get damaged so even if your wing is on the bring of falling off from one more bullet, you can still go up and down as effectively as if it was brand new.

only thing that blow up are the planes you crash and the ground targets, no other buildings. Personally though I'd love to see a forest catch on fire.

No Air friction,the most obvious example being going 900 in a spitfire dive an your wings love it.

Personal, no black or redout, come on I'd like to see someone do said 900 km/h stunt and be able to see when to pull up..

The lack of option for limited/unlimited fuel in Campaign, as well as realistic ammunition.

Though this might be beyond the game now, landing for refuel and rearm, or to end the mission, or to get a new plane. I realise this is sort of what Multiplayer might be like also.

Not sure if this is possible or it is possible but, the lack of armament options for Campaign and Missions.

Another thing that might be past the current game state, more dynamic collisons. I mean, its great if two planes collide via wings both wings fall off, but if my wing hits their tail area, they explode and I lose a wing instead of their tail coming off, since when did tails hold explosives!

If I think of anymore issues I'll be sure to post them.

And don't forget, criticism gives you something to build off of, do what you can and you'll be doing your best!

[reverend66]

I've been playing the PC IL-2 since the first version & all of these things you have mentioned are great. However they are trying to sell the game to a wider audience. Also there just aren't enough buttons on a console controller to cover everything in the sim. Plus the graphics in this game are incredible and probably take most of the CPU's power to process. I think they did a good job with the hardware (which is 4 years+ old by console standards) that they had available.
This game is going to be a lot of fun (albeit arcadey). It is also cheap, and a good distraction untill the new PC version comes out. I'm probably going to have to put a good $500 into my PC to be able to play the next version. That is if it ever materializes (it's been set back more times than an Oklahoman in first grade)

[Duguall]

I've posted this in the forum about collisions, but I don't remind copying it for the sake of seeing it instead of finding it.

on an earlier comment about the PS3 system specs, you also have to realise that a console is years of research and investment to get every peice of hardware to work 150% compatible with each other part to bring out the best performance. PCs can't do this for their most important task, being able to do many things. Video game consoles are meant to be pure gaming machines, while the PC is 10 or so uPnP pieces plugged into the motherboard and it'll do what you want to a certain extent. Not to mention the PS3 has the ability to give developers 6 SPE giving it some serious processing power that not even computers have yet. The same goes for the 360 with 3 processor cores doing 2 threads at once each. So while the consoles might not have big numbers like computers do, you have to realise millions of dollars of research making small numbers add up to huge results.

And some personal notes that I might of said in there, I didn't reread it. When something involves multiplatform games, its best if the games are as close as possible so there aren't any issues over sales and what system is best, so almost always the better system is pulled back by the lesser system. Might be a personal opinion, but the Playstation 3 processor-wise is greater than the 360 with its 7 SPE over the, in essence, 3 dual core processors. Being able to process all that information fast and efficiently, and if the developers had the skill to make a game using every inch of the system, it is possible to do some of the things graphics and performance-wise.

As in example, MAG chose the PS3 over 360 for a huge multiplayer game, even thought the 360 has a larger multiplayer fanbase.

Also, since many games are 360 exclusive, not many companies would have that ps3 experience to use the 6 SPE provided to developers.

Anyways, thats my response to you saying the consoles are out of date and underpowered ,which is an understatement considering their statistics, a PS3 is able to process 25.6 gigaFLOPS per second, which is basically a supercomputer!

[Plippy]

To be fair, most of the criticisms Duguall mentions wouldn't require extra controls (perhaps the flaps) or processing power. More dynamic collisions may be a stretch, but I agree that some of the other features could be rolled out in sim mode without really altering the gameplay for the masses.

I think it's a matter of having to prioritize features to reach market on time and perhaps pressure from the publisher to try to maintain as wide a user base as possible. However, the sim mode is there for a reason and I hope that we will see updates to this in the form of patches or updates.

My concern is that I have heard that Microsoft (unsure about Sony) are pretty strict about the number of updates which can be made available for a game, so it may be take some time before features and fixes are implemented, if at all.

Duguall- the PS3 may be more powerful than the 360 in some respects, but it seems evident that few developers really have the chops to make it outperform the 360. Whether this is because of the memory allocation, multithreading, or developer inexperience, I don't know. I think that this is a real shame (as an owner of both consoles) when I see a game that underperforms on the PS3 for no good reason. It's also a shame that the worst-performing console will usually dictate the upper limits of a multi-platform game to ensure feature parity.

[Duguall]

Well my experience with Sony exlusive games is that the developers could post updates as fast as SCEA Q&A would process them and make sure they are what they are, but since it is multiplatform they will try to sync the updates, though some games like Fallout 3 they didn't sync updates, but that game also had more add-ons for 360.

And Aye to the rest of your post. The odds are they won't get to these issues within the release date or for a couple weeks after. And after the game is released any major gameplay changes like physics would upset a game a bit if not change it completely, so as much as I would like more realistic physics, I'm not sure if it is currently possible.