Suggesting to devs

[Ancient Seraph]

Originally Posted by fuzzychickens

Exactly how is this a problem? This never was a problem and it isn't a problem now. The difference is it doesn't enter a spin and the plane just noses down.

Play 1946 and see how it handles when stalls/spins are turned off. It is not an issue. You go 90 degrees straight up and it does the same thing, the nose comes down to build speed up but you don't lose control in a spin.

It's a perfect solution from the original game that should have carried over to arcade mode for BOP.

Ok, so just turn of spins. Got it .

[Das_Ubersoldat13]

I would like them to fix the Fw 190 Series.. it could TURN WITH the Spitfire MkV and was leaps and bounds better than the BF 109 in all areas of performance. So why on this game does it handle like a heavy beast? Did they accidently over load this one with fuel too? The Luftwaffe LOVED their Fw 190. The poilots loved the new fast extremely AGILE plane with incredible visibility. there was none of this plumiting to the earth like a stone if you tipped the nose down. Please.. You may not like Germany for what ever reason.. but respect their fighters. and PLEASE PLEASE FIX THE Fw!! I beg you.

[SgtPappy]

Actually in every test conducted by both the RAF and Luftwaffe that I've ever read, the 190 turned worse than any Spitfire. In fact, in RAF tests, for some reason, it turned a little better than a 109G.

But that's besides the point. For the record I DO think the 190 should turn better but it CANNOT turn better than a Mk.V given equal pilots with equal energy states.

If you're referring to the article where Johnnie Johnson was out turned by a Fw 190 in his Spitfire Mk.V, you are actually quite mistaken.

Now before you rant and go crazy, let me say it was TRUE that Johnson was out turned by that 190 in his Spitfire V. And I'm not making excuses here when I say that Johnson could have easily been tired or something, a fact we CANNOT simulate in any game with any degree of real accuracy.

In another excerpt from the same article, he states that the Spitfire IX out turned the 190 easily. But how does this make sense at all? A 1941 Spitfire Vb's wing loading is less than 27 lb./sq. ft when fully loaded with fuel and ammo. The Fw 190's is somewhere past 40 lb./sq. ft. The Spitfire IX's is somewhere around 30 lb./sq.ft. Wing loading is not the only factor in turning ability, but with WWII planes, it's generally a good indicator of turning ability. But with the Spitfire IX and Spitfire V having virtually the same airframe with the IX having much better performance, they should turn similarly. In fact, RAF tests say they turn the same.

You must remember all the factors that determine how a plane turns in real life. In the article, there is little to no indication of energy states, pilot condition (i.e. wounds, tiredness, etc.), pilot ability to sustain G's or aircraft condition. No two aircraft ever perform the same whether they both are Spitfire Vb's or Fw 190A-5's.

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by P-51

Mapable controls! Now im a happy bunny oh yeah Please sort the P-51 Cockpit out please.... Sorry for repeating that

No kidding, every PC sim has assignable controls, why doesn't the ps3 version.

I hate to be long-winded but I can type good and after finishing SP on sim and then playing online, I got some details.

1) Regular layout forces you to choose between looking around or using the rudder. Aviator is better, but it sets the rudder to digital (-1,0,1). Whether there's control mapping or not, please make an option for using L2 and R2 for the rudder, and making it analog, not left/right/neutral like it is now. Also missing from aviator is the "target camera." While it mainly just gives people bad habits of wasting ammo, it is useful for target ID so if it exists, it should be on both layouts.

2) The wheel brakes don't work when using aviator layout. Unless there's some secret combination of buttons. They work automatically in regular layout. I know everyone's already said it about their flight sticks but it happens in aviator too.

3) the system for crediting kills online needs some work. People bail when their engine or wings are failing, and nobody gets credit. Or they just suicide when you're on their 6. There should be a penalty for losing a plane.

4) limited ammo online is kind of pointless for the above reason, whenever someone's gun stops they just jump out and respawn. How about adding a disengage area, with a long respawn interval, for reloading. Limited ammo has to work for the online to be even close to realistic. Otherwise, it's just a mad thunderstorm of bullets and cannon rounds shot from far away. Most people don't bother to maneuver to where they can actually see what part of the plane they're shooting at, at least not before their enemy is already limping and easy to catch.

5) I think there's some kind of secret agenda in SP to wean people off the tacmap, cause in Battle of the Bulge it doesn't hold anymore, you can't maneuver while looking at it, and it always kicks out to HUD view, which is no fun cause I like to use cockpit view.

6) for improving online:

- a system for clan matches
- add cockpits, accurate or not, for the German planes and then an option for "cockpit only" matches, no HUD's.
- run a host bandwidth check to set the player max. Most people are short of upload bandwidth and can't host more than 6 to 12 without lag, but they set to 16 anyway and it lags.
- make the matches browseable, and continuous instead of ending so you have to start them all over again, (and wait for someone to show up, all over again)
- make custom matches actually work, or if they already do, instructions.
- since the tacmap gets harder to use in SP, why not make the option of no tacmap in online simulation. Finding and ID'ing targets is fun! We don't all have short attention spans.
- leaderboards are gonna be a bitch to navigate if and when there are thousands of people on them. Defaulting to player's position would be good.

7) I've gone through as many SP missions as I can on sim and limited ammo, but a lot of them have objectives that nobody in their right mind would even attempt with limited ammo. Those ones should have more realistic objectives to match the realistic ammo. A good example is Free Hunt. In about 10 minutes you must down 12 heavily armored ju-52's from all over the map, using a fighter that can't fire twice in the same direction and whose rounds are about as effective against armor as a volley of marshmallows. And hope that your wingmen don't fail cause you'll never catch up with their targets. Stalin must have hated those poor dudes and sent them on a suicide mission, maybe cause they let the Party brat get killed in the Babysitter mission. Anyhow there should be a platinum trophy for Free Hunt/simulation/limited f/a.

some of the English names for the trophies are a little off. "Threat from the Air" would sound much better as "Death from Above." Разговорнее. "Real Feelings" sounds like a token from a psychiatrist. "The Real McCoy" or "The Real Thing" would be better. Лучше сленг.

IL-2 is the best flight game on console, there's just glitches from changing platforms.

PSN: AR_Kozz

[beaker126]

Originally Posted by Tudorp15

What I would love to see added to BOP, and future sequils is a "Free Flight" training map for on line. I have a handful of friends that we love to go in and just mess around. We like to put on little air shows for each other with low level high and low speed flybys, bombing demonstrations, etc. It is lots of fun. Maybe a map with ground targets to compete against each other on a friendly training basis. We got into private dogfight, or other modes, but if we happen to have a tail gunner, we have to be careful not to shoot each other down, because we like to practice formation flying as well. It is hard to do on the competition maps without a tail gunner going crazy. We like to lock on the other and watch them do stunts while another sits on the ground, etc.. Just lots of fun with this, and it would be cool to have a dedicated map for just this type of thing. Just a practice, or training on line map where we have control on who and when we want to lock on each other, with ground targets that we decide on the fly if they are friendly or foe.. Just sayin..

Thanks for a great game.. Keep this series going, it is the best console flight game out there hands down..

Seconded

[Das_Ubersoldat13]

Originally Posted by SgtPappy

Actually in every test conducted by both the RAF and Luftwaffe that I've ever read, the 190 turned worse than any Spitfire. In fact, in RAF tests, for some reason, it turned a little better than a 109G.

But that's besides the point. For the record I DO think the 190 should turn better but it CANNOT turn better than a Mk.V given equal pilots with equal energy states.

If you're referring to the article where Johnnie Johnson was out turned by a Fw 190 in his Spitfire Mk.V, you are actually quite mistaken.

Now before you rant and go crazy, let me say it was TRUE that Johnson was out turned by that 190 in his Spitfire V. And I'm not making excuses here when I say that Johnson could have easily been tired or something, a fact we CANNOT simulate in any game with any degree of real accuracy.

In another excerpt from the same article, he states that the Spitfire IX out turned the 190 easily. But how does this make sense at all? A 1941 Spitfire Vb's wing loading is less than 27 lb./sq. ft when fully loaded with fuel and ammo. The Fw 190's is somewhere past 40 lb./sq. ft. The Spitfire IX's is somewhere around 30 lb./sq.ft. Wing loading is not the only factor in turning ability, but with WWII planes, it's generally a good indicator of turning ability. But with the Spitfire IX and Spitfire V having virtually the same airframe with the IX having much better performance, they should turn similarly. In fact, RAF tests say they turn the same.

You must remember all the factors that determine how a plane turns in real life. In the article, there is little to no indication of energy states, pilot condition (i.e. wounds, tiredness, etc.), pilot ability to sustain G's or aircraft condition. No two aircraft ever perform the same whether they both are Spitfire Vb's or Fw 190A-5's.

I didnt say turn better.. I said turn with.. meaning about the same .. it couldnt out turn..

[PhantomIIF4]

Has anyone suggested that we be given the ability to choose any plane in any single-player mission? I feel like being restricted to one plane type per mission limits the replay value? I figure that can't be a hard thing to implement in a patch.

Thoughts anyone?

[SgtPappy]

Originally Posted by Das_Ubersoldat13

I didnt say turn better.. I said turn with.. meaning about the same .. it couldnt out turn..

When people say that plane A turns with plane B, it means just as good, which in combat means that plane A can turn either slightly worse or slightly better sine it's impossible to determine if 2 planes ACTUALLY turn the same.

Just proving that the latter is false in our case.

Also, one more thing. I only rented the game for the PS3 for a day so far, had little time to play. So i got the demo. P-51D's cockpit is actually that of a P-47D series.

Actual P-51D cockpit from IL-2



BoP P-51D cockpit

[fuzzychickens]

[QUOTE=SgtPappy;111212]When people say that plane A turns with plane B, it means just as good, which in combat means that plane A can turn either slightly worse or slightly better sine it's impossible to determine if 2 planes ACTUALLY turn the same.

Just proving that the latter is false in our case.

Actual P-51D cockpit from IL-2


Hey, are you running mods on your 1946? The graphics look better than my 4.09m running at max settings. If so, what mods?

[atomschlag]

make zoom a toggle