It will be the developers, not the one posting the bug-tracker, who have to make all of these calculations - assuming that there is a uniformity of equipment, and even player styles throughout the IL2 community - while trying to deal with all of the other bugs flowing into the bug-tracker report. I can just see them lining up pleading to tackle this so-called issue...:cool:

See my previous post, then. If they're not going to fix it, why have you and your cronies been fighting so hard against it?

I was staying out of this thread but joysticks/control hardware is something i'm very interested in, See http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29958
As much as anyone I want 'as realistic as possible' control behaviour, however I see some problems:-

Bit of a problem here as not all sticks have the same response.
Expensive sticks can have the ability to change curves outside the game(even on the fly). Therefore 'Joe Bloggs' with a 'cheap' stick is at a potential disadvantage. Personally the reduced range of control of sensitivity in CoD compared to IL2 is already quite good at preventing sticks being used in a totally non historic way.
Spiking pots would be a bigger problem

Umm... so someone who spent ~£1700 for a simcontrol spitfire column won't be able to 'tighten' his response to get the new realistic behaviour- or will l'ong stick' users be accused of cheatibg?

#3 opens up a whole can of worms, so I agree, leave it as is

good sound cues here also.

#5 A full medical:-P- nah- there'd be hardly anyone left

Very much so, but is also often easier to come up with solutions that are worse than the problem;)

Also, why in this entire thread has no real mention been made of the other two axes?

Why are you, and your cronies, trying so hard in having it implemented?

It certainly not a bug.

Ah, I see where you are confused..

Allow me..

You are confusing me saying this is not a bug with me saying this did not happen in the real world

Two very different things!

All I am pointing out is there are limits to what a $1,000 PC can do!

For example.. As your pulling 4g's in the simulation, your not physically feeling the effects of 4g's while sitting in front of your computer screen

You not feeling the effects of 4g's is NOT a bug but a limitation of what the PC can do (simulate)

Hope this helps! S!

No more eye opening than when the 109 pilots viciously lash out at the mention of the elevator being stuck in cement comes up!

It is a simple fact that if it was relatively easy to reach the structural limit then the limit would have been reached and a lot more would have broken up.

I am sorry but all the evidence is that they didn't. Despite being flown in combat often by inexperienced pilots in the most testing situations, they didn't break up.

When the limit was reached at the end of the war the wings tended to bend not break.

You build into the game a factor that makes it easy for the Spitfire to break up it will be a huge error.

40ish falures in combat, in thousands of aircraft, over the entire war in millions of flights isn't the sign of an aircraft that is easy to break structurally

The comment about some lightly damaged aircraft crashing because an inexperienced pilot over reacted is misleading because it obviously must have happened, but the same logic applies to any fighter in any airforce. Even here, its worth remembering that the Spitfire was easier to fly than the Me109 so logic would say that it was less likely to happen to a Spitfire.

So basically what should be implement is:
- Structural g limit for all aircraft
- Light elevator at high speed for Spitfire

Now let's figure out if both features are already implement and if not submit a feature request.

Agreed 100%

The question is why did you want to focus on the bolded parts. Its always, always the entire picture that counts.

I hope at least that we have dealt with the comments about the Spit wings that bent and needed repair.

Agreed, but the elevator was not only light but also sensible. (short travel-large reaction)