4-12 wish list (Merged)

[Ace1staller]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I'd like to see some tracks of you shooting that much in an enemy aircraft and it not going down.

That said... there are many stories from WWII that support the notion that light calibre machine guns were insufficient to bring down the better constructed and better armored aircraft. Here's one:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Johnson

Exceptional but not entirely unheard of.

The Buffalo Mark I which I presume you were flying against was one of the better protected Buffalo models (also one of the heaviest) and in general it was fairly well constructed. I'm not surprised that it would take a significant number of bullets to bring down. Particularly if the shooter were engaging from dead 6 and firing into the fuselage instead of aiming for the engine or wing roots where the more vulnerable components are.

What does shortchange the lighter calibres are some of the smaller finely detailed damage model components. The kind of thing they did right away with Cliffs of Dover but just weren't part of the original IL-2.

Yeah I heard the story of that P-47 pilot, I think I'm aiming at the wrongs spots then.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Ace1staller

Yeah I heard the story of that P-47 pilot, I think I'm aiming at the wrongs spots then.

Probably If you want to start a separate topic on effective gunnery I can try and put together a few pointers. I find most people in general tend to spray rather than aim and they tend to begin firing well beyond the effective range. I started this way as well. My little mindgame I play with myself is when I think I'm in range... I hold my breath for a quick moment and then open fire. Gives myself time to mentally calculate the deflection and it means I'm that much closer to the target.

The rest is technique. I'm sure several would be willing to help you out.

[Ace1staller]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Probably If you want to start a separate topic on effective gunnery I can try and put together a few pointers. I find most people in general tend to spray rather than aim and they tend to begin firing well beyond the effective range. I started this way as well. My little mindgame I play with myself is when I think I'm in range... I hold my breath for a quick moment and then open fire. Gives myself time to mentally calculate the deflection and it means I'm that much closer to the target.

The rest is technique. I'm sure several would be willing to help you out.

K, you can do that Icefire

[Lagarto]

IMHO the problem with firing at close range in this game is that aircraft, when hit, tend to explode mid-air, much too often to my taste. I've ruined many of my offline campaigns this way, caught in the blast of my exploding adversary. I daresay this feature is exaggerated and could be toned down a little.

[SaQSoN]

Ok, here is my ultimate wishlist for all remaining IL-2 development life:

At least 92 men, with experience in game development, with their own work-place, which includes all necessary hardware and software, willing to work for free at least 18 hours a day, no days off, no vacations, capable and willing to obey orders of their respective leads, whatever those orders could be (in strictly professional sense, offcourse), without questioning them. All workers should posses extensive knowledge of aerospace engineering and military history.
This people should include following specialties:

2 low-level graphics/sound/hardware programmers
20 Java programmers
20 3D modlers
50 2D texture srtists

As a bonus, would be nice to have a top-level US-based lawyer firm, ready to work on the same conditions, as listed above. It's task would be to represent interests of DT, Maddox and 1C against Northrop-Grumman corp.

With this resources, I can assure you, every and each wish, listed in this topic would be added to the game quickly and easily!

PS In ideal case, I would like to double the number of workers, I listed and add to them some super-model secretary with big boobs, willing to obey any orders (in any sense), a coffee machine, a Bentley car with a driver and a skyscrapper office, all for free, obviously. Yet, I know, it's hardly possible, so, I can go with just the basic list.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

PS In ideal case, I would like to double the number of workers, I listed and add to them some super-model secretary with big boobs, willing to obey any orders (in any sense), a coffee machine, a Bentley car with a driver and a skyscrapper office, all for free, obviously. Yet, I know, it's hardly possible, so, I can go with just the basic list.

I would be happy with the super-model secretary...

[magot]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

I listed and add to them some super-model secretary with big boobs, willing to obey any orders (in any sense)

yeah, this is in IL2 development really miss

[char_aznable]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

add to them some super-model secretary with big boobs, willing to obey any orders (in any sense), a coffee machine, a Bentley car with a driver and a skyscrapper office, all for free, obviously.

I can't, I'm married.
Moreover, I don't like too much Bentleys... Could I have a Ferrari instead?

[310thDiablo]

hahahahahaha tooo funny.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by char_aznable

I can't, I'm married.

Well... Let's say so: there are many men out there, who don't see a connection here.

Originally Posted by char_aznable

Moreover, I don't like too much Bentleys... Could I have a Ferrari instead?

In a Bentley one can ride on a back seat... with the secretary. While Ferrari (most of them, at least) doesn't have the back seat at all.