4-12 wish list (Merged)

[Monty_Thrud]

Having the abililty to choose aircraft formations would be a bonus in FMB too, just built a mission with DB-3F bombers attacking a bridge, they spawn in Echelon right which is no good for bombing bridges.

[ECV56_Guevara]

Originally Posted by Monty_Thrud

Having the abililty to choose aircraft formations would be a bonus in FMB too, just built a mission with DB-3F bombers attacking a bridge, they spawn in Echelon right which is no good for bombing bridges.

+1


btw is this possible:

[1984]

i know not so much about these things, and it's not really important, but someday need include in game other planes with skis, like yaks, laggs and il-2s for winter 1941-1942...

for example, attached from here, lagg-3 around 8-1x series with skis, rockets and racks for fuel tanks/bombs...

even don't know, how much worse these planes, apparently, fights with lw was mainly excluded...

[1984]

this may sound strange, but i'm (and think lot of russian players) want revised FM of yaks, because so long time we fly on really yaks, although in RL it were very simple planes, mainly, without any problems for pilots, if i'm not mistaken...

[CWMV]

So were Hurricanes and warhawks, doesn't mean they didn't get slaughtered.
What specifically do you want?

[Treetop64]

I would love for ground based field guns (howitzers, etc.) to be able to apply indirect fire to targets within their range, or assigned target areas set in the FMB, and not just direct fire at targets in front of them. Ship's guns can fire at targets indirectly, but not field guns.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

I would love for ground based field guns (howitzers, etc.) to be able to apply indirect fire to targets within their range, or assigned target areas set in the FMB, and not just direct fire at targets in front of them. Ship's guns can fire at targets indirectly, but not field guns.

This would be welcome, not only on its own merits, but also because it would create a whole new class of Aerial Artillery Observation or FAC missions.

There are modded versions of the Fi-156 Storch and a modded F3 Stinson Reliant which are flyable and allow you to perform FO missions, but their "forward observation" is actually just a delayed action, invisible cannon.

Related to this would be all sorts of forward air observer missions where ground attack planes are directed to their target by a ground-based air controller. That sort of "cab rank" mission was the dominant activity for British and U.S. fighter bombers from 1944 on.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by 1984

this may sound strange, but i'm (and think lot of russian players) want revised FM of yaks, because so long time we fly on really yaks, although in RL it were very simple planes, mainly, without any problems for pilots, if i'm not mistaken...

What's wrong with the Yaks? I'm a pretty prolific flyer of them these days and over the last 5-6 years of flying IL-2 I've become a huge fan of them. They fly so well... turn, roll rate, climb, speed, all excellent depending on the model and the opposition. The wing loading is a wee bit high in the Yak-3 (as it actually was) which makes manoeuvring interesting but it's such a sweet fighter.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by IceFire

What's wrong with the Yaks? I'm a pretty prolific flyer of them these days and over the last 5-6 years of flying IL-2 I've become a huge fan of them. They fly so well... turn, roll rate, climb, speed, all excellent depending on the model and the opposition. The wing loading is a wee bit high in the Yak-3 (as it actually was) which makes manoeuvring interesting but it's such a sweet fighter.

His post was a bit vague, but he hyperlinked "Yaks" to a page about the animal version of yak and not the Yakovlev aircraft, so it may have been an attempt at humor. He might have been trying to say in jest that the Yakovlev fighters should handle more like the yak animal - sluggishly, since they share the same name.

I dunno. Hard to read, but his English is better than my Russian!

[1984]

Originally Posted by IceFire

What's wrong with the Yaks?

so hard to explain, even on my language and for russians, and here i can't recommended for you read kilometers of many russian forums...

well, you just can say what yak in game very simple plane, like was in real life? i can't, even in compare with other planes with "realistic" FM...

in RL la-5 was not easy, lagg-3, mig-3, i-16, bf 109g, but not yaks, most mass soviet fighter and one of most mass fighters in ww2, even new re.2000 and spits not so strange, how yaks, iars and tempest...

in this situation how we can normal play in online wars? if main soviet fighter like wild bison and all want la-5, and in total we have, mainly, war of primitive etalons like «la-5 vs g-2 and fw 190»...

etc etc etc...

i not want arcade, but situation totally strange, and sometimes think what better see yaks with more simple FM and other planes with FM like for yaks now...

They fly so well... turn, roll rate, climb, speed, all excellent depending on the model and the opposition. The wing loading is a wee bit high in the Yak-3 (as it actually was) which makes manoeuvring interesting but it's such a sweet fighter.

they fly not like in arcades, agree, it's very good, but strange in total... it's FM...

about performances, for example, in game yak-7b with m-105pa, in fact, have speed (and, maybe, all performance) of first yak-7 and first series of yak-7a, although in RL had 490-500 kph at sl...

after may 1942 rockets had only some fighters, but in game even yak-1b have this, although - what much more important and really my dream - beginning from early 43 late series had 140 shells for shvak and 240 rounds for ubs + sometimes different bombs...

etc...

ie performances, weapons, etc of yaks in game, mainly, wrong (all this i try explain in other topic, but apparently this is not helps for some users like gaunt1 and Z1024, or someone too lazy), like many other planes, things etc and in this case, for example, 2 b-20 for yak-3 with m-107a it's only what DT can do for him, my opinion...

well, and yak-3... i'm not big specialist, i'm just not specialist, just know what it's was "dream fighter", after reading of many things why so, including opinions of pilots, memoirs, interviews etc, and if most important source tells what best yak-3 had 17-18 sec (21 sec, it's turn time of some first serial yaks with 540-550 kph at sl) of turn time, we just can't debate with this...

well, i think, maybe, AFM or time machine, someday, say who was really right...

I'm a pretty prolific flyer of them ...and over the last 5-6 years of flying IL-2 I've become a huge fan of them.

i flew on yaks lot of time too, after our good flights on ukd2 in online wars especially, so, you saying like about me... and this is first reason why i talking here about yaks and laggs, about this very wrong situation, because i repeat, too much errors and in RL la-5 was strict plane, for example, but not yaks...

well, i hope, someday FM can be revised, especially because i absolutely don't hope, in total, on a "battle of stalingrad" after reading forums about this strange thing, where can be interesting in fact only AFM and some little details...

and all this only my opinion...

Originally Posted by Treetop64

He might have been trying to say in jest that the Yakovlev fighters should handle more like the yak animal - sluggishly, since they share the same name.

i mean, now planes "yak" for pilot like real WILD yaks (bulls, or bisons, etc) for rider, but this not really normal, because if i'm not mistaken this is was simple plane...

I dunno. Hard to read, but his English is better than my Russian!

i know language, but not so good, and it's not easy to write on another language, so, in the end, here lot of help of 2 types of translator... sorry, if not all clear...