Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey

IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Famous title comes to consoles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-22-2009, 10:15 PM
Abbevilleboy Abbevilleboy is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonknight82 View Post
Mk.IIb Spitfires had cannons...not many made. They were post Battle of Britain (thus another incorrect part of the game) and were camouflaged in grey and green on top...they pretty much looked exactly like a Mk.V. The Battle of Britain fighter marks were the I, Ia and II (possibly IIa...will have to check that). They were all camouflaged in green and brown on top (the BoB day fighter scheme...). Thus why the picture is puzzling...cool pic, but inaccurate. Nice pic...shame about the error...
Sorry, no - Early MkVa & bs did get the green/brown scheme to start off with; the grey/green came along later in the year (1941).

That guy's sig pic depicts MkVb's of 92 Sqn (QJ) in early '41, as he says over the Isle of Wight - The Needles to be precise.

The ranking of RAF officers in the game is all wrong - the Corporals would have been riggers/fitters, not pilots, no matter what the shortage may have been they simply weren't flight trained! Their contribution to the war effort is highly under rated none the less...

Flt Sgt/Pilot Officer/Flying Officer/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr/Wing Cdr/Gr Capt (rarely flying) etc are the correct RAF ranks.

Last edited by Abbevilleboy; 09-22-2009 at 10:36 PM. Reason: Well if you're gonna have a rant, do it properly...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-23-2009, 07:56 AM
rocketassistedllama rocketassistedllama is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 17
Smile

Howdilli...well, as I've waxed lyrical about this game before-and now that I've finally finished the campaign on realistic a few days ago [just started on simulation;] I hope I'm forgiven for offering some harsher criticism-in the interests of forging a stronger sequel!

#1; Unless the flak can be made WAY more dangerous [I have'nt been hit yet...so that's 100000% more lethal??:] I'd scrap all the ground attack missions entirely. Without flak they're weak, dull-and far too easy next to the fighter-type stuff [which shines.]

#2; Some type of secondary zoom for the 3rd person view would be VERY nice, which you have inside. It's even more important 3rd person actually; as you're already a greater distance from the enemy, than in-cockpit...

#3; Ability to fly any plane, in any campaign-once mission unlocked. A staple, for providing replayability.

#4; Training is a bit bare-bones. Something like in 'Battlestations"; where you can choose plane types/formations etc, and then place them.

#6; One way to add replay with the campaign, is the ability to 'slide' the ratio of ace pilots, to rookies...maybe then, less of them will crash into the ground, or fly in a straight line whilst I'm chasing them;0)

#7; After such an inspired gameplay decision in campaign [no consequences for failing a mission...just like real life, you still keep flying;] why is this taken away in the single missions?? Reminds me of 'Heroes of the Pacific'-where I'd fail countless times, for not managing to shoot down xhundred fighters within the first 10 minutes.....means most replay single player, is in the campaign. I mean; 'Heroes', not a sim, was a WAY harder game than this [practically unplayable because of it]...because they'd fail you all the time. Anything that's timed-unless it's in a racing game.....

#8; byebye 'recon' missions. Seriously...I was laughing, wondering what people would think of my new 'game'...which consisted in flying in a slow circle, for 10 minutes. Gameplay??
Again, recon missions in campaign are ok...as stuff at least tries to chase you.

Again; mucho apologido. Love the game...I just want a stronger sequel;0)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-23-2009, 08:59 AM
trk29 trk29 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC USA
Posts: 1,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketassistedllama View Post
#1; Unless the flak can be made WAY more dangerous [I have'nt been hit yet...so that's 100000% more lethal??:] I'd scrap all the ground attack missions entirely. Without flak they're weak, dull-and far too easy next to the fighter-type stuff [which shines.]
Anton stated that Flak is getting a upgrade to be more harmful.

I for one have never been hit by it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-23-2009, 09:22 AM
GCoutinho GCoutinho is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 28
Default

Started to play some simulation games lately, I just noticed something I ignored:
- Now in simulation mode you can use external views by pressing the D-PAD

The virtual cockpit is presently a necessity due to the absence of cockpits for some planes, but external views feels a bit more unrealistic.

Hopefully in future patches / DLC there will be an option to restrict the use of external views and the use of planes that don't have cockpits.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-23-2009, 10:57 AM
Ancient Seraph Ancient Seraph is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dutchman in Spain
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCoutinho View Post
Hopefully in future patches / DLC there will be an option to restrict the use of external views and the use of planes that don't have cockpits.
In the next patch most, if not all, planes are supposed to get cockpits.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-24-2009, 12:52 PM
Rhah Rhah is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London
Posts: 238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph View Post
In the next patch most, if not all, planes are supposed to get cockpits.

Are you sure? As far as I'm aware, only the 109 and 190 were definitely getting 'pits in the immediate future, and there was no mention of them being part of the forthcoming patch.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are any plans to provide pits for the bombers, or Italian fighters.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-24-2009, 01:06 PM
juz1 juz1 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: No more team deathmatch, EVER!
Posts: 526
Default

Dear Devs,

would there be any possibility of setting an approx start altitude level for Multiplayer Maps please...I'm thinking this would encourage more high altitude dog fighting, an aspect of your fine game which is slightly lacking in multiplayer...

also a strike variant where one side just takes fighters and racks up multiple tickets for each bomber kill, the bombing team can go with just bombers or maybe escorts too...



also dlc the low-level Romanian oil fields raid in B24s...real eye-candy potential
________
Buy Silver Surfer Vaporizer

Last edited by juz1; 02-24-2011 at 09:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2009, 05:08 AM
trk29 trk29 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC USA
Posts: 1,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhah View Post
Are you sure? As far as I'm aware, only the 109 and 190 were definitely getting 'pits in the immediate future, and there was no mention of them being part of the forthcoming patch.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are any plans to provide pits for the bombers, or Italian fighters.
You are correct 109 and maybe the 190 as Anton stated.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-24-2009, 10:59 PM
moonknight82 moonknight82 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbevilleboy View Post
Sorry, no - Early MkVa & bs did get the green/brown scheme to start off with; the grey/green came along later in the year (1941).

That guy's sig pic depicts MkVb's of 92 Sqn (QJ) in early '41, as he says over the Isle of Wight - The Needles to be precise.

The ranking of RAF officers in the game is all wrong - the Corporals would have been riggers/fitters, not pilots, no matter what the shortage may have been they simply weren't flight trained! Their contribution to the war effort is highly under rated none the less...

Flt Sgt/Pilot Officer/Flying Officer/Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr/Wing Cdr/Gr Capt (rarely flying) etc are the correct RAF ranks.
I have never, ever seen a photo or info about Spitfire Mk.V being in green and brown...and I have access to so many Spitfire books it's untrue! Only Aussie Spit Mk.5s were in brown and green (foliage green and light earth, or dark green and dark earth...) RAF 5s were never brown and green.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-27-2009, 11:11 PM
Abbevilleboy Abbevilleboy is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Default wrong again

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonknight82 View Post
I have never, ever seen a photo or info about Spitfire Mk.V being in green and brown...and I have access to so many Spitfire books it's untrue! Only Aussie Spit Mk.5s were in brown and green (foliage green and light earth, or dark green and dark earth...) RAF 5s were never brown and green.
1) Do you really think this makes you unique in your 'expertise'?

2) Can you tell the difference between earth brown and ocean grey in B&W photos?

The Spitfire MkV entered service in early 1941 and the Land Temperate scheme was not replaced until August 1941.

The first production Spitfire MkVs were factory painted in the Land Temperate scheme, Dark Earth/Dark Green/Sky (Type S refers to the type of paint used - smooth instead of matt - not the colour. There were other Type S paints in use). Squadrons started reequipping with the MkV from February 1941. From 16th August 1941, day fighters were instructed to be repainted in the new Day Fighter Scheme of Ocean Grey/Dark Green/Medium Sea Grey. This was to be done at the first convenient opportunity. From September 1941 manufacturers had to supply new aircraft in the Day Fighter scheme.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.