Suggesting to devs

[bboyneko]

I agree 100%, the free look HAS to be fixed. It's very important in a flight combat game to be able to scan the sky around you for bogey's, plus it's pretty to looka round and adds immersion. Toggle the R3 please or something to that effect.

[bigfoot18blue]

why isnt the lancaster bomber in birds of prey. they put the b17 in but not the lancaster. plz make it available by dlc

[chuckers74]

helloooooo

my 2p's worth,

the ground detail isn't what i was expecting, on the demo or the full game, especially after reading the press releases etc, I come from Dover, and grew up in folkestone, I fell in love with the game after seeing the screenshot of the hurricane heading towards Dover, as on the ground you could clearly see the outline of the moats of the napoleonic forts that scatter across the western cliffs, I played there as a kid, yet in the game they are missing,

In Folkestone, a couple of the main landmarks pilots used for finding their way back to hawkinge were the 300ft long 110ft high railway viaduct, and Sugarloaf hill, a 200ft+ round hill only a half mile or so from the aerodrome, both are missing, and hawkinge itself seems way too far inland, as in reality it was only a couple of miles from the coast,

I know there are limitations but landmarks would be nice, Dover has the castle, the radar masts and the harbour, where is folkestones harbour come to think of it?

[bud30]

Originally Posted by chuckers74

helloooooo

my 2p's worth,

the ground detail isn't what i was expecting, on the demo or the full game, especially after reading the press releases etc, I come from Dover, and grew up in folkestone, I fell in love with the game after seeing the screenshot of the hurricane heading towards Dover, as on the ground you could clearly see the outline of the moats of the napoleonic forts that scatter across the western cliffs, I played there as a kid, yet in the game they are missing,

In Folkestone, a couple of the main landmarks pilots used for finding their way back to hawkinge were the 300ft long 110ft high railway viaduct, and Sugarloaf hill, a 200ft+ round hill only a half mile or so from the aerodrome, both are missing, and hawkinge itself seems way too far inland, as in reality it was only a couple of miles from the coast,

I know there are limitations but landmarks would be nice, Dover has the castle, the radar masts and the harbour, where is folkestones harbour come to think of it?

Are you real mate? Have you ever played a flight sim before with such quality landscape? This game put's Microsoft flightsim x on full quality settings to shame. Are you upset because you cant see your street in 40's livery? It's not IL-2 Google earth 1940's m8

[LaRock O no Lie]

Originally Posted by bud30

Are you real mate? Have you ever played a flight sim before with such quality landscape? This game put's Microsoft flightsim x on full quality settings to shame. Are you upset because you cant see your street in 40's livery? It's not IL-2 Google earth 1940's m8

sorry to reply and I might seem like a troll... but what are your pc specs? flight sim x for me on max settings doesn't run at all... but at the settings I use
have a heck of a lot more detail then this game... and to be honest your not comparing apples to apples....

FS-X is a commercial flight sim... this is a combat flight sim... the smoke effects and tracers and a lot of other things are way better on this then FS-X... oh wait I know why... FS-X is not a combat sim, so they don't model damage and last I played you can't shoot other planes down... let alone crash and burn...

[bud30]

Originally Posted by LaRock O no Lie

sorry to reply and I might seem like a troll... but what are your pc specs? flight sim x for me on max settings doesn't run at all... but at the settings I use
have a heck of a lot more detail then this game... and to be honest your not comparing apples to apples....

FS-X is a commercial flight sim... this is a combat flight sim... the smoke effects and tracers and a lot of other things are way better on this then FS-X... oh wait I know why... FS-X is not a combat sim, so they don't model damage and last I played you can't shoot other planes down... let alone crash and burn...

I have a quad core system with a Gainward GTX295 1792MB gfx card mate - and FSX runs as fast and as smooth as possible on max settings.
I realise FSX is a commercial flightsim and IL2 is a combat sim but I was only comparing the ground detail. In My opinin the ground detail in FSX is repetative. Thats why you have a slider in the game options to generate more or les dense landscape - Its the same buildings etc.
In my opinion I think the ground effects are far better in il2 even when your on the deck - as for your comments about smoke and shooting down planes well I wont bother dignifying that with a response.

[House MD 221B]

I have 2 suggestions.

1) Devs, come on the forum and help some people out!

2) make MP flight joinable and the ability to change your plane after respawn.

[LaRock O no Lie]

Originally Posted by bud30

I have a quad core system with a Gainward GTX295 1792MB gfx card mate - and FSX runs as fast and as smooth as possible on max settings.
I realise FSX is a commercial flightsim and IL2 is a combat sim but I was only comparing the ground detail. In My opinin the ground detail in FSX is repetative. Thats why you have a slider in the game options to generate more or les dense landscape - Its the same buildings etc.
In my opinion I think the ground effects are far better in il2 even when your on the deck - as for your comments about smoke and shooting down planes well I wont bother dignifying that with a response.

yeah, I agree there... This game does make better use of ground textures.. but I still stand by my statement.. FSX does a lot better on ground units... sorry but the tanks/trucks look like they should be on my atari! ( not really that bad ) but still FSX on my lowly dual core cpu, gforce 6800 vid card the cars and other moving things around the airport are much more detailed.

if FSX had to model smoke and tracers and a lot of the damage modeling IL2 does, I am positive it would not run as smooth... hence why I said your not comparing apples to apples.... they are 2 different game engines... while they may both use real world physics... the actual modeling is different... I know I can crash into trees on FSX... yet on BOP i fly right through trees and buildings!... FSX I crash if I hit a tree or a building... ( not really crash.... cause they don't model crashes... you just get froze in at the angle of attack you hit said object at and it says you crashed.. ) heck even if you overstress your plane in FSX it just quits.... no wings falling off etc...