CrazyDuck

For starters I wouldn't mind getting MG shells into German 20mm beltings (as it appears they are absent now, looks like there is only a single kind of HE shells - correct me if I'm wrong). Certain weapons do allow pilot to choose the belting - sadly, it can't be done for MG 151, FF or Hispano.

Yeah, I agree. Especially on dogfight servers it's a rare sight - it's usually some beginners jumping into a Fw 190, expecting to singlehandedly slaughter everything left and right in a gladiator style with the "wurger", but find themselves brutally murdered by hordes of Yaks and Spits instead, leaving them flabbergasted. However, there are times when a group of some disciplined Fw 190 pilots come online and fly as a team. Just a week or so ago I've witnessed such a group (they were the "56th" guys if I recall correctly) - they were flying 190 A-3s on a late war map vs the latest allied stuff and ruled supreme. Nothing apart from some lucky shots could come close to them - even with the Mustangs it felt like toying with the scorpions. As soon as you got guns on one, his teammate was on your tail! Frustrating to say the least. Even two 190s flying cooperatively is worlds apart from two 190s flying as lone wulfs. Reminds me of a moment from a Gladiator movie, when a group of gladiators was facing long, long odds:

Nobody yet mentioned the strongest point of Fw 190: teamplay. No plane in the sim (save perhaps the mighty Tempest) is as deadly as Fw 190 when flown by a couple of well coordinated guys. This is primarily to combination of two characteristics: It's fast like devil and armed like a battleship - therefore it excels in "drag'n'bag" tactics, where a team of players keep these planes fast, and clear the tails of each other instead of their own! Take 1 Fw 190 vs 1 Yak-1 and the 190 will struggle to survive. Take 4 vs 4 and it will be a cat and mouse with Yaks fighting for their life.

Yes, each one can be purchased and played as a standalone title. Together they form a kind of IL-2 GB "world".

Perhaps that's exactly why. Perhaps Ju 52 didn't sell as good as to at least cover the expenses of modelling...

As long as only one copy is used at the same time (online log-on), it should be no hassle.

The C6A was not a nightfighter, it was a heavy dayfighter. They were used only over the sea in such areas where the only enemy aircraft likely to be met were heavy marine aircraft (long range bombers or seaplanes).

Yeah, that's true, but the implications are debatable. Having done some research on Japanese aircraft myself, I'm utterly aware how lacking historical data even on some major aircraft types can be (even Kate comes to mind, among others). However, even with well researched western and Russian types a sim developer team must make certain assumptions, predictions and guesses. When it comes to less researched and recorded types, this spectrum of things they have to guesstimate only broadens. So, no, I don't think they should avoid doing the same for Japanese aircraft (under justification of lacking data). On the contrary - that's actually what I'd expect from a sim developer team to do (with the same justification!). I mean, who on Earth is more skilled, better suited and more objective for the task than them?

There's a typo in there. EDIT: Nvm, there isn't!

Keep in mind that I-16 we have in the sim is something completely different from those spanish Ratas (which were of Type 5, 6 and 10 with Shvetsov M25 providing about 720 HP) . Ours is I-16 type 24 (or type 28 if they sport ShVAKs) - and the story here is somewhat similar to what happened to Bf 109 four or five years later - lack of availability of sufficient numbers of other more modern fighters forced their users to compensate and equip the design with an absurdly powerful engine. I-16 type 24 (Shvetsov M63 with 1100 HP!) consequently has one of the best power to weight ratios, which makes it a deadly medium speed dogfighter (with some problems in low-ish speed department due to nasty snap-stall and lack of slats).

Just like always in such threads, all the "feelings", "beliefs", "assumptions", "certainties" and "perceptions" are completely and utterly meaningless. What you need to bring to the table to support your cause are some real, repeatable, objective, statistically significant tests. Then and only then you can hope to catch an eye of the developers.

Again, how do you separate the claim "P-51 is strong" from "German guns are weak"?

Flying as we do now is like being handicapped in reality for the feeling of the G-s. As I agree that simple digital G-meter is kind of unrealistic (but nothing wrong with it if it can be ticked in settings - like the unlimited ammo or invulnerability), I'm in favor of any kind of better G indication that we have now - heartbeat becoming louder at certain point, breathing becoming louder, picture grayed and more fuzzy, and especially airframe sounds under high g-load. Pilot simply feels all this with his whole body - we don't, and therefore we cannot judge the g levels as good as IRL pilots do. And this is supposed to be a simulator, which strives towards realism wherever possible and applicable.

My gut feeling is that planes in IL-2 BOX suffer critical structural failures a bit too often, and catch fires not often enough. In other words, compared to reality, I assume planes were set on fire more often and lost their wings less often than in IL-2 sim. But like I said, that's just my feeling, I can very well be wrong.

Why did you turn in first place?