RedKestrel

That's a good idea! I often know my own position on the map but can't plot a course to a distant objective, so I end up landmark hopping too much. The best thing about the maps in Il-2 is how accurate they are. The shapes of cities, towns and built-up areas are extremely precise so even small towns make great landmarks. IRL your maps would be out of date, towns would be missing, shapes of towns might not be there at all. rivers may have changed course in a flood. etc. Most of the time now I only get lost after a high speed dogfight. After a few dives, turns, yoyos and running hell for leather across the steppe, its easy to get much, much farther away than you really think you have. When I get lost, I follow these strategies: -If you're over enemy territory, separated from your flight buddies, alone, and low, head East if you're VVS and West if you're Luftwaffe. First priority is to get over your own lines in case you need to ditch or bail out. Just hold at cardinal east or cardinal west, stay low and fast to hide against the ground clutter, and when you think you've flown far enough, start a shallow climb to get altitude and start looking for landmarks. -Find the most distinctive landmark you can - an unusual river confluence, a weird shaped or large town, or a set of a couple bridges. Road intersections are fine but I find them hard to see from high up so I mostly stick to other things. Then start a gentle spiral climb above it until you're high enough to see the lay of the land. Note as many nearby landmarks as you can and the direction they are in in relation to your first landmark. This is easy to do in a gentle spiral because as the landmark disappears beneath your nose you'll know what direction its in in general because of your compass bearing. Once you've established the spiral you can keep your controls in the same position while you check your map and you'll keep going up and stay in the same spot, knowing you won't crash. While its not GREAT for avoiding being bounced, at least you aren't in a straight line flying level. -At this point you check your map and look for a cluster of landmarks that resemble your situation. So if you're orbiting over a T-shaped town with a railrood bridge over a river to the east, a square town roughly north of you, and an airfield to the southwest, you pan around the map looking for that, starting from your last known point and extapolating your course if possible. Like I said you can get far afield sometimes so don't be afraid to look far! Always use more than one landmark. to confirm your position. Just because that river system looks really distinctive, doesn't mean it's unique. Anyway thats' what I do. Some of it may be ill-advised but it works for me. I've been working on navigating by dead reckoning (using course, speed and location) and I've been reasonably successful. It helps that the sim doesn't model declination, turning errors, compass errors, etc.

10,000 posts filled with out of context charts, dubious pilot accounts, and documents of unknown provenance later, the thread is locked by ye olde moderatore who sayeth "forsooth, you People neede to get a Lyfe. Please Stoppe with the Personale Attacks. Do not call each other Deploradirigibles, it is a Slur of the Worst Kinde"

I think, in general, ground handling is a little gentler than reality in this sim. Rudder authority is modeled pretty strongly in early takeoff phase, and I think THAT has to do with the fact that the brakes are in general weaker than they should be, as it is nearly impossible to force a nose-over. I've only had it happen in an I-16 once. Basically, I think the brakes are gentler to allow people who only have a push button for most braking to not instantly nose over the minute they press the button and go full 100% brakes (which wouldn't be like that IRL). But if you make the braking weaker, you can't use the differential braking to assist on takeoff and can't overcome the torque. So rudder authority at low speeds is increased to compensate, which makes your takeoff roll and landing easier as you don't have to use the rudder as much for the same thing. The stability fix that dealt with the over-the-top wobbliness has probably added to that as a trade-off. All that being said...I still have to 'dance' on the rudder quite a bit taking off, especially with the MiG-3. I never played it before the patch but the torque on takeoff is enough that I find it impossible to avoid triggering the tailwheel unlock to counter the torque, and everybody says that you should be able to use only a little rudder on the MiG to avoid the unlocking in the first place. When people say torque isn't modelled at all and I'm using full or nearly full rudder at times on takeoff, it makes me think that we're playing a different game. Short stabs of rudder, reduced mixture to reduce torque and a gradual increase in throttle, and I still am wobbly with the MiG on takeoffs. I ground looped the MiG almost every landing I made for weeks. Now I never do. All post patch. Nothing changed, I just got better. I think people need to consider that after years of playing this game, you've gotten used to compensating for a lot of the issues you first faced unconsciously. A lot of guys flying here probably have hundreds more hours of flight time on these virtual birds than actual WWII fighter pilots.

I think Coconut's server does a bit of that, with depots not showing up unless someone flies within X distance on a scouting run. I could be wrong though.

I agree for the most part. Area bombing is what formations of bombers do, so a setup that rewards saturation rather than specific targets would do a lot more to incentivize level bombing at altitude. Although I think a mosquito would work really well for tactical targets we usually see online. It was never really designed to be an escorted heavy bomber, it was a fast light strike bomber. It would be drool-worthy to have it in this sim and re-create some of the low-level raids they did on pinpoint targets.

Ah Ok, I hadn't realized it was confirmed, its not mentioned in the store listing for the game. Thanks for the update.

LOL I can't type today, but Oh god can you imagine the forum debates? "Devs have done a poor job modeling the heat dissipation from the hot air balloon torch. I can touch the screen without my hands scorching. Totally arcade. Ridiculous." "The torch sound is too loud! Should be quieter" "Not loud enough! See!" (youtube video of balloon posted, with endless debates as to sound quality, modern vs. antique torches, etc) "English balloons are too tough, lol Victorian Canvas is tougher than armor plate, please nerf!" "Reduced smoke effects from musket fire make it too easy to shoot another player's balloon. Please add smoke effects and sulfur smell of powder." Somebody needs to pitch this to Jason ASAP. I think we have a winner on our hands.

There's rumblings that an AI only B-25 would be modeled in BoBP, and possibly become flyable at a later point. But I'm not sure that's official. I would personally love to see the Mosquito! I loved it in Il-2 1846 and this sim would model it that much better. It was a great aircraft but was only used rarely (if ever) as an escorted high altitude daylight bomber. Their participation in the heavy bombing campaign was basically as pathfinders for RAF Bomber command, marking targets for the heavy night bombers. They did literally everything else...low level bombing raids, anti-shipping, pathfinding, recon, heavy fighter, night fighter, fighter bomber. Of course the draw distance really handicaps true high altitude bombing. With the 10km rendering/draw distance 'bubble' limiting the drawing of objects, its extremely difficult to bomb from higher altitudes as you can't see the target until the last second (or not at all). With AI bombers this may not be an issue, but if we want player flown bombers its a serious limitation.

Honestly that's a separate issue. The issue there is that the hits are allegedly not doing enough damage within the model. ie a MK108 should/should not do x damage. The issue here is that there is allegedly a problem fo the DM recording damage but that damage not properly affecting the flight model. i.e x damage done to my wing causes my wing to drop and to lose speed. What we go from is Real Life > Damage Model > Flight Model. Real Life > Damage model is about whether the appropriate damage is done by the various weapons. Damage Model > Flight Model is about whether the damage is interacting properly with the flight model. So the damage model may model a 5 cm hole in the wing from a MK108 round, when people are saying it should be 30 cm or take the wing off. This is about whether the 5 cm hole in the wing is affecting the flight model properly, not what the size of the hole should be. They interact, but its a different issue. At least, that's where I'm coming from here.

Every time I get shot up it alters the plane's flight model, no question. Last night I had to hold my stick over halfway to the left and hold constant left rudder to keep straight after taking a cannon round in my wing. Even at full throttle and RPM my airspeed was reduced by 100 km/h. HOWEVER the problem is that the visible damage to the wings - the graphics - don't always match up with the damage calculated by the flight model. So sometimes if the wing appears heavily damaged its not. Take a few light MGs that poke holes in your wing and you can trim it out and barely notice it, but the graphics might show a gaping hole in your wing. Hopefully they improve the visual modeling of damage at some point so this disconnect isn't a problem. EDIT: damage referenced above did not cause me to lose any control surfaces, this was purely from damage to one wing reducing lift and increasing drag.

FWIW for me they always drop their bombs on or around the target.

I'll preface this by saying I haven't flown the in-sim P-47 yet - only the one from old Il-2, and having read pilot accounts, manuals, etc. the P-47 excels at very high altitude and in rolling maneuvers, and in the dive. Reading pilot accounts of the escort groups, very rarely was there actual sustained dogfights...the escorts were either bounced or did the bouncing, there was a brief furball, and then it was all over. The dive and the zoom were what they used to get kills. 109s pilots have a tendency to try and climb away because most of the time it works. But if you are coming out of a dive and carrying some speed, you will have a better zoom climb and will catch him in the climb and can shred him with eight guns. If someone is on your six use rolling maneuvers to shake him or force an overshoot, then blast him, or once he's past turn and dive away to his low six to gain separation while he can't see you, then run for home. The 109s will out turn you so a horizontal turn is not advised. Vertical only works if you're carrying more E than them... in which case, dive away instead and just get out of gun range. Climbing and flat turns are non-starters. Zoom, dive and roll are your friends. I've heard some remarks that the 47s controls stiffen up at high speed at the same time as the 109s so that's going to be a problem using your high speed turning ability, but this was an issue against AI in old Il-2 as well, who didn't have to deal with stiff controls after a dive due to the simplified control model...they would just pull up at 16gs after a vertical dive and climb away lol. If you are low and slow on the deck, you're screwed. Make yourself hard to hit and gain separation when they can't see you if possible. You don't have many options down there. Force an overshoot somehow and take whatever shots they give you.

Is there a good place to find it again? The last time I tried to download it after losing it in a computer crash, the link I had previously used was broken.

I believe there is an 'auto rudder' setting in the difficulty settings if you're playing SP. Other than that I don't know a solution that wouldn't require some kind of player input. its kind of a pain to have your foot pressed forward a bit the whole flight too. That's why they invented rudder trim in the first place of course. But I feel you, this is why I don't like the Yak-1 too much for long climbs or trips.

The fact that you can hear other engines at all in game is stretching it a bit. Planes are loud folks. Especially when right next to the engine.