The general perception and ambitions for BOS /M/K etc

[Lusekofte]

I feel people do not have the same perspective when entering a discussion about practical and visual problems in this game, and I do not think we are onboard with the dev´s and their ambitions of the game.

Obviously some are , but personally I do not think I am. I keep saying this is not a flight simulator, but still I enjoy a free flight more here than in X plane 10. I also say I am fond of the gunners in my PE 2/ IL 2 online , but I hate them on single player. 

 

I think it is possible to satisfy both SP players and online players, we just haven't found the solution yet. But there should be a noticeable way to adjust the level of accuracy on Gunners in Single player campaign, it means of course you get to have custom settings in them. It should also be a server option in multiplayer.

Is this possible?

 

I personally think there should be a possibility to get a fair chance while in multiplayer, and there is continuous claims of bias Developers making the Russian side better and LW less effective, Personally I do not think this is so, but I believe there is FM faults. I am also not sure we ever will have Red side on servers if the FM was totally spot on, in fact we struggle big time as it is.

 

After some years experience in this game I have concluded that in 60% of the cases I have willingly volunteers for escorting me in a bomber, and 40% of the cases they meet up/ find me. In these cases I am fine with less effective gunners, in 60% of the cases I would be a flying target without them. 

Shall we take this consideration? or shall it be realistic no matter how it impact on playability?

 

Do fighter pilots want bombers to fly in Multiplayer as bombers or targets? Will we loose bomber pilots if they cannot be somewhat protected? 

 

Shall this be a playable war simulator or separate plane simulator? Or like it is a balance between the two. And how can we find a balance that all can accept?

 

I also want to express my sincere  apology to those I have insulted in heated debates, I will restrain my post from now on to the level I actually fly this sim. Very little. 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

No Alterations should be made for game Balance.

Only historical figures and accurcy should be used.

If anything is going to be balanced for the game may as well go back to War Thunder.
 

[Asgar]

the only thing that bugs me is the overly high performance of AP shells. HE seems to be underperforming IN GENERAL compared to AP. and i think that's what makes many people think Minengeschosse don't work. yes their performance compared to Russian HE is correct, but ALL HE is performing badly compared to AP. that's why Russian planes have an easier time killing planes i think. that's probably the reason you can kill any bomber in a single got with the 4-6 .50cals on the P-40. they have great AP and kill any engine. That's the only "balance change" they should think about, if that could be considered one. 

[Mmaruda]

 

 

Do fighter pilots want bombers to fly in Multiplayer as bombers or targets? Will we loose bomber pilots if they cannot be somewhat protected?

 

No we won't, it's still more fun to plan a mission, sneak past the enemy CAP, put ordnance on target and get out before the posse arrives, than fly around aimlessly looking for a random fight.

 

Let me ask you this, how many bomber do you have in your formation when you fly online? How many fighters are escorting you and do they use proper tactics?

 

If the answer to those questions is both less than 3 and you are not flying proper formations and communicating on voice comms... well guess what? No AI aimbot gunner is going to help you, simply because you make yourself expandable.

 

This is a flight sim, it works well when people fly it like a simulation and not like and air dogfighting game.

[ShamrockOneFive]

It's definitely a flight simulator. For something a bit more on the arcade point and shoot variety we don't have to look any further than War Thunder. And I do enjoy playing War Thunder but I play it for completely different reasons than I do with IL-2: BoS. Free fly here is amazing, the level of detail per plane is right in the spot that I want it to be, and the focus on a scenario and the accompanying planeset is the kind of attention to detail that I want to see from a World War II flight sim.

 

As for gunners... there will always be debate but I think that the gunners are just fine minus some wacky experiences where they seem to be sniping targets. I also think some fighter jocks attack bombers thinking they will be these big easy targets and when they get destroyed by some 12.7mm rounds in the nose... they come and complain. It wasn't because of some sniper AI luck shot (I know those happen on occasion) but because their attack pattern made them very easy for the gunner to track and hit. Human or AI or whatever.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

. I also think some fighter jocks attack bombers thinking they will be these big easy targets

Don't forget, when talking about a 111, this is actually the case - unfortunately 

[216th_Jordan]

Don't forget, when talking about a 111, this is actually the case - unfortunately 

 

He-111 gunners do very bad, will conduct some further tests on this the next month and maybe do a detailed report if I have the time.

[ITAF_Cymao]

It wasn't because of some sniper AI luck shot

A shot is lucky if it happens rarely, if often happens we cant talk about luck.

Also because it seems that some gunners are luckier than others.

 

 

 

He-111 gunners do very bad, will conduct some further tests on this the next month and maybe do a detailed report if I have the time.

 

Soon will we see H111 gunners to blow up an aircraft with a single shot or in 0.3 sec aim, pull the trigger and shoot with millimetric accuracy agaist aircraft that is passing at 710 km\h?

I cant wait to see these things.

 

Try to check also the gunner with the side machine gun that passes from side to side of the Pe, it seems to me that it is too fast, but it's just a feeling!

 

S!

Edited January 9, 2017 by ITAF_Cymao

[Feathered_IV]

BoX does seem quite confused in its conflict between SP and MP features.  As a primarily SP player, I can't tell you how annoying it is to always see the MP-style "Feathered_IV has destroyed Bf-109"  in the side bar of the HuD.  This will only be worse when the new campaign system arrives.  The original Il-2 had a much more instinctive grasp of the nuances of good gameplay with a more sparing approach and a simple "Enemy Aircraft Destroyed".

[216th_Jordan]

 

Soon will we see H111 gunners to blow up an aircraft with a single shot or in 0.3 sec aim, pull the trigger and shoot with millimetric accuracy agaist aircraft that is passing at 710 km\h?

I cant wait to see these things.

 

 

 

It seems that you are not very often the bomber pilot. Additionally the gunner in the Pe-2 performes so well because of the high muzzle velocity of the UBT. It might be a bit off, yeah, maybe or even probably. But the He-111 gunners not hitting a stationary target behind them really is a problem, a much bigger one than occasional snapshot snipers actually.

Btw: I am having better results in the Pe-2 firing the turret myself

Edited January 9, 2017 by 216th_Jordan

[II./JG77_Manu*]

It seems that you are not very often the bomber pilot. Additionally the gunner in the Pe-2 performes so well because of the high muzzle velocity of the UBT. It might be a bit off, yeah, maybe or even probably. But the He-111 gunners not hitting a stationary target behind them really is a problem, a much bigger one than occasional snapshot snipers actually.

Btw: I am having better results in the Pe-2 firing the turret myself

 

I don't think that the Pe2 is overpowered however..i mean like Shamrock already said, bombers are not supposed to be certain kills without taking damage yourself. It happened quite often that unwarry or rookie fighter pilots got shot down, on every side. It was no oddity. When you attack the bombers in game in a certain manner, you won't get shot down. Last time i got shot down by an attacker/bomber was 11 month ago - and it wasn't a Pe2 . If people get regularly shot down by defensive turrets, they just have to learn a little bit more how to do it - no offense, and i don't wanna slag anyone, but i know enough pilots that don't have problems to shoot down a Pe2. The odd man out here is the 111, whose turrets are rubbish..and are hopefully getting fixed in the future. 110 turret also feels awful..the rest of the defensive turrets is fine, i think. Just my feelings, no scientific tests.

[Lusekofte]

My point is basically that fighter pilots are the one demanding changes all the time, that may be improvements of ammo or disabling gunners in the bombers, and no I do not mean most fighter pilots. There is a price for not helping fellow bombers, and that is lesser bombers. If you want less accurate gunners and more realism, why is it so hard to fly realistic? Because as I see it , there is no difference in behaviour here and in WT , it is the same chaotic experience.  The only difference is game-engine. Hell now a days it is a common sight fighters do not bother to taxi to runway in Random expert.

And closed events seems to be the only way to go me think to have it another way. Luckily we got that in FNBF, and there was a attempt from a ZG unit some time back. 

 

Until there is some form of realistic flying , I think the historical and realistic wishes are a bit hollow and lack context. But that is my opinion

Edited January 9, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Mate, there is no realism in BoX. It's not even possible technically, with the engine. You know what realism is? 50 IL2's in close formation, going into defensive circles when attacked, and covering each other. You know what happened in real life? They still got farmed by fighters, when no proper fighter cover around. Realistic would be (at least at later stages of the war) that those 50 IL2's are covered by 20 or 30 fighters. This way the probability that "you" survive in your own IL-2 is there, because of numbers. When the Axis shoot down 5 or 10 IL2, it's still most likely that you survive. That would be realistic..not possible unfortunately.

Now you want the aircraft/bombers to behave realistic (DM, gun damage) or you just want them buffed up to balance it out? That is the question...

Like you said, FNBF is a good attempt to close in on realism, but you're still much more likely to get shot down in FNBF, then it was in real life -->numbers are not there.

If the US would've sent 50 instead of 500 unit B17 pulks over Germany, there would've probably been a 10% survival chance. Safety is in numbers

Edited January 9, 2017 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Scojo]

As far as the AI gunner debate, do we know how accuracy of the gunners is determined and set in game?

 

Is accuracy based on some metric taken from statistics from the time period, or is it just set to a level that "felt right" in testing?

 

Also, I'd like to say that I think AI gunner accuracy is definitely not "too poor". In WWII, B-17s flew in such tight formations so that they could more easily bring more guns to bear on a fighter, but we know that fighters still shot down plenty of B-17s and some number of LW fighters got back home after. I say that to point out the fact that if you're in alone or in a 2-3 bomber flight, you can't really count on your gunners, because you wouldn't be able to IRL either...

 

In game playing as a gunner, there are MANY factors that our accuracy is unaffected by:

1) We don't have to properly line up sights, the game does that for us

2) We are unaffected by vibrations of the plane and recoil

3) We are unaffected by actually being in a state duress (we can't actually die)

4) We are all sitting in nice comfortable homes and soft ergonomic chairs

 

All of these things are things that would very likely hinder our overall accuracy IRL, but that do not hinder us in a video game.

 

So I would say ask yourself this when considering AI accuracy:

1) If 5+ bombers were in tight formation, would attack be extremely dangerous?

2) If only 1-4 bombers were in tight formation, would attack be relatively simple with a good chance of getting hit badly?

3) if only 1-4 bombers are in loose formation (which they usually are in MP), would picking them off one at a time be easy?

4) If there's only 1 bomber, would a kill be near guaranteed with a chance of a lucky shot taking me out of the fight entirely?

 

Based on this line of thinking, I think accuracy is fine in game. In fact, I think Human gunners might be much more accurate compared to the real thing.

 

And I also think that based on the fact that bombers never bombed alone or in small and spread out groups says even more about the topic.

 

If you attack a bomber from a bad angle, you shouldn't be surprised when you either get ate up with shots or get killed by a bullet through a critical component or the cockpit. Also, if you pick a good attack angle and make it a passing attack, the bomber has no reason to be upset when you drop him after 1-3 passes. (And I feel that's the current state of AI gunnery right now)

Edited January 9, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[Lusekofte]

That would be a dream Manu. But I know there is not a chance for realism in a  historical proportion. And I do not mind getting shot down in my IL 2 nor PE 2. It is the total lack of interest I find peculiar in a environment that suppose to wish for historical and realistic plane. But I think this game ambition is to make a realistic war game in as good flight models the budget allows. I think there is considered a portion of playability when this game is created, and I think that is for the best.

 

 

Based on this line of thinking, I think accuracy is fine in game. In fact, I think Human gunners might be much more accurate compared to the real thing.

ME too, because we do not have any G forces when we shoot, also the AI gunners wont have it if the pilot restrain himself in turns 

[Scojo]

 50 IL2's in close formation, going into defensive circles when attacked, and covering each other. You know what happened in real life? They still got farmed by fighters

I agree with this 100%

 

The losses in WWII were bad even with numbers and training, so 1-3 pilots in game doing the same thing shouldn't expect to get home unless they have good cover or get lucky and go unspotted

My point is basically that fighter pilots are the one demanding changes all the time

Demands without proper proof that something needs to be changed aren't considered at all by the devs, I'm sure. At least I hope.

 

I'm also pretty positive that if the fighters went and provided numbers based on their experiences, they'd find that they collectively as a whole aren't sniped as often as they seem to think, and when they are, there's likely something they did wrong or could have done better. Human nature tends to remember the bad and forget the rest

 

However, if some people gather enough data from doing a large sample size of sorties against bombers and show that the percentage of sorties where they get "sniped" is abnormally high, especially from flights of 1-3 bombers, then there would be some grounds to their claims

Edited January 9, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[Willy__]

-snip -

 

 

 

Scojo, I understand your points, but when people relate to the "gunners are too accurate" most of the time they are talking about attacking a single bomber! Just ONE!

Edited January 9, 2017 by JAGER_Staiger

[Semir]

I'm also pretty positive that if the fighters went and provided numbers based on their experiences, they'd find that they collectively as a whole aren't sniped as often as they seem to think, and when they are, there's likely something they did wrong or could have done better. Human nature tends to remember the bad and forget the rest

 

However, if some people gather enough data from doing a large sample size of sorties against bombers and show that the percentage of sorties where they get "sniped" is abnormally high, especially from flights of 1-3 bombers, then there would be some grounds to their claims

 

It would have been great to hear the dev's stance on this, as going out of your way to collect the data, present it and have it trashed by variety of excuses would be disheartening to anybody.

 

Another issue is the unwillingness of the devs to provide us with in-game statistics, such as accurate gauge readouts (which we could have used for external gauges too!) and other monitoring info, which would have helped the players to narrow down the issues and report them in a much more accurate manner. I understand that the argument against this is that the devs accept the 5-10% error in their simulation, but that should not mean the data should be hidden entirely.

[Scojo]

Only historical figures and accurcy should be used.

 

If anything is going to be balanced for the game may as well go back to War Thunder.

I agree with these points, however, for game aspects that don't have historical figures, the developers have to sort of go with what "feels right in the historical context". And in cases like that, the best we can do is take data from people playing the game and make an educated guess on how to tune everything

[ITAF_Cymao]

It seems that you are not very often the bomber pilot.

You're right, I dont fly often with bomber, offline.

But often I fly online with the H111 or Ju88 and this was my best performance on WoL server

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/pilot/74/ITAF_Cymao/?tour=10

 

and you can see that often online I fly the bomber and I often I fly online Fw190 ...

I know very well what it means on H111 or Ju88 to to be attacked by a enemy fighter and what it means to attack a Pe2 with german planes...

 

S!

Edited January 9, 2017 by ITAF_Cymao

[Scojo]

Scojo, I understand your points, but when people relate to the "gunners are too accurate" most of the time they are talking about attacking a single bomber! Just ONE!

I understand. I would just challenge those people to record their sorties against bombers and really consider how often they're getting hit, keeping in mind how well they approach the target.

 

As I said before, people tend to do two things:

1) only remember the bad

2) think something is wrong with the game instead of their tactics

 

I'm not saying this is the case and that all fighter pilots are whining and have no grounds to their argument. I'm just saying we can't be sure they are right until they provide proper proof.

 

The burden of proof is on the fighter pilots in this case

 

The He-111 issue, though? The burden of proof is on the He-111 pilots in that case

Edited January 9, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[Tomsk]

I agree with these points, however, for game aspects that don't have historical figures, the developers have to sort of go with what "feels right in the historical context". And in cases like that, the best we can do is take data from people playing the game and make an educated guess on how to tune everything

 

Absolutely. Take the classic "machineguns vs cannon" relative effectiveness question. This can really affect the outcome of some simulations (especially those involving US planes). But to be honest it's really hard to get any serious data on it. So I'm sure the developers just kinda tweak it until it "sorta feels right".

[Lusekofte]

acking a single bomber! Just ONE!

 

It is very seldom my gunner manage to dispatch a fighter attacking me, not enough to prevent me being damage beyond any chance of RTB. I can assure you they are not that accurate. However when I fly SP I have myself been sniped by PE 2 gunners and HE 111 gunners, so I know the feeling of frustration.  

I just say every time a 109 jockey get hurt, why should a Russian plane be changed. I think it pops up a topic about this every week.

This is why I try to figure out if the developers have integrated a form of playability in this simulator

Edited January 9, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Yakdriver]

STOP

is it a simulator to you or not?
 

I keep saying this is not a flight simulator, but still I enjoy a free flight more here than in X plane 10.

This is why I try to figure out if the developers have integrated a form of playability in this simulator

 

My take-away, what i understand you say is this:
if compromised for play-ability = not simulator
if no compromise = simulator

 

 

 

 

Personal opinion...

Looking back on 16 Years of Flight SIMS... and i doubt you will disagree, as you too have seen the development ever since 2000 (or even longer)

-This is as close as we can get (to the eastern Front flying) today, with the manpower, hardware, software and money available.
- Software that tries to bring the Player / Simmer as close as he can get is a simulator. Thankfully not Real life.
- Just look at UNLOCKS as one example...  hated, warthunder like and ultimately.... gone. (tech evolution)

- I doubt you find many angry heated debates about chute killing (practicals, ethics, morale, the works) on WT forums. (Target group)
- This Team, just like the teams before, aims high, as high as they can, and still make sense on a technical, experience and economical side.

TL;DR
This is a proper Sim. Not 110% Hardcore, but definitely out of the "game" league. WAY out of that league.

Edit:
the fact that complex engine startups were removed, therefor a compromise towards playability answers the Original Question:
You have to see this as a Game, right?

if that is accurate,
Make sure you communicate accordingly, else i get confused as Flying Flapjack.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Yakdriver

[Mac_Messer]

 

Obviously some are , but personally I do not think I am. I keep saying this is not a flight simulator, but still I enjoy a free flight more here than in X plane 10. I also say I am fond of the gunners in my PE 2/ IL 2 online , but I hate them on single player.

My sp experience on both sides is that if you level out on their six at 300m you will get hit. But on high speed passes I rarely got wounded or broke my plane. My gripe with shooting bombers and ground pounders is that they`re bullet sponges. When flying LW most of my kills ditched not because of the plane losing ability to fly but because the AI started acting silly. When flying VVS the bombers are of no problem whatsoever, just LW fighters.

I personally think there should be a possibility to get a fair chance while in multiplayer, and there is continuous claims of bias Developers making the Russian side better and LW less effective, Personally I do not think this is so, but I believe there is FM faults. I am also not sure we ever will have Red side on servers if the FM was totally spot on, in fact we struggle big time as it is.

In 1946 people were also very disadvantaged on some sortie scenarios on both sides but mp was very popular. People need compelling war scenarios that create incentive to fly. All this biased/FM bullsh_t goes quiet when there`s an exciting war going on.

 

 

 

Do fighter pilots want bombers to fly in Multiplayer as bombers or targets? Will we loose bomber pilots if they cannot be somewhat protected?

Does not matter without context or a wider picture if you will.

 

 

Shall this be a playable war simulator or separate plane simulator? Or like it is a balance between the two. And how can we find a balance that all can accept?

Being an air war simulator is what advantage this product has over other products. The developpers are IMO on the right track in providing cohesive war operation theaters, even if the times are hard and air simmers have short supplies of manpower and money. There have been some dev mistakes but who makes no mistakes, right? I believe in Jason Williams` attitude towards the genre and agree with his perception of the point in which the genre is currently.

 

That said, I also cannot omit that the combatflightsim genre is a very hard one to work in. You make some mistakes and people will forget you and move onto other products (for example, many combatflightsimmers are also virtual drivers) and hobbies.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Mac_Messer

[LuftManu]

I only wish for more accurate gunners.

 

Fighters nowadays just shoot from whatever angle. This should not happen. You may think twice before going at the six of one bomber or one Il-2.

 

I remember the "Sniper" gunners on the old Il-2, the B-17 gunners. Think what you want but It was really fun for our squadron plan attacks to that kind of formation and it was kinda realistic.

[Guest deleted@30725]

The needs of the OP differ from the requirements of the game some might say.

 

It would be hard to only be a bomber only pilot since the missions are fluid. Sometimes I fly bomber only in the HC servers, sometimes I fly fighter. Sometimes I escort bomber, sometimes I am escort by some fighter. Sometimes I am escort by some fighter when I have no idea of my plan. I think for this solution communication is the key over game design. Such with many games are best with group of unknowns communicating or groups of friends in the same town or room.

 

Having said that, I've not played for a couple of months. I LOVE the game. Love, love, love, love, absolute best ever immersive flight sim good! Community fun, developers engaging and game design Sim mode, but not study and not arcade. Middle ground. But I have thrown my joystick out the window at times and played less because of unlocks that now we have them I tend to fly the planes stock!!

 

But I can't dedicate so much time as I like. This is problem for active online membership or join flying group, but job, etc take priority and then there is time when I feel like using the F-15 in DCS or the F16 in falcon BMS. I also got far cry blood dragon in the free giveaway over xmas (best fps / story in a long time!) and am playing that as well as a little far cry 3 again. I also like world of tanks, IL2 clod and re-played grim fandango while picking up Il2 1946 on steam in the sales (now there is some way to see FM progression). I even enjoy the low tiers of war thunder tanks.

 

I can't do the same thing for a long time either. Even Il2 I say today I love it, but if I play for many hours every day for the next month I would bore, I would tire and I would start moaning so I do something else and come back to it. The game is the same, but I am refreshed so I try and play a little every some months so it stays fresh and it enriches life, rather than being a chore or a job without money.

 

I think it's important to keep a level of perspective. Step back, come back in a few months. I've certainly come and gone from this game for extended periods as outlined and the game has changed significantly for the better. There seem to be more people than ever playing it and the complaints of the community have been heard and acted on. People still complain about the same things, but people loove to complain eh. This is certainly a lucky position to be in as a consumer that while the needs of the creators sometimes clash with the desires of the players compromises and complete changes can come into effect to suit the people who spend many hours playing their creation.

 

You can't satisfy everyone - it is what it is.

[Lusekofte]

is it a simulator to you or not?

 

What I mean about it is not important, this is a combat simulator that gives a lot in all parts of it. what you quoted is what I think and what seems to be, not a opinion.

I think it is as good simulator as any when it comes to staying aloft and handling.

I think Online servers and I mean those currently used are more and more WT arcade game play.

I think DM could be more complex , but the visual damage model is best in business. I think the parameters that set engine failures is not simulator like .

But for a scenic route in a plane this is probably one of the best.

I think developers have put in some kind of a balance to make it possible in some way to equal a fight, like effective gunners in PE 2. And I am fine with it, personally. But I respect the fact that other do not. It is made for 84 people shall fight each other , not only for flight 

Edited January 9, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[BraveSirRobin]

You know what realism is? 50 IL2's in close formation, going into defensive circles when attacked, and covering each other. You know what happened in real life?

What happened in real life early in the war is actually very similar to what happens on WoL. It wasn't 50 IL2s, it was 2-6 with maybe a few escorts.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

What happened in real life early in the war is actually very similar to what happens on WoL. It wasn't 50 IL2s, it was 2-6 with maybe a few escorts.

Nah, the other way round. Bigger formations of Il2 (big enough to fly a proper defensive circle), and no escort

[Yakdriver]

Your thinking is good!

 

 

I think it is as good simulator as any when it comes to staying aloft and handling.

I think Online servers and I mean those currently used are more and more WT arcade game play.

I think developers have put in some kind of a balance to make it possible in some way to equal a fight, like effective gunners in PE 2. And I am fine with it, personally. But I respect the fact that other do not. It is made for 84 people shall fight each other , not only for flight 

 

I think...
The only ones who can answer this question are the game SIMULATOR developers.
The community (all of us) should not even try to find an answer, because it will lead to hot air and no clarification at all.

We guess.
they KNOW.

edit for clarity

Edited January 10, 2017 by Yakdriver

[Lusekofte]

Well I found some answers:

 

 

1) My question is about Pe-2 (DM and gunners sniping capabilities). Actually Pe-2 is more similar to a B-17 "Flying Fortress" than a medium bomber, and it's really going to ruin the game online. It's really exagerrated. Are you planning to review this aircraft, or do you think is realistically modelled?   2) What do you think about MG151/20?

 

 

1 - We have checked and re-checked. Pe-2 is weaker than Ju-88 and He-111, but stronger than Il-2. 2 - It's burst summary damage capabilities are near to be the same with ShVAK. ShVAK have more fire rate, more muzzle velocity, while MG have more HE damage

 

 

That is for the gunners in PE 2, I am only in SP when I am in the receiving end, on MP I am in the cockpit. I think by my many times crashing in a PE 2 that the gunners are seldom successful protecting me, and that is how it suppose to be, I do not know if the attackers are damage afterwards.

 

 

 

Hey,   actually the damage model is pretty accurate BUT in fact russian planes take much more beating than german planes.   It disappoints many german sided players.

 

 

 

Hey Fact that all russan figters have weaker flight characteristics than german fighters is disappoints many soviet sided players. But we still do our simulator historicaly without any ballance. Same here with your questions. Russian planes have wooden airframe, wooden airframe have 2.0 reqired margin of durability. While metall airframe have 1.4 margin of durability. Plus Bf 109 have 1 longeron wing while La-5 and Yak-1 have 2 longeron wing. AND THIS why german planes supreme in flight characteristics - they're LIGHTER while engine have same or close power. You want to force us to make unrealistic ballanced simulation? No, we will not.  

 

 

So I am wrong, there is no devious plan about balancing the game, they try to stick to historical features.

In COD flying Heinkels you do not that easily get shot down , but the gunners are totally hopeless and their guns are less effective when you hit. I feel the HE 111 is easier shot down here , but their guns are more effective if they hit. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Asgar]

i think the effectiveness of ALL gunners in IL-2 BoX is due to the high effectiveness of AP rounds. there is no real way to test it except maybe on the Stuka, IL-2 and La-5, but not for any of the MGs in game since we can't select our ammo belts. but it would be interesting to see the difference. maybe if i have time i can set up some test.

Edited January 10, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Lusekofte]

I have to admit that despite the fact that people complain  ( I think it is not complaining , more wanting improvements and it sort of gives a negative tone) we got a pretty good Combat Flight simulator. Speaking for myself I have to find a way to live with the existing MP . I find the new scripted campaign very amusing so in all things look brighter for me

i think the effectiveness of ALL gunners in IL-2 BoX is due to the high effectiveness of AP rounds. there is no real way to test it except maybe on the Stuka, IL-2 and La-5, but not for any of the MGs in game since we can't select our ammo belts. but i would be interesting to see the difference. maybe if i have time i can set up some test.

That would be great

[Yakdriver]

when both sides complain equally...
is it not then that we have balance?

or even that we are close to the real deal?

[Willy__]

 

 

That is for the gunners in PE 2, I am only in SP when I am in the receiving end, on MP I am in the cockpit. I think by my many times crashing in a PE 2 that the gunners are seldom successful protecting me, and that is how it suppose to be, I do not know if the attackers are damage afterwards.

 

 

Sorru Luse, but Han was talking about the ability of the Pe soaking up damage, and not about the gunners. You cant take comparisons on SP aswell because the AI are snipers with their aim while flying on fighters, its obvious your gunners wont protect you from them. Heck, they are able to land hits on head-ons in the most bizarre angles possible!

[Lusekofte]

No he answers a question about the PE guns, I see what you mean because it can be read like that, but he is actually talking about the gunner efficiency

[unreasonable]

BoX does seem quite confused in its conflict between SP and MP features.  As a primarily SP player, I can't tell you how annoying it is to always see the MP-style "Feathered_IV has destroyed Bf-109"  in the side bar of the HuD.  This will only be worse when the new campaign system arrives.  The original Il-2 had a much more instinctive grasp of the nuances of good gameplay with a more sparing approach and a simple "Enemy Aircraft Destroyed".

 

Agree with you about the message: have you put in a suggestion to this effect in the suggestions thread?

 

(Agree about the more general point as well, but there is not much we can do about that rather than keep hinting at the areas where SP needs the most work).

[BraveSirRobin]

Nah, the other way round. Bigger formations of Il2 (big enough to fly a proper defensive circle), and no escort

Not according to the interviews with Russian IL2 pilots that I've been reading recently. 'Red Star Against the Swastika" sounds a lot like BoX MP.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Not according to the interviews with Russian IL2 pilots that I've been reading recently. 'Red Star Against the Swastika" sounds a lot like BoX MP.

https://books.google.de/books?id=-92dCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=il-2+formation&source=bl&ots=s9kooIWySn&sig=ZpinbMTATcpb-DiXeWivwAHZmxA&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLgdmojsDRAhXFKMAKHYcABZoQ6AEIUTAK#v=onepage&q=il-2%20formation&f=false

page 12:

"during this time (1941) it was not uncommon for an entire regiment of 20 IL-2s to be thrown into action escorted by just one or two fighters"

there are several more statements about IL2 formation strengthes, i see numbers between 8 and 40, but no statement about 2 or 3 or 4 (which i suppose you meant with "like BoX MP") ?

Edited January 13, 2017 by II./JG77_Manu*