A Noob's Review

[RedKestrel]

Well, I've been flying new Il-2 for a couple of months now and I think I can give it a pretty comprehensive review. As for a sense of where my perspective is coming from, most of my sim experience is in Il-2 1946 which I've been flying for a couple years, so you'll have to forgive me if I spend too much time comparing it to that sim. I also played a lot of old, old Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 1 back when I was a teen, and some Jane's F-15 on the modern side of things. My experience of actual flight is limited to gliders and being a passenger on a few planes, including a radial-engined water landing bushplane. I also took a free ground school course put on by our local flying club. So most of my knowledge is theoretical.I also took a free ground school course put on by our local flying club.

So! A review, with an eye towards the perspective of a new player with a little bit of sim experience.

Overall Feel

I'm going to start with this, because this is where I think I really got hooked on this one. It's one that's hard to put into words as well...how does one think that the 'feeling' of flying a fighter is correct when you've never flown a fighter before? My experience of actual flight is limited to gliders and being a passenger on a few planes, including a radial-engined water landing bushplane. So most of my knowledge is theoretical.I also took a free ground school course put on by our local flying club.

I will say this: the feeling of flght, fidelity and immersion in this game is stellar. It's orders of magnitude beyond what I've tried before. The sounds, graphics and flight modeling give you a feeling of being in the cockpit that actually makes flying easier, even though (IMO) the aircraft are trickier in this sim than in Il-2 1946. Takeoff and landing feel more natural as you have a better sense of where you are in the air and how the plane is behaving.

Flight Modeling

Similar to 'overall feel', all I can really state is subjective. But each plane has its own quirks and behaviours in the air. Sudden maneuvers in an I-16 cause a violent spin that is nonetheless easy to get out of (as in real life). The MiG-3 has control lockup at high speeds and is sluggish and wallowing at low altitude or low speed, but flies amazing a medium to high speeds. The Il-2 feels heavy on the ground and in the air.

Flaps and gear are modeled differently on every aircraft, same for radiator settings. In Il-2 1946, a lot of this was simplified so things were similar for very different aircraft (i.e. landing and takeoff settings). The MiG-3's tailwheel in particular is both a pain and a joy when taking off and landing, so that it feels like an accomplishment to takeoff or land without ground looping or wrecking.

Ground handling is much, much more sophisticated with braking, rudder behaviour and engine torque. Gyroscopic effects when the tail wheel rises can catch you really badly if you're not ready for it.

In the air stalls and spins are modeled well, with proper recovery techniques largely getting you out of them, and doing the wrong thing accelerating the spin. Gyroscopic effects when diving and climbing are modeled as well, and keeping each plane coordinated in a turn is a must (and they all have varying amounts of rudder needed, at different speeds). Aerobatics are fun and challenging and 'riding the stall' is possible to do by listening and watching for the feedback from the plane. You can even counter an incipient stall or spin with a quick kick of the rudder, very useful in the disobedient I-16!

I will note I have seen some people say that torque is not modeled strongly enough on the ground. I can't say for sure that this is not the case, but in the planes that I fly most frequently I find I need a lot of rudder to compensate, and using not enough gets me in serious trouble. On the MiG-3 I can't take off at anything close to full power initially, and even when I don't use full power I have to use enough rudder that it unlocks the tail wheel, which you are not supposed to do! So presumably it was possible IRL to take off in a MiG-3 without unlocking the tail wheel, but I have never managed it.

Overall I love the flight modeling here, once again a full next generation compared to what I was used to, and its this and the feel of flight that keeps me coming back.

'Training Wheels' for the new User

Back when I played Il-2 1946 I mostly played with icons on and player location shown on the map for navigation. Since playing new Il-2, I don't use either of those things, so my comments on these are limited. That said, there is simplified controls available for new players, icons are there, and 'GPS' for those who want them. The realism settings aren't quite as customizable as 1946 but to me this isn't a big deal.

I've found Il-2 BoX to be much easier for going 'full real' in regards to navigation and aircraft ID. The better terrain modeling and higher detail makes it easier to navigate visually with the map (though I wish that the old Il-2 1946 'knee map' could be done in full real, as opposed to the fullscreen one, but its not a big deal). Also, the improved graphics makes plane ID much easier,a nd with a bit of practice I seldom mix up aircraft in combat.

Spotting is harder in this game than in 1946 due to the lack of 'dots' and icons at long ranges, but a few tweaks to the monitor and graphics settings improves this immensely IMO.

Overall the player assists are there for the new simmer, but I think everyone should take a run at turning off icons and navigation, it really adds to the immersion.

Gunnery and Damage Model

Gunnery is, I think, realistically implemented - bullets follow a ballistic path and different types of guns have different trajectories and speeds, so hitting with mismatched guns can be tricky (as in IRL). I know there were some things about convergence and harmonization that may not be modelled here, but I'm not a good enough shot to notice. 

The damage model is much improved compared to Il-2 1946, with a satisfying variety of destructiveness against aircraft and ground targets alike. Ground targets in particular I think are modeled better - different types of vehicles take multiple hits and there are delayed explosions, fragments, smoke, etc. Overall attacking ground targets is a much more harrowing experience as well. 

I will say that my feeling is the game somewhat over-models the damage of heavy machine guns like the 0.50 cal/12.7mm and under-models the cannons a little bit. In my experience Il-2 1946 did the opposite, with .50 cals feeling pretty weak and cannons ruling the day. I don't think its anywhere approaching 'game breaking' but its worth keeping in mind. because of this fighters I considered far too lightly armed in the old sim are totally adequate against other fighters in Il-2 BoX, though they still struggle with fighting bombers IMO.

Flak and AI gunners of various stripes are often extremely accurate, though I have to say I feel like this was worse in Il-2 1946. Attacking bombers is no easy task, and defended ground targets are extremely deadly. Still, there are ways to survive, and the 'sniper AI' definitely encourages teamwork and good tactics!

Which brings me to...

AI

Overall I have to say the AI is not terrible but not great. When flying against enemies on high skill levels, its possible to get into very engaging fights, with rolling scissors and lots of vertical maneuvering. However, a lot of combat with the AI turns into a low-altitude turning contest. I haven't experienced them crashing for no reason en masse, but others have. I think their terrain avoidance isnt great in areas of hills or mountains, but I've only played in Moscow and Stalingrad so far where things are pretty flat.

The ability to talk to the AI (and for them to talk to you) is lacking. The radio controls permitted are pretty sparse and your flight leader doesn't talk to you as much as I'd like (as in 1946, where they call out turns). What does happen is that your own pilot avatar calls out sightings, which is a little odd, but helpful for spotting in campaigns. Other pilots call out targets, true, but this is confusing if you dont' follow it. Ultimately you have to rely on your own 

The AI in Il-2 1946 is superior (and if anything too deadly, even on Rookie) but its worth noting that the AI improvements came many, many years after that sim came out.

Overall it could use a lot of improvement, but I think we have to recognize that AI is probably one of the hardest things to get right.

Career

Playing the Career is what I mostly do in Il-2 these days. It's a great single player mode. You can advance in rank, get medals, your victories are recorded and those of your squad are too. There is a variety of missions, and while sometimes you get the same mission type a few times in a row, we have to acknowledge that that was true in reality as well. Combat aviation can be repetitive.

The Career manages to be challenging despite the fighter AI not being excellent, which is an accomplishment in and of itself. In fact, most of the problems I have with the career circle back to AI behaviour. the ability to alter the frontline density and difficulty settings on the fly throughout the career is great, rather than forcing you locked in to initial choices.

Overall I love the career, all the atmospheric touches, the historical progression of the campaign and the movement of the units...it's all excellent.

Visuals and Sound
The graphics, even at the mid-range settings I have, are extremely good and contribute greatly to immersion. Smoke and explosion effects are very good as well. Tracer fire, lighting and shadows, raindrops on your windshield, and the varying layers of clouds (even some with vertical development!) are great. There is a bit of a graphical anomaly of fighters having jagged edges when flying past clouds, and while this is annoying I understand that this is a limit of the game engine and there's not much that can be done. 

The individual aircraft are lovingly modeled. The cockpits are excellent as well, giving a great feeling of being in the plane. 

The landscapes are great, with forest, stepped, streams. Flying low or high is gorgeous, and while there's some issues with view distances its to be expected to get any kind of 

The sound too, is excellent, from gunfire to engine sounds. Some of the sound may not be 100% realistic (how would I know?) but it is definitely an improvement over Il-2 1946

I might have some more thoughts later, but overall I have to say that this is the best sim experience I've ever had, and I would heartily recommend it to any combat flight sim enthusiast.

 

[seafireliv]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

What does happen is that your own pilot avatar calls out sightings, which is a little odd, but helpful for spotting in campaigns. Other pilots call out targets, true, but this is confusing if you dont' follow it. Ultimately you have to rely on your own 

The AI in Il-2 1946 is superior (and if anything too deadly, even on Rookie) but its worth noting that the AI improvements came many, many years after that sim came out.

Overall it could use a lot of improvement, but I think we have to recognize that AI is probably one of the hardest things to get right.


 

 

AI isn`t too bad, but could use lots of improvement still.

 

I find the fact that your pilot `speaks` for you off-putting. I prefer to make call outs myself or request landing permission myself. The callout of bogeys is the strangest, as it feels weird being told I`m engaging a bogey when I haven`t even seen it yet!

 

A strange design decision and it seems an awkward one. Wouldn`t it have been easier to allow the User to make these decisions? I mean you`re basically adding a mini-AI programmed routine to the Player which could go to the other AI  aircraft!   I hope one day it`ll be changed, but probably not.

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

Nice summary RedKestrel!

 

Unfortunately, with me as flight leader, my AI my wingmen go their own way, speed and time. I end up lone wolfing with the rest of my flight somewhere in the area flying with each other but not with me. Giving commands to them does nothing, and when the enemy engage they just fly around until shot down, not even attacking the enemy back. This is in my LA5s8 career BTW. I would like if the radio options was like IL-2 1946, and if the AI followed commands. 

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

The AI in Il-2 1946 is superior

+1

[ShamrockOneFive]

Great review RedKestrel. Extremely well balanced and well written!

[sevenless]

Very good put. Appreciate the time and thought you invested in your review, also well balanced. I agree on every account, since this is the sim which really got me back into flight sims after having a hiatus for nearly 20 years. I played 1946 on and off for a few years but only Il2:GB got me hooked again. It just feels right. So there seems to be something special with this gem ? 

[Finkeren]

As someone who has been around from the very beginning 5 years ago, it is so good to see, that the qualities of this sim has become readily apparent to a newcomer. You no longer have to ignore massive issues or otherwise dig deep to see the greatness. 

 

The diamond in the rough has been polished up pretty well.

[1./KG4_OldJames]

Now, cut and paste this review into Steam!

[TheWarsimmer]

Great review. Put her on Steam.

[RedKestrel]

7 hours ago, 1./KG4_OldJames said:

Now, cut and paste this review into Steam!

Can you post a review on steam for a game you haven't bought through them?

[1./KG4_OldJames]

Good question. I hadn't thought of that before I posted my "cut and paste" demand.

[seafireliv]

6 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Can you post a review on steam for a game you haven't bought through them?

No  you can`t.

 

Edit: I suppose you can do it on Amazon if they sell it, they don`t mind. I often put reviews of games I really like on Amazon even though I may not have bought the game from them. It`ll just say not verified bought from them, something like that.

Edited June 9, 2018 by seafireliv

[[N.O.G.F]_Cathal_Brugha]

@RedKestrellet me know and I will put it on steam for you, giving you the credit for it.