Devs, please allow us to fly any plane in AQM

[Jimmy445]

Sadly ☹️ the advanced quick mission generator (AQM) plane selection is restricted based on the scenario, timeframe and country.

 

I want to use a mustang or a Dora in moscow, stalingrad or Kuban maps on both sides. Yes! on both sides!

 

For example: I want to fly a Tempest on the germen side and a Me-262 on the russian side in AQM.

 

No need to change enemy planes or ground units, Just add an option to remove the player's plane selection restriction in AQM.

 

Please ? devs give us this option.

[Sandmarken]

I mostly do the rheinland map and if im the allied side, my opponents are mostly G6 early. I wish we had more power over what and how many opponent are in the air. I know you can choose to meet weak resistance, but I woud like the option to meet no resistance at all for some ground attack missions. And maybe not have thypoons covering my p51b bombing strike ???

[Noisemaker]

I'd just like to be able to fly all of the planes for the given maps they're available in.  For example the U2/Po2 is not available to fly in AQM at all.

[Avimimus]

I kind-of like having the AQMG aircraft availability be historically limited (and having the other QMB modes be the ones where I can put WWI aircraft up against the Me-262 etc.)

 

That said - I am looking forward to improvements, it possible expansion to the new WWI map, possible inclusion of the U-2VS, possibly more accurate cruise altitudes in BoBP etc. I think my top pick though would be expanding the diversity of ground target templates (e.g. variety of anti-shipping targets, more varied artillery positions).

 

P.S. It'd be amusing if one could select 'historical' resistance levels. - that way the Luftwaffe in 1945 would be unable to actually drop its bombs during the daytime usually (without having to abort after encountering insurmountable resistance) and the allies would have that no resistant option mentioned by Sandmarken ?

Edited January 6, 2022 by Avimimus

[percydanvers]

It would be good to have this maybe as a checkable box like it is in the Easy Mission Generator. I like having a little bit of structure, but I'll admit it would be very fun to take a P-51 to Moscow or something. 

 

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

I kind-of like having the AQMG aircraft availability be historically limited (and having the other QMB modes be the ones where I can put WWI aircraft up against the Me-262 etc.)

 

That said - I am looking forward to improvements, it possible expansion to the new WWI map, possible inclusion of the U-2VS, possibly more accurate cruise altitudes in BoBP etc. I think my top pick though would be expanding the diversity of ground target templates (e.g. variety of anti-shipping targets, more varied artillery positions).

 

P.S. It'd be amusing if one could select 'historical' resistance levels. - that way the Luftwaffe in 1945 would be unable to actually drop its bombs during the daytime usually (without having to abort after encountering insurmountable resistance) and the allies would have that no resistant option mentioned by Sandmarken ?

As far as minor improvements go I think one of the best things would be a greater degree of randomness in the encounters. Right now if you pick a ground attack mission you will be intercepted, and the interceptors will be reinforced by several other flights. This will happen even if you set the resistance to minimal (this mostly seems to govern how many planes are in the interceptor flights). It's to the point where unless I'm attacking a hard target I don't even take bombs on these missions because they will mostly become A2A. It would be nice to have the possibility of not encountering enemy aircraft, especially when you're flying as the allies in a timeframe were encounters with Luftwaffe fighters were pretty rare. Likewise it would be cool to have an option to set the resistance level and AI skill to "random" to make it more of a surprise. 

Anyway none of this is to say anything against the AQMB. It's one of my all time favorite features in IL-2 and I am still absolutely thrilled with it!

[ShamrockOneFive]

I personally like that the AQM missions are setup in a historical fashion. That goes for both the aircraft available and the opponents that you'll face. That said, I get the idea of the QMB as a bit of a sandbox environment. I'd rather not give up the historical setup by default so perhaps a checkbox could be implemented to enable the player flight to get access to other aircraft. A kind of tacit acknowledgement that you're choosing to fly a-historically with an Me262 against I-16s and MiG-3s over Moscow in 1941 (as an example).

Edited January 6, 2022 by ShamrockOneFive

[SCG_motoadve]

29 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I personally like that the AQM missions are setup in a historical fashion. That goes for both the aircraft available and the opponents that you'll face. That said, I get the idea of the QMB as a bit of a sandbox environment. I'd rather not give up the historical setup by default so perhaps a checkbox could be implemented to enable the player flight to get access to other aircraft. A kind of tacit acknowledgement that you're choosing to fly a-historically with an Me262 against I-16s and MiG-3s over Moscow in 1941 (as an example).

Agreed , wouldn't give up the historical  AQM mission.

What I would  really like is to have them in all the maps.

To me the nicest maps are Velikiye Luki and Prokhorovka, and are never used, not on career, single missions, AQM missions, PWCG and barely online if at all.

[Sandmarken]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I personally like that the AQM missions are setup in a historical fashion. That goes for both the aircraft available and the opponents that you'll face. That said, I get the idea of the QMB as a bit of a sandbox environment. I'd rather not give up the historical setup by default so perhaps a checkbox could be implemented to enable the player flight to get access to other aircraft. A kind of tacit acknowledgement that you're choosing to fly a-historically with an Me262 against I-16s and MiG-3s over Moscow in 1941 (as an example).

I totaly agree, and myself I want more customisation to give it even more of a historic feel.? Since the planelist for Moscow is so short, I for exampel find myself fighting soviet hurricans way more often than what I think woud be the case back then, or meeting a wm50 dora 9 in summer of 44. ?

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Agreed , wouldn't give up the historical  AQM mission.

What I would  really like is to have them in all the maps.

To me the nicest maps are Velikiye Luki and Prokhorovka, and are never used, not on career, single missions, AQM missions, PWCG and barely online if at all.

 

I have high hopes that once they have some more time that we'll see these maps added. Would be fun to fly over them for sure!

[percydanvers]

1 hour ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Agreed , wouldn't give up the historical  AQM mission.

What I would  really like is to have them in all the maps.

To me the nicest maps are Velikiye Luki and Prokhorovka, and are never used, not on career, single missions, AQM missions, PWCG and barely online if at all.

Absolutely. Flying CAS on Prokhorovka, would be an amazing experience. 

[Monksilver]

2 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

What I would  really like is to have them in all the maps.

To me the nicest maps are Velikiye Luki and Prokhorovka, and are never used, not on career, single missions, AQM missions, PWCG and barely online if at all.

 

Agree entirely, would be nice to have a reason to fly on those maps more often.

 

I also hope that when we get the Mossie we can have the option to not have fighter cover on ground attack and bombing missions so I can take my Mossie flight in on its own relying solely on speed to get in and out in one piece.

[Noisemaker]

34 minutes ago, Monksilver said:

 

...so I can take my Mossie flight in on its own relying solely on speed to get in and out in one piece.

Well, speed and your 4 x .303s and 4 x Hispanos... 

[danielprates]

5 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Velikiye Luki

 

Uhg. Reading this caused me an episode of PTGGSD (post traumatic gary grigsby stress disorder).

[Jimmy445]

On 1/6/2022 at 6:53 PM, percydanvers said:

It would be good to have this maybe as a checkable box like it is in the Easy Mission Generator. I like having a little bit of structure, but I'll admit it would be very fun to take a P-51 to Moscow or something.

 

yeah, a checkable box would be a good way to implement this.

[Zooropa_Fly]

I would apply this concept to all the campaigns and missions also.

 

In Settings / Game - there could be a checkbox called 'Historical Plane Set'.

Ticked by default, the game plays as is.

Un-tick and all the planes become available.

 

Not everyone gives a crap about historical accuracy - it's ok to want to play just for fun.

If one has paid for planes and maps I see no reason why one can't fly whatever they want wherever they want.

MP would of course need to be un-affected by this, but since aparently 90% of players stick to SP...

 

S!

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

Oh Quelle Surprise.

[Guster]

I'm a little surprised the LaGG-3 isn't available when selecting the Moscow maps. I'm pretty sure it was deployed there defending the capital 1941-1942.

[ShamrockOneFive]

2 minutes ago, Guster said:

I'm a little surprised the LaGG-3 isn't available when selecting the Moscow maps. I'm pretty sure it was deployed there defending the capital 1941-1942.

 

Earlier version were. The LaGG-3 Series 29 is a later development with several refinements including a slightly more powerful M-105PF engine.

[Guster]

7 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Earlier version were. The LaGG-3 Series 29 is a later development with several refinements including a slightly more powerful M-105PF engine.

 

Cheers! Makes sense then.

 

Edit: It's a bit tricky at times because often the literature does not name the exact variant. Oh well, one can make one's own missions and pretend it was a hot rodded version. Often the RAF engineers were able to squeeze up to 100 HP more out of the Merlins so why shouldn't the VVS be able to do the same?

Edited January 16, 2022 by Guster

[=621=Samikatz]

15 minutes ago, Guster said:

 

Cheers! Makes sense then.

 

Edit: It's a bit tricky at times because often the literature does not name the exact variant. Oh well, one can make one's own missions and pretend it was a hot rodded version. Often the RAF engineers were able to squeeze up to 100 HP more out of the Merlins so why shouldn't the VVS be able to do the same?

 

I believe the Klimov in the LaGG is actually detuned to produce less power, but keep the engine running more reliably.

[ShamrockOneFive]

22 minutes ago, Guster said:

 

Cheers! Makes sense then.

 

Edit: It's a bit tricky at times because often the literature does not name the exact variant. Oh well, one can make one's own missions and pretend it was a hot rodded version. Often the RAF engineers were able to squeeze up to 100 HP more out of the Merlins so why shouldn't the VVS be able to do the same?

 

Tracking Russian aircraft variants is a bit harder than some other nations air arms. Changes were often made incrementally rather in major version updates. In this case it'd be like having the Spitfire Mark Vb at the Battle of Britain.

 

For Battle of Moscow we should have something around the LaGG-3 Series 4 - an aircraft that was heavier, slower (by 30-40km/h), with a lower rate of climb, and carrying a battery of forward guns featuring two ShKAS 7.62mm, one or two UBS 12.7mm and usually a ShVAK 20mm cannon. The LaGG was designed for a more powerful engine but when that engine didn't materialize they made do by tweaking the 105PF and by reducing weight including armament down to the essentials making for quite a bit better of a fighter.

 

And if 1CGS ever offered it, I'd still fly the Series 4 over Moscow. Terrible aircraft but it'd be tremendous fun!

9 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

I believe the Klimov in the LaGG is actually detuned to produce less power, but keep the engine running more reliably.

 

The M-105PF was tuned differently for more power available at lower altitudes in expense of some higher altitude performance.

[Confused_2018]

I think that the checkmark idea is great. 

 

Seem to remember a few mistaken dogfights between VVS and P-38's or was it P-51s or both at different times?

[Alexmarine]

50 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

For Battle of Moscow we should have something around the LaGG-3 Series 4 - an aircraft that was heavier, slower (by 30-40km/h), with a lower rate of climb, and carrying a battery of forward guns featuring two ShKAS 7.62mm, one or two UBS 12.7mm and usually a ShVAK 20mm cannon. 

 

A little correction: Series 4 planes were still being built mainly with a central UBS machine gun meaning that the armament on the majority of early LaGG was 2× ShKAS and 2/3× UBS. The ShVAK seems to have started appearing just after the Series 5 production was started.

 

In any case it is something that modifications can easily represent 

[Guster]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Tracking Russian aircraft variants is a bit harder than some other nations air arms. Changes were often made incrementally rather in major version updates. In this case it'd be like having the Spitfire Mark Vb at the Battle of Britain.

 

For Battle of Moscow we should have something around the LaGG-3 Series 4 - an aircraft that was heavier, slower (by 30-40km/h), with a lower rate of climb, and carrying a battery of forward guns featuring two ShKAS 7.62mm, one or two UBS 12.7mm and usually a ShVAK 20mm cannon. The LaGG was designed for a more powerful engine but when that engine didn't materialize they made do by tweaking the 105PF and by reducing weight including armament down to the essentials making for quite a bit better of a fighter.

 

And if 1CGS ever offered it, I'd still fly the Series 4 over Moscow. Terrible aircraft but it'd be tremendous fun!

 

The M-105PF was tuned differently for more power available at lower altitudes in expense of some higher altitude performance.

 

Thanks! And yes, it's great fun flying the underdog. I'd normally pick the Yak-1 when playing Soviet and go up against F-4s and/or G-2s, but there's something about the LaGG-3, a certain charm I can't quite explain.

[ShamrockOneFive]

5 hours ago, Alexmarine said:

 

A little correction: Series 4 planes were still being built mainly with a central UBS machine gun meaning that the armament on the majority of early LaGG was 2× ShKAS and 2/3× UBS. The ShVAK seems to have started appearing just after the Series 5 production was started.

 

In any case it is something that modifications can easily represent 

 

Interesting. I've read many conflicting reports on the early series armament.

 

Worth noting that the original IL-2 Series 4 had a ShVAK too.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm pretty sure the very last series LaGG 3 had better altitude performance than the La 5.

[Alexmarine]

6 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Interesting. I've read many conflicting reports on the early series armament.

 

Worth noting that the original IL-2 Series 4 had a ShVAK too.

 

I think that the pre-war rationale was that LMGs and HMGs were enough for aerial combat (which seems to have been a thought shared by other countries too in the pre-war and early war period) while cannons were something that was needed mainly for ground attack. Indeed it seems that the I-16 armed with ShVAK were often employed specifically in ground attacks roles (like at Nomohan or during the Winter War). Of course once the GPW started the obsolescence of this line of thought (along probably the early Yak-1 models starting to score reliable results with their center-lined ShVAKs) meant that soon a cannon of at least 20mm calibre was seen as a necessity in modern air combat.