Jump to content
BlackSix

Thread to gather your suggestions

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Type of improvement:   Options menu

Add a field manual to the menu of the game, with details on how to do things, and what controls you

set in relation to the function.


Explanation of proposals:

Add a field manual to the game's menu, the idea is inspired by a game i play alot (Arma3), see screenshot:

Field Manual image (imgur)

In this game there is a field manual that breaks down every subject in terms of function, you have a

title for a subject, then underneath that a arrow you click on that will expand a list key of subjects, each key subject has its own description,

or information about that subject.

    In some of the subjects for function, the descriptions for a key subject will sometimes have keys from the controls link in there

so for example lets say a subject in IL2 was dropping bombs, then underneath that subject you had bomb types, and sizes, bombing distances. ect,.

    Manual Bombing

    --> Bomb Sizes/weights

               Description - 100, 250, 500, 1000kg  can be dropped using the Bomb drop, drop canister, parachute key ( key currently set for this action)

    --> Calculating bomb distances, drops

   ---> Best bombs for what targets

==============

Thats just one subject of many you could have in the game see screenshot as example reference,

there are many subjects between simple functions, features to complex.


Benefits:

The benefits of such a manual would save players alot of time if they had a question, concern, or needed a reference to look at while ingame

they could simply press escape and go to the field manual and look up the subject of interest and get some information on

it be it understanding what something does and why, which would also list the associative key you set for a certain function.

      Why chase and search for things, a new player to the game unless they are forum savy, and are apt to research, wont otherwise seek out information

unless they were serious enough to do so, thats not to say they wouldn't but if there was a field manual already in place then that could be

a good starting point, considering that the actual manual to IL2 is on the forum, and not a copy in the game's directory.

Edited by Gunter_Severloh
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Gameplay / Miscellaneous (Pilot Physiology)

 

Explanation of proposals: Pilot's seating angle relative to the centerline of the aircraft to be a factor calculated as part of the pilot physiology. This was a significant factor to the resistance of G-forces in manoeuvres compared to a more upright design.

 

Benefits: More accurate pilot physiology accounting for a key human factor that is attributable to an aircraft's design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Gameplay 

Explanation of proposals:

Please make possibility to request landing permission like in the old IL2. Now planes are landing in SP according to AI orders, in multiplayer planes are using navigation lights to not crash into each other.
Benefits: It would improve immersion in game play .

------------------------------

Type of improvement: Gameplay 

Explanation of proposals:

RRR currently does not replace dead gunners and replenish their ammo, which makes this feature unusable in multicrew planes (I don't know if it works in tanks in the same way)
Benefits: RRR could be reusable for all types of missions.

------------------------------

Type of improvement: Full mission editor

Explanation of proposals:

Toolbar divided into multiple tool groups are not working properly on 4K displays. Some of them are so tiny, that is almost impossible to use them. Also scroll viewers don't work properly on 4K displays
Benefits: Allow to mission builders work on missions on 4K displays.

------------------------------

Type of improvement: Full mission editor

Explanation of proposals:

Could you make mission tree to be shown/hide, that it will not refresh itself after grouping/ungrouping objects and/or other changes. Sometimes when there is a lot of objects and tree is refreshing itself, application crash without any error message
Benefits: It will make mission builder more stable.

------------------------------

Type of improvement: Fairness/Historical accuracy

Explanation of proposals:

Changing bombsights to historical ones improve game immersion and let user to use realistic bomb sights on bombers (Ju-88, He-111, Po-2)
Benefits: Using real bombsights will improve immersion in the game and historical accuracy.

------------------------------

Type of improvement: Gameplay

Explanation of proposals:

When playing as bomber, switching to bombsight is available only to pilot, what doesn't make sense. For example in Ju-88, front gunner is responsible for operating the bomb sight. When player is switched into front gunner, he must switch back to pilot using Ctrl + V shortcut to be able to switch to bombsight view using "V" key. When plane is occupied by multiple players in multiplayer mode, it would extend activities for front gunner too.
Benefits: Allowing to use bombsight from front gunner position would reduce time to bomb enemy targets as well as improve gameplay in multiplayer.

Edited by 1stCL/rudidlo
adding more suggestions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Platzschutz" airfield protection missions

 

Type of improvement: Career missions / historical accuracy

 

Explanation of proposal: Platzschutzstaffel in later Stalingrad career and III/JG 54 were "Platzschutz" - meaning airfield protection. In career they are treated as regular fighter units mission wise. They could also also have specific mission sets according to their function:

- top cover for starting/landing ju 52/me 262s

- more frequent scramble missions to defend own airfield

- escorting ju 52s out

- meeting up with ju 52s and escorting them in

such missions should be the bulk of action with bomber escort/free hunt/fighter bomber missions only accuring sporadicly for these units

 

benefit: besides from historical accuracy and more variety in career gameplay such a campaign would be quite immersive because your own home airfield is often in danger and you would also have rather short routes to action. Especially in the rheinland career the very long air marches - though historically accurate - become tedious fast. With III/JG 54 we would have the opportunity to fly shorter combat missions without sacrificing historical accuracy.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Career missions / historical accuracy

 

Explanation of proposal: The battle of Bodenplatte Career seems to be very repetitive. I have the exact same mission 10 times in a row provide CAP over ground forces. In this mission I have the same number of Allied aircraft taking on the same number of German Aircraft. I recommend mixing up the missions better and change the difficulty setting from number of aircraft I encounter to the probability of encountering aircraft at all.  I would also like to see missions on the Allied side that are simply Armed Recon missions with only 2 or 4 aircraft. From what I have read these missions were quite prevalent, instead of attacking a specific target you attack any targets within a region.

 

Benefit:  Improved Historical Accuracy and more repeatability. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: Controls

 

Explanation of proposal: Allow us to bind VR zoom to an axis as is available in 2D config.

 

Benefit:  Binding multiple buttons for zooming on HOTAS controls can be difficult accommodate and remember when trying to use them. A single axis would be great. I, personally, have a shortage of touch-identifiable buttons but 2-3 unused axis on my HOTAS setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Quality of Life

 

Explanation of proposal: Virtual Knee Board with multiple pages that can be customized by players, that can be accessed during flight.

 

Benefit: Especially VR users can't access hard copy print outs during a sortie. A Virtual Knee Board would allow access to flight plans and check lists during flight. This would also benefit 2D users.

 

****

 

Type of improvement: Quality of Life for VR Users

 

Explanation of proposal: 20degr. left or right head rotation by key press for VR users.

 

Benefit: VR Head Sets are limited to a FOV of around 90degr. Human peripheral vision is +120degr. Adding 20degr of head rotation would allow VR users to check six more realistically.

 

****

 

Type of improvement: In-Game display calibration

 

Explanation of proposal: Add contrast and brightness sliders and a calibration image.

 

Benefit: Brightness and contrast could be adjusted for the type of display used, to allow for ideal base settings to allow for optimal spotting.

 

 

Edited by ACG_crane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement: Defensive formations for Il2s and 110s

 

Explanation of proposals: I've read of two tactics that were used as defence for Il2s and/or 110s under attack. It would be good to have these implemented to occur sometimes. Apologies, I can't recall the actual names of the tactics.

 

1) Il2s with no rear gunner would weave across each other when under attack (read this in Red star vs the swastika), this would help put off the aim of the attacker and allow a following il2 to maybe take a shot at an attacker. The player can actually do their part in this themselves and I've had two kills in two missions doing so which is nice, but it would be good if the AI could also weave, and shoot if the opportunity arises.

 

2) I've read a few accounts of aircraft such as  bf110s (and I think il2s) making a defensive wheel and whilst the effectiveness of this seems to have been pretty poor, it would be nice to have the AI do so from time to time.

 

For both of these it would be excellent to have the command as a leader to order this, or hear the command to enter and leave it given by the leader.

 

They wouldn't need to do it everytime, perhaps just when over a certain altitdue and a distance from target to try and so make the execution of it easier. Other times, just flying as they do now would provide variety.

 

Benefits: It would be massively enjoyable to dive on some 110s or il2s and see them implement a weave, or wheel, or similarly be commanded into it and endure the attacks or try and hit an attacker when flying a ground attacker. As far as the weave goes, I feel it is a very good tactic that would help mission survival as a ground attacker! I've never seen such defensive maneavers n a flight sim, maybe I am mistaken, but it would be a great 'first' if so and really help with the feel of the game.

Edited by John_Yossarian
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type of improvement:  User control over RGB color adjustments.

 

Explanation of proposals:

Unfortunately everyone does not have the same monitor, eyes, room lighting, etc. and therefore the look of the game is different to each person, with some people being color blind.  Reshade allows for the individual colors to be adjusted.  This helps make the game look better to them than the standard in-game colors on their monitors.  Since Reshade is now an admin option many of the servers no longer allow it.  If the game included some basic ability to adjust the the RGB color, via e.g. sliders, it would allow players the choice of what looks best for them.  The scale for each color would not have to allow the full spectrum of color adjustment from 0 to 255 but instead just the middle ground of each color to make tweaks with.

 

I don't see this as any different from allowing each person to select the level of gamma, sharpening, type and amount of anti-aliasing, etc. that they prefer.


Benefits:

With the increase in servers opting to ban Reshade, a color adjustment built into the game would still allow players to see the game with the colors that looks best to them in their environment without the ability to use this as a cheat. 

 

 

Edited by VBF-12_Stick-95
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: HUD/icon changes
 

Explanation of proposals:

 

1) Please could you seperate HUD from radio messages and mission messgages

 

I would like to turn off the direction compass and G indicators but retain the radio messages as I don't understand Russian/german. Its been a while since I did a scripted mission but I understand the screen messages (Mission complete etc.) are linked to HUD too.

 

2) Add icon options to determine which we want to see when icons are on, mods can only do so much. I would like the aircraft id (which is pilot in PWCG) to show, but not the distance. Especially no distance on ground objects. Also option to have friendly aircraft icons only, or vice versa and no ground icons.

 

Benefits: Options are nice, they let people enjoy the game more and tailor it to their preferences.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion: auto-dimming of the map at nighttime.

 

Benefit: right now, when flying missions at night, the brightness of the map is extremely harsh. Something like the Silent Hunter games, where the map auto-dims when the sun goes down would be great.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of Improvement: UI/VR

 

Explanation of Proposal: Create alternative default centered head locations for VR mode. 

 

Description of Benefits: Allows the VR head to be separately centered to the natural pilot head location for aircraft with offset gunsights, rather than the hindsight centric head location used for the monocular mode.

 

Basically, centering the primary view axis on the gun sight makes sense for the monocular view, but puts the VR pilot sitting partly out of the plane in VR mode, and feels weird. Because you've got both eyes in VR, usually the gun sight lines up with the right eye when you are seated normally anyways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Suggestion:  

 

                            Add oxygen masks to gunner models when at O2 altitude.  

Reason:   

                            While flying in the Pe-2 at 3500m, looking over my shoulder at the gunner not wearing an O2 mask makes me wonder, "How does he do it?" (lol?)

 

 

Suggestion:  Offer multiplayer server option to "set and lock FoV for all players" or "set and lock Fov zoom range for all players".

 

Example:  Server would be able to set and lock a specific FoV like 90 and then set the amount of zoom in and/or out that can be used.  

                    So:  if base FoV was set by the server op at X, they could 'hard lock' all players to the same.   Or, the base FoV could be set at X, then a  +/- zoom range could be set.  ie; Base Fov = 90. Max zoom in FoV = 85.  Max zoom out = 95.  Of course, the settings should be as variable as the server operator desires.  

 

Reason:  

                  Would be an option for the more 'hardcore' type servers and could be adjusted to simulate a more realistic level of focus range regarding the human eye.  

 

I also would like to be able to set my own custom min/max zoom range when using zoom in, zoom out keys as I find I usually stay within a certain range manually anyway.  It would simply be an easy aid to better control the FoV zoom. 

Edited by 69th_Mobile_BBQ
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement:

Immersion
Explanation of proposals:

Add some sort of position reference to wingmen/flight call-outs when engaging targets.
Perhaps a radio option to call out for a position from the flight?
Benefits:

In single player mode flying campaigns and missions it's very easy to loose the flight and wind up alone.

To get a reference point to where the other flight members are located would be highly beneficial for immersion and "fun".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement: 

Multiplayer

Explanation of proposals:

Give players an option to disable server messages, eg. "Player-XXXXXX connected" or "No position data from Player-YYYYYY"

Benefits:

This would reduce chat spam by a huge margin on highly populated servers, and allow the chat to be used more efficiently for actual communication.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

This topic is not dedicated to discussion but to present your suggestions. As stated at the OP, I have deleted all posts that didnt follow the format asked for.

 

Any posts not following the above format will be deleted to avoid clutter and help to stay focused.

Please don't write here questions. I will not gather and process this data.

 

Thanks for understanding,

 

Haash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Suggestion:

 

Ai and human:   Multicrew planes don't seem to consider non-pilot (gunner) safety restraints or lack thereof during maneuvering.  Change this.

 

Some crew member do not have restraints and are reliant on their own strength to brace for maneuvers.  At least one plane (IL-2 '42 gunner position) had historically inadequate restraints. ie; The canvas seatbelt which could snap when over-negative-G forces were applied to the gunner, thus throwing him from the plane.  

 

Reason for suggestion: 

 

Pilots would have to choose to potentially injure (or kill) their crew members during extreme maneuvering or fly within more realistic parameters.  Of course, positive G maneuvers would be less dangerous.  AI planes such as the He-111, Ju-88, Me-110, IL-2 (with gunner) and Pe-2 would no longer be as prone to pulling negative G or extreme aerobatic maneuvers that were realistically not possible due to crew considerations.  

Edited by 69th_Mobile_BBQ
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion:

make bloom a seperate option instead of it being tied to HDR. While i like the HDR effect, i dont like the bloom that comes with it. so i have to manually edit the startup.cfg to disable bloom.

it would be a welcome change to be able to have a checkbox for bloom seperately.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement:
Damage model, Miscellaneous (server configurability)

 
Explanation of proposals:
Provide server configuration options to control the realism level of the damage model behavior. Specifically, three options allowing the adjustment of different aspects of the damage model:
1) Control failure adjustment (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, "normal", 2x)
2) Structural collapse adjustment (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, "normal", 2x)
3) Pilot health hit adjustment (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, "normal", 2x)

Setting control failure to 1/4, for example, would mean control failure would happen only 25% of the times as expected in the normal (default) game behavior.


Benefits:

Allow server administrators to best target the profile of their player audience in terms of realism.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type of improvement:
Disappearing planes (damaged planes)

 
Explanation of proposals:
Planes. Not your squadron mates, but enemy planes and other friendly planes appear and disappear in the game. What I really dislike is that after shooting up an airplane, as it’s limping away, the plane will just disappear. I would prefer it if damaged planes would Only disappear once they’ve landed back at base or have crash landed. Not in the air.


Benefits:

Would allow the player to not be credited for shooting down the enemy plane because it made it back to base, not because the plane just disappeared into thin air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Type Of Improvement: Visual /Functional mod for the P-47D Thunderbolt (Bubbletop) - Addition of extended tailfin/ridge

 

Explanation of proposal:  Since we already have a P-47D 'bubbletop' version in game , would it be possible to add the extended tailfin / tailfin with longer ridge feature as a modification? Similar to how we're able to select either a clipped wing or a regular wing for the Spitfire Mk.IX?

 

Benefits: There are reports that this feature improved the overall handling and stability of the aircraft.

 

Link to images for reference

 

3eDnghK

 

https://bit.ly/399QxQ4

Edited by SkyStriker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type Of Improvement: View/Zoom control by increments

 

Explanation of proposal:  Would allow to zoom/widen view by increments by using 2 keys for increasing and decreasing

 

Benefits: While i really appreciate the new quick zoom option it is sometimes still too fast and moving.  Incremental (fixed) zooming will allow to track better by making it easier to zoom and adjust to center the view on the object progessively and in a more controllable manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Persistent planes in players squadron

 

Type of improvement: career gameplay/realism

 

Explanation of proposal: Saving the alterations and skins to all planes in the squadron and taking them off duty for several hours or one day when they are about to be altered. Historically modification like wb 151 gunpods could be installed/removed in the field, but not in 2 minutes before a scramble.

 

Benifits: Would add an interesting management component to a squadron leader career as well as immersion because youcould recognize your planes in the sky as well. Maybe combine with limited modifacations like a G6/G14 squadron only recieving 2 MK108 and when they are lost, they are gone until new guns are delivered. Would also make the outcome of mission more meaningfull.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ranks, promotions and roles in the career mode

 

Type of improvement: career gameplay/realism

 

Explanation of proposal:

 

Note: read the bold text for the short version :)

 

1) Promotion is too fast. It’s unrealistic and damages the gameplay. Many players are able to progress from the lowest to the highest rank within one campaign and just 2-4 months even without having hundreads of kills but with just several dozens. Perhaps, it was initially designed to enable any player to get promoted to the commander in the original BoS but now we can enjoy a career from BoM to BoBP so it could get some overhaul. Another explanation could be that ranks almost have no effect on the gameplay until you gain a high enough rank for the commander position so it may be boring to experience a long way to the commander but see the next suggestion 2) that can change this. Now it's like almost any player demonstrates an exceptional career in the very beginning but then get stuck in the progress for the rest of the war. It seems that the promotion depends equally on individual performance (kill score) and mission success. Award system is already and primary to recognise the pilot’s individual performance while the promotion should've depended more on the number of successful missions especially for the higher ranks and flight leaders, in my opinion (the kill score contribution to the promotion may gradually decrease after gaining the first commissioned officer rank). Also the distance between ranks seems constant. Perhaps, the increasing distance would be better. For comparison, the earliest promotions to the next rank I can find for the best German pilots is 2 months between non-commissioned officer ranks for Marseille, 1 month to Leutnant for Werner Mölders, 11 months to Oberleutnant for Marseille (seems that is the most difficult promotion to get as it usually means the first serious unit commander postion as well and 2 years were more common), 3.5 months to Hauptmann for Graf, 11 days to Major for Graf as just Staffelkapitän (more like exception to recognise his absolute record of 200 victories at that time as he had already received any possible awards by that time) and 8 months to Major for Hartmann (that was on the last day, more like a farewell present before getting captured). So, in theory, it could be like 1.5 years from Feldwebel to Hauptman but IRL it's always at least a few years but definitely not a few months, e.g. it took 3 years for Graf and that's still quite fast. It was also not very unusual for some top scorers to stay in lower ranks for quit a long time as the higher rank the higher responsibility for other people therefore extensive experience and demonstrable leadership skills are absolutely necessary. It makes sense to associate this with the number of successful missions with the premium for leading the flight. Perhaps, addition some random element to promotions an not just a fixed score threshhold will help as well to balance everything. Another option is a cap for the number of promotions per campaign (a single campaign is BoM, BoS, etc). Also, if the player wish to start from the non-commander position but does not want to experinece all the way to this position, player should be abble to chose the rank they wish to start from instead of getting artifical acceleration of their promotion. Actually, I think, it all was pretty much like that in the old IL-2. Applying all these changes, I would prefer to see something like promotion to Oberfeldwebel or Leutnant in BoMLeutnant in BoS, Oberleutnant or Hauptman in BoK and Hauptman or Major in BoBP if the player starts from Feldwebel in BoM. German side is used just for example.

 

2) As we don't have a proper flight management yet, there is no the pilot role such as pair leader but the current game design allows wingman and section/squadron leader roles. However, the rank almost has no affect on roles. Even when you are the commander you may be assigned as a wingman that you sure can fix but before that it's almost random and you have no choice. It seams that if you are the highest rank in the flight in the mission you are the leader, yes, but if there is somebody else of the same rank, that is highly likely, it's 50% chance and if there is a few of them, also quite common, it's just 20-30% chance. While pilots of the same rank are sorted by their score and whether they are the commander/deputy or not in the squadron roster, it likely doesn't happen during the flight generation. I would expect that, starting from some commissioned officer rank, the player could get a permanent position of the section leader that would result into getting the control over the flight in the missions where it's the flight of 4. Higher rank should allow to have higher ranked and more skilled wingmen in the player's section. The commander position must guarantee the leadership in any mission by default that is preferable for the most cases. Rank cap for wingmen in the player's flight of 4 is needed to enable that. Also, same pilots but not random ones in the player's flight would be great as some players even now manage to keep them alive for a while so it's part of the gameplay as well which is not possible until you are the commander. All this would be especially important in the combination with the proposal 1) as the player would spend more time in lower ranks.

 

3) It would be great to get the commander position back after just 2-3 days in hospital as that's what happened in the real life. In the game this position is hold by another pilot until some accident.

 

4) The deputy position is useless. It does not even mean the promotion of the pilot to the commander once it's vacant. It would be great to give it some meaning too. For example, the ability to choose pilots and/or planes but not missions and routes.

 

5) At further stages of the game it's possible to have several senior ranks in the squadron especially if wingmen survive long enough, e.g you can manage this if you assign the best pilots to the missions without player. I guess, these missions are modeled with simplifications, so they have better chances. The solution is to have a limit for every rank and transfer pilots to other squadrons as part of their promotion.

 

Benifits: I think such changes would improve realism, immersion and gameplay.

Edited by elegz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2020 at 11:38 AM, Eisenfaustus said:

Persistent planes in players squadron

 

Type of improvement: career gameplay/realism

 

Explanation of proposal: Saving the alterations and skins to all planes in the squadron and taking them off duty for several hours or one day when they are about to be altered. Historically modification like wb 151 gunpods could be installed/removed in the field, but not in 2 minutes before a scramble.

 

Benifits: Would add an interesting management component to a squadron leader career as well as immersion because youcould recognize your planes in the sky as well. Maybe combine with limited modifacations like a G6/G14 squadron only recieving 2 MK108 and when they are lost, they are gone until new guns are delivered. Would also make the outcome of mission more meaningfull.

 

I would also suggest rust, livery weariness and engine reliability like in A2A FS 3rd party planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

SUGGESTION:                  To be able to rotate the map thru 360 degrees.

 

EXPLANATION:                I would like the Devs to add clickable buttons to rotate the map CW, or CCW  and to  return to normal view.

                                            I could see that the grid and text might have to go when rotating map to simplify things, just towns, roads,

                                            trees and water and of course airfields would be all that is necessary to get re oriented when lost.

 

REASON:                           Land marks are just that more easy to identify if top of map corresponds  to your planes heading.

                                            I believe this is the way you navigate by map. 

Edited by DEDMANcjp
improve idea conveyance
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEDMANcjp said:

 

                                            I believe this is the way you navigate by map. 

 

Totally disagree. 😲 North is North and should always stay there. Thirty-plus years as a cartographic mapmaker tells me so. I'm afraid that SatNavs are making people lazy.

But if the devs do get around to adding a rotating map feature (although I can't see it happening), well good luck to you. It's a free world.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEDMANcjp said:

I believe this is the way you navigate by map. 

„At the next Yak, please break right.“

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I by no meant that  the map should rotate as you turn,  its just that 1000 years ago in flight training I was taught to do this for faster ID ing  of landmarks.

I would like to know if actual pilots when flying by map in the real world do this when not sure of their position?  

 

Edited by DEDMANcjp
improve idea conveyance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DEDMANcjp said:

I would like to know if actual pilots when flying by map in the real world do this when not sure of their position?  

If they are not sure of their position, they better use the radio. Better feeling like an idiot than ending up in the trees. If they are bad navigators, taking the map out of the kneeboard clip and rotating until it somehow superimposes with their idea of the geography is of little help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking more like a 1950's bush plane flying for 2+ hours in Alaska over nothing but lakes, trees and rocks, and overcast ceiling at 700 meters.

Thats how I find some long bomber missions, winter maps are the worst.

Edited by DEDMANcjp
improve idea conveyance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...