Status of Known Issues – Will They Ever Be Addressed?

[Roland_HUNter]

“We all love IL-2, but let’s be honest — some things have felt ‘WIP’ for years. Are they still being looked at?”
“With great respect to the developers, I’d like to ask if certain long-standing issues are still under review or considered final.”
"Flaps of steel, coolant-less Yaks, and glass wings — just another day in IL-2? Or are changes on the horizon?"
“We’ve all seen the quirks. The question is — will they ever change?”

Hello everyone,

 

First of all, I want to express my appreciation for the incredible amount of work that has gone into IL-2. It remains one of the most immersive and detailed combat flight simulators out there, and it’s clear that the developers have a deep passion for aviation history and realism.

That said, I would like to raise a few long-standing issues that many community members (myself included) have observed or discussed in various threads over time. I’m asking this in the spirit of constructive dialogue and out of genuine curiosity:
Are these issues planned to be addressed in the future, or should we consider them permanent limitations of the sim?

 

Here is a list of some known concerns:

 

1. Flap abuse – particularly on the P-47, which can practically hover or “helicopter” with flaps down. Is there a plan to adjust flap behavior, especially concerning flaps getting stuck or torn off at inappropriate speeds?

2. Yak-9 survivability – Is it realistic for a Yak-9 to be able to RTB without coolant? Several players have noted this as a recurring inconsistency.

3. MG 151 HE and Hispano cannon shell filler ratios – Is there any chance we’ll see the historically accurate HE filler quantities implemented?

4. Bf 109 rear armor glass – Can we expect a 1:1 modeled representation of the armored glass behind the pilot’s head?

5. Bf 109 "glass wing" effect – While I appreciate that IL-2 avoids the "1 hit = instant wing loss" tendency of other sims like WT, 109s still seem unusually prone to wing failures. I haven’t seen gun camera footage supporting such fragility. Could this be reviewed?

6. Me 410 engine timer – Is there any documentation supporting the current engine overheat limitations?

7. La-5FN engine timer – Similarly, is the current engine behavior accurately modeled according to available sources?

8. Roll rate of La-5, Yak, LaGG-3, and Bf 109s – Is the current roll rate supported by flight data or test results?

9. Damage modeling updates – Could we see updates to damage models for certain aircraft like the Hurricane and P-39? Also, the Hurricane’s FM might benefit from a second look.

10. Additional observations from the community – I’m sure I’ve missed many other points, and I welcome other pilots to share their input and evidence here.

 

I know most, if not all, of these topics have been discussed at length elsewhere on the forum. However, many of those threads remain unresolved, with no official follow-up or clarity. I'm not here to start arguments or complaints – I simply believe that some transparency (even if the answer is “this won’t be changed”) would be deeply appreciated by the player base.

 

Thanks in advance for any insight!

 

Best regards,
Roland_HUNter

[Aapje]

Isn't the answer obvious? If things were too difficult to do easily in the past, they aren't going to get priority now that it's full speed ahead with Korea.

 

I would just assume that nothing significant will change anymore.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Why invest in endeavor which be replaced soon, especially if it is  "working" somehow in broad view. New content only please 😉

[Roland_HUNter]

8 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Why invest in endeavor which be replaced soon, especially if it is  "working" somehow in broad view. New content only please 😉

Why would it be worth investing?
Because fundamentally, if the listed issues (which I assume are not major ones) were addressed, it would help expand the current and future player base. This growing community could, in turn, serve as a valuable resource and support for any upcoming projects.

Additionally, the Korean setting does not appeal to many players — myself included — and I would personally be more inclined to spend on upcoming WW2-related content rather than the Korean War.

All in all, patching the critical issues would undoubtedly be a worthwhile long-term investment.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Always forward, never backwards. Its probably more fruitful and less depressing to focus on new possibilities in the new engine rather than the death of BoX. Lots of your complaints are/can be addressed in the new engine, and Korea is only one expansion and then we're right back in WWII with all the new engine sexiness. There's always third party devs as well, so who knows what's being developed in secret for the new engine as well. 

[BraveSirRobin]

These aren’t “known” issues, they are just things that some people don’t like or don’t agree with. I’d be surprised if any of that stuff is changed.

[LukeFF]

Yep, you guys know the drill by now. If you have information about something that you think is wrong, post it in the right place, and it will be forwarded to the team for review.

 

That said, at this state of GB's development, some of the issues people have are just unlikely to be addressed. There are only so many engineers and coders on the team, and their priority right now is Korea.