Portrayal of M2 .50 cals in IL2?

[moot]

Kweassa, have they done something about the 190 over-the-nose angle?

[MiloMorai]

moot, not a chance that will be corrected, which is truly very sad. The word is even in the new game, BoB (is more than just BoB time), the Fw190 will still have the castrated aiming view of Il-2/FB. The multi page threads showing this view is incorrect has Oleg claiming the view is correct. This subject is now very much verboten.

Refraction cannot be modelled but no work around for this has been attempted by 1C/Maddox Games. Oleg's proof that his modelling of the Fw's cockpit and view was a joke. **Even the Fw has a better over the nose view than the Spitfire, which is historically correct. This is not seen in IL-2/FB.

edit: **  is now more easily understood Barbi?

Another touchy subject is the gun flashes. Why one would model them as seen at night (Oleg's reason) when almost all of the 'flying' is done during daylight is beyond comprehension. Night was only one of the lame excusses given. The flashes were complained about since Il-2 beta. Instead of correcting this, the time was spent on more eye candy. Only the people with high end 'putes can see this eye candy while the gun flashes effect all players, especially those with low end 'putes.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Even the Spitfire has a better over the nose view than the Fw, which is historically incorrect.

You mean the Spitfire Mk V ?   Could be, the Spit V had a much shorter nose, than the Mk IX.

As for Oleg not listening, it`s BS. I have been in contact with him for 3 years, he is extremely open minded until people attempt to force things on him in an agressive manner. Only then he says "discussion closed". Understandable. And in general, I think many opinions in this thread are rather hastly drawn conclusions... Il-2 has of course bugs, but it`s lightyears ahead of anything else, regardless if some people want to think the .50 was a Death Star laser, or that all Soviet aircrafts sucked from treetop level to the stratosphere.

[moot]

Thanks Milo.

Ise,

.The submission of the facts was civil at the time I checked them,
.the game view doesn't match the pictures of the real view.
we can add:
.the thread in question might have gone flamefest,
.the correct modeling (refraction etc) might not be possible,
.Oleg doesn't like flames.

The conclusion I make is:
.The Il2FB 190 cockpit view is wrong, refraction or not,
.Oleg doesn't follow the facts:  He can scan a mass of historical docs to sort out the truth to model a bunch of planes accurately, but he can't filter a stupid thread to find the facts, with hundreds of posts, if that many?

[GScholz]

The aircraft mounted M2's were light barrelled versions, which were markedly less accurate than the heavy barrelled version used by the Army. If there is one thing I don't like about the modelling of the M2 in AH, it's the damage. The M2 should not do so much structural damage as it should inflict critical hits. How often do you hear stories where they shot wings or tail sections off? The vast majority of "kill stories" with .50 cal armed planes describe how the target plane starts smoking, leaking coolant or start burning. The few times I've heard or seen wing failures due to .50 cal fire (especially the 190) it has clearly been a result of ammunition explosion in the wing magazines.

[MiloMorai]

The main change between the ground and air M2HB was the barrel length. The ground being 1.143m long and the air 0.914m long.

[GScholz]

The air version is not an M2HB. The "HB" stands for Heavy Barrel, and the barrel alone weighs 25 pounds.

M2HB - 84 pounds.




M2 - 61 pounds (barrel - 9 pounds 8 oz)

[Crumpp]

M2 LWAW is a different model than the M2HB.  The LWAW uses a different back plate on the reciever, barrel, and springs.  That's why it has a much higher rate of fire.  Same ammo, reciever, bolt, bolt carrier, etc..


Crumpp