So How About No F3 in the Il-2!?!?!?

[Lusche]

Should not have F3, period:

Ar234

But as long as the periscope is not working, it must retain F3.

[SmokinLoon]

Should have F3:

B-17G
B-24J
B-25
B-26
B-29
Ki-67
Ju88
Lancaster
G4M1

Questionable as to whether they should have F3 or not:

TBM-3

Very questionable whether they should have F3 or not:

B5N2
D3A1
SBD-5
Ju87
Boston
A-20G
Il-2
Mosquito Mk XVI

Should not have F3, period:

Ar234

If the eyes of a crew member can not see an area by virtue of his typical seated position in an aircraft, then how can can a case be made for an aircraft to have that view?  Of course, there could always be an argument based on if the gunner can move about more freely.  Case in point is the USAAF A20 vs the British RAF Boston.  The A20 dorsal gunner is enclosed and the Boston gunner can actually stick his head out and look over the edges of the aircraft.  Just how deep to we want to go?  Also, the Mossi B Mk 16 vs the Mossi FB Mk 6, the exact same view but 1 is afforded the view and the other is now.  Forget roles, etc, think of the *actual view* it the aircraft had.

BTW... the TBM has both a top and bottom rear gunner.  IMO, it should have F3.  The AR-234... questionable.  The Ar234 would be like looking through a tank sight, just how much could it have seen using that thing?  Looshy is right though, as long as the sight does not work it needs to have a way to use the guns.

on and on and on....   

[R 105]

F-3 mode in the IL-2 being gone is fine by me but how about some better views from the cockpit. If the IL-2 is going to fly like a fighter it needs the view of one.

[Lusche]

F-3 mode in the IL-2 being gone is fine by me but how about some better views from the cockpit. If the IL-2 is going to fly like a fighter it needs the view of one.

Tell that the guys who designed the plane back in 1939

[lyric1]

But as long as the periscope is not working, it must retain F3.

Speaking of that periscope I agree & have more info I will send you sooner or later.

[Tilt]

I welcome the removal of F3 from the IL-2.

I can also sympathise and support the more easier use of fellow crew members views to aid SA. I would welcome the idea of being able to set the Hat POV's from any cockpit/pilots position in the game to include views from other crew positions.

This would have to be enabled without the ac reverting to some sort of auto flight mode when the pilot looks out thru the crew members eyes.

So when setting up the pilot view he enters some sort of area of the clip board (related to the ac he is in) and can combine pilot and gunner views when setting up his pilot hat views.

an example

for the IL-2 pilot

Cockpit ~ look forward (POV1 centred)
Cockpit ~ look left  (POV1 left)
Cockpit ~ look right (POV1 right)
Cockpit ~ look forward/up (POV1 up)
Rear gunner ~ look forward (POV1 down) {"forward" view for the rear gunner is to the rear}

You then mix the quarter views in to suit.

and add the up/down views you want for POV2.

This way SA is still quicker than human verbal communication could support yet not so (IMO) "gamey" as a 360 degree external view.

[lyric1]

I welcome the removal of F3 from the IL-2.

I can also sympathise and support the more easier use of fellow crew members views to aid SA. I would welcome the idea of being able to set the Hat POV's from any cockpit/pilots position in the game to include views from other crew positions.

This would have to be enabled without the ac reverting to some sort of auto flight mode when the pilot looks out thru the crew members eyes.

So when setting up the pilot view he enters some sort of area of the clip board (related to the ac he is in) and can combine pilot and gunner views when setting up his pilot hat views.

an example

for the IL-2 pilot

Cockpit ~ look forward (POV1 centred)
Cockpit ~ look left  (POV1 left)
Cockpit ~ look right (POV1 right)
Cockpit ~ look forward/up (POV1 up)
Rear gunner ~ look forward (POV1 down) {"forward" view for the rear gunner is to the rear}

You then mix the quarter views in to suit.

and add the up/down views you want for POV2.

This way SA is still quicker than human verbal communication could support yet not so (IMO) "gamey" as a 360 degree external view.

I could live with that.

[BaldEagl]

I welcome the removal of F3 from the IL-2.

I can also sympathise and support the more easier use of fellow crew members views to aid SA. I would welcome the idea of being able to set the Hat POV's from any cockpit/pilots position in the game to include views from other crew positions.

This would have to be enabled without the ac reverting to some sort of auto flight mode when the pilot looks out thru the crew members eyes.

So when setting up the pilot view he enters some sort of area of the clip board (related to the ac he is in) and can combine pilot and gunner views when setting up his pilot hat views.

an example

for the IL-2 pilot

Cockpit ~ look forward (POV1 centred)
Cockpit ~ look left  (POV1 left)
Cockpit ~ look right (POV1 right)
Cockpit ~ look forward/up (POV1 up)
Rear gunner ~ look forward (POV1 down) {"forward" view for the rear gunner is to the rear}

You then mix the quarter views in to suit.

and add the up/down views you want for POV2.

This way SA is still quicker than human verbal communication could support yet not so (IMO) "gamey" as a 360 degree external view.

The same thought just entered my mind.  Now I don't have to type it.   

[GuyNoir]

Maybe Hitech could lengthen the invisible bounding box in the cockpit that you move your around head in...  That way, you could clip backwards into the rear gunner seat and set any of your rear views there too.

Then, Hitech wouldn't have to modify the view system we have now (by adding in the separate gunner's views), and we'd still only also get views that the rear gunner could see too (which is better than the 360 floating hover-cam that we have now).  This would only really work for the IL-2 and the 110, I guess, since they'd have a seamless bounding box from the pilot to the gunner...

[SmokinLoon]

I just took up the Il-2 for the first time since the update.... the pilot views are not bad at all.  It is hardly different than looking out an F4U.  Monkey around with the pilot views and the panic should go away.   

[caldera]

I just took up the Il-2 for the first time since the update.... the pilot views are not bad at all.  It is hardly different than looking out an F4U.  Monkey around with the pilot views and the panic should go away.   

Maybe as compared to the default view on a Corsair.  "Monkey" around with the Corsair views and there is virtually zero obstruction.  The worst rear views belong to the Hellcat and the Airacobra, (after the Il-2 that is) IMO.  That said, since the Il-2 isn't really a bomber, it shouldn't have F3.

[Scotty55OEFVet]

I don't know about that. I've looked at the comparative pictures of the different shells and the Vickers S 40mm seems a far bigger shell. I know this doesn't means anything, but likewise shooting buildings is a poor method of comparison for AP shells.

As a sidenote the guns on the hurri are synchronised, making a hit with a good angle almost a sure kill. I like the fact that both choices have they advantages, while before it was a no brainer.

Im probably wrong, but I think the difference in the 37mm and the Hurri's 40mm pertans to not only muzzle velocity but the type of shell. Like I said, I am probably wrong, but I think the 40mm does not have the same Armor penetrating Capability as the 37mm. Regardless of how big the shell is, comes down to the warhead on the round...please tell me if Im wrong because I probably am lol

[Krusty]

Quite so.

 A .357 magnum has more power than a .45 ACP. It can probably punch through 2x or 3x as much as a .45, yet is a smaller caliber.

It's all about the real round in real life. They have different capabilities, and are modeled to match those capabilities.

The 40mm Vickers round in this game sucks in comparison to the NS37 on the IL2 with AP rounds. There is no comparison as to which is better, IMO. Night and day.

[SmokinLoon]

Quite so.

 A .357 magnum has more power than a .45 ACP. It can probably punch through 2x or 3x as much as a .45, yet is a smaller caliber.

It's all about the real round in real life. They have different capabilities, and are modeled to match those capabilities.

The 40mm Vickers round in this game sucks in comparison to the NS37 on the IL2 with AP rounds. There is no comparison as to which is better, IMO. Night and day.

So would you rather get shot by a .45 ACP FMJ or a .357 Magnum FMJ?  Either way, shot placement is key. 

[Krusty]

I don't buy that. I've landed enough perfect hits with the Hurr2D to realize the guns suck even when you have the perfect angle, the perfect spot, you see the fireballs, and you get no result.

My personal experience was that in all my attempts to kill things with the hurr2D, it's far more effective to just take 2 bombs instead. The penetration power is rubbish! Rubbish, I say!!

IL2 guns are far better. The ROF helps, yes, but overall much more effective.