F3 view and the il2

[gldnbb]

Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars 

The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it 



JUGgler

Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT,  is to control the skies and take the base.  Not Vulche.  Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper.  And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean)  and should never be used for base defense furballing.

[gldnbb]

Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars 

The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it 



JUGgler

Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT,  is to control the skies and take the base.  Not Vulche.  Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper.  And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean)  and should never be used for base defense furballing.

[cobia38]

  I seen the horse twitch !!!!!  its still alive 

[Changeup]

I can't believe this discussion is still going on, even after a couple weeks.

(Image removed from quote.)

BaaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!   

[Masherbrum]

I can't believe this discussion is still going on, even after a couple weeks.

(Image removed from quote.)

Not shocked at all. 

[lyric1]

My question is why are we even worrying about the Ar234's guns? The 234 is already a perked plane with a pretty moderate cost, it has a powerful but limited bomb load and it's only real asset is it's shear speed. I can count on one hand the amount of people that can actually fly and get A2A kills with the thing, so why all the fuss over the guns?

Think of it as a hybrid, the I-16 has a hybrid gun package so I don't see why a perked aircraft that had the ability to carry the guns should have them removed. To be honest I hope when HTC re-does the Ar234 that they'll add the forward gun packages along with movable tail guns via the para scope.

Well the thread is based off of F3 mode is gamey & should be removed because it was not real for a fixed wing platform. This entire subject was about a few people in IL-2's that could use the thing to gun in F3 MODE & IT HAS TO STOP. Well congrats to them it is done now. OK fair enough F3 mode has to go then all aspects of F3 need to go with it then on forward & rear firing aircraft.

You can't be selective as to what fixed wing gun platform can stay & should go for F3 mode. I posed this question to Jugler on the AR-234 as it seems to not be on his list of vehicles that must be changed & I have not had a reply to this point from him? I would like to see his thoughts specifically on this aircraft though.

Now to your last point if we are staying with reality of aspects of WWII aircraft. Then rear facing guns on any AR-234 never did see combat none at all. Also movable tail guns? That is pure fantasy as the only two aircraft that had rear facing (& down ward facing not like our current AHII up ward facing AR-234's) guns were fixed no capability to move at all.

What your asking for NEVER EXISTED.

Forward guns?

That would be interesting & fun a number of people will argue against this I personally don't care either way if we had them or not. If we did have them it would at least be historically correct even if only 5 were made with them.
That is 5 more than our current rear facing guns.

[YGSM]

BANG!!!!

Yep the horse is still dead!

[Shuffler]

[Masherbrum]

"I brought you a little going away present."   

[Melvin]

Bill Lumbergh approves of this thread...

[Tumor]

yay