Short AAR of IL-2 from a "2-week newbie"--Out of the box

[Pongo]

Have to agree. Hard to understand the gunnery thing. The full realism is silly hard. the easy is silly easy. I think they have it bracketed.
They really do alot of work on the game and it is fun to follow along on.
The models, sounds and enviroment are fantasy level to me.
The view system is perplexing. Hard to understand why they left it so limiting.
love the game though.
If they decided there was enought money in a massive online version I think they could do an awsome job and I would try it for sure..

[capt. apathy]

in FB (the new add-on coming this winter) the engine damage modle will have 20 seperate hit zones.

I've been playing it since it's release.  I agree with most of rips points.  I didn't find the gunnery change that different from when I switched from RB3d and MScfs to aces high.  once you get used to the gunnery it's not hard to down a plane with a couple well aimed bursts (mostly you learn to target areas of the plane not just planes).

the only real complaint is the patching.  alot of people get patches that have problems. for some reason you get better d/l's from the french site.

I also gotta agree on the rudder sensitivity and I've been meaning to try to adjust it for about a year:p

[Russian]

Oh, come on. Gunnery is very easy, you just need to get use to it.

[StSanta]

Well, I have IL-2. Played it for 2 hours, then got bored with the view system. And the fact that the flames from the guns when you shoot obscure your target, be it night or day.

Mebbe I'll load it up, Am bored. Then again, haven't got time for that. Oh well.

[Hristo]

I fully agree with under damage modeling. That particular Yak (flown by AI) still flew and fought for another few minutes. It went down after wingman 190 collided with it. Yak was torn in two, while 190 lost half wing.

Still, damage model should not to be discarded so easily. Progressive damage like engine fire come to mind.

Gunnery may seem hard because you don't get much visual feedback. In AH you are used to get feedback on hitting with even .303 at 1000 yds - same hit sprites as with 75mm HE at 50 yds .

Yes, Il-2 has few things to learn from AH still. But AH has couple of things to learn from Il-2.

Personally, I find it hard to go back to 1980 style cockpit, imperial unit system in LW planes, star wars hit sprites, Linda Blair 6 view, binary damage system. If they fixed these things in AH, then who knows .



P.S.
Hi Santa ! How's school ?

[DB603]

S!


 I read this thread with great interest. I've been playing AH along with IL-2 and find them both nice.

 But complaining about gunnery in IL-2. People in AH, IMHO, are used to this easy mode gunnery they have. It's no sweat to hit a plane from 1000d with some guns and still get a kill. In IL-2 one has to get closer because the spray&pray won't help much and guns have bigger dispersion and energy loss at greater ranges. It is not too hard to score hits on an enemy from 300m(1000ft roughly) in IL-2, You just need to be more precise.

 Damage model. People seem to think that the VISUAL presentation is the actual damage. This is not the case in IL-2. Oleg has stated that these graphics show the severity of the damage and the area where damage has been inflicted.
, not actual damage. I agree there are some oddities in the DM, but it is still under works for FB.

 Flight model is different from AH yes. No planes on rails in there;)One thing that might contribute to the different feel of the FM is mostlikely that in IL-2 they haven't modelled pilot strength. I recall AH has it in? In IL-2 the control surfaces do not deflect fully at high speeds etc. so in that department it is correct. And keep in mind that FB will include more things to FM that are now not included. Have been mentioned at UBI-boards.

 But anyway..both of these games offer a lot of fun. The other is a boxed one and the other pay-to-play. My 2 cents...

[LLv34_Camouflage]

Many guys in our squadron fly both games.  I've come to the conclusion that it is quite pointless to compare AH and IL2 with the same standards. The two games are totally different in perspective.

AH offers a massive online environment sim with the emphasis on effortless gameplay and fun.

IL2 is for small scale online fights and squadron based co-ops, offering extremely challenging gameplay.

However, the fact remains that some features are a "must" for a modern sim. AH offers a better balance in all areas, whereas IL2, despite its "hard core" approach, leaves some things to wish for. The poor view system is one of them. On the other hand, I find the gunnery in IL2 much much better than the "funny gunnery lasers" in AH.

In any case, both games offer their unique environments and I will happily play both.

Camo

[Ripsnort]

Camo,
I'll agree with your post. Almost like AH is in the middle for "Gameplay/realisim", IL2 would be to the right, and as comparison, Janes Sims would be on the left.

Pongo,
regarding the "Bracketed" Comment, spot on.

DB603,
I personally don't think AH gunnery is easy, I do believe the avg. gunnery is around 6% (Someone ran this stat once, where is it?)  The longer shots you get hits, but does little damage. Lets agree to disagree on this point.

[DB603]

S!


 Ripsnort..achieving average hit% of over 10% ain't too hard in AH, but the gunnery is harder for some weapons yes;) My best avg gunnery% in IL-2 is above 20% because U have to get close, really close! But I agree with You..let's not  start a disagreement on agreement with disagreement contest

[LLv34_Camouflage]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
I personally don't think AH gunnery is easy, I do believe the avg. gunnery is around 6% (Someone ran this stat once, where is it?)  The longer shots you get hits, but does little damage.

At what average range has that 6% been achieved?  My guess is somewhere around 300-400 yds.  Thats where I usually open fire. My fighter gunnery % is around 6, but that is not the whole truth. Most of my jabo 110 sorties are counted in the fighter category...  

Point is: in AH it is easy to kill a plane from 400 yards, even with the MG151/20 that I usually use. I've found Hispanos or .50s even more effective. In IL2, shooting from anywhere over 200-300 yards is pretty much a complete waste of bullets.

All this is fine by me, gunnery is very very much a gameplay balance issue. Apples and oranges...

Camo

[AKSWulfe]

I can hit and do terminal damage at the same ranges in AH that I can in Il2.

I've only noticed it's easier to down a plane with a couple of 20mms when the plane is hit from above and at the convergence range.
-SW

[Wotan]

same sw, its not the range that is the big difference. Its the amount of damage. Ofcourse, the dm in ah and wbs is relatively simple but look at hristos pic. That pilot should be riddled wih holes.

[Saurdaukar]

I love both games, agree with some posts, and disagree with others.

My main disagreement I guess is the gunnery.  I dont feel the IL2 model is too hard, so much as I feel that the AH model is too easy.  The hit sprites in AH could use some serious work.

Gotta love the smoke trails the tracers leave behind.  And the different color tracers for different rounds for that matter.

AAA is top notch... AH really has some catching up to do here.  You feel immersed - hundreds of ack bursts at the end of tracer trails - and only one MIGHT hit you... nice change from the sniper ack in AH.

Flight models... I dunno - they are "different" but not "bad."  I still prefer the AH flight models, but thats just me.

Visuals are absolutely top notch.  Nothing more needs to be said.

Viw system was an attempt at reality... I dont like it, some do.