I just got IL-2 and have been playing it all day. The basic difference between the two FMs, is that after playing AH for 3 years, everything in IL-2 seems to fly like an overloaded P-47. Basic turns in IL-2 seem more laborious. Planes seem less responsive in pitch and yaw, more responsive in roll. Planes hamerhead quicker in IL-2, but seem to pull out of dives much slower. Energy retention feels a bit different. I haven't put my finger on it yet (only had IL-2 for one day) but it definitely feels different. Aircraft nose bounce is more prevelant in IL-2 (on my system/stick).
Is the FM better or more accurate? I don't know. I can only guess because I can only compare it to other sims, not RL. It is very different than AH. I tend to fly with a lot more full elevator in IL-2, rarely do I pull full elevator in AH.
Weapons are not effective at range in IL-2. It also seems as if you get much less hits at range.
Folks say tha damage model is better in IL-2. Well, it is clearly way ahead in graphics, but I don't know if it is more accurate.
Planes seem to absorb a heck of a lot more damage. If AH has a damage madel that is too sensetive, then I would say IL-2's damage model is too forgiving, way on the other end of the scale. Even at point blank range, you can blast the snot out of an enemy plane, see tons of cannon hits, and planes keep on chugging. Based on what I've read and seen in gun camera footage, planes just are not that tough. Planes were often destroyed with a split second burst.
I would say the opposite for the GV damage model however. In AH, GVs (esp. trucks) are way too tough. In IL-2, they are all powder kegs. Perhaps this has to do with gameplay, however. In AH GVs are player controled, In IL-2 they are AI. Both situations make for better gameplay for each type of sim.
IMHO, guns in AH may be too effective at long range, but in IL-2, they are generally too weak at all ranges.
eskimo
