Mitthrawnuruodo

It's a step in the right direction, but I hope for a solution addressing the root cause of the complaints - that the entire "damage on a timer" concept isn't grounded in reality. No amount of historical data can fix a fictional mechanic. If the P-40 is changed, attention will only shift to other planes with restrictive limits. I'll admit I don't even know what the optimal solution would be. It's a tricky game design problem.

This by itself shouldn't be a problem if implemented properly (which I imagine isn't necessarily the case). Every set of forces and moments on a rigid body can be simplified to an equivalent pure moment and force pair at an arbitrary point. Similarly, every motion of an aircraft behaving as a rigid body can be described as a translation of the centre of gravity plus a rotation about the centre of gravity. I do agree that sim dynamics usually feel a bit odd at times (refer to the endless discussions of "on rails" or "wobbly" flight models in the past), but it's really difficult to pinpoint any causes without inspecting the source code.

Can any experts on US aircraft ordnance infer which aircraft would be needed in the game to carry the bombs that have been shown?

It's not that radical. My favourite distribution is GOG.com because I can keep offline installers forever on my floppy CD DVD hard drive SSD without worrying about DRM, forced updates, or mandatory social/store clients. If that's not feasible, something like Il-2 GB's standalone installer is a reasonable alternative. To me, it's about control and the ability to avoid unwanted software required just to play a game. That said, if Steam is the only viable option for the developer, so be it. It's not the end of the world.

@Jason_Williams I also hope that you make standalone installation possible. I find Steam (and other store clients) mildly intrusive and infantilizing.

Yes, it's one of those weird features that's neither realistic nor truly necessary for playability, so it leaves me wondering why the devs felt it was necessary. It's sad to see otherwise beautiful aircraft crippled by limits that historically had nothing to do with actual engine durability. Exactly. I still love the detailed DCS planes, but after a decade of development, we have about 8 WW2 aircraft, some of which don't even have relevant maps or opposing units. War Thunder on the other hand has an amazing library, but the interaction is quite superficial and it comes with all the annoyances of multiplayer F2P business.

By the time Cliffs of Dover came about, the name "Il-2 Sturmovik" had such widespread recognition that it would give a boost to any flight sim product just based on the success of the original game. Unfortunately the name alone isn't enough to make a game successful... I think the meaning of a name matters much more in early stages before a series gains widespread recognition.

I think there is room for a middle ground. War Thunder is vastly more pore popular than DCS, yet its interaction and system modeling are extremely simple in comparison. I'd hope for interaction slightly above Il-2 GB standards. Engine timers have to go. Clickpits and switchology are OK provided that they don't bog down development too much and simplified options are available. Fleshing out the complete battlefield experience is the most important IMHO. Aiming for DCS levels of interaction could slow that down too much, especially when dealing with aircraft types that are poorly documented.

There are a few additional aspects that I think are important in a flight sim game. Performance/system requirements - Il-2 1946 and War Thunder really benefited from the fact that you didn't need strong hardware to get a pleasant experience. Community/third-party involvement - publishing tools like mission editors, map editors, and object SDKs or APIs was key to the appeal of FSX, X-Plane, Arma 3, etc. by giving them a life beyond the original content. Release schedules - games lose some appeal if the developers aim for such a high fidelity that they arrive with glacial pace.

@Jason_Williams I see in the Wildcat renders that the internal structure is modeled with pretty high detail. Is the goal here to have that become visible when the aircraft gets some holes from battle damage? If so, that's very cool.

I'd be happy assuming the two flyable planes were accompanied by a few AI aircraft, a pair of carriers, the island, and perhaps an extra ship or two. It would feel like a complete experience even if you only play the fighter role. I imaging it's tough to balance the opportunity for early revenue to continue development with the possibility of an incomplete product launch dissipating enthusiasm.