GrungyMonkey

I've been playing through Midway as an A6M2 pilot in IL-2 1946, I was given instructions to attack the Island and set out. Once I got there, I realized I didn't know which island or what targets to attack. Once I'd dropped my bomb, I didn't know whether to break for base or continue strafing through thick AA. No matter where I was, pressing autopilot would have me loiter above the island till I died. Every other Zero continued strafing until they were blown out of the sky. After several fruitless attempts to satisfy the mission parameters, I began manually returning to base after dropping my payload. I was always the only pilot to survive. This trial amd error was very tedious, and not in a grit-your-teeth-soldier way, but in a wtf-am-i-even-supposed-to-be-doing way. What I found myself wanting was a flight leader who would lay out our priorities, give us orders through our flight, and not cruise for 30 minutes while a battleship shoots all guns at you from less than a kilometer's range. Obviously "Good AI" is always easier said than done, but a flight leader that communicates and plans both before and during the mission would be welcome to experienced flyers, and a godsend to new players. Also, in game tutorials are often requested for flight sims, but I wonder if maybe a mode that replicates period accurate flight school would be possible. It would be perfect for beginners, and if accurate would be a great addition to the experience (If available in Japanese it would also let me catch up on all the technical terms lol). I realize this is probably over ambitious, but on the other hand, I'm confident that this community could do a lot of the research/work if the game had the scenery and rigging (Some people here kind of scare me with how much they know).

At some point in a sim's life, some kind of human models have to be added. However realistic the models are, they often look unbelievable even at distance because of gamey movement. On the other hand, if the characters move realistically, they can look great even with blocky, faceless models. Just a thought for the future.

Holy shit I never thought it'd actually happen

I've seen this claim a few times, but where is it coming from? I started the thread that got this kicked off, but they haven't said anything there. The steam page said they're 'looking at the FM,' but that seems super noncommittal.

It would also be awesome to be able to put in non game-related windows

It had stick forces for ailerons but nothing else

It finally hit me what might have happened. Maybe the Oscar pilots were flying uncoordinated, and the 'sideslipping' they talk about from the Zeroes was actually them flying coordinated?

Back then, flight models were made more so to represent relative strengths and weaknesses. It's only recently that perfectly accurate performance has become a widespread goal. The 1946 American planes were coded with Japanese opponents in mind, so they weren't fine tuned against Germans.

Poor guy was NOT ready for a 1v1 dogfight

Noted.

Plausible yes, but I can't confirm it. Wikipedia says about the A6M2: "Combined with its light weight, this resulted in a very low stalling speed of well below 60 kn (110 km/h; 69 mph)." But the A6M5 had smaller wings and was over 500 pounds heavier. The only source I can find for the A6M5 was War Thunder (I know, I know...), which put its stall speed at 75 mph with flaps. That should be the same as the Spit V flaps down if Gavrick is right. What I really want are high quality sources, but those are bit of a pain to track down. There's no way this is true, right? Speed lets you rate better, but it shouldn't improve turning circle significantly. Unless you meant that the faster aircraft turns worse than the slower one? Edit: I have no idea how to fix the fonts

The early-war Japanese pilots had spent an absurd amount of time flying. They had bad radios, so thay easily got separated and would often 'lone-wolf'. They loved a good dogfight. They would often fly literal feet from the ground. They would viciously pursue kills, and had little regard for their own lives. So basically, just the average flight simmer lol.

It's actually worse than that. The historical Bushido Code was quite admirable, but Imperial Japan warped it in some major ways: 1. The Bushido Code only applied to the Samurai class. Imperial Japan applied it to all soldiers, and even civilians. 2. While Samurai were supposed to be willing to die for their cause, it was acceptable to retreat or surrender if tactically beneficial. Imperial Japan warped this into their 'never surrender' mentality, and turned 'preparedness to die' to 'desire for heroic death'. 3. The Bushido Code emphasized mercy and compassion. Imperial Japan literally scrubbed all of that from the transcriptions soldiers would be given. As they were modernizing, Japan looked to the West to find ways of improving. For a time, the idea was floated of introducing Christianity as the state-endorsed religion, since they believed it had furthered Western moral development. They saw the British reverence of knighthood and chivalry, and found their own equivalent in Bushido. This is why, in the late 19th century Japanese writers like Inazo Nitobe emphasized the similarities between the two. This soon changed though. Japan's slights on the international stage, and racism they received from the Western powers fermented hostility against Caucasians. For Japan, at least, World War 2 was literally a race war. They became increasingly averse to taking any inspiration from the West, or admitting the influence they'd already taken. As Japan radicalized in the lead-up to World War 2, they discarded the Geneva Convention as a coward's treaty, and Christianity as a coward's religion (This curiously mirrors Hitler's private hatred of the Christian ethical system as a rebellion against the natural law.). Chivalry, too, was derided as 'woman worship'. They no longer wanted a Bushido Code that preached of compassion the weak, and kindness to your inferiors. That would have been very incompatible with the military practice of disrespect, and routine physical violence to those lower in rank. @Gambit21 mentioned Japan having a "foot in the 18th century", but that's not really true. The Imperial Japanese government had little genuine respect for Tradition or Conservatism. They had their own brutal goals and ethics, and dressing it up as Tradition was pure opportunism.