Matrix Games Forums

Aces of the Pacific was my very first 'real' flight simulator, and I played it for hours on end. Actually finished one career from Pearl to the Invasion of Japan with the 46 add on.... Good times! I love IL2, but they could learn something about dynamic campaigns from that old Sierra sim!!!

I agree.....while the flight model is obviously not as sophisticated, there was something about the Aces series....they were easy and fun to play. I have fond memories of dominating FW-190A's with my shiny new P-51D......lording it over F4Fs and P40's in my A6M (unless ambushed or caught in a bad position then....AIEEE!) and feeling totally helpless in the same plane against gaggles of slashing F6F's diving on me making me feel like i was a sitting duck.

The Dive bombing component was fun though i never mastered the art. Kept losing my bearing and Sea-Darting.

tons of fun. Almost had as much fun with Jane's Anthology....learning the ropes of Jet fighters and bombers and smart weapons. Those were the days. sigh.

Ahh yes, the Jane's Anthology I had Advanced Tactical Fighters first, then I got US Navy Fighters, then the whole collection in the Anthology. Some of the best gaming of the day. All that and Printed Manuals!!!!

As I mentioned I patched up my IL-2 to .11m....however I am questioning some of the parameters.

I set up a "quick" mission ...me in an A6M2 vs two B-17G's...If I were to believe the "sim" the US should have lost droves of B-17's. I'm able to down both with a single head on pass followed by a quick turn and a few short burts from the rear.

It's fun no doubt but probably not very realistic.

ORIGINAL: treespider

As I mentioned I patched up my IL-2 to .11m....however I am questioning some of the parameters.

I set up a "quick" mission ...me in an A6M2 vs two B-17G's...If I were to believe the "sim" the US should have lost droves of B-17's. I'm able to down both with a single head on pass followed by a quick turn and a few short burts from the rear.

It's fun no doubt but probably not very realistic.

What exactly is it unrealistic in it? If you take averages of how many hits are required to down the 4Es in Il-2 you will end up very near the Luftwaffe estimates.

Try ticking every difficulty setting and have yourself start on the ground, climb to the 6000-8000m they fly at, then fly to the head-on attack position... In that Zero. Will take quite some time. Which B-17s were they, and what was the AI difficulty? On "average" they have no trouble hitting someone doing a slow approach from 6 o clock.

ORIGINAL: Erkki
What exactly is it unrealistic in it? If you take averages of how many hits are required to down the 4Es in Il-2 you will end up very near the Luftwaffe estimates.

Seemed much easier than I anticipated....

Try ticking every difficulty setting and have yourself start on the ground, climb to the 6000-8000m they fly at, then fly to the head-on attack position... In that Zero. Will take quite some time. Which B-17s were they, and what was the AI difficulty? On "average" they have no trouble hitting someone doing a slow approach from 6 o clock.

They were B-17G's as opposed to D's. I set the G's to Veteran. The "Quick Mission" already set me up in the "head-on" approach, obviating the need to take off and rendezvous.

I was surprised at how quickly the engines were flamed on the B-17's.


I set this situation up because I had been plinking at Ki-21's with P-40's and P-47's for fun and they seemed awful easy to blow out of the sky. So having read about the difficulty of downing a B-17 I decided to try that out...

When I get home this evening maybe I'll ratchet up all of the difficulty settings to see if they are harder to destroy...I don't flight sim often and am still getting used to the stick. Tend to get myself into irrecoverable spins just tooling around...

Myself I find the heavies rather easy to take out at low altitudes... They're big and slow. [:)] Now that I've learned some gunnery that. But at higher altitudes the relative speeds gets so high and maneuvers need more space so setting up the head-on attack takes long and one will generally land less shots...

Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator had a very odd damage model. Extremely linear. Every hit impacted the plane's performance so there was no true ability to 'absorb' punishment. Every hit made you a bigger and bigger sitting duck. Was a game killer for me.

Well, y’all have me convinced–doomed I am. I’ve downloaded and installed IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946. Any clues to getting the game to recognize Trakir and a Thrustmaster force feedback stick?

Stormwolf: I LOVED that game!


Trakir works. Just had to boot it. duh... Stick still won't talk to IL-2. Hmm.

At the correct alts, and with large numbers of heavies, and with Mustangs or Thunderbolts buzzing about, it can get difficult. The B-17D are easy meat for the A6M2 if you don't line up on the stern. If they catch you with a good burst, it's all over though. What I was surprised by was the performance of the Ki-45 as a fighter. They are TOUGH!!! They turn well inside a P-38, and give single seaters a run for their money. Makes me feel this is off, as I would have wanted the whole airforce made of them if they flew like that!!!

I used to play F-19 Stealth Fighter on C64 connected to my TV and record the missions on VCR tape
so I could rewatch them. Wire-frame graphics! w00t!

any vets of "F-16 Falcon" and "MiG 29"? never played these ancestors of Jane's FA. But i recall seeing ads for them all over the place.

ORIGINAL: Sakai007

At the correct alts, and with large numbers of heavies, and with Mustangs or Thunderbolts buzzing about, it can get difficult. The B-17D are easy meat for the A6M2 if you don't line up on the stern. If they catch you with a good burst, it's all over though. What I was surprised by was the performance of the Ki-45 as a fighter. They are TOUGH!!! They turn well inside a P-38, and give single seaters a run for their money. Makes me feel this is off, as I would have wanted the whole airforce made of them if they flew like that!!!

They're rather slow though... Like an ill armed Bf 110 but one that turns better. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

any vets of "F-16 Falcon" and "MiG 29"? never played these ancestors of Jane's FA. But i recall seeing ads for them all over the place.

Owned both, although I never got very far with MiG 29.
I think I played the complete Falcon series up until 3.0 (I think that also was the one which had MiG 29 as addon).


Interesingly the warplane I flew most often in a sim was the Tornado. Does anybody remember Tornado Strike Fighter?
It was an immensely acurate sim for its time and I just loved those treetop level missions.
Wow, haven´t thought about that sim for years now.

There was a pretty cool Jane's sim featuring the Super Hornet a looooooong time ago. Had you flying off a carrier against targets on the Kola peninsula during a Russian civil war. Very good game.

Has anyone played B-17 Flying Fortress (I had it on Amiga) or the Typhoon simulation where you had to defend iceland?

Yes to both.

I loved the B-17, but what do you think about Typhoon? I always thought it might be fun to do it MP.

It suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked. Really poorly implemented, with ugly graphics, even for its time.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
any vets of "F-16 Falcon" and "MiG 29"? never played these ancestors of Jane's FA. But i recall seeing ads for them all over the place.

Do you mean the Novalogic F16 & MIG29 head-to-head? Used to play it on LAN using IPX... seems like a eternity ago..