Trotski

Beautiful ! Will you be doing better 'pits for the G91 and the Y ?

I love the fact that there are Girls/Ladies, who love flight sims, and get stuck in with modding, I wish more gals would join in, as it is great when they do. As with the modelling community, there are some superb scale moddelers who are Female, and I love to see it. Keep up the great work !!!

Today is the official 80th anniversary of the formation of the RAF Regiment, formed as a Corps within the RAF by Royal Charter this day in 1942, Proud to have served in the Regiment, and proud of the heritage and traditions of my beloved Corps. PER ARDUA.

Looks quite nice as an alternative, I like the Throttle quadrant, it looks very neat and tidy.

Sorry for my negative comments guys, they were made tongue in cheek, a sort of throwing stones into a fishing hole sort of deal, I do not like the aircraft, this is true, so I am merely making fun of it, no offence or annoyance ( well maybe a little) intended.

Time will tell that its crap, should have gone with the Boeing abortion instead, they admitted it was rubbish right from the word go hahahahaha. Sorry, cant help myself, I shall never like the damn thing. but hey ho I wont ever have to fly one so screw it, lets waste our millions of tax spondoolies on it.

It's an F35, who cares, fly a proper aeroplane..........one that works and looks prettier....sorry, couldn't resist.

I tend to agree, as, even though I have flown very little in WOTR up to now ( a trend that SHALL change) it would seem to me that the more complex engine and airscrew management involved, in flying a WWII era aircraft, is quite an involved process. It causes me to have even more admiration, for the young pilots, who, not only had to faff around with pitch, trim, and radiator setting, whilst keeping their heads on the swivel, avoiding being blown out of the sky, and hopefully actually manging to shoot down someone who has no desire to be shot down. how guys who only had 10 hours or less solo in Spitfires or Hurricanes, managed to survive is beyond me. The Germans had a bit of an advantage, as they had been in combat in a lot of cases in Spain, and later Poland and France, so were more experienced. But still, the same applies to the young men of the Luftwaffe as well, flying cover for bombers, with a very limited time over England, must have been rather hairy to say the least.

I must apologise as well as I had misread the title of your post, and I for some reason thought it was actually to do with WOFF/BH&H rather than WOTR, so my bad, however, I still stand behind the statements I made here anyway.

Although I do indeed have WOTR, I haven't yet delved into it much, so I am really not able to comment on that sim. BH&H though, I still feel the Training/Flight Schooling, needs a little more depth to it, I know its not game breaking, and actually not terribly vital, however, it certainly needs some TLC I think.

The Training scenarios are a little 'meh' as they stand, iit would be nice to see some variety in both the missions and indeed the aircraft used, it would be nice to see Farmans, especially early in the war, and maybe 504's too. a short gunnery and bombing class would be nice as well, as those were part of the curriculum in the real world. Also it would be nice to be awarded ones Wings, and the wings be an actual award, instead of something just thrown over the desk to you. I suppose though , in the grand scheme of the Sim, the Training is not very important, except for completionists who want to start from the bottom and work up, as I do.

Vietnam China for me, with Poland coming in after that.

I find that getting into a turning knife fight with the Bis, is counterproductive, the Mig has an advantage in fire power over the Sabre, so slashing attacks is the way to go, The Americans discovered this pretty early on when trying to dogfight the Zero, and it would generally end badly for the USN pilots, when they did. The Sabre is very agile, the Mig isnt a tree trunk either, however, 2 pilots in a Mig doing a zoom and boom on a Sabre, is liable to spoil the Sabre drivers day some, one 37mm hit is not going to be.......err beneficial. plus the round drop on the 37mm is not great, so you need to be up close and personal, but also not hang around for the Sabre pilot to turn in on you.

To you also mate, have a great day.

author author !! I understand the questions from new members, and this is quite a valid one, if a little argumentative, there are more thing "right" with SF, than there are "wrong" even if it is not quite as black and white as that. Also SF cannot be compared to the likes of DCS, or IL Series, as it is a totally different beast altogether, and still, in my humble opinion, the most user friendly, and all-round great flight sims. Long may she reign !!

Further to the discussion here, tank on tank engagements in game are also rather OP as well, if you watch a tank battle, they basically one shot each other, so it isnt just the Avenger, as I said, the sim is older, so the damage mechanics are maybe not optimised to the level you are expecting from SF, as Stratos implied, you seem to be comparing SF to DCS and that is not a fair comparison. SF does pretty much everything well though, but, if one wants to complain about "unrealistic" gun power, then one must also refer to the fact there is also not A to A refueling either, which is also unrealistic. I would suggest you merely except the strictures of the Sim as it is, and live with it.

Point one, this is an old (ish) Flight simulator. Point two, this is not the hyper realistic DCS. Point three, there has to be some poetic/artistic licences taken, as this is a simulator, not real life, the guns in game however, are good, yes maybe your example is on the more extreme end of the scale, also I am not sure of the hitbox/damage box on the A-10 modelled in game, so it is possible that it is down to the damage model of this particular aircraft. Were the rounds incoming from the ground, or from the rear ( engaged by a bogey) Finally, A 30mm round with depleted uranium, will reach out and lovingly caress anything ( within reason) that it wants to, as mentioned above ............... I would agree that armour in some cases is relatively easy in some cases, however, I redirect you to my previous 3 points, rinse and repeat.

The main thing is that the Pilot managed to bang out, However as for F-35, at least they didnt go for the Boeing contender, that was even uglier and even more crap. I see no other alternative for a Carrier aircraft though, unless we buy French !!

Glad the Pilot is ok, dont give a crap about the F-35 though, that can reside in Davy Jones's Locker and rot. Not a fan of the type I fear.

Oh very nice mate, very nice indeed.

Airbus is a multinational, and therefore NOT French

This is true, and were so traumatised by the whole sorry affair, that the vowed never to use our Gallic "friends" aircraft again, except for the Jaguar collaboration of course, and that was just a british, as it was french, and besides, the RAF version was better anyhow , So There

The RAF....Using......Dare I say it......I shudder at the very notion............Equipped, with, FRENCH Aircraft..The Humanity !!!

No such thing an an invincible, or invulnerable Tank, Western Tanks, are more survivable than the Former Soviet, or current Russian Tanks, however, they are designed on two totally different tactical doctrines. The West, had envisioned an assault through the Fulda gap, and therefore developed its armour to counter this, ie, better command and control, better Infantry and air combined operations, the Russians/Warpac had one goal in mind, to get in, defeat, occupy and end the war, therefore their armour is faster, lower, and more numerous. Gunnery is another factor, with possibly the advantage going to NATO, as they needed accuracy and quality, that being said, the Russians, build bloody good kit, and, had the cold war gone hot, the outcome would have been awful, as tac nukes would have come into play, and sorry Gents, but no one wins that particular scenario. Anyhow, Russian Tanks are very good, as good as, if different from Western armour, yes they ergonomics can sometimes leave something to be desired, but, they worked, very well, did the job, and are still running in armies all around the world, not bad for 1960's/70's tech !! As a former Cold War Warrior, I am fully aware of how terrible a Soviet invasion would have been, my approximate life expectancy was 24 - 48 hours buying time until the US and NATO could pump bodies into the Theatre of ops. Also, another point, even the Israeli's used Soviet Tanks in the form of the Tiran, that speaks volumes in my book. However, ATGM's will kill pretty much ANY tank, be it Western or Eastern European in origin, so the argument is actually academic, as neither side really has a "better" Tank. To make a droll comment here, it aint the size that counts, it's the way one utilises it that really matters.

From what I understand of German Archie, is that it did get nastier and more accurate later into the war, I suspect that there were areas more heavily defended with more guns, this is a reason that balloon busting was frowned upon. As the war progressed, the Germans developed effective Flak guns, things like SockelFlak etc, also the developed guns specifically for throwing as much hate skywards, as accurately as possible as they could, and they were very good at it, a trend to be repeated in WWII. Maybe the sector your gallant French aviator is flying in, happens to be one of those "unpleasant" and rather warm areas, where the attentions of Mr Archibald were more unwelcoming. Also, flying at low to medium altitude was a risky process at the best of times. It must have been terrible for Art Obs pilots, flying figure 8's whilst being potted at by every gunner for miles around.