SIX! New planes for IL2-GB announced!

[Avimimus]

13 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

What is a visual reconnaissance mission?

From GSSS (1922) Tactics, Principles, and Decisions:

[AndreiTomescu]

Seasickness is NOT a disease, it's a situation in which the brain perceives a difference between the imput from the following "sensors":

- eyes

- internal ear (ballance sensor, acceleration sensor)

- joints, muscles, where you have proprioceptors, also involved in movement detection

So in a flight sim with VR your eyes perceives the  movement of the plane and your virtual body, your ear (head) just the movement of your virtual head, and the rest of the body....none of those.

The brain, being highly adaptable, adjusts to this differences, usually in a couple of minutes, or even days.

But my guess is that if the head movement VISIBLE is suddenly blocked, regardless of the movement of your own head, and then resumed, it could provoke seasickness.

 

 

1 minute ago, Avimimus said:

From GSSS (1922) Tactics, Principles, and Decisions:

Thank you, I know what is it in real operational, I meant how is it/ how it works in great battles. 🙂 

[Avimimus]

2 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

The brain, being highly adaptable, adjusts to this differences, usually in a couple of minutes, or even days.

But my guess is that if the head movement VISIBLE is suddenly blocked, regardless of the movement of your own head, and then resumed, it could provoke seasickness.

Yes, it can apparently be trained for.

There is the fundamental issue that the simulated world may have a delay in updating or the VR headset may not perfectly track head position - so physical sensations of orientation may slightly lag the orientation changes in the simulated world.

3 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

Thank you, I know what is it in real operational, I meant how is it/ how it works in great battles. 🙂 

Well, it seems to be distinguished from photographic reconnaissance in English (even though that is a form of visual light reconnaissance). I'm not sure how it was broken down in other languages or services or time periods though!

[sandmarken]

28 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

Yes, indeed, you've told me so, and i am wondering to what is this related, since another person, testing a campaign not dedicated, but containing several artillery spotting missions, hadn't this issue.

For me, I think it's the relatively small text on that artillery spotter map and focusing on that map with the background moving.

 

I think for a scripted campaign, there are many ways to do artillery spotting: for example flying over the target, then going back to friendly forces, dropping a flare (message about position), maybe different check zones so that if you fly over the wrong area, you have to do it again or just live with the misfire. For me, at least, the important thing would be the immersion. A populated frontline. Dangerous as a defense to avoid. Maybe some heavy weather to set the atmosphere. 

[Mainstay]

That is awesome to see new planes added! 

Im a bit disappointed in the Luftwaffe choice as i don't understand the FW-189.... Rather would have loved to see a Dornier 17 / 217 and a Heinkel 219. 

 

[Juri_JS]

49 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

Thank you, I know what is it in real operational, I meant how is it/ how it works in great battles. 🙂 

In Il-2 GB it's very simplified. When you reach a target area, you can open the following menu:

When you click on one of the target types, you can activate a marking on the map or trigger any other event. As far as I know the feature hasn't seen much use yet.

In reality the observer would take notes, make map entries or create sketches during flight and after landing writes down a detailed report. A short report might also be send via radio during flight or dropped in a message container over a local HQ. Here a report of a Luftwaffe Hs-126 crew. In this case the crew had already dropped a hand written report over the sectors Luftwaffe command post and over the troops at the front.

 

Edited March 8 by Juri_JS

[AndreiTomescu]

So in theory a mission for any plane with a observer/gunner that has active seat could be done with the pilot on auto and the player taking notes, marking the map, and so on? Well, that's awesome! Come on, guys, shooting ain't the only thing about planes. That Invasion Watch campaign, for example (by @Juri_JS) : it is harder and more action packed than 80% of the rest of the "combat" ones. Hope nobody gets annoyed by my remark, it's just my pow.

For this simulator (GB) to keep on, it HAS to give something that it's unique. To keep on standing out.

My personal opinion on releasing such a niche plane as the Fw-189 is that it's a life line towards such exploits. Sometimes planning, outwitting the enemy, sneaking, if you want is really rewarding and gives a less thunder, more true war like experience.

Take the Train Busters campaign. That's strategy.

Edited March 8 by AndreiTomescu

[AndreiTomescu]

2 hours ago, sandmarken said:

he important thing would be the immersion. A populated frontline. Dangerous as a defense to avoid. Maybe some heavy weather to set the atmosphere. 

enemy fighters spawning to intercept after a timer runs out !!

[Bulldog]

On 3/6/2026 at 7:59 PM, VISHNU said:

I'm just happy for anything new, including these bombers!   The bombers of today,  in VR,  pale in comparison  to my very first flight sim, Intellivsion's B-17 bomber with Intellivoice!  I'm definitely feeling extremely old!! 😞

 

 

I still have mine! Revolutionary when it was released.

[VISHNU]

5 hours ago, Bulldog said:

I still have mine! Revolutionary when it was released.

Are you kidding me?!??!!?   I wish I kept mine, mind you I'm 56 now.  It's long gone.   This was before keeping consoles for nostalgia was a thing.

 

[AcesDarthBubu]

What's the typical visual range the FW189 can spot up to? Will it get limited by the engine, as in game ground unit spawn distance may be far too near in comparison.

[GOA_AveFenix=VR=]

Well, despite all the pleading and begging for the Bf 109 G10, it seems we'll either have to wait and dream about it while flying any other 109.

The strangest thing is that they already have the base built with the K4, but despite all the pleas to the developers, they refuse to build it.

What a shame.

[PaperPilot]

6 hours ago, GOA_AveFenix=VR= said:

Well, despite all the pleading and begging for the Bf 109 G10, it seems we'll either have to wait and dream about it while flying any other 109.

The strangest thing is that they already have the base built with the K4, but despite all the pleas to the developers, they refuse to build it.

What a shame.

I share your disappointment. Many may ask Why another Bf-109? For me it is all about historical accuracy. Another aircraft I would have liked to see is the Soviet IL-4 medium bomber for Great Battles. But at least we are getting the A-20G, which I am pretty stoked about because you can use it in a variety of maps - both on the Eastern and Western Fronts past 1943. 

[AndreiTomescu]

7 hours ago, AcesDarthBubu said:

What's the typical visual range the FW189 can spot up to

The Focke-Wulf Fw 189 Uhu ("Owl") was designed specifically for short-range tactical reconnaissance, with its highly glazed, panoramic cockpit providing exceptional all-around visibility for battlefield observation

. 

While a specific, standardized "maximum spotting range" in kilometers is not explicitly defined, its operational role and performance characteristics allow for the following assessment: 

• Role and Altitude: As a "flying eye" designed for low-altitude, short-range observation and artillery spotting, the Fw 189 operated close to the ground, often relying on the naked eye or binoculars for direct observation of troops.
• Visibility Capabilities: The extensively glazed, "stepless" cockpit gave the crew an almost 360-degree view, making it ideal for identifying targets that might be missed by faster aircraft.
• Operational Context: Because it was designed to fly slowly (cruising speed around 317 km/h or 197 mph) and operate at low altitudes to support the Wehrmacht, its effective visual range was designed to cover immediate battlefield, troop, and convoy movements rather than deep strategic reconnaissance. 

In summary, the Fw 189's strength was not in spotting things at extreme distances (like high-altitude bombers), but in the clarity, detail, and 360-degree, low-level observation of the immediate combat area. 

 

That's what a google search said. So, i guess it's really best fitted for our purposes, as the spawn distance for some of us with limited CPU/GPUs is set at 70 km. (like myself)

In other instance, i guess that observing troops and even armour, vehicles with some binoculars from an aircraft is limited to some km range. Let's see that miss google says.... 🙂 :

From an aircraft, the typical visual range to

 detect (spot) a human on the ground with standard binoculars (e.g., 8x42 or 10x50) is generally within 0.5 to 1 mile (approx. 800–1600 meters), depending heavily on altitude, speed, and contrast.

[sevenless]

7 hours ago, GOA_AveFenix=VR= said:

Well, despite all the pleading and begging for the Bf 109 G10, it seems we'll either have to wait and dream about it while flying any other 109.

The strangest thing is that they already have the base built with the K4, but despite all the pleas to the developers, they refuse to build it.

What a shame.

The G6/AS collector, which also is a G14/AS (with MW50 and ASM engine enabled) is pretty damn close to the G-10 of fall 1944. Maybe that´s why they haven´t released a G-10.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/88274-bf-109-g-6-asm-vs-g-10/

[sandmarken]

18 minutes ago, sevenless said:

pretty damn close to the G-10 of fall 1944. Maybe that´s why they haven´t released a G-10.

Not sure why people would rather have a very similar 109 than something quite unique and historically significant like an FW189. If people had bought the G6/AS like hotcakes, I'm pretty sure the devs would have made the G10 also. And we get 3 bombers and a P39Q that has been asked for ages, but still people complain about this one collector instead of being happy that the game we thought dead is arising again.

 

I will buy them all, at least.😁

[sevenless]

3 minutes ago, sandmarken said:

Not sure why people would rather have a very similar 109 than something quite unique and historically significant like an FW189. If people had bought the G6/AS like hotcakes, I'm pretty sure the devs would have made the G10 also. And we get 3 bombers and a P39Q that has been asked for ages, but still people complain about this one collector instead of being happy that the game we thought dead is arising again.

 

I will buy them all, at least.😁

Yep. Before we get another 109 which differs only by 1-5kph in performance, I´d rather see the Hs-123 in the game. I am pretty happy with the Fw-189, which really offers something significantly new.

[AndreiTomescu]

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

I´d rather see the Hs-123 in the game.

that, and a Gladiator! soo many new encounter could be opened such.

 

2 minutes ago, sevenless said:

with the Fw-189, which really offers something significantly new.

exactly, and the opportunity for new types on missions on the preexisting maps = diversity=longevity.

[AndreiTomescu]

another setup which could bring enormous content with little or small or already in development is the naval aspect of the Leningrad map, just as mr @Nerpo said. There was a respectable soviet naval presence in the area, and the air missions against/supporting it could bring countless hrs of new content. i see a payware "naval DLC" as doable, profitable, and highly enjoyable. even a poll about it being relevant could be done, a priori. 

[sevenless]

42 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

another setup which could bring enormous content with little or small or already in development is the naval aspect of the Leningrad map, just as mr @Nerpo said. There was a respectable soviet naval presence in the area, and the air missions against/supporting it could bring countless hrs of new content. i see a payware "naval DLC" as doable, profitable, and highly enjoyable. even a poll about it being relevant could be done, a priori. 

Yes, anti-shipping is a blind-spot they never filled. Since Kuban the tracking ability to kill ships (Light, Cargo, Submarines and Destroyers) is integrated in the career mode. I guess they never found the necessary time to create appropriate mission templates. We could use them in Kuban, Normandy, Odessa and Karelia careers. Maybe they eventually can get around to fill that gap and at least integrate some anti-shipping missions in career modes for GB in 2026/2027.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/37181-anti-shipping-missions-in-kuban-career-mode/

Edited March 9 by sevenless

[G-SPIT]

P-47M Thunderbolt “Marion, North Dakota Kid” LM-C of the 56th Fighter Group in flight

[Calos_01]

8 hours ago, sevenless said:

Yep. Before we get another 109 which differs only by 1-5kph in performance, I´d rather see the Hs-123 in the game. I am pretty happy with the Fw-189, which really offers something significantly new.

If I'm not mistaken, we now have 11 variants of the Bf 109 in the game, but in my opinion, we are missing other variants of the Spitfire more, at least the Mk V (different engines, clipped wing, C-wing) or the early Mk IX. And that's not to mention the Mk XII. I was hoping that there would be at least one Spitfire among the six new aircraft. Now I think it might be much better if one day we get battles over the Channel in the new engine. A larger map, drop tanks, large formations, naval warfare...etc.

 

Edited March 9 by Calos_01

[Gutholz]

Is this now the "wish a plane" thread? Ok. 

I think a trainer aircraft would be good.

Currently new players must instantly begin with powerful fighter aircraft.

For someone completly new to flight sims that can be very hard, also because the game itself does not offer much training/tutorials.

If a new player picks a plane a random then there is a high chance he will not be able to take off because of prop wash, ground loops, not knowing about flaps and so on.

And then they give up. I know about the  U-2VS but it is a collector plane, how many new players buy extra planes when they struggle to get the default ones started?

It is a huge missed oppurnity for any combat flight sim not to include something like a Tiger Moth in the base game:

 

for german side: Bücker Bü 131 Jungmann

 

or Klemm Kl 35

There are many more options, those are just examples.

Bonus points if it comes with trainings missions. Could even be included in a campaign, you start as student pilot or civil pilot with lessons or mail transport and then transfer to fighters.

More bonus points if it is a two seater with instruments and controls in both seats, so two players can fly as student and trainer. (trainer would be "gunner" position)

Some of these planes were also used for night bombing/harassment, there could be missions around that too.

 

 

[Nerpo]

Yes, this will be a serious bomber! 😁
The FV-189 is also very much needed as a reconnaissance and spotter aircraft. And we also need missions for it. Similar to those created by Kraut1 for the IL-2.
(So look, we'll live to see the Il-4!)

Edited March 9 by Nerpo

[Bajzon20]

1 hour ago, Gutholz said:

Is this now the "wish a plane" thread? Ok. 

I think a trainer aircraft would be good.

Currently new players must instantly begin with powerful fighter aircraft.

For someone completly new to flight sims that can be very hard, also because the game itself does not offer much training/tutorials.

If a new player picks a plane a random then there is a high chance he will not be able to take off because of prop wash, ground loops, not knowing about flaps and so on.

And then they give up. I know about the  U-2VS but it is a collector plane, how many new players buy extra planes when they struggle to get the default ones started?

It is a huge missed oppurnity for any combat flight sim not to include something like a Tiger Moth in the base game:

 

for german side: Bücker Bü 131 Jungmann

 

or Klemm Kl 35

There are many more options, those are just examples.

Bonus points if it comes with trainings missions. Could even be included in a campaign, you start as student pilot or civil pilot with lessons or mail transport and then transfer to fighters.

More bonus points if it is a two seater with instruments and controls in both seats, so two players can fly as student and trainer. (trainer would be "gunner" position)

Some of these planes were also used for night bombing/harassment, there could be missions around that too.

 

 

Such planes would be perfect for my career vision. I know it will probably never come true, but can we dream at least.

In my vision of career mode, after creating a character, we would first be sent to a training unit, where we would have to practice basic takeoff and landing techniques, perform some maneuvers, and simulate attacks on aircraft or ground targets.

After such training, the game would analyze our flying style, what we did well at, what we didn't, and based on that, it would assign our character to a randomly selected squadron. If we performed better in simulated combat as a fighter, we would be assigned to fighters, if we successfully attacked a simulated ground target, we would be assigned to bombers or attackers squadron.