New Aircraft in 2026

[Shinobimono]

49 минут назад, AEthelraedUnraed сказал:

The fact that we don't have a keyboard command to explicitly switch a particular system on or off because it's all embedded in the automated startup sequence, does not mean it isn't modeled.

What exactly, besides some components of the powerplant, has been modeled here? Fuel system? A detailed model of the armament? Electric firing mechanism, pneumatic reloading, for example.

[MDzmitry]

39 минут назад, Shinobimono сказал:

Do you have the report on the combat tests of the M-71 engined I-185? I don't think so.

I have read positive reviews of the I-185, and then there is additional context: 

• Only 4 I-185s took part in field trials, of which 2 were with M-82 and 2 with M-71.
• They were forbidden from flying above enemy territory and engaging in dogfights
• The flights had to be conducted at speed close to maximum (500-550 kmph) and the specific altitude of 3000-4000m.

There's also the fact of M-71 never becoming a properly functional engine, with every trial having either engine changes, sometimes multiple, or outright failures which resulted in forced landings or crashes. The aircraft was designed, redesigned and tested multiple times over for 3 years and all it could show was not even a handful of precision-built prototypes. Now project this onto the reality of the Soviet aircraft production.

1 час назад, Shinobimono сказал:

I also remind you about the problems with the M-82 engine.

Comparing apples to oranges here. A barely functional non-production engine against an engine plagued with problems typical for war-time production with a similar % of production affected.

1 час назад, Shinobimono сказал:

Where are they in the game? Where are the assembly issues of Soviet aircraft from the early years of the war?

In the same "out of scope" angle of game development as any other kind of assembly issues, the only exception being ones that left a long-lasting effect (see DB 605 and its Notleistung limitations debates on various forums). Doesn't change the fact that, unlike aforementioned issues, it was less likely to find a functional M-71 rather than a malfunctioning one.

1 час назад, Shinobimono сказал:

Absurd for the sake of absurdi.

And you continue to pick fights with strangers online for fighting's sake, or maybe to entertain your own ego. Speaking of entertainment, it's neither fun nor really useful for me personally, so I'd like to see no further continuation of this charade unless it's actually productive information. 

Thank you for your time

[Shinobimono]

56 минут назад, MDzmitry сказал:

I have read positive reviews of the I-185, and then there is additional context

So, in short, you don't know nothing aside the publicly available information. M-71 didn't became a serial engine because no serial production aircraft were launched.

1 час назад, MDzmitry сказал:

it's neither fun nor really useful for me personally

At first then don't write trivial comments and don't start the fight. 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, Shinobimono said:

Fuel system?

That is actually a really good example of my point, yes. Of course, the fuel system isn't especially detailed, and is certainly not as good as the one Korea is purported to get. However, it does feature several tanks with individual fuel levels, that drain in a certain order (e.g. the P-51 tail tank is emptied first). You cannot manually switch all the fuel switches, but they are switched nonetheless. Partly in the engine startup/shutdown sequence (fuel cutoff switch), partly during flight (e.g. P-51 aft tank is empty), and partly timer-based (e.g. fuel gauge switch that switches every X seconds). So this is exactly an instance where we have a system that's internally more detailed than what is exposed to the GUI.

[MDzmitry]

9 часов назад, Shinobimono сказал:

M-71 didn't became a serial engine because no serial production aircraft were launched.

The absurdity of this statement aside, lack of serial aircraft didn't stop them from producing M-82. Let me tell you a secret: had there been a "serial" M-71 the design bureaus would have received an order to produce prototypes with it, the same as aforementioned M-82.

On 13.05.1941 M-82 was ordered into mass production, in this very order Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Polikarpov and Yakovlev were told to produce prototypes with this engine in the span of June-September and to begin trials of said designs. In July Gudkov and Ilyushin also received similar orders as well as trials of M-82-engined TB-7, DB-3F and Aircraft "103" (future Tu-2) started.

So, the spring of 1942 comes, M-82 is in production, and the situation is as follows: there's only 1 serial aircraft flying with it (Su-2, with a grand total of 58 M-82-engined Sukhois), 1 design which accomplished trials but was deemed unnecessary (Il-2 M-82) and 7 prototypes at different stages of testing or outright abandoned (MiG-9, Gu-82, Yak-7 M-82, I-185 M-82, plus aforementioned 3 bombers).

Yet, the engine is kept in production and designs continue to be developed. 

 

Addition: this whole idea of "serial aircraft first, engine second" made me remember the only other buffoon to share a similar idea - the legendary (infamous) Silvansky. His quote was "Самолёт важнее мотора", and the context is that he requested changes to M-88's construction... to accommodate longer landing gear of his prototype.
God, I love how ridiculous his whole story is.

Скрытый текст

Sorry for the footage being WT, but this is the most entertaining retelling of it. For English audience look up "I-220" or "Silvansky's Fighter".

 

Edited Sunday at 06:43 AM by MDzmitry

[Shinobimono]

2 часа назад, MDzmitry сказал:

The absurdity of this statement aside, lack of serial aircraft didn't stop them from producing M-82. Let me tell you a secret: had there been a "serial" M-71 the design bureaus would have received an order to produce prototypes with it, the same as aforementioned M-82.

There were M-71 engined prototypes, not only I-185. How many of them saw the mass-production anyhow? Zero. Only La-7 was already in production, but lack of M-71 lead trials to nowhere.

ASh-82 from same design bureau was a step forward for soviets, of course it was launched; no closure counterpart was available at this time. So why M-71 wasn't put in the production two years later? Maybe it’s because for the Soviet wartime industry putting into production was no easy task? 

[Shinobimono]

8 часов назад, AEthelraedUnraed сказал:

That is actually a really good example of my point, yes. Of course, the fuel system isn't especially detailed

That's what I have said. Only some basic components of the powerplant.

8 часов назад, AEthelraedUnraed сказал:

more detailed than what is exposed to the GUI.

And when we had a leak in some tank, all the fuel oozed through it. Thus, this is a system that has a clear impact on the flight model due to forces and moments, but as a technical "device", it is inconsistent, made of triggers or something similar. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Shinobimono said:

That's what I have said. Only some basic components of the powerplant. [...] And when we had a leak in some tank, all the fuel oozed through it.

I wasn't responding to your comments about the M-82. Nor did I say that IL2 perfectly simulates the fuel system. I was responding to the implication that the amount of buttons a flight sim has, is indicative of whether or not certain systems are modeled. That is clearly not the case. Taking a look at the interactable buttons available in IL2, one might conclude it does not have a fuel system at all. In fact, for all its current shortcomings, IL2 has a working multi-tank system with fuel cutoff valves, fuel selector valves and fuel gauge switches. It just doesn't expose any of those to the player.

It's very easy to say "Sim X has a certain system modeled and Sim Y hasn't because Sim X has a button while Sim Y doesn't", but that isn't always correct. You can have a clickable button that doesn't do a thing, while you can equally have a very detailed system with simplified user interactions.

2 hours ago, Shinobimono said:

Thus, this is a system that has a clear impact on the flight model due to forces and moments, but as a technical "device", it is inconsistent, made of triggers or something similar.

Let me tell you a secret. Even the most hard-core study sim uses simplified systems. And for good reason. You'd need a second GPU just to handle the aerodynamics calculations, and a third one for the engine thermodynamics. Hell, have you ever seen the mess of integrals and curls that are involved in something as everyday as electrical systems (noting that Maxwell's equations are themselves simplifications of quantum mechanics)? If you want to do it properly, you need a supercomputer just to simulate a light bulb switching on. I challenge you to find a single flight simulator that is not "inconsistent, made of triggers or something similar".

Yes, IL2 currently has more simplifications than some of its competitors, and less simplifications than others. Does that make it a better or worse flight sim? No. It makes it a different flight sim. For normal flight operations, you don't need all those different systems they've simplified away. With the relative simplicity of WW1 and WW2 aircraft systems, you don't even need any of the left-out buttons during 99% of emergencies. Granted, the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks in IL2 is sorely missed, but this happens to be something that isn't even controlled by a button at all.

In Korea, based on the Devs' comments, we get similar simplified user interactions as currently, while almost all systems are highly detailed. See their Brief Room Ep.23 for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrqXaLlOeFc

 

(Also, TIL that the P-38 in IL2 has hydraulic aileron boosters that can be damaged, accordingly affecting performance. Another excellent example of under-the-hood systems that are certainly well-modeled even though they're not exposed to the player.)

[Shinobimono]

2 часа назад, AEthelraedUnraed сказал:

I wasn't responding to your comments about the M-82

Nor I was discussing it with you. I said that most developed thing in the game is powerplant.

2 часа назад, AEthelraedUnraed сказал:

Yes, IL2 currently has more simplifications than some of its competitors, and less simplifications than others.

That's all you needed to say instead of needlessly writing everything above.

2 часа назад, AEthelraedUnraed сказал:

Does that make it a better or worse flight sim? No.

I didn't make any comparisons in terms of better or the worse game. I have made only one sentence: "Il-2: Great Battles is a game about dogfighting (yes, it is), simplicity of systems' simulation doesn't allow to overcome engine issues. All aircraft are made by the "gold standard", no shortfalls (except of Jumo 004) are depicted." That's all.

All subsequent discussions about jumping from a burning plane, the difficulty of simulating real-time thermodynamics or electricity are completely unrelated to the actual matter.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, Shinobimono said:

I have made only one sentence: "Il-2: Great Battles is a game about dogfighting (yes, it is), simplicity of systems' simulation doesn't allow to overcome engine issues. All aircraft are made by the "gold standard", no shortfalls (except of Jumo 004) are depicted."

No you didn't. If you had limited yourself to just saying those two sentences, I'd have agreed. But in fact you claimed a lot more, namecalling those who don't agree with you "monkeys" in the process. But hey, go on antagonising people if you like.🤷‍♂️ You'll have to do it without me though; since it seems you have little to add in terms of fruitful discussions and don't seem to be prepared to backtrack even the tiniest when people make excellent counterarguments against your claims, I see no point in further responding to your posts.

[Shinobimono]

1 минуту назад, AEthelraedUnraed сказал:

But in fact you claimed a lot more, namecalling those who don't agree with you "monkeys" in the process.

Of course, I called those people monkeys who couldn’t walk past without pointing out how bad it is to learn manuals and understand the technical aspects, despite the fact that I didn't bring up this topic here at first place. 

2 минуты назад, AEthelraedUnraed сказал:

backtrack

Then backtrack it to the place where I said that Il-2 must become DCS, please. From the very beginning I received walls of text from devoted fans of the game, triggered by the "three-letter abbreviation" I mentioned. But for some reason it's me who antagonize, ok.

[AndyJWest]

Throwing around insults is rarely an effective way to convince people of anything.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Throwing around insults is rarely an effective way to convince people of anything.

Indeed. Let's watch the tone, everyone. Debate the facts, not the person. 

[jokash]

11 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 Granted, the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks in IL2 is sorely missed, but this happens to be something that isn't even controlled by a button at all.

We don't have self-sealing in IL2? How would the sim be different if we had it? Less fuel leaks i guess?

[PaperPilot]

On 4/20/2026 at 4:19 AM, AndyJWest said:

Throwing around insults is rarely an effective way to convince people of anything.

Lets keep the fighting to the actual game