Feedback for IL‑2 Developers

[Rayo]

Hello, developers of this excellent simulator,

Before I begin: I’ve been a flight-sim enthusiast since the Spectrum 48K (anyone who wants to calculate how many years, go ahead). I work in IT and for a period of two years I worked in the gaming sector as a tester for Nintendo, Meta, Microsoft and Sony. I won’t list every simulator I’ve used since then, but here are four that, in my view, have defined the last decades: IL‑2 Sturmovik by Oleg Maddox; DCS (which I acknowledge has strengths but also many development limits); World of Tanks (an arcade‑$imulator); and, most recently, Nuclear Option (simulator‑arcade).

You might be surprised I don’t include products like Microsoft Flight Simulator; in short, Microsoft’s product reminds me of DCS in its flaws: many promises but a finish that isn’t always polished — its 2024 release still has bugs.

With IL‑2: Korea about to launch, I’d like to offer three points of reflection from the perspective of a long‑time user and tester:

1. Will this new product be better finished than previous versions? I know comparisons are painful, but both IL‑2 and DCS have loading times I find tedious. Without getting into technicalities (nor cabin, map, or texture complexity), I can say with a stopwatch that on my laptop with a 5060 the latest Nuclear Option has never given me problems: it takes 4 GB on disk and loads in under 5 seconds, while IL‑2 and DCS demand endless patience on loading and require 100 GB or more without offering, in my opinion, a clearly superior experience. Even Microsoft Simulator loads are faster than IL-2. Is the Korea simulator truly being optimized?

2. Why is it so hard for 1C to accept that many users prefer to play with a gamepad? I’ve purchased every type of hardware — joysticks, throttles, rudder pedals, VR headsets, and even crazy vibration devices like the ButtKicker — and yet I’m highly satisfied using a gamepad: with some skill I can do practically everything in a simulator. I believe modernizing and offering serious, simple gamepad support is crucial to improve the user experience; millions of gamepad players shouldn’t be overlooked.

3. Is the pilot’s viewpoint finally well represented? This may seem minor, but I’ve encountered too many poorly implemented cockpits in IL‑2 where the pilot’s head movement and camera framing lack the natural feel of real flight. Please compare the backward/head movement and overall camera feel of Nuclear Option with 1C’s product. Also, visibility is often impaired by poor camera framing in certain cockpits — for example, the Focke‑Wulf 190 in several versions — which breaks immersion and realism.

Kind regards,

R.

[Kubert]

4 hours ago, Rayo said:

Why is it so hard for 1C to accept that many users prefer to play with a gamepad?

I can't imagine using gamepad in IL-2, or any simulator. In some planes I use more buttons as gamepad have before take off alone. 

For example Ilyushin:

- mixture up/down = button 1 and 2

- RPM up/down = button 3 and 4

- water radiator up/down = button 5 and 6

- oil radiator up/down = button 7 and 8

- engine start = button  9

- tail-wheel lock = button 10

- breaks = button 11

- canopy = button 12

...and now we only need throttle, flight controls, button for machine-guns, cannons, rockets, bombs (also rockets and bombs mode switch), gear, flaps, trim, supercharger switch...  

If we turned on every assist possible and took the most automated plane, like BF-109, it probably would be possible to dumb down the game into arcade. But all of this is suited only for totall begginer in learning stage, or person who is not target group for simulations. 

Gamepad is not hardware made for flight simulation. In my opinion, gamepad is not suited for any game, but that's for different debate. 

[Dash,Polder]

That last Russian interview done made it clear they did a lot of work specifically for game pad integration in Korea.  It's coming wether you like it or not.  I think it's a good thing for the numbers game.  Like Han said in the interview, guy on a game pad will never be able to do a fancy barrel roll, but he can still compete.

Edited May 18 by Dash,Polder

[gecko]

1. The fact that Nuclear Option uses only 4GB and other sims require well over 100 should tell you a lot about their comparative depth and detail. I'm not sure Nuclear Option should even properly count as a sim, certainly not in the class of DCS and GB. Relatively long loading times are the price you pay for the detail demanded by the genre. If you don't care for the detail and find the loading time more important, maybe this genre won't be your favorite. I can tell you for sure that if the devs optimized for loading time at the expense of what is essentially the heart of any good sim, they can say goodbye to their player base.

2. A gamepad only allows you to barely dip your toe into what any modern simulator is. The reality and mechanics of flying these aircraft (and I'd argue, almost any aircraft) are just beyond what a gamepad can achieve. You don't have to have a fancy setup, a simple joystick and a keyboard will allow you to use all of the controls without the oversimplification necessary to deliver a playable experience on a gamepad. That said, they've put a lot of work into making the game accessible to people who prefer that. They just aren't the target demographic. There is nothing natural or real about the feeling of flight on a gamepad.

3. It's probably as good as current software can reasonably allow. Yeah, I know about the 190 and the endless debate about how to accurately model the visual characteristics of armored glass. But so far I'm not aware of any sim that is currently on the market that has that capability. Keep in mind that Nuclear Option is not constrained by reality. They can make the cockpits how they like. Here, they have to do their best to make them exactly as they were, and they do a good job. That comes with the same visibility limitations (and yes, a few compromises due to current tech) that the original pilots faced and complained about in some cases. In the world of flight simulators, that's a feature, not a bug. It's an integral part of experiencing the advantages and disadvantages inherent to each aircraft. Nuclear Option is creating their own reality, so they can optimize for visibility and aesthetics all they want.

[GiftGruen]

Honestly spoken: Personally I am quite happy that IL2 does not focus on players that care a lot for loading time and/or gamepad support. 

Yes, this is maybe a market to consider from business point of view. On the other hand ... if I someone wants to play arcade flightsims to have some funny shooting, there are  already options out there I assume. So there is competition. For IL2 as a 'vintage air war' simulation, there is no real competitor at the moment. Maybe it's better to focus on beeing the best one in this niche.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

15 hours ago, Rayo said:

Why is it so hard for 1C to accept that many users prefer to play with a gamepad?

It's not quite clear to me what you mean with "accepting" since it's obvious the Devs have planned gamepad support. They've said so a number of times, including here:

https://media.il2-korea.com/news/dd_66

[Aapje]

17 hours ago, Rayo said:

Why is it so hard for 1C to accept that many users prefer to play with a gamepad?

Just to add some context to what other people said: IL-2 GB is using an obsolete middleware solution to support controllers, with the result that improvements to controller support were extremely limited.

IL-2 Korea has a different solution for the controller support, and this enabled them to support gamepads, which they will do.

[Avimimus]

1. There are two sides to this. One is that they've completely replaced the user interface with one that will allow faster load times. The other is that the level of detail is higher than Great Battles (and much higher than Nuclear Option), meaning that more data has to be loaded into memory. So it will be optimised but may not be faster (we'll have to wait and see).

2. There is a general issue that it is hard to have precise control with very short sticks (e.g. thumb controllers), which has historically prevented them from being used in flight-simulators. However, the developers have announced they are working on adding native support for gamepads (see AEthelraedUnraed's post).

3. This was debated quite a bit with regard to Cliffs of Dover. I personally liked having more head motion as a way of communicating proprioceptive sensations to the player visually. However, it has been pointed out that combat pilots tend to be strapped very tightly into their seats compared to civilian pilots and the view shouldn't actually shift that much. Additionally it was making some people nauseous. I think there is a stronger case for WWI aircraft where pilots often had a single strap. It'd be interesting to see this taken into account in future sims. 

[AndreiTomescu]

Guys, it is impossible due to human propioceptive felling (=touch) to obtain same finnese in controlling the movement of a surface with a short thumb stick compared to a longer one (joystick). Longer the traveled path, better the precision. 

Also the case in medical devices (surgical robots). 

It's a human limitation.

But if someone wants to be Trevor from gta5 and happily fly an airplane that way, and that makes him buy and fly the sim, good! More the merrier. And cheaper for everyone.

As long as this product remains a sim, may it be for as many as possible.

[GiftGruen]

True - in all aspects.

I changed my rig to incorporate a 200mm extension for my stick. Feels great for old warbirds.

Feels absolutely weird however in a Spacsim like Elite ( which I fly from time to time ).

There is no ‚absolute truth‘ for all kind of games. For IL2 a long long stick is fine, but this is only good for people who fly 80% vintage birds and dont care so much for the rest.

[Aapje]

[AndreiTomescu]

On 5/17/2026 at 6:59 PM, Rayo said:

Why is it so hard for 1C to accept that many users prefer to play with a gamepad?

as you've seen, they did. accept. but please, let's be true to the truth: many game users prefer that. Most Il-2 users don't. 1C was focused on it's playerbase, obviously.

if you suggest that a controller support will make many gamers to became Il-2 Korea uses, that would be awesome. Although i have my doubts.

[AndreiTomescu]

On 5/17/2026 at 6:59 PM, Rayo said:

visibility is often impaired by poor camera framing in certain cockpits

i had the pleasure to climb in a 190 cockpit. it felt just as claustrophobic as in game. truth to be told, the Spit wasn't much better. i kept banging my head on the plexiglass with each move. good to have a leather helmet. The IAR is actually better ! 

[Catch]

3 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said:

i had the pleasure to climb in a 190 cockpit. it felt just as claustrophobic as in game. truth to be told, the Spit wasn't much better. i kept banging my head on the plexiglass with each move. good to have a leather helmet.

People were really tiny in those days except Douglas Bader who extended his height to over 5' with his tin legs and thus preferred the Hurricane's roomier cockpit.*

*Citation required.