Realism of IL-2 games

[KillaKiwi]

Howdy, I'm a long term WT player that finally stopped playing after what, 10 years?

WT sparked my interest in realistic vehicle combat and historical research, particular about ammunition.

 

Now, I never played IL-2 games but I enjoy some YouTube content about the games from time to time.

WT for some times now went completely overboard with explosive damage against planes and I just couldn't continue playing the game, since the priority of the developers is clearly to get as many people as possible to play their game and not what playing WT should be like.

 

But, while IL-2 games are miles more realistic than WT, simply based on more detailed damage model, a lot of things don't make sense either and are clearly based on either the opinion of the developers or what players expect to happen. I've seen many topics on the IL-2 forum where players complained about gun damage and many changes over the years, so clearly things aren't set in stone but done a certain way and then adjusted, most likely to a more realistic level.

 

Both WT and IL-2 make players believe, they can just take a bomb, spot a target on the ground and then glide bomb it into the target 200m above ground and the fuze delay of the bomb will solve all the problems regarding damaging the own aircraft from fragments flying possible 1000m from the impact.

Why this doesn't work, is because two things can happen:

- The impact angle is shallow and the rounded bomb, moving at speeds of 300kph and more, will simply ricochet from the ground, landing possibly hundreds of meters from the impact point.

- The bomb doesn't ricochet but will instead dig itself into the soft ground, creating a giant creator but having almost no effect to surrounding targets, that would otherwise get hit by bomb fragments.

 

A third option is that a delayed fuzed bomb will shatter from impacting hard ground, like concrete, or internal fuzes getting destroyed from the impact forces, turning the bomb into a dud.

This is generally the case for HE/Minebombs, which carry a high amount of explosive content and have relatively thin walls.

 

Point targets can only be attacked by planes from a dive at 45° or higher, requiring impact fuzes, which in return require large bombs to be dropped from sufficient height.

German bombs, for example, had advanced electrical fuzes that would react differently depending on the orientation of the bomb. Resulting in different fuze activation times, whether the bomb was dropped from level flight or during a dive, to ensure the aircraft wasn't going to get hit by bomb fragments, if there wasn't enough time to arm the bomb.

For attacking railway installation, spikes were fitted to the bomb head, to prevent them from bouncing of the ground, and instead hopefully dig themself into the ground.

 

In IL-2 it's a piece of cake to drop a bomb onto a bridge, tank or railway, because the bombs simply stick to the ground, so it's possible to use fuze delays and drop bombs from much lower altitude than what could be done in reality.

Dive bombing is made redundant, and so are planes made to attack tanks with cannons, since any fighter can simply equip a bomb, drop it and then regain it's ability to shoot down other planes.

 

Likewise rockets far too accurate in IL-2. They aren't precision weapons. Like with guns, their accuracy depends on how consistent they get propelled but a rocket motor is obviously going to be a lot less reliable than shell getting propelled from gun powder gases. It's the difference between cannon and rocket artillery. Rockets saturate the target area but they can be shot from low level approaches and are much more devastating than cannon shells.

 

Getting low to the ground was a serious danger to almost any aircraft, since even rifle and machine gun fire from infantry could end up being lethal.

The IL-2 is probably one of the few exceptions, since it was specifically designed to shrug of rifle caliber fire.

But this threat doesn't appear to exist in IL-2 or many other games, since it's easily overlooked.

 

There's a good reason why tanks started to feature AA machine guns and the US came to the conclusion (I think it was in the 50s or 60s) that a Soviet tank protected by a single 12.7mm AA MG mounted to it, reduced the efficiency of the attack by, I don't actually remember the correct number, 80%.

So a pretty big deal or the pilot to get shot at from the ground, while trying to line up an attack on a point target.

 

Another issue is the damage behavior of cannon shells on aircraft. I understand that IL-2 GB is a pretty old game already and that there are some limitations with the engine or how damage is modeled but there are a lot of things that are just odd.

Countless times I've seen planes hit by cannons, which looked seemingly fine, start to fall out of the sky like a an overweight chicken, trying to fly.

From one moment to the next, all aerodynamic behavior seemed to have been destroyed and the result looks extremely silly. Planes start making maneuvers you couldn't even pull off using the controls, like they just got kicked by a giant horse, or hit by Thors Hammer.

And the weird part is, we're not even talking 30mm Mineshells here, but twin engine bombers or fighters getting hit by a few 20mm shells.

I also had to witness a couple of days ago a Yak-7 taking 3-5 30mm Mineshells, without getting completely blown to pieces.

I don't get it. German planes get hit by a 37mm shell and they lose their wings or tails, but allied planes get hit by multiple 30mm shells and the structure stays intact. Instead the pilot gets killed or the engine knocked out. Where's the logic in that?

It seems like the developers are incapable of modeling blast damage but still try to make Mineshells behave different than explosive shells.

 

Both in IL-2 GB and Korea the developers implemented random fuel explosions. This sometimes results in planes getting completely blown to smithereens, which in GB generally looks completely silly, with all the parts flying through the air with some weird physics effect.

The issue is: Fuel explosions aren't that dramatic. It's gasoline inside a rubber fuel tank, not a barrel filled with dynamite.

Also: Fuel tank explosions mainly happen from a right mixture of oxygen and fuel vapor inside a fuel tank. Once the tank is set on fire, so either fueling an external fire from a leak or an internal fire that is burning from oxygen that can enter the tank, fuel explosions shouldn't really happen.

I might be wrong about this, so feel free to correct me (even though feelings aren't == reality) this is one of the things that are unlikely but happen quite frequently in IL-2.

 

Obviously it's quite difficult to make damage to planes to give realistic results, since it's a game that tries to be realistic and not a simulation of physical events that result in realistic behavior. So everything is simply based on parameters that hopefully result in an accurate experience.

However, more often than not, it's more about the player expectation, rather than realistic results.

 

Here's my take: The game is far from being realistic.

Realistic combat missions are generally unspectacular, since a single plane has little chance to actually cause serious destruction, thus the developers made it much easier to achieve an effect. Bombs and rockets are simply not accurate enough under realistic conditions to have the desired effect, other than against area targets or from multiple attacks.

So while the game is a "Flight Sim" it's very much a gamified Simulation.

 

Not sure, if this is intentional or not but the same can be seen in IL-2 Korea, where the behavior of bombs and rockets stayed basically the same.

While many people praised the effectiveness of .50cal ammunition, again, it's simply a case of what players expect and enjoy.

No one wants to have to use guns that aren't that effective, even when it's not realistic. After all it's not your job to fly the plane, you fly it to feel the rewards of flying a combat aircraft.

However, it's simply not realistic how effective .50cals are. Not only are they very good at destroying other planes structurally, with wings simply falling off, but they are extremely lethal in setting fuel fires.

And while .50cals were certainly deadly and could set fuel tanks on fire, they become drastically less effective against kerosene filled tanks.

 

Tests were conducted by the US and in practically no instance was a kerosene filled tank more vulnerable to being set on fire than gasoline. In fact kerosene tanks had a significantly lower chance to be set on fire than gasoline tanks. Combined with the relatively small bullet size to damage a tank, this made the .50cal machine guns much more ineffective against Jets than prop planes, where .50cal was still more than enough to score an easy kill by setting fuel tanks on fire or damage an engine directly or by hitting oil and water tanks.

 

The reality is that a .50cal has the best chance to bring down a plane by setting a fuel tank on fire.
If the effectiveness is reduces by 50%, a Sabre or P-80 with 6 .50cal M3 guns, is effectively fighting MiGs as if they had just 3, which would be the equivalent of a P-51 with four .50cal AN/M2s.

Not bad but definitely something that could be improved, since that is roughly the firepower of a fighter with a single 20mm + some extra guns, like a Bf 109 or Yak-9, except we're flying at nearly twice the speed.

[Husar]

With requirements like that, guy had been playing WT for 10 years 😂

[Dash,Polder]

You obviously haven't tested the bombs extensively, because the physics do exactly that, send them bouncing, flying, and sliding hundreds of meters when released with low angles at high speeds.

[FuriousMeow]

You say you never played the Il2 series... and you're getting all this from YT videos?

[Gutholz]

welcome to forums.

Of course no game is 100% realistic. Any software has bugs that get fixed over time. Historic data is sparse and difficult to interpret. In some cases we may never know what is correct. Some topics have been discussed several times over the years. Now you are re-warming them but at least in the previous discussions the participants were familiar with the game. Your observations are based merely on youtube videos. 

There are some obvious points were you are wrong. The bouncing bombs have already been mentioned. The shallow glide approach will often result in this:

 

You do not see that often on youtube because nobody uploads videos of their misses.

With some skill it is even possible to skip bombs on the water into ships.

 

Quote

Dive bombing is made redundant, and so are planes made to attack tanks with cannons, since any fighter can simply equip a bomb, drop it and then regain it's ability to shoot down other planes.

That differs alot between planes and depends what loadouts are avaivable. With the biggest possible bombs and some practice it is relatively easy to destroy a tank, but that is not always an option. Some MP servers limit what loadouts you can take. For example the last tacticalairwar compaign did that. With smaller bombs it gets much harder to do damage, even if you can carry 4 of them. Some sowjet fighters can only carry two small bombs and they both drop together, basically one one (slim) chance on a ground attack. Remember that any sim pilot can easily get more and better training and flying hours than any real life WW2 ace. You can watch a recording of any situation in slow motion and from any angle and 1 minute later you are in the air again to drop another practice bombe.

Dive bombing is absolutely an option depending on situation because of its precision. Regarding cannons, my aim in the Ju87 with big gunpods is too bad to use them but I absolutely saw people using that to take out vehicles.

 

Quote

but allied planes get hit by multiple 30mm shells and the structure stays intact. Instead the pilot gets killed or the engine knocked out. Where's the logic in that?

But what if the engine gets knocked out but the structure did not stay intact.

Another thought: All your points are about damage. That is only one part of a flight sim. Generally when bullets hit stuff, stuff gets destroyed. Aircraft can lose parts and it has an effect on their handling. You get damage if you fly into debris, so have to watch out when attacking from close distance. I have no idea if the physics falling debris are 100% accurate, to be honest how much does it matter?

The more claims you make, the more videos of my horrible newbish flying you will have to watch.

 

[KillaKiwi]

21 hours ago, Husar said:

With requirements like that, guy had been playing WT for 10 years 😂

Good to know that people also leave dumb comments on the IL-2 Forum. I’ll feel right at home then, coming from the WT forum. 🙂

 

16 hours ago, Dash,Polder said:

You obviously haven't tested the bombs extensively, because the physics do exactly that, send them bouncing, flying, and sliding hundreds of meters when released with low angles at high speeds.

True but I’ve seen enough footage. People ground attack point targets with bombs like it’s a walk in the park.

They can ricochet from the ground but you basically have to drop them from level flight at low altitude for it to happen.

 

Theres a reason that bomb accuracy was atrocious in WW2.

 

When a dive bomber could only hit a target with 100x100m accuracy (I think it was 30x30m in training), how come it’s as easy as putting the target in the gun sight and dropping bombs from 200-300m?

Because clearly it wasn’t actually that easy to simply dive 20-30° and release bombs going 300+ kph.

5 hours ago, Gutholz said:

welcome to forums.

Thx 🙂

5 hours ago, Gutholz said:

There are some obvious points were you are wrong. The bouncing bombs have already been mentioned. The shallow glide approach will often result in this:

That bomb flew maybe 30m off target.

If there was a tank column you could simply take that into consideration.

The bomb exploded just seconds after impact, which would be incredibly dangerous for the own aircraft.

US bombs on fighter/bombers had like a 7s fuze delay, iirc. So the bomb wouldn’t endanger the own aircraft, and possibly also other flying nearby.

The procedure for attacking ground targets was to follow a specific dive angle from a specific altitude with a specific Initial speed. All to make sure that there were some known parameters you could rely on to increase bombing accuracy.

Which was necessary because attacks like in IL-2 GB or Korea aren’t actually possible.

And in that clip it only happened because the plane levels out before dropping the bomb. It doesn’t take much for the bomb to stick to the ground in IL-2.

5 hours ago, Gutholz said:

That differs alot between planes and depends what loadouts are avaivable. With the biggest possible bombs and some practice it is relatively easy to destroy a tank, but that is not always an option. Some MP servers limit what loadouts you can take. For example the last tacticalairwar compaign did that. With smaller bombs it gets much harder to do damage, even if you can carry 4 of them. Some sowjet fighters can only carry two small bombs and they both drop together, basically one one (slim) chance on a ground attack. Remember that any sim pilot can easily get more and better training and flying hours than any real life WW2 ace. You can watch a recording of any situation in slow motion and from any angle and 1 minute later you are in the air again to drop another practice bombe.

Dive bombing is absolutely an option depending on situation because of its precision.

Thats the issue. Bombs weren’t accurate enough in the way they needed to be dropped from aircraft to attack tanks.

PTABs and other cluster ammunition existed for that reason and cannons for attacking tanks wouldn’t have been developed, if you could simply strap a 500kg bomb on a plane and destroy tanks that way.

 

All it takes for cannons to become nearly useless is for AI vehicles to adopt and not behave like cannon fodder in a shooting gallery.

But they did saw some success, particularly when armies didnt expect planes going after tanks specifically.

 

5 hours ago, Gutholz said:

The more claims you make, the more videos of my horrible newbish flying you will have to watch

That’s ok 🙂

In your clip the fuel tank exploded, which ripped the P-38 apart.

But that doesn’t really make a good point about the 30mm Mineshells in general.

The physics say, a 30mm Mineshell to a fighters tail will blow it apart.

Hit a wing and any small fighter won’t be able to control the plane anymore, if there’s even a wing left.

 

I mean both 30mm Mineshell and 37mm explosive shells are very likely to destroy a fighter in one shot, but it seems that the 37mm will nearly always cause an instant lethal destruction in IL-2 while the 30mm shell more often than not will simply cause some issues that aren’t always fatal, requiring a second or third hit to finish the job.

 

Fun Fact at the end: Germany didn‘t develop a 30mm Brandgranate 44 Incendiary shell with hydrostatic fuze, since the regular 30mm Incendiary was already overkill and they considered that a 30mm Mineshell exploding inside a fuel tank could potentially be a danger to the attacking aircraft, when the bomber was torn apart. The 20mm Incendiary with hydrostatic fuze was developed to counter potential fire extinguisher system of US and British bombers.

 

Edited August 1 by KillaKiwi

[FuriousMeow]

Bottom line is you haven't played the Il2 series, and your expert opinion is based on YT videos where people only upload their best shots/kills/bomb/rocket runs. 

Until you play it, your wall of text means nothing. 

Edited August 1 by FuriousMeow

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

When a dive bomber could only hit a target with 100x100m accuracy (I think it was 30x30m in training), how come it’s as easy as putting the target in the gun sight and dropping bombs from 200-300m?

Because many of us virtual pilots have many times the experience of most real WW2 pilots. We also don't need to fear for our lives doing dangerous low level bomb runs.

Personally, I'm not nearly as accurate as most of the Youtube videos you see online.

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Because many of us virtual pilots have many times the experience of most real WW2 pilots. We also don't need to fear for our lives doing dangerous low level bomb runs.

Personally, I'm not nearly as accurate as most of the Youtube videos you see online.

 

There is also the fact that they are usually dropping bombs with long time delays at very low altitudes. Because of the short range of release and short travel time it is possible to be very accurate (small errors and wind factor in less).

In reality this wasn't done very often (with a few exceptions - I think some Il-2 units for instance - and some units dropping very small bombs e.g. 20lb Coopers). The reason was simple: The risk of a fuse malfunction causing premature detonation was too great.

Alternatively, there is a risk of the time-delayed bomb penetrating the earth prior to detonation - which massively reduces the blast radius. So, against targets where fragmentation is desirable (e.g. troops, vehicles) it makes sense to use a contact detonation in hopes of getting the bomb to detonate before it has time to penetrate the ground. The Germans even deployed the Dinortstabe fuses for this effect. If I recall correctly, this is actually modelled in the sim (i.e. contact fuses lead to a larger blast area).

Overall though, the lack of fuse failure modelling, does contribute to this unrealistic behaviour. That said, considering that players aren't actually putting their lives on the line, I doubt there is anything the developers could do to prevent some players from trying to release bombs at absurdly low altitudes (or even to keep them from ramming tanks).

 

9 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

Good to know that people also leave dumb comments on the IL-2 Forum. I’ll feel right at home then, coming from the WT forum. 🙂

To be clear - you are all permitted to make dumb comments, but you aren't permitted to call other people dumb. The moderators here are very determined that we be polite.

[KillaKiwi]

30 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Overall though, the lack of fuse failure modelling, does contribute to this unrealistic behaviour. That said, considering that players aren't actually putting their lives on the line, I doubt there is anything the developers could do to prevent some players from trying to release bombs at absurdly low altitudes (or even to keep them from ramming tanks).

The issue is mainly how the bomb physics work. Basically, releasing bombs at low altitude doesn't work as depicted by IL-2 because bombs should bounce from the ground far more often, if a fuze delay is used, and these bounces would also be more random, since bombs don't fly perfectly stable through the air and the ground isn't perfectly even.
Then you add that you don't know the properties of the ground so you can't even know how far the bomb is going to fly from the impact or if the bomb is just straight up going to dig itself into the ground.

 

Dive bombing was the most accurate way to deliver a bomb in WW2 and even then the result were usually mixed, since you might be able to strike a building or hit something in a group of targets but point targets were still too small to directly hit them reliably.

Any fighter bomber that wanted to accurately deliver bombs had to start a steep dive from 2km or more and release bombs from around 800-1000m, to see any success. 

Otherwise you could only attack an area target and hope for the best.

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

The issue is mainly how the bomb physics work. Basically, releasing bombs at low altitude doesn't work as depicted by IL-2 because bombs should bounce from the ground far more often, if a fuze delay is used, and these bounces would also be more random, since bombs don't fly perfectly stable through the air and the ground isn't perfectly even.

In Il-2, I've seen a bomb bounce three times (and change direction) as it bounces.

Of course, it was bouncing from the roof of one building to another...

That said, a lot of the soil around Stalingrad is steppe, so it would be fairly uniform and quite deep in real life (as is the case with a lot of farmland). There also weren't that many paved roads. Bounces would be more likely in Kuban at higher altitudes (i.e. in the mountains), or possibly if one were to hit paved roads in Normandy, or directly hit a rail line (hence the use of the Stabo modifications to bombs to prevent the bomb skipping)... but these situations are rare in the maps provided...

In any case, you should really obtain a copy of the sim before reaching any conclusions. There are a lot of surprising details (e.g. RP-3 AP rockets are able to travel underwater to hit a target - as was the case in real life).

[Redeye]

And if you stick to SP you get more historical attack patterns from the AI (but introduces other issues) and you can limit yourself to contact fuses which will greatly influence your accuracy and difficulty. 
 

Ultimately you will have to provide your own level of ‘realism’ because no Sim gets that quit right. There are technical limitations off course to be found in the game engine and your own PC. This for me is the reason I prefer SP and Coop over PvP because those environments provide me with a better simulation of air battles then PvP ever will. For example no real pilot will fly alone and if he would find himself alone would make a beeline to the nearest friendly lines and home.

[Avimimus]

5 minutes ago, Redeye said:

For example no real pilot will fly alone and if he would find himself alone would make a beeline to the nearest friendly lines and home.

With only two exceptions really: Some high altitude reconnaissance flights (which would flee if they spotted an enemy) and some intercepts of high altitude reconnaissance flights (which would be flown by single or pairs of aircraft over friendly territory). I strongly suspect that the 'lone wolf' patrols by ambitious aviators in WWI generally fell into the latter category as well.

[spreckair]

Of course it is not realistic.  It is an endeavor created with a limited budget.  If a company wanted to simulate WWII in absolute reality, it would cost billions.  And at the end of all of that spending, you would still be sitting in your study behind a flat screen, or with a VR headset on, rather than waking up on cot in a tent in North Africa.  So yes, there are lots of shortcomings.  But shouldn't the point simply be to enjoy what is available and look forward to future developments and hope that it all keeps getting better?  From my perspective, given that WWII flight sims are a very niche genre, I am super glad that we have what we have.  And also glad for all of the mods and 3rd party applications that help to make if feel even more real. 

[GiftGruen]

Exactly.

you know what? As a young boy, 40 years ago, playing some of the first iterations of FlightSimulator with vector graphics and a socalled Hercules graphics card ( 700x300 black/white )

I felt like a pilot.

[Redeye]

Oh mine was a green screen playing Falcon with wire frame Mig21’s and wire frame ground targets!

[Panzerkatze]

I'd like KillaKiwi to tell us, where one can find 100% realistic flight/combat sim. Or which one is the closest nowadays, as IL-2 seems to be very arcade for him. Even he never even tried it...   😸

[belphegor]

Anyone who insists on absolute realism in wargaming should play with the understanding that the loser will be shot.
-Richard Berg

[R33GZ]

On 8/1/2026 at 12:19 AM, KillaKiwi said:

Howdy, I'm a long term WT player that finally stopped playing after what, 10 years?

WT sparked my interest in realistic vehicle combat and historical research, particular about ammunition.

 

Now, I never played IL-2 games but I enjoy some YouTube content about the games from time to time

Congratulations, you inspired me to sign up to the forum again.... its been a while. Well done.

 

While its great to see a fellow Kiwi here, I do think your observations are misguided at best. IL2 GB is not the be all end all for realism, it has never been that way, not even the original iteration claimed that. It is however a fairly reasonable blend between realism.and accessibility.

Having said that, you should buy the game and come play on the CB server. I dont think I've ever seen a an aircraft dropping 500lbers at 300kph and 300m, you would be dead before you got to your release point. I would usually be attacking from 7000 - 10000ft, with a release point of 1500 -2000ft, between 350-400mph IAS... and I can assure you, it is very hard to hit a tank under these parameters

 

I would prefer to see more of a frag pattern damage for contact fuzes, but we have what we have. You can definitely skip bomb on water, and you do have to judge your altitude, range and airspeed correctly or you may bounce over the target, or short of the target.

There has been much 'discussion' aka arguments, over the years about gun effectiveness, but i would challenge you this... API rounds will absolutely cause fuel explosions in the right conditions... just ask the Japanese. If you are after further confirmation, have a read about what vietnam era, or GWoT era pilots thought about the DsHK... it is a feared and respected AA weapon when static on the ground at several thousand ft range... imagine what that is like at 200yards range and comparable air speed.

Anyway, the main point would be, buy the game, come have a fly with us and make a more informed decision based on actual experience with the game

Edited August 3 by R33GZ

[IckyAtlas]

The question of the day is: Will things become globally more realistic and immersive with Korea ?

You are welcome to try, test and compare.

Gentlemen to your aircrafts. Go!

[Gutholz]

On 8/1/2026 at 11:35 PM, KillaKiwi said:

The issue is mainly how the bomb physics work. Basically, releasing bombs at low altitude doesn't work as depicted by IL-2 because bombs should bounce from the ground far more often, if a fuze delay is used, and these bounces would also be more random, since bombs don't fly perfectly stable through the air and the ground isn't perfectly even.
Then you add that you don't know the properties of the ground so you can't even know how far the bomb is going to fly from the impact or if the bomb is just straight up going to dig itself into the ground.

In your first post you said that bombs do not bounce. Then I posted one video and now you are saying that bombs should bounce different. 🫠

You ignored my warning so more newbish bomb drop videos are coming. 💥😎

This one shows two bombs hitting the ground quite close together, when they explode they are further apart. The bombs took slightly different trajectories, from slightly different slope of the terrain or whatever randomness.

In my opinion it is not practiable to account for the bounce, it seems too unreliable. Of course when watching a video in slow motion one can easily say: "Yeah, should just drop 30m sooner" or "So what if there is wind, aim more to the right, simple." But it does not work so easily. You could say the same every time a soccer player misses a shot.

Of course I still hit the flak gun because I am just that good. Originally I was aiming for the wooden watchtowers but nobody has to know that.

 

Quote

Any fighter bomber that wanted to accurately deliver bombs had to start a steep dive from 2km or more and release bombs from around 800-1000m, to see any success. 

"Dropping bombs" is a topic that could fill a whole thread by itself, as could any of the other subjects you brought up. I read reports of planes flying "tree top level" to drop bomb on tanks on the eastern front. On the wikipedia page of Fw190 low level attacks are mentioned.  There must be many factors that decide which is the best option.

 

On 8/2/2026 at 12:29 PM, Redeye said:

Ultimately you will have to provide your own level of ‘realism’ because no Sim gets that quit right. There are technical limitations off course to be found in the game engine and your own PC. This for me is the reason I prefer SP and Coop over PvP because those environments provide me with a better simulation of air battles then PvP ever will. For example no real pilot will fly alone and if he would find himself alone would make a beeline to the nearest friendly lines and home.

That is a good point. The game is flexible enough that you can pick your own experience. You can fly SP and recreate historic battles, with correct unit markings and background story and whatnot. Or you can play in practice mode, turn on unlimited ammo, turn off damage and just create wild explosions. And anything inbetween. Or you can play in MP, team up with other pilots and you never know what the enemies are going to do and what will happen in the next flight. Watching videos is also an option 😉 but it is not a good basis for discussion.

 

 

[jokash]

On 8/1/2026 at 12:43 PM, KillaKiwi said:

When a dive bomber could only hit a target with 100x100m accuracy (I think it was 30x30m in training), how come it’s as easy as putting the target in the gun sight and dropping bombs from 200-300m?

Cause this is a game and you don't actually fly a stuka,and you have multiple factors take differentiate the real flying from simulator flying...but its still closer than arcade games to reality in terms of effort required to put the bomb on target if you play with 100% realism.

[JL1]

Well I have to say I will not buy a flight sim unless all bomb drops are completely realistic (in fact more real than the most real aspects of real life).  If I score one out of 10,000 bomb drops on target that is still far too easy and not realistic.  More important is soil simulation unique to each map and each biome within each map.  Also important is simulation of the soil at several levels of depth including exactly how rocks are distributed and exactly how this interacts with a falling bomb.  Weather must also effect the soil H20 content at different levels.  A bomb hitting the soil needs to calculate thousands of different soil moisture conditions exactly as would be the case on that square meter in the real world.  Finally I expect my aircraft to be completely destroyed by bomb blast 95% of the time just like in real life.

My need for such precision is why I only fly War Thunder.

Edited August 6 by JL1