Well, I dont know which flightsims you tried, but Il-2 surely can't be
blamed of having a simplyfied gunerry model. Every bullet is a vector
defined object, as well as aircraft, and collision between these objects is
what is used in IL-2 to detect hits being scored. In older sims the hit
bubble was used so it was rather easy to score hits. Now I haven't fired an
airborne weapon in my life, but IL-2 feels just about right. It also has a
state of the art flight model. I don't think you will be dissapointed if you
try it. It would also be very interesting to read what you think of it once
you've tried it.

As for jet sims, the latest thing is LOMAC which models modern jets
(F-15, A-10, Su-27, Mig-29). Jets of the '60s are soarly missed in todays
flightsim market... I'd really like a decent F-104 sim...


__/ G R E E T I N G S ! \__
\ /


"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
"John Waters" wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
Trying to fly these in the game IL2 is a waste of time, they are
really
crap. I can't believe this was realistic in comparison to other
fighters
of
the time. Anyone know how good the real planes were and/or what their
major
weaknesses were?

Biggest problem about computer games I have discovered so far is
Earth's G effect is ignored (the egg) along with no unloaded (zero-G)
accleration increase. The gun ranges far exceed actual effective
ranges in real life, as well as the lead requirements are way too
small. For example, co-speed 400KIAS, 1500 foot range, 5 G, the pipper
sags down below the nose in an F104A - your target's wings stick out
each side of the radome. Also, fuel consumption is also way too low,
at a guesstimate about 1/4 what it really is in combat.
Walt BJ