Actually, the other website did not ask me to remove any images. What they did do, was replace my images with links (some of which did not then work) I think because of bandwidth issues, although I am still not sure. And I would not have had a problem with this at all, if they would have sent me a simple private message about the issue and given me a day or so to make changes. I would have gladly worked with them to comply with any of their rules had I only known. What happened is that a certain moderator arbitrarily took this action upon himself without realizing how long it took to get the images into my Guide in the first place and then acted indignant when I complained.

I have never had a problem with working with editors or people who feel they have honest complaints but when someone removes my work without even the courtesy of a private message or heads up, then yes, I get mighty pissed. And I certainly wont take any $#@! from someone who messes with my work without my permission and then acts as if they expect me to be happy about it.

Jay

jay,

you put a lot of work into that guide, just a few constructive suggestions after i read through most parts of it.

- some of the pages dont look like they are correctly separated right now, you have what looks like a page break that has shifted to the next page so it makes it look a bit untidy.

- with the large pictures you have added i find the document harder to read in electronic form. smaller pictures would serve fine as illustrations, and would reduce the distraction factor when you keep having to turn pages so often just because of the large illustrations.

- the content of the information you present is very useful for new people (which is what it is aimed at), but your writing style tends to be in large paragraphs that make several points or raise several issues. that means people have to read through relatively large sections of text to get to the one or 2 points they might need to look at on that topic. for new people a guide like this is most useful if the information is presented in point form, with small paragraphs or just several text lines per point (which dont specifically have to be numerically labeled, they can just be tagged on a new line each).

- having a "front page" to the document would be nice, which can include be the picture of the pilot from the evil empire you already have at the beginning. after that some short of limited index so people can jump to the sections they might want to look at again.

- some of the information is a bit jumbled and this makes it harder to skimp through and identify information, using a small header with a relevant subsection of information makes that easier. ie for ex., what you need to fly online..., what basic hardware you need to start with (and the hardware types and brands to look for when you become more serious about your hobby),... other good basic il2 guides to read, the ilmai2 n forums, basic aviation terms should be separated from flying terms and combat terms, then your section on online flying styles, and after that common mistakes in online flying for ex, etc..

- large pictures of ventrillo, TS and QMB are not really needed imo, it takes page space and smaller illustrations would be fine. you can add url's referring to other more detailed guides on those parts if needed.

- the aircraft summaries you give can also be a bit more balanced with a few good and bad points on each plane. if you simplify information like that to much, it can loose its meaning. most aircraft had their good and bad points, and choosing the right one for the right situation and flying style is what mattered. for ex about the me109 instead off ...
"Bf 109 Series – Main German fighter series of WWII. No real major strengths or weaknesses, just a good all around airframe. Not as suitable for early beginners due to its turn radius and speed characteristics. Most often found in the hands of Intermediate and Veteran class flyers" could be more like ....
" ME-109 series: one of the 2 main german fighter planes of ww2. a fairly small sized aircraft with a powerful fuel injected engine, which in the first half of the war matched or bettered most allied fighters. it was both fast and at the same time light and maneuverable, and had a good weapons system. in the correct hands this aircraft can be flown both as a turn and burn fighter, or as a boom and zoomer. its main weak point was very limited armor. for newcomers to ww2 aviation it is a fairly easy plane to fly, but to fly it effectively against a good and equal allied plane of the same time period you need to know the strength and weakness of each aircraft. its narrow under carriage makes it tricky to handle during taxi, takeoff and landings, and roughly 30% of all 109's lost during ww2 were due to errors in those procedures."

- if you discuss things like vulching, its usefull to put it in context of "simulating" combat in ww2 when it was referred as a "successful attack on an enemy airfield". some servers might not allow it (air quake or beginners servers most likely), because they might want to give people a chance to get into the air first, but it is usually a sign the server wasnt setup with a lot of thought (friendly pilots should protect their airfields, and decent AA should be present). if people want to specifically avoid getting vulched, let them choose an airfield that is not to close to the front line, this gives them time to get airborne and gain altitude before entering the danger zone.

a few general online tips might be useful to for "net etiquette" online, like reading the server briefing, checking convergence and weapons loadout. and some other tips like not immediately starting to taxi with your plane without knowing what is parked/moving in front of you. the importance of using taxi ways to get to the runway (and not lingering on them because other might be behind you). not doing quick and dirty takeoff's across runways, using navigation lights when appropriate, and being aware of other traffic landing and taking off (including giving priority to damaged planes that are coming in hot to land qucikly)

first time i saw your guide at the other forum its writing style was light and cheerful, which is good and it made it stand out from some of the other ones. but using terms in it like "wanka" detracts from that, using "idiots" for ex would be less harsh and serves a similar purpose. also keeping it focussed on improving the experience for new il2 flyers so they can enjoy their online experience is probably its strong point, and other sections (like the importance of learning gunnery, combat air maneuvers etc) can be mentioned but then referred to other online resources that go into greater detail.

oops, this all got to long, it was intended as some brief feedback

quote:

Originally posted by grifter2u:

- if you discuss things like vulching, its usefull to put it in context of "simulating" combat in ww2 when it was referred as a "successful attack on an enemy airfield". some servers might not allow it (air quake or beginners servers most likely), because they might want to give people a chance to get into the air first, but it is usually a sign the server wasnt setup with a lot of thought (friendly pilots should protect their airfields, and decent AA should be present). if people want to specifically avoid getting vulched, let them choose an airfield that is not to close to the front line, this gives them time to get airborne and gain altitude before entering the danger zone.

)

Just one point about htis 'no vulching rule'.

I have to disagree with Grifters point above.

I know that Ukdedicated servers set up beautiful maps with large targets and lots of static objects, and they rely on the 'no vulching' rule so they dont have to place lots of lag inducing AAA around the airfields, and can instead use it for other things.

Its not always a sign of bad map design.

Hello Grifter,
Thanks for your time in giving me an in -depth review. I will take a look at your points in the next few days and think things over.

Get back to you soon,

Jay

Some points that I'd like to bring up about this guide myself:

Trim - You should note that not all aircraft can trim all three axises (or at all).

Deflection shooting - Your description is of leading, not deflection shooting. Deflection shooting is attacking a target from a parallel or vastly different angle from your direction of travel. Leading the target is making your lead go where you think the target will probably be in the future.

BnZ and TnB - Every plane can do either 'style' of fighting. Whether you BnZ or TnB is dependent upon the situation, which is influenced by your capabilities vs. your opponents'.

QMB - Something here about good opponents to use for starting would be good. Examples would be C-47s, L2Ds, etc. which are effective targets for rookies and excellent for practicing gunnery (which is IMHO more important than the flying part).

Types of aircraft to fly - While the La-7 series and the Spitfire may seem very straightforward for a beginner, the problem is they reinforce bad habits. I know if I stuck with a La-5FN all the time when I started out I'd probably never be able to do anything but yank the stick.

In order to get better, one has to make mistakes, and lots of them. If you have a particularly favorite plane (fighter, bomber, whatever), then you should use that. Why force yourself to fly something you don't want to just so you won't get your butt kicked? By learning the traits of your desired aircraft, you set yourself up for a better challenge than you do selecting something that any idiot can fly.

Plane types - Some notes here that I think are worth mentioning on your types:

La-5/7 - While this is an excellent low-altitude tactical fighter, it has one big debilitating weakness: low dive limit. 700kmh IAS may seem like a large limit, but you'll be unable to maneuver well once you hit the 650kmh mark. The range is also very limited. Also, the "La-3" isn't the same as the La-5/7. The LaGG series, while appearing similar, are only very distantly related. In early war years the LaGG can be useful for their firepower and durability.

American Quirks - The problem I have with this is it tries to assume the game is almost identical to reality. This is not the case, and your wording of it seems to make it seem there's no reason to fly American aircraft. I feel there is nothing further from the truth.

I won't deny there are problems and that American aircraft appear to get the short end of the stick, but by the same token it is still a game with the limitations of a computer system. A computer will tell you it isn't possible to fly without a wing, yet we have many examples from reality where aircraft managed to survive with large percentages of their wings missing or completely gone. While there may be bias involved, it does nothing to the situation at hand. I'm sure those P-39 pilots in the pacific sure would have loved to tweak a few lines of code in their aircraft and make them fly like hummingbirds, but the fact of the matter is they couldn't. The simulation part of the game is taking what you have and making it work, not the factual accuracy.

My opinion? The American aircraft simply take learning to know how to fly them. Officially I suggest anyone wanting to learn American aircraft start off with the F6F series as it is quite agile, climbs decently, and has six guns in it. You stand to learn the most from it as it can do a number of tasks quite well, even if it is not good at any one particular task. Unofficially, you should (again) fly what you want.

Classes of pilots - wrong idea IMO. Regardless of the pilots involved, how you should fight your opponents should be dictated by the situation at hand. Even the "Grand Master" cannot be everywhere at once, and a little distraction could easily be enough for a "Beginner" to get off a lucky shot. If, for example, someone gets into a turn fight with a P-38 - is the P-38 pilot just stupid or does he know something you don't? Aggressiveness needs to be properly balanced with caution at all times.

Squadrons/Units/Whatever - Just because someone is part of some organization does not mean they've been around a while or know the ropes. Groups do take in new players in order to forge them into good team players, etc.

Skins - most servers have these turned off.

Head ons - The trick is to decide whether the consequences are worth the risks. Sometimes a head-on is better than waiting to get pulverized.

Apologies if I sound anal about this guide but at times it seems to be missing the point. However, it's been a long time since I was a rookie so it may be just what beginners need.

Okay Korolov,

I feel very appreciate for your input and like the way you note each point. I will go thru each point in the next few days and consider them throughly. Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed reply.

Will get back to you soon,
Jay

Also, really happy to see this thread leave the land of virtual lawyer and head into issues that deal with IL2, which is where it should be focused.

Okay, working on small edits. Anybody have a particularly bright skin they would like to donate as an image to the guide? Full credit will be given to the designer/artist.

Jay

Second call for the most outrageous skin possible. Any takers ?

Jay

Okay Crucislancer,

I really liked your point about the Ntrk files for training purposes so I just go that into the guide. Version 3.0 should be up this weekend.

Thanks,
Jay

Changed Version 2.3 of the Guide to include many small edits (which I will detail shortly). I also got permission from Miramax studios for one of the images in question (surprise, surprise) and I am finishing up with licensing the document under the GNU Public License.

Some small changes are also underway thanks to Korolov, Grifter and Xiolablu.

Jay

Hello Fellow IL2 Fans,

Version 3.0 of the guide is now up and includes some great new info on joystick setup (definitely a topic which confused me as a noob) for combat operations, proper credits for images used, registration under the GNU GPL, reviewing yourself using Ntrk files, and numerous other small changes. There have also been 743 downloads for all versions of the guide since it was orginally posted almost three weeks ago, so hopefully this work is helping someone.

Your comments were very helpful Crucislancer and are now in the guide. Grifter and Korolov, some of your advice was also incorporated into the guide and I will work to continue with small edits in the next week or so. Thanks for the input guys !!!

Cheers,
Jay

quote:

Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Hello Fellow IL2 Fans,

Version 3.0 of the guide is now up and includes some great new info on joystick setup (definitely a topic which confused me as a noob) for combat operations, proper credits for images used, registration under the GNU GPL, reviewing yourself using Ntrk files, and numerous other small changes. There have also been 743 downloads for all versions of the guide since it was orginally posted almost three weeks ago, so hopefully this work is helping someone.

Your comments were very helpful Crucislancer and are now in the guide. Grifter and Korolov, some of your advice was also incorporated into the guide and I will work to continue with small edits in the next week or so. Thanks for the input guys !!!

Cheers,
Jay

Awesome! I'm glad I could help.

Hey guys,
I have also taken a long hard look at the American quirks section of the guide and after thinking it over carefully (and putting in alot of flight time with various American aircraft on HL), I still cant come up with any good reason to fly American aircraft on HL dogfighting servers AS long as other better aircraft (say Spit or La) are available. If I choose a historical server that is modeling some exact battle that the Americans were involved in, and I have to choose the American side, then, and only then, do I start to really weigh the good and bad about each type of airframe. However, this is rarely the case, so I am free to always choose the much better performing La-7 or Spit 25 lbs etc.
Mind you, this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether these aircraft were like this in real life or not. I have no idea what would have happened in real life if you could have pitted three or four La-7 aces against three or four Corsair aces (although that would be fun to see). Experts who know far more than me could endlessly debate about which airframes were better, but in this game (as concerns IL2 only), in the context of fighting on dogfight servers in HL, I cannot recommend American aircraft to new guys who want to start out and not be mauled.
Actually, I have heard from some veterans that the Corsair was a great plane in CFS2 (a game I have never played) but that it just didnt make a good 'transition' in IL2. You veterans already know all the pros and cons of what I am speaking about but for the new guys, I will continue to leave this section in for now.

Cheers,
Jay

hi jayhall,

there is a difference between '(not) recommending a plane for beginners' and flagging 'american planes' as 'unintentionally programmed unusable for beginners' (as how it reads in the guide and your posts).
it doesn't help either to explain the intention of that chapter has nothing to do with 'real world performance', but only with 'better chose a la-7' instead of 'american planes'.

the intention of that chapter is pretty obvious about modelling bias and not about recommendations. since it is your own (else pretty well done) guide, you have every right to put such in, but that chapter doesn't support the idea of 'help for new pilots', in opposite.

their is some good advise in that PDF...

one little thing I might have pointed out (for a newbee) in the "other types of pilots to watch out for" section is that pilots who belong to squadrons don't fly alone....and the thing that makes them dangerous is not their skill level, but the fact that they have a wing-man flying near-by...they also practice working in pairs (most squadrons require their pilots to fly with "team speak"..."TS" is much faster then typing).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zardozid,

Hey Zardozid,
That is an excellent point about squadron flyers who team up together. I will slightly rewrite that section to take note of your point.

Thanks for the helpful tip (and it is dead on in my book),
Jay

quote:

Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Hey Zardozid,
That is an excellent point about squadron flyers who team up together. I will slightly rewrite that section to take note of your point.

Thanks for the helpful tip (and it is dead on in my book),
Jay

Ya, in my experience 2 mediocre pilots that know how to work in pairs can be more dangerous then 1 very good pilot who works alone.

quote:

Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Hey guys,
I have also taken a long hard look at the American quirks section of the guide and after thinking it over carefully (and putting in alot of flight time with various American aircraft on HL), I still cant come up with any good reason to fly American aircraft on HL dogfighting servers AS long as other better aircraft (say Spit or La) are available. If I choose a historical server that is modeling some exact battle that the Americans were involved in, and I have to choose the American side, then, and only then, do I start to really weigh the good and bad about each type of airframe. However, this is rarely the case, so I am free to always choose the much better performing La-7 or Spit 25 lbs etc.
Mind you, this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether these aircraft were like this in real life or not. I have no idea what would have happened in real life if you could have pitted three or four La-7 aces against three or four Corsair aces (although that would be fun to see). Experts who know far more than me could endlessly debate about which airframes were better, but in this game (as concerns IL2 only), in the context of fighting on dogfight servers in HL, I cannot recommend American aircraft to new guys who want to start out and not be mauled.
Actually, I have heard from some veterans that the Corsair was a great plane in CFS2 (a game I have never played) but that it just didnt make a good 'transition' in IL2. You veterans already know all the pros and cons of what I am speaking about but for the new guys, I will continue to leave this section in for now.

Cheers,
Jay

YOur argument is only valid depending on what server you are flying on, what settings they use and how you use the plane.

e.g. on an airquake server where the bases are 1 grid apart and everyone swarms to meet in the middle then you may have a point.
On other servers that are more mission based or in co-ops then your argument is less/not valid

You may wish to include a list of popular servers and their characteristics and settings as the online experience is very varied.

However it basically comes down to learning to use planes to their strengths and if flown correctly then the american planes can be " better" than spits

BTW - Im not american so this isnt some patriotic beating of the drum - just an attempt to give some perspective.

hi jayhall,

just a formality... i guess, as a document written by you, it should be 'gnu fdl', not 'gpl'?
anyway, the license has to be included in the document. more at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html#SEC4

quote:

Originally posted by deepo_HP:
hi jayhall,

just a formality... i guess, as a document written by you, it should be 'gnu fdl', not 'gpl'?
anyway, the license has to be included in the document. more at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html#SEC4

Hey Deepo,
Thanks for the heads up. I will look into this in the next few days to make sure everything is set up correctly for the GNU General Public License. Definitely appreciate your insight.

Jay