Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. I wonder if they can make a LI 2 and you can go into equipment and choose C47 engines and instrument
  3. Probably you are right; this most likely due to déformation professionelle. I can tell you it is very, very hard to assess, quantify and categorize such physiological properties in a (pilot) cohort. But you will surely be able to prove your expectation bias for fact. At least to the layperson or anyone not able to read statistics (read: most people). Just know that people can adjust pretty well to (new physical) requirements, usually to a higher degree than whatever might be their „basal“ (whatever that might be in random people) differences. It would simply be scietifically wrong to assume different tolerances in pilots flying different aircraft types. What pilots could do however is cut smoking (no, they didn‘t), eat their veggies (try that if you live out of cans of corned beef) and exercise. Marseille actually did do the latter, while the rest mostly preferred having some drinks on what might well be the last couple of days of their lives before Flak kills them regardless of their fitness.
  4. Not after several of the engines had caught fire..
  5. DD_Arthur

    DCS news

    Can do the landing part in GB no problem but DCS? More burst tyres I'm afraid.....
  6. They were not: they were selected on skill, aircraft management, navigation, leadership and a whole host of various attributes. ‘G tolerance’ was not a criterion of 1940 pilot selection or training. I still think that this is a Pandora’s box best left shut. It does not add much to a sim and will cause endless arguments. CLoD offered a control- limitation mode to reflect the actuation of 1940s aircraft which - IIRC - was widely ignored on servers. Sitting in a chair at 1g you lack the input and nuance to work with acceleration and the impact that this has. At best it will likely prove unpopular.
  7. He 177 Grief, well its not a four engine heavy after all
  8. In order of likelihood, I'd expect Li-2/C47 - has been sort of announced and makes perfect sense for all modules and as a counterpart to the Ju52 B25 - Is being made as AI, intention to make flyable has been confirmed, seems obvious. Spitfire XIV - Version of existing aircraft, powerful and shiny, would sell well and be relatively cheap to make. Fits theater. Arado Ar234 - Has been mentioned as a possible collector by Jason, fits the theater, career and operation, 'cheap' for a bomber, uses the exact same tech as the Me262. Slightly less likely but a perfect matchup I'd love to see: Mosquito / Me-410 Unlikely but please: He 219 Fw 189
  9. The last 2 were the FN and G-6? Spit XIV, Yak-9 and G-10 probably in the same ballpark of effort but unclear if great interest for the Yak and the 109 is something of a niche between current types. Since no heavies are likely and Bp is the probable theatre, Mossie should remain a favourite alongside the XIV (RAF a little under-represented) but remain unsure what an economical / revenue generating Luftwaffe equivalent might be. The Arado looks complicated and time-intensive.
  10. I hope so. Burma, China, New Guinea, would be interesting as far as the variety of planes and setting is concerned. Ki-43 Ki-44 Ki-61 Ki-45 I know. I like the Japanese Army planes. But I can only give my own personal opinion. Not carrier battles please. While they may be historically important, I dont really fancy a carrier only based setting. Maybe a campaign. Landing on a grass airfield is hard enough though.
  11. https://mega.nz/#!AjI1haAY!zHIfxGkvWdOv53Wm5LladwYAlXTe3PW_gB-og9u5CZw
  12. Or ask Raptor nicely for his and CREDIT him in any skins you use it on.
  13. Or 'Steal' the pattern from someone elses skin and use that as a pattern.
  14. Either the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223, or the Flettner Fl 282 Kolibri would be fun. But my guess is the B-25 and Mosquito.
  15. I sent a pm to Jason some weeks ago about that and he answered it will be ok asap.
  16. Sorry RR, I have absolutely NO idea what the problem is. Largely because I rarely do MP (no-one likes me and I have NO friends, maybe because I eat worms!!). Good luck in your quest mate!
  17. Today
  18. I can't 'teach you but I can say that if you're trying to make chequered parts (especially on the cowlings) then it's pretty much essential to use the 'Wireframe' layer to see the actual form of the 3-d model (in 2-d, obviously!). It also involves quite a lot of 'rinse and repeat' whereby you do a piece, look at it in Viewer and then 'rinse and repeat'! There isn't a quick fix, you just need to be patient (and probably drink an inordinate amount of coffee/tea/alcohol or what ever floats your boat)! Here's what I mean...
  19. you're right about standards lowering later, but you're overthinking the selection bit. 1. At some point they determined the ideal body type (short, stocky) and age (older) for the role. Did they actively select or push for it when deciding who served where? That's an open question. 2. Signing up for an MOS wasn't a guarantee you'd make it through school and end up in that role, or stay there. Part of that is simply not being cut out for the job. In a high G job like dive bombing, there's some natural selection to be expected, no? If you were to take all ju52 pilots in the LW, magically measure and average their G tolerance, and then do the same for all the ju87 pilots, would you expect to end up with the same number? Which would be higher and why? Does simply averaging all human G tolerance destroy any difference there that might exist, at the cost of historical accuracy? That is also an open question. Again, I'm curious what the dev's take on this was in their research and modeling. They may very well have considered and rejected this for any number of reasons. But it's by no means a 'ludicrous' consideration.
  20. This means that every pilot’s maneuver performed with a large g-load is no longer in vain, and the more actively a pilot maneuvers, the worse he and his crew will suffer further g-loads. If the pilot is already pretty worn out by maneuvering combat, be aware that a new opponent who entered the battle will have a significant advantage, and maybe you should get out of the dogfight and catch your breath. Wow, just wow! I've been silently hoping for this in any flight sim ever since I'm simming (20+ years), this being (IMHO) one of the major factors that would make air combat maneouvering closer to real life. There simply is no way you could yank the stick around pulling 5g turns for 10 minutes straight in real aircraft, like you can in sims, IL-2 included. And not only high-G fatigue counts here, but also muscular fatigue in arms and upper body from simply moving the stick.
  21. For my feeling flora like foliage, trees, bushes etc. are the best in Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Their videos of just simply horse riding through the forest are breath taking. The Hunter: Call of the Wild also have nicely rendered flora. Or War of Rights.
  22. On a related note: Will the crews of the Su-122 and Su-152 sport the right insignia, indicating them as artillery troops?
  23. A revision to my earlier Mustang-post: The P-51B/C airframe could also stand in as a F-6C and Mustang III. The F-6B is the recce version of the P-51A (Mustang II in RAF lingo). The F-6A is the recce version of the P-51 (Mustang IA in RAF lingo). Early Mustangs are a bit complicated.
  24. That's probably when the dudes decided to mount big-a** cannons under the wings to appear more manly again.
  25. to be honest painting red circles not sure of the exact distance, but somewhere between 15-25km but beyond 10km because I watched the icon turn off at 10km or "Can you spot the far-off planes? We’re still tweaking the feature" is child play! As every here know here this game has markers/icon that show how far that plane is and where. Tell me why it is so difficult to post two same screenshots with marker/icon and without???? Do your team plan to fix the render issue that are resolution or LoD related? I mean to accurately render correctly the objects at every distance? For planes turn too fast to 2D Sprites look what looks odd makes them much harder to differentiate compared how each single trees or other objects look from far far away much larger distance?
  26. Pilots are not lab rats that you can select for such qualities just like that. Exercise, health etc. (all of wich was miserable besides the good decision to eat lightly before diving) will play a far greater effect than whatever individual trait there can be. Keep in mind, you're selecting among the healthiest cohort of all adolescents. Within them, you will not find a meaningful "innate" variation of g-tolerance, regardless of some personal impressions. Also, supposed they would have been interested to do such a selection, how did they assess "innate g-tolerance"? Did they centrifuge them 100 times and see who got the highest average? Certainly not. ("After centrifuging private Fred 398 times, he came out on top of his class by beating them in g-tolerance by 0.452.") In the mid-thirties, there was probably a more stringent selection for joining the Stuka pilots, but after that, you became Stuka pilot if you didn't qualify enough to be a fighter pilot. Just because they saw some trend in g-tolerance doesn't mean they actively followed up on it, much less that such a venture would be a reasonable thing to do in whatsoever way.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...