Jump to content

Mitthrawnuruodo

Members
  • Content Count

    1306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

640 Excellent

About Mitthrawnuruodo

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2101 profile views
  1. To be fair, he's describing the de facto standard for aircraft control with mouse and keyboard, featured in prominent games such as War Thunder. It's arguably more effective than joystick control - you get the robotic accuracy of mouse aim plus the ability to override pitch, roll, and yaw with the keyboard for special maneuvers. Il-2's implementation forces the player to control 3DOF flight controls with only the two axes of a mouse, which obviously breaks down in certain cases. Of course, the debate about the value of improved mouse aim is another matter, as joysticks are clearly the main focus. @ToXeR @GrimChameleon05 Welcome to the forum, by the way.
  2. Some missions were designed to be completed successfully on the player's death. I'll admit that this confused me initially. It's been a while, so I'm not entirely sure which missions still work this way in the current version. Generally speaking, it's best to play the campaigns as the author intended - following all the waypoints, staying close to your unit, and using the standard realism settings. Many missions don't work properly if you deviate too much. I know that this conflicts with the open-ended experience that some players are looking for, but it is what it is.
  3. Yes, Campaign missions have been revised.
  4. That's true (assuming that the length of the gear isn't also incorrect in the model). However, the gear angle in the sim moves the main wheels rearward (closer to the centre of mass), which should reduce the tendency to spin in a ground loop. I think that makes it somewhat more complicated.
  5. One thing to note is that the Bf 109 main gear apparently extends at a substantially incorrect angle. This probably affects ground handling, but I'm not sure whether the overall effect is positive or negative.
  6. The specs seem consistent with in-game tests done at idle (or nearly idle). Testing at high power settings gives very different results (for example, the in-game Tempest can climb at around 80 mph with full power, well below the listed stall speeds). They are all over the place, even just looking at the clean stall speeds of British aircraft. Some are close to the PN speeds, while others are much higher. I don't know how to make sense of it. Hurricane: 80 - 90 mph PN, 82 - 97 mph in-game (+2 to +8 %) Spitfire V: 73 mph PN, 85 - 90 mph in-game (+16 to +23 %) Spitfire IX: 90 - 100 mph PN*, 89 - 102 mph in-game (-1 to +2 %) Tempest V: 85 mph PN, 94 - 109 mph in-game (+10 to +28 %) It seems that a "reduced CLmax" Tempest would have the greatest discrepancy between PN and in-game stall speeds of any British aircraft. Whatever happens to the Tempest, it will be interesting to see how the Typhoon is handled when it is introduced for Normandy. It has similarly low stall speeds in the PN, so it's possible that we'll get another aircraft with a very high CLmax. Alternatively, a Typhoon with a CLmax in line with most other aircraft could give us a strange situation where the Tempest dramatically outperforms the Typhoon w.r.t. maximum lift. *Pilot's Notes for Spit IX specify "engine off" with "clipped" wings. "Full span" wings have stall speeds reduced by 3 - 6 mph. Pilot's Notes for the other aircraft do not specify the power conditions for the given stall speeds.
  7. They do give a position error correction table in the Pilot's Notes. However, the stall speeds are outside its range because the corrections are primarily intended for navigation, where extreme speeds aren't very useful. We don't know what happens to the errors below 120 mph IAS. The errors for an in-game Tempest with reduced CLmax would be around 15 - 25 mph, not 35 mph, so it's somewhat subtle. The pilot doesn't care about the true numerical value of the stall speed. The pilot only needs to know where he is relative to aircraft limits. The stall speeds could be given on a completely arbitrary scale without any real harm. Airspeed measurement errors only become a problem if you are interested in performance calculations. From countless test reports, we know that the errors are often large at very low speeds.
  8. From testing of time dilation, it is evident that hardware has a significant effect. It's no panacea, but faster CPUs do increase the maximum tolerable mission complexity.
  9. Tank Crew has followed the pattern established by previous products in the series (over a year in Early Access followed by a release announcement). For players and potential customers, the "Official Release" is a signal that the product is nearly feature-complete and that the Early Access discount is about to end. It has never meant that the product is entirely new or that development has ceased.
  10. If "Clash at Prokhorovka" shows up in the upper right corner of the main menu (after launching BOS from Steam), you should have access to the full TC content as intended.
  11. I have not encountered any historical modifications of this sort. Perhaps the Soviets were satisfied with the M2 Browning. Alternatively, the wing design of the P-40 may have made it too difficult to install ShVAK cannon.
  12. Interestingly, the aircraft in the photo appears to have a tall tail in addition to Erla Haube. Whatever it is, I wouldn't trust it as proof of anything related to typical G-6 modification timelines. It appears in forum discussions circa 2010 pointing to the book "Erlawerk VII: Antwerpen-Mortsel, 1940-1944" as the source, but the trail goes cold because I don't have a copy.
  13. Yes, the effects will vary to some extent based on the acceleration profile. Within DD #263, the cardiovascular response is mentioned.
  14. I don't have anything more specific than "soon". However, the official release has little practical significance for players as Tank Crew is basically feature-complete. Availability on Steam is probably the most notable exception.
×
×
  • Create New...