Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About NervousEnergy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    DFW, Texas
  1. Question on image quality: I've been running the Odyssey for several weeks now, and it's an amazing HMD. Everything is quite smooth and sharp (very beefy system), but I'm having some double-image issues with tracking aircraft as they move rapidly across my field of view. This doesn't seem to happen with terrain or ground objects, or anything in the 'pit, and it doesn't happen in DCS (though the framerate is MUCH lower in DCS... IL2 is, IMHO, the vastly superior engine for VR right now). Is this a settings issue (manual IPD wheel?) or a current bug, or something unique on my setup?
  2. Thanks for the tips... going straight for the il-2 executable didn't fix it, but clearing the update cache directories and forcing a re-download of the last update did fix it. Odd, but... it worked.
  3. I hate posting a thread on this, but I'd rather not go through the more intensive steps of an uninstall / reinstall if someone has a better answer. I've been playing IL2 just fine in VR (Samsung Odyssey) till the last update. Now the game crashes back to the launcher immediately after clicking 'play'. Windows even logs show an APPCRASH in IL2 with a fault code of c0000005. Steam VRserver log shows: "Delaying SteamVR Home launch because system.generated.il-2.exe ran for only 1.721211 seconds" Anyone seen this issue? I also can't say for sure if the IL2 update itself was the culprit, as I also updated Nvidia drivers at roughly the same time. Other VR apps work just fine, including DCS.
  4. Heh.. just reinstalled after a couple year absence (and buying BoM and BoK), and I came to the forums searching for this topic. The IL2 engine is pretty and runs great, but the default FoV makes me feel claustrophobic.
  5. I agree with ElAurens to a point, but keep in mind how much of reality isn't in the sim. Take a hypothetical situation with an experience pilot who's never flown a 109 (or Mig, etc.) and an unachievable 'perfect' sim. You create a sim where every input is modeled perfectly... pull the simulated stick so many degrees from center and the plane performs exactly as it does in real life at the same altitude and environmental conditions, perfectly, every time. Let the experience pilot fly it, and then give him some hours in a real Warbird under the same conditions. He/she likely exclaims that the real plane is SO MUCH EASIER to fly than the sim, even though the sim is modeled to perfection. Until we can invent gravity wave generators, we'll never be able to simulate the visceral aspects of flying. An 8 year old can feel an uncoordinated turn in a real plane, but it takes many hours of practice to perform them consistently in a sim without having your eyes glued to the ball... you have to develop the muscle memory to always kick the rudder so much for so much turn in each different plane. Peripheral vision and your sense of spacial orientation play a huge part in acrobatics or ACM. Yes, as a pilot you have to learn when those senses can lie to you, but they're way more help than hindrance. Literally every nerve in your body helps you fly a real plane, but you can only bring a tiny fraction of that to bear in a sim. So you get to the age old question of making the rules more precise or the experience more precise. Icons can make for much more realistic aircraft detection and identification ranges, but many players hate them due to ruining the visual presentation of the world. Modeling stick deflection limits and rate of change can help model what a real pilot could make the airplane do, but then you lose the direct experience of 'move the simulated stick this much and this is how much deflection you get' and delve into the world of subjectivity and how much muscle/speed/endurance your virtual pilot would have. That direct connection between sim equipment and control surfaces while eliminating 95% of the sensory experience of flying is what's creating the unrealistic difficulty. I like the new patch quite a bit as well, as I've always thought a good sim should deliver more on the experience rather than the pure numbers. But I understand the other side of the argument.
  6. IMHO, this has all already been considered and fixed before in IL2. It's all about the incentives. Human nature is human nature... many long, long time combat flight simmers (myself included) are naturally competitive by nature, and trying to fight against that in a PUBLIC server is pointless (online war servers such as Ghost Skies and co-ops are obviously a different animal.) You're much better off catering to what makes a player tick. For many (dare I say most? All I have is anecdotal data) players persistent stats are the only key that works at all. Warclouds, Greater Green, and Spits vs 109s (which is still running) all kept persistent stats for the players that played there. Warclouds was one of the best at it, with a nice MYSQL setup that kept detailed stats for 6 months or more. Spits vs 109s also has a wonderfully detailed stats engine, though I'm not sure if they have Warclouds old automatic IP restrictions capability. Once you played on Warclouds with a certain username from a certain IP you always had to play with that username or get kicked, thus keeping the stats at least somewhat accurate and consistent. Squadrons have squad combined stats and rankings, bomber and fighter pilots get separate ladders, etc. Ground targets and rolling the map always gave more points than air to air kills, thus pushing people up the ladder for playing the map. Ground pounders were rewarded MORE than air aces, which is how it should be (though I can't stand bombing myself.) Especially in a conflict like Stalingrad, which was all about the infantry, ground kills and ground objectives should give much higher rewards to players than air. Keeping stats isn't a panacea, of course. It's a lot more work for the server admin. Some players never pay any attention to them. Etc. But for many it's enough of an incentive that a significant part of the server population is actively working over ground targets and trying to roll the map. This alone makes it worth it, IMHO. And on a public, 24x7 server, this is likely the best you can do. Ultimately if you're really into nothing but pure, planned simulation of historical events, you'll just have to wait for the dserver and the resulting online war mods. A Ghost Skies - like mod would probably be extremely popular.
  7. My issue with spotting in the campaign on expert is that my AI wingmen can spot the enemy at much longer ranges than they appear to me. Upon arriving in the combat zone I just turn my head around and watch them. They'll spot the enemy and lead me right to them at 2k or more and even through clouds. Lovely radar, but not very immersive.
  8. I would have perhaps added a *bit* more content than Yakmaster, but his sentiment is spot on. You can fly single player for a thousand hours, and it won't matter squat when you first play MP.
  9. I really like how the old Warclouds server handled it back in its heyday. TK'ing was an automatic -200 points, and at -300 you got kicked with a 5 minute ban. Same penalty for excessive deaths... at 3 pilot deaths or captures you got kicked with a 5 minute ban. The ban was shortened and then removed as popularity declined, but in the months after PF was released you could wait for 30 minutes to get on the server, and the 5 minute ban was essential to keeping the population moving a bit and weeding out the reckless and the foolish. When in a 6 pursuit I've had to close to within point-blank occasionally to figure out what the other plane was, but I don't understand how anyone could make a mistake if you can see the top or bottom, such as in a turn fight. The wing shapes are radically different. I can see mistaking the emblem... even at high resolutions, at any kind of distance the star looks like the same blob as the iron cross. The wings, though... there's no way you can mistake those pointed triangles for anything other than a Yak, and the long rounded-end wings for anything other than a 109.
  10. I'd love to see the Pacific done (either by 1C or ED), but the technical challenge of presenting real carrier ops would be... extreme. They could just do New Guinea / Port Moresby, which had one of the best collection of Japanese aces assembled at one time against a variety of US and Australian planes, but I'd think the audience would be disappointed if a PT game didn't include carrier ops.
  11. I don't see how we could be talking about the same game, unless you're running DCS at low graphics options. It's honestly hard to judge just what the BoS engine is capable of in terms of ground detail with the current map, as snow just looks like snow, but the Crimea is a wonderland of detail and lighting effects when you can crank the graphics settings way up. And there simply is no contest in terms of the most prevalent graphic in a flight sim: the pit. Even abandoned, 2 year old CloDs pits are graphically sharper. Don't get me wrong... BoS's pits aren't bad, per se, they're just one of the weaker points of the sim. BoS blows away DCS in terms of multiplayer performance and optimization, though I guess we'll see what Edge does if it ever shows up. They do seem pretty focused on the Western Front, though, so I don't see any real collision between the two for quite some time. I'd be shocked if the didn't continue to evolve the existing Eastern Front setting to include Kursk (or whatever was next in the summer after Stalingrad) with a summer map, and the next aircraft evolutions (La-5Fn? G6? A-5? Yak3/9?).
  12. The warbirds planeset seems to be doing very well in DCS, so I'm pretty hopeful they'll smell the money and complete the late war experience. I'd like to see a'summer after'evolution of the current game, followed by North Africa.
  13. I agree with every word of this, as far as the graphics go. DCS has the best cockpits and flight model (for the PFM planes), bar none. Unfortunately, right now, that's all it's got. Multiplayer performance is inconsistent at best, even with monster rigs. Damage models are laughable. And, of course, no real campaigns or online wars yet. In a year it may be the *ultimate* flight sim, but not right now. BoS is worlds ahead in smooth, consistent online play, even with 40+ people swirling around you. I'd pay for add-on pits in BoS. If it's technically possible and some modelers on the dev team wanted to make some extra dough, I'd buy plug-in HD pits in a heartbeat. It wouldn't have any gameplay effect at all, just eye candy.
  14. Wow... beta already. Good luck on the campaign debugging!
  15. The benefits of the German planes requires a more disciplined approach to flying to exploit. There are some pilots willing to bring that discipline, especially as some of the servers are now running multi-hour missions, but the majority are still playing it like the beta it is... mixing it up no matter the tactical situation. In that kind of environment, nothing beats the Yak.
  • Create New...