Jump to content

Fritz_X

Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fritz_X


  1. 2 hours ago, Phenazepam said:

    Guys you make my day!

    In fact, Russia uses a different degree system, where 400 degrees is the maximum value in Russia there is a joke that in wartime the value of cosine can equal 2 or even 3.

     

    The gauge just shows incorrect values. Will be fixed.

     

    Thanks for clearing this up.

     

    And sorry for causing confusion with my answer, but it sounded pretty logical to me.

     

    Again, it came from a math teacher of mine. I can actually remember now when he said it, it was when our class was supplied with new scientific calculators, which could be set to different units, including both degrees (360 max. value) and gradian (400 max. value). On the latter one he commented that we wouldn't need to use it, for it is only used in other countries, mentioning Russia as an example. Guess this was just a joke by him, or maybe him simply passing on misinformation.

     

    This 'information' and the maximum value shown on the I-16's gauge and the 53 degrees from the planes description almost corresponding perfectly when compared in both degrees and gradian units simply led me to my false assumption.

     

    Again, sorry for my wrong answer. And no, it was not intended as a 'in Soviet-Russia' cheap shot.

    • Like 1

  2. If I'm not mistaken, the reason for this is that Russia uses a different degree system, where 400 degrees is the maximum value, compared to the more common 360 degree system. At least a math teacher of mine mentioned something along these lines, many years ago.

     

    If you devide 60 degrees by 400 and 53 degrees by 360 it roughly gives you the same result, namely about 15%. I guess that the 60 degree shown on the I-16's gauges simply is the value that equals the 53 degrees of the common 360 degree system.

     

    Anyone still feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

    • Upvote 1

  3. 4 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

    My recommendation for BoM has fallen to last due to my joy in the Spitfire IX and Tempest. YMMV. The P-40 makes me want to bail out and surrender.

     

    1. BoS
    2. BoK
    3. BoBp
    4. BoM

     

    I'd recommend to get them all at once, if financially possible. If that's not an option, I'd recommend the exact same order as above.

     

    BoS gives you a plane set I'd like to call essential to start your journey as a WWII pilot.

     

    BoK offers a very good plane set as well, but especially shines with the Kuban map, which is easily the best map of them all.

     

    BoBp brings both the late war planes and a nice, really big map into the game. Both the P-38 and the Spitfire Mk. IX are my two favorite airframes, so I have a personal bias towards this module over...

     

    ... BoM. Again, this module brings you some very nice early war planes, like the I-16 and the Bf-109 E (the 'most different' Bf-109 experience you can get in this game), which are a joy to fly. Still, I'd recommend this one the least.

     

    Again, all modules are very good and offer their own experiences and come with different advantages. My list is a result of pure personal bias, of course, but be assured: Even in my book 'top tier' BoS and 'bottom tier' BoM are not seperated far from each other, quality wise.

    • Like 1

  4. 44 minutes ago, Oyster_KAI said:

    Recalling the first day I played IL-2 BOS, the excellent sound effects of the guns made me extremely shocked. Nomatter  they are realistic or not.

     

    I agree, especially if you compare the sounds of most of the guns to their IL-2 1946 counterparts, mostly when you look at (or better: listen to) the MGs. The MG-131 sounded syntethic and not very beliavable, especially from inside the cockpit back in the day.

     

    While it might be true that you shouldn't hear the weapons at all from inside the cockpit, the sound design as it is feels quite astonishing.

     

    I have to agree with the OP though, that the MK-108 sounds somehow off in its' current iteration. But maybe that's only because I can't get its' hammering 1946 BOOM sound out of my head 😅

     


  5. 1 hour ago, CountZero said:

    Before BoN was anounced Han said on russian forum that his wish was Poland late war, so my guess is they have 10 airplanes for that DLC in plan for future, and now choice was to do Normandy. And if you look what airplanes you get there Yak-3, La-7, P-39Q, Pe-2 1944, Il-2 1944 vs 109g10, 190a9, He-111H20, Ju-87D5, Ta-152H its only resonable option to do next in this time of uncertanty its best to go for sure thing then for something risky like Korea or even PTO for what they keep repeting they dont have airplanes data that fill their standards.

     

    When it comes to 'big' Great Battles modules, this scenario would be my favorite, along with Italy 1943.

     

    Apart from that, I just hope for the release of quite some collector's planes to fill in those gaps that prevent us from simulating scenarios we can't at the moment (and with the furure release of the Leningrad map).

     

    The following planes are a personal wishlist of mine:

     

    Fighters:

    - Brewster Buffalo

    - Hawker Hurricane (luckily we'll be getting this one soon)

    - I-153

    - IAR-80/81

     

    Bombers:

    - B-25

    - IL-4

    - Ju-87 B

     

    Transport:

    - C-47 / Li-2

     

    Recon:

    - Fi-156

     

    I know this is quite some list and that we might not even see half of them becoming a part of this sim. But I still hope that at least a few of them are gonna make it someday.

    • Like 2

  6. 2 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

    S! 

     

    People who like the current scratches "for realism" seem not to work with aircraft. In game they are in totally random places and directions, making no sense at all. Like a disgruntled ground crew has taken a tool and made them all over the place or dragged the parts on ground. 

     

    A scratch is a distraction/defect and will be removed by applicable means. If it exceeds certain values like length, depth and width, and can not be removed, the part is replaced. I highly doubt pilots would have accepted canopies in this conditions we see in the game, scratches and smear everywhere. 

     

    Hope lies in the patch that it removes these unrealistic random features and the new reflection effect better portrays how it should be. End of rant, AC mech/maintenance for 23 years and counting. 

     

    Thank you for sharing your experience with us.

     

    Even though I'm one of those people who enjoy the effect (maybe not for realism, but definitely for making players able to grasp that they are surrounded by glass and not just a frame with thin air in between), I can hardly argue with you.

     

    I'd still disagree on your point of pilots not accepting low quality materials for their planes, especially when it comes to our given time frame. A major complaint by VVS pilots was the low quality of the plexi glass in many Russian plane types. If you compare the reports from what we have in game, it looks like we ended with the far better material.

    • Upvote 1

  7. 13 hours ago, Dano said:

    Looks great to me, also, am I the only one who likes the canopy scratches?

     

    Nope, I really enjoy the scratches on the canopies as well. Even though the effect could be toned down a little, I wouldn't want to see them gone, for they really give you the sense of being surrounded by (plexi) glass, together with the light blue tint of amored glass sections.

     

    The new effects shown in this diary look amazing and will only add up to the feeling of 'being there'. Stunning work.

    • Upvote 1

  8. 51 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

     

    I agree.  Some of my favorite kills happen when I get a good volley on the plane and it appears that it didn't do anything.  10 seconds later and the enemy plane has obviously "given up on life" and takes it's lazy time into the ground.  

     

    This!

     

    I really enjoy the new damage model for what you described right there. Before the update many kills were results of losing a wing or at least parts of it. Often the outcome was kind of predictable even before the attack was over. You pulled the trigger, you saw the impacts on the enemy's wing, you knew it would come off any second. This has changed.

     

    On my last SP sortie I was flying in a FW-190 A8, when encountering two Spitfire Mk. IX. I started my attack on one of them and was able to give him a full broadside with my cannons and MGs from slightly above, hitting both wings and fuselage. For a moment (I don't think it lasted longer than one or two seconds, but it felt very, very long) it looked like my attack had zero effect on him and in my mind I was like "No way he could survive THAT!". But a blink of an eye later the Spitfire started to briefly lift up, before entering a stall, spiraling down to the ground for good.

     

    I can't exactly tell why, but it felt incredibly rewarding. Much more than broken off wing, take nth.

    • Like 6

  9. 16 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

     

    Should be the three MG-FF 20mm cannons plus three light machine guns, no? And then a bombload.

     

    Armament of the destroyer consists only of a single MG-FF 20mm plus three MG-17. And a bombload smaller compared to the A-4's.

     

    For more forward firepower you would need the night fighter version, which switches the ventral gondola for two additional MG-FF. Not sure if we're going to see this modification.


  10. 1 hour ago, jann3man said:

    Im afraid its going to be a suffering [...].

     

    I'd like to second that.

     

    I'm pleased that the devs have decided to go for the C6, for I really like this version of the Ju-88. That said, I feel like the plane won't be too competitive in our sim, especially when it comes to mp.

     

    As much as I like the plane, I feel like that it's poorly armed (especially for a Zerstörer), featuring just a single 20mm MG FF and three MG 17 as forward armament.

    • Like 1

  11. 59 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

    I like the Hurricane from an historical standpoint.  Although it will bring nothing further to the series with regards to gameplay.   You can do exactly the same things in any number of existing aeroplane shapes already.  

     

    I kind of understand where you are coming from, yet I find this statement rather harsh.

     

    Yes, gameplay wise there would be more interesting options, like medium sized bombers and transports for both Allies and Soviets. But as much as I want to see those myself, I feel for the devs, having to work on a tight budget, where a wrong business decision can easily lead into bankruptcy.

     

    Flyable B-25, B-26, IL-4, C-47 / Li-2, I would buy all of them in a heartbeat if available. Even though I'm neither a bomber nor a transport flyer (my Ju-52 collected alot of dust...). But are there enough of other flyers out there who enjoy these kind of planes or are, just like me, willing to buy them anyway, to make this financial venture a vailable one? I sure hope so...

     

    For now, we have to live from what the devs are giving us. And I think that when it comes to planes that can be used in quite a few different roles and places, the Hurricane is just a perfect addition.

    • Like 1

  12. 16 minutes ago, sevenless said:

     

    My personal hopes are high for a may release of both Yak-9 and Hurri. Let´s see what the month will bring to us.

     

    I really don't want to be negative here, but I honestly can't see this happen (as much as I'd like to!).

     

    Everyone feel free to correct me, but if I'm not mistaken the roadmap says that both the Yak-9 and the P-47 Razorback are going to be released after each other but before the Hurricane. Not sure if we're going to wittness the release of three new planes within just one month...

     

    I do feel like the wait for new content will soon be over. If I had to guess, the Yak-9 is going to be launched shortly after the end of the current sale on May 8th 🙂


  13. I wholeheartedly agree, can't wait for this bird to arrive in our hangars.

     

    The Hurricane is far from being my favorite airframe, but for some reason I'm impatiently itching to finally get my hands on this plane.

     

    I really appreciate that the devs are giving us a wide variety of different loadouts (seemingly 5 different gun configurations alone), making the plane not only versatile, but also making it become available for user created western front content, especially in hindsight of the coming chanel map.

     

    I really feel like the little Hurricane is gonna have some huge impact onto our favorite sim.

    • Upvote 3

  14. Really looking forward to both switchable pilot models and the addition of handguns. I already loved this little gimmick back in RoF.

     

    I still have two questions left about these features:

     

    1. In QMB, will the player be able to choose a specific pilot model for planes that will feature models from multiple nations?

     

    2. Will the type of sidearm be fixed according to the nations that used them (Tokarev TT-30/33 for VVS pilots, as an example), or will the player be able to select a weapon of choice, just like in RoF?


  15. 2 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

    The Lightning is beautifully modelled. It's without a doubt my favorite airplane in the game. It's the airplane that I was most looking forward to and I'm glad it didn't disappoint.

     

    I second this.

     

    The P-38 is, along with the entire Spitfire family, my favorite airframe. It looks, flies and fights absolutely beautiful.

     

    Props to the devs for going with a late J version instead of the initially announced P-38 L. And of course for creating such an amazingly detailed model.


  16. 40 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

    Vertical and horizontal convergence have their own separate setting instead of linked together.

     

    I'd like to add the possibility to set different convergence values for different pairs of guns (four different convergence values for a maximum-armed P-47, as an example).

     

    Definitely not a must, since the devs are already putting so much dedication into their work. But it surely would be nice to see this feature one day.

    • Upvote 2

  17. 1 hour ago, Toppaso said:

     

    Yes, I fully expect HE to be vastly superior to AP in damaging an unarmored thin-walled alluminum structure such as an airplane.

    Everyone in his right mind would choose HE over AP if he knows he is going to be shooting planes and not tanks; in this sense we certainly have a better representation now than with the old DM.

     

    I can only agree.

     

    The new DM yet alone is a vast improvement for making HE-ammunition finally viable.

     

    With the old DM AP-only loadouts (like those for the LA-5 planes) were way too effective, causing more damage than HE rounds plus giving the pilot the additional benefit of removing all tracers.

     

    I only wish that the devs will find the time someday to integrate API ammunition into the sim.


  18. 12 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

    The allies definitely need another crewable medium bomber. Be it the 25 or the 26, it doesn't really matter: we just need another one we can fly.

     

    Even though I almost never fly bombers myself, I wholeheartedly agree and would buy a flyable B-25 or/and B-26.

     

    I'd also wish for a IL-4, so the VVS would finally get a medium bomber somewhat comparable to the He-111.

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 4

  19. 2 hours ago, ITAF_Rani said:

    *text and pictures of Italian planes*

     

    You definitely have my vote.

     

    I feel like an European Mediterranian setting with fitting Italian planes has been majorly neglected in the history of flight simulations.

     

    I have to admit, I'm pretty biased, since the Fiat G.55 is, along with the Spitfire series and the P-38, my favorite airframe. Such a great design with an amarment that packs a punch. But beyond that single plane, a Mediterranian expension would give both Allies and Axis options for interesting and fresh plane types.


  20. 17 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

     

    That's why I posted scientific papers and was not just bringing up "my feelings". 

    Ironically the dude who is all in for the current model and is embracing the change is solely going for the "feeling card". Again I like the change, I like G-loc, I dont like total blackout at 6G in non G-Suit planes.

     

    To be honest, my post wasn't aimed at you personally at all. I was just answering motoadve's initial question, the one I quoted.

     

    No hard feelings, man 🙂


  21. 6 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

    Why do people distrust the developers decisions so much? They want to debate it to no end.

     

    Because many people have a problem dealing with change, especially when they are forced to change behaviour that always worked before suddenly becoming invalid.

     

    After all, it's all about people's feelings. They often directly admit it. My favorite example comes is following situation:

     

    Racing game developer: 'We worked closely with real world race drivers, who helped us to improve the driving model based on their experience, to give the players a better, more realistic experience than ever before.'

     

    Long time players: 'The new driving model feels all wrong. Game is bad! Old game far better!'

     

    It's quite ironic that people who claim to want an experience as realistic as possible often play the 'feelings card' when it comes to change that is based on scientific evidence and facts, because in the end all they communicate can be boiled down to 'I have trouble when it comes to coping with change.'

    • Upvote 1

  22. I'm by no means an expert, so if I should be wrong anybody is free to correct me, but if I connect all the dots correctly, the 'spade like' handles in the Russian fighters are to clear the guns' breaches in case of a failure of the plane's power system.

     

    As long as the engine is running, the guns are cleared via electric power, you can see the little switches flick when you clear the guns.

     

    When the engine is off, the wooden handles are being pulled when entering the command to clear the guns.

×
×
  • Create New...