Jump to content

Legioneod

Members
  • Content Count

    3277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2018 Excellent

2 Followers

About Legioneod

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Louisiana

Recent Profile Visitors

2223 profile views
  1. Good channel I watch his stuff sometimes. He has some real good videos on sonar and breaks them down to help people understand. He was a sonar tech in the navy back in the day iirc.
  2. Thought this game was dead. I heard rumors but it's nice to see it's legit. Call of Pripyat is one of my favorite open world games.
  3. It's interesting that the bombers could have had better protection if the AAF would have given the thunderbolts drop tanks earlier (which they had already developed but never supplied until later for some reason) lot of lost life that maybe could have been prevented to some small degree. Greg goes into detail about it, lot of stuff I found pretty interesting.
  4. Agreed, I think they have done great work with the DM and it is far better now then what it once was. I just hope they keep improving on it in the future and hope they take the step to using hitboxes for most if not all systems one day. The visual damage model isn't something I'm overly concerned with but any improvement in this area is welcome. Either way, devs are doing a great job.
  5. I'd love to see this as well but unless systems actually have their own hitboxes we're not gonna get very realistic results imo. As long as it's up to some form of rng then we won't have realistic results, believable maybe but not realistic. I still think Il2 has the best DM in the flight sim world but I want to see it improved even if it means more demands for my pc. We need hitboxes for the systems like Main spars, oil system, coolant system, fuel, control rods, cylinders, crankcase, hydraulics, electrical, landing gear, supercharger, turbo, etc. All these systems need their own hitboxes to get realistic results. Leaving it up to rng just doesn't cut it imo even if it looks ok. If DCS can do it then Il2 can certainly do it.
  6. In the store it is the normal G6. G6 Late (the one just released) is for Battle of Normandy. You'll have to buy Normandy to fly it. How do you know? Iirc there are still more 109s that they could make. G10 for instance.
  7. I've always felt the Il2 and DCS P-51 were pretty similar in feel, in fact I do better in the Il2 P-51 than I do in the DCS version. With the P-47 it's completely opposite, to me they feel very different from each other and the DCS version feels much easier/capable vs the Il2 version. Sorry for the OT post.
  8. Is the grass really that tall that it can hide a tank? Just curious, as I haven't played a ton of tank crew. Also how far is the render range for grass? If only only makes a difference up close and not rendered at 1000yds or more than imo it's not gonna change anything to have it permanently on.
  9. I don't see much point honestly. Grass has a limited render range iirc and has no effect on air combat/gameplay. Tanks are a different matter but even then I've never seen grass have a huge effect on tank gameplay. I don't see how shadows have an effect on anything.
  10. That's unfortunate but I can understand the reasoning behind it. Having hitboxes for those sub components would make for a much more accurate model though, I know DCS is doing it for their new DM, I was hoping Il2 did the same.
  11. They can't, at least they aren't combat effective once hit. If you expect a one hit kill then you'll be disappointed, not even real data supported a 1 hit kill all of the time, there is a chance the aircraft could limp home. In-game getting hit by a 30mm is pretty much a death sentence unless you can find a way to escape (if you didn't already die from the hit) The hit makes you so combat ineffective that you don't have much chance of fighting back, 30mm completely destroys aerodynamics. No one is saying this. Depends on the hit angle and if the round has to actually go through all of that or not.
  12. One thing I think we need to consider is the data we provide. If all we have is in-game test with no real world data to compare it to then how will the devs know if something is truly wrong in the .50 performance? They used real data when they worked on the damage model and they try to get it as close as possible, so unless we can provide real world data to show that something is wrong I'm really not sure how the devs can make a good decision one way or the other. From my understanding things like control rods, engine cylinders, crankcase, fuel tanks, oil system, etc all have their own hit boxes and can be damaged. Maybe the .50s aren't getting the penetration that they need so they aren't doing much damage to the internals? I'm not sure if we could ever prove this but I've wondered if the skin of the airframe stops damage from .50s sometimes and that's why aircraft like the 109 just seem to absorb tons of hits. Or it may just be that the .50s aren't penetrating as far as they should so they aren't doing much if any damage to internals.
  13. DM won't be revisited right now, I don't think he meant that it would never be improved on in the future. There is always room for improvement and there are plenty of things the devs could add to the damage model to make it even more realistic. The problem is they devs have alot on their plate right now and they can't just stop work on more important things to revisit the .50 damage model when it's functional and does work (though maybe not as much as some would like).
  14. Agree with this 100%. I don't fully know why but 109s just absorb rounds, 190s on the other hand are far easier to take down.
×
×
  • Create New...