Jump to content

danielprates

Members
  • Content Count

    942
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

469 Excellent

About danielprates

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1100 profile views
  1. It would be a damn shame if this thread were to be polutted and diverted to discussing out-of-topic issues, such as how good AI rear gunners are at their jobs. The OP has a great point, it deserves on-topic debate. And the devs' attention. I for one have been mentioning the Stuvi sight for... what, a couple of years now, and it is twice as relevant since (iirc) the Ju88 also used it, so this thread may become a very good venue towards petitioning good and relevant improvements. Kudos to @III./SG77-R_Lehmann.
  2. Yeah, the Stuvi. One piece of equip that is sorely missing up until now. PS: loved the technical explanation regarding how a mirror works and what it is for.
  3. This is wonderful. Even more so than the dewing issue being adressed, more damage types is very very welcome.
  4. People complain about a lot of things here in this forum, but imho the only real outstansing thing really in need of a good fix is exactly this; radio commands and how the AI craft respond to them.
  5. Having a shot take off that engine cowling must do wonders to engine cooling.
  6. A Stuvi bombsight would be nice.
  7. Oh my! Please post a link to that here for me, I looked for this and didn't find it. Edit: nevermind, here it is. Well, by the looks of it, it is more on the arcadish side of things. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golem.de/news/warbirds-2020-flugsimulationsspezialist-microprose-wird-neu-gestartet-1902-139533.amp.html
  8. All regional flavours aside, isn't the more or less accepted rule that anything above and including 20mm a cannon, because that is the caliber that where explosive shells become viable?
  9. I have tried and found it impossible. Just can't do it anymore. Not now that I have gotten so used to something so much more realistic. The graphics are an eyesore, but I can handle that; its more about the FM, engine management etc.
  10. Hmmm yes quite right. Of course, my point wasn't that this time people will complain about the water, as they did about the Rheinland map - unless dolphins start buying the game. That was only an example, meant to stress that we (me included) are in general a bunch of complainers. With a new kinsdof sim, it is understandable how that may scare the developers. Make no mistake, ME WANTS OUR PRECIOUS. I can very easily understand, though, how much of a leap of faith that would be, for the developer, by reading the endless "engine time" and "damage model" and "dewing" and whatnot type of threads. Here is how I tie this post with the OP's inquiry, viz, "could we lower the bar in order to make PTO a reality?". My opinion: no, absolutelly not. But only because it is not that which is holding PTO. It is, in a large part, we and our eventual nagging that is to blame.
  11. This is muddier ground than it seems. I am sure lots of people (I am not saying all, or even most) begging for PTO, even agreeing to a more lax modelling, would be the same people complaining about long flights, ship modelling, difficulty to navigate, a "too expert" experience, carrier opetations being either too easy or too hard, etc.. And why not say it, complaining about the relaxing realism, to which they themselves agreed earlier. I am not trying to polemize this but, for sure, it is a gamble from the developer's perspective. The Rheinland map alone makes me sure of it. They spent an effort never before seen in this game, over a map, and it got 90% complaints (either negative remarks, or positive in the sense that the forum member was sure the map would be "fixed"). Now, when they look at our reaction to the map, they certainly think twive about doing something radically different. That, I guess in all humbleness, is the real reason PTO is getting postponed.
×
×
  • Create New...