Jump to content

Retnek

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    652
  • Joined

Community Reputation

286 Excellent

About Retnek

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Old Europe
  • Interests
    Strategic Air War WW2

Recent Profile Visitors

908 profile views
  1. That picture could have been taken anywhere in (western to middle) Europe 100 y ago. It's interesting to find people at that time - living so much more separated and within much more intact local sub-cultures - on those pictures present a very uniform way of clothing. Pictures usually were taken in the "Sundays dress". The more wealthy farmers, craftsmen, clerks - whoever could afford the luxury of a photo at that time - preferred a common civil, middle-class dress-code. And most (nearly all, I think) of that clothing was sewn or needled by hand, by the family-women usually. Or a local tailor for the men's best suit. During holiday I love to visit local museums in small towns or villages all over Europe - from Norway down to Austria at least one can find this standard. Uniforms of any kind were fine, too. No way to wear traditional or day-by-day clothings! Rarely I could find (very) old people wearing a bit more traditional pieces on pictures taken 1910 or so. There are some exceptions (fishermen, sailors f.e.), but all in all the Central European middle-class had to be photographed in the way shown above. PS: 13 children at least ... looking healthy and well dressed. A blessed family!
  2. Difficult to discuss science with someone not willing to understand the method. History isn't static. Our understanding of the world isn't, too. There's no "final truth", one (gladly) leave that setup to the religious and the present mainstream of economic "sciences" . Well done science is a trustworthy process to find a promising direction, an increasingly sharper image of what is or what has been. Adding pieces, find new aspects, sometimes just by changing the point of view, bit by bit. Going that way there's no chance for winner or looser to finalize "The History".
  3. Wrong. If you (are able to) use the sources available to the public. One might stay at the level of penny press or "documentaries" on certain TV-channels. But who would call that waste of time a proper education? Most of the more serious historians and other sensible people enjoy a common concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian#Professionalization_in_Germany " Sources had to be hard, not speculations and rationalizations. His credo was to write history the way it was. He insisted on primary sources with proven authenticity." That concept has been used successfully for the historical sciences. Sadly the impact on everyday's life by the insights of modern historical research was (especially in Germany until 1945) very low. But that's a problem a lot of scientific insights share - wtfc? Anyhow, there are academic standards for historical research and even in the worst time of Cold War historians from both sides of the Iron Curtain usually were able to find a common understanding about the facts itself. "What" happened never that much was in question. A practised Soviet historian seriously denying the Soviet responsibility for the Katyn Massacre even in 1965 was rated an idiot by his own colleagues, too. Beyond that academic consensus there are "historians" presenting "alternative truth" endlessly. Dead horses are a perfect ride for propaganda.
  4. - not much to add, but if you do not positively know you're immune against metropolitan urban life and chaos, please think about this part: And if you're somehow able to shoulder the responsibilities think about a dog or a cat, too!
  5. I'm sure: http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/pilot/181/Retnek/?tour=28 bb
  6. Maybe some find comfort or reason in the way (biological and cultural) evolution is checking out options in any direction. There has to be variation and proof of concepts away from the "mainstream" - that's the very way it works. Being different, strange or whatever odd might result in personal hardness, even suffering. But you're still in the orchestra, playing your part of the symphony. Since we don't know where all this earthy hustle and bustle is aiming for, your input might be as valuable or as useless as anyone 's. The longer you live, the more you add to life. Go on!
  7. Very nice concept, thanks for the server-relaunch! Please allow some remarks: - heavy AA with AI-setting "high" is just a little more dangerous, no need to be shy here. - thanks for scaling down the light AA (20 - 40 mm) to "low" - 4 x AA-single-barrelled MG at setting "normal" around a field-position are still quite a death-trap, even for an IL-2. But a lone wolf going in low and slow against a well prepared field position is asking for it anyhow. - Are you sure the recon-concept is working as intended? I've done two long recon-flights, second one flying over the targets directly tonight. No symbols were shown on the map. - According to your changes for today the enemies depots should be visible per default, too - they were not. In general this would a good and realistic setting. Both sides usually knew very well where depots and marshalling-yards were positioned. Not much options in that huge country with the few railroad lines. - Same for the supply-convoys - if they should be detectable by "plane-AI" within 5 km range I must have passed at least one or two of them en route. No hints on the map, no gunners calling out. If there's a need for a human pilot detecting them everything might be fine - I'm quite blind often, especially snow-blind. - Very nice to hear the "border-patrol" radio-talk. Offers some comfort when flying alone over the icy vastness. Please don't mind the few minor critics above - your fine server is offering immersion. Very well worth "to get our teeth into", as a silverback squad-mate would put it.
  8. Looking at the ease my old mid-range PC is able to come along with your missions: may I ask to reduce the AI-settings of the light AA? Any setting above "low" will boost the aiming of the light AA <= 40mm to annoying unrealistic levels. While the heavy AA >70mm becomes at least a bit dangerous only when set to "high". I see the general performance advantage of a few well aiming AA-guns, but that's a gaming setup imho. Since the missions are performing very well there's no need to use unreal precision to replace real-world-numbers. I would prefer a higher number of light AA-guns firing much more realistically with "low" AI-settings. Is there any chance you reduce the levels of the light AA per default to "low" and add some barrels instead? Or to build in a switch to choose from "low light AA numbers with aiming high" vs "high numbers with aiming low"?
  9. Same here - hats off for that "easy" missions generator! It's a fine piece of software indeed very easy to deal with. The missions are rich of sensible events but still smooth running. I really enjoyed rare details like moving truck columns or astonishing well placed artillery positions. Building this generator was far away from being easy, I bet!
  10. Shooting ... yes. But I claim to be a very friendly shooter using a 30-mm gun and still letting you get away with an A-20. I just peppered your boring bombing routine.
  11. I'll beg to - like my mates - spend the night in the A8s
  12. Child's game? You're absolutely wrong! This rocket was a kind of matryoshka doll with a RS-132 rocket in it - finally. Well placed propaganda manoeuvre by Father Stalin himself (unconfirmed)! Any Russian immediately understood the symbol behind it. One fine day the already powerful RS-132 will be grown up. So the working class will fire such enormously huge rockets against it's enemies!
  13. Confirmed. There have been pre-views of the new volume recently. Looks like something is going on ... "14 days"
  14. Just to be sure: You've checked the Windows-firewall, there's the general rule active "Outbound connections that do not match a rule are allowed", right? And there is no outbound rule limiting any traffic originated by \\PathToTheGame\il-2.exe ? The program "il-2.exe" usually should not be mentioned anywhere in the outbound-rules.
  15. To keep the investment as low as possible the way to go would be the Ju-88 C6. A sibling of the A4 already present in IL2-GB and in service as a night-fighter until 1945. As a day-"fighter" in Russia and over the Biscay at least until 1944, too. The C-models 1 to 5 were derived from the A-1 or A-5, both early models build just until 1941. Compared to the C-6 all the other C-models were build in negligible numbers. Add to the C-6 some A-models with Jumo-211 J (A-17 torpedo most important), the recon-model D-1 and voila - the operational options for the German side are enhanced largely. I'd gladly pay 20 € for a collectors plane offering so much benefit. Btw: With the Ju-88 A-4/D-1/C-6 the IL2-GB-series would offer a platform for nearly any airborne radar, passive detector and electronical navigation aid the Luftwaffe used in WW2. There is no need to research and re-build the stuff like instruments, radar displays. To present a proper simulation an AI-crew-member calling out the results will do the job perfectly. In real the pilots were advised that way by a radar operator or navigator, too.
×
×
  • Create New...