Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

129 Excellent

About Emu_Sunde

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Denmark - Århus

Recent Profile Visitors

1188 profile views
  1. So yeah no it isn't modeled, yes it explodes (great observation btw). But its pretty clear from how planes take damage in the game that the shock wave of HE shells going off inside structures (like aircraft) is not modeled. HE more or less acts like AP with different damage values and perhaps some sort of "splash" damage that makes it more likely to damage other components close to the impact point than AP is.
  2. So you are insinuating that the devs on purpose disregard historical data in order to balance the game so axis is favored? Dont know about you guys, but thats a pretty serious issue, and might need looking into further, what a shame... Obviously it not just you being sad that your favorite UFO's are getting fixed so they perform like they should, realistically? As far as feelings go, i'v not found the mustang to be more durable than the 109 shooting at it, the P-38 is imo harder to bring down (makes sense that it is), unless you hit the elevator with a 30mm, that usually ends the fight rather quick.
  3. At cruising speed you can reliably break the tail if you deploy around 40% flaps and nose down hard... If i recall correctly anyway. Generally once you deploy a bit of flaps in the 38 it becomes very fragile for some reason, which is a shame (for the 38) since flaps in IL-2 really lets you float and snipe rather well.
  4. You are not going to have to spend 15 minutes starting up, clam down. They will never be going for the DCS approach, not with this sim. The startup has gone from 1 click to 3, you will survive.
  5. Well the last time this was discussed i remember people were against it as it wasn't "realistic". Tbh i never got that argument, makes a lot more sense than your plane vanishing and a new one appearing 😅. Spawning out is obviously an option, but hopefully the rearm/refuel will be faster than getting a new airplane set up.
  6. Very nice indeed. Refueling and rearming works flawlessly in DCS, no reason it cant work here... Tho for some reason a lot of active forum members were much against this feature last it was brought up? Cant wait to try the new planes as they roll out!
  7. Well technically no, but they knew it would happen eventually. So if you attack Poland, knowing that eventually Britain will respond, you are the one pushing for the war, no? Britain declared war quicker than expected... But it was EXPECTED. Anything else? 😃
  8. Uhm... The second Germany declared war on Britain they were outnumbered haha! Indeed the allies beat them at pretty much everything, you'd damn well hope so consindering the resources they had compared to the germans. German pilots were no different from american pilots, they had a job to do and they did it. That is war, the common soldier is not a war criminal, neither is the common pilot.
  9. I agree that the AI we have is MUUUCH better than the old Il-2, i just like how the larger formations were handled, that worked pretty well i think. I am sure there is no easy fix, otherwise they would surely do it. However i see no issue with people voicing their concern, i think its fine to ask for better/faster/smarter/more efficient AI, or simple AI to allow larger formations. We might never get it, or who knows, we just might? This game has come a long way.
  10. Whilst it might be a dead horse, it definitly is something that is holding back the game, i was pretty happy with how 1946 handled larger formations of bombers. And that was back when intel was on its first generation of "core" processors if i am not mistaken... With how much "praise" the AI is given in this thread, i have to say personally dont think the AI is doing very well... Given how immensly complicated it is? In before comments saying - go play 1946 then, or program your own AI. This place is slowly turning into the ED forums, just less active...
  11. Obviously to rule out people with poor internet skewing results... Its not like MP testing is irrelevant, in fact it might be that the networking of this game could be attributed to some of the perceived issues with the damage model...
  12. Maybe it has tho, have you not seen the matrix?
  13. Woha, you found a post from 2012 to ask this question in? O.o Anyway, the game is not massivly demanding, any midranged rig will do fine on medium to high settings.
  14. Packet loss can very well explain why somone would see a "hit" but not see any real effect of said hit... I have excellent internet, but not everyone does, sometimes i see someone in online play rubberbanding around, often when i hit them it has 0 impact. So depending on how the netcode handles damage between clients, it might "drop" some of the packages containing hits.
  • Create New...