Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

98 Excellent

About MarderIV

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

751 profile views
  1. Is there a recommended monitor resolution for PWCG? Currently using a backup 1366x768 monitor since the other one died, and with the new version I notice some items are having a hard time being displayed. The pilot selection screen seemed to be the most affected by this. Assigning pilots to the flight moves the rest of the unassigned pilots downwards off the screen. I could assign a maximum of four pilots to a flight before the rest of the pilots go well beyond the screen area. I'm not sure what to configure to try and alleviate this issue. EDIT: Tried to change the GUI font sizes to 11, I'm able to assign some 5 pilots now. Past versions allowed to to assign and modify up to 8 or 10; can't seem to do that in this version.
  2. If Alt+Tab is problematic for you (it is for me, specially when switching to and from PWCG), use WindowsKey+D. This should minimize everything that's open and send you to the desktop.
  3. Try making a flight recording of a bomb explosion in QMB (RAlt+R I think?) and use the F11 key and the mouse to navigate to the bomb impact point during the replay. You can access the replay you made under the Flight Records button in the main menu. You should be able to hear the explosion at very close distance. From further away there will be a delay in sound as well as a reduction in volume due to doppler effect and distance. The sound in this game works right as far as I'm concerned. We need to rule out whether you have a software or hardware issue.
  4. I wonder if they had to drop the whole engine just to change a bunch of air filters. You know . . . like a True Porsche (TM)
  5. Found a source mentioning this issue in real life, it's under points 34 to 36. It explains that should pilots lose their lead element, they were expected to join and follow other friendly flights. In the event this is not possible, they are to join at a rally point. In-game I pretty much do the latter, plotting an intercept to the next waypoint either expecting the flight to be thereabouts so I can join, or continue the patrol on my own following the same flight-plan barring lack of workable fuel load or ammunition. I haven't seen any other source stating radio call-outs to be the norm and letting the whole flight slow down to reorient, regroup, and pick up stragglers (I don't know if this is even expedient given time strict on target schedules or if it's even appropriate to announce waypoints over radio), so there's probably other operating procedures out there.
  6. I'd have expected more side to side movement if my rudder had been lost. The TSB incident report for Air Transat Flight 961 shows this kind of behavior upon rudder loss and skin damage to elevators. I don't see it frequently in Il-2. Though I still think its fair to point out just how difficult it is to model the aerodynamic effects of damage to control surfaces. We likely could approximate things better, but the chances of some things getting scoped out of whatever model is being used is still significant.
  7. Absolutely true. I'm still stuck with an FX6100 and the presence of both bombers and attackers slow down the game. Not so much in terms of FPS, but rather simulations per second - potentially the culprit behind the slow-motion effect. Some have pointed out in the past its the computational cycles the gunners are going through that does it. Kinda makes me wonder though if the reason for that is that they're all suddenly active once an enemy is within a specific range, instead of them going active once an enemy is in sector line of sight? I mean it might not be the case and I probably am just seeing things, but I'm certain gunners on my bombers start "pre-aiming" or pre-calculating even if an attacker isn't in LOS relative to their mounts. An attacker might be behind my Ju-88 and already my front gunner appears to be aiming for it already. I can pretty much make out the attacker's vector just by looking at the gunner. If this was the case perhaps we can save some CPU cycles if we limited the gunners to only go hot and start calculating once an enemy is in their LOS. Might even curtail their extreme accuracy considering they've got you vectored despite not being in LOS.
  8. I worked as a process analyst in the now sold-off financial and risk arm of Thomson Reuters years ago, dealing with automation and AI. I might be biased based on my experiences, but I always found tools to be the key challenge in any automation work. In this case, I suspect our Mission Editor is the critical junction in any effort to automate. It's just hostile to it given the amount of manual input required in not only building libraries of templates that a system could draw on, but also in maintaining sensible products. The act of having to curate its products manually stands as a venerable bulwark to automation; and it becomes ever so clear in the end results that even PWCG makes out: To this day you can find oddities such as guns over rivers or in-between forests where they shouldn't be; all of which appears to be the result of efforts in dynamically placing assets or templates over terrain that changes between generated missions. Fixing these issues yet requires more manual input, one that requires a significant amount of work still. If the objective here is to have a system that allows the end user to pick and choose exactly where they want to play and what with, then the developers would have to manually account for discrepancies in terrain and other variables, and then test the end product. And this has to be done for pretty much every grid square dedicated to QMB, or even any action involving the player. It's frustrating, but that I speculate is really just how the ME and the process of making missions for this sim was made out to be at the start all those years ago: The IBM way, i.e. "Its Better Manual". The only reason the Graviteam series in my example did it well was that it was designed to be automated from the start - a total opposite of what the process here is. When I worked on process automation, workflow was the least of my concern. We sidestepped data tools and developed and deployed top level AI instead, writing straight to the database products that would have otherwise taken so much effort to process through our tools, and it was expensive. I'm sure Il-2 isn't on the same level as the financial big data stuff we had to contend with, but the challenges are the same. It's always the damned tools, and working to automate a tool is moot and expensive. If I had my way and the resources to boot, I'd do the same thing. Top level AI that self generates mission products on its own without going through the same tools. But that's neither here nor there. We really need to start over in terms of mission generation, but I suspect the devs position on the ME is highly entrenched. Both from a practical and cost perspective.
  9. I'm up for a grid-based QMB. Would give Tank Crew a lot more single-player mileage in lieu of a Career too. Selecting a standard sized grid on the map and identifying objective zones within it would allow more quick access to the maps. The benefit I imagine would be more evident for Tank Crew, but then again selecting for unique places to fight over in QMB would also be a benefit for the air aspect I think. Something like this. Always free to dream 😄
  10. I like bombers a lot, but even I have my own reservations about the experience. This sim captures the work-load of fighter and ground attack pilots very well, that is to say the experience is front-loaded towards combat. But when you put bombers in the mix, where a significant portion of the workload and the experience is in the management of internal systems such as those relevant to navigation and targeting; the experience rather falls flat. I fly A-20s a lot and I enjoy them, but I can't deny that flying a C-47 in XP11 projects a far more intimate and perhaps more authentic experience; doubly so when comparing it with the other Junkers transport aircraft (of which I own and rarely fly). This sim fully delivers on the promise of projecting the fighter and attacker experience, that's absolutely true and they've done a terrific job at it. But there are some aspects to the bomber experience that I feel would need to be addressed or improved, and I'm of the opinion that it would be better to expand on that experience before introducing new aircraft. There's so much more to bombers than this sim lets on, and I think it's only fair that it strives to capture those experiences the same way it does for fighters and attack aircraft.
  11. Sounds more like a "since it's not possible to do it right, we'd rather not do it at all" kind of situation. I can understand that if that was the case - if the prevailing expectation is a depiction that is to scale. Still, question is if folks would rather have it gone from the experience as well or would be comfortable with token representation instead. I don't know if this was ever raised with the community or what it's thoughts are on the matter are; I only ever read negatives with complete and total finality. I don't recall a single game or sim ever coming close to a 1:1 representation of the operations over the beaches either way, except maybe for tabletop or computer wargames with counters or runners. It's almost always bits and pieces, or heavily reduced. Hell, when Medal of Honor did Utah beach way back when I was convinced; despite the now spartan depiction and I think it still holds. So I'm curious about what's actually doable in the sim and what compromises can be made to the depiction of this most important invasion; and what folks here may be comfortable with.
  12. TC is basically in a rather weird spot, I think. In terms of SP content, it's close to what you have in DCS - QMB is available with template-like missions, a scripted campaign is available, and for replayability you either have to pull custom missions from the user base or make one yourself via the shipped-in mission editor. It's highly unlike the air counterpart of the sim where career is present, and I suspect it may remain in that state for a whole while. What makes the situation even more complex for me is that the underlying mission generation process is seemingly hostile to automation: As other mission makers have pointed out, pathfinding for the AI needs to be controlled closely in the mission editor, eschewing instant auto generation. Where in the air, we can have waypoints and triggers pretty much anywhere, on land we'd need to be careful where those articles are so that the ground AI can work properly. The notion that the mission editor itself is rather complex to begin with makes the concept of having autogenerated content streams a significant challenge, and one that I am having a difficult time having hopes for. If you compare armored warfare-centric sims and wargames (Steel Armor, GTOS series, Armored Brigade comes to mind), you will notice that the way they generate missions are far more organic compared to Il-2. Where for the latter we must control for variables and the AI specifically manually in an external software, the former's content and replayability can be had natively due to the fact that they were designed to put emphasis on letting the player simply pick and choose where they want the fight to happen and what units with; while the game's AI takes over completely for the enemy side in deciding what to attack and how without the need for advanced scripting and editing. Steel Armor in particular (in the exact same genre as TC as a tank sim), achieves these same things - plop units down on a selected grid in-game, settle for objective location, play it and the AI will decide for the enemy what needs to be done to counter your efforts, and this allows to capture the experience of having to adapt to situations in-game as they emerge. Our AI meanwhile needs to be scripted to do certain things with waypoints and triggers. Il-2 is just not geared to achieve that kind of state and it remains my biggest concern for TC. At this point, missions just really need to be made manually and that affects my opinions on the future of SP significantly. There needs to be a way for the process of mission generation to be amenable to more dynamic automation for us to have an SP content stream that delivers on variety. As it stands, it seems like TC is more at home with scripted on rails experiences than the more fluid, more tactically and operationally dynamic nature of ground warfare. And this requires careful curation of content - one that seemingly precludes diverse, on-demand SP content streams. I hope someday this will change.
  13. Yeah that's right. I never tried to see if they were moved elsewhere is what I meant.
  14. Hi folks. In the meantime are there any ways to improve the supply situation while we wait for Pat? (No pressure of course, Pat; stuff you make are absolutely wonderful). Currently at about a dozen or so sorties with 37 kills in a Tempest campaign. Wondering what the maximum leave time would be that would improve things a bit.
  • Create New...