Jump to content

MarderIV

Members
  • Content Count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

105 Excellent

About MarderIV

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

889 profile views
  1. Wasn't there a common preference among Russian pilots for even more decreased ammunition? I think it was here that I read an excerpt from a book about this on a Russian ace flying some variant of the La-5. That was a far ways back so I don't recall which one of you fine folks put it up, but I distinctly remember there was this particular preference for having a bare minimum of munitions for one or two kills just so they'd be able to reduce weight. Struck me as particularly odd at the time but I can't really argue with that idea. These Russian planes are really well-be
  2. Just to piggy-back on this. I normally just back up all my configuration files, specifically key-bindings from the /data/input folder. I've come across install issues a number of times in the past from trying to rebuild from a whole-game backup and regularly just redownload/reinstall and replace keybindings. Even then, if you're moving to a new computer, sometimes the hardware id of your controllers end up moving around. My pedals moved from joy1 to joy0 a number of times for example. I'm not sure if it's been improved, but that's still something to consider.
  3. I've always been under the impression that the lack of varied harmonization that allows us to establish a spread versus the point harmonization we have is likely a key driver of the current issues surrounding the thing. I'm sure there are more technically oriented folks here than I am that could chime in on this and I definitely might be missing a number of other factors, but as far as my my own experiences go there's too much emphasis on point harmonization that "opportunistic hits" on aircraft subsystems becomes challenging. I suspect the .50s were scarcely made to fire on point
  4. There are some areas I think are critical to a bomber experience and they all involve crew and core systems: 1. Pilotage/Navigation Systems: Right now we don't actually have core interactive systems for navigation workloads. Delivering authenticity to relatively pedestrian aircraft like transports or bomber commander roles heavily relies on navigation and not direct combat. Not having the ability to even set simple course knobs or tuning for radio nav intercepts might not seem important to fighters since you expect to be in combat more often, without it bombers are not actually le
  5. The key challenge here is that non combat planes, potentially even bombers if you look at it, relies too much on pilotage and its attendant systems or navigational workload to deliver an authentic and robust experience. I've long held the belief that Il-2 is extremely adept at delivering combat experiences relevant to fighters and ground attack aircraft. But when you have planes where the key expectation of the experience is more directed at navigation or pilotage instead of combat maneuvers and dogfighting, Il-2 really falls flat. When a C-47 in XP11 delivers a more authentic pil
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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)
  10. 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-ou
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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 😄
×
×
  • Create New...