Jump to content

sniperton

Members
  • Content Count

    728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

230 Excellent

1 Follower

About sniperton

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Contra-Aquincum

Recent Profile Visitors

970 profile views
  1. Could be easier to prove by checking the lower 7 to 11 region. In the Spit the wing should be blocking lower 9 to 11, while in the P-39 lower 7 to 9, approximately.
  2. We're a bit off arguing away. Thing is that the P-47 is too fragile, even compared to other planes in the game, and this should be addressed sooner or later. (I hope sooner).
  3. All that sounds reasonable to me. Now the next question is whether these values are generic or specific to plane type and properties. I see you used the F4 without the mod "armoured headrest removed", and still it detected me when I was just 80 m higher and at a distance of 1250 m. Spotting an aircraft lurking just behind the rudder at 1+ km distance would be a challenge even from a bubble canopy, not to speak of the cramped, deeply inset cockpit of a 109 where the rear view is heavily compromised. So I guess the cone is generic...
  4. I edited the mission file by offsetting flight paths just to see how they affect detection. Used auto-level all the time. As said, in the original setup the Spit, flying 100 m lower and completely aligned with the F4's flightpath, did not trigger any reaction. Now the Spit flying ca. 100 m lower and 100 m to the left resulted in the F4 starting an evasive maneuvre at a distance of 1000 m. The Spit flying 80 m higher (and aligned) resulted in the F4 starting an evasive maneuvre at a distance of 1250 m. It seems that the blind zone is sort of conic, but very narrow, you have to sneak into it from very far away if you want to stay undetected. Perhaps milages vary for less experienced AIs.
  5. I think it could be tested by playing with the vertical and horizontal offset of the two flypaths and watching if and when the AI reacts. Differing common opinion probably roots in differing everyday experience. It's quite rare in ordinary gameplay that you suddenly and magically find yourself at the exact lower six of an opponent without the AI having already detected you long before. I guess your test mission would lead to different results if the Spit were curving in and not "born" in the blind zone.
  6. I get your point, but it's still to be proven that I continued to be in the AI's blind spot when I was already flying in front of him unattacked. Is there any way to record the test mission from the perspective of the AI pilot?
  7. Just to clarify, do you see confirmed that the AI doesn't see you under certain circumstances, or do you see confirmed that the AI doesn't give you a f..ck under certain circumstances?Just curious, really.
  8. @unreasonableAs I see there's a 100 m altitude difference between the two planes. When I don't take control, I can pass by under the belly of the F4 unnoticed. If I throttle back afterwards, I can fly in front of him at a distance of 500 to 1000 m without him attacking me. No change when I take control, as long as I pass by under his belly. Didn't have more time to test, but at the moment I can't decide whether he's just neglecting me (due to some higher priority) or simply cannot see me (as the test would suggest if he attacked my when already in front of him).
  9. Maybe just a placebo effect, but I have the impression that you, too, can make to AI tired by forcing him into high-G turns while carefully conserving your fitness (e.g. you expand and don't follow him in those turns). Playing this game for 5 to 7 minutes usually makes the AI quite tame at the end.
  10. @wju, yep, I think the best place to report it (with instructions how to do it):
  11. Confirmed. It seems that the "no wind" setting doesn't have any effect for fighters. Tested with zero turbulence (as it's a completely different matter) and max possible wind. Kuban map autumn, LaGG-3, altitude 1500, flight path initially pointing towards a mountain peak, hard crosswind, level autopilot engaged, "no wind" checked in settings. The plane keeps direction, the compass heading doesn't change, but the plane actually drifts sidewards and passes by the mountain peak several hundred meters downwind. PS. I guess the setting is there for level bombers, so its functionality should be re-tested in bombers with activated bombsight.
  12. C'mon, I'm not really enthusiastic about Normandy either, but there's a bit more in it, frankly. What the lufties get for their money (other than the Me-410 and the Arado) is another story. 😎
  13. Agreed, but still it seems that had PTO been only delayed once more, Italy would have been a more logical stopgap instalment.
  14. I was curious and installed TacView to investigate. So far only a few tests were made with the 109 F-2. It seems that you completely black out when you reach 5 Gs. Fainting occurs before or around 6 Gs. G-levels decrease with fatigue (i.e. the G-forces suffered in the past). Anyway, 5 Gs for a complete blackout seem to be a bit too low for a healthy and fit combat pilot. I don't say it's wrong, but I expected more. Currently I'm trying to adopt myself to the new physiology model. Although I like it, I find that my turning advantage in a Yak over an Mc.202 is almost completely gone at speeds over 300-350 kph. That is, the physiology model is a great equalizer, making the game a completely new game, as you can't pull more Gs than your opponent when over a certain speed.
  15. The Japanese believed to have sunk the Yorktown two or three times before she was actually sunk by a submarine. In reality she was only disabled for quite some time. What you see after a successful attack is a smoking wreckage whose fate can be determined by a script after you left the scene. All the devs have to do is to determine the minimum damage when a carrier might sink at all, and to decide about her fate as history dictates.
×
×
  • Create New...