Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About hnbdgr

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

682 profile views
  1. Would it be possible to look into the option of simplified flight models for ai for campaigns and single player? I know this tends to give ai a speed boost and what not (looking at you Cliffs of Dover), but this could be hard coded - nerfed to make up for the difference in performance. don't know just an idea, but it seems that things like ai bombers and what not - you wouldn't need a full complex model for those in a campaign. And if that means more aircraft on screen, why not! imo.
  2. I can't see it either - wanted to hop on yesterday and today. I assumed it's maintenance or something? What makes you think it's gone forever?
  3. Hi! can someone point me to that utility people are using for in-game comms? Does it work running alongside discord? thank you in advance
  4. For anyone wondering it's a personal sales announcement in Czech language at 50% of original price.
  5. In a g-2? one of the best ways to quickly turn tables on a pursuing spit vb for instance. In QMB I can not do a spiral climbing turn and successfully get on the spits tail. They will always outturn me. However if i climb for a bit and then a small dive to gather energy (~450kmh) I can perform the hammerhead and end up right on top of the pursuing spit. Can be also used in a merge, but if you don't know opposing a/c energy would be risky.
  6. ok so I've tried it again this time with a bit more success and observed the following: I attempted a left swing as the 109's have a natural left swing anyway. In-game torque has no or negligible effect on executing the hammerhead. Did it with full throttle just as easy as 1.0 ATA. The G-2 has much less leeway then the E-7 as far as " staying perfectly vertical" is concerned. Ergo you have to really use your stick with multiple inputs to keep it centred at the top of the zoom. Around -50% trim seems appropriate during the zoom up. Full left sideslip has to applied around 300kmh. This doesn't mean you have to touch the rudder - as the g2 has a natural left sideslip under 300kmh so so you can keep your rudder centered and the ball will swing full right by itself. Right after the turn, the right rudder seems to have an excessive amount of authority. Meaning you can use it to "glide" sideways or slow down the recovery to slo-mo mode. Kinda weird that it would do that at speeds of 0-100kmh. Down stick is needed sometimes to ensure a smooth recovery. Ailerons can be almost completely left out during this manoeuvrer. So it can be done, but it's much less forgiving then the E-7.
  7. hmm ok. so then reducing power ought to reduce torque. In the E7 video the guy cuts throttle anyway, which I did. So in theory they should then have the same effectiveness. Shouldn't nose heaviness help the hammerhead rather then hinder it?
  8. ok that's interesting. why would they reduce the ailerons and rudder surface from one model to the next? Either way I'll try it with more sideslip, thanks.
  9. So I came across this neat little video demonstrating how to do it in a 109 E-7: Fantastic, I fire the game up and try it and lo and behold it works flawlessly. Then next up I wanted to reproduce this on the G-2 and to keep things short I found it impossible. Rudder inputs and ailerons work completely differently at the highest point of the hammerhead and i find myself doing all sorts of weird manoeuvrers just not a clean hammerhead with a normal recovery. Can anyone tell me if it's supposed to be that hard in a g-2 or am i just doing something wrong?
  10. Some sort of compromise must be made. You cannot claim to aim for realism and at the same time have things like 1 minute engine limits until complete failure... for instance.
  11. Oh, first time I hear about sound quality affecting it. Does this help?
  12. hnbdgr


    I'm curious as to why in your calculation you picked 4m when you could have picked the length or width of the he-111? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye in the article they refer to a resolution of 0.3m @ 1km. Under ideal conditions a fighter with a length of 8m ought to be visible more or less at 26km. Now i will stress that is ideal conditions. Exactly. is it possible to please everyone? no of course not. But undoubtedly you'd see more people online if the current system is improved. And to be clear I'm mainly talking about short distance spotting - 2-3 km behind you or below you that's currently the most frustrating part. I don't need to see 15 km ahead. 6~9km depending on atmospheric conditions is fine. Regarding getting bounced etc. In the old Il-2 cliffs of dover that I used to fly a lot, spotting was still difficult and challenging and you'd get bounced a lot but it was never nearly this frustrating. (that is around 2014 or so when they fixed whatever bug there was with it. ) Look guys, at the end of the day this is a very similar thing as with the original time compression limit and bouncy planes fm and other stuff. People picked up on it as they recognized it as a problem that's in the way of this game reaching its full potential. You then had lots of people come out in defence of it - cooking up all sorts of rationalizations in why that's actually better. In case of the fm - why the fm is actually really supposed to be this way.... 🤦‍♂️ Then once it got fixed, those people stopped mentioning it as they recognised the improved fm was indeed improved. Some issues seem to follow this same pattern. I hope it will get fixed one day soon and when it happens this game only stands to gain from it. Right now I'll fly for a while every now and then and eventually shelve it for a few weeks at a time as I can't be bothered massively straining my eyes for an hour peeping for specks of dust. It should not be that hard/unrewarding. I also frequently play Quick Battles against AI and find that i have to turn the icons on 2-3x during a fight as I lost sight of them even though all 4 enemy a/c are right there 2km behind me. Until the spotting mechanic reaches a level that the majority of the community finds acceptable for use, these threads won't go away. Anyway that's the last out of me on this, I hope I didn't offend anyone - it's just frustration speaking.
  13. hnbdgr


    Hi Flanker! That could be one way of going about it. If done carefully and providing shaders/tweaks that are useful would perhaps be an ok stop-gap solution. The endgoal for the devs should be to normalize and improve spotting. I still think that if you can see tracers at 6km, there's no reason you shouldn't see aircraft that far either. Sure we all want the same starting position with no unfair advantage. But with spotting being the way it is at the moment there's not much fun in searching for enemy a/c. The spotting bubble is too small and unpredictable from angles and against different backgrounds. Most people use reshade etc. simply to make it less of a chore, as that's what it is. And if you have a game mechanic that players feel is a chore and unpredictable it will turn many away. If this game improved spotting I bet you'd see many more people returning to multiplayer.
  • Create New...