Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Pict

  1. On 12/10/2020 at 5:58 PM, KOHTYP said:

    Посмотрел недавно фильм 1944года выпуска ,, Небо Москвы ", обратил внимание на камуфляжи самолётов МиГ-3.

     Скриншот из фильма сделан на 13минуте 06 сек. Смотрите фильм! Оборона Москвы осень 1941г. глазами Москвичей 1944 года. НЕБО МОСКВЫ




    Hello. I enjoy the skins you make, but would like to offer a small criticism of this MiG-3


    The star on the tail appears to be too small and positioned too high when compared to the still photograph.


    Other than that it looks great :good:

  2. 1 hour ago, LukeFF said:


    It's the commands to increase and decrease the radio volume.

     Ah ok thanks, I already have the decrease one bound to one of my joystick buttons since it became available. I'm looking for something that you can just switch the radio off with in one clean hit.


    Even better what Gambit appeared to be suggesting, a pre-selectable state where the radio is off prior to flying the mission. I'd like this as apart from the convenience of switching it off once and forgetting about it, my RAM wouldn't get spammed with radio sound files I don't want that cause stutters while they're loading. Which in turn in a QMB airstart is just when you don't want it.

  3. 13 hours ago, Gambit21 said:


    You can turn the comms off in settings.

    Wonderful news. I must have missed this little gem being added as I've really not been able to get any serious flying done for some months.


    However I looked all over the settings and still don't see it. Got a clue for me?

  4. On 11/9/2020 at 4:07 PM, ACG_Konaber said:

    Thats why the chaps quicly adapted to 4-channel radio. Check for the "A B C D" box in a Spit e.g.
    And as fair as I remebered, BoX already has commands for "Next channel" in the key mapping overview (?)
    Would be neat if this would serve a functionallity within the game.

    Tuning in would be a big step towards realism.


    A decent start in that direction would be  if our "chaps" would give us an ON/OFF switch so that we could decide if having all that repetitive noise was a good idea or not. The AI have access to an ON/OFF switch for the radio, so we know it's there as they use it while going through the start up & shut down routine that we also don't have access to.


    So the ability to turn ON, TUNE in and turn OFF would be a really good foundation to build from.

  5. 15 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:


    Hi Pict,


    About 1) What is your monitor resolution set to? And are you using large fonts perhaps?

    About 2) I don't know what to say... Prokhorovka is the only Tank Crew map that has been released. It has a special detailed terrain mesh and destructible buildings. If you can't run it then you are basically saying you can't run Tank Crew?




    1. Screen is set to 1366 x 768 which is the standard maximum and recommended resolution by the manufacturer...it's a laptop :) 

    Like I said, if the buttons were higher up the first screen it would work just fine. As it is I have a nice large screenshot of a P-47 that fills most of that screen and the buttons I need to make the whole thing work lost off the bottom. I can access the game location button and just and no more the file name prefix button, after that I know they are there if I tab through them, but can't see or click on them.


    2. The Prokhorovka map isn't needed to stage a tank battle, only for the campaign as far as I know. I use the tanks often, but just avoid that map as the destructible zone on it kills may frame rates.


    Thanks anyhow.


  6. Hi, I haven't been doing much flying for a while and today I updated to the latest version of your great mission maker. I also noticed that there is a version for Tank Commander so I got that too. Unfortunately that about as far as I got :) 


    I ran into two problems, at least problems that affect me and possibly not many other people.


    1st was with the new version of the builder. I 'm pretty sure there's a button to generate a mission down at the bottom of the first page, but as I can only just see the edge of the second button, I can't make a mission at all. Nothing I try has any effect and I think it's got to do with the size of my screen.

    Anyhow if you could possibly see your way to resizing the panel, moving the buttons to a point further up towards the top or making the window scroll-able so that I can use your great utility I mighty appreciate it :good:


    2nd was with the Tank mission generator. Initially I had the same problem as above, but then I realized that as the single page window has a similar layout as the earlier air mission generator I'd been using, I could collapse a few of the options and the buttons would appear and be accessible, so that was ok in the end.

    However when I went to setup a mission I immediately discovered that the only map available is the intense tanking map that I can't use because it to fame heavy for my machine with the odd screen :) 

    Not sure if you intend to add any of the other maps, but I'm going to have to give up at this point.


    Ironic thing here is that for long enough I couldn't use the stock mission editor for the same reason I couldn't reach some of the buttons in the drop down window without setting my screen to portrait from landscape, so I got into your mission builder to compensate. Now they've fixed it and you've changed yours which is just another one of those funnies life throw at you from time to time :) 


    Having remembered that trick I'm going to try it now.


    Thanks anyhow for all your efforts :good:

  7. 1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

    Berlin would be a nice bookend and there's quite a few Yak-3/La-7 fans around.


    If you see Berlin as a bookend, how do you view Manchuria? Late model Soviet aircraft there too, even more so than Berlin, P-63 King-cobra for example. I'd also love to see some Nakajima in the BOX series :) 




    I think the Battle of France would be an interesting and as far as I'm aware undone scenario and a good chunk of the mapping will be released with BoN and RoF. It would also provide a few aircraft for a Finland setting and vice versa, Morane Sauliner & Curtis P-36.

  8. 4 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

    Unless I misunderstand, that is already built-in:


    Settings / Key Mapping / Service / Make a screenshot of the game -> Assign joystick trigger button or whatever.


    That's true and apparently so obvious we all missed it :) Yet it only applies to IL2 commands, of which "Make a screenshot of the game" is one.


    Bandicam controls and other 3rd party stuff is not covered by the in game settings, but is with JoyToKey as you set your joystick buttons to your keyboard buttons with no restriction as to what those keyboard buttons do.

  9. While making the above screenshot, I used a little program called mgrab or multi grab by Martin Wright http://www.mwgfx.co.uk/programs/mgrab.htm


    It occurred to me that this little tool could be used to make guncam type records if you compiled the mulitiple screens  it can make into a .gif , just a thought , yet to try it. But you can have up to 999 screenshots at up to 10 per second and can adjust the "shutter" speed so it could be interesting?

  10. On 1/7/2021 at 10:16 PM, bad_grant said:

    I got the plugin for CS6 64-bit and I cannot get it to work. No idea what I am doing wrong.


    There's another solution, you can use a 3rd party image converter. I use DXTmp by Martin Wright, it's free and works like a charm and has been around for a long time so is well tested.


    Just flatten the image and save as a (stress save as so as to avoid overwriting your template) BMP, then open with DXTBmp and save it as a .dds image and your good to go.


    More detail and download link at his website here http://www.mwgfx.co.uk/programs/dxtbmp.htm

  11. 3 hours ago, adler_1 said:

    so how many bursts of how many seconds empties the belts ?


    @mincer explains what I meant better than I could repeat...


    2 hours ago, mincer said:

    Don't fixate on the exact numbers. After some experience you start to get a very good feeling of how much ammo is left after certain amount of firing. This intuition is surprisingly accurate, but it comes with time.


    ...after that the exact number depends on several variables. 


    1. The weapons fitted

    2. The ammo loaded

    3. The pilot


    A P-40E for example can have 4x50cal or 6x50cal with an option for extra ammo for both. This gives different overall firing times for each combination and that's just one aircraft.


    Different pilots use different "bursts".


    An accurate idea of the firing time for any aircraft/weapon/ammo combo can be assessed by recording a track while firing all the available ammo, then noting the track times.


    You can then do the same by watching tracks of yourself (or others) firing bursts.


    I've never bothered with finding an exact or close to exact number as I'm not ever going to fire consistent bursts in a fight. That's where your brain takes over and the intuition that @mincer mentioned above is applied.

  12. 2 hours ago, kestrel79 said:

    I want to say only the German planes have the ammo counters.




    of the planes we currently have available the only allied one that has an ammo counter is the Yak-9T and even then it's only for the cannon and even then is optional.


    Anyhow it's an interesting observation and one that I would like to understand better. Why did the Germans see an ammo counter as an almost essential feature? After all it's extra weight, cost and maintenance time that the opposing forces did well enough without.


    The amount of ammo you have can be easily measured in seconds or a number of bursts at x seconds, so it's never been something I personally felt I missed when it's  not available.

  13. 11 hours ago, I./JG1_Baron said:


    I want also Bf109C, D, E1, E3, E4  🙂



    Wouldn't that be cool, I'd settle for any one of them. That said we must be coming close to the point where pre F series 109's are all that's left to do, any idea how many 109 variants will be left after this release?

  14. Good stuff !!! :good:


    Yet another great update, Hurri, for sure, but the Dakota was a nice surprise, plus all the other great stuff. KV-1 getting a new additional skin is appreciated as it's probably my favorite tank. I stood next to one once and was awestruck at their size and how far ahead of their time they were.


    Left my joystick at home so the test flight will have to wait...

  15. 3 hours ago, Burdokva said:

    My money would be on the P-51A vs Ki-44-II as the closest matchup.


    Sounds good to me, just need to get them into the BOXing ring now ;) 


    14 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

    The Allison engined P51 and early P40 (Hawk 81) would be a great addition to the sim in any case.  The early Mustang gets very little love, yet it was exemplary in it's low level performance. It would make for some interesting cross channel missions against contemporary German aircraft.


    Absolutely, I always preferred the look of the early P40's over the later ones for some reason and they would make a great stepping stone towards the PTO with a Flying Tigers chapter of BOX, while still being useful on the Moscow map (not sure about the rest?)


    The P-51A would also be great. I really like the earlier versions of the hot rods that got all the glory and media cover. The Mustang MK.I was active in the ETO and 4 Squadrons saw action during "Operation Jubilee" (Dieppe landings '42) doing long range recon.


    Long range recon/intruder missions in Mustang MK.I would be sound :good:

    • Like 1
  16. On 10/22/2020 at 11:53 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

    A really good late war match up would be P51 vs. Ki84.


    And while we are in the Pacific, how about P40N vs. Ki61?


    Wouldn't that be great to see in BOX :good: The Ki-61 & Ki-84 were certainly well received by many, but for some reason I always had a soft spot for the Ki-44. What would you pair a Ki-44 with?


    I hope they get around to fleshing out the P-40 we already have with some more variants in the mean time.

  17. 13 hours ago, Monksilver said:

    I'm not sure those are the best pairings for this game and there are some mis-matches but I think I'd go with with this one. 


    See the source image


    Yes, that's certainly a classic, both in BOX and historically. I recently re-read "Malta Spitfire", George Beurlings biography, so I reckon the Macchi 202 should be in the mix with the Spitfire MK.V too :good:

  18. 13 hours ago, sevenless said:

    when he says "British" or "RAF" he means "Commonwealth"


    "Repeat please" :) 





    I'm not sure what he really meant, as by the time he was quoted saying it he must have been fully aware of the significant number of Polish and Czech pilots that made up the RAF number during the height of the battle. None of whom were any part of the "Commonwealth".





    In total 31 out of the 145 Polish pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain died in action, while the Polish War Memorial at RAF Northolt commemorates 1903 personnel killed. The Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command, Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, was blunter in his assessment, ‘Had it not been for the magnificent work of the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of battle would have been the same’. This assessment was echoed by the Secretary of State for the Air Force and indeed, during some of the most desperate points of the battle, the RAF had ‘only 350 pilots to scramble, of which nearly 100 were Poles’.


    That's almost every third pilot the Luftwaffe would encounter, that was neither British nor from any Commonwealth nation.


    Lest we forget.


    Edit: I forgot to add other non British or Commonwealth nations whose pilots flew for the RAF during the Battle of Britain, these included, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands & France.


    So 1 in 3 is an even more probable ratio of non-Commonwealth to Commonwealth pilots at the height of the battle. I wonder what the ratio of actual British pilots was?

    • Like 2
  19. 6 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

    110 is a good one as well, had forgotten about that 👍


    AI P-40 against a VB is one-sided but possibly an interesting human match (with my money on the Spit). 


    I mentioned the P-40E & the Spitfire MK.V as they were of a similar time frame, arriving in 1941, and had a similar development through combat experience in that the engine & armament had been upgraded while the air-fame remained relatively the same.


    The Spitfire MK.V was on a par with the Macchi 202, yet so was the P-40E, at least according to Charles W. Dryden in his book "A-Train" it could out turn the Macchi 202 in the horizontal.


    20 minutes ago, sevenless said:

    at the time of the Battle of Britain the fight was more even and you could compare. The British were extremely good."


    To be fair, not all of the pilots flying for the RAF at that time were British, not by a long way. So Rall could have been talking about Polish or Czech pilots, or Canadians, South African's, Aussies or Kiwi's...or even Americans.


    I still find it hard to take that while we don't have a BOX BOB, or anything like it, this thread just keeps on getting pushed back to the Channel front of 1940.


    Someone should start a topic about the BOB or the Hurricane, wait it's already been done, over & over. :rolleyes:  

  20. Just a polite reminder that I had zero intention of starting a thread about the BoB or the Hurricane, or reigniting the battle here. The Hurricane MK.II that is about to be released did not even participate in that battle did it?


    Thanks :good:




    More toward the sort of debate I was looking for, what would anyone think was a balanced opponent to say the P-40E as it's depicted in BOX?, and I don't just mean an Axis aircraft as there are pretty much only the 109, 190 or Macchi to choose from, which leaves plenty of scope in the Allied hangar? (forgot the 110)


    How do think the P-40E would run against the Spitfire MK.VB for example?

    • Thanks 1
  • Create New...