Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

About So_ein_Feuerball

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

345 profile views
  1. IMO more options can never hurt, but simplified options should stay for those who are uncomfortable with too much customisation. So maybe a number of historical presets with the option to customise every single gun for those of us who feel the need to do so.
  2. Love the new clouds, and better performance is always welcome!
  3. This is excellent, don´t you ever dare doubt your own talent for this 😋 Whilst you´re constricted by the medium you have chosen, this still carries that spark of reality that is so very difficult to capture in any depiction of life.
  4. funny how it´s completely reverse when compared to other German planes, where rpm is automatically set according to throttle, whereas in the Jumo you only operate RPM and the rest is automatically set to fit altitude and temperature.
  5. As little as that has to do with Il 2, this warrants a story.😉
  6. I think there is a misunderstanding. The in game mechanic of spotting, i.e. the highlighting of enemy planes by a surrounding grey circle and red dot Ui elements is something I absolutely do not want in IL 2. But, and that´s the big one, the actual visibility of planes, be they enemies or friends, against woods is actually superior in War Thunder. This is the one aspect in which I will cede superiority to War Thunder. Woods don´t seem to be as much an obstacle to visibility of planes above them in War Thunder as they are in IL2. Again, this does not happen in War Thunder, and IMO it should not happen here either.
  7. But that´s the thing, which one of their approaches results in the more realistic picture? As in, would it be probable for a plane to seemingly vanish into the background after it had been already aquired? I rather doubt it. I know that IRL there´s no sharpening or any other form of image enhancement, but in the end, it´s not as if planes blur to the point of being practically invisible IRL either. So IMO it´s no matter how the result is achieved, as long as the end result is as close to realism as possible.
  8. I´m fortunate enough to be able to afford a 1440p screen, and trackIR. I am quite sure of what I saw on multiple occasions, whenever a plane I am tracking is over the woods, while I have eyes on, with it being close enough for me to easily identify it, it gets blurry to the point of no longer being visible. This only happens in this game, I´ve never had any similar issue with this in War Thunder SB or DCS, in both cases with icons off. It´s always the same, I´m quite near a plane, I identify it and the moment it flies over the woods it blurs and perfectly blends into the background. Whenever this happens, I need to wait to reaquire the plane, either because they roll over and expose their belly, they leave the wooded area or they start shooting for some reason. I am quite sure this is not how camoflague of WW2 planes worked.
  9. But that´s the thing, is it realistic as it is now? Mazex and others, me included, rather doubt it. AFAIK this is the premise of the whole thread, that this actually happens! We are talking about already aquired planes vanishing over woods, while we have eyes on. This is more the exception than the rule, and I am using a 1440p monitor. Yes, the added resolution helped somewhat, but it didn´t get rid of the problem.
  10. I at least was not talking about a ring or an icon around an aircraft. I was talking about an outline around an aircraft. There´s no V over the aircraft or a ring around it, it´s simply about the outline of the aircraft being reinforced by lighter surroundings. This is not something similar to War Thunder, it´s not something you will notice on its own, it´s something which simply makes something which shouldn´t vanish more visible. Again, I repeat, it´s simply a technique, which many other games are using, to make something which should be visible, but isn´t due to engine limitations, visible. It´s the same as using a reshade sharpening filter to see outlines better, but instead of making the whole game look shitty, which isn´t an option for me, it should only apply to planes at less than 500 m distance. It is a requirement at 4K, unless you have 2080TI SLI. Is it though? Should you lose a plane just a few hundred meters below you just because it flies over woods? Because I doubt it.
  11. There´s only one Gsync-TV available, and it´s 4000€. The cheapest Freesync-TV I am aware of is the SAMSUNG QE55LS01RBUXZG QLED-TV available for 1379€. I doubt there´s this much of a price difference between the EU and the US, so what Freesync TV are you referring to?
  12. Response time and framerate. Monitors are there for exactly that reason. If you have the money to buys yourself a 4K Freesync/Gsync TV, then you won´t have to bother with flight simming anymore and get yourself a pilots licence I assume it has to do with performance on low end systems if it is indeed this problem.
  13. I assume this is due to VR showing you two pictures each at a slight angle. 3D sight would be beneficial indeed, but not everyone can afford this.
  14. I agree that they are not sims. But that does not automatically exclude anything in their playbook from being used here. Our eyes see far beyond the usual 1080p or 1440p resolution most screens and graphics cards are able to show us. If we were able to plug our own eyes into the computer instead of relying on a flawed tool such as monitors, I´d completely agree with you. But we can´t. If the game is not able to show us planes several hundred metres above woods as it should be, we need to cheat. If necessary with something out of Battlefield´s toolbox.
  15. Agree. I love the K4 with 1.98 ata. I‘d love 150 octane for the Spitfire. I love that at least from what I‘ve seen in the Video the Tempest will get 11+ lbs. Naysayers to historically provable facts should just stay out of this forum, it‘s servers who should decide which mods to allow.
  • Create New...