Jump to content

AbortedMan

Members
  • Content Count

    1049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AbortedMan

  1. Crap! Forgot about this pic...glad my girlfriend doesn't cruise the IL2 forums.
  2. If I recall correctly, games that have calibration procedures that measure and adapt to your interpupillary distance, I think that's what IPD stands for, corrects for that kind of issue. Unless you cannot fit the OR over your eyes themselves...but the OR is pretty damn wide.
  3. Thanks. I'll check it out and report back if I notice anything...just got Jet Era working (for the first time ever) with 4.12.2, it's super awesome!
  4. The devkit 2 eliminates a HUGE percentage of the resolution problems, imo, and is just what is needed for a good sim experience. I got to try the 2nd devkit at this year's PAX prime and if I hadn't previously known of the resolution issues, it wouldn't even have come to mind that it was an issue with the new screen they're using. That being said, I'm selling my OR devkit if anyone is interested, haha. Bongodriver, do you have a link for a working config for 1946? I'd like to give it a whirl.
  5. Get used to Hans' screaming. I've told him the same thing over and over again on the War Thunder forums and he just doesn't get it.
  6. This was my first reaction to this news as well, but then I saw a video of the console version being played at Gamescom and realized console players will have the equivalent to mouse-aim as well...the same "instructor, point me that way" type circle/reticle, only controlled by the thumbstick. I was bummed because console players using thumbsticks was the last bastion of hope for focus on a proper direct-control/non-instructor influence on the game and its modes. Any company venturing into the simulator market knows what they're getting into. There's obviously enough supply and demand in the sim market to warrant the handful of companies we have now to keep creating proper flight sims. If 777/1C wanted to have a customer base of tens of millions of people, they'd make a FPS or a MOBA game like other companies, or come up with something else that isn't as hamfistedly stupid and poisonous as mouse-aim. Stop saying adding mouse-aim on a server side variable won't effect the way people play, because it will. Imagine 777/1C added mouse-aim, and I'm looking at the server list seeing a plethora of populated servers..."Yay!" right? Oh, look at that, they're all using mouse-aim on these mouse-aim enabled servers...and I'm using a joystick. Fuck. Even if I were able to find a non-mouse-aim, joystick only server it'd probably full to the brim and I'd be in queue for an unenjoyable amount of time. Then there's the forum wars that would start...that you cannot deny. I'm not even going to mention the division of resources and assets the dev team will have to delegate to mouse-aim development and the subsequent tweaks/features/etc that will undoubtedly come after. Everyone is hung up on the fact that you don't play War Thunder because it does matter. A lot. You simply cannot quantify the effect, good or bad, of adding mouse-aim to a game like BoS. You literally have zero idea what you're talking about and the effects on the community, gameplay, meta-game, politics, resources, demographics...I could go on and on. Take a long hard look at the War Thunder forums. Go find and read all the 120+ some-odd pages of these threads: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/55686-solution-to-all-these-wars-between-ma-and-js/ http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/55626-should-instructor-and-or-mouse-aim-be-removed-in-hb-closed-cockpit-discussion/ http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/47929-stop-asking-to-disable-instructor/ http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/56035-highly-disappointed-with-frbhb-settings-spread/ http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/55653-this-is-not-frb/ http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/46788-changed-to-mouse-aim-and-wow/ http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/36668-prophanging-at-its-finest/ http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/33504-sick-of-instructor-and-mouse-aimers/ Go download the game, queue up for a Historic Battle mode match and tell me how you feel after about 10 matches while using a joystick knowing your opponents are ending your game with the same exact effort I make to move my mouse from my desktop to my start menu. Then realize separating control schemes would be fine solution, except War Thunder already does that in their "Full Real Battles" mode where joystick or mouse-joy is the only option (no assisted controls)...but then realize again that instead of the 25+ maps and 5 playable nations that are available in the mouse-aim player saturated Historic Battle mode, you get 1 map, and 2 playable nations...the reason? All development attention is where the mouse-aimers are and too busy to deal with the Full Real Battles mode. They're too busy satisfying the massive majority using the hand holding EZ-mode like any smart, money-making company would. Is that what you want in BoS?
  7. Any requests for mouse-aim should be followed by an immediate ban from the forums, IMO. Mouse-aim is a cancer...a poison to any sim game/community. Heh, I asked my girlfriend the same thing (she knows almost nothing about video games/simulators and their inputs), I described the scenarios brought on by mouse-aim (specifically in War Thunder) and from her extremely neutral, 3rd party, non-video game playing stance, even she said "mouse-aim sounds like cheating".
  8. Hooves started many conversations during the press event with Loft and Jason about the OR and how awesome Hooves thought it was. Loft and Jason just received their dev kits, and they seem very receptive to the idea, but no announcements or info has been released yet. I'm not exactly sure about to which you are referring...the "spray" meaning the dust and smoke/steam coming from the train? Unfortunately I didn't partake in any ground target missions or train strafing, but I did notice lots and lots of dirt and snow being kicked up when I shot the ground. You can see this in my "first look" video linked earlier in this thread. I'm not sure what the specs of the computer they were using were, but I hear the video cards were a single ATI 7890. They also had a triple screen setup that ran just as beautifully as the single screen systems and their towers/innards looked identical from the chassis window, but again, I'm not sure. I don't believe it was in the pre-alpha just yet, but I would guess the structural nuances that are in RoF are sure to be in BoS. No info on that that I could find at the press event, but I remember a Friday update that showcased the dev team going up in metered aircraft to demonstrate the effects of vortices and other wind turbulance for use with in-game data.
  9. View Range The view range was absurdly far. It was literally as far as the eye could see in the daytime with no popping of anything coming into view, it just came into the world as it naturally would at the speed and visibility that it naturally would. This was a big surprise to me, as I didn't think the Digital Nature engine could do that yet. The evening time mission had appropriately less visibility due to the obvious nature of night time and fog that settles in during dusk hours, but it was all intentional, and not a slave to any limitations of FPS or draw distance. The views up high still included everything you could see below, so there were no missing assets. Most notable during Loft's quick demo when he took control of the free, mouse controlled camera and took it up, up, up...probably around 25k ft, you could still see the fences, houses, all the trees, and no unrealistic draw distance "fog". The only thing that disappeared were the lights from the truck's headlights. I'm assuming the demo systems were pretty beefy, I'm hearing they had ATI 7890s (?), but not sure. FPS/Stuttering Absolutely zero stuttering at all when flying down low, or making a quick dive from high alt to the deck. The only stutter I noticed during the whole demo was when Loft quickly panned over to the 12 Katyushas all firing at once during the night mission. Feeling of flight/speed This is captured AMAZINGLY WELL and is everything I hoped it would be. I still regularly play IL2:1946 and, on occasion, a bit of CloD SP and the feel of BoS is easily on par with both. Those that have been playing War Thunder lately, as I have, can attest that a bad feeling of flight ruins the hell out of a flight simulator type game. No worries about that here. Taking hits/Damage Unfortunately, I wasn't able to take any damage from enemies, other than those damn anti-aircraft trees! In Requiem's write-up he noted that he took some cockpit damage and noticed dials and gauges being destroyed...you may want to ask him. When hitting AI you can actually see their attempts at dealing with their "new" flight characteristics after taking damage then just saying "screw it" and bailing out. So I imagine the damage effect is pretty pronounced. No apologies needed, keep the questions coming! Colors/Temp I imagine a lot of thought went into trying to turn a drab, black and white terrain into something interesting...1C/777 succeeded, imo. The colors greatly assist with the feeling of a vast, vast, (vast), and harsh terrain for a pilot ditching their aircraft. During the day, the sky is blue and bright against the white snow below, with the reflections on the frozen parts of snow drifts appropriately bouncing the sun at you. The evening/sunset looked very well done with the addition of the "snow/fog haze" that is in the pre-alpha. A pinkish hue was just over the horizon painting the sky as it does in the late-late hours of the day. There was a bit of "banding" in the different color shades and around the moon, but Loft noted that was a point of improvement and it is being fixed. I know what you're talking about when you mention CloD sunsets and I have no doubt BoS will capture the same feeling.
  10. Here are my first hands-on impressions with Hooves on camera (It's really hard to talk and play a game you've been waiting ages for, by the way): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QWlhoix6YU&feature=player_embedded Apparently I'm dumb and cannot figure out how to properly embed the video, but here's the link.
  11. Great write up Requiem...that was me that drove us back to the hotel, btw. I hope you enjoyed the tunnel tour
  12. Not a silly question at all...I was actually curious about this myself. The dull "thud-thud-thud" in the videos is representative of the sound you'd hear from a distance while the aircraft was firing, I believe, though I didn't get to witness any 3rd person distant machine gun fire while in-game. From in cockpit, the weapons sounded more loud and crisp as you'd expect. The 109's weapon system definitely had a placeholder sound, I'm not even super familiar with all of RoF's weapon sounds, but you could tell the 109F's MGs and cannon sounds didn't quite make sense. The LaGG3's MG, on the other hand, sounded just like the LaGG3 in the trailer...very "metal-to-metal-BANG" type of a sound like a set of machine guns should. Again, it could have been a placeholder from RoF as I'm not ultra familiar with all of RoF's weapon sounds, but the LaGG3's trigger sounded great. MGs and cannon were bound to the same button, so we couldn't make out the difference in damage effect or sound, really. Tracers This is one of my top priorities to scope out for the demo. I'm not a fan of how they did tracers in RoF, so I was biting my nails when I pulled the trigger on the hands-on BoS demo. Unfortunately, I don't think the tracers were complete in the pre-alpha we played. They are definitely a different graphical effect than in RoF and look appropriately sized, but while firing and looking through the gunsight in BoS, you could see the "+" shape from the rear end of the tracer graphic at certain angles. From outside, the tracers are spot on. Great speed, size, length, lighting effect...very well done. The main part though...they don't look inaccurate and all over the place as in RoF. Your rounds fly straight (with the proper arc) and your weapon system actually feels as though it is properly and securely fastened to your aircraft. Hit Effects This may be because of my horrible aim (and the drinks were free), but I didn't see any explosive-flash type hit effects on enemy aircraft...only smoke puffs that you'd imagine you see from such an impact. Actually, come to think of it, there were no explosions modeled at all in the pre-alpha demo, aside from the Katyusha rocket ignitions (even so, there were no rocket impact explosion assets yet). I've always been displeased with how RoF handled hit effects on aircraft (realistic or not) but you can tell BoS is headed in the right (satisfying) direction. Remember though, this was a pre-alpha...many assets aren't implemented yet. Clouds Clouds seemed similar to RoF. Flying through a white cloud in the middle of a frozen tundra gave an effect as you'd expect...white. Everywhere white. No condensation or engine over-cooling effects yet, though. For the most part the pre-built missions we played were clear skies, so big cloud formations weren't seen...or at least noticed by me. A cool new addition to the graphical engine is the low snowy/foggy haze you notice when looking to the horizon. Mostly noticeable above trees and forests, you can tell the areas of terrain are representing a difference in temperature/weather effects with the haze clarity in different places. Very subtle, yet effective. Very cool. Loading Times Loading times were quick, less than 15 seconds for the single-serving missions we were playing. I'm not sure what the system specs of the machines we were playing on were exactly, but from clicking "Proceed" to in-cockpit was markedly quicker than RoF is now. UI The UI was identical to RoF...buttons, colors, options, all RoF style. The background featured a rotating presentation of your last played aircraft in a dark room (I don't think the background was modeled yet). Smoke and Fire I saw no fire in the pre-alpha demo. Trailing smoke on damaged aircraft was very nicely done. You can definitely tell between venting liquid and venting smoke. The smoke animation is smooth and natural as you'd expect and sticks around for a while. Smoke from the Katyusha rocket launch is impressive. Big full plumes of smoke trailing in an arc, visible from 10,000ft+ in the evening is a beautiful, beautiful thing. Ground units will be very visible and part of the flying experience if they're dumb enough to keep their lights on/fire from the cover of darkness. AI The AI in the demo weren't too involved in the easy-mode missions. They pretty much just flew straight. In the "ace" labeled missions they were a little more conscious, but still pretty easy. I never got shot down in the time that I played, as the AI had a laser focus on their first target and only their first target...they wouldn't fire at me once engaged with my wingman. I think it's safe to say the AI wasn't 100% implemented yet, though there were some defensive routines running. Upon receiving my MG rounds and taking damage, you can see the reaction of what the AI pilot was trying to do, but then realizing his aileron is stuck or gone and putting it into a spin, sending his aircraft just over my canopy in a puke inducing tumble followed by a prompt bail-out. (3rd person bail-out animations are awesome, by the way). Comms There was radio chatter aplenty in the demo. Though I didn't speak Russian or German, so I don't know what was being said. It sounded authentic as if it was actually a 1940's radio. No subtitle text was accompanying the audio that I could see. The sounds weren't intrusive or repetitive at all, as they are in some games. I'm not sure if it was my AI wingman talking or a nearby airbase/spotter. I completely forgot to ask or fiddle around with buttons to see if there was a commandable comms system for AI or airfield ops. Lighting Loft gave a quick ad-hoc demo of some points of interest that were very, very awesome. My favorite was how the landing light on the LaGG-3 lit up the terrain as you came in at low altitude. It looked simply awe-inspiring from all angles. Also a very cool thing, which I'm not sure why this hasn't been done before in a sim, is the cockpit lights are now visible by other players when dark/close enough. So read that map with caution, it could give your position away! Ground Objects TONS of ground objects! Like 4 different kinds of truck columns, T-34's, StuG's, Panzers (I think), other tanks (I'm not a tank buff), and an array of light armored vehicles (both sides), Katyushas...most of them all moving in columns at once in the evening map we were shown/demo'd by Loft (Hooves has a cam video of it, pester him to put it up). At least 50-60 units were on the ground moving or firing at once in the missions we were shown. Headlights were on on some of the trucks and you could see them from altitude. Headlights also interacted dynamically with the environment and looked very realistic. The level of detail is ridiculous. I'm really very surprised at how hi-poly the ground vehicle models are for an aircraft simulator...and no "popping" of models on vehicles or trees! Props The villages had realistic layouts and detail. Houses looked like houses, not just boxes with pointy tops. Fences lined the roads and trees were strewn about. They looked very convincing that these were small villages in the middle of a frozen tundra. I didn't get a chance to fly over any factories or bigger city type areas, but I heard others did and were impressed. The comparison pictures in the event presentation looked fantastic. At the airfield, Loft showed us a camo-net cover for the aircraft. At close distance, the shadows interact with the holes in the netting and project the proper shadow image on the snow. Beautiful. There was a primitive looking camo-net covered tower near the runway that looked very well done as well. Someone asked whether there were more variations on towers and I believe Loft replied with "about 4 different types of towers" (could be incorrect, like I said, the drinks were free). Loft also noted as he panned by them, that there were only hard-cover hangars, the actual permanent building type, at one airfield at the time of the Battle of Stalingrad...so don't expect airfields with tons of amenities. Skins As far as I could tell, the same paint schemes you've seen in the weekly updates are what we saw in the pre-alpha. I imagine they will follow true RoF style and allow community skin packs along with official ones as well, though. Keep the questions coming...this is much easier than just spilling out a stream of conscience onto the screen, and probably more interesting.
  13. I have a big write-up in progress/planned, but I'm falling out of consciousness due to traveling back home all day...but I'll be answering any questions anyone may have (like the tiny details) about IL2:BoS here in this thread when I wake up. Leave your questions and I'll answer them if I can!
  14. Yeah FRB is all I play, but that mode isn't Gaijin's focus...and it's painfully obvious. I imagine when World War Mode is released, which will be the main guts of WT in terms of their efforts to be "groundbreaking", I'm sure it will be in the same difficulty as the historic battles mode...which is absolutely unacceptable to me and 47% of the forum-vocal HB playing playerbase...and anyone else looking for a WW2 aerial combat experience. The equality of control methods just isn't there. I think Gaijin is capable of making good games, (though, I haven't seen one yet...their go at IL2 was awful) but it seems they are completely in the dark when it comes to making multiplayer games, there's just a ton of things that they don't think of or break that should have never made it past the drawing board in a multiplayer gaming environment. But I digress...got a call from a friend this morning on the brink of barfing from his first try on the Rift...he loved it! Can't wait to try mine when it comes! Imagine a video game experience so immersive you want to puke your guts out? I'm in!!
  15. War Thunder is a huge disappointment. Been playing it for over a year now, and the flight models are just pitifully mish-mashed together with no semblance of anything you'd expect a WW2 military aircraft to perform. All that is forgivable due to its beta status, but the control disparity between joystick users and "mouse-aim" users that are heavily reliant on an in-game cpu assistance called "instructor" is absolutely gameplay destroying by means of mouse-aimers having the upper hand in almost all aspects...they can't even stall, for God's sake (while joystick users can). I don't think any OR holding simmers will be satisfied with that game, no matter how many awesome features they implement for the Rift...it's simply a different (read: garbage) kind of game.
  16. Seriously, how do you guys even come up with responses to raaaaids jargon?
  17. That is NOT Pearl Harbor with Ben Affleck (bleh). Those are spitfires vs bf109s. EDIT: Gross, I think I saw Ben Affleck in a quick shot of the pilot...I don't remember spits or German fighters in Pearl Harbor...then again, I think I erased that movie from my memory like a victim of molestation on account of its being a horrible tragedy of film.
  18. My god, is that first video clips of a real movie? What's the name of it?
  19. I see what you did there...zing! I voted for P-40. I think the Lend-Lease aircraft, including the P-39 variants, as relatively crappy as they were will be huge sellers. It's been a while since any US aircraft have seen the light of a modern popular sim, save for DCS and the P-51...but that doesn't really count.
  20. According to the article I linked, "1941-230 Tomahawks and 15 P-40E; 1942-17 Tomahawks and 487 P-40E, E-1, K, and L; 1943-939 P-40E-1, K, L, M, and N; 1944-446 primarily P-40M and N" I'm foggy on the specifics, but if Russia was still importing P-40 variants during 1942 and 1943, I would think at least some were still on the front lines.
  21. Correction: that [grabbed out of thin-air % number] of server owners allowed cockpit off, which basically forces most players to at least use it sparingly. No one can speak for the silent if the silent don't let their preference be known, so I imagine decisions cannot be made on criteria/parameters/preferences/issues that aren't there/don't exist.
  22. "I'd commit warcrimes" haha, I chuckled.
  23. Placebo effect, my friend...the M-105 field mod version of the P-40 contained a Russian made Klimov M-105 engine. While comparable to the Allison engine, it reduced the aircraft's top speed by ~12kph, among other things...and broke a lot.
  24. You'd name your Russian flown P-40 Santa Maria? Blasphemer! I second the pay ware thing, I'd pay for a P-40 on the day of its release...Hooves and I were talking about how selling field mods for aircraft, like the M-105 field mod for the P-40...ok well, maybe not the M-105 field mod because it was a couple steps down from the original Allison engine, would be a good business model.
  25. A little excerpt from an article on Soviet flown P-40's (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/index.htm): "The first batch of Tomahawks from the USA was sent to the USSR in September 1941. This shipment was purchased for gold and was not part of the Lend-Lease program..." There's a long and detailed history regarding the P-40 and it's involvement with Soviet air forces. I haven't seen or heard anyone mention the P-40 being included in the (wish)list of aircraft for BoS. According to all the Googling I've done, I've found various pieces of information that would place many P-40 variants on the front lines of the Russian air war during the Battle of Stalingrad. Has anything been hinted at including the P-40? Is there a demand for the P-40? It's one of my favorite aircraft of the era, I'm hoping it makes it into the game.
×
×
  • Create New...