Jump to content

30speed

Members
  • Content Count

    1278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 30speed

  1. I swear I'll remove my G-forces comment, even though I explicitly stated that it's realistic and I have no beef with it. My goal is after the authenticity. The models can be realistic but can also convey very little of authenticity. This isn't directed at a G force modeling, but at the overall representation of the pilot's physical and psychological state during the mission, dog fight, etc. Obviously there is very little I know or have seen in regards to the the dogfights. The gun-cam footage really is the only viable representation of those times. And when I watch the
  2. you're absolutely right as there is no empirical evidence for modeling the specific aircraft's impact on the pilot. The idea here is to introduce the universal factors. I.e. ambient temperature, noise levels, altitude variations. I understand it's all a pipe dream, but hey.. one can dream, right? πŸ˜„
  3. @JG300_Faucon @Jade_Monkey guys, thanks for staying on topic. I'm not doubting the new model, I stated it earlier. I'm looking to expand on it. Just like AnPetrovich explored the angle of the pilot's seat there must be some other factors that impact the performance, and not necessarily the response to g-forces. I.e. heavier controls due to tiredeness... I guess I'm too nebulous with my imagination.. πŸ˜„
  4. I'm pretty sure I wasn't asking for your opinion of the new G force model, there is an official thread that contains all of that commentary, so no need to get sour. You like it. Great. You've made it abundantly clear. I am asking about the possible and realistic variables that can be introduced to the pilot physiology model, the variables that affect the human performance while he/she is exposed to the elements during the flight. If you can't come up with any then there is no need to comment how the current G model is perfect and anyone looking outside of
  5. you misunderstand my intentions. It's NOT to remove realism, it's to add more. - 30 years ago you played a fly simulator. You thought it was THE BEST graphics in the world and the simulation was uncanny. - Now look at how things progressed in 30 years. You couldn't have dream about the capability to sit INSIDE the airplane to FLY in it, FIGHT in it. - But yet, devs add more features, more capability. It's not that it's un-realistic, it's that it could be so much more. And it will be. And in 30 years you'll look in amusement at our current featurset.
  6. In my opinion the new system in the context of ww2 is way too gamey compared to the previous G model. The devs raised the G limit and it took away the fear from the pilots to do stupid and unrealistic maneuvers. But that's my personal take, don't judge me. I'm not asking for a change to the current G model, but simply looking for the realistic war time capabilities or ways to introduce them.
  7. True, no argument there. But if this simulation strives to deliver the atmosphere there can be some artificially induced impactors to convey the realities of war. Meaning, if you're 10 minutes away from the target, then potentially you have flown 3 hours before getting there... or something like that. I know it's laughable and difficult to explain, but that'd represent the actual reality of the mission, etc, i.e. it could be explained in the briefing, etc. Point is to develop these "impactors" and leave them to the mission makers on whether to use them or not.
  8. I love this game. The fact that I played this game pretty much every day for the past 3 years and accumulated.. 1,900 hours in it, own every possible DLC/plane, etc.. I don't think I need to prove anything there. So, lend a guy your eyes for 2 minutes and let's talk about the Immersion. VR is my de-facto standard for any sim games as it delivers the best possible, and subsequently, personally required immersion factor. The IL2 speaks volumes to the WW2 atmosphere in its Campaign design, the scripted campaigns focused on specific battles through out the secon
  9. that's my impression as well. For the first 5-10 seconds of the dogfight it feels like a pre-introduction of the physiology way back when planes could do crazy maneuvers without any penalty. Yes, the tiredness starts to quickly accumulate along with the reduced ability to continue the tight turns and all. Is it realistic? Of course, since the devs did an amazing work pulling all possible data variants for analysis. But the game play now feels very 'gamey' with elements of the arcade. No longer the pilot needs to think about the consequences of the first couple of turns and how it
  10. what game files are you speaking of? I fly mc202 every day in MP and I never was able to PK from dead 6. Only setting them on fire.. anyway, it seems we're just arguing with our subjective opinions. In either case, mine or yours, whatever the devs did in this update it will be an improvement for MC202, or at least I hope so. πŸ˜„
  11. again, how do you know that 12.7 was firing AP only? I was able to set a lot of planes on fire with 12.7.. I think it'd be kind of difficult to do it with AP only.
  12. I'm thoroughly confused, which frankly happens too often, but please bear with me. In the MC202 load-out there are 2 weapons: - 12.7 Breda that shows blue/orange belt, i.e. AP/HE - 7.7 that shows only blue belt, i.e. AP only The devs stated that due to a bug the 12.7 was loaded with HE only (instead of AP/HE), hence it'll be corrected to AP/HE. How did you conclude that 12.7 was firing AP only?
  13. MC202 ammo type available in game shows AP/HE, blue/orange. It seems there was a bug that made every single shot an HE, so they're fixing it to make it an AP/HE mix.
  14. 44. Incorrect (missing) armor value of the armored glass visor and headrest has been fixed for La-5FN; Awesome! 28. 13mm German and 12.7mm Italian machine guns are no longer loaded with HE ammo only due to a bug; Poor MC202 got neutered even more now πŸ˜„ However, dare I say the MC202 will be capable of delivering a PK from the dead 6? Great news for the reds in regards to 109's 13mm, it is a devastating weapon for such a small caliber. 48. The A-20B tail lamp no longer visibly detaches from the aircraft at a significant distance from the obse
  15. I'm actually envious of your IL-2 discovery. I want to re-live it again! πŸ˜„ I was giggling like a 5 year old boy when I took the first flight in VR in IL2. every time I fly Il2 i discover something new. Yesterday I discovered that Mig3's flap extension indicator is on the floor. And that was after flying/playing this game for ~1,500 hours or so. πŸ˜„ Welcome to the club! You won't be disappointed!
  16. so when? when? When? WHEEEEN? my palms are sweating.. πŸ˜„
  17. something in this vid piqued my interest in regards to the scale of the trees in IL2. I fly in VR. Quite often in MP whilst trying to minimize the chances of being discovered by enemy pilots I descend and try to fly below the tree tops, usually along/above some road or a river/creek. Looking at the first video around 0:10 mark you can see how small the P40 airplane is compared to the trees and how much more clearance there is above the plane. It seems to me that the trees in IL2 are x2 times shorter than in the vid. I understand there are different type of trees with di
  18. for the most part all that matters in IL2 multi-player scene is the stall characteristics of the airplane as the up close and personal dog fights always end up with who stays the slowest and in control. E7 shines at it. LAGG and I-16 are both second, but they get veeery twitchy at low speeds Mc202 is somewhere between LAGG and IL2, extremely twitchy but learnable. πŸ˜„
  19. you're in Multi Player. The player-to-server-to-player latency is the cause of all of your observations. Load up Single Player and attempt to do everything you described in a quick mission. There will be a noticeable difference.
  20. I know I have the record for holding the most unpopular ideas, but hear me out. "Historical Planeset" seems to be the axiom, the de-facto standard for the early war years, i.e. 1940/41. From the documentary perspective that's what happened during the WWII. But what I don't fully understand is why the players on this servers have to endure the realities for WWII when Axis outnumbered the VVS 2.5:1 or even 3:1 and with the crappy but "historical" planeset? We are not fighting historical war scenarios. There's just a dynamic map with its objectives and the too
×
×
  • Create New...