Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

127 Excellent

About BM357_TinMan

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1271 profile views
  1. So, I spend most of my time in the other Combat sim only because they have systems modeled. I can switch fuel tanks, I can flip the switch to change the gauge (when it is one of those gauges that serves more than on purpose, like different fuel tanks on one gauge, or water and oil temp share the same gauge, etc). Oil presure/temp, water temp, etc, actually impact performance and is modeled. weapon systems control is modeled more realistically....etc. anyway. my personal opinion is, this sim looks better, works better and, in single player at least, is way more fun. If even some attention was given to systems modeling, I, for one, would fly this more than I do.
  2. Thanks for the reply, but..... Yes, I know about the licenses page but, you have to cross check it with the store and that can be a bit of a problem as, first of all this is just kind of cumbersome in itself but can be even more onerous when some collector planes are part of the premium titles that were purchased.
  3. While I understand the people who feel a bit let down by the announcement, and I even agree with those that say the price may be a bit steep, my two cents here is this: PLEASE FIX YOUR STORE THAT IT SHOWS WHAT IS ALREADY IN YOUR LIBRARY AND WHAT IS NOT!! This has always been a bit of a pain as you had to see what you have with the premium paks and what "collector" planes were not, what you had bought, what you had not but, if IC is going to branch out into more and more add on modules like this, other planes, and scripted campaigns, they really need to have a "in library" badge on items in their store.
  4. You also have to take into consideration that (and please, this is not a criticism of the game), this sim's engine would need significant updates, upgrades and additions to even simulate an a high fidelity aircraft. This would have to be considered along side the cost of developing the aircraft itself.
  5. I just have to say. That was pretty awesome.
  6. and Dragon.... Launch scrub due to weather inside of t mins 17.... Looks like going to try again on the ?30th?
  7. I'm pretty sure that I see the circle on the DCS Normandy map. I'd have to load it up to be sure I'm not talking b.s. and getting the two confused, but I'm pretty sure there is a forest tree render circle there as well. I understand the need for it, I just wish it was "blended" better so it wasn't so abrupt and noticeable.
  8. Yeah, it would be nice if it was somehow phased instead of an abrupt render render render then, non render.
  9. Doesn't look like the map goes far enough north for Leiston AFB.
  10. I spend almost all my time "flying" in DCS but every now and again, I fire up IL2. I did this last night and, every time I do, with only a few exceptions, I am always impressed by the overall superior "polished" feel of IL2 GB and the image quality in VR. Hands down, the overall platform of IL2 GB is just … better. The hard work the developers have put in over the years really tells. and I use VR and there is another area where the developers have done and outstanding job. I am always amazed at how good everything looks when I am "flying" in IL2 GB. Not that the other looks bad, just that this looks so much better. Obviously, there is always room for improvement, but, thus far, one thing that can be counted on is, improvements, fixed, feature additions, etc, happen here and happen faster, more often and more consistently.
  11. Yeah, the "over the top fanboi-ness" can be a bit of a turn off It is too bad that the AI does things like this. I like the water on the windscreen effect and the new physics thing is pretty cool; however, I'd been happier if that effort was put into fixing player to AI/AI to AI coms and AI behavior/decision making.
  12. I, for one, love the more realistic sim aspect of the newer combat sim (IL2 GB and DCS). However, the more complex and realistic these become, the more of a barrier to entry is thrown up to new, intrepid players. In a uber-realistic, very well done race sim, a guy can fire it up, pick a track, pick a car and start hammering down the road at break neck, fun speeds. All he has to worry about is, steering, braking, accelerating and, now days mostly, paddle shifting as needed. These are all things that almost everybody does daily. The barrier to entry is WAY lower and the "jump in and have fun" time lag is all but non-existent. Not so with IL2 GB or DCS. Heck, with DCS, I have modules I've bought and never flown because I haven't had the time to "learn" how to fly them. IMO, this is why WT was as popular as it was. The barrier to entry (read learning curve) was way lower. This is why it always baffled me when the purist snobs scoff at things like, "wonder woman view" or "air quake servers". These are things that hold little (air quake servers) to no (wonder woman view) appeal to me, but I can easily see how, if they were available, would only serve to draw more players in and KEEP THEM INTERESTED. As new players advance and become more comfortable and enthralled, they will gravitate to the more realistic settings. But, being slammed with them at the outset will only serve to drive all but the most devoted off. Seriously. A new player with little time doesn't not want to spend 20-30 minutes flying around mostly blind on an awesome realistic m/p map only to get bounced from, what to him, seems like out of nowhere.
  13. I often take time to come here and complain about things in this title that I don’t like or wish was different so, I feel it incumbent upon me to post a positive statement when warranted. By way of comparison, I spend most of my time in the other one for no other reason other than the fact that I’m that guy that gets satisfaction out of having to change tanks, flip this switch or move that knob, etc. However, every time I come back to IL Great Battles and fly it for any amount of time, I am always impressed at the huge disparity in “completeness” and “polish” between the two titles. IL2 Great Battles is much more refined (except in the AI department) and has a much higher feeling of being “done” and lacks that "forever beta" feeling. Plus, improvements and fixes to this title are put out faster and with a higher degree of regularity and consistency. Anyway, just a long winded way of saying, keep up the good work, developers of this title. Amid all the complaining and grousing that I have been party to, the level of work and dedication shown to your product is not unnoticed.
  14. I'm only speaking from what I think might be true so, take it for what it's worth but: I think the way it works in reality is, you can set it to "first" or "automatic". You can engage the second stage but you have to hold it there if you want to engage the second stage manually. edit - and it looks like someone already posted this answer in a post above.....
  • Create New...