Jump to content

BM357_TinMan

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

113 Excellent

About BM357_TinMan

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1182 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. I just have to say. That was pretty awesome.
  3. and Dragon.... Launch scrub due to weather inside of t mins 17.... Looks like going to try again on the ?30th?
  4. 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.
  5. Yeah, it would be nice if it was somehow phased instead of an abrupt render render render then, non render.
  6. Doesn't look like the map goes far enough north for Leiston AFB.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.....
  12. I never did try them with IL2-GB as, I don't believe that they would work with this title. I no longer own them because, I don't fly FSX or XP 11 anymore and I have made the switch to VR for flying in IL2 GB or DCS; so I sold them. The concept was really nice, and when they worked, it was nice to have physical gauges to glance down at but they were always a bit twitchy and there wasn't a whole ton of support out there for them. VR works almost as well for glancing down at gauges and will get better as resolution and field of view improves.
  13. I really like both PWCG and the stock campaign. But, I kind of liked the old stock one as well (it just tended to get tedious after awhile). Once AI communications are sorted out, both options well be great choices for wwII combat av sim
  14. FYI, I recently took the VR plunge and OMG the immersion is unparalleled. I used three monitors for years with trackIR and it is good but, it just can't compete. That being said, until VR doubles the resolution, the low resolution of VR almost offsets the immersion factor that is gained; and I have to say, imho, until the resolution is upped to an acceptable level, three/four monitors, if you have them, is the slightly better option.
×
×
  • Create New...