Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

107 Excellent

About BM357_TinMan

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1035 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.....
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. OMG does this company need a PR department...
  10. But, seriously, what does WT get modeled correctly anyway....amirite? 😉
  11. almost my exact sentiment. Only difference is, I don't actively dislike the Spitfire. I am more indifferent to it
  12. Mouse over tooltips anyone......
  13. I have tried the "having both open" thing several months ago and, unless something has changed, this is nothing more than a work around that mostly works. It is NOT the way it is designed to work and doesn't always work correctly.
  14. The problem with it isn't that it is powerful or complex. The fact that it is complex could be a stumbling block to a portion of users but would not be insurmountable to even most of those. The problem with the ME is: It is clunky in some ways (no undo option, no option to select objects in the tree the same as on the screen, an easy/straightforward way to ungroup things, no way to reorder the tree (that I know of) are just some examples of this) and, holy crap, testing missions is such a pain as you can't have both the ME and the game open at the same time.....so much time spent opening, closing, opening, closing.....just to learn how to do something new properly. There are options that are broken, or not implemented, or not implemented in a way that makes sense The documentation is incomplete and not up to date. The fact that most of us that have learned what we do know about how to use it comes from user based tutorials and a cobbled together user guide updated from ROF is testament to this. If there was an up to date, comprehensive user manual was available, the "complex" part of the issue wouldn't even be so much of an issue.
  • Create New...