Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About JG4Helofly

  • Rank
  1. That's the best WW2 game music ever. Brings back memories
  2. I really appreciate that you did something about the frame thickness, but the two major problems remain: Revi too high = POV too high = bad instrument visibility
  3. I would also favor a realistic cockpit view over a realistic 3D model. The present model has 3 unrealistic flaws: 1. gun sight is mounted too high because they have to compensate for the thick "bar" 2. forward view is restricted 3. because of the high gun sight the head position is too high and therefore many intruments are unreadable from the normal head position. Changing the 3D model to unrealistic dimensions would introduce one flaw, but on the other hand, eliminate three others. So from my point of view, this seems to be the better way.
  4. Well, at least this time the revi has been adjusted so that the bar does not affect aim. The fact that many instruments are invisible is much more inconvenient. Btw. the picture posted by Feathered with the thinner frame looks much more close to reality. This would allow to lower the gun sight and therefore the head position. Maybe after such a modification it would be possible to see more instruments.
  5. This looks actually exactly like the revi in Forgotten Battles. Same hight with part of the ligth circle obstructed by the bar.
  6. Has anyone noticed that the gun sight is mounted way higher than the real one you see in the pictures? Also it seems that the the virtual sight line is to high, therefore you can't see all the instruments when in the standard position. These two things could be related to the thickness of the bar. Since they had to compensate for it, they had to elevate the gun sight and of course raise the head position accordingly. Apart from that, the 190 feels very good in the air. It's very stable and nice to fly. Also the elevator stiffness at high speeds is realistic. From what I have read about it's flight characteristics, this model seems to come very close. Well done!
  7. So, how realistic should it be and who decides what is and is not fun? I am a full real flyer, because of the challenge. But others might like lables to better see the enemy or fly without cockpit. Is my definition of fun better or worse than the other? And what is the problem of having a game with a wide range of realism with arcade/realism options?
  8. You mean the special 50. cal. round with depleted uranium? Then I would recommend the old il2 game "forgotten physics" (old ubi forum joke)
  9. As we can see here, everybody has his idea of realism. That's because IL2, Clod, ... are games and not simulators. For some it's about the immersion and the story, for some others it's about dogfighting etc. I respect every opinion. For me it's about realistic FM, DM and CEM. I don't care about a realistic start sequence. Just having to push the "I" button is enough for me. The important point is that I have control over important systems like radiator controls, mixture, supercharger etc. as long as it's important for engine management, because it's part of the challenge to get the skills that will enable you to get the best out of the airplane and prevent it from breaking down. But this discussion about realism seems a bit strange when it comes to a WW2 game, because the complexity of the aircrafts of this time periode is very limited. Most planes have automatic controles over prop pitch, radiator flaps etc. I would have suspected to see this in the DCS forum.
  • Create New...