Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dave

  1. Cool. I can resurrect my DIY VR helmet project (which incidentally predates Oculus VR the Rift). There were things I didn't like about Rift anyway.
  2. Ha! I remember that hit. I was waiting for a perfect tracking shot when BOOM! At first I thought the wing had failed due to some earlier overstress. But when I realised I'd been bounced by a wildcard I suspected that the damage model may have had exploding magazines added. I just saw something flash up on chat for a millisecond before I was dropped to the map view where chat isn't available until you've served your "time". I had a really good time all weekend. I have to say a whole new level above the already great fun I have playing RoF. I'm most grateful I can make full use of the vertical now - where most of my tricks are kept .
  3. It forces you to think carefully about your aircraft's relative strengths and weaknesses. We may not have E-M diagrams to compare but we can do what some historic pilots did (like Wanderzirkus Rosarius) and fly both aircraft to get a feel for and compare their performance envelopes.
  4. Dave


    The time of useful consciousness at 20,000' is > 30 minutes. So you'd have to spend almost the entire map rotation on a typical server at this altitude for hypoxia to become relevant. While the service ceilings of the aircraft in question are circa 40,000' almost all historical engagements in this theatre took place at very low altitude. Dogfights tend to quickly burn altitude anyway, and the party who's performance envelope advantages lie at lower altitude will drag the fight down. On a less historical note, I don't think I've ever seen aircraft in WW2 sims operating at 20,000' let alone 40,000'. On a personal experience note, the effects of hypoxia would be difficult to model, as they are initially subtle and cognitive in nature and vary from person to person. This is why military aircrew undergo AvMed training in hypobaric chambers to learn their own particular onset symptoms. Mine were basic math failure, tiredness, lack of ability to concentrate and forgetting things like my name followed by the gradual loss of colour vision as time progressed. I don't see how you could represent any but the last of those, and other guys had different symptoms. Most people didn't even realise they were hypoxic until they'd done it more than once and watched the videos.
  5. Not that I've experienced.
  6. And I always wore earplugs to block out as much of that as possible too.
  7. I have had the same issue using TIR5 with RoF and BoS. I transition to looking over my (virtual) shoulder before i reach the point of looking straight up as the lock at 90 degrees, the pause and following rapid rotation to a rear over-shoulder attitude can be very disorienting just when you really need to retain focus and tracking. It would be less of an issue (smoother transition) if the point where the view locks was a bit aft of vertical.
  8. This is almost trivial to implement - but I do question its relative priority. Blocking the axis-mapped input (throttle) would be the wrong approach. Better would be to ignore the key-mapped input (flap extend/retract) for the duration of any concurrent throttle input. This would not benefit HOTAS users as the Target programming software simply automates the key strokes - which would be ignored just as completely as if they had been manually triggered. I think this is fair regardless of aircraft type - all the modern aircraft (with HOTAS controls) I've flown had the flap lever located off the throttle. Incidentally on the PC-9 this lever is below and obstructed by the PCL - which resulted in an aircraft loss in the circuit once.
  9. Reading lots of bad reports but I experienced smooth as butter gameplay and no crashes at all. I'm in Australia and was playing all weekend on US servers. I observed maybe 5 players lagging (teleporting forward and backward) over the course of 2 days. Each was a European player on a US server - so no surprise. My ping was about 180-200 throughout. No idea what my FPS was but it was subjectively no worse than playing Rise Of Flight. I was playing with high settings at 2250x1280 resolution on a single GTX670 ( as SLI is disabled ) so I can't fault the rendering. Other machine details are in the sig should you want to know for performance feedback. I noticed two minor issues: 1. If I failed to check the SLI (which I thought was disabled anyway) checkbox on the launcher window the game black-screened and failed to even display the IL2 splash screen. 2. With my 3 screen setup (portrait mode) all the important preflight UI information (eg server player numbers) seems to fall exactly on the bezels (which I eliminate with a custom resolution to avoid stepping across the bezels). All in all I was very impressed with the stability and standard of MP at such an early stage of development. Well done.
  10. Exactly. This was the reality. The guy with the best eyesight had a huge advantage. I use the same things to tell them apart as oneeyeddog. In planform the 109 wing seems to have higher aspect and a more squared-off appearance. The Lagg has more rounded form and has much wider chord at the wing root. In profile it is harder but the belly radiator and lower cowl look distinctly different. In planform the Luftwaffe crosses should be clear mid wing. Inverted, the red stars against the sky blue belly stand out on the Lagg. In profile the yellow nose stands out on the 109. The Lagg also APPEARS to have slightly more dihedral when viewed from behind slightly off tail in a turn (even though it doesn't in reality). I suspect this might be an illusion created by the wider wing root of the Lagg when viewed from this angle. If the only view I've had of a contact is 180 AOT I don't shoot. In this case I turn gently away (gain horizontal separation) from what would otherwise be a head-on pass at the merge and set up for a hard reversal or zoom climb as soon as I see any planform or colour.
  11. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. I have high resolution monitors so I do see detailed silhouettes at reasonable distances. In terms of differentiating friend from foe the game seems satisfyingly realistic to my eyes. At first they all look the same. But after a while you easily recognise aircraft by their planforms, and a little later you can differentiate their profiles easily enough. I don't use zoom at all. I hate the whole idea of zoom and IFF icons. They turn a game of stalking and tactical pre-planning into an arcade shooter IMHO. There shouldn't even be an option to enable them.
  12. Type of improvement: Audio / Communication Explanation of proposal: Integrated radio communications with discrete, cockpit-selectable frequencies The best example of what I'd like can be found in the ACRE mod to ARMA2. Radio capabilities such as range, noise, rain and terrain fade, and discrete (squad, company, command) channels are all modelled. Integrated radio is preferable to Teamspeak for many reasons. Effects due to range, topology and atmospherics can be modelled for a more authentic experience. "Channels" can be changed in flight by element leads to switch between element and wing frequencies. You can optionally configure 2 channels concurrently (eg element in right audio channel - wing in left). TS squatting by opposing players is foiled and endless inane chatter by people outside your element doesn't clutter the aether. It also adds to the immersion, from pre-flight planning and briefing to in-flight element coordination. Benefits: More immersive gameplay. Tighter integration of radio with game features. If you look well forward, voice recognition to replace AI element key-bindings could be an extension.
  13. Type of improvement: Graphics / UI Explanation of proposal: Improve multiple display support Specifically I would like improved 3-screen support, but a more general solution would allow as many displays as the GPUs can drive. I have a 3 monitor 4K setup (3 x 2560x1440) that I can't really use well with RoF and (consequently) BoS. BoS currently relies upon the graphics driver to coalesce multiple screens (eg nVidia surround) into a single screen buffer. It would be more flexible if the game could directly drive the three screens independently. As I understand this adds quite a bit of complexity, a compromise would allow the user to independently select the vertical and horizontal field of view for the current single display. For example, arranged in landscape 3 QHD screens have a 48:9 aspect ratio. Currently this is not well supported, with a lower aspect ratio projection instead being stretched to fit the wide screen. I have tried using 3 screens in landscape with RoF and BoS without much joy, so I currently am forced to arrange the three screens in portrait for a more conventional aspect ratio. In so doing I have lost the peripheral vision benefits that were the point of buying 3 large screens. Mine might be an edge case but I suspect at least the compromise of user-selectable vfov and hfov to be relatively simple to implement. At some point, if it is ever supported, I'd like to move to a hemispherical projection system - so the more general solution of mapping multiple arbitrary viewports to displays would be the best solution for me, if a fair bit more complex to deliver. Benefits: MUCH more immersive gameplay. The value of peripheral vision tends to go unnoticed until you lose it. A fighter pilot spends the vast majority of his time scanning the sky. Especially when defensive, the importance of peripheral vision to SA is huge. Things like TrackIR help with the scanning but the only solution for peripheral vision is enveloping displays.
  • Create New...