Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dave

  1. I just finished raving about this to a friend.The sense of scale and presence cannot be overstated. Many things are so much more natural and easily accomplished , such as looking around the cockpit and sighting. And low level flight - wow. But I will definitely need some time to desensitise for sickness. I lasted about 4 minutes at low level maneuvering before the sweats became too intense. I have hundreds of real hours including many many hours of aerobatics and illegally low level flying and I got pretty queasy in VR, this being my first VR flight. So to those feeling sick at first - it says nothing of your real world sensitivity. I'm just hoping I can desensitise quick so I don't have to spend too long in SP. One thing that seems to go unsaid - certainly it surprised me - was how so convincing the immersion was for my brain that I swore I could feel the accelerations through my seat - that and the feeling of really being inside the cockpit make it worth every penny even with the resolution limitations today.
  2. Phew - my $449 (inc international delivery) just arrived.
  3. Yep. Was pointing out that as you increase speed you need left rudder not right. The FM treatment seems very good to me now. Even required trim settings, and their control effectiveness, are as I would expect. Even the skating rink ground handling and incorrect strut compression on take off roll (it was the wrong strut - ie they had the aircraft torquing in the wrong direction) has been fixed. It's not a stellar climber or speed demon - and that is accurate. I think some of my subjective perception of improvement is also due to the relative turn performance improvement against the 109s. I can now employ period correct maneuvers in engagements against 109s and they actually work. The 2.012 update has transformed both the P40 and the game as a whole for me such that I no longer want to delete it from my PC. Edit: Oh - and you will no longer have to suffer me complaining in MP about the previously rampant stabiliser abuse. Yay for you.
  4. Soon I hope. I have designed a simpit based around the P51D airframe blueprints I have but seem to be too readily distracted by playing BoX to get off my sore arse and fabricate it. Maybe the arrival of my Rift today will spur me to finish it. As you can see I've made an effort to pad it but after an hour or so you feel every grain in that wood - trust me.
  5. Cessna 172 (an exceedingly stable aircraft) spins beautifully stably. No wild oscillation in pitch or angular velocity. Easily recovered even from fully developed spin. PC-9A - quite agile in pitch and roll whilst being sufficiently stable for advanced pilot training - spins quite quickly and rolls inverted on spin entry (typically to the left) - has a noticeable oscillation in angular velocity with a distinct nose down attitude once established in the spin. Unless there is some translation problem here this doesn't gel with your assertion. By "stable spin" do you mean deeply stalled spin? And by "unstable" aircraft do you mean in pitch or roll or both? If you are talking about aircraft with rearward CoG I might agree. I'd be more inclined to say that spins can be harder to recover in aircraft with rearward CoGs due to a reduced nose down attitude tending to hold the aircraft stalled in the spin. Edit: Source - I have done plenty of spin-recoveries in each.
  6. I am very pleased with the FM update to the extent that I have been able to test it thus far (P40 handling is much more consistent with first hand accounts). Regarding the stall and spin behaviour, I have discussed personally the stall characteristics of the P40 with pilots who flew or fly it. They all agree that the low speed stall (the one we all practiced repeatedly when converting to type) is benign and preceded by plenty of buffet. According to them, during such a stall you have to be out of balance for any spin to develop. If you let the spin develop it is upright, not fast, and easily recovered using neutral stick and full opposite rudder (like every aircraft I have flown) as long as you begin recovery before about 3 revolutions. If you allow the spin to fully develop, as in many other aircraft, all the control surfaces will stall and it will be much harder to recover, and require significantly more altitude to do so. Warnings about sudden stalls and violent spins in this type are all with respect to accelerated stalls, and stalls when severely out of trim (yaw) - which makes plenty of sense due to the likelihood of a much higher delta in airspeed between each wingtip.
  7. Pretty sure its the other way around. Web distribution uses HTTP to download update files (in a single HTTP connection) from a server on AWS. The alternative (and default) is to use P2P where the chunks are seeded by others who have already downloaded parts of the update.
  8. You may not care, but your site doesn't render correctly on Safari, Chrome or Firefox on Mac. Looks like your viewport size detection either isn't working or doesn't exist - ie you have chosen fixed viewport dimensions. Based on this I'd say it probably doesn't work on mobile devices either.
  9. Master server was available at 11:30 UTC. But Wings Of Latency and anything else in Russia/Europe seem to be impossible to connect to reliably. I'm guessing there is an Internet peering issue somewhere. Thanks guys for the remote reports. Forum seems snappy now too.
  10. Forum access also painfully slow. I am in Australia if that has anything to do with it.
  11. First noticed at ~ 10:00 UTC. Still unreachable 45 minutes later.
  12. If it weren't for Catalinas the Japanese carriers would not have been spotted despite Nimitz having a rough idea of where to look. If it weren't for mechanical failures and unfortunate timing the Japanese reconnaissance float-planes might have discovered the US fleet to the north much earlier resulting in a different outcome. Do not underestimate the importance of these aircraft in the PTO. The Japanese lacked radar on their surface fleet and the USN radar had short range. It was almost always the Catalinas (and subs) that provided the vital enemy bearing and disposition information on which Nimitz, Spruance and Halsey based their tactics. For people who care about realistic battles the seaplanes matter; more so if mission makers build the tactical need into their missions rather than ship YAAQM. I'm confident the development team have this in hand. Edit: PS: The "do not underestimate ..." was not directed to Shamrock but at the nest quote which failed to copy. FWIW I'd rather see the Philippine Sea, Leyte Gulf or Guadalcanal - the tactical situations, aircraft mix, carrier options, surface combatants (read targets) and land/sea diversity are more appealing to me.
  13. The glaring flaw in these statistics is that they aren't weighted by time and so are misrepresentative of the experience in-game at a given point in time. What I have observed in many cases where the balance is way out, is that the side with much lower player count (when it occurs this is typically the VVS) experiences high churn throughout the round. This means that while there may be, say 40 players who fly VVS over the course of the round, at any given time there are much fewer (eg 12) with many getting fed up with the odds and leaving after a short period of time. Players arrive, try to address the imbalance, get fed up, leave. So I am regularly surprised to find at the end of a round that the server reports that there were more-or-less even teams (if you simply add up the number who played for a side at any time during the round). These are the numbers from which the statistics on IL2stats are generated it seems. The teams aren't always so unbalanced as to detract from the game, but it is a persistent trend and often manifests in extremis.
  14. And this is one part of any Pacific expansion that I am really not looking forward to. I feel as though, after 4 years of flying on the handicapped side, I have "done my service" and when the Allied side finally gets a break I won't be able to benefit as I will again feel obliged to fly for the outnumbered. I wonder if the same people who chant "realism" when defending imbalance now will abandon realism and change factions mid-war when the tide turns against them. Actually ... no I don't.
  15. LOL. Did you read that before posting?
  16. Can you please link to the thread you are referring to or just PM me. Thanks.
  17. Someone's ADD prevented them from reading the whole thread before acting like a child.
  18. You are quite justified in this position of course, but consider that everyone else paid a pretty penny also and for those that did so to play MP many currently endure a consistently shit experience due to the selfishness of others.
  19. I think it is certainly possible to strongly encourage the behaviour we'd like - ie reasonably balanced teams and cooperative mission-driven behaviour - through better mission design. For example, wannabe Hartmanns shouldn't be punished for wanting to fly fighters, but a whole team of 30 Hartmanns hovering over a handful of persistent Pe2s should be actively thwarted by mission design. I certainly don't have all the answers on how this can be achieved but I do believe it is possible. One idea would be to reward interdiction objectives by reducing supplies of certain aircraft types - you could think of it as a loss of fuel, oil, spares and ammunition for example. A similar idea I have seen work well on other servers is resupply of forward airfields. Supplementary AI pilots to bolster human player numbers and generally improve "player" density could also help (but may be too costly in compute resources). A more dynamic fluid battlespace where the success or failure of ground objectives have real and immediate consequences for the flow of the game is the biggest single improvement I can think of here and would be a major step forward in gameplay over the relatively sterile environments that are WoL missions IMHO. It also seems to me (might just be bad luck or perception) that WoL missions tend to be predominantly set in the early period of the eastern conflict which is a major disincentive to would-be VVS flyers. The most crucial ingredient in my own frustration however is the lack of communication between players. After years of AA and ARMA2 I just can't fathom why people trying to fly planes that generally lack trim would rather type in chat than coordinate their efforts as a team using TeamSpeak. It simply defies logic. For those that do use voice comms there is the next hurdle of server fragmentation. Why does every clan (sometimes every pilot) insist on being the only person on their own private TeamSpeak or Discord server? Irrespective of its other virtues, if a communications medium doesn't support team communication it has failed - completely. In this vein ARMA2 had an outstanding radio mod called ACRE that accurately modelled the characteristics of the various radios in use in the simulated environment and it so enhanced immersion and engagement that everybody got on comms for a more authentic experience. Why can't this be done for BoX (at least for the latter battles where the VVS had fitted radios)? Why is this not a built in feature of the game? I mean leaving radio comms out of a combat flight sim is like leaving weapons out of an FPS. I've just finished a long contract and have a little spare time at least for a month or two before I start another. I'd like to work with anyone else who wants to improve the current options wrt to missions. I can easily host a server (yes yet another BoX server) on AWS for this purpose. What would help me out is some other peoples' ideas on what could be improved and what would encourage them to leave WOL to play on a US-hosted server. My preference is to host in the US because I am personally located in Australia close to the arsehole of the Internet and if I'm to be paying the hosting bills I'm not going to suffer the 400 ping I currently get on WOL.
  20. They're not targets if they are all above and behind you. The only card the OP has to play in the usual scenario seen here is to use the energy deficit briefly to its only advantage and outmaneuver to force an overshoot. While a good pilot can do this all day long 1 v 1 it simply isn't possible to do this consistently with 3 v 1. None of us wade into 3 on 1 voluntarily and I'd wager VVS flyers are MUCH more cautious of that than LW simply because VVS never get to choose to disengage.
  21. Umm - thats pretty much the VVS experience all the time. Made worse by at least one WoL mission builder's penchant for hobbling the almost-competitive-in-a-1-v-2 Yak1 with rockets because he thinks its OP.
  22. Man this made me LOL so loud I woke my wife up.
  23. Well I paid $3000 for my two "low end" GTX Titan Blacks 2 years ago, so it hurt a little when I had to drop another $1300 for a 1080Ti to meet your standards. At least one reason this sucked was that I was getting 80-120FPS with my SLI Titans on every other AAA title I played when BoX shat itself all over my cards.
  • Create New...