Jump to content

=RS=Stix_09

Members
  • Content Count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

86 Excellent

About =RS=Stix_09

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Remote control cars helicopters and planes . Motorcycles. Games that require you to use your brain (and occasionally some that don't)

Recent Profile Visitors

1061 profile views
  1. I've seen a few of Zetexy vids, he does a nice job with his vids. that's done on the new detailed tank map i will be getting tc and fc as soon as released
  2. This is a good reference to compare gun ammunition from ww2 planes that I use, covers the majority major ammo types/size/ for ww2 (over the period) and give some comparisons of firepower, showing how it increased during the war time period. The pictures of the various cartridges are also interesting. http://quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
  3. If you don't build missions there is a lot you prob do not know about damage modelling in the game. A lot of the stuff I know is from experimenting as much is not documented. (some great community stuff , very little developer docs tho) We are always experimenting to work out how things are done, much is left undocumented. I can tell you that mission builders can make bombs very effective or very ineffective depending on how they set the health of buildings(this impacts splash damage from large bombs too). I can also confirm that some buildings (or a sub-parts of a object) do not show visible damage , (they can not be destroyed). When and how a target is destroyed has a lot to do with how a mission is built (what triggers and counters are used to say when a target is destroyed, so its not a cut and dry damage system and to how targets are destroyed in missions). There is also limits on what a mission builder can do. So based on this you are going to get very inconsistent results , depending on how the mission is built. Also: Player/AI controllable planes/vehicles vs static planes/vehicles have very different damage models. Static planes/vehicles have a health set by mission builder, same as say a building, its a binary destroyed or not destroyed. Player controllable planes/vehicles have damage model set by developers and not changeable by mission builders, and much more sophisticated , its not a binary DM like static objects). Internals parts of a player/AI controllable plane/vehicle can be damaged without much visible damage being shown. So visible damage is not a reliable guide to internal component damage.. Generally AP rounds cause this type of damage the most. Also some buildings are not a single entity , they are a single object made of multiple parts (up to around 50 parts on large objects like a large factory) , each part has a binary damage model, but the mission builder can only work with it as a single entity. Because different mission builders have different knowledge of game mechanics , online and offline missions very considerably in how things are destroyed in a game.
  4. I started with an xbox controller and a mouse to view, now I have a much better setup. Its all part of getting into sims. You can buy the same head tracker (all hardware premade done) I have with ps3 eye cam on ebay for $50US (if you just want a off shelf no assemby required solution). (my post is pined below video in comments with details and info on setup (article by BlackHellHound1 on setup from this forum is very good ), just need to get software(free online) works fantastic.
  5. I fly RC model planes and I can confirm camo warbirds against the treeline they can be very hard to see IRL. Even at relatively close distances, when you know they are there(specially with a thin profile) . And this is from a stationary stable viewpoint. It adds another layer to RC flying difficulty, and can cause disorientation of plane direction (with less experience, confusion of facing direction against a bright background is another issue with warbirds). High contrast colour planes are a lot easier to fly as a result.. They were painted for a reason with camo. Not many people get to see real warbirds against forest backgrounds (in Russia like in game) from another plane and certainly not in combat scenario, so making IRL comparisons against today's civilian planes (painted for the opposite reason) outside that context I would say is not a good comparison. I don't think its quite as unrealistic as some seem to think. Weather and light levels , in game this should impact visibility (which it does, a good thing). Profile and lighting does have a big impact IRL. The game does a very good job I think, and although the spotting in Il-2 GB is harder (than titles like IL-2 COD , which I also enjoy) , it's more realistic IMHO. With the new updates It should improve (though its more about distance viewing). We at least get less pronounced , pop in out like we currently do at about 9.5 km, but this update from my reading is not targeting what is being discussed here. Regarding the icons: The system in GB is not a great one for those that want it . COD and Il-2 1946 (same roots) has a much better system (customisation) which I hope that gets looked at too at some point, it needs to be adjustable, (some want large , some what smaller). There are different situations I want icons and on and off and def levels of info and details , ie more flexibility on how its done currently (this would only improve MPlayer servers that do have icons enabled, and offline play too). And one thing I know for certain , not everyone will like anything that is done by the developers. Its a game an not IRL , and so we have a wide range of opinions on what is "the Best solution". There is no "best solution" for everyone, only a middle ground (wide opinions in sim community) Having more configuration options to enable on/off is not a bad thing, having not enough is (for Mplay and offline). But that doesn't mean the game can't help deal with hardware limitations to make a more enjoyable experience (res, contrast, field of view etc).There is always room to improve, but this is not going to be a one fit solution. Good discussion thread, it's def something everyone wants.
  6. If you read the DD 228 carefully its only taking about G load impacting visuals and hearing loss and loss of consciousness , there is nothing about modelling reduced stick movements. It discusses fatigue being modelled in that these effects apply sooner , and some sort of recovery time. So pilots can have different fatigue levels depending on previous G load exposure and time periods or recovery. also this I think some are reading what is not there. Prob a good idea to wait and see how its implemented before we jump the gun.
  7. I agree with video , its main reason I prefer 2D vs VR. VR is good its just not yet at the level I want it to be , (in game tech , (software) not just hardware). Re spotting IMHO, the game needs to add in stuff to deal with colour and contrast loss and res loss compared to a human eye IRL to make contacts a bit easier to spot especially against things like heavy tree backgounds for eg. The new updated coming are going to add new contacts spotting distance , but I don't think its aimed at improving close spotting against contrasty backgrounds like trees. From my reading its all about distance spotting... DD link And IL-2 COD uses a DOT system at distance , quite different to il-2 GB , I prefer how its done in IL-2 GB (as do the developers from above quote), But it still needs work on current spotting ability. I think ALSO part of the problem currently is not so much movement in plane in a screen image , but the movement effects we also get in the background image around the plane.(which is why blurring the background helps). And and people have stated already , the human eyes sees better movement contrast (goes back to animal hunting , how eye evolved). With hardware limitations and different setups people have, its not an easy problem to solve. ie high movement contrast helps spotting.(any aberrations in the background image impact this, which is worse against things like trees) So to deal with resolution and aliasing issues artificial contrasting on the plane is needed.
  8. In multiplayer having extra information is an advantage, so it would have to be a server setting. I'm not a fan of any load bars , on a screen , it's immersion breaking. far more than a slight low volume heavy breathing sound is (done well it works , overdone it doesn't) Colour loss/sounds or something is better than that, a damn digital bar. I like the way this is done on COD, but no matter what is done there will always be people that complain. Some want the arcade experience some want it more real.(though its prob wrong sim for arcade guys) I personally feel , you can't make it too real , its not possible...half of the players would get dizzy and vomit or have seizures at the keyboard, and no one would want to fly a sim 🤮 Have a look at how much vibration is actually in a cockpit , see this 109 video.(also note how cramped it is compared to in-game head movement, which would be impossible in a real BF109, unless you have a pinhead 👽) Its more vibration than a pilot would see himself as camera is hard mounted on cockpit, but it still shows how much vibration is present) Only a middle ground is possible to give a feel (doesn't need to be 100 accurate, I don't want all that vibration modelled or my head position pushed around by g loads for example). All I want is better immersion than a static cockpit like we currently have in IL-2 GB. I'm not keen either of feeling sick at my keyboard when I fly...none of us want that. Neither do i like to fly with realistic sound levels in the cockpit or wear ear muffs... but we all want more immersion tho... PS I hope you VR guys did not puke watching this video....🤢
  9. CLOD is not a new sim its been around for years (those specs are more than fine for cod) and should be fine for quite some time in COD (for non VR user) IL-2 Great Battles series also should be fine. I use a gtx1070 graphics card on 2k 32" (1440p) screen and I run max setings in IL-2 COD and Il-2 GB with 60+ fps A gtx 1060 would be fine for 1080p resolution. An I5 (recent one, ie Intel Core I5 6500 or better is advised) you can see my system specs below) I would also advise 16GB+ RAM (memory) I have not gone VR yet as I just don't feel it's at a place , $ vs performance(and feature wise) wise I am happy with, so for now I'm staying 2D. (hardware in my country is 2x the US$ price, so a gtx 1080 is damn expensive here and VR is also. VR is good , but not yet at a mainsteam place (I have high VR requirements and VR is not there yet) that I want to spend that much on a pc, I can wait , but this is personal choice)
  10. I'm looking forward to having this in game , I wonder how it will compare to Cliffs of Dover's, implementation of it. Personally I like CODs implementation of it. It works and doesn't impact my ability to fly too much but give a feel of more realism than IL- GB very static environment. According to wiki page on Ju 87 pilots faced significant high G loads during dive bombing. WW2 fighters were very physically demanding environments, vibrations, under load stresses (sounds also) on plane, and pilot. If done well could add greatly to the experience. IL-2 GB is currently lacking realism a bit in cockpit, sounds and visual effects are very minimal currently IMHO. I'm hoping its done well , cause is could be great (or bad if over done) Good luck to the devs on doing this well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87#G-force_test_at_Dessau
  11. Mosquito is cool plane but was the involved in Bodenplatte? (because we will have no chance to get it if it wasn't)
  12. Prob a good idea to at least read the opening post for the topic under discussion though right.... I apologise , I've now joined the nitpickers and complainers now as well.... woe is me... (FYI: I only just read this thread in last 24 hrs)
  13. Ah no... , its not final version of terrrain its work in progress... whys it so hard to read stuff when ppl post questions already answered... Quote: "It does not include the new cloud systems and weather, or other details such as rock formations or rocky abutments, distance views, etc. etc. which will be seen in the final version."
  14. I think we need to see the new system in action first before we start adding load bars etc to the game. Its all about immersion. I'm all for adding in extra visual or audio queues to counter the lack of physical feeling feedback that is not possible in a game (because in a game we only have sight and sound senses and a monitor and sound system (not as accurate as IRL either , ie less resolution and field of view, and colour perception).... IF its done in a way that minimises non immersion (a digital HUD display breaks immersion). Something like a slight visual queues or heavy breath sounds are more immersive that a digital bar going up and down and its a better method to aid the loss of getting physical feedback (which is not possible to be simulated. I'm not a fan of using digital techno chat to give feedback WHEN you can do this in less immersion breaking ways. I suspect you will get a feel for how much your body can take similar to engine limits, after 3-5 mins at x setting or 10-15 mins at y setting , engine damage, rest engine and it recovers.Likely we don't need anything but a clock and experience to approximate this. Once we have the feature , then more feedback can be given BTW: I'm a fan of proposed changes , current gamplay immersion will benefit from this. I hope more audio queues also get added to the game too as it does lack a bit in audio in the cockpit currently IMHO.
  15. Indeed... it was a very effective plane.
×
×
  • Create New...