Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

107 Excellent

About =X51=VC_

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

787 profile views
  1. Power setting is always a combination of RPM and boost, move both as others have said, limits are in the stat card. I saw in a Youtube convergence tutorial video that the RAF standard convergence for Spitfires was 250 yards, or ~230m. So that's what I set to in IL2 but really most of the time I am firing much closer than that. Don't care much about the .50s, those two Hispanos wreck things pretty well though. One extra advice I would give, the one thing I would say which "made" the Spitifre for me, was turning the "sensitivity" setting for the pitch axis all the way up to 80.
  2. Agreed. I don't mind some shake, if that's what it is, but the permanent displacement is ridiculous. Unfortunately, turning it off in single player doesn't help flying in multiplayer when servers force it on. This is also a blocker for VR in my opinion, forcibly moving the point of view around like this would be nausea inducing.
  3. Guys, I really didn't think that a question about a specific setting, not complaining about spotting in general but just trying to understand how it works and how it affects this aspect of the game, should turn into such a game-bashing whine thread. OK, I agree with you to an extent that directly trying to render an object at its real size will cause issues with spotting especially across different hardware setups. But if lowering resolution makes spotting easier then the problem is that a target significantly smaller than one pixel is rendering at all. We do not need approaches that go to the lowest common denominator to fill the skies with huge black dots. Something in between is needed, where on low resolution the target dot is adjusted for colour so it is not black and easy to spot but grey based on how much smaller the real thing is than the pixel it is rendered as. In my opinion the correct approach is to base rendering on real life studies of how far combat pilots have spotted their targets, and then ensure that there is something just barely visible at those ranges for everyone, with visibility increasing linearly as the target gets closer. However it is almost impossible to truly anticipate all hardware setups and account for them to be equal. I have to warn you though, I think a lot of people are saying "give us real pilot eyesight" while completely overestimating spotting ability in real life. Studies by the USN at various weapon trainings have shown that pilots will spot a "dot" enemy aircraft on average at a range of approximately 5 nautical miles (9km). But these were targets from A-4, F-5 and up to the size of an F-4 Phantom. Put a Phantom next to a Yak or 109 and tell me the same guy, who barely saw that Phantom at 5nm, will see the 109 at 10km+ that people here are expecting. Even the A-4, though tiny for a jet, projects much more fuselage and wing area for spotting than a WWII single engine fighter. I understand your nostalgia but what some of you are asking for basically equals unrealistically easy spotting for everyone. I don't think spotting in IL2 BoX is perfect and I believe some of you when you say you feel blind. But overall I think that across a reasonable range of hardware an average player has (not either extremes), IL2 delivers mostly realistic spotting ranges in most conditions as far as I'm concerned.
  4. BoX has those annoying fake engine timer limits though, so in some planes your engine just siezes after 1 minute at full throttle, with no indication, even if you do manage all the other controls and temperatures perfectly. As others have said, CloD engine management is only more punishing if you fly the really early variants of the planes. There I agree you can blow something easily especially in a 109. But to compare, just set the prop pitch to manual in the BoM Bf 109E-7 and see what happens. Mid and late war planes were just better in terms of engine automation. When Tobruk comes out I expect that planes like the Bf 109E-7, F-2 , F-4, the P-40E and the Spitfire Vb, will all be less punishing to manage in terms of engine settings than those planes are in BoX today.
  5. Hmm... I'm going to keep an eye on it see if I can spot something to reliably reproduce it.
  6. I do agree that more could be done to make spotting more even across hardware and generally more predictable overall. But WT speck spotting is a horribly overdone solution. It's ugly, makes spotting far too easy (negating sneaking up on people) and it also makes judging distance to contacts very difficult as they're the same size from very long ranges to quite close when they start rendering properly. And you know what? We do already have something like that. It's called "alternate visibility" and none of the more serious MP servers use it, for good reason.
  7. I'm using a Vive Pro VR headset, has its own inbuilt headphones and from what I can tell they're very good quality at all other times.
  8. 24 bit 48 kHz, assuming I found the right setting. Is that what you meant? It's the second highest on the list.
  9. A few times when I've been flying the 109 recently I had the feeling my cannon was misfiring, or not firing at all. The ammo counter decreases and usually the thing in my gunsight goes boom, but I only hear the machine guns, or I hear the cannon on for a few rounds, off for a bit, on again despite holding a continuous burst with all armament. I checked my joystick, trigger sensor is OK, I don't get this in other planes with split armament. Is this a sound bug? What else could be causing this?
  10. Fine to an extent, but there's the perfectly good technique of cutting their turn and taking a deflection shot as they cross your nose, which achieves exactly the same thing with very little G load or energy cost. OK this is tough to pull off in a 109 because its ailerons feel like they're in treacle at any useful attack speed, but it's still better than making yourself a sitting duck for the sake of a cheap shot.
  11. So your "secret tactic" is to dump all your energy and hope you secure the kill quickly? 🤔
  12. I'm afraid to say what you're expecting is unrealistic. It is normal for planes to disappear as you zoom out, because you are increasing your field of view and indirectly you are making the planes smaller. You are squashing more "world" into the same number of pixels so something will get lost. You should not be expecting to spot well flying zoomed out. VR has a natural field of view, but on a screen you will be surprised how "zoomed in" you have to be to reproduce a realistic FoV. A WWII fighter windscreen is a similar size to your real screen, and similar distance from your face. Zoom in until the plane windscreen in game fills your whole screen, now that is a natural field of view, and that is the condition in which you should compare spotting to VR, or real life. Also a Rift S has exactly the same resolution as a 2k screen (2560 x 1440). I know VR experience is a very personal thing, but I played on an original Vive (2160 x 1200) and found it very immersive and acceptable for both spotting and ID. I recently upgraded to a Vive Pro (2880 x x1600, slightly higher resolution than Rift S) and both my spotting and ID improved significantly.
  13. I agree that this is annoying and maybe it happens too easily. But... did you never chase a fly around the room, and when it flies in front of a dark shelf it just disappears? 🤣 human eye is not as perfect as you think either.
  14. So does that mean that the contrast of a green plane to a green forest is also untouched, in theory? The forest just looks a bit lighter and more washed out but the plane is lighter too to preseve that local contrast? I think camouflage should work to help hide planes, it's what it was supposed to do. But I do agree with you that HW limitations cause issues when implementing RL data. What I always belived should be the case is realism of result. So if an average real person can see something at a certain distance, or contrast combination, then make the renderer show it to everyone at that range regardless of HW, even if the method of rendering is not realistic in this case. But I think this is a nearly impossible workload. Anyway, I want to say again I am not complaining about spotting quality in IL2 overall. I feel comfortable with my ability to spot with HDR or without, and from being at airshows and seeing planes fly around I do not think I could spot a contact much sooner IRL than in game. I think a lot of people greatly overestimate what a real person can see in real conditions and expect too much for in-game visibilty. And if an older sim had easier spotting that means nothing really.
  15. A Flanker said, Bloom adds a glow/halo effect to objects, supposed to simulate how light "creeps" around the edges of things that are back-lit. What this means is it blurs the light into the edge of the object, so for small objects that makes them smaller and more smudged. So yes, it makes spotting harder. It also does it to your canopy frames making them glow. I found the canopy reflections ugly and too flat to look realistic. I didn't keep them on long enough to see how much they hurt spotting. 😝 In VR I still have planes disappearing at <1km range against forests. This is originally why I turned HDR on, hoping that it would increase the contrast between the plane and the forest in these situations. I might turn it back on to check, but there are so many other conditions it's hard to tell. I also think it's related to the propeller. The blurred disc never bothered me, even when it was allowed I did not use migoto to remove it, I have no ugly artefacts. But it's not unusual for me to spot a target perfectly on my 3 or 9, turn to engage and immediately lose it when it's in front of me. 🙁 Yup! Maybe make a suggestion thread? I'm sure it would get support.
  • Create New...