Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 77.CountZero

  1. 14 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:


    So, we should just leave it like that - limits of display tech simulating non realistic way of spotting objects in-game? Or just wait for X number of years until HDR monitors become standard and in the meantime don't do anything to help and improve the flight sim we all love here. Even that is a "big if" HDR will help. Great thinking and logic = scr** the customers. 👌


    Alternate visibility is solving some, and inflating other problems. In other words, repeating the same mistake DCS did a while back. When developing a game (or any project by that matter), I don't see a logic in repeating other people/developer mistakes. Instead, one should look for successful solutions and pick up / improve from there. Especially in DCS regard, whose developers did not understand the problem to begin with.


    The bolded statement: is the core of your thinking problem, right there. Replace "aircraft artificially rendered at 2x the size of what they see in IL-2" with "a compromise in order to bridge the gap of display technology and real life spotting". For which you have no understanding what so ever simply because you yourself do not have a problem on your system / don't like the solutions offered. More importantly, the simple fact is that in reality you just don't like scaling in any way, which you continuously back up (i.e. try to "hide") with one bad example / attempt at solving the problem as "a proof" that it cannot be done with today's hardware - yet we have listed many examples here how it can be and what benefits it would bring. Do you now start to notice the arrogance within your posts that gets so many people agitated here?


    The bolded statement in red: no one here is arguing that, on the contrary. Once again, for n-th time: we would like to have realistic rendering distance with Scaling or Alternate systems. Not the "40km seeing-eye".




    Here is a suggestion: leave Expert as is, and give us BMS/CloD/WarthunderSIM scaling as an ALT mode and let people chose which to use online. Or are @SharpeXB and @77.CountZero too afraid that people might flock to ALT spotting then? 😁


    As long as things stay like they are, people will find all sorts of solutions to help themselves out (e.g. lowering gamma to super low values, 3Dmigoto mod). Scaling or ATL spotting eliminates that need and gives everyone equal playing field.


    Last but not least, IL-2 GB already features HUD scaling (predefined size no matter the resolution). Why not use the similar principle/algorithm for airplane contacts?

    I belive if any changes come it will be to inprove alt ON, why would they tuch alt off when its how they belive realistic should be.

    If ppl go to alt On more, i just join that server if it has more ppl when i play, like i say i dont like either option, but have no problem playing on them after i can se in tests what to expect, alt off is better as i have only one problem with it, alt of is worst as i have 2 problems with it, but if server is using on or off dont make big problem for me. But i dont expect any quick changes like some belive have to happend, from what i see devs make vis they wonted with OFF option, and only ON option could get modified if devs feal like it (have time off other improvments on schedule).

  2. 3 hours ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

    Not one of them. But Pearl Harbour, Wake Island, the Coral Sea, and Midway in one game is another story.


    I mean, you could have all four with just one standard 8 plane + 2 premium plane set:









    P-40 B






    P-36 A



    My opinion also, if they go for Midway it will probably be more then just Midway battle, but well hopefully know in month time whats next

  3. 13 minutes ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

    So since the split between Yak9 and Yak9T as a package still seems undecided, what would be most sensible?


    Yak9 could be modified into 9B and 9D

    Yak9T could have modifications into 9K (easy) 9M and maybe 9U?


    At least, as far as I can recall in terms of similarity.


    I feel this could reasonably make 9 and 9T be sold separately, possibly with these modifications added later. .

    Yes probably they could add as modifications to Yak-9, to be D and B(more work), and for Yak-9T modifications for K and M (more work), but U is totaly new type its more similar to Yak-3 then Yak-9T or Yak-9. So if they decide to sell Yak-9 and Yak-9T separatly, i hope they consider modifications of B,D with Yak-9 and K,M with Yak-9T. But thats just us being greedy 😄



    And for future late war east front DLCs they dont have to be scared of not having other types as even if they offer all that with Yak-9s, there is still La-7, Yak-3, Yak-9U, P-39Q to have , so no risk like with axis fighters on offering to mutch as collectables and not having then for DLCs.

    • Upvote 2

  4. 21 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

    @Jason_Williams Has the team decided if there are going to be modifications that could cover some of the Yak-9 variations? For example extra fuel capacity turning the original Yak-9 into Yak-9D and DD, or turning the 9T into a 9M, one of the workhorses in the later part of the war ^^


    The models are looking really good 👍


    That would be good idea if they decied to sell Yak-9 and Yak-9T separatly for useal price of collector fighter.




  5. Just now, Arthur-A said:

    A nice scripted campaign wouldn't hurt at all. However, instead of BoM or BoS, I'd prefer it to cover other theater,  somewhere up North. Although, if M in BoM is not Moscow, but some other city, then yeah, I want that scripted campaign in BoM setting ;)

    If Finish mapmakers finish their Leningrad map, you can use it there also, for Murmansk who knows what happend to that user map project, but it dont seam posible.

  6. 1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

    I see a lot of strange posts about this, particularly about the "Expert" visibility. Like claims of things coming in and out of sight and so on, while Expert is on.


    The thing about Expert visibility (that is, with Alternate Visibility turned off), is all it mostly does is remove the 10k bubble that used to exist. There's literally NO WAY that the "Expert" setting can be worse than what we had before these visibility changes were released at all.


    In short, the new "Alternate Visibility = Off" option is a direct improvement over the old system. The 10k bubble is gone. That's a GOOD thing. It seems to me that any claim that now visibility is worse than it was before the big patch (that introduced visibility changes) are more of a reaction to having experienced the Alternate Spotting and enjoying it so much that going back to a more limited visibility (even if less limited than before) feels worse than how it was before the changes were introduced at all.


    Now, Alternate Visibility, on the other hand, DOES have a bunch of issues with it. Weirdness with zooming, things popping out of existence at a certain range, contacts appearing to be floating in midair (when in fact they were crashed/landed aircraft being rendered a massive distance away, but inflated to look much bigger). There are definitely bugs or glitches with that setting that can be problematic, but I can also see how some people can prefer that mode. 


    But let's not pretend that "Expert" is worse visibility than before. It's not, it's factually better, with the 10k bubble finally removed. Whether or not Alternate is better is very subjective and depends on what people are looking for in this sim, but "expert" mode is definitely an improvement over what we had before the last big update.



    now weather conditions effect on if youll see or not contacts on expert, so its harder to see close contacts and track them then it was before 3.201 on expert making it wors aka more realistic

  7. 54 minutes ago, [LAS]URU-Panzer said:


    Four years or More we asking to developers .. We Want , WE NEED  , A spotting range improvements.

    And the change was made, The Change  was excellent a pleasure to fly and spot the contacts.

    It was one the happiest day of my life, I also had the p38:music:




    The trolls children of the Russian War Th*nder game , came and  Cried in the forum of Il2  BOX . And AND  the developers rushed to fulfill their Troll wishes. 


     All online serves now have the new  ( Fu*inkg  expert )  settings , the spottin range  now sucks , the possibility of seeing planes is worse than before . 


    My   (flight / Hotas /Gaming chair )  is 1 meter 60 centimeters  ( 5, 24 Feet )  away from the screen .

    And I have to search for  2 damn  (Fu*ing ) gray  pixels at that distance, it's hard even in my new 43 inches screen.


    I am very grateful to all the Russian War Th*nder trolls who  came and wrote in the Russian il2  Box forum, asking for the roll back on visibility settings.

    I am very grateful to the developers who ran to please their wishes.


    Now I need a go to with my eye doctor, and buy a new  80 inches screen. To  can see  ( Spot )  the damn 2 gray pixels that represent a plane at 6 km .


    Best regards


    well i agree wth you , expert visibility sucks (and altered On is even worst as makes far contacts to big), but its not warthunder trools who forced devs to change it, its devs who had idea from start that things need to be like that, as it has to be realistic, you just have to read AnPetrovich post about all this to see that their idea of fixing terible visibility we had before 3.201, was 3.201b from start, and that = make it more harrder to see then we had before 3.201 with 9,5km limits. Yes now you can see contacts beyond 10km ( in teory, in practice good luck with that on expert lol) on both options, but it changes nothing for mid ranges where you can still lose contacts that are only few km from you so easy that its pointles to play without sitting 10cm from monitor and using full zoom and checking your 6 every 5s like mad man, like real pilots do.


    And again, if you liked it how it was in 3.201 when it was first bugged visability relised, no one is stoping you to play now on that visibility, just turn it ON in realisam settings for SP, or play on servers that have it turned ON in MP, in 3.201c you have a choice to pick out of two options.

  8. 1 hour ago, Leon_Portier said:

    With the new visibility I cant see planes anymore, its like getting shot from invisible enemys!

    but dont you enjoy playing game like that knowing that your blined as bat and there is ppl who know how to adjust it so they can se you, its all for realisam its fun how come you dont wont to play like that, its not fun when all can see things normaly in 10km ranges its more fun when most cant see sht and only few can. Your here to just be target for few who know how to abuse the settings. This is how you bring more ppl to play your game, and more ppl in MP, its logical.

  9. 19 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

    we were playing before the "hotfix" 


    ive lowered my gamma and calibrated my monitor already. 


    it's how it is because people with higher end computers won out 



    here is from devs on what happend:



    So 3.201 visability was mistake, it happends when update is this big you dont catch all bugs, then 3.201b is how they planed it to be from start, but as they saw that some ppl liked to for first time to enjoy playing game when they can see things with vis like it was in 3.201 ( what a novel idea ) they make both options available in 3.201c, Alternate off is visibility how it was at 3.201b and what devs belive is realistic. While alternate on option in realisam is 3.201 visibility that was mistake with algoritam making far distance (10km+) contacts to big, and now you can play on it if you wont by turning that option on, or online play on servers that have that option on.


    • Upvote 2

  10. 4 hours ago, pops68 said:

    All, excuse my ignorance in this game. Have a question, and looking for answers. I usually fly DCS with a small group of friends, and I am able to set a server relatively easy and run a never ending mission where the computer spawns in AI planes and ground targets for us to destroy until quitting time. The only thing remotely similar to this is the quick mission, where I can select my plane, and then go up against endless waves of enemy aircraft. 


    Is there a way I can host this for my friends and I? Not really into the competitive multiplayer arenas as much as a relaxing good time, flying cool planes against semi challenging bots communicating on our own discord channel.  

    you can host from your game, either coop or df, just go in multiplayer section and select create server for coop or df type (youll probably first have to forwrd ports 80 28000 28100)

    you have example df missions in game folder, ai just spawns after get shooot down, in mision builder you can use that to modife it to your liking (change airplane its skill or position and so on...) there are manuals on forum about how mision builder works, not hard to learn when you have to, but its borring as hell to use it compared to other games.

    you also have PWCG coop mission generator or SYN_Vanders mission generator you can use.


  11. 4 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:


    Yet the FC poll with far less people voting is somehow more important... :)


    Neither systems work 100%, and should thus be either further tweaked or merged into one realistic compromise.



    Does this look real / believable to you? Are you deliberately ignoring glaring issues the Expert mode has?




    If no one can tell which settings are used - why are you then participating in this discussion with such strong agenda?

    on alternate off, i see no problems like on picture, i can see dot or airplane from all distances without it disapering.

    I run tests with Ripgrunwald on him hosting same mission and we take same airplane and then start from same airstart and start going 60 deg from each other, at no point he disperes sudenly, he gradualy gets smaller and then at 20-30km i lose him, he observes same (using gps so we can see at what distances what happends). But no way i or he would be able to spot from that big distances if you dont know where contact is, were both full zoom on each other and only focused on that, and no way you can play like that, you have to scan the sky and then you have no way to spot things so far. Only problem i see is that contacts are to easy to lose at 3-4km +, you see them and good forbid you check your 6 and look back where they were and they are gone as again they are just to small to be spotted again if your not constantly on full zoom focused only at them. 

    So if for years ppl complained (me included) that visibility in this game is terible and 9,5km is to short, and devs decided to make it even harder "realistic" ( as thats what alternate off is compared to what we had before with 9,5km ) then i have no hope they understand what was problem at first or they would fix it so i have visability like in other flying games, this is only game that wonts it to be harder for players/realistic.

    Again i dont like either options, i dont exect they gona do anything to adjust it in near future ( if they do adjust something it will probably be to option 2, alternate ON) and i have no problem to play on server with it on or off, after i run tests to see what to expect.

  12. 1 hour ago, TUS_Samuel said:

    At very low settings:



    There are periodic stutters online:



    Offline for comparison:



    Hardware: GTX1070 + 3770k@4.6GHz

    It does not depend on server and players count. You can spawn on the empty server and look at the sky and you get stutters anyway.

    Someone who knows how to use fraps please confirm this.

    Try turn on - Use 4k textures, Vsync

    if dont help, try full screen ON also

  13. yes i dont like either and dont expect devs to fix anything in near future


    what comunity ? 200ppl who bather to vote lol thats not even 5% of ppl playing in MP


    all i se is that problem with visability is solved by adding two options, only few complain about it, compared how it was when patch was out, so devs solution is working so why would they come back to it when they have other things to do

  14. 39 minutes ago, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

    In RL If I see something at 40km..it becomes bigger at 10km and I can see it bigger and I can see it better. In game its opposite with new spotting system.

    only if you use alternate on


    on alternate off all works ok with no magnification bugs, if you know where airplane is youll see it from 20-30km depending on conditions and he gets gradualy bigger as you get closer to him.


    on alternate on you have problems with contacts far from 10km being magnified and easy visable abow 50+km, and then when they enter around 10km from you they start to gradualy get smaller and thats why that version is optional, and was fixed in 3.201b hotfix (alternat off now), and is added in game back as option with 3.201c as some players asked for it.


    All work as intended in alternate off, that is option that devs call realistic one and bug free as it is.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2

  15. 6 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:


    Very much agree.  I am not flying much any more since the last patch and am rather disappointed with how all this has made me feel.  Still, I understand it is WIP so hope things will improve soon and that we have one proper visual standard across the board for air-to-air spotting.


    Happy landings,



    Well now you have servers that have expert visability alternate off, and servers that have userfrendly visability alternate ON. Nothing stops you from playing on server that has option you like, why would devs change anything in expert option when they said thats what they consider most realistic option, and exactly what they wonted it to be.

    it cant get any clear then this that alternate off is how they planed it to be from start:


    I dont expect them to coming back to this issue any time sone. Ppl wonted vis ranges more then 9.5km, devs spend time to make it and we have it as alternate off option, and on top of that they made 2nd option as that bugged version that some ppl liked so they can enjoy it also.


    Im just being realistic here, they have other stuff to focus on, they spend time on this, and finish it how they seam correct, and to now expect any aditional fast work on it is delusional from what i can see.


    Play on server that have your option, or wait next few years when they get enought money from future DLCs to come back to issue.


    I dont like either option, they dont adress what i see as problem, but have no problem playing on either, also i expect no changes to them in near future, and if any changes to be done it will probably be done to alternate ON option.

  16. 10 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

    Just like when IL-2 AEP hit the shelves back in the day - introducing the P-51, P-38 and Tempest V has been a success. I am solely basing  this on the number of multiplayers I see online (KOTA and CombatBox), so I maybe wrong. In addition to the subsequent decline in players on the WoL server has also been interesting as well, which might be a time zone thing rather than a true a change in taste (...one of the factors that affect demand). Anyway, my point (...if I am correct) is if 1C Game Studios is look to make some coin - I would look at making Spitfire XIVe and Ta 152H-1 as collector planes (quick win) or go big and developing a Normandy map (which could double for '40 - '44) with this graphic in mind: Allied Raids '40 - '45


    I would really like to hear an argument for the Pacific Theater of Operation or Eastern Europe (where I was proposing before noticing all the Allied fighter jocks in the RAF/USAAF mounts).   

    Unlike spit XIV that can be used in bobp carer and map area Ta-152 was not there so its bad choice, for axis collectabe it will probably be GA or bomber.

    Also they have to save axis late war fighters for late war east front dlc, so 109a9, 109g10 and ta-152 fit that area and hard to belive youll see them as collectable.

    Normandy map would be easy fit after bobp but because of lack of available axis fighters they should focus on timeline before dday.


    Argument for PTO, you need to get more costumers so expanding to another teather of war will get you ppl who are into that, and then when they like what you offer they buy previous dlcs ( same was done with bobp insted staying on east front )

    Argument for more east front, one more 1945 scenario can give late war vvs airplanes and basicly finish east front so servers like taw can run ADW type of campaign from start to end on east front using existing maps to fill in gaps, also its good to mix it up so all costumers have things to buy insted staying to long at one area ( bos, bom bok show that its bad idea to focus only on one part of ww2 )

    Same reason why Korea would also be good option at some point, you get new costumers who are into jets, and then if they like it they buy more other stuff...

    • Upvote 1

  17. two option is neccesary, guy who wont realistic will never be for any compromises that make it more playable.

    You can say for any realisam option that is spliting comunity, one can say bigger split is not having only east front in game, now MP is split as we have west front and east front, and OMG game will be ruined when PTO comes what well we do ?!.( And MP they say its only 5-10% so they can easy just get rid of it and would not hurt game and less stress for devs ). Ppl just have more option and can play on server that better sute them, and this way devs dont have to fight it out as to them only real option is alternate off, and users who dont like that option can fight it out with server hosts to have other one. If there is no 2nd option they would have to play on alternate off or dont play like before. 

  • Create New...