Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About KB-Kriechbaum

  • Rank
  1. So far the IL2 - series get a lot of things right that others don't, so I am exited to see what their next update will bring. So far the game got better with every update.
  2. Well, actually its not your head, that is thrown around, but the plane moving faster than your head. The head follows the planes movement with a delay, because the neck is not a steel beam. In reality you would actually get a more stable view of the outside world while the relative movement between head and plane would be increased.
  3. It appears like the devs went one step further into the direction of what was suggested in this thread: https://il2sturmovik.com/news/488/dev-blog-228/ I must say i am very excited about the features of that. I am actually more excited about it than about new planes and i am pretty excited about those, too. I think it will move this simulation another step ahead of the competition. 👍
  4. Similar problems, sometimes when i decent back to 2000m or so the sound comes back and goes away again. Some sound in 3rd person, but not consistently. Most of the time the thing is flying without engine noise at the moment.
  5. Any news on this topic in mid 2019? Especially considering we now have several FW 190s + the Me262, all with a similar angled windscreen. Isn't it possible to give the inside of the frame a texture that is displaying it half as thick? With the help of partially transparent textures, just the faces that are inside, touching the glas. Obviously it would not display the refraction regarding the background, but at least the effect of a thinner frame would be available.
  6. Yes, the 500 bomber - formations would be overkill. But say a 10 Bomber formation with 10 escort would already be a cool thing that will give you the same kind of fighting, just scaled down. On beloga you have like 40 planes within a 5k circle and its not too bad. It works with A-20s atm, so... idk. What i cannot fully understand at the moment is, why are heavy bombers an "impossible load" but with tactical bombers its totally doable? Does the FM change so dramatically with a bigger plane (that has also two wings, flaps, ailerons und a tail)? Except for the four engines i cannot see why a B17 is a huge deal, but a HE-111 is not except for the engines. Not argueing, just asking out of interest
  7. I would be happy, if they would make a B-17 AI-only, as flying mission objectives that are either to escort or to destroy. I hear the problem is that the engine cannot support 4 engines. I was thinking about the possibility to model a pair of engines as a single engine with the thrust vector being a combination of two vectors from two engines. So that you basically have 2 virtual engines, that are graphically displayed as four. The damage model would have to interpret "one of four engines destroyed" as engine damage of some sort, that reduces the power of the virtual engine of that side to 50%. With an AI-only plane, it could be something like the announced B-25 with the looks of a bigger plane. When nobody can really check from the cockpit what engines are damaged and what exactly is happening to the planes engines in detail. But yes, i don't know enough about the setup of the il2-engine. Its just a pity with almost all german late war fighters being dedicated heavy-bomber-interceptors! Including all the fancy loadouts and deadly 30mm cannons, which is basically an AA-grenade launcher to kill heavies. And then the Mustang, which was designed to escort heavy bombers high up. ... but then you have no heavy bombers. I guess we have to be ok with B-25...
  8. Well, nobody suggests "excessive" has movement. But pulling out of a 700km/h dive in a rather sharp manner like for instance in a yak should limit your ability to lean forward towards the sights. Of course turning such things off is better from a performance standpoint. It is like turning off the motion blur in some games or turning off the suns effect of blinding you etc. Turning off force feedback on the joystick, because shaking makes aming harder. But that's a gamer vs Sim-enthusiast discussion. What I suggest is that the game should consider the human body as a not too stable platform in some of the extreme situations in dog fights. When discussing this human factor with a friend, we came across the idea of "endurance" or stamina. So that a pilot would have say 100% of endurance/stamina, whereas 100% would limit the amount of forced head movement to the minimum, which we have in the game now, and maximize the boundaries of its voluntary movement (leaning forward etc) also how it is now. These 100% of "stamina" would decrease over the duration of higher g, heavy maneuvering etc. and replenish themselves in calm flight. In short : the longer you stay in the dogfight, the more your pilot will be affected by the effects suggested in the first post as he is less capable of countering them over the duration of a fight. This would also model the fact that pilots were normal people, not supermen. I compare this to shooters, where your soldier can run 20km/h forever vs. The ones that model exhaustion, thus forcing people to use their "maximum running speed" more wisely. It would be another interesting constraint (like engine management etc)
  9. Good day dear development team and virtual pilots, This post is about how the physiology of pilots limits performance of the system "combat aircraft" and why it should be part of Il2 Sturmovik. My observation: The head of the pilot (= the camera) is not affected by aircraft movent nor by the boundaries of a pilots body. My suggestion: 1. Implement tighter boundaries to camera position in the cockpit. 2. Implement forced (slight) camera movement within the cockpit depending on aircraft movement. Why do i suggest this? When reading about real stories of real pilots, you often come across statements like "I exclusively attacked aircraft in level flight" or "never get involved in turn fights", or that pilots would disengage when their foe was aware of their approach. Also real gun cam footage often displays situations that would result in a very easy kill in il2. The point is, it seems like it was way harder to score hits when a high amount of lead was necessary or a lot of crazy turns were involved compared how to it is in the game. So we have a magnificent flight model in il2, the planes are modelled with incredible detail and the implemented physics create an amazing variety of outcomes in combat. In short: The dog fights look very real from the standpoint of physics, but kind of super-man like from the standpoint of the pilots abilities. I suspect that it has a lot to do with the ability of the virtual pilots to "stay on target" no matter how aggresive they fly. At the moment, everybody can fly at the very limits of the plane, because there are almost no limits to the virtual human body inside it (exept for red- and black out). First, a real pilot has a neck and a body that will limit his ability to move around in the cockpit, especially his ability to turn around and look over his shoulder. So maybe some boundaries in that area could create a more realistic feel, like not being able to fully look back or to raise your head all the way up to look over your hood. And second, just the forced movement of the head of the pilot must have severely hampered his ability to actually use his sights effectively. Inverted flight should move your "camera" a bit towards the canope, rolling left should move the camera to the right, etc. I think of the famous videos of Svetlana Kapanina during her Sochi performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQONtYjDlMw Possible outcome after implementation: 1. The virtual combat experience would resemble a more real picture, where pilots would have a more realistically limited situational awareness. 2. Pilots would have to also take into consideration the effects of their maneuvers on the pilot, not just the aircraft. It would create more "realistic gun solutions" (gun solutions that are executable in the real world by real pilots) which could make the overall picture look more real. I imagine the forced camera movement like force feedback on a joystick. A bit of movement, but always returning to zero. Kind of like a spring. And with the help of variables, it could be more or less severe and more or less smooth etc. (Not sure if something like this is already existing in another flight sim. I would compare it very (!) losely to the typical shaking sniper sights in shooters that are more on the realism side.) What do you think about it?
  • Create New...