Jump to content

SCG_Wulfe

Members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

219 Excellent

About SCG_Wulfe

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ontario, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

658 profile views
  1. Deferred rendering will cost more GPU resources and slow things down in VR 😥
  2. They simply need to create a binding for flap limiter settings. I know they want to avoid as many extraneous bindings as necessary, but in this case its such a niche usage that those who want it will have no problem configuring it.
  3. Thank you for your well thought out and reasoned response. I'm willing to accept there are some issues in spotting even out to 3-4km. I think they are the same problems that affect spotting under 2km as well. That said, I'm going to have to agree to disagree about the ease of spotting planes at those ranges. My own real life experience is that a fighter sized object at 3-4km away is a small object indeed and certainly even at 1.5km it's not like a "London bus floating around". I think your shrink and then balloon effect in alternate did not have anything to do with close contacts being sub-dimension-ed and had everything to do with a set point occurring where objects at range were over-dimension-ed. This all said, I would be willing to live with an effect that increases object size very slightly at close ranges as well as improves contrast and the handling of surface lighting. Basically the exact opposite of what is done with the alternate visibility setting. I say this as a compromise with those that want object scaling as I really do not find it difficult to spot contacts until they are closer than 1-2km. This sort of effect would also still allow you to naturally gauge approx distance to contacts which is also utterly destroyed with the alternate vis setting. Anything that increases distant contact size (let's say contacts past 7km) above what we currently have with the expert visibility setting is a no-go and destroys game-play in my book.
  4. I am absolutely with you in the premise that there are serious visibility issues with the sim as it stands. I think it's important to define terms and problems though in order to arrive at a realistic solution that simultaneously solves the current problem. We have two systems currently in game as described by devs. The first system, and the one that the majority of servers are using, is the so-called "expert visibility system". It was created with the idea that it would realistically render planes out to extreme ranges while still maintaining a linear and relatively realistic contact size at extreme ranges. (IE. you can still spot planes out to 20-30km if conditions are right (sun behind you, glinting off their plane) but they will be a very small spec at these ranges) The second system called the "alternate visibility setting" was described as identical in every way except for the fact that it applied a scaler mechaninsm that increased plane size at longer distances so to make distant contacts easier to spot. This system allowed planes at close range to mirror the size and visibility of the "expert visibility" system at close range but only at further ranges it inflated them. The real issue that I think we can all agree on is that plane spotting at near range (lets say under 2km) is very bad and very often you miss contacts that are right beside you based on how they render and assume lighting/contrast etc. Further, there seems to be an actual documented bug where planes are simply invisible to begin with until they open fire. These issues exist identically in both visibility system types (they should since both systems operate exactly the same at these ranges). I have experienced this to be the case. Even initially with the alternate setting, while I would spot planes easily at absurd ranges; as they grew near to me, I would often lose them and they would 'appear to disappear.' So, while the alternate visibility system inflates planes and makes it possible to easily see planes at ranges that you never would in real life. (not easily anyhow) It does not fix the root problem, which is how planes are displayed at close range. Further, because it allows you to 'find action' across a map at ranges you should never be able to see, it actually ruins any sort of search/sneak game-play and only serves to make things worse. I actually think the "expert view" does a fantastic and realistic job of rendering planes and spotting at all ranges except for close range. What I hope happens and I understand to be a work in progress...is simply fixing and improving spotting at near range only as well as fixing the invisibility bug.
  5. This makes it tough for SCG since we have made the mistake of flying VVS before when it was the predominant US eastern time side and were left wondering why we didn't fly Luftwaffe. We will have to watch closely how the sides shake out. For my part, I just want to fly against stiff and sizable competition.
  6. Equalizer APO is great for adjusting the sound you are hearing. Runs in the background and can be assigned to any audio output you'd like. I use it specifically to beef up the sound from my Odyssey+ headset headphones. You should be able to find the frequency of the wires with a high q setting (boost it first and sweep up and down until its very loud) then cut this frequency with the same Q setting. Fixed. https://sourceforge.net/projects/equalizerapo/
  7. Great time flying with you all once again. Wish this server was full all the time, itching for more.
  8. Fair enough, though as mentioned, this blackout when you have a shell concussion blast beside you is entirely unrealistic, at all times. If they wanted to leave their entire infrastructure intact with minimal changes to create a more realistic experience, all they would have to do is swap the blackout effect for a blurred eyes, ears ringing, harder control effect. Leave the same odds and triggers for it that are currently present.
  9. What I would prioritize is undoing the mistake they just made in the last patch with the pilot damage, which was modelled better before they altered it. the suggestions I made in the original post were simple ways to improve upon the system using the current game engine without any complex coding. If that is too hard, then they should just remove the blackout effect. It’s not realistic and it messes up gameplay.
  10. Yep you’re right, game is perfect. No sense making any suggestions or improvements for them to work on.... Frankly the pilot damage system we had prior to this splash damage blackout thing was better. No resources would be required to go back to that.
  11. That’s exactly it though. In real life you do not get knocked out from a concussion blast from an HE cannon round, even one that blows up right beside you. There is simply not that kind of explosive power in it. Human bodies are actually remarkably resilient to blast damage, more so than most any structure. Further your brain is actually very well insulated from blast pressure. from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions_on_human_health Blast effects — the initial stageEdit Immediate post-attack periodEdit The main causes of death and disablement in this state are thermal burns and the failure of structures resulting from the blast effect. Injury from the pressure wave is minimal in contrast because the human body can survive up to 2 bar (30 psi) while most buildings can only withstand a 0.8 bar (12 psi) blast. Therefore, the fate of humans is closely related to the survival of the buildings around them.[7] If it is truly just based on a random outcome, that is too bad. But if it must be, it must be. However, they need to entirely remove the chance for blackout due to close proximity explosive blasts that cause injury which they have specifically mentioned that they have left in according to the patch notes.
  12. This is not based on feelings. This is based on real life trauma medicine studies and my own personal experience. Here, start with this article about stopping power. (Ballistic injury that is enough to stop an attacker from continuing their attacks) https://www.policemag.com/374542/a-trauma-surgeon-talks-about-wound-ballistics-and-stopping-power then this video about stopping power from high velocity rifle rounds. https://youtu.be/Dr7dpEDNNC4
  13. I gotta say I disagree. Instant pilot death should only occur when head is hit, or extreme trauma to Center mass of torso (heart, lungs, spine) in these cases instant blackout or instant death are applicable. I think instant death makes more sense than instant blackout since you won’t wake up anyhow. What is happening right now, is that far too often, non fatal hits are causing instant blackout. This pretty much never happens in real life. Any bullet or shrapnel injury to any part of the body other than what I mentioned is not going to result in instant death but rather conscious and variable rates of blood loss leading to eventual death if not treated. Ideally, the game would be far more interesting and realistic if pilots could remain conscious and in control of their aircraft with a shock effect that lasts similarly to the current blackout effect. After this, the rate of blood loss would determine their ability to make it home before death with the potential for intermittent losses of consciousness or maybe just vision from blood loss as your situation becomes more dire. (Just think of the stress of landing the plane while you can’t see properly and are fading in and out of conciousness)
  14. Haha whoops you threw in the towel and posted too soon. See my edit I just made above.
×
×
  • Create New...