Jump to content

Mauf

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

168 Excellent

About Mauf

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

632 profile views
  1. I would assume the sim models it in 3 positions internally, mapped to the range of the assigned axis. So just as a guess: 0-10% means cut-off, 11 to lets say 80 running normal and 81 to 100 emerg. rich. So while the lever moves smoothly, it's just these 3 states. IF that is the case, I would prefer the lever in cockpit to snap to these positions too just to reduce confusion.
  2. Currently the Tempest, but that's probably due to preferring to fly with a spade grip and using a spade grip on a P-51 just feels wrong:P
  3. I agree it's an improvement. Now is the time for tweaks it I guess. I too find the long distance targets a bit too big. I also see the whitening of the targets at long range (made me think the Russians applied winter camo in autumn:D). Considering all the different responses to it, might there still be a huge influence of screen resolution at play here (which the devs have to compensate more for)? I'm using 1440p and find it almost where it should be. Somebody with 4k mentioned it looks good all across, I guess those who find it overdone play around 1080p or less? Also it's great to hear that VR players find it an improvement. VR really was at a big disadvantage under the old system, I'll have to test the patch with my rift later.
  4. Two less commonly used phrases (they're purely game lingo btw): Ring the bell: Keep shooting at an already incapacitated target, usually with lower caliber weaponary until that target visibly breaks apart/catches fire. A common behaviour in IL2 MP actually:) Going František (pronounced Franti-check): Persuing a fleeing enemy into their territory/to their homebase to secure a kill. If the pilot doing so is quite successful on the scores tab, the phrase becomes the flyers equivalent of "going berserk".
  5. No. That's the players view only. Gunner vision is not working like that. I also share the suspicion that it's related to transitioning between the fields of fire of different gunners. Do we have any dev confirmed info on how the AI gunner accuracy actually behaves? My hypothesis: There's a "reduce inaccuracy with time in field of view" mechanic at play here. AI gunner start with a certain amount of spread (basically a certain angle of random deflection that gets added to the aim) that gets reduced the longer you linger in the field of view* to emulate a proper gunner getting the bead on you (correcting by tracer and such). Mayhaps this mechanic still ticks for gunners who don't have view on you and once you enter the field of fire, they're basically already in "I had you in my sights for so long, I know how to hit you now" mode? *I could guess a cheap way to implement this is just a sphere range and they didn't implement blocked fields of view to keep it computationally simple (remember, devs said in the past that gunners are quite taxing already). Could this be just a side effect of a performance tweak?
  6. Skills do not immediatly transfer. Controlling the plane is vastly different in the seat than in front of a screen. For most of us, Dunning-Kruger will kick in and more likely get us killed quicker than the more cautious greenhorn.
  7. It's funny how different the VR experience is to people. To me, the normal flying feels a lot more awkward with the VR set and I don't really get the "WOO, immersion" effect some people describe. But when it comes to combat and shooting, VR is actually alot easier for me than screen and TIR. It's somehow just more "flowing" when it comes to lining up crosshair and target (high deflection in particular where the target is not close to the crosshair). It just looks right. Without VR, I'm a lot slower in lining up the shots and more error prone. Biggest problem for me is, I'm one of the poor folks who are heavily affected by VR sickness. Can't go longer than 30 minutes before it starts kicking in and ground pounding really takes me down after a few minutes.
  8. Another stab in the dark (had a problem like this with a DCS server): have you tried disabling IPv6?
  9. I wonder if breaking up the circle with a simple 4 turn flat scissor, at a random interval would already add enough to make things feel more emersive. It's not about being more efficient dogfight wise, but to improve the experience. I don't know how the AI works internally but maybe switching between the turning behaviour and a simple scissor based on a little random timer shouldn't be too hard to implement.
  10. That isn't the entire story though. As JtD points out, engines did fail due to exactly the factors that our ticking timers try to reflect. And down in the war, was every pilot given a factory mint fresh engine to go up with? Reality was probably that it was a mixed bag of parts with different hours, replacements rotating in as wear accumulates. So the timers stated in the manuals are probably accounting for just that fact and try to play it safe. It COULD be that a pilot gets a plane with lots of abuse tolerance left and can therefore push it beyond... but are you willing to take that gamble? Therefore, these days I am more accepting of what the timers try to convey though I would still prefer a more accurate modelling and a bit more "sanity" in how these timers are behaving across the different planes.
  11. Maybe it's a LOD model effect. Could be the longer range LODs have less volume than closer ones?
  12. The 30mm M-Geschoss had a terrible and clever destructive power. It basically used the strength of the airframe against itself. The stronger and resilient the hull structure was, the better the gas shock effect could apply. Funny enough, this meant that weaker constructions like canvas wrapped planes or planked constructions were less susciptible to it. That's why the pictures and the often cited movie from the OP can be a bit misleading. It shows a Spit, which was very vulnerable against the M-Geschoss at what I assume a perfect hit situation. People like to extrapolate this to all airframes out there but it doesn't have to be like that necessarily. The german report mentiond this and there also was a US study that shows that not every first hit immidiately lead to a destroyed aircraft (though the percentage was still quite high for the 30mm).
  13. Again, be careful with jumping to conclusions. The issue with the M-Geschoss in the game is more complex than "clearly underpowered". Don't fall for the "look at these pictures!" fallacy. The pics show potential, not that 100% of hits in the field are guaranteed to be that lethal. Also you need to differentiate visual DM and under the hood modelling. Visual in game often looks less critical than they really are.
  14. Needs more camshake and blur filters. About shooting the already defeated: You can do it... be mindful though that you'll be A. using up ammo on a target that is effectively already out of the fight and B. sacrificing altitude to do so, putting you at a disadvantage for the joy of mincing the enemy pilot. Your call but be assured, many people just LOVE to see those juicy targets that come up from having just bounced a dead engine gliding teammate.
  15. That is not entirely correct. The "normal" HEs in the game I guess work mostly correct. While the M-Geschoss did create shrapnell, it wasn't the main source of damage as it usually was too light to have much penetration power. The big whopper was the gas shock. And even that had varying degress of effectiveness. Depending on the construction of the plane being hit, it could be devastating or locally minimized. Drawn full shell constructions like the Spit or the 109 used were extremely susceptible to it. Smaller patch covers were less as they would get blown off and therefore open the compartment for pressure release, saving surrounding compartments. With the lack of cell modelling and everything needed to get it right, the "emulation" of a M-Geschoss spawning loads of fragments that travel short distance in a spherical shape from the explosion site is the best we will get for the time being.
×
×
  • Create New...