Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

1 Follower

About CAFulcrum

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah online flying formation is not nearly as difficult as the FL will usually give a throttle setting below maximum cruise and stick to it, so that you can adjust yourself if needed and then settle in without having to constantly adjust. The AI seems like its caught in an oscillation or some sort of random accuracy mode where its constantly changing throttle. I see black smoke a lot as well meaning they're pushing it to max for a short time and then hitting the mark, rather than slowly easing the throttle forward. They also abruptly change speed with every waypoint, rather than turning in formation, which makes it even harder (aside from everyone in the flight taking their own route each every time they turn). I notice this most in the waypoint after takeoff climb. If the ai could just stick to a throttle setting (maybe adjusted for altitude as needed) for discreet legs in a flightplan instead of trying to hit a speed target it would make things easier. It would be nice as well if there was some lag between hitting the waypoint and changing to a new speed setting (with a called out throttle/rpm, as suggested above) so that you can perform the turn together. I would think that's how it was done in real life -- hit waypoint, make turn, then once the flight is stabilized adjust to new speed.
  2. I'm must wondering how realistic the effect of canopy scratches are when you're looking for contacts. Since the new visibility system makes distance planes flash when at proper angles, I'm always looking for white specs that look exactly the same as the scratches on the canopy, so I'm constantly rolling the aircraft to check for parallax. Was this a problem encountered by real pilots? Considering that in real life with binocular vision and focus, your eyes would be able to discern between near scratches and a flashing plane in the distance, are they overstated? Or is this not a problem with VR or better systems? I'm running at 1680X1050 on a low end system so it could be a resolution issue as well. Or are scratches on the glass that problematic to spotting?
  3. I think it has the best DM as far as feeling like your rounds are effective. I especially like how the 50s and light machine guns are handled. 50s are respectfully lethal in pairs and meat shredders in bunches, and 30s do a decent job of causing critical damage (fires and leaks) and pilot kills. In ROF at least however, the wings were modeled as 'hitboxes with health bars,' rather than spars and ribs covered in fabric. So rather than the fidelity of the round either passing through skin and causing no damage, hitting a rib and causing structural weakening of the wing, or hitting a spar and causing immediate failure, you had a case where the first few rounds would basically do nothing no matter where they hit, and a wing failure was guaranteed if you got a certain number of hits on any hitbox, so you have a generalized model of wing failure where the devs have to basically determine how many hits on average it would take to hit something vital. But this stops players from making lucky hits of the spar. I don't know if they refined things in BoS. I think they've improved the pilot DM as well. For the same reasons with the wing, the pilot was just a health bar in ROF so it seemed unusually difficult to make pilot kills since you could never get a headshot and had to wound the pilot several times before killing them. I still don't see instant headshot deaths in BOS but the added lethality and effects makes the wounds feel much more like wounds and something approximating getting hit by heavy caliber fire.
  4. Attacking the bay is one of those classic scenarios like the attack on the bismark or pearl harbor. Really fun scenarios and the islands make for a great theatre with all of the classics. I just think it might be difficult for them to build japanese planes with the lack of documentation and examples. There is a lot of interest though and it would give them an excuse to build american heavy bombers. carriers and the zero are huge ‘selling points.’ Also now that we have fc we need that zero so that we can determine who would win in a camel vs zero dogfight!
  5. I have seen them follow for a ways and then turn back in bos career missions. Have you tried playing in hard mode? Higher level ai might be more survival conscious.
  6. AI has improved dramatically over the last year, and steadily, which means they are working on it steadily, so it's great to see the continuous rewards from their decision to hire an AI programmer. Career really offers some fun clashes now.
  7. I'd rather not have a g-indicator except as part of the floating instruments. For expert settings I'd think it would just allow players to game the system too much if they knew precisely how much G they were pushing. I do think however that some additional audio clues could be used, like for example: •the sound of breathing or heartbeat becoming more noticeable •a subtle rushing sound to simulate the rush of blood or the weight of added G •sounds of the seat, belts, uniform moving Another thing I don't hear in this game that I've heard in others is the sound of the airframe itself twisting or warping, and making 'strained metal noises' from Gs, but I don't know how realistic that is for normal G loads.
  8. I bought them in the order BOS > BOM > BOK. BOS has a good planeset and career mode to start with, and the yak1 and 109G2 are some of the easiest planes to fly, manage and shoot down enemy with. I sort of wish I'd bought BOK earlier though as it has some interesting planes, like the spit and hs129. BOM has the p40 but it is tricky to fly due because of its engine management, and beside that you have the slow but maneuverable I16, the somewhat outclassed mig3, and the rest of the planes are representing in other versions in BOK or BOS. Overall though I'd suggest picking the one which has a plane you're most interested in.
  9. I think it's fine for SP, it gives people with various monitors an option and makes spotting easier for people with smaller screens where previously they couldn't see anything at all, and gives people with large screens an option not to use it. All of the complaints are coming entirely from MP players, as if that's the only way people play the game. The concept of dots isn't to look realistic, it's to simulate the reality of the actual pilot in the cockpit being able to see things around him. They probably could use a lot of improvement, the best implementation I've seen was a dot for far away targets that slowly fades into gray, then colored, with a bar demonstrating distance or no bar at all. right now the icons do more than just show where the targets are, they give a specific distance to them and they create a distraction on the screen, so having to choose between that and a system where the planes are constantly disappearing -beyond what a pilot would be able to notice- is where the alternative dot system comes into play. Hopefully they will improve it but it's at least a start.
  10. From my hazy recollections of the Targetware flight sim the p51 had the same issue there, and it was a fairly accurate FM. I never liked 1946's FMs, they were somewhat railish and simple. The behavior also matches documentation of the plane. I thought it was pretty cool to run into it when I made a bad input (down and to the right or possibly left) and it went tumbling. There's a clip on youtube of a Mossie doing something similar after engine failure in an inverted position. These later war birds were made for high speed performance, rather than low speed maneuverability, and so have some bad quirks in general at slow speeds.
  11. I'd rather see him direct or work on a single player campaign or do some cutscene work. The sim would give him a medium to tell a story. Sure, that story might involve flying through a canyon/cave/volcano, dodging falling buildings, trees and german soldiers riding worgs all while being chased by a hundred dr1s with goblins at the helm in the middle of a raging snowstorm for about 15 minutes or so, but I think it'd still be a better use of his talents wrt FC.
  12. I coulda sworn I was knocked out of the sky by a 19 pdr on the back of a truck in QMB, but it must have been a 37. That's good to know!
  13. I come across mentions of blacking out fairly often. Especially in later war aircraft going into dives from high altitude. I think, in real life pilots have a pretty immediate sense of Gs so they'd never do the joystick jerk that sim pilots develop as muscle memory. As a result they fly smoother and don't go into these sudden high G blackouts. I imagine it's worse without forcefeedback as well -- both factors probably contribute to spikes in G. The only thing that needs to be toned down imo is the grunting sound, either that or introduce some heavy breathing or blood rush sound leading up to it. You know, what the french call 'foreplay'
  14. I noticed while sightseeing in the p51d on continuous, the motor gets a sort of 5 second 'death march' sound in the background of the motor noise repeating over and over again.
  15. Can't believe the zoom and floatiness of such a large aircraft, and the sound of the turbos spooling up make it feel like a jet fighter. Matches pilot accounts pretty well! Cockpit is great in how far down the nose you can see, which makes this thing the king of deflection shots and high angle bomber attacks. I hate the cessna style joystick though, it's without a doubt the hardest plane to read dials in, worse than the hs129. But those 4 50s packed together with the 20s really tear sh*t up!
  • Create New...