Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Excellent


  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    South Korea

Recent Profile Visitors

428 profile views
  1. OK I watched Requiem's video and cannot get RALT-F to move the gunsight out of the way. I have tried mapping multiple keys to "Gun Sight Position Toggle" in Keymapper. Nothing works. Tried with power off, engines on, many different combos, it won't move. I have changed my default mappings so I'm not even sure "Gun Sight Position Toggle" is the right one. What am I doing wrong? Any ideas? Thanks Skud
  2. Ssangyong? Curious about that reference. Skud
  3. I was afraid we would get the energy bleed from IL2 '46. Despite all real testing showed it held speed in turns better than prop A/C. [edited] Skud
  4. 410 & Mossie... YES!!👍👍
  5. Just to add to the above: I once asked Coco if he could ask the developers for any changes that would help support the persistent dynamic campaign servers what would they be? He answered thusly: A mechanism to control what planes are available to players, per player, plane and airfield. The current mechanism which goes via the logs and kicks players is sluggish and rude to users. Improve DServer's performance. This would allow me to lower the costs of server rental, or increase AI activity in the missions (convoys, ground battles...) A server-side plugin/scripting to receive notifications immediately instead of going through the log, which are 30s to 1min delayed (kind of covered by my point 1 above) Expose road graph data so that I can generate paths for convoys automatically. Currently I need to mark paths between regions manually, it's a lot of work Improve the chat window. Not specific to dynamic campaigns, but it's especially important there because the campaign script engine uses that to communicate important info to users. The improvements I have in mind are: rendering performance (VR users have it hidden), access to history while in flight, separate system chat messages from players'. The points above a ranked from most to least valuable to me. Point 4 especially is only valuable to my campaign. AFAIK other dynamic campaigns don't use convoys, which IMO is a pity. Skud
  6. Although I know little about air marshal mode it sounds pretty interesting for us MP folks. The great thing about MP is the adrenaline rush of fighting real humans with unknown and highly variable skills. I agree with Jason that it should stimulate MP participation and bring out what really makes MP fun-teamwork. I've been thinking that merging this with functionality similar to what we find in persistent dynamic campaign servers we would bring what SP mission players love-a personal contribution to a strategic objective. If Air marshal mode could be expanded to enable the air marshals to quickly and easily command their side's AI and ground resources to be placed or moved by taking direct control of what coding and algorithms do now in dynamic persistent campaign servers this would open up a whole new dimension to the sim. This would mean making it easy to command the movement of convoys, direct tanks to attack certain enemy defenses when the air marshal thinks force balance is in his favor, to place his limited resources such as flak to points of his choice like around airfields, critical bridges, factories that have vital production etc. Maybe even deciding which factories produce what. Probably allowing changes on the fly during map action would be tough from a coding perspective but a time slot could be set aside during the map roll to let a commander quickly assess what's going on and, working within rules-based limits. direct things to move to achieve a strategic objective. Of course, guessing what the guy on the other side is going to do will be a big part of success. To do this some work needs to be done in multiplayer like improving the net code to allow more objects that interact including AI and players. Its hard now to get a player limit up to just 32 with very modest amount of AI moving about and interacting in the server. Maxing out at 16 players will leave you hunting for a fight on a full size map. I would love to see lots of AI activity in a server that could handle 100+ players. Also, better and easier accounting of losses and production and more attention paid to the resiliency of objects and make sure updates don't wreck the behavior of objects (like bridges). Also AI behavior could use some work especially in ground-based combat. I loved playing the Coco server (rest its soul) because you could make a contribution to a multi-week-long campaign. Want to bomb factories or storage?- that reduces the enemy's available resources, want to dogfight?- your kills reduce the enemy's plane availability and sends pilots back to a rear field, want to hit tanks engaged in a battle? this helps your side reduce resources and enables taking control of the enemy's territory and local assets.-All of which factor in to the opening state of the next map. Eventually, everything that has happened during that multi-week period serves to influence the final outcome when a side can no longer defend its last base. It also allows one side to turn the tide. Its so much better than a points type server where winners just need to shoot down a few more planes or knock out a set number of targets that repeat every couple of maps so it gets uninteresting pretty quickly. You kind of have two competitions going on at once, one inside the other. Individual players and their skill level and numbers factoring at one level and the air marshal and his ability to think strategically in another. I think Coco gave up his beloved experiment because the updates kept causing fatal issues that too often prevented the server algorithms from doing their job. He had to do all kinds of algorithmic gymnastics to make it work within the game's limited ability to handle AI (1 tank had to equal 5) and to adequately calculate the results at the end of each map roll. All this takes a lot of time and effort even someone with Coco's exceptional talents. It was a great idea though and it was a lot of fun. Skud
  7. I had a chat with Steve Hinton while he was displaying the A5 at FHC several years back and who has flown both the Flugwerk (there was one at the airfield where his air museum is based in Chino although I'm not positive that is the one he is referring to) and the real A5 at FHC. He said there was "no comparison.The Flugwerk flew like a truck." He said his first reaction to the FHC A5 was "Whoa, what have we here?" and went on about how responsive it was and how beautifully harmonized the controls were. When I asked how that could be given that the Flugwerk was supposed to be an exact replica he said the Flugwerk has a lot of differences in the wing, operation of the control surfaces etc. "Not even close." Probably closer to a real 190 than flying a Harvard though. Nevertheless, I am sure the Flugwerk is a handful with that ASH 82 bolted to it (the one in Chino had an R2800) and would give any civy pilot a high pulse rate. About the landing gear issues on the Flugwerk, I saw that happen once at Chino where the gear wouldn't retract. It has a landing gear system from an F-86. They landed it OK and taxied straight to the hangar and jacked it up on to stands. It worked fine on the ground but air pressure or something was causing it to hang while airborne. I think they sorted it pretty quickly. Not trying to be negative here just passing on some first hand recollections. Skud

    ME 262

    Agreed on trading energy for alt if you take a jet and a prop at equal starting energy states and the prop aircraft loses energy faster than the jet every time both aircraft entered into a maximum rate turn then the jet gains an energy advantage on each pass If the jet extends into an energy conserving climb like hi yo-yo before the prop aircraft is able to take advantage of superior acceleration. It seems the prop aircraft is doomed once it is finally is bled down to 1g stall speeds and becomes a strafe target after successive re-engagements. Regarding sustained turn rate...If the sustained rate of turn is better in the jet then I would think there would be no further energy loss since that would not meet the definition of sustained turn rate. The sustained rate is probably a function of thrust, drag and stall speed. Two out of three likely go to the 262 but it probably depends on forward speed and compressor/prop efficiencies at those speeds and at some point at lower speeds the prop will overtake the 262 in thrust. I'm sure someone out there that can give me a lesson on it. I'd love to see the turn performance chart for the 262. Skud

    ME 262

    Not as silly as you think!

    ME 262

    http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf Interesting...Page 11/28... "The airplane holds its speed in tight turns much longer than conventional types" Every sim that has modeled the 262 previously had the the 262 bleed speed egregiously with any type of turns. Skud
  11. It was a nice feature of '46. Will we be seeing them again in BOS?
  12. Coco, How about making re-captured aircraft available on a first-come first-serve basis when an airfield is retaken?
  • Create New...