Jump to content

Dramborleg

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About Dramborleg

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pacific Northwest
  1. I have used my Gladiator Pro with KG12 almost daily for the last two years. I used a MS Sidewinder Precision 2 for about a decade before that. The only things that have gone wrong with my Gladiator Pro are 1) somehow broke one spring which is easily replaceable with the spares included, and 2) the hat switch up and down directions no longer click but they still work. I love how it continues to be spike-free and accurate due to the contact-less sensors. I would definitely recommend it if you can find one right now, unless you want to spend more for the higher end sticks.
  2. Some models I completed years ago. All 1/72 scale from Hasegawa, Airfix, and Aoshima. I have some more kits waiting for me to get back into the hobby, when time and space permits.
  3. I came here after about 4 years of War Thunder (and about a decade of Aces High previous to that). Spent almost all my time in sim mode in their "Enduring Confrontation" arenas after briefly starting out in their "Realistic Battle" mode. Other than what others mentioned, here's some of what I don't like about WT: 1) Bombers - Unlike fighters, bombers get third person view and air starts so they don't have to play by the same rules as fighters. 2) Questionable flight models - The Spitfire FM's were revised last year to a supposedly more realistic one. Result is they are unstable as heck, twitchy, and bleed speed like crazy when turning (and consequently stalling and falling out of the sky). The developer's reason to adjust them was something along the lines of making the FM behave "correctly" in the mouse/instructor modes (realistic and arcade) where you don't directly control the plane. The biggest adjustment for me here in IL2 is trying to get the Spitfire IX to slow down and stay slow to minimize blacking out. Trying to keep up a stall fight with a 109 with your throttle completely at idle seems... odd. In WT, I'd have stalled out and crashed. 3) Prototype and "captured" planes - To make money, besides all the micro-transactions you have the choice to purchase premium aircraft. Although they aren't completely fantasy aircraft, they do include prototypes or drawing board planes like the Me-264, Ju-288C, BV-238, Ho-229, XP-55, etc. They also include "captured" planes like a US FW-190 and A6M, German Tempest V and P-47D, and Japanese F4U among others. To me, none of these belong in a sim. Some of what I do like about WT: 1) Easier to find opponents - In sim mode there are no enemy icons period, and friendly icons only appear around 200m or so. Instead, you end up watching the little black dots that are what you see when aircraft are at long distances. Much easier than very gray dots or clusters against blue-gray sky or almost any ground. But like others have mentioned, you can still sneak up on people. And it is still possible to lose planes against terrain at gunfight range, like C202's in the Sicily map. Arena maps are smaller also, so less time spent getting into action. 2) Graphics good enough for the fps - WT doesn't require a lot of tweaking to run acceptably for me (i5-6500 and GTX 960).
  4. If I recall correctly, bubble tops have a little more drag than a razorback variant If everything else remained the same a bubbletop variant may be a little slower. I think the 51B is slightly faster than earlier 51D's until other improvements were made. Also, there is a loss of stability in yaw with a bubbletop since you lose some fuselage area. Later model P-51D's and P-47's like the M have fillets added to the vertical stab to gain back some stability. I know Aces High isn't considered sim-enough by some here, but I remember some guys preferred the 51B there when furballing.
  5. I was waiting for this update to drop since hearing about it in the DD. Thanks.
  6. Thanks for posting this. I already stopped playing online a couple weeks ago due to difficulty spotting planes including those flying in front of clouds. If this issue is universally true that would explain a lot. Not going to play online till these issues are dealt with.
  7. I know this thread is a little old, but I think setting the fps limit to 30 eliminated the severe fps drops I was getting. Playing MP, I would start out at 60 fps for several minutes then drop to 20 fps with severe stuttering and slideshow. Alt-tabbing out of the game and back in temporarily fixed it. Since setting the fps limiter to 30 a couple nights ago I haven't had those fps drops and the game has been smooth (for 30 fps). Hopefully it stays this way.
  8. I'm unable to get into CB right now. The game freezes at the Downloading Files screen after I click to join CB. Restarted my machine but it didn't help. I see 59/72 in the server, is anyone else having problems?
  9. Thanks @[DBS]TH0R, I turned off Sharpen and it did help some (I already had AA turned off). I wonder if Sharpen was causing planes in front of clouds to flicker / fade for me. I had been doing a lot of reading through threads on graphics settings including Jason's advice, but it looks like you just have to figure out what works better for yourself.
  10. I like the lines of the Griffon Spitfires more than the Merlin Spitfires, especially together with the bubble canopy. Would be nice to have as a collector's release plane. It's unfortunate that the only current game that has them is War Thunder, which has the XIV, 22, 24 and Seafire XVII and 47. Gaijin's interpretation of whatever flight data they have results in an atrocious flight model - unstable and very tail heavy, difficult to fly with a flight stick and pedals. Spitfires in that game tend to want to point the nose everywhere but where you want to point it. But apparently since Spitfires "behave as expected" in their mouse control / instructor assisted arcade and realistic modes, they aren't considered a problem. Contrast with their 109 flight models which exhibit very few negative traits. One of the third party developers for DCS was planning to make a Mk XIV, but their contract with Eagle Dynamics wasn't renewed.
  11. I use zoom the same way. I mapped it to my hat switch so I don't have to move my head to zoom in and out. Typically I zoom almost all the way out for the largest field of view as I scan all around, and then zoom if I need to. It's when I'm zoomed out and scanning when I'm sure I'm missing contacts. I really appreciate IL2 having such realistic features as clouds obscuring planes inside or behind them. War Thunder's clouds don't hide the dot that is shown when a plane is far away. But as they add more realistic features, I feel you now have to play at a more realistic scale for objects. Otherwise your visual scanning difficulty is further hampered because of the additional problem of things being too small on your screen. I'm not advocating for either view system in use either. Things should not get smaller when you zoom in at closer objects (alternative spotting). Maybe if their recommended (not "minimum required") system requirements included "minimum 34" screen at a x b resolution" it would have resulted in less frustration for me.
  12. Thanks for your replies. I didn't know most people had big 30" or more screens as a normal either. I might have to put IL2 down for now till I can buy a new screen. It's just too frustrating playing MP; most servers use non-alternate view and I consistently get surprised and shot down despite diligently scanning behind and around me every time I'm flying (I use TrackIR so it's easy to look around). I think the only way I can see objects to the correct scale on the screen is if I'm zoomed in almost all the way, which makes it terrible for situational awareness since you have the field of view of looking through a telescope. I did some quick missions and used this equation with the Bf109's dimensions (~9.9m wingspan, ~8.8 m length) along with how far I sit from my screen (0.6 m), and distance to the in-game Bf109 using icons and I calculated what the on-screen dimensions should be. For example, if the in-game icon shows 0.3 km I get: 9.9 / 300 = x / 0.6, resulting in x = about 0.0198 m or about 20 mm. So the only way I can make a Bf109's wingspan to measure 20 mm on the screen is to zoom in all the way with my current monitor. Can anyone with a big screen do the same and see if you have to zoom in all the way to get the proper scale of objects on your screen?
  13. Really? You can't be serious. Objects are still the same size on the screen whether I'm 20 inches or 12 away. Lol reading glasses. Thanks anyway.
  14. I play with a 22 inch screen at 1920x1080. I doubt I'm (and anyone else who's not running a bigger screen) having the same experience as anyone with a 30 or 40 inch screen. Aircraft even 2.5 to 3 km away are just a slight gray spec of a few pixels against the sky, not anything like what I see of GA aircraft doing circuits near where I live. It's an issue of scaling and field of view to me, everything including the reflector sight and canopy frame in front of me are much smaller than in real life. The only way to see things in realistic proportions for me is heavy use of zoom, which then means a very narrow field of view which makes it easy to lose situational awareness. Should those of us with suboptimal hardware just suck it up and be cannon fodder for the online Experten, or be forced to stick to dead end single player mode?
  15. I can't get in either. The server list shows 40 out of 72 slots taken. *Nevermind, I got in.
×
×
  • Create New...