Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dramborleg

  1. 1 hour ago, Denum said:

    I did a dumb and tried to stall fight one in the MK9, I had zero control, I snap rolled violently into the ground and the little bugger lived!

    Did you use your flaps? I know in the real Spitfire they were only used for landing since they are either all the way down or up. But in this game, it's the only way I found to be able to stall fight 109s.

  2. 1 hour ago, QB.Beno said:


    Also this says that 109 has slowed down more than you, you can only hold an inside line in a turn without overshooting IF you are slower. 


    Spit holds some speed in a turn. It all compounds, it's a great match-up.


    I hate to fly 109's, I only fly spit. But 109 is a great plane and at end of day an experienced 109 pilot has more options. I think the FM is very good. And my experiences match those of AAR which I have read.

    Coming here from WT sim mode flying Spitfires from the Mk II to the XIV was such a shock because in WT the current Spit FM bleeds speed like there is no tomorrow in turns and combined with the (correctly) sensitive elevator and (debatable) very aft cg results in a very difficult plane to manage. Contrast to the Spit IX FM here where I eventually figured out in order to prevent overshooting even semi-competently flown 109s I had to COMPLETELY chop throttle to zero, kick hard rudder and even drop flaps after which it was not difficult at all to stay behind a 109 with flaps out or not. I don't know, but neither extreme (bleeds speed like crazy in turns vs needing to cut throttle to zero and hang everything out) feels correct.

  3. Thank you Devs for the significantly improved visibility. The other night when I first tried it out on CombatBox, I found an allied P-51 and managed to stay on his wing for a long time and despite a couple mis-steps in formation flying which caused me to lose him briefly, I was able to re-acquire him and follow again. Unfortunately I was so impressed with being able to do that I stopped scanning for threats and got bounced. Anyway, it's also great to be better able to discern a target's aspect now.  Prior to this update it was so difficult just finding the tiny, faint smudges that were unidentified aircraft, let alone figuring out in time whether it was turning away from you or towards you. I can even manage to spot multiple contacts attacking an airfield now, instead of seeing only one and then while attacking it get bounced by their wingman.

    • Like 2
  4. I've been enjoying going there since moving up here two years ago. Saw them go from one hanger to three from when we first visited as tourists in 2012 till now. They were just working on re-building a Stuka and were doing taxi runs with their Me262 with original design / modern materials Jumo 004's. I was a little disappointed they didn't/couldn't fly the FW-190 during the last fly day last year like they planned but got to enjoy what they did fly anyway. It would be a real disappointment if they close down.

  5. 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. 

  6. 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).



    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  7. 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.

  8. 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.


    20 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

    27" Acer Predator XB271HU bmiprz: 2560x1440 (WQHD or 1440p) @ 144-165 Hz


    Calibrated to sRGB range with i1Display Pro, using these parameteres:

    • luminance: 120cd/m2
    • white point (temperature): 6500K ("D65")
    • gamma: 2.2

    And still I have the same problems @Aeglos. My recommendation is to turn off in-game AntiAliasing, together with global Sharpen filter off (not the landscape one). It makes spotting bearable with Expert mode on.

    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. 





    • Upvote 1
  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. 18 hours ago, SCG_Limbo said:

    @Aegolos:  Try positioning the monitor much closer to your face and use reading glasses if necessary.  22 inches is terribly small and very unusual in this day and age but you can increase the field of view if you position the monitor like 12 inches from your face.


    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. 18 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

    49" LG 4k TV 


    My evolution was 37" sony , Sharp Aquos 40" 1080p nd then the LG


    Cheers, Dakpilot 

    Wow... I've taken to occasionally borrowing our temporary main house TV which is a 28" Samsung running 1080P for use and found it helps some with spotting.  I started this thread to see what the average player uses, especially those that do multiplayer and plan accordingly. 

    I intend to play multiplayer most of the time, as I came from nearly a decade of Aces High, followed by a few years of War Thunder SIM mode.  Right now with my 22", I'll lose contact due to various reasons (clouds, terrain, etc) and end up getting surprised from behind because anticipation doesn't always work when contacts simply fade away.

  16. The screenshots below show my view while in the Combat Box server running the Crimean Offensive 1.05 map with "Scattered clouds and light winds from the south."  There is a haze everywhere as if I'm flying in fog.  Is this what I'm supposed to be seeing or is there something wrong with my settings?  My system info: 


    8GB RAM

    Nvidia GTX 960

    Windows 10

    DX 12

    I've changed the settings from LOW to HIGH to ULTRA and it still looks like this.  Other people on the server said the skies were clear for them. 





  • Create New...