Jump to content

Dirtbag_Jim

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Dirtbag_Jim

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Interests
    Whiskey
  1. This. I don't even really find much issue with 50 cals, nor any of the other guns/cannons: a P-47's ammo load is more than enough to take down 6 planes+ in a single sortie. I never have any issues taking down most planes with any of the guns in the game, except for 109's and specifically in the tail section. It's relatively easy to bring it down on almost any other part of the plane (one burst on the engine or pilot is almost always a kill, but that's the same for all other fighters too), but if you're directly on a 109's six you can often unload an entire ammo load with little to no effect and just watch it fly away. And it's such a big problem considering the most common place you're gonna be shooting at someone is from direct six. And yea sure, you can always do deflection shots (it's what I currently do to bring down 109's), but that's an inconvenience that exists only for attacking 109's, which gives it a massive advantage over all other planes: you have to just hope that the 109 fucks up and does a hard turn allowing you a good deflection shot. It felt most obvious when the Yak 9T was released, and I saw 109 tails just absorbing 37mm HE rounds like a sponge (while other planes, like 190's were easily put out of action). You can bring down almost any other plane with a good burst to the tail. Meanwhile attacking a 109's tail is like attacking an IL-2. There was a user before (I forget who) that posted test vids comparing the amount of 50 cal rounds it takes to destroy a plane when shooting its tail, and the 109's needed often more than 4 times the amount of all other planes (needing direct hits in literally the hundreds, which is often a quarter+ of the entire ammo load on American planes). Which is funny considering all the historical pilot reports of how weak the 109's tail was, and how many pilots died from the tail unit simply detaching from the plane during hard maneuvers. Hope this doesn't come across as me screaming "GERMAN BIAS", coz I love Luftwaffe planes and fly them regularly, but it just isn't as fun flying 109's knowing its that much harder to bring down than other planes, and not even for a historical reason. The last two updates have helped quite a bit, but 109 tails are still simply that much more durable than all other planes'stails, and for no discernibly good reason that I could find from reading historical and pilot reports.; none of them ever stated some magical ability for a 109's tail to magically absorb incredible amounts of damage with zero effect, rather stating the contrary and how weak the 109's tail was, even without battle damage.
  2. Really excited for the release of Tobruk, and have been for quite a while. However, as a mainly SP player I was wondering if there were plans for a dynamic campaign generator to be implemented? Similar to the built in Campaign generator in BoX, or the third party PWCG. I know there's a campaign generator by TheOden, but looking at the thread it seems like it hasn't been updated in about 2 years and I'm not sure if it'll work with this new release. Sorry if this has been asked before and appreciate any help anyone can provide!
  3. Dirtbag_Jim + BON Even if I don't win, cheers for your generosity! And thank you for your service as a doctor o7
  4. This solved it! Thanks again for the help, can't wait to get back into CloD Was worried it was something wrong with my computer that would hold me back when TF 5.0 gets released
  5. Thanks for the quick replies guys, really appreciate it! Unfortunately I'm really busy at the moment, but the next chance I get some free time I'll try both of your ideas and I'll update the thread if either works. Cheers for the help! o7
  6. Since installing Cliffs of Dover Blitz on my new PC, I've run into an issue with the view being off center. This isn't me mistaking german gunsights being offset to the right, and it's not that at all: No matter what plane I'm in, the view is always offset as if it's looking upwards and to the left a bit (as shown in the screenshot attached). The game seems to consider this to be the default "centered" view (even after assigning an using a button to reset the view to center). The problem seems to be the pilot head is positioned offset to the left and facing upwards slightly. It makes it extremely difficult to use not only the gunsight, but also to fly in general as I constantly have to have my head and neck angled in a funny way just to get my view at least somewhat centered, and it's extremely disorienting flying or being in a dogfight as I can't naturally center my view by looking forward again after looking anywhere else. This isn't an issue with my TrackIR as it works fine in IL-2 GB, and even when I turn off TrackIR and start Cliffs of Dover, the default view is still always offset to the left and looking a bit upwards. I'd had CloD installed on a previous computer a few months ago, and didn't have this issue, so I'm unsure what the problem may be.
  7. 1. Type of improvement: Fairness/Historical accuracy Explanation of proposals: Improved La-5F canopy with cut down rear fuselage Benefits: From various sources online, all La-5's equipped with the M-82F engine were made with the improved glass canopy with improved rearward visibility, and even some equipped with the older M-82 engine were produced to such standards. This should be available in-game as a modification for the La-5, much like how the Fw-190D-9 has the option to install a bubble-top canopy. It would be historical and accurate to have this modification available for the La-5, and it would help improve the fairness of the game: basically all Bf-109's have the option to improve visibility through various modifications (whether through removal of the rear armor plate, or addition of a glass armor plate), while almost all Soviet fighters have abysmal rearward visibility. Having the option for the improved glass canopy would a massively useful addition to the La-5, improving fairness against Luftwaffe fighters, and would be historically accurate. It also just doesn't feel right flying a supposedly "La-5F" in Mid-Late war scenarios (1943+) while still using the terrible canopy from 1942, despite the improved canopy having had widespread introduction early in 1943. The La-5 is a collectors plane as well, so there should be no reason it can't have the same effort of adding a different canopy, as was done for the Fw-190D-9, done for it as well. 2. Type of improvement: Fairness/Historical accuracy Explanation of proposals: Glass canopy for Yak-1 Benefits: Many Yak-1's featured a rear glass canopy like on the Yak-7 (and pictured on the Yak-1 illustration below). Having this available as a modification for the Yak-1 in-game would be historically accurate and help improve fairness in the game against Luftwaffe fighters. All Bf-109's have the option to remove rear headrest armor, or install glass armor plates, while all early Soviet fighters (Stalingrad and earlier) save for the Mig-3, have abysmal rearward visibility that can only be negated through massive speed loss by opening the canopy. It creates a massively unfair advantage for Luftwaffe fighters, especially in online environments where situational awareness is paramount to success. It would be historically accurate to introduce a modification to simply change the material of the rear canopy on the Yak-1 from metal to glass, and is clearly feasibly to implement in-game as shown by the Bubble-top canopy modification on the Fw-190D-9, and this would also help make the game more balanced/fair. 3. Type of improvement: Additional game content Explanation of proposals: M-105P engine modification for Yak-1, Yak-7 and Lagg-3 Benefits: Having an air frame be able to fit different engine's is clearly doable in-game, as shown by the engine modifications for the Spitfire's (both Mk Vb and Mk IXe). That same type of modification should be available for the Yak-1, Yak-7 and the Lagg-3, where you can equip the earlier M-105P engine instead of the improved M-105PF engine. This would be historically accurate, and an easy way to add a ton more content to the early-mid war scenarios in-game, without having to create a bunch of new planes from scratch, essentially turning 3 planes to 6 variants. This would allow the planes to be used in earlier scenarios, such as using the Yak-7 as an early Yak-7 variants in the Battle of Stalingrad scenarios and campaigns. This ability to expand the plane set of the soviet fighters would also help introduce more variety and diversity to soviet plane selection, rather than having basically 3 extremely similarly performing (almost identical) Yak's (due to them all having the same engine). For online scenarios, and offline campaigns, this would massively improve plane-set selections available for Soviet forces. On a side note, using the earlier M-105P engine should help improve overheating problems on the Yak-1, which was not designed for the M-105PF and thus has insufficient radiators for it. Managing overheating better, despite performance decrease, could help buff the Yak-1 and allow it to stay in a fight for longer, giving it at least a minor advantage/tool to help fight against superior Luftwaffe fighters that outclass it.
  8. Hi there, Was wondering if it would it ever be possible for there to be the option to use the M-105PA engine instead of the M-105PF engine in certain soviet fighters like the Yak-1, Yak-7 and the Lagg-3. This would better allow these planes use in earlier war scenarios (e.g. Yak-1 in Moscow, Yak-7 in Stalingrad), and the option for different engines in the same air frame should be possible to do as evidenced by the Spitfire Mk Vb in-game (Option between Merlin 46 or Merlin 45 engine). Maybe it could be offered as a paid modification in the store, to help cover development costs, as it would basically be like having new variants of the existing planes that you can use in more campaigns/scenarios. It would also help improve diversity, as currently all the Yak's use the same engine, so there may not be as much motivation for casual customers to purchase all the variants of the Yak when their performance figures are relatively similar and they can get the same basic experience by purchasing only one of them. Also on a side note: wonder if we could ever get an option for a canopy modification for the Yak-1 to have a glass rear canopy like in the illustration below. Would be similar to implement as the option for a different canopy on the Fw-190D-9, or the option to remove the headrest that's available in all 109's. It provides a big, kind of unfair advantage, that's available free to all 109's, but you have to pay to get rear-visibility for a Yak by purchasing the 1b model; and you can't even use it in early war SP campaigns, or in early war scenarios on multiplayer servers. If 109's get the option to improve rearward visibility, so should the Yak-1.
×
×
  • Create New...