Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

106 Excellent

About von_Michelstamm

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. He mentioned it a couple of times. Most recently, I heard it in the “the German Aces Speak,” which on audiobook is over 10 hours of interviews with Galland, krupinski, etc. The second book has Hartmann. One highlight so far is Steinhoff talking about the nightmare that dealing with Marseilles was, before he sent him to Africa to get him away from the distraction of easy village girls 😂
  2. And a cigar holder for when things got serious. That always made me chuckle considering he was puffing away and dropping ashes with a fuel line inches to his right and potentially bullets and shells flying all around. Balls!
  3. Just for fun, you should be able to take your flare gun with you. Who wants to duel? 🤠
  4. I see. I certainly respect the challenge, inheriting something great but with lots of broken parts, and needing to generate enough interest/revenue from players to get them past the steep-ish "why doesn't this work/why is this like this" curve, in order to be able to actually fix those problems. Fighting over the desert will definitely encourage me to stick with it
  5. I don’t have permission to access that page, unfortunately...
  6. I’m asking for confirmation to manage my expectations, because I’m unsure what exactly counts as code base. That’s different from some bigger plan to make it more or less like BoX: 1. Lean in - sure, code. But is that a “someday” thing or “never?” Sorry, it bugs me enough I had to ask about it. 2. FOV on axis - it exists already in game as something that can be done using the mouse. Not a new or different mechanic. Others have mentioned it. Is making it mappable to a joystick axis a base code change? Is it something they might eventually do? 3. Swapping radiator buttons - sounds like a change of two values (and an important bugfix.) Not a big change to how the game actually works. I don’t know, is it? 4. UI, etc... menus/interface/fonts — not base code related. Something others have asked about. Even just for the sake of legibility. Is it on the menu short term? At all? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a thumbs up or down or an “if we have the time” for these.
  7. So specifically the option of leaning into the gunsight using headtracking instead of using a button is probably never happening? How about stuff like adjusting FOV using an axis, or stuff like prop pitch being incorrectly reversed for the 109? Any ui changes planned for 5.0? Thanks!
  8. Fair enough. I realize some functions (like lights) are in one game while others aren't in the other. I mean giving the option for things that exist in both games to be handled either "BoS style" or "CLoD style." Would make life easier for people who play both or are switching from one to the other. In some cases it might be as simple as just providing axis controls for things that don't currently have them but do in BOS, like FOV. (i'd love to see BOS do the same, but that's a different story. Ideally both games would just adopt a flexible, customizable control mapping system with search function like war thunder uses :)) I'd also love to see language standardized between games, so controls are called the exact same thing in both places. In general, with both games being brought closer under the same il2 umbrella with 'blitz,' one would expect them to feel just a little bit closer (including similar UI and menus). Honestly the gunsight is the really big one for me. I've "solved" the problem by just offsetting the x value in open tracker and loading that when i fly LW. But the bigger problem is "hitting an invisible wall" when trying to lean forward, until I press a button to zoom in the rest of the way, (at the cost of checking my six.) I wish there was an option to handle all that with head tracking! The real problem with it is I have to teach myself to stop leaning forward in one game, while still doing it in the other. I also have to totally flatten my Z axis in open tracker, because open tracker seems to translate blocked motion in one direction into motion in a different one (usually sideways.) If there's a fix in open tracker for that I'd love to find it out! Rather annoyingly, I've had to do this with all translation axis to keep from "bouncing" or "sliding" all around the interior of the plane, since the boundaries of the pilot's field of motion in CLOD seem to extend further outside the cockpit than they do in BOS. I'd love it if the basics of movement, etc. could (optionally) feel more similar between both games.
  9. Any idea what the 109 is set to? Also, I can set up convergence and save it, but on quick missions I can’t load or save my convergence settings, but I can still edit them. Very strange! is there some place to change convergence settings (ie editing a file) for the qmb missions, just to be sure I’m loaded out historically?
  10. One of my biggest obstacle to “getting into” CLOD is how different the controls are. Things bind differently, things like WEP function differently and need new buttons, and especially having to press a button to lean into the gunsight instead of just leaning in using my head tracker kind of interferes with the fun. I feel when I’m playing one game I’m messing up my skill set for the other. i get that they’re different games, but are there any plans in 5.0 to have an option to use BOS style controls? Even better, have it import my control map from BoS so players don’t have to remap anything?
  11. Want to know whether I need to be changing the gun convergence on the 109 each time I play, to 400/400 mg + 200/400 cannons, or if it’s already like that by default... when I uncheck ‘default’ it shows 100, but I don’t think that’s what the default is. Anyone know what it is?
  12. you're right about standards lowering later, but you're overthinking the selection bit. 1. At some point they determined the ideal body type (short, stocky) and age (older) for the role. Did they actively select or push for it when deciding who served where? That's an open question. 2. Signing up for an MOS wasn't a guarantee you'd make it through school and end up in that role, or stay there. Part of that is simply not being cut out for the job. In a high G job like dive bombing, there's some natural selection to be expected, no? If you were to take all ju52 pilots in the LW, magically measure and average their G tolerance, and then do the same for all the ju87 pilots, would you expect to end up with the same number? Which would be higher and why? Does simply averaging all human G tolerance destroy any difference there that might exist, at the cost of historical accuracy? That is also an open question. Again, I'm curious what the dev's take on this was in their research and modeling. They may very well have considered and rejected this for any number of reasons. But it's by no means a 'ludicrous' consideration.
  13. It's not ludicrous if historically pilots for certain specialty aircraft (dive bombers) were selected (including washouts due to the rigors of training) for having higher than average G tolerance, which is the question.
  14. I didn't claim that was data nor have I made an effort to track it down, but clearly some data existed at some point to back up that claim. I also don't know what data the devs already have, it might actually cover this info. The diary clearly states they're averaging their pilot physiology data. My question/hope was whether they are modifying that average at all based on plane types, since planes like the stuka have different G requirements for operation than, say, transport planes, and may even historically have had a different average for their pilot corps. Thats a reasonable consideration, no? This is a comment on a dev diary for clarification on an unreleased feature, not a new feature request requiring data, as it's not clear what data they already have or what they have or have not considered.
  15. Just did a quick google now, I’ve heard this elsewhere too. I’m curious the data behind this. Important too would be data that shows the average Stuka pilot actually *was* stocky, etc. (since I made a possibly wrong assumption that they *chose* pilots based on this, rather than this just being something they observed.) https://books.google.com/books?id=9SyQt5L0WscC&pg=PT69&lpg=PT69&dq=stuka+pilots+stocky&source=bl&ots=hwhyHPoaev&sig=ACfU3U2N1NeD1Oz7jERpQGEBvag1da8N6g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjE_8KTvIrkAhURK30KHX39CZgQ6AEwDHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=stuka pilots stocky&f=false
  • Create New...