Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About Xenunjeon88

  • Rank
  1. Hnnnnuughh... Shit. Laundry's not till Tuesday...
  2. Has anyone ever played IL-2 1946, more specifically with HSFX mod on? The FW-190 A-3 flies incredibly differently in 1946 than the one in BOS. I suggest everyone (both lovers and haters) to try flying the IL-2 1946 with HSFX mod on to see if they too can feel the differences (so as to know if I am imagining the difference) and what exactly contributes to the differences in handling, qualities and characteristics.
  3. I've started playing IL-2 1946 again but with HSFX mod installed. I flew the A-3 in that game and in terms of 1st impressions, IN MY OPINION, the model in IL-2 1946 HSFX seems to better represent what interviews, reports and pilot commentary have said on the FW-190. I went through a series of aerobatic maneuvers and mock dogfights in both games and where the BOS FW-190 keeps falling into a spin during the more taxing manuvers, the HSFX model has a much more solid response, less prone to stalls and spins and seems to have great energy retention. You won't outturn a Yak-1 in a sustained turn, but when I try reversing for a two circle fight in BOS, I bleed speed like a sieve and either turn so sluggishly the Yak manages to get the first shot, or I fall into a spin as I desperately try to turn this thing around. HSFX is the complete opposite, I reverse the turn, gain separation, and swoop in like the devil was after me. Elevator authority is amazing in HSFX where BOS is like a bucking bronco. What gives the FW-190 in HSFX is not it's turn, but its ability to change directions very quickly and precisely. In BOS trying to do that gets you killed. HSFX's FW-190 really did feel like a sabre in that you can't stick to a Yak in the turn, but its power, speed and maneuverability allowed you to gain separation, run in there guns blazing, then gain separation again, it was a real, "charge in, charge out" sort of fight, where as in the HSFX 109, you wanted to follow the Yak and stick to his tail. They're the same plane, yet they handle so differently. Yes, HSFX is a mod for a game that's like 16 years old, the model in BOS is more detailed and refined, but I want to know why the two are so different when the 109 handles the same in both games.
  4. Is it weird that you can deploy flaps and wheels at same time? Because both need to be handcranked and it takes quite a while for both, yet while both hands are busy cranking (phrasing), you can still throw the stick around like you have an extra 2 hands holding the stick. Is this noteworthy to anyone?
  5. I brush aside all your puny suggestions and demand 777 to put the totally real and historical and not at all from the fictional Red Alert series X-66 mammoth Tank in the game! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf2__3XOBdo
  6. Yet there is an enormous difference in durability between static trucks/planes vs moving trucks/ piloted planes (AI or another player). Parked Pe-2? a half second burst of BF-109 machine guns ONLY, will completely destroy the plane, you can't do that to a player or AI flown Pe-2. Even with moving trucks, you have to land a lot more hits before it's destroyed as opposed to static trucks, that go up in smoke with a few small caliber bullets.
  7. This was the campaign, so I guess it technically is still mission editor, but the default the Devs are using are way too easy...
  8. This may be my opinion, but is it just me or do all static trucks and parked planes practically evaporate from the slightest damage? I've noticed it but never said anything until yesterday, when I accidentally clipped a Soviet ZIS truck with my FW190 wingtip and while I took no damage, the truck was completely destroyed. It just bothers me that these two static objects, trucks and planes, are incredibly easy to destroy, That being said, I also think artillery pieces are too easy to destroy, (one 20mm hit is enough?) but that's way more debatable than trucks and planes.
  9. Not to mention that at medium and longer ranges, tracer rounds have slightly different ballistic properties than normal rounds, which makes their path misleading because they don't actually trace the trajectory the majority of your rounds are following. (not sure if this is simulated in-game) 2ndly, a tracer round is not as lethal as a AP or HE round, which some would prefer to take out of their belt to maximize lethality at any given time. 3rdly, tracer rounds simply tell your opponents where you are when you fire from very VERY far away, and the color gives away which side you are on. There are plenty of times where I did not see the aircraft, (the aircraft wasn't even rendered ingame at that moment) but saw tracers arcing in the distance below me, to which I simply dived in that direction only to find a target I quickly obliterated... no doubt it has happened to me too, as I have fired a short burst and a half minute later, someone is bouncing me that I didn't see on my high six just moments earlier...
  10. Because it's nowhere near as good as the 1946 campaigns. If I gave a choice to players, saying "Hey, do you guys want to keep playing PWCG, or a developed campaign in BOS reminiscent of 1946, I get the feeling a lot of people would chose 1946." In the four missions I've played in PWCG in an F-4 three of which were ground attack missions, I've essentially killed 0 things... for some reason enemy AI flights have a hard-on for the player, while trying to bomb the mission objective, 6 I-16s tailed me and shot me down, even as my one wingman shot three of them down trying to clear my tail, all while they ignored him to get to me. The other two ground attack missions were to attack airfields, which when I got there, only 3 AAA units occupied the airport and there were no planes, trucks or tanks to bomb. And the last mission where I was finally asked to intercept something, nothing showed up and for nearly two hours I just flew around the same airspace, looking for something to shoot at. And compare that with even the linear campaign in the original IL-2. You escort Ju-88 and enjoy the fireworks as bridges tanks convoys and buildings go up in smoke as a sort of reward for taking down the Yak-1s that tried to get them. Next you're strafing convoys yourself a week later, then doing fighter sweeps during thunderstorms and chasing down scouts the next. I'm not saying it should be an exact carbon copy, but what was the experience I had with PWCG? Two hours of flying around after a 10 minute loading time? Having to quit the game after every mission? Deal with the confusing and prone to freezing GUI?
  11. God, I'd pay $1000 just to get a decent campaign out of BOS... I'm chewing my way through all the IL-2 1946 campaigns and I can't imagine how 777 decided to make the campaign BOS BOM got after such great campaigns (generator and linear) in 1946...
  12. Well, so it seems historically correct that tracer-less belts existed, but rarely done? Should it then be a limited ammo type in multiplayer games? As in only 1 out of 10 players can have it in a game? I don't know. I really want to try tracerless belts...
  13. More specifically, why don't I have to open the doors manually? Why do they seem to open automatically when I press the drop bomb button? Is this accurate to the RL IL-2?
  14. I turned the topic into a poll, so that I could ask the active forum community if they would form some sort of consensus on the question.
  • Create New...