Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by [TLC]MasterPooner

  1. On 2/11/2020 at 8:56 AM, Kataphrakt said:

    WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunner provides great information on the mechanics of this if one can get their hands on it. While I do regard this as the end-all-be-all for available armor penetration sources, it does have limitations. Mainly that it uses outdated DeMarrie equations and that the copies which one can obtain now are old editions often without the 10+ pages of corrections that the later editions came with.

    to which editions are you referring to? and what changes were made exactly?

  2. On 2/12/2020 at 2:19 AM, LukeFF said:

    Sounds to me like you have never played any of the Combat Mission games, because they have never, ever provided penetration charts for any of their titles. Yet, despite that, their armor modeling system is justifiably regarded as being very high-fidelity (and the people who buy and play the CM titles are a very, very picky bunch).

    Combat mission was closely aided by WW2 Armor Ballistics and Gunnery. One of the Authors used to post on their forum all the time. The game performs almost exactly as you would expect from the book. The CMx2 titles performing much closer to the book data than the CMx1 ones. There are a few minor differences between what you would expect from the tables in the book and the game but they are exceedingly minor.

  3. 48 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

    Getting us all back truthfully ain't going to be easy on your end, if that's even possible at this point.  

    I agree that it is painful obviously, but if they fixed the spotting I would be much much more into the game the instant they did it.

  4. On 2/24/2020 at 5:15 PM, Jason_Williams said:


    Nothing new here. We already do such scaling and make objects appear larger then they actually are. Again, we have changed nothing in 0-10km range from before. At least that's not what we meant to do. We only attempted to change 10km+. Whatever you guys are experiencing is either a bug or shading issue. I'm not convinced it is an LOD issue necessarily. I personally have no problem with seeing things close range. 



    Hi Jason. I read your Officer Club post on spotting and I appreciate that you guys are working on the spotting.


    I do think there has been some miscommunication about what the problem was, based your description of events in your post. To be clear, I think that your impression of events is entirely understandable.


    The bubble was never the main issue. The spotting under 10km and especially under 4-6 was always the main problem. However, players knew the bubble existed and this led most people who complained over the years to blame it on the bubble. Understandably, you guys fixed the bubble, but people are still not happy because they still feel blind. (because the real problem was not the bubble.) All the reports of spotting problems post BOBP are as far as I can not bugs, but rather people losing contacts when the new system stops kicking in over 10 km, or whatever range it works at. Right now, I can sit 40km (or more) from an airbase and watch someone take off, but they become much harder to see as they get closer, so hard in fact that the only way to keep track is to zoom all the way in, and I still sometimes lose them. The real problem is and always had been the spotting system in general, not just the bubble. Only since the bubble was fixed have most people started complaining about the up close spotting, because since the bubble variable has been removed it has become more obvious to more people what the real problem was.


    I would also like to add that while you said this will not be a quick fix because you are dedicated to getting it right on the next revision, this bit is frustrating for many of us. This issue has a hugely negative impact on game-play, in in many peoples opinion, realism. There are also tons of solutions available, that have been implemented in many games over the years. Aces High did it was LOD adjustments and dots, there is whatever Cliffs of Dover Does (which is excellent btw), BMS's smart scaling (which is apparently done more aggressively than is done in IL2GB), and ironically War Thunders spotting system given how goofy that game is (except at super long ranges where it uses an absurdly huge dot, like 20km plus). There is also the scaling you said is already in game. Couldn't any of these options, even just more aggressively applying the scaling you said is already in game, be implemented relatively quickly as opposed to waiting until you have some super-duper perfect solution? Perfection being the enemy of good etc. At least to me, and I a large number of other people given the forum activity since 3.0, the spotting issue is the most critical or one of the most critical issues in the game. It affects all facets of game play. Almost every other feature you could add as opposed to spotting will be negatively impacted by the spotting.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 6

  5. When I saw this threadI read it as drop "tanks" as weapons. Now I am disappointed he meant "drop tanks"


    So instead, can we please drop "tanks" as weapons? I would love to drop a Sherman tank right on someones ass.

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 2

  6. On 12/18/2019 at 4:25 AM, Bies said:


    Center of Strategic and Budgetary Assessments






    13.   See S. Schallhorn et al., Visual Search in Air Combat (Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory,
    1990), particularly 5–11, for the discussion on visual search and the practical use of the human eye as an air-to-air sensor.





    15.   When not focused on a distant object, the eye muscles tend to relax, resulting in a focus distance of 10 feet or less.

    16.   Disciplined search patterns consist of eight to twelve relatively widely spaced fixations per 90-degree horizontal sector.
    Aircrew in a formation are generally assigned to search a specific sector and do so in a systematic manner usually
    proceeding from the front to the rear of the sector slightly above the horizon, then from the rear to the front of the sector
    slightly below the horizon, or vice versa. The goal is to cover the sector in a reasonable amount of time with fixations
    spaced about 15 degrees apart. This maximizes the chances of detecting a target with peripheral vision while sacrificing
    little in terms of relatively low-probability long-range detections.

    It should also be noted that the rate of fixations they give, and the following probability is completely arbitrary and incorrect. It is not in the original paper either. Your eyes make more fixations faster when you read this post.






    "It is during these periods, which last on average about 190 milliseconds, that the eyes take in visual information. " This would equate to over 300 fixations per minute. Your eyes also make two fixations at the same time, and see everything from a slightly different angle, which increases the minute of arc that the eyes can see.



    It is correct however that contacts at or under 2.5 miles should be easy to locate, and that contacts further out should require more careful scanning to find. However, given a rendering system on the screen that represents contacts in some proportional manner to real life contacts (contrast, size, etc) this problem more or less solves itself since these principles apply to searching for small numbers of pixels as well. However it does not work if the contacts are unreasonably difficult to see like we currently have in game.

    • Upvote 1

  7. Yeah this is definitely the single biggest problem with the game right now. Spotting is such a tactically significant thing a flight sim that much of what is otherwise a great sim is significantly diminished by the current spotting issues. If the developers would fix this issue in a patch it would instantly make this game twice as good as it already is.


    With the current system, I can routinely sit 20-40km from an airbase and watch people take off well enough to count them. Once these planes get to about 6-8km, the almost always vanish unless I manage to keep sight on a single pixel by going max zoom all the way to intercept. Spotting at 20km? No problem. 3km? Too close.



    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1

  8. 15 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

    that is a bench test where the engine is on a "bench" in a controlled environment,  not in an actual airplane.

    Irrelevant, since it is a test of the engine itself. But also because there would be no point of the Army doing a WEP test to approve the rating for use if this was not useful for the actual plane. So actually, this isnt apples to oranges. Its apples and apples on a bench.


    15 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

    50-100 threads



    15 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

    about 1 a month,

    also no


    15 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

     Despite that the Devs have not changed their approach one bit,

    Actually they finally stated they were planning on doing something different at the end of one of the more recent threads. Which was about a year ago. And it makes perfect sense to bring this up again now that we have bodenplatte and a whole new slew of complicated caused by this mechanic.

    16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

    WEP is maximum CONTINUEOUS power for ALL aircraft engines, based on a few engine Bench tests and isolated Info.

    Well I guess I have to explain the patently obvious again. And also what is explicitly stated by some documents.


    Continuous power is just the power setting that can be used as long as you like such that the engine will last to the specified TBO. Use of higher powers wears the engine out faster and will mean more maintenance must be done on the engine. These time limits have absolutely nothing to do with the engine failing 5min and 1 second after the 5 minute mark. The engine will eventually fail even at "continuous" power. And you can have sudden engine failures at continuous power as well. Time restrictions only exists to prevent nonsensical use of the WEP that would eat into the service life of the engine.


    16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

    There is plenty of info already posted to factually prove this as nonsense without me needing to post it again. 



    16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

    rude belittling attitude

    Explaining 2+2=4 to you over and over only to have you keep telling me its 5 becomes tiresome. I might add that you started your posts with such an attitude, so your just being a hypocrite. You are the one that talking down to everyone else in threads some time ago peddling an argument from authority and essentially directly implying that anyone who didnt see it your way was some ignorant fool. You are the one that came into these conversations with an attitude, I am just reacting.


    16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

    I don't have time to argue with willfully ignorent Internet warriors. 

    Weird, because you have spend such a large amount of time arguing with the supposedly willfully ignorant.  Apparently you do have lots of time in fact. But I am not complaining, as I have not seen you add a single useful thing to one of these threads yet.



    16 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

    based on a few engine Bench tests and isolated Info

    Not only is this a counterfactual statement, but even if my evidence were scant, its better that zero evidence you have for your position.

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 2

  9. 5 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:




    It would do the exact opposite 


    Cheers, Dakpilot 

    Maybe from the standpoint of anyone who buys into your nonsensical fantasy view on how this stuff works. Remember Dakpilot, "facts, science, and history" of which you have posted exactly nothing, and yet you have an absolutely curious capacity to persist in a notion that has no basis in facts. Truly, a remarkable talent.

    • Haha 3
    • Upvote 1

  10. 9 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

    A more realistic engine management model is obviously desirable. It wouldn't even necessarily be more complex for new players than the current one we have already, where the timers draw down differently depending on RPM/MAP settings in ways that aren't documented, and the 'recharge' of the times works differently for different planes.

    The thing about this is that it a complex system for this is completely unnecessary. The most realistic option, is to allow completely unlimited amounts of time at WEP. If we had some kind of 1:1 engine simulation in the game, the frequency of failure due to prolonged use of WEP would be so rare as to be for all intensive purposes the same result as no specific modeling whatsoever. Before the 150 octane WEP ratings were approved, the engines had to undergo 7.5 hour tests at WEP. In the case of the P-38 I posted, the plane was checked after the test and they specifically mentioned no evidence of detonation or damage. The plane was then subjected to an additional 5 hours before it failed. This was not done all at once, but the later P-51 manual states that the effect of wear on the engine at time limited setting is the same if you use it in intervals or all at once. Hence why the other P-51 manuals list 5 hours of WEP before the engine must be taken down for inspection, as this is almost certainly a buffer to the 7.5 hour standard which is itself subject to a safety margin.


    What should be modeled, and would not be all that hard to implement I would imagine, would be relatively simple scripted management mechanics that have nothing to do with time. It should not be possible to run WEP at lean mixture, and there should be various possible consequences of certain throttle mix ups etc.


    It is also unnecessary to wait for some total solution since those who want to wait for the perfect solution are in effect advocating for the horrible stopgap that exists now. Having no limits would dramatically improve the combat realism of the game. It is perfectly obvious that the ability to use long periods of wep, or at least longer than possible now, in combat is more important than preventing people from cruising at WEP in situations where IRL it would be be prudent not to. There is also no way to prevent people from doing this without intentionally making the engine function in the game less realistic in a irrational attempt to control player behavior.

    • Haha 2
    • Confused 2
    • Upvote 3

  11. 37 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

    I finally was able to watch these videos and compare. With the caveat that I was watching these on Youtube so who knows whats been done compression wise.

    In the Aces High video I lose the planes very easily against the dark water, pick them up super easy against the sky and only have a middling success against the ground. Better spotting against the ground than Il-2 but I think that is a function of all the planes appearing to be rendered very dark or black until they are really close, and the background being very bright and smooth for lack of better terms.

    In the CLOD video, you clearly spot the formation of bombers sooner than I find it possible to - I was unable to spot them until well after you start your dive. I had to rewatch a few times to really see it. Maybe slightly better for spotting against forested backgrounds but not by an order of magnitude. I suspect something has been lost on the upload to youtube, or I am just not used to spotting in that game.

    In the BMS (I assume its BMS) video I could see the plane against the sky very easily but I lost it against the ground even worse than I do in Il-2 GB. I don't know what to tell you. Also the planes appear very jaggy to me there, and the plane changes size in weird ways...I'm assumign this is the smart scaling effect? I never did play Falcon 4 or BMS.

    In the Il-2 GB video, I have to say that if that's how the game commonly appears to you, I understand you having trouble spotting. It could just be the youtube compression once again but spotting contacts on my screen is nowhere near that bad, especially over the terrain it takes place on. Against dense dark forests I lose contacts fairly frequently but not over the Steppe. The graphics looked really jaggy to me, like there is some AA issue going on. I get that effect against clouds a bit in-game but that's all. Like at one point theres a Pe-2 crossing your path and it just pops into view at less than 2km and looks like its drawn with an etch-a-sketch. I've honestly never seen it look that bad.

    Comparing the first three videos to what I see, some have some things better than Il-2 but I'm honestly not seeing huge improvements here.

    There is some loss due to compression on all videos. Are you watching them at full res? Everyone else I have watch those can see a huge difference. 


    As for my experience in il2, it's not unique to me. That's why I show the difference between icons on and off. I could make literally tons of videos like that. Most people don't realize how many short range contacts they are missing. Keep in mind I run 1440p as well. And I suspect the reason you havent seen the pe2 that bad is because when it happens you usually don't see it....


    Anyways video is video. I'm not seeing something different in game than you are. 

  12. 1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

    Nope, you were happy with 40km Spotting for gameplay improvement and would be happy with very unrealistic engine limits.for gameplay purposes with no base on facts

    It hard to understand you when everything you say is completely wrong. Apparently you didnt read my posts well enough because my attitude toward alt was just that it was the lesser of two evils. Btw, you can see stuff at 50km in expert, possibly more.  My position on spotting since my very first post on the matter years ago is that long range spotting should be possible but that short spotting is where the real problem is.


    1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

    very unrealistic engine limits.for gameplay purposes with no base on facts

    The engine limits I propose are very realistic and I have posted numerous facts to back this up. Many documents that literally say what I am claiming. You on the other hand have not posted a single document supporting your clearly absurd position that defies technical documents and basic knowledge of how the engines work. The closest thing you have come to an argument in the past few years is an appeal to authority fallacy where apparently you flying around in some old prop planes where you most certainly did not go around testing the engines under controlled conditions, is supposed to somehow mean something in the face of very explicit data from numerous sources that says exactly what I am saying. You know, from the actual experts who designed, operated, and tested these engines. And as you have said, you have no experience at all with in line engines. Apparently numerous documents intended for pilot consumption stating precisely my point of view is what you consider to be "not facts."

    • Upvote 1

  13. Planes without manifold pressure governors will be the only tricky case in my opinion. Good thing they are relatively rare. Best idea would probably be to make as good an estimate as possible of the upward limits of the engine in these cases and then have some extremely simple detonation mechanics above that.


    For the P-40 there is good documentation on what the engine was really capable of. 56-60inches should be doable since Allison agreed to re-rate the engine after further inspection.



    • Upvote 1

  14. What is particularly frustrating about this issue is that it is ultra simple to fix or improve. Removing the limits or imposing reasonably long but equal WEP limits on all planes would probably require almost no work to implement and would instantly be a huge boost to both realism, fun, and fairness.


    I also want to point out that concern over players abusing this is not valid point.


    -For one, the current system is already a tale of abuse. Unless anyone here thinks that knowing your opponent is limited by a clock is not something that can be exploited.


    -Second, there is no conceivable simulator (even if it simulated physical reality 1:1) that would not be subject to people "abusing" things because it is ultimately a game. People do not fear death, they can learn tactics and maneuvers to the nth degree because they have no constraints on how much they can practice or how far they can push the limits in learning something. I have learned maneuvers that might be possible but it would have killed me to learn them irl. I might add that this sort of thing is entirely what makes simulator games fun, they hand you something analogous to reality and you get to see what you can make of it. So calling this abuse is just kinda absurd in the first place.


    Third, this logic is not used by anyone on any other game mechanic. I hear no one asking for random failures of flaps, brakes, controls, guns jamming, etc.


    Fourth, both complete removal of the limits or equal amounts of considerable WEP times already impose problems for people "abusing" this. If they were to remove the limits entirely, people who fly at constant WEP would run out of fuel very quickly or forced to take larger fuel loads which would increase their weight. If there were to be 15min of WEP for all planes and unlimited combat, use of WEP outside of contact with the enemy would mean that you would no longer have the amound needed for extended dogfights or chases/running away. Additionally, even if a net increase in everyone cruising speeds were to occur, so what? There are also lots of totally realistic use cases for extended WEP use out of combat, like trying to climb up to intercept bombers.


    Fifth, it is illogical to alter the physical mechanics of the sim in order to try to control player behavior. This entire idea is anti-sim, and anti-game, since it basically shoots both of these concepts in the foot by killing the physical reality of the game in order to try to tell players how to play it.



    • Upvote 2

  15. 28 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

    To me it seems they have attempted that with ALT visibility. However, it doesn't work in conjunction with super long distance rendering that makes those planes way too easy to spot then, and by looking ugly (balloon effects). A compromise between the Expert and ALT should IMHO be the way to go, with sub 10 km rendering tailored to the highest FOV.

    Not exactly. Alt spotting was better at scaling from about 6km to 15km. Obviously at long ranges it was excessive. The problem both expert and alternate have is that scaling under 6km is next to non-existent. I certainly cant see it, anyhow. As far as I cant tell, they have made no attempt to fix close in spotting, which was always the bigger issue.


    A compromise between the two would be good for spotting over 10km. But something entirely different needs done for everything from 1-6km, really 1-10km. ALT spotting had the same issue with planes blinking out of existence at shorter ranges, and the contrast bugs people are seeing now were there from the beginning with alt spotting, it has just taken longer to notice with expert because everything was smaller in the first place.


    What needs to happen is that the scaling needs to be seriously implemented at closer ranges.


    It should be more akin to this:




    Or this




    Or This





    And it needs to stop being this crap:




    • Like 4
    • Upvote 1

  16. 1 minute ago, Arthur-A said:

    Timers are ridiculous. And in the meantime you can get away with leaning the mixture, lowering your rpm and slamming the throttle to the max position. Will the engine die due  to all this? No! What kind of realism are we talking about here?

    Yeah that also needs fixed. The mixture system is way broken for bodenplatte planes. I am fairly certain it doesnt even affect fuel burn rate.

  • Create New...