Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by [TLC]MasterPooner

  1. -I cannot change the refresh rate to 144hz. I select the option, the game reboots but it just reverts to 60.


    -I cannot change the switch sides/plane/etc settings. If I change them they just revert after startup and it has no effect in game. As a result I cannot change my plane in quick battle.


    -Some things work others dont, like I change change anti aliasing settings, they just revert.

  2. 13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    Behind the same paywall as any other hardware? Your point is?

    No it isnt. Because all the other hardware is needed just to have a computer to play the game on. Differences in resolution can be adjusted for in the rendering. IF HDR actually fixed the contrast problems all on its own, which I doubt, it would place the different between being totally blind and or not behind a extremely expensive paywall. And your ignoring that HDR monitors come in at different peak brightness's among other factors, so it wont even be a panacea in that regard. The difference in advantage that an HDR screen of the highest quality would give (and this is granting that it actually fixes anything) would be much more severe than any other difference in setup. The game needs to be created so that players with all kinds of different gear have approximately the same experience when it comes to having an advantage. Its sheer lunacy to assert that the game should be based entirely around having one of the most expensive types of display.


    And more the point, why would not want them to make changes to the way planes render to increase contrast? HDR adds more colors but it does not solve lighting problems that also affect how contrast is perceived. The bottom line is that a game engine is not a mirror of reality and that things have to be done to make things visible as they should be.


    And it still does not solve the size problems.

    • Upvote 3

  3. 5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    Again it’s literally the solution for the lack of color depth that makes visibility difficult in these sims. In a short time it will be as universal as anything else. 

    No it isnt, because the implementation is all over the place and it puts being competitive in the game behind a hugely expensive paywall.

    • Upvote 2

  4. 21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    That’s changing very quickly. And every new AAA title is in HDR now, including MSFS2020. Like I said, the only games I have which aren’t are this and DCS. 

    But we still dont have it in the game right now do we? And HDR doesn't fix the size problems or sub pixel aliasing. And even if the game had HDR and there were lots of common monitors with it, it doesnt mean everyone will have one. Making HDR the line between you can see it or you cant virtually would make having a HDR screen a requirement to play the game. It will be years before the majority of users have HDR screens, and lets not forget that HDR is not a single thing either. Displays that have HDR vary wildly in their implementation and the quality of that implementation. Most of them are not 1000nits. And I still dont get what exactly your point is by responding to my point about the color problems as they relate to contrast. What I said about the game is still true.

  5. 3 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

    Believe me when i say you can almost tread on a person dressed in white in a snowy field before you see them.

    So spotting a white plane on/over a snowy field from above should be equally as difficult.

    I've seen infantry in real life wearing multicam uniforms against the side of a hill a kilometer away where the range was known because it it was on a range, and in every single game I have played I cannot see infantry in video games under better contrast back grounds at half that distance or less. I play games on a 1440p monitor that was designed for extremely accurate color work. Camouflage and similar background colors have an effect on spotting IRL, but it absolutely nothing like what you see in a video game even on the best monitors. Our displays have limitations that make it impossible to give a realistic impression of visibility without designing compensation methods into the game. Monitors have far lower "resolution" than eyes do, lack the advantages of binocular vision and other eye phenomena, and have contrast ratios massively lower than what you see in the real world. It simply is not comparable. Is it possible to not see someone or something IRL? Of course, but not unders the same condition as in game. A person in a white uniform in a snow environment would have to be much better hidden than a soldier in a game to produce the same probability of being unobserved.

    • Upvote 2

  6. Also:


    What is even silly is that the career mode cannot adapt to you changing the altitudes of a mission. Enemy fighters wont adjust their cruise altitudes even through you are flying your mission at 20,000ft. They are still putt putting around at 7000ft.


    Ai aircraft cannot stay in formation for some reason


    Ai just following each other cannot stay in formation. I once watched a bomber flight of B-25s go bonkers all over the place when trying to make their turn after bombing the target to go home. In general they simply cant do formation. I watch ai go into gaggles all the time. I also watch a pair of 190s react to me bouncing them by turning into each other and colliding.


    Planes dont seem to realize they are out of ammo.


    They regularly suck so badly at collision avoidance that they will routinely fly into you if you are are chasing a plane in front of them.


    AI do not use anything even remotely resembling real world tactics. You wont seem them in stacked covers. They basically have never heard of boom and zoom. They make virtually no effort to stay with a wing man in a fight.


    They react very unreliably to radio commands. Radio menu might as well not be in the game.


    I could go on but I would be here all day listing all the absurdly underdeveloped aspects of career mode and the AI in general.





    In short, career mode is basically a waste of time and is terrible as currently implemented.




    • Upvote 3

  7. I am just going to drop this in here again. This issue is of paramount importance, more important than anything else in the game to be fixed by several orders of magnitude. Virtually every fight in the game right now is spotting a single bandit at point blank range and not seeing a dozen others that should have been easy to see. My friends and I have extreme difficulty even keeping sight of bombers at the appropriate distances according to the actual USAAF escort tactics used during the war. Good luck getting the high cover to not lose you. As others have already pointed out in this thread, spotting at extremely close ranges of just 2-3km is atrociously unrealistic and bad. We need a fix that enlarges the scaling of aircraft rather significantly and adjusts contrast rather significantly.



    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2

  8. 3 hours ago, Gavrick said:

    Sorry, but you are wrong.

    First, there is no "magic mach number" ingame, after that airpalne become "unrecoverable". And at M = 0.75, effects of compressibility begin to be noticeable, and with an increase in M they intensify. But this does not mean that after 0.75 the plane cannot be recover from dive, because this is limit and what the manual says.

    Further. I checked right now. I tried to recover from steep dive (dive angles 50 ... 80) at mach numbers 0.8, 0.82, 0.84 (altitudes and indicated speeds, respectively ([m] / [kph]) - 3600 / 780, 5900 / 690, 5700 / 715). Fuel - 50%, trim in neutral, throttle closed. In all cases, the aircraft exits from dive with a loss of altitude of about 2-3 kilometers. It should be noted that the loss of altitude is less than what is written in the manual. This is by the way that the leadership is "taken literally."

    And finally, I hope that in the future the model of the influence of compressibility on the controllability of the aircraft will be fine-tuned.


    @Gavrick, I did not say that over 0.75 mach in game that the plane could not be recovered. I also did not say that It could not be recovered over 0.8. Where exactly did you get that from? Nowhere in my last post do I state that 0.75 mach is a magic number beyond which the plane cannot be recovered.  In game, as you just said, the plane starts to feel compression at 0.75 mach and it increases above this. The problem is that over 0.75 mach the plane loses considerable control authority in a manner that contradicts the manuals and the tests. The Manuals and the tests state quite explicitly that the plane does not lose control authority or require trim to exit a dive. Whatever mach number would have seen the onset of significant elevator stiffness, it was beyond 0.8 mach, since in the manuals and tests it makes it quite clear that at these speeds there is no significant loss in elevator authority. So my point still stands. What is seems that you have done is implement significant control stiffness above 0.75 mach, more than seem actually since you yourself made that quite explicit in your last post. The suggestion is to shift the onset of control loss to 0.8 mach instead of 0.75. As was clearly stated in my last post.


    And you did not even address the point about confusing the mach number with the structural numbers. 



  9. I believe I know what the problem here is regarding the elevator response is. The critical mach number is not correct in game. @Gavrick


    Please reference this chart:



    This is from the aircraft manual as was already referenced from the OP. Note that all of the air speeds given here are for 0.75 mach. However the dive tests show that the plane was taken to 0.84 mach and that they placarded it at 0.8 as the functional limit. I have tested in game and the plane follows the above chart.


    "The results indicate that the airplane should be restricted to a Mach number of 0.80 due to compressability difficulties which become increasingly dangerous beyond that point. It is recommended that the airplane be placarded with the following limit diving speeds:-


    Pressure Altitude (Ft.) Pilot’s IAS (m.p.h.)
    40,000 275
    35,000 310
    30,000 345
    25,000 385
    20,000 425
    15,000 470
    10,000 505
      5,000 505


    So what is obviously going on here is that the game is based strictly on the manual limits, and not on the tests that show the plane could dive to 0.8 mach. Really the plane could dive beyond 0.8 mach, but was placarded there as a practical limit. The manual appears to have been even more conservative. And additional problem is that the game appears to take the 505 IAS at 5000ft to be the mach limit as well as the structural limit. If you carry forward the same 0.75 mach limit to 5000ft and sea  level, you get 526mph IAS and 576mph respectively. With the correct 0.8 mach limits, you would get 561mph and 608mph. While the 0.8 mach figures would probably not be practical due to the structural limitations that would be incurred by greatly exceeding the 505 notional limit, having the mach effects being dictated by this number causes the plane to lose control authority far too early and causes the curve of the compression zone to spike dramatically in dives below 5000ft.


    My request would be that the plane should have is high speed dive characteristics changed to model the 0.8 mach number as the onset of severe compression, not 0.75 mach. And the compression effects should be disentangled from the structural number below 5000ft.




    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 2

  10. 20 hours ago, Requiem said:

    I've been doing some testing of various airplanes recently, so I did the P-38 this morning and found max sustained turn rates in level turns of:

    200 mph, clean  - 17.8°/sec

    190 mph, Maneuver flaps - 19.1°/sec

    180 mph, Full flaps - 20.3°/sec


    For comparison vs the K-4 with DB engine (the DC engine is rare enough that it's not a priority to test for me):

    300 km/hr (186mph) clean  - 19.1°/sec


    For the G-14:

    280 km/hr (186mph) clean - 20.2°/sec


    My tests aren't done with Tacview though. They're done with an app that uses the telemetry output from Il-2 while flying and when I did a quick check between the app and recording Tacview, Tacview showed an extra 1.2  degrees of turn rate compared to the app at the exact same time when I held the turn rate constant in the P-38. There's always some error with this stuff so unless we get pure data from the devs there will be some small differences between tests. I'm not an advocate of using full flaps in any airplane unless you're desperate and are in a 1C fight or something. Maybe there isn't enough drag modeled when using full flaps.




    Looking at your numbers you are getting more or less the same values at the speeds at which the plane settles into sustained turns, excepting your full flaps measurement. I am not sure how you got a measure of 20.3 seconds, that's not degree a second of difference, its 2. You might wanna try that again because I can consistently pull off 22.5 degrees per second regardless of whether I use tacview or simply using a compass and a stopwatch.

    The drag values are accurate and were verified with an independent calculation. The 22.5 figure also agrees with other games the P-38 has been in. Also no sure why would would not use the max flaps in a dogfight. The raise and lower quick quickly so it is hardly an inconvenience to use them to their full potential.

  11. Guys the P-38 with full flaps, not 50%, will out turn ANY axis fighter in the game. That includes the K4 Unicorn on Fantasy Roids. A P-38 with 50% fuel with max flap turns at around 22.5 degrees per second. A Roided K4 does not even come close to that. Out-turning the K4 regardless of if its the fictional one or not is a breeze. Otherwise I agree that it is not fast for this stage of the war and has dive troubles. The real thing that will get you killed in the 38 in a turn fight is its large size and low speed roll rate. You have to apply alot of rudder assisted roll and use 50% flaps in order to stay in the fight until you get the fight below 200mph where you can open up your doom flaps.




    The larger circles are for 50% flaps where the plane turns at about 19.5 degrees per second and is on par with a Mustang or K4. The P-38 can muster about a 16 second turn with max flap which was corroborated by Holtzauges calculations about a year ago. Dont restrict yourselves to the maneuver flap setting. In any turn battle where PS does not equal zero the maneuver setting is more than enough. By the time you are slow enough to be in a sustained turn battle you are flow enough to drop the flaps down to max and let them have it. They are also extremely useful for reducing radius enormously for one circle fights like a scissors or for hanging on your props in order to hammerhead over.



  12. 4 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:


    There is no evidence the exit-hole sizes are caused by the projectile - actually the only evidence in place is that there was substantial fire-damage. Both by form and surrounding secondary damage caused by heat. Two out of five exits show a rather underwhelming hole-size and are closer to what one could expect even in conjunction with ripping effects.

    The larger one of those two small holes shows fire-damage.


    You can believe whatever you want - it's not neccessarily true, though.



    All those holes in the car are sized between the two small exit-holes and the top exit hole.

    Taking the fuel-cap in relation to the car-mirror.


    That is patently absurd. 3 out of the Five show huge exit holes, and the 4th is still larger than the exit. And the point of the car images and other images is not that every single impact is massively larger, but most are, and all are larger than the entrance. Damage like you see in that image would also have not been caused by a fire. Fires do not do that to metal like seen in this image. The jagged irregular exits are caused by physical trauma. If the fire was hot enough it might melt some of the metal but it would not cause the sort of irregular damage you see in the images. The fact that bullet exits are significantly larger in general than the entrance is not a controversial point of fact.

    23 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:








      the photo shows damage from an APEI shell i.e. using a form of high explosive not invented for the M2 until after the war hence the holes being much much larger than any entrance or exit holes that just the bullet typically produce on its own as ball / AP.



    Where is the source that APEI was the round being used, or even used in the ammunition belt.

  13. 17 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:


    No, the exit-damage can't be much larger than the projectile's projected area - even with outward ripping and peeling (keep in mind, at the airspeeds involved, there's little backward peeling due to airstream).


    There is no way of figuring out which size the exit-holes actually were, due to the fire-damage.

    It is safe to say that the fire-damage played an integral part in the damage-picture. All the exit-holes show extensive fire-abrasion and none are originally sized.

    On top, the skin shows extensive heat-damage.


    Curb your enthusiasm.





    I think the second trail from the bottom is wrong.

    The exit is associated with the entry on the left. The entry you attached with that exit is actually associated with the exit below the large gash.

    Like this:



    Gives you an idea about a normal "punch through" exit without tumbling.

    Note the lack of additional fire-damage associated with the normal punch through

    Your redraw hardly changes the result. It still shows rather large exits far more often than not. And most of that missing paint is not from the fire, that is from the paint coming off from the exits and entrance points. This happens all the time with bullet impacts and is not a novel phenomenon. Some of the discoloration was from the fire but the holes and the missing paint is not.

  14. 2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:


    No, the exit-damage can't be much larger than the projectile's projected area - even with outward ripping and peeling (keep in mind, at the airspeeds involved, there's little backward peeling due to airstream).


    There is no way of figuring out which size the exit-holes actually were, due to the fire-damage.

    It is safe to say that the fire-damage played an integral part in the damage-picture. All the exit-holes show extensive fire-abrasion and none are originally sized.

    On top, the skin shows extensive heat-damage.


    Curb your enthusiasm.

    No that is flat out wrong. Exist holes are generally significantly larger than the entrance diameter, this due to the fact that the metal must be pushed outward. Find tons of images of this online including videos of .50cals specifically going through metal targets like cars.


    Also the fire damage did cause that color changing entirely, most of that is just paint peeling off from the impacts.

  15. 7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:


    Only if there's a significant secondary event triggered off - like a fuel-fed fire in this case.

    Nah you can see from these images that the large holes in front are caused by the exit of the bullets. The entry holes line up with the huge gashes left by the exit wounds. The fire is not what caused those huge holes. But whatever damage the fire did is certainly where are missing API would come in. The one I did not mark exited the front.



    • Upvote 1

  16. I agree with the OP, but I'd like to add a few other things that affecting .50 cal performance at the moment.


    Lack of Harmonization: The guns in game right now all fire to a fixed point. In reality the standard was to have each of the gun pairs converge at different ranges. Watch gun camera footage, analyze convergence pattern charges, or simply look at video games where this is modeled (DCS etc.) What harmonization does is create a dense field of fire so that when the enemy aircraft passes through that general area you get a shot gun effect. So instead of all your rounds hitting at one point, the entire aircraft gets saturated, making it more likely to hit vital components and do combination effects. It also makes it more likely that you get any hits at all when you are not at the best range for a harmonization cone, because you have some guns converging at closer and further ranges. Ideally the game would allow (as it was done IRL) for the pilot to customize both the convergence range and the harmonization pattern. This could be done easily by simply allowing the player to adjust convergence for each pair of guns. So for example in inboard guns could be at 275m, center guns at 300m, and outboards at 325. Etc.


    Lack of API: My understanding is that we do not have API modeled in game right now. Obviously API is not some kind of explosive round, but it would certainly increase the chance of causing fires. However another problem regarding this is that we do not have the hit flashes modeled very well in the game right now. This isnt just a problem with the American .50s, but most other rounds like 20mm HEI give off other effects that let you know you hit. The hit flashes from .50cal impacts should be large and obvious, and this matters because it would let the player know how well they are hitting the target. With the current .50 cal impact effects if can be hard to know where you point of impact is, and sometimes you cant tell if you hit at all.


    • Upvote 2

  17. Was doing some practice in the Pe-2 as a tail gunner. From the top gun, I noticed that the bottom ai gunner started shooting at a Bf109 about 1km astern. I switched positions to the bottom gun and discovered that the PE-2 bottom gunner position did not actually have line of sight with the target as the fuselage was in the way. Switched back to the top gunner, and once again the ai started shooting. So it would appear that the ai gunners in il2 can actually see through planes.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  18. Another related problem that I suspect has to do with this elevator authority problem is medium speed dogfights (220-350mph indicated at sea level or the equivalent at altitude) where the P-38 seems incapable of turning well. The P-38 is one of the best turning planes in the game in sustained turns with flaps down, but I have found that regardless of flap position it has immense problems generating turn rate at higher speeds. This does not seem to have to do anything with compression, since it is at speed far far below where that would be a factor. It just feels like there is not enough elevator authority and the plane feels like its flying through molasses (even with maximum pitch up trim). I have found that in private dogfights with an opponent I beat every single time in a Mustang (opponent was in a tempest), that I had severe problems with the P-38 after the initial pass and could not turn well enough until the fight got extremely slow.

  19. 59 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:



    You can take the 51 in a full power dive from 30k feet, at 20k you're well above critical mach number and there's no noticeable change in pitch behavior. 





    What are you talking about. If you dive to any of the dive speeds in game with the P-51 you get massive buffeting and the elevator controls seize up dramatically. The only exception to this is at low altitudes where the critical mach number is being substituted by the structural number and you actually compress sooner than you should.

  20. 2 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

    If I am reading this right is barely ever breaks double digits even with the bobweight, thanks for the post


    TO DEVS:


    Is this being looked at for 5000 feet and below? Because it seems fairly obvious that the plane is compressing based on the structural number and not the mach number.

  21. 28 minutes ago, sierrabob said:

    https://www.flyingmag.com/aircrafts/pistons/jet-jockey-flies-p-51-mustang/   In this article the pilot talks about the force required to do a 4g and 5g turn and yet I see in the discussion here that the P-51 stick force is light. I know he is not talking about a dive, but the airspeed is a lot lower in his example. So is he wrong or how much stick force is needed to do a 4g turn? I've wondered about this for the purpose of building my on flight stick.

    He is quoting a rather well known "test" that was done in the 80s. Have a look through it, practically nothing in it is accurate. I consider everything in that document suspect because it contradicts virtually every other report. It is far more likely their test methods sucked. The pilot in that article even quotes a completely contradictory statement from another pilot saying he could fly the mustang one handed. 

  • Create New...