Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by [TLC]MasterPooner

  1. This subject has been discussed many many times before and during the last time IIRC Jason said something to the effect that they would eventually get around to doing something about this. Well, I really hope that time is soon because this problem is now more evident and critical than ever before.


    The engine timers need to either go, or be greatly lengthened so that they have a much lesser effect on tactical decision making than they do now. In reality these ops limits (timers) existed to preserve the time before overhaul, and were not imposed to prevent immediate engine failure during combat. In game however, the must be followed rather rigidly with a bit of a safety margin. So a 5 min timer is more like 7min etc.


    These timers create the following unrealistic tactical problems in game:


    1) Some of the timers eat combat power with no rhyme or reason for this. Planes with this problem cant really use their WEP, and if they do might as well RTB right after any extended fight.


    2) Planes have to make a choice between a dogfight and any other extended use of WEP or Combat power. Many planes are closely matched in max power top speed but the reality is that this doesnt matter because some planes cant afford to use high power to actually chase anyone. If the chase lasts a long time, they wont have much if any WEP for the actual fight.


    3)Ultra strict timers mean that aircraft in general are in a unrealistically risky position after using WEP. If you have 5min and you use 2 in a dogfight, you dont usually know how much you have left for the next fight, and if the next fight lasts 3 mins....


    In my opinion the problem could be solved in one of two ways:


    1) Remove all engine destruction due to exceeding time limitations at any power setting, and only have engines fail from specific causes such as too lean mixture at max power.


    2) Remove all restrictions from combat power, and give all planes 10-15min of WEP or until water runs out, whichever is first.













    • Thanks 6
    • Upvote 3

  2. My biggest complaint with the P-47 performance right now is the OPs limits on the engine. Especially with emergency eating your combat power, the plane is next to useless. The 47 needs all its power to be competitive and the way it is now you cant really use any of that power because of the way the OPs limits are done.


    This is an issue that really needs to be addressed, not just with the P47. This really is a meme at this point since we now have planes in this game that make this look more silly than ever before, like the spitfire having an hour of climb power but the P-51 cant hold and hour at an equivalent power setting.


    Stuff like this ends up really skews the performance of alot of airplanes. On the P-47 you cant really dare use even little combat power outside of a fight because you will need every single ounce of it if you get into even one fight. The only thing you can use WEP for is dogfighting, since using it for speed is literally a waste of time. IF you manage to run someone down by using max power, you wont be able to use it once you get into the fight.


    And this is problem on other planes as well, where planes that have similar top end performance have to choose between having power for a dogfight or using that power to chase someone. And heaven forbid you have to run away, because if you commit to a long chase where your on the defensive you might as well just head home as you will be out of useful power by the time its over. This is presuming some 109 with 10min of wep doesn't just outlast you.

    • Upvote 2

  3. The contrast bug appears to be that the reflection mechanic stops working at higher zoom levels. I think it also stops working at closer ranges as well, or it is near enough gone to be almost unnoticeable. Between this, the cloud bug, and the fact that scaling seems to stop working under 6-7km, airplanes that entire the 6km bubble tend to vanish.


    As it stands right now it is easier to spot planes at 20km than it is at 3km in il2. It is not uncommon for me to spot 5-6 planes 15-20km away and watch their dogfight and count their numbers, but as I get closer they start to disappear. By the time you get to 6km or so, vision is so bad that you will probably only see a quarter of the planes that are actually there at close ranges. This is because the scaling and the reflections stop being at thing and all the planes turn into a few black pixels.


    This is one of the factors that is contributing to what I said before about being able to watch your six. A fighter might see you 15km out (which is entirely possible IRL, this is not the problem) but then starts to approach you for attack. As the range closes, the attacker will vanish for all intensive purposes,  but the attack can keep sight on you because they can zoom in on something they have been keeping their eyes glued to. The defender cant do this, and suddenly the attack plane blinks into existence less than kilometer away.


    It would seem to me that the solution to this problem is rather simple and straight forward. The game should be adjusted so the scaling and reflection system is much more aggressive from 1-6km, and it should be tuned based on FOV so that the widest in game FOV is the standard FOV. As the players zooms, reflections should remain but scaling should adjust so that relative size remains the same regardless of the FOV.

    • Upvote 4

  4. On 11/19/2019 at 10:29 AM, SCG_Wulfe said:

    I also have real life experience as a soldier and if you think seeing guys in video games is harder than it real life I really start to understand the issue here. You are struggling to see in all video games it seems. I've seen people sneak through the weeds up to 10 feet from a spotter who was looking for them without being seen. I go hunting and often don't see a deer in the woods until I'm right on it and it jumps up and runs. I excelled in my field and have recently tested vision that is better than 20/20. Spotting planes, people, animals, is a skill - not a given and it's hard, making it trivial completely removes any authenticity from the experience. 

    What a bunch of nonsense. Every single person who plays those games has problems seeing relative to real life. Just go to the shooting range in squad and look at the targets at different ranges. If you come back on here and tell me that those are as easy as they are to see in the real world I will know you genuinely have lost your marbles.

    • Upvote 1

  5. 1 minute ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    range and size is realistic and therefore the current usable tactics are realistic.

    Nope. You keep saying this but it is objectively false. For starters, size CANNOT be realistic on a monitor without scaling things up. It is IMPOSSIBLE, literally physically IMPOSSIBLE for the size of something on your screen to be as large as it should be relative to the real world without scaling or some other mechanic designed for a similar effect. When you say this sort of junk you are dealing in counterfactual statements. "inflating plane size" is done precisely because it is one of the best ways to RESTORE game vision to a level where real life tactics are doable. It almost beggars belief that you can type on here with a straight face while making claims like this that are outside even the realm of possibility.



    2 minutes ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    It's akin to making everyone wear fluorescent pink in a military simulation fps because 'gosh-darnit, I should be able to plan all my movements while knowing where everyone is hiding.'

    No it isnt, and I can tell you from real life experience that troops in video games are much harder to see than they are in real life. Camouflage in particular is too effective. Spotting issues exist in games outside of flight simulation, and its absolutely screws with the tactics there as well. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE for a game to have realistic spotting without some additional effort going into mechanics to alter the image from simple rendering. This is the exact reason why in games like squad you have people crossing danger areas 300m from an enemy position without being seen. This is exactly why in these same games the person with the binoculars herds their squad around like a bunch of blind sheep because they are the only person who can reliably pick out a troop in the open past 150m.


    5 minutes ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    This is not realistic. If you've ever tried to track a far off plane in real life against the sky while repeatedly looking away to "check your six" you will see this is no trivial matter.

    I have. Airplanes against both the sky and the ground are much easier to see relative to il2. In particular, they are much easier to REACQUIRE than they are int he game once they have been found. I have already posted several videos of planes against the deck being spotting from over 8nm, much easier to see than they would be in il2. A high aspect plane a couple of kilometers away does not look like two pixels like it does in il2. Relatively it is much easier to pick out than it is in this game.

    • Upvote 1

  6. Another issue with contrast is that it would appear to be based on maps. I was flying TAW last night and as I have posted screenshots of before, the contrast against the ground on that map is so horrid that fighters have a hard time escorting bombers. I was loitering about 1-2km from a group of 3 planes and could only catch glimpses of them. I had to stay so focused on them with a extreme zoom to maintain track that I could not afford to even check my own six and was lucky I did not get bounced.


    Lets just go through the laundry list of tactical things that are not possible in il2 due to the crappy spotting:


    -Correct wing man spacing. (too easy to lose)


    -Correct Group spacing. (too easy to lose)


    -Escorting bombers (frequently completely disappear into ground, even when very close)


    -Defending objectives (bombers can frequently slip past entire groups of fighters and the only alert to their presence is flak or the explosion of their bombs)


    -Group Boom and Zoom (inadequate SA means you cant ever be sure enough of enemy or friendly geometry to do this)


    -Multiple passes on Boom and Zoom (Too risky as you cant have any SA confidence whatsoever)


    -General ACM (Extreme difficulty in AC ID, and inability to accurately assess the situation means that any attempt at this fails most of the time. It is an extremely common occurrence that only the flight lead might see a bandit and this makes it hard to coordinate anything. Offensively it means herding sheep onto target. Defensively it means nothing more complicated than turning as a group.)


    -Checking your own six! Even this cannot be done right now in a reasonable fashion. It is so hard to spot a plane in profile even at close ranges that I check my six in game right now every 2 seconds even out of combat. I frequently fly just staring out the back of my plane. Despite this, because of the fact that high aspect planes are absurdly hard to see until about 800m, it is routine that planes just blink into existence at extremely close ranges despite constant attention to the 6 o clock. I have watched TONS of tracks where a plane made a six approach on me from high where I should have seen him several kilometers away except for the spotting. Instead, this plane was too difficult to see until he was basically in gun range.



    • Like 1

  7. 15 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

    There, you direct the aircraft with the rudder and then press the stick *in the direction of the ball* to keep it centered. While you might think this is unimportant for a combat sim, I‘d say this is central to learn how to aim with that aircraft.

    It is not that it is not unimportant. It is that getting this kind of thing right has demonstrated itself to have a inverse relationship to getting general performance correct. In  a perfect world we would have both, but ill take general performance over specific for a combat sim any day of the week. It is absolutely more important to have correct climb rates etc, than it is to mimic certain aspects of control behavior. I am speaking generally here so save me the example that is the exception of the rule, because clearly there will be some. Speaking of just controlling planes in the shape of said plane, I could care less about a combat sim if the game modeled every nuance of control behavior to the point of it being exactly like real life if the two planes in the game didnt have correct turn rates or climb rates with sufficient relative accuracy. With ww2 planes It has to be down to around 2% or extremely meaningful differences in performance occur. A relative speed difference of 10 mph on the deck matters more in most cases than failing to model plane X's adverse yaw. Especially when the most important behaviors could just be scripted.


    15 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

    You really think they do? A hammer head (not sure we‘re talking about the same maneuver here) is a very, very difficult maneuver to perform with these aircraft. Maybe ask @F/JG300_Faucon about hammer heads. He knows. But with those high performance fighters, it is barely possible to make such a turn in the direction of the prop torque. Against the prop torque, you would not do that on real life at all. Even with a Bücker Jungman, a plane that just oozes happiness when doing (what is today) mild aerobatics, a hammer head against the prop is extremely difficult and by just missing the timing for a second, it will send you down backward, often followed by an inverted spin (that however looks like a steep spiral but requiring opposite input to exit) that sends your speedometer needle faster toward Vne than you like and what was an aircraft for two fingers to control now requires both you arms and most of your strength.

    Yeah I dont disagree with this in a general sense. Ive spoken to some people with real stick time behind some of these planes as well and the hammerhead was something I discussed once. The person I spoke to essentially said that it is doable but it would be much easier to just let the plane fall backwards and then reverse course at the apex of the climb. However, "this or that is hard" loses alot of its meaning in a sim because people routinely become proficient at doing things no one IRL would likely ever become good at due to risks and time considerations alone.


    15 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

    I‘m really happy that these scripted UFOs are in the dumpster of history now as they share very little with actual flight.

    They had about as much to do with flight as the current stuff does. The current stuff just has its own issues. BOTH are wrong.


    15 hours ago, JtD said:

    That, btw., is also specifically stated to be impossible in the NACA report, where the P-47s30 does not reach the full stall in the wave off condition (flaps down, power on (2550/42.5)), because rudder is insufficient to maintain control. That happens at about 85mph IAS - the wing part stalled and rudder fully deflected. In game using the same settings, I climb it at around 73mph no problem. No stall, no control problem, everything peachy. WRONG. By seat of pants, by engineering theory and by a historical source.

    Sure its wrong. By 10mph. But this does nothing to explain why the plane should be able to flop about at whatever speed we want to placard it to. I seriously doubt changing the stall speed by 10mph is to going to stop the in game plane from being able to do what it does broadly speaking.




    Also both of you are somewhat misunderstanding my position. I am not saying that what we see in game corresponds to a real P-47. No airplane is this game does. I do not know of a single plane in this game that exhibits specific flight behaviors that remind me of what is described in flight manuals or pilot anecdotes. Not on the whole anyway. The point is that the only thing we can really judge in my opinion, is the general aircraft performance. Stall speeds, climb rates, top speeds, etc. Clearly we can know some quirks as well to the extent that they were described by pilots and that their languages was precise enough. But there are lots of things in this game that might be right, somewhat right, etc, that I dont think anyone on here regardless of their education can really know for certain where to draw the line at: short of modeling the entire plane in some kind of CFD(and even then...). I have already said that I dont think the turn rate of the plane is correct at 22deg/s. Clearly the flight model is not correct yet even in general performance. So I think it is fairly obvious @JTD that I am not arguing for a specific speed at which any of this might be possible if I dont think the turn rate is correct. What I am saying is that I dont know that general way the plane handles at slow speeds would change much if you tweaked any of the specific values. And I dont know how any of you could possibly know for certain that the plane couldnt be handled in general in this fashion with full down flaps given that no one here to my knowledge has the resources to do a sufficiently complex aerodynamic check. NOTE ALSO, that this is just one handling characteristic, and some may be provable false and others not. Nobody in the real world tested this for obvious reasons. Given that this is the second time a sim (with totally different FM methods) somehow have come to agreement on the specific handling characteristics of this plane at very low speeds with max flap, I think it is at least worth considering that there may be some truth to it.


  8. 14 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

    I mean, you're joking. Right?

    Nope. And I dont think there is a single person on this forum that could offer a precise explanation as to why its completely impossible. There are stunt planes that can certainly do this sort of thing, which certainly places it within aerodynamic plausibility. Clearly the P-47 was not a stunt plane, but that doesn't necessarily rule out some unusual behavior at very slow speeds with full flaps down. In il2 it basically just amounts to being able to pivot the plane in yaw. Most of what you saw in aces video was completely out of control with some creative camera work.


    Mind you I am not arguing that it is precisely correct either. To be specific, it absolutely is not. Because no planes specific flying qualities in any sim are exactly correct. Speaking in broad swaths however, I see no reason that a plane could not have some extremely impressive hammer head abilities, because that is more or less all it is in il2. The plane with flaps down has a very low stall speed, small wonder it can flop about while hanging on the prop.


    As for aces high, the flight modeling in that game is quite solid when it comes to the numbers. Climb rates, turn rates, etc. I could really care less about newer sims attempt to simulate relatively meaningless things like adverse yaw by wasting their time on hard to tune blade element methods of flight modeling. A certain unnamed combat sim does this and and frequently releases planes that sometimes mimic a real planes aerodynamic quirks (like odd landing characteristics) but take 5 years before they can get something as simple as climb rate correct because tuning those models is extremely difficult to control. Of note is that the fact that after years of tinkering, the final flight models in that game produced planes that have almost the exact same by the numbers performance as the aces high flight models 15 years before. And now il2 has produced planes that have the same by the numbers performance as said unnamed sim and sims from twenty years ago. And those numbers are consistent with the independent calculations from holtzhauge. Clearly the modeling wasnt that bad when it comes to general performance.

  9. 3 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

    quite possibly because no one ever did that with a real-life P-47 and documented it.

    This. I tend to think the sustained performance of the P-47 is too great, but I dont think there is anything wrong with the way you can do almost flip like peddle turns when it gets really slow. All it really is is a hammer head of sorts. I looks nuts but again, I dont know if we can say its wrong. I might add that this is not the first game I have seen where the P-47 be able to do crazy stunts at low speed with flaps down. It strikes me that if different sims with totally different methods of flight modeling reach the same conclusion, it becomes mathematically improbable that they are wrong in such a specific way.


    Aces high had, and still does, have some of the best flight modeling in a sim. I know alot of aero types that think it is pretty much the cats meow. I thought this was nuts when i first saw it, but now il2 is the second game where this sort of stuff can be done. It seem to me an awfully specific sort of behavior be wrong twice. Sustained turns with flaps down in aces high were close to what holtzhauge calculated, so less than in il2.



    • Upvote 1

  10. This isnt about legioneod specifically but I think all round the performance of alot of these planes surprises people for the following reasons:


    -Anecdotal evidence that gives a different impression (ex: P-38 sometimes has  a poor reputation due to its combat record, which in actuality had more to do with it being the plane the US cut its teeth on then being a bad performer)


    -Il2 1946  An extremely popular sim that alot of people think had good flight modeling but was in actuality pretty terrible from a simulation point of view. Its a bit like the browning automatic rifle, people swear by it but its actually trash.


    -Assumptions made about performance made on overly general aerodynamic observations, such as not noting the P-38 and P-47 Fowler flaps, or assuming that partial span slats make a significant difference in turning (which they dont).



    • Upvote 3

  11. 3 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

    Dropping flaps during a 250 mph dogfight in a P-47 should cripple your aircraft, not give you a turn advantage.

    The flaps speeds on the airplanes are not necessarily going to break the flaps linkages. Some planes simply didnt have that sort of thing listed, and instead only have the range of speeds the flaps are meant to be used for landing. The actually speed they break it would be much higher. For example, max flaps speeds on a 109 are listed as being similarly low, but you can open them well above this. Take note that for neither the 47 or 109 are there are indications of what amount of flaps can be opened at the speed limit. This is because it is just a generic indicator of when to put the flaps down.

  12. 1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

    @Voyager & @Legioneod: I have the P-47 D-30 modeled and at sea level with 65" boost 45 deg flap I get 18.2 s for a 360 deg turn at @ 242 Km/h assuming about 50% fuel (ca 12000 lb) so it looks like the Thunderbolt should turn pretty well at low speed if you drop the flaps and don't carry a full fuel load. That being said I have done no tests myself so I don't know how the P-47 is behaving in-game but I have seen complaints. What kind of turn times are people getting in-game then that they think are too good?

    With 50% fuel P-47 in game 65inches with max flap manages 22.1deg/s sustained at 217kph.

    • Thanks 1

  13. On 10/29/2019 at 12:18 AM, Rudull said:

    Won't you notice the difference? well how to know if it is not modeled?

    Because you cant tell the difference in game right now of 0.1G.  Also look at a EM chart and tell me a fraction of a G matter in most cases. I am not opposed to modeling it, but complaining about it not being there is like complaining about not modeling pilot blood loss from a paper cut.

    • Haha 1

  14. 16 hours ago, StaB/Tomio_VR*** said:

    Seems it was more realistic in 1946 honestly

    46 was complete trash when it came to flight models. It was popular because it looked pretty for the time and felt less on rails than sim of the era. It was also extensively modded. It had wildly different performance values to other sims at the time and sims that exist today for the same aircraft. Holtzauge has already done independent calculations to verify that il2gb does indeed have correct modeling on the 38 and other aircraft. Additionally the P-38 we have in il2gb performs like P-38s did in every past sim except 46.



    14 hours ago, StaB/Tomio_VR*** said:

    McGuire died because he tried to engage a lonely Ki-43 in a turnfight.

    I am not saying a P-38 could turn with a ki-43, but mcguire died because he failed to jettison his tanks.


    "This extremely dangerous maneuver, performed at an altitude of only 300 ft (90 m) (contrary to McGuire's own dictates never to engage at a low altitude[12]), caused McGuire's P-38 to stall. It snap rolled inverted and nosed down into the ground. Despite the low altitude, McGuire nearly pulled out successfully; had he jettisoned his drop tanks at the start of the dogfight, he might have managed it "


    And since were quoting anecdotes....


    "During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
    Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
    P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
    able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
    Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
    circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
    characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
    the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
    back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
    of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
    angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
    maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
    Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
    witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground."

    • Thanks 1

  15. 1 hour ago, Johnhil06 said:

    So you are telling me that a propeller aircraft cannot fly to a specific speed an maintain it in a sustained turn ? lol

    You can fly a speed, but it wont give you the best rate. Best sustained rate on all ww2 planes is whatever you get when you ride the edge of a stall until thrust = drag. ww2 props cannot maintain a corner speed.


    1 hour ago, Johnhil06 said:

    I ll be more than happy to have accurate data reference about the reference speeds you are talking about.

    There is corner data in some of the IRL flight manuals, feel free to google it.


    1 hour ago, Johnhil06 said:

    While you mention to want to maintain a high G load on the aircraft, how would you measure that in the sim ? 

    By guesstimating base on blackout amount. 4.5-5G is about the most you can sustain in il2 IIRC


    1 hour ago, Johnhil06 said:

    Pulling abrubtly in the stick results for me in a too much important loss of speed, getting myself in the range of slow speeds, with flaps dragging, without any room to re-accelerate.

    You dont want to arbitrarily hold on to speed. You want to be as close to corner until you run out of excess power due to altitude. Once your on the deck you want to crank the turn till you are on the edge of a stall and hold it. If you ease off the stick in a low speed turn fight you will be doing nothing but retarding your turn rate. The guy at 160mph will be around on you very fast.

  16. 7 minutes ago, Johnhil06 said:

    I, (thanks to Video mentionned above) took note of some reference speeds, and following them now allow me to exploit the P38 at its full extent. As per the reference video, i use :

    - Vy 165 

    - Best turning speed : 200 (with flaps, i can gain some nose authority if needed)

    never under 200, and she handles like a charm.

    Best turn speed in a P-38 is not 200mph. You dont fly to a speed for sustained turns in ww2 prop planes. This is possible in jets because they have enough thrust to sustain best turn speed at or near corner speed. Props cant do this. All you need to do to max perform a P-38 or any other ww2 prop is pull the stick as hard as you can without stalling the plane. You will automatically drop in speed to whatever the best sustained turn speed is. For the 38 with is like 180-150mph depending on how much flap is down.


    Actual corner speed on ww2 props only matters in situations where you have excess specific power in the form altitude to keep your speed up with a higher G. Corner speed for ww2 props tends to be around 6-7G at 270mph indicated. This will vary based on altitude and fuel weight. If you are in a descending nose to tail turn fight, attempt to maintain a high G load between 250-270mph by lowering the nose.


    If you intentionally sustain 200mph in a P-38 you are going to be turning much worse than possible.

  17. 5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:


    I never said I felt outclassed  when in the P-51 or P-38, they are both more than capable at low altitudes. The D9 is faster than the P-51 on the deck, at least in my experience. I've outrun 150 octane P-51s when in the D9, and the D9s have outrun me when on the deck.

    I was quoting both of you and responding to various different bits. You did say you agreed with him on that quoted section, so i wasnt really sure what to make of all that.


    Regarding D9 speed: Unless my memory is fogged I tested the P-51 to 379mph 150 octane and D9 to 361. Ill retest to make sure I am not mis-remembering. Ive chased down 190s and escaped from them in multiplayer, although it was a close run thing. At high altitudes the P-51 is faster.

  18. 17 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

    First, let me start by saying how much I love the work devs have been putting into this game. From the plane sets and change from Eastern theater to the new functions and features built in over the last couple of patches. And I know the game will be improved even further.


    As I've been quite vocal lately in several threads about my problems with visibility in this game, I thought best to capture it on a video. Main focus of clips shown below is the abrupt contrast change dependent on the zoom level - sun reflections simply fade away if you zoom in to the contact you're looking at. I've been experimenting with the sharpness filters on and off, both in-game and in NVIDIA control panel. First clip is with sharpness ON, others are with it OFF:



    Next to the increased rendering distance, IMHO the ALT mode was a step forward. Especially the contact size being constant no matter the zoom level (often called the "inverse zoom effect") enabled more realistic spotting at wide zoom levels - at ranges up to 10 to 12 km. The same goes for the sun reflections enabling more easily to spot targets far away. Unfortunately IMHO, there are few problems with the new spotting features:


    • Since ALT mode is not used on the majority of servers due to the unrealistically long rendering distance featured by the "ballooning effect" of overblown contact size, majority of servers use Expert visibility. When fully zoomed out, contacts are drown at the size of a pixel. Which makes them very hard to spot, almost impossible unless you zoom in and fly with narrow view most of the time.
    • The newly added effect of sun reflecting off plane surfaces (e.g. wings) is gone depending on the zoom level. As you can see in the video, a fully white contact can go to completely dark icon or LOD when fully zoomed in.


    Both of these effects I believe, by large, contribute to the "invisible plane bug" that was and gets reported every now and then (first clip with sharpness ON is a nice example).


    If devs don't have the time to put more work hours into this, at least make the sun reflections constant no matter the zoom level. Just like when you're driving your car on a sunny day - the blinding sun reflection from other cars and objects doesn't go away depending on the zoom level. :)


    This honestly explains alot. I think its worse at 1440p than 1080p too. A 2km planes on my screen are literally ONE pixel.

    • Upvote 1

  19. 2 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

    If Im flying lets say a Yak or a La, I wouldn't care flying slow and low as much as I would care if I were flying an American, that's just me anyways, I feel "unsafe" flying murrican things, they are "delicate" and need to be flown very well to shine, while russian planes are "friendlier" for not very experienced players like me... IMO


    1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

    I'd agree with that. Certain American aircraft shouldn't be flown low (P-47 mostly) other aircraft like the P-38 and P-51 can be flown low and still have a decent ability to defend themselves.

    I got in a fight with 3-4 190s (maybe more idk) yesterday on Combat Box. I was in a P-51 on the deck, I managed to down one of them and got hits on most of the others I think (not 100% sure). During that fight I never really felt outclassed or hopeless just because I was on the deck, I probably would have felt the same in the P-38. The P-47 on the other hand I would have felt pretty hopeless due to the quirks of the P-47.


    No aircraft should be flown low imo but some can be flown low and still be competitive.


    Ill start by saying that being low and slow, and dog fighting in general, are not ideally the situation you want to be in in any fighter. That being said....


    You should not feel uncomfortable in a P-51 or P-38 down low in a dogfight. I am not really sure where you guys are getting this perception, especially that a P51 feels outclassed by a 190 of all things. A P-51 will out turn a 190 of any type EASILY at any altitude. Especially A models, but the D really isnt a challenge. It will out climb any A model, and climb with a D model if it has 150 octane fuel. Speed wise a P-51 is much faster than a A model and equal to D more or less (if not a bit faster on average).


    Against a 109, the 150 octane mustang is at a slight disadvantage vs a K4 or G-14 in a sustained rate fight. It climbs well enough to keep with a 109 under most circumstances. The P-51 is also much easier to max perform than a 109 due to less felt torque and better trim controls. It also has a far superior flaps system that can definitely help you make up the tiny rare disadvantage and then some in most cases. You also have the G suit, and the Mustang hangs onto speed like a thrown brick. If you manage your G correctly, you will be around on a 109 (or at least gain alot of angles) before the fight ever gets into a sea level sustained rate fight (which is the only situation a 109 can really make this advantage stick).


    Ive tested the 109K and 150 octane and non-150 octane P-51s since the patch came out in sustained turn rate at sea level so many times now my head spins just thinking about it. At 25% fuel vs a 50% fuel 109 (roughly equal in terms of endurance) the 150 grade mustang is so close to the 109K in turn rate that pilot skill determines the outcome 9.9 times out of ten. Even the 67inch P-51 will be down to skill 9 times out of ten.




    The P-38 can give a spitfire or a yak a hard time if you make judicious use of flaps. So you should never feel exposed in a 38 if you have to brawl with someone.




    • Upvote 1

  20. 6 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

    wouldn't that be a bad idea? I mean turning low and slow with an American plane.

    No? Why would being low and slow be a bad idea in an american plane? Being low and slow is bad in general, but its not worse in an american plane than anything else. unless your comparing it to a spit.

    • Upvote 1

  21. The P-38 will out turn ANY plane except the spit in the game with full flaps. If you get into a 2 circle geometry, you can out rate anyone luftwaffe. 109 doesnt stand a chance. At higher speeds you have more than enough rate to hang with anyone. Once you run out of altitude and get into a sea level rate fight,  wait till speed bleeds off and go full flap. Watch that P-38 turn like a champ.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  • Create New...