Jump to content

[TLC]YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by [TLC]YIPPEE

  1. This is exactly what is going to happen in multiplayer when pacific comes out. In theory, hellcats and corsairs should make mince meat out of zeros and ki43s, but what will actually happen is alot of hellcats trying to out turn a zero. To OP-There arent any more axis planes to add, especially considering that the entire axis team is flying around in essentially fictional 1.98ata 109K4s already. What should happen is the allies get P-47M.
  2. To those who know how to mod, can the scaling system be adjusted for singe player? I'd like to mod the scaling system to apply it more aggressively at closer ranges.
  3. The P-38 has had excellent turn performance as JTD described (mediocre without flaps and good with) in every sim that has modeled it except il2-46 which was generally horrible anyway. There are also numerous tests and anecdotes that support the claim of its agility in addition to the aerodynamic findings of modelers over the last 20 years of flight sims. There are anecdotes of P-38s turning with spitfires, and virtually every US test review of the plane claimed it was the best turning plane they tested. Robin Olds has said explicitly that down low he could out turn anything in a 38. This is exactly as it performs in game. Its turn rate without flaps is OK. Once you get down to low speeds and the flaps come out, it will out turn anything in the game except the spitfire (with 100% fowler flaps deployed). The P-38 only had a bad reputation for agility in some anecdotes because it was the only modern plane the USA had at the beginning of the war and it it was the plane the USA learned on.
  4. Hi, I am starting a new squadron called the Leper Colony. This will be a fairly casual squadron for all types of players. Despite the name, we are not a bomber focused group, although we do welcome bomber pilots. This squadron will be a group focuses toward team play with a casual attitude. In other words, we believe this is a game, like monopoly. Join the Leper Colony if you want: -A relaxed squadron where no one will make you read a manual, nor crap on you if reading the manual is your thing. -Coordinated Team play. -Casual practice and training, but is not obligatory https://discord.gg/DvC9vug
  5. The BMS scaling is fantastic. You wont find many in that community who do not like that games spotting system. Option 3 would be the best I think, but honestly the odd issues with FOV are a minor issue in BMS. Id take them any day over the "blind" experience we get in il2 or DCS.
  6. same problem, and i cant connect even with restarter.
  7. This sort of shallow and vacuous interpretation of data is why we are still here 6 pages later. -A mig 21 is not 2/3's the size of in game fighters. It is bigger or smaller depending on the aspect. -This chart is only for 1 eyeball, it is only intended to give a sense of how the eye works. -You are ignoring that other data I posted about the average spotting distance of the T-38 and other planes. -You actually cannot consistently spot il2 planes at 2/3ds of these ranges. At almost any range il2 planes are wildly inconsistent and disappear for no reason.
  8. Yes and this is one of the points I have been trying to make. The primary issue is not the ranges at which things can technically come into view, it is modeling this image here. ALSO, consider that this is only for one eye, and so is the predicted range chart I posted. TWO eyes never see anything from exactly the same angle, and they combine information from independent fixations to create a image. No you cant, and if you think you do, we have different definitions of the word consistent. I dont dispute, as I have already made clear, that you can spot contacts at these distances. The problem is that there will be several others that cannot be seen in the same picture. Even if you look right at them, the will be invisible or nearly invisible. "Consistent" does not mean you flew a sortie and spotted some people at this range. This doesnt even make sense. For one eye. Which is why the average detection ranges of the T-38 or other planes in the other reports are between 4-7 miles. Not sure what this image is trying to show, is this airplane supposed to be hard to see lol? But here, spotting from 38,000ft small planes against a cluttered background. Greater than 8nm away. Ive posted these several times already. Right, this is not a conversation about spotting technique. This is a discussion about the eye as a sensor. Discussing how pilot workload or poor focusing techniques interfere with this is not relevant. Also, I wish I could see 4 of 5 planes in il2. That game as it is right now does not support correct spotting even with the best technique.
  9. Nope. No you dont, not unless you have a huge screen. The game is the same for everyone. If you have normal vision, you are seeing the exact same thing I am. No one in this game is seeing contacts at 10-12km as the average spotting distance as I just described. If you are claiming otherwise you either do not know what you are missing, are being disingenuous, or dont understand what you should be seeing based on my description above. This is pointless if were going to sit here and entertain counter-factual claims. Ive already showed plenty of screenshots and videos showing that spotting at long and short distances is absurdly inconsistent. For every contact spotted at 10km, even 2km, there are generally 10 others that should be detectable that are not. In many cases a contact is invisible even if you look right at it. Anyone who says otherwise at this point does not know what they are missing or is just ignoring the facts.
  10. No, in il2 you occasionally get a dot at 10km. Meanwhile you miss the other 6 at 2km. And 3 others at 8km etc. Il2s spotting is incredibly inconsistent, even when looking right at it. The problem is not what you can technically see, its what can be seen easily enough to be considered average. What you should be seeing is frequent spots at 4-7nm's with a much higher ability to require once taking your eyes off it so the player doesnt have to track it in zoom constantly. And occasionally getting spots at even greater ranges 17km or so, with the sort of rarity we currently get contacts from 8-12. You can sometimes see airplanes in DCS from over 10nm away. No one thinks the spotting in that game is reasonable. Again, this is not about max spotting distance, or what you occasionally spot. Sometimes I seriously wonder if some of you are half blind in real life.
  11. This is not quite right, and what you said right after this makes my the point. The dot at 8km is not just a spec (maybe if head on). This is the average distance, the spec is at some other extreme range where the dot is truly barely visible. It could not be the average distance if it were just barely visible. The reason you see this as the average distance is because as range decreases the angular distance between foveal fixations goes down. Each eye is making several fixations per second, and homogenizing this into a "minds eye" image. The 4-7nm average detection range just happens to coincide with the area where the fixations are coming closer and just before the 2.5nm and below peripheral zone where virtually anything should be detected in short order.
  12. This is pure bs. I've already posted several documents showing this range is about the average distance combat pilots aquire small aircraft. Furthermore Ive posted videos of me spotting small aircraft on the deck from 38000ft. Inside of 2-3 miles most contacts should be spotted because this is I side the peripheral detection zone. The fovea can pick out targets mi h further out. If cued by say a radar, people have been known to spot contacts as far away as 25nm. Uncued, contacts are generally discovered anywhere from 4-7 miles.
  13. No. Games that attempt to be simulations are trying to model discrete elements of the real world. How players use those tools is by definition, not part of simulation. It is the opposite of simulation to alter parts of the game that are attempting to model the real world because players do not behave like the real world. It is also not simulation to alter accurate models because not everything is modeled. If you want a player to have to deal with a part of reality, it has to be modeled. If you cannot model that aspect reality practically, that is not an legitimate rational for modeling other aspects of the simulation poorly on purpose in an attempt to skew the model. No what I advocate for is not modeling a hammer as a wrench just because we cant model the sandbox perfectly too. On the other hand, what you are advocating for is a not at all subtle totally partisan agenda to alter the game in a total nonsensical way just to suit bomber pilots. And this is the bit of the post where you list a bunch of irrelevant items as a form of ad hominem because you know your rational is invalid.
  14. Hint: Harder for some and easier for others is a completely irrelevant metric in this conversation. No one on the alt is better side of this is arguing that it does not have issues. Rather than the improvements it brings to spotting in general are more realistic than the almost totally meaningless ability to see things at absurd ranges. Also, who gives a hootin hell if the developers agree with you lol. In the game you do not have realistic vision in zoom. In real life, you eyeballs do this for you, and it makes more sense to have scaling maxed out either at highest FOV or constant at all FOVs. The fact that you find "smaller when i zoom" counter intuitive is not at rational argument for realis There is no solution that is totally realistic. Sometimes you can implement mechanics to add to the game, but its never reasonable in a simulation to alter the specific realism of the game due to the way players play the game. You give a player realistic tools, and see what they make of them. Btw, seeing what they make of them, is what we call "playing" a game.
  15. I wait, probably forever, to hear a rational explanation of how this is relevant. Completely immaterial. If you want a solution so this, you should advocate for things that dont make every other aspect of the game take a huge step backwards. Other games for example, had solutions like giving large bombers two AI wing men that bombed and fired in sync with the human leader. It is not reasonable to intentionally alter the spotting to be less realistic to intentionally benefit some aspect of the game. The best any simulation can do model everything as close to reality as possible and then let the cookie crumble as it will. Short of a total simulation of reality, the game will always exist in a game environment and this will always alter the relationships between various parts.
  16. Well I give you this, at least your transparent. But this the most absurd case anyone has made for non-alt so far. "help me I need people to not see me so i can unrealistically fly my airliner sized plane to an objective all alone." It appears we have run into the bomber lobbyists. You guys should start a super PAC
  17. 1440p alternative vs non-alt max FOV ALT non alt alt non-alt 1080p "expert" spotting
  18. The Doctor of Philosophy, (PhD, Ph.D., DPhil or D.Phil.) is a degree a person gets from a university by finishing a doctorate program. In many areas of study, the PhD/DPhil is the highest degree that a person can earn (this is called the "terminal degree"). Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory. He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems. "He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems." I have no words.
  19. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony
  20. Almost missed this https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy
  21. Ad hominem. Argument from authority. Misunderstanding of the actual content of the paper. No specific argument as to how any of the it is wrong. Sharpe you have been going at this one for years and I haven't seen a single piece of evidence posted yet. I am still waiting for you to provide some specific reason as to how any of the calculations or rationals in that paper are wrong. "gamer" Dr. Gary Serfoss is an adjunct faculty member of the School of International Graduate Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He served as a U.S. Air Force officer for 20 years and spent most of those 20 years involved in some aspect of defense acquisition work. Gary worked research & development as well as training at the Air Force Research Laboratory. He served as the lead test and evaluation analyst for the $5 Billion Air Force/Navy Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) program, which included the Raytheon T-6 aircraft and supporting systems. Gary also worked as a project manager and systems engineer to develop and deploy the Defense Biometric Identification System, the world’s largest identity management and access control system, around the world in support of the U.S. military. Finally, he served as an instructor at the Air Force Academy, teaching courses related to systems engineering, human factors engineering, the acquisition life-cycle and other topics. He is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. work at Arizona State University in Industrial Engineering-Human Systems. Thats "dr. gamer" to you
  22. Please, where is the specific explanation of how spotting a contact at 40km is worse than missing it at 10 or 6. Still waiting. It is, because this is in the peripheral zone of vision. I would love to hear the rational on how non-scaling rendering of ANY object in a video game could possibly be even close to reality considering the huge differences in effect resolution, contrast, lighting etc. It isnt just a given that this is the case, your point of view is materially impossible.
  23. Yes it does. Close being everything from 5-15km. Then there is a shift at close range where the affect is less noticeable or not there. So no criticism of the actual content then. Gotcha. more baseless ad hominem Clearly you didnt read it very carefully.
  24. And the basis for this statement is?
  25. It really is pretty flabbergasting the degree to which you can shift goalposts and ignore the present arguments as they are given. You ability to pretend like you dont understand what Im saying is astounding. And you wonder how I find you disingenuous.
×
×
  • Create New...