Jump to content

YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YIPPEE


  1. Yeah this is all completely what you would expect, its the same stuff we have seen in every game going back to the early 2000s. What would be worrying is if they got something different. As usual, The P-51 67inch is slightly worse than the 109, and slightly better than the D9 190. The 150 octane P-51 is about on a par with the K4, which is totally in line with estimates ive seen people make that were for less favorable fuel loads than we are testing here.

     

    Something else to note. Like many people I have been in a lot of fights the last couple of days in a P-51 vs the K4. I only take 35% fuel from base. The P-51 is extremely low drag so i can take light fuel and sip it at cruise. Additionally, having been a 109 pilot non-stop for the last few years, I know a 109 needs to take alot of fuel, with me personally taking around 70-100% depending on map. I bet alot of people are taking full fuel due to having 10 min of wep to burn. And every 109 pilot I have gotten into a sustained nose to tail turning fight with has been trying way too hard to turn the plane and has been doing themselves no favors. For example, yesterday I got into one with TWO K4s and one of them crashed before the fight ended because he was waffling all over the place because he was pulling to hard. Alot of 109 guys dont max perform their plane very well.


  2. 38 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

    I tested today again the P51 vs 109K4 same conditions and now the 109 can outurn the P51 even with 150fuel. Same mate that i tested the other day he and me could outturn the k4 very easy and not we can not.

     

    Did the FM change with the last path??

    No it didnt. Your test methodology sucks and you are getting inconsistent results. The Flight model is the same.

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1
    • Upvote 1

  3. 1 minute ago, E69_geramos109 said:

    Well even 0.2 helps. if it is possible why not to do that? the more realistic the better

    Modeling it would be fine, but if you look at the image above where it is compared to the 51, it would be negligible even relative to the mustang. I seriously doubt you would be able to notice the difference if they did model it, which means it might already be modeled.

     

    My point is that it neigh on makes no difference.


  4.  

    These are from 38,000ft. all small aircraft. Two of them close tot he deck and over trees. They are very easy to spot, despite youtube compression and a shitty window.

     

    that being said, the new changes I think are good. I tested both and unless placebo even the expert mode is better than it was last patch. Will need to test more extensively though. Anyways I appreciate the new options.


  5. 4 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    Yes I can, on my setup I see them just fine. 

    what is your setup? a 55 inch 4k OLED?

     

    I am on a 1440pm screen and i watched that full screen. You cannot see them very well. The top group disapears once it leaves the trees and the right group goes in and out.


  6. 31 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    I don't agree, you can see those aircraft from more than 15 km above. On my setup I see then just fine. If you play the video at a lower resolution than what I am using on the display you will lose quality, regardless of that there is a quality loss due to video compression anyway. 

    No u cant. you can see maybe less than half of them.


  7. 32 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    Fair enough, lets try that over the Moscow map.

     

     

     

     

    Good, this shows how much the spotting currently sucks.

     

    -One of those formations was totally invisible at first.

    -All of the planes are hard to see and the formation moving left to right is so inconsistent that you could easily miss it.

    -As you adjusted the zoom, without the icons I could not have seen 2/3rds of the plane over the forest, even when u zoomed in close.

     

     

    • Upvote 1

  8. 1 minute ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    Yes, considering that they are aircraft with a 30 odd foot wingspan. 

    Yes they occasionally can be seen. The problem lies with the frequency to which they blip out of existence. The biggest issues are from 1-15km. I cant tell you how many times I watch a track or a tacview and we discover that entire groups of planes flew past us in places we know we were scanning.


  9. 1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

    The pilot in the report spotted the EAs from 18000 feet, not 25000 feet, and the enemies were at 4000 feet. Even with the old spotting this might be possible depending on the horizontal distance between the two (from my rough calculations and a spotting bubble of 10km, about 8km of horizontal separation). I have spotted aircraft at similar altitudes when I have been at 5 or 6k...I have just been unable to really do much about it as usually I'm in a fighter that would lose bits in the dive trying to attack the aircraft.

    Technically possible. Its not practical in Il2. Were talking what works on the reg, not rarely.

     

    1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

    In the last paragraph, he talks about climbing to 5000 feet from the deck, then spotting an enemy 3000 feet below him. Why didn't he see it before, as he must have climbed through the same altitude on his climb up from the deck?

    You are reading this wrong.  This doesn't mean the aircraft he spotting at 3k was unknown to him before. He is only stating that this is the plane he acquired after he came back around to attack again.

     

    1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

    The pilot in this report spotted a formation of aircraft (easier to spot than a single) at 4000 feet from his position at 18000 feet an unknown distance away, but probably not much farther than 15-20 km, and then led a coordinated attack.

    Yes a formation is easier. But in il2 if you spotted a formation like this you would be unable to tell that they were doing a circle like he describes. You would not be able to count them, in fact what would happen in il2 is that if there were 20 planes you would spot 5 of them and never see the other 15. Both in il2 and IRL formations are easier to see, just that in IRL you see the formation and not merely a few of them due to their being so many.

     

    1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

    And of course, he can't tell you about the aircraft he didn't see.

    Yes thats what the top cover is for. The difference being the number of leakers. In il2 you couldnt really do a top cover because you would never be able to have enough SA to know if it was reasonable safe to leave them up there. In il2 there would be 5 planes you never say that bounce the top cover seconds after you attack. And I am not saying this cant happen IRL, but the degree of SA is what counts.


  10. 17 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

    IRL accounts from pilots show that frequently they missed close by contacts, got bounced, hell even glanced back and found out one of your wingman was an enemy fighter who had accidentally joined your formation. The nature of WWII combat was that often you got surprised. 

    People saying this are mostly quoting witticisms like "what you dont see kills you" kind of stuff. Read encounter reports (these are accounts of individual combats by pilots in great detail), watch training videos, and talking to modern pilots. You will frequently find people doing things in these reports/instructions you cannot do in this game:

     

    -Much wider wingman formations

    -Knowing who your wingman is by paint sceme

    -Engaging bandits very far below or above (much further than what we do in game)

    -Group tactics that require constant knowledge of the tactical situation

     

    In il2 pre-scaling everyone hugs the deck or flys no more than 4km above the ground unless its winter. Teamwork never get beyond following the leader because he is the only person that can see someone. And contacts are so hard to keep that doing anything other than gluing your eyeballs to them will cause you to lose them.

     

    image.png.c7b2eea03ff4fbdd2c3f0ecc1c63d9e8.png

     

    -The leader is able to counter enemy planes and assess their tactics

    -The leader is able to leave groups at high altitude to cover the other groups attack.

    -He has a good idea of how the enemy reacted to the attack.

     

    This is what would happen in il2 pre scaling:

     

    "I arrived over Kassel at 25,000ft and spotted a few specs below me. Zooming in to narrow FOV, I could just barely make out a single 109. I had no idea what the rest of the plane were or how many there were. Since no one else in the group could spot what I saw, I had everyone dive together. Immediately everyone was lost and all cohesion lost. We had no top cover. As it turns out, it was 50 109s and another 20 poofed out of warp drive where they had previously been invisible due to render range or lack of scaling. Everyone died. "

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 1

  11. Just now, wellenbrecher said:

     

    Out of interest, how the hell did you manage to fly on max zoom out? I can never read any of the instruments if I do it.

    Been using the default zoom and head forward position for a while now. Only ever really change the height in almost all planes and move the default up and to the left in German fighters or my neck starts to hurt after a while. 

    I can read them just fine, but im at 1440p so i dont know if that makes a difference.  Plus most gauges dont need you to read them that precisely. Otherwise on lower zoom levels i would just zoom in.

     

    For dog fighting or flight leading/formation you totally need wider Fov though. Having to zoom constantly in and out, or having to fly at like 60deg FOV is like having to manually work your eyeballs IRL.


  12. Personally it made sense to me to have the greatest scaling at max FOV, and then back it off. In order to be able fly properly, you need max fov. I wont want to fly with my face smushed into the windscreen. Having the scaling drop off when you zoomed in was a nice feature imo because it prevented you from exploiting the effect too much and from seeing any weird gremlins from the scaling effect.


  13. 18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    38,000’ is 11.5 km, only a little farther than the 10km which was the original render range

     

    and 25,000’ is 7.6 km which was within the pre 3.201 render range. Are you sure you’ve figured this right?

     

    I never got to try the pre-hotfix visibility. But from all accounts it sounded too extreme. Like what DCS did and then rolled back just like 1CGS now has done. It’s a fine line between visible and too visible. 

    Like I said, some of them had considerable slant range. Thats more than 11.5km. This is not about mere distance. It is about visibility at all ranges. The fact that a single pixel technically renders is basically meaningless unless your playing on a 50 inch 4k TV.

     

    Spotting in games is much harder than IRL. Ive seen it with my own two eyeballs and the ability to see IRL makes even the best 4k display look like shit.


  14. 14 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

    Before it was too much being able to see single engine fighters at 40 km range, but for close ranges it was quite good imho. Just played a bit with the hotfix and while it seems I can still spot contacts above 10km, the contacts at low-mid ranges now tend to mask rather easily in terrain or in the armored glass tint as before the update. Had a Fw 190 in my sights but then had to pull up and climb because I lost him as I was looking at it through the armored glass windshield.

    I think of two possible solutions, bring it back but toned down halfway in between, or bring it back just as it was before, but stop rendering planes at 20 km or so. A guy I know was a fighter pilot before becoming an airline pilot and talking about spotting in sims he told me IRL he could spot a Mirage V at roughly 10 nautical miles (19 km)

    Pretty Much this


  15. 21 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

    hat's exactly what we did and you don't like and some jump to all kinds of conclusions and make overly dramatic remarks.

    If it was tweaked for those ranges I cannot tell. It looks like it was pre-patch, with the exception of the occasional glint. If spotting at those ranges was the intent of the tweak, that sounds great, but thats not what were seeing in game. I can not see any scaling at all anymore. None. I have not claimed it was removed either, but it looks like it was and thats why some people think that.

     

    image.thumb.png.dd84e3fe0ab3aa32d8f8b62a05d6f4b6.png

     

    I am not trying to be overly dramatic. But alot of us feel like we just had the rug pulled out from under us. I simply want to express just how much of a let down down the tweak was.


  16. 2 minutes ago, 4brkfast said:

    LOYAL CUSTOMERS that you treat so rudely and disrespectfully.

    I dont think Jason is being rude. As he said its 3am and I imagine after such a massive patch release with all this feedback it is quite hectic.

     

    that being said, I was in several servers where people thought the effect was removed, not just tweaked. And as the pictures JonRedcorn posted show, it might as well have been removed.

     

    I think we all agree 100km is absurd. Honestly I would like to see the scaling most aggressive from 1-8nm, then drop off after that. No one doubts the technical problems posed here, but ill take excessive spotting over being blind any day of the week.

     


  17. Just now, 216th_Jordan said:

     

    It was buggy, targets disappeared at medium zoom.

     

    Maybe scaling can be made a personal (singleplayer) and serverside option, would be best IMO. But medium zooming would still need a fix of course.

    Yeah it was a bit weird, but it wasnt that big a deal either. And this is mainly about the reduction of scaling, regardless of zoom. I could have the zoom either way.

     

    Scaling should not be a server option. It is a fundamental game play feature that should be forced. Ill take a system that is sometimes too much than too little. The effect of seeing someone too far affects the tactics less than too close does.

     

    This year I got the chance to spot some planes from 38,000ft over England. I spotted at least a dozen planes at or near sea level, many of them not massive airliners. Some planes had considerable slant range. In il2 I am blind.

    4 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

     

    Thats just wrong though, real world visibility is a pain. But its nothing bad about asking for not 100% realistic options like better visibility.

    No it not, at least not relative to this game. You cannot even execute real world tactics in il2 without the scaling. You are stuck no more than 13,000ft high and you dont have the SA to conduct proper team tactics.

     

     

    Before the hotfix you could actually do a sweep (like was done IRL) at 18,000-25,000ft and still be able to spot planes on the deck. This is no longer possible.

     

    Before the hotfix you could conduct proper tactics because you had the SA to make good risk assessments and know when to bug out. This is no longer possible.

     

    Before the hotfix you could spot a fight and have a good idea of how many planes were involved. This is no longer possible.

     

    Before the hotfix you could check you six and actually know if someone was there. This is no longer possible unless they are 500m out.

     

    Before the hotfix planes finally stopped blending into trees. Now they are part of the vegetation again.

     

     

    • Thanks 1

  18. 6 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

    Quite a few people complaining about the zooming in problem, seeing planes from too  far away, contrails at ground level, etc. Check out the update thread, its got quite a few  people who demanded it be 'fixed'. It was like the opposite of this thread - a surprising number of people wanting to nerf the visibility back to 10 km.

    I found it much improved from pre-patch and tbh I could have lived with it as it was until the next big patch in a month or so, even with the contrail bugs and such. 

    It just needed some tweaking, and I'm willing to bet we'll see more adjustments as we go. They didn't spend all that time on the new spotting mechanic for nothing.

    Personally i didnt even understand the zoom complaint. The scaling was most apparent at max fov, which made sense since its dumb to make people fly zoomed in. Plus removing the scaling when zoomed also made sense, that way you cant exploit zoom + scale.

     

    Only recall there being about 3 people in that thread that wanted it nerfed. Most were in favor of the change.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...