Jump to content

[TLC]YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by [TLC]YIPPEE

  1. Alt vis is only worse in that it allows spotting at extreme ranges. But this is not as detrimental as not seeing them in close. At the ranges people complain about regarding alt-vis (>25km) the plane is so far away that its almost certainly not going to be a factor. It will be dead or gone before you get there. Most of the time. This could be fixed but i dont get why this is seen as a huge problem. Max fov is needed anyhow to dogfight worth a hoot. Why does anyone need to zoom in on a plane 10 miles away? You could argue that having scaling aggressive the greater the fov is better than being able to double up the effect with zoom. This has always been this way. Always. The difference now is that with alt-vis you can actually have enough SA to avoid the furball. Before, and with expert, you end up in the furball whether u want to or not, and never see more than 25% of the people in it. I cant tell you how many times I have watched replay tracks or tacviews and there were dozens of planes we were looking right at we never saw. Not even at long ranges. It is more absurd I have loitered 10,000-15,000ft above and airbase and have entire groups take off without notice even through we had multiple people eyeballing it. It is equally bonkers that I can have entire formations of attack planes the size of a Pe-2 fly into and objective and drop all their bombs and the explosions are the first thing a group of 4 109s at 10000ft ever sees. This is without a doubt a worse problem than seeing a group of planes 40km away who will most likely not ever catch up to. With alt-vis it has been less of a furball than ever before. You can spot furballs and assess the situation instead of flying into it by accident. People are flying higher than ever before, just like was done IRL. Alt-vis encourages hit and run tactics more than expert. Expert promotes hugging your target because otherwise you never see him again.
  2. Yes, because reducing the amount of area you search makes it harder....🙄 Yes so have I. But its rare and you miss tons of them that should not have been missed. It is wildly inconsistent, which means its bad. Yes this is part of the issue. Doesnt change that alt-spotting is the better option for the time being.
  3. Find the 110 strafing the field. 110 attacking field. Tracers yes. Plane barely.
  4. Find the 111, 2km appox. Btw I know the range because the person flying the bomber was in comms with me. In order to find them at all they had to tell me their exact grid. I knew my altitude and theirs. There is some slant range but not much. In some cases there was none once i got over him.
  5. yeah if you zoom it it helps a bit, but then I have to fly around looking through a straw with my face smashed agaisnt the glass
  6. A massive bomber only 2km, with just a snippet of the shot, so you dont have to scan the entire sky.
  7. Yes I have sharpen but it got stripped from the screenshot. I was escorting this 111 and we routinely kept losing him. On most occasions if I had not known exactly where to look I would have lost him. My wing man car verify this, as he could almost never see him without me guiding him to it. I also have video of this I can share later. he is slightly easier to see but it still makes the point. he is constantly going in and out of blending it. This was happening constantly.
  8. Food for thought regarding the spotting. This is an He111 I was escorting within approx 2km is non-alternate spotting. This is ridiculous.
  9. please put it back, it is horrendous. alt-spotting was much better. My friends and I flew just a bit ago and quit after one sortie. Please it was much better before.
  10. I think it's pretty obvious that the devs did a great job and the fms are spot on
  11. P-38 was a very agile fighter contrary to pop-opinion. Its poor agility rep was earned from pilot anecdote when the USAAF was cutting its teeth for the first time. It has huge Fowler flaps and will out turn anything int he game that is not the spitfire.
  12. An engineer like you should be able to handle it.
  13. Those screenshots showing the 70km spots make my point. Those dots are almost impossible to see, and they are so far away that it is virtually tactically irrelevant. By the time you flew over there that plane would likely be dead, rtb, or you even more likely you would lose track of it before you arrived. However with alt-spotting on contacts from 25km and under have quite realistic spotting, and this is critical not only for general spotting but for being able to cruise at higher altitude and still be relevant. Moreover spotting at 70km is probably not impossible, just much rarer than we see in game. Overall this is a huge improvement to the game and I very much appreciate the devs adding it. The point being is that alt-spotting is the more tactically realistic and fun of the two options. Neither is perfect. Moreover: The spotting issue in this game that has not been fixed really is the sub 3nm spotting. The glint effect has certainly helps with spotting close targets against the ground, but in general the sub 3nm spotting is unrealistically poor. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that under 6km there is not scaling at all. There might not be any under 6km. It is the spotting at 6km (3.5miles) and below that needs fixed more than anything else really. There is far much planes blending into the ground even when you are staring right at them. And there needs to be some scaling at these ranges because everything is too small, particularly in profile.
  14. The big assumption here is that the increase to the inner wing would match the outer slatted section. Additionally this is not the conclusion that the dcs devs, holtzauge, or the il2 devs came to. There is an entire thread on the dcs forums explaining why the slats on the 109 do not provide this big benefit.
  15. As others said the G-14 is almost literally a G-6 with MW, so there is no point. What would make sense is to have 1.42 ata unrestricted for the G-6 for later scenarios.
  16. Also what is this lol chart. Like what....even...is this. 1941 G? 419mph! only 3300fpm? P-51 395mph? 1700fpm? WAT.
  17. I forgot about the 1000m. Very hard to manually test anything other than sea level due to altitude gain and loss. I dont think and could do it! I tested again at same power, sea level with fuel levels from the chart. I got 18.5 for 109 and 17.5 for 51.
  18. Thats not what I get, at least relatively. Ive done it over and over now and I get 19.5deg/sec a second for a 25% mustang and 50% 109. (150 for 51). I have not done a test yet where the 51 could out turn the 109 in il2gb.
  19. It is only too good at those ranges. Without the alternate option spotting at more tactically relevant ranges becomes much worse, which is a bigger issues than not seeing people 40km away routinely. Also, I almost never see anyone 40km away with the alternate spotting. 25 is more routine. Thanks, I will.
  20. Nope. Everyone who is claiming the expert option is more realistic on the whole is wrong in point of fact. What is truly incredible is that there is disagreement about this at all, considering we all have eyeballs. From the perspective of realism it matters alot less if you sometimes see a contact too far away than the reverse. The alternate option scaling feature helps with at medium ranges, and that is more important for realism than no being able to see someone 40km away. This is a case where too good is better than too little. Simple as that.
  21. Which is exactly how all the (majority) feels about going back to the extremely unrealistic "expert" spotting. You should be happy the game is fixed now. Imagine this about twice as easy as you see it here with youtube compression.
  22. This is not true. The entire Objective of Pointblank was to destroy the Luftwaffe. Not only were fighter tactics changed, but the industrial targets were changed to prioritize things like aircraft production. And the industrial bombing had huge effects. It greatly mitigated German industrial expansion. It obliterated 75% of German synthetic oil production which crippled every arm of the German military for the rest of the war in just a few strikes. You do realize that the "failed" ball bearing strikes in late 1943 nearly brought German industry to the brink right? This was not to be in the end, but the fact that a mere two strike were capable of potentially do this is important. This is completely false. To say that bombing tactical targets with big bombers was ineffective is like saying artillery is ineffective because it didnt kill everything and everyone. Reference operation Cobra, the damage to German ground forces was immense. It became dispersed after the bombers started doing massive damage. There is a reason industry is concentrated. When you are forced to disperse it, it stops being as good and making things. This largely has nothing to do with the American bombing, at least in Europe. The American bombing was dedicated to precision bombing of legitimate strategic targets. With some exceptions. right............because the entire logic of declaring war on russia hinged on the strategic bombing force.........🙄 Anyone who thinks the strategic bombing did not significantly affect German ability to wage war is being ridiculous. It completely ignores economics and logistical realities. Strategic bombing did not end the War in a week as some advocates thought it could. But the idea that nation can have its cities brought to ruins and just "keep on keeping on" at the same pace as before is delusional. The irony of this is virtually everyone on both sides of this issue recognizes that part of what made America capable of such enormous material production during and after the war was due to its having not been bombed.
  23. Except they are not compared at similar altitudes. The altitudes are all over the place. And there isnt a single chart in that report comparing them at low altitudes. Additionally, the F6F is the main one with an advantage. The P-38 wing, which is also a conventional airfoil, shows no advantage at all. And the bottom line is that at lower altitudes and lower mach numbers the CL is 1.4. And at low alts and low mach numbers the 109s was 1.4. Pointing out the relationship to certain other airfoils does nothing to change that.
  24. Are you going to just keep starting new threads about the same thing?
×
×
  • Create New...