Jump to content

[TLC]MasterPooner

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by [TLC]MasterPooner


  1. 4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

    The poll simply shows a 50/50 split between players who prefer “realistic” vs “fun”

    Some of us think realistic IS fun 

    And some of you think anything that is harder is more realistic. Alt spotting makes spotting above 25km too easy. Non-alt spotting makes spotting way too hard under 25km and especially under 10. Seeing a plane 40km away has a far less significant effect on tactics than not seeing it under 10. Spotting things over 40km just looks stupid, missing them under 10km gets you dead.

    image.png

     

    Find the 110. Image taken from 4km with expert spotting.

     

     

    Now you see them

    unknown.png

     

    Now you dont

    unknown.png

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  2. 12 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    I'm sure you have seen this post?

    Yes and its wrong, at least with regards to how most people perceive. . I fly routinely with someone who flys combat jets for a living and their number one grips is spotting. I can also pile air force testing and other documents show this to not be the case for the majority of people. For example the mean spotting distance of a t-38 was determined between 67 pilots to be 4-5 miles. It also is not correct to analyze human vision with minute of angle in that fasion. hint: humans have binocular vision and the "image" you see is brain generated. There is tons of research on this.

     

    Regarding the furball we may just have to agree to disagree, because all of the people I fly with have been saying exactly the opposite of your group. Personally I think you should consider that its not the frequency of furballs but rather your observation of them that has increased.

     

    Ill take you up on PM

    5 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

    What resolution did you take these screenshot s at?

    1440p

    • Upvote 1

  3. 1 minute ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    It really seems to have benefited VR users no end but there are many other players who are reporting a very much worse experience with alternative visibility on.

    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.

     

    3 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    but if you dare zoom or even as they close distance with you they disappear.

    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.

     

    5 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

    What I have noticed over the last week or so is  some servers are turning into airquakes

    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.

    • Upvote 3

  4. 29 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

    hese picture examples of spotting never go to full screen when I click them.  It's kind of an invalid point - at least for me - to use them as examples.  

    Yes, because reducing the amount of area you search makes it harder....🙄

     

    29 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

    I was spotting planes reflecting sunlight 15-20km away on the deck while I was at 10,000ft and most "dull" planes around 8-10km, co-altitude on the Rhineland map yesterday and getting similar results from Kuban and Stalingrad.

    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.

     

    31 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

    I'm pretty sure that (like has been told to me) it's an issue with resolution equalization among various devices. 

    Yes this is part of the issue. Doesnt change that alt-spotting is the better option for the time being.


  5. image.thumb.png.e4442be60303adc8cf0c44def99ab458.pngFind 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.


  6. Just now, =RvE=Windmills said:

    Visibility in 'expert' is highly dependent on zoom. If you don't zoom then you can easily lose contacts at close'ish distance. There's a gap in visibility that is very noticeable and where its very hard to spot planes that should be visible.

     

    I am honestly not sure why people love this so much, it has issues just like alternate. But there's always the crowd that associates higher difficulty with more realism for some reason.

    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

    • Upvote 1

  7. 1 minute ago, Alonzo said:

     

    Do you have Sharpen enabled? What other graphics settings are you using? For the VR players, we've learned that Sharpen is absolutely critical, must be enabled, and that too much AA blurs the plane a lot. HDR helps, but you have to turn off Bloom in the config file.

    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.

    3 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

     

    Do you have Sharpen enabled? What other graphics settings are you using? For the VR players, we've learned that Sharpen is absolutely critical, must be enabled, and that too much AA blurs the plane a lot. HDR helps, but you have to turn off Bloom in the config file.

    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. 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.


  9. 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.

     

     

    • Upvote 1

  10. 17 minutes ago, Panthera said:

     where'as the 109's real advantage comes with power on where prop wash is energizing the inner wing section allowing it to match the outer slatted section in lift generation and thus providing for a significant net gain in lift.

    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.


  11. 8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

     

    Wow, that site is full of hot, steaming horsecrap.

    The wing-section they're showing for the 109 (slat + flap) holds true for about 5% of it's span.

     

    They manage to write "Gustav" wrong, while putting up a performance-table they clearly pulled out of their rear end.

     

     

     

    ...said noone ever...

    Also what is this lol chart. Like what....even...is this. 1941 G? 419mph! only 3300fpm? P-51 395mph? 1700fpm? WAT.

     

    image.png.28b0ba8210e391cc627dc345acdcbb07.png

    • Like 1

  12. 5 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


    Was it also at 1000 meters altitude in the Kuban Autumn map (standard atmosphere)? The 19.5 deg/sec looks closer to my sea level results, though you are using less fuel. I can tell it can vary depending on the ability of each one to hold the the turn the best way possible, which I don't claim I'm perfect at 😅. A hold altitude/hold speed autopilot command would be handy for these tests.

    But we can agree the planes are rather similar, a close maneuvering fight will depend more on the skill of each pilot rather than the turn performance of the planes, unlike Spit vs 190 or Zero vs P-40.

    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.


  13. 1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

    thanks for the info ^^ Tried to replicate it in game at 1km and roughly 320 km/h tas. And I get roughly 17.5 degrees/s with the K-4 and 18,5 degrees/s with the P-51 at the same conditions. That being said it is not so easy to mantain the constant speed/alt so there is some error to it.

    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.

     


  14. 8 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

     

    Too good is too good, not better? 

    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.

    4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    Have fun playing your game with the radar-like vision offered by the Enhanced setting. 

    Thanks, I will.

    • Confused 2

  15. 1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

     

    LoL, you wish.

    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.

    • Confused 1

  16. 37 minutes ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

    Right now all the main servers are using the inflated super view setting. If I had an alternative I would use it. I don’t want to quit. The reason we are so vocal about this is we love this sim and don’t want to lose it.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...