Jump to content

YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YIPPEE


  1. 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.


  2. 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.


  3. 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.


  4. 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


  5. 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.


  6. 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.

     


  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 3 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

     

    I tried to test turntimes and this is more or less what I get, that being said it isn't easy to do and my results contain some errors due to not being a robot perfectly mantaining a circle without some slight change altitude and speed, to help diminish that I made many circles (from 8 to 12) and took the whole time and divided it, getting an average turn time that I guess it is close to the real turn time of the planes.

    At sea level and roughly 280 km/h:

    Bf 109 K-4 at full fuel and 1.8 ata I get 18.9 seconds turn time.
    Bf 109 G-14 at full fuel and 1.7 ata I get 18.2 seconds.
    P-51D-15 at 67" and 68% fuel (full wing tanks, empty fuselage tank) I get 20.1 seconds.
    P-51D-15 at 75" and 45% fuel  (450 liters, enough for 1 hour sortie or so), the turn time decreases to 18 seconds.
    Tempest at +11lb and full fuel I get 18,6 seconds.

    This is pretty close to what I got. Although in my tests the 150 grade pony and K4 were practically even, I could not tell the difference. I got 19.5 deg a second for both. I got 18.5 for the 67 inch P-51. You results are only slightly different, probably explained by different fuel choices.


  10. One of the best features of the new patch was the spotting. It was amazing. And then the hot fix ruined it. Please put it back.

     

    -Finally you could have realistic SA.

    -Finally fights could happen at higher altitudes.

     

    Please PLEASE PLEASE put the spotting back. Specifically the scaling. THE SCALING WAS GREAT.

     

    When you added the new scaling il2 went from a game I play because I have no other options to one of the best sim experiences I HAVE EVER HAD. PLEASE PUT IT BACK

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 10
    • Sad 3
    • Upvote 12

  11. Yeah um, can we have the spotting back to how it was before the hotfix. Everything is invisible again. It was fantastic at release, now its ruined. Everyone may as well go back to hugging the deck again, you cant see anything below you anymore or at range. When you say "minimize" plane size effect I think it was more like "remove"

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 4

  12. 23 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

    Well thats why we changed planes between us. To see if the pilot was making the difference. Even with the 150 grade fuel the 51 should be not eve close to a K4 on a sustained low speed turn. 

    Use flaps to turn at 400 mph is useless you dont need flaps at those speeds. We can meet to make the test between us if you are not convinded. 😉

    Even if you change pilots this is not a good methodology.

     

    And your second point is just false. The P-51 has always been only slightly worse than a K4 in sustained turns on the deck. That is for 67inches. Every sim dev since the year 2000 has gotten virtually the same numbers for these planes. Test the DCS K4 and DCS P-51 if you own them. You will find the exact same relationship, with the P-51 at 67inches being slightly worse, roughly 0.5 to 1 degree per second worse. With 150 grade in il2, they are basically evenly matched. I might also add that you completely left out wing loading at drag in your factors that affect a turn. At weights I mentioned a P-51 has a wing loading of 37.5 and a 109K 40.5.

     

    400mph flaps is a big advantage because it allows you to turn harder at high speeds and because it lets you dump speed faster if the fight starts at higher speeds. If a 109 and a 51 merge at anything greater than the 109s flap speeds, the 51 can gain a large angles grab early because it has flaps that deploy faster and at higher speeds. Which means it is getting both an air brake and a boost to lift long before the 109 does.

     

    The other advantage the 51s flaps provide is that they are hydraulic. The 109s flaps take too long to put up and down, which is a problem because there are parts of a fight you want them up, and others you want them down. When you deploy plain flaps in a dogfight, you get an initial turn rate boost for as long as you have excess PS. Once the turn is sustained again, turn rate will be worse than with them up but radius will remain improved. With a 109 it make no sense to put them down because it is hard to put them back up once speed falls off. Additionally, the the benefit of flaps to the 109 is less (same problem can be seen on la5) because the slats provide lift at higher AoA, while the flaps reduce the critical AoA. So the net effect is less.


  13. 4 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

    I have tested K4 30 fuel against P51 30 fuel so P51 has more weight on fuel and even like that he could outturn with ease the 109.

    Even the 150 Octane fuel has 200 more bhp the K4 has 2000 bhp and is a lighter plane so the power weight ratio is quite better on the 109. Why P51 flap system is better? they have same flap profile but 109 is manual. 

    We can test it if you want but from my test even without the 150 oc grade fuel I can outturn 109S at low speeds with ease 

    You tested wrong. I have done repeated tests with a P-51 150 grade at 25% fuel vs K4 at 50%. The K4 and 51 tie at those conditions. Without 150 grade, the 51 loses. Testing against your friend is not how you do it. The difference in pilot will make the difference especially when it is this close.

    4 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

    Why P51 flap system is better? they have same flap profile but 109 is manual. 

    This why. Also the 51 can deploy them at up to 400mph IAS

     

    This is the exact same characteristics we have seen with the DCS 109K4 and DCS P-51. Same difference in turn times, same torque characteristics.


  14. well for one, this is a 150 octane P-51. so you have 200 more bhp than a normal one. You can do nearly 380mph on the deck and climb rate goes from 3600ft/min to 4300ft/min.

     

    Second, the P-51 generally turns about 1 second slower for a 360 than a 109, and 1 second faster than a 190. This relative relationship has been seen over and over in numerous sims and independent calculations. That relationship is for the 67inch P-51. With 150 grade, you  are probably pretty close to equal turning. Additionally, the P-51 has a much better flaps system than the Bf109. Plus you have alot of people taking extremely light fuel loads. I personally only take 35% fuel with the P-51.

     

    From my testing the K4 and G-14 turn slightly better than the 51. But with 150 grade its so close it might as well not make a difference. And thats for sea level, at high alts the 51 (even 67 inches) most likely out turns the G14.

     

     

    • Upvote 2

  15. I just wanted to say that this patch is truly fantastic.

     

    -Great job on the map.

    -Thanks for the 150 octane fuel for allied birds, Ive waited 900 years for a developer to do this.

    -Thanks for the new spotting system, its fantastic

    -And all the other things I cant list here.

     

    I literally have not found a single thing in this patch I don't like yet. I was so excited after playing for the first few hours after release I could barely sleep after that. Felt like I was 14 years old the night before Xmas.

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 10

  16. 1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

    The hit flashes are not actually from tracer rounds IIRC, but rather from incendiary rounds mixed in among the tracers. I don't believe that incendiary rounds for MGs are modeled in game, just standard AP rounds. It is actually very difficult IRL to see non-incendiary rounds hit.  Cannon rounds produce pretty big 'puffs' when they hit in-game and I don't really find them hard to see.

    If only AP is modeled this isnt historically accurate and is still a problem.

×
×
  • Create New...