Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

525 Excellent


About [TLC]MasterPooner

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1604 profile views
  1. IRL the impact flashes from .50cal are quite pronounced compared to the game. Any possibility of this being changed?
  2. -I cannot change the refresh rate to 144hz. I select the option, the game reboots but it just reverts to 60. -I cannot change the switch sides/plane/etc settings. If I change them they just revert after startup and it has no effect in game. As a result I cannot change my plane in quick battle. -Some things work others dont, like I change change anti aliasing settings, they just revert.
  3. No it isnt. Because all the other hardware is needed just to have a computer to play the game on. Differences in resolution can be adjusted for in the rendering. IF HDR actually fixed the contrast problems all on its own, which I doubt, it would place the different between being totally blind and or not behind a extremely expensive paywall. And your ignoring that HDR monitors come in at different peak brightness's among other factors, so it wont even be a panacea in that regard. The difference in advantage that an HDR screen of the highest quality would give (and this is granting that it actually fixes anything) would be much more severe than any other difference in setup. The game needs to be created so that players with all kinds of different gear have approximately the same experience when it comes to having an advantage. Its sheer lunacy to assert that the game should be based entirely around having one of the most expensive types of display. And more the point, why would not want them to make changes to the way planes render to increase contrast? HDR adds more colors but it does not solve lighting problems that also affect how contrast is perceived. The bottom line is that a game engine is not a mirror of reality and that things have to be done to make things visible as they should be. And it still does not solve the size problems.
  4. No it isnt, because the implementation is all over the place and it puts being competitive in the game behind a hugely expensive paywall.
  5. But we still dont have it in the game right now do we? And HDR doesn't fix the size problems or sub pixel aliasing. And even if the game had HDR and there were lots of common monitors with it, it doesnt mean everyone will have one. Making HDR the line between you can see it or you cant virtually would make having a HDR screen a requirement to play the game. It will be years before the majority of users have HDR screens, and lets not forget that HDR is not a single thing either. Displays that have HDR vary wildly in their implementation and the quality of that implementation. Most of them are not 1000nits. And I still dont get what exactly your point is by responding to my point about the color problems as they relate to contrast. What I said about the game is still true.
  6. I've seen infantry in real life wearing multicam uniforms against the side of a hill a kilometer away where the range was known because it it was on a range, and in every single game I have played I cannot see infantry in video games under better contrast back grounds at half that distance or less. I play games on a 1440p monitor that was designed for extremely accurate color work. Camouflage and similar background colors have an effect on spotting IRL, but it absolutely nothing like what you see in a video game even on the best monitors. Our displays have limitations that make it impossible to give a realistic impression of visibility without designing compensation methods into the game. Monitors have far lower "resolution" than eyes do, lack the advantages of binocular vision and other eye phenomena, and have contrast ratios massively lower than what you see in the real world. It simply is not comparable. Is it possible to not see someone or something IRL? Of course, but not unders the same condition as in game. A person in a white uniform in a snow environment would have to be much better hidden than a soldier in a game to produce the same probability of being unobserved.
  7. Also: What is even silly is that the career mode cannot adapt to you changing the altitudes of a mission. Enemy fighters wont adjust their cruise altitudes even through you are flying your mission at 20,000ft. They are still putt putting around at 7000ft. Ai aircraft cannot stay in formation for some reason Ai just following each other cannot stay in formation. I once watched a bomber flight of B-25s go bonkers all over the place when trying to make their turn after bombing the target to go home. In general they simply cant do formation. I watch ai go into gaggles all the time. I also watch a pair of 190s react to me bouncing them by turning into each other and colliding. Planes dont seem to realize they are out of ammo. They regularly suck so badly at collision avoidance that they will routinely fly into you if you are are chasing a plane in front of them. AI do not use anything even remotely resembling real world tactics. You wont seem them in stacked covers. They basically have never heard of boom and zoom. They make virtually no effort to stay with a wing man in a fight. They react very unreliably to radio commands. Radio menu might as well not be in the game. I could go on but I would be here all day listing all the absurdly underdeveloped aspects of career mode and the AI in general. In short, career mode is basically a waste of time and is terrible as currently implemented.
  8. I am just going to drop this in here again. This issue is of paramount importance, more important than anything else in the game to be fixed by several orders of magnitude. Virtually every fight in the game right now is spotting a single bandit at point blank range and not seeing a dozen others that should have been easy to see. My friends and I have extreme difficulty even keeping sight of bombers at the appropriate distances according to the actual USAAF escort tactics used during the war. Good luck getting the high cover to not lose you. As others have already pointed out in this thread, spotting at extremely close ranges of just 2-3km is atrociously unrealistic and bad. We need a fix that enlarges the scaling of aircraft rather significantly and adjusts contrast rather significantly.
  9. @Gavrick, I did not say that over 0.75 mach in game that the plane could not be recovered. I also did not say that It could not be recovered over 0.8. Where exactly did you get that from? Nowhere in my last post do I state that 0.75 mach is a magic number beyond which the plane cannot be recovered. In game, as you just said, the plane starts to feel compression at 0.75 mach and it increases above this. The problem is that over 0.75 mach the plane loses considerable control authority in a manner that contradicts the manuals and the tests. The Manuals and the tests state quite explicitly that the plane does not lose control authority or require trim to exit a dive. Whatever mach number would have seen the onset of significant elevator stiffness, it was beyond 0.8 mach, since in the manuals and tests it makes it quite clear that at these speeds there is no significant loss in elevator authority. So my point still stands. What is seems that you have done is implement significant control stiffness above 0.75 mach, more than seem actually since you yourself made that quite explicit in your last post. The suggestion is to shift the onset of control loss to 0.8 mach instead of 0.75. As was clearly stated in my last post. And you did not even address the point about confusing the mach number with the structural numbers.
  10. I believe I know what the problem here is regarding the elevator response is. The critical mach number is not correct in game. @Gavrick Please reference this chart: This is from the aircraft manual as was already referenced from the OP. Note that all of the air speeds given here are for 0.75 mach. However the dive tests show that the plane was taken to 0.84 mach and that they placarded it at 0.8 as the functional limit. I have tested in game and the plane follows the above chart. "The results indicate that the airplane should be restricted to a Mach number of 0.80 due to compressability difficulties which become increasingly dangerous beyond that point. It is recommended that the airplane be placarded with the following limit diving speeds:- Pressure Altitude (Ft.) Pilot’s IAS (m.p.h.) 40,000 275 35,000 310 30,000 345 25,000 385 20,000 425 15,000 470 10,000 505 5,000 505 So what is obviously going on here is that the game is based strictly on the manual limits, and not on the tests that show the plane could dive to 0.8 mach. Really the plane could dive beyond 0.8 mach, but was placarded there as a practical limit. The manual appears to have been even more conservative. And additional problem is that the game appears to take the 505 IAS at 5000ft to be the mach limit as well as the structural limit. If you carry forward the same 0.75 mach limit to 5000ft and sea level, you get 526mph IAS and 576mph respectively. With the correct 0.8 mach limits, you would get 561mph and 608mph. While the 0.8 mach figures would probably not be practical due to the structural limitations that would be incurred by greatly exceeding the 505 notional limit, having the mach effects being dictated by this number causes the plane to lose control authority far too early and causes the curve of the compression zone to spike dramatically in dives below 5000ft. My request would be that the plane should have is high speed dive characteristics changed to model the 0.8 mach number as the onset of severe compression, not 0.75 mach. And the compression effects should be disentangled from the structural number below 5000ft.
  11. Looking at your numbers you are getting more or less the same values at the speeds at which the plane settles into sustained turns, excepting your full flaps measurement. I am not sure how you got a measure of 20.3 seconds, that's not degree a second of difference, its 2. You might wanna try that again because I can consistently pull off 22.5 degrees per second regardless of whether I use tacview or simply using a compass and a stopwatch. The drag values are accurate and were verified with an independent calculation. The 22.5 figure also agrees with other games the P-38 has been in. Also no sure why would would not use the max flaps in a dogfight. The raise and lower quick quickly so it is hardly an inconvenience to use them to their full potential.
  12. Guys the P-38 with full flaps, not 50%, will out turn ANY axis fighter in the game. That includes the K4 Unicorn on Fantasy Roids. A P-38 with 50% fuel with max flap turns at around 22.5 degrees per second. A Roided K4 does not even come close to that. Out-turning the K4 regardless of if its the fictional one or not is a breeze. Otherwise I agree that it is not fast for this stage of the war and has dive troubles. The real thing that will get you killed in the 38 in a turn fight is its large size and low speed roll rate. You have to apply alot of rudder assisted roll and use 50% flaps in order to stay in the fight until you get the fight below 200mph where you can open up your doom flaps. The larger circles are for 50% flaps where the plane turns at about 19.5 degrees per second and is on par with a Mustang or K4. The P-38 can muster about a 16 second turn with max flap which was corroborated by Holtzauges calculations about a year ago. Dont restrict yourselves to the maneuver flap setting. In any turn battle where PS does not equal zero the maneuver setting is more than enough. By the time you are slow enough to be in a sustained turn battle you are flow enough to drop the flaps down to max and let them have it. They are also extremely useful for reducing radius enormously for one circle fights like a scissors or for hanging on your props in order to hammerhead over.
  13. That is patently absurd. 3 out of the Five show huge exit holes, and the 4th is still larger than the exit. And the point of the car images and other images is not that every single impact is massively larger, but most are, and all are larger than the entrance. Damage like you see in that image would also have not been caused by a fire. Fires do not do that to metal like seen in this image. The jagged irregular exits are caused by physical trauma. If the fire was hot enough it might melt some of the metal but it would not cause the sort of irregular damage you see in the images. The fact that bullet exits are significantly larger in general than the entrance is not a controversial point of fact. Where is the source that APEI was the round being used, or even used in the ammunition belt.
  14. Your redraw hardly changes the result. It still shows rather large exits far more often than not. And most of that missing paint is not from the fire, that is from the paint coming off from the exits and entrance points. This happens all the time with bullet impacts and is not a novel phenomenon. Some of the discoloration was from the fire but the holes and the missing paint is not.
  • Create New...