Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

470 Excellent



  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1331 profile views
  1. It should also be noted that the rate of fixations they give, and the following probability is completely arbitrary and incorrect. It is not in the original paper either. Your eyes make more fixations faster when you read this post. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Human_saccadic_eye_movements https://www.britannica.com/science/saccade "It is during these periods, which last on average about 190 milliseconds, that the eyes take in visual information. " This would equate to over 300 fixations per minute. Your eyes also make two fixations at the same time, and see everything from a slightly different angle, which increases the minute of arc that the eyes can see. It is correct however that contacts at or under 2.5 miles should be easy to locate, and that contacts further out should require more careful scanning to find. However, given a rendering system on the screen that represents contacts in some proportional manner to real life contacts (contrast, size, etc) this problem more or less solves itself since these principles apply to searching for small numbers of pixels as well. However it does not work if the contacts are unreasonably difficult to see like we currently have in game.
  2. Yeah this is definitely the single biggest problem with the game right now. Spotting is such a tactically significant thing a flight sim that much of what is otherwise a great sim is significantly diminished by the current spotting issues. If the developers would fix this issue in a patch it would instantly make this game twice as good as it already is. With the current system, I can routinely sit 20-40km from an airbase and watch people take off well enough to count them. Once these planes get to about 6-8km, the almost always vanish unless I manage to keep sight on a single pixel by going max zoom all the way to intercept. Spotting at 20km? No problem. 3km? Too close.
  3. I think normandy looks fantastic. Can’t wait! With these planes we can do Normandy all the way back through late 1943
  4. Irrelevant, since it is a test of the engine itself. But also because there would be no point of the Army doing a WEP test to approve the rating for use if this was not useful for the actual plane. So actually, this isnt apples to oranges. Its apples and apples on a bench. No? also no Actually they finally stated they were planning on doing something different at the end of one of the more recent threads. Which was about a year ago. And it makes perfect sense to bring this up again now that we have bodenplatte and a whole new slew of complicated caused by this mechanic. Well I guess I have to explain the patently obvious again. And also what is explicitly stated by some documents. Continuous power is just the power setting that can be used as long as you like such that the engine will last to the specified TBO. Use of higher powers wears the engine out faster and will mean more maintenance must be done on the engine. These time limits have absolutely nothing to do with the engine failing 5min and 1 second after the 5 minute mark. The engine will eventually fail even at "continuous" power. And you can have sudden engine failures at continuous power as well. Time restrictions only exists to prevent nonsensical use of the WEP that would eat into the service life of the engine. Nope. Explaining 2+2=4 to you over and over only to have you keep telling me its 5 becomes tiresome. I might add that you started your posts with such an attitude, so your just being a hypocrite. You are the one that talking down to everyone else in threads some time ago peddling an argument from authority and essentially directly implying that anyone who didnt see it your way was some ignorant fool. You are the one that came into these conversations with an attitude, I am just reacting. Weird, because you have spend such a large amount of time arguing with the supposedly willfully ignorant. Apparently you do have lots of time in fact. But I am not complaining, as I have not seen you add a single useful thing to one of these threads yet. Not only is this a counterfactual statement, but even if my evidence were scant, its better that zero evidence you have for your position.
  5. Maybe from the standpoint of anyone who buys into your nonsensical fantasy view on how this stuff works. Remember Dakpilot, "facts, science, and history" of which you have posted exactly nothing, and yet you have an absolutely curious capacity to persist in a notion that has no basis in facts. Truly, a remarkable talent.
  6. The thing about this is that it a complex system for this is completely unnecessary. The most realistic option, is to allow completely unlimited amounts of time at WEP. If we had some kind of 1:1 engine simulation in the game, the frequency of failure due to prolonged use of WEP would be so rare as to be for all intensive purposes the same result as no specific modeling whatsoever. Before the 150 octane WEP ratings were approved, the engines had to undergo 7.5 hour tests at WEP. In the case of the P-38 I posted, the plane was checked after the test and they specifically mentioned no evidence of detonation or damage. The plane was then subjected to an additional 5 hours before it failed. This was not done all at once, but the later P-51 manual states that the effect of wear on the engine at time limited setting is the same if you use it in intervals or all at once. Hence why the other P-51 manuals list 5 hours of WEP before the engine must be taken down for inspection, as this is almost certainly a buffer to the 7.5 hour standard which is itself subject to a safety margin. What should be modeled, and would not be all that hard to implement I would imagine, would be relatively simple scripted management mechanics that have nothing to do with time. It should not be possible to run WEP at lean mixture, and there should be various possible consequences of certain throttle mix ups etc. It is also unnecessary to wait for some total solution since those who want to wait for the perfect solution are in effect advocating for the horrible stopgap that exists now. Having no limits would dramatically improve the combat realism of the game. It is perfectly obvious that the ability to use long periods of wep, or at least longer than possible now, in combat is more important than preventing people from cruising at WEP in situations where IRL it would be be prudent not to. There is also no way to prevent people from doing this without intentionally making the engine function in the game less realistic in a irrational attempt to control player behavior.
  7. Yeah I'm also against the heat mechanic because it is not realistic and.... Because a heat mechanic....is just a timer
  8. This is the most absurd gripe I have ever seen. Well at least this week anyway....
  9. This is referring to limitations in general, not time specifically. Meaning temps, MAP, etc.
  10. There is some loss due to compression on all videos. Are you watching them at full res? Everyone else I have watch those can see a huge difference. As for my experience in il2, it's not unique to me. That's why I show the difference between icons on and off. I could make literally tons of videos like that. Most people don't realize how many short range contacts they are missing. Keep in mind I run 1440p as well. And I suspect the reason you havent seen the pe2 that bad is because when it happens you usually don't see it.... Anyways video is video. I'm not seeing something different in game than you are.
  11. It hard to understand you when everything you say is completely wrong. Apparently you didnt read my posts well enough because my attitude toward alt was just that it was the lesser of two evils. Btw, you can see stuff at 50km in expert, possibly more. My position on spotting since my very first post on the matter years ago is that long range spotting should be possible but that short spotting is where the real problem is. The engine limits I propose are very realistic and I have posted numerous facts to back this up. Many documents that literally say what I am claiming. You on the other hand have not posted a single document supporting your clearly absurd position that defies technical documents and basic knowledge of how the engines work. The closest thing you have come to an argument in the past few years is an appeal to authority fallacy where apparently you flying around in some old prop planes where you most certainly did not go around testing the engines under controlled conditions, is supposed to somehow mean something in the face of very explicit data from numerous sources that says exactly what I am saying. You know, from the actual experts who designed, operated, and tested these engines. And as you have said, you have no experience at all with in line engines. Apparently numerous documents intended for pilot consumption stating precisely my point of view is what you consider to be "not facts."
  12. Right, so Im glad you agree with my ideas then.
  • Create New...