Jump to content

Lippisch

Members
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Lippisch

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

313 profile views
  1. I have something to add on my opinion of the server in its current state. In general I find the artillery to be okay in numbers but feel like the skill could be slightly lower. I don't think it should be about making artillery in a realistic representation, rather the focus should always be on gameplay. AAA should be enough of a deterrent for 1 plane to try and engage objectives at a minimum 2000-3000m in level bombing, simply because the server population is so skewed across most hours of a day. On the VVS, I simply cannot play with a decent team size in my timezone. Therefore, I'm largely relegated to doing... not much, except resupply and those level bombing runs, - hoping I won't encounter any fighters. Defending our objectives then is more realistic, but I don't own BOM, so I cannot really do anything about that when the MiG-3 is available in larger quantity than the LaGG-3 across map. Why that is? I don't know. The LaGG-3 was produced in nearly double the quantity. I understand that maybe not many were deployed with the unreliable 37mm motor cannon, but the fact remains I don't have it, so how can I play? Anyway, as the LaGG-3 is generally considered to be the worse plane of the two, I think it is counterproductive to force people between a choice. It's no La-5 or Yak. I can't speak about the various Bf-109 models and their differences but I trust balance can be found for people facing the same issue on that side. I actually don't find it very rewarding to fly fighters anyway, since there is only the opportunity to earn 1CM per sortie regardless of what you do while bombers only need to fly 35 minutes to achieve 2CM. I was flying the Pe-2 and found the 4x250kg bombs to be nearly half as effective as the 2x500kg set - I'm not sure if this is default physics of the game or server-specific object settings. Anyway, it's pretty annoying that AAA (I think it was an armoured vehicle/mobile AAA?) couldn't be killed with a 250kg only about 10-15m away. Now I am sure this fairly poor damage model lies mainly with the developers but if there is a way to reduce the 'hitpoints' of the objects, I think it is a good idea. It's a fairly unsurvivable scenario even in a tank, due to splash damage. For a lightly-armoured AAA, there is also shrapnel. A point for those advocating realism: the German government estimates that around 15% of bombs failed to detonate during the war. This is obviously an example of additional realism that would not be conducive to good gameplay. Lastly, an overlooked part of the server population issue may be due in fact to the scenarios involved. I don't know if a new campaign is currently being developed, but I think most people on other servers probably want to fly planes from later in the war, at least from Battle of Kuban, in addition to general grievances about playing TAW actually feeling like a grind for many. I can't fault the enemy fighters for having skill but that's not why I personally play on TAW. I think with some polls, we could find the overall 'economy' of TAW is what puts people off the most. Besides, if I have to grind CM to play fighters, then I will simply do it via the airfield resupply - since I don't have to worry about being intercepted - and overall the repetition and lack of 'contribution' to the outcome of the mission becomes pretty stale pretty quickly. I don't have issues about the number of lives but it is annoying to be shot down, survive and crash land and lose 2 previously achieved CM, basically undoing all progress - and then you're one more plane down, maybe your last combat plane leaving only the resupply aircraft. I would play more, but the peak server population times make it an impossibility. That's just what happens when we can't get enough new players, and I think one improvement that can be made is to have a registration date advertised in advance so players can pick a side, rather than joining halfway through the campaign to realise that the population is so unbalanced at times that the players cannot even spawn, and are kicked from the server even after they've taken off, because there are not enough players on the opposition. Obviously if registration for one team is so lopsided, then one solution is to stop accepting registrations for that team for the sake of everyone - and suggest they play the team with fewer players. This can be implemented in conjunction with preferred timezone so that everyone has a fair chance to register for the side they want. Basically, we need a survey. If I've gathered one thing from the the last dozen pages of this thread, the server is at risk of becoming an echo chamber without any new players... and I get the impression that some take it all a little too seriously.
  2. PC Specs: Display: Asus MX239H 1080p 60Hz Motherboard: Gigabyte H97N-WIFI RAM: DDR3 2x4GB 1600MHz (G.Skill Ripjaws X F3-12800CL8D) CPU: 8MB 3.9Ghz 8-thread (Intel Xeon E3 1241v3) GPU: Asus Strix GTX960 OC, 2GB VRAM on NVIDIA Driver 425.31 IL-2 installed on Samsung 850 EVO SSD with 43GB of space free OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit When: In multiplayer and single player, map and weather doesn't seem important. On the latest patch currently, but has occurred in previous patches before hence why I've not really played for the past 6 months. Problem: Huge lag on the ground and near the ground (always down to 3 FPS), persists for a random amount of time until FPS returns to nominal levels (30-60 FPS). Does seem to clear up faster if I look towards the sky but not always. While it is lagging and stuttering, looking towards the sky (where the majority of objects are not being rendered), FPS only increases to about 15-20. I don't seem to get any lag at higher altitudes above 1km but zooming in quickly does cause a stutter and brief FPS dip. I have attached my Graphic settings and HWMonitor export. I checked ASUS GPU monitor while playing and 960 gets maxed out but the clocks themselves don't dip or drop when lag or stuttering occurs, so I think we can rule out a hardware failure. VRAM usage maxed out around 1.8-1.9 GB. I also don't have issues in any other games or rendering applications. For what it matters, this flight was based on the Kuban Summer map without weather but as I said, it also occurs on the other maps. Normally in the air I sit at around 50-60 FPS. IL-2 HWMonitor.txt
  3. The Pe-2 s.87 Transport option doesn't appear to work as with the He-111 Transport mentioned above. I've tried with empty ammo Loadout and without any modifications. Everytime it suggests I'm not allowed to use the Pe-2 even though I have 1 Pe-2 Transport available on the record. This is the only other way to gain combat missions and replacement aircraft so it's pretty frustrating that this new implementation appears not to work for many.
  4. I cannot Alt+Tab cleanly out of the game. If I do, I cannot open the BoS window again, and if I open Windows Task Manager then the display locks up and I only have a mouse in the taskbar at the bottom. All I can do at this point is right-click the IL-2 icon and "Close Window". If I exit the game window through the GUI then my screen goes black briefly and flashes, and then I am locked out of Windows and have to log-in again. Windows 10 - 64bit Asus GTX 960 Intel Xeon E3-1241v3 8GB RAM
  5. Hehe. Remember cameras like the Minolta SRT-102? They had a 2 cell CdS light-metering system, and it was eventually simplified to a single, smaller cell in order to save on costs! Now you can buy over 20 of those same cells for a $1 on Ebay!
  6. Let's go do Battle of Britain with a hypothetical operation Sea Lion campaign so we can kill CoD and move the community forward lol.... I bought that PoS but could never play it - so I'd welcome the opportunity to buy a working re-release! Aside from that, I'd be really happy to fly some commercial and sport aircraft in a pre-war/post-war Europe - no other civil aviation sim has the flight dynamics BoS offers along with the graphical and cost/performance fidelity. Bu-181, Me-209, Fi-97/99, Tigermoth, Hughes-H1, FW-200 Condor, DC-3... along with other airliners and 'Blitz' mail-planes... Spanish Civil War anyone?
  7. Nice video showcase of the new update.
  8. Everything is better. It's a matter of facts, not so much opinion.
  9. Maybe it is possible to add an on-death event linked to a deactivate trigger for the tank? If the deactivate trigger works that way...
  10. Wasn't he also talking about armour modelling interpolation before that, too? I'm not sure if that made it into the patch or if that's is what he refers to in your quote as well.
  11. The target was stationary and it was by coincidence that it landed directly next to the track. I am under the impression that the 'improved' armour modelling is already in the game - with the same patch that the tanks were introduced in, hence the problem.
  12. Yes, at the moment I do not think it's accurate at all. Stukas had great success in destroying 10's of enemy tanks in dive-raids. Has anyone meddled with that since the last patch? I think I landed a 250kg right next to a KV-1 from a 109 and it had no effect.
  13. The most obvious difference is the flight-models and ground handling - it's pretty sad that after so long, CoD was using the same interpolated flight and hard-body damage modelling as the original IL-2. For that alone am I glad that we have BoS! The foundation is set for what combat flight simulation should be, and it's only going to get better as the new titles draw a wider player base.
×
×
  • Create New...