Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

875 Excellent

About II./JG77_Manu*

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

1265 profile views
  1. I heared it's a big problem that when you shoot, the whole screen (=whole world in VR) is shaking which makes it a neauseating and bad experience..can you confirm?
  2. Apparently you didn't understand my whole post and why I wrote the "rare" in inverted comma. They were about as common as the K4 or the 262 in winter 44 in relative numbers
  3. I find it quite funny that now all the people get out of their holes, complaining about overrepresented aircraft on the German side, but when the Russians had overrepresented aircraft in all other theatres, they didn't care a dime, quite the opposite. Same goes for the servers. K4 and 262 were "rare" during BoBp timeframe? Well if you count 20% of all combat effective aircraft rare.... I can give you some more example of "rare" aircraft. The Mig-3 was a "rare" aircraft during BoM timeframe, amounting of less then 10% of the Russian aircraft. The Mig-3 late we have in game was even more rare. The Yak-1 with PF engine, the Lagg-3 with PF engine and the La5 were "rare" aircraft during BoS timeframe..most aircraft by that time (apart from very late in 1942) have been earlier Yaks with P and PA engine, and earlier Laggs and I-16. As for late Kuban scenarios, there is not even proof that the La5-FN has ever been there, and yet it is by far the most used fighter on the Russian side online (e.g. late Kuban in KOTA or WoL). I wonder why all those people complaining about the K4 and the 262 were silent in those other cases? Seems pretty much like double standards, but we know nothing less from this forum....
  4. The main reason of this are the way to accurate AAA and Flak though rather then the effectiveness of the cannons. I forgot who, but a while ago someone ran some tests that even with rookie AI, the AAA / Flak is still double as precise as it was in history.
  5. Has always been like that in this sim, only now people start to become more vocal, because it affects their favourite rides.
  6. @JG27_PapaFly don't get put off by those people. They have been around since the beginning of this franchise in 2013 and think they do the game/Devs or whatever some good, if they defend every flaw to death and try to ridicule every critic. I saw your long post before it got deleted/"made invisible" and i really appreciate those useful infos. Helps the game (and so the Devs) a lot more then the forum police
  7. I don't find the performance numbers i posted a while ago about a handful of Mig-3s in autumn 1941 right now (they were vastly inferior to our in-game one), but if we would assume you are right, there would still be only a couple of month between 1.42ata and the Mig-3, next to the fact that the "non-1.42 ata" F4 was still there in numbers in october and a lot closer in performace to our F4 then F2. If we keep going on like your example, the G2 must be available sooner then the Yak-1, G6 sooner then La5-FN etc. In the end, when we want to keep it realistic, every scenario should have a fixed date, then you could clearly say which aircraft have been around and which have not.
  8. A night mission with navigation to three different airfields including touch and go was one of the admission criteria to get into my squadron. It should be the absolute minimum requirement for everyone who calls himself a simulator pilot.
  9. Good for balance but not really historical. 1.42ata was cleared in late 1941, sooner then the (late model) Mig-3 we have in game was used in combat. If it will be historical, it should be strict. So it should be F2 - I16 and F4 - Mig3 regarding timeline. We don't have to bother about Yak, the Yak1 with P engine was a lot worse then the Mig3 late. If it will not be historical it should be communicated openly and then balance can be applied as in the last TaW (I don't care about either method)
  10. I would never pay for a scenario with A6 and A7 (even though 190 is my favourite aircraft) since they are almost the same as the A5. G6 late..this should definitely be a loadout for the G6 we already have, just as it is with the La-5. I want new aircraft not the same rehash again and again. It was already done too much for my taste (e.g. 109-G4, 109-F2). German aircraft i would be looking forward are the Do-217, He-219, Arado Ar234, or a Ju-88 heavy fighter (or one of the other very interesting mods). I really don't need to see any more post-1941 German fighters...
  11. That's a general issue involving all scenarios with German involvement. While there are many interesting German aircraft not in the Game right now, there is almost no relevant fighter left out between mid 1941 to early 1945. So if we keep the current system with 3 fighter per expansion, i think it has to change. We'd either have to take an earlier theatre (e.g. Battle of France), a theatre with Italian involvement to get those nice 5 series aircraft in or a non European scenario.
  12. To get rid of ghosting (I guess you mean gunsight and alike?) disable the propeller with the 3D Migoto App. 90FPS is not possible in many situations, and not even dependent on your hardware (no processor can run this game in 90FPS in crowded situations, no matter if you run in 720p or a Pimax 8k). But it's not important, 45FPS is good and well for flying or all sims in general.
  13. And in Russian aircraft you can see out of the cockpit. Has to be fixed Asap! 🧐
  14. Agree, on the other side in all our eastern scenarios the opposite is the case and many allied disadvantages are not factored in. In the end it's a good thing, because war mostly was a very one-sided affair, be it early eastern front in favour of Axis or late western front in favour of the Allies. We would not want that in a sim I guess
  15. Time, it was posted elsewhere. I don't remember the exact wording but it's on the plan to be included, but apparently not as easy as some might think
  • Create New...