Jump to content

ZachariasX

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    3271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1442 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

1514 profile views
  1. Maybe I did then. You are saying that you don‘t expect to see the the same picture / the same aircraft drawn when you connect different screens on your computer, is it that you don‘t expect my computer not to display the same number of ac as your computer? What do you consider „the same picture“, given the different monitors out there and the different display settings applied.
  2. Why do you select „launcher.exe“ as program to tweak snd not „il2.exe“ in the nvidia settings?
  3. Not in the checklist, but there is the pressure release handle next to the base of the control column in the cockpit. Useful for parking the aircraft for longer durations easing strain on the system. Then IIRC both gear doors open and flaps drop. If you see partially opened gear doors, it would indicate that the aircraft has been stationary for some time and pressure is dropping. This makes the first picture you posted a staged one.
  4. I didn‘t try to make that point. My point is that just because you can see over X miles doesn‘t mean you can spot reliably or quickly over said distance. People with good eyesight differ not in their ability to see a plane, they differ in time required to spot said plane. Also the ability to track several planes, something that requires a lot of practice in the sim as well. When flying with passengers and you ask them to help you look out for traffic (you know full well that their effort can be ignored unless they really call out planes), they often see that airliner or this balloon, but e.g. the Cessna that just crossed you 500 m starboard below, that one they hardly ever see. Draw distances in the game are upped such that it takes trained eagle eyes in the real world to see that good. Whether you can see the pixels drawn on screen is a different question though. But the sim is definitely getting better in this regard.
  5. A thousand times this! It is not only a pain, but also for the most part an aquired ability. No. If you share a thermal flying a glider with five other gliders it may well be that you see only four of them. The one that can cut off your tail with its wing is the one you never saw until it was too late. Spotting is a technique that you have to teach to both pilots and AAA gunners as part of SA. It requires both proper scanning technique and a resting focus set to infinite. Us working on computer screens today are heavily challenged in that. I still habe a better vision than most, yet often I find it disturbing how long it takes me to spot other aircraft that announce on the radio joining me in the pattern over an airfield. Looking at the sheer number of midair collisions over airfields (remember, of all places this is where you must expect traffic!) I am not alone with that. The ability to see has not much to do with spotting. It is just a requirement. Just because there‘s water doesn‘t mean you can swim.
  6. Wow... at least on that type they wisened up. It looks rather improvised though. But I didn‘t know they ever installed such on a 109. I wonder where they put the trim knob in the cockpit.
  7. Come on. This way of doing things is the corner stone of British engineering. You can see that even in every car they made up until that industry was taken over by Indians and Germans. There was one plane that was the exception, the MB5. Eric Brown specifically commented about its „very clean cockpit floor“. Maybe that was the reason that plane had no future among the British. Besides, when patching holes in the airframe, they probably were happy finding a lot of spare parts. 😁 Does the 109 G6/AS have a rudder trim?
  8. There is. Just uninstall the yellow plague. Win10 comes with a scanner already to make you feel safe. You don‘t need to root kit your system further. If you‘re unsure about a file, there is always virustotal.com. Use it. The idea of having a taster works only if you can let him die in case of him eating poison. If you share your life with him (as your system does with the av scanner), then by sheer logic you don‘t want him to eat before he looks. It simply doesn‘t work that way to counter new threats, neither logically nor technically. It never has. The only viable way to stay safe is to plug the holes in your system that serve as attack vectors. This means updates, not further layers of complexity that can well serve as attack vectors themselves. What is undoubtably a positive thing about these scanners, that is when some idiot builds a 0day exploit and the scanner uploads that one right away as it of course looks suspicious and hence another 0day is burned. It happens. That would be one of those 0days that our governments like to buy to... to protect us.
  9. If we got that in TC, only aim assist for bombs and maybe rockets will save aircraft from extinction on servers.
  10. Seen from the observers seat of a BE2, they probably begged to differ. In 1916 and early 1917, it certainly was a good proposition. But after that... I agree. But it has its looks.
  11. I find the idea of „cost efficiency“ relating in any way to military as much heart warming as preposterous. The only metric that applies is whether in principle you can source an item or not. War is never cost efficient in the least as long as you are not conducting war for the purpose of plain looting. Else, when a** is on the line, you just print as much money as you require to finance the theoretical max. output of your items required to conduct your war. The fact that this is not sustainable economically is mainly noted by the civilians that suddenly find sawdust mixed in their bread. Nothing of real concern to any military branch though. Kanonen statt Butter! Let‘s just say the Snipe was available and it performed reasonably well. So, why not use it? Especially since most other factories were shut down. After this leftover of the war was decommissioned, the Snipes super engine died along with it. Because, obvious. A „Thoroughbred“ is in principle an agile, unstable aircraft. It is much less so a statement regarding the absolute flight speed or performance per se. It‘s about requiring constant control and about being responsive to control input. Nada más. Back in the days, People in general were very aware of what it is like to ride a horse. And they intrinsically knew the differences in horses. Today people mostly don‘t (now we know cars), and what was an obvious analogy back then is mostly misunderstood today. Of course the Camel handled that way, that was his very design goal. Downside is, it killed its pilots almost at the rate of the Germans shooting them. (Thoroughbreds are great in disposing incompetent riders. Thoroughbred is not a compliment in every context!) But if you are a great ace and if you want to dogfight, hey, it‘s your ride. Reading accounts of a hundred years past often make people misunderstand analogies. The Spitfire is a Thoroughbred, quiet obviously. Naturally it is often referred to as such. But it is certainly not the fastest of them all. But it is quiet clear that the Spitfire is the Thoroughbred and not the Tempest, despite the latter being considerably more powerful and faster. The Albatros is by late 1917 standards not a fast aircraft, yet it will out dive the Camel. That a brand new Dr.I can feel as fast or faster than battle worn Albatri is plausible, especially when taking the significantly superior climb in consideration. But that doesn‘t change the fact that by late 1917 the Dr.I was a slow aircraft with limited endurance. In this sense, the A6M Zero by 1944 was a much better plane, because it was also slow and nimble, but at least in contrast it had a big endurance. Yet, lacking world famous (in the west) pilots, it is mostly seen as one of those „paper kites“. That some individual pimped his Dr.I significantly (with engines and lubrication he had to hunt for over the lines) doesn‘t change that fact. It still remained fitted with an engine where ideal lubrication wasn’t really available. Also, imagine the Germans tasked their pilots to cross the lines with Dr.I for deeper intrusion into enemy airspace. You think they would have returned at the hand of the faster SPADs? Opinion about that plane would have switched quickly. The British did such with slower aircraft during „Bloody April“. Guess how that went. The Dr.I is certainly a fun aircraft, but its greatness is mainly mediated through the famous people flying it. The Germans were certainly not sad getting rid of it, despite the screaming of some rare individuals who‘s pay grade didn‘t really entitle them for wielding an opinion in the first place. They sell both the Bentley BR2 and the LeRhone 9J. They are new builds.
  12. Yes, there are more reasons for selecting a „standard fighter“ for an airforce. The short supply of 300 hp hispano suizas from France gave the British a taste of how Antony felt like four years before. That alternative engines also were difficult to procure during those miserable post war years didn‘t help either. As the „standard fighter“ melted down to one squadron for home defense, I wouldn‘t consider patching together the scraps of the last war as sign future developments. Edit: I‘d say the single most important factor about your engine is whether you can procure it or not.
  13. Try one of the biplanes at 8000 m in QMB? The duck also has no oxygen system IIRC.
×
×
  • Create New...