Jump to content

thebusdriver

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by thebusdriver


  1. What universe are people spotting a cessna at 28km in the "landing pattern"

     

     

    You are not seeing a cessna or even a larger aircraft at Krugersdorp from Lanseria in johannesburg

     

    Or From Kinshasa Ndjili  to  Brazzaville even on the clearest day

     

    Some real world examples that anyone can do

     

    go on google earth find your local airport find and locate one 28k's away try it for yourself on the clearest best vis day, or even an airfield 28k's from your house

     

     

    It is hard enough spotting aircraft in your own pattern at 10k

     

    Or simply Go on google earth and look down from an alt of 15 miles now think of a cessna sized dot on the ground.

    A human eye can spot a lit candle, in the dark, at 10km.

     

    25nm is 46km.  Nobody here is saying that you should be able to see a Yak-3 at 46km.  But we are saying:

     

    1.  You should be able to more easily see it when it's close, especially against terrain.

    2.  You should be able to see it beyond 10km.


  2. Just found this thread and it has some very good discussion. I'd like to post my study from 2016 on simulator aircraft visibility here:

     

    http://coshacks.blogspot.fi/2016/03/why-icons-are-needed-in-combat-flight.html

     

    I recently bought BoS and tried playing it in VR, but it's completely unrealistic without icons.

    Yeah, too many people seem obsessed with the idea that what you can see on a monitor is representative of what you can see in real life.

     

    I get that icons are disruptive.  I really do.  Especially the terrible way they're implemented in BoX.

     

    What's equally disruptive to me is to be diving into a fight and watching an aircraft 1km away from me, that's moving at 400kph+ disappear because he happened to cross over from steppe to forest.  That's bonkers.  We're talking about aircraft that are ~30ft long and ~30ft wide, with the larger single-engine ones having wingspans approaching or exceeding 40', and being over 30' long.

     

    I'd urge the developers to take a look at how icons are done in World War II Online - https://youtu.be/d0h7700zX2E?t=1996 Yes, the graphics are old and bad, ignore that.  Look at how the icons work.  They fade in as you look at an aircraft.  As you approach it, the icon starts to give you more detail - going red or blue - and as you get even closer, it gives more info - identifying the airframe, for example (ie, "spit9").

    • Upvote 2

  3. Note: who I am and my attitudes on sims/realism vs gameplay is below my main point.

     

    I've raced cars, and more importantly, helped friends with a lot more money than I have, race their cars.  I've seen engines explode.  I've seen them catch fire.  I've seen them seize.  A solid 80-90% of the time, when pushed to the limit, the engine (or the turbo) decides to go kablooey and there's nothing you can do about it.  If it's the supercharger that explodes, also bad news - superchargers are right before the intake manifold, so their garbage enters the engine and then the engine goes kablooey.  I've seen maybe a few occasions when the driver comes in with an engine that isn't running right, where it's a mechanical failure (ie, blown piston that somehow didn't result in the connecting rod punching through the block), as opposed to a fuel/electrical issue.  So the idea that an engine should fail slowly and give you warning, when pushed to the limit, is highly unrealistic.  Is that bad for gameplay?  Well, for the uber-simmers, the kind that won't be happy until the sim comes with a helmet that straps an explosive to your head so YOU die when your pilot dies (for maximum realism), well, they're gonna hate it.  For most people, including many hardcore simmers, it shouldn't be that big a deal.  If your engine goes from WEP to 0 boost and half RPM because you abused it, you're dead meat 95% of the time anyway.  On the other hand, for those wanting that "gradual" degradation... well... that kind of eliminates the point, doesn't it?  What's the point of coding that if you're going to die anyway?

     

    Alright, let me introduce myself and my philosophy here, in case you're wondering where I'm coming from:

     

    I am not a sim-at-all-costs type.  You know, the kinds of guys who argue that it's totally legit for a 30' long aircraft moving at 200mph to disappear 500m below you because of "camo".  Or for that same aircraft to fade into an incomprehensible black dot at 3km (and coincidentally, they run 60" 4K TVs, so they're fine with it!)  That said, I despise the way icons are always on, especially when you can see a target through your fuselage.  In terms of my server preferences, I'd fall in-between WoL and TAW.  I don't like the lack of accountability that WoL brings with losing a kite, or the permanent perfect weather, but TAW's insistence on making me navigate by endlessly repetitive, bland, and unrealistically identical terrain is a bit much.  I also don't cry when the devs fudge the performance numbers to bring balance, and I wouldn't cry if the chore of engine management was made automatic or simplified (even if slightly sub-optimal) for people who don't want to do it.

     

    If you cannot back that statement up with solid proof do not make it.

    • Upvote 3

  4.  

     

    Overall the FN will be pretty much exclusively an improvement over the La-5, which is already a capable plane in the sim.
     

    The improved cockpit alone is a big upgrade.  A 30-50kph speed advantage is going to be fantastic.

     

    Also, doesn't the FN have a better supercharger, so it doesn't die entirely above 4km?


  5. cool it, man.. :) lol

     

    you need to understand that these so-called elitists are just the old spirited folks who simply don't like run and frag action (brought to you by carl's junior). They enjoy a slow paced game with lots of planning, pretend pre-flight meetings, using a special convo over the TS and insisting on using only the convo from the wwII .. and I presume they also the jokes from the 40's.

     

    And they like all human beings do have their egos show up once in a while. I think his minute arcade comment was totally out-shined by your hilarious (to me) response in terms of elitism, or ego centrism.. or what have you.  In reality in MP you will have a much more pleasant experience flying with a persona like him vs. a fiery gamer persona like yours.. :)  I'm not trying to offend you or anything. I think being respectful within the Il2 game community should be treated with a number 1 priority. This isn't MW or CoD crowd.

    Yeah, my bad, I was drunk and edited my post this morning.

     

    Honestly though, I've seen the WW2 flight sim community go from flourishing (IL-2) to struggling to survive (CoD after launch), to being on life support (this game a couple of years ago).  Dumping on WoL pilots - who, by the way, outnumber the oh-so-superior TAW jocks by a fair margin, especially in US TZ - is not helpful.  It's like the Filipinos who have themselves crucified every Easter, decide to go dumping on the ones who merely self-flagellate as "poseurs".


  6. It's enough to make me not fly there, so a pretty dramatic difference for me.

    First of all, apologies - I was way out of line.  I was drunk, it's no excuse, but I hope you understand.  I'm sorry for getting so personal and insulting.

     

    So here's an edited version:

     

    If you're going to condemn WoL for being arcadey, it comes off as you being than everyone else who doesn't want to memorize the countless shapes of lakes and forests of BoM/BoS for navigation purposes.  Even though they fly with every other realism option other than GPS engaged, this is emblematic of the cancerous attitude in the hardcore sim community driving everyone new to sims away from this one.

     

    It is needless, self-destructive elitism that we engage in.  I swear to God, it sometimes feels like this community won't be happy until there's a gun pointed at their heads, connected to the game, which will fire if they die in the game.  And then they'll have the audacity to crap on everyone else for being "arcade", for not playing "full real", and complaining that "on all other settings, everyone else just flies like suicidal idiots."

    • Upvote 2

  7.  

     

    The combat environment is way different
     

     

    Again, speaking as someone relatively new back to the game, I think "way different" is relative.  If you've only played BoX the whole time, sure, it seems like a significant difference.  If you've played literally any other flight sim since, the difference between GPS and no GPS is... it's like choosing between a chick with a landing strip and one who's shaved bald.  If you look close and lick, it may seem different.  Compared to the sheep in the barn, not so much.


  8. Icons to mark planes on your screen, GPS tracking for your aircraft, simple(zero) engine management, no overall goal?  What would you like to call it?  Seems pretty arcade-like to me.

     

    It's not derogatory, if that's the kind of experience you're looking for then it's perfect.  If not, don't fly there.  But I'm not going to pretend it's something it isn't.

    Dude, you've literally never played an arcade game in your life.

     

    Moreover:

     

    1.  WoL doesn't have icons.

    2.  Yes, it does have GPS.  OH NO.  DA ARCADE!

    3.  Who cares about engine management?  Germans don't have none.  I'm not even sure if simplified engine management exists on the Russian side.  Why?  I  don't hate myself.  I don't even take the chance of having to bind 6 extra keys just to play the game.

     

    I call it a normal sim server.

     

    TAW and RE are "I hate myself and my life, and I will never be competitive unless I buy $1000 worth of gear and screens" servers.

     

    Don't misunderstand me, I appreciate - not enjoy, but appreciate - the challenge of TAW/RE.  But elitist snobs like yourself are exactly what keeps the air sim community at a population of ~500 people.  Shitting on people as "arcade" for not wanting to deal with mundane, boring, incomprehensibly trivial nonsense like engine management is only driving more pilots away.  Shame on you.

     

    You want arcade?  Go play WT arcade.  THAT is arcade - and it's even more realistic than World of Warplanes.  Stop shitting on people as "arcade players" just because they think engine management is asinine.


  9. I guess here's my problem with the entire realism debate:

     

    Everyone agrees that BoS needs more players.

     

    Yet many if not most people here seem convinced that the appropriate course of action is to make the game even more difficult for new sticks.  In addition to needing to buy the game + multiple expansions and collector's planes (some of which, like the A-3, D-9, and Yak-1b are basically not optional), and a HOTAS, and a TrackIR, a 50" 4k TV is apparently the recommended spotting solution.

     

    Honestly.

     

    I'll be the first to admit that I absolutely despise icons.  Icons are awful.  Seeing your enemy behind you, through your tail, is dumber than a box of chocolates.  So is seeing him on the minimap.

     

    At the same time, I think we can agree that World War II Online-style circles (that slowly fade in as you look at a distant dot, fade in faster if he's close, and even turn red/blue if he's really close and you could ID him), as well as making manual engine management *optional*, would attract more players.  Is it perfectly historical?  Of course not.  But you can't tell me that looking down 1500m on a white-as-snow 109 only to see him "disappear" once he crosses from field to forest, is bloody nonsense, just because his dot happens to turn black.

    • Upvote 3

  10. You probably need to make sure you are trimmed properly bud. At fast speeds you want to be trimmed so that you have to push your stick quite a bit forward to keep level flight, that way it gives you a load more pitch up authority  :)  :salute:  

    That's kind of making my point.  The stick is heavy enough that you have to gimmick your way around it.  This is not going to be an issue in the P-38, P-51, and Tempest.  The P-47 and Spit9 should also be fairly heavy, but we won't know until we get those.


  11.  

     

    If it goes as it did in IL-2: 1946, this will be one of the more "balanced" aircraft lineups. On the Battlefields1 server it was among the most popular of scenarios to run aircraft lineups with exactly what is coming in BoBP.
     

    I'd be more confident if the 109s didn't have such heavy sticks in BoX.  600kph and it's already hard to pull up.  K-4 does that in level flight.


  12. Two points:

     

    1.  World War II Online has this neat system where, if you're looking in the direction of an enemy contact long enough (and you'd be able to see him - ie, he's not hiding behind your wing or fuselage), a targeting circle around him slowly fades in.  It'll be gray, and only later changes to red or blue.  It fades out a bit faster if he manages to hide, and it also doesn't appear at long distance.  It REALLY helps even out things for people with smaller monitors, while still rewarding those who have the common sense to look around and focus on suspicious moving pixels.  It's also much nicer than the bright red icons we have now, especially since you can get behind an opponent to make him lose contact.

     

    2.  The 10km limit is going to be more problematic with the faster aircraft coming in BoBo.  Especially for/against the 262.  ~12 seconds and the 262 at full speed has moved 10km.  The Tempest will move 10km in 16 seconds on the deck, whereas the A-3 right now needs about 18.5.  2.5 seconds might not seem like much, but given the distances that fast planes need to turn, and that they could be heading in opposite directions (ie, a Tempest and a 190 do a head-on, they pass each other, climb a bit to regain energy - each going the opposite direction.  Suddenly we're talking 9 seconds until they can't see each other)... it's gonna get REALLY annoying.

    • Upvote 1

  13. Yeah what a shame the blues cant have it one sided for once :lol:  :P and was the lag was effective against the 109's in the first releases?  :lol:  :lol:  (If the lufty wasn't a noob :mellow: )   

     

    I agree i don't think its too much to ask for these "mods"/features for the spit as shamrockfive said "especially since it's an "easier" job coming from the Mark V"

    I dunno man, I think the Allies are going to have an advantage in BoBP regardless.  Not a huge one (not like 109F vs LaGG or Yak-1), but still pretty big.

     

    Tempests rule the deck, Spits out-fight anything, P-51s will at least draw even with the D-9 at altitude, if not do better.  And the D-9 is a collector, it's not a standard plane.

     

    The only wildcard is the 262.  And it should be so fragile, so dependent on long take-offs and landings, and above all dependent on mission designers including it in maps, that I think it's impact will be seriously mitigated.  Also, as much fun as we make of War Thunder, have you tried it in simulator battles there?  Landing hits with Mk 108s at 850kph is like trying to hit squirrels with a paintball gun while racing down the highway.


  14. What can we expect here from in game flight modeling , are we expecting that next flying brick?

    It'll be like the 109G-2, but, because it's 80kph faster, it'll lock up sooner, relative to the opposition.  Also, it will have slightly more firepower.

     

    Honestly, unless the devs address stick forces, the 109s should be easy pickings for western fighters.  The fact that the 109 - in BoS - starts getting hard to maneuver at 500kph IAS, is silly.

    • Upvote 3
×
×
  • Create New...