Jump to content


Founders [standard]
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

536 Excellent

About Leaf

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Branching out
  • Interests
    Geology. Sexier than you might presume.

Recent Profile Visitors

751 profile views
  1. Leaf

    Just flying the planes

    I don't quite follow, what are you complaining about? What exactly has to be improved? The acceleration values themselves (2x, 4x, 8x etc.) or the need to accelerate time at all? Missions are long because the map is pretty much 1:1 scale. It takes time to fly from one location to the next, because that's how time and space work.
  2. Leaf

    Dice destroys WWII -Battlefield V

    That's where we differ; I don't think views expressed (on either side) deserve mockery unless under extreme circumstances (flat earthers, for instance, who are clearly delusional morons). But personally I think mockery often (on both sides in this case) comes far too quickly. Fair point. Might send a PM depending on how busy I at the moment; finished my degree but things are still quite hectic. That woman, based on the evidence, is clearly not the brightest spark and doing exactly what I mentioned I dislike. She's doing us the favour of proving both of our points simultaneously. Crass generalisations regarding large groups of people, lack of evidence or reasoned argument. That is indeed the problem, lack of reasoned discussion and understanding on both sides. But the problem (to which it has to be said, I have no answer for) is that certain marginal groups in society feel that they've been oppressed or are being oppressed, and the ways in which they claim to be are no easily quantified, and are too subjective. Does that make their concerns less valid? That depends on the case (some of the links above illustrate that), but the lack of concrete, uniform ways to legislate against said "oppression" (whether real or subjective), without infringing on other people's rights in-turn, makes this a tricky issue. Again, absolutely agree. The problem here is that what constitutes as "far" or "extreme" is very relative. 200 years ago, opposing slavery may have been considered "extreme". What I'm saying is that the lack of reasoned debate on both sides, between the two extremes, is very much lacking. What's your point? As I said, mocking or cynicism serves no real purpose in a debate. That goes for both sides, I thought that goes without saying. I can't believe I have to spell this out, but I don't condone mocking on either side of an argument; doing so only dilutes your own argument. Again, that's a universal rule.
  3. Leaf

    Dice destroys WWII -Battlefield V

    With all due respect, those statements don't really serve your argument. Excessive, mocking cynicism is of absolutely no use in any discussion and simply serves to drown out opposing views without listening to them. I've just spent the last three years in Brighton* (possibly your idea of a hell-hole when it comes to "SJW's" and alternative culture), I can quite confidently state that this doomsday portrayal of masculinity being eroded is vastly exaggerated. Your views on the proliferation of SJW's is just as exaggerated as the views of SJW's are regarding social justice. Social justice warriors are a tiny, minute minority. They have a loud voice, certainly, but drowning out their shouts with your own serves no real purpose. Argument, and reasoned discussion are the way forward. Not least because at least you'll get to know who you're arguing with. It's nothing personal, but I find it so trying when I'm confronted by umbrella terms used to categorise and demonise entire sub-sections of a population. "White privilege" and "the patriarchy" are just as ridiculously generalised, exploded and vague terms as "SJW" and "snowflake". The only purpose these terms serve is to attribute broadly negative traits to large numbers of people, in support of an agenda. This agenda may be "SJW" or "anti-SJW". I didn't like the Battlefield trailer personally, I thought it was poorly directed, chaotic, unrepresentative and over-the-top. The issue I have with it, and a broader trend within gaming, is that it tries to appeal to too many. The problem is not social justice, or even historical revisionism; the problem is that DICE are willing to sacrifice so many things, large and small, simply to get a larger share of the market -- if that dilutes what the franchise is about, so be it. That, in my view, is the real shame. * For those not familiar with the UK, Brighton is a city known for its LGBT community and very open, liberal views on alternative culture.
  4. Leaf

    Dice destroys WWII -Battlefield V

    Not sure what I find more irritating, SWJ's themselves or the people who keep complaining about them. Both are niche groups who love shouting about how right they are, throwing any sense of nuance or careful judgement out of the window. Regarding Battlefield V, the reveal trailer was a mess, both cinematically and thematically. I suppose they wanted to show off the diversity of multiplayer or co-op gameplay -- not sure which. I'm totally fine with female characters in multiplayer, as Battlefield V has so many historical inaccuracies now that, frankly, female soldiers don't stand out too much. Face paint and customisation? That's where things just get ridiculous. It looks like Battlefield Heroes with better graphics. That's fine in principle, but for god sake don't market it as authentic. The latest trailer was a lot better, but I'm still not convinced and will probably not buy it. Battlefield Bad Company 2 was the pinnacle in my opinion, followed by Battlefield 3. Battlefield 4 had awful maps and was way too bloated (do I want a single laser sight, or triple laser sight? Do I want it in red or green? etc.). Battlefield V seems to follow in the footsteps of Battlefield 1, which in my opinion was just another step backwards (I mean, how many automatic weapons were there really in the trenches?) I think the reaction to women in Battlefield has been extremely exaggerated, but DICE should have managed their reveal a lot better, and just went too far in the name of "freedom" and "player choice". More choice isn't always better, and I think the facepaint in Battlefield V illustrates that quite well.
  5. I am in no doubt the developers will model all the necessary systems. They have highly qualified engineers in their team; they know what they're doing. If faith in their capability wasn't enough, there's currently little evidence to suggest they will omit important aspects of an aircraft's characteristics. On a maybe somewhat cynical side-note, I can already see the P-47 complaints coming, especially in regard to its fabled durability. Someone will get shot down and they will immediately start to complain, justifying themselves with some anecdotal evidence of a P-47 once flying after being hit with 6 30mm shells, or that a P-47 should be able to fly on 7/18 cylinders or whatever. The problem with anecdotal evidence for durability is that there is so much leeway in terms of interpretation. Heavily-damaged aircraft returning home tended to be an exception, not the rule. Where shells hit is just as important as how many hit, or what shell type it is. It was certainly a very durable aircraft, but I can see a small demographic getting very upset at the fact that their plane is not strong enough, despite the subjectivity of that claim. Aircraft durability is such a complex subject, with so many interacting variables, that I really don't envy the developers when it comes to determining exactly how durable "durable" is. Considering the durability claims and arguments regarding the Yak and 109, I can see this being quite a hot topic. That being said, the durability of the IL2 has been convincingly (as far as I can tell) modelled, so I'm optimistic that the developers will get things as close as possible to reality.
  6. Adding one's PayPal to a signature may seem a tad brazen, but there's no way anyone can stop donations. All it needs is a PM, and PayPal/payment matters will be settled from there. Personally I think donations are perfectly acceptable, it's only fair, especially for personalised skins, as they can take quite a while to create, depending on complexity. But of course there is a difference between donating, which by definition is optional, and selling, which makes payment a requirement. The latter is quite rightly not allowed. As long as donations stay donations, and content is not withheld for those who cannot pay (or choose not to), I think we're all good.
  7. ...Say what? How is that even relevant? I don't think anyone is having any mental breakdowns or aneurysms due to a lack of pilot shadows, they just said it's a bit strange. It's got nothing to do with the "downfall of man (or men?)" you are lamenting. What happened to the era of simply stating an opinion without having one's 'manliness' questioned? I have to say though, if there are pilot shadows, there should be a pilot. Having a pilot shadow without a pilot to me is even more strange than the complete lack of a pilot shadow, I think. No pilot -> no shadow. No pilot -> a shadow? Now that's creepy! I quite like the idea of a pilot shadow, resources permitting, but only with a pilot.
  8. Leaf

    A Quick Message from Jason

    Best of luck with the move, hope it goes smoothly and is relatively hassle-free.
  9. It's the blue-footed booby! Fantastic bird.
  10. Talking about late-war wishlists, Ta 152 anyone?
  11. Some G14 love. Really like being able to fold away the gunsight.
  12. Leaf

    Is this a fair dinkum Russian name?

    Don't be too sexy now; I'm almost out of tissues.
  13. It depends. The UI and menu set-up, graphics options etc. are absolutely awful. Genuinely, setting the game up and going through all the menus feels archaic and clunky. The missions themselves are great, the campaign is second-to-none in my opinion. The graphics are dated, but acceptable. It really depends on what you value. If you like immersion over all else, and can put up with dated graphics, FM's and menus, then I'd say go for it. Personally, the campaign is the only thing that it does better than Rise of Flight. Given the price of the game.. I'm not sure it's worth the investment.
  14. Leaf

    Should IL-2 Battle packs have more planes?

    With all due respect, I don't think the OP quite appreciates how much work goes into current aircraft. Visual fidelity, modelling, as well as complex systems simulation all take time, money and expertise to produce. More aircraft per edition of IL2 would necessitate compromises regarding the quality of each aircraft included, which I'm presuming would be considered unacceptable. So pick your poison. It's a compromise that has to be made to keep the largest proportion of customers happy, and I think the developers have got it pretty much spot-on, given the circumstances and funding.