Jump to content


Founders [standard]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About PostumusAgrippa

  • Rank
  1. Is it just me, or are the criteria for completing a campaign mission and getting full points a little arbitrary? For example, if, while attacking some bombers, I get my engine shot up, even if I am able to fly the plane back to the airfield or exit point, I still only get 1/2 points for the mission. Another example: if I fly a perfect mission, complete all the objectives, and then, while landing, put the prop into the dirt, I also get half points. Finally, there is also the issue of friendly fire. In expert mode, if I wrongly ID some friendly artillery as enemy and take it out, that is instant 0% points for that mission. I found that out the hard way, after completing the mission objectives and flying all the way back to the airfield. I get that you should fail the mission if you do something stupid like set your wingman on fire, or repeatedly strafe a friendly convoy, but the current system seems a little harsh, considering how long some of the mission can take on full mode, and the rate of XP gain.
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOz_i_2USkY If you've even wondered why your bombs never quite hit the target, how to correctly alter your flight path in a dive, or how to correct your path after diving too soon, too late, too shallow, or too steep, this is the film for you. This is an American training film from WW2, so just mentally replace all references to "Dauntless" with "Stuka" or "Peshka". The animations and explanations of the ballistics and how they are affected by your flying is just excellent. The standard operating procedure for American dive bombers was different from their German counterparts in a few ways, namely rolling over into the dive, and a steeper dive angle, but all the advice given in the video works nonetheless.
  3. Flew my campaign mission, completed the objective, hit the exit point, made it back to base, and landed. Once I'm on the ground and I got the "you have landed" text, I hit escape and finish mission. The camera goes to third person, plane disappears, but then nothing happens. The game just sits there with a view of the airfield, no motion, and the scratchy radio effect is looping in the background. Once I alt-tab, I cannot get the game to maximize again. The only thing I did differently on this mission was to hit finish mission like half a second after I successfully landed, a little quicker than normal, because I was frustrated after wasting 20 minutes the previous mission due to not hitting the exit point and then running out of fuel on my landing run (0 xp).
  4. Oh, huh, I didn't realize there was a "normal" version below the "standard" version from early access. Every package I've seen has come with the 8 standard planes.
  5. Why are there planes on the underside of the unlock progress bar thingy? Like, for example, a third of the way through the 109 F-4 unlocks, there's a little green line pointing down to a picture of the Ju-87, the same as the little green lines pointing up to skins and equipment unlocks, almost like the Stuka was unlocked by getting XP on the 109 F-4. What gives?
  6. Bombing with small numbers of 50 or 100 kilo bombs like you will see on fighters, you have a choice of either a steep dive, or a shallow dive. A steep dive with dinky bombs is hair raising, because you have to basically buzz your target in order to get consistent hits (1s bomb delay or die). The blast radius on the small bombs is about the size of an AAA emplacement, so even a near miss can do nothing. The upside to diving steeply is that there is less deviation between your flight path and the bomb trajectory. A shallow dive is easier to execute, and harder to hit with. Again, you need to be using bomb delay, and basically the idea is to gently toss the bomb onto the target just before scraping your underbelly across the snow. In real life, pilots likely just kind of winged it, because you're with like 12 other dudes dropping bombs, and no one's gonna know you're the guy that blew up the snow bank instead of the artillery, and anyway AA fire is freaking scary when you're in a barely armored light fighter so screw diving low.
  7. Have to say I'm glad I didn't get the La-5 now. Going off of the screen, it's not even that the air intake is obscuring the view from the gunsight, it's that the gunsight is obscuring the view of the target. Kind of counter-intuitive for an aiming device, I'm sure you'll agree.
  8. Seriously? You can't even see the middle line of the crosshair projection. Seems like kind of a glaring error to overlook.
  9. Two different issues. Taxiing problems most often have to do with an unlocked tail wheel, and you can either A) lock the tail wheel, cause it doesn't matter anyways, or B) pull back on the stick while applying rudder to turn, which seems to help, or both. Actual, in the air rudder sensitivity while using a twist stick is always going to be tough, because there isn't enough actual physical travel to get the kind of precision you want. You can make a crazy non-linear curve, but that ends up making things more difficult when you want close to full rudder deflection (like when you're making a strafing pass). A steep S-curve is a tradeoff between accuracy at low deflection and inaccuracy at high deflection. You will notice this when you crank the pitch sensitivity way up - when you get to the part of the S curve where it approaches vertical, your movements become more twitchy and less smooth, since every little stick motion causes a large amount of elevator movement. The same thing happens when you use a steep S-curve with the rudder input. I would recommend getting some kind of rudder pedals - you are serious enough about flight sims to buy this game, when you could have just gone to War Thunder or, god forbid, its rival WOWP, both for free. They will make a difference for this any any other flight sims you end up playing in the future.
  10. Whats the point of unlocks if you can't... unlock them? Although, I agree that XP might be a little tacky, maybe they could use something like X number of plane/ground kills to unlock things.
  11. The linked post with the juxtaposed aircraft profiles is a good start, I hadn't seen that before, and it is a step up from small resolution, black silhouettes. That said, having a similar guide posted using in-game screenshots would be awesome, and even better would be some short, recorded flyby's of various planes at various angles for study purposes, kind of like video flash-cards. Maybe I'll throw something like that together.
  12. The one guide that I think would be most useful (that doesn't currently exist) is an aircraft recognition guide for playing with no icons. I love the challenge of playing with full realism, but I found it difficult to positively identify planes from just looking at them. This is especially a problem in the most advantageous combat positions, flying above and behind the target, because of the lack of contrast between the usually white camo and the ground, and sketchy rendering at distance. Since there are no teamwide voice comms (like actual WW2 pilots would have), or any kind of radio IFF, it comes down to either visual identification, waiting for someone to shoot at you, or just making an educated guess based on direction of flight (to or from enemy airfield). Visual ID is obviously the best method, but I haven't seen anything on the forums making a detailed study of the visible aircraft features, or cataloging the differences between German and Russian planes. I have seen plenty of old black and white silhouette guides, but without much in the way of annotation. Anyone interested in putting something like this together? I'm thinking something like In-game screenshots of planes from different angles/distances, and labelled comparisons of structural elements. I would be happy to help put this together if someone could add their knowledge of aircraft construction and terminology.
  13. I remember playing Air Warrior back in like 1997, and that even had objective based multiplayer. You could crew up a B-17 with some buddies, go bomb out an enemy airfield, and follow up with a C-47 to drop paratroopers who would take over the airfield for your use. If they could pull it off 15 years ago, the devs should be able to cobble something together. In my experience, dynamic content that is driven by player interaction beats out scripted missions and objectives every time. Just put in some strategic bombing targets and a system for airfield capture, on a persistent map, and you have instant fun.
  14. Might not be what he's asking. Assuming that SharpeXB is thinking that a vertical convergence point would be calculated so that all of the MG and cannon rounds end up in the same place, I think he's asking why you would want them to cross the line of sight in the vertical plane at a different distance than the fire streams would cross the line of sight in the horizontal plane. Good question, and the document showing convergence on a 109 E-3 kind of answers it. Near as I can tell, in that picture, the aiming point is at 400 meters. While both MG and cannon are set to converge at 400m in the vertical plane, the horizontal convergence of each is different. The machineguns have their horizontal convergence set to 400m, so at the aiming point all of the MG rounds will hit the same spot, idealy, which is what you want from low caliber guns - increased density of fire. However, the cannon have their horizontal convergence set to 200 meters, which means that at the target point, the cannon rounds have a spread about 1/4 to 1/3 the size of a fighter's wingspan. This is not a bad thing, because the cannon rounds do much more damage than the machinegun rounds, and so diminishing returns from increasing the density of fire happens a lot sooner. It makes more sense to spread the cannon rounds over the plane to maximize damage. That is why you would want to be able to set both horizontal and vertical convergence for each gun separately.
  • Create New...