Jump to content

TX-Zigrat

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About TX-Zigrat

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

390 profile views
  1. just flew on combat box with the new patch. Great job with the new visibility! Very nice improvement Believe it or not I got bounced from low 6 *more* with the new vis; could just be a small sample size and coincidence but I think you are able to spot prey at longer distances and creep up on them more effectively..
  2. new video looks amazing!! Very excited to see this in action
  3. Wow the changes described here sound really great, I am really encouraged by what what I perceive to be a recent "pivot" to better listening by the developers (on the G issue and on the spotting issue). The haze looks fantastic in my opinion, too. Great job!!
  4. Jason, I respect it is your game, your rules I am satisfied that you have read the thread and appreciate that the polls results do not necessarily reflect that 2/3 of your customers believe that the current model is an ideal solution with no additional refinement needed.
  5. To test my theory I added a poll in the "polls" section; I encourage you all to vote in it as well
  6. I am glad that the developers are soliciting input from the community, but I do have a little concern about response bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias) based on the phrasing of the survey questions. I am admittedly biased myself by I think that we might have very strong responses to these three questions: Q1) Do you think the addition of the G-resistance model was a big improvement for IL-2? (forecast: survey says yes) Q2) Do you think the current model is good, but could be improved by better accounting for negative G effects and the rapid "push-pull maneuver" which is oftentimes currently used as an evasive tactic? (forecast: overwhelming yes) Q3) Do you think the current model is good, but could be improved by better modeling the "functional buffer" as described by Floppy_sock on this thread? This would decrease the "rapidness" of initial GLOC onset for a "fresh" pilot but retain most of the other effects of the current model. (forecast: majority yes) The concern is that due to the phrasing of the current survey, a significant majority appear to indicate that the current model is ideal and could not use some subtle refinement.. but I think some of this survey result is due to the way in which the questions were asked...
  7. I voted for option #3. I strongly encourage you all who voted for options 1 or 2 to go read Floppy_Sock's excellent posts in the following thread: Bottom line, I think there should be an accurate G force model that represents an "average" pilot but there are two simple, easily solved issues that must be fixed. First, the current model does not represent actual average LOCINDTI. Read details in the thread linked below. You would need to add +5 seconds approximately to get near what a "normal" pilot can do IRL. The second significant flaw in the current model is related to negative G and the crazy "push-pull" high G maneuvers that are used as evasive maneuvers that would in reality cause you to blackout more quickly.
  8. Thanks again to Han. Wanted to follow up on a few points: 1) Yes spotting should be hard, hopefully most of us agree with that. Yes spotting should be hard(er) against terrain that against the sky, hopefully most agree with that as well. At least 2/3 agree that its unrealistically hard which is great consensus and I'm glad the devs are taking action. 2) Most of us have our monitor at ~ a 45 deg FOV, so a zoom up to at least 45 degrees is ABSOLUTELY realistic, and in my opinion even up to 30 degrees (the current limit) is not that unrealistic as it helps to compensate for some other challenges associated with monitor resolution. I agree we should not have 10 deg FOV zoom or similar and thankfully we do not. Bottom line, stop saying zoom is "unrealistic" (at least up to 45 deg) , you are wrong at least for non-VR setups. 3) I am not a fan of smart scaling myself, I think it distorts sense of scale and distance and is problematic. 4) I think the CounterStrike example cited above, along with Browning's post, give the clearest picture of best path forward by adjusting contrast and lighting, while leaving scaling true to life (ie 1:1). I think part of the problem is the global lighting model and the general method used for lighting in this game which does not accurately reflect the contrast ratios you will see in real life between an a/c and its environment.
  9. Some good conversation here. My thoughts: 1) Read Requiem's post above, he hits it on the head. Big issue is CONTRAST; and lighting, which right now are not realistic in this game compared to real life. 2) I think the Dev's could do well to look at their other game, IL2:CLoD which is much better and closer to real life .. I just flew some CLoD real quick, the issues that seem much better there: a) contrast between A/C and environment better, lighting is better accounted for b) you can use antiailaising w/o destroying your ability to spot distant contacts.. in IL2:GB you must disable A/A which then results in a "Crawly" ground and makes it hard to spot contacts against the ground. by contrast in IL2:CLoD the ground is very smooth with no artifacts; you can more easily discern the relative movement c) in GB they contacts definitely flicker in and out of visible range; in CLoD they are more "stable" Those of you that have both games I encourage you to go spend some time back-to-back in both and would be interested to hear from everyone about which is more realistic regarding spotting.. bottom line we all should want more realistic spotting, but the point is that right now in IL2-GB the spotting is unrealisticly HARD because of poor lighting / rendering and I am glad the devs are looking into this
  10. Great, this gets me started!! Thank you Art-J!
  11. I also cannot find these flashcards and cannot download form the atag link ...
  12. I think the simplest solution to this problem is to simply copy the DM for the D7f or the Pfalz and paste it onto all other a/c. I don't know if they are right are wrong, but they are plausible and fun. I understand this sim has a limited fan base and I think trying to simulate strength of these airplanes after taking damage is a fools errand anyway (too complex) so plausible and fun should be good enough.. here's my very simple for the devs to implement that won't cost a lot of hours or $$: next patch, copy and paste the wing DM for one of those airplanes onto the DM for all others and see how we like it, after 1 month, take a vote from the community to stay or go back.
  13. The G The G load never exceeded 3G, hardly call that a hard yank. In game I didn't even realize I'd been hit, on the reply you can see the gunner on the halberstadt landed a round or 2 on me I guess between 1:01 and 1:02. Hardly what'd I'd call close to realtiy, and further from anything I'd call fun.
  14. Please see this video. I love WW1 flight simming and am thankful to 777 for making a great simulator and for them trying to keep it going with Flying Circus, but this wing shedding really is a huge problem and is destroying the fun. Please see attached video, and the damage log, as well as note the G load when the wings give.
×
×
  • Create New...