Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Dusty926

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. I see you got a reply in the Steam forums, but for the folks looking here anyways; https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/37903-new-content-added-to-steam-as-of-july-13-2018/
  2. As someone who's not really had the chance to play these tanks in other offerings [the grind in War Thunder was far too immense for the time I have to spare], I'd most definitely like to participate in the draw. Really though, it's incredibly sweet that you're putting this offer out. Not the first from you, but the first that I'm going to have a crack at, haha
  3. Hey, sorry for the strange title, but considering the small thing to suggest here I didn't really know how else to word it. Essentially, the Mk.IXe's prop has four blades, but once they start spinning the effect seems visualizes a spinning three bladed prop. I'm relatively confident in that, because four-bladed props usually have a thicker black on each spinning blade, and of course if one looks really hard I can't personally count more than three. This is only a visual thing of course, and a very small one, but I think it would make for a nice touch if it were to have that effect tweaked to visualize four blades. It's of course ludicrously small, however I just wanted to get this out there just in the case that anyone felt the same way. This has no negative impact on the plane for me, it's just a little touch I'd like to see some time. Unless perhaps it is a four-bladed effect and it's just done in a way that I can't read right, hah.
  4. What? Why do people think the 108 is underpowered? I've been flying in the G6 against both the Vb and the IXe and I've been taking wings [partially, or more frequently, entirely] off with a single hit. https://streamable.com/gjumn
  5. I would disagree. There is nothing I would support or encourage regarding the Cliffs situation. There is no single developer I would point towards Cliffs with the intention of helping them become better. The dev team, by all accounts, dropped the damn ball on it. Team Fusion however, put a good bit of effort into making it well, and I do encourage modding teams to follow their efforts similarly. However, just because EFFORT was put in, does not mean that the game is therefor QUALITY. The game is still, in my opinion, far and away the worst of the entire series. The terrible Quick Mission Builder, the missing Full Mission Builder [AFAIK], the abhorrent AI, and just overall lack of single player options. 1946 had an absolute ton of them, BoX has more than ever before after 3.001, but Cliffs is absolute garbage in the department. "Oh but just play Multiplayer." Some of us are not keen on playing with deadstick morons and wannabe-Hartmanns after a long day of work, sometimes we enjoy flying solo against the finely tuned machines. For players like us, Blitz offers even LESS than the original release, what with the total absence of the Dynamic Campaign. Not to mention, if people are dusting off old complaints, it's still quite likely that, maybe, they're STILL there. Cliffs may be a better game because of Team Fusion, but having access to the source code doesn't change the fact that the game has bad bones. My apologies for the relatively off-topic post but I wanted to address the idea that we should SUPPORT releases like Cliffs of Dover, Blitz or not.
  6. Also, that unlimited ammo cheat skill DOES work, you just have to reload and recharge the weapon after emptying it.
  7. You can't. Steam stopped doing this [ATM] as far as I know. You're stuck with the website version, unless you feel like coughing up another 55/100 dollars.
  8. Nah, I think they're having a great time. The problem is, I'm not, and it seems many others aren't either. Also, I never said pilots wanted to get to the action faster IRL, I merely hypothesized that they too didn't find find the flight to the battle that engaging. I never intended to put down full real players. If they have fun, hey, more power to them, but I'm not having fun, and I would like a solution as to the cause of that. By the way, I'd like to ask for a little more respect next time. It's easy for me to treat other opinions with the greatest of respect, but I will only do as such if they respect mine.
  9. So because it gets boring looking at blank, winter scenery, and I wish to speed up time, I'm not a, "Hardcore Simmer." Here's the thing: I never have been! I play to have fun. I don't play to have all these important buttons to push, or fly in a historical battle, following the maneuvers by the dot. Having to sit there, doing nothing, for a long ass time, is BORING, and I highly doubt that the real life pilots were entirely enthralled in the trip too. It grates on my nerves, just having to wait to get to my destination, with nothing going on, but I can't leave, because if I go, I might come back too late, and something might've happened. So I'm stuck sitting there watching the clouds roll past, while I wait for my plane to arrive at my destination. Then I take over, and I have some fun, it's enjoyable, I have a really good time! Then there's a 97km return trip...stuck at only 2x time acceleration. Do you see how grating that gets? There's a reason why hardcore sims like DCS and Falcon 4.0 [bMS] allow time acceleration [The latter allowing up to 64x!] Oh, and by the way, insulting me makes your argument no better, it just comes off as immature.
  10. I would like to know, as it's something I miss quite a bit, because it sped up the parts I/we found boring, and is part of the reason I was having fun with the campaign mode; it helped me get to and from the action faster, so I could sooner enjoy the parts that ARE fun to me. Now, with 2x time-compression, I find myself getting bored out of my mind, and is actually hampering my desire to do anything outside the objective. "Yeah, I could go for those bombers over there, but I could be shot down, and getting here took long enough already, I'm not exactly looking to experience that flight again." Personally, I would love to have at least 8x time-compression back. Of course, opinions may vary, and I know mine is not universally correct, so any criticism is welcome. Just no personal niggling against each-other please, enough threads have been derailed by that already.
  11. Personally, I'm not really a big fan of stuff like historical missions or scripted campaigns and the like. I much prefer something like Falcon 4.0's [bMS] dynamic campaign, that's much more what I prefer. I can certainly see now why you guys like all that, and really want a FMB, but it's just not my thing, and I'd prefer to have something dynamic, rather than historically scripted.
  12. Ok guys, answer me this: What is the big deal with the Full Mission Builder? I ask in honesty, why do you guys care so much? I absolutely hated using it in the old IL-2, and games afterwards that did the same thing have always been the same way for me: Clunky, hard to use, and way too friggen' time consuming versus what you get in the end. I mean absolutely no offence to people who DO like Full Mission Builders, I just want to know what makes you guys so attached to the idea. Oh, and by the way, taking off a point for skins? Really? I don't think that's exactly.....correct, if-you-ask-me.
  13. If I want to live the life of a pilot, I'll go be a god damn pilot. This may be a simulator, but even study sims like DCS World allows stuff like time compression. Why? BECAUSE IT'S BORING. Not everyone enjoys spending so much time in the air, and they know that. Without time compression, some people will get bored, or irritated, and to spend all that time doing nothing, only to get shot down at a whim, will put some people off.
  14. To be fair, I still haven't played too much of the game, so that's not set in stone, for me.
  15. Heck yeah. I'll be honest I'm a little sad at the small scope of the game, but it's completely offset by all the detail put into every nook, cranny, and crevice of the game. Quality > Quantity
  • Create New...