Jump to content

Ace_Pilto

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    618
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ace_Pilto

  1. If only they'd fly this fast in combat instead of turning all the time...
  2. Ok, there's already a whole bunch of skins posted here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/18377-skins-creation-and-czar-pwcg/?p=288218 by Panzerbär. (Over 200 in TOTAL!!! All Luftwaffe but MORE than enough to crack on with.) Presumably, as they have been offered for use by virtue of having been posted in the thread, the permission to use them exists so how do I assign the appropriate liveries already posted here so that they will appear in the "Squadron" category? They're selectable as it stands now in game under "Loose" since that setting obviously accesses skin folder for the the appropriate aircraft type in game but I would like to categorize and assign the appropriate skins to their squadrons where possible and then maybe do a little editing in Photoshop just to take a decent template and alter the aircraft number or add things like a Geschwader Kommodore's ensign ect. I've poked around in the RoF campaign to see how that works but making similar edits to PWCG for BoX causes the program to get upset and refuse to run. Is it going to be possible for me to do this myself or do you have to add them into the generator at your end? I tried renaming a skin to "FW109A3_SKIN_01" since this string is already present in the "I_JG51.json" file here: "skins": [ { "skinName": "FW190A3_SKIN_01", "planeType": "fw190a3", "startDate": "19421101", "endDate": "19430331", "squadId": 20111051, "country": "Germany", "category": "Squadron", "definedInGame": false } ] but this did not result in my renamed skin being available under the "Squadron" heading (Having the Squadron box checked in the skin configuration screen). In fact it changed nothing at all since I'm guessing this is just the default skin for that unit and that the gaem simply assigned what was already present. Do I need to add these skins instead to the .json file in "BoSData\Input\Skins\Configured" to have them show up? This is where I ran into problems with the program not launching.
  3. Tired of that washed out, overexposed vanilla experience robbing you of your situational awareness? Would you like to be able to see planes at a reasonable distance without tweaking the confing? Has that cold bluish tint, lack of definition, and completely rubbish horizon hiding distance fog given you the blues??? Is your life lacking colour, passion, saturation and a credible representation of terrain and sky? Has fiddle farting about with the gamma settings in startup.cfg left a contrast induced tumor in your eyeballs? Well, Papa Pilto has the solution to your woes, this is my Reshade preset, works quite well on 1080p at 0.8 gamma. HDR and bloom must be turned off, I haven't added antialiasing or sharpening since other utilities handle this better and the game's sharpening is breddy gud imo. Calibrate your black and white points (brightness and contrast) on your monitor before using and don't bitch at me if you mess something up. All you gopniks need to do is install reshade by googling it and following the instructions, put my preset in your 1CStudios/Battle of X /bin folder and your game will turn from this: Into this: SHARE AND ENJOY!: http://www.mediafire.com/file/w6hfafw6cj74ttx/Il2BoX.ini Your menus and stuff might look a bit weird (darker and some sepiaish tint), shouldn't incur any FPS hit.
  4. So where are the skins PW? I think that is what SShrike was asking. Is there a skin pack posted somewhere here??? Because I'm darned if I can find it. I'd rather not be randomly downloading all the skins from the forum all day in the hopes that I get the ones that PWCG uses. If anyone has a repository I'd be happy to host a link on Mediafire The skins add so much, I know there's vastly less than there is for RoF but every little bit helps.
  5. Hint: It's the one thing worth fighting a war for. Ironic, nicht war? Ha ha ha ha ha! Anyway, I'll leave you Clampetts to your banjo lessons.
  6. What it the first casualty of war?
  7. Fix'd but your point is well taken, there were plenty of victims.
  8. lol, I just needed the year of release so I could get it elsewhere *yarrrrr* P.S. "Idi i smiotri" is worth a watch, mainly propaganda that totally misinterprets the role of Einsatzgruppen but a good watch nonetheless since the message it conveys is legit even if the historical content is not.
  9. (((huffpost))) y u do this Brano??? I found it thanks to your link so kudos.
  10. Hook a brother up wit a link fam? (The story of Dunkirk really deserves a mini series to do it justice imo)
  11. Didn't like it, the whole film was disjointed and sterile.
  12. Your tests (the ones you refer to) are wrong, I'll explain why. They're not bad tests or poorly executed tests, quite the opposite, they are very thorough and well executed but they are poorly thought out. The problem is that people here have used a method that only accounts for one set of very controlled circumstances and, as such, they get results that are relevant for one set of very controlled circumstances. What we have is a method of testing has been devised despite the lack of any coherent aim beyond validating the emotional prejudices of certain people and the results based upon this method of testing, which boil down to "This is what happens in situation X". As such these tests only give us an idea of what happens in situation X while the wider reality of the game is ignored. The natural game itself differs from situation X almost invariably, emphasising the shortcomings of the method and bringing the testing into the realm of the absurd. These tests fail to account for the vastly diverse circumstances that the game is capable of producing and neither do they address the nature of what created this false impression in the first place, they make no attempt to factor in the viral idea or 'meme' of Russian bias that has manifested itself psychosomatically in the user base and thus formed, what I believe to be, a false impression of bias or intentional disparity. The truth of the matter is: 1) Nobody here has an adequately sized data pool to draw from in order to make a definitive judgement about whether one cannon has deliberately been made (intentionally or otherwise) objectively superior to the other. It's only suggested that, under certain circumstances, one will perform better than the other but it's also worth noting that those circumstances only represent an extremely limited scenario. 2) Nobody here has adequate first hand historical knowledge on the subject to form some kind of historical litmus tests against which these results can be productively compared which makes the tests themselves folly in the first place since not even the historical record is capable of providing us with a reliable and objective assessment. My analysis of this is that the people who have made these tests have restricted their data inputs too stringently in order to attain a clear result when, in the wider reality of the game, no such result can be reliably obtained because the nature of the tests flies in the face of the nature of what happens in the dynamic environment of the game. This testing has resulted in an indication that conforms to some people's preconceptions and, even though it is a well intentioned experiment which the testers have worked hard to devise and carry out, the tests are unfortunately compromised by lack of data sampling over a wider range of plausible scenarios while also being contaminated by the memetic concept of intentional bias that has generated the basis for their experiment in the first place. Finally it's not "anecdotal" to relate experiences from first hand observation while producing recorded evidence of said observations. My video shows results that occurred organically, they are not contrived and they clearly display results that do not conform to those produced by other "testers".
  13. I've found it's where you hit the target that matters most, not what cannon you use. Other factors come into play as well, physical forces like "G" especially. If you hit the magazine in the wing or a vulnerable point like a spar then the wing comes off. (You can look up aircraft cutaway drawings for yourself to see where these weak spots are) If you land your shots on places where there's nothing but layers of composite wood then you're only letting sunlight in, if you weaken a wing that is under strong "G" forces it may break from the added force. I've seen the videos people have made and they're good videos, well produces and thorough but I've also seen the game do the exact opposite of what their results suggest when I play on my own. As for comparing the Minengeschoss to a ShVak, it's apples to oranges. Two different philosophies. Minengeschoss a brute force round, it's harder to aim because of the lower muzzle velocity so it might seem less effective unless you are an expert at landing it where you want it. ShVak has a higher MV, does less damage but it flies straighter so it will naturally seem more effective since it is easier for the shooter to land a cluster of hits in an important area on a less durable aluminium target that is, in all probability, in a high "G" evasive maneuver. Furthermore, and finally, you have to consider the aiming platforms, the 109 is squirrely, it wobbles. The 190 also wobbles. They're more responsive and unstable in the air and both require the correct amount of trim and a smooth and steady inputs to achieve good aim with. The Yak, LaGG and La5 are more stable and thus they are easier to steady for a shot, they don't require the same attention to trimming in order to be stabilised quickly and they have a gun that is easier to aim. That's my 2 bob, just going off of personal experience in the game I don't see any bias, just plausible (if not downright accurate) modelling. Cheers
  14. It's rubbish, a port of Xbox live stuff that hogs resources and regularly crashes that's been foisted on us with little to no disclosure. Disable it via the Xbox app and then disable the Xbox app too.
  15. The Russian bias meme needs to die. Even with my indifferent gunnery skills I regularly shoot the wings off of Russian planes with the single MG-151. https://youtu.be/a5hpkQ6deiY?t=26m34s This is offline of course and that's the big difference, packet loss is what's causing the most problems for people playing online, not damage modelling. Your most populated server is in Russia, pings are through the roof by modern standards and connectivity sucks because of the networking into and out of Russia is not particularly good. Support your locally based servers (or start one and populate it) and watch things improve.
  16. That explains a lot. The most brainwashed country in all of Europe. https://www.youtube.com/embed/dDBKjyM-W5o
  17. This is a little off topic since it doesn't really answer the question or offer any data that you are soliciting but hopefully my perspective on the criteria for awarding decorations might be helpful to you because I think it important to understand the methods by which decorations are awarded more intelligently in order to find a better solution to how they can be awarded in a game. Typically, awards for valour are not given in any branch of any military for an arbitrary number of units destroyed or missions flown. They are given for acts of valour. Of course some awards are given for specific criteria like an American Purple Heart or a Wehrmacht tank destruction badge but they are exceptional in that regard. While an award may be reported as having been given for something like "The destruction of 20 enemy planes" for example, you will find that this is by no means a consistent and reliable means of establishing the criteria (even if some sources cite it as being definitive) for that particular award since it can be (and will have been) given for many different criteria during its' history. It is the case that, historically, the reason cited as being grounds for the award of a decoration only reflects the decisions that led to that particular award being given due to the individual circumstances of the combat or phase of combat during which that particular award was given. Therefore it is not really accurate to award decorations in this arbitrary way and pursuing it will only lead to vague or confusing results. Furthermore, valor can be ascertained as being either an individual act of conspicuous bravery or a display of cumulative and consistent bravery covering a period of time. It would be more accurate and probably much simpler to assign awards to players on the basis of what types of missions the player has completed and how consistent and successful they have been in meeting objectives. This could be achieved by assigning each mission a level of predefined difficulty and logging the players' performance before correlating that with an established criteria for any given award. This would more accurately measure the player's' ability to succeed under difficult circumstances and allows the possibility for awards to be given in line with more historically accurate criteria. (Also, the award of a high level of decoration for one conspicuous act of valour should be very rare so the criteria should be extremely demanding, otherwise such awards should be earned over time)
  18. Just a heads up for whoever might want to know. I'm getting dial up speed service from the server with the latest patch. Downloading from Australia on 10MB/s fibre, tried multiple settings (prefer web distribution enabled) Right now it's questionable whether I will be able to download this whopping 742MB patch before someone invents a time machine and I don't have to bother with simulations anymore
  19. If it boils down to this then why are you such a tiresome bore on the subject? How many posts now? I think we get the picture....
×
×
  • Create New...