=EXPEND=Tripwire

This is one reason I am hesitant to purchase the G2. I play onward with lighthouse tracking and I'm concerned about going backwards in tracking fidelity. Perhaps its time to bite the bullet and just get the G2for IL2 and DCS.

First impressions seem positive. Thanks team!

Your joking right? This thread is *14 pages* I'm sure they are aware of your complaints.

Not really interested in flying unicorns. I vote no.

This really needs fixing, hearing enemy planes near you when in flight feels very wrong.

In German planes, if you get used to focusing more on RPM instead of ATA you will find altitude changes less of a concern for engine management. It is especially important in the 190 in mid altitudes when the plane is yet to switch supercharger gear, and also at higher altitudes in the 109. Additionally, switching between mid to later war planes also becomes simpler, as the RPM usually was similar for normal/combat/emergency (everything later than the F2). I have been flying without Technochat for the most part of the last 3.5 years.

Makes you question why they bothered going to the effort to automate cooling systems on combat planes, or building helmet mounted displays with heading tapes. Waste of time really.

Fair point. Lets hope we get some type of gated dead zone in the throttle movement arc then for planes that had it.

I respect your decision regarding the first sentence there, but I see this "1%" and "few RPMs" part far too often and feel that this is a bit over the top representation of what occurs in game when people actually fly without techno chat and are familiar with their planes engine limits. In my opinion there I feel that there is actually a reasonable amount of buffer you have as a pilot available to you unless you are actually being overly "gamey" and not realistic and trying to sit right on the limit of the engine combat/emergency settings rather than following the instructions on the specifications sheet. Sure, the engine death timer could be handled better but I don't think its as bad as a lot of people make it out to be.

Not being a bomber pilot, I feel that if the risk vs reward was adjusted for the bomber pilots perhaps there would be less negativity to the change? You shouldn't need to clear an entire industrial block on your own to make the trip as valuable as dropping a single bomb on a ship as an example. I'm exaggerating, but perhaps a small adjustment might be in order eventually. If the value of an airfield or industrial object was greater, and the requirement to (as we used to say on the WOL server) clear every single hidden crate of vodka from the map to clear an objective reduced then perhaps bomber players would see the change in a different light? I also understand the desire to wait for the dust to settle to ensure the developers don't significantly change this again before map makers spend many hours of their time re-adjusting missions.

I changed to a VKB gunfighter 2 years ago, not sure if that FFB issue is still a problem or not.

Does it zoom that far though? Talon called it earlier, but didn't he zoom in using full 2D zoom first? VR doesn't get the same level of zoom as 2D.

Oh here we go.. Yes. Have you flown against him? I'm more than certain it's possible especially when the server is highly populated. Put the pitchfork away.

Yeah, ninja edited my reply before I read yours. I don't think the prop removal is required anymore but others may think otherwise as I never use it anyway.

1. No. 2. You get the choice. I leave the prop on. The dev's implemented a way to improve the prop for ASW/Motion smoothing using game config - but I never run the headset in that mode anyway, i hate any ghosting or warping of the cockpit frames.