=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 t

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 t

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.

Who in VR uses zoom for spotting? You find/spot a contact without zoom and then try to glean the ID of the plane from the single pixel at long range and 3 pixels when closer. Searching for contacts with zoom on is a good way to make yourself sick. I personally run ingame VR zoom + 1.5x Migoto zoom. Maybe I should bump it up to 5x Migoto or find a way to make it just 3x. The real solution though is for the Devs to implement more inbuilt VR zoom, something that has been requested for 3.5 years now.

OP clearly hasn't used this in VR.

I have a dominant left eye, and do fine in the 109 in VR. Iron sights would be a different story, but not the Revi reflector sights, they awesome.

Yes they can, there was instructions on how to do this on the VKB forums. Sorry I can't recall exactly how off the top of my head.

Yes it's disappointing. I hoped we could raise the bar, not revert back to the TIR owl necking. And now people are so used to it being easy, they aren't willing to put in the effort. Sad times.

What an awesome dev diary! Thank you AnPetrovich for giving us some insight into the planned DM changes. Was a very enjoyable read.

They fixed some of them especially the forward movement in some of the 109s, even after stating it wasn't possible for a few years. That was an awesome surprise one patch. Hopefully the other planes get a look in. The 190 is particularly bad I feel, along with the Ju88 that you have already pointed out.

Yeah I saw it last night, I had a squad mate chasing an enemy plane and I could not find it, I was flying within 200m of the plane in perfect sight of where the plane should be, thinking my wing man was going mad firing at nothing... then all of a sudden a single round hits the 'invisible plane' and the plane instantly appears right where I was looking and where he was firing.

I personally never have had issues running short periods of MW50 as long as I haven't exceeded the 10minute limit and just allow a proportional amount of time to let the engine recover after the stress. Perhaps there are restrictions, but I haven't encountered failures that I can clearly attribute to erratic use (multiple X minute uses in a shorter timeframe) of MW50 during many online combat fights. The most common failure is running at 2700rpm and not having MW50 injection.

If you push past 2600 but do not go full throttle to the point that MW50 is engaged, your engine will be stressed and fail at around 1-3 min. This occurs more readily in the 605DB engine. The DC has a bit more leeway. In the K4, if you push past 2600, your safest approach is to go full throttle to ensure MW50 is added to the mixture. Don't mess about inbetween for long periods.