Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About BletchleyGeek

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

225 profile views
  1. Automatic flight control that takes into account g-loads takes way too much cpu time for being used in a video game. I can see it being doable for one plane at 60fps, for a dozen AI controlled planes not really. They will need to allow the AI to bend the physio rules a bit, and see what combination of smoke and mirrors works best to offer a credible experience for human players.
  2. I found the video interesting, as it does feel like we are really in a Russian village circa 1943, and it looks like the foundations of a potentially interesting tank sim are set. But the bit with the KV going through the corner of the log cabin, just like that, was an uncanny valley moment for me. Pieces of houses seem to have the weight of aircraft parts too. Having AFVs through buildings may be fun but it isn't a good thing for tracks, radio antennas or sights. It is marked as work in progress and Tank Crew is not mean to be Spintires, but that kind of unrealistic interactions break immersion and look bad. It is a bit like seeing a Bf-109 clipping the tail of a U2 with its wing, with no ill effect for the former. I was expecting Tank Crew to be more like Graviteam's Steel Blaze series or even Panzer Elite, but seems that will not be the case. Happy New Year and thanks for making such an amazing flight sim!
  3. Thanks fot the answers Herr Murff and Wulf. Yes that's what I meant, and also yes, every plane nonetheless does more efficiently certains maneuvers than others, and vice versa. Thanks for sharing that story from CLOD btw
  4. Cheers, Shamrock Yesterday I went through a thread you started like in April 2016 (?) about how to fly the FW properly, etc. That was actually very interesting and I think that having an extract of the useful parts of that thread for newcomers would be great. As for myself, I am getting into flight simming more seriously due to a professional interest. As part of my training for this particular project I am working on I was recommended to study the book "Fighter Combat. Tactics and Maneuvering" by Robert L. Shaw. Also very helpful to navigate these discussion was to reflect on what he wrote on the Chapter "One versus One Maneuvering, Dissimilar Aircraft". I love the little quotes Shaw inserts inline in his text. Let me share a passage (on pages 141 and 142): And this (the emphasis is mine) Here I kind of expect to be corrected, but my interpretation is that the VVS planes tend to fit better into the "low wing loading" performance profile (the 109, the MiG-3 perhaps?, the Zero), than the "high thrust-to-weight" profile (the FW-190 and the P-51 being the two WW2 I think represent better this class of aircraft). As I said on my previous message, the FW looks to me to perform in this sim very much like this ideal notion of High Thrust-To-Weight used by Shaw on his book. I think also that some discussions sometimes become fixated on a rigid interpretation of these "categories", when whether a plane fits or not in it may vary between iterations (the 109 E and G series are two very different planes IMHO) of the same design, weather conditions, altitude, etc.
  5. It is hard to miss @Yakdriver I have been around the Internet long enough that I am not traumatised by reading these debates. You can find similar patterns of behaviour in pretty much every game heavy on the simulation side. What is peculiar to this community is that there is a very tribal vibe to the polarisation in the threads, almost like what used to be the norm in games as EVE online before the Something Awful guys took over. Probably due to the squadrons meta game, and taking beef from the MP servers to the forums. I have probably like 20 hours on the simulated FW 190 and it is very hard to fly... if you try to handle it like the 109. I tend to think of it as a faster, more agile 110. The stalls are lethal, I kind of have developed a spidey sense to avoid getting the plane in that state. But there are many planes on this sim that need to be handled with care, like the I 16 or the P 40. Reading the FULL write up by Eric Brown on the plane was very helpful to get into the right mindset. No idea if the changes in the flight model will have a dramatic effect on how it flies. Models are always works in progress, since it only makes sense to talk about them as useful or not, they are all "false". In that regard, I think that the current FW 190 model is useful to portray this plane in its historical roles. But it may not be useful when operating on the boundaries of that. Just 2 cents from a unaffiliated relative newcomer.
  6. Cheers mate / Merci bien
  7. This is an approximation of the actual data for Battle of Stalingrad on Steam: http://steamspy.com/app/307960 that lists about 50,000 owners for the game on Steam. These numbers are just an approximation, but seems to be inline with the number of registered users on this forum. 50,000 is not bad at all, for a hard core sim like this, that asks you money to play it. I have no idea what fraction of those 50,000 are the MP guys. Judging from your numbers on the forum, obviously you are far from being the majority of the user base. I am a vs AI guy exclusively, and this sim just blows out of the water DCS - guess why. I just recently bought, after nearly two years and a half, an X55 to play BOx. So I am as casual and wet behind the ears as you can find, and I am not a sock puppet or otherwise affiliated with devs or any of the "factions" and "clans" I see the vocal members of this community to be splitted into. I do think that 1C/777 really needs to release a free to play version/demo with one flyable plane and map so people can check out by themselves how wonderful this sim is. The tone of some posters could make some less adventurous souls to stay clear from BOx: sometimes peeps bash it as it was as corny as Lucasfilm's Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe... As for the G4, I do enjoy working around historical constraints. And I will patiently wait to be able to fly the Zero vs the Me 262 some day
  8. This is the best way not just to train your air to air combat skills, but also to get to know about how resilient bombers can be (or not). Make sure to fly these at different altitude bands, as the performance of the planes can be different like night and day. Also tracking and deflection fire are good techniques to use against heavy bombers - of which the Soviet Union has none still in the game, abd unsuspecting pilots - the AI can feel incoming fire, doesn't need to see the tracers. A technique that works surprisingly well in hot stuff like the Me 109 is to go for snapshots: ... I opened fire only when the whole windshield was black with the enemy... at minimum range ... it doesn't matter what your angle is to him or whether you are in a turn or any other maneuver. ... That was Erich "Bubi" Hartmann. You need to be able to handle first, though, otherwise you will end up losing a wing often
  9. Pre-ordered the Yak-1b. It was possibly my favourite Soviet plane in the old IL-2. I am not a hardcore flight simmer - I am more of a ground pounder - but I must say that between that other sim and yours, I would pick up yours at any time, any day. On this one I feel like that I can customize the experience - meaning, delegating to handy AI to manage my engine and other stuff - to my liking, so I can feel like a WW2 ace from the movies without the surprisingly complex "bits that don't make the cut onto the screen". I think that you guys have received a lot of flak because of that in the past - I can understand that some folks think such niceties are a waste of development time - but without them I would be still playing the IL-2 1946 edition available on Steam, and you would have not got my $$. Also, your AI, besides helping me playing the sim, also plays the elaborate sim quite well. There's over 30 years of work on how to "solve" the problem of achieving stern conversion automatically so we can put robots in cockpits, and well, your results are pretty good When I was a kid I wanted to be like Chuck Yeager, but now that I am in my late 30s I see that I would have rebounded hard like a 9mm bullet on an M1 armour plate from flight school as soon as I would have to process all the protocols, manuals and check lists... So thanks guys for allowing me to pretend to my friends and family that I am Chuck Reborn when I would probably crash my plane against the wall of a hangar more often than not.
  • Create New...