Jump to content

SCG_Limbo

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

123 Excellent

About SCG_Limbo

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

506 profile views
  1. Where is this global ranking list indicating server populations? I would guess that any population loss for TAW is due to some pilots preferring to fly the recently introduced American planes and not primarily due to AI gunner or ground AA settings. I prefer TAW due to its dynamic campaign which no other server currently provides so I will continue to fly it regardless of population levels though TAW and Combat Box are always the top two populated servers when I fly. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a fun gaming experience, Ogg. In looking at your 5 hours of TAW gameplay this campaign, I honestly think you have very little clue on how to deal with ground AA in TAW (e.g., 72-K). The AA hasn't shot me down YET this campaign because I greatly respect it and utilize proper tactics to neutralize or kill it. That's what makes TAW fun...adapting your tactics to best deal with a very hostile environment and avoiding the harsh penalties for failing.
  2. This discussion demonstrates exactly why the developers should provide better support for 3D VR so that there is some quality control where zoom settings are roughly comparable to 2D users--2x is clearly not nearly enough but does 10x goes too far? Why don't we just have 5x for both 2D and 3D? That we have to rely on a 3rd party developer to provide what is essentially a cheat (i.e., features not available to everyone) to make the zoom roughly comparable is really not acceptable in my opinion for a competitive game/sim. When many of the multiplayer servers were running the "alternative viewing"system, the one where the contacts get blown up at long distances to make spotting easier (~10-20k), I was flying with a wingman using VR and he was EASILY IDing aircraft that were only 2 or 3 pixels wide on my 2K, 27" monitor. In this case, he obviously had a huge advantage in IDing aircraft over me. The difference is much smaller with the default viewing system but I'm convinced that 10x clearly gives the VR user an advantage versus 5x of 2D. That's why I originally sought out this mod so I could get more zoom comparable to my VR wingman but I cannot run this mod online. Also, you're not clear in your writing EAF_Ribbon. In the first part of your last message you write, " (i don't use any mods)," but then you write you need the "10xzoom". So, are you using the 3Dmigoto "mod" or not? If you have access to a 2K monitor like I do, then please provide a scenario with a plane contact, say 8k distance, and show screenshots of the difference between the target using the 5x zoom in the 2D screen versus the 10x zoom using 3D. This should give us an excellent idea of the difference, right?
  3. Yes...this exactly my question. There should be some quality control by the developers as to maximum zoom/fov value allowed between the different hardware so that everybody has roughly equal ability to identify aircraft in the distance. It don't think this would require too much work and it doesn't have to be exactly equal. 2D users are clearly better at VR users without the 3dmigoto mod but significantly superior with based on my observations on online play with both types of users.
  4. First and most importantly, I have to say that I've been really enjoying flying Combat Box (CB) since the new American aircraft (P-38, P-51, and Tempest) have come out despite stutter issues due to the high volume of players. Having said that, I have noticed that the Allied side has never lost a map when I've played...so I did a quick check of the last 3 pages of the CB map results: 42 allied wins versus 4 Axis wins. I don't think there's an easy solution here but it might be nice to drop down the size of the bomb load of the p-38 for starts to help with parity.
  5. I'm totally up for a new strategic format including an asymmetric style campaign!
  6. Yes, you've made my point exactly--some people are perfectly happy to make life easier for themselves with little regard to increased difficulty for others types of pilots. As for realism, the "normal" setting is far more realistic than the "alternative" viewing setting based on my on real life flying experience and the technical papers I've read on this topic (c.f., original thread on this issue....fortunately, the IL-2 developers agree with me strongly). In addition, I've personally found it much easier to spot with "normal" versus the old hard 10k bubble too since planes glimmer white at long distances even if the contacts are very small. This is the last comment I'll make on this issue--I've just felt its important to try to persuade the KOTA admins on this. We'll see what happens to the numbers of pilots flying KOTA based on their choice.
  7. Guys, no need to be so defensive here...I just wanted to see if there are any DEDICATED bombers that are calling for the "alternative" viewing system and I tried to back it up with some hard data...not trying to imply that some of you don't occasionally take up a heavy aircraft and perhaps my very quick survey was prone to some small error. My apologies if my quick survey was not 100% accurate or did not go far enough back in the past. Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion and I understand that many of you like to see aircraft easily at 20K+ so that you can more easily find air combat whether its realistic or not. My main point: I sincerely believe that almost all of people calling for the alternative system are not considering the viewpoint of a dedicated bomber pilot who would rather go undetected as much as possible and I think this is something that should be considered by the KOTA admins. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that medium bomber usage would go significantly down with the adoptions of the alternative viewing system. Is this what the KOTA admins want? I'm completely serious and I was sincerely trying to help you spot aircraft better. Your statement implies that you do not seem to be completely aware that objects are perceived as larger the closer in distance they are from you. According to your logic, why don't you put your monitor a couple of miles away from you...after all, it will still be the "same size ." I also venture to guess that a magnifying glass will help you resolve individual pixels on your screen more easily too, obviously, though this may not yield a significant improvement if your eyeball can resolve very fine detail acutely. A closely positioned monitor and reading glasses is what I use to resolve my individual pixels on my 27 inch 2K monitor and this helps me spot much better than if my monitor was positioned at the back of my desk. The individual 2560x1440 pixels are very small but I make them look large. Have the screen positioned closer to your face also results in a greater field of view and it also results in greater immersion.
  8. @Aegolos: Try positioning the monitor much closer to your face and use reading glasses if necessary. 22 inches is terribly small and very unusual in this day and age but you can increase the field of view if you position the monitor like 12 inches from your face. I truly want to know how many of these people voting for the alternative (i.e., unrealistic) spotting system are fairly dedicated bomber pilots. Let's take a quick sampling of the pilots here that are vocal in favor of the alternative view across TAW, Combat Box, Kota, and Wings of LIberty Zami: 100% fighter sorties (not counting transport missions in TAW) Aeglos: 100% fighter sorties SpicySauced: 100% fighter sorties =LD=dhyran: 100% fighter sorties Ropalcz: 100% fighter sorties on KOTA, mostly 110 sorties on TAW (first evidence of someone that likes to bomb) 6FG_Big_Al: Primarily jabo fighters My point here is that I don't think any dedicated bomber pilots appreciate having their plane looking like the Good Year blimp at 40k. I get it though...many like to easily see so that they can dogfight and have more combat action even for a better gaming experience even if it is unrealistic. That's a terribly dishonest picture in my opinion because everything, including the icon text and not just the plane, looks terribly pixelated. It's like you took cropped a giant picture terribly small and were originally zoomed all the way out. Also, a plane with a head on aspect at 1.38km would be very difficult to spot in real life. More importantly, is there really any difference between the alternative and realistic view system at only 1.38 km? What does the same shot look with the alternative view?
  9. I definitely had more fun for me with the realistic (/expert) spotting setting. all evening Was doing some jabo missions and not getting jumped every single time. Dog fighting was a little more spread out and much more realistic and not the giant furball that emerges with the alternate spotting. I enjoyed the challenge of seeing the smaller contacts too which is ultimately a skill that can be developed to a large degree depending on the hardware.
  10. @LLv24_Veccu LOL....that's some serious logic there: adopt a completely unrealistic spotting system to make the simulation more realistic overall.
  11. Okay, thanks for the help here guys. /s 😉 I did find a solution here that fixed the problem: I deleted my startup.cfg file in the data directory and then had the game reconstruct it from scratch. No more blurry graphics in full screen mode. My experience is that full screen mode gives me slightly better performance than windowed mode in the past, so this was important for me.
  12. I wonder if you are experiencing the same blurry bug with the new update I was getting in 2d mode with the "full screen" mode. It went a way when I switched to "windowed mode." Nobody responded to my report with pics attached (see below). The graphics should not be blurry but if you have this bug then the alternative view system is magnified even more with distant planes being large blobs followed by them practically disappearing when you zoom in on them.
  13. According to the 3DMigoto mod thread, it says that zoom function is NOT available for 2d users. Am I missing something here? ---- Instantaneous X1.5, X5 and X10 zoom to give same zoom level in VR as in 2DActivated by "INSER" key for 1.5X, "HOME" for 5x ,"PAGEUP " for 10x.This feature is automatically disabled for non VR use. --- I would argue that the 10x zoom is still better than the 5x default zoom for 2d users despite a VR set reducing the effective power of the zoom. Targets are like literally only a few pixels wide on my 2K monitor when my squadmates are calling them out. (I could be wrong to some degree but this has been m y experience and I have no way to formally test since I do not have a VR set.)
  14. I just tested to see if this mod works with mods off in the game and enabled in JSGME but it does not work for me. I only see it working when mods are enabled. Are you sure about this? Is there any other way to get it to work with the multiplayer servers or elaborate more on this?
  15. Almost all of the multiplayer servers disappear when you have "mods enabled" in game. How is that VR users get to run with mods enabled for their extra zoom level? Or am I missing something?
×
×
  • Create New...