Jump to content

Sky_Wolf

Members
  • Content Count

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About Sky_Wolf

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1110 profile views
  1. A logical explanation for the lack of damage from the .50 caliber ammunition is the firing distance. The video does not indicate the firing distance. If it's 500 m or greater I think the lack of damage is plausible (rounds might just bounce off).
  2. Fascinating. I suspect the "systems respondents have in mind" will bear close relation to the poll options they vote for. So if respondents selected "System damage modeling (e.g. hydraulic system failure, electrical system failure)", they have whole-system failure in mind. If they vote for "Landing gear damage modeling (e.g. gear dropping, gear jamming, gear loss)", they have localized landing gear damage in mind.
  3. No, you still don't get it. My first four options are not all covered by the fifth option. For example, an electrical or hydraulic system failure would not result in bomb detonation or bomb release from impact, and would not result in the loss of landing gears, and would not result in ammo detonation, and would not result in localized flap damage. A hydraulic or electrical system failure would result in failure of ALL components of the aircraft that are dependent on hydraulic or electrical power. Therefore, the options I give in the poll are distinctive and the fifth
  4. No, landing gear damage modeling is definitely not part of system damage modeling based on the way things were categorized in the poll. In a landing gear damage model, damage to the gear would only be modeled. In a hydraulic system damage model, damage to the entire hydraulic system would be modeled. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand this if you carefully re-read the poll options. My conclusion stands.
  5. So far the results of the poll are surprisingly to me. 62.5% would prefer to see system damage modeling (hydraulic, electrical, etc.). Why would so many people prefer this option? It seems to me that the reason is because it would increase the likelihood of getting a "kill": if you eliminate the functionality of your opponents' systems, their plane will crash into the ground in no time. So that's why the people who voted in this poll overwhelmingly selected "System damage modeling". Do I have this right?
  6. What single improvement to the damage model do you want to see? (select only one option) This poll uses suggestions listed by [DBS]Browning on page 7 of this thread:
  7. Another post about significant AI problems:
  8. The "About" page needs to be updated to show models of BoP planes https://il2sturmovik.com/about/
  9. What I'm looking forward to the most in Battle of Normandy: (1) Game engine improvements enabling realistic Normandy and Market Garden scenarios (e.g. hundreds of boats in the Channel, gliders towed by C-47s) - otherwise the entire concept of Battle for Normandy doesn't work (Minimum computer specs will therefore be changed significantly, e.g. from i5/i7 to i9 CPUs and minimum of modern (2020+) GPUs) (2) Infantry models, even if very basic and low resolution (needed for D-Day, needed for Tank Crew, needed for a better game in general) (3) Map and new planes
  10. I will also say that Lemsip's videos are some of the best out there in terms of editing and the general amount of thought that goes into them.
  11. Doing this wouldn't take much time and wouldn't tax the game engine.
  12. Anyone here aware of whether the Microsoft developers are planning to enable two-person flights in the same aircraft (e.g. one person in VR as pilot, the other in VR as passenger/co-pilot)?
  13. Ok, so SimShaker software is clearly a work in progress. This thread is full of examples. I hope that the numerous glitches can be worked out eventually. Until then I will abstain from giving my money to what can only be described as an Early Access software.
  14. Ok, so here is another example of how the enemy AI pilots rarely disengage when you would expect them to. At around 6:15 into the video a 109 begins leaking fuel and radiator fluid. The 109 is hit again in four more attacks by the MiG - the 109 is not looking good after the fourth (at ~8:50 into video). But sure enough the 109 does not disengage. At around 11:00 into the video the same 109 sneaks up on the MiG's six and begins firing. IMO this has to be addressed. The 109 should have disengaged, maybe by diving and flying low back to base.
×
×
  • Create New...