Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Feuerfalke

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Ah, thanks, interesting. I had found a different, scanned photograph with larger black and slightly offset screws. On second thought, this also reads "Aussenboard". The one I dug out was labeled in correct German ("Außenbord"). Lets hope this is not taken from one of the Swiss Ju52. Since there is no "ß" in Switzerland that is all replaced by "ss" and they replaced a couple of other platings as well for their training purpose... Edit: Yes, it seems to be the Swiss Ju52 HB-HDY judging from the rest of the photos. Also note that most of the instruments have been replaced by international instruments with English titles and scales.
  2. I'm not into this, but I think this should be "von Hauptbehälter", not "von Hauptbehältern". Also above "Druckminderventil" on the right side, there is something like "Aussenbord". Can't quite make it out, as it is partially blocked. If it is, it should read "Außenbord".
  3. I honestly don't care that much about the actual setting or historical sequence of modules. IMHO more diverse maps, even if just fictional for MP and some western planes would draw more attention to this brand.
  4. The engine does quite a good job. It has come a long way and will improve further, no doubt. But although I am a day1-supporter for RoF and BoS, I will pass on this one. The eastern front is an interesting setting for many reasons and it was as appealing in BoS as it was in the original IL2. However: IL2 quickly evolved beyond that, adding more diversity, more theaters and planes to the simulation. Please don't get me wrong: I know we won't reach the numbers of planes in the same period of time, simply because they are a hell of a lot more complicated to model and simulate. I know it's more difficult to develop a new setting (e.g. research, modelling assets and stuff). But even if I take all this into account, BoM feels like an addon with virtually the same landscape (hopefully this time without snow) and a bunch more crappy planes. But even as the crappy-plane-lover I am, I will probably fly no more than 2 planes of this collection on a regular basis. And for me, that's not worth 79 $.
  5. I guess the point is, that people join online-servers without even knowing how to take-off or land. They end up as burning wrecks on the runway, blocking fun for all those experts out there. Even worse if they crash one of the planes with limited availability. I understand this issue. And I also accept that in Eastern states the number of offline-players is much higher than for Europe and the US. As a mission-builder for DCS I even understand that you want to reward players who played your missions. But forcing ALL players to play offline for an extensive time, before having all options available in Multiplayer is simply the wrong approach. That has nothing to do with pleasing some or all. And you can't tell me it's a technical issue. RoF could easily track online and offline-kills. I expect BoS to be no step back from that! We're in the era of web2.0. People don't just join servers to shoot each other. They meet on servers to learn these complex games, to share their experience with others and to train all aspects. If you really want to sort out rookies, make a system like AmericasArmy and many other games did: a simple tutorial and a first multiplayer-mission with a limited difficulty. You can easily make an option to make servers available only to people with a given amount of flying-hours or kills, if you really want to have this elitist servers. It would still be a fairer approach because you can earn your wings offline AND online.
  6. It's not an affront, it's a mere observation. It's a great book with a nice focus on the air battle and good stories and solid data. But some of the conclusion are very much biased on the comparing airforces point of view. For example the failure of the German air lift operations in Stalingrad as opposed to the one in Demjansk, The difference is not simply the stronger VVS, though it has certainly to be credited. But there were almost 3 times as many soldiers encircled in Stalingrad! Not to mention facts like time of year, weather, distances, supply-satus, etc. Again, great book, but don't take it as THE ULTIMATE reference. That's also not what this book is intended to be, if you read closely.
  7. Wow, what a pitty argument to blame me for something you only know from history channel...
  8. And what about a comparison how many German members post in the English forum and how many English post in the German? Please bring some scottish shortbread - ran out of supplies here.
  9. Makes perfect sense to me. German Fighters were mostly used for ground-attacks on the eastern front and the MG151/15 had a better penetration than the 20 mm version. Also the 15 mm had a much higher muzzle-velocity and better aim. Both come in handy against smaller aircraft. The only reason the MG151/15 was changed to the MG151/20 was the use of larger explosive shells to destroy large bombers more quickly. But heavy bombers were no argument in the Battle of Stalingrad, since Russia relied on attack-aircraft like the IL2 as well. (That's one reason why dogfights on the eastern front usually happened on low to medium altitudes.) On a sidenote: I wouldn't take Bergstrom's books on Stalingrad as a historical accurate reference. That's not what it's written to be.
  10. Sorry, can you be a bit more specific? How was steam involved in the quality of CoD?
  11. The best victory is when you are called a cheater without having cheated. And then, whoever you shot down with that special plane is more likely to get that special plane for himself, too. Even if the plane is not better, he wants that expected advantage to pull even. That's not a problem. That's the core of this business-model!
  • Create New...