Jump to content

Darkmouse

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About Darkmouse

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

228 profile views
  1. If a way can be found to change what is said when during a fight I'd be up for a community project, definitely. I'm not well versed in the inner workings of IL2, but I'm keen to write, record and post-process audio and help organise how to create a more believable and immersive environment. I know it may sound like a trivial problem, but I am really beginning to struggle to enjoy dogfighting because of the terrible broken chatter. My personal view is that fixing existing broken systems now gives the entire future series greater longevity.
  2. With substantially more time on my hands I have been playing a lot of IL2 and I am of the opinion that it is the very pinnacle of WW2 flight simulation in all regards except one - the radio system and voice acting. I suspect I'm not alone in feeling that IL2 is incredibly immersive - until the radio radio chatter starts. I don't notice it very much flying Russian and German aircraft as the radio chatter itself means nothing to me (unless I read the messages of course, which I don't) and is just background atmosphere. With the addition of the British and American voices it has hit me how truly awful the radio system is and, by extension, the chatter itself. That is clearly not the fault of the voice actors from this forum that put the work in to make it, but the chatter system itself and the type of dialogue it lends itself to. I have seen Jason Williams mention in several places that he is aware that it needs an overhaul/tweaking, and I have a few proposals, not for the overhaul per say, but perhaps as an interim measure if such a thing is possible. Currently I feel the chatter is of very little use. By this I mean it gives me no meaningful information during a flight/fight and as such is superfluous, but more than that its very mundane and tedious. The last thing I want during a dogfight is for some disembodied tower controller passing me wind direction repeatedly or my flight telling me they are attacking fighters 1km away - I know that, I'm in the damn fight and its been going on for the last 2 minutes! My proposal is twofold. The first suggestion, which may well not be possible, is to simplify the current chatter system and to re-record some dialogue to aid immersion - by this I mean, keep the calls simple ala original IL2 - "He's on my six", Bail out", "Got the bugger!" but with some realistic dialogue. For example replacing the robotic "Fighters" or "Bombers" that interrupt a spoken line with the generic "bandits" - you have a. improved authenticity and b. negated the need to chop up audio, making it sound more natural. Then, add some post processing to make it sound more like using a 1940's radio, mic and earphones. Big piston engines and mask microphones create a very distinctive 'radio voice' even today. And whilst no one wants over excitement on the r/t, the stress and excitement would come through in the calls regardless - the language was occasionally quite colourful too. (That reminds me of the apocryphal story of the US Navy pilot over Vietnam yelling that he was being engaged and needed some help, and someone pipes up, deadpan, "Will you shut up and die like an aviator?") Which brings me to my second proposal, an extension of the first. The radio system and the dialogue it creates, particularly in regard to the British and American dialogue, is very wooden, stilted and most of all not r/t. Phrases like "over" and "out" are army VP, and whilst r/t and army VP would have been more closely aligned in WW2, are not phrases you would routinely expect to hear over r/t - and yet every single line of dialogue ends in them. I would be quite happy to look at the current system and dialogue to see how it could be tweaked for both authenticity and immersion, or any future implementation of said system. Whilst I clearly wasn't there, so can't be 100% sure that the dialogue is accurate, I'm damn sure I can get it 90% authentic and very immersive. Current RAF r/t has clearly moved on since 1945 but its roots are still clearly visible - combine that with having devoured many many autobiographies of the period I'm confident that I can get it period accurate and perhaps add a touch of tension and drama too. Anyway, that offer is open to both 777 and anyone working on mods that require dialogue/voice work. ps. Looking over the original call for voice actors there is some discussion about why it is quite rare to hear regional accents in old recordings. The reason is that whilst aircrew clearly came from all over Britain (and the world), as well as many different walks of life, they were actively encouraged to enunciate properly and drop regional accents to aid clarity over the r/t. That was still going on well after the end of the war.
  3. All true - I was giving the simple version! I doubt flutter and transonic symptoms are modelled - happy to be corrected though.
  4. Not quite true - aircraft structural limits adhere to indicated airspeed, regardless of what tas is doing. Ie, up high where air is less dense, you may have a far higher tas, but if your vne figure is 300x IAS, your limit is still 300x IAS - you'll just need a higher TAS to shove enough less dense air into your pitot tube to achieve it. Because the air is less dense, your true speed will be higher than at lower altitudes, for any given IAS.
  5. As had been stated above, at 100% rpm the propellor is at 'fine' pitch and has a relatively low angle of attack relative the airflow. As your aircraft speed increases that angle of attack is progressively reduced to zero, where the prop is no longer able to take a 'bite' of air. In the diagram at the bottom of this post as the forward airspeed increases angle of attack decreases. In order to overcome this, you need to coarsen the pitch of the propellor blades in order to allow them to take a relatively bigger 'bite' of air. Before variable pitch propellors were invented, high speed racers (think Schneider trophy) had a fixed coarse pitch, giving them a good top speed because the prop could take a good bite of air. However, try pulling away in your car in 5th gear - you are asking your engine to work extremely hard and it bogs down. The same is true of a fixed coarse pitch blade - great at high speed, but it's asking an aweful lot of the engine to take that huge bite of air at low airspeeds. This is why the racers were seaplanes - it took a very long time for the speed to built to a point where the propellor wasn't putting a huge aerodynamic load on the engine - basically the prop was almost stalled until the aircraft got moving. That meant that they had very long takeoff runs, which meant that large sea tracts were a more practical proposition than an airfield. So, we know that coarse pitch is great for high speed, but terrible for quick power changes at low speed, due to the aerodynamic load it places on the engine - the answer is a variable pitch prop. In its simplest terms, this could be a two position prop, giving fine and coarse pitch - fine pitch, taking a smaller bite of air allowing greater acceleration and more effeciency at lower speed, and a coarse pitch allowing higher speed flight. In addition, any aerofoil, of which a propellor is one, will have a most efficient angle of attack, giving maximum lift for drag - refering back to the diagram, you will see that as speed changes, angle of attack on a fixed propellor changes - if you could somehow create a mechanism that constantly alters prop pitch to keep it at its most efficient angle of attack for any given speed, you have a much more efficient propellor. Hence traditional variable pitch props.
  6. Anecdotal, but give it a quick Google - I just did and found various studies and discussions about it, all basically boiling down to significantly higher number of F-16 pilots experiencing neck pain/injury as a result of having to look behind them from a reclined position, Vs the general fighter population that don't have reclined seats. Looking over your shoulder under high g loads is bad enough for your neck as it is.
  7. It would make little difference even if it were. I believe the 30 degree recline in the F-16 gives about a 0.5g edge up to about 9g (and suspect this has more to do with a higher hip and leg position leading to less blood pooling in the legs), with the trade-off apparently being very high incidences of neck injury. Were any seats reclined by more than few degrees in ww2 fighters? Even if they were the benefits would be barely discernable at best - there is a reason very few modern fighters except the F-16 (and Rafale?) have reclined seats.
  8. Name the time and server! (I am out of practise I shall probably lose).
  9. Hah, didn't realise it was so old!
  10. ∆ IL2 is a game, albeit one that simulates flight quite well.
  11. If you haven't done it already, consider smoothing out the curves of your joystick axis, especially rudder and pitch - make them so you that initially you get less in game movement than your stick moves. I experienced exactly the same thing when I first tried il2 bos years ago in early access. That said, I also feel that the symptoms of the approaching stall are almost non-existent. Since force feedback joysticks have died a death, visual and sound cues are needed to replicate buffet, but I guess it's very hard to simulate the small clues accurately. Flying any aircraft to the edge basically relies upon, 'nibbling the buffet' - which is harder in a SIM than for real - luckily the consequences of not getting it quite right are more tolerable in a sim!
  12. Come on fellas, lighten up. Having the ctr-f1 view won't hurt anyone or negatively impact those that don't want it. As has been already been said, the old il2 had plenty of servers where it was permissable and plenty where it wasn't. Those that don't understand people wanting it will never change their minds. I personally enjoy both. Those saying that, "the cockpit view is exactly what real pilots would see", don't really know what they're talking about though - there are a myriad of imperceptible reasons why I feel like I can see so much more, in fact more akin to ctr-f1, in a real cockpit than an SIM cockpit that feels kinda restrictive. That last line wasn't a dig at the great cockpits in IL2 btw - it was stating a fact that I don't really 'see' a real cockpit much, unless I'm actually specifically looking at it. Ps. I do realise that sitting in a realistic cockpit is part of the attraction - it's why I fly sims, to experience aircraft I don't get to fly for real - but calling for the restriction of purely optional features when guys like the OP clearly want it is closed minded at the very least.
  13. ∆ routine has got nothing to do with it, you as a pilot are able to anticipate the g as you manoeuvre - it is only when you are not in control ie backseat that this is a challenge. I have never flown an aircraft with a reclined seat, but suspect it has less impact than people think - although I'm not entirely current, if it was particularly effective, you'd expect most modern fighters to incorporate it, and they don't. I am still struggling to tally these 'research papers' that people are quoting with what I observe on a daily basis. The only conclusion I have come to is that the test subjects were not accustomed to g and were making zero attempt to counter it's effects - and whilst specific training here is helpful, straining against g is actually quite intuitive - no one sits there floppy, like a sack of shit and just takes it. Ultimately this discussion is not going to be 'won' by either side. I have my opinion, based on my experience, and other people will have theirs, backed up the research they are providing. I think we can all agree, accurate or not (and as I have stated before I don't think it is far off), it is a vast improvement on the previous system, and makes for a much more enjoyable game.
  14. Trimming is probably going too far down a rabbit hole. Just trim for whatever you're doing and you're good to go. I can confirm that flying a fast aircraft with a stuck trim tab, especially at full deflection can take all of your strength - I'd imagine in many types I'd run out of strength very quickly, and I'm not weak.
  15. But then I disagree with the above. It is *possible*, but I personally would not expect to experience any vision loss pulling 4 or 5 g with a peak of 6 for a few seconds. Or at least I wouldn't when I was doing it on a daily basis. The two times I have come closest to full blackout were 1. Where the other guy had control and I was not expecting the rapid onset and 2. A lapse in my own judgement and an over exuberant pull when I was almost fully relaxed that almost killed me - it was a valuable lesson. The bottom line is that this discussion is very subjective, but generally the new effect is well implemented and has had a very positive impact on gameplay.
×
×
  • Create New...