Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sturmkraehe

  1. I have three devices (the mouse does not count I think). And I already used the third column in the keybinding section.
  2. Sorry guys, I have another issue. Thing is: I have two joysticks and pedals. Each work fine. Problem is: IL2 seems only to recognize the two sticks but not the peds. Joystick 1 is reckognized as joystick, joystick 2 is reckognised as joystick1 but nothing for m peds. What to do? P.S.: I Need this 2stick+ped configuration for another game that I Play regularly, so I think plugging off the 2nd stick is not a good Option for me. P.P.S: I checked in Windows, the peds work. As do the sticks.
  3. As I migrated to Win10, I re-installed everything, including TrackIR and IL2BOM. So while I can run TrackIR and it works I don't get it to couple with IL2. What I do: 1. I launch the trackir software in admin mode, the green light shines. 2. I launch IL2BOM either as user or admin. No blue light as it should be. 3. I check with the trackir software and confirms that it doesn't connect to IL2 (there's a "None" in the respective field of the interface). I could run it during the last decade for any flight sim I have ever tried on various OS. Some ideas of some of the smart people here?
  4. Re-installation worked. Thanks, Ishtaru for trying to help!
  5. It's not there. I now deinstalled the game and re-install it :/
  6. Hi, I migrated to windows 10 and the launcher starts well after clicking on it. But when I click on "play" I get following message: Launcher no longer works. The Program is not running correctly due to a Problem. The Programm is stopped and you will be informed when a solution is available. I also get following Windows (see attached file). I should run Win10 on 64bit mode me thinks.
  7. Yee-ha! The get-rid-of-astronaut-109ers-plane is there!
  8. Have to agree on that one. You cannot blame the wobbling on the heavy handedness of the pilot or on the bad control settings when with same pilot and same setting you get different behaviour in 109 and in Yak. It is simply that the stability characteristics of the 109 on pitch is modelled differently. As simple as that and no need for pages long discussions. It IS a modellization issue. I also don't think that this issue is linked to stabilizer stuff. Afaik FW190 has it too on pitch axis but - for me - does not show this wobble behaviour. In order to prevent ANY conspiratory theory. Try the P40. It has one of the most aweful yaw wobbles in the game imho.
  9. I would like to throw in my 5 cents. I agree that adjusting the controller curves indeed does reduce wobbling. However, it just patches some things together that are broken in the game engine imho and adjusting the curves comes with a price to be paid. Reducing sensibility around the center may help to avoid oversteering induced by the wobble behaviour of the planes but it increases sensibility when you need some more input and it becomes extremely sensitive at the edge accelerating unpredictable behaviour. As far as I can judge as an engineer the mechanism that were used to action the control surfaces would equate to a rather linear control curve. And any sound aircraft engineer would have made it so as close as possible as it allows the pilot to steer the plane as intuitively as possible which increases flight safety. Rudolph, I agree that physics are non linear (I am an aerospace engineer with specialisation in flight mechanics). And of course our control devices are not prone to depict the ww2 reality. However, I do expect a flight sim developer to take the limitations of hardware into account in order to produce a behaviour with modern computer hardware to be as close to realistic plane behaviour with realistic control devices as possible. It may be an extremely hard job to do and perfection may never be reached but it should be possible to come close to it.
  10. I think it has less to do with some sort of "lightness of control" but rather with lazyness of the plane reaction or the lack of it. It does have a lack of feel of intertia to me too in some respect. The planes do feel a bit flimsy to me - like I would expect a ww1 plane to behave. It's a bit like graphically driving a mercedes but getting the responses of a Mini even though speeds are just like that of a mercedes.
  11. I made the same observation with the P40 that seems to seems to have complete lack of any stability about the yaw axis (the pitch seems fine). It seems even to wobble without any rudder input. And irrespective of fuel or bomb loading. Which seems curious because the centre of gravity should have an impact on stability - for the better or the worse depending of the aircraft and the tank layout. On a side note I always seem to lose any elevator authority as soon as I get some hits - but maybe I just had bad luck up to now.
  12. Hi Murf, of course I had an advantage. Mouce control does not generate energy or provides a good shooting position by itself. And I did not want to brag about my kill (I have shot down surely a lot over the past 10 years of flight combat simming so no need for me to prove my dogfighting skills to anybody). My point was that while I was completely neophyte in MC I was capable to score some hits on a fleeing FW (and you were gaining distance with respect to me). As I yesterday said in the chat it was purely test as I wanted to see how I perform with MC with respect to JC. I wrote my post with the sole purpose to explain that I think after my experiment that MC allows better aiming (not maneuvring) than with JC, the latter not allowing that steady aim as MC.
  13. I just tried the mouse control once. I did not fiddle with any other key bindings so I was not able to zoom in and out and trackir did not work for looking around (I flew in cockpit mode on normal server so don't know how it works with external views). I don't know WT (don't own it). While steering the plane was a bit difficult I am quite certain that with some exercise I will be able to steer it well. I however think that aerobatics is probably a bit difficult and mouse control won't be my first choice in a dogfight for maneuvering. However shakey my steering was I was still able to hit a fleeing FW190 from quite a distance during my first flight. While it was not lethal at this point I am quite certain that I can learn to become a sniper with lethal hits from 6 astern on a fleeing target at some distance with sufficient exercise. With joystick I am absolutely incapable to keep the aim that steady like the AI pilot who flies the plane in my place can. Imho this takes away the current speed advantage for axis planes because with snipering distancing is less important. May be an aspect for balancing the current fm but many of us who like some historical accuracy might not like that (I say this as a predominantly red flying pilot). While I don't mind that some servers keep the choice open I am happy that quite a few select joystick only option.
  14. Question (coming back from some holidays): How can I see from the server lobby which server has mouse control activated and which is joystick only? I think this is crucial information to be provided before joining a server.
  15. Pacific would be great. These carrier ops. MTO however would be the next logical step after Eastern front knowing that certain planes are already there that could fit in.
  16. Depends. I've paid for some 3rd party sp campaigns fpr IL2 pacific fighters and Il2 forgotten battles that had been excellent and had an enormous content and quality. Worth every penny I have spent. EDIT (I am not going to buy from desastersoft however (they seem to be not interested anyway) for specific reasons that I won't lay out here.) I for my part don't believe that devs (any) will provide anything that comes close. I also doubt that the money generated by some campaign addon will generate enough resources to allow devs to hire 2 or 3 people dedicated to create such a content. Thus said, no, I won't buy any campaign addon and rather prefer the devs to create additional planes, maps and ground objects and that they further develop the engine so it can handle more objects in one mission and maybe one day switch to a more modern DirectX.
  17. Number of ground objects can be an important factor in creating a nice air war mission - in particular for online play. Air war is more than just dogfights - and there is little more boring for a bomber pilot to fly half an hour struggling up to decent altitude, pass through the flak barrage, dropping his bomb carpet right on the target (bull's eye hit) and then only destroy five cars - because the game engine does not allow for more. In this respect a ww2 sim differs considerably from a ww1 sim from which the DNE derives. While there had been ground attacks in ww1 they did not play the same important role as in ww2.
  18. If the codes are available (they are not) - it will imho be the final death blow. But this discussion has been held many times before so I won't delve into it as nothing new is going to be added from either side of the discussion. And no - TF is just trying to keep somehow (with emphasis on "somehow" without critisizing their effort) Clod from drowning. Clod is and will always be unfinished - whatever TF may do. Simply because they don't own the code and have too little ressources to develop the game full time with a full team that consists of professionals (that simply by doing this 100% of their work time have more experience than amateur programmers and designers and therefore can progress faster) to its full potential. However, if an experienced studio is taking up the development (and why not include TF work done for it) and develop it for current or hardware available in five years it would exceed by far what Clod can do now.
  19. Since 777 studios owns the Clod-engine afaik: Is there a decent chance that in the future they might take the existing Clod engine and build a new flight sim on it after-BoS? Imho Clod was years ahead of its ideal time - in terms of development status and hardware capabilities. The latter has already changed and newer hardware will become ever more capable to handle the full Clod potential. I ask this question because that in terms of sensation of flying a difficult and challenging fighter airplane nothing surpasses Clod (imho of course). First time that I experienced the sensation that flying actually occupies me quite a lot - something you frequently can read in pilot's anecdotes...
  20. They didn't fail because of impeccable graphics. Obviously it was something else (to my highest regrets because imho CloD could have been THE flight sim for the next decade and - despite its flaws at release - it gave me the best sensation of actually flying an early ww2 fighter. *sigh* BoS - as nice as it is and being a fully working package - feels more like an improved 1947 in terms of flying a vintage plane. But btt: I would like to re-iterate my suggestion to allow as an additional setting a custom setting whith a pop up warning message ("use at your own risk. Don't blame the developers for bad results. If you don't like what you get with YOUR settings, please try one of the recommended presets.") that is triggered upon choosing custom settings. If they are afraid of "bad" screenshots to pop up on the net: Why not water-mark the screens in some corner with the used setting...
  21. Sorry, Tom, but my point was that it is not possible to host a private session on one's private computer as a private host with some button clicks. You have to use the dserver tool and configurate it to your liking and all this difficulty just to play in a private room with some friends. THAT's what coops are principally about.
  22. My most burning issues with the game as a packet is the lack of a real dynamic solo campaign and the missing coop mode. Sorry, but the "you-can-make-any-mp-session-like-a-coop" is just missing the whole point of coop by a 1000 miles. It's about creating a private lobby with your computer as the host server by just clicking some buttons. Who really wants to quit the game install the dedicated server with all the necessary server setting stuff just to host a private session from time to time?
  23. Please make a distinction between injuries from the enemy hits and injuries during forced landing or parachuting. I get wounded almost everytime. And sorry the cockpit is a very small compartment that is usually quite well protected (compared to wings or rear fuselage). I understand that it does not provide full protection and while I can accept high injury probability, 90% seems a lot! For your information, when I talk about "wounded" I am talking about the red blur with reduced controllability as implemented in the game. While in real life "injury" can mean a lot - including injuries that are just minor wounds that don't impair the pilot for continueing the fight. I also would like to point out that while perhaps 50% of the fuselage may be made up by the cockpit AND the engine this does not explain why I get wounded so often - remember: compared to the engine the pilot takes up only a small volume. Cockpit hits should not automatically equate to injury btw. Also only very rare shots are made from straight astern or straigh forward. There is also a certain probability to hit the wings. Well, at least I often hit the wings while I aim for the fuselage. While I concede that I may be not a great shooter I dare say (without meaning any offence) quite a lot of other players are like me. So how come that I can almost be sure to get wounded after each hit? I will continue to record the occurance of certain damage types for the statistics during the coming weeks so maybe we can get more quantified data on this. If others participated that would be great.
  • Create New...