Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlitzPig_EL

  1. A type of IL2 Compare, where we could see the performance stats of each aircraft would be a good thing. It's the only useful way to compare virtual aircraft to their real world performance. It would help settle the ever present arguments that WILL arise, and you know they will. Look at the stats and plane X does climb at such and such a rate, or plane Y can attain speed A at a certain altitude. I would never, ever, be in favor of an ability to tinker with the FMs. EVER. But the players do need a way to call out the devs if something is clearly wrong. Let's face it, they are as human as you or I, have their likes and dislikes just as you and I do, so holding their feet to the fire on an obviously incorrect FM (P47 roll rate in original IL2 for example) is a necessary utility for a true simulation.
  2. Other than always joining the team that has the fewest players, which is a BlitzPig trademark, (we flew for Japan a lot because most folks wanted the fast birds. Lots of JG guys in P 51s...LOL), if you are an opposing player you are a target. End of story. And personally if I see someone flashing lights and dropping flaps and gear signalling "I surrender, please let me go I'm a Nancy boy.. please..." well, that guy is singled out for special attention, in a .50 BMG kind of way. Fight your aeroplane to the death, or bail out of the thing, but don't be a coward about it. Never surrender. On objective based servers, aircraft losses and pilot kills count towards the victory condition. If you are not there to win, why are you there at all?
  3. Bruins, That is one of the best posts I've ever read on the state of our genre. Well said, and I agree with you 100%
  4. Ah, a political correctness lecture, in a forum about a simulation of blowing our fellow man out of the sky in little flaming pieces. Gotta love it. Now back to the thread... The OP's points about gaming the "out of bounds" protocol are just fine, and well founded. Also, I feel the whole idea of the hand of god pushing your plane back into the map area just reeks of FPS tunnel shooter, but then so do unlocks, and the sim has those as well. It's why I am on the sidelines, with a large number of other veteran players, waiting to see how this whole thing works out, before throwing money at it. And for crying out loud, get on comms and get organized and deal with the "bad actors" with the tools you have at hand. To wit: 1000bhp+ fighting machines armed with automatic weapons. Single out the FPS kiddies who came here only to grief, make their time in game as miserable as you can. They will get bored of being bested by good, organized players and go back to whatever bunny hopping, wall hacking, cookie cutter format FPS they came from.
  5. It may be shocking, but fighters were used for ground attack. Really. I mention this because I know where this thread is heading. It will end up with someone proposing a set of daft rules about only attacking ground targets with bombs or rockets, or making home fields "off limits" or other such "gamey" solutions. So, your field is constantly being attacked? Defend it and stop bitching. That just means you don't have to go looking all over for the enemy. Roll with the circumstances, and make the best of it, better yet, organize and fly to their field and mop them up. Just don't whine about it, because this had been covered a million times in every sim that ever was, and it's never going to change, ever.
  6. Flying the underdog aircraft and still coming out on top. P 40 vs. 109 K4, done it. A6M2-N vs. F6F, I love the tears of the Hellcat pilots. etc... Also actually reading the brief and going about my business to win the scenario, while the majority of players are doing their Hartmann impersonations and paying no attention to anything but their stats. And also the feeling of flight that a good sim can give you, even, and maybe especially, when not in combat.
  7. Short synopsis of how this thread will go... (Just like every time this comes up, on every flight sim forum since the dawn of the genre.) 1. Bf 109's turn is undermodeled. 2. Spitfire's wing area brought up vs. 109s highly loaded wing. 3. Slats. 4. Pilot anecdotal accounts of 109s turning inside Spits. 5. Modern air show pilot's accounts of P 51 out turning 109. 6. Online "expert" shows up with phoney charts. 7. 10 pages later after total flame fest thread is forgotten until the next time the subject is broached.
  8. 4 meters/second = 8.94 mph. Sounds to me like something is amiss.
  9. One of the more inconvenient truths of combat flight simulation is that it is very equipment intensive. Get yourself a separate throttle quadrant and set of rudder pedals in addition to your joystick. Or, get an add on button bay/numpad. However, as you progress in combat flight simulation you will find that a HOTAS controller set up will be well worth the investment.
  10. I'll take an I-16 and an I-153 thank you., with a side helping of P 40 and CR-42.
  11. I was wondering when the charts and diagrams would come out.
  12. One downside, and it's a big one, to the narrow cockpit of the 109 was that it could limit the leverage the pilot could apply in the roll axes on the control stick. The "feeling" of it being "safer" is just that, a feeling. Total placebo effect. It's like a dog that hides in the bathroom or closet during a thunderstorm. He is no more "safe" in the small room than in the living room.
  13. Trim on a slider, FTW. Everything old is new again...
  14. I would never attempt any flight sim without Track IR. I use the Pro clip as well. Another benefit of Track IR is that it frees up a hat switch on your controller that can be assigned to better uses. Also I got a chuckle out of your initial exposure to real FMs. This is what a flight sim is all about. FS X is just a procedure simulator, there is a big difference. Years ago a friend of mine, and one of my BlitzPig squadmates that works for the FAA and teaches real world aerobatics, sent me a copy of FS X for free. It lasted about two weeks on my hard drive. It's OK if you want to learn ATC procedures, or just enjoy puttering around the sky for no real reason I suppose, but after experiencing sims that paid attention to actual flight physics and damage modeling it just fell flat.
  15. Looks like the pilot's head in the screen shots is right against the top of the canopy. Much higher position than real life photos show. That's one way to get around the bar I guess.
  16. Originally the real Pe 2 was designed as a high altitude fast bomber. As time passed it's role was changed to the typical VVS tactical support role, but, it kept it's high speed wing. With that in mind one would think that landing should require the aircraft to be flown more like an airliner, that is, a long relatively flat, relatively high speed approach. I admit I have not flown it in BoS, as I am still on the sidelines waiting for it to go gold, but in IL2/46 it definitely needs, as Klunk said, to be flown right down to the ground. I am still having difficulty understanding the slow part of what some of you are reporting, as the Pe2 should have a pretty pronounced stall, and should require much higher landing speeds than any of the VVS "modern" fighters. Perhaps it's FM is not totally finalized?
  17. I have pontificated about this before. BoS desperately needs a user friendly FMB, one that apparently the devs feel it does not need. This is one of the basic building blocks of a successful combat flight simulation. The RoF map development tool that is passed off as an FMB is one of the reasons that sim has stayed a tiny niche within a niche.
  18. Even a simple system like the original in IL2 is better than what RoF has, which is nothing. I am in total agreement with Klunk. I want to fly with the number I have always used, in games and in real life on my competition cars. I want my number 23. It's not a hard thing to do, and if the devs say it is hard, then there is a fundamental problem with the game engine.
  19. Stats are the worst thing that ever happened to flight sims. IMHO The best ace is a humble one.
  20. Nice looking aircraft. I suspect I will spend a lot of time in the Yak 1.
  21. Gents, we have been over this ground multiple times in the past. No aircraft from the WW2 period ever broke the speed of sound. No Spit, no 109, no P47, and no 262. I don't care if they were diving straight down from low earth orbit, the laws of physics don't allow aircraft with big honking props on the front, or two very draggy compressor inlets in the case of the 262, to go that fast. The fact that it happens in video games is just an artifact of poor modeling. The fact that people believe it happened in real life is an artifact of too much schnapps.
  • Create New...