HR_Zunzun

Size matters. Il2 wing surface is around 38 square smeter. That hole need to be huge to send the il2 into the ground just by lost of lift/drag.

I think it refers to what is called "fine -pitch stop". Basically is the lower limit for the governor. This lower limit prevent the propeller to move into negative angle of atack when reducing throttle (like in landing) that could have disastrous consequences. If you select full prop pitch but bring back your throttle the governor will be changing blades to fine angle to maintain those rpm. But if you keep lowering your mp, there will be a moment in which the propeller can´t go any finer and, from then on, it will behave as a fix-pitch propeller. That is why, when you are on the ground and taxi, when you increase mp the rpm increase as well. That will happen up to a point in wich the governor will be able to start changing the blades angles to maintain your desired rpm. It is something you can check in the game.

I am more of a joke myself so I try not to do fun of anybody. I was clearly pointing out to the current implentation of part of the DM in the game. 21% accuracy is quite outstanding.

I know that the parser doesn´t count the hits correctly (or not neccesarily), but what type of error is induced? Does it miss some of the hits or does it also put hits out of nowhere? I am asking this because 64 hits with a gunnery accuracy of a 21% would be a laughing joke. According to LW and US Navy that would be the equivalent of a very minimum of 16 20mm hits.

Alien cloaking device

Ahh, ok. I probably remembered wrongly that you had to keep tactview open when recording a track. Thanks 👍

I have a problem with the tactview. I just installed tactview 1.84. I have change Il2´s startup.cfg to show "tactviewrecord=1" When I tried to open il2 with the tactview open it says that another instance of il2 is already open. If I try to do it the other way; first the il2, then when trying to open tactview (still on the main screen of il2) it opens a message that says that in order to avoid cheating tactview can´t be open. I surely missing something very obvious but can´t guess what.

I think this devs haven´t done this on the premises of voicing out. As annoying as those few vocal complaints could be, they always require some hard data that support the "voices". Basically we were saying the same. I understand the pressure impose by the market (very small this one). I will be happy if the devs continue to trying to content everybody by giving options (like the use of mouse. Open the sim to user without even joystick but let the rest limit it if wanted).

In MP if you want to remain competitive you need it. As ugly as it is, it let you overcome the limitations of the current VR headsets (limited total FOV and lack of clarity at the edges).

I am too happy to see that the devs are trying to gauge the actual opinion of their community. I do not agree you in the sense that poll results (without giving informed answers) means much (specially whether the system is correct or not). The silent majority doesn´t neccesarily have to be a happy one. But again, it doesn´t matter whether they/we are happy or not. What matters is that the system represent the reality and is reasonably implemented in a game.

I do not know if we can take too many conclusions from a video in which we know there are several layers of degradation of quality (capture, compression, youtube...). I am happy to know that the problem is being looked upon and a solution is being worked on. I think, I will reserve my criticism for when I have the new visibility working in my rig.

You can feel it with the spit in the game. In my experience, more pronounced in the spitV. The Tempest, otoh, looks more stable in that regard. Main problem is that tend to fly faster so it add to its light elevator.

I think you did not read my post carefully or I did not explained it properly. I am sorry but English is not my first language. To summarize, I do not want the a parity of 0.50s vs 20mm cannon. I just mentioned that both US Navy and LW considered the fifties equal to 20mm cannon in the proportion of 3:1. So, despite your undefined test, the experience of many of us is very far from that type of relationship. As Storebror has pointed above, more closely to 8 fifties equal to 1 20mm cannon (and not every day of the week).

Arguing that because everybody, in the end, change to cannons to say that the 0.50 weren´t effective is like saying that propeller driven engines were innefective as everybody embraced the jet engine for fighters after the war. 20mm cannon was better but that doesn´t make the correct amount of 0.50s innefective. There were varied reasons for making the change. You need to get a combo o 6 to 8 MG to be effective. You need a big plane with a big wing to accomodate them (US fighter were built big). They are also heavier than the equivalent cannon (according to US Navy and LW around 3 to 4 MG per cannon). Also, more guns, means more logistic, more time and resources to service them etc... Obviously we cannot forget the problem with US Hispano. If they have had it working they might have changed earlier on but yet they weren´t complaining. If the 0.5s had been ineffective in the US planes during the ww2 why did they keep them for the F-86? They had plenty of time to solve the cannon functioning problem. Were they sadistic towards the new gen of fighter pilots? No, they have a functioning combo that proved much less effective in a different situation (higher speed encounters with much less firing time, less inflammable fuel and at a higher, less O2 rich atmosphere). The 0.5 was perfectly adequate for the task the USAAF have in hand during WW2; Dealing with interceptors. Have they had the task to deal with bombers (as did the british) they might have thought otherwise but for dealing with the 109 and 190 they saw no problem.

Hola jotapeve, Hay un apartado de habla hispana donde puedes buscar escuadrones latinos. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/73-foro-español/