Jump to content

56RAF_Talisman

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

322 Excellent

About 56RAF_Talisman

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

1325 profile views
  1. Thank you, sounds interesting blitze I am running my 5K+ at Small FOV, PiTool render quality 2, Steam App SS 20% and Video 422%, but will try your suggestion of reducing Video and driving up App instead. Sorry about that, got confused by memory, lol. My settings are General (at the top) settings per eye 20% and Video Per Application settings 422%, so that would fit with your theory I think. PiTool render quality 2 and FOV small means I get a great picture Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  2. I do understand what you are saying, but the dev's need a product that they can sell to as many folks as possible so that they can remain a going concern and keep providing us with IL-2 GB and further improvements and titles. We are already a very small community, so I think the dev's have very hard choices to make. I too would like to see what you are suggesting in terms of war environment improvements and agree that it would be a step forward; however, I think that realistically it is going to take some time before we get there. I agree that this topic should be discussed and that it should be on the dev's list and I am almost sure that it will be. So far this dev team has been the best there is IMHO. Happy landings, Talisman
  3. 80 fps is great for folks who can get that, but some are trying to fly with a lot less than that and have graphics settings turned very low or off to achieve what little they can get, especially when there is cloud. I think we and the dev's are all compromising even though we would love things to be better. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  4. Hi Andre, Congratulations, this is all great news. Are you able to give us any information as to when you expect the release version of SimShaker-Wings to be updated with the new effects? Thank you in anticipation. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  5. Great job dev's. Looks like this has been fixed with the latest patch: 8. Brightness and size of very distant aircraft LODs made more uniform (it differed too much on some aircraft); Thank you very much. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  6. Great job! Very many thanks, especially for: 8. Brightness and size of very distant aircraft LODs made more uniform (it differed too much on some aircraft); 9. Added initial support for SimShaker to be used in conjunction with JetSeats and other audio powered feedback devices. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  7. Thanks Flamm, we very much enjoyed working with you and all the 322 Sqn pilots, so many thanks to you all too :) No worries about having to leave part way through the debrief (you had warned us anyway). Special thanks to you for leading the fighters, particularly after such a difficult start and the knock-on effect regarding fuel states. It was great taking out the target in one pass :) Hope you can make it next Sunday. Happy landings, Talisman
  8. I think historically, once the V1 was past the fighter cover responsibility zone and in range of the AA cover zone the intercepting aircraft kept out of the way of the guns and stayed in their own zone. I stand to be corrected though if that is not so. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  9. I can't find anything that works well any more. This and other visibility issues, like camouflaged allied aircraft shinning white like they have a metallic finish when they don't, have pretty much ruined what was a very enjoyable flight simulation before. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  10. Double negatives are a no no 😊 Talisman
  11. With the current in-game air-to-air visibility model, I suggest it will be extremely difficult to pick up a V1 (without on-screen aircraft icons on), spot it and maintain contact to shoot it down. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  12. That is not what I have suggested at all. At no point have I suggested that opposition or either side should be limited or given inferior logistics at the expense of the other. I would have thought that both sides should be treated the same. Please, I don't want to get hung up on aircraft types; the Tempest and P38 were examples to try and illustrate things. Read any aircraft types and squads on either side and my points stand. At no point have I been expressing concerns specifically about one side or the other, rather my concerns are for all sides. My point is simply to request caution regarding a mechanic to limit aircraft numbers too much in terms of attrition, that in real life aircraft production and supply was extremely high over the period in question (both sides) and was not a problem and that too much restriction and over-scripting can hinder pilots trying to work constructively and effectively as a squad, particularly in a historic sense. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  13. Thank you for your response and consideration Alonzo and for continuing with Combat Box Running a server like this will be fraught with difficulty and I appreciate what you are saying and doing, so I don't want to get into a big discussion because it is up to you and the Combat Box team how things are done. Just a few points though before I sign off. I don't appear to fall into any of the above 3 categories and I am not sure categorising folks is so helpful. Squad players are often thoughtful, mature and historically minded and some don't bother with stats at all as it is all about something else, as I have alluded to in a previous post above. If a squad has formed in a historical sense it usually, but not always, likes to be able to fly the aircraft historically flown by that particular squadron, especially if the aircraft/Sqn concerned was one of the main stays of the historic theatre map in play and there was no historical shortage of that aircraft. Before anyone jumps on me, I am not trying to demand anything or say that something should be so on Combat Box, I am just flagging up something about what can make a flight simulation more enjoyable and fun for folks from a squad perspective; this is a hobby for enjoyment, after all and there are many different ways to enjoy it. No problem flying mixed aircraft types in terms of, for example, 4 x P38 bombers escorted by 4 x Tempest, but when there are not enough of a particular type of bomber or fighter left to fly a sortie like that, it is far from ideal to fly mixed bombers and mixed fighters, perhaps 2 different odd numbers of fighters or 2 different odd numbers of bombers, if we can help it. Still, we take what we can get and do what we can do by mixing and matching as best we can. I still make no demand, just ask for as much consideration that can be given, bearing in mind that not everyone wants to fly as a squad and there are other pilots with different thoughts to cater for. As the war moved on, supply of aircraft just got better and better, not worse and worse. As I read it in the history books, aircraft production and associated logistics support was phenomenally high during late 1944 into 45. Replacing lost aircraft was a speedy affair and was just not an issue. Moreover, flying the aircraft types of WW2 that appeal to us in a near historical setting, sometimes as a squad, in a combat flight simulation is why we are here, so restricting aircraft supply is not only not historical, it defeats the object of why we purchase and log-on to fly IL-2. In a nutshell, I am concerned that Combat Box might become on of those MP servers that I find completely over-scripted to a point that it is just not enjoyable any more. P.S. It was no fun for the 3 bears to find their porridge eaten and baby bears chair broken! LOL. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman
  14. Very much agree with you Ribbon. This is the biggest thing that has spoilt my enjoyment of IL-2 lately and to be honest I started to fly less and less towards the end of last year because of it :( 56RAF_Talisman
  15. This! It is shocking that this has been allowed to continue for so long. I could be wrong, but surely this one is an easy fix as I imagine it is just a mistake with the coding for the aircraft LOD's. Surely all camouflaged aircraft should have the same LOD code no matter what side they are on. Either all the camouflaged aircraft should shine or they all should not, apart from metallic finish. I looks like metallic finish LOD's have mistakenly been given to camouflaged Allied aircraft :( Flying camouflaged Allied aircraft is very uncomfortable, to say the least, at the moment, knowing that they shine out white from long distances in a way LW aircraft do not! Please dev's, it would be greatly appreciated if you could investigate this issue. Thank you in anticipation. Happy landings, Talisman
×
×
  • Create New...