Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1143 Excellent


About SAS_Storebror

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    CFS :-)
    Child Protection
    Animal Welfare
    Programming (Java FTW!)

Recent Profile Visitors

3144 profile views
  1. That in fact would be a very interesting and important thing to know, if possible. In a perfect world, it would be a parameter to be set by the mission maker. And in the best of all perfect worlds, the MP pilot would have a means to know whether his gunner(s) is/are novice, ace or whatever else in between, quite like you'd know your RL crew members, too. Mike
  2. DServer process silently terminated itself again 3 hours ago. Nothing different to the previously posted crashes, so I save myself from the hassle of posting Event Viewer and WER reports and leave this post just to note that despite previous game patches, the random DServer crash remains. Mike
  3. Totally agree. Now that you flew both the Sturmovik and the 190, you may be able to agree or disagree on another observation of mine in conjunction with such incidents: Whether you fly fighters against AI Sturmoviks or Peshkas, their gunners always seem to have superpowers as if they were not of this world. However if you fly a Sturmovik or Peshka yourself, as human player, your gunners more often than not seem to be... on strike? drunken? sleeping? I've had endless encounters where an enemy fighter could attack me from dead six with no issues whatsoever, cause my gunner(s) decided to become pacifists. And even if they decided to engage the attacking fighter aircraft, they shot wildly into void as if the order of the day was to unload all magazines without causing any collateral damage. Yep, slightly exaggerated, but the core message is: AI gunners seem to be deadly. Gunners of human player planes not so much. And that's surprising as officially there should be no difference whatsoever. Mike
  4. Yep sorry, just noticed that I've been to the wrong thread... Anyway, 2nd attempt to order the rudder pedals from MFG site went successful, so case is closed. Mike
  5. I did a 6 3/4 hours flight Hamburg-Exeter with the C172 six weeks ago and mixture and prop pitch worked a treat in order to fly as economic as possible. Which actually was a vital requirement as the trusty C172 would not have made it that long without leaning properly. Mike
  6. Is it just me or is this thread just becoming another derailed, former complaint thread? Mike
  7. Just tried to get me a set of rudder pedals plus soft spring plus CAM5, but got bounced by WS Pay credit card payment system. It said that the payment has been processed successfully, then said I'd be sent back to the webshop, and then I got to a page telling that the payment was unsuccessful. 400 bucks lingering in the void now. WS Pay greatfully accepted the money, but the shop never received it Mike
  8. Considering that modders managed to find a workaround (for offline use only, unfortunately, due to game limitations towards modding), the energy you spent on being mildly aggressive towards me would have better been spent on fighting the issue itself. And before anyone starts to tell that the mod workaround isn't close enough to reality: The indestructible 109 tail was close enough to reality for devs and testers to be used as a "stopgap" solution for 9 months now, and counting. Mike
  9. How such a bug could go unnoticed by devs and testers is beyond me. How such thing could happen in an area of the game which, according to all dev diaries and game update changelogs has been completely untouched, is beyond me. The fact that such bug could make it into the patch release tells a lot about the efficiency of quality testing I'm afraid to say. Mike
  10. Not sure whether it's a clever move to accuse each other of being a liar, regardless how much you wrap these words in cottonwool. I see where you're coming from and if what I'm complaining about was the proverbial olive of this game, I would agree. For instance, I could ask for different german accents in the radio chatter (and other language accents as well, wherever they'd fit), but is that really important to the gameplay? Probably not too much. So I'm not complaining. What I'm complaining about though - the indestructible tail of the main frontline axis fighter in combination with inappropriate ('44 onwards) and generally nerfed main western allied fighter ammo - is of a different importance by far and IMHO that's unarguably. If this was an olive, it's weight would be 10 tons each and it was mankinds staple food. Mike
  11. Rule of Thumbs: No customer complains just for the sake of complaining. They have better ways to waste their time. Ignore their complaints, be it because you think they're not worth considering, be it because you think different, be it just because you are ignorant yourself, the outcome is always the same: Your customers will find better ways to waste their money, too. By the by, if you disagree with statement no.1, you fall into category no.3. Mike
  12. No Sir, everything's fine and historically correct. 109s were known to have concrete tails and cal .50s only used AP ammo punching tiny clean holes into the void, for pacifistic reasons. And if minor adjustments to these two would be required, then it'd be way less important than let's say driveable flak cars, fancy pilot dresses and bumpy grassland. It's cool to focus on the really important parts of a recreational scenery travelling game. Mike
  13. "If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand." Good laugh, great meme, perfect way to ruin a game's business model. Pair this with a questionable issue prioritisation and you've almost nailed it. Just my $0.02. and Mike
  • Create New...