Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

389 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

1394 profile views
  1. LeFH 18 should be german me thinks. Other than that: Thanks for the list! Mike
  2. SAS_Storebror

    Is il-2 1946 worth it still?

    But to the very same effect.
  3. SAS_Storebror

    Is il-2 1946 worth it still?

    So let's agree to disagree. I do have an idea of what the folks went through, actually I'm working together with some of them on a personal level and one of my oh-so-bad mods made it into the "official" 4.13 release. If you believe the game would do better without mods: Dream on. Mike
  4. I duly hope you guys understand what I was talking about at all. This thread is about people having issues to let others join their hosted game. In order to do so, they have to be able to handle incoming traffic on the relevant port, in case of IL-2 per default this is 28000/28100. Later on in the discussion people thought about whether the troubles might be related to their ISP blocking ports. What's been stated here by Bananimal in reply was that if an ISP would block port 80, you would not be able to surf the internet. That's bull. Read and understand: We're dealing with incoming ports. If an ISP blocks port 80 incoming for you, you can still surf the internet. Period. (Hint: That block is not to keep you from surfing, it's to keep you from violating common T&Cs which usually prohibit (web-)server operation on private subscriptions) Then Bananimal tries to make me look stupid with his lengthy explanation about NAT. That's completely missing the point of my statement: I've been talking about NAT'ted internet access on ISP level. When the ISP puts you behind a NAT (read: Carrier Grade NAT) then there's nothing you can do to get incoming connections to work at all. Period. The level of ignorance is what's really embarrassing here... Mike
  5. SAS_Storebror

    7,5 tons of bombs from 4K

    That much about the old myth that Pe-2 gunners are "über" and german gunners don't do any damage. Thanks for rebutting it Mike
  6. SAS_Storebror

    Il-2:Great Battles Po-2/U-2VS Raw rocket test

    From my own experience, I'd suggest this: You should definitely use your gunsight for aiming and not just "guess" where the rockets will go. Remember which side the last rocket came from and take your convergency settings into account, otherwise the left/right distribution will become more or less random. Gently dive on your target, rather aim a tad too low that too high, and go slooooow. Worked a treat for me so far. The biggest issue I've had with the RBS82's was that I got too close to the tanks and the rockets didn't arm before impact. Which probably was a good thing, because if they did arm, I would have killed the tank and with it, myself as well. Mike
  7. SAS_Storebror

    3.010 Oh My, That's Some Bad AI.

    I must say that I can't remember having seen AI taking care of any human player in any game version yet, this doesn't seem to be version related and definitely isn't anything special in 3.010. I've been teamkilled by AI team"mates" from day one and I couldn't recognize any difference in their habit regarding this issue ever. Mike
  8. Guys you completely misunderstood X-Man. He didn't complain about Pe-2 "sniper gunners" (that's an old Luftwhiner myth which got rebutted long time ago), he's talking about SNIPPERS. Take away the whipper snippers from Pe-2 gunners is what he's saying. While I didn't see any of the Peshka gunners using a whipper snipper yet, I must say I agree that if they did this would indeed by an unfair advantage. Mike
  9. SAS_Storebror

    Is il-2 1946 worth it still?

    You forgot to mention that at the time of writing your message, 10 out of the 50 were flying Ultrapack 3 RC4 + Patch Pack, which is a 4.10.1 based game actually 4.13 biggest "feature" unfortunately is that TD managed to break backward compatibility all over the place (again). If they'd give just a tiny little flying f*** for modder concerns, IL-2 1946 could have another 10 years or even more of a bright future ahead. However, reading what's being planned for 4.14 rather gives rise to concerns that they'll complety mess it up. Mike
  10. Nice one, really appreciated. This could be a great step forward for upcoming potential server operators, as it could save you from having to spend roughly $25 or more per month just for the required Windows Server License. Unfortunately in order to really become an option for Server Operators, IL-2 Devs would have to agree not to break Server functionality on Wine in future updates. That's probably the hardest part of the deal. Mike
  11. That's bull, sorry to say. Of course ISPs block ports (and that's not even necessarily a bad thing). And of course you'll be able to surf the internet when incoming port 80 connections are blocked. Heck, nowadays even port 80 isn't all that relevant anymore, the majority of http traffic uses SSL (https) and as such, port 443. But of course that one could be blocked for incoming connections as well. Add to that, lately some ISPs put their users behind a NAT and in such case, you've got no chance to get any incoming connection to work at all. Mike
  12. SAS_Storebror

    Too many problems

    Sure. And we were all born at the age of 25. Mike
  13. Thanks for the update, sounds great! I'm glad you decided not to hold back the important improvements until new content is ready. Thanks a lot for that wise decision. Mike
  14. SAS_Storebror

    My last give away

    I'm glad if you got your issues sorted Otto, no need for a beer (I never say no to a cup of coffee though ) Mike