Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. Correct @coconut, you can have formations which are not enabled at mission start time and enable them later. Problem is that even those "disabled" objects still eat CPU cycles. You can try it yourself easily: Create 50 formations of 4 AI bombers each, all of them disabled and you'll be surprised to see how your CPU goes apeshit about nothing. Mike
  2. This. Really, seriously, it cannot be that hard. The inability of spawning formations currently results in utterly complex, rather poor "stand-in" solutions. And while we're at it: Ship formations definitely need to be addressed before Battle of Normandy sees the light of the day, otherwise getting a fleet remotely organized to beach will become a PITA. Mike
  3. I think building a really good Coop mission with all it's AI activity, specific target types for everyone and the required precise timing, is much harder than rushing out a quick&dirty DF AirQuake® dogfight one with a couple of lovelessly spreaded static ground targets. And even the DF AirQuake® one isn't an easy task due to the complexity of ME (which has been discussed in-depth already). Add to that, the way IL-2 GB presents available servers to it's users contributes to the single focus on gangbang DF servers massively. Ask yourself: How often have you clicked on the Multiplayer "Coop" button in the past 6 months at all? And how often did you switch mods off/on just to see what's on the other side of the fence? It would be a much more level playing field with a lot more potential variety if all servers, be it DF or Coop, be it mods on or off, would be presented in one big list and the user could decide whether or not to apply filters to this list on the fly. There's no good reason to hide Coop servers from people being used to fly DF ones, and there's definitely no reason on earth why a mods-off user shouldn't be able to join a mods-on server (yes I get why it cannot work the other way around, but that's not the issue here). Mike
  4. Why does it always have to be late, later late, latest late and way-too-late stuff? That's a dead end. Early PTO would be a really great new sequel to the series, but probably a bit too large of a throw. Battle of France would be cool if it has to be in the west, finnish border wars or battle of poland if we could get back to the east. There'd be lots of kitest that could be added to the mix, like early 109 E models or even the D, then we could us some early hurricanes and a couple more I-16 and Lagg-3 versions, just to mention the planes where other versions of exist already. Add a couple of completely new kites to that mix and you get some real cool WW2 action back, without all that fancy super-sophisticated 45 stuff. Mike
  5. Fine, so what you experience doesn't match what I experience. Honestly, given the attitude you've started with, I could have put money on that "result". What is it that makes you feel entitled to attack me for not doing anything you wish on your command? Is there anything else I can do for you? Nice cup of coffee maybe? Rub your back? Sit back and relax man. The Jug's a flying pig in IL-2 GB, hands down. Believer it or not, I don't give a flying something. (and bye to this thread) Mike
  6. I surely have a track lying around somewhere, I'm just too tired of providing megabytes of proof for something that's been hair-split, torn apart and negated later on anyway. If a tiny bit of frustration is showing through in these lines: Yes, that's it, exactly. Not at least because honestly we're not outlining all the Jug's flight model issues since yesterday, don't we? "Hovering flaps" anyone? Mike
  7. Let me rephrase the issue: When you bnz two times like I did with the Jug at combat power as described in my previous reply, and in parallel you bnz with a Pony with throttle idle, same flight path, you end up at the same altitude, same speed, same energy state - more or less that is. If anyone out there thinks this was right, fine with me. I take the liberty to think that it's odd. Mike
  8. 10 knots would be nothing to argue about. We've had an online session yesterday and since I decided that it's time to die, I took a P-47 for an escort, and later bomber intercept sweep. The escort was for a group of 4 Pe-2, which were flying at 16k ft. I took the Jug up to 25k ft (just for sh*ts and giggles) and started a shallow dive to the Pe-2s at almost 500mph (didn't want to check vne tolerance). On level with the Pe-2s, I pulled out with 2G, planning to extend away from them in a 45° climb and check how far I could climb. At the end of the 2G pull I had lost more than 100 kts (120 mph according to my speedometer readout, but that might have been slightly imprecise as I was busy with watching my six in parallel), simply from pulling 2G to get out of a ~30° dive and climb away to 45° again, at combat power. The 45° climb saw me stalling at slightly below 20k ft, so I've lost about 5k ft. from one single bnz dive/climb attempt. One more and my energy would have been all gone. I'm not a real life Jug pilot, as most of us, and I'm not here for splitting hairs. All I want to get across is that the Jug, much different to any other IL-2 Great Battles plane, in each and every situation, at each and every altitude, flies like a fully loaded concrete mixer, and that's what I'm wondering about whether any successful WW2 fighter would have realistically been like that. @edit: Needless to say that my comrade doing the same thing with a Pony in parallel, had no issues in following me through my bnz attempt and regain altitude back to 25k with negligible speed loss. The only thing where he's been having difficulties with was to follow my Jug on a straight line at 25k ft. in nominal power settings - but only after a full 5-minute acelleration run for my Jug; only when the Jug gained speed (which takes forever), it slowly started to extend away from him. When that happened, I started to climb @200ft/min, and voilá: All my speed advantage was gone within the glimpse of an eye! Mike
  9. Thanks for your feedback @JG4_dingsda but we can definitely rule out any spawn point and/or plane availability issue on that airfield. Mike
  10. Hi guys, We've been flying a mission today which we've flown a hundred of times before, but today something new happened to us: After returning from the 1st sortie, the whole group was unable to respawn. Each and everyone of us would this error shown when trying to spawn any aircraft: A quick search on the forums came up with this old thread from 2016: It's been mentioned there that this was an intentional thing that was supposed to happen when there was no plane (of that type you just picked, or in general) available anymore. However, in our particular case, all planes on the base were still available in numbers. We tried to disconnect from the server and reconnect, to no avail. Reboot our game, didn't work. Just restarting the mission on the server got us rid of the issue. Dunno if this is a known thing, a bug or a feature, but thought it might be worth reporting. Mike
  11. Interesting style of quoting sources so they fit your bias. That particular quote goes on like this: That's the exact opposite of what the P-47 can do in IL-2 GB. Ingame, the Jug accelerates like a fully loaded concrete mixer and anything but FC planes and the Podwa can easily run away from it, including bombers! Eh... lol? The Jug engine's fuel consumption at combat power exceeds 1000 litres per hour! With 250 litres fuel, you don't even have sufficient fuel to exceed your combat mode time You would barely reach your "safe space" if you manage to climb perfectly, and then your fuel runs out. This "hint" might work in QMB with airstart @10.000m altitude - other than that, this is just ridiculous. Mike
  12. That'll work probably, but it's not feasible. Setting the priority high means that the regarding planes are sitting ducks. They don't care for anyone intercepting them. You can sit on their tail and dump all your ammo into them, without the attackers even considering evasive manoeuvres. Mike
  13. Why not just hide it in the back of the Jug for the time being? Only if we get this one... ...as well, plus this in the cockpit so you die with style: Mike
  14. If only it would work like you say - but it doesn't. Well... that being said, it does provided your mission is dead simple and there's nothing that might disturb AI during their attack run. If however there is AAA, enemy fighters, wind, ... or just some trapped wind for the AI pilot - then the fun begins. AI randomly dumps away the bombs, or just drops one out of n bombs, or two out of n, or none at all, and sometimes runs away, or starts to act like a fighter, or (most of the time) simply turns around for another attack run. It's unpredictable at the moment and I guess that's why the OP started this thread. Mike
  15. That's why I think we could use a much simpler grass model as soon as the view distance goes beyond let's say 50 meters. From that distance, it doesn't make much of a difference whether grass is waving in the wind or not, and it doesn't make a difference whether each and every blade is a real 3d grass model or just a tube. Actually a randomly distributed array of static tubes on the ground would do for most of the time. Within very close distance (TC anyone) the grass we have is fine, so at very close distance it could just remain as-is. Mike
  16. Let me sign this. Take a Podwa for a ride at 6/7/8 beaufort with turbulence set to "3" and try just to get from A to B with bombs attached I've sh*t my pants when wind shear hit me for the first time and despite pulling the stick and going "all in", the Podwa seemed to be attracted by the next best rabbit hole down there like it fell in love with roger rabbit. Mike
  17. Server stats say 1/3 blue 2/3 red, but I'm also flying a 190 campaign offline. Mike
  18. "Ultra" is 100.00000 and you still have that butt-ugly grass "circle" around your plane when looking at it from outside, turning any screenshot into some kind of sit-in on an enlarged oriental grass carpet. I'd love to have some kind of grass that would just be there, even it would just be static and not waving through plane parts like we have it at the moment. As much as TC is concerned, to me the ability to turn off grass completely is almost like cheating. Players with grass enabled can't see enemy targets which are plain visible for players with grass disabled and vice versa. Mike
  19. That's not only in track records. It generally happens online to me, too. Any mission, everywhere: P-38 gear doors online are open. Mike
  20. Maybe there's a difference between online and offline chutes. This one was online. Mike
  21. I must say I've brought back quite a few crippled planes already, sometimes very crippled, since the 4.x updates, but that elevator thing never happened to me like that before. I know about excessive damage drag issues, mainly IMHO on the P-51, P-47 and Tempest - never had that on any german plane so far to be honest. I've also had planes drop one wing excessively after being damaged, particularly the IL-2 did that to me a couple of times, but also the Fw-190A-3. But this situation where it feels like someone else is jiggling with your elevators was all new to me. Mike
  22. Not trying to argue about the update, it's great hands down. Was just wondering whether this issue was just applying to me or whether it might just have slipped through so far. Mike
  23. Hi guys, Yesterday I flew a sortie with the MiG-3 where I've intercepted a flight of He-111 bombers. On my 3rd attack run I fetched a couple of bullets from the ventral gunner. According to visual damage, he hit me at the tail. Fuselage, rudder, all stabs and all control surfaces showed a nice burst of bullet holes. All controls were still available and nothing vital was damaged, neither physically nor visually and there was no tech chat reporting that anything was wrong with the plane. Yet the behaviour of the plane was odd to say the least. The elevator acted as if some artificial input was added to it every few seconds. It wasn't that the elevator became less effective than before - which would have made sense as it carried quite a bunch of holes. It's hard to describe... I tried to approach the same 111 again, but all of a sudden, the MiG-3 pitched up significantly. I had to counter this with a whole lot of elevator input - actually I had to push the stick forward half the way through. Further into that approach, all of a sudden, the MiG-3 pitched down significantly. Again, I had to counter this with a whole lot of elevator input - actually I had to pull the stick forward half the way through this time. That same progress repeated until touchdown, the whole way through, for about 15 minutes - every few seconds, violent pitch change in the opposite direction than before. At the same time, the rudder - which showed worse damage than the elevator - was working fine all the time. Please see a damage picture and a video showing what I've encountered below. First two approaches are without damage. Elevator works fine. Next two approaches and landing are with damage. Don't think I'd been doing fancy things here like stalling the plane or intentionally pulling up or down. I didn't lose my ability to fly the MiG-3 all of a sudden either. I've just tried to fly smooth, straight, level. The violent pitch you see there isn't me - I'm in fact busy like hell to counter it, otherwise I would have stalled and looped around like hell. Mike
  24. Hi guys, Is it just me or is the HUD overlay showing wrong numbers for the BK ammo on the MiG-3? Had a sortie with it yesterday and when the guns were all empty, the BK wing guns still showed 372 (or so... don't remember the precise number) bullets available. Mike
  • Create New...