Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    1432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. I must say I have respawning "mud mover" flights (fake formations, as we can't spawn them) on our test mission for years now which approach their target at treetop level, with full speed and medium priority waypoints all along, consisting of fighter-bombers on each side. I've never had issues with them engaging enemies over-aggressively, quite contrary: Sometimes you can sneak in from six-o-clock and throw your bullets into them from 50 meters distance before they drop their bombs and defend themselves. Only if you clearly enter their view and get closer than let's say half a mile, they will drop bombs and try to get into a fight prematurely. So that works just fine as much as I'm concerned. Maybe the difference is that "my" fighters carry bombs. Only devs could shed a light on this, but then again... how probable is it that a dev will come along and explain this issue and the underlying AI logic to us? 0%? Might be too optimistic. Mike
  2. Let me put my signature under your post @PatrickAWlson. And let me add that this also is a big issue for Dogfight Mission building as soon as AI flights are involved, so in summary it affects all aspects of the game. Mike
  3. That's the theory. Unfortunately the results are pretty mixed. While synthetic tests, where only such disabled planes are present, yield the expected results, "real life" tests with populated missions show much more of an impact on performance, even if the planes are disabled all the time. The results from adding objects to a mission are pretty unpredictable unfortunately. A few months ago, in an attempt to keep players from taking off all across a base and enforcing the use of taxiways and runways instead, I've put static fence objects all along the taxiways to the runway ends. Simple static fences, not even with entities to them. DServer completely freaked out on a medium 3-digit number of fences added like that. Couldn't believe when I saw it, but simply removing the fences again made the mission play like normal. Mike
  4. Absolutely. Same to the 3rd party content. For instance, ORBX immediately fixed the low-res objects issue with the London Landmarks pack, so this warning... ...is obsolete meanwhile. Unfortunately M$ didn't manage to update their Marketplace item either: M$ is still on v1.00 (where London has issues), ORBX has v1.02 released. Solution: Request refund from M$ and download/install directly from ORBX. Mike
  5. You mean MG 131 is too weak as well? Tell me more. Mike
  6. I'd kill for choppers with reasonably realistic flight models in FS 2020. Mike
  7. Probably it's because two hits with a german 20mm HE bullet are. Or three hits with a german 13mm HE bullet for the same effect. It's quite interesting to see how on one hand, when people complain about lack of cal .50 effectivity vs seemingly - slightly? - over-effective 20mm guns, the standard reply is "see, HE is that effective and AP just isn't", and now when you see what weird (and ineffective) damage a massive round like that 37mm HE does, the reply is "see, HE isn't always that effective". Can you guess how that feels to those who - rightfully? - raise such issues to the attention of others, hopefully including the devs? Mike
  8. I guess it's the size of VRAM. the RTX 3080 is said to come with 10GB at a price of $700 which would be a good deal IMHO, however that's the founders edition and honestly you'll want to wait for custom designs with slightly more sophisticated cooling solutions anyway. Mike
  9. I think so, yes. IL-2 Great Battles also has a hard time when looking right and left quickly. It's simply the amount of texture going in and out of view - as soon as it's more than the GPU can keep in it's cache, you'll get a certain FPS impact. I guess that's why the M$ devs were so reluctant to provide TrackIR support from the beginning, and why they're still puzzled to include VR support. Mike
  10. Well it does run super smooth in 1440p on my i5-9600K + Nvidia 2080S, in custom settings which are based on the "high" settings profile. There's just the odd occasion when I fly through the Tower Bridge at full speed and look left and right in TrackIR which gets the game to stutter a bit. Mike
  11. Sorry for my ignorance but what was the issue you've encountered? Mike
  12. Could be placebo. FPS and smoothness pretty much depend on where I fly and for how long I let the game settle (and load the quadrozillions of textures to render) before I actually jump the seat. Mike
  13. Nope guys. Calm down and take release notes for what they are. The description starts with: I know that M$ bashing seems to be the order of the day, but if you don't want to make a complete idiot of yourself, you should better stick to what's been written for real. And dare I say: There's nothing wrong with it. In contrast, there's zero information in any of the official IL-2 Great Battles patches on how to proceed if your update fails. Mike
  14. Didn't need to. And the download was somewhere around 300MB only, not the 70+GB as was suspected. Mike
  15. It has arrived, just saying: https://www.flightsimulator.com/patch-version-1-7-14-0-is-now-available Mike
  16. No one ever said so. But thanks for letting us know about the different agenda you're following. Mike
  17. The 20mm gun might have an advantage over a group of cal .50s, I won't argue against that. However the extent of this advantage like we see it in IL-2 Great Battles is a bit hard to believe. Except for when you follow @CountZero's (sarcastic) argument that the americans hated their pilots. As it stands, eight cal .50s in game aren't half as deadly as a single 20mm gun. They're not even as deadly as a single german 15mm gun. They might be barely on par with a single russian 12.7mm with mixed AP/HE ammo. And that's clearly off. Mike
  18. I'm sure there's quite a couple of nay-sayers with a certain agenda, however I'm far from thinking that this is what drives all of them. Because in return, it would mean that we'd have to be "better than them" or to blame for the same thing. I don't subscribe to either point of view and my last online death dates from yesterday when I died on CB flying a 110 G2, killed by a Pony jockey (with a little "assistance" from a Spit IX). Means: I know what the .50s feel like from the receiving end, yet I still stick to what I've mentioned before: The .50s a seriously nerfed. All of this without attempting to claim for the higher ground, just saying. Mike
  19. Just a sidenote: Yes, prop wash increases CLmax on the affected portion of the wing. Now... unfortunately that wing area is the inner portion of the wing - unless you'd be in a severe side-slip or your plane has a rather odd engine layout for a single engine aircraft. That means that if you'd try to further increase the turn rate of a plane by using the increased CLmax from prop wash, leaving the wing's own CLmax area, then... yes, then you'll stall your outer wing sections, including ailerons. Which as a result will cause a severe wing drop from the prop's torque effect. Mike
  20. None. However it can very well be that the two posts before yours were not intended to be in this thread, the authors might have posted them in the Dev update 259 thread. Just happened to me when I've stated in the dev update 259 thread how disappointing it is to see that there's still no fix in sight for the indestructible 109 tail and that the cal .50 damage is still not even recognized as an issue. My post silently got moved to some other arbitrary thread, without notifying me and of course without stating any reason in the relocated post nor the affected thread. Professional moderation anyone? Mike
  21. cal.50 issues still not acknowledged, no news on the 109s concrete tail. A bummer. Mike
  22. I'm a Steam user too and my game works fine. I'd recommend that you do a local game files check from within Steam. Mike
  23. Depends. If the turn was thrust limited, i.e. your wings could have produced more lift with higher AoA but the resulting drag would not have been able to be compensated by the given thrust, then increasing thrust will enable you to increase AoA and still keep going at the same speed, which according to the assumption that your wings were able to produce more lift when you'd further increase AoA, would make you turn tighter. If your turn was lift limited, i.e. your wings could not produce any more lift when increasing AoA, but only drag would increase in such case (and probably lift would even decrease when you further increase AoA), then increasing thrust won't help a single bit if you'd keep turning at the same speed, because more thrust in such case would mean more drag, therefore more AoA, but according to the assumption that your wings could not produce any higher lift from further increasing AoA, it would not make you turn tighter, rather the contrary. Therefore it all depends whether at the set speed you're "in front of" or "behind" the power curve. Mike
×
×
  • Create New...