Jump to content

J5_Hellbender-Sch27b

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

883 Excellent

3 Followers

About J5_Hellbender-Sch27b

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Madrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Recent Profile Visitors

1355 profile views
  1. Yes I've noticed the same behaviour: barges don't count as Marine Objects in-game, but the parser does award you points for it as Light Ships. It was the opposite for a long time for non-AA machinegunners, who would count as destroyed Heavy Weapons in-game, but which the parser would ignore. Now they are counted by the parser but not categorised as anything. For example: http://stats.jasta5.org:8000/en/sortie/19004/?tour=8 6 Destroyed ground targets: 1 Heavy Tanks, 2 Small-caliber AA guns and 3 are not categorised (they should be Small-caliber guns). @J5_Baeumer, is there anything you could do to address both issues?
  2. Take a look at what some of the mission builders have done to make the destruction more apparent. @J99_Sizzlorr's Bapaume (and surrounding village area) on the Flugpark has big plumes of smoke coming out of it, which also acts as a navigational beacon. The main issue is that building destruction can't apparently be "painted" on like it could in the old IL-2, so the best that can be done is to destroy buildings individually, which requires work and resources. So for single player: sure, any amount of work and resource use could be justified, but for multiplayer what we have looks great already.
  3. To think that I am nowadays more excited to read about server updates than actual game updates. Thank you and @J99_Sizzlorr for your continued work on the missions! Just yesterday I was attempting to do my little "milk run" sortie off-hours and nearly got my wings blasted off by AAA. Good.
  4. Too late, some idiot already gifted him a copy. The idiot in question felt that his chakras were out of alignment for agreeing with certain people in this thread and both criticising the out of sale pricing and not actually making use of the sale price.
  5. That is some excellent work, Adam! Grabbing these as well. So, do I hear a Jasta 18 in the making? 😁
  6. Well I'm glad you brought it up, of all people, because I sure as hell didn't want to be the one to say that the $80 pricetag is indeed very steep if you're only casually interested in WWI planes. I hope it goes down to $70 outside of sales, or even stays at $60 permanently in a year or so. This is really the way to do it. While not exactly the most popular thing ever, it's what I tried to do with the No Man's Plane challenge. The problem is that it required people to both purchase a U-2VS and ask their sisters to pose as girlfriends bribe their wives to participate. I still can't believe my wife said yes to it in the first place, then again it was but one in a long series of unfortunate yesses that started some years ago when she decided to marry a sim nerd. Anyway, I've been sitting on this idea for a while to organise a 1 Me262 vs 10 D.VIIF and a 1 Spitfire Mk IX vs 10 Camels challenge. How does that sound? While I do think it's great to get more people into FC1, we really have to manage expectations when it comes to FC2. The longer an announcement stays out, the less likely it is that Yugra Media can just pick up where they left off and keep on churning out RoF remastered planes at the same rate they did a few months ago. FC1 may very well be what we'll be stuck with for a while. Someone here before said that it sounded logical to have an FC volume for every 2 WWII volumes, so if anything I expect word around the time that the first PTO module is announced, meaning we may very well be 2-3 years away from an FC2 release.
  7. Hello Rapidus, Thanks for getting back to me about this. This bug was fixed in Hotfix 4.003b: 4. P.u.W. bombs look correctly from afar;
  8. Yes, I was going to ask the same thing: how do you attach throttle, joystick and pedals to the platform? And they do move along with the platform, right?
  9. Sounds amazing! Not that I'm really considering it, it was bad enough for me to give up VR in order to regain some situational awareness (I didn't have a lot of it to begin with). I'm curious, how exactly does it determine which motion should be applied? Does it get the data directly from the game, sort of like Tacview?
  10. Thank you so much for this! A small but very welcome improvement. Are you still planning to do the updated speed measurements announced in Update 3.101? We could do them ourselves but you told us that you have more accurate software for doing speed measurements.
  11. S! Wrongway We will keep raiding with those two-seaters in your memory.
  12. This is pretty big news. Thank you for all that you've done and are still going to do in terms of gathering empirical data. If someone ever decides to make a WWI flightsim based on such data rather than on historical reports which sometimes have questionable figures (180km/h Pup, anyone?), it will be invaluable information. For now, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I'm sad but not surprised that we'll be stuck with this nerfed Fokker Dr.I. On the other hand I'm glad that the devs are sticking to their guns, all the while admitting that they simply don't possess the know-how to make the correct decision. There is no shame in humility, in that regard. I'm not sure what the actual reasoning was not to go back to pre-1.034 on the Fokker Dr.I, but it does match the 165km/h top TAS in German Aircraft of the First World War. As to why it was so slow compared to tests performed today: we can always pull the Voltol card, or the fact that its speed now closely matches the 110hp Nieuport 17, which is also a tad slower than the 80hp Nieuport 11, but climbs far better. For the record: the Bristol Fighter, whose climb and roll rate was reduced for 1.034, was also not rolled back, so the Dr.I is not entirely alone. https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/44725-version-1034/ Or maybe that was an actual oversight, I guess we'll never know for sure. 😉 Beyond history, the gameplay impact is significant as well. We now have a Dr.I that no one can claim is "better" than the vanilla Fokker D.VII (which no one did back in 1918 either), even if it is the best turnfighter in FC. We now also have a pretty consistent picture where almost all Central planes perform worse than their Entente counterparts (the exceptions being the Sopwith Dolphin and Fokker D.VIIF), but have access to parachutes. This creates a good basis for assymetric warfare missions and having the action take place over Central lines. Combined with the fact that we don't have a Central recon two-seater such as the DFW or heavy bomber such as the Gotha, this is not such a bad thing for the immediate future. P.S. I still expect the devs to come through with updated speed measurements for all planes released before the Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a, which were impacted by the prop speed fix.
  13. My theory is that it is a similar problem as the skin caching issue, which happens when many players are active on the server. In other words: it's less of a problem when fewer people are on. At the moment we have little trouble in filling up the Flugpark during scheduled events (Thursdays and weekend nights), but it's completely empty most of the time. I would recommend flying more during "off-hours" if it's your intention to build up a streak. And fly more two-seaters, of course, as AI gunners do the spotting for you.
  14. The other night we noticed that when many people were on, skins don't just take a while to load (even official skins), the actual plane model becomes a lower LOD. This is definitely not happening when the J5 server is almost empty. (click for higher quality) Well at least we know it's not tied to custom skins and I can keep painting...
  15. Smell of camembert finally overpowered you, jawohl?
×
×
  • Create New...