Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

290 Excellent

About Field-Ops

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1072 profile views
  1. Itally can be a test bed for carrier ops.... just sayn....
  2. @airahusky I believe this is more a bug than just a suggestion. Perhaps I put it in the wrong place?
  3. Indeed I would like to hear more as well. I do believe however that we wont hear much for a while. The Po2 took a long while for updates to start rolling out. The process might be more streamlines by now though. I seem to remember Jason stating the Li2 is already contracted to them but I cant find that quote for the life of me
  4. there are response curves you can adjust for your pitch, roll, and yaw axis. Check the right side of the controls binding screen for what looks like a graph and click it. You can also adjust joystick sensitivity in a separate options menu. I believe its called input devices if im remembering correctly.
  5. Have not checked, but the primary is way more noticeable. I know the overwing MG shoots really high but thats all i know. Just checked and the overwing gun has the same incorrect firing angle as our primary MG. It was the new Albatros with overwing MG that I was thinking of that shoots high. But thats another topic. Attached below is a pic of the ideal firing arc of both MG's
  6. Hello, It was brought to my attention after exploring the 3d model of the S.E.5a and reading comments every once in a while that the primary MG is not in line with the bullets trajectory. I'll try and provide pictures of it all and get a more in depth analysis visually rather than just words. Looking into it further it looks like this has been brought up before here https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/1740-se5a-gunsight-out-alignment/ Forst point, the gunsight angle is modeled incorrectly. The red line is our current gunsight modeling alignment where it should be following parallel to the blue line. To fix this the front ring sight needs to be brought up more. The bullet trajectory also follows the red line currently, whereas it should follow the blue. From ingame, rather than the viewer, we see the aldis ring mount being used as a gunsight in the default view. It follows the same low bullet path. you can see the tracers in the red circle, the blue circle would be the corrected firing arc. The next pic will be easier to see a discrepancy I believe with the comparison of a real photo, of course, no tracers in the real photo. Again, red is current firing point, blue is ideal firing point. You can barely make out the tracers in the red circle of this photo.
  7. Id rather not see the day where 109's are sold separately by engine modification, yet the same series number. We see several planes in the game with engine modifications as options, rather than a different plane all together. Id rather it be continuing the way it has been. I'd hope to see the 109G14/AS as an engine modification rather than a separate aircraft the same way the 109K, spit IX and V, and 190 series gets their engine mods.
  8. I wouldnt want to deviate from the current business model of equal aircraft per side. Its great and remains competitive in the market this sim inhabits. That said it really has put them in a bind over their decision making for the future. The best way I can see it working is release Italy 43/44 next, which gives us unique Axis aircraft to mess with but also give us our P47 and P51 Razorback, possibly introduce some carrier ops with Seafires? Anyway the next step would be doing something controversial, release Battle of Britain 1940 to get the Normandy map. It wouldnt have to be right away after Italy so the time difference gives more separation from TFM and CloD. This is the only way I see we can squeeze the Normandy map in without the controversy of things like the 109G6, 190A7, or Ju88. Frankly I'd be OK with the G6 being part of the standard pack of Normandy 43/44. Perhaps purchasers of the 109G6 receiving a discount on pre-order, while also seeing things like Wr rockets and Mw50 added to the plane would alleviate community backlash. It would also present a new welcomed challenge of possibly creating two maps for two different time frames (its really just airfield and scenery changes, such as adding the German seawall and bunkers for the 44 map) so a career mode of 43/44 could be done for owners of planes from other packs.
  9. Just a little tidbit of info i found off the russian forum recently
  10. I feel like the mud mover campaigns before and after D-Day itself would get a lot more spotlight in a Normandy expansion than the beaches themselves. Theres a lot more tactical stuff going on several miles south and south-east of the beaches that would be the focus from late 43 to late 44. Normandy beaches and the day itself would see little action.
  11. I agree with only your observation that it will (indirectly due to planeset difference) compete with CLOD. I do not agree that IL-2 must be tied to the eastern front (first gen IL-2 matured away from the east, and succeeded) or that 4 engined bombers are required for Normandy to work.
  12. Could be a RAM or hard drive issue? Perhaps the game elements arent being loaded fast enough for the GPU to utilize it all immediately? Just a guess. The game also has a habit of not wanting to go much above %50 CPU utilization so if your getting those numbers Id say you've about reached the limit of what the game will allow your CPU to crank up to.
  13. Actually the glare from the rear glass is quite visible to me
  • Create New...