Jump to content

II./JG77_Kemp

Members
  • Content Count

    979
  • Joined

Everything posted by II./JG77_Kemp

  1. When you go to your in game key bindings, you can set an axis for throttle. Then, on the right side of that row there is an image of a small box and a curve inside it, when you click that open, you can actually see, how your axis movement corresponds to your game input.
  2. Is your throttle mapped to that axis in the game? When you open the curve in key bindings, does it look like it works correctly?
  3. Also, the G-variant of Ju-87 was called Kanonenvogel (cannon bird). It's actual nickname was Panzerknacker.
  4. 109 G6 was called Die Beule due to the bumps that came from upgrading to 13mm MG's.
  5. It is not really needed, but if it was easy to add to the speed-bar-thing, then why not. If it is like a part of the current info bar that can be turned off on expert servers. P.S. I see people are still talking about the compass in the lower left hand corner - I think mine has been gone for a while now, when flying on expert servers.
  6. He was definitely a very remarkable and skilled fighter pilot, but I have read that he actually did tell his wingmen to stay away, when he "went to work" to avoid risk of friendly fire and when he died his unit had to be taken away from front line, because there were just not enough pilots that could operate as efficient fighter pilots, because they had never had a chance to develop these skills in their secondary roles. Compare that to the reputation of Lützow, who had several of his wingmen becoming aces and many less experienced pilots getting to score an air kill, while flying wing to him.
  7. I guess it depends a lot on what kind of ace we are talking about. Could be quite different experience to fly with someone like Hans-Joachim Marseille (stay out of my way, while I shoot down my enemies) or Günther Lützow, who had several of his wingmen becoming aces themselves and according to anecdotes used to take inexperienced pilots of his squad as his wingmen and lead/guide them to positions, where they could get their first kill "out of the way".
  8. To be more precise, you were shot down in Pe-2 15 times, while your AI gunner shot down 10 enemy fighters. When flying other planes, you were shot down 30 times, while you shot down one enemy plane, He-111.
  9. Yes, you can look at the sortie log and see there, who did how much damage and when. When looking at your log, it did not register you doing any damage to enemies, and when clicking on the names that damaged you, can see from their logs that they were damaged and shot down by AI Pe-2 turret.
  10. Would also be interesting to see, if you have a reference to it? Looking at your WoL, KOTA and Combat Box stats during the last several months, the only kills that you scored as a Pe-2 pilot (10 out of 11 air kills in July), were all done by your AI gunner.
  11. You are probably joking? Take a look at some of the Pe-2 pilots' stats on WoL, for example, (a couple of examples here and here). If an AI gunner shoots down 90 enemy planes in 40 hours of flight time, like in the first example, you can hardly say that they never shoot down a blue fighter. Here a Pe-2 gunner shot down four fighters in 8 minutes of flight time. Near miss to becoming an "ace in a flight".
  12. No stuttering for me, but I have noticed the re-appearance of the issue in multiplayer, where you look at a plane next to you and for a split second it shows default skin before changing to a different skin. Similar situation existed a couple of years ago and then it disappeared with some update back then, now it has re-appeared.
  13. Now, this second image is more interesting. It does not even draw a range beyond 7 nm and shows that being able to spot a modern fighter at 5 nm (less than the old bubble) would require specifically focusing in the right direction, but also implies that planes closer than 2-2.5 nm (4 km) should be quite easy to detect, when looking at their general direction. That is where the spotting problem is more for me, with my system (I understand that different people with different setup might have different experience), so I would welcome it if devs found a way of improving spotting/tracking close contacts, but don't like the over-sized planes visible at extreme ranges.
  14. On the graph that you presented, it says that "this graph estimates the maximum (central acuity) visual detection ranges ...". So, according to this estimation, the maximum range that a person can spot a MiG-21 in belly view, with it's delta wing, when specifically focusing on it (central acuity) is 7 nm (about 13 km).
  15. I still have it. I tried the "Limit Z" that Thor suggested and it made no difference to me. I did a short test flying without TrackIR and that problem did not appear. I tried various maneuvers, pulling G's, turning, looping etc, while looking at various directions (mouse) and whenever I turned my view back to normal, gunsight was right where it was supposed to be. It was just a short test, so not fully conclusive, but from there it appears that it is either (1) TrackIR related problem or (2) only happens, when head position is away from default position during maneuvers. Most probably the latter option, as I use the same TrackIR profile in DCS and never get that problem there (on the other hand I usually do not do similar kind of maneuvers with DCS aircraft). Also, did not have this issue in CloD or IL2 1946. Have not had time or energy to do full nuking of controls.
  16. On these forums I can find just two polls about this visibility. KOTA poll is exactly even at the moment, 114 vs 114. FC Community poll shows that realistic is a lot more popular than alternate, even though the sample size is small (8:1 with new players, 25:10 with old players).
  17. So, does this "alternate" setting give better spotting in close? Just curious.
  18. Yes, I have understood that some people find it more fun that way, I just did not understand the relevance of the 1.38 km spotting picture in the realistic vs alternate discussion and was wondering if there was an actual difference in those ranges or not. Still not sure of it, as the answers were "no difference" and "spotting over ground is easier", which sounds like a big difference.
  19. No, I think bomber pilots are complaining because their planes can be easily spotted from unrealistic ranges, due to this amplifying effect. Bombers were spotted in 1-2 km ranges even with the old bubble, so that is not their issue.
  20. So, what does this example of spotting from 1.38 km have to do with alternate vs realistic, if there is no difference between these options in these ranges? Personally I would be happy, if devs would find a way to make close contacts not disappear over forests etc so easily, but I think that amplifying planes to unnatural sizes beyond 10 km does not help in that area. So, there is some actual difference in spotting close contacts over ground or not? Seriously curious.
  21. So, does this "alternate" setting magnify even planes that are something like 1-2 km away? Or how does it help spotting planes from 1.38 km?
  22. That is quite interesting. I always thought that this is a game or TrackIR related thing that I just had to live with. Now I wonder if my zoom axis or something like that could affect it. I know that the axis that I use for zoom is not fully precise, so maybe this could be the cause; or mouse, like suggested before. Will need to test it.
  23. Could you please then explain in a an easy and understandable way, why the devs would "correct" something that they thought was working as intended in the first place?
  24. Maybe that is because you are not really trying to understand the responses in this case, but treat it as if you were talking to a wall.
×
×
  • Create New...