Jump to content

ShamrockOneFive

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    5558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3420 Excellent

About ShamrockOneFive

  • Rank
    Founder

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://stormbirds.blog/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3941 profile views
  1. Too many. I mean the Tempest/Typhoon and Spitfire are all near and dear. But I find a lot to like in many other aircraft. The whole Yak series, the MiG-3, the A-20B , the Fw190 series and the Bf110's. All favourites!
  2. Yes there are. The dev team has talked briefly about it a few times as something that they wanted to do alongside a more complete simulation of fuel system management. It was mentioned as a major item to do after the damage model was updated which happened several months ago now. It's likely being actively worked on right now.
  3. I saw the same thing. Incredible flying up there!
  4. There are DC-3's flying in several places in the world. There's two at Canadian Warplane Heritage finished up close to war-time specification and in flying shape - at least one of them went up this summer for a few tours around.
  5. This map doesn't have the older sims on it so you can't easily compare 1946 with the current version but it does give a good overview, generally, of what size maps are in DCS, IL-2: Great Battles, and Falcon BMS as comparison points. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1nEGqkqYUGBipkmMq-NSwixdUHmU&ll=55.59936201640008%2C26.003516403968113&z=5 Great Battles maps are generally bigger than the maps that came with the retail version of IL-2: Sturmovik through 1946. The only exception was Finnish Gulf which was huge. There's a lot of stuff that's been created as hypothetical by the community on what is and isn't possible with regards four engine bombers because a few don't like the simplest answer - they are time consuming to make.
  6. I'm sure there's a production table somewhere with the differences in production numbers. The Vb was by far the most produced variant and the Vc came in later in production, however, by that time production was starting to switch to the Mark IX (the first few of which were converted from the Mark Vc). There are some key differences between the Vb and Vc. The .303 machine guns are in a different position, the landing gear has been slightly moved and altered, the cockpit canopy frame was adjusted, and the internal structure had been adjusted as well. So if a Vc model were to be done, I'd not be surprised if 1CGS offered it up as a separate aircraft. There'd be enough work for them to restructure it. Wikipedia has a surprisingly solid outline of the different changes. There's more in several books that I have but this should suffice if you want to read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(early_Merlin-powered_variants)#C_type
  7. None in the VVS inventory. Just the Mark Vb. Also the four cannon loadout was extremely limited and essentially part of just one convoy that went to Malta. It's not clear to me if the four cannons were intended to be used in combat or that this was just an easier way to get spares flown into Malta. I spent a while looking for instances where they were actually used that way and came up empty. The C-wing versions at least did still have the advantage of 120-round belt feed instead of the 60-round drum magazines.
  8. In addition to the Spitfire IX and XIV having the Mark II GGS the Spitfire XVIII had four 20mm cannons just like the Tempest and had it.
  9. The issue is interface not procedure. IRL is what I am interested in. If there's a wheel that controls the interface I would know as a pilot where it was by tactile feedback. That's not always possible here. Different argument. One is about challenge of experience (which TAW is GREAT for) and the other is about challenge of interface. I'm talking about the later.
  10. And right back to the first problem. You don't know what the control is set to.
  11. Disagreements are fine I don't know if you know what I mean however. The looking at aircraft vitals in the cockpit is fine and IMHO I'm down with that as a realistic choice. What's missing are things that are not in the cockpit - technochat removes engine controls for example. So I can't tell if I've selected engine 1 or 2. I've got a dual throttle so I'm less, but not entirely unaffected, but what if you don't have that? It makes things less accessible in ways that are not about realism. What if you don't have an axis to bind it to? That assumes everyone has all of the controls necessary. That's not a good experience for everyone who can't feel the wheel's position as a real pilot would.
  12. Thanks Coldman. Hopefully you can reevaluate the decision at some point. Having the new aircraft in would be a good thing for sure and good news indeed! From a squadron/lineage point of view it doesn't. The Yak-1B is the ultimate Yak-1 while the late model Yak-7B gave way to the Yak-9 and 9T so similarities-wise it's the 7/9 progression. Immersive I can understand for those who don't want to see any GUI on the screen at all. I can definitely understand that. Realistic? No. The technochat solves a human/machine interface and feedback loop that we don't have and in some cases simply can't get.
  13. Having flown two missions on TAW since the start of the new season with technochat off I have to say that I dislike the change. It certainly makes it harder but not more realistic. While I appreciate that TAW is intended to be the most challenging IL-2: Great Battles multiplayer environment possible I think the change just makes certain controls on some aircraft inaccessible. We've had suggestions on how to mitigate them but they aren't real world considerations in most cases. A real pilot would have additional feedback (auditory, friction, touch, etc.) that is either not modeled or not something that is practically available in simulation yet. I have to admit that it's severely dampened my enthusiasm for the new campaign which is unfortunate. TAW is a great server. I think it will continue on no matter what settings are on. However, by the same token I think there should be a goal towards including as much of the community in the fun (even if it is established on the reputation of being the most challenging server) and for some I think this is going to be something that turns them away unnecessarily.
  14. The Yak-1B is a Collectors Plane the Yak-7B comes with Battle of Kuban. Both are fairly similar in performance so tactics between the two are going to be remarkably similar. When fighting with less available power to weight you want to work on optimizing the amount of energy you spend in a fight. Tight turns burn lots of energy so do those only when you need to and not all the time. Instead you want to wear the Bf109's down and keep your altitude and speed if and when you can. Because the Yak's are not quite as capable in the power to weight ratio as Bf109's you'll want to focus on altitude and retaining that and then spending it only when it means you can get in close with the 109s. Once there a medium speed (around 300km/h) turn will be something that essentially no AI Bf109 can avoid without you pulling lead and that even human flown 109s would struggle with getting away from. Yeah the Yak's are not quite as good as their German counterparts but the differences at low altitude are minimized. Yak's have excellent handling and are simple by design so that makes them very effective.
×
×
  • Create New...