Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

928 Excellent

About SeaSerpent

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1688 profile views
  1. If I don't fly something for a few months, I always need a refresher, even if I felt I knew it well before. That's why I keep going back to the Sabre, the Mig-15, and the F-5, because they are simple enough that you can get in and go. I wish I liked the Razbam planes more. I have the Harrier and the Mirage. Honestly what turns me off, is that Razbam has some weird philosophy in which they simply don't provide obvious keybinds for routine stuff like tuning your radio freq up and down, setting your altimeter, tuning your heading bugs, etc. Anyone who has ever flown in a squad and seen how the formation goes to s&*t when you do a frequency change and everyone has to take their hands of the stick to use their mouse instead of an up/down keybind might know what I mean. (Very First World Problem, lol). They are definitely still on my list to learn.
  2. But all they have to do is read some of the forum comments to get a bad impression of the game! The WW1 community is not exactly glowing in it's praises of Flying Circus. It was a really tough and extra hard-to-please crowd even before the DM thing.
  3. I don't really see how FTP would hurt anything at this point though.... I wouldn't like to see such a thing for any of the WW2 content, because I think the multiplayer gamplay greatly benefits from people who were commited enough to buy the product in the first place, but if there is nobody in FC at all these days, what's the downside?
  4. My 2 cents, regarding the term "sterile", is that obviously not all modules are created equal. The Heatblur products and a few others are alive with sounds and vibrations. They stand above the rest in the ambience department. I think that a couple of the in-house aircraft, like the Hornet and the Tiger II, leave something to be desired in comparison, but they are still -Great- modules. I can't say enough about how much a Buttkicker paired with a driver like SimShaker can compensate for these perceived atmospeheric deficits and make these aircraft come alive, at least for me.
  5. I also think GRs are just fine. You get a new aircraft, you want to learn how to use weapons systems X, you watch, it works as advertised when you try it for yourself, viola. Successful tutorial. GR videos have been a part of learning all the aircraft that I have actually learned in DCS.
  6. I'm surprised nobody ever mentions the JF-17 Thunder. Probably because so few have heard of it, and its use is confined to Pakistan and maybe a couple of others. One of the most complete modules released into DCS, and well done all around. Compared to some of the other study-sim level modules, it has a relatively easy learning curve, and it is absolutely capable of taking on any other aircraft in the sim. The origin of this aircraft was a design study by Grumman on behalf of the Chinese to upgrade the Mig-21 and the specs ended up being a lot like the F-20 Tigershark. Neat aircraft, simple, and effective in both air to air and air to ground. If someone wants a very competitive aircraft, but is put off by the learning curve required on some of the 4th Gen fighters, this is the one you want to get. The Tomcat is probably the best aircraft in the sim to date, but one of it's best strengths, the fully realized multi-crew abilities, is also its greatest liability imo from a practical gaming standpoint. To get the most of the aircraft you need a RIO that knows what they are doing, and that can be problematic. The learning curve for the RIO is a lot steeper than for the Pilot. As a pilot, it's hard to get good doing a realistic intercept in the Tomcat by yourself, because it is the guy in back who needs to be running it. Jester is pretty impressive for an AI crewmember, but he doesn't know how to control an interception. In fairness, I guess it's easy enough to point your nose straight at the bad guy and lob off missiles with Jester, but I've come to the conclusion that getting the most out of it requires two humans who both really know their stuff. You can work as hard as you can to become the best pilot, but competively, you'll still suck if the RIO turns out to be a dud. I'm not as enthusiastic about the Tomcat as I used to be, because even though I can put in the practice to be as good as I can be, I can't make another crew member put in the same. In most situations, I'd rather just be by myself in an aircraft with a modern radar that can do things more automatically and tell me exactly what I need to know, without having to rely on another person flicking switches back there and being able to communicate the relavent information. Love the F-14, hate the F-14.
  7. Well, OK. I also use 1440 res, with sharpen filter, and looking at your screenshots, I'm not seeing those big blocky pixels like that at such a range in most lighting conditions. If I see something at such a range, I've noticed it is typically in morning or afternoon, and I'm between the sun and the bogey, and he is reflecting. Happens more with a bare aluminum skin. In these situations, I typically lose the bogey again forever on the intercept as the sun angle changes. So I don't know how to account for your experience, only that In the several weeks since 4.501 I've not found it to be anything at all like the horrible "Enhanced" visibility (I remember coming back to IL-2 from DCS when some of the servers were experimenting with it, and thinking "oh shit, we've got a SAM launch at 2 o'clock!"). Maybe the LODs are off for the WW1 planes or something. Doesn't Yeager tell a story of losing the rest of his flight in a furball, and being able to see a miniscule dot at a range of like 30 miles, which turned out to be his wingman? That is exceptional, and not typical. So it happens. If this is your regular experience, I don't know what to say. It isn't mine in the World War 2 servers. Frankly I think they found the sweet spot, trying to render realistic spotting distances within the confines of a pixels and relatively small computer screens (think how large a computer screen you would have to have to inflate things to the size of real life). I agree with the posters who say spotting should be hard, and I still find it hard, but not ridiculously so anymore. If too many people are finding it too easy, then maybe there is an issue there, regardless whether I perceive the same thing, or not.
  8. Ok, thanks for the source. Seems we are on the same page, for the most part. We have: I now see that the original poster was not saying that Enhanced Visibility is now standard, he was simply being sarcastic when he called the standard (more 'realistic') setting "Enhanced Visibility Lite". Glad to hear that the Combat Box server is still using the more difficult of the two visibility options. I guess it is a matter of opinion of whether this is better or worse from a realism standpoint. We can all walk outside and look at a plane in the sky or any distant object for that matter and determine for ourselves how close the visibility in game is to reality. From what I've seen since the 4.501 update, the spotting ability using the Standard viz is closer to realism than it was before. I welcome it. I don't think I'm seeing things at 25+ kilometers on the WW2 servers I play on unless the lighting conditions are just right. Last time I was on, I might have spotted a formation of B-25s at that distance or farther but ony because there were several of them and they were contrailing. Obviously we can see flamers out even farther than that. If people are seeing Spad-sized things at what they claim is over 25 kilometers, and you are sure that Jasta 5 flugpark is not using the Enhanced viz setting, then I don't know whats going on. I can only say that on the servers I'm playing on, I'm not under the impression that I have Bionic Man vision. Better spotting yes, but certainly not "Enhanced Visibility Lite" as the original poster phrased it.
  9. Surprise -IS- the best tactic in aerial combat. Something like 90% of real-life shootdowns occurred on enemies that didn't know what hit them. I've not gotten a chance to play IL-2 for a couple of days since the last update and honestly I don't play Flying Circus at all (in other words, it is of no concern to me what settings the Jasta 5 Flugpark is using). But you're saying this "enhanced visibility" is now enabled on World War 2 servers, such as Combat Box, as well? I've not seen any changelogs or announcement of such. Can you cite a source for this information that you are putting forth? Since a couple of updates back, spotting has indeed been slightly better than what is was before. I was of the understanding that the "Enhanced Visibility" is still the same unrealistic arcade game crap that it always was, but that there were some improvements to make the "standard" visibility more realistic (and slightly better) than it was before. This is not correct???
  10. Hey raaaid, when is the last time you talked to a family member or friend on the telephone? Might be a good time to give them a call and see how they are doing and catch up on familiar things.
  11. Don't have time to read the whole thread, so maybe it has already been mentioned, but I think some of the heavy virtual breathing audio could be toned down in certain situations just a little. If you're pulling heavy Gs or with pilot fatigue, it's useful and fine, but when I'm flying straight and level over 10,000 feet and nothing is really happening, I could just do without hearing it. Otherwise, I'm really liking the latest update.
  12. Type of Improvement: Additional options in UI settings screen to support third party programs, specifically Simshaker Wings and/or Tacview. Explanation: Checkbox options to add relevent keys to the startup.cfg file necessary to export telemetry. Sometimes the startup.cfg gets rebuilt for whatever reason or another, and old men forget to manually add the necessary lines back into the startup.cfg to support their third party programs. For Simshaker Wings, this is: [KEY = motiondevice] addr = "" decimation = 2 enable = true port = 29373[END][KEY = telemetrydevice] addr = "" decimation = 2 enable = true port = 29373[END] For Tacview, this is: [KEY = track_record] fx_sound = 1 record_graphics_effect = 1 record_ground_vehicles = 1 tacviewrecord = 1 [END] Benefit: Just for convenience.
  13. You might look into the Simshaker software by a guy named Andre. This software reads events from the sim and sends input to either a Jetseat or a Bass Shaker. It's not force feedback obviously, but it definitely is feedback. i.e. You can tune it to provide tactile input based on G load. Absent Force Feedback resistance on the stick itself, this is the next best thing, imo.
  • Create New...