Jump to content

Operation_Ivy

Members
  • Content Count

    406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

404 Excellent

About Operation_Ivy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1225 profile views
  1. Yea i should have added that to the op i suppose. I am running max graphics setting and extreme clouds. Not VR.
  2. Hello, I was wondering if there is a certain graphics setting that causes/prevents clouds flickering in the distance/on the horizon like in the video linked below: https://streamable.com/f54lu
  3. I misunderstood, that's what you get for not reading charts carefully. However, is there a reason you used the g4 instead of the k4? It would be interesting to see if there is a difference, even though I consider it unlikely.
  4. It correlates with my observation that some aircrafts, despite being similar in size, are getting hit by ai gunners way more often than others. All in all it seems to be just another hint that the DM is in need of a serious overhaul.
  5. What else is this "in between" supposed to be then but disregarding historical/scientific data for the sake of balance? You can't have it both ways in my opinion. Unless you balance by mission design and victory parameters. TAW is actually doing a great job there. Despite wehraboo stacking, which proves to be a very challenging to balance out, the mission manages to keep it fairly balanced when looking at the actual wins.
  6. I have never seen this supposed majority but this is besides the point. If your opinion is that aircrafts should be changed/designed despite historical/research data is stating something different for the sake of balance, than we just have to agree to disagree. I am voicing my opinion and advocating for a change that i believe will make the game more accurate (remember, i fly both sides). You might call that pedantic and self centered, but you are basically doing the same in this thread, aren't you? Everyone should feel encouraged to advocate for something that they think would improve the game. Judging by your postcount and this post, you are doing exactly the same as i do, except for it being in a ranting manner without any actual evidence 🤷‍♂️
  7. I am aware of that but i still consider it worth it when 50% of all planes are using it. However i also wrote in my OP that simple damage adjustments to reflect the historical/research data, i.e. HE= RUS<GER=UK would be good enough for me personally. But what we really need is a way to test internal damage. I am not a modder but it would be incredible to make it possible somehow in an offline environment.
  8. Again, multiple points: calling my test and explanatory post pedantic is far from the truth, especially when you look at some flight model discussions that are focusing on very minor details. In my post however, i suggest to give the Minengeschoss a unique model because it simply works differently than a normal HE round and more importantly, it is used by ~50% of all planes in the game. So it affects a lot of aircrafts. People could just as easily brush off your 20mm HE claims as being pedantic. I am also not suggesting full realism. I have said multiple times that the DM can go only so far, however there is simply no reason why there shouldn't be an adjustment to the damage values of the 20mm HE. Based on the test, where the russian and german 20mm HE perform the same on a structural level and the russian 20mm AP being a lot better than the german one, yes, the german 20mm is the worst in the game according to the test. However i don't mind admitting that the result could be different if there would be a way to test for internal damage as well! A good MP PvP experience in a sim game should be achieved by mission design, not balancing historical data. A sim game is not about being competitive strictly speaking. This is not an e-sport title, despite what some people on TAW think.
  9. You seem to missed a crucial point in my post. Stop cherry picking on the Mg151/20 just because you are mainly flying against it. Make extensive reliable tests with all three 20mm HE rounds and then compare the results. Shooting down a couple of planes offline is hardly that. The problems with it were mentioned before. The Mg151/20 might be very well overperforming right now, but solely focusing on it to try to achieve a "nerf" without considering its relation to other 20mm HE rounds is simply short sighted, biased and not helping the overall DM quality. Edit: Yes the situation is much worse... Also thanks to @Raven109 for proving why things need more accurate testing than real time action reports. It might have been a AP 20mm as well.
  10. It is not ok, IF tests show that you can reliably reproduce this result and it is not a freak accident. And again, all you seem to have in mind is nerfing the MG151/20 HE when the DM as a whole needs a big overhaul. The Hispano 20mm HE for example is even more powerful than the MG151/20 but i don't see you mentioning it much because your impressions are only based on your own subjective gaming experience. Test the DM reliably or stop complaining
  11. Your problem is that you focus solely on the MG151/20. That's also a reason why some people consider your views as biased. You have to view the DM as a whole. In our case, compare all 20mm HE types with at least 1 aircraft of each faction. If tests show that the ShVAK is indeed underperforming compared to other 20mm HE types, than you will see me as a strong supporter to fix it accordingly! So long we we only have indications that there might be an issue. Another problem is that the german 20mm HE should not be an HE in the first place but a Minengeschoss. So we are comparing apples with oranges to start with, however, a sim can only go so far and it would be a good start if at least the damage effectiveness would compare to historical and scientific sources. IL2 is also not and never will be an e-sport game. Fair competition can only be achieved by mission design and not by balancing aircrafts.
  12. Do you have any scientific or historical source that states that the 20mm ShVAK was by any means comparable in effectiveness of the 20mm Minengeschoss? I am genuinely curious. Also, if you think the 20mm ShVAK looks weak against the 20mm Minengeschoss, wait till you compared it to the 20mm HE Hispano... On top of that i want to add, that the russian 20mm AP is way better than the german 20mm AP. I was thinking about it, but it is very time consuming and i don't even have IL2 installed currently because i considered it borderline unplayable in its current state. Also there is still no way to do my test with accurate internal damage data, which seems to be the main difference to the "old" system. In the end, i also fear it is a waste of time because the IL2 devs seem to have already made up their minds to keep their imaginative approach to the DM instead of going with historical researchers.
  13. Sadly they don't take action nor engage in a dialogue even when faced with leading research sources that show that they damage values of ammunition in the game were decided on a whim by them as far as i can gather. So i wouldn't hold my breath in that regard... Edit: they might read it but they will still choose to ignore it. Sure, you can argue that they had their reasons, but what reasons could there be to ignore research on this topic? There are just too many oddities in my testing for me to being convinced that they based their values on anything resembling historical sources or research data.
  14. A couple of points: Devs only acknowledge offline testing, because they consider desynch/netcode to be an issue (which is kind of ironic). I also would like to see any actual "scientific" test to try to make it as reliable as possible. Which means, hitting the same spot with the same ammunition in different tests. Without it, all you do is worthless and a waste of time when it comes to actually making a valid point. Just as an example, in your "test" nobody knows where you are hitting the enemy aircraft precisely and with what (MG/HE/AP?) which is difficult to tell in a real time scenario to begin with. Also you can't reliably tell what hit did what damage. There are way too many issues when testing on "live" targets. 2 Hits to get an airkill might be completely valid in some scenarios depending on where they are hitting, no matter the ammunition type. 8 test runs aren't really reliable either. I am not trying to blow my own trumpet but in my test i managed to negate most of these issues. The only thing that i can't test reliably is internal damage, which is arguably very important. Sadly there is currently no way to do it. The table in question by gustin/williams sets the different ammunition types into relation to each other. They don't say anything about how many hits on average you require to down an enemy aircraft as far as i know (i am at work currently and can't check). That's why it is important to set the ammunition types ingame into relation to each other as well to get any meaningful information. What we really need is a way to get information on internal and external damage. Only then we will be able to reliably tell how things stand, especially in comparison.
×
×
  • Create New...