Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

1 Follower

About Red_Von_Hammer

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

199 profile views
  1. Nah just a bit less fuel and the Camel will simply destroy all, it has more power, more speed, lateral stability, pronounced adverse yaw at full elevator deflection = easy to predict the flip. Your skill at turning even with full tank was IMO superior, just bad luck with the fuel that lowered the limit and dragged it down, the DR.1 with 100% fuel is 71 liters, the Camel with 100% fuel is 168 liters. That means that at 50% fuel you still would have had more fuel weight than a topped up DR.1. Camel works great with 20-40% fuel, and in the end that's what pulled you down when it mattered. It's not so much my skill as it is teachings of WW1 sim pilots almost 15 years ago, back in the days of Red Baron 3D, a time when, frankly, all that nonsense about balancing wasn't even invented yet, back then the plane FM's were modded to fly what most historical accounts agreed on, plus minus some adjustments, and from there it was about using what your plane was good at vs your opponent planes weak points, first one to lose concentration or bet too much on a move = Good night Marie. In other words, tactics and marksmanship, nobody gave a rats behind about balancing 🤣 I am very much looking forward to the SE5a, such a nice stable gun platform, very fast, great in a dive, good for turns too (better than the current RoF flight model portrays) great at simply rolling back on even keel at the top of a vertical climb (not so much in RoF after the dreaded Dec-14 FM). On that note, the SE5a release will be the make or break moment of FC: Balancing = I have Call of Duty, and I'll only be using TrackIR anyway so might as well stick with RoF, in other words no further investments from me. Let players virtually fight it out with what's as close as can feasibly be (considering time, effort and resource limitation) to what they had to fight with back then = Simulator, where do I put my money? Anyway, as for headtracking I tried the HTC Vive at a friends place but that stuff screws with my head, I don't know what other people are seeing inside a VR headset but for me it's rays of different colors and an insane fish-eye view that nearly popped my eyes out of the sockets and indescribable sharp pain for hours afterwards 😄 Also I wear glasses, and the glasses I use do not fit inside the VR headset. So I'm using a TrackIR5. Rather than VR I'm waiting for the FFB Joystick patent to run out next year, chances are there's going to be some pretty nice, but burgois/boutique priced hardware released (but cheaper than FFB stuff sold under the current patent). Just save the VR money piecemeal. All the people-made stuff that's invented to keep you coming back and eat away at your economy (you'll be shocked when you do the math) = cut them off, unsubscribe from useless stuff, no Youtube donations, use the TV as little as possible, don't leave the lights on when you don't use them, don't leave the hot water running and so forth, just sensible home economics, you'll seriously save hundreds of dollars every month. Make it a goal to afford VR in 4-5 months (when FC-1 will be nearly finished) with money saved on things you don't use. That way you can drink your favorite coffee and eat your favorite steak, but still get the VR headset you want I also recommend trying out all the VR headsets any way you can, before you commit!
  2. Good fun SP1969, hope to see you again, too bad about the locked fuel settings, you would have had me on several occasions if not for that.
  3. I've been entertaining the idea of a used MSFFB stick to modify as well. But have grown too fond of my Gunfighter to massacre it to get something like this working. I'd be careful about selling plans/sticks, there's still a patent on FFB so you could see yourself in rough waters. VKB might go with a boutique/bourgois FFB stick once the patent runs out, I might just shell out for it. Another option, which would be more than good enough for me, would be a Rumble-type controller if software works with it (that's the part that I'm terrible at), the closer it is to stall = Increased rumble, put it on the desk = voila, who needs FFB? From there machine a bracket for the controller internals to be bolted into (I have a mill, drill, tap & die set, soldering equipment & welder), and clamp it to the desk, tres bien Edit: Maybe the MSFFB board can be used to send signal to a calibrated ebay board that correctly interprets the input and from there powers stepper motors that drives pulleys that pull on the stick with rubber bands? It'll take some doing, and a few hundred dollares, but it'll be relatively easy and allow for easily adjusted FFB (voltage to motors, pulley sizes, distance from pulley to stick etc) for all axis, even rudder pedals Here's how one guy did it with stepper motors and the whole shebbang: http://www.simprojects.nl/ms_siderwinder_ff2_hack.htm This way the board is merely used for signal, while easily replaceable high voltage boards, much like relays in cars, takes care of the bulk power stuff, which makes it serviceable. The general idea being the MSFFB2 has the best FFB, while the Logitech stuff has Hall sensors (best control input precision), ergo take MSFFB2 and some 200 dollar hardware and make it work with whichever controller is your favorite = bon!
  4. Yeah by what I've experienced so far this has so much potential, and it is still just bare-bones, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here but it feels a million times better than RoF, the BoX ported RoF planes handles so intuitively while still retaining the historic characteristics that weren't removed by the RoF Dec-2014 patch. I feel like I'm actually flying these planes. And this itteration of the engine simply runs way smoother too. You can still mess up mid-air, but if you're a bit experienced (remember, back then these planes were handed over to nervous farmers kids with barely 10hrs of flight time) not to the utterly extreme level that RoF portrays. Some minor polishing such as detailed by Chill31 and they have it. And then there's all the early-war stuff not yet covered in sims (except WoFF and CK). The very first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morane-Saulnier_L And all the other experimental machines (some battle tested with entire squadrons) such as the Pfalz parasol's, 1914 civilian Eindecker that was fitted with Parabellum MG14 (the original prototype) culminating in MK5 with Spandau 08/15, Garrot's Caproni's, Austro-Hungarian Albatross D.III's w/Schwarzlose MG's, Fokker E.IV's with Oberursel UR.III+ 2, 3 and even 4 (!!) guns (useless in maneuvers, but you didn't want to be in front of them for sure!), overcompressed D.III's (which has been asked for), different Hispano Suiza V8's (150hp and up) finding it's way into all sorts of planes as they were just figuring things out. And the other obscure and weird stuff they battle tested to bury each other with, that was still used in numbers such as Pfalz DR.1 (which equipped an entire squadron), Zeppelin's, Gotha G.IV's, beautiful BE2c's that has not yet graced BoX/RoF planesets and so forth. I'm getting ahead of myself, and it's so far off topic, but FC holds so much promise.
  5. Exactly. To bring up the worst case scenario (I won't be pointing fingers, no names shall be mentioned), that kind of sensationalist material mixed in with facts, to make it seem plausible/believable, ruined a certain sim. Meaning, those who quoted it probably had the best of intentions, but, some (at the time) ruthless people used it for lobbying HARD, more or less over dead bodies. Wherever an inch was given, a mile was taken. Historical content was saturated with directly false data, and, as a result simply compromised the end product (for which many kind souls paid hundreds and hundreds of hard earned dollars) beyond repair.
  6. Yeah, someone covered this already, but nice reference material to remember at any rate Anyway, in the picture it says: Flere deltog dog også i direkte krigshandlinger. Her er det en gruppe kvindelige amerikanske piloter i 1917. Which translates to: Many also directly participated in hostilities. Here is a group of female American pilots in 1917. It's a typical Scandinavian sensationalism trick, the period used in between, notice that trick? Those are two DIFFERENT sentences. Meaning, many women participated in hostilities (which is true). And THEN we can take a look at the picture of the American female pilots and description of them. The women in the picture were females, they were pilots, but that's it, the women in the picture were not COMBAT pilots. Don't get the two mixed up. There were female combat pilots in WW1, such as Marie Marvingt, but that's not who the second sentence in that text and picture refers to. From the best of my knowledge, all of them were relegated to bombing and recon, maybe not single seat scout pilots, but combat none the less. Here's an interesting read: http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/women_combat_pilots_ww1.html Edit: There were female combat pilots in WW2 as well (many of them flew fighters, several made Ace status such as the White Lily of Stalingrad) but that's for the BoX section
  7. Agreed, but if the game engine requires it to keep things under wraps, I can accept a deviation of top speeds IF it's across the board for the whole set.
  8. Exactly what I've been thinking as well, and with BoX that's fully possible, the players merely have to use the functions the product provides (ME) to create the scenario they want
  9. ^^ This, I don't agree with all you said but I do agree it is chess. On that note I might as well air my .5's, all I personally ask for is that care is put into the FM's matching what history already told us, regardless what we feel about it as anPetrovich already said. To which anPetrovich should get a props for btw, it's warming up several ex-RoF'ers (no names, as usual). To put it another way: If a plane was quirky some way or another, on, or indeed beyond, the ragged limit of it's performance = That's what I want to struggle with as well. DR.1's and D7's were great but they were not as fast, they were limited in numbers, and as we know there are ways for servers to alleviate this (limited numbers) and from there it's up to the pilots: Expend the aircraft for short-term gain in furious last-stand's but risk losing the match in long-term as availability of good planes plummets because of your choice. If you're struggling, learn to see alternatives, use your maneuverability to fire only a few effective bursts on the opponent then re-assess if one of your friends flying a lesser planes could deliver the coup-de-grace on a now reduced opponent, while you find safe ground, pre dec-2014 this was common tactics in my clique (don't know what was common after that, most pilots sadly left). IRL for Central the DR.1's would break up the enemy formations, then the Albs would come in and select their targets while the DR.1's reformed. The Spad's and SE's would be up high, ready to pounce whatever the Camel's were having issues with at lower altitudes, the Camel's would reform and re-assess. Same thing will happen with the game: They build them as close to "as they were" as they were, and then we'll sift through historical information to figure out how to fly them. Ultimately we play the game the way we see fit! If you don't like a plane being good or bad, don't use it on your server, don't fly it, don't fight against it! Re-assess your situation and work it over. Like in real life, options are available, like in real life: Use available options and WORK the problem with all means at your disposal. Isn't this what a true simulator is all about?
  10. 3:11 is the part I like the best, and honestly is what I miss the most with the FM in FC, and (irrelevantly, but worth pointing out) RoF since the dreaded Dec-2014 patch in RoF as well. Years ago saw a video of another guy (red baron paint scheme w/white cowling) do the same, but with a bit more angle, then returned to original course as if nothing ever happened.
  11. Ah the super-turning P-38 legend again. The notion that the P-38 can outturn pretty much anything is based on legends about it's counter rotating props, "simply drop rpm's on one side to make that wing stall and rotate the plane around at slow speed with the other engine providing airflow and lift on the other wing" blabla It's been said that Richard Bong used this technique and outturned Zero's, this I can believe, he blasted a lot of them. The issues are: 1) Richard was fighting ill-equipped conscripted college boys at this point, they pretty much lacked the concept of energy management. 2) It's a low speed technique, do it at high speeds and you'll flip floppedy flip flop with less gain on the opponent than before you started fiddling with the throttles. 3) P-38's don't do too well at low speeds, mess it up and stall out completely = You're dead. 4) Try this against a semi-decent pilot, he'll simply firewall it, straighten out and climb before you can get a shot off, then he'll zoom in while you're desperately scrambling for speed = You're dead. 5) The counter to the technique will be out on "YT With CAPITAL Letter Notice Watch And SUBSCRIBE Title" by a streamer or two within days anyway and bam, secret's out, good luck with that. It's a nice additional tool in the toolbox, a hat trick against newbies with scant regard to energy mgt who TnB in an aircraft shuddering and screaming for more speed, but I wouldn't rely on it. The P-38 was great, but for it's intended role.
  12. Insensibly swift replies! I watched the Youtube install guide (and have used PWGC in RoF earlier) so knew HOW to find the mission I did a quick reinstall of the PWGC, and now I get no error on Mission generating (Accept Mission). Thank you both, I did not expect swift replies! And you didnt have to answer Pat, I knew you were busy, I hope I made that clear Now I see the mission in "Missions" in in-game menu, and got to work on those pesky PE-2`s! A continued merry xmas, and thanks again for swift replies!
  13. Merry xmas all! I don`t want to nag on Pat on this issue. Just wondering if anybody ELSE here knows how to install this? 3.1.2 is a far cry in terms of difference between the install video made by Requiem (the one Jason linked to) and this latest version. I`ve tried unzipping everything into H:\Program Files (x86)\1C Game Studios\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\PWCGCampaign To my understanding, IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad is the main BOS folder that everyone is talking about, no mistaking that. So I have the 3 folders and 2 files inside there, I launch PWGC, start campaign etc, click mission, then there is 3 options, Scrub Mission, Briefing Map and Pilot Selection, clicked all 3, ended up on Pilot Selection and Accept Mission: Error (blabla log file blabla) So I supposedly start the game, click Missions... No PWGC related mission there :/ Any takers?
  • Create New...