Jump to content

[110]xJammer

Members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

2 Followers

About [110]xJammer

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

997 profile views
  1. - We do not have gunners that are capable of damaging player tanks - Gunners have X-ray vision, capable to spot tank through trees and buildings - Gunners warn the pilot that there is a player tank in 1km radius - Gunners fire at the tank highlighting the location of the said tank, even if in the middle of a thick forest. Playing as a tank under these conditions is not very fun. (Not even talking about bombers being able to easily kamikaze into you for much less of a time investment than it takes to drive the tank). Easiest would be to just disable the gunner AI vs. player tanks entirely.
  2. Did you know that dark camo improves wing's lift, as the upper surface heats up, thus lowering pressure (while the bottom part is cool, therefore providing higher pressure). On the other hand white camo reduces the overall temperature of the aircraft, thus improving the engine cooling performance... Choices choices...
  3. G-suit helps with neg-G? 😕
  4. it is at least twice as good as the hs129, considering the 2nd mk103
  5. Honestly even 30/37mm AP ammo does not do much damage unless you hit the engine or the pilot. Just take hs129 with 30mm AP mk103 and test it for yourself. Would this be reasonable? I'd say yes. Hits to the engine from the .50cals make a short work of it most of the time, and you can snipe the pilot if you are able to hit reliably. Would I expect a significant aerodynamic damage from a 12-20mm hole in a wing? Hardly. (And even currently Pe2 UBS gun causes pretty heavy FM damage IMO)
  6. I would grab the Pe2 sortie you had with 12 kills on TAW then... but unfortunately the TAW website only shows the latest campaign. Worth mentioning the bug only referred to gunners and berloga has no Pe2 or other gunner-equipped aircraft.
  7. Yeah, its an FOV hack As I have previously stated, I see no issues with the devs supporting a version of this themselves. But the fact that you need to use an external code injection to make it work... is a hack. This same injection vector can be used for much more than just FOV hacks, and nothing stops anyone from modding migoto to do more than just hacking the FOV slider... Edit: Actually the fact that it can remove the prop is 100% a hack. At this point one might as well make their cockpit transparent
  8. TrackIR uses dev-supported protocol to interact with the game. Migoto uses DirectX injection, in a similar manner to how wallhacks in FPS shooters work.
  9. I have HTC Vive. Its not competitive in MP, but is a great experience in SP. I do not plan to use external software to augment my performance in VR for it to become competitive in MP however.
  10. Its a mindset of getting the hardware that works with the game vs. forcing the game to work with their hardware through some nefarious and non-TOS compliant ways. But actually this discussion helped me to solidify my POV on this matter. Yes migoto is a cheat, on par with those invulnerability or speed hacks we have seen in the past. Not from the POV of what it does, but from the POV that it is a 3rd party software that enhances player's performance outside of the game permitted values. Migoto should be banned ASAP and the injection methods should be reviewed to prevent similar software from using them in the future. Adding a simple "if VR then max_zoom = 2 * normal_zoom" for the devs should be much easier than having to hijack the game to do the same.
  11. As I previously said, I have no issues if devs decide to implement something similar to migoto - that would be a separate discussion with the community in terms of how much "crutch" to give to the VR users. (And why we don't have colourblind support as well). Currently, however, we have basically a 3rd party "cheat" that people treat as necessity, without any oversight from the developers.
  12. You clearly are focusing on the less important issue at hand If the devs decided to give us the extra-zoom if VR was detected, fine by me. However we have a 3rd party software that does it, and bypasses all of the anti-cheat IL2 has. Would you feel fine if migoto users also installed an "addon" that gave them FFI markers? because it is too difficult to ID. Or maybe edge-of-screen arrows to indicate that they have a 6 - turning your head all the way to the back is much more difficult in VR than it is with trackIR afterall. Or lets just colour all enemy aircraft into fluorescent yellow...
  13. As long as every other zoom was also restricted to 1.5x I see no problem? As I said in my second paragraph, the fact that we have a 3rd party software that permits player enhancement is an alarming issue, not so much the VR-special zoom (that also can be used in 2D). At the end of the day you can just use a 3-screen setup and the very edges of the screen would have a crazy "zoom" without any 3rd party mods.
  14. While this topic has certainly been rehashed to no end, my .02c is that migoto is just past the boundary where I would call it a cheat. Both for 2D screens and VR. If people choose to handicap themselves by flying in VR in MP, it is their choice. No need to provide them with a special crutch just to stay competitive. I think overall there is a bigger issue at hand - we have a piece of software that clear-cut enhances the player's capability. That is not prevented by the IL2's anti-cheat protection and bypasses the "no-mod" setting on the servers. If migoto can do it - who is there to say that other people aren't using souped up migoto that would provide not just the zoom, but also ID markers on no-marker server etc.
×
×
  • Create New...