Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

About ACG_Kraut

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Boulder, Colorado
  • Interests
    I like planes 'n stuff :)

Recent Profile Visitors

371 profile views
  1. LAlt + Number Keys are the radio commands dude
  2. Great job guys! Thanks for all your hard work! Time to come enjoy with all of us
  3. Manual for Takeoff, Landing, and emergencies. Auto for any other situation.
  4. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I am stressing how important having this feature is, how easy is to implement, and why is unacceptable to not have it. Having all the guns converging in a single point is inefficient and not accurate at any other range than the one set. There is a reason people (historically and in games) set their convergences they way they do. This game is starting too look more and more like a glorified WT by omitting critically important features such as custom convergences and ammo belts among other things. That is not what I payed for. I bought into this as they advertised it as a "sim" and I expect all the features that go along with that. And no, clicky pits are no bother to me, I knew about that going into it and agree with the devs on that one, that it's not so important. Even in DCS I rarely click anything once in the air, that's what HOTAS is for
  5. No, my reference to CLoD is not irrelevant, it is an example of what is an absolutely necessary feature and how to easily implement it. Your examples of aircraft with different caliber guns is precisely why we need both Vertical and Horizontal convergence settings for each gun on the aircraft. It's simple, you have a chart when you select your load out: Gun 1 (MG): Y Vertical | X Horizontal Gun 2 (MG): Y Vertical | X Horizontal Gun 3 (CNN): Y Vertical | X Horizontal Gun 4 (CNN): Y Vertical | X Horizontal etc etc There done, not that hard. "Calculated" vertical convergence is simply not OK by any standards, and it will always be incorrect. Did you even look at the chart above with the actual convergences in real 109s? Just because you don't use it (or don't see the importance of it) doesn't mean it's not a critical feature. It is simply not possible for your aircraft to perform properly if you convergences are completely out of wack, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Another critical feature that goes along with this is being able to select exact ammo types on your belt. Currently, there are way, way too many tracers on the belts for example. Like 1 tracer every 5 rounds on each gun. This is ridiculously inefficient. I normally run one tracer every 20-30 rounds, and only in one gun. PS. The P39 would have had multiple convergences as well. Vertical only for the nose mount 37mm, and then separate Horizontal and Vertical settings for the 12.7mm and 7.62mm guns.
  6. This is almost exactly how I have my guns setup in CLoD. Vertical convergence for all guns at 450m, horizontal convergence for MG at 450m, horizontal convergence on cannon at 150-200m. I need to be able to do something similar here or my aim will just never be the same again.
  7. In reality though, even that is not a big deal. All they are doing is ruining the immersion for themselves. The spotting is great here, so even if some one "cheats" with bright colors, the better pilot will still always win!
  8. Depends really. If I damage the enemy badly, and I know there aren't any other threats in the area, I'll follow him down and finish the job. Now, if I am the one badly damaged, I fully expect the enemy to let me go so I can attempt to land. I like double standards
  9. I can tell by your gold founder badge your "boycott" is going well. Reminds me of this little gem:
  10. Calm down man, it's a joke. We'll get it when it's ready, no need to worry. Look at it this way... How long have we been waiting for the Fw190 in DCS? like 2 years now? With almost no updates at all during it's development. At least here we have a selection of other amazing warbirds to fly in the meantime. In DCS we are stuck with only that pitiful pony and nothing else. We are still going to be getting our beautiful Fw190 A3 here before Dora in DCS, I can live with that!
  11. You didn't just compare Battle of Stalingrad to the "game that shall not be named"... Don't get me wrong, I play War Thunder too, my youtube channel was basically founded on it, but you simply cannot compare the two. War Thunder is utter garbage in every single category compared to Stalingrad. I have spent literally hundreds of dollars on WT and have not gotten my money's worth. Battle of Stalingrad so far has lived up to everything promised and most of my expectations and I am very pleased with what I got for what I payed and everything to come! The planes are far more developed here, in FMs, DMs, graphics, and functionality. I'm sorry you missed out on the cheaper $50 early access price that was available for a limited time. Keep in mind the $95 is the premium version that includes extra planes, you will be able to purchase the standard version at launch for $60, the price of a standard AAA title, which you will play for years to come. It will be well worth it in the end. If you are skeptical, just keep an eye on development and look into getting it at launch when you know more about it. PS War Thunder is not pay-to-win by any means. Just because you can buy a better plane, doesn't make you a good pilot. I can't tell you how many times I have shot down "pay-to-win" planes with my inferior aircraft because the other guy had no idea what he was doing...
  12. Very disappointed about skins and squadron markings. As discussed in the thread about this elsewhere on the forums, having the ability to apply proper squadron markings is crucial to squad play. It just will not feel right and will make certain aspects of the game very difficult. As far as skins in MP goes, I hope this "ruling" only applies to user made skins appearing for others on the server. Local custom skins being allowed in MP is very important to a lot of people. It needs to at least be like Cliffs of Dover, where we can replace the default skins with the corrected historical skins locally and still play in multiplayer with the modified default skins only showing for us on our local machine. This way everyone can have what they want. If you don't want the historical skins, don't install them, you won't see them on the server. If you do want them we should be able to install them and play with them in MP, even if we only see them clientside and others on the server cannot. Anything other than this is unacceptable. I understand that the historical skins cannot be shipped with the game, but allowing us to add them in at a later time on our local machines is very important.
  • Create New...