Jump to content

=[TIA]=Stoopy

Members
  • Content Count

    466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

526 Excellent

1 Follower

About =[TIA]=Stoopy

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.com-central.net

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NoVA
  • Interests
    Toothpicks, Sneezing, Flight / Air Combat Simulation, Instrumental Surf Guitar!

Recent Profile Visitors

731 profile views
  1. OK the screenshots worked. Just pre-ordered the Yak-9T. Only if to help out the devs in these challenging times.
  2. Thanks for coming to the support rescue, Jim. I need to keep basics like that in mind when throwing together a simple test mission for myself. When everything is already in your library, It's too easy just to grab whatever you feel like. Lapino map and no flyable A/C should be my rule of thumb.
  3. Hmmmmmm.... I started it, took a nap and came back just in time to watch the last & final D-9 suddenly explode in a fireball over the middle of the firing range, showering the airfield with various pieces and broken wings. I've never seen that before in this test. From MG fire. This may explain why every time I debate about taking an A-8 or a D-9 in multiplayer, I get that sudden premonition not to take the D-9, like a voice is telling me "Don't take that plane, you'll never make it back"....🤨 (I never make it back anyway) 😁
  4. @ROTER_BART, OK swapped out the 262 for the FW190 D-9. It cruises through the firing course at a steady 212 knots. P-47: 212 kts / 393 kph P-51: 212 kts / 393 kph P-38: 217 kts / 401 kph FW190A-8: 211 kts / 390 kph Spit IX: 213 kts / 394 kph Tempest: 215 kts / 398 kph Bf109K-4: 215 kts / 398 kph FW190D-9: 212 kts / 393 kph Here's the new version to download, I haven't had time to let it run a full cycle so it will be interesting to see what color smoke we get: Aircraft Survivability Comparator v1.1.zip
  5. ? Pilot can has oxygen system ?
  6. The track record/replay system is one of the great features brought forward from the original IL2. Once you get used to it you really appreciate it for things like graphics tuning, etc. When you replay a track that you recorded in a multiplayer flight, for instance, and realize you missed spotting a plane, then dink around with your graphic settings and replay the track as needed to see how to make that plane easier to spot, just doing that makes it a really useful feature. I wish we could fly alongside a recorded flight as a separate aircraft during playback. There was a utility for FSX that would record a track and let you play it back as AI traffic, so the plane you flew was then an AI plane and did exactly what you did when you recorded it. You could record a flight starting on the runway, takeoff and do some aerobatics, land and stop the recording. Then replay it back as AI, and be in a plane right next to it, and take off with it and do those aerobatics and land in formation. Plus you could record that, and play it back, and then you'd have two AI airplanes flying an aerobatic routine in formation, and of course you could fly alongside them and be the third plane in formation. I got some truly incredible screenshots and video content doing that. That's the potential that tracks have.
  7. That's because the track file is not a recording or video that can be in any way converted, since it's just a bunch of raw data that represents the aircraft position, speed and other event/action data that only means something to the IL2 program. That's why it's so small, because that's a very efficient way to record a flight. That's also why you can play it back after changing graphic settings and so forth, or play back a track that someone else recorded in IL2 and sent to you, and move around the outside or pan around the cockpit like you can't do in a video, because IL2 will re-render the graphics in a live setting as it chugs through the raw data, as if you were flying the plane again in a live flight. To get it to video, you use IL2 as the rendering engine so to speak, and record it with some utility such as @VSN_Razor has mentioned. And of course video files for most any format are much larger than simple binary data files... but at least they can be recognized and shared outside of the IL2 program such as on YouTube etc... And the cool thing is you can choose to edit a track and pause, change views, unpause, and save as new track so that you now have a track that automatically switches to the views you set up, so you can replay it and record it to video in one go.
  8. @vonNutz - thas to be one of the coolest flying stories I've ever heard!
  9. Having bumped into RK in his P-47 while flying an A-8 online I will agree it makes for a very exciting and challenging engagement!
  10. Re: the P-47 and radial engine damage, it's quite possible that it has its own numbers for the engine damage model apart from the FW-190's engine. And considering that the updated damage models that we will see soon are for the airframe damage model only and not the engine (since Jason specifically said he had engine damage turned off in the video he shared in the last dev diary), we just might continue to see a glass engine in the P-47, albeit wrapped inside a stronger airframe. Since most of the P-47 failures in this test seem to come from critical damage that leads to failure - which I'm assuming means damage to the engine or engine-related components - we could continue to see the P-47 suffer in this test. It's just harder to have the wings blown off by cannons, which isn't measured here. That's my theory at least... we'll see soon. I didn't include the D-9 because the design of the mission and the display was set for 8 planes (seemed a good number at the time) and since the airframes between the A-8 and D-9 are so similar it seemed more important to include the Me262. Seeing what an outlier it is, it's no problem to swap the Dora in for the 262, I can make that change tonight and upload an updated mission. Try as I might I could only get the 262 to slow down to 240 kts / 448 kph and not for very long either.
  11. Here's something kind of interesting: I finally got around to looking at a recorded track in Tacview and found that all aircraft speeds are pretty closely matched in the section where they fly through the firing area, with exception of the Me-262. Speeds shown below are approximate TAS (rounded) just as they enter the firing area, as reported by Tacview : P-47: 212 kts / 393 kph P-51: 212 kts / 393 kph P-38: 217 kts / 401 kph FW190A-8: 211 kts / 390 kph Spit IX: 213 kts / 394 kph Tempest: 215 kts / 398 kph Bf109K-4: 215 kts / 398 kph Me262A: 270 kts / 500 kph Nowhere near as much variance as I expected. Will toy around with getting the 262 speed reduced just for the heck of it, but I consider that plane an outlier for more at least a couple reasons anyway. Different engine type, fuel, etc..
  12. ...thus giving the 262's hours to shoot them down 😁
  13. If it helps. here's a test mission I made when I was trying to figure out how to activate long-range artillery, and form what distances it would and would not work. It uses the Attack Area MCU and may not answer your question about interaction between tanks and anti-tank artillery. Artillery Test.zip
  14. @DFLion, since it's not clear what long-range artillery is not working for you, or how far away the artillery is from the target area, please see the test mission attached here. Different types of long-range artillery fire at a target area from distances of 8 Km and further. There are also some anti-tank positions which have shorter range. One of my problems was I was inadvertently using AT guns in the long-range positions, because I am not a learned individual when it comes to artillery equipment. Each position has markers of certain types, explained in the mission briefing, to indicate distance from the target. I created this test mission because I had issues understanding how to get long-range artillery to work, and in the end I was happy to see it works fine when implemented the right way by the mission builder. Feel free to look at the mission and how things are set up, and use it as you see fit. If it still doesn't make sense, then the best thing to do is ask more questions in the Mission Editor forum, and be sure to post your mission so others can take a look and advise on what may be going wrong. @Alfaunostebas11, I wouldn't exactly come to the conclusion that the community isn't interested in helping. The thing with the Mission builder is to keep trying and experimenting, in my view. Making a simple test mission like this one helps to focus on the core question without worry that some other component in a complicated mission may be causing a problem. Artillery Test.zip
×
×
  • Create New...