Jump to content

kalbuth

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

65 Excellent

About kalbuth

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

441 profile views
  1. Well, it's a tough position you are in, balance is a b*** One could allow "advanced" planes only to thoses having shown their ability to do things while returning home, but I bet CB popularity would be tanking under such kind of strict rules... There's no win solution. I was just pointing that Scharfi's position is perfectly understandable, in my eyes moreso than the "win in any way or form", but that's my old eyes...
  2. Well, she makes a great point, actually. Survival is not accounted in winning conditions, and that should be the first and foremost goal. Flying includes landing back and people landing back get ZERO benefit of it in current system. Even though winning is lovely, doing it while chaining on way trips to death while bombing as fast as you can is hardly satisfying, imho.
  3. I'm sorry but that's absolutely not an excuse... I don't play much and when I do I go solo on the side low on players (not that it will change anything seeing my performances...), just to clear things up. I have absolutely zero side preference. That something was wrong before, and nothing was done, cannot be a justification, in any way, for things being wrong now in the opposite direction.
  4. You are shooting yourself in the foot if you drop FC in its current incarnation lacking career mode. PWCG more than makes up for this. Sure, it would be better if 1C included career mode, but if you already have the game, not using PWCG is just hurting yourself. Patrick Wilson does an absolute awesome job, enjoy it! If you don't have the game, then yes, sending a $$ message is probably useful.
  5. And why is 20+ km NOT extreme? It makes all planes in game around me shine like they are all A380 under a bright sun. It's simply not what I see in my sky, tbh. Simply put, from my observation, everything visible 20+km is completely extreme.... Trying to overcome a short range issue with such an extreme measure is imho not the way to go.... Normal gives better result. EDIT : but like the polls shows, this is simply fracturing the community and we won't agree on this.... I don't see a proper solution
  6. Why not show all contacts up to 100Km, while we're at it? it would be far more fun.
  7. But the current "normal" (ie, non alternate) visibility system is NOT, definitely NOT, what we had pre-patch. Can we stop spreading this lie? Because that's what you implie here... The current "Normal" mode is ALSO so much better than what we've had all the years before .... Requiring to see absolutely everything around you at 20+ km because the engine has issues at rendering close range is imho a very wrong way to solve the issue. I now use far less zoom for long range scanning, because I don't need it anymore, there's still plenty of contacts appearing in the 10-20kms range which is far more than what we had before (since it was simply zero contact at these distances).... Normal setting is NOT a step back, it's a step FORWARD from pre-patch.... Stating otherwise is simply ignoring dev's work.
  8. Thank you @everyone that contributed to getting accurate numbers out of this. I'm gonna follow the above statement, that imho seems to follow judgement of another pilot that the physiology is slightly too much (which seems in line with this 12-15% figure). I'm personnaly pretty happy with something 15% within what's feeling right. Upping it would give people smtg around +1G... Not sure it's worth the hassle, depending on how it is coded, tweaking numbers to end up on the correct values maybe more difficult than we think of it. I doubt there is a file saying "give them black out at 6G".... Edit : I completely mixed up things between time to GLOC and permitted Gs. Corrected.
  9. Because what you see as poor vision is seen as stupidly visible on others PC . The rendering is dependant on hardware and settings. We must accept that it's a choice, and both choice are rendering good for a portion of the population, and bad for another portion. So CB switching to alternate would be done at the expense of some of its players, exactly like this switch to normal is done at your expense. Just so you know, on my system, on CB maps with alternate settings, I see most if not all contacts rendered between 25 and 30kms. It means I see what happens on objective A when flying around objective B, I see what happens on the front shortly after taking off, it's making any kind of navigation or flight planning totally useless, making Combat Box a glorified dogfight, Berloga- like , server, I just need to go toward my furball of choice that I see in front of me. I guess that's not what you see in these settings... I'm not advocating for any settings, mind you, I think it's pointless in current implementation, I'm just addressing your question about the worthiness of standard visibility settings.
  10. Squad & Co have proven how a good in-game VoIP implementation can go without any issue and help the game tremendously. Not much of what VoIP doomsayers describe actually happen there, apart from unnerving wanabes sergent in chief that you drop very fast by changing group. That said, Jason has closed that door, and that's all that need to be said, imho ....
  11. Il le fait exprès, c'est pas possible... 🤔
  12. 😕 Simple question : how many Gs did you pull for how long in your video? How do you know that you are pulling X or Y G in this video? How do you want to compare your video to the target graphs presented in the DD explaining Physiology? How you fare in your plane, how good you are and and you think we aren't, etc... let's be pretty clear : nobody cares and it doesn't mean sh.t to demonstrate if current implementation fails or not to achieve the Physiology system they wanted to achieve. They target to follow a graph showing G resistance for X amount of time before blacking out (+ other subtle effects like transient blackout and fatigue effect). It has numbers. I can't compare a video to numbers. Nobody can. You compare numbers to numbers. Simple. And to be clear, I have no belief. The implementation could be good or bad, I simply don't know, so I won't make any video or such, I don't have any claim on this issue. It's just that your vid itself is not helping. It's a guy doing a barrel roll and crashing in the ground. Nothing more. You feel it's pulling too few Gs , somebody else is going to tell it's actually more than you feel.... Too few facts, not enough numbers.... This won't get far.
  13. You definitely can. I can't (rely on yours, I mean...), like you wouldn't rely on my own experience without me being precise about it.... Well, I wouldn't recommend you to do so.
  14. Ah, some source, for a start.... What would help is the corresponding Tacview file, it registers the exact G forces all along the flight, for example. And it shows the preceding conditions (eg showing if you did multiple maneuvre or not, thus reducing global resistance, or if this is the effect of a sudden G load and so only a transient blackout (you end up in the ground, so we can't really know), etc... or if there's no special initial condition). It's pretty simple, the expected behaviour is depicted on page 5, bottom (I don't remember who posted that -- EDIT : posted by RoflSeal), with the in-game resistance graphs and the source material that the sim is aiming for. Either you dispute the target, in which case you should come up with facts and figures showing the figures used as sources are wrong. Facts & figures, not anecdotal evidence like an aerobatic video, or "personal experience" nobody knows anything about. Or you dispute the in-game implementation that gives results different from the target, which seems to be your case. This video helps, but again, more numbers and precise conditions description would really help, and the full Tacview file would contain all that is needed (also, the same not ending on the ground ) "It should not be liek that, noobs!" is doing NOTHING usefull.... EDIT : I'm actually not using Tacview on IL2, I presumed it gives the same result as DCS, ie including info like G load . If that's not the case, then... well... Actual G load is up for guesses.
  15. Source of your assertion?
×
×
  • Create New...