Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

71 Excellent

About kalbuth

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

537 profile views
  1. I did 2 additionnal planes following your specs, D9 & Tempest : Fw 190 D-9 , combat settings, no MW50 : altitude at 300 kmh: 1550 m max altitude : 1960 m (test error?) Fw 190 D-9 , combat settings, with MW50 : altitude at 300 kmh: 1610 m max altitude : 2070 m Tempest, emergency power : altitude at 300 kmh: 1606 m max altitude : 2010 m Tempest, emergency power, Sabre IIA : altitude at 300 kmh: 1635 m max altitude : 2055 m There's something fishy in my discrepancy for max alt with your tests, I probably did something a bit different, I didn't double check with a plane in your set to see if we were aligned, yet. I didn't start from 0 ASL, obviously, tests would have ended prematurely 😄 I substracted the altitude at the start of the pull from the altitude at 300 and max. I think there's a definite group of energy retention kings, the "above 1500m" group here, of which the Jug is absent (no clue if that's true to life). That said this is testing with 90° zoom climb, kinda not a general thing done in B&Z
  2. kalbuth

    VR zoom

    You are the best, @Jason_Williams & team. I truly mean it.
  3. OK, so that's the main thing tackled
  4. Even at 600m I can see some issues with icons. 1st is that they usually appear even when the plane is masked by your own plane frame, which leads to people spotting others when they should not be able to. So this would need to be fixed first. Also, an icon is far easier to spot and that can lead to spotting something that you would not usually spot (I'm not talking about IDing and IFFing, but spotting the simple presence of a plane), even at 600m. I don't know how to solve this one properly, if that is ever felt as too much of an helper. Maybe making the icon slowly appear only after a certain time of the contact being in the central zone of the screen? Ofc, if we all feel the close range spotting is lacking in the sim anyway, that could be a solution for everyone All this is quite a lot more work than it seems on the surface, imho, if we want a proper implementation (and IL2 team seems to rarely go for a non proper implementation)
  5. I do this, mostly by ears. They warn me when to get an eye on gauges because "something sounds odd". Been flying tech chat off for a pair of years now. I can count the number of engine overstress on one hand, you get used to it pretty fast, tbh. Ofc, I'm probably less "to the edge" than someone flying "percent perfect", but that's imho more in-line to how it was flown back in the days, I like it. Since ears is a consequence of RPM (the thing that catch your ears are changes in sound pitch, which come with RPM change), mostly, I can say I fly by RPM , though there's also a ATA component in the engine growl sound. You hear pretty well A8 difficulties between 2 & 3 kms, for example.
  6. No, what he did was to point out VR users as exploiters, he did this multiple times, on multiple platforms. He has been far farther than pointing out people exploiting Migoto in 2D. He was very contempt labelling VR users as "happy to exploit their advantage". So yes, I can very easily argue with his behavior, and I indeed find the first answers absolutely hilarious and to the point.
  7. Because that would be the sensible thing to do. +1
  8. This post should be updated, I have a ForceFeel and it definitively works with Simshaker Wings, in IL2
  9. I concur, I'm one seeing a far better performance from IL2 VR than DCS, that's not even a match. And everyone in the group I fly with agree, we are 3 with VR, we all see better perfs from IL2. @IdahoBookworm I don't know what could be the source of your issues, but this is not a generalized issue, tbh. I was very worried by this DD when I saw DS being implemented. My first thought was "dear, knowing what DS did to DCS VR perfs, this is a terrible news ". Now I read you guys here, it seems you are tackling it the right way, changing AA tech in parallel, etc... I'll wait for the final result, crossing fingers, but you're doing outstanding job from the look of it, @Jason_Williams & crew!
  10. DCS Spit requires constant braking and seems to have very low reponse to airflow going through rudder. Based on what Zacharias has been explaining for months now, I tend to prefer IL2 Spit ground handling, though it has its own quirks
  11. 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...
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  • Create New...