Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zdog0331

  1. Not sure I really want any remakes. Hollywood simply doesn't have the guts to make anything original anymore. Most likely all we would get is a not as good copy of a different movie. I guess I wouldn't mind seeing an indie movie director give some movies a shot. Perhaps a remake of American Sniper that actually follows the book and doesn't butcher literally every combat scene in the movie or literally credit the wrong guy for killing one of the most feared sniper on the other side. You know. Basic stuff.
  2. I personally don't have a problem. I can usually down 109s in 1 or 2 quick bursts. However i do like to fly in close with convergence at 300 meters. I aim for the engine and it usually stops it very easily. Like i said 1 burst...2 if i miss. .50 cals don't do a ton of damage to the wings They aren't designed to blow holes in the wings. They are designed to damage parts so you need to be a lot more percise with your shots. If you aren't aiming for individual parts on the plane, you aren't doing .50 cals right. If you just try to hit the plane with no particular target in mind you can literally put all of your ammo into a plane. But if you aim for the cockpit and engine you can down fighters in 1 or 2 hits. Bombers in 4-8. You can get a double ace without filling up on ammo if you are good. Now the 109 with its 20mm he rounds you don't have to do this. Those are designed to blow the skin right off the wings which decreases lift. with 1 burst you can get rid of all lift on that side of an aircraft and its down. If you are used to that where you just try to hit the plane anywhere then you may have trouble with the .50 cals. They are more challenging to use, but when used properly they are just as deadly. Think of the p-51 and p-47 as sniper rifles and you need to be super accurate with your shots and the other planes like the fw190 and bf-109 as shotgun which don't require accuracy to use well.
  3. Yep based off of wadges and averages for how long it takes to do stuff. so a complete guesstimation if you will. Not very scientific and overestimated and subject to change depending on which game engine and who develops it in which country for what platform. So yea take my post with a massive 10 lb bag of salt.
  4. I think DCS would be the better people to talk to for this kind of a project. With their business model they have allowed others to do the actual development work and sell the module. They are in a way like steam where they have a platform and others can use to to sell their products with some initial finantical agreement which could be liscensing or even just we get x% of what you make in sales. There are multiple studios putting out modules for that game. Though I do have my issues with DCS which is why I spend my time here instead. I mean depending on what the work entails i could use my connections to the Erickson Aircraft collection to get some detailed immages from both inside and outside planes with size reference objects if not an outright laser scan, but that may not be where the majority of costs come from. I mean those aircraft fly so for the price per hour which for most aircraft is 4-8 thousand us dollars per hour of flight for the maintenance. Not to mention you would need to rent the equipment to take readings. Luckily the pilots generally don't ask to be paid since they simply enjoy flying those aircraft and want someone to pay for gas and parts. But you are going to have to pay programmers 3d modelers and other game developers to build the aircraft. Not to mention a historian which on average is $34 us per hour. The 3d modeler will run you around $40 us per hour, the programmer which is $50 us per hour and add on other staff that may need to help being an extra 60 dollars per hour. The proper scans i can get you for free, but measurments/data will probibly be around $15K us and the game part may be an extra. On average the 3d model no texture is 30 hours, but for a detailed version you are looking more at 60 so add another $2400 us and for the programming. From what i can tell it takes Game developers an average of 900 hours based on self reports for individual projects within games being coding for an asset/level which is what we are looking at for this so that time will be taken by all of the other people involved. So for that it equates to an additional $36K for the programmer and 45K for 2 other employees. So that brings an estimated total to $98.4k us which we can estimate at around $100,000 us. IL2 is a developed game so you are not starting from scratch if you just want an asset. However do remeber that a high fidelity aircraft is something not intrinsic to the IL2 engine so you will need to do a lot of the Coding work for that one which is where the big bucks come from. Do also know this would be utilizing connections to get things like aircraft readings and details for minimum costs so that can go up the more experience you get with that aircraft so the price can even go higher.
  5. Alfight i figured it out. Apparently it was just regular unmodified T for me. So for some it may be sift T and others it may just be T
  6. yea rip. they do not move with my vr headset. Not sure what the difference is between our settings. Will have to do some investigating. Is there anything other than nestle to gunsite that shift-t is bound to?
  7. hmm. This doesn't seem to work for me, though that key-bind is nestle to gunsite so i imagine that it is a sort of glitch that actually helps you that doesn't seem to work for everybody.
  8. There is a mod for that Its not super polished and rough around the edgest, but its pretty neat. It does require you to make missions with it though. It does not just add it to the game. Just a script that you can utilize in the mission editor
  9. Fair enough. I used to fly this game with a warthog until i "upgraded" to a vkb galdiator which really helped me out a lot. I was able to fly good before, but it wasn't until i dumped the warthog until i realized how badly it was affecting my performance which ultimately convinced me to upgrade to a gunfighter with the warthog adapter (still love that full metal a-10 grip). But that is my personal experience. A stick isn't everything, but it does hinter your ability if it isn't smooth. Do note that much of what i said regarding control surfaces is using a linear profile with no curve setting. which is kind of confusing now that i go back and read it and see that i recommended a heavy curve earlier in the post. I got a gunfighter with the extension and runa linnier setup so read it as the graphical stick rendered in the game should not go more than 20-30% deflection in terms of pulling backwards when the fuel tank is full but you can pull a little harder when its not. But still light pulling no more than 50% full back (with no curve set). The plane has a tendency to stall out above that. I do find that the warthog's center bump really does hurt the planes performance and it wasn't something i noticed until i flew with a different stick but that is my personal experience and yours may differ. this may be a little late reply wise, but i have been away from the forums for a while.
  10. I think the p-51 flies amazingly, but it needs to be flown right. Even with 100% fuel it can fly very well. The main thing is you need to be gentle. With a full sized flight stick you only end up using 20% of the overall movement. So you are going to want a pretty heavy curve and under no circumstances should you fly this with any stick with a hard center bump. All of your movement is very small stick inputs at the center of the stick. If you move the stick past the 50% mark in any direction it will stall out immediately and often times spin you. And most importantly use your ears. When you begin to go into an accelerated stall you will hear the gun barrels whistle. Its ok if they are quietly whistling, but if it gets loud, you are pulling to hard and are about to cause your plane to go out of control. So long as you do that, you have good turning, good speed, good climb, and good energy which mean you will always have some advantage over another plane as you are decent at everything. You may not be the best in any 1 category, but the fact that you are good in everything makes it one of the most versatile planes in the game and you should be able to win most combat encounters with it. If you know your cars think most planes in this game fly like an 80s rally car with lots of fast movements and overall crazy fast and hard inputs where the p-51 flys like a modern formula car where you need to be gentile and smooth or else the thing will spin out and crash on you.
  11. My the main thing though is if they are running away, then you have succeeded in moving them away from the battle (even if it is temporary). And that 20km/h speed advantage is an advantage, but its not enough of one to outclass the turning capabilities of the spitfire. The sim pilot blood lust is actually an advantage for a spitfire as your goal is to get them to lazer focus on you as if they try to manuver with you they will loose because they will have absolved themselves of that speed advantage in the first turn. The tempest is even better since it has turning and power which make it overall one of the best aircraft in the game with ammo being its limitation. Obviouly a bf-109 or Fw-190 could just sit at a high altitude and dive on me and keep flying and decide not to engage with me. And in that kind of fight I can hold my own since the maneuverability can allow me to dodge their fire though but a spitfire would be at a disadvantage at the mercy of that plane until it decides to engage. Or it would have to make a head on shot which can work if you are good at the head to head game, but its risky for both sides which may allow you to engage with the 109 and in that event the 109 is toast. Most german pilots online tend to be out for blood as you have said and disengaging is their advantage when fighting the spitfire and very few pilots use it because they are after kills. Also the spitfire tends to be a great furball plane so flying group vs group the spitfires can get an upper hand that way more than with the 109s though as i have said they are pretty even. The outcome of a battle with these planes relies mostly on who can utilize their plane the best rather than a this plane is better than this plane sort of mindset. Personally i love all planes from bobp with the acception of the p-47 and the fw-190 a8.
  12. You generally aren't trying to fight at max speed in the spitfire. You are generally trying to get a 109 to reduce their speed and once they are at a lower speed then you have him. Usually this is about attacking an unsuspecting plane rather than going for someone who is in route above you. You want to attack someone who is below you and preocupied with an objective or something else. Which is what is happening 90% of the time. In a furrball the spitfire is amaizing as most aircraft are bleeding speed in those engagements. Its only moot if you are maintaining those high speeds. Which is rarely how a dogfight goes. usually they pretty quickly drop when dog-fighting and for a spitfire you can climb to loose that speed and have the turning advantage. also forcing the 109 to give up its speed advantage.
  13. Not when the speed advantage is that small. yes 100km+ speed advantage such as what you get with a jet will give you the advantage and is absolutely better, but when you are at less than 50km/hr speed advantage the turning advantage can take over. I have had hundreds of hours in the spitfire mk9 hundreds in the p-51 hundreds in the fw-190 d9 and hundreds in the bf-109 k4. These are planes i was flying in dcs far before i started flying them in this game and no its not a big enough difference. If i am positioned right i am never at a disatvantage in those planes. And if flown right you can maintain the advantage if you fly your plane correctly. even against a good foe. I have never in those aircraft though it was my plane's fault for me loosing a fight. 90% of the time its because i attacked from a bad position. If you learn the planes and fly them right, they will beat the german planes so long as you use your advantage which is different from the german aircraft. Sa,me goes for the germans as well. Its all about capitalizing your advantage over the other planes and they have different advantages.
  14. yea but its a better turner. Speed isn't everything if you use your plane right
  15. I have to disagree about the german planes being better. They are fast flying planes that excel at energy fighting tactics. Where the british planes generally are medium speed planes that excel at turning and climbing. The p-51 is a jack of all trades but isn't the best in any 1 category which makes it very versitile once you take the time to learn it and it is not an easy plane to fly. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. The various planes are better than the others when used to their strengths. Don't out energy fight a 109 in a spitfire and don't turn fight a spitfire in a 109. If you fly the planes correctly to their advantage they are about even. Id actually go as far as to say that the sptifre mk IX and tempist are better than the german aircraft in BOBP, but that really depends on how you use it. I see way too many people telling me how terrible a plane is compared to the others who then proceed to attack the enemy plane from a position that puts them at a disadvantage and complain about loosing. Or people will fail to disengaged when the advantage is lost and complain that their plane isn't good enough despite the fact that they are out of energy and trying to climb up to a 109 from a lower attitude at a lower speed when they should have turned away a bit ago to regain the advantage. If you use your aircraft properly then often times i find that the allies have better planes. Obviously not all planes, but i'd go as far as to say that the allies have some of the best planes in the game. Just stop flying allied planes like you are flying a german planes. They have completely different optimization and should be flown differently.
  16. The bf-109 k4 is an easier fighter to learn that the fw-190 d9, but yea the D9 is a lot better. The key to using it is that it literally has almost a 100% energy retention (altitude wise). If you dive, you can pull up all the way to the altitude you dove from regardless of height. You can dive from 8 thousand meters and climb back to 8 thousand or from 800 meters. (tested at an 80 degree climb and dive vector) you will be a little bit slower at that altitude, but flying high with that aircraft allows you to dive on enemies and climb back away with ease. But its very much a boom and zoom type of aircraft. It doesn't like to turn at all. And if my must turn you have to cut corners and turn vertically. the k4 is a more balanced aircraft as it can turn a bit while having great energy while the d9 is all energy and speed.
  17. It was change based on popular request by the vr community for aircraft. I do like it for the gunsite, but it is a bit close for gauges. Personally i just move my head closer to them
  18. That was my bigges issue with WMR. It was great to have and I highly recomend it for people getting into vr, but I got lower performance due to the cliff house is always running with steamvr and the game which does impact performance. I had a lenovo explorer and upgraded to an index and my performance INCREASED despite the slightly higher resolution of the valve index. I'm sure with a proper patch you could fix that performance problem, but Its large enough that i get an improvement in fps when i switch to a higher resolution headset.
  19. 1. vega 64 2. 20.2.2 3. I have had the boxes of doom, and the textures overall look a little more pixelated than before around the edges of aircraft and ground textures 4. MSAA switching solves the boxes of doom, however the performance overall is slightly worse than with the last patch and the pixelation around the borders of various aircraft still aren't as good as before the patch. Also in 3rd person there is always a line where the sky renders through the clouds. and it only does it for clouds and only in 3rd person. 5. I have not done this though i will edit my reply when i do get a chance to do this 6. No I will say that the MSAA swtiching and some tweaking of some other settings makes the game more than playable, but just not as good as the game was pre-patch. In particular i found that turning some of the settings up mitigated the effect slightly though at the cost of performance. I have it looking close to what the game used to look like, but the game does not perform as well. All of this is done in VR and i am using a valve index. The pixilation issue makes it look as if you are running VR at lower super sampeling or using a original vive/occulus headset despite using an index. But only along the edges which makes me believe that the anti aliasing is the main culprit. All of the textures still look good, but the edges do not look so good even with the fix. I will do some more testing with my rig to see what else i can find when i have time. Let me know if there are any more tests other than the factory reset that i could do.
  20. Yea. I don't have the documentation, because i heard it from a couple of different people. The main and most trustworthy source is a man who flies the p-51 as part of the Erickson foundation. The guy flies the red tail mustang and is very knowledgeable on the subject. I also heard the same thing from one of the sac city aircraft maintenance instructor who has worked on a variety of WWII aircraft. Do also note that is on the leading edge of the wing. Just at the rear on on the top doesn't do much, but its an almost perfect design as far as airflow goes. But a small gnat equates to 1 inch of surface area loss was what the mechanic told me. If you ever stop buy the hanger that guy is very fun to talk to. He somehow managed to get a dirigible license. But the p-51 pilot had some story about how poor the performance can get when the leading edge gets way too dirty and recalled an insistent where he hit a patch of bugs and the plane was significantly impacted by the hit and he claimed that he nearly had to put it down in the field due to how unruly the flight characteristics became. I will give you that large probably wasn't the proper word to use. I meant like during a swarm of locusts. Not just a random clump hitting the wing. The plane is unflyable in one of those settings where there are so many bugs in the air that it looks almost like a dust storm from the distance. If it were down to just a clump of bugs, then the aircraft would never have been used. edit: on short notice don't see a lot of stuff regarding specifically the p-51, though there is a decent amount on the Laminar flow design wings like on the p-51 talking about the cons of such designs being the issues with dirt and insect accumulation causing issues which are unique to Laminar Flow designs. "Incidentally, in the flight testing of the Hurricane II reported by Plascott et al. (1946), no flies or insect debris was observed in this NLF flight test. However, the drag measurements from previous flight tests where flies and insects were picked up indicated an increase in the drag due to insect debris. Hence, the full advantages of laminar flow and the subsequent low drag would require some method to prevent the insects from adhering to the surface......Atkins (1951) formally looked at the insect contamination problem by generating correlations 27 using the Dakota, Wirraway, Mustang, and Vampire aircraft. The results gathered from 24 flights showed that contamination extended to about 14 percent chord on the upper surface and about 9 percent chordon the lower wing surface. A bug hit was only recorded if it had sufficient mass to trip the boundary layer. Furthermore,it was reported that insect contamination was evident in the winter, even though Melbourne, Australia,had a cool climate" (Joslin 27) https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980232017.pdf Lot more information here about it, but I don't feel like reading through the entire thing, but insect debris has an entire section dedicated to it in regards to Laminar flow and was usually considered to be significant in terms of known literature which will probably be found in the sources. Like i said i heard it from experts in the field. this is just what I turned up with about 5 minutes of research and reading. But if you feel its not enough I'd be happy to go further, but I'm kind of tired today and for proper research you need a couple of days.
  21. Its though to say. Its a decent test @71st_AH_Barnacles however what i think is missing is looking at a model standpoint and figure out how much surface area was cleared up by the various modifications that was done to the p-39. (For the weight you can compare the numbers ingame to that much weight difference by using a different fuel load to calculate that) You can then use those numbers to get a rough estimate for how much surface area those 50 cal holes represent and compare that to how large the holes for a 50 cal bullet should be which does have a lot of data from various sources. There are also a lot of other aspects that effect this, for example wing design. Literally hitting bugs in the p-51d can cause problems. A single fly can decrease the effective surface area by 1 square inch and getting a bunch of bug hits on the wings can actually cause the plane to fly very poorly due to how perfect the wing design is. And things like bullet hits were very problematic if they compromised the leading edge of the wing. Where other planes this isn't an issue. Literally you cannot fly a P-51 if there is a large amount of bugs out like you will see from time to time the american Midwest due to this issue. So technically 1 burst of .50 cals to the leading edge of that plane would cause it to be horribly difficult to control and loose a significant amount of speed and even more lift.
  22. thats a good way to learn to spot the aircraft, but you can learn to see them at all times of the day. Its just difficult, though entirely possible with a 24" 1920X1080p lcd 60hz monitor 3 feet from your face in a trackIR setup or with vr (thats the setups i have played with and other setups may legitimately not be able to). Planes tend to be a moving texture and scanning various areas by pausing your trackir and looking for movement is usually the best route. With VR you don't need to do any pausing since your eye can percieve it pretty well with practice. You will also notice that the texture for the planes is slightly different than the terrain and sky so you will notice it. The sun does make it more apparent since they tend to almsot shimmer slightly, though other effects are noticeable without the sun. Its very difficult at first and I used to be shocked by the things people could see. But with practice you will eventually develop an eye for it. edit: your tactic is also important to know as its a quick way of seeing planes. But there are other ways to stack on top of that to make your spotting abilities even better.
  23. So to answer the question No you cannot have a gunner in coop. however you can do coop with gunners. What you have to do is save the mission as a dogfight mission and setup a spawn. If the mission has triggers and scripting you will have to rewrite those and host it via a Dserver as many waypoints and scripts will not work if you host it from the game. There are missions that people have made that are labled dogfight, but only have 1 side playable which makes them function like dogfight servers. This allows all of the features of dogfight servers like respawning and other players joining as gunners without having to deal with other players. Also you can join one of the coconut missions being hosted since those are mostly AI and tend to be empty enough as to not be bothered by random people. I myself will often times run some of those missions using the Dserver and have fun with friends.
  24. War thunder actually does a semi decent job at this. Basicly they make it so every plane at over x distance is a large black dot. Large in this case is relative, but unlike the current system its a lot more noticeable. VR does help with spotting in the sense that you do get parallax, however even with the high end one, you cannot spot at the same distnanced as with a monitor due to Resolution even with the index, but when they are at around 6 knots out you can see them quicker than with a flat screen because of that parallax. Either way i like the war thunder solution because it works and is not as intrusive as the il2 visibility system which makes the planes very large at distances which just looks wierd because it seems that the planes are much closer than they really are, and in vr they look massive. EX: an i-16 appears to be the size of a football field at distance. Its one of those things that doesn't get used in any server due to how annoying that problem was for a lot of people and it for the most part disliked, though some did enjoy it. So its an optional setting you can enable.
  25. He is talking about performance of the game. A quick go over as to what is going on is in the next patch the Devs will start using a different lighting system called deferred shading. This lighting should make the game look better and the developers believe that the performance will improve, however due to the fact that this is an entirely different lighting system its possible that it will be harder on the systems while easier on others. As to the actual effect on performance, overall its unknown to us and speculation at this point so the answer is we really don't know. But the devs have stated that we should see a slight improvement in performance.
  • Create New...