Jump to content
=LG=Kathon

Tactical Air War

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Not all gunners are at same AI level, it varies. With luck you get the sharpshooter but I can`t recall exact percentages for different AI. 

 

Nice shooting Muskat!

25%-low, 50%-medium, 25%-high, no ace

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

25%-low, 50%-medium, 25%-high, no ace

 

Is this for TAW specifically?

 

and is this AI setting for all of the gunners in your plane?  or each individual one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FeuerFliegen said:

 

Is this for TAW specifically?

 

and is this AI setting for all of the gunners in your plane?  or each individual one?

As I remember it is AI setting for all gunners all planes, but for different random airfields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

As I remember it is AI setting for all gunners all planes, but for different random airfields

So one airfield generates all veterans while another all rookies for example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

Some raw statistic...

 

Best LW bomber pilot have 1375 ground kill in 200 sortie . 27 of those are transport sorties. Lost 58 planes . Defeated 26 times.

He have 7 airkills and 14 assist. 

 

Best VVS bomber pilot have 1524 ground kill in 365 sortie. 33 of those are transport sorties. Lost 89 planes. Defeated 45 times.

He have 13 airkills and 35 assist.

 

As u can see the statistics are surprisinly quite similar. Here are differences. LW bombers can carry more bombload but VVS bombers are little bit faster. Gunners accurary are quite similar. Another conclusion: Overall the gunners are little bit too good to be true. But they are about the same in both side. Its dangerous to attack any bomber in IL-2 if comparing real . Average bomber crew did not get any airkill in WW2.

 

I have been with IL-2 since 2002 (first version) flying bomber. And most thing that it is wrong is that gunner do not tell u which direction the attack is coming (Real war they did) and thats why it is harder to avoid that attack...otherwise the gunners are more effective. But its about same both sides. Do we want to fly same planes both sides ? I think not. I like german planes...somebody else like russian planes...thats the way it is....Developers and online war admins are between the rock and hard place....they have to please both sides.....

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WokeUpDead said:

So one airfield generates all veterans while another all rookies for example?

I understood it that way. Maybe I'm wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, LLv24_Oke said:

As u can see the statistics are surprisinly quite similar. Here are differences. LW bombers can carry more bombload but VVS bombers are little bit faster.

 

I wouldn't say they are similar... at the end of the day the VVS bomber pilot had to fly around 90% more bomber sorties and 65% more total flight time to achieve this similar level of objectives destroyed.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...it would be nice to have online war between Finland - Russia because both side were using : I-153 , SB-2 , DB-3 and PE-2 in -41-44.

Developers need to work making flyable SB-2 or DB-3 which were most common russian bomber. PE-2 is not a level-bomber. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, =2ndSS=Lawyer1 said:

Why no one else complains that Pe2 is too fast and impossible to shoot down?

 

Because LW is busy being silently happy for the great gift they got this Chistmas from il2 devs, VVS can't turn anymore and blue fighters have hand granade launchers instead of guns, TNT 20mm. So no one else complaints about Pe2s and the answer could be here=> if you sort the first page of statistics by death, from the top 25 pilots, 22 are VVS and only 3 LW 😉 

 

Top 25 by deaths => https://taw.stg2.de/stats.php?page=0&search_name=&col_name=DEATHS&sort=DESC

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, right now if a 109 (specially F4) sits in your 6, you are done. That...those charts don't show it. Post all charts you want, physics in this game are arcadish.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

Nah, right now if a 109 (specially F4) sits in your 6, you are done. That...those charts don't show it. Post all charts you want, physics in this game are arcadish.

I understand you are butthurt because you can`t jink and jank your plane anymore totally unrealistic way as you have been used to because of the G-forces. You seem to change your mind all the time, earlier you approved with the physics. Butthurt causes that.

 

Plane performances are exactly same as before. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LLv24_Zami said:

 you can`t jink and jank your plane anymore totally unrealistic way

 

Oh yes you can, and that's actually how i never flew, and right now it seems it's the only way, to shake it like that praying the 109 overshoots. That's as unrealistic as anything else. 

So why bother buying the Yak-9, Hurricane, Yak9T and Spitfires...won't buy any of them, what for? Turn rates don't matter anymore. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

 

Oh yes you can, and that's actually how i never flew, and right now it seems it's the only way, to shake it like that praying the 109 overshoots. That's as unrealistic as anything else. 

So why bother buying the Yak-9, Hurricane, Yak9T and Spitfires...won't buy any of them, what for? Turn rates don't matter anymore. 

Firstly, when you have someone on your six, you should be dead meat 90% of the time.

 

Are you really saying that turn rates have changed? Because that is a false statement. Or is it just because you can`t pull 10 Gs for 20 minutes anymore?

 

Edit: Maybe something like WT would suit you better, I don`t know how they handle physics but I`d assume it`s not as real as in BoX

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Maybe something like WT would suit you better, I don`t know how they handle physics but I`d assume it`s not as real as in BoX


No idea, never tried it. But if they were like il2 1946 they would be enough for me...not like the Star Wars we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:


No idea, never tried it. But if they were like il2 1946 they would be enough for me...not like the Star Wars we have now.

Looks like we have Star Wars pilots among us. Use the force Luke: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

I understand you are butthurt because you can`t jink and jank your plane anymore totally unrealistic way as you have been used to because of the G-forces. You seem to change your mind all the time, earlier you approved with the physics. Butthurt causes that.

 

Plane performances are exactly same as before. 

 

Tone does all the difference, let me try to explain:

 

There's some strange interplay between the new pilot physiology modelling and the controls and the feedback we get about G-forces being incurred. Right now, it's quite hard (or rather, effectively impossible) to judge how much G-forces you apply to your pilot. The pilot grunting doesn't tell you how much you're piling on nor does it tell you how much of your pilots stamina you used up. This results in the much higher turn rate red planes easily exhausting their pilots without knowing. And once the pilot is sufficiently exhausted (which is rather quickly it seems), the turn rate of the plane is effectively similar to the turn rate of a 109 because blackout becomes the limiting factor and those limits are the same for both red and blue pilots. Arguments like "Learn and adapt" don't apply here since there's nothing to learn by. It's a lack of feedback.  Ironically, thanks to the less sensitive 109 controls, you can skirt the blackout border much more effectively than in any red plane which often ends up in a slightly better turn rate for the 109. So in a nutshell, a historical disadvantage the 109 had (the rather mediocre turn rate and heavy controls at higher speeds) becomes an advantage now and red pilots are unable to leverage any turning advantage their planes might have (they're effectively digging their own grave by turning).

 

Just to avoid any accusations (because we know that happens quite easily on this forum): I'm not for removing the new physiology model just that it's not in its final state yet.

 

I think this is reflected in the numbers Chimango mentions. I hope this is a more levelheaded explanation of what his complaining is about.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mauf said:

 

Tone does all the difference, let me try to explain:

 

There's some strange interplay between the new pilot physiology modelling and the controls and the feedback we get about G-forces being incurred. Right now, it's quite hard (or rather, effectively impossible) to judge how much G-forces you apply to your pilot. The pilot grunting doesn't tell you how much you're piling on nor does it tell you how much of your pilots stamina you used up. This results in the much higher turn rate red planes easily exhausting their pilots without knowing. And once the pilot is sufficiently exhausted (which is rather quickly it seems), the turn rate of the plane is effectively similar to the turn rate of a 109 because blackout becomes the limiting factor and those limits are the same for both red and blue pilots. Arguments like "Learn and adapt" don't apply here since there's nothing to learn by. It's a lack of feedback.  Ironically, thanks to the less sensitive 109 controls, you can skirt the blackout border much more effectively than in any red plane which often ends up in a slightly better turn rate for the 109. So in a nutshell, a historical disadvantage the 109 had (the rather mediocre turn rate and heavy controls at higher speeds) becomes an advantage now and red pilots are unable to leverage any turning advantage their planes might have (they're effectively digging their own grave by turning).

 

Just to avoid any accusations (because we know that happens quite easily on this forum): I'm not for removing the new physiology model just that it's not in its final state yet.

 

I think this is reflected in the numbers Chimango mentions. I hope this is a more levelheaded explanation of what his complaining is about.

I`m all in for improving the feedback about G-forces. But how it could be done is another matter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LLv24_Zami said:

I`m all in for improving the feedback about G-forces. But how it could be done is another matter.

 

 

 

Absolutely correct. What I don't want to see is a stamina bar and a G number indicator in the hud. Still, it's a quite the pickle to get right. Therefore: Patience. As I described, I think it's a problem that arises from a number of factors the devs can't really control (Desktop sticks and the 1G comfy chair without feedback device:). Maybe they'll rise the G-tolerance regeneration or they apply a curve to the G onset so we get a bit more wiggle room to work with. Question is how much they would be willing to deviate from documented tolerances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mauf said:

This results in the much higher turn rate red planes easily exhausting their pilots without knowing. And once the pilot is sufficiently exhausted (which is rather quickly it seems), the turn rate of the plane is effectively similar to the turn rate of a 109 because blackout becomes the limiting factor and those limits are the same for both red and blue pilots.

 

This part here is saying that you actually do know that your stamina has been exhausted, but it's too late.

 

Perhaps they could add a low level heart beat sound, or heavier breathing, or visual queues, such as a subtle darkening at the edges of the screen, when the pilot is too tired. Or some kind of grunting sound. Something that is not annoying, obviously.

 

10 minutes ago, Mauf said:

or they apply a curve to the G onset so we get a bit more wiggle room to work with

 

Don't we already have a way of doing that, by tweaking our joystick curves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raven109 said:

 

This part here is saying that you actually do know that your stamina has been exhausted, but it's too late.

 

Perhaps they could add a low level heart beat sound, or heavier breathing, or visual queues, such as a subtle darkening at the edges of the screen, when the pilot is too tired. Or some kind of grunting sound. Something that is not annoying, obviously.

 

 

Don't we already have a way of doing that, by tweaking our joystick curves?

 

The problem with curves is that they shift the problem to the extremes of the movement range. So if you apply a very aggressive curve, you have a very hard and jerky response at high deflection which almost instantly knocks you out if you slip into it and it increases the sensitivity at the low end as well, so you increase the problem of rising the Gs too quickly.

 

You're correct about the stamina situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 on TAW western front, it would be interesting specially with the BoN planes coming in the next months. The first maps could include the 109E/F, Spit V, P-40, etc and progress from there.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

+1 on TAW western front, it would be interesting specially with the BoN planes coming in the next months. The first maps could include the 109E/F, Spit V, P-40, etc and progress from there.

Earlier western front can have air start, but where will they land? We dont have a map yet with English bases.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Earlier western front can have air start, but where will they land? We dont have a map yet with English bases.

.


no need for air starts, the Rheinland map can be used or even the Stalingrad summer map or Kuban for some north africa / med theme. Current TAW isn't accurate in regards to the battles, it's just the maps being cycled with one half to each side as starting point, the frontlines, the bases, the plane lineups aren't accurate, it's just a setting for the campaign. I wouldn't have any problem with Rheinland or Kuban for western map.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


no need for air starts, the Rheinland map can be used or even the Stalingrad summer map or Kuban for some north africa / med theme. Current TAW isn't accurate in regards to the battles, it's just the maps being cycled with one half to each side as starting point, the frontlines, the bases, the plane lineups aren't accurate, it's just a setting for the campaign. I wouldn't have any problem with Rheinland or Kuban for western map.

I think its worth a try, will a be refreshing change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if 0 lives put people on the 2 hrs timer and wiped all their aircraft, except for IL-2s or Ju-87s? 😬

 

 

2 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


no need for air starts, the Rheinland map can be used or even the Stalingrad summer map or Kuban for some north africa / med theme. Current TAW isn't accurate...

 

As a European who knows these places much better, I sharply disagree. I could never get myself to think these would be other scenarios than the ones they are. That would be, for you, like putting up an Argentina map and pretending it was the Channel between France and England. It doesn't work at all. I could not even fly CB when it hosted these bogus missions around Crimea.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

As a European who knows these places much better, I sharply disagree. I could never get myself to think these would be other scenarios than the ones they are. That would be, for you, like putting up an Argentina map and pretending it was the Channel between France and England. It doesn't work at all. I could not even fly CB when it hosted these bogus missions around Crimea.

 

I metioned Kuban and Stalingrad as med / north africa stand ins.... not England - France. For Western Europe there is already Rheinland.  But I get it... current TAW is fine because "lul who cares about the Eastern Front".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mauf said:

 

Tone does all the difference, let me try to explain:

 

There's some strange interplay between the new pilot physiology modelling and the controls and the feedback we get about G-forces being incurred. Right now, it's quite hard (or rather, effectively impossible) to judge how much G-forces you apply to your pilot. The pilot grunting doesn't tell you how much you're piling on nor does it tell you how much of your pilots stamina you used up. This results in the much higher turn rate red planes easily exhausting their pilots without knowing. And once the pilot is sufficiently exhausted (which is rather quickly it seems), the turn rate of the plane is effectively similar to the turn rate of a 109 because blackout becomes the limiting factor and those limits are the same for both red and blue pilots. Arguments like "Learn and adapt" don't apply here since there's nothing to learn by. It's a lack of feedback.  Ironically, thanks to the less sensitive 109 controls, you can skirt the blackout border much more effectively than in any red plane which often ends up in a slightly better turn rate for the 109. So in a nutshell, a historical disadvantage the 109 had (the rather mediocre turn rate and heavy controls at higher speeds) becomes an advantage now and red pilots are unable to leverage any turning advantage their planes might have (they're effectively digging their own grave by turning).

 


To make things even more complicated, pilots in some planes were able to withstand more G’s than in others because of the seat position. For example, the seats in MiGs and 190s were reclined more than in other fighters, allowing their pilot to black out later than the enemy following the same curve at the same speed. That was just as important as a better turn rate, but much harder to chart and verify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Admins,

 

you should modify the plane set for next TAW round (Map No6):

 

2 Yak1 should be splitted into

 

1 Yak 1

1 Yak 1b or 1Yak 7b.

 

Maybe this can increase the number of red players.

 

P.S. Can you share statistics for all Maps (flight hours for both teams)  ?.

 

Edited by Norz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 минут назад, E69_Qpassa_VR сказал:

My teammate was attacked by a 109 and he didn't get the AK after landing and it should. Please check the following links

 

https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=82041&name=E69_chopo

 

https://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=82035&name=SV19_Felix_Iron

 

Best regards 

 

 

109 ditched after your teammate landed. In this way AK is not counted

Edited by WG_Magners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Только что, E69_Qpassa_VR сказал:

Well that doesn't make any sense. In the server he has the AK but it has not been registered in the TAW server

 

TAW server script and in-game statistics have different logic. AK is counted only untill you finish your sortie.

TAW air kills may be interpreted as "confirmed" wins if you feel this unfair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@E69_Qpassa_VR When you land and start again while your "vitcim" is still in the air, AK will not count. If you land and you know that there is someone who you shot, you have to wait until he ditched etc. before you start another sortie.

Edited by =L/R=todeskvlt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Map 775 said Krasnodar  Airfield was repaired to 80%.

After 8x JU52 and 2x HE111 succesfull Supplies in Map 776 it is destroyed now 100%!

What is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1./JG42flesch said:

Map 775 said Krasnodar  Airfield was repaired to 80%.

After 8x JU52 and 2x HE111 succesfull Supplies in Map 776 it is destroyed now 100%!

What is wrong?

 

8x Ju52 and 2x He111 have nothing in common with 100% of damage (or 80%). You delivery only some stuff for the repair (supply level)...nothing more.

Edited by Norz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A well-intentioned advice to all the noobs out there: TAW is not a practice server!  If you lack the necessary basic skills (like plane identification), go practice somewhere else. On my first flight today, i saved a Ju88 from an angry Pe2. Seconds later a pack of expert 109s dove in to completely trash the german bomber. Nice job guys! On my next flight, roughly 20 mins later,  i was shot down myself by some greedy, friendly fighter. I was lucky and survived. I know, as a beginner, it's sometimes hard to ID the planes correctly, but if you are not a 100% sure about it, dont f*****g open fire! Simple as that.

Edited by JG4_Knipser
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...