Tactical Air War

[-332FG-Magic_Zach]

I was also of the opinion that tech chat is really just fluff that wasn't a necessity and got in the way more than anything (everything you need is right in your cockpit, but...), and normally I'd still think so.  But it was brought to my attention that at least in the P-47, it's not possible to check what your bomb and rocket fire modes are, as the switches and indicators are not animated.  So to get around this issue, it might be a good idea to have tech chat turned back on until this bug is fixed?

[Coldman]

44 minutes ago, -332FG-Magic_Zach said:

I was also of the opinion that tech chat is really just fluff that wasn't a necessity and got in the way more than anything (everything you need is right in your cockpit, but...), and normally I'd still think so.  But it was brought to my attention that at least in the P-47, it's not possible to check what your bomb and rocket fire modes are, as the switches and indicators are not animated.  So to get around this issue, it might be a good idea to have tech chat turned back on until this bug is fixed?

Learn on QMB the cycle with technochat. default is belly first then wing right wing left i think. 

Bug with wrong air pressure is fixed. 

[I/JG53_Gadich]

8 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I think of this as a learning opportunity. 

Don't mix real flights and this game. Nothing similar.

[=/Hospiz/=MetalHead]

49 minutes ago, -332FG-Magic_Zach said:

I was also of the opinion that tech chat is really just fluff that wasn't a necessity and got in the way more than anything (everything you need is right in your cockpit, but...), and normally I'd still think so.  But it was brought to my attention that at least in the P-47, it's not possible to check what your bomb and rocket fire modes are, as the switches and indicators are not animated.  So to get around this issue, it might be a good idea to have tech chat turned back on until this bug is fixed?

Rocket selector panel is right between rudder pedals, fire mode indicator is provided on the left side on that panel.
For bombs, there is no indication in cockpit, because there was no need of a such thing. Above the rocket selector panel, there are three handles labelled "left wing", "right wing" and "belly". These could be used to release bombs/droptanks in any combination. Unfortunately in game we can bind only one button to bomb release and then another to switch drop mode.

To illustrate what I am saying:


"0" on tube switch means there are no rockets to fire, "1","2","3","6" indicate number of rockets in a salvo.

[FTC_Knipser]

I really appreciate the historical research you guys did on the planeset. It's the pilot that matters most, not the plane. Just take a look at the Top5 Fighters, and see what those guys can do with their totally inferiour planes? . However, as past discussions in this thread have shown, a big part of the community does not share that opinion and prefers a more balanced planeset over a historical one. Maybe you should also take that into consideration. Since we don't have enough RAF planes available yet, this would be my suggestion for the planeset. It's only the Fighter/Attacker part, since the Bomber/Transport part of the current planeset is totally fine. Again, this is just a suggestion.. nothing more, nothing less?.

Edited August 4, 2020 by 77th_Knipser

[JG7_X-Man]

2 hours ago, I/JG53_Gadich said:

Don't mix real flights and this game. Nothing similar.

 

@I/JG53_GadichIf you want to be good/better at anything, you have to practice and understand what, why and how things work - immerse yourself in it. That is advice you take take into the real world.So it is very similar!

2 hours ago, 77th_Knipser said:

I really appreciate the historical research you guys did on the planeset. It's the pilot that matters most, not the plane. Just take a look at the Top5 Fighters, and see what those guys can do with their totally inferiour planes? . However, as past discussions in this thread have shown, a big part of the community does not share that opinion and prefers a more balanced planeset over a historical one. Maybe you should also take that into consideration. Since we don't have enough RAF planes available yet, this would be my suggestion for the planeset. It's only the Fighter/Attacker part, since the Bomber/Transport part of the current planeset is totally fine. Again, this is just a suggestion.. nothing more, nothing less?.

What we have now is perfect!

[I/JG53_Gadich]

7 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

So it is very similar!

Saying that - you have no idea how is it to fly plane... Nothing to discuss further

[Gangloff]

5 minutes ago, I/JG53_Gadich said:

Saying that - you have no idea how is it to fly plane... Nothing to discuss further

 

[JG7_X-Man]

10 minutes ago, I/JG53_Gadich said:

Saying that - you have no idea how is it to fly plane... Nothing to discuss further

 

Are you sure about that? 

[Cpt_Siddy]

35 minutes ago, I/JG53_Gadich said:

Saying that - you have no idea how is it to fly plane... Nothing to discuss further

 

 

This is a bold thing to say in here... 

 

[Tora]

18 hours ago, StG2_Raven_VR said:

 

is done  

 

 

if you have any further requests for the SRS, just let us know

Where do we find settings for the server?

[Herne]

1 hour ago, I/JG53_Gadich said:

Saying that - you have no idea how is it to fly plane... Nothing to discuss further

 

The cockpits, along with the tech specs tab, tell us everything we need, it just takes a little practice. I have not used tech chat for years, and the only thing I can honestly say I miss is a flap indicator for the P38. I am grateful that the Devs gave server admins the ability to choose if tech chat should be permitted, and that TAW admins have utilised it, my hope is that Tech Chat off for TAW is here to stay.

 

I also think you will find that there are more people with real flight experience here than you think

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Herne

[150_GIAP-Red_Dragon]

5 часов назад, -332FG-Magic_Zach сказал:

I was also of the opinion that tech chat is really just fluff that wasn't a necessity and got in the way more than anything (everything you need is right in your cockpit, but...), and normally I'd still think so.  But it was brought to my attention that at least in the P-47, it's not possible to check what your bomb and rocket fire modes are, as the switches and indicators are not animated.  So to get around this issue, it might be a good idea to have tech chat turned back on until this bug is fixed?

It's not a problem! You need to press the set button once for the central bomb, twice for the wing bomb, or three times for dropping one at a time .. I do this when I start the engine.
  The real problem for P-47 is that all targets are known to the enemy in advance and they are always waiting for you above the warehouse. Warehouses are fish bait. And fish is P-47. And fishermen just need to wait next to the bait. It's time to add targets that the enemy doesn't know about!

Edited August 4, 2020 by Red_Pilot

[JG7_X-Man]

25 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

This is a bold thing to say in here... 

 

 

@I/JG53_GadichAnyone with any common sense knows that practice makes you better. That is logic you can take to the bank!

 

If you didn't understand that, I really question if you have any life experience at all (...meaning that statement is what one would expect from a 13 yr old). So now you have made me question not only your implying that you have flying experience, but your age too.

 

 

 

[SCG_motoadve]

4 hours ago, I/JG53_Gadich said:

Don't mix real flights and this game. Nothing similar.

Actually very similar, I fly a real warbird and many times during flight I think to myself

Wow IL2 its really good, this or that has been modeled real good, and no tech chat its a step closer to the feeling of being there.

[SCG_Wulfe]

I gotta say, so far this TAW has been better. I'm hopeful player numbers will stay up due to the fact that the life limit has been tweaked. Right now I'm not sure how much of the population is due to the theater vs the changes. 

 

So far so good. ?

Edited August 4, 2020 by SCG_Wulfe

[Barnacles]

15 hours ago, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

Don't matter to me, but many are not being truthful.  

Do you not think that real life pilots would use touch and feel for levers.  IE one finger gap 90%, two finger gap 80% and so on.  This looking/staring at lever placement is ridiculous.  It's less real.  Let me say again, it is less realistic.  ? 

Looking at simulated gauges to establish your inputs have had the desired effect is unrealistic? I respectfully disagree.

[SCG_Vieira]

On 8/3/2020 at 3:36 PM, JG7_X-Man said:

 

I am guessing it's not a linked entity? 

 

@=LG=KathonToday I spent more than 10m shooting on some enemy trucks of a partisan place. I could not destroy a single one and according to the stats i didn't cause any damage at all on them.

 

I noticed the partisan spot had been bombed before and had no AA. Is it possible the new script (where the partisans do not inform their team of nearby planes after the AA is destroyed) also caused the side effect of making the remaining objects (trucks and tanks) undestructable?

[JG7_X-Man]

1 hour ago, SCG_Vieira said:

 

@=LG=KathonToday I spent more than 10m shooting on some enemy trucks of a partisan place. I could not destroy a single one and according to the stats i didn't cause any damage at all on them.

 

I noticed the partisan spot had been bombed before and had no AA. Is it possible the new script (where the partisans do not inform their team of nearby planes after the AA is destroyed) also caused the side effect of making the remaining objects (trucks and tanks) undestructable?

 

@SCG_VieiraIf an object is not linked, it cannot be destroyed as it not communicate to the map's rules/logic. The map's logic will not know what side the object belongs to or if it even exists, let alone know what side to credit the kill.

 

 

Looking at the objects, the ones that are linked to the counter are in the artillery and tank boxes in red i.e. high value, the objects not linked i.e the truck in pink has no value. The question now is - How would one know this? I would make all the objects links period - don't waste time with "eye candy".

Edited August 4, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[BG26_Ogg]

It's been a while since I've been around enough to cheese everyone off and be correct.

I see some people complaining about "side bias" and "how do we balance the theater"

You really can't if you want the ME262 in the game.  This also goes for the Tempest.  If you look at Historical numbers and manufacturing dates the Tempest and the 262 were almost identical in both numbers built and manufacturing dates throughout the war.  That's a balance issue if the Tempest is allowed into the game well ahead of the 262.

At the same time the 47D, 51D, 38J, Spit9 were all well ahead of the 109G14 and K4 in dates built and numbers built.

It is what it is and I applaud TAW for even trying to get a good scenario out on such (map building times and tests) short notice.  I'm sure eventually they will be able to spread out the models a little more and make it just as interesting.

And for those complaining that the ME262 has the fuel regulators installed........I can fly without it as I've given into the practice of flying without it when possible.  But some Noob 262 driver without it is going to burn the engines on takeoff or play throttle monkeys and flame out in a combat situation.  With the regulators in the noob 262s at least have a chance to fly it long enough for the Allies to shoot it down. 

 

Looking forward to what TAW will do with the Normandy campaign map....Will they start as a BoB scenario by limiting the Allied rides (Hurricanes and Spitfires) and bombers or will they start it with the invasion of Normandy?

Have a great day folk
>S<

[FTC_DerSheriff]

19 hours ago, =LG=Coldman said:

Is the plane set favorizing anybody?

IT looks balanced and semi historical acurate(metalhead explained our attitude). Allies Has slightly advantage with tempest on 1st map. Germans will have huge advantage on second map.

 

Imho the planeset is balanced if you just leave out the Me 262 and just capture the historical planeset in fall 44 and Spring 45. And voila, nice planeset and its even historical. Good gameplay for TAW as well.

 

the planeset right now is neither historical, nor really balanced (even tho the difference is not even that big), nor really fun (looking at you 262).
I have nothing against the G-14, or A-8 I like the spitfire as well. I gave feedback the last time, pointing out the same issues.

 

well I am not entitled enough to think that this should be implemented 1:1, if someone disagrees, but the current planeset is puzzling at best.

 

On 3/8/2020 at 8:58 AM, DerSheriff said:

Yeah the plane set is puzzling. 

 

Like S.Entendard already said it, with the experience of playing Kota or CB this planeset looks more than odd.

 

For the first map a planeset of CBs "A bridge to far" would be quite fitting. A-8s, G-14, Spit Mk IX @18lb, P-51 @67" Tempest @9lb and the P-38.
2nd map you either can unlock all planes and mods, or even make a 3rd, with the 2nd having the D-9 and DB K-4.

I would advise against bringing the Me 262 at all into the mix since the gameplay isnt benefiting from the plane. Even the "but muh history" nuts have to agree that the sky wasn't filled with me 262s. And the Me 262 would be at the current planeset(0/1) as common as the Bf 109 F-4 on the usual 2nd Map of TAW.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by DerSheriff

[Coldman]

Me262 will be marginal this time we hope.

We hardcoded for ourselfs max 4 fighters per map and Hope for even less in the future when we got new map. Potentially i see 6 maps on western front with "kind of battle od britain" or just after that, then pre invasion map and post invasion (maybe invasion itself) and those 2 rheinland maps. If it will happen then plane set will be easier to draw. Be patient. Enjoy what kathon is giving to us. 

[AKA_Relent]

3 minutes ago, =LG=Coldman said:

Me262 will be marginal this time we hope.

Something else to consider might be to (if possible) set a max for how much fuel the 262 could have to reflect the limited fuel available to the LW (esp for jet engines) at this point of the conflict.     E.g. set a max of 30-40% fuel capacity or some such to limit their operational range.  After all, those few 262’s that were operational were used much more for attacking strategic bombers at high alt over Germany in hit and run attacks than anything else.

[Gustav_Hagel]

I was going to refrain myself from any comments regarding this TAW, but I see some serious and questionable decisions taken for this campaign. As there's a lot of fuzz going around planeset, here is the following I've been working to be implemented for this campaign, I've also sent to taw staff whatever the reason they've pretty much overseen it. Imho this one is both historical and balanced, I still need to check Me 262s conditions and availability on map #3 and Allied side is still slightly incomplete, as well as to balance some numbers. I think TAW should aim towards historical accuracy and achieve balance in the numbers, that's not as difficult to do in Western Front.

In our case TAW should start in Map 3 from this planeset:
 

TACTICAL AIR WAR WESTERN FRONT

Map 1

Map 2

Map 3

Map 4

TACTICAL AIR WAR WESTERN FRONT

June 44

July 44

August 44

September 44

October 44

November 44

December 44

January 45

February 45

March 45

April 45

May 45

RAF

Aircrafts

Excluded Modifications

Excluded Modifications

Aircrafts

RAF

Fighters

Spitfire Mk.IXe (18 lbs)

150 grade octane fuel

2/3 (+1)

2/3 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

150 grade octane fuel

Spitfire Mk.IXe (18 lbs)

Fighters

Spitfire Mk.IXe (25 lbs)*

1/1

1/2 (+1)

Spitfire Mk.IXe (25 lbs)*

Spitfire Mk.XIV

(???)

(???)

(???)

1/1

Spitfire Mk.XIV

Hawker Typhoon Mk.Ib

Bombs/Rockets

1/2

1/2

1/1

1/1

Bombs/Rockets

Hawker Typhoon Mk.Ib

Tempest Mk.V ser. 2 (9 lbs)

Sabre IIB engine

0/1

1/1

1/1

Sabre IIB engine

Tempest Mk.V ser. 2 (9 lbs)

Tempest Mk.V ser. 2 (11 lbs)*

0/1

1/2

Tempest Mk.V ser. 2 (11 lbs)*

Attackers

Mosquito F.B. Mk.IV (attacker)

1/2

1/2

1/2

1/2

Mosquito F.B. Mk.IV (attacker)

Bombers

Hawker Typhoon Mk.Ib (attacker)

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

Hawker Typhoon Mk.Ib (attacker)

Bombers

A-20B

2/2 (+1)

2/2 (+1)

2/2 (+1)

2/2 (+1)

A-20B

Transport

A-20B (transport)

Bombs/Rockets

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

Bombs/Rockets

A-20B (transport)

USAAF

Aircrafts

Excluded Modifications

Excluded Modifications

Aircrafts

USAAF

Fighters

*P-47 D22*

1/2 (+1)

1/1

P-47 D25

Fighters

*P-47 D28*

1/2 (+1)

1/2

1/1

P-47 D28

P-51 B/C

1/1

1/1

P-51 B/C

P-51 D15

150 oct fuel

0/1

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

150 oct fuel

P-51 D15

P-51 D15 (150 oct fuel)*

0/1

0/1

1/2

P-51 D15 (150 oct fuel)*

P-38 J25

Bombs/Rockets

2/2

1/1

1/1

1/1

Bombs/Rockets

P-38 J25

Attackers

*P-47 D22 (attacker)*

1/1

1/1(+1)

P-47 D25 (attacker)

P-38 J25 (attacker)

Extra bomb racks/ 2000lbs*

1/1(+1)

1/1

1/1

0/1

Extra bomb racks/ 2000lbs

P-38 J25 (attacker)

Bombers

*P-47 D28 (attacker)*

1/1(+1)

2/2(+1)

P-47 D28 (attacker)

Bombers

A-20B

2/2 (+1)

2/2 (+1)

2/2 (+1)

2/2 (+1)

A-20B

Transport

A-20B (transport)

Bombs/Rockets

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

Bombs/Rockets

A-20B (transport)

Luftwaffe

Aircrafts

Excluded Modifications

Excluded Modifications

Aircrafts

Luftwaffe

Fighters

Bf-109 G6 (Late)

MW 50

1/1

MW50

Bf-109 G6 Late

Fighters

Bf-109 G6 Late

Mk 108

1/1(+1)

Mk 108

Bf 109 G6 Late

Bf-109 G6 Late

0/1

1/1

Bf 109 G6 Late

Bf-109 G14*

1/2 (+1)

1/1

1/1

Bf-109 G14*

Bf-109 K4 (DB)

DB605 DC engine

0/1

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

DB605 DC engine

Bf-109 K4 (DB)

Bf-109 K4 (DC)

0/1*

Bf-109 K4 (DC)

Fw-190 A6

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

Fw-190 A6

Fw-190 A8

0/1

1/2

1/2

1/2

Fw-190 A8

Fw-190 D9

0/1

0/1

1/1

Fw-190 D9

Me-262 A

Fuel regulator valve

0/1*

0/1*

Fuel regulator valve

Me-262 A

Attackers

Bf-110 G2

1/1*

Bf-110 G2

Bombers

Me-410

0/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

Me-410

Ju-88 A4

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

1/2 (+1)

Ju-88 A4

Ju-88 C6

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

Ju-88 C6

Ar-234

0/1

0/1

0/1

Ar-234

Transport

Ju-52 (transport)

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

Ju-52 (transport)

Ju-88 A4 (transport)

Bombs/Rockets

1/1 (+1)

1/1 (+1)

1/1 (+1)

1/1 (+1)

Bombs/Rockets

Ju-88 A4 (transport)

Important notes:

*: Evidence of Spitfire Mk.IXs operating with 150 grade octane fuel in the continent supports its use only after the 3rd of January 1945.

*: Tempest Mk. V ser.2 introduction was May 1944 with the Sabre IIA engine which was restricted to +9 lbs of boost. During the V-1 menace, Sabre IIA engines were field-modified for +11 lbs until 18th September 1944. At this time, the units began to receive the Sabre IIB engine which could operate at +11 lbs without 150 oct grade fuel. Since there is no sufficient data supporting specific ratios of IIA:IIB within the RAF between September and November, Sabre IIB engines are only included from December 44 onwards.

*: The P-51D never used 150 oct fuel when operating from the continent. Its use was restricted to those stationed in England. For gameplay purposes, the 150 grade octane fuel versions will also be included, respawn airfields should be either on England (Normandy map) or at the rearmost airfields (Bodenplatte map)

*: Bf-109 G14 production began in July 1944 but delivery to the front only began at the end of August-begining of September 1944.

*: The DB605 DC engine of the Bf-109 K4 was only used after March 1945 and in very limited numbers (evidence only shows 01 squadron). It is, however, included for gameplay purposes.

*: Me-262 should only operate in very limited numbers per map. This number depends on:

- Unlock: In order to unlock the Me-262 during the mission Axis-to-Allied player ratio must be below 2.

- Quantity: The amount of Me-262s available will also depend on the amount of opposition. On Map #3 every 15 Allied players unlocks an additional Me 262, on Map #4 that number is reduced to 10.

*: Bf-110s saw very little action after June 1944 and most units were either disbanded or replaced by Me-410. The plane, however, is included in the first map for gameplay purposes.

I'd like to point it out the limitations that should be made regarding P-38s, iirc barely any used 2x 2000lbs bombload and that should be restricted in the campaign as well germans SC 1800+. In fact I haven't checked how often that heavy german bombload was available and if it's correct to ban it, as well I would like more information towards P-38 4x 1000lbs, if they were as largerly deployed during Western Front.   Also how is P-47 150oct availability in this first current map, seems like there's no restriction as a fighter, which shouldn't be correct historical wise, I could be also wrong though. EDIT: Forgot to mention that 111s weren't available as bomber platform in the Western Front, letting Germans with 1/1 (+1) He 111 is both unbalanced and historical incorrect, squadrons used either Me 410 or Ju 88As as bombers, thus Ju-88s should be 1/2 (+1) in Axis side.

Edited August 5, 2020 by SCG_Gustav_Hagel

[JG4_Deciman]

3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

@SCG_VieiraIf an object is not linked, it cannot be destroyed as it not communicate to the map's rules/logic. The map's logic will not know what side the object belongs to or if it even exists, let alone know what side to credit the kill.

 

 

Looking at the objects, the ones that are linked to the counter are in the artillery and tank boxes in red i.e. high value, the objects not linked i.e the truck in pink has no value. The question now is - How would one know this? I would make all the objects links period - don't waste time with "eye candy".

 

You are comparing apples with pears...

 

There are 2 different kinds of objects:

 

Vehicle

-linked entity needed

-durability (how much is needed to destroy it) can NOT be set, value is preset by the game

 

Block (static objects)

-linked entity NOT needed

     you CAN set a linked entity and define a nation, if not done all damage will be counted as 'friendly fire'

     you CAN remove linked entity afterwards (nation will stay present)

-durability CAN be set (and if set too high it's really hard to destroy)

 

 

Deci

[Gustav_Hagel]

21 minutes ago, AKA_Relent said:

Something else to consider might be to (if possible) set a max for how much fuel the 262 could have to reflect the limited fuel available to the LW (esp for jet engines) at this point of the conflict.     E.g. set a max of 30-40% fuel capacity or some such to limit their operational range.  After all, those few 262’s that were operational were used much more for attacking strategic bombers at high alt over Germany in hit and run attacks than anything else.

Me 262 fuel consumtion: @ 95% throttle ~ 30L/min of fuel at around 2Km. Flying 700kph makes it roughly 116km per 300L.

Taking off and landing landing in the same and furthest afs is already a good limitation (not counting numbers available). Pilots will spend anywhere from 30-40min in total of their flight just going to the frontline + RTBing. 262s have max 2570L fuel capacity, thus around 85min of flight time, full emergency power (100%) increases drastically fuel consumption, I do'nt recall the exact number, but might be around 50L/min.

[AKA_Relent]

29 minutes ago, SCG_Gustav_Hagel said:

Me 262 fuel consumtion: @ 95% throttle ~ 30L/min of fuel at around 2Km. Flying 700kph makes it roughly 116km per 300L.

Taking off and landing landing in the same and furthest afs is already a good limitation (not counting numbers available). Pilots will spend anywhere from 30-40min in total of their flight just going to the frontline + RTBing. 262s have max 2570L fuel capacity, thus around 85min of flight time, full emergency power (100%) increases drastically fuel consumption, I do'nt recall the exact number, but might be around 50L/min.

Thanks for the estimated range details.  The estimated sortie time (e.g. 85 minutes) is my point.  As seen on the previous TAW-Western-Front, some pilots will go straight to/near the enemy airfields and vulch aircraft taking off/landing/etc.  With a full tank of gas, there is nothing to prevent this activity.

 

Were there accounts of rampant vulching-like activity near/over allied airfields from the LW experten fluing 262’s?  I think not, they were mostly spending time climbing over relatively safe areas so they could make a few hit and run passes on high altitude level bombers before being chased by swarms of escorting P-51’s back to the protection of their airfields.

All I’m suggesting is to limit the flying time of the individual 262 sorties, so they have to focus on a single objective such as protecting an airfield or depot etc. for a limited time  - and not have the range to go off and lone wolf and ravage enemy airfields, etc. at will for lengthy periods.

[Gustav_Hagel]

24 minutes ago, AKA_Relent said:

Thanks for the estimated range details.  The estimated sortie time (e.g. 85 minutes) is my point.  As seen on the previous TAW-Western-Front, some pilots will go straight to/near the enemy airfields and vulch aircraft taking off/landing/etc.  With a full tank of gas, there is nothing to prevent this activity.

 

Were there accounts of rampant vulching-like activity near/over allied airfields from the LW experten fluing 262’s?  I think not, they were mostly spending time climbing over relatively safe areas so they could make a few hit and run passes on high altitude level bombers before being chased by swarms of escorting P-51’s back to the protection of their airfields.

All I’m suggesting is to limit the flying time of the individual 262 sorties, so they have to focus on a single objective such as protecting an airfield or depot etc. for a limited time  - and not have the range to go off and lone wolf and ravage enemy airfields, etc. at will for lengthy periods.

Yes there were, see Operation Bodenplatte. As farther it gets (especially map#2 as German offensive) there will be even lesser time for 262s to participate in battle. Also, there are always airfields farther away from the frontline to avoid being vulched. If you want a tip, fly higher to avoid being intercepted by 262s flying low level lurking around afs, it's simple as that. Note, no one will get vulched in the firsrt 20-30min of map, there's enough room to organize a strike/take off as the map starts.

There are no heavy bombers so it's pointless to point out 262s intercepting high altitude planes/formations when there are even barely any A-20 formations currently being flown by the Allies.

There's no way to protect those since the radar system is lackluster, there are no means to detect in the southeastern part of the map and seems like barely any big city in the whole map has any alarms about incoming planes/formations. This is valid for both sides, but clearly there's a big gap in the German side which can be (and it is) easily exploited for south depot runs.

Just a reminder, we already have the biggest cities in Bodenplatte map, there should be alam in almost every single one of them. Europe is way more populated than that and there should be uncountable villages (not shown in our map) around which also were stations for Luftwaffe.

Edited August 4, 2020 by SCG_Gustav_Hagel

[AKA_Relent]

11 minutes ago, SCG_Gustav_Hagel said:

There are no heavy bombers so it's pointless to point out 262s intercepting high altitude planes/formations when there are even barely any A-20 formations currently being flown by the Allies.

Of course - my point was more that’s the role the 262 should be playing the vast majority of the time, but since it really can’t in this tactical scenario, it really doesn’t belong (or, as I’m trying to suggest, it should play a minor role e.g. the limited fuel suggestion).

 

Even if the 262 did partake in Operation Bodenplatte, this TAW (map #2) represents many missions representing much more than one operation.

 

I can see this as going back and forth.. once again just a suggestion to the admins for better (IMO) balance if (since) the 262 is included.

 

[=LG/F=Kathon]

2 hours ago, SCG_Vieira said:

 

@=LG=KathonToday I spent more than 10m shooting on some enemy trucks of a partisan place. I could not destroy a single one and according to the stats i didn't cause any damage at all on them.

 

I noticed the partisan spot had been bombed before and had no AA. Is it possible the new script (where the partisans do not inform their team of nearby planes after the AA is destroyed) also caused the side effect of making the remaining objects (trucks and tanks) undestructable?

No, rather not. I only add logic that disables subtitles if particular AA is destroyed. 

 

 

2 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

@SCG_VieiraIf an object is not linked, it cannot be destroyed as it not communicate to the map's rules/logic. The map's logic will not know what side the object belongs to or if it even exists, let alone know what side to credit the kill.

 

 

Looking at the objects, the ones that are linked to the counter are in the artillery and tank boxes in red i.e. high value, the objects not linked i.e the truck in pink has no value. The question now is - How would one know this? I would make all the objects links period - don't waste time with "eye candy".

No. Trucks without linked entity have been generated for many TAW campaigns and there haven't been any problems. You can't connect it to any logic in the mission builder but you can destroy it and this event is logged in the log files. You can assign the side to the object without linked entity. 

 

One of our teammates carried out test:

1x US truck with linked entity

1x US truck without linked entity

1x Opel truck with linked entity

1x Opel truck without linked entity

and it turned out that  new US static trucks without linked entity are indestructible (also no info in the log files) but axis opel trucks were easily destroyed regardless the linked entity.

So this is a game bug and I will have to report it to the developers. The workaround is generate US trucks with linked entity but changing the script will take time and big number of those truck will increase CPU of the server which may cause "overload messages"

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Regarding the tecnochat off option:

There are quite some functionalities missing or lacking in some of the planes cockpits that makes having everything off hamper the user experience rather than improve it in terms of actual realism (compared how the pilots managed these systems IRL).
 

• You can't tell which engines are selected (all twin engined planes)
   
• Some planes only have wheels or push/pull vertical rods for radiator/shutters control, in real life a pilot with it's muscular sensory feedback can adjust to an estimated position only using it's hands without needing to lose situational awareness looking closely at said wheels couting revolutions like it would happen in game (planes affected: Bf 109E-7, Fw 190D-9, He 111 H-6, He 111 H-16, IL-2 1941, IL-2 1942, IL-2 1943, Yak-1, Yak-1B, Yak-7B, Yak-9, Yak-9T, La-5/5F,  La-5FN, P-39L-1).
   
• The MiG-3 with it's wheel control for the flap governor has the same problem, which is exacerbated by it's very slow turning and the current problem of the pilot not being able to just push up the pneumatic actuator to quickly retract them and then set it in neutral (the way it's currently implemented in game you need to have the governor set to 0% and it takes a considerable time waiting for that to happen while looking at it in the cockpit).
   
• A-20B doesn't have a bomb selector visible from the pilot's position, looks like it doesn't have animated the engine shutters control either.
   
• P-47 doesn't seem to have a bomb selector animated in the cockpit either.
   
• U-2VS doesn't have bomb selector modelled in the cockpit
   
• Ju 88, the bomb selector is in the front part of the nose, it isn't possible to see it properly from the pilot position and the nose gunner position can't crawl into the glass nose to see read it properly either.

 

[JG7_X-Man]

29 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

No, rather not. I only add logic that disables subtitles if particular AA is destroyed. 

 

 

No. Trucks without linked entity have been generated for many TAW campaigns and there haven't been any problems. You can't connect it to any logic in the mission builder but you can destroy it and this event is logged in the log files. You can assign the side to the object without linked entity. 

 

One of our teammates carried out test:

1x US truck with linked entity

1x US truck without linked entity

1x Opel truck with linked entity

1x Opel truck without linked entity

and it turned out that  new US static trucks without linked entity are indestructible (also no info in the log files) but axis opel trucks were easily destroyed regardless the linked entity.

So this is a game bug and I will have to report it to the developers. The workaround is generate US trucks with linked entity but changing the script will take time and big number of those truck will increase CPU of the server which may cause "overload messages"

 

@JG4_Deciman dd you see that? new US static trucks without linked entity are indestructible.

Edited August 4, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[=LG/F=Kathon]

On 8/3/2020 at 5:10 PM, Viktor33_33 said:

Why is there no choice to fight for UK? It is unlikely that the USAF used Spitfires and Tempests in 1944-45. This is not realistic for such a server.

 

On 8/3/2020 at 5:16 PM, Talon_ said:

 

A more realistic representation is RAF in the North, USAAF in the South.

 

Movements were broadly equivalent to those shown here between October 44 and April 45,

 

The solution with only USAAF airfields were easier and faster to implement. It's possible to add RAF airfields on the north as shown on the map but here comes some questions:

1. List of available aircraft on RAF airfields?

2. List of available aircraft on USAAF airfields?

3. If all RAF airfields are closed or captured then some aircraft will not be available on the map at all? The same for USAAF.

4. During registration also choice between RAF and USAAF pilots?

4a. YES => Will RAF pilots be able to spawn on USAAF airfields? If no then what if all RAF airfields are closed/captured? RAF pilots will not be able to fly.

4b NO => So all US pilots (current solution) may use USAAF and RAF airfields?

[Gustav_Hagel]

1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Regarding the tecnochat off option:

There are quite some functionalities missing or lacking in some of the planes cockpits that makes having everything off hamper the user experience rather than improve it in terms of actual realism (compared how the pilots managed these systems IRL).
 

• You can't tell which engines are selected (all twin engined planes)
   
• Some planes only have wheels or push/pull vertical rods for radiator/shutters control, in real life a pilot with it's muscular sensory feedback can adjust to an estimated position only using it's hands without needing to lose situational awareness looking closely at said wheels couting revolutions like it would happen in game (planes affected: Bf 109E-7, Fw 190D-9, He 111 H-6, He 111 H-16, IL-2 1941, IL-2 1942, IL-2 1943, Yak-1, Yak-1B, Yak-7B, Yak-9, Yak-9T, La-5/5F,  La-5FN, P-39L-1).
   
• The MiG-3 with it's wheel control for the flap governor has the same problem, which is exacerbated by it's very slow turning and the current problem of the pilot not being able to just push up the pneumatic actuator to quickly retract them and then set it in neutral (the way it's currently implemented in game you need to have the governor set to 0% and it takes a considerable time waiting for that to happen while looking at it in the cockpit).
   
• A-20B doesn't have a bomb selector visible from the pilot's position, looks like it doesn't have animated the engine shutters control either.
   
• P-47 doesn't seem to have a bomb selector animated in the cockpit either.
   
• U-2VS doesn't have bomb selector modelled in the cockpit
   
• Ju 88, the bomb selector is in the front part of the nose, it isn't possible to see it properly from the pilot position and the nose gunner position can't crawl into the glass nose to see read it properly either.

 

Except from bomb selector and animations which are lacking, I don't see how controls for radiator/shutters are hampering pilots experience, you have plenty of gauges to watch for temperatures and knowing your plane is a must. I've flown Cliffs of Dover, E-1s, E-3s, 110s and Spitfires, not any of those controls or aengine management hampered my experience. Just a reminder that engines there just as fragile, rpm varies quite quickly and there's both oil and water rads for 109s. I don't use any technochat there, I just look at ata, temperatures and rpm, compass (as there is no digital one in technochat) and so on, and I could still squeeze the best performance. I'm sorry to say but anything that's not related to clear issues such as lacking animations or no way to knowing what bombs one have selected seem pretty much as excuses from lazy pilots. TAW isn't a casual server, mastering and learning your plane by heart, getting the best out of it, it's your responsability as a pilot.

Btw, I think ti's really nice to actually have no technochat so there won't be any magical formulas such as 15% flap for dogfight, etc... In reality pilots could just do so much to maintain the bird in the air, watching gauges, sticking in a formation or focused in in their surroundings, that in the end they rarely focused how much % of flaps or flaps degrees they should employ to engage in a combat or what were the exact radiators % they could get to squeeze that extra performance in combat.

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by SCG_Gustav_Hagel

[Cpt_Siddy]

 

[Gustav_Hagel]

30 minutes ago, =LG=Kathon said:

 

The solution with only USAAF airfields were easier and faster to implement. It's possible to add RAF airfields on the north as shown on the map but here comes some questions:

1. List of available aircraft on RAF airfields?

2. List of available aircraft on USAAF airfields?

3. If all RAF airfields are closed or captured then some aircraft will not be available on the map at all? The same for USAAF.

4. During registration also choice between RAF and USAAF pilots?

4a. YES => Will RAF pilots be able to spawn on USAAF airfields? If no then what if all RAF airfields are closed/captured? RAF pilots will not be able to fly.

4b NO => So all US pilots (current solution) may use USAAF and RAF airfields?

 
@Talon_ can answer 1 and 2 better than (I believe) anyone here, especially what airfields should be available. My planeset, although incomplete, has planes separated by air force.

3 - In my opinion yes, that should happen, as well as I stick to that suggestion to add jet fuel depot or assign depots to a number of 262 available per map;
4- Yes, they should choose it between RAF or USAAF;
4a - No, they shouldn't be able to spawn, but they also shouldn't lose airplanes when landing in those, maybe count as ditch 1/0/0 for next map would reinforce the mentality to avoid landing anywhere as it was irl. I think there are airfields where both air forces are mixed, Talon knows it better. If all RAF airfields are closed/captured, they shouldn't be able to fly anymore as well as USAAF ones, this should encourage new tactics and coordination.

I think it's a nice mechanic so I can finally decide if I want to fly south and die to .50cals or north to 20mms ?

Edited August 4, 2020 by SCG_Gustav_Hagel

[JG5_Schuck]

Ha ha,

I think there is more chance of me flying a 262 in real life than on this server.

No technochat a problem..... practice, or there's WoL!

I'm really enjoying this TAW, if it has a few minor flaws, so what... can you do any better?

I understand what that have tried to do with the plane set, after all we don't have any 4 engined heavies modeled in game.

And we wouldn't have the time to intercept them even if we did!!

I think the immersion is great, and is only added to to by the omission of technochat.

Yes pilots may be able to feel the plane, levers etc, but they didn't have a HUD, so please leave it off.

And correct me if i'm wrong, this is the first server to do so, so well done.

Keep up the good work guys,

And thanks for all the effort you've put in.

Sadly it appears not all appreciate it.

 

[AKA_Relent]

@Kathon re: USAAF vs RAF, I wouldn’t want to have to choose,  I’d want to be able to fly USAAF and RAF planes.  Can’t you just have all (USAAF/RAF) planes on both USAAF and RAF airfields, but force the aircraft to just use the nationality for that given field?

 

That way, if you want to fly a Spit you can choose to have RAF markings or USAAF markings by choosing the RAF field or the USAAF field, without inventory restrictions.  Think about the Macchi In the eastern front TAW - it’s available to German pilots but has German markings.  Similar thing here - why would I as a mostly allied pilot want to cut my aircraft inventory in half (I.e aircraft type-wise)?

[Coldman]

what about separate maps for britain vs germany (market garden) and USAF vs Germany (ardennes) ?

[CamusB455]

1 minute ago, =LG=Coldman said:

what about separate maps for britain vs germany (market garden) and USAF vs Germany (ardennes) ?

In that case, what on earth would Brits use as a ground attack plane?  

 

I think it's silly to cut the Allie's planeset in half if they lose a particular base.