Jump to content
-[HRAF]BubiHUN

KNIGHTS OF THE AIR Multiplayer Server

Recommended Posts

I play with a 22 inch screen at 1920x1080.  I doubt I'm (and anyone else who's not running a bigger screen) having the same experience as anyone with a 30 or 40 inch screen.  Aircraft even 2.5 to 3 km away are just a slight gray spec of a few pixels against the sky, not anything like what I see of GA aircraft doing circuits near where I live.  It's an issue of scaling and field of view to me, everything including the reflector sight and canopy frame in front of me are much smaller than in real life.  The only way to see things in realistic proportions for me is heavy use of zoom, which then means a very narrow field of view which makes it easy to lose situational awareness.  Should those of us with suboptimal hardware just suck it up and be cannon fodder for the online Experten, or be forced to stick to dead end single player mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aegolos:  Try positioning the monitor much closer to your face and use reading glasses if necessary.  22 inches is terribly small and very unusual in this day and age but you can increase the field of view if you position the monitor like 12 inches from your face.

 

I truly want to know how many of these people voting for the alternative (i.e., unrealistic) spotting system are fairly dedicated bomber pilots.

 

Let's take a quick sampling of the pilots here that are vocal in favor of the alternative view across TAW, Combat Box, Kota, and Wings of LIberty

 

Zami: 100% fighter sorties (not counting transport missions in TAW)

Aeglos: 100% fighter sorties

SpicySauced: 100% fighter sorties

=LD=dhyran: 100% fighter sorties

Ropalcz: 100% fighter sorties on KOTA, mostly 110 sorties on TAW (first evidence of someone that likes to bomb)

6FG_Big_Al:  Primarily jabo fighters

 

My point here is that I don't think any dedicated bomber pilots appreciate having their plane looking like the Good Year blimp at 40k.  I get it though...many like to easily see so that they can dogfight and have more combat action even for a better gaming experience even if it is unrealistic.

 

On 10/12/2019 at 6:02 AM, Spicysauced said:

Just accept it. This is how IL2 looks on the moscow map with an enemy exactly 1.38 km away.  Here, my expert spotter. There he is: https://imgur.com/a/Y8RV2Mw

 

That's a terribly dishonest picture in my opinion because everything, including the icon text and not just the plane, looks terribly pixelated.  It's like you took cropped a giant picture terribly small and were originally zoomed all the way out.  Also, a plane with a head on aspect at 1.38km would be very difficult to spot in real life.  More importantly, is there really any difference between the alternative and realistic view system at only 1.38 km?  What does the same shot look with the alternative view?

Edited by SCG_Limbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SCG_Limbo said:

@Aegolos:  Try positioning the monitor much closer to your face and use reading glasses if necessary.  22 inches is terribly small and very unusual in this day and age but you can increase the field of view if you position the monitor like 12 inches from your face.

 

I truly want to know how many of these people voting for the alternative (i.e., unrealistic) spotting system are fairly dedicated bomber pilots.

 

Let's take a quick sampling of the pilots here that are vocal in favor of the alternative view across TAW, Combat Box, Kota, and Wings of LIberty

 

Zami: 100% fighter sorties (not counting transport missions in TAW)

Aeglos: 100% fighter sorties

SpicySauced: 100% fighter sorties

=LD=dhyran: 100% fighter sorties

Ropalcz: 100% fighter sorties on KOTA, mostly 110 sorties on TAW (first evidence of someone that likes to bomb)

6FG_Big_Al:  Primarily jabo fighters

 

My point here is that I don't think any dedicated bomber pilots appreciate having their plane looking like the Good Year blimp at 40k.  I get it though...many like to easily see so that they can dogfight and have more combat action even for a better gaming experience even if it is unrealistic.

 

 

That's a terribly dishonest picture in my opinion because everything, including the icon text and not just the plane, looks terribly pixelated.  It's like you took cropped a giant picture terribly small and were originally zoomed all the way out.  Also, a plane with a head on aspect at 1.38km would be very difficult to spot in real life.  More importantly, is there really any difference between the alternative and realistic view system at only 1.38 km?  What does the same shot look with the alternative view?

Wow, I`m sorry that I`ve told my opinion. I did not know it`s entitled to bomber pilots only. I bow to your expertise.

Or maybe you should just accept that not all share your view instead of trying to discredit them.

 

And your reseach sucks if you don`t find jabo missions for me. I don`t do level bombing because I suck in it.

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

@LLv24_Zami

 

How can anybody suck at level bombing? It's almost easier than breathing.

Clearly I`m breathing so with that logic I´m an excellent level bomber  🤣

 

This forum is great, I don`t need to know what I can do and what not, people tell me that 🤣

Edited by LLv24_Zami
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LLv24_Zami

 

I would like to know what makes you think that you suck at level bombing. Because it is really not difficult. The only thing being a lack of patience.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUbiHUN

 thanks tip  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish we had an inbetween of these two visibility options and the devs can get the scaling right. I didn't like the fact targets blew up to such a large size at too long a range, but I really liked the fact that I didn't have to "zoom" around all over the place reducing my field of view trying to find targets. It felt more natural to me at my regular field of view in the cockpit to just look at a sector of the sky/ground and watch for relative movement instead of having to zoom in and then do that.

 

With the alternate visibility it doesn't seem any different to before this patch for me.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Majakowski said:

@LLv24_Zami

 

I would like to know what makes you think that you suck at level bombing. Because it is really not difficult. The only thing being a lack of patience.

I would like to know, why do I have to explain myself and the limited time I have to fly, here to you? Just because my spotting preference is different from yours? Please PM me, I'll give you explanations if necessary

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SCG_Limbo said:

Ropalcz: 100% fighter sorties on KOTA, mostly 110 sorties on TAW (first evidence of someone that likes to bomb)

 

100% fighter sorties on Kota is a lie, take a look on my stats from September and August.

 

I flew around 40 supply missions on TAW.

 

Get some facts before you start spreading lies.

Edited by Ropalcz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SCG_Limbo said:

@Aegolos:  Try positioning the monitor much closer to your face and use reading glasses if necessary.  22 inches is terribly small and very unusual in this day and age but you can increase the field of view if you position the monitor like 12 inches from your face.

 

Really?  You can't be serious.  Objects are still the same size on the screen whether I'm 20 inches or 12 away.  Lol reading glasses.  Thanks anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 3:41 PM, Spicysauced said:

I am not 100% happy with how alternate spotting looks like, but its SOOO much better than what we've had all the years before. If they would decrease amplification of planes by 50% at distance I would still be happy, but if I had to decide (and I have to) between normal (bad) spotting and the new one, Id take alternate any day. 

But the current "normal" (ie, non alternate) visibility system is NOT, definitely NOT, what we had pre-patch. Can we stop spreading this lie? Because that's what you implie here...  The current "Normal" mode is ALSO so much better than what we've had all the years before ....

 

Requiring to see absolutely everything around you at 20+ km because the engine has issues at rendering close range is imho a very wrong way to solve the issue.

I now use far less zoom for long range scanning, because I don't need it anymore, there's still plenty of contacts appearing in the 10-20kms range which is far more than what we had before (since it was simply zero contact at these distances)....

Normal setting is NOT a step back, it's a step FORWARD from pre-patch.... Stating otherwise is simply ignoring dev's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kalbuth said:

The current "Normal" mode is ALSO so much better than what we've had all the years before ....

Yes true! But why settle with 10% better when we could have 80% better? 

Share this post


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

Yes true! But why settle with 10% better when we could have 80% better? 

Why not show all contacts up to 100Km, while we're at it? it would be far more fun.

Edited by kalbuth
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Why not show all contacts up to 100Km, while we're at it? it would be far more fun.

No need to go extreme. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spicysauced said:

No need to go extreme. 

And why is 20+ km NOT extreme? It makes all planes in game around me shine like they are all A380 under a bright sun. It's simply not what I see in my sky, tbh.

 

Simply put, from my observation, everything visible 20+km is completely extreme....

Trying to overcome a short range issue with such an extreme measure is imho not the way to go.... Normal gives better result.

 

EDIT : but like the polls shows, this is simply fracturing the community and we won't agree on this.... I don't see a proper solution

Edited by kalbuth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SCG_Limbo said:

 

 

I truly want to know how many of these people voting for the alternative (i.e., unrealistic) spotting system are fairly dedicated bomber pilots.

 

Let's take a quick sampling of the pilots here that are vocal in favor of the alternative view across TAW, Combat Box, Kota, and Wings of LIberty

 

Zami: 100% fighter sorties (not counting transport missions in TAW)

Aeglos: 100% fighter sorties

SpicySauced: 100% fighter sorties

=LD=dhyran: 100% fighter sorties

Ropalcz: 100% fighter sorties on KOTA, mostly 110 sorties on TAW (first evidence of someone that likes to bomb)

6FG_Big_Al:  Primarily jabo fighters

 

My point here is that I don't think any dedicated bomber pilots appreciate having their plane looking like the Good Year blimp at 40k.  I get it though...many like to easily see so that they can dogfight and have more combat action even for a better gaming experience even if it is unrealistic.

 

 

That's a terribly dishonest picture in my opinion because everything, including the icon text and not just the plane, looks terribly pixelated.  It's like you took cropped a giant picture terribly small and were originally zoomed all the way out.  Also, a plane with a head on aspect at 1.38km would be very difficult to spot in real life.  More importantly, is there really any difference between the alternative and realistic view system at only 1.38 km?  What does the same shot look with the alternative view?

What have I done to deserve the underlining :)

 

To calm you down I also like to fly bombers now and then (even in the last months), and I also have no problem doing that with alternative visibility. But you are also part of a bigger clan and there it is not always my decision how a flight runs. On top of that, there are now many 262 in circulation (independent of the view settings) that quickly turn bombers into mincemeat. That's why it's more logical to use Jabos under given circumstances (besides the new toys). If there would be scenarios without base plate airplanes again, things might be a bit different.
But I don't have to justify to you what I'm flying and at least at CB (I couldn't find you at Kota hadtest I think less than 10 flights in a real bomber from July to October). Also not much if you are sitting around in K4 and Co.  We have a nice saying for it in Germany: "Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen." (If you sit in a glasshouse, don't throw stones.)

In the end it is anyway the decision of the operators of Kota and not yours or mine. I would still prefer a different solution, but until the Dev's are again concerned with visibility, I stick to my opinion :)


have a nice day.


 

Share this post


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

It's simply not what I see in my sky, tbh.

Yea same. Lets not forget we play a computer game here. Its not reality, it will never achieve anything close to reality anyway. 
We all are staring at virtual pixel planes in our virtual pixel cockpits, while not make it a little more easy for everyone while we're doing it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, no need to be so defensive here...I just wanted to see if there are any DEDICATED bombers that are calling for the "alternative" viewing system and I tried to back it up with some hard data...not trying to imply that some of you don't occasionally take up a heavy aircraft and perhaps my very quick survey was prone to some small error.  My apologies if my quick survey was not 100% accurate or did not go far enough back in the past.   Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion and I understand that many of you like to see aircraft easily at 20K+ so that you can more easily find air combat whether its realistic or not.   My main point:  I sincerely believe that almost all of people calling for the alternative system are not considering the viewpoint of a dedicated bomber pilot who would rather go undetected as much as possible and I think this is something that should be considered by the KOTA admins.  I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that medium bomber usage would go significantly down with the adoptions of the alternative viewing system.  Is this what the KOTA admins want?

 

2 hours ago, Aeglos said:

Really?  You can't be serious.  Objects are still the same size on the screen whether I'm 20 inches or 12 away.  Lol reading glasses.  Thanks anyway.

 

I'm completely serious and  I was sincerely trying to help you spot aircraft better.  Your statement implies that you do not seem to be completely aware that objects are perceived as larger the closer in distance they are from you.  According to your logic, why don't you put your monitor a couple of miles away from you...after all, it will still be the "same size ."  I also venture to guess that a magnifying glass will help you resolve individual pixels on your screen more easily too, obviously, though this may not yield a significant improvement if your eyeball can resolve very fine detail acutely.  A closely positioned monitor and reading glasses  is what I use to  resolve my individual pixels on my 27 inch 2K monitor and this helps me spot much better than if my monitor was positioned at the back of my desk.  The individual 2560x1440 pixels are very small but I make them look large.  Have the screen positioned closer to your face also results in a greater field of view and it also results in greater immersion. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SCG_Limbo said:

I sincerely believe that almost all of people calling for the alternative system are not considering the viewpoint of a dedicated bomber pilot who would rather go undetected as much as possible and I think this is something that should be considered by the KOTA admins.  I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that medium bomber usage would go significantly down with the adoptions of the alternative viewing system.  Is this what the KOTA admins want?

Well I give you this, at least your transparent. But this the most absurd case anyone has made for non-alt so far. "help me I need people to not see me so i can unrealistically fly my airliner sized plane to an objective all alone."

 

It appears we have run into the bomber lobbyists. You guys should start a super PAC

Edited by YIPPEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@YIPPEE

 

Tell me how realistic it is to fly around as a lone fighter pilot disregarding even the runway when taking of.

 

Anyway, getting 40 people together any time of the day to make coordinated bombing runs isn't realistic either so people are forced by circumstance to fly alone. Because it is a game and noone gets paid to fly....unlike in reality....oh.

 

That begins with the altitude....all people are hugging the ground (oh how realistic) so you mostly go unnoticed when flying up high. And an airliner the size of a Pe-2? Please show me.

 

I have never met a fighter guy here that pointed out how unrealistic it is that every fighter flies his lone wulf mission into the nearest fracas. But when it comes to bombers they shall please operate in groups. Well I am in for it and for the screeching of multiple Pe-2 gunners shredding their predators. Oh that would be such a delight.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

Tell me how realistic it is to fly around as a lone fighter pilot disregarding even the runway when taking of.

I wait, probably forever, to hear a rational explanation of how this is relevant.

 

52 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

forced by circumstance to fly alone

Completely immaterial. If you want a solution so this, you should advocate for things that dont make every other aspect of the game take a huge step backwards. Other games for example, had solutions like giving large bombers two AI wing men that bombed and fired in sync with the human leader.

 

52 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

I have never met a fighter guy here that pointed out how unrealistic it is that every fighter flies his lone wulf mission into the nearest fracas. But when it comes to bombers they shall please operate in groups.

It is not reasonable to intentionally alter the spotting to be less realistic to intentionally benefit some aspect of the game. The best any simulation can do model everything as close to reality as possible and then let the cookie crumble as it will. Short of a total simulation of reality, the game will always exist in a game environment and this will always alter the relationships between various parts.

 

Edited by YIPPEE
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

Well I give you this, at least your transparent. But this the most absurd case anyone has made for non-alt so far. "help me I need people to not see me so i can unrealistically fly my airliner sized plane to an objective all alone."

 

Yes, you've made my point exactly--some people are perfectly happy to make life easier for themselves with little regard to increased difficulty for others types of pilots.

 

As for realism, the "normal" setting is far more realistic than the "alternative" viewing setting based on my on real life flying experience and the technical papers I've read on this topic (c.f., original thread on this issue....fortunately, the IL-2 developers agree with me strongly).  In addition, I've personally found it much easier to spot with "normal" versus the old hard 10k bubble too since planes glimmer white at long distances even if the contacts are very small.  

 

This is the last comment I'll make on this issue--I've just felt its important to try to persuade the KOTA admins on this.   We'll see what happens to the numbers of pilots flying KOTA based on their choice.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"to intentionally alter the spotting to be less realistic "

 

Things getting smaller or invisible when zooming (read: applying binoculars) is only realistic when applying them backwards.

 

"Other games for example, had solutions like giving large bombers two AI wing men that bombed and fired in sync with the human leader."

 

So then we would have 9999999 bombers on every map two thirds of them AI, all hugging the ground and making the game an ocean of lags (Not LaGGs). Yeah that sounds like a solution that absolutely would be totally realistic. I can actually see the nuking before my inner eye of the LW guys putting their SC2500s (that never were put to duty btw.) and attacking at low altitude vulching every airfield. 

 

Share this post


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

some people are perfectly happy to make life easier for themselves with little regard to increased difficulty for others types of pilots.

Hint: Harder for some and easier for others is a completely irrelevant metric in this conversation.

 

4 minutes ago, SCG_Limbo said:

As for realism, the "normal" setting is far more realistic than the "alternative" viewing setting based on my on real life flying experience and the technical papers I've read on this topic (c.f., original thread on this issue....fortunately, the IL-2 developers agree with me strongly)

No one on the alt is better side of this is arguing that it does not have issues. Rather than the improvements it brings to spotting in general are more realistic than the almost totally meaningless ability to see things at absurd ranges. Also, who gives a hootin hell if the developers agree with you lol.

 

5 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

Things getting smaller or invisible when zooming (read: applying binoculars) is only realistic when applying them backwards.

In the game you do not have realistic vision in zoom. In real life, you eyeballs do this for you, and it makes more sense to have scaling maxed out either at highest FOV or constant at all FOVs. The fact that you find "smaller when i zoom" counter intuitive is not at rational argument for realis

 

7 minutes ago, Majakowski said:

Yeah that sounds like a solution that absolutely would be totally realistic.

There is no solution that is totally realistic. Sometimes you can implement mechanics to add to the game, but its never reasonable in a simulation to alter the specific realism of the game due to the way players play the game. You give a player realistic tools, and see what they make of them. Btw, seeing what they make of them, is what we call "playing" a game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is just selective realism. We take only those aspects of realism that fit our role or view. The historical operational realism is called "irrelevant" although that was what set the context for the planes and even the entire game in the first place. It just did not exist in a vacuum. What you advocate for is a sandbox. I think your strive for realism wouldn't survive the first night mission or mission with completely overcast sky or precipitation, icing conditions, random malfunction of systems, modeling of sabotage and bad material qualities, fogging of canopy, technical failures due to inexperienced maintenance crew and so on.

Share this post


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

So this is just selective realism. We take only those aspects of realism that fit our role or view.

No. Games that attempt to be simulations are trying to model discrete elements of the real world. How players use those tools is by definition, not part of simulation. It is the opposite of simulation to alter parts of the game that are attempting to model the real world because players do not behave like the real world. It is also not simulation to alter accurate models because not everything is modeled.

            If you want a player to have to deal with a part of reality, it has to be modeled. If you cannot model that aspect reality practically, that is not an legitimate rational for modeling other aspects of the simulation poorly on purpose in an attempt to skew the model.

1 hour ago, Majakowski said:

What you advocate for is a sandbox

No what I advocate for is not modeling a hammer as a wrench just because we cant model the sandbox perfectly too. On the other hand, what you are advocating for is a not at all subtle totally partisan agenda to alter the game in a total nonsensical way just to suit bomber pilots.

 

1 hour ago, Majakowski said:

I think your strive for realism wouldn't survive the first night mission or mission with completely overcast sky or precipitation, icing conditions, random malfunction of systems, modeling of sabotage and bad material qualities, fogging of canopy, technical failures due to inexperienced maintenance crew and so on.

And this is the bit of the post where you list a bunch of irrelevant items as a form of ad hominem because you know your rational is invalid.

Edited by YIPPEE
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was originally upset to see expert servers adopt the alternate visibility.  There’s really no difference between that vis and having markers on, as identification has become excruciatingly  easy (appealing to many).  But if KOTA goes alternate spotting, then I think that make TAW more appealing and boost their numbers.  
 

I do feel bad for bombers like Limbo, though. (Not counting p38 or p47, or 190) It does seem that right now the bomber meta is all but gone in IL2 with the all-fighter lineup for BoBp.  I believe, supported by the adoption of the alternate vis.
 

@Spicysauced has informed me that I insult those who enjoy “easier”. So I’ll now see the bright side going forward, no matter what server admins do.

Edited by =BES=Savage-6
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2019 at 2:30 PM, SCG_Limbo said:

 

Yes, you've made my point exactly--some people are perfectly happy to make life easier for themselves with little regard to increased difficulty for others types of pilots.

 

As for realism, the "normal" setting is far more realistic than the "alternative" viewing setting based on my on real life flying experience and the technical papers I've read on this topic (c.f., original thread on this issue....fortunately, the IL-2 developers agree with me strongly).  In addition, I've personally found it much easier to spot with "normal" versus the old hard 10k bubble too since planes glimmer white at long distances even if the contacts are very small.  

 

This is the last comment I'll make on this issue--I've just felt its important to try to persuade the KOTA admins on this.   We'll see what happens to the numbers of pilots flying KOTA based on their choice.

If they agreed with you so strongly, why was it the original big shabang release mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For clarity's sake, the alternate view model that is the one that was released in the patch, was the result of a bug in the rendering algorithm. To Crunch's question, they didn't intend it to be that way. At least that is what the patch notes for the first hot fix indicated.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, /SF/Disarray said:

For clarity's sake, the alternate view model that is the one that was released in the patch, was the result of a bug in the rendering algorithm. To Crunch's question, they didn't intend it to be that way. At least that is what the patch notes for the first hot fix indicated.

It was not a bug, it was released as intended. After people started crying as usual, it got adjusted. It could have been done way before release. It is an feature, option you can turn on or off. Bugs don`t stay.

 

 

On every poll that I`ve seen alternate is more popular so when can we expect Kota to turn it on?

 

I think alternate is even more popular than polls show because all experten are here on forums but many of the casual players don`t even visit here ever.

Edited by LLv24_Zami
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On these forums I can find just two polls about this visibility.

KOTA poll is exactly even at the moment, 114 vs 114.

FC Community poll shows that realistic is a lot more popular than alternate, even though the sample size is small (8:1 with new players, 25:10 with old players).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

On these forums I can find just two polls about this visibility.

KOTA poll is exactly even at the moment, 114 vs 114.

FC Community poll shows that realistic is a lot more popular than alternate, even though the sample size is small (8:1 with new players, 25:10 with old players).

Another one is on Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LLv24_Zami I would direct your attention to line item number seven:

 

On 10/3/2019 at 11:12 AM, Sneaksie said:

We just turned on 3.201b hotfix that addresses the following problems:
1. The cooperative mode works now.
2. Clicking the Spectate button before airfields finished loading in Dogfight multiplayer won't cause a problem.
3. 'Simplified physiology' option is turned OFF at Normal difficulty level (so all fatigue effects are working at this difficulty level).4. A bug that could trigger aircraft repair anywhere, even during a flight, after leaving a service area has been fixed.
5. The trimmer axis inertia has been removed when adjusting it using the keyboard or joystick keys.
6. The time it takes to adjust the pitch trim from the lowest to the highest position or vice versa on the Yak-7b has been increased from 5 to 8 seconds to correspond to the other Yak fighter models.

7. Airplanes long-range visibility algorythm was corrected to minimize plane size amplification effect;
8. Coolant vapor and fuel leaks are no longer visible at great distances.
9. Technochat message telling that a pilot is conscious again won't be displayed if he is dead already.
10. The djustable stabilizer position message in technochat is displayed according to aviation standard (pitch up is negative and pitch down is positive).
11. Emergency canopy jettison command will be ignored during repairs in the service area.
12. Mouse controls: a plane controlled by a pilot who lost consciousness won't continue turning to the last direction set before the loss of consciousness.

13. Bf 110 E-2 gunsight glass has been corrected.
14. P-51D-15 rearview mirror shows correctly when damaged.
15. Fokker D.VII anemometer correctly disappears when its wing is lost.
16. Graphical error in the north part of the Rheinland map has been corrected.
17. Multiplayer statistics work correctly for different coalitions.
18. QMB mode works correctly for customers who have only Flying Circus.
19. B-25D (RAF) kills now counting in game statistics correctly.
20. Jagdpanzer IV armour was fixed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, /SF/Disarray said:

@LLv24_Zami I would direct your attention to line item number seven:

 

 

I know what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you know that it is the difference between the alternate and expert spotting modes. And being in a hotfixed bug list kind of points it being a bug, doesn't it? Perhaps it is a feature now but that isn't how it started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to HRAF guys kicking that moron so quick last night shooting up his own airfield. I never thought you'd be able to determine who it was that quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...