Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary 200 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

A cogent set of Tank Crew keybindings, in our near future, would be nice.  

Edited by Vandal
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be cool to have a comparison video of new vs old effects upon release... Oooooor prior to :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, PB_Cybermat47 said:

Looking forward to the Panzer IV. Not too familiar with the Sherman, how will it fare against the Pz. IV?

It will do well, the Sherman has around 90mm effective thickness from the front. The sherman frontal armor is also sloped o that gives it a pretty good advantage and the ability to bounce shots more effectively.

 

The Pz. IV has a more powerful gun so can penetrate the sherman at greater ranges. At close ranges they will be able to pen each other but 500m+ it gets harder for the PzIV to pen the sherman due to its sloped armor. Due to the box nature of the PzIV armor and the the fact that it only has around 80mm frontaly, the sherman can pen it out past 500m depending on what ammo types we get.

 

Overall both the Sherman and PzIV will be good tanks, the Sherman will have greater protection at longer ranges but its gun will limit its ability to kill at long distances.

 

From the side they can both kill each other at almost all ranges.

 

Keep in mind that this is just my assumption based of the little knowledge I have of the Sherman and PzIV, not all the information will be 100% accurate.

 

EDIT: Unfortunately we are getting the early M4A2, it has a slope of 56 deg from vertical with an effective thickness of 90mm. The problem with the early M4A2 is that it has 2 huge weaknesses from the front (the driver/Asst Driver hatches) which will pretty much negate any advantage of the frontal slope and armor.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

It will do well, the Sherman has around 90mm effective thickness from the front. The sherman frontal armor is also sloped o that gives it a pretty good advantage and the ability to bounce shots more effectively.

 

The Pz. IV has a more powerful gun so can penetrate the sherman at greater ranges. At close ranges they will be able to pen each other but 500m+ it gets harder for the PzIV to pen the sherman due to its sloped armor. Due to the box nature of the PzIV armor and the the fact that it only has around 80mm frontaly, the sherman can pen it out past 500m depending on what ammo types we get.

 

Overall both the Sherman and PzIV will be good tanks, the Sherman will have greater protection at longer ranges but its gun will limit its ability to kill at long distances.

 

From the side they can both kill each other at almost all ranges.

 

Keep in mind that this is just my assumption based of the little knowledge I have of the Sherman and PzIV, not all the information will be 100% accurate.

well, the slope on the Sherman isn't that great and it has pretty soft steel, which somewhat reduces the effectiveness of the angle. Panzer IV G also has the new longer  75mm L48 cannon, with pretty good penetration power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

well, the slope on the Sherman isn't that great and it has pretty soft steel, which somewhat reduces the effectiveness of the angle. Panzer IV G also has the new longer  75mm L48 cannon, with pretty good penetration power.

M4A2 Sherman has 63mm of armor sloped at 47deg from vertical, giving it an effective thickness of around 90mm. It was also found that if angled at 30 degrees from front, the Sherman become resistant to even 88mm rounds.

 

At 500m the 75mm L48 using Pzgr39 can pen around 97mm of armor at 30deg from vertical, with Pzgr it can pen around 120mm at 30 deg from vertical. This doesn't take into account the chance of actual penetration or bounce. The Sherman as a greater slope so it has a greater chance of defecting rounds at these ranges.

 

That being said, the Sherman and PzIV are pretty much equal in capability.

 

 

EDIT: Unfortunately we are getting the early M4A2, it has a slope of 56 deg from vertical with an effective thickness of 90mm. The problem with the early M4A2 is that it has 2 huge weaknesses from the front (the driver/Asst Driver hatches) which will pretty much negate any advantage of the frontal slope and armor.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

 

I agree.

 

Also, in my opinion IL2 is not the type of game that would benefit much from it (visually).

RTX is very well suited for those scenarios where there are tunnels, light sources,  dark rooms with lots of object shadows etc.

Being at 5K altitude the visual difference will be negligible.

I agree to an extent but now you have combat on the ground from Tank Crew. Ray tracing might also greatly benefit the cockpit of planes and fire effects. 

 

Not saying it needs to be done, just would be cool. Not sure if the jump from Dx11 to Dx12 is as significant as the jump from Dx9 to Dx11.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the driver and co-driver bulges on the small hatch Sherman, wonder if we will get a mod for the plates that were often welded on to help protect those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, thenorm said:

Regarding the driver and co-driver bulges on the small hatch Sherman, wonder if we will get a mod for the plates that were often welded on to help protect those.

i think that's something the British did, I'm not sure it was common (or done at all) on the eastern front

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Are we ever going to see a DD stating that the auto recovery system will finally be modelled into the game?

Other than that great job!

The Sherman looks good and the announced features and changes sound promising!

Edited by =FEW=Hauggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

I agree.

 

Also, in my opinion IL2 is not the type of game that would benefit much from it (visually).

RTX is very well suited for those scenarios where there are tunnels, light sources,  dark rooms with lots of object shadows etc.

Being at 5K altitude the visual difference will be negligible.

 

When the technology matures it may be the preferred lighting system. We'd have even more accurate lighting which would add to the realism and things like light reflections off of clouds, water, and the ground would all benefit. I can see it being the go-to lighting system eventually. But not right away. Other titles like Battlefield V will work this in now and gradually we'll see it proliferate elsewhere.

 

The other RTX technology that may benefit us more immediately is DLSS. Using AI techniques to perform supersampling at increased performance may result in some of the best visuals this series has seen. In theory. I'm trying not to get too swept up in the hype until we see some benchmarks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PzlV had also weak turret with just 50mm armor, is kind of slow as well. The gun is the good pint capable of killing shermans and t34s.

Sherman on the other hand is a big tall target. The frontal has a part where transmission with no slope as well and the gun is shitter so it may deal with the PZ IV but not against tiguer and panthers. On the other hand is faster.

 

16 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

When the technology matures it may be the preferred lighting system. We'd have even more accurate lighting which would add to the realism and things like light reflections off of clouds, water, and the ground would all benefit. I can see it being the go-to lighting system eventually. But not right away. Other titles like Battlefield V will work this in now and gradually we'll see it proliferate elsewhere.

 

The other RTX technology that may benefit us more immediately is DLSS. Using AI techniques to perform supersampling at increased performance may result in some of the best visuals this series has seen. In theory. I'm trying not to get too swept up in the hype until we see some benchmarks :)

I would preffer bugs as cloud invisible plane and rendering distance to be solved at first rather than better lighting if they are going to invest resources on the grafic engine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Biggest problem of the Sherman we will get is that its gunsight is garbage. M4 periscope which incorporated the M38 gunsight  has 1.44x magnification with 9 degree field of view. This is far worse then the German sights in game at 2.5x 25 degree and Russian sights at 2.5x and 16 degree FOV, though ingame, the FOV of both the Tiger and KV-1 sights are wider then they should be. It also doesn't have anyway of measuring range like we see on German and Russian gunsights

 

ShermanReticle.jpg

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

i think that's something the British did, I'm not sure it was common (or done at all) on the eastern front

The upgrade package to cover the weakspots created by the drivers hoods, increase turret protection of the gunners side to the rest of the turret and added armour to the sponson ammunition storage and M34A1 gun mantlet were produced at the factory and sent out to units from the spring of 1943 onwards and fitted on tanks on the production line until fixes started entering production

m4sherman.jpg

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I would preffer bugs as cloud invisible plane and rendering distance to be solved at first rather than better lighting if they are going to invest resources on the grafic engine. 

 

Related to this, I yesterday first time saw a glitch where a plane disappeared "behind" a cloud despite being between me and the cloud. In all 3 or 4 cases I was pretty high and saw a plane disappear as it got between me and clouds some 5000-8000 m away. Plane was always much closer, 2-3 km. I used widest FOV, no antialising, highest quality clouds, Stalingrad Autumn. Has anyone else seen this? I should have the flights on track so I might be able to get some screenshots.

 

I too would like to see the plane and especially ship draw distance increased if even just a bit. And maybe double checking some long distance LODs too. But all improvements from graphics to more content is welcome. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

Related to this, I yesterday first time saw a glitch where a plane disappeared "behind" a cloud despite being between me and the cloud. In all 3 or 4 cases I was pretty high and saw a plane disappear as it got between me and clouds some 5000-8000 m away. Plane was always much closer, 2-3 km. I used widest FOV, no antialising, highest quality clouds, Stalingrad Autumn. Has anyone else seen this? I should have the flights on track so I might be able to get some screenshots.

 

I too would like to see the plane and especially ship draw distance increased if even just a bit. And maybe double checking some long distance LODs too. But all improvements from graphics to more content is welcome. :)

This is my biggest gripe about the game so far when it comes to bugs. The aircraft is right n my nose and the cloud is over a km away, yet when he gets infront of the cloud he disappeared despite being right in front of me.

 

It ruins spotting and makes it hard to fight with clouds around. The clouds could be miles away yet it looks like the aircraft is going behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Asgar said:

i think that's something the British did, I'm not sure it was common (or done at all) on the eastern front


Those protective plates are rather thin as well, 25mm iirc, they don't add much protection and they are fairly vertical.

Also it will be the only tank without an all round vision cuppola, although it gets a dedicated commander and a rotable periscope. The T-34/76 model 1943 would get this type of cuppola based on the AI model that was introduced in Battle of Kuban.


Pic_03.jpg

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really just want to poke holes into them with my Tiger 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

Related to this, I yesterday first time saw a glitch where a plane disappeared "behind" a cloud despite being between me and the cloud. In all 3 or 4 cases I was pretty high and saw a plane disappear as it got between me and clouds some 5000-8000 m away. Plane was always much closer, 2-3 km. I used widest FOV, no antialising, highest quality clouds, Stalingrad Autumn. Has anyone else seen this? I should have the flights on track so I might be able to get some screenshots.

 

I too would like to see the plane and especially ship draw distance increased if even just a bit. And maybe double checking some long distance LODs too. But all improvements from graphics to more content is welcome. :)

Is a known bug, you can check my YT channel where i have a videi where you can see perfectly the bug. There is a post also on the forum about that and it looks that the problem is due to the technologie used and is not that easy to solve.

 

I am also a bit disapointed, on my opinion that bug is an inmersion killer and critical for the sim becuase spoting is a priority on the combat and you can have 3 planes diving on you hidden by this bug. Also we have important bugs like game frozening with tab to see stats, the broken oil radiator that is not working on the 109, the retarded IA.

I am not complaining about the IA because i am not playing offline but I understand that for people that fly the campaigh should be a shit experience to combat that IA and is a inmersion killer, sad with all the work done doing campaigns and the carreer etc. 

Game is going foward and is nice but it lacks a lot of important things.

 

On my opinion after battle of bodemplate team should stop a little releasing new content and focus a litle to improve the bugs and lacks of the game. If not will be allways the same and the team will not have time to improve because working on new stuff. 

To release some collector planes based on the ones we have should be a good money for them with not too much effort so they improve game, they get some money and comunity more happy. 

If not people is going to stop buying the new content waiting the solutions for bugs. I know a lot of people that feel like that. 

Edited by E69_geramos109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Is a known bug, you can check my YT channel where i have a videi where you can see perfectly the bug. There is a post also on the forum about that and it looks that the problem is due to the technologie used and is not that easy to solve.

 

I am also a bit disapointed, on my opinion that bug is an inmersion killer and critical for the sim becuase spoting is a priority on the combat and you can have 3 planes diving on you hidden by this bug. Also we have important bugs like game frozening with tab to see stats, the broken oil radiator that is not working on the 109, the retarded IA.

I am not complaining about the IA because i am not playing offline but I understand that for people that fly the campaigh should be a shit experience to combat that IA and is a inmersion killer, sad with all the work done doing campaigns and the carreer etc. 

Game is going foward and is nice but it lacks a lot of important things.

 

On my opinion after battle of bodemplate team should stop a little releasing new content and focus a litle to improve the bugs and lacks of the game. If not will be allways the same and the team will not have time to improve because working on new stuff. 

To release some collector planes based on the ones we have should be a good money for them with not too much effort so they improve game, they get some money and comunity more happy. 

If not people is going to stop buying the new content waiting the solutions for bugs. I know a lot of people that feel like that. 

 

They've already commented on the clouds issue. It's a problem with how scenes are composited, it will take an engine upgrade to deal with it. It's not an easy fix.

Also, please lets stop with the fallacy that content development is somehow preventing bug fixes. Bugs tend to be issues with code and coders are not typically involved with content development.

 

Someone said recently that they should stop adding new content for a year and "fix all of the bugs" which is preposterous from a project perspective and financial suicide because content is what brings in the money.

 

We've seen plenty of code work done, bugs fixed, AI performance improved, AI CPU performance improved, and whole new features and modeling details added. We've asked for all of those things too. We've asked about the clouds issue but its not easily solved.

 

Also I'd like to point out again that IL-2 is not the only title out there with cloud related rendering issues. They aren't easy to do.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


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

 

They've already commented on the clouds issue. It's a problem with how scenes are composited, it will take an engine upgrade to deal with it. It's not an easy fix.

Also, please lets stop with the fallacy that content development is somehow preventing bug fixes. Bugs tend to be issues with code and coders are not typically involved with content development.

 

Someone said recently that they should stop adding new content for a year and "fix all of the bugs" which is preposterous from a project perspective and financial suicide because content is what brings in the money.

 

We've seen plenty of code work done, bugs fixed, AI performance improved, AI CPU performance improved, and whole new features and modeling details added. We've asked for all of those things too. We've asked about the clouds issue but its not easily solved.

 

Also I'd like to point out again that IL-2 is not the only title out there with cloud related rendering issues. They aren't easy to do.

Hopefully they will be able to fix the cloud issue, currently it is the only bug that really bothers me. I wonder what caused it to happen, I never used to get it but after the recent updates it has appeared.

Share this post


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

 

They've already commented on the clouds issue. It's a problem with how scenes are composited, it will take an engine upgrade to deal with it. It's not an easy fix.

Also, please lets stop with the fallacy that content development is somehow preventing bug fixes. Bugs tend to be issues with code and coders are not typically involved with content development.

 

Someone said recently that they should stop adding new content for a year and "fix all of the bugs" which is preposterous from a project perspective and financial suicide because content is what brings in the money.

 

We've seen plenty of code work done, bugs fixed, AI performance improved, AI CPU performance improved, and whole new features and modeling details added. We've asked for all of those things too. We've asked about the clouds issue but its not easily solved.

 

Also I'd like to point out again that IL-2 is not the only title out there with cloud related rendering issues. They aren't easy to do.

Is not stoping fot a year but slow down a little. The problem for the team is that they have too few people and if the programers are busy all the time on new content is difficult. Maybe to focus a litle on solving bugs or upgrading the engine will bring people as well because a lot are not suporting any more or just going other game. Meanwhile there are a lot of content they can make with not that much work so team has more time.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish... I want the AI sorted as much as the next man as I am mainly a SP player.

However, never forget that the team 'has' to make money and a living. If they were to follow the advice of some people on here they would soon be out of a job.

And how people become the font of all knowledge on numbers leaving because of their personal issues with the game is beyond me... show us all the evidence of that and I'll eat my words.

There are so many things that I would love to see improved that would make the SP element that much better, but I'm not going to 'leave' (how over dramatic) because of it.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Vandal said:

A cogent set of Tank Crew keybindings, in our near future, would be nice.  

Cogent enough?

IL2BasicTankControls.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Rubbish... I want the AI sorted as much as the next man as I am mainly a SP player.

However, never forget that the team 'has' to make money and a living. If they were to follow the advice of some people on here they would soon be out of a job.

And how people become the font of all knowledge on numbers leaving because of their personal issues with the game is beyond me... show us all the evidence of that and I'll eat my words.

There are so many things that I would love to see improved that would make the SP element that much better, but I'm not going to 'leave' (how over dramatic) because of it.

And what evidence do you need ? Personal interview with everyone who decided to stop suporting? I can tell you from my squad that people is still living on the 1946 because this kind of problems. A lot of them bomber pilots that are piss off with the ridiculous render distance on the game or with general rendering distance. They bought the game on the past, got tired and leave the game. Also some mates from Jager squad wich i use to fly with them are not anymore here.

They know what to do to make the money for them but users also know what they want for the money they are paying and to keep paying all the new content to suport allways the "expectations" of "maybe the improve will come" just to see other new map released and promises on stand by again is not allways the ideal to keep users .

Of course there will be allways people buying everithing no matter what and claping all the time but dont forguet that people is paying for a product. We are not getting for free this. We are the clients and also we know what we are paying for. If you dont like the sim how is done the planes etc. go other place but at least is an exigence to be a product without bugs. 

You are not going to by a car with things broken and get the answer. We dont have money to solve the car you just buyed, but you can buy other car to support us so we can fix your actual car.

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E69_geramos109... please tone down your comments. We are not enemies here.

 

We all want a measure of perfection in IL2s graphical display and performance. I'm sure the developers do too. They and we don't have it yet. We can and should keep 'officially' reporting gameplay bugs until they are resolved as best the developers can do so.

 

I can only speak for myself but I will continue to buy directly from the main site to support the development teams efforts regardless of any current bugs that may exist. I trust the developers to do the best they can to resolve them. I'm sure they want everything to be perfect and as realistic for us as possible.

 

Keep em flying pilots.  :salute:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, =FEW=Hauggy said:

Are we ever going to see a DD stating that the auto recovery system will finally be modelled into the game?

 

Actually this is true, It is like selling a level bomber without a bombsight

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the areas that made the Sherman a success will not count for anything in a game scenario.

 

High reliability.

Ease of maintenance in the field.

The best logistics trail of any nation in the war (parts always readily available in vast numbers).

Extremely high crew survival rate, facilitated by it's excellent for the time interior ergonomics. (An area where the T34 was abysmal).

Available in large numbers.

 

In Tank Crew, I fully expect it to be nothing but a shooting gallery for the Germans, as they will be able to exploit their generally better guns, and never have to worry about their highly maintenance intensive tanks breaking down in the field, and waiting days for repairs to be made at depot level, that US crews could have done in the field.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

as they will be able to exploit their generally better guns, and never have to worry about their highly maintenance intensive tanks breaking down in the field,

 

Well to make air-war and tank war in the east work , you need to have 10 to one against the Germans, we all know this will be the other way around. But in a strange way air-war have worked . So maybe this will too. I am not going to use my pack, but I hope there is a way around this problem in public servers non the less

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2018 at 11:37 PM, Jade_Monkey said:

 

Great stuff!

 

Any chance the the logic for the ground smoke (medium and large city fires) can be tweaked to run continuously until deactivated? It would be nice to see the smoke uninterrupted. There are some ME workarounds but even then you can see the cycles that interrupt the smoke.

 

Im talking of logic tweak, not visuals.

I agree. If the smoke could work with media translator on and off, it will be easier to use, and better for the smoke effect (it will avoid that the effect stops and rerun).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Well to make air-war and tank war in the east work , you need to have 10 to one against the Germans, we all know this will be the other way around. But in a strange way air-war have worked . So maybe this will too. I am not going to use my pack, but I hope there is a way around this problem in public servers non the less

Mission designers will have to include a lot of Russian AI, Russian players will have to cooperate together, and there will have to be effective air support for the Reds as well. 

Share this post


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

Well to make air-war and tank war in the east work , you need to have 10 to one against the Germans, we all know this will be the other way around. But in a strange way air-war have worked . So maybe this will too. I am not going to use my pack, but I hope there is a way around this problem in public servers non the less

 

Yes, there is... some German tanks should experience historic (and random) failure rates in the game. A broken transmission here... a started fire there and matches would balance. :happy:

 

Share this post


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

Unfortunately the areas that made the Sherman a success will not count for anything in a game scenario.

 

High reliability.

Ease of maintenance in the field.

The best logistics trail of any nation in the war (parts always readily available in vast numbers).

Extremely high crew survival rate, facilitated by it's excellent for the time interior ergonomics. (An area where the T34 was abysmal).

Available in large numbers.

 

In Tank Crew, I fully expect it to be nothing but a shooting gallery for the Germans, as they will be able to exploit their generally better guns, and never have to worry about their highly maintenance intensive tanks breaking down in the field, and waiting days for repairs to be made at depot level, that US crews could have done in the field.

 

Only three of the German vehicles will be anywhere near superior to the Sherman. The Tiger, Panther, and Ferdinand are the only tanks that you really need to worry about and they will probably be in very limited numbers on the servers.

 

The Sherman will be no worse than the T-34 or KV1 in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

 A lot of them bomber pilots that are piss off with the ridiculous render distance on the game or with general rendering distance. They bought the game on the past, got tired and leave the game. Also some mates from Jager squad wich i use to fly with them are not anymore here.

Ask your bomber pilots to try the game again.  With the new horizon draw distances, climbing to altitude is a lot more enjoyable and the view is great, especially fall/summer.  I have bombed targets online upwards to 7K and yes, intercepted at that alt.  Most targets are around terrain features and these can been seen from those alt's.  A little recon of the target (online) or recon pics (co-ops) goes a long way for target orientation etc as yes, the targets themselves render later then the terrain.  The greatest hinderance these days to bombing from high alt is cloud cover, to me this is the only limiting factor.

 

I have also had fun with the trial and error of different bomb/fuel loads, especially on hot days to compare climb times and to be able to reach the higher alts.  Examples:  Just the 28 50s in the 88; A 500lb and 4 250s/16 50s in the H-6;  16 100s in the A-20;  With the H-16 you get back the 8 250s or 32 50s with the 111.

 

Long story short, I am having a blast with some high alt level bombing in addition to bombing with everything else that carries a bomb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Only one thing wrong with that whole turbocharger idea. We're the hell am I going to bind that on my joystick!? I have no buttons left!

Really, though. Things are looking good. Keep goin team!

Edited by Poochnboo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Only one thing wrong with that whole turbocharger idea. We're the hell am I going to bind that on my joystick!? I have no buttons left!

Really, though. Things are looking good. Keep goin team!

All ya gotta to is bind it to the same control as your throttle. Or hopefully they will add a key command for locking throttle and Turbo together just like you could irl.

I thought about buying another throttle or building my own just for the P-47.

 

Imagine how cool this would look siting on your desk.

 

Notice the little locking levers on the RPM nad Turbo controls, this was so you could lock it to the throttle.

e92fe4f120842c0ef7ff089b9f5e264b.jpg

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

Ask your bomber pilots to try the game again.  With the new horizon draw distances, climbing to altitude is a lot more enjoyable and the view is great, especially fall/summer.  I have bombed targets online upwards to 7K and yes, intercepted at that alt.  Most targets are around terrain features and these can been seen from those alt's.  A little recon of the target (online) or recon pics (co-ops) goes a long way for target orientation etc as yes, the targets themselves render later then the terrain.  The greatest hinderance these days to bombing from high alt is cloud cover, to me this is the only limiting factor.

 

I have also had fun with the trial and error of different bomb/fuel loads, especially on hot days to compare climb times and to be able to reach the higher alts.  Examples:  Just the 28 50s in the 88; A 500lb and 4 250s/16 50s in the H-6;  16 100s in the A-20;  With the H-16 you get back the 8 250s or 32 50s with the 111.

 

Long story short, I am having a blast with some high alt level bombing in addition to bombing with everything else that carries a bomb.

I think you misunderstood what he tried to say. As a bomber pilot, i can understand.

 

Yes, the draw distance has been increased, but not the visibility of objects which remains the same.

 

So, for example, your target is a bridge.

 

You start your bomb run without viewing the target (i start my bomb run at least at 20 km), or know if the target is already destroyed or not, because, the bridge will be displayed too close. Object visibility remains at 10 Km. So,  higher you are, less time you have to see the target and correct your run if it needs to be correct. And most of the time, it's too late.

 

I can understand the limitation for resources,  but it would be useful if we can have an option for the object (in the editor, maybe a checkbox which increase the visibility to 20/30/40 km) to increase the visibility. With that kind of setting, we can increase the visibility of the bomber target and not all the object.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Habu said:

I think you misunderstood what he tried to say. As a bomber pilot, i can understand.

 

Yes, the draw distance has been increased, but not the visibility of objects which remains the same.

 

So, for example, your target is a bridge.

 

You start your bomb run without viewing the target (i start my bomb run at least at 20 km), or know if the target is already destroyed or not, because, the bridge will be displayed too close. Object visibility remains at 10 Km. So,  higher you are, less time you have to see the target and correct your run if it needs to be correct. And most of the time, it's too late.

 

I can understand the limitation for resources,  but it would be useful if we can have an option for the object (in the editor, maybe a checkbox which increase the visibility to 20/30/40 km) to increase the visibility. With that kind of setting, we can increase the visibility of the bomber target and not all the object.

It might be my imagination but I thought I saw an option in the graphics setting t increase buildings view distance. Probably just imagining things though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the building view distance which is increased, it's only the landscape which is increased, but not the objects.

Share this post


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

Unfortunately the areas that made the Sherman a success will not count for anything in a game scenario.

 

High reliability.

Ease of maintenance in the field.

The best logistics trail of any nation in the war (parts always readily available in vast numbers).

Extremely high crew survival rate, facilitated by it's excellent for the time interior ergonomics. (An area where the T34 was abysmal).

Available in large numbers.

 

In Tank Crew, I fully expect it to be nothing but a shooting gallery for the Germans, as they will be able to exploit their generally better guns, and never have to worry about their highly maintenance intensive tanks breaking down in the field, and waiting days for repairs to be made at depot level, that US crews could have done in the field.

 

Sherman was called the zipo because the ammo storage was really exposed and it used to explode killing everyone so the survival rate... was really one of the worse. T34s had the fuel tank on the sides of the crew compartment so from the front and sides the fuel tank could be hit with catastrofical consecuences

4 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Yes, there is... some German tanks should experience historic (and random) failure rates in the game. A broken transmission here... a started fire there and matches would balance. :happy:

 

Relialability was not that bad ( not worse than average on a tank) but the repairs and to recover a tank of that weight yes. The panther D had really bad problems that were solved on the A model so lets see which verssion we have. 

Share this post


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

×