Jump to content
Han

Game version 3.101 discussion: Me 262 A, T-34-76 UVZ 1943, Albatros D.Va, S.E.5a

Recommended Posts

Its not on the today's hot fix list, but have they done something to the FW190 locking wheel?

I find hard to take off 190 now. Spin like hell. :joy:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, =SqSq=Civilprotection said:

I cannot for the life of me figure out how to open the damage overlay for tanks. My "enter" key just opens chat like always, and my "num enter" does nothing. I can't find the damage overlay in keybindings either. Has anyone else gotten it to work?

It's fixed in this hotfix.  A few things seem to be working better with the tank controls.  Great work devs, and quick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

No this is false. We never did anything for balance. There were long running debates about ROF FMs over many years and we made some changes after years of debate, but we eventually regretted them and felt they weren’t accurate changes. That is all. We never do anything just for the sake of balance. Don’t make such false comments about us. We’ve said over and over and over that we don’t tweak planes for balance.

 

Jason 

Thanks for clearing that up, im only remembering second hand accounts. Guess i shoulda had a clearer story before carelessly using it as fact. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant update. Love even the small things. The message abt the round being loaded and the type... for tank crew. Helps me greatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sneaksie said:
3 days after update 3.101 we release this hotfix

Too bad that once again, this wasn't worth an announcement in the official Announcement Section.

I'm really wondering what the point is of keeping such critical information semi-hidden as a "recommended post" in this discussion thread?

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Eric86 said:

With the new hotfix the 262 really is unstable now with the front armor + cannons removed and full fuel! I love it, you've done an excellent job dev's ☺️

That plus the unmodified engines will make her nearly impossible for relative noobs like me to fly, which is - and I'm not even being sarcastic here - perfect. The 262 absolutely should separate the men/women from the boys/girls. Nice work devs 😊

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That plus the unmodified engines will make her nearly impossible for relative noobs like me to fly, which is - and I'm not even being sarcastic here - perfect. The 262 absolutely should separate the men/women from the boys/girls. Nice work devs 😊

 

Not sure about 'separate the men/women from the boys/girls' as in the real world the 262 pilots were not all the cream of the crop and many were poorly trained just like us 🙂   but being hard to fly is historic and as long as they have modelled that difficulty accurately  then it is good.  Let's face it,  most of the US aircraft are hard to fly well and easy to break 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 11:29 AM, AnPetrovich said:



Good questions, thanks!
The order of things is:

 

When we develop every next plane FM we are based on sources we have and check that final flight performances in game corresponds to given refs.
Since the FM is rather complicated, there are always slight deviations of in-game flight performances from the real life. We strive to make them minimal, but nevertheless it is impossible to achieve full compliance with the real life, especially given the fact that the data in different sources also differ.
After all, we put to the game description the flight performances which we achieved in the game, for let you know what you get in the simulator. So you can compare these data with sources yourself.

As for the comparison of the description in RoF and FC, when we worked on RoF we made several corrections of the FM for some planes, but not always corrected their description there. Also we have been made flight tests in RoF in hand-mode, therefore the results might be not very precise.
Now, in GB and FC we do these tests using special dev tools, and now the result of these tests is very precise. We are going to retest all the flight performances of the FC planes soon, and then you'll be able to make your own conclusions about their compliance with the sources.

Thank you for working hard, doing your best and always seeking and testing to confirm accuracy.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Devs, fantastic update! Love the handling of the 262 and her engines as well! Will check the new VR zoom too. The fix of the propeller disk is great, thank you! I'll be buying some aircraft for a family member as a thank you - I have purchased all content for my own Account already.😁

 

 

There is a problem now:  I'd like to ask you to check out the in-game sun in VR, please. There are two issues now:

 

1. The Sun's glare is heavily interfering with ASW/Motion Smoothing/Reprojection, artifacting the entire cockpit frames around it as soon as it gets into the field of view. I see this on both WMR and Pimax headsets on RTX2080ti, and a Rift CV1 on a GTX1070. If you fix this, ASW will become fully useable in IL-2. Which will also massively ease the CPU demand, to 45Hz runs. Please take a look at this.

 

2. When the game is in the morning or the afternoon, the Sun is rendered very large both as a body and excessively large in its glare. It looks more like Sirius than our good old Sun. Please see the picture below as an exaggeration to it.

 

Thank you for reading, and thanks again for the great patch.

 

Best regards

Fenris

sirus-a-vs-sun.jpg

Edited by SCG_Fenris_Wolf
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related note about the sun:  the "sun shields" on the gunsights in this game appear to do nothing except give a yellow tint.  The brightness of the sun is pretty much the same either way.  Does anybody actually find the sun shields useful? 

 

Otherwise: love the patch, love the ME262 (when I can start both engines correctly). Thanks, Devs!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Devs, fantastic update! Love the handling of the 262 and her engines as well! Will check the new VR zoom too. The fix of the propeller disk is great, thank you! I'll be buying some aircraft for a family member as a thank you - I have purchased all content for my own Account already.😁

 

 

There is a problem now:  I'd like to ask you to check out the in-game sun in VR, please. There are two issues now:

 

1. The Sun's glare is heavily interflicting with ASW/Motion Smoothing/Reprojection, artifacting the entire cockpit frames around it as soon as it gets into the field of view. I see this on both WMR and Pimax headsets on RTX2080ti, and a Rift CV1 on a GTX1070. If you fix this, ASW will become fully useable in IL-2. Which will also massively ease the CPU demand, to 45Hz runs. Please take a look at this.

 

2. When the game is in the morning or the afternoon, the Sun is rendered very large both as a body and excessively large in its glare. It looks more like Sirius than our good old Sun. Please see the picture below as an exaggeration to it.

 

Thank you for reading, and thanks again for the great patch.

 

Best regards

Fenris

sirus-a-vs-sun.jpg

 

VR zoom modification is only for closed tanks gunsights, and as sun's flare i noticed it too with ASW auto on. Since you speak about ASW wich settings do you suggest for Oculus Rift S with Oculus tray tool?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick fix on so many items.  Really appreciated !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just finnish a first test session...:fly:...I usually fly on allied planes, but really, the Me262 is a masterpiece...:o::yahoo:...

The words of Galland was right: “It felt like an angel was pushing!”...Outstanding work Devs...!!!...:good:...Can't wait for the P38 and the P51...

Edited by Swing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Psyrion said:

Don´t be silly, the VR guys can barely ID anything further than a km without extra zoom. And consider that SP exists btw.

 

Ì doubt Id-ing a fighter from 2kms out would have been easy in real life.  A bomber yes.  Spotting - yes but from certain angles and lighting conditions - enemy fighters unless the P47 - no.

 

Get over it.  Also my reference was that with the new headsets coming onto market now and in the near future, it will be easier for users visually and multiple zoom over 1 to 1 scale will give those users a distinct visual advantage over 2D monitor based players.

 

Already in a Pimax 8K 2Km visuals are more than enough to discern aircraft shapes at no zoom.  Wait until the 8K-X hits or other HMD's with similar pixel density over their FOV.  Much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, blitze said:

 

Ì doubt Id-ing a fighter from 2kms out would have been easy in real life.  A bomber yes.  Spotting - yes but from certain angles and lighting conditions - enemy fighters unless the P47 - no.

 

Get over it.  Also my reference was that with the new headsets coming onto market now and in the near future, it will be easier for users visually and multiple zoom over 1 to 1 scale will give those users a distinct visual advantage over 2D monitor based players.

 

Already in a Pimax 8K 2Km visuals are more than enough to discern aircraft shapes at no zoom.  Wait until the 8K-X hits or other HMD's with similar pixel density over their FOV.  Much easier.

Get over it? We have a few dim pixels to work with ID and spotting when flying in scuba goggles. Meanwhile, 2D offers crystal clear image with superior awareness with any kind of head tracking. "I doubt that kind of head movement would have been easy in real life."

 

In your mind, we VR user should suffer now, because there might be better hardware in the future? Someone in a VR set might shoot you down in your MP match because he spotted you? LOL. I'd wager it'd be easier to revert the better zoom back then, after we all can afford such devices tha cost like 3000 euros just with the graphics card and VR set.

 

How about YOU get over it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/12/2019 at 1:51 PM, namhee2 said:

I have found out that the Jeep and the Sdfz Flakvierling are available in the mission editor, and also in the game.

_SDKFZ7_2.thumb.jpg.ca96eacfa5d983f1be029743fa9bc0ae.jpg

Willys_1.thumb.jpg.f3ba51e53b77415b2bd408f724a6413b.jpg

 

Excellent indeed. More than 50'000 Willys Jeeps were sent to the Soviet Union through the lend-lease program. We can use them in BOK scenarios for sure.

They are in the editor and they work well. But what a pity that they are not finished yet. There is nobody driving. I hope this is momentary and by the end we will have a willys with one driver and say two passengers. Maybe they add also a Jeep version with the textile open roof cover. But first please at least drivers.

 

Edited by IckyATLAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

There is nobody driving. I hope this is momentary and by the end we will have a willys with one driver and say two passengers. Maybe they add also a Jeep version with the textile open roof cover. But first please at least drivers.

 

C'mon, there's not a chance in the world they are going to leave drivers out of these vehicles. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh! Thanks LukeFF, you have upped my morale. Yes you are right how stupid from me to think they will not do that 🙂.

 

But wait a minute. I am not so sure. Are you? really?

 

On the ships like destroyers and some others if I remember the guns still work manned by phantoms. They never completed that. Let's keep finger crossed, if the past is any lesson for the future.

 

Hmm... Details, Details, small details, all is in the details, the devil and the devs hide in the small details ......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

70. All aircraft: when starting or shutting down the engine with all three difficulty options "Cruise control", "Throttle auto limit" and "Engine auto control" turned off you need to move the engine controls during the startup or shutdown procedure yourself;

 

Great !!!

Share this post


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

 We have a few dim pixels to work with ID and spotting when flying in scuba goggles. Meanwhile, 2D offers crystal clear image with superior awareness with any kind of head tracking. "I doubt that kind of head movement would have been easy in real life."

There is VR equipment now that gives much more than a few pixels to work with for ID and Spotting and as for spotting - 8Km distance can be had on VR equipment of this year.  I do agree with you about TrackIR and head movement but that is a monitor thing.  With your goggle view - well it was your choice of headset and you as the purchaser are to blame.  You do realise there are headsets offering 150 and 170 degrees of horizontal view right?

3 hours ago, Horna said:

 

In your mind, we VR user should suffer now, because there might be better hardware in the future? Someone in a VR set might shoot you down in your MP match because he spotted you? LOL. I'd wager it'd be easier to revert the better zoom back then, after we all can afford such devices tha cost like 3000 euros just with the graphics card and VR set.

Headset and GPU that gives reasonable viewing experience does not cost 3000€ and if you are running a decent graphics card 1070 or above - you are good to go.  If you want to wine about competition in MP flying as though Il2 is a Twitch FPS Shooter, then get with the competition and use a monitor.

3 hours ago, Horna said:

 

How about YOU get over it.

I'm fine and I fly VR online and  off, and without VR zoom even in the base config.  No way I am going back to 2D flying but then I waited a bit for my HMD and although not perfect - it gives me a decent experience and spotting and to some extent Id-ing is not too much of an issue.  Id-ing in a furball is not the easiest anyway and I doubt it was in real life.  Could image clarity for me be better - yes so what - should we have 4x to 8x zoom over 1 to 1 scaling to make it easier for people - no.

 

If I can fly 2K above my bombers and make them out in VR - I'm happy with that.

 

These devs have done a great job with their VR implementation and maybe you just need to fly VR with labels to deal with your visual issues and hardware limitations.  So goes for the blind VR fan club 😎

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

There is VR equipment now that gives much more than a few pixels to work with for ID and Spotting and as for spotting - 8Km distance can be had on VR equipment of this year.  I do agree with you about TrackIR and head movement but that is a monitor thing.  With your goggle view - well it was your choice of headset and you as the purchaser are to blame.  You do realise there are headsets offering 150 and 170 degrees of horizontal view right?

Headset and GPU that gives reasonable viewing experience does not cost 3000€ and if you are running a decent graphics card 1070 or above - you are good to go.  If you want to wine about competition in MP flying as though Il2 is a Twitch FPS Shooter, then get with the competition and use a monitor.

I'm fine and I fly VR online and  off, and without VR zoom even in the base config.  No way I am going back to 2D flying but then I waited a bit for my HMD and although not perfect - it gives me a decent experience and spotting and to some extent Id-ing is not too much of an issue.  Id-ing in a furball is not the easiest anyway and I doubt it was in real life.  Could image clarity for me be better - yes so what - should we have 4x to 8x zoom over 1 to 1 scaling to make it easier for people - no.

 

If I can fly 2K above my bombers and make them out in VR - I'm happy with that.

 

These devs have done a great job with their VR implementation and maybe you just need to fly VR with labels to deal with your visual issues and hardware limitations.  So goes for the blind VR fan club 😎

Then by that standard, the flatscreen zoom should be nerfed because there's not even comparison between what level of zoom VR can achieve and the insane binoc given to flatscreen.

If you feel the VR zoom level is the correct one, then the flatscreen zoom level should be nerfed to oblivion (ie: to the same level as current VR zoom level)

Be prepared for an OCEAN OF TEARS when this is implemented 😄

Not only do VR users have to deal with worse resolution making IDing a plane of the same size more difficult for the same level of zoom and target distance than flatscreen users, but on top of this, the max zoom level in VR is something like 5x lower than max flatscreen zoom level. That's a tad bit too much of a difference 😄

 

Why you feel offended by someone asking for a bit more, no clue.... Or you feel the need to show how above "blind VR fan club" you are?

Edited by kalbuth
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


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

Then by that standard, the flatscreen zoom should be nerfed because there's not even comparison between what level of zoom VR can achieve and the insane binoc given to flatscreen.

If you feel the VR zoom level is the correct one, then the flatscreen zoom level should be nerfed to oblivion (ie: to the same level as current VR zoom level)

Be prepared for an OCEAN OF TEARS when this is implemented 😄

Not only do VR users have to deal with worse resolution making IDing a plane of the same size more difficult for the same level of zoom and target distance than flatscreen users, but on top of this, the max zoom level in VR is something like 5x lower than max flatscreen zoom level. That's a tad bit too much of a difference 😄

 

Why you feel offended by someone asking for a bit more, no clue.... Or you feel the need to show how above "blind VR fan club" you are?

In general a flat screen isn't 1:1 unless its really friggin huge. The level of zoom you can get on a normal sized monitor goes a bit beyond what 1:1 would look like in real life, and if you have a big screen. Like if I zoom in on my gunsight, if I measured the actual size on my screen with a ruler at max zoom it would probably be about  what it should be in a real life plane cockpit. Theoretically, VR provides you with a 1:1 already, but as you noted the resolution is still not so great so IDing is a pain.

All this being said, I don't really care what level of zoom VR players get and I can't imagine more zoom would really translate to an advantage online. Frankly I'd like them to be better at ID'ing targets and if the zoom helps, thats great. it should reduce friendly fire. The spotting distance is still the exact same (10km) so the only advantage is recognizing my sorry butt hauling around in a Yak and not mistaking me for a 109!

Edited by RedKestrel
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd argue that 1:1 becomes less important with distance.

And to be fair, I exagerate in my "aww my gawd, it's insanely less than flatscreen zoom!!11", it sure is less zoom than a flatscreen, but not in the 5x I mentionned, probably, sry for that.

And like blitze said, I don't use anymore any zoom enhancer and I do fine. What I don't understand is why the game gives less for VR users? I don't really see the reasoning behind this.

That said, IL2 isn't too bad in this matter. DCS on the other hand .... the zoom level diff is insane (and no, there I'm not exagerating :) )

 

Share this post


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

Then by that standard, the flatscreen zoom should be nerfed because there's not even comparison between what level of zoom VR can achieve and the insane binoc given to flatscreen.

If you feel the VR zoom level is the correct one, then the flatscreen zoom level should be nerfed to oblivion (ie: to the same level as current VR zoom level)

Be prepared for an OCEAN OF TEARS when this is implemented 😄

Not only do VR users have to deal with worse resolution making IDing a plane of the same size more difficult for the same level of zoom and target distance than flatscreen users, but on top of this, the max zoom level in VR is something like 5x lower than max flatscreen zoom level. That's a tad bit too much of a difference 😄

 

Why you feel offended by someone asking for a bit more, no clue.... Or you feel the need to show how above "blind VR fan club" you are?

You don't understand Field of View do you.

 

I brake it down for you

16:9 flat screen = 35 degrees FOV

1st Gen VR Headsets = 100 to 110 degrees FOV

2nd Gen VR headsets = 130 to 170 degrees FOV (yes the Chinese ones Pimax offer 170 horizontal FOV)

 

The default setting on a flat screen is Zoom pulled back so to give the user a greater FOV but at the cost of scale compared to 1 to 1 that VR gets.

 

It isn't zoom per say on a monitor but going out from native FOV to greater at the cost of image size to give a monitor flyer a better awareness of what is going on around them.

 

Now try flying at native FOV on a 24 or 27Inch 16:9 screen and tell me that is fun.  Does not the image get very small when you pull the view back??  Yet this is the modern gaming monitor size as advertised by monitor hardware makers.  Sure your Vive or 1st Gen Oculus might have crap pixel density over their respective FOV but you still have better scale at you 100/110 degree FOV than an monitor player.  Now go and check out a More recent VR headset and tell us about image clarity/ pixel density over their respective FOV.  I'd wager they are much better no?

 

Anyway - I've flown on 27" 2D monitor and now 170 degree capable VR HMD (I run it though at 150 for now)  and I'm not going back to 2D anytime soon.  Yes I don't get the eye candy but the immersion and 3D imaging is well worth it and lets be honest - in real life - how many pilots could Id accurately a fighter at 2km or more out?  Being able to spot something at 2 to 8km out is different to Id-ing it. Crap - read up on the friendly fire incidents all sides had.  A lot of the Id-ing was based more on similar to what we do - which direction planes are traveling, location relative to lines, and then lining them up and if friendly, then not pulling the trigger on them.  Radio comms would have helped as well of which we don't have great access to.

 

With people winging here about target radio chatter - the devs seemed to have silenced a lot of it now and you don't get to know what is going on as well as before in offline career anyway.  I liked knowing my escorted bombers had hit targets, I liked enemy contact call outs - it made it a bit easier to know what was going on and where.  In MP it's different.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, blitze said:

There is VR equipment now that gives much more than a few pixels to work with for ID and Spotting and as for spotting - 8Km distance can be had on VR equipment of this year.  I do agree with you about TrackIR and head movement but that is a monitor thing.  With your goggle view - well it was your choice of headset and you as the purchaser are to blame.  You do realise there are headsets offering 150 and 170 degrees of horizontal view right?

Headset and GPU that gives reasonable viewing experience does not cost 3000€ and if you are running a decent graphics card 1070 or above - you are good to go.  If you want to wine about competition in MP flying as though Il2 is a Twitch FPS Shooter, then get with the competition and use a monitor.

I'm fine and I fly VR online and  off, and without VR zoom even in the base config.  No way I am going back to 2D flying but then I waited a bit for my HMD and although not perfect - it gives me a decent experience and spotting and to some extent Id-ing is not too much of an issue.  Id-ing in a furball is not the easiest anyway and I doubt it was in real life.  Could image clarity for me be better - yes so what - should we have 4x to 8x zoom over 1 to 1 scaling to make it easier for people - no.

 

If I can fly 2K above my bombers and make them out in VR - I'm happy with that.

 

These devs have done a great job with their VR implementation and maybe you just need to fly VR with labels to deal with your visual issues and hardware limitations.  So goes for the blind VR fan club 😎

Ok, I try to make this simple, maybe you'll finally see your  double standards :

Me : I want better zoom in VR so I could actually engage the enemy instead of diving at allies or every flicker near the ground.

 

You : "No, it is an unfair advantage to non VR players." " Remember 2D zoom is there to mitigate small monitors and have enough FOV on the screen." "With your goggle view - well it was your choice of headset and you as the purchaser are to blame." (Hmm so the VR user is at fault here even when we had like 2 sets to choose, but the small monitor user ain't and he got a nice zoom instead of buying a bigger monitor?) Lovely...

And, you talk about those larger FOV sets that work with 1070? That's a blatant lie.

I let You have the last word, I won't waste any more breath on this mindless debate with you. Have a good day.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 12:54 AM, Nightstalker said:

It's fixed in this hotfix.  A few things seem to be working better with the tank controls.  Great work devs, and quick!

Hi,

You have to get the hud /icons etc... authorized in order to see it.

image.thumb.png.4f49e4ce3f8f9d4c5f11db5c787d52f7.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

... I won't waste any more breath on this mindless debate ...

He was already posting....

 

[....]

Edited, cut here. Maybe I was a bit too cruel. Don't break people's balls like that, mate, and I'll promise to keep my bat in the basement.

Edited by SCG_Fenris_Wolf
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee thanks Fenris with your character assassination.  I didn't know monitor players could Id aircraft at 5km out - never happened for me but hey - they must be playing on 50" 4K TV's or something.

 

I do use VR with a laptop and an eGPU - it works is portable.  What ever.  Thanks again for your kind words S!

See you in the skies.

 

Conversation over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the exhaust stacks on the Hs129 change in this release?  I remember them pointing upwards before, with a nice flame shooting up on startup, kinda like the straight-up stacks on a demo derby car (kind of appropriate really) and now they seem to go straight back to about mid-wing, pointing rearwards.  

 

If this was in fact a change in this latest update, thank you for the additional (estimated) 0.0015 pounds of forward thrust this contributes to, every little bit helps! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Stoopy said:

Did the exhaust stacks on the Hs129 change in this release?  I remember them pointing upwards before, with a nice flame shooting up on startup, kinda like the straight-up stacks on a demo derby car (kind of appropriate really) and now they seem to go straight back to about mid-wing, pointing rearwards.  

 

If this was in fact a change in this latest update, thank you for the additional (estimated) 0.0015 pounds of forward thrust this contributes to, every little bit helps! 

 

The exhaust stacks change when you choose the MK 103 modification - which identifies it as a mid-'43 production model.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we going to get any other bombers than B-25 in BoBP? I would love to kill some four engines in a Me 262.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 262 is fun to be sure. And fun to chase. Finally smoked one in an IL2. :cool:

 

Pegged him with a few MG rounds, he headed for home trailing tears, and then his landing lights came on, like a "Kick me!" sign tapped to his ass. And, well 23mm later, he was in 262 pieces.

 

Wundebar!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

The 262 is fun to be sure. And fun to chase. Finally smoked one in an IL2. :cool:

 

Pegged him with a few MG rounds, he headed for home trailing tears, and then his landing lights came on, like a "Kick me!" sign tapped to his ass. And, well 23mm later, he was in 262 pieces.

 

Wundebar!

Ace'd 😂👍

Share this post


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

Hi,

You have to get the hud /icons etc... authorized in order to see it.

image.thumb.png.4f49e4ce3f8f9d4c5f11db5c787d52f7.png

Thank you, I have it working now. The diagram seems to be tied to other GUI that is dictated by difficulty settings. As it was, I couldn't see it while playing in expert. Was this intentional? The tank diagram and the the indicator for loaded ammo being tied to the HUD as they are are my only complaints. Players need to be able to assess their damage, and they 100% need to know what shell type they are loading (even if it's just a chalk tally mark on the side of the breach). Everything else works flawlessly in my mind and I'm excited to see continued development.

Edited by =SqSq=Civilprotection

Share this post


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

Are we going to get any other bombers than B-25 in BoBP? I would love to kill some four engines in a Me 262.

 

Maybe they adapt the A-20 for BoBP use? Would make sense to have the A-20G. We will see. Nothing official has been announced on that topic AFAIK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was discussion of Free French squadrons as AI for the Boston, so think it is likely it will be present in current configuration. 

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...