Jump to content
Han

Game version 3.201 discussion: Rhineland and Arras maps, Tempest Mk.V, P-51D-15, P-38J-25

Recommended Posts

I understand your desire but French squadrons were the part of the 2nd Tactical Air Force and they didn't action separate. France as new faction has no sense for our BoBP career... There will be No. 345 (Free French) Squadron 'Berry' RAF as playable unit and No. 329 (Free French) Squadron 'Cigognes' RAF, No. 340 (Free French) Squadron 'Ile-de-France' RAF, No. 341 (Free French) Squadron 'Alsace' RAF, No. 342 (Free French) Squadron 'Lorraine' RAF as AI units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 8:30 AM, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

I have his book. There is a big disservice about this occurrence that it's Discovery channel's "documentary" taking the P47 ruggedness to mythic levels.  The real evidence are these pictures and tell a different history. Especially the last one.  If someone have more pictures to share. ..

halfpint4.jpg.e12021c5e46b21ae225b35a7339e789c.jpghalfpint3.jpg.ae0cea84222384f1cf6e2a4ed54fde4b.jpghalfpint2.jpg.2bb6f9e953e86f718f216e907868408d.jpghalfpint1.jpg.5d0e9a0adcc524f4fb381a2a2c46a7a4.jpg

 

Unfortunately we don't have more photos to see more of the aircraft and at closer views. What the picture does show is that he did indeed get hit by multiple 20m rounds and not just mahingunes like some people like to believe. Did he get hit by twenty 20mm like he claims?, who knows but the pictures don't have enough details to dismiss this claim either. There's plenty areas of the aircraft that we just can't see in the picture. (wings, underside, engine, cowling, etc) Theres just not enough in these pictures to prove or disprove his story.

 

I think most people (at least those who actually fly the P-47) would agree that in-game it's a bit too easy to kill, and the primary way is to de-wing or just kill it's engine. Evidence suggest (anecdotal or otherwise) that the P-47 should be more robust in-game, it certainly was irl.

 

I currently don't fly the P-47 that much because it's so easy to kill, it's wings fall off with the slightest hit and ground attack is a pain due to its glass engine. I find aircraft like the P-51 and LA-5 or Yak to be far more resilient and can actually take engine damage without the engine being killed in seconds.

 

The damage model is the worst part of the P-47 model and until it's revised I don't see myself flying it much at all, I'll stick with the P-51 or Yak.

No-one is saying the P-47 should be invulnerable or take 20 30mm hits, but based off all the evidence it should indeed be more robust, more than the average fighter.

 

 

The DM as a whole needs a overhaul imo and I think Il2 would benefit from a more detailed damage model. The sim is only getting better with pilot physiology and other recent additions, I think the dm would be a good place to add onto.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is awesome what we can see now in game such a pretty sexy animals - horses😋

But dogs is bother me... I hear them, but can't find...😢 What about to add some exciting cute dogs in next updates?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically he said the game isn't realistic because the devs are obviously biased.  It included test data and charts showing obvious bias.

 

 

 

Just kidding.  There was no test data or charts.

 

 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 1:28 AM, NHK295M said:

It is awesome what we can see now in game such a pretty sexy animals - horses😋

But dogs is bother me... I hear them, but can't find...😢 What about to add some exciting cute dogs in next updates?

 

Did you look under your tank?

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

Did you look under your tank?

I laughed and then I was sad. RIP anti-tank dogs.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


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

I laughed and then I was sad. RIP anti-tank dogs.

If they ever need anti tank cats I have a "volunteer"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 8:46 AM, BlackSix said:

I understand your desire but French squadrons were the part of the 2nd Tactical Air Force and they didn't action separate. France as new faction has no sense for our BoBP career... There will be No. 345 (Free French) Squadron 'Berry' RAF as playable unit and No. 329 (Free French) Squadron 'Cigognes' RAF, No. 340 (Free French) Squadron 'Ile-de-France' RAF, No. 341 (Free French) Squadron 'Alsace' RAF, No. 342 (Free French) Squadron 'Lorraine' RAF as AI units.

 

I think it's mostly the immersion of the voice acting people are after. Hard to sell the illusion of Frenchmen if they sound like they're from Yorkshire :P I understand that is probably very low priority though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

If they ever need anti tank cats I have a "volunteer"

 

I love my cat. I don't love her recent propensity to bring headless mice into the house, for me to stand on bleary eyed in the morning.

 

Still wouldn't volunteer her though!

Share this post


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

Only found .50 cal holes! 🤔

 

So your tank was upside down then......

Share this post


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

 

So your tank was upside down then......

No! You are so silly, the bullets bounce off the ground and penetrate the tank's bottom armor.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

No! You are so silly, the bullets bounce off the ground and penetrate the tank's bottom armor.

 

Ahh, my mistake, i stupidly assumed the 50's bouncing underneath had flipped it😉

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really like the Bodenplatte Map so far. Would be awesome the have all the castles on Rhein and MOsel added as well lol. They are crucial military fortesses of course 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2019 at 9:28 PM, mpdugas said:

Pictures + first-hand testimony support the incident.

Where are those P47 pictures with 21 cannon holes and +200 MG holes??

 

You are the one creating theories. I will say again the pictures available are telling another story.

On 10/19/2019 at 9:28 PM, mpdugas said:

That the dead can't be contradicted on hearsay is not just emotional appeal, it's also law

Switching from emotional mode to legalist one?! It won't work too. Do I need to list some bad laws like Apharteid to prove that the paper accepts anything to make clear the legalist argument is not valid?!

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep splitting hairs.

Does anyone expect "the other side" to give in?

Will @mpdugas say "oh yes I'm sorry, I can't count more than 20 holes either"?

Will @6./ZG26_Gielow say "oh yes, we only see parts of the plane, maybe the other side looks different or maybe close-up it looks different"?

Does anyone believe either of this will ever happen?

Does it count when I state that the last 10 times I got killed flying a P-47 it wasn't from cannon ammo, but from small calibres only?

And usually on 1st hit, with the dreaded "fuel tank hit / engine damaged" followed by a dead engine 20 seconds later?

What exactly are you guys debating?

 

And what the flying something does it have to do with the title of this topic?

Lots and lots of questions... :rolleyes:

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

You keep splitting hairs.

Does anyone expect "the other side" to give in?

Will @mpdugas say "oh yes I'm sorry, I can't count more than 20 holes either"?

Will @6./ZG26_Gielow say "oh yes, we only see parts of the plane, maybe the other side looks different or maybe close-up it looks different"?

Does anyone believe either of this will ever happen?

Does it count when I state that the last 10 times I got killed flying a P-47 it wasn't from cannon ammo, but from small calibres only?

And usually on 1st hit, with the dreaded "fuel tank hit / engine damaged" followed by a dead engine 20 seconds later?

What exactly are you guys debating?

 

And what the flying something does it have to do with the title of this topic?

Lots and lots of questions... :rolleyes:

 

:drinks:

Mike

Do you really think an engine can easily survive a burst from a 7.7mm ?! Try shooting a working car engine on the nearest firing range to look for yourself what a few perfurations can do.

 

I really don't know what people have been expecting but the P47 in game looks very close in all aspects to what is written on all Brazilian Air Force books available.

 

If those books were in English you would be amazed like I was to discover how easily a P47 could be shotdown by German flak auto cannons. The engine usually survived for a few moments before the pilot had to bail out. That was the rule BUT this is REAL ruggedness.

 

Other aircraft would be down during the attack run like you can read about the Tempest on Clostermann book.The P47 could take a few heavy hits and keep flying out of the danger zone buying some time for a belly landing or bail out saving the pilot while other planes would be burning metal and her crew dead.

 

But if you expect to have your skin saved and still be able to be airborne by this "legendary" rugged plane every time you make a mistake, well You need to improve your tactics and read more books to get a more realistic view of this situation.

 

I believe people are mostly disappointed  because they have to fly CAS missions where you have the worst possible performance situation for a P47 without water injection where you will be bounced all the time by heavy cannons armed German fighters. The P47 was built for very high altitude interception role. She was built around a turbo charger like the A10 was built around her cannon. Maybe when the B25 become flyable and we have very high bomber interception missions, the P47 will shine and people will change their minds about her performance.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep arguing and arguing, and now you're even aiming at me when all I say is:

Stop it.

There'll be no consensus on that matter.

You're wasting your precious time.

And you're missing one very important point: That whole P-47 ruggedness stuff is completely off topic in this thread.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Do you really think an engine can easily survive a burst from a 7.7mm ?! Try shooting a working car engine on the nearest firing range to look for yourself what a few perfurations can do.

Depends on the engine. A 4/6/8 cylinder engine is nothing like an 18 cylinder radial and the ruggedness between the two is significantly different. The likelihood of an R-2800 surviving a burst of 7mm is significantly higher than in a car engine. Just because one cylinder is out of action doesn't mean the whole engine suddenly stops, cylinders can be damaged or even shot out and the engine can still function. The layout of the cylinders, the amount of cylinders, as well as the overall design  contribute to the ruggedness of the engine.

Another thing you have to consider is does the round even have enough energy/power to penetrate the engine block and inflict damage and how much it has to go through to even get to the engine.

 

I'd expect a cannon round or even a .50 to damage and stop a R-2800 but based of my reading a 7mm round would be unlikely to cause enough damage to stop the engine in any significant amount of time. There was a report that I posted a while back on different rounds against the P-47 and the likleyhood of it causing a crash in a given amount of time, it doesnt seem the devs have looked at that report imo.

 

Quote

If those books were in English you would be amazed like I was to discover how easily a P47 could be shotdown by German flak auto cannons. The engine usually survived for a few moments before the pilot had to bail out. That was the rule BUT this is REAL ruggedness.

A cannon is much different than a machine gun and the power of the given rounds is a major factor.

 

Quote

But if you expect to have your skin saved and still be able to be airborne by this "legendary" rugged plane every time you make a mistake, well You need to improve your tactics and read more books to get a more realistic view of this situation.

No one is expecting to survive everything, but the P-47 in-game has a much lower survival rate than irl and the likelihood of coming back home after taking damage in-game is slim to none. I have more of a chance of surviving in a P-51 than I do in a P-47 and this has nothing to do with my tactics and everything to do with the damage model.

 

Quote

I believe people are mostly disappointed  because they have to fly CAS missions where you have the worst possible performance situation for a P47 without water injection where you will be bounced all the time by heavy cannons armed German fighters. The P47 was built for very high altitude interception role. She was built around a turbo charger like the A10 was built around her cannon. Maybe when the B25 become flyable and we have very high bomber interception missions, the P47 will shine and people will change their minds about her performance.

 

The damage model is the factor not the low altitude performance. Anytime I get jumped by a fighter I can still win down low but when my wing comes off at the slightest amount of damage there is a problem, or when my engine dies when taking light damage (machinegun rounds or shrapnel) there is a problem.

Anytime I die in the P-47 it's usually due to wing root failure or the engine dying within a few seconds of taking damage.

 

CAS is extremely dangerous in the P-47 and I'd rather take a 190 or P-51, I even find the P-40 better at sustaining damage than the P-47.

 

EDIT: Storebror is correct this should be taken to another thread, we can continue this discussion here is you'd like.

 

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Do you really think an engine can easily survive a burst from a 7.7mm ?! Try shooting a working car engine on the nearest firing range to look for yourself what a few perfurations can do.

 

I really don't know what people have been expecting but the P47 in game looks very close in all aspects to what is written on all Brazilian Air Force books available.

 

If those books were in English you would be amazed like I was to discover how easily a P47 could be shotdown by German flak auto cannons. The engine usually survived for a few moments before the pilot had to bail out. That was the rule BUT this is REAL ruggedness.

 

Other aircraft would be down during the attack run like you can read about the Tempest on Clostermann book.The P47 could take a few heavy hits and keep flying out of the danger zone buying some time for a belly landing or bail out saving the pilot while other planes would be burning metal and her crew dead.

 

But if you expect to have your skin saved and still be able to be airborne by this "legendary" rugged plane every time you make a mistake, well You need to improve your tactics and read more books to get a more realistic view of this situation.

 

I believe people are mostly disappointed  because they have to fly CAS missions where you have the worst possible performance situation for a P47 without water injection where you will be bounced all the time by heavy cannons armed German fighters. The P47 was built for very high altitude interception role. She was built around a turbo charger like the A10 was built around her cannon. Maybe when the B25 become flyable and we have very high bomber interception missions, the P47 will shine and people will change their minds about her performance.

I don't fly the P47 much in IL2, because if you lose any energy at all, this over-sized tank, wallows around the sky like a bloated cow. On the other side of the coin, I like how small, nimble and fast the BF109 E7 is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allright, is there any info concerning the final release ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DN308 said:

Allright, is there any info concerning the final release ?

Final release is slated for end of October IIRC. So we should see the career mode, other map types, etc. at that time.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Final release is slated for end of October IIRC. So we should see the career mode, other map types, etc. at that time.

So nothing new so far. 
at least. No postpone scheduled 

Share this post


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

Depends on the engine. A 4/6/8 cylinder engine is nothing like an 18 cylinder radial and the ruggedness between the two is significantly different. The likelihood of an R-2800 surviving a burst of 7mm is significantly higher than in a car engine. Just because one cylinder is out of action doesn't mean the whole engine suddenly stops, cylinders can be damaged or even shot out and the engine can still function. The layout of the cylinders, the amount of cylinders, as well as the overall design  contribute to the ruggedness of the engine.

Another thing you have to consider is does the round even have enough energy/power to penetrate the engine block and inflict damage and how much it has to go through to even get to the engine.

 

I'd expect a cannon round or even a .50 to damage and stop a R-2800 but based of my reading a 7mm round would be unlikely to cause enough damage to stop the engine in any significant amount of time. There was a report that I posted a while back on different rounds against the P-47 and the likleyhood of it causing a crash in a given amount of time, it doesnt seem the devs have looked at that report imo.

 

A cannon is much different than a machine gun and the power of the given rounds is a major factor.

 

No one is expecting to survive everything, but the P-47 in-game has a much lower survival rate than irl and the likelihood of coming back home after taking damage in-game is slim to none. I have more of a chance of surviving in a P-51 than I do in a P-47 and this has nothing to do with my tactics and everything to do with the damage model.

 

 

The damage model is the factor not the low altitude performance. Anytime I get jumped by a fighter I can still win down low but when my wing comes off at the slightest amount of damage there is a problem, or when my engine dies when taking light damage (machinegun rounds or shrapnel) there is a problem.

Anytime I die in the P-47 it's usually due to wing root failure or the engine dying within a few seconds of taking damage.

 

CAS is extremely dangerous in the P-47 and I'd rather take a 190 or P-51, I even find the P-40 better at sustaining damage than the P-47.

 

EDIT: Storebror is correct this should be taken to another thread, we can continue this discussion here is you'd like.

 

 

A well reasoned response to a less than educated post.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

You keep arguing and arguing, and now you're even aiming at me when all I say is:

Stop it.

There'll be no consensus on that matter.

You're wasting your precious time.

And you're missing one very important point: That whole P-47 ruggedness stuff is completely off topic in this thread.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

First, this is not a discussion about the how well or poorly the P-47 was made nor about anything to do with the FM of it.  Anyone who purports to defend or criticize what Robert did in 1943 using the present-day methodology of a 2019 flight simulator is simply dreaming wishfully.  I did not do that.

 

I simply objected to a 2019-era libel of a WWII American war hero; I've adequately addressed every point made in criticism of him, and I recognize that the discussion is well-and-truly over when my worthy opponent brings out the "race card" (aka Apharteid [sic] laws) to bolster his claim.

 

Notice that it was not I that did that.  Nor did I critique anything related to the simulation or developers in any way.  All of my commentary is directed at his criticisms of Robert Johnson's claims.  If that sort of race-baiting is OK, then that's not for me to say, but it was not I who struck that chord.  I merely quoted English common law about some aspects of libel and slander.

 

These threads tend to grow like Topsey (https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grow+like+Topsy) , and perhaps there is a separate place where discussions like this, and others embedded herein, are properly discussed, but it was not I who started this discussion here, either.  I merely responded, politely and with reasoned argument.  So, this is simply a discussion between 6./ZG26_Gielow and me.

 

Lock it, block it, move it, that's not my call, nor do I have more to add in defense of Robert Johnson, because no more is required; I've adequately addressed every issue.

Edited by mpdugas
clarity
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Other aircraft would be down during the attack run like you can read about the Tempest on Clostermann book.The P47 could take a few heavy hits and keep flying out of the danger zone buying some time for a belly landing or bail out saving the pilot while other planes would be burning metal and her crew dead.

 

That's not only IL-2 fault but an inline cooled by pressurized liquids (all inline powered fighters basically) could seize after a moment after a coolant leak. However, just imagine protests if that was in the game.... Perhaps, that's why the Jug "feels" fragile.

 

The P-47 was robust for a fighter indeed - the plane was big and the pilot had the extra protection of a twin radial in the front, the turbo/intercooler unit in the back and the extra air/exhaust ducking in the bottom. The Jug had the safest ditch and that's actually in the game. Of course it wasn't a tank and even tanks have some surprising vulnerabilities like getting disabled by shots in the back by 25-30mm rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, can we be back to the main subject ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 10:12 AM, SAS_Storebror said:

You keep arguing and arguing, and now you're even aiming at me when all I say is:

Stop it.

There'll be no consensus on that matter.

You're wasting your precious time.

And you're missing one very important point: That whole P-47 ruggedness stuff is completely off topic in this thread.

 

:drinks:

Mike

You are the one losing time joining a discussion that you don`t belong to it :rofl:

 

And if you want me to stop, you can start to pay my bills in first place :acute: 

On 10/25/2019 at 10:20 AM, Legioneod said:

Depends on the engine. A 4/6/8 cylinder engine is nothing like an 18 cylinder radial and the ruggedness between the two is significantly different. The likelihood of an R-2800 surviving a burst of 7mm is significantly higher than in a car engine. Just because one cylinder is out of action doesn't mean the whole engine suddenly stops, cylinders can be damaged or even shot out and the engine can still function. The layout of the cylinders, the amount of cylinders, as well as the overall design  contribute to the ruggedness of the engine.

Another thing you have to consider is does the round even have enough energy/power to penetrate the engine block and inflict damage and how much it has to go through to even get to the engine.

 

I'd expect a cannon round or even a .50 to damage and stop a R-2800 but based of my reading a 7mm round would be unlikely to cause enough damage to stop the engine in any significant amount of time. There was a report that I posted a while back on different rounds against the P-47 and the likleyhood of it causing a crash in a given amount of time, it doesnt seem the devs have looked at that report imo.

 

A cannon is much different than a machine gun and the power of the given rounds is a major factor.

 

No one is expecting to survive everything, but the P-47 in-game has a much lower survival rate than irl and the likelihood of coming back home after taking damage in-game is slim to none. I have more of a chance of surviving in a P-51 than I do in a P-47 and this has nothing to do with my tactics and everything to do with the damage model.

 

 

The damage model is the factor not the low altitude performance. Anytime I get jumped by a fighter I can still win down low but when my wing comes off at the slightest amount of damage there is a problem, or when my engine dies when taking light damage (machinegun rounds or shrapnel) there is a problem.

Anytime I die in the P-47 it's usually due to wing root failure or the engine dying within a few seconds of taking damage.

 

CAS is extremely dangerous in the P-47 and I'd rather take a 190 or P-51, I even find the P-40 better at sustaining damage than the P-47.

 

EDIT: Storebror is correct this should be taken to another thread, we can continue this discussion here is you'd like.

 

You are simplifying things.

 

A MG81Z is capable of ~3200 rounds per minute . It would make 53 armor piercing rounds  through your engine every second and you expect nothing to happen !? 

 

I will say it again, 53 rounds every second.

 

If you park your plane behind this defensive system, and it a is very common situation for the medium pilot, you will have hundreds of rounds  on your plane.

I don´t think people can beat math with their in game impressions saying P47 DM is broken somehow.

 

When you lose your wings instantly be sure it was cannon fire. I always record my missions and I have never seen anything wrong with the P47.

 

Why don't you call a friend and take a 109 E7 or Stuka tail gunner firing MG only on P47 trying to rip off wings to prove your point about DM.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 3:18 AM, Ehret said:

 

That's not only IL-2 fault but an inline cooled by pressurized liquids (all inline powered fighters basically) could seize after a moment after a coolant leak. However, just imagine protests if that was in the game.... Perhaps, that's why the Jug "feels" fragile.

 

The P-47 was robust for a fighter indeed - the plane was big and the pilot had the extra protection of a twin radial in the front, the turbo/intercooler unit in the back and the extra air/exhaust ducking in the bottom. The Jug had the safest ditch and that's actually in the game. Of course it wasn't a tank and even tanks have some surprising vulnerabilities like getting disabled by shots in the back by 25-30mm rounds.

Finally someone  reasonable.

On 10/25/2019 at 2:00 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

A well reasoned response to a less than educated post.

 "A well reasoned response" properly refuted by math :dance:

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

A MG81Z is capable of ~3200 rounds per minute . It would make 53 armor piercing rounds  through your engine every second and you expect nothing to happen !?

Only a few of them really hit, because especially fast firing machineguns have a lot of spread.

 

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

When you lose your wings instantly be sure it was cannon fire. I always record my missions and I have never seen anything wrong with the P47.

 

Why don't you call a friend and take a 109 E7 or Stuka tail gunner firing MG only on P47 trying to rip off wings to prove your point about DM.

I shot away more than one time wings with the small machineguns in 109s, even of IL2s. When you hit the right spot, you don't need a cannon.

BTW you can take every 109 version up to G4, they all have the light machineguns on the trigger and the 20mm on the thumb button, as long as you don't use the wing gunpods.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

You are the one losing time joining a discussion that you don`t belong to it :rofl:

 

And if you want me to stop, you can start to pay my bills in first place :acute: 

You are simplifying things.

 

A MG81Z is capable of ~3200 rounds per minute . It would make 53 armor piercing rounds  through your engine every second and you expect nothing to happen !? 

 

I will say it again, 53 rounds every second.

 

If you park your plane behind this defensive system, and it a is very common situation for the medium pilot, you will have hundreds of rounds  on your plane.

I don´t think people can beat math with their in game impressions saying P47 DM is broken somehow.

 

When you lose your wings instantly be sure it was cannon fire. I always record my missions and I have never seen anything wrong with the P47.

 

Why don't you call a friend and take a 109 E7 or Stuka tail gunner firing MG only on P47 trying to rip off wings to prove your point about DM.

 

I'm not really simplifying things but I won't go into detail here. I've linked the proper thread if you want to debate/discuss this some more, this thread is not the place for such discussions.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 1:34 PM, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Finally someone  reasonable.

 "A well reasoned response" properly refuted by math :dance:

Not even close, keep dreaming buddy !!!!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any graphics settings advice so I can see contacts on MP please. I’m genuinely not seeing anybody 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Valkyrie77 -  rest assured you are not alone!  Although it's a shame no one has gotten back to you yet, odds are if you've used the search function for terms like "graphic settings" or "spotting" you've found plenty of info.

 

If not here are some brief suggestions:

 

Start here with what is the most concise and relevant thread I've yet seen here on graphic settings.   As you read the responses you will find mention of other tips & tricks regarding how to increase the odds of spotting contacts in the game:

 

Otherwise, suggested things to look at include:

  • Turn off the "Sharpness" option in the game, which seems to reduce contact spot size.  You want it drawing slightly larger, fuzzier dots, and then you use other techniques to make those slightly larger fuzzier dots darker and higher contrast, thus easier to see, such as:
  • Run with a low Gamma setting.  Some folks set it below what's available in the menu (only goes down to 0.8) but it also has the negative side effect of making the overall game very dark, particularly the cockpit.  You also have to do this by manually editing the startup.cfg file and setting that file to Read-Only access to keep the game from resetting the option back to 0.8 if you re-enter the graphic settings menu in-game.  I don't like anything lower than 0.7 myself.
  • Run at a slightly lower resolution than the native resolution of your monitor.   If you have a 1080 monitor (1920x1080 native resolution) then set the game resolution to one step lower than that, but still running in full-screen mode.  Thus a simple one-pixel dot as rendered by the game becomes slightly more than one pixel on the monitor (and hopefully easier to see sooner).   Negative side effect, the game may not always start in full screen, sometimes I have to toggle out to Task Manager and back (CTRL-ALT-Delete then select Task Manager in Windows 10, then click back on the game) to get it to go full screen. 
  • Install Reshade and apply higher contrast, sharpen and other settings as recommended in various threads - use search function, and be prepared to experiment. 
  • Your monitor may have some optimal settings to sharpen the image to help get better contrast and visibility.  Last month I accidentally found out that my Samsung monitor that I've had for years and is a great monitor, has a "Gaming Mode" button on the front that sharpens and brightens things nicely.  Was unknown to me because who reads manuals or messes with monitor settings anyways. 

 

After all that (and maybe more depending on what else you find) be prepared to still spend a great deal of time scouring the air and ground for signs of life.  It isn't easy and is definitely a learned skill that becomes slowly more natural over time.  You're not alone, the chat on many Discord channels is full of folks talking about how they can't see squat anymore.  

 

Good luck and good hunting. 

 

 

Edited by =[TIA]=Stoopy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2019 at 7:47 PM, busdriver said:

 

You mean other than the USAAF manuals? Can you be more specific?

 

T.O. No. 1F-F1D-1:  switch panel is different.  Also, don't have any T.O.'s with a mirror that looked the same - looks like that is a mod done in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 90th_TALLY said:

T.O. No. 1F-F1D-1:  switch panel is different.

 

And which switch panel is that, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just watched Kermi cam.  his P-51C has the switches aligned as in the Sim's P-51D.  these are different from the DCS model.  looking at a Tech Order Manual it may have to do with whether or not the plane has a rail rocket installation.  And later vs Earlier models.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...