Jump to content

Game version 4.502 discussion: Hurricane, C-47, Bf-110-E2 in 4K, New G-Effect, Tank Crew and other improvements


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

Well, they said they weren't simulating an experienced pilot with 100s of hours. They said, (after a poll) that it was going to simulate Joe average, who'd just been given his initial training and thrown in the deep end.

I'm not certain that a pilot with 100s of hours is going to fare all that much better. Even in hundreds of hours of flying, you aren't spending a significant proportion of that pulling crazy g-forces. You're probably pretty run down from combat stress on top of that if you've been at the front for a while.

 

The system is much more forgiving of instantaneous g-forces than before. But unlike real pilots, we don't feel the intense discomfort or exhaustion that comes from prolonged high-g maneuvering, and only go from audible and visual cues, which we can ignore or simply try to 'ride the edge' in a calculating manner that is much more difficult when you're experiencing the g-effects yourself.

A great many of these fit, well-trained pilots would simply not be throwing themselves into the kinds of maneuvers we do over and over again. The ones who experienced the more severe effects in the middle of combat probably stood a good chance of being shot down while unconscious or crashing. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2020 at 12:10 AM, Mad-Moses said:

...Sound; I quickly scanned through all the replies in this thread and I have not seen mention of the external sound changes with the patch; namely the engine sounds...

 

Hate to disappoint you ;)

 

 

Edited by JG27_M-C
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JG27_M-C said:

 

Hate to disappoint you ;)

 

 

 

Hate to disappoint you ;)

 

 

 

Hate to disappoint you ;)

 

 

 

Hate to disappoint you ;)

 

 

 

Hey mate, I bet the stuttering you have here is also an issue in your game, isn't it? ;)

 

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

 

Hey mate, I bet the stuttering you have here is also an issue in your game, isn't it? ;)

 

 

LoL! I have G-locked with the new physiology model... 😵 😆

Just edited the OP.

 

~S~

Edited by JG27_M-C
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 216th_Cat said:

 

Interesting reading. Looking at the date it is from 1943 when Wind was flying the Bf109G. So what he says isn't a total surprise, unless he is referring to him flying the Brewster, which I doubt.

This is very much referring to his time flying the Brewster... (Which he Scored 39 kills flying)

 

His unit only started receiving 109s in August of 1943 (but it was not until May 1944 that they had fully converted to the 109)

and in October 1943 he was taken off active duty (and that is when he wrote his lecture) before returning to service in February 1944.

 

So some time after that he converted to the 109 and his first kill in the 109 is recorded as being on the 27th of may 1944.

 

 

 

 

Edited by mattebubben
Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn!! We need the Buffalo in the game NOW!!

 

What an uber machine it must be....

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seriously though, is there any making sense of pilot accounts? They are so contradictory and conflicting. I mean the Buffalo has the reputation of being the merest also-ran, and a footnote in WW2 aerial history. 

Edited by kendo
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kendo said:

Damn!! We need the Buffalo in the game NOW!!

 

What an uber machine it must be....

It was not an uber machine.

 

But when used by skilled and well trained pilots who flew it to its strengths and that knew which tactics to use against which opponents etc it proved to be a formidable aircraft for the first few years of the war.

 

And this is something that his lectures make pretty clear.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

Edited by mattebubben
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was joking 🙂

 

i suppose I was trying to say what you said - that it's difficult, if not impossible, to determine what proportion of any particular combat is down to the skill of the pilot versus the inherent characteristics of the plane.    

Edited by kendo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mattebubben said:

It was not an uber machine.

 

But when used by skilled and well trained pilots who flew it to its strengths and that knew which tactics to use against which opponents etc it proved to be a formidable aircraft for the first few years of the war.

 

And this is something that his lectures make pretty clear.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

 

I wonder about this comment also:

 

When shooting from dead six, it is best to get about 20 meters from the enemy,

 

In a Brewster? You'd be hard pushed to catch a wheelchair and get within 20 metres.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 216th_Cat said:

 

I wonder about this comment also:

 

When shooting from dead six, it is best to get about 20 meters from the enemy,

 

In a Brewster? You'd be hard pushed to catch a wheelchair and get within 20 metres.

Can we even set our convergence to 20 meters?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kendo said:

Damn!! We need the Buffalo in the game NOW!!

 

What an uber machine it must be....

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seriously though, is there any making sense of pilot accounts? They are so contradictory and conflicting. I mean the Buffalo has the reputation of being the merest also-ran, and a footnote in WW2 aerial history. 

 

Yeah we do need a Buffalo!

 

There is sense in reading pilot notes but they have to be understood within context. You don't read first hand accounts in history without doing the deep analysis around them. Even the more surface understanding can help with the two basic case studies. The first is the absolute slaughter of the USMC's F2A-3 at the hands of the Japanese Navy and the A6M2 Zero. These versions of the Buffalo were overly heavy and were flown by pilots that had low combat experience and whose tactics had not yet evolved and they were up against seasoned pilots who had sound tactics for their aircraft and had combat experience over China.

That is contrasted by the Finnish B-239 pilots who stripped out everything non essential from their B-239's, had home field advantage most of the time over Finland, had spotters who, in some cases, could visually see Russian aircraft taking off from their frontline fields, and whose pilots were already well seasoned during The Winter War and who employed strict 'boom and zoom' tactics (the Finnish called it the pendulum attack). No surprise that their notes on the same aircraft came out somewhat differently :)

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

There is sense in reading pilot notes but they have to be understood within context. You don't read first hand accounts in history without doing the deep analysis around them. Even the more surface understanding can help with the two basic case studies. The first is the absolute slaughter of the USMC's F2A-3 at the hands of the Japanese Navy and the A6M2 Zero. These versions of the Buffalo were overly heavy and were flown by pilots that had low combat experience and whose tactics had not yet evolved and they were up against seasoned pilots who had sound tactics for their aircraft and had combat experience over China.

That is contrasted by the Finnish B-239 pilots who stripped out everything non essential from their B-239's, had home field advantage most of the time over Finland, had spotters who, in some cases, could visually see Russian aircraft taking off from their frontline fields, and whose pilots were already well seasoned during The Winter War and who employed strict 'boom and zoom' tactics (the Finnish called it the pendulum attack). No surprise that their notes on the same aircraft came out somewhat differently :)

 

Yes, and it's for similar reasons that the P-39 suffered in the Pacific but was loved by the Soviets - it's all about the battlefield and time frame over which these planes flew.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a quick game on a friends pc this afternoon. No I am not the best pilot by any means.

 

Me in a Spit with 40% fuel vs a 109 with 40% fuel.  German pilot level was average. We both danced around each other till I got the visual cues, breathing and I started to back off on my g loading.  To around 2.4 G turn.  I watched the 109 on the map cruise up nicely onto my 6 and proceed to kill my pilot with ease.  Guess he wasn't huffing and puffing/affected as much as I was?

 

Yeah, I think this is a big no for me.

 

Enjoy your game folks.

Edited by Confused_2018
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Confused_2018 said:

Had a quick game on a friends pc this afternoon. No I am not the best pilot by any means.

 

Me in a Spit with 40% fuel vs a 109 with 40% fuel.  German pilot level was average. We both danced around each other till I got the visual cues, breathing and I started to back off on my g loading.  To around 2.4 G turn.  I watched the 109 on the map cruise up nicely onto my 6 and proceed to kill my pilot with ease.  Guess he wasn't huffing and puffing/affected as much as I was?

 

Yeah, I think this is a big no for me.

 

Enjoy your game folks.

 

Reports like this mean nothing without video recordings. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

G Loc Feedback.

 

Having spent some time reading the source materials, the blog post and testing. I have only a few points of contention with the system. There are places in the system where total G-loc can seem random and without warning. I understand some of these G-Loc events are by design. However there is often a lack of feedback to the events that preceding these sudden G-loc instances. Since the instances of tunnel vision has been reduced and delayed, I would ask for more audio cues to the pilot's state of fatigue and G loading. As this would better inform the player as to their state in fatigue / G system. 

 

There are two specific cases where a total blackout can occur that will often feel random to the pilot. 

 

Quote

In the new model, loss of consciousness under prolonged G-loads of less than +4..+4.5G will now occur without an obvious tunneling effect

 

Quote

If these Gs are maintained during the maneuver for longer than 25 seconds, the “blacking out” will nevertheless begin to happen, and consciousness will be lost 32 seconds after the start of the maneuver.

 

The result of these scenarios is that, the pilot is instantly unconscious. In some cases there maybe some tunnel vision preceding the event. However even reducing the G- loading will not prevent the blackout. This is probably the most frustrating, because it feels completely random and uncontrollable.  And it is, because you have triggered a blackout timer, That you have little indication is active,  where in the count down you are before you go dark and how to reset it.  The only indication that the pilot is in trouble is the "drunk vision" that occurs after rapid G on set rates.  Due to the lack of feedback, G forces are not apparent to the virtual flyer. Nor is there an indication of the's pilot fatigue state unless he's exhausted. So It's almost impossible to know you've kicked off the blackout timer, or how vulnerable to a blackout you are.

 

Again this is by design, and admittedly contradictory to reality.

Quote

real pilot cannot predict in advance what Gs he can sustain during the next maneuver and for how long. He, of course, roughly understands how tired he is. Therefore, this indicator will give you only an approximate idea of the current physical condition of the pilot. When you set the “Expert” difficulty, you will not have this indicator.

In the real world, you may not know how many G you can sustain at a given instant. However you can gauge your relative capacity based on your level of exhaustion. .Except in IL-2 because there isn't an indication of the level of the pilots exhaustion. Couple this with the way blackouts can occur and you have a system which feels random at edge cases.  Due to lack of feedback. Which maybe why the response to the new system is fairly mixed. 

 

A few small improvements could go a long way in improving the already great system you've built. First, more audio cues for the current G state and fatigue of the pilot. This would  help the player have a better understanding of where they are in the G model.  A logarithmic increase in volume of pilot straining noises as the G's increase would better inform the player of current state .  The same principal with a different sound could be applied to virtual pilot's fatigue state too.  It may also be a good idea to allow individuals to choose standard or verbose feedback, in case they don't the pilot breathing in their ear all night.

 

Secondly, for the cases where G blackout occurs without a tunnel effect. Reducing G loading should prevent the pilot from blacking out for a few more seconds.  If the pilot then fails to reduce the G loading, it's lights out. This would make these types of blackout feel less random and uncontrollable. Given the lack of feedback in the current system the blackouts can feel random. 

Thanks for taking the time to read this, I do think the new system is very cool and I appreciate all the time you guys put into this.

Edited by Yak_Panther
layout
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Confused_2018 said:

Had a quick game on a friends pc this afternoon. No I am not the best pilot by any means.

 

Me in a Spit with 40% fuel vs a 109 with 40% fuel.  German pilot level was average. We both danced around each other till I got the visual cues, breathing and I started to back off on my g loading.  To around 2.4 G turn.  I watched the 109 on the map cruise up nicely onto my 6 and proceed to kill my pilot with ease.  Guess he wasn't huffing and puffing/affected as much as I was?

 

Yeah, I think this is a big no for me.

 

Enjoy your game folks.

 

With the best will in the world, it sounds more like your flying might have been to blame.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I could see the Finnish spec Buffalo being quite agile with all the weight saving by de navalizing it, afaik they also took most of the armor and the fuel tanks stripped from the self sealing coating.

 

The Buffalos that fought in the Pacific were an entirely different animal than the ones in Finnish service.

The F2A-3 for example used by the Marine Corps was a whole metric ton heavier than the initial F2A-1 model (~2300kg vs ~3300kg) while not having substantially more engine power. The British B339E was a similar case of overweight and underpowered. One also needs to keep in mind that the RAF and Marine Corps Buffalos had to go head to head with Japanese Zero and Hayabusa fighters which were probably some of the best turning fighters of the entire war.

 

The B239 export model of the F2A-1 used by the Finnish Air Force on the other hand were only slightly heavier than the F2A-1 with around 2400kg at takeoff. Their Buffalos went up against Soviet fighters, many of which were no match for the B239 in a turn fight (LaGG-3, Yak-1, MiG-3) and those that could match or outperform the Buffalo in turns (I-153, I-16) could be outrun or outdived.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

With the best will in the world, it sounds more like your flying might have been to blame.

 

Yes it's kinda meaningless if they didn't then swap planes and do the same test again, I have a feeling they'd end up with the same result. 

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

 

Yes it's kinda meaningless if they didn't then swap planes and do the same test again, I have a feeling they'd end up with the same result. 

 

To be fair his point was against AI pilots not having the same issues, which should (is) not be the case.

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

To be fair his point was against AI pilots not having the same issues, which should (is) not be the case.

 

Sure. I have not undertaken any testing in a meaningful way but it strikes me that they do seem to unload somewhat. Nothing scientific, but sometimes they reduce their turn - just as seen in gun camera footage - before then maneuvering again. This could, of course, be totally in my imagination.

 

But, TBH, if you are being outmaneuvered by an AI pilot on average then the fault may lie in a poor feel for your own aircraft's corner speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

To be fair his point was against AI pilots not having the same issues, which should (is) not be the case.

 

I feel my point still stands, maybe a better test would have been to use the same plane as the AI. But whatever, it's far from a scientific test and the fact they're being such a prat about it leaves me with scant sympathy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Next stop: A flyable C-47!

 

I want to do this on Combat Box:

 

If you have a look in the game, i have the feeling that our hope will come reality soon. 😉

 

In single player :

1- Run the game

2- Go in Qmb.

3- Select any map.

4- Select an icone with at least 2 planes.

5- Check the list of the allie plane.

 

In multiplayer, the mission builder can select the C47, and we can see that on the plane selection. If you select it, there is a buton with the buy option.

 

Dev, my credit card is ready, i hope that Santa will give us a C47, and that you don't give us a false hope.

 

 

2020_11_5__21_40_6.jpg

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 216th_Cat said:

 

I wonder about this comment also:

 

When shooting from dead six, it is best to get about 20 meters from the enemy,

 

In a Brewster? You'd be hard pushed to catch a wheelchair and get within 20 metres

 

He probably means that you should to be offset by 20 meters to a side.

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

If you have a look in the game, i have the feeling that our hope will come reality soon. 😉

 

In single player :

1- Run the game

2- Go in Qmb.

3- Select any map.

4- Select an icone with at least 2 planes.

5- Check the list of the allie plane.

 

In multiplayer, the mission builder can select the C47, and we can see that on the plane selection. If you select it, there is a buton with the buy option.

 

Dev, my credit card is ready, i hope that Santa will give us a C47, and that you don't give us a false hope.

 

 

2020_11_5__21_40_6.jpg

I hope so. I would buy a C-47. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that if it's any where near as useful the Ju52 it will be a best seller. It least the DC3 etc has style, albeit it's looks are a bit like a flying whale.

The Ju52 always will look like my gramp's tool shed lifted sky high by some tornado. But i like it, as do many others it seems.

Edited by jollyjack
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anything change with audio in this update? I don't see anything in release notes.

Everything sounds more muffled to me now. Using Rift S with earbuds. Double checked my sound settings and nothing change there, in game or in Windows.

I will admit I had a few weeks break so maybe I am remembering it wrong.

 

 

 

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

If you have a look in the game, i have the feeling that our hope will come reality soon. 😉

 

In single player :

1- Run the game

2- Go in Qmb.

3- Select any map.

4- Select an icone with at least 2 planes.

5- Check the list of the allie plane.

 

In multiplayer, the mission builder can select the C47, and we can see that on the plane selection. If you select it, there is a buton with the buy option.

 

Dev, my credit card is ready, i hope that Santa will give us a C47, and that you don't give us a false hope.

 

 

2020_11_5__21_40_6.jpg

 

This happened with the B-25D as well. The game's interface assumes all types are flyable types.

 

That said... I REALLY do want to buy a C-47 (and a B-25). 😄

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dburne said:

Did anything change with audio in this update? I don't see anything in release notes.

Everything sounds more muffled to me now. Using Rift S with earbuds. Double checked my sound settings and nothing change there, in game or in Windows.

I will admit I had a few weeks break so maybe I am remembering it wrong.

 

 

 

Sound definitely changed. Some sounds are now louder (like oxygen, breathing, etc.), others not so much.

I wouldn't say it sounds muffled, but it seems exterior sounds are much quieter when in flight. Now I DEFINITELY cannot hear other planes coming up behind me while in flight, which is fantastic and much more realistic. 
 

 

19 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

This happened with the B-25D as well. The game's interface assumes all types are flyable types.

 

That said... I REALLY do want to buy a C-47 (and a B-25). 😄


Dang it, Shamrock, always telling it like it is! 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Confused_2018 said:

Had a quick game on a friends pc this afternoon. No I am not the best pilot by any means.

 

Me in a Spit with 40% fuel vs a 109 with 40% fuel.  German pilot level was average. We both danced around each other till I got the visual cues, breathing and I started to back off on my g loading.  To around 2.4 G turn.  I watched the 109 on the map cruise up nicely onto my 6 and proceed to kill my pilot with ease.  Guess he wasn't huffing and puffing/affected as much as I was?

 

Yeah, I think this is a big no for me.

 

Enjoy your game folks.

 

14 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

No video, but I put in a quick fight against a vet Fw-190 A8 yesterday in a Spit IX and it felt like I was out turned on the deck. Just anecdotal and feeling.


The new physiology model has a bit of a learning curve to it.  You can’t just pull to the edge of blackout and hold there anymore.  If you try you’ll wear yourself out REALLY fast and your G tolerance falls off a cliff.  Turn the hud and such on and spend a few minutes flying solo watching the G meter and the fatigue triangle and listening to the audible breathing cues.  I had the same problem initially and it was due to being too aggressive with my initial pulls.  With the new model you can pull a ton of Gs briefly for a snap shot, but then you’re spent.  Or you can be more measured and keep your endurance up for a long fight. The Spit can still easily outmaneuver a 109 or 190, and I think the Spit IX is much more manageable now once you get used to the new system.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

Sound definitely changed. Some sounds are now louder (like oxygen, breathing, etc.), others not so much.

I wouldn't say it sounds muffled, but it seems exterior sounds are much quieter when in flight. Now I DEFINITELY cannot hear other planes coming up behind me while in flight, which is fantastic and much more realistic. 

 

 

OK thanks much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

To be fair his point was against AI pilots not having the same issues, which should (is) not be the case.

 

I believe the AI does have the same issues.  Seen several of them lawn darting at low altitude - whether due to blackout or lack of respect for the ground I don't know.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I believe the AI does have the same issues.  Seen several of them lawn darting at low altitude - whether due to blackout or lack of respect for the ground I don't know.  

 

I think I have seen three 190's so far today lawn darting into the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Karaya said:

 

The Buffalos that fought in the Pacific were an entirely different animal than the ones in Finnish service.

The F2A-3 for example used by the Marine Corps was a whole metric ton heavier than the initial F2A-1 model (~2300kg vs ~3300kg) while not having substantially more engine power. The British B339E was a similar case of overweight and underpowered. One also needs to keep in mind that the RAF and Marine Corps Buffalos had to go head to head with Japanese Zero and Hayabusa fighters which were probably some of the best turning fighters of the entire war.

 

The B239 export model of the F2A-1 used by the Finnish Air Force on the other hand were only slightly heavier than the F2A-1 with around 2400kg at takeoff. Their Buffalos went up against Soviet fighters, many of which were no match for the B239 in a turn fight (LaGG-3, Yak-1, MiG-3) and those that could match or outperform the Buffalo in turns (I-153, I-16) could be outrun or outdived.

 

It also didn't help that Brewster did not have a good reputation for build quality. As I recall, the Navy outright rejected the Corsairs they produced, because they were so poorly built. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have time to read the whole thread, so maybe it has already been mentioned, but I think some of the heavy virtual breathing audio could be toned down in certain situations just a little.  If you're pulling heavy Gs or with pilot fatigue, it's useful and fine, but when I'm flying straight and level over 10,000 feet and nothing is really happening, I could just do without hearing it.    Otherwise, I'm really liking the latest update.

 

 

Edited by SeaSerpent
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Han unpinned this topic

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...