Jump to content
BlackSix

Developer Diary, Part 69

Recommended Posts

Yes, on your plane, but what about the planes you were shooting at?

 

When AI is fighting other AI, hits seem to register as well.

I should have mentioned that this was IN MP.  No SP.  I only had one instance wher eI thought I really should have done more damage on a 109, but when I went and looked at my ping to the EU server.  that explained it.  300+ no bueno...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and Soviet Air Force both, you and Soviet Air Force both, Mikha... ;)

True that.  :)  I think the best solution will be an adjustment in the force ratio. On maps where we have relatively even numbers of Bf-109s and VVS fighters, the quality of Bf-109s has a quantity all its own.  :lol:

 

:salute: MJ

.

Edited by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realy don´t know nothing about the FW 190 and its operational area ?! Just check some history reports. 

 

"The first appearance of the Fw 190 on the Eastern Front occurred in September 1942. During this time, the Battle of Stalingrad was taking place, which would eventually lead to the destruction of the German Sixth Army. The first German unit to receive the fighter in the east, was Jagdgeschwader 53 (JG 53). However, it’s I. gruppe was assigned to the north sector, and undertook operations against the Soviets during the Siege of Leningrad in order to allow the Fw 190 to acclimatise.[citation needed] The unit flew free fighter sweeps (Freie Jagd). This lasted only days, and I./JG 53 moved southward to Lake Ilmen to provide air cover for the vulnerable Demyansk pocket survivors. In October, 1942 the unit moved south again, this time the Rzhev-Vyazma salient. It was at this location the Fw 190 started to make an impact." 

  • Bergstrom, Christer (2007). Stalingrad – The Air Battle: November 1942 – February 1943. London: Chervron/Ian Allen. ISBN 978-1-85780-276-4 .

dont´t call somthing SFI only because the fighter was not the most common.   # operation Kharkov

 

As always, don't trust Wikipedia to get the facts right. JG 53 never flew the Fw 190.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting reading Helmut Liepferts book (JG 52 on the Russian front) for the 3rd time or so, and how he describes some turn

fights (him in a 109 G1) with Russians that go on for 15 minutes to half an hour with neither side able to get an advantage. These are Yak 1's and LaGG 3's.

I don't know where an adjustment needs to happen, or if an adjustment needs to happen. But it's an interesting read his war diary, and hearing him

describe some of these fights. They didn't always feel dominant in their 109's when things came down to a knife fight.

 

Interestingly, the P39's gave them some trouble - "almost the equal of the 109" in his words.

In BoS you'd be hard pressed to make a turn fight with a 109 drag out, when flying the LaGG-3. The Yak-1 is another story. When I fly 109 I seldom feel confident against Yaks, and I avoid TnB if at all posible, because I know that the Yak is more than the equal of the 109 in that game.

 

As for the P-39, it makes sense that it was viewed as more of a match, because in 1942 and early '43 it was the only VVS plane to match the Luftwaffes fighters in top speed and deny the 109 the ability to disengage at will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the update, and the new plane . . . and also the bio on the team. Work hard to get stuff done, but take time to relax. Sometimes a solution presents itself when one walks away for bit and comes back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big ups, especially for Sergey Vorosin! BoS runs smoothly on my outdated PC on Ultra settings. He must be a real wizard!  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work , i belive this game have good future, and i belive in devs ,thanks for best game .

I look for 2D graphic designer( i nead 1 photo for my team ,i will pay for it) ,so if anyone knows someone please be free to pm .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work , i belive this game have good future, and i belive in devs ,thanks for best game .

I look for 2D graphic designer( i nead 1 photo for my team ,i will pay for it) ,so if anyone knows someone please be free to pm .

Big ups, especially for Sergey Vorosin! BoS runs smoothly on my outdated PC on Ultra settings. He must be a real wizard! :salute:

Big ups, especially for Sergey Vorosin! BoS runs smoothly on my outdated PC on Ultra settings. He must be a real wizard! :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what happened to me yesterday, but i thought i was just my crappy aim. It felt like most of my hits did not register at all and when they did register, they were always pilot kills with the enemy plane falling out of control and spinning to the ground. No other damage, no leaks, flames, oil or parts flying off.

 

I did not check MP, only SP with the QMB. Can anybody else check that in SP too and report back?

Just incase someone is having the same problem, i did a complete reinstall because of this yesterday and it's working again as it should without any issue. Very strange.

 

 

Big ups, especially for Sergey Vorosin! BoS runs smoothly on my outdated PC on Ultra settings. He must be a real wizard!  :salute:

That's the problem i'm having with this. If a flightsim runs fluently on a system like mine with absolute maximum settings, the optimation process went a bit too far imho.

 

For instance, i would appreciate it, if the optimations in the future would include a drawing distance slider. Atleast in the final release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your system is good. People always seem to downplay their systems unless they have the absolute peak current items that were released a month ago. In terms of real-world gaming performance the processor market in particular has not seen any major advances in the last 3 to 4 years.

 

Your processor is listed joint top on the Tom's Hardware ranking. 

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,review-32901-5.html

 

RAM is perfectly adequate and fast. In fact there is little or no benefit in going for more RAM for gaming purposes.

 

Your video card could be improved but it is still listed in the 6th ranked position (out of about 35!) on Tom's Hardware. 

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-graphics-card-review,review-32899-7.html

 

Overall a strong system.

 

But you may have a point about optimisation - I'm currently running at High settings on a gtx260 (with an i5-2500K + 8GB 1600Mhz RAM). My 1680x1050 screen is definitely helping here though.

Edited by kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i'm trying to say is that the difference between balanced, high and ultra is very slim and mostly limited to a few graphic features like dynamic shadows, SSAO and the like. So optimizing the Ultra preset for last gen hardware does not really make much sense.

 

There's a lot of potential to make the different presets really different from each other or maybe add some more presets in between.

 

But i'm still hoping for fully customizable settings in the future, with the possibility to set really extreme settings for stuff like viewing distance for instance. Finding the right balance between performance and quality would then be the job of the player. It shouldn't be hard capped at a setting which works for everyone.

 

Of course, when flying around at 3000 meters in a fighter, drawing distance, ground details etc. might be secondary. But when flying a ground attack mission in an Il-2 for instance, the current Ultra preset does not deserve the name and the recent optimisation did hurt it quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 69 update screen shots, hot off the press :)

post-12377-0-69070400-1404123847_thumb.jpgpost-12377-0-26595100-1404123865_thumb.jpg

post-12377-0-67259000-1404123852_thumb.jpgpost-12377-0-81878100-1404123870_thumb.jpg

post-12377-0-95341200-1404123857_thumb.jpgpost-12377-0-24298400-1404123876_thumb.jpg

 

On the 5th screen shot, check out the pilots eyes :rolleyes:

 

Boomerang :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 69 update screen shots, hot off the press :)

attachicon.gif2014_6_30__10_0_36.jpgattachicon.gif2014_6_30__10_7_37.jpg

attachicon.gif2014_6_30__10_5_8.jpgattachicon.gif2014_6_30__10_9_18.jpg

attachicon.gif2014_6_30__10_6_7.jpgattachicon.gif2014_6_30__10_12_53.jpg

 

On the 5th screen shot, check out the pilots eyes :rolleyes:

 

Boomerang :)

Sweet pictures. I have used the La-5 some more this weekend. As the La-5 is now, I would not recommend it to Standard players. I switched back to the LaGG-3. The La-5 is faster than the LaGG-3, but it seems like one hit on the La-5 will turn it into a fireball. It may take a bit longer, but the La-5 goes on fire very soon after getting hit. I can nit compare this to any other ride, because, outside of the La-5, I have never encountered a Bid ride this easily crippled or set on fire.

 

I like the LaGG-3 better than the Yak and certainly better than the La-5. The LaGG-3 is not going to near instantly catch on fire like the La-5 and seems to take  more punishment than the La-5. I would recommend using a LaGG-3 over the La-5 or even the Yak. The LaGG-3 seems to roll better or is at least easier to control in rolling maneuvers than the La-5. In terms of armament, I like the 23 mm cannon on the LaGG, over the twin 20mm guns on the La-5.

 

If this is how the La-5 is going to be when offered up for sale to standard users, I would not recommend that standard owners buy the La-5. I would use the LaGG-3 in place of the La-5 and wait for a better VVS ride. The La-5 is, at best, a bomber interceptor, so is the LaGG-3. The LaGG-3 can down Stukas, as well as the La-5, without the substantial risk of fire. The La-5 offers more speed than a LaGG, but the Bf-109s are faster than the La-5 and you are going to fight Bf-109s, not LaGGs, in multiplayer. The La-5, as is, is a tremendous disappointment to me.  :salute: MJ

Edited by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet pictures. I have used the La-5 some more this weekend. As the La-5 is now, I would not recommend it to Standard players. I switched back to the LaGG-3. The La-5 is faster than the LaGG-3, but it seems like one hit on the La-5 will turn it into a fireball. It may take a bit longer, but the La-5 goes on fire very soon after getting hit. I can nit compare this to any other ride, because, outside of the La-5, I have never encountered a Bid ride this easily crippled or set on fire.

 

I like the LaGG-3 better than the Yak and certainly better than the La-5. The LaGG-3 is not going to near instantly catch on fire like the La-5 and seems to take  more punishment than the La-5. I would recommend using a LaGG-3 over the La-5 or even the Yak. The LaGG-3 seems to roll better or is at least easier to control in rolling maneuvers than the La-5. In terms of armament, I like the 23 mm cannon on the LaGG, over the twin 20mm guns on the La-5.

 

If this is how the La-5 is going to be when offered up for sale to standard users, I would not recommend that standard owners buy the La-5. I would use the LaGG-3 in place of the La-5 and wait for a better VVS ride. The La-5 is, at best, a bomber interceptor, so is the LaGG-3. The LaGG-3 can down Stukas, as well as the La-5, without the substantial risk of fire. The La-5 offers more speed than a LaGG, but the Bf-109s are faster than the La-5 and you are going to fight Bf-109s, not LaGGs, in multiplayer. The La-5, as is, is a tremendous disappointment to me.  :salute: MJ

I found the LA5 to be extremely dangerous when engaged co alt/E at heights up to around 4000m. When it deploys its flaps it can turn rather well and seems to be on par with the 109 F even.

I have to admit that i didnt try this very often since i prefer to engage only when the odds stand for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the LA5 to be extremely dangerous when engaged co alt/E at heights up to around 4000m. When it deploys its flaps it can turn rather well and seems to be on par with the 109 F even.

I have to admit that i didnt try this very often since i prefer to engage only when the odds stand for me.

Reasonable minds can differ, still, I would not recommend that one purchase this plane, as is, if one is not a premium owner, all ready. By the time of release, the La-5 may be a better machine and I will certainly revise my opinion. Currently, I think the La-5 is a fire trap.

 

I think that many VVS players are looking for a competitive VVS fighter. I do not think that the La-5 will fulfill that desire. The La-5 catches fire, very easily, seems less durable than the LaGG-3, and does not seem to roll any better, maybe a bit worse, at least to the extent that the LaGG feels easier to control in maneuvers.

 

I would recommend that Standard owners not purchase the La-5, since I feel that  the LaGG-3 can fulfill the same role of the La-5, bomber interceptor, without catching fire, very easily. I may change my opinion, if the La-5 is revised, but in the current testing state of the La-5, I would consider it a nonessential ride, easily replaced by the LaGG-3, and a plane that VVS players can certainly make do without. It is not a competitive game changer, at all.

 

If you would recommend they buy it, ok. I think that many of the persons doing so will wish they had taken my advice, if the La-5 stays the way it is now. You may disagree and maybe you are right. Personally, I am very disappointed with the current La-5.  :salute: MJ

Edited by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonable minds can differ, still, I would not recommend that one purchase this plane, as is, if one is not a premium owner, all ready. By the time of release, the La-5 may be a better machine and I will certainly revise my opinion. Currently, I think the La-5 is a fire trap.

 

I think that many VVS players are looking for a competitive VVS fighter. I do not think that the La-5 will fulfillment desire.The La-5 catches fire, very easily and seems less durable  that the LaGG-3. I would recommend that Standard owners not purchase the La-5, in the current testing state of the La-5.

 

If you would recommend they buy it, ok. I think that many of the persons doing so will wish they had taken my advice, if the La-5 stays the way it is now. You may disagree and maybe you are right. Personally, I am very disappointed with the current La-5.  :salute: MJ

Dont you make recommendations that hurt the sales of our precious sim! :)

I am sure that if its a bug that the LA-5 catches fire too fast it will be fixed rather soon.

Edited by VSG1_Winger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont you make recommendations that hurt the sales of our precious sim! :)

I am sure that if its a bug that the LA-5 catches fire too fast it will be fixed rather soon.

I am not looking to hurt sales, merely to make recommendations that are in keeping with my subjective point of view. As I pointed out, reasonable minds can differ. I, personally, would not recommend the La-5, as it is, to anyone. For the most part, I think the LaGG-3 does what the La-5 does, function as a bomber interceptor, and the LaGG-3 seems more rugged and less likely to catch on fire than the La-5.

 

Also, considering that the La-5 is similar to the LaGG-3, I think the team should have introduced a more competitive fighter for the VVS, maybe a Yak-9, P-39, or a Yak-1b, and not another bomber interceptor. They are adding a FW-190 on a map where the Axis already has aerial superiority. I think that if the team does not adjust the force ratios to historical force ratios, many VVS players, particularly VVS specialists, will lose interest in BOS, seeing this sim as an Axis love fest.  :salute: MJ

Edited by =69.GIAP=MIKHA
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Guys. Competetive and realism do not fit in same sentence ;) Too much of old IL-2 thinking here. The La-5 first versions were no world beaters, neither were LagG-3's or even Yak-1's. You all seem to forget one crucial thing: we do not suffer from fatigue under G-forces or fear of death etc. We can do this all from the comfort of our homes and having more flight hours, if want to use that term, than ANY of the WW2 pilots ever had. Devs stated they are not making a balanced game but try to stick to the realism as much as it is feasible. So if the La-5 is a bit underwhelming at the moment then you just have to wait for the La-5F and FN to turn the tables. Or did you expect a "Whack-A-Mole: Luftwaffe shoot'em up"? a la IL-2 1946? Just seems people are too far from reality in the way that they forget real people flew and died in these crates. Only the best or luckiest survived to tell the stories regardless how good or bad their plane was.

 

 Do not worry. The "Whack-A-Mole:Luftwaffe shoot'em up" will come and all is good again. Germans lost the war after all so..

 

  :P  :lol:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Guys. Competetive and realism do not fit in same sentence ;) Too much of old IL-2 thinking here. The La-5 first versions were no world beaters, neither were LagG-3's or even Yak-1's. You all seem to forget one crucial thing: we do not suffer from fatigue under G-forces or fear of death etc. We can do this all from the comfort of our homes and having more flight hours, if want to use that term, than ANY of the WW2 pilots ever had. Devs stated they are not making a balanced game but try to stick to the realism as much as it is feasible. So if the La-5 is a bit underwhelming at the moment then you just have to wait for the La-5F and FN to turn the tables. Or did you expect a "Whack-A-Mole: Luftwaffe shoot'em up"? a la IL-2 1946? Just seems people are too far from reality in the way that they forget real people flew and died in these crates. Only the best or luckiest survived to tell the stories regardless how good or bad their plane was.

 

 Do not worry. The "Whack-A-Mole:Luftwaffe shoot'em up" will come and all is good again. Germans lost the war after all so..

 

  :P  :lol:

 

I am not advocating balancing the performance of the planes. Maybe the LA-5 should be exactly like this. Maybe it did catch fire, super easy. Maybe LaGG-3 pilots considered it less durable than a LaGG-3, as I do, too. If the La-5 is going to be as is, when it is up for sale, I would not recommend that players buy the La5. The LaGG-3 can perform the same role as the La-5 and it does not easily catch fire. As for balance, I think that the real balancing should come in the form of introducing historical force ratios. Keeping the BF-109s and future FW-190s close to a 1 to 1 ratio with VVS fighters is not something that I would recommend, at all. This may play well with many Axis fans, but VVS specialists are going to be getting the stuffing kicked out of them.

 

VVS fighters are not on a par with the Axis rides. I think that many VVS specialists will start losing interest in BOS, if the force ratios aren't revised or if the team does not  introduce a competitive VVS fighter. The quality of Axis fighters has a quantity all its own. ;) I don't think that Axis fighters should be nerfed or VVS fighters should perform better than they did historically. I simply feel that the relative historical numbers of VVS fighters to Axis fighters should not be nerfed, either. I also feel that the La-5 is not an improvement over the LaGG-3 and, if it remains as is, is not worth buying, unless you have to buy the LA-5 to get the FW-190. I suspect the FW-190 will be worth having. 

 

:salute: MJ 

Edited by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same impression that since this update planes catch fire more easily. I don't know about German side but VVS planes burst into flames very very easily right now. 

 

Maybe this is linked to the new way of how planes catch fire.

 

Now we have more spots that can catch fire. While I already thought before this patch that planes catch fire a tad too easily but at the limit of the acceptable now it seems that each spot that can catch fire has the same probability each to catch fire like the one spot we had before. This multiplies of course the probability of catching fire. However, since I think the previous level of fire probability was globally on the higher limit the overall probability to catch fire should be the same. Therefore I think the probability of one spot to catch fire should be reduced.

 

Maybe this was not tweaked because the devs forgot about that or because they wanted to have high probability of catching fire for test purposes. I hope they revise it.

 

On the La5:

 

For me a would-be decent fighter if you could at least shoot down a non cooperative fighter. With the current gunsight it is just good for bomber intercept or ground pounding. For fighter pilots I agree with Mikha: There are more capable planes. A plane can be the best performer: If you cannot decently shoot down another plane in a dogfight it is of no use. That's how I see the La5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the ease at which planes now catch fire, ROF had a similar issue that was eventually addressed.  We used to see far more burning planes in ROF than we have the last year or two.  I suspect this can be addresses in BoS as well.

 

Charlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salute: MJ,

TheYak-9, now your talking, but I think that came much later in 42. (not 100% certain tho).

We can only wait and see if at some point it's available in the future. I take my hat off to any pilot who downs a 109, as it shows great skill, especially in a Lagg-3 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, i'm still wondering about the carburetor engines, in respects to the negative G effect with consistant engine performance.

Is this to be, or not to be implemented in future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a Yak's wing catch on fire, very realistic :salute: I was the pilot ;):)

 

The Yak had wing tanks, so why shouldn't it be possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't get it right then, i thought you found it bad that it is possible in BOS

Edited by saurer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs, the effects look great don/t they :)

 

I only managed to light up La this weekend, not much time, but yes it does look great :)

Edited by saurer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs, the effects and detail look great :)


I think La is cool but darn I have been In many BBQs with it

Don't worry, me too! I paid for premium also


I like the animations on the La-5. Big engine, looks cool, heavier in the nose, fun to fly tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying the challenge of flying the La5 - I'm actually in danger when facing the AI 109's, and that's not something
I could make happen very easily with the old IL2. I never bothered with the UFO La5fn back in the day unless I was shooting

at one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I scored some kills against LA5s today. The tendency to light up must be due to the fact that the engine is rather big compared to the YAK or LAGG. One has easily doublöe the space to hit the engine compared. So it might not necessarily be a bug. But the devs will know better. At least it would be nice to know they will be looking into it.

Edited by VSG1_Winger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS above, thanks for the info on the team, and I quite like the idea of an office/people "video". And not to get too "fanboy", lets wait until we see the final, finished product before we make too many comments, it's all looking pretty good to me. It seems i'm not the only one hanging out for the FW190!! At the moment, all I can see for the brave defenders of the Rodina, is more pain! :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're right, Winger. The tendency for the La to burst into flames only started with this recent update, so I'm more inclined to think, that it has something to do with the new individual fuel tank DM, rather than how big the engine block is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Early La-5's retained the 5 fuel tanks the LagG-3 had so there are fuel tanks in the wing roots also. Even the La-5 had fuel tanks covered with a layer that reacted to fuel sealing off smaller holes and exhaust was let in to the tank the system could not withstand hits of large caliber rounds = fire. Yak's flimsy construction compared to LaGG-3/La-5 and no fireproofing made it suspectible to fire when hit. Another story is how the devs will tweak these features  ;)  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early La-5's retained the 5 fuel tanks the LagG-3 had so there are fuel tanks in the wing roots also. Even the La-5 had fuel tanks covered with a layer that reacted to fuel sealing off smaller holes and exhaust was let in to the tank the system could not withstand hits of large caliber rounds = fire.

 

If the La-5 and the LaGG-3 had the same fuel tank layout, they should be roughly equally succeptible to fuel tank fires. Right now that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

Large caliber rounds have no more chance of lighting a fuel tank of fire than a smaller round. It all depends on whether the round has a way of igniting the fuel (incendiary or HE will likely do the job, and AP/FMJ round likely won't) and whether there is sufficient fuel vapor (an HE round can blast open a tank spreading fuel vapor and igniting it in a big fireball, a normal incendiary round might hit a fuel tank and fail to ignite it, if it doesn't come into contact with vapor)

 

Generally speaking it's much easier to ignite a mostly empty fuel tank than a completely full one.

 

 

Yak's flimsy construction compared to LaGG-3/La-5 and no fireproofing made it suspectible to fire when hit. Another story is how the devs will tweak these features  ;)  :P

 

The Yak was by no means "flimsy" in its construction. Unlike the mixed construction of the Lavochkins, the Yaks had a complete steel structure. The fuel tanks were neither more nor less succeptible to igniting compared to the LaGGs, but the extra fuel tank installed in the Yak-7 in place of the 2nd cockpit did cause some concerns due to it being very exposed from a 6 o'clock angle and its proximity to the cockpit, leading to the Yaks reputation of being a fire trap.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know how the fuel tanks were used up in the Soviet planes? I don't think they had a fuel selector switch (and even if they had, we won't have it in BoS), so did it use fuel from all five tanks simultaniously or did it use the out wing tanks first?

 

I think the Germans stuck to Incendiary, API and mine shells for the most part for their. Of course in BoS we only have two sorts of ammunition for now, but unless the AP rounds are not modelled as API bus as solid AP, i'm not really surprised that the Russians planes like up very easily.

 

I can't say for sure if the La-5 catches fire more easily than the other planes, but when the planes catch fire, it still seems to happens mostly from the engine and not from the fuel tanks.

 

In any case, the La-5, like the other Russian planes, needs very good teamwork to be effective and apart from the worse gunsight and overall slightly worse visibility, i prefer the La-5 to the other Soviet planes. The Yak-1 is of course an alternative, but the lack of speed and worse acceleration hurt a lot, unless the Bf-109 stays around for a turnfight (not that winning a turn fight is particularly easy in the Yak-1 anyhow).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have appreciated the small fluctuations of the parachute tissue as the pilot is gently floating down.

However the parachuted pilots seem completely unaffected by Wind. Even if I put Wind cursor to the max the pilots parachute perfectly vertically down.

A correction to this will bring even more realism. If you eject from high altitude and have high winds you can end up kilometers away from where you jumped, which makes rescue missions more difficult.

Edited by IckyATLAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have appreciated the small fluctuations of the parachute tissue as the pilot is gently floating down.

However the parachuted pilots seem completely unaffected by Wind. Even if I put Wind cursor to the max the pilots parachute perfectly vertically down.

A correction to this will bring even more realism. If you eject from high altitude and have high winds you can end up kilometers away from where you jumped, which makes rescue missions more difficult.

 

Might be just me, but I would personally allocate that "issue" with a priority number #23398, right after #23397 (outhouses with 3 different toilet papers).

 

Devs have X amount of time, Y amount of money and Z amount of manpower. I personally wish that they concentrate on things like working

single player campaign and mission builder.

But thats only me, I am a bit weird in my wishes..

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know how the fuel tanks were used up in the Soviet planes? I don't think they had a fuel selector switch (and even if they had, we won't have it in BoS), so did it use fuel from all five tanks simultaniously or did it use the out wing tanks first?

 

 

LaGG-3 uses the 2 wing tanks first and than the 3 fuselage ones. It's supposed to be the same with La-5.

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...