Game Version 4.604 Discussion: SPAD 7 180 HP, Armament Tweaks, Damage Tweaks, Pilot Physiology Tweaks and Much More...

[BCI-Nazgul]

On 9/21/2021 at 4:05 PM, Han said:

And once again - there is no realy DRAMATIC change on .50 bullet mass or muzzle speed in 4.604.

Mass increased from 42g to correct 46g.

Muzzle speed - from 840m/s to correct 864m/s.

So muzzle energy have increased ONLY for 16%.

Bullet armour penetration at 500m increased from 15mm to 17.5mm.

 

So guys, any feelings about .50 become Death-Star pilot killer or something - is a kind of placeebo. Yes, it's capability have increased, but just a little.

 

But MAY be doubling of dispercion (due to new reading of the source data based on additional data providing) on M2.50 have increased the possibility of enemy pilot's back appear on one of the bullet's trajectory.

I don't know what's causing it, but today every 109 that I put a good burst into went down in MP.   That's NEVER happened before.   So, maybe a 16% energy boost or the dispersion is or both, can't really tell, but they seem to be much more effective IMO.   Effective enough that I don't think I'm going to complain much about them anymore.  ?  There seem to be more engine fires and more PKs now.   I think the 100 hits and the enemy is still fighting days may be behind us now.   

On 9/24/2021 at 9:10 AM, [DBS]TH0R said:

I would add that the only thing missing now are sudden negative G maneuvers, or better prolonged pitching up and down and thus moving from positive to negative G and back - should be more restrictive on the pilot.

Agree.  Also, I still think it's far too easy to slam the plane from one direction to another because the counter forces on the stick in a real plane without boosted surfaces is not modeled in the game.   By make negative G's and pitching much harder on the pilot you could actually at least simulate the effects of what would happen if you could actually do that in real life (not good for the pilot and potentially dangerous even.)

Edited September 27, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

[Heinzbaby]

At the moment...
Great patch, now I can run circles around the big bad Wulf in my Spit..

[--[---MAILMAN----]

On 9/22/2021 at 8:43 PM, LukeFF said:

 

The planes had to be fitted with additional equipment to allow the G suit to work. If that had to be done at the factory, then the razorback P-47s wouldn't have been capable of using a G suit system.

I would agree "If" the retrofit/modification was required to be done at the factory.  The planes could have been retrofitted/modified at the squadron or group level, but more likely at one of the repair facilities in the the theater when planes were rotated back through for overhauls and modifications.  The 8th and 9th AF Groups and Squadrons were issued the air pressue anti G suits in early 1944.

 

Pilots of VF-8 flying off of USS Bunkerhill were issued and using the air pressure anti G suits in late March of 1944.  I doubt they were all factory new aircraft since Grumman was switching over to production of the F6F-5.  The F6F-5 didn't make its combat debut until July 4, 1944 at Chichi Jima.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, --[---MAILMAN---- said:

I would agree "If" the retrofit/modification was required to be done at the factory.  The planes could have been retrofitted/modified at the squadron or group level, but more likely at one of the repair facilities in the the theater when planes were rotated back through for overhauls and modifications.  The 8th and 9th AF Groups and Squadrons were issued the air pressue anti G suits in early 1944.

 

Pilots of VF-8 flying off of USS Bunkerhill were issued and using the air pressure anti G suits in late March of 1944.  I doubt they were all factory new aircraft since Grumman was switching over to production of the F6F-5.  The F6F-5 didn't make its combat debut until July 4, 1944 at Chichi Jima.

 

Fair enough.

[--[---MAILMAN----]

Just tested the P-38, P-39, P-47's & P-51 sitting on the runway looking against a clear blue sky.

 

I have set the convergence for all of the guns of these airplanes set as close to 300 yds (274.32 m) as the convergence slider lets me get which is 280m  or 306.2117 yards.  The slider changes the convergence only in 10m increments so I can't get to exactly 300  yards.  ?

 

I can see the nose mounted 20mm and 37mm cannon and nose mounted .50 cal. mg converge at 300 yds at 100 FOV and lower.

 

I can only see wing mounted .30 cal. mg & .50 cal. mg converge at 60-70 degrees FOV.  Anything higher than 70 FOV they just disappear.

 

My screen resolution is set at 2560 x 1440 at 144 FPS which is the native resolution for my 27" ASUS Gaming monitor and I am using a nVidia 2080ti founder edition card.  Graphics settings are set at max in both the game and nVidia Control Panel for the profile for IL2 Great Battles.

Edited September 27, 2021 by --[---MAILMAN----
spelling

[69th_Panp]

On 9/24/2021 at 7:28 PM, esk_pedja said:

18. The accumulation of pilot fatigue from overload during long maneuvers has been reduced. This will allow for somewhat longer aerobatics and combat maneuvering. There is inadequate information on the fatigue accumulation under the influence of prolonged small overloads in the publicly available scientific articles, the rare data is very contradictory and therefore the model in this part was adjusted based on the collected opinion of surveyed pilots. 

 

 Unfortunately, I here disagree and this is apparently - both of Spits and Yak "cartel" influence on devs. 

 Spit is from the start in GB overestimated, not in technical terms, but super-acrobatics capabilities of "cosmic pilots" - where every novice can repeatedly perform sharp turns without even "grey out", let alone "black out" fatigue ... and  can perform 3-4 continuing sharp turns without influence on his brain and change of tactics...

 

If Spit pilots were such "Marvel" heroes - they would finish up with Luftwaffe F4, G2, A3 by the   the end of 1942... ?

 

 

On 9/24/2021 at 8:09 PM, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

what did you smoke?

What ever it was he needs to SHARE 

[BCI-Nazgul]

On 9/24/2021 at 5:28 PM, esk_pedja said:

18. The accumulation of pilot fatigue from overload during long maneuvers has been reduced. This will allow for somewhat longer aerobatics and combat maneuvering. There is inadequate information on the fatigue accumulation under the influence of prolonged small overloads in the publicly available scientific articles, the rare data is very contradictory and therefore the model in this part was adjusted based on the collected opinion of surveyed pilots. 

 

 Unfortunately, I here disagree and this is apparently - both of Spits and Yak "cartel" influence on devs. 

 Spit is from the start in GB overestimated, not in technical terms, but super-acrobatics capabilities of "cosmic pilots" - where every novice can repeatedly perform sharp turns without even "grey out", let alone "black out" fatigue ... and  can perform 3-4 continuing sharp turns without influence on his brain and change of tactics...

 

If Spit pilots were such "Marvel" heroes - they would finish up with Luftwaffe F4, G2, A3 by the   the end of 1942... ?

 

People that play this game have a distorted view of how air combat was actually fought in WW II.   The protracted dogfights we have this game were RARE.    So, you're overestimating the importance of sharp turns and the aerobatic abilities of the planes.  What really mattered was speed and firepower 95% of the time.   Most of the accounts I've read by all sides say boom and zoom tactics were the rule.   Pilots were not inclined to do anything to give up speed because it left them vulnerable to other enemies besides the one they were fighting. The Spitfire wasn't going to win the war in 1942 because turning/aerobatics wasn't that important and more importantly it didn't have range to get far into France let alone Germany from England, so it couldn't really carry the fight to the enemy.

Edited September 28, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

[ITAF_Rani]

1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

People that play this game have a distorted view of how air combat was actually fought in WW II.   The protracted dogfights we have this game were RARE.    So, you're overestimating the importance of sharp turns and the aerobatic abilities of the planes.  What really mattered was speed and firepower 95% of the time.   Most of the accounts I've read by all sides say boom and zoom tactics were the rule.   Pilots were not inclined to do anything to give up speed because it left them vulnerable to other enemies besides the one they were fighting. The Spitfire wasn't going to win the war in 1942 because turning/aerobatics wasn't that important and more importantly it didn't have range to get far into France let alone Germany from England, so it couldn't really carry the fight to the enemy.

My grandpa was fighter pilot during ww2 in north Africa....air fighting he told me usually was a matter of 1 pass not more than  several secs

Edited September 28, 2021 by ITAF_Rani

[Noisemaker]

1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

People that play this game have a distorted view of how air combat was actually fought in WW II.   The protracted dogfights we have this game were RARE.    So, you're overestimating the importance of sharp turns and the aerobatic abilities of the planes.  What really mattered was speed and firepower 95% of the time.   Most of the accounts I've read by all sides say boom and zoom tactics were the rule.   Pilots were not inclined to do anything to give up speed because it left them vulnerable to other enemies besides the one they were fighting. The Spitfire wasn't going to win the war in 1942 because turning/aerobatics wasn't that important and more importantly it didn't have range to get far into France let alone Germany from England, so it couldn't really carry the fight to the enemy.

I wish someone would tell this to the AI...

[esk_pedja]

38 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

I wish someone would tell this to the AI...

Devs can, but I don't expect that to be told... 

[IckyATLAS]

14 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

People that play this game have a distorted view of how air combat was actually fought in WW II.   The protracted dogfights we have this game were RARE.    So, you're overestimating the importance of sharp turns and the aerobatic abilities of the planes.  What really mattered was speed and firepower 95% of the time.   Most of the accounts I've read by all sides say boom and zoom tactics were the rule.   Pilots were not inclined to do anything to give up speed because it left them vulnerable to other enemies besides the one they were fighting. The Spitfire wasn't going to win the war in 1942 because turning/aerobatics wasn't that important and more importantly it didn't have range to get far into France let alone Germany from England, so it couldn't really carry the fight to the enemy.

Let's consider aerial combat against enemy planes. Set aside ground attack missions.

 

Hours of flying and often nothing happened. Again hours of flying and then enemy contact but no engagement. Again hours of flying and this time contact and high adrenaline a pass a few very tense seconds and then that's it back to base. And  sure it may happen it is the fight for your life where you fight for a few minutes and either win or loose. 

 

Now what would be interesting is to see some statistics about how many pilots finished their round or where killed or injured for good and never shot a round in anger, never got a kill or damaged any plane etc. We read and know about some epic events incredible aerial fights and some high profile missions, but if we consider the whole war that is about 1900 days. You consider all fighter pilots and then take just all those who had ate least 1 kill and more. I would be very interested in looking at such statistics. The result may come as a very boring business besides the pleasure of flying nice fighter airplanes ? 

 

This is why we have the simulators of which one of their main role is to improve the statistics for fun as we cannot simply die.

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by IckyATLAS

[Trooper117]

And of course if we spent 90% of our time flying from A to B for hours without any action then we wouldn't play the bloody thing for long... The reason why most people fly combat simulators is for regular action, that's the real reason.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Reminds me of going to the Thunder Over Michigan airshow many years ago.  The Collings Bf 109 E was there and they had a former Luftwaffe pilot with them that flew Es on the Eastern Front. One of the people in the crowd asked him what he though of the Russian fighter aircraft he encountered.  He said simply that the whole time he flew on the Russian Front he NEVER saw a Russian aircraft.  He flew ground attack missions in support of the army.

 

Yup we do have a distorted view of the way things played out in real life, and I for one am thankful for that.  I'll happily leave the hours of boring holes in the sky to the "airliner captains" in the MSFS series.

[357th_KW]

9 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

Let's consider aerial combat against enemy planes. Set aside ground attack missions.

 

Hours of flying and often nothing happened. Again hours of flying and then enemy contact but no engagement. Again hours of flying and this time contact and high adrenaline a pass a few very tense seconds and then that's it back to base. And  sure it may happen it is the fight for your life where you fight for a few minutes and either win or loose. 

 

Now what would be interesting is to see some statistics about how many pilots finished their round or where killed or injured for good and never shot a round in anger, never got a kill or damaged any plane etc. We read and know about some epic events incredible aerial fights and some high profile missions, but if we consider the whole war that is about 1900 days. You consider all fighter pilots and then take just all those who had ate least 1 kill and more. I would be very interested in looking at such statistics. The result may come as a very boring business besides the pleasure of flying nice fighter airplanes ? 

 

This is why we have the simulators of which one of their main role is to improve the statistics for fun as we cannot simply die.

 

 

I can give you some numbers for the US 8th AF Fighter Command.  Between 1943 and VE Day roughly 5000 pilots flew for them.  Of those, 2,156 could claim at least a share of an aerial victory.  Just over 200 were credited with 5 or more victories.  Roughly 644 were shot down in aerial combat, another 890 to flak, 534 to unknown causes and 240 to known accidents (many of these pilots survived, though most survivors would be captured as almost all operations were conducted over enemy territory).

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Reminds me of going to the Thunder Over Michigan airshow many years ago.  The Collings Bf 109 E was there and they had a former Luftwaffe pilot with them that flew Es on the Eastern Front. One of the people in the crowd asked him what he though of the Russian fighter aircraft he encountered.  He said simply that the whole time he flew on the Russian Front he NEVER saw a Russian aircraft.  He flew ground attack missions in support of the army.

 

Yup we do have a distorted view of the way things played out in real life, and I for one am thankful for that.  I'll happily leave the hours of boring holes in the sky to the "airliner captains" in the MSFS series.

 

Indeed - when you read some of the RAF squadron reports from the fall of 1944, they pointedly ask if the Luftwaffe still existed. That's how rare air combat could be for the Allies at that time. 

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'll happily leave the hours of boring holes in the sky to the "airliner captains" in the MSFS series.

Pardon me? It's not boring. I just don't need any help to die.

[IckyATLAS]

19 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

I can give you some numbers for the US 8th AF Fighter Command.  Between 1943 and VE Day roughly 5000 pilots flew for them.  Of those, 2,156 could claim at least a share of an aerial victory.  Just over 200 were credited with 5 or more victories.  Roughly 644 were shot down in aerial combat, another 890 to flak, 534 to unknown causes and 240 to known accidents (many of these pilots survived, though most survivors would be captured as almost all operations were conducted over enemy territory).

This statistics show that 4% did really participate to multiple aerial fights. About 43% did see combat at least once in their tour. This makes it for 47%.

About 13% did see combat but never came back. Of those 13% I can imagine that a large majority was killed during the first real aerial combat be it against a fighter or against an aerial gunner and a small percentage was shot down after having already bagged multiple aerial victories.

It seems flak was far more successful in shooting down the fighters than the fighters themselves. This is also probably due to the fact that during the last year the fighters where doing a lot of ground attacks, strafing vehicles, trains and airfields being more at risk with flak than with enemy fighters.

Overall we see that aerial combat the ratio of dying in combat 13% was after all much less that dying for other causes 33%.

[Youtch]

The ratio participation to air combat vs number of sorties and hours of flight was still ridiculously low. Not allowing to acquire a lot of combat experience fast.

 

Each of us has probably many more combat hours in the sim than the average actual ww2 pilot, i would say by a factor of 10 or 100 or more.

[Mac_Messer]

On 9/23/2021 at 2:44 PM, Sneaksie said:

4.604b hotfix

1. Fixed game slowdowns and FPS drops when shooting a lot of rounds with smoke tracers;
2. Fixed the inevitable death of the pilot while ramming another plane;
3. Fixed the explosion of an aircraft when colliding with an obstacle at low speeds happening too frequently;
4. The ballistic table of the K-14 gyroscopic sight for the M2 .50 machine gun has been corrected;
5. Improved visibility of own tracers when viewed from the cockpit (light);
6. Reduced the size of light tracers when viewed from a distance aside;
7. A more successful solution to the shape of the light tracers has been applied;
8. Red light tracer became more red and yellow light tracer is more orange now;
9. Fixed ammunition for the Vickers machine gun of the SPAD VII.C1 180 h.p.;
10. Hispano—Suiza 8Ab engine sound adjusted (SPAD VII.C1 180 h.p.);
11. The ability of aircraft turret gunners to fire when their aircraft is maneuvering has been slightly reduced;
12. Reduced the aiming accuracy of aircraft turret gunners when there is a large speed difference between the target and the firing aircraft;
13. Fixed an issue where an AI ground attack aircraft could fire its rockets before reaching the target and beginning the attack run;
14. AI ground attack aircraft now attack not only the locomotive (which is the first priority), but also the train cars.

I`ve been wondering if that is only 4.604 fix since you name it so.

The death from ramming (2), FPS slowdowns (1) and turret gunners accuracy (12) are what I had experienced very often and considered whole ingame issues. Had to ask since I don`t have time to test if this really went away for good or it was just to fix issues created by 4.604 compiling into the game.

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

On 9/29/2021 at 8:25 AM, IckyATLAS said:

Let's consider aerial combat against enemy planes. Set aside ground attack missions.

 

Hours of flying and often nothing happened. Again hours of flying and then enemy contact but no engagement. Again hours of flying and this time contact and high adrenaline a pass a few very tense seconds and then that's it back to base. And  sure it may happen it is the fight for your life where you fight for a few minutes and either win or loose. 

 

Now what would be interesting is to see some statistics about how many pilots finished their round or where killed or injured for good and never shot a round in anger, never got a kill or damaged any plane etc. We read and know about some epic events incredible aerial fights and some high profile missions, but if we consider the whole war that is about 1900 days. You consider all fighter pilots and then take just all those who had ate least 1 kill and more. I would be very interested in looking at such statistics. The result may come as a very boring business besides the pleasure of flying nice fighter airplanes ? 

 

This is why we have the simulators of which one of their main role is to improve the statistics for fun as we cannot simply die.

 

After the Battle of Britain and prior to the 8th air force needing daylight escort, the RAF took they newer model Spitfires over to northern France on daylight fighter sweeps, to do battle with the Luftwaffe, so no need to get to Germany. There were a few pilots who saw these squadron strength sweeps as a dangerous waste of time and lives. If you got hammered over there, you were a prisoner if you were lucky. The Luftwaffe were mainly withdrawing to get ready for Barbarossa, but there were serious losses involved on both sides. IMHO it might have been better to let the German fighters come over and get picked up by radar or standing patrols, but of course that'd be hindsight. The bombers were going to Russia. Dad was a Commando based near Dover and recalled they, the Commando's did unofficial school patrols, as German bombers would come over about 4pm and drop inicendiary 'pencil's as well as bigger stuff, The pencils injured children quite badly and so  the Commandos would Shoo the kids away and destroy them. As well as having a shot at the aircraft on its way over. He recalled one that the flak hammered and it disintegrated on the way down....the school kids all ran to it to see if they could get 'souveniers'.....eee hard kids in them days!   

[ravenmdt]

In regard of the G-force model, I don't think that the argument of real life pilots only made one pass and surely the novice pilot in a spitfire shouldn't be able to do more than 3 sharp turns or endure a few G spikes and be ok are valid at all in support of nerfing the G resistance again.

 

Speaking out of experience I can say that the new G model looks a lot more realistic than before. The level of G-resistance pre patch was truely of a pilot who had way to much to drink the night before and shouldn't have been flying that day. You can actually spike up the G's, get that sense of greyout, tunnel vision and find yourself perfectly fine after relaxing a bit on the G's. Fatigue is a thing but that is mostly in how out of breath you are and the inability to get a good amount of oxygen to the brain.

 

One thing I'm not sure is introduced is the push-pull effect where you first start of with negative G's and subsequentially induce a large spike of positive G's. The first negative load will reduce for a short moment the maximum amount of G's that you can sustain on the positive side and cause a pilot to instantly blackout without any visual symptoms to begin with. Besides that, a G onset that is too sharp, could also render a pilot unconcious without any symptoms. Another feature of the human body is the ability to automatically under influence of G's is to tighten the arteries in your neck to give you more resistance to those G's. I believe it's called the cardiovascular reflex but somebody smarter than me could correct me on it.

 

There are a lot of factors to it and how indepth would you like to go. I must admit I haven't read into the 100% indepth mechanics of the model in game. All I'm saying is don't rely on emotions of what you think should be possible or the actual fighting style of pilots from WWII since there are many factors in play. In closing, the G-model as it is at the moment at least feels a ton more realistic than it was before. So props from me to the development team in surveying actual pilots and working together with subject matter experts in getting a better model.

 

Sorry about the long and probably incoherent text.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, ravenmdt said:

In regard of the G-force model, I don't think that the argument of real life pilots only made one pass and surely the novice pilot in a spitfire shouldn't be able to do more than 3 sharp turns or endure a few G spikes and be ok are valid at all in support of nerfing the G resistance again.

 

Speaking out of experience I can say that the new G model looks a lot more realistic than before. The level of G-resistance pre patch was truely of a pilot who had way to much to drink the night before and shouldn't have been flying that day. You can actually spike up the G's, get that sense of greyout, tunnel vision and find yourself perfectly fine after relaxing a bit on the G's. Fatigue is a thing but that is mostly in how out of breath you are and the inability to get a good amount of oxygen to the brain.

 

One thing I'm not sure is introduced is the push-pull effect where you first start of with negative G's and subsequentially induce a large spike of positive G's. The first negative load will reduce for a short moment the maximum amount of G's that you can sustain on the positive side and cause a pilot to instantly blackout without any visual symptoms to begin with. Besides that, a G onset that is too sharp, could also render a pilot unconcious without any symptoms. Another feature of the human body is the ability to automatically under influence of G's is to tighten the arteries in your neck to give you more resistance to those G's. I believe it's called the cardiovascular reflex but somebody smarter than me could correct me on it.

 

There are a lot of factors to it and how indepth would you like to go. I must admit I haven't read into the 100% indepth mechanics of the model in game. All I'm saying is don't rely on emotions of what you think should be possible or the actual fighting style of pilots from WWII since there are many factors in play. In closing, the G-model as it is at the moment at least feels a ton more realistic than it was before. So props from me to the development team in surveying actual pilots and working together with subject matter experts in getting a better model.

 

Sorry about the long and probably incoherent text.

First of all, welcome!

 

I gather from your post that you've got experience with G-forces, but that you're not entirely sure what is and isn't reflected in the current model. The current model is largely described in Dev Diary 263:

This is still mostly the current model, except that G-fatigue is slightly reduced. This model does include the push-pull effect. A very sharp initial G onset is modeled as well. Overall, the Devs have dug through tons of scientific papers and based on just that I'm positive that the IL2 G-model is currently the most accurate G-model in any flight sim.

 

I can completely agree with your sentiment that people should not rely on emotions so much. One of my pet peeves is people posting things like "[enter any game mechanic or airplane] is bugged because it feels wrong and therefore it must be so". Controversies about flight/damage/whatever models have uncovered inaccuracies in the past, such as most recently the too low 50cal weight and speed, and that's a good thing. But all such inaccuracies were discovered by people who came up with evidence and cross-referenced it against the current in-game values. Not by the people who just nag on about how "[insert an airplane] flies wrong because I've read an anecdote saying it flew differently". I therefore say to all the people who think the G-resistance should be nerfed the same thing what I've said to many: come up with evidence. Don't rely on feelings about what's right and what's not, because feelings can be deceiving. The updates to the G-model were done according to additional research, so any requests to change it again should be accompanied by research as well to either invalidate it or fill up gaps.

[savagebeest]

Hello. Has there been a hot fix on the fps drop issue since this update? 

 

Just read above that there's been a fix from what I understand.  Gonna give it a shot soon as we land this real plane lol 

Edited October 3, 2021 by savagebeest

[ravenmdt]

9 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

First of all, welcome!

 

I gather from your post that you've got experience with G-forces, but that you're not entirely sure what is and isn't reflected in the current model. The current model is largely described in Dev Diary 263:

This is still mostly the current model, except that G-fatigue is slightly reduced. This model does include the push-pull effect. A very sharp initial G onset is modeled as well. Overall, the Devs have dug through tons of scientific papers and based on just that I'm positive that the IL2 G-model is currently the most accurate G-model in any flight sim.

 

I can completely agree with your sentiment that people should not rely on emotions so much. One of my pet peeves is people posting things like "[enter any game mechanic or airplane] is bugged because it feels wrong and therefore it must be so". Controversies about flight/damage/whatever models have uncovered inaccuracies in the past, such as most recently the too low 50cal weight and speed, and that's a good thing. But all such inaccuracies were discovered by people who came up with evidence and cross-referenced it against the current in-game values. Not by the people who just nag on about how "[insert an airplane] flies wrong because I've read an anecdote saying it flew differently". I therefore say to all the people who think the G-resistance should be nerfed the same thing what I've said to many: come up with evidence. Don't rely on feelings about what's right and what's not, because feelings can be deceiving. The updates to the G-model were done according to additional research, so any requests to change it again should be accompanied by research as well to either invalidate it or fill up gaps.

 

Thank you for your reply and inserting that dev blog explaining the system. I'm very impressed with their effort and level of detail. I agree with your statements as well! Only thing I have a few question marks with from the dev blog was the following:

"We already have implemented in our older model the "motion sickness" or disorientation effect which was happening in the case of frequent changes in the Gs direction or sign-changing angular velocities. Now this effect will come even faster in order to better imitate the discomfort pilot suffers under alternating positive and negative G-forces. I will not say that the “wobbling” or "dolphin" is physically unbearable. I myself tried to do it in real flight. But it's really damn unpleasant, and I prefer to not do that anymore. "

 

I won't deny that -G's are uncomfortable however actual fighter pilots who engage in fierce maneuvering don't get motion sickness when they are flying themselves. I'm not sure if I've noticed any such effects in game to stand out. Certainly not at a bothering level. So minor comment from my side.

 

Big thanks to the dev team for their efforts into making this a truly awesome virtual experience with a great level of detail!

 

*edited for typo

 

Edited October 3, 2021 by ravenmdt

[BH_Adabadoo_VR]

On 9/24/2021 at 2:10 PM, =RvE=Windmills said:

Just tried the game again after quite a break, looks great in general but the tracers are now insanely dimm.

 

Seriously, during daytime they are incredibly hard to track and that's just not right. Tracers should be bright and easily trackable,

 

Is this being discussed somewhere?

 

On 9/23/2021 at 4:34 AM, --[---MAILMAN---- said:

Flew for few hours last night.  The tracers are now so miniscule and not bright that they are now useless for correcting my aim because I cannot see them.  Unless I zoom all the way in to 30 degrees FOV I can no longer see the tracers so they need to be either be larger or slightly brighter.

 

On 9/28/2021 at 12:42 PM, --[---MAILMAN---- said:

I was testing the FOV relationship for being able to see the convergence point with the new tracer graphics.  I had to zoom in to a FOV of 60-70 degrees to be barely able to see the tracers converge at 280m (306 yds) with the wing mounted .30 & .50 caliber MG.

 

The 20mm and 37mm nose cannon and the nose .50 MG I could see converge at 300 yds at 100+ degrees FOV pretty easily.

 

When I was testing these while sitting on the runway I observed something I did not expect.  When firing the 37mm cannon on the P-39-1-BE the standard rounds exploded in mid air when the round traveled a particular distance like it had a proximity fuse.  I know they were Explosive rounds, but I thought they were supposed to explode on contact.  These rounds exploded in mid air without hitting anything like a flak round.  This did not occur when testing the Armour Piercing 37mm rounds available in the plane modifications list.

 

Would someone please explain exactly what type of HE round this is and why it explodes without coming in to contact with anything?  I just want to understand what type of round I am dealing with exactly.  Thanks in advance.

 

Love the new update!!!!!

 

Except for the tracers changes.

The tracer visibility shouldn't be so much on size of caliber but more on visual data recorded.  It's how bright they are that you see them not the size.

It's contrast.  You don't see the small round in the distance you see the brightness it gives off streaking and it's contrast against the background.  The distance you can see them should be based on brightness and contrast. 

 

There's tons of WWII footage of .50 cal tracers from gun camera easily seen all the way to the ground and bouncing off.  The film that captured that is MUCH MUCH less sensitive than the human eye. Your eye would see tracers much better than they show in film footage.  They are very bright and should be visible for VERY long ranges.

I don't have exact data to support this but the old tracers looked and behave much more like historical footage.  It's impossible to see tracers get to the ground let alone bounce off the ground now.  You can't even see the .50s get to 200 yards to use them in a dogfight.

 

Please reexamine the tracer changes and make them more in line with footage shown in film at least.

 

Thanks!!!

 

[RedeyeStorm]

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. My symphaties devs.

[Beebop]

 

[69th_Panp]

I like most of the update except the tracers 

They are very hard to see now and that wasn't the case in real life.

They were made visible for a reason! so the pilot could adjust his aim on the fly.

Both  the tracer smoke and the glow of the round were used to adjust the aim point.

 

Thats not the case now in the  game as they are so hard to see.

I have tried changing graphic settings but i'm in the same boat as mailman, cant see any tracers at wide FOV. 

 

I do kind of find it funny that we get a better 50 cal  now, but now we are unable to see it ?

Edited October 6, 2021 by 69th_Panp

[Soilworker]

On 10/3/2021 at 11:52 PM, ravenmdt said:

 

Thank you for your reply and inserting that dev blog explaining the system. I'm very impressed with their effort and level of detail. I agree with your statements as well! Only thing I have a few question marks with from the dev blog was the following:

"We already have implemented in our older model the "motion sickness" or disorientation effect which was happening in the case of frequent changes in the Gs direction or sign-changing angular velocities. Now this effect will come even faster in order to better imitate the discomfort pilot suffers under alternating positive and negative G-forces. I will not say that the “wobbling” or "dolphin" is physically unbearable. I myself tried to do it in real flight. But it's really damn unpleasant, and I prefer to not do that anymore. "

 

I won't deny that -G's are uncomfortable however actual fighter pilots who engage in fierce maneuvering don't get motion sickness when they are flying themselves. I'm not sure if I've noticed any such effects in game to stand out. Certainly not at a bothering level. So minor comment from my side.

 

Big thanks to the dev team for their efforts into making this a truly awesome virtual experience with a great level of detail!

 

*edited for typo

 

 

I the quote he says "frequent changes in G direction" and "wobbling or dolphin", not dogfighting. 

 

This video is from 1C when they were developing the G system and I think will explain what you are asking. 

 

 

[Props]

I have to agree with the assessment on the tracers being a bit too subdued now. I never used tracers as an aiming /firing aid as most of the planes I like to fly have very limited ammo loads, like the Yaks, Spits, and Tempest so "walking" your fire to the target via the visual ques of tracer rounds to me is waste of rounds, especially of ammo I will probably be in dire need of later. I prefer to line up my shot and make good solid gunnery count for every round. But I have noticed that I can barely see them at any point now in the sim, and I did find it helpful to see tracers flying past my plane when someone is shooting at me sometimes allowing me to make a Hail Mary save my ass move and live to fight another day (or kill the offender;-), and now I usually don't see any before being pummeled by multiple rounds. As there were pilots that historically preferred not to use tracers for this specific and sneaky style I can live with that I just have to up my situational awareness another notch. The old tracers also helped me to spot distant combats so I could engage, though those tracer trails were most likely a little too bright and the current tracer visibility seems to be just fine in that regard as I can still spot those fights. 

 

I am a little frustrated with the AI though, especially the "friendly" AI wingmen. I thought there was supposed to be some improvement with this update, but this has not been my experience. In fact I think it has gotten worse. I've had more than a few careers ended by friendly fire and collisions while lining up on an enemy aircraft. A lot of shoulder firing and AI pilots cutting inside my turn so I am in their blind belly spot. This was happening before, but now it is definitely worse as in the past it was usually just one wingman interfering with my well laid plans of air combat dominance, now it is often 2 or more all lined up and all shooting on my target and me! There's plenty of bandits to go around, but they have all decided to gang up on my target as if I needed help. I also have noticed they tend to do this elsewhere in a fight with 2 or 3 friendly AIs all chasing the same single target while there are plenty of other bandits flying around. It kind of messes with my SA as I have to spend a bunch of time not only checking my six, tracking enemy planes and such, but also avoiding all the hired help. Which is probably good SA training of value, but tough going. And it's really frustrating to see them steal my kill just like some real live folks used to do to me online! Oh woe is me. I had one career ended on the first mission by a collision from underneath me by a "friendly AI" day after the update, another ended 3 missions later on a new career by friendly fire (captured), and yesterday I was lining up a shot when I looked up to see 2 wingmen blindspot stacked above me, I hurriedly backed off, got out of the way and gleefully watched the 2 collide and leave me to follow through on my target. Aw, shucks! 

 

Seriously, I'm not one to usually complain about this sim and think this team does an incredible job across the board, but this does kind of bug me a little.

[Props]

Jeez, got to 14 missions, 25 kills and it happened again. An AI "friendly" wingman started shoulder shooting on my victim, almost collided with me twice, I started to back-off and get out of the way and the friendly then decided to shoot me and ram me from underneath just to be sure! Holy Cow and WTF! I guess that AI was jealous of my current kill score or what! Just venting a bit.

[SV7_Vase]

guys why some times i can ditch my plane with full flaps with speeds about 170kph and survive and some times im instantly dead. ofcourse i try to ditch it very carefuly like i would land on an airfield without hopping.. is it not way to sensitive?