|
|
#11
12-28-2007, 01:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So no, it can't be fixed in any meaningful way as it currently stands. I absolutely hate the radar, too. The bounce is the stock in trade of some fighters in this sim, and the radar just about nullifies it as a tactic. Only the deaf or completely careless can be bounced, which is just not right. cheers, Ratsack 
|
|
#12
12-28-2007, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
And do you imagine a real sun where to hide yourself?
After all the SUN was the best offensive weapon of a fighter.
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
#13
12-28-2007, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah, I also totally agree with the sound problem.
You should not be able to hear the enemy plane sneaking up behind you, often I have had pilots avoid me even tho I was in a blind spot, I asked them how they knew I was there, they said 'I heard you'. I am not whining, I totally understand that IL2 cannot be totally 'real', however, it would be nice if it could be fixed for SOW series. 
|
|
#15
12-29-2007, 04:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agreed guns and cannons maybe a little too acurate, but i think this will be addressed in sow (new d.m).. What i would like to see is in amunition loadouts. The ability to choose what amo types you can load up, for instance with guns like the 12.7 safat historicly was more often loaded with high explosive amo which was highly effective against fabric covered aircraft but still though not as effective against metal skin. in il-2 you are stuck with a.p which renders the gun near useless.To be able to choose armor piecing, high explosive or incendery, even tracers and tracer timing would be a great option! (in other words acurate historical loadouts for all aircraft)
Last edited by Snuff_Pidgeon; 12-29-2007 at 08:45 AM. Reason: l
|
|
#16
12-29-2007, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Or just maybe, you saw footage from a plane that had burned out barrels from firing a little too much or too long or both. This was common in WWII and I know for a fact that US aircraft had to have their barrels changed all the time. The accuracy went to hell if the barrels got too hot and the steel lost it's temper. Then the next thing that goes out is the rifling in the barrel. So, in conclusion we can now easily ascertain the you can't tell jack doo-doo about how hard it was to hit planes in WWII from gun cam footage. This case is adjourned and dismissed I'm afraid. The guns in IL2 are just fine as they are. Stop comparing real life footage to a game especially when you don't know the conditions the footage was taken in.  
|
|
#17
12-29-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
12-29-2007, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
@Fearfactor
I agree with part of what you wrote about pilot skill or external "issues". But this doesn't change my mind about the "boxes": try yourself to hit a pilot (the body, not the chute) with a single 30mm shell. If in real life people could shoot from 300m with complete accuracy why all the quotes about the firing distance? I think you know what I talking about. However the web is plenty of video about guncamera, but it's easy to split the "effect" compilations (dewinged planes etc) from the REAL guncamera. One of my favourite is http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Kasino...4-Movie-44.mpg from the site of the JG4 (www.jagdgeschwader4.de). We can agree that IL2 is the BEST in ww2 air warfare; my criticism is directed to develop SoW as a better sim than IL2.
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
#20
12-30-2007, 12:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 They hit nothing! LOL. And i thought my aim was not good enough for not hitting consistently with the 109's cannon (most of the string of rounds should hit the target for maximum damage). So we should assume that our aim is godlike for hitting 30 degree deflection shots from 350 meters half of the time? I just recently came to that level with the 50's. I assume that they had no better guncam or nothing better to say. Please note that almost no German fighters were fitted with guncam, early in the war it was mostly 110's, I believe. So i guess by this (apparently) early stage of the war they didn't have much good cuncam material. Did you see the 109 E's they showed earlier in the video? the string of tracers was just a single one. I think it was from a 110. I think the problem is not that the sim is too easy or the hitboxes are too big (they are good for planes-chuters don't matter so much in terms of fighting back), but we are too good. The planes don't wobble in the slipstream, but that is all. The solution is not to make the game unrealistically hard-see all the whiners about the unstable US planes.  
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
