![]() |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
vparez wrote
Quote:
|
#172
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Now, if that text is even remotely true, I feel that the IL-2 engine and the state of the game as it is now, really allow for much more efficiency in ground attack than it was (apparently) obtained in the realistic conditions of WW2... And note that the text above focuses on weapons which are supposed to be more effective at tank busting than fragmentation bombs! |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() Also have a look at this article, at what distance to the target bombs where released? Try that with 4.10 bet you it won´t work. as that is no 2 sec falling time at all. Quote:
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
oh good, you've heard of propaganda then...
Quote:
how did the kamikazes get through then ? articles quote 3 - 5 sec time delay fuses |
#175
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
OK if we want realism:
Please DT remove the 'refly button' in D/F servers option in the next update.Once people are dead,they lose all their precious points,and have to leave the server and rejoin as a 'new pilot... Thats got to be more realistic than a refly button surely? Failing that,please make the bomb fuse either: User changeable,like bomb delay OR A difficulty option,like almost everything else in the game. Please don't force 'your' style of gameplay on everyone else. |
#176
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#177
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Wutz, the only thing you and others succeed in this argument is to show that current bomb model is not 100% accurate.
However, you did not prove, nor can't (because it is not true) that the 4.09 bomb model was any more accurate than this! Why? If you revert to the previous fusing, I can tell you that this is not realistic because the engine doesn't model the air burst if the bomb skips over the ship, it doesn't model the keel braking if the bomb sinks, or how the hell does it model the event of the bomb possibly striking the superstructure above the deck? It doesn't model deaths of AAA gunners, nor does it model waves. The simulation of hitting a ship in IL-2 is a big black box. If you look at the release distance from your text, as an INPUT into the black box, and the damage to the ship as the OUTPUT, I can tell you that in 4.09 the INPUT may be better, but the OUTPUT is terribly exaggerated in therms of easiness of ship killing. In 4.10 the INPUT is maybe less than historically 100% accurate, but the OUTPUT gives you much more historical results. And by the way, in every single text quoted so far, the drop altitude that they used in RL matches exactly the drop altitude that we have to use now in 4.10. You stress here a drop point of 60ft to 100ft away from the ship, but I really have no idea what is the distance I use in IL-2 4.10 now, but I can tell you id doesn't measure in thousands of feet, rather I would say it is in the ball park of what you mentioned, which is damn good for a simulator from 2001. But you know what? I gues TD should make this an option... I like the bomb fusing mod in HSFX and we are using it all the time in SEOW... for me to go back now to 4.09 bombing is too easy. But if people have to be able to deposit a bomb on top of a tank in order to have fun in this game... well let them do it! People who appreciate realism and challenge (and tehre are plenty of them) will still use this option and will appreciate all the good work from TD! Quote:
Quote:
Cheers! Last edited by vparez; 01-05-2011 at 12:57 PM. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
the bomb/torpedo launching in the stock IL2 was TOO MUCH simple. If we talk about realism we had something like a 20%, probably now we are at 70%. Do you want a 90%? Even a 100% is possible. They need only somebody to develop the code. I think that TD would be happy to have a new member in their group: I'm quite sure that the guys of TD are not payed for improving IL2 so you should prepare yourself to work in your free hours. Have fun implementing the detonator models and so, improving IL2 stock bombs. I can assure to you that software development is really rewarding if you are doing something you have interest in.
__________________
![]() 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. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 01-05-2011 at 01:04 PM. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
of course that is correct, but it also applies to every facet of every sim ever developed, and likely to be developed in the future. ...even real world science modeling is no different and not without estimations The best to hope for it a realistic approach based on numbers and something representational for the various dynamics - air/ water/ damage/ flight/ AI [QUOTE=vparez;209695] Kamikazes usually didn't get through mate; check their success ratios... Cheers! [QUOTE] sport... the ones that got through, got through, the same as the torpedo bombers that got through, got through, the same with navy dive bombers and other attack aircraft. you also need to remember... il2 started off as a single plane study sim many many years ago and has beeen expanded on and extended because of its simmer interest. BoB has come about because of the recognition of the need for a new sim engine Last edited by Wolf_Rider; 01-05-2011 at 01:10 PM. |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
And the loss of an airplane is a minor penality respect to the loss of the pilot, speaking of campaing results.
__________________
![]() 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. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 01-05-2011 at 01:39 PM. |
![]() |
|
|