![]() |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
kill stealing ai
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
the single worst thing is ..
the Poor rendering on all distant objects, which makes these distant objects nearly impossible to see when they are looked at them with ground/field/forrest textures in the background! for ex the main issue is that a small LoD model for a tank at 1000 meters blends in way to much with the textures of the terrain he is placed in. the same problem with keeping track of a plane you are chasing at 700 or 1500 meters away from you, when it is seen against a terrain texture background (against open sky is not a problem). the plane object blends in way to much and is nearly impossible to see. the problem is created by the fact that we are trying to recreate a distant 3D object, seen against a textured background which represents a field/forest/road surface. right now the gfx engine blends all those textures together, and represents them on a 2D pc monitor, the result is a very unrealistic viewing distance. when you look at that same object against an open sky, or with clouds in the background, then you CAN see them correctly, because you have a small black object (tank, plane, truck etc) which is shown against a uniform colour of blue or white sky. this has nothing to do with "camouflage paint" making them harder to see, just look at historical film footage from ww2 to see at what altitude and distance a pilot could see objects like tanks, trucks, or other aircraft. also you can read the historical accounts of pilots, or ask the last surviving pilots from what distances they would spot and track objects. lastly, just ask any VFR pilot how easy it is to spot moving trucks and cars on a road at 1500 meters below him, or see individual stationary aircraft at an airfield from the same distance, or see a single tractor stationary in an open field, and you will find they are all easy to spot. this is completely impossible in il2 currently, so you can not SIMULATE the experience of a real ww2 pilot. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree wholeheartedly about the viewing distances. If it was this hard to spot moving objects in real life they wouldn't of hit any! Next time you're up in an aircraft just take a look at objects moving below in relation to your altitude and you'll se that IL2 has it dramatically wrong.
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#65
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The fact that, its ending, is the worst thing.
I really hope SOW will ease the pain of her fading away, or I'll be stuck in this time warp for a spell.
__________________
JO Top Gun 2009/2010 ![]() In the heat of battle you will not rise to the occasion You will shrink to the level of your training Music at Reverbnation |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Its flying at low altitude without a sense of speed. Its hard to put my finger on just what it is that bothers me, but I dont get a rush at all when flying just above ground level.
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'll say these know all too well that the sim is 7 years old and has limitations.
Sense of height at lower altitudes looks way off. 1000 feet looks more like 100 feet to me. I mean, when you're in the landing pattern, it just looks and feels way too low. I notice this all the time, as weird as it sounds, when I'm flying a real plane. Simplified DM. I wish things didn't just blow up or break off because it can't be simulated as a particular type of damage. Would be nice if there was a more complex set of internal damage code. Engine management (and mismanagement) should have consequences for poor or wrong settings, to include shock cooling. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lack of AI avoidance response from ground targets. Ground targets should seek cover not just carry on in a straight line.
This is particularly the case with ships which take no action to avoid torpedo or dive bomber attacks, or to open up fields of fire for AA guns. In Mission Builder the ability to group ships/vehicles into groups and to plot one route line for the group, but have the AI take care of position keeping when turning corners or defensive manouvres in response to attack. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The worst thing?
IMO the Sound Radar... ![]()
__________________
![]() 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. |
![]() |
|
|