Aginor

Same here. Sad. :(

Sorry but I think you are wrong. There are books publicly and legally available that tell you how they work. They will not tell you exactly how an alq131 works but they will give you some insights so someone will be able yo come up with a better way of simulating how they work instead of that ....very mediocre way they work now. The principles how they work are known.

WUT??? Surely not. Beta-release perhaps.

Yep, tanking is broken. It isn't impossible, (with knowledge about the wrong behaviour and some practice it isn't even that hard), but it is still broken and very unrealistic. AFAIK it is acknowledged by ED but there is no information yet on if, how, and when it will be fixed.

Thats an important point. IMO much more important than PBR. But hey if it doesn't hurt performance and doesn't use programmer time go for it of course. :) One of my biggest hopes right now is that contrails and clouds become more realistic, (again, not necessarily graphically, mainly the rest) which will also greatly improve the whole spotting thing.

Great!

Yeah I know. I am a regular Mudspiker. But does it affect gameplay? Will it affect LOD2 for example? And AI spotting? That's the topic of this thread.

Yeah they should definitely do it. I'd do a pilot for free. Mic is ready.

Ok I can agree with that. Still not one of the bigger contributing factors I think, but it could help.

OH NOES! Sorry Bignewy. I just saw a Vader helmet and my brain said Vader=Sith. I like both of you! :) @112th Rossi: Perhaps we have different definitions of gameplay, but I strongly disagree with your second statement. PBR is great though.

Thanks! :D Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against PBR or other awesome visuals, but that's NOT the purpose of this thread. This is about gameplay. Effects for metal planes reflecting the sun are worth almost nothing if they don't enhance spotting distance (AI and players) for example. In real life something directly reflecting the sun can be spotted for three times as far as something with a camouflage paintjob. My questions are not about whether something looks cool, but about whether it matters for gameplay. Being pretty is just a bonus. EDIT Thanks Sith! EDIT Oh dammit... sorry.

Ok last one for today, but at least this thread doesn't even count as resurrected, it has only been some months since the last post. Any insights on this? Which way of targeting is used for the FlaK88 for example and how accurate it is. That would be cool. :) Also about modern times: Are any of the mentioned SAMs in the works, ED?

Ok, next thread resurrection, just because we now actually have something close to release (ok, I admit we also thought that was the case a year ago :D ). Does anyone like to talk about this topic, perhaps fire up the Normandy Alpha and see what of this is already there? I heard lighting the water up with aircraft lights is still not possible (sad) but may be worked on (yay). I heard clouds are synchronized between clients and don't disappear all of a sudden (yay), so something has been done. Also the questions for Wags are still there in this thread, so.... please Wags? :)

I had planned on resurrecting this thread myself soon, I think now is the perfect time to talk about it because it seems that for the Normandy and so on the ED devs are touching the AI (and with it the ATC) anyway, so I hope the ideas are fresh in their minds right now. :) Good post, @Wraith, even though you are probably aiming a bit high for my taste, and of course a lot of that stuff is civilian and not military and so on, but it shows how far the system we have now is away from being realistic and needs to improve in at least some regards to have a believable and immersive simulation environment. In my opinion the most important aim should be a believable (which doesn't necessarily mean realistic as we all know, just being close enough) military ATC. An important immersion factor for me is the communication. At the moment the ATC/Tower does rarely talk to us, and we never hear it talk to AI planes, even though we are on the correct frequency. The fact that we are also very limited concerning things we can ask the ATC makes it worse. Again, I am talking very basic things here, like declaring an emergency or asking other basic stuff.

Thank you!

Just by the way... Is this going to be fixed soon? I read there are some changes in the engine for Normandy, so that gave me some hope, but people reported this still doesn't work.

You can check in the log after the mission.

Doing some more searching around I think there may be some misunderstanding about the data sources. For example there is an often quoted report it seems that says the clipped wings were better in many regards, but that one was about a Mk.V Spitfire. IIRC that one had other ailerons, so the modification might have been good for the Mk.V but didn't prove advantageous on later models. Here it is: Quote from Alfred Price (can't check validity, I got it from the net somewhere) "The Spitfire Story": Then there's the chart (see attachment) that shows a nice big difference in roll rate. But that one is from a Mk.XII EDIT: then there's those two as well, but ALSO about the Mk.V, and the pilots seem to like it but still say it isn't as good as expected. (more attachments).

According to what I read the roll rate was higher. Just not as much higher as expected. @Krupi: Me too! This is only an example. There are other documents that seem to come to the same conclusions though.

Found this in some folder on my PC. Sorry don't know the source anymore, perhaps a similar thread on a forum about another WW2 sim. This is one of the pages I had in mind. I don't know which exact version was tested though, and I am not an expert for aircraft performance.

Edit @Krupi, sniped by the man himself ;) Well, to be fair those reports were not done like flight testing is done today. IIRC those weren't test pilots but regular ones that had to fill out a survey sheet after flights. So if they weren't happy with it it wasn't necessarily the plane's fault. Not sure where I read those reports though. Perhaps they were mentioned in one of my books. Could have been "Wings on my Sleeve". But one thing is clear: Those cut wings will have advantages, but also disadvantages. I am almost sure that if we get both there will be some nice discussions here as well on that topic. :)

Not too eager for the clipped wing version. It looks bad and the intended goals were not a achieved either. IIRC Pilots' reports from testing say - only marginally faster - better roll rate, but far from being enough to be able to keep up with a FW190 - worse turn rate - much worse stall behaviour - much harder to handle on takeoff and landing In short: not worth it.

Either that or a Me110 would be great. Edit: sniped

My most wanted would be the most recent GA model. But I'd take an MH-53 and slap a german livery on it. A bit fictional but OK for me. What I dislike about the CH-53 D and G versions is the lack of a refueling probe. I have never refueled a helicopter in flight in a sim, so that would be cool to try. And the Pave Low looks awesome. :)

Do you know the year when that picture was taken?