|
Galaga Galaxian posted:You were firing those rockets way too early in the first video. In the first video I completely forgot my missile controls  which didn't help me at all. They also have a very long control radius/range, and I almost shot myself down because I had it loop back and fly near me. It's also much easier in my opinion to try and hit something stuck to the ground/water rather than a plane. I even used B-17's at one point and still couldn't hit, haha. As for the artificial horizon, it would be cool but I don't think anyone really cares at all. The Lerche is a super "what if" plane that never existed in real life, so I assume that it was either designed that way by the Germans or a developer thing. As for ground attack missions, planes and campaigns, I personally love them. It takes a lot of skill and practice to hit your target(s), not to mention knowledge of your own munitions. Bomblets are crap against anything better than armoured cars or supply convoys, rockets have small explosive radii and the bigger the bomb, the bigger the blast zone. If you're not careful you'll destroy your target and shoot yourself down, adding insult to injury. Getting to and from the target can be a harrowing experience as well, as certain planes have terrible defensive armament or you're faced with an opponent you have no chance of winning against. Level bombing is the same thing, where hitting a moving target can be impossibly hard depending on the weather conditions and terrain. Having to enter the bombsight and inputting all your relevant flight data requires time and patience, and carries more weight and importance when you lead an entire flight or squadron as they depend on you to hit your mark. Generally better able to defend themselves with gunners, the higher altitude will usually call for enemy fighters to "boom and zoom" you and your gunnery skills better be good or else you can count yourself captured or KIA. Maybe I'll add a ground attack plane to the vote...  The only type of attack mission I dislike is torpedo attacks, simply because the requirements for a successful launch can be so demanding that you'll crash into the water and usually miss your target. It's still thrilling though!
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
Wait, those are wire guided missiles you can control? If so, that launch distance makes a bit more sense, I thought they were unguided rockets (Where you definitely want to get close before firing a salvo of several). And yeah I'd like to see ground attack at some point. I'd be torn whether to want it to be the titular Il-2 or the Stuka. I'd probably go with the Il-2 since its typically has the potential to be a bit more varied in armament. Plus when the game is called IL-2, you gotta fly it at some point.  Of course, there are plenty of fighters that got used for ground attack later in their life as they started losing their competitive edge, the P-40, P-47, Bf-110, Fw-190, Ki-43, and Hurricane all come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Wait, those are wire guided missiles you can control? If so, that launch distance makes a bit more sense, I thought they were unguided rockets (Where you definitely want to get close before firing a salvo of several). One of the later patches to the game added wire-guided munitions, and I was using the Rurhstahl X-4 Wire-Guided Missile. There's also a few other things they added, which I'll show off in due time. As for ground attacking specifically, I'm tempted to have a second campaign run once this one runs its course but on an entirely different front. It would most likely be the Eastern front because of the vast amounts of ground units that usually spawn for each map, but I will probably put it up for a vote. I could always do a level bombing campaign but I feel like level bombing, while fun and demanding of skill, tends to be a little boring. I'd have a hard time making it enjoyable to watch, I think. Edit: Speaking of mini-campaigns, I've got a giveaway or two coming along. I was going to have something for Part 2 but I didn't think it would end so quickly, so I'm going to pick someone at random. Selected person will have the option of a free copy of Il-2 Sturmovik 1946 from GoG.com or the mystery box. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
oooh. And yeah, the IL2 is probably a better aircraft to show off rocket attacks with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:oooh. And yeah, the IL2 is probably a better aircraft to show off rocket attacks with. Depends on the kind of rocket. Tiny Tims are always fun and there are plenty of US and British aircraft with rocket loadouts. If you want to be able to loiter forever over a target though, the Il-2 is the way to go with how sturdy and armoured it is  .Against air targets, the Germans have the awesome Werfer-granate 21 and the equally amazing R4M rockets. The R4M's are particularly deadly in this game, and a million times more accurate than the WG-21's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Aircraft Showcase Episode #1 For a demonstration of what landing that thing would be like, compare it to the Convair XFY-1 "Pogo". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh9dhBJY010
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
 That is... wow, that's a very special plane. The pogo makes a bit more sense, because all the lift is at one end, so you can stall it out and 'dangle' from the propeller. That thing, though... No idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
The Pogo also has the benefit of much better view from the cockpit. And since there's no way in hell I'm doing a historical info post on the Lerche (Because there's not much to say), one thing that must be kept in mind is that it was in development in late '44 and the idea was to have an aircraft that required no airfield per se. This would eliminate the threat of being targeted by Allied flights AND give German troops immediate interceptor/fighter support at a moments notice, provided there was enough flat ground to land/takeoff from. I've already have someone picked for a giveaway, and have plenty of stuff to hand out. If anyone's got any good ideas for a "contest" or something I'm all ears, as none of my ideas involve active audience participation. Also, 
Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:And since there's no way in hell I'm doing a historical info post on the Lerche (Because there's not much to say), one thing that must be kept in mind is that it was in development in late '44 and the idea was to have an aircraft that required no airfield per se.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:A worthy successor of PKZ-2. German (pre)wartime helicopters were the coolest  I never got around to posting it in your thread, love your take on strike fighters and its gotten me quite interested in Jets
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
Aircraft Showcase Episode 02 Il-2 Series The Il-2 family of planes, what can I say to add to what it is? Called the flying tank by some, the black death by others, this plane epitomizes ground attack aircraft. It was built to withstand a lot of fire and deal out even more. It also accepted many different loadouts: rockets, bomblets, bombs or mixes between them. No plane was without problems, but for the Il-2 they were reserved for a select few. I believe I forget to mention that the addition of the gunner to the Il-2 shifted its center of gravity backwards, which is the reason why the wings in later variants (Starting with the Il-2M3) have the different wing profile.  Because I had to re-record everything, I forgot to mention that I have tons of books on aircraft either focusing on individual planes or an air force as a whole. If anyone has any interested in it, I can do my best to get interesting photos from them. As an example, and related to the Il-2 series of planes, there were small numbers that were converted to trainers called the Il-2U. They also had a variant called the Il-2 RK which was an artillery spotter/observer and fitted with a camera where the rear gunner's MG was.  Showcase Video If you guys prefer the showcase videos to be even more informative, let me know as I'll probably have to start scripting them. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Aircraft Designations during World War II Ever wondered why some national air forces have strange, seemingly random aircraft designations? The A6M Zero, F6F Hellcat, LaGG-3, C-47, the list goes on. Not all airforces worked the same way, which leads to all the different nomenclatures between them all. After having found a list or two, I was quite intrigued and tried to compile a list of all the different nations. My lists are by no means complete, so as to reduce the number of repeat or useless inclusions. I will however link to articles that go further into the lists, on wikipedia or elsewhere.
But that's not all, designations usually included the manufacturer's code as well.
The Army didn't include manufacturer codes, but the Navy did. This is why you see Navy planes like the F6F or PBJ-1, but Army aircraft like the P-51 or the B-17. Designations were also changed a lot throughout the years, and a full revamp was done after world war II which caused planes like the P-51 to be renamed the F-51 and the P-84 was changed to the F-84. The Russians also had a designations system that went from using mission type designations like the USAAF to strictly manufacturer codes.
This is exemplified with the I-15/I-16, TB-3, DB-3 and so on.
It's quite safe to say that, by the time World War II started the Russians gave up on the idea of using mission-type aircraft designations and have been using design office codes ever since. The Japanese also used special designations although only for their naval aircraft. All the IJA aircraft were named with a Ki prefix (Ki-10, Ki-27, Ki-61, Ki-100, etc.).
With all that in mind, and especially true for the IJN and USN, an aircraft's designation would be the mission type followed by model number and then the manufacturer code. The A6M can thus be read as the Carrier-borne Fighter, model number 6 built by Mitsubishi. Just like how the F6F reads the Fighter model 6 made by Grumman (F-code). Model number usually followed the designer's previous submitted models, successful or not. The British system was different still and didn't strictly follow itself at all times. As such, it's best explained via this wikipedia article. The Italians never used a designation system that included mission types during World War 2, they simply used the manufacturer's code and a model number.
The same can be said for the Germans.
Even the French didn't use mission-type designations and simply used manufacturer codes.
I feel like I've missed a few things, must be the effect of seeing so many manufacturers and designations. Video later. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Tobruk to Sicily Mission 07 Push to Tobruk "Our army has been making great strides towards the east and it is said they even have the city of Benghazi within their grasp. The squadron is restless, and I'm starting to feel that the Allies are going to order a general retreat. In any case, I've been ordered to lead the second flight on our escort mission deep into enemy territory. I hope I will not have to write home to anyone's family..." -Lorenzo Moretti Another escort mission deep into enemy territory. I think we are given this mission again because the Allies are running short on planes, outdated or not. It's also the first time I get to lead an entire flight in this campaign, so I've got some things to show off below the mission video  Mission 07 video No debriefing... again. End of this part of the campaign caused the issue, sorry. Results Hawkeye E. Hilated: Air Kill 1xHurricane MkIb Chris Patten: Bailed out Shade Claw: Air Kill 1xJu-88A4, bailed out (Shot down while en-route to base) Blind Sally: Ground kills 3xP40E Puna Kone: Ground kills 2xP40E (Couldn't show off, no good view on target/results) Velo Xyll: Ground kill 1xMatilda II As a refresher, these are the options we have when giving out orders. Most of them can be used if you have at least 1 pilot under your command.  Having command of an entire flight or squadron can be pretty interesting, especially with the commands available. Some of these are new to me since I started playing this game, and the campaign again.  The formations haven't changed since I started playing some 7 years ago. There are some interesting ones like Diamond, VIC and Finger Four while the remaining formations are standard stuff.  We also get to order our aircraft to attack specific types of targets. This game doesn't have a targeting system, so ordering your flight to attack tanks won't guarantee they'll hit the ones you want. Still, they do a pretty good job at it and won't muck it up often. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Well, the cat flying experiment continues to go about as well as expected. A question: just how hard is it to hit anything on the ground when you're flying a Stuka yourself? Those targets look tiny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Well, the cat flying experiment continues to go about as well as expected. A question: just how hard is it to hit anything on the ground when you're flying a Stuka yourself? Those targets look tiny. The targets are definitely tiny, and it requires some practice before you get the hang of where your bombs will effectively drop. This is compounded by the fact that you must also know what angle you're attacking from; altitude and speed factor in as well but not in large amounts. I think it's pretty much guaranteed I'll have to do a showcase of the Stuka next to show off having to hit targets, moving or otherwise. In the case of hitting moving targets, your altitude and speed are much more important (But I'll get into that with the showcase video). The biggest issue by far is actually spotting the drat things, but to be fair they don't usually travel alone like that Matilda did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Usually you get a base or a column to attack. Not a lone tank. Though I liked how I got to actually roll over properly for a bombing run, rather than just dropping the nose. though given the relative loadouts, mine and Blind Sally's targets probably should've been reversed. 100 kg of bombs is not that much to kill a tank with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:Usually you get a base or a column to attack. Not a lone tank. The bombs are actually 50kg bombs for a total of 200kg, which makes it even worse* . Stukas are coded, as far as I can tell, to always roll over. The Stukas can definitely carry up to 1000kg when checking out loadout options in QMB/FMB but I guess the campaign designer didn't think it was historical/need.If and when I get around to showing proper ground attack missions, specifically on vehicle columns are very fun  *50kg bombs suck because of their small blast radius
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:It's quite safe to say that, by the time World War II started the Russians gave up on the idea of using mission-type aircraft designations and have been using design office codes ever since. They still designated by mission type with the design office codes, just in the number itself. Fighters are always odd, bombers are always even. e: Except when they decided that a strike fighter was an attacker, as in the case of the Yak-38 "Forger" Unreal_One fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
There sure seems to be a lot of collisions in your playthrough. I'm also surprised by the passiveness of the bomber gunners; admittedly I've only played the unmodded version of IL-2 1946, but they seem a lot more aggressive in the missions I fly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Wait, so does that mean I'm still kicking rear end despite having one arm tied behind my back?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Is it too late to hop in on the action? If not, here is my application: First name: Tub Last name: O' Fun Side: Allies, preference to americans if available. Plane: Preference to P-40E if available. If not, then any pursuit class plane will do. Portrait: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Tubofun posted:Is it too late to hop in on the action? If not, here is my application: Definitely not too late, will add you to the roster. Blind Sally posted:Wait, so does that mean I'm still kicking rear end despite having one arm tied behind my back? You're the unstoppable bomber so far, with only 1 small blemish on your record. I have the sneaking suspicion that Veloxyll will come from behind though. Soup Inspector posted:There sure seems to be a lot of collisions in your playthrough. I'm also surprised by the passiveness of the bomber gunners; admittedly I've only played the unmodded version of IL-2 1946, but they seem a lot more aggressive in the missions I fly. I'm kind of surprised by the passiveness too. I believe it might be due to bomber crew skill level, but I'll have to look into it. One issue they used to have was that they tended to shoot at anything within range and used up all their ammo really quickly. Not sure if this new behavior is meant to change that. Unreal_One posted:They still designated by mission type with the design office codes, just in the number itself. Fighters are always odd, bombers are always even. Really? I never noticed that to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Aircraft Showcase Episode 03 Ju-87B-2 Stuka and Dive Bombing Mainly showing off the dive bombing in Il-2 1946, and also focusing on the B-2 variant of the Ju-87 Stuka. The D variants get a lot more fun toys to play with, and I'd rather not spoil anything for you guys.  Time to play some campaign missions and start a vote soon
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Welp you're miles better at ground attack than I am! I would have missed much more often (and this is why I tend to stick to the fighter campaigns). Jobbo_Fett posted:I'm kind of surprised by the passiveness too. I believe it might be due to bomber crew skill level, but I'll have to look into it. One issue they used to have was that they tended to shoot at anything within range and used up all their ammo really quickly. Not sure if this new behavior is meant to change that. I'm semi-tempted to fire up my copy of IL-2 and do a little bit of experimenting with a flight of bombers. However, I'd guess that the skill level is more likely to influence the accuracy of the gunfire rather than how often they shoot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:Welp you're miles better at ground attack than I am! I would have missed much more often (and this is why I tend to stick to the fighter campaigns). To be fair, I've probably had a lot more practice.  I believe it affects how often they shoot and how accurately. It could also be possible that the hurricane was in a blind spot, but it certainly didn't look like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Tobruk to Sicily Mission 08 Siege of Tobruk: 24 April 1941 "We've cornered the Allies in Tobruk! It will only be a matter of time before they surrender and the squadron is in high spirits. We only have a few new faces, and I'm starting to feel like one of the regulars now that I've been with the group for a few months." -Lorenzo Moretti Another straightforward mission, fly towards the enemy territory and kill anything in the air. And we're not tied to protecting anything. For some added fun, I gave my flight some bombs, but by the time we found enemy shipping we were too high up and my orders, which were followed, produced little to no positive result against allied ships.  Mission Video I never really mentioned, but the Allies are getting better and better equipment as time passes. So do we, but it'll be a lot more apparent when we start facing opponents other than Hurricanes and Gladiators.  Being shot down by flak doesn't produce a unique result/icon in the debriefing. You're just marked as "Shot Down".  I'm not sure if I ever stressed the point, but while the game IS a flight simulator, the dynamic campaign generator takes into account several things for a campaign's success or failure. It depends on what is stipulated in the campaign's files, but it can range from: depleting fuel reserves, destroying specific vehicles, capturing specific locations, eliminating all enemy air opposition and more. In this mission, the Axis were trying hard to break through the defenses at Tobruk. It didn't work out too well.  Results Hawkeye E. Hilated: KIA Petrol Blue: Air Kill 1xHurricane MkIb, KIA Galaga Galaxian: Captured Maarek Stele: Captured Jek Porkins: Air Kill 1xReggiane Re.2000, KIA Jake Preston: KIA Cthulhu Dreams: Air Kill 1xReggiane Re.2000 , Teamkilled Yvon Mukluk Yvon Mukluk: KIA The game has a scoring system in place for quick, single and co-op missions but doesn't use it for campaigns. Points vary against whatever target(s) you've destroyed and will punish it in several ways. You lose points for TKs of any sort, dying divides your score by 10, bailing out halves it. It comes into play a lot more if you're playing an online campaign or similarly structured event(s). Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Well, I'm off to a great start. First kill of the mission, awww yeah.  Also its neat that Marak's AI seemed to climb to a safer height before bailing out. Or maybe that was just random chance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Also its neat that Marak's AI seemed to climb to a safer height before bailing out. Or maybe that was just random chance. It doesn't happen enough for me to tell for sure, and I haven't the first clue where to look in the files to find that out to be honest. If it wasn't caused by the controls locking up on the aircraft, I see no reason why it wasn't the AI doing that. Also, vote!Ok, so everytime the map changes you're supposed to be able to change your aircraft but crashes and all that can put an end to that quickly. In any case, to show off more aircraft in this game and because upgrades are always important if you want an edge over your opponent(s), a new vote is in effect to decide the next aircraft for 153 Squadron. First up, we have the German produced Bf-109E-4 (B or N)  Armed with 2 machine guns in the cowling and 2 cannons (1 per wing), the 109E series is a potent aircraft. Fitted with automatic slats to improve stall characteristics, a good engine and bomb attachments, the E4B or N can perform almost any type of mission. Introduced halfway through 1940 it was a noticeable upgrade with better cannons, armour and ergonomics but by mid '41 these were being superseded by the F series. We can choose to receive the 109E-4 series as our replacements so that we can finally have cannons, but its performance may leave us wanting, against more and more modern fighters. Secondly, we have the Italian made MC 200 Series 7 FB  An upgrade to the MC 200 Saetta Series 3, the 7 series has a few refinements but nothing drastic or amazing. The FB version is the fighter bomber variant which will allow us to carry bombs. The series 7 planes were the last of the MC 200, with 1941 marking the end of its effective use against the Allies. Out of the three choices, this is arguably the worst as it does not excel over either other choice. It is still limited to its 2 machine guns above the engine, and can either carry 2x50kg bombs or 2x100kg bombs. Lastly, we have the Italian Macchi MC 202 Series  The resemblance to German engineering is starting to come out in Italian designs by this time. A thinner airframe and inline engine were a departure from the norms of radial engines typical of Italian fighter aircraft. The better engine helped improve the 202 to be much better than the earlier fighters like the MC200 and G.50 that made up the ranks of fighter squadrons. However, despite improved performance, we are still locked to 2 machine guns and cannot carry any bombs. We will be relied on to protect or escort targets more often, which hopefully won't be a problem as we should be on par with modern fighters of the time. Tentative close to the vote will be Monday September 8th quote:Vote results as of Sep 06 Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Part of me really wants to vote for the MC202 (its my favorite Italian fighter) but that is a pretty lousy version, so I'll hold out for one of the 4 gun versions or maybe even the MC.205. Voting for Emil
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
German Supremacy Also pilot Jake Preston seems to be some kind of doom magnet. He may wish to pursue a different career in the next life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Goddamnit, was there a mission where my cat wasn't shot down? Anyway, I like the look of the Macchi MC 202.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Goddamnit, was there a mission where my cat wasn't shot down? According to my leaderboard, 5 and I won't spoil mission 09 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Still no kills to my name, I see. But at least I haven't died yet! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Bloody Pom posted:Still no kills to my name, I see. But at least I haven't died yet! Il-2 1946 is the Dark Souls of flight sims. If you don't die in a mission, it's because you're preparing for the next one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Heavy Sigh posted:German Supremacy Well, he is a time-traveling vampire helicopter pilot. I guess rotary wing skills don't translate well into WWII air combat doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
The 109 us really tempting. Cannons, aww yeah. Gonna go with B the Series 7 looks good. Italian engineering supremecy! Especially since the allies are still fielding Hurricanes and Gladiators. Lets leave the 109s for the Euro front(s)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
I like to imagine that the reason we have so many collisions is that goon pilots will do anything to get a kill. Anything. As for the vote, I'll choose B - the Macchi MC 200 Series 7. I like the way it looks, and though the Bf-109 was awfully tempting I think the Italian aircraft have more character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
MC 202, because that thing owns in War Thunder's realistic battles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:14 |
|
|
I actually think this MC 202 is different than the "Folgore" from WT. For one it only has the two MGs instead of the four, but I think they are still .50 calibre so they should be pretty useful still maybe? Besides the other guns on the Folgore are just .30 cals, so it's not like we are really losing much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 17:09
|
|