Fuck sakes, they're not killing it, it are just tests, if they don't work out, so be it, everything can be put back to the initial values in just about a second If the right man only would have time... <Z>
The WB2.xx engine does support night too. It is switched off here, cause those playing in 2D would be not able to play (in 2d all you get is black screen+cockpit, when in 3d you can see horizon and some orientation points- enough to fly- like in il2FB).
gettin upset? just my opinion... but as u can see, not only mine.. btw, how did the tests with fueldiv work out?
huh spuint- BoB would never happen with all 109's not being able to reach half of the Channel 20-25minutes T100 flight isn't what Bf109 was all about in RL...
I think we now must encourage tower and inflight communication to identify bogeys, this will make our hunting more effective. In my opinion this is something good for the game. Radar operators will be a key element from now on so I say WTG!
They are good, thats not what i was talkin about. I think everyone knows what I was refering too. The last 4-5 changes made that someone said were made to increase game enjoyment. But it was clear to everyone that it subtracted the enjoyment level. The human factor of what would increase enjoyment, I'm sorry but. Ever who, there not very good at that part, way off the mark. No two weeks needed on that. But someone did make the point "They think there is to many people playing" in that case, ya there good. And its pretty clear, they dont consider any feed back or test of a change. They do what ever they want . And they dont care what everyone thinks.
Yeah, but just a little, no seriously, just give it some room. There's no point being against changes. Apparently, and I respect that, I'm sure the developers are aware of this as well, but given the way the FH development team is composed it can sometimes take a while for changes to be put back to normal. Pretty bad I guess... Well I'm not sure about that, I'm no 100% sure that the changes were made to increase enjoyment, in fact, the persons who proposed these changes are more into realism than gameplay. Sometimes it's a matter of the right numbers and the right relative values to get something to be good. Now with the fueldivision the setting was changed to an extreme value. We can't really know what the result will be when we change something, so we need to have some sort of a trial period to look at the effects, see if they are wishable. At least, that's how I interpret it, I've got no direct communication with aike myself. Another thing, not every player visits these forums, they aren't represenative, polls most of the times aren't representative either, there are players out there who actually like the new settings I'm certain that this is not to scare players away in fact the recent ammounts of players are lower than how it used to be, and back then they never said anything about shrinking the community. So anyway, that's not the reason. As I said, they don't have as much time as we wish they'd have, this is to say that they read the results and the commotion, and might abide to it, but only when they have time. However, as I said they have the final word, and decide how long the test period will be. <Z>
im not against changes im against pointless changes if ud browse this forum u will find many of my posts supporting changes or denouncing (always with arguments) i used to have so much fun here.. but i dont any more and thats why im tryin to point out my arguments, or show my opinion - to get that fun back; aggresive response aint anythin like 'respectin others opinion' imho thats what i think and theres no point to keep it this way; limiting ur choice of sorties ur able to pick.. its limitin the fun nothin to say about its 'reality' aspect.. id like to believe that, but thats not true; flight times of ~30min (YES! WITH THROTTLE MENAGEMENT! ) and dar sett.. with no radar operators, no HQ menaging informations about bogeys, with no tactical order... i wonder how is this functionin.. man who owns the server.. lettin us play here for free of course.. its hard for me to criticise his decisions.. but my opinion is that, its just totally wrong.. he is busy.. well surely; but if he is so busy, its hard to take any decision and let hope its good decision.. against bigger part of ppl playin here; sure there are ppl who like it but go online and make online poll - who like/dont like it...
@Prometeo Yeap... both sides... as soon as radar was invented the problem arose of identification friendly/foe. But AFAIK the pilots which flew over enemy territorry used to disable those devices (practice called "strangling the cannary") because their emissions made the radar profile of the plane bigger. BTW Electronic Counter Measures were also used by both sides (and this not only in form of aluminium foil being dropped over enemy radar sites)... but some still think it's an American invention
Really? This is news to me, but then I don't know everything. I do doubt that IFF was particularly reliable back then, though.
You're not supposed to know everything, are you ? If you want to know more details about the developement of radar systems and IFF during BoB (and other interesting info about the same battle, those mentioned by Frog between them), I suggest you to read the very good book titled "Fighter" by Len Deighton, one of the very classic books about the subject. Regards Promet
Wasn't there the 'Battle of Barking Creek' or something like that, where the British shot down some of their own planes and this prompted the IFF stuff?
