Ya, I don't have stuff jacked as I have 3 gigs ram and 285 GPU but the terrain isn't great. However, come Chernarus with the update, if your rig can handle it that should be gorgeous. The cities are pretty though:)
Also, try turning your 3d res to 200%
striderjg on
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
And I now own 12GB of memory. Yay! Officially above DCS requirements. Lower Voltage ram so chged my OC setting. Seems stable but I'll run prime overnight tonight.
Well, I need to do some serious refreshing of my hogmanship. Flew a bit today and it wasn't purdy but it's coming back.... slowly:) Also, has anyone else had some strange bugs in world. My stick suddenly re-centered to left of center today (alt-tabed and it was calibrated correctly in windows) during a mission. Exiting and restarting fixed. Also got stubborn on a guns run and imitated a lawndart then wasn't able to use esc to exit the mission. Rather odd. In better news, the game felt like it was running considerably smoother with the new ram:)
edit: Dear lord, someone needs to take on taking away take on helicopters from me!
striderjg on
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Tried playing Take On Helicopters' multiplayer.
Fuck that noise, in the ass, hard.
So, when you die because of Battlefield Syndrome (guy jumps in the helicopter before you, causing you to go to the copilot's seat), and then proceeds to kill you and him cuz you're an idiot and didn't leave right away and he has no right being near anything with an engine, you respawn in the middle of goddamn nowhere, with no weapons, no inventory, not a damned thing. So you spend 20 minutes running to the battle, or 30 minutes running back to base. If you go back to base, you get no weapons or anything. If you go to the battlefield, you have to scavenge stuff. It's always wise to go into a battle completely unarmed, especially when dressed like a soldier and everyone else has guns, right?
And when I checked the whole base, I couldn't find anywhere to get more shit.
So I stole a humvee and drove it to the battle, unarmed, and got some stuff off of a bunch of dead bodies. How awful.
Oh yeah, let's make it so that you get no ironsights, and no crosshairs. Good fucking luck hitting anything, once you do get a gun. Not to mention your vision randomly goes blurry? I don't know what the deal is with that. I guess I was in the sun too long?
Although I was amused that one guy put a heli in hover at like 2m above the ground, and then jumped out of it. Yeah yeah autohover and all that. Still was amused by that. I was not amused by anything else with the multiplayer. And that was "co-op". I'd hate to see how awful a full-on deathmatch would be.
I think I'll stick to single player.
anything bis has never had a strong suit in public MP. I can actually see a lot of potential for MP, with some good missions and a good crowd. I'm gonna have to try hopping in a pub now though:) I hit a single player awhile back that had me out of heli with a m4 and I had iron sites? U couldn't iron site? It was just like arma.
striderjg on
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
I should be free pretty much all weekend if you guys want to try again for some DCS multiplayer.
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
That's a shame, but they were kind of straddling a line where they just end up disappointing both sides. The problem wasn't their F2P->DLC model, the problem was it wasn't a very good flight sim, and it wasn't a game with much to do.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
"Hey, give us $15 for a P-51 Mustang. Oh yeah, no virtual cockpit. Sorry lol." It's a wonder why it didn't work.
Forget the P-51 (do people really care that much about one 70 year old plane in a modern civil simulator?), I don't think F2P was viable in a genre as reduced as flight simulation. We're talking about genre that expects a huge amount of content (due in large part to Microsoft themselves!).
I mean, it was on really unsteady ground. Would throwing in a 3D cockpit for a P-51 made a difference? Yeah, no.
Synthesis on
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Forget the P-51 (do people really care that much about one 70 year old plane in a modern civil simulator?), I don't think F2P was viable in a genre as reduced as flight simulation. We're talking about genre that expects a huge amount of content (due in large part to Microsoft themselves!).
I mean, it was on really unsteady ground. Would throwing in a 3D cockpit for a P-51 made a difference? Yeah, no.
Well, Rise of Flight seems to be doing okay. But their planes are like $3. Flight DLC is waaaay too much. I waited until the summer sale to get all of it for like $15.
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
That's pretty sad. I enjoyed MS Flight for what it is. Just a way to get into the air quickly with a few fun planes. I even picked up some of the DLC during the sale. I'll still play it when the mood strikes, the planes that are in it are fun to fly. It's just a simple, chill little sim that allows me to explore a beautiful area and fly some fun challenges.
And yeah Synthesis, I think you've hit the core of the problem with the game. With a simulation I'm perfectly willing to play a premium price as long as I get a lot of content with plenty of options. They kind of missed the mark with that one here. The MS FS fanbase was left behind by the casual nature with limited options, and that's who would have made this game successful. Perhaps they could have attracted new fans eventually with the F2P model and word of mouth, but it's going to take more than just the word Free to get people to spend their time checking out a product that they have no interest in the short term. Once again I find myself thinking about racing. Tons of gamers love to race. A multiplayer checkpoint racing mode around the Hawaiin island chain could have made a bit of difference. It has a lot of interesting terrain that would have made for some great nap of the earth racing. They should have realized that the F2P market gets its most business in multiplayer action, perhaps if they had focused in that direction they would have had some more success.
As it stands though I don't think MS gave the project a fair shake. I think they just looked at Railworks, told the Vancouver studio to "Do that" and then washed their hands of it after one quarter.
The F2P model is also suspect, especially in what's left of this "genre"...civil aviation simulator is a lot depleted now, which is part of the reason we haven't gotten another Flight Simulator.
I'm not convinced racing would have done it--"Tons of gamers love to race," is a statement built on the still successful racing genre and sci-fi arcade extensions of it (in other words, in the opposite direction of games like Flight). Multiplayer would have made the difference, but the question is how big is civil flight multiplayer still at this point? Outside of the hardcore fanbase, who are probably quite content to remain in FSX?
It's possible Microsoft didn't five Flight its due, but I'm still surprised they tried it at all, given the state of the genre.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Well, I was attempting to show that it seemed kind of half-assed. I mean, you get guys who do stuff for FSX still, and they do the full-blown virtual cockpits and very good flight models and everything. I know there are some companies out there that design the virtual cockpits, as well as the rest of the plane, as realistic as possible (which is why they charge $25+ per plane). But there's a ton of effort put into those. Note, I have never actually bought a plane, though debated it a couple times. But, I'm thinking MS was seeing the whole train thing (80 billion DLC trains), and the community for FSX, and thought they could do the same.
I think it would have been better if we would have gotten the best damned P-51 ever. It just seems like we got the plane, but it wasn't all that great. No virtual cockpit for starters is a huge
I think if we would have gotten a lot more quality content, that would have helped. It seemed that they'd release a new plane every 6 months, but it wasn't ever in something that I'd really be interested, at least enough to plop down money. I mean, ooo, Piper Cub (that's hyperbole, I know, but you get the point). Big whoop.
Any good guides out there for getting into IL-2 Sturmovik as a flight sim newbie? Is it normal to be drifting off the runway on take off and having to use the rudder to compensate every time?
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Any good guides out there for getting into IL-2 Sturmovik as a flight sim newbie? Is it normal to be drifting off the runway on take off and having to use the rudder to compensate every time?
Yeah, that's due to the torque of the spinning propeller. I don't know of any guides offhand, but that's a game that would be really hard to learn on your own.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
There are a bunch of in-game training guides, IIRC.
It's been a while since last I've even had it installed. I think it's recommended you get the 4.09 fan patch, or something, and installing that. I believe there's an IL-2 thread somewhere on the forums that explain it all, but I don't have a link offhand. It explains everything that you need to get going in the OP.
Sorry to be of no help.
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
IL-2 is packed with a lot of great training aids. Youtube can probably help you out too.
And as with all realistic sims, a little reading and research on the real life counterparts of what you are flying is always a great help.
Well, I was attempting to show that it seemed kind of half-assed. I mean, you get guys who do stuff for FSX still, and they do the full-blown virtual cockpits and very good flight models and everything. I know there are some companies out there that design the virtual cockpits, as well as the rest of the plane, as realistic as possible (which is why they charge $25+ per plane). But there's a ton of effort put into those. Note, I have never actually bought a plane, though debated it a couple times. But, I'm thinking MS was seeing the whole train thing (80 billion DLC trains), and the community for FSX, and thought they could do the same.
I think it would have been better if we would have gotten the best damned P-51 ever. It just seems like we got the plane, but it wasn't all that great. No virtual cockpit for starters is a huge
I think if we would have gotten a lot more quality content, that would have helped. It seemed that they'd release a new plane every 6 months, but it wasn't ever in something that I'd really be interested, at least enough to plop down money. I mean, ooo, Piper Cub (that's hyperbole, I know, but you get the point). Big whoop.
Oooh, P-51, big whoop.
Seriously, this is a civil aviation simulator. One military plane from 70 years ago? Not going to make or break it. Not even close. This is Flight, not Combat Flight. The best P-51 model ever (say, something like DCS: P-51) wouldn't have changed things in the least, unless Microsoft's ingenious plan was to turn it around and make it a spiritual sequel to CFS.
It might have been symptomatic of the bigger problem (though frankly, I'm not that surprised by Flight not giving the full treatment to an old warbird in a modern civil flyer). The Piper Club is, in fact, far more relevant to what Flight was. Maybe they should have been more concerned with people who were just looking for an excuse to drop a few dollars to fly a P-51 again outside a wargame. In the meantime, as far as civil flight simulators went, there was as serious content problem--we should have had a dozen more small prop fliers before people even thought about something like a P-51 (why not drop a bloody Messerschmidt into the game, while we're at it?). Not a good sign of how things were going, and the expectations people had from FSX. That's why a great P-51 stirring interest to it wouldn't have worked. One plane wouldn't have made or break FSX, and the dedicated fanbase for Flight that was most anticipating it, myself included, were likely to treat it as such. Hence the difficulties of the F2P model. And that's even before he consider the rest of the locations needed desperately.
Any good guides out there for getting into IL-2 Sturmovik as a flight sim newbie? Is it normal to be drifting off the runway on take off and having to use the rudder to compensate every time?
Remember you can also toggle these settings on and off, including how much drift you get. On a side note, I hope you have 1946 (the complete package). There was some confusion on Steam about this--apparently, Steam was selling an inferior version that didn't have all the packs compiled together.
You've probably got the right package--just a few months ago, we ran into someone who purchased 1946 off Steam but was missing a lot of stuff (for example, the whole of the Pacific expansion, I think).
Splash screen says pacific fighters, 46, ace expansion pack, PE-2 Peshka forgotten battles, and sturmoviks over manchuria. I definitely have campaigns + missions for the Pacific.
Brian Krakow on
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
Yeah, you've got the real deal version. I love IL-2 and need to get back to it again sometime. The Pacific Theater USN campaign is pretty awesome, even though flying over the ocean isn't exactly the most exciting scenery. But learning how take off and land on a Carrier is one of the most satisfying and thrilling things I've accomplished in a flight sim, and the environment really tests your ability to orient yourself with instruments. And fighting Zeros in a Hellcat is a real challenge.
It's highly recommended (there's some singleplayer/paintscheme content too). I guess Steam doesn't carry the most recent patches (which I think is 4.09m).
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Yeah, a different company or something is doing them, so I guess they aren't considered "official". I tried installing one a while back, but Steam just kept trying to "fix" it, even with updates turned off.
0
DietarySupplementStill not approved by the FDADublin, OHRegistered Userregular
I bought 1946 at some point when it was on sale, but I remember it being a little buggy and the graphics freaking out on me quite a bit. Does anyone know if that was a thing, and if any of those patches address issues like that?
@SirCarcass I'd be up for some DCS this weekend. I have a open house on sunday, so gonna be bit busy on sat/sun, but sure there will be time. Just fair warning I am really rusty. Just did a bit of dragons today (btw, is there a way to change weapon load out without rearming on the tarmac?) and while mavricking to death things wasn't any diff, got shot (not much damage luckly) doing a gun run on medium, then after repair/rearm/refuel, got shot BAD over hard. RTB but was riddled with holes. Stupid sams
striderjg on
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty rusty, too, but that's half the fun. DRAGON updated his missions for DCS World, and I know with at least his training missions you can fly any of the DCS craft, so I don't see why he wouldn't enable that in his missions, if you'd rather fly the Shark or maybe try the SU-25.
I think I'm getting the hang of this. I can take off easily now and land fairly consistently, and I even managed to shoot down a plane. Sticking with the J8A Gladiator for now; it's slow and the second wing is annoying, but it's also forgiving as all hell.
Brian Krakow on
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
A good starter plane is the A6M2. It's fast and maneuverable but stable and forgiving.
Are there any good 3rd party profile editors for the x52? Joy2key doesn't pick up the ministick or the scroll wheel on the throttle and when I run the official editor it freezes often.
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
Do you have the latest version of the Saitek software? I've never had the profile editor freeze on me.
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
You should also contact their support. For the money you spend on the freaking hardware, you'd better get some damned support.
Make sure any associated software is up to date as well (directx, .net frameworks, etc)
0
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Also, it's probably too late to mention it now, @DietarySupplment, but I think if you want to learn how to fly in IL-2, literally start with a trainer aircraft, and learn just how to fly, first of all. A good ol' T-6 or something. As with all sims, learn how to fly first, then worry about the weapons and whatnot. I know it has tutorials, but it's been a long time since last I've played, so I can't remember any specifics. I know that just flying is hard, as most planes have so much torque that they'll fling you off the runway at full throttle, has been mentioned previously.
Posts
Also, try turning your 3d res to 200%
edit: Dear lord, someone needs to take on taking away take on helicopters from me!
Fuck that noise, in the ass, hard.
So, when you die because of Battlefield Syndrome (guy jumps in the helicopter before you, causing you to go to the copilot's seat), and then proceeds to kill you and him cuz you're an idiot and didn't leave right away and he has no right being near anything with an engine, you respawn in the middle of goddamn nowhere, with no weapons, no inventory, not a damned thing. So you spend 20 minutes running to the battle, or 30 minutes running back to base. If you go back to base, you get no weapons or anything. If you go to the battlefield, you have to scavenge stuff. It's always wise to go into a battle completely unarmed, especially when dressed like a soldier and everyone else has guns, right?
And when I checked the whole base, I couldn't find anywhere to get more shit.
So I stole a humvee and drove it to the battle, unarmed, and got some stuff off of a bunch of dead bodies. How awful.
Oh yeah, let's make it so that you get no ironsights, and no crosshairs. Good fucking luck hitting anything, once you do get a gun. Not to mention your vision randomly goes blurry? I don't know what the deal is with that. I guess I was in the sun too long?
Although I was amused that one guy put a heli in hover at like 2m above the ground, and then jumped out of it. Yeah yeah autohover and all that. Still was amused by that. I was not amused by anything else with the multiplayer. And that was "co-op". I'd hate to see how awful a full-on deathmatch would be.
I think I'll stick to single player.
I mean, it was on really unsteady ground. Would throwing in a 3D cockpit for a P-51 made a difference? Yeah, no.
Well, Rise of Flight seems to be doing okay. But their planes are like $3. Flight DLC is waaaay too much. I waited until the summer sale to get all of it for like $15.
And yeah Synthesis, I think you've hit the core of the problem with the game. With a simulation I'm perfectly willing to play a premium price as long as I get a lot of content with plenty of options. They kind of missed the mark with that one here. The MS FS fanbase was left behind by the casual nature with limited options, and that's who would have made this game successful. Perhaps they could have attracted new fans eventually with the F2P model and word of mouth, but it's going to take more than just the word Free to get people to spend their time checking out a product that they have no interest in the short term. Once again I find myself thinking about racing. Tons of gamers love to race. A multiplayer checkpoint racing mode around the Hawaiin island chain could have made a bit of difference. It has a lot of interesting terrain that would have made for some great nap of the earth racing. They should have realized that the F2P market gets its most business in multiplayer action, perhaps if they had focused in that direction they would have had some more success.
As it stands though I don't think MS gave the project a fair shake. I think they just looked at Railworks, told the Vancouver studio to "Do that" and then washed their hands of it after one quarter.
I'm not convinced racing would have done it--"Tons of gamers love to race," is a statement built on the still successful racing genre and sci-fi arcade extensions of it (in other words, in the opposite direction of games like Flight). Multiplayer would have made the difference, but the question is how big is civil flight multiplayer still at this point? Outside of the hardcore fanbase, who are probably quite content to remain in FSX?
It's possible Microsoft didn't five Flight its due, but I'm still surprised they tried it at all, given the state of the genre.
I think it would have been better if we would have gotten the best damned P-51 ever. It just seems like we got the plane, but it wasn't all that great. No virtual cockpit for starters is a huge
I think if we would have gotten a lot more quality content, that would have helped. It seemed that they'd release a new plane every 6 months, but it wasn't ever in something that I'd really be interested, at least enough to plop down money. I mean, ooo, Piper Cub (that's hyperbole, I know, but you get the point). Big whoop.
Yeah, that's due to the torque of the spinning propeller. I don't know of any guides offhand, but that's a game that would be really hard to learn on your own.
It's been a while since last I've even had it installed. I think it's recommended you get the 4.09 fan patch, or something, and installing that. I believe there's an IL-2 thread somewhere on the forums that explain it all, but I don't have a link offhand. It explains everything that you need to get going in the OP.
Sorry to be of no help.
And as with all realistic sims, a little reading and research on the real life counterparts of what you are flying is always a great help.
Oooh, P-51, big whoop.
Seriously, this is a civil aviation simulator. One military plane from 70 years ago? Not going to make or break it. Not even close. This is Flight, not Combat Flight. The best P-51 model ever (say, something like DCS: P-51) wouldn't have changed things in the least, unless Microsoft's ingenious plan was to turn it around and make it a spiritual sequel to CFS.
It might have been symptomatic of the bigger problem (though frankly, I'm not that surprised by Flight not giving the full treatment to an old warbird in a modern civil flyer). The Piper Club is, in fact, far more relevant to what Flight was. Maybe they should have been more concerned with people who were just looking for an excuse to drop a few dollars to fly a P-51 again outside a wargame. In the meantime, as far as civil flight simulators went, there was as serious content problem--we should have had a dozen more small prop fliers before people even thought about something like a P-51 (why not drop a bloody Messerschmidt into the game, while we're at it?). Not a good sign of how things were going, and the expectations people had from FSX. That's why a great P-51 stirring interest to it wouldn't have worked. One plane wouldn't have made or break FSX, and the dedicated fanbase for Flight that was most anticipating it, myself included, were likely to treat it as such. Hence the difficulties of the F2P model. And that's even before he consider the rest of the locations needed desperately.
Remember you can also toggle these settings on and off, including how much drift you get. On a side note, I hope you have 1946 (the complete package). There was some confusion on Steam about this--apparently, Steam was selling an inferior version that didn't have all the packs compiled together.
Thanks everyone, I'll look into the in-game guides and see what I can find on youtube.