Jump to content

Chel

Members
  • Posts

    1,726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2,038 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    Who even uses Skype anymore?
  • Twitter
    Unless you're talking about birds, then I have no idea what that is!

Profile Information

  • About me
    Totally not crazy
  • Location
    Australia
  • Interests
    Gaming, modding, spaceflight, military history (esp. WWII). Russian music as well.

Recent Profile Visitors

34,206 profile views
  1. Back to our regular scheduled programming- The Hurricane is much better than the P-40, not as fast, but definitely a more forgiving engine that can be ran for longer (example being 16" manifold pressure increase on the already max power lasting 10 minutes). Guns do a whole lot less damage and ammo conservation is key, so you have to be very careful and choose your shots wisely. A lot of work goes into convergence, ranging, angle, deflection shooting, etc. But when you get a proper burst off, it feels oh so rewarding. It feels a lot lighter than the P-40, can turn a lot better, it's just a little slow but far, far more competitive in a dogfight. I don't feel like i'm just flying around waiting to get shot down anymore. Just have to be careful of the ammunition, as the RPM of the 7.7mm is quite high.
  2. Coming from a simulator player in general, all you need for headtracking is a webcam. There is software that takes your head and translates it to movements based on the camera in-game, I have been using it for the last 2 years with success. Will need a little bit of finetuning, but works reasonably well if you can't afford to shell out $400+ for a 'proper' headtracker. https://github.com/AIRLegend/aitrack - uses your camera to track your head movements (behold. my thumb over the camera) https://github.com/opentrack/opentrack - converts those movements to the camera in-game A throttle and joystick though, is kind of required. I am not sure how DCS works in comparison to IL-2, but even for IL I needed a joystick to be able to fly. All I have myself is just a webcam (Brio 300 from Logitech) running Open/AItrack, plus a Thrustmaster setup I bought for $130 - flashy advertising on the website aside, it's pretty good and takes care of most of my needs. https://www.thrustmaster.com/products/t-flight-hotas-x/ It does take a little investment to get into, but it's worth it i would say if you enjoy the sense of actually flying ^^ - Rachel
  3. We have. This game is originally from 2013, cracks are starting to show mainly in the coding of things, altitudes of operations (Western front especially only having missions at ~2km altitude due to being based on Eastern front code), occasional janky AI and sometimes bogus hit detection, but it is a nice game regardless. i still very much enjoy it. Kept me entertained for nearly 1,000 hours, so it must be doing something right ^^ I put it down to not being too difficult to play, but not too easy either. Just the right amount of engagement, accuracy, it just 'hits the spot'. All the little things you need to do to take off for example, learning map navigation, instrument panels, having an appreciation of what it was like to actually fly these planes, only being able to see what you can out the cockpit, just scratches that itch that other flying games couldn't for me. The developers recently showed off their Finland and Odessa maps, for both time periods of Winter War / Barbarossa, and the 1944 battles as well, so that will be very interesting to play. Also a strong hint towards a Korean War theatre for a new game.. - Rachel
  4. Continuing on, turns out that just being a cargo pilot on a war front is actually pretty dangerous when you're only going 260km/h max >.> Often you are given.. 'adequate' fighter cover of 2 or 3 aircraft, but still occasionally you have to defend yourself, or just come under attack as you are, say, unloading cargo. Night missions are by far the scariest though, with night fighters patrolling areas that could show up at any time, not to mention searchlights and AA batteries. Still though, it is really refreshing to take a break from the combat and just fly. There are missions where nothing happens and you just deliver things to an airfield or make a supply drop, and you just take a moment and relax on your way to or from the mission. Of course this being Moscow in 1941-42, the weather is absolutely terrible >.> and I have had.. fun.. on several occasions trying to keep myself in the air on a stable heading. Overall though it is a really interesting way to play this game, its why I love it so much. Things can happen unexpectedly mid flight, for example my flaps and throttle jammed as I was coming in to land one night.. Or my engines can freeze if I don't keep enough power applied, which makes sense when the temperature is often double negative. It is really fun. - Rachel
  5. ................sigh The issue here is not that I don't have everything. I completely get that. The issue is that several parts that are basically key to creating even basic designs are not present until further nodes, meaning you are essentially screwed until you unlock those to be able to make a design. See here:
  6. Last few days have been blegh, had this on repeat. Sometimes just need a backing track to get me through.
  7. First Duna probe, 615km AP to 560km PE. Will bring more fuel next time but this works as a nice relay.. I guess? >.> - Rachel
  8. After playing around in the For Science update, I have really noticed that with aircraft tech, you are given most of the parts needed for a design, but lack a few key pieces for it to completely encompass an aircraft. Let me explain: The initial node on the aircraft tree hands you: two cockpits, a jet fuel tank, two landing gear types, an intake, a wing and a stabiliser. Yes, it is possible to create an aircraft, but I can't escape the feeling that parts have just been omitted or placed in other areas that do not make sense. Simply being given a nosecone intake instead of a radial one, for example, severely limits the craft you can design, meaning it must be placed at the front, or on the sides with more fuel tanks to connect it to. No tail piece, not even the Mk A like in KSP-1, means you are basically forced to stick with a rear-jet arrangement. Yes, you can make an aircraft, you just cannot make one effectively that comes with pieces I would of thought would be included as standard for an aircraft design. Moving on to the Mk-2 modules. We acquire these in tier 2 of the tech tree, which makes sense. Two cockpits, a jet, medium landing gear, airbrakes, a short and medium variant of Mk-2 fuel tanks, a wing and a nacelle. Again however, noticably missing is things a bicoupler, or even a small-medium Mk-2 adapter, meaning you still can't really finish off the design like you could in KSP-1 with two engines at the back, or a singular, or connect it to Mk-1 parts. Confusingly, these are all placed three nodes along. Last night I was trying to design a Mk-2 plane after unlocking the node, and could not for the life of me figure out how I was supposed to add a tail to it or finish it off without unlocking those other nodes first. It just feels extremely out of place. I know the point is to slowly progress to better, more specialised tech, but this really just feels like punishment or forced omission for the sake of it. The point should not be to have to unlock every other node first before designing something, it should be to be able to work with what you have in a fair way of progression and use that tech to progress to other tech. I contrast this to the Rocket technology, which is very well thought out (for the most part) You can easily progress along, visit other bodies with the parts you are given at the right stages, there is room for creating interesting designs. For aircraft, it just feels like things have been placed so far along that you would think to be standard for making even a basic design. How I would improve this: Mk2 Bicoupler/Adapter > Mk2 Jets XM-G50 Radial Intake from HAA > Light Aviation LY-05 from Aerial Drones > Light Aviation (why we have the landing sticks but not nose wheel makes no sense to me) Tail Connector A > Light Aviation Tail Connector B > Precision Aerodynamics Don't even get me started on the Mk-3 parts and their placement.. that's another headache I will get around to >.> Feedback, discussion is welcome as always. - Rachel
  9. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 7500F | GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT | RAM: 32GB DDR5 On a Minmus mission, I went to the tracking station to speed up time. Upon returning to my vessel, I could not move at all. I was using fuel and RCS, but no changes to my orbit were being made at all. Reloading the save did not fix this. Included Attachments: KerbalSpaceProgram22023-12-3018-53-07 (1).mp4
  10. IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles has been my go to recently. Just something about actually 'flying' an aircraft as opposed to something like War Thunder, and not as complicated or expensive as something like DCS. I really enjoy just being able to roleplay as a pilot in a certain period of operations, still feeling like i'm a part of it in a way. Currently in the battle of Moscow flying a P-40, rotating to a transport aircraft next (the Li-2), with previous stints in the I-16 and MiG-3. ^^ - Rachel
  11. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 7500F | GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT | RAM: 32GB DDR5 Landed at the north pole of the Mun for science experiments. Jeb is magically moving on his own, spinning in place. Loading a quicksave whilst a Kerbal is on EVA will fix this. Included Attachments: KerbalSpaceProgram22023-12-3009-42-54.mp4
  12. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 7500F | GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT | RAM: 32GB DDR5 I made a save for a Mun mission in orbit last night, when I logged on this morning the heat shield was in several pieces and the the control surfaces were almost side by side with the rest of my spacecraft. This does not seem to actually affect the craft, but was very much a sight indeed. Of further note as well is that reverting launches seems to create mesh issues with the fairing, splitting up into small pieces on the launchpad. - Rachel Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }
  13. N-no! As someone who works in retail I have a fit of horror every time I hear that ;-; In other news, friend released this last night and I love it c:
×
×
  • Create New...