pnzrldr

Sure. DCS models a variety of factors not seen in IL2. Take a look at the modeling of wake turbulence for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82Q3kd4v3bw&t=62s. This impacts formation flight too, as well as the stuff near the ground depicted. Their actual flight modeling is more rigorous, and - according to a few I know who have flown real warbirds, DCS and IL2 - closer to reality. Another point of significance to us gamers - the ground handling for taxi in DCS is also closer. IL2 taxiing is actually harder than IRL. Also, DCS has recently (last 8 weeks?) begun releasing aircraf

So - haven't played CM in literally years, but was beta tester and wrote some of the missions on CMRT and CMBS. However, I am now a die-hard IL2 addict, playing the latest IL-2 Great Battles series (IL2 BoX ie. Battle of X - Stalingrad, Moscow, Kuban, Bodenplatte and the upcoming Normandy). IL2 BoX has some issues, but to say that the visuals are astounding is an understatement. Flight models and damage models are a very close second to DCS for realism. Online multiplayer is superb. With head tracking and HOTAS, it is completely immersive, and I am only awaiting the right VR headset to ta

For all those feeling sorry for Bil, please rest assured he is taking out all the angst he worked up here in the game he is playing against me.

Bil, I figured you would regret not buying any artillery. Now I know I was right. Hell, it would have at least covered your withdrawal. Barring that, if you run far enough, fast enough, that JT will run out of gas before you do!

Bil - My primary comment is echoed above by Bulletpoint - this type of system could be effectively hard-coded into the game (with significant effort no doubt) to create a realism level above those currently offered. As such, I view it as an 'alpha' build that could form the basis for an add-on system, but until/unless you/we convince Steve and Co. to pursue it, I doubt it will gain much traction. In assessing its marketability, it would make a substantial upgrade for tactical grognards, but might only appeal to them - I don't have a marketing assessment of the overall audience, so cannot

Krause. Just started the vid, and thanks for the kudos, but hoping I disappoint you as far as predicatability. There really wasn't much to the AI plan. If you want me to go full on Russian AGMB some time, I'll build one. Good website, btw. You sure did set up to burn through a lot of your indirect ammo in preparatory fires. Remember, that is your PRIMARY killing agent in this game! You do get another section of Paladins, but be conservative and leave something for later. Remember, no reason your UAS cannot do some of the observing on the NAIs for you. You don't necessarily have t

As the designer (in conjunction w/ Chris and several multi-run playtesters) I am looking forward to your video on mission 2. It served as a bit of a test to see how close to 'right' CMBS gets US Joint fires capability. Very curious what you and the rest of the community think of it.

Shot was taken at the US Army's new historical vehicle restoration facility at FT Benning, GA. Their collection combines the assets from the old Ordnance museum at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD and the Patton Museum from FT Knox, KY. There is not yet a new Armor Museum (google it and contribute - they need your $$!) but they have a very capable motorpool facility and a fair amount of covered storage. I didn't count but would say they have in excess of 200 vehicles there ranging from WWI tanks (4 or 5 in reasonable condition) through newer items like Abrams SN 001 and M60 SN 007. Many famous

Not quite a screenshot, but I could not resist. 2013-11-07 12.23.38 by pnzrldr, on Flickr

John - that is certainly one way of saving on expensive time fuze! I love it! How practical! Don't let our Taliban friends see that, they would adopt it in a heartbeat (and I am not really kidding).

All note: PIAT, bazooka, Pzfaust or Schreck, US 105mm HEAT from a Priest, modern-day AT-4, TOW, Hellfire, Mk-19 40mm HEDP, etc... all have HEAT warheads, and the penetration is totally independent from the velocity of the round. You could walk up to a tank, set a Pzfaust (or any of the above) warhead against the front slope, back off and detonate it with a blasting cap and time fuze and it will have the exact same penetration as if it struck the vehicle on the fly. See John's references above for details on why/how.

And isn't that strange, since the Sdkfz gunners have a shield and the US gunners do not on their M3s? Odd, but I do find the US gunners a bit more survivable. However, this could be simply my too limited set for statistical analysis. I bitched a lot recently about Pak crew vulnerability, but played a CMFI/GL scenario vs. AI (Smoke Em if you Got Em) wherein a Pak gave me absolute fits, continuing to KO vehicles after several iterations of, "surely THAT must have killed him!" fires. So I conclude that sometimes Paks die easy, and sometimes, not so much... Just wish I could influence that a

Bil - your scenarios for these probs are rudimentary enough. You should solicit a volunteer (not me) to backwards convert them. I bet someone would pony up. I will be busy visiting tank factories and such <sigh!> It is a dirty job, but someone has to do it... after our government rediscovers it has perpetual income that is.

Holy Scheisse! Your videos are awesome! Whooot!