Jump to content

-SF-Disarray

Members
  • Content Count

    802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

394 Excellent

About -SF-Disarray

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

978 profile views
  1. You go here and do the things to get SRS working: . Once you do all the things just connect to a server and the rest is done for you.
  2. No, that is exactly how it should be handled. But this talk of having to 'stomp out every possible avenue of cheating regardless of any evidence' is just silly. Let's solve problems we know we have and not worry so much about things that only might be happening. As always I love it when people miss the point.
  3. All this talk of injectors and secret cheaters just lurking in the dark, shadowy, parts of servers smacks of a witch hunt mentality. I'd say it is amusing but it has become sad. If you can't prove that someone is cheating, just shut up about it already. If you can prove someone is cheating report it to the people that need to know and can do something about it.
  4. Just as soon as we can have more than a handful of anti-aircraft guns to defend spawn points I'll agree with you. Just as soon as we can have dedicated cap squadrons for defense or airbases I'll agree with you. To say that getting bounced at, on or near airfields was part of the war is true. But the conditions that exists in the game for doing that kind of stuff are not representative of war time conditions. You can't have your cake and eat it too and all that.
  5. I've brought this up in other threads talking on this same issue, and I know we didn't include this in the test data we've shown here but, we did a similar test including cannons shooting at a P-40, this test was done without shooting the MGs to isolate the cannon's effect. The effect of a single HE cannon shell and at most 1 AP shell from an MG-151/20 is remarkably similar to the effect from the kinds of MG bursts we used in these tests. I understand how outlandish this sounds. If the visual model is influenced by the physical modeling as Unreasonable is positing, i.e. when X damage is simulated Y visuals are applied, it would follow that the HE effect of the MG rounds in both the MG-131's and the UBS guns are not distinguishable from the HE effect from the cannon rounds. For reference the filler used in the 131 and the 151/20 rounds are .9 g and 18.6 g respectively, so should obviously be very different in effect. Specifically, the smaller charge should cause more localized damage but as can be seen the damage is applied over most of the wing area when 131 rounds hit. As for hits to the wing never causing speed loss being shown, I'm not convinced. A round, much less a high velocity .50 round, fired from 250 m, our shooting distance, should have little trouble passing through the wing, even if it hit at the back end. Given our firing position that would put the exit wound at or near the leading edge. I'm given to understand that this should be the best case scenario for causing aero damage. So either the damage effects of AP rounds are not being carried forward through the flap/aileron and into the wing, a problem, or the damage effects are being carried forward but just not doing anything, still a problem. While I know it won't qualify as scientific evidence I have gathered lots of field data that pertains to this subject. You see, I'm what some people describe as 'overly aggressive' when I fly 109's, it is fun don't 'at me', and so I naturally get shot at a lot by M2 armed opponents. Some of them are very good shots and hit me all over the plane from angles that would necessitate hitting the wing from the top or bottom. Often times, after these fights I bring the plane back full of holes but with no difficulty in terms of speed or handling. The only thing's that get me into trouble are when the engine takes a hit and is either destroyed outright or set on fire, or when the pilot wins the bullet lottery. If none of these things happen I can carry the fight and often times win in planes that should be floundering as it is more holes than plane. But when a 20 mm cannon is thrown into the mix I find myself needing to fly like I do against German planes. I can't afford to get shot once if I want to win that fight because the cannon rounds will kneecap the plane's performance. And yes, I know, anecdotal data and all that, but when anecdotal data consistently point to the same conclusion there is something to it.
  6. Are you referring to the track you've posed there? Because there is no P-51 shooting anything in that track. It is a Yak-7 doing the shooting. Fun fact, at no point in these tests did we shoot anything with a P-51. We wanted to keep the number of guns consistent. So I'm afraid that I have to ask, what are you even talking about? I'm glad you think the methodology is good in the tests, we thought it was a good method too when we did it. So how do you square this 45 mph loss from impact of a short burst from UBS guns but no appreciable loss of speed from a similar burst from the same number of M2's? Before you answer I'd encourage you to go and look at all of the tracks, and do pay particular attention to which guns are doing the shooting.
  7. And do you have confirmation on this, or is that just you speculating? Yes, they have said they are working on the fuel systems now. Are they going to come back to this aspect of the DM particularly? I haven't seen word one on this issue specifically. I haven't even been told by a reliable source that they know this is a problem and aren't going to do anything about it. In so far as I can tell there is no indication that this is something they are even aware of. I can't even say for sure that this phenomenon was noticed in the testing of the new DM. I can't imagine that it was picked up in testing as it would be a very odd choice to see that the .50 AP ammo is having no effect on the flight characteristics of a plane and just go ahead with it.
  8. While the .50 rounds are very effective if you hit the pilot or engine they are almost entirely ineffective if you hit anything else. They are all or nothing. If you drop rounds into the wing of a plane they will not slow down, they will not lose maneuverability the stall speed will not go up. This is even the case if you rake a plane from wingtip to wingtip. The plane is as effective as it ever was. If things like removing paint and polishing the metal of a plane can make it go measurably faster absent any other changes, why won't punching ragged holes in the plane do the opposite? Why do German .51 rounds with a very small HE charge wrecking the aerodynamics of planes with a few hits? A handful of those rounds will chop between 25 and 30 MPH off a plane maintaining the same power settings. In every fight I have been in where these guns are in play, this has played a pivotal role in the fight. If I score a small number of nonfatal hits with 131's that fight is all but over. If I get hit by M2's, even large numbers of them, but they all land in the wings I can keep on keeping on like it never even happened.
  9. There is nothing on this server to stop you from switching sides whenever you want. You can even switch sides mid-mission if you are willing to wait for a little time while a cool down timer ticks away. I'm not exactly sure how the stat page deals with switching like that but it still tracks you.
  10. Maybe that there are so many threads all talking about the exact same thing should tell you something?
  11. I have been reading this argument for the last little bit and I'm stuck on two questions. First, it is obvious that this can be used for cheating, that much is settled, but how often is it used for that? If 20% of the players on the server use reshade, I'm just making up these numbers by the way, and of that 20% only 2% of them use it for cheating is that an issue worth taking action over? Now, I might here you say, isn't that the same argument people used when this was all about 3dmigoto? And to them I say, yes it is the same argument. It was a good argument then, too and it is just as valid now. My second question, is if this kind of thing is so bad that it must be eliminated from even being a possibility, why are other methods to do similar things allowed? It was said that the ability to use custom skins will not be removed from the server, but it has been demonstrated that with custom skins you can get a very similar advantage as well as other more powerful advantages. My question here is why is this same behavior bad in one case but not the other? Just to put my cards all on the table here, I do use reshade myself. I find the colors in the game, out of the box to be very drab and reshade allows me to make them look better, and in my opinion more realistic. And to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, if I get tracked from a million miles away or bounced by a player that shouldn't have been able to see me, I'm fine with that. At the end of the day it isn't worse than some of the other gimmicky crap you see in MP regularly that is considered to be, 'just part of the game' by most people. Now you can disagree with that last point, and I expect some of you will, but that is where I'm at.
  12. You do realize that posting a bunch of technical documents that are all in German into a conversation that is taking part entirely in English with no context and no explanation of their contents is decidedly unhelpful, right? Did it never occur to you that the people having this conversation might not understand a single word of any of this? Somehow I think it might not have. You may be shocked to learn that all of this means nothing to me. It would be as useful as me posting the entire technical manual for the Yak 1 in it's original format and calling that an argument.
  13. We tested to isolate the DM as well. I'm the other side of the tests Naz is talking about. When a 109 is put in the target position and shot up with M2's and 131's the results track along the lines of other planes we have tested, P-40, P-51, 109, 111, it remains fairly consistent. All the data I can see points to the guns. I don't have a track file from the tests either. It never occurred to me to make one. I will make one if we do further tests. All the other stuff, about the entrenched sides. Well, ya, I've seen that song and dance before. Kind of made me hesitant to even bring this up because I really don't need the drama, but here I am.
  14. It is not possible that I only hit with one wing's guns in these test with the P-51. They were conducted in controlled, ideal, conditions. For clarity, I fired the rounds from 250 m in all cases for the tests. The labels with the distance to target are activated on that server and it was part of the reason I chose that server for these tests. My gun convergence is set to exactly 250 m. All six guns hit the target, minus any rounds that would have missed by natural inaccuracies from the guns themselves. I did not aim at the center of the target, I aimed for exactly where I hit. The bursts that I fired were of such a short length there is little chance that significantly more rounds hit the target than I observed hitting the target; this was the case for all the shots taken. I am well aware that the visual and physical damage models do not track well. It is for this reason that I discounted all visual data as it pertains to the damage done to the target aircraft. I only gathered data that pertained to the physics at play in the aerodynamic model, specifically speed before and after and flight handling before and after being hit. I did note that I observed the rounds hitting but if you are going to argue that the visuals in the game are so inconsistent with the sim that I can't visually confirm hitting the plane then there are significantly larger problems at play here. Yes, the 131 rounds contain a small, very small, explosive charge. The 20 mm rounds have a significantly larger charge in them. Why is it that, at most, 1 HE and 1 AP round impacting a plane behaving in a similar way to how, being very generous here, 4 or 5 HE rounds from a 131 HMG? For further clarity the 131 HE round packs .9 g of PETN into it. The 20 mm HE Minengeschoss rounds pack between 18.6 and 25 g depending on the exact model. So given the most charitable estimation of the rounds I hit with and the most favorable HE load for the 20 mm round i hit with, that accounts for 4.5 g of PETN applied to target vs 18.6, or just a little less than 25% the explosive mass but a similar effect on the target. The numbers don't add up. I'd have to have hit with 16 to 20 rounds for this to make sense and I'm confident I didn't even fire that many. As for server load, network latency and packet loss. Well there is nothing I can do about that. I can comment that, as I noted before, the server where these tests were conducted was at a very low population at the time of the tests. There was, to my knowledge one other person on that server at the time of the tests who was not involved in the actual testing itself. My ping to the server is typically under 100 ms and very often below 80 ms. The person I was conducting the test with would be very likely to have similar pings given our relatively close physical proximity. And, again, we have bigger issues at play here if a server can't keep up with 2 or 3 planes at the same time. As for conducting the tests off line this provides significant difficulties because you can't collect accurate data from a plane you are not in. Maybe you can tell how well a plane can maneuver when you aren't at the controls, but I can't. At any rate I don't think any error that may have been injected into the tests by being conducted online could account for the disparity that was observed. I don't expect you to just take me at my word. Go and do the same tests I did for yourself and see the results for yourself. I'm planning on further testing, to include Soviet guns into the mix mostly, and if you really want I'll film the tests
×
×
  • Create New...