Jump to content

ACG_Onebad

Members
  • Content Count

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

287 Excellent

About ACG_Onebad

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.aircombatgroup.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Yes.
  • Interests
    Being legit af and not wearing pants unless I have to

Recent Profile Visitors

1566 profile views
  1. It's running okay. Our missions are relatively large and complex, so it's running worse than your typical deathmatch server, but we can sustain 70 or so people without any crashes or significant problems. Server overload message does happen a lot though, even when no side effects are visible.
  2. Now that the team already works with some community members, is there a chance to include some of the tracer mods into the vanilla game? The community made tracer effects are really brilliant and it's a shame to have them ommited.
  3. .50 API can pen an inch of facehardened armour at 600 feet and half an inch at 1800 feet, so it will easily go through an aircraft's armour plate at pretty much any range you would open fire at. Of course succesful penetration may not occur if the round tumbles or hits at such an oblique angle that it will richochet way, but a good dead on hit should penetrate pretty much every time.
  4. Cool. Although that gun is called M3, not M-3 but I guess it's just me being reeeeeeally nitpicky xd
  5. It's not even better than Steel Fury and that game was released 15 years ago.
  6. In the video trailer the M4 is described to have the 76mm M1 gun but it has the 75 mm M3 gun.
  7. The game in it's current state suffocates when running 70 to 80 players and a few AA guns on the map. Unless a major optimisation update comes out there's no way it can succesfully replicate two task forces duking it out with 100 odd guns on each capital ship and wings of 60 to 200+ aircraft engaging in battle. One can hope though.
  8. Also for ineffective high caliber flak you can experiment with the WWI assets such as the 7.7cm L/35 or the 13 pdr.
  9. Okay, but that still doesn't mean my point is invalid - you should be reaching that sort of speed with the oil radiator controlled automatically and 3000 RPM as per source material. There is no documentation that states that reducing RPM increases top speed. Wing tanks full or so, standard 6 ,.50 armament. Radiators all controlled automatically. There's a stability report for the P-51B also saying that putting the 85 gal tank in the fuselage and additional weight '... has no measurable effect on the maximum speed of the airplane', and if tweaking the rads or weight can give you all the missing MPH the problem is more serious than just tweaking the top speeds since it would imply that the AoA is significantly impacted by weight where it shouldn't be.
  10. Yeah alright that's exactly what I though which futher strengthens my point. Additionally, the top speed of 382 MPH at sea level at 75"Hg is also at the low end of all tests performed with that engine power with some tests stating 390 MPH and even more.
  11. Nothing too fancy here, just comparing test speeds in-game with available documentation. In-game numbers: P-51 D-15, 150oct, 10 000ft, standard atmospheric conditions (Kuban Autumn). 3000 RPM, full throttle (70"Hg) - 355-360MPH IAS (409 - 414 MPH TAS) P-51 D-15, 100 oct, 10 000ft, standard atmospheric conditions (Kuban Autumn) 3000 RPM, full throttle (67"Hg) - 350 MPH IAS (405 MPH TAS) Compare it with the charts presented here: (providing several tests of various configurations for cross reference) P-51D at 3000 RPM and 67"Hg at 10 000ft - 418 TAS (13 MPH faster than in-game) P-51B, 3000 RPM, (originally 75"Hg, matches with 67"Hg at 10 000ft) - 420 MPH TAS, 17 MPH FASTER THAN IN-GAME Lastly, calculated performance for the P-51D at 67" - also states approx. 420 MPH TAS, SO ABOUT 17 MPH FASTER THAN IN GAME I do realize that these errors might be due to the methods of calculating airspeed (not sure how the pitot tube errors are modeled in-game), but 10+ mph is quite of a staggering difference so I'd love if someone could clear this up. I haven't tested other altitudes yet because I can't be bothered, but I might when I have more time. edit: just tested FTH at 7700ft at 75"Hg, ended up with 364 MPH IAS and 404 MPH TAS which leaves us with the same result of aproximately X-teen MPH missing in action. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...