Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

94 Excellent


About UrsusArctos

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    En Argentina dando vueltas por ahí
  • Interests
    Osito cariñosito

Recent Profile Visitors

1538 profile views
  1. Lo que venga a mi cabeza. El otro dia estaba escuchando Nightwish mientras volaba.
  2. I'm trying to do this post in order to try to compress my thoghts after play with this new DM in this months In general, my opinions are good. This DM is superior than the last one but i think already saw with the new DM. Off course the good things are noticeable, the aerodynamic impact is better than before, behaviour of 20mm are better than before, and the damage inflicted to the internal modules of the planes are better. But, i think the problems are related to 3 key questions now. Machine guns, big cannons, over 23mm, and the 109 tail section, for worst this 3 things are interlinked one each other and ends to overshadow the good things of the DM and give the exact opposite impression when someone is frustated. The most remarkable one is at this point, the infamous 12,7 problem. So i will divide this in 3 points and explain my thoughts one by one Weak Machine guns and Overpowered Machine guns The problems with the machine guns are the next ones. Or they are to weak, or very OP. And i gived the example already, the best point of reference of this issue are the American M2 12,7 compared to Russian UB 12,7 or the German 13mm wich is, also, the most acused one of behave like a cannon instead of a MG, when the Russian 12,7 does the same. Both guns are capable of do an insane drag penalty or aerodynamic penalty. In the worst cases, can nullify your options of maneuver like in one hit. While the American 12,7 doesn't do the same. The only excuse one can provide to explain this is the "HE" in Russian 12,7 and German 13mm, and the lack of it in the American one. But that thing doesn't apply very well when you do a 3 second burst in a 109 or a 190 and the plane is able to maneuver like nothing happened, well, not exactly, the structure is affected but the aerodynamic impact cannot beign noticed, and this is noticeable when one is was hitted with a critical burst and does high G turns, that will end in wings ripped off and i can tell that happens, but that is off course a contradiction. Besides that, one can check the guncams of WW2, even if someone tries to criticizes that claiming that "guncams are biased" because it shows the best shoots, you can see how the planes are can be damaged if someone hit them well, and the damage is no joke. Its a good point of reference. Besides that, the lack of API-APIT (M8 and M20) ammo belt are noticeable, but that only applies to 1944-45 American planes. Not before. Big cannons This is the easiest and self explained one. 30mm and 37mm behaviour is weird since new DM. Now rip off wings and fuselage with those cannons is pretty hard if not impossible. And the wings can only be detached from the plane by make them explode with the 30mm or do a good hit with 37mm, and them pray for the guy does a turn and the G's will do the work. The problem with this is that the 30mm and 37mm were able to do that with only hit the fighters. There is plenty of photos of the 30mm and 37mm trials, also pilot reports wich tells that a hit of those cannons were equal to critical structure failure. But in game, you can hit twice, or 3 times a guy with those beasts and the planes are flying. If the pilot is not dead or the plane is not on fire. 109F/G/K Tail section problem The problem is well known. Not by me, but by everyone. The tail section of a 109F/G/K works as a sponge damage. The best way to check it is put the 190 and the 109 tails to the test, just by seeing how the vertical stab of a 190 can be ripped off with a good 20mm burst can be ripped off, and the 109 never will happen. And by checking with all the guns of the game the 109, shoting from a certain angle, wich is often, dead 6 to pure 6, wich is off course the Tail section from below, the 109 will behave very sturdy. From the high 6 off course will end in dead pilots. But what is the worst of this problem. This problem only enhances the other 2 things wich i already touched. This weird mix of a 109 beign a flying tank and the problems of the 12,7 are the perfect mix for a lot of complains. In my personal experience with the 12,7 109s are the hell itself for try to shot them down, while the 190 are piece of cake besides the null aerodynamic impact. Off course if i'm attacking from pure 6 to dead 6. And how this is affecting the cannons? The same. But with a cannon you can, at least, start fires, inflict aerodynamic impact, make the 109s "wobble" by themselfs, not induced by pilots trying to save their lifes by that trick. Or you can kill pilots because the fragmentation can kill the pilot. But as i said, you never will be able to rip off the stab, or, as i already told, you will not able to rip off the fuselage with huge cannons like 37mm, or 30mm in some weird 1 v 1 in Berloga, for give an example. But that last point is related to the big cannons problems than 109 tail section problems, since the fuselage can detach, one can see that by ramming the 109, the tail stabs will not separate from the plane, but the entire fuselage maybe yes. In general, this is the most problematic issue of all, and as i said. Is knowed by everyone. I think this is are the more noticeable things i noticed in this months. You guys think the same?
  3. Mandame PM y te lo paso. Esos links tienden a caducar si no les cambias los parametros
  4. There is a little problem with do that "buff" in order to fix the problems given by the lack of aerodynamic penalty and the 109 tail section problem. We all know that an a little ammount of HE makes the 12,7 and 13mm practically OP. I mean, there is no sense in the damage they can do. If you add HE to x6 12,7 or x8 12,7, one possibly will, if not going to make the 12,7 an overpowered monster deadlier than a cannon. Based on what i'm seeing about the 12,7 the most important thing to fix are the aerodynamic impact, incendiary and higher probabilities to rip off surfaces of control like ailerons or tailrudders with the propper burst. Structural damage and penetration are ok, but the curren problem of the aerodynamic impact and no incendiary tends to show a 12,7 way less powerfull that it should. Not talking about the difficult of ruin someones rudder or aileron.
  5. I missclicked in the poll so i will explain myself here. The devs wants our opinion anyway. I like the current G system. Maybe the positive G forces could be resisted just a little bit more, but not to much. But as @MeoW.Scharfi said, there is something wrong in negative G. A lot of ppl is abusing of negative G rolls since is more tolerable than positive G forces.
  6. Few days ago in the DD it was stated that Yak-1 Yak-1B and U2 will have female pilots as an option because is historical. Therefore is not a big deal add black pilots for allies or as the red tail P-51 exclusive thing in the BoBP era, because G-Suit is already in use. For Normandy and before that you need a model without G-Suit wich is already in work. I think this is not that different as the female pilots. Is just if there is time for the developers for do that. I'm sure we will have black pilots sooner or later in IL-2 BoBP and BoN
  7. I think is the answer, no, for a time in order to fix some stuff wich are important, like spotting, DM and FM etc. But after that period of time i mentioned it, best thing is end eastern front Battle of Berlin Yak-3, Yak-9U, La-7 (Collector plane) Tu-2, IL-10 (Russian Side) Bf-109G-10, Fw-190A9, Do-217J, Do-217K, Ta-152C (This is because i don't have any idea of what Germany doesn't have in the current planeset)
  8. This "G is Biased " topic is getting annoying guys... There is no bias for no side with this. I heared it now both sides. Wehraboos and Alliedtards. Complainings are basically the same, always is in short speech "This G system is making fly Germans harder and unfair or killing Red side" and more similar words i won't bother to add. What i can appreciate always is the lack of a video with the maneuver wich they are trying to perform and how they are permorming it and nothing much else when you are not flying planes with G-Suit wich gives you a sustantial advantage in combat, like IRL as well. Off course, there is a sensation of Allied planes "weaker" to the G, but i can guarantee its all psicological rather than a fact. Why? Usually the allied planes have better authority in his elevator for the initial turns. And that its all. A day i was discussing this with a friend wich believed this and we did a pretty simple and fast test wich solved and ended the discussion: We grabbed the 109G-14 and the Spitfire IX and we did a "comparative" test. There is "-" because there is no difference at all when you the same turns in the same speeds, and same results when you apply tu much G suddenly and the same results when one applies the same G as well but with beign less agressive, because in the end, you cannot feel what the pilot is feeling even with that weird G-Meter. To end, yes, the G-Model should have a recheck in the way how the body is responses to the rate of onset seems to be little bit to much, but i could be wrong since i'm not an expert on the human body.
  9. If someone ask yes, but i only have the files with my personal number and name on the planes
  10. Non historical and Semi-Historical things
  11. Actually is not that casual as you think. Might sound as a contradiction. Because there is one in the DM. That happens because the structure is weaked. Therefore: Structure is weaked, must be a severe aero penalty. Problem? In speed terms, you never notice the drag, you only feel the structure beign week when your wing says BB taking the next fly to The Patagonia. It already happened on my trials... Wings ripping off after a serious hit, but the speed was never affected. Catastrophic failure only happens when you apply G. (This is also why I NEVER TAKE IN CONSIDERATION BERLOGA STORIES, its inducing factors wich should be out in a test) Like on the video.
  12. Both... At least for the 109F/G/K because of the sponge of damage in the low 6. And .50s for lack aerodynamic penalties and incendiary ammo
  13. Its funny because now its like this "but .50 doing little damages its ok, you must be on convergence" Before 4.005 you were able to rip off critical sections of the plane in convergence, not only trying to aim to the pilot and pray for kill him, if the 109 doesn't stop all the bullets like is doing now, and the complain was "How its insta killing my pilot" regarding the stupid idea of survive a .50 hit in a vital area or the arms and legs, wich can cause a nice shock the fact of lose an arm or a leg by a .50 hit
  14. The fact of do basically almost 0 aerodynamic damage its annoying. The lack of API M8 and API-T M20 ammo to, those type of ammo makes a huge diffence, but, there is also something wrong with the 109F/G/K in the rear fuselage, to be specific, low 6, the dead zone,, wich i have my eye on. With@-=PHX=-SuperEtendard and @LF_Gallahad we've been doing some damage model trials in order to check that and don't say German Bias just for say it. (We didn't do enough tracks yet, there is a lot of planes and no much time) Results that the 109 can take more damage there without hit the pilot or injure it more than the average planes in the game. We did our test against the P-47D28 and P-47D22 until now for take a "reference", but we did the same thing against 190 and the 190 pilot on the same angle, and is less protected. My suspicious only increases when i do regular sorties. 109 seems to be more durable than 190's, specially on pilot area, but always talking with that LOW 6 FACTOR, when the plane shows its canopy .50 cals are pilot killers of the best in game. So there is a lot of factors. But the main thing with the .50 for me are, lack of incendiary ammo, and drag penalty
  • Create New...