Barnacles

They turned them off as an experiment.

What does an internal bulkhead have to do with aerodynamic damage? Because I stated in the OP that the, system damage, pilot kill chance etc. seemed ok?

Those rockets went where I was aiming. The upside down T formed by the line and circle in the lower half of the reticule.

During testing of RP3s, Aiming was through a standard GM.II reflector gunsight. A later modification enabled the reflector to be tilted with the aid of a graduated scale, depressing the line of sight, the GM.IIL.[6] For rockets only the Mk IIIA was the most successful – it was used on the Ventura and Hudson. The spit rockets will hit close to the bottom of your reticule circle in game. Exactly where relative to your sight depends on your speed, dive angle and range. If they simulate the mkIIIA sight, this may have a second position for rockets, IIRC it tilts down a few degrees. @jollyjack Here's a video

Very good point I've edited my post. It does also pose the question as to whether they're AP or HE 20mm. This seems likely to have been an explosive (the picture said 20mm cannon), but the HE11 might well be AP?

The k4 loses about 45kmh. The p38 65kmh. Tempest is zero. It used to lose a fair bit of speed before recent updates.

Fortunately, there are enough people like you that CB is generally not ridiculously stacked. There are many types of people, but let's at least recognise that, although it's best to let people fly exactly what they want, when they want, if it weren't those who are prepared to forgo that right for the sake of balance, then those who are determined to exercise their freedom would be doing so on a less fun server for many reasons.

AnPetrovich said that the formula for the percentage G reduction of a sloped seat compared with a vertical (Macchi 202) seat, is 1-(cos X) where X is the angle of the seat to the vertical. So worst case scenario, Macchi at 0 degrees v 190 at 21 degrees, is going to be a 6.6% difference in effective G force. If the spitfire is 13 degrees slope, then there'll be a 4% difference between it and the 190. As I said, the 3D models will have been made using blueprints or measuring the IRL planes, so those pictures were just a rough estimate. The Dev's will plug their pre existing numbers in.

This has been posted on the forums before, but hey.

If the tempest loses these covers by for example opening the landing gear whilst in a fast dive, then after you close the landing gear again you do not get any speed loss from aerodynamic penalty.

Yeah, I mentioned earlier that these are not technical drawings so may not be accurate. The dev's will clearly have either measured cockpits IRL or have the blueprints so I only posted for a quick guide. AnPetrovich on the Russian forums said the German fighters have 20 and 21 degrees for the 109 and 190 respectively.

Update, the airbrake on the ju88 incurs a 100kmh speed loss. On the p38 there's an 8kmh speed loss for the air brakes (although they're anti compressibility flaps, not really speed brakes) 135kmh for landing gear being lowered. 60kmh for the wheel well covers k4 45kmh for wheel well covers Tempest 145kmh for landing gear being lowered. AAAND it didn't lose any speed for the wheel well covers being ripped off. A bug maybe?

Thanks! What I was thinking, is that it's quite easy to deliberately rip the gear door covers of planes. Even the landing gear itself, although you generally lose the control surfaces as well if you don't do it by deliberately clipping a tree or building. That way you can have a approximation of what size hole (area of the wheel well) equates to what speed loss in game. Not perfect I know, because IRL a hole made by a shell would be jagged, but it's a good starter for 10. I've not done a proper test but it seems from first impressions to be the same order of speed loss as 99% of single 20mm hits. Also, if for example, the speed loss from 1 mineshell was the same order as the speed loss for an airbrake, a device that's specifically designed to slow you down, that would be a bit incongruous IMO. Finally from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf the game IMO actually correlates with the doc quite well, as demonstrated in the discussion above. So let me repeat, I think they achieved a tremendous feat of software engineering and thanks and congratulations must go out to AnPetrovich and his team! (I've always from the very start maintained the actual system damage etc of 50 cals seems to correlate closely with objective and quantifiable data, and my IRL experience of using them, with the exception of the consequences of non-airframe loss damage (ie aero damage)) But I think large planes like b25 are not resilient enough, and mg131and UB I think are close to the 20mm figures in the doc. Also although the Pk for 50s is ok, it doesn't take into account aero damage that doesn't cause a loss of the airframe. If you use the maths for 50 cals : 1-(1-0.01^25) = around 30% is roughly the p=structural loss for a 30mm hit. This is just speculation, but if you're close to 1:2 odds for structural loss, is it not beyond the realms of possibility that there's significant aero damage. ie. if you just rolled a 2:1 chance of knocking a wing off, you probably had a good chance of removing a panel or something, assuming the 33% chance of airframe loss didn't actually occur? I live in UK, which as a massive aversion to gun ownership, but in my old job I came into work and someone had left 2 Glocks in my desk draw :D.

Another thing that's affecting people's perception, in game, is the fact that 1 he hit can often lead to certain death, by virtue of the speed and manoeuvrability loss* and the tenacity of your opponent online. Even dozens of 50cal ap hits will often not do this. Therefore 1 hit from he is probably considered an effective kill* by some people, whereas the in game statistics will show many more hits contributing to airframe loss. * I think the game treats these single he hits disproportionately, compared with the speed loss from missing wheel well covers/airbrakes etc. Ie the round which causes around a 4 square foot hole on many of its hits (there are many photos where 20mm caused that sized hole, survivor bias or not, it shows it's possible for some 20mm) causes about the same speed loss as and area over order of magnitude greater, ie the wheel wells.

I think it's the 12.7 HE The 13mm HE has similar results What's interesting, is that in my 3 flights with the HE ammo in 50 cals, the kills were mostly from fire. It's almost as if they've stumbled upon a good way of simulating incendiary rounds