Jump to content

HagarTheHorrible

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    2484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1059 Excellent

About HagarTheHorrible

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Scotland the Brave, but only after a cup of tea and consulting a lawyer
  • Interests
    Beer, Wimmin, errrr ...... That's about it really. I know, I really should try to prioritize.

Recent Profile Visitors

3271 profile views
  1. ........and there was me thinking a group of Dolphins was called a "Pod".
  2. Any value can be assigned to any wing. The numbers are purely notional and a best guess, not some set in stone physical certainty. What happens with the damage model and the values assigned to different elements aren’t necessarily one and the same.
  3. 1) Get rid of the carpet beater effects, or only have small/tiny ones visible from really close range. Reason - It will reduce speculative shooting and bring down the range at which people start shooting, both good things in my book. 2) Figure out a reason why biplanes actually had wires and why some even had lots more of them than others. Reason - Obviouse enough. 3) More specific engine routines, particularly for rotaries. Reason - To distinguish between the very major differences in rotary and in-line design. 4) Radiator damage that people care about, other than "Bugger, everybody can now see me". 5) Archie that isn't proximity fused, lags behind player avoidance tactics and is distinguishable one side from the other. 6) Time travel, but instead of 102 years, 3 months will do nicely.
  4. I thought everyone WAS happy (relatively) prior to the updated damage modelling, now there’s a thought !! If the features, found in the VII and DR1 were so game changingly revolutionary why do we see externally wire braced, biplanes, even in Germany, being designed and built into the late thirties. Why do we not see a rash of reports from Allied pilots talking about the invincibility of DR1’s and Fokker VII’s after they were introduced ? Why would anybody, in their right minds, not think that a spurious, non evidence based damage model, for an element that isn’t even physically present in the sim, that overly penalises one side over another would cause disquiet is totally beyond me.
  5. It’s a plot by big brother. Normally that would be a joke, somehow I’m not quite so sure in this case.
  6. "THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL February, 1921 PROCEEDINGS, FIFTH MEETING, 57th SESSION, Major F. M. Green delivered the following lecture DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIGHTING AEROPLANE. Ability to Withstand Damage. The structure of the aeroplane itself is a large target in comparison with the pilot and the vital parts of the engine. It will be a big advantage if the aeroplane is so designed that it is likely to lose little of its structural strength when hit by the bullets of the enemy. Wooden spars are generally of such a section that many bullet holes are unlikely to cause sufficient damage to make failure in the air likely. There is always the possibility that a wire or the attachment of a wire will be shot away, and it certainly seems a requirement of the modern aeroplane that the structure of the aeroplane should not depend upon any single wire or attachment. Duplicating a wire by means of another wire alongside is apt to be dangerous as one bullet is likely to destroy both wires. The lecturer knows of one case in which an aeroplane partly collapsed when a bullet hit the point of attachment of two wires which left the plane at different angles. The ideal arrangement, therefore, is to make a structure which is braced by two or more independent systems." .......but, Hey ! Nobody payed any attention when this was posted in 2011, so it's probably pointless repeating it here. Solution - Get rid of multiple hit boxes in the wings, apart from showing superficial bullet hole damage, and concentrate on the vital bits, like the wires and wire attachment points. Hitting wires isn't impossible, just not a regular occurance, and so wing failiure isn't impossible, just not a regular occurance. What constitues "Dead six" when shooting at a wing, 1 deg, 5 deg, 20 deg, 30 deg ?
  7. The “Irregulars”. Sorry, just a bit of toilet humour.
  8. Well, I’m not flying in any Two seaters with you lot. ”What, now !!!!!!?????!!!!”, couldn’t you have gone before we took off ? What do you mean, you didn’t need to go then ?
  9. HagarTheHorrible

    Frage

    I’d be happy to swing underneath her balloons any time.
  10. HagarTheHorrible

    Frage

    It’s “hello” in ancient Norse 😄
  11. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the SE5a that had the shortest wing sections. Not only does it have normal bays but also mid bay flying wires.to boot.
  12. I think that about sums it up !
  13. I have a theory, that hits from the front do extra special damage, so (far) fewer are required.
  14. Ok, so I changed a couple of settings (Ultra/ FXAA/ Canopy reflections), but all my FC aircraft seem to be half sized, or at least a lot smaller. I'm not complaining, smaller target - harder to shoot me, it just seems a bit weired, I actually kind of like it. They now seem small and fragile compared to their WW2 cousins. I didn't notice any particular change to WW2 aircraft, but then I don't fly them enough to really be qualified to comment.
×
×
  • Create New...