Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

219 Excellent

About Caudron431Rafale

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Alsace, France

Recent Profile Visitors

1279 profile views
  1. Wow, what a beautiful Mustang, a very fine skin! Thank You so much Raptor
  2. Once i saw a video in which when comparing the Spitfire to the 109 some guy said that the Spitfire was beautiful but the 109 looked like it just wanted to kill you. Well the MkXIV doesn't exactly look like it does want to do you good, if you see what i mean. Frankly i find it looks both beautiful and viciously dangerous, and far more so than any Bf109 versions. It definitely looks like the bad guy to me. These's a kind of disturbing crazyness in this machine that makes it really awesome. Thank you 1CGS, what a beautiful model!
  3. As i remember in the tracks all aircraft wings are shot at the same angle (shots from right behind), in the exact same manner. If so, the different aircraft should react exactly the same, on all occurences, then all the wings would be "hardly" hit and the drag effect should be non existent in all cases. So what's causing some aircraft to lose speed and other to keep flying as if no damage occured? Do you mean that flaps and ailerons act as some sort of damage absorbers and protection for the wing, and that AP or ball ammo cannot go through them to cause damage to the wing? Since the guns in the Airacobra are similarly center mounted perhaps closer to one another than the bf 109 131s and the Yak UBSs, then what could cause the bullets to spread on the surface of the wing causing them to hit different boxes as in your theory? (tests were not made by wing mounted .50cal.)
  4. Yes a British one would definitely be nice! I really like this one flown by Graham Pearson, 65 squadron, but unfortunaltely i don't have much info about it: https://www.bravobravoaviation.com/fr/north-american-p-51-mustang/326-mustang-mk-iv-fl-graham-pearson-no-65-squadron-royal-air-force-avril-1945.html Otherwise there is also the famous 112 sharkmouth squadron ones with maybe more documentation available: http://raf-112-squadron.org/112_photos_page_6.html Anyway, any new one really will be nice , there's really something classy with the RAF camo pattern and colours! Thank you so much for answering my post
  5. Thank you all team for your dedication, congratulations for your achievements : you are rocking the sim world! We love you!
  6. Hi Aurora, There is nothing to be criticized about how the team chose to do things: they have their strategy, i have noticed that it is, in the long term always the best one, and i generaly have no opinion on the way they do their things, i purchase their fine products as a simple way for me to show my appreciation, and i must say admiration. As i mentionned in another post: even as they are now, the 50.cal are, even only in fours, a leathal weapon in the hand of a good pilot, no question. The new DM is very fine, and differences between calibers, between kinetic and chemical effects has greately improved and is becoming more an more believable (he rounds, wings off, etc). The team's work is accurate, and the guys there are trying hard to simulate physics phenomena hard to render realistically with the puny gaming rigs we have; they do it brilliantly! No really i'm not talking about the team when i use the world "disturbing", and it is really clear in my post. I want to precise this because it would be sad that other people think so because of your interpretation of my post. BTW It is strange that you interpreted it that way. I wrote : "An aircraft not losing speed when hit by a lot of 50.cal rounds (or any types of rounds actually) in the wing is nothing less than disturbing, no matter how you try to explain it. " What i meant is that no scientific argument can explain that there is no noticeable loss of speed when an airplane wing is damaged by .50cal rounds. It is not possible to accept it as accurate in our sim. And i maintain it. I was wondering why it was so difficult for some on these boards to admit this drag (small) issue. And that is disturbing to me. Just my opinion. I don't understand why you think that i don't trust the team to look into it when they will have time: it is very clear in the last part of my post where i encourage people to be patient about it if you read carefully. quote: " but you are probably looking at something like a half mph speed loss for each .50 calibre round. " One can put a lot of hits in the wings especially when they are exposed full plan in a banking turn! As everyone knows speed is life: in a dissimilar scenario P47 or P40 vs a geat turning aircaft it is important to weaken the ability to sustain turns and moves to counter high speed tactics. In two successful snapshots i'm sure i can put 30 rounds in a turning bogey's wings. Its a few knots less that will have to be compensated by more engine power meaning faster overheating meaning reducing power meaning opening rads more etc etc. Against an opponent of the same level, those details are crucial! quote: "That in contrast to an aircraft effectively burning on fire or not, take your pick." My pick, yes to the dev team improving the sim and let them make it as accurate as possible, i simply think it is possible to have both, i will wait happily and patiently having fun with my p40 until then, no problem: you fire up this sim and it's christmas anyway. Let them know what we think, what we found out, what we tested; this can help the team actually! As for your last comment you well know i don't have the understanding, the skills nor the talent and ability on the subject of any member of 1CGS. This team is a powerful and motivated group of skilled people! I meant they, with their experience and know-how will be able to easily correct this if needed. Not me of course lol! Again that was obvious i think. But just let people express what they think is an issue, let them show their tests so that the devs can know and maybe answer. It can help the team actually. If we can try to agree in good faith on what appears to be wrong in the DM and on the importance of its consequences in a fight, it can be of great help for the team.
  7. An aircraft not losing speed when hit by a lot of 50.cal rounds (or any types of rounds actually) in the wing is nothing less than disturbing, no matter how you try to explain it. I am really surprised that many knowledgeable people around here are willing to accept it as something non critical while it could easily be corrected. Especially when nobody serious is wanting the .50cal damage to be as important as other better rounds modelled in game. What is needed is excess drag caused by 50 cal ammo damaging a wing because it seems not to be there. I can not see the issue (apart an issue of double standard thinking) of modelling drag due to 50 cal. damage to the wings, nobody wants it to be equivalent to better weapons like the 131, or a 20mm shell lol, what is needed is the existence of a drag effect for a wing hit by 50 cal that's all, it could be a fraction of the damage made by similar but more powerfull rounds: nobody wants to be able to kill a Tiger tank by making 50 cal round bounce under it. There can be mistakes or inaccuracies in a constantly improving and complex sim as IL2GB, and i am confident that this issue, if confirmed, will be examined, and corrected if needed.
  8. Fw190A8: fuel tank fire 3 times in a row yesterday! !!!Edit: ok re checked the tracks, "only" two tank fires and one of the three was engine fire, sorry. Still it's three fires ! It was quick to recheck though, all three Fockes AI veteran 30% fuel, start 1500m, against player P51 start 900m, 500l fuel, 4X.50cal, default gunsight. First kill after 2 min in combat, second one 4 min, third one 2 min 02. All three FW190A8 downed in the first attempt. Not bad considering i'm not a a very good shot.
  9. After quickly testing 50. cals on several AI drones recently i noticed some are very prone to taking fire and rather quickly. Last couple of experiments made yesterday i think API could already be modelled in game: the fuel systems are perhaps modelled on some ac and not on some other types yet . The Fw190A8 for instance took fire almost everytime with reasonnable amout of gunfire from the Poney 4x50 cal, convergences between 150 and 250m. I was impressed to see them burn three times in a row without effort (maybe luck?). On the other hand shooting the Spitfire with the same weapons ( as we know fuel tank is in front of the cockpit) never took fire but leaked and went down PK usual style. Experimenting now on the 109, in a fight, it took a lot of .50 cal gunfire and eventualy went down leaking severly no fire but dark smoke, PK, and with outer part of a wing falling of... Apart from the drag pb your interesting test seems to show, the .50 cals are already a more than decent weapon IMO even only used by four. Again just my impressions.
  10. Nice pics, really interesting indeed. Exit holes clearly showing explosive incendiary devices not available during WW2 though. The most interesting for the thread are the entry holes and the slight deformation of the wing at the impact point, it's not as neat entry holes as i thought they would be. If assuming that the exit hole is often dirtier than the entry ones this should cause penalty excess drag for sure (not talking about the amount which could be calculated by an engineer). I cannot believe .50 cal holes or any sort of holes (even the most neat ones) in a wing would not cause noticeable performance loss and noticeable handling changes (while the aircraft could still be controllable more easily than if it was affected by big holes in its wings) . In the test provided by OP a big part of the ammo hits the wing surface causing nothing speed wise. That can simply not be correct if its verified. Civilian pilots know they can add speed by just cleaning the surface of the wing, even more if you repaint it, again some more if you fill holes and little impacts. No excess drag penalty and loss of speed (and balance) from 50cal impacts causing holes (some neat some dirty) in a wing, it's impossible imho, especially when you consider that in the test provided they are not hit by 4 or 5 but by 20 or more. If the bullet goes through the wing it damages the wing two times. At a certain point, it become a lot of excess drag, it should be taken into account imho. Strange. PS question for experts: Is it correct to assume that if hit from uperside to the underside the dirty exits from the ball bullets happen there where the wind pressure is higher thus causing more drag than in the reverse situation? Or to simplify what side of a wing creates more drag if damaged, if there is any difference at all?
  11. Hello Mr The Raptor, I recently downloaded some of your beautiful p51 skins and i wondered if you would perhaps try skinning this one one day: https://youtu.be/IrjyeAMMcO4https://youtu.be/IrjyeAMMcO4 Or perhaps one more Bristish Mustang: the camo on KH 653 looks magnificent, especially the weathering near the fuel filler-holes and exhaust pipes! Terrific! Thank you for the beautiful skins!
  12. I just saw your tracks. First thank you for taking the time to test, it looked difficult to do. In the tracks the german 13mm and the soviet 12,7 mm seem totally different from the 50cal M2. I'm not saying something is wrong but they seem to be weapons from different categories with difference greater than between .30 and .50 for instance. (perhaps they really were, i was unaware of that, always though they were comparable) Surprising, i didn't expect that much difference. What is troubling is that the aicraft does'nt lose speed even when losing parts when hit by the M2, strange to me indeed. I wonder what could explain this? Have you tried this with other wings than the 51 ones? Do you still have a track when firing at the same wing with 6 M2? Anyway, i now see what you mean and can see you testing was made in good faith, sorry for not taking the test seriously at first and thank you for the time it took to you. Looking at the tracks i though the same exactly, but its the magnitude of the benefits that is surprising (not saying they are incorrectly modelled) while in the same time two different designs (German and Russian) seem to produce similar effects in the tracks. Very interesting.
  13. To tell the truth there's something about a plane i never got: this comment about the P51 that would be something (horrible) like the "cadillac of the sky"🤔 Anyone knows where this comes from? Then there are dudes that named a car the mustang, and while it's cool and all (depending the model and year) still i cannot see it looking like a P51... All that also to say, among all the things coming with Normandy, there's something in particular, so cool that it was a car it would without any doubt be a corvette 63, so beautiful only its Allison engined brothers look better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZG6_z3sQnk
  14. Nice account! I have nothing against the modelling of the .50 cals in game, they are very precise and easy to hit with. IMHO they are rather well modelled. I need 4 at good convergence, the vast majority of my kills, perhaps 75%, are PK, with occasionnally engine fire, and i don't mind. I find it interesting though that it is almost always PK, while the doomed AC seem to still be (apparently) in good condition engine and airframe. I well know it could simply be related to my habits and fighting style. Just impressions. Anyway, i love warbirds and don't want to damage them too much, its the pilots i want to disable 😀. What i would like to say about the account you posted is that we miss a lot of parameters, and that the P47 could well have fired outside optimal parameters, and hit outside optimal convergence and distance, perhaps with only half of its guns or less, in a snapshot and still causing spectacular damage in one burst. Do you have more info maybe? We have to keep in mind that we have far more shooting experience in game than those pilots in real life. It is well known that US pilots at that times already had trouble to find targets to practice their skills, so maybe this shot was not optimal, i really don't know. Without the presence of the flak defended friendly airfield right in front of him... I doubt a D9 with holes in the prop and without canopy with hits in the wings could be able to fight back? Was the Fw190D9 actually disabled? I think we miss things to enjoy the 50s more: We need better convergence patterns and settings, a gore mode would be awesome and realistic too! Maybe API modelling would bring better visuals, more vivid sparks and more visible white smoke "puffs" where bullets hit, as in some guncam footage. But since the team is already working on better fuel systems, there's really no much to complain about imho.
  15. New campaign now mine! Btw, this sim feels good, soooooo good!
  • Create New...