Jump to content

US_Low

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About US_Low

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

330 profile views
  1. Lmfao. Or you could just add bullet dispersion to match the 30 ft diameter pattern of a skilled pilot.
  2. Thanks for posting this. As I assumed, we’re shooting lasers, and it’s not due to oiled goggles or snap aims or zooms. As stated in that training manual, an average gunner will spread his fire over a 50ft circle around his point of aim at a distance of 250 yds at altitudes above 1,000 ft. A skilled gunner brings it down to 30ft, or rather a 15ft radius from point of aim. This is due to the instability of the firing platform since the firing platform is a rickety old wooden plane flying through air. It’s also due probably in part to sensitive control centers as opposed t
  3. Bullets are lasers confirmed.
  4. The devs ignored level flight performance data on actual recreations of WW1 planes? What even is this product. Why... lol. I may have made an error in my purchase.
  5. Why do I have to have data that's nearly impossible for me to obtain, on the off chance that it won't be dismissed, in order to expect reasonable review from people whom I'm paying money to (through steam. Thanks steam!)? I think a reasonable person can shoot these guns and get a sense of them being overly laser-like. And this can be backed up by some cursory review of Vickers tests on YouTube, and supplemented with known historical facts like aces shooting very close and not being certain of hits. I think you're erecting some impossible standard for me here, like I have to go obt
  6. I mean if you want fun without any simulation isn't that what War Thunder is for? It even has a "realistic" setting I hear. And isn't it free-to-play as opposed to $80 for a partial map, a couple planes, and no campaign? (Btw I got FC on sale, through steam. No ragrets). I'm not asking for gamefied difficulty increases. I'm asking for things that are reasonably important to the simulation to be as accurate as possible, and given that gunnery in a WW1 is one of the primary ways you interact with the sim, I believe it's quite reasonable to offer some constructive criticism.
  7. That’s interesting on ammunition. They all used that in the late war machines? How late? I’m unaware Is there any dispersion at all modeled in this game? “On the tight side” indeed. YouTube videos of people shooting vickers on tripods at 100 yds show 40 rds hitting a man-sized target out of 250 fired. I have to assume the vibration of the engine would increase this dispersion a bit, unless you know otherwise? Then you have puffs of smoke as hit markers to make corrections. We can pilot snipe at 500m fairly easily, yet this as far as i imperfectly know complet
  8. Well I already mentioned multiple times, which has been agreed upon: tracer visibility, hit marker puffs, lack of dispersion. All of which exacerbates the DM issues, seemingly. i think you’re simply disagreeing that I said “arcade” instead of sim. But then we (rather myself and another) already agree that puffs are assists lol. And again, bringing up snap views is a type of diversion from the topic of gunnery realism. Heck I saw on another sim/game they modeled the decreased visibility due to wearing goggles. That’s a nice touch that I wouldn’t mind
  9. I can snap my head to a position in real life much better than with track ir, but it’s true I can’t focus my aging eyes to see something better or turn my eyes into binoculars. But then real life is better than some crummy monitor or low frame VR headset isn’t it? Please don’t railroad me with the levels of realism thing. I’ve been simming my whole life and i swear there’s not a single realism debate that doesn’t have someone say “well we don’t refuel our own planes! Gotcha!” Cant we just assume that we all know that there’s a sliding scale of gamey-> simulation, and
  10. I don’t even understand what you’re getting at here, bender. You agree that hit markers aren’t realistic but you want the assist because it’s easier and because it helps aid in kill confirmations. I’m not trying to flex on anyone or shut down the online play to anyone but only the most “elite.” Most of you would probably still be better than me even with more difficult gunnery. Cant i retort to your arguments for realistic damage or realistic n28 flight modeling in much the same way? That it’s some vain attempt to gatekeep? I suppose at the end of the day on
  11. Options are nice. The new player, or long term casual player, who is intimidated by the difficulties of full simulation can have the option of keeping hit markers, easy tracers, and no dispersion. Especially for single player fun. Or say someone on single player prefers more realistic gunnery but has bad eye sight so they turn off the hit markers, turn on dispersion, but keep the high visibility tracers. Say a multiplayer training sever wants realistic gunnery but needs visual aids for gunnery corrections, so they turn off high viz tracers, turn on dispersion, but keep the hit markers so peopl
  12. I don’t see how it’s nasa territory to turn off hit marker smoke puffs. This seems a very reasonable ask from a customer standpoint edit: ok I’ll try to make a summary of all of boelcke’s kills to get at least an idea of early war damage, because of his first 20 victories only one was due to destroying their controls (and what is particularly heroic about that one is the allied observer climbed onto the wing to attempt to control the ailerons manually)
  13. I hopped in an offline quick match with an SE5 last night. The first and only ai bullet that hit me severed both aileron rods. There has to be something wrong with the DM. To some degree. Also the player base has attempted to introduce the fear by playing with v-lives and leaderboards for streaks I think the DM problem is exacerbated by easy gunnery. Lack of some kind of dispersion, unrealistic hit markers, and probably the tracers are too visibile. There has to be a reason all aces waited until 50-100m to shoot.
  14. I’m aware you can’t make everyone happy, and this isn’t my goal here. I merely want this to be a simulation.
  15. Just a quick go at it: Spad XIII: full throttle, 1000m, 53% fuel, +20 degrees, plane quickly stutters and right wing stalls and drops the aircraft nose down when airspeed reaches 80 kph. Takes a couple seconds to recover. SE5a: full throttle, 1000m, 54% fuel, +20 degrees, plane quickly stutters and left wing stalls then drops the aircraft nose down when airspeed reaches 40 knots. Takes a couple seconds to recover. Fokker DVII-F: full throttle, 1000m, 53% fuel, +20 degrees, plane climbs for about a MINUTE before a small stutter causes left wing to drop but is immediately recover
×
×
  • Create New...