Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

489 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1472 profile views
  1. Hi, so a couple of things: - I'm pretty sure I'm seeing a tiny amount of auto-aim (probably to help the gamepad players) in footage from streamers. - I'm also seeing a lot of really high rate-of-fire loadouts So the footage is kindof reminding me more of Everspace than X-wing. Do you think I'll be really disappointed? A lot of fun in X-wing was trying to hit the cockpit of a Tie fighter using low rate of fire, widely spaced weapons. A lot of fun in Tie Fighter was trying not to get hit by those imperfect weapons... The combat had a bit of a tempo to it because of imperfect convergence, low rates of fire, and it is so core to the experience I can't imagine doing without it. What do you guys think?
  2. What! No... it has notoriously bad stall characteristics! Bf-109E or even LaGG is better! Definitely make sure he gets a twist stick - rudder control of some sort is a must (and they aren't that expensive if you look around).
  3. Extremely interesting - thank you. It is interesting to know that the Schwarlose variant is historical (making the A-1 the only truly fantasy version)! Fascinating!
  4. I'd understand some trauma on the part of the devs though... it has been.. what 17 years during which that debate has taken place? I think I got tired of it about 15 years ago... can't imagine what'd be like to be dev.
  5. Wow! Is the roughness tied to the terrain texture (e.g. will fields be smoother to crashland in?) Also, will this interact with the mud feature (i.e. in rainy season)?
  6. Thanks! I tracked down a copy! It is pretty close - it confirms the 2xMk-103 proposal... which helps me reassure myself that I'm wasn't dreaming. However, it clearly isn't the same book. It says the 2xMk-103 cannons were movable in traverse, but I'm pretty sure the book I read had them movable in elevation. Also, there was a wind-tunnel model photograph that isn't in Mr. Pegg's book, and there was a copy of a table which had additional gunpod possibilities (I think 2xMg131 with 500 rounds per gun, 4xMg131 with 250rpg and a 2xMg151 gunpod)... and this table doesn't appear to be in the book. So the mystery remains!
  7. There were a couple of studies (I think the USAAF did one)... but a lot depended on how the aircraft were deployed. For instance, once the Typhoons were moved into the Hurribomber ground attack role the would start encountering a lot of anti-aircraft fire that the Tempests were not... and this has to do with the role they are being used for more than it does the airframes themselves. What might be interesting is looking at the attrition rates faced by specific units (taking into account the aircraft used and the role/theatre/context of the combat)...! One could do a number of case-studies using specific groups which are well documented.
  8. The Jonathan Livingston Spitfire Recognisable traits: More interested in aerobatic or elegant dogfight manoeuvres than in victory. Knows a large number of well timed three-dimensional manoeuvres to keep out of the enemie's gunsight, but which otherwise give no advantages. Claims that they are toying with an opponent unnecessarily long in the name of 'chivalry' and giving it 'a fighting chance'. In reality, is too busy flying to actually get in a good shot. Possibly thinks they are imitating birds, prefers the French spelling of manoeuvres, and uses 'Salut' too much despite not being French. Typically flies: Anything that can out-turn but not out-fly an opponent, and which has a weak enough armament that they can't get a kill in a single pass (forcing still more elegant manoeuvres).
  9. It depends on what you mean by frustration? AI still gets stuck in circling behaviours to some extent (which was the case in RoF and I'm pretty nonchalant about it now)... and AI does't disengage as much as it should... and the ability to order tactics (e.g. order allies to attack specific ground targets) is limited... but I take it this poll is about behaviours in a campaign?
  10. I kindof prefer BoK... it has a very interesting variety (especially the Premium edition with the Hs-129)! BoBP has some wonderful aircraft (e.g. P-51, Tempest, Fw-190F)... but the bomber options are limited... and the Me-262 is hard to use... and it isn't appropriate for the U-2VS collector plane (which is a must) Also, BoBP is currently at a higher price... so I'd go with getting BoK & BoM! BoS also goes on sale to an even greater degree, so I would eventually pick that one up for the LaGG-3 & Ju-87 etc.
  11. I'm kindof hoping to see the Mk-103 (even if only a dozen aircraft carried it) on the A-6 or on the Me-410 (even if it appears more of a planned armament than one which was ever carried, outside of Norway anyway)... because it is such an interesting weapon and we currently only have it on the Hs-129... I would hope that they would accurately model its increased dispersion when mounted on the A-6... and I would also encourage multiplayer servers and campaign designers to lock it. But it'd still be really fun to have (and not completely ahistorical).
  12. There are also differences in velocity and trajectory, correct? I spent a lot of time looking this up but then forgot most of what I'd read
  13. Yup I was talking to everyone... except maybe the devs... although, you know... I'd still kindof love to see their data!
  14. ...or something not being caught in testing. In the QMB I regularly see bombers decide to fly-inverted and get stuck in that flight mode...
  • Create New...