Jump to content


Founders [standard]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

236 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

998 profile views
  1. Made me laugh sir! 😄 Interesting... I managed to take out four out of six struts on one side of the Bristol - and it was fine until I shot the pilot and it entered a dive! I tended to shoot up one wing (rather than both wings)... but a lot of my rounds are also falling on the outer wings... (maybe I'm a worse shot - although I seem to find it quite easy to kill the pilot or light the planes on fire) Anyway, part of me is pleased that wing failure is still sometimes possible... these weren't exactly heavily built aircraft. It is really neat how the damage model is causing even more differences to appear between various WWI aircraft... hopefully the market will grow gradually over time so that FC becomes more profitable and one of the future volumes can give us a three bay biplane...
  2. Really really impressed so far. I feel I have one remaining question: When bombs or rockets hit - should they not produce a few irregular large fragments of casing or debris that travel further? Or do we think the current modelling is accurate? Modern fragmentation shells are carefully designed to produce very even fragments out to a certain distance... but even there - the absolute danger zone is much larger. Take the claymore: Note: Drawing not to scale. ...the certain kill zone is 50 metres, 'moderately effective' is twice that at 100 metres... however it is dangerous out to 250 metres (5 x the kill zone!). There is also a stray fragment/debris zone to either side. So, if we drop a bomb on a railcar... or fire a rocket... we should perhaps take out a truck engine much further away - or possibly be caught in the debris ourselves? Is the new fragmentation model only for one size of debris? So the likelihood and damage of fragments fall off linearly as if the fragments were all the same size? I suppose that is my one question (and speculative area for further improvement someday).
  3. Exactly... I just sometimes get the impression that some people think that turning it into a Hs-129 would somehow fix other issues... I personally find it pretty fascinating to fight in... the best approach I can figure is to keep the speed above 400kph (gives a decent roll rate) and do a series of head-on passes extending away after each one... however, it would seem wise to attempt to use the dive speed to flee before one gets too low... as once the flight is on the deck the options are very limited (I feel like I'm flying an early model Il-2)... I'm not saying any of this is inaccurate to the airplane. IMHO, the way to get a more realistic fight would be to increase the chance of the AI aircraft losing sight of other aircraft... if the AI occasionally drew a blank and couldn't immediately find your plane after it made a pass or pulled a high-gee manuever... that would create a pause in the fight where the differences in performance wouldn't matter as much. So, I flew a LaGG-3 with only AP rounds in my Sh-37 37mm cannon... fired a bunch into a Ju-52 from the rear. There was almost no visual damage (just a couple of tiny holes)... however the rounds traveled up the fuselage and killed the pilot! Pretty spectacular to see almost no visible damage from six 37mm rounds but to see the Ju-52 suddenly loop the loop... I think it is likely quite realistic as well.
  4. Has anyone managed to shoot the rear fuselage off an aircraft? I've tried using the 37mm... which lacerated the airframe but didn't produce failure (so far). If so... if we ever get a 50mm or 57mm cannon and it is capable of causing that kind of catastrophic failure... it'll be unique. Not done testing yet. I'd also try seeing if I can shoot through the fuselage of a the Halberstadt from below using the Lewis gun... but the QMB settings will have the two-seaters trying to dogfight - so I'd have to load up the full mission builder to test it properly.
  5. The engine seems to keep running after spitting oil over the windscreen (in my one experience so far)... so quite a bit better at ground attack... but nothing will make up for the poor turn rate at low altitude.
  6. Also something Jason didn't mention: Uninstall mods. I had a couple of mods I'd made related to vehicle damage effects... and, let's say, the results were interesting...
  7. Try it against the Bristol Fighter and tell us the results! It could be the Halberstadt is more lightly built in the wings... I've also not 'winged' a WWII era aircraft yet (although I haven't tried really high caliber rounds). My only disappointment so far is that the blast fragmentation model doesn't seem to have made near-misses by rockets more effective against trucks (and other soft-skins). P.S. My personal tendency is to actually defer to the damage model after reading about how much research and effort went into it... That said, the more durable wings feel 'right' - although it'd also be nice to actually see the old 'crumpling butterfly' effect from time-to-time (for nostalgia sake at least)... so I'm kindof hoping at least one WW1 aircraft has weak wings... even if the others don't.
  8. I believe that the Mg-131 had a larger bursting charge... the effects overhaul and damage model seem to capture this. - My first machine gun test with an I-16 against a Ju-88 allowed me to take out the pilot during a head on pass (I haven't tested shooting from the rear). - My tests with a Pfalz D.III against a Bristol Fighter went quite smoothly... despite aiming for the wings (and badly damaging them) I ended up hitting the pilot... the wings didn't fold in spite of my best efforts... however, I did shoot off a horizontal stabiliser... I think stabillisers/emppennage may experience a lot less flexing from aerodyinamic stress relative to the wings... and thus tend to be more lightly built generally (i.e. easier to shoot off). - My tests with the pure-AP 'special load' in the La-5FN seems to support the idea that AP rounds are much less effective... however, they seemed to penetrate very well... the bombers I shot down were taken out because AP rounds went through the nacelle and destroyed the engine from behind (the second aircraft I shot down this way was a He-111... without much visible damage but with both engines lit on fire during the first pass from the rear)...
  9. Looking really gorgeous (I thought we were only getting the improved lighting for BoX ) <- don't take that literally... I'm just saying that the quality of the screenshots is tremendous! The effects, artwork on the aircraft, engine improvements... it is really coming together!
  10. There were limitations on the ability for Team Daidalos to do Battle of Britain... and I believe the Mediterranean (although I'm less certain of that). There was also some discussion by Oleg of a possible Mediterranean expansion.This makes a lot of sense considering the number of assets that could be reused and the efforts to make tanks driveable (etc.) Then Luthier (Ilya Shevchenko) announced that initial work was planned for a Korea sim (to be released around the same time as an independent project). In some interviews they also talked about how an Eastern Front sim in the Storm of War series of sims would be developed. However, the latest reports had them move up the Eastern Front sim to be the highest priority, combined with driveable ground units (i.e. the MMO you speak of). It was originally Battle of Moscow. This then became Battle of Stalingrad, they ran out of funds, and 1C transferred the project over to the current Great Battles team (who used their own engine and rebuilt all of their models)... So I believe something somewhat like Tobruk was actually briefly planned as the first sequel... it is just that the plans didn't survive the rough release of Cliffs of Dover. They were very optimistic going into the Cliffs of Dover release... including planning things like a flyable Cierva C.30 autogyro (which would be neat considering that about thirty were used by the French in the Battle of France, and they were also used to calibrate the British early warning radars)... so I'd be quite surprised if they didn't think the Mediterranean would be a viable expansion. 2007: Rumours of North Africa and Korea are circulating on forums. 2009: 2010: A print interview in 'Combat Aircraft magazine' June 2010 mentions North Africa alongside Korea 2013:
  11. We are only talking about official releases (otherwise there are mods going back to SWOTL days)... and the 4.08 Africa and Italy maps were marked as 'online'. If I recall correctly this was done so as not to compete with the sequel to Cliffs of Dover (before Battle of Stalingrad was pushed to the front by 1C) ...and I suspect there were some other limitations (e.g. as 'online maps they were subscale and/or less detailed)?
  12. Avimimus

    B-25 or B-26

    I should amend this with the Boston III (alongside the A-20G1)... as Boston III were the major British day bombers during Dieppe... and shouldn't be that hard to model as it is very close to our A-20 but with British guns (including blisters)... That said, the high wing loading of the B-26 would be fun (in a sim, if not in real life) but the B-25 would be fun if it was in the Pacific and we could get the heavier low altitude attack armament options.
  13. I know there are so many other priorities... but, my gosh - with the new pilot models: It'd be nice to be able to see your body in the cockpit. I didn't think this was a worthwhile feature... but after trying the mod with static models I found it to be so much more immersive (at least until the joystick clips through the hand!) 😄 Anyway, as always, I appreciate all of the improvements and clever work (even if it makes things less unrealistically shiny).
  14. Thinking about the general topic: I could see a '45 East expansion including some unusual aircraft in order to even out the planeset... I could also see a collector's plane with more field mods (e.g. 2xMg131 sounds interesting). The same goes for other aircraft (e.g. a Hurricane with just 2xShVAK or with the 4 ourtermost 0.303s left in when the ShVAK and UB machineguns were installed)... I don't see a problem with such aircraft as collector's planes - especially if it gives the developers a good return that can help support the base game.
  15. Il-2 1946 had some engines separable... my first experience was installing the demo (bought on CD) on a friends computer and flying with keyboard - I used a 37mm cannon to blow the engine off a Fw-189... my mind was blown. Things not covered in previous dev updates: - The DM patches impact on FC (can one shoot through canvas? can one do so with the lewis from below)? - The experience of fighting in a machine-gun armed fighters (I-16, MC.202)? - The impact of the fragmentation model on rockets? - The impact of the fragmentation model on low altitude bomb release (can larger pieces of shrapnel hit you further out? Or does it lower the safe deliver altitude)? - Whether radial engines are expected to become slightly more durable than piston? (I'm only mentioning these things in case you guys are looking for additional stuff to cover in Dev updates while waiting for the patch).
  • Create New...