Jump to content

71st_AH_Yankee_

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    661
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

414 Excellent

1 Follower

About 71st_AH_Yankee_

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

841 profile views
  1. I think this is the key here to recognizing that there is a problem with the currently implementation of the M2, or AP ammo in general. Basically, if the sim was a reflection of reality, the allies would have switched to HE ammo for the M2. While we can argue the USAAF was trying to get 20mm guns and had logistical issues there, ultimately the real difference in the sim mostly comes down to the effects of AP vs HE ammo. If the P-51 had only 2 guns that fired .50 HE ammo, it would likely be more effective than what we have now. If all 6 guns used HE ammo, it would be an order of magnitude deadlier. That's probably not how it was in reality, and so a fix is needed. Likely a combination of beefing up aerodynamic effects of AP ammo, toning down HE effect a bit, and then of course the eventual addition of API ammo for the M2. In the meantime, however, it certainly makes things a lot more difficult for anyone flying the M2-only planes, and plays a large role in the lopsided kill totals we see online.
  2. No, they are not. They _can_ be effective, when you land a good burst at convergence at center mass. But you can say the same about every single weapon in the sim, including .303s. Otherwise you need to depend on luck (you need to sever a wing spar, a control cable, and so on). Learn to shoot is a terrible response, because by that logic a .22 pistol is just as powerful as a .45. Just learn to shoot! By comparison, HE weapons will quickly cripple a target even if nothing vital is hit, through aerodynamic damage. Your quick mission scenario will easily demonstrates how disproportionally effective HE weapons can be by comparison. There IS something wrong with how AP and HE ammo are modeled, and of course there's the lack of API ammo. You can tell this simply by looking how effective .50s using HE ammo are in this game right now. If the P-51 or P-40 was loaded with HE .50 ammo instead of AP, they would be several times more lethal than it currently is, perhaps even by an order of magnitude. If that was a reflection of reality, you can be absolutely certain the allies would have used HE ammo. No, correction is indeed needed. Whether it is that AP ammo needs to have a stronger aero impact, HE's aero impact needs to be lessened, or API needs to be introduced to bridge the gap, something needs to be done. Most likely all of the above are needed, to varying degrees. Until then, when an allied pilot shoots down an enemy plane with their .50s, they're succeeding while playing hard mode.
  3. Ultimately, to me the best argument about _something_ being wrong with the 50s is simple: if you were to replace the AP ammo in the game with HE .50 cal ammo (like the Yaks use), the USAAF planes would be far, far more lethal. A p-51 with 6 .50s shooting HE ammo would be monstrous. And if that was a reflection of reality, you can bet the allies would have made the switch. Of course, it's not a reflection of reality. That simple "thought experiment" is enough to show that there is a problem, and something should be done. AP aero effect should be boosted, or HE effect toned down, or API ammo introduced to bridge the gap. Or, more likely, a combinatino of the above. And, of course, there is the fact that in a historical discourse that has been replete with all parties being quick to point out the follies and failures of each side, comments that USAAF airplanes were poorly armed and had significant trouble shooting down their targets (compared to the other air forces) are curiously absent. In a world where Ronson M4s and Krupp Stalh is everywhere, that absence is notable. Thank you.
  4. Because the nation that basically won WW2 through logistics absolutely could not have resolved procurement issues for 20mm if it had wanted to, right? If the .50s were as weak as they are currently depicted in the sim, you can rest assured that the USAAF would have found a way to obtain 20mm weapons from its allies. If it could get engines from the british, getting 20mm cannons would not have been beyond their capabilities. But in truth that is a complete red herring. The issue is not the gun, nor its caliber. The .50 is fine: it's got pretty good ballistics and range and so on. The problem is with the modeling of ammunition effects: HE ammo is king in the sim right now. As previously written, the USAAF could have made its fighters far more lethal if it had just stripped all but two of its machine guns (that's right, gone down to just 2 .50s) and loaded them with HE ammo. Heck, give us 4 .50s with HE ammo, and we'd be back to the pre-DM update lethality on USAAF fighters, let alone 6 or 8. Since the USAAF didn't do so, there is no doubt that there's something iffy with the the current DM (and let's not be absurd by suggesting that the USAAF couldn't have procured HE ammo if it had wanted to). Either HE effects are too strong, AP effects are too weak (particularly aerodynamic impacts, as discussed by Barnacles), or API ammo is what would bridge the lethality gap. Or, more likely, a combination of all of the above.
  5. I'd go one better and say that WE certainly would know today if there was such a disparity. Think of all the ways the allied were actually deficient, all those problems they dealt with, the disadvantages they operated under in multiple arenas. Historians have harped on these and highlighted them for decades now. Whatever flaws the allied had, we definitely heard about them by now and people with and without agendas have pounced on them ad finitam... and never have we heard about the M2s somehow being a major deficiency for allied planes. Indeed, quite the contrary, the USAF kept on using the .50s for quite some time yet. Why even when they glued two mustangs together they thought 6 .50s was good enough. Whereas, if the current state of the sim was even REMOTELY close to reality, the allies could have just put two .50s in the P-51D, loaded it with HE .50 ammo (which absolutely could have been procured by the USAAF), and would have a much deadlier aircraft than what we currently have.
  6. My thanks to the dev team for all the hard work, and indeed for finding solutions to the VR issue. The new zoom is excellent, and I'm confident once the kinks are ironed out this will restore true parity between the 2D and VR base. I had no issues with the new zoom last night, and it truly is wonderful. I feel like I'm flying on my monitor again, except my neck hurts. It's great! Thanks again to the team, this is truly a win for everyone involved, I feel.
  7. Good post. And to be clear, that IS the only issue. 2D players have a significantly better zoom provided by the game. This means they have an Observation edge over VR players, and it is baked in the game itself. Thus, VR players are inherently at a disadvantage over 2D players, regardless of display resolution. In a competitive setting, it relegates them to being second tier, because at LEAST half the fight is about position and decision making before engaging in the first place. There's a reason Observation is the first step of the OODA loop. That's what the mod rectified. Granted, it had functionality that went too far, BUT those had been disabled and removed in the latest version of the mod. Thus, the mod would remain a valuable tool that serves to remove this inequality between VR and 2D players... and that's why people really want this mod. So we can play the game competitively, while knowing we are no longer at an inherent disadvantage.
  8. Agreed. There's enough FUD being sown on this issue already, we don't need more unintentionally created. Beyond that, the problem is that the game provides better Observation tools for 2D players than for VR players. Namely, the 2D zoom is better by a massive margin than the VR zoom, and thus the game favours 2D players who have an inherent built-in advantage over VR players. That is what the mod rectified, and that is what VR players are asking be corrected (either by a mod or by fixing the inequality in the game itself). Thank you.
  9. This has nothing to do with hardware. Yes, people with better monitors have an edge. Likewise, people with a better VR headset have an edge over those with poorer ones. BUT 2d players have an inherent _built in_ advantage over VR players: Their zoom is better than the VR zoom. This is how the sim is built: it provides greater Observation capabilities to 2D players over VR players. That's just a fact, and is what the zoom mod rectified. If the mod is not allowed (and let's be clear, we don't know this yet, all we have is hearsay. Lefuneste is still upating the mod), then the game developers are essentially relegating VR players to having objectively worse observation capabilities than 2D players. Again, this has nothing with resolution, VR displays, bigger monitors. NOTHING. It's all about the game providing a better zoom to 2D players than what they grant VR players. No matter how good anyone's hardware is, it will _never_ overcome that fact. Because of this, if the mod that fixes that is not allowed or the zoom imbalance rectified, then VR players will always be relegated to second class.
  10. Awesome man, thanks for the update. Really appreciate it. It's also worth noting, as I understand it, the new version will have the 2d zoom disabled, so concerns about the mod are being addressed at the same time. That being said, you noted in your OP that the .cfg was updated. Is that to give the best visibility settings after the new patch, or something else? Thank you.
  11. Also, to be clear, here is why having a viable zoom (either natively or in a mod) in VR is absolutely important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop Note that the first element of the OODA loop is "Observe". Currently, in VR, without the zoom you cannot properly observe, as observation includes _identifying_ the contacts. Without that information, you cannot effectively engage the rest of the loop. So, unless VR is condemned to be a novelty with no place in serious MP play, this issue must be rectified. Either a viable zoom is implemented in-game, or a proper mod approved, or else IL-2 will relinquish its place as the best simulator for VR play. Thank you.
  12. Absolutely agreed. Indeed, without a better in-game VR zoom, or a mod that permits a better zoom in VR, I'm pretty much done flying.
  13. Except that shrapnel is not the major cause of aero damage of HE rounds. If that was the case, the mineshells would not be very effective at all, as the whole point of the mineshell is maximizing explosive through minimizing the shell casing. What makes the mineshells so effective in the current modeling is the explosive effect, and the large explosive charge, not the shrapnell. Granted, API has a much smaller explosive effect, indeed it's more of a conflagration than anything like a grenade blast, but there is still an effect. Against aircraft aluminium it would have some sort of effect on top of the bullet's kinetic impact (and any additional effects caused by oblique entry/tumble/what have you). And of course, it would definitely increase the chances of fires in general, as has been mentioned (that was the whole point, after all).
  14. Would need someone for what, exactly? I imagine the devs are the arbiters of such issues, and are the ones to demand proof, not us random posters. Concerning API effect not being modeled, Barnacles has heard it direct from one of the developers. No, I don't have a recording or empirical evidence of this conversation actually occurring. As for API itself being used, I don't have any specific sources. I've read of it in countless military history books and documentaries over many years, and I'm confident the devs are well aware of its existence and usage by the USAAF, and have access to actual first hand historical sources that document it. We're not under obligations to dig into the national archives for simple internet discussions, especially for a matter this benign and well known.
×
×
  • Create New...