Jump to content

71st_AH_Yankee_

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 71st_AH_Yankee_

  1. The only real issue with the P-38 is the fragility of the elevator. Any hit will make the whole thing pop off and result in a kill. I believe this is due to how the game implements control surface damage: past a certain threshold, the whole surface is counted as destroyed and is severed. The problem is that when that control surface is a large target AND is the only such surface, this automatically results in a kill with very little chance of survival. By comparison, every other plane except the P-38 possesses TWO elevators, so while shooting one off is almost certainly a mission kill, it is not instant death and there is always the possibility to react and escape or even keep fighting. But in the case of the P-38, losing that one surface is fatal, and its durability also appears to be extremely low for a surface this size (though I wouldn't be surprised if bombers have a similar issue with their large surfaces, but it's not as critical as they have another one on the other side of the plane). As such, the solution probably should be one of the below: 1- Increase the durability of the elevator so it doesn't pop off on the slightest hit. This is a large, reinforced surface that can bear pretty large pressures. I'm pretty sure it wasn't built to snap off so easily. 2- Update the model so that the elevator is composed of two sections that move as one. That way, if it takes damage only half of it pops off instead of losing the whole thing. 3- The ideal solution, but likely the hardest: improve the DM so include more effective partial control surface damage, that can have bits ripped off without losing the whole thing. Thank you.
  2. I personally don't even uninstall it until the new version comes out. I just stop using my zoom commands (aside from the in-game one). Once the update comes out, I use uninstall.bat and install the new one, and it works (uninstall.bat does not delete your settings, so they're intact when you install the new version).
  3. It's still useful as a general guide for the axis of fire. I've got no problem with deflection shooting, but the gyro still helps. I just set it once and then just use an imaginary line between the static and moving sights, and because of my experience in deflection shooting I know roughly where on that line to put my target. Very useful guide. Sadly, my beloved P-38 doesn't have one. 😕
  4. Out of jealousy of the 110, I am permanently strapping one of my ground crew to the back of my P-38. I'll even give him a wrench to bang the nacelle with whenever he spots someone sneaking up on my six.
  5. Agreed. I'd say the apparent "doubling down" on AI only mediums for the allies is my only real disappointment with this announcement. I can only hope that this means they are planning on doing flyable collector's edition for those bombers. The omission is too glaring otherwise.
  6. It's a saaaad Spitfire. The basset hound of Spitfires.
  7. Ultimately I have two wishes that go along with this update: 1- The allies need a flyable medium bomber. B-25 or B-26 need to be crewable. If not part of this update, then as collector's edition. C47 would be nice as well, but the lack of a western medium bomber is an issue. 2- I hope the P-47 receives some love as they do the razorback version. The DM in particular is extremely weak, the opposite of what it should be for this aircraft, especially the engine (which is significantly less robust than the merlins or allisons). Adding a 150 octane mod to both razorback and bubble canopy would also be helpful. Otherwise, looking good!
  8. I'm holding out hope for B-25 and B-26 and C-47 as flyable collector's aircraft. I'd pay good money.
  9. It's the usual bias at work. We all get it at some point or another: your target takes a ridiculous amount of hits before going down, and you end up focusing on that more than the time you set a plane on fire with a single golden BB. Having flown the mustang, it doesn't feel any more resilient than my other ride, with the exception of the P-47 which has a ridiculously weak engine (I'm never managed to nurse a damaged engine back home in it). The P-38's elevator is also pretty weak, but it's a huge target so I don't know if that's realistic or not (it may be a function of how the game handles control surface damage).
  10. Really it's little different from flying P-40 on the eastern front. Fortunately most fights aren't 1 on 1s, and there's plenty of options when you come in with energy in a fight already in progress.
  11. Personally I think it is an impressive display of core strength by our pilots. The Right Stuff indeed.
  12. It's a bigger round, more energy, less charge but more shrapnel, and so on. It was historically a very effective weapon.
  13. In my opinion no, we do not need a G meter. We already do get feedback when Gs are being pulled, and beyond that its only a question of experience to learn what maneuvers lead to excessive Gs or not. Eventually you get the hang of it. The only factor that is not quite within our control is the pilot fatigue level: that is something we have no feedback on, though even then you can learn to pick up when you should stop pulling Gs and give your pilot time to rest.
  14. To be fair, most airplanes have a manifold pressure regulator, so that MP stays the same relative to your altitude if you keep the same throttle position. Or rather, that's as long as you stay at an altitude your supercharger or turbo can maintain pressure, then it starts to fall off. The P40, however, and I _think_ the A20, do not have this regulator, and so you have to constantly fiddle with your throttle to maintain manifold pressure (increase throttle as you climb, and vice versa).
  15. I was using the P40 and P39 as an example of how a weaker fighter can beat better airplanes, by fighting with an E advantage. Re-read my post, please. Secondly, all Yaks are inferior to their contemporary 109s/190s opponents. The only thing the Yaks do well at is sustained turns, but since they are outclassed where it matters (speed, climb, dive, basically anything in the vertical), the 109s/190s maintain the initiative and possess a decisive advantage. Energy is king, always. As I wrote, red can still do well since this is a tactical simulator: eventually the 109s/190s need to come play on the deck to take out those pesky bombers (or defend their own bombers)... which is why even planes like the P40 and P39s can do quite well, despite being completely outclassed in every way.
  16. I see a lot of strange posts about this, particularly about the "Expert" visibility. Like claims of things coming in and out of sight and so on, while Expert is on. The thing about Expert visibility (that is, with Alternate Visibility turned off), is all it mostly does is remove the 10k bubble that used to exist. There's literally NO WAY that the "Expert" setting can be worse than what we had before these visibility changes were released at all. In short, the new "Alternate Visibility = Off" option is a direct improvement over the old system. The 10k bubble is gone. That's a GOOD thing. It seems to me that any claim that now visibility is worse than it was before the big patch (that introduced visibility changes) are more of a reaction to having experienced the Alternate Spotting and enjoying it so much that going back to a more limited visibility (even if less limited than before) feels worse than how it was before the changes were introduced at all. Now, Alternate Visibility, on the other hand, DOES have a bunch of issues with it. Weirdness with zooming, things popping out of existence at a certain range, contacts appearing to be floating in midair (when in fact they were crashed/landed aircraft being rendered a massive distance away, but inflated to look much bigger). There are definitely bugs or glitches with that setting that can be problematic, but I can also see how some people can prefer that mode. But let's not pretend that "Expert" is worse visibility than before. It's not, it's factually better, with the 10k bubble finally removed. Whether or not Alternate is better is very subjective and depends on what people are looking for in this sim, but "expert" mode is definitely an improvement over what we had before the last big update.
  17. I definitely would go for the Spit XIV. Until and unless we go Battle of Britain, it would nicely complete the Spitfire lineup, and give us the ultimate wartime expression of that beloved airframe (just like we have the 109 and 190 equivalents).
  18. Going to echo the previous tail damage bit, probably related to a tailstrike due to breaking too hard (the nose gear rebounds something fierce). But I've flown the P-38 extensively, including in many intense dogfights, and I've never lost a tail that wasn't due to enemy fire.
  19. Not quite. There's a LOT more nuance in the game than the specs page lets us believe. For example, a lower combat setting can last for an hour.
  20. I hope so as well. It's the apex of the wartime service Spitfires, and it would be great to get it. It would complete the Spitfire lineup, just like the 109 and 190s have the equivalent.
  21. I can assure you, this is false. Come in at a LW from any kind of long 6 position, and you will not come out of there in any good shape. I've been pilot sniped many times, and lots my engines countless times. And the Ju87 is a tank with a nasty, nasty turret. And there's plenty of times I got pegged and had to break off even when doing sweeping passes at bombers. Turrets and their gunners are very effective, for all factions, especially when they start slinging .50s. Additionally, I'm not sure what your point is when you state "you can shred a 111 with the .50s" as if that was a sign of weakness. Of course you can, they're .50s! And there's six of them! That will shred anything. Sure, 1 or 2 of them aren't that great (but enough to take out fighters), but stack enough of them on each wing and it's just about the best firepower on the soviet side short of the LaGG's 23mm, or the P-39's 37mm. Let's not pretend this is evidence for the weakness of LW bombers. It's evidence that .50s are bloody good weapons, nothing more. Now, in general I'd say that the field is more equal when it comes to bombers and attack aircraft, and in some places the soviets may even have an edge. But the LW certainly has some strong contenders in the bombing department, as has already been stated. The biggest bomb loads and good high altitude performance are advantages not to be scoffed at. And before the P-38, the 110 (especially the G-2) was unique in the entire lineup: an actually effective attack fighter.
  22. Interestingly, it's possible to extend timers by going to a lower setting than the max of a given rating. For example, from what I can see, on the P-51 if you go 2850 RPM and 54" mp, you actually have an hour of combat power. That rating matches the max combat rating of the Spit IX (without the 150 octane fuel).
  23. I prefer the P-51, mostly because I like its image as the USAAF's small nimble fighter. Basically the american equivalent to the Spitfire, the 109, and the Yak. But overall I prefer the P-38. Amazing machine, and surprisingly effective in a dogfight. Turned many a bounce in that beauty.
  24. It'd be a lot easier to take those claims seriously if the poster didn't sound like a troll so much...
×
×
  • Create New...