Jump to content

Mauf

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

209 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

796 profile views
  1. .303 for long range, cannons only around convergence or very sure deflection shots. Use the 303 to plink and scare enemies. Make them evade or do something stupid which allows you to get in range for the cannons. The 303 is your tool for psychological warfare, the hispanos are for sealing deals. Choose your convergence for the hispanos, the 303 don't need to be perfectly converged, too little firepower to warrant offsetting the big hammers.
  2. Hey Storebror, I always thought of this behaviour as holes interacting with the airflow over the control surfaces, causing them to be pulled into deflection somewhat which gives this feeling of "overreacting" and oscillation when you counter that tendency. Basically, the control surface doesn't center correctly anymore. Instead, it goes into an equilibrium either slightly pulling up or pushing down, depending on where it centers. No idea if that behaviour is realistic, I bet some of the boffins can chime in on that.
  3. Heya MP, yes, the warthog stiffness is a real nuisance... or a huge blessing when you use an extension. What it is too much without, it is just right with. There was a way to mod it by removing the big centering spring and inverting the cap springs over the gimbal (so the cap presses down on the stick when the cover is put on) which ends up with a pretty noodly stick but workable. I advise against that as it might damage components over time. Do yourself a favour and get an extension because that will get you the max out of the great resolution the hall sensors afford you. And once that is done, get real dirty and do stuff like this:
  4. I remember a comparable discussion on the ATAG forums long ago about wing offs after hits and how likely they were. Some mad lad combed through all the historical gun cam footage and after action reports he could scrape together(and there really isn't a lot to begin with) and noticed the following: 1. Wing offs/wing folding mostly seemed to happen on 190s. 2. Wing offs/wing folding often seemed to coincide with explosions at the wing roots, probably ammo explosions. 3. This is corroborated by some after action reports that mention these wing root explosions /collapses on 190s (famous example being the 190 with the upfolded wings during the Y-29 Bodenplatte event). To the topic at hand, this event could very well be such an ammo cookoff combined with a nasty lag spike but the overall behaviour could be historical.
  5. You got to remember: hit explosion rendering happens client side, aka what your client thinks happens. Damage application happens server side, it doesn't know or cares what your client sees. So with common ping values applied, most hits we see here probably landed somewhat behind the pilots in server reality. That's sadly how things have to be. Client authorative hit calculation is a nightmare because it'll lead to even more perplexing behaviour and is ripe for cheating.
  6. I would say: "It's unfinished". Proper incendiary modelling is missing and from what I can gather about it, the AP behaves as AP should. I do hope the update comes sooner rather than later. LW had their time with anemic mineshells, now Red side has to tough it out with the lack of incendiaries.
  7. .50 cals aren't really big all things considered. Also the way cannon shells (especially mineshells) apply their destructive power greatly differs from AP bullets or incendiaries. The latter require a hit on something critical, the former can get away with rough area hits. So the difference between 1-5 hits for cannons and 45 hits from .50 caks is not unreasonable at all.
  8. The problem with curves is that they shift the problem to the extremes of the movement range. So if you apply a very aggressive curve, you have a very hard and jerky response at high deflection which almost instantly knocks you out if you slip into it and it increases the sensitivity at the low end as well, so you increase the problem of rising the Gs too quickly. You're correct about the stamina situation.
  9. Absolutely correct. What I don't want to see is a stamina bar and a G number indicator in the hud. Still, it's a quite the pickle to get right. Therefore: Patience. As I described, I think it's a problem that arises from a number of factors the devs can't really control (Desktop sticks and the 1G comfy chair without feedback device:). Maybe they'll rise the G-tolerance regeneration or they apply a curve to the G onset so we get a bit more wiggle room to work with. Question is how much they would be willing to deviate from documented tolerances.
  10. Tone does all the difference, let me try to explain: There's some strange interplay between the new pilot physiology modelling and the controls and the feedback we get about G-forces being incurred. Right now, it's quite hard (or rather, effectively impossible) to judge how much G-forces you apply to your pilot. The pilot grunting doesn't tell you how much you're piling on nor does it tell you how much of your pilots stamina you used up. This results in the much higher turn rate red planes easily exhausting their pilots without knowing. And once the pilot is sufficiently exhausted (which is rather quickly it seems), the turn rate of the plane is effectively similar to the turn rate of a 109 because blackout becomes the limiting factor and those limits are the same for both red and blue pilots. Arguments like "Learn and adapt" don't apply here since there's nothing to learn by. It's a lack of feedback. Ironically, thanks to the less sensitive 109 controls, you can skirt the blackout border much more effectively than in any red plane which often ends up in a slightly better turn rate for the 109. So in a nutshell, a historical disadvantage the 109 had (the rather mediocre turn rate and heavy controls at higher speeds) becomes an advantage now and red pilots are unable to leverage any turning advantage their planes might have (they're effectively digging their own grave by turning). Just to avoid any accusations (because we know that happens quite easily on this forum): I'm not for removing the new physiology model just that it's not in its final state yet. I think this is reflected in the numbers Chimango mentions. I hope this is a more levelheaded explanation of what his complaining is about.
  11. Only that some crucial information is not available to us, namely: How much G are we incurring on the pilot. The real pilots felt it quite directly and they probably had a good feeling for how far they could push themselves. 1G comfy chair doesn't do that. Without any form of feedback of how much G is being incurred (I'm not counting the pilot huffing here because it's not a measure of amount) nor what the pilots stamina is like, there is nothing to learn by frankly. So it's not a "git gud" issue in this case. There's info missing.
  12. True enough:) Still I find that the current implementation has some oddities that just don't chime well in my head. I've never read of pilots regularly "unloading" the Gs by hammering some negative Gs to pump some blood back into their heads and then continue turning and that this was a prerequisite for e.g. a Spitfire to maintain its turning advantage over the 109s. Not saying the new modelling is worse than the old just that it's probably not all golden yet. 1000 step journey and such.
  13. You can try something (be careful about it though) : When in the shower, squat down for 2-3 minutes in the warm water (which relaxes your muscles), then stand up quickly. You'll actually feel the effect of muscles not counteracting the sudden movement of blood going down. Do the same outside of the shower and you won't feel the same effect (cause your muscles aren't as relaxed). Don't overdo it though, people actually managed to knock themselves out by doing this in the shower:)
  14. It has to do with your vascular system actually adjusting to the high G. So if you ease into the higher Gs, the muscles around your blood vessels can react to the sacking blood and reduce the loss of oxygen rich blood better than if the G onset was sudden and the whole supply in the head suddenly goes south. So the effect does indeed exist. About the "oxygen storage", the brain virtually has none so the effect of oxygen lack starts within a few seconds already.
  15. The modelling itself is probably correct. What's a problem now is the interaction between the physiology modelling and the controls and their feedback (or the lack thereof). With how sensitive controls are, it's quite easy to smash the pilot with high G without realising it. Red planes, specifically the good turners, are particularly affected by this since even small stick deflections already cause a lot of Gs and it's hard to tell whether you're already murdering your stamina or not. There's also the problem of riding the border of blackout. I frankly don't believe a human pilot would be able to do it like we can in the game now.
×
×
  • Create New...