Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

432 Excellent

1 Follower

About VBF-12_KW

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oregon, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. With regard to API and whether it would really improve .50 caliber performance in game, we don't have to guess. There's real life test data on those rounds, and I did some extensive testing of the .50s in game and their ability to light fires back in 4.006 right after the new damage model dropped. Testing of M1 Incendiary and M8 Armor Piercing Incendiary against German style tanks showed an average of around 1.5 hits to cause a fire. Against the G14 and K4 in game I got averages of 58.4/79.3 & 49.8/78.7 hits to ignition from the side/rear. Against the A8 and D9 it was 49.9/2
  2. Only a single 109 from JG26 - there were numerous other Luftwaffe units involved in those battles that day. JG6, JG11, JG27, and JG76 for certain and possibly others as well that just didn't claim any victories. Unfortunately there is no complete breakdown of German losses over that period that I'm aware of. Caldwell does give some overall numbers for II. Jagdkorps and 3rd Jagddivision fighters for the Market-Garden period with losses of 83 and 109 respectively (in this book). Reports from some 357th Fighter Group pilots support the idea that there was a huge furball that day in
  3. A good link going in depth about how octane numbers themselves weren’t particularly meaningful: https://www.calum-douglas.com/engine-testing/
  4. I did a couple test runs and I don't think it's bugged like it was before - various structural elements of the plane can be damaged, not just the pilot like last time. This appears to just be the current DM "working normally". This of course raises the question of why we've had 10 months of this baloney.
  5. People love to make all sorts of claims and guesses as to why the US used the guns they did. Here's some actual period material on the subject. Report of Joint Fighter Conference page 169 page 170 Mustangs had gone into service with RAF in 1942 armed with 4x20mm. The P-38 had been in service with a 20mm since 1942. If the USAAF had wanted 20mm's they could have mounted them. The fact of the matter is they didn't, for reasons discussed in the text.
  6. As was posted above, the current pure AP .50 belt is ahistorical. The current modeling of .50s in game is objectively incorrect due to the ammo selection available. There are possibly (even probably) other issues, which this thread points to. Since the correct ammunition is impossible or impractical due to engine limitations or developer resources or whatever other reasons people care to guess at, wouldn’t it then make sense to find a quick and easy tweak that’s already supported in the game that would at least give a reasonable facsimile of the correct ammo? Or should we stick w
  7. Plenty of us play with icons turned off completely (particularly in MP). That being said, it would be nice to have an “intermediate” icon setting as a bridge between the two extremes. Maybe just a spotting aid with no range or coalition/aircraft type info.
  8. It’s also worth pointing out that while a kludge AP/HE belt wouldn’t be historically correct, the current pure AP is also historically incorrect.
  9. Some further quotes from the book I linked above: "Seeber had confirmed what had been suspected for some time - that the octane system could not be used to accurately determine how much power could be extracted from a fuel in a real engine." "... the crucial point was the difference in performance between iso-octane rich fuels used by the Allied nations (containing paraffins) and high aromatic content German synthetic fuels. The synthetic aromatic fuel gave exceptional engine performance, but only at low air temperature and at fuel-rich air mixtures. Not only
  10. Just look at it as a bomb damage assessment mission.
  11. First off, the new system is amazing! I believe that right now it just gives you the nearest activity (essentially whatever zone alarm is going off closest to you). Would it be possible to have 3 different types of requests - basically a request for a ground target that routes you to a close target that is being attacked by your team (or just points you to the closest target if nothing has been struck yet) - a CAP request that gives you a defensive area to patrol (closest recent enemy trigger in your territory etc) - and an offensive CAP request that points you to friendlies needi
  12. I do sometimes wonder if having the kill feed off is one of the secrets of FVP’s recent success - much easier on the ego.
  13. Specifically, September 2nd and later, AND it has to be a US plane (set in the mission editor). An RAF Mustang won't get a G-suit no matter what date you set it to.
  14. Do you have a dataset from in game that bears this out? Because that's a BIG assumption to make otherwise. Having looked through a LOT of this stuff, and having spent dozens of hours testing on AI targets both flying and static, I just don't see this. Exceedingly low round counts for a given kill can impact your average quite a bit as well. An example. A second example. Both of those look pretty good, and are some of the lowest round count kills I got that month. In both cases I misjudged my bounce and rammed the target - the guns didn't actually kill it (there was one other
  15. Based on a lot of testing and stat gathering this is simply not the case. @Zruty was kind enough to scrape some data out of the stats from both CombatBox and FVP, and it takes at least 60 hits on average to score a kill with .50s right now in MP (as compared to 45, prior to the big DM update back in April) . My own experience hand crunching those numbers, as well as spending a bunch of time shooting static targets and recording the data (which I submitted as a bug report many months ago) agrees with this. That's about 15 seconds of fire from a P-51 with an average pilot hitting at 5%. For
  • Create New...