Jump to content

oc2209

Members
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

75 Excellent

About oc2209

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. While I agree that it's unwise to infer too much about the 152's capabilities based on one combat account, I also wouldn't call 500 hours a raw recruit. German rookies at this same time had about 200 hours. Now that's worthless. I think British training would have been adequate enough to teach the basics of sustained turning. The truth is, most late-war designs were broadly competitive with each other; and even older designs could be effective in the hands of experienced pilots. Where everything falls apart, is the expectation that any one design would have overcome the fundamental deficiencies of the Luftwaffe. No plane, including the Me-262 put into production 6 months earlier than it was--no plane was going to make a dent in the overwhelming Allied numbers and coordination. This is related to a point I made in another discussion. People commonly refer to the Mustang as a 'war winning' plane. No, it wasn't. It was an overkill plane, that marginally expedited the already terminal decline of a dying military (Germany's). The Allied bombing campaign could have broken the Luftwaffe's back with only P-47s as escorts, simply because by late '43 and the beginning of '44, Allied tactics and organization had been perfected, and paired with massive numbers of planes and well-trained pilots. The exact opposite was true for the Luftwaffe. They had declined so completely, their average formation couldn't even maintain the finger-four. They had to fly line abreast because that's all the rookies could handle. They were a joke. The resistance they put up was token compared to the volume of catastrophic damage being dealt by the Allies. The P-51 was no more instrumental in defeating Germany (or even dramatically shortening the war--maybe by a few months at most), than an earlier introduction of the Me-262--or any other wonder-weapon--would have been instrumental in defeating the Allied bombing campaign. No one plane, on either side, was going to dramatically change the course of the war after 1943. Logistics is all that matters in war; and the Allies laid the foundation for winning the war of logistics by 1942. The rest of the time was simply waiting for all the pieces to fall into place. Obviously heroism and skill were still needed on the Allies' part--I'm not selling them short. But skill doesn't mean sh** if there aren't logistics to back it up.
  2. Ha, I respectfully disagree. I kind of like the distinctive Hawker tail shapes. They're virtually unchanged all the way back to their biplane designs. Take a good look at the Hawker Hart, for instance, and I think you'll see a pretty strong resemblance to the Hurricane in both the tail and nose. It's a retro look, but again, one I rather like. In terms of other planes that aren't known for their looks, I think the P-47's a pretty damn fine looking plane. The wing shape, the tail shape; and the razorback is a little more aggressively attractive than the bubble canopy. Just as an example of how subjective aesthetics are, I've always thought the Zero was... not quite ugly, but certainly dull. The wing shape is nothing special, the canopy is too heavily framed to look sleek, and the stubby, tiny radial engine is just all kinds of meh.
  3. Yeah, I don't get the hostility either. I guess because the OP comes off as a Luftwaffe fanboy. It's not like there's any real 'danger' of the devs putting most of these planes in the game, anyway. This is all speculative and wishful thinking. As for the Horten, I omitted mentioning that because it never really flew in combat. Arguably the Do-335 didn't either, but it was at least flown in the vicinity of enemy planes. Also, it's an important distinction that the Allies were able to test the Do-335, while no one ever flew a Ho 229 after the war. Even the Germans only flew it once before it crashed, if memory serves. I would draw a hard line on only including planes that either saw combat (even if only a single sortie), or were at a stage of development so far along that, had the enemy not been a laughable shadow of its former self (in the case of Germany and Japan in their last few months), the planes certainly could and would have been used in combat. So that would encompass designs like the Bearcat as well. I'd really like to fly that. Anywho, to wrap up my above point: the Do-335 was ready for combat, while the Ho-229 was not. Well, presumably there'd be an option to use the shorter wing variant of the 152 at low altitudes, which would make the 152 much more similar (and most likely slightly improved) to the 190D's low-mid altitude performance. I forget how many variants were planned, but knowing the Germans, it was at least 3-5 right out the gate. If the war had gone on another year, there'd probably be 10 variants.
  4. Of course; planes like the Yak-3 have to be put in the sim first. But the intriguing thing about end-of-war German designs is that while they were objectively stupid from a practical perspective, they are perfect for flight sims and video games. They're weird looking, weird flying, and typically had powerful armament. By my standards at least, they're a lot more fun than the sensible, practical designs that most other nations were fielding at the same time. Another reason German designs get more attention is that unlike weird and impractical Allied prototypes, German oddities actually saw service or were put into limited production. The Allies didn't have the dire need to put oddball designs into production; and arguably, the Allies also had more common sense than the Germans. Thus 99% of odd Allied designs died in prototype stages, so 'what-iffing' with them is less enjoyable for the armchair aviation historian. The only reason even more of the late war German designs weren't produced and flown wasn't for lack of trying; it was mainly because German industry was in disarray and fuel supply was too far gone to train pilots. Much like the way the Japanese would have produced probably dozens of A7M Reppus (the Zero's successor) had the factory not been destroyed. I'd love to fly an A7M in a sim (assuming there was enough technical data to support its inclusion, which of course will never be the case). The main reason end-of-war designs are so appealing (to me, at least) is that they represent the absolute pinnacle of wartime piston design. Trying to include rare plane types from early or mid war is subjectively boring by comparison, because the performance of these designs will always be obsolete within a year or two. Only at the very end of the war (or a little beyond) do you get dream match ups involving aviation design titans, like who would win between an A7M and a Bearcat, or a Do-335 and a Tempest II. Again, I know I'm in pipe-dream territory here. I'm just saying why I think planes like the Ta-152 are appealing. It was Tank's final evolution of the design, and not the stopgap that the Fw-190D proved to be. The 190D might be a better all-around plane... but I'm still curious to see Tank's 'baby' as he intended it to be.
  5. To have the Ta-152 in the game is very unlikely. Regardless of whether it 'deserves' to be in the game, there's probably no way to get an accurate damage and flight model for it. That said, I absolutely would want to fly it. I mean... more plane selection is always better, isn't it? I don't really care if the OP made this about multiplayer balance. Having the Ta-152 in the game would undeniably be a good thing for anyone who wants to fly as many WWII planes as humanly possible. There should also be the Do-335. Imagine the fun of using the ejection seat. And there should be the Me-163, just for glider enthusiasts if nothing else. The high probability of exploding randomly during rough landings, or having caustic vapors leak into the cockpit to literally dissolve the pilot--that doesn't need to be modelled in the game. I'd even vote for the He-162 to be in the game. Oh, and the He-219. Whether all of these planes saw much, or any, combat, is really not relevant. They were developed sufficiently to be operational by the end of the war, even if only operational in single-digit numbers in some cases. None of the planes mentioned are as speculative in nature as, say, the Ta-183. For the record, I'd also want any other nation's planes that barely entered WWII in time to be included in the game. A good example would be the F8F Bearcat. If we're going to make wishlists of things that'll never happen, might as well go all-out.
  6. Just stopping by to say I like the latest changes. I had grown accustomed to cleaning specks of dust off my screen regularly, to avoid confusing said dust motes with planes. So while I didn't think increased visibility was strictly necessary, I also don't mind the change at all; and I'm sure some people absolutely love it. The best part of this patch, for me, is that AI is more willing to shoot at you in turns and other maneuvers. It's just far better for immersion. Instead of missing me by miles, or not shooting at all, the AI gets uncomfortably close to hitting me now.
  7. I'm not picking on your post in particular, but I'm just jumping into this conversation at this point. My opinion is that, as this is a game/simulation, any system where you could directly affect the situation on the frontlines is open to great imbalance. I can shoot down an average of 4 planes per sortie in career mode; that's clearly more than any real pilot could manage to do, because this is a game and I have unfair advantages that real pilots didn't have (even with difficulty and realism set to max, or very nearly so). That means in 100 sorties (which could take about 3 months or less), I could destroy 400 planes by myself. Add that to whatever the friendly AI manages to kill, and you have a situation where an entire enemy sector should be effectively depopulated in the air. That would, in turn, have two major results: 1) You no longer encounter many/any enemy fighters on your flights. Boring. 2) You encounter only raw recruits to further pad your score. Boring. Because of the unfair advantages I have as a virtual pilot, I feel it's balanced that the enemy has the unfair advantage of limitless planes, supplies, and skilled pilots. I have no desire to change the movement of the frontline, or single-handedly save/destroy the Stalingrad pocket. This is a flight simulator, and I only want to test my ability to fly against the most competent AI the game can throw at me; and to do so within the structure of the career mode, because that demands a consistent performance to keep my precious averages up. Everyone else has different reasons for playing and different needs, of course. I simply outlined my own.
  8. Yeah, the fighter AI doesn't seem to shoot that much more accurately in hard mode (though it tends to bounce you better), but the defensive turrets get a noticeable boost in accuracy. You're damn lucky to not be instantly killed by defensive fire, if you get anywhere within 200m. That your plane takes engine damage on an attack pass is practically a given. At the absolute least, the AI will shoot up your wing just by passing within 300m of any gunner, from any angle. Needless to say, it's a bit too accurate at the moment. I find Pe-2s pretty dangerous as well. IL-2s can at least be gutted from below with some difficulty. What makes the IL-2 dangerous is the pilot's constant banking to give the rear gunner a greater field of fire. Thus even attacking from below isn't perfectly safe.
  9. oc2209

    37mm damage

    How not to do blood spatter effects: I always use The Departed as the most idiotic example of blood spatter possible. Seriously though, a little blood visible on the canopy or on the pilot himself, would be a good, useful, visual indicator of whether you should disengage your target. I have often seen a pilot slumped over, only to later find they revived and fly on normally.
  10. I've never thought of using the 190D on half fuel. Mainly because I've never had trouble flying it. How many different 190 variants do you own? If you're stalling on the A3 or A5, you're probably over-controlling. I'd say the same for the D. The only really vicious stall/spinner is the A8, in my mind. My only advice for the D would be to keep your speed over 200mph (sorry, I don't pay attention to kph) while turning, keep your throttle up, and enter the turns cleanly. By which I mean, start from a level attitude, roll to 90 degrees as near as you can, and then enter the turn. That's important in any plane, but probably more so in the 190.
  11. Do you prefer the early Fw-190 with extra wing guns, or without? I haven't tried the A3 with the guns, because I like to turn too much in it. Regardless, 13 kills is certainly a good ammo-per-kill ratio. As for the 262, I own it but strangely have no compulsion to fly it in career (mainly because it can't dogfight). Were those 11 kills on hard mode? I can't imagine the laser AI gunnery would be neutralized by the 262's speed. If they were on hard mode, I'll have no choice but to attempt to match it. Emphasize 'attempt.'
  12. Sure, I'll keep an eye on it. I'm only about 5 sorties into the career, but now that you mention it, I don't recall seeing any kills made on AI sorties; so you might be on to something.
  13. The Fw-190 A-3 is a much better turn-fighter than the later 190s (barring the D, of course). It's more maneuverable in general (than later A-series), but turning is the most notable difference in my mind. You still won't consistently out-turn a Yak, but you can easily turn inside an La-5 (in career mode; I'm not talking about multiplayer). Like others have mentioned, I also fly routinely without the extra 20mm in the outer wings. They're totally unnecessary offensively, and the extra weight is never good for agility. Here, I'll provide some graphic evidence of the A-3's capabilities (I'm the second plane from the left): This sortie was a troop cover mission. I flew in circles for 20 minutes with no action. Got the 'mission complete' message. My flight went home. I stayed behind (because I know from experience that enemies spawn after the 'mission complete' message). A few minutes later, 2 Sturmoviks spawn nearby. I shoot them down. Moments later, 6 La-5s descend from altitude to attack me. To my surprise (I only recently began my A-3 career), I find that after a few circuits, I can turn inside an La-5. Generally, I enter the turn at combat power, then after a few circuits, when I appear to be catching up to the La-5, I pull hard while applying emergency power. No shakes, no spins like a fatter Focke-Wulf would do. A tiny bit of wind buffeting noise, but nothing to be concerned over. In this fashion, I shoot down 4 La-5s. I'm only credited with 3, stupidly, because 1 crash lands without breaking up. The other 2 La-5s collided with each other while circling me. So, yeah. That's what an A-3 can do, in career, on hard mode. Admittedly, I have a harder time with Yaks. But they're still not impossible to shoot down, even if you don't know any tricks besides turning, like me.
  14. I'm surprised, in a P-47 career, that you don't take losses this severe every sortie. The P-47 is, in my opinion, the absolute worst AI-piloted fighter. What's your difficulty level? That makes a bit of a difference too. On hard level, I've lost my entire flight before (in any kind of plane), but usually in smaller flights. Much more likely to have 3/4 of your flight die than 7/8. That said, there's also context. For example, on a sortie that barely takes you more than 10 miles away from your base, it's possible enemies will still be in the area while your flight begins to land. That's the most likely scenario in which my entire flight is shot down. Oftentimes I'm out of ammo by that point, so I can only sit and watch the morons be shot down while in a landing pattern. The only real defense in such cases is to simply quit the mission mid-air to end the slaughter. That said, I do think we should temper our criticism of the AI for the following reasons: First, the AI cannot be bounced. There's no way to surprise it, no matter how you approach it. I think it is possible for individual planes to be bounced (that are returning to their base alone), but when in a flight, it seems impossible to catch the entire group unawares. By contrast, in real life, I often read pilot's accounts of their incredulity as they shoot down several planes from a formation, only to elicit no reaction from the survivors. So by and large, I'd wager the situational awareness of the average-to-low-skill human pilot was worse than the AI here. Secondly, the poor evasive action the AI takes once it's fired upon. This is a complex issue with a lot of variables. When the AI stops turning and begins to bob and weave, and it cuts throttle and tries to force you to overshoot, it's actually quite skilled in that regard. Far superior to an average human pilot (forget the crap people pull in multiplayer by abusing the G-model). People criticize the constant turning the AI does, but think back to all the real gun camera footage you've ever seen. In my experience, the targets are rarely taking extreme evasive action. Typically their movements appear relatively lazy compared to what the AI does (meaning the real pilots were probably novices). At least the AI forces you (unless it's in a P-47 or other poor-turner) to almost black out as you follow it through tight turns and diving loops. When you take all of that into consideration, I'd argue the AI isn't that bad. It is contextually awful in some cases, but its overall performance is adequately realistic. I think what could really improve the AI, is not necessarily making it 'smarter' overall, but teaching it to handle each plane according to the plane's weaknesses and strengths. And I'm not saying to do this in-depth. I mean simple things, like making the Focke-Wulf AI utilize its roll rate. Make the P-47 AI stop turning unless going over a certain speed; the P-47's pretty much only good for one tight turn at a high speed, and then it shouldn't be turned again until speed's built up. I realize a comprehensive reworking of all the AI to match every plane in detail, is asking too much in terms of development time. But certain little tweaks could, and should, be added for the planes that suffer the most while under AI control.
  15. Okay, two-fer-one deal. I've been playing too much lately, if that wasn't obvious. I'm bouncing around all my careers instead of sticking to one. To start, this is easily my best kill. A Spitfire IX is turning in front of the sun, chasing one of my AI wingmen. I'm in a 109G-14. I'm nearly blinded, but fire a short burst in an attempt to scare him off (this sometimes works, or seems to). This is the result: I turned my HUD on to check my ammo count. 20 rounds spent on a blind shot. It's also funny how your wingmen instantly know when an enemy pilot's dead, to say 'target destroyed.' My second screen is in my Yak-9T. I've been shot up pretty badly, and I have poor control over my left wing, which is constantly trying to drop. I land with gear and flaps down (which I know in real life is stupid, but I like to challenge myself in these instances; belly landings are too easy). This is the result: I'm pretty sure my vertical stabilizer was not shot off before I landed. I pitched forward and saw nothing but dirt (I don't have eye tracking or VR), then seemingly spun around like so (hence the wheels leaving tracks in the wrong direction). Did my plane somersault, and that's what ripped my stabilizer off? The landing gear look kind of floppy and half-broken too. I can't quite explain what happened.
×
×
  • Create New...