Jump to content

oc2209

Members
  • Content Count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by oc2209

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.'
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Alright, the P-38 is my clear favorite for American careers. I've put about 10 sorties into the P-51, and am indifferent to it. I've tried the P-47 in quick battles, and I'm not enough a masochist to try it in career. But in the P-38, my career sorties have gone like so: 3 kills on my first sortie, 5 on my second, 7 on my third. The concentration of the .50s in the nose is the clear difference between my performance in the P-51 and the P-38. I can take off a 109's wing with just the .50s in the '38, something I can't do in the '51. I've also gotten quite good at killing Fw-190 pilots with my .50s in deflection (because they're easier to out-turn than 109s, which are still relatively easy to out-turn while in the '38). The '38 has a remarkably light feel to it (note that I routinely drop flaps to about 15% while turning), and great aileron control at speeds approaching 400mph. Very happy with it overall. The only drawback: how anticlimactic it is to be done with medal hunting after 3 days; even faster than my British career. The Medal of Honor is a prettier medal than the Victoria Cross, though. Sorry, Vickie.
  12. Sounds like a very exciting sortie indeed. By all means, everyone should feel free to share any interesting sorties they want, regardless of kill count. I simply chose high scores because that was the easiest to quantify; and as such, it shows me how much progress I've made in learning aerial gunnery. I also like to compare scores because it shows inherent differences from pilot to pilot, and how some people can get a lot out of one plane, while others can't, etc. For example, I still can't dogfight in any Focke-Wulf aside from the D. I know what I should do, in theory; but putting it into practice is something else. Needless to say, I find the interrelation between individual pilot psychology and the unique flying and combat characteristics of each plane, quite fascinating. There, I just edited my opening post to be more expansive for people who want to talk about all kinds of sorties. Yeah, at face value, that could be true. I think it's mostly the 109's damage model more than anything else, though; and that might not be intentional. There also could be an issue with damage visualization not being accurately translated into the flight model. For instance, in that above screenshot of the damaged 109, its elevators are so shot up, it should get virtually no control out of them. I've seen photos of planes that were hastily sabotaged before an airbase was captured, and they were considered unflyable with less control surface damage than this 109 has. Even though the ailerons are still pretty clean, the giant holes in the wings should create a lot of turbulent flow, at least during maneuvers. Yet, this plane was still performing combat-level maneuvers in this condition. I'm not saying it should instantly crash, but it should definitely be gently coaxed back to base. Why it isn't trailing any kind of smoke anywhere is another mystery to me.
  13. Dammit. Now I have to stop pretending I have a mystical connection with the 109. I beat its 10 kill record with the Tempest. I didn't initially like the Tempest, but I've been flying so much lately that I finally learned wing-gun deflection by first becoming so experienced in nose-deflection. When I first started playing BoX, I was lucky to down 2 planes with the Tempest's 600 rounds of 20mm. In this last battle I exploded a 109 with my last 36 rounds of ammo. The breakdown of those 11 is 6 109G-14s, and 5 190A-8s. I got a Victoria Cross, a bar to my DSO, and a mention in despatches, just for the one sortie. Sadly, at only 44 career kills, it means I've got nothing left to look forward to aside from a few more bars to awards I already have. Way to encourage aces, British Empire. The Germans knew how to incentivize. With diamonds. It's worth mentioning that two friendly casualties in this sortie is exceptionally light (for hard mode). I noticed a sharp drop in casualties once I started to manually equip every plane in each flight with the boosted engine. It's also pertinent to admit that I botched this sortie twice before I got this result. I normally don't restart failed missions, but this one was exceptional because the enemy planes started entering the mission area (only a few minutes from my base) right after the sortie began. I often have to fly around in circles for 10-15 minutes before anything happens. So I really wanted to play this sortie all the way through if I could. First time, I started too low, was struggling to climb to chase a Fw, and was savagely bounced by a 109 (that I saw on my tail but stupidly misidentified). I wasn't killed, but my plane was definitely out of the fight. My second try, I climbed higher before meeting the enemy, shot down the lead Fw, but it exploded and bent my prop. Third time was the charm.
  14. It's my understanding that all cannons have either a mixed AP/HE composition, or all AP or all HE, as per your choice. I think German and Russian .50 caliber/13mm have mixed shells, while American .50 is only AP at the moment (which would go a long way in explaining why I don't like American guns). Are you also referring to the amount of tracer rounds mixed in with the ammo? I'm unsure of those details.
  15. Right, and as I said, I'm really not complaining. My kills per sortie nearly doubled after starting the 9T. That said, I'm still not the death-dealing murder machine I am in a 109F-4, G-6, or K-4. In terms of damage output inconsistencies, I'm starting to think the problem is on the 109's end, and not the Yak's 37mm. Besides what everyone else has said above, I'm also noticing clear differences in my Tempest career (which I just started in earnest last night). In the same sortie, I sometimes encounter both 109G-14s and Fw-190A-8s. The latter prove far easier to down in one pass, than the former; and in any number of ways: exploding, killing the pilot, tail shredding, etc. The only way I safely drop the 109 is by mid-wing detachment. If I had to guess just about my screenshot scenario, I'd say the 37mm struck the canopy directly. While I know each bullet/shrapnel isn't reflected 1:1 in the damage effects, you can see there are bigger holes in both the wing roots, and then the damage dissipates into little holes further out. So my guess is that the shrapnel radiated from the canopy area, but was somehow absorbed/negated by the canopy itself. That's how the pilot directly beneath it survived. In reality, I imagine a 37mm detonating anywhere near the cockpit would result in pilot soup. Something I wish Sturmovik would add: catastrophic instrument panel damage. More than just a few cracked dials. I feel like the whole cockpit needs to be torn up much more easily, both for immersion, and the very real inconvenience of losing functionality because a switch or wheel or crank is blown to pieces. Yeah, the hitbox theory makes sense. I'd say the 109's just as tough to take down in single player, so network issues can't be the only explanation.
  16. I do notice the smooth turns in the 9T. It feels like it's harder to overcorrect in it, as opposed to the Yak-1. No, not 3. Not in a fighter. A bomber might take 3 hits. I seem to recall reading a B-17 could barely take 3-5 30mm hits, and those were among the toughest planes ever built. According to one of my Osprey books (Yakovlev Aces of WW2), the author says the following: "The NS-37 proved a powerful weapon, needing only two hits at most to destroy virtually any type of enemy aircraft." If any single-engine fighter could take multiple 37mm strikes, I would bet good money on the P-47, the Hellcat, or the Corsair. Maybe throw in the Fw-190 or the Tempest/Typhoon for honorable mention. But the 109? That was never known as a robust design; and as one of the smallest planes of the war, it should be extremely susceptible to shrapnel from a large explosive shell, as the blast radius is much more likely to strike a vital area than in a physically larger plane. The 190 was smallish, but better armored and more heavily constructed. If any WWII plane should be consistently downed from one 37mm hit, it's the 109. And probably the Yak and the Zero, in terms of light construction. Beyond that (as my screenshot indicates), my point wasn't about the number of shells, but the location of the strike. The shell exploded with enough force and proximity to knock the canopy clear off (which it wouldn't do if the tail or wing was hit instead), yet did no damage to the engine or pilot. I call that... kind of strange.
  17. oc2209

    37mm damage

    Again, not sure if this is the damage output model of Russian guns (including the 37mm), or the damage intake model of the 109; but I still find this occasion riotously funny: I've never seen a plane lose its canopy (without being immediately followed by a bailout). And, more to the point, how can a 37mm HE shell to the upper fuselage not kill the pilot or stop the engine, and yet still blow off the canopy? On a different sortie, I saw my shell directly hit a 109's engine from above, and it still didn't seize or flame. I think I did eventually get credit for the above plane, though. I'm not complaining. My Russian career was lackluster, flying mostly the MiG-3 and a few sorties in the Yak-1; 37 kills in 23 sorties. After getting the Yak-9T, I scored 26 kills in 9 sorties; and that figure's a little deceptive, as I had one botched sortie where I had zero contact with the enemy, and I was screwed out of 2 confirmed (by me, that is) kills for whatever reason in another sortie.
  18. That all makes sense. It's also why the Yak was a favorite among novice pilots. Unfortunately (for the purposes of this game and career mode in particular), by the time the best Yak variants were made, the war was practically over.
  19. Ever try the 190-D career in Bodenplatte? The AI can't possibly die with the same frequency as Kuban. I got the A-3 in the latest sale, so now I've got every 190 variant. I'm going to push through with a full career and end in the D, just to compare it to my 109 career. Quite. I find it interesting to watch how much the AI struggles to keep crippled planes aloft. I think it does a remarkably good job in most instances.
  20. Right, I've noticed this pattern as well. I consider the tail and wings the prime targets for one-hit kills. I was disappointed when I struck an HE-111 from below, in its fuselage between the tail and the ventral gun, only to find that it was so indifferent to the damage, it didn't even release its bombs to abort its mission. I hit another HE-111 on the trailing wing edge of both wings, only to have it lose fuel but otherwise be perfectly flyable. I guess at least one engine or cockpit strike is necessary to really hurt a bomber. After trying the 37mm in a few career sorties, I'm finding it's harder to aim in group fights as opposed to 1v1 in quick battles. Chiefly because I have to worry about being bounced every time I wait patiently to set up a 1km sniper shot. Still, I'm happy with the plane. It actually turns very nicely and handles well in other respects; my only real complaint about it is what I feel about all Yaks (at least before we get the Yak-3): they feel underpowered in terms of acceleration. 109s can be on your ass in a heartbeat, and zip away leaving you in the dust. It takes a fairly long time to catch up to them and put yourself in a good firing position (I don't consider 500-1000m shots a good position, even if I can occasionally succeed with them). The La-5FN, by contrast, has all the engine you could want (at low-mid altitude anyway); but I prefer the Yak's handling overall. The Yak's an almost perfect plane, aside from that extra bit of engine oomph I'd like. I even prefer it to the Spitfire's handling. As a pointless aside: I wish there was a 23mm Yak-9T variant. Save weight, have a more powerful gun than the usual 20mm, and maybe fit some more ammo in the space made by the extra nose length.
  21. The newspapers are one of my favorite career features. The articles are quite informative, even for WWII buffs. Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I want to mention: keeping the same pilot through different maps can result in career save errors. I've had a few. But don't despair if you get one; it's not a death sentence for your pilot. With something called a database editor app, you can easily bypass said errors. There's a thread dedicated to it on this forum, if you ever need the particulars.
  22. Oh, dear. I bought the Yak-9T. My first quick battle, I took 9 shots to drop a 109G-6 at close range. With the default iron sights. My second battle, the AI (on ace) tried to escape me in a high climbing turn. This was the result after one shot (I'm in the lower mid-screen): I thought: 'okay, beginner's luck with that shot.' Then I sent up a Fw-190A-5. This was the result after two shots (I'm barely visible just beneath the Fw's engine): How the Fw kill looked from my cockpit: My verdict: I... um... I think the 37mm and I will get along quite nicely. *edit: for clarity, I should mention: I only use HE ammo, and when I say the shots per kill, I mean how many times I fired. Each kill took only one hit.
  23. Thanks for the replies, everyone. From my perspective, pretty much the only temptation for the 1B is that it's on sale for a steeper discount. But that hardly justifies buying something that won't be vastly different from what I already have access to (currently the Yak-7 is the most advanced version I have). I want both versions of the Yak-9, but even with the sale, I'd rather not buy both right now (maybe wait for a better discount later). So if I have to make only one impulse buy right now, I want to make it count. The 37mm would definitely make the Yak experience totally different than what I'm used to. If you want to use the 109F4 versus the G6 (with a 30mm) for analogy purposes, I'm guessing the Yak-9 is more enjoyable to fly, but the 9T is more fun to blow things up with. My main problem with Russian guns (besides low ammo count) is that the 20mm feels about as effective as the German 15mm. The German 20mm seems much more destructive to me (forgetting real world reasons why this might be so, I'm strictly speaking of my game perspective here). I've been quite literally parked behind a 109, firing very accurately into its 'guts', only to break and find the 109 still somewhat controllable. If I were in a 109 doing the same to a Yak, the Yak's pilot would be dead, or it'd be on fire, or usually both. In fact, I even took a screen of one such occasion, because I was so incredulous: Ignoring the possibility that the 109's damage model might be the issue here, I see no reason why a very short burst from this angle and distance shouldn't be instantly fatal to either the plane or pilot. I'm also aware of the fact that if I fired at the precise moment this screen was taken, I'd shoot under the fuselage. But trust me, I hit him squarely before this. So, yeah... I'm leaning towards the giant gun, handling be damned. What attracted me most to the plain Yak-9 was the possibility of turning as tight as a Spitfire, but with all nose guns; but if I really can't efficiently kill what I out-turn, then what's the point? Oh, by the way: has anyone ever damaged themselves by firing the 37mm too close to their target? Believe it or not, I've actually damaged my own 109 by firing a 20mm inches away from the target (yet not colliding). So I'm thinking the chances of blowback with a 37mm are that much greater. And I'm not talking about pieces of your target hitting you; I mean shrapnel from your own cannon shell as it explodes upon your target.
  24. With the latest sale going on, I'm weighing my options. Is there any advantage the Yak-1B has over the Yak-9? I see the tiny amount of extra ammo, and the small speed and climb differences. But the Yak-9 has a better turn rate, which I really want. My question: is there any distinct advantage in handling the 1B has to differentiate it from the 9? On paper, it'd appear the 1B handles just about the same as the 9T; and with the 9T's gun, obviously it'd be the clear choice. Likewise, the plain 9 turns tighter, as I mentioned above. I therefore see no real purpose in the 1B (unless someone can explain it). If this has been discussed elsewhere, sorry; my search came up with nothing.
  25. 'Call of the void' is a poetic way of saying abject stupidity, ha ha. Yeah, the deflection issue is pretty severe. I see the AI shooting at turning targets, but never effectively. The fire always is behind the target, if the turn is anything tighter than a lazy bank. I've gotten over my frustration by viewing my wingmen as a sociopath would; which is to say, they serve as good distractions until they die.
×
×
  • Create New...