Jump to content

kurtj

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

About kurtj

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

458 profile views
  1. In my experience after the update, it is indeed more difficult shooting outside of convergence, but if you fire at convergence, the damage dealt is similar, if not increased. I hit a 109 with a 90-degree deflection shot (he flew though perpendicular to my line of fire) while flying a P-47 and the results were above satisfactory. He couldn’t have received more than a split-second of fire, but I was at convergence with 8 .50s.
  2. Many thanks again! Several ideas for future missions (In case they aren't already in the works Night (twilight, if need be) RAF AI bomber stream triggered by player Mosquito pathfinder flare drops; searchlights to draw in pilots? Plus-side: bomber stream would be less resource-intensive. AI C-47 Market Garden and D-Day drops German AI bombing on Moscow / Stalingrad maps High-altitude MET and PR flights (with waypoints, perhaps?) 262 reposition operation which requires players to ferry X number of 262s from one airfield to another across map with limited fuel. Make primary victory condition (success/failure of transfer) for the map... build flak alley for covering 262 landings and have a bunch of 190 D9s for escort. I think this is one of the best results of this mission --- late-war fighters take little time to climb to 20,000 ft and were designed to operate at that level or much higher. It has now been proven that most players will make the (easy) climb, if that's where the action is. Plus, it even engages the 10-20% of players who've been contrailing above us alone all these years Having done both, I agree the 1946 bomber numbers aren't matched, but my adrenal glands don't seem to notice the difference once bandits (or bombers) are spotted. Blackout lawn-darting is one of my preferred methods of landing, according to the statistics. Blackout effects are better late than never, but I built up a few bad high-G habits over the years that just aren't as useful today. I did that once, manually... five full days for 200 sq ft. Hard work!
  3. Yesterday I found I couldn't fly Allied (faction balancing?), so I tried the interceptor role. Scariest 30 seconds in IL-2 for me so far. Tried a head-on pass; incredible closing rate, and then the 51s were all over me like angry hornets.
  4. Seeing the hitting power of the 20s and 30s en masse against a formation is terrifying from a bomber perspective.
  5. Mitchell's Men is fantastic! This is a wonderful proof-of-concept for strategic-bombing simulation--- it can only get better from here!
  6. Had a fantastic time on Combat Box this afternoon with their new "Mitchell" map... the AI flights of B-25s at 20,000ft drew huge contrailed dogfights up high in a frenzy around the bombers. Tracers and falling planes everywhere - absolute chaos! There were even a few A-20 pilots that joined the box formations of AI planes. Performance seemed to hold up well, too. It was great fun being a "Little Friend" for the first time. So, kudos to Combat Box!
  7. In my experience this makes a big difference -- you lose virtually all rudder authority at 0% throttle, so never completely chop it... one other tip I've seen before (didn't see it in this thread) is to maintain full up-elevator at all times while taxiing. In addition to the narrow landing gear, the Spitfire also has a very long tail moment, which leads to significant weather-vaning when landing with a crosswind... this can easily set up a groundloop. I've stopped flying my 1/5-scale Spitfire in crosswinds due to the extremely high likelihood of dropping a wing on landing. Never had such issues with my AT-6 and Gypsy Moth.
  8. I very much look forward to BON, and I am still holding out .001% hope that on Dec. 7 we will get an announcement about a B-17, followed by another surprise. Jason, there is still time to make this the plan all along I think it’s possible considering FC, TC and BOB were all announced and accomplished simultaneously.
  9. I agree, as the vast majority of gun cam available is from non-cannon-armed American aircraft. Most of the cannon footage is attacks on heavy bombers, which have enormous wing spars. That said, here's a nice streak of wings and chunks of wings breaking from .50's. I count at least four, including a 110. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I don't believe we have adequate evidence to definitively say either way, as the evidence we do have is a mix of results and a very small sample size.
  10. Perhaps I should have led off with this video, which has been in the back of my mind... look how small the bushings are that hold the P-47 wings on... not much larger than a .50 round! Far different than large spars that run through the fuselage. I can imagine AP 20 or 30mm would do some pretty decent work on something that small, and that's before wing loading and the aircraft weight (as mentioned before) is considered. I wonder if the simulation has uncovered a historical weakness that wasn't widely known due to survivorship bias... not a good chance of RTB after losing a wing
  11. My point is that while perhaps the engine modeling might be overly-fragile on a 47, we may be missing the nuance of the actual physics at play if we lump wing losses together with engine durability. I find it potentially informative in the CAF 47 crash that the wing failed at the root while the landing gear strut did not. To me, this is strong evidence the P-47 wing root is not terribly robust relative to the rest of the airframe. The weakest link is what breaks... Getting back to the 51, its spars run all the way through, so at least from a wing durability standpoint, it seems unlikely to lose a wing at the root. This of course does not have any bearing to engine durability.
  12. I’ll second observing the P-47 engine often dies after a surprisingly small number of rounds... However, the 47 wing root is not continuous and each wing is connected by only two hinges, whereas the Mustang main spar runs all the way through. Its easy to find photos of P-47s whose wings have folded up, even the CAF one... and there are many stories of damaged 47 engines running for long periods. So, perhaps the wing attachment was a relatively accurate but less-reported issue on the 47 (after all, most cases probably didn’t return to talk about it). And perhaps the engine damage model could be improved.
  13. This is a good point; if a technocrat warning could be incorporated, similar to when one reaches the edge of the map, this could be addressed in a simple manner.
  14. Perhaps vulching could be universally addressed by establishing a “vulch-free” airspace of a specific radius, up to a certain altitude, around bases, and auto-banning players who attack within said radius for say, 1 month? Similar to airspace restrictions over commercial airports. Or, an alternative would be to set up low-level flak that ensures destruction below a certain altitude and within a certain radius. I recall some servers seemed to have such a setup several years ago. The airspace restriction would be a non-resource-heavy stand-in for such flak.
×
×
  • Create New...