Jump to content

=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand

Members
  • Content Count

    699
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

732 Excellent

1 Follower

About =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2750 profile views
  1. Then you are doing something wrong. Check your keybindings
  2. The stat pages should be taken with a big grain of salt. Each line does not correspond to a single bullet hit. This can easily be deferred from looking at the “number of bullets hit” to the amount of lines that state some % of damage. They never coincide so there must be a different underlying factor that determines the % damage. Another thing to consider is that 100% damage does not mean the plane gets obliterated. A single hit that causes a “kill” for instance a hit causing the engine to seize will be a 100% damage. The stats page really isn’t a data source that should be considered for the type of discussion here because it is just misleading.
  3. 5. Moderators oversee the different sections of the forum and they have the right to edit and delete posts or close the entire topic without explanation. 6. It is forbidden to discuss the actions of moderators and administrators in any form on the forum. All questions are to be sent via "personal message" to the administrator/moderator.
  4. Actually Il2 got it right Basically IAS measures your speed relative to the air around you. As a result your IAS doesn’t change whether you go with or against the wind. This may sound counterintuitive first, but thin of it that way: Assume some theoretic speed produced by your engine which is 100kph. The wind is going at 30kph Against the wind: The wind blows you back by 30 kph so you are traveling 70kph. The pressure in the pitot tube will show 100kph sind you move at 70 and wind blows in the Tube at 30. With the wind: imagine you are going with the wind. Your speed will be 130kph, however the air around you is also going 30kph leaving you with the above 100kph. So I think the sims got it simulated correctly. You can google it, I’m sure someone can explain it better than me. finally if you think about it, it cannot show speed over ground, since this is the figure that should vary when flying with or against the wind
  5. if You agree that proper testing is needed I am surprised because it seemed like you had already identified the problem and were about to write a note to the devs. No hard feelings mate, but it did sound like you were howling with the wolves for a while there
  6. if it has been discussed so widely please show evidence. Sometimes stories get repeated because someone said so. Take chinango‘s Hit to the cockpit which was actually a hit to the engine as an example. Show evidence! Everything else is hearsay It has actually been reported that hits to the cockpit did not to ANYTHING to the pilot before the patch. How do you know it’s not just people now actually being hurt by legit hits when they weren’t before? Because the this is just as much a „forum truth“ as your assumption about what the patch did. So before you all get into a circle, please show valid evidence of this happening
  7. Survivor bias. What about the Xthousabd others that didn’t live to tell the tale... i mean in game evidence Are you giving this advice from a single player point of view?
  8. Please show evidence of a HE impact far from the cockpit causing unconciousnes of the pilot
  9. i don‘t know. Do you have the experience or the data? Besides I’m sure we were talking about direct cockpit hits. I have never seen anyone knocked unconscious from a hit 3m away. Do you have footage or evidence of this happening or is this information also part of the regular 666Giap town hall meetings.
  10. Absolutley, testing against historical data on blast radii and wound type (which there is an abundance of) for all different shells against all type of materials should be an absolute piece of cake
  11. Anecdotal evidence Raging in your information bubble No evidence Unreliable server data, that does not correspond to actual in game occurrences please spare us Wrapped up with "this is unfair" whining
  12. You just don´t get it do you? You want to cherry pick the data that is in your favor neglect whatever isn´t. There is no "historical" data that is good and other data that isn´t. G-forces are a thing and you don´t get to choose whom they apply to.Simple as that. I am happy the devs handles data like they do. I would be very disappointed if they treated it the way that your proposed "historical mix" suggests, and I am pretty confident that most of the members of this community would agree on that. The fact that 666GIAP has been saying this or that forever isn´t really an argument, except in your bubble perhaps. Once you present actual data to your wild rambles, maybe people would start taking you more seriously. I doubt you have even taken the time to read Ivy´s report yet. There is no clear focus of your critique as you seem to be jumping between pilot vulnerability to damage in general and to G-forces at a whim without ever suggesting a specific fix. You rather choose to wrap up all your statements with a because it is unfair attitude. What you are doing is the definition of whining
×
×
  • Create New...