Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

292 Excellent

1 Follower

About HR_Zunzun

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Starting up the p-47 in DCS is actually much quicker than the automatic one in il2. It doesn´t take away any flying time compared to il2 and I consider it fun. I like flying planes and i like all that involves flying a airplane (including the start up). In my opinion, clickable cockpits is and add for any sim. Not because the clicking is better than using your hotas. Actually is much worse from an ergonomy point of view, but it let you simulate almost all possible systems in an aircraft without having to map all of them to your hotas. Many of the clickable functions in dcs you use
  2. sustained corner speed? That sounds like an entelechy.
  3. Thank all for the review. I thought it wouldn´t be possible to make my crosswind any better but it seems I was wrong.
  4. HR_Zunzun

    New Planes

    I think he is referring to the La-5 with the cut-down canopy (like the -FN) but with the -F engine. It would be similar but not the same. AFAIK, vast majority of the -F produced were of the type I have described.
  5. In any case, he didn´t understand the different complaints about the browning 12.7 guns. If he would have read the post and the numerous tests done about it he might have got the notion that the 12.7 has a problem with its inabilty to cause significant aerodynamic impact. That is not an opinion you can get through a sortie in youtube but the results of numerous tests performed in an organized way to prove it. The same way that it was proved that both german and russian HE rounds are overperforming in the same task. Or just recently proved that the 20mm AP is also underperforming too.
  6. The false analogy.... While its true that the 20mm was a better gun in all aspects that doesn't imply that the 0.5cal wasn't effective. It was very effective in shooting down light planes like the japanese but also the light armoured me109 and fw190. The american failed to produce a working 20mm but, by stacking 6/8 guns in their relatively big figthters, they put enough weight of fire to dismantle and ignite both fitghters. The 110, although bigger, was even easier to shoot down with the fifties. And those 3 fighters made for the vast majority of enemies they fought in the ETO. Ger
  7. It is funny how some people complain that those posts are very much alive when most of the activity is to answer to people like them. Used to be to the "fact denials", but now seems that trolls are joining in.
  8. The RAF was very concerned about the fw190 when it came out. They weren´t concerned about a sudden surge in LW pilot skill but the quality of the FW190 compared to the SpitV. "Surprisingly", they were less concerned when the spit IX started to grow in numbers. The same could be said of the concern of the 5th AF in 1942 when they face the Japanese fighters with P-39s and P-40s. They were concerned. That concern started to dissapear when the P-38 was introduced in the theater. Obviously, a good pilot in comparable machines is going to have the upper hand. But the same can be said when
  9. Temporary fixes may lead to other problems. Right. "Permanent" fixes like the new DM can lead to other problems too. Good things came together with the mess we currently have with the AP vs HE. Temporary o permanent doesn´t matter. Do what you can with what you have to fix something that is broken. And the HE-AP performance is broken. I know they have other priorities right now, but when I think of the new product they are developing that portrays mainly planes with a currently broken DM, makes me wonder if their priorities wouldn´t need to shift even if just a smidge.
  10. Why is people so afraid of temporary fixes when everything is a temporary fix and subjected to change through patches?
  11. I do not think is incorrect to post it here first and have some discussion about possible errors regarding test methodology, sources and so on. Once there is a good agreement and the claim has been ironed out properly then it can be presented to the devs with a better chance of being taken into account. With the 0.5cal it took a lot of time to get a good agreement. There were a lot of background clutter with the initial posts and the OP had to come with a very solid set of tests that no one (well, almost not one) could dispute. That´s why I think it took so long. I think that if nobo
  12. Thank you for taking your time in doing the test. What I can infer too is that the 20mm ap is underpermorming a lot (if I am not mistaken while interpreting you table); That a 20mm AP rounds need to impact the wing between 8-16 times to achieve level 2 aero damage seems completely wrong to me. Regarding the p-47 damage is completely ilogical. A p-47 has a wing surface of 27.8m2. A 109 16m2. It is 1.73 times bigger. I do not know how the relationship between the two inboard wing hit boxes but still doesn´t seem logical at all.
  13. And saying that a AP round will make just a round hole all the time is false, and has been proved false. Assuming that a AP round will make a single round hole all the time is wrong. As soon as the round hit something solid inside (and a fighter plane is cramped inside with "solid things") will start fragmenting and tumbling and leave much bigger exit holes. Again, not all the time but much more frequently than is currently being displayed in the sim. Actually, the ability to damage internal structures together with the damage caused to skin as well with the ability to ignite fi
  14. It is very true. Here is another report of using emergency power beyond recommended limits. The concern for using it all the time in MP is nonsense if we are talking about simulation. Just fuel comsumption and extra ground crews man hours to look after this engines were reason enough to encourage a reasonable use in the normal situations. If anything, server mision design could implement artificial limits that could somehow "simulate" the effect of exceding those limits in the engine long life. It could be in the form of some penalties in the score as someone has suggeste
  15. It is kind of funny that, apparently, the same people that says that 0.5cal was an outdated armament option and cannon was the way to go now says that the german thought that (TWO) 13mm HMGs were good enough and they didn´t need anything bigger. Also, funny as well that have been argued that the 0.5cal can richotet off or just leave neat perfect round holes but nothing in between. In any case, in game tests have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the perfomance of the in-game AP compared to the HE is beyond any minimum plausability.
  • Create New...