Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    1497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1271 Excellent

3 Followers

About SAS_Storebror

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.sas1946.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Depends
  • Interests
    CFS :-)
    Child Protection
    Animal Welfare
    Programming (Java FTW!)
    Biking

Recent Profile Visitors

3431 profile views
  1. Mates we've been there before, it's all in front of the dev's nose and we should not be forced to run in circles for 10 months and counting. In pre-4.005 times, a solid cal .50 burst into a 109 (or 190 or any other small fighter plane to the same effect) would cause enough damage to it to make any attempt to continue fighting as if nothing happened would have been futile. Been there, done that. IL-2 Great Battles up to 4.004 was the "first one to hit, first one to win" as you would expect from a 1:1 fighter vs. fighter engagement. And even 4.005 still works that way, but only
  2. Thanks a lot @VBF-12_KW. One thing to note from the JFC report is that the army cared much more about initially hitting an enemy aircraft than scoring an instant kill. Which matches the initial fight pattern we've had in IL-2 Great Battles in pre Patch 4.005 times: In a 1:! fighter vs. fighter battle, what mattered most was who scored the first hits on the enemy. Because once you hit your enemy's fighter plane, he'd almost invariably lose certain abilities to carry on with the fight like he did before, so you'd gain a certain advantage which would enable you to take all the
  3. That's it in a nutshell. The guns weren't the most powerful ones to dream of, so they got stacked up until the increased number of guns made up for the lack of each single gun's punch. Whereas in IL-2 Great Battles, 8 cal .50s don't even remotely cause damage in the scale of a single MG 131. That's the issue, that's historically incorrect and regardless how many people try to convince you of the opposite, simple human logic tells you that this is just fishy and would need to be addressed with absolutely top priority as it severely cripples the main allied frontline fighte
  4. You can have that everywhere these days. Just had a day of fun with the Apple support to get my account unlocked, and the funniest part of it was: My Password was correct all the time, and no one could explain why the iPad won't accept it and lock the account instead. I'm not inclined to assign animal names to the Apple Staff though... it's not their fault after all. Mike
  5. We've had that how many million times now? That neat .50 diameter exit hole is what happens when you hit a comparably weak, thin surface at 90° angle. Hit something that distorts your round(s) for any reason (e.g. for being a tad tougher or for getting hit at a certain angle, or simply for not having been the first thing the round travelled through - iow "tumbling" round(s)) and the result will be vastly different. Mike
  6. The indestructible tail was easy enough to qualify for a "quick fix" implementation by the devs (and dare I say... it was accepted as such by the majority of testers, according to the dev's statements that is). Do you think changing the cal .50s belting to make let's say every 4th bullet become an HE one, or alternatively introduce a new "semi APIT" bullet which would have the current AP bullet's specs, plus an extremely tiny amount of HE filler to make it scratch the target surface, would be a much harder to implement "quick fix" than changing a whole plane family's tail specs?
  7. You mean the indestructible tail of the 109 was a feasible simple fix because it is appropriate and technically and historically correct? Mike
  8. Fits perfectly for the .50 issue, so you fully agree with @CountZero's proposal. That's great. Mike
  9. Happened 10 months ago already. No change. Mike
  10. You forgot to mention the hundreds of posts that just denied the facts, asked player to aim better and generally had no other interest than to derail each and every thread which attempted to get the devs attention (unsuccessful) in an attempt to prevail the current situation (successful). Anyway the devs got to know that something's wrong and fixing it has officially been postponed. IMHO - as it's an issue which has deliberately been created - postponing the fix should have never been an option and IMHO if it was, the time it took already was waaaaaay to long, let alone the fa
  11. This. It does look cool though Mike
  12. Well I think that's really an edge case, neither MSFS 2020 stock weather system nor Rex got it right. In defense of Rex, all METARs see clear skies despite recent changes: https://www.windy.com/LSZH?gfs,clouds,47.460,7.449,8,i:pressure On the other hand, I didn't see MSFS 2020 getting snow in northern germany right a single time so far, whereas Rex didn't fail a single time in that regard. Nothing's 100% reliable, but to me Rex is about 10 times as reliable as Stock MSFS is. Though I have to admit that EDDH - EGTE in a C172 was the longest flight in one chunk I
  13. Rex Weatherforce (https://rexsimulations.com/weatherforce.html) = new METAR-based dynamic real-time weather engine FS Playground (https://fsplayground.com/) = Among others, a replay system (currently missing in stock MSFS 2020) FS Academy (https://www.fsacademy.co.uk/) = Flight Training Missions Never had odd results here. Maybe your Version isn't up to date? I've been flying around endless locations in Europe, Africa, Russia, Japan, US - the weather always precisely reflected what the next airport's METAR was, and that was - I can say so for European region only
  14. Rex Weatherforce really works wonders. It's one of the three (or four, the last is actually two separate purchases) payware addons I would recommend for every FS 2020 user: Rex Weatherforce FS Playground FS Academy VFR+IFR Mike
  15. So you just posted to get it off your chest? If you want no replies, talk to yourself in private. If you want self-praising only, open your own forums. If you post here, prepare for replies that are not necessarily what you wished they were. Deal with it. Yes and no. Yes, the original photo is skewed apparently. I simply took it from the net as-is. No, yours isn't right either. It's skewed again, just stretched too long this time. You tried to get the wheels round but both overdid so (see left main wheel) and forgot to take the perspective into acco
×
×
  • Create New...