Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    1403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. Truth being told there's many planes where the conversion simply doesn't work. Or at least it doesn't work if you do it like shown in any of the videos from the converter release thread. Which is not really a surprise, just wanted to mention it before someone thinks it was time to convert the full set of some thousand FSX mod planes: It's not. Won't work. So far I've had some luck with single engine prop planes and with a handful of twins. Rule of thumbs seems to be: The newer and bigger the plane in question, the less likely it will convert. Mike
  2. Sorry but apparently that's not fully true. See below: "The fuel tank is now invulnerable to ... (b) .5 B. Mk. II ... neither of which will penetrate the dural bulkhead inside the aircraft structure." The above mentioned report suggests the same, albeit lacking confirmation. But it makes sense, so I'd stick to that interesting effect, too - if the projectile is capable of penetrating the armor that is. Which means 20mm or more calibre, according to said report. Mike
  3. It's a duraluminium plate, comparable to soft steel in terms of holding back bullets. Effective against .303 and .50 ammo, but not against 20mm. Mike
  4. Did that. Copy and paste of the search term, no results. Mike
  5. Is it just me? Clicking on the link I get to alamy.com's search page, and it says "Sorry, we can’t find anything for your search term". Mike
  6. Thanks @Tektolnes, looks like a very useful tool. Let's hope that Microsoft will crank up the SDK + Documentation to their own standards soon. I took a look at the SDK to see whether I can spot a gap for a nice handcrafted mod in it, but that thing - as powerful as it is already - really needs some more love put into it. Mike
  7. That's just because the "AppData" folder in there is hidden. You can enable showing hidden files and folders in the Explorer, or simply click into the address bar on top (where it says "C:\Users\<your username>") and enter the following: %LOCALAPPDATA%\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\Packages\Community That'll get you right to the Community Folder of MSFS 2020. Mike
  8. I haven't seen it on the Ingame Marketplace yet, bought it straight here: https://secure.simmarket.com/indiafoxtecho-mb-339-msfs.phtml It's just the Plane's "mod" folder which goes straight to your Community folder. If you're keen to have some kind of automated install, buy from Orbx instead: https://orbxdirect.com/product/indiafoxtecho-mb339-msfs That'll get you a semi-automatic install through the "Orbx Central" tool. Mike
  9. Bought it already and trust me you'll want to have it, too.
  10. Use a plane with retractable gear and lower your gear when you try to pass the bridge. Only way to succeed, if at all (sometimes works, sometimes doesn't). Mike
  11. I hear what you say and I see your point. The reason why I was suggesting to take out pilot kill sorties is that in case of the damage caused by cal .50s, my bums feeling is that they do way too little damage to planes, yet they are quite capable in killing pilots as long as you hit the cockpit section from the "right" angle, read: Lightly armoured parts inbetween only, no armour plate like the dreaded six-o-clock attack agains 109s. Wading through the server logs I see that when I fly a P-47 and engage enemy fighters, almost 90% of the kills I score are pilot kills against the enemy aircraft, and that seems odd to me. Either it's too easy to kill the pilot (doesn't feel like) or too hard to cause any other fatal damage to other planes (that's what it feels like) with cal 50s. The latter you won't see in your numbers if you include the pilot kills I'm afraid. Mike
  12. Ideally, in an attempt to evaluate DM issues, any sortie with a pilot kill won't count. Mike
  13. There's a simple reason why the accuracy is so much better than "normal": I'm doing this CFS stuff for way too long now and I'm generally shooting at point blank range if the target performs evasive manoeuvres and only use distance (200-300 yds) deflection shots (which I dare to say I'm pretty good at) if the victim is completely unaware of my presence. If you look at the results of my other sorties, you'll have a hard time to find any hit rate in the single digit range. You gave sufficient information but it gets largely ignored. Instead we now see the thread getting turned into some high sophisticated bullet counting battle, based on so many assumptions that by any reasonable scientific standards the efforts are useless at best. @sniperton nailed it already: Yet there's still a few - but very loquacious - people trying to persuade us that what we all see and feel is just "normal". They'll have their reasons, some call it "agenda". Because... you say so? I have yet to see evidence to support your take on it. Guys we keep discussing things all reasonable people already agreed upon ten pages ago. Let's stop the trolling. If the Devs would have wanted to let us know their opinion about it and/or whether or not they're willing to change any of this, they would have had plenty of opportunity already. No need to beat this dead horse any further. Mike
  14. I'm rarely flying P-51 or P-47 in pure fighter vs. fighter sorties (for obvious reasons *cough* *cough*) but going back through our server stats, I found one sortie where actually I didn't shoot ground targets but only bombed them, so all bullets were against single engine fighters, and I got a total of 5. 1x 109K-4, 1x109F-4, 1x109E-7, 2x Fw-190A-5. Number of bullets hit the target: 983 Number of PK kills: 4 Number of Plane damage kills: 1 - only the very last 190 went down due to damage, and then it was just two minutes after I let her go. Not that I'd insist on this sortie being representative for anything in any way, just pointing out that odds can be much worse than needing a hundred hits for a kill. http://www.sas1946.rocks:8000/en/sortie/19978/?tour=1 Mike
  15. I'm quite sure many of us could agree on many more things if discussions like this would take place in real life, face to face. Written statements tend to sound aggressive, if not toxic, on the receiving end if different thoughts are being exchanged. Having a cup of tea, coffee or a can of beer abreast with you while talking to each other eye to eye usually makes things much smoother. Mike
  16. It's just an honest opinion, sorry for not having routed it through your scientific approval process ake "popcorn" first. The site's data is to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's not just nonsense either. Mike
  17. That's probably impossible to answer, be it for the lack of data, or simply for the various situations with a great variety of outcomes. Let's simply agree for the two to be different. Absolutely. The reason for this thread to exist is that there seems to be ample room for improvements in this regard, even more so since... well you know it. That sounds about right and insofar, the game feels about wrong. Hence we're complaining. Mike
  18. Then read it again for frick's sake. The pilot writing the combat report clearly says that he "did not notice pieces coming off as is customary with the AP". You show us a video where you say that a 109 gets shot with API ammo and you can't see pieces coming off. Great. So you just confirmed what the pilot wrote, and what @HR_Zunzun is saying and I would guess is right: API might cause pieces to come off, AP will. And concerning your B-17 video: There's a distinctive difference between pieces coming off from 30mm HE explosions at point blank distance, and pieces coming off from .50 AP ammo at 300 yards. I'll leave the rest for you to guess what the difference might be. Hint: No, it's not that .50s simply don't cause any damage at all. Not in real life. In GB maybe though. Mike
  19. Which is exactly what @HR_Zunzun wrote and what the pilot report indicated. Care to read at all? Mike
  20. Admittedly if it was the only one, M$ would be a bit insane. However attempting to earn money from selling the game wasn't a reason to do it, because in that case "insanity" won't cut it. It's all about auxiliary business, and that works in CFS genre the very same way. Mike
  21. Get over it. Your post essentially indicated that there's nothing wrong with the 109s rear armour plate, and now you come around saying that what you meant was the exact opposite? Don't blame it on others when what you tried to tell is exactly the opposite of what people read from your posts, make your point clearer in such case instead. Trying to derail the case again? See: Indeed I do think that inline engines should suffer more from coolant leaks than radials do from random hits, and what we witness in this game often times indicates the opposite. But I'm here for long enough to know that any attempt to make such case will very soon see the case maker getting nailed to the cross because he couldn't come along with a contemporary WW2 video, showing a direct AP bullet hit to a 109's radiator, together with a stopwatch held in the same camera's view, until the very point where the engine stops running, monitoring all relevant and irrelevant engine parameters at the very same time all along, with picture-in-picture proof that no further bullets have hit the plane anywhere at the same time, and with a weather report stating the exact temperature, pressure and windspeeds at the very location where it happened. Nope, I'm not gonna start that. I'd be glad if after "just" 6 months we'd finally get some kind of indication whether the issue which is supposed to be discussed in this thread, is acknowledged officially as an issue at all. In a next step, we could then ask for whether it is gonna get fixed at any time. The next-next step would be to find a schedule. The next-next-next step would be the fix for the issue. When that's done, feel free to ask me about the coolant leaks again. Mike
  22. Mind you the economical reason behind MSFS 2020 was just an indirect one too: Showcase the Azure Cloud's capabilities. An MS CFS could do the same, just for a younger audience. Mike
×
×
  • Create New...