Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    1105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. Well as a tester you probably know better/sooner whether this will be the case than us ordinary mortals. Personally I agree that the .50s of course will not cause damage similar to large HE rounds, and the "I" in API won't change that. What I'd expect a .50 to do is that significant damage if lots of rounds hit at convergence spot and of not set on right on convergence distance, I would expect a well distributed prolonged burst across the surface of a target plane armoured less than a tank to cause a "random" critical damage to some part at a pretty good chance. Both is currently extremely rare. Chances do exist and they do get depicted endlessly to support the currently prevalent opinion, but that's not necessarily solely driven by factual considerations. Mike
  2. No it's not an MG 151/20 after all 😁 Nice. Also nice to see that people who otherwise are so utterly sensible about "anecdotal" stories have upvoted this. Could be a good sign, let's hope for the best. That part however makes me want to get my "I want to believe!" shirt off the shelf again. Sounds a bit like a circus trick. Mike
  3. Since people kept complaining about the 30mm guns not being as efficient as they expected, I thought I'd take a duck and give the 103 a try. Very first encounter, shortest trigger squeeze I could apply... mind you, just anecdotal, as always. Mike
  4. Well @CountZero probably mainly compared the P-38 to the P-47 instead, given that we're discussing the latter in this thread: And that's something I have to agree with. IL-2 Great Battles P-38 IMHO wins against the P-47 in every way, at every altitude, in every situation. It's more nimble, faster, turns better, has the better and more versatile weapons - it's simply better in each and every regard. Whereas in real life, when P-47s got introduced for the first two squadrons in ETO, one of them transitioned from P-38 to P-47, and they were happy with it (oh yeah, I'm perfectly prepared for getting nailed to the cross for "anecdotal" refs now - bite me!). If "our" P-47's combat performance was anywhere close to what it was in real life, the 78th FG must have been totally nuts. Honestly, put two average sim pilots in 'em, and even a 109 E-7 will win 9 out of 10 fights against the P-47. Mike
  5. Yeah, got the message. 100% of lufties were 100% happy with anything they got. Put my anecdotal crap aside, it's just what every book on this world tells you but hey, it's missing calculations... *sigh*. I'm starting to wonder why the germans didn't win the war now that they've had such utterly superior weapons. And why didn't they kick out the 8.8 flak in favour of the superior MG 151/20? Just anecdotal. Don't you take it serious please. Mike
  6. Oh yes it is, and it's sturdy. Much harder to down than a usual 109, except for the odd tail DM thing at the moment... Mike
  7. I would not advise you of anything, but would recommend to try not to come across as a complete... you know what. It's not an anecdote that many german pilots were less than happy with the new armament of the 109 "Friedrich", that's a well known fact all across the 109 history. Mike
  8. The extraordinary superiority of the MG151 which we've come to witness lately somehow doesn't want to fit to the complaints of real life pilots when it got introduced with the 109F, just saying. And the ones complaining weren't all stupid morons, there's been quite a couple hotshots among them, most prominently probably Adolf Galland, who was so utterly convinced of the 151 that he let his mechanics add two MG/FF to the wings of one of his 109F planes (and replace the MG 17 with MG 131 on another). Probably he did so because downing planes with the new wonder-151 became just too easy so he wanted to add some weight penalty? Mike
  9. Don't get me wrong guys, I totally agree that attacking an IL-2 with a Macchi is nonsense - I've performed that test solely for educational purpose. Online. Twice. Never more. What I tried to get across is, as @jojy47jojyrocks just wrote, the fact that the damage model probably needs a tad more fine tuning, and alongside with it, the disparity between HE and AP ammo (not even speaking about the lack of API here). The balance between HE and AP clearly was wrong before 4.005, but now it feels like the pendulum swung a tad too much into opposite direction. Now concerning my particular Macchi vs. IL-2 tests, it wasn't the end result that surprised me. It was the way I achieved it. That's what seemed inconsistent to me. I would not expect the radiator to simple "ignore" hits, regardless how many. And I surely didn't expect to be able to score a PK from dead six eventually after having fired half of my belts from up to 60 degree deflection right into the cockpit department without success before. That looks like an odd chance to me, almost like standing upfront a T-34 with an MG-34 in my hands and putting in belt after belt in the hope of eventually getting through. No doubt this game has made great leaps in the recent years. I totally agree and I put all my money on it as it's the solely future of WW2 combat flight sims to me. Literally I do, I've grabbed what money can buy here, for a reason. Mike
  10. Maybe the difference is that my test took place online, which officially is invalid. Doesn't make things better though. In case the offline results are good but online they're not, to me this would be just as bad.
  11. The momentum is clearly in favour of Axis at the moment. Question remains whether what we just witness is simply historically accurate or not, cause that's what will dictate whether it'll stay as is or whether we'll get some powers back to allied planes.
  12. Confirmed, we've just had a sortie with 3 chaps together in A-20s last sunday. At auto rich (66%) we were all trailing smoke, at 33% (auto lean) the smoke is gone. Clearly around 66%, even slightly lower than 66%, there's still smoke visible. No wake turbulence behind other planes online for me either. Mike
  13. Well that's just one filename plus maybe a hash replicated when the plane spawns, nothing to worry about.
  14. Wait... Did I miss something? My understanding is that there is no such thing like skin replication online. Either you have your buddy's skin beforehand, or you'll just see him carry the default skin. Did that change? Mike
  15. Now that I did that test myself and I wasn't surprised that the IL-2 was able to eat lots of ammo when being hit "outside the sweet spots", I totally agree as for the amount of randomly dispersed hits it could take. What surprised my a bit however was how the oil cooler was virtually invulnerable to well placed hits (lots of them) while it was (at least visually) fully open, so no armoured flaps that would have protected it. What surprised me as well was how the control surfaces were virtually invulnerable to the Breda guns. An MG151/20 sweep coughs them off in no time in comparison. What surprised me further on was how weak the gears seem to be. Whenever I attack an IL-2 with AP ammo equipped planes, the "spread" bullets are sufficient to kick out gear doors within the first two sweeps and the gears come down another 1-2 sweeps later, and that's just the few random bullets that stray right or left of my aim point (engine, cockpit, oil cooler). Finally after having put a few hundred rounds into the cockpit from all kind of deflection angles with no effect, I was surprised that finally it is a pilot kill that ends most of IL-2's lifes when I attack them. In summary, the amount of supposedly "weak" AP ammo swallowed by an IL-2 is way less of a surprise than the actual things happening in detail. Mike
  16. I'm afraid it's impossible to tell about damage-to-drag relation at the moment, because the visual representation of damage doesn't correlate to the damage applied to the flight model by our new DM. Yesterday I've had a sortie in a Tempest and got hit in my left wing. Visually quite well damaged, the plane flew "just normal", with a subtle drop of the left wing. Later on that sortie, another plane jumped my six and sent a burst through the fuselage. No change to the visual wing damage, just a couple of bullet holes in the fuselage and an oil leak, all control surfaces still "factory fresh" visually, but: Left wing dropped to an extent that I almost needed full right aileron to keep her in the air, and the whole plane slowed down by some 50 knots and wobbled through the air like a jelly ball. Mike
  17. That's what we do for about a year. Worked a treat for quite a while, but nowadays the occasionally straying base defense fighter regularly leaves station and follows a random bandit back to his base. Would need another checkzone to get the base defense to stick to it's orders, which might or might not work, but honestly I'd rather want to see this being addressed by the devs as it's clearly a bug and any workaround implemented on top of it would sooner or later need to be rolled back when they decide to put hands on the issue anyway. Mike
  18. Sorry to say but these zone's simply don't keep AI from leaving them and chasing enemy planes all across the map. All our AI fighter waypoints end in a "combat zone" which is a pretty limited area on the map where AI fighters are supposed to have their clash with each other. If there's nothing else drawing their attention (and only then...) they'll have their fights in that zone, but as soon as they decide that it's time to chase someone else to death, they'll simply do. Essentially, any order issued to AI planes which does not have "high" priority is treated by them as a recommendation at best. And orders with "high" priority are crap because they make your AI planes ignore anything else, for instance the enemy shooting at them from 50 meters behind. Mike
  19. Had a go at an IL-2 1941 model with a Macchi yesterday, 12.7mm + 7.7mm wing guns. I've tried all kind of stuff, shooting at tail section from dead six - not much effect, no surprise. Bullets were bouncing off the armour plates as they should. Hitting the oil cooler endless times - didn't do a thing. Hitting the fuselage made that thing leak fuel, but no other effect either. None of my rounds managed to set the leaking fuel on fire, which actually is a little surprising as the 12.7mm are supposed to be mixed AP/HE rounds so I would have expected them to set the fuel stream on fire eventually but they didn't. Hitting the wings only caused the gears of the IL-2 to collapse and depart. Finally, after hitting the cockpit section endless times, when I was just to run out of ammo, I have managed to kill the pilot. From bums feeling, version 4.x is like this: Anything smaller than 20mm calibre is just punching holes through unarmoured plane parts without causing much effect if it's AP ammo. HE ammo smaller than 20mm will illuminate your target's surface and that's it. Anything from 20mm calibre onwards, if HE filled will inflict lethal damage immediately, whereas if it's AP see above. Now nail me to the cross for this simplification, but honestly that's what it feels like. Mike
  20. Problems start with how much damage is percieved by what kind of damage inflicted. For instance, I have plenty of sorties on my back where I've made my AI enemy leak fuel, water and oil massively, yet when I look at the logfiles, these damages seem to only account for less than one percent each - and AI keeps fighting, endlessly, aggressively, even though they're virtually dead and any human player on earth would have attempted to RTB long time since, and would most probably even have failed to do so for critical cumulated damage along the way. Another pass later, when I smashed my bullets through some apparently unimportant part of the fuselage with no visual effect, the log reports 60% damage suddenly. That worked to some extent until the 4.x update (from my experience with our Multiplayer Server that is). For whatever reason, in the latest version of the game AAA success rate depends on aircraft speed to such extent that as long as AI planes keep staying above 350kph, flak simply won't get them. I have russian airfields covered with 8+ AAA batteries, all "high" level, 2 large, 2 medium, 4 small, with unlimited ammo, shooting like hell. Yet there's 2 AI Fw 190 A-5 circling above that very airfield at 500m altitude, doing strafing passes at ground objects of choice, for about 15 minutes without ever getting hit. Now try to attack this same airfield at the very same time with a Henschel and, regardless what you do, you will get blown out of the skies before you even get within MK101 shooting distance. AAA will hit you midships from whatever angle with first round. ...but lucky us, there's modders out there: https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,58745.0.html Mike
  21. Yep, once AI decided that it's got to be you, then it's got to be you and no one else. Let me add that on our online server we've seen an increasing number of "stalking" AI planes. That is, AI planes fly across half of russia just to get you. Note that I'm not referring to following you across half of russia - that goes without saying. No, they even spot you at several hundred miles distance, and then decide to chase you down whatever it takes. This seems to affect mostly player planes or even player planes only, I have yet to witness AI stalking AI across the map. I've got a theory why this happens. Some time ago another fellow member of this forum reported that on track recordings he saw AAA tracers in the Tacview playback even though the recording player was nowhere near (read: By far not in visual distance) of the AAA battery, which means the AAA activity happened outside of the "visibility bubble" and was therefore not supposed to be part of the track recording at all. Yet it was, constantly. My theory is that AI planes might always see AAA tracers wherever they are, and always treat them equally important regardless the distance. Now if you as a player attack something, for instance ground targets, and trigger some AAA activity by doing so, and if there's no other "more important" stuff going on from enemy AI planes' point of view, then you are the one getting all their attention, regardless where you are. And once they start focusing on you, it's got to be you (see above). I've personally witnessed this last week on a mission I've written myself, so I know what's supposed to happen where and why. I've been attacking tanks/cars in an area which is easily 50-60 miles north of an enemy airbase where AI planes take off "randomly" with orders to fly east to enter a "combat zone" there. There were AAA equipped halftracks among the attacked ground targets and of course the woke up when I was attacking them. I've been out of sight for any other plane. There's been no other plane on the map either (the server uses "normal" difficulty settings so you can see others on the map once they are "visible" for whatever reason). I felt alone up there, until I suddenly spotted an AI fighter running straight north towards me. I decided to run home, and on my way back, I saw more and more AI fighters coming up behind me. After a couple of minutes, I've had all enemy AI fighter on my tail. Literally all that were in the air at that time (5 in total) - they all decided to chase me home eastbound all across the map, even though I've been a hundred miles off their designated waypoints meanwhile and even though they never saw me when they decided to chase me. Mike
  22. Would love to know your convergency setting. Seems I need to pull about 3 times as much lead as you do in that video when using 400m convergency. Mike
  23. Noticed the same but wasn't sure whether it's "by design" or really a bug. Thanks for the report! Mike
  24. @[DBS]Tx_Tip The screenshots are Sea State Level 6, both of them (initial post of mine and latest from yesterday). That's why I was wondering. On the Rhineland map, as @yeikov said, there seems to be no 3D representation of rough seas whatsoever. On the Kuban map there is, but as you see in the 2nd screenshot, you get waves but nothing like a "stormy" look. I'd also love to know why maximum overcast still looks so "sunshiny" on the ground. Mike
  25. Thanks yeikov, that indeed seems to be true. See the same weather on Kuban map here. Still not exactly what I would have expected in really severe weather and worst possible conditions, but at least there's some waves now. Other than that, this would almost count as "perfect weather" where I'm living... Mike
×
×
  • Create New...