Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    1241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. This. It's exactly what I thought when I read the excuse of straight-six shot deflection for the very first time. Yes, maybe your two pound AP round is not running straight anymore, but from the receiver's perspective this doesn't make things any better. You'd get a tumbling thing with a kinetic energy of almost 300kJ running through your tail. That would be something the same plane could probably not witness twice. Mike
  2. Wait... you have 8xSS transparent AA and get 40+ FPS on a GTX960M? Hell... with 4xAA + Multisample transp. AA (which is 1 step (AA) / 3 steps (transp.AA) lower than yours) I get about 60FPS on my GTX970, and as soon as I raise the transp.AA, FPS is cut to half on each step. Anyone else being able to run 8xSS transp.AA with a good frame rate? Am I missing something here? Mike
  3. I guess a good reason why the Spit and Hurri might not have been all that famous for turning their pilots into a crispy barbecue is that with the fuel tank placed in front of the instrument panel, there's very little chance to hit it without the bullet travelling through either the plane's engine of the pilot himself first. The bullets coming upfront (which would have to travel through the engine first) are most likely to be defensive fire from bombers, which at the time of the Hurri's peak would mostly be MG15 7.7mm guns "only" (I don't want to be on their receiving end in real life, but compared to other guns, that's "only", just saying). So it's quite likely that a bullet reaching the tank came from the Spit's/Hurri's six, and that it has travelled through vital parts of the pilot body first. That being said, the subsequent barbecue might not have been a real issue to him anymore. In contrast, any low six approach on a 109 is likely to result in a couple of bullets ending up in the 109's main fuel tank. Not that it'd be a 100% chance, but at least from a logical point of view, the chance to hit that 109's seat heater is probably much larger than the chance to hit Spit's/Hurri's panel defroster - each without killing the pilot first that is. Mike
  4. I don't think I ever tried to make people believe the Spitfire was a fireproof plane. Quite in contrast to some of what people just tried to turn the 109 into. Mike
  5. I'd certainly prefer to avoid any such situations. Simple reason is that as much as you try to keep the fuel contained inside your tank, if push comes to shove, it doesn't matter the direction of your tank proximity - the sheer fact that you're within leak/pour/expansion/explosion distance is by far enough to ruin your day. Mike
  6. Ah I see, thanks for the info and good luck with fixing that spawner ๐Ÿ˜‰ Mike
  7. Wow... interesting report, thanks for the heads up. May I ask whether you know what those "chat log" lines in the log are about? Can't remember having seen such before. Mike
  8. That was just meant to be a joke, wasn't it? But it's a good one if that kidding was intentional ๐Ÿ˜‚ Mike
  9. Just for the record, during the past month the server locked up 5 times in total. Every time the reason was unknown but the result was the same: Server load looked just normal (in contrast to the crashes we've witnessed long time ago when the CPU load would always be 100%). DServer.exe becomes unresponsive. Server is listed ingame, but you cannot join it - click on it, and you get back to the server list within a split second. Mike
  10. 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
  11. No it's not an MG 151/20 after all ๐Ÿ˜ 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. Well that's just one filename plus maybe a hash replicated when the plane spawns, nothing to worry about.
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
×
×
  • Create New...