Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    1466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. In a nutshell, what you're telling is what @CountZero rightfully described as: The Americans must have hated their pilots beyond imagination. Mike
  2. This pretty much describes the issue with cal .50s vs. the 4.005+ DM: If your marksmanship is really up to the task and you fly against AI, you get a bunch of pilot kills (because you’ve got all the time it takes to score some extremely precise hits in the cockpit area) and every now and then a random engine on fire. Any “usual” kill from damaging your opponent happens once in a blue moon and killing anything but AI is worth a bottle of scotch. But it’s all historically correct as we’ve learned oh so many times... Mike
  3. You oughtta visit South Africa one day. Would make your aussie inet connection feel like warp 9 again. Mike
  4. Thank you very much for your reply @ZachariasX, I get the gist however there's a few things I'd like to add: Nobody said any different. Just as a matter of fact, 109s are swallowing bullets seemingly without any effect for four months now, and .50s can bring down any axis plane, but only after tremendous efforts. Neither of this has been the case before patch 4.005, therefore the matter stands that 4 months ago, with version 4.005, the game was updated to the worse in quite a siginificant regard, and knowingly so. I'm afraid this is an enormous belittlement of the issue(s). I never said so. It can be a tradeoff at times. However if the issue being introduced with an update exceeds certain levels, the update simply will be stopped and reworked until the issues are either solved or at least toned down to an acceptable level. The issues introduced with version 4.005 easily ruin the game for half of the online multiplayer community - the other half doesn't care or pisses themselves from laughter. Rolling out a software update with issues of that level would indeed get me axed, and it won't fit my own standards of quality either. As mentioned earlier, real world software development earns my life (which lasts more than half a century now). I've seen things like this dreaded version 4.005 happening in real life on the job too, however the brutal truth is that none of the companies I've witnessed doing this, ever managed to pull such stunt more than twice. Either they vanished on the very first such incident, or if they didn't immediately learn from it, they left the scene on the 1st repitition of such mistake. Mike
  5. I like people practicing delicacy. As such, you will have noticed that in the post I replied to, I've essentially been asked to write off my investments in this game and leave. As for the role of testers, I can only rely on the official statements which, concerning the issue in question, said this: "We discussed both options with the testers (leave it as it was, or lock it), and, having figured out the whole situation, they almost unanimously voted for the option to lock it." I never said you were decision makers. The statement however doesn't quite take us into thinking that the testers insisted a lot against the critical decisions taken on 4.005 release. Mike
  6. Now we start running in circles again... I should stop playing - online or completely - because devs and testers were so ever-excited about their precious 4.005 DM change that they didn't bother to turn one side's main fighter plain into a flying concrete block while at the same time nerfing the other side's main fighter gun to death? Thank you, message received. Mike
  7. You missed my point: I'm not saying the issue isn't there. All I'm saying is that the 4.005 update brought it to life, so whatever has been changed there that made this an issue must not have been released until the issue was fixed. Simple as that. Anything else is - since we cannot skip updates in this game - forcibly breaking a product where customers have spent money upon. Mike
  8. But truth being told, there was no such issue before the 4.005 DM change. Or to rephrase this: The issue might have been sleeping under the hood for all those years, but it was the DM change in 4.005 release four months ago (!!) that pronounced the issue to a point where devs and testers felt that they needed to do this drastic move which we have to suffer from until today and for an unforseeable future (!!) - see Jason's comment on the issue a day ago: Now... I'm developing software myself to earn a living, and there's a couple of things I'm considering a no-brainer, including the fact that whatever fancy new feature I might have created in an update for any existing Software I've ever made or touched, if such update-feature would break a significant portion of the software in question, it would simply be postponed until I've fixed the issue, or I'd get the axe on the day I'd dare to release such "update" - rightfully I should say. Please bear with me when I wholeheartedly disagree. Mike
  9. Interesting. I could swear I've landed similar bursts in 109 wings a hundred times before, but if such thing ever happened I must have forgotten about it or didn't look back in the right moment - which would absolutely be possible, considering that attacking a 109 in a Jug is something you do once, just to take your head down and run away afterwards. Nevertheless, thanks for the hint but I'm not convinced that this isn't just the odd one in a million shot depicted there. Mike
  10. Mind you, I've bought everything money can buy from this game (not sim... sorry), and even gifted a couple more to friends. Just stopped doing so two weeks ago, because... I did spend my money on a game with planes having no guns and weapons instead, consequently. I'm happy to spend my money for IL-2 GB again once I don't feel as ignored as a user as I do right now. Mike
  11. ...when you hit 'em with a 37mm HE shell maybe. With .50s they surely don't. Mike
  12. Can't add more reactions today but @Cpt_Siddy, take this reply as 10 upvotes in a row from me. Mike
  13. I don't want to be a downer either, but keeping the 109's concrete tail together with the utterly ineffective main allied gun for four full months now with no end in sight is slightly disappointing. Ruining the game experience for half of your online community will leave it's mark on your sales figure, just saying. Mike
  14. Oh well... in that case sorry for having missed on the sarcasm... dammit, I love sarcasm but I hate it when I don't get it 🤪 Thanks for waking me up Mike
  15. Lol? Lol. You're saying that historically planes and pilots were deyfing physics? Tell us more. Maybe some quotes of your 95% of WW2 aces which can backup your stance. Mike
  16. My tailcut victims say "no", as does my experience on the receiving end (online that is). Mike
  17. Does anyone actually have a hint how to recover a flat spin on the S.E.5a? I've just witnessed a flat spin I couldn't recover from, so I thought I'd take her for a ride offline and intentionally entered a flat spin at about 7000ft altitude. Plenty of time to recover and to try things. The flat spin was left-handed, so the first (and most intuitive) thing I tried was throttle back, stick full forward, trim down, ailerons levelled, full opposite rudder. The plane kept turning another 20 rounds or so without any signs of recovery. I've tried adding ailerons both directions. I've tried reversing rudder and elevators. I've tried adding throttle. Nothing, really nothing changed a single bit. Whatever I did, the spin went on just the same, never worse, never better, no single sign of recovery whatever I tried. Any hints? Mike
  18. Sounds a bit odd. If it was the Mustang only, I would chalk it on exaggerated expectations caused by the endless anecdotal accounts of "the plane that won the war" which, in some simple minds' language, translates to "the plane that beats each and everything". This has been causing fruitless debates before and probably always will. The Tempest however... Let me quote @SAS_Skylla's words about it: "If you die in a Tempest, you wanted to die." That's pretty much about how that plane feels to me too, albeit I've managed to die without wanting to in it already Mike
  19. I'm not saying you're wrong, quite the contrary. It's just that because... ...it's just a matter of time until someone comes around and presents a wild theory about why this shall be "just fine", cause essentially anything but pure netcode issues would mean that there is something wrong with the damage model, and that fact is not accepted by those being just too happy with it on the receiving end. The reason why deniers like to blame things on netcode is pretty simple: "This needs to be addressed in netcode" is just a 2nd grade version of "keep whining till the cows come home". Mike
  20. ...waiting for someone to explain that this is exactly how it's supposed to be and how dare you to expect any bigger damage from cal .50s. Mike
  21. The bullying of people who are just trying to point out obvious issues is beyond imagination. Toxic atmosphere on internet forums is nothing new, but the level of ignorance is something that's really special to this one. Maybe it's because this is such a niche product within a niche of niche products, but maybe it's simply because people act exactly like what they are - impossible to mention what that is without breaking the rules though. @QB.Creep: Don't let yourself get draught into this mess. You are not alone. Your issues are real. The tests conducted are valid. Certain people will never acknowledge those facts and you've already pinpointed the reason why. You can't have a factual debate with people simply following a certain agenda for obvious reasons, whatever it takes. That's simple genuine waste of precious lifetime. Mike
  22. We're drifting off a bit again. There's plenty of discussions about the general effectivity of cal .50s and their kill probability. This thread however deals with the drag penalty from surface hits. These two videos show a modern cal .50 APIT round hitting a steal plate, 1st is hanging in the air (rather shows impact fire and penetration abilities than anything else), 2nd is covered in ballistic gel so you can see what it would do e.g. on the inside of a wing when exiting through the "backside" skin: Granted, modern vs. WW2 ammo, but mind you it's APIT so this is not too far off from the API rounds we need. Mike
  23. Probably coming from the 109 F, the Yak-1b Series 127 is the easiest transition as it is quite comparable in speed, manoeuvrability, handling and carefree in terms of engine management. That's why I suggested it as the quick and easy look over the fence. Sure, the P-47 is hardcore, as are it's guns. That's why I said that this would teach you a whole different style of fighting, with absolute focus on energy management, good marksmanship and very good SA 'cause you definitely need to make sure that no 109 appears at your six with energy advantage. Same for the I-16, just the other way around: You have to lure your enemy into some kind of low-mid speed turn fight, which against medium experienced pilots will be quite a hard thing to achieve, and you have to pepper your victims and pray for the 1001st bullet to get through the enemy's tin skin. Mike
  24. Thanks for your reply @LLv34_Flanker Concerning netcode, yes I agree that having all net hit/damage handling being dealt with server-side only has probably been an anti-cheater consideration. I don't think it's been a clever thing to do as cheaters will always find their way through, and what remains is the fallout like lag/delay issues which all players have to deal with, i.e. you don't win against the hardcore cheaters but you piss off the normal players. But it's not me who has to decide and the design decision has been made long time since and it's likely impossible to revert. By the by, IL-2 1946 is all but perfect in terms of netcode either, but it seems to have a couple of more level headed and reasonable approaches implemented - and I'm saying so from a developer's point of view, being someone who has been swearing about 1946's netcode himself forth and back while I've added new online compatible mods to it. As for the cal .50s, yes they "only" punch holes through aluminium skins, however you can't have your cake and eat it too: Either the bullets walk through the structures of an airplane without being deflected/tumbling too much, which would mean they'll keep going and this in turn would mean that they'd be pretty successful in ruining a fighter's day when hitting the fuselage from around six o' clock position. Or they do get deflected and/or start tumbling, which in turn means they do release a substantial amount of kinetic energy to the structure deflecting them and in turn, cause significant damage to it, plus they'd cause a much bigger exit hole in such case if they make it through the structures all the way (wings for instance). I do sense that some people like to picture a cal .50 like it would always come in on a .5mm aluminium skin at 90° deflection, punch a neat cal .50 hole in it, and then either simply disappear (fuselage) or go through an empty void and punch another neat .50 hole on the other side, without bending anything outwards or causing any other kind of damage. Bullets don't do that though. Mike
×
×
  • Create New...