Jump to content

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Members
  • Content Count

    1366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

864 Excellent

2 Followers

About -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina

Recent Profile Visitors

1717 profile views
  1. At first glance I would like to see how it pans out with this first 10% limitation, maybe if it's still too many 262s in certain situations like axis team fully stacked (though with this planeset it would incentivize for higher allied team participation) we could make it so their numbers stops scaling once axis team is 2:1 ratio compared to allied team. About the P-51, yeah I meant the very rear edge of the map airfields. It might seem too much but the 51 has good autonomy and high cruising speed: For example as a possible bad case scenario of a fairly advanced frontline to the east I took off from Gent in 1901, with 900 liters (88% fuel), climbed to 20k feet in combat power, then set economy cruise settings and arrived to Billerbeck in 0927, took 40 min (8 climbing, 32 cruising at alt), when I arrived I just consumed the auxiliary tank, leaving with around 700 liters (69%), enough for over 1 hour sortie at max continuous settings, and you can land in a frontline airfield afterwards so a much shorter return trip ^^ If done at max continuous you can get there in 33 min total, with at least 560 liters of fuel left (could be more since one of the wing tank gauges didn't start decreasing yet). And if the campaign goes in favor of the axis the frontline would get closer and closer to the rear airfields making it a shorter trip for the 150 oct Mustangs to get to the action.
  2. Yeah, what makes the P-38 really popular as an attacker is the big bombload it can carry, but that's due to the extra pylons modification which was a field mod from a squadron in Italy iirc that's why I had it blocked in the 1st option. With the P-38 capped to it's historical bomb load the P-47 has the payload advantage, by just 500lb but well it's something ^^. Also if the new DM manages to correct Thunderbolt's resistance I could see it becoming popular as attacker. We could have an extra P-47 or two instead of P-38 in the attacker section. I'm kinda hesitant in adding the BoN planes yet since it will take months for them to come out, and will be 1 or 2 at a time each 3 months or so. So we should have the hangar numbers more or less balanced in quantity with what we have now and adjust them as the BoN planes come out one at a time.
  3. I like @Riksen 's suggestion for the next Western TAW planeset, so I also wanted to participate and give a bit of my own take to it ^^ At least currently I wouldn't like to have to separate the allied playerbase into US and British, maybe once after all of the Battle of Normandy planes are released together with the Hurricane collector, but I feel like currently it would do more harm than good. Also in the future once we have all these planes available, it would be interesting to have a transfer mechanic, say you want to switch to US or Britain in the middle of the campaign, you would be able to do so but you wouldn't have plane hangar transferred, you would have to earn them from the basic +1 ones. I have been thinking of what could be an interesting planeset with only the current planes available, so I came up with 3 types of planesets for LG team to take in consideration Option #1: Similar TAW to last one, only BoBP (+ A-5/U17 as Fw 190 F-3 for mid 1944 before the F-8 came) but with a more historical approach to the planeset: Option #2: Similar to option 1 but with a bit more relaxed on the historical accuracy, so it could be a more interesting TAW experience, a more staggered plane types introduction to give a bit spotlight to the "underdogs" and also last map being a bit more of "battle of the top dogs" (P-51 150 oct widely available, DC K-4 as +1). Option #3: A huge Western Front TAW campaign going from early 1941 to 1945, comprising of 11 maps, being a bit relaxed in historical accuracy given we lack a good amount of early-mid war allied planes but well, I think it could be quite fun ^^ Once the Hurricane and Battle of Normandy is completed this sort of mega campaign could be really good. I personally would like to have this as the next TAW to see how it goes (I suggest to right click the picture and open it in a new tab to see it better). Let me know what you think, between all of us we can come up with a nice campaign layout and planeset. o7
  4. Yes, you can see it at the lower right side of the cockpit
  5. @Avimimus I think you are mistaking the guns, NS-45 is the 45mm, and NS-37 was the 37mm gun. The IL-2 "1943" with 37mm saw mass production and almost 1200 were made, but the production stopped becuase of unsyncronized recoil causing accuracy problems. PTABs proved to be a much more succesful anti tank weapon so they prioritized that one instead.
  6. ngl I would like them to make the Li-2 to make use of the guns it had (turret, nose and side door ShKAS) and bombs too.
  7. 746 kmh for the Arado is most likely max power without bombs. The 262 does 870 kmh for comparison, so with the same engines the Arado is a bit over 100 kmh slower, makes sense since it's a bigger plane. The Me 262 with bombs and continuous mode has a speed of around 600-650 kmh. The Arado would be around 550 or maybe slower with max external bombload, so it wouldn't be too hard to intercept for the faster allied planes on it's way to the target.
  8. Yeah, the planeset is definitely weird in that regard. No G-14 nor Spit for the second map when they were some of the two most prevalent models even during Bodenplatte attack in Jan 1945. The initial planes for map 1 are also a bit of a no-historical but no-balance either. I wouldn't consider the P-47 the equivalent to the G-14, the Spit the equivalent to the A-8 and the Dora the equivalent to the P-38... The A-8 without bombs for the first map wouldn't be correct either, while the F-8 is a fairly late plane suited for map 2 the normal A-8s had the central pylon bombs available and there were the earlier F models available such as the Fw 190 F-3 (basically our Kuban A-5 with Jabo mod). Also I don't know how many 262s would be available in a particular mission, everyplayer having access to one 262 could end up troublesome if the mayority of the team use them simultaneously. I feel like the planeset should have been discussed with the community beforehand if the dev team was having doubts about either historicity or balance concerns and not 1 day before the campaign starts. The way it is now is neither historical nor balanced... it's weird and seems put together at the last minute without making use of the experience of playing other servers such as Combat Box or Kota that have been using BoBP planes for months.
  9. With Bagration you dont have German fighters to include. Currently the only ones left would be basically 109 G-10 and 190 A-9, and those are from a later timeframe. We should have a 1945 eastern front expansion to make the best use of both German and Russian plane lists. Yak-9D is not just extra fuel tanks, as I posted earlier there were changes in the design such as the oil radiator, and I dont think they would implement that as a mod.
  10. I'm afraid our Yak-9 is going to be a very early 1943 variant, I noticed the wip 3D model has the same type of oil radiator shutter as the Yak-7B, which I thought was changed by the time the "Yak-9" name was adopted, but Gavrick told me its correct and intended to be like that. So other modifications such as D, DD, etc wouldnt be suitable since these are late 1943/1944 production variants with other changes including the later style oil radiator (similar to Yak-1B). So it looks like its going to be of the rather limited initial production, with a few hundreds made, similar oil cooling problems as the current Yak-7B, and suitable for Battle of Kuban / Prokhorovka scenarios, not much of a La-5FN 1944 companion for MP. I wish we could get later variants as mods though, but kinda hard at this point, unless they choose to mix and match early and late features.
  11. In game there is a good bit of recoil in some guns, with low power settings you can slow down by firing the big cannons. The thing is that the wing cannons are perfectly syncronized in game and that helps countering the recoil, if you lose one gun you can really feel the recoil of the remaining one. We should have tiny differences in rate of fire for each gun to have the aim throwing recoil when holding the trigger for long bursts
  12. ^This, using each country's own test data is inconsistent given the different standards defining the penetration. If you want to have a proper modelling of penetration mechanics in the simulator all the projectile data should have the same penetration standard applied, for example US criteria for all of them, and WW2 Armor and Ballistics data is a good starting point with corrections when needed. If you use US data for US guns, German data for German guns, Russian data for Russian guns it will end up very inconsistently. Not because X or Y country overinflated their data but because they have different standards on how they defined a succesful penetration, testing methodology, types of steel utilized as armor target, etc.
  13. I mean other tests comparing against a Spitfire or captured 109 etc
  14. Are there comparative tests against a supposedly much weaker plane in zoom climbs?
  15. +25 boost crit alt is around 4800 meters but above that it's still offering more power until it drops down to +18 boost at around 6700 meters where it would equalize with the 100 oct Merlin 66.
×
×
  • Create New...