Jump to content

Operatsiya_Ivy

Members
  • Content Count

    435
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

475 Excellent

About Operatsiya_Ivy

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1417 profile views
  1. First of all, i don't mind the migoto mod and i know that you don't want to have snap views removed from the game as far as i know. However comparing these two things bugs me a bit. Nobody is forced to play in VR. If someone feels like they have an advantage in 2d they can always switch back to it if they use VR. This does not work the other way, at least not for the vast majority of players. This doesn't mean that VR shouldn't be competitive of course. In the end i think that a lot of this discussion is wasted and blown out of proportion. Spotting improvements and further VR development should be on everyone agenda and i am convinced that the migoto mod will get adjusted or made obsolete at some point or another.
  2. That's why i used quotation marks on the word based. While it is not directly based on it, he cross referenced it to contemporary trials by the RAF for example. Quote: "There is some reassurance in the fact that the 20 x 80RB M-Geschoss and the 20 x 110 (Hispano) HE emerge with the same score, as a comparative test by the RAF [...]" While the KE value is indeed getting multiplied by the CE, i don't understand why you call it in "arbitrary" calculation when it gets clearly stated how and why the calculation is done the way it is. It obviously is a simplification and, like i said before, there are certainly things you can criticize about it, but i have yet to see a more convincing comparative gun effectiveness table. Something that you need to rely upon when you try to create a convincing damage model. So no, it does not agree with anecdotal data but actual scientific tests. I never tried to deligitimize any actual scientific or engineering based precise calculations with it? Like i already said, it is a simplification. I assume you read actual scientific trials, so you should understand that it is not possible to create a DM without simplifying results. The provided table does that in a convincingly matter and is therefor very useful in my opinion. Calculations that attribute KE and CE more equally result in different values but the ratio between different cartridges stays the same roughly. It sounds like you have a better approach to compare cartridge destructiveness though, i would be interested in that.
  3. You know me Chimango, if there is a DM post, i am not far away from it I hope i don't repeat other posts in this thread too much, i tried reading through it thoroughly. This is already a biased premise. You are only focusing on one perceived issue and have a clear agenda to prove your point with the test. Scientifically this is problematic. As was stated before, as long as you don't mod weapons to eliminate either AP or HE (depending on what you want to test) from the "belt" it will always screw with your results like you can see in the posted videos. Additionally, shooting at flying planes has advantages and disadvantages. While it makes the test more realistic due to it being affected by g-loads, it makes it substantially harder to hit the same spot of the target area. Potentially this also invalidates your test results. It also makes you wonder why you only test against 109s. What about 190s? Spits? Yaks? this further invalidates your test because you can't single out the issue at hand. There might simply be a different reason for your perceived issue, for example the DM of the 109 might be in fact the issue and not the weapon. Last but not least, in general you should always make the complete results public for review if you plan on an more extensive and correct test in the future, which i would be genuinely interested in. This is obviously just a personal observation and i have no way to back this up but i feel like the UBS is one of the best VVS guns around currently and i experienced very good results with it. It is not all VVS guns being "nerfed". The Devs and testers don't have a agenda even though you imply that and it can feel like it sometimes. Considering the Vya-23mm: While i haven't done any reliable testing at all, i got the impression as well that it performs significantly worse than it should. Definitely would be interesting to take a closer look. You don't know. We don't know. But it certainly does not only affect VVS guns. Again, biased premise. There are very little "REAL reports" out there. This calculation you are trying to delegitimize is from the leading researchers for ww2 guns A.G. Williams and Dr. Gustin. Maybe look it up some more before you start slandering it. You can certainly criticize them but their calculation is very very likely "based" on the same reports as the Devs used. On a little side note, if you have read some of these extensive reports, you know that it is impossible to replicate in a sim game. Unless you want a sim game about damage calculations... I am very much and genuinely looking forward to the report. I hope it will take some of the feedback in this thread into account. Testing was also conducted in MP. However, i was not involved in the testing so i don't know specifics. I think many people (myself included to a degree) need to change their mindset when it comes to this sim game. It is not intended as being competitive (in an e-sport sense). There is no balance. Therefor i think people shouldn't treat it that way and appreciate it more when people take up the challenge and fly significantly worse performing aircrafts.
  4. With the patch 4.005 the Damage Model got a very extensive overhaul. The first impression i got from it is very positive, despite some earlier communication issues i am very grateful for it so here goes out a big thank you to @-DED-Rapidus @AnPetrovich @Han and @Jason_Williams and of course all the others who were involved but i can not name. This post can be closed now. The Testing method is not applicable to the current DM anymore and there is currently no way to make a reliable new test. I'd also would like to thank everyone who participated in the discussion in a constructive matter.
  5. Last time this was considered, which maybe ~2 years ago iirc, the conclusion was that it isn't possible due to IL2 limitations but maybe @Alonzo can weight in on that as someone with more knowledge about these kind of things. But even when you have a 4h mission i think a 40min flight to the frontline is excessive. I know some Bomber blokes already do these long missions but it's just not for me.
  6. I highly doubt the 10% limitation will do anything. 4-5 players with 262s are still way too many for a single mission. In my opinion even 1 is too much because certain people will abuse the shit out of it but i already go for a compromise. 262s were always outnumbered so i think it would be reasonable to not make them available when axis got the number advantage. While this was general the case with the luftwaffe, i think it would be a nice way to balance out the 262s unique feature of being untouchable and basically immune to AA thanks to the AI. In terms of P-51 150 oct. fuel i think it would make much more sense to create an airspawn in the north west to simulate them coming from england than making them fly for 40 minutes just to arrive at the frontline in a mission that lasts just 2h.
  7. @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard concerning the 10% availability of the 262, i still think that in addition to that it should be unavailable if the the axis team is outnumbering allies by 5 or more players and only be available after 15 min into the mission. Concerning the 150 oct. fuel P-51 i hope you don't mean the very rear airfields but simply "not frontline" airfields?
  8. Without trying to take anything away from your great result, this was probably the best circumstances for achieving it. Most high kill streaks ended sooner rather than later due to rear gunners. The A-20 was the only aircraft on allied side that has them and they are for some reason the worst in the game. Also P-38s and P-47s were flown a lot which have one of the weakest damage models in the game right now and are a mismatch against G-14s and up. Props to you however that you have flown till the end of the campaign and not stopped in fear of risking the streak!
  9. Your obvious nonsense aside, this TAW was meant to be a test and not a real campaign and most people treated it that way. So i don't really get your whole tantrum because the TAW devs want feedback.
  10. This just shows how little experience you have flying red. Being outnumbered as blue is a very different story than being outnumbered as red, mainly because reds usually have inferior planes and can't decide when to pick a fight.
  11. Might be because people play games because they want to enjoy themselves 🤔 I wonder what your "tenacity" would look like when you would be playing on red side. It is always easy to judge when you only fly on one side.
  12. How about not making the 262 available if Axis are outnumbering Allied players by more than 5?
  13. Considering that this is a playtest of the campaign, i think we can judge fairly well that the last map with the 262 is very problematic and always will be as long as it is in the campaign. I can totally understand that people want it there because it was flown in that time but in my opinion it adds more problems than positives. I don't have to remind anyone that people will abuse game mechanics, the past has shown that clearly and the TAW devs had to put in a lot of effort to prevent something like that from happening again. I am afraid that the 262 is a beast that is not tameable. No limitations will certain people stop them from abusing it and therefor ruining the experience for a lot of people. Again, this is a test and nobody really cares about the campaign results but in an actual campaign i don't see myself and others i have been talking to play maps as allies when the 262 is available, no matter the quantity.
  14. Personally i think the P-51 should get 150 oct fuel even when they were limited to england. It's not like they weren't involved in combat over western europe and we don't have realistic squadron airfields anyway.
  15. @Jason_Williams can you touch upon how lift will get affected by damage with the new update in comparison to the current DM?
×
×
  • Create New...