Finnish VirtualPilots - Dynamic War

[gx007]

I'm getting kicked on my second sortie for no apparent reason over the past few days. I'm not switching teams or tking. Am I missing a protocol? Please advise. Thank you.

 

Gx007

[BCI-Nazgul]

On 12/30/2021 at 11:41 PM, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

Today my first flight on server after 3 weeks holiday… and first I see: BOMBER AIRSPAWN…. Arrrgghhh?

Please remove that!!! 
I think 90% of my time on the finish server I play altitude Bombing but there really is no Bomber airspawn needed!! It destroy totally any immersion of a hardcore server!! Please don’t free us players from the effort to start the engines, take off and climb. Don’t support lazy players to do that!! Of course no one force me to use the airspawn but you gift players an advance to spawn in 3000 meters should not be!! In my opinion it’s a step into casual gaming this fantastic server really should not do!

I tried out, airspawn feels like honeymoon with a plastic dummy ?

A good Idea I think would be a backwards Bomber base, maybe not needed to resupply. Maybe on this base can also have a normal parking spawn with transporters, I remember players ask for that. A backward Bomber base would give me the time to climb I need ?. Give these bases also a few fighters to defend.?

If you want support the altitude Bombing maybe you reconstruct the natural level bombers Target the rear depots. In the rear depots we have are a lot of targets pop up really late or are totally invisible from medium to high range. 2/3 type of rear depots are very unattractive targets from high alt because can’t see the targets or see em just in the moment before drop.

I think it's great.   It takes forever to climb a loaded bomber to any altitude for level bombing with the bomb sight.   This makes that much easier and might encourage more people to try level bombing from altitude.  I don't know how you can say that "ruins" the immersion.   IRL bombers can fly in from hundreds of miles away for level bombing missions.   They'd already be at altitude and speed well before they entered our little maps, so the air start makes complete sense IMO.

8 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The exact same sentiments are shared by the tank that spawns in, only to be killed or damaged or wounded before moving.   AF's  sometimes now get the same kind of love that the tank spawns do.  And don't be fooled,  there are many pilots on here that can, and do find tanks firing on a strip and kill them.  That just requires some effort

Spending an hour flying in circles trying to find a tank hiding in the woods is more than "some effort".

[Bork_]

3 hours ago, gx007 said:

I'm getting kicked on my second sortie for no apparent reason over the past few days. I'm not switching teams or tking. Am I missing a protocol? Please advise. Thank you.

 

Gx007

Getting kicked for taking off from an airfield that doesn't have supply? The warning for that is easy to miss, it just comes up in the text chat telling you you'll be kicked if you take off. That happened to me just the other day. And I do have to wonder... why are we able to select and spawn at an airfield that has no supply? Is it a limit of the game engine that you can't actually stop spawns there? It's frustrating to get kicked for that but oh well, now I know. 
 

[JG4_Moltke1871]

2 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

This makes that much easier

This is exactly the point why it destroys the immersion … It would be also more easier when you spawn already on enemy territory not so far from the target. Also it would be more easier if you have some „despawn areas“ where you spawn out of the plane with full points. This would prevent us from the effort of descent and landing and make the game much easier. 
The attraction of Il2Sturmovik is that it is difficult. There is already enough help with the handling of the aircraft.  If the server admins also decide to add airspawns to save us gamers starting the engines, taking off and climbing what prevents us from all the little mistakes you can do already there then Il2 leaves the simulation area and becomes just another video game.

The Finnish Server is a good one, I prefer it because it’s almost difficult. It gives me the challenge of navigation (in opposite of WOL where you can see yourself on the Map), it have full engine management and the tech chat closes some gaps for things that are not 100% modeled in the cockpits.

 I would prefer accurate Planesets for each area but in this case I agree the players can have their hands on their full equipment.

Helps like airspawns to save some effort is too much in my angle of view, especially with full armed aircraft’s!

But like I said: It’s just my opinion…??‍♂️

[LLv34_Untamo]

10 hours ago, Bork_ said:

And I do have to wonder... why are we able to select and spawn at an airfield that has no supply? Is it a limit of the game engine that you can't actually stop spawns there?

 

Nail on the head.

[LLv34_Temuri]

10 hours ago, Bork_ said:

Is it a limit of the game engine that you can't actually stop spawns there?

We can, but there are two issues:

1. The rcon->mission logic link doesn’t seem to be robust enough for it to work reliably enough when toggling available planes list on a spawn.

2. Using an empty planes list greys out the spawn, and we’d rather not have opposing sides see that plane supply is out.

[Denum]

On 12/31/2021 at 10:56 AM, BG26_Ogg said:

So look this is just my two nickels rubbing together but it may be a way to make it balanced for all.

If I'm wrong about this first point then none of this really matters anyway.

POINT 1 The map moves by damage done to static targets.  If this is correct then my thoughts will make sense to those who play a roll.

Make the aircraft exactly what they are.
Fighter planes are just that.  No more F/B missions for fighters.  Fighters are a guns platform only.  This way the only effect they have on the movement of the map is in interdiction of enemy bombers.

When it comes to medium F/B role the twin engines are ready. Limit the loadouts for medium twin engine airframes to 600Kg of bombs and restrict fuel (no super 180 octane) and weapons loadouts (No more heavy guns when carrying bombs) for those airframes.  ME110G2 carry 2-250Kg w/ 4-50Kg wing mounted bombs and 2 7.92MGs for  the pilot. P38 limited to 2 500# bombs and 2 50cals with half ammo loadout.  If they're not carrying bombs then they can have full compliment of guns and ammunition.

With the big pigs (bombers) And finally Heavy bombers carry a full payload no more restricted bombloads.

 

Now that's just my two nickels but it makes for a balanced game without restricting too much.  The map barely moves if it's F/B and fighters in the skies and it moves quite a lot when the bombers are protected flying into enemy infrastructure.

Eh, no. It just encourages the already fighter heavy teams to be even more so. They don't even reliably fly supply so this does nothing but compound the problem. 

[JohnnyRocket]

Battle Management Critque of the Finworks Server

 

Too many times have I seen ground spawn points 25 kilometers away from any cp and requiring 10-12 kilometers travel thru forest and at the same time the opposing team having road surfaces and less than 8.5 kilometers away from the CP.   Nothing is fair, dont expect that, but the appearance of bias is noted where no bridges were available and travel required 16 to over 60 kilometers of ground travel to gain access to a CP because of rivers.  Tactical Reach has an effect.

 

This is not a ground only issue.  Also, I have experiences of front line AFs where one side has to fly over 50 kilometers to gain access to the FLOT and while opposing team had less than 11, and I am speaking about both front AFs being increased travel time and the other side receiving a travel bonus on the same map yesterday.  Operational reach has an effect.  

 

Learn to act like a command and staff and place units in the fight so they can fight;  It doesn't appear to be a total war simulation as advertised, its more a first person shooter game.  Need to rethink what you call random, or algorithmic control.    I am not impressed with the battle management of your team.

 

I will say, you have the best server because of the mix of combat ground and air, but its stuck on Eastern Front and Combat Box is now moving in the right direction with tank warfare, you better up your game.

 

BOWER

 

PS: I realize you have little control over invisible trees, but maybe, just maybe you could reduce the damage times or remove them when your traveling less than 10 kilometers an hour and u hit an invisible object.  

 

 

[gx007]

21 hours ago, Bork_ said:

Getting kicked for taking off from an airfield that doesn't have supply? The warning for that is easy to miss, it just comes up in the text chat telling you you'll be kicked if you take off. That happened to me just the other day. And I do have to wonder... why are we able to select and spawn at an airfield that has no supply? Is it a limit of the game engine that you can't actually stop spawns there? It's frustrating to get kicked for that but oh well, now I know. 
 

Ok thanks for the reply Bork.

[LLv34_Untamo]

On 1/3/2022 at 3:45 AM, =BES=Senor_Jefe said:

Are contrails on the deck due to -35° temps on purpose?  Feels like I'm playing some weird real-time tacview game...

 

Russian winters are cold and yes, you get contrails lower due to the temp.

 

2 hours ago, JohnnyRocket said:

I am not impressed with the battle management of your team. ... Combat Box is now moving in the right direction with tank warfare, you better up your game.

 

Why are you here then? I've read many of your quite incoherent rants about our server (many of which you would have been avoided if you would have read the first post on this thread), and spewing military jargon and such makes you sound like you know how to run things much better than we do. Sound like you need to make your own server, and run it any way you like.

 

Yes, the algorithm has flaws, it's no human. It doesn't know anything about rivers, so it cannot take them into account when placing stuff. We have (manually) mapped bridges, which we take into play if they happen to be in the vicinity of the combat areas.

Edited January 4, 2022 by LLv34_Untamo

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Yeah, he sure does like spewing a bunch of noise that sounds like he's got some sort of military authority at a player base that's mostly civilian or military members that don't act like he does at all.  I'm guessing he's in one of them new-fangled pink, green, or pink+green hair platoons, sitting in the supply depot keeping track of lawnmower gas supplies. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by 69th_Mobile_BBQ

[BG26_Ogg]

On 12/31/2021 at 1:04 PM, Willy__ said:

 

I might be wrong, but iirc those loadouts are not possible

The loadouts would be theoretical as there is no concrete evidence of the ME110G2 being used as an actual F/B as it was mainly used as a Heavy Night Fighter and used against night time Allied bombers.  But Theoretically it would have (with what IL2 put in them) a DB605A/AM with a HP increase of 500HP (standard DB 605A 1475PS) and with MW-50 750HP (which would be consistent with the combat boost IL2 installed) using the DB605AM with 1800PS.   These engines would give it enough HP/PS in order to get the load off the ground "theoretically" with the additional 1000 to 1500 HP/PS. 

I never put it to paper and looked up the G2 model until you mentioned it Willy.  They do however say that all variants of the BF110 from the "The initial Bf 110 C-1/B fighter-bomber could carry two 250 kg (551 lb), two 500 kg (1,102 lb), or two 1,000 kg (2,204 lb) bombs on two ETC 500 racks under the fuselage and, starting with the Bf 110 E-0, could be supplemented by four additional 50 kg (110 lb) bombs on ETC 50 racks under the wing."   They do however talk about performance being drastically reduced when weighed down with bombs and even when flying with empty racks.

EDIT:  some interesting information on this page.  seems that 2000 Pounds was the difference between takeoff weight and Max takeoff weight.  This would mean no twin 1000Kg and the twin 500Kg bombloads could be added but makes for max takeoff.  The twin 250Kg comes in with the ability to carry the additional 4-50Kg wing bombs.  https://www.armedconflicts.com/Messerschmitt-Bf-110-G-2-t76864

Thanks for having me look that information up.

>S<

Edited January 4, 2022 by BG26_Ogg
corrected payloads data

[JohnnyRocket]

17 hours ago, LLv34_Untamo said:

Why are you here then? I've read many of your quite incoherent rants about our server (many of which you would have been avoided if you would have read the first post on this thread), and spewing military jargon and such makes you sound like you know how to run things much better than we do. Sound like you need to make your own server, and run it any way you like.   I STATED YOUR HAVE THE BEST AVAILABLES SITE, THAT'S WHY I GAME HERE, I ALSO SEE THE FLAWS AND THOUGH  MY PROFESSIOANL SKILLS ARE FOR MILITARY AVIATION APPLICATIONS, NOT GAMING, MAYBE I'M UNFAIR IN MY CRITQUES.   YOU CALL IT A RANT, WELL OPINIONS VARY...

 

Yes, the algorithm has flaws, it's no human. It doesn't know anything about rivers, so it cannot take them into account when placing stuff. We have (manually) mapped bridges, which we take into play if they happen to be in the vicinity of the combat areas.   Well, I see you can read American, that's good.  and You have stated that it has flaws, and you try to manually add bridges, what about yesterday, no bridges anywhere near the FLOT to gain access to the cp.   NO MANUAL INPUT THERE!

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Yeah, he sure does like spewing a bunch of noise that sounds like he's got some sort of military authority at a player base that's mostly civilian or military members that don't act like he does at all.  I'm guessing he's in one of them new-fangled pink, green, or pink+green hair platoons, sitting in the supply depot keeping track of lawnmower gas supplies.   YOU LIKE SUCKING UP AND ATTACKING OTHERS WITHOUT RECOURSE, WELL THE MILITARY DOESN'T NEED HUMANS LIKE YOU.

 

[Denum]

"Read american"

 

Shudders

[JV44Stacko]

Hi Untamo,

 

Have you guys changed the latency/kick settings lately?

 

I know someone was griping about it recently and you stated that it was set 350 m/s for >10 secs as the threshold at which a player was kicked.

 

I'm just checking as I've had a few kicks today and I'm not too sure if its on my end or if the server settings have changed.

 

It's probably on my end - as I'm in Australia - and I've also been playing using hotel wi-fi.  But I recently went to the hotel's hard wired connection and still got kicked.

 

I for one, hope you don't (or haven't) changed the previous settings.  They work fine for me, and I mainly play tanks for the last few months and into the future.  There is a great player base in Australia.... well... when I say great, I mean - there's a few of us in Australia and New Zealand who form an active part of your community.  Please keep us in mind before restricting the ping limitations.

 

Thanks for running the best server in Il-2. 

 

All the best,

 

Stacko

[Willy__]

8 hours ago, BG26_Ogg said:

The loadouts would be theoretical as there is no concrete evidence of the ME110G2 being used as an actual F/B as it was mainly used as a Heavy Night Fighter and used against night time Allied bombers.  But Theoretically it would have (with what IL2 put in them) a DB605A/AM with a HP increase of 500HP (standard DB 605A 1475PS) and with MW-50 750HP (which would be consistent with the combat boost IL2 installed) using the DB605AM with 1800PS.   These engines would give it enough HP/PS in order to get the load off the ground "theoretically" with the additional 1000 to 1500 HP/PS. 

I never put it to paper and looked up the G2 model until you mentioned it Willy.  They do however say that all variants of the BF110 from the "The initial Bf 110 C-1/B fighter-bomber could carry two 250 kg (551 lb), two 500 kg (1,102 lb), or two 1,000 kg (2,204 lb) bombs on two ETC 500 racks under the fuselage and, starting with the Bf 110 E-0, could be supplemented by four additional 50 kg (110 lb) bombs on ETC 50 racks under the wing."   They do however talk about performance being drastically reduced when weighed down with bombs and even when flying with empty racks.

EDIT:  some interesting information on this page.  seems that 2000 Pounds was the difference between takeoff weight and Max takeoff weight.  This would mean no twin 1000Kg and the twin 500Kg bombloads could be added but makes for max takeoff.  The twin 250Kg comes in with the ability to carry the additional 4-50Kg wing bombs.  https://www.armedconflicts.com/Messerschmitt-Bf-110-G-2-t76864

Thanks for having me look that information up.

>S<

 

Theoretical or not thats not the problem. As we have ingame right now, you simply cant have half the ammo on the guns (or any set amount btw), you either have full ammo (all machine guns and cannons) or no ammo at all (also in this case you cant remove the guns, so you end up having to carry them, dead weight essentialy); I was talking about the limitations of the game.

 

You can however, lock any modification of the planes and since bombs count as mods, you can lock them out, that works the same if the guns are counted as mods (some planes have some mods to add/remove guns, but that is not the case for the 110g2 with the exception for the cannons pod that go in the belly of the plane)

 

S! 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Willy__

[LLv34_Untamo]

7 hours ago, JV44Stacko said:

I for one, hope you don't (or haven't) changed the previous settings.

 

We haven't changed these settings in a while, and currently don't see a need to.

[Arditi]

Why does the supply truck explode out of nowhere at temporary airports?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

15 hours ago, JohnnyRocket said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies.  I hadn't realized I was messing with the first-ever recipient of the Congressional Medal of Karen.  

Won't happen again Sma'am.

[JG1_Wittmann]

On 1/3/2022 at 8:13 PM, JohnnyRocket said:

PS: I realize you have little control over invisible trees, but maybe, just maybe you could reduce the damage times or remove them when your traveling less than 10 kilometers an hour and u hit an invisible object.  

I don't believe  the FVP have any control over tank repair times,  that's  the game.  They could only control maybe how long it took to refuel/repair/rearm at a truck . I posted a video  in the bugs section of the forum about crew injuries and I drove a tank into a well I put in the road  25 kph maybe, major damage and all crew injured.  At least it seems like the game devs have lessened the crew injury aspect from inviso-objects and others as well.

 

It would be a very nice feature,  now that we have the driveable AA truck if we could use them as a repair/refuel/rearm truck  out in the field after spawning and driving to a tank, or tanks operating  not near their spawn point.  That would be a realistic addition for the missions

 

Bridge repair  near the frontlines  should probably be looked at to see if it does in fact work.   I have sat by a downed bridge, went and ate  etc   an hour later no repair.   I have never seen a bridge repair on the server and have waited a few times to see if it did. Maybe bridges  on the map should repair after 30 minutes as we are  cramming a campaign/mission into a 5 hour period.     Now someone in my squad, a  few members ran a campaign, played weekly.  In that, a bridge repair  tank  could drive to a bridge  and after a few minutes it would be repaired.   Now that we have trucks available  perhaps that could be the  repair crew.   I believe it only works on the wooden bridges.

[Crious]

Supply questions. 

There are times that an airfield has 26/35 plains and i supply it with a ju 52/3 and i get 300 points , sometimes not. Why is that.

Is there any limitation in the number of supply sorties per player or/and per map/mission?

What is the difference between different types of supply airplanes? 

How much is the contibution for eatch one of them and how can i use supply planes properly? 

I am little confused!!!

Thanks in advance for the answers. 

 

 

[LLv34_Temuri]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:14 AM, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

Supply questions. 

There are times that an airfield has 26/35 plains and i supply it with a ju 52/3 and i get 300 points , sometimes not. Why is that.

Is there any limitation in the number of supply sorties per player or/and per map/mission?

What is the difference between different types of supply airplanes? 

How much is the contibution for eatch one of them and how can i use supply planes properly? 

I am little confused!!!

Thanks in advance for the answers. 

 

 

IIRC, you should get points based on how much actual supply "went in". Damage to the supply aircraft diminishes the amount of supply. We don't have other limitations. Ju-52 gives 30 planes max, others give 10.

[[U99]OttoU99]

Thanks for the great server!

Die Falkenjagd . IL 2 Sturmovik .Best server-Finnish VirtualPilots.Fantastic fight.

 

 

[Chaintong]

On 1/5/2022 at 2:47 PM, JV44Stacko said:

Hi Untamo,

 

Have you guys changed the latency/kick settings lately?

 

I know someone was griping about it recently and you stated that it was set 350 m/s for >10 secs as the threshold at which a player was kicked.

 

I'm just checking as I've had a few kicks today and I'm not too sure if its on my end or if the server settings have changed.

 

It's probably on my end - as I'm in Australia - and I've also been playing using hotel wi-fi.  But I recently went to the hotel's hard wired connection and still got kicked.

 

I for one, hope you don't (or haven't) changed the previous settings.  They work fine for me, and I mainly play tanks for the last few months and into the future.  There is a great player base in Australia.... well... when I say great, I mean - there's a few of us in Australia and New Zealand who form an active part of your community.  Please keep us in mind before restricting the ping limitations.

 

Thanks for running the best server in Il-2. 

 

All the best,

 

Stacko

Hi Stacko  my internet here is pretty pathetic and if mbps drops below 3 It usually results in me getting the boot from the game not sure what you have there but maybe this helps cheers CT

[KoN_]

Is There punishment for team killing . Or at least a Ban for a week . 

You have some very silly players on the server . 

109 and 190 attacking friendly players . !!!! 

Edited January 10, 2022 by KoN_

[LLv34_Untamo]

14 hours ago, KoN_ said:

Is There punishment for team killing . Or at least a Ban for a week . 

 

Yes, there is an automatic system that first warns a player about team killing, and if he repeats the offense, he will receive bans of increasing lengths every time he does it.

[Mm1ut1]

Tank Hunting.

Had a blast last night participating in the blue on red seemingly hour long attempt to get that pesky KV-1  ! Congratulations to the red tanker who occupied a good portion of blue’s Air Force ! 

[JG4_Matthias]

Eine neue Idee für Ihren Server: Squadron Airfields
Wäre es möglich, dass sich das Squadron aus einer Anzahl von 10 registrierten Piloten einen eigenen Flugplatz zusammenstellt, auf dem nur diese starten und tanken können?
.der Flugplatz muss erst aktiviert werden
1 x Ju52 Versorgung für das Bodenpersonal
1 x Ju52 Aktivierung der Platzsicherung, AAA
1 x Ju52 Versorgung für Jagdflieger
1 x Ju52 Versorgung für Angreifer

.Wenn dieser Nachschub geflogen ist, ist der Flugplatz freigeschaltet und kann für das Geschwader genutzt werden.

[LLv26-Junnu]

On 1/10/2022 at 5:57 PM, KoN_ said:

Is There punishment for team killing . Or at least a Ban for a week . 

You have some very silly players on the server . 

109 and 190 attacking friendly players . !!!! 

Most probably she is Jakl, she does same at both sides.

[KoN_]

3 hours ago, LLv26_Holmes said:

Most probably she is Jakl, she does same at both sides.

Needs to be banned then . I got shot down attacking enemy ground targets and a JU88 was also attacked . By 109 and a 190 . 

[LLv34_Temuri]

4 hours ago, LLv26_Holmes said:

Most probably she is Jakl, she does same at both sides.

He's running 720p resolution, can't ID.
 

And looks like it wasn't him http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/log/2167738/?tour=47

[[U99]OttoU99]

11.01.2022 в 15:37, Mm1ut1 сказал:

Tank Hunting.

Had a blast last night participating in the blue on red seemingly hour long attempt to get that pesky KV-1  ! Congratulations to the red tanker who occupied a good portion of blue’s Air Force ! 

The three little pigs. IL 2 Sturmovik. Finnish VirtualPilots  

    

 

Edited January 12, 2022 by [U99]OttoU99

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Flew a sortie in a P-38 on a mission that ended about 5PM ET.  No stats posted for this mission yet.

[LLv34_Temuri]

On 1/13/2022 at 1:20 AM, VBF-12_Stick-95 said:

Flew a sortie in a P-38 on a mission that ended about 5PM ET.  No stats posted for this mission yet.

The stats parser had a hiccup. The sortie should be there now.

[jdoe33]

On 1/12/2022 at 8:54 AM, LLv26_Holmes said:

Most probably she is Jakl, she does same at both sides.

Lmao, i have 1 friendly kill this whole tour. Shit happens. Claiming i do FF on purpose on both sides is ridiculous. 

 

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/pilot/21464/6FG_Jakl/?tour=47&cls=light 

 

Stop spreading false information. 

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

8 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

The stats parser had a hiccup. The sortie should be there now.

 

Thanks.

 

Sortie this morning missing also where mission ended at about 10AM ET.  Also in a P-38.  Do stats take longer to update now?  Used to take about 5 to 10 minutes after mission roll.

[JG4_Matthias]

Ranking is down

[Matthias_PDX]

Nevermind just let the reds have it so we can move on. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by MatthiasAlpha
stuff

[ShampooX]

Sorry if this topic has been discussed before.  I did a search but could not find anything.  In my short mission today I sustained 5.9% damage from a player who was later credit with "destroying" my Tank.  This happened behind enemy lines at the very end of the match.  I Left Mission when the map was rotating to the new round.  When I left I had already totally repaired and all crew members we all healthy.  Yet somehow I am classified as "destroyed."  Yet, when I shoot the flaps off a plane attacking our spawn in the last minute of the round (probably also only about 10-15% damage), I do not get credit for destroying the target.  I don't think it should be that somebody gets credit for destroying a tank that has less than 10% damage, if the tank player needs to leave the mission.

 

[JG1_Wittmann]

The 5%  damage threshold for a destroyed tank has always been an issue.   I believe,  at a minimum  1 mg bullet will do .1% damage,  whether it actually damages the tanks funcionality or injures a crew member or not.  So 50 mg strikes,   doing no realistic damage  other than scuffed paint, net's a kill.   THe game itself may not be able to determine if serious damage or disabled components exist. This threshold should be set to at least 15%  if not even higher.   Many people in tanks will fire a coup-de-gras shot even if a tank is already smoking just to make sure.   We exist in a flying game  and all the ace ground killers want to be able to strafe and get a cheap ground kill from mg's.  The good tank killer flyers  destroy your tank,  without there being any doubt.   5%  is actually an increase from what the server originally had,   it should be brought up to a much higher % level  until, if ever, the developers   make a more complicated damage model