Bad feeling about russian 20mm.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Saying something is "strange" about one of the cannon in the sim or that one is a "laser" specifically fudged for balance is just a tactless way to seek out opinions from your peers about whether or not something changed in a recent patch.  Overreacting is also bad form, but you can't just insinuate things like that and not expect others to show a lack of patience with that attitude.

 

On a different note, I must say when you fly the Sturmovik and shoot aircraft down with those glorious 23mm cannon, you understand why they saw good use hunting Stukas and other such prey and not just for ground attack.  Very cathartic!

 

Just to make it clear dude, this is a game so it would not be a tragedy a balancing purpose, not at all, and "laser" is only an easy word that everybody here perfectly understand since the old IL2, like it or not.

 

I don't care about reaction of some guys here, insinuate or not as you say.

 

If you know a better way to say somenthing that's is different from "all is perfect and marvellous", please let me know.

Edited August 22, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Just to make it clear dude, this is a game so it would not be a tragedy a balancing purpose, not at all, and "laser" is only an easy word that everybody here perfectly understand since the old IL2, like it or not.

 

I don't care about reaction of some guys here, insinuate or not as you say.

 

If you know a better way to say somenthing that's is differem from "all is perfect and marvellous", please let me know.

 

 

"Hey guys, is it me or is the Soviet 20mm more deadly with the last patch?"

 

There you go.  And I didn't say you care about anything.

[150GCT_Veltro]

So what? We need to stay here talking about the literal interpretation of my post, or we just stay on the topic? However if you like do it, use literal quote at least....i did say "in the last updateS". However is not a problem, don't worry. I understand what you mean. You could be right, but i didn't find a better way to post without create the "next war". Peace and love.

 

Insinuate or not, my negative feeling stay. Sorry for that.

Edited August 22, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[XQ_Lothar29]

Not a flame just a bad feeling in the last online sorties.

Did they changed somenthing in the last updates for the russian 20mm or it's only a placebo effect, a negative personal feeling? It does seem to me that the russian 20mm are now a sort of demolition weapons "one shoot, one kill", as for 109 DM (but not only) that are broken immediately as soon as they taken hits.

My bad feeling (negative) is that somenthing could have been changed for balancing purpose, but probaly in an exaggerated way.

 

What you guys feel? I need to know please.

The same as you.

 

apart from other very negative feelings I notice in other German aircraft related issues, which are at a distinct disadvantage.

 

If for some reason the Luftwaffe called the air war in Europe until well into 1943, it was for its technological potential in armament and aeronautica.

 

FW 190, and was one of the Luftwaffe planes on this simulator, but damaged in all, an trashed his performance completely, which can not understand, it's like a I16, holds impacts 20mm without disintegrating in the air literally

 

if at any time the aviation, step of using wood duralumin and other metals, was because it was good and strong, but in this simulator, it seems that wood is much more resistant to impacts of ammunition and G's that Duralumin and structures metal..

 

[Edited] 17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

 

Sorry, this is my point of view... and I do not say much, because I can hardly express myself in English

 

Salut

Edited August 22, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[ACG_pezman]

Why doesn't anyone consider their opponents, as well as their own, connection to the server?  A lot of people don't have optimum pings to these servers, the vast majority of populated servers being in Russia, and the vast majority of IL-2 players being not from Russia.  The server has to find a way to balance someone who constantly updates many times a second with someone who updates just a couple times or once a second.  Inevitably something is going to happen just after a packet is sent or just before one is received.  To fix this the server and client PC make educated guesses as to where the opponent who hasn't received/given an update will be or what they will be doing.

 

Case in point:  Aircraft collisions where only one aircraft gets damaged.  One player's PC says you collided while the other player sent a packet that said I moved, but that packet wasn't received by the server in time to save the other pilots life.  Can't just reincarnate the already destroyed aircraft.

 

Someone mentioned earlier that you don't see all the bullets, this too can be related to ping.  Last night I was flying on Wings of Liberty with another pilot from North America.  He told me that "that is me firing" on Team Speak before I even saw his tracers... a good second after. 

 

This is also explains being shot down while looking directly at your opponent and seeing his firing line far behind you, but somehow you just got shot... did the bullets curve toward you?  No, it just takes a split second to move the nose up and fire, but it takes longer to get an update from the server, so you never saw it... it just happened.

 

Also we can blame this when you line someone up perfectly, fire, and know you hit just to see nothing happen... then seconds later your target gets rekt... wings rip off, ball of fire, etc...  That dude is probably screaming his head off thinking you either missed and some weird stuff just happened or maybe he never even saw you in the first place and cant understand.

 

There is a lot of funny stuff in this game that I believe is caused by connection issues.  If you connection to the server is fine then it's probably your opponents connection.  High ping people benefit from being aggressive since their moves are delayed on everyone else's screens.  In the First Person Shooter world we saw this a lot in competitions against a high ping opponent.  They could sprint around a corner and see an opponent waiting for them, and if they are quick enough, line up a shot and kill that person before they react.  Why? 

 

Because each PC has all the information of every other player on it so when you walk around a corner you can see those players who are there.  Hackers take advantage of this to show them everything on the map at all times, but for those of us who don't hack, it's supposed to be a surprise.  But with a high ping you can run around the corner, shoot, kill, and run on before the guy you just killed even knows what happened.  All he sees is a split second of action... maybe just the person as they start to come around the corner, then they are dead.  Sometimes the bullets hit at the same second the enemy appears.  It's all very frustrating.

 

There is no real way to fix that I am aware, it's just a limitation of the current technology we have.  Fiber optics from your PC to it's destination will improve this lag but it won't eliminate it.  Light can never travel as fast as it should in a medium, it's just a law.  So, we can never get rid of lag

[Holtzauge]

Very interesting discussion. I only fly offline when I find the time and usually the same set-up for practice: Head to head at 1 Km altitude with 10 Km separation and I either try to take out the opposition in the head on pass or avoid an exchange of fire here and aim for some ACM practice.

 

After logging multiples of ten flights in both the La-5 and Fw-190 (no MG-FF) I have found that I more often get catastrophic damage on the Fw-190 involving fire, explosion or dead pilot when I fly the La-5 than vice versa. Given what I know from Williams & Gustins book on gun effectiveness and Kurt Tanks ambition to build a sturdy fighter I’m a bit surprised by the results. Can’t say its wrong of course but its certainly not the results I would have expected……

[Jade_Monkey]

Some threads are better suited for opinions and points of view, while other threads really need evidence and tests. The latter would be best for this discussion since an objective conclusion would be the only way to answer the OP.

[150GCT_Veltro]

FW 190, and was one of the Luftwaffe planes on this simulator, but damaged in all, an trashed his performance completely, which can not understand, it's like a I16, holds impacts 20mm without disintegrating in the air literally

 

if at any time the aviation, step of using wood duralumin and other metals, was because it was good and strong, but in this simulator, it seems that wood is much more resistant to impacts of ammunition and G's that Duralumin and structures metal..

 

 [edited]

 

Sorry, this is my point of view... and I do not say much, because I can hardly express myself in English

 

Salut

 

This one. Thank you.

[Irgendjemand]

Have you ever read practice recommendations for organizing cover to attackers/bombers? Does words echelon cover and fighter sweep mean smth to you? Have you seen it at least once in virtual sky?

 

I had. "So please don't..." ©, tell me about things you never practiced (my guess, mb i'wrong) and about insulting.

 

P.S.: if you can't see opponent - he can't see you. Drawdistance is same for both of you. If he can and you don't - it means only you looking around not good enough. Simple, isn't it?

Oh dude. Have a nice life.

/ignore

[Holtzauge]

Just thought I should add: My opinion in post #53 is as I said based on using the same scenario over and over and a collection of the results from more than 40-60 flights. Maybe not a six sigma based result upholding the highest standards of scientific proof but for me it has been enough to see a definite trend. If you don’t believe me you can always try to collect some statistics yourself.

[JtD]

If you take the La-5 as a reference - a contributing factor to the apparent hitting power is the close proximity of the very accurate ShVAK cannons. Often, you will either miss with both shells, or hit with both shells at the same time into the same spot. This will generally lead to a higher number of critical hits than with two shells distributed over to hit locations. Additionally, these guns require near zero convergence and will still be effective over a long range.

 

The fact that you sometimes completely miss when you'd hit with two guns set further apart, is often not noticed by the target.

[SYN_Haashashin]

its me or it's getting way to personal between some of you??.

 

Feelings are to be respected, you may agree or not with those, but you should respect them above all. At the end we all can agree on disagree but make no sense to get personal. If by any means you feel to do the latest, please do it over at PMs ( keep in mind that PMs can be moderated if reported by a member).

 

Also I will have to edit some posts when I get home.

[unreasonable]

 

if at any time the aviation, step of using wood duralumin and other metals, was because it was good and strong, but in this simulator, it seems that wood is much more resistant to impacts of ammunition and G's that Duralumin and structures metal..

 

 

 

Monocoque construction allows for greater strength, but only provided that the skin is undamaged. Once the shell is damaged, the structure is compromised.  The all metal semi-moncoque Spitfire, for instance, could take less punishment that the Hurricane, which relied for it's strength on it's internal girders.

 

So there could well be a difference in the ability of different planes to take hits without falling apart, and older construction systems could be more robust, leaving aside issues of armour.

[MK_RED13]

... check this.. 3:12...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XRcfntE_Ng - ONEHITONEKILL WEAPON!!!!!!! without discussion....

Edited August 22, 2016 by MK_RED13

[ACG_pezman]

The same as you.

 

apart from other very negative feelings I notice in other German aircraft related issues, which are at a distinct disadvantage.

 

If for some reason the Luftwaffe called the air war in Europe until well into 1943, it was for its technological potential in armament and aeronautica.

 

FW 190, and was one of the Luftwaffe planes on this simulator, but damaged in all, an trashed his performance completely, which can not understand, it's like a I16, holds impacts 20mm without disintegrating in the air literally

 

if at any time the aviation, step of using wood duralumin and other metals, was because it was good and strong, but in this simulator, it seems that wood is much more resistant to impacts of ammunition and G's that Duralumin and structures metal..

 

[edited]

 

Sorry, this is my point of view... and I do not say much, because I can hardly express myself in English

 

Salut

 

Hi Lothar,

 

I am just curious how you can claim that about the 190 when last night you killed me in a La-5 with a 190.  It was one pass, you dove through some thick clouds, boomed me (utterly destroying me in the process) and then warped back through the clouds to safety in your 190.  Didn't take you very long to kill me at all.  So what are you basing your claim off of?  Just the times when it doesn't work? 

[SYN_Haashashin]

mazaki, If you have something personal to say to me please do it over PM. This is not the place.

 

Respect other members, thats all I ask.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Everybody can post a video, so i don't really like this way. Now, what a new player should have to think after watching this video? Good points has been reported above, monocoque construction for ex., but watching this video somebody could say "Yes ok, but what we are talking about?".

 

 

This just to reply people who ask for evidence. Everibody here perfectly know what we are talking about. Leave the VVS vs Luftwaffe away, because this is not the case.

 

P.S.: about the monocoque construction, what about wooden wing?

Edited August 22, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Go to 3:00 in that video and you see a 109 do the exact same thing to a Yak(the 109 then survives hits on the tail) .  The evidence seems to say that fighters are very allergic to cannon.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Silas

[Holtzauge]

Since the subject came up: Actually a monocoque contruction (usually supported by stringers and bulkheads or ribs depending on location) is a damage tolerant load bearing structure: True, it relies on the skin to take the load but usually such a structure is dimensioned for buckling not absolute strength and even if damaged will not fail catastrophically if you notice the damage and don't abuse it since there are usually alternative load paths even if a part of the structure is damaged. However, a structure built up of welded tubes becomes a single point of failure structure (a bit like getting hit in the wing spar) meaning if you are unlucky you can get downed by the golden BB which is not the case in a monocoque where you get a hole in the skin or a severed stringer which is easily survivable.

[E69_geramos109]

Ok, as you know I use to fly as a german but sometimes i test reds too. Seems that my plane is allways finished with a short brust flying yak or 109. One thing i noticed is that you are not able to hear the hits on your plane and is not possible to know if enemy hits you a brust or only a shot.

There are pilots interviews talking about this and they hear like a lot of stones falling in to a metal wall when they were hit.

 

As the attaker view is true that russian 20mm seems more powerfull than the german. I have no problem to shot down a plane in a single pass but this is because i train a lot my gunnery and i allways hit a lot of bullets in to my target. Flying russian the gun has a lot more muzzle velocity and seems like lasers. This is correct made but the bullet should have less explosive weight than mg151 and if you compare my videos, all other german videos with the red player videos you can easylly notice you need less shells to down a german plane.

Talking about 190 i dont want to talk about fm in this post but about endurance they easylly blow my wings with a hit. This is correct too, but only if you have extra guns where the ammo can make explossion after a shot there, but I allways fly without extra guns and they blow my wing too when a shell hit the empty ammo storage for the extra guns so...

 

On other hand we know 109 is not the more durable plane, so compact and so easy to hit a critical zone. Oil carter is so exposed too and same for radiators but i hope to see soon devs model the cut for the individual circuit of each radiators.

In the 109 when you have a radiator leacking you can close the circuit and fly only with the other with no liquid lacks.

 

I dont know how durable was the russian barnished wood and how a wooden plane build with poor quality, poor glue can resist 11g loads with no breacking wings ( you have this loads in specifications in game) but for me it seems the russian guns are more powerfull. This is hard to test you cant allways hit same place so is only subjective.

For me is not the worse problem we have. I hope they change to proper planes Fm istead of make balance with weapons, durability or things like that.

 

Saludos

Edited August 22, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[XQ_Lothar29]

Hi Lothar,

 

I am just curious how you can claim that about the 190 when last night you killed me in a La-5 with a 190.  It was one pass, you dove through some thick clouds, boomed me (utterly destroying me in the process) and then warped back through the clouds to safety in your 190.  Didn't take you very long to kill me at all.  So what are you basing your claim off of?  Just the times when it doesn't work? 

im kill you with a FW190? dubt?? i onñly use BF109 G2 or F4 or F2... FW190 at this time is impossible to use... you confuse person or plane? 

[Irgendjemand]

FW is (IMHO) a brick deathtrap right now. But thats another topic:P

Edited August 22, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[ACG_pezman]

im kill you with a FW190? dubt?? i onñly use BF109 G2 or F4 or F2... FW190 at this time is impossible to use... you confuse person or plane?

 

Checked sortie logs from WOL stat server...

 

You are quite right sir, you were flying a G2 which means I never (nor my wingman) saw you. All we saw was a laggy 190 we had been scrapping with as well. And that guy was laggy, warping everywhere, through clouds, it was insane. Good kill btw.

Edited August 22, 2016 by 19.GIAP//p3zman

[Livai]

 

Have you seen this from 7:00 to 7:05.

His horizontal and vertical stabilizer breaking off at 7:03 without a single hit to this place.

Bad feeling or normal?

 

Here the same shots but nothing happends here from 8:15 to 8:22?

 

And here this the same thing I manage all the time no matter what plane I fly from 10:44 to 10:50.

[Holtzauge]

I dont know how durable was the russian barnished wood and how a wooden plane build with poor quality, poor glue can resist 11g loads with no breacking wings ( you have this loads in specifications in game) but for me it seems the russian guns are more powerfull. This is hard to test you cant allways hit same place so is only subjective.

For me is not the worse problem we have. I hope they change to proper planes Fm istead of make balance with weapons, durability or things like that.

 

Saludos

 

Actually the wood used in Russian planes was of good quality: I have an article lying around somewhere with a German wartime evaluation where they concluded it was every bit as good as their own grades of resin wood. Also, wood is quite a good material for airplanes and the way the Russians used it is a bit like we use composites today. However, wood has a lower Young's modulus so it tends to flex more and my guess is that the Russians dimensioned their wooden planes for flexural reasons (Vne & aileron reversal etc.) and had to structurally dimension them for this not absolute strength so I would expect them to be very strong in terms of load bearing before failure.

 

However, my issue with the DM right now is not strength and I would expect the Russian planes to absorb a lot of structural damage even if they are made of wood as per above reasoning. However, I fail to see why it is so much easier to get a Fw-190 to explode or burn than a La-5 which was also what I said in post #53.

 

Edit: I get pretty good results on the Fw-190 when I fly the Yak as well: Fw likes to go BOOOM!

Edited August 22, 2016 by Holtzauge

[The_Math_Teacher]

Hi guys

 

I usually don't post too much, but in this ocassion I have the same feeling as Veltro, La-5 has two cannons and not too much to discuss about the firing power of two cannons, but the one in the Yak hits like a 30mm. I mostly fly 109, and 90% of the time I get hit by a Yak its almost insta kill, engine severely damaged, wings ripped off inmediately, and even engine exploding... however if I hit a Yak with 3 20mm cannons it can still fly without reduced maneouvrability and his engine even when it is damaged can run long enough... but that is a story for another post.

I understand 109 it's not a tuff plane, but it was not as fragile as it is now, and neither the cannon in the Yak as powerfull as it is right now compared with previous versions of the game.

Glad some people understand that talking about this it's not whinning, I hope this post keeps going in a good  way!    

 

Cheers

 

Saluti Veltro y Saludos Lothar 

[JG13_opcode]

Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal.

 

I de-wing my targets more often flying the 190 than any other aircraft. Does that mean it's better?

 

No, not really.

[Jade_Monkey]

Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal.

 

I de-wing my targets more often flying the 190 than any other aircraft. Does that mean it's better?

 

No, not really.

 

I'm with you.

 

It's all anecdotal, especially because it's not about whether you hit someone with X gun, it's WHERE you hit them that matters more.

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

Certanly it is not logical why the 20mm was preffered on the russian fighters if the 23mm was so much more effective.

1. VYa-23 is rather heavy and big gun for a fighter.

2. In single-engined fighter, there is not much space for large ammunition belt for this gun, so ammo is low.

3. VYa-23 was main armament of Il-2 and all possible guns were shifted to Il-2.

4. There is no documental evidence of installing VYa-23 in LaGG-3 after summer 1941.

[Brano]

La-5 had self-sealing tanks consisted of 5 layers.From inner-to-outer order:

1.layer: petrol resistant rubber of 1mm thickness

2.layer: non-vulcanised 3mm thick natural rubber,swelling and stopping the leak once exposed to petrol

3.-4.layers each consisted of two rubber-bonded layers of fabric 1.5mm thick

5.layer(outer shell) sandwich of a single layer of cord in two layers of petrol-resistant rubber of 1mm total thickness.

On top of it,to prevent fuel vapour ignition in the event of the tank being punctured by bullet,cooled exhaust gases from cyl.nr.9 and 10 were led into the tanks thru filter and non-return valve.

 

ShVAK cannon ammo belt was all incendiary with BZ (API) and OZ (HEI) usually 70/30% ratio.

UBS like on LaGG-3 also had all of its ammo types incendiary. Usually 50% API,10% API-T,40% HEI

ShKAS was 50% API,25% API-T,25% pure incendiary

Edited August 22, 2016 by Brano

[Lusekofte]

I loved an old MP mission where the He111 had to resupply the german airfields encircled in BOS.

 

The lagg with the 23mm was the best to intercept them. Il2 as well.

 

The IL 2 was actually a cheat using against HE 111 in the "old days" because AI gunners did not recognize other defined bombers and ground attack aircraft as a danger. That was fixed later. 

But as always the transport duty only fed the inpatient fighter jockeys and won no glory for their hard earned success, and in the end was only a item for fighters to train their gunnery on. 

[Danziger]

Maybe it isn't the 20mm cannons? Maybe it's the two 7.62mm firing very fast armour piercing rounds? I find the MiG-3 does fine with the standard 1x12.7 and 2x7.62mm loadout. They are all nicely grouped together in the nose and do not need much in the way of convergence adjustment.

[150GCT_Veltro]

About Duraluminiun vs Wood and Wooden wings. Test offline, no lag or other.

 

You can perfectly handle you aircraft.

 

[MadisonV44]

Sorry I missed this interesting debate. Very sad that once again things are turning on personal bickering.  

 

I share the exact same feeling of Veltro on ammo efficiency (but please don't shoot ... hughhh).

 

Even if I've read a lot of debate on this one, with pretty good arguments on both side, I have got the feeling that red are still fly with 10/15 rounds and that Blue fighters are out of combat with a few shots. We will always find someone to illustrate the contrary, with sincerity, and based on a single anecdote / experience but for me this is the exception that proves the rule. I'm flying everyday and I also train myself also on red planes and its obvious. Maybe the blue planes are fragile, red are stronger, or maybe the red armament is more powerful and blue weaker, or maybe both cumulative. I don't mind if it's historic or not (I don't want to launch another debate), this is just a real feeling. But why should we be insulted for sharing a feeling with you guys ? I'm a supporter of this sim just like you, not more or less ... just bring a point, like Veltro did.

 

Should I add an unremarked fact that happened at the 2.0 release : the ammo efficiency of blue planes have been drastically improved (we were a few in my team to test it and all came to the same conclusion). The day after we had another release and it was gone with the wind. It could be a bug, or intentional ...we will nerver know. But I swear it was very different in terms of efficiency ... the shooting pass were decisive.     

 

Last but not least, I also notice that the last people still happy with the FW 190 are flying red and never use it. Personally I flew the 190 exclusively from the beginning, it was not so easy, with a restricted flight domain but roughly aligned with what I had in my mind (except for the energy degradation which seemed far too much exaggerated from my point of view). So I was quite happy with it as it has always been a reference for me. Unfortunately I completely stopped flying her since spring 2016 (including my team mates) since the last changes.

 

The result is a less diversified opposition for the red and over usage of 109 online ... everybody is loosing something there

... and I must admit that even if I have more fun with my 109 the Wulf still miss me ...   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ACG_pezman]

Well, while we are feeling here:

 

I feel like 109's adjustable stabilizer isn't modeled right.  Something about the fact that the 109 doesn't ever seem to hit critical AOA and stall if you are pulling positive G's.  The prop wash it creates just floats it through anything.

 

I feel like that is wrong.

 

The other night my friend and I were flying 109's on Berloga and were having a ball just pushing the stick forward and to the left (no rudder mind you) and watching the 109 just do summersaults, end over end, without really stalling.  As soon as we released the stick it would just instantly level out.   

 

I feel like that is wrong.

 

The Axis aircraft seem to have gotten a velocity jump in their ammo, now their rounds fly in much the same trajectory as the VVS rounds do.  I always was under the impression that the whole reason for the mine rounds that the Luftwaffe developed was to make up for the fact that their rounds were slower and fell sooner making it harder to hit aircraft.  Hence why they started shooting grenades.

 

I feel like this is wrong.

 

I mean, we can play the feelings game all day, but truth be told I dropped that [Edited] Hate getting shot down?  Don't get in the position.  I know it's hard, but trying to do that will make you a better pilot.  But don't come here and vent and not expect to get some opposition.  We have all had sketchy stuff happen in this game to us.  However, if you're a VVS flyer, you're supposed to shut up and take it.  Don't we know that the VVS got their asses kicked in the air?  So for us, getting killed is as it should be; but getting kills is a bug.  At least that is how this forums makes it feel.

 

/rant off

Edited August 24, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin
Profanity

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

A bunch of anecdotal evidence suggesting/implying a victimizing effect of German aircraft in this game.

I've never seen this before.  Weird...

I wonder what it will be tomorrow because a thread like this pops off every day or two.  Popcorn sales are through the roof at my local grocer.

[Brano]

Soviet ammo belts with large (if not all) projectiles with incendiary properties might be a factor why people "feel" it's easier to flame German planes. Not an expert on Fws or messers. Did they have system of inert gas injection into fuel tanks? Like La-5 had? Searching thru drawings of Fw it seems to me that fuel tanks were quite vulnerable from lower 6 and from sides. Also material used for armor protection in Soviet fighters and Il-2 (cemented armor steel) was of better ballistic properties then German. I wrote about that in different post. I remember a topic about guns on Russian forum with datas devs used from firing range tests. They also included dispersion of different guns and such.

So if anyone has a "feeling" that smtg should be corrected,feel free to contact devs in appropriate manner. I warn you,that such endeavor requires thorough research in given area that takes muuuuch more time then to write "I feel this is wrong" post on the forum

From my own experience I can say that even simple post with information for you guys I try to compile from time to time on this forum to shed some light on your feelings takes lots of my free time. That's why I understand devs that constantly explaining to the public why this is like it is and why it is not like they feel is a tiresome job.

[Turban]

I  feel many forum discussions wouldn't take place if people had significant experience flying both sides.

 

Just expressing my own "feelings" 

[150GCT_Veltro]

Sometimes, a simple test could avoid all this "feeling" post.

 

We should need to provide evidence that a Yak could not taken all those punishments from a FW-190 without lose control or stability? Be serious please.

 

Common sense should have to be more than enough in this case, without asking everityme "for providing evidence" with an engineering approach when is not needed.

[216th_Jordan]

But the case is that there is no 'common sense' in this case. The view on this subject is not objective (everybody feels something else) hence the need for hard evidence.

 

I for myself feel that 20mm is very weak and I need many rounds to bring a 109 down.