Jump to content

Combat Box by Red Flight


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, ACG_Smokejumper said:

I have a complaint.

 

One of the Allied SRS voices sounds Australian. It's ruining muh immersion.

 

When I think I'm supposed to be hearing a British accent and it sounds Australian it pulls me out of the moment... Does this pom have a weird accent or is he just aussie?

We need some Canadian accents. “Cleared for take off, eh!” “Watch that bounce you hoser!”

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ACG_Smokejumper said:

I have a complaint.

 

One of the Allied SRS voices sounds Australian. It's ruining muh immersion.

 

When I think I'm supposed to be hearing a British accent and it sounds Australian it pulls me out of the moment... Does this pom have a weird accent or is he just aussie?


Think yourself damn lucky Smoke. Its not a mere right to hear the dulcet tones of Aussie twang over the radio mixed among the rattle Of sabres with the scent of black powder filling your nasal cavities, its a privilege, a privilege, I say! And the Brit hasn’t been born who can pull off an Aussie accent in combat 
 

 

........"maybe Jimmie Barnes, but he’s the only one!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

We need some Canadian accents. “Cleared for take off, eh!” “Watch that bounce you hoser!”

 

"Tower. How ya doin' down there? Is it safe to land?" , "Watch yourself in the circuit. There's an enemy fighter aboot.'  

On 9/5/2020 at 2:26 PM, Alonzo said:

This is a great proposal, but unfortunately not directly possible with the current mechanics. In deathmatch mode planes are kind of just planes, you can't really track them individually. In co-op mode you could definitely do this, have a recon plane that is tracked through the act of doing reconnaissance and then needs to "land with the camera film intact".

 

 

I am not arguing because Alonzo knows the servers ten times better than me but am I crazy in thinking that one of the others servers had this?  Coconut? TAW?    If you recce'd a target it did not have any effect until you landed and if you did not land then it never happened.    Several servers don't count scores unless you land so maybe someone managed to link the Recce to the scoring system in some way?

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

one of the others servers had this? 

In the flying circus server (most popular one - flugpark I think?), this is how recce flights work, you have to land intact after your mission for the photographs to be developed. If you take any damage there's a chance the 'plates' will 'crack'. Certainly lends a frisson of excitement to those return flights!

 

Ah Coconut... How I miss it...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

"Tower. How ya doin' down there? Is it safe to land?" , "Watch yourself in the circuit. There's an enemy fighter aboot.'  

 

I am not arguing because Alonzo knows the servers ten times better than me but am I crazy in thinking that one of the others servers had this?  Coconut? TAW?    If you recce'd a target it did not have any effect until you landed and if you did not land then it never happened.    Several servers don't count scores unless you land so maybe someone managed to link the Recce to the scoring system in some way?

 

5 hours ago, Diggun said:

In the flying circus server (most popular one - flugpark I think?), this is how recce flights work, you have to land intact after your mission for the photographs to be developed. If you take any damage there's a chance the 'plates' will 'crack'. Certainly lends a frisson of excitement to those return flights!

 

If Google ever adds Canadian we're 100% doing it. Also Texan.

 

For the recon, there are things we could do to fake the flying home bit. You could say "a recon plane must scout the objective" and "a recon plane must land at a friendly airfield" but you can't force it to be the actual same recon plane. At least not with in-game logic. You could do whatever you wanted with out-of-game scripting, looking at the logs at whatnot, which might be how Coconut did it.

 

But to me the fun part is at least needing a few people to take the recon plane option, get to a (semi randomized) location without dying, and then stay alive during the recon. I know we have in-game stuff about photographs but realistically this level of recon would be more like just looking at the target and radioing back to base. Which I guess you could do in any plane, not require a specific recon plane.

 

Anyhoo, recon was a new mechanic for the map and entirely experimental, so I didn't want to invest any more time into it than I already did (if you look at the logic, it is *not* simple...) but if we do another map with recon-style mechanics we can take all this feedback into account.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2020 at 9:26 AM, Alonzo said:

Some folks have said the recon is a little too easy since you can fly really high. We could make it so you needed to fly lower. Would that be a good, bad, or indifferent change to make?

 

I agree - it is too easy. You can fly extremely high and you only need to circle one point on the map for a very short period of time. I support any combination of the following: decreasing the required altitude, increasing the time required to stay above the objective, and increasing the number of objectives that must be circled in a region.

 

Also would it be possible to punish the dummkopfs that destroy the objectives before the recon has occurred? Or possibly not even spawn them in until the recon occurs? I know that second idea is quite gamey; just trying to think of some way to prevent people from making it impossible to win those victory points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

 

I agree - it is too easy. You can fly extremely high and you only need to circle one point on the map for a very short period of time. I support any combination of the following: decreasing the required altitude, increasing the time required to stay above the objective, and increasing the number of objectives that must be circled in a region.

 

Also would it be possible to punish the dummkopfs that destroy the objectives before the recon has occurred? Or possibly not even spawn them in until the recon occurs? I know that second idea is quite gamey; just trying to think of some way to prevent people from making it impossible to win those victory points.


Just throwing out ideas here, but wouldn’t it be possible to repair/respawn all the units once the recon was completed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We built the mission awhile ago so my info is a little fuzzy.

 

Regarding scoring... I believe we built the logic to not award any points to a side unless both the recon was completed over the objective and the objective was destroyed.

Regarding adding more recon objectives... We have 3 objectives per recon zone, and 4 zones total. At mission start, we have logic that randomly chooses either 2 of the objectives or 1 of the objectives at each recon location, giving 6 of 12 randomly chosen recon objectives. The other 6 get destroyed and removed from play. If we added more objectives, the server performance would suffer.

Regarding not showing objectives until a recon completes... We can not spawn block entities. Having the block entities always in the world from game start would cause severe server performance issues because we would uncheck 'delete after death' for any block objects. We would do this so we can repair the entities later. So, if we never remove them, and on mission start damage all block entities so that they can't be destroyed by a player until the objective is reconned, there would be 6 objectives that have block entities doing nothing except taking up resources.

image.png.96ea3aadddb6c903fffb820810fb41d3.png

Delete after Death helps with server performance. We're deleting all the unused block entities when we randomly select 6 of the 12 recon objectives at mission start.

 

Regarding adding more time to recon an object and/or lower the recon altitude... Adding more time to recon an objective or adjusting the altitude necessary to recon an objective would require us to rewire events and edge cases. As @Alonzo pointed out, the recon logic is pretty complex. We tell users when they've started a recon, a few status updates while performing a recon, and even when they've completed the recon. We also tell the user when they've left the area and haven't completed a recon, and when a recon plane has been shot down. There really is a lot going on under the hood here and it's a testament to how good the Combat Box missions are.

 

image.thumb.png.2784770a82e3c92c2bca93956a272b42.png

The recon logic in all it's glory.

 

Regarding returning to base when completing a recon... There's not a simple way in the mission editor for us to know which plane has completed the recon and has returned to base. What I mean by this is that, pilot 1 could fly out to do a recon, and his buddy, pilot 2, could immediately land a second recon plane after pilot 1 completes his recon. If we were playing cooperative, where players had to select their individual plane - this could easily be done, since I know exactly who is in what plane. However, in a dogfight server where everyone can respawn. We only know that there's recon planes flying around... We don't know each recon plane's id.

 

In summary, we'll probably leave the recon as it is in Standoff in the Lowlands, a sort of cool feature that we wanted to try out. Now we know the community really likes it, so when we make new maps that have recon, we'll most likely add in these new feature requests.

Edited by Sketch
Clarity
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Sketch said:

Regarding adding more time to recon an object and/or lower the recon altitude... Adding more time to recon an objective or adjusting the altitude necessary to recon an objective would require us to rewire events and edge cases. As @Alonzo pointed out, the recon logic is pretty complex. We tell users when they've started a recon, a few status updates while performing a recon, and even when they've completed the recon. We also tell the user when they've left the area and haven't completed a recon, and when a recon plane has been shot down. There really is a lot going on under the hood here and it's a testament to how good the Combat Box missions are.

 

One thing we could do is to switch the detection of a plane in the recon zone from a cylinder to a sphere. At the moment I think it's something like a 3km radius cylinder. We could switch that to a 3km sphere instead, so you're at maximum 3km altitude and more realistically ~2km or lower (I don't have a good picture for this, but if you think about the difference between a 3km radius cylinder vs a 3km radius sphere, to remain in the sphere you're a lot lower and closer to the target).

 

Making that change would be much less invasive on the logic than any other change, and would have the effect of making the recon more difficult/dangerous. Buzzing around at 6k altitude makes these targets very easy to recon.

 

Also that's a great picture of the mission logic. Prime example of how it's much easier to explain in words how it should work than to implement with the doodleware.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sketch said:

We built the mission awhile ago so my info is a little fuzzy.

 

Regarding scoring... I believe we built the logic to not award any points to a side unless both the recon was completed over the objective and the objective was destroyed.

Regarding adding more recon objectives... We have 3 objectives per recon zone, and 4 zones total. At mission start, we have logic that randomly chooses either 2 of the objectives or 1 of the objectives at each recon location, giving 6 of 12 randomly chosen recon objectives. The other 6 get destroyed and removed from play. If we added more objectives, the server performance would suffer.

Regarding not showing objectives until a recon completes... We can not spawn block entities. Having the block entities always in the world from game start would cause severe server performance issues because we would uncheck 'delete after death' for any block objects. We would do this so we can repair the entities later. So, if we never remove them, and on mission start damage all block entities so that they can't be destroyed by a player until the objective is reconned, there would be 6 objectives that have block entities doing nothing except taking up resources.

image.png.96ea3aadddb6c903fffb820810fb41d3.png

Delete after Death helps with server performance. We're deleting all the unused block entities when we randomly select 6 of the 12 recon objectives at mission start.

 

Regarding adding more time to recon an object and/or lower the recon altitude... Adding more time to recon an objective or adjusting the altitude necessary to recon an objective would require us to rewire events and edge cases. As @Alonzo pointed out, the recon logic is pretty complex. We tell users when they've started a recon, a few status updates while performing a recon, and even when they've completed the recon. We also tell the user when they've left the area and haven't completed a recon, and when a recon plane has been shot down. There really is a lot going on under the hood here and it's a testament to how good the Combat Box missions are.

 

image.thumb.png.2784770a82e3c92c2bca93956a272b42.png

The recon logic in all it's glory.

 

Regarding returning to base when completing a recon... There's not a simple way in the mission editor for us to know which plane has completed the recon and has returned to base. What I mean by this is that, pilot 1 could fly out to do a recon, and his buddy, pilot 2, could immediately land a second recon plane after pilot 1 completes his recon. If we were playing cooperative, where players had to select their individual plane - this could easily be done, since I know exactly who is in what plane. However, in a dogfight server where everyone can respawn. We only know that there's recon planes flying around... We don't know each recon plane's id.

 

In summary, we'll probably leave the recon as it is in Standoff in the Lowlands, a sort of cool feature that we wanted to try out. Now we know the community really likes it, so when we make new maps that have recon, we'll most likely add in these new feature requests.

TFW the mission builders show you the eldritch invocations behind the mission logic

confusedlady.jpg.a9e8a959fc2cd6bead415740dc424f43.jpg

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Alonzo I was just automatically kicked out for attacking an enemy plane on an unprotected airfield (Gilze 1410) in "A Bridge too far". I thought that was only supposed to happen on the airfields which have the circle around them. I was happily destroying ground targets, and then when i destroyed a plan that apparently was a spawning player i was immediately kicked out.

 

Strangely enough, my sortie log says that I was shot down and captured. I did receive some minor damage on that last pass but I distinctively saw a chat message saying I was going to be kicked/banned or something and I was flying when I was sent off of the server.

 

Is this the expected behavior?  Aren't the airfields without the circle free to be attacked?

 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/890461/?tour=26

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SCG_Vieira said:

Hi @Alonzo I was just automatically kicked out for attacking an enemy plane on an unprotected airfield (Gilze 1410) in "A Bridge too far". I thought that was only supposed to happen on the airfields which have the circle around them. I was happily destroying ground targets, and then when i destroyed a plan that apparently was a spawning player i was immediately kicked out.

 

Is this the expected behavior?  Aren't the airfields without the circle free to be attacked?

 

Looks like there was a bug with airfield protection, sorry about that. Neither Gilze or Boenninghardt are supposed to receive anti-vulching protection on that mission. I've updated the mission file to remove the protection, both airfields should be properly unprotected from now on.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm can't say I'm a fan of the recent changes to Y-29's weather.  It looks like you're looking through dirty water the whole mission, while the previous iteration looked like a regular winter morning.  Is there a reason we can't change it back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On mission 6221 Closing_of_the_Ruhr_Pocket_Apr_1945 on my last flight I hit Breitscheid pretty hard, but after nursing my Lightning back home I was scored 0 points because of friendly kills. Just out of curiosity, did Breitscheid somehow change sides towards the end of the mission?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, thatguy said:

I'm can't say I'm a fan of the recent changes to Y-29's weather.  It looks like you're looking through dirty water the whole mission, while the previous iteration looked like a regular winter morning.  Is there a reason we can't change it back?

 

Weather and time is randomly generated each time a mission is run.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, thatguy said:

I'm can't say I'm a fan of the recent changes to Y-29's weather.  It looks like you're looking through dirty water the whole mission, while the previous iteration looked like a regular winter morning.  Is there a reason we can't change it back?

 

7 hours ago, Talon_ said:

Weather and time is randomly generated each time a mission is run.

 

Talon is right, except that Y-29 is special 😉 It always occurs at 9am because that's the time of the Bodenplatte attack on Y-29 itself. Additionally, on winter maps we never choose "heavy" cloud because that makes them very hard to navigate, so the worst you will get is medium cloud (other options are light cloud or clear skies).

 

But for the rest of our maps we randomize fully the time of day, from dawn to dusk, and the cloud. I'm excited about the new 'haze' option that is coming, we may be able to also do wind/haze randomization too (more wind = less haze). Or even time of day / haze, if there is a relationship between the two.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

 

 

Talon is right, except that Y-29 is special 😉 It always occurs at 9am because that's the time of the Bodenplatte attack on Y-29 itself. Additionally, on winter maps we never choose "heavy" cloud because that makes them very hard to navigate, so the worst you will get is medium cloud (other options are light cloud or clear skies).

 

But for the rest of our maps we randomize fully the time of day, from dawn to dusk, and the cloud. I'm excited about the new 'haze' option that is coming, we may be able to also do wind/haze randomization too (more wind = less haze). Or even time of day / haze, if there is a relationship between the two.

 

Yes, that's why I'm asking if we can change the weather back to clear :)

 

As far as I've been able to find, that day was clear weather, and that's what the map used to look like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all! Just published an update to the CB Flight Following bot - it has a new feature that I hope you will like - map following!

 

Complete details about this new feature and some quality of life improvements can be found here:

 

Screen Shot 2020-09-11 at 3.39.05 PM.png

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2020 at 11:56 AM, adler_1 said:

Streak

 What is the benefit of a streak ? i checked some players who had some but i don't see any bonus increasing their points credits for kills . Can someone pls explain the benefits   

I guess is just because some people likes to stay on the top of the stadistics or just some personal satisfaction when you are able to get a good streak without dying.

Sometimes is chanllenging and gives you some fun to do it but on the other hand sometimes is quite boring because you can not fly some risk missions or just some suicidal ones for fun so for me makes no sense to get a big streak on servers that does not reward that. Taw for example gives you some diplom for that and is like wining a competition or something but you mau find more fun doing different missions and not playing all the time for survival.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I became a Patreon supporter of this server last week. So, that being said I have uploaded links to my skins on the DISCORD "Skins" channel. Go get them so you can see everyone.

 

P-51D-15 and Spit Mk.IXe are plane packs.

 

Il-2-12-30-2018-6-44-08-PM-305.thumb.png.c4d5cfe85511d4d83f75c694608ce77b.png2019-6-7-1-15-49.thumb.jpg.ccbba6ab1413d08c4b59fb30ea674795.jpgIl-2-12-28-2018-6-17-40-PM-929.thumb.png.b479bc32e6df62f252b38c0f3705a45a.pngIl-2-12-28-2018-11-27-26-PM-261.thumb.png.d460f0340b035f51efd688c07e28349a.png2019_11_24__2_16_16.thumb.jpg.cf4f01ca56d1125999b721ba0e7c2867.jpg.70cf230be6cb424868ee021694562223.jpg

Edited by SOLIDKREATE
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.  I don't know if there's a thread for the CB dogfight and training server, so I'm going to post here.  

I would like to suggest 3, 2-hour long rounds, per 24 hours of labels-off time.   A sort of "adult swim" as it might be said. 

 

The reason is that while the ability to turn markers on helps newer players, it can also be used to single out players who fly "labels-off" (like I do) and troll them. 

 

For example:  Two days ago, I was in the WW1 area.  I was positive I was alone with the AI.  One player noticed that I was shooting down Fokkers and Albies so he came over to the WW1 area, singled me out, shot me down, left the server immediately, then rejoined the server and went back to flying K-4s or whatever stroked his little nuts.   Normally I wouldn't care but, it seems to me that since the only kill he made in the WW1 area, before going back to the WW2 area, was me, it was a clear case of using labels to pick the target and troll.  I can only imagine this happens to others as well.  

I'm also fairly certain that players have gone into the Early-war area, located me with labels-on, shot me down and then went right back to the Late war area or went to a different non-PvP area all-together.

 

I quite like the server and the practice options it offers but, I don't like the fact that the labels can be used to single out specific players for potential repeated attacks.   

If there's a way to keep ability to use the labels but, restrict the labels from showing player names, I suppose that would be acceptable too.     

You might say that the solution is to "use labels too" but, I rather have them off unless, for some reason, I just don't see anything near the general area the AI dogfight is supposed to be centered on.   

 

I don't want to restrict new players from having the options to use tools like range and model type labels but, I do think that labels that show player names can be a problem.  

If the labels can possibly be set to not show player names, it would probably be the best solution.  Those who want to use labels and those who don't would be on even ground when it comes to determining whether or not the plane they are looking at (or is looking at them) is an AI or a Player. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like to say, it was a real pleasure returning to flying yesterday on CB with all the recent efforts and changes from the team having clearly paid off; including SRS (still learning how to use it) and in combination with the new update including visibility and other effects - the experience feels very joined up, immersive and dynamic now. It's quite an exciting step forward with a lot to look forward to.

 

Here's just a few of the images I took:

 

2020_9_17__22_7_25.thumb.jpg.84986860af0b1c775474509701be4077.jpg2020_9_17__22_6_56.thumb.jpg.61bb2d429f57461e5663896a9798c13f.jpg2020_9_17__21_38_38.thumb.jpg.dbcdd23e72db7cb1588e92fa1c4b77b3.jpg2020_9_17__21_24_49.thumb.jpg.f101304307e84aa4a54b801090b9003d.jpg

 

Cheers all, happy flying.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

The reason is that while the ability to turn markers on helps newer players, it can also be used to single out players who fly "labels-off" (like I do) and troll them.

 

As far as I know, it's labels on or off: at 3km or less you get an aircraft type, and 2km or less you get a player/Ai name as well.

 

I think it's worth talking about going "icons off" on the training server. I know I've been repeatedly bounced while in the dogfight areas (who doesn't wanna shoot down an admin?) and I would not be opposed to switching them off. Personally I think I would get better BFM practice if icons were off. But it's a broad player base -- maybe we can get a few more opinions here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CSW_606_Temp said:

Esse cara matou meu companheiro de equipe depois de "refly" no campo de aviação. Ele atirou nele com uma pistola sinalizadora na cabeça. Por quê?!?!? 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/907533/?tour=26

This guy (ex-Belenko) too? The_Butcher 9now he is with other nick) dead my mate Pinheiro 04 times this month in same situation. A shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CSW_606_Temp said:

This guy kill my teammate after "refly" on the Airfield. He shot him with flare gun in to head. Why?!?!? 

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/907533/?tour=26

 

Judging by that players sortie list, they are a troll. They've been given a 24 ban for the team kill, please report if they do it again and the next ban will be longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

As far as I know, it's labels on or off: at 3km or less you get an aircraft type, and 2km or less you get a player/Ai name as well.

 

I think it's worth talking about going "icons off" on the training server. I know I've been repeatedly bounced while in the dogfight areas (who doesn't wanna shoot down an admin?) and I would not be opposed to switching them off. Personally I think I would get better BFM practice if icons were off. But it's a broad player base -- maybe we can get a few more opinions here.

 

Thanks for the response.   

 

I don't have a problem with icons showing plane type and distance but, if player names can't be turned off, maybe we can suggest adding the option to the devs.  

The reason I don't have a problem with the type and distance information is because it's usually not too hard to tell who the players are by the way the plane moves but, on the upside, the AI does seem to be getting better with each time they tweak it.  I also think that newer players still can benefit from having labels available to use too. 

 

I have some other ideas for making the mini map easier to use and separating it from other functions that are currently in the same lockable option. I think that being able to use the mini map would be a convenient way to make sure one hasn't flown outside the practice area and can get some "hints" about where the closest enemy is.  

I'll take some time to correctly word the ideas I have and then float them over to the suggestion board.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thatguy said:

 

KoN can attest to that!

 

 

What got me was the fact you pulled up and got off a good PK kill in the clouds . I think i took four hits and dead . S!

We need Russian planes ..😁

I don`t think the P51 is first choice anymore . 

Edited by KoN_
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

 

The best part of that is "oxygen system damaged", "fuel tank damaged" in the tech chat.  Who needs incendiaries?  🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

 

Don't be ridiculous KW, an American .50 cal API round would never penetrate ze superior German fuel tank.  We don't need your incendiary comments here

- Someone who saw someone else shoot a 50 cal on youtube

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2020 at 12:50 AM, KW_1979 said:

 

Don't worry, ".50s are fine".  At least that's what the blue only fliers keep saying.

 

I think they probably are fine but the damage model has gaps which make them ineffective. I've been whoring .50 armed aircraft lately. A convergence of 160 to 180M is effective.

 

When I fly 109s I don't get damage other than, venting dead or on fire. Engine damage is fairly predictable. I don't get system fires. If for some reason I'm running gunpods there are never knocked out. No ammo detonations. I don't remember the last time I've had jammed ailerons or cut control cables. I fly 109s a fair bit and with FFB I feel when surfaces stop working. The .50s don't seem to damage all the other components which can send you into the ground.

 

I keep reading posts thinking that incendiaries will help. If there is nothing modeled to burn I don't see how.

 

I do agree that something needs to be done but .50s should still not act like a cannon round. The concept is different. Machine guns need more time on target. The damage model needs more depth.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

 

The best part of that is "oxygen system damaged", "fuel tank damaged" in the tech chat.  Who needs incendiaries?  🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

 

You don't. A pressurized tank suddenly depressurized is NOT something I'd want to be sitting right next to. The only thing containing the sudden release in pressure is an aluminium skin.

I certainly want API but even more I want more depth in the damage model so that having my fuel cylinder shot is an actual problem. Perhaps the Germans had some crazy synthetic fibre tank but I think a steel tank more likely.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...