Jump to content
666GIAP_Necathor

4.009 complaints

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

In the first shoot down (...) the pilot is killed at around 12 seconds.

(...)

the second aircraft is set on fire and the pilot is also killed.

(...)

pick up the 3rd aircraft and get a pilot kill

 

This pretty much describes the issue with cal .50s vs. the 4.005+ DM:

If your marksmanship is really up to the task and you fly against AI, you get a bunch of pilot kills (because you’ve got all the time it takes to score some extremely precise hits in the cockpit area) and every now and then a random engine on fire.

Any “usual” kill from damaging your opponent happens once in a blue moon and killing anything but AI is worth a bottle of scotch.

 

But it’s all historically correct as we’ve learned oh so many times... :scratch_one-s_head:

 

:drink2:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

because you’ve got all the time it takes to score some extremely precise hits in the cockpit area

From what I remember to have read about american air victories over Europe the most common seems to have been a 2-3 sec burst into cockpit/engine area. Snapshot kills against manoeuvering targets seem very scarce. 
 

I personally struggle to deliver even a whole second of continuous fire on target.

 

So damage modeling might be pretty accurate for 0.50 AP (API still needed of course). Maybe the game fails to reproduce the situations in which .50s prevailed?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not sure how long a Bf109 would last with coolant leak, but I would expect it depends on what is hit and how much damage is done. The later models I believe also had shutoff valves so they could stop water flow to a damaged radiator to stop water loss. (It appears some sort of variable amount of damage is modeled in game)

 

I have seen some die quicker than others in game , also the engine needs to overheat too, so I would expect it to have a variable time , so its quite possible yes that it could last long enough to turn around shoot you. Cannons only take 1 or two hits to down a fighter most of the time and I would expect that. The m2 had to have a significant number of guns to be  effective (6-8). Is it modeled accurately, no idea. But I do know if you get a solid burst (at the correct convergence) in most of the time that plane goes down. (Id still rather have cannons over 6-8 m2's)

 

I'd rather have cannons myself as they are more efficient , of that I have no doubt. And in most of the Axis planes having central mounted (and or synchronized) guns 

1) makes shooting easier 

2)makes it less dependent on convergence being met when u are shooting (if this  is not done you might hit , but you are not going to do a lot of damage, unless lucky, and more are more unlikely to hit any vitals, and just pepper the wings, and or have most of the bullets miss completely)

3)requires only a few hits to down a fighter, or cause enough aero damage to make the fight a lot harder for the plane hit), 

 

So of course in general they will be more effective and far more efficient.

 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a nutshell, what you're telling is what @CountZero rightfully described as:
The Americans must have hated their pilots beyond imagination.

 

:drink2:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are still lacking that mystery ingredient of incendiary rounds. Nearly all US fighter aircraft were fitted with this type of ammunition by D-Day. It is possible to shoot down aircraft with the standard round in the currentl build but its no cake walk.  We have people posting that the. 50 cals are useless and thing are not realistic or historic .  

 

Talking of history, 14,000 Allied aircraft flew over 20,000 sorties over the beachheads during D-Day.  With this kind of overwhelming Allied Air power, I'm sure the US didn't hate their pilots and there probably no mad rush to equip US aircraft with cannons as overwhelming air superiority and API seemed efficient at killing pilots, causing fires and igniting fuel and ammunition. By comparison the Luftwaffe flew 200 sorties on D-Day itself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@=RS=Stix_09

Completely agree. Centre mounted cannons will always win, certainly in a game environment as they are such an advantage. I don't think we're discussing having even 8 M2's needing the same amount of time on target as a cannon.

 

You're point on convergence is kind of what I was discussing. Hitting the fuselage at convergence is very effective, as all your guns are pointing at that point, and you'll usually bring that plane down. But in a proper tight dogfight your opportunities for engaging at exactly that distance are going to be very limited. If you're gunnery skills aren't top notch then there's a chance you might only get a few of hits. Yes there is the argument that you can improve your gunnery skills, but I don't think everyone should have to be crack shots to be effective. Having all your guns pointing at a very specific point significantly reduces the versatility of your firepower and makes carrying 8 M2's largely irrelevant. If the guns were in a larger pattern, yes there effectiveness at specific point would be reduced, but your chances of getting more hits will increase. Probably significantly against a maneuvering target, hence why the charts are set up that way.

Edited by Cass
Grammar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Want to add my 2 cents:

1- The absence of API is making the 0.50 cals less effective. Let's hope the dev team can deliver more detail in terms of fuel and fires. 

2- The absence of harmonization making again 0.50 cals less efective.

3- The absence of some systems to damage. For example, fuel lines, hydro, rad lines and etc. iirc in one DD they said they wanted to expand the amount of systems. This means that even AP can pierce and damage them. 

 

In summary, this is a mix of things rather than a "nerf" or "bias" as some hint. Let's see what the dev team can do, but if you analyze the situation with your head makes more sense.

We can also argue about the drag penalty, but if the issues above are solved or at least there is a shortcut, things will change a lot.

 

Right now we have AP, if you hit something where the AP can do damage in the sim, it will. How much? I don't know but I am sure nobody can tell for sure so imho lets try to work on the things above first.

 

 

 

Edited by LF_Gallahad
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cass said:

@=RS=Stix_09

Completely agree. Centre mounted cannons will always win, certainly in a game environment as they are such an advantage. I don't think we're discussing having even 8 M2's needing the same amount of time on target as a cannon.

 

You're point on convergence is kind of what I was discussing. Hitting the fuselage at convergence is very effective, as all your guns are pointing at that point, and you'll usually bring that plane down. But in a proper tight dogfight your opportunities for engaging at exactly that distance are going to be very limited. If you're gunnery skills aren't top notch then there's a chance you might only get a few of hits. Yes there is the argument that you can improve your gunnery skills, but I don't think everyone should have to be crack shots to be effective. Having all your guns pointing at a very specific point significantly reduces the versatility of your firepower and makes carrying 8 M2's largely irrelevant. If the guns were in a larger pattern, yes there effectiveness at specific point would be reduced, but your chances of getting more hits will increase. Probably significantly against a maneuvering target, hence why the charts are set up that way.

 

The point about convergence has been abused too.

We have point convergence modelled. That means that every time you hit out of convergence, you do it with 3 or 4 guns (P-51/p-40 and P-47) at the same time. No just the odd rounds but 3 or 4 at a time. That means 50 rounds for 1sec burst. Taking into account that both US Navy and Luftwaffe considered that 1 20mm cannon equals to 3-4 fifties it tells you that even out of convergence they should deliver a good punch.

 

1 hour ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Want to add my 2 cents:

1- The absence of API is making the 0.50 cals less effective. Let's hope the dev team can deliver more detail in terms of fuel and fires. 

2- The absence of harmonization making again 0.50 cals less efective.

3- The absence of some systems to damage. For example, fuel lines, hydro, rad lines and etc. iirc in one DD they said they wanted to expand the amount of systems. This means that even AP can pierce and damage them. 

 

In summary, this is a mix of things rather than a "nerf" or "bias" as some hint. Let's see what the dev team can do, but if you analyze the situation with your head makes more sense.

We can also argue about the drag penalty, but if the issues above are solved or at least there is a shortcut, things will change a lot.

 

Right now we have AP, if you hit something where the AP can do damage in the sim, it will. How much? I don't know but I am sure nobody can tell for sure so imho lets try to work on the things above first.

Agree. But if they can´t model those things in the short/medium term then, in my opinion, they should do a workaround and give the fifties more punch (something realistic) to simulate all of these for the short time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Want to add my 2 cents:

1- The absence of API is making the 0.50 cals less effective. Let's hope the dev team can deliver more detail in terms of fuel and fires. 

2- The absence of harmonization making again 0.50 cals less efective.

3- The absence of some systems to damage. For example, fuel lines, hydro, rad lines and etc. iirc in one DD they said they wanted to expand the amount of systems. This means that even AP can pierce and damage them. 

 

In summary, this is a mix of things rather than a "nerf" or "bias" as some hint. Let's see what the dev team can do, but if you analyze the situation with your head makes more sense.

We can also argue about the drag penalty, but if the issues above are solved or at least there is a shortcut, things will change a lot.

 

Right now we have AP, if you hit something where the AP can do damage in the sim, it will. How much? I don't know but I am sure nobody can tell for sure so imho lets try to work on the things above first.

 

 

 

This makes total sense, no need to make .50s unrealistically powerful, which will make it arcadish and ruin the game.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed @LF_Gallahad, API + Harmonization + Damage Model that actually registers AP damage correctly would help a lot.

The massive complaints seen are IMHO not about "bias" (that'd be ridiculous) - when saying that .50s are "nerfed" then this reflects the fact that pre-4.005 the world was reasonably fine for M2 gun equipped planes, whereas the 4.005 update really shifted balance of airpowers a whole lot in favour of 109s.

The fact that this is consequently being ignored by the devs ever since - which is more than 4 months now - plus the fact that there's quite a couple of guys pretending that everything was just fine and dandy after that dreaded 4.005 update simply contributes to alienation and a vitriolic debate.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@HR_Zunzun I understand your point Zunzun, but with the new update for fuel and hopefully systems down the road I hope they fix this issue without giving the .50 some superpowers. The bad thing is that weapons not only affect aircraft and probably it will be more easy to add depth to planes rather than have .50 cals that will do more damage in other things like ground attack. 

 

@SAS_Storebror Yeah, it was my impression and a little bit of a joke. People are always driven by heart and that lead to problems and missunderstandings. We should go for facts and historical accuracy when we can. This is no different. We should analyze the data, have results and then think of solution. Thats how I think. 

 

I am very happy with the current DM being this one little grip. After expending so much hours in closed beta I think the result is really good, and I am sure the .50 cals will behave like they should when they add the depth they need. The team works very hard, that's also one true fact 🙂. At the end of the day money and time are real constraints but passion always get trough that, and I am sure the team love what they do.

 

As I said I don't believe this is intended nor a bug, it's just the lack of some components that unfortunately lead to poor performing machineguns. Let's hope we can enjoy more in the future.

Edited by LF_Gallahad
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The fact that this is consequently being ignored by the devs ever since - which is more than 4 months now - plus the fact that there's quite a couple of guys pretending that everything was just fine and dandy after that dreaded 4.005 update simply contributes to alienation and a vitriolic debate.

 

An absence of replies by the developers here doesn't mean they are ignoring the issue. We all can see that you are frustrated, but continuing to post replies like this and saying things like "But it’s all historically correct as we’ve learned oh so many times..." doesn't really contribute anything to the conversation.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably like most people here I know about the workarounds you can/have to employ to make the Brownings work and I'm not saying that you cannot win with them.

 

However, even weird jokes cannot hide the fact that American-made planes are currently fighting at a considerable disadvantage because the Brownings require noticeably more precision and time on target to be effective compared to all the other aircraft armaments, even of the same class/caliber. As this is sometimes hard to achieve in a fast-moving dogfight, other planes with different armaments have an edge where they simply should not...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2020 at 8:22 PM, Cpt_Siddy said:

Look, let me tell you an anecdote. 

 

I jumped on 109 K-4 from dead 6, shot him full of bullets in my 51 (150oct), he was leaking from every possible hole (no fire tho). Then when i was leaving him alone, he tailed me, catches me and engaged me and one bullet and i cant no longer keep my plane level and have to ditch. (then he fly for another 5 minutes with leaks and ditches)

 

This story has happened so many time in MP, to so many pilots its not even funny. You got a jump on 109 with 50. cals, shoot him up and he still fights on like its nothing.

 

Opposite almost if EVER has happened to 109 pilots, because the aerodynamic damage usually renders his victims unable to fight, let alone pursuit anyone.

When plane get his with 20 or 30mm mineshot, its loses lions share of its combat ability, if not become unflyable. And that is OK, we are not complaining about that... however...

 

The frequency of above mentioned anecdote is so common in MP that people who mainly fly allies are now had enough and there is literally 3 freaking threads about this poop. 

And longer this continues, more people that fly american planes become frustrated when this same thing happens to them. The 50. cal whine threads are not going away, they are going to get more common as more and more people discovers they joys of being totally ineffective in aerial combat against some flimsy 109. 

 

Now, you may hop in to singleplayer, line up a train of 109's 110's or whatever and show us, mere mortals, how REAL MEN do it. And ok, maybe you are cut above the rest, but... consider for a moment, that maybe there is something behind this 50 cal whining. 

Just for a moment, consider that something is causing a considerable portion of people who fly American plane get frustrated enough to come here and use their time to complain about how, time after time, they seem to end up in situations where totally holed 109 just continue fighting like a champ. 

Is the reason 50 cals? I dont know. Maybe it is NetCode, as the single player seems not have these issues... or perhaps in single player it is easy to concentrate a stream on this game's relatively weak AI, who knows? 

 

Bottom line is, considerable enough proportion of player base in MP have had enough and are now posting these threads left and right. Perhaps making dumb comments like "learn to aim" or post videos of shooting down lobotomized AI 110's may not contribute to this in any positive way? 

 

Modders have no access to games code, nothing you can mod in this game impacts planes or weapons in any way. 

 

Everything that is right or wrong with this game is solely on the shoulder of development team and anyone who have access to their source. 

Thank you Siddy, i will never will resume all my concept of this game right now in the way that you did.

Thank you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2020 at 7:38 AM, von_Tom said:

 

I'm puzzled by the use of the above video.

 

Surely the vid shows that 50 cals can be effective?  Get a concentrated burst into the engine or pilot and the enemy goes down.  Hit like a shotgun all over the airframe and  the enemy can fight for longer - then it becomes attritional damage.

 

My personal experience is that sometimes I can't put something down.  Other times, one short burst and they're on fire or the pilot is dead or I've hit something quite fundamental to controlled flight.

 

As for the OP, if he truly is in Costa Rica then he's a long way from any of the most populated multiplayer servers so perhaps packet loss etc becomes a factor.  Again personally speaking, I know that if I am on Combat Box that I need to fire in longer bursts to do the same damage as I might on a Euro server.

 

von Tom

Really now my poor aiming is because I not from  England, normally I don´t fly BFs (I don´t like fly easy planes), but I do my homework and fly a Bf109-F4, how many shoots needs to kill a VSS plane only 1 HE with out gunpods, same situation with the G14, 20mm cannon only.

Now is just easy fly as axis plane, one pass spray and pray and your enemy is done. Try to do the same on a P51, Yak or wort I-16 with out 20mm cannons, or a P40.

For example if you fly a La5FN the only way to do damage is taking HE ammo only.

I give a more specific example Yak9T cannon 37mm AP ammo, many here think that I´m really bad shooting well on this plane I shoot 1 by 1, BFs need 5-7 shoot of 37 counting one by, with HE ammo 3-4.

If you still think that I´m really bad aiming and shooting I´n normally shoot from less than 200m, worts this game have no independent calibration for wings and rotor cannons.

Yeap this game change a lot in the pass my best record was 7 kills with a yak1b, now my ammo only runs for 2 or 3.

In the other hand, my aiming is not the problem, like many other players that prefer Allies planes is ridiculous how noneffective allies weapons are now and see how Dev´s don care about all of this after almost a year.

You don´t need to believe me, just pick a Yak1 s69 and try to kill many enemies as you can in 1 life. Note: if the 109 hit you once, you are death.

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

An absence of replies by the developers here doesn't mean they are ignoring the issue.

 

That’s good to know, especially since your reply is the first time that someone of your calibre even acknowledges there is an issue.

Like it or not, but it seems like we have to poke devs like this to get any feedback at all - valuable feedback that is, scorn and deride from other motives we’ve got plenty of.

I’ll consider this a big step forward, something to quote when the next guy comes around pretending everything was just fine.

 

:drink2:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is definitely not fine, the DM needs some further lovin‘. I wonder how long it takes to shift gun efficiencies somewhat back to what they were. Probably not trivial given increased complexity of the DM.

 

Now that it becomes obvious that the DM has a slightly particular way of dealing with smaller calibre ball rounds, maybe that will also lead to some improvements regarding the canvas kites in FC.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

Blah blah blah

  

 


Do I say your aim was bad? Go read my post again then go and look what packet loss means. 
 

Then do some offline tests and see if there is a difference. 
 

Then do some testing and provide evidence that what you say is correct. Evidence, not conjecture or belief or “feelings”.
 

Evidence is king and without it this is nothing but hot air.
 

von Tom. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, von_Tom said:


Do I say your aim was bad? Go read my post again then go and look what packet loss means. 
 

Then do some offline tests and see if there is a difference. 
 

Then do some testing and provide evidence that what you say is correct. Evidence, not conjecture or belief or “feelings”.
 

Evidence is king and without it this is nothing but hot air.
 

von Tom. 

 

I live in UK and my internet connection is 150mb/s fibre. I do share the same experiences as Necathor or Cpt_Siddy.

If internet was the only problem then we would see this inconsistency accross the whole range of weapons. But we do not.

If internet connection issues is the problem it is still a DM problem. If you cannot deliver realistic behaviour for weapons due to connection then you should do something to solve it. Be realistic about your limitations and do a workaround to deliver a plausible simulation. It pointless that you have the most accurate representation of a M2 round if you loss half of them in the way to target.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

I live in UK and my internet connection is 150mb/s fibre.


My connection isn’t as good as that but I don’t notice anything out of the ordinary not matter if I fly blue or red. If I get hit I get hit bad. On occasion I hit something a lot but it doesn’t go down. Sometimes I hit something lightly and it goes down. 
 

Perfect net code and zero latency for everyone would help everyone.  A ping of 150 means a way different experience to say a ping of 30 not least because you have to adjust your aim to allow for it.

 

There are so many variables that just saying .50 AP rounds suck doesn’t get anywhere,

 

von Tom

Edited by von_Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we've highlighted here that there are clearly quite a few factors that mean 50 cals aren't quite as effective as they should be. I don't think just increasing their damage is the solution in terms of moving the sim forward.

 

The only "quick fix" I'd say we could have in the short term is just a simple reduction in the accuracy of the M2's in line with documentation. Without the ability to harmonize our guns that would help with spreading the hits out. More likely to hit something vital that way.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, von_Tom said:


My connection isn’t as good as that but I don’t notice anything out of the ordinary not matter if I fly blue or red. If I get hit I get hit bad. On occasion I hit something a lot but it doesn’t go down. Sometimes I hit something lightly and it goes down. 
 

Perfect net code and zero latency for everyone would help everyone.  A ping of 150 means a way different experience to say a ping of 30. 
 

There are so many variables that just saying .50 AP rounds suck doesn’t get anywhere, not least because you have to adjust your aim to allow for it. 

 

von Tom

The thing with the fifities is the inconsistency as has been pointed out in many posts and threads already.

I am ok with my snap shots not being anywhere deadly (on the contrary to any hit by german 20mm).

What I found wrong is that if I sneak behind a guy and deliver a 2 second burst from dead six at my preferred convergence, it still will be competitive. I am not talking about setting it on fire or taking a wing off. I just merely ask for its flying qualities to be severely hampered as it sounds reasonable it should be after I have sent around 200 rounds burst from my p-47. More often than not, you see the 109 flying merrily away and even being able to dogfight you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

The thing with the fifities is the inconsistency


And therein lies the problem - different folks experiencing different things. 
 

If modelled then API might make a difference  but we’ll see. 
 

von Tom

 

ps. I see you’re in Cambs. I’m in Ely and I’d kill for a 150mb connection here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, von_Tom said:


And therein lies the problem - different folks experiencing different things. 
 

If modelled then API might make a difference  but we’ll see. 
 

von Tom

 

ps. I see you’re in Cambs. I’m in Ely and I’d kill for a 150mb connection here. 

 

That is not the case with 20mm cannon. It is consistent. I think everybody bring down quarry once he/she put the target in the gunsight (track, snap, spray&fpray, you name it....). I wish I had some consistency when I delivered a solid burst (2sec burst) in an unaware target.

 

Ps: I used to live in Ely some 15years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2020 at 12:59 PM, LukeFF said:

 

An absence of replies by the developers here doesn't mean they are ignoring the issue. We all can see that you are frustrated, but continuing to post replies like this and saying things like "But it’s all historically correct as we’ve learned oh so many times..." doesn't really contribute anything to the conversation.

I can tell you that silence isn't the right approach and it can absolutely mean someone is ignoring an issue.   Maybe if the devs would actually post something about the US .50s and how they work online now it would calm some of the complaints.   The lack of communication is at least 1/2 the reason we have all these .50 posts and complaints.  Even if the devs posted that the M2s are working exactly as designed and no changes will be made at least we'd know where we stand.  Several customers (including myself) have shown that at least online US .50 wing hits appear to do next to nothing as far as disabling other aircraft while German and Russian HMGs appear to completely shred the wing with even a tiny burst (tests that I spent a lot of time on.)  For my part, I put in a lot of time trying to illustrate/prove at least one potential M2 problem at the least the devs could acknowledge they have read the posts.  Honestly, failing to even respond to numerous complaints about a specific problem from your customers is not good customer service in my experience.   

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/19/2020 at 3:05 PM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

We are being told that .50 cal ammunition is  completely useless. The video was to demonstrate that 50 cals can and do cause damage. 

 

when considering damage from 50. cals and 20 mm  ammunition this is a visual representation of those two rounds.

 

The best way to bring this to the attention of the Devs is to record some tracks or a video and PM them with the findings. We still have to see if API will be introduced, if it is I think it will make a big difference. 

We've already posted tracks showing the some of the problems.   Also, yes, 20mm rounds are much larger than .50 rounds, but many people seem to forget that most US planes have 2x - 4x as many guns as Russian and German planes, so there should be much more parity than a simple comparison of the size of each round.  From what I can see the M2s are MUCH less effective in online fighting vs. even the German 131 or Russian 12.7mm than in single player, so that is something to consider.  I realize the other 2 have HE rounds, but the difference is really far more than can be explained by the tiny HE charge in those rounds.  My suggestion is the devs or testers do some online testing against other competent humans and see what they think then.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

We've already posted tracks showing the some of the problems.   Also, yes, 20mm rounds are much larger than .50 rounds, but many people seem to forget that most US planes have 2x - 4x as many guns as Russian and German planes, so there should be much more parity than a simple comparison of the size of each round.  From what I can see the M2s are MUCH less effective in online fighting vs. even the German 131 or Russian 12.7mm than in single player, so that is something to consider.  

 

The damage model is exactly the same in single player as it is in multiplayer. However, flying online introduces different variables like lag especially when one player may have a ping of 250 and another has a ping of 25. 

 

Personally speaking , I think the community got used to aircraft  receive minimal hits and falling apart in a spectacular fashion prior to the introduction of the new damage model. 

It is possible to shoot down aircraft with the M2 but it is much harder than with HE rounds.

 

That being said,  I also think that there is a  problem with the . 50 cal ammunition and that is that is it currently missing the vital ingredients of API rounds and complex gun harmonisation. As I have stated before I'm fairly sure this would make a big difference to the results of what the M2 can do if/when it is introduced.  If you look at most of the gun cam footage of P-47's and P-51's from WWII there seem to be an abundance of enemy aircraft falling victim to fires and igniting fuel and ammunition.  

 

 

1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

My suggestion is the devs or testers do some online testing against other competent humans and see what they think then.

 

We do and I have personally spent approximately 1600 hours flying online.  I'm well aware of what humans opponents online can do as my 110 has fallen to the guns of P-51's and P-47's many times.

 

On 8/21/2020 at 8:59 PM, LukeFF said:

 

An absence of replies by the developers here doesn't mean they are ignoring the issue

 

I can attest wholeheartedly to what Luke has said here.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI P-38 and P-51 still NOT spawning in the Bodenplatte career. I cant believe this is not fixed yet. 

 

.50 still underpowered. I have a P51 career running, after 7 or 8 missions I can safely say that it doesnt inflict enough structural damage. If you dont kill the 109 pilot, it wont go down. Its worse than that, in fact, the damage inflicted after several successful sustained bursts is so superficial that the 109 will continue to operate at nominal performance! In the meantime, a few hits from the Pe2 or IL2 1943 turret will obliterate your 190.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

It is possible to shoot down aircraft with the M2 but it is much harder than with HE rounds.

 

 

I think this is the key here to recognizing that there is a problem with the currently implementation of the M2, or AP ammo in general.

 

Basically, if the sim was a reflection of reality, the allies would have switched to HE ammo for the M2. While we can argue the USAAF was trying to get 20mm guns and had logistical issues there, ultimately the real difference in the sim mostly comes down to the effects of AP vs HE ammo. If the P-51 had only 2 guns that fired .50 HE ammo, it would likely be more effective than what we have now. If all 6 guns used HE ammo, it would be an order of magnitude deadlier.

 

That's probably not how it was in reality, and so a fix is needed. Likely a combination of beefing up aerodynamic effects of AP ammo, toning down HE effect a bit, and then of course the eventual addition of API ammo for the M2.

 

In the meantime, however, it certainly makes things a lot more difficult for anyone flying the M2-only planes, and plays a large role in the lopsided kill totals we see online.

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Yankee_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/23/2020 at 2:32 PM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

The damage model is exactly the same in single player as it is in multiplayer. However, flying online introduces different variables like lag especially when one player may have a ping of 250 and another has a ping of 25. 

I agree that the damage model is same that would make complete sense, however, can we be sure that the guns work the same way online and offline?  Is there dispersion / mixing of the rounds like there would be in real life, is the full number of rounds being counted/fired, and do the hits result in the same damage?  My experience is that planes seem to take a lot more damage from .50s offline than they do online.  That makes me suspicious that something isn't working right with them when used online.  To me it almost seems like many of .50 rounds that are fired are "missing in action" online.  Many of the comments I read are from people saying, "Well, I took up a P-47 and shot down 6 109s with no problem OFFLINE", but the same can not be said online in my experience and I don't think it's just the lack of HE (which believe is way too powerful in the HMGs currently) or the superior skills of most online pilots.

1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

Basically, if the sim was a reflection of reality, the allies would have switched to HE ammo for the M2. If the P-51 had only 2 guns that fired .50 HE ammo, it would likely be more effective than what we have now. If all 6 guns used HE ammo, it would be an order of magnitude deadlier.

This is exactly how I see it.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

I agree that the damage model is same that would make complete sense, however, can we be sure that the guns work the same way online and offline?  Is there dispersion / mixing of the rounds like there would be in real life, is the full number of rounds being counted/fired, and do the hits result in the same damage?  My experience is that planes seem to take a lot more damage from .50s offline than they do online.  That makes me suspicious that something isn't working right with them when used online.  To me it almost seems like many of .50 rounds that are fired are "missing in action" online.  Many of the comments I read are from people saying, "Well, I took up a P-47 and shot down 6 109s with no problem OFFLINE", but the same can not be said online in my experience and I don't think it's just the lack of HE (which believe is way too powerful in the HMGs currently) or the superior skills of most online pilots.

This is exactly how I see it.

I just quickly try to see if mod would work where i just switched US 12.7ap with russian 12.7he, and it works, and shoting thouse russian 12.7he bullets from m2 makes a big differance, so if 12.7he was so mutch better as game tells us, i also wonder why americans used ap then and not he ammo also ?

Edited by CountZero
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, CountZero said:

i also wonder why americans used ap then and not he ammo also ?

 

 

Probably because of this?

On 8/21/2020 at 1:32 PM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Talking of history, 14,000 Allied aircraft flew over 20,000 sorties over the beachheads during D-Day.  With this kind of overwhelming Allied Air power, I'm sure the US didn't hate their pilots and there probably no mad rush to equip US aircraft with cannons as overwhelming air superiority and API seemed efficient at killing pilots, causing fires and igniting fuel and ammunition. By comparison the Luftwaffe flew 200 sorties on D-Day itself. 

 

 

We are still missing a key component for M2 ammunition that being Armour Piercing Incendiary rounds. This type of round was extremely good at igniting fuel and detonating ammunition and fuel tanks. Nearly all US fighter aircraft by 1944 were loaded exclusively with API rounds.

 

If you watch lots of gun camera footage from WWII you will see P-51's and P-47's causing an inordinate amount of fires or catastrophic explosions from hits to ammunition or fuel.

 

 

At 0.14 you can see a very probably pilot kill. The shoot down at 0:25 is of particular interest as you can see the  incendiary rounds causing havoc across the wings and airframe

 

As a regular player, I really hope that this type of ammunition will be included in a future update as I think it is the key missing component that is causing the frustration many players are having with the 50's. 

 

 

Edit

This video shows API v fuel at around the 2.40 mark.

 

  

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2020 at 2:33 AM, CountZero said:

I just quickly try to see if mod would work where i just switched US 12.7ap with russian 12.7he, and it works, and shoting thouse russian 12.7he bullets from m2 makes a big differance, so if 12.7he was so mutch better as game tells us, i also wonder why americans used ap then and not he ammo also ?

It would be nice to know whether the russian did us their 12.7mm HE in their aircrafts, since the germans dropped the HE-I round for the pure Incendiary Round.

How much HE Filling did the russians projectile carry? and does some one have war time documents on that subject (filling, belting etc)?
Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2020 at 3:34 PM, SCG_motoadve said:

This makes total sense, no need to make .50s unrealistically powerful useless, which will make it arcadish and ruin the game.

 

Just a touch of editing, so everybody will understand your phrase easier. 😊

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With G-6 late modelling I hope the devs ll inspect the 109s FM

And I hope G-6 ll have erla haube modification, because the G-6 got the NDB and erla haube at the same time.(1943 august) For now G-6 has NDB but no erla haube modi.

And please do not forget the old forgotten topics for Bf-109 engine: 😢

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

With G-6 late modelling I hope the devs ll inspect the 109s FM

That would be nice, since there seems to be something wrong with the G models in regards to top speed, they seem a bit slow up high. Also the difference between the G-6 und G-4 is only 10kph on the deck and 5kph at full throttle height at 6.5km. (Tested on Rheinland Autumn, full realism, used to convert IAS to TAS: http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html)

 

 

Il-2 109.PNG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what relation have the G6 with las update... 4.009

i miss something?

:)

thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, HRc_Tumu said:

what relation have the G6 with las update... 4.009

None.

However it can very well be that the two posts before yours were not intended to be in this thread, the authors might have posted them in the Dev update 259 thread.

Just happened to me when I've stated in the dev update 259 thread how disappointing it is to see that there's still no fix in sight for the indestructible 109 tail and that the cal .50 damage is still not even recognized as an issue.

 

My post silently got moved to some other arbitrary thread, without notifying me and of course without stating any reason in the relocated post nor the affected thread.

 

Professional moderation anyone?

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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...