Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals

[Creep]

14 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Then I suppose you have to consider whether a vocal minority represent your customers in the overall scheme of things.

 

What evidence do you have to support your claim that it is a minority in the community that are unhappy with the state of AP and its' affect on late-war Allied planes?

[LemonQuat]

On 2/5/2021 at 4:13 AM, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I agree with this.

I find the number of rounds for 50%pk to be plausible, but there is a lack of stuff going wrong.

 

Some nice things to happen before the kill might include:

Electric system failure

Hydraulic  system failure

Gear dropping

Flaps dropping

Ammunition chain broken, leading to later jam

Throttle leaver broken

Pitch lever broken

Pitch governor broken

Bomb bay doors sticking

Bombs releasing

Bombs not releasing

Gun/cannon trigger wire cut

Bombs detonating

Ammo detonating

Partial control surface control lost (i.e. pilot can move rudder/elevator left, but not right or up, but not down)

Flaps not deploying or deploying asymmetrically

 

I'm sure others could come up with many more.

A thousand times this. Simply put AP rounds 1-49 have no appreciable effect on the fight and the handling of the aircraft, while the catastrophic 50th shot that finally severs a wing spar or cuts a cable does all the heavy lifting, and that's not counting the hits which ricochet or fail to penetrate for some reason.  

 

Frankly, gameplay like this is embarrassing to show, and that an objectively broken piece of dogshit software like DCS can put together a more believable depiction of damage using an engine kept on life support since the early 2000s is just plain sad.

[Creep]

more fun with .50 cals! please read the description in the video.

 

[PainGod85]

On 1/27/2021 at 2:20 AM, Tatata_Time said:

Let's do simple maths: 370th FS (P-51B) reports, from this actual combat report of a:

P-51B equipped with only 4 x 0.50 cal MG's 

The mix A/C was using: 2 API- 2 I- 1 AP ratio.

Rate of fire AN/M2 MG: 750-850 rounds/minute same 12,5 rounds/second, So a P-51B can spit 50 rounds/second ( 12,5 x 4 MG's). So He used around 200-300 rounds ( 4 seconds burst from 500 yards at 30) to dissable  a 109 as a flying threat. (*)

 

And the rest of a total rounds of 615 had been used to dissabled another 109 as a flying threat from a close shot at 75 yards

 

That is not at all what the report is saying.

 

In total 615 rounds were expended by White 4 (Lt Siltamaki). We do not know if any other ammunition expenditure occurred before or after the fight reported therein, nor how accurate his recollection of the event itself is.

We do know 615 rounds equates roughly to 12 seconds of continuous fire from four M2 Brownings.

 

White 3 (Lt Hipsher) had fired on that target at 75 yards and then broken off, assuming the e/a to have gone into a terminal dive. Instead, the e/a recovered and pulled out. No ammunition expenditure figures are available for White 3 as part of this report.

 

This is where the initial statement in the report begins, with White 4's pilot filing for the kill credit because he landed the killing blow - after his element leader had pulled off.

 

The second part is White 3 describing the situation from his point of view both as a witness for the kill and in order to get credited for half of it.

 

 

All of the above aside, I do agree that the current performance of the M2 Browning needs to be looked at.

[CountZero]

Why arcade flying game warthurd has so mutch differant ammo types:

https://wiki.warthunder.com/Plane_ammunition

Machine gun bullets

• Ball - Omni-purpose
• T - Tracer
• I - Incendiary
• IT - Incendiary tracer
• AI - Adjustment incendiary
• IAI - Immediate-action incendiary
• AP - Armor-piercing
• AP-I - Armor-piercing incendiary
• AP-I(c) - Armor-piercing (cermet core)
• AP-T - Armor-piercing tracer
• API-T - Armor-piercing incendiary tracer

Cannon shells

• P - Practice
• T - Tracer
• IT - Incendiary tracer
• IT* - Incendiary tracer (self-destroying)
• FI-T - Fragmentation incendiary tracer
• FI-T* - Fragmentation incendiary tracer (self-destroying)
• AP-I - Armor-piercing incendiary
• APHE - Armor-piercing high explosive
• HEI - High-explosive incendiary (minengeschoß)
• HEI - High-explosive incendiary (minengeschoß, night tracer)
• HEF - High-explosive fragmentation
• HEF-I - High-explosive fragmentation incendiary
• HEFI-T - High-explosive fragmentation incendiary tracer
• HEFI-T* - High-explosive fragmentation incendiary tracer (self-destroying)
• HEF-SAPI - High-explosive fragmentation (Semi-armor-piercing incendiary)
• HEF-T - High-explosive fragmentation tracer
• HVAP-T High-velocity armor-piercing tracer

and we are stuck with HE or AP is one of flaws of game engine for combat sim, but if that will take time to fix, there needs to be quick fix of just ading mix of AP and HE ammo like all other airplanes have, so it looks like real deal like it looked for years before famous 4.005.

Edited February 8, 2021 by CountZero

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

I know everyone likes to poopoo warthunder but at least you can fly Allied planes with .50 and still be effective. Another thing is that everyone mocks the FM in warthunder and granted there are goofy planes that never existed and some of the FM's are goofy. However, the state that il-2 is in is no better.  Between German planes that can throw themselves into a lateral flatspin and recover in seconds, the luftwobble, and the DM silliness that has persisted for almost a year, I would say that WT is in a better overall state than IL-2.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

15 minutes ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

I know everyone likes to poopoo warthunder but at least you can fly Allied planes with .50 and still be effective. Another thing is that everyone mocks the FM in warthunder and granted there are goofy planes that never existed and some of the FM's are goofy. However, the state that il-2 is in is no better.  Between German planes that can throw themselves into a lateral flatspin and recover in seconds, the luftwobble, and the DM silliness that has persisted for almost a year, I would say that WT is in a better overall state than IL-2.

No, just no...............

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

Believe me I would rather be flying IL-2, but a year of this silly DM and it being treated like a non issue on top of everything else going on in the game. Credit where credit is due.

 

[Tempus]

7 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

That is not at all what the report is saying

 

Let's see if this time is last I need to explain why. I chose that report randonly from all attached in previous mate's posts. So basicaly that real report was the excuse to do numbers to demonstrate that 0.50 cal. mixed belts (AP +I ) and pure belts from mixed ammo (pure API-APIT) are more effective than what we have now ingame (pure AP rounds). This is the main point I ony want to discuss if...

Next time play maths no Sherlock Holmes in where are the rest of bullets you haven't mentioned in the report, Lieternaut?

Sometimes I'm starting to think devs based their 0.50 cal. ingame implementation using the same numbers used to invent "the theory of the magic bullet".

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I doubt there is a DEV in ANY simulation production house, including this one, who doesn't believe API/APIT is a better round than a basic AP or boat tail ball ammo, in rifle calibers, for all air combat. Nor are they unaware that API rounds are highly desired by the BoX community. The problem here is, they are not easilly implemented in the DM and they have to figure out a way to get them in the game. It's not like they are holding them back to punish anyone.

 

German flyers are convinced there is a DEV bias toward Allied FM's and Allied flyers are convinced there is a DEV bias toward DM's. We really gotta get our conspiracy theories in line, man.

 

It's a small team, there are workflow bottlenecks, and your priority isn't necesarilly another's priority. That's really the bottom line, other than the fact it's a crazy good game overall.

Edited February 9, 2021 by II/JG17_HerrMurf
spelling

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

its been almost a year. its a combat flight sim. two of their new products are heavily focused on planes that use .50 as armament. DM should be a priority. no one needs a lecture or dismissal as "conspiracy theory". As you said, some peoples priorities aren't yours so stop trying to tell people their complaints or concerns aren't valid/needed. We all want this game to succeed and we have all been patient. We know they're a small team, but we

don't just give money to people to hear all the reasons why we don't have what we expect. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'm not saying the basis of the complaints isn't valid. Although, a great many of them are WAY over the top and that is what I mostly object to. I've already stated the .50's need work. Even a couple in this thread alone. You are welcome, as always, to vote with your wallet.

 

My other main point is, it will get addressed. Just not on anyones timeline other than the DEV's where they can work it in. Regardless of how loud/often people complain. Time and money is finite and there is no getting around it. While small, this team is both skilled and very committed to their product.

[[DBS]Browning]

I'm not sure a proper API implantation is the fix everyone is looking for. 

I think it stands to reason that HE rounds should have a higher chance of starting fires than API rounds. They can rupture fuel tanks catastrophicly, have a wide area of fire starting effect and are more likely to airate fuel. 

It might be argued that API rounds have more intense heat, but I rather doubt it. Besides, it hardly matters when it comes to igniting aviation fuel. 

It might also be argued that HE round only effect the skin of an aircraft, but that isn't true. They are generally designed with fuses that have enough delay to allow the round some slight level of penetrative effect.verisimilitude enough to reach unprotected fuel tanks. 

 

The AP ammo at the moment appears to have some fire starting capacity. 

Given that HE rounds don't appear to be especially more effective at starting fires currently compared to AP round, an increase in fires from API will need either a reduction of fires from AP round, an increase of fires from HE round, or both. 

 

The end result will either be not so different from what we currently have, or it will see the efficacy of 50s go up with the efficacy of HE as both become better at starting fires. 

The only other alternative, that 50s become better at starting fires than HE, doesn't make sense. 

 

Either way, the 50s aren't gaining an advantage compared to cannon. 

 

A better fire simulation and API rounds would be great, but I suspect that it's increased system modelling and faliures that will make AP realism shoot up. 

 

[HR_Zunzun]

3 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

I'm not sure a proper API implantation is the fix everyone is looking for. 

I think it stands to reason that HE rounds should have a higher chance of starting fires than API rounds. They can rupture fuel tanks catastrophicly, have a wide area of fire starting effect and are more likely to airate fuel.

 

An 0.5 cal API round have better chance of starting fires than a 0.5 cal HE round. That´s why Germans introduced the Incendiary round for theirs 13mm MG instead of the HE that they were using. In those relatively small calibers, the amount of HE that a round can carry is very small for the HE causing any catastrophic damage.

 

[[DBS]Browning]

45 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

An 0.5 cal API round have better chance of starting fires than a 0.5 cal HE round. That´s why Germans introduced the Incendiary round for theirs 13mm MG instead of the HE that they were using. In those relatively small calibers, the amount of HE that a round can carry is very small for the HE causing any catastrophic damage.

 

 

I don't especially doubt this, although I'm curious what the exact mechanics might be. 

At any rate, I had in mind 20mm+. 

[Tempus]

40 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

I'm not sure a proper API implantation is the fix everyone is looking for. 

I think it stands to reason that HE rounds should have a higher chance of starting fires than API rounds. They can rupture fuel tanks catastrophicly, have a wide area of fire starting effect and are more likely to airate fuel. 

It might be argued that API rounds have more intense heat, but I rather doubt it. Besides, it hardly matters when it comes to igniting aviation fuel. 

It might also be argued that HE round only effect the skin of an aircraft, but that isn't true. They are generally designed with fuses that have enough delay to allow the round some slight level of penetrative effect.verisimilitude enough to reach unprotected fuel tanks. 

 

The AP ammo at the moment appears to have some fire starting capacity. 

Given that HE rounds don't appear to be especially more effective at starting fires currently compared to AP round, an increase in fires from API will need either a reduction of fires from AP round, an increase of fires from HE round, or both. 

 

The end result will either be not so different from what we currently have, or it will see the efficacy of 50s go up with the efficacy of HE as both become better at starting fires. 

The only other alternative, that 50s become better at starting fires than HE, doesn't make sense. 

 

Either way, the 50s aren't gaining an advantage compared to cannon. 

 

A better fire simulation and API rounds would be great, but I suspect that it's increased system modelling and faliures that will make AP realism shoot up. 

 

Could you explain all comunity, also the bullets manufacturers why they're loosing time and money manufacturing expensive bullets meanwhile cheaper rounds do same work? Could be stupid from my non expert in bullets point of view, but should be interesting from Smith & Wesson point of view. 

 

I also give you a clue: you're wrongly starting all this thinking DM is perfect. After you will mix all these ingredients and shake them you'll figure anything of why people who fly with 0.50 cal. is opining what you've read in several post from 10 months ago. 

1 hour ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

My other main point is, it will get addressed. Just not on anyones timeline other than the DEV's where they can work it in. Regardless of how loud/often people complain. Time and money is finite and there is no getting around it. While small, this team is both skilled and very committed to their product.

 

Sooner or later...... don't they? Well.... after ten months of complains better sooner don't you? I't not my foult how they manage their bussiness. I've done my duty as a concerned client due these main issues for so long are not going to call more potential clients, but as I said I'm not here to tell them how they should manage their bussiness nevertheless to complain for any issue also and double complain if there's non concrete official answer only an indirect reference to it in a topic of WW I, only cause both sims share the DM......ufff, perfectly knowing how things have been in forum from last May 2020.

If you were so confident of that in the incoming next month they would implement any solution (final or interim one) you can't come here every 3 days like a preacher man with the speech you're bad and you don't deserve to play this game and they're good cause they're bussy.  

[[DBS]Browning]

16 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

Could you explain all comunity, also the bullets manufacturers why they're loosing time and money manufacturing expensive bullets meanwhile cheaper rounds do same work? Could be stupid from my non expert in bullets point of view, but should be interesting from Smith & Wesson point of view. 

 

I also give you a clue: you're wrongly starting all this thinking DM is perfect. After you will mix all these ingredients and shake them you'll figure anything of why people who fly with 0.50 cal. is opining what you've read in several post from 10 months ago. 

 

I think you misunderstand. 

I'm not arguing that API is in reality ineffective. 

Instead, my point is that currently planes using 50cal AP and planes using 20mm+ HE rounds in game are roughly equal in their likely hood to score a kill via fire. At a guess, I'd say about 15% of my kills are from fire in both the US and German fighters. 

Clearly not the way it should be. 

 

If API rounds are added, and no other changes are made, then a API-AP belt will be much more likely to cause a kill via fire than a 20mm+ HE belt.

This would be absurd,so it would be necessary to either reduce the fire starting ability of AP rounds, increase the fire starting ability of HE rounds, or do both. 

 

Edit: many typos fixed. 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by [DBS]Browning

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

20 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

Could you explain all comunity, also the bullets manufacturers why they're loosing time and money manufacturing expensive bullets meanwhile cheaper rounds do same work? Could be stupid from my non expert in bullets point of view, but should be interesting from Smith & Wesson point of view. 

 

I also give you a clue: you're wrongly starting all this thinking DM is perfect. After you will mix all these ingredients and shake them you'll figure anything of why people who fly with 0.50 cal. is opining what you've read in several post from 10 months ago. 

 

Sooner or later...... don't they? Well.... after ten months of complains better sooner don't you? I't not my foult how they manage their bussiness. I've done my duty as a concerned client due these main issues for so long are not going to call more potential clients, but as I said I'm not here to tell them how they should manage their bussiness nevertheless to complain for any issue also and double complain if there's non concrete official answer only an indirect reference to it in a topic of WW I, only cause both sims share the DM......ufff, perfectly knowing how things have been in forum from last May 2020.

If you were so confident of that in the incoming next month they would implement any solution (final or interim one) you can't come here every 3 days like a preacher man with the speech you're bad and you don't deserve to play this game and they're good cause they're bussy.  

 

You seriously need to work on both your misquotes and assumptions, as well as your reading comprehension. You are all over the map here, bud. Nearly unreadable.

[-SF-Disarray]

13 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I don't especially doubt this, although I'm curious what the exact mechanics might be. 

At any rate, I had in mind 20mm+. 

As I understand it, the difference is down to time. A high explosive charge and an incendiary charge may have the same amount of energy locked up in them but the incendiary round will expend that energy over a longer period of time. This longer time allows for the transfer of more thermal energy resulting in fires. While the high explosive charge will expend the energy much quicker causing damage in the form of a blast wave but doing so as quickly as it does less thermal energy is transferred into the surrounding material.

[[DBS]Browning]

35 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

As I understand it, the difference is down to time...

 

Could be. Fuel ignition is strange. 

Liquid fuel doesn't burn at all. You can drop a match into a bucket of aviation fuel and it won't set ablaze.

It's also utterly impossible to start a fire inside a fuel tank, even if it's largely empty the fuel-vapour to air ratio is very, very unlikely to be correct and if it is, there will be an explosion rather than a fire. 

 

Getting liquid fuel to ignite is all about vaporising it in clean air first. No doubt HE is exceptionally good at causing fuel to vaporise, but explosions may have some property that reduces ignition chances for all I know. Perhaps API vaporises fuel in the wake of the round if it manages to exit a fuel tank? Or perhaps API rounds rely largely on there already being fuel outside of the tank. 

 

Edit:

Perhaps HE does less well at igniting form than once might expect because it either detonate in the tank* where there is no clean air or it detonates out of the tank where there is no fuel to vaporise. Only rarely does it detonate at the border between fuel and clean air where ignition may take place. API on the other hand, always heats this border, even if it does less well at vaporising fuel. 

 

*Although I imagine that any detonation inside a fuel tank is going to cause a catastrophic rupture anyway. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by [DBS]Browning

[-SF-Disarray]

As it applies to planes I imagine the time factor is the key still. An explosion may well rip open the fuel tank but the time that energetic reaction is going on is so short if the conditions are not already present and ideal to start a fire you won't end up with a fire by the time the reaction is ended. If the incendiary charge takes 10 times as long to burn all of the reagents, for example, it has 10 times as much time for the conditions needed to develop. Additionally, you have the greater thermal aspect of the reaction working to the advantage of an incendiary round. Given the nature of incendiary compounds you get a hotter, if slower, reaction than is typically found in pure high explosive compounds. It is all very dynamic, I'm sure, and I don't have the command of the physics or depth of chemistry to lay it all out, but I suspect that is the essence of it.

 

Fortunately, in this case, I don't know that all of the in's and out's of it need be fully understood. While the DM might be more complex than HP pools and hit boxes, it isn't a fully physics based, real time simulation of every round impacting the target and the complex thermodynamics applicable to this kind of interaction. So it really needn't be factored, in it's entirety, to the DM. Much of that can, and should, be abstracted. One way this might be achieved is with a tweaking of the APHE shells used in the tanks. In game terms it is a two part round: First it punches a hole in the target (AP), then it explodes (HE). Couldn't that last part just be changed to, 'start burning'? That would, in very simple terms, describe an API round in action: It hits the target and pernitrates (AP) and then starts burning (I). One could argue for a rather weak HE effect being thrown into the deal to account for the thermal weakening of the material immediately around the point of impact as well. Is it a carbon copy of reality? Not at all. Is it close enough? It could probably be made so with the right numbers.

 

In any event I don't think simply adding API rounds would fix the problem that is being observed and then complained about. The issue boils down to every round right up until the round that kills the target plane is largely irrelevant to the broader fight. Even if you set the target alight it doesn't matter if it can still maneuver as hard and go as fast as it ever could when not on fire. Until every round you hit with matters in the fight this problem will still exist.

Edited February 9, 2021 by -SF-Disarray

[[DBS]Browning]

33 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

 Until every round you hit with matters in the fight this problem will still exist.

 Well, not every round should matter.

Planes have enough empty space for plenty of rounds to leave nothing but a small hole with little to no effect.

 

The same goes for AP rounds of any calibre.

Edited February 9, 2021 by [DBS]Browning

[-SF-Disarray]

Sure, every round shouldn't be a fight ender, but the little effects that even the simple bullet sized holes should add up eventually and they simply aren't. And has been outlined in the 6 pages proceeding this one many of the rounds hitting a plane aren't going to be leaving a simple bullet sized holes but all kinds of aerodynamically unkind gashes in the skin. But we are doing it again. Talking in circles like we have been for the better part of the year that this has been an issue in the game. If only someone could break the cycle... If only someone had that power... Oh well. I like circles.

[216th_Jordan]

5 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

At a guess, I'd say about 15% of my kills are from fire in both the US and German fighters. 

Clearly not the way it should be. 

 

Is this mostly engine fires or fuel tank fires? I hardly get fuel tank fires with rifle caliber.

[[DBS]Browning]

16 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

Is this mostly engine fires or fuel tank fires? I hardly get fuel tank fires with rifle caliber.

 

Yeah, fuel tank fires are very rare with any ammo type. For many planes, I've never seen a fuel tank fire. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by [DBS]Browning

[216th_Jordan]

57 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Yeah, fuel tank fires are very rare with any ammo type. For many planes, I've never seen a fuel tank fire. 

 

I ask because engines have a capability (in the sim) to set themselves on fire when hit, this is what helps with rifle caliber rounds.

[HR_Zunzun]

8 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I don't especially doubt this, although I'm curious what the exact mechanics might be. 

At any rate, I had in mind 20mm+. 

 

I think nobody doubt that 20mm is in another league.

Altough on the other hand, we should take into account the different platforms. For instance, is a 109 with just 1 20mm cannon being more likely to start a fire than a p-47 with 8 0.5cal with API? I have no doubts that a 190 with 4x20mm will. But a 109? In my opinion no.

[Denum]

Huh, not a single dev post, comment or anything. 


Should we be taking that as a giant middle finger or am I misinterpreting the situation... 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

10 minutes ago, Denum said:

Huh, not a single dev post, comment or anything. 


Should we be taking that as a giant middle finger or am I misinterpreting the situation... 

 

Probably not. These Dev's don't operate that way although there can be the occasional heated response when blatant falsehoods are circulated in the forums regarding the product or team.

 

Dev's almost never respond directly to these types of rant posts. It bears little to no fruit for either party and just gets ugly fast, regardless of the response. It's been this way since about year two when these forums were something of a tire fire. Silence does not mean they don't know, aren't concerned, or don't have it in their plans. It just means, responding before there is a solution does not pay dividends to customers or team. If you really want an answer, dig up verifiable data and present it in the proper format as a bug report. You are far more likely to get a response that way but almost no one wants to put in the time to do it right when emotion is so much easier to latch onto.

 

A proper bug report is how the Fw 190A flight model got fixed. Loads of diligent research presented properly yielded both dialogue and change. I'm good friends with one of the community members who got it done and I'm very proud of his efforts. The FM is a direct result of doing it the right way.

 

Logic > Emotion

[Denum]

They presented the information in a professional(ish) formant and still got zero response.

This wasn't people simply whining about guns being crap. 

How much more do they need to do, to get some form of a response? 

Its clearly broken. It should get fixed. 

This is substantially more of a problem then the 190 A-3 over performing. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Denum

[6./ZG26_Custard]

11 minutes ago, Denum said:

They presented the information in a professional(ish) formant and still got zero response.

Yes they did, but unfortunately there were dozens of other posts on the forum that were caustic, rude, abusive, mocking and hysterical.  That sort of thing tends to dilute serious posts and are completely unhelpful.  The devs have mentioned twice in the last few months that they will have to take time to study the damage model. The problem is that adjusting armour piercing damage won't just affect the .50 cals and any changes to do with the damage model isn't a "simple" fix. 

 

Considering that the developers are consistently updating and improving, hopefully it won't be too far in the future. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Denum]

Just now, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 The devs have mentioned twice in the last  few months that they will have to take time to study the damage model. 

The only DM review I've seen mentioned was for flying circus? I could be wrong however. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 minute ago, Denum said:

The only DM review I've seen mentioned was for flying circus? I could be wrong however

It has been mentioned elsewhere that they want to study the damage model. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I make no claims to be able to judge their methodology or outcomes but it's not in the format or location where it would get a serious look. It also has no historical sources, linked or otherwise. It simply falls short of what the DEV's require to be considered actionable on their end.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

9 minutes ago, Denum said:

The only DM review I've seen mentioned was for flying circus? I could be wrong however. 

 

[Denum]

Fair enough, Guess we have to take his word for it. 

Maybe we get surprised. I hope we do. Its extremely annoying to put several rounds into enemies then get absolutely crippled by the german MGs because they did the ol prop hang pray and spray. 

I'm not meaning to come off as unfair. I know they are busy. But I can handle waiting a little extra time for aircraft/expansions if it means they fix older issues. |
(And I really want that new Spitfire, but I'll gladly wait if it meant my guns weren't shooting marshmellows)  

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Except aircraft and expansions pay for the ability to go back and refine DM, FM, etc. Without an expansions first business model, you might get neither.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

3 minutes ago, Denum said:

Maybe we get surprised. I hope we do. Its extremely annoying to put several rounds into enemies then get absolutely crippled by the german MGs because they did the ol prop hang pray and spray. 

I'd like to see the correct ammunition type for US aircraft from 44 onwards (API) and a more complex fuel and internal damage system modelled. 

I understand the frustration, but I think one thing that has been clear over the last few years is the developers certainly do under promise and over deliver. In addition, it's a continuous development cycle that isn't afraid to go back and revisit when time allowance. 

[Denum]

Growth comes from good game play, 

Especially with FS2020 back out there's a good chance MS steps back into the combat sim market if that sold well. 

Losing customers is just as detrimental.  

1 minute ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

But I think one thing that has been clear over the last few years is the developers certainly do under promise and over deliver.

I will give them that. They don't say much and do deliver some big surprises. Maybe its the -40c rustling my jimmies today. 

 

[QB.Shallot]

3 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

A proper bug report is how the Fw 190A flight model got fixed. Loads of diligent research presented properly yielded both dialogue and change. I'm good friends with one of the community members who got it done and I'm very proud of his efforts. The FM is a direct result of doing it the right way.

 

 

I would like to think our post would be considered as something that is diligently researched.

 

Sadly, I came across the same unicorn problem that happened with the landing gear fairings. 

 

Let's say a game developer had German logistical mules replaced with Unicorns. In order to get these removed from the game, you must provide documentation disproving their use. You can find hundreds of accounts about how the Germans used mules, but not a single one about how they didn't use Unicorns. No one records history that didn't happen.

 

The same thing with the P-51 landing gear fairings coming off at 505mph. I can find dozens of accounts showing that exceeding that number is no problem, and a single test report that states that there is minor damage to the latches at those speeds, but not a single report directly stating that the landing gear fairings dont come flying off, simply because it never happened.

 

I can't find extensive real world testing comparing the MG131 to the M2 .50, likely because the weapons were considered to be similar/unexceptional enough to not warrant such exertion. You can't disprove something that never happened, and I have a funny feeling that no allied aircraft experienced a 40kmh drag penalty from a single HE tipped MG131, and thus, I cannot find any documentation disproving this. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by QB.Shallot