Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Recommended Posts

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 by QB.Shallot
  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2021 at 7:13 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.

So basically everything that happens in CLoD/Tobruk re: damage model.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:

 

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 stating that the landing gear fairings 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. 

 

I'm not saying the test isn't potentially excellent. I am not well versed enough in the subject but it is neither in the format required for a full DEV evaluation nor is it supported by historical data which is what this team holds as the gold standard. I'd take what you have and submit it properly if you want it to get a sniff from the DEV's. This section is mostly for community consumption and will not get a DEV response on the regular.

 

As stated earlier, I don't have a problem with your work and do believe the .50's need to be reworked. The hysterics, accusations, and flameouts by some/other posters is what I take issue with.

 

I actually wish you the best in your efforts to bring attention to the .50's.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick read through bug reports and technical issues section will reveal Dev feedback. 

 

They do not have time to read 30 odd pages of wildly different opinions, rant posts and occasional BS, all in a foreign language.

Posts in the correct format in proper section will produce results and (maybe) Dev feedback 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

unfortunately there were dozens of other posts on the forum that were caustic, rude, abusive, mocking and hysterical

You forgot to mention the hundreds of posts that just denied the facts, asked player to aim better and generally had no other interest than to derail each and every thread which attempted to get the devs attention (unsuccessful) in an attempt to prevail the current situation (successful).

 

Anyway the devs got to know that something's wrong and fixing it has officially been postponed.

IMHO - as it's an issue which has deliberately been created - postponing the fix should have never been an option and IMHO if it was, the time it took already was waaaaaay to long, let alone the fact that there's no TOA for a fix in sight.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting in the technical issues and bug reports section avoids all the BS as it is not meant to be a discussion/opinion area. Therefore there are no attempts to derail a genuine issue,

the back and forth can continue in FM and complaints, and new pertinent info can again be posted in the correct place. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 historical data which is what this team holds as the gold standard.

Please, stop using that. Mid 44 luft airframes still using he in 13mm belts. 13mm he acting like cannon shell even though it was developed as incendiary round to create fires against unarmored fuel tanks, not to tear apart planes, 109s prophanging without gyro effect from massively powerful engines. Being able to recover from flat spit in god damn 1-2 seconds, all of it says otherwise as all of these things are purely contradicting history and ofc effectiveness of 50cals, where there were statements from pilots all over the place how they are effective, not as cannons but still extremely effective.Or p51 gear cover loses or perfectly performing late german planes... Contradicting history massively. It took them how long, year to correct p51 gear? In testing, they reported you had to be gentle on elevator at high speed dives ina 51 else you could have overG it, in game? You have to pull fully from dive and even apply massive ammount of trim. Contradicting history again. 

Edited by =DMD=Honza
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, =DMD=Honza said:

Please, stop using that. Mid 44 luft airframes still using he in 13mm belts. 13mm he acting like cannon shell even though it was developed as incendiary round to create fires against unarmored fuel tanks, not to tear apart planes, 109s prophanging without gyro effect from massively powerful engines. Being able to recover from flat spit in god damn 1-2 seconds, all of it says otherwise as all of these things are purely contradicting history and ofc effectiveness of 50cals, where there were statements from pilots all over the place how they are effective, not as cannons but still extremely effective.Or p51 gear cover loses or perfectly performing late german planes... Contradicting history massively. It took them how long, year to correct p51 gear? In testing, they reported you had to be gentle on elevator at high speed dives ina 51 else you could have overG it, in game? You have to pull fully from dive and even apply massive ammount of trim. Contradicting history again. 

 

Then make a bug report!

 

You seem to have the info and easily backed up facts

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Dakpilot said:

Then make a bug report!

 

You seem to have the info and easily backed up facts

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

18 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

What do you read here? Do we really need to do a bug report after reading that from an offical voice? They've been informed from several months ago. That offical voice was talking about 4.502 version... nowadays at 02/10/2021 we got the 4.505c, 3 main releases with their hot fixes after the suppoused release mentioned before, also several DD's with ZERO mentions to this chain of issues. Why the hell we need to be accurate to the micron and the official answer use faint words and concepts as issue, soon, be patient, also planning to study: when are they going to stop planning and start studying, also finish studying and fix the PROBLEM? 4.001 release was the milestone to stop BoBP as an Early acces product to become a final product...... really? It's far away from been final anything.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Then make a bug report!

 

You seem to have the info and easily backed up facts

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

 

The fun fact, which was stated here too is. I have learnt it on this forum, from docs posted into threads, between a lot of spam (mine included ofc). If company hired one individual to go through major discussions each day, he could pick up all interesting info, docs and ideas. The dive recovery for example? I saw it few months back on this forum and iirc, it was copy of official test page. 13mm HE ammo is quite common knowledge. Hard to find as documents of germans from mid 44 to 45 are sparse but iam god damn sure, they seized production of 13mm he round in mid 44 in favour of api and i ammunitions. No gyro effect, cmon, you dont have to be rocket engineer with quantum physics doctorate to know how much force DB produced and how light and small 109 was so prophang and even sharp maneuvering at low speeds would be rather dangerous and limited. And 50cals? Same l, learnt a lot of stuff here. There is guy who was posting official pilot reports where they said how pieces of planes flew away after hits... Lets not believe official reports but lets believe some wrong calculations which are obv wrong even to uninterested people in weapons. Because they look that much ridiculous. *Cough* 13mm he *cough*

Edited by =DMD=Honza
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

I'm not saying the test isn't potentially excellent. I am not well versed enough in the subject but it is neither in the format required for a full DEV evaluation nor is it supported by historical data which is what this team holds as the gold standard. I'd take what you have and submit it properly if you want it to get a sniff from the DEV's. This section is mostly for community consumption and will not get a DEV response on the regular.

 

As stated earlier, I don't have a problem with your work and do believe the .50's need to be reworked. The hysterics, accusations, and flameouts by some/other posters is what I take issue with.

 

I actually wish you the best in your efforts to bring attention to the .50's.

 

Ok...let's twist this a little bit.

 

Are all the weapons in the game in accordance with the "golden standard" and if yes...surely the .50 cals must have been forgotten.

Unless there are historical documents stating that the relative difference in effectiveness between .50 cals and MG131...or let's say .50 cals and german 20mm's is what is modelled in the game?

This is the core issue I believe of the whole matter...and that is what people are trying to get through.

 

It's like everyone is certain that the 20mm's and Russian and German HMG's are absolutely spot on in the game...and since the developers are such professionals they cannot be wrong with the way the .50 cals behave.

I said it early on...it's all about parameters. This is an easy issue to fix. The technical mumbo jumo becomes a bit pathetic in these threads, especially since the "tech" behind DM's, isn't as fancy as some here believe.

 

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we're offering hot takes...

I think they've made a DM based on a number of assumptions they've arrived at looking at historical data and so on and works as they expect in a lot of respects, but doesn't work well when dealing with AP aerodynamic damage and small amounts of HE, which are the 'edge cases'. You can't just fix one area because it can have knock-on effects elsewhere. Reducing the damage done by small amounts of HE probably also reduces the damage done by large amounts of HE, for example, even though the larger shells are roughly where they want them (For the sake of argument). You could add in missing factors that will make your model more accurate, but that makes things more and more computationally intensive, until you arrive at something that chews up your computer resources quite badly. 

It's probably simple to change the input values to make one type of ammo do more or less damage, but hard to figure out how it will all pan out at the end state (which may be how we got here in the first place). You need a lot of time testing it all out to make sure you don't end up with something more borked than you started with, but in new and exciting ways. The list of people who could be working on this are small and tied up with priority work on new airplanes that pay the bills, and they sunk a lot of time into the DM update in the first place so are probably loathe to dive back into what on its face looks like a money/time sink. So we are frustrated by lack of progress, and devs are probably tired of hearing about it. Hence the million threads on the subject.

Anyway we can throw documentation at each other all day. I'm reasonably certain the devs have it and have seen it, and unlike things like airspeed at certain altitudes or dive limitations there are few, if any, documents with absolute numbers like 'five hits from a 12.7mm AP round causes a reduction in speed of 25.32 km/h" so the 'gold standard' is practically impossible to achieve for  mere mortals. There is no magic document that the devs can look at to make things perfectly realistic - but they can look at outcome-based information and data and how things are functioning in the game right now and see that they need to move towards plausibility.

@QB.Shallot and company put forward a good display and analysis of how the damage model functions in a real game world environment. That's valuable. Sometimes, you can look at something and see that it is clearly not working properly but not know exactly how to get there or have a document with specific numbers, and I think that's OK. 

 Do I think we will see a 'fix'? Yeah, at some point, but like other long running issues that have been fixed in the past it might strain the meaning of 'eventually' a bit. Nothing at all wrong with the community putting together things like this to show how important it is to people.
 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have to "twist" anything. Historical documentation is still the golden rule for both the DEV's and those wishing to have things ammended in game. 

 

Now, being able to program it to function within the game exactly like the documentation, with the limits of the engine and simulated physics, filling in mathmatical extrapolations, and appeasing the clientele. Now there's the hard thing isn't it? If it was easy, we'd all have the copyright on a flight sim somewhere.

 

Sometimes they get it wrong. Mostly they get it right. And when they do get it wrong they have never (Under Jason's command) failed to both admit it, when presented with facts and documents, and go back to take another look.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Now, being able to program it to function within the game exactly like the documentation, with the limits of the engine and simulated physics, filling in mathmatical extrapolations, and appeasing the clientele. Now there's the hard thing isn't it? If it was easy, we'd all have the copyright on a flight sim somewhere.

I understand that you're in the firm belief that the devs are aware of the problem, have all the documentary evidence to work out a solution, and are silently working on it since day one.

 

On the other hand, there's no evidence that the devs are aware of the problem, that they have all the evidence at disposal to work out a solution, or are asking for further evidence to do so (what the community could help with), and there's no evidence that anything is being done behind the scenes to resolve an issue which is not even acknowledged as an issue.

 

Don't get me wrong, I take it as a game and won't commit suicide just because "my fav planes are porked", no. I don't really bother about it, I take it as it is, a game with pros and cons.

 

But I can't get rid of the memory of the saying "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". And exactly this feeleing is that annoys a bunch of people who may or may not be a "vocal minority" as naysayers and explainers tend to despise them.

Edited by sniperton
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This mostly iritates MP players in late war so problem is now in hands of server hosts if there is enough hispano armed airplanes players are not forced to use 0.50cal ones and can atleast have fun on allied side, and considering how axis side is not limited by numbers like they were in real war there should be enough hispanos to boom boom them.

This aint gona get fixed fast if they wait for when they can overhaul whole ammo and DM system, and if my choice online is only 0.50 cal airplane where others are limited and taken i dont bather with it.

Edited by CountZero
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, sniperton said:

I understand that you're in the firm belief that the devs are aware of the problem, have all the documentary evidence to work out a solution, and are silently working on it since day one.

 

On the other hand, there's no evidence that the devs are aware of the problem, that they have all the evidence at disposal to work out a solution, or are asking for further evidence to do so (what the community could help with), and there's no evidence that anything is being done behind the scenes to resolve an issue which is not even acknowledged as an issue.

 

Don't get me wrong, I take it as a game and won't commit suicide just because "my fav planes are porked", no. I don't really bother about it, I take it as it is, a game with pros and cons.

 

But I can't get rid of the memory of the saying "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". And exactly this feeleing is that annoys a bunch of people who may or may not be a "vocal minority" as naysayers and explainers tend to despise them.

 

Again, you've been here long enough to know how this team operates and your second paragraph is not representative of how this team has viewed/tackled ANY problem since Jason took the reins.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Since we're offering hot takes...

Reducing the damage done by small amounts of HE probably also reduces the damage done by large amounts of HE, for example, even though the larger shells are roughly where they want them (For the sake of argument). 




 
 

Not sure about that, the 20mm Hispanos seems to work ok.

 

But have you tried the 37mm in the P39? 

 

I can one tap players with the MK108. I've had 109s laugh off the 37mm. 

 

Not necessarily what this thread is about but I'm not so sure they are tied together given there's such a gap in performance.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There might be a problem elsewhere. 
 

After reading this topic, I cannot get rid of the thought that the problem lies mainly with 109 DM and with attacks from behind. It correlates with my MP experience since I can down 190s incredibly faster than 109s while using .50 cals. 

 

Many of us who play the game for a longer time sure remember the times when the 109 had extremely brittle tail. One had only to look at it in a bad way and it fell off immediately. That is why devs disabled damage to that component. From my experience, attacking from 6 o’clock and attempting PK is almost futile, since the bullets that go through the tail section seem to do little to no damage. When I attack 109s from any other angle, the .50 cals are doing incredibly quick job with the poor messers.

 

Just my two cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Denum said:

Not sure about that, the 20mm Hispanos seems to work ok.

 

But have you tried the 37mm in the P39? 

 

I can one tap players with the MK108. I've had 109s laugh off the 37mm. 

 

Not necessarily what this thread is about but I'm not so sure they are tied together given there's such a gap in 

In the many hours combat I have never ever broken the elevators or rudder off a 109 ever with AP rounds of any size with many hits and a few types of HE (I have even taken 37mm AP, for air to air, yak 9T and p39 just to see the difference from time to time)  In fact I have only broke elevator and rudder off an AFK 109 with 4 HE 37mm Yak 9T. The tail structure was completely fine but only after that 4 seperate 37mm pops those parts fell off all at once. On the other hand the 190 pops them off pretty easily which I find strange. There may be something funky going on. I use to believe it was hard to damage 109 cause of its slender body and size and difficult with wing convergence planes but it does not seem to be the case.

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

In the many hours combat I have never ever broken the elevators or rudder off a 109 ever with AP rounds of any size with many hits and a few types of HE (I have even taken 37mm AP, for air to air, yak 9T and p39 just to see the difference from time to time)  In fact I have only broke elevator and rudder off an AFK 109 with 4 HE 37mm Yak 9T. The tail structure was completely fine but only after that 4 seperate 37mm pops those parts fell off all at once. On the other hand the 190 pops them off pretty easily which I find strange. There may be something funky going on. I use to believe it was hard to damage 109 cause of its slender body and size and difficult with wing convergence planes but it does not seem to be the case.

Thats just quick fix some airplanes get from 4.005, nothing strange its just for short time untill they make real fix its not like they made one type of airplane practicly having aditional back armor advantage they didnt have, from April 2020 update:

"41. Bf-109 (all series except E7): the loss of the vertical stabilizer and the central part of the horizontal stabilizer is temporarily blocked due to the interdependence of this damage in the 3D model, which makes this point extremely vulnerable to combat damage and causes undesirable results. We will try to move the breaking point above the stabilizer in the future and fix this limitation. Damage to the rudder, elevators and horizontal stabs are still possible and the rudder and elevators can still be detached. And the left and right portions of the horizontal stab can also be lost;"

 

Back to 0.50 cal, they could do quick fix of just adding mix of HE ammo, for short time untill they make real fix, MG131 now have 2/3rd of it belt HE ammo that historicly didnt have, its easy to just make quick fix and add HE ammo to M2 belts, 1/3rd maybe so axis still have advantage. Its not like they dont do quick fixes for some airplanes.

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

This mostly iritates MP players in late war

 

It also effects Single player.

 

If you and your AI wingmen are at a disadvantage in the amount of damage per hits, this, in combination wth an AI that often flies past the point where a human would bug out and try and get home safely seems to lead to a massacre and an unenjoybale attempt at flying a career.

 

I haven't played too much Bodenplatte admitedly, but when I saw someone complain about the 190A8 being OP vs allied aricraft I thought, nah, surely they are wrong. But then I gave it a go in QMB, and with 8 vs 8, all ace, the P51s seem to barely scratch the A8s, yet the P51s get critical damage rapidly. I replayed the scenario over and over and I could usually get maybe 2 AI down, whilst the rest of my flight were destroyed or went off to land (I assume due to damage?)

 

I'm not saying the A8 is OP, just that the Ace AI themselves in a P51 can't seem to land enough damaging hits to take them out to ive a 'fair' engagement.

 

In MP the other day,  I was surprised that someone who chased my 110 away from a target I had hit was shooting and shooting at me and I heard several repeated hits but yet I still managed to get home with I think just fuel tank damage. Just one experience granted , but when I looked up the stats, it was a p51 and I raised an eyebrow. My surprise at surviving such a long sustained attack is because I am used to being red and pretty much being dead as soon as my gunner says someone is engaging, even if that is from a suicidal one who sits on the direct six.

 

 

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

Fits perfectly for the .50 issue, so you fully agree with @CountZero's proposal.

That's great.

 

:drinks:

 


No, I don’t agree and I never said that I did. 
 

Setting aside the possibility that you are trolling for a bite, perhaps I should have made it very clear that adding HE might be a simple fix (aka a change to provide balance) but because it is ahistorical it isn’t appropriate and won’t be done.
 

Simple fixes are only appropriate where a clear and obvious error can be easily amended to make something technically and historically correct. 

 

Fixing (if they need it) the 50 cals/AP rounds isn’t a simple or easy thing to do especially when in conjunction with possible DM issues. 

 

von Tom

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

adding HE might be a simple fix (aka a change to provide balance) but because it is ahistorical it isn’t appropriate and won’t be done.
Simple fixes are only appropriate where a clear and obvious error can be easily amended to make something technically and historically correct. 

 

You mean the indestructible tail of the 109 was a feasible simple fix because it is appropriate and technically and historically correct?

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

You mean the indestructible tail of the 109 was a feasible simple fix because it is appropriate and technically and historically correct?

 

:drinks:

Mike


If there is an issue with the DM it obviously wasn’t a simple fix. 
 

What do you think is a simple fix for the AP rounds?  How would you fix it?

 

von Tom

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


If there is an issue with the DM it obviously wasn’t a simple fix. 
 

What do you think is a simple fix for the AP rounds?  How would you fix it?

 

von Tom

 

You are missing the point; perhaps intentionally but I can't tell. The point is, in very simple terms, the devs have displayed a willingness to make 'short term' 'make do' fixes in the game while the work on the issue at hand is done for a permanent fix. At least they have been willing to do this for 5 planes. Now it has been demonstrated that there is an issue in the AP ammo as it pertains to causing aerodynamic and other damage and a lacking of the historically correct kind of ammunition and this issue affects 8 planes and is likely to effect an additional 4 planes that are under development currently; that's 12 planes for those not mathemagically inclined.  The 'short term' 'make do' fix that is being asked for wouldn't even be as radical as making major portions of planes invincible. just a tweak to the ammo load on the planes in question to add in some HE rounds to account for the deficiency in damage and the lack on incendiary rounds. Is it perfect? No, but neither is making parts of plains invincible and that was done. It would get people off the devs backs on this issue, give them a bit of breathing room to work on the actual fix; the fix that I have been assured is being worked on sans any evidence.

 

So if it is acceptable to make a change that effects 5 planes 'for the good of the game' why not make a similar change that effects 12? I don't recall seeing you take issue with the 109 change that was made when it was made, or at any time after that when it has been brought up. You are opposed to this proposed, temporary, change. What should be made of that, I wonder?

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

 

....

 

I don't recall seeing you take issue with the 109 change that was made when it was made, or at any time after that when it has been brought up. You are opposed to this proposed, temporary, change. What should be made of that, I wonder?

 

All fair points, except for the last one which I leave in for context.  This is a snide comment implying that I am biased, which is both wrong and silly. 

 

For what it is worth I didn't like the indestructible tail "fix".  I see a difference though between people being way too easy to be shot down and some people having to expend more ammo to shoot someone down.  Maybe that comes from generally being more defensive minded when flying.

 

Temporary fixes fall foul of the law of unintended consequences and in such complex systems they are never, in my opinion, a good idea.  Any temporary fix can breed complaints.

 

von Tom

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

 

You are missing the point; perhaps intentionally but I can't tell. The point is, in very simple terms, the devs have displayed a willingness to make 'short term' 'make do' fixes in the game while the work on the issue at hand is done for a permanent fix. At least they have been willing to do this for 5 planes. Now it has been demonstrated that there is an issue in the AP ammo as it pertains to causing aerodynamic and other damage and a lacking of the historically correct kind of ammunition and this issue affects 8 planes and is likely to effect an additional 4 planes that are under development currently; that's 12 planes for those not mathemagically inclined.  The 'short term' 'make do' fix that is being asked for wouldn't even be as radical as making major portions of planes invincible. just a tweak to the ammo load on the planes in question to add in some HE rounds to account for the deficiency in damage and the lack on incendiary rounds. Is it perfect? No, but neither is making parts of plains invincible and that was done. It would get people off the devs backs on this issue, give them a bit of breathing room to work on the actual fix; the fix that I have been assured is being worked on sans any evidence.

 

So if it is acceptable to make a change that effects 5 planes 'for the good of the game' why not make a similar change that effects 12? I don't recall seeing you take issue with the 109 change that was made when it was made, or at any time after that when it has been brought up. You are opposed to this proposed, temporary, change. What should be made of that, I wonder?

 

You assume that all "quic fixes" are equal and equally easy to implement. I'm not sure (doubt actually) that is a valid hypothesis.

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

Temporary fixes fall foul of the law of unintended consequences and in such complex systems they are never, in my opinion, a good idea.  Any temporary fix can breed complaints.

 This is one of the main reassons why we're here after crossing several informations: 109 got a tail that inhibits damage received from any AP round ingame and guess which are the most shot AP round ingame? So a hot fix in some parts of an A/C models family had done 10 months ago has brought us to this point. An interim solution could give pilots using AP rounds inflicting more damage in an easier way  to the 109 non affected parts from that strange ill (maybe it's affected by covid... who  knows). They can do it and maybe for the time this forum would be filled up with complains from the other side pilots devs would launch the final fix. Also we can play your roll with potencial complainers denying sistemically their complains or demand from them any solid study demonstrating to backup their complain/bug report.

 

1 hour ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

You assume that all "quic fixes" are equal and equally easy to implement. I'm not sure (doubt actually) that is a valid hypothesis.

I'm assuming after 10 months they've been focused in other plans and haven't wanted to dedicate any extra effort to this cause they really know from the beginning it would be hard to fix. Their back in time hot fixes for 109 tail + no incendiary implementation + lack of A/C internal systems represented in DM to shoot are, ten months later, giving a false and virtual advantage to a single family of aircrafts. 

I'm also assuming you and von_Tom only fly russian Mig-3 cause is the most popular model in this game. But using your words: I'm not sure (doubt actually) that is a valid hypothesis.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s also worth pointing out that while a kludge AP/HE belt wouldn’t be historically correct, the current pure AP is also historically incorrect.

Edited by VBF-12_KW
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I honestly love your word salads.

Don't be a jerk. English may not be his native language... how many languages do you speak?

Edited by QB.Creep
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

He's had at least a half dozen ad hominems directed at me over the last ten days. I thing I get one shot for free here. And I legitimately enjoy his emotional rants.

We're going in the right way. I got the salad and you got the salt. Two more steps to eat healthy.... Don't try to demonstrate even more you only come here to panem et circenses. You missed that shot for free. Due 0.50 are an ingame crapp let's fight here don't you?

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

However you guys end up fighting I just want the forum to be status quo antebellum

 

We're here in the niche of the niche, in the "Complaints" section, nobody listens to us, we're neglected, despised, unheard, our only reconcilience is to cry loadly into the wind that we are not amused. Pathetic? Yes. Useless? Yes.

It's nothing personal, you know, it's strictly business. You accept this kind of business, but I don't like this kind of business. As simple as that.

I respect you and @II/JG17_HerrMurffor your faith and opinion, but I don't share your optimistic view, sorry, really sorry. My fault.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...