Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals

[QB.Shallot]

@CountZero Thank you for the information. I will make the needed edit on the bug report I recently submitted. 

[Angry_Kitten]

Heres a solution.  

 

Lets have fun on a multiplayer server soon.     

 

1 person flies the C47a straight and level, no avoidance.   And in a row someone can fly a P38, P40, P47, P51, and the basic Bf109 and FW190 and 202 against it.  Only using machine guns and no extra ammunition.    Can simply focus on wing damage only to take it down, or can concentrate on engines, etc.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

7 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

Of course planes can be destroyed with M2 .50 cal. No one is disputing that.

There have been numerous posts claiming that the M2 .50 cal is completely useless (many of those posts have now been deleted) that is half the problem. The complaints have been spread across the forum in multiple threads and most have been unhelpful, ridiculous or abusive. People are still posting video stating that the 50's are complete garbage. I posted mine in order to play adovcatus diaboli. 

 

7 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

The original intent of this thread was to talk about the huge disparity between AP and HE when it comes to causing appreciable drag on wings/elevator/etc.

I'm fully aware of what the intent is. However, disparity between HE and AP is something that has occurred before. People were complaining that AP was far too efficient and HE was borked. They also complained how weak, structurally aircraft were. I have said it before that if there is a problem with AP, changing it for the M2  could change AP across the board or could create more issues than it solves. It is very likely that its not a "simple" quick fix. 

 

Regarding appreciable drag, I have never sat in a real aircraft being shot at by .50 cal., so I wouldn't know precisely or more importantly, scientifically how much aerodynamic loss/drag would be created. I also don't precisely know why the USAF decided to load their aircraft with API almost exclusively from 1944 onward if the standard AP round was so effective?  Hopefully the aerodynamic loss/drag for AP rounds will be investigated at some point. It has already been confirmed that a study of the DM will take place 

 

7 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

It looks to me like you are doing everything in your power here and in the developer thread to protect the current HE meta. 

I suggested that posts regarding this issue should go in the relevant section of the forum and when they were "hey presto" the developers replied.

 

I'm not some kind of HE elitist. I have no agenda and don't want to "protect" anything. I would like the most historically accurate WWII flight sim that can be created. The .50 cal ammunition is still not modeled correctly and won't be until we have API rounds. It will be interesting to see what the study of the damage model by the developers will reveal.

 

 

[ACG_Cass]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I also don't precisely know why the USAF decided to load their aircraft with API almost exclusively from 1944 onward if the standard AP round was so effective?

 

A plane on fire is a kill IRL. Sure there are some engine fires that you can put out if you're hit by flak, but if someone is on your six and has set your plane on fire you're going to get out. The actual damage output went down when switching from AP to API but they happily traded that as it meant a massive increase in confirmed kills. 

 

I understand that there is minority saying they don't work at all. That certainly isn't the case, they can cause PK's, engine damage and damage other components as well. 

 

The issue is the lack of any appreciable damage to aircraft skin, almost preposterously so when compared to the same round with HE. No question that HE should almost certainly be better against aircraft skin. Its maximum and minimum potential damage will be greater. The problem with AP is that they have only modelled the minimum damage possible. 

 

A .50 AP round has a huge amount of KE. Sure, if you fire it at 2 layers aircraft skin it's going to go straight through and leave a nice neat hole without any theatrics. But aircraft are not balloons and the likely hood of that actually happening (certainly from 6 o'clock) are very minimal. This means the round is going to impact something within the wing and either deliver most of it's KE into that structure (or structures) and cause significant levels of damage, or it's going to ricochet, potentially tumble, and leave an incredible messy exit hole. 

 

This is all that needs changing, they just need a bit of a buff when it comes to aero damage and they'll be spot on. You could double their current aero damage relative to HMG HE rounds and they still wouldn't be that effective. 

 

 

 

[216th_Jordan]

The problem except skin damage is also that control rods or other internals are often surprisingly intact. The times I lost control rods are so few I can count the times I remember on one hand. 

[HR_Zunzun]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'm fully aware of what the intent is. However, disparity between HE and AP is something that has occurred before. People were complaining that AP was far too efficient and HE was borked. They also complained how weak, structurally aircraft were. I have said it before that if there is a problem with AP, changing it for the M2  could change AP across the board or could create more issues than it solves. It is very likely that its not a "simple" quick fix.

 

The AP are so bad now that I doubt that any possible solution is going to end as bad as the situation we have now: Overpowered HE with dismal AP.

We are going into a year now with the problem and we do not have any deadline (or any kind of timeframe) by the devs. It is only fair that a placeholder is demanded. If we had some kind of plan or dates I am sure everybody could be more patient.

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Regarding appreciable drag, I have never sat in a real aircraft being shot at by .50 cal., so I wouldn't know precisely or more importantly, scientifically how much aerodynamic loss/drag would be created. I also don't precisely know why the USAF decided to load their aircraft with API almost exclusively from 1944 onward if the standard AP round was so effective?  Hopefully the aerodynamic loss/drag for AP rounds will be investigated at some point. It has already been confirmed that a study of the DM will take place

 

Why they use API exclusively? Better questiong, why they keep the AP portion in the API round? Why just not making plain "I" only rounds instead?

Those two pilots can give you a hint.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'm not some kind of HE elitist. I have no agenda and don't want to "protect" anything. I would like the most historically accurate WWII flight sim that can be created. The .50 cal ammunition is still not modeled correctly and won't be until we have API rounds. It will be interesting to see what the study of the damage model by the developers will reveal.

 

What all these conversations have proved is that the current implentation of both HE and AP rounds are incorrect and unrealistic. That a single 13mm HE HMG achieve more aerodinamic impact that dozens of 0.5cal AP rounds is simply wrong. I think that you, as and advocate of accurate historical modelling, should support the OP claims. If you have read the OP claim you had realised that both the methods and the results are definitive in proving this problem.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

The AP are so bad now that I doubt that any possible solution is going to end as bad as the situation we have now

They appear to be bad at creating aerodynamic loss/drag not killing engines, pilots or knocking wings off. I'm not sure what real world (or simulated) data could be used to assess scientifically, what level of drag or loss of speed would be created by a dozen holes spread across a wing surface I'm sure there is a method out there.

 

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Why just not making plain "I" only rounds instead?

Those two pilots can give you a hint.

 

I'm not sure what mix the pilots were using? was it Incendiary M1 mixed with M1 or M8 because by 1944 the M8 seemed overwhelmingly to be the standard load out.

 

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

both HE and AP rounds are incorrect and unrealistic.

Compared to what? I have never flown in a WWII aircraft being shot up by HE or AP. I'm not trying to be difficult here just objective.

 

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I think that you, as and advocate of accurate historical modelling, should support the OP claims.

 

I want the most accurate model possible but I also understand that will probably never happen with the current technology available. Furthermore, I support anyone who takes the time to do in depth testing and reports their findings in the correct part of the forum. When it was posted in the bug section it was answered by the developers. 

 

Edit: The .50 cal issue has created such a lot of toxicity on both sides of the argument and unfortunately many valid points have been lost in the noise.  I suppose we can only hope that if and when further work is carried out on the damage modelling it will make people happy.

 

  

Edited February 18, 2021 by 6./ZG26_Custard
See Edit

[Talisman]

15 hours ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

G14? My tests were in the K-4, so maybe that is a difference. The damage in your videos is still underwhelming to say the least though...8 .50s would shred anything flying straight and level in short order, especially a tiny little 109.

 

And yes, the Bf 109 is a tiny, very small fighter in comparison with its competition.  More vital equipment packed into a tighter and smaller space too.  Such a small aircraft has an advantage in that it is harder to aim at and hit, but when it is hit, and by a substantial amount of rounds, it should sustain more damage for its size than a larger aircraft I would have thought.  Instead, the opposite seems to be modelled in this simulation.  Such a small aircraft should be very vulnerable to damage when hit, much more than larger aircraft.

 

I love this flight simulation title, but there are some glaring anomalies and the ability of the Bf 109 to be so little effected by hits from enemy aircraft is one of them IMHO. 

 

(Another glaring anomaly (pardon the pun) is the navigation lights, but that is for another thread so please don't respond, lol). 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[RedKestrel]

32 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 When it was posted in the bug section it was answered by the developers. 

 

Edit: The .50 cal issue has created such a lot of toxicity on both sides of the argument and unfortunately many valid points have been lost in the noise.  I suppose we can only hope that if and when further work is carried out on the damage modelling it will make people happy.

 

  

For what it's worth, the answer from the devs referenced a few things rather dubiously - if its the thread I'm thinking of. For one, they used an image of damage from a 20mm flak cannon as an example of damage from an HE MG round. The other response was a video showing steel drums being shot with varying types of ammo, which nevertheless showed that AP 'exit wounds' on the drums were substantially larger than the entry wounds, which really more or less proves the point demonstrated here.  I'm willing to accept that the response was a quick one looking for an example to prove their point, rather than what they are actually basing the DM on, but it would explain a few things.

Really, if they are basing their assessment of 12.7mm HE damage on photos of 20mm damage, that would explain the performance of HEMG rounds in game. And if they are assuming extremely neat holes are all that the .50 cals are punching, then that also explains the performance of AP rounds. 

So: edge case scenarios are possibly being used for evaluating the damage from each round - for HE, the maximum possible amount of damage, and for AP, a through-and-through shot leaving only neat holes. It certainly would explain what we see in the sim.

 

No one  has answered my question about why anyone would invest in airborne cannon when HMG rounds can do similar amounts of damage with modest amounts of explosive in the tip. You could have a lighter plane carrying more ammo at a higher ROF with better ballistics, enabling your pilots to hit more often with rounds that do 75% of the damage. 

This thread has  been one of the more constructive ones out there (before it was merged with other threads), and especially the OPs have behaved in good faith and avoided incendiary (pardon the pun) language and simply presented their case, and been courteous to the devs. The toxicity comes out of frustration from people grafting on their own issues to what was a specific evaluation of a specific issue in the sim. And also, frankly, the frustration of skilled MP pilots (not counting myself among them) losing fights against opponents after getting a large number of hits and seeing no effect, while struggling to control their planes after a few rounds hit a wing. When people come into the thread and insist the solution is improving gunnery, it strikes a nerve when you just pumped a hundred rounds into an enemy fighter that then reversed on you by flip-und-flopping, regained control a split second later despite damage that would make you more likely to spin and stall, and crippled you with a spray-and-pray burst.

[ACG_Cass]

The issue is that there is a greater variance to AP hits. It's not unlikely that a 12.7mm round is going to leave that size holes on parts of the plane, but the fact that the DM thinks it does that every single time is ridiculous. It would also be ridiculous to have .50s do their maximum damage each round, which is what we get for HE. 

 

It's a mega stop gap solution but the idea of having a ninja HE in the .50 belt every 5 rounds or so to simulate a "good" hit, isn't seeming like such a bad idea anymore. 

[Creep]

1 hour ago, Cass said:

The issue is that there is a greater variance to AP hits. It's not unlikely that a 12.7mm round is going to leave that size holes on parts of the plane, but the fact that the DM thinks it does that every single time is ridiculous. It would also be ridiculous to have .50s do their maximum damage each round, which is what we get for HE. 

 

It's a mega stop gap solution but the idea of having a ninja HE in the .50 belt every 5 rounds or so to simulate a "good" hit, isn't seeming like such a bad idea anymore. 

I'd be over the moon to get one out of 6 for the P-51 belt and 1 out of 8 for the P-47 belt.

[Angry_Kitten]

1 hour ago, Cass said:

The issue is that there is a greater variance to AP hits. It's not unlikely that a 12.7mm round is going to leave that size holes on parts of the plane, but the fact that the DM thinks it does that every single time is ridiculous. It would also be ridiculous to have .50s do their maximum damage each round, which is what we get for HE. 

 

It's a mega stop gap solution but the idea of having a ninja HE in the .50 belt every 5 rounds or so to simulate a "good" hit, isn't seeming like such a bad idea anymore. 

 

 

Theres an old movie called Battle of Britain.  It was british made, its not a bad movie but it has notable high points to it.  

 

Vintage aircraft

Galland and his english pilot friend Tuck were used as consultants.  

 

What matters to bring this up?  The realism, sure different caliber guns used BUT something we all need to remember.  Watch the combat scenes.  Watch the damage to the planes, and watch what happens to the planes. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

27 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

What matters to bring this up?  The realism, sure different caliber guns used BUT something we all need to remember.  Watch the combat scenes.  Watch the damage to the planes, and watch what happens to the planes. 

we are now at the point where movie scenes are used for damage realism reference.

 

 

Mods can close the thread now ?

[RedKestrel]

49 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

I'd be over the moon to get one out of 6 for the P-51 belt and 1 out of 8 for the P-47 belt.

It would not be my preference but when I think of a P-47 with even a tiny amount of HE I start compulsively giggling maniacally. Weird way to find out you're evil, but what are you going to do?

Ultimately I think it's a recipe for the band-aid solution that  just slowly becomes permanent, leaving us with overperforming HE rounds forever, and making API moot, when I would really like to see it someday. But API may never happen either.

 

49 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

 

 

Theres an old movie called Battle of Britain.  It was british made, its not a bad movie but it has notable high points to it.  

 

Vintage aircraft

Galland and his english pilot friend Tuck were used as consultants.  

 

What matters to bring this up?  The realism, sure different caliber guns used BUT something we all need to remember.  Watch the combat scenes.  Watch the damage to the planes, and watch what happens to the planes. 

I understand where you're coming from but this is not helping the case.

[DJBscout]

11 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Regarding appreciable drag, I have never sat in a real aircraft being shot at by .50 cal., so I wouldn't know precisely or more importantly, scientifically how much aerodynamic loss/drag would be created. I also don't precisely know why the USAF decided to load their aircraft with API almost exclusively from 1944 onward if the standard AP round was so effective?  Hopefully the aerodynamic loss/drag for AP rounds will be investigated at some point. It has already been confirmed that a study of the DM will take place 

 

If HE was so much more efficient than AP (like in-game right now), why did the Luftwaffe switch to API rounds for their 13mm? Because right now it would seem like that would be a stupid move, unless AP is vastly underperforming, or HE vastly overperforming.

[Kurfurst]

9 minutes ago, DJBscout said:

 

If HE was so much more efficient than AP (like in-game right now), why did the Luftwaffe switch to API rounds for their 13mm? Because right now it would seem like that would be a stupid move, unless AP is vastly underperforming, or HE vastly overperforming.

Targets being bombers, much easier to kill by fire than by damage to aerodynamic surfaces.

 

LW armorer manuals stipulate higher percentage of HE belting on the Eastern Front / vs Fighters and higher percentage of incendiaries for Western Front / viermots.

[DJBscout]

2 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Targets being bombers, much easier to kill by fire than by damage to aerodynamic surfaces.

 

LW armorer manuals stipulate higher percentage of HE belting on the Eastern Front / vs Fighters and higher percentage of incendiaries for Western Front / viermots.

 

So did they switch to pure incendiary on the 20 and 30mms too? Or was it specifically small-caliber HE that wasn't so good at actually KO'ing large aircraft?

[Kurfurst]

4 minutes ago, DJBscout said:

 

So did they switch to pure incendiary on the 20 and 30mms too? Or was it specifically small-caliber HE that wasn't so good at actually KO'ing large aircraft?

Cannon shells too. Cannon HE was effective, with 20 x 20mm mine shells or 5 x 30 mm mine shell required on avarage to wreck a bomber, but on the other hand, a single well placed incendiary could do the same trick by fire. 
 

Igniting a spark in what is a fuel dump of 10 000 + liters of highly flammable gasoline is simply more effective than trying to wreck every fuel barrel one by one with sledgehammer.

30 mm was always 50-50 incendiary/ mine shell though. 

 

20mm increased the amount of HEI (SAPHEI): from AP(I) - MG -MG - MG - HEI to AP(I) - MG -MG - HEI - HEI

Edited February 18, 2021 by VO101Kurfurst

[the_emperor]

1 hour ago, DJBscout said:

So did they switch to pure incendiary on the 20 and 30mms too? Or was it specifically small-caliber HE that wasn't so good at actually KO'ing large aircraft?

1g of High explosive of the wont do much damage vs a medium or heavy bomber. One has to remember, that there was no delay charge, so some of the blast will happen outside of the aircraft skin.

the german 13mm Incendiary on the other hand was a threat to every fuel tank that was not protected be steel armor as it was a dedicated to air to air. When ignited it spewed its incediary component forth over 5m of flight, working like a small welding torch. So it was a high threat to every thing that carried fuel with a high chance of a direct hit. mostly those planes, which carried their fueld tanks in the wing (e.g. most russian and american planes (except the Jug), the SPitfire for example with its forwad fuel tank is a little bit more safe). I really would like to see that round represented in the game. since it was far more effective in air to air combat against most targets than that small 1g of HE.

 

[DJBscout]

 

2 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Cannon shells too. Cannon HE was effective, with 20 x 20mm mine shells or 5 x 30 mm mine shell required on avarage to wreck a bomber, but on the other hand, a single well placed incendiary could do the same trick by fire. 

My real problem here is that the 13mm which were phased out for being ineffective are 2300% more effective than AP. That just doesn't match up. Even when it comes to structural damage, the AP somehow still lags behind.

 

Right now, I only run Germans or the Tempest/38, simply because I'm not interested in finally getting guns on a target, firing, hitting it and watching it fly away as though nothing has happened.

Edited February 18, 2021 by DJBscout

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, DJBscout said:

 

My real problem here is that the 13mm which were phased out for being ineffective are 2300% more effective than AP. That just doesn't match up. Even when it comes to structural damage, the AP somehow still lags behind.

 

Right now, I only run Germans or the Tempest/38, simply because I'm not interested in finally getting guns on a target, firing, hitting it and watching it fly away as though nothing has happened.

Me too ?

[Angry_Kitten]

11 hours ago, =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand said:

we are now at the point where movie scenes are used for damage realism reference.

 

 

Mods can close the thread now ?

You think Galland and Tuck would be considered useful authorities on what happened to planes shot by other planes.  Watch the fight scenes, watch the bullets go through the planes. 

 

yes they did use authentic mockups of aircraft to shoot through. Hence, when the bullets rip through the skin and into the planes you see GENUINE bullet impacts. Made by GENUINE ww2 machine guns, and for the british guns 80% using GENUINE WW2 SURPLUS AMMUNITION>

[[DBS]Browning]

10 hours ago, the_emperor said:

there was no delay charge, so some of the blast will happen outside of the aircraft skin.

 

This isn't correct.

Even if the HE round designers had wanted this to happen (which they didn't) it may not have been possible. The fastest inertial fuses operate in the region of 0.005 seconds. That's more than enough time for the round to pass through the skin. Furthermore, the aircraft skin may also be too light in places to trigger the round at all (until it's hits something more substantial).

That rounds explode in the wing and not on the surface is demonstrated well in the 30mm spitfire wing/tail tests from the 40's. The skin of the wing in blown outwards from an explosion within, not inwards from a detonation outside the skin. I imagine you have seen the videos, but if not, they should be easy to find.

[the_emperor]

2 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

That rounds explode in the wing and not on the surface is demonstrated well in the 30mm spitfire wing/tail tests from the 40's.

 

that is true for the german rounds, since there was a specific delay charge to have the round explode inside of the fuselage and take advantage of the confined space and the high explosiv (manuels give us 20-75cm depending on the delay charge in use for all round from 20mm, but not in the 13mm round.)

But you are right, even with no delay charge, the round will pass a few cm into the skin and then explode with much of the blast directed forward into the structure. But not designed to travel into the fuselage and have them deliberately explode inside. So the damage will most likely have the plane skin bent inward (especially in the case of the 13mm HE often discussed here

here is a good example of a 20x82mm HE (yes, even labeled 151, it is a based on the German 20x82mm round for the MG151/20) round vs a fearsome barrel with no delay charge, where the metal is bent inward: https://youtu.be/vXLRYf9EV2Y?t=148), while with the mineshell you will often see the planes skin on both sides bent outward (granted a decent hit, of course there will be many cases where not everything went as intented).

Again: here you can see a modern 20mm pure HE round in action and the damage  it does  to a thin metal surface which is a good reference point in comparision how the ingame 13mm and 12.7mm HE rounds work and effect our planes.

Edited February 19, 2021 by the_emperor

[Creep]

19 hours ago, =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand said:

Mods can close the thread now ?

 

People are frustrated, and for good reason. The secondary weapon (MG131) of all late-model 109 variants is more effective than the primary weapon of the P-51D and P-47D-28, and P-47D-22 (M2 .50).

 

Let that sink in for a moment before you respond.

[DBFlyguy]

delete

Edited February 19, 2021 by DBFlyguy

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

And here, gentlemen, is your answer. Directly from the English Facebook page.

[CountZero]

Spit 14 for the quikfix then ?

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

4 hours ago, Boogdud said:

This is pretty damning to be sure.  Is this from the latest patch?  I'm not sure how anyone can watch this and say that the .50 is fine.

Yep, and before anyone else asks, it is offline in QMB against ace ai. There is no funny business with convergence going on. If the ai doesn't know what distance to shoot .50s at, that is also a problem.

[sniperton]

1 hour ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

And here, gentlemen, is your answer. Directly from the English Facebook page.

For me it's just a reply, not an answer. And it basically means "take it or leave it".

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, sniperton said:

For me it's just a reply, not an answer. And it basically means "take it or leave it".

He clearly implies that they may take another look at it when they have the resources.  So it’s really “take it or leave it for now”.

[Boogdud]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So it’s really “take it or leave it for now”.

"Don't fly HMG, for now." 

[NIK14]

2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

And here, gentlemen, is your answer. Directly from the English Facebook page.

 

Thanks...this clears things out for me. I will stay away from this until it's fixed...and I will keep my money in my pocket.

Said it before, there's an easy fix available at their disposal, until they have the resources to properly fix the problem.

 

Edit: How about using the poll system as you did for the visibility fix? Make a poll and see how many are unhappy.

Edited February 19, 2021 by NIK14

[HR_Zunzun]

9 minutes ago, NIK14 said:

Edit: How about using the poll system as you did for the visibility fix? Make a poll and see how many are unhappy.

 

I do not think it would work with this subject. It is very side orientated and I predict that many people would vote based on it.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

[NIK14]

3 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

I do not think it would work with this subject. It is very side orientated and I predict that many people would vote based on it.

 

I realise it's side oriented, but unless there is no common sense from the devs, they would see there is great mistrust in the community about the 50 cals.
It's not like the poll has to have 50% unhappy voters...I'd say it's bad result if 25% are annoyed with the way the 50's work.

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

And here, gentlemen, is your answer. Directly from the English Facebook page.

As far as responses go, about what I expected, but not what I hoped. Right now the engineering team is neck deep in other work - this is probably a nearly permanent situation. I do sympathize. At least the door is not closed to improvements.

For myself, the DM was overall an improvement (no more glass engines,  P-47 no longer a confetti plane structurally) but has these glaring issues with the 0.50 cal AP rounds and the 12.7mm HE damage which mar it. I can see if someone didn't often fly American planes, or didn't fly them often online, it may not seem to be a very large issue. But IMO, with the new G-modeling and the improved visibility having made such good progress, from my point of view its one of the remaining big problems.

 

6 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

I do not think it would work with this subject. It is very side orientated and I predict that many people would vote based on it.

  
Also, I don't think the argument is "people are unhappy, fix it", the argument is "this performance is not plausible, which makes us unhappy, please take a look at it". 



 

[QB.Shallot]

@RedKestrel what I find to be the most frustrating is that I feel like often times the more inflammatory claims like the one pictured drive their reasoning behind ignoring claims about the M2's being incorrectly modeled. When a well researched post does come up it can just be dismissed as "more American fan boys whining" instead of a genuine discrepancy within the simulation. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 hour ago, NIK14 said:

Edit: How about using the poll system as you did for the visibility fix? Make a poll and see how many are unhappy.

 

[sniperton]

19 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Also, I don't think the argument is "people are unhappy, fix it", the argument is "this performance is not plausible, which makes us unhappy, please take a look at it".

While I fully agree with you, unhappy people do vote with their feet. Sad as its is, but the only public mod-friendly server was shot down as a result. Its site had 16k+ views in the past 1.5 years, so estimate how many customers or potential customers may be affected, and how, by the policy of "take it or leave it for now".