With the changes to the Damage Model...

[percydanvers]

Has anyone else found they enjoy early war scenarios a lot more? Now that rifle-calliber ammunition can actually kill things, I for one am having loads of fun with 109Es and Hurricanes. I almost wish we had a Battle of France module or some such. 

[Sybreed]

9 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

Has anyone else found they enjoy early war scenarios a lot more? Now that rifle-calliber ammunition can actually kill things, I for one am having loads of fun with 109Es and Hurricanes. I almost wish we had a Battle of France module or some such. 

 

Good point. I might try a mig 3 campaign eventually. 

[Hotaru_Ito]

2 hours ago, percydanvers said:

Has anyone else found they enjoy early war scenarios a lot more? Now that rifle-calliber ammunition can actually kill things, I for one am having loads of fun with 109Es and Hurricanes. I almost wish we had a Battle of France module or some such. 

 

I've always liked the early war stuff, probably put more time on Moscow than the rest put together, but the improvements definitely made a difference. The .303s are still pretty weak, I struggle to get more than one victory in the Hurricane even with 12 of them (although I play Soviet Moscow campaigns on hard, so I'm mostly just trying not to die). On the other hand, I have gotten a few victories lately with just the MG17s on 109s and 190s after emptying my cannons, so the 7.92s aren't totally worthless.

 

The .50s, 12.7s, etc. are definitely better too, which makes the biggest difference for the American planes. The P-47 is especially fun, those 8 .50s actually hit pretty hard now.

[fogpipe]

I actually came to the forum to find out if the damage model had changed Flying a mustang against a 109 g-14 i almost got creamed by a dislodged tire and i didnt remember seeing anything like that before.

When did this happen? I dont think i have played very much the last couple of patches or so.

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by fogpipe

[Bilbo_Baggins]

9 minutes ago, fogpipe said:

I actually came to the forum to find out if the damage model had changed Flying a mustang against a 109 g-14 i almost got creamed by a dislodged tire and i didnt remember seeing anything like that before.

When did this happen? I dont think i have played very much the last couple of patches or so.

 

 

Wheels have always come off since I can remember. Not sure if they break the propeller like other sections of airframe though?

 

On that note, I'm not sure why undercarriage door well covers so easily detach.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Bilbo_Baggins

[Customizer171]

3 hours ago, percydanvers said:

Has anyone else found they enjoy early war scenarios a lot more? Now that rifle-calliber ammunition can actually kill things, I for one am having loads of fun with 109Es and Hurricanes. I almost wish we had a Battle of France module or some such. 

 

I agree with you.

109Es vs Hurricanes with machine guns is really fun now! 

Before I had a feeling it was almost impossible to get a kill with the machine guns, but now it's doable!

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Tires getting separated from 109s has been a thing for a few years now.  It's kind of odd because the design of the 109 landing gear strut would have to be broken and fully, or partially, go along with the tire.  Otherwise, if the tire was broken from the strut but, the strut undamaged, said strut should hold the tire inside the wheel well.  The aero effect of this would probably make the wheel 'rattle' around inside the wheel well and produce one hell of a vibration.  

Regardless, I'm pretty sure that a wide-open wheel well has zero effect on FM drag for the 109s.

 

As far as the recent DM making rifle caliber more effective....  .303s were ok killers when a full-on hail of sustained fire was achieved but, pretty meh otherwise.  Many planes in the pre-to-early war phase were given armaments that often-times failed to bring down opponent planes of the same (or even lighter) class.  2 of the most notable that we have available in the GB series would be the I-16 and the Mc.202 (MG only versions of both - no cannons).  

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

I've always liked the early war stuff, probably put more time on Moscow than the rest put together, but the improvements definitely made a difference. The .303s are still pretty weak, I struggle to get more than one victory in the Hurricane even with 12 of them (although I play Soviet Moscow campaigns on hard, so I'm mostly just trying not to die). On the other hand, I have gotten a few victories lately with just the MG17s on 109s and 190s after emptying my cannons, so the 7.92s aren't totally worthless.

 

I still hate the Hurricane's .303s, even after the updates.

 

I would take two light machine guns mounted in the nose over 8-12 in the wings, any day.

 

With nose mounted guns, you can aim for specific parts of the target plane at point blank range (which you generally want to be at anyway, using peashooters). Can't do that with wing guns. Only option is to line up one of your wings to the target, but then you're wasting the other wing's ammo to do so.

 

Or you can pull back to 200 or so meters to attempt to hit at convergence, which is still a pain, and still hard to hit pinpoint targets because of the greater range, despite firing all guns. Convergence is less of a problem for heavy machine guns, since they have penetration power to compensate.

 

The only time I can get kills in a Hurricane is if the target very obligingly stays in a turn, offering an unobstructed view of his engine from above. But if a 109 starts jinking and dumps speed to shake you off, it's practically invincible from directly behind. All that'll happen is a lot of leaks; but often not even the crucial oil, just the wing radiators which can apparently function for quite a while after being punctured. 

 

The hideousness of .303s in the wings is the major reason I don't care if I never get a chance to fly the Spitfire I in BoX.

[Hotaru_Ito]

Just now, oc2209 said:

I would take two light machine guns mounted in the nose over 8-12 in the wings, any day.

 

Yeah, I think that's the main thing that makes the rifle-caliber guns seem so much more effective in the German and Soviet planes than in the Hurricane. Like you say, lots of leaks but not so much engine fires or pilot kills, whereas with 2 in the nose you can at least go WWI style and aim for the cockpit/engine area.

[R33GZ]

Stop mucking around and chuck a couple of 20s into that little I16 pug fighter, then she has a gnarly bite.... kinda like upgrading a pug dog with tungsten carbide teeth ? 

Edited November 7, 2022 by R33GZ

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

Yeah, I think that's the main thing that makes the rifle-caliber guns seem so much more effective in the German and Soviet planes than in the Hurricane. Like you say, lots of leaks but not so much engine fires or pilot kills, whereas with 2 in the nose you can at least go WWI style and aim for the cockpit/engine area.

 

I did some quick (lazy) tests to see for myself if anything changed since I last used the Hurricane.

 

This is the expected result:

 

Spoiler

 

 

This is where I got dumb luck and raked my port wing's guns across the target's engine at such an angle that allowed the bullets to hit it directly:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Note that I don't normally fly at that level of view magnification. Just for the replay. Also slowed the time down.

 

Finally, this was a 109 vs 109 experiment (I'm not fond of Russian LMGs) which is only notable for the hilarious mid-air collision in which my target survived and took a shot at me as I force-landed. I rammed him on purpose, by the way. Fully expected something worse to happen than a ruined engine.

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Hotaru_Ito]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

I did some quick (lazy) tests to see for myself if anything changed since I last used the Hurricane.

 

Yep, those two videos about cover it. What always seems to happen to me is, I engage the enemy, get an easy pilot kill or engine fire with my first three bullets, just like in your second video, say to myself, "wow, these .303s aren't so bad after all," and proceed to either A. get shot down, B. run away with the other 12 109s on my tail, or c. if we're not quite so outnumbered, spend ten minutes duplicating your first video and chasing after another 109, peppering it with nice little DVD holes and leaving it leaking like crazy but never actually shooting it down.

 

Meanwhile, I pretty regularly sneak in a last victory in my 109 and 190 careers with the 7.92s after my cannons are empty. Being able to effectively aim for the engine and cockpit rather than just haphazardly spraying the whole plane really makes a difference. As opposed to cannons--or even .50s--where I actually prefer some spread because shooting off a tail or a wingtip is as good as a solid center-of-gravity hit, and I'm likely to do some meaningful damage even if my gunnery is a bit off. One of the reasons I prefer the A6 to just about any of the 109s--I just blast away in the right general direction and I get lucky as often as not.

 

Surprised you got away with that ram without even bending your prop. My experience is even the slightest incidental contact at practically zero relative speed almost always results in instant pilot death, regardless of how totally undamaged the rest of my plane is. I wonder if they made it this way to discourage griefing in multiplayer, which is fair, but I do wish ramming could be a legit tactic in single player. Would be interesting to see how long a ramming specialist could make it in career.

[R33GZ]

1 hour ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

Ramming specialist

?

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

Surprised you got away with that ram without even bending your prop. My experience is even the slightest incidental contact at practically zero relative speed almost always results in instant pilot death, regardless of how totally undamaged the rest of my plane is. I wonder if they made it this way to discourage griefing in multiplayer, which is fair, but I do wish ramming could be a legit tactic in single player. Would be interesting to see how long a ramming specialist could make it in career.

 

I went back and watched the track:

 

Spoiler

 

Going a shade over 250 KPH at the moment of contact. Pretty close to the AI's speed. That, and they did fix that 'random pilot death from small bumps' bug recently. Have you had any minor collision deaths lately?

 

Another thing is, I didn't ram it as much as I tucked myself underneath it: 

 

Spoiler

 

All that said, yeah, it's weird that my prop didn't bend. I had full realism turned on.

[oc2209]

Here, unlike before, this is a true, classic ramming:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I'm something of an expert at matching speed with a target intuitively, since it's necessary when you're out of cannon ammo and need to hit a Sturmovik's oil line with just your LMGs. It's something I've practiced a lot over the years, just to eke out more kills in careers. I don't ram, in career, however.

 

This time at least my prop bent. The canopy coming off is an odd thing that sometimes happens too, for reasons I can't really explain. It also happens when a flap or rudder from a target ahead of you is shot off and flies back into you.

[Hotaru_Ito]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

Going a shade over 250 KPH at the moment of contact. Pretty close to the AI's speed. That, and they did fix that 'random pilot death from small bumps' bug recently. Have you had any minor collision deaths lately?

 

Funnily enough, I have, just the other day--but I was closing a lot faster than you. Still slow, but not quite that slow. Was going for about the same idea as your last video, cutting the Sturmovik's tail off with your prop, but I was doing it to bombers that were shooting back, so I was in a little more of a hurry.

 

Maybe I just need to up my ramming game. Will experiment further.

 

50 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

This time at least my prop bent. The canopy coming off is an odd thing that sometimes happens too, for reasons I can't really explain. It also happens when a flap or rudder from a target ahead of you is shot off and flies back into you.

 

Wonder if the rudder coming off and registering as hitting the cockpit explains the instant-ramming-death syndrome. I was trying it in MiG-3s and I-16s, neither of which has a jettisonable hood, so it wouldn't have been so obvious as in your Emil.

[percydanvers]

15 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I still hate the Hurricane's .303s, even after the updates.

 

I would take two light machine guns mounted in the nose over 8-12 in the wings, any day.

 

With nose mounted guns, you can aim for specific parts of the target plane at point blank range (which you generally want to be at anyway, using peashooters). Can't do that with wing guns. Only option is to line up one of your wings to the target, but then you're wasting the other wing's ammo to do so.

 

Or you can pull back to 200 or so meters to attempt to hit at convergence, which is still a pain, and still hard to hit pinpoint targets because of the greater range, despite firing all guns. Convergence is less of a problem for heavy machine guns, since they have penetration power to compensate.

 

The only time I can get kills in a Hurricane is if the target very obligingly stays in a turn, offering an unobstructed view of his engine from above. But if a 109 starts jinking and dumps speed to shake you off, it's practically invincible from directly behind. All that'll happen is a lot of leaks; but often not even the crucial oil, just the wing radiators which can apparently function for quite a while after being punctured. 

 

The hideousness of .303s in the wings is the major reason I don't care if I never get a chance to fly the Spitfire I in BoX.

 

This is why I end up liking the 109 so much more than the 190 for gunnery. Even with the 20s being close to the nose it's not the same as flying something where you can put every single shell exactly where you want it. 

[oc2209]

9 hours ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

Funnily enough, I have, just the other day--but I was closing a lot faster than you. Still slow, but not quite that slow. Was going for about the same idea as your last video, cutting the Sturmovik's tail off with your prop, but I was doing it to bombers that were shooting back, so I was in a little more of a hurry.

 

Wonder if the rudder coming off and registering as hitting the cockpit explains the instant-ramming-death syndrome. I was trying it in MiG-3s and I-16s, neither of which has a jettisonable hood, so it wouldn't have been so obvious as in your Emil.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't have the same nerves of steel while being shot at. Honestly, I wouldn't even attempt to ram a bomber unless I'd already killed its tail/dorsal gunner first.

 

As for being killed by debris, I've never had it happen to me, despite being hit many times by large debris. I suspect it's not possible to die by the collision force, or even be injured by it.

 

4 hours ago, percydanvers said:

This is why I end up liking the 109 so much more than the 190 for gunnery. Even with the 20s being close to the nose it's not the same as flying something where you can put every single shell exactly where you want it. 

 

Right. It's kind of sad that the only engine-mounted-cannon fighters in the sim are the Yak and the 109. I don't count the P-39 as being really viable because of its engine timer limitations; and the cannon itself is nothing special.

 

One of the many reasons a Ta-152 would be great to have. And a Yak-3 or -9U. Though I'm not sure if the late war Yaks carry more ammunition; I would hope at least a little more than the standard 120 shells.

 

Only other one I can think of would be the D.520, but that would only be carrying the hideous 60-round 20mm, unless there'd be a later upgrade available that I'm not aware of.

 

Oh, and the two Italian fighters. G.55 and Re.2005.

[percydanvers]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Right. It's kind of sad that the only engine-mounted-cannon fighters in the sim are the Yak and the 109. I don't count the P-39 as being really viable because of its engine timer limitations; and the cannon itself is nothing special.

 

One of the many reasons a Ta-152 would be great to have. And a Yak-3 or -9U. Though I'm not sure if the late war Yaks carry more ammunition; I would hope at least a little more than the standard 120 shells.

 

Only other one I can think of would be the D.520, but that would only be carrying the hideous 60-round 20mm, unless there'd be a later upgrade available that I'm not aware of.

 

Oh, and the two Italian fighters. G.55 and Re.2005.

 

You've pretty much exactly summed up my philosophy and hope for the series. If we get some Italian theater where we can use those types and a Ta-152 collector plane I'll be as happy as can be. 

[oc2209]

25 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

You've pretty much exactly summed up my philosophy and hope for the series. If we get some Italian theater where we can use those types and a Ta-152 collector plane I'll be as happy as can be. 

 

We theoretically can't lose, if the DLC is either Germany '45 or Italy '43.

 

I definitely will want to fly the best Italian fighters at some point, but the top of my list is still the Ta-152 for pure power, and the Yak-3 for pure agility (with decent speed besides).

 

I honestly don't know enough about the G.55 and Re.2005 to form any solid expectations as to how they'd handle. I only know the most superficial impressions that they're nimble and reasonably fast.

 

Whereas the Yak is a known quantity to me, and there's every reason the Yak-3 would be everything I like about the Yak-9, but... better-er. And the Ta-152 just means going 470 MPH with a stupidly powerful nose cannon trio and typically overkill Focke-Wulf ammo capacity. I don't even care how it will handle; though the long wing span should totally change the typical 190 stall characteristics.

[percydanvers]

On 11/7/2022 at 4:34 PM, oc2209 said:

 

We theoretically can't lose, if the DLC is either Germany '45 or Italy '43.

 

I definitely will want to fly the best Italian fighters at some point, but the top of my list is still the Ta-152 for pure power, and the Yak-3 for pure agility (with decent speed besides).

 

I honestly don't know enough about the G.55 and Re.2005 to form any solid expectations as to how they'd handle. I only know the most superficial impressions that they're nimble and reasonably fast.

 

Whereas the Yak is a known quantity to me, and there's every reason the Yak-3 would be everything I like about the Yak-9, but... better-er. And the Ta-152 just means going 470 MPH with a stupidly powerful nose cannon trio and typically overkill Focke-Wulf ammo capacity. I don't even care how it will handle; though the long wing span should totally change the typical 190 stall characteristics.

 

For me it's almost more of a desire for a sense of... closure with the Ta-152. We've seen the ultimate forms of the 109 and the spitfire, but the final form of the Fockewulf is tantalizingly out of reach. Same thing with the Yak 3 and La 7. It's like being stuck at 80% of the way through a book. 

 

Besides, how could anyone not want to fly the Ta-152 after hearing Willi Reshke talk about it? Whether or not he's exaggerating it just sounds like an incredibly interesting plane to fly. 

 

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, percydanvers said:

Besides, how could anyone not want to fly the Ta-152 after hearing Willi Reshke talk about it? Whether or not he's exaggerating it just sounds like an incredibly interesting plane to fly. 

 

I have no doubt that it'd turn better than the 190-D, but I do wonder how its roll rate would compare. The extra wing length would degrade the roll at least a little, I would think. But it was still probably quite decent.

[percydanvers]

36 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I have no doubt that it'd turn better than the 190-D, but I do wonder how its roll rate would compare. The extra wing length would degrade the roll at least a little, I would think. But it was still probably quite decent.

 

I just ordered a copy of Reshke's memoir, so hopefully I will find some details. 

 

 

 

I'm no engineer but it stands to reason that as the wing loading goes down the turn rate increases and the roll rate decreases. My rough expectation would be a roll rate that is bad by Fockewulf standards, but not really all that horrible in general. Likewise my guess is that it would have a truly fantastic turn rate by Fockewulf standards, but still something you need to avoid reckless dogfighting in. 

[oc2209]

52 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

 

I just ordered a copy of Reshke's memoir, so hopefully I will find some details.

 

I'm no engineer but it stands to reason that as the wing loading goes down the turn rate increases and the roll rate decreases. My rough expectation would be a roll rate that is bad by Fockewulf standards, but not really all that horrible in general. Likewise my guess is that it would have a truly fantastic turn rate by Fockewulf standards, but still something you need to avoid reckless dogfighting in. 

 

Wasn't aware of that book. Might pick it up myself, so thanks for mentioning it.

 

I've always wanted to fly the low-alt Ta-152C, but (besides the fact that it'll never happen in a sim--at least, not accurately) the irony is that its handling would probably not be tremendously different than the 190-D's.

 

The H really isn't suited to low-alt engagements, yet the long wings are precisely what makes it such a unique entry to the Focke-Wulf series, and potentially so much more interesting than the rest of the 190 family.

 

So, now I'm glad that if only one type of Ta-152 saw active service, and thus ever has a chance of making it into BoX, it was the H.

 

Allied pilots really shouldn't be worried about it in multiplayer, because that 470 MPH top speed is never going to happen at the most common combat altitudes here. I imagine its low level performance is going to be about on par with the P-51 and Tempest. Not wildly superior.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Bluntly honest here, I think the Ta-152 is one of the ugliest planes ever, really.  Take one of the most beautiful piston planes of all time, the long-nosed Dora, and add about 20 feet of wingspan.  It’s like if your otherwise beautiful girlfriend had baboon arms.  

[percydanvers]

17 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Bluntly honest here, I think the Ta-152 is one of the ugliest planes ever, really.  Take one of the most beautiful piston planes of all time, the long-nosed Dora, and add about 20 feet of wingspan.  It’s like if your otherwise beautiful girlfriend had baboon arms.  

 

I always felt that way about the relationship between the D-9 and the Antons. I've always been of the mindset that all the Fockewulfs look very cool, but not very beautiful. They look good the way a truck looks good. Not elegant, but radiating a sense of power and rugged capability. 

Anyway everything looks ugly compared to the deadly grace of the Bf 109

[Youtch]

20 hours ago, oc2209 said:

The H really isn't suited to low-alt engagements, yet the long wings are precisely what makes it such a unique entry to the Focke-Wulf series, and potentially so much more interesting than the rest of the 190 family.

 

So, now I'm glad that if only one type of Ta-152 saw active service, and thus ever has a chance of making it into BoX, it was the H.

 

Allied pilots really shouldn't be worried about it in multiplayer, because that 470 MPH top speed is never going to happen at the most common combat altitudes here. I imagine its low level performance is going to be about on par with the P-51 and Tempest. Not wildly superior.

According to the pilot's reccount and wikipedia page on the Ta-152H, the Ta-152H had absolutly no issue to out-turn (and bring down) tempest at very low altitude, or to leave P51s totally behind just using the MW50 at low altitude as well .

 

There is no doubt about the fact that Ta-152 compared to Dora correspond to a jump in design at least as big as the one between Anton and Dora, and represents the most refined design pursued by Kurt Tank.

 

There are not tons of data to modelize it accuratly though. 

 

I think the visual aspect of Ta-152H with its long elegant thin wings looks stunning and one in a kind

In comparison, for as much love I have for the Tempest, it totally fits the massive truck power analogy, and I have no interest in possessing a miniature of a Tempest.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Youtch