|
|
|
|
#1
02-23-2009, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Wait! Wait!
Are you really defending the wrong data with a "learn to shot better"? It's like you buy a bicycle, at home you find out that it has only one wheel and the seller explains that you need to learn to ride it in that way. Of course Il2 is dead and where will be no changes.. no reason to whine. But Emil is rightly asking WHY this wrong data in a game who should be a realistic simulator. Looking at the overall data (FM and DM) with my years of experience I can say that the game is clearly biased toward the Red side. Of course there is inaccuracy on both the sides, but "usually" (ergo not always) these flaws are a disadvantage for the Blue and an advantage for the Red. It's like the old story of "the 190's acceleration is wrong" -> "learn to fly". Of course people learned to fly it (mostly because they were prevented from flying the late 109s withone of the latest patches), using tactics and learing to build a good SA. But the accelleration was still wrong (im not talking about data, but comparison between planes) and his performance was/are still worser than those of an A4 with the Stuka's prop. Anyway you can learn, you can make experience and at last you try to fight I16s flying a G50 and you want to lauch the monitor out of the window. If only the modders could solve these problems (but I know they decided to not doing it leaving all the original data, even if wrong: I have friend inside that community). I think I will buy SOW too even if the bias will remain the same... I only hate to find out again and again experts (flying time wise) Red pilots who accuse you of cowardy when they are flying a SpitIXLF and you are in your 190A8... I still have fun because I play in a virtual community.
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 02-23-2009 at 07:16 PM. 
|
|
#2
02-23-2009, 09:33 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Yes. This is as good as it's going to get, or go to one of the Modding site. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#3
02-23-2009, 10:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I still remember the early days of the original IL2 when one shot from the Mk 108 would turn any plane in the sim into confetti.
The cries of bias by both sides are so silly.
__________________
 Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov
|
|
#4
02-24-2009, 08:43 AM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway I'm aware of the engine problems (i've been a oleg supporter since the start, I've been a oleg doubter since the famous patch who porked the 109s and a conspiracy believer since the i16/G50 fight I did) Quote:
Quote:
The only thing I need to say is "Please leave SOW a realistic hystorical simulator, don't change hystory for marketing affair". I have 5 copy of this game at home... and I'm going follow him. I only wish that this time Blue players could play without handicaps because Red world needs to win...
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 02-24-2009 at 09:22 AM.
|
|
#5
02-27-2009, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When I say lack of 'realism' I intend: - the lack of data coherence when comparing the effects of similar ammunition fired by different weapons in the game, which strangely enough yields sometimes very different results (DM is in cause here), - the lack of correspondence with historical accounts and guncam movies, even though this method is more prone to flaws and subjective interpretations. I brought the example of the 4 cm radius of damage of a type of 12.7 gun, versus the 15 cm radius of a different type of 12.7 gun. Is this logical or coherent ? IMHO it isn't, and the obvious results are a huge loss of 'realism' if you dogfight in a plane with the first type of gun. I have to go now, I need to practice so to improve my hit ratio by at least 50% ... hoping that it is enough  .Regards, Insuber Last edited by Insuber; 02-27-2009 at 08:51 PM.
|
|
#6
02-28-2009, 09:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Bullet accelerates only when it is in the barrel of the gun, so barrel length directly effects muzzle velocity. Higher velocity allows the bullet to fly in less curved trajectory and do more damage (penetration). Guns with different length of barrel will have different effects on target and will have to be aimed differently, despite the same ammunition. Difference between guns increases even more when they are fired in bursts. The higher muzzle velocity is, the higher recoil will be and the more subsequent shots will be thrown away from aim point, so higher muzzle velocity (longer barrel) will result in larger spread when burst time (or shots count) increases. The last thing is RPM of the gun. It mostly depends on how strong are the materials from which the gun is made. Basically designers trade between high RPM and high muzzle velocity, so the gun will not be destroyed just by firing it. Higher RPM is desirable when firing from unstable platforms such as aircraft, because it decreases spread which occurs because of platform instability. However, high RPM coupled with high recoil can give very very high spread. So, to sum up: different guns with the same ammunition will fire differently.
|
|
#7
03-01-2009, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Well said and agreed, in principle. But my point is that the "different" is way too much so in game, especially for HE rounds where the amount of HE is the same, and penetration is a second order factor. In particular, if true, the 4 cm vs. 15 cm damage radius for two different .50 guns (that is a 14x in effectiveness factor as far as affected area, and 50x as far as affected volume ...) is not "realistic". Also, I believe that even for ordinary AP shells the penetration effect on thin aluminum surfaces is *approximately* the same, independently from the bullet energy, since the aluminum foil resistance is again a second order factor. Going to a more subjective talk, I'm ready to accept a penalization for using weaker planes/guns, but not ready to pepper a Tomahawk with hundreds of .50 well aimed rounds from convergence distance, only to see him loosing some small debris and flying home with a large "bras d'honneur" popping out of the cockpit ... You know what I mean, if you don't, just try ...  Regards, Insuber
|
|
#8
03-01-2009, 01:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is big problem with ammunition types in this game. All heavy MGs in this game have only AP (AP-T) rounds and no incendiary or explosive ones. That is why .50, MG131, MG151, BredaSAFATs look so weak.
|
|
#9
03-01-2009, 02:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Regards, Ins
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
