PDA

View Full Version : F4U-C cannons innefective



Slantaye
11-21-2004, 02:08 AM
ok they still work but seriously they are worse than the 50cal version now.

theres no reason to fly the C anymore they porked the guns so bad machine guns are better. im now flying the D model and getting much more damage on enemy fighters.

doesnt matter to me i can still shoot down bogeys but its funny when 50cals do more damage than cannons.

oh and the 120 fuel mix starts smoking the engine at 700 meters. every other plane in game of russians can get to about 5000 meters before smoking at 120 fuel mix.

Slantaye
11-21-2004, 02:08 AM
ok they still work but seriously they are worse than the 50cal version now.

theres no reason to fly the C anymore they porked the guns so bad machine guns are better. im now flying the D model and getting much more damage on enemy fighters.

doesnt matter to me i can still shoot down bogeys but its funny when 50cals do more damage than cannons.

oh and the 120 fuel mix starts smoking the engine at 700 meters. every other plane in game of russians can get to about 5000 meters before smoking at 120 fuel mix.

sapre
11-21-2004, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slantaye:
ok they still work but seriously they are worse than the 50cal version now.

theres no reason to fly the C anymore they porked the guns so bad machine guns are better. im now flying the D model and getting much more damage on enemy fighters.

doesnt matter to me i can still shoot down bogeys but its funny when 50cals do more damage than cannons.

oh and the 120 fuel mix starts smoking the engine at 700 meters. every other plane in game of russians can get to about 5000 meters before smoking at 120 fuel mix. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
...and do you have a single proof to prove 20mm on F4U-C is porked in this patch and that is historicully inaccurate?
Or Corsair smoking in 120 mix above 700m?

Fennec_P
11-21-2004, 03:26 AM
...or no other planes smoking at 120%? Because they did the last time I checked.

Kannaksen_hanu
11-21-2004, 03:27 AM
Thats because 50cals are incredibly effective: burgerwhiners have been heard. IMO 4 20mm cannons and 2 MG´s cannot beat the firepower of six 50cals. Maybe it is because of rate of fire, dunno, but they are extremely deadly.

But I'm sure it must be irritating that also one axis plane has benefitted from this phenomena: the B-239 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
11-21-2004, 03:43 AM
" IMO 4 20mm cannons and 2 MG´s cannot beat the firepower of six 50cals."

They should do, though, if you are talking about Hispano type 20mm cannons.

WOLFMondo
11-21-2004, 04:20 AM
The 4 20mm's on the Corsair pack a huge punch! What are you firing at? The D3A and B5N seem to be able to absorb both .50 and 20mm but vs other planes they seem to do allot of damage. Zero's just explode when looking at them.

About the smoking...get in a Yak or Lagg, you won't make it to 5000m on 120% mix.

ImpStarDuece
11-21-2004, 04:31 AM
Some people need to fly the Anton more.

If i want firepower above everything else in IL2 a FW is the next best thing to having a Warthog with a Gau-8.

Sure the MG 151/20 needs to have is firepower beefed up a tad, but if your accurate a short burst from a Butcherbird will cripple/kill anything short of an IL2 or a Pe-8.

Mgs are only more effective if your aim needs work. Mind you i regularly fly the Jug and STILL have major trouble with deflection shooting and scoring kills http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Even dead six shots leave me going "huh, how did I miss that"

The hitting power of a burst from a FW 190a8 should be roughly 60% more than that of a P-51. Yes, the MG 151/20 has a lower muzzle velocity/ rate of fire vs the .50. The same is true for any cannon. However, cannon are more effective because of the ammunition they fire. I personally believe that in IL2 HE shells do 10-15% less damage than they should while large calibre AP ammo does a little more than they should, while others disagree.

As i dont have PF yet i will assume that the 20mms are the standard Oldsmobile made version of the Hispano Mk II, the Hispano M2 in US parlance. If thats the case the hitting power should be equal to that of the Hurri IIc and that means that a Cannon armed F4U should be a fearsome beast.

If its not so then it should be looked at. I suggest trying out the F4U and the Hurri in a few QMBs with Arcade=1 in the config.ini and then getting back with some screenies.

x__CRASH__x
11-21-2004, 05:26 AM
F4U-1C's guns are great! You just have to aim them. You can't just spray and pray and hope you hit something like everyone does with the 50's. You have to actually aim these cannons. I can take a wing off with one shot. They are very very effective.

mk108 is still better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG51Beolke
11-21-2004, 05:43 AM
On the contrary. My success in the Iwo campaign is due in large part to being able to protect myself with those 20mm canon's.

stansdds
11-21-2004, 05:59 AM
Historically speaking, one cannon round will do more damage than one machine gun round. The cannon rounds are of larger diameter, weigh more and could be packed with an explosive charge thus greatly increasing the destructive power of a cannon round. The downside to cannons is the slow rate of fire and limited ammo capacity. The trajectory is also different, whereas the lighter and higher velocity machine gun rounds have a relatively flat trajectory, the slow and heavy cannon rounds drop at a much faster rate. Accuracy is essential with cannons, six 50 caliber machine guns can spray 75 pieces of lead over an area in a second, but the four 20mm cannons will only launch 40 explosive shells.

Check out this site for weapon rate of fire details.
http://www.ww2guide.com/guns.shtml

LLv34_Flanker
11-21-2004, 06:19 AM
S!

We had a very long discussion within the squad about the gun modelling in IL2-series. I work with military aeroplanes every day and work with their fuselage and systems and can do some conclusions based on my profession what a MG or cannon round does when hitting and aircraft. Also have a vast source of battle damage repair data that helps filling up the picture. Add to this possibility to actually see and look at WW2 planes IRL and there You go..

So far it seems that Oleg's team has modelled the weapons in such manner that everything that counts is kinetic energy, AP ammo do far more damage than HE/HEI in IL2-series. One reason for this would be that developer has not properly modelled effect of blast pressure, only fragments. The HE's do only some fancy puffs on the plane without any significant damage whilist a single AP can cripple a plane totally.

Let's go more detailed. By studying the various planes and their structure and how their SYSTEMS are installed the picture clears up even more. After all if they fail then the plane goes down.

Let's take VK105PF engine. Oleg said this engine is over 10% more tougher than DB605. Maybe so if You look at the engine block of it, but I've seen and studied a real VK105PF engine and the positioning of carburettors, fuel lines and such. They are very exposed and just wait to catch fire when hit. So a burst of HE/HEI will do serious damage since everything is so exposed. Just study pictures and if possible real engines, then U get the idea.

Let's take Yak and LagG3 and La5/7. These are the most debated planes in DM discussion. OK, Yak was a light and maneuverable plane made of wood and some metal in critical places, to put it simplified. Armor was minimal to keep weight down. With it's relatively light construction HE/HEI will do some devastating damage on it when hit, but that is not the case in IL2-series.

LagG3 and La5/7 have this mysterious deltawood(birchus siberiacus) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Basically same technique is applied in boating industry when using laminated wood, talked to a guy who does this for a living. The strenght is good with not too big weight penalty if done correctly. LagG3 was tough to bring down due to wooden structure, but still it BURNS and is NOT resistant to HE/HEI ammo. What we see in the game is that the radiator placed behind the pilot armor below the plane is not modelled in any way DM wise. Tested it many times by shooting straight in from the outlet and there's no effect whatsoever even one can SEE the cooling system there. Go figure. La5/7 are similar to LagG3, maybe a bit less durable in game.

So what I conclude of what I see happening in the game and experience with work, my opinion is that the DM model is not that detailed as it is claimed to be and HE/HEI ammo suffer from being too weak. Combine these 2 factors and it is easy to see why many players complain about the effect of MG151/20 or sometimes even MK108. Kinetic energy rules over chemical energy in this game. Bias or not, that is to be decided by oneself.

NegativeGee
11-21-2004, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slantaye:
ok they still work but seriously they are worse than the 50cal version now.

theres no reason to fly the C anymore they porked the guns so bad machine guns are better. im now flying the D model and getting much more damage on enemy fighters.

doesnt matter to me i can still shoot down bogeys but its funny when 50cals do more damage than cannons.

oh and the 120 fuel mix starts smoking the engine at 700 meters. every other plane in game of russians can get to about 5000 meters before smoking at 120 fuel mix. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sir, are a poor fisherman.

Chuck_Older
11-21-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kannaksen_hanu:
Thats because 50cals are incredibly effective: burgerwhiners have been heard. IMO 4 20mm cannons and 2 MG´s cannot beat the firepower of six 50cals. Maybe it is because of rate of fire, dunno, but they are extremely deadly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jingoistic rubbish. The USAAF/USAF used 6 50 cals as the primary armament for many years because they were effective, not because they fired ping-pong balls with smiley faces on them. I mean, where do folks get this stuff from? I read accounts from real combat pilots, and they talk about how well the 50 cal worked, and how destructive it could be, and then I read here from game players how awful the 50 cal was in real life. Who am I supposed to believe? The game players? Have you ever thought that maybe the weapon is just fine in FB/PF, but some plane's damage models could be off? Is there the slightest possibility? Or that your assesment could itself be colored? No, of course not, everything else is perfect except the 50 cals, which is overmodelled to satisfy Americans. Right, good argument. I guess that's why there was a gift certificate to McDonalds in my PF box. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

If you find 4 20mm cannons can't do a better job than 6 point 50s, I can't really suggest anything other than you're hitting the target more with the 50 cals and you tend to miss with the cannon. Any a/c in the sim that I have flown that carries cannon is always a more potent weapon.

Doctor_Feelgood
11-21-2004, 10:03 AM
the cannons in the corsair rock. i can explode a zero w/them and the 50's, but overall the cannon seem much more powerful when getting the same number of hits.

vertical453
11-21-2004, 10:07 AM
.50 cals are very effective and i think its because rate of fire.

It was funny yesterday when i was flying in an f4f-D i put a burst of about 18 shots all together into an LA and the thing just exploded into pieces, i was really surprized.

JG77Von_Hess
11-21-2004, 10:19 AM
Good Post Flanker http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I have been in some army testings to determin penetraition on light AFVs basicly shooting at 90 degs and lower angles to c when the projecttile would "bounce off" instead of penetraiting, the problem is here most peeps dont give a F"#%¤#" about such things, aslong as their favorite ride blast the badguy to bits all is fine.

Its also funny to c that the russian french brits germans and italiens all came to the conclution that 20mm+ was a better trade off.

Regards.

VH.

roybaty
11-21-2004, 10:44 AM
Ya'll need to go back to gunnery school http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

.50s are very effective when the convergence is right and a enemy plane is in the sweet spot. cannons are very effective BUT you have to really aim otherwise you waste what little ammo you have, and you're left with eith no ammo or only BBs from the secondary weapons.

On the issue of secondary guns, is it me or have they beefed up the lowly 7.92 in the Fw190a4, seems like it's a 12.7mm MG 131 instead of an MG 17.

Red_Storm
11-21-2004, 11:46 AM
Still funny, though, how a Focke-Wulf FW-190A-8 with six 20mm MG-151/20Fs (carrying the twin MG-151/20F gunpods) and two 13mm MG-13s does less damage to planes than a P-51 with just six .50 Browning M2s.

Also take note that both the Browning M2 and the MG-151/20F had fire rates of 750rpm, so the whole "the fifty cals produce more lead on target as they fire faster!" is bollocks. In fact, it should be the other way around. MG-151/20F's have a high muzzle velocity, they fire heavy shells at high speed with more explosive power than the Hispanos (God knows why the hispanos are twice as effective in PF), so the MG-151/20Fs should be the true rulers of the machine-guns/cannons range, yet in PF they're outclassed by every allied/axis (Japanese) machine-gun and cannon. Go figure.

johann63
11-21-2004, 11:48 AM
I have to disagree also, although the 50 cals are effective (which they bloody well should be) the 20 mm in the C model are very, very effective too for me. But like other guys say you have to aim well. A high speed pass at very close range and they are deadly in my opinion.

chris455
11-21-2004, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>.50s are very effective when the convergence is right and a enemy plane is in the sweet spot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truer words have seldom been spoken.

Still, even the 8 .50s of the mighty Jug cannot compare to the the devastation that the 4 20mm of the F4U-1C can wreak.

In late war tests, the US Navy concluded that the 20mm piece was 3X as effective as the .50 caliber. In my experience thus far, PF reflects this reality.

Stanger_361st
11-21-2004, 12:04 PM
Im a american whiner and I still think the cannons on C are really good. No problem here. How is that for a unbias opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

VW-IceFire
11-21-2004, 12:13 PM
The problem the original poster is having is probably putting sufficient fire on target to have the desired effect. The six 50cals you can rapidly strike the target with high muzzle velocity and refire rate its easier. On the other hand, the Hispano's that the F4U-1C uses are slower refire and slower muzzle that mean its a little more challenging to put lead on the target.

Make no mistake...the 4 20mm in this game and in real life is more devastating than the 6 or 8 50cals. The difference is a tradeoff...rapiditity of strikes VS sheer hitting power.

maxlitwin
11-21-2004, 12:17 PM
i think that the issue most people have with the 20mm cannons is that they fire from too far away. i don't fire from farther away than 250 meters, and even that is pushing it. fire closer and in smaller bursts; you'll have no trouble hitting a zero, or anything else for that matter.

AlmightyTallest
11-21-2004, 12:38 PM
I think the F4U-1C is just about right.

I was testing the cannons after the patch and found them to still be quite effective.

I set my convergence to 400m and I only fire when I'm really sure of a hit. They can clip the wings off of a George real quick!!

So I don't have a problem with them, there great for taking out AAA positions as well, just have to be careful and fire only when your really sure your going to hit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
11-21-2004, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maxlitwin:
i think that the issue most people have with the 20mm cannons is that they fire from too far away. i don't fire from farther away than 250 meters, and even that is pushing it. fire closer and in smaller bursts; you'll have no trouble hitting a zero, or anything else for that matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too true...although I should keep this quiet (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)...I have seen many in the last couple of months attempting to engage my plane at 2KM! The cannon shells and bullets aren't even near my plane and in the case of the .50cal, you may be able to reach me but you're not doing any damage.

So for a little while, I'm able to be in a defensive possition by outlasting my opponents in ammo conservation since I refuse to open fire beyond 300 meters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

With wing guns, no matter if they are cannons or not, you need to work on your convergence. Don't use the default 500 meters...unless you like 500 meters. Try 250 or 200 or 275.

LuftWulf190
11-21-2004, 01:16 PM
Dunno what you are talking about but so far the Cannon Corsair is great.

I was flying in my Anton 6 0on a map last night got shot down afew times by Cannon Corsairs so I decided what the hay, and I jumped in to one. Talk about WOW!

I ended up catching four planes in my first time up in the Corsair. It got really bad when people were saying I was lagging. BTW I run a 2.8gig computer with 1 gig ram and a 128MB ATI 9200 and I also run on a cable connection for my internet, and when I checked I was one of the lowest pings in the room.

SO I typed to the guy that they had started complaining once I got into the Corsair when I switched from my Anton and the guys basicaly said, Ya.

As for the Cannon Corsair, all I can say is that its a really nice mix of everything, and is a very nice and stable gun platform, something the FW in IL2 isn't. Also I find it interesting the cockpit view in the Corsair, unlike the FW's where I basicaly stare at the pnael in the Corsair I have to use my HAT on my joy stick to look down a tthe guages and if I am looking straight ahead I see the Corsairs Nose and then the out side world, and nice improved view over the FW-190. Now I don't feel like I'm a 5 foot pilot when I am flyign the Corsair.

And I have my guns ranged out to be 300meters. I use this for all the planes I fly. Much better then the standard 500meters.

Slantaye
11-21-2004, 03:32 PM
let me clarify some points. first to negative gee. i am NOT fishing. the cannons ARE weaker.

second i can still go online and get 4 kills and land my C model corsair. what im saying is the cannons have been severely reduced in damage. i usually slide in behind close and shoot from less than .2 distance. i fly every day since IL-2 came out.

i understand rate of fire etc. but i still believe the cannons should do more damage than the six fifties.

and im not talking about shooting at japanese paper airplanes. those things catch fire and blow up if you look at them.

people are going on rampages here but no one has been able to say im wrong yet. this is POST PATCH so if you dont have the patch yet you need to get the patch THEN test the cannons

TAGERT.
11-21-2004, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slantaye:
ok they still work but seriously they are worse than the 50cal version now.

theres no reason to fly the C anymore they porked the guns so bad machine guns are better. im now flying the D model and getting much more damage on enemy fighters.

doesnt matter to me i can still shoot down bogeys but its funny when 50cals do more damage than cannons.

oh and the 120 fuel mix starts smoking the engine at 700 meters. every other plane in game of russians can get to about 5000 meters before smoking at 120 fuel mix. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bartender.. Ill have what he is drinking

sapre
11-21-2004, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slantaye:
let me clarify some points. first to negative gee. i am NOT fishing. the cannons ARE weaker.

second i can still go online and get 4 kills and land my C model corsair. what im saying is the cannons have been severely reduced in damage. i usually slide in behind close and shoot from less than .2 distance. i fly every day since IL-2 came out.

i understand rate of fire etc. but i still believe the cannons should do more damage than the six fifties.

and im not talking about shooting at japanese paper airplanes. those things catch fire and blow up if you look at them.

people are going on rampages here but no one has been able to say im wrong yet. this is POST PATCH so if you dont have the patch yet you need to get the patch THEN test the cannons <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I tested it i didn't "feel" any diffarence.
It's mighty as it before.
So, do you have any proof?
like taking a screenshot with arcade=1?

rcocean
11-21-2004, 03:46 PM
I'm new to IL2/PF and already I'm tired of the why aren't the .50's are overmodeled whines.

IRL, the US pilots faced aircraft with 20mm cannons, had contact or flew allied planes with 20mm cannons, and flew the P-38/F-4U which had 20mm cannons.

I've read some WW II history. Rarely (never say never) have I seen a US pilot at the time or after the war complaining the .50 cal be replaced by the uber 20mm like the Japanese, Germans, etc., or claim that .50 were inadequate. I haven't read about any P-38 pilots that demanding the 4 .50's be replaced with 2 "superior" 20mm's.

Chuck_Older
11-21-2004, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slantaye:
people are going on rampages here but no one has been able to say im wrong yet. this is POST PATCH so if you dont have the patch yet you need to get the patch THEN test the cannons <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hogwash!

We are offering the same proof, let me say again we offer the same proof you do for our arguments.

v3.01m, BTW. It's great and all the say "this is not right" and give your impressions, but when folks offer you the same format in reasoning that you're incorrect, it takes a lot of balls to say that if we use the same tactics you do, we are wrong, but you're still right

plumps_
11-21-2004, 05:34 PM
F4U-C cannons ineffective? Lol.
One of my favourite diversions nowadays is to shoot down all 16 enemy TB-3 bombers you can get in the QMB -- with the limited ammo of one F4U-1C.

chris455
11-21-2004, 06:36 PM
Plumps-
Try that with Vals or Kates.
The effectiveness of the cannon are just as great but those Japanese rear gunners are like little Carlos Hathcocks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
11-21-2004, 07:09 PM
Hi,

As they didn't fit out the F4U with 151/20s, I think they'll be quite effective.

Get close in (less than 300m) and they'll make short work of anything.

Cheers,
Norris

huggy87
11-21-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>.50s are very effective when the convergence is right and a enemy plane is in the sweet spot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truer words have seldom been spoken.

Still, even the 8 .50s of the mighty Jug cannot compare to the the devastation that the 4 20mm of the F4U-1C can wreak.

In late war tests, the US Navy concluded that the 20mm piece was 3X as effective as the .50 caliber. In my experience thus far, PF reflects this reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The navy experiments would help explain the korean war armaments. By the Korean war the navy had largely switched to 20mm while the air force stuck with their trusty .50s.

plumps_
11-21-2004, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chris455:
Plumps-
Try that with Vals or Kates.
The effectiveness of the cannon are just as great but those Japanese rear gunners are like little Carlos Hathcocks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tried it against Vals -- got only 12 kills as the 4 other enemies crashed into each other. But I had enough ammo left to destroy 7 stationary aircraft.

The japanese rear gunners aren't a too big problem if you fly carefully. Also the Corsair's engine can take incredible amounts of damage and still fly home. Try this in any FW-190 with 20 mm only. Your guns will be less effective and you'll run out of fuel after a short time as you can be sure that one of the first bullets will hit the fuel tank that will run dry shortly.
Edit: Lol, just killed 14 Vals + 5 stationary aircraft in a FW-190 A-6, and landed. The TB-3s are harder to kill with the Fw than with the Corsair, though.

WUAF_Badsight
11-21-2004, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slantaye:
ok they still work but seriously they are worse than the 50cal version now.

theres no reason to fly the C anymore they porked the guns so bad machine guns are better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
this is teh funneh

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
11-21-2004, 09:20 PM
So giving a small benefit of the doubt that something had seriously been changed with the Hispano 20mm cannons I took the F4U-1C out for a spin against a multitude of targets. FW190, Bf-109, Ki-61, G4M. I litterally blew the **** out of every target I hit with a very short burst. These are, and historically were, amongst the hardest hitting 20mm cannons in use during WWII and in Pacific Fighters there are no problems using them.

We must be playing a different game. When N1K-1J's get both their wings taken off in a 1.5 second burst, when Bettys light on fire, roll over and die, when Bf-109s are blasted from stem to stern and fall apart, thats serious firepower. And it was serious firepower.

Conclusion: The 4 20mm of the F4U-1C are harder hitting, do more damage, and are generally more destructive, than 6 .50cal machine guns on the F4U-1A or 1D.

BigKahuna_GS
11-21-2004, 09:53 PM
S!

ICE
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Conclusion: The 4 20mm of the F4U-1C are harder hitting, do more damage, and are generally more destructive, than 6 .50cal machine guns on the F4U-1A or 1D.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Totally agree, There is nothing wrong with the 20mm cannons.


__
_____

Maple_Tiger
11-21-2004, 09:57 PM
I'll take thems 4 20mm cannons over 6 50cal MG's anyday. Try 200m convergence.

plumps_
11-21-2004, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slantaye:
let me clarify some points. ...

second i can still go online and get 4 kills and land my C model corsair. what im saying is the cannons have been severely reduced in damage. i usually slide in behind close and shoot from less than .2 distance. i fly every day since IL-2 came out.
...
and im not talking about shooting at japanese paper airplanes. those things catch fire and blow up if you look at them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is what you may have seen. From the 3.01 Readme:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Main modifications and fixes

5. Additional thorough testing was performed on damage model physics for most planes. In some cases additional changes were made to the damage modeling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>