PDA

View Full Version : Instead of changing weapon strenght



LeadSpitter_
06-06-2005, 05:00 PM
Work on reducing the strenght of the following DM's if possible and things will slide into perspective.

Lagg3
La5-7
Yak series
bf109g6 thru k4
Fw 190A series
109E series
Hurricane
Beaufighter
p-40e-m
P-39
p-63
wildcat
hellcat
corsair

These are the ac that are why the mg151 is considered weak, but the spitfire, p-47, p-51, p-38 can easily be shot down by 4-6 mg151 hits at .30 range while the others on average take over 10-20 hits, russian dms taking the most out of any ac.

Fennec_P
06-06-2005, 05:29 PM
You included some of the weakest planes on your list.

P-39, P-40, 109E. All are torches.

Besides, the only thing that supposedly will change with MG151 is the ammo type. It is not being arbitrarily made stronger.

The 'strength' of each weapon is based on mass, velocity, explosive and incendiary values for each round. These do not change (unless they were incorrectly entered in the first place).

But I do agree, some of the DMs are bizarre. Beaufighter and the Yaks top the list for sure.

Lixma
06-06-2005, 05:43 PM
...but the spitfire.....can easily be shot down by 4-6 mg151 hits at .30 range while the others on average take over 10-20 hits...

Ahhahahahahahahahaha...I wish.

This is nearly as bad as your "G6 has better elevator authority than the Spitfire" comment.

Lead, I can shoot pretty accurately. And I always get a **** sight closer than 300m before opening up. If it only took on average 4-6 cannon rounds to knock a Spitfire down i'd be laughing all the way to the sausage factory.

About the damage models...I think it's a case of old versus new in a lot of cases. The longer the aircraft has been part of the game - the simpler the DM. Yaks and La's can soak up shocking amounts of ammo; not because I think there's any bias going on....just a different generation of fidelity.

Jetbuff
06-06-2005, 06:00 PM
Let's put aside the fact that your list is off (109E tougher than Spit? Come on!) and the MG151/20 is not being improved, just fixed. (missing MinenGeschoss rounds reinstated)

I think that you are over-estimating the effect of returning the MG151/20 to it's historical belting. It's not going to be a one hit wonder-weapon but it will more closely emulate other 20mm cannons in the game (Hispano/ShVAK) in destructive power.

Furthermore, because there will now be fewer AP rounds in the belt, only certain aircraft (my bet is most of those with a "suspicious" DM) might be affected in terms of lethality. i.e. I expect the 151/20 to be less lethal to the IL-2's main fuselage or the P-47 in the absence of armour piercing rounds but finally solve the mystery of "delta wood". I also expect that bullet incidence angle will play a bigger part in lethality because of the fusing of the mine rounds. Last but not least, do not underestimate the effect of torque on aim; prolonged steady tracking and reproducible accurate sniping from anything beyond 400m will be a thing of the past.

Besides, let's wait till we get our grubby mitts on 4.0 and then complain, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
06-06-2005, 07:37 PM
There is a truth hidden in there, the P-47's structure is too weak.

p1ngu666
06-06-2005, 07:41 PM
yak3 is fairly strong, dont think the yak9 is tho :\

LeadSpitter_
06-06-2005, 07:43 PM
Lixma are you kidding how many hours did we fly 109gs with mg151 in spits vs 109s.

And out of that time how many spit 5s do we kill in 1 single burst ripping thier wings off or simply exploding them when winging up.

the g6 does have better highspeed elevator authority then the spit but noway low speed under 530kmph. GO on HL lets do a test from 10,000m diving down i want to see you stay on my tail 700-850kmph ok and we post the track in here.

take 50 fuel each, and change all your control inputs to 100 100 100 100 100 so its an accurate test and joystick sensativities are not a factor in the track. Or simply add elevator to arrow keys for the test.

You will see that it has a slight elevator arc authority over the spitfire, both ac using no trim or flaps.

then with trim and combat flaps in the 109 it has a significantly better arc over the spit with trim at 700-900ias

Fennec_P
06-06-2005, 07:49 PM
I hate to say this, but Leadspitter's right. The Spit does, on average, take fewer rounds to down than a 109.

Control heaviness on Spit and 109, I tried.

-----------

Max G at speed. 109G6 and SpitIXc full fuel. Crimea, noon, 3000m. Trim neutral on both planes.

Start test at 700km/h IAS. Turn level at 3000m at maximum rate. Note maximum G loads with full control deflection.

Spit: 7G max over entire speed range.
109 : 4.4G max at 700km/h. 4.7G max at 400km/h (stall soon after).

The Spit has 1/3 more avalable G at 3000. I'd imagine this trend would apply to any altitude.

OldMan____
06-06-2005, 08:00 PM
P47 sure might receive some tail strengtening. But P38 is very strong. Last one I shot I hit 174 Bullets on him (server counting)!!! And he kept flying till I made a PK on him. 174 bullets.. with 4 20 mm cannons and 2 7.62. That would be around 100 20mm ones on plane. Even if they were the worst shots ever made.. 20 or 30 shoudl be enough to bring it down. P38 can only be shot "easily" in inner side of engine mount.

Spit is about same strenght as 109. Only that they explode while 109 burn in flames.... At end not big difference.

Takata_
06-06-2005, 08:10 PM
If there is one thing to work out about DMs', it should be the anoying "control has been removed" wilch is by far the Nr.1 reason of the planes destruction.

I haven't made any statistical record for each plane but we can notice that one plane will have the tendency to loose elevator's control as another one will have the tendency to loose aileron's control or rudder.

It's look like most of the planes are full of "x control cable damage box".
For example, tonight I flew the Ta-152 online and died 3 times out of 3 after getting an "aileron's control removed". The first rounds of .50 cal hitting my wing always caused this failure.

I never used this plane before and I don't know if it happens with such a high rate, but I experienced the same thing with other planes, like 90-100% of their destructions followed "X control has been removed".

The same thing happens when I'm shooting at someone else. Most of the time, my target go down because controls are gone but I would expect a plane will catch fire much more often.

This aspect of the damage model is really anoying and I don't understand why when ailerons/rudder/elevators controls are gone, it's no more possible to trim the ailerons/rudder/elevators... and when my left wing control is removed, I lose my right wing control too.

Takata

VW-IceFire
06-06-2005, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
P47 sure might receive some tail strengtening. But P38 is very strong. Last one I shot I hit 174 Bullets on him (server counting)!!! And he kept flying till I made a PK on him. 174 bullets.. with 4 20 mm cannons and 2 7.62. That would be around 100 20mm ones on plane. Even if they were the worst shots ever made.. 20 or 30 shoudl be enough to bring it down. P38 can only be shot "easily" in inner side of engine mount.

Spit is about same strenght as 109. Only that they explode while 109 burn in flames.... At end not big difference.
Probably was toast after the first 2.5 seconds and you spent the next minute sealing the deal.

P-38 controls are notorious for being lost in the first hit.

The LaGG-3 is a bit tough as is the La's...but the Yaks...the P-40 and the P-39? Torches or if not torches then incredibly susceptable to damage that may not be visible but is felt.

faustnik
06-06-2005, 09:27 PM
The Fw190 goes up in flames in one burst from low six shot to the fuel tanks. Nothing wrong with that but, Leadspitters statement about the 190 taking 10-20 rounds is false.

The Hurricane falls apart easily with a few cannon hits. The P-39 can be set on fire with one burst from 6. Spitfires absorb as much or more damage than Bf109s, they can take a large numer of wing hits at high deflection on occasion.

Badsight.
06-06-2005, 10:28 PM
no need to weaken Corsairs , they are supposed to be strong as

like Jugs are meant to be

& Hurricanes absolutly changed in PF strength wise , they used to be harder to hurt

lets have a closer look at those P-63s tho , they are suspect 1st class

Badsight.
06-06-2005, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Fennec_P:
Besides, the only thing that supposedly will change with MG151 is the ammo type. It is not being arbitrarily made stronger.

The 'strength' of each weapon is based on mass, velocity, explosive and incendiary values for each round. These do not change (unless they were incorrectly entered in the first place).
this is what Leadspitter needs to realize

the MG151 can get kills right now no question , but thats no reason to leave it as it is in v3.04

Hristo_
06-06-2005, 11:11 PM
If you are getting shot at while in Ta-152, you can safely bet your controls will be rendered useless as the first sign of damage.

Ta-152 is by far the most prone to control damage of any Focke Wulfs.

LeadSpitter_
06-07-2005, 12:26 AM
Badsight.

Badsight you do not seem to realize that making the mg151 much stronger is not the solution.

It will just make the super dms die in 5-6 hit rather then 10-20 like its doing now, but the dms now that get killed in 4-6 hit will get killed by 1-2 hits. That is not the solution to a fix in my book.

make these dms which are taking insane hits weaker, or the weak ones a bit stronger if less work then increase the gun strenght a bit in 20mm and .50 cal

The main reason why mg151 20mm is dubbed weak is from russian dms which without a doubt take a ridiculous ammount of hits at .30 range, and that i definatly agree with but the german dms also have the same effect which also take so much damage.

Then look at the spacing between mg151 and 6-8 .50s firing, the gap of 20mm mg151 you can fit 1 plane thru barely, the .50 spacing you can fir 3-4 ac thru so whats wrong the rof or what but something is definatly wrong.

SeaFireLIV
06-07-2005, 12:58 AM
Y`know it`s not about whether the planes are too weak or too strong. What sticks in my craw is how one person thinks he can tell Oleg how to make his flight sim.

IL2/FB/AEP/ Pacific Fighters, presented by Leadspitter.

Sorry, but i`d rather have a sim made by the developer (with suggestions not demands from the forums) rather than some faceless forumer who decides he wants the world of simming made according to his rules no matter how wrong or right it may be.

If I want a flight sim by Leadspitter (or anyone else) then they should make it, publish it and if I think it`s good enough, I`LL BUY IT!

faustnik
06-07-2005, 01:09 AM
If I want a flight sim by Leadspitter (or anyone else) then they should make it, publish it and if I think it`s good enough, I`LL BUY IT!

Oleg's Ready Room was put here because Oleg wanted feedback from the IL-2 community. Why shouldn't Leadspitter post his questions and ideas here? Oleg can weigh the relevance of the thoughts brought up here, that's not your job Seafire.

SeaFireLIV
06-07-2005, 01:31 AM
Well it seems a bit much to stick a whole row of aircraft down and say, "These should be weakened!"

I mean, what??

But you`re right, I guess he has the right to place his opinion. I apologise for getting a bit too excited.

faustnik
06-07-2005, 01:45 AM
Well, I was a little surprised at the list too Seafire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I just redid the tests I did earlier and came up with something interesting. The Spitfire, P-51, P-47 and Fw190 all took about the same number of shots, 5-8 to kill by structural failure or fire. For some reason, the Bf109 took more, lots more until fire or failure.

73GIAP_Milan
06-07-2005, 01:52 AM
I think leadspitter has a point here..
It's the DM's which are off mostly, that is what i've seen myself and see getting posted all the time.
Only a few weapons need adjustment but the DM's the more. It's insane how much controls are rendered unusable atm while some planes still can eat insane amounts of cannonshells and others who are supposed to be tough are lit up on the slightest hit.

faustnik
06-07-2005, 01:54 AM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/3.04Mg151vBf190.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/3.04Mg151vSpitVb.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/3.04Mg151vBf109.jpg

WWMaxGunz
06-07-2005, 02:12 AM
Changing the non-gunpod 151/20 ammo isn't a single dimension strengthening of the gun.
It is a change in the damage making nature of 2 of the 5 shells.

Really, gunpod 151/20's should be as the others and vice versa.

So test perhaps 109 gunpods compared to 190 wing cannon, 2 guns for 2 all wingmount.

And I do agree that overall damage models need going over and something done about cables
which I think just to have them hittable they had to be made too thick. Perhaps if the
cables themselves were not modelled but only the bellcranks and other connect mechanisms?

Like the LOD's, DM parts and strengths seem to be by each model maker decisions, not to
all on the same chart standard of strengths. Perhaps it is only because older models met
older standards with less parts, we have seen changes in planes upgraded.

Lixma
06-07-2005, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Lixma are you kidding how many hours did we fly 109gs with mg151 in spits vs 109s.

And out of that time how many spit 5s do we kill in 1 single burst ripping thier wings off or simply exploding them when winging up.


That's not my experience at all. If I recall rightly you spend more time (when flying blue in there) in the G6 with the 30mm.

I really, really wish the G2's gun combination could reliably disable a Spit with one pass - if it did i'd start flying a lot more conservatively (maybe lol~)

Re: elevator authority....I wasn't thinking in terms of speeds over 600kph to be honest as i'm rarely in that part of the envelope...i'll do some testing.

Badsight.
06-07-2005, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
For some reason, the Bf109 took more, lots more until fire or failure. for the longest time , Bf109s have had dead six as their strong point

easy to set fire to as Bf109 , , or oil ones cockpit up , but when shooting them from dead six they actually have a measure of strength

OldMan____
06-07-2005, 04:32 AM
There is no sense in telling lets nto correct mg151/20 and lets just change DM.


Comapre 151/20 to Hispano.. this is the basis to judge if 151/20 must be changed and the veredict that indeed MG were missing.


DM are other issues that SHOULD be handled as well but this does not justify not making any other correction of a "mistake" made at 2.0

73GIAP_Milan
06-07-2005, 04:58 AM
If you look at it from both sides then it should be: Change the weapons but also change the Damagemodels..

but then do it properly and do it for all planes, update the old IL2 ones aswell to current standards.
The cables can left in, as VWMAXGUNZ said to take them out would be a bit overkill, but making them small, so hard to hit, atm they seem to be making up half of the aircraft's damage model. Also their strength, some craft had rods instead of cables..

But to get back to the point, it's the DM's which all should be changed and updated, aswell as the weapons. If you change 1 thing, then so must something else be changed to keep the balance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
06-07-2005, 05:15 AM
"the g6 does have better highspeed elevator authority then the spit but noway low speed under 530kmph. "

Now what we got here? slow speed is 530KMH?? oh yea. so, why does also 109 controls freeze up at such SLOW speed as 450kmh then? at gruise speed of 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

Sturm_Williger
06-07-2005, 05:32 AM
Leadspitter, for a man with an interest in the historical accuracy of the planes et al in IL2 - ( "post some proof", I hear you say ), I fail to see how you could have an issue with the correction of the 151/20. Ample proof was provided that the loadout was wrong.

Damage models - now that's a completely different thing and I for one would not quibble if the amazing Yak took more damage than a "fuel leak". I don't hit enough planes to speak definitively, but as someone said further up in the thread - older damage models is the most likely explanation.

The 151/20 has certainly not been corrected because some damage models are "off".

Cheers

jurinko
06-07-2005, 07:11 AM
Few online pics Mauser vs Spitfire..
http://www.scitech.sk/~jurinko/online01.JPG
http://www.scitech.sk/~jurinko/online02.JPG

None of the Spits seemed to be impressed by hits.

This one was especially resistant: opening fire with MK103.
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm01.JPG
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm02.JPG
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm03.JPG
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm04.JPG
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm05.JPG
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm06.JPG
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm07.JPG
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm08.JPG
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/webfiles/spit_dm09.JPG

Be sure it is the same Spit on all pictures. Theh ammo spent should sink the Tirpitz.

WWMaxGunz
06-07-2005, 07:22 AM
I might say delta wood, but that book was closed and thrown away!

LLv34_Stafroty
06-07-2005, 07:28 AM
Looks like Deltawood yea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stef51
06-07-2005, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Work on reducing the strenght of the following DM's if possible and things will slide into perspective.


I always wonder how difficult it can be when creating DM. I've posted a long time ago so valid/no so valid a chart from a book about 500 air cooled US aircrafts from the Pacific war with the % of chance that the plane would be lost if hit on different locations. Here is the link again. I find it fascinating though again everyone will have opinions on its validity... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/Damage_report.jpg


Stephen

Kurfurst__
06-07-2005, 08:53 AM
This make no sense LS, because at the same time, you`d put all those 'weakened' planes to disadvantage to their normal strenght against any other non-151 fighgters...

Plus, the fix is simple : Give our Mine shells back. The Yaks were easy as long as we had it. An the Emil is quite good - looky, it HAS the Mineshells, even with a lesser gun it`s good.

faustnik
06-07-2005, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by jurinko:

Be sure it is the same Spit on all pictures. Theh ammo spent should sink the Tirpitz.

Jurinko,

In our wars online with RAF74 both sides noticed that the Mg151s from the Fw190s were not having the appropriate effect. Spitfires would get bounced and drilled by 190 only to escape with little or no damage. We tested Bf109s and they hit as hard or harder than the Fw190s. We came to the conclusion that it is a net issue not a DM issue. RAF74_Bouncer made a great observation that the Mg151 left a large smoke trail. His theory is that the smoke from the four Mg151s is causing some kind of "data overload" or something and not all the hits get registered. From what I've seen it has to be related to something like this. Your shots just add more evidence to this.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-07-2005, 10:52 AM
i find it hard to believe that its net or lag issue. cos why does 4 x hispanos work so great in hurricanes? or with corsairs.. way different effect than with fockes. if it is smoke trail issue, then those smokes should be taken out or at least taken out from send files so it doesnt fill up upload at all. anyway, for me its hard to believe, i find it more like BIAS and balance effect cos of whine and non skilled Ally side pilots who are like childs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
06-07-2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
i find it more like BIAS and balance effect cos of whine and non skilled Ally side pilots who are like childs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Please lets not make this personal. It has nothing to do with where you are from or what you fly. It is an issue with the coding of the game itself, either the weapons, DM, or netcode.

faustnik
06-07-2005, 11:05 AM
i find it more like BIAS and balance effect cos of whine and non skilled Ally side pilots who are like childs

That's cr4p. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
06-07-2005, 11:40 AM
Ally side pilots who are like childs
was it george lucas or who who said in interview that US youth are so childish compared to european.. it was about episode III in papers. it was George who made it Ô┬┤where we are fromÔ┬┤ level.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff
06-07-2005, 12:05 PM
LeadSpitter, one more time:

1. The MG151/20 is being corrected, not improved. MG shells should be in the belt, they haven't been in hub-mounted cannons.

2. This will not make planes extra fragile but it will change the relationship - I can assure you that many of the percieved DM inaccuracies are traceable to the fact that the standard MG151/20 is firing 2 AP rounds where it should be firing MinenGeschoss.

3. ALL planes exihibit some wierd DM behaviour from dead 6. e.g. the 190's HUGE cross-section makes it more likely that a bullet from dead six will strike at a high enough angle to not glance off (esp. an AP round) while the Spit/109/yak have a very narrow cross-section making ricochets much more likely.

4. Mine rounds will have an impact but not the one you expect. They will actually bring the DM more into balance if anything. Just wait and see.

73GIAP_Milan
06-07-2005, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
LeadSpitter, one more time:

1. The MG151/20 is being corrected, not improved. MG shells should be in the belt, they haven't been in hub-mounted cannons.

2. This will not make planes extra fragile but it will change the relationship - I can assure you that many of the percieved DM inaccuracies are traceable to the fact that the standard MG151/20 is firing 2 AP rounds where it should be firing MinenGeschoss.

3. ALL planes exihibit some wierd DM behaviour from dead 6. e.g. the 190's HUGE cross-section makes it more likely that a bullet from dead six will strike at a high enough angle to not glance off (esp. an AP round) while the Spit/109/yak have a very narrow cross-section making ricochets much more likely.

4. Mine rounds will have an impact but not the one you expect. They will actually bring the DM more into balance if anything. Just wait and see.

I disagree here, you look from the Axis point of view but miss the whole point. If the Minengeschoss comes in it will absolutely shred the planes which are currently already disadvantaged in weakness. Then the guys who fly those will wine again..a never ending circle.

I do agree however, to the point that a number of planes exhibit strange DM behaviour, so this is what should be worked on, and not only the Minengeshoss. Like i stated before, if you change one thing, you gotto change something else aswell to keep stuff balanced.

I read alot of biased post from both the luftwaffe and Allied sides and i'm sorry to say that alot of those posters miss the whole picture because of them being so focused on the planes they love so much. - it's not really bad to be biased, but it can go too far.

I'm a guy who flies as many planes on all sides and atleast TRY to see the whole picture without a bias.
If the MG Shells get in, the damagemodels should be changed/updated aswell.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
06-07-2005, 02:24 PM
Hi,

I wondered how long it would take before the 151/20 whining began. Ironically, it's happened BEFORE the patch has been released but those who have tried the correctly belted, MG-equipped 151/20 now know what's been missing for oh so long.

I agree that the DMs could be downgraded but why? The Hispano, shvak and .50s would all remain the same strength (and I think that LS mentioned that the .50s were 'improved' in another thread..so why should they be improved when the 151/20s should not? Stinks of a double standard if you ask me but that's what this, fundamentally, is all about) while the 109 and 190 DMs are reduced to make them even easier to kill.

Conspicious in their absence from LS' list are, as you might have expected, the P47, P51 and P38 - now there is a surprise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yes, the P47 can often be destroyed with relatively few hits but it could also take a great deal from the 151/20. Yes, the P38 can lose it's controls from few hits but so can the 190D9 with .50s (which I know because I've taken the controls out at 600m+ before). And we know the P51, if you hit it in the engine, can be defeated. But so can anything else. Are we suggesting that it should take even fewer hits to set a 109 smoking or a 190 to receive a fatal fuel leak? Or maybe Zeros are too tough?

Instead of whining about it, try to learn to live with it like everyone else had to when the .50s were 'improved' some time ago despite Oleg suggesting that the crybabies had won out and that they had become a-historical. Yep, we know that Oleg was presented with some more information afterwards but I don't recall him making another statement along the lines of 'Yes, you were right and I was wrong. The .50s are now precisely as they were historically'

The 151/20s now appear to be roughly comparable with the hispano and this is what I'd have expected from information that I've read.

Ta,
Norris

WWMaxGunz
06-07-2005, 02:30 PM
Stafroty, George lucas is a HOLLYWEIRD movie maker. How real you think he knows?
Answer is about most US: Not.
Answer is about most Euro: Not.
Where he lives and works... well after seeing your online picture maybe you could fit.
But they are on the moon of a different planet in that town. The planet is S. California
which only sometimes approaches sight of earth.

There are MANY very youths in this country who are not at all childlike.
Other words come to mind but not childlike.
But George Lucas doesn't want to think about them.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-07-2005, 02:35 PM
oh MaxGunz, my baby!!

i sure did hit in sweet spot didnt i http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-07-2005, 02:43 PM
Many times planes came back with many holes in them.

How many more times did planes go down with or burning because of very few hits?
I suspect the answer is even more, but only suspect. I know it wasn't rare.

So basing quality of guns or DM on how many hits it takes is not real good sense.

Taking hits was a real bad sign. For one, it meant someone had you lined up.
For another, you couldn't be quite sure that nothing was damaged that might crop
up critical sooner or later if you stayed up. So a wide range of possibles is
a better sign than mostly meeting a statistical "norm". A bad sign is when people
get upset if they don't meet the norm. I've thrown doubles in dice 6 times in a
row before, the odds are very small but it happened and more than once. That's
1/36 to the sixth power, think of it!

WWMaxGunz
06-07-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
oh MaxGunz, my baby!!

i sure did hit in sweet spot didnt i http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I've seen your pic.
Dude, get help.

SeaFireLIV
06-07-2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:



Conspicious in their absence from LS' list are, as you might have expected, the P47, P51 and P38 - now there is a surprise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Instead of whining about it, try to learn to live with it like everyone else had to when the .50s were 'improved' some time ago despite Oleg suggesting that the crybabies had won out and that they had become a-historical.

Thankyou, Norris, that`s what i really meant to say. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Except I got a bit too overexcited and lost the point earlier.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-07-2005, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:



Conspicious in their absence from LS' list are, as you might have expected, the P47, P51 and P38 - now there is a surprise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Instead of whining about it, try to learn to live with it like everyone else had to when the .50s were 'improved' some time ago despite Oleg suggesting that the crybabies had won out and that they had become a-historical.

Thankyou, Norris, that`s what i really meant to say. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Except I got a bit too overexcited and lost the point earlier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

np. I know exactly what you were trying to say.

Unfortunately, there will be a similar number of
threads to this over the next few weeks (patch released permitting) most likely from the previously vocal .50 cal whining contingent who will be campaigning for the 151/20s to be toned down and so that the WW2 world that they perceive to be true will be maintained. i.e. goose-stepping bad guys = easy prey to vastly superior (cos their history books and films said so) forces. A sarcastic exaggeration, I concede, but we all know that there is often a lot of truth in sarcastic comments.

Ta,
Norris

LLv34_Stafroty
06-07-2005, 03:48 PM
MaxGunz, ppl wins money in lottery and chanses are some 1/15 000 000, think about that too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff
06-07-2005, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by 73GIAP_Milan:
I disagree here, you look from the Axis point of view but miss the whole point. If the Minengeschoss comes in it will absolutely shred the planes which are currently already disadvantaged in weakness. Then the guys who fly those will wine again..a never ending circle.
I fly all planes too and like to think I am not biased one way or the other. What I was trying to say was that the presence of MinenGeschoss might actually "even out" the DM's for many planes. E.g. I would expect the P-47/IL-2 to be more resistant to Mine rounds compared to the impregnable delta-wood planes. i.e. it will not be an increase in MG151/20 effectiveness across the board but a change in how different planes' DM's react to the new belting. If anything, I expect some planes to become harder to down in the absence of the two AP rounds because possibly their DM is coded to be more sensitive to them.

That said, if that does not occur then reviewing the DM is in order, but to artificially hobble a cannon based on pre-emptive whining is wrong. Let's wait and see how the patch pans out and if you still think there are DM issues then, I'll raise them with you.

nakamura_kenji
06-07-2005, 06:28 PM
out interest but ki-61hei use 2 x MG151/20 i think though not sure what ammo like compare with german as i never trouble take off corsair hellcat wing?

anyone know if MG151/20 on hei is changing it stay same use japanese ammo?

GvSAP_Dart
06-07-2005, 08:47 PM
The Yak-1 and Yak-1b are too robust?

Really?

Stitch the wing with an Emil and you've got trouble, as it'll drag and lose lift. I think this is probably about right, btw.

I don't see how the Yak-1 would be fixed by making it even weaker than it is now...heck, it wasn't fabric over a balsa wood frame, you know...

karost
06-07-2005, 09:14 PM
"Instead of changing weapon strenght"
"These are the ac that are why the mg151 is considered weak, but the spitfire, p-47, p-51, p-38 can easily be shot down by 4-6 mg151 hits at .30 range while the others on average take over 10-20 hits, russian dms taking the most out of any ac."

----------------------------------------------
what kind of constructive information to backup
this request ?

as Cirx said "..pure speculation of course, but fun!"
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

WWMaxGunz
06-07-2005, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
MaxGunz, ppl wins money in lottery and chanses are some 1/15 000 000, think about that too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pure chance of plane going down to totally random hits is much larger than either of those.

Much larger. That is the point, it should not be thought of as rare.
Where hit is key. The small critical places inside the plane are spread as well,
not just a few big ones.

73GIAP_Milan
06-08-2005, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:

I fly all planes too and like to think I am not biased one way or the other. What I was trying to say was that the presence of MinenGeschoss might actually "even out" the DM's for many planes. E.g. I would expect the P-47/IL-2 to be more resistant to Mine rounds compared to the impregnable delta-wood planes. i.e. it will not be an increase in MG151/20 effectiveness across the board but a change in how different planes' DM's react to the new belting. If anything, I expect some planes to become harder to down in the absence of the two AP rounds because possibly their DM is coded to be more sensitive to them.

That said, if that does not occur then reviewing the DM is in order, but to artificially hobble a cannon based on pre-emptive whining is wrong. Let's wait and see how the patch pans out and if you still think there are DM issues then, I'll raise them with you.

Agreed! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But, i don't expect things to go ├╝ber ofcourse.
anyway, i'm eager to see what the patch will bring and i'm patiently awaiting it.

dadada1
06-08-2005, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I want a flight sim by Leadspitter (or anyone else) then they should make it, publish it and if I think it`s good enough, I`LL BUY IT!

Oleg's Ready Room was put here because Oleg wanted feedback from the IL-2 community. Why shouldn't Leadspitter post his questions and ideas here? Oleg can weigh the relevance of the thoughts brought up here, that's not your job Seafire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that most of us are aware of Leads seeming lack of objectivity. The that fact that his questions and ideas seem to have but one aim is the thing that makes some of his posts objectionable/pointless/irritating.

stubby
06-08-2005, 08:39 AM
dude -you're missing the point of the forums. a place to discuss things. you reserve the right to ignore it but everybody has a right to voice their opinions. you have way too much angst for something so trivial.


Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Y`know it`s not about whether the planes are too weak or too strong. What sticks in my craw is how one person thinks he can tell Oleg how to make his flight sim.

IL2/FB/AEP/ Pacific Fighters, presented by Leadspitter.

Sorry, but i`d rather have a sim made by the developer (with suggestions not demands from the forums) rather than some faceless forumer who decides he wants the world of simming made according to his rules no matter how wrong or right it may be.

If I want a flight sim by Leadspitter (or anyone else) then they should make it, publish it and if I think it`s good enough, I`LL BUY IT!

Willey
06-08-2005, 10:22 AM
109G-6 too strong?

http://www.vow-hq.com:8080/vow2/MissionReport?id=136

5 G-6 downed with just 27 20mm rounds...

NorrisMcWhirter
06-08-2005, 01:12 PM
Sounds about right to me if we assume each aircraft to have taken roughly the same number of hits (~6). Of course, that's just *one* statistic and cannot be relied upon as the truth...a lesson which a few of the allied whiners might learn from.

Of course, it could also mean that 4 aircraft took 1 hit each while the remaining one took 23 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris