Guns, more like firecrackers.

[KL0083]

Since we're not flying on some cockpit-view FPS,just let alone the piece of CXXX so-called "game balance" and give us the 1200rpm Browning!

[shagrat]

You can edit it yourself... No problem, just pointed out it will cause you trouble on MP servers. It is the mission host that checks files between clients and host match. If everybody changes to the same settings it works fine.

No crap about game balance, just about matching weapons for everybody... and you won't like a guy joining a public server in a F-86 shooting @ 3000 rpm or using 40mm HE bullets, I guess?

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Would be nice if they just released a small patch to fix that and the canopy rather than us the users having to fix it ourselves.

[shagrat]

Hmm, need to check the new openbeta sometimes change log doesn't list ALL fixes... Maybe we are lucky.

[KL0083]

No crap about game balance, just about matching weapons for everybody... and you won't like a guy joining a public server in a F-86 shooting @ 3000 rpm or using 40mm HE bullets, I guess?

 

Sure,I belive that's something what we least wanna to see.

 

As of the A6M always out-flight and out-dive NA Mustang which featured many cockpit-viewed FPS game and the problem about 1200rmp AN/M3 right here,it's just nasty to see historical accuracy have to again make way for what so-called "game-balance" by offical.

 

If game offical released a small patch to fix this problem,I fear they may down-grade the .50 cal penetration to the standard of rifle-caliber when they correct the RPM to 1200,I guess...........................

Edited February 25, 2015 by KL0083
game blance

[shagrat]

ED, or Belsimtek for that matter, never argued about "game balance"! My guess is they simply messed the firing rates up.

They likely fix this when they have the time... Well, actually it should be a matter of minutes to change the LUA.

Hope they get to that soon.

[jjohnson241]

ED, or Belsimtek for that matter, never argued about "game balance"! My guess is they simply messed the firing rates up.

They likely fix this when they have the time... Well, actually it should be a matter of minutes to change the LUA.

Hope they get to that soon.

 

I hope they get to it period. The performance of Belsimtek in addressing bugs such as this one is dismal IMHO. I'm curious, have they acknowledged the problem?

 

I've created a JSGME mod for ammo level and firing rate of the 50's. I can live like that until Belsimtek decides to fix it. :joystick:

[Zeke]

How much more ammo do you give it? I tested the thing the other night and we get 15 seconds of ammo with all guns firing. That would equal 1800 rounds in the jet as it is which is historical.

[Slap_Chop]

I think what you are finding is the truth of the situation. The MiG15 seems to be the superior fighter.

 

Don't take my word for it . Listen to the actual MiG and Sabre Jet Pilots themselves.

 

In this 44:00 minute video the actual Pilots of both the Sabre Jet and MiG15

tell it like it is.

 

Go to the 25:25 mark of the video to hear the pilots describe

the guns effectiveness of each ship.

 

 

5ryz5Mu5gZA

[kontiuka]

Unfortunately, manipulating weapons tends to interfere with Multiplayer integrity checks...

I don't seem to have any issues with this. Last night, I was using the original gun rate while everyone else had the upped gun rate. I didn't have any connection issues.

[shagrat]

Cool! Need to check on that. When I tried that it kicked me from any server and buddies couldn't join mine...

[msalama]

Firecrackers? Check the picture. Took 17 hits all told to down an An-30. But the MiG may still well have something quirky going on with its DM, I don't know...

 

Anyway, as it comes to the guns themselves, they actually pack a helluva punch IMO.

 

PS / EDIT: And since someone will inevitably think they smell a rat because the pic seems doctored, well sorry to disappoint ya but it ain't really - I just spliced it together from 2 screenshots in order to show the whole log in one picture.

Edited March 14, 2015 by msalama

[shagrat]

They just fixed that in 1.2.16. Do you run the beta?

[msalama]

They just fixed that in 1.2.16. Do you run the beta?

 

Actually yes, I do. Do you mean the rate-of-fire fix?

[shagrat]

Actually yes, I do. Do you mean the rate-of-fire fix?

 

Yep! 1200 RPM rather than 800 RPM... now, we have some more bullets flying around :D

[msalama]

Yep! 1200 RPM rather than 800 RPM... now, we have some more bullets flying around :D

 

Yeah! Although the IL-76 seems a much tougher critter altogether - hit her good and even destroyed 2 of her engines, but she still managed to land at Gelenzhik after I had expended my ammo. And the Fagot then; engaged a high-skill AI opponent, we circled each other for a good 15 minutes, I got a couple of hits in without any visible effect - and then she handed my arse to me because I made a stupid mistake.

 

Anyway, I still don't think the guns are too weak per se. Some DMs, however, feel a bit dodgy.

[RoflSeal]

Yeah! Although the IL-76 seems a much tougher critter altogether - hit her good and even destroyed 2 of her engines, but she still managed to land at Gelenzhik after I had expended my ammo. And the Fagot then; engaged a high-skill AI opponent, we circled each other for a good 15 minutes, I got a couple of hits in without any visible effect - and then she handed my arse to me because I made a stupid mistake.

 

Anyway, I still don't think the guns are too weak per se. Some DMs, however, feel a bit dodgy.

 

AI DMs are just dodgy in general, player controlled MiGs are easier to down, providing the server is not messing up and many of your shots are going phantom due to netcode loss.

 

Though the MiG-15 being too strong may have a point considering the MiG has 2 unprotected, non-self-sealing fuel tanks, it should be very vulnerable to .50 cal API below 25,000ft. Above 25,000ft where most of the combat in Korea took place, there was not enough oxygen for the magnesium to burn, but say on the Burning Skies server, where combat is basically at sea level due to mission design, the MiG should basically act like a Zero when its hit in the fuel tanks.

Edited March 16, 2015 by RoflSeal

[shagrat]

It should do a lot of things the AI especially doesn't. Unfortunately, there isn't always a chance to hop on a MP server for training, so you are stuck with AI... If they would simply put some "critical hits" chance modeled on some hit zones.

[msalama]

As it comes to the Fagot, well, I must admit I really don't know if the DM's necessarily off at all actually.

 

As I said, I did manage to land a couple of hits on her, but I've no way of knowing if the same amount of bullets would've downed a human-piloted plane. But then, indeed, go online and it's even _harder_ to say what's what, because of network latency and/or possible packet loss. So there we are then... is it just the DM causing problems, or something else as well?

 

Hairy. :huh:

[shagrat]

Well, try AI vs AI and you'll notice how unbalanced F-86F and MiG-15 are.

My worst experience was an AI P-51D!

We put so much bullets in that one plane it showed holes everywhere. Some as large as a basketball in the wings.

The engine cover was gone, fuel leaking from both wings, engine on fire etc.

That plane still flew, evaded and climbed like it had no damage at all! It flew for another 30 min with fuel leaking everywhere!!!

 

To me it seems the damage model simply uses hit point zones and as long as only 1 hit point remains, it shows visual damage, but technically the plane is "undamaged"?

[kontiuka]

Well, try AI vs AI and you'll notice how unbalanced F-86F and MiG-15 are.

My worst experience was an AI P-51D!

We put so much bullets in that one plane it showed holes everywhere. Some as large as a basketball in the wings.

The engine cover was gone, fuel leaking from both wings, engine on fire etc.

That plane still flew, evaded and climbed like it had no damage at all! It flew for another 30 min with fuel leaking everywhere!!!

 

To me it seems the damage model simply uses hit point zones and as long as only 1 hit point remains, it shows visual damage, but technically the plane is "undamaged"?

I think one of the reasons is that giving all the AI planes advanced damage models means giving them advanced systems models. By this, I mean fuel systems, hydraulics, electrical, etc. Forcing your computer to do all those extra calculations would really make it sweat. But, I agree, we need something more than what we have now. Something that takes those systems into account at least to a limited degree.

[shagrat]

Not necessarily. A simple roll of dice with increasing odds for each 10 or 20% of damage that triggers a Wing ripped off, engine dies, or Pilot dead for matching hit zones, would be fine.

It shouldn't be too difficult...

And maybe add a "rookie" AI option, that does not fly every single maneuver like an ace?

[Davee]

Not necessarily. A simple roll of dice with increasing odds for each 10 or 20% of damage that triggers a Wing ripped off, engine dies, or Pilot dead for matching hit zones, would be fine.

It shouldn't be too difficult...

And maybe add a "rookie" AI option, that does not fly every single maneuver like an ace?

 

IMHO it would be better to follow Cliffs of Dover example and model the damage more realistically. In that sim, the surfaces, subsurfaces - spars, cables, hydraulics, cylinder heads, glass what have you, all have values that are calculated to break when struck and the break is calculated by the type of round doing the hitting and the kinetic, thermal or AP energy of each round is calculated. There are hit boxes that contain these sub components. Angle of attack also makes a difference. In addition to the calculated damage there is a link to the appropriate graphic damage model - smoke, fire, water etc.

[shagrat]

It would be cool to have the same damage model, like in Player aircraft, problem is the limited computing power of desktop PC systems...

The CoD approach would require complete new plane modeling, as each hit zone /object needs to be addressed by the Sim when calculating hits, so current visual damage model already is pretty well done, only the visual damage (e.g. aileron gone, engine in flames) does not affect the flying performance. With one aileron gone, the aforementioned P-51D rolled like it wasn't damaged at all...

 

So as a good compromise, better feasible enhancement, I would prefer some some basic calculations and changes to the behavior.

Actually I would not care much if the enemy plane couldn't roll /turn because of a script line telling AI "do no longer roll clockwise" or if the missing ailerons wind and airflow conditions are calculated.

Result is result :D

[IceGryphon]

Check out Ralfi firing away at one with a F-15C.

It just keeps flying like nothing happened.

Sabre Guns spamming at point blank.

Zee do nothing. Better off trying to clip them with your wings.