[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Originally Posted by Viikate

Do we really need be here on standby hitting F5 constantly in case Hades has posted something demanding for answers? I already answered to Hades that he is wrong about the maxDeltaAngle causing the sniper effect, but he refused to acccept this.

I did not refuse anything. I also stated 2 Different things that:
A) The ShVAK 20 mm cannot has ZERO dispersion value when it mounts Defensive Flexible Installations, and this is WRONG! It makes this weapon to behave like a Sniper gun! What did you Not understand?

B) I also stated that the "angle error" also plays Significant role in the Sniper effect, and i told you to Change this to a large value and you won't get EVER hit by a Defensive Gunner even if he is an "ACE:. What, again, you did not understand?
I stated this because many guns have too small dispersion values, they are even more accurate than they are when the fire from Fixed positions like wings or propelor-hubs.
Can you deny this also? I can write data for this in no time

Originally Posted by Viikate

Not my problem if Hades cannot analyse the code enough to find the real problem. Using same logic as Hades, I could equally say that if I set the ammo count to zero, the problem is fixed. So "the ammo count ALSO plays significant role in this aspect."

If i understand correctly, i have said something like this to Justify the NEED to CHANGE the WRONG sniper-values for Flecible Defensive Cannon Installations. I hope i am clear.

Originally Posted by Viikate

Wrong cockpits? Did I miss something?

Overheating issues maybe? Wrong indications from instruments maybe?

Originally Posted by Viikate

For 4.09 TD proposed to MG that 15kg might be more better value for a generic pylon weight and it would solve the overweight problem of planes with lots of small pylons (8 rockets for example). Not that this was very relevant fix, since we planned already back then to set all individual pylon weights.

Do you really think that there is actual data that states that generic weight for all pylons is 15kg. It's simple approximation based of the fact that most of the pylons are simple rocket rails or small wing bomb racks.

So you Confirm that you do "approximations" already, not backed-up by any Real Data. But when i talked about "approximations" based on game's data for Same weight, family, caliber, for weapons and/or bombs you got Screamed about "Reliable data".
Thank you Viikate for confirming that you also do approximations, be that good or bad. When you do it, its good, but IF someone else do it, then "it/he is bad".

Originally Posted by Viikate

Well would you change something like the MK 108 power value just because someone states that:

"While historically 4 shots were needed to down a B-17.
In game you need around 10."

There are numerus Pilot reports from WWII and documantaries stating this.
Yest you deny this. Perhaps we should just do an "approximation".
Maybe you are right.

Originally Posted by Viikate

So the problem is with the MK 108 and not with the B-17 DM? If we would just blindly change the MK 108, it could have very dramatic effect when shooting small fighters.

We are being testing all the game's guns for a long time, close to year and came up that "if" you put real life data then you need around 1-2 30mm hits from close range to shot down a fighter. It complies Perfectly with WWII war reports, pilots accounts and documentaries.

Originally Posted by Viikate

BTW Emil. Are you 100% sure that the power variable in MK 108 round is the full weight of explosive content.

It is. You say it is not the HE content? Interesting. Then, what is it then?
OR you are saying that other values play importand role in this, which is of course true.

Originally Posted by Viikate

When you view the decompiled code, you only see the final value of 42 grams. In the original source code the final value comes from formula or several values, just like the caliber (which has nothing to do with actual caliber).

True, it is what i wrote just above. That "many values are responsible for weapon's destructiveness".
So, where are the news about this?

Originally Posted by Viikate

So far this thread has provided ZERO real credible reference about any bomb blast radius. No real credible hard data, no change.

Please, could you just show me CREDIBLE data that makes the 2001 data for the Bombs to be False while to justify the current data as correct? Please?

Originally Posted by Viikate

TD gets huge amount of e-mails from people asking to change this and that. Most of them are asking us to change something that would have really big effects in game without ANY real references. Just like this thread lately.

I have talked for Very Specific Things and Very Specific game data.
I doubt that you had any kind of request like this.

Originally Posted by Viikate

Mods have a luxury of begin uninstallable (plus there are also many mods that restore the original FM or original weapon parameters). Any change in the patch is something that is permanent for the players who don't use mods. So we don't change something very lightly just because some guy comes here to say that he has decompiled the source code and knows that wrong variable X is causing problem Y.

~4 times bigger the blast for certain bombs and almost twise the destruction of certain guns, Zero weight Pylons, Never Overheating Issues, etc are something "very light"?

Ok, i understand now your logic.
Keep up the good work.