Sniper MGFF - Page 4

VO101_Tom · #31 08-18-2011, 12:43 PM

Is not attached to the topic tightly, but according to me this would like...

http://youtu.be/QfDoQwIAaXg

TomcatViP · #32 08-18-2011, 06:41 PM

Thx very much guys for the excellent links.

justme262 · #33 08-25-2011, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Well, I think there has to be disadvantages to each ammunition type, although I haven't really found them yet. I would tend to think that production on the less effective types continued for some reason, as it couldn't be that much harder to make a dedicated production line for one "uber-ammo" than have different lines for each.

I think the only "advantage" to normal ball ammo was only that it was cheap and available. There was no performance advantage. The armor piercing and incendiary ammo used more expensive materials and was not available in large enough numbers to be used exclusively. So I think it would be unhistorical and an unfair advantage to load up all armor piercing incendiary rounds.

TomcatViP · #34 08-26-2011, 12:03 AM

JA that is my point !

we need a fixed % as a limit.

Pls note that I am a 109 driver too (50/50 109 & Hurri)

TomcatViP · #35 08-26-2011, 06:02 AM

He he I am not saying that I do not want to dye but only that the rate of Pk seems way out of proportion.

I am not finger pointing any category of player that can aim better than myself. Pls be sure of that.

However it could be interesting to link the number of sniper ammo available in any belt like the AP round to the effective kill ratio of the player (until pilot death) to emulate the foggy vision the Luftwaffe had of a democracy.

~S!

CaptainDoggles · #36 08-26-2011, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justme262

I think the only "advantage" to normal ball ammo was only that it was cheap and available. There was no performance advantage. The armor piercing and incendiary ammo used more expensive materials and was not available in large enough numbers to be used exclusively. So I think it would be unhistorical and an unfair advantage to load up all armor piercing incendiary rounds.

Non-armor-piercing ammo puts a more ragged hole in anything it can penetrate. So for "soft" parts of the aircraft (thin metal skin, wooden stuff, fabric control surfaces etc.) the AP rounds leave a nice clean hole whereas the non-AP rounds tend to shred it a little better.

If you've got cannons the point might be moot.

CaptainDoggles · #37 08-26-2011, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

the rate of Pk seems way out of proportion

It's out of proportion in comparison to what data?

CaptainDoggles · #38 08-26-2011, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

I dunno about who has better aim, or if one belt is so much more viable than any other. My 109 belt currently is:

...

I found that if I put the observer and/or tracer rounds at the beginning of the belt for one gun and the end of the belt for another gun it makes it a little easier to aim. Try it out. Instead of two simultaneous tracers you have them alternating out of each gun.

With the observer rounds it probably won't make as much of a difference but it might make observer strikes more evenly distributed.

Quote:

Flying tactically will solve any advantages someone might have with their ammo. Staying out from in front of their guns is a bigger deal to me than what they load their guns with!

This was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread.

CaptainDoggles · #39 08-26-2011, 02:58 PM

TomcatViP · #40 08-26-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

It's out of proportion in comparison to what data?

Have you read me so far ?

pls take a look of the above. (3pk in less than an hour (100% odds vs 3% as"calculated") each time the first bullet flew right in the head (what I call Pk then hit)

Damn do I need an automate to write further in this thread ?

(see the new Tc&Vip bellow)