Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Originally Posted by MicroWave

You didn't confuse anything. Your agenda was clear from the start.

Do you REALLY want to start over this?
Come on,
And you confirmed that i was right about the 20mm sniper-gun. Thank you for this.

And about the bombs:
So it is Perfectly OK Bombs of the SAME "family", having the SAME weight to have 3+ times greater effective radius?

There are data, yes. So you say that you haven't found any? And again, what makes you think that a bomb of the same weight using the same technology can have >3 times more the effective radius?

[MicroWave]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

An something else:
Everybody complains about the "sniper gunners". Well, there is a parameter that defines the "angle error" of the 'bullet", for each weapon.
This is the "Dispersion" of each gun. The Sniper value is the ZERO dispersion, and the more we increase it, the less accurate this weapon is,
and thus the gunner.

Lets see the Berezin B-20 20mm Soviet cannon when mounts a defensive installation in a bomber:


maxDeltaAngle = 0.0F;

It means that despite it is mounted in a flexible defensive installation its dispersion value is "0", meaning that chances are you get a bullet in your head in no-time.

Lets check the German MG151/20 when mounted in a defensive installation:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.25F;

It has a considerable dispersion value so you won't get a bullet in your head so easily. But still this value is somehow high
compared with the value that the same weapon has when mounted in a plane.

And last lets check the MG131 when it mounts a defensive position:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.24F;

Again, you are fee to judge

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Do you REALLY want to start over this?
Come on,
And you confirmed that i was right about the 20mm sniper-gun. Thank you for this.

And about the bombs:
So it is Perfectly OK Bombs of the SAME "family", having the SAME weight to have 3+ times greater effective radius?

There are data, yes. So you say that you haven't found any? And again, what makes you think that a bomb of the same weight using the same technology can have >3 times more the effective radius?

Start? No. I'll let the readers be be the judge of your posts.

You were right about something? I wouldn't go that far. Maybe in your political views you lean to the right.

I was perfectly clear about the bombs effectiveness. Without historical evidence and/or documents, the numbers stay the same as they are. There is no other option.

Anything else?

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

So lets summarise:

A) It is ok certain bombs to have >3 times the effective radius compared with the same family bombs from another side.
B) It is OK that bomb and Rocket pylons from a certain side to NOT cause drag or add weight to certain fighters while all other Pylons add significant weight and drag.
C) Its OK guns from a certain side to be more accurate.

And you are talking about "political agenta",

Anything else?
Are you planning to fix this? And yes, there are data for bombs. I'll send you some time allows.

Cheers,

[MicroWave]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

So lets summarise:

A) It is ok certain bombs to have >3 times the effective radius compared with the same family bombs from another side.
B) It is OK that bomb and Rocket pylons from a certain side to NOT cause drag or add weight to certain fighters while all other Pylons add significant weight and drag.
C) Its OK guns from a certain side to be more accurate.

And you are talking about "political agenta",

Anything else?
Are you planning to fix this? And yes, there are data for bombs. I'll send you some time allows.

Cheers,

A) Why wouldn't it be OK, if this matches the historical performance? If you have any documents proving otherwise, feel free to send them to the appropriate address. You don't want us to "balance" things because it is unfair, do you? Have you checked other nations too? I've heard that Japanese have some uber bombs also...
B) Where did you get that from? Maybe those 4 types of pylons are considered as always attached and the penalty for "your" nemesis is always on? You can at least detach "your" pylons and fly without them just by using a different loadout.
C) Which side? Which guns? All I saw was rambling about uber RED guns and completely distorted perception of what the numbers 'mean'.

Are you accusing me of RED bias?
I have to bookmark this post.
I suppose people will easily see who has the agenda here. If you do not completely edit your posts, that is.

We will fix anything that is wrong in the game:
1) if it is feasible (regarding time needed and our skills).
and
2) if we have/obtain evidence to back it up.

Oh, since you are editing your post so fast, I'll preserve this pearl for posterity:

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

...

And weight here mainly means Drag!

[bigbossmalone]

dear TD members
some time ago i made a request, if it was possible for you guys to enable padlocking of ships, as can be done with planes and ground targets.
since there was no reply either in either direction, i thought it might be a good idea for me to re-define the question.
currently, ships can be padlocked, but only for about 2-3 seconds, before the padlock is lost - thus rendering the ship padlock ability practically useless.
do you guys think you could fix this, please, and enable ships to be properly padlocked, as one would padlock an aircraft - so that the padlock can be maintained indefinitely, unlesss the player's view to it is obstructed by interference from aircraft cockpit/fuselage/angle?
this would be a much appreciated fix for many peopple. thanks in advance.

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Originally Posted by MicroWave

A) Why wouldn't it be OK, if this matches the historical performance? If you have any documents proving otherwise, feel free to send them to the appropriate address. You don't want us to "balance" things because it is unfair, do you? Have you checked other nations too? I've heard that Japanese have some uber bombs also...

Do you have any of these data? And no, i don't want to balance things but to be as close to historical perspective as possible. And about the Japanese: Have you heard this or you have seen this? It is importand.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

B) Where did you get that from? Maybe those 4 types of pylons are considered as always attached and the penalty for "your" nemesis is always on? You can at least detach "your" pylons and fly without them just by using a different loadout.

????
I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that these Pylons are ALWAYS attached to the airplanes even in default loadout? In this case you are wrong. An example using these anti-gravity (ops 0 kg i meant) Pylons is the I-16 Type 24.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

C) Which side? Which guns? All I saw was rambling about uber RED guns and completely distorted perception of what the numbers 'mean'.

So you mean that you are unaware of the game's specs? If yes then how will you be able to make proper adjustments? And i clearly stated in simple words what these numbers mean.
I have also "heard" that some certain guns have increased damage and that some other have Twice the penetration ability of some others, have you "heard" it also? A comparison can be made by using some reliable data (except from books of course) like this:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

He is the author of the Flying Guns.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

Are you accusing me of RED bias?
I have to bookmark this post.

I am not accusing anyone for anything. I only want historical accuracy and proper "tuning"/bug correcting of the game.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

I suppose people will easily see who has the agenda here. If you do not completely edit your posts, that is.

I edited what exactly? I didn't edit the MEANING of the posts, but saved space for un-needed "data". It is not the place for extensive inspecting of the data.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

We will fix anything that is wrong in the game:
1) if it is feasible (regarding time needed and our skills).
and
2) if we have/obtain evidence to back it up.

What kind of evident do you need to make the Pylons to have weight?
What kind of data did you use when you made all the rest of the Pylons weighting from 150kgs to weight 15 kgs?

Originally Posted by MicroWave

Oh, since you are editing your post so fast, I'll preserve this pearl for posterity:

Oh, and drag means less maneuvrability, less climbing, etc...
Language barrier? Perhaps.

Cheers,

[MicroWave]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Do you have any of these data? And no, i don't want to balance things but to be as close to historical perspective as possible. And about the Japanese: Have you heard this or you have seen this? It is importand.



????
I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that these Pylons are ALWAYS attached to the airplanes even in default loadout? In this case you are wrong. An example using these anti-gravity (ops 0 kg i meant) Pylons is the I-16 Type 24.



So you mean that you are unaware of the game's specs? If yes then how will you be able to make proper adjustments? And i clearly stated in simple words what these numbers mean.
I have also "heard" that some certain guns have increased damage and that some other have Twice the penetration ability of some others, have you "heard" it also? A comparison can be made by using some reliable data (except from books of course) like this:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

He is the author of the Flying Guns.



I am not accusing anyone for anything. I only want historical accuracy and proper "tuning"/bug correcting of the game.



I edited what exactly? I didn't edit the MEANING of the posts, but saved space for un-needed "data". It is not the place for extensive inspecting of the data.



What kind of evident do you need to make the Pylons to have weight?
What kind of data did you use when you made all the rest of the Pylons weighting from 150kgs to weight 15 kgs?



Oh, and drag means less maneuvrability, less climbing, etc...
Language barrier? Perhaps.

Cheers,

What are you blabbering about? Read your posts again.
You presented false and incomplete information. I've responded to that.

If you have more issues to present, do it properly this time. I have given you all the necessary information how to do that.

Oh, and about that language barrier you hit; try googling for basic forces of flight.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by MicroWave

What are you blabbering about? Read your posts again.
You presented false and incomplete information. I've responded to that.

If you have more issues to present, do it properly this time. I have given you all the necessary information how to do that.

Oh, and about that language barrier you hit; try googling for basic forces of flight.

What are you blabbering, to use your vocabulary. You got alarming data and you pretend you don´t see it!


Others say it´s cherry picking, while I can plant a cherry-tree forest by now.

[AndyJWest]

So the question comes down to whether we should expect TD to make changes based on cherry-picked data, because some people think there is a conspiracy to boost certain nations' aircraft?

So much for objectivity.

[JtD]

Team Daidalos does not fix stuff because it looks wrong, but when correct data is provided and it contradicts current game values. What's the point in balancing stuff instead of fixing it?

Simple question related to the example: Which bomb is wrong - the FAB 1000 or the SC 1000? Or both? What would you want TD to do without knowing the proper values? Guessing? In the worst case you end up with even more wrong values.