Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY - For 4.11

[Ernst]

Ok. I am complaining about the P-40 being loaded with .50 AP but effectiviness of the .50 itself.

Discuss with the specialist, not with me:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Bye.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Ok. I am complaining about the P-40 being loaded with .50 AP but effectiviness of the .50 itself.

Discuss with the specialist, not with me:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Bye.

It may appear that this low score of the .50 M2 is in disagreement with the satisfactory experience the USAAF had with this weapon. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effective against fighters and (not too sturdy) bombers, if installed in sufficient numbers. Six or eight guns were specified as standard armament, resulting in a destructive power total of 360 or 480, at the cost of a rather high installed weight. Most American fighters were sufficiently powerful to have a high performance despite this weight penalty. Incidentally, the mediocre efficiency score of the .50 M2 is not only an effect of the low chemical content of its projectiles. Even if only the kinetic energy were considered, the efficiency of this gun would remain inferior to that of the UBS, B-20, ShVAK or Hispano, although better than that of the MK 108 or MG-FFM. To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.

Apparently you did not read this paragraph for comprehension, though I suspect that English is not your native language, so I do understand that we may have a language barrier as well, so I will repeat the important part:

"The answer to this apparent contadiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effectivie against fighters..."

[Sven]

It has a glass jaw engine which is not in line with the historical record.

A lot of inline-engined planes suffer from this, then again although the P40 triggers the grey smoke in the same fast way as the 109 for example, it still runs much longer from my experience online, but that is just an observation.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Apparently you did not read this paragraph for comprehension, though I suspect that English is not your native language, so I do understand that we may have a language barrier as well, so I will repeat the important part:

"The answer to this apparent contadiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effectivie against fighters..."

I read but in IL2 actually the .50 are more effective than 20mm and this is not the case. Few hits of .50 are doing much damage. I personally hit two 30 mm shells in a spitfire and she continued to fly normally.

A snapshot of cannons do not disable a plane or rip wings easily now. Another day i take a snapshot of .50 and ripped my wings. Next mission, a snapshot from more than 400m and my engine out.

So the .50 was effective but should be less effective than cannos and actually they are more effective than 20mm since they are disabling engines and taking controls too easy. I think it is necessary a good tracking shot at point blank range to .50 be really effective, acctualy single snapshot are too efective frequently.

The conclusion is: .50 are less efective than cannos, period.

p.s.: easy to use "ad hominen" argument when you are lacking of it.

[Ernst]

Well i see one of the tracks where i was fighting the p-40 and changed my idea of their performance but not about the .50 effectiveness.

I was in a g6, with two gondolas and forget to drop the droptanks. Hehe... Ok maybe i missed the p-40 performance and continues to be crap, as it should be (Why? BFs fucked the Tommys in north africa) like before.

But my comments about .50 i maintain. They are too much effective now since frequently i see disabling engines and controls with snapshots. I guess the p-40 hit 2 bullets in ac in this track (engine down).

[bugmenot]

Is there a way to make the AI a bit more realistic?

I mean, I must confess I'm getting tired of those stupid unrealistic maneuvers, they never have any G-Locks, they continue to fly with un-flyable aircrafts, etc, etc...

The best is still : OK, I take plane "A", against AI plane "B" : whoa, the plane "B" is much better! Let's switch! Now I take the "B" one and give the AI the "A" one. Whao, the plane "A" is much.. wut wat? wtf?

Especially since I've reinstalled RoF, having such a crappy AI becomes even more visible and annoying.

I'm happy we got finally rid of the snipers gunners, I hope we won't have to wait another decade before having a decent AI.

Thanks.

[nearmiss]

As I recall there were mods released some time back that were improvements to AI performance.

I don't think they were applied to TD updates. I believe they were included with several of the consolidated mod packages.