|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
12-31-2010, 12:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I am flying FW-190 Anton 8 and Bf-109 Gustav 6 Erla for years. I only can say that those fighters, especially Anton 8, should be better according to history. But i am not complaining about it. Becuase it forced me to be better and better with tactics. However, lack of cannon power and weak damage modelling of German fighters still makes me feel crazy. As i wrote in my video pages, i like to fight Oleg.
 Even so, i am very appreciated to Oleg and his team for this "greatest" simulation. Happy New Year Oleg and all community. 
|
|
#4
12-31-2010, 03:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What, you mean you're incapable of discussing the points you have made? The 190 is one of the sturdier fighters in the game and the MG151/20 and MK108 are both fantastic cannon. Jeez. I said that with confidence because I have no problem with either. The 109 is one of my favourite aircraft to fly in the game.
|
|
#5
12-31-2010, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
According to your comments about FW's stability, i only can say agree but after get damage even with single 50 cal bullet to wing, you can not keep your plane fast and maneuverable after that. It always surprised me because i see only one or few little dot on my wing but the plane acting like old lady. I have experienced this situation many many times for years. So, i really would like the same with red planes. For cannons, unfortunately we (German pilots in game) have good cannons but extremely strong enemy fighters to kill. Especially, when i fly P39 or La5, even with huge holes on my wings and with black smokes from my engine, i always can fly longer and can do any maneuver without loosing power and stabilization against German fighters. And i do not believe that it is historical. These are my opinions which i experienced for years. You guys may not agree with me but at least, please do not answer jeeringly. Regards...
|
|
#6
12-31-2010, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
My experiance to. U think it will be changed? Maby when hell freezes over. Last edited by Baron; 12-31-2010 at 04:39 PM.
|
|
#7
12-31-2010, 04:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rakinroll, I wouldn't say that's so much a result of bias as damage modeling not being as advanced on the earlier aircraft. You don't *see* so much damage on the 190, but that doesn't mean you haven't received it because it seems like there are only two stages of damage on the 190 wing, mildly peppered and *gone*.
 The effects of wing damage on the 190 are likely to be more noticeable to the pilot because it has such a high wing loading - a lot higher than the P-39 or La-5. Although I agree that this does seem a tad exaggerated in the game. What I definitely agree with is that the 190 seems to receive a *much* larger penalty to speed with damage than nearly any other aircraft. But then this inconsistency in the DM of planes is not blue or red specific - see the P-40's porcelain engine, for example. Now there's a plane that got a raw deal in the sim, an ugly model means that the opening of the chin radiator is nearly twice as large as it should be, becoming an utter single-bullet engine-failure magnet. Go anywhere near a rear gunner and you may as well turn back to base. And you can't even look good doing it because it has twice the dihedral it should do.  Then there's the F6F-5's majorly gimped speed, and the F4U's crazy pendulum-like wobbling behaviour even after coordinated control inputs. There are lots of things people like to point out as "bias" in this game, but in truth, they're a collection of fairly evenly distributed inaccuracies and mistakes across both "sides".
Last edited by TheGrunch; 12-31-2010 at 04:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
