Ammunition power

[BadAim]

Good grief. Do you people ever give up? Just accept that Oleg is against whatever it is you want and move the Hell on. My kids didn't whine so much when they were two.

Good post emil, i always thought that Blue planes were at a distinct disadvantage now it has been confirmed. Lets hope Oleg fixes it in SOW so that we have a realistic sim.

[T}{OR]

From: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2830

Originally Posted by 310thDiablo

csThor...I understand your point and respect it. This is something that has been asked for many times over several years. As josse said...it's not a time consuming job to do. Evidence was provided years ago to MG. the "mein" shell was added pretty readily to the German planes, we should have had API belting done as well. For those that want to complain about how API would shirft the balance of power or how it was an FM/DM change I say your wrong. Those same people did not complain when the "mein" shell was added. It sure changed things alot in hitting power to German planes.

I have to agree with Diablo here.

You can complain that velocity is porked in favour of Allies, but the actual advantage in-game goes to Blue - by a long margin. Wrong belting and what not else.

The way I see it blue (especialy 190s and 109s) need only one or two shots for their opponent to explode. You might want to complain about that first.

Need proof - just hop over to the WarClouds.

Yes, the balance might have been something which was attempted, but in very odd way. With USAAF suffering the most from wrong .50 cal belting. The velocity values you posted in the first post reflect that balance very well (FM / WM => Belting / Velocity values).

[zapatista]

interesting post !

i always thought the values used for munitions explosive power and their velocity should be openly provided, in the same way we need aerial speed and climb rates etc (like il2 compare did). that is the only way to confirm that the game is historically accurate and that the values used for both sides are correct and fair.

does anybody know if that list of explosive power and velocity is still accurate, going by the date in that post it was from 2002 ?

we need somebody like josse to have a peak at the files and give us a list of the current values oleg used in 4.09b

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by zapatista

interesting post !

i always thought the values used for munitions explosive power and their velocity should be openly provided, in the same way we need aerial speed and climb rates etc (like il2 compare did). that is the only way to confirm that the game is historically accurate and that the values used for both sides are correct and fair.

does anybody know if that list of explosive power and velocity is still accurate, going by the date in that post it was from 2002 ?

we need somebody like josse to have a peak at the files and give us a list of the current values oleg used in 4.09b

didnt he already do that and adjust the 20mm ?

[Chivas]

I think the individual aircraft armament strength won't matter as much in SOW. The Damage Model will balance the fight. Hopefully with the SOW's new far more detailed DM you will have only two options if you survive a solid burst from any caliber weapon. Bail out or run. I don't think we will see anymore heavily damaged aircraft out running you or out turning you. The fight will be over, and you can turn your attention quickly to the next threat.

This is going to make a huge difference in game play, for the better, IMHO.

[Insuber]

(...) With USAAF suffering the most from wrong .50 cal belting. The velocity values you posted in the first post reflect that balance very well (FM / WM => Belting / Velocity values).

I don't want to start a whining contest but, as demonstrated recently by peeking into the game code, the Regia Aeronautica wins the most porked gun award. The Breda SAFAT wasn't a powerful gun indeed, but in the game they are simply ridiculous.

Ins

[Thunderbolt56]

Originally Posted by Insuber

...the Regia Aeronautica wons the most porked gun award. The Breda SAFAT wasn't a powerful gun indeed, but in the game they are simply ridiculous.

Ins

Yes...yes they are.

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by Insuber

I don't want to start a whining contest but, as demonstrated recently by peeking into the game code, the Regia Aeronautica wons the most porked gun award. The Breda SAFAT wasn't a powerful gun indeed, but in the game they are simply ridiculous.

Ins

Appologies, you're quite right there. I forgot about that.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by T.}{.O.R.

From: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2830
I have to agree with Diablo here.
You can complain that velocity is porked in favour of Allies, but the actual advantage in-game goes to Blue - by a long margin. Wrong belting and what not else.
The way I see it blue (especialy 190s and 109s) need only one or two shots for their opponent to explode. You might want to complain about that first.
Need proof - just hop over to the WarClouds.
Yes, the balance might have been something which was attempted, but in very odd way. With USAAF suffering the most from wrong .50 cal belting. The velocity values you posted in the first post reflect that balance very well (FM / WM => Belting / Velocity values).

I cant agree more... that's why when I read about the "disadvantage" of blue planes.. I almost fell out of my chair.... and don't forget the Ki-84Cs..