plse unperk the tempest

[mars01]

As far as perking the late war set of planes I'm not so sure about that. The late war planes are already usually pretty good at staying out of trouble due to speed. They also lend themselves to a timid sort of flying anyway. It seems to me that if you perk them then alot of the folks flying them would be even more likely to be pretty timid, which doesnt really lend itself to good gameplay.

You cant get more timid then the timid already are.  You can't get any deader so to speak.

[Zaphod]

You cant get more timid then the timid already are. You can't get any deader so to speak.

This is true, thats why I thought that giving these ideas a shot by adjusting the perk cost associated with the planes in question and then seeing what the result is would be a good idea.  Although I have no idea if its realistic to assume that HiTech can adjust these with minimal effort.  We do have this whole new sim coming out ya know.  

[AKFokerFoder+]

Why is it always "Perk the LA7!" but never 'Perk the Pony-D" or Perk the 190D9?  All three of these are awesome rides, the last two are fast with lots of firepower as compared to the LA7.

As for what is and isn't perked, it really makes little difference, because there will always be the superior non-perked model.

And if you think Spits are common now, just remove the LA7, Pony-D and Dora.  The Spittie 9 and NIKI will start to shine, and their numbers will pick up.

Think of an arena with only a smattering of LA7s, P51-D, and 190D9.  The perk rides like the Tempest would rule the skies.  The 262 would be darn near invincible to anything but a HO.

Screw with the perkie system and game play will change.

I see the main problem being the Arcade Gunnery model in AH and not the perkies per se.  I am a crack shot with a rifle, and believe me, a 1000 yard shot with a scoped rifle on a airplane sitting on the ground would be tough for the vast majority of people. Now, take a vibrating airframe, air buffeting, poor sights on a airplane, general inaccuacy of machine guns etc etc, a 1000 yard shot is mainly luck, luck and more luck.   And 500 yards is a long shot, with lots of delay between firing and impact. I believe that most kills in WW2 were made under something like 200 yards.

Make 300 yards a max hit on guns, and see how the game play changes.

It would be a whole new game with a realistic gunnery model.

[Darkish]

Make 300 yards a max hit on guns, and see how the game play changes.  It would be a whole new game with a realistic gunnery model.

But what to call this new game?  Aces2High, 2HighAces ... AcesHigh2.              

[moot]

aka AWer's safety HO cone? no thanks

Maybe add all those factual real world factors, but projectiles magically losing lethality at 300 wouldn't be part of them.

[straffo]

Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
I see the main problem being the Arcade Gunnery model in AH and not the perkies per se.  I am a crack shot with a rifle, and believe me, a 1000 yard shot with a scoped rifle on a airplane sitting on the ground would be tough for the vast majority of people. Now, take a vibrating airframe, air buffeting, poor sights on a airplane, general inaccuacy of machine guns etc etc, a 1000 yard shot is mainly luck, luck and more luck.   And 500 yards is a long shot, with lots of delay between firing and impact. I believe that most kills in WW2 were made under something like 200 yards.

Make 300 yards a max hit on guns, and see how the game play changes.

It would be a whole new game with a realistic gunnery model.

I no way physic will change to fit your faith, what you believe won't change that.

I just don't understand how you can ask for a realistic gunnery and in the same time ask a reduction of range of the guns.
That's completly incoherent.

[Kweassa]

I no way physic will change to fit your faith, what you believe won't change that.

I just don't understand how you can ask for a realistic gunnery and in the same time ask a reduction of range of the guns.
That's completly incoherent.

 
 Personally, I wouldn't like to see such an artificial "neutering" either. I'd rather see the 400~500yard shots persist than see an artificially neutered gunnery.

 However, it's not so inconherent in terms of gameplay. It's sort of like the combat trim/stall horn/stick deflection issues.

 In HT's own words:

Now from a purely mathematical realistic point of view, that's the way the plane was set up so it should be the same in the sim.  But if you step back and look at things another way, what did the plane feel like to fly and does it "FEEL" realistic when things change?  When flying a real aircraft I sense very little stick movement.  I perceive much more on how hard I'm pulling, how much I'm grunting, how much the stick is vibrating, than how much I'm moving the stick.

 To accomplish some of this we use the stall horn, now the stall horn is NOT realistic by any means, but some method is needed to give you the same realistic feed back from the plane that you get in real life. Therefore, you are forced to choose a method that works and gives the perception of reality.  We chose to setup controls that will let you stall with full stick deflection unless you are limited by control force.

[/i]

 ...

 Now, if we rephrase it to match the context of this discussion:

Now from a purely mathematical realistic point of view, that's the way the shells traveled, so the ballistics should be the same in the sim.  But if you step back and look at things another way, what did the gunnery feel like when pilot's pulled the trigger, and does it "FEEL" realistic when we expect kills at certain ranges?  When shooting with a real aircraft the pilot has many factors limiting his accuracy as a whole. The carefulness when pulling trigger since there are no ammo counters to tell him of his status, how much the wings flex and twist, how much vibration is at hand, the need to judge the plane's distance with only his feel.. than just how much accuracy the ballistics suggest.

 To accomplish some of this we may have to use a neutered form of gunnery. Now the artificial limitations are NOT realistic by any means, but some method is needed to give you the same realistic results from the trigger's end that you get in real life. Therefore, you are forced to choose a method that works and gives the perception of reality, rather than stick with realistic implementations, that in turn, gives out unrealistic results as a whole.  We may choose to setup gunnery that will result in successful hits only within realistic distances, unless you are incredibly lucky.

[/i]

 In other words, if realism should be the heart of things, then  realistic results should be as important as realistic ballistics.

 If people take for granted the current form of gunnery, ignoring the fact that despite the realistic ballistics implemented the absence of some many factors brings out unrealistically long average killing ranges, then that's as much something needs to be criticized as cravings for artificial form of neutering.

 Clearly, IMO, the long range gunnery aspect(not the occasionaly 800~1200yd shots, but rather, average killing ranges in between 400~500yards..) cannot be explained with "more pilot experience" argument alone.

 It's a mystery as to why the people so ardently root for the realistic ballistics, but remain deaf ears to the fact that the results of AH gunnery does not match reality.

[TequilaChaser]

some long winded text there, good though:aok

but I  thinks Kweassa has gotten into someone's stash of STACKER2:D

[straffo]

Originally posted by Kweassa
It's a mystery as to why the people so ardently root for the realistic ballistics, but remain deaf ears to the fact that the results of AH gunnery does not match reality.

What reality ?

A reality where the optimal distance for a kill is 20 meter (I'm not joking I've read an article were a Finnish pilot said it was the distance he started to kill) or a reality wherethe kill happen over 600 meter like this single eyed German pilot I forgot the name...

I'm not a sharp shooter and an average overall dweeb ,I've checked about 30 films I've made and in  « my » reality kills happen in 95% of the cases between 200 and 400 yards.

Giving the netlag it can have been as far as 600 yard (or even more) for the opposing pilots

Plus I've recorded some interresting ch1 whines like : «yet another single hispano kill»  when clearly on the film there is more than 5 hits sprite.

I prefer a physical and predictable result than a sort of randomized damage ala FB.

My usage randomized is certainly abusive but I've found no pertinent way to test their damage code and as I've not the listing  in front of my eyes ...

[Kweassa]

my reality kills happen in 95% of the cases between 200 and 400 yards

 That's still too long straffo.

Giving the netlag it can have been as far as 600 yard (or even more) for the opposing pilots

 This is also a mere, unproved theory. IIRC to Batz's test in differing distances per FE, 200 yards was the most he experienced. That's the only case of actual testing on this subject I've ever seen, and naturally that's the only result I trust so far.

Plus I've recorded some interresting ch1 whines like : «yet another single hispano kill? when clearly on the film there is more than 5 hits sprite.

 While closely related to the subject at hand, still irrelevant. It's more of a DM issue than a gunnery issue.

I prefer a physical and predictable result than a sort of randomized damage ala FB.

 Random? FB? You've gotta be kidding.

 IMO your placing your judgement of 'solid, predictable' reality on AH, and not considering the possibility that what happens in FB might be more real, m8. IL2/FB/AEP, at least to me, is way more predictable than AH.
 
 Unpredictability, is something like being pinged during extension at 600yards and having both of your horizontal stabs knocked out cleanly. Which if I may note, is incredibly unlikely in FB, than compared to the frequency of it in AH.

 In one ways, both AH and FB are 'predictable'. Except what to predict and expect, maybe realistic for one sim, and unrealistic for the other.

My usage randomized is certainly abusive but I've found no pertinent way to test their damage code and as I've not the listing in front of my eyes ...

 Unfortunately that's true. However, if you assess the damage and situation with track recordings, it's consistent and accurate - at least, accurate enough for people to understand why somethings happen and some not.


 You don't see people whine and moan about Hispanos or 50cals in their game - because, ballisitics hardly matter when all planes of the war as depicted in their version of 'reality' needs to get in close to achieve satisfying results. To me, that's way more consistent in what I've heard and read about WW2 aerial warfare than AH.

 Unless somebody comes up with a revolutionary evidence that people killed stuff easily at 400~500 yards by spraying their Hizooka, 50cal, or quad-20mm ammo load, my opinion on what's more consistent with reality will stay that way.

[Gixer]

At one time I played Tiffie and Temp exclusively and I wouldn't want to see the Temp perk free as it's an absolute monster of a plane.

Maybe lower the cost to around 10 or something. But then again perk points are a dime a dozen after a short time. I started using 232's as Jabo's at one time just so I could see if I could get rid of a few thousand.

Infact 232's are great at strafing down hangers.



...-Gixer

[Gixer]

Before anyone corrects me, of course I meant 262's sorry been away for too long I guess. lol


...-Gixer

[straffo]

Originally posted by Kweassa
That's still too long straffo.

Certainly, I need to clarify one thing about this range :
-I'm a typhoon pilot and so I open fire at longuer distances than in a G6
Actually in a tiffy I open fire at about 350 yds and I stop at about 200 (when not to greedy )
-In a G6 I open fire at 250 and stop at about 100

 This is also a mere, unproved theory. IIRC to Batz's test in differing distances per FE, 200 yards was the most he experienced. That's the only case of actual testing on this subject I've ever seen, and naturally that's the only result I trust so far.
[/B]

oops... I thougth there was a general consensus about this I didn't test myself.

 While closely related to the subject at hand, still irrelevant. It's more of a DM issue than a gunnery issue.
[/B]

yep,but I love seing CH1 whines

 Random? FB? You've gotta be kidding.[/B]

I was

 IMO your placing your judgement of 'solid, predictable' reality on AH, and not considering the possibility that what happens in FB might be more real, m8. IL2/FB/AEP, at least to me, is way more predictable than AH. [/B]

I'm not using FB enought to make a fair comparaison.But even so I don't feel the difference when there is icons.

 Unpredictability, is something like being pinged during extension at 600yards and having both of your horizontal stabs knocked out cleanly. Which if I may note, is incredibly unlikely in FB, than compared to the frequency of it in AH.

 In one ways, both AH and FB are 'predictable'. Except what to predict and expect, maybe realistic for one sim, and unrealistic for the other.
[/B]

It depend of the setup IMO, in FB with icon I don't feel any difference between both sims.

But in FB without Icon or AH2 it'sa lot more difficult for me and it got a huge drawback for me :
 it transform all large caliber guns in a sort of "BFG" single hit wonder ala Quake.
As the opponent can close undetected to 100 meter in my 6 and one single 30mm hit will transform my plane in "heat and light"

 Unfortunately that's true. However, if you assess the damage and situation with track recordings, it's consistent and accurate - at least, accurate enough for people to understand why somethings happen and some not.
 You don't see people whine and moan about Hispanos or 50cals in their game - because, ballisitics hardly matter when all planes of the war as depicted in their version of 'reality' needs to get in close to achieve satisfying results. To me, that's way more consistent in what I've heard and read about WW2 aerial warfare than AH.[/B]

Not true for FB french forum there is already a huge number of whines because of hispano and .50

 Unless somebody comes up with a revolutionary evidence that people killed stuff easily at 400~500 yards by spraying their Hizooka, 50cal, or quad-20mm ammo load, my opinion on what's more consistent with reality will stay that way. [/B]

Dunno , it will be good to get a gunery training manual from WWII and check it against our reality.
FYI I've (somewhere in my library... will be very hard to find ) a training speech made by a Normandie-Niemen pilot it said about the Yak9T :

normal ranges is 100m to 400m against fighters, and 500m to 600m against bomber

so ?

[humble]

Unpredictability, is something like being pinged during extension at 600yards and having both of your horizontal stabs knocked out cleanly. Which if I may note, is incredibly unlikely in FB, than compared to the frequency of it in AH.

Now that you mention it, in 4+ years I don't ever recall having just 1horizontal Stab knocked off...both always go (at least I don't recall ever seeing just one go...

[dedalos]

Originally posted by humble
Unpredictability, is something like being pinged during extension at 600yards and having both of your horizontal stabs knocked out cleanly. Which if I may note, is incredibly unlikely in FB, than compared to the frequency of it in AH.

Now that you mention it, in 4+ years I don't ever recall having just 1horizontal Stab knocked off...both always go (at least I don't recall ever seeing just one go...

I may be wrong about this and you may want to check for yourself, but when I knock off a horizontal stab, I only see one piece of the plane falling off.  Then  I come back for a second pass only to find the plane floating to the grownd.  It could be due to distance or whatever but thats what it looks like to me.  I'll check again