D9 guns again.

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by -ammo-:
I flew a dora for this past weekends snapshot, first time in the thing really and got a 6 kill sortie. I see nothing wrong with  the dora's guns at all. Its has more hitting power round for round ove teh 50's in my P-47.
ammo

Hey Raub, Reshke, Grunherz.. you guys paying attention here?
Ammo is posting how well he's doing in the plane and I don't see you jumping all over him for that.
-SW

[BigJoe]

Ya know if it looks like crap and smells like crap thats good enough for me, but I suppose there are some who aren't satisfied until they taste it to be sure eh?

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by BigJoe:

Ya know if it looks like crap and smells like crap thats good enough for me, but I suppose there are some who aren't satisfied until they taste it to be sure eh?

I tasted the D9's gunnery... 6 kills in a single flight at dusk. You telling me they are porked, I'm telling you they ain't.
-SW

[MANDOBLE]

Number of kills doesn't desmostrate anything.

[-ammo-]

wanna see the film?

[BigJoe]

'Data, charts, real tests against real world data.. you know that kind of thing might actually put some water in your glass.'


Ya know everytime this subject is brought up you have to remember it is a CUSTOMER who has a concern.  This time it is a person who based on his past experience believes there may be a problem.  Unfortunately there's always someone proclaiming "you must have tests results, real world data, perform those experiments, more test data and comparisons, let see it on paper!"  If he doesn't, is it supposed to make his concerns invalid?  Many people don't have the slightest idea where to look for this data or have the time, for many all there is this forum to voice concerns.

----------

'I'm telling you they ain't'

Where's the the test data for that statement?


[This message has been edited by BigJoe (edited 04-10-2001).]

[Hooligan]

Bigjoe:

If you spend a little time searching this board you can find a post for any particular weapon or aircraft that has some player complaining that the gun/aircraft modelling in question is seriously defective.  When actual proof rather than just "feelings" is presented (as was the case with the N1K1 ammo load for example) the problems tend to get rapidly fixed.  However if no proof can be presented then its just one player's "feelings" that it is wrong contrasted with another's "feelings" that it is right.

Hooligan

[Vermillion]

And I also might add to Hooligans statements to BigJoe, Ever heard of "the little boy who cried wolf?"

Sorry to say it, but the Luftwaffe contingent on this BBS is the first and loudest to complain about any perceived {and I stress perceived} problem with their aircraft. Unfortunately many of these complaints were later shown to be totally unfounded, or downright inaccurate.

So after a while, we get immune to it, and pretty much ignore it.

Its too the point now that before we come running, we want the little boy (ie the Luftwaffels) to SHOW us that there is a wolf (a problem) before us villagers come running.


------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[BigJoe]

Prove it to who? this isn't your game you are not getting anyones money and if there was a problem there is nothing you could do to correct it.  So why does anyone have to 'prove' it to another customer?  I would've thought this board was developed by HTC to afford people the place to state their observations no matter how insignificant they seem to anyone else.  Let me ask I am too assume that unless someone with a problem has absolute proof (data, charts, numbers) nothing is looked at or checked by HTC?  If this was your business is that the way you would run it?  I surely hope not because thats a good way to lose money. Search the boards you will see HTC does look into these things and I will agree IF the data was provided things may go faster.

LW contingent? what the heck is that the only time I've seen that on this board is when you bring it up.  Naudet had a problem and voiced it no mention about allied verses axis powers, Luftwobbles whinners and allied opportunists, or why do they have this and we don't.  At least not until someone else brought it up.


[This message has been edited by BigJoe (edited 04-11-2001).]

[MANDOBLE]

Verm, I suggest you to test these guns before thinking all of us are mad. Easy to do, landed, max zoom, default gunsight, conv 300 and firing bullet by bullet. Repeat the test with 190A5/A8/F8 2x20mm and let us know if all you see is "normal".

[Vermillion]

BigJoe, no you don't have to prove it too me, but don't expect community support without any kind of evidence. So just prove it to HTC then. And no, they don't usually "fix things" unless there is some kind of proof that something is wrong. And let me clue you that Pyro has a much higher standard of proof, than many of the other players here or myself have.

Mandoble, wasn't that already debated not just two weeks ago here, and it was pointed out that the test was invalid because of the way it was conducted?

Nothing personal, but I'm not going to spend a whole lot of my time, doing flight tests on planes that to me seem just fine.

I'm not saying there IS or IS NOT a problem, I'm just saying that I don't see or experience it.

Therefore, I will continue to be extremely skeptical until someone comes forward with some kind of real proof, not just "feelings and impressions".

Sorry but the Luftwaffles as a group have dug their own graves on this one, with their constant whines and baseless complaints.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[mx22]

I agree with Verm. If you can prove that somehting is wrong, post it in here for all of us to see, not just say this and that is wrong.

mx22

[SageFIN]

The test that was conducted some time ago was done by looking at the plane from external view.

Looking through the gunsight and observing the tracer spread is as far as I can think a good way to figure out how much the shots spread on different planes. Such a test was done by someone even longer ago and was posted on the UBB. It had a lot of pictures with approximated circles drawn on screenshots of the zoomed in reticle. Can't remember who did it though.

------------------
---
SageFIN

"I think IŽll believe in Gosh instead of God.  If you donŽt
 believe in Gosh too, youŽll be darned to heck."
---

[mx22]

If you go back to that thread, you'll read why that test couldn't prove anything...

mx22

 

Originally posted by SageFIN:
The test that was conducted some time ago was done by looking at the plane from external view.

Looking through the gunsight and observing the tracer spread is as far as I can think a good way to figure out how much the shots spread on different planes. Such a test was done by someone even longer ago and was posted on the UBB. It had a lot of pictures with approximated circles drawn on screenshots of the zoomed in reticle. Can't remember who did it though.

[Naudet]

 

I flew a dora for this past weekends snapshot, first time in the thing really and got a 6 kill sortie. I see nothing wrong with the dora's guns at all. Its has more hitting power round for round ove teh 50's in my P-47.

Yeah, i also flew sorties with 5-6 kills, but they were very rare, and all kills were done inside 300 yrds, on a tgt that i bounced in furballs.

I fly the Dora now nearly 6 weeks, and since i learned E management and all this the gun problem showed up, look into mandobles previous posts, i always was one thinking everythin right with D9 guns. But now that i can fly this bird much better the weakness of the guns are obivious. Especially the dispersion of the 20mms.

Compared to the 13mms in the D9, i am not really comparing anything to this lasercannons like the hispano, the .5 cal or the 20mms on the chog.

The prob with the D9 guns is, that the cannons are nearly useless, especially at deflection shoots. I land hits with the 13mm but the 20 misses totaly. And that aint right, u ask why, cause MG131 and MG151/20 had nearly the same balistic data, thats why they were the ideal solution to arm GE fighters with, u want hard data, here u get it:


MG131
cal: 13mm
length: 1168 mm
weight: 20,5 kg
ROF: 930 rounds per min
muzzle velocity: 750 m/s

MG151/20
cal: 20mm
length:1710mm
weight: 42,5kg
ROF: 780-800 unsyc, 550-750 syc
muzzle velocity: 790 m/s

here u can see the MG151 also has the better balistic characteristics, and now go into AH and try it with D9, the MG151 will go anywere, but not throught the crosshairs.

If i set con in P51 to 300, and shoot, the guns really merge there and do harm.

Same on D9 results in very funny hits on enemies. Its impressive when u shoot ur tgt both wingtips away at convergence range.