$1.08/Hour and Rising

[Franz Von Werra]

1st part
uhh, the pictures, then go in game and see how much more the acrh is - we don't need a protractor, its obvious.

2nd part
the 110 could fly probably 5 or 6 times the distance as a spit or huri, fuel tanks and for sure. Especially out over the water, uboat war type stuff. Only fighters out there were probably 110s.

3rd part
At least you admit it; just the same, I'm sure a Defiant pilot would also like an option for 'no auto-trim when go to gunstation' - but noooOOOooOOoo we have to keep A STUPID INTERFACE OPTION OF AUTO TRIM BECAUSE IT MOSTLY ONLY HURTS LUFTWAFFE BOMBERS!!!  Like having two triggers when 190s have 3 weapons!

4th part
As I understand, the 110c's do better than the 109e's in the Battle for Britain scenario's... sooo you just suggested the 109e modeling is off... kk, thx!  
Battle for Britain stats
1034 lost by England
533 lost by Germany.

[Karnak]

1st part
uhh, the pictures, then go in game and see how much more the acrh is - we don't need a protractor, its obvious.

What is obvious?  I went into the game and I traversed the guns to full depression and, as I noted previously, the inner pair clipped about 2/3rds of their diameter into the shell chutes.  I don't know if this is because they depress further than they should or if it is a graphical inaccuracy.

2nd part
the 110 could fly probably 5 or 6 times the distance as a spit or huri, fuel tanks and for sure. Especially out over the water, uboat war type stuff. Only fighters out there were probably 110s.

Yes, they could fly a lot further than the Spit I or Hurri I.  In 1940 they were probably the longest ranged fighter in the world and would have been useful for the Brits against uboats and Fw200s.  In 1941 the Beaufighter could perform the same role and in 1942 the Mosquito Mk II could do so as well.

3rd part
At least you admit it; just the same, I'm sure a Defiant pilot would also like an option for 'no auto-trim when go to gunstation' - but noooOOOooOOoo we have to keep A STUPID INTERFACE OPTION OF AUTO TRIM BECAUSE IT MOSTLY ONLY HURTS LUFTWAFFE BOMBERS!!!  Like having two triggers when 190s have 3 weapons!

I have no issue with such an option, nor have I ever commented on it.  Your perception of bias in the current settings is, however, absurd.

Why are you surprised that I admit the Defiant was a terrible aircraft?  Contrary to what you seem to think I am not driven to prove British aircraft are best or any such nonsense.  You will, in fact, find me an ally in the discussions of many modeling issues with German aircraft, I just don't agree with hyperbolic statements.

4th part
As I understand, the 110c's do better than the 109e's in the Battle for Britain scenario's... sooo you just suggested the 109e modeling is off... kk, thx!  
Battle for Britain stats

I have, for years, maintained that the Hurricanes and Bf110C-4b were overmodeled.  Fortunately, the Hurricanes have had their handling cut back when they were updated.  Hopefully when the Bf110s are updated the Bf110C-4b, a very rare version during the battle that has more powerful engines, is remodeled as a Bf110C-4.  As they were originally in AH, had the real aircraft performed thusly, I think that 1945 would have found the Germans deploying Bf110K-4s and the British using Hurricane Mk XIVs while the Bf109 and Spitfire ceased production in 1943 or 1944.

1034 lost by England
533 lost by Germany.

Your numbers are rather dramatically off.  You cannot eliminate the bomber losses from the count and pretend that the bomber's presence in the fight did not significantly affect tactics choices.

[Franz Von Werra]

Wikipedia pwns you.
1034 single engine planes lost by England
533 single engine planes lost by Germany
DAS FACTS - GET OVER IT.
England had radar, home territory, 50 miles of water. And the bombers were as much a problem for the 109s and 110s as they were for the spits and huris.
And now its the 110c that is way over modeled?  
Karnak,
THE PICTURES
You still haven't produced an arch diagram for the LANCASTER and calling the 110 over modeled. 20,000 posts of anti-Luftwaffe hate and you damage this game by doing it.
20,000 posts and you didn't make a wish-list for the LANCASTER's firing arch to be corrected?
AND YEAH, Lancasters had to go to night bombing because THEY WERE GETTING OWNED BY DAY. And yet the seem to fly around the MA doing as well as b-17's and B-24's.

THREE FIRE BUTTONS PLEASE.
In Airwarrior1, there was only 1 trigger. 109K4's had to fire the 65taters with the 600mg rounds. So soon enough k4 had only 535 rounds of mgs.
I GUESS WE SHOULD BE THANKFULL?
190s still have to fire their 30mm's with their 20mms.

MAKE AN OPTION FOR 'NO AUTO-LEVEL' when go to a gunner station PLEASE.
Play favorites on arch and make sure the interface screws Luftwaffe planes too?

[Tec]

I haven't seen a luftwhiner of such proportions in a while.  Schlowy is that you?

[Karnak]

Wikipedia pwns you.
1034 single engine planes lost by England
533 single engine planes lost by Germany
DAS FACTS - GET OVER IT.
England had radar, home territory, 50 miles of water. And the bombers were as much a problem for the 109s and 110s as they were for the spits and huris.

Once again, you cannot expect the results of all the Luftwaffe fighters and all of the RAF fighters engaging each other without any bombers involved to produce the same loss results as the historical battle.  How many British bullets and attacks do you think the German bombers absorbed?  Your "theory" is completely ridiculous.

As to the German bombers being a problem for the German fighters, they were, but a completely different kind of problem.

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am not at all claiming that the RAF would win a purely fighter vs fighter version of the Battle of Britain, or stating who would get more of the other.  I am saying that the historical numbers have literally no bearing on the outcome of such a theoretical conflict and neither you or I know what the results of the theoretical fight would be.

And now its the 110c that is way over modeled?

I believe so.  The Hurricane was as well and perhaps still is.  In my opinion.  

Karnak,
THE PICTURES
You still haven't produced an arch diagram for the LANCASTER and calling the 110 over modeled. 20,000 posts of anti-Luftwaffe hate and you damage this game by doing it.
20,000 posts and you didn't make a wish-list for the LANCASTER's firing arch to be corrected?

You haven't shown any evidence that the Lancaster's gun arcs are wrong.  I looked and couldn't find any evidence either way.  Barring evidence I have nothing to support or deny.  How do you not understand that?

AND YEAH, Lancasters had to go to night bombing because THEY WERE GETTING OWNED BY DAY. And yet the seem to fly around the MA doing as well as b-17's and B-24's.

Yes, they had to go to night bombing because they were not survivable during daylight ops.  Not that they ever tried them seriously, but the outcome of such an attempt is as self evident to you and I as it was to the British and Germans in 1942.

In AH the Lancasters get slaughtered compared to the B-17s and, to a slightly lesser degree, the B-24s.  B-26s and Ki-67s also do substantially better than Lancasters in terms of survivability.

THREE FIRE BUTTONS PLEASE.
In Airwarrior1, there was only 1 trigger. 109K4's had to fire the 65taters with the 600mg rounds. So soon enough k4 had only 535 rounds of mgs.
I GUESS WE SHOULD BE THANKFULL?
190s still have to fire their 30mm's with their 20mms.

I have posted in favor of such things in the past.

MAKE AN OPTION FOR 'NO AUTO-LEVEL' when go to a gunner station PLEASE.
Play favorites on arch and make sure the interface screws Luftwaffe planes too?

You are turning an ancient game function that predates there being any multi-seat German (or British, Japanese or Russian) aircraft in the game and twisting it into a direct and planned attack on German aircraft.  That is absurd.  You would be far, far more likely to make headway if you didn't insist on including delusional persecuting complex theories with such a request.  I don't care one way or another in terms of that request as the bombers I tend to favor are Japanese and have full tail gun positions.  Should the Ju188A-1 ever be added my opinion might change, not sure.

[titanic3]

Wikipedia pwns you.
1034 single engine planes lost by England
533 single engine planes lost by Germany
DAS FACTS - GET OVER IT.
England had radar, home territory, 50 miles of water. And the bombers were as much a problem for the 109s and 110s as they were for the spits and huris.
And now its the 110c that is way over modeled?  
Karnak,
THE PICTURES
You still haven't produced an arch diagram for the LANCASTER and calling the 110 over modeled. 20,000 posts of anti-Luftwaffe hate and you damage this game by doing it.
20,000 posts and you didn't make a wish-list for the LANCASTER's firing arch to be corrected?
AND YEAH, Lancasters had to go to night bombing because THEY WERE GETTING OWNED BY DAY. And yet the seem to fly around the MA doing as well as b-17's and B-24's.

THREE FIRE BUTTONS PLEASE.
In Airwarrior1, there was only 1 trigger. 109K4's had to fire the 65taters with the 600mg rounds. So soon enough k4 had only 535 rounds of mgs.
I GUESS WE SHOULD BE THANKFULL?
190s still have to fire their 30mm's with their 20mms.

MAKE AN OPTION FOR 'NO AUTO-LEVEL' when go to a gunner station PLEASE.
Play favorites on arch and make sure the interface screws Luftwaffe planes too?

[Lusche]

Schlowy is that you?

yes

[Franz Von Werra]

Notice we never heard the term 'rafwhinner' in here? Because the RAF players, that stay long enough, know that its the Luftwhinners that are cheated in here.
Let me guess, schlowy is another luftwhinner, luftwobble, luftwaffle that isn't here anymore for POINTING OUT THE FACTS?

Lancasters were extremely vulnerable, should be in game too. They had lots of fuel, that's about it. <--- the topic
A known issues in the past before the Lancs got updated recently:
1) they were too fast - top speed in game much higher. Did they get slowed down? FIXED?
2) they seem bullet proof, especially to Luftwaffe 7.9mm's, whole stuka amo clip, 1500 to kill one lanc, 500 left so 2nd and 3rd flew away. FIXED?
3) firing arch fixed? its plain to see from the pictures. These things were meat if enemy fighters found them.

111's at least flew in the day time. They may have been vulnerable also, but the modeling here insists they sux and the interface adds insult to injury. The 111 can barely keep up with the offline drones, guessing we got a 1939 version.

Both should be hangar queens. But the lanc is all over the sky and the 111 isn't.

Anything to say about all the other BUGs listed?

[titanic3]

I like flying Axis planes..but..wow..Franz...you must freaking LOVE them.

[Karnak]

Notice we never heard the term 'rafwhinner' in here? Because the RAF players, that stay long enough, know that its the Luftwhinners that are cheated in here.
Let me guess, schlowy is another luftwhinner, luftwobble, luftwaffle that isn't here anymore for POINTING OUT THE FACTS?

Lancasters were extremely vulnerable, should be in game too. They had lots of fuel, that's about it. <--- the topic
A known issues in the past before the Lancs got updated recently:
1) they were too fast - top speed in game much higher. Did they get slowed down? FIXED?
2) they seem bullet proof, especially to Luftwaffe 7.9mm's, whole stuka amo clip, 1500 to kill one lanc, 500 left so 2nd and 3rd flew away. FIXED?
3) firing arch fixed? its plain to see from the pictures. These things were meat if enemy fighters found them.

111's at least flew in the day time. They may have been vulnerable also, but the modeling here insists they sux and the interface adds insult to injury. The 111 can barely keep up with the offline drones, guessing we got a 1939 version.

Both should be hangar queens. But the lanc is all over the sky and the 111 isn't.

Anything to say about all the other BUGs listed?

Lancasters were not extremely fragile, having a notably higher return rate than any RAF bomber other than the Mosquito.  They were known to be resilient to damage.

You keep referring to pictures, yet the only pictures you posted did not make your claims at all.  They were simply photos of the nose and tail guns at rest.  You have not supplied any supporting information that the Lancaster's arcs are wrong.  Nothing.

As to being bullet proof, I didn't whine when I hosed one down with .303s to no effect instead of 20mms on accident.  I just switched to 20mms and killed it. No heavy bomber is going to go down easy to rifle caliber guns.

Stop and think a moment before you whine about people picking the Lancaster over the He111.  1) The single biggest reason the Lancaster gets used as much as it does is the 14,000lb bomb load.  No other free bomber compares to that and that alone stops it from being a hangar queen.  2) Both are vulnerable to enemy fighters, but the Lancaster is a little less vulnerable due to its higher speed, greater durability and the fact that it has at least some coverage in the all important rear arc.  That you are surprised by any of this begs belief.


Honestly, you come off pretty much exactly like a fundamentalist religious person, interpreting any failure to agree with you as an attack on your subject, and perhaps on you.  I have not posted a single anti-Luftwaffe thing in this thread or the vast majority of threads I have posted in.  To accuse me of "20,000 posts of anti-Luftwaffe hate" is so absurd that I strongly suspect you to be a troll who is laughing his rear off at this entire thread and forum.

[Franz Von Werra]

Merry go round and round and round...
So I say they are bullet proof, you say 'resilient.' whatever. Lancasters also dive bomb when they shouldn't.
While 111's fall apart with the lowest speed in game probably, and/or least G's, with sux archs, sux interface!

Lancs were probably the least machine-gun armed per weight in the war besides, besides mosquitos.
Extra speed and extra archs!   <--- very luved plane in the game, recently updated too.

Slow it down to realistic speed, change the gun archs to realistic archs, and lancs would be hangar queens too.

[Karnak]

Merry go round and round and round...
So I say they are bullet proof, you say 'resilient.' whatever. Lancasters also dive bomb when they shouldn't.
While 111's fall apart with the lowest speed in game probably, and/or least G's, with sux archs, sux interface!

Can't comment on that, I don't fly level bombers in a way that stresses them.  That said, Lancasters could be looped.

Lancs were probably the least machine-gun armed per weight in the war besides, besides mosquitos.

Not exactly, but what is your point?

Extra speed and extra archs!   <--- very luved plane in the game, recently updated too.

What extra speed?  The Lancaster was faster than the He111.  You have yet to demonstrate that the gun arcs (not arches) are incorrect.

Slow it down to realistic speed, change the gun archs to realistic archs, and lancs would be hangar queens too.

The only way to slow the Lanc down is to slow all bombers down, including the He111 and Ju88.  And even then its 14,000lb payload means it won't be a hangar queen.  No amount of prattle on your part is going to give the He111 or Ju88 the payload of the Lancaster, which is the only reason it gets used.

[GhostCDB]

Karnak you post too much to read. . . 

[dedalos]

Germany lost. Deal with it 

[uptown]