Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: AKDogg on February 06, 2008, 10:58:32 AM
-
Looks like the Russian planes are getting redone. Guess now I gonna get alot more lala biscuits. hehehehe
-
Excellent.
:aok
Look foward to flying these proper Lavochkins in game
:cool:
(http://www1.hitechcreations.com/news/images/la5/la51.jpg)
-
They look very good-No more octoganal engine cowlings! LOL.
I'm glad to see this. I guess this means' that the next patch is gonna be a pretty big one, eh?
-
So now the Lghays will just look a bit nicer when shot down.:rofl
-
I just love how thin those frames are.:rolleyes:
-
Sweet.
I've been trying to only fly Soviet planes or the planes the Soviets used this tour.
Hopefully these get released before the end of the month (P39 counts, too!) :)
-
Oh wow, that looks amazing! The La5 is going to be my primary ride as soon as that new cockpit is introduced.
-
Great lookin planes guys!!
Thanks for the preview!!
Keep it up,
Boner
-
Looks pretty good. Going to be a riot seeing nothing but Las and 39s for a week.
What's the story on the 2 default skins, btw?
-
Just one plane closer to the F6F :)
-
check out the new screen shots...http://www.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html (http://www.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html)
-
thread #3 on that subject ;)
-
Awesome stuff.
I hope the Yak's get squeazed in there too.
-
La-5 will murder the P-39 no doubt, lol.
-
Holy!
That's it, i'm resubbin, gotta go beg on the streets for 15$ again!
-
Very nice HTC & Volunteers! :)
Very, very nice skin choise Greebo!! :aok
It's one of the few La-5FNs that operated against Finland during the summer of '44.
Here's some pics of a world-class R/C model made by finnish R/C model builder Jukka Pikkusaari. He chose the same real life example as you Greebo. :)
(http://rc.realdesign.fi/RC/La_5.jpg)
http://rc.realdesign.fi/embperl/RC/tuote.html?fid=RC&pid=YT_LA_1
http://rc.realdesign.fi/embperl/RC/tuote.html?fid=RC&pid=YT_LA_0
I sure hope there's La-5F on the pipeline aswell!
-
Originally posted by Sketch
So now the Lghays will just look a bit nicer when shot down.:rofl
i was thinking the same thing.
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Looks pretty good. Going to be a riot seeing nothing but Las and 39s for a week.
The only difference between that and any OTHER week is the addition of the P-39. :D
-
The La-5FN is the aircraft of Captain Pyotr Likholetov of 159 IAP, a 25 kill ace. The slogan on the fuselage reads "For Vaska and Zhora", two ex squadmates killed in action in 1942.
I picked it because I liked the idea of doing a plane with a slogan and there were a couple of good photos of it. The three profiles I found of it completely contradicted each other WRT colours. I went with the one I found in "Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours" by Erik Pilawskii as it seemed to match the photos best.
-
Thanks for the info Greebo!
Yes, 159 IAP, that was the only unit (AFAIK) that was equipped with La-5FNs during the Stalin's 4th strategic offensive against Finland during summer of '44. Rest were with La-5Fs or plain La-5s.
Again, very very nice! :)
-
Notice the La-7 only has 2 guns.:aok
-
For a while, I thought that the skins in the game were simply chosen from museum collections or planes that were available for examination. It is interesting to learn the stories behind these particular planes, and that some are deliberately chosen for specific reasons.
-
Looks good!
-
:)
-
So.. is La-7 gonna be only 2 gun now?
-
Originally posted by mg1942
So.. is La-7 gonna be only 2 gun now?
We can only hope :aok
-
Sorry guys, but the La-7 still has the 3 gun option.
-
Originally posted by Greebo
Sorry guys, but the La-7 still has the 3 gun option.
Perk load out. :noid
-
Ya, perk the 3 cannon option. They should have yanked the 3 cannon loadout for all the reasons well covered before...if its left in, do something to limit it. Almost all wartime LA-7s had only 2 x 20mm.
-
How many 3 cannon La-7s were made before the war ended? The number I've seen is 368 3 cannon models out of a total of 5753 total wartime La-7s produced. Does anyone know if these numbers are accurate? If so then 6.4% of La-7s produced before the war ended were the 3 cannon variety and 93.5% had 2 cannon.
-
200 F4U-1Cs were produced, and its perked. LA-7s delivered during the war with 3 x 20mm, my guess would be no more than 100 or so. Operational? less than that.
Remember that production #s sometimes include post war #s, and the Russians built LA-7s after the war.
-
I agree, if the quad Hispano loadout on the F4U-1C (to be a perk loadout of the F4U-1D) is perked so should the three cannon La-7s, for the same reason. Very rare in WWII, very, very common in AH if unperked.
-
Yeah!! what they all said!!
And a much higher perk for the tempest too!!
-
Perk the trees.
-
Originally posted by Greebo
Sorry guys, but the La-7 still has the 3 gun option.
I know you're probably not allowed to spill the beans, but is there any change for new variants? La-5/La-5F would really be useful additions!
-
Originally posted by Greebo
Sorry guys, but the La-7 still has the 3 gun option.
Most Guys claim the La7 is such an easy plane to shoot down.
Why do they want it perked?
Why would a 3rd gun make any difference?
Its so easy to shoot down anyways.
Wait!!! I think i know the answer--------
Not really puzzled on this one,
Boner
-
Originally posted by Squire
200 F4U-1Cs were produced, and its perked. LA-7s delivered during the war with 3 x 20mm, my guess would be no more than 100 or so. Operational? less than that.
Remember that production #s sometimes include post war #s, and the Russians built LA-7s after the war.
200 Niki's produced and it isn't perked.
2 guns are more than enough to land 10 kills without rearming an La7.
-
Originally posted by 1Boner
Most Guys claim the La7 is such an easy plane to shoot down.
Why do they want it perked?
Why would a 3rd gun make any difference?
Its so easy to shoot down anyways.
Wait!!! I think i know the answer--------
Not really puzzled on this one,
Boner
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Squire
200 F4U-1Cs were produced, and its perked. LA-7s delivered during the war with 3 x 20mm, my guess would be no more than 100 or so. Operational? less than that.
Remember that production #s sometimes include post war #s, and the Russians built LA-7s after the war.
:aok
-
Originally posted by 1Boner
Most Guys claim the La7 is such an easy plane to shoot down.
Why do they want it perked?
Why would a 3rd gun make any difference?
Its so easy to shoot down anyways.
Wait!!! I think i know the answer--------
Not really puzzled on this one,
Boner
VansCrew has been flying since Tour 72, maybe he can tell us.
-
lol. LA's are only good for running. And i think most every tour the #1 plane i shot down was the LA. why perk something when it will never get behind you.
:aok :aok
PS: glad masherbrum thought of me.
:noid :noid
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
lol. LA's are only good for running. And i think most every tour the #1 plane i shot down was the LA. why perk something when it will never get behind you.
:aok :aok
PS: glad masherbrum thought of me.
:noid :noid
Shane would kick your arse from one end of the arena to the other in one.
-
That is one very nice skin Greebo really I cant fault it from the pictures given.
The La5FN internal cockpit looks much more like the real thing.
Very nice rail effects IMO.
The armoured glass seems a little too thick and a little too transparant (not opaque enough) but that could just be the angle of view.
The La5fn insturment panel seems to be an La7 panel with some of the central dials locations mixed up.
I suspect that the La5FN and La7 are going to have the same instrument panels.
It could be the angle of the view but the canopy shape seems to be the earlier shape with the lower forward frame. It will be interesting to see if this is higher on the La7
The external rendering seems very well done. Especially the area forward of the cockpit. The air intake cowl is superbly shaped IMO.
It will be interseting to see if the tail root is as thin as it was historically.
-
LA smell-A DO the jugs!!!!
Could personally care less if the code for the LALA's got lost somewhere in the ozone layer someplace near Iran or something.
-
check out the homepage guys... looks like we get (maybe) new airplanes tomorrow!
I take back all my snied two weeks comments!
ALL of them
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I agree, if the quad Hispano loadout on the F4U-1C (to be a perk loadout of the F4U-1D) is perked so should the three cannon La-7s, for the same reason. Very rare in WWII, very, very common in AH if unperked.
But the La7 didn't or nor ever has unbalanced the game play like the F4U-1C did, hence why it was originally perked.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
But the La7 didn't or nor ever has unbalanced the game play like the F4U-1C did, hence why it was originally perked.
ack-ack
True but the spit XIV would never unbalance the arena... yet perked.
-
While I agree totally on the criteria that HiTech uses to decide which plane gets perked, I don't always agree with his choices. I don't see why the Spitfire XIV or the TA 152 are still perked, I don't believe they unbalance the arena any longer with the addition of some of the new planes we've gotten.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
While I agree totally on the criteria that HiTech uses to decide which plane gets perked, I don't always agree with his choices. I don't see why the Spitfire XIV or the TA 152 are still perked, I don't believe they unbalance the arena any longer with the addition of some of the new planes we've gotten.
ack-ack
The Ta 152 was unperked more than a year ago.
Other than that, I agree.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
While I agree totally on the criteria that HiTech uses to decide which plane gets perked, I don't always agree with his choices. I don't see why the Spitfire XIV or the TA 152 are still perked, I don't believe they unbalance the arena any longer with the addition of some of the new planes we've gotten.
ack-ack
The Ta is not perked anymore... at least I don't think it is. But then again, Ack-Ack, you never have to scroll down any further than P38 and since T comes after P you might not get a chance to see it.... :D
-
The la7 is skinned as the mount of one Capt P. Ja. Golovachev of 9GIAP when under the 303rd IAD. (Polish/Prussian front).
Infact this had a yellow spinner as did all 9GIAD ac of that time. (Winter 44/45)
Golovachev had a personal emblem of a hawk on a red heart on the Port engine cover.
The fuselage star was very large. Its top tip almost touching the rear canopy frame. Its rear lower tip touching the underbelly blue.
The tail star was "fuller" than the one shown and the La7 symbol should appear (red on white) on the top tip of the tail star.
Golovachev (or Golovachyov) completed the GPW as 9GIAP's thrid highest scoring ace with 35 kills many scored flying with the great Ahmet Khan.
The detail around the spinner showing the cooling vanes is superb.
Some of the air frame rendering seems to be still work in progress. The landing gear seems to stick thru the wing. This may be because the La7 landing gear should be longer than the la5FN and some stuff around that is yet to be done.
The exhaust cover vane should be smaller on the La7 than the La5fn it may that the skin does not pick it out or indeed the shape is not rendered. I cannot tell.
The rivits/screws around the exhaust heat shield seem too prominent.
The inside surface of the flaps seem beautifully rendered and the latches on the cowls seem very nicely done
-
"200 Niki's produced and it isn't perked."
My guess would be because its the only version available, and its not that unbalancing vs other rides, like the CHOG.
The LA-7 does need a varient that was so rare. No 4 cannon Spit Vs, no 3 cannon LA-7s. Stick with varients that were at least reasonably common, this isnt "Crimson Skies".
...and im not "anti LA", its a great fighter, and absolutely should be in the game, has a very interesting history, many top aces flew it.
-
The flap indicator should be on the low left hand side
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/White77/dashleft.jpg)
its the orange thing behind the throttle and to the left of the gear raise and lower lever.
-
Originally posted by Sketch
The Ta is not perked anymore... at least I don't think it is. But then again, Ack-Ack, you never have to scroll down any further than P38 and since T comes after P you might not get a chance to see it.... :D
I didn't know the perk was finally removed from the Ta152, and for the exact reason you stated ^__^. Don't recall the last time I got past P-38L in the plane selection list, well, actually, the P-38s are the only planes I have on my plane selection list.
ack-ack
-
I'm not a fan of the lalas, but they do look they look really nice.
And updates are always fun.
-
Sounds like Boner has a crutch he can't fly without. Yeah, one more cannon doesn't make a difference at all...
:lol
-
But what's that strange, translucent rectangular panel right above the La-5FN's gunsight? It looks like a rear view..
-
the LAs in IL2 have beautiful cockpits with great views, gun sight forward especially. Thats why I hate the old AH LA cockpits....ugly. Compared to the old cockpits these new ones look fantastic and definitely on par with IL2. And the skins look great too!
Sweet HTC and helpers, Thanks!
:D
-
In fact the order (No 6681 of the GKO) to begin production of 3 cannon La7's was given such that three cannon La7's were accepted into production in October 1944 at plant No 381 (Kovrov Moscow) (already at that time making 2 cannon variants)
This despite problems up until that date of ejected shells hitting the tail plane and poor/unreliable cannon operation.
However production continued but the above problems were again found in tests carried out in January 45. Still production continued with aircraft being sent to the front line. The B20 was never to perfom as reliably in the La7 as the Shvak.
The service life of a Shvak was at least 5000 rounds where the B20 had to be limited to circa 3000 rounds.
Of a total of 3977 la7's produced before the end of the GPW 2957 were recieved by the VVS and 198 by the Naval air arm by May1st 1945.
Of the 3977 , 368 all made by plant No.381 were of the 3 cannon variant. These aircraft were issued to the VVS over a period between January and December 1945.
La7 production ceased at the end of 1945 with a total of some 6158 machines.
4610 from plant 21 Gorky
1298 from plant 381 kosrov
250 from plant 99 Ulan Ude.
So warts and all the three cannon version was active during the tail end of the GPW. Probably in greater numbers than many ac flying in AH today (Chog and 152 come to mind).
However whilst it does not unbalance the arena now I see no reason not to perk its load out when this option becomes available. The two cannon version is by far the most representative of the type just as the 6 gun version of the Corsair is of its type.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
But what's that strange, translucent rectangular panel right above the La-5FN's gunsight? It looks like a rear view..
its the top of the front armoured glass
-
The B-20 is about as strong and as "flat" (i.e. laser-like) as a hispano.
The SHVAK is about as strong and un-flat (i.e. potato-like) as the MG/FF or Type99 Japanese cannon.
Using the 3-gun package gives you single-ping kills. Using the 2-gun package requires you to land many hits on target to get a decent kill.
I've unloaded 20+ SHVAK into a P-51D once and only got an oil leak. On the other hand, land any snapshot with the 3x B-20 and you get catastrophic failure on most single engine fighters.
It makes a big difference. It's like taking 7mm wing guns on the C205 instead of the 20mms
-
Krusty the only difference between the B20 and Shvak should be the weight of the cannon its self.
the rpm (per gun), velocity and actual shell are all the same.
-
I'm sure I've read otherwise. Including comparisons on this BBS.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I'm sure I've read otherwise. Including comparisons on this BBS.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Both use the same round (20x99R) and have identical ROF.
-
I stand corrected, they use the same round. However the ballistics on the SHVAK are a major stoppiing point for the 2-gun version. It is like moving from MG/FF to Hispanos. I always get single-ping kills in the B20 version and have to land half a dozen hits with the SHVAKs to get any kills. Also the same goes for the LA5 (same SHVAK guns)
-
Even though I fly lavochkins in AH almost exclusively my gunnery is so poor I cannot comment on any difference in balistic effect within game.
All I can say is that in RL there was none.
perhaps some tests v /.target ?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
200 Niki's produced and it isn't perked.
418 N1K2-Js were produced actually, and more than 1000 N1K1-Js. Oddly enough, 100% of N1K2-Js had four Type 99 Model II 20mm cannons.
Less than 250 C.205s were built. Less than 50 Ta152H-1s were built. Perking is done based on performance, not numbers.
The issue isn't number built, it is how common a given loadout was. The fact is that only about 5% of La-7s had three B-20 20mm cannons yet nearly 100% do in AH.
Heck, there were about 500 Ki-84-Ib fighters built, each armed with four Ho-5 20mm cannons, that is one in seven, proportionally three times more common than the three gun La-7 and numerically twice as common, and we don't even have that armament as an option in AH.
-
I hope they do perk the La-7, when you compare it to a perk plane like the Temp they are very similar.
-
Originally posted by trax1
I hope they do perk the La-7, when you compare it to a perk plane like the Temp they are very similar.
I don't think the La-7 as a whole should be perked. It's usage doesn't indicate that kind of need. Just the very rare in reality, extremely common in AH loadout should be perked.
-
From a Berezin/Shvak discussion on these boards
It's not just weight. In the La7 weight is negligable between the two. The difference is stopping power, round-per-round damage, and ballistics. The 2-gun option has bad ballistics. Rounds drop a lot more. They do a lot less damage as well. In the same session (some time ago) I upped a 3-gun, a 2-gun, a 3-gun, a 2-gun (etc) to compare. I would have a harder time hitting any angle or deflection shot with the 2-gun setup. Coincidentally, when I *DID* hit, it did less damage (I landed no less than 20 hit sprites from a P51's prop to it's rudder, I don't care if they were scattered, 20 should have done something, but not a single thing fell off or started leaking). The 3-gun option has faster rounds or something, they fly "flatter" and with a better trajectory. This allows much easier much simplified shot setups. They also almost always destroy/maim on the first burst [fighter targets, not bombers].
In another discussion, it is stated as fact that the B-20 fires a round that is 4 times as effective as the Shvak's ammo.
That should settle that discussion.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
From a Berezin/Shvak discussion on these boards
In another discussion, it is stated as fact that the B-20 fires a round that is 4 times as effective as the Shvak's ammo.
That should settle that discussion.
Sorry Hubsonfire but that proves nothing..................
If there is a difference in AH (which I doubt) then maybe we can seek HT's assurance that it will be rectified in the new release.............
Both have the same round 20 x 99R
Both have the same RoF 800 rpm
Both have the same length of barrel ** (velocity related)
**In fact the std B20 was shorter over all than the Shvak and could have had a longer barrel (than the Shvak) if the ammo boxes could have been moved. However its clear that they could not all have been moved so the third ammo box was added behind the position of the normal two feeding the Shvak's. Leaving the ammo box to muzzle distance the same for both types of cannon.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
418 N1K2-Js were produced actually, and more than 1000 N1K1-Js. Oddly enough, 100% of N1K2-Js had four Type 99 Model II 20mm cannons.
Less than 250 C.205s were built. Less than 50 Ta152H-1s were built. Perking is done based on performance, not numbers.
The issue isn't number built, it is how common a given loadout was. The fact is that only about 5% of La-7s had three B-20 20mm cannons yet nearly 100% do in AH.
Heck, there were about 500 Ki-84-Ib fighters built, each armed with four Ho-5 20mm cannons, that is one in seven, proportionally three times more common than the three gun La-7 and numerically twice as common, and we don't even have that armament as an option in AH.
You agree with what I posted. I guess I should have been more "direct". Performance is the factor on "perking".
-
perking La-7 = perk other mid-late 1944 to 1945 "late war" planes
Bf 109K
Bf 109G-14
Fw 190D-9
Ta 152
Spitfire XIV
Spitfire XVI
Tempest
P-51D
P-47D-40
P-47N
P-38L
F4U-1D
F4U-1C
F4U-4
FM2
N1K2-J
Ki 84
La-7
Yes, I know my dates :)
-
Originally posted by mg1942
perking La-7 = perk other late war planes too many to mention in the list.
Erm , just the 3 gun. Ya know the rare as hens teeth one.:rolleyes:
Edit: and we don't have a true '45 spit. If we go with boost settings.
-
Originally posted by mg1942
perking La-7 = perk other late war planes too many to mention in the list.
Only Spit 8&16. People like to use the "Eventually we'll all be flying P40's" argument, but, in reality, the reason people want the late Spits and La7 perked is because they out-everything everything. Sure, the 109K can climb better, and the Zero can turn better, and the Jug dives better, but, you have more of a chance of not being in a favorable position and fighting what is very much an uphill battle in the 109K for example, whose only edge against the La7 for example, is climb rate. The La7 has better zoom, turn capability, top speed, etc.... Put two non-uber late war planes against each other, such as the P47N and the 109K4, the Jug has better zoom climb, top speed, and highspeed manueverability, and the Kurfürst has better acceleration, climb rate, and low speed maneuverability. Much more of an interesting matchup and a much fairer fight.
Edit:BTW, you put the FM2 on the list of perk-able late war planes.
Are you on drugs?
The G14? Dora? Pony D? Jugs? None are even close to being perkable. They all have very clear drawbacks as well as strengths. The La7 and the Spixteen (and 8) have drawbacks, but they are not numerous and are certainly are not achilles heels, like the lack of lowspeed maneuverability on the Dora and Pony, poor acceleration of the Jug, Dora and Pony, small ammunition load of the G14, and not even the G14 has lowspeed manueverability that matches the Spixteen and La7 despite the fact that it is slower.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Erm , just the 3 gun. Ya know the rare as hens teeth one.:rolleyes:
I can live with that, you just have too many people here saying perk LA-7 as whole.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
From a Berezin/Shvak discussion on these boards
In another discussion, it is stated as fact that the B-20 fires a round that is 4 times as effective as the Shvak's ammo.
That should settle that discussion.
A quote without a source from an unknown thread? naaa...
I just did a quick offline test. With both cannons I needed the same number of rounds to kill a hangar. Which is consistent with the real world fact that both use exact the same ammunition. No way of one being "4 times as effective"
-
I've never been one to trust "kill a hangar" tests -- buildings and ground objects in this game don't react the same way that aircraft do with regards to lethality.
However, Both marks of hispano supposedly carry the same round, but one is noticably more powerful than the other just using the (again, IMO not fully accurate) kill-a-hangar method. You can't just assume that the damage is the same because the round is, because it's the gun that fires it, as much as it is the round itself.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"200 Niki's produced and it isn't perked."
My guess would be because its the only version available, and its not that unbalancing vs other rides, like the CHOG.
There were other N1K models. But as far as I know, they were all float-planes.
-
The Hispano Mk II has a significantly longer barrel and a subsequently higher muzzle velosity when compared to the Hispano Mk V. 880m/sec compared to 840m/sec.
How do you think they saved the weight on the Mk V?
mg1942,
I've only seen one or two people suggest perking the La-7 and not just the three gun loadout.
Motherland,
Perk the 1943 Spitfire Mk VIII? You're nuts. Further, the Spitfire Mk XVI isn't even the most common fighter, nor is the La-7 or N1K2-J. Those three get the most whines, but the most common fighter usually gets off scott free, that is the P-51D.
Originally posted by AirFlyer
There were other N1K models. But as far as I know, they were all float-planes.
Negative. The N1K1 Kyofu "Rex" was a float plane fighter. I don't know how many were built offhand.
The N1K1-J Shiden "George" was the modification of the Kyofu to be a land based interceptor. In IJN terms the "N" on the begining of the letter string means it is a floatplane fighter. "J" means land based interceptor, as in the J2M3 Raiden "Jack". The "-J" on the N1K1-J and N1K2-J means it has been modified to be a land based interceptor. The N1K1-J retained the N1K1's midwing and had to have fragile landing gear that extended to be long enough to clear the prop from the ground, these failed frequently for a number of forseeable reasons given that Kawanishi was a second rate company and being hit by Japan's falling quality control. The N1K2-J was a major redesign that gave it a low wing and many, many fewer parts.
About 1000 N1K1-J Shiden "George" fighters were built and over 400 N1K2-J Shiden-Kai "George 21" fighters were built.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
A quote without a source from an unknown thread? naaa...
Bit of a facetious post. The posts Krusty's referring to in past threads are his own, including the one I quoted.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Motherland,
Perk the 1943 Spitfire Mk VIII? You're nuts.
Really? (clicky) (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=spit8&p2=spit16)
The only major difference between the Spixteen and the 8 are 2 M2HB .50 caliber MG's (so instead of just two laser guns, the 16 has 4). The only other difference is 5MpH and perhaps roll rate (due to the clipped wings of the sixteen).
Further, the Spitfire Mk XVI isn't even the most common fighter, nor is the La-7 or N1K2-J. Those three get the most whines, but the most common fighter usually gets off scott free, that is the P-51D.
This is an undeniable truth. You point out an interesting fact though: 'it always gets off scott free'. There is an obvious reason for that. The Pony has an achilles heel that neither the La7 nor the Spixteen do, which would be low speed maneuverability (which can only be obtained through much experience with the model). Based soley on this fact it is not a very good candidate, at all, for a perk.
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Really? (clicky) (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=Spit8&p2=Spit16)
The only major difference between the Spixteen and the 8 are 2 M2HB .50 caliber MG's (so instead of just two laser guns, the 16 has 4). The only other difference is 5MpH and perhaps roll rate (due to the clipped wings of the sixteen).
Better fix yer link ;)
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Better fix yer link ;)
I suppose I should :aok
Capitals screw it up. Thats odd (typed 'Spit8' and 'Spit16' instead of 'spit8' and 'spit16').
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Really? (clicky) (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=Spit8&p2=Spit16)
The only major difference between the Spixteen and the 8 are 2 M2HB .50 caliber MG's (so instead of just two laser guns, the 16 has 4). The only other difference is 5MpH and perhaps roll rate (due to the clipped wings of the sixteen).
The only reason they have similar performance is because the Spitfire Mk XVI does not have its proper +25lbs boost that a 1944 or 1945 Merlin 66 or Merlin 266 Spitfire should have. Thus it isn't the Mk VIII that is out of place as a 1943 fighter, it is the Mk XVI that is out of place being a 1944/45 fighter running at 1943 boost levels.
Further, the Spitfire Mk XVI isn't even the most common fighter, nor is the La-7 or N1K2-J. Those three get the most whines, but the most common fighter usually gets off scott free, that is the P-51D.
This is an undeniable truth. You point out an interesting fact though: 'it always gets off scott free'. There is an obvious reason for that. The Pony has an achilles heel that neither the La7 nor the Spixteen do, which would be low speed maneuverability (which can only be obtained through much experience with the model). Based soley on this fact it is not a very good candidate, at all, for a perk. [/B]
However both the Spitfire Mk XVI and, even more so, N1K2-J do have exploitable weaknesses. The N1K2-J is a slow fighter and the Spitfire Mk XVI is only middling.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The only reason they have similar performance is because the Spitfire Mk XVI does not have its proper +25lbs boost that a 1944 or 1945 Merlin 66 or Merlin 266 Spitfire should have. Thus it isn't the Mk VIII that is out of place as a 1943 fighter, it is the Mk XVI that is out of place being a 1944/45 fighter running at 1943 boost levels.
Then a proper Spixteen would undeniably have to be perked. The helicopter Spits are as bad as it is.
However both the Spitfire Mk XVI and, even more so, N1K2-J do have exploitable weaknesses. The N1K2-J is a slow fighter and the Spitfire Mk XVI is only middling.
First off, Im not complaining about the Niki, as I dont see it as uber at all.
Second, I'd assume your talking about the fact that the Spixteen doesnt like high G's? Honestly, I dont fly Spit's at all, so I dont know how they fair in a highspeed fight (I cant fight at highspeeds in a 109... I dont have trim mapped on my stick after all :aok ), the only downside I know of in that situation is that if you pull really hard the wings will come off.
-
Originally posted by Stang
Sounds like Boner has a crutch he can't fly without. Yeah, one more cannon doesn't make a difference at all...
:lol
You nailed that on the head Stang!!
I could have 6 cannons and it wouldn't make a difference against a guy like you.
You're awesome, the best (well cept for Skyrock)
God knows I need "da skills"
If I work real hard at it,(and I won't-got better things to do) maybe some day I will rule the skys in a D3.
Your favorite crutch wielding skilless LaLa dweeb,
Boner
Did I mention how awesome you are?
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Then a proper Spixteen would undeniably have to be perked. The helicopter Spits are as bad as it is.
Agreed, except for your stupid helicopter comment.
First off, Im not complaining about the Niki, as I dont see it as uber at all.
Second, I'd assume your talking about the fact that the Spixteen doesnt like high G's? Honestly, I dont fly Spit's at all, so I dont know how they fair in a highspeed fight (I cant fight at highspeeds in a 109... I dont have trim mapped on my stick after all :aok ), the only downside I know of in that situation is that if you pull really hard the wings will come off.
I am not just talking about your complaints. I see many people complain that the N1K2-J is a "helicopter" (just as stupidly as your comment about the Mk XVI) and demand it be perked.
No, I am not talking about the Spitfire Mk XVI's high G issue (does it even have one?), I am talking about the fact that it tops out at 344mph on the deck. Sure, it accelerates great from 200mph to 300mph and if you let it get your P-51/P-47/Fw190D-9/Typhoon/La-7/F4U down to that kind of speed it'll eat you alive, but if you keep the speed at 360+ and force him to blow his E on evasives that low speed acceleration doesn't do much more than keep him alive longer. Thus the Mk XVI has exploitable weaknesses, albeit a rather less severe and harder to exploit weakness than most fighters.
-
Karnak the XVI hangs on its prop better than almost any other plane in the game. You can get it to fly as far beyond just about any other AH plane's envelope as vector thrust fighters can regular thruster engined planes.
It might not fly like a helicopter, but it certainly would easily be the one chosen if we had to pick which one most closely resembled that description.
-
Originally posted by moot
Karnak the XVI hangs on its prop better than almost any other plane in the game. You can get it to fly as far beyond just about any other AH plane's envelope as vector thrust fighters can regular thruster engined planes.
It might not fly like a helicopter, but it certainly would easily be the one chosen if we had to pick which one most closely resembled that description.
4,700fpm is not even close to holding vertical. I don't even know if it could hold a 30 degree nose up attitude.
Thus, not a helicopter. That it is best at climbing does not make it at all a helicopter.
Would you call the Nieuport a helicopter in the context of WWI.
-
I don't know that it's an "issue", but if you are careless with the XVI, you can rip both wings off easily. Like the Hurri, you can spike the accelerometer without any effect on the pilot, but tearing the wings off instantly.
I always thought the N1K and Ki-84 were more helo-like than the Spits.
-
Karnak you just aren't seeing something that's really obvious. No other plane can go up a rope and make corrections for (e.g.) three different planes on the way up that rope, this after most planes are already starting to stall out. No other plane can get tossed around so effectively, nor carry or break into angles like it can. E.G you can't come out from the top of a vertical and go horizontal right off the bat in any other plane like you can in the XVI. You can do it in the Zero, but the Zero is made of paper and only does it by virtue of its light weight and at the cost of way more durability and thrust than the XVI sacrifices.
I could go on.. The Spit mk. XVI is like the old Mk. V on steroids. If it doesn't climb like a 163, it's obvious that's not what I or Motherland meant.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
4,700fpm is not even close to holding vertical. I don't even know if it could hold a 30 degree nose up attitude.
Thus, not a helicopter. That it is best at climbing does not make it at all a helicopter.
Would you call the Nieuport a helicopter in the context of WWI.
Spit XVI will actually do over 5000fpm no problem at 25% fuel and is the fastest climbing fighter in the game at low alt. Still, no reason the Spit XVI w/18lbs boost should be perked as it can be outrun by many of the late war rides.
The reason the B-20 cannon seems more devastating than the Shvak is that you get 33% greater volume of fire with each burst. Given how devastating 20mm shells are against fighters, that extra 33% could easily be the difference between pinging your target and removing critical parts or making it go boom. Before I joined JG11 I flew the La5 a decent amount among other planes (it was also a great perk farmer when its ENY was still in the 30s). The 2 cannon on the La-5 were certainly plenty lethal, especially at close range. The La-7 certainly wouldn't suffer from having the 3 gun version perked like the F4U-1C or even removed from the game altogether as the Bf 109F with gondolas was.
-
"The Spit mk. XVI is like the old Mk. V on steroids"
...well, I guess the WEP 1720 hp does that in a 7200 lb. fighter, ya, no kidding.
All the "my favorite fighter that climbs well guys" never say jack about "helicopter" stuff.
109G-14, 109K-4, LA-7 < LOL, I could go on.
...you just dont like Spits, thats all.
-
Originally posted by moot
I could go on.. The Spit mk. XVI is like the old Mk. V on steroids. If it doesn't climb like a 163, it's obvious that's not what I or Motherland meant.
I disagree. It is a bull**** argument used to denigrate the Spit XVI and players who fly it by insinuating that the flight model is bull**** and more appropriate to something like "Comanche" or "X-Wing vs TIE Fighter". That is the context it is most often seen in. Same for like comments about the N1K2-J.
I maintain said comments are stupid bull**** of biased players.
-
I am biased. I don't like spits at all. I don't like the design itself, and I think they're too much of a crutch for too many players who are only out to wreck good fights in lesser planes.. Maybe I don't keep that bias in check, but my point remains.
While it's definitely BS to use the Spit's superior handling to denigrate it (although I don't see what's denigrating about saying a plane is uber), it's nonetheless accurate to say its performance is hyperbolic compared to a lot of planes.
I can beat almost any pilot in just about any plane flying the 152 1:1 (provided I don't slip on the hat switch or the joystick doesn't slide around at the wrong time, etc), but the spit16 is like a different game altogether.
It's like you can do everything you want twice, while every other plane is flying around in slow motion. That's not exagerated. The only thing it doesn't do well is fly fast on level acceleration. That shortcoming is more than adequately counter-balanced by its E retention.. And I'm not making that up either, I have a lot of experience managing E in the 152 and other heavy planes.
Squire - What're you trying to say? No other plane does what the spit16 does while hanging on a thread with the spit16's ease. There's no comparison. The only ones that come close are the zekes and other featherweights like the early models. The 38 is great in the vertical, but it is sluggish. The tempest and spit14 (K4 homologous) are very spunky, but are also very sluggish and torquey, respectively. The N1K doesn't react as fast, and the 84 torques too much; its flaps are probably more effective but accounting for the 16's light weight negates this advantage. La7: tons of thrust and lightweight, but much lesser agility at low speeds. G14?? Who are you kidding??
I could go on...
I'm biased but the point I made above isn't. Give the 16 even more boost and it definitely will be unquestionably hyperbolic. :lol
All that said.. Bring it on. The more the merrier. I fly the Spit myself and I like the extra furballing I can do with it compared to say a Ta152, even though I don't like the design at all. There's no such thing as too much firepower or too much horsepower. P51H, 47M, 190D11, you name it, I'd rather it be in game than not.
Just making sure you realize I'm being honest and impartial here.
Anyway, back on topic :)
I never did find any significant difference (I could never tell if it was just an impression, or fact) between the shvak and B20 guns. I tried them out when the La7 came out and would switch between one set of guns and the next depending on what targets I expected to run into.
-
Originally posted by Latrobe
Just one plane closer to the F6F :)
Yeah, WTF!!
LA-5 and LA7 Development??? Hope they perk the shyte out of it.
USN planes need update. F6F is long overdue.
-
Originally posted by RATTFINK
Yeah, WTF!!
There are aircraft out there other than American ones you know.
LA-5 and LA7 Development??? Hope they perk the shyte out of it.
Why should they perk them?
USN planes need update. F6F is long overdue.
You mean like the F4Us? These are the first Russian aircraft to be updated.
Though I do agree the F6F needs a facelift badly, as does the N1K2-J.
-
Originally posted by 1Boner
Most Guys claim the La7 is such an easy plane to shoot down.
Why do they want it perked?
Short legs made la7 less common, so it does not need to be perked.
I personally will prefer la7 to have drop tank and be perked.
-
Originally posted by RATTFINK
Yeah, WTF!!
LA-5 and LA7 Development??? Hope they perk the shyte out of it.
USN planes need update. F6F is long overdue.
Perking planes won't make your kill ratio positif
-
Originally posted by TUXC
The reason the B-20 cannon seems more devastating than the Shvak is that you get 33% greater volume of fire with each burst.
2 x 1.5 = 3 so its 50% greater volume of fire.
-
Originally posted by Fariz
.
I personally will prefer la7 to have drop tank and be perked.
he's being mischevious again............. there were no drop tanks used on the La7 or the La5FN.
-
Originally posted by moot
I am biased. I don't like spits at all. I don't like the design itself,
Sounds like a lot of pent up luftwannabee angst to me.
British planes built to turn and furball. German ones to BnZ and pick.
I hope Fester is right and this is the tip of the iceberg keep em coming HTC hard and fast!
Bruv
~S~
-
Re the control panel I note that a g meter is included.
Is this just HTC policy to always include one? Lavochkins never had them.
La 5 panel
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/pics/la5panel.jpg)
1) System air pressure guage (kg/cm^2)
2)Fuel level guage (litres)
3)Clock
4)Air speed (ASI) (Km/hr)
5)Compass
6)Altitude (m)
7)RPM & Engine hours
8)oil temp(C),oil pressure(kg/cm^2), fuel pressurekg/cm^2)
9)Cylinder head temp (C)
10) Boost pressure (kg/cm^2)
11)Flap angle indicator
12)Gear hydraulics pressure (KG/CM^2)
13)Gear control lever (up = raise, down = lower, always leave in nuetral)
14)Magneto switch
15)gear up/down indicators
16) turn and bank indicator
17)Rate of climb (m/sec)
18)bomb release indicators
19)Circuit breakers
La7 Panel
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/pics/la7panel.jpg)
1)Hydraulics pressure gauge
2)Flap index
3)Landing gear control lever.
4)Brake pressure guage
5)Air system pressure guage
6)electrical switches
7)Landing gear indicator
8)Clock
9)cannon air charging
10)Altimeter
11)Cannon manual/mechanical charging
12)Cockpit vent (N.O)
13)Gun sight
14)Compass
15)Course indicator (N.O)
16)CI reversing switch (N.O)
17)Amperemeter
18)Fual Guage
19)Cockpit light
20)Radio compass switch (N.O)
21)Cylinderhead temp guage
22)Frequency switch
23) Vertical speed indicator
24)Oil temp, Oil pressure & Fuel Pressure guage.
25)Turn & Bank Indicator
26)RPM
27)Boost
28)Airspeed indicator
29)Ignition/magneto switch
N.O shows gauges that were only used after the end of the GPW.
-
"I just love how thin those frames are."
Pretty much the same effect that is seen in Spit cpit. For some strange reason the framing of the armoured center part gets thinner at top where as it should actually be thicker pretty much blocking the FW UP view as it does in RL Spit, and as it does not in AH Spit.
Otherwise it looks very good. :aok
-C+
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
Amateur psych eval
Sounds like you can't accept the fact someone wouldn't like the thing.. I think the Fairey Gannet looks great, others don't. I think French planes mostly looked like mangled crap.
I think the Spit's a really queer design for something designed for warfare, to kill. I disliked it from day one.
-
I had to tone done my initial response incase you found it a little aggressive tried to sum up what i was saying in one line.
Sounded to me like you get killed alot by them in your hardly produced top of the line 152 by average spit pilots.
The spitfire is no "toy" plane and i'm sure the Luftwaffe found it out for themselves. See sig.
Bruv
~S~
-
It also looks like we are getting new pilots too!
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii275/zoozoo13/la71.jpg)
Looks like a black leather helmet thingy majig wit some kewl shades!:aok
Think we should have like a choice of what your pilot looks like in hanger. If we have the one that looks like that one above thats two so far. And this one can be the third.
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii275/zoozoo13/HQ2.jpg):aok :rofl :lol
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Re the control panel I note that a g meter is included.
Is this just HTC policy to always include one? Lavochkins never had them.
Effectively all real planes have a G meter....its called the pilot. AH's dash meter offers a poor substitute for that "seat of the pants" feeling a real pilot would get. Sort of like how the icons are a substitute for a real pilot's better depth perception.
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
I know you're probably not allowed to spill the beans, but is there any change for new variants? La-5/La-5F would really be useful additions!
There are no other La variants in the works at the moment.
-
bruv how about this? I have it played when i startup my PC instead of the windows sound.:D
get me spitfires (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/galland.wav)
-
Originally posted by Greebo
Effectively all real planes have a G meter....its called the pilot. AH's dash meter offers a poor substitute for that "seat of the pants" feeling a real pilot would get. Sort of like how the icons are a substitute for a real pilot's better depth perception.
Thanks............... figures I suppose :)
Assuming we have the "La7" panel on both models could I be fussy enough to suggest that the guages be repositioned to a closer level of positional accuracy.
looking at the centre panel and taking a key pad code
9 = G meter (this position would other wise have been blank or held a radio switch)
8 = Compass (no change)
7 = Altitude (no change)
6 = ROC (moved)
5 = Bank (no change)
4 = Speed (no change)
3 = oil pressure (moved)
2 = RPM (moved)
1 = Boost (moved)
As noted above the flap indicator was not an "in yer face" location but to the lower left of the left panel. I just wonder if we really want to help players game the flaps by making it so easily visible during combat. The more realist position would also lend itself to more "realistic" usage IMO.
Appologies for fussing over what seems great work ...............
-
Originally posted by Karnak
There are aircraft out there other than American ones you know.
Why should they perk them?
You mean like the F4Us? These are the first Russian aircraft to be updated.
Though I do agree the F6F needs a facelift badly, as does the N1K2-J.
wow, :lol I've never been quoted that many times in one post :rofl :aok
-
Thrila we are on Bish for awhile now you should jump on our Vent server and fly with your countrymen for a few sorties ;)
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
I had to tone done my initial response incase you found it a little aggressive tried to sum up what i was saying in one line.
Sounded to me like you get killed alot by them in your hardly produced top of the line 152 by average spit pilots.
The spitfire is no "toy" plane and i'm sure the Luftwaffe found it out for themselves. See sig.
Bruv
~S~
This is a real tedious freakin thread derailment so I PMed you my response. If you have any more incorrectly aimed anti-luftwobble smack talk, do it by PM.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
2 x 1.5 = 3 so its 50% greater volume of fire.
You're absolutely right. Going from 3 cannons to 2 would be a 33% reduction whereas 2 to 3 is a 50% increase. Rookie mistake, guess I was thinking about cannons instead of my math.
-
Originally posted by Greebo
There are no other La variants in the works at the moment.
Well that's unfortunate! :( It would have been a great and a relatively easy way to start the expansion of the VVS-planeset. Those variants would have been very useful in special events like in the possible re-run of the Stalins 4th at some point. They were very common and saw a great deal of action.
I just can't see the logic behind slipping in relatively rare "late in the war" variants like the P-47N (rare when looking at the total production of the P-47s) and at the same time not adding variants like the La-5 and the La-5F which were part of the back bone of the VVS. Now that the Las get their facelift it is doubtful that HTC gets back to making these variants anytime soon. I don't mean to sound too sour however...P-39Q helps the VVS-planeset a great deal aswell. It's just that it would have been a good place in time to add them.
I know Greebo that you have nothing to do with these decisions I'm just thinking out loud.
-
These look really nice.
Between these and the P 39Q the VVS set is getting some attention, now if only those Yaks would get redone. :t
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
I just can't see the logic behind slipping in relatively rare "late in the war" variants like the P-47N (rare when looking at the total production of the P-47s) and at the same time not adding variants like the La-5 and the La-5F which were part of the back bone of the VVS.
Priorities. Perhaps because the basic La-5/La-5F MA hangar queens would have taken too much valuable development time from the much more important TOD ?
-
Originally posted by Timppa
Priorities. Perhaps because the basic La-5/La-5F MA hangar queens would have taken too much valuable development time from the much more important TOD ?
It is true that they wouldn't be used in the MAs as much as the P-47N but these planes saw much more action in the real war. La-5 would require a bit more work but La-5F would have been fairly easy to derive from the FN.
...and if the MA usage numbers are the only thing to consider when development time is scarce...well...then the planeset will go south very fast...IMO.
-
With the new look of the LA coming out you can bet all the dweebs will be in them.
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
With the new look of the LA coming out you can bet all the dweebs will be in them.
In other words: You will be flying it all the time?
-
Originally posted by Lusche
In other words: You fly will it all the time?
Nope. The only time i fly an LA if for base defence. It's the only plane that can really get up and take out the goons with out having much of a problem with the other fighters.
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
Nope. The only time i fly an LA if for base defence. It's the only plane that can really get up and take out the goons with out having much of a problem with the other fighters.
But if all LA7 drivers are dweebs and you only fly one for base defense that by default makes you a dweeb as well. Just sayin'
ack-ack
-
And the super-dweebs will be in 39s. I can't wait :D
-
Hope they redo the Yaks, it would be nice to get the much more common 20mm SHVAK armament on the Yak-9 too.
-
The only reason I would want the LA-7 perked is to force newbs into other planes. You should have to earn the right to fly the better planes. This in turn would hopefully push towards a trend in people who can actually fight with actual ACM tactics instead of "full throttle, push stick left, right, up & down & pull trigger". (Which is how I fly :D ) Then when you get better, you get to fly Spits & the like.
(I'll stick with my Jug though)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
But if all LA7 drivers are dweebs and you only fly one for base defense that by default makes you a dweeb as well. Just sayin'
ack-ack
I'm a dweeb to defend a base. :)
-
"I fly a la7 when i have too, not when i want too - kaRmA."
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
"I fly a la7 when i have too, not when i want too - kaRmA."
"yes, the famous karma. gotta love guys who quote themselves. it's fun talking like this - rumbleb"
Yeah, I can't wait for this la7. La7's are my number one kills every tour. I'm not joking when I say it will be nice to see the new models n shoot em down.
-
Originally posted by JeepinAZ
The only reason I would want the LA-7 perked is to force newbs into other planes. You should have to earn the right to fly the better planes.
The LA7 is already one of the better planes. It's also stupid to try and force someone to fly a plane they don't want to fly. A very nice way to lose players and keep more from joining.
This in turn would hopefully push towards a trend in people who can actually fight with actual ACM tactics instead of "full throttle, push stick left, right, up & down & pull trigger". (Which is how I fly :D )
Doesn't matter what plane a player flies if the player has no interest in learning proper ACM and fighting tactics. By forcing players to fly other planes, all you are doing is transferring dweeb style of flying to the other planes.
Once you get a few more years under your belt, you'll come to realize that there are no dweeb planes, just dweeb pilots. If a player flies like a dweeb in a LA7, he's going to fly like a dweeb no matter what plane you put him in.
Then when you get better, you get to fly Spits & the like.
Why most someone "graduate" to another plane if they improve their skills? It's a rather silly notion, well, actually a rather idiotic one that seems be part of the persuasive mentality by the majority in this game. Why is the concept of flying what is fun for you so foreign to the majority?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
I'm a dweeb to defend a base. :)
No, just a dweeb. Remember, a dweeb by any other name is still a dweeb.
ack-ack
-
An analogy (disclaimer I just made this up on the spot, it's not perfect)
A teenager in highschool may take great delight in riding to the dump with some pals, a case of beer, a gun, and shooting rats. Instant gratification, little to no effort, and the target gets screwed over.
The same teenager grows up a little, goes to college, learns a lot more. He goes back to the dump but it's changed. He's more mature now. He can still shoot rats and drink beer but he's opened his mind and it's sad and pathetic for him to do this now.
Using the easy-mode spitfires for a crutch to learn is okay, sure, whatever. But never growing out of them shows a lack of development, IMO, not more development. If you don't fly half the planes in the game with moderate competence by the time you hit the 8-year mark, you've closed yourself off. Once you HAVE experienced more, learned more, broadened your horizons, you usually tend to lean towards a mental fun, not an instant-gratification-fun.
Mental fun not to be confused with "a bad plane" -- but something you have an intellectual enjoyment of, be it for the history, the pilots, the mission behind it (bombing, anti-tank, whatever) -- you don't just go for instant easy kills.
Which famous author was it that said (paraphrasing): "When fun no longer takes any work, it ceases being fun"?
P.S. The line/author was quoted in the pilot of The Invisible Man (Sci-Fi Channel remake many years back). I probably butchered it horribly.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
An analogy (disclaimer I just made this up on the spot, it's not perfect)
A teenager in highschool may take great delight in riding to the dump with some pals, a case of beer, a gun, and shooting rats. Instant gratification, little to no effort, and the target gets screwed over.
The same teenager grows up a little, goes to college, learns a lot more. He goes back to the dump but it's changed. He's more mature now. He can still shoot rats and drink beer but he's opened his mind and it's sad and pathetic for him to do this now.
Using the easy-mode spitfires for a crutch to learn is okay, sure, whatever. But never growing out of them shows a lack of development, IMO, not more development. If you don't fly half the planes in the game with moderate competence by the time you hit the 8-year mark, you've closed yourself off. Once you HAVE experienced more, learned more, broadened your horizons, you usually tend to lean towards a mental fun, not an instant-gratification-fun.
Thank you for providing an example of what I was posting about. If a person flies one particular plane, such as a Spitfire, it doesn't show any "lack of development" like you try to show in your analogy.
For example, I exclusively fly the P-38, which in your mind means I've closed myself off because I haven't experienced "more". But if you and I were to fight, I'm willing to bet that I'd come out on top no matter what fighter I flew.
In case you didn't know, ACM is ACM no matter what fighter you fly. A High Yo-Yo is done the same way whether you fly a Spitfire or a FW190.
So instead of being a lemming, why not just advocate flying what is fun for the player? Because what is fun for you, might not be for someone else and you are in no position to criticize anyone for flying the plane they choose to.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Thank you for providing an example of what I was posting about. If a person flies one particular plane, such as a Spitfire, it doesn't show any "lack of development" like you try to show in your analogy.
For example, I exclusively fly the P-38, which in your mind means I've closed myself off because I haven't experienced "more". But if you and I were to fight, I'm willing to bet that I'd come out on top no matter what fighter I flew.
In case you didn't know, ACM is ACM no matter what fighter you fly. A High Yo-Yo is done the same way whether you fly a Spitfire or a FW190.
So instead of being a lemming, why not just advocate flying what is fun for the player? Because what is fun for you, might not be for someone else and you are in no position to criticize anyone for flying the plane they choose to.
ack-ack
Going with AKAK on this one. IF you have fun flying it, go for it. For me it's the history aspect. The 80th was a 38 squadron. With the 39 coming, I'll fly that one too as the 80th had it.
Doesn't mean guys in the 80th can't fly what they enjoy but the fun is in the 38.
In a scenario I'll get into whatever bird goes with the history of the group I'm flying. Spit,s 109Es, P40s, etc.
But that's just me. To expect someone else to fly it that way is just silly. If a guy has fun in an LA7, go for it. If it's a Spit, go for it.
Who cares. Unperk em all.
As I've same a million times now. As long as I'm not really dying and planes are free, who cares.:aok
-
well ill say that i intend fully to learn to handle every fighter in the game at some point,------ that said there are some i just do not like right now. (namely the hard A## aiming of planes with 30.mm and greater, or most axis planes for that matter. maybe when i get MUCH better ill go back and get interested in some of the hardest planes to fly, but for now ill stick to the ones i enjoy whenter im dying or not.
right now my favorite plane is the n1k (yes i know im a dweeb) but i have really learned some of the tricks to it, i can go fly a spit 8 probably just as well, and an f6f slightly worse.
i would really love to get good in the p38 but after a year and a half of playing ive probably loged only 200-150 hrs in it compared to maybe 500-1000 in the other planes of the set.
i really love the p-47-d40 as a fighter and jabo ride, but im not that good in it. its nice to beable to carry so much ord then switch over to fighter.
im also interested in the 109-g10 but i dont think i have the skill to handle it yet.
jsut MHO i don't see how berating someone for flying an easy plane acomplishes anything, yes encourage people to learn other planes but don't shove it in their face that they suck for only flying easy planes.
(not acusing anyone here, or trying to make anyone mad)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
shoot rats
hmm, hmm... what do you mean by that hmmm :)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
you are in no position to criticize anyone for flying the plane they choose to.
I think this arguement is hitting a little too close to home for some. We're talking about a video game here. Plus, we're talking about internet etiquette as well....where everyone has their own opinion (which is 100% correct to the post). Take what you want from Krusty's post, criticism is a fairly strong word. I took his post and his mere opinion.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Going with AKAK on this one. IF you have fun flying it, go for it. For me it's the history aspect. The 80th was a 38 squadron. With the 39 coming, I'll fly that one too as the 80th had it.
Doesn't mean guys in the 80th can't fly what they enjoy but the fun is in the 38.
In a scenario I'll get into whatever bird goes with the history of the group I'm flying. Spit,s 109Es, P40s, etc.
But that's just me. To expect someone else to fly it that way is just silly. If a guy has fun in an LA7, go for it. If it's a Spit, go for it.
Who cares. Unperk em all.
As I've same a million times now. As long as I'm not really dying and planes are free, who cares.:aok
????Having FUN????? IN A GAME????? What are you, nuts ???;)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The B-20 is about as strong and as "flat" (i.e. laser-like) as a hispano.
The SHVAK is about as strong and un-flat (i.e. potato-like) as the MG/FF or Type99 Japanese cannon.
Using the 3-gun package gives you single-ping kills. Using the 2-gun package requires you to land many hits on target to get a decent kill.
I've unloaded 20+ SHVAK into a P-51D once and only got an oil leak. On the other hand, land any snapshot with the 3x B-20 and you get catastrophic failure on most single engine fighters.
It makes a big difference. It's like taking 7mm wing guns on the C205 instead of the 20mms
its funny to me but the type 99 cannons dont feel like tater guns i have't really got problems killing within 300 meters. (of course i have four of em) lol
-
Originally posted by goober69
its funny to me but the type 99 cannons dont feel like tater guns i have't really got problems killing within 300 meters. (of course i have four of em) lol
He is talking about the Type 99 Model 1 cannons on the A6M2, not the much higher velocity Type 99 Model 2 cannons on the N1K2-J and A6M5b.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
La-5 will murder the P-39 no doubt, lol.
You know the #2 Ace in the war flew a p-39 right?? Atleast from what i heard on the forums. Sadly only beaten by a la dweeb :aok
-
Originally posted by Bronk
????Having FUN????? IN A GAME????? What are you, nuts ???;)
Don't tell me that Mensa has gotten to you too. I swear, that kid is determined to take the fun out of AH. I think I'll go tell a1945 so he can have a little "talk" with Mensa again. ^__^
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Squire
Hope they redo the Yaks, it would be nice to get the much more common 20mm SHVAK armament on the Yak-9 too.
While your at it, Yak-3/7. Would be pretty nice to have.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
he's being mischevious again............. there were no drop tanks used on the La7 or the La5FN.
I know. But in reality it was not 1.8 fuel multiplier as well (or whatever it is now) -)
Truth is that after they changed multiplier I stopped flying la5, which were my all time favorite ride. Even with best fuel management it sucks fuel way too fast in fight.
-
So instead of being a lemming, why not just advocate flying what is fun for the player? Because what is fun for you, might not be for someone else and you are in no position to criticize anyone for flying the plane they choose to.
Unfortunately, there is no denying many people in the vet circles have a tendency to show double standards in applying the above sentiment.
They usually tend to demand you, the average-sucky pilot, should fly sub-(MA)standard planes, so you can "learn" how to fight 'better'... and then go ranting on how they will "never learn" to fight 'better' if you stay in some 'dweeb plane' or 'hide in hordes' or ' '.
So according to what they say, you have to be in a mid-war plane or less, always meet them 1vs1, never be rescued/saved by intervening friendlies, always willingly throw yourself into a knife-fight against a better pilot, and then always get shot down.
If you do the opposite of the above; ie, fly in a late-war aircraft, secure some numbers advantage with the help of a friendly or a wingman, use his help to defeat better pilots, refuse to fight the way he wants, and refuse to be shot down easily .... you are a 'n00b who will learn nothing'.
It's really touching how they care so much about yourself, the average-sucky pilot... but sometimes they get really annoying.
-
Originally posted by goober69
its funny to me but the type 99 cannons dont feel like tater guns i have't really got problems killing within 300 meters. (of course i have four of em) lol
The Type 99 Mk. I cannon on the A6M2 feels like you've got a potato gun mounted on the nose.
The Type 99 Mk. II cannons on the N1K2-J, however, feel like lazers. You can get killshots from 800 (I've done it and it's happened to me countless times) with those damn things. I had an N1K following my 152, and from 800 out, I thought I was safe... How wrong I was. Still 800 out, and my left wing fell off. I saw the tracer fire going by just before I went into a spin and bailed.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Unfortunately, there is no denying many people in the vet circles have a tendency to show double standards in applying the above sentiment.
They usually tend to demand you, the average-sucky pilot, should fly sub-(MA)standard planes, so you can "learn" how to fight 'better'... and then go ranting on how they will "never learn" to fight 'better' if you stay in some 'dweeb plane' or 'hide in hordes' or ' '.
So according to what they say, you have to be in a mid-war plane or less, always meet them 1vs1, never be rescued/saved by intervening friendlies, always willingly throw yourself into a knife-fight against a better pilot, and then always get shot down.
If you do the opposite of the above; ie, fly in a late-war aircraft, secure some numbers advantage with the help of a friendly or a wingman, use his help to defeat better pilots, refuse to fight the way he wants, and refuse to be shot down easily .... you are a 'n00b who will learn nothing'.
It's really touching how they care so much about yourself, the average-sucky pilot... but sometimes they get really annoying.
Hmmmm, "Fun" not mentioned once in this entire post.
Question
Will a player have more fun once he learns some acm/gunnery/SA/E-management?
-
Will a player have more fun once he learns some acm/gunnery/SA/E-management?
Does it matter?
After all, it's their 15 bucks. Who amongst us has any right to dictate in what manner or plane they should fly?
According to what Ak-ak posted above:
Because what is fun for you, might not be for someone else and you are in no position to criticize anyone for flying the plane they choose to.
Wouldn't you agree?
Or are you saying everyone should learn to be 'better' because you think that is "fun", despite others might not feel the same way?
-
Yeah, this is why you have to tune people out and just do your own thing. "Learn to fly"? Haha, thats a good one. Its a computer game so how can you, "learn to fly"?:eek:
Many of these "Erroll Flynns of the wild blue" dont hesitate to game the game, camp the spawn, cherry pick in a 190, or h'oe the sc'oe. But God help the poor schmuck with 3 months in the game that stretches out the chase in his LA-7.
On the other hand there are also those "game veterans", "not flight veterans", who dont hesitate to help a noob, dont annoint themselves General and scream on the Vox, and dont strut around like Jimmy Doolittle in the Forums. Best of all they can laugh about it all. Thankfully there are plenty of these guys too.
I like the LA-7. Ive been in fighters about 10 days and after all the cheap shots Ive gotten I like nothing better then jumping in one, screaming in at 400 mph 5' off the ground, stick a few shivs in a few backs, and then scream away laughing as 10 Bish try to catch me. All it is is cheery picking in the horizontal.
And it must piss a lot of Erroll Flynns off. Not turn fighting with zeros and Spits and "improving my flight skills by getting myself kilt".:lol
Originally posted by Kweassa
Unfortunately, there is no denying many people in the vet circles have a tendency to show double standards in applying the above sentiment.
They usually tend to demand you, the average-sucky pilot, should fly sub-(MA)standard planes, so you can "learn" how to fight 'better'... and then go ranting on how they will "never learn" to fight 'better' if you stay in some 'dweeb plane' or 'hide in hordes' or ' '.
So according to what they say, you have to be in a mid-war plane or less, always meet them 1vs1, never be rescued/saved by intervening friendlies, always willingly throw yourself into a knife-fight against a better pilot, and then always get shot down.
If you do the opposite of the above; ie, fly in a late-war aircraft, secure some numbers advantage with the help of a friendly or a wingman, use his help to defeat better pilots, refuse to fight the way he wants, and refuse to be shot down easily .... you are a 'n00b who will learn nothing'.
It's really touching how they care so much about yourself, the average-sucky pilot... but sometimes they get really annoying.
-
Are the changes to the -5FN/-7 cosmetic only or are there any revamps of their flight characterstics?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Does it matter?
After all, it's their 15 bucks. Who amongst us has any right to dictate in what manner or plane they should fly?
According to what Ak-ak posted above:
Wouldn't you agree?
Certainly, however isn't it more fun to be the predator than being the prey?
Striving to improve those skill sets I listed will bring you up the food chain.
Or are you saying everyone should learn to be 'better' because you think that is "fun", despite others might not feel the same way?
So you're saying its more fun to be a tasty snack for the big dogs of the MA?
Everybody gets caught flat footed once in a while. Even the biggest hoin, picking, alt monkey, horde monkey -insert plane of choice- player.
Improving the skill sets allows you prolong or survive the times when caught low slow and alone. It matters not what your in, or how many with you,rather how you control what you're in.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
I like the LA-7. Ive been in fighters about 10 days and after all the cheap shots Ive gotten I like nothing better then jumping in one, screaming in at 400 mph 5' off the ground, stick a few shivs in a few backs, and then scream away laughing as 10 Bish try to catch me. All it is is cheery picking in the horizontal.
Great example here. So he has out paced his attackers and they broke off. He's now OTD out of wep.
Here comes the the 10 k lala vectoring to cut him off. Now what? If he takes the time to learn/ improve on those skill sets I mentioned. I'll bet he'd have a ton more fun reversing the attacker. Rather than stick stir and mashing the wep key in futility.
But I guess being helpless is fun for many.:rolleyes:
-
Yep, nothing more riveting than shallow victories.
-
Hence 3+ dolts chasing a wing-less B-25 down after it's already been "killed"
Let me put it this way: A 3 year old things boogers are fun. Other 3 year olds think they are fun too. Anybody older than 3, with more intellectual depth, gets over it fast, and no longer things boogers are fun. The rest of the world grows up and thinks boogers are not "fun" -- so just because the 3-year-old thinks it, is it true?
It might be some form of instant gratification, but IMO it's just lacking of .... what? intellect? Scope? Perhaps just experience? Let's use "maturity" for lack of other choices.
So a 2-week newbie ups an la7, hos, runs screaming home every time he takes a breath, stick stirs the bejeezus outta his plane any time anybody nears 800yards... HE might think it's fun. HE might get some instant gratification. It doesn't mean the majority of the game base would agree. And he is closing himself off from the (IMO greater) fun of actually manuvering for a kill, or evading a HO, or
Robbing Peter to pay Paul. That sort of thing.
Your opinions may vary.
-
I fly the La5N quite often. Its amazing how easy it is to shoot an La down when you know how to operate one. I do find it very difficult to catch one that is flown by a seasoned pilot. I do find myself aggrevated when the darn thing runs and I can't catch it. And yes I do get nailed by the occational six shot I didn't see comming. Every once in awhile, their is another La that wants to dogfight. Those engagements are very fun.
It's funny how so few planes cause so much controversy. Most seem to figure ways to deal with it. I guess others would rather gripe.
Oh yeah, thanks for the upgrade.
-
Originally posted by Gabriel
Are the changes to the -5FN/-7 cosmetic only or are there any revamps of their flight characterstics?
No announcement of a change in flight characteristics have been mentioned (that I have seen) ... only the visual aspects.
Maybe a change in the visual model forces a change in the flight model too.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Maybe a change in the visual model forces a change in the flight model too.
No, the flight models and 3D models are completely seperate to each other.
-
I can't recall where, but I'm pretty sure I've recently seen someone point out that physics are independent of graphics. It's how I've always seen it done.
Looks like I can tell the future..
-
We can make a sleigh fly like a 163.........:noid
-
Krusty,
Thanks for equating my liking of Spitfires to liking boogers. That is such a nonoffensive way of putting it.
Sorry, but you are full of bull**** here. I've liked Spitfires a lot for two decades. That they are good fighters is completely irrelevant to that.
But I'm "supposed" to outgrow them and go to a more politically correct fighter like, oh, P-40s or Bf109s. Complete bull****.
-
You miss the point entirely, Karnak.
You've already moved on to the intellectual enjoyment phase (you like the plane, the history, etc) rather than just relying on instant kills.
EDIT: I wasn't talking about anybody specifically when I made my comments
-
Originally posted by Waffle
We can make a sleigh fly like a 163.........:noid
:rofl
-
You've been painting with a very broad brush. You labeled all Spit and La players as people who refused to move on to acceptable fighters.
And you have me backwards, I liked the history first.
-
I don't think he was speaking of all LA and Spit flyers. I think he meant the runners, hoers, alt monkeys, etc.
-
Originally posted by Kuhn
I don't think he was speaking of all LA and Spit flyers. I think he meant the runners, hoers, alt monkeys, etc.
Everybody can be so defined by somebody else.
Do I run? Sure, if I think my situation is stacked against me. Am I an alt monkey? Sure, to somebody who never climbs above 5,000ft. Am I an HOer? If I think it is the best move I can use, yes.
At the same time, I don't run if I think I have a fighting chance, I rarely climb above 13,000ft (Mossie's best speed alt) and I avoid HOs almost 100% of the time in Spits and 84s and most of the time in the Mossie.
-
I don't want to debate for Krusty. If you feel that strong need to take everyone on, go right ahead. I didn't want you to get all huffy about it. :D
-
I just get tired of the anti-Spit, et al lobby. It tars and feathers people like me along with the people who are ostensibly being targeted and I have to hear the same complaints about being a "Spitdweeb" or flying a "****fire". It got really freaking old.
For example, in the AvA the Axis complains that Allies only fly Spits when it is available. But when I take a Mossie up, every single Axis goes for me ignoring the Spitfires. So by taking up an less agile aircraft all I get is ganged, and I am not nearly good enough to overcome a being ganged in a Mossie. And then they wonder why the Allies only take Spits.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I just get tired of the anti-Spit, et al lobby. It tars and feathers people like me along with the people who are ostensibly being targeted and I have to hear the same complaints about being a "Spitdweeb" or flying a "****fire". It got really freaking old.
I agree.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
You've been painting with a very broad brush. You labeled all Spit and La players as people who refused to move on to acceptable fighters.
And you have me backwards, I liked the history first.
You mix me up with the others. I never laid out what was "acceptable" -- just saying sticking to only 1-2 planes because they let you do things others don't let you will limit yourself and your experiences.
Personally I'm an advocate of flying EVERY plane at least a few times. If for no other reason it lets you learn how to better kill said plane.
-
Krusty,
Agreed, I have done tours where I got one or more kills in every unit in AH. But the slander about Spits still splashes on me. And I am sure the slander about La-7s and N1K2-Js does the same to other players.
-
Originally posted by moot
Yep, nothing more riveting than shallow victories.
vulchings defanition perfect.
-
Spit V is the most enjoyable plane in the game for me.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
So a 2-week newbie ups an la7, hos, runs screaming home every time he takes a breath, stick stirs the bejeezus outta his plane any time anybody nears 800yards... HE might think it's fun. HE might get some instant gratification. It doesn't mean the majority of the game base would agree. And he is closing himself off from the (IMO greater) fun of actually manuvering for a kill, or evading a HO, or
Robbing Peter to pay Paul. That sort of thing.
Your opinions may vary.
Whether or not a player is "closing him self off" isn't dependent on the plane they fly. It's all dependent on the player's attitude and the desire for that player to learn the finer point of aerial combat not the plane. The player you describe is going to fly that way no matter what plane they are in.
You can take the dweeb out of the plane but you can never take the dweeb out of the pilot.
ack-ack
-
Perhaps, but with more experience usually comes more understanding. Taking on a bit of every ride (after the initial learning curve, of course) will most likely lead to more understanding of flight manuvers and the different capabilities, and well... GI Joe said it best. Knowing's half the battle.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Perhaps, but with more experience usually comes more understanding. Taking on a bit of every ride (after the initial learning curve, of course) will most likely lead to more understanding of flight manuvers and the different capabilities, and well... GI Joe said it best. Knowing's half the battle.
But the experience you wish to others to gain isn't solely gained from flying multiple planes. In fact, that experience and knowledge can be gained without having to fly every fighter in the planeset.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
But the experience you wish to others to gain isn't solely gained from flying multiple planes. In fact, that experience and knowledge can be gained without having to fly every fighter in the planeset.
ack-ack
It can be gained without flying every plane in the planeset, but it cannot be learned by flying 1-2 similar planes at the exclusion of everything else. You make it sound as if anybody can learn everything all without exploring. It's like college: You don't know what you wanted to learn until you branched out, took a few electives.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Great example here. So he has out paced his attackers and they broke off. He's now OTD out of wep.
Here comes the the 10 k lala vectoring to cut him off. Now what? If he takes the time to learn/ improve on those skill sets I mentioned. I'll bet he'd have a ton more fun reversing the attacker. Rather than stick stir and mashing the wep key in futility.
But I guess being helpless is fun for many.:rolleyes:
I thought the humor in my post was rather obvious. Maybe Im wrong.:rolleyes:
Point I was making is its just a game. I couldnt much care what anyone does or how they fly. Or "what" they fly.
I dog fight all the time in them. On occasion I even win.
Maybe one day I'll get good enough in my cartoon airplanes to spend 1/2 my time looking down my nose at others.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
I thought the humor in my post was rather obvious. Maybe Im wrong.:rolleyes:
Point I was making is its just a game. I couldnt much care what anyone does or how they fly. Or "what" they fly.
I dog fight all the time in them. On occasion I even win.
Maybe one day I'll get good enough in my cartoon airplanes to spend 1/2 my time looking down my nose at others.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Rich it wasn't meant as a dig at you personally. I was just using your little scenario as an example.
The point I was making is the better you become, you are probably going to have more "fun".
Sorry for the confusion.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Rich it wasn't meant as a dig at you personally. I was just using your little scenario as an example.
The point I was making is the better you become, you are probably going to have more "fun".
Sorry for the confusion.
No problem my friend. The transition to fighters is actually going smoother then I thought it would. But....this just isn't a game your going to get really good at quickly. It takes many months to get good at this.
And while on that learning curve journey its best to have fun doing it. With whatever you want to fly and however. Believe me, Ive been vulched, HO'd, cherry picked, and ran from, to often to ever feel guilty doing it myself.
And some guys?? Some guys who are really good?? I think some just dont have fun doing it anymore. Or, they dont sound like their having fun.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It can be gained without flying every plane in the planeset, but it cannot be learned by flying 1-2 similar planes at the exclusion of everything else. You make it sound as if anybody can learn everything all without exploring. It's like college: You don't know what you wanted to learn until you branched out, took a few electives.
Who says "exploring" has to come by flying every plane in the planetset? Why can't it be gained from taking the time to going to such places as http://www.netaces.org and read the fantastic lectures that are posted? Or by utilizing our trainers to help the new and ACM challenged players to increase their skills? All I am saying is that your assertion that this knowledge can only be gained by flying XXX amount of planes, is not correct. Does it help? Yes it can, but is it the only way to gain experience or knowledge to improve one's abilities? No and I would also say not the most effective way either, especially for new players.
Since you're so fond of using real life analogies, here is one for you.
I know that a car can kill you if it hits you, I don't need to "explore" by getting hit by a car to know that it can kill me.
ack-ack
-
Just think how good Leviathn could have been, had he only followed Krusty's advice. It boggles the mind.
-
Ack-Ack, but if you're in front of a car it might help to know how fast it'll stop when you slam on the brakes -- which you really get a feel for by driving one yourself
(just continuing your analogy)
I think some folks are taking my comments personally. And taking them out of context. I never said there was a set number, I never said there was a hard demarcation line, but The pilot that's flown the entire planeset for 8 years and the pilot that's flow 1 plane for 8 years, side by side, the more experienced pilot is probably the better pilot.
To make another analogy, you can read about how to operate on somebody, but they don't give out the diploma until you've actually done it a few times, too. :D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
To make another analogy, you can read about how to operate on somebody, but they don't give out the diploma until you've actually done it a few times, too. :D
Good thing for the one that gets the diploma, not sure its as good for the ones where he gains experience.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"
...and im not "anti LA", its a great fighter, and absolutely should be in the game, has a very interesting history, many top aces flew it.
Not only top aces flew it. The #1 Ace in ww2 flew it. It was Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub as i recall.
-
Acually the number 1 ace in WW2 flew a 109.
-
Since this thread has long since descended into chaos, I thought I'd toss this in for the Wiki historians. It's from "The Best Fighter Aircraft of All Time" thread. On the topic of Kozhedub's record.
Originally posted by Widewing
Well, I can understand Kozhedub being modest, especially when considering that there isn't a single aviation historian who believes he actually shot down much more than half that number. Russian over-claiming was so high, that they would have had to shoot down every Luftwaffe aircraft ever sent to the eastern front THREE TIMES to equal the number of "confirmed kills".
Soviet claims in Korea were just as imaginative. Total claims for F-86s kills exceeded the total number deployed in theater by 250%. Their very best went to Korea, and modern investigations show that they lost four MiGs for every Sabre they knocked down. Rather pathetic when one considers that they had every tactical advantage possible by flying close to home base, from fields that were off-limits to American attack. Since the Sabres had to fly to their fuel limits, and the Soviets had plenty of time to prepare (always being above the Sabres, and usually having superior numbers by a factor of 3-4 times), you would think they would have done better... There's no substitute for pilot quality when the aircraft are nearly equal.
My regards,
Widewing
There's more in the original discussion, but I just found this mention of overclaiming (which is not actually attributed to the pilots) interesting
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Acually the number 1 ace in WW2 flew a 109.
The top... I dont know how far back it goes. The top 3 at least were 109 sticks.. Guenther Rall with 275, Gerhard Barkhorn with 301 and Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann with 352 making him the highest scoring ace of all time. There were a lot more 109 pilots that scored over 100 (200 even) also. (the top scoring non-German pilot of the war was a Finnish pilot who also flew the 109 IIRC)
-
New 3D Models makes current skins obsolete correct?
-
Originally posted by Gabriel
New 3D Models makes current skins obsolete correct?
yes
-
Originally posted by moot
And the super-dweebs will be in 39s. I can't wait :D
-) I will fly it for sure.
-
the Kurfürst has better acceleration, climb rate, and low speed maneuverability
K4 handles and moves just fine at slow speed...
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
Not only top aces flew it. The #1 Ace in ww2 flew it. It was Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub as i recall.
Where did you get that idea from?
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
Not only top aces flew it. The #1 Ace in ww2 flew it. It was Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub as i recall.
Number 1 Allied ace was a LA pilot. Number 2 Allied Ace was a P39 pilot.
I don't really have a problem with the LA i just think it's to easy to fly. And the LA7 with the 3 20mm pack never saw combat. It was being tested. If you look at the damage it only has 2 guns not 3. The 3 gun pack should be taken out i think or have a small perk value added to it. Say like 4 perks. Nothing to high but if you die in a LA a lot it would discourage the use of the 3 20mm pack.
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
Number 1 Allied ace was a LA pilot. Number 2 Allied Ace was a P39 pilot.
I don't really have a problem with the LA i just think it's to easy to fly. And the LA7 with the 3 20mm pack never saw combat. It was being tested. If you look at the damage it only has 2 guns not 3. The 3 gun pack should be taken out i think or have a small perk value added to it. Say like 4 perks. Nothing to high but if you die in a LA a lot it would discourage the use of the 3 20mm pack.
I was always under the impression the first run of LA-7s delivered to the front were the 3 cannon ones. And that about 400 saw action with frontline units.
Dont know how many kills the top Russian ace made with the LA-7 but Ill bet a bunch of them were made with other airplanes as well.
-
I only see two Cannon on the new version.;)
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
I only see two Cannon on the new version.;)
That'd be a right 'larf'.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
I was always under the impression the first run of LA-7s delivered to the front were the 3 cannon ones. And that about 400 saw action with frontline units.
Dont know how many kills the top Russian ace made with the LA-7 but Ill bet a bunch of them were made with other airplanes as well.
Everything I've ever read on the La-7 indicates that the 3 cannon version came later and few were made (about 6% total wartime La-7 production) in relation to the 2 cannon version. Additionally, the early La-7s did not have the performance which later machines (and what we have in the game) were capable of.
-
I think Tilt knows the exact facts.
-
Originally posted by Greebo
Sorry guys, but the La-7 still has the 3 gun option.
Just because folks missed it on page 2 of this thread....
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Just because folks missed it on page 2 of this thread....
I seen it i just think the 3 gun load out should at least have a small perk value like i said in the post before. I believe the Leading allied ace had 62 confirmed kills.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/ivan-nikitovich-kozhedub-allied-leading-ace-62-kills-585.html
-
Bump.
:noid :noid
post 200.
-
I just want to see how much the flight model changes.
These eye candy updates, are also FM updates.
Discuss.
-
Did HTC actually say they're tweaking the FM, or did you just make that up?
-
More squeaker delusion.
-
I don't know if the FM on the Las is going to be tweaked or not. However the flight model and 3D model of planes in AH have no bearing on one another so it may just stay the same.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Did HTC actually say they're tweaking the FM, or did you just make that up?
He's making it up.
ack-ack
-
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Latrobe
Just one plane closer to the F6F :)
I second that. The F6F is in serious need for some new skins. Its amazing that one of the most impressive planes every built has been ignored for so long here. GIVE THE F6F ITS DUE!:aok
-
HAHA, awesome avatar dude.
LOL at Bparker :lol
-
Ohhhhh my what a tangled web you all have woven the poor LA into.
Rule # 1, until you pay for my acct you have no right to tell me what to fly. period, end quote, end of conversation.
Next, there are no "dweeb" planes, just pilots that act dweebier than others.
I have had fights with la7 pilots that were awesome, memorial, write it on the calendar to remember it good. Both won and lost. And I've had fights were the other guy did everything to prevent me from catching him. Where he brought out everything everyone hates about the La. And you know what, that was his right to do so.
And might I remind you, if your here, reading this, your a dweeb. We are all dweebs here. Everyone here has done something at some point that could be considered dweeby. So all of you taking the moral "high ground" , back down off the high horse. Your no better or worse than anyone else.
The reason we are all here is to have fun. Some have that fun flying nik's and La's, others find their fun by hunting nik's and La's. Others by complaining about said nik's and La's.
The truly good sticks know, that 9 out of 10 la's they see are not really a threat. Like a good judo master, they take their opponents strength, and turn it against them. In the La's case, speed, it is its biggest assest, and its achilles heel.
As for the 3 gun vs the 2 gun, I've heard all the debates for years.
Krusty, for you maybe the 3 gun package is your lucky rabbits foot.
All I know is that I prefer the 2 gun package.
For one its the same as the poor lil brother la5fn. So I can switch planes without having the reset how much lead I need, etc.
So if you want to perk the 3 gun package on the la7, I really could not care less. Not to mention that while the 3 gun has more ammo, it is gone quicker.
It "may" do more damage in a snap shot. But then I ussuallly don't have a problem doing damage in ANY la.
Course compared to the Nik they are all undergunned and ammo'd. :)
-
This argument is pointless. It is obvious that we are NOT having any fun here, no matter what or how you fly. You are not enjoying it....we should all just quit. :p
BTW...like the new skins, excellent work fellers.
-
I suspect if AH perks the 3 gun package, even lightly, you wont often find the 3 gun package in the air. Whos really going to risk 14 perks for such a trivial thing? I know I wont. If anything the 7 will only become faster and thats what sets most sticks on a path of hating them. Not their little peashooter sprayers.
Actually over time Im seeing less and less LA-7s. You might see one or two in a furball, like over Tanktown yesterday. Its not like the sky is red with them. I think most people complain about them the same way they complain about George Bush. They dont know why they are complaining but since everyone else is they will too.
I sure hope AH doesnt succumb to all this whining and leaves this great little plane alone. Go into the TA and try turning it at the speeds and radius's of the Spits, zeros, and a lot of others. You'll figure out how to beat it. The 190s are just as fast, have longer ranges, are better gunned, and can drop ords. What are we going to perk those to?
How often do you see 190s coming in at 20,000' and do 500 mph loop-d-loops until they run? Oh yeah right! But thats skill while flying a LA-7 isn't?:lol I guess the Laws of physics change when your in a LA-7.
-
Rich, you're new, but for a long time the la7 had the most kills every tour. Before the arena split, the La7 was the most common plane I'd see. Now you might see more spit16s or f4us, because the former didn't exist and the latter was uber-fied since the LA7 was king.
It's still just as capable as ever, but folks have other uber rides to HO in now, so it's less common.
The collective memory of all the dweebery of the la7 is still fresh in our minds, though.
I, personally, don't see as man of them overall. However I was HOed to death by 5+ upping LAs at a capped field just this week, so it does happen! (just not every time, like it used to be)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Rich, you're new, but for a long time the la7 had the most kills every tour. Before the arena split, the La7 was the most common plane I'd see. Now you might see more spit16s or f4us, because the former didn't exist and the latter was uber-fied since the LA7 was king.
It's still just as capable as ever, but folks have other uber rides to HO in now, so it's less common.
The collective memory of all the dweebery of the la7 is still fresh in our minds, though.
I, personally, don't see as man of them overall. However I was HOed to death by 5+ upping LAs at a capped field just this week, so it does happen! (just not every time, like it used to be)
Krusty I have been HO'd by every type of plane and player in the game. Its extremely unusual for someone NOT to HO me. So much so, and I got HO'd by so many so often, that now I will shoot anyone in the face I can if I cant get safe separation.
Truth is everyone, or almost everyone, HOs in this game. You can blame LA-7s for the games problems but go ahead and take it away and we'll see if these problems disappear. Im not hopeful.
The LA-7 is just a convenient scapegoat. Most of all for the guys who have been in the game the longest. Some of these guys actually expect the rest of us serfs to cooperate nicely while they shoot us down. Hows this for dweebery? Fly in at 15,000', dive down at 500mph+, and then run away? I could name dozens of airplanes Ive seen do that.
And I dont have much sympathy for anyone who gets HO'd while hes shooting fighters rolling down a runway. That is however the one and main strength of the airplane, that of base defense.
-
interestingly when the La7 was introduced folk were not running around astounded at how uber it was and how dweeb flyers were flocking to it............
This took time .............well over a year after its introduction.
Then we had another year of folk claiming it was all wrong because it was modelled on false data put out by Soviet propaganda..... infact we still get this from time to time.
Now we have folk who condemn it because it denies them a kill according to some imaginary set of rules of engagement..........
Or denies them the chance of escape from a furball cos it chases them down..................
New players do HO more than others..... but I have to say that in my experience the ac that I typically expect to see HO (or at least target a shallow angle forward straffe on the merge) are repeatedly P51's and 190's of various ilke. i.e ac that are being flown bnz in an inexperienced way and yes sometimes the la7 is flown (wasted) that way to.
I think the stuff of annoyance at the end of the day is when you have fought thru a hard won encounter (or several encounters) and find that you are undone by a player who can engage and disengage at will without having to exert a high level of skill. This makes the La7 annoying but it is what it is good at. Any wonder experten hate them!
-
Rich, you seem to be making implications about me and/or a complaint I've made. I just said one HOed me. I wasn't complaining. I was describing that I saw 5+ la7s upping repeatedly (a description of the frequency of its use).
My point was: "I don't see them as much as I used to, but there are times like THIS example where I do see them in large numbers like they used to"
It's not a "scapegoat" if it is the epitome of HO examples, also. Sure I see 190s do it and some other planes. But almost 100% of all las I see even pointed at me have been spraying as they zoomed past at mach 2.
P.S. Am I supposed to let them kill the troops entering their map room? I think not.
-
Naw I aint making implications. At least towards you. I am however aiming at the broad anti-LA-7 crowd. I wouldnt let anyone kill troops either. Thats another of my favorite LA uses. When a base is capped up from the closest base and zing into the town at 400 mph trying to kill troops.
One thing I do try and avoid is zinging in stealing the kills of others. I might stay high and back to help out if needed but I wont use the superior speed of the LaLa to screw some teamate whos on someone elses "6".
But you might be surprised at some of the people Ive seen do it. "Dweebery" is a state of mind. Not an "airplane".
-
dweebery is an immature state of mind, and certain aircraft have capabilities such that even the most inexperienced pilots can effectively get kills, thus certain aircraft have more of a proclivity (or perhaps predisposition is a better word?) for being used by dweebs.
Thus dweeb planes.
While the plane itself is not dweeby, it appeals to dweebs.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
dweebery is an immature state of mind, and certain aircraft have capabilities such that even the most inexperienced pilots can effectively get kills, thus certain aircraft have more of a proclivity (or perhaps predisposition is a better word?) for being used by dweebs.
Thus dweeb planes.
While the plane itself is not dweeby, it appeals to dweebs.
Thats remarkable Krusty. On behalf of all LA-7 dweebs I thank you for finding the right words.
I agree that its a sin that inexperienced pilots should actually have the nerve to fly airplanes that can land them kills. Dont they know its their job to fly lesser airplanes and die more often?:huh
Now that is the utmost in Dweebery. At least in the modern cartoon flight game environment.
-
Why do I even bother?
*sigh*
:(
-
Originally posted by Krusty
dweebery is an immature state of mind, and certain aircraft have capabilities such that even the most inexperienced pilots can effectively get kills, thus certain aircraft have more of a proclivity (or perhaps predisposition is a better word?) for being used by dweebs.
Thus dweeb planes.
While the plane itself is not dweeby, it appeals to dweebs.
There are no dweeb planes, just dweeb pilots. No matter how you try to spin it, that axiom will always be true.
Do you really think that a player that HO's in a La7 won't do the same in any other plane they fly?
ack-ack
-
If you'd read my post you'd see I said as much. I go on to say there is a link between certain unskilled pilot types and certain planes that cater (via enhanced performance) to these pilot types.
The plane itself may not be, but it certainly seems those pilots flock to it in very large numbers.
-
Dudes, when I started in AH I thought the 190A8 was the coolest thing with a wing. I also thought I needed to fly straight toward the enemy as fast as possible, HO, run, reverse, HO, etc.....mostly I didn't make it to the run part and certainly never to the "etc.
Then I found the LA7, still used the same tactics. Graduated to the 109 because I found out that the LA7 was a dweeb mobile. I still HO'ed, became quite good at it in a 109. Found out that a rolling HO could land some serious damage on an enemy while taking very little myself. However it did use up a lot of ammo.
Please note that my tale is now about a year into my AH "carreer". Tried other planes, D9, F6F, F4U, Pony (cant fly it a lick, rip my wings off every time), Tiffie....I lived to Jabo and HO.
Then one fine day I decided a Yak9U was a good plane to try. Wow, fly that for 6 months and see how much of a HO dog you are! Not enough ammo for it at all. My life changed from there. I still HO if outnumbered (but almost never in a Yak9U), if my enemy does it first, or just because i feel like it :p But I do get annoyed at seeing it used as the #1 tactic over and over and over and over...........
I think my point is that players will use whatever tactic they can, and will only change when they are ready. Encourage change by all means, but if you sit and call someone a dweeb......they might just take pride in it and never even consider the possibility of changing.
-
BTW...what was this thread about? :)