Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Cajunn on March 25, 2009, 07:12:26 AM
-
I was just wondering, I think that the load out on the La-7 is not accurate:
Armament: Three 20 mm Beresin B-20 (faster firing) ShVak cannon with 200 rounds per gun plus two 220 lbs (100 kg) bombs. Underwing racks could accept up to six RS-82 rockets.
This is where I got my information:http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/2/Lavochkin%20La%207.htm
Sorry i get different information supporting both load outs so I think there was a compromise in the load out that we were given.
-
your right the la7 should only have 2 x 20mm option as this was the most common configuration.
add the 3rd cannon with perks.
-
your right the la7 should only have 2 x 20mm option as this was the most common configuration.
Understatement.
-
your right the la7 should only have 2 x 20mm option as this was the most common configuration.
add the 3rd cannon with perks.
Why perks?
-
your right the la7 should only have 2 x 20mm option as this was the most common configuration.
add the 3rd cannon with perks.
I have used it with both and the only real different's I have notices was that the 3 gun configuration holds 50 rounds more at the distances that I shoot the 2 guns or just as effective.
-
If you're really going to whine about the LA7 having 3 guns, look at every other plane in the game. There isn't much difference and you run out of ammo the same if not quicker. I'm not scared of LA's at all when I fly.
-
If you're really going to whine about the LA7 having 3 guns, look at every other plane in the game. There isn't much difference and you run out of ammo the same if not quicker. I'm not scared of LA's at all when I fly.
non sequitur. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the La-7.
-
If you're really going to whine about the LA7 having 3 guns, look at every other plane in the game. There isn't much difference and you run out of ammo the same if not quicker. I'm not scared of LA's at all when I fly.
You've obviously never flown against a "good" La7 stick.
Back to the discussion. Limiting the ammo has no ill effect on the La7. It is one of the better turners (although most don't) in the game, has very good lethality at less than 300 out (it's how I roll). The only shortcoming is the range, which is easily handled by conserving fuel inbound.
-
I was just wondering, I think that the load out on the La-7 is not accurate:
Armament: Three 20 mm Beresin B-20 (faster firing) ShVak cannon with 200 rounds per gun plus two 220 lbs (100 kg) bombs. Underwing racks could accept up to six RS-82 rockets.
This is where I got my information:http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/2/Lavochkin%20La%207.htm
Sorry i get different information supporting both load outs so I think there was a compromise in the load out that we were given.
The B 20 was not faster firing as implemented on the La7. ROC/per gun was the same for both the ShVak and the B-20 (per gun) The overriding advantage of the B-20 was that it was light. Infact 3 x B20's plus 450 rounds was lighter than 2 x ShVak with 400 rounds.
In fact the AH load out is the maximum the belt feeds could take. many texts refer to 180 rnds per gun on the ShVak la7's and as low as 130 rnds /gun on the B-20 birds
The disadvantage (of the B-20) was that it was an extremely unreliable cannon (on the La7) and even in its final implementation it only had the half the reliable life of the older dependable ShVak.
If any one can ever show any picture of a lavochkin with rockets under the wings we would all like to see it. Whilst the LaGG 3 (same wing) used 3 x rockets per wing I have never seen any account or picture of the same on any La5 or La7.
When we perk ord then we should perk many such loadouts such as the 3 cannon la7 IMO.
Back to the discussion. Limiting the ammo has no ill effect on the La7.
was that the discussion?
-
From the AH wiki:
only 368 of these fighters saw front line action
And we know that far more 109G-6s with the Mk 108 saw combat than that.
-
If we're gonna argue over numbers produced let's look at it this way. If 368 3 gun LA7's made it to the front line that's still slightly more than the total number of Chogs + Ostwinds + Wirblewinds.
EDIT: Going off on a tangent here. IN GAME what are the differences between the ShVak and the B20? My old buddy Shauny always preferred the ShVaks, he seemed to think they hit harder, and had better ballistics(higher velocity?).
-
EDIT: Going off on a tangent here. IN GAME what are the differences between the ShVak and the B20? My old buddy Shauny always preferred the ShVaks, he seemed to think they hit harder, and had better ballistics(higher velocity?).
Equivalent lethality/ballistics/rof, but the B-20 was much lighter, and that's why it allowed for the 3 gun armament. 3 shvaks would have made the La-7 too nose heavy.
-
Numbers produced/saw service has nothing to do with why Hitech perks certain planes. The only thing that matters is whether it unbalances the arena or not. The F4U1C did, so it got perked. The Ta 152 didn't so it got unperked. The La-7 might be annoying, but it is hardly an unbalancing factor in the arena.
-
Numbers produced/saw service has nothing to do with why Hitech perks certain planes. The only thing that matters is whether it unbalances the arena or not. The F4U1C did, so it got perked. The Ta 152 didn't so it got unperked. The La-7 might be annoying, but it is hardly an unbalancing factor in the arena.
That doesn't negate the possibility that perking loadouts could improve the arenas' balance.
-
I don't care if I have to pay perks for the Mk 108 on the G-6, but I'd like the option.
The point is consistency. Don't give one aircraft a special weapon of which there were only 348 examples that saw combat, but deny another aircraft a special weapon of which a number approaching 1000 saw combat (conservative estimate).
-
The only shortcoming is the range, which is easily handled by conserving fuel inbound.
Or flying to the fight on the deck, which usually results in a much much more fun fight. Confuses me to see LA's cruising looking for a fight higher than 4k.
-
And agree with the OP, does not make sense to have the most commonly gun configured versions of most AC, but then have the 3x20mm lala version which, if my memory is correct, represented less than 5% of LA-7's in service? (could be wrong).
Why are we not allowed the 4x20mm version of the Ki-84 then, if production numbers don't matter for variants purely in gun loadouts?
-
That doesn't negate the possibility that perking loadouts could improve the arenas' balance.
Sure, but then you would first have to show that the La-7's loadout is unbalancing in the first place.
-
The B 20 was not faster firing as implemented on the La7. ROC/per gun was the same for both the ShVak and the B-20 (per gun) The overriding advantage of the B-20 was that it was light. Infact 3 x B20's plus 450 rounds was lighter than 2 x ShVak with 400 rounds.
Actually, in AH the 3 cannon La-7 is 5 lb heavier than the 2 cannon one with otherwise same loadout.
So, albeit being a very rare installation, it's at least handicapped! :D
-
Sure, but then you would first have to show that the La-7's loadout is unbalancing in the first place.
Right, chicken and egg. Let's just use the perk loadout system and see what's what.
-
Right, chicken and egg. Let's just use the perk loadout system and see what's what.
No, not chicken and egg. The La-7 is not an unbalancing factor in the arena. There are not too many players flying it compared to other planes. That is the only thing that matters.
(http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/203/usageuu1.jpg)
If you think something needs perking you first have to show that it is unbalancing the arena.
-
Those numbers need updating, I don't think either the N1K or LA7 are nearly that popular anymore. But either way on that chart there are 76 A/C of which 4 make up 25% of usage. That's not an imbalance?
-
Or flying to the fight on the deck, which usually results in a much much more fun fight. Confuses me to see LA's cruising looking for a fight higher than 4k.
Agree, I'm doing the same thing in the La7.
-
Those numbers need updating, I don't think either the N1K or LA7 are nearly that popular anymore. But either way on that chart there are 76 A/C of which 4 make up 25% of usage. That's not an imbalance?
No. There will always be favourites. As long as no one plane gets too dominant like the F4U1C did everything is ok. Should the P-51D be perked because 7% of players fly it? Of course not.
-
No. There will always be favourites. As long as no one plane gets too dominant like the F4U1C did everything is ok. Should the P-51D be perked because 7% of players fly it? Of course not.
Those numbers are way off. I've noticed more Ki-61's (which is why I don't fly it anymore, after it was being deemed a "POS" by most who now fly it.), Ta-152's and Spit 8's. I see the Community straying from the Spit 16, La7. I see more 51's and more 109's of all models.
I'm not stating this as Gospel, but just from my perspective.
-
March is almost complete, so using March . . .
P-51D 8.78%
Spitfire Mk XVI 7.14%
N1K2 4.20%
F4U-1D 3.59%
Il-2 3.17%
Typhoon IB 3.11%
La-7 3.06%
February data . . .
P-51D 8.85%
Spitfire Mk XVI 6.61%
N1K2 4.20%
F4U-1D 3.77%
Il-2 3.56%
Typhoon IB 3.28%
La-7 3.16%
Compiled from Kills + deaths for aircraft only (i.e. removing gunners and GVs) for Late War Arenas.
The answer is clear -- time to perk the Pony. :P
-
Those numbers need updating,
There had been an update: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,255568.0.html
-
No. There will always be favourites. As long as no one plane gets too dominant like the F4U1C did everything is ok. Should the P-51D be perked because 7% of players fly it? Of course not.
Please tell me where you get that "7%" from.
-
Please tell me where you get that "7%" from.
From my charts? ;)
-
Please tell me where you get that "7%" from.
Do NOT dispute Lusche's "charts". :devil
-
Please tell me where you get that "7%" from.
Perhaps you didn't notice the big nice pie chart I posted? (Thanks Lusche!)
-
Allow me the comment that those numbers are not showing percentage of players flying a plane, and are not based on number of sorties either.
Those charts do just show the distribution of kills & deaths combined, which is the best approximation to "usage" we can get with the data HTC provides.
-
No, not chicken and egg. The La-7 is not an unbalancing factor in the arena. There are not too many players flying it compared to other planes. That is the only thing that matters.
(http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/203/usageuu1.jpg)
If you think something needs perking you first have to show that it is unbalancing the arena.
It unbalances the plane usage. No one in the game would rather have something like 25% of all planes in the arena being just 5 planes and the rest of the planeset rarely seen. Bombs will probably get perked too. 1000#ers for fighters most likely.
The same way we have WGr21 rocket tubes that don't jettison after use. The same way we'll have to pay perks for removing the rear gunner and equipment on the Me410. And if we don't it's fine by me, but it's a missed opportunity for better plane usage distribution.
-
No. There will always be favourites. As long as no one plane gets too dominant like the F4U1C did everything is ok. Should the P-51D be perked because 7% of players fly it? Of course not.
I have a problem with the F4U-1C example because the planeset was much smaller back then. So of course it would be a lot easier for one aircraft to hit 25% than it is now (and there was no SpitXVI!).
Secondly, high use numbers alone are not unbalancing. If next tour half of us flew all our sorties in the P-40B, that would not be unbalancing.
Lastly, I venture to say that no one has ever given an explanation of what "unbalancing" means, instead they point to examples and other individual events. The word deserves to die in the AH lexicon unless someone can do better than that. I would prefer to see necessary and sufficient conditions for "unbalancing" before we throw around the word like we know what we're talking about.
-
This is what Pyro said back in 2000 when the perk system was introduced:
Just to clear up a few things about this upcoming system.
It is not meant to be something that only elite pilots can get. That's not the point at all. If you fly like you do now, you will eventually accumulate enough points to get a perk plane. Most planes you will be able to fly all you want, so it's not like you'll end up gettting stuck with lousy planes if you don't have any points.
This system does a few things for us. First it allows us to introduce planes that we otherwise would not be able to include because they would upset play balance. It also helps balance out plane selection and brings more diversity since people can get more points by flying less capable planes. Last, it gives players a tangible reward for their efforts.
You do not need to be a top pilot or fly mega hours each week to achieve a perk. Flying more will let you achieve it in a shorter amount of real time, but you'll still have to spend the same amount of in-game time.
This is a purely a game system for the main arena. How a plane gets classified only has to do with how it affects the main arena, not with how it served historically.
This system will also be used in bombers and vehicles. A B-29 and Tiger II would be examples of what we could add as perks there.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Perking the P-51, Spit16, Nikki and La-7 won't do anything to balance the arena. There will always be a small number of planes that are more used than the rest. The most popular American fighter (biggest market and player base), the best runner, the best furballer, the best HO'er and the best ground attacker of the free plane set will always dominate usage. If the P-51, Spit16, Nikki and La-7 are perked they will simply be replaced by the next best plane that does the same things well.
-
Those numbers are way off. I've noticed more Ki-61's (which is why I don't fly it anymore, after it was being deemed a "POS" by most who now fly it.), Ta-152's and Spit 8's. I see the Community straying from the Spit 16, La7. I see more 51's and more 109's of all models.
I'm not stating this as Gospel, but just from my perspective.
I totally agree with that observation, and I think it goes in cycles, it use to be that N1K's were everywhere and now you don't see them near as often.
-
This is what Pyro said back in 2000 when the perk system was introduced:
Perking the P-51, Spit16, Nikki and La-7 won't do anything to balance the arena. There will always be a small number of planes that are more used than the rest. The most popular American fighter (biggest market and player base), the best runner, the best furballer, the best HO'er and the best ground attacker of the free plane set will always dominate usage. If the P-51, Spit16, Nikki and La-7 are perked they will simply be replaced by the next best plane that does the same things well.
I guess that might settle it. "Smoke em if you got em." I still think the arena would be better off with 1000#s perked for fighters. The same way the planes are made to be more like they were in reality with WGr21 tubes that you can't jettison.
-
La Sucks regarudless.
-
I have a problem with the F4U-1C example because the planeset was much smaller back then. So of course it would be a lot easier for one aircraft to hit 25% than it is now (and there was no SpitXVI!).
You people keep saying that and it keeps being used less than the P-51D, which was in the game back then.
Whine more.
-
You people keep saying that and it keeps being used less than the P-51D, which was in the game back then.
And this address the argument, how? :pray
-
La Sucks regarudless.
How so?
-
I'm glad the Topic didn't go to waste :rofl
-
La Sucks regarudless.
^
Sounds to me that someone got there tail spanked be a couple of them.................
-
How so?
Well the cannons on it suck and are hard to aim. Yes it is fast and it can climb. Feul loadout is crapy. Cannon fire rate gives it almost no ammo. And it doesn't turn that well at higher speeds. Can't Dive. Very Weak armour. poor rear visiblity.
-
Well the cannons on it suck and are hard to aim. Yes it is fast and it can climb. Feul loadout is crapy. Cannon fire rate gives it almost no ammo. And it doesn't turn that well at higher speeds. Can't Dive. Very Weak armour. poor rear visiblity.
Are we flying the same La7?
-
Well the cannons on it suck and are hard to aim. Yes it is fast and it can climb. Feul loadout is crapy. Cannon fire rate gives it almost no ammo. And it doesn't turn that well at higher speeds. Can't Dive. Very Weak armour. poor rear visiblity.
Cannons suck only if you are used to hispanos. Ballistically they are in the same class as the German MG151/20 guns. Being fuselage mounted is a nice advantage.
Also the La-7 is actually a nice turner, and quite controllable at higher speeds. From where you got the impression it can't dive ... I have no idea...
-
StokesAK, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but that's got to be the most inaccurate description of the La7 I've ever seen.
-
See Rule #4
-
Well the cannons on it suck and are hard to aim. Yes it is fast and it can climb. Feul loadout is crapy. Cannon fire rate gives it almost no ammo. And it doesn't turn that well at higher speeds. Can't Dive. Very Weak armour. poor rear visiblity.
Strange
Cannons are no Hispanos but the triple cannon version is a hit and kill configuration at 300.
ROC is equatable with Hispanos.
Turn rate at IAS 220 is in the top rankings and above that it only degrades seriously with G.
Overall dive is not as UBER as it once was (when it once out dived P51's!!) but its powered dive is still uber until above max level speed after which its aerodynamics are not upto those of several AC.
Armour is good its a sturdy little beast. Just not in P47 / Blooo plane class IMO
Visibility is better than Spits/Hurris/Bloo planes/109's and F190's IMO
-
Im sorry i don't get in La's that much
-
Perhaps you didn't notice the big nice pie chart I posted? (Thanks Lusche!)
Allow me the comment that those numbers are not showing percentage of players flying a plane, and are not based on number of sorties either.
Those charts do just show the distribution of kills & deaths combined, which is the best approximation to "usage" we can get with the data HTC provides.
Bingo.
-
"... which is the best approximation to "usage" we can get with the data HTC provides."
-
"... which is the best approximation to "usage" we can get with the data HTC provides."
No. It just shows K/D and in no way can tell you how many people fly it. A few skilled players could pick one under used plane, get a few thousand kills in it, and by what you're saying it would show that more people are flying it when that wouldn't be the case.
Cannons suck only if you are used to hispanos. Ballistically they are in the same class as the German MG151/20 guns.
Not really. I'm very used to Mg151s and when I fly the La7 I cant hit anything with it aiming like a 151. IMO the ballistics are closer to the Mk103 then the Mg151.
-
Larry - The 103 is better than even the 50 cal. You mean 108?
-
No. It just shows K/D and in no way can tell you how many people fly it. A few skilled players could pick one under used plane, get a few thousand kills in it, and by what you're saying it would show that more people are flying it when that wouldn't be the case.
Lusche is the one that "said it". You quoted him.
-
No. It just shows K/D and in no way can tell you how many people fly it. A few skilled players could pick one under used plane, get a few thousand kills in it, and by what you're saying it would show that more people are flying it when that wouldn't be the case.
It's not showing K/D, I add kills AND deaths.
Plane A, the "n00b" plane - many users at mediocre skill level: 500 kills, 500 deaths = K+D 1000
Plane B, the "experts" plane - few users with superior success: 500 kills, 100 deaths = K+D 600
Granted, it's still not showing number of sorties, which isn't unlikely for plane B to be even lower, but again you get a general "feel".
-
Larry - The 103 is better than even the 50 cal. You mean 108?
Ah yes Mk108. I always get the two mixed up.
Lusche is the one that "said it". You quoted him.
No I'm quoting you on your "7% of people fly the P51D" when you cant show any actual evidence. You would need to know the exact number of people that fly AH then the exact number of sorties each plane has flown. Since there is no way of knowing those numbers anything else is just guessing.
-
Read Lusche's latest post.
-
I did. It still gives no proof showing that "7% of players fly the P51D". All it shows is it has 7% of all kills and deaths nothing more nothing less. You basing your statement on something that doesn't show actual percentage of players using a plane means its a guess and theres a pretty good chance that its wrong.
Say I go out and shoot down one hundred planes and twentyfive of them are spit16s. Does that mean that 1/4th of all players fly the Spit16? No, it means that 1/4 of those hundred planes I shot down were spit16s.
That data that in that graph was compiled from a whole year of AH kills and deaths. I'm pretty sure that more then 7% of people that flew AH in that year flew a P51D, but until HTC releases data that lets us get the actual numbers everything is a guess including your "7%".
-
Cannons are no Hispanos but the triple cannon version is a hit and kill configuration at 300.
Triple OR double congifuration cannons on ANY bird are hit and kill at 300 IMO.
And in the case of either of the LAs, to hit anything outside that range, you need to be very familiar with the cannons or very lucky.
The 3rd cannon isn't as big a deal as some people make it out to be.
ANYTHING with Hispanos can reach out and touch someone, but the LA-7 even with the triple config. you will need to tap em on the shoulder 1st.
2 Hispanos are WAY more deadly, even in inexperienced hands.
-
Triple OR double congifuration cannons on ANY bird are hit and kill at 300 IMO.
And in the case of either of the LAs, to hit anything outside that range, you need to be very familiar with the cannons or very lucky.
The 3rd cannon isn't as big a deal as some people make it out to be.
ANYTHING with Hispanos can reach out and touch someone, but the LA-7 even with the triple config. you will need to tap em on the shoulder 1st.
2 Hispanos are WAY more deadly, even in inexperienced hands.
Oh absolutely, but I don't even take shots outside 300 with the La's unless I'm trying to get a turn out of them, but inside 300 I don't care what 20mm cannons you have there going to kill, so it really doesn't matter when your up close. The only time it matters is when your trying to hit someone at long range and really I think some of the long distant shots players take in this game is absurd anyway. So the only real advantage the Hispanos have is at range, and that is why a lot of players use the planes that pack them, because most player won't chop throttle and work in close because of there lack of skill, all they know is that with Hispanos I can stay on the throttle and spray because one lucky hit is all it takes.
-
Ah yes Mk108. I always get the two mixed up.
No I'm quoting you on your "7% of people fly the P51D" when you cant show any actual evidence. You would need to know the exact number of people that fly AH then the exact number of sorties each plane has flown. Since there is no way of knowing those numbers anything else is just guessing.
With all due respect, I don't think the burden of proof is on me; I'm not the one who wants to change the game.
-
With all due respect, I don't think the burden of proof is on me; I'm not the one who wants to change the game.
Actually it is on you since you're the one that said "7% of people fly the P51". Show me some proof that backs up your statement.
-
I have. Lusche's statistics are the most accurate "proof" available.
-
No, you haven't. Lusche's statistics show the kills and deaths of each plane. It in no way shows that 7% of people in aces high fly the P51. It only shows that it has 7% of all kill and deaths during that year, and since that's all the proor you have that means you are wrong.
-
It is the most accurate estimate available to us. Show me some "proof" that the percentage of P-51 pilots aren't 7% (or rather 8% according to Luche's latest data).
-
Ok, it's clear the diehard doesn't understand "burden of proof," but it's also true that on this bbs we mean kills+deaths by the word "use" because of the tradition of Lusche's stats.
As a great philosopher said, if you want to know the meaning of a word, look at its use, and when we say "use" we mean k+d. ;)
-
Yes it is the most accurate data but only for showing the percentage of kills and deaths. NOT the percentage of people that fly each aircraft. As soon as you get that outta your head you'll realize that saying "7% of the people in AH fly the P51" then basing it on a graph that shows numbers for something else makes your statement wrong. No matter how many times you bring up luche's chart until you can tell me how many people flew aceshigh that year and how many flew each plane you cant tell me the percentage of people flew the P51 you're just guessing and that makes you wrong.
-
I think the think thread has ended up in a somewhat silly and superfluous discussion.. but maybe it's just my perception because I see my name in it a tad too often ;)
-
I think the think thread has ended up in a somewhat silly and superfluous discussion.. but maybe it's just my perception because I see my name in it a tad too often ;)
You know you like the attention. :D
-
Ok, I'll just shut up now.
-
Die Hard and Larry appear to be arguing past one another.
Best thing you can say is that approximately 8% of sorties are P-51Ds according to available data. This seems to be what Die Hard is saying, just saying it poorly. I don't think Die Hard means to say that 92% of the player base never flies the P-51D even though an ultra-literal interpretation of his words would indicate this is what he means.
Larry seems to be saying one of two things (or perhaps both):
#1) Just because 8% of the "usage" by Kills+Deaths are P-51s does not mean only 8% of players fly it -- 80% of players could fly P-51Ds about 10% of the time each and you get the 8% "use" from Lusche's chart.
#2) The Pony could have a much lower (or higher) kills per sortie or kills per time than the average plane, which would mean total "flight time" in the MAs for the P-51 may be far different than 8%.
Now that I have explained your positions to you, please choose me as your target-of-the-day and tell me what a tard I am. :D
Edit: Just because I don't think it has been in this thread enough yet . . .
Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman Lusche Snailman
:lol
-
The only way #2 could be true is if it had a very high number of sorties resulting in no kills and no deaths. Otherwise its kill/death ratio gives a fairly good idea of kills per sorties, which isn't anything special.
-
Lusche, could you maybe rework yor stats only showing the deaths of each ac?
This is at least an accurate number of the the smallest possible amount of sorties flown. From that, you could maybe approximate a relative usage number compared to the other planes. Just thinkin...
-
Lusche, could you maybe rework yor stats only showing the deaths of each ac?
This is at least an accurate number of the the smallest possible amount of sorties flown. From that, you could maybe approximate a relative usage number compared to the other planes. Just thinkin...
I could (and that would really be another thread ;)), but in my opinion that wouldn't really be helpful.
Some planes die almost every sortie while getting only an occasional kill, whereas some (especially perk rides like the tempest) do fly several sorties and get kills. That's why I added kills & deaths - to get a bit more "balanced" result.
And I really never tried to figure out any actual number of sorties with that numbers. Sometimes I call kills as well as deaths "events". I simply add up all events to determine the prevalence of a certain plane within the arena.
-
I think most guys whine about 3 guns on the LA-7 after they get shot down from what they perceive is as to far for the Russian cannon. We'll call it 400 to 800 k out. I have found from flying the LAs that this usually happens when a con is in run mode, usually a runStang or FW-run90, and is flying flat. Almost like he's got auto-pilot on.
The truth is this is the worst thing you can do against nose mounted cannon. A LA, P-38, and especially a Mossie, will kill you from way out if you fly in such a manner and yet I see guys, even experienced guys, do it all the time when an LA-7 is on their tail because they 'think" they are out of range of the "made in Russia" cannon, even tho they wouldn't think of doing it against Hispanos. Or even a Niki.
-
You people keep saying that and it keeps being used less than the P-51D, which was in the game back then.
Whine more.
YOU people keep failing to grasp the difference between planes which are double-superior to half the plane set at typical MA alts and generally do everything very well, AND a mediocre plane which is popular because of "Dogfights" on the History Channel. If the P-51D had the exact same abilities but was called the "Me-209", its "market share" would probably be less than the D9's.
-
YOU people keep failing to grasp the difference between planes which are double-superior to half the plane set at typical MA alts and generally do everything very well, AND a mediocre plane which is popular because of "Dogfights" on the History Channel. If the P-51D had the exact same abilities but was called the "Me-209", its "market share" would probably be less than the D9's.
There you go again.
-
YOU people keep failing to grasp the difference between planes which are double-superior to half the plane set at typical MA alts and generally do everything very well, AND a mediocre plane which is popular because of "Dogfights" on the History Channel. If the P-51D had the exact same abilities but was called the "Me-209", its "market share" would probably be less than the D9's.
Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.
-
Those numbers are way off. I've noticed more Ki-61's (which is why I don't fly it anymore, after it was being deemed a "POS" by most who now fly it.), Ta-152's and Spit 8's. I see the Community straying from the Spit 16, La7. I see more 51's and more 109's of all models.
I'm not stating this as Gospel, but just from my perspective.
the plural of anecdote is "no data"
-
There you go again.
I have to go again because the popularity standard people keep raising is completely irrational. To defend it, you must be willing to defend the notion of perking the P-40B if enough people wished to fly it. I realize now that a major part of your problem in our discussions was your ignorance of the meaning of the term "double-superior". I don't blame you for not knowing something, but ye Gods man, when the ignoramus misunderstands the message, it is *not* the fault of the messenger.
-
Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.
I agree completely. Airplane performance is totally irrelevant. Only festering resentment against History Channel hype and an *almost* too-intense fixation the equipment of the Nazi war machine is relevant. :aok
-
I agree completely. Airplane performance is totally irrelevant. Only festering resentment against History Channel hype and an *almost* too-intense fixation the equipment of the Nazi war machine is relevant. :aok
Yes, it is totally irrelevant; the only relevant factor is what Pyro stated: "This is a purely a game system for the main arena. How a plane gets classified only has to do with how it affects the main arena, not with how it served historically."
Whine all you want though; it's quite entertaining.
-
Yes, it is totally irrelevant; the only relevant factor is what Pyro stated: "This is a purely a game system for the main arena. How a plane gets classified only has to do with how it affects the main arena, not with how it served historically."
Whine all you want though; it's quite entertaining.
Who said anything about how it served historically? If the MA were about flying escort missions at 25K for hours on end, the Pony would quite possibly deserved to be perked. As it stands, 90% of the time under actual MA conditions, the P-51 represents an airplane that is easy to dodge and easy to kill for most other planes in the set if they can catch it. IOW, it presents no insurmountable problems for 90% of the plane set, seeing as how certain bombers can easily whip it in a turning fight.
-
Die Hard, are you saying that aircraft performance is something distinct from arena impact?
I would appreciate it if you'd cool down the invective.
-
Die Hard, are you saying that aircraft performance is something distinct from arena impact?
Usage is all that matters. Performance is certainly a factor of usage, but only one factor of many; popularity, range, fire power, ordnance capability and probably many other factors contribute to plane usage. In the F4U-1C all these factors contributed to it being perked simply because too many players were flying it because it did everything well. In the La-7, even if its performance as a pure fighter is remarkable, all the factors do not add up and thus not too many players fly it. While a 1-on-1 fight or small furball might be dominated by an La-7, the La-7 does not dominate the arena as a whole; and that is the only thing that matters unless Pyro et al have changed the criteria for perking planes.
-
So if tomorrow 25% of us were flying the P-40B (it doesn't matter why), then what?
-
If it was only tomorrow, then nothing. If it lasted several months then the P-40B needs perking.
The P-40B is of course a rather silly plane to use as an example, but not all early-war planes are; I can easily imagine an arena with 25% Hurri IIC's if shooting was made easier.
-
Well, Ok, I'll respect your opinion though I could never agree with it. ;)
-
The only opinions that matters are neither mine nor yours, but Hitech's and Pyro's. And theirs are pretty clear.
Would you like to fly in an arena with 25% (insert any plane)?
-
Jason told me today that the La7 had A2A rockets! I want some of that! :aok
-
I've seen A2A rockets on EW Russian aircraft, but never on the La7... I believe they were deleted early on because they were all but useless.