Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Softail on August 26, 2009, 07:33:57 AM
-
Since the new version my M8 has been almost useless.
B4 the new version life was good....two shots to a Panzer turret took it out....3-4 to the body finished it off.
Now...I pull up behind a Panzer....and I mean 10 FEET behind. I have to plug him 10 times to kill him!
I'm hitting OSTI's and Wirrbles in the side armour below the tracks 8-9 times to score a kill.
Hitting a Panzy turret at 600 yards (used to be effective) now takes 4 shots (or more) to take it out.
What did they do to my 37MM?
and before someone says (and they will) "it depends on where you hit it." Let me say that I am "probably" the most experienced M8 driver in the game. If you see a Knight M8 running around....odds are.... its me.
613PSYCO
-
What did they do to my 37MM?
Sounds like they made it more realistic!
- oldman
-
"My 37mms", the ones on the IL2, went from taking 4 to 8 perfect hits to a Panzers turret, to take it out, to 4 to 8 perfect hits to a Panzers turret. :huh And thats with the Soviet NS-37 cannon, the one shooting AP over 900 ms.
Why just the other day I gave a panzer a good hosing to the front armor and I didn't do a thing to it.
And I'm like a God in IL2 circles. :lol A veritable God! :rofl
Its a conspiracy. :uhoh They are all out to get me.
-
Since the new version my M8 has been almost useless.
B4 the new version life was good....two shots to a Panzer turret took it out....3-4 to the body finished it off.
Now...I pull up behind a Panzer....and I mean 10 FEET behind. I have to plug him 10 times to kill him!
I'm hitting OSTI's and Wirrbles in the side armour below the tracks 8-9 times to score a kill.
Hitting a Panzy turret at 600 yards (used to be effective) now takes 4 shots (or more) to take it out.
What did they do to my 37MM?
and before someone says (and they will) "it depends on where you hit it." Let me say that I am "probably" the most experienced M8 driver in the game. If you see a Knight M8 running around....odds are.... its me.
613PSYCO
Then you shouldn't have trouble showing film, so we can debug or at least narrow down what's amiss.
-
Sounds like they made it more realistic!
- oldman
+1 :aok
-
Then you shouldn't have trouble showing film, so we can debug or at least narrow down what's amiss.
LOL Amiss, so you are saying he is just missing ?
-
a·miss (-ms)
adj.
1. Out of proper order: What is amiss?
2. Not in perfect shape; faulty.
adv.
In an improper, defective, unfortunate, or mistaken way.
-
It really sucks being a foreigner with an extra-anglosaxon vocabulary :cry
:lol
-
a·miss (-ms)
adj.
1. Out of proper order: What is amiss?
2. Not in perfect shape; faulty.
adv.
In an improper, defective, unfortunate, or mistaken way.
I was being a facetious
-
a·miss (-ms)
adj.
1. Out of proper order: What is amiss?
2. Not in perfect shape; faulty.
adv.
In an improper, defective, unfortunate, or mistaken way.
-
Sounds like they made it more realistic!
- oldman
This was one of the guns they tested the other day on Lock 'n Load...didn't look terribly effective against plate, even at short ranges.
-
This was one of the guns they tested the other day on Lock 'n Load...didn't look terribly effective against plate, even at short ranges.
I guess HT watched it :P
-
Taking a small calibre anti-tank gun out to hunt late war, heavily plated tanks? From ground level? And it takes 4 shots or more?
Sounds like they didnt do anything with it I dont remember one shooting any tanks in AH from a M-8.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fswvJcPcayQ 12 or 14 hits from a higher velocity 37mm on a downward angle, in 2 passes, to kill a Tiger the other day. BTW thats not me talking.
While the M-8 had some utility in the Asian theatre it was mostly a scout/command car and nobody in their right mind would want to take one against any armored vehicle. Most of all late war medium tanks and/or heavy breakthru tanks.
Its possible some lag was an issue as well. But I dont see HiTech changing gun effectiveness and not telling us. Plenty of times Ive cursed my guns and/or rubber bullets. I just never did so in the forum. And deep down realized it probably wasnt the game.
-
[quote But I dont see HiTech changing gun effectiveness and not telling us.
[/quote]
I HAVE seen it!!! Miracle ack starts killin at 5k with single cockpit shots.. And reduced 50cal effectiveness against ground targets... Overnight!!! LOL!!! Not that I really care, But it IS TRUE!!!
-
I spend alot of time in the M8 - it still takes 2 directs hit to smoke Pnzr, T34-85, Osti and Wirb turrets. that's as good as killing them.
finally found out it take 4 shots to the 'chin' of a T34/76 to kill it, turret seem invulnerable to M8 37mm fire. i don't recall ever killing a M4 but don't often get into firefights with them.
and i just plain run like a girl from tigers, man.
-
In a m8 you can turret a t-34 76 with 2 shots using armor piercing rounds. It is risky but you have to be right in front of the barrel and hit where the barrel conects to the turret. I actually find the m8 being more effective at killing planes and low level bomers than it is a anti tank vehicle. :noid
-
And thats with the Soviet NS-37 cannon, the one shooting AP over 900 ms.
Pretty sure the NS-37 is the cannon in the Yak-9T...and that fires pure HE.
-
And let's conveniently ignore the fact that besides the tremendous amount of recoil that prevented firing more than a few shells in succession (with any accuracy), the 37mm cannon on the Il-2 were found to jam so frequently as to make the 23mm armament preferable. :P
Only in AH do mediocre weapons that never attained more than marginal success get turned into ubiquitous uber-weapons. :lol
-
Well, you know when they were first going to introduce the NS-37 to AHII, I set up an offline armor-killing mission in Il2 to get an idea of what it would be like. Killed some tanks in one pass, and I was thinking.."Yeah...uber."
Then I upped a P-51D and tried strafing the tanks and *still* got one pass kills. :rofl :
This is the same P-51D that in Il2 can empty a whole clip into an Fw-190 without causing much more than a fuel leak... :D :D :D :D :D
So it could be worse Anax, could be alot worse. ;)
And let's conveniently ignore the fact that besides the tremendous amount of recoil that prevented firing more than a few shells in succession (with any accuracy), the 37mm cannon on the Il-2 were found to jam so frequently as to make the 23mm armament preferable. :P
Only in AH do mediocre weapons that never attained more than marginal success get turned into ubiquitous uber-weapons. :lol
-
That depends on the tanks. The earlier ones might've fallen prey to the Brownings if they were around the battlefield back then. But, don't take that as saying anything for Il-2's modeling... :noid
-
Then I upped a P-51D and tried strafing the tanks and *still* got one pass kills. :rofl :
Sounds like a bug. That hasn't happened online since they fixed light to medium ammo damage against armor.
-
I HAVE seen it!!! Miracle ack starts killin at 5k with single cockpit shots..
ive had it happen to me.. more then once, makes me want to throw my joystick through the monitor
-
Only in AH do mediocre weapons that never attained more than marginal success get turned into ubiquitous uber-weapons.
Of course this only applies to the weapons that shoot at you. I feel your pain. It seems every weapon shooting at me is modeled incorrectly. :uhoh
-
Of course this only applies to the weapons that shoot at you. I feel your pain. It seems every weapon shooting at me is modeled incorrectly. :uhoh
Good try at distracting from the historical facts.
I am getting tired of your personal attacks on anyone who points out that your beloved 37mm Il-2 is far more capable in the game than it ever was in actual combat, and to an extent that far outstrips the inaccuracies of other aircraft in the game.
-
Good try at distracting from the historical facts.
I am getting tired of your personal attacks on anyone who points out that your beloved 37mm Il-2 is far more capable in the game than it ever was in actual combat, and to an extent that far outstrips the inaccuracies of other aircraft in the game.
ITS A GAME, A BUSSINESS, A LIVING, HT is trying to make a more enjoyable experience for the majority of the subribers...if you find yourself outnumbered in a forum, theyre doing their jobs correctly...
-
Good try at distracting from the historical facts.
I am getting tired of your personal attacks on anyone who points out that your beloved 37mm Il-2 is far more capable in the game than it ever was in actual combat, and to an extent that far outstrips the inaccuracies of other aircraft in the game.
Perhaps he is tired of you overstating the case against the supposed "inaccuracies" in the IL-2?
Sounds like you are about even to me.
:P
Every plane has some sort of inaccuracy, because all planes in the game function exactly as designed -- not as experienced on the battlefield. All planes sufferred to some extent from mechanical failures or guns jamming or <insert favored form of selective realism here>, but in AH, NONE suffer from any of these effects. There is no favoritism shown to any plane in this regard.
Couple this with the fact there is no penalty for dying in a game (unlike real life), and you are going to get results in the game that were never achieved in RL, simply because cartoon pilots will push to the limit and beyond, and find that last razor edge of performance that few RL pilots would ever dare find.
-
Eh! I call it playful exaggeration. :)
I agree and understand the points you make, but it seems like in the 37mm Il-2's case the "idealization" benefit is far more pronounced than in other aircraft. In other words, the less reliable a weapon was, and the more difficult to deploy, the more its reliability and ease of use increases when implemented in a computer game. Do you see what I mean?
-
Good try at distracting from the historical facts.
I am getting tired of your personal attacks on anyone who points out that your beloved 37mm Il-2 is far more capable in the game than it ever was in actual combat, and to an extent that far outstrips the inaccuracies of other aircraft in the game.
I was actually joking.
But since you ask this IL2 whining of yours got stale about 20 whines ago.
Next time you kill a tank 1/2 sector away, or knock down an IL2 with your main gun, convince yourself how legit all of that is and then come here and complain.
The difference is I dont whine or cry about these things. I just get another cartoon airplane, relieved that the bullets arent real.
-
You just spout one fallacy after another. There really is no point in discussing things with you.
-
RabbleRabble
Humph!
Fixed.
-
Eh! I call it playful exaggeration. :)
I agree and understand the points you make, but it seems like in the 37mm Il-2's case the "idealization" benefit is far more pronounced than in other aircraft. In other words, the less reliable a weapon was, and the more difficult to deploy, the more its reliability and ease of use increases when implemented in a computer game. Do you see what I mean?
I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side. If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent. Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc. That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.
No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it. Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.
-
I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side. If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent. Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc. That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.
No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it. Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.
+1
-
I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side. If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent. Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc. That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.
No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it. Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.
+2
- oldman
-
... the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it. ...
While I whole-heartedly agree with your point, it makes me wonder if Ki-84s were designed to have parts fall off at high speeds. Just one of those things that makes me go hmmmmm.
Regards,
Hammer
-
I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side. If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent. Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc. That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.
No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it. Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.
+3 :)
A little thought about the matter and the wisdom of why HTC hasn't modeled this sort of thing is pretty apparent.
Look at the frequency that puffy ack complaints pop up on the BBS. Now add to that list, engine failure/fire, gun jamming, landing gear failure, etc. The modeling of these historical quirks would likely involve a lot of guess work. For example early model B-29's had a problem with engines catching on fire. Is the data about how many engine fires occurred available compared to how many sorties were flown? This leaves a lot of guess work in the coding which then means it's a no-win situation. Plus it's just not fun to fly a plane that could come apart at the seems at a random moment.
-
You just spout one fallacy after another. There really is no point in discussing things with you.
I "spout fallacies"?
Kid you have basically zero% interaction with IL2s and yet you are in here whining about them all the time.
Now your crying about "personal attacks".
Its all adding up isnt it? Your a cry baby.
-
While I whole-heartedly agree with your point, it makes me wonder if Ki-84s were designed to have parts fall off at high speeds. Just one of those things that makes me go hmmmmm.
Regards,
Hammer
I gotta agree with Hammer here. It seems like the Ki-84 does have reliability issues built into its model.
I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side. If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent. Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc. That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.
No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it. Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.
But the 37mm Il-2 recoil issue has nothing to do with quality control or materials. Great breakdown there, but I'm not sure it's applicable to this particular case (though I totally agree that jamming has no place in AH). Instead, the recoil effect occurs just because it's a big gun firing a big shell, and because the two big guns were not synchronized. There was not a failure of a synchronization mechanism that we're leaving out in AH because there never was one.
So how do you account for that?
-
I would think the difference would be that if the Ki-84 is losing parts at high-speeds that's still player controlled. The airframe has it's limits and you learn where they are and then you can avoid them. A gun jam, engine failure, etc. would be a more random occurrence that I think would just lead to frustrations.
-
I would think the difference would be that if the Ki-84 is losing parts at high-speeds that's still player controlled. The airframe has it's limits and you learn where they are and then you can avoid them. A gun jam, engine failure, etc. would be a more random occurrence that I think would just lead to frustrations.
Good point, and certainly a marked difference from the random failure of a part the player has no control over. Still, it's undoubtedly a variable. Granted, every facet of the data used by HTC would vary from plane to plane within a type, and we could argue minutia until blue in the face. I have no real complaints. Just, as I said, something that makes me go hmmmm.
Regards,
Hammer
-
I gotta agree with Hammer here. It seems like the Ki-84 does have reliability issues built into its model.
The KI-84 shedding parts at high speed I always figured was a bona fide design flaw -- that is, insufficient structural resilience in the design itself, rather than modeling the poor quality materials. I could be wrong on that point, though.
But the 37mm Il-2 recoil issue has nothing to do with quality control or materials. Great breakdown there, but I'm not sure it's applicable to this particular case (though I totally agree that jamming has no place in AH). Instead, the recoil effect occurs just because it's a big gun firing a big shell, and because the two big guns were not synchronized. There was not a failure of a synchronization mechanism that we're leaving out in AH because there never was one.
So how do you account for that?
If I understand the situation correctly, there was no synchonization "mechanism" that kept the guns firing at the same time. But they are two guns that should, in theory, be firing at the same rate if they were constructed exactly the same. Pull the trigger, both fire. Keep the trigger depressed, and they would continue to fire at the same time if the guns were perfectly identical. So, in RL they went out of sync why? Because in RL there are variabilities in the guns' mechanically limited firing rates, even though they were not designed to fire any differently.
So, I switch the question back to you. If you are modeling a game and want to be consistent with all weapons, what kind of mechanical variability in the firing time do you model in for each gun? .1 second? .3 second? .01 second? How do you even source that kind of information?
If you are going to model a variable rate of fire for a plane carrying two guns, shouldn't it be modeled for planes carrying only one gun? Shouldn't there be a variability in the rate of fire that would affect synchronized guns if one of them just happened to be inadvertentely built to fire slower?
Again, at the end of the day, IMO you would be unnecessarily complicating matters to take it to this degree because one plane seems to be benefitting from standardization moreso than other models.
-
Plus it's just not fun to fly a plane that could come apart at the seems at a random moment.
While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, AW did model that if the maintenance hangers at the field you upped from were damaged or destroyed. Sometimes you'd spawn a plane that was already smoking or you spawned a plane that appeared to be working perfectly only to blow up in flight due to the shoddy maintenance.
ack-ack
-
While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, AW did model that if the maintenance hangers at the field you upped from were damaged or destroyed. Sometimes you'd spawn a plane that was already smoking or you spawned a plane that appeared to be working perfectly only to blow up in flight due to the shoddy maintenance.
Hah! I remember that now!
The observation probably belongs in a different thread, though, perhaps one of those where people are whining that bombing airfields isn't as effective as it used to be. AW had a great solution.
- oldman
-
The KI-84 shedding parts at high speed I always figured was a bona fide design flaw -- that is, insufficient structural resilience in the design itself, rather than modeling the poor quality materials. I could be wrong on that point, though.
If I understand the situation correctly, there was no synchonization "mechanism" that kept the guns firing at the same time. But they are two guns that should, in theory, be firing at the same rate if they were constructed exactly the same. Pull the trigger, both fire. Keep the trigger depressed, and they would continue to fire at the same time if the guns were perfectly identical. So, in RL they went out of sync why? Because in RL there are variabilities in the guns' mechanically limited firing rates, even though they were not designed to fire any differently.
So, I switch the question back to you. If you are modeling a game and want to be consistent with all weapons, what kind of mechanical variability in the firing time do you model in for each gun? .1 second? .3 second? .01 second? How do you even source that kind of information?
If you are going to model a variable rate of fire for a plane carrying two guns, shouldn't it be modeled for planes carrying only one gun? Shouldn't there be a variability in the rate of fire that would affect synchronized guns if one of them just happened to be inadvertentely built to fire slower?
Again, at the end of the day, IMO you would be unnecessarily complicating matters to take it to this degree because one plane seems to be benefitting from standardization moreso than other models.
Ok, I'm going to have to yield here. You've argued the case very persuasively and I am out of objections. Thanks for the discussion!
-
What happened to the M8 discussion? Bunch of A.D.D. kids in here that hijack peoples posts. :x
Is Hispd in game Hitech? If so I popped his 34/85 in the turret the other day (smoke stack) and he was squaking about it on 200. He also didn't like the fact that he couldn't kill my M8 with the first shot. :noid
-
Is Hispd in game Hitech?
No.
In fact, HiTech has previously demonstrated that he doesn't really play AH at all, if any.
-
No.
In fact, HiTech has previously demonstrated that he doesn't really play AH at all, if any.
hehe its not like it was a game for him anyway :P I've ssen him a few times online tho.
-
No.
In fact, HiTech has previously demonstrated that he doesn't really play AH at all, if any.
Not as "HiTech" ...
-
Not as "HiTech" ...
Not as anyone. A while ago he admitted that if he played, he'd think of nothing but things he'd like to change and it wouldn't be fun. Even further back, he never even knew from when AHII came out until the (2003?) Convention that the acks in the towns were the 88s that belong in the factories instead of the quad 20mm that were supposed to be there, with a comment like "You guys gotta tell me about these things! One artist changes something and I'll never know." Also, when someone complained about having all tge VHs piled up on the VBases, he needed them to describe what he was talking about. :lol
-
Not as "HiTech" ...
:noid
:salute
-
Ok, I'm going to have to yield here. You've argued the case very persuasively and I am out of objections. Thanks for the discussion!
Just got back, and thank you. :salute
-
Sometimes you'd spawn a plane that was already smoking or you spawned a plane that appeared to be working perfectly only to blow up in flight due to the shoddy maintenance.
ack-ack
Wow.. A SAPPer's wet dream. :P
-
Wow.. A SAPPer's wet dream. :P
:)