Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: JUGgler on May 14, 2011, 11:35:55 PM
-
For all those who said "F3 makes no difference", "I don't use F3", "can't shoot in F3", "I only use F3 for SA", F3 doesn't help at all" please take a look at the stats for the il2 tween tour 135 and tour 136, I think they speak loudly for themselves :aok
Now to move on to "no F3 for any plane with fixed forward firing guns" :rock :aok
Just saying :old:
JUGgler
-
Amen, brutha. XBOX calls loudly to all the gamers... "COME TO ME! COME TO ME!!! I am still GAMEY and CHEESEY BULLSQUEEZE!"
TY, HTC, for no more BullSqueeze.
-
For all those who said "F3 makes no difference", "I don't use F3", "can't shoot in F3", "I only use F3 for SA", F3 doesn't help at all" please take a look at the stats for the il2 tween tour 135 and tour 136, I think they speak loudly for themselves :aok
Now to move on to "no F3 for any plane with fixed forward firing guns" :rock :aok
Just saying :old:
JUGgler
perhaps you should look at the gv/plane kill ratio and see which one drop. I dont think many people used the il2 to furball, except for ghi. but I did notice this tour and last tour havent had many gv battles and this is mostly due to not many people upping gv's due to the new change. less gv's, less il2 kills.
not saying your f3 theory is wrong, but they're other things you have to consider.
semp
edit : just checked the stats, gv kills are way down as compared to last month. so less gvs then less il2 kills.
-
Ju-88 as well?
-
Perk the Mossie 16... oh wait.
-
Leave my A-20 alone :cry
:old:
-
I'd like to use this opportunity thank HT for removing F3 from the IL-2. :aok
-
I'd like to use this opportunity thank HT for removing F3 from the IL-2. :aok
LMAO-Thank GHI. :rofl :P :neener:
-
LMAO-Thank GHI. :rofl :P :neener:
what does a one-trick-pony do without it's trick? :headscratch:
-
what does a one-trick-pony do without it's trick? :headscratch:
that is a little harsh irish.
I've fought Ghi in a 109G14 and a 163 and he is a good pilot + shot. Maybe some noobs somewhere will now be able to horde vulch a field in peace. It would make me laugh every time he pulled a shot off against friendlies and squaddies.
Especially JockyM's 262 one day. :D
-
Maybe some noobs somewhere will now be able to horde vulch a field in peace.
:rofl
-
Ju-88 as well?
yup
:aok
JUGgler
-
that is a little harsh irish.
Maybe some noobs somewhere will now be able to horde vulch a field in peace.
Or a "few" players with plenty of experience ? :rofl :rofl :rofl
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
JUGgler
-
yup
:aok
JUGgler
Why?
-
that is a little harsh irish.
i'm sure you're right, but what can i say? the guy killed me a bunch of times in his IL2....... :noid
-
that is a little harsh irish.
I've fought Ghi in a 109G14 and a 163 and he is a good pilot + shot. Maybe some noobs somewhere will now be able to horde vulch a field in peace. It would make me laugh every time he pulled a shot off against friendlies and squaddies.
Especially JockyM's 262 one day. :D
Ya 1 day...how about 2 in a week :furious
-
Of Course F-3 mode is a huge advantage if you don't think so go to the DA for 10 minutes and fly against the DA Queens. They are the Red Barron and Erich Hartmann all rolled into one in there because of F-mode. The same is true of the IL-2 in the MA. Now that the IL-2 has no F-3 mode HTC needs to take a look at some new cockpit views for it. If it is a fighter type aircraft now it needs fighter view to go with it.
-
Why?
cause it has a "fixed forward firing gun"
if it's good for the goose then it's good for the gander :aok
JUGgler
-
If it is a fighter type aircraft now it needs fighter view to go with it.
:headscratch: ?
wrongway
-
Of Course F-3 mode is a huge advantage if you don't think so go to the DA for 10 minutes and fly against the DA Queens. They are the Red Barron and Erich Hartmann all rolled into one in there because of F-mode. The same is true of the IL-2 in the MA. Now that the IL-2 has no F-3 mode HTC needs to take a look at some new cockpit views for it. If it is a fighter type aircraft now it needs fighter view to go with it.
the fact that you cant see out of it is the whole point. all that armor comes at a price, that price is visibility. if you gave it unrealistic views you might as well bring F3 back. no good.
-
Of Course F-3 mode is a huge advantage if you don't think so go to the DA for 10 minutes and fly against the DA Queens. They are the Red Barron and Erich Hartmann all rolled into one in there because of F-mode. The same is true of the IL-2 in the MA. Now that the IL-2 has no F-3 mode HTC needs to take a look at some new cockpit views for it. If it is a fighter type aircraft now it needs fighter view to go with it.
Sorry. The gaming the game crap is being whittled out and I applaud HTC for it.
-
Sorry. The gaming the game crap is being whittled out and I applaud HTC for it.
QFT
-
Personally don't care as this issue never affected me as I can't hit squat in F3 mode gunning. Storm in a tea cup in my opinion far more gamier things going on than F3 mode shooting.
-
cause it has a "fixed forward firing gun"
if it's good for the goose then it's good for the gander :aok
JUGgler
you've lost it jug...if the 88 was a single engine attack plane or dive bomber ok...but only in ah is it used like a stuka. speaking of which, isn't f3 mode still enabled for the stuka? shouldn't be.
-
I miss the F3 view in the Il2. Say what you like, but I did have good fun furballing in it and the massive amount of solid armor in the cockpit makes that pretty hard now. I still try, but meh. I'll agree that being able to shoot from F3 mode was a bit much; I always hopped back into F1 for that. I'd rather they had disabled guns when in external view than remove the view, but that's just the opinion of one or two guys against the horde.
-
you've lost it jug...if the 88 was a single engine attack plane or dive bomber ok...but only in ah is it used like a stuka. speaking of which, isn't f3 mode still enabled for the stuka? shouldn't be.
The Ju 88 had dive brakes for a reason.
-
I miss the F3 view in the Il2. Say what you like, but I did have good fun furballing in it and the massive amount of solid armor in the cockpit makes that pretty hard now. I still try, but meh. I'll agree that being able to shoot from F3 mode was a bit much; I always hopped back into F1 for that. I'd rather they had disabled guns when in external view than remove the view, but that's just the opinion of one or two guys against the horde.
the fact that you cant see out of it is the whole point. all that armor comes at a price, that price is visibility. if you gave it unrealistic views you might as well bring F3 back. no good.
-
If it is a fighter type aircraft now it needs fighter view to go with it.
The IL-2 is not a fighter type aircraft.
-
The Ju 88 had dive brakes for a reason.
You don't say... :noid
-
trollface.jpg
Wasn't complaining, now was I?
-
The Ju 88 had dive brakes for a reason.
weren't the dive brakes on models that are not included in ah at this time?
-
the Ju88 is the only heavy bomber that should be able to actually DIVE bomb. It was built with dual purpose in mind.
The Lancaster was used in the early part of the war, although Im not sure if it was designed to do so, in shallow dive runs to saturate an area with ord. All other heavy bombers were deamed too valuable (the Ju88 and Lanc were retired from the low level dive/shallow dive bombing role when more appropriate aircraft arrived on scene (Boston's, Beau's, Mossi's, 110's, ju87's, etc etc).
oh.. and a BIG :aok to HTC again for removing F3 from the Il-2!!! :D
-
you've lost it jug...if the 88 was a single engine attack plane or dive bomber ok...but only in ah is it used like a stuka. speaking of which, isn't f3 mode still enabled for the stuka? shouldn't be.
Look at it this way, If HTC goes to optional load out in the future (which would be good) and 1 of those options is a decent gun pointing out the front of the FU88 and the FU88 still has F3 view at that time, the cackles and whines would be unbearable. It is a good plane and it turns quite well F3 view just would make it all the easier!
Just consider that I'm being pre-emptive :aok
Now that the il2 has been denied F3 view, it is only fair to do the same to other planes that are used in a "gamey" manner. The consensus on these boards seems to support the change for the il2, so then it is only fair to move forward with the other planes in question :aok
( Remove F3 from any plane with "fixed forward firing guns" )
:joystick:
JUGgler
-
I would be quite happy to remove F3 from the *game* myself.
Look at it this way, If HTC goes to optional load out in the future (which would be good) and 1 of those options is a decent gun pointing out the front of the FU88 and the FU88 still has F3 view at that time, the cackles and whines would be unbearable. It is a good plane and it turns quite well F3 view just would make it all the easier!
Just consider that I'm being pre-emptive :aok
Now that the il2 has been denied F3 view, it is only fair to do the same to other planes that are used in a "gamey" manner. The consensus on these boards seems to support the change for the il2, so then it is only fair to move forward with the other planes in question :aok
( Remove F3 from any plane with "fixed forward firing guns" )
:joystick:
JUGgler
-
Look at it this way, If HTC goes to optional load out in the future (which would be good) and 1 of those options is a decent gun pointing out the front of the FU88 and the FU88 still has F3 view at that time, the cackles and whines would be unbearable. It is a good plane and it turns quite well F3 view just would make it all the easier!
Just consider that I'm being pre-emptive :aok
Now that the il2 has been denied F3 view, it is only fair to do the same to other planes that are used in a "gamey" manner. The consensus on these boards seems to support the change for the il2, so then it is only fair to move forward with the other planes in question :aok
( Remove F3 from any plane with "fixed forward firing guns" )
:joystick:
JUGgler
Yes, the B25 is a serious threat to the arena, lets get rid of that gamey F3 view. That will cull the horde of B25 dog-fighters ruining the game! :rolleyes: On some levels I can understand removing F3 from the IL-2, however, removing F3 from the remaining bombers with fixed forward guns would do nothing but further limit their use.
-
A-20G, D3A1, SBD-5, Ju87 and perhaps the Boston Mk III and TBM-3 I can see. I don't see a need to remove it from the B-25, B-26 or Ju88.
Tu-2, when added, will be a bit of a dilemma due to it being essentially a twin engined medium bomber....that happens to have a fixed 20mm cannon in each wing root.
-
Just don't touch my bomber. :P
-
A-20G, D3A1, SBD-5, Ju87 and perhaps the Boston Mk III and TBM-3 I can see. I don't see a need to remove it from the B-25, B-26 or Ju88.
Tu-2, when added, will be a bit of a dilemma due to it being essentially a twin engined medium bomber....that happens to have a fixed 20mm cannon in each wing root.
B-26 flown dweebily can succeed in killing some A/C and so can the B-25H
hell i even downed an F4U1A with a JU88 once...
-
Gentlemen, the simplest expedient is to retain F3 mode but remove the ability fire guns in it.
-
Gentlemen, the simplest expedient is to retain F3 mode but remove the ability fire guns in it.
still no good, as it offers unrealistic views, which in some cases can and does provide an unfair advantage. how many accounts of dogfighting bombers are there really? besides SBD's and other single engine close air support aircraft.
-
Gentlemen, the simplest expedient is to retain F3 mode but remove the ability fire guns in it.
Easiest way for HTC to implement it. I agree.
However, I think the thought process should go deeper than that. First, I agree with BnZ's statement: Eliminate the ability to fire in F3 view. Then, I think HTC could set up a flow chart of qualifications for which aircraft can have it based on XYZ criteria. I suggest forgetting the classification of the aircraft as a starting point, case in point being the 2 Mossi versions: same exact aircraft, same exact real world view capabilities, yet 2 very different Aces High view abilities. The role, abilities, speed, ordnance, early way vs late war, color, altitude, blah blah blah, etc, should not be an issue, imo. What the people inside that aircarft could actually typically should determine if it has F3 capability or not.
I think it should be a plane by plane examination and the ability should be based on the position of the eyes within the aircraft.
-
sorry jugler...can't agree with it at all...as loon stated, bnz's idea would be a good starting point.
-
sorry jugler...can't agree with it at all...as loon stated, bnz's idea would be a good starting point.
still no good, as it offers unrealistic views, which in some cases can and does provide an unfair advantage. how many accounts of dogfighting bombers are there really? besides SBD's and other single engine close air support aircraft.
-
can't agree there either irish...you're talking about cutting off the nose to spite the face...all twin and quad engine bombers have restricted views from the pilots seat...aside from the b26 and a20 none of the bombers have enough guns that can be fired from the cockpit to be a real threat to a 300+ mph late war fighter...and none of them have enough maneuverability to be a real threat...people who get shot down by the 7.9mm guns on the ju-88 got stupid at some point.
-
Funny how cobia38 out flys most fighters in the A-20, yet it still has f3, while GHI's IL-2 doesn't.. Guess cobia isn't killing the AH sacred cows like G did.
-
can't agree there either irish...you're talking about cutting off the nose to spite the face...all twin and quad engine bombers have restricted views from the pilots seat...aside from the b26 and a20 none of the bombers have enough guns that can be fired from the cockpit to be a real threat to a 300+ mph late war fighter...and none of them have enough maneuverability to be a real threat...people who get shot down by the 7.9mm guns on the ju-88 got stupid at some point.
every view you need is already available in bombers. you want a dead 6 view?? jump to your tailgun. you want i straight down look from a lancaster? too bad, it didnt have a ball turret. F3 should be disabled in all airborne aircraft. this would decrease the number of lancstuka or dive bombing b17 idiots you'd see as well
-
Gentlemen, the simplest expedient is to retain F3 mode but remove the ability fire guns in it.
This really does nothing as it has been said many times over in previous threads that many folks use F3 merely for SA then switch to cockpit for the actual shot. In planes like the A20 and IL2 the shot can be 1K plus so switching to be able to shoot changes nothing, I would agree with this idea IF there was a delay of say 2-4 seconds before your guns would be active after switching view.
I have conflicting thoughts on F3
#1- I don't think it should have been changed untill something could be done about base hording!
#2- If you're gonna have some "historical standard" for certain planes you should have it for all.
If it is possible "maybe not likely, maybe not succesful" but possible to fly any plane as a "fighter" F3 should be removed for it.
It makes little sense to take a plane with poor visibility and give it better vis than a pony has just because it is hard to see out of :aok
Poor views were a "real" handicap for many planes and should stay that way. If not then please change the 6 view in the P39, P39 is outclassed by most of the plane set so F3 or a good rear view should be added for it :aok
No matter how you spin it is the same argument :aok :aok
JUGgler
-
Funny how cobia38 out flys most fighters in the A-20, yet it still has f3, while GHI's IL-2 doesn't.. Guess cobia isn't killing the AH sacred cows like G did.
if you're silly enough to fight cobia in his a20 on his terms, he will eat you alive with it...i learned that the hard way.
every view you need is already available in bombers. you want a dead 6 view?? jump to your tailgun. you want i straight down look from a lancaster? too bad, it didnt have a ball turret. F3 should be disabled in all airborne aircraft. this would decrease the number of lancstuka or dive bombing b17 idiots you'd see as well
ju-88 and a20 do not have the 6 view that b-17, lancaster, b-29, ki-67, g4m, and all of the single seaters do...there aren't that many dive bombing heavy bombers anymore, unless it's bish doing it...and it can be done just as well without f3 mode as it can with it.
if there was a constant full crew on the aircraft then...sure kill f3 even on the bombers.
-
if there was a constant full crew on the aircraft then...sure kill f3 even on the bombers.
there was a crew that could that place themselves 400 feet outside of their plane and rotate that view 360 degrees in any direction, up or down?? :headscratch: hitting "4" to take you to the tailgun (or whatever the tailgun button happens to be in the plane you are flying) takes a quarter of a second. the internal views in a bomber should be the only views you are afforded. otherwise have a friend gun for you. if you can't get one, your plane will fly itself for you while you gun! promise :aok
-
Funny how cobia38 out flys most fighters in the A-20, yet it still has f3, while GHI's IL-2 doesn't.. Guess cobia isn't killing the AH sacred cows like G did.
HAHA sacred cows like cherrying and vulching :aok
I think cobia would be less succesfull without F3, that is a no brainer. I like cobia and he is a excellent fight unfortunately it would be less of a fight without F3 so the F3 matters much. Cobia I believe is one of those guys who uses F3 for SA and switches to shoot, I believe I'm correct on this!
JUGgler
-
Funny how cobia38 out flys most fighters in the A-20, yet it still has f3, while GHI's IL-2 doesn't.. Guess cobia isn't killing the AH sacred cows like G did.
I think you nailed it HOtard. He was killing to many of the elite pilots and had to be castrated. Even a game has its "Elite Pilots" out there that can not be touched and if they get owned too much they need a game changer. To bad.
-
I think you nailed it HOtard. He was killing to many of the elite pilots and had to be castrated. Even a game has its "Elite Pilots" out there that can not be touched and if they get owned too much they need a game changer. To bad.
you seemed to have completely missed the point
-
I think you nailed it HOtard. He was killing to many of the elite pilots and had to be castrated. Even a game has its "Elite Pilots" out there that can not be touched and if they get owned too much they need a game changer. To bad.
SAPP decided that if they couldn't use F3, then G couldn't. So let it be written, so let it be done!
-
you seemed to have completely missed the point
Really!?! so why the F3 mode on the A-20. I know plenty that can furball with the A-20 and use F3 as a crutch. Seems fair to me!
-
there was a crew that could that place themselves 400 feet outside of their plane and rotate that view 360 degrees in any direction, up or down?? :headscratch: hitting "4" to take you to the tailgun (or whatever the tailgun button happens to be in the plane you are flying) takes a quarter of a second. the internal views in a bomber should be the only views you are afforded. otherwise have a friend gun for you. if you can't get one, your plane will fly itself for you while you gun! promise :aok
talk about missing the point...come on irish...i'm guessing you haven't flown an 88 or a20 in so long you don't know there is no tail gun, nor is there a co-pilot view. scratch 2 viewing zones.
some of you guys need to look beyond the end of the nose...if the 400 yards 360 view of f3 is what's bothering you, then ask to change the way it works...shorten the range that it can be zoomed or something like that...getting rid of it on medium bombers just because you got dumb trying to dog fight them is just lame.
-
Really!?! so why the F3 mode on the A-20. I know plenty that can furball with the A-20 and use F3 as a crutch. Seems fair to me!
perhaps i've missed your point......seemed like you were saying some of the better sticks want to do away with F3 because they dont like getting killed by F3 users, and that it was too bad for them, F3 was a good thing. clarify, please
-
talk about missing the point...come on irish...i'm guessing you haven't flown an 88 or a20 in so long you don't know there is no tail gun, nor is there a co-pilot view. scratch 2 viewing zones.
some of you guys need to look beyond the end of the nose...if the 400 yards 360 view of f3 is what's bothering you, then ask to change the way it works...shorten the range that it can be zoomed or something like that...getting rid of it on medium bombers just because you got dumb trying to dog fight them is just lame.
:bhead :bhead :bhead
if there is no tailgun, that means there is no one looking behind you! THAT IS MY POINT!!! if there was no dead 6 view in the plane in RL, why should you be able to look behind you? you shouldn't have a view where there wasn't one. you aren't missing the point, you are blatantly ignoring it.
-
If you're flying a fighter and dying in a dogfight vs some of these medium bombers then it sounds like whining about F3 view is the least of your problems.
-
Corrected.
I want to be able to jump bombers and kill them with little threat.
-
how many accounts of dogfighting bombers are there really? besides SBD's and other single engine close air support aircraft.
Well since we are on Il-2's here is a list of air to air kills with Russian bombers & if you scroll through there appears to be a number done with said aircraft. It looks like a few of these pilots were quite good at it & were ace's as well. So not that rare for those who learned how back in the day.
http://www.wio.ru/aces/aceb2.htm
-
i'm neither missing the point nor ignoring it...you're wanting to eliminate something because it's not realistic and it's gamey...you're being selective in what you deem unrealistic and gamey too. i'm saying there is some merit to disabling f3 mode in some aircraft types...maybe the 88 and a20 should be included in the list of planes to disable it on...but not because of any sense of being gamey or because it's unrealistic.
-
Funny how cobia38 out flys most fighters in the A-20, yet it still has f3, while GHI's IL-2 doesn't.. Guess cobia isn't killing the AH sacred cows like G did.
Big difference between out flying someone in an A20 and just performing negative G pushover, pull the stick back, fire the guns, over and over again. You can't compare Ghi to Cobia, complete apples and oranges.
That said, I didn't see a big deal with the F3 mode used by Ghi. He always had the balls to up from a CAP'd field, and except for a few rare exceptions, only the real morons died to his entirely predictable maneuver.
-
That said, I didn't see a big deal with the F3 mode used by Ghi. He always had the balls to up from a CAP'd field, and except for a few rare exceptions, only the real morons died to his entirely predictable maneuver.
That's a little harsh! I always overshoot ghi. :cry
-
On the down side for some of those who liked shooting down an IL-2 flown by GHI.
Last months deaths for GHI in an IL-2 & who.
Late War Tour 135
ghi died in an
IL-2 by model type
Killed By
Times Killed
Percent
A6M5b
5
7.143
B-25H
1
1.429
B-26B
1
1.429
Bf 109K-4
1
1.429
Bf 110G-2
2
2.857
C.205
1
1.429
F4F-4
1
1.429
F4U-1A
4
5.714
F4U-1C
1
1.429
F4U-1D
3
4.286
F6F-5
3
4.286
Fw 190A-8
1
1.429
Fw 190D-9
2
2.857
La-7
1
1.429
LVTA2
1
1.429
M-16
1
1.429
M4A3(76)W
1
1.429
N1K2
1
1.429
Ostwind
2
2.857
P-38L
3
4.286
P-51D
8
11.429
Panzer IV H
1
1.429
SeaFire
3
4.286
Ship Gunner
5
7.143
Spitfire Mk IX
1
1.429
Spitfire Mk V
1
1.429
Spitfire Mk XVI
2
2.857
T-34/76
2
2.857
T-34/85
1
1.429
Typhoon IB
3
4.286
Wirbelwind
6
8.571
Yak-9U
1
1.429
70 Deaths
Late War Tour 135
ghi died in an
Il-2 by player name
Killer Player Name
Killed
Percent
1traprr
1
1.429
20Charly
1
1.429
4Fox
2
2.857
68Gaidin
1
1.429
8Spade
1
1.429
AddOn
1
1.429
AKdream
1
1.429
badger02
1
1.429
baubai
2
2.857
Bluedeth
3
4.286
Boater
1
1.429
BudGray
1
1.429
Chance
1
1.429
Cid5821
1
1.429
columbus
1
1.429
coombzy
1
1.429
CptPcard
1
1.429
crog
1
1.429
DOGMA911
1
1.429
Doverman
1
1.429
DUBOV
1
1.429
DUELY
1
1.429
FlyOver
1
1.429
Harp
3
4.286
HL
1
1.429
Hongkong
1
1.429
Humbik
1
1.429
Jagua
1
1.429
Joachim
2
2.857
Khonees
1
1.429
KINGER
1
1.429
Klam
1
1.429
mad2009
1
1.429
MANaWAR
1
1.429
Marek
1
1.429
Monster0
1
1.429
NghtFire
1
1.429
Nox
1
1.429
Punchey
1
1.429
RAGE
1
1.429
RaidNGF
1
1.429
Rebel59
1
1.429
Rogent
1
1.429
RTHolmes
1
1.429
Sabreone
1
1.429
shukes
1
1.429
Silkworm
2
2.857
snikkel
1
1.429
SNIPER30
1
1.429
StarFox
1
1.429
StrayCat
1
1.429
SWdrgn
1
1.429
T24
1
1.429
Tallboy
1
1.429
TBear
1
1.429
Tiger
1
1.429
TwinBoom
1
1.429
UncleTed
1
1.429
Vosem
2
2.857
WldWeasl
1
1.429
Wolfbow
1
1.429
70 Deaths
This months IL-2 deaths for GHI.
0
-
Why all the fuss over one of the biggest "game the game'ers" in AH? Let the bloke do as he wishes, dont let a single arcade style player dictate a personal opinion on an issue. He isnt the only one who took full advantage of the F3 view. I used the F3 view in the IL-2 to easily find gv's. Now, it is hardly any different, I just had to adjust my pilot views a bit.
-
I used it and thought it was fun. Sometimes its fun to use something gamey for the sake of a few laughs. I forget though for some of you this is serious business.
-
my 2 pennys
get rid of "out of plane view" like we have now. instead make it so that we can set up views from any available gun positions,and lock out the trigger while in these views so that guns/bombs/rockets cannot be fired.
so as an example, the F3 rear view would look like this
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/cobia38/Capture3.png)
instead of this
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/cobia38/Capture4.png)
-
Although I'm not a fan of removing F3, I do feel like Cobia has an interesting idea.
-
my 2 pennys
get rid of "out of plane view" like we have now. instead make it so that we can set up views from any available gun positions,and lock out the trigger while in these views so that guns/bombs/rockets cannot be fired.
I like it, would the gunner positions be suseptable to damage? ie if the tail gunner dies are you blind from that position? Very interesting idea Cobia :old:
JUGgler
-
That's a little harsh! I always overshoot ghi. :cry
:aok
-
I think the fact that you can no longer up the IL-2 for base deffence when the fighter hangers are down may have been another factor in it's declining usage. I've seen a swarm of them stop what should have been a clean base capture several times. Would have liked to have seen how well they fared in this role without F3.
-
I like it, would the gunner positions be suseptable to damage? ie if the tail gunner dies are you blind from that position?
JUGgler
thats what im talkin bout!! if the view is there, you get that view. if there is a dude in the tailguns, you can sit in the tail. if's he's dead, that position becomes un-usable AND un-viewable. there really is no need to have F3 views in any airborne aircraft IMO.
-
that is a little harsh irish.
I've fought Ghi in a 109G14 and a 163 and he is a good pilot + shot. Maybe some noobs somewhere will now be able to horde vulch a field in peace. It would make me laugh every time he pulled a shot off against friendlies and squaddies.
Especially JockyM's 262 one day. :D
Did it sound something like this "oh crap ghi just shot me down :bhead"
-
what does a one-trick-pony do without it's trick? :headscratch:
The one trick pony gets a new trick.... HO everything....can't disable the HO!! DOH!!!!
-
If you're flying a fighter and dying in a dogfight vs some of these medium bombers then it sounds like whining about F3 view is the least of your problems.
LOL the first time your run into Cobia in his Havoc.
-
Ghi was demonstrably more dangerous in an Il2 than he is in a regular fighter. If you don't see the problem with this circumstance or somehow think its not "gamey", heaven help you.
I think the fact that you can no longer up the IL-2 for base deffence when the fighter hangers are down may have been another factor in it's declining usage. I've seen a swarm of them stop what should have been a clean base capture several times. Would have liked to have seen how well they fared in this role without F3.
-
I don't much care whether someone is using F3 for SA or not...I buy the "more than one set of eyes" argument. I just don't want them using it for shots that would otherwise be impossible.
Then again, as I've said before, I'd also be comfortable without F3 being in game at all. My "no shooting" stipulation is a just a compromise with those who would not.
This really does nothing as it has been said many times over in previous threads that many folks use F3 merely for SA then switch to cockpit for the actual shot. In planes like the A20 and IL2 the shot can be 1K plus so switching to be able to shoot changes nothing, I would agree with this idea IF there was a delay of say 2-4 seconds before your guns would be active after switching view.
I have conflicting thoughts on F3
#1- I don't think it should have been changed untill something could be done about base hording!
#2- If you're gonna have some "historical standard" for certain planes you should have it for all.
If it is possible "maybe not likely, maybe not succesful" but possible to fly any plane as a "fighter" F3 should be removed for it.
It makes little sense to take a plane with poor visibility and give it better vis than a pony has just because it is hard to see out of :aok
Poor views were a "real" handicap for many planes and should stay that way. If not then please change the 6 view in the P39, P39 is outclassed by most of the plane set so F3 or a good rear view should be added for it :aok
No matter how you spin it is the same argument :aok :aok
JUGgler
-
Corrected.
No, it's a bs cheapshot.
-
Corrected.
they still have tailguns, genius. i didn't ask for the defenses to be stripped from them. i said use your tailguns to look behind you. and if a plane had no tailguns, then why should it have a dead6 view of the tail? it shouldn't. work on your reading comprehension, i've explained very clearly what i meant several times already. if you are too stupid to jump in your guns and mount a defense, then i'll shoot your butt down all day long. what the hell, i'll do it anyways.
-
Ghi was demonstrably more dangerous in an Il2 than he is in a regular fighter. If you don't see the problem with this circumstance or somehow think its not "gamey", heaven help you.
1st, Ghi is a good pilot in any fighter. But, as some have pointed out, if you try to vulch him in his IL you'll probably be in for a suprize.
2nd, Then your argument should apply to all airplanes, and not just to 1 specific airplane that one specific individual has taken advantage of abilities (views) not available in the prototype, and masterd a technique. So now the IL 2 is realistic, and any other aircraft with external views enabled remains "gamey"
So the problem I have is that HTC has responded with laser precision to the specific complaints of the "chosen" and not addressd the whole issue. If you don't think that is somehow not "gamey" then heaven help YOU.
-
my 2 pennys
get rid of "out of plane view" like we have now. instead make it so that we can set up views from any available gun positions,and lock out the trigger while in these views so that guns/bombs/rockets cannot be fired.
so as an example, the F3 rear view would look like this
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/cobia38/Capture3.png)
instead of this
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/cobia38/Capture4.png)
HTC can LEARN from this a wee bit and fix the amount of head room a turret has. LOL! Thsat is not much different that the Il-2 BS. LOL!!!
-
I'm sorry Irish, I was pissed off when I posted yesterday.
My main issue is that fact that a bomber pilot has a lot of things on his plate. When I fly a B17 formation I'm effectively doing the work of 30 men by myself. It is such a pain in the butt to have switch from gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, you get the point, just to check my views. Now I understand your point, but the fact is F3 view is there to represent a crew relaying info to the pilot. Otherwise restricting F3 just creates even more busy work for the pilot which isn't needed.
Now I admit some attack planes like the Boston, A20, some of the single engine bombers could warrant F3 restriction. However, none of the medium or heavy bombers should be limited, especially given the amount of "eyes" looking around in each formation.
Even then it's my opinion that we're trying to fix a problem that I don't think exists. I really don't see where a Val having F3 view is harming the game. Yes there are some pilots that can fly A20's or even SBD's with scary skills but they are far and few between, most of these planes are just fodder for the masses.
-
HTC can LEARN from this a wee bit and fix the amount of head room a turret has. LOL! Thsat is not much different that the Il-2 BS. LOL!!!
Um...I think Cobia took those pictures from F3 view as an example, not the inside of the turret.
-
I'm sorry Irish, I was pissed off when I posted yesterday.
My main issue is that fact that a bomber pilot has a lot of things on his plate. When I fly a B17 formation I'm effectively doing the work of 30 men by myself. It is such a pain in the butt to have switch from gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, you get the point, just to check my views. Now I understand your point, but the fact is F3 view is there to represent a crew relaying info to the pilot. Otherwise restricting F3 just creates even more busy work for the pilot which isn't needed.
Now I admit some attack planes like the Boston, A20, some of the single engine bombers could warrant F3 restriction. However, none of the medium or heavy bombers should be limited, especially given the amount of "eyes" looking around in each formation.
Even then it's my opinion that we're trying to fix a problem that I don't think exists. I really don't see where a Val having F3 view is harming the game. Yes there are some pilots that can fly A20's or even SBD's with scary skills but they are far and few between, most of these planes are just fodder for the masses.
I understand being peeved, it happens to me more than it should :)
I can totally see your point when you put it like that, and I thank you for seeing mine. :salute
-
I'm sorry Irish, I was pissed off when I posted yesterday.
My main issue is that fact that a bomber pilot has a lot of things on his plate. When I fly a B17 formation I'm effectively doing the work of 30 men by myself. It is such a pain in the butt to have switch from gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, to gun, you get the point, just to check my views. Now I understand your point, but the fact is F3 view is there to represent a crew relaying info to the pilot. Otherwise restricting F3 just creates even more busy work for the pilot which isn't needed.
Now I admit some attack planes like the Boston, A20, some of the single engine bombers could warrant F3 restriction. However, none of the medium or heavy bombers should be limited, especially given the amount of "eyes" looking around in each formation.
Even then it's my opinion that we're trying to fix a problem that I don't think exists. I really don't see where a Val having F3 view is harming the game. Yes there are some pilots that can fly A20's or even SBD's with scary skills but they are far and few between, most of these planes are just fodder for the masses.
I don't think anyone has suggested to change F3 for the B17, or any plane without (fixed forward firing guns) :aok
JUGgler
-
b26 has a forward gun and I use it to deack and dog fight after I drop my bombs. should you want to get rid of f3 on it too? fact is very few people use bombers to dogfight so that big gamey thing is really not that big of a deal.
fighter flying at full speed with 1/2 a wingor with elevators shot off and still turn now that's gamey.
semp
-
b26 has a forward gun and I use it to deack and dog fight after I drop my bombs. should you want to get rid of f3 on it too? fact is very few people use bombers to dogfight so that big gamey thing is really not that big of a deal.
fighter flying at full speed with 1/2 a wingor with elevators shot off and still turn now that's gamey.
semp
Well since the die has been cast on the IL2, then YES B26, A20, JU88, Boston, D3A, SBD, TBM, B25C, B25H and the JU87. Gamey is Gamey and to saddle 1 plane "il2" with the burden of this change is wrong. Gamey play is possible from all these planes. I don't think it is so much that F3 is a big deal in the overall picture, it is just that it has a (playstation, xbox) quality to it that doesn't quite fit with many. The rest of the game has obviously stayed very true to history while tweeked for playability. The tweeks for everything else have still managed to keep all the other vehicles' ability in "relation" to one another. Nothing really is way out there from it's traditional "ingame" competitors. F3 turns a few planes into something they never were, never could survive at and never should be and that equals gamey. No matter the circumstances, to take something that has the worst of a quality and "out of hand" change that quality to better than the best of any other planes for that same quality makes no sense, now to enhance it a bit for added playability is acceptable, but it shouldn't be better than anything else when it started out at the worst.
With all that said, I still think it was premature to change it for the il2 as the horde always leaves the BH up hoping for easy cherries and vulches. The il2 is the only reasonable counter to this other than flying a sector or 2 and we all know that takes too long!
I guess with all changes there are consiquences not realized for some time after the change. 1 consiquence is, now that the il2 has been "fixed" there is virtually nothing to take its place for the defenders or the vulchers so you actually have less opportunity to get easy kills off the pavement and that is sad for you and many others :frown:
:cheers:
JUGgler
-
Why do/did the pro-F3ers never bring up the Bf 110?
-
Well since the die has been cast on the IL2, then YES B26, A20, JU88, Boston, D3A, SBD, TBM, B25C, B25H and the JU87. Gamey is Gamey and to saddle 1 plane "il2" with the burden of this change is wrong. Gamey play is possible from all these planes.
JUGgler
Dont think that just F3 view alone makes for gamey play. The fact that the IL2 has significantly much more manueverablity than the others plus the firepower to take you out even sometimes at 1.5k I think is the deciding factor to why JUST the IL2 was the target.( given the defender now has an advantage after evading )
TBM, JU87, B25s etc.. all have F3 but the ONLY advantage that gives you is for evasive maneuvers. True Cobia is just downright deadly in the A20, but I doubt he can get the same results just coming off a capped feild.
G is a good pilot and I have much respect for him. I did find that the "jinky jinx" overshoot move questionable at best as far as gameplay. Although easily spotted, you had pitty for the 5 noobs that would think it was easy kill only to pull up and explode- I would be one of the 5 :mad:
Removing F3 from the IL2 has just hampered my view for GV hunting. Not a big deal, just take a little getting used to. Hope players can see the consequences when something gets exploited, now put out a patch that prevents towns from getting flooded by 100,000 troops running and only 1 defender
-
F3 should only be available in a gunners position for medium and heavy bombers. Pilots NO, lite bombers NO.
I always thought that F3 mode simulated all the eyes you'd have with all those extra crewmen.
-
1st, Ghi is a good pilot in any fighter. But, as some have pointed out, if you try to vulch him in his IL you'll probably be in for a suprize.
2nd, Then your argument should apply to all airplanes, and not just to 1 specific airplane that one specific individual has taken advantage of abilities (views) not available in the prototype, and masterd a technique. So now the IL 2 is realistic, and any other aircraft with external views enabled remains "gamey"
So the problem I have is that HTC has responded with laser precision to the specific complaints of the "chosen" and not addressd the whole issue. If you don't think that is somehow not "gamey" then heaven help YOU.
Nice man crush you got going on.
-
every view you need is already available in bombers. you want a dead 6 view?? jump to your tailgun. you want i straight down look from a lancaster? too bad, it didnt have a ball turret. F3 should be disabled in all airborne aircraft. this would decrease the number of lancstuka or dive bombing b17 idiots you'd see as well
Late to the party, but this. This 10,000 times over.
-
10 guys yelling into the intercome where planes are is not much use to a pilot of any plane. The idea that a pilot could use this information to maneuver defensively seems to be conjured argument to support F3 mode. "Break hard left now!" from a turret gunner? And the pilot acted on it? really? Bomber pilots fly straight and level and the gunners defend. The pilot goesn't need to know where they are to dodge them.
As for those who make the argument that F3 is needed to replace the missing gunner communication of where the enemy planes are, that argument seems just as conjured. It takes a milisecond to move to a new gun position. It takes a lot longer for a gunner on an intercom to tell you where a enemy plane is or that one is inbound.
In the end, you need to be in the bombsite to drop, and you need to be in the gunner position to shoot at incoming planes. F3 does not aliviate that problem.
I can't see the purpose for F3 other than to give pilots information they can act on, that no real pilot would ever have. So in that regard, in my opinion, it doesn't compensate for the missing capability of an actual crew because there is no actual missing capability. It does grant S.A. superpowers to a pilot that are "gamey"
If there is no missing capability. Why is F3 mode ever needed? In my opinion, it isn't and should be removed on every plane.
:salute Vinkman
-
sounds like all these ppl crying about f3 got there bellybutton handed to them one two many times so now they gonna whine and cry everyday til its gone so the game fits there flying style screw what others like
-
sounds like all these ppl crying about f3 got there bellybutton handed to them one two many times so now they gonna whine and cry everyday til its gone so the game fits there flying style screw what others like
Yea dude, in real life the pilot flew the plane from his all seeing cockpit. All he had to do was pull the nose up and let the trigger go.
-
1st, Ghi is a good pilot in any fighter. But, as some have pointed out, if you try to vulch him in his IL you'll probably be in for a suprize.
2nd, Then your argument should apply to all airplanes, and not just to 1 specific airplane that one specific individual has taken advantage of abilities (views) not available in the prototype, and masterd a technique. So now the IL 2 is realistic, and any other aircraft with external views enabled remains "gamey"
So the problem I have is that HTC has responded with laser precision to the specific complaints of the "chosen" and not addressd the whole issue. If you don't think that is somehow not "gamey" then heaven help YOU.
The only things missing were a cigarette and some pillow talk with ghi.
-
well some ppl have played this game for years and always used f3 and others have not then when it gets taking out the ones who have been used to using it all these years get screwed from what they are used to for i dont care about il2 i dont use it anyway but there are ppl who used f3 and now that they took it out some ppl prob wont fly it anymore i mean u cant even goto DA and up a il2 in f3 mode in furball area.
-
The only things missing were a cigarette and some pillow talk with ghi.
You know I love it when you talk like that. :D
well some ppl have played this game for years and always used f3 and others have not then when it gets taking out the ones who have been used to using it all these years get screwed from what they are used to for i dont care about il2 i dont use it anyway but there are ppl who used f3 and now that they took it out some ppl prob wont fly it anymore i mean u cant even goto DA and up a il2 in f3 mode in furball area.
So your argument is because so many people got used to it they shouldn't change it at all?
Weaksauce, homey.
-
F3 should be disabled in the da completely.
-
F3 should be disabled in the da completely.
absolutely... :aok
-
F3 should be disabled in the da completely.
Show me a pilot who flies in F3 mode in the DA and I'll show you a pilot who is pure suck. Removing F3 in the DA would do more harm than good because:
1. The guys that fly around in F3 mode (the guys that suck) will probably quit because they are so used to flying that way, even though it is a horrible way to fly and shoot.
2. The guys that are used to using "The other guy shot me down in F3 mode!" excuse will not have an excuse anymore, come to grips that they too indeed suck and give up and quit.
It basically has no upside at all. HTC should be more concerned with ADDING things to the game, not stripping things from the game.
-
sounds like all these ppl crying about f3 got there bellybutton handed to them one two many times so now they gonna whine and cry everyday til its gone so the game fits there flying style screw what others like
Yeh, that's it. :rolleyes:
-
Show me a pilot who flies in F3 mode in the DA and I'll show you a pilot who is pure suck. Removing F3 in the DA would do more harm than good because:
1. The guys that fly around in F3 mode (the guys that suck) will probably quit because they are so used to flying that way, even though it is a horrible way to fly and shoot.
2. The guys that are used to using "The other guy shot me down in F3 mode!" excuse will not have an excuse anymore, come to grips that they too indeed suck and give up and quit.
It basically has no upside at all. HTC should be more concerned with ADDING things to the game, not stripping things from the game.
doesn't take much to see who's using f3 in the da...it's fairly easily spotted and there are more than you're obviously aware of.
personally, doesn't make a bit of difference to me either way...my life doesn't revolve around ah, unlike many. for fighters, f3 should be considered a training tool...for use by trainers in the training arena.
-
doesn't take much to see who's using f3 in the da...it's fairly easily spotted and there are more than you're obviously aware of.
I don't care how many people subject themselves to an extreme disadvantage, in fact I mock them. You can't fight in F3 mode. Can you seriously argue that it's an advantage to duel that way?
-
Macro for f3 up over the nose is easy. Again remove all external in the da.
-
Macro for f3 up over the nose is easy. Again remove all external in the da.
Yep
-
Macro for f3 up over the nose is easy. Again remove all external in the da.
Most planes page up over the nose anyways. The best shots in the game don't use F3 mode, not because they are above it, but because they know it serves no advantage.
-
Most planes page up over the nose anyways. The best shots in the game don't use F3 mode, not because they are above it, but because they know it serves no advantage.
Arguing why something may not help, it not angument for keeping it. If it doesn't help as you say, then getting rid of it isn't not a issue.
-
Most planes page up over the nose anyways. The best shots in the game don't use F3 mode, not because they are above it, but because they know it serves no advantage.
No kidding.... :rolleyes:
-
Arguing why something may not help, it not angument for keeping it. If it doesn't help as you say, then getting rid of it isn't not a issue.
That's not true. Some people enjoy flying the wrong way, because it is their way. They don't care if you tell them it is ineffective.
-
Bronk and Masherburn, you girls ghi victims, board trolls, or both?
-
Bronk and Masherburn, you girls ghi victims, board trolls, or both?
You his publicist?
-
For all those who said "F3 makes no difference", "I don't use F3", "can't shoot in F3", "I only use F3 for SA", F3 doesn't help at all" please take a look at the stats for the il2 tween tour 135 and tour 136, I think they speak loudly for themselves :aok
Now to move on to "no F3 for any plane with fixed forward firing guns" :rock :aok
Just saying :old:
JUGgler
I feel like I'm cheating when I use externals when flying bombers to level bomb..:/ But they are so purdy to look at!@!!@!!
-
perhaps i've missed your point......seemed like you were saying some of the better sticks want to do away with F3 because they dont like getting killed by F3 users, and that it was too bad for them, F3 was a good thing. clarify, please
Yes. F3 was a good thing and sorry for the confusion. My point was that F3 was taken out of the IL2 because of one player owning some pilots that complained loudly. If we take it from one we should take it for all. IMHO.
-
Bronk and Masherburn, you girls ghi victims, board trolls, or both?
get your head out of ghi's lap.
-
I think the fact that you can no longer up the IL-2 for base deffence when the fighter hangers are down may have been another factor in it's declining usage. I've seen a swarm of them stop what should have been a clean base capture several times. Would have liked to have seen how well they fared in this role without F3.
This +100
I tried to take an IL-2 up in base defense where the FHs were down, and couldn't. It surprised and disappointed me. Base defense when FHs were down was probably half or more of my sorties in it. Now that it isn't an option (which is completely ridiculous, it is a bomber, i.e. an airplane designed to hit ground targets, and not a fighter, i.e. an airplane designed for air superiority), I won't have the same reasons/opportunities to fly it.
None of the remaining bombers are very suitable for base defense under horde conditions. Most simply don't have sufficient hitting power to start evening the odds, and the ones that kind of do like the A-20 or B-25, are even larger and more lumbering at low speeds than the brick IL-2.
-
I think the fact that you can no longer up the IL-2 for base deffence when the fighter hangers are down may have been another factor in it's declining usage. I've seen a swarm of them stop what should have been a clean base capture several times. Would have liked to have seen how well they fared in this role without F3.
HTC made the IL2 a "fighter"? Wow. :bhead
-
HTC made the IL2 a "fighter"? Wow. :bhead
Well, it's not a level bomber so it should be classed as an 'attack' aircraft and be treated like all others...
-
Well, it's not a level bomber so it should be classed as an 'attack' aircraft and be treated like all others...
10 years later?
-
Well, it's not a level bomber so it should be classed as an 'attack' aircraft and be treated like all others...
There are no "others". The Il-2 is now the only attack mode only plane, all others being either fighter/attack or bomber/attack (like D3A, Ju-87 and all similar "light" bombers. And behind the scenes the Il-2 is now treated as fighter/attack, because it's now tied to the FH's and no longer to the BHs. Which doesn't make much sense...
-
Seems like it would've been easier (better) just to disable shooting from F3 mode instead of turning the IL-2 into a fighter...
-
There are no "others". The Il-2 is now the only attack mode only plane, all others being either fighter/attack or bomber/attack (like D3A, Ju-87 and all similar "light" bombers. And behind the scenes the Il-2 is now treated as fighter/attack, because it's now tied to the FH's and no longer to the BHs. Which doesn't make much sense...
It might make perfect sense. As stated everyone uses the Il-2 as fighter to defend a base after the FH is down. So isn't it being used like a fighter?
-
It might make perfect sense. As stated everyone uses the Il-2 as fighter to defend a base after the FH is down. So isn't it being used like a fighter?
Everyone? I have seen a few guys posting they are doing it... but everyone? I for one don't do that. I would rather take the SBD... guess we should ate that as a fighter too? Last night I saw a lot of A20s used for base defense. Probably the next plane that should be re-categorized as a fighter. And yes, Make the lancaster an "attack" plane, because it's also used as such in aces High ;)
Sarcasm aside: The tag a plane has should stem from airframe capability and historical design / usage. And it has mostly been that way in AH. The Il-2 is no fighter, even when being used as such in a pinch.
-
How planes historically were used and designated sometimes is at odds with how they work in this game. When such events occur, HTC steps in to adjust something. Be it how players use the device, how the device interacts with other elements of the server, or changing the thing in question, there are some precedents in place.
The F4u1C was not used much. In AH it took over. Solution: perk price.
The v-bases were being precision-pinpoint-bombed with lancaster 4k cookies to shut them down in 1 pass. Solution: Split the hangars up, separate them.
Suicide pork-tards took out troops for entire countries preventing them from regaining lost bases. Solution: More barracks per field, spread out.
Deacking was no threat, a single plane could take out all the ack guns on a field with minimal damage. Solution: Upped the number of guns significantly.
Which leads us to:
Il2s being used with arcade F3 mode as heavily armored fighters for base defense rampantly (wide spread) any time a base is under attack. Solution: classify it as a fighter, remove F3.
It makes perfect sense, and falls in line with HTC making tweaks based on how players USE the item, rather than how it was historically intended. Because, as we know, the 2 are not always connected.
-
How planes historically were used and designated sometimes is at odds with how they work in this game. When such events occur, HTC steps in to adjust something. Be it how players use the device, how the device interacts with other elements of the server, or changing the thing in question, there are some precedents in place.
The F4u1C was not used much. In AH it took over. Solution: perk price.
The v-bases were being precision-pinpoint-bombed with lancaster 4k cookies to shut them down in 1 pass. Solution: Split the hangars up, separate them.
Suicide pork-tards took out troops for entire countries preventing them from regaining lost bases. Solution: More barracks per field, spread out.
Deacking was no threat, a single plane could take out all the ack guns on a field with minimal damage. Solution: Upped the number of guns significantly.
Which leads us to:
Il2s being used with arcade F3 mode as heavily armored fighters for base defense rampantly (wide spread) any time a base is under attack. Solution: classify it as a fighter, remove F3.
It makes perfect sense, and falls in line with HTC making tweaks based on how players USE the item, rather than how it was historically intended. Because, as we know, the 2 are not always connected.
:aok
-
Il2s being used with arcade F3 mode as heavily armored fighters for base defense rampantly (wide spread) any time a base is under attack. Solution: classify it as a fighter, remove F3.
I'd bet the result of the Il-2 now tied to the fighter hangar instead of the BH is an unintended consequence of that easy way of removing F3. After all, it's not even "officially" a fighter, you can't even score as one. ;)
-
You can't score a Hurr2D as a bomber, either. Or a P-47N. Or a 110G. These planes spend most of their time in the ground pounding role also. So "officially" doesn't play into it.
-
You can't score a Hurr2D as a bomber, either. Or a P-47N. Or a 110G. These planes spend most of their time in the ground pounding role also.
All of those are fighter frames. Which, die to their new/secondary role are classified as "attack planes" too.
We are now just seeing the limitation of the current system that basically knew only fighter or bomber planes, and the F3 mode (and perks!) being tied to this distinction, with the "attack" mode being put on top just for score purposes.
-
cause it has a "fixed forward firing gun"
if it's good for the goose then it's good for the gander :aok
JUGgler
What about the TBM, SBD, D3A and Ju-87? Nix f3 in all of those forward facing gun a/c too?
-
All of those are fighter frames. Which, die to their new/secondary role are classified as "attack planes" too.
We are now just seeing the limitation of the current system that basically knew only fighter or bomber planes, and the F3 mode (and perks!) being tied to this distinction, with the "attack" mode being put on top just for score purposes.
Lusche I think we're hung up on arbitrary terms like fighter and bomber. Only in AH are such distinctions really relevant, because gameplay wants to be able to limit the role of certain planes by assigning them to certain targetable hangars. arguing the definition of a fighter or bomber in order to get around AH gameplay assignments is kind of missing the point. no? :salute
-
In the war, they didn't consider the IL2 a bomber. It was an attacker (which is a type of fighter). It carried some bombs and rockets, but so did almost all other fighter airframes.
I think it was only classified in AH as a bomber because the potential for town attack. I don't think I ever saw them hitting towns, though. Nor bombing strats.
-
In the war, they didn't consider the IL2 a bomber. It was an attacker (which is a type of fighter).
That's now just your definition.
It carried some bombs and rockets, but so did almost all other fighter airframes.
Fighter planes were made with the intention of engaging other planes as their primary role, attackign ground targets was the secondary consideration. The Il-2 was made to attack groudn targets from the start. If we had a real "attack" classification, it would a pure attacker. Now that we do not have such, making it a "fighter" instead of a "bomber" and putting it into the FH is somewhat absurd, no matter how you try to twist & turn it. It was made only to remove the F3 mode, which ist tied to "bomber" status, and not because "player were using it as a fighter." In this case, the Lancaster should also get "attack" status as well as the Ta 152 H. The hidden "fighter" status is just a crutch to remove F3. Nothing else. :)
I think it was only classified in AH as a bomber because the potential for town attack. I don't think I ever saw them hitting towns
Cool. That means the 110G should instantly be called a bomber. :)
-
QUESTION FOR HTC!!!!!!
Is the ability of an aircraft to be afforded the F3 capability coded directly into the "bomber" classification??? If yes, does that mean it is an "all or none" coding and that the ability to review the issue on a plane by plane basis is not an option???
Answering the above question will answer a lot of questions. :)
-
That's now just your definition.
It was more a description than a definition. Say what you will about most planes and the blurred lines, but there was a sharp dichotomy in the war between bombers and fighters. They really stood apart. The IL2 just didn't stand with the other bombers, IMO, with how it was regarded.
P.S. I was trying to say I think ORIGINALLY it only was a bomber in AH because ... etc... That never panned out, so there's not much loss in changing that option.
-
Wasn't the purpose of the IL2 type3 during the war was that of a ground attack plane, from the information Ive read online about the IL2 type3 it's role was that of a attack plane.
-
Yes...
:headscratch:
-
Is it me or has the IL-2s handling changes? it is so sluggish now that I thought something was wrong with my joy stick.
-
Yes...
:headscratch:
then i guess what i'm saying is theres no use for F3 for attack mode planes, glad they removed it :aok
-
It was more a description than a definition. Say what you will about most planes and the blurred lines, but there was a sharp dichotomy in the war between bombers and fighters. They really stood apart. The IL2 just didn't stand with the other bombers, IMO, with how it was regarded.
P.S. I was trying to say I think ORIGINALLY it only was a bomber in AH because ... etc... That never panned out, so there's not much loss in changing that option.
Why 10 years to make the change though?
-
Why 10 years to make the change though?
Because it has recently come to the attention of the players that this was being exploited in the Il-2 [Ghi]. Many were surprised this was possible, and when they found out they thought it was 'gamey' and explained what they felt was 'fake' ability by an historically relevant plane, and they wanted it corrected.
I've been playing for 2 years now, and first heard about F3 in IL-2s two months ago on the boards. I am very happy that it's gone.
-
Why 10 years to make the change though?
Took them over 5 years just to up the bf109 20mm ammo limit despite many cries, many fans, many historical documents showing it was used..... Sometimes HTC is just plain ol'e SLOW!
-
Because it has recently come to the attention of the players that this was being exploited in the Il-2 [Ghi]. Many were surprised this was possible, and when they found out they thought it was 'gamey' and explained what they felt was 'fake' ability by an historically relevant plane, and they wanted it corrected.
I've been playing for 2 years now, and first heard about F3 in IL-2s two months ago on the boards. I am very happy that it's gone.
I was referring to the IL2 changing from a bomber to a fighter/attacker.
-
I was referring to the IL2 changing from a bomber to a fighter/attacker.
Oh...that's very different. Nevermind :D
-
It was more a description than a definition. Say what you will about most planes and the blurred lines, but there was a sharp dichotomy in the war between bombers and fighters. They really stood apart. The IL2 just didn't stand with the other bombers, IMO, with how it was regarded.
Horse hockey. You are thinking only in terms of US-type strategic bombing doctrine, which is not the end-all of what defines a "bomber." For instance, nearly every German bomber was designed for close-support of the ground forces. During the Battle of Britain they were pressed into a strategic bombing role, for which they were ill suited. The IL-2 was purpose built in the same vein as the German bombers, for close support of ground forces, targeting ground targets. This is a BOMBER's role, plain and simple.
By your defiition, if the IL-2 is really a fighter, then the Stuka and JU-88 were really fighters as well. To make that claim is utter nonsense.
-
Is it me or has the IL-2s handling changes? it is so sluggish now that I thought something was wrong with my joy stick.
Nah, you're just seeing it from a different perspective; inside the cockpit rather than the F3 view.
I have to admit though, I find it interesting that a single guy, Ghi, is the reason for the change.
Next in line for the F3 chopping block; the A20
-
Nah, you're just seeing it from a different perspective; inside the cockpit rather than the F3 view.
I have to admit though, I find it interesting that a single guy, Ghi, is the reason for the change.
Next in line for the F3 chopping block; the A20
We gonna need bigger fighter hangers :D
.
-
just disable using guns/bombs in F3 mode, when you press your gun or bomb keys it puts you back into F1 View (cockpit view)
-
Nah, you're just seeing it from a different perspective; inside the cockpit rather than the F3 view.
I have to admit though, I find it interesting that a single guy, Ghi, is the reason for the change.
Next in line for the F3 chopping block; the A20
I seriously doubt the change is attributed to GHI alone, I think HTC has more sense than that.
I would say they've been thinkin about it for a while now
I would say the folks at HTC have a bit of "purist" in them and the F3 thingy probably hasn't sat well with them from the beginning, at least that is my opinion :aok
JUGgler
-
I would say the folks at HTC have a bit of "purist" in them and the F3 thingy probably hasn't sat well with them from the beginning, at least that is my opinion
Agreed.
- oldman
-
Next in line for the F3 chopping block; the A20
C-47
wrongway
-
C-47
wrongway
The "purist" would agree :aok
JUGgler
-
What about the TBM, SBD, D3A and Ju-87? Nix f3 in all of those forward facing gun a/c too?
Y E S !
JUGgler
-
I don't care how many people subject themselves to an extreme disadvantage, in fact I mock them. You can't fight in F3 mode. Can you seriously argue that it's an advantage to duel that way?
Are you throwing out bait here? Seriously...Trac IR, when properly setup and configured IS virtual F3 mode minus the ability to aim at objects under the nose. Come now Grizz old boy....you know better. I will repeat your argument...just because you find F3 underachiever mode doesn't mean it doesn't improve SA and allow improbable shots. JUGgler won't argue with you because you're squad mates now but he knows better....besides, I'm still waiting on my date you promised me. You treat all your ankle humpers this bad or are you just playing hard to get with me???? Jk
Change up
-
What about the TBM, SBD, D3A and Ju-87? Nix f3 in all of those forward facing gun a/c too?
Likely not, pea shooters compared to the one-shot 37mm.
-
Nerf the A20 leave my stuka alone! :furious Or better yet give das stuka 20mm and ja you can remove f3.
-
Could this be coded to perhaps make the availabiltiy of F3 mode for bombers tied to ALT?
I’ve noticed you can turn on F3 while on the ground (in any AC), but once you take off it goes off. Is this coding tied to being AGL?
If so, it might be easy to code F3 mode to be only available ABOVE a certain alt. For example, a Lancaster pilot flying ABOVE 3K has F3 mode available to see around the airplane for defensive purposes. Once the Lanc pilot drops below 3K, F3 mode is disabled. It seems most of the abuse/gaming of F3 mode happens at low alt, such as the Lanc-stuka silliness and dog-fighting A-20 and IL-2s. I even saw a guy dog-fighting against a B-26 on the deck the other night. The B-26 was clearly using F3 mode to scissors, force an overshoot and roll back to attempt a shot with his front guns. Impressive, but gamey as heck.
With no F3 below 3K, I think you’d see considerably less abuse of it in bombers, while retaining the defensive nature of F3 for the bomber flying at alt. I think you could even put the IL-2 back in the bomber hanger if you wanted to.
My vote: Simply make F3 mode turn off below 3K.
-
This really does not affect me one way or the other but....
Why not allow the IL to be a bomber with no forward firing guns and F3 or, if one so choses, let them up with forward firing guns and no F3 as fighter.
I know that is not historical but for game sake it might work.
Opinions?
-
I say we just leave the system as it is and all of you fighter pilots learn how to fight instead of whining when you get owned by a bomber in a dogfight. :D
-
I say we just leave the system as it is and all of you fighter pilots learn how to fight instead of whining when you get owned by a bomber in a dogfight. :D
It took 11 pages of comments to finnally see something that makes sense. lol :bhead
-
I thikn we should leave it as is after this most recent change. Looking towards the future and the intorduction of other aircraft that could also be sitting on the fence with this issue (light-bombers/heavy-fighters), it's best to adopt and stick to a standard.
-
Going to have to work out the views on this thing it is just about useless while trying to evade a fighter looking around with current mapped views. I can see why though usage has dropped right off with this aircraft in it's current configuration.
I think this & any other aircraft up for consideration for the F3 mode deletion package may want to be fine tuned some how?
-
Are you throwing out bait here? Seriously...Trac IR, when properly setup and configured IS virtual F3 mode minus the ability to aim at objects under the nose. Come now Grizz old boy....you know better. I will repeat your argument...just because you find F3 underachiever mode doesn't mean it doesn't improve SA and allow improbable shots. JUGgler won't argue with you because you're squad mates now but he knows better....besides, I'm still waiting on my date you promised me. You treat all your ankle humpers this bad or are you just playing hard to get with me???? Jk
Change up
I really don't think it provides any advantage in a fair fight, and negligible advantage in the pray and spray. It can help for SA in a view impaired aircraft however. Imo though, F3 whines are just a scapegoat for suckage.
-
Seriously...Trac IR, when properly setup and configured IS virtual F3 mode minus the ability to aim at objects under the nose. Change up
real pilots didnt have to push a hat switch to turn their heads :rolleyes: THEY TURNED THEIR HEADS!! how does trackIR work again? oh thats right.....you turn your head. it is NOT virtual F3 mode because, well, you stay in the cockpit :aok
-
Are you throwing out bait here? Seriously...Trac IR, when properly setup and configured IS virtual F3 mode minus the ability to aim at objects under the nose. Come now Grizz old boy....you know better. I will repeat your argument...just because you find F3 underachiever mode doesn't mean it doesn't improve SA and allow improbable shots. JUGgler won't argue with you because you're squad mates now but he knows better....besides, I'm still waiting on my date you promised me. You treat all your ankle humpers this bad or are you just playing hard to get with me???? Jk
Change up
I think I know better about what I know better about :aok Seriously do you go lockstep with wastin on all things? Just because I joined the muptards don't paint me as something I'm not :aok
I will clarify my thoughts on F3 view:
#1- I think it is cheesy and it doesn't quite fit the game for me
#2- I do not think it helps in a duel. ( It may benefit some mediocre dude who is fighting a mediocre dude with the "below the nose" opportunity) but that has more to do with SA than the actual shot. I doubt it matters much to "top knotch" players
#3 I DO think it helps immensly in the MA in a multi tard environment.
#4- I DO think it is easy to shoot from F3 view, quite easy!
#5- I think the evidence in the stats for the IL2 show most folks used it and think F3 is very helpfull and very easy. In previous threads many folks said F3 "doesn't matter, they don't use it, they can't shoot from it, they only use it for SA etc. etc." The stats have proved most of this rubbish.
#6- I think the stats show the IL2 is much more difficult without F3.
#7- I would argue with anyone if I thought I was correct! :aok
I use F3 for miraculous Boston flying, FU88 flying, A20 flying etc. etc. F3 provides the most outstanding SA available for any ride,. It gives you the BEST "real time" picture of everything around you, and for this reason I think it is gamey as h3ll. When I put my "purist cap" on I think it should be removed. When I'm wearing my "improve everyone elses score silly cap" on I use it and thrive with it.
I'll tell you this IF HTC ever puts a good gun on the JU88 the cries for F3 to be removed from it will be deafening :aok
I think it has a place for BOMBERS with NO fwd fixed firing guns, and that is it!
:salute
:cheers:
JUGgler
-
#5- I think the evidence in the stats for the IL2 show most folks used it and think F3 is very helpfull and very easy. In previous threads many folks said F3 "doesn't matter, they don't use it, they can't shoot from it, they only use it for SA etc. etc." The stats have proved most of this rubbish.
I think the fact that you can no longer up the IL-2 for base deffence when the fighter hangers are down may have been another factor in it's declining usage. I've seen a swarm of them stop what should have been a clean base capture several times. Would have liked to have seen how well they fared in this role without F3.
This +100
I tried to take an IL-2 up in base defense where the FHs were down, and couldn't. It surprised and disappointed me. Base defense when FHs were down was probably half or more of my sorties in it. Now that it isn't an option (which is completely ridiculous, it is a bomber, i.e. an airplane designed to hit ground targets, and not a fighter, i.e. an airplane designed for air superiority), I won't have the same reasons/opportunities to fly it.
None of the remaining bombers are very suitable for base defense under horde conditions. Most simply don't have sufficient hitting power to start evening the odds, and the ones that kind of do like the A-20 or B-25, are even larger and more lumbering at low speeds than the brick IL-2.
Oh, and P.S.
I really don't think it provides any advantage in a fair fight, and negligible advantage in the pray and spray. It can help for SA in a view impaired aircraft however. Imo though, F3 whines are just a scapegoat for suckage.
-
I really don't think it provides any advantage in a fair fight, and negligible advantage in the pray and spray. It can help for SA in a view impaired aircraft however. Imo though, F3 whines are just a scapegoat for suckage.
Baiting.
Il-2 are extremely tough planes. It takes a fairly long burst to kill an IL-2. The flopping-NEO-bullet-dodging afforded by F3 mode makes it extremely difficult to get a long burst on an IL-2if you are closing at higher rate of speed. Killing one is easy if you can slow down and stay behind him for a long enough burst, but that requires a sacrifice of all Speed and Alt. This is not an option in a furball situation at a base. Top cover helped Ghi get all his kills because attackers who slow down to defeat the "F3 mode Flop" get picked before they can kill him. The Il-2 will absorbed the scattered pings that a fast attacker can land, and survive to pull up and kill him on the over shoot. The pings are only scattered because the of the SA afforded by F3 mode and resulting bullet dodging that can take place.
No one missed Ghi when he was alone in his IL-2. A situation he avoided. Top cover always kept the attackers fast. F3 mode made them miss, and made them dead. I don't think that qualifies as suckage on the part of attackers. :salute
-
I say we just leave the system as it is and all of you fighter pilots learn how to fight instead of whining when you get owned by a bomber in a dogfight. :D
i loved pulling the IL2 out to kill enemy A/C. I said they should make it F1 only :aok
-
Baiting.
Il-2 are extremely tough planes. It takes a fairly long burst to kill an IL-2. The flopping-NEO-bullet-dodging afforded by F3 mode makes it extremely difficult to get a long burst on an IL-2if you are closing at higher rate of speed. Killing one is easy if you can slow down and stay behind him for a long enough burst, but that requires a sacrifice of all Speed and Alt. This is not an option in a furball situation at a base. Top cover helped Ghi get all his kills because attackers who slow down to defeat the "F3 mode Flop" get picked before they can kill him. The Il-2 will absorbed the scattered pings that a fast attacker can land, and survive to pull up and kill him on the over shoot. The pings are only scattered because the of the SA afforded by F3 mode and resulting bullet dodging that can take place.
No one missed Ghi when he was alone in his IL-2. A situation he avoided. Top cover always kept the attackers fast. F3 mode made them miss, and made them dead. I don't think that qualifies as suckage on the part of attackers. :salute
So basically, the IL2 defending his base against a horde of late eny monsters was unfairly killing them? If you are trying to tickle my sympathy you are not doing a good job. :)
-
So basically, the IL2 defending his base against a horde of late eny monsters was unfairly killing them? If you are trying to tickle my sympathy you are not doing a good job. :)
Ah you didn't read carefully. It's a furball. many friendlies to help him. If he was defending by himself, he'd be toast.
-
Ah you didn't read carefully. It's furball. many friendlies to help him. If he was defending by himself, he'd be toast.
I never saw ghi doing too much furballing in his IL2, mostly just base defense, most times with just a couple others, or by himself. He was usually toast, but not before he killed a guy and weaseled a ditch out of it. Again, I have no sympathy for a B&Z'r fighting with advantage getting killed in this fashion. I got killed plenty of times by him and I never out cried at ghi for it, it was my own fault.
-
I think you will also be surprised to know that ghi's tactics are still quite viable in an IL2, even without F3. But the fact that they are now disabled as bombers makes them less valuable.
-
WoW! what a long whinie, :lol .
I didn't read it all, but i understand the F3 was removed because of me?! Ok , i own an apology for all those who used f3 mode in Il2 and can't use it anymore. I never used Il2 for kills and score, cuz i don't care about score,i've seen my stats for first time in 6-7 years in this threat. If you got nailed by my il2, you were vulching or picking at the end of the runway, i used it 100% for base defence, always 25% fuel and below 5k. I agree with HTC decision to remove f3 mode,was an unfair advantage especially after the 37mm was introduced. Don't worry you vulchers and pickers,i'll find some other toys to fight you, if not i'll climb on top of the tower and trow rocks in your windshields, but won't give up bases easy. :furious
-
GHI was not the only one who used il2 for base defence, I certainly used it also as many others! The issue for me was not the the overshoots at the cherryfest as I don't frequent these silly events for me it is merely a part of the game that just doesn't fit well, kind of like a puzzle where for some reason you have a few pieces form a completely different puzzle that just don't fit!
Having changed the il2 has made vulching and cherryfesting easier for the tards IMO, and that is sucky. But that has more to do with lame style of play by the (cherry vulchers) than anything else.
GHI I'm sure would lose 20+ planes for every one he nailed so in the end the vulching is less fun for the vulchers also. I also miss the 200 rant of "that's BS" always good for a laugh.
Now lets find a way to curtail the vulch/cherryfesting for some quality interaction and have a good wholesome time! :aok
JUGgler
-
Now lets find a way to curtail the vulch/cherryfesting for some quality interaction and have a good wholesome time! :aok
JUGgler
Solved! Do not up at a capped field. :bolt:
-
Now lets find a way to curtail the vulch/cherryfesting for some quality interaction and have a good wholesome time! :aok
JUGgler
The vulchers have to fly a ways to get to your base. Up at the capped base with several others and start knocking them off. Get enough of the cons into transit between bases and you'll start getting a better handle on the cons still at your base. It all ebbs and flows.
-
WoW! what a long whinie, :lol .
I didn't read it all, but i understand the F3 was removed because of me?! Ok , i own an apology for all those who used f3 mode in Il2 and can't use it anymore. I never used Il2 for kills and score, cuz i don't care about score,i've seen my stats for first time in 6-7 years in this threat. If you got nailed by my il2, you were vulching or picking at the end of the runway, i used it 100% for base defence, always 25% fuel and below 5k. I agree with HTC decision to remove f3 mode,was an unfair advantage especially after the 37mm was introduced. Don't worry you vulchers and pickers,i'll find some other toys to fight you, if not i'll climb on top of the tower and trow rocks in your windshields, but won't give up bases easy. :furious
:aok
-
Solved! Do not up at a capped field. :bolt:
Hmm, this same argument? so up from another field?
You and everyone else knows this no longer works, by the time you get there from another base it is more than likely captured. Also trying to organize something with others from another base also is futile. So a peep ends up coming from another base maybe with 1 or 2 others IF they're lucky, as soon as they dive in they are swarmed by locusts ( like a Bath and Body works Grand opening with 90% discounts). The idea of coming from another base for defence is ludicrous and a thing of the past. The base taking horde has become to efficient and anything other than easy cherry/vulches they avoid like the plague.
I don't care if you take the base, hell it doesn't even bother me when you guys are hording it. I would just like some sort of motivator (for the defenders) to keep upping or maybe even up for the 1st time to defend and some sort of risk for the attackers.
Either have some sort of "mission generator" than can respond (even if imperfectly) to a base take horde in a reasonable time frame, or levy some risk to the horde so they truely have to commit with a risk and a reward :aok
I watched 2 bases change hands last night in under 3 minutes each. How "exactly" do you up from another base and have any impact on that?
There is obviously a large group of folks who enjoy taking bases in this manner, and far fewer willing to defend against it. So lets find a risk for the takers and a reward AND a motivator for more defenders!
More planes that are lower and easier for you to kill = more fun for you, a little more time and speed to respond maybe even "wheels up" lol good luck with that :aok = more fun for folks like me, you see it's a win win :rock
JUGgler
-
JUGgler
Whilst you and I have the same love of fighting hordes, I think you need to realize a few things:
-You gotta fight them with every tool at your disposal. Planes, vehicles, field guns, ords porking, CV's, your sidearm(yes the .45), hunting them ahead of their attacks, counter-attacking, etc. Not just an airplane.
-A large percentage of the time the attackers are just gonna flat pound the base and overwhelm it with little chance of anyone stopping them. Simply put, the large hordes will get their bases.
-If the taking of the base is of no consequence to you, then go on the attack against them and provoke a response to get the opportunity to fight them. This works. The Pigs do this on a regular basis. You would be surprised at how they respond when you kick the antpile with a few bombs.
-Finally I do not see HTC favoring the limitation of vulching. It is the sport of Kings after all. Unfortunately peasants get to participate as well at times.
:salute
Way
-
Hmm, this same argument? so up from another field?
You and everyone else knows this no longer works, by the time you get there from another base it is more than likely captured. Also trying to organize something with others from another base also is futile. So a peep ends up coming from another base maybe with 1 or 2 others IF they're lucky, as soon as they dive in they are swarmed by locusts ( like a Bath and Body works Grand opening with 90% discounts). The idea of coming from another base for defence is ludicrous and a thing of the past. The base taking horde has become to efficient and anything other than easy cherry/vulches they avoid like the plague.
I don't care if you take the base, hell it doesn't even bother me when you guys are hording it. I would just like some sort of motivator (for the defenders) to keep upping or maybe even up for the 1st time to defend and some sort of risk for the attackers.
Either have some sort of "mission generator" than can respond (even if imperfectly) to a base take horde in a reasonable time frame, or levy some risk to the horde so they truely have to commit with a risk and a reward :aok
I watched 2 bases change hands last night in under 3 minutes each. How "exactly" do you up from another base and have any impact on that?
There is obviously a large group of folks who enjoy taking bases in this manner, and far fewer willing to defend against it. So lets find a risk for the takers and a reward AND a motivator for more defenders!
More planes that are lower and easier for you to kill = more fun for you, a little more time and speed to respond maybe even "wheels up" lol good luck with that :aok = more fun for folks like me, you see it's a win win :rock
JUGgler
So then the problem is maps that are too large or that have bases spread too far apart to be able to support one from the nearest friendly one?
I thought you anti-furballing types are the ones that pushed for the rediculously oversized, spread out and rarely rotated more-than-a-week maps we all have been playing in the MAs so extensively lately.
-
So then the problem is maps that are too large or that have bases spread too far apart to be able to support one from the nearest friendly one?
I thought you anti-furballing types are the ones that pushed for the rediculously oversized, spread out and rarely rotated more-than-a-week maps we all have been playing in the MAs so extensively lately.
Well if your definition of "furball type" is perchin the edge of a field and slobberin all over the 1 or 2 folks who up before they get 200' or 200 mph, then you are correct I would fall under your definition of "anti furballer" :aok
The maps have very little to do with how folks choose to play "lame or not"
I see the "unspoken " respect of the "old school" furball is lost on most, this is the reason we have disagreement. Also the reason the gameplay will continue towards its xbox oblivion :cry
:salute
JUGgler
-
perhaps you should look at the gv/plane kill ratio and see which one drop. I dont think many people used the il2 to furball, except for ghi. but I did notice this tour and last tour havent had many gv battles and this is mostly due to not many people upping gv's due to the new change. less gv's, less il2 kills.
not saying your f3 theory is wrong, but they're other things you have to consider.
semp
edit : just checked the stats, gv kills are way down as compared to last month. so less gvs then less il2 kills.
It 'may be' due to less GV's, but the Il2 definitely has poor views interior to spot GV's. It has good guns, but poor views. Oh and the same thing when furballing. Haven't seen GHI land any kills when we attack any base because there is no F3 mode to compensate for the poor 6 views. Thank you HTC for making that plane realistic (with it's handicap).
-
I miss the F3 view in the Il2. Say what you like, but I did have good fun furballing in it and the massive amount of solid armor in the cockpit makes that pretty hard now. I still try, but meh. I'll agree that being able to shoot from F3 mode was a bit much; I always hopped back into F1 for that. I'd rather they had disabled guns when in external view than remove the view, but that's just the opinion of one or two guys against the horde.
Well, the Il-2 was designed to be a ground-attack aircraft and I applaud HTC for putting it in it's proper place (by getting rid of F3 mode). It's quite gamey after the base attackers destroy fighter hangars and then have to contend with hordes of Il-2s flying around in F3 mode to defend a base, kill attackers, locate a goon and destroy.
-
It's quite gamey after the base attackers destroy fighter hangars and then have to contend with hordes of Il-2s flying around in F3 mode to defend a base, kill attackers, locate a goon and destroy.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
No comment required.
-
Now to move on to "no F3 for any plane with fixed forward firing guns" :rock :aok
JUGgler
Lets not stop there then.
Lets get rid of rear facing guns as well like on the Ar-234-B since no such aircraft existed.
-
Lets not stop there then.
Lets get rid of rear facing guns as well like on the Ar-234-B since no such aircraft existed.
Only if the 234 has the periscope mirror :old:
-
I, personally have never had any luck firing the guns in ANY plane in F-3 view with anything resembling accuracy. It may be good for looking around, but I wouldn't know where to begin how to get a guns solution on anyone without my pipper.
-
Then you simply didn't have the experience to show you how easy it is. Imagine if you were flying with no cockpit on, and could get any extreme lead shot on high-G turning cons almost off the edge of your screen with reliable accuracy every time.
Trust me. It was rampant in most HTH rooms where I frequented way back. It's a major crutch for seeing everything and shooting anything.
-
Well, the Il-2 was designed to be a ground-attack aircraft and I applaud HTC for putting it in it's proper place (by getting rid of F3 mode). It's quite gamey after the base attackers destroy fighter hangars and then have to contend with hordes of Il-2s flying around in F3 mode to defend a base, kill attackers, locate a goon and destroy.
Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars :aok
The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it :aok
JUGgler
-
Then you simply didn't have the experience to show you how easy it is. Imagine if you were flying with no cockpit on, and could get any extreme lead shot on high-G turning cons almost off the edge of your screen with reliable accuracy every time.
Trust me. It was rampant in most HTH rooms where I frequented way back. It's a major crutch for seeing everything and shooting anything.
Never used to play in other folks' sandboxes.
There was usually a turd buried somewhere...
-
real pilots didnt have to push a hat switch to turn their heads :rolleyes: THEY TURNED THEIR HEADS!! how does trackIR work again? oh thats right.....you turn your head. it is NOT virtual F3 mode because, well, you stay in the cockpit :aok
Ahh, my little Irish friend doth do protest to much. You must have missed the actual meaning of the word virtual in my description but suffice to say that the device like F3 serves the same purpose....much better SA, heads turning or just up ones arse makes little difference in the argument.
-
JUGgler,
I was giving you grief my friend. Grizz, you and the Muptards have always been direct and honest about your opinions :aok with regard to gameplay so I was poking you in the eye. You and I have had this discussion before during the informal eval of the Brewster flight model integrity at the White Sands test facility in the DA :lol...and F3 lost....remember.
Grizz - explaining away ones suckage comes in many forms....excuses, reasons, others issues and denial just to name a few. I don't think choosing to fight on the deck (I suck fighting at alt and am only mildy less sucky on the deck)and being shot at 1000 from an aircraft with a gamey, visual sighting advantage that would, under normal conditions, be unable to pull that shot off = suckage.....which might be one of the reasons HTC decided to disable it.
When's my date?
PS - our 9U team qualified for the Super Series Nationals! :rock
-
JUGgler,
I was giving you grief my friend. Grizz, you and the Muptards have always been direct and honest about your opinions :aok with regard to gameplay so I was poking you in the eye. You and I have had this discussion before during the informal eval of the Brewster flight model integrity at the White Sands test facility in the DA :lol...and F3 lost....remember.
Grizz - explaining away ones suckage comes in many forms....excuses, reasons, others issues and denial just to name a few. I don't think choosing to fight on the deck (I suck fighting at alt and am only mildy less sucky on the deck)and being shot at 1000 from an aircraft with a gamey, visual sighting advantage that would, under normal conditions, be unable to pull that shot off = suckage.....which might be one of the reasons HTC decided to disable it.
When's my date?
PS - our 9U team qualified for the Super Series Nationals! :rock
:salute Brutha
JUGgler
-
and being shot at 1000 from an aircraft with a gamey, visual sighting advantage that would, under normal conditions, be unable to pull that shot off = suckage.....which might be one of the reasons HTC decided to disable it.
You aren't being shot from 1000 yards in F3 mode. Actually the best way to utilize F3 mode was to use it to evade the B&Z and neg G push the il2 through the weeds and as he flies by, pull for the shot then switch back to F1 mode to aim. F3 mode definitely helps "see all" and allows you to get your nose quickly on the bad guy with no guess work. But even without it, you can still do the exact same maneuvers, with a bogey bearing in, and then line him up where he should be as he overshoots and kill him. As efficient? Maybe not but definitely still doable. I guess the next thing they need to axe is the ability to neg G push your plane with unrealistic neg G loading to make sure the hording B&Z victims don't get killed cheaply that way also.
Our date is coming, next time I see u on. <3
-
Then you simply didn't have the experience to show you how easy it is. Imagine if you were flying with no cockpit on, and could get any extreme lead shot on high-G turning cons almost off the edge of your screen with reliable accuracy every time.
Trust me. It was rampant in most HTH rooms where I frequented way back. It's a major crutch for seeing everything and shooting anything.
The only advantage f3 mode gives in regards to high deflection shots is the ability to wildly spray in the ballpark of where you should be aiming. There's no chance in hell that an average to even above average skilled player flying for an entire tour in F3 mode will be more lethal and have better stats than flying for a tour in F1 mode. If anyone wants to start a new name in the DA and only fly in F3 mode at the lake, I would love to see your stats. Sure you might hit some magical shots, but if your hit % is above 3% I'd be very surprised.
-
Juggler, your vision of what the game should be has very little to do with how the game is. Your arguments seem to gravitate to "Change the game to suit my playing style", as apposed to "change my playing style to fit the game". I do not like the horde much myself so I choose not to play that way. There are lots of guys that are not in the horde. Why aren't you fighting them. Is it because they are hard to find, or is it just that some are lazy and want this perfect thing, this nirvana of flying where everyone would be the same, doing what you deem suitable for gameplay.
I am not intent on picking on you Jug, but you have got to find your own fun here. Standing on a pulpit screaming, "That's not the way this game should be played", won't get you the fight you desire. As in everything in life, your happiness is your responsibility.
-
Lets not stop there then.
Lets get rid of rear facing guns as well like on the Ar-234-B since no such aircraft existed.
Ar 234B
The RLM had already seen the promise of the design and in July had asked Arado to supply two prototypes of a Schnellbomber ("fast bomber") version as the Ar 234B. Since the aircraft was very slender and entirely filled with fuel tanks, there was no room for an internal bomb bay and the bombload had to be carried on external racks. The added weight and drag of a full bombload reduced the speed, so two 20 mm MG 151 cannons were added in a remotely controlled tail mounting to give some measure of defence. Since the cockpit was directly in front of the fuselage, the pilot had no direct view to the rear, so the guns were aimed through a periscope, derived from the type used on German World War II tanks, mounted on the cockpit roof. The system was generally considered useless, and many pilots had the guns removed to save weight.
In addition, a handful of B-2 airframes were adapted for the night-fighting role. These aircraft were fitted with FuG 218 "Neptun" longwave radar and carried a forward-firing dual-gun 20 mm cannon pack on the fuselage hardpoint. A second crewmember, who operated the radar systems, was accommodated in a very cramped compartment behind the cockpit.
-
WWhiskey, when you bring such quotes, you should also states the sources.
And I can assure you, Lyric has digged deep into the sources, not just Wikipedia ;)
-
Juggler, your vision of what the game should be has very little to do with how the game is. Your arguments seem to gravitate to "Change the game to suit my playing style", as apposed to "change my playing style to fit the game". I do not like the horde much myself so I choose not to play that way. There are lots of guys that are not in the horde. Why aren't you fighting them. Is it because they are hard to find, or is it just that some are lazy and want this perfect thing, this nirvana of flying where everyone would be the same, doing what you deem suitable for gameplaye
I am not intent on picking on you Jug, but you have got to find your own fun here. Standing on a pulpit screaming, "That's not the way this game should be played", won't get you the fight you desire. As in everything in life, your happiness is your responsibility.
Actually I'm having a blast. The game IMO is morphing more into "war type" play where as folks are grabbing bases and moving on. My thoughts are not brought on by dissatisfaction, they are brought on by the changes in play. Whenever the TT maps are on I reside there. Whenever the other maps are on the "sustained action" is very rare and mostly is either "horde green or horde red". With the "base grabbing strategies wouldn't it be good to try and balance an attack mentality with some defence mentality? I honestly am stunned that most folks don't want a bit more opposition, All of my ideas have 2 commonalities in them
#1- Find a way to encourage defense of a base, ie: more peeps find it "reasonable" to risk upping and challenge the attacking horde.
#2- Discourage the indecisive, meaning IF the attack is to take the base then "smash it to bits" and take it. If the goal is to rack up cherry scalps and vulches then "motivate" these folks to stand off a bit which will encourage more folks to up and fight the fight that "both" participants enjoy! The cherrytards like to have overwhelming advantage, folks like me want just a tad of speed and a couple hundred feet alt before we get piled on.
I happen to think both of these are doable and would enhance the game for all 3 styles of play.
If I and others like me have a bit of space we will continue to up indefinitely thereby giving the cherryfesters more targets to kill for a longer period of time, now what is wrong with that?
The horde gets so overwhelming so quickly now a days that it discourages many who would normaly up to challenge the horde, from doing so.
If you take a close look at my "play style" you will find that my style produces many many scalps for other folks, which improves their fun and experience! :aok Folks with my style just want a couple hundred mph and 1000 feet or so away from the base before we are piled on, this would equal more fun for us :aok
:salute
JUGgler
-
WWhiskey, when you bring such quotes, you should also states the sources.
And I can assure you, Lyric has digged deep into the sources, not just Wikipedia ;)
and I have seen the pictures but did not care to look any farther than the first source I found, and while I do not trust Wiki for anything political, I have no reason to assume they would be wrong about historical data that has no agenda other than to present information.
I did look it up years ago and posted a thread about it in this forum, with other than wiki sources and to say it must not be true because you found something in a place you object to is like saying the sun didn't shine today just because you refused to go out and look!
BTW sorry for the hijack and +1 for no F-3 in the IL-2 I am glad they did away with it, next should be the b-25 h,, but thats not fair so no f-3 for any planes with fixed forward guns +1
-
<S> Juggler. A measured response, a civil conversation.
-
Only if the 234 has the periscope mirror :old:
Well lets just get rid of the guns then shall we. :aok
-
No Ar-234-B had rear facing guns none zip nada not one. Now the AR-234-C that is another issue none at squadron strength though & never got beyond testing & never was used in combat & also after two test models the rear guns were also removed from future C models as they could never make it work.
Now Ar-234-B's with forward facing guns :aok Yes that did happen for a grand total of 5 aircraft. First test aircraft was destroyed & the two man crew were killed. 3 more were made for night fighters & did see combat & were at squadron strength although no luck at all shooting down any enemy aircraft. The squadron stopped using this version as the pilots were terrified that chunks of bombers they shot would fly back & hit the Plexiglas nose & injure/kill the pilot & they were waiting for the C model to replace the aircraft they had. One AR-234-B pilot based in Italy decided to borrow a forward facing gun pod & engaged A Spitfire in a dog fight but never scored any kills. The aircraft was crashed in a landing accident & that was the last of forward facing guns on an AR-234-B.
C model also had forward facing guns & again a non issue.
-
WWhiskey, when you bring such quotes, you should also states the sources.
And I can assure you, Lyric has digged deep into the sources, not just Wikipedia ;)
:aok Thank you & more info on the way some time this weekend on this topic.
-
and I have seen the pictures but did not care to look any farther than the first source I found, and while I do not trust Wiki for anything political, I have no reason to assume they would be wrong about historical data that has no agenda other than to present information.
I did look it up years ago and posted a thread about it in this forum, with other than wiki sources and to say it must not be true because you found something in a place you object to is like saying the sun didn't shine today just because you refused to go out and look!
BTW sorry for the hijack and +1 for no F-3 in the IL-2 I am glad they did away with it, next should be the b-25 h,, but thats not fair so no f-3 for any planes with fixed forward guns +1
C model rear guns.
First proto type C model with rear guns.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b4.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b3.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/262rockets3.jpg)
Next version C model with rear guns.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info10.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234info2.jpg)
Actual guns from C model.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS5.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS6.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS4.jpg)
Mounting platform for guns actually inside the second C model.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234GUNS3.jpg)
Night fighter B model only known picture.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b3-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b5-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b-1.jpg)
Some info on the borrowed gun pod.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b-2.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b2-1.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b1-2.jpg)
-
So I was right and wrong! better than,, you should just shut up since you obviously don't know what you are talking about! thanks!
-
My question is why are we even worrying about the Ar234's guns? The 234 is already a perked plane with a pretty moderate cost, it has a powerful but limited bomb load and it's only real asset is it's shear speed. I can count on one hand the amount of people that can actually fly and get A2A kills with the thing, so why all the fuss over the guns?
Think of it as a hybrid, the I-16 has a hybrid gun package so I don't see why a perked aircraft that had the ability to carry the guns should have them removed. To be honest I hope when HTC re-does the Ar234 that they'll add the forward gun packages along with movable tail guns via the para scope.
-
I can't believe this discussion is still going on, even after a couple weeks.
(http://ology.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/post-image/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)
-
Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars :aok
The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it :aok
JUGgler
Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT, is to control the skies and take the base. Not Vulche. Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper. And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean) and should never be used for base defense furballing.
-
Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars :aok
The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it :aok
JUGgler
Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars :aok
The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it :aok
JUGgler
Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT, is to control the skies and take the base. Not Vulche. Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper. And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean) and should never be used for base defense furballing. :joystick:
-
Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars :aok
The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it :aok
JUGgler
Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT, is to control the skies and take the base. Not Vulche. Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper. And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean) and should never be used for base defense furballing. :joystick:
-
Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars :aok
The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it :aok
JUGgler
Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT, is to control the skies and take the base. Not Vulche. Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper. And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean) and should never be used for base defense furballing.
-
Umm, kill all the hangars, you see the reason the bomber hangars are left in tact is so the "base attackers" or "cherryfesters" can get easy pickings and vulchings. Here's an idea, drop all the hangars :aok
The very reasons you sight here for removing F3 view is the ONLY reason I see a need to keep it :aok
JUGgler
Killing fighter hangars, IN MY CONTEXT, is to control the skies and take the base. Not Vulche. Putting Il2 in its historic place (attack) is proper. And yes it is a heavy aircraft (fly it in Il-2 to see what I mean) and should never be used for base defense furballing.
-
I seen the horse twitch !!!!! its still alive :bolt:
-
I can't believe this discussion is still going on, even after a couple weeks.
(http://ology.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/post-image/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)
BaaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :rofl :rofl
-
I can't believe this discussion is still going on, even after a couple weeks.
(http://ology.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/post-image/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)
Not shocked at all.
-
My question is why are we even worrying about the Ar234's guns? The 234 is already a perked plane with a pretty moderate cost, it has a powerful but limited bomb load and it's only real asset is it's shear speed. I can count on one hand the amount of people that can actually fly and get A2A kills with the thing, so why all the fuss over the guns?
Think of it as a hybrid, the I-16 has a hybrid gun package so I don't see why a perked aircraft that had the ability to carry the guns should have them removed. To be honest I hope when HTC re-does the Ar234 that they'll add the forward gun packages along with movable tail guns via the para scope.
Well the thread is based off of F3 mode is gamey & should be removed because it was not real for a fixed wing platform. This entire subject was about a few people in IL-2's that could use the thing to gun in F3 MODE & IT HAS TO STOP. Well congrats to them it is done now. OK fair enough F3 mode has to go then all aspects of F3 need to go with it then on forward & rear firing aircraft.
You can't be selective as to what fixed wing gun platform can stay & should go for F3 mode. I posed this question to Jugler on the AR-234 as it seems to not be on his list of vehicles that must be changed & I have not had a reply to this point from him? I would like to see his thoughts specifically on this aircraft though.
Now to your last point if we are staying with reality of aspects of WWII aircraft. Then rear facing guns on any AR-234 never did see combat none at all. Also movable tail guns? That is pure fantasy as the only two aircraft that had rear facing (& down ward facing not like our current AHII up ward facing AR-234's) guns were fixed no capability to move at all.
What your asking for NEVER EXISTED.
Forward guns?
That would be interesting & fun a number of people will argue against this I personally don't care either way if we had them or not. If we did have them it would at least be historically correct even if only 5 were made with them.
That is 5 more than our current rear facing guns.
-
BANG!!!!
Yep the horse is still dead! :bhead
-
(http://195.144.20.106/files/thumbs/t_beating_a_dead_horse_679.jpg)
-
"I brought you a little going away present." :rofl
-
Bill Lumbergh approves of this thread...
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d61/katiparker/228a021a.jpg)
-
yay