Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Skyguns MKII on July 13, 2011, 09:57:54 PM
-
Wirbles are one thing but the new GV system made TANK ACK out of control. It is FAR too easy to shoot down aircraft from commander positions. You might as well load them with puffy rounds. I can't tell you how annoying it is to line up a panzer from behind then have his turret transverse 180 degrees and shoot you before you?re well able to drop or shoot anything at all. Totally kills promotion of AA support by other dedicated to do so GVs.
-
They can only shoot at a shallow angle.
-
They can only shoot at a shallow angle.
Exactly, come in steeper, it has never been a good idea to have a shallow angle of attack.
-
They can only shoot at a shallow angle.
Ahhh but that depends on the tank, Plus attack aircraft come from a low angle most of the time. Tanks can aim relatively high and trying to overcome that "shallow angle" and set up for a bomb drop can be VERY difficult.
-
Exactly, come in steeper, it has never been a good idea to have a shallow angle of attack.
If I have an a20 loaded with 2 tons of ord and attempt to bomb from 3k and try to come in at a "steeper angle" you will either fail to pull up or lose your wings.
I dont know of any record of a tank being able to shoot down a aircraft with its turret.
-
If I have an a20 loaded with 2 tons of ord and attempt to bomb from 3k and try to come in at a "steeper angle" you will either fail to pull up or lose your wings.
I dont know of any record of a tank being able to shoot down a aircraft with its turret.
The russians did it at least once, I heard somewhere.
Bottom line is it's a game, learn the parts that make you go boom and avoid them :)
-
If I have an a20 loaded with 2 tons of ord and attempt to bomb from 3k and try to come in at a "steeper angle" you will either fail to pull up or lose your wings.
I dont know of any record of a tank being able to shoot down a aircraft with its turret.
No you won't, chop throttle and wing over, full flaps and pull up as soon as you drop, if not sooner.
-
If you zoom in and see their turret pointing at you, pull up!!! Then, grab a wee bit more alt and then try it.
I agree %100 that it is a travesty in AH that a tank can shoot down an aircraft with its main gun. The Hvy bomber-Stukas and gamin' the game dog-fighting Me163's as well.
A: tankers in WWII didnt concern themselves with the dive bombing or gun toting aircraft, their AA gun was a last resort and usually the enemy AT guns, tanks, and infantry were far bigger threats.
B: The IL-2 and Hurricane IID both came in a low angles (I forgot just how low). The 190F-8 fired its rockets usually under a 20 degree dive. It isnt that the aircraft in AH are doing anything wrong, it is just too easy for the main gun to shoot down aircraft. But, wudya do??? It isnt like HTC is going to spend time dry humping the code to limit any of the travesties I listed above. There are more important things for them to develop, so adapt and over come, or shush. :)
-
Maybe in real life that is how tanks were destroyed, but in AH, you have to do a method similar to what I described.
-
If you zoom in and see their turret pointing at you, pull up!!! Then, grab a wee bit more alt and then try it.
or shush. :)
rude! :lol
-
See Rule #7
-
See Rule #7
-
One thing you need to remember is most players have many hours and lots of experience with shooting main guns at aircraft. I'm willing to bet that if tank crews in WW2 had the experience we do that there would've been more aircraft kills by tanks.
The solution is to fly higher, I can easily pull my B25 out of a dive when I'm bombing/75mming tanks, an A20 is even easier. Worse comes to worst just grab a fighter to do the job or heaven forbid another tank.
-
Beefcake,
The main problem is being able to see what is happening around the tank and effectively aim and fire the main gun from the commander's position atop the turret. Normally being buttoned up in a tank would deprive you of most of your situational awareness, particularly regarding aircraft.
-
Ahhh but that depends on the tank, Plus attack aircraft come from a low angle most of the time. Tanks can aim relatively high and trying to overcome that "shallow angle" and set up for a bomb drop can be VERY difficult.
nah. not difficult. slightly more time consuming. come in steep enough and you are practically invincible. isn't that worth a minute or two extra?
similar idea to attacking buffs. don't crawl up their 6. do it correctly and you put yourself at very little risk.
-
I am just as guilty of shooting down Aircraft with my main gun as the next guy, but 98% of the time it is an IL2 on a level pass at like 600m. What I do not agree with is when something like this happens-
Dropped on a Panzer near VH at AF with all Ack down and was roughly 375+ when I dropped so still gainin speed and beginning to pull up another tank about 400m away fired its main gun and killed me. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that a Tank can hit a plane flyin at that speed with a cannon round. But it does happen and like these guys said...ITS A GAME lol.
-
Panzer ack whine seriously? Seriously? It's so easy to kill a tank you really have to be on a 2 week trial to die from a tank gun, sorry you can't buzz an M3 at 50 feet expecting an easy kill, some of us can actually shoot back.
Funny to note I did check on all the aircraft my tanks have shot down, no surprise its mainly La7's and Spit16s. So its probably true those who die trying to strafe a Panther with a Spit16 would probably end up whining here.
-
I killed SFOX flying straight down the barrel of my M4 the other day and he brought back lancs to carpet bomb me.
He flew them at about 1k straight towards me all :furious, I sniped the first from 3k away then just about reloaded fast enough to kill the other two just as he let go.
gamey YES but only because SFOX wanted to rush his kill. There really is no need to get stupid with your attacks. A well flown Hurri2D or dive bomb attack would have been more advisable.
I think alot of people try and strafe tanks with MG why waste your time?
-
Strafing a tank with MG's with the intent of tracking it, is sound. Just might take a bit longer with peashooters. :joystick: :lol
If you keep coming in low, you are ASKING to get knocked down by the main gun. I've made the impatient mistake of coming in low, and have paid for it a few times. When I'm patient, I come in high, and to their rear if I can. Only when you know their turret is out, do ye come in low. Even then, avoid coming in from the front as even that lil peashooter of a hull MG can kill you, not to mention that's where the bulk of the armor will be. Rear is best and side is good (more target in cross-hairs).
If you keep ripping the wings off an A-20 or B-25H, practice more with them. It's quite easy to avoid doing that, and I find the 25H better for me because of the 75mm on it. Even a high attack angle against a tanks rear can kill with the 75mm. T-34's are a pain and Tigers are darn hard. M4's and Panzers I find the easiest with the 25's 75mm.
As for my Primary tank buster, it's the Hurricane IID. :x :aok
-
a high angle dive on t34 shooting down the hatch will easily kill it with il2. m4's are the hardest to kill for me in il2 for some reason. panthers are easier to kill than m3's lol. tigers are impossible with cannon, but you can track them, smoke them or disable their gun.
-
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that a Tank can hit a plane flyin at that speed with a cannon round.
Please explain how it is NOT POSSIBLE that a tank round could not hit a plane flying at speed.
Is there something about physics that you know and the rest of the scientific world does not know ?
-
how about SB ack then?
I've managed to hit a plane crossing a vbase whilst aiming for an LVT. Completely un-intentional, but if the round travels through the opposing player then he is meant to die right? :D
-
how about SB ack then?
I've managed to hit a plane crossing a vbase whilst aiming for an LVT. Completely un-intentional, but if the round travels through the opposing player then he is meant to die right? :D
Absolutely.
-
Please explain how it is NOT POSSIBLE that a tank round could not hit a plane flying at speed.
Is there something about physics that you know and the rest of the scientific world does not know ?
ever been inside a tank?
semp
-
:noid
(http://dailypop.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hauntedtank.jpg)(http://cdn3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/155/509/990/RPsB.jpg)
:noid
You need to be on a bridge, however.
:devil
wrongway
-
a high angle dive on t34 shooting down the hatch will easily kill it with il2. m4's are the hardest to kill for me in il2 for some reason. panthers are easier to kill than m3's lol. tigers are impossible with cannon, but you can track them, smoke them or disable their gun.
IL2 can kill EVERY tank including tigers with cannon only.
-
:noid
(http://dailypop.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hauntedtank.jpg)(http://cdn3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/155/509/990/RPsB.jpg)
:noid
You need to be on a bridge, however.
:devil
wrongway
I look at those pictures and all I can think of is "RAMT-A-R-D".
-
ever been inside a tank?
semp
yup ... it still does not make it IMPOSSIBLE.
-
The purple comic book clearly shows a German F6F/C205 hybrid with 10 guns! We needz it.
-
The russians did it at least once, I heard somewhere.
Bottom line is it's a game, learn the parts that make you go boom and avoid them :)
for me that would be getting in a plane and heading towards the red guys ... but I'm still here :D
-
The way I see it is there is a balance.
Tanks are FAR easier to kill with AC guns then they ever were in RL. The tigers and panthers in particular. Most tanks killed by AC were killed by bomb. Not guns. Guns would typically, at best, disable a tank by damaging its track or engine. Inasmuch as these vehicles were so complex and the battle lines changing so often. There often simply wasnt enough time to repair the tank and thus the crew would abandon it. And the Germans also didnt have the tank recovery system that the allies and Americans in particular did either. so while ours were retreived more often then not. Theres were simply left in place. Particularly as the war progressed and the germans were placed more and more on the defencive. Probably more Tigers and panthers were abandoned due to them breaking down on their own Then were ever "destroyed" by aircraft.
The instance of tanks being destroyed outright by IL2s guns is long known to have been overstated. Even the russians own data at the time. That of which I posted on the boards here somewhere a few years ago showed that it usually took several IL2s working together to kill a single tank with guns. But. Then again. Those vehicles didnt have the near microscopic zoom that ours do either. there was a reason for the says that "the best way to kill a tank is with another tank"
Because it was inherently more difficult then in killing them any other way. Here the reverse is true.
Then add into the mix that the pilots had to worry about really dieing. Which is something that tended to not only ruin their day But would also upset their mothers greatly.
Here we can take chances that no or VERY few pilots of the time in their right mind would even consider, let alone actually do. Again there is a reason why there were only a very small handful of incidents of Heavy bombers Dive bombing targets.
Think about how many times you "die" in a tour. Then imagine even if your the most experienced player if you were only allowed to die once. And then you had to quit the game forever. I think all of us would never do most of the things we regularly do
On the flip side. Killing an AC with a tanks main gun is ridiculously simple. If it happened IRL is was probably due more to a pure lucky shot then anything resembling skill. Here you can bounce back and forth from commanders to gunners position as the same person and fine tune your gun to be pointed in exactly the right direction. IRL the gunner would have had to take direction from someone elses perspective. If your good at gunning AC. Try doing it while not moving from the gunners position. Odds are your skill level will drop considerably as by the time you manage to locate the plane in your sight. It probably would already be passing you. Having the benefit of being both commander and gunner. You can jump from one spot to the other and instantly know the near exact bearing and near exact elevation. There is no transfer and interpretation of instruction. I think even todays Abram tanks would have a really difficult time of shooting down a WWII aircraft using only its main gun.
Also add to that the fact that often a bomb can land right next to your tank and you can keep rolling along as though nothing happened. when IRL the concussion alone would if it didnt kill you outright. Would scramble your brains to the point of being incoherent
So what we have are aircraft that can unrealistically able to kill tanks with guns and tanks that can unrealistically kill AC regularly, sometimes at great range with their main gun. It balances out.
Then we also have M3s that can survive sometimes with perfect impunity several strafeings and direct hits with 20 mil and just cruise along without so much as the impact of the rounds causing a vibration.
But thats another issue altogether
-
I believe we've been over this topic before, and someone cited that the german stuka G1 and G2 pilots hated attacking soviet M4's (M4A2's, the main export variant, given to the USSR) becuase they would often take pot shots at them with their main guns. Sorry, I don't have the source, internet is being slow, hence the search is being slow :bhead.
As to the argument that there is no recorded incident of an aircraft being shot down by a tank, well all I have to say is this, quoted from the constition: "Burden of proof rests with the accuser, not the accused". Show me proof that it DIDN'T happen, and I'll shut up (by the way, lack of evedince that it did happen isn't evidence that it didn't. All that is is a testement to the chaos of WWII)
And now that I've been rational, I can give forth with my oppinion to the OP: Nut up or shut up, if your going to make low angle attacks. Low angle = low life expectancy.
High angles are more effective with strafer aircraft too, by the way (top armor of the panzer is only about 15mm IIRC).
-
:noid
(http://dailypop.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hauntedtank.jpg)(http://cdn3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/155/509/990/RPsB.jpg)
:noid
You need to be on a bridge, however.
:devil
wrongway
:aok i used to get those comics and sgt rock
-
I love killing B-25s, stukas, and A-20s in my M4. They get what they deserve lol :bolt:
-
I prefer the T34 for spanking Aircraft that fly too low and the M3 (75mm) for camping runways.
(http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/45/92/55849245/photos/Bragging-Rights/ahss8.JPG)
-
my main AA gun is the M8. People don't bomb them like they do tanks and flackers because they're not typicly seen as a threat to aircraft, and they're not invincible to strafing.
Seen as so harmless that I was able to drive up to a panther and kill him from 200yds out.
-
yup ... it still does not make it IMPOSSIBLE.
How about HIGHLY improbable? The mere thought that a tanker would elevate his main gun to use vs an aircraft is absurd. Just ask one. Instead, if they knew they were being hunted they would do 2 things: man the MG and do their best to hide. Oh, that and pray like mad for allied air power to show up.
Possible... maybe 1 to 1,000,000 odds. It happens FAR more than that in AH.
-
we die FAR more than pilots did in the real world
-
Well, people engage in shallow dives at low altitudes to attack a tank. The tank, having no other choice because he lost his MG (or is in a T34) has to shoot the main gun as defense. The tank driver wants to defend the tank and the plane wants to kill the tank. However the pilot made a big mistake coming in on a shallow dive at low altitudes. The tank is able to shoot the plane because the mistake the pilot made.
-
we die FAR more than pilots did in the real world
apple vs orange. ;)
-
Please explain how it is NOT POSSIBLE that a tank round could not hit a plane flying at speed.
Is there something about physics that you know and the rest of the scientific world does not know ?
Please show me where it ever happened in real life ....once... ever.
For a game that can't have a skin unless its historically perfect, or a plane model thats not right, or a plane that flew in ww2 and had enough production, or flew enough sorties.... It is totally retarded that a tank can hit a plane when it never happened, much like a twig that flips a tank.
-
I believe we've been over this topic before, and someone cited that the german stuka G1 and G2 pilots hated attacking soviet M4's (M4A2's, the main export variant, given to the USSR) becuase they would often take pot shots at them with their main guns. Sorry, I don't have the source, internet is being slow, hence the search is being slow :bhead.
As to the argument that there is no recorded incident of an aircraft being shot down by a tank, well all I have to say is this, quoted from the constition: "Burden of proof rests with the accuser, not the accused". Show me proof that it DIDN'T happen, and I'll shut up (by the way, lack of evedince that it did happen isn't evidence that it didn't. All that is is a testement to the chaos of WWII)
And now that I've been rational, I can give forth with my oppinion to the OP: Nut up or shut up, if your going to make low angle attacks. Low angle = low life expectancy.
High angles are more effective with strafer aircraft too, by the way (top armor of the panzer is only about 15mm IIRC).
The evidence is in your own posts look at the 190f8 posts. You wanted a torpedo, but guess what, it never was used. Here in the game you have to prove it DID happen to be included. Not just some fantasy that has no support of happening anywhere anytime. Pot shots don't cut it. Find it. If it did happen you can bet it would be in some book somewhere as the greatest tank comander of the war.
I could go on and on showing you examples right here in the game why this should not happen because of the criteria everything else has to pass to be included.
Pure Fantasy,
-
I'd be amazed if no one in WWII tried it if the opportunity arose.
-
I'd be amazed if no one in WWII tried it if the opportunity arose.
I would too. :lol
Trying is 1 thing, actually happening, nope. Say some one does find an instance of one tank hitting a plane. Then what? Every tank is now a plane killer on steroids?
Its Ridiculous,
:rofl
-
thing is, the opportunities would be very rare indeed as, unlike in AH, pilots wouldnt generally be flying unarmoured aircraft down the barrel of a tank at treetop level then breaking at 100yds. not to avoid the main gun, but to avoid the small arms fire.
have you seen the stats on fighter losses to heavy ack (heavy = over 40mm)? we are not talking proxy-fused high alt puffy AAA here, its direct fire, contact-fuzed, tank gun calibre AAA. essentially tank guns but without the engine and heavy armour that comes with a tank. look at it that way, and it was sadly very common indeed.
what AH tankers are doing with their main guns is exactly what happened to large numbers of fighters attacking ground targets in WWII.
-
Please show me where it ever happened in real life ....once... ever.
For a game that can't have a skin unless its historically perfect, or a plane model thats not right, or a plane that flew in ww2 and had enough production, or flew enough sorties.... It is totally retarded that a tank can hit a plane when it never happened, much like a twig that flips a tank.
So the physics of a round firing from a cannon intersecting an aircraft and destroying it should not be possible in this game because you can't find an instance where it actually occurred?
Hmm . . . then please find me a source that says a KI-84 once shot down a N1K-2. If you can not find it, then i want those pesky KI-84 rounds nerfed when flying my orange target around.
Oh, and here is a link (hope still valid) to a rather long article, but I'll quote the relevant section for those who think tanks didn't use their main guns to shoot at aircraft. I'll also bold some relevant advice to those of you complaining about being shot by tank main guns.
http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html
- The Sherman had an antiaircraft machine gun Browning M2 .50 caliber. Did you use it often?
- I don't know why, but one shipment of tanks arrived with machine guns, and another without them. We used this machine gun against both aircraft and ground targets. We used it less frequently against air targets because the Germans were not fools. They bombed either from altitude or from a steep dive. The machine gun was good to 400-600 meters in the vertical. The Germans would drop their bombs from say, 800 meters or higher. He dropped his bomb and departed quickly. Try to shoot the bastard down! So yes, we used it, but it was not very effective. We even used our main gun against aircraft. We placed the tank on the upslope of a hill and fired. But our general impression of the machine gun was good. These machine guns were of great use to us in the war with Japan, against kamikazes. We fired them so much that they got red hot and began to cook off. To this day I have a piece of shrapnel in my head from an antiaircraft machine gun.
-
apple vs orange. ;)
meh, kinda. Here we have infinite trys to kill a tank if we crash and burn. No rational, sane IL2 pilot would dive in at 90 degrees and wait untill 200ft to pull up. We try stuff in here that is, well, frankly just stupid in real life. Single 3k lancasters flying into an area with air inferiority in broad daylight? Air command wouldn't expend that kind of effort to take out a single tiger.
-
Killing a plane with a tank main gun is no more unbeleivable than a c202 tracking a m4.
-
Yesterday I took 6 pings offline in an I l2 and killed all AA at a V base. AA is far more lethal than a tater chunker simply because of more $*** to dodge. :noid
-
They can only shoot at a shallow angle.
+1 steep or fast are the only ways to be sure. :salute
-
When I was first learning to bomb GV's I used a Jug N at just under 6K go inverted until I see friendlies on the ground, ask them where one is hiding, pull straight down on them from nearly vertical. very clean as long as the sky is clear of Bogies. :salute
-
hahhaa i remember getting shot down a lot of times by tank rounds
-
One thing you need to remember is most players have many hours and lots of experience with shooting main guns at aircraft. I'm willing to bet that if tank crews in WW2 had the experience we do that there would've been more aircraft kills by tanks.
The solution is to fly higher, I can easily pull my B25 out of a dive when I'm bombing/75mming tanks, an A20 is even easier. Worse comes to worst just grab a fighter to do the job or heaven forbid another tank.
I would bet also maybe, just maybe SOME tank battles did not have 200 emeny a/c flying over head and lancstukas either :salute
-
I would bet also maybe, just maybe SOME tank battles did not have 200 emeny a/c flying over head and lancstukas either :salute
I have never been in a gv battle with 200 aircraft over me, ever.
-
So the physics of a round firing from a cannon intersecting an aircraft and destroying it should not be possible in this game because you can't find an instance where it actually occurred?
Hmm . . . then please find me a source that says a KI-84 once shot down a N1K-2. If you can not find it, then i want those pesky KI-84 rounds nerfed when flying my orange target around.
Oh, and here is a link (hope still valid) to a rather long article, but I'll quote the relevant section for those who think tanks didn't use their main guns to shoot at aircraft. I'll also bold some relevant advice to those of you complaining about being shot by tank main guns.
http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html
"We even used our main gun against aircraft. We placed the tank on the upslope of a hill and fired."
Did they actually hit many? Probably not.
One thing is IRL you didnt have the same SA we have here. Here the commander,driver and gunner are all the same person. Therefor they all have the same SA.
Try just sitting in the gunners position and locating,aiming and then firing at a fast moving AC. Its alot more difficult and most shots you get to shoot as are more luck then skill. Just locating an AC would be as much luck as anything. then you have to train your gun and fire.
Here as I said. The commander,driver and gunner are all the same person You can jump from position to position and instinctively know where to move,look point and aim in a nanosecond. IRL they didnt have that kind of SA.
Also. we are talking 1 gun here. It was hard enough for a ship with a complete compliment of AA weapons many times more then a tanks single gun at its disposal to hit aircraft. And they still didnt always bring them down even with several ships firing on them. And they had the added incentive of their actual lives being on the line to not miss. I find it highly improbable that tanker even with the kind of experience we have here in game that a tank would have shot down an aircraft coming in at any angle as easily as its done here in game.
All of that is equally amusing to me because its far easier to hit an AC here with a tanks main gun with a single shot then it is with most AA guns here which have a by far a faster rate of fire.
but as I mentioned in an earlier post. Its a balanced tradeoff when you consider there are some planes here that take out tanks with far greater ease then they ever did IRL. Mostly due to the zoom feature which they didnt have IRL.
-
meh, kinda. Here we have infinite trys to kill a tank if we crash and burn. No rational, sane IL2 pilot would dive in at 90 degrees and wait untill 200ft to pull up. We try stuff in here that is, well, frankly just stupid in real life. Single 3k lancasters flying into an area with air inferiority in broad daylight? Air command wouldn't expend that kind of effort to take out a single tiger.
Not only that but they wouldnt allow airbases to be so close to the front lines so as a tank could get that close to begin with. LOL
-
Draw a circle the diameter of the gun you wish to replicate. Keep in mind the fuze is point detonating. Then look at the parabolic flight the round must take from point A to point B. I find it very unlikely that you could have the range perfect (plane is coming in at XXX M.P.H.) that the round drop is dead on at an ever changing range that you hit the 2-3 sq meter frontal area of an airplane. There a computers that were not able to do this until the 90s. (see SGT York ADA system). I believe that the round fired from a cannon is much larger than the actual caliber in terms of space, not effects. I have asked this question in the help section looking for an answer, no avail. If I fire a gun into the void that is the game, it's destination is tracked in terms of time and flight path. After XXX distance or time, I dont recall which, the game quits tracking the round. All that said, when I fire the round from my barrel, since it is close, the effect it measures XX by XX pixels. My question is, does it change is size as it travels downrange or does it stay XX by XX pixels (the only unit of measurement I can think of) regardless of range.
Likely I am off base with my assumption, but I would love to know if or if not this is the case.
-
whether they could hit the aircraft isn't the point. Aircraft in Aces High do many, many, MANY things they didn't do in real life.
If you want your Il-2 to be able to take out multiple tanks with guns alone (and even groups rarely took out even a SINGLE tank with guns alone), you're going to have to put up with some BS coming back the other way, Dirtdart.
My advice to bomb****s and tank killers: Be happy if your planes survive half the idiotic watermelon you do, half of the time, because they still survive twice as long while doing twice as much.
-
1) why fly right into their turret?
2) why were you low enough to be IN their turret
Cmon - its a good shot with a single tank round! At least tanks can defend themselves from ping-tards and bomb****s :x
-
whether they could hit the aircraft isn't the point. Aircraft in Aces High do many, many, MANY things they didn't do in real life.
If you want your Il-2 to be able to take out multiple tanks with guns alone (and even groups rarely took out even a SINGLE tank with guns alone), you're going to have to put up with some BS coming back the other way, Dirtdart.
My advice to bombers and tank killers: Be happy if your planes survive half the idiotic watermelon you do, half of the time, because they still survive twice as long while doing twice as much.
Aces high is a simulation using WWII stuff. The day it quits being a simulation and becomes a console game is the day I quit. FPS malarkey....
-
Aces high is a simulation using WWII stuff. The day it quits being a simulation and becomes a console game is the day I quit. FPS malarkey....
When is that point reached? Lot's of folks don'T play AH because it has never been a "simulation" to them, they already call it "console game". That's quite a subjective point. ;)
My question is, does it change is size as it travels downrange or does it stay XX by XX pixels (the only unit of measurement I can think of) regardless of range.
No, the the round doesn't change it physical properties.
-
The GV model is already there with the new TC piece. I think is atrocious and I might as well see a duke nukem logo when I log on. When the cockpit is gone in the planes, that will be it for me. Something along those lines. As long as I still have canopy frames, I can stall, etc... life is good.
Thanks for the feedback on the round... I really don't get it , but that is for another thread.
:salute
-
How does the TC make Aces a consol game? You're directing the gunner to move the turret and, granted you have a circle to assist you, you still have to guess where you're aiming at. If you manage to kill something further than point blank range in the TC view, you did it by pure dumb luck.
-
You just don't get it, not in my thread on the subject... it is a copy of a rival interface
-
Who cares if HTC didn't come up with it? If it works, if its better than the previous system, then why should we care WHO came up with it?
HTC didn't come up with the Miles Sound System, but I don't see anyone whining about it.
-
The GV model is already there with the new TC piece. I think is atrocious and I might as well see a duke nukem logo when I log on. When the cockpit is gone in the planes, that will be it for me. Something along those lines. As long as I still have canopy frames, I can stall, etc... life is good.
Thanks for the feedback on the round... I really don't get it , but that is for another thread.
:salute
I don't think you have to worry about the cockpit view going away, nor the ability to stall, other than the very old stall limiter.
-
Aces high is a simulation using WWII stuff. The day it quits being a simulation and becomes a console game is the day I quit. FPS malarkey....
this game has so many things missing from it that you cant really call it a legitimate true simulation.But nor is it a true console game But more closely resembles a hybred of simulation and arcade for game playability.
If it were a true simulation just taking off and flying from point A to point B alone would be so ovrly complex that many people would simply loose interest
-
Kinda off topic, but I just played a little "world of tanks"
Gonna go out on a limb here, but I would imagine that the designed to be similar to that game to lure in more customers.
More customers is great, more people to shoot at!!!!
and world of tanks sucks, THATS a console game :P
:bolt:
-
Kinda off topic, but I just played a little "world of tanks"
Gonna go out on a limb here, but I would imagine that the designed to be similar to that game to lure in more customers.
More customers is great, more people to shoot at!!!!
and world of tanks sucks, THATS a console game :P
:bolt:
See that is the point. What is the threshold ? When do you gain more clients at the risk of the loyal ones who have discalced for years isn't it?
-
:huh
I wasnt making a point like that at all
-
Dirdtart,
ah = wot? NO!!!!!!!!!
I've been here since the very end of '04 under various accounts (with maybe 4 month breaks when I'm getting bored :aok). I have yet to see Dale and the team cut realism for the sake of new members.