Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Scherf on August 27, 2012, 10:42:26 PM

Title: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Scherf on August 27, 2012, 10:42:26 PM
Starboard wing keeps getting sawn off in no time flat. Seriously, were two metal spars really that weak?
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Midway on August 27, 2012, 11:19:23 PM
I find the tail is easy to seperate fom the rest of the aeroplane.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: phatzo on August 27, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
The 410 is a prime example of why the player base should not get to vote on aircraft.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Lusche on August 27, 2012, 11:42:52 PM
The 410 is a prime example of why the player base should not get to vote on aircraft.

 I'm having fun in it :)
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: icepac on August 27, 2012, 11:54:18 PM
I was flying next to a lancaster at over D1200 and lost a wing with a single ping sound.

It wasn't from the rear .50 but rather a .30 caliber gun.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Nath[BDP] on August 27, 2012, 11:57:56 PM
The airframe does seem weak.  It should be tougher imo considering it handles like an overweight piggy.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: STEELE on August 28, 2012, 12:36:19 AM
21,000 lbs of balsa
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Scherf on August 28, 2012, 01:13:16 AM
Even the balsa parts of the Mossie strike me as more durable than the 410 wing.


Yes, a waaaaaah has been recorded.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Noir on August 28, 2012, 02:18:34 AM
meanwhile, an A20 is taking 30mm hits as breakfast  :angel:
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on August 28, 2012, 06:41:28 AM
21,000 lbs of balsa

21000lbs of balsa would be virtually indestructible for anything but 18" cannons :)
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: oboe on August 28, 2012, 07:29:35 AM
The 410 is a prime example of why the player base should not get to vote on aircraft.

This brings to mind two questions:

- is the 410 damage model functioning correctly as intended?

- which aircraft would HTC have chosen to model apart form community input?  (if the answer is He111 or Ki.43 or J2M I'm going to rend my t shirt)

Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Fulcrum on August 28, 2012, 08:26:24 AM
This brings to mind two questions:

- is the 410 damage model functioning correctly as intended?

- which aircraft would HTC have chosen to model apart form community input?  (if the answer is He111 or Ki.43 or J2M I'm going to rend my t shirt)



Why for J2M?   Been brought up / whined about too much?  :headscratch:
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Nathan60 on August 28, 2012, 08:27:59 AM
The airframe does seem weak.  It should be tougher imo considering it handles like an overweight piggy.

Waystin aint that fat...
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: oboe on August 28, 2012, 01:00:14 PM
Why for J2M?   Been brought up / whined about too much?  :headscratch:

Just always had an interest in the J2M, and would like to see it in game some day.   The other two are great scenario planeset hole-fillers.    Not to be construed as a whine, just a playful poke at the wisdom of the masses vs HTC's possible choices.   But maybe they would've put in the Meteor, who can say?    :D   
 
I do like the community participation in choosing the next plane though.   Its a great way to make the players feel involved in the game's development, and if the a/c doesn't work out as its hoped or expected to, we've only ourselves to blame.  :frown:
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: MK-84 on August 28, 2012, 09:54:15 PM
I'm having fun in it :)

Shame on you... :old:

Snailman Tour 151 (Current)

Kills in:     51
Kills of:      7
Killed by:   2
Died in:     7
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: MK-84 on August 28, 2012, 09:58:30 PM
The airframe does seem weak.  It should be tougher imo considering it handles like an overweight piggy.

handling, or weight even, does not correlate to airframe toughness.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Lusche on August 28, 2012, 09:58:59 PM
Shame on you... :old:

Snailman Tour 151 (Current)


pffft, thats nothing. Check out chris3  :old:
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Scherf on August 29, 2012, 10:27:56 PM
Seriously, HTC, please look at this. The wings just get sawn off easy.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Rob52240 on August 30, 2012, 09:44:22 AM
Pound for pound, wood can easily be stronger than metal.

I learned that in 7th grade shop class.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Noir on August 30, 2012, 10:22:36 AM
the wing root seems to be very resistant to my bullets, but the outer wing no so much, and will take the whole wing in its destruction
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Scca on August 30, 2012, 10:27:12 AM
meanwhile, an A20 is taking 30mm hits as breakfast  :angel:
Unless it's from a flak.  If a Wirb sneeze's in my direction an engine goes out...
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Charge on August 30, 2012, 10:56:28 AM
Also consider that the plane was deemed capable of divebombing with such high empty weight. Many of them were equipped with StuVi divebomb sights. However, I have not made such pull up yet that could have broken its wings off but it does not tolerate much damage when this happens.

I'd say that the max permissible loading figure for 410 may be right which makes it perfectly capable of divebombing, but the "hitpoints" against damage in wingsections do not correlate with the good loading figures and I assume that due to game mechanics these are two separate values.

Compare it with e.g. Ju88 which is also a dive bombing capable "stuka" aircraft. Ju88 is quite resilient to wing damage.

-C+
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: PanosGR on August 30, 2012, 12:11:09 PM
the wing root seems to be very resistant to my bullets, but the outer wing no so much, and will take the whole wing in its destruction

same thing with 110, inner wing is normal but the outer section is simply for the poutsos
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Scherf on August 30, 2012, 10:59:44 PM
It gets even better.

Just reviewed film of my latest wing loss - number of 50-cal flashes to port wing and to the fuselage, starboard wing falls off despite, according to the film, not receiving a single hit.

 :bhead

Oh, and while I'm whining in my very own whine thread, the defensive guns go pop very quickly. Is there no defensive value in having that whacking great mechanism between the gunners and the bad guys?
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: JOACH1M on August 30, 2012, 11:48:59 PM
I have a 2v1 victory in the 410, Vs a yakT and a N1K. It was epic as hell. I like the 410 the way it is.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Scherf on August 31, 2012, 04:55:02 AM
Got any tips?

I love the 103s vs heavy buffs, even with my gunnery I can knock 'em down. Against fighters, not really.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: R 105 on August 31, 2012, 08:39:42 AM
The 410 is a prime example of why the player base should not get to vote on aircraft.

I agree, we keep getting more hangar queens.
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: Noir on August 31, 2012, 09:29:42 AM
I agree, we keep getting more hangar queens.

 :headscratch: There is no logic there, players tend to vote for the biggest baddest rides. I we had more early war planes added (something that the players would never vote in majority for), you would learn the meaning of "hangar queen".
Title: Re: 410 wing - really?
Post by: JOACH1M on August 31, 2012, 09:32:32 AM
Got any tips?

I love the 103s vs heavy buffs, even with my gunnery I can knock 'em down. Against fighters, not really.
"you only get one shot do not miss your chance to blow"

You have really one try at killing a fighter after the merge is to turn hard in either direction and cut throttle and push down for the overshoot snap-shot.