$1.08/Hour and Rising

[Oldman731]

You're a loon.

Which observation prompts the question:  why are you guys still feeding the troll?

- oldman

[Karnak]

Which observation prompts the question:  why are you guys still feeding the troll?

- oldman

It amuses me for some bizarre reason.

[Ack-Ack]

Info:
Lancaster guns seem able to point down further than they should - they fire straight down!

They don't fire straight down in game, that's just a major exaggeration on your part, it's closer to a 45 degree angle.  This can be easily seen if you were to go into F3 mode and fire the tail guns fully deflected.  There is no discrepancy between the max deflection of the tail guns in game compared to real life, since the tail guns in real life had a max 45 degree deflection.

Notice we never heard the term 'rafwhinner' in here? Because the RAF players, that stay long enough, know that its the Luftwhinners that are cheated in here.
2) they seem bullet proof, especially to Luftwaffe 7.9mm's, whole stuka amo clip, 1500 to kill one lanc, 500 left so 2nd and 3rd flew away. FIXED?

Have to response to this claim because it's just so absurd that you're using it as an example that the Lancaster needs to be remodeled. 

First of all, the machine guns on the Ju-87D-3 fires rifle caliber ammunition, as opposed to harder hitting machine gun caliber (like the .50 cals) or cannon caliber rounds.  You're basically like an ant shooting spit wads at an elephant, all you're going to do is annoy the elephant if you keep it up.  Secondly, the Lancaster (like most bombers) have a lot of empty internal space, unlike fighters, which means you're far less likely to hit a critical part of the bomber if you shoot at the fuselage, especially when you're firing 7.92mm caliber rounds.

Basically, the problem isn't that the Lancaster is over modeled or the Ju-87D-3s machine guns aren't powerful enough, the problem is you, I mean you expect to be able to shoot down a Lancaster in a Stuka using very little ammo, let alone a formation of three.  It's your modus operandi though, you blame the game for being the reason you don't do very well in this game when it's not the game that is making you suck.

ack-ack

[Masherbrum]

He's applying his actual time spent playing to the monthly fee. So if he played one hour this tour AH is costing $14.95 a hour to play.

I think that's what he meant. I'm more gooder at grammar than math really.


BE, take good long break. I pretty much took over a year off aside from DGS II and came back last month. I'm really enjoying the game again.

Damn Firefighters!   

[dedalos]

They don't fire straight down in game, that's just a major exaggeration on your part, it's closer to a 45 degree angle.  This can be easily seen if you were to go into F3 mode and fire the tail guns fully deflected.  There is no discrepancy between the max deflection of the tail guns in game compared to real life, since the tail guns in real life had a max 45 degree deflection.

(Image removed from quote.) (Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Have to response to this claim because it's just so absurd that you're using it as an example that the Lancaster needs to be remodeled. 

First of all, the machine guns on the Ju-87D-3 fires rifle caliber ammunition, as opposed to harder hitting machine gun caliber (like the .50 cals) or cannon caliber rounds.  You're basically like an ant shooting spit wads at an elephant, all you're going to do is annoy the elephant if you keep it up.  Secondly, the Lancaster (like most bombers) have a lot of empty internal space, unlike fighters, which means you're far less likely to hit a critical part of the bomber if you shoot at the fuselage, especially when you're firing 7.92mm caliber rounds.

Basically, the problem isn't that the Lancaster is over modeled or the Ju-87D-3s machine guns aren't powerful enough, the problem is you, I mean you expect to be able to shoot down a Lancaster in a Stuka using very little ammo, let alone a formation of three.  It's your modus operandi though, you blame the game for being the reason you don't do very well in this game when it's not the game that is making you suck.

ack-ack

not to mention that out of the alleged 1500 rounds probably 200 or 300 found the target and sprayed all over it

[MrRiplEy[H]]

They don't fire straight down in game, that's just a major exaggeration on your part, it's closer to a 45 degree angle.  This can be easily seen if you were to go into F3 mode and fire the tail guns fully deflected.  There is no discrepancy between the max deflection of the tail guns in game compared to real life, since the tail guns in real life had a max 45 degree deflection.

(Image removed from quote.) (Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Have to response to this claim because it's just so absurd that you're using it as an example that the Lancaster needs to be remodeled. 

First of all, the machine guns on the Ju-87D-3 fires rifle caliber ammunition, as opposed to harder hitting machine gun caliber (like the .50 cals) or cannon caliber rounds.  You're basically like an ant shooting spit wads at an elephant, all you're going to do is annoy the elephant if you keep it up.  Secondly, the Lancaster (like most bombers) have a lot of empty internal space, unlike fighters, which means you're far less likely to hit a critical part of the bomber if you shoot at the fuselage, especially when you're firing 7.92mm caliber rounds.

Basically, the problem isn't that the Lancaster is over modeled or the Ju-87D-3s machine guns aren't powerful enough, the problem is you, I mean you expect to be able to shoot down a Lancaster in a Stuka using very little ammo, let alone a formation of three.  It's your modus operandi though, you blame the game for being the reason you don't do very well in this game when it's not the game that is making you suck.

ack-ack

Unless the lancaster had a special armor for the tail gunner the 7.7mm should easily kill the tailgunner with the first spray to the tail. When you read historic accounts of real fighter pilots attacking bombers they always describe how they just 'place a short burst to the tail to kill the tail gunner' as the first step of the attack. On AH placing a huge chunk of 20mm to the tail mostly doesn't kill the tail gunner and you get promptly shot to shreads in a second.

[Franz Von Werra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtfoAT8OAbo

nuff seen, nuff said.

[Lusche]

[hitech]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtfoAT8OAbo

nuff seen, nuff said.

You are correct enough said. The lanc depression of the real gun according to our sources is 45 deg, which matches visually with the you tube video you linked.

In AH the lanc rear gun depression is also 45 degrees.

HiTech

[Lusche]

One thing players seem not to take into account is the effect of lag on the perceived angle enemy bombers are shooting at you.

Due to the universal lag, every player is seeing another player a tad behind the position where that player 'really' (on that players on comp) is. Imagine this as every player towing a copy of his plane, and only this 'copy' will be seen by other players.

The net effect is that the on the bomber's screen, the fighter will still be a bit farther away than the bomber will be to the fighter on the fighter's screen. So, depending on total lag of both, it can very well happen that the buff gunner can still shoot on the fighter (on the bomber's screen) while the fighter happens to be (on the fighters screen) just outside of the gunner's arc of fire, under the belly of the Lanc... but still gets hit.

But that's not because the guns are able to shoot "straight down", it just seems to be that way to the fighter. If the fighter is below the Lancs on the gunner's screen, he can not be shot at.

[Wmaker]

One thing players seem not to take into account is the effect of lag on the perceived angle enemy bombers are shooting at you.

Due to the universal lag, every player is seeing another player a tad behind the position where that player 'really' (on that players on comp) is. Imagine this as every player towing a copy of his plane, and only this 'copy' will be seen by other players.

The net effect is that the on the bomber's screen, the fighter will still be a bit farther away than the bomber will be to the fighter on the fighter's screen. So, depending on total lag of both, it can very well happen that the buff gunner can still shoot on the fighter (on the bomber's screen) while the fighter happens to be (on the fighters screen) just outside of the gunner's arc of fire, under the belly of the Lanc... but still gets hit.

But that's not because the guns are able to shoot "straight down", it just seems to be that way to the fighter. If the fighter is below the Lancs on the gunner's screen, he can not be shot at.

Completely true of course, but I think even bigger problem with players is trying to perceive "what is 45 degrees" when using snap views to look around. Looking "forward up" with fixed snap view ~600 yards from the bomber there aren't much reference points to judge the angle with, considering that the we have limited FoV/cyclops vision and homogenic blue sky.

[EskimoJoe]

It appears we have a winner! 

[Daddkev]

  Am I suppose to shoot at the plane on the rope? Please explain again. 

[Bear76]

It's Schlowy...............why are we bothering to respond? 

[Zacherof]

It's Schlowy...............why are we bothering to respond? 

Schlowy is awesome and funny