PDA

View Full Version : Now this is a realistic sim



NextBarbaPapa
06-14-2005, 04:29 AM
Hello all

About a half a year ago I purchased this simulation, from FB to PF. I could not believe, how you can call it realistic, and in my post (here: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7911060292/p/1 ) I counted only the most obvious incorrections.

I was visiting these forums checking for updates and now I installed 4.0 patch (altough I'm confused as there is no link on the first page and with updates €" I got it from some french page posted here somewhere).

I have to say: Now this is true virtual WW2 aerial combat museum. Developers did a good job. Maybe also my expectations lowered a bit, as I try to understand now how close can one get on a PC to the real thing.

Most incorrections I adressed in previous post were now corrected €" Mg151/20 cannon is now much more powerfull (altough still not as powerfull compared to shvak and hispano as it should be €" it has 3 MG shells out of 5, so 60%, and they are much stronger than shvak and slightly than hispano HE rounds, and both these cannons have 50% of HE shells €" anyway this is just my oppinion, I am not trying to change anything). Damage is programmed much better now, Fw190 being one of the toughest fighters, as it was in WW2. Maybe Bf109 is a bit too tough now, especially when fired at with .50 cal machineguns. 37mm german AT guns on Ju87 seem to be much more powerfull, I can take out T34 without problems. Fw190 can hardly get a fuel leak now, and if it does, it seals just as fast as on other planes.

There are a few more issues to be resolved, many (if not all that I found) alreadly mentioned in Oleg's ready room. Fw190A8/R2 had 55 shells per 30mm Mk108 cannon on outer wing positions, not 35. Maybe Germans from time to time used 35, but 55 was default. 35 shells were used for Mk103 cannon gondolas. Mk108 also seems too accurate to me.

Now Fw190 holds energy much better during maneouvers, which makes it more usefull for close fights. (German pilots reported that in high speed sharp turns they could keep speed better than most opponents, especially with D9 €" which correctly can keep energy better than Antons€¦)

Like other people already mentioned, Fw190 forvard visibility is still wrong, I will post original documents in Oleg's ready room (altough I believe this has already been done€¦)

My personal feeling is that bombers in general are still too tough, at least early bombers against light machineguns €" just a feeling, hard to prove€¦

ShVAK lost some of it's power, as it should (my oppinion again). It is a pitty that gun-jamming is not modelled, as ShVAK would be one of the most reliable guns, but now it looses one of it's big advantages.

However, I still think planes should catch fire more often when hit. It seems now that most common reason for instant-kill is a wing-off. In real life it was plane caught fire (and maybe exploded consequently). This I think is connected with a belief that american M2 .50 is not strong enoug €" it was excellent weapon to set planes on fire, but no so good to do structural damage. Usually when a plane was hit by .50, it caught fire, or it weapon-ammo containers exploded, both of which were usually fatal. (I already posted this in Olegs room)

It seems like Fw190 still has some issues compared to real plane €" like already mentioned and proved, short range and slower speed at low-medium altitudes.

thank you for reading

regards,

M

Taylortony
06-16-2005, 12:57 PM
Have you tried the 4.01 patch?

PBNA-Boosher
06-16-2005, 01:28 PM
Actually, the .50's did very a good job causing structural damage. The bullets were large and numerous, snapping spars, control cables, etc... They just did not act as saws, slicing things off.