PDA

View Full Version : Another Scalability option request



Grey_Mouser67
03-18-2006, 11:27 AM
For offliners that struggle between patches around DM's and such...

Could a line be added to the .ini file that would allow weapons...prefereably guns and cannons...maybe separately, maybe not to have a multiplier...

would be like this:

[Game]
Guns 1.2
Cannons 1.0


For example, the above calculation would allow for machine guns to be 20% more effective if I configured my game this way?

This might help with offliners and make the game a bit more playable between patches. Currently, the unrealistic gunnery gives a 3x boost and no trajectory and is pretty useless. There is tons of debate around DM's and weapons strength as well as limitations in the game engine itself to properly render certain effects so this might be a stop gap or a way to allow for some of us who are dissatisfied with the current modelling to do something about it in a way that does not affect other people.

DuxCorvan
03-21-2006, 01:10 PM
In fact, two of the things I find unrealistic in this sim are:

a) How useless are normal MGs. Yes, I know that cannons and heavy MGs were the way to go, but even so you should be able to shoot down *something* by descharging all the ammo of eight .303 on a single point in a single enemy plane. But in FB, windscreen splashing bugs are more effective than MGs. I know that in BoB it was hard to shoot down bombers with MGs, but I know they DID, so there's something wrong about this.

b) How superhuman skilled are AI gunners. Had crew gunners been so dangerous, 8th AF would have never needed fighter escort, and the theories about the non-escort-need would have been correct. But we know how much a sitting duck was an isolated unescorted slow bomber in WW2, so there's something VERY wrong here, since it drammatically changes the historical evolution of air war.

Change these two things and fix the berserk cheating "steroid" AI, and I'll be happy.

At least, introducing the parameters suggested by Grey_Mouser -only for offline or server-abled- would be a great improvement for the first problem. We could actually discover why Oscars bothered to take off and the peanut-shooter-theory followers would go on enjoying their April/August 1945 last-minute-of-war stuff.

TX-Zen
03-21-2006, 04:36 PM
Very interesting suggestion

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BueJack
03-25-2006, 08:08 AM
History
-------
a) Early Bob pilots complained about their 8x .303's being ineffective against the germans

b) Luftwaffe pilots were very afraid to attack B17 formations, so developed tactics to maximise their survival and destroy many B17's as possible.
(ie: They would attack a single/side group of B17's and when 1 fell out of formation, they'd swarm onto it - Superiority in numbers)

DuxCorvan
03-25-2006, 11:24 AM
Gunnery

a)History / b)FB
---------------------------------------------
0,303 ineffective / O,303 useless
Bf 109s escort range / Not a problem
P-47s escort range / Not a problem
LW pilots afraid / No LW pilots left in 1944
P-38 sent, P-51 developed / Why? No escort needed
Schweinfurt disaster / Schweinfurt victory
B-17, a fortress / EVERY bomber, a fortress
RAF wins BoB / LW wins BoB vs RAF shooting peas
Defiant: a failure / Defiant: ultimate war-winning weapon
Field 190 armoured nose / No special 190s
Fighters scare bombers / Bombers scare fighters

Aymar_Mauri
03-31-2006, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Gunnery

a)History / b)FB
---------------------------------------------
0,303 ineffective / O,303 useless
Bf 109s escort range / Not a problem
P-47s escort range / Not a problem
LW pilots afraid / No LW pilots left in 1944
P-38 sent, P-51 developed / Why? No escort needed
Schweinfurt disaster / Schweinfurt victory
B-17, a fortress / EVERY bomber, a fortress
RAF wins BoB / LW wins BoB vs RAF shooting peas
Defiant: a failure / Defiant: ultimate war-winning weapon
Field 190 armoured nose / No special 190s
Fighters scare bombers / Bombers scare fighters
I'm in total agreement, Dux. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

No further comments necessary.

Pig_Mac
04-09-2006, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:


[Game]
Guns 1.2
Cannons 1.0


I actually like the idea.

JG52Karaya-X
04-09-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Gunnery

a)History / b)FB
---------------------------------------------
0,303 ineffective / O,303 useless
Bf 109s escort range / Not a problem
P-47s escort range / Not a problem
LW pilots afraid / No LW pilots left in 1944
P-38 sent, P-51 developed / Why? No escort needed
Schweinfurt disaster / Schweinfurt victory
B-17, a fortress / EVERY bomber, a fortress
RAF wins BoB / LW wins BoB vs RAF shooting peas
Defiant: a failure / Defiant: ultimate war-winning weapon
Field 190 armoured nose / No special 190s
Fighters scare bombers / Bombers scare fighters

Have to agree there! On the subject of light MGs, the only one that IMO seems effective is the Russian ShKas, every other light MG just sucks! On a sidenote it also seems to largely depend on what plane you use the light MGs on: A Zero can be shot down with light MGs quite easily, try that on say a LaGG3 and you will not even scratch the paint!

Fighters that are virtually immune to light MGs are: all La(GG)3/5/7, Yaks (especially the engines), FWs (engine mostly, fuel tank can be lit up however)

DK-nme
04-11-2006, 01:23 PM
We are some who totally agree on the last posts.
Russian planes are nearby immune to light mg fire whereas russian light guns kill almost instantly.
Hmmm, how did Bubi get so many kills on the eastern front, if the russian planes are all armoured???
Marseille used approximately only 15 bullets pr. downed aircraft - how did he do that???

RCAF_Irish_403
04-11-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Gunnery

a)History / b)FB
---------------------------------------------
0,303 ineffective / O,303 useless
Bf 109s escort range / Not a problem
P-47s escort range / Not a problem
LW pilots afraid / No LW pilots left in 1944
P-38 sent, P-51 developed / Why? No escort needed
Schweinfurt disaster / Schweinfurt victory
B-17, a fortress / EVERY bomber, a fortress
RAF wins BoB / LW wins BoB vs RAF shooting peas
Defiant: a failure / Defiant: ultimate war-winning weapon
Field 190 armoured nose / No special 190s
Fighters scare bombers / Bombers scare fighters


just about perfect

GAU-8
04-17-2006, 03:22 AM
BLUJACK,

your info is correct about the B-17's but here is the reason why. NOT not because of a single gunners accuracy.

gunners were NOT crack shots, there was many parameters that needed to be correct to actually aim and hit the target precisely. it wasnt the ACCURACY of the shots that made B-17 formations so dangerous (to a point) but the SHEER AMOUNT of bullets being fired from MANY gunnery stations pointing roughly at the same target.

allthough PARKING behind a B-17 is NEVER a good idea, none the less. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif