• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

651 Excellent


About Amyel

  • Rank
    Flying officer
  • Birthday 03/11/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,054 profile views
  1. So you prefer to have nothing in the meantime no matter how much time change will take. Even if you know it's going to be lengthy proccess? Stick with better the devil you know approach? I assume you do not play low tier events then, where people using SPAA got most of ground kills. This is pointless. You do not see difference between 2 definitions nor understand implications of implementation process. Let me be straight and say it very simple: Yes, i (and other players) do believe that SPAA is overperforming in anti-tank role when shouldn't. I (and other players) know the reason for it - its loadout allows for it. Therefore i want it to be changed. I want that change to be able to be applied in quick and with relatively small amount of time/manpower required from GJ, so they can at least consider it. If by any chance it's non-organic and static solution - I do NOT care. Not the first one, not the last one. WT is not perfect and won't be in a very short time. But game might be more appeling to players by such small, non-organic changes. Can it make game worse? There's always possibility. And it seems that me (and many other players) would gladly try it and live with it.
  2. And the time for each step required. Thanks for proving my point. So you want realism without historical accuracy. Go to RB. Thanks for proving my point. wrong again - no matter non standard ammo capacity - vehicle properites stays the same. Let me see why? Oh, maybe due to fact that full AP loadout let them play anti-tank role? Which is not their primary role? What a BS - effectivness is the same, efficiency is lower. Which stays the same. There's no change to that. Noone wants to do that either. Yet again you bring stuff up that is not the subject of this discussion. Aaand again - noone wnats it. We have been waiting 4(!) yeras for bomber cockpits - VISUAL change to the game. You think full rework od DM and game mechanics will take months? You planet are you from? Combat effectiveness, the readiness of a military unit to engage in combat based on behavioral, operational, and leadership considerations. Combat effectiveness measures the ability of a military force to accomplish its objective and is one component of overall military effectiveness. Yet again - lower amount of AP belts will not reduce SPAA effectivness towerds tanks. It is still going to be able to penetrate them. Killing tanks is not a primary objective for SPAA. Thia in NON ESSENTIAL POSSIBILTY. SPAA objective is to provide cover against air targets for friendly groud units. Jeez, so if you need 10 rounds to kill a tank and you have 10 round in total - is it the same efficiency to you if you would have 100 shells for one go? That's not simantics - that's 2 different things. Effectivness stays the same with reduced efficiency against other ground targets. Efficiency in primary anti-air role would be increased.
  3. Lol, now we need to have specific number of players to call it an issue? And honestly - some means more than one (you) and considering that fact that issue has been raised by people with way more time spent in game - i guess wh HAVE an issue. You are fixated ti think that complexity is just for your model. Complexity of a process is the amount of resourcesrequired for a problem’s solution. (which do you not understand) No mate - i try to get as it was in IRL. It's you who wants RB - realism with no hint of historiac accuracy. Oh boy, what an example. However got absolutely nothing to do with what i want. Analogy would be right if i would propose to change the penetration values of AP tround to be similar to HE. Which is not a case. What you have brough it here is an analogy to remove couple ob bombs from plane loadout if IRL such bombs would not be fitted to aircraft. Do i want to change effectivnes of ammo? No, therefore SPAA with AP belt would still be effective to the same degree. Are you still referencing to WT? Because this is not current game setup. Your wishful thinking of an end game brings nothing. What is balance? Having fair fight? Perhaps. Will it be changed if SPAA would have limited AP belts? yet again - no, effectivness of SPAA with AP belt would be exactly the same. And noone wants to change it. I do not understand how can you mix up penetration values with ammo capacity. Got 10 years to spare? Or bringing up fantasy world again? Perhaps you should google up a difference bewtween efficiency and effectivness. Performance(effectivness) stays the same for a SPAA with loaded AP belt. Not being able to rush up and kill bunch of tanks in one go is a different story.
  4. This - definitely. What circus do you fly for? Personally i do think smoke should disappear from SB completely.
  5. My gods, really? Let's make it simple: Issue - Players found that SPAA is OP in anti tank role reason - Players found it's due to spaa loadout idea - Limited AP loadout solution - Implementation to the game. So we have two methods 1 .fixed setting that will require c.a. 2 days of work and a litre of vodka for Boris, 1 day of testing for Ivan All is required is additional check on loadout screen as we already have stock ammo specified in database (for every stock vehicle) 2. demand driven loadout- which will require data gathering (some days/weeks or use of artificial data which also will take time to be prepared), data representation for a calculation (need to be decided), just a calculation (easy), RFC for another screen as change to data flow diagram and testing will take way more time to be throughout, then even more testing to find out if calculation is being changed correctly to additional data. If you are programmer working with custromers then i'm Queen of Britain. What's even worse you try to play IRL card which is not great for you. You know i've heard that bombers were able to shot down fighters. And that's what we have in game - bombers CHASING fighters and i guess you are fine with this because that happened IRL. And there's hordes of fighter pilots in game that support this idea, right? Check the forum if you do not believe me. The worst is actually when you say nothing should be changed. Has it ever occured to you that some players who spent way more time and been in way more battles than you might be actually more familiar with game mechanisms and issues troubling the game? So if you here still thinking we do not need any change or we need overbloated solution with no chance to be implemented - let me start again. Issue - Players found that SPAA is OP in anti tank role....... I think you know where to look for more. P.S. Limiting AP belts amount will not reduce spaa vehicles effectivness. They will still be able to penetrate tanks -just like in IRL.
  6. You said it's a concept. Now you say it's not. You are wrong - the idea is to make non -standard ammo limited. The solution (at least for you) is your concept. From programmer perspective it's way more complicated than you think. it may not be true in statistics but in programming simpler the better (as long as it will be fit for customer request). In this case simple fixed setting would do. the solution isn't. You are not programmer, right? To think it's just a simple screen. And this is the thing you don't get. It's not the equasion you want to bring is complicated. It's implementation into the game. And you are confusing complexity of the equasion with complexity of programming required for it and implementation. Please do tell how it reduces the effectivness of SPAA (self propelled ANTI AIRCRAFT) by not having full AP loadout. Was it primary role for SPAA irl? Hmm, let me think - Oh, NO! Were they adviced to charge tanks irl? hmm, let me see - Oh, NO! They still be able to use it to self defence.Or charge tanks as it it right now. Player choice. It's simple won't be primary role as it wasn't IRL. With many previous statements you said "IRL". So yet again - let's keep it that way. As in IRL they should have limited AP belts to be able to defend themselves but not being able to rush enemy tanks. It seems you have not read whole topic so let me make a quick summary for you: The issue is simple - SPAA is performing role that is not designed for. It's due to its loadout. So solution may be limiting it's amount of AP belts. So we have an issue, we have a reason, an idea and possible solution. What we need is to find solution that will fix/mitigate the issue and is going to be easy to implement. What you presents here is a wishful thinking of a perfect game, not the current WT state.
  7. What i do get from your posts is: 1.It's an idea. 2. No, it's a concept. 3. I speak in general for games, not particulary about WT. 4. i gave example - whoops, some of them completely screw up player choice or a team. So what? At least complex equasion will be fine. I do not really care what it is anymore. As long as it's not a solution to the current game issue, that is possible to be applied before we die of old age - not interested. Is your idea easily applicable into the game? No. Brings complexity when not needed. Brings random elements that will change player choice. Players stated in this very topic that spamming non standard ammo is an issue. Instead of making fixed solution you prefer to keep it status quo unless your "concept" cannot be applied in game. What are you on? Seriously - you don't read. At all. Noone said SPAA cannot have AP belts. Quite opposite - they should have it for self defense purposes, but they should be focused on anti-air role as this is its primary role. Due to unlimited AP belts they do play anti-tank role at some tiers right now. Did you miss that completely? Or doesn't fit your wishes for WT?
  8. I do not want to break news to you but this is WT forum. When we try to put solution to this game issues. If you bring up ideas that are not applicable to the game then this is completely moot point. So yet again, your idea brings NOTHING to the game or to mitigate current issue. Support feasible ideas or just talking in general of game industry? Yet again - latter is a bit pointless here. Same. Yes, it's a fix. For now you have only presented a "concept" that is not a viable solution to the issue and stated that you prefer different kind of solution. You did not proved it will not fix the issue in current game setup. In my fix you would still the same choice of shells. It's just the amount of non standard issue would be limited. Honestly - you should actually support it if you are so much for immersion. That's how it was and that's what would player make to think what shell should they use instead of spamming non standard shells. remove repairs - it's been here (forum) discussed already. Simple case of loosing track means lost tank as won't be able to advance. I'm fine with it actually. 3rd person reticle - which one is it? there's a topic of removing gun circle from a game completely (big one actually) autostabilisiation - fine fuel consumption - fine as we have it in planes. But again - if just per battle basis when most players drives for few miles only - is it going to be an issue? If this is a bigger package when planes e.g. can disrupt supply lines - there ofc that would matter. mouse aim - i would support proper idea for it all the time. There was an idea of changing control type to relative by use of mouse joystick. easy fix and actually it would be fair across platforms - PS4 players got it that way from day 1. Ok, so for now i understand that all this is just your concept (or preferred idea) of what could be achieved within a game, but not a solution to our issue.
  9. I gave you an example - it will profit greedy player more than other on his team. It may cripple team as whole as it would lower the number of available shells, but considering it on player basis - yes, that's what players would do. And we are trying to find a solution to the problem. What was your point then in bringing it up? To show what can be done? Fine, but let's be realistic in here. You specifically said you do not care for historical accuracy. This IS realism. So yet again - nope. You cannot really have one without the other. There won't be any demand for non standard ammo if standard issue will guarantee success every time in every situation. which brings us to Which is not true. Every nation got different pool of machines so teams are not having the same ones. And that means that one of the team might be at disadventage of not being able to destroy enemy tanks without non standard ammo. Therefore such team will have bigger demand. Therefore players will try to get as much as possible. And with your solution they would be punished for it. Crippling them even more. Of course not. Just to mentioned that you would need a second screen added for loadout. Which you did not bring at the starting point as you did not think the whole thing through. It wasn't an issue to you, but it would be for implementation. You are focused only on how this would be calculated. Yet again - what is the point of bringing concept into this discussion? I like watermelons and this information is as much relevant to this topic as your idea. But to achieve this it's not just ammo loadout to be changed. That would require a massive overhaul of a game. It would be good in long run - i do agree with you on that. But we have to work with current state of the game. You are right - does it matter if it fixes the issue in current game stage? Maybe you should do it other way around? State that this is concept you would like to see in game? Most of the people here(forum) states they arguments for something they would like to see implemented. Actually, yes. Although sometimes discussions can be heated, there's recently way less ad personam pointers and sometimes such discussions may get to the point of forming suggestion that will make game better and without extensive use of time and manpower from GJ. Which means it might be implemented at some point. But by looking at how many topics we have in forum for it - it means that it's on many other player lists.
  10. Lol , as shown example proves your point(!) - being most greedy in a team will benefit your most. hypothetical - do you even follow GJ updates and how they ere implemented? we KNOW how data players present is used. It's a game - i do not want my choice to be completely screwed up by other RANDOM players. Which again let me know that you do not know how GJ solves issues raised by players. Right, so you do not want historical accuracy, nor balance. DO you want as it was in real life and simulate demand and supply then? (Which i guess is linked to historcal acuracy.) It seems you want even teams with even opportunities yet in uneven tanks in terms of performance. Yet again - you have created an idea, which will bring more issues to sort out, is not profitable to the company in many ways and call it (just in case) hypothetical example. What is the point of bringing up a fantasy idea that has exactly 0(zero)% chance to being even considered by GJ?
  11. But yet again is prefeable to be greedy as it will bring you more than being generous but stuck with other greedy players. We all know how data is used by GJ. In the ideal world that might work. Right now not. You really should take pink glasses off. And again - not thinking as programmer and marketing team. You are stuck to statistician mind here. But hey, it's not me who wants it to see all aspects, right? But it's still a game and both teams should be on even terms here. Having one team punished for actions of some players is not fair. Do you even play tanks?! Sure, we already have seen how that works. Players think that a tank is OP within specific event. Best solution provided by GJ - remove the tank entirely from SB events. No tank - no moaning. They are not and there's only one case when it is. When you slam a plane into a ground What we need is something that will mitigate current issue or make game fair. Sorry to say but this is how it is right now. It's balanced and not historicaly accurate due to a fact that it would always make one side superior/inferior. Being on inferior side is not in human nature. What you want is at least fair fight. We cannot see a horde of players on russian side at Kurks event. Or why Maus tank needs to be against tanks designed 10 or more years after it. Or ME262 (looking at air) fights jets of another era. I wonder why? This could be fixed by quantative matchmaker and yet they did try and failed. Why? Becuase people were trying to sit in the most OP vehicle they could get for the even no matter the fact that numbers of the other side would let them to be competetive. They wanted to be OP. So the solution we need MUST be quick and not require a lot of manpower. It must be profitable to company that makes the game. What you propose is simply not.
  12. On average. You do realise that extremities in real world market functions differently to what you have in your equasion? Just asking. As you said yourself supply is reverse of the demand. Consider one greedy and one generous player - first one want to take 90% of apcr, the other just 10%. The average demand is 50%, so is supply in this case. So actually max capacity for apcr shells is going to be 50 (you said that in one of the earlier posts) for a tank with 100 shells full capacity. To add "kicker" you also have mentioned: So applying 50% to the 90% of first player - he will get 45 APCR shells in total, generous one only 5. With more greedy players on the team the generous ones are going to be screwed even more. Yes, it seems being greedy to the max will help me a lot. Will that be bad for other players? Who cares, right? Actually - your equasion - you said that if i cannot get all the apcr i want - the least demanded shell will top up tank capacity. I'm sorry but this brings so many other issues. When can you find out how many apcr shells you are carrying? Before entering the tank? But that's the screen when you select how much ammo you want in total. And this is the input data for a calculation. So i guess not. After you enter the tank? So you can find out you only carry small amount of shells you wanted and a load of something that is not going to be used? What will do many players then? Leave the game crippling team even more. Yeey, make changes that make it even lower. Yes, the one being screwed by other player decision is the right kind to you, it seems. Sure, team killing, kill stealing accusations (which sometimes leads to team killing), view blocking, path blocking - it's all there. In the ideal world that might be right. In the WT tanks? Nope. You think in pilot mindset - WT world is completely different in air.
  13. So you do not want to limit the number of non standard ammo to make player choose when it's viable to use it . You just want to make the shell more pricy if demand is high? Looks like that's WOT gold ammo territory now. Which again - is the least demanded as not used or useless. Therefore you render a tank non effective in a battle. You have to remember that topping up the ammo with other type of shells is not going to be up to the full capacity of the tank. Some players carry less shells to mitigate ammo racking. You new to internets? Sure, that will work for a bunch of random players. Wait - at first you say the only thing poeple will see is a price - it does not imply that non standard ammo pool is going to be limited for a team in any way. Now it's the other way around. Yet again - random player caring for a team member(!) Which again brings us to point where people being handicapped by other players actions will leave the game. This is not helping as SB player pool is not that great already. Your system would work for people closely working with each other. No doubts about it. But for random bunch of players in WT - not really. So many treads in forum about team killing, not using chat system or pointing out enemy position on the minimap. And you want people to not be greedy when it comes to shell choice. Sure thing.
  14. Either that or based on overall demand in the whole game. We know the latter from BR issues. Pick one then. You do realise that this will be last nail to the coffin, right? So many would leave the game if they cannot have at least a chance to have small amount of ACPR if being ahainst superior enemy tank. You must be statistician - it seems that avergae numbers are the best for you. Extremeties? Bah, who cares - after all they will screw the whole nice plan of averages. Which easily can be 0,null, nada. Killing the fun in game for a sake of complex equations. How? as you said yourself ammo to fufil the number will be assigned by Ai. No choice for a player. Uless you mean smart choice selecting how much non standard ammo they can have. Yet again, statistics. With a random group of people - they do no think of other but what is the best for them. How come statistics make me more engaged? I want to have a choice in the game therefore i want my simple loadout of limited but always available non standard ammo. It's my, as player, choice, if i use it in a situation that will not require such a type of ammo and be without later when needed, By calling other people ideas being idiotic doens't help to prove your point. Especially that your own is not flawless.
  15. So it seems it going to be on single battle basis. Now please tell me how many APCR sheels would every player get in battle with 10 players on a side with 100 shells capacity on every tank when every player demands 100% APCR? Just looking at what you proposed (inverted demand/supply calculation) - yeah, number does not look great, right? That looks great for statistics but i have to tell you - it's not how market works. Also player SEEMS to have direct input in shells numbers. But in reality the outcome for a single player is based on whole team input. For a team of random players the odds are not that great. Why would we even want to do that - it wasn't like that IRL - you would have a platoon commander to do that stuff. Not necessary to be in game. Which again, can be of different types. Not all of them in demand by players. Would that mean there's a steady flow of supply of a specific (and not wanted) shell so we can give them to players? Won't that be very annoying as player can be supplied a type of shell that is not going to be used or render them not effective in game? Complexity MAY be good but it's not always needed. If you can achieve the same or similar conclusion that will be efficient enough but save you a lot of time and effort - i'll go for simplicity. OFC, if you have a couple of years to spare just to wait for a complex solution added to the game (and yet again will not work as you would like to) - your choice. But as history of GJ taught us - do not hold your breath.
  16. Mate - this is all i'm saying - the amount. Right now we are arguing only on how the max % of non stanard shells can be calculated. I was thinking max FIXED amount, you are trying to calculate it by expression. And I'm cool with that.( but do not say I overcomplicate things ) So what about that player who wanted 100% AP - got only 25%. Fine , but is that WHOLE load out he carries now? No standard ammo added? So if the ratio would be even worse off - lets say 1/99 player can find out that when he wanted to have 100 APCR shells, due to demand/supply calculation he's in a battle with 1(!) shell only? If someone with a tank of 100 shell capacity wants to carry only 25 rounds and all of them should be APCR, what number (whole loadout capacity or desired number) is taken into consideration? If ammo is added to match TOTAL DESIRED number - do you stock up any type of ammo? I would be pretty annoyed to find out that i actually have 1 APCR shell and the rest of load is HE. As we know right now tanks with small caliber guns e.g. 50mm uses HE shells commonly. What you propse might be good but it's overcomplicated and bring a lot of other issues to sort out. Actually i would love to see that in WW mode - which could be added to calculations for all other stuff as well.
  17. Is it a balance thing? NO, it means completely the opposite. By being able to carry less APCR shells into battle means you will have disadventage against some types of vehicles. As you say yourself - they should have AP rounds, yes. The thing is their main loaout should be more towards HE. As that's how they fulfil they role. They still would have some AP to defend themselves. But they would not go rushing against tanks.
  18. Would you care to explain how such a thing would be implemented in WT? As you say it's not just price (like right now when players pay silver to obtain some things) but there's going to be a MARKET. That means to have a supply we will have to introduce some kind of AI to speculate how much "has been produced" and then demand - what? how? an auction set up to find out who is able to pay more? WT is not exactly a tycoon game.
  19. Ahh, so you want loadout based on price? Market model? At the war time? I thought WT sumilates war time not mercenary conflict you chose to be engaged with to make some profit. Besides - who is going to set a price on a belt or a shell? Dev? You mean the same person who can limit non-standard ammo in loadout? So yes - it's not Ai. It seems like you would be scared to actually fight enemy tanks with ammo that will not guaranteed a penetration shot from front and long range. That would probably reuired bit more tactic to outflank enemy? That would also make heavy tanks more versatile on the battefield as right now every medium tank with apcr do not care for an armour. Just load APCR - you can load nothing but them after all.
  20. Honestly - you are pushing so much for realism, yet in here you suddenly do not care about it at all. Even at times when tanks could load whetever they wanted - non-standard (aprc) or AP for SPAA were not full loads. And i do not want to prevent them from loading it. It's about the amount they should have. You can have as much as you want as long as it's less then e.g 10% of your whole load. You have a choice. Why do we have events in SB GF? Why cannot player choose any tank they want? What if players would like to have all nations vs all nations there? Would you deny them that freedom of choice? It is set by devs right now - and the same can be done for loadout. ANd all this to get game even more as it was IRL.
  21. Oh please, devs (humans) to make a decision to limit non standard ammo to be max 10% of full load? Is that Ok for you?
  22. Honestly man, i have no idea what are you trying to say here. There's no element of decision making by AI. What i say is ammo that was not supplied as standard (e.g. APCR rounds for tanks) still should be available to everyone, just in small quantities (some percentage of a full load would be sufficient). Now, they were armoured, but their reputation came from how much beating they could take and still fly. They were not armoured as a whole, just specific points. German pilots liked them Minengeschoß to shoot at those slow ILs. Were thay AP? Nope, but a lot of HE filler. You can have all wing spar in the world but with no surface to create lift they are pretty useless. And that's what SPAA needs - belts with HE - at least for >=20 mm guns. I have to say that i'm not sure in here for the SPAAs with 7.7/12.7mm guns.
  23. And there we go - i actually want realism and have spaa to have most of it's ammo to be anti-planes. It's the same for tanks - do you think tanks in ww2 had only apcr loaded? - Cause this is what we have in game somtimes. People are complaining they cannot penetrate enemy tank from front using standard ammo with every shot - well, damn me, like IRL?
  24. Penetration values are OK. The LOADOUT of SPAA is wrong. They do not perform their desinged role due to everyone having full AP belts thus making them extremally highly over performing in anti tank role. What i want to see is SPAA being played as anti-AIR role. Maybe having very small amount of AP belt to defend themselves when everything went south. You even quoted me there yet did not care to read it?
  25. You may want to go to TEST FLIGHT. BUT instead of getting into that default thing you can actually edit the mission. Then you can set the number of AI planes and their skill level. You can try to go against 50 elite enemies in planes of similat performance to you own.
  26. Simple, change in controls for tanks between the modes is non existent. Completely different for planes. So either to lazy or may not be able to play when specific set of skill required (e.g. i suck in FPS games, can train, can learn new things and yet going to be mainly cannon fodder). So we are back to what you said earlier:
  27. SLP (sound pressure level) is just there - Those factors may have huge influence how tall it is but it still will be there. The thing is - We get a sound level drop of 6 dB per doubling of distance. So just take a random value that SLP of enemy plane is 120 dB. That means if the plane is away 1m - 114 dB 2m - 108 dB 4m - 102 8 - 96 16 - 90 32 - 84 64 - 78 128 - 72 256 - 66 512 - 60 dB So 60 dB at 512m. This is equvalent of human voice - i guess due to your engine you shouldn't be able to hear enemy plane. And that's the main factor here. I think you might be able to hear enemy planes within maybe 30m. I'm not sure really if we are thinking of this problem on correct plane though. It's not just sound level - i think we should take into consideration the sound pressure and the wave phase of enemy plane engine sound. You sometimes might not HEAR things but you FEEL a difference in the sound near you as the sound from further distance in interfiering with it. I do know it may SOUND stupid - but e.g. in BoS you sometimes do know sth is not right even if you cannot see enemt straight away. There's very subtle change in your own engine noise (even if you think it's YOUR plane it is still external source of noise, same as enemy plane engine - there has to be reaction to sound interference)
  28. I have to say that we shouldn't have leave points on battlefields and players should be pilots not gunners in this case. No air spawns whatsoever. Then probably the number of planes would suddenly be way lower so no need for additional SPAA spawn.
  29. Soooooo, yes? No? I need to add, thet they require a bit more patience and discipline but when you "touch your innerself" they are fantastic. And actually tactic used in here will be your main one at the higher br planes.
  30. Quoting wiki (but still in this case i think is fine): Polish high caliber machine gun, designed in 1999. A modification to soviet NSW machine gun. Uses 12,7x99 cartridges. We have waited LONG time just to get different temps on different maps. I wouldn't hold breath if i were you But i do thank you for interesting discussion in VERY CIVILISED manner. I think i learnt quite few things in here.
  31. So yet again we are back to a problem of ammo load for SPAA. Due to AP belts it's overperforming in anti-tank role.
  32. All depends on purpose - is 0.1 secs long in auto-fire? Do not know. Ah, yes - but this is ideal condition case ( for a half of a way that is) In such case it means that the vector direction changes at exactly half way and holds the same speed value throughout the whole movement - which IRL is not going to be true to air friction/ material to material friction and material flexibility/softness and energy loss. And, frankly, it's not going to be linear in a whole process. But yes - 2.76m/s is the minimum average speed that needs to be achieved by a chamber to be able to come back to firing position if we are going to have sustained repeated fire solution. a small mistake on your part - this is a weight of WHOLE cartridge not just the projectile (42 grams) But just taking momentum in here (mass * velocity) 0.042g*928m/s = 40 kgm/s (rounded) To achieve exatcly the same for a gun you have 40kg * X = 40 kgm/s, which implies velocity of chamber is 1m/s (and as you have pointed out - that wouldn't do) What momentum doesn’t help determine is how much energy is contained in the movement of an object. An object’s Kinetic Energy is determined by half of its mass times the square of its velocity so the same energy needs to be applied to chamber (but maybe i'm wrong on taking energy instead of momentum in here but they are somwhow linked to each other) So it gives 18kJ of energy to get bullet of such weight to such speed. So taking 40kg for a gun, and applying that energy to it (KE = 0.5*M*V) gives you actually 30m/s(at the highest). Due to dampening mechanisms and conditions mentioned earlier that speed is of course getting smaller as chamber traverse back. But you also have to remember that chamber is not going forward with the same speed/energy or momentum. The whole energy that made it move back is either dispersed by dampening and the rest is moved to the frame. At this point chamber goes back to firing position by a strength of a spring only (well, also a knockback helps a bit). Oh, maybe a bit of wrong wording on my part. Agree that recoil is descreased by dampening spring etc. but the rest of energy still goes to frame (and being knocked back to a gun again as frame is stiff/solid point). It will decrease overall ACCURACY on prolonged shooting as accumulated recoil from every shot will add a bit of energy wave going back and forth. In extreme case if these energy waves would be synchronised, the effect would be multiplied. True dat I'm not sure if actually temperature changes with altitude to be honest. I have recently been flying only figters (mostly 190 A1 with passive radiator) and observed that oil/water temperatures were getting lower with altitude. However that might be due to lower ATA pressure. I do know it's all simplified and maybe we should consider all condition as heat dispersion, parts fitting and all but i think that would be (along with the ambient temperature question) a bit too much to code. P.S. Found sth like this - intersting read P.S.2 -yet again wall of text :/
  33. Ohh, totally agree on that Also i always wondered - we do we have 2 spawns for light/medium tanks? I do understand someone could say because they are not armored the same way like heavy. But you have better mobility. Not the same gun power? Well looking at medium tanks (at least at the tiers i play) not much of an issue. I'm more a pilot than a tanker and yet i'm not getting 2 spawns for lightly armored, yet with decent power and mobility fighter.
  34. ^^ What ChameleonLord said. You have all what you want in RB. Also - for old sim as you say with possibility to play any tank you want. I do remember similar stage for planes but i guess it had to be same for tanks. Player choose to play 5.3 tank, player gets finally into game, player founds that he/she is at the very bottom of BR race, player quits in rage as one will not feed other playing "unfair" vehicles with way higher BR.
  35. Please, do tell me if there's any difference in control method of a tank between the modes. And if we have anyfor planes. If the answers are exactly the same for both i do agree there's absolutely no need for a change. Unfortunately we are missing a middle step between RB and SB for pilots. A place they would be forced to use mouse joystick but perhaps with some help e.g. against torque force. And we all know that this will not happen as it would disperse player base even more and there would be whole discussion how to treat tanks in such mode. So considering you air time there were a lot destroyed tents and the airfields It's known fact between EC pilots. Your kills are counted only if you stay in game till the very end. If you leave before end - nada.
  36. I totally believe you - i have no T5 tanks so no knowledge on that tier. Just to be sure - with no Heats (fs) nato would be decimated and cannot retaliate at all? wouldn't be asfsds shells for russin tanks also in small quantity? I have recently played il2 tank battle and ther ewere bounces everywhere. scorring a kill was actually quite difficult even when trying to shoot weakspots. Hmm funny, you have spent 78 days in planes + 3 in spaa and have 2696 air kills, i got 28 in planes and 18hours in spaa and 1654 air kills. I guess math is not your strongest skill. And i tell you another horror story - my air kills in EC are not counted in it!! i did not know that. well then
  37. Oh , good times. I was sooooo surprised that bombers didn't shoot at me at first pass. About BnZ with throttle to 0% - soeone said you still can hear it but i cannot confirm. @przybysz86 we can set training session for it
  38. Well, not really - it has the same energy to whitstand as bullet that has been shot - as explained by D3athCZE. So acceleration of the parts needs to be considered as well (and mechanical issues that comes with it, but i don't think that needs to be modelled in game tbh) Unfortunately this is not exactly a case as a chamber and barrel need to be able to take repeated (at very short intervals) exercise of gases being uncompressed at very high pace. Light materials had no structural integrity for it - especially in case of M2, considering cartridge and energy brought by explosion of propeller. The recoil momentum acquired by the gun exactly balances the forward momentum of the projectile and exhaust gases (ejecta), according to Newton's third law, known as conservation of momentum. In hand-held small arms, the recoil momentum is transferred to the ground through the body of the shooter; while in heavier guns such as mounted machine guns or cannons, recoil momentum is transferred to the ground through the mount. Dampening mechanisms take away a part of recoil but the rest is still going to the mount. And because mount is a stiff physical point of the plane, there's no much a way for that energy to be disperrsed in soft, controled method. It's a hard and abrupt stop, which is transferred back to the gun again. Thus yet again decreasing accuracy at prolonged firing. For mechanically/electrically (basically remotely) controled turrets it may be different as the whole thing is a frame. However at this point for such turrets we should have mouse JOYSTICK and not direct mouse control. I think it's something we have in fighters right now. I guess it shouldn't be different for bombers. So first - no overheating "red circle". Player needs to control the time guns are firing. No hit markers confirming that your aim is bang on on target. Only visual assesment (and crit mesages, which i personally think should be gone totally) should be the indication you are actually hitting target. As i said i'm not sure here. I know that barrels are outside should and can be cooled be air stream (to what extend though?), but it's not just barrel. It's also a chamber which i think stays well inside the vehicle. No need for that, no one knows everything. And even when one thinks so, one can still be wrong. (to be clear - talking about myself here!)
  39. How is life dear ;-)

    I hope you have better days than me, my rig is confused and I'm to bored to even think of searching for the setup. I have a new small computer, the type that has a keyboard and a screed which can be a pad with touch screen - on win 10. I shall work for my 20 year old computer friend, travelling- and tourism project in the region south of Elverum - the "fin area" or "Finnskogen" - close to the Swedish border. Then I can start to wipe everything on this computer and rebuild it.

    Even thinking of rebuilding a crappy app-based computer after I have made a "new one" usable on the same crappy OS - Win 10 on phone and computer is a morons work. Even the former MS defenders admits this. It's a pitty that air-sims runs best on NVIDIA GPU's.

    I will convert to I-phones as soon as possible, I just have to get funding for a new old car, a SAAB 95 Estate - my new cayac mobile...

    I am flirting with a real hippie woman, a glass artist with severe problems in life and at work. She is a former globe-trotter which is chocked over the changes, it really hurt her deep to the bottom of her heart - this bugs me. She has a dream about finding a soulmate, she think I am the one - the problem is - She's only six years older than my daughter, I thing she's too young, so does she.

    I hope your work- and family life is better now - I see you are online a lot, I hope it's not the forums only?

    I have played some MA games to get the new US plane, the only plane that interests me at the moment. Of course the new Fw is interesting just to fill the line. 

    My memory is more or less back, I play guitar in- and outside when the weather is good, better than "almost ever" - I am working on a new playing style - or what I hope is a original style anyway. I practice, search for my style, improvise a lot and compose new tunes - it's more or less very Jazzy with a lot blues, Norwegian folk songs, "Hardingfele"/Harp/bagpipe inspired, Balkan music and a lot tunes like themes from "Mash", Pink Floyd, Mike Oldfield, and some other elements. The tip of my fingers are pretty "numb" these days. 

    I have some new musician friends, one of them is a religious born xxxx I help with her Kayak- and wildlife/hiking dreams. She has her own band, the baseplayer there is 50+ and a member of my cayak club in Fredrikstad. We have planned for a jam session here, in- or outside before we takes the cayacs out in the lake nearby or in salt waters. She has a lot problems with her heritage and religious parents, espessially her father - so we have a lot to discuss and use both music and cayacing as theraphy. She also works with public healt care, so she is a reasonable person to help and get some guitar-feedback from.

    Regards - Senilix


  40. I do own BoS and BoM, (also Clod) Nope, no sparks, reddish screen if pilot was hit, a bit of a shake as the engine is struggling. Honestly WT is not far from that. FM (the newer ones) in WT the DO feel quite similar as the one in BoS. There is some inertia in movement (mc202, check typhoon now, so heavy and it goes places) - granted that maybe not to the same extend. And another thing - the BoX DM that so many praise. Every server shows you more on screen hints about plane condition that you have in WT. So many says that plane can be dismantled in so many different ways. Look at any video on YT. Either plane goes into fire and burns down or it loses a wing - almost always in the same place/spar. The only thing that's different it's wings durability if they were hit (and yet not comparable to CLoD DM). Recently i have been asked to check the behaviour of 109 F4 in dive in both games. In WT i get to 850km/h and lost the wing when pulling up (but i think a might have gone a bit over). In IL i get to almost 920km/h and even pulling up more agressively i was fine. Was it fine for such plane? I don't know but the instability due to air mass, the stress on a wing and control stiffness were somehow nonexistent. I don't know. Sometimes it feels like people that play BoX have to say it's better to feel better. For me it gives you better feeling as a WHOLE package. Not just FM/DM, but selection of targets, purpose for getting some things done to change the outcome of mission as result will count on the next one (TAW server). Not playing for grind or kd ratio. Anyway - i like spits but, as you said, they are just a bit slow - at least those i have
  41. But this is what we do right now. There's an idea - that MIGHT be in favour of people that cannot fly. You have some counterarguments - excellent. Write them down, let us know what that new mechanism would/could change to the worse in your eyes. If you are right, then it's fine with me to abandon the whole idea. But to find out this whole set of events we need to discuss it. I've already said in similar topic in the past that SPAA would be a bit OP in low tier games due to ammunition it carries. But also suggested (as IRL) the amount of AP round could be limited to let's say 10%(or different more appropriate number) of whole load. That would make them able to defend themselves against tanks for a bit but would prevent them from rushing and play anti tank role. That's what discussion is for - find weak spots and eliminate them or drop the whole thing if it may become toxic.
  42. yup, BoS FM're spot on Also I prefer DM in CLoD - seems to be more accurate in performance degradation etc. @przybysz86 i have seen Magz's video. It looks like russians have used P40s and SPits exclusively Also spits were coated with stalinium paint.
  43. Not everything is about you, sunshine. It's for OTHERS. Oh yes, but unlike you - with understanding and in FULL It is. And i'm not saying taking off is difficult in WT Sim (as it's quite opposite). But i do prefer to have someone respawning in SPAA and do sth to help than simply just quit after loosing tank.
  44. So simply you, by opposing a small change that would help people who suck at flying (and bear in mind that crashing on a runway takes points away), chooses to punish WHOLE team? Instead of them being helpful in other way? Classy.
  45. The mount to solid frame will prevent if from moving (as whole) however recoil still has to go somewhere - so in this case within gun itself. Also - bigger the gun bigger the shell. Therefore spring gases going back to eject used shell, tilt the chamber (although it might be slightly different with ammo belt) to accept another shell must be at higher pressure. The weight of mechanism being shuffled front and back is enough to make it less accurate - especially if the gun is hand operated. On the other hand sometimes higher weight of a gun makes it a bit easier to keep it steady. About overheating - the very first version (air cooled as those we have in game) M2 were able to shoot up to 75 rounds before overheating. With up to 850rpm that gives around 5 seconds of continous fire. But then we would have to see a break in shooting. M2HB (heavy barrel) was supposed to be able withstand for way longer. I do not know which one we have in bombers right now (can't check it as in office right now). But true - with time the accuracy should be an issue as the barrel gets flexible. Also with metal expanding : 1.there is higher chance to lodge shell in a barrel; 2.The expansion of the barrel leads to greater windage and escape of the hot gas propellant, which leads to lower muzzle velocity and, since the bullet is rattling around more as it goes down the bore, less accuracy. Just looking into M2HB (M296 which is newer version of AN/M2 design for choppers - difference of adjustable RPM and single shot) manual: Combat firing is unrestricted but bursts of longer than 150 rounds may lead to gun stoppage due to overheating of the gun barrel. A 50 round per minute burst restriction is required because the M296 machine gun is air-cooled. Because of the absence of cooling medium, the temperature of the barrel rises rapidly during firing. The longer the burst, the higher the temperature attained. The progressive heating of the barrel gives rise to several effects some of which are as follows: Accelerated wear of the bore. Expansion of the barrel leading to loss in bullet velocity and finally to tumbling of the projectile. Stoppage of gun caused by the expanded barrel seizing in the trunnion block or flash suppressor. . Ignition (cook-off) of the propelling charge by the heat of the barrel. A 50 round per minute burst restriction allows the gun to fire a maximum of one 50-round burst or a maximum of five 10-round bursts in a given 60 second period. Any combination of bursts is permissible as long as only 50 rounds are fired in a 60 second period. Example: At time zero, a 10 round burst is fired. Ten seconds later a 24 round burst is fired. Ten second after that a 15 round burst is fired. Essentially, a total of 50 rounds have been fired in approximately 20 seconds. The gun has reached its 50 round threshold and should therefore be allowed to cool for 40 seconds prior to firing the next set of bursts. If an overheating burst is fired, the gun should be cleared within 10-seconds after completion of the burst. IF the gun cannot be cleared within 10 seconds, the round should be allowed to remain in the chamber a minimum of 5 minutes, making sure the gun is aimed in the opposite direction from personnel and equipment. If an attempt is made to clear the gun between the 10 second and the 5 minute period, the extracted cartridge may explode outside the weapon causing serious injury to personnel or equipment. For AN/M2 mounted in planes - I'm not sure how the temperature/cooling is affected by plane air stream - but i do not thhink that WHOLE barrel was outside of a plane to be cooled that way. P.S. Sorry for a long wall of text.
  46. Well, not really. You get points for hitting targets actually. If you fly a fighter for hours and do nothing else you will get no points at all. SP are needed for spawn yes, but BASE (and below) got no SP nor timer e.g. EC3 3.7(and below), EC2 2.3 (i think).Next br does not need sp but it's on timer (5 minutes roughly) next brs require SP and planes are on timer if lost.
  47. I can confirm that. Oh yes - he died Anyway - can we get that one sticky on top, please!