Cpt_Branko

Member
  • Content count

    10,315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
medal medal

Cpt_Branko last won the day on February 21 2014

Cpt_Branko had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,596 Outstanding

About Cpt_Branko

  • Rank
    Marshal of the Air Force
  • Birthday 06/05/1983

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Croatia
  • Interests
    Airplanes, simulators, military history.

Recent Profile Visitors

10,128 profile views
  1. To be honest, I think EC is at it's core a superior design to the old battles, to have players joining and leaving and respawning. The old battles had several problems. After the initial engagement took place, you had very often one side which was trying to find the last 1-2 guys to win (largely boring, or frustrating if they were winning on "tickets"), who on the other hand would have to fight alone versus a team, which is not only difficult but quite unrealistic - nobody would take off alone to challenge enemy air superiority. Second, when there weren't many players in a match, there was just a lack of action. Of course they had the advantage that you could single handedly turn the match around, in EC that's not really going to happen as a fighter pilot. I don't mind EC as a concept, it is not bad at all, it's just that a lot of "small detail" which needs fixing about it bothers me.
  2. I don't rightly know how historical it is so I didn't vote. I would rather have a different version of 109G with such a modification so we don't have all mid war 109 without headrest.
  3. Oh, good news. Will test it!
  4. Maybe most recent change in one of the minipatches. However, 10 days ago, it was this: 3 hits with 37mm on one FW-190 failed to produce an impression.
  5. Because it was not necessary. In reality, tank crews can't duct-tape a trashed engine in 20 seconds, and don't tend to stick around after the fighting compartment has been penetrated. First Tiger the Allies captured was knocked out by a 6pdr jamming it's turret traverse, rendering the tank unable to fight. They couldn't just press R and wait 20 seconds.
  6. Well, actually any system of units work. Of course conversion factors when using imperial units are a pain compared to the simplicity of the metric system, but they have produced a lot of fine engineering on imperial units. Look at German documents of the 30-ties and 40-ties, everything is expressed in units of pulling force of a metric Jolly Jumper on carrots! It's a nonsensical argument. Of course metric is more convenient for engineering. On the other hand, the world of aviation is pretty much dominated by imperial units unless you're Russia and use metric out of principle.
  7. There's also the japan tanks which sometimes look a bit Russian, boxy and green. Super Hellcat looks a touch like the Panther when you can only see the front of the turret. Not always easy to recognize with all the mess that is in a single battle, japanese, Krauts, captured vehicles on one side, Russians, US and British on the other. So some TKs will necessarily happen.
  8. Well, looking at their stats, the LF IXs are simply doubly superior to late Yaks. They can both turn in a tighter radius and generate energy better (so can outclimb and out-turn the Yak sustained). They are pretty evenly matched speed wise. Which means you are disadvantaged in a dogfight and need a bit of a helping hand to win - for instance initial energy or angle advantage. So yeah, the late Yak is simply somewhat worse than a, say, LF IX, there's no way around it.
  9. Definitely a good change.
  10. I like the firepower. Things get in the stream of those 108s and 151s and they just go boom 95% of the time. Totally refreshing to see things just explode in a snapshot. FM is probably a touch incomplete, though.
  11. Just shoot them dead if in any doubt. Of course it is and was a stupid decision, for both tanks and planes. I just refuse to buy such premiums which are captured. Sadly a few nations have few premiums which actually make sense; German T3 planes are a good show (well, OK, I bought the Romanian G2 when it was on sale and the recently introduced Ta-something which fits, but for the longest time all the German T3 premiums were captured junk). As I always say, game is technically very well done but much of it is spoiled by bad design decisions.
  12. I don't know about fighting Spitfires with Russian planes. This doesn't happen in sim fortunately, outside of captured plane nonsense. That said, tier 2/3 Spitfires aren't anything to write home about. Outside of a flat turn contest, the 109s are really good enough to dogfight Spitfires and get some shots at one (now, with the overall tankier damage models in WT it's problematic to actually bring one down with a snapshot, which is bloody annoying in simulator mode where current damage models are simply totally inappropriate, so I have less success with this now then I had years ago when getting that initial hit with 20mm meant he wasn't doing much of anything anymore). So I don't see how a Yak would be handicapped in this context, either. Tier 4 things take a different turn. That said, the finesses of dogfighting are less significant in RB where everyone uses 3rd person view (so maneuvering in a way that you can see your opponent becomes a nonissue, which otherwise dictates the way you move), and is both limited (in terms of maneuvering) and helped (in terms of shooting) by the instructor, so I get that people in RB might have more of an issue with Spitfires or Zeroes or such in a Yak or P-39 or such. On the other hand energy tactics are possibly made slightly easier by icons (whereas, energy fighting a Zero on the deck in sim often leaves me ready to make another attack hoping that I get him with my 37mm this time around* but totally unable to spot him against the scenery a kilometer below me**). *Odds are It'll just spark uselessly even if I hit, or take out his gear leg, but you have to hope, right. **Maybe I should just buy trackIR instead of trying to look around with stick hat. I don't think it'd help that much, but well. ---------------------- As for general "this plane is for flat turning, this plane is for BnZ", it's pretty much bunk. If you had to make distinctions, the right ones would be (and they would be of course relative to what you faced, so you're one versus one opponent and another versus another opponent***) - angle fighter and energy fighter, and of course the doubly inferior and doubly superior fighter. Let's see how the actual distinctions work out and how we'd call those fighters ingame. Angle fighter is the one which has a lower stall speed. With this it can necessarily turn in a shorter radius, all things being equal. It doesn't necessarily mean that it can outturn the other fighter in sustained flat circles, just that it can turn in a smaller radius. Energy fighter is the one which has a superior rate of climb and overall generation of energy. It is possible the superior energy fighter will also be able to maintain a higher turn rate (take less seconds for a sustained 360 degree turn), althought it might not be the case. It's possible for a fighter to be doubly inferior, or doubly superior. That said, when we discuss WW2 planes with rather limited gun range, there's also top speed to consider. A doubly inferior plane which has superior speed is what you'd call "BnZ", and a doubly inferior plane which has worse speed is what you'd consider "bad" or if the margin of inferiority is great "worthless junk", and a doubly superior plane which has also superior speed is what you'd call "OP as hell Gaijin plx nerf". There's also handling which makes some fighters better than they would otherwise be. A quick roller can angle fight better than raw performance would suggest because it can reverse direction more quickly. So a FW-190A is pretty formidable in scissors and such, while an early P-38 or a Typhoon will just get demolished in this type of fight because it reverses direction like a dead dog. Spitfires outside of the downright brilliantly awesome XVI aren't so great in this, but aren't too bad either. To profitably fly angle fighters (comparatively) which lack speed and sustained turn (eg. P-40 versus Bf109G2 like we had in historical events in sim back when we had historical events in sim is an excellent example), or doubly inferior fighters, you really want to attack with energy advantage to have good odds, and defensively you want to use angle fighting tactics (or run away if you're faster and can run away) - so flat scissors, turning inside him towards his nose, etc. ----------- So where does that place our Yak? Well, versus a Spitfire V, a typical Yak is an energy fighter - although Spitfire is close, and Yak is also faster. Versus Spitfire LF IXs, well, frankly I have no idea, but I think you're basically doubly inferior and possibly only somewhat faster at low altitude. So.. yeah, you're kind of in a bad spot. So, are Spitfires completly OP and broken? Well, it's exaggerating things, but it is my belief that tier 4 Spitfires (LF IX, bloody awesome XVI, and griffons) are basically slightly undertiered (at least from simulator point of view, in comparison with the Germans, since we don't have Soviet vs UK) and just, well, really nasty fighters to face (especially XVI, which is bloody awesome since it fixes most of the downsides which the LF IX imo has, and flying the Griffon just felt dirty). Perhaps a Spitfire LF IX modelled without 150 octane fuel (it'd still be somewhat better than F IX owing to a better engine) would be a more fair competitor at "early tier 4". *** This gets me after a year of not playing - so many new planes that it's bloody impossible to know what they're all about. Like, I'm flying in the mixed Axis vs Allied simulator ground battles, and here's something which looks like a Lavochkin except with japan markings - what do I do now?
  13. Yes if they fixed engine swoosh sound, kill crediting and damage models I'd already have very little complaints about WT. Well, I'd still complain about matchups (but that can be avoided by playing mostly EC2/3, which despite not being perfect is much better) and mouseaiming bombers, but, well. Like this it's leave it along for a long time, then try it again for a few weeks, get annoyed with it, and go do something else.
  14. Yes. If you have higher RPM then throttle it will produce extra drag. Useful for landing.
  15. There are two greatly frustrating problems particularly in simulator mode where we do not have the accuracy of mouse aim and method of combat is different. First is kill rewarding. This was recorded two years ago: This is still how it works and is very annoying. These mechanics might work OK in arcade but in sim it is simply broken. Second is damage modelling. This is from a server replay, slowed down to 0.5x. Three hits with 37mm HE shell, and no critical and as you can see enemy airplane is capable of maneuvering. I understand damage models were changed for purposes of balance in arcade and realistic battles where players have great accuracy with mouseaim, but this is just very bad for simulator mode. Maybe we need different damage models or something.
  16. Really Here's a video from 1.45. Do you know how old this is? It's ancient! Here, enjoy: Still not fixed, almost two years after. Very simple, what is critical damage needs to be expanded (oil and coolant leaks should damn well count), and the timer on normal damage should be extended to a few minutes for sim. ------------------------ "To get a confirmed kill, you have to shoot the guy down. Ripping his engine valves and seeing him disappear smoking behind their own lines , not following, is not a kill" Honestly, in reality if you saw a guy going down in smoke after shooting you'd likely report it instead of following him to the ground to see an explosion. Saw those action reports where you have a "probable"? If it was confirmed later, you'd be credited. If not, not. Sometimes you blew something up to pieces and if there was no confirmation by external means you wouldn't get credited, depending on airforce and time period. Important thing was external confirmation that it went down, which was of course more problematic behind enemy lines, until the lines changed, anyway. The intent of the system is that you would be credited for destroying an enemy machine if it went down. If they had perfect intel back in the day, they would certainly credit you with a kill for this. Btw, there are no "client side crits", the server does the determination of that. However, for purposes of kill scoring, most things (oil, coolant, flaps, etc) are not considered critical hits. ------------------ All of this is made worse by huge problems with damage modelling. This is from a server replay, slowed down to 0.5x, so this is what the server sees and indeed I was credited with a lot of "hits". Those three 37mm HE explosions? Yeaah.... nothing noteworthy. No "critical" damage as far as the game is concerned.
  17. You don't have to worry about propeller pitch, because "pitch" on most planes (all American ones) is a RPM lever, and propeller governor actually sets pitch. This is what you do (it's also generally historically correct) WEP - 100% "pitch" (if you didn't do this, the engine would go to hell irl, in game not so much). 100% throttle - 90%-100% "pitch" 75% throttle - 60-75% "pitch" etc On my throttle quadrant (I play with joystick) I have two throttles, one is for RPM and one for throttle and I just basically move them together.
  18. Our Spitfire LF IX is a Merlin 66 engine running at +25lb of boost, that is with 150 grade fuel as it was flown late in the war (mostly, in 1945). With this the engine output at some altitudes (I cba to look for a graph) is around 2000 HP, or slightly stronger than the DB605DC (which has a top output of 2000 PS I think, which sums up to a bit less than 2000 HP). On the other hand Spitfire is a slight bit heavier I think so regarding P/W I think they're about the same. When comparing engine powers it's generally necessary to look at the charts because it varies by altitude. In general, curves for DB601/605 show a more stable ouput (due to the variable speed supercharger) compared to things like Merlins which have two "peaks" where they often exceed comparable German engines and then lose power above/beyond this optimal altitude.
  19. That is why they made the changes (hullbreak and belts). Simply SPAA was too powerful engaging tanks frontally. There it should be at a serious disadvantage and it just wasn't, due to being mostly empty it could "tank" shots, and with full APCR belts it just chewed through tanks much faster than tanks could chew through them. Now it's fixed and use of SPAA is more realistic. It can still destroy ground vehicles, especially firing from the side or ambush. That's not a problem, never was. Use of SPAA as speedy frontline tank destroyers was the problem.
  20. Agreed. With such a huge number of airplanes, it's a big problem. Again, good management would help here, if they would tackle the most problematic aircraft first, but as I said, good management isn't their forte. It's absolutely true that sometimes it is actually quite hard to correctly judge what performance an airplane should have. For instance, take our P-39Q. The datasheet on it is (slightly) problematic. The speeds with radiator 50% match actual speeds with radiator 50% open of the only early P-39Q test I found (with gunpods). Here's the kicker. Something was wrong with this machine and it's obvious from the shape of the graph, and comparison with other models using the same engine - the actual (and only in this case) historical test just isn't very plausible. On the other hand it's speed with radiators shut is also wrong, because it matches speed tests of different variants of P-39Q without gunpods, with radiator 50% open. Radiator 50% open or shut had a small effect on speed, while removal of gunpods had a larger one. My conclusion is that it's slightly faster with radiator shut then it ought to be, and slightly slower with radiator open than it ought to be, but neither I nor anyone else can really say what performance precisely this model in this configuration should reach, and this is a reasonably OK documented fighter. However these are off by maybe 2%-3% and that's something I guess we can live with (although I still consider it a bit of sloppy work, because they could have estimated it, and ended up with slightly more accurate figures*). This is very often the case. For instance nobody know definitely what exact performance our model of Bf-109G2 with 1.42 ata should reach. You can basically make an informed guess, but you don't have enough data to calculate; at 1.42 ata you also run at higher RPM and that hugely complicates making any calculations. You simply have to live with a few % of error. ---- By the way, that guy getting crazy speed out of his G2 by using MEC creatively is basically exploiting the fact that in WT (also in IL-2 BoS) you can use maximum manifold pressure and low RPM. I hope they introduce some more sensible mechanics here. *And then someone would complain, "historical test says this". Eh, all guns are quite underwhelming to me. It's a big problem.
  21. Because US airforce and pilots themselves did not like linking throttle and RPM. I'll podt a bit more about that sometime. Game portrays it as having a separate throttle / RPM lever which is accurate. Pitch is a confusing misnomer here because the plane has a CSP which maintains desired RPM automatically.
  22. Well, of course the LF IX is going to be better. I don't know about it's flight model and how well done it is, but of course, you get a better aircraft than a G6. Problem is, you match an airplane with another airplane which is nearly a year apart. If EC4 started with a "normal" Spitfire LF IX and the current late version was something sitting alongside the K4, then you'd have a much better playing field, and a more realistic playing field. When you can spam Griffons and LF IXs and XVIs at the outset, you get a problem, and when you add various postwar aircraft to the mix you get something which is broken. My personal solution to the whole thing is not to play EC4 on either side. I also don't play EC2 much because the spam of broken crap with a gunner is more intensive and felt there (since most airplanes there have not so good armament and with out DMs and gunners that results in frustration).
  23. Of course FMs are not and realistically cannot be on the level of the top simulators which simulate very few aircraft to much greater detail. Plus, quality of the FM team was mixed, and this is a very important factor, since the engine is pretty capable, but if the FM maker doesn't do his part properly, it's of no use. Here Gaijin management kind of screwed up with not getting a top notch crew and establishing good standards. Ultimately, game design choices is the problem at Gaijin HQ (really, in general) and they attempted to make a great number of aircraft, many of which are poorly documented to begin with, and hence you get some airplanes which don't feel right, and really long periods until something is fixed, and so on. Mostly, Gaijin's problems are management and game design, not the technical side of things. Of course, with this number of aircraft modelling different procedures for different planes (eg. you unlock the tailwheel by giving XY % of rudder) is impossible and would be quite pointless. That said, for all it's faults, it is a sim with an advanced flight model, and with aircraft with solidly done flight models, there's no huge difference between it and other sims on the market as of now. You can immediately observe the difference between this and the old generation of sims, btw. My first was WW2OL. It did many things well (oh, the damage modelling was brilliant, the spotting system was ingenious and actually simulated reality, and unlike modern flight sims, if you pointed your nose down at 20.000 ft diving after someone, at 10.000 ft - just like the manual says - you'd start pulling out or you'd be a crater, as controls at extremely high speed were really stiff), but the flight engine simply wasn't as detailed and it shows.
  24. True! Loved the close combat series. It would at least be comforting here if a plane which is considered "dead" and was falling to the ground stopped shooting with tailgunners. A few days ago I was fortunate that my 37mm did not spark uselessly on a bomber and the H8K started to just fall out of the sky in an uncontrolled way..Didn't stop the gunners from sniping. That said I guess it has a lot to do also with the fact that the aiming method which stabilizes aim.
  25. For EC 4 that is quite obvious that Allies are massively superior, but EC3 is pretty well done when it comes to Germany vs US/Brit or Russia. There's a reason why it's the most popular after all. EC4 is kind of stupid. I don't feel disadvantaged flying Bf-109G2 in EC3. I would make some small BR adjustments if it was up to me (eg. FW-190A4 & A5s and Spitfire Vc from 4.7 to 4.0, for instance). Imo you should give EC3 Soviet a shot, the situation is different than it used to be with very strange Yak FMs of the past. No reason to religiously avoid them (I'm not a big fan of the Yaks, but oh well).
  26. Frankly I have absolutely no complaint about FW-190A5 (and /U2 and /U12), very stable for me (full controls). FW-190A1 sometimes starts to act strangely for me. I have not tried FW-190A4 in ages. You're right about P-51D and P-40 being all wobbly, like someone messed up the center of gravity or similar. As for generic balance discussion, there's a reason why EC4 in simulator is unpopulated (hint, terrible matchups) and EC3 is very populated (pretty good matchups, mid war aircraft* versus one another). *Well, excluding Japan, Yak-3, P-47D and I think late P-38s are also there. However, in general it's ok.
  27. You mean, kind of wobble?
  28. I think the Hurricane is pretty bad. Slow, sluggish. It's only forte is it can turn relatively tightly compared to more modern fighters. In this case geometry screwed you most likely, because you went in with excessive speed and Hurricane had less speed and turned in a smaller radius. So you ended up in front of guns. It definitely cannot win in sustained turn, but you can suicide in front of his guns if you want. Basically, a maneuvering failure. When you have a big speed overhead you can't match a slower fighter in turn radius. So you have to do a yo-yo, or even climb up and do another slashing attack (this is what I do* when I'm attacking a Zero with energy advantage in something like a Spitfire or P-39) while he's flat turning and losing energy all the time. *Well, often without much success because I lose sight over ground in sim and/or miss a lot of shots and/or the damn 37mm cannon sparks, but at least it's generally safe and I get to fly home intact.
  29. Late versions of the P-39 for me. Best Soviet midwar fighter realistically speaking, and has character. Somewhat unfairly dismissed by many, as in maturity it became a very capable plane at low-medium altitudes.
  30. I was looking at SB pricing. One thing strikes me as very odd: Fw 190 A-5/U12 is much more expensive than FW-190A-5/U2 now, which is strange because functionally speaking they're very similar aircraft. Although, while blanket 30% reduction in flyout cost in SB (I assume this is for EC mode) is welcome, the rewards could stand to be a little bit higher. Very often for a hour+ of flying with a premium aircraft in tier 3, with a number of kills and some shot-downs as well, you get something like 50K SL net. Pilots who struggle to break even in terms of kills versus losses do considerably worse, and statistically (especially with issues regarding kill crediting which we have especially in SB) pilots will have a less than 1:1 K/D (AAA, crashes, not being credited for kills, so on). So it looks like a rather unrewarding game mode.
  31. Pushing aside for a moment the effectiveness of BBs in battle (which was present), they had serious strategic impact. For instance, Italian BBs were supposedly useless (except participating in a few battles, but OK, they did not do all that much - Italy had big problems with fuel anyway). However, they forced the RN to deploy considerable assets to the Med. Sea to keep this threat in check. They had a strategic effect, even while sitting in port. Similar story with British BBs - they pretty much shelved any plan of naval invasion. Even if air superiority had been achieved and air support from France could operate relatively unhindered (which is a lot more aircraft than on a carrier, and aircraft which are not hindered with limitations of carrier aircraft) it's very debatable if an invasion could be pulled off due to the British surface fleet. Someone said - carriers could have replaced battleships in all roles - well, carriers could not have achieved this impact, at all. German capital ships again had a strategic effect on RN planning and forced the RN to assign capital ships to convoy escort duties. Carriers could not have replaced them here either, because they would have been powerless to defend a convoy from a capital ship, without an entire carrier group to protect the carrier as well. I'm just not seeing how carriers could replace battleships for all duties in WW2, or how battleships had no effect.
  32. Yes, in the current iteration of WT these cannons have a 50/50 chance of doing nothing on hit. Which is to say, sometimes it works, and sometimes multiple consecutive hits do nothing at all and you alt-f4 out of the game. I have watched server replays and the problem isn't hitting for the most part, they actually hit and make a pretty explosion and do nothing or nothing of note. This really puts a damper on an aircraft which relies on the 37mm cannon working properly, and it's right now extremely unreliable. So I mostly avoid flying the P-39 until they fix it, which is a shame, since I really do love the aircraft. It's an issue also on other guns, but those have at least a high rate of fire and ammo count to compensate. If you're hitting the enemy with ten shells when you have a firing solution, 1/2 of them doing nothing is mildly frustrating but livable. If you're hitting the enemy with one big shell, it's incredibly annoying when it doesn't work. Tragic thing is that it used to work fine. Here are some videos from server replays - now and then a year and something ago. Notice the first hit on the Bf109, does nothing, the target maneuvers normally, no critical, nothing. How it used to work? If the server recorded a hit (of course latency, packet loss, etc, but this is normal in an online game) and you saw a hit on the server replay, the other fighter was SOL. Here's a short and sweet one how well the 37mm used to work: You got hit by the 37mm? Bye. That's how it needs to work again! Other guns should be more reliable as well, but the issue is quite critical for P-39 series.
  33. From a SB perspective, comparing the P-38G and P-51 (the initial one, with Allison engine and four 20mm cannons). For low altitude fighting there's no contest, P-51. Performance wise, it's not a dramatic difference - the P-51 outraces the P-38, which climbs better (but speed is more important than climb, so at low altitude the P-51 is better here). Guns are of course better on the P-51 which is important given the tankyness of our DMs / sparklemagic, but not that drastic. If pushed I think P-38G is marginally better at turnfighting and such, but this is a quite small advantage. Biggest difference - the P-38 has fairly unresponsive controls. When you're attacking someone it is too slow to roll and pull lead on the guy. There's a lot of inertia and it does not like quick changes. It's simply not agile enough for me. So instead of making a quick kill when attacking someone from behind, you end bogged up fighting the guy, in a really big plane which is a nice, easily recognizable, fat target for anyone passing by. On the other hand, the P-51 has wonderfully harmonized controls and is one of the most enjoyable planes to fly in sim mode. Much better handling characteristics than earlier US airplanes (and also, some later airplanes, too). It is fairly easy to attack someone with superior speed, then roll and pull lead as he starts to evade, ending the fight right there, or at least causing serious damage (see, tanky DMs). Cockpit visibility in P-38 is good to the rear, not so good to sides and front (damn the huge stupid mirror), while P-51 is much worse to the rear, but good otherwise. It's a wash. When I compare how well I do with fighters in sim, I find the biggest determinants to be good guns (largely owing to issues with tanky DMs / sparklethunder on one hand, and badly thought out kill attribution on the other*), top speed, pleasant handling, and good cockpit visibility, roughly in that order. So for me, P-51 is a much better low altitude fighter, winning in three out of four vitally important cathegories. *Playing IL-2, I feel just as well armed with a 20mm Shvak and a 12.7mm UBS, as I do in WT with 4x Hispano 20mm. The first matches actual data much better, btw. WT should really shamelessly copy, for purposes of simulator mode, both the damage models and the kill mechanics. This would make so many planes worth flying and reduce much of the frustrating moments in sim (the endless procession of mysteriously crashed airplanes after you shot them up good).
  34. Same sort of stories exist with P-40, also hitting things and remaining aloft, ramming other aircraft in air and still flying and so on, documented with pictures and all. Of course you don't hear from the ones who didn't survive. Another guy in the same (and quite rugged really) P-40 got hit by two 20mm shells which disabled his airplane and only survived by immense luck (first shell hit the propeller and disabled the governor, second shell hit the trimmer wheel which peppered him with small pieces of sharpnel - luckily for him it was a big, thick steel wheel) and managed to land with dead engine. People got lucky sometimes. A 109 pilot managed to survive crashing into a house, where the engine ended up on one end, rear fuselage on the other, wings to the sides, and he was sitting in a crashed house on his seat holding a stick. Doesn't mean trying to land on a rooftop is safe operating procedure