xBromanx

Member
  • Content count

    3,897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,058 Outstanding

1 Follower

About xBromanx

  • Rank
    Jug is love! Jug is life!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,111 profile views
  1. Due to the lack of American planes to fly at the 5.0 - 5.7 BR ranges, US planes at 4.7 are almost always uptiered to fill those matches.
  2. Bogus argument.... 1.) You're assuming that AAA camping only occurs when there's 1 player hiding from several enemies. While that does occur, in my experience it's far from the majority of instances. I regularly find myself the last alive against several opponents who are at lower energy states than me, and they're the ones camping their airfield. If I leave them to go kill ground targets, I'm basically guaranteeing my death and my team's defeat. 2.) Not all planes are capable of killing ground targets to bleed tickets. 3.) AAA is currently treated by the majority of players in this game as if its intended to be a mode of protection for them when they get into trouble. This leads to boring, stale, gameplay. Having players instantly turn tail and sprint to AAA when they find themselves in disadvantageous positions is frustrating and does nothing to promote personal growth and development in the game. I know the implementation of AAA in its current state was meant to serve as a deterrent against "vultures," however, even ignoring the argument that vulching was never really a serious issue, AAA creates many more issues than it solves. It's exploited in nearly every match I play by players who put themselves in vulnerable positions, thus, protecting people from their mistakes and punishing players who succeed. I don't know how much power you have in influencing the development of the game, and judging by your comment I doubt you'd even consider that AAA needs correcting (especially since people have been complaining about it since its implementation over a year ago, and we still have no alteration to it), but I implore you and any other member of the Gaijin administration who reads this to please do something about its current state. It needs to be reduced in its effectiveness -- preferably removed altogether.
  3. He enters at 300mph, and exits with 300mph. You can tell if you look at the hash marks when he zooms in.
  4. I'm not really seeing any issues doing barrel rolls with mouse aim in the P-51. It's harder to be as precise with the maneuver and it looks sloppy, but either I come out slightly above my original altitude with slightly lower top speed, or I come out with slightly less altitude but slightly more speed. Seems fine to me. EDIT: RB settings of course
  5. What does it say about the P-51's range?
  6. So, that's a secondary source? Does it say where it gets it's information from?
  7. That holds true in a vacuum. Here on earth, it's not so simple. There's this thing called drag, which has a stronger impact on planes with larger surface areas. At high speeds the drag would be exerting higher forces against a planes velocity, and the larger that plane is, the larger that force would be. Guess which nation tended to have planes with larger surface areas..... You're way oversimplifying this. I can't say that you're wrong, nor can I say that you're correct because I just don't know how accurate the physics engine is compared to RL, but based on my experience I have no issues whatsoever utilizing the P-47D's dive performance to escape just about anything that's willing to chase me. From the few instances I've flown the P-51D, I would say the same is true for it. I'll share replays with you if you want the evidence, at least for the P-47D. With that said the complaints I have with the "Physics Model" stems from the overperforming instructor at low speeds in RB. It does way too much to prevent stalling, and can result in some seemingly physics-defying maneuvers that would be nowhere near possible irl. That combined with the ridiculous accuracy it gives to players at long ranges can add a considerable degree of difficulty to flying US planes, which rely on hit and run tactics, but that doesn't really say anything about how the game models its physics. Can you share your source for the Ki-43? Or at least tell me where it's from (primary or secondary)? The numbers I find with Google are all over the place, from 900 to 1800 miles. We may be discussing two different things. If you're talking about range on internal fuel tanks only, then it seems you would be correct in that the P-51D was mediocre compared to some other planes. However, with added external fuel tanks it seems to me that the P-51 was amongst the best, possibly even the best.
  8. I stand corrected
  9. No. It was in Miles. I got the number from here after doing a quick google search for the P-51, and the number they give for the P-51D was 2,000 (doesn't give units, but speeds are given in mph, so I think it's safe to assume the ranges are in miles). With that said, I understand the reliability of that source may be questionable, so I looked in the actual flight manual for the P-51D-5, and it states on page 59 a max range of 1,820 miles with drop tanks. That's very close to the P-51B's combat range given by the original source I quoted from, so I wonder if there were modifications to later P-51s that gave them the extra 180 miles of range to reach 2,000 miles. With that said, I'm going to have to rely on non-primary sources for the A6M range because those are all I have access to. Everything I've seen for the Zero's combat range gives just over 1,900 miles with drop tank. EDIT: Just doing quick google searches for the N1K and getting max ranges around 1,500 miles from various "sources"
  10. ~1,900 miles at optimal cruise speed (with drop tanks as far as I can tell). ~2,000 miles for the P-51D (with drop tanks) I wouldn't say it was designed as a long-range fighter, but was long range more as a side-effect of its low HP output, thus, low fuel consumption. It only carried ~140 gallons internally, compared to the P-51's 270 gallons. It wasn't designed as a long range fighter, but its design allowed it to have a relatively long combat range. It might have escorted torpedo bombers.
  11. P-47D

    Just tested the -M at sea level (so this might not hold true at higher alts) and the settings I gave give the same performance in top speed as your settings, but less overheating because of the reduced prop pitch. I think your mixture settings would be better to use though, because at higher altitudes you have to drop the mixture if you're using 100%.
  12. The P-51D30 is one of the fastest props on the deck in the game. The only props that are faster are other American planes. It also has a pretty good rate of climb with minimum fuel loads at lower altitudes as well, I think better than any plane at 5.0 or lower (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) There's only one thing limiting the potential of the P-51s in game.....
  13. etc. etc.
  14. P-51D is fine. .50 cals are fine. If you think they suck, please share a replay which demonstrates as much. As for how to fly the P-51's, if you get a solid wingmate you can be next to untouchable when you utilize proper drag n' bag tactics. If you are flying solo, you need to utilize efficient momentum energy fighting tactics (stay fast, utilize your top speed and dive advantages). In the D30, you will often fly against planes that are completely outclassed by you due to the D30s generous BR, in which case you can utilize the tactics shared in the replay video above.