PainGod85

Member
  • Content count

    3,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
medal medal

PainGod85 last won the day on October 16 2016

PainGod85 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,601 Outstanding

5 Followers

About PainGod85

  • Rank
    Semper iratus, omni tempore
  • Birthday 02/07/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,535 profile views
  1. Dartz, the 109 K gets outscissored by the 47N. Once you're locked in a rolling scissors, use flaps dynamically until he overshoots. Unless the 109 is really careful about its energy state, you will be able to turn the fight in your favor even from an initial energy disadvantage near SL. 109s are food, even the Fw 190 A-4 commands more respect from me than a Me 109 K-4. ...well, talk about things I never thought I'd say.
  2. Unless you state specifically you will land and leave, I will deliberately push my attack if you say you'll bail out if I do. One less enemy to worry about and an almost zero expense kill.
  3. MiG-9, P-80: You're better in certain altitude ranges and generally autaccelerate them at medium-high speeds. Meteor, Vampire: You are faster just about anywhere, but they outaccelerate you at low speed and outturn you at any speed that doesn't have them rip off their own wings. MiG-9/late: AXAXAXAXAXA TOVARISH, LET ME OUTEVERYTHING AND KILL YOU IN MY EASYMODE PLANE AXAXAXA (In other words, this abomination should never see 262As. Never, ever 1v1.)
  4. Read what I mean, not what I write, dammit! :P
  5. I honestly think that's the best course of action here. :-/
  6. You mean @xBromanx, who did it in RB with MA and essentially just failed to roll out of the maneuvers correctly due to the pecularities of the instructor? Or like @Vladokapuh, who went ahead and used a gamepad to perform a barrel roll with virtually no change in energy state: That said, asserting something is wrong with the physics modeling in WT by taking a single type of maneuver and stating it's impossible to end at the exact same altitude/heading/speed you started out at seems...unscientific...in the extreme.
  7. You don't say? Actually, you didn't. EDIT: BTW @Sakuzhi, some reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
  8. Nope. The rounds in the air target belts have no explosive damage associated with them, according to the wiki. EDIT: Actually, I may be wrong. Double-checking.
  9. Holy crap, drag is a function of speed. It increases exponentially with speed. Increased G load also increases drag, simply because the wings are required to generate more lift. The more lift a given airfoil generates, the more drag is created by it as well. Wow, just wow. Sakuzhi, stop embarrassing yourself.
  10. wew #rekt
  11. Are you saying the rate of energy bleed is not relevant in a barrel roll? Because it sounds like you're saying the rate of energy bleed in a barrel roll is irrelevant.
  12. Incorrect. The Umlaut for 'u' is spelled as 'ue' when using QWERTZ.
  13. And this is not even counting deformation and fatigue from multiple impacts in very short time, as would be the case with 6-8 HMGs hammering the plane.
  14. Purely aesthetic. *Eventually*.
  15. Holy ****. xxxx no.
  16. Wait, rudder turn time was a thing ingame at some point, not just BS spouted on the forums?
  17. A few months ago I actually calculated the altitude a Wyvern should gain in a vertical climb and compared them to the ingame values. @Vladokapuh might remember the occasion. Since I had no way of accounting for thrust in a meaningful way (turboprops changing their jet thrust with speed and air density), I could only concluse the results I got were indeed in the generous ballpark I was expecting them to be. That said, I'm sure if you ask a sim pilot very nicely, they will be happy to disprove your notion of barrel rolls being impossible to achieve within the game engine. Also, the training video about how to perform such in a T6 Texan is beyond laughable where proof about the game being wrong is concerned.
  18. I mentioned it to Smin in a PM a few months ago. No idea what became of it.
  19. On a related note, when even the 38E mule has the new radiators, but the 38K ingame doesn't. *sigh*
  20. Welcome to human nature.
  21. TBH, just about any gun ingame should easily overmatch aircraft skin. The energies involved are disproportionally higher than the ones the aluminum sheet can withstand.
  22. I would be very interested in the results of your bone chewing. Planes seem exceptionally tanky from behind, even within convergence. A bounce mechanic would go a long way to explaining the phenomenon.
  23. In here, arcade doesn't exist.
  24. P-47D

    Yeah, above critical altitude it's better to switch to automatic controls, less fiddly in combat.
  25. ta152

    It's basically an airspawning D-9 with guns for days, a horrible elevator and a blast furnace for an engine that is better at altitude.
  26. P-47D

    It probably has something to do with the CLmax getting fixed, but not having the elevator trim settings taken into account during the change. Bug report it. 93% pitch, 83% mixture, 45-20% rads and 25-10% oil radiator. The same goes for the N.
  27. P-51D

    Agreed. When you trail an oblivious Ta 152 shooting at a bomber and pump 800 rounds with constant hit markers into him from 500-200 m, getting hits, hits, hits, nothing but hits and end up being so confused by this you actually forget to break off in time to avoid ramming your target, you know something is up. This said, I'm almost 100% sure this has to do with straight 6 o'clock firing solutions. Planes just become incredibly tanky and I have no idea why this should be the case. We're talking millimeters of duralumin here, not armor plate where overmatch mechanics start becoming an issue. In short, just about everything should penetrate an aircraft's skin and start wreaking havoc on internal components, and nowadays I can't help but think the opposite is the case.
  28. Really? Wow. P-51D-30: 4.7 when it is easily 5.3 material. P-47N-15: 4.7 when, again, it is easily 5.X material. P-47M-1: 5.3 when it is arguably undertiered and could certainly compete at 5.7. And this is even taking into account the unwarranted downtier of German Fw 190Ds. Any problems people have with these planes are borne from an unwillingness to learn their plane's pecularities in favor of doing the most convenient thing - lawnmowing with bombs attached in RB AF and turnfighting everything they see a SL, flying with an utter disregard for their plane's energy state and little to no knowledge on how to leverage a superior or inferior energy state into a firing solution almost guaranteed to kill their target. Yeah, .50s aren't cannons and they should certainly be neither regarded nor aimed as such. This doesn't mean they're bad guns. They're different and just as lethal as cannons in capable hands.
  29. No, it would encourage players to leave the game. You will not get any kind of positive result from negative reinforcement.
  30. I would like toamend here that you need to take at least 30 minutes of fuel, otherwise the center of gravity will have shifted unfavorably, limiting high speed elevator authority to around 6 Gs. And yes, this is historically accurate. (For the nth time...) Also, that last part is not directed at you @Markus752. EDIT: Pinned thread or not, I should probably check dates more often. Oh well.
  31. I can scarcely believe it myself.
  32. Don't blame me, I started reading when Khurt and Yukari were disagreeing on stuff. I didn't even realize the stuff quadace posted on the previous pages, and why oh why did I have to go looking?
  33. The thing is, against a 4 man squad, a team that coordinates can still win the day. Now add another 4 players coordinating in one squad and no fancy impromptu teamwork will turn the tide for you. It's a literal Iwin button, even moreso than the undertiered planes found throughout the various tech trees.
  34. No. it would marginalize solo play even more and ultimately drive away players. A competent 4 man squad can wipe the floor with just about everything bar another squad already.
  35. P-47M for me. Just the right mix of ruggedness, speed, climb rate and maneuverability, but the N is a very close second.
  36. Why is this thread not pinned?
  37. The German Wikipedia cites a bunch more sources than Kurowski's book. One of them is the historical article WT ran about him a while ago, which made me headdesk very hard just now. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Knispel
  38. How much fuel are you taking? Select no less than 30 minutes on Fw 190s, 45 min to be sure. The added fuel weight shifts your center of gravity and gives you much more elevator authority. And yes, this is historically accurate.
  39. You're both right - or wrong, it's a matter of perspective. At the takeoff setting, the Fw 190's flaps will generate both drag and lift. At the landing setting, the drag generated by them will disproportionally outstrip any lift generaed by them. They are very similar to the Spitfire's flaps, which were designed to bleed off excess airspeed before landing.
  40. Simple. People turnfight them and inevitably lose, when they would club them into the ground if they had understood even the most basic concepts of energy fighting. Every time I see an A6M kill a P-47 I just shake my head.
  41. A standard gearbox has a set of gear transmission ratios, same as with a car. For x engine RPM you get x * fr wheel RPM. The same applies to a prop with a supercharger. For x engine RPM you get x * fr supercharger RPM. This is also why 109s are horrible examples. Their variable speed supercharger was not connected via a mechanical gearbox, but a hydraulic one. Again, their props still had a fixed connection to the crankshaft. You're comparing apples and oranges. The prop's power train is directly linked to the engine crankshaft on props. There is no number of gears you can switch between, there is only the single power train. If you want to decrease engine RPM, you need to decrease prop RPM. Again, prop pitch control has nothing to do with how prop pitch works in real life. You're simply setting engine RPM with it, the same way you could in most WW2 birds. The prop governor would then change prop pitch to get the best prop efficiency out of it.
  42. Without proof, your assertion is literally worthless. Right now, statistics say the Hunter is twice as effective at killing enemy aircraft as any other 9.0 plane. Balancing with BR isn't possible, it is already at the top. So this leaves repair cost or artificially nerfing the plane. Gaijin went with repair cost.
  43. https://ia800507.us.archive.org/14/items/PilotTrainingManualForTheThunderboltP-47N/PilotTrainingManualForTheThunderboltP-47N.pdf Page 31 has the pertinent cutaway drawing. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/243842981637914625/302871842874589184/2017_04_15_19_44_09__1036.clog
  44. Aren't you getting sick of always getting this manual linked yet? https://ia800507.us.archive.org/14/items/PilotTrainingManualForTheThunderboltP-47N/PilotTrainingManualForTheThunderboltP-47N.pdf This time, our journey takes us to page 51, formation flying. The manual emphasizes the importance of staying at a position relative to your section leader from which the exhaust glow on the waste gate can be seen. Just as a precaution, the waste gate is that round opening with a butterfly valve just in front and below the wings' leading edge. Also, shamelessly reusing the previous clog file: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/243842981637914625/302871842874589184/2017_04_15_19_44_09__1036.clog
  45. https://ia800507.us.archive.org/14/items/PilotTrainingManualForTheThunderboltP-47N/PilotTrainingManualForTheThunderboltP-47N.pdf Page 27 of the manual says the following: "Oddly enough, you consume less fuel when employing War Emergency Power than when using Military Power. That's because the water displaces some of the gas that ordinarily would flow into the carburetor." Instead, ingame fuel consumption increases for any R-2800 at wet WEP. (I only have a source handy for the P-47s with C-type engine (47M, 47N, they share their engine installations and fuselage layout), but according to basic physics, any engine ingame with wet WEP should be similarly affected. At the very least, any R-2800 should behave in this fashion as long as it uses ADI.) Clog: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/243842981637914625/302871842874589184/2017_04_15_19_44_09__1036.clog
  46. Well, look at this: http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/f-86_canadair_german http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/mig-15bis_nr23_german http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/mig-17 http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/mig-15_ns23 http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/mig-15 http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/f-86f-25 http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/f-86f-2 http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/f9f-8 Compared to this: http://thunderskill.com/en/vehicle/hunter_f1 See? The Hunter is getting disproportionally more kills per death than any of the other 9.0s. This means you either get gud in it, or your SL income gets rekt.
  47. Alright, the F-82's gunpod ingame adds 232 kg to the plane's weight. Now, let's see what's in that pod: .50 Browning M3 machinegun x8, around 27.7 kg (61 lb) apiece: 221.4 kg 3200 rds of belted .50 ammunition: Let's look at the P-38 datasheets to figure out the ingame weight of that. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rFNzavRw1RWEZbJuwerrCxBeunwv7Aqs3DyErR4xm_k/pubhtml 281 kg per 2000 rounds, so just shy of 450 kg for the 3200 rounds contained within the F-82's pod. This means the pod is essentially missing the weight of its ammunition as the 232 kg given in the tooltip would fall within the expected weight of the pod and unloaded guns only. Here is some information about the gun's weight. Note that the M2 and M3 did not differ significantly in regards to their weight. http://browningmgs.com/AirGunnery/01_50cal.htm That said, I'm working under the assumption you already have information about the .50 Browning's weight as there are several planes armed with them ingame. 2017_04_15_15_43_33__21652.clog
  48. It's a top tier jet and yes, in capable hands it is that good: http://thunderskill.com/en/stat/Vladokapuh/vehicles/r
  49. You confuse 'clubbing' with 'not dying'.
  50. p-47n

    Actually, I posted information about this in a BR about it shortly after the plane was released, back when the cockpit MAP gauge would show you 72" at its supposed critical altitude while producing 250 hp less than it should. This was then "fixed" in a subsequent patch, after which the plane lost over 300 hp at critical altitude compared to what it should have, but this time with the MAP reading being equally wrong. So Ryan's statement about this fix having taken 5 months and no less than 3 bug reports (one of which I made for a dev build) is entirely correct. EDIT: On second thought, I made one of the screenshots I linked in August, and I made them for a BR. No idea where that one went, but the issue was first brought to the attention of the tech mod team during August last year, of that I'm certain. So basically, from the first BR made about it, it took the tech mod team 6-7 months to implement a fix. There are some recent BRs I know of that were fast tracked, but this one is not one of them. In principle, yes. In regards to this, nope.
  51. At tier 5, the ugly F2P aspect rears its head. Gaijin needs someone to pay them money, and they incentivize it by making pure jet gameplay available only to those few who can cosistently avoid dying in them. Everybody else either pays GE to repair their planes or flies something else in the meantime. That said, I would be very surprised if revenue from players buying SL with GE exceeds 5% of WT's total revenue gains. The main money sink is still high tier plane modification research, I believe.
  52. OP, the minimum goal needs to be either killing one guy and not dying, or killing two and accepting your death. Any less should net you a loss of SL. This said, there are some planes that don't fit that bill because they turn really well and a lot of players seem to have an obsessive-compulsive need to follow them into turnfights, then getting outturned and shot down by them. That said, as others have said before me, if you die in your plane, you're either doing it wrong or your team had the collective intelligence of a cactus. Probably the latter, going by my recent number of ragequits per week. To me, you're simply the last in a long string of people complaining about stuff that has its origin in Gaijin handholding new players by giving them base AA as shelter. The feature got introduced some time last year, and now the new players who started then (and never weaned themselves off of it) are playing in tiers 3,4 and 5 with no knowledge on how to actually manage their energy. Essentially, with OP AAA Gaijin broke their game, and we're seeing the repercussions of this now. Your thread and assertion that repair costs are too high (they're not) are just symptoms of the underlying issues.
  53. Taking away all the crutches would go a long way for people to learn how to fly their planes. Only then can we even think to promote teamwork.
  54. http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/SPIT9MANUAL.pdf Page 22, item 39 (iv): Emphasis mine. This essentially proves the oil cooler was in fact incorporated into the underwing radiator housing and should thus be affected by opening radiator flaps. The ingame damage model corroborates this. Also, note how radiator design had no marked changes between the Spitfire F IX and all subsequent versions of the plane. As such, all currently ingame Spit- and Seafires should have their oil temperature affected by the main coolant radiator flaps opening.
  55. I have a general question about this. If I had some of these banned accounts on my blacklist, will they be automatically removed from it upon their permanent ban? It would save me the trouble of going through these lists of players to compare them with whom I've blacklisted.
  56. Let me tell you about a neat little trick: Don't get hit.
  57. Ogod youtube. Why. WHY? Also, I have so many fitting quotes from Book Avasarala saved up, and they're all Precision F-Strikes. ...yeah, I think I'll visit some Youtubers now.
  58. On a weekend, it seems even the EU server is just filled with people that make me hemorrhage brain cells. But during weekdays they actually are somewhat competent. Proof 12 year olds have no place on the internet unsupervised. What I've seen posted in chat (and the amount of TK's I've seen since Friday night) corroborates this.
  59. Maybe I tried and got so frustrated I landed and left? There's a reason I don't fly the Zero, and it's called blood pressure.
  60. I hate the Zero. It's far too slow to be effective against what it faces, and I've never been one to prophang compulsively, which is the main cause of death by Zero in my experience.
  61. I don't fly matchboxes. :P
  62. Try flying allies on a weekend. Solo it is beyond painful. Step 1: 2 enemies at altitude. No problem, I can keep them at bay. Step 2: Rest of the enemy team is killing my team's fighters because P-47s can totally turn with 109s and should always go headon. Freedomcals axaxaxa! )))))))) Step 3: What's left of the enemy team (usually 90%) climbs up to my altitude and joins the number of fighters I'm keeping at bay. This generally ends predictably in me eventually being forced to give up altitude, and then it's just a matter of time. One, ONE competent teammate and we'd wipe the floor with them, but no. Gotta keep turnfighting because doing ANYTHING BUT means we might win, and we're afraid of that. This is the reason US planes are tiered abysmally low, the average player has neither the knowledge nor the motivation to learn how to fly them. I'm xxxx sick of it.
  63. It's historically accurate. Center of gravity shifts are a thing.
  64. TBH I would just log into a new session, go into test flight with the bugged bomb load, drop the bombs with ~5 seconds between each bomb, quit and upload the latest clog here to avoid any confusion.