The one used in the test was an earlier model than we have, fired from an F-89. Split the wing in two and created a massive fire.
Cool story but until we can replicate things clearly on video it’s fictional
So basically literally shoot past that point where it snapped off
You got a WHOLE BOMBER to shoot at yet you complain when this miniscule section doesnt = instant kill.
Shoot literally anywhere outside of that section thats left + the section thats left still has mortal pilots
Cool story but until we can replicate things clearly on video it’s fictional
My videos are perfectly clear lmao, not my fault your brain cant parse new information
1 Like
How is that relevant to a Falcon oneshotting a B-17?
Dude it’s NUTSS to see the stuff I complained about for literal years and now it’s rearing it’s head in a way that’s causing everyone to freak out. after all my time for kvetching about .50s. I feel so damn vindicated bro.
Yes, some parts of an aircraft will NOT SNAP NO MATTER WHAT.
A limitation of gaijin’s modeling…
an issue that’s been around for YEARS
But now because you can’t insta-snap bombers anymore, people are complaining about it.
Dude I’m laughing so hard right now.
1 Like
Dont shift the topic, we’re talking about your skill issue with zunis now, we will get to that later
Preach bro, preach
I think you are expecting too much from the damage model there.
But firing a CRV7 (about 900g warhead) at a B-29 (Cba to faff with a custom thing to get a B-17 to spawn and lower BR aircraft all have 3-6kg warheads)
It usually set fire to one or both engiens on the wing and took out the control surface.
Like, im all for them breaking the damage model down into smaller, more realistic parts, but its clear they arent gunna do that
The breaking point of the wing is right between the two engines. In this situation it WILL snap eventually. The question is how much damage it should take to do it.
In my search for gun camera footage I also saw plenty of aircraft getting hammered by .50s with nothing snapping off.
They are supposed to be more realistic.
Yet you cannot replicate what is clearly documented on video.
Engine fires are put out every time, which is also inaccurate.
mfw the fire extinguishers extinguish fires
I (mostly) agree, and that is something that should be changed. Likewise the fuel tank self-sealing shouldnt be infinite
How many fire extinguishers do you think each engine has?
I haven’t seen anywhere as many fuel fires as should be happening. Even a direct hit from 75mm HE didn’t do it despite a dozen or so hits.
They are a little too good in-game I think. There is a limit to what they can actually extinguish
There is an engine on fire, and then there is engine engulfed in-flame.
Let alone they should have a limited amount, and fires just going out passively too
Yeah. Oliver tested 40mm HE hits and self-sealing was stopping the fuel leaks too.
Let alone the whole fact that their models are probably too small as well ]
BHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
“yOu cAnT rEplIcAte oN vIdEO” FIRST TRY, FIRST. TRY.
Those B-17s sure look weird.
B29 is supposed to be stronger
Also I cant use mission editor on a jet I dont own
He is talking about an early Aim-4 Falcon with a warhead about half the size.
And even when talking about missile damage generally, I have found it can be a little inconsistant with the new damage model, so hes not entirely wrong that the model needs refinement.
Though the first change I would make is having IR missiles target the hot part of the airframe (the engines) and not the tail. Would help a lot
1 Like