Yeah, and we complain about matchmaking, eh?
Your theory implies that no planes would exist that made it back to base after a hit since they eject before the missile hits.
Well guess what
You mean their ejection seats they used to eject after getting shot down? Yeah they surely must have not worked
Even in the Falklands when Pucaras (piston engined attack aircraft) were bounced by Sea Harriers they didn’t eject prematurely.
Surely he also punched out because there were 6 missiles fired at him simultaneously
Guess the RAF Rivet Joint Crew that was fired on twice by Suchois in 2022 also immediatly bailed because they are in an airliner against fighter jets
Do you even have a single case in History where that happened?
1 Like
Not to mention the risks coming with an Ejection is not something you take lightly
1 Like
Iirc in the f-16s case he didn’t have working countermeasures either
1 Like
Even if that were the case, that would more likely than not be considered a kill for the engaging aircraft.
1 Like
Definitely seems the case for US in WW2:
. The enemy aircraft had to be airborne, heavier than air, manned, and armed. Destruction involved shooting an enemy aircraft down, causing the pilot to bail out, intentionally ramming the airplane to make it crash, or maneuvering it into the ground or water. If the enemy airplane landed, despite its degree of damage, it was not counted as destroyed.
One of my greatest annoyances with Sim. 1% is just not small enough.
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s really not well implemented. I got elevator trim assigned to a slider axis, but even like this it’s imposible to trim to neutral. Works with any other flight sim and the same slider perfectly though…
It’s one of my pet peeves. In general, WT is’nt very well when it comes to basic aeronautic technology. They have for example SAS and level hold as two steps of the same function, and trimming is not possible with SAS engaged, which makes no sense.
And still not a single working flight path marker… = /
2 Likes
Level Hold is also a great annoyance to me since it doesn’t actually make you fly level, you’ll slowly (or not so slowly) lose altitude over time since it just points you straight at the horizon.
3 Likes
I have to say I’m more annoyed with how the Hortas support is, I have physical flip switches on mine and for once the game sometimes just don’t registers them being switched so I have to flip them franticly until it registers input again.
When I go into the menu or open the chat and then press esc/enter it resets the virtual position of the switches which leads to me often losing my gear XD
1 Like
Had a match the past weekend where two separate players just pitched into the ground the moment I slotted in behind them and they saw they couldn’t outrun me. With both instances I took the time to maneuver into an advantageous position, diving down behind them wasting time, altitude, and fuel I could have used to engage other players. In both instances they crashed and I got nothing. This is incredibly frustrating and just poor gameplay/design. I understand they can’t differentiate between accidental and on purpose crashes but at least reward the closest enemy player.
This can lead to even more frustration when game decides to reward a player that had nothing to do with that “kill”.
It would be better than nothing and in most cases reward the correct player
1 Like
Depends at what BR to be honest.
Basing rewards just on the proximity is pretty prone to errors higher you go.
1 Like
Personally, i think a system where a time, action and distance based reward (within a certain max distance) of that enemy should be spread among all players within that max distance during the last X amount time the player was still flying.
So for example (random numbers, don’t know what numbers would be reasonable, they could even depend on rank perhaps):
Max distance 500m
Player turn fights Enemy for 54 seconds keeping within 300m the entire time. Teammate zooms in from far away having time to only spend 6 seconds between 5-300m before the Enemy crashes as they see Teammate approaching.
Player has spent 90% of the total time in proximity and also within a closer distance compared to Teammate. Player therefore gets like 95% of the reward for a kill whilst Teammate only gets the last 5% as they weren’t as close to the Enemy during their counted time.
Or some sort of system like this, it could possibly also take into account bullets fired towards (but missed), missiles locked (but not fired) and missiles fired against (missed or crash before hit) the Enemy.
So like a multi factor system to split the reward between all players that has done actions against and spend time close to the Enemy that crashed during that enemies last minute (or whatever time) of active flying. The factors can then have different “weight” in the calculations, so a missile that is fired against and still tracking the Enemy when they crash counts for a lot more than everything else for example.
True, I was thinking about my case where I was in a Mig 17 so no long range missiles present.
1 Like
This sounds like a good idea but honestly I would be happy with just about anything. Just as long as players who crash or j out out of spite don’t deny other players.
That looks like a decent starting point for a pretty sturdy system that monitors player crashes. The biggest problem with it is, in my opinion, actually Gaijin’s willingness to spend a decent amount of time to implement something like that just to cover x% of total deaths (with x being a really small number I assume).
I’d say give it to the guy who is locked onto him, or at least is shooting at him. The amount of times I’ve been screwed over when I get a lock on someone is annoying. Then again, I guess it would give F-15Es an advantage considering they enjoy locking people from spawn.