If the enemy aircraft passes through them, you lead too much.
If the enemy aircraft does not cut through them, you are not leading enough.
When the enemy is coming directly at you and you keep missing, try to judge where your bullets are passing the enemy and compensate for that by leading in the opposite direction. Sometimes what seems like a straight approach is not exactly straight and an offset of a few degrees already requires lead if you try to hit an object with a diameter of 2m (frontal view of a piston fighter) moving at 500kmh+.
It would be nice if they could improve it, to be honest even with tracers i often have no clue where stuff goes through given that they also fly in a ballistic curve.
I get your point, but if i look into the average game iam clearly not the only one with this issue. Getting better feedback into the game wouldnt hurt.
That, too…the servers add an aspect of randomness to whether or not correctly aimed shots actually hit…to a lesser extent this also affects tanks shooting at ground targets that are on the move.
The server were the cause I stopped playing SB on russian side against helis (around BO heli) as I saw the rocket hit the target directly just to see it flying behind the heli and into the void.
The problem is most people do not know how to use Anti Air, they stick to the spawn, never pushing up, nor understand that you need to lead your shots and cease-fire when a target is farther than you think they are.
So what it leads to is forum users making ∞ levels of the same discussion topic. Not understanding that the devs, and volunteers will not listen to them. Since its nothing more than a rant post with frustration and not critical thinking and then you have some who make a topic post that is disguised as critical thinking but it is nothing more than a 1 cm layer of wax.
@SinisterIsRandom was speaking of effective use of SPAA. In the context and judging by the rest of his post it is obvious that he means the role of fighting aircraft.
That belief can be your opinion in general, but in certain scenarios it is flatly bogus. As an overall stance, I’d describe it as faulty at best…you’d be better off with a “___ are more realistic than ___ in ___ regards” take than something that tries to go wholesale like this.
Look at it this way: aircraft have to return to the airfield for repairs while a tank with Parts unlocked can conceivably get a new engine block, breech and/or barrel while waiting on the doorstep of the enemy base (just give 'em a little time!)
Which is more realistic there? Putting aside video game logic that we all put up with for play practicality, which side there takes more liberties?
I’m open to talking about a new approach to realism, but let’s not kid ourselves: plenty of realism liberties are taken with GFs.
Its not a quip.
Its obvious aircraft have to return to a maintenance bay for repair, i dont think i need to say why unless you know something i dont. My statment about realistic probably points more towards realism and that many battles throughout history have air support, but in WT you need to die to get it. I would like air cover for ground at same sp cost as tanks and helicopters