IRL it had double the climbrate ingame at 100% throttle and would be a glider
1 Like
I never gave them the calculations lol. I gave them test data of the rocket engine (from Historical sources) which included the right values for the calculations + a TSFC graph, which I am more confident they used because they ended up changing more than I had originally bug reported.
thanks for ruining the only german early jet that wasn’t dog shit, you could do another report that the me163 should also spontaneously explode and that they should send the mig-15bis to 10.0 because germany can’t have anything nice.
2 Likes
I mean you answered that to another user who said that this change had destroyed the gameplay of the plane, so why mention it if you weren’t talking about balance ? what would the plane’s performance have to do with the game when clearly this game is light years away from being a simulator.
and as for the rest i haven’t said anything about what gaijin’s motives are for this change, but honestly making such a drastic change without taking into account how it would affect the playability of the plane seems to me a very foolish decision.
1 Like
don’t forget the su-11 which sits in the same BR as the basic 262, clearly equivalent jets according to gaijin.
3 Likes
I hate nation mains so much.
2 Likes
Based king
Total rat rocket death
But you offered them calculations in your bug report:
Community Bug Reporting System
Regarding this:
I read the report (and one of the attached pdfs) and was quite surprised that somebody used the term specific impulse in the right context.
But - I have zero clue why you felt the need to create such a report in the first place as you haven’t flown the Me 163 after your report was processed. The report looks rather like a classic “i am an engineer” revenge action, trying to punish a plane which killed you earlier by trying to nerf it.
To make this clear:
-
I am not a fan of rat planes in general and have no cards in this game. But as an interested observer it looks like that your report just satisfied certain people within gaijin which try to glorify the legacy of the USSR at any cost - mainly by using any possibility to weaken competing nations (no matter which nation).
-
Based on my understanding (in simple words) you had a valid point - meaning that the thrust mass should last shorter as represented in the game. This is a result of the combustor / nozzle design.
-
The imho objective flaw in your report is more than obvious: Tests are (like all others) not really specified regarding sample sizes and test conditions. Basically all tests of captured foreign military hardware are flawed by definition as topics like quality spread within the test examples or basic stuff like reproduction of fuel composition or plain simple things like safety margins for tests (for pilots or technicians) alter the test results.
-
That’s also the reason why you find for very late WW 2 aircraft deviating technical performance data. Just go to yt and watch Greg’s vid about the the Ki-84 and you got the point.
Regarding the 163:
-
As long as tests are not referring to the specific thrust loss at lower throttle than 100% you created a significant nerf of an already controversial aircraft - as the issue is from my pov the efficiency at lower power settings.
-
I am not sure if you ever invested time in testing aircraft or had a chance to fight BIs but it is for every player obvious that there is no linear performance increase after an aircraft consumed fuel - it looks like that gaijin works with hard thresholds at prop aircraft (example: 25%) meaning that there is no increase of speed and turn if you have 26% of fuel.
-
In total opposition to that gaijin buffed the efficiency of their own rocket powered fighter (the 6.7 BI) like hell - allowing them to stay airborne at competitive speeds for eternity.
In other words:
The backlash you face is well deserved. Nice gamertag btw 👍
4 Likes
Imagine having to make up a scenario about how my opponent sucks in order to win the internet argument.
I have no clue why you think i am interested in making up scenarios or in winning an argument with a random stranger. The expression “looks rather like” is a clear indicator for a hypothesis which might be true or not.
Another example for a hypothesis:
Some news stations have highly misleading names. For example Fox News reports barely about foxes and BBC news reports barely about…
1 Like
One which you made up, and the only reason to ever even present that “hypothesis” is specifically to try to make the other person look bad. So clearly you are indeed interested in making up scenarios or winning “an argument with a random stranger”.
Reminder you said this too.
The backlash you face is well deserved.
You’re not fooling anyone.
😂😂
1 Like
yes what is your point
All those late-ww2 german jets suffer to me thanks to those shitty 30 mils (Quite like my skill issues but damn they are so hard to aim)
1 Like
They are intended for use against slow-moving targets such as heavy bombers (E.g., B-17, B-24, and Lancaster).
In-game at their current BRs, the WW2 German jets are at you can’t really face them except for something like the B-29 and faster 1950s jet bombers and fighters.
I personally just set my Gun targeting distance (meters) in the options to 800 max for the M.K. 108 30mm cannons, and always try to lead in front of the target as much as you can, and shoot only at extremely close distances, which seems to have yielded better results for me.
But yes, they can be quite challenging to aim. On the flip side, if you do land direct hits. You can quite satisfyingly obliterate their entire airframe in just a few bullets, since 30mm Minengeschoß has approximately 136g of TNT equivalent.
As a user who has played Me 163 B-0 nearly 4500 times, I would say this. If i going to play it like that, i’ll gonna take Ta 152 to 8.3 BR instead. The point of the problem is that while the fuel of Me 163s was halved, only the BR of Me 163 B-0 and KI-200 was lowered by 0.4, from 8.7 → 8.3.
1 Like