you neither fly some of the planes i “cry about” and just limit yourself to say “rico moment” like the absolute NPC you are.
I have both the Mk 24 and Re 2005. In fact, I have like 150 or so kills in the Re 2005 so I think I’m qualified to debate you in this matter.
They’re also an entire BR apart.
However, I’m intrigued by your thoughts on them?
First off, just because YOU don’t know how they work, and because YOU don’t know anyone who does use them because YOU haven’t asked about them, doesn’t make them negatable…
And as to your ‘side note’ you don’t even know about MEC, so you don’t understand the further detail that comes from that level of control…
So please, start learning and get to understanding because these are STANDARD DETAILS.
Like, seriously… General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon - Wikipedia
Absolutely normal… Speeds and performance are measured at a standard height, at a distinct speed and method, and it is perfectly fine.
You make an extraordinary amount of assumptions in your horribly aggressive reply.
I said that most good players don’t rely on the stat card of a plane precisely because I have asked and I know it to be true.
As for it being negatable, the stat card for a plane can be entirely correct but that doesn’t change the fact that it will still be displaying niche and very specific details that overall aren’t exceedingly useful. “Turn time” and “Rate of climb” will change drastically depending on the altitude and fuel of the aircraft, and again, will only apply to an aircraft in those specific conditions. RazerVon said that these values are for an aircraft with full fuel which, if true, makes them even less useful as games in ARB don’t go past 25 minutes so fuel loads that go significantly above this value are of very questionable use.
And again, as I have mentioned, there is just the chance that the stat card is outright incorrect, which I will demonstrate using the Me 163 B, in much more detail than before.
Here is the stat card for my fully spaded Me 163 B. Again, it says 955 km/h at 4500 meters is the top speed of the plane.
However at 200 meters (so as to avoid the buildings) I achieved 967 km/h with a maximum fuel load.
And at 4500 meters, 981 km/h.
The max speed of the Me 163 only increases with altitude. At 12500 meters, it reaches 1000 km/h.
And finally, at 14500 meters it breaks Mach 1.
Now to look at the maximum altitude, which is stated to be 15 km.
First thing is I assumed that 15km would be the maximum due to the low fuel load of the Me 163, basically meaning that the Me 163 can theoretically go higher but runs out of fuel before that happens. However, even with the time limit of 6 minutes of fuel, I can get my Me 163 to 24km of altitude before fuel runs out.
So clearly it isn’t a time limitation. Possibly if I force my plane to stay at 6 minutes of fuel, with all that additional weight, then the Me 163 B won’t manage to get past 15 km of altitude.
However I still went higher than 15 km even with this additional weight, eventually topping out at 18500 meters.
On top of that, while climbing from 0 to 15000 meters, the climb rate of my plane was always above 50 m/s, despite the 37 m/s climb rate stated by the stat card.
Max speed, max altitude and climb rate all wrong even with full fuel. And the Me 163 has been with this precise performance for years.
Except… I do know about MEC? I have no idea what immediately made you jump to the conclusion that I don’t know about MEC and don’t have MEC. I have the buttons mapped out to be used with my numpad, and depending on the plane I do actually use it because it can be useful, the Re.2005 being one of those planes, but even more so on the P-47s (except the N-15) which have tangible performance increases with correct MEC usage.
There’s no need to be aggressive and try to insult me simply because I explained what prop feathering is, information on which can even be found on Wikipedia.
As for the rest of your reply it genuinely has no meaning nor debunks anything I’ve said. There’s genuinely nothing there for me to argue about.
I know you don’t understand the stat cards, and that’s clear throughout the thread…
I see.
So instead of actually adding anything to the topic, you are going to act like a child and pretend you’re right after I’ve shown just how wrong the stat card on the Me 163 is? What even is there to understand about the stat cards that I don’t get?
If someone is actually wrong about something without knowing it, any good human would attempt to show said person the correct way of looking at things. You help no-one here by being childish as you are now. As you yourself have said once already, “stop trying to argue for the actual sake of it.”
Edit: Not to mention the other stuff like saying that I didn’t know MEC even though I do. I doubt you even knew about how P-47s (except the N-15) can actually gain a pretty decent boost in performance if one knows what they are doing with MEC.
I added first, you came in dismissing my posts, and I called you out on having done that… So no, I’m not the one arguing here, you’re just wanting to tell me I’m wrong because I’m telling you factually that you don’t understand it, in a thread where I said that it was a misinterpretation, so I think you should just go sit down…
Like honestly… This is actually what annoys me about this community… When you try even throw out any sort of thinking or actual knowledge, peopel get all fixated on telling you you’re wrong with mere anecdotal evidence ignoring the points of the matter.
The TOP SPEED is at THAT HEIGHT… It can be more at any height or other attitude…
Like, damn bruh…
First, that’s not how the “max speed at height” statistic works.
“Max speed” is meant to show the maximum level flight speed of the plane.
“at height” simply shows what altitude this speed can be achieved at. You have shown that you yourself do not understand how the stat card is supposed to work.
Second, I showed the max speed at 4500 meters, and it is not 955 km/h either.
You have singlehandedly shown to not have even read my reply. Even if you were correct about your original assessment that it is simply the speed achieved at that height, you are still wrong because the Me 163 far surpasses 955 km/h when at 4500 meters.
That’s not to mention you haven’t addressed the max height and the climb rate being wrong.
Never, and I mean never, have I seen someone accuse another of “dismissing” their points, only to then prove spectacularly that they have been doing that the entire time. Or someone telling someone else that they don’t understand something, only to show that in reality its them that don’t understand it.
Yea, nah, you don’t know the game, and I’m very tired of interjecting sideliners who aren’t actually looking to help trying to jump on someone for explaining things…
Stat cards are accurate, they don’t ‘lie’ they aren’t ‘half truths’, it is player misinterpretation that leads to this.
The max height is a max hieght, but the max speed isn’t the max speed overall, because the max speed is at that height measured.
You can easily put yourself into a higher speed at risk of your craft, it’s not a definite.
All of this makes your entire basis of issue, wrong.
(Edit - Seriously, people need to stop taking a confronting concept to them as a personal attack… I don’t need you to throw anger at me merely because I point out that you don’t actually know or understand something… Sheeesshhhhhh…)
(false flagging needs to be bannable)
Again
If you hover over the “Max Speed” statistic It says “The vehicle’s maximum speed”, the maximum speed. Stop making this pointless, obviously wrong argument. Even the game disagrees with you. Does Gaijin misunderstand their own code now?
That’s what it is supposed to be, yes, now address the fact that it is just outright wrong by multiple kilometers.
No. Max speed is meant to be what is achievable in a straight line with maximum power. This is exactly what I did and the Me 163 did over what its maximum speed is meant to be.
Not to mention that I’m not even nearly at risk of the plane breaking apart. The Me 163 B has a Mach VNE of 1.05, I was doing 0.84, and an IAS rip speed of 1040 km/h, while I was at 781 km/h. Again, nowhere near any risk of my plane being destroyed. The Max speed is simply wrong. Accept that.
No.
(false flagging needs to be bannable)
Every once in a while it is mentally healthy to just… accept that we can be wrong about things.
You should try that. Until then don’t bother people on the forums with your “know it all” attitude. You don’t help anyone by pretending to be right and making half-assed attempts to prove yourself right that can be thrown away the moment someone does the slightest bit of research or testing.
You’re the one making that statement yet you’re ignoring the points made by me, who actually does know.
You don’t even realize that your explanation of “the top speed is not definite” goes full circle here.
If it isn’t definite and you can get wildly different results, then it is inaccurate.
If it is inaccurate, then it is not a useful statistic on the stat card.
Read this line VERY carefully…
The top speed is AT THAT HEIGHT not at ALL heights, nor under all conditions.
It is ACCURATE AT THAT HEIGHT THAT THE STATCARD IS BASED OFF.
Is that clear enough for you to stop being abusive?
Why does this matter? We are specifically talking about the top speed at that height right now. You’re just adding straw to your word salad now.
It is almost like the whole point is that it isn’t accurate at that altitude, again it says 955 km/h but I reached 981 km/h. Specially in the test drive which is supposed to be in the conditions in which the plane is meant to specifically achieve that top speed.
“Read this line VERY carefully”… yeah sure, but it seems you haven’t read anything at all.
Ah yes, it is only abuse when you’re the one that is being proven wrong, yes?
That’s not to mention that a metric which is just the top speed at a random altitude, without being the actual maximum speed of the vehicle, is laughably useless. Again, every half-assed excuse you’ve given just goes further and further into statcards having niche information that is not useful, which need I remind you is quite literally one of my original points about statcards.
You’re literally beyond it right now, and as I said, just because you don’t understand what’s put forth to you, it’s not abusing you… You’re trying your hardest to abuse me by ad hominem and all that random junk that you’re trying to muddy the water with but the overall facts in my posts have all been pointing to one thing, and one thing only…
The stat cards aren’t inaccurate, and any misinterpretation you are getting from them, is merely your ignorance and non-acceptance of the facts.
The people who constantly put this out, also don’t understand them.
And I’ve pointed out that in your attempt to make them as accurate as possible, the values on stat cards become more and more useless.
You say that the “Max speed” isn’t the actual max speed of the plane (even though the game says so), and that it actually is just the max speed at the specific altitude. On top of that, you say that it isn’t definite and a plane can surpass it so it ends up not even being the max speed at that altitude. You’ve said all of this just say that I’m wrong even though the Me 163 reaches a maximum speed at 4500 meters of 981 km/h, when the stat card says 955 km/h.
You’ve turned “Max speed”, which is supposed to be an extremely simple stat and somewhat useful stat, into a stat that not only isn’t the actual max speed of the plane, but also isn’t even the actual max speed at that specific altitude, just to defend their accuracy.
In your attempt to disprove me when I said that stat cards can be inaccurate/wrong, you end up pushing the argument to the other side of my point which is that they show niche, not very useful statistics. A top speed stat that just isn’t the top speed at all is so absurdly specific that it ends up being completely useless.
Edit - I want to point out this…
Yet in the next paragraph you outright call me ignorant.
You are using ad hominem as much as I am. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Besides all that, I will stand by the fact that stat cards can show inherently inaccurate stats (do keep in mind, never ONCE did I say that all stat cards are inaccurate, just that they can be inaccurate). If a plane goes 30 km/h faster than what the stat card says it should be, specifically when tested in the conditions that should give it that specific top speed (which are the conditions on the test drive), then the stat card top speed is simply inaccurate. Defending that they are somehow accurate is a very dumb hill to die on.
The Ki-94-II, for example, says that the Max speed is 720 km/h at 12 km. I tested it just now and it does over 730 km/h without WEP, and 760 km/h with WEP. That is an inaccurate max speed, period.
I’d hardly trust you to even be testing in any form against a stat card you still seem to misunderstand, and only have a will to prove me wrong at any cost…
‘period’
PS, please learn to read and comprehend… I didn’t call you ignorant, I said it’s your ignorance of the stat card and the whole mechanic…
