First off has anyone flown the Mosquito with the new FM yet? The elevator is far more positive now. If you liked the old Mosquito (tied with the Hornet for being the most criminally underused aircraft) Definitely give it another go. Gaijin has also updated the cockpit and it’s looking very sharp it must be said.
That said I haven’t checked if the fuel gauges work yet… they have a habit of giving us new cockpits and breaking the fuel gauge.
On the topic of fuel why have you given us a fuel slider if I still can’t choose less than 45 minutes of fuel?? You might as well have kept the old system.
They like to “balance” propeller aircraft with fuel loads. Having min fuel as a set percentage of the total fuel capacity is there to penalise planes with long endurance/range like the P-51. On the other hand point interceptors like the Yak3U get to fight in optimum configuration/weight for air combat. RussianBias™
I didn’t massively notice it to be fair. But then I mainly fly the skeeter in straight lines more than dogfighting. There’s nothing like having a 109 thinking he has an easy kill while you disappear into the distance.
On the topic of fuel why have you given us a fuel slider if I still can’t choose less than 45 minutes of fuel?? You might as well have kept the old system.
To give planes with very low minimum fuel, but very high presets (EG, Sabres with either 7 or 20 minutes of fuel) more flexibility.
Gaijin is keeping the 30% fuel minimum across all aircraft for now. I do wish they’d allow fighters to take less than 30%.
If I interpreted it right, he meant that long range escort fighters, since they can carry more fuel total due to their long range, are at a disadvantage to short range interceptors, which don’t have the same fuel capacity. Both have a minimum of 30% fuel, but 30% of 1,020L (P-51D) is way bigger than 30% of 400L (Yak-9U), so the one that can carry less fuel in total has weight savings due to the way minimum fuel is calculated.
This isn’t a “Russian Bias” thing though, he’s just complaining about it. The same thing happens with the Spitfire, with a fuel load of 322L (Spitfire Mk IX, early versions). That is just barely over 25% of the fuel of the P-51D. None of this accounts for external fuel tanks, either.
So long range escort fighters are “penalized” because they’re forced to carry more fuel, and thus are heavier, than their short range counterparts. So the long range fighters have a disadvantage because they are forced to be heavier than the short range ones.
So long range escort fighters are “penalized” because they’re forced to carry more fuel, and thus are heavier, than their short range counterparts. So the long range fighters have a disadvantage because they are forced to be heavier than the short range ones.
American props and some German ones, generally. Fighters should not be penalized like this. Bombers and strike planes I understand.
I mean, it’s like most of their “gameplay” decisions. They choose the stuff that will naturally be skewed towards Russia. Just a few examples:
APHE massively overperforming → basically Russia’s main shell till APFSDS
Solid shot rounds, APDS, and HESH all largely underperforming → I don’t know of any Russian tanks that depend on these rounds
ERA being exceptionally trolly → Russia uses ERA more than most, and gets access to the best
Strela & Pantsir speak for themselves
Su-25 damage model and payloads compared to A-10 damage model and payloads
Vikhr all-around performance compared to Hellfires
Russia having almost no long range/heavily fueled fighters is also just another coincidence. Virtually their entire propeller fighter tree is sub 15 minutes on min fuel…
Allow me to add an example: Russia ranks 1 through 5 gets stock APHE and solid shot as a grindable shell, US tanks in US tree and foreign trees gets stock solid shot and grindable APHE.
Well yeah but I meant that this specifically wasn’t. I’m aware of all the other ones, like the plane sniping Vikhirs or the void plates on the IS-3/6 and Object 279, among others, but I was referring specifically to the fuel of fighters.
That is not bias because there are other countries that get the same thing, and I gave you an example with Britain. It’s just a consequence of not having to fly very far. Yes it is a coincidence but I don’t think its bias like the rest of the “coincidences”
People can just as easily make a list of things that bias the game in favor of the US side; specifically the Air Tech Tree.
A lot of US planes are at horrendously low battle ratings in Air RB. (Since you don’t play Sim)
P-39N at 3.0 BR.
XP-50 having better performance than Bf.109 F-4 and having an air-spawn.
P-51C at 3.7BR
F4U-4 at 4.3 BR.
The XP-55 casually pulling 14G.
P-51H at 6.3 BR.
There are some forms of “bias” they don’t mind sharing with multiple nations, like the effectiveness of APHE for example.
Maybe I’m being a bit too conspiratorial. But I’m pretty confident that if Russia had an abundance of high performance fighters with very long ranges, they would be more flexible with the minimum fuel figure. I don’t think anything should be forced to take more than 20 minutes, when matches aren’t even that long.
Because US air suffers from the same issue as German ground. New players flock to that tech tree, and when you have a higher proportion of inexperienced players in every match, you’re bound to end up with the performance figures being dragged down and things being undertiered. That’s an inherent flaw of GJN’s system, not strictly bias.
@dannaryan I think the Mosquito is great. the fact that it wobbles a bit makes it feel like sim. I’ve only recently started flying the Mosquito and it’s a lot of fun.
I hope a more powerful N.F. Nightfighter version will be added. and a B. Bomber version with a glazed nose.