So, what мs your opinion?

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

My wish is stop developing and start fixing the bugs and problems with current aircraft.But what i would like to see is european planes in europe and asian planes in the south pacific it is unrealistic to get shot down in the BOB by a zero. No german aircraft taking off of cv's including the ju88a1 which is just wrong.
On the question of balance vs real life i would favor balance simply because real life is not and option in fh no matter how hard you try it only causes arguments, lets face it we all have our own ideas on what real life was like .It is a matter of who's version of the facts you beleave ....I don't think the dev's are wrong i would just like to see the data and the sources for myself.

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

pissing in the wind ,no admins anywhere

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

Why would I answer your question if you haven't even read my post? The answer is to be found in my original post.

Nope, but they'd alot faster read a thread like this than a thread titled "Do something about plane xxx" etc. If you don't have an opinion, please, don't post. Posts like those are pointless.

<Z>

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

Personally I?m all for accuracy in the flight model and roll dates, I like the idea mentioned above, about opening a sticky thread for the discussion of data and maybe for gameplay changes too. There are ?real? enthusiasts here, surely such a pool of knowledge is an asset to FH, and if used to make the FM?s and DM?s as accurate as possible much of the ?uber? bullshit can be laid to rest.

Anything to improve gameplay would be good, for me, this means changes to improve the strategic aspect of the game and/or encourage teamwork. Great idea above about using troops to help attacked fields? transport full of engineers that cut the downtime?nice.

I?d rather see changes take a little time, but be correct, relating to aircraft performance. Shit, it must be fucking annoying for devs having to work on aircraft over and over to please users here! So much as I?d love to jump into a Lancaster tomorrow on the MA, I would rather have no new planes/tanks/engineers for the next 12 months in the knowledge that any up and coming updates would finalise what we have got.

Otto? I don?t think he is that bad, the last 12 buffs I have downed, (red+gold), have pinged me only and everytime I rtb. This is due to my tactics of attack, before I looked at how I engaged I died every time. The other side to that being, when I fly a buff and otto reports a con? my parachute is on and I?m halfway to the door! Most times I know I?m gonna rest in pieces. Otto over accurate? I?m really not so sure this is a big issue for FH.


I think the developers here have put in a lot of work to make FH what it is and though I have not always agreed with/enjoyed all the changes they have made, I appreciate their hard work.

I really hope this thread has some effect, it could be a healthy change for FH, WTG Z.

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

sorry zembla, it was too long , and answer for my question was almost at the end. anyway I hope devs will see this thread.
So.... most of flight models of FH planes is OK. Damage models are almost OK, but there're to many "critical hits" that blows out wing with single 12mm, or destroing whole fuselage with single 20mm.
FH also need better anti cheat protection, many players are sick of getting single-bullet pks from incredible possitions, cons appearing from nowhere etc etc.

If these 2 things would be done, FH shouldn't frustrate players more. after that we can't talk about improving FH with features like at brasilian FH

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

You have that very wrong. We have used often factory data from many countries. For german planes it has usually been german (since hard to find other detailed sources) and for british planes it has been british and so on.

Usually planes have been fixed using their original factory data if possible.



Anyway theres some examples of factories outright lieing about performance to boost their sales. (it's business and in business there are some dirty tricks). One case i know was p-39D which never met its performance figures given by bell factory. When Brits complained about this bell finally said that p-39D specs were actully ones of un-armed prototype. Similar problem was with most fighters finns received (except 109 which seemed to get better performance in colder climate)..especially fiats, curtiss hawks and hurricanes seemed to perform onsiderably worse than their manuals stated.

Though i havent heard this ever affecting decision in FH FM modeling. Factory data might be bit on the brighter side but has been used for modeling of most FH planes.

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

Don't go offtopic please illo


<Z>

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

Not true. depends on the pilot illo. also weather conditions which do not play a part in FH ex (rain ice wind shear) P-40 did well in china against a5m and a6m's hurricane could dogfight, but usually they engaged the bombers, while the even better perfoming spits took on the 109's 110's and later 190's. even the brewster did well in the hands of the finns. ( i am sure you know this since you are a finn) I am looking to purchase some actual flight manuals and handbooks to get real specs. hopfully i'll get more than a few for me birthday

but back on topic i still think original ien rps was fine so the Fh additions should be added around them.

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

Yeah...but the Brits also complained about the P38 not meeting it's specs after they ordered their lot with non counter-rotating props.

Sorry Zembla

regards, Oz

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

Well, I've been flying FH again a bit lately, so I've got an opinion again.

I don't like the current arena set-up. Too much reality pursuing. We won't have reality, never, the ways in which it's pursued here is ridiculous. These ways just benefit a small minority.

The rules I'm talking about are: the 100% rule, in order to effectively fly your plane you better not fly it with 100% full tanks when entering combat. Ergo, you need to waste fuel, you take a long route, and I frankly don't have the time for that. So I think it would be better if we'd be able to select our fuel percentage again.

Another thing is the icon range. This is less irritating than the fuel settings, but it's irritating nonetheless. I understand the idea behind it, but it's a long shot. The idea is to emulate the pilot's field of view, a pilot will only recognise a plane/side from a certain distance. The way in which this is simulated is no good IMHO. In real life a pilot has his own eyes, not a variable screen size. When he spots a plane he is most likely to be able to tell which plane it is together with it's side. So when he can identify the side, he should be able to identify the plane type. Well, to cut the chase, I liked the previous settings better. This is a long throw at realism, and I don't think the result is what it should be.

So, I choose gameplay over reality, as I simply don't have the time for reality. If we'd really go for reality 100% we wouldn't have time for our lives.

<Z>

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

I agree with the change to fuel rule. Icon range is not that bad after all. Mostly it irritates when you can't give six calls same way as before. To a lousy typer like myself it's difficult to write and fly at the same time. Usually in those situations I end up being downed.

airfax

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

The 100% fuel is indeed a step forward in realism because, if I recall correctly, no pilot during WWII chose (or was allowed to choose) to take off with less fuel than needed to fly more if situation calls for that. But we usually find combat only after few moments after take off when tanks are almost completely filled yet. So, as I said before, realism should end where gameplay interest is hurt... And different planes are affected in different ways by amount of fuel on board...

Short distance icons... I hated them the first days in Main Arena. Now I can't really say I love them but at least the give much more chance for a quick escape in a bad situation. Sometimes one deserves a bit more surprise on the enemy, especially if you worked for it.
It takes a while to to become accustomed...

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

This is a good thread to allow people to put out their opinions and show technical data which would support their opinion. Those who follow the rules of this thread are all trying to make FH better, and they should be commended.

About my opinion, I am all for the movement to revert to the 2.76-77 modeling. Here is why:

Some major issues brought up on the Forum about unrealism hindering gameplay have been:

1. Overmodeling of 109F
2. Overmodeling of KI-84
3. Overmodeling of LA5-FN
4. Undermodeling of A6M, KI-43 and KI-61
5. Overmodeling of Spitfire
6. N1K1 rolling from CV
7. Overmodeling of 190

In Warbirds 2.76-77 these issues are remedied by the following respective solutions:

1. 109F climbs well, but does not turn very well
2. KI-84 climbs well, but does not turn well
3. LA5-FN would need to conform to 2.76-77 reasonably
4. A6M, KI-43 and KI-61 all turn well in 2.76-77, but are not that fast and are not the best climbers
5. The Spitfire will out turn any German plane, but not most Japanese planes.
6. N1K1 would need to conform to 2.76-77 reasonably
7. 190 is fast and has a moderate climb rate, but does not turn well

In my opinion, if you can make the gameplay better by satisfying both red and gold needs while making it more realistic at the same time, that would be very productive for the FH.

Good thread, keep it up!

 

Re: So, what мs your opinion?

So Im downloading this new game which is so simple stoners could easily dominated it but its the same simplicity and quick mindless gameplay that has me sitting here thinking 475111 is alot of numbers, and WETF bytes are thats alot of them, shouldnt this be downloaded by now? I just want a game to fill in the times when I dont have the time to take a sortie in WB!...........Its cool, check it out guys its called continuum, subspace.