Damage modelling Vs Weapons strength

[77Scout]

I didn't vote because I agree with James 'Taffy' Jones above. The bullet characteristics should be based on real life physics, not on a vote (IMHO). If the damage being done is less than realistic then the proper solution would be to weaken the DM, but I realize this is a lot of work.

Most everything else James said I would exactly echo. More kills that are not the ubiquitous 'slow glide to the ground' would be nice, and some facility for occasional lucky quick kills, providing it is kept reasonably historical and not overly 'Hollywood'.

Great support by the OFF team, BTW. You guys deserve that 'break' Winder mentioned.

[catch22]

Normal gun setting is fine and the most realistic to me. And that's how I voted. But I agree that planes should break up more after taking considerable damage.

[rabu]

..snip
My point is that after testing in over ten QCs with Strongest bullets AND tightest grouping, and in the last test targeting one wing, one section of that wing, on a non-maneuvering 2-seater, I failed to get a single wing to detatch from any plane.

..snip

Siggi:

Are you playing with "Invincible" pilot setting? I don't think you will get any damage to your own plane with that setting. You had mentioned trying a series of steep dives and turns with no results. Try pilot never dies instead.

I've done some experimenting in QC flying the N11, N16 and N17 and I got all of them to shed a lower wing through a steep dive where I got the speed up to just under 200mph and then started seeing speed warnings and damage notices and with further loops and hard turns, finally a wing would rip off and the QC would end quickly. This has not happened with just a dive though, I had to work at it awhile with some hard maneuvering.

[DMW_NZ]

I voted strong, but in reality I guess I'm somewhere in between normal and strong.

I often feel a bit cheated that the EA hasn't gone down when I've thumped a good whack of bullets into him at 100 yards, BUT then I think, I probably should feel cheated. Haven't it be just a bit harder to knock em down than you like is probably a good compromise to make. Making something too easy is almost always a mistake for your enjoyment.

And I know my marksmanship is not yet where it should be, so being frustrated just that bit more is an inducement to me to work harder on getting closer before I shoot, and aiming with more care. And this is good.

That said, there remain times when I think, "no way, he was toast". It may just be my poor marksmanship, but it seems to me that on average, I'd expect a few more "quick" kills than I get. Not all the time, but every four or five missions, when I've clobbered an EA good and proper, I'd expect a quick flamer, or pilot death. Mostly I get the slow death where he ends up losing height, while manourveing, and eventually crashes into the ground.

But hey, I know I'm not shooting straight enough right now so it's probably just me.

But either way, when you're pitching and turning trying to shake an EA off you butt and look round and see another plane spiraling down in a plume of smoke - which I've seen a few time snow - you just think, "damn, this is good".

[cptroyce]

WM- Just a thought..is a Damage Editor ala RB3 an option with OFF? Likewise an FM Editor? Although I know that Airwrench is avaiable, is that what was used to create the flight model? If specific Editors were available, those so inclined could "tweak away" to their own sense of reality.

Regards,
Royce

[MyassisDragon]

After much experimenting, I've found that strong and tight seems most realistic to me. It makes me work for a kill but does not make it ridiculously hard. Just my two cents.

[:FI:Pike]

Dear All,
With regard to wings breaking off, I did have one incidence of an Albatros losing his lower wing. I attacked from above and to the side and got a long solid burst into the port wing which folded. He went into a spin and crashed.
regards,
Pike.

[womenfly2]

I agree with a few that stated, its not so much the gun strength, as the target boxes need to be tweaked, no matter what gun setting one selects.

... just jumping in here.

Cheers,
WF2

[Winder]

I agree with a few that stated, its not so much the gun strength, as the target boxes need to be tweaked, no matter what gun setting one selects.

... just jumping in here.

Cheers,
WF2

In 1.26 we have done both.

Thanks for the feedback.

Cheers

WM

[Interlocutor]

I went for Normal. Even if I felt that Strong "felt" more "realistic" when seen in isolation I also noted that the overall feeling was that it became too easy.

I agree with Geier, and voted Normal as well.

After a month of flying about 2 real-time hours every day at 100% realism, warping a lot to save time so those 2 hours are mostly combat, I've had my first pilot achieve both Ace status and 17+ hours. He flies N17's with the Storks, summer 1916, and the fact that he faces Fokker EIII's a lot is somewhat balanced by the fact that I'm a mediocre pilot .

So making it even easier to gain kills seems unrealistic to me, though I second many of the collateral concerns, mentioned above, about g-force maneuvers & their lack of damage effect to one's own aircraft.

[KiloWolfhelm]

I voted strong. however i like what was mentioned earlier about finding a nice happy place between strong and normal.