Yes Jackal, invincible. I heard about that dog fight with MG. Lasted whole minutes, eh? All glory is fleeting...unless you're an FH dev.
Well, I think the current physics are much better than 0.5's. The only planes in it with good flightmodels were probably 109 and Spit. In my opinion the flightmodels are mostly just fine, although im not really a pilot. I still fly occasionally, if I happen to run into a spawning plane. Having played some flight sims and BF since the release of the demo, im also a quite decent pilot. Yes, I would probably get shot down by better joystick pilots in dogfight, but most times I win.
Yep, some of the planes could be a tad more maneuverable, but I still believe no WW2 era planes could do evading maneuvers in such small space, as the planes in vanilla and FH 0.5. What did it take.. like 200 meters to make a 180° change of direction.
Ok, edit my previous reply. The Spitfire IS HORRIBLE
MkH^Yep, some of the planes could be a tad more maneuverable, but I still believe no WW2 era planes could do evading maneuvers in such small space, as the planes in vanilla and FH 0.5. What did it take.. like 200 meters to make a 180° change of direction.
No German plane could, the Yak's, La's/Lagg's, Zero, Ki-84 and the Spitfires could manouver in very tight turns, especially with flaps down but given a Fw190 A9 needs almost 2km to excecute a full 360 degree turn at full pelt (600+Kph) most of the maps are to small but there is nothing that can be done about it. Its BF. No matter what your change it retains the arcade feeling with the planes. This cannot be altered.
Andy02mOk, edit my previous reply. The Spitfire IS HORRIBLE
I hope more people actually climb in a Spitfire, Yak, Mig or FW190 before judging. These have to be totally reworked.
BF109, Zero, Wildcat and George need slightly better response to controls.....
The Hellcat, Corsair, P51 and ME262 have pretty decent flight physics.....they are ok.
Divebombers, torpedobombers and light bombers are ok.
Ju 88 need to be reworked, it is a fast divebomber ( despite the size )
Yeah, the limitations of the engines and the maps I think dictate the fact that we have arcade physics. you just can't really do much else. the game's an arcade game, put simply. You can still do historical relativity between the planes, but you just can't do realism with planes. The screen shake is a good effect, though somewhat overdone on some planes (the spitfire I was flying last night was pretty rough). The damage models are pretty good, though I find that air combat lag is a real problem. I end up wasting a LOT of ammo where I should be hitting the target, even though I'm leading him, or when I'm flying dead level and the target is too, my reticle is on the target, and I'm STILL not hitting for some reason.
But the up/down stuff is just, well, too screwed up as is. I can handle slightly less maneuverable planes on pacific maps, although I definitely noticed a problem last night on Wake -- MAN the AA is brutal on that one and the planes just aren't nimble enough to avoid it.
Anyway, that's why I'm sticking with variable physics based on the maps. A map with tons of AA should be an additional factor, given how AA is MUCH easier to use now. Not a huge factor in determining maneuverability, but a factor nonetheless.
Ultimately, you have to balance out the sides. On a map like Wake, given the Japanese's crappy equipment, the ONLY thing they have going for them to level the playing field is air power. you don't want planes to be completely dominant, but you DO want them to be a balancing factor in the map. Without air support, the Japanese can get crushed. That's not to say that, for example, a corsair shouldn't still be faster than a Zero (if that's true in real life) on that map, just that ALL the planes' maneuverability should be tweaked to allow them a fighting chance. You keep the planes constant relative to each other, but variable relative to the map's peculiarities. That's what I think would make flying really FUN in this, and it'd still maintain a semblance of realism. Or at least as much realism as you can get without sacrificing the fun.
10 minutes of trying to kill that US P47 and P38 in bocage, but they are too well armoured........only to see them, when they finally were smoking killed by vierling fire.
A lot of them crashed without reason too.....
I find it strange 20 mm cannon rounds, together with numerous mg rounds barely get a fighter smoking after several seconds of server registered hits.
Fighters have too much armour it seems. Or their gun damage was tuned down too much. More armour is usefull for bombers since they need it because they lack any other form of defence to avoid being damaged, they cannot perform air combat manouvers to get themselves out of the bullitstream.
But not for fighters wich defence is manouverebilty not to get shot....not armour. Armour is too heavy for fighters, so not much was used if at all. Fighters are not flying tanks. This way it takes too to get them out of the way and protect your ground forces by killing the enemy bombers.
Fighters fighting enemy fighters is nessesary for air supremacy, but your ground troops do not benefit from fighters dogfighting each other for ages. Ground troops can be bombed to hell and back when fighters are occupied by other fighters.
Fighters must be able kill other fighters quick, and then fight the bombers.
It is strange that a vierling can kill an enemy fighter in 2 secs, while a fighter with cannons must fire on it for 10 seconds or something like that. Bombers seem to explode even faster then fighters for that matter.
it really makes dog fighting bore you to death so you jump out and just get outposts. its chasing and chasing and then you lose them. u find them 5 minnutes later and chase them some more. then you lose them. then they are behind you. they lose you. its the same pattern. i only like how the bullets work. less lag for people with slow computers.