Ehhh....i'm really dissapointed from the new flight physics. -1 reply

Please wait...

Leo-The-L337-Llama

Not Funny

50 XP

11th June 2003

0 Uploads

407 Posts

0 Threads

#21 15 years ago

Except for the Go229...those things are like mosquitoes on ritalin. On Alpenstwhatever I was gunning for a B26, and there are about 4 Go's flying around us, practically teleporting they are so fast, and I was shooting frantically at them. Finally, I just gave up and let them kill us. They are impossible to hit. Dinky .50 caliber gun against Nazi space fighters of death....why try....




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#22 15 years ago

Beast of WarYeah, i know....this isn't FH 0.5

To my utter amazement in a Spitfire it virtually refuses to do any classic aircombat manouvres that are based on a loop, inverted loop or part of a loop.

Dogfighting that way becomes restricted to nOOb circeling combat, or boom zoom on a target........no more dogfighting.....

That cannot have been the purpose ??!?

I tried other fighters, and some are able to barely pull a loop or half loop off, after half a minute pulling the stick. (even after diving first to pick up speed !! ) It will get you killed in combat. If you can't perform fluently an immelmann, that are WWI (!) aircombat manouvres in WWII aircraft, (!!) something is wrong with the (fighter) aircraft code.....

Not as worse, but still mentionable.....landing isnt any diffrent or difficult at all. I set down aircraft pretty much the usual way in any terrain that isn't heavily objected, so repairing them in the field ( or landing to cap a flag ) is still very possible. I have the idea braking on the engine reverse works even better, reducing the lenght needed to stop.

817U9FJ26LL

In map above out of bounds area is incredibly irritating too......you fly in there and get warnings every time you turn......aircraft maps should really not be that narrow.

I know it all sounds ungratefull, but i am really dissapointed in the fighter flight physics. They do not seem realistic at all, not being able to dogfight with classic aircombat manouvres.

I really do like a lot of other things i saw, i really do. I feel guilty complaining while so many other aspects ( on the ground ) are better then i ever saw in any game.

Why wasn't dogfighting properly tested ?

I can see why you aren't happy, but I actually like the new physics a lot better then before. Planes don't turn on a dime. This means positioning and strategy are a lot more important. I can turn pretty quickly in a stuka after some practice, but it still takes half a mile to turn around.

Maybe a bit more engine power on the planes would be good.




Jacobski

Sk8 or Die

50 XP

12th February 2004

0 Uploads

113 Posts

0 Threads

#23 15 years ago

Well, if you dont like it dont fly...




Heinrich Blotgrasse

XXIX Panzerkorps

50 XP

2nd November 2003

0 Uploads

186 Posts

0 Threads

#24 15 years ago
JacobskiWell, if you dont like it dont fly...

The most retarded comment of the week. :thumbsdown:




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#25 15 years ago
Heinrich BlotgrasseThe most retarded comment of the week. :thumbsdown:

Yep, that comment was pretty shallow and unhelpful.




Huffardo

Arrrr!

48,770 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,632 Posts

0 Threads

#26 15 years ago

I like the new flight system, but that's maybe because of my poor flying skills... Now the speeds are so low that even I have time to react before crashing into the ground and my main disappointment is about map sizes, on many maps it's impossible to fly without getting on the red area. The Spitfire has "a bit" slow turning, but that polish plane evens that. Shooting down Bf109s with it, flying around and around in n00b circles, is fun! (If the pilot isn't used to the new flight system...)




Sputty

Master of Kittens

50 XP

13th January 2004

0 Uploads

927 Posts

0 Threads

#27 15 years ago

Dogfighting is an odd situation now. It's easier to run and draw the plane to AAA rather than spending 10 minutes doing figure eights.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#28 15 years ago

3 votes in a row for the stupidest comment.

The fat looking radial engine Jap fighter is probably the N1K2 Shiden, Allied code name "George". Kick ass naval land based fighter with 1990hp Homare 21 radial engine and 4 x 20mm cannons and it had a reputation for eating Hellcats for breakfast as a warm up to lunch. It had special flaps that were mercury operated that dropped when the plane was in a tight turn. They worked automatically freeing the pilots workload.




DfB

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

7th March 2004

0 Uploads

9 Posts

0 Threads

#29 15 years ago

As a avid pilot in BF, im really disappointed in Fh 0.6's flight physics, the fighters handle like pregnant cows, i cant even execute a proper split-S in a bf109 from mid-high altitude.....I'm considered one of the better pilots in BF in my area and I simply feel that the flight physics have nerfed the planes. The BF engine simply does not allow flight sim like flight characteristics, planes will disappear in the fog before i can turn and chase it, ACMs are ineffective because of the huge turning radius, the size and height limitations of BF simply does not allow for a flight model like FH 0.6s'




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#30 15 years ago

I think the bombers handle like bombers but I was suprised by some other things.

The Il-2 Sturmovik was armored from small arms fire from the rear gunnner forward on the fuselage and all vital componenets were armored ore protected. Yet on Prokhovhka I was firing at a Il-2 with a mg42 from the left gate bunker and shot it down much to my suprise. I should not have been able to do that.