Mazzi like certain parts of the FH .6 flight code (stuka is great except for its cannons), but it seems like the coding got seriously screwed up for some of the planes..... the Horton Ho229 and Me262 both have 30mm cannons and could tear a sherman to shreads. but on alpenfestung i unloaded them on a sherman from every angle with no effect. NO EFFECT. thats just wrong. the PIV can be hurt by the Spits 20mm cannon and the sherman cant be hurt by a 30mm one? wtf is that?!? and what happend to the JU-87G? that was the best plane, all it needed was some stronger guns. there are some serious screw ups in flight physics and gun setups. i never recieved lag with any of the planes guns in .5 even on my MX440.
The MK108's in the ME262 will NOT take out a sherman, and for good reason. They're very low velocity HE shells. The HO229's MK108 cannons are also neither suited for tank busting, because they're the same low velocity shells with a bunch of HE. To bust an aircraft, they are perfect. Tank busting? not so much. The MK103 was much less common (or so I'm told) because they'd overheat.
Yeah, but bear in mind, the Mig-3 is probably just out of place for the BF engine. A fast plane that can't turn well at all at low altitude has no real use given the altitudes we play at in FH/BF. I mean, it'd be like DC modeling a Mig-25 Foxbat. Sure, it looks cool, but what's the point? The thing's a high-altitude bomber interceptor. It's got a pretty specifically defined mission, and ground attack ain't it. Hell, fighter interception ain't it either. That's the problem with the Mig-3 here. It just doesn't seem designed to do what FH needs it to do.
1337 MG42ManiacI don't tend to straff any ground targets apart from jeeps and fully exposed infantry as they are just to much effort to kill. I've flown the Russian planes once and never again ;)
And you still seriously want to uphold your opinion that there is nothing wrong with the FH 0.6 flight code......
If you avoid strafing ground/water targets with fighters and dive/light/torpedobombers that means their coding is not right. Watch a tv/video/DVD documentary on the real air war and see how devastating multiple mg or cannons really are in RL WWII guncamera footage.
If you avoid using certain aircraft, like Russian ones that is not for nothing.....that is because their code is not right. The Yak 9 for a fact in real life was at least equal to the BF109 when it comes to flight performance. It only was slightly less armed, with 2 x LMG and 1 x HMG. Later versions carried an extra HMG under the aircraft.
I have seen many people avoid the bad coded planes, and only use the least poor coded ones and then say nothing is wrong with FH aircraft. What are you achieving with that ??
FH is all aircraft......you deserve good planes as a Russian too, certainly if the historical correct Russian fighters had no poor performance at all ! But that goes for a lot of aircraft.......did you guys know a real Aichi Val divebomber wich dropped it's bombs almost flew like a Mitsubishi Zero fighter ? It for sure doesn't in FH.
I trust the devs will find a good flight/damage code correctly representing aircraft as they were, and what they could do in real life. It looks like the amount and type of weapons and the model and skin of an aircraft were very carefully researched, but with the actual flight code research how the real plane flew was forgotten....
Beast of War In die hard combat flight sims the pilot is the limiting factor ( blackout/redout)
Should be possible to code in the BF engine (blackout only , no negative G's)
SH uses it to limit your view when wounded , together with tunnelvision. Real nice effect.
yes thats very cool feurure in SH ..