Damage modelling Vs Weapons strength

[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.