• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Damage modelling Vs Weapons strength

Which weapons effectiveness setting is most realistic....to you!

  • Normal

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • Strong

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Stongest

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Total voters
    8
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
womenfly2 said:
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
Click to expand...

In 1.26 we have done both.

Thanks for the feedback.

Cheers

WM
 
Geier said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I voted strong. however i like what was mentioned earlier about finding a nice happy place between strong and normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top