[QUOTE=joost1120;45410195]Why am I always against P80's and 8 F8F's in my Ki-84?[/QUOTE]
Because japan sucks. If you cant handle the amount of democracy you're getting go play with usa
Edit: Bling Bling motherfuckers
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/U3x79gg.jpg[/IMG]
So that stug is another long awaited premium tank, right?
Lets hope it doesnt have the normal stug's glorious ammo storage viewing port on its right side.
[QUOTE=Teippiman;45410634]Because japan sucks. If you cant handle the amount of democracy you're getting go play with usa
Edit: Bling Bling motherfuckers
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/U3x79gg.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
model kit for the golden 38(t) was on sale for 75% off but Maxumym didn't tell me before the offer ended :< [url]http://www.hlj.com/product/PLZ01745/Mil[/url]
[IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/111996868/2014/goldentank.JPG[/IMG]
Can someone explain to me in laymans terms how Battle rating calculates matchmaking in RB? I'm getting matched against F4F's in my He 112 A0 :v:
Also can someone explain ammo types and how they work for Germans or maybe provide a tutorial or something? Im kind of clueless on that stuff.
[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;45415271]Can someone explain to me in laymans terms how Battle rating calculates matchmaking in RB? I'm getting matched against F4F's in my He 112 A0 :v:
Also can someone explain ammo types and how they work for Germans or maybe provide a tutorial or something? Im kind of clueless on that stuff.[/QUOTE]
Battle rating for matchmaking is supposed to be 1.0 over or under your highest level in your vehicle lineup. Also the game was freaking out a few hours ago, matchmaking broke to the point I was encountering 4.0 with my max being 2.3, and you were only able to use either one plane OR one type of tank in a tank battle, instead of one plane and a type of tank. Pretty sure the server took a massive shit or something. It was working fine an hour after that though.
He-112 A0 is a seal clubbing machine so those F4F's shouldn't be much of an issue.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;45414962]model kit for the golden 38(t) was on sale for 75% off but Maxumym didn't tell me before the offer ended :< [url]http://www.hlj.com/product/PLZ01745/Mil[/url]
[IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/111996868/2014/goldentank.JPG[/IMG[/QUOTE]
I got one when it was on sale, it's waiting in my endless backlog of Gunpla for me to get to it :v:
[url]http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/159137-lassar-responds-current-and-future-aircraft-and-their-armamentdamage-models/page-8#entry2995937[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter]Hawer Hunter F1[/url] confirmed.
262 also confirmed to be properly tiered...
[QUOTE=lilguy;45417467][url]http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/159137-lassar-responds-current-and-future-aircraft-and-their-armamentdamage-models/page-8#entry2995937[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter]Hawer Hunter F1[/url] confirmed.
262 also confirmed to be properly tiered...[/QUOTE]
[quote]
[B]PTAB will be ingame.[/B]
RATO is coming
Guided ordnance (aka Fritz X) is being looked at
Spaghetti tree definitively confirmed[/quote]
Yesh. Yesh.
[QUOTE=lilguy;45417467][url]http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/159137-lassar-responds-current-and-future-aircraft-and-their-armamentdamage-models/page-8#entry2995937[/url]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter]Hawer Hunter F1[/url] confirmed.
262 also confirmed to be properly tiered...[/QUOTE]
Easymode 4 lyf
[QUOTE]The Hunter featured a nose-mounted ranging radar, providing [B]automatic ranging[/B] for aiming various armaments. Other equipment included pylon-mounted underwing external fuel tanks, a forward-facing gun camera, and large streamlined pods for collecting expended shell cases beneath the gun pack. Several variants were fitted with tail-mounted [B]brake parachutes[/B]. Typically, export Hunters would be equipped to be compatible with additional types of missiles, such as the AIM-9 [B]Sidewinder [/B]air-to-air missile and the AGM-65 [B]Maverick [/B]air-to-surface missile.
[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://devblog.warthunder.com/2014/07/17/flakpanzer-iv-ostwind/?hl=en"]New Devblog[/URL]
Flakpanzer IV “Ostwind”
[img_thumb]http://devblog.warthunder.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/agegbjji.jpg[/img_thumb]
FP post editing is dying for me, sadly. More pics at devblog.
[QUOTE=demotech;45419148][URL="http://devblog.warthunder.com/2014/07/17/flakpanzer-iv-ostwind/?hl=en"]New Devblog[/URL]
Flakpanzer IV “Ostwind”
[img_thumb]http://devblog.warthunder.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/agegbjji.jpg[/img_thumb]
FP post editing is dying for me, sadly. More pics at devblog.[/QUOTE]
What an unfortunate day to choose to show off an anti air vehicle.
[editline]17th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Oscar Lima Echo;45417959]Easymode 4 lyf[/QUOTE]
None of that will be on Hunter mk1.
[QUOTE=lilguy;45417467][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter]Hawer Hunter F1[/url] confirmed.[/QUOTE]
[b][BIG BEN BONGS INTERNALLY][/b]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45419624]
None of that will be on Hunter mk1.[/QUOTE]
it won't even have Air Breaks.
I don't even want to think about how much of a pain in the ass that thing is going to be to land.
[QUOTE=lolburst;45420064]I thought everyone knew that mashing rudder input back and forth is poor man's airbrake.[/QUOTE]
Try slipping, it should work even better.
[QUOTE=MAC21500;45420288]Try slipping, it should work even better.[/QUOTE]
Pitch for Airspeed, power(throttle) for altitude. That's the best way to land. Trust me, I [b]am[/b] a pilot. Not just in War Thunder :v:
It doesn't make sense at first, but its the best way to establish a glide to landing before the flare. Ensuring you easily maintain the approach slope.
Sometimes I wish War Thunder would add [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_approach_slope_indicator]slope indicators[/url], not that they existed in WW2, but it would definitely help new pilots learn to land.
During your pre-landing flare (that moment when you pull the nose up to ease the aircraft onto the runway) cut throttle power to 0, focus on the main gear. When the wheels touch the ground, shut down the engine and then (depending on the aircraft) sway the tail Left-Right-Left over and over (but be gentle, too much stress can shred the gear). It will increase the 'distance' you need to traverse before you reach the end of the runway and enable you to slow down in a shorter overall runway distance.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/n2cyd7w.jpg[/img]
Just some thoughts. Hope it helps.
[b]Edit:[/b]
mm-MM! That JPEG resolution!
[QUOTE=Keys;45421027]Pitch for Airspeed, power(throttle) for altitude. That's the best way to land. Trust me, I [b]am[/b] a pilot. Not just in War Thunder :v:
It doesn't make sense at first, but its the best way to establish a glide to landing before the flare. Ensuring you easily maintain the approach slope.
Sometimes I wish War Thunder would add [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_approach_slope_indicator]slope indicators[/url], not that they existed in WW2, but it would definitely help new pilots learn to land.
During your pre-landing flare (that moment when you pull the nose up to ease the aircraft onto the runway) cut throttle power to 0, focus on the main gear. When the wheels touch the ground, shut down the engine and then (depending on the aircraft) sway the tail Left-Right-Left over and over (but be gentle, too much stress can shred the gear). It will increase the 'distance' you need to traverse before you reach the end of the runway and enable you to slow down in a shorter overall runway distance.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/n2cyd7w.jpg[/img]
Just some thoughts. Hope it helps.
[b]Edit:[/b]
mm-MM! That JPEG resolution![/QUOTE]
I used to be a pilot...
I sometimes do rectangular traffic pattern landings in game :V
Anyone want to play tonks with me? I'm trying to get the 37mm flak cannon for the germany
[QUOTE=Keys;45421027]Pitch for Airspeed, power(throttle) for altitude. That's the best way to land. Trust me, I [b]am[/b] a pilot. Not just in War Thunder :v:
It doesn't make sense at first, but its the best way to establish a glide to landing before the flare. Ensuring you easily maintain the approach slope.
Sometimes I wish War Thunder would add [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_approach_slope_indicator]slope indicators[/url], not that they existed in WW2, but it would definitely help new pilots learn to land.
During your pre-landing flare (that moment when you pull the nose up to ease the aircraft onto the runway) cut throttle power to 0, focus on the main gear. When the wheels touch the ground, shut down the engine and then (depending on the aircraft) sway the tail Left-Right-Left over and over (but be gentle, too much stress can shred the gear). It will increase the 'distance' you need to traverse before you reach the end of the runway and enable you to slow down in a shorter overall runway distance.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/n2cyd7w.jpg[/img]
Just some thoughts. Hope it helps.
[b]Edit:[/b]
mm-MM! That JPEG resolution![/QUOTE]
Funny how many of those things I do subcosciously. I mean, it seems like you just need some common sense to figure some of the "tricks" by yourself.
[QUOTE=goon165;45419928]it won't even have Air Breaks.[/QUOTE]
Wrong~
[quote]
[URL="http://www.airvectors.net/avhunt_1.html#m1"]The first 20 F.1s built were basically trials and evaluation machines. They weren't manufactured to an entirely uniform specification, and they were modified in various different ways to test out new features
Another issue was that the Hunter originally used split flaps for air brakes, but that led to nasty pitch-down problems, as did air brakes along each side of the rear fuselage. A ventral airbrake was introduced in the 19th F.1 that was much more satisfactory -- except for the fact that it couldn't be used on landings, and so it was automatically disabled when the landing gear were extended.[/URL][/quote]
[QUOTE=BananaMed;45421418]subcosciously[/QUOTE]
wat
But yeah, a lot of completely basic stuff is simply discovered by trial and error because you're basically just given a plane and told to kill.
[B]ZSU-57-2 and Flakpanzer V Coelian now in CDK.
IT'S HAPPENING.[/B]
[sp]It's only strings at this time[/sp]
[t]http://www.warlordgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Flakpanzer-V-Coelian-600x440.jpg[/t]
[t]http://www.armyrecognition.com/Russe/vehicule_artillerie/ZSU-57-2/ZSU-57-2_1.jpg[/t]
Flakpanzer V Coelian also had a version with quad MG 151/20s and another with a single 55mm gun.
Does this mean we'll get more failed prototypes like the Maus and Is7 in the future?
And again, they need to remove the tier locking. Let people specialize instead of forcing them to be diverse.
[QUOTE=Oscar Lima Echo;45423984]Does this mean we'll get more failed prototypes like the Maus and Is7 in the future?
And again, they need to remove the tier locking. Let people specialize instead of forcing them to be diverse.[/QUOTE]
I agree, you shouldn't be forced to play other vehicles if you want to get the next tier, because some players just want to play a certain type of vehicle and don't want to be forced to play other ones.
To tell you the truth, I'm kind of neutral when it comes to paper designs and prototypes as long as they don't crazy with them like World of Tanks has where only 5% to 10% of the vehicles in the game were even built.
[QUOTE=Oscar Lima Echo;45423984]Does this mean we'll get more failed prototypes like the Maus and Is7 in the future?[/QUOTE]
Both of them have really low priority and chance. Developers said it was both to distance themselves from the other game and because both would be excruciatingly boring to fight. IS-7 with extreme frontal magic despite being a relatively failed design, and Maus being slow as shit and neigh indestructible aside from attackers/bombers and 90 degree+ flanking.
I'm fine with Prototypes/Paper being there to fill a void that's obviously going to be something they're aiming for. I'm not sure the King Tiger with a 105 was the best choice, along with Panther II, but it was their idea of a match for the T-54 and IS-4 for the time being. I can't comment because I can't be assed with tanks past III. The Flakpanzer V and ZSU-57-2 are there as a high-tier AAA for the time being and little else. Also to spoil Russia a bit since it's mobile AAA is a bit thin compared to the oodles und oodles of Flak-Cannons shoved on various chassis.
Unfortunately, the ZSU was in development for a long time, so it's fine on the cut-off date; by the T249 with a six-barreled 37mm gatling cannon comes in way too late at 1956.
[t]http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/T249%20Vigilante%20IMG_1130.jpg[/t]
They could just include a prototype tier, so they can add all the broken and stupid shit people want with no effect to anyone who doesn't want to end up playing a slightly better world of tanks.
If the main difference you see between WoT and WT is prevalence of prototypes in one, you are probably quite clueless about both games.
I would prefer to have have the WoT vehicular library but WT is a better game in many far more important aspects and I am sticking to it for that reason.
