Jump to content

Dr Zaius

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dr Zaius

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/01/1973

Personal Information

  • Location
    England, UK
  • Website

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Why was it changed in the first place? If its because of a real life change in ammo usage then surely it would have been better to have both types available in the load out screen and give the user an additional option rather than force them to use whats historically correct, I know this is a simulation and things should be kept as real as possible but what if you want to recreate ops at a time period when API was the norm?
  2. I don't think TP rounds are as accurate and I believe that's what we're seeing in the original video + a slightly further engagement range - TP muzzle velocities are generally quicker and I think that's due to them being a lighter (cheaper) round, in particular when compared to denser/heavier/slower rounds like API (DU/tungsten). In terms of it not making sense to train with a round that varies so much in accuracy I don't think there's much you can do about it, the pilot still gets to employ the gun against a target, which is invaluable and any inaccuracies due to the nature of ammo being used
  3. This is a good watch and gives you some sort of idea how accurate the gun was in many of the tests carried out:
  4. @BIGNEWYI hope you don’t mind me asking like this but if a 3rd party developer cannot fix a problem because its deemed to be an ‘ED issue’ then is it down to the developer to report the issue back to you guys or the user?
  5. This argument has pretty much come full circle - you've defended how you go about categorising posts then submitted to creating an additional [Future Implementations] folder that will help separate out the posts that ordinarily would be marked as [Resolved]. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet but I did suggest this a while back! If its users opinions are what you hold dear then why not poll the forum to really see how people feel about its current implementation?
  6. I thought it looked a little on the flat side, appreciate they wanted to show the map off at high altitude as thats the best way to get sense of scale but the low down stuff looked overly flat to me - perhaps it was the locations they chose to tease us with?
  7. Surely then this would be easily fixed by creating different folders for both [Resolved] and [Future Implementation] and separate the categories from one another, unless of course your suggesting there’s something more sinister at play here? I say this because I’ve encountered a level of misunderstanding from Razbam recently that was so frustrating I started to believe it a deliberate ploy to ignore the bug I was trying to report - without a proper understanding of what the issue was my post was marked up as [User Error] and moved to [Resolved] where further dialog all but ceased a
  8. Yeah I think the gun does need a little spread, shame this clip doesn't clearly show the engagment range.
  9. Its a shame the APU can’t be spun up to actuate the gun, not sure I’ll ever get used to diving towards the ground with power.
  10. Having a working manual would prevent this sort of thing, you need perseverance to fly this module you really do.
  11. I did look at your suggested review and can confirm that it has nothing to do with the problem we're having, if you don't understand how I've explained then please read the posts from both @dorianR666 and @lllcky In short it doesn't matter if you have a TPOD fitted or not and you could read the new HTS mode switch logic until the cows come home but if you try to use a keyboard press for INS slew (we don't all own a HOTAS) then that axis becomes inverted.
  12. Hey @RAZBAM_ELMO, can we get a reply to this please, any reply will do - thanks
  13. Interesting, it looks like the squeeze of the gun trigger sets a mark point for the targeting pod!
  • Create New...