12 replies to this topic

[TornadoADV]

Why doesn't it have the correct armament of 2 MGs and 2 Cannons?

[mad_dog_morgan]

because if you check Wikipedia some bright spark in the U.S.A.A.C decided to replace the 20's with fiddies during development  

Edited by mad_dog_morgan, 25 December 2018 - 05:09 PM.

[Cenotaph]

Because, WG...                  

[TornadoADV]

I think there should be an option to decide what loadout we want on it. The later quad fifties or the initial dual fifties and dual twenties.

[J311yfish]

TornadoADV, on 25 December 2018 - 11:48 AM, said:

Why doesn't it have the correct armament of 2 MGs and 2 Cannons?

 

If you read the development history (not an unattributed Wikipedia entry), you will find the answer to your question.

[TornadoADV]

J311yfish, on 25 December 2018 - 11:31 AM, said:

 

If you read the development history (not an unattributed Wikipedia entry), you will find the answer to your question.

 

I know, this isn't a question of history, but a question of game design.

[Xr901]

Because the prototype that was built had .50s, and I assume that in the interests of game balance the quad .50s were chosen to balance its other performance characteristics. Give up some turn time, or speed, and maybe it could have the 20mm's.

Based on the same innitial premise we should ask why the SE 100 doesn't have the 8 forward firing 20mms and 2 rearward firing ones of the planned production version instead of the 4+1 of the prototype.

Edited by DisgruntledSnowman901, 25 December 2018 - 11:54 PM.

[Deltavee]

TornadoADV, on 25 December 2018 - 12:12 PM, said:

I think there should be an option to decide what loadout we want on it. The later quad fifties or the initial dual fifties and dual twenties.

 

That would be optimum.  I second the motion.

[J311yfish]

The funny thing is that this request is for a canard aircraft ([edited]-backwards), and further that it happens to be appropriately named ([edited]-ender).

 

If you are relying on Wikipedia to be: 1) a primary source; 2) a reliable source; then you are absolutely flying backwards.

 

Notice that the context in which 20mm cannons are discussed is garbled and not attributed to any of the sources later listed.

 

If I had to guess -- and I don't have to, because the burden of proof is not on me -- the unattributed source is probably that by Jenkins or Balzer.  It is certainly not the source by Bowers or Green.

 

In any case, any hope for 20mm cannons probably died with the delay and cancellation of the Pratt & Whitney X-1800 engine.  Armament (and armament weight) is ultimately a function of engine power -- there is no free lunch.

 

If you feel that strongly about it, why don't you go grab the appropriate information to justify a claim that it should be modified?

 

As for game balance/design -- I have nothing to say about that -- except that, I'll have the XP-55 in about a week, and I am looking forward to testing it. 

[wylleEcoyote]

Given the rest of the plane's parameters ( more turny than a zero, faster than a thud and all of that in a plane that flies high as a Mustang for a trade off in boost and hitpoints); if it had a 20mm cannon, it would be So OverPowered that even Spitfire DB pilots would cry.

In truth the entire line of american fighters with it's 'Sustained DPM meta' sacrifices that initial alpha damage and crit chance you get from cannons
... to be just enough better at literally everything else that matters to the plane.

From Hitpoints, to agility, to climb rate, and engine performance to dpm from an a bunch of MaDauce with a never ending supply of high caliber DakkaDakka. So much that even an ork would be (mostly) satisfied

And for every one that is gonna say "but historically .50's were so awesome..."
Stop typing.
If you want "historically accurate 50's"(either with damage or range or accuracy or even all three) in this game;
then expect significant cool down and/or RoF nerfs to keep the DPM relatively unchanged.

Edited by wylleEcoyote, 26 December 2018 - 11:19 PM.

[ShoeButton]

Got my XP-55 last night (this AM) and as yet only have some basic mods on it.

Flown two missions in her at this point...

 

So far I'm Digging It... She's a Finesse Fighter.

Get in Close to your Target and Burn Em Down.

While you're At It, keep one eye on the Map and don't ignore Anyone angling on you.

Try not to Jack yourself right into the Middle of a Furball.

And Repair Often when available...

 

Don't expect to Burn Down the World in the XP-55, but she'll Get The Job Done.

 

-ShoeButton

[J311yfish]

XP-55 closely resembles the Ki-61:

 

 

and when built in a similar manner (pilot skills + relevant equipment), XP-55 meets or exceeds the Ki-61 in every aspect except Stall Speed and Armament.

 

Going further, though, it could be easily argued that 4x12.7mm all mounted in the nose (XP-55) are more valuable for accuracy than 2x12.7mm synchronized + 2x20mm in the wings (Ki-61); in which case, the XP-55 exceeds Ki-61 in every aspect but Stall Speed.

Edited by J311yfish, 31 December 2018 - 10:26 PM.

[Azis_]

I know this is irrelevant as far as the game model, but one characteristic of the canard is that the main wing will not stall. The canard will stall first pitching the plane down increasing lift again.

One of the main reasons Burt Rutan developed it.