DM in 1.009 appreciation thread

[Finkeren]

I just wanna thank the devs for all the work they did on the DM for version 1.009. A lot has happened, that much is clear, and it seems there's more under the hood, than we saw in the changelog.

 

As primarily a VVS pilot it's a bit sad to see the paper wings of especially the 109 gone, but for realisms sake it's better that way. The overall structural strengthening has done away with the sense you sometimes got, that your plane was coming apart at the seams at the slightest provocation.

 

The increased durability of the radial engines can be felt but aren't game changers. The Fw 190 certainly feels more like a proper gunship now, not only because of the increased durability, but because all its guns now actually make a real difference.

 

The changes to the DM seems to have evened out the frequency of the different types of damage quite a bit. In my online fights tonight I witnessed (and was subject to) litterally all kinds of damage, where usually structural failure, fuel fires and coolant leaks dominated before.

 

The overall increased durability of the planes has changed the nature of the online fights already. Rather than pulling wild angles just to get that one random hit, that will put your enemy out of the fight, you now have to fight to actually get a good salvo in, if you wanna be sure of a kill. This change, I'm glad to say, has happened without removing the sense of vulnerability, that's always been the strongest point of the DM in BoS.   You're very much aware that, while the chance of a random hit taking you out has significantly decreased, a single can still cause catastrophic damage, and you can never count on your plane to just soak up the damage.

 

All in all the DM changes in 1.009 seems like nothing but great from where I'm standing. It has invigorated my interest in online fights, even though I got my donkey handed to me tonight.  Thanks to the devs from taking the time to make these changes, you took an already good DM and made it better without removing its soul.

 

Good job

Edited February 24, 2015 by Finkeren

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Does the structural damage still look the same?

[Finkeren]

Found no visual difference, but fuel leaks seem to have become less frequent (might just be luck tonight), so in general there are fewer vapor trails to be seen.

[Leaf]

The more I play 1.009, the less I like the new DM.

 

It's a fairly accepted rule of thumb that it took about 5-6 20mm shells to disable a WW2 fighter (exceptions accepted, obviously).

Pre-1.009 that was the case. Ruthless, but realistic. Now it takes about double that.

What was wrong with the calculations of structural strength before the patch for them to suddenly increase the overall strength by so much?  

I know it's hard to measure and correct models so prone to subjective analyses, but it seems to me that the devs have gone from one extreme to another. 

To illustrate, here's a test on a simulated aluminium wing:

 

and some gun camera footage showing the effects of the MG151:

 

I know it's a bit of a tasteless subject to argue about, how effective weaponry should be in killing others in a game,

but that's just my impression of the latest patch changes.

Edited February 24, 2015 by 19te.Leaf

[DD_Arthur]

 

 

It's a fairly accepted rule of thumb that it took about 5-6 20mm shells to disable a WW2 fighter

 

 

 

It is?   

[MK_RED13]

"66. Durability of VVS aircraft increased"  

[Finkeren]

I must say I disagree Leaf. I think the devs have hit a sweet spot with the DM. I don't know how you made your statistics tonight, but I definately don't recognise the picture you're painting of it taking 10-12 20mm hits to down a fighter.

 

Tonight I've made kills with a single hit and I've unloaded tons of lead into an opponent and cause him all kinds of damage, yet he still barely managed to keep his 109 in the air. Had it been pre 1.009 his wing would almost certainly have come off at some point. With the current DM there just aren't any guarantees and that's what I like about it.

[Kling]

It was always far too easy in BOS to cause massive structural failure. Im glad they seemed to finally have changed this. There really was no reason to use cannons in BOS pre latest patch as even 2 MGs would would do all the damage you needed.

 

Next step is to make fuel leaks and coolant leaks look less dense and we will have a real winner!

Maybe make coolant leaks thinner and longer would be a good start.

 

In either case, the game seems to be heading in the right direction!

[Finkeren]

"66. Durability of VVS aircraft increased"

As a VVS pilot I can assure you, it goes both ways. If anything LW pilots got most out of it, because the 109 had its papermaché wings replaced by metal ones.

There really was no reason to use cannons in BOS pre latest patch as even 2 MGs would would do all the damage you needed!

Actually I took down a 109 with just the ShKAS' on my Yak tonight. It took two good bursts, but then he was aflame and going down.

 

That's what I really like about the DM now. Everything can still damage you good, but if you want to be sure of a kill, you gotta get a good salvo in. Random hits won't do it reliably anymore.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Found no visual difference, but fuel leaks seem to have become less frequent (might just be luck tonight), so in general there are fewer vapor trails to be seen.

 

Schade. 

 

Oh well. Carry on!

Edited February 24, 2015 by 4./JG26_FalkeEins

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I must say I disagree Leaf. I think the devs have hit a sweet spot with the DM. I don't know how you made your statistics tonight, but I definately don't recognise the picture you're painting of it taking 10-12 20mm hits to down a fighter. 

I had to make over 18+ 20 mm hits to down Yak-1 just a moment ago, in whole dogfight just for one guy I spent half of my ammo. While I'm certainly not a great pilot and aerial gunnery is a thing I have to practice more, 3 of my hits landed perfectly on a wing of the Yak-1. 3 big "puffs" I saw but nothing, even aileron, flew off it.

Although 109s also seem tougher I far more appreciated the previous DM. While engines should be more durable the rest was unnecessary. 

And just to notify, I fly both sides. 

[SR-F_Winger]

And the history keeps getting rewritten. Hilarious and ridiculous. So funny.

And btw. getting hits in targets that turn on dimes and jump around like rabbits at speeds at serveral hundred kph is just making it even more stupid. And i believe without mentioning any plane names or sides i am certain EVERYONE knows what i am talking about:P

[No601_Swallow]

Schade. 

 

Oh well. Carry on!

 

"This is an English Language thread... Take these foreign words elsewhere... Blah blah blah..."

 

Petty, I know, hence, etc, etc ,,, (which is why this post is - for those with leaden ears - sarcastic - nay! Satirical!)

[Finkeren]

I had to make over 18+ 20 mm hits to down Yak-1 just a moment ago, in whole dogfight just for one guy I spent half of my ammo. While I'm certainly not a great pilot and aerial gunnery is a thing I have to practice more, 3 of my hits landed perfectly on a wing of the Yak-1. 3 big "puffs" I saw but nothing, even aileron, flew off it.

Although 109s also seem tougher I far more appreciated the previous DM. While engines should be more durable the rest was unnecessary.

And just to notify, I fly both sides.

I have not yet seen anything that match your description. If that indeed turns out to be the new 'norm' then I will propably revise my thoughts about the DM and agree, that it has gone too far.

 

However: I'm quite glad to see a significant structural strengthening of the Yak-1. It has always seemed ridiculous to me, that the Yak in BoS was the VVS fighter most prone to structural damage, when everything I've ever read about the Yak-1 describes its all-metal construction as being extremely tough compared to other VVS aircraft.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

"This is an English Language thread... Take these foreign words elsewhere... Blah blah blah..."

 

Petty, I know, hence, etc, etc ,,, (which is why this post is - for those with leaden ears - sarcastic - nay! Satirical!)

Actually when someone was speaking/typing entirely in a foreign language, I seem to remember French but might have been something else, and there were complaints by community members - Both Mods and Devs said it was perfectly acceptable in the English forum. Silly but true.

[No601_Swallow]

Nah. [Edited] was a bit - affronted - when German or French-speaking simmers deigned to use sentences in their own language on this forum (in spite of the fact that someone pointed out that he'd listed his location as "vereinigte staaten"). He was a bit snide about it, as I recall - I can't be bothered to look up his small-minded posts. But this evening I felt obliged to remind him of his blinkered and belligerent attitude. 

 

As I said upfront - it's a petty point to make - but then I couldn't believe his own pettiness at the time.

 

Just plain old hypocrisy. As old and tedious as the hills.

 

Lets be careful not to get too personal guys...

Edited February 25, 2015 by Bearcat

[Bearcat]

I have yet to fins a sim where a majority was satisfied with the FMs & DMs overall.. I don't think it will ever exist.

[unreasonable]

However: I'm quite glad to see a significant structural strengthening of the Yak-1. It has always seemed ridiculous to me, that the Yak in BoS was the VVS fighter most prone to structural damage, when everything I've ever read about the Yak-1 describes its all-metal construction as being extremely tough compared to other VVS aircraft.

 

I need some education here.

 

Taking the BoB Spitfire/Hurricane pairing, I always thought that the Hurricane was supposed to be a bit tougher to shoot down than the Spitfire precisely because the Hurri's had a mixed construction. Although undesirable because heavier than all metal, it was less dependent on the skin's structural integrity and hence less inclined to break up under stress when damaged.

 

Is that completely wrong, or is the Soviet case different in some way?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

[Edited]

Edited February 25, 2015 by Bearcat

[Wulf]

I had to make over 18+ 20 mm hits to down Yak-1 just a moment ago, in whole dogfight just for one guy I spent half of my ammo. While I'm certainly not a great pilot and aerial gunnery is a thing I have to practice more, 3 of my hits landed perfectly on a wing of the Yak-1. 3 big "puffs" I saw but nothing, even aileron, flew off it.

Although 109s also seem tougher I far more appreciated the previous DM. While engines should be more durable the rest was unnecessary. 

And just to notify, I fly both sides. 

 

 

It's not inconceivable that an aircraft, even a little fighter, could absorb that many hits -'if' the bulk of the cannon rounds that connected with the aircraft were AP or API rather than HE.  That scenario is entirely possible though a bit unlikely.  An aircraft of that size would of course have great difficulty surviving more than a handful of hits by 20 mm HE rounds. 

 

Do you know what sort of cannon rounds actually connected with the aircraft??

Edited February 25, 2015 by Wulf

[Finkeren]

I need some education here.

 

Taking the BoB Spitfire/Hurricane pairing, I always thought that the Hurricane was supposed to be a bit tougher to shoot down than the Spitfire precisely because the Hurri's had a mixed construction. Although undesirable because heavier than all metal, it was less dependent on the skin's structural integrity and hence less inclined to break up under stress when damaged.

 

Is that completely wrong, or is the Soviet case different in some way?

Actually the Hurricane construction has much in common with the Yak-1. Both had all-metal structure with a number of different materials used to cover different parts of the airframe.

 

Mixed construction (which refers only to planes where the internal structure that holds the aircraft together is made up of different materials) such as the Lavachkin designs, are generally thought to be less structurally sound, because the different tensile properties of the materials make it harder to make joints that hold under stress, where the different materials are connected or have to work together.

 

At least that's what I've read.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It's not inconceivable that an aircraft, even a little fighter, could absorb that many hits -'if' the bulk of the cannon rounds that connected with the aircraft were AP or API rather than HE.  That scenario is entirely possible though a bit unlikely.  An aircraft of that size would of course have great difficulty surviving more than a handful of hits by 20 mm HE rounds. 

 

Do you know what sort of cannon rounds actually connected with the aircraft??

That is impossible to answer as half of the rounds are AP and half are HE. I'm not sure if only HE give an effect of big explosion or maybe both. If only the HE rounds than from my perspective they were majority of hitting rounds.

But I cannot be 100% sure. This is unfortunate here

[unreasonable]

Actually the Hurricane construction has much in common with the Yak-1. Both had all-metal structure with a number of different materials used to cover different parts of the airframe.

 

Mixed construction (which refers only to planes where the internal structure that holds the aircraft together is made up of different materials) such as the Lavachkin designs, are generally thought to be less structurally sound, because the different tensile properties of the materials make it harder to make joints that hold under stress, where the different materials are connected or have to work together.

 

 

Here is what wiki has to say:

 

"Though faster and more advanced than the RAF's current front line biplane fighters, the Hurricane's constructional design was already outdated when introduced. It used the traditional Hawker construction techniques, with a Warren truss box-girder primary fuselage structure with high-tensile steel longerons and duralumin cross-bracing using mechanically fastened rather than welded joints. Over this, wooden formers and stringers carried the doped linen covering.^[15] Initially, the wing structure consisted of two steel spars, and was also fabric-covered. An all-metal, stressed-skin wing of duraluminium (a DERD specification similar to AA2024) was introduced in April 1939 and was used for all of the later marks"

 

ie Hurricane not all metal monocoque construction, Spitfire was, hence Spit lighter but more dependent on structural integrity for its strength.

 

I am not trying to turn this into a Hurri vs Spitfire debate, just interested in whether similar issues affect the Soviet crates and should this have any bearing on the DM.

[Finkeren]

Here is what wiki has to say:

 

"Though faster and more advanced than the RAF's current front line biplane fighters, the Hurricane's constructional design was already outdated when introduced. It used the traditional Hawker construction techniques, with a Warren truss box-girder primary fuselage structure with high-tensile steel longerons and duralumin cross-bracing using mechanically fastened rather than welded joints. Over this, wooden formers and stringers carried the doped linen covering.^[15] Initially, the wing structure consisted of two steel spars, and was also fabric-covered. An all-metal, stressed-skin wing of duraluminium (a DERD specification similar to AA2024) was introduced in April 1939 and was used for all of the later marks"

 

ie Hurricane not all metal monocoque construction, Spitfire was, hence Spit lighter but more dependent on structural integrity for its strength.

 

I am not trying to turn this into a Hurri vs Spitfire debate, just interested in whether similar issues affect the Soviet crates and should this have any bearing on the DM.

There is nothing incorrect about this, but it doesn't chance the fact that the internal structure of the Hurry as well as the Yak was all-metal (steel and duralumin) with mixed covering of fabric, duralumin and wood. It's true that a steel supported duralumin monoqoque fuselage is both lighter and can usually be shaped more aerodynamically efficient as seen on the Spit and 109. These are not necesarilly structurally weaker when intact, but they are more prone to damage that can severely affect structural integrity.

 

On the other hand the steel tube fuselage construction of the Hurry and Yak is extremely strong but harder to shape smoothly and somewhat heavier, but overall lighter than a wooden monoqoque seen on for instance the LaGG and MiG-3. Try looking up pictures of crashed Hurries and Yaks. You can find images of airframes, that are almost completely crushed and the wood/canvas covering burned away but with the steel fuselage structure pretty much intact.

 

The Mosquito on the other hand achieved a fairly light weight wooden construction by having half of the sandwiched wood be balsa. Balsa as you know is extremely light but also without any strength at all, you can punch a finger right through it without effort, and on the Mossie harder woods had to be used for all joints and other stress points.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

 

Next step is to make fuel leaks and coolant leaks look less dense and we will have a real winner!

Maybe make coolant leaks thinner and longer would be a good start.

 

 

Agree, last night's run online was something different, better... but I do agree on the leaks. Sould be an easier task (I think?) for the dv.

I had to make over 18+ 20 mm hits to down Yak-1 just a moment ago, in whole dogfight just for one guy I spent half of my ammo. While I'm certainly not a great pilot and aerial gunnery is a thing I have to practice more, 3 of my hits landed perfectly on a wing of the Yak-1. 3 big "puffs" I saw but nothing, even aileron, flew off it.

Although 109s also seem tougher I far more appreciated the previous DM. While engines should be more durable the rest was unnecessary. 

And just to notify, I fly both sides. 

 

 

hm interesting.. check on you convergence?

[unreasonable]

 These are not necesarilly structurally weaker when intact, but they are more prone to damage that can severely affect structural integrity....

 

 

That is what I was getting at.  In an ideal world a DM would take into account the construction type of the target aircraft rather than treating them all the same way. No idea if BoS does this now or not, and it is probably a detail.....

[Finkeren]

That is what I was getting at.  In an ideal world a DM would take into account the construction type of the target aircraft rather than treating them all the same way. No idea if BoS does this now or not, and it is probably a detail.....

 

FWIW in the Bf 109 IL-2 and LaGG I've occasionally experienced having my fuslage 'broken' i.e. bent out of shape by AAA fire - makes the plane look kinda humpbacked, totally ruins stability and makes your controls all weird (understandable because your tail is at an odd angle) and usually it's a matter of seconds before the rear fuselage comes off entirely - Never seen that happen in the Yak.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

hm interesting.. check on you convergence?

280 meters. I open fire usually being pretty close. But convergence does not have such an impact when I only use machine guns and motorkannone. I really rarely use gunpods on 109s.

[Willy__]

Tested a few hours the new patch - DM wise - and I hate it. It just bollocks the amount of cannon damage the planes (especially the yak) can take and to me it appears that the la5 is most fragile.

 

Anyways, I can see my hours in BoS going down since last patch (1.009) just because of the DM, the one and most important thing that kept me was the DM, now every plane needs a [Edited] ton of bullets to shoot down.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Bearcat
Profanity..

[Finkeren]

Tested a few hours the new patch - DM wise - and I hate it. It just bollocks the amount of cannon damage the planes (especially the yak) can take and to me it appears that the la5 is most fragile.

 

Anyways, I can see my hours in BoS going down since last patch (1.009) just because of the DM, the one and most important thing that kept me was the DM, now every plane needs a shit ton of bullets to shoot down.

 

Except you just shot me down 5 mins ago with a maximum of 3 hits   

 

I really like the fact, that noone can get kills with stray shots anymore. You have to set up for a proper salvo, but then the bugger is absolutely sure to be out of the fight.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

[Edited]

 

Hmm ...

 

Jason és más moderátorok azt mondta, hogy ez elfogadható volt írhasson egy idegen nyelv az angol lapok.

 

Kettős mérce?

[Bearcat]

 

Hmm ...

 

Jason és más moderátorok azt mondta, hogy ez elfogadható volt írhasson egy idegen nyelv az angol lapok.

 

Kettős mérce?

 

 

While it is "officially" Ok to post on this board in  other languages please bear in mind that it makes moderation a but... problematic. I cannot moderate what I cannot read.. and while there are other moderators who cruise these boards who do speak these other languages, they are not always around so please post in the appropriate forum.. particularly in threads where there is a hint of contention as I cannot tell where the thread is going...

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Didn't test the plane DM so far, because servers weren't populated, so i choose a ground attack plane (IL2).

 

But about the tank DMs..while i appreciate that it's possible to kill them with 23mm, i think it's way to easy and random. Did two runs over a column of tanks, hidden between buildings and trees, and just sprayed my 23mm cannons out, killed 3 tanks..can't be more then 2 hits each tank..one exploded almost instantly, the other 2 had black smoke and were also dead..i doubt that PanzerIV was so easy to kill, in this case it would have been absolutely useless to carry heavy bombs or/and rockets, if you can disable 5+ tanks alone with your small caliber guns..

so i definitely don't appreciate the tank DMs 

[Rama]

please bear in mind that it makes moderation a but... problematic.

These posts are pure provocations, trying to mock the moderation.

I just hid a post FalkeEins supposed to be written in French (but it was just a Google translation)

 

@FalkeEins: better stop now, please.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

But about the tank DMs..while i appreciate that it's possible to kill them with 23mm, i think it's way to easy and random. Did two runs over a column of tanks, hidden between buildings and trees, and just sprayed my 23mm cannons out, killed 3 tanks..can't be more then 2 hits each tank..one exploded almost instantly, the other 2 had black smoke and were also dead..i doubt that PanzerIV was so easy to kill, in this case it would have been absolutely useless to carry heavy bombs or/and rockets, if you can disable 5+ tanks alone with your small caliber guns..

so i definitely don't appreciate the tank DMs 

The VYa-23 BZ armour piercing incendiary projectile defeats 25mm of homogeneous armor at a distance of 400m and a striking angle of 90°.

From what I recall we have Panzer IV F2 which had 20 mm of armor  at hull  rear and 30 mm of the armor on the turret rear, the top armor was about 10-12 mm. I see no problem with the cannon to penetrate the armor and cause a damage, especially the rear is vulnerable due to engine. The turret is also a vulnerable area from the rear. 

 

Also you seem to be confusing the reality with a game. Its quite a difference to sit in real cockpit, fly the aircraft and aim ... and hold the joystick on your desk.

[Livai]

The bullets fly and hit different. I had the same convergence and I open fire the same like I did before. The structural strength increased a lot. No visual better DM damage. Now you need to snipe exact the right place to do serious damage. The DM from 1.008 was very good and how the bullets hit and fly. What the DM from 1.008 really needed was a better visual better looking DM and some fine tuning that damage what the bullets do. With fine tuning I mean there is still no difference between MG damage and Cannon damage. I remember CloD and his MGFF/M that did serious damage. Looked amazing how the parts from the plane falling off and the holes in the wings. But if you started to shot with MGs to the  plane in CloD the damage from small bullets was never visible. Now is the damage from small bullets visible in BoS but the hits from MGFF/M, MG151/15, MG151/20 are wrong made. What CloD made better and realistic that do BoS wrong. What was not visible in CloD that do BoS right. Crazy

[=AVG=Zombie]

I still cant hit sh*!...... My bullets seem to always just be a tracer..

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I notice it's a little bit harder to shoot planes down but no where near as hard as some people are saying in my own experience. I also made a load of quick one burst kills. Over all I'm very happy the planes are tougher and don't just fall apart if looked at at.

[RoteDreizehn]

I also very happy with these changes. It makes all more believable.  Agree with Finkeren and also with Superghostboy (..still no difference between MG damage and Cannon damage..)

 

Cant confirm that we need over 18+ 20 mm hits to down a Yak-1. It depends on your own Skill.

 

Thanks to the devs and Jason_Williams for extending this marvelous Simulator. Can´t await BOM and hope for clickable Pit´s in Future.

 

Keep up your good work and listen to community! There are so many People who have good know-depth.

 

I have hope again

 

Thank´s a lot!

Edited February 25, 2015 by RoteDreizehn

[Willy__]

I was very excited and looking forward to BoM.... not so much now after the changes in the DM. Maybe if they correct those damn yaks with supernatural energy capabilities, maybe....

Edited February 26, 2015 by istruba