Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

68 Excellent

About BCI-Nazgul

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

249 profile views
  1. It sure looks like all that real life gun cam footage we see. Flashes on the target and bad things happening. It might be a little OP, but I think it's closer the truth than the current situation by far.
  2. OK, as far as I'm concerned the horse isn't dead until the devs say it's dead. 😁 But, here are some things we found about the aero damage that don't seem right... Yes, we both agree that the 13mm HE is OP. But, here's my take on the AP aero stuff. From your tests and ours we both found that it takes MANY hits in the same area (you call them hit boxes) with AP to cause a significant speed loss and/or loss of handling. I think you said "you have to get to 'level two' damage before aero effects show up." In reality ANY hole in a wing is going to cause a slight speed loss through lower lift and drag. Bullet holes in metal are indented on the side that is struck and jagged on exit side. Both are not good for smooth air flow over the surface. The fact that the aero damage is quantized by the game is problematic. I also do not believe that aero damage is additive across the whole airframe. In other words, let's say I get 10 hits on the right wing, 3 on the left and 7 on the fuselage. From what it appears since none of the individual "hit boxes" has reached "level two" the plane continues to fly normally even though it's been hit by a total of 20 rounds just not all in the same area. In real life this would add a lot of drag to the plane, but in IL2 it does nothing really. In WWII it was found that just polishing a plane could add 5 or 10 mph to it's top speed, just imagine what a bunch of jagged .5" or even .303 holes would take away from it's top speed. The other thing we found is that the aero damage appears to have an upper limit for speed loss. One 20mm or 13mm hit to a wing causes a lot of speed loss, but more after that do not further reduce the speed. This all or nothing aero damage is also not right. The plane should simply become slower and slower until it simply can't stay airborne. Again this more of a penalty for AP ammo because numerous smaller hits aren't going to count for much past a certain point (even if the aero damage worked correctly.) Granted the plane will probably die from something else first, but with AP, barring a fire or PK, it's all the hope you've got in the current situation. I really don't know how the .303 armed Hurricane (which should absolutely riddle a plane with small holes) is going to be able to win any fights under the current DM and maybe that's our best hope for the devs to fix this situation.
  3. I think the DM does not handle the effects of AP correctly either through lack of complexity and/or how it handles penetration of multiple parts of the plane. We know for sure the aero effects are way below par.
  4. Thank you for doing the digging. I'm not sure that these numbers tell us anything conclusive. The number of hits to kill seems to line up with the tests and historical average, but the average time until the target went down of 96 seconds is troubling. That could be time where the enemy was still killing people. 96 secs is a long time in a dogfight. It might be good to know the avg. time from first hit to kill for a plane with HE ammo. I wish the stats could give us more info. These stats are very unusual. The gunnery accuracy is about 20x better than normal and the number of hits is off the charts. Are you sure there isn't a bug somewhere in your stat gathering.?
  5. I have to give that one a big DUH! LOL Where did you hear that?
  6. What would really informative is see what % of targets went down in a very short timeframe (like 10-15 secs and 1 to 2 minutes) and how many rounds it took. That would tell us very roughly effectiveness of HMG vs. other weapons. You could compile those stats for the various planes. Like Mustangs got quick kills with about 30 hits and 109s with 10 or whatever. I believe you might also be able to get the total rounds fired (hits and misses.) I don't know if there's a way to do that, but it sure would be useful.
  7. All of these are excellent points. IMO the only way to really do a good job of analyzing the DM and guns would be to do some kind of detailed super computer simulation that tracked aircraft design, material strengths, structures, chemical effects (explosions, fires, etc...), fragment trajectories and projectile trajectories. You could run that with all the planes and weapons in the game at a bunch of ranges and angles. With that info it would be possible to come up with some probability tables for damage effects in the game. While I'm sure that 1C has excellent programmers and people that know all about aeronautics I'm pretty sure the best they can do with DM and guns is a "best guess" with knowledge they have and that has been published. You'll certainly never find any comprehensive terminal ballistics info in WW II documents because the means simply didn't exist to fire every possible weapon at every angle, speed, range, etc... at every possible target to see what exactly could happen. Even the study that UnReasonable has quoted is very limited in both targets and weapons.
  8. Those stats from Combat Box aren't too useful. What they don't tell you is who won the fight. A kill credit after you're dead is a common thing in Combat Box IIRC. I'm not sure how IL2 or Combat Box determines a kill exactly, but I do know that a crash landing way after the fact is credited as a kill often even if your opponent also died. And another pilot may well have finished the person that you damaged but didn't immediately kill. They could get an assist and it's possible that you would not have gotten a kill without their help after the initial fighting. The reason I'm pointing this out is that the main complaint about the .50s is that they allow your opponent to continue fighting even after you light them up really well. You might get a credit, but its not too satisfying if you're already dead or crashed.
  9. You know they are aware for sure? "Creating worse issues"? How could that be? Sure there might be a play balance problem that would require the re-examination of their offline campaigns, but that's not as big a problem as the balance we have now with bad guns in the American fighters. Also, there would be certainly be no harm in simply responding with "We see the problem, but it will require a lot of work to fix it." or "Our new DM updates will fix this when they are released." They managed to get the HE shells working (maybe too well) they can certainly get the API working and/or determine if something else is going on with AP rounds or multiplayer shooting. I'd be happy with just switching the warheads to Russian/German style HE to imitate API. That certainly wouldn't require much coding. In fact, I believe it just requires a change in a parameter file that take all of five minutes or less.
  10. I third that. 😀 This exactly the problem. You fire and get hits, but the enemy suffers no loss of capability. Unless you get an immediate kill (PK, or fire) they often turn around and kill you in-spite of the rounds you've put into them. This has happened to me more times than I can count. From what I can tell a single hit with any kind of HE round even .50 HE immediately makes your plane combat ineffective while countless AP hits do nothing to render the enemy disabled. They can be leaking every fluid and have holes every where, but they are still pretty much good to go for many minutes. My friend says he only has fun playing the Axis or Russians now because the US MG armed fighters do nothing most of the time. As far as the devs not responding, that's true. They have to know about this by now and some of the official "testers" have stated that they do. My last comment about lack of communication about this was deleted by the admins, so don't expect this post to be here for long.
  11. No, it's not against. All I'm saying is that 2 seconds where you can pump rounds into a target that cooperatively stays in your sights is not likely in MP. I'm going to assume that even the greenest pilot will do something to avoid that MP or "real life". If you give 2 seconds of laid on fire to ANY weapon/plane in the game the target is going to go down 90% of the time. That's 70 hits of .50 AP or whatever.
  12. That's why you don't have a problem. It's impossible (nearly) to have 2 seconds of time on target in multiplayer. No one is going to let you do that if they're even half awake.
  13. "Total losses, and start and end dates for recorded losses, vary for both sides. Luftwaffe losses from 10 July to 30 October 1940 total 1,977 aircraft, including 243 twin <Me: we can assume these were 110's> - and 569 single-engined fighters, 822 bombers and 343 non-combat types." - Hans Ring, "Die Luftschlacht über England 1940", Luftfahrt international Ausgabe 12, 1980 p.580 Obviously, .303s could shoot down bombers and in large numbers. In fact, the count between fighters and bomber is nearly 50/50. We can also assume that some number of German losses were to AA guns.
  14. Oh please, that's not what I'm saying that all. I was merely pointing out that if planes armed with 8 x .303s were sufficient to shoot down a good portion of the German air force including two engine bombers than certainly 6 or 8 x .50s armed planes should be more than enough for the job, but in this game they are not. The British would have lost BOB if the AP armed guns work like they do here. Hopefully, you can understand now.
  15. Yet, the British somehow managed to win the Battle of Britain with .303 x 8 armed planes in what arguably could be called an equal or even disadvantaged fight. They were shooting at essentially the same planes US players fight against in multiplayer (except for the 190.) Clearly, the US .50s even with AP only are not right.
  • Create New...