Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About Toppaso

  • Rank
  1. Not not a VR user myself, so I can't really comment on the fix. but impressed with the pacing of the updates. Especially in these complicated times. Just wanted to say a big thank you for all the sheer passion you put into this. Take care of yourselves and have some rest.
  2. Great interview @ShamrockOneFive, a couple of thoughts: 1) Air Marshal. NOW I'm really excited about this. I wasn't around when the idea was first mentioned to the community, so I never really understood what it implied. But listening to Jason, THIS is what the multiplayer community NEEDS. More cooperation and coordination between players, perhaps combined with easier situation/contact report and assignment of objectives. This could bring the MP experience to the next level, expecially for the casual flyers that don't feel like joining discord channels or virtual squadrons. A true reproduction of WWII tactical air/ground warfare instead of a "plane team deathmatch" with points. REALLY hope this feature makes it through! 2) Pacific possibly being a separate product (if it ever comes) This kinda disappointed me a bit to be honest. I know it's a bit childish and that there might be technical constraints that do not make it possible, but i really think the strength of old IL-2 1946 was being able to span so many different scenarios while keeping the community under a single umbrella. Even people who might initially not be interested in a particular scenario can, with time, grow interested and decide to try it out while staying in the same "enviroment". I'm afraid that splitting an already small community between two games is going to hurt the MP scene, in particular. Anyway I hope that if they decide to go with the pacific they'll try to build it into the IL2:GB serie, if possible. All in all some great things to look forward to!
  3. Also to me the MG151/20 sounds slower firing than the MK108, particularly in external view. As a general comment, after being used to the MK108 in Il-2 1946, it feels a bit underwhelming here both in terms of sound and "shaking" effect. But i don't know which one is more realistic.
  4. Well I know, and I wont complain when i get shot down i promise 😀 The point is that when you're getting shot at, it's almost impossible to judge how much you've been hit and where. In this sense, the shooter has a better feedback of the hits and locations. If I put 3 37mm AP rounds in the nacelle of an A20 from 80m, I have a pretty solid basis to think that the majority of those rounds should have reached the engine. Dont get me wrong i like how engine damage is now, before the engine/oil DM seemed like an ON/OFF switch, If you got hit, you were losing your engine in a time variable from 30 to 1 second. Now the severity of oil or coolant leaks are taken into account which results in more varied and realistics failure modes and timings. Its the specific "damage potential" of some AP rounds when clearly hitting vital components that I think could be looked into. And only a slight adjustments might be needed.
  5. Back on the topic, this is not specifically about the MC202 12.7 armament I think, rather about the general effectiveness of AP rounds. It is a fact that AP rounds effectiveness in damaging Engines/systems has been noticeably reduced since the last patch. I don't know if it is because Engine were thoughened up, or if the airframe DM makes it more difficult for the bullet to pass through various elements. Two points should be considered before making any claims: 1) We don't have a consistent method to test and evaluate the results. We dont actually know how many times we hit and what part, taking into accounts penetrations/deviations of the bullets etc, and if we test in SP we have almost no feedback on the "invisible damage" we dealt such as pilot injury, power loss, control authority loss and so on. This makes evaluating the damage very difficult. The old IL-2 had a mode that would let you see registered projectile impacts as vectors; I guess we dont have anything like that, do we? 2) As of now we probably have an "interim" DM. In the DD explaining the Airframe DM, the devs said they changed the engine DM but that there was still room for improvement, that they were going to look at fuel systems (i.e. fires) next and possibly in the future some other systems DM (electrical? hydraulics?). These are all parts of DM that are the main victims of AP rounds. Perhaps now we transitioned to a more advanced DM but there is a general lack of stuff to damage. With that said, overall my personal feeling (as I dont have any solid data, see point number 1) is that while before the AP rounds felt too reliable in causing damage, now they might be a tad undermodeled. Before engines stoppages were extremely frequent and "immediate". If you were leaking oil you had 30 seconds left, thats it. Now the damage feels more realistic as depending on the severity you might be able to make it home or reach friendly territory. When you hit someone with AP rounds now, you have to look for cues to assess the damage. If you dont hit vital parts you might have caused nothing at all. This feels a lot more realistic and believable. Still, I feel that the amount of AP rounds the engines can eat up now before obvious and catastrophic damage is wrong. Try the following: Switch on invulnerability and infinite ammo; park yourself behind an AI bomber and fire at point blank range at engine nacelles (with i presume little between your rounds and the engine itself), with 12.7mm (P39), 20mm (La-5) and 37 mm (P-39) AP rounds, the amount of rounds that are needed to cause an engine stop feels off to me. But there is still no denying that the new DM is an improvement and a step in the right direction.
  6. Yes, after 4.005 these are more or less my feelings too. Just a tip: if you try the 13mm MG 131 youll see some effective HE damage as well. Now the 12.7 breda HE round had more or less half the explosive of the german MG 131 HE round so it makes sense to be much less effective. About the general effectiveness of 12mm AP, they are ceirtainly less effective and reliable in dealing damage now than they were before. And unfourtunately for my beloved MC 202, having just 2 HMG means it really felt the impact of the change. However I suspect this has to do with the fact that engine DM was also changed (i.e. made thougher) in the last patch, rather than the more complex changes to airframe DM. Getting critical and immediate engine damage is just harder'. They said that a more complete engine and fuel DM is coming in the future, so we'll see.
  7. Yes, I fully expect HE to be vastly superior to AP in damaging an unarmored thin-walled alluminum structure such as an airplane. Everyone in his right mind would choose HE over AP if he knows he is going to be shooting planes and not tanks; in this sense we certainly have a better representation now than with the old DM. It still looks suspicious to me when a wing eats up 10-12 37mm shells, but i don't have much to base my "sensations" on... I even doubt that there is some photographic evidence of damage or test done with this kind of ammunition on planes, because it wouldnt make much sense or be extremely rare.
  8. I assumed stuff like spars was 'discretized' in sub-elements and damage would add up until critical for each section. But of course I dont know. Good point about the fact that the wing is designed for much higher loading. Went and did some testing with various target planes (P51, P47, B25) and in general the 37mm AP of the P39 is not really effective, at least not as I would expect it to be. You sometime knock out/flame an engine if you aim correctly, but really between the slow rate of fire and difficult ballistics you're gonna kill the targets quicker if you just use the 2 nose .50 cal. Even if the target is flying straight on. I'm no expert on ammunitions damage, so i'll leave the devs to it. Just found it strange but maybe it's just me. We are talking about a niche anyway. How many large caliber anti-aircraft AP weapons are there in game?
  9. This excellent video was not done by me, but as the description states it is 4.005d (current version). I will do some qualitative testing later, and see if I can reproduce it and if it's something peculiar to the 51 wing or general
  10. Just a question for the devs: Currently, If an AP projectile damages an airframe part, does it stops its travel, or can it progress further and damage other parts? Looking at this test video (not done by me), where a wing can sustain 10+ 37mm AP rounds from dead 6 o'clock in a localized area: It feels like airframe damage for this kind of big AP round is a bit underestimated. I would Imagine such a round would go through the thin alluminum structure without any problem, puncturing/shredding wathever it hits (possibly both spars in this case) and coming out from a big ragged hole on the other side. So, is that taken into account in the DM? Or can 1 projectile only damage 1 part? Thanks BTW, I want to say that the current system is definetely an improvement from my point of view, and I think the devs are doing an outstanding job by improving core mechanics of the simulation. I just think it's normal that a brand new system needs some tweaking.
  11. Run some tests on DM using only heavy MGs in SP in quick mission always against AI novice P40, i dont know how it traslates to MP: -2x 12.7mm breda (MC 202): airframe damage was extremely rare even before, now it's even more important to aim for vital parts. In general seems that engines are thougher than before and you some times put 10+ hits on the cockpit/engine area without any tangible effects, while before you tended to get much more consistent results. Visual effects include puffs of smoke and the occasional flash. P40 riddled with holes. -2x 12.7mm M2 (P39): same overall effects of the bredas, with the guns marginally more effective. -2x 13mm MG131 (109G6): Now these were MASSIVELY different from the other two. Visual effects were always small explosions (bright orange puffs) on every hit, and airframe damage was consistent; aileron, elevators etc. no wings detachment but all the kills came from AI losing control of the plane, while I couldnt seem to damage the engine much. Visually the P40 was reporting very large holes and missing parts of panels and control surfaces. Time to kill a bit lower than for the other two guns. Did the MG131 behave like this before? is it because it has a different ammo load? Genuinely asking, didnt notice it before. Thanks for the update team! I will keep testing the DM
  12. Just out of curiosity, what is considered "critical info" for the devs? What are those pieces of info without which it is considered just "not doable"? Is it visual details? performance tests? Engine modes of operation? I can see IL-2:GB is really a level (or two) above the old IL2:1946 in terms of simulation details; I'm just curious to know what type of info has been used in IL2:1946 that today would just be considered not good enough for the level of detail they have to reproduce.
  13. I think the question might be a little ill put... We are all going to say that we care about the "important stuff" and are willing to close an eye on the "details"... but where does one end and the other start? For me, minor visual discrepancies or best guesses in details of 3D models are completely acceptable, FM and plane performances follow the law of physics and with a bit of basic data (engine power, max speed, climb rate etc) I trust the dev to extrapolate and obtain a reasonable FM, that could be further tweaked in the future if more data becomes available. If there is something MAJOR that affects the plane functionality or mode of operation, then maybe they should make the plane AI only until they have enough info and perhaps release it as premium if they manage to finish it. So yes, I would accept their best effort taking into account the above points, and i would be willing to accept that they stray from the 5/5 planeset for this one, as I imagine would most of the community.
  14. Sorry maybe I don't get it; you're saying that in this case if you charge 15$ extra for 3 older planes (that can be used in the scenario) new players are not gonna bother because for 20$ they could pick up a whole BoX module when on discount? Or are you saying is it the other way around? that noone is gonna bother with the older titles? I think that 10-ish $ would be a better offer for these 3 plane pack we're talking about... or even lower for that matter. I think that anything that helps making the offer attractive for people that still havent got into the serie is good. Once someone buys a title and gets hooked, it is more likely to come back and grab the other titles as well I think that most IL-2 buyers fall into one of the two categories: -they bought a module tried a bit and left it there... -they bought a module, got interested, and slowly grabbed the others as well just my 2c I got mixed feelings about CloD; I own it (bought it back when it released) and on one hand im really excited that north africa is being worked on, always loved the more 'forgotten fronts' on the other hand splitting a small community between different titles seems i don't know.. wrong? but i guess IL-2 devs have limited resources both in terms of manpower and investments, and maybe this was the only doable way in which we could get a new north african scenario. If this is the case so be it, but still leaves a sour aftertaste.. PS: I have nothing against CloD itself, I think it is might be a little worse than IL2 in some aspects, a little better in others
  • Create New...