Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VA_chikinpickle

  1. To be blunt about my feelings as a customer: I am certainly sympathetic to software limitations as someone who spent some time in that industry. I would never try to disrespect anyones work either. But I dont plan to purchase Battle of Normany unless incendiary ammo, or some sort of workaround approximating its effects added to the USAF aircraft. I have no regrets about getting this game, but its tough to swallow the .50 BMG model that comes with it. Both from a historical accuracy (lack of API model OR approximation of its effect) AND the massive discrepancy in weapon performance as highlighted in this test. 2,000% discrepancy in the effectiveness of the weapons?? From my engineering background, thats an eye poppingly large difference in performance between three systems that are very similar in most characteristics. 1g of PETN explosive has 5.8kj of chemical energy. Far less than the kinetic energy that any of these bullets has. A .50 cal ball round at 100 yards has by comparison, 18Kj-20Kj of kinetic energy. Now before people nit pick me to death and yes I know the bullet wont always dissipate its full Ke etc and chemE and Ke are different, blah blah blah. I will hold that constant and assume both bullets will dissipate their full Ke and Chem E into a target. Lets stick to a simple (and I do mean simple) gut check. If we add 1g of PETN to a .50 cal round it would have a potential for a total energy dissipation of ~25Kj. Vs lets say ~19Kj (middle of range) of energy dissipation for a ball round. Thats a roughly 31% increase in the MAXIMUM possible destructive energy dissipated into a target. Does it seem intuitively correct that a 31% increase in a projectiles' total destructive energy will cause that projectile to do ~2000% MORE damage to a target? 50% more, 75% more, hell even 200% more is believable. I dont mean to disrespect anyones work, but this answer just seems incorrect to me, by an order of magnitude.
  2. So I've posted this before in some discord discussions a few times, but I will post it again here. I disagree with your statement. There is something wrong with the .50 caliber M2 machine guns in il2, but it isn't the AP ammo model that's the obvious problem. Not to say its perfect, but what do I know about it? (The DM). Very little. My impression of the dev team is they are very meticulous and detailed in their efforts to bring us ww2 air combat in the comfort of our homes. The pilot physiology model for example, is fantastic and reading their blog posts it is plain to see the level of thought behind it. So Im going to make the assumption that their AP ammo damage model was approached with the same meticulous effort. That being said, the undeniable problem with the .50 M2 machine gun: It is not a historically accurate model of the weapon system. .50 M2 machine guns in US aircraft were NOT loaded with plain armor piercing ammunition. They were loaded with incendiary ammunition. Either in the form of API (Armor piercing, Incendiary) or API-T (Armor Piercing, Incendiary Tracer). This is just a gut feeling, but I think that our results with pure AP ammo are closer to the mark than not. Why? Because NOBODY used pure AP ammunition in ANY fighter aircraft that Im aware of. I think there is a reason for that, and that reason is it sucked at shooting down airplanes compared to the alternatives. So what is it that we should really do here? Should we argue about the details of AP ammo and make bold statements about the quality of 1C game studios hard work? While some here accuse "allied pilots" (For the record you will find that I fly all the aircraft in the game some time or other) of being bad at gunnery or telling them they need to get better? Making bold claims that "Allied pilots expect .50s to be like cannons, cannons are better!" (Of course they are, thats why cannon armed planes had 2-4 cannons and USAF fighter had 6-8 .50 cal MGs) Personally, I would skip all of that. It only creates toxicity. What I am asking for is only the same historical accuracy that we find in other areas of the game. USAF aircraft should have Armor Piercing, Incendiary ammunition, and API-T. This is what they had in real life. This is what they should have in il2 great battles. It will perhaps make it easier for some and more difficult for others. Those who choose to fly only aircraft from one side, but it will be a better overall experience. Cheers.
  3. So I'm familiar with the engine selection ability, and that method of adjusting engine controls, and I have used this method for quite some time to adjust all other engine controls in the P38. It is clunky, but it can be used. I appreciate your time to explain it to me however, in the case that I did not know. That being said, I think that pictures and videos are worth 1000 words. I have made a short video showing that the manual/automatic modes of the oil radiators are completely linked, and that even engine selection does not allow you to perform the proper engine out procedure in the P38. Here we can see that I have one engine selected, when toggling between manual and automatic modes, you can see that both engine radiators change modes. In the second demonstration, I have no engines selected at all, yet the controls still function to change the mode of both radiators. I realize this seems obscure and nit picky especially to some people with simple setups, but to give context, I fly in VR with a custom simpit. I have a switch panel dedicated to all the engine functions so I can fly twins and not have to look at a keyboard for anything, or mess with juggling the engine selection. I enjoy the high level of immersion that il2 offers in VR especially with real switches to hit. I've read the flight manuals and enjoy following the procedures when I fly, this is a simulator with some extra complexity, for those who wish to take advantage of it. I would submit to those who don't wish to take advantage of the added complexity, that you can always do the same thing that all the other engine controls do. You can set up the manual/auto switch to a single binding just like prop feather, radiator position, etc. No need for you to use it if you don't want. But for those who would like to use separate engine bindings for our fancy overkill setups, it is there. And even the current setup does not support the proper function with engine selection and radiator modes. I don't see how adding an additional 4 key bindings would somehow now cause a person to be overwhelmed by complex key binding schemes, but that is only my opinion. For more context, here is the flight training video for the P38, showing the procedure for shutting down a dead engine. Not possible with the current control scheme, even without separate bindings as engine selection does not affect the radiator mode controls. The demonstration film is from an earlier variant of the P38, but you can see that closing the prestone (coolant) and oil cooler flaps of the dead engine is part of the procedure. Included below is a page from the flight manual stating the same thing. Item #7 on the procedure. I don't see how it would hurt anything to add this function into the game, it would only add to it. And you can see that there is a similar request regarding prop feather controls in this very same forum from one year ago, which the devs were nice enough to grant. Cheers,
  4. Would it be possible to add separate keybindings for switching between radiator control modes for engines #1 and #2? In the P38 it is possible to switch one engines radiators into manual control mode while leaving the other engines radiators operating automatically. In the current control scheme this doesnt seem possible. Why it is needed. Well, it isnt but it would add some immersion and realism to the P38. For example: the engine out procedure states to shut down the dead engine and manually close the radiators. You leave the running engine operating in automatic mode. This procedure cant be performed on the P38 here, and it seems like a small thing to add. Thanks for your time, and for this game. It has been loads of fun.
  5. I have reveiwed the logs, but I am not going to follow down this tangent. If you are so interested, look at my sorties from that day. You can choose to believe me or not. I have no reason to lie, this is a discussion about a video game. Nobody is expecting it to be a cannon so that is just putting words where they have not been said. I beleive your mind on the subiect is already decided and you are trying to derail the discussion. Back to the topic at hand. I am a simple man, and the bf109 is a small airplane. The wing is not large, and there are things in there which are important. Also even more important things in the fuselage which the bullets can pass most of the way through. So if you are shooting into the plane, I would submit you are shooting important things. Lots of stuff in there to break all packed in nice and tight. The skin is going to be full of holes, and we have tested this and found that .50 caliber guns take off the wing before you get second stage aero damage. This seems unlikely, the sheer number of rounds would make swiss cheese out of the aircraft skin by the time you get to that many. If you hit at oblique angles as others have pointed out, the holes will not be neat 1/2 circles but torn ovals. Then you have the fact that airflow might just rip the hole bigger. That they should cause aerodynmic penalties at some point, even a high number of rounds say 150 would seem reasonable. But to not cause any stage 2 penalties at all is a stretch. Then there is the incendiary problem separate from this which compounds it.
  6. The wing I hit with over 90 rounds in one pass a useless part of the airplane. Sure, why not? Each of these passes were 30-40 hits according to server logs. Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?
  7. Typical 109 fight with a group of mustangs. We shot this 109 up with over 150 rounds of ammunition before he dies, and he survived a total of five gunnery passes. I checked the server log. The second and third passes he was hit with 30+ rounds each and fourth pass I put 91 rounds into it which finally damaged him enough to snap the wing off. The 109 pilot scored a kill with 8 rounds on target. So take from that what you will.
  8. I would not play il2 but for VR, and I wouldnt have VR but for il2. With the new visibility update its better than ever.
  9. Lots of discussion about this topic round and round. There are many issues here it seems, but I'm not a weapons expert so I will focus on what I see as the least controversial element of this discussion. The facts as I see them: 1. There is no model for the effects of incendiary ammunition as I understand it. 2. This was the main ammunition type of the USAAF during this time period. My simpleminded conclusion is the .50 caliber machine gun used in US aircraft is not accurately modeled. It does not have the correct ammunition. My limited understanding is that the incendiary ammunition was one of the critical components of the weapons systems effectivity against aircraft. Not having it is the same as having 20mm cannon shells without an explosive effect in my opinion. A large oversight in the accuracy of the simulation. The results of this inaccurate model is that the weapons system is much less effective in combat, due to it missing a critical element of effectivity. You can see the results of this in multiplayer flying styles. It is far easier to render an aircraft ineffective in combat with a peppering of cannon rounds due to the aerodynamic damage they cause. It renders you unable to fly your aircraft through high performance combat maneuvers anymore. If your enemy then decides to finish you off at his leisure, he is able to do so. You must now disengage to deal with your damaged aircraft. Peppering an aircraft with .50 caliber armor piercing ammunition, unless you set fire to the engine or kill the pilot is currently not capable of causing enough structural damage to prevent the opponent from flying high performance maneuvers with his aircraft against you. And players understand this, so they alter their flying style to not be afraid of getting hit by snapshots or opponents with .50mgs on their six for some time. They alter their flying style to be much more aggressive than is possible with allied aircraft, where you must fear any possibility of getting hit by the enemies weapons. Certain "neutral" situations are now only dangerous when the opponent has cannons. (I would argue that the scenario allied players currently experience is the more realistic one.) You alter your gunnery from accurate bursts to instead spraying for the lucky shot. etc. But what would happen if instead, those 5-10 incendiary rounds you pepper into their wing fuel tank had a high chance to start a fire on their aircraft? Even 50%? You have more parity, the burning aircraft must disengage from combat to deal with the fire. The blue plane would fear the possibility of getting hit by the enemies guns as well as the red team (as it should be). Let's talk about burning aircraft for a second. The figure I found for the temperature of a gasoline fire is 1500 degrees F. Duralumin alloy such as was used in aircraft at the time has a melting point of 1,166 degrees F. It gets soft and weak even before then, and you will have lasting structural damage even if you put it out. If you can't put it out, your aircraft structure softens, melts and disintegrates and you go down in flaming chunks. The smaller the structure, the faster that occurs. Now in the context of this discussion, I think the the whole .50's should do more aero damage argument is the wrong focus. The disparity in aero damage between cannons and MGs (Lets exclude 13mm German MGs) is probably closer to the truth than not (and 13mm German MG should do similar damage to all other ~13mm MG class weapons including .50 M2). The real issue is that the .50 AP cannot render aircraft combat ineffective anywhere near the way that cannons can when in reality I suspect they were much closer. The cause of the issues and complaints is the inaccurate model of .50 caliber MG weapons systems. The .50 MG rendered aircraft ineffective by burning them instead of blasting big holes in them. Until the model is accurate you won't see the results you expect from it. My request to the developers would be, as part of your next damage model development cycle, to create a model of the effects of incendiary ammunition. If the goal of the simulation is historical accuracy, then this is a critical element of the western allied aircraft set that is missing and must be added. You all have done a great job on other aspects of this sim, and this is one which needs that same attention to detail. To anyone who wants to argue that the weapons are ok because you can still get kills with them: You are 100% correct they can be used effectively, I have done so myself. I would also direct you back to my underlined statements to settle that discussion. It's just not relevant to what I see as the core issue of modeling inaccuracy.
  10. I am uninformed on the subject to be honest but I have no issues with the current G modeling system. I think there should be more consequences for abusing your pilot with alternating negative and positive Gs however. Such manuevers seem unrealistic and eliminating them may improve other aspects of the game.
  11. I have a little bit of feedback I run HP reverb through a GTX1080 Ti downsampled to 80% native resolution as the rest of my system is limiting. Some issues that I run into Spotting contacts at long range, then zooming in on them causes the dots to shrink in size and sometimes disappear when zooming. Often my squadron mates can spot contacts that I cannot see in monitors or in lower resolution VR equipment. I beleive this effect is related to super/downsampling. Spotting aircraft against the ground. Often I cannot see aircraft against the ground at all, even at full zoom. Yet I can clearly spot the exhaust smoke trail but not the aircraft itself. I find this to be counterintuitive and a strange effect. Majority of the time, I am alerted to enemy aircraft (which I cannot see) by smoke trails, tracer fire, or AA fire. I have even watched the smoke trail from behind where I know the aircradt is currently flying yet do not see the aircraft. The biggest thing is that I have no ability to adjust the graphics settings for the HP reverb. Where a monitor has brightness, contrast etc adjustments, I have nothing. So I cannot optimize graphics settings to determine if this plays a role aside from the gamma setting in .cfg file, which has its own issues. It would be a very interesting first step to allow VR users to adjust their picture settings for improved spotting in some way. To add to this is that my PC is barely adequate for the task of running il2 in VR, between 30-60 frames per second in multiplayer, which I suspects complicates things even more. I will see how the new PC improves the situation. It is nice to be able to "lose" your tail I will say that. Regarding the argument surrounding first hand pilot accounts of never seeing the enemy, well I would take them as what they are. First hand witness accounts are notoriously unreliable; (this phenomenon is even observed in ourselves RE replay features) then when you add in the fact of combat stress, mortal fear, and depending on the account may have been given decades after the fact... It isn't that useful information cannot be gained there, but I personally would be hesitant to draw any scientific conclusions based on them. As far as my personal experience with this phenomenon, I die by unseen enemies almost exclusively due to low/poor situational awareness practices. Not because I didnt physically see the aircraft that was attacking me, but because I was not even looking for him, considering my six, target fixated, assumed I was safely in friendly airspace etc. As far as realism vs fun, well a realistic simulation is a noble goal and I think pretty cool. Its what drew me to this game, to experience as a ww2 fighter pilot. But this is an entertainment activity, so it needs to be fun as well. I am ultimately in my living room with a screen strapped to my head. So some small compromise in this area would be acceptable in the sake of making the simulation more fun and enjoyable. The ability to zoom my vision, or the automated start procedure are examples of such a compromise. As far as a large compromise in realism, I think that other products exist to fill this purpose should remain that way. If I wish to play a dogfighting game where I can spot planes across the map, (even then I am still killed for lack of SA) then there is a game I can go play for that. I enjoy the requirement of skill, and interaction with history involved in a realistic simulation. Lastly big thanks to the developers. From my time in the software industry I learned to be forgiving of imperfections, and I will say in my opinion you guys really made an excellent product overall. I really enjoy it. So hats off and keep up the great work.
  12. I had this issue as well. What fixed it is deleting the environment data and recalibrating the HMD through the WMR interface.
  13. Have a very irritating tandom freeze when playing VR in multiplayer on the HP reverb. Does anyone else have some tips? Usually goes one of two ways. 1. Starting up at the airfield and my keyboard and joystick stop working. Can't start the engines and have to force quit the game. 2. Far more annoying, in multiplayer, usually while turning into an enemy. Controls, mouse and keyboard freeze, and my plane continues to fly at whatever control angles I had before it froze. Then either into the ground I go or get shot down sitting helplessly watching it all go down. I have to force quit the game. Very irritating. Anyone know what I might try to prevent it from happening? Only happens in multiplayer. System spec HP reverb Intel Xeon 3.6ghz 6c GTX1080ti
  14. There is no way to monitor the flaps position on the P38L. Maneuvering flap setting is 50% deployed, if that helps at all. Here's an old army training video on the P38 about landing, takeoff and single engine operation procedures. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_tf0EEnFug
  • Create New...