Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

86 Excellent

About DJBscout

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

212 profile views
  1. Absolutely shameless plug, but IMO the solution is simulating detonation and the factors that cause it. The timers were mostly to prolong life, and real pilots could push their aircraft for much, much longer. We should be able to do that, but also will need to be sure to manage engine state to keep the engine in the proper regimes. The real killer of engines was detonation and/or overheating (which can also result in detonation itself). If you stray outside the bounds of what the engine can handle, oil, seals, and components start breaking down. Ignition starts occurring to
  2. If nothing else, this quite clearly indicates that 13mm HE wasn't ~2000% more effective than API. IRL, the luftwaffe chose to switch their MG armament from HE to API rounds, as it would be more effective. And yet in-game you would currently be a fool to take AP over HE. HE is overperforming, and/or AP is underperforming. (I suspect small-cal HE is overperforming due to the erroneous damage estimate and all AP is underperforming as every shell is assumed to be a laser beam that punches through and only creates a single neat hole, and all the components that would really suffer don't
  3. While that's true, the shots we see here wouldn't have been much different with AP. Hell, an engine hit in that same spot very well might have punched right into the engine block and taken the engine out entirely. HE is good at blowing off skin and damaging things at the hit site, but not so good at punching through armor or tougher structures. Aiming is hard, so a glancing hit, or hit to an extremity with an HE shell has a better chance of knocking out something important than AP. That being said, if you get a good gun solution on an enemy, AP rounds will absolutely shred any stru
  4. Currently, US .50 cals do not have their incendiary rounds modeled in game. This leads to underwhelming performance in comparison to HE-based MGs. However, I may have a (temporary) solution. The incendiary composition in most rounds was very similar to what we would call flash powder today. Now, flash powder is not the same thing as TNT/other high explosives, and is generally considered a "low explosive". However, it is still far from inert. Specifically, per this DTIC which I will be referencing extensively, Furthermore, a "photoflash charge" is des
  5. My real problem here is that the 13mm which were phased out for being ineffective are 2300% more effective than AP. That just doesn't match up. Even when it comes to structural damage, the AP somehow still lags behind. Right now, I only run Germans or the Tempest/38, simply because I'm not interested in finally getting guns on a target, firing, hitting it and watching it fly away as though nothing has happened.
  6. So did they switch to pure incendiary on the 20 and 30mms too? Or was it specifically small-caliber HE that wasn't so good at actually KO'ing large aircraft?
  7. If HE was so much more efficient than AP (like in-game right now), why did the Luftwaffe switch to API rounds for their 13mm? Because right now it would seem like that would be a stupid move, unless AP is vastly underperforming, or HE vastly overperforming.
  8. If you look at the photos, it seems fairly clear that aside from the longest gash, all the holes are primarily bent/torn. The paint is only burned away on the long gash, further indicating the others had a much less intense burn. Even the long gash likely started as a long tear caused by an exiting round, which the fire then expanded somewhat. And again, this is 5 rounds. Between dozens of rounds hitting, the damage would compound rather rapidly. We should not be counting scores of hits for any chance of appreciable aerodynamic damage.
  9. Currently, most aircraft follow manual limits exactly as written. One has exactly as much time as listed in the manual to run at a given setting, and higher settings eat into the time alloted at higher settings. After the timer is spent, the engine can fail at pretty much any time. Most aircraft must drop to the next-lowest engine setting for varying amounts of timeper minute of use to "recharge" this timer. Some planes recharge at a 3:1 ratio, some at 2:1, some are 4:1, and then there's planes that recharge at 1:1 and don't have emergency eat out of combat time. Overall, this results in some
  10. That's probably gonna be a combined function of varying RPM and load. Simply put, load is how much "strain" the engine is under; the force the engine's power is acting against. In a car, at any given RPM, a wide-open throttle will have the engine at 100% load; the engine is producing all the power it possibly can, and all that power is being used (assuming you have traction and aren't redlining the engine). When you don't need as much power, you're going to back off the throttle; the engine won't be producing as much power, and will thus be under a lower strain/load. When driving u
  11. While there aren't separate keybinds for engine 1 or 2 rad/oil rad/auto rad like there are separate binds for engine 1/2 throttle and prop RPM, you can toggle engine control manually, and with this done, the changes you make with the main engine control settings will only apply to the selected engine(s). (I believe toggling control is bound to 1 and 2 by default) I do this all the time on startup. After the first engine starts, I select only that engine (tap "1", which both turns on engine selection and selects engine 1), then lean out the mixture to auto rich. This does not effect
  12. I saw this post was referenced elsewhere, so I wanted to add some information and clear some things up. First off, I tried to analyze just about everything I could, breaking down all the information I had, and then extrapolating what might account for differences. (For example, a peak on an unboosted aircraft shows approximately where aileron deflection ends, or can show a difference in stick force when testing the same airframe.) I thought that, like a jigsaw puzzle, if I spent enough time looking at differences, I could figure out what the deal was. This was....false, to say the least.
  13. While I agree that the aero penalty for .50s is lacking, your real-life example is unfortunately flawed. Your particular example of a He-111 was likely shot down by a french D.520 or MS.406. Those bigger holes are not necessarily from .303 hits clustered together, but the nose-mounted 20mm cannon in those aircraft. The real issue is that the aero penalty from the scores of hits all across an aircraft, including nasty exit gashes, are not modeled.
  14. Did you even look at the image I linked? The crucial structures you're talking about are everywhere. If a .50 hits a wing at any sort of angle, it'll be quite likely to hit and/or tear through multiple ribs/spars/support structures. There's not a whole lot of empty space, certainly not from low deflection. Any sort of hole in a load-bearing structure is a big problem, and one that will compound exponentially with multiple hits. The 109 was built for lightness, not durability. All 109s had one main wing spar, which was vulnerable to damage. Early F-series 109s had issues with the wi
  15. Yes and no. If we were talking about a single shot hitting perpendicular, on a single sheet of aircraft skin, you'd be right. The .50 would probably punch right through 1-2mm sheet duralumin with minimal effect beside a nice half-inch hole (probably with some slight deformation around it). However, that isn't the kind of situation we're dealing with. We're talking about aircraft wings, which have multiple layers of skin and lots of small structural elements contained within them. If that .50 hits at an angle (for example, when shooting at an enemy from behind, or in anything t
  • Create New...