=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand

we are now at the point where movie scenes are used for damage realism reference. Mods can close the thread now 😄

Later U.S. jets were switched to 20mm instead of more .50cal because it didnt suffice. Taking planes out of the game was a consideration why .50s were used. Lots of ammo and lots of spray and pray. Keep i mind that the the job for allies was bomber protection. A hit 109 was out of the game no matter if it was actually downed or not and this tactically did the job. More firepower to bring down bombers was paramount for the axis planes. The way people fly in game i.e not bailing even out of heavily damaged planes does not do justice to real life areal combat. This further d

The probability of large exit holes was actually never stated, which was the matter of discussion earlier on in the thread. What the test shows is the probability of maximum damage being in a given direction. This is something very different from the probability of getting mx damage (i.e. having large holes), in fact it has nothing do with it. Don´t bother the .50cal inquisition does not tolerate you heresy

@JtD´s post should also raise the point, that the argument seems to always go into the direction of .50s doing way too little, while totally leaving out the option of 13mm and the Russian equivalent just doing way too much aerodynamic damage. Thats always a problem with mainly comparative tests.

I don´t know if that´s true many people actually thought they were pretty OP. back in the days when AP was the meta, they absolutley murdered. I think it was overdone and many others did. Since (for the longest time before BoBP) only really the p40 had them, not so many people were affected with and the other side probably wasn´t complaining since it was the only strength the p40 had. But yeah, I think it was too much, it was shaving off wings like a hot knife through butter, not realistic either tbh honest and far from spot on. But back in the day the discusion was centered around AP vs

yes and I though this thread was about the Db605, has that changed? What is that picture supposed to show?

Ok but this shows 3 min at 1.31 ata for the e model. Isn’t that what we have in game?

I would welcome that and as far as my intuition goes this is needed. IMO we should just be careful about picking the right arguments.

that sounds fairly sensible as well. However I am sure they do represent a probability, hence the title and description (and the rather unique trait of all of them across the board adding to 1), however no such probabilites that you could base a model off of. Since you stated earlier that a "model" was pretty much done, and the devs only need to look at the document you provided. So my point is no, this is not a paper that would solve all problems.

Im pretty sure that´s what they have done and are doing. If anything this shows that nothing is as clear cut, as we wish it were.

Thx @Cass , afaik these are not numbers that assign the size of damage to a probability. As far as I know, this, is the probability of maximum lateral damage (this is the upper bound) for doing damage in the flight path of the bullet given within degrees (if I read this correctly). You can also see this by looking across the columns, the probability will add to one. So they probably counted the times of maximum damage hits that occured for a certain inclination and divided by all the shots that resulted in maximum damage. It gives you the probability of getting maximum damage for an inclinatio

page 9 (23)

Oh sorry I only looked at the pics you posted. Can you give me the page number pls? @Cass I scanned through the report and i cannot find anything that relates damge size to probability of occurance, but maybe I´m blind. Of course this would be the relevant probablity and having any section on some probability doesnt help...

Assessing the upper and lower limits are worthless values for a game. I see no assessment of distribution, which is what would really be needed. All in all a nice to have but not helpful for our means afaict

😄 yes I remember the good old times