Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    1240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. The bullying of people who are just trying to point out obvious issues is beyond imagination. Toxic atmosphere on internet forums is nothing new, but the level of ignorance is something that's really special to this one. Maybe it's because this is such a niche product within a niche of niche products, but maybe it's simply because people act exactly like what they are - impossible to mention what that is without breaking the rules though. @QB.Creep: Don't let yourself get draught into this mess. You are not alone. Your issues are real. The tests conducted are valid. Certain people will never acknowledge those facts and you've already pinpointed the reason why. You can't have a factual debate with people simply following a certain agenda for obvious reasons, whatever it takes. That's simple genuine waste of precious lifetime. Mike
  2. We're drifting off a bit again. There's plenty of discussions about the general effectivity of cal .50s and their kill probability. This thread however deals with the drag penalty from surface hits. These two videos show a modern cal .50 APIT round hitting a steal plate, 1st is hanging in the air (rather shows impact fire and penetration abilities than anything else), 2nd is covered in ballistic gel so you can see what it would do e.g. on the inside of a wing when exiting through the "backside" skin: Granted, modern vs. WW2 ammo, but mind you it's APIT so this is not too far off from the API rounds we need. Mike
  3. Probably coming from the 109 F, the Yak-1b Series 127 is the easiest transition as it is quite comparable in speed, manoeuvrability, handling and carefree in terms of engine management. That's why I suggested it as the quick and easy look over the fence. Sure, the P-47 is hardcore, as are it's guns. That's why I said that this would teach you a whole different style of fighting, with absolute focus on energy management, good marksmanship and very good SA 'cause you definitely need to make sure that no 109 appears at your six with energy advantage. Same for the I-16, just the other way around: You have to lure your enemy into some kind of low-mid speed turn fight, which against medium experienced pilots will be quite a hard thing to achieve, and you have to pepper your victims and pray for the 1001st bullet to get through the enemy's tin skin. Mike
  4. Thanks for your reply @LLv34_Flanker Concerning netcode, yes I agree that having all net hit/damage handling being dealt with server-side only has probably been an anti-cheater consideration. I don't think it's been a clever thing to do as cheaters will always find their way through, and what remains is the fallout like lag/delay issues which all players have to deal with, i.e. you don't win against the hardcore cheaters but you piss off the normal players. But it's not me who has to decide and the design decision has been made long time since and it's likely impossible to revert. By the by, IL-2 1946 is all but perfect in terms of netcode either, but it seems to have a couple of more level headed and reasonable approaches implemented - and I'm saying so from a developer's point of view, being someone who has been swearing about 1946's netcode himself forth and back while I've added new online compatible mods to it. As for the cal .50s, yes they "only" punch holes through aluminium skins, however you can't have your cake and eat it too: Either the bullets walk through the structures of an airplane without being deflected/tumbling too much, which would mean they'll keep going and this in turn would mean that they'd be pretty successful in ruining a fighter's day when hitting the fuselage from around six o' clock position. Or they do get deflected and/or start tumbling, which in turn means they do release a substantial amount of kinetic energy to the structure deflecting them and in turn, cause significant damage to it, plus they'd cause a much bigger exit hole in such case if they make it through the structures all the way (wings for instance). I do sense that some people like to picture a cal .50 like it would always come in on a .5mm aluminium skin at 90° deflection, punch a neat cal .50 hole in it, and then either simply disappear (fuselage) or go through an empty void and punch another neat .50 hole on the other side, without bending anything outwards or causing any other kind of damage. Bullets don't do that though. Mike
  5. Alright @unreasonable: I'm passive aggressive, writing crap, dishonest, plain stupid, incapable of making distinctions, blind, just whining about my stats - and above all, your books are better than my books. Message received. Thank you for the flowers. For what it's worth, on Sunday I've had one of the rather rare opportunities to engage a group of german bombers in a P-40. Online. Much to my surprise, the cal .50s worked perfectly fine against the Ju-88. I could set the wing fuel tanks on fire and much more than this, 3 times in a row killed almost the whole crew of a bomber in a single attack. Absolutely no comparison to what happens when dealing with enemy fighters using cal .50s. Which leads me to another idea which for the moment is simply this: An idea. Not even a theory. From previous investigations I've learned that IL-2 Great Battles has a completely different way of calculating hits and damage results online than e.g. IL-2 1946. In IL-2 1946, the distinction between hit or miss happens at the shooting player's client side. If the player who is shooting his guns sees the guns hitting the enemy, it's a hit - whether or not the server or the other player sees the same thing. It's a hit. The calculation of damage results from such hits happens at the victim player's client side. If the victim's game - the one that got hit - say the hit was fatal, it was fatal. If it thinks the hit did no damage, it does no damage. Whether or not the server or the other player sees the same thing. There's one thing that comes on top of this, which is the very first level of damage effects, like skin damage and the first levels of smoke effects: That's something that gets applied to the victim's plane on the shooting player's game's account, i.e. the victim plane will look damaged from the shooting player's point of view, whether or not it actually is - remember the real damage result gets calculated on victim player side only. That much for 1946. In IL-2 Great Battles, hit or miss and damage calculations are solely a server thing to do. Neither of the clients has a word in whether a bullet hits or not, and whether or not it does any damage if so, and how much that damage is if it did any. Only the Server has a say. The shooting client just notifies the Server about the bullets that left their guns, and the server does all the rest. It could be that apart from position offsets between shooting and victim clients - due to lag - there's also a certain issue with different plane sizes, which makes it much easier to hit something as big as a bomber, compared to a fighter online. With a little bad luck, the Server might be missing a couple of hits on fighters completely, or think of the bullets hitting wrong parts. Say you shoot a fighter's wing online: Timestamp x the bullet has not hit the wing yet, timestamp x+1 it's already past the wing. The server could interpolate the line between the two timestamps and apply a real hit where the line touches the wing, or it could say "no hit, but for some reason it went through the wing - let's punch a neat cal .50 hole right where it did". Same with the fuselage: Timestamp x the bullet didn't touch it yet, timestamp x+1 it's already on the other side. The server could interpolate the line again, and take all points where the bullet would collide with anything on that way into account, one after another, and calculate hit effects accordingly. Or - quick and dirty, just say "let's punch neat cal .50 holes in there again", except for when the part hit is armor or crew - the first would just stop the bullet, the latter get hurt. If the Server calculates hits the "quick and dirty" way online, it would explain why damaging bombers is so much easier than damaging fighters using AP ammo. It would also explain why HE ammo in comparison is extremely efficient: It would still explode on the first point of interpolated collision, where the AP ammo just punches the neat hole whatever there was. Add to that the IL-2 1946 way of applying first level - non lethal - damage effects on the shooting client's behalf: If that happens in Great Battles too, then this would explain why we see planes leaking each and everything and still keep fighting as if nothing happened: It'd be because nothing happened. As I said, just an idea, not even a theory. But an idea which would describe what I've witnessed online for the past 3 months pretty well. Mike
  6. If you've been dealing with Yaks mainly, then the logical next step to see how green the grass can be on the other side would be to fly it yourself. The Yak series in IL-2 GB is almost as foolproof as the Friedrich: You can hardly overcool the engine and there's almost no limit you'd need to take care of other than blacking out (yes I know there are limits, but reaching them is just as hard as doing so in a 109). That'd be the easy way to get used to something else. If you're out for a challenge and want to learn something completely different - still fighter related - I'd recommend the I-16 or the P-47. Mike
  7. I'm not arguing against analysis and I absolutely appreciate when someone takes the time to dive deep enough into such topic to get back with numbers. And even if the resulting numbers have a range of 1:15 as in the current case - which essentially backs any argument you'd like to have on that matter, I'm not arguing against that either. Investigations can yield results that don't match what you'd like to see, that's life. Shit happens. You guys need to read a bit more careful: The only thing I've been pointing out here is that you just cannot come and eat someone alive when he's posting "anecdotal" evidence from one WW2 guy just because it doesn't suit your agenda, only to return the other day and quote another guy who's expressing his point of view in just another book because it does suit you. That's dishonest and that's what I've pointed out. I know that people get pretty hostile about such things and frankly I don't give a flying f**k about it. What goes around comes around. Deal with it. Coming back to topic, let me simply chip another $0.02 off my pocket into the debate by noticing that IMHO from a drag penalty point of view, the square of a hole in the wing probably doesn't matter as much (as long as it doesn't get too large, i.e. destruction of like 10% of a wing's square) as the surface being bent to the outside of the wing - since that one actually looks and acts like an airbrake, whereas a "simple" hole would just cause a minor additional turbulence in the already turbulent boundary layer on the wing. As such, I'd expect the exit hole's diameter to play the major part in drag penalty. Not because of any anecdotal accounts, just because of physical considerations. Mike
  8. I was taught right here that any "anecdotal" acounts are not accepted to backup any claims in either direction. IIRC you've been one of those who reached out and denounced quite a couple of my posts as "anecdotal". If this is "passive aggressive crap" to you, I'd recommend to put your own house in order first as this wasn't my invention. Mike
  9. The typical "killer" argument to end any discussion. Straight from the one who quoted before: Has anyone actually measured it in objective trials? Or is this just an impression - which is my impression ? Mike
  10. Just throwing in the RL reference data here again: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg Gets us a few reference points of 335mph @SL for the D-10 at 56'' HG (so the D-22 at 65'' HG is supposed to be somewhat faster than this). And 340mph @SL for the D-30 at 65'' HG and 346mph at 70'' HG (these should be good figures for the D-28 respectively at the same manifold pressure). Mike
  11. Dunno what SWMBO thinks I shall be kept away from, but I admit to be another lucky bastard who gets (almost) everything without even asking. We're both "breadwinners" and my wife is just a few months younger than me though. Nevertheless, whenever I keep looking at the same webpage without clicking or scrolling for more than half a minute and my wife takes notice, the same thing happens: SWMBO: "What's so interesting up there?" Unworthy: "Nothing." SWMBO: "Buy it." Unworthy: "But..." SWMBO: "B-U-Y I-T !" Unworthy: "Your CC or mine?" SWMBO: "Paypal." Same thing starts if I mention "they've published an update for..." - this skips the 1st two lines of the communication listed above. I'm not even trying to abuse these powers in fear of losing it. Quite sure I'll be watching those pesky MFG Crosswind pedals accidentally one day anyway Mike
  12. Not exactly in the last alpha, but yesterday's Beta indeed introduced official TrackIR support. Mike
  13. Thanks and yes, I know the statement is quite mean, but that's what you get in all honesty after having had the very same debate for 3 months over and over and over again now. It reminds me of something I've witnessed more than 20 years ago, when I was working for a company that installed automated locker systems. I've been standing in one of those installations, watching one of the robots making it's way through the shelf (literally), with lots of noise and metal shavings flying around like crazy. I've called the responsible technician of the engineering company that built that thing and described what I was just seeing, and the reply was: "No, that can't be." This is exactly what it feels like in this case - and almost every time when you report an issue here, honestly. Mike
  14. Yeah that's part of the problem: The naysayers. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the issue is a combination of multiple things being "wrong", but we're always ending up in those meaningless hair-splitting battles the naysayers are trying to drag us into. Sorry @unreasonable, but as clear as your stance on these issues is, as little am I gonna enter that debate with you again. Mike
  15. It wasn't in the pre "DM fix" (i.e. pre-4.005) era, that's why I was suggesting to leave such planes untouched and not apply the "DM fix" on them at all for the time being. The 109s didn't feel odd in terms of battle damage to me until they got "fixed". I'm afraid (and IIRC Jason mentioned it somewhere) that the majority of IL-2 customers is offline guys. Hence the focus on campaigns rather than online stuff. Honestly after 3 months dealing with this issue, and a fair number of players reporting exactly the same thing over and over and over again - and just the usual number of suspects pretending that real life was wrong and IL-2 was right - we should not have to perform any further to the hundreds of tests done already, we should not have to answer any of the questions that we did answer a hundred times before already, we should not have to discuss this topic any further and we should definitely not have to wait any longer for it to be fixed for real. Having to wait 3 months, with 3 other major game updates passing by that left the issue untouched, heck 3 major game updates and a bunch of new aircraft and other stuff, but still the major axis fighter series has a tail made of Adolfinium swallowing all bullets from behind, 3 months of endless discussions, tests, debates, partly - excuse me - ignorant comments on it, and there's not even a silver lining on the horizon that this is being addressed right now while we're speaking? I do believe in this product. I do believe that this is the last hope for WW2 CFS. I did buy everything that is to buy from it, and bought a tad more to hand it over to friends. I'm probably a "follower" of IL-2 in the best sense of the word. If I find it harder every day to stay such, what should newcomers think if they come here these days and find such major issues unaddressed? I don't think that what has done 3 months ago was a clever move, and I don't think that not taking the resulting issues serious - and they are not taken serious yet, they're possibly not even being acknowledged to be issues at all - will pay out. Mike
  16. You are seemingly the 100th guy asking that same question and the answer is always the same: No, it's neither a client nor server side network issue. Wifi: Nope. Range Extender: Nope. Internet connection on my Client side is Cable, 100Mbit/s down, 20 Mbit/s up. Server side is 1GBit/s guaranteed unmetered Intel NIC. Ping is 20ms, jitter is 0.5ms. Bandwidth between my client and my server is 94.5 Mbit/s down and 18.8 Mbit/s up. That's roughly the physical limit of my client cable connection and it matches speedtest.net results. Other apps running in parallel: TeamSpeak. No packet loss, never ever. Server is in DE, so am I. Note that the very same happens to multiple players. On sunday we've been 5 players: 2 from DE, 1 from UK, 1 from UAE, 1 from US. All with the very same issues, all to the very same extent, even though network throughput and ping times clearly were different, there was no difference in the issue being displayed, not at all. Note that there were absolutely no such issues prior to the dreaded DM "fix" that came with version 4.006 IIRC. Note that while 109F/G/K are seemingly untouchable, 109E, 190s, Macchis etc. are no problemo (except for the general AP ammo nerfing). Note that it's easier to down three Heinkel 111s than a single 109F-2. Waaaay easier. Note that this issue can easily be pinned down to two factors: 109s (F-K) AP ammo Welcome to the club. We've had this "have you checked your network connection?" thing endless times before as well. Mike
  17. I totally get the reason why tail damage was disabled on the 109s initially. I do not fully buy the argument about the glassy tail though, as in pre-DM rework times this was no (no big?) issue, so IMHO it would have been a better choice to just leave the regarding 109s with the old DM for the time being, or maybe even just their tail. In it's current state the 109 tail just swallows all bullet coming from 6 o' clock and it feels like it's got a massive indestructible hitbox down there. You can even see in @-332FG-poy's video posted before, how the 109 pilot seems to be totally aware of being remotely untouchable from behind, as quite opposite to any normal player, he's just keeping to fly straight at his target regardless the poor bugger that's trying to throw all his ammo at him from behind. Finally, what I don't get at all is how the absolute super-main-majority of fighter planes from one side can be set off all DM limits for such a prolonged time. I mean it's not just been the last two hotfixes since we got this issue introduced, and there seems to be no priority, no deadline, nothing in sight to fix this. Cover the main blue fighter's tail with Adolfinium and at the same time, nerf the main ammo type of red side. Perfect receipt for a shitstorm if you ask me. And then... blame it on netcode and try to get away with it. Lol? Lol. Mike
  18. Or he just bailed out when you wounded the player. You'll never know. Visually it's almost precisely what we see on every first burst put into such 109: It starts bleeding like hell, but no other serious damage becomes apparent. Mike
  19. I think it's a wild mix of 109s (F and later, E seems reasonable more or less) being made of Adolfinium, netcode issues and AP ammo being nerfed in general. Yesterday on our sunday FAC session I've peppered a 109F-2 with 1215 (!) hits from my trusty I-16's Shkas AP rounds at about 200 meters distance, few times from touch distance - convergency was set to 200m - with seemingly no results. Stats reveal that I've managed to wound the pilot two times, but that's it almost: http://www.sas1946.rocks:8000/en/sortie/22215/?tour=1 Visually during the fight, the very first burst already lead to the 109 bleeding like hell (white and yellow/green trails), but any further hits just looked like 109 would lose all kind of small parts, but actually it lost nothing and the Shkas AP rounds bounced off the 109's Adolfinium skin as if they were marshmallows. Does anyone know the current state of the "indestructable tail" issue on the 109F/G/K? Feels like the devs don't have that on their screen at all anymore. Attention naysayers, before you start jumping the gun: I'm not saying you can't down a 109 with an I-16. We did manage to do that. What I'm trying to say is that AP ammo in general seems to be inept to cause strutural failures. 90% of 109s that I saw going down yesterday were doing so because they crossed the path of an I-16 at almost 90° deflection accidentally, got a burst straight into their engine and went down in flames. The other 10% were pilot kills. Wing losses, tail losses, control surface losses being cause of a 109s death can be summarized to 0 on our yesterday session. And I'm absolutely sure that a handful of people - at least - will come around now telling me that this is exactly how it's supposed to be. Mike
  20. Absolutely. Again: There's differences, but so far no sign of any backup to the claim of lightened wing structures. They'll probably have been strengthened - simply because almost every plane that got the MK 108 attached in it's lifetime had to be strengthened to some extent - but the claim for a lightened wing structure so far is just that: A claim. Mike
  21. The ammo box may or may not be the +3.6kg "per wing" on the A-6, that'll be pure guesswork. Fact is the A-6 is heavier than the A-5, the wing load therefore will logically be more as well, and the weapon replacement doesn't explain the weight difference and by far doesn't back up claims for "lighter" wing structures. Mike
  22. That's a fallacy. Is it that anyone here is stranger to math? The MG 151/20's mass is 42.7kg. The mass of the removed MG FF is 26.3kg. Using your calculation (which is a tad too simplified I'm afraid) the guns would be +16.4kg per wing, the remaining +3.6kg "per wing" would be "elsewhere". Simple answer: "Empty" is bare bone with guns. No pilot, no fuel, no oil, no ammo, no bombs, no droptanks, no "additional equipment". MG FF ammo weight of the A-5 according to D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 0: "Allgemeine Angaben" is 37kg (18.5kg per wing). Outer wing MG 151/20 ammo weight of the A-6 according to the same document is 62kg (31kg per wing, diff to A-5: +12.5kg). This is not the difference in empty weight as empty weight is without ammo. Mike
  23. Not trying to tell who's wrong or who's right, but the weight of the 190A-5 is specified as: 2960kg (empty) / 4106kg (takeoff), and the 190A-6: 3000kg (empty) / 4186kg (takeoff) (D. (Luft) T. 2190 A-5/A-6 Teil 0: "Allgemeine Angaben") How come, considering that both have the same wing dimensions (square and span), that the wing load should have decreased on the latter? Mike
×
×
  • Create New...