Flight and damage models physics

[-DED-Rapidus]

22 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

y'all forget about this or something? 

This has already been fixed and not only Spad VII has been redesigned.

[No.23_Triggers]

10 hours ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

This has already been fixed and not only Spad VII has been redesigned.

Unfortunately not - flutter bug still happening in-game for the SPAD VII. 
 

Track:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D37mLeb4J-MM0yPdq-CAp6pleKEuxSRx/view?usp=sharing

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

10 hours ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

This has already been fixed and not only Spad VII has been redesigned.

I posted similar video and trak in beta forum few days ago. 

[-DED-Rapidus]

3 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Unfortunately not - flutter bug still happening in-game for the SPAD VII. 

 

2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I posted similar video and trak in beta forum few days ago. 

Yeah, right, something I messed up.

[No.23_Triggers]

Thanks for taking the time to look into it! 

[ST_Nooney]

Brief description: Sopwith Camel DM is still not fixed after over 2 years +
Detailed description, conditions: 2 or 3 shots into the Camel and the wings come off, turn fighting is compromised in the Camel with any other central plane which I believe was not so in reality, It spoils the enjoyment of a good fight when the pilots skill is completely let down by a defective DM. Are the devs any closer to sorting this problem?
Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):
Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software):

[-DED-Rapidus]

On 1/31/2022 at 8:33 PM, ST_Nooney said:

Brief description: Sopwith Camel DM is still not fixed after over 2 years +

The FC damage model has been corrected more than once, I ask you to provide tracks or materials where, in your opinion, there are obvious flaws in the damage model.

[US103_Baer]

1 hour ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

The FC damage model has been corrected more than once, I ask you to provide tracks or materials where, in your opinion, there are obvious flaws in the damage model.

 

 

[ST_Nooney]

On 2/2/2022 at 1:00 PM, -DED-Rapidus said:

The FC damage model has been corrected more than once, I ask you to provide tracks or materials where, in your opinion, there are obvious flaws in the damage model.

I'll try and video it next time I'm on, I must admit it is not as bad as it used to be but still a few shots into the Camel and she gets rid of her wings in a less than 3g turn, might just be coincidence but it always seems to be the left wing first. Shall I post the video here or on the wing shredding post?

[-DED-Rapidus]

@ST_Nooney, this will not be superfluous, I received a response from the engineers, the wings FC problem will be solved after the fuel system is launched and the flight model 109s is finalized.

[JG1_Vonrd]

2 hours ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

@ST_Nooney, this will not be superfluous, I received a response from the engineers, the wings FC problem will be solved after the fuel system is launched and the flight model 109s is finalized.

Good to know that this issue has not been abandoned. Your previous post seemed to imply that it had been. 

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

On 2/6/2022 at 3:03 PM, -DED-Rapidus said:

@ST_Nooney, this will not be superfluous, I received a response from the engineers, the wings FC problem will be solved after the fuel system is launched and the flight model 109s is finalized.

This is excellent news! Thank you! Just to hear an affirmative that the wing shedding issue will be solved is enough. It’s great to know it’s on the calendar. ? 

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

Is it OK, that Bf 110 G-2 is able to fly 40 minutes with burning engine?
My friend has been hit over target, he was able to fly 40 minutes with burning engine and then land?
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1414259327?t=02h35m01s

It seems game is broken.

[-DED-Rapidus]

13 hours ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1414259327?t=02h35m01s

Where is it burning?

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

3 hours ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

Where is it burning?

02:35 there is attack. My mate reported his engine #2 burning, he turned it off and feathered his propeller.
And 03:08 he is still burning and landing. He has been almost 40 minutes on fire. Follow this link to see landing. Unfortunately I don't have a track.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1414259327?t=03h08m33s

Edited March 11, 2022 by 1stCL/rudidlo

[=SqSq=SignorMagnifico]

On 3/11/2022 at 8:14 AM, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

02:35 there is attack. My mate reported his engine #2 burning, he turned it off and feathered his propeller.
And 03:08 he is still burning and landing. He has been almost 40 minutes on fire. Follow this link to see landing. Unfortunately I don't have a track.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1414259327?t=03h08m33s

That is an interesting bug. The 110 was burning at 3h8m.

[SCG_Kimi]

On 10/27/2014 at 10:08 AM, BlackSix said:

Brief description: damaged my own plane while in the ju88c with the 13mm turret. Hit my glass and ripped holes in both my wings  
Detailed description, conditions: plane was in pristine condition. No fighter around as far as we could see and after the incident i got kicked from the server and received a 4 hour ban. Be aware when using the 13mm as a player in a friendly plane
Additional assets (videos,

screenshots, logs): sorry not available
Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software): no softwares involved

 

[CIA_Elanski]

 

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/2436967/?tour=49

 

This says it all really.  When it takes 4 or 5 passes on a ju88 and you hit it 108 times and the gunner still sets you on fire on the last pass.  Nope, nothing wrong here.

Just keep babying the germs so they will go to target.

yes, Tempest 20mm.

 

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/2436681/?tour=49

vs the 2 rounds

 

i sure hope this is the only thread i can talk about bullets in....does anyone research why it takes 108 20mm to bring down a ju88?  Is this normal now so the gremans will go bomb or is this plane got really small damage spots....like, one inch area to hit to really damage the gunner?  or a 2 inch wide area to disable the tail?

[IckyATLAS]

4 hours ago, CIA_Elanski said:

 

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/2436967/?tour=49

 

This says it all really.  When it takes 4 or 5 passes on a ju88 and you hit it 108 times and the gunner still sets you on fire on the last pass.  Nope, nothing wrong here.

Just keep babying the germs so they will go to target.

yes, Tempest 20mm.

 

http://ts3.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/sortie/2436681/?tour=49

vs the 2 rounds

 

i sure hope this is the only thread i can talk about bullets in....does anyone research why it takes 108 20mm to bring down a ju88?  Is this normal now so the gremans will go bomb or is this plane got really small damage spots....like, one inch area to hit to really damage the gunner?  or a 2 inch wide area to disable the tail?

That is interesting. But it has happened many times in real conditions that planes got riddled with bullets and full of holes but none was vital or fatal. Some planes had very robust airframes like the wellington bomber (see below). I must admit that generally these were not scores of 20mm cannon rounds. But are you sure your rounds did all hit the same target and how precise is this table of statistics.

You can see below that before you destroy such an airframe you need some bullet work and you have to be very precise.

 

[firdimigdi]

2 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

how precise is this table of statistics

 

All such statistics come directly from the server logs - they are as precise as the server reports them to be.

[CIA_Elanski]

i only shot one plane on that sortie.  

[SShrike]

Brief description: Bf-109 flies well without vertical stabilizer and one horizontal stabilizer
 

Detailed description, conditions: Finnish Virtual Pilots Multiplayer.  Flying a Hurricane with russian cannon configuration, I inflicted heavy damage to a 109E. With ammo expended, I chopped up the tail of the 109 with hurricane propeller. The entire rudder and vertical stabilizer were destroyed and removed. One of the horizontal stabilizers broke off shortly after. The 109 continued to fly in a controlled manner, where in reality, the aircraft should have lost vertical stability due to engine torque and heavy airframe damage. This looks as though there is an unrealistic flight/damage model.
 

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs): 

 

[IckyATLAS]

1 hour ago, SShrike said:

Brief description: Bf-109 flies well without vertical stabilizer and one horizontal stabilizer
 

Detailed description, conditions: Finnish Virtual Pilots Multiplayer.  Flying a Hurricane with russian cannon configuration, I inflicted heavy damage to a 109E. With ammo expended, I chopped up the tail of the 109 with hurricane propeller. The entire rudder and vertical stabilizer were destroyed and removed. One of the horizontal stabilizers broke off shortly after. The 109 continued to fly in a controlled manner, where in reality, the aircraft should have lost vertical stability due to engine torque and heavy airframe damage. This looks as though there is an unrealistic flight/damage model.
 

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs): 

 

Already the rudder size and surface was far from ideal on this fighter for normal flight, no vertical surface at all would not allow for a normal stable flying.

But let's study this interesting case.

The stabilizer is higher compared to the wing level so it should be more effective out of the wings turbulent slipstream. So if a third of one side is still there at least it is not too bad at a high speed. The problem is the stabilizer right aileron which is completely out.

The Rudder and vertical tail surface having disappeared with a good size of the right stabilizer, it will lighten the tails and the fighter will become unbalanced and nose heavy. 

So to keep level you need to pull slightly up (you can also play with the throttle and reduce power) but it will not be symmetric and you will have an unwanted roll on the right, you can counter wilh wing aileron roll to the left. These plane had very high wing loadings so a snap roll can occur if you are at high speed and do brutal corrections with an unstable tail that can swing.

The problem when you are rolling there is no vertical surface and the tail will sink in the roll side and  there you cannot do anything. Maybe a computer could fly this but a human is for me doomed. Here the logical physical simulation would be for the pilot to reduce slowly power and just jump out.

 

Except if we have original historical data that show that a pilot could make it fly in those conditions, and if so then he had to have an incredible dynamic knowledge of its plane and of its flight envelope which would probably make the case pretty unique and with some luck too. German pilots were generally obliged to fly until they got killed or became POW or just finished the war. Many had an incredible number of hours on their plane and so it is acceptable to say that they knew their plane behavior in all conditions to a very very high level of perfection. As a proof some german pilots did crash land multiple times and came back to fight so they did show that they could crash land their plane perfectly well many times.

 

[354thFG_Rails]

On 4/27/2022 at 3:01 AM, IckyATLAS said:

Already the rudder size and surface was far from ideal on this fighter for normal flight, no vertical surface at all would not allow for a normal stable flying.

But let's study this interesting case.

The stabilizer is higher compared to the wing level so it should be more effective out of the wings turbulent slipstream. So if a third of one side is still there at least it is not too bad at a high speed. The problem is the stabilizer right aileron which is completely out.

The Rudder and vertical tail surface having disappeared with a good size of the right stabilizer, it will lighten the tails and the fighter will become unbalanced and nose heavy. 

So to keep level you need to pull slightly up (you can also play with the throttle and reduce power) but it will not be symmetric and you will have an unwanted roll on the right, you can counter wilh wing aileron roll to the left. These plane had very high wing loadings so a snap roll can occur if you are at high speed and do brutal corrections with an unstable tail that can swing.

The problem when you are rolling there is no vertical surface and the tail will sink in the roll side and  there you cannot do anything. Maybe a computer could fly this but a human is for me doomed. Here the logical physical simulation would be for the pilot to reduce slowly power and just jump out.

 

Except if we have original historical data that show that a pilot could make it fly in those conditions, and if so then he had to have an incredible dynamic knowledge of its plane and of its flight envelope which would probably make the case pretty unique and with some luck too. German pilots were generally obliged to fly until they got killed or became POW or just finished the war. Many had an incredible number of hours on their plane and so it is acceptable to say that they knew their plane behavior in all conditions to a very very high level of perfection. As a proof some german pilots did crash land multiple times and came back to fight so they did show that they could crash land their plane perfectly well many times.

 

Are you saying this is with the realm of possibility?

[IckyATLAS]

On 4/28/2022 at 5:44 PM, 86th_Rails said:

Are you saying this is with the realm of possibility?

Frankly I do not know but I would not rule out completely the possibility that you could crash land that airplane and survive. 

As I said a computer may be able to fly it up to a point. This means combining the engine thrust and all available surface controls together.

Probably too complicated for a human pilot.

[Hitcher]

Brief description: 

P47D-22 and P47D-28 take less damage to achieve level 2 and level 3 skin damage than other aircraft.

 

Detailed Description:

In QMB I tested 10 aircraft by shooting the starboard inbound wing hit box with flares to see when each skin damage level was achieved, each aircraft required 1 hit to achieve level 1 damage.

I have attached track files to each test.

 

BF109 K4:

Level 2 damage: 15 hits

Level 3 damage 30 hits

109k4_skin_test.rar

 

BF109 G14:

Level 2 Damage: 15 hits

Level 3 damage: 30 hits

109g14_skin_test.rar

 

FW190 A8:

Level 2 damage: 15 hits

Level 3 damage: 30 hits

190a8_skin_test.rar

 

FW190 D9:

Level 2 damage: 15 hits

Level 3 damage: 30 hits

190d9_skin_test.rar

 

P51D-15:

Level 2 damage: 15 hits

Level 3 damage: 30 hits

p51d_skin_test.rar

 

Spitfire Mk IX:

Level 2 damage: 15 hits

Level 3 damage: 30 hits

spitfiremkix_skin_test.rar

 

Tempest Mk V Ser.2:

Level 2 damage: 15 hits

Level 3 damage: 30 hits

tempest_skin_test.rar

 

Typhoon Mk.1b:

Level 2 damage: 10 hits

Level 3 damage: 19 hits

typhoon_skin_test.rar

 

P47D-22:

Level 2 damage: 4 hits

Level 3 damage: 8 hits

p47d22_skin_test.rar

 

P47D-28:

Level 2 damage: 4 hits

Level 3 damage: 8 hits

p47d28_skin_test.rar

 

As you can see from my testing 7 out of 10 aircraft take precisely 15 rounds to achieve level 2 damage and 30 rounds to achieve level 3 damage, outliers being the typhoon and both P47 models.

These tests show a clear anomaly in the P47s damage modelling compared to other aircraft and would explain this particular aircrafts lack of ability to remain air worthy after receiving damage.

Tests were done with other types of armour piercing projectiles and demonstrated a similar correlation in hits taken per level of skin damage between the 10 aircraft used in the report.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Hitcher

[357th_Dog]

That's...wow, thanks. 

Yeah, that's something that needs addressing, good work! 

[ACG_Cass]

On 6/3/2022 at 10:53 PM, Hitcher said:

Brief description: 

P47D-22 and P47D-28 take less damage to achieve level 2 and level 3 skin damage than other aircraft.

 

I ran similar tests that showed the same thing over a year ago. Something is definitely wrong on the P47 for it to be a lone outlier across an entire planeset and more. Perhaps there is an error, or wrong value in it's damage model relative to the other planes. 

 

 

[-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138]

Yea this has been an issue for a good while and makes the jug very uncompetitive especially with all the damage German planes can soak up. Please fix this.

 

[Regingrave-]

04.06.2022 в 00:53, Hitcher сказал:

P47D-22 and P47D-28 take less damage to achieve level 2 and level 3 skin damage than other aircraft.

05.06.2022 в 18:23, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 сказал:

Yea this has been an issue for a good while and makes the jug very uncompetitive especially with all the damage German planes can soak up. Please fix this.

 

It does not really matter that much, and clearly does not make P-47s weak or uncompetitive planes, because visual damage only represents, for some degree, loss of aerodynamic quality of the wing, depending on the overall area of the damaged zone, i.e. holes.

What really matters is structural durability, which allows the wing to stay in place when hit, in our damage model it is separated from the skin damage. By that metric P-47s are much more durable than, for example, Bf-109s, which is confirmed by our internal tests, we've ran again yesterday to see if it's really some trouble there.

[354thFG_Rails]

I don't know how you can say it doesn't matter, when it's reaching level 3 aero at a much faster rate than other planes in the game. This is causing massive amounts of drag making it a weak and uncompetitive. You are virtually out of the fight when taking 1x131HE round, or any HE round for that matter. Structurally I find it hard you've found that structurally it was more durable than a 109 but if your tests show that, then so be it. Compared to other planes, for example 190's or even a 51, I was finding it was losing a wing much sooner. 

[Hitcher]

2 hours ago, Regingrave said:

 

It does not really matter that much, and clearly does not make P-47s weak or uncompetitive planes, because visual damage only represents, for some degree, loss of aerodynamic quality of the wing, depending on the overall area of the damaged zone, i.e. holes.

What really matters is structural durability, which allows the wing to stay in place when hit, in our damage model it is separated from the skin damage. By that metric P-47s are much more durable than, for example, Bf-109s, which is confirmed by our internal tests, we've ran again yesterday to see if it's really some trouble there.

Thanks for the reply. 

 

In my opinion, and I feel I'm speaking for the majority, aside from structural strength the wings ability to create lift after receiving damage is very important.

There is clearly an anomaly with the p47s ability to create lift once the wing has received damage that is disproportionate to the majority of aircraft in the game.

 

1 mg131 hit is enough to create level 3 damage on all wing hit boxes and 1 mg151 hit to the fuselage is enough to create level 3 damage on the wing and also damage the opposite wings surface on the other side of the aircraft.

 

This damage was caused by a single 13mm mg131 HE hit, the aircraft was unable to fly below 180mph as the wing would no longer produce lift.

 

This was the resulting skin damage of a single 20mm mg151 hit, as you can see the p47s skin is very sensitive to HE damage and will lose the ability to fly much sooner than other aircraft.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Hitcher

[Rache-der-Boote]

2 hours ago, Regingrave said:

...clearly does not make P-47s weak or uncompetitive planes, because visual damage only represents, for some degree, loss of aerodynamic quality of the wing...

 

So what you're saying is that the P-47 is still competitive as long as it isn't moving through the air?

[ACG_Cass]

9 hours ago, Regingrave said:

It does not really matter that much, and clearly does not make P-47s weak or uncompetitive planes, because visual damage only represents, for some degree, loss of aerodynamic quality of the wing, depending on the overall area of the damaged zone, i.e. holes.

What really matters is structural durability, which allows the wing to stay in place when hit, in our damage model it is separated from the skin damage. By that metric P-47s are much more durable than, for example, Bf-109s, which is confirmed by our internal tests, we've ran again yesterday to see if it's really some trouble there.

 

What others are rather undiplomatically trying to say is aero and drag penalties will decide a fight between 2 planes in almost all most cases. You're completely correct that the P47 is much stronger structurally than the 109, but that isn't often going to be what decides a fight.

 

If a P47 is hit by 1x13mm HE round in the wing, it will require a severe right stick correction to fly straight, will lose an enormous amount of speed so it won't be able to run from even a much slower plane and would have lost so much lift it can't turn.

 

Here is an example. A Bf109K4 (DB Engine) and P47D22 (with 150 oct fuel) both have been hit by a 20mm HE shell on the left wing tip. In this configuration, the P47D22 would have a higher top speed without damage.

 

 

This is an 80kmh difference in speed despite being hit by the same round in the same place.

 

I don't think anyone is asking for a DM overhaul at this stage as we know how hard your working, but the P47 seems to be an outlier compared to the other Battle of Bodenplatte planes and is much more fragile, despite contemporary evidence showing it should be the strongest. As shown in this test:

 

 

We'd just want the P47 DM to be given a once over and brought to at least parity with the other planes.

 

[150_GIAP-Red_Dragon]

I'm trying to understand now.. After all, MG 17 is 7.92 mm?

 

 

 

 Ok.. If my thunderbolt P-47 was shot down in less than a second by several 7.92 bullets by Messerschmitt who was on my 6, then what should my 50 cal do?? That's right, in this simulator  they sometimes don't have to do anything,

it's just 6 * 50 cal.. not the 2 * MG 17 ?

 

Believe me, I think this simulator is the best and this development team is the best team for a combat simulator. Thanks a thousand times for the wonderful mosquito!  But this DM is broken, it needs improvement..  

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by -332FG-Red_Pilot

[CountZero]

4 hours ago, -332FG-Red_Pilot said:

I'm trying to understand now.. After all, MG 17 is 7.92 mm?

 

 

 

 Ok.. If my thunderbolt P-47 was shot down in less than a second by several 7.92 bullets by Messerschmitt who was on my 6, then what should my 50 cal do?? That's right, in this simulator  they sometimes don't have to do anything,

it's just 6 * 50 cal.. not the 2 * MG 17 ?

 

Believe me, I think this simulator is the best and this development team is the best team for a combat simulator. Thanks a thousand times for the wonderful mosquito!  But this DM is broken, it needs improvement..  

 

 

 

In that sortie stats say you were hit by 20x MG17 AP 1xMG 151/20 (AP) and 2xMG 151/20 (HE)

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/1590671/?tour=47

Damage Report

Number of hits taken

23

MG 151/20 (AP)

1

MG 151/20 (HE)

2

MG 17 (AP)

20

Even picture of damage event say on one event you got hit by 9x MG17, same sa stats say:

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/1590671/?tour=47

 

What most likely happend is because of lag betwen you and server because of high ping also data from enemy AI 109 hitting you was delayd and come all at same time, thats why events are in same time and missing all bullets. You can not based bad P-47 DM on MP servers, and examples like this will just be disrigarded.

 

Best way to prove how bad P-47 DM is is by doing tests in SP and show mission logs from SP.

 

Also there is important disclamer:

* Ammo types are not attached to damage logs in the log files. "Ammo hit" logs are attached via processing to damage logs using an educated guess, so it may be incorrect.

 

 

EDIT:

Example where Sortie Damage report and Sortie Log of damage events shows correctly amount and type of bullets that hit your airplane.

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/1570263/?tour=47

Number of hits taken

30

MG 151/20 (AP)

2

MG 151/20 (HE)

3

MG 17 (AP)

25

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/log/1570263/?tour=47

 

I would always take what damage report say that hit you is more correct then what event log say.

Edited June 21, 2022 by CountZero

[150_GIAP-Red_Dragon]

1 час назад, CountZero сказал:

 

Also there is important disclamer:

* Ammo types are not attached to damage logs in the log files. "Ammo hit" logs are attached via processing to damage logs using an educated guess, so it may be incorrect.

 

 

I would always take what damage report say that hit you is more correct then what event log say.

Thanks, that is my bad.. It is possible that the shells hit after the death of the pilot. Although I still don't like the situation as a whole, probably one or two shells were enough, you can see that everything happened just instantly, despite the fact that I noticed the threat and managed to push the stick.. It doesn't seem to have helped in any way

[MisterSmith]

Please use the correct format to address issues as explained by Black Six' OP. This thread is to address issues/bugs to the Dev's and not to debate amongst your/ourselves. The point of the thread is to allow them to be succinctly informed of issues rather than have to weed through excessive dialogue to extract information. All posts not using the format may be deleted/hidden without explanation if they fail to adhere to those instructions.

 

Thanks,

 

Smith

[Hitcher]

Brief description:

HE shrapnel bypassing fuselage and damaging far away components.

Detailed description, conditions:

HE shells currently have a very large sphere of influence and are capable of damaging components that are blocked by the fuselage or other structures.

shooting the one wing of each aircraft damages the opposite wing and in some cases sets the other wings fuel tank on fire.

what can also be observed in these tests are hits to the wing damaging far away components like radiators and engines more than 5 meters away in some cases.

I have put together a series of tests on various aircraft demonstrating the issue.
 

There is a plethora of photographic evidence of damage inflicted to aircraft by HE shells with localised, concentrated damage being the usual observation.

 

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

 

Track File:

dm_test.rar

 

P38:

Hits to the left wing cause skin damage to the right wing, setting the right fuel tank on fire and causing a coolant leak in the right boom, several meters away from the hits.

https://gfycat.com/firsthandoffensivegopher

 

P47:

Hits to the right wing cause skin damage on the opposite wing as well as an eventual fuselage fuel tank fire.

https://gfycat.com/sombercompetentclumber

 

BF110:

Hits to the right wing cause skin damage and a fuel fire in the opposite wing.

https://gfycat.com/sophisticatedwindycockroach

 

JU88:

Hits to the right wing cause skin damage and a fuel tank fire in the opposite wing.

https://gfycat.com/hilariousdismalfritillarybutterfly

 

FW190:

Hits to the right wing cause skin damage on the opposite wing and eventual fuselage fuel tank fire and explosion.

https://gfycat.com/kindclosekestrel

 

P-51:

Hits to the right wing cause skin damage on the opposite wing.

https://gfycat.com/recklesssecretcutworm

 

I would be happy to provide additional assets if required.

 

Update:

After experimenting with the ammo files I found reducing the radius stopped shrapnel from travelling through the fuselage and made local damage more appropriate.

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Hitcher

[Hitcher]

Brief description:

P47 (both models) vertical stabilizer can be removed by armour piercing projectiles striking the rear fuselage aft of the USAAF insignia.

Detailed description, conditions:

I set up 6 targets in a custom mission and fired on them with the rear gunner of the a20.

Shooting the p47 tail directly aft of the USAAF insignia will remove the vertical stabilizer after roughly 60-90 .50 cal hits without any direct fire to the vertical stabilizer itself.

I tested other aircraft and couldn't replicate the same results.

 

Track File:

p47tailDM.rar

 

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

 

D28:

https://gfycat.com/difficultvengefulindianrockpython

 

D22:

https://gfycat.com/composedmildhornshark

 

 

I'd be happy to provide additional assets if required.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Hitcher