Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sturmkraehe

Retrying BoS: Wrong turn?

Recommended Posts

After a break of two patches I fly again BoS on a regular basis. And I don't like the direction this game took in some aspects (not all).

 

Admittedly I can only talk about VVS perspective as this is what I am currently flying exclusively.

 

Overall it got very tough to shoot down a plane. Didn't the devs say in response to critics during the early phases of DM status that the damage done by the bullets is historically correct according to their sources? Now since the planes now got tougher (sustaining thus less damage than before) do I have to assume that now the DM is less historically accurate?

 

I also now have to consider the 109 as a flying tank while a 190 is comparatively easier to down. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 109 a flying tank? Would not say so. The toughest figter at the moment is the LaGG, it can take a lot of punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally very much like the changes made to the DM.

 

Please note, that the planes haven't simply been made tougher across the board. There have been made two significant changes: A general toughening of the structure of the planes resulting in fewer wings and tails falling off (and subsequently more minor structural damages like loss of control surfaces) and a toughening of radial engines compared to inlines (to the benefit of the two premium planes)

 

The result is a DM that seems quite well balanced in several ways:

 

The different kinds of damage all occur approximately equally often with the expected variance between planes (fuel fires occur more often in planes with wing tanks for instance) Before 1.009 practically half my kills against fighters were structural failures (wings or tails coming off)

 

The chances have meant, that while you can still get lucky and achieve single-shot kills, you now have to deliver 1-2 good bursts to be sure of a kill, and occasionally a plane will get lucky and soak up a lot of bullets and leave the fight looking like a sieve but still flying.

The 'flying tank' is a myth though. Against AI and human players alike I can consistently get multiple kills against both fighters and bombers even with the small ammo supply of the LaGG and Yak. Planes are still quite vulnerable things and you can never feel secure that your aircraft will simply soak up damage.

 

I think the DM now feels pretty darned detailed and accurate and well reflects what can be seen in historical gun cam footage.

 

One more thing: You said you've only just returned to BoS, so with all due respect: Could it be that your marksmanship has deteriorated in the passing time, meaning you land fewer hits making the changes appear more dramatic than they are?

 

I suggest you give it a week before passing judgement and I think you'll discover that you can still get kills well enough and that the DM has become much more interesting and varied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do agree with Fink, DM is at high level now. Best seen in any sim. But what I like to see is gears coming down when hydraulic/electric system is hit. Seen many times on gun camera recordings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, there are small intricate details that could still be added (I hope to one day see the DM include rupturing pressure tanks when the oxygen system is hit) but the overall balance now is very nice.

 

As to whether it was 'wrong' before and is 'right' now: I think that's a fruitless discussion, because a sim will never be 100% accurate. I think the DM was good before, and it took the latest changes to make me realize that it could be even better (it's not like the DM was completely turned on its head - it was a fairly minor tweak)

 

A simulation will always be an interpretation of historical realities, even more so when it comes to DM which for obvious reasons cannot be accurately tested IRL, and I happen to think that the current interpretation is a better representation of reality than the earlier one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how DM 'feels' when you get hit, but how it looks is another story. It is almost the worst any laziest texture work I have seen in last decade. And on some planes smaller holes look so bad, it's even worse then in first original IL2.

 

This game has great graphics for a DX9 game, but DM decals are definitely sticking out as something done in one afternoon after 3 days hangover. Won't even bother bringing pictures in, people that seen BOS and CloD know exactly how big that difference is. And it's near shocking knowing this is from same guys that made ROF DM graphics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the DM as they are now, really.

 

I find them really close to what we can see in WW2's gun cameras.

 

The only problem with them, that is also an immersion killer imo, is the visual model... Example, you're in your Fw 190A-3 and a La-5 has fired some shells on your left wing. You watch your wing and you see a lot of small holes from low calibers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was exactly my point Ze_Hairy. Good to know I am not only one noticing it. Like I said, 'feels' like you're damaged now, just don't look as one would expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not discussing the damage model, really...that's the damage textures. Not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh!   :rolleyes:

 

The devs have already told us that the movable feast commonly referred to as the DM accords exactly with their secret research so on what possible basis can any legitimate criticisms be made?  In such circumstances any criticism must by definition be politically incorrect and therefore revisionist and wrong.

 

Seriously, the next thing you know people will be suggesting there's something wrong with the relative roll-rates.  Hahahahaha  ... yes crazy I know but we must be constantly on our guard against these haters and wreckers who refuse to embrace the new reality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we get "random" damage or even wear and tear now?  I ask because of this;

 

 

Just a four ship scramble in the QMB, nothing special.  I get the cleared for take off message, give it some throttle and WUT!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do agree with Fink, DM is at high level now. Best seen in any sim. But what I like to see is gears coming down when hydraulic/electric system is hit. Seen many times on gun camera recordings.

I have witnessed landing gears hanging from aircraft. Last night I was flying a mission in the G2 against a plethora of Pe2s and I suffered significant weapons fire. I was surveying the damage of my aircraft with F2 and noticed one of my landing gears was gone. I'd assume I lost hydraulic pressure and the speed of the aircraft caused the gear to sheer away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a four ship scramble in the QMB, nothing special.  I get the cleared for take off message, give it some throttle and WUT!!!!!

 

I think its an issue with the Pe2, had some QMB with it sometime and had to finish mission and start a new one because as soon as I unpause the game, my wing would break. And its something it doesnt happen to the other planes. (At least it hasnt for me...)

Edited by istruba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have witnessed landing gears hanging from aircraft. Last night I was flying a mission in the G2 against a plethora of Pe2s and I suffered significant weapons fire. I was surveying the damage of my aircraft with F2 and noticed one of my landing gears was gone. I'd assume I lost hydraulic pressure and the speed of the aircraft caused the gear to sheer away.

You assume wrong unfortunately. Both gears and wheel well covers can detatch due to damage, the covers being blown off is a type of damage seen quite often, but there is no fuction in the DM that allows the gear to drop due to loss of hydraulic/pneumatic pressure or mechanical damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen landing gear come down from damage also I'm not sure gear gets torn off by high speeds yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen landing gear come down from damage also I'm not sure gear gets torn off by high speeds yet.

 

It doesn't, only the wheel covers get torn off and the gear becomes stuck, if you try to operate it a high speeds.

 

I can't say if it's the correct way of portraying it, but it kinda makes sense to me, when locked in the down-position the landing gear of an aircraft has to be pretty damn strong. Not sure if it really should just come off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 With gear down, the drag it produces is unlikely to be enough to 'rip it off' at any of the speeds these A/C are capable, gear doors etc. however  do get ripped off, and the associated mechanisms can/should be able to receive damage that is historical

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding DM, surely the model can't be right for the Ju52?

I mean it's like it's made out of cardboard, literally a single burst of machine gun will cause the wings to fold or even fall off. 

Great if you're attacking them but a nightmare if you're escorting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding DM, surely the model can't be right for the Ju52?

I mean it's like it's made out of cardboard, literally a single burst of machine gun will cause the wings to fold or even fall off. 

Great if you're attacking them but a nightmare if you're escorting.

 

I don't know with what kind of machine gun you are firing at it but i can empty a whole magazine of my yak into that bird and its still flying. Speaking of 7.68mm, berezin does way better.

Edited by Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume wrong unfortunately. Both gears and wheel well covers can detatch due to damage, the covers being blown off is a type of damage seen quite often, but there is no fuction in the DM that allows the gear to drop due to loss of hydraulic/pneumatic pressure or mechanical damage.

Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we get "random" damage or even wear and tear now?  I ask because of this;

 

 

Just a four ship scramble in the QMB, nothing special.  I get the cleared for take off message, give it some throttle and WUT!!!!!

 

It's possible you have been the victim of a ghost tree. I have read there was one of them around one of the airfield on Stalingrad map, but that this bug has been corrected recently.

 

If this video is a few weeks old, then it is very possible that you had found the ghost tree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a break of two patches I fly again BoS on a regular basis. And I don't like the direction this game took in some aspects..

 

I personally very much like the changes made to the DM.

 

This is the classic flight sim dichotomy... :):salute: Carry on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you find that a 109 is a flying tank in BoS, just try DCS FW190 against AI Mustang. :D

 

When you finish the flight you can see how many bullets you get on target, up to 20 hits with 20mm and the AI is still flying sometimes, not counting the MG hits. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made some more flights - this time in a FW190. 

 

A thought came to my mind yesterday. Maybe it is more how bullets count in making damage rather than the DM itself that bugs me. My strong impression is that there is a sort of function implemented that calculates a sort of damage fading that increases with the difference between the target distance and the set convergence distance. This means that the damage that can be caused is decreasing with increasing difference. And my strong impression is that this fading is very strong if you shoot a little bit off convergence distance until it reaches a low value that doesn't diminish strongly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thought came to my mind yesterday. Maybe it is more how bullets count in making damage rather than the DM itself that bugs me. My strong impression is that there is a sort of function implemented that calculates a sort of damage fading that increases with the difference between the target distance and the set convergence distance. This means that the damage that can be caused is decreasing with increasing difference. And my strong impression is that this fading is very strong if you shoot a little bit off convergence distance until it reaches a low value that doesn't diminish strongly.

 

No. The answer is more simple than that: A far bigger number of shots hit their target when firing at convergence, thus causing far more damage.

 

AFAIK BoS models each projectile individually, but most of them you never see unless they hit, because they aren't tracers - that doesn't mean they aren't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I want to officially declare the myth about the 'flying tank' VVS fighters dead.

 

I just shot down 5 fighters (2 LaGGs, 3 Yaks) in a campaign mission using only the standard armament on the Bf 109 F4, strafed a couple of ground targets on my way home and landed with more than a third of my MG 151 ammo left.

 

If you feel like you can't shoot down the fighters in BoS, it's 'cause you're not hitting them. :hunter:

 

End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a way to enable a log of hits and damage done?

 

I thought I remembered this being used to check on the robustness of ground targets, but I can't find the thread now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I want to officially declare the myth about the 'flying tank' VVS fighters dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edited]

Edited by Bearcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Edited]

The 'unfailing positivity' of constantly criticising the forced presets, fully acknowleging the wrong high altitude speeds and incorrect flaps-down handling of the Yak-1 (among other FM issues) and calling the BoS campaign a 'glorified random mission generator' - Yeah, clearly I must be on the payroll :dry:

Edited by Bearcat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I want to officially declare the myth about the 'flying tank' VVS fighters dead.

 

I just shot down 5 fighters (2 LaGGs, 3 Yaks) in a campaign mission using only the standard armament on the Bf 109 F4, strafed a couple of ground targets on my way home and landed with more than a third of my MG 151 ammo left.

 

If you feel like you can't shoot down the fighters in BoS, it's 'cause you're not hitting them. :hunter:

 

End of story.

Luck in one mission is by no means statistically relevant!!!

 

To reach conclusions from that is at least daring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ... so you are on some sort of retainer then??  I'd assumed the unfailing positivity was political but maybe it just comes down to $$$.  

 

 

PM sent..

 

Posts like this .. will not be tolerated here. New folks will not know the context in which they are made.. and perhaps even think tis an inncoent post.. but any founder knows the implication.. and it will not be tolerated. I have warned you via PM and publicly. Do not go there again please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take money to spread good word about BOS and BOM!

 

I do anyways, even if the campaign is pretty lame. I'm online anyway... Played a lot of GTA5 recently and only touched the story mode first mission to get to online....

Also one thing that might make it hard to hit and damage planes online is the ping.... A few hundred milliseconds can be the difference between hitting or missing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck in one mission is by no means statistically relevant!!!

 

To reach conclusions from that is at least daring.

Ofc. I don't 'reach conclusions' based on a single mission! I simply made that post in the spirit of that particular mission and used it as an example. I get results like those all the time. I could just as well have written about any other mission, because I hardly do one in SP without getting multiple kills, and I'm not a particularly good shot, as people who have flown with me online can attest.

 

1.009 forced us all (and me especially) to aim more carefully, because now we can't simply count on 1-2 random hits to achieve the kill. But once I adjusted, I actually use less ammo than I did before, because now I aim properly at my target, where before It'd be enough to just sling some lead in the general direction of the enemy.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The answer is more simple than that: A far bigger number of shots hit their target when firing at convergence, thus causing far more damage.

 

AFAIK BoS models each projectile individually, but most of them you never see unless they hit, because they aren't tracers - that doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

I know about convergence. But I also notice that being 10m off reduces hit chances by far according to my experience. My convervenge is set to 200m and even when target is at 150m I cause less damage and this significantly while the target hit probability should increase. This is why I did have the suspicion that its not the bullet hitting the target that principally determines the extend of damage done.

 

About all bullets counting in BoS: Did the devs say so (can you post the link please - I'd be really interested in what the devs exactly said about this point)? I know that Clod counted every bullet and individual bullet damage - the latter being the decisive parameter - at least should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember a statement from the devs regarding BoS, but individual bullets were modelled in RoF and it would really surprise me, if they had scaled back realism on that point when using what is practically the same engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...