Damage Model...?

[Krupi]

The P-47 is a fairly well documented event, the basic synopsis being the following. I'll see what more I can find..

"A P-47 of the 64th Fighter Squadron, while on a mission to Milan , struck the ground during a low level strafing run. Despite the bent props and crushed chin, the pilot nursed the Jug 150 miles home to Grosseto . Photo via Hebb Russell"

Glad someone saw it in the link :D

[DD_bongodriver]

I saw it too and I've seen it before, never was convinced personally, I don't doubt the event happened, i simply doubt the aircraft pictured is the one involved, the P-47 has a pot belly and I don't see any damage on the rest of the underside...if it hit's cowling first it's pointing down and thats a crash.

 

 

OK ignore me......I should open my mouth 'after' I have finished looking for more details........heres the missing detail I didn't see on 'Dixie gal'

 

http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=14650

 

 

Now I should pick my jaw up off the floor realising how incredible this story actually is...

 

Here is the lucky/skillfull pilot Cpt Paul Hall showing more of the damage..

 

Edited January 8, 2013 by bongodriver

[Krupi]

The fw-190 and p-47 are tough birds and in il2 I found it harder to take down than any other aicraft, tough and a good pilot would always boom and zoom any shot you got on it still didn't stop it rocketing back to the stratosphere!

[migmadmarine]

Wow, never seen that angle. Christ!

 

Not exactly the same, but some very cool photos, http://http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/language/en-CA/Lower-than-a-Snakes-Belly-in-a-Wagon-Rut.aspx

[DD_bongodriver]

Yep...and it explains the props bending back....the impact was sudden and hard and I reckon the Jug was 'bounced' back into the air after that impact........now....where do I go to sign up to never fly anything other than a P-47?

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Wow, that's one tough aircraft...a bounce yep.

Though can you imagine the face of the pilot and the ground crew when he landed and had a look?

 

A 150 miles like that? Wow.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Furbs

[NZTyphoon]

Yep...and it explains the props bending back....the impact was sudden and hard and I reckon the Jug was 'bounced' back into the air after that impact........now....where do I go to sign up to never fly anything other than a P-47?

 

This one also had bent back prop blades and suffered from sudden impact...

 

 

 

"Now, where the heck did I put my rabbit's foot, four leaf clover and horseshoe?" (Total coincidence - this was a Lt Hallberg)

 

 

(All From Bodie's Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt, 1994, pages 284 [top] & 203)

 

Edited January 9, 2013 by NZTyphoon

[DD_bongodriver]

Christ....P-47.....the flying bomb shelter, not in bad shape considering it was blown up by a 500lb bomb.

[Crump]

A P-47 of the 64th Fighter Squadron, while on a mission to Milan , struck the ground during a low level strafing run. Despite the bent props and crushed chin, the pilot nursed the Jug 150 miles home to Grosseto . Photo via Hebb Russell"

 

 

That thing must have been a beast to fly.  What a lucky guy.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Ill take beast over not at all any day of the week!

[ACG_Dickie]

It's all to do with the structure, material, weight, how much fuel was carried and where. A ww2 aircraft is made of mainly metal and have that hit the ground causes sparks and obviously ignites the fuel in the wings.

 

A lot of WW2 AC going in from high angles would end up underground, particularly in softer ground.  The sheer speed, energy and mass of the engine would force it in (rather like bombs which ended up 10ft under asphalt with a timed fuse to go off later).  Of course this crumpled the aircraft in the process,  plenty of fighters ended up shortened from their designed 10m to 2m as the tail and fuselage squashes up to the engine block with the force of impact.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Osprey

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Christ....P-47.....the flying bomb shelter, not in bad shape considering it was blown up by a 500lb bomb.

Good analogy!

 

In short, luck had very little to do with all the P-47 pilot stories of incredable damage yet still being able to fly home, and very much to do with the design of the aircraft.. Another one is the P-38, though it looks fragle, it was very rugged! There is a good picture of a P-38 tail that got wraped around some electrical wires and pulled down several wire polls worth of wire and was able to fly home! Most WWII planes would have gone nose in with half the dammage that a P47, P38, B17 could take.

Edited January 9, 2013 by ACEOFACES

[Caudron431]

Most WWII planes would have gone nose in with half the dammage that a P47, P38, B17 could take.

 

That's perhaps also related to the fact that the aircraft you name generally were almost two times the size and weight compared to their counterparts. Not to talk about their high price (and high quality).

 

IIRC the fantastic P47 was WW2 most expensive single-engine fighter, his weight was also comparable to that of a twin engined german medium bomber 8 tons (we are not very far from the Ju88 category with 8.5 tons loaded!)

 

With the Republic fighter you may not have a great "bang for buck" ratio, but you really have the quality you paid for. I'm sure pilots apreciated at the time.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

That's perhaps also related to the fact that the aircraft you name generally were almost two times the size and weight compared to their counterparts.

True the B17 was larger than most if not all Luft production bombers

 

.

Not to talk about their high price (and high quality).

High price?

 

Granted, producing a P-47 had to cost more than updating an existing Bf-109.. Which is something the Germans did.. The only strange thing about that is they counted that updated plane as a new production plane.. Which sheds some light on why the Bf109 holds the title of one of if not thee most produced aircraft in WWII (counting the same bean more than once)

 

.

 

IIRC the fantastic P47 was WW2 most expensive single-engine fighter, his weight was also comparable to that of a twin engined german medium bomber 8 tons (we are not very far from the Ju88 category with 8.5 tons loaded!)

I think the paylaod of the P47 was not far off and maybe even exceed the Ju88

 

.

 

With the Republic fighter you may not have a great "bang for buck" ratio, but you really have the quality you paid for. I'm sure pilots apreciated at the time.

In light of there being so many P47 pilots with such stories I would have to agree Edited January 9, 2013 by ACEOFACES

[MiloMorai]

IIRC the fantastic P47 was WW2 most expensive single-engine fighter, his weight was also comparable to that of a twin engined german medium bomber 8 tons (we are not very far from the Ju88 category with 8.5 tons loaded!)

 

 

 

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t82.htm

 

P-38

134,284 120,407 105,567 97,147

 

P-47

113,246 105,594 104,258 85,578 83,001

 

P-51

-, 58,698 58,824 51,572 50,985

[NZTyphoon]

 

 

Pilot crawling shakily out of the cockpit..."Who the hell said I didn't get "a great bang for buck ratio"???"

 

Edited January 9, 2013 by NZTyphoon

[Crump]

IIRC the fantastic P47 was WW2 most expensive single-engine fighter, his weight was also comparable to that of a twin engined german medium bomber

 

Yep, at low altitudes, the Power to Weight in the P47 is not very good making it a poor performer.  At high altitudes, it is one of best fighters of World War II for the same reason.

[Zmaj76]

If I was a pilot in WW2 and if I was to choose which one...I would choose the fast, big mfer with guns, in which I have more chance to survive.....the Thunderbolt. In my hometown is one in the local museum...its one of the only few still existing, of the latest P47 type...I was shocked how big it is...

[Bearcat]

The Cosair is huge too.....

[ShamrockOneFive]

The Cosair is huge too.....

That it is. I forget where I was but a P-47 was parked fairly close to a FW190D-9 and a Corsair was over somewhere else in the facility and the FW190 was TINY in comparison.

[MiloMorai]

Yep, at low altitudes, the Power to Weight in the P47 is not very good making it a poor performer.  At high altitudes, it is one of best fighters of World War II for the same reason.

 

Many Bf109 and Fw190 pilots would disagree with you, if they could.

[Crump]

And many P47 would pilots would agree...

 

A little high school math proves the point so there is no need to speculate.

[FTC_Karaya]

If you had a prop hit, the prop would be unbalanced from damage and there should be all kinds of vibration.

 

Not only that, a damaged propeller with one of the blades damaged or even ripped off could very well lead to the engine ripping itself out of its housing

[DD_bongodriver]

Not only that, a damaged propeller with one of the blades damaged or even ripped off could very well lead to the engine ripping itself out of its housing

 

This is very true, and once the engine dissapears you have got no hope because the CoG has shifted so far back the aircraft is not even controllable in a glide.

[StrIke]

This is all very astounding information guys, but how will the BoS damage model be?

 

My hope is that they go for a blend between immersion and realism. BoS' damage model could easily gather the best elements from RoF and CloD to make us happy!

 

Personally, I worship the CloD damage model in terms of depth. As an aircraft technician, however, I did find flaws that I suspect are a result of trying to create something too advanced.

 

The RoF damage model, since it doesn't show us damage details in-flight, seems much less advanced, but better designed from an immersive point of view. Bloodied view, oil spatters, explosions etc make for a very immersive experience.

 

So my wishlist for the damage model is:

 

CloD :

 

-Small caliber hit decals.

They add much to the "oh where am I really hit, what could possibly be the outcome of this entry hole? Do I have reason to worry, as I am staring at this streak of holes through my 20mm cannon bay?

 

-Electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, lubricant, coolant, fuel, oxygen, ammunition, weapon, flight control, structural and pilot damage.

The depth does not have to be insane. Instead of making a hitbox for each piston, use the entire engine block except for lubricant, coolant and fuel components as one hitbox. From 100-80% health it looses performance, from 80-50% it starts malfunctioning, coughs randomly and will "bleed" health. Below 50% it has serious misfires and a random percentage at which it starts breaking down completely, perhaps even catching fire.

 

-Landing gear, when struck, will have a % of health where the downlock fails (can collapse on landing), a % where uplock fails (gear drop) and a % where the shocks either fall off the plane, or fails in dampening the landing.

 

-Electrical could be divided into generator and battery, or just act as a whole system. If you have an electrical failure, certain systems may not work. This could also be based on a health % system, making the player feel a difference in how serious the failure is (medium health may act as if only a circuit or two have been severed, low health may be total electrical failure).

 

RoF:

 

-Flapping/decaying structural failures + damage joints.

I think the gradually bending wings should pretty much be a result of aircraft fires, as higher speeds and rigid structures have a smaller time-window of "elasticity". Generally once something starts bending, it just accelerates so quickly it seems like the wing just gets instantly torn off. However, I have seen on multiple accounts that fires can make the metal more malleable and bend slower (not really slowly) and then snap off. I hope to see wings divided into about 3-4 sections, where unlike IL-2 1946, the parts that seperate, will stick together after breaking off the aircraft. In 1946, wings seemed to "explode" into all the seperate parts they were made up of. This is not realistic. I think it goes without saying that if a wing gets detatched at the wingroot, the flap, aileron, slat and other wing-sections shouldn't all magically disassemble. I also would like to see damaged control surfaces, that have started flapping in the air also "bleed" health at a rate in relation to airspeed. The faster you fly, the quicker it gets "beaten up" and falls off or jams. On the fire part, I think aircraft joints should take structural damage from this and drain health % until the wings bend/melt off. That way, if you are hit by 20mm shells, the damage "jumps" from 0-100% almost instantly, and the wing appears to snap off. If you are on fire, the % drops slowly, and the wing will gradually start bending and then fall off. I think this makes the most sense.

 

-Collisions

I think RoF collisions are very good and seem to carry more weight. When you hit something, you really feel it, since the pilot also takes "G" damage from the impact shock. Lightly touching another aircraft with your wingtip should not destroy that wing-section instantly, and especially not randomly for just one of the planes involved (IL-2 style). I think this can be acheived by measuring relative velocity between the parts that interact. A low m/s difference will do nothing, a medium m/s difference will cause a random medium amount of health damage to structure of BOTH planes, and a high velocity impact will cause an instant 100% damage of the joints that are closer towards the aircraft centre of mass. By adding a certain amount of randomness to the damage, one plane might hit 100% damage and loose it's wing instantly, whilst the other one gets 90% and keeps his wing for a few more seconds, until the wings lift tears it off the plane. That will make for some seriously cool impacts.

Also, I think each aircraft should have its core body. This part is physically impossible to deform and acts as the main part, which all other parts are attached to. This part should be really tough and only destructible by two things; explosive blasts (from heavy flak or a bomb impact on the ground), and colliding into other aircraft or the ground. Again, I think measuring the relative speed between two aircraft impacting in the air should determine whether or not the core body disintegrates into a fireball of smoke-streaming debris or survives. For the ground, I absolutely think airspeed and angle of impact should determine whether it will slide along the surface, or disintegrate into a fireball dispersing around the impact site in the direction the plane was traveling. Trying to save the aircraft will make for exciting landings. If you know that hitting the ground will just make you blow up, it's no fun trying to ditch the aircraft. I feel that previously there has been an important gap missing between skidding along the ground, and the "insta-explode" variant we know from 1946 and CloD. I never hear of aircraft exploding like a bomb, they more commonly tear apart into a fireball that disperses in the direction that they hit the ground. If anything it could be compared to a napalm strike vs a general purpose bomb. A bomb leaves a pretty round crater, tossing most of its energy up towards the sky, whilst napalm seems to impact, then spread in a fan-shape along its direction of travel prior to impact.

 

-Fluid smears

Yep, you heard me, lubricants, fuel and blood. I would really like to see RoF's pilot damage variant, perhaps even with bleedouts or bloodloss-induced effects. Passing out randomly for a few seconds has been tested before and can contribute to immersion and help players flee the battle, instead of duking it out like there's no tomorrow. I would really hope to see the oil spatters on canopy, and smears along the fuselage behind the leak. B-17 The Mighty Eight did this, and it looks outstanding. If an inboard engine started leaking, the nacelle, wing and even horizontal stabilizer would have a gradually appearing streak of oil on it. Each plane could be painted with an oil-leak layer that normally is invisible, then whenever the given engine starts leaking, the correct layer will gradually appear, making it look like the aircraft is getting smeared in oil. I can already imagine the satisfaction of reviewing your damage to the enemy as you see his engine leaking oil all over his aircraft.

 

Then from both:

 

-Aircraft fires

Yes, this is a difficult one and I think both RoF and CloD have different fire models, but combined as they are, would make a really good portrayal of Real Life???????. Generally RoF's fires start as really small, and grow as long as the airspeed is low enough. They only appear to ignite at the engines, which is their limitation. CloD's fires seem to have two sizes, small and medium (yes I know the fuel explosion is HUGE, but it's exaggerated imho), but CloD's fire will spread! My idea of a perfect fire system would be:

 

A fire may start anywhere, given that there are either fuel components or easily combustible materials present (like cloth/wood/hydraulics etc).

It may not start where there are no typically easily ignitable materials, but it can spread to these locations from adjacent fires.

A fire may only spread along the direction of relative wind, or perpendicular to it, and only over a certain amount of airspeed. If the plane is under this airspeed, the fire may spread in any direction, but slower against the wind. Over a higher airspeed, fires in less combustible areas will put out gradually.

Fires will damage structural joints and all systems within the ignited part of the aircraft at a certain rate.

Fire size will act like in RoF, where all but fuel tank fires start out small and grow if the airspeed allows it. It can be put out by increasing speed, but will actually make it worse if a fuel tank is on fire.

Fires that have been put out, have a small % of reigniting, causing intermittent bursts of flame.

Engine fuel line leaks should also initiate a system where, i.e, for each 30 seconds you have a fuel leak, there is a % chance a fire will erupt. This will also add exciting elements to the dogfights. A small leak may seem ok, but can actually ruin your day.

Fire is a living thing, and should be simulated as such. Both RoF and CloD had their own take on it, I think combined we could see some really cool results.

 

Another thing that I would value very much is the ability to allow/disable damage feedback. Using wingmen to assess damage during flight is the realistic way to go, and also keeps you guessing. Was that flak hit a game breaker, or did it only pass through sheet metal? For the casual dogfighter, a damage feedback would be nice, and I loved watching stuff break in CloD.

 

All in all, I really hope to see if not all at least some of my ideas put into the game. Personally a combat sim is about two things for me : Realistic flying, and damage. You should be rewarded for flying tactically, avoiding exposure to fire. The damage should force you to make choices. Do I turn around to fight another day? Or should I take a chance she'll hold and continue towards the target.

 

Ok time to breathe and do something else, please share your thoughts

 

I am excited about this, I'm sure you can tell :D

[Feuerfalke]

The thing I love most about RoF's damage modelling is the fact, that you won't survive a continued dogfight with a severely damaged plane.

 

 

If in IL2 you got a 80cm hole in your wing, you could still do crazy things with your plane. Ok, aerodynamics were a bit off, but well.

 

In RoF if your wingstrut is broken, it's your best choice to handle the rest of the flying parts with care, because your virtual life literally dangles on a string.

One sharp corner or overspeed and down you go.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

So my wishlist for the damage model is:

 

Then from both:

 

-Aircraft fires

Yes, this is a difficult one and I think both RoF and CloD have different fire models, but combined as they are, would make a really good portrayal of Real Life???????. Generally RoF's fires start as really small, and grow as long as the airspeed is low enough. They only appear to ignite at the engines, which is their limitation. CloD's fires seem to have two sizes, small and medium (yes I know the fuel explosion is HUGE, but it's exaggerated imho), but CloD's fire will spread! My idea of a perfect fire system would be:

 

One effect I hope makes it into BoS is the ability to see internal fires (similar to whats depicted in CoD). Early on I actually run into the back of my target because I was too intent on watching the effect of my Incendiaries as they started fires inside my target. (visible through the holes in the target) A very subtle effect but so immersive!

Edited January 11, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

One thing i found odd with COD's DM was it would tell you exactly what part was damaged while in flight, i know some damaged would be obvious but with others there would be no way to tell apart from the affects on the FM or systems, and then it would be a guess.

I would like BOS's DM not to tell you whats been damaged until you landed and checked the aircraft, leaving you with a bit of guess work while in flight.

[Bearcat]

Isn't that a settable option though? Can't you turn that off so that you get no damage info .. just the effect?

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

I think your right BC, i think ATAG has a setting where you find out the damage after your sortie, but not sure if it was turned off in flight.

 

Would be cool if in BOS if when you landed, you could view your own aircraft, check out any visual damage with a ground crew report on what needed to be repaired, shots fired etc...

[Feuerfalke]

One thing i found odd with COD's DM was it would tell you exactly what part was damaged while in flight, i know some damaged would be obvious but with others there would be no way to tell apart from the affects on the FM or systems, and then it would be a guess.

I would like BOS's DM not to tell you whats been damaged until you landed and checked the aircraft, leaving you with a bit of guess work while in flight.

 

Very good point. I always found that quite odd as well.

 

That's why I don't expect the "simplification" of the damage model to less immersive or realistic. It will probably just be more concentrating on the outcome of a problem. Let's be honest: If the cooling leak is in the line or the cooler or the engine doesn't matter in the end: The engine will overheat and die. So as long as the graphics and technical details are in place, I'm not that much interested in where the bullet hit.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Simulation vs playability. The more you model high fidelity the more it requires resources. Can't have it all. All of course boils down how the code is done, sloppy code and even a simple thing can be a resource hog. But I think devs know what thye are doing

[Sokol1]

I think your right BC, i think ATAG has a setting where you find out the damage after your sortie, but not sure if it was turned off in flight.

 

No, ATAG scripts for damage is available in flight too... plus game damage report in "real time"... not good.

 

Sokol1

[Skoshi_Tiger]

One thing i found odd with COD's DM was it would tell you exactly what part was damaged while in flight, i know some damaged would be obvious but with others there would be no way to tell apart from the affects on the FM or systems, and then it would be a guess.

I would like BOS's DM not to tell you whats been damaged until you landed and checked the aircraft, leaving you with a bit of guess work while in flight.

Messages displayed in COD can be turned off. You alt click on the info window, right click inside window and select customize info window, then remove or add settings as desired. Vehicle Damage  being one of them.

 

Too easy!

 

Oh and to access the information in the ATAG script you have to escape out of the mission, during which time you have absolutely no control over your plane.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[Skoshi_Tiger]

In the case of Multi crewed vehicle I would say it would be reasonable for a engineer/co-pilot to have additional ability to diagnose system problems. Lets say we've got a fuel leak from one tank.

 

Then being able to tell if it's in the tank or a fuel line would be the difference of aborting the mission or shuting off that tank and enguaging the crossfeed.

 

Unfortunately in these  consumer flight sims we don't have every single guage/instrument working as they would in real life. It's could be easier for the developer to tell us what is wrong rather than implementing every system to such an extent that you can work out the problem from the information provided.

 

I'm not sure if anyone remembers the film "Bridges of Toko Ri", but in one scene the lead picks up a bit of flak, then calls in his wingman to do a visual inspection. The wingan flys up close and tells him about the damage. That surely would  be a cool AI routine to have available!

 

Cheers!

Edited January 13, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[Duckman]

Unfortunately in these  consumer flight sims we don't have every single guage/instrument working as they would in real life. It could be easier for the developer to tell us what is wrong rather than implementing every system to such an extent that you can work out the problem from the information provided.

 

Agreed. There's also the issue that we fly maybe ten aircraft types in a week' date=' whereas a real pilot would only fly one type and be familiar with all the gauges etc. So having the game provide a bit more information is fine by me. It simulates the knowledge a real pilot would have. :-)

 

I'm not sure if anyone remembers the film "Bridges of Toko Ri", but in one scene the lead picks up a bit of flak, then calls in his wingman to do a visual inspection. The wingman flys up close and tells him about the damage. That surely would  be a cool AI routine to have available!

 

Great movie and a cool feature to have. In it's absence I think we can allow ourselves to use external views to check damage to simulate it (same logic as a bove, sort of).

 

Bottom line is we should realize that some things are actually harder in the game and relax our "realism" standards (which sometimes border on fundamentalist) to compensate. Make it more of a roleplaying exercise, if you will. Of course online it's a lot more complex because you have to factor in potential abuse.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

 

 

Another damaged prop.

 

From here...

 

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/325/language/fr-FR/Lower-than-a-Snakes-Belly-in-a-Wagon-Rut.aspx

Edited January 14, 2013 by Furbs

[Bearcat]

CloD :

 

-Small caliber hit decals.

They add much to the "oh where am I really hit, what could possibly be the outcome of this entry hole? Do I have reason to worry, as I am staring at this streak of holes through my 20mm cannon bay?

 

-Electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, lubricant, coolant, fuel, oxygen, ammunition, weapon, flight control, structural and pilot damage.

The depth does not have to be insane. Instead of making a hitbox for each piston, use the entire engine block except for lubricant, coolant and fuel components as one hitbox. From 100-80% health it looses performance, from 80-50% it starts malfunctioning, coughs randomly and will "bleed" health. Below 50% it has serious misfires and a random percentage at which it starts breaking down completely, perhaps even catching fire.

 

-Landing gear, when struck, will have a % of health where the downlock fails (can collapse on landing), a % where uplock fails (gear drop) and a % where the shocks either fall off the plane, or fails in dampening the landing.

 

-Electrical could be divided into generator and battery, or just act as a whole system. If you have an electrical failure, certain systems may not work. This could also be based on a health % system, making the player feel a difference in how serious the failure is (medium health may act as if only a circuit or two have been severed, low health may be total electrical failure).

 

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the visual DM for CoD was actually where the bullets hit..

[Krupi]

Only for small calibre, understandably the cannons shots were modelled before hand.

Edited January 14, 2013 by JG52Krupi

[Kling]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the visual DM for CoD was actually where the bullets hit..

But it never worked out...

Flying a 109 in Clod I can take multiple hits non stop from 303s and when I go on external view I have maybe 1 bullet hole in my left wing and maybe one in the right... Where all the other 50 hits went noone knows... Thats why Iove the ROF DM. You can actually see your enemy taking damage where u hit him...