Russian planes are made out of ?

[JtD]

Something I wanted to get off my chest. Maybe not the best topic to do so, but then to start another one on the same issue would be odd. In response to observed damage resistance, Han replied:

"Durability depends on airframe of the airplane. Less longerons - less durability. Wooden wings - more durability because wooden airframe design requires more margin of safety to compensate unstable wood characteristics. Metal constructions margin of safety standart os 1.4, wooden - 2.0. This causing more weight of wooden airframe and less performance of the airplane, but from other hand it provides more G-resistance and more battle damage resistance."

 

In my opinion, this is completely wrong.

 

First, less wing spars do not mean less durability. Spars are a construction necessity, but generally, an ideal wing without a spar could give better strength and damage resistance than a wing with spars at the same weight. Spars are much easier and cheaper to calculate, construct, maintain and repair, that's why they are being used.

Second, he states that wooden wing require higher margins of safety because wood is less predictable than metal. However, comparing the Yak-1S69 and the Bf109F-4 in game, the Yak-1 comes with a maximum load factor of 10.3g, the Bf109 with a maximum load factor of 11g. In game, the Bf109 therefore is structurally stronger than the Yak-1.

 

This essentially means that if wooden aircraft offered better battle damage resistance than metal aircraft, the material itself and not construction methods or safety margins would need to make the difference. Now there are several ways for looking at that, from a theoretical perspective. One I find suitable for a ballpark estimate is energy absorption before failure.

 

The material, before it fails, has to be stretched against it's strength, until it is being pull so much that it fails. Which means that the ideal material can be deformed a lot before it fails, but requires a high force for the deformation. Now if we compare aircraft Aluminium with aircraft Plywood, we can find 200 N/mm² for Aluminium against 75 N/mm² for Wood as strength, and 10% elongation for Aluminium against 2% for Wood. With the same dimensions, Aluminium is easily 10 times stronger than Plywood, however, it is also 3 times as heavy. So on a kg for kg basis, Aluminium is about 4 times as damage resistant as Plywood.

 

In practice, a HE shell exploding inside a wooden wing will blow the wooden skin off, but will only leave a dent in the aluminium skin when exploding inside a metal wing of similar construction. The wooden wing is structurally weakened, while the metal one isn't.

 

Some of this is mitigated by proper construction.

 

To cut it short, if Hans bottom line was that Soviet plywood wings in game are and rightfully should be more damage resistant than the German aluminium wings, I strongly disagree.

[Hutzlipuh]

But as an informed forum member I am sure that it must seem kinda stupid to you right? If you have a gun firing 12 rounds per second for every second that you have on target... well I´m sure you can do the math, Even if 50% miss we still have 6 hits.

Additionally thank god there is a statistics page that has my hits on target for this round. It´s actually 32. With all due respect 3 is a pretty low estimate. I count a lot more fireballs... But puffs seem to be the scientific approach that you call for :D

 

 

And as we know OkL found that 3-5 hits of 20mm were enough to down most fighters...

In regards to Schwarz´s Video: he was hitting all of it in the same area...that should be fatal , 3xHE+2-3AP (depending on the timing + countless MG) at the same spot would have sawed of ANY wing.

 

The standard forum answer "hit better" , "learn to aim" does not count anymore... i know a lot of peeps that can actually fly and shoot decently....and talking to them shows me that a LOT think theres is something wrong in either:

-Netcode (bad hit detection/bad MP code)

-DM (to strong planes on red)

-Gun modeling ( bad ballistics ? check gunstats here : WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS <-where is the 151/20 inferior in ballistics? check HE(M) round is actually lighter then ShVak HE and has more m/s....) also the damage done is off

-wrong belting (ahistorical belts , nothing to do with what was actually used)

 

OR its a combination of all above....

Edited April 5, 2017 by Hutzlipuh

[Hutzlipuh]

Something I wanted to get off my chest. Maybe not the best topic to do so, but then to start another one on the same issue would be odd. In response to observed damage resistance, Han replied:

"Durability depends on airframe of the airplane. Less longerons - less durability. Wooden wings - more durability because wooden airframe design requires more margin of safety to compensate unstable wood characteristics. Metal constructions margin of safety standart os 1.4, wooden - 2.0. This causing more weight of wooden airframe and less performance of the airplane, but from other hand it provides more G-resistance and more battle damage resistance."

 

In my opinion, this is completely wrong.

 

First, less wing spars do not mean less durability. Spars are a construction necessity, but generally, an ideal wing without a spar could give better strength and damage resistance than a wing with spars at the same weight. Spars are much easier and cheaper to calculate, construct, maintain and repair, that's why they are being used.

Second, he states that wooden wing require higher margins of safety because wood is less predictable than metal. However, comparing the Yak-1S69 and the Bf109F-4 in game, the Yak-1 comes with a maximum load factor of 10.3g, the Bf109 with a maximum load factor of 11g. In game, the Bf109 therefore is structurally stronger than the Yak-1.

 

This essentially means that if wooden aircraft offered better battle damage resistance than metal aircraft, the material itself and not construction methods or safety margins would need to make the difference. Now there are several ways for looking at that, from a theoretical perspective. One I find suitable for a ballpark estimate is energy absorption before failure.

 

The material, before it fails, has to be stretched against it's strength, until it is being pull so much that it fails. Which means that the ideal material can be deformed a lot before it fails, but requires a high force for the deformation. Now if we compare aircraft Aluminium with aircraft Plywood, we can find 200 N/mm² for Aluminium against 75 N/mm² for Wood as strength, and 10% elongation for Aluminium against 2% for Wood. With the same dimensions, Aluminium is easily 10 times stronger than Plywood, however, it is also 3 times as heavy. So on a kg for kg basis, Aluminium is about 4 times as damage resistant as Plywood.

 

In practice, a HE shell exploding inside a wooden wing will blow the wooden skin off, but will only leave a dent in the aluminium skin when exploding inside a metal wing of similar construction. The wooden wing is structurally weakened, while the metal one isn't.

 

Some of this is mitigated by proper construction.

 

To cut it short, if Hans bottom line was that Soviet plywood wings in game are and rightfully should be more damage resistant than the German aluminium wings, I strongly disagree.

 

+1

that was the reason i asked han in the question for devs thread about the statement he made regarding "required margin of durability" ( https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/?p=452138 )

[Scojo]

The material, before it fails, has to be stretched against it's strength

 

In practice, a HE shell exploding inside a wooden wing will blow the wooden skin off, but will only leave a dent in the aluminium skin when exploding inside a metal wing of similar construction. The wooden wing is structurally weakened, while the metal one isn't.

You're forgetting how impactful sheer and moment forces in materials are. They're much more impactful than forces experienced along the length of a structural body. This includes skin. When it comes to sheer and moment forces on spars, having two vs one is a huge deal, especially when you consider how damaging twisting of a spar could be, which would be greatly mitigated by a second parallel running spar.

 

Are you sure about the metal not being torn? We're talking about sheet metal here. Ever worked with that stuff? Ever worked with wood?

 

As far as your second statement goes, it's all good to state your opinion, but you nor I can state either sides of that argument as fact without some very structured tests.

 

Now I'm not sure about the elasticity or strength of metal and wood. I'm an electrical engineer so I only took statics and dynamics, never dove into materials, but I've heard a lot of guys in construction and even my dad who worked on F-15 wings say that wood tends to surprise people, and sheet metal as well, but for the opposite reason.

 

But like I said, that's all opinion. We'd have to look at some tables, do some materials analysis, or resort to good old fashion structured testing to be sure these opinions hold some merit.

Edited April 5, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

I´m sorry but you call for a more scientific approach and count puffs of smoke. How exactly do you differentiate between multiple puffs of smoke if you have 12 rounds a second. I´m not offended I just call bs when I see it.

 

We can even do a little math. The MGs have a frequency of 20 rps. I have 2 MGs. makes 40 rps. MG151 has 12 rps.

20+20+12=52

12/52=23% 23 percent of all hits should be Minengeschoss

.23*32=7.36.

 

So 7.36 should by purely mathematical considerations be Minengeschoss

Your basic math is right, but the fact that we see only 3 Mineshells hits stands.

Maybe 4 if we generously assume we missed one.

Your approach isnt very scientific as well, because you assume that every bullet hits, but the ballistics of the mg rounds and cannon rounds differ.

 

A theoretical assumption isnt going to help you if it comes to reality, even if the reality is a siumlated one.

 

Also you treated the cannon as if it was only firing mineshells, you need to substract 1/3 of the rps to account for AP rounds.

If we the factor in different ballistics/ position of the guns on the firing platform 3-4 hits seems very reasonable.

 

And yes the germans assumed that usually 3-5 mineshells are enough to down a fighter, but exceptions still happen and happened.

 

EDIT: the video is on 1/8 speed where I counted the hits so no more than 2 rounds would hit within the same second, at this speed its absolutely possible for our eyes to distinguish 2 puffs of smoke from another.

Also science is based on the very principle of looking at what is instead of what we assume to be.

Edited April 5, 2017 by =ARTOA=Bombenleger

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Your point about ballistics is off because in contrast to you, I do not assume a hit rate bias in favor of the machine gun. Might as well be the other way around and MG overshoots. So when it comes to scientific assumptions yours is the less reasonable one. The point with the Mineshells is taken.

 

General problem still is, that taking more than 3 hits is no exception but the rule.

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

Your point about ballistics is off because in contrast to you, I do not assume a hit rate bias in favor of the machine gun. Might as well be the other way around and MG overshoots. So when it comes to scientific assumptions yours is the less reasonable one. The point with the Mineshells is taken.

 

Yes my assumption could be off based on this, so could yours I dont see how any of our assumptions is superior to the other.

 

Also I said that assumptions arent realy relevant as we can just count the hits.

 

 

General problem still is, that taking more than 3 hits is no exception but the rule.

I agree with that, but I woud like to relativise that this is only true when firing from behind, in high deflection shots the german 20mm seems to obliterate anything it looks at consistenty.

 

So maybe the problem is that the damage model reduces the power of the mineshellls in these circumstances to much. (when firing from the 6 co-alt)

Whereas the russian 20mm does the same damage at these angles.

Edited April 5, 2017 by =ARTOA=Bombenleger

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

1) Assuming no bias would be the scientific approach, if further data is lacking

 

2) I agree. Might very well be a problem from taking damage from dead 6. That is the impression that I have gotten too.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

While it is true that the current DM problems aren't only because of the undermodelled 20mm Minengeschoss, they are still a big part of it. 

 

Assuming that the Shvak 20mm HEI-T ammunition used the same explosive as the germans (PETN), it still had a lot less Destructive energy than the 20mm Minengeschoss. Especially when you consider that Russians used a different explosive which was not quite but nearly as effective as PETN (it was easier to produce but more dangerous in the production). 

 

The 20mm HEI-T Shvak has 67323.55 Joules

 

The 20mm Minengeschoss has 108066 Joules. 

 

Mainly to the higher explosive filling (18.6 gr vs 6.7 gr) the Minengeschoss makes more than up for its slower velocity (it even has a greater velocity). Yet in game you have the german 20mm Minengschoss at best at the same level as the russian 20mm or even slightly worse as people have proven already.

Edited April 5, 2017 by OF-2-Schulz

[JtD]

You're forgetting how impactful sheer and moment forces in materials are. They're much more impactful than forces experienced along the length of a structural body. This includes skin. When it comes to sheer and moment forces on spars, having two vs one is a huge deal, especially when you consider how damaging twisting of a spar could be, which would be greatly mitigated by a second parallel running spar.

Always assuming the same weight, the extra spar comes at the expense of material in other places, such as the skin. The skin is a major contributor in taking torsional and other loads, overall more important than a second spar.

 

Are you sure about the metal not being torn? We're talking about sheet metal here.

I could also say three wooden panels fly off but only one metal one, with another being damaged. Sure thing that if the explosion is large enough, everything fails. Wood more easily than metal, though.

 

wood tends to surprise people, and sheet metal as well, but for the opposite reason

Absolutely true, wood is natures fibre composite material and in some ways it's great. Many people underestimate it. However, it's not great at absorbing energy or at stopping fast, hard objects.

[Scojo]

Always assuming the same weight, the extra spar comes at the expense of material in other places, such as the skin. The skin is a major contributor in taking torsional and other loads, overall more important than a second spar.

 

 

I could also say three wooden panels fly off but only one metal one, with another being damaged. Sure thing that if the explosion is large enough, everything fails. Wood more easily than metal, though.

 

 

Absolutely true, wood is natures fibre composite material and in some ways it's great. Many people underestimate it. However, it's not great at absorbing energy or at stopping fast, hard objects.

However, HE would harm the skin that is acting as a second spar much more than having two spars as to reliably cause a spar failure, you'd need to hit it. Whereas skin would break from the hit and the warhead when it comes to HE.

 

Additionally, I feel like it wouldn't take much broken structural skin to cause a catastrophic failure with the wings under load, whereas a hit on a spar could absorb more than one might think depending on how the round passes through or eats at the cross sectional area of the spar.

 

Like I said, unless we work with the materials in question, especially in the context of aviation, all we can do is theorize. And from spending 6 years theorizing in a classroom then transitioning to a real world job, I can tell you theorizing will often let you down unless you're just somehow able to predict every scenario and variable. That's why proper testing and test equipment is such a big industry in the tech space.

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

While it is true that the current DM problems aren't only because of the undermodelled 20mm Minengeschoss, they are still a big part of it. 

 

Assuming that the Shvak 20mm HEI-T ammunition used the same explosive as the germans (PETN), it still had a lot less Destructive energy than the 20mm Minengeschoss. Especially when you consider that Russians used a different explosive which was not quite but nearly as effective as PETN (it was easier to produce but more dangerous in the production). 

 

The 20mm HEI-T Shvak has 67323.55 Joules

 

The 20mm Minengeschoss has 108066 Joules. 

 

Mainly to the higher explosive filling (18.6 gr vs 6.7 gr) the Minengeschoss makes more than up for its slower velocity. Yet in game you have the german 20mm Minengschoss at best at the same level as the russian 20mm or even slightly worse as people have proven already.

 

The Shvaks HE rounds are laughable and in no way even close to the german HE.

The argument is about the AP round of the russians vs the german HE.

Also the velocity for a HE round doesnt really matter as long as it isnt too slow to trigger the fuse.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

The Shvaks HE rounds are laughable and in no way even close to the german HE.

The argument is about the AP round of the russians vs the german HE.

Also the velocity for a HE round doesnt really matter as long as it isnt too slow to trigger the fuse.

 

Considering that the Shvak AP rounds had a lower Muzzle Velocity (750 vs 805 m/s) and were only marginally heavier than the Minengeschoss (96-99 gr vs 95 gr), the difference in IL2 is certainly correct...../s

 

after all the Shvak AP has 27843.75 Joules vs the 108066 Joules of the Minengeschoss...

 

Oh and before i forget, because some were talking about not hitting the right spot. That would effect AP rounds far greater than HE rounds.

Edited April 5, 2017 by OF-2-Schulz

[JtD]

However, HE would harm the skin that is acting as a second spar much more than having two spars as to reliably cause a spar failure, you'd need to hit it. Whereas skin would break from the hit and the warhead when it comes to HE.

You should be aware that the spar is a thin walled, hollow piece of plywood and can be destroyed by a high explosive shell going off in the vicinity. You don't need to hit it directly, or with an armour piercing shell.

 

WRT theorizing - as I have pointed out earlier in the topic there was extensive testing done, including combat damage analysis in the field. No need for anyone of us to built and blow up aircraft, all we need to do is to read the proper materials.

[BubiHUN]

The biggest problem with  these arguments are that, these aren't written with cyrill letters. And thats the point of "russian nonsenses". Russian planes are still controllable right below their stall speeds, they got the upgrades(la5, lagg) to be better at any axis planes. They are all flying like the la7 in '46. All of you who are making "facts" about wood is stronger that metal, is totally nonsense. The frustration  comes from these FACTS. Russian planes have faster flaps, happaned me usually when they turned away, even above 4k, they dont burn speed with fully opened flaps. Their turn rate is much higher in this game than a Spitfire had.

The points of these "russians planes are not biased, they are just better, because they are russian" comments are just ridicoulus. 

This kind of russian patriotism is on its highest level now. German planes are made in this game as wobbly bricks. 

There will be answers fro this comment as "you cant play them as they have to be" and many other nonsenses.

But the main thing is, Devs will not listen to the facts. I mean, not the russian ones. There is no use to make arguments like this. They wont change these things.

Sorry for my bad poor english. 

Best Regards:
BubiHUN

Edited April 5, 2017 by BubiHUN

[DD_Arthur]

Aaannnddddd........back to straight Luftwhinning at its finest

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Geez, I dropped my jaw after that one. There are issues, certainly, like in every sim. But havent seen a post in such tone for quite a while. Rude and immature. 

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

Geez, I dropped my jaw after that one. There are issues, certainly, like in every sim. But havent seen a post in such tone for quite a while. Rude and immature. 

 

And the best way to react to it is to ignore it and focus on arguments.

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

I just would like to say something. If every time somebody complains about the game being biased to the Red Team and the answer is a just easily said "luftwhinner" tag, then we are at the starting point again. 

 

It is for the benefit of the whole community that both teams are happy with what they have and it is not acceptable to take for granted that the game is biased to the Red Team. If there is this doubt in the community, it really must be proved right or wrong as fast as possible.

I would start with a poll to see how many players think that the game favors the Red Team?

Edited April 5, 2017 by -=PHX=-Spartan-

[Dakpilot]

The biggest problem with  these arguments are that, these aren't written with cyrill letters. And thats the point of "russian nonsenses". Russian planes are still controllable right below their stall speeds, they got the upgrades(la5, lagg) to be better at any axis planes. They are all flying like the la7 in '46. All of you who are making "facts" about wood is stronger that metal, is totally nonsense. The frustration  comes from these FACTS. Russian planes have faster flaps, happaned me usually when they turned away, even above 4k, they dont burn speed with fully opened flaps. Their turn rate is much higher in this game than a Spitfire had.

 

The points of these "russians planes are not biased, they are just better, because they are russian" comments are just ridicoulus. 

 

This kind of russian patriotism is on its highest level now. German planes are made in this game as wobbly bricks. 

 

There will be answers fro this comment as "you cant play them as they have to be" and many other nonsenses.

 

But the main thing is, Devs will not listen to the facts. I mean, not the russian ones. There is no use to make arguments like this. They wont change these things.

 

Sorry for my bad poor english. 

 

Best Regards:

BubiHUN

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Gambit21]

Sorry for my bad poor english. 

 

Best Regards:

BubiHUN

 

Your English is not the issue sir, you type better than half the native English speaking teenagers I know.

It's what you choose to do with said English.

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

I think everything important has been said and more, so maybe this would be the time to close the thread?
before someone gets hurt?

[Dakpilot]

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Willy__]

"Russian planes are made out" ?

 

Very stronk stalinwood/stalinium comrade, they come straight from the gulag, not that shitty german steel.

 

 

 

 

Cheers not Dakpilot.

Edited April 6, 2017 by JAGER_Staiger

[Ace_Pilto]

The Russian bias meme needs to die. Even with my indifferent gunnery skills I regularly shoot the wings off of Russian planes with the single MG-151.

 

https://youtu.be/a5hpkQ6deiY?t=26m34s

 

This is offline of course and that's the big difference, packet loss is what's causing the most problems for people playing online, not damage modelling. Your most populated server is in Russia, pings are through the roof by modern standards and connectivity sucks because of the networking into and out of Russia is not particularly good. 

 

Support your locally based servers (or start one and populate it) and watch things improve.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The Russian bias meme needs to die. Even with my indifferent gunnery skills I regularly shoot the wings off of Russian planes with the single MG-151.

 

https://youtu.be/a5hpkQ6deiY?t=26m34s

 

This is offline of course and that's the big difference, packet loss is what's causing the most problems for people playing online, not damage modelling. Your most populated server is in Russia, pings are through the roof by modern standards and connectivity sucks because of the networking into and out of Russia is not particularly good. 

 

Support your locally based servers (or start one and populate it) and watch things improve.

 

Nice kill on that I-16... one...maybe two 20mm hits and his wing fell right off

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

Is it the same result vs other aircrafts? i think the test in the 20mm bug report is far more precise and has a far bigger sample than yours. It also concludes that the russian 20mm is slightly better (dmg vs fuselage hits) than the german one. This is unacceptable considering the different real life damage energy. After all, it has 4 times as much as 20mm Shvak AP rounds. Simple as that. 

 

It is true however that for some reason especially Minengeschosse suffer from bad netcodes/ping/whatever. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Is it the same result vs other aircrafts? i think the test in the 20mm bug report is far more precise and has a far bigger sample than yours. It also concludes that the russian 20mm is slightly better (dmg vs fuselage hits) than the german one. This is unacceptable considering the different real life damage energy. After all, it has 4 times as much as 20mm Shvak AP rounds. Simple as that. 

 

It is true however that for some reason especially Minengeschosse suffer from bad netcodes/ping/whatever. 

 

Which test was that? When I did testing I found the MG151/20 was superior overall although only marginally. The HE effect was much wider on the MG151/20 than on the ShVAK as well although the AP rounds were definitely more effective which seems to be the key issue.

[Ace_Pilto]

I've found it's where you hit the target that matters most, not what cannon you use. Other factors come into play as well, physical forces like "G" especially. If you hit the magazine in the wing or a vulnerable point like a spar then the wing comes off. (You can look up aircraft cutaway drawings for yourself to see where these weak spots are) If you land your shots on places where there's nothing but layers of composite wood then you're only letting sunlight in, if you weaken a wing that is under strong "G" forces it may break from the added force. 

 

I've seen the videos people have made and they're good videos, well produces and thorough but I've also seen the game do the exact opposite of what their results suggest when I play on my own. As for comparing the Minengeschoss to a ShVak, it's apples to oranges. Two different philosophies. Minengeschoss a brute force round, it's harder to aim because of the lower muzzle velocity so it might seem less effective unless you are an expert at landing it where you want it. ShVak has a higher MV, does less damage but it flies straighter so it will naturally seem more effective since it is easier for the shooter to land a cluster of hits in an important area on a less durable aluminium target that is, in all probability, in a high "G" evasive maneuver.

 

Furthermore, and finally, you have to consider the aiming platforms, the 109 is squirrely, it wobbles. The 190 also wobbles. They're more responsive and unstable in the air and both require the correct amount of trim and a smooth and steady inputs to achieve good aim with. The Yak, LaGG and La5 are more stable and thus they are easier to steady for a shot, they don't require the same attention to trimming in order to be stabilised quickly and they have a gun that is easier to aim.

 

That's my 2 bob, just going off of personal experience in the game I don't see any bias, just plausible (if not downright accurate) modelling.

Nice kill on that I-16... one...maybe two 20mm hits and his wing fell right off

 

 

Cheers

 

 

just don't mention all the horrible shooting in between ok.

 

[JaffaCake]

And again, like any other discussion, the argument gets diluted by people who do not understand the anecdotal vs. experimental evidence. Of course every one of us has experienced the magic every once in a while, and confirmation bias drives these experiences to become the memorable stories to tell, as they are out of the ordinary.

 

We have several reasonably well done experiments that are performed against the same airframe, and at approximately same distance, hitting approximately the same place on the aircraft. Approximately part is accounted for by multiple sequential trials. These experiments were, from my point of view, were the best effort that is possible given the tools available in the game.

 

The results of the above experiments show that AP is significantly more effective than HE  for both VVS side and LW side. It affects the LW side more as they load more HE into their belts. Thus the symptom is a thread such as this, where people argue that VVS planes are too tough.

 

If anyone has evidence of the same quality to show that the opposite is true - please please please post the videos - has to be sequential trials as compilations where you take 1 out of 10 trials that fit your agenda are obviously biased. Developers could give us the insight to the inner workings of the DM that could cause this discrepancy. But we are all still stuck with several good videos showing AP vs HE issues, but no videos from the other side of the argument.

 

There is another line of the argument with regard to the toughness of the metal vs wood aircraft, but I believe we lack expert documents on that?

Edited April 6, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Ace_Pilto]

Your tests (the ones you refer to) are wrong, I'll explain why.

 

They're not bad tests or poorly executed tests, quite the opposite, they are very thorough and well executed but they are poorly thought out. The problem is that people here have used a method that only accounts for one set of very controlled circumstances and, as such, they get results that are relevant for one set of very controlled circumstances. What we have is a method of testing has been devised despite the lack of any coherent aim beyond validating the emotional prejudices of certain people and the results based upon this method of testing, which boil down to "This is what happens in situation X". As such these tests only give us an idea of what happens in situation X while the wider reality of the game is ignored. The natural game itself differs from situation X almost invariably, emphasising the shortcomings of the method and bringing the testing into the realm of the absurd. These tests fail to account for the vastly diverse circumstances that the game is capable of producing and neither do they address the nature of what created this false impression in the first place, they make no attempt to factor in the viral idea or 'meme' of Russian bias that has manifested itself psychosomatically in the user base and thus formed, what I believe to be, a false impression of bias or intentional disparity. 

 

The truth of the matter is:

 

1) Nobody here has an adequately sized data pool to draw from in order to make a definitive judgement about whether one cannon has deliberately been made (intentionally or otherwise) objectively superior to the other. It's only suggested that, under certain circumstances, one will perform better than the other but it's also worth noting that those circumstances only represent an extremely limited scenario.

 

2) Nobody here has adequate first hand historical knowledge on the subject to form some kind of historical litmus tests against which these results can be productively compared which makes the tests themselves folly in the first place since not even the historical record is capable of providing us with a reliable and objective assessment.

 

 

My analysis of this is that the people who have made these tests have restricted their data inputs too stringently in order to attain a clear result when, in the wider reality of the game, no such result can be reliably obtained because the nature of the tests flies in the face of the nature of what happens in the dynamic environment of the game. This testing has resulted in an indication that conforms to some people's preconceptions and, even though it is a well intentioned experiment which the testers have worked hard to devise and carry out, the tests are unfortunately compromised by lack of data sampling over a wider range of plausible scenarios while also being contaminated by the memetic concept of intentional bias that has generated the basis for their experiment in the first place. 

 

Finally it's not "anecdotal" to relate experiences from first hand observation while producing recorded evidence of said observations. My video shows results that occurred organically, they are not contrived and they clearly display results that do not conform to those produced by other "testers".

Edited April 6, 2017 by Ace_Pilto

[JaffaCake]

----

 

 

In effect you are saying that the best effort, repeatable experiments that are somewhat supported by historical data (I cannot quote this myself, seen other people reference historical documents which I do not have myself) are invalid purely because they restrict the set of variables?

 

In comparison a set of anecdotal, cherry picked videos/stories is a point of view that can be considered in terms of this argument?

 

I am sorry, but I fail to see any logic behind your statements. Narrow experiment does not invalidate it. The assumption that HE in the view of the experiment should perform better / on par with AP is not unreasonable, but if it is - could be argued by the devs, they do not appear to have the time to resolve our expectations though. The other source, is as you said - historical documents, I'd love to see an argument based on these for or against our observations.

 

We can rephrase the outcome of the experiment to " Why HE underperforms so heavily in comparison to AP when firing into wing root of pe2 or yak1 from straight 6" - and it would still be a valid and critical point to address, as such situations arise very frequently during the gameplay.

Edited April 6, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Ace_Pilto]

In effect you are saying that the best effort, repeatable experiments that are somewhat supported by historical data (I cannot quote this myself, seen other people reference historical documents which I do not have myself) are invalid purely because they restrict the set of variables?

 

In comparison a set of anecdotal, cherry picked videos/stories is a point of view that can be considered in terms of this argument?

 

I am sorry, but I fail to see any logic behind your statements. Narrow experiment does not invalidate it. The assumption that HE in the view of the experiment should perform better / on par with AP is not unreasonable, but if it is - could be argued by the devs, they do not appear to have the time to resolve our expectations though. The other source, is as you said - historical documents, I'd love to see an argument based on these for or against our observations.

 

We can rephrase the outcome of the experiment to " Why HE underperforms so heavily in comparison to AP when firing into wing root of pe2 or yak1 from straight 6" - and it would still be a valid and critical point to address, as such situations arise very frequently during the gameplay.

 

 

A very disingenuous reply.

[Solmyr]

The biggest problem with  these arguments are that, these aren't written with cyrill letters. And thats the point of "russian nonsenses". Russian planes are still controllable right below their stall speeds, they got the upgrades(la5, lagg) to be better at any axis planes. They are all flying like the la7 in '46. All of you who are making "facts" about wood is stronger that metal, is totally nonsense. The frustration  comes from these FACTS. Russian planes have faster flaps, happaned me usually when they turned away, even above 4k, they dont burn speed with fully opened flaps. Their turn rate is much higher in this game than a Spitfire had.

 

The points of these "russians planes are not biased, they are just better, because they are russian" comments are just ridicoulus. 

 

This kind of russian patriotism is on its highest level now. German planes are made in this game as wobbly bricks. 

 

There will be answers fro this comment as "you cant play them as they have to be" and many other nonsenses.

 

But the main thing is, Devs will not listen to the facts. I mean, not the russian ones. There is no use to make arguments like this. They wont change these things.

 

Sorry for my bad poor english. 

 

Best Regards:

BubiHUN

 

And... You... Are.... THE........ W(h)inner ! Your 2017 whinning price will be available at your office or at your home, depending on what adress you ask us to send it to. 

[Scojo]

You should be aware that the spar is a thin walled, hollow piece of plywood and can be destroyed by a high explosive shell going off in the vicinity.

"vicinity"

 

This is exactly the problem I'm pointing out. Vicinity is a very relative term. Some people think that it means centimeters, others will think a foot. Everyone talks about "this should do more damage!", "this should do less damage!" but at the end of the day, we're all just stating opinions.

 

From the accounts I've read from the war, the damage model seems to mimic what really happened in most of the planes, and that's all that matters. Just like you have an opinion on how much damage something should do, so does everyone else. All the devs can do is set it up in such a way that the overall performance of each weapon and plane comes close enough to what we know happened in the war.

 

Also, any weapon test videos I've seen of aircraft munitions testing from the war don't change my opinion. If you have some you think I haven't seen, please tell me where I can find them.

 

This goes hand in hand with all of my experience in this Sim.

 

In both LW and VVS planes, when I make it home, it's because someone wasn't a good shot and didn't get the right hits in the right place. But, LW fighters perform better at a durability cost and VVS fighters perform worse but absorb a little more. That makes sense.

 

At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter much. If you hit where it counts, each side goes down quickly. Pilots that are really concerned with damage are the ones that are terrible shots, like myself

 

I just would like to say something. If every time somebody complains about the game being biased to the Red Team and the answer is a just easily said "luftwhinner" tag, then we are at the starting point again. 

 

It is for the benefit of the whole community that both teams are happy with what they have and it is not acceptable to take for granted that the game is biased to the Red Team. If there is this doubt in the community, it really must be proved right or wrong as fast as possible.

I would start with a poll to see how many players think that the game favors the Red Team?

Considering how many people only fly one side, this is not a good judge of the games state. I'm talking both Red and Blue here.

 

And again, like any other discussion, the argument gets diluted by people who do not understand the anecdotal vs. experimental evidence. Of course every one of us has experienced the magic every once in a while, and confirmation bias drives these experiences to become the memorable stories to tell, as they are out of the ordinary.

 

We have several reasonably well done experiments that are performed against the same airframe, and at approximately same distance, hitting approximately the same place on the aircraft. Approximately part is accounted for by multiple sequential trials. These experiments were, from my point of view, were the best effort that is possible given the tools available in the game.

 

The results of the above experiments show that AP is significantly more effective than HE  for both VVS side and LW side. It affects the LW side more as they load more HE into their belts. Thus the symptom is a thread such as this, where people argue that VVS planes are too tough.

 

If anyone has evidence of the same quality to show that the opposite is true - please please please post the videos - has to be sequential trials as compilations where you take 1 out of 10 trials that fit your agenda are obviously biased. Developers could give us the insight to the inner workings of the DM that could cause this discrepancy. But we are all still stuck with several good videos showing AP vs HE issues, but no videos from the other side of the argument.

 

There is another line of the argument with regard to the toughness of the metal vs wood aircraft, but I believe we lack expert documents on that?

You do realize all of these threads complaining about VVS aircraft being superior in damage absorption and German weapons being poorly modeled are all brought about based on anecdotal evidence, right?

 

Burden of proof is on the accuser. These topics all seem their anecdotal evidence is good enough to want change, so then pointing out that there's anecdotal evidence to the contrary is a valid counter argument.

 

When The accusers bring some actual proof, I'll gladly accept that they're right.

 

The problem at the end of the day is:

I've shot down both factions planes quickly.

I've been shot down in both factions planes quickly.

I've also survived a lot of damage in each factions planes.

The durability of Russian planes is higher, but that comes at a noticeable performance loss compared to LW.

If I ever had to fly a fighter and my life depended on it, I would be much more likely to choose German.

If I ever had to fly a bomber/attack and my life depended on it, I'd fly Russian.

And from what I know about the history of the war, this is all pretty well modeled in the game.

 

The only plane that breaks this norm is the Pe-2. I think it probably is much more durable in the sim than real life, but at the same time, I've been instantly destroyed in it so many times that I'm convinced it's not the whole plane that isn't done right, just certain parts of it

 

And something else I'd like to say... Higher fire rate is a big deal, especially for pilots without a lot of gunnery experience. I feel like this could also be a big reason people think that the damage difference is so great.... you'll miss a larger percent of your shots with a lower fire rate if at any point your aim comes off the proper lead

[JaffaCake]

You do realize all of these threads complaining about VVS aircraft being superior in damage absorption and German weapons being poorly modeled are all brought about based on anecdotal evidence, right?

 

Burden of proof is on the accuser. These topics all seem their anecdotal evidence is good enough to want change, so then pointing out that there's anecdotal evidence to the contrary is a valid counter argument.

 

When The accusers bring some actual proof, I'll gladly accept that they're right.

 

The problem at the end of the day is:

I've shot down both factions planes quickly.

I've been shot down in both factions planes quickly.

I've also survived a lot of damage in each factions planes.

The durability of Russian planes is higher, but that comes at a noticeable performance loss compared to LW.

If I ever had to fly a fighter and my life depended on it, I would be much more likely to choose German.

If I ever had to fly a bomber/attack and my life depended on it, I'd fly Russian.

And from what I know about the history of the war, this is all pretty well modeled in the game.

 

The only plane that breaks this norm is the Pe-2. I think it probably is much more durable in the sim than real life, but at the same time, I've been instantly destroyed in it so many times that I'm convinced it's not the whole plane that isn't done right, just certain parts of it

 

And something else I'd like to say... Higher fire rate is a big deal, especially for pilots without a lot of gunnery experience. I feel like this could also be a big reason people think that the damage difference is so great.... you'll miss a larger percent of your shots with a lower fire rate if at any point your aim comes off the proper lead

 

 

I am sorry, but there are at least several test videos with repeatable, consecutive tests performed against the same air frame that show this disparity? LW weapons being weaker than VVS, possibly as a result of the HE vs AP issue and the difference in belting? It is to no surprise that those who are not aware of the HE vs AP would be blaming all possible reasonable explanations - such as tougher VVS fighters (as VVS on VVS is not something people experience anecdotally).

 

Fire rate is not an issue as the tests were performed on a hit per hit basis (and in any case you are taking the difference between 650-750 for LW and 700-800 for VVS which is less than 10% difference)/

 

"Accusers" brought the evidence. And it pains me to see people dismiss the said evidence while using their own anecdotal evidence in support of their arguments. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

In both LW and VVS planes, when I make it home, it's because someone wasn't a good shot and didn't get the right hits in the right place. But, LW fighters perform better at a durability cost and VVS fighters perform worse but absorb a little more. That makes sense.

 

Ironically that statement does not make sense at all

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

I've found it's where you hit the target that matters most, not what cannon you use. Other factors come into play as well, physical forces like "G" especially. If you hit the magazine in the wing or a vulnerable point like a spar then the wing comes off. (You can look up aircraft cutaway drawings for yourself to see where these weak spots are) If you land your shots on places where there's nothing but layers of composite wood then you're only letting sunlight in, if you weaken a wing that is under strong "G" forces it may break from the added force. 

 

I've seen the videos people have made and they're good videos, well produces and thorough but I've also seen the game do the exact opposite of what their results suggest when I play on my own. As for comparing the Minengeschoss to a ShVak, it's apples to oranges. Two different philosophies. Minengeschoss a brute force round, it's harder to aim because of the lower muzzle velocity

 

Why do people think the Shvak has a higher muzzle velocity? The MG 151/20mm Minengeschoss (without Leuchtspur) has a Muzzle velocity of 805 m/s. While the Shvak 20mm HE has 790 m/s and the AP has only 750 m/s. I srsly wonder how this myth of low velocity came up...probably when comparing it to us .50's or they mixed it up with the 30mm Minengeschoss.

 

Also this whole "you need to hit the right part" thing is exactly the problem. Minengeschosse should be MUCH better at damaging critical parts than any other round in the game and ESPECIALLY AP rounds.

 

One major part of the durability discussion imo is the ability of VVS fighters (or at least the yak) to fly 100%/100% t/rpm for 15 minutes while having a severe coolant leak. Unlike with Ammunition i don't have a clue about cooling systems and i would like to know if it is supported by realism/historical data. 

LW fighters are basically dead when having a coolant leak or at least need to rtb asap.

Edited April 6, 2017 by OF-2-Schulz

[Dakpilot]

You should be aware that the spar is a thin walled, hollow piece of plywood and can be destroyed by a high explosive shell going off in the vicinity. You don't need to hit it directly, or with an armour piercing shell.

 

WRT theorizing - as I have pointed out earlier in the topic there was extensive testing done, including combat damage analysis in the field. No need for anyone of us to built and blow up aircraft, all we need to do is to read the proper materials.

 

Where do you get info that the spar, for example Yak-1 is a thin walled hollow piece of plywood?

 

from what i have seen in pics it is a pretty substantial laminated composite

 

pic of Yak spar during restoration

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

Where do you get info that the spar, for example Yak-1 is a thin walled hollow piece of plywood?

Technical drawings and description. The Yak-1 uses a box spar. The top and bottom of the spar are fairly massive, the sides however quite thin (for a spar, still thicker than the skin panels).

 

This construction is very typical for a wooden spar. The material distribution is in fact typical for any spar, as the material is concentrated top and bottom, where it is most urgently needed. You just don't use massive spars.

 

Edit: It's kind of visible in your picture, too. The outside layers (rear/front) are somewhat brighter than the rest. They go from top to bottom. The yellower ones don't.

Edited April 6, 2017 by JtD