Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thank you Jason for the long explanation. It's really appreciated on many levels.

 

I've conducted a lot of detailed testing in the last couple of days in order to better understand the damage modelling. From this, I however would say that you've missed the main technical point. The main point would be

 

Please look into the effectiveness of AP vs. HE ammunitions. I've tested several calibres now and the behaviour is slightly different with the different projectiles, but I think a generalization is possible.

 

The AP round and the HE round do very similar amounts of damage against everything they hit. That excludes hits to critical points, just general aircraft structure. They shouldn't. A 20mm AP round will make a 20mm hole and that's it. A 20mm HE round easily destroys ten times as much structure in a single hit, which has been tested in real life.

In addition to doing too much damage when hitting structures, after hitting the first structure, the AP round will continue straight on, and hit further structures in its way, It will damage four structures in total, disappearing after the fourth, dealing high damage to each of those. The HE round is typically gone after the first hit, though 23mm and 37mm HE rounds have some AP capabilities.

In effect, the AP round does four times the damage of a HE round if it hits a complex structure or penetrates tail, fuselage and wing in an attack from the rear.

With standard armament, the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 use a belting consisting of AP rounds almost exclusively, the La-5 can use AP rounds exclusively. The Germans are stuck with a HE mostly belting, and selecting HE only for the La-5 is just waste. As a result, in my tests, the Yak-1 was twice as hard hitting as a Bf109G and twice as hard hitting as a La-5 with HE only, even if the La-5 actually has twice the guns of a Yak-1.

 

This needs to be addressed with highest priority in damage modelling - according to my test the AP deals way too much general damage, whereas the HE could probably use a bit more punch.

 

Further points:

HE round do damage not only by splinters, but also by gas pressure. In particular the German Minen rounds with a high HE content. Changing splinter velocity is not going to address this.

Wood, even Delta wood, is much worse at dealing with damage than Aluminium is.

Spar, rib and panel construction and monocoque construction have their own particular vulnerabilities, less spars don't necessarily mean less strength.

In game there are actual bugs with some details (nothing critical imho & so far).

 

You don't need to shoot 20mm round at WW2 aircraft to know some of that. Much of it is just physics or even common sense.

 

I'll probably make a few longer posts about my findings in the near future, to show what's good, and where improvement's possible. Should help to reduce unqualified bitching on the forums, but maybe it can also help you by pointing you in the right direction.

Edited by JtD
  • Upvote 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all let me say I think the BoX damage model is very good and way better than the major competition right now so in no way is this negative feedback: I love the way the DM is done in this sim but that being said I still have to chime in on the AP versus MinGeschoss effectiveness issue:

 

Having tried out different combinations of German versus Russian both in terms of who is doing the shooting and whom is on the receiving end my impression is also that the major issue seems to be the ammunition with AP being more effective than HE in combating fighters.

 

However, AFAIK IRL the Germans (who could belt 20 mm with Incendary, AP or MinGeschoss) actually recommened a belting that had more minen (60 versus 33%) for combating fighters (1+1+3) versus (1+1+1)  (source: Schiessfibel D.(Luft) 5001 page 32). OTOH in-game the conscensus seems to be that AP is more efficient for combating fighters than minen. So to me there seems to be something off here. Note if not saying there is any bias, I'm simply saying that to me it looks like minen are not modeled as efficient as they were IRL because I have a hard time seeing why the Germans IRL would not have belted with more AP than minen if they IRL had the same relative performance as we currently have in-game…..

 

Also there is no question AP is better when you hit armour or the engine. OTOH, in many cases in-game you are firing from a deflection angle and from that angle about 80% of the area you can hit is structure where theoretically an explosion from a minen would be much better than punching a hole.

 

Concerning deltawood versus aluminium when it comes to damage tolerance to hits by minen I made a post back in November last year that lists a few points that I think are still valid.

 

Finally, I don’t think I’m alone in saying that it’s appreciated that you take the time to interact with the community like this Jason and it would for sure be appreciated even more if you could consider adding a revised look at this to the “to do” list as well! :)

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jason for the long explanation. It's really appreciated on many levels.

 

I've conducted a lot of detailed testing in the last couple of days in order to better understand the damage modelling. From this, I however would say that you've missed the main technical point. The main point would be

 

Please look into the effectiveness of AP vs. HE ammunitions. I've tested several calibres now and the behaviour is slightly different with the different projectiles, but I think a generalization is possible.

 

The AP round and the HE round do very similar amounts of damage against everything they hit. That excludes hits to critical points, just general aircraft structure. They shouldn't. A 20mm AP round will make a 20mm hole and that's it. A 20mm HE round easily destroys ten times as much structure in a single hit, which has been tested in real life.

In addition to doing too much damage when hitting structures, after hitting the first structure, the AP round will continue straight on, and hit further structures in its way, It will damage four structures in total, disappearing after the fourth, dealing high damage to each of those. The HE round is typically gone after the first hit, though 23mm and 37mm HE rounds have some AP capabilities.

In effect, the AP round does four times the damage of a HE round if it hits a complex structure or penetrates tail, fuselage and wing in an attack from the rear.

With standard armament, the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 use a belting consisting of AP rounds almost exclusively, the La-5 can use AP rounds exclusively. The Germans are stuck with a HE mostly belting, and selecting HE only for the La-5 is just waste. As a result, in my tests, the Yak-1 was twice as hard hitting as a Bf109G and twice as hard hitting as a La-5 with HE only, even if the La-5 actually has twice the guns of a Yak-1.

 

This needs to be addressed with highest priority in damage modelling - according to my test the AP deals way too much general damage, whereas the HE could probably use a bit more punch.

 

Further points:

HE round do damage not only by splinters, but also by gas pressure. In particular the German Minen rounds with a high HE content. Changing splinter velocity is not going to address this.

Wood, even Delta wood, is much worse at dealing with damage than Aluminium is.

Spar, rib and panel construction and monocoque construction have their own particular vulnerabilities, less spars don't necessarily mean less strength.

In game there are actual bugs with some details (nothing critical imho & so far).

 

You don't need to shoot 20mm round at WW2 aircraft to know some of that. Much of it is just physics or even common sense.

 

I'll probably make a few longer posts about my findings in the near future, to show what's good, and where improvement's possible. Should help to reduce unqualified bitching on the forums, but maybe it can also help you by pointing you in the right direction.

VERY well pointed out, JtD!

That would explain the awesome damage of the .50 cals and the lack of it in the german 20mms, since its ammo belt (if historically accurate) has 1 AP to every 4 HE and the russian armament in general has about the same setup, only inverted.(Though I'm not an expert on russian armament in general)

Hallo Jason, it is possible to tell us, which types of HE Ammo are modeled in the game?

Maybe a type from this catalogue?

http://www.lexpev.nl/downloads/handbuchderflugzeugbordwaffenmunition19361945.pdf

Nice catalogue by the way. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 OP and i have different conclusions but we're both seeing a similar problem. OP thinks it's a difference in the guns. i think it's a difference in the ammo, which is problematic on both sides, Russian and German. I made this video 2 month ago testing the German and Russian 37mm HE and AP (since it's the only caliber that offeres selectable ammo types for both airforces). my conclusion after doing the tests (the video is just a few representative examples i did about an hour of test shooting) is that AP damage against aircraft is too high compared to HE. People who conclude that a) German cannons are too weak or b) Russian cannons are to strong probably come to that conclusion because the German ammo belts have a higher HE share than the Russian belts which means less damage output overall. So due to the wrong HE damage compared to AP and he fact that German aircraft use more HE ammo it creates a feeling that German cannons are weaker.
Very good Asgar. This would explain well the 'feelings and videos' about 20mm German.Jason asked for a video to Geramos and JTD has a very interesting post and tests.It would be possible for you to talk and form an idea together with tests to send to Jason?

Many thanks to you for dedicating your time on this subject. . ;)

Edited by JAGER_Kampf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations on the inquiries. I'm flying on the German side and I feel that something is not this bandstand. This has to be corrected as soon as possible !! , It seems that they are making things easier on the Russian side. We all know about the power of German weapons. Please, on behalf of the simulation community, correct this for a better future for the game. :(

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we agree on one simple thing. if you don't have to offer anything useful to the conversation. Don't start typing at all

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jason for the long explanation. It's really appreciated on many levels.

 

I've conducted a lot of detailed testing in the last couple of days in order to better understand the damage modelling. From this, I however would say that you've missed the main technical point. The main point would be

 

Please look into the effectiveness of AP vs. HE ammunitions. I've tested several calibres now and the behaviour is slightly different with the different projectiles, but I think a generalization is possible.

 

The AP round and the HE round do very similar amounts of damage against everything they hit. That excludes hits to critical points, just general aircraft structure. They shouldn't. A 20mm AP round will make a 20mm hole and that's it. A 20mm HE round easily destroys ten times as much structure in a single hit, which has been tested in real life.

In addition to doing too much damage when hitting structures, after hitting the first structure, the AP round will continue straight on, and hit further structures in its way, It will damage four structures in total, disappearing after the fourth, dealing high damage to each of those. The HE round is typically gone after the first hit, though 23mm and 37mm HE rounds have some AP capabilities.

In effect, the AP round does four times the damage of a HE round if it hits a complex structure or penetrates tail, fuselage and wing in an attack from the rear.

With standard armament, the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 use a belting consisting of AP rounds almost exclusively, the La-5 can use AP rounds exclusively. The Germans are stuck with a HE mostly belting, and selecting HE only for the La-5 is just waste. As a result, in my tests, the Yak-1 was twice as hard hitting as a Bf109G and twice as hard hitting as a La-5 with HE only, even if the La-5 actually has twice the guns of a Yak-1.

 

This needs to be addressed with highest priority in damage modelling - according to my test the AP deals way too much general damage, whereas the HE could probably use a bit more punch.

 

Further points:

HE round do damage not only by splinters, but also by gas pressure. In particular the German Minen rounds with a high HE content. Changing splinter velocity is not going to address this.

Wood, even Delta wood, is much worse at dealing with damage than Aluminium is.

Spar, rib and panel construction and monocoque construction have their own particular vulnerabilities, less spars don't necessarily mean less strength.

In game there are actual bugs with some details (nothing critical imho & so far).

 

You don't need to shoot 20mm round at WW2 aircraft to know some of that. Much of it is just physics or even common sense.

 

I'll probably make a few longer posts about my findings in the near future, to show what's good, and where improvement's possible. Should help to reduce unqualified bitching on the forums, but maybe it can also help you by pointing you in the right direction.

thx, this could explain quite a bit, as as much is i appreciate Jason's inspection and answer in this topic, it just doesnt add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we agree on one simple thing. if you don't have to offer anything useful to the conversation. Don't start typing at all

 

I agree with you. You can start from yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations on the inquiries. I'm flying on the German side and I feel that something is not this bandstand. This has to be corrected as soon as possible !! , It seems that they are making things easier on the Russian side. We all know about the power of German weapons. Please, on behalf of the simulation community, correct this for a better future for the game. :(

*Tinfoil hats ENGAGED* :crazy:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

Next dev Bias acussation I read will be the last for this topic and most probably will send the poster to the thinking corner.

 

Haash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germans drop before the War HE-Fragments Rounds, because they discovered they don't do enough damage to new appearing aluminium Monocoque Fighter designs.

Instead they going for Mine Shells with delay fuze and gas impact, not fragmentation at all...

But long Story how you think about a field test and your Impression Jason, go Multiplayer on a dogfight Server fly around Yak and 109F..

You don't have to be a good Pilot for testing the DMG Model on your on Plane..

My Impression so far is, 109F is holding together by his Paint Job... 

Edited by 9./JG27MAD-MM
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

Next dev Bias acussation I read will be the last for this topic and most probably will send the poster to the thinking corner.

 

Haash

Please punish the violators, not the post. Many people spent their time doing tests. It would not be fair to have the post locked. Do not you agree ?

Edited by JAGER_Kampf
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you Jason for the long explanation. It's really appreciated on many levels.

 

I've conducted a lot of detailed testing in the last couple of days in order to better understand the damage modelling. From this, I however would say that you've missed the main technical point. The main point would be

 

Please look into the effectiveness of AP vs. HE ammunitions. I've tested several calibres now and the behaviour is slightly different with the different projectiles, but I think a generalization is possible.

 

The AP round and the HE round do very similar amounts of damage against everything they hit. That excludes hits to critical points, just general aircraft structure. They shouldn't. A 20mm AP round will make a 20mm hole and that's it. A 20mm HE round easily destroys ten times as much structure in a single hit, which has been tested in real life.

In addition to doing too much damage when hitting structures, after hitting the first structure, the AP round will continue straight on, and hit further structures in its way, It will damage four structures in total, disappearing after the fourth, dealing high damage to each of those. The HE round is typically gone after the first hit, though 23mm and 37mm HE rounds have some AP capabilities.

In effect, the AP round does four times the damage of a HE round if it hits a complex structure or penetrates tail, fuselage and wing in an attack from the rear.

With standard armament, the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 use a belting consisting of AP rounds almost exclusively, the La-5 can use AP rounds exclusively. The Germans are stuck with a HE mostly belting, and selecting HE only for the La-5 is just waste. As a result, in my tests, the Yak-1 was twice as hard hitting as a Bf109G and twice as hard hitting as a La-5 with HE only, even if the La-5 actually has twice the guns of a Yak-1.

 

This needs to be addressed with highest priority in damage modelling - according to my test the AP deals way too much general damage, whereas the HE could probably use a bit more punch.

 

Further points:

HE round do damage not only by splinters, but also by gas pressure. In particular the German Minen rounds with a high HE content. Changing splinter velocity is not going to address this.

Wood, even Delta wood, is much worse at dealing with damage than Aluminium is.

Spar, rib and panel construction and monocoque construction have their own particular vulnerabilities, less spars don't necessarily mean less strength.

In game there are actual bugs with some details (nothing critical imho & so far).

 

You don't need to shoot 20mm round at WW2 aircraft to know some of that. Much of it is just physics or even common sense.

 

I'll probably make a few longer posts about my findings in the near future, to show what's good, and where improvement's possible. Should help to reduce unqualified bitching on the forums, but maybe it can also help you by pointing you in the right direction.

 

I'll quote so just more people can see it.  :salute: 

Edited by JAGER_Staiger
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Please look into the effectiveness of AP vs. HE ammunitions. I've tested several calibres now and the behaviour is slightly different with the different projectiles, but I think a generalization is possible.

 

Just read that in the new update the damage for the 20mm was increased. I suppose you had a part in this, JtD. Thank you very much. The effort and testing you put into this game - not only regarding the 20mm - cannot be praised too much.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys go to test the new 20 mm power...and thanks to all have made their efforts to provide data to allow this changing...

Txs

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm looking forward to testing it after work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage of 20mm German ammo increased... but toughness of Soviet fighters increased too ... hmm... funny... we will see... 

 

10. German 20 mm shell fragments have a higher initial speed because of their higher explosive mass to total mass ratio so they cause more damage;

 
11. Bf 109, Fw 190 and some other planes durability is fixed (it was undeliberately lowered because of the many earlier changes in these aircraft). Now twin longeron Soviet fighters with delta-wood wings are roughly 20% more durable than Bf 109 fighters which have single longeron wings, while Fw 190s with triple longeron wings are roughly 20% more durable than Soviet fighters. P-40 is even more durable thanks to its five longeron wings. Pe-2 and Bf 110 planes are roughly twice more durable than Soviet fighters while IL-2 fits somewhere in between Pe-2 and LaGG in terms of combat durability;

 

Ed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pls read again. it says the durability of the German fighters was increased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage of 20mm German ammo increased... but toughness of Soviet fighters increased too ... hmm... funny... we will see... 

 

 

Where do you read that? I can't make that out of the shown snippit. 

 

Grt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11. Bf 109, Fw 190 and some other planes durability is fixed (it was undeliberately lowered because of the many earlier changes in these aircraft). Now twin longeron Soviet fighters with delta-wood wings are roughly 20% more durable than Bf 109 fighters which have single longeron wings, while Fw 190s with triple longeron wings are roughly 20% more durable than Soviet fighters. P-40 is even more durable thanks to its five longeron wings. Pe-2 and Bf 110 planes are roughly twice more durable than Soviet fighters while IL-2 fits somewhere in between Pe-2 and LaGG in terms of combat durability;

 

I think you interpret this quote wrong. He clearly says that "Bf 109, Fw 190 and some other planes durability is fixed (it was undeliberately lowered because of the many earlier changes in these aircraft)" meaning that their durability went up.

 

For clarification: What follows is just the current durability realtionships AFTER the German airframe durabilities have been increased.

Edited by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you interpret this quote wrong. He clearly says that "Bf 109, Fw 190 and some other planes durability is fixed (it was undeliberately lowered because of the many earlier changes in these aircraft)" meaning that their durability went up. What follows is just the current durability realtionships AFTER the germans have been increased.

 

 

Aha..ok.. Thank you for the explanation  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read that in the new update the damage for the 20mm was increased. I suppose you had a part in this, JtD. Thank you very much. The effort and testing you put into this game - not only regarding the 20mm - cannot be praised too much.

No, I didn't contribute directly. Also, the changes made are not what I would have suggested them to change, but some aspects are probably good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thxa geramos for being one of the first ones to bring this to the table. Thxs for all your tests my friend and the devs for taking a look at it and fixing the issue. I wonder, however, what happened to the "there's nothing wrong crowd"?

Edited by 4./JG52_Riksen
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't contribute directly. Also, the changes made are not what I would have suggested them to change, but some aspects are probably good.

Yes, I know it's not quite what you suggested, but they went from saying everything is fine 1 week ago to changing it. I'm sure it wouldn't have happened without your reply to Jason's post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, just a question, jason mentioned heavier weight due to the delta wood which results in lower speed.

 

How is this meant to be understand?

 

In my understanding this could only mean you need a tiny little bit more angle of attack at the wings to get enough lift on a heavier plane and the speed loss is only due to increased drag on the lifting surfaces, is this correct, do i understand it right?
 

If so, wouldnt it also mean more forces on these wings which counteracts the higher durability of delta wood agains duraluminium?

 

This is just out of my curiosity and i didnt read the whole thread so pls excuse me if this question is already answered, no offence just seeking for knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very disconcerting that now MGs from  109s, 190s (not canons) can now take a wing off a IL-2 1943 series, very stupid..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they always could, they didn't even change anything on the MGs and the Russians can do the same thing

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they always could, they didn't even change anything on the MGs and the Russians can do the same thing

well as the devs stated, there's 6 longerons in an IL 2 per wing and 3 second burst of MG into that wing shouldn't take it off...I can believe 20mm cannon fire but MGs 50cal size?

Edited by 71st_AH_Mastiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well as the devs stated, there's 6 longerons in an IL 2 per wing and 3 second burst of MG into that wing shouldn't take it off...I can believe 20mm cannon fire but MGs 50cal size?

I have ripped off wings of IL2 with the Mgs of corse after extra long brust on the same spot but what i find now is that is easier to predict the aiming thanks to the improvement on the visual damage model. Now you really know where you are hitting and is much more predictable to hit with the MGs. I can aim the P2 engines from far.

 

Thanks also the rest of the people that give evidence and spent time making test. 

  • Upvote 1

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

×
×
  • Create New...