Jump to content
-[HRAF]BubiHUN

I'm desperete

Recommended Posts

I am a how does most players here call those who fly german planes most of the time? Luftwaffles? I'm a Luftwaffle. German planes made from metal, but Yaks made from wood, am I right? German fighters have 20mm exploding shells. 
They why are the 109s looks like they made from glass, while the yaks are still flying under total control after taking several hits from exploding shells?

Is this game is all about "sicrit documents" too?

Don't blame me, im desperete.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In tests we found that German 20mms were more powerful than the Russian 20mms. Yaks were only slightly tougher than Bf109s (in repeated tests) and that the majority of complaints about damage models were from online players who were experiencing momentary packet loss issues so that their shots were not connecting.

 

There may also be some unrealistic expectations here. The Yak-1 is made of mixed steel tube and wood construction.

 

From the Wikipedia article on the LaGG-3's wood construction (which uses similar principles):

 

 

Its airframe was almost completely made of wood delta-veneer (a resin-wood multi-ply veneer composed of very thin, 0.35 to 0.55 mm, wood veneer and phenol formaldehyde resin, baked at high temperature and pressure) used for the crucial parts. This novel construction material had tensile strength comparable to that of non-hardened aluminum alloys and only 30% lower than that of precipitation hardened D-1A grade duralumin. It was also incombustible and completely invulnerable to rot, with service life measured in decades in adverse conditions. The full wooden wing (with plywood surfaces) was analogous to that of the Yak-1. The only difference was that the LaGG's wings were built in two sections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov_LaGG-3

 

Stop thinking that wooden construction means its made out of the same stuff as your kitchen table.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're location says on my 6 - so why do you have any concerns about your 109's sturdiness?

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In tests we found that German 20mms were more powerful than the Russian 20mms. Yaks were only slightly tougher than Bf109s (in repeated tests) and that the majority of complaints about damage models were from online players who were experiencing momentary packet loss issues so that their shots were not connecting.

 

There may also be some unrealistic expectations here. The Yak-1 is made of mixed steel tube and wood construction.

 

From the Wikipedia article on the LaGG-3's wood construction (which uses similar principles):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov_LaGG-3

 

Stop thinking that wooden construction means its made out of the same stuff as your kitchen table.

so you want to tell me that, metal is weaker than wood?

You're location says on my 6 - so why do you have any concerns about your 109's sturdiness?

please keep that to youself,i used that "location" as a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

metal is weaker than wood?

 

Mate it's very thin aviation fuselage, not armoured slab.

 

That and the 109s skin was load-bearing IIRC, so say goodbye to structural integrity when you too many holes in it.

Edited by Custard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you want to tell me that, metal is weaker than wood?

 

 

woods.jpg

 

some woods are, in fact tougher than some metals 

 

but that does not really tell you anything about the toughness of a thing built out of either - since the construction methods for both are largely responsible for that aspect

 

 

according to wikipedia on the Lagg-3:

 

. Its airframe was almost completely made of wood delta-veneer (a resin-wood multi-ply veneer composed of very thin, 0.35 to 0.55 mm, wood veneer and phenol formaldehyde resin, baked at high temperature and pressure) used for the crucial parts. This novel construction material had tensile strength comparable to that of non-hardened aluminum alloys and only 30% lower than that of precipitation hardened D-1A grade duralumin

 

 

the material of which a plane is made does not directly correspond to the amount of damage it can take - the way it is built from said material has a very large part in it, and ultimately - russian planes were deliberately made "extra tough" - since they weren't expected to fly out of neat paved fields or "have it easy" on them in any way -- it's like a city car vs a pickup truck

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

so you want to tell me that, metal is weaker than wood?

 

It's not just wood.  It's a composite material using wood as the fibre and resin as the matrix.  Did you even read what was written? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just wood.  It's a composite material using wood as the fibre and resin as the matrix.  Did you even read what was written? 

 

[Edited]

Edited by Bearcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Yak in particular was known to be an extremely tough and structurally sound aircraft, so much so, that its structure could be lightened significantly as they worked towards the tiny Yak-3. Its main vulnerabilities seem to have been fuel tanks and the tendency of the delta wood to crack and become loose under heavy G-loads (the last is not modeled in the game, since the problem seems to have stemmed from occassional poor production quality, which is not covered by this sim)

 

So yes: The Yaks being somewhat thouger than the Bf 109s makes sense.

Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many Metals Weaker than wood.

 

Take Salt we eat thats a Metal.

 

 

Not really. It's a salt. Salt molecules always contain negatively charged metal ions which bind with positively charged non-metallic ions. As such they're not really "metals".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many Metals Weaker than wood.

 

Take Salt we eat thats a Metal.

 

 

 

Uh, no, it is not.

 

Edit: I see Fink said the same, but to elaborate, a salt is a salt. A salt is a type of molecule. A metal is a type of atom. A salt is a combination of atoms, often metal and non-metal, base and acid, metal and acid... lots of ways to make a salt. But table salt, NaCl, is not "a metal."

Edited by 19//curiousGamblerr
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bf-109 has always come across as a glass cannon to me.

I find it to be more likely to get radiator leaks, which makes sense, since its underwing radiators are fairly broad and take up a significant portion of the underside of the wing.

 

For this reason I hope, that we will at some point see the modeling of the emergency cutoff, which allowed the pilot in a Bf 109 to disable one of the radiators to stop a leak, allowing the other to continue operating, cooling being a lot less effective (and reduced engine power being necessary) but not breaking down completely.

 

As I mainly fly VVS (and lately a lot of Fw 190) this won't really benefit me, but with coolant leaks being quite common, I think it's an important bit to model for the 109.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it was stated that germans used a safety factor of 1.4 while russians used a safety factor of 2.0.

+ 2 instead of 1 wingspar.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a well known joke, that when a Focke wulf 190 crashed Kurt tank would look at the damaged parts and design them stronger

 

When an Me-109 crashed Willi Messerschmitt would look at the surviving parts and make them lighter

 

The 109 is not noted in history as being a very strong aircraft able to withstand much punishment, compared to many others, however in popular perception this is not mentioned much in many "historical" pieces about the 'Legend' of 109, which for many of it's qualities it does indeed deserve 

 

on a side note the De havilland Sea Hornet, a twin engined post war carrier aircraft with 4000hp and one of the fastest ever piston engined fighter bombers, continued in service until 1956 

 

Made mostly of "weak" wood

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes. The metal vs wood argument. And why the superior Luftwhiners make more excuses for their lack of skill.

 

Maybe the Russian planes weren't as bad as they were made out to be, and The German planes weren't as good as they were made out to be.

 

I'm very tired of all the Russian bias claims, this isn't war thunder! The developers try and make it as accurate as possible.

 

And remember, this is a "game" and you can't model everything like it was in real life.

(Although fairly close)

 

People have to learn to be contempt, this flight sim is as real as it gets in terms of physics, and simulating "digital nature".

 

Take a look at some of these videos on how much effort the devs have put into this marvelous game engine/flight sim

 

 

 

 

There was another one where a DR.1 flew through some smoke, and you could see how the air moving under the wings effected the air flow, so they even stimulate air currents. Bet DCS, CloD, 1946, WT. Don't even have that technology. (Or anywhere close)

 

So yes, I'm pretty sure the "strength" of the fuselage and the "damage" of the guns is fairly accurate! Considering how close to real life everything else in this sim is.

Edited by Riderocket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was another one where a DR.1 flew through some smoke, and you could see how the air moving under the wings effected the air flow, so they even stimulate air currents. Bet DCS, CloD, 1946, WT. Don't even have that technology. (Or anywhere close)

 

Here you go

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that the majority of complaints about damage models were from online players who were experiencing momentary packet loss issues so that their shots were not connecting

What a bad luck...

Only when we are flying german we lose a packet or we have a trouble connection. Damm bad luck!

 

 

 

[Edited]

[Edited] fava Why it was edited? I dont understand!

 

S!

 

Pls check your PMs

Edited by Bearcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bad luck...

Only when we are flying german we lose a packet or we have a trouble connection. Damm bad luck!

 

S!

I've hit 109s with 2 seconds continous firing and it flew quite nicely afterwards, so no, not only when flying german. But of course it has more effect against tougher built planes than weaker ones. Shoot a 190 with a soviet fighter and you have way more trouble. Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a how does most players here call those who fly german planes most of the time? Luftwaffles? I'm a Luftwaffle. German planes made from metal, but Yaks made from wood, am I right? German fighters have 20mm exploding shells. 

They why are the 109s looks like they made from glass, while the yaks are still flying under total control after taking several hits from exploding shells?

 

Is this game is all about "sicrit documents" too?

 

Don't blame me, im desperete.

 

I agree, the damage modeling needs to be reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like the DM too, its just stupid when you pump 6 or more HE shells into the back of a plane and it still flys.

I know that dead 6 is not the best position but 6+ Mineshells and i dont know how many APs between the Mineshells hit a small plane in the butt, it should lose all his back or at least lose control over yaw and pitch.

But i cant tell if german planes go down sooner than russian planes, for me it looks equal from an offline PoV, everytime im behind an AI, no matter which side, he does his magics and i can count the puffs of smoke but plane is still flying hard. Of course not everytime but it happens so often that it frustrates me often because you know the AI, they all try to kill you and when you make an attack and hit the other plane it should go down or flee, im so tired of the AI sry.

From all other aspects then 6 o clock all is fine for me, planes go down with quick bursts no matter the plane just from behind i have bad experience, the decision for bailing out is maybe a problem too, as long as the AI plane can hold in the air the pilot will not jump and often try to engage till his engine dies.

Sry for slight offtopic with the AI part, i just hate it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bad luck...

Only when we are flying german we lose a packet or we have a trouble connection. Damm bad luck!

 

 

 

Is he a troll like you?

I begin to start that there are troll also in the same people who say it's all right...

 

S!

It happens to the Red team pilots too... They just shrug and keep shooting.

 

In offline testing I found no issues.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 ... "tensile strength comparable to that of non-hardened aluminum alloys" ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov_LaGG-3

 

 ...

 

 

I don't know of a single airframe application for non-hardened aluminium alloys.  Even the Zeppelins used heat treated aluminium.  I'm not sure this statement adds any particular meaning to the conversation.

 

PS  Just for reference, 2024T3 (hardened) is 2 1/2 times stronger ultimate and 4 times stronger yield than 2024T0 (unhardened).

Edited by chuter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of a single airframe application for non-hardened aluminium alloys.  Even the Zeppelins used heat treated aluminium.  I'm not sure this statement adds any particular meaning to the conversation.

 

PS  Just for reference, 2024T3 (hardened) is 2 1/2 times stronger ultimate and 4 times stronger yield than 2024T0 (unhardened).

 

I admittedly don't know very much about the materials and their tensile strengths beyond what was written. Reportedly 30% less than "that of precipitation hardened D-1A grade duralumin." Point being, these wooden aircraft pieces are not the same thing as your kitchen table. People need to stop being dismissive of "those wooden Russian planes" and expecting them to fall apart.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure that "tensile strength comparable to that of non-hardened aluminum alloy" translates to more resistent to cannon hits.

This is from Wiki: "Tensile strength is the capacity of a material or structure to withstand loads tending to elongate, as opposed to compressive strength, which withstands loads tending to reduce size. In other words, tensile strength resists tension (being pulled apart), whereas compressive strength resists compression (being pushed together)."

I think in the case of planes it just means you can use cheap wood and make it comparable or better then aluminum to forces in flight but it not means that cannon hits do less damage on wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German fighters have 20mm exploding shells. 

 

Minengeschoß - tends explode on contact, not inside surfaces. Don't expect Yak's blowing up in hundred of pieces, 1946's style.

 

https://www.upload.ee/image/4122426/mgff_spit_left_3_hits.jpg

https://www.upload.ee/image/4122430/spit_1_left.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/0A6e0J2l.png

 

 

Yaks made from wood

 

Yes, but not simple wood sheet from apple crates, say "Yaks made from wood" sounds "Luftwafles".  :lol: 

 

"Delta wood" (Wiki) =  wood delta-veneer (a resin-wood multi-ply veneer composed of very thin, 0.35 to 0.55 mm, wood veneer and phenol formaldehyde resin, baked at high temperature and pressure) used for the crucial parts.

This novel construction material had tensile strength comparable to that of non-hardened aluminum alloys and only 30% lower than that of precipitation hardened D-1A grade duralumin.

It was also incombustible and completely invulnerable to rot, with service life measured in decades in adverse conditions. 

Edited by Sokol1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure that "tensile strength comparable to that of non-hardened aluminum alloy" translates to more resistent to cannon hits.

This is from Wiki: "Tensile strength is the capacity of a material or structure to withstand loads tending to elongate, as opposed to compressive strength, which withstands loads tending to reduce size. In other words, tensile strength resists tension (being pulled apart), whereas compressive strength resists compression (being pushed together)."

I think in the case of planes it just means you can use cheap wood and make it comparable or better then aluminum to forces in flight but it not means that cannon hits do less damage on wood.

 

Indeed. What I've read suggests that the plastic impregnated wood still tends to shatter when exposed to high explosive rounds. To what extent that is different than the warping and failure that the aluminum monocoque aircraft experience (especially one as finely put together as the Bf109 is)... I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...this is a UFO......No need to use ammo, lol, urgent correction in this DM

Edited by JAGER_Batz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage resistanceof an airframe  is not alone that much dependent of the material itself but rather the construction mode itself: what other structures bear load, how densely grouped are the structural elements that when hit and fail, produce catasthropic failure and where are the aircraft systems..

 

the whole wood vs metal debate is misleading and even if you all were crack engineers would alone not produce coherent insights.. What we have in the sim is an approcimation, you can´t model every single structure element, and this consists of "zones". Computer games can not be equally complex as reality and hence there will alway be some element of "balancing" in how we interpret those simplifications and aprocimations. All glorifications of Deltawood do not change that. Nor do 20mm Mineshell glorifications change that.

 

And that is why I would like make some arguments about balancing:

 

What we have in the sim, is a pretty cool damage model and all planes go down quickly when shot in the right places. With cool 3d visualisation of damge. That is really nice.

Some planes however can take a ton of punishment in some ways from certain angles, and most (but not all of them) are russian. For some it´s ok, for others it is blasphemy.

 

In my eyes, this constitutes to a degree a bit of balancing, which is good for a computer game approcimating reality. "Realism" is like a fetish to flightsimmers, but on the server online, the basic things of reality are not of primary concern to the players and we should not overlook that a lot of "realism" claims are actually calls for "balance my side better".  We can not have a totally 1:1 model of reality, but our aprocimation of how it was should reflect that reality as much as possible as well as allow for interesting gameplay. "Oneside Massacresim" would not be a mass selling product.

 

but personally, I think this game would benefit from taking some aspects of reality into these aprocimations and re-work them, which also would mean better gameplay:

 

the pe2 s.87 can take too much damage from rear aspect shots. There sometimes may be network issues and not conecting shots, too, but overall it seems to strong, and I say that as someone who flies it a lot. From other angles, it can be shot down just fine I think.

 

The Ju87 needs a bit more beefed up structure: While the Ju87 where shot down in droves, that was arguably to their speed and loss of crew/vulnerable systems. The airfame it self was built to very very tough divebomber standards (similar to tougher as Pe2) and that was the reason it was selected, it´s ability to continue operations under rough conditions and rough fields... the airframe structure of the stuka in BoS fails far to easy when compared to for example the Pe2. That would also positively affect gameplay, as currently online events and gameplay have a lot of "historically" correct centeredness on low level ground attack and the deadly AA and little damge resistance of the Stuka compared to the Il2 makes it difficult. (Don´t get me wrong, the stuka should obviously NOT be armored like the IL2, but it falls appart to quickly for beeing one of the most rugged divebombers, albeit with very vulnerable crew and engine.). Ok, BoK will also improve things with the Hs129, but I still think, this is a valid point to think about.

 

the yaks need to take into account the effects of fabric covered steel tube fuselages: While beeing damage resistant, those generate more drag at high speeds to the fabric moving, an important issue that was adressed in the Yak 9 by introducting more rigid fuselage covering (move from doped fabric to bakelite and then to metal covering). Yaks should lose more energy at higher speeds above 500km/h while retaining their superior maneuverability at lower speeds with lesser energy loss there: ie: the drag for fabric covered planes increases in a slightly different exponential function then for metal covered ones in the real world, i know that, i fly fabric covered planes...

  • Upvote 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monostripezebra, that was not an evil post, you just hit 666 posts with that one. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though not a fully fledged Luft Whiner, I will admit that in hindsight, I was one of those who whined about Russian planes being far stronger than German ones.

 

Then I stopped being lazy, read up on how to do manual engine management in the Russian planes, and promptly found out that 9/10 that a bandit latched on firmly to my 6 o'clock ends with me getting blown to pieces, regardless of what plane I fly. And only yesterday me and others were subjected to a long winded rant on the WoL server about "russian bias plz fix superior Krupp stahl plaens". What made it all the more amusing was that the same guy had not an hour earlier been so shot up by me that he was streaming thick, dark as night smoke, and still managed to stay high and come within 500m of me when I broke off, taking a few wildly inaccurate shots. He didn't crash until around 5 minutes later, and then it was because he was finished off by another Allied fighter...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though not a fully fledged Luft Whiner, I will admit that in hindsight, I was one of those who whined about Russian planes being far stronger than German ones.

 

Then I stopped being lazy, read up on how to do manual engine management in the Russian planes, and promptly found out that 9/10 that a bandit latched on firmly to my 6 o'clock ends with me getting blown to pieces, regardless of what plane I fly. And only yesterday me and others were subjected to a long winded rant on the WoL server about "russian bias plz fix superior Krupp stahl plaens". What made it all the more amusing was that the same guy had not an hour earlier been so shot up by me that he was streaming thick, dark as night smoke, and still managed to stay high and come within 500m of me when I broke off, taking a few wildly inaccurate shots. He didn't crash until around 5 minutes later, and then it was because he was finished off by another Allied fighter...

Sometimes it really helps looking at things from the other perspective. Since the last update I've really taken a liking to the Fw 190 and have started to fly Axis more often than I've ever done before.

 

In my case the change of perspective has meant, that I kinda get the rants about the super-deadly Pe-2 gunners. However for aircraft toughness/weapon effectiveness, there's just no case. I can blow everything out of the sky with just a tap on the trigger in the Fw 190. Its armament is extremely effective in both SP and MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as its completely off topic ill just say this..

Sodium is our metal

TABLE Salt used for food IS A METAL

Google it
Wiki It
 

Edited by =r4t=Sshadow14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as its completely off topic ill just say this..

 

Sodium is not a metal

 

TABLE Salt used for food IS A METAL

 

Google it

Wiki It

 

 

Jesus Sshadow, maybe you should Google it. Any periodic table will tell you Sodium (Na) is an akali metal and Chlorine (Cl) is a non-metal. Together they make table salt (NaCl) which is a salt, not a metal. The classification of metal is at the elemental level, it makes absolutely no sense to say a mineral like table salt is a metal.

 

Edit: As a half  baked effort to keep this post on topic, if you've ever fired a gun at a metal target and a wooden target it's pretty clear the idea of wood falling apart more easily than metal is flawed, and that's not even considering the resin and layering and stuff we're dealing with here.

 

Also this is definitely true:

 

 

 

 promptly found out that 9/10 that a bandit latched on firmly to my 6 o'clock ends with me getting blown to pieces, regardless of what plane I fly.
Edited by 19//curiousGamblerr
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For an astrophysicist all elements after Hydrogen and Helium are metals, i think it depends if you are an astrophysicist or an chemical technician. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as its completely off topic ill just say this..

 

Sodium is not a metal

 

TABLE Salt used for food IS A METAL

 

Google it

Wiki It

 

Oh boy...

 

I really don't want to sound demeaning dude, but you seem to lack a basic understanding of what a metal even is. Even if you don't use the strict chemistry definition and include alloys and other compounds, what you're saying is still completely wrong. Sodium is absolutely a metal, and NaCl is not, even though the one half of the compound is a metal.

 

For a material to be classified as a metal in the colloquial sense, it must show metallic properties, which means it must be malleable, fusible and ductile. NaCl has none of these properties.

  • 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...