Il2 BOX damage model has healthbars?

[JaffaCake]

I got shot down flying against bots and out of frustration started shooting my tailplane in PE2. What I noticed is that using the rear gunner to shoot at the vertical rudder of the tail will over time cause the entire section including the horizontal stabiliser to fall off!

 

After a few more tests on the runway I am confident that firing at the vertical part of the PE2 tail causes that entire section to fall off. Pe2 gunner uses a heavy machine gun so I assume there is no explosive effect going on to somehow influence the integrity of the horizontal part of the tail. I also tried shooting at the top tip of the rudder with the same effect - the bullet spread is pretty large so some of them hit the upper middle of the rudder too.

 

This makes me think that the damage model has some intrinsic health bars, like shooting the part will do inner part damage as well as overall reduce the health of the larger part until it disintegrates? I need to test more on other aircraft to see if its true for them too. Anyone else noticed similar?

[Finkeren]

You're mistaken if you think, that heavy MGs don't fire explosive shells, most of them do.

 

They are also quite capable of causing structural damage.

 

Can't say for sure about the Pe-2 tail section, but it's true that the Pe-2 loses its tail sections more easily (compared to the rest of the airframe which is quite tough)

[Nibbio]

It stands to reason that the damage model is based on a number of "damage boxes" for each component and all hits registering on the single damage box cause progressive damage and loss of function of the component involved.

If you consider a large number of components in the model, and the 3d damage boxes are accurate (i.e. your model has a good "resolution") this could allow you to have a quite realistic behavior.

I also assume that damage box penetration has to be taken into consideration, to allow for damage to multiple "boxes" in the path of the bullets.

 

I also know for a fact that in BOX once the resistance of a damage component is compromised, this may lead to structural collapse at a later time, if the component is stressed beyond its new, and lower resistance, for example through violent flight maneuvres.

 

I guess real time non linear finite element modeling would be better, but we are not there yet

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I see no issue here. Why are we suddenly seeing multiple threads about DM? BoX is among the best in the business and possibly the outright leader in this department.

[JaffaCake]

It stands to reason that the damage model is based on a number of "damage boxes" for each component and all hits registering on the single damage box cause progressive damage and loss of function of the component involved.

If you consider a large number of components in the model, and the 3d damage boxes are accurate (i.e. your model has a good "resolution") this could allow you to have a quite realistic behavior.

I also assume that damage box penetration has to be taken into consideration, to allow for damage to multiple "boxes" in the path of the bullets.

 

I also know for a fact that in BOX once the resistance of a damage component is compromised, this may lead to structural collapse at a later time, if the component is stressed beyond its new, and lower resistance, for example through violent flight maneuvres.

 

I guess real time non linear finite element modeling would be better, but we are not there yet

 

 

Interesting! It surprising that the tail section fails at the joint to the main body of the aircraft when you are shooting at the tip of the rudder, which is a fair length away from the main joint. I am not knowledgeble enough to know if berezin ub gun fired he shells but seems unlikely as it is 12.7mm gun? and even if it did the explosive effect would not be large enough to penetrate a surface away from the target?

 

Maybe its just a bug? Especially if your idea of damage boxes make sense then box that is being damaged can fail, but the box that holds the damaged box should not! Or you'd be able to kill a plane by shooting it in the landing gear alone

Edited April 10, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Scojo]

I see no issue here. Why are we suddenly seeing multiple threads about DM? BoX is among the best in the business and possibly the outright leader in this department.

Snowball effect, likely

[curiousGamblerr]

Make a video

[Solmyr]

I see no issue here. Why are we suddenly seeing multiple threads about DM? BoX is among the best in the business and possibly the outright leader in this department.

 

All Internet is snowball effect. 

I'd not say that ; it has very good points but others are really bad until now :

 

- Damage graphics are so poor.

- Interior damage graphics always are the same, same gauges broken in the same way, and it's true about canopy also.

- Some damages then seem to be very railroaded in their occurences.

[Nibbio]

Interesting! It surprising that the tail section fails at the joint to the main body of the aircraft when you are shooting at the tip of the rudder, which is a fair length away from the main joint. I am not knowledgeble enough to know if berezin ub gun fired he shells but seems unlikely as it is 12.7mm gun? and even if it did the explosive effect would not be large enough to penetrate a surface away from the target?

 

Maybe its just a bug? Especially if your idea of damage boxes make sense then box that is being damaged can fail, but the box that holds the damaged box should not! Or you'd be able to kill a plane by shooting it in the landing gear alone

 

Like I said, the accuracy of the model depends on its resolution. If you use a number of "damage boxes" for a single component (or in other terms you use a higher number of elements) your model will be more accurate.

Of course there's a trade-off here, because a higher resolution model is more computationally demanding, and there's a limit to what you can do in a real-time simulation, where you can't afford fps hiccups. So compromises must be made and accepted.

[Nibbio]

I would also add that some randomization may have been added in order to provide a higher realism "feeling" to the simulation, without aggravating the computational burden.

After all, real damage effects, like the bullet spread of a MG, are never totally deterministic.

 

But if you really want to enjoy the game as it is, I would advise against trying too hard to reverse engineer the damage system. I know from personal experience that once you learn too much about the inner workings of a simulation the "suspension of disbelief" disappears.

Once you learn the tricks of a magician, you will never enjoy his performances quite as much

[Scojo]

Don't get shot and you won't have to worry about the tail damage model being broken

 

I'm kidding, of course.

 

I think the best thing you could do is what Curious said and film it, then send it to a dev, if possible.

 

Maybe there is something wrong, maybe there isn't. That's the best path to finding out, I think.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

All Internet is snowball effect. 

I'd not say that ; it has very good points but others are really bad until now :

 

- Damage graphics are so poor.

- Interior damage graphics always are the same, same gauges broken in the same way, and it's true about canopy also.

- Some damages then seem to be very railroaded in their occurences.

I will admit that I am on board for a graphics fix to represent damage. The bullet decals need to be significantly improved. I've always hated the gray blotches. No one should be expecting the visual DM to go down the CoD road either. It's the one thing that game got really right from the outset. While beautiful, it is only one aspect and not what BoX aspires to be.

 

The physics side of the DM, however, is top notch. All games have hit boxes. BoX doesn't have them for entire systems or large ones hanging in space around the aircraft like an arcade game. The BoX hit boxes are numerous, tied to components while being quite small and detailed compared to anything other than maybe CoD. Making them smaller means you potentially start sacrificing other things. Considering how good they are means it is clearly not worth the time of effort to do any kind of a DM revisit.

Edited April 10, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[ShamrockOneFive]

When you fire the Berezin UB at targets you'll see small puffs of smoke so I'm assuming that there is an explosive round in the belting.

 

Apparently there are four different types of HE and HEI explosive rounds in that 12.7x108 cartridge size so I assume that HE is a possibility: http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_145mm.html

[216th_Jordan]

Also not to forget: Bullets ricochet, not only the tracers. I once shot a Heinkel with the T-34 gun with an AP round. The round passed through the rear fuselage, got deflected by some degrees and impacted the wing on the other side, leading to half the wing breaking off.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

and even if it did the explosive effect would not be large enough to penetrate a surface away from the target?

 

-snip-

 

I'm not very knowledgeable about VVS guns or ammunition but Italian 12.7 HE/I is extremely powerful.

-snip-

 

The BoX hit boxes are numerous, tied to components while being quite small and detailed compared to anything other than maybe CoD.

 

-snip-

 

Tell that to the RPM governor in DCS' P-51-D. 

[Nibbio]

The physics side of the DM, however, is top notch. All games have hit boxes. BoX doesn't have them for entire systems or large ones hanging in space around the aircraft like an arcade game. The BoX hit boxes are numerous, tied to components while being quite small and detailed compared to anything other than maybe CoD. Making them smaller means you potentially start sacrificing other things. Considering how good they are means it is clearly not worth the time of effort to do any kind of a DM revisit.

 

How do you know? Are you relating your personal perception based on player experience or have you actually seen a scheme of one/some of the aircraft damage models?

Just asking because have been away a long time from the forums and I don't know if the developers have actually shared some of these details in the past.

[69th_chuter]

i don't know about the planes, but a panzer against a KV-1, within 200m and perpendicular to the hull, requires 5 shots to the hull.  It can be two on the right, two on the left and one in the rear OR five in the exact same location, but it requires five shots. 

 

(About 10% of the time, if you wait a bit before firing the fifth shot the KV-1 will explode from an internal fire - seems random.)

[AndyJWest]

i don't know about the planes, but a panzer against a KV-1, within 200m and perpendicular to the hull, requires 5 shots to the hull.  It can be two on the right, two on the left and one in the rear OR five in the exact same location, but it requires five shots. 

 

(About 10% of the time, if you wait a bit before firing the fifth shot the KV-1 will explode from an internal fire - seems random.)

 

I'm fairly sure the developers have stated that vehicles have simpler damage modelling than the aircraft do.

[216th_Jordan]

I'm fairly sure the developers have stated that vehicles have simpler damage modelling than the aircraft do.

 

Yes they have - but you can still oneshot T-34s with the 37mm when shooting the engine compartment from above.

[AndyJWest]

Yes they have - but you can still oneshot T-34s with the 37mm when shooting the engine compartment from above.

 

I'm sure you can. I can't seem to hit the darned things at all. Though I've found the gun useful for sinking riverboats. Feel free to post comments regarding barn doors, fish, and barrels... 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

It might be limited number of damage models but still far better than other games and sims in its class..

I know one game i wont mention only has 3 dmg models.
Alive, Damaged, Fully Destroyed.

Belly land a lancaster on runway and its filled with bullet holes. (now thats trash DM's)

This Sim however does a much better job and most damage feel very well placed

[Scojo]

I'm fairly sure the developers have stated that vehicles have simpler damage modelling than the aircraft do.

Unarmored vehicles only need one MG round to destroy. I don't aim at transport columns anymore. I just wobble my sight up and down the road firing MG lol

[Solmyr]

How do you know? Are you relating your personal perception based on player experience or have you actually seen a scheme of one/some of the aircraft damage models?

Just asking because have been away a long time from the forums and I don't know if the developers have actually shared some of these details in the past.

Seconded exactly. (2 years away from most of the forums here.)