Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
McDuff

The quality is really starting to show...except for..

Recommended Posts

I've had BOS since day one but until recently not played too much.

After seeing and feeling the huge improvements recently , I decided to buy BOM and BOK .

I am really enjoying it all hugely and I am very excited about what the next patch is going to bring...But..

There is one major immersion killer for me and that is that while the physical damage modelling is done extremely well...

most of the visual damage modelling is absolutely awful.

The low poly hole decals are like something out of the 80's sims and the dot to dot joined up cracks on the wing and fuselage breakages are just laughable.

Surely I can't be the only one here that would love to see this side of a now great game improved...:unsure:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be brutally honest? Don't care all that much. Could it be more beautiful looking at the holes in my wing? Yes, but that is veeeeeery veeeeeery low on my personal list of priorities. I just make a point of not having holes in my wing all that often. :D

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to believe as time goes on this and other areas of the damage visuals will be revisited just as the landscape is soon to get a complete make over. Stay tuned. More is yet to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't sit and stare at the holes in my wing FCS... I'm too busy evading and trying to work out solutions to fight or flight  :o:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the other day my Il2 wings looked like Swiss Cheese, even in their 80's style splendour but I was still amazed.  More so about being able to fly back to base than anything else.  If it was a Yak with 1 bullet hole in the wing, say adios to that wing flying as you grapple with the stick to try and hold her level. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Etherlight said:

To be brutally honest? Don't care all that much. Could it be more beautiful looking at the holes in my wing? Yes, but that is veeeeeery veeeeeery low on my personal list of priorities. I just make a point of not having holes in my wing all that often. :D

 

Real men fly bombers and IL-2 and Hs 129 (leaving ego-inflating fighters to boys :P). Real men do the dirty work and bring cracks and holes to the base every time!

Seriously now, I agree - there's so much to marvel at in this sim, that this cracks and holes is in no way worth mentioning. Is there room for improvement? Sure. Annoying? Not by far.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yes I find these better and approved now, compared to before, and I agree with the author, while most people believe they would be happier with one more plane , I personally have expirienced it is these little things that make the total expirience better. After all , we can only fly one plane at the time. The expirience while doing that  both visual and physical is what I appreciate. 

But we have to accept the fact that improvements like this have to go together with patches that they get payed for. I think we will see improvements little by little . They are known for making things better some times unexpected

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this damage you speak of? I've never experienced this issue because I absolutely never get damaged. I always land my airplanes as pristine as they were when I took off. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really annoys me, is something that already annoyed me A LOT in "Rise of Flight", and I ask myself
if that is simply an inbuilt parameter or script, saying: when EA comes closer than X from behind, he will receive engine damage.

 

Of course it is more and more likely that it can destroy the engine, the closer you get.<

But in RoF my Albatros engine ALWAYS got hit and totally conked out.

 

Now I tried the Focke-Wulf 190 A-5 for the first time.
The Focke-Wulf was KNOWN for ability to take quite a lot of fire from ahead without suffering engine damage.

She had a Panzer ring around the air intake, and the intake metal ventilator (no idea how called in English?) was also made of steel.

 

On top of all that, the Focke-Wulf had no water-cooling, but AIR COOLING.

So, can anyone seriously explain to me, how in 6 attempts to approach a PE.2 from directly behind,

the engine ALWAYS got hit at ca. the same distance? And why this hit made the engine conk out EVERY time?

 

If that is a fixed parameter, then it gets REALLY boring - not speak of the annoyance! REALLY BORING.

 

I hope something will be done about that.

In most, very most parts, I like this sim, but would like to be able to love it over a long time.

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

 Yes I find these better and approved now, compared to before, and I agree with the author, while most people believe they would be happier with one more plane , I personally have expirienced it is these little things that make the total expirience better. After all , we can only fly one plane at the time. The expirience while doing that  both visual and physical is what I appreciate. 

But we have to accept the fact that improvements like this have to go together with patches that they get payed for. I think we will see improvements little by little . They are known for making things better some times unexpected

Could not agree more, the small details are what gives this sim more character and makes it more immersive.

More planes are ok too, but more details to the existing planes and overall experience are what makes a difference, and we are getting a lot of both very soon :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

The Focke-Wulf was KNOWN for ability to take quite a lot of fire from ahead without suffering engine damage.

 

Yes radials are known to take a lot of punishment compared to Inline watercooled engines, it also protect the pilot a great deal better. But Russian cannons and machineguns was probably and still is best in the world. This was not recognized until much later. And its ability to shoot fast. There are too many parameters that need to be put together in order to evaluate the situation you describe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I simply wanted to be able to do this:

approach a Pe-2 straight from behind, firing, until all are wounded or the craft is wrecked -

and doing so, get wrecked or wounded myself only - say - 5 times out of 10. Six times Seven?

But not every time.

After all I have 2 MGs and 2 cannons firing right into him, and the crew incl. gunner are sitting

in a relatively narrow tube, in a line. I should sometimes be able to kill them first, before they kill me.

 

I do NOT want any miraculous Focke-Wulf-ability to do so all the time.

I'm quite aware that I should better change my tactics a bit - but I think you get what I'm on about?

Changing the chances factors...

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realise that that Pe-2 if firing 12.7mm rounds at you? A .50 caliber round in your engine is going to seriously mess up your day whether you have in-line or radial engine. Anyone that approaches a bomber from the rear needs and then just stays there deserves every round they get (me included). Quite frankly your wish to approach from behind an auto-win is ...... shall we say 'unrealistic' ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both of your points. You should ABSOLUTELY change tactics. Learn to make slashing attacks through all three dimensions to ruin their firing solution and straighten out to fire for only a second or two.

 

You should also, however, be able to kill those largely unprotected gunners with relative ease. This is my primary gripe when attacking bombers. Pe-2 gunners make the infamous A-20 gunners from ‘46 look like paper soldiers.....

 

*I edited this shortly after my initial post but it didn't stick. Re-edited for content...............

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TP_Silk said:

You do realise that that Pe-2 if firing 12.7mm rounds at you? A .50 caliber round in your engine is going to seriously mess up your day whether you have in-line or radial engine. Anyone that approaches a bomber from the rear needs and then just stays there deserves every round they get (me included). Quite frankly your wish to approach from behind an auto-win is ...... shall we say 'unrealistic' ?

 

 

It happens with the Il-2 gunner too. I'm not sure if it applies only to the A5 or also to A3...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TP_Silk said:

A .50 caliber round in your engine is going to seriously mess up your day whether you have in-line or radial engine.

 

..if it gets in there, maybe. But as I said, the whole round nose-section of the Focke-Wulf was armored.

Why do you think she was such a good aircraft for ground attacks?

We are not talking about the fragile deer-like nose section of the Bf 109 here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a page from another forum about the same question.

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/150789-fw-190-armor-some-documentation/

 

And this chart is from that post. It shows values of RAF firing damage tests (not German ones) on the Focke-Wulf.

You may notice, that it reads Engine: none. No matter if it was .50 calibre or even 20 mm - it just got deflected !

You may also notice, that the 0.303" as well as the 0.5" calibres don't do more than ZERO percent of damage ANYwhere on the Focke-Wulf.

Only 20 mm seemed to do noticable or lethal damage on this plane.

 

 

Damage chart FW 190.jpg

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I agree with both of your points. You should change tactics. You should also be able to kill those largely unprotected gunners with relative ease. It makes the infamous A-20 gunners from ‘46 look like paper soldiers.....

Yes, I agree , PE 2 gunners are not more accurate than HE 111 gunners, but that Gun is way more effective. I guess this will be tweaked . What I do not understand is the non consistant accuracy of Flak and PE 2 gunners. sometime I can do them out with ease, other times it is plain impossible. Is there a difference between offline and online? Because I only test and do this offline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for AI aircraft crews, there are different levels , from "Beginner" over "Average" and "Veteran" to "Ace".

I guess that also counts for the gunners. You never know what you get - except when you fly a single

combat flight and select everything according to your likes.

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

Here is a page from another forum about the same question.

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/150789-fw-190-armor-some-documentation/

 

And this chart is from that post. It shows values of RAF firing damage tests (not German ones) on the Focke-Wulf.

You may notice, that it reads Engine: none. No matter if it was .50 calibre or even 20 mm - it just got deflected !

You may also notice, that the 0.303" as well as the 0.5" calibres don't do more than ZERO percent of damage ANYwhere on the Focke-Wulf.

Only 20 mm seemed to do noticable or lethal damage on this plane.

 

What was the firing range in those tests? How many rounds were fired?

To be fully protected from 0.50 cals, no matter the situation, you need over 2.5cm of steel armor.

And how explosive rounds were "deflected"? What about bullets going through plexiglass part of the canopy - would they be stopped, too?

 

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 There qre a lot of things that need improvements, texture quality, damage model, etc but in a few years will be done I think, the team is small and there are other priorities first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ehret said:

What about bullets going through plexiglass part of the canopy - would they be stopped, too?

 

Ask the RAF at Farborough, Ehret - they made the test. As it was made to help their own air force, I guess they knew what they were doing, don't you think?

 

The Focke-Wulf's forward windshield wasn't made of plexiglass. That was Panzerglass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote "part of the canopy" - not all is made from the Panzerglass. Yet, the table concludes that pilot couldn't be harmed by any type of machine gun fire... There are numerous notes of P51s shooting down the 190s - all done with 50cals. There is gun camera footage showing the same.

The info about the table is incomplete, or it is erroneous.

 

My guess would be... - all test shots were made directly from behind, under the canopy line. The test shots were limited in number because the test frame was destroyed, eventually. The phrase "deflected away" could mean "not reached by the bullet, because the bullet was stopped by parts behind". Then, the table is making (kind of) sense, but posting incomplete data is just... not helpful.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just doing a minor vent here in wishing that people would just make an informative subject line instead of a click-bait one. I guess the prevalence of such-styled ads seeps into one's personal style after a while? Put me in my place if need be. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One improvement I would like to see is introduction of "virtual cockpit". by that I don't mean clickable pit but modelling of hands of the pilot so that if you are using your left hand to do one thing, you can't do something else with it at the same time. Like adjusting throttle and trim and rpm for example. Now this is possible since we can just map stuff to hotas buttons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LLv44_Mprhead said:

One improvement I would like to see is introduction of "virtual cockpit". by that I don't mean clickable pit but modelling of hands of the pilot so that if you are using your left hand to do one thing, you can't do something else with it at the same time. Like adjusting throttle and trim and rpm for example. Now this is possible since we can just map stuff to hotas buttons.

 

CloD tried that, and it was a disaster.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, LLv44_Mprhead said:

One improvement I would like to see is introduction of "virtual cockpit". by that I don't mean clickable pit but modelling of hands of the pilot so that if you are using your left hand to do one thing, you can't do something else with it at the same time. Like adjusting throttle and trim and rpm for example. Now this is possible since we can just map stuff to hotas buttons.

 

Please god no. 

 

Cliffs of Dover attempted this with its "anthrophormic controls" option and it was a disaster. Even the most hardcore "Full realism" communities, ticked it off.

 

It made operating the aircraft  counter intuitive. As an example, If I moved my throttle and my pitch sequentially, in the game only the throttle would be moved. Why? Because the game decided that I moved the throttle too fast, and as such ignored my pitch movement. And then, It would take me some time to realize that the control I moved, didn't move in game at all, and that's why my plane was sluggishly moving through the air.

 

Additionally, it is almost impossible to have exactly 0 movement in force feedback joysticks. with a 1024*1024 precision, you need a steal grip to keep it absolutely centered. Even worst, If you have any pot in your set up that has any kind of noise, you were doomed. The game just interpreted that you were micro-adjusting that control all the time, and as such assumed all your hands were occupied.

 

Finally, this was not easy to implement feature. Before releasing, CloD devs paraded this feature as innovative and that it took them "weeks" to get it right (Which they didn't). Jason has said multiple times that he only has 1 dev capable of making these kind of changes in the game. I'd rather have him working in features that improve gameplay, not damage it.

 

In the end, I get where people wanting this feature are coming from, but the truth is that there is no way to implement it in a way that it does not seriously damage the game play experience of HOTAS users.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

Ask the RAF at Farborough, Ehret - they made the test. As it was made to help their own air force, I guess they knew what they were doing, don't you think?

 

The Focke-Wulf's forward windshield wasn't made of plexiglass. That was Panzerglass.

 

Am sure they knew what they were doing.....trouble is we don't ...:)

 

Although of interest, not enough details to draw any form of conclusion

 

Am sure you meant to help but more questions are raised than answers

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ehret said:

I wrote "part of the canopy" - not all is made from the Panzerglass. Yet, the table concludes that pilot couldn't be harmed by any type of machine gun fire...

 

Yes, and I was ONLY talking about fire from ahead of the craft - that such fire would be able to do quick damage.

 

Quote

...the table concludes that pilot couldn't be harmed by any type of machine gun fire...

 

No, it doesn't. It just says, that the chances of hitting the pilot effectively were near zero.
That may well be said for a few single shots; I do not know. I wasn't there when they did the tests. I only know that Farborough was THE British test site in the war.

 

Quote

...posting incomplete data is just... not helpful.

 

For German planes it is often very difficult to find all the data we'd like to see.
The victors took them with them, and it seems they often keep them locked away - or why do we see so little?

It goes even further - even negative data about British aircraft is sometimes getting withdrawn.
I used to watch a video by professor Hugh Hunt from Oxford, who had built a gyroscope, with which he explained and demonstrated

The bad turn-ability of the Sopwith Camel to the left (to the right the craft turned like a witch).

The video isn't there anymore.

This same professor had and still has many other demo videos, which are still there.
He even made a new one about gyroscopic and torque effects - but without mentioning the Sopwith Camel again.

In his YOUTUBE site Hunt's avatar shows him in the plexi nose of a warplane (Mosquito?).

Now you may guess yourself, who asked him to withdraw that video about the British "holy cow"s bad side?

 

It would be great, if all the true data about the German planes would finally get shown.

But until then, incomplete data are better than nothing IMHO.

But feel free to come up with better and more complete data.

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Am sure you meant to help but more questions are raised than answers

 

I cannot do more in this field, Dakpilot; I am not a historian, who may find access to data which I cannot check.

But bringing up new questions is not too bad - makes more interested people struglle to find the answers.

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree, but the table alone makes the impression that the 190 was only vulnerable to +20mm fire, which is blatantly untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree there, Ehret - and I knew that, surely.
My first post about this was not about the "invulnerability of the Focke-Wulf" - don't get me wrong.

 

I just had read somewhere, that the steel rings round the air intake, and the steel intake ventilator blades made it very unlikely for MG rounds

to get through. But I'd also expect, that longer sustained fire with a 0.50 calibre machine gun with a fast firing rate would do at least SOME damage

even there; not to speak of 20 mm rounds. I'd like to see the complete test results, and how they did it.

 

I only presented this, because I find it badly wrong, when a Focke-Wulf with a radial engine and forward armor conks out regularly, and very quick.

Some few hits, ENGINE IS DAMAGED note come up (or even stranger: COOLING WAS DAMAGED or similar), and only 20 seconds later the engine

dies completely? That cannot be right. We would have heard of that.

I can live with that for the Bf 109. Such an inline engine with all the advanced technology around it and no front amor can be damaged rather easily, I guess.

But the Focke-Wulf, with it's fame for being great for ground attacks? Never. Not like this is presented here.

 

I'll be glad to see any more proof (pro or contra), documents or videos.
There is, by the way, a Russian test video, in which the explainer points with his stick on the two armor rings around the nose;

and also points on the steel ventilator.

 

Maybe some Russians here could translate what the instructer say there?

At 4:50 minutes into the video you can see that bit.

 

Russians to the front - please! (You may not hear a German say that very often...) :russian_ru:;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms
More added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no data in the table about many things. Angles? Distances? Exact number of rounds fired? Just incomplete and prone to bad assumptions.

For 0.50" cals - the Berezin UB is more powerful than the Browning by a good margin - it has a bigger cartridge and higher rate of fire. Maybe that's the reason?

Cylinders in the 190 are forced cooled by the front fan so they have something like "cooling system" to damage.

Maybe the inline engines are too resilient, instead? Most V12s were using pressurized water-glycol for cooling, so most leaks would result in inline seizure within seconds, irl.

Or... something is under-modeled - not in the plane necessarily - maybe ballistics don't take every effect into account, like a gradual degradation of bullet passing through an armor - I don't know - just speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, visual damage....And I would wish BOx planes have detailed cockpits like in Cliffs Of Dover Blitz. Not that is anything wrong with BOx cockpits (they are detailed enough) but those in the Blitz look like real ones, a notch better. Otherwise BOx is superb sim. Im always for better FM DM and features so visuals arent so important but still.....If I need to nitpick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to go out on a limb here and agree some that the damage model is a little lacking..I've never thought to start a discussion though since the same thing has already been covered in another forum (Posted Below).

 

While I'm not huge fan of COD, I did appreciate some of their damage modeling and would understand if it was seen carrying over at some point. The huge waffes of smoke when the 20mm hits seems a little over dramatic..as well as other things..but it's nothing that's bothered me enough to bring up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detailed cockpits like ClOD? Noooo, please leave it as is - they are perfect to me and suit very well with the rest of the rendering.

And please, don't come with clickable cockpits again - this might be interesting for DCS with all the multifunction things, but for

BOX leave it as is...

 

ClOD cockpits do look good for not to say great - to me they just don't fit to the rest of the rendered environment.

 

Cheerio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Trooper117 said:

Jason has stated many times that clickable cockpits will not happen...

I agree with this, Not sure how a graphical discussion went to a discussion about clickable cockpits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

..if it gets in there, maybe. But as I said, the whole round nose-section of the Focke-Wulf was armored.

Why do you think she was such a good aircraft for ground attacks?

We are not talking about the fragile deer-like nose section of the Bf 109 here.

 

We have to consider which FW-190 we have ..A3/A5

 

The armour 'ring' is 3mm and 5mm, this may well deflect some rifle calibre rounds effectively but not the 2 x .50 from a Pe-2 or single .50 in an Il-2 if you are sitting behind one

 

The armour ring is more protecting the  oil radiator,  which is critical on the 190 due to 'efficiency of cooling/close cowling' on BMW 801 installation being only adequate with little room for error, I don't see the cooling fan being a significant 'armoured' part, I thought it was some magnesium alloy and have seen  placard forbidding turning engine by hand on the fan due to fragility (it turned at more than 3 times prop speed) and again damage to cooling fan is going to affect cooling efficiency 

 

Later on the A6-A8 had these (rings) areas up armoured due to experience of attacking US bombers and later ground attack versions had various increases again

 

I think a lot of people are under wrong impression or misunderstanding of aircraft radial engines "Damage capabilities"

 

they have a real advantage over inline liquid cooled engines simply by the lack of coolant and associated fragility of such a system to even a single rifle calibre bullet

 

also the larger frontal area gives a bigger protective area to the pilot to a certain degree

 

but although radials can get you home when an in line would not, it is an aluminium casting for the most part and easily damaged by  .50 rounds, the advantage is that it is possible to have a 'partial failure' and still run/get home, but you would be out of the fight and vulnerable

 

I think many mistake survivability with damage resistance to a certain extent

 

I also hope with switch to 4k skins visual damage will also be updated and maybe in future more attention be put to visual representation and effects relating to actual damage to a higher fidelity, I feel sometimes the smoke/graphics over represent the actual damage and can lead to disappointment/incredulity

 

Cheers, Dakpilot  

  • Upvote 2

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...