Jump to content
Pupo

Comparing the MG151 to the ShVAK ingame

Recommended Posts

Why would the German AP round not have explosive content? Belting composition was recommended to be HE+AP, where AP was either Panzerbrand- or Panzersprenggranate (API or APE). Not that this would have a positive effect in game, but in real life it did.

Share this post


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

Why would the German AP round not have explosive content? Belting composition was recommended to be HE+AP, where AP was either Panzerbrand- or Panzersprenggranate (API or APE). Not that this would have a positive effect in game, but in real life it did.

 

Well, as far as I've been able to read from the game files, the game only has two types of rounds. AP and HE. That's it. No API, APE, nothing. This goes for both the weapons I've tested and all the ones I didn't (including the .50 cal). 

 

 

Edited by Pupo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well all I am taking away from this is that, given a choice,  I need to load AP if I want to shoot down 109s.   From a Russian perspective,  if one of my fighters (not PE-2 or IL-2) gets hit by a German cannon it dies so this thread is just arguing about whether my deaths are spectacular enough :-)

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Well all I am taking away from this is that, given a choice,  I need to load AP if I want to shoot down 109s.   From a Russian perspective,  if one of my fighters (not PE-2 or IL-2) gets hit by a German cannon it dies so this thread is just arguing about whether my deaths are spectacular enough :-)

 

Not at all. VVS has the most rugged airframes available with the P40 and LaGG. You can easily live through a couple of 20mm hits in them. Also when it comes to high speed deflection shots and snap shots, the difference becomes even more apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we would have to know what exactly the "Radius" number does and how it is derived.  If it is indeed some measure of how far the HE effect (splinters or blast?)  then it does look odd at first glance, since you would expect the relationship to be in some way proportional to the HE content. However, I seem to remember a developer post in which they mention that the size of fragments is also taken into account - so a shell with lower % HE content would create fewer but larger fragments, which would retain a destructive momentum for a greater distance even though their starting velocity is less. Without either knowing the equation used - or generating a feasible one ourselves, it is hard to say what is going on since they are not single factor relationships.

 

The Hispano's AP numbers I find not so puzzling: it is by far the heaviest AP shell, and only a little slower at MV than the SHVAK. Just multiply mass and velocity to get momentum and you can see that the Hispano shell has 160% of the momentum of the MG151, and even more compared to SHVAK. 

 

edit - repsonding to Operation_Ivy's post on previous page. (Why are posts not numbered in this new forum format?)

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure there should be such a huge difference between the in-game AP rounds when it comes to de-winging aircraft. The AP round will go through the wing anyway. It's an AP round going through no amour at all. Just a few, 2mm or less, thick aluminium sheets. What would be left behind would just be a clean cut 20mm hole through the wing. For this particular scenario, having a faster and heavier round, shouldn't really make any difference. It should make a difference at longer ranges,  or when firing at armored sections of the aircraft, which is on my to-do list.

 

When tested, the British AP is able to de-wing a 109 with less than 2 rounds on average. This is even more efficient than using the Hispano HE shell. It feels off.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pupo, again, incredible work and I love the fact that you are building up the knowledge base :P

 

I am actually curious about two related things:

1) Are you able to remove the spread on the modded guns? I.e. the shot always hits where you are pointing at, without any randomness?

2) Could you try to locate the parts on the wings that result in wing destruction? What I mean here, is it would be awesome to see an image of say 109 wing, and number of AP hits it takes to "kill" the wing in different locations of such a wing. Analogy would be "killing the entire tank by shooting it in the tip of the cannon" - if AP rounds just uniformly add damage on the wing, instead of "critting" it when they hit say a spar (and even that is questionable) then the DM models may actually be much worse than what we thought.

 

My motivation to ask #2 comes from my own Pe2 experiments where you can use the UBS rear gunner and shoot at the very tip of the vertical stab - with enough shots the entire half of the rear assembly falls off (including the horizontal stab), which is simply impossible realistically speaking.

Share this post


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

I'm not so sure there should be such a huge difference between the in-game AP rounds when it comes to de-winging aircraft. The AP round will go through the wing anyway. It's an AP round going through no amour at all. Just a few, 2mm or less, thick aluminium sheets. What would be left behind would just be a clean cut 20mm hole through the wing. For this particular scenario, having a faster and heavier round, shouldn't really make any difference. It should make a difference at longer ranges,  or when firing at armored sections of the aircraft, which is on my to-do list.

 

When tested, the British AP is able to de-wing a 109 with less than 2 rounds on average. This is even more efficient than using the Hispano HE shell. It feels off.

 

I understand - in RL it would all depend on exactly what the round hit. AFAIK most of the wing in BOS is just a hitbox, with smaller hitboxes for ammo if it is the wings?  Not sure if the structurally critical parts are separately modeled: I believe not. If not, the only thing the game can do is generate some hitpoint damage on the wing as a whole in which case it is hard to see how the model cannot give greater weight to the weightier shot.

 

But if an AP shot hit a main spar, for instance, the damage caused must bear some relationship to the energy imparted - so the HS would do more damage in this case too. It could only not matter in game if the DM had multiple components in each wing with different damage resistance properties to AP vs HE, (like CLOD IIRC), and the rounds are going through the skin only.  

 

You may be expecting more than BoS's rather simple DM can handle. All the same I appreciate the careful testing and clear presentation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic of spars failing why do rifle caliber MGs do jackshit?

If you ask me the best gun ingame is actually the UBS not the ShVak, most MiG pilots prefer the UBS over ShVak not only bec of the ammo but ROF  and simply how much this thing shreds everything not only hard parts. 

 

Another thing to look at is how strong the larger canons are vs wings (23mm and bigger) are as long as the round can penetrate the only thing that differs are the diameter of resulting holes and thats only important if you actually hit the spars.

 

this here resultet in ripped off wing https://giphy.com/gifs/9tXxiFvvXejREYE3BC

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=41524&name==FEW=N3croo

 

and i can tell you from flying alot of IL-2s in the TAW campaign the AP shell out of 23mm or 37mm are pretty much always a 1-2 hit kill on any wing which is bloody redicolous why did the russian even switch to 20mm ShVaks.

 

Also comparing the MiG-3 vs a P-40 with about half a ton of .50cals and ammo I'd pretty much say the UBS really is barely behind in stopping power. If there is something to the HE-filled 12.7mm ripping wings to shreds when most nations deemed the caliber too small for effective payload carrying cartridge. (Im aware of the mg131 the casehead of that thing is elongated at huge expense of velocity)

 

I'd personally like to see the HP of the hitboxes split into structural HP and aerodynamic HP, there really isnt a point where you loose panels or soo much lift that you reach instability/loose flightworthyness. Aside from P-39, the 7B starts to suffe but still can do things.

 

 

Edited by =FEW=N3croo
addition
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 9:45 AM, unreasonable said:

But if an AP shot hit a main spar, for instance, the damage caused must bear some relationship to the energy imparted - so the HS would do more damage in this case too. It could only not matter in game if the DM had multiple components in each wing with different damage resistance properties to AP vs HE, (like CLOD IIRC), and the rounds are going through the skin only.  

On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 8:42 AM, JaffaCake said:

2) Could you try to locate the parts on the wings that result in wing destruction? What I mean here, is it would be awesome to see an image of say 109 wing, and number of AP hits it takes to "kill" the wing in different locations of such a wing. Analogy would be "killing the entire tank by shooting it in the tip of the cannon" - if AP rounds just uniformly add damage on the wing, instead of "critting" it when they hit say a spar (and even that is questionable) then the DM models may actually be much worse than what we thought.

 

I think that the .col geometry files in /graphics/planes might provide some clues. Although I can't prove that they are related to the damage modelling, it doesn't seem unreasonable to guess that that they are. 

 

They contain entries such as

[Object = 0]
	Name="Elev_L_0"
[Object = 1]
	Name="Stab_L_1"
[Object = 2]
	Name="Stab_L_0"
[Object = 3]
	Name="Rudder_Ctl_0"
[Object = 4]
	Name="Fin_Ctl_1"
...

If you want, you can even write a program to render the models without too much effort. As can be seen, the number of components isn't particularly large. This might help settle the wing spar debate. 

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

If you want, you can even write a program to render the models without too much effort. As can be seen, the number of components isn't particularly large. This might help settle the wing spar debate. 

 

I have done just that a few days ago. You can see the results here

 

The code that I use is very brute, but if you want to remder your own planes it looks like this:

 

# Python 3
import math
import sys

# Reads a .col file for points
def readCol( file ):
    response = {
        "points": [],
        "faces":  []
    };
    displace     = 0;
    compensation = 0;
    with open(file,'r') as file:
        for line in file:
            if "Vertex" in line:
                split = line.split();
                response["points"].append([
                    float( split[1].replace(",", "") ),
                    float( split[2].replace(",", "") ),
                    float( split[3].replace(",", "") )
                ]);
                compensation += 1;
            elif "Face" in line :
                split = line.split();
                response["faces"].append([
                    int( split[1].replace(",", "") ) + displace,
                    int( split[2].replace(",", "") ) + displace,
                    int( split[3].replace(",", "") ) + displace
                ]);
            elif "[End]" in line:
                displace += compensation;
                compensation = 0;

    return response;


def writeVTK( file ):
    blockMeshDict = open("109f4.vtk","w");
    # Write the heading
    blockMeshDict.write(
        "# vtk DataFile Version 3.0\n"     +
        "vtk output\n"                     +
        "ASCII\n"                          +
        "DATASET UNSTRUCTURED_GRID\n\n"    +
        "POINTS " + repr( len(file["points"]) ) + " float\n"
    );

    for point in file["points"]:
        blockMeshDict.write(
            repr( point[0] ) + " "  +
            repr( point[1] ) + " "  +
            repr( point[2] ) + "\n"
        );

    blockMeshDict.write(
        "\nCELLS " + repr( len(file["faces"]) ) + " " +
        repr( len(file["faces"]) * 4 )+ "\n"
    );
    for cell in file["faces"]:
        blockMeshDict.write(
            "3 " +
            repr( cell[0] ) + " "  +
            repr( cell[1] ) + " "  +
            repr( cell[2] ) + "\n"
        );

    blockMeshDict.write("\nCELL_TYPES " + repr( len(file["faces"]) ) + "\n");
    for cell in file["faces"]:
        blockMeshDict.write("5\n");


writeVTK( readCol("bf109f4.col") );

 

Edited by Pupo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2018 at 3:56 AM, Operation_Ivy said:

First of all thank your for going through the trouble to test it and providing a file to validate your results on top of it.

 

Your results pretty much reflect my impression after flying both sides extensively in the last couple of month. You don't notice a difference in HE ammunition. So whats the take away from the stats?

 

It is surprising that in this test the German HE performed worse against its intended target than the Russian HE. The German 20mm HE had 108066 joules of destructive energy while the Russian HE only had roughly 67323 39920 joules*. A quite substantial difference. I used the OF (HE-Frag) projectile for the calculation because it has the biggest explosive filling out of the 20mm projectiles.

 

*First i used PETN for the calculation of the Russian 20mm OF projectile. According to =362nd_FS=Hiromachi the chemical filling was A-IX-2 which has a lot less explosive energy than PETN which significantly reduces the overall destructive power.

 

This is even more surprising when you take into consideration that in addition to the greater chemical energy the Minengeschoss was build with less mantling to allow for greater gas pressure alas more kinetic energy to be transferred to the target.

None of this supports the parity between the ammunition types which is present in game right now or the 25% more damage as stated by the Devs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pupo

 

Is it possible by any chance to verify that your numbers still hold true after the recent patches? If anything, we could keep track to modifications being made by the developers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 7:18 PM, JaffaCake said:

@Pupo

 

Is it possible by any chance to verify that your numbers still hold true after the recent patches? If anything, we could keep track to modifications being made by the developers.

 

The original tests were done with 3.01. After 3.02 released some people noted that the mg151 was apparently less powerful, I retested the MG151 and the Shvak and noted no significant difference between the 2 result sets. I could do it again for 3.03, but I'm a bit short on time for the next 2 weeks.

 

Edited by Pupo
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pupo said:

 

The original tests were done with 3.01. After 3.02 released some people noted that the mg151 was apparently less powerful, I retested the MG151 and the Shvak and noted no significant difference between the 2 result sets. I could do it again for 3.03, but I'm a bit short on time for the next 2 weeks.

 

 

 

Huge thanks for doing this! I just want to make sure that people understand that it is critical to have some form of repeatable and reliable tests, such as yours, to keep track of the changes that the devs introduce into the game, as they are, unfortunately, quite opaque when it comes to details on changes regarding "sensitive" aspects of the gameplay.

 

And, of course, given time, any such check on any update that devs produce, would be greatly appreciated :).

 

So yeah, thanks again, and if you happen to have time to do more of these - please do!

Edited by JaffaCake
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JaffaCake said:

 

  

And, of course, given time, any such check on any update that devs produce, would be greatly appreciated :).

 

So yeah, thanks again, and if you happen to have time to do more of these - please do!

 

Pupo provided the file so you can do the tests (and many more) yourself ;) knock yourself out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 20mm M-Geschoss should naturally be the most potent of the 20mm's, and by a fair margin if we for example look at William's tables:

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

That it isn't the most destructive of the 20mm's ingame is quite worrying. You'd expect the projectile with over twice the HE filler to be noticably more destructive on impact.

Edited by Panthera
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Panthera said:

The 20mm M-Geschoss should naturally be the most potent of the 20mm's, and by a fair margin if we for example look at William's tables:

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

That it isn't the most destructive of the 20mm's ingame is quite worrying. You'd expect the projectile with over twice the HE filler to be noticably more destructive on impact.

The thing is that the physics we have in game fail to model minengeschoss properly. Modelling pressure increase in the wing, damage capabilities of such pressure increase and pressure spread in the wing is rather tough task to do. From what I know right now we have M-Geschoss modeled as high explosive fragmentation, where we have much greater amount of lighter fragments with high V0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

The thing is that the physics we have in game fail to model minengeschoss properly. Modelling pressure increase in the wing, damage capabilities of such pressure increase and pressure spread in the wing is rather tough task to do. From what I know right now we have M-Geschoss modeled as high explosive fragmentation, where we have much greater amount of lighter fragments with high V0.

 

Yeah, the main source of damage from the M-geschoss is like you say coming from the blast pressure ripping the target structure apart, and not from fragmentation. This makes sense if you're looking for the quickest way to shoot down an aircraft, which would be to generate as large a hole as possible. Would be nice if the developers modelled this.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is probably too difficult to model and will rather lead to more trouble than it will do good. 

 

However you would expect that they try to compensate this by giving the m-shells a bigger boom. And then there are the Hispanos who overperform. I really wonder how the devs can explain any of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, you'd think modelling fragmentation was harder than simply modelling a larger amount of damage on impact?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ammo power has been adjusted many times. How hard it is I dont know but I guess it is not harder now than it has been before.

This its too risky and hard to change the DM is new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 4:05 PM, Panthera said:

I don't know, you'd think modelling fragmentation was harder than simply modelling a larger amount of damage on impact?

First, you must validate a model, to do that, you must calculate the damage done by pressure increase after M-geschoss explosion inside the airfoil. This validation must be implemented in game to calculate the damage afterwards, basically the validation of the model(in this case) is the algorithm that spits out the values. And from simulations regarding airflow, we know it can be nasty to calculate precisely, and even nastier to do that quickly, many times a second, with multiple aircraft shooting at each other all around the map. After all, the real-time deadline in this game is tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

First, you must validate a model, to do that, you must calculate the damage done by pressure increase after M-geschoss explosion inside the airfoil. This validation must be implemented in game to calculate the damage afterwards, basically the validation of the model(in this case) is the algorithm that spits out the values. And from simulations regarding airflow, we know it can be nasty to calculate precisely, and even nastier to do that quickly, many times a second, with multiple aircraft shooting at each other all around the map. After all, the real-time deadline in this game is tough.

 

Yes, but again modelling the path of individual small fragments surely must be more demanding in terms of computing power? 

 

As I see it modelling blast damage is more simple as it's basically boils down to establishing how big a spherical area of damage a projectile generates on impact or detonation. If that sphere then crosses paths with any component then said component is either considered damaged or destroyed. Seems relatively simple to me, but then again I don't know their code so it could be a much bigger problem than I think.

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 11:01 AM, Panthera said:

The 20mm M-Geschoss should naturally be the most potent of the 20mm's, and by a fair margin if we for example look at William's tables:

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

That it isn't the most destructive of the 20mm's ingame is quite worrying. You'd expect the projectile with over twice the HE filler to be noticably more destructive on impact.

 

 

Well, most of that depends on explosive power.

 

Those tables give the power of the MG151 20x82 as:

110  /  109  /  236

 

ShVAK:

86  /  120


The Mg-151/20 has similar muzzle velocity to the ShVAK and slightly heavier & slower armour piercing rounds. So it should do a fairly similar amount of damage regardless of effective the M-rounds are.

 

It only gains significantly if the added explosive content is truly more effective. This depends not just on how blast, fragments, and fragment size are modelled, but also on how the damage model of the aircraft being attacked is set up (e.g. if breaking wing spars is important than armour piercing rounds have an advantage and Williams/Gunston's general calculations don't apply).

 

P.S.

Hispano: 201  /  194;  (The VYa-23 is even more powerful but not technically 20mm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Yes, but again modelling the path of individual small fragments surely must be more demanding in terms of computing power? 

 

As I see it modelling blast damage is more simple as it's basically boils down to establishing how big a spherical area of damage a projectile generates on impact or detonation. If that sphere then crosses paths with any component then said component is either considered damaged or destroyed. Seems relatively simple to me, but then again I don't know their code so it could be a much bigger problem than I think.

 

 

IMHO modelling fragments is much more easier, since you model only "few of them". When modelling pressure increase you must model every particle of the air moving around and interacting with other particles of the air including compressibility of the air. I guess it is similar to the N body problem. But I guess they could simplify that model a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

Well, most of that depends on explosive power.

 

Those tables give the power of the MG151 20x82 as:

110  /  109  /  236

 

ShVAK:

86  /  120


The Mg-151/20 has similar muzzle velocity to the ShVAK and slightly heavier & slower armour piercing rounds. So it should do a fairly similar amount of damage regardless of effective the M-rounds are.

 

It only gains significantly if the added explosive content is truly more effective. This depends not just on how blast, fragments, and fragment size are modelled, but also on how the damage model of the aircraft being attacked is set up (e.g. if breaking wing spars is important than armour piercing rounds have an advantage and Williams/Gunston's general calculations don't apply).

 

P.S.

Hispano: 201  /  194;  (The VYa-23 is even more powerful but not technically 20mm)

 

 

Blast effect is what generates the size of the hole, so it's arguably the most important damage component versus the large but thinly skinned & structured target that constitutes an aircraft - atleast that's what the Germans and most everyone else post war seem to have thought, with thin walled high capacity shells becoming std. within most load outs.

 

PS: I agree with Williams assessment of the Hispano, it was an excellent cannon which with its high penetration made up for its lack of explosive power. Definitely one of the best aircraft armaments of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Well, most of that depends on explosive power.

 

Those tables give the power of the MG151 20x82 as:

110  /  109  /  236

 

ShVAK:

86  /  120


The Mg-151/20 has similar muzzle velocity to the ShVAK and slightly heavier & slower armour piercing rounds. So it should do a fairly similar amount of damage regardless of effective the M-rounds are.

 

It only gains significantly if the added explosive content is truly more effective. This depends not just on how blast, fragments, and fragment size are modelled, but also on how the damage model of the aircraft being attacked is set up (e.g. if breaking wing spars is important than armour piercing rounds have an advantage and Williams/Gunston's general calculations don't apply).

 

P.S.

Hispano: 201  /  194;  (The VYa-23 is even more powerful but not technically 20mm)

 

The "damage coeficient" on that page already takes into account the muzzle velocity

Share this post


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

 

Yes, but again modelling the path of individual small fragments surely must be more demanding in terms of computing power? 

 

As I see it modelling blast damage is more simple as it's basically boils down to establishing how big a spherical area of damage a projectile generates on impact or detonation. If that sphere then crosses paths with any component then said component is either considered damaged or destroyed. Seems relatively simple to me, but then again I don't know their code so it could be a much bigger problem than I think.

 

 

 

It is more complicated than what you think : fragments damage just needs kinetic calculations when blast damage requires fluids mechanic calculations. Moreover those fluid mechanic calculations are higly influenced by the geometry of the part it has hit (and even more complicated when the blast is contained in a small box like a wing box).

 

Share this post


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

 

It is more complicated than what you think : fragments damage just needs kinetic calculations when blast damage requires fluids mechanic calculations. Moreover those fluid mechanic calculations are higly influenced by the geometry of the part it has hit (and even more complicated when the blast is contained in a small box like a wing box).

 

 

Well I don't think you necessarily need to involve fluid dynamics in order to satisfyingly emulate blast damage to the level needed in this game. It could be as simple as giving a projectile a spherical damage zone which then just sort of eats pieces out of the target it impacts pac man style, or at least damage any components within the zone of the sphere. I see that as more simple than having to model hundreds of fragments flying around, but I have no experience with game engines so I'm just guessing.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly though, if M-shell is meant to be better - they should make it better, within whatever model they are currently using. You can't simply "ignore" part of the damage because your model is too simple to account for it, and thus makes the round impotent. Instead its better to at least do unrealistic compensation within your model (i.e. make the fragments deal more damage, I am so unconvinced by the current M-shell "faster but lighter" fragments being actually better than "heavier but slower" shvak rounds).

 

[edited]

 

A worrying trend has been established with the devs unfortunately, with the "1%" precision accidentally having some iconic waffle craft being below the bar, while some red equivalents being at or slightly above the average. (particularly the 109 turn rate being lower and no further work to fix it has been confirmed).

 

Then we have the hotly argued later 109 model engine WEP 1 minute timer, which appears to not be a thing by the manuals...

 

The HE shells were terrible for a long time until recent changes, and still the M-shell appears to be barely on-par vs. equivalent...

 

[edited]

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

 

2. This forum is provided by 1C-777 Ltd. as a courtesy and its usage is a privilege and 1C-777 Ltd. reserves the right to ban any member temporarily or permanently for any reason at any time. Any penalties listed below for violations of the rules are guidelines only and forum administration may take additional action if they feel it is warranted. Use of the forum is not connected to usage of the game and access to this forum is not guaranteed to users as a consequence of purchasing the game.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've outlined damage mechanics some time ago in this topic, splinter and blast damage are different types of damage. While it may seem intuitive to just up splinter damage in substitution for blast damage, this will also lead to unhistorical effects. In that regard, I think, the devs have done what they could. Personally I still think they need to tone down structural damage from AP rounds, instead. This would increase accuracy/historical representation far more than further upping splinter damage of the M-round.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You certainly got a point. However it would be a simple and easy fix to simply copy the Hispano 20mm HE shell. Historically both performed on a similar level. This is obviously not perfect but way better than what we got now.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JtD said:

I've outlined damage mechanics some time ago in this topic, splinter and blast damage are different types of damage. While it may seem intuitive to just up splinter damage in substitution for blast damage, this will also lead to unhistorical effects. In that regard, I think, the devs have done what they could. Personally I still think they need to tone down structural damage from AP rounds, instead. This would increase accuracy/historical representation far more than further upping splinter damage of the M-round.

 

 

Issue is that both approaches lead to unhistorical damage. In one case unhistorically less damage - in another unhistorical "type" of damage.

 

I'd honestly choose unhistorical type of damage over less damage, as the latter is detrimental to overall historical depiction of the aircraft's combat performance. (and can raise questions of bias)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read JtD's post to mean that if AP shots hit the engine, pilot etc they would still do what they do now: but that if they go through a non-vital area like a wing surface, rear fuselage etc they add inflict fewer "hit points" to that whole structure than they do now.    Seems reasonable. I am not sure why that would be more unhistorical than what we have now.

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

You certainly got a point. However it would be a simple and easy fix to simply copy the Hispano 20mm HE shell. Historically both performed on a similar level. This is obviously not perfect but way better than what we got now.

 Yes that would certainly be an improvement.

 

Another thing regarding these tests is that IMO the Devs change many things which are not specifically recorded in the patch notes.

One such peculiar adjustment is a the max G loadings adjustment which when introduced, made wings snap very easily when they were damaged and high gs were pulled. This was especially prominent for the Spit and the La5. This adjustment has almost certainly been reverted, since it just doesn’t happen anymore and the planes can take many hits and maneuver hard.

So I really think the tests may not even be valid anymore.

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I read JtD's post to mean that if AP shots hit the engine, pilot etc they would still do what they do now: but that if they go through a non-vital area like a wing surface, rear fuselage etc they add inflict fewer "hit points" to that whole structure than they do now.    Seems reasonable. I am not sure why that would be more unhistorical than what we have now.

 

 

The reply is regarding HE

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 3:42 PM, Operation_Ivy said:

However you would expect that they try to compensate this by giving the m-shells a bigger boom. And then there are the Hispanos who overperform. I really wonder how the devs can explain any of this?

 

Spits have pair of the Hispanos MkII - cannons shooting relatively heavy (130-168g) projectiles at fast (800-860m/s) velocities. Then we have belts' composition - only a fraction of rounds in MG151/20 were M-shells. It's not the Hispano's fault - even more not that Spitfires can pull deflection angles easily.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


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

 

Spits have pair of the Hispanos MkII - cannons shooting relatively heavy (130-168g) projectiles at fast (800-860m/s) velocities. Then we have belts' composition - only a fraction of rounds in MG151/20 were M-shells.

 Pls look at the test conducted, which is what this thread is about.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

 

The reply is regarding HE

 

Unclear: JaffaCake's reply to JtD addresses "both approaches",  I take that to be addressing JtD's proposal to change AP damage as well.

 

If I have misunderstood JaffaCake's post, he can correct me himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done some more testing for the german 20mm HE (100 trials for the 109/yak1b/spit). Its interesting that you have ~50% chance to ignite the fuel in the wing of the Yak before you shoot it off. It's an 8% chance to ignite it on the first hit.

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...