IL-2 1942/1943 and it's rear control surfaces fragility, a bug or a feature?

[Tony_Kito]

In the past few months I have been playing a substantial amount of both singleplayer Career and multiplayer sorties for the IL-2, and while flying with quite a few friends, most of us were getting quite frustrated at flying the beloved tank-killing tractor, as we'd been having not much luck surviving on to the target nor back home. Usually this was due to our control rods for both elevator and rudder getting jammed/severed, resulting in an unrecoverable pitch down attitude that plunges the aircraft into the ground with no chance of survival. It got to the point where in the last few sorties in which any of me or my friends were shot down it was almost unanimously because of this condition.

 

Now, for starters, I want to get this out of the way: this will not be just a post about wild accusations, speculation and requests for buffs, but rather a quasi-scientific look into whether this behavior for the aircraft is accurate or not.

 

While testing to see what was the possibility of surviving in an IL-2 without it's vertical stabilizer attached I discovered something quite interesting: with both the Il-2 1942 and Il-2 1943, if the vertical stabilizer was shot at or below it's midpoint in height, all the control surfaces in the tail would have their rods severed, entering the nose-down death dive.

 

Here are videos demonstrating this:

https://streamable.com/ecupb (1942)

https://streamable.com/ljifr (1943)

 

Me and my friends thought this finding to be odd, after all we think that surely from shooting the rudder and vertical stabilizer, they would be the only affected parts, however, I admit I am myself not too familiar with the workings of the control cables for the IL-2, and unfortunately I was unable to find (at least in english) any documentation regarding the positioning and assembly of said cables. Therefore, I am unable to say for certain if this sort of behavior of the damage model is in fact, accurate or merely an overlooked damage model bug.

 

And that's why I made this post, are there any of you among the forum who can explain this behavior?

 

Is it a bug, or a feature?

 

Edit: tracks were recorded for both instances, I can provide upon request.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Tony_Kito

[Custard]

I have noticed this as well, and although it's only my anecdotal evidence - I do not think it has always been this way.

[harmless27]

Thank you for posting this. I have had to many sorties end in instant death off of one single hit to the tail by a German fighter or AA. Not only do all tail control rods break, a sudden and instant nose down occurs which results almost certainly in death as IL-2 operates low. Harder to test in the IL-2 model 1941 but me and my wingmen have been completely destroyed from minimal damage to the tail.

 

I feel as though if the control rods were severed the control surfaces would revert to a neutral position if you are still flying through the air? It seems as though they relax and fall to a down position as though they were sitting on the ground.

 

I'm glad I am not the only one who has experienced this.

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

According to german aces the weak point of the il-2 was its tail. So I don't know  how accurate it is and if, when the cables are jammed it should enter a nose down death dive. The plane is a though bird and can take quite a punishement but a well aimed burst at the tail usually guarantee you a kill.

[/top_lad/CaptainJack]

7 minutes ago, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

According to german aces the weak point of the il-2 was its tail. So I don't know  how accurate it is and if, when the cables are jammed it should enter a nose down death dive. The plane is a though bird and can take quite a punishement but a well aimed burst at the tail usually guarantee you a kill.

I don't think that, as the video shows, the vertical stabiliser contains the elevator control rods.

It's possible it could be shrapnel being abstracted? In any case it does happen a lot.

[RedKestrel]

25 minutes ago, /top_lad/CaptainJack said:

I don't think that, as the video shows, the vertical stabiliser contains the elevator control rods.

It's possible it could be shrapnel being abstracted? In any case it does happen a lot.

I suspect it's abstraction. they probably have hit boxes for the damaged components, and we know they model penetration and secondary damage from shrapnel etc.

It could be that the hitbox for the elevator controls continues somewhat into the vertical stabilizer, or that enough shrapnel is generated from hitting the stabilizer that the game models it severing the elevator controls. Not implausible for a cannon shell hit, but probably not too likely for even a number of light MG hits.

[blitze]

Darn, my last downing in the Il2 (41) was due to engine hit.  It got me to friendly lines though.  In my Moscow Campaign I use a lot of side slipping and turning to avoid either ground AA or enemy fighters.  I might return home with wings as Swiss Cheese but it seems to keep them from lining up my rear end.

 

Last mission I was no 6 in 6 ship flight and I evaded an attacking 109 who proceeded to try their luck on my flight which was a little ahead of me.  Oh those 23mm worked their magic on him as the plane disintegrated around the German Pilot.  Great to watch and I got Drinking Bonus when I returned to base. ?

[Willy__]

You should try the 109s, their tail section will fall of entirely at the slightest smell of gunpowder and bullets/rounds going near it. I'm all for fixing the poor IL2's aslong as the 109s also receive the love treatment.

[danielprates]

I dont know if this is true-to-life or not,  but I too have noticed that elevator damage is more common with the il2 than with other craft. Not only sustaining control damage,  but also losing one or both stabilizers alltogether. But then again,  this could be due to the usual mission profile. Its the only plane that is constantly flown in a low altitude and speed profile,  so statisticly this may acount for a more commonly observed damage of some type. If for instance you had the P51 flying this kind of mission all the time,  at low speeds,  for sure loss of coolant would account for most losses as (as I understand it) that belly radiator was very prone to damage by even the smallest ground-fire caliber.

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

Well like I said the il-2 can survive most stuff thrown at him so when there is a weakness the odds that it gets shot down by said weakness is very high. 

[Tony_Kito]

1 hour ago, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

According to german aces the weak point of the il-2 was its tail. So I don't know  how accurate it is and if, when the cables are jammed it should enter a nose down death dive. The plane is a though bird and can take quite a punishement but a well aimed burst at the tail usually guarantee you a kill.

 

Thank you all for the replies so far, but from what I could remember, the biggest weak spot for the IL-2 was iirc the big Oil Radiator underneath it, as it had little to no armor and was very much in the way of AA and aircraft fire. I recall in my earlier days in BoX that in the IL-2 I either got shot down by way of losing a wing or the engine (usually by an oil leak or direct hit).

 

Just anecdotal, but I think that multiple people remarking this shows that perhaps the tail issue was not always so.

[/top_lad/CaptainJack]

28 minutes ago, Willy__ said:

You should try the 109s, their tail section will fall of entirely at the slightest smell of gunpowder and bullets/rounds going near it. I'm all for fixing the poor IL2's aslong as the 109s also receive the love treatment.

While a touching story, this thread IS about the IL-2, and we're trying to deduce if this is intended and how much so

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

Just now, Tony_Kito said:

 

Thank you all for the replies so far, but from what I could remember, the biggest weak spot for the IL-2 was iirc the big Oil Radiator underneath it, as it had little to no armor and was very much in the way of AA and aircraft fire. I recall in my earlier days in BoX that in the IL-2 I either got shot down by way of losing a wing or the engine (usually by an oil leak or direct hit).

 

Yes you are right, even hartmann stated that oil radiator underneath was the biggest weakness, I was refering to a gunther rall interview ( I might be mistaken its been a while) since most attacks on il-2s were from above they had to aim for something else.

 

3 minutes ago, Tony_Kito said:

Just anecdotal, but I think that multiple people remarking this shows that perhaps the tail issue was not always so.

From my experience it has always been an 'issue', last time I flew the thing must of been a year or so ago and I remember being shot down multiple times by losing tail control.

[Tony_Kito]

6 minutes ago, =FSB=Man-Yac said:

From my experience it has always been an 'issue', last time I flew the thing must of been a year or so ago and I remember being shot down multiple times by losing tail control.

 

Ok, I understand. My biggest question however is if, in fact, shooting exclusively the rudder would result in such a catastrophic loss? What I am in fact wondering is if this is simulated shrapnel or perhaps a bug or sorts. That's all.

[Tony_Kito]

Since the thread's been cold for the past few days I've decided to revive it in the hopes that it will gain public interest once more.

 

While looking up pictures of IL-2's who'd suffered battle damage I came across a website from a group of IL-2 players that acquired and translated to Spanish quite a few photographs of heavily damaged Shturmoviks that managed to return to their home base or, at the very least, ditch in friendly territory, quite a few of which show EXTENSIVE damage to both the vertical and horizontal stabilizer without catastrophic results, damage which seems much more severe than the one I self-inflicted on the 1942/43 IL-2's in the videos in the above thread.

 

http://rkka.es/aviones/fotos/IL2_danos/000_IL-2_danos.htm

 

"Senior Lieutenant Kiseliov's plane (233rd ShAD). Because of a direct impact, the console of the stabilizer, the left elevator, the fairing, and the tail wheel was damaged. After fulfilling the mission, the pilot was able to return to his airfield and make a normal landing."

 

"This IL-2 was damaged by antiaircraft artillery: the rudder crossbar was broken, 30% of the ribs were destroyed, 50% of the stabilizer liner was torn off, the keel was damaged, the rudder was destroyed. Even so, the plane was able to return to its base and make a normal landing (on wheels)."

 

"This IL-2 of the 1st ShAK was damaged on both sides of the elevator (56%). It's completely ripped the rudder, the control rods of the elevator trim were broken. The plane made a normal landing at it's home base."

 

"IL-2 with multiple damage locations, which returned to base. Notice the defensive machine gun (field modification)

and the reinforcement profiles of the fuselage."

 

Again, I am not claiming to be right or wrong, all I'd like to know is from someone with actual input in the game (coder, producer, etc.) to be able to tell me if this is as intended, because I know that perhaps this is merely anecdotal evidence, and they could provide us with some more solid sources (control surfaces schematics, damage statistics, pilot testimonies, etc.)

 

S!

Edited June 8, 2018 by Tony_Kito

[AndyJWest]

As you say, this is anecdotal evidence. The problem with such photos is that there is no way of telling how many aircraft failed to make it back with similar levels of damage.  As for the developers providing sources to back up their damage models, that is up to them of course, but I suspect they may be reluctant to get into debates over how their code works,  not least because they aren't going to disclose its inner workings on a public forum. In any case, I'd be surprised if the sort of detailed data you'd require to make an assessment even exists.  The VVS will have known how many aircraft failed to return, and may have data from other pilots which could indicate whether losses were due to fighters or flak, but they are unlikely to be able to gather much hard data on which particular damage caused a loss.  If someone can come up with some sort of objective test which indicates that the BoX IL-2 tailplanes  are significantly more vulnerable than other aircraft, it might be possible to persuade the developers to take a look at it, but otherwise I think we'll probably have to accept that simulation damage models are of necessity approximations based on incomplete data. 

[Nightrise]

Well the tail is made from wood, the metal tail of the il2 41 seems to hold up better. 

[Legioneod]

How are the hitboxs modeled in this? Are they all individually modeled (like each control rod, control surfaces, etc with its own hitbox.) or is it just a hitbox for a group? Like a hitbox for the tail section, wings, fuselage, engine ect, and it just rolls the dice on whats damaged within the hitbox?

[unreasonable]

I strongly suspect the latter, but the group is probably not the whole tail.  If you hit a tail on the right stabilizer, you do not see the left stabilizer fall off, for instance.  (I do not think.....) 

 

For internal components there is obviously some modeling - engine, radiator, pilot, fuel tanks, propeller and ammo storage I am sure are all separate hit boxes: but I would be very surprised if things like control rods had their own hit box. I recall that CLOD tried to go the super detailed DM approach and it caused many problems.

 

After all as long as the overall effect is plausible and happens at a plausible rate, it does not matter what the mechanism is.