Jump to content
LLv34_adexu

SpitIX FM and DM bugs.

Recommended Posts

Ok. People need to see this, this is why I did separate topic about it.

So we did tests all different guns, german Mk 108, russian 20 mm, 23 mm and 37 mm. All russian tests done with special ammo. I had time only to edit and put tests up with Mk 108. Russian guns had same effect, but the 37 HE worked as wing saw from one hit. Others need 3-4 hits to take that wing off. DM model should be checked from middle to the tip of the wings on all planes. 

 

At same time we noticed something interesting in the test and by accident recorded SpitIX flying with out a wing, well it was missing 60-70% of it.

I posted this also on .ru forum, I wish getting answer there from developers. If they will answer, I will translate it here too.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Are you sure you are not hitting it with the Incendinary round? (MK 108 belting was 1 Mine shell, 1 Incendinary)

I hope developers will test it as they can do it probably lot easier than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I only do QMB, I have the opportunity to collect a lot of subjective "statistics" and my impression is that the Mk108 has been tuned even if we have not read any developers notes about it. When the G14 was released, the Mk108 was very, very effective and usually it only took one round to down a fighter. However, lately I too have noticed the trend that it takes more than one hit so I would say the effectiveness of the Mk108 has been dialed back a bit lately.

 

Grabs hat and starts running.........:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SpitV seems to require 3 hits too, as we tested it yesterday, but wing comes off with one shot more commonly.

 

SpitV can't fly with 1,3 wing. So at least SpitIX isn't ctrl+c, ctrl+v.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a wing blown off in 1 shot in the spit before..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure, sometimes one hit is enough but I was just commenting on that the average number of hits it takes to cause catastrophic damage on a fighter size target with the Mk108 seems to have gone up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the new "toy" euphoria has worn off... Now we are seeing things more objectively and (surprise surprise) the 30mm is not a death ray one could hope for.

The 37mm M4 should "one hit destroy" everything, too, but often needs more hits contrary to some historical anecdotes.

Edited by Ehret
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have had a wing blown off in 1 shot in the spit before..

Bad argument, depends where it hits. Also ppl usually fire Mk 131 and Mk 108 at same time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've experienced this Spitfire flying with 1/3 of a wing bug! it flew perfectly fine until it tried to roll then slowly crashed to Earth. Bizarre!

Share this post


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

Maybe the new "toy" euphoria has worn off... Now we are seeing things more objectively and (surprise surprise) the 30mm is not a death ray one could hope for.

The 37mm M4 should "one hit destroy" everything, too, but often needs more hits contrary to some historical anecdotes.

😂 yeah it’s not the 23mm we had hoped for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, keeno said:

I've experienced this Spitfire flying with 1/3 of a wing bug! it flew perfectly fine until it tried to roll then slowly crashed to Earth. Bizarre!

 

Spitfire wing = 22.48 m^2

 

If you had 2/3 of one wing gone you still had 4/6 of the total wing area. (Actually a bit more as the inner wing is wider).

 

22.48* 4/6 = 15.0 m^2

 

Bf 109 F-4 wing = 16.1 m^2

 

So your Spitfire with 2/3 of one wing missing actually still has almost the wing area of a 109, a plane only a little lighter.  It can create enough lift to fly if it can be controlled.

 

Since it rolled over and crashed it was obviously not "perfectly fine" but potentially uncontrollable.  RL pilots I am sure would have bailed.  Then again, we have also seen the pictures posted on this forum often enough of planes that made it back to base with the most extraordinary damage.  

 

 

Share this post


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

Maybe the new "toy" euphoria has worn off... Now we are seeing things more objectively and (surprise surprise) the 30mm is not a death ray one could hope for.

The 37mm M4 should "one hit destroy" everything, too, but often needs more hits contrary to some historical anecdotes.

 

Well using words like "toy, euphoria, surprise, surprise and death ray" kinda contradicts that the royal we see's things more objectively and AFAIK the Germans estimated on average five 20 mm MG151 hits or one 30 mm Mk108 hit to down a fighter so unless you can point out some better data then that's what I'm sticking with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LLv34_adexu said:

Go away troll

 

I am afraid that you do not get a free pass on posting thread titles claiming bugs when you have not considered the alternatives.

 

If you do not like my comments - you know where to find the "ignore" button.  I will comment where I like.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Well using words like "toy, euphoria, surprise, surprise and death ray" kinda contradicts that the royal we see's things more objectively and AFAIK the Germans estimated on average five 20 mm MG151 hits or one 30 mm Mk108 hit to down a fighter so unless you can point out some better data then that's what I'm sticking with.

 

"to down a fighter" is not the same as "to disintegrate catastrophically". After some time - yes, but the target will go down in unfriendly territory and that's better than eradicating it on the spot. You will get something valuable - the pilot to interrogate instead of useless air barbecue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I am afraid that you do not get a free pass on posting thread titles claiming bugs when you have not considered the alternatives.

 

If you do not like my comments - you know where to find the "ignore" button.  I will comment where I like.

Ye, didn’t know that. Done, would do it earlier, based on your comments on other threads. Your calculatons are btw based on my fictional opinion. Have a nice life. :)

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er....his calculations seem to be based on actual wing area.:salute:

Share this post


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

Er....his calculations seem to be based on actual wing area.:salute:

”If you had 2/3 wing gone...” is based on my fictional statement. Also as I already wrote, SpitV goes down when missing that peace of wing. Read more carefully next time Sir. 🙃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP said: "At same time we noticed something interesting in the test and by accident recorded SpitIX flying with out a wing, well it was missing 60-70% of it."

 

60-70% is two thirds near enough, and I agree roughly what the plane in the video is missing.  If anyone thinks that 2/3 of the Spitfire's wing area is insufficient to provide enough lift for a Spitfire to fly please tell us why.  It was flying - and then crashed since it was not controllable indefinitely.  There is no evidence of an FM bug in the video. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LLv34_adexu said:

 my fictional statement. 

 

I will read your fictional statements more carefully in future!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LLv34_adexu said:

So your Spitfire with 2/3 of one wing missing actually still has almost the wing area of a 109, a plane only a little lighter.  It can create enough lift to fly if it can be controlled.

The point being missed, here, is that one airplane is DESIGNED to fly with a certain wing area, while another is not. There is no way in hell that Spitfire should have been flying. Certainly not in real life. The asymetrical lift caused by the left wing being gone should have made the airplane uncontrollable immediately. The pilot still had control of that airplane and was even able to make small maneuvers without most of a left wing. No. 

I saw a film of an Isreali F-15 that came back with a wing gone.The pilot did an incredible job in bringing it back. But, the F-15's entire airframe is designed as a lifting body. In other words, even the fuselage is designed in such a way as to provide lift for the airframe. 

The Spitfire is not designed in such a way. 

The problem, I think, is that while flight simulator builders do a great job of modeling the performance of an airplane, it's not so easy to model the environment around it. The way air acts around the surface of the airframe. That's harder to do, it would seem to me, and it's where a lot of the FM problems come from.

Share this post


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

The point being missed, here, is that one airplane is DESIGNED to fly with a certain wing area, while another is not. There is no way in hell that Spitfire should have been flying. Certainly not in real life. The asymetrical lift caused by the left wing being gone should have made the airplane uncontrollable immediately. The pilot still had control of that airplane and was even able to make small maneuvers without most of a left wing. No. 

I saw a film of an Isreali F-15 that came back with a wing gone.The pilot did an incredible job in bringing it back. But, the F-15's entire airframe is designed as a lifting body. In other words, even the fuselage is designed in such a way as to provide lift for the airframe. 

The Spitfire is not designed in such a way. 

The problem, I think, is that while flight simulator builders do a great job of modeling the performance of an airplane, it's not so easy to model the environment around it. The way air acts around the surface of the airframe. That's harder to do, it would seem to me, and it's where a lot of the FM problems come from.

Yup, thing is that SpitV acts differently. Also "pilot came back with a plane, missing a wing" statement is like some ppl are winning in a lottery. Anyway, let's wait what developers have to say about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From an aerodynamical standpoint the loss of wing area could be problematic from two angles: The first is can you keep on flying at all? The answer to that is yes, no problem since the lift you need is linearly dependant on wing area but to the square of the speed meaning all you need to do is keep up your speed so no problem there. The second is control: Can you keep from rolling over or yawing out of control?

 

Looking at the clip where the wing has been lost it’s not too far from the aileron station on the other wing so you should be good on roll control: That remaining aileron has a good moment of arm and an aileron should have no problem to generate enough negative lift as long as you keep the speed up.  Also, the adverse yaw should be controllable by rudder unless you have a lot of drag on the wing that has lost area. To me it looks like a rather clean break so that should be controllable as well.

 

So, while we here in-game only have out virtual lives on the line so we can continue to fly around and experiment at our leisure, IRL I doubt the pilot would roll like that but other than that I don’t see any glaring error in the Spitfire’s behaviour in the OP.

Share this post


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

From an aerodynamical standpoint the loss of wing area could be problematic from two angles: The first is can you keep on flying at all? The answer to that is yes, no problem since the lift you need is linearly dependant on wing area but to the square of the speed meaning all you need to do is keep up your speed so no problem there. The second is control: Can you keep from rolling over or yawing out of control?

 

Looking at the clip where the wing has been lost it’s not too far from the aileron station on the other wing so you should be good on roll control: That remaining aileron has a good moment of arm and an aileron should have no problem to generate enough negative lift as long as you keep the speed up.  Also, the adverse yaw should be controllable by rudder unless you have a lot of drag on the wing that has lost area. To me it looks like a rather clean break so that should be controllable as well.

 

So, while we here in-game only have out virtual lives on the line so we can continue to fly around and experiment at our leisure, IRL I doubt the pilot would roll like that but other than that I don’t see any glaring error in the Spitfire’s behaviour in the OP.

If in your opinion there is no error, then they should look in to SpitV, as it goes down in same state and it should be fixed to behave like SpitIX. We can't know what is happening in their code and calculations. Only dev's can say which is actually wrong or right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LLv34_adexu said:

If in your opinion there is no error, then they should look in to SpitV, as it goes down in same state and it should be fixed to behave like SpitIX. We can't know what is happening in their code and calculations. Only dev's can say which is actually wrong or right.

 

Maybe the difference lies in the different propeller - 3 vs 4 blades. I recall sometimes change of a prop could results in change of plane behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LLv34_adexu said:

If in your opinion there is no error, then they should look in to SpitV, as it goes down in same state and it should be fixed to behave like SpitIX. We can't know what is happening in their code and calculations. Only dev's can say which is actually wrong or right.

 

As far as I can see the Hispano is still there on the wing (Pretty clear at circa 2:53 into the clip) that has lost the outer piece and there is in addition a small outboard portion left on top of that. That means that its basically the wing with the aileron that has been lost. Now my argument is that the other wing with the aileron left should have no problem generating enough moment to balance that since an aileron is basically a flap device and if you deflect that far enough it will generate the necessary negative lift that you need.

 

IIRC then someone in another thread posted a picture of a US carrier plane (an SBD?) that had lost a big piece of wing and was still flying. Maybe someone can link it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage models are of necessity approximations. As are flight models of damaged aircraft. And as are graphical models of damage. There is no possibility of being 'right', merely one of being plausible or not.  The video of the Spit flying with one wing looks a little unrealistic to me, in my subjective opinion, but I can't say whether it is the DM, the FM or the graphical modelling that  is responsible. It is entirely reasonable to ask the developers to look at the video and decide if there is an issue, but expecting them to create a system where every hit by a round complies with some sort of imaginary 'objective analysis' is pure fantasy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

IIRC then someone in another thread posted a picture of a US carrier plane (an SBD?) that had lost a big piece of wing and was still flying. Maybe someone can link it?

You have any data on, how many planes with such type of dmg went down and how many of them survived? What is the ratio? How many of them are Spit9s? 

Like I earlier wrote, just having a pic of something like that is like having pics from ppl who won in a lottery. They are there, but does that mean that everyone wins in a lottery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ehret said:

Maybe or the explosion propelled it to spin abruptly.

Wel, yes! Of course. The catastrophic explosion that took the wing should have been enough to wrest control of the plane from the pilot. It's absolutely rediculous to believe the airplane would still be flying. C'mon guys. You've got to be kidding.

2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

It is entirely reasonable to ask the developers to look at the video and decide if there is an issue, but expecting them to create a system where every hit by a round complies with some sort of imaginary 'objective analysis' is pure fantasy.

And I think it would have to be decided, also, if it happens enough to affect gameplay to warrant going back to the drawing board with the model, also. As long as he isn't flying just fine and coming back to shoot at you, minus a wing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBD flying after loss of part of one wing:

TBM_one_wing.jpg

 

Has lost less wing % than the Spit, obviously. 

 

Share this post


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

60-70% is two thirds near enough, and I agree roughly what the plane in the video is missing.  If anyone thinks that 2/3 of the Spitfire's wing area is insufficient to provide enough lift for a Spitfire to fly please tell us why.  It was flying - and then crashed since it was not controllable indefinitely.  There is no evidence of an FM bug in the video.

 

Area as such is hardly ever the problem, even if you miss half your wing area, you just increased your stall speed by 40%. It's not going to kill you if you fly at normal cruise speeds. It's almost always about control, be it in the air or in the resulting high speed landing.

Share this post


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

Wel, yes! Of course. The catastrophic explosion that took the wing should have been enough to wrest control of the plane from the pilot. It's absolutely rediculous to believe the airplane would still be flying. C'mon guys. You've got to be kidding.

Well in your video there is a FW-190 and I believe that it's working as intended in game. If you don't have video of Spit9 going with similar dmg down, I don't think you will win an argue vs those guys. In other words if you would have a clip where FW-190 is flying in game with over half wing missing. They would try everything against you and use that video as an argument. But seriously, this is a good thread to make an ignore list of reasonable guys and those who are always wearing red glasses.

Share this post


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

If anyone thinks that 2/3 of the Spitfire's wing area is insufficient to provide lift

2/3 of the airplanes wing is missing, not left.

Share this post


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

2/3 of the airplanes wing is missing, not left.

 

If you lose 2/3 of one wing, you have 2/3 of the total wing area (both wings) remaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

If you lose 2/3 of one wing, you have 2/3 of the total wing area (both wings) remaining.

Ah, yes. I was reading it as meaning 2/3's of the left wing, alone. Still, can't believe that airplane would still be flying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Ah, yes. I was reading it as meaning 2/3's of the left wing, alone. Still, can't believe that airplane would still be flying. 

Dunno if I can post straight link, but seems like it's possible according to other flying simulator. Seems like we tho have more stable FM.

Google:

Broken wing knife edge recovery and landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Poochnboo said:

Ah, yes. I was reading it as meaning 2/3's of the left wing, alone. Still, can't believe that airplane would still be flying. 

 

If it was a real aeroplane, I would be surprised to see it flying, as I've already said. But then I'd be surprised to see the SBD flying too. It isn't a real aeroplane we are discussing though, it is a simulation of a damaged aircraft in a game. We don't know if the damage modelled for the FM is the same as the visual model. Both are approximations.  

 

If there is a real problem with the Spit IX, it should be reproducible. A single video doesn't tell us much at all. 

 

 

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

×