Wings falling off

[Mauf]

Well, you did spend half your ammunition to finally get the wing off. In terms of efficiency, that's pretty bad and would take decidedly longer in a normal dogfight. Usually, by the time you gotten that many bullets into him, something else on his plane would have failed by then or somebody would have applied some 20mm to the poor wretch:)

 

Still, 8mm by themselves shouldn't be able to shoot it off.

 

Edit: Strike what I said, some of the examples are highly suspicious.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Mauf

[Heckpupper]

1 hour ago, Mauf said:

Well, you did spend half your ammunition to finally get the wing off. In terms of efficiency, that's pretty bad and would take decidedly longer in a normal dogfight. Usually, by the time you gotten that many bullets into him, something else on his plane would have failed by then or somebody would have applied some 20mm to the poor wretch:)

 

Still, 8mm by themselves shouldn't be able to shoot it off.

 

I don't know if you paid attention Mauf but there's a bunch of planes that I shot at (most that were available at the time) and in some cases less than a 3 second burst was necessary. I've included a few TacView screenshots and some of them recorded less than 20 hits but I don't know if you can trust that. With few exceptions no aircraft in the video took "half of my ammunition:.

[Mauf]

Yeah, strike what I said, only got to watch the part with the P-39 before I had to leave (well, teaches me not to look at this stuff in a hurry:P Mea culpa).

 

Have you guys ever tested deflection shots onto the wings from above? I have a suspicion that AP bullets double dip on the wing structure damage when they hit edge on like you shot in the examples. They're modeled to pass through elements on hit and continue on and maybe that's part of the reason they're so choppy as they hit components along the whole wing axis and the DM interprets this as "Oh, this wing is severely compromised in its integrity".

 

Also interesting is the observation with the P-39. It takes alot of bullets but as Vanguard noticed, the paintjob seems to be an integral part of the aerodynamics on that thing as even a mere scratch turns the plane into a wobbly piece of wank:D

Edited September 11, 2018 by Mauf

[Heckpupper]

18 minutes ago, Mauf said:

Also interesting is the observation with the P-39. It takes alot of bullets but as Vanguard noticed, the paintjob seems to be an integral part of the aerodynamics on that thing as even a mere scratch turns the plane into a wobbly piece of wank:D

 

From what we tested later, DM doesn't recoginize the difference between cannon and MG damage. The only difference is the amout of projectiles it takes. Good example of that, is that when you strike a wing with enough MG bullets the decal will appear showing large holes (like cannon ones) and parts missing, and the wing will lose some it's lift while the plane becomes harder to control. Then if more damage is applied, it will fall off. I'd really hope to see the DM getting some love in the future, it's one of the few things in an otherwise decent game that drives me nuts sometimes.

 

Maybe we'll conduct some more tests at some points, though I think most of what we'd discover is already known and mentioned on the forums.

[Mauf]

A good question would be: What's the best way to address the devs to take another look at this (I still assume this is already on their radar, just not high in priority)? Just tagging them and saying "Yo fix diz" isn't the greatest way:P I guess it's the same situation as with the fuel systems. It'll come one day, just patience.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Mauf

[Soilworker]

On 9/10/2018 at 4:49 AM, Legioneod said:

One thing that is incredible to me is the accuracy of the pilots, my gunnery is not even on the same level as these men and I just fly in a game. I can't imagine how difficult it was irl.

 

Well to be fair I'm guessing you're using a normal pc joystick like 99% of IL-2 players.

When I built my simpit I made an extension for my G940. Before I was using about 50% curve to compensate the twitchiness of a short stick and had FFB turned down to 75%, I set these back to default before trying my new setup out. Man, that extra ~250mm of stick makes a HUGE difference, my gunnery improved instantly by a wide margin. 

[MasserME262]

19 hours ago, AeroAce said:

 

Not that I mind it or know if it is realistic but I also find the majority of planes I tag with cannon lose their wing. To me it's good because they don't end up chasing me around unrealistically with a broken engine for 10 mins.

I know it's totally unrealistic, but that's why I chase my already wounded enemies til I see their plabes totally rekt, If I dont do so, they just gonna keep at my 6 not matter what I do.

[peregrine7]

Interesting quote from the video

"What's amazing is you hit me in the ammo area so much..."
 

 

Also from what I could see the wing damage was like a health bar with the wing divided into inside/middle/outer (+Flaps and ailerons). 
There's a probability per hit of certain kinds of damage (fuel leak if fuel tank present in that third of the wing). But if the health bar hits 0 the wing fails. Because of this when testing you need to ensure you are hitting the same third of the wing with every bullet or else you can cause high damage to each third of the wing, but not enough to make any single section fail.

I also found that you can break the wing spar by shooting attached gunpods, so the wing DM doesn't require direct hits to the wingspar to cause the wing spar to break.

 

[TWC_TWC_SLAG]

On 9/9/2018 at 10:12 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Confirmation bias - you've seen "lots of vids" showing dramatic footage of wings falling off, and so you've concluded that there's a problem in the game. Unless you're seeing this consistently when you are playing the game, your observations are flawed.

If I were to use only my own flights, I would have a far smaller data set to refer to.  So, in reality, your observation of my observation is the one that is flawed.

[JonRedcorn]

I can tell you with great confidence the HS129 absolutely loves to explode midair when carrying the 30mm. It's basically like flying a brick of TNT.

[peregrine7]

53 minutes ago, 15th_JonRedcorn said:

I can tell you with great confidence the HS129 absolutely loves to explode midair when carrying the 30mm. It's basically like flying a brick of TNT.

 
Awesome, will test that next. It certainly carries a lot of explosives.

[-SF-Disarray]

The 20 mm stores in a 190's wing tend to explode as well. I haven't noticed it for sure with MG ammo for wing mounted guns but there are relatively few of those in game at this point. It also stands to reason that an MG ammo detonation would not be as notable in the first place. There is a lot more gunpowder and high explosive filler in 20 mm rounds than in even the largest MG rounds.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Disarray said:

The 20 mm stores in a 190's wing tend to explode as well. I haven't noticed it for sure with MG ammo for wing mounted guns but there are relatively few of those in game at this point. It also stands to reason that an MG ammo detonation would not be as notable in the first place. There is a lot more gunpowder and high explosive filler in 20 mm rounds than in even the largest MG rounds.

Mg ammo detonation wouldn't do much damage. I've seen some mg ammo detonation in guncam films and it doesn't do much damage, mostly just catches fire for a few seconds while the rounds go off.

 

The real damage in the 190 and other aircraft with cannons is caused by the actual explosive round cooking off and not just the cartridge.

 

I wonder if they modeled a difference between HE and AP cooking off in the wing? AP would do significantly less damage to the wing compared to HE imo due to the lack of (or very little) explosive in the round.

 

EDIT: Basically just echoed what you said.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Legioneod

[PatrickAWlson]

Per the original topic: there is a bright side.  After the last release, if you're flying a Spitfire, the wing loss will fix your oil leak

 

[Y-29.Silky]

On 9/10/2018 at 1:41 AM, Haza said:

Although not wings off, I was watching the Bodenplatte battle and during the interview, the P-51 pilot mentioned how a FW190s wings both folded up together above the canopy (27.30 onwards). 

Now simulating that in game would be interesting.

 

 

 

Regards

 

Eight .50 cals, I cannot wait. 

Heyyyy, I thought American planes couldn't compete below 15,000ft?

The lovely War Thunder myth that spread like wildfire.

[MiloMorai]

9 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said:

 

Eight .50 cals, I cannot wait. 

Heyyyy, I thought American planes couldn't compete below 15,000ft?

The lovely War Thunder myth that spread like wildfire.

 

If you read the Bodenplatte book, you can read about a P-47 that chases a 109 around the slag heaps and shoots it down. The 109 wasn't flown by a noob pilot either.

[peregrine7]

On 9/27/2018 at 3:43 PM, Legioneod said:

I wonder if they modeled a difference between HE and AP cooking off in the wing? AP would do significantly less damage to the wing compared to HE imo due to the lack of (or very little) explosive in the round.

 

 
Per my testing, nope. Also even carry HE shells only the damage from the explosion seems greatly reduced. A few of the planes I "blew up" kept flying and some of them were so marginally damaged they kept fighting. Somewhat ironically, their wings stayed intact.

[TWC_TWC_SLAG]

16 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:

 

Eight .50 cals, I cannot wait. 

Heyyyy, I thought American planes couldn't compete below 15,000ft?

The lovely War Thunder myth that spread like wildfire.

I have seen the same show.  I have a book about Bodenplatte that is like an encyclopedia of what happened. Not that I don’t think the FW-190 incident happened, but that book doesn’t mention it. It may be because it was written by Europeans who didn’t interview that particular American pilot. “Bodenplatte” by John Manrho and Ron Putz

[TWC_TWC_SLAG]

Try doing the same test, but just shooting at the fuselage.  I wonder if a wing will come off then.  If it does, it suggests the DM is screwy. Which is my suspicion.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

One thing that I think is done right in IL-2 is that sometimes overstress on a wing after damage will break it.  I've been shot while flying level and even got away, but 2 minutes later I put a strong G load on the wing and it snapped right off.  I also shot a Ju-88 at 5km altitude and he dove for the deck in a tight spiral.  His wing broke off a good 15 seconds after being hit.  I have no doubt that if he could have stayed level, turned gently and taken no more attacks, he might have gotten home. 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

you can crack the wings from Over G in a simple turn then fly fine for 10 mins then pull another hard turn and the previous crack spreads and wings rips off.

the damage modeling is rather good like that.
I had crack wing on he111 outboard of flaps, if i lowered flaps the wing would slight roate leading down with the crack. 
if i used more than 10% laps it opened crack to about 3" and looked like it was about to snap.
I landed and then while turning off engine wing collapsed 

 

[seafireliv]

Real life guncam is good to refer to, but remeber, it only shows a small percentage of actual combat. better to read pilot experiences of which there are many more examples.

[Livai]

Can it be that some here played too much on the Server "IL-2 Wings off liberty" ?

 

[Willy__]

That video is from 2018.....