Weapons after the last update

[CrazyDuck]

5 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Machine gun fire makes small puffs of smoke, now. They are more visible than the old "hits". There is a lot more small debris, too - perhaps, those new effects add to the impression?

 

No, no, I prefer the new effects over the old ones very much. However, imagine an I-16 firing a long burst into a fat, chunky target like a Ju 52 or He 111, surely hitting with most bullets. A lot of puffs, sparks and smoke over the target due to a lot of hits. However, during the burst these effects disappear at certain time, so it looks like my bullets are not hitting the target at all (looks like bullets are flying "through" the target). After a fraction (like, half) of second, the effects reappear normally.

 

Looks like a graphic anomaly which stops generating hit effects for a split second, but damage is still received by the target during this time. Also, happened only a few times to me up to now, so not really sure how to go about hunting for it.

 

Actually, could it be my rig hiccuping? Not really the top notch monster under my desk -  i5-7400, 8GB RAM, Radeon 560. Never had stutters in IL-2 (up to now).

Edited October 16, 2018 by CrazyDuck

[Ehret]

17 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

No, no, I prefer the new effects over the old ones very much. However, imagine an I-16 firing a long burst into a fat, chunky target like a Ju 52 or He 111, surely hitting with most bullets. A lot of puffs, sparks and smoke over the target due to a lot of hits. However, during the burst these effects disappear at certain time, so it looks like my bullets are not hitting the target at all (looks like bullets are flying "through" the target). After a fraction (like, half) of second, the effects reappear normally.

 

My conjecture: the graphics engine has the limit how many hit particles it can draw at the same time. If there are too many hits to draw then it starts to ignore some to stay under the threshold.

[CrazyDuck]

7 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

My conjecture: the graphics engine has the limit how many hit particles it can draw at the same time. If there are too many hits to draw then it starts to ignore some to stay under the threshold.

 

Yeah, that's what I assume also. I-16 spews out a gargantuous amount of bullets per second.

[StickMan]

I’ve noticed in Berloga the uncanny ability of Russians to completely wreck a plane from 800 meters out has been curbed. Much more realistic now. From that kinda range the shots do much less damage now with more of the shots passing wide around the aircraft. Don’t get me wrong the Russian cannons are still able to hit something critical from that range with accurate gunnery and a bit of luck. They are still very deadly as they should be from closer ranges.

Edited October 17, 2018 by StickMan

[blitze]

On 10/16/2018 at 12:02 AM, 77.CountZero said:

my accuracy got better with this last patch so what ever they did i like it

Same - but - I am also holding off firing until 2 criteria are met.

1. The target plane fills my sight and

2. I am sure on my leed.  I might do a couple mg squirts to check before using canon.

 

Started a Moscow Career in a I16 and first ground attack escort we had 110's intercept us, blew a wing off 1, set a second one on fire and the third one, peppered the cockpit area with MG and it went down too.  With the MG you could see the rounds dancing around the cockpit area of which I was firing from high 6 in a banking turn.  Very much like seen in original gun cam footage.  Very impressive and obviously dangerous.

 

Like Pat has said, the biggest thing that has improved my shooting has been to hold off and get in close. Patience and selective target choice, keeping energy and ensuring I am not being lured into a tag team trap.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

On 10/14/2018 at 6:37 PM, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

The 109 is fragile and should be fragile, its build as light and compact as possible. You don't get a fighters that can do what 109 can do with sub 1500hp engine by making it big and durable. 

Any hit with HE ammo in its fuselage NEEDS to mess it up. 

 

Light doesn't always mean fragile. The 109 dive speed ability is proof of that.

 

The game just doesnt simulate chunks blown out of wings. They don't fold either with no soft body. They just pop off.

 

Most things that pop off in BoX pop off to easy in my opinion.

[Leon_Portier]

I get more kills since this update, I like it!

[Cpt_Siddy]

On 10/21/2018 at 8:39 AM, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

Light doesn't always mean fragile. The 109 dive speed ability is proof of that.

 

The game just doesnt simulate chunks blown out of wings. They don't fold either with no soft body. They just pop off.

 

Most things that pop off in BoX pop off to easy in my opinion.

 

 

IL2 feels like paper plane, the rapid fire AA always tears its wings off.

 

Much realism, very simulator :^)

[Luftschiff]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

IL2 feels like paper plane, the rapid fire AA always tears its wings off.

 

Much realism, very simulator :^)

 

Any IL2 I've ever opened fire upon with airborne weaponry begs to differ with you. As for the rapid-firing AA, you'd typically be talking about 37-40mm shells that would and should destroy just about any single-engine plane with a direct hit. The AA's accuracy is to be questioned, not the efficacy of a 3.7cm HE shell striking the center mass of your IL2. I don't know what brand of realism you desire.

[Cpt_Siddy]

12 hours ago, Luftschiff said:

 

Any IL2 I've ever opened fire upon with airborne weaponry begs to differ with you. As for the rapid-firing AA, you'd typically be talking about 37-40mm shells that would and should destroy just about any single-engine plane with a direct hit. The AA's accuracy is to be questioned, not the efficacy of a 3.7cm HE shell striking the center mass of your IL2. I don't know what brand of realism you desire.

 

 

IL-2 was made with load bearing-armor monocoque structure, its armor was also its fuselage. It had literally a center mass made out of 1CM ++ steel plates. The HE power in 3.7cm shell is not enough to structurally compromise IL-2 without multiple very good hits. Rest of the fuselage was also steel of varying thicknesses, to usually under 1cm. 

 

As far as aviation armor went, this plane was in its own league in WW2. 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[Luftschiff]

46 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

IL-2 was made with load bearing-armor monocoque structure, its armor was also its fuselage. It had literally a center mass made out of 1CM ++ steel plates. The HE power in 3.7cm shell is not enough to structurally compromise IL-2 without multiple very good hits hits. Rest of the fuselage was also steel of varying thicknesses, to usually under 1cm. 

 

As far as aviation armor went, this plane was in its own league in WW2. 

 

I am aware of what the IL-2 is and how it was constructed, yes.  It was clumsy of me to use the term "center mass" to mean 'a direct hit', as the center mass of engine and cockpit were indeed the most protected. Irrespective of that armour tub, I maintain that solid hits from 37mm shells, let alone hits to the wings, quite rightfully down your invincible Ilyushin with relative ease, clearly we do not agree - How many hits do you think it fair that you should survive for the game to meet your demands for "much realism, very simulator"?

[falle96]

I mean the real question is how the damage model tracks stress on an airframe. 37mm cannon shots to the wing ought to sheer something off, right?

 

As I understood it, the IL-2's armor was mainly orientated such that ground fire would not easily knock it out, not necessarily attacks from above or behind.

[Cpt_Siddy]

5 minutes ago, Luftschiff said:

 

I am aware of what the IL-2 is and how it was constructed, yes.  It was clumsy of me to use the term "center mass" to mean 'a direct hit', as the center mass of engine and cockpit were indeed the most protected. Irrespective of that armour tub, I maintain that solid hits from 37mm shells, let alone hits to the wings, quite rightfully down your invincible Ilyushin with relative ease, clearly we do not agree - How many hits do you think it fair that you should survive for the game to meet your demands for "much realism, very simulator"?

 

The damage that will bring the IL-2 down from sustained HE hits on wing will be loss of aerodynamic surfaces, IE, loss of lift and addition of drag. 

Not the catastrophic "oh look, there goes wing" shenanigans, when they literally used a steel I beams for a spars. Beams with enough heft to double as a railroad track... (ok a small hyperbole, but you get my drift)

[-SF-Disarray]

You don't need to completely destroy the structural elements of body to cause catastrophic failure. Weaken the structure enough and physics will do the rest. If that big steel I beam holding up the wing is cracked it may eventually break altogether, if that crack is big enough or in just the right spot, that breakage may come sooner that you might think. Watch a demo team take down a building or bridge, for example. They don't cut all the supports to take it down, just enough of them that the structure will pull itself down. A plane is no different in this respect.

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

Yeah ... all these new effects.... dispersion .... yadda yadda blah blah.... can we please just get a fix for the ammo bug already?????

[CrazyDuck]

4 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

As far as aviation armor went, this plane was in its own league in WW2. 

 

Indeed. It sported about 700 kg of armor. That's more than the A-10 does.