Jump to content
Han

Game version 3.007 discussion: Bf109K4, P47D28, Camel, Pfalz, FM, Multiplayer, Damage and more

Recommended Posts

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 10:58 AM, JG4_Sputnik said:

Great stuff!!

Thanks for the hard work team :)


I see that the AI keeps formation "a bit better" has anyone checked out yet what that means? Is it finally over that the one plane flyes way too far in front ant the other three wouln'd keep up?

 

It's a bit circumstantial, and depends a bit on the aircraft.

At the moment the AI formation behavior is largely unchanged for some aircraft, while others behave significantly better, some small vertical maneuvering problems that cropped up were fixed. Larger aircraft still bounce around horizontally quite a bit.

 

I fully expect some attention to be paid to this in the not so distant future.

 

 

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I shouldn’t complain, but the P-47 isn’t nearly as rugged as it’s real-life reputation. The engine dies very quickly after taking hits

I suppose it depends what hits it? A hit from an MK 108 it's going to ruin the day real quick.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I suppose it depends what hits it? A hit from an MK 108 it's going to ruin the day real quick.

I completely agree, but a couple of hits from He-111/Ju-87 gunners or light ground fire shouldn’t immediately destroy the engine. The current durability should be looked at and compared with historical evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I suppose it depends what hits it? A hit from an MK 108 it's going to ruin the day real quick.

MGs shouldn't do as much damage to the Jug as they currently do. I have wings rip off from mg fire alone, this shouldnt be the case.

I'm fine with a cannon taking me out, but not two mg just shredding my wing like it was nothing.

 

13 minutes ago, lord_certalic said:

I completely agree, but a couple of hits from He-111/Ju-87 gunners or light ground fire shouldn’t immediately destroy the engine. The current durability should be looked at and compared with historical evidence. 

Agreed, the Jug does feel a bit weaker than it should.

I'm not asking for it to be impenetrable but it should have the durability that it's reputation calls for imo. It didn't gain that reputation by being weak.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

MGs shouldn't do as much damage to the Jug as they currently do. I have wings rip off from mg fire alone, this shouldnt be the case.

 

Agreed, the Jug does feel a bit weaker than it should.

I'm not asking for it to be impenetrable but it should have the durability that it's reputation calls for imo. It didn't gain that reputation by being weak.

With as large of a target as it is, the Jug should be able to take more punishment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lord_certalic said:

With as large of a target as it is, the Jug should be able to take more punishment. 

Agreed, while I do understand cannons taking it out rather easily, machineguns shouldnt, irl it was nearly impossible to bring a Jug down by machinegun fire alone (look at johnsons P-47, hundreds of machingun holes and a few 20mm hits.)

 

wing offs should almost never happen due to machinegun fire yet it happens everytime in-game.

 

 

The problem imo is that I think the damage model uses a hp system to some degree, thats why mgs can take wings off very easily, when in reality you'd have to do significant damage to the spars in order to take the wing off.

 

This is the type of DM i'd like one day, yes it's from a different game but it would certainly make things more accurate imo.

Spoiler

77b9b8a47b7b536693f2e2a0e6b14d3df42cb5bc

 

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Agreed, while I do understand cannons taking it out rather easily, machineguns shouldnt, irl it was nearly impossible to bring a Jug down by machinegun fire alone (look at johnsons P-47, hundreds of machingun holes and a few 20mm hits.)

 

wing offs should almost never happen due to machinegun fire yet it happens everytime in-game.

I couldn’t agree more. Hopefully once the playerbase gets enough time with the Jug, more people will come forward wanting this change. The plane just feels unfinished in the fragile state it’s in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking a beating and getting the pilot home is probably the Jugs defining trait - aside from its ordinance load.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, lord_certalic said:

I completely agree, but a couple of hits from He-111/Ju-87 gunners or light ground fire shouldn’t immediately destroy the engine. The current durability should be looked at and compared with historical evidence. 

 

I have a hypothesis... - if the turbo ceases to function then the whole engine stops. If I am right then it isn't realistic I suppose and could explain some of the Jug "fragility" in the sim. The R-2800 should be able to work after the loss of the turbo, correct?

Edited by Ehret
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I have a hypothesis... - if the turbo ceases to function then the whole engine stops. If I am right then it isn't realistic I suppose and could explain some of the Jug "fragility" in the sim. The R-2800 should be able to work after the loss of the turbo, correct?

Yes, just at a reduced power until you get to lower altitude.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

I have a hypothesis... - if the turbo ceases to function then the whole engine stops. If I am right then it isn't realistic I suppose and could explain some of the Jug "fragility" in the sim. The R-2800 should be able to work after the loss of the turbo, correct?

 

Loss of the turbo, loss of a cylinder or two, loss of most of its oil.

 

Takes a licken and keeps on ticking.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many cool updates, and so little time.

It's great to see the progress you guys are making. Congratulations.

 

🎯👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lord_certalic said:

I shouldn’t complain, but the P-47 isn’t nearly as rugged as it’s real-life reputation. The engine dies very quickly after taking hits. 

 

I came to this thread looking for someone else who felt this way,

 

I tried three test flights of the P-47 vs AI bombers, the first time my engine was gone with a single turret round, the second time I immediately burst into flames from a long range out after starting a dive on a group of four HE-111. After all I've read, heard and watched about its durability in reality, it was a sad first impression.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lord_certalic said:

I shouldn’t complain, but the P-47 isn’t nearly as rugged as it’s real-life reputation. The engine dies very quickly after taking hits. 

Yep agreed, read many accounts and books of the P47 being rugged and very hard to take down.

Quick mission first 3 tries,  3 times wing off.

Multiplayer BOBP server ,found two P 47s and shot them down, also wings off both of them.

 I flew ground attack , and engine shot instantly with MG from a half track.

At the moment not as rugged compared to the reputation it had.

 

Love the sound, best of all the planes, and cockpit and FM, the damage model not so much so far.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The_Bloody_Nine said:

 

I came to this thread looking for someone else who felt this way,

 

I tried three test flights of the P-47 vs AI bombers, the first time my engine was gone with a single turret round, the second time I immediately burst into flames from a long range out after starting a dive on a group of four HE-111. After all I've read, heard and watched about its durability in reality, it was a sad first impression.

 

 

I’m so glad I made that comment then! I’ve been lurking this thread, hoping for someone to bring up this pretty glaring issue. 

3 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Yep agreed, read many accounts and books of the P47 being rugged and very hard to take down.

Quick mission first 3 tries,  3 times wing off.

Multiplayer BOBP server ,found two P 47s and shot them down, also wings off both of them.

 I flew ground attack , and engine shot instantly with MG from a half track.

At the moment not as rugged compared to the reputation it had.

 

Love the sound, best of all the planes, and cockpit and FM, the damage model not so much so far.

 

I had the same experience. The Jug feels more fragile than a 109. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tag777 said:

As far as I know, there is only one type of ammunition for the .50 cal machine guns.

 

I'm pretty sure the USAAF used three types in the M2 historically during WW2, AP, API, and APIT. I'm not sure what type(s) is modeled in the sim though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, =BAIT=CG_Justin said:

 

I'm pretty sure the USAAF used three types in the M2 historically during WW2, AP, API, and APIT. I'm not sure what type(s) is modeled in the sim though.

It should be M8 API rounds (or a mixture) iirc but I'm not sure if it is in-game.

It's be nice to have API and APIT as an option at the very least, that way I can go with and without tracers if I want.

 

I'm not complaining about the ammo though, it knocks Germans out of the sky just fine.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the planes and the sim.  The only thing that I really don't like about this update is finding out that this strange kill-attributing logic that people first started noticing the middle of last month is still firmly in place:  Some guy hits a plane for a total of 3% damage, and he's still very much in fighting shape, and then you come in and hit him for 2% total damage plus the other 95% that causes his wings and tail to fall off (which isn't attributed to you for some reason) and kills his pilot, but the first guy gets the kill.  That does not seem like good logic to be used when assessing who should get the kill.  If the first guy causes 51%+ "damage" or the enemy's engine is dead, and you just come in for an easy picking, then sure, give it to the first guy, but we just don't know because the hit percentages are all listed as like 0.1%, 0.2% but the big ones are not attributed to anyone.  I really think this needs another look.  The way kills were given before was certainly not perfect by any means, and I understand why attention was given to it, but I can't see how it's improved (from the standpoint of most accurately assigning kill credit), at least not in actual everyday practice, on multiplayer.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


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

Love the planes and the sim.  The only thing that I really don't like about this update is finding out that this strange kill-attributing logic that people first started noticing the middle of last month is still firmly in place:  Some guy hits a guy for a total of 3% damage, and he's still very much in fighting shape, and then you come in and hit him for 2% total damage plus the other 95% that causes his wings and tail to fall off (which isn't attributed to you for some reason) and kills his pilot, but the first guy gets the kill.  That does not seem like good logic to be used when assessing who should get the kill.

This is one of the reasons why we need shared kills, I think the old Il2 had this but I don't remember.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

This is one of the reasons why we need shared kills, I think the old Il2 had this but I don't remember.

 

Or more simply, the way to do it is to give the pilot credit for the catastropic damage percentages that results from his fire, in the stats, which used to occur, but no longer does.  It seems now it's a contest where the guy who gets the most minor hits gets the kill, while the guy that blows the enemy aircraft to smithereens with a catastrophic volley of fire, doesn't, because the big-percentage damage stuff in the parser stats doesn't have a name by it anymore...as if only the wind got the credit for tearing the enemy's wings off, not the gunfire that caused it to happen.   Ironically though, the thing where you set the enemy on fire, and another guy comes in and delivers a competely unnecessary coup de grace (because the enemy plane is doomed, no matter how hard the next guy hits him), is one case where there should actually be an exception to this...but that hasn't changed.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wana say that the sound designer really outdid themselves with the P47's internal and external sounds. Well done.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

I’m so glad I made that comment then! I’ve been lurking this thread, hoping for someone to bring up this pretty glaring issue. 

I had the same experience. The Jug feels more fragile than a 109. 

 

Is it possible that this is because it is also a much larger target? It is going to get hit considerably more often in open play than a 109 or 190, other things being equal.

 

Someone will no doubt come up with some controlled tests to disentangle effect per hit and number of hits, but that will take a while and involve a lot of careful work.

 

Share this post


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

 

Is it possible that this is because it is also a much larger target? It is going to get hit considerably more often in open play than a 109 or 190, other things being equal.

 

Someone will no doubt come up with some controlled tests to disentangle effect per hit and number of hits, but that will take a while and involve a lot of careful work.

 

Could be but that doesn't excuse the fact that machineguns are killing it rather easily. It just doesnt feel like it should, nothing like what I've read and seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In lots of quick missions I've been doing in the K4 versus the P-47, I found the P-47 is a tough bird indeed.  In several cases, the P-47 absorbed multiple 30mm hits plus a lot of 13 mm, with the pilot eventually dying, but the plane still structurally intact.  Using 20mm, I had to pump about as many shells into it as I would expect for an Il-2 or larger bomber.  I don't know where people are getting the idea that the P-47 is "fragile" in the face of enemy gunfire....it sure doesn't seem that way to me, at least not structurally. 

Share this post


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

In lots of quick missions I've been doing in the K4 versus the P-47, I found the P-47 is a tough bird indeed.  In several cases, the P-47 absorbed multiple 30mm hits plus a lot of 13 mm, with the pilot eventually dying, but the plane still structurally intact.  Using 20mm, I had to pump about as many shells into it as I would expect for an Il-2 or larger bomber.  I don't know where people are getting the idea that the P-47 is "fragile" in the face of enemy gunfire....it sure doesn't seem that way to me, at least not structurally. 

I'll run some more test but every time I've flown or shot at it, I can kill it with mgs by shooting at the wings and watching them fall off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I'll run some more test but every time I've flown or shot at it, I can kill it with mgs by shooting at the wings and watching them fall off.

Same here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

In lots of quick missions I've been doing in the K4 versus the P-47, I found the P-47 is a tough bird indeed.  In several cases, the P-47 absorbed multiple 30mm hits plus a lot of 13 mm, with the pilot eventually dying, but the plane still structurally intact.  Using 20mm, I had to pump about as many shells into it as I would expect for an Il-2 or larger bomber.  I don't know where people are getting the idea that the P-47 is "fragile" in the face of enemy gunfire....it sure doesn't seem that way to me, at least not structurally. 

 

I actually had to double check that my K4 was actually firing 30mm, as I had the same experience.

 

The impacts look nothing like they did while flying the G6, and the rate of fire seemed faster as well.  Does the K4 have the same cannon?

Share this post


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

This is one of the reasons why we need shared kills, I think the old Il2 had this but I don't remember.

 

Shared Kills would bei great. I think of would also reduce the amount of gang bang shoulder shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ran a few very imprecise test but here are the results. I'll need to get on tacview and watch the recordings to see the exact hits.

 

1st test, 36 MG rounds fired to take it down

2nd test, 28 rounds fired to take it down

3rd test: 1 20mm took it out.

 

Like I said, these arent very scientific test but they do show how easy it is to take the Jug down currently.

Share this post


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

MGs shouldn't do as much damage to the Jug as they currently do. I have wings rip off from mg fire alone, this shouldnt be the case.

I'm fine with a cannon taking me out, but not two mg just shredding my wing like it was nothing.

 

Its a relative thing. I personally think all guns do a bit more of structural damage than I'd think they would. I've seen Pe-2 rear gunner de-wing multiple 109s and a Macchi.

Share this post


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

Just ran a few very imprecise test but here are the results. I'll need to get on tacview and watch the recordings to see the exact hits.

 

1st test, 36 MG rounds fired to take it down

2nd test, 28 rounds fired to take it down

3rd test: 1 20mm took it out.

 

Like I said, these arent very scientific test but they do show how easy it is to take the Jug down currently.

I've just seen a video of Mc 202 pasta guns detaching P-47 wing with maybe 10 - 12 hits from 12.7 mm and 7 mm rounds. It's all non scientific untill someone jumps into an empty server with a buddy and test it with various weapons and angles for a couple times. But this are not exclusive observations, Ive seen folks noticing it here, on discord channels and even in chat in game. Those wings just detach all too often for such a robust wing design (two main wing spars, three auxillary spars).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Or more simply, the way to do it is to give the pilot credit for the catastropic damage percentages that results from his fire, in the stats, which used to occur, but no longer does.

 

I think what actually used to occur was that the last one hitting the enemy was awarded a kill, even if the first one caused 10% of damage and smoked enemy's engine heavily, another one came in and shot at fuselage, causing 0,5% of damage, then if engine stopped after that, 89,5% of damage was also awarded to the last guy and he was awarded the kill. Neither system is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

I've just seen a video of Mc 202 pasta guns detaching P-47 wing with maybe 10 - 12 hits from 12.7 mm and 7 mm rounds. It's all non scientific untill someone jumps into an empty server with a buddy and test it with various weapons and angles for a couple times. But this are not exclusive observations, Ive seen folks noticing it here, on discord channels and even in chat in game. Those wings just detach all too often for such a robust wing design (two main wing spars, three auxillary spars).

 

It just doesnt make sense that the wing is so weak in-game, it's nearly impossible to take a wing off with MGs irl, much less one that is as sturdy as a P-47s.

DM needs some serious work imo.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

It just doesnt make sense that the wing is so weak in-game, it's nearly impossible to take a wing off with MGs irl, much less one that is as sturdy as a P-47s.

DM needs some serious work imo.

First it requires investigation, than bug report if solid evidence is present. We have all too many 109 cry threads, better approach it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About P-47 disintegrating from MG fire, I tried that a few times yesterday and was not able to saw off a wing with MG's, so it definitely does not happen every time. I was able to bring down P-47 with MG's, when I was specifically trying to hit the pilot. What I noticed a couple times, though, was canopy flying off, when hit by MG's. Maybe that was just coincidence or pilot was starting a bailout process or it happened because I specifically aimed for canopy, but it brought to my mind the situation a few patches back, when 109's lost their canopies very often when being hit. These were just something like 7-8 quick missions, so don't draw any scientific conclusions from it, just my first impressions.

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

First it requires investigation, than bug report if solid evidence is present. We have all too many 109 cry threads, better approach it properly.

Agreed. I'll try and get my friend online tomorrow and run some test.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×