Jump to content
Han

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

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, bucket_109 said:

When you start the engine on the p47 it says gun camera on. Is there a guncam?

 

I noticed that too!

 

I don't think there is a guncam functionality, but the animation of the switch is there for the startup procedure. Perhaps that's a suprise we could get down the line.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If I remember it correctly from book, Johnson was hit by 7,9 mm machine gun fire, not 13mm. It is huge difference. I might remembere it wrong though, book is great, everyone should read it.

 

Whether is was 7.9 or 13mm is irrelevant, machineguns by themselves can almost never cause enough damage to de-wing an aircraft.

 

2 hours ago, blitze said:

Could it possibly be that some of those P47 damage photos were showing damage not from attacking aircraft but AA?

 

One needs to take into account trajectory of rounds doing the damage to ascertain the effect of the damage against critical stressed components as to whether the P47 will make it home or not.

 

Concentrated fire from the rear has more likelihood of compromising a wing spar than concentrated fire from the ground.  Just a thought. 🤗

 

Majority of P-47s were shot down by ground fire so I'd say yes, most of those photographs are of P-47s damaged by ground fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, P51DMatt said:

 

Can't wait for the P-51 :)

 

Oh yes! After the marvelous P-47 I can´t wait to see the Mustang. Hopefully in a DD before x-mas.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

With all this talk of inaccurately modeled wing damage, I feel the engine damage model is an equally pressing matter. Regardless of power input, my engine seizes seconds after taking any sort of damage. 

Agreed, though this definitely needs testing as I've flown very long distances with engine damage.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Agreed, though this definitely needs testing as I've flown very long distances with engine damage.

Would you be willing to share what you did to keep the engine running? Mine quits immediately despite easing back on the power. I was online just a few minutes ago and there were numerous people on my server upset about the damage model. 

Share this post


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

 

Whether is was 7.9 or 13mm is irrelevant, machineguns by themselves can almost never cause enough damage to de-wing an aircraft.

I'm gonna say no to that one... it has already been established when the 13mm guns were introduced to this sim that they do far more damage to planes than the 7.92. More damage is more damage and if enough damage is done it will eventually work. 13mm is a lower velocity explosive shell, a similar diameter to the 12.7mm wouldnt you agree? We already know the .50 cals of the americans can do damage and de-wing aircrafts by themselves.

Edited by Field-Ops
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Would you be willing to share what you did to keep the engine running? Mine quits immediately despite easing back on the power. I was online just a few minutes ago and there were numerous people on my server upset about the damage model. 

It was a one off occurrence, majority of the time my engine quits right after being damaged. I plan on doing some testing to see different damage states and longevity of the engine.

 

One thing that seems to happen is when my turbo gets hit it damages the engine, not 100% sure if this is really whats happening but turbo damage should never damage the engine itself.

 

3 minutes ago, Field-Ops said:

I'm gonna say no to that one... it has already been established when the 13mm guns were introduced to this sim that they do far more damage to planes than the 7.92. More damage is more damage and if enough damage is done it will eventually work. 13mm is a lower velocity explosive shell and the 12.7mm and we already know the .50 cals of the americans can do damage and de-wing aircrafts by themselves.

I was speaking of real life, in reality even .50s could rarely do enough damage to de wing an aircraft. Most of those guncam footage of dewinging Fws and 109 aren't due to machinguns damaging the structure, they are due to ammunition detonation inside the wing or in pods.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

It was a one off occurrence, majority of the time my engine quits right after being damaged.

Well, I’m glad to hear it isn’t a 100% occurrence of near-instant failure (even if it feels that way). Everything about the flight characteristics and feel of the aircraft are so perfect, but I can’t stand being unable to make a single pass on a target without being lit up and destroyed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P-47 in the game like in reality need a little or a lot more hours to master correctly.  It is the first 6 tons single engine 2800 hp engine plane that the game simulates and for me it is a success. it is maybe not perfect but like many of us I am only a virtual pilot and with nearly 99 percent certain not a world war two P47 pilot so how am I to judge the quality other than graphic of this "simulation". And the simulation is great and beautiful.

Plus, I am sure once mastered the P 47 shall become the warhorse it was in the hands of experienced pilots and after a quiet long period of trial and errors in combat situations. The P 47 had also in his cockpit’s pilots with many hours of flight before they were -sent to the front luxury that the other side did not have. A big advantage. The pilot knew their planes.

I say enjoy and try, try again this “juggernaut” of a plane that is the P47, you all shall grow to love it or hate it depending the side you are on.

One little detail that as modeler I do not find in the simulation and regret is the fact that the P 47 was equipped with 4 different type of propellers and there is no choice between even  two late type in the game.

I am happy with the result of the update even if many think otherwise.:salute:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

The P-47 in the game like in reality need a little or a lot more hours to master correctly.  It is the first 6 tons single engine 2800 hp engine plane that the game simulates and for me it is a success. it is maybe not perfect but like many of us I am only a virtual pilot and with nearly 99 percent certain not a world war two P47 pilot so how am I to judge the quality other than graphic of this "simulation". And the simulation is great and beautiful.

Plus, I am sure once mastered the P 47 shall become the warhorse it was in the hands of experienced pilots and after a quiet long period of trial and errors in combat situations. The P 47 had also in his cockpit’s pilots with many hours of flight before they were -sent to the front luxury that the other side did not have. A big advantage. The pilot knew their planes.

I say enjoy and try, try again this “juggernaut” of a plane that is the P47, you all shall grow to love it or hate it depending the side you are on.

One little detail that as modeler I do not find in the simulation and regret is the fact that the P 47 was equipped with 4 different type of propellers and there is no choice between even  two late type in the game.

I am happy with the result of the update even if many think otherwise.:salute:

Yep, she's a beautiful bird and I'm really enjoying flying her.

I think the main reason we don't have a selection of props to choose from is because they'd have a different flight model for each prop. I'd love to have a Hamilton Prop though.

 

If they have the Hamilton we could have a D-27 as a variant since that was the only real difference between the D-28 and D-27.

Share this post


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

Yep, she's a beautiful bird and I'm really enjoying flying her.

I think the main reason we don't have a selection of props to choose from is because they'd have a different flight model for each prop. I'd love to have a Hamilton Prop though.

 

If they have the Hamilton we could have a D-27 as a variant since that was the only real difference between the D-28 and D-27.

 

Personally, I'm somewhat disappointed they added the D-28 instead of a straight up D bubbletop, and then have us choose between different blocks. After all, the Bodenplatte timeframe would have allowed up to the D-30 with fin fillet to be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Personally, I'm somewhat disappointed they added the D-28 instead of a straight up D bubbletop, and then have us choose between different blocks. After all, the Bodenplatte timeframe would have allowed up to the D-30 with fin fillet to be included.

 

We already have planes that have one name but can be turned into another (Pe-2 s87/110, La-5/F, Fw-190A/G/F-8), I think the name matters less than people think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

We already have planes that have one name but can be turned into another (Pe-2 s87/110, La-5/F, Fw-190A/G/F-8), I think the name matters less than people think

 

That was my point. The D-30 would've come with dive flaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have always done series numbers along with what they create. Its up to them if they want to add modifications to the planes that change their name designation. But in them doing it this way gives them the option to rather than the obligation. Its better for them this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Personally, I'm somewhat disappointed they added the D-28 instead of a straight up D bubbletop, and then have us choose between different blocks. After all, the Bodenplatte timeframe would have allowed up to the D-30 with fin fillet to be included.

 

Agreed though there are enough differences to warrent different blocks. D-27/D-28 could be one model though with the option to switch between a Hamilton Standard for the D-27 and a Curtis for the D-28, the D-30 would need to be a different model imo due to dive flaps.

Share this post


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

 

Agreed though there are enough differences to warrent different blocks. D-27/D-28 could be one model though with the option to switch between a Hamilton Standard for the D-27 and a Curtis for the D-28, the D-30 would need to be a different model imo due to dive flaps.

 

Not really. The wing is almost the same, the only difference is the landing light was installed in the outer wing panel and where it was transplanted from, you have the dive flaps. Essentially they would've just needed to add a few more moving parts and the increased drag and massive pitch-up moment once deployed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that we have a new kill scoring system that doesn't give you the kill if the enemy player lands safely at base, will we see more additions to this?

 

The whole idea of this new system is to encourage players to return to base, I'd like to see more additions to this system to encourage rtb even more.

 

Flying online today in my P-47 I did a head on pass and shot down a enemy player but a few minutes later I got shot up by a Fw190, luckily I made it back to base.

This incident got me thinking that it be even better if players had to return to base to claim kills, irl if you die you can't claim the kills.

This would encourage players to rtb instead of just wasting their life, because if they dont rtb then they dont get the kill credited to them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Flying online today in my P-47 I did a head on pass and shot down a enemy player but a few minutes later I got shot up by a Fw190, luckily I made it back to base.

This incident got me thinking that it be even better if players had to return to base to claim kills, irl if you die you can't claim the kills.

 

Claim by amount of damage what had been inflicted. So a minor hit would be like 0.1 of a kill, a major damage 0.5, two or more major hits 0.7 and finally 1.0 if the enemy pilot bailed or plane crashed when in vicinity of the player. At least something like that.

 

Imho, mild over-claiming should be tolerated because it would contribute to a better teamwork. We shouldn't consider teammates to be competitors in the race for scores. You gets some hits - you should get some score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the Americans have 1/4 and 1/2 'kills' if the pilot contributed in the 'kill' depending how many pilots attacked the doomed a/c?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Didn't the Americans have 1/4 and 1/2 'kills' if the pilot contributed in the 'kill' depending how many pilots attacked the doomed a/c?

Yes, they divided it up if more than one pilot claimed it. So if 2 pilots claimed the same kill they would get 1/2 if they both get credit for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salute friends!

 

After a week flying the Jug in MP I managed to top Bergola in terms of kills for one session. With boost, turbo, and prop pitch it has great speed and ok climb, then with flaps deployed it will outturn most axis birds. Combine that with the gyro sight and extra ammo and you have an excellent flexible place. Deploying the flaps then getting inside a 109 is hilarious, plus she prop hangs really well - anyone else find that? The extra ammo allows for spraying with glee :-)))

 

On Flying Circus in VR, I can’t praise the team enough. Just wow. 

 

I can’t praise Jason and the team enough!

Edited by Waggaz

Share this post


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

 

Claim by amount of damage what had been inflicted. So a minor hit would be like 0.1 of a kill, a major damage 0.5, two or more major hits 0.7 and finally 1.0 if the enemy pilot bailed or plane crashed when in vicinity of the player. At least something like that.

 

Imho, mild over-claiming should be tolerated because it would contribute to a better teamwork. We shouldn't consider teammates to be competitors in the race for scores. You gets some hits - you should get some score.

That'd be ok too but I'd like it to be required to rtb in order to get credit for kills.

 

Kill sharing would also be nice, like giving 1/2 or 1/4 depending on how many pilots attacked the same aircraft.

Just now, Waggaz said:

Deploying the flaps then getting inside a 109 is hilarious, plus she prop hangs really well - anyone else find that? 

Yep she zoom climbs very well which is one of the things the P-47 was known for. It can stick with a 109 or 190 in a zoom. I've seen planty of 109 pilots get shot down on berloga because they thought they could outzoom the jug yet the jug stayed right on their six.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.aa73cf01315dcc05da397bd35d2ea43c.png

 

30mm single shot: 30% chance of kill due to structure, 1-5% chance of other damage. Overall probablility of kill 42%.

20mm single shot: 15% chance of a kill.

 

My interpretation is B damage - the plane fails to make the 2h return trip to base. The top table is instant kill.

Edited by Talon_
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

image.thumb.png.aa73cf01315dcc05da397bd35d2ea43c.png

 

30mm single shot: 30% chance of kill due to structure, 1-5% chance of other damage. Overall probablility of kill 42%.

20mm single shot: 15% chance of a kill.

 

My interpretation is B damage - the plane fails to make the 2h return trip to base. The top table is instant kill.

 

No, the top table is 'goes down within 5 minutes of being hit'.

Share this post


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

Do we have the Curtiss Propeller? Im making some skins and I was planning on adding the logo on the prop.

 

 

In all honestly it's hard to tell. We should have the curtis propeller but it looks to be a 12ft  AO Smith propeller.

Curtis did have an asymmetrical 13ft paddle blade propeller also, so it could be that as well.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

In all honestly it's hard to tell. We should have the curtis propeller but it looks to be a 12ft  AO Smith propeller.

Curtis did have an asymmetrical 13ft paddle blade propeller also, so it could be that as well.

There was no 13 ft asymmetrical paddle blade. All CE blades were symmetrical and aircraft fitted with electric props had both blades mounted

 

 


imageproxy.jpg

2016-nov-tcals-review-02.jpg

 

 
 

 

The skins the devs have made have go the correct lack of logo that the AO Smith blades have, but they didn't model the double stripes below the tips.

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Didn't the Americans have 1/4 and 1/2 'kills' if the pilot contributed in the 'kill' depending how many pilots attacked the doomed a/c?

Soviets had "team kills", too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

There was no 13 ft asymmetrical paddle blade. All CE blades were symmetrical and aircraft fitted with electric props had both blades mounted

 

  Reveal hidden contents


imageproxy.jpg

2016-nov-tcals-review-02.jpg

 

 
 

 

The skins the devs have made have go the correct lack of logo that the AO Smith blades have, but they didn't model the double stripes below the tips.

 

So prop blade N° 836 and blade 6501A-D were both symmetrical? From what I've read blade 836 was symmetrical and blade 6501A-D was asymmetrical. Interesting if it's wrong, I wonder why it's quoted as being asymmetrical?

Share this post


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

 

So prop blade N° 836 and blade 6501A-D were both symmetrical? From what I've read blade 836 was symmetrical and blade 6501A-D was asymmetrical. Interesting if it's wrong, I wonder why it's quoted as being asymmetrical?

6501A is Hamilton Hydromatic

Share this post


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

6501A is Hamilton Hydromatic

Interesting, the information I've read is wrong then.

Share this post


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

Yes, they divided it up if more than one pilot claimed it. So if 2 pilots claimed the same kill they would get 1/2 if they both get credit for it.

As for shared kills I don't know how its with SP because i dont play carrer etc, but all the  game stats output/info is there already to use in MP by each server owner to inlcude it.

 

For example  there was some time ago a superb server : "Random Expert" where the owner/ coder included the shared kills (You either got a individual kill or if more than 1 player damaged the enemy a shared kill) and many other goodies like for example the stats which told you how many bullets of each caliber and type (AP or HP) hit the enemy - especially this was very useful for all discusions regarding durability and showed no significant/big difference between the so called fragile and not so fragile planes.

Also there was such info like for example number of  planes that you brought down before they managed to attack their objectives (called intercepts), number of individual and sherd intercepts and many more...

 

 

Edited by Carl_infar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

Essentially they would've just needed to add a few more moving parts and the increased drag and massive pitch-up moment once deployed.

 

No, the cockpit layout also changed significantly with the D-30. It's a lot more work than you are proposing.

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 5:35 PM, RoflSeal said:

This forms a very dense honeycomb structure that is not only incredibly strong but has lots of redundancy. It also acts as a form of protection as the uncritical sections act as spaced armour for the critical spars from blast damage.

 

A honeycomb-structure actually sucks for anything other than positive normal pressure (compression) to it's surfaces. Shear-forces are a big no-no.

Not only does a common semi-monocoque NOT form a honeycomb-structure, you're also mixing up cause and effect here:

The structure is so dense because the ammo-bay cutout and it's reduced-height ribs take away a large amount of bending and torsional stiffness of the wing. That is even worse due to the ammo-bay door being attached to only a couple of latches and a hinge, providing reduced skin force-transfer and force-distribution.

In order to restore the wing's potential strength, Republic/ Seversky had to add a crapton of additional spars and ribs. That is pretty compromised design and has nothing to do with any special form of structural greatness or intentional over-engineering.

 

Designers NEVER add useless structural weight to an airframe. They design to secified load and might - on a good day - add a little growth-potential (read: additional structrural capability) to key parts of the airframe. That will be minimal, as weight and cost will spiral and runaway quickly and the airplane will become a dog unless weight is kept under strict control.

Weight-saving is king. Always.

 

Blast damage can act in two different mechanics.

1) Shrapnel damage. Well, that one is pretty much straightforward.

2) Local overpressure inside the structure. No amount of "armor" (aviation structures aren't) can protect against that.

 

The wing-spar might be the strongest at the wing-root - it's also under he largest load there.

Keep in mind that guns don't rip-off the wing. It's the aero-loads that do. Gun-damage only weakens the structure to a point of eventually giving in.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 10:27 AM, 77.CountZero said:

 

We saw that also in attacking airplanes on it few min ago, delayed damage to them. 

I encounter that problems before update on that same mission, (posted here

and PM their admin on ts3 then ) and i think this is problem with that WoL mission as same problem on same mission is visable every time i play that mission in their server.

perevious mission run just fine in areas with loot of action and same number of ppl, and this one is mess.

I witnessed the same issue on that server, but not just with that map, it was unplayable and caused a lot of comments in chat about warping and laggy play.

I haven't seen that issue on that map before this update on WOL.

2 sortie was all I could handle! made my head hurt🤕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is big problem with P-47, its to damn adictive to play with in this game, spend lot more time then planed playing with it on berloga. If P-47 is so mutch fun now ant wait for other american airplanes to come. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/7849-предложение-по-дм-самолетов/?do=findComment&comment=652613

Russian comunity talks about it a long time.

We hope west comunity can help.

P-47 is the last drop. Three Mg151/20 HE shells to wipe the wing off?!

That is unrealistic.

Thanks for your effort @Makz I hope the developers take this into account and make fixes if neccesary 👍

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

×