Jump to content
II./JG77_motoadve

The gamer vs the sim/history buff P47

Recommended Posts

P47 or whatever airplanes, wing detachment and shooting down planes seems a bit too easy, guns too powerful or planes too weak, which gives a bit of arcadish feel.(looks and graphics are amazingly realistic, like when a wing starts to fold).

 

I dont know if one of the updates made the machine guns more powerful or what changed.

Was hoping machine gun dispersion modelling was going to help fix this, but it didnt.

Its rare to limp a plane back

 

 I dont have proof , same as there is no proof that what is modeled right now its the way it was.

 

Dont know what the developers use to test the DM and compares it to what real world data, to come up with a damage model, must be an interesting task.

Share this post


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

Agreed. But first I think we should set a baseline for what damage ammo/weapons types should do. For this I think the P-47 test report above can help. After this is done we can test against various aircraft and compare.

 

Who is this "we"? :)   I know how to do the flak test and so I can compare P-47 with any given aircraft easily enough: it just takes a lot of time. I might get round to it.

Share this post


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

 

Who is this "we"? :)   I know how to do the flak test and so I can compare P-47 with any given aircraft easily enough: it just takes a lot of time. I might get round to it.

Just a generalization, doesn't necessarily mean me or you, just anyone willing to do the work.

Share this post


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

 

If you read the document closer, the data give is just for one specific firing angle (20° from below, 20° off-bore) and the probability of one random shot taking out the airplane.

Some data, like engine survivability wasn't even taken directly from the airplane, but was extrapolated from trials with an entirely different engine:

 

The data of that study indicates very little on it's own and should be taken with an ounce of salt.

 

The data consisting of losses vs damages is very basic (read: not properly normalized for circumstances) and will probaly yield slightly different and less spectacular numbers in favor of the P-47 when normalized or run with different entry-parameters.

 

No need to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I am sure we all realize that we are dealing with messy data on a complex problem, but we can still establish some basic facts and check for reasonableness.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

No need to make the perfect the enemy of the good. I am sure we all realize that we are dealing with messy data on a complex problem, but we can still establish some basic facts and check for reasonableness.  

 

It is what I was trying to convey since the beginning. DM is a very complex problem and getting spotless data is close to impossible. If we get purist then we may as well says that there is no difference in between an I-16 and a b-17 durability because there is no scientific proof (apart from anecdotical) to say that one was more resistance than the other.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

...DM is a very complex problem..

 

Actually, there are two problems here, and some people are consistently confusing them.  First, there is the degree to which the historical record can be used to assess the consequences of gunfire on aircraft, and secondly there is the question as to whether there are specific issues with the IL-2 GB simulation of such effects. A little more clarity as to what exactly people are trying to prove would make things a lot simpler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems perfectly straightforward to me: the question is whether the IL-2  DM of various aircraft gives outcomes broadly consistent with the historical evidence. 

 

Some people are claiming that it does not, stating:

 

1) That the P-47 is more fragile than the XYZ in the game 

 

This  we can test in various ways, depending on what "more fragile" is taken to mean: SuperEtendard already has done one test on these lines.

 

2) That it should be less fragile than XYZ.

 

This harder to assess definitively, but you can look at the OR and ask engineers. It is not as though there is no relevant information available. 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

Seems perfectly straightforward to me: the question is whether the IL-2  DM of various aircraft gives outcomes broadly consistent with the historical evidence. 

 

Some people are claiming that it does not, stating:

 

1) That the P-47 is more fragile than the XYZ in the game 

 

This  we can test in various ways, depending on what "more fragile" is taken to mean: SuperEtendard already has done one test on these lines.

 

2) That it should be less fragile than XYZ.

 

This harder to assess definitively, but you can look at the OR and ask engineers. It is not as though there is no relevant information available. 

 

 

Clearly it is possible to test the game DM. And from that, one may be able to assert to some degree of confidence that 'the game models X as less fragile than Y'. As for the historical record though, it is very incomplete, and I think that people may be reading too much into the limited data that has been discussed so far. And in doing so, quite possibly being swayed by external factors that a good historical analysis would try to exclude. Which is why I made my first post in this thread. People were claiming that photos of heavily damaged P-47s somehow 'proved' that IL-2 GB was specifically flawed in regard to the way damage was modelled on that aircraft. That isn't the way any competent historian would analyse such material. It has a context, and a purpose, and its validity as a source can only be understood when context and purpose are also understood. There is clearly also a limited amount of more quantitative data also available, but even that needs to be read with caution. If I come across as sceptical, it's because I see scepticism as a good thing when confronted with 'historical analysis'  which is being used as 'evidence' in a dispute over the way a game works. At least as an ideal, historical analysis should stand on its own, with no regard to the use it is subsequently put. That is of course the ideal, rarely if ever achieved in practice. Which is why one needs to look at data not just for what it can tell us, but why it might mislead us - and to be aware that our prior expectations (in this case of a P-47 with a reputation for toughness) may cause us to be mislead in a specific direction.  If we are to avoid this, we need as much data as we can find, and a clear understanding of its limitations. And a willingness to accept that there may just not be enough quantifiable data available to come to the sort of conclusions we desire. I'm sure that both historians and engineers will tell you that sometimes the best answer to a question is 'we don't know'. 

Share this post


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

 

Clearly it is possible to test the game DM. And from that, one may be able to assert to some degree of confidence that 'the game models X as less fragile than Y'. As for the historical record though, it is very incomplete, and I think that people may be reading too much into the limited data that has been discussed so far. And in doing so, quite possibly being swayed by external factors that a good historical analysis would try to exclude. Which is why I made my first post in this thread. People were claiming that photos of heavily damaged P-47s somehow 'proved' that IL-2 GB was specifically flawed in regard to the way damage was modelled on that aircraft. That isn't the way any competent historian would analyse such material. It has a context, and a purpose, and its validity as a source can only be understood when context and purpose are also understood. There is clearly also a limited amount of more quantitative data also available, but even that needs to be read with caution. If I come across as sceptical, it's because I see scepticism as a good thing when confronted with 'historical analysis'  which is being used as 'evidence' in a dispute over the way a game works. At least as an ideal, historical analysis should stand on its own, with no regard to the use it is subsequently put. That is of course the ideal, rarely if ever achieved in practice. Which is why one needs to look at data not just for what it can tell us, but why it might mislead us - and to be aware that our prior expectations (in this case of a P-47 with a reputation for toughness) may cause us to be mislead in a specific direction.  If we are to avoid this, we need as much data as we can find, and a clear understanding of its limitations. And a willingness to accept that there may just not be enough quantifiable data available to come to the sort of conclusions we desire. I'm sure that both historians and engineers will tell you that sometimes the best answer to a question is 'we don't know'. 

 

 As you were saying in a couple of posts before, the problem is split into two parts. What is the p-47 performing DM-wise in the sim compared to other aircraft? And second, what the aircraft did historically.  Unreasonable made a good point on this.

Regarding the second part, is what has been discussed mainly in the conversation. At least me, I have been advocating that there are quite an amount of clear evidence (even if it is quite limited by the very nature of the matter) in the form of reports and tests. Second is the anecdotical evidence in the form of pictures. That cannot be dismissed straight away. At the very least it shows you the maximum of damage that the plane could sustain. Not the norm obviously but it gives you the upper end of the range. The vast amount of examples have some statistic value on itself. Again, that is not set on stone. Very much subject to interpretation but, at the end of the day, you cannot say "I do not know"and do nothing. You have to create a DM  if you want to create a combat sim.  And in order to do it, you will have to use whatever scant information you have available. If you set up your quality standards too high for that type of information then you´ll end up basically with nothing (if you disregard historical evidence and tests) and, as I said before, you may as well use the same DM for all the planes.

Share this post


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

 

 As you were saying in a couple of posts before, the problem is split into two parts. What is the p-47 performing DM-wise in the sim compared to other aircraft? And second, what the aircraft did historically.  Unreasonable made a good point on this.

Regarding the second part, is what has been discussed mainly in the conversation. At least me, I have been advocating that there are quite an amount of clear evidence (even if it is quite limited by the very nature of the matter) in the form of reports and tests. Second is the anecdotical evidence in the form of pictures. That cannot be dismissed straight away. At the very least it shows you the maximum of damage that the plane could sustain. Not the norm obviously but it gives you the upper end of the range. The vast amount of examples have some statistic value on itself. Again, that is not set on stone. Very much subject to interpretation but, at the end of the day, you cannot say "I do not know"and do nothing. You have to create a DM  if you want to create a combat sim.  And in order to do it, you will have to use whatever scant information you have available. If you set up your quality standards too high for that type of information then you´ll end up basically with nothing (if you disregard historical evidence and tests) and, as I said before, you may as well use the same DM for all the planes.

 

If people want the developers to revise the DM for a specific aircraft, they need to provide evidence that will convince the developers. Maybe they will take photos of damaged aircraft into consideration. Personally, for the reasons I've already elaborated on, I wouldn't. Not with actual quantitative data to accompany it. If you think that 'statistical value' can be derived from such photos, please explain how. What sort of numbers are you expecting to arrive at, and how will you derive them?

Share this post


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

 

If people want the developers to revise the DM for a specific aircraft, they need to provide evidence that will convince the developers. Maybe they will take photos of damaged aircraft into consideration. Personally, for the reasons I've already elaborated on, I wouldn't. Not with actual quantitative data to accompany it. If you think that 'statistical value' can be derived from such photos, please explain how. What sort of numbers are you expecting to arrive at, and how will you derive them?

I have another question for you. What type of information would you use to design a plausible DM for a combat flight simulator? Which would be your sources for that type of information? Where would you be getting them from? And I mean undisputable ones as you and others seem to be asking for.

Once you answer that question then we can start discussing the value of some anecdotical evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have another question for you. What type of information would you use to design a plausible DM for a combat flight simulator? Which would be your sources for that type of information? Where would you be getting them from? And I mean undisputable ones as you and others seem to be asking for.

Once you answer that question then we can start discussing the value of some anecdotical evidence.

Agreed.

Why people fight it so convinced that what is modeled its right and nothing can be disputed? where is the proof or evidence that what is modeled is right?

Many things have got changed to the better, 109 DM was really fragile, seems everyone is happy with it now, probably many didnt want it changed saying it was right from the start.

I imagine the developers study some sources to create a DM, then find a lot more sources offered by the community, where they can compare and make up their minds if its worth a change or not.

Share this post


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

I have another question for you. What type of information would you use to design a plausible DM for a combat flight simulator? Which would be your sources for that type of information? Where would you be getting them from? And I mean undisputable ones as you and others seem to be asking for.

Once you answer that question then we can start discussing the value of some anecdotical evidence.

 

I am not asking for 'undisputable information'. I am suggesting that some of the evidence so far presented in this thread doesn't support the conclusions being drawn from it.

 

As for designing a DM,  my programming experience is fairly limited, and my experience with creating simulations of anything more complex than a bouncing ball is more or less non-existent. Which is one reason why I'm not trying to tell the developers how to do their job here.

Share this post


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

 

I am not asking for 'undisputable information'. I am suggesting that some of the evidence so far presented in this thread doesn't support the conclusions being drawn from it.

 

As for designing a DM,  my programming experience is fairly limited, and my experience with creating simulations of anything more complex than a bouncing ball is more or less non-existent. Which is one reason why I'm not trying to tell the developers how to do their job here.

 

I am not asking you about programming the DM but the information to feed the programmers that deal with the DM.

 

Share this post


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

 

I am not asking you about programming the DM but the information to feed the programmers that deal with the DM.

 

 

As I've already stated, the developers need quantifiable data which directly supports the claims being made. We have already seen some data specific to the P-47 regarding the probable effects of gunfire.  If similar data could be found for other aircraft, we might have a starting point for DM comparisons. Likewise, there have been statistics offered which show the relative losses for the P-47 compared to the P-51. I personally think that these need to be treated with a lot more caution, as there are clearly a large number of unknowns in the data as given, but more of the same might likewise help provided one doesn't try to read more into them than can be justified. Beyond that, I can't really say, as I don't know what data is out there. Or what data the developers already have access to. Or what data they actually want. What I do know is that they respond a lot better to clear evidence properly presented than they do to vague handwaving about so-far imaginary 'statistics' derived from photographs of damaged aircraft. So how about you answering my question:  if you think that 'statistical value' can be derived from such photos, please explain how. What sort of numbers are you expecting to arrive at, and how will you derive them?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

As I've already stated, the developers need quantifiable data which directly supports the claims being made. We have already seen some data specific to the P-47 regarding the probable effects of gunfire.  If similar data could be found for other aircraft, we might have a starting point for DM comparisons. Likewise, there have been statistics offered which show the relative losses for the P-47 compared to the P-51. I personally think that these need to be treated with a lot more caution, as there are clearly a large number of unknowns in the data as given, but more of the same might likewise help provided one doesn't try to read more into them than can be justified. Beyond that, I can't really say, as I don't know what data is out there. Or what data the developers already have access to. Or what data they actually want. What I do know is that they respond a lot better to clear evidence properly presented than they do to vague handwaving about so-far imaginary 'statistics' derived from photographs of damaged aircraft. So how about you answering my question:  if you think that 'statistical value' can be derived from such photos, please explain how. What sort of numbers are you expecting to arrive at, and how will you derive them?

 

As we have stated many times before, everything here is subject to interpretation. But if you have a vast amount of visual references where clearly you can see the amount of damage that the plane was able to sustain that is telling you at least something. At least one plane in each example was able to sustain the amount of damage depicted in the picture. You can´t deny that unless you consider the photo being fake. That is not an average, that is not mode value but it has some informative value. You compare this with other pictures from other planes and can draw some ideas. There are there many other explanations about why the p-47 seems to have more of those pictures than others, of course. But when you start putting all the evidence together (with tests and statistics) then you can give this visual references "some" value. 

Regarding the tests and statistics, you seem to infer that they are somehow wrong/inaccurate. Then I think is only fair to ask you to explain why, how and to what degree are they wrong.

But we can be arguing all day long and not getting to any agreement. You are asking basically something that is impossible to achieve. There is no single real test that can quantify all the possible combinations: different ammo, distance, angle, speed differences, part of the plane being hit and combinations of single vs accumulative and how this influence the damage that a plane can sustain. Such a test doesn´t exist. Even the information that the developers may have and are not available to us, I bet you that will be equally incomplete and subject to interpretation.

Unreasonable explained quite well. You can make some tests in the sim and compare relative differences in DM between different planes. But, in my opinion, to compare this exactly to reality is futile. From reality, you can try to look for relative differences and there you use information from tests, statistics, some engineer and design differences and anecdotical information (pictures and reports). That is exactly what is being done in this case. If you have better data please share it with all of us.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, since it is now abundantly clear that your assertion that you could derive valid statistical data from photographs is baseless, I'm done with you. If you want to believe that the developers are interested in that sort of argument, fine, present it to them. Just don't complain when you get ignored.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Ok, since it is now abundantly clear that your assertion that you could derive valid statistical data from photographs is baseless, I'm done with you. If you want to believe that the developers are interested in that sort of argument, fine, present it to them. Just don't complain when you get ignored.

 

Please, don´t twist my words. I said "some statistic value" not "valid statistic data". And I did care to elaborate, on your request, why I thought it. I would appreciate that you could do the same with my request on your assumptions regarding test and statistics data from the USAAF. But since you are done with me I suppose I will have to miss it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no 'statistical value'  without valid statistics. To argue otherwise isn't just twisting words, it is tying them in knots.

 

As for my assumptions regarding USAAF tests, I don't think I've made any, beyond assuming that it is best not to read more into them than they directly support. Do you think that is a reasonable assumption to make, and if not, why not?

Share this post


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

There is no 'statistical value'  without valid statistics. To argue otherwise isn't just twisting words, it is tying them in knots.

 

I explained to you the value in conjuction with other data. If I had consider it Valid statistical data it would have been in case of wanting to drawn conclusions on its own but that wasn't the intention. It was to support other data and to  "some" degree. That is the value you consider it valid or not.

47 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

As for my assumptions regarding USAAF tests, I don't think I've made any, beyond assuming that it is best not to read more into them than they directly support. Do you think that is a reasonable assumption to make, and if not, why not?

Well, what they directly support is what we have pointed out. Nothing more, nothing less. And we have indicated everything together as some proof of the relative durability of the plane compared to the others. Nothing more, nothing less.

But we are running now in circles so I will stop here. Let's agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand what statistics are. As for what you consider 'proof' and what I do, we clearly have different ideas regarding how to obtain it. What matters though is what the developers consider valid proof. And as I've already stated, they have in the past preferred clearly presented numerical data to vague assertions backed up by anecdote. And so far, we don't have much numerical data beyond a test on one aircraft type we can't directly compare to any other, and data on comparative losses which only really compares one aircraft we've seen with another we haven't. None of which is of any use when trying to claim that a specific DM is faulty. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Personally, if I was that keen on convincing the developers it was, I'd be looking for more data rather than arguing on the forum. 

Share this post


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

Personally, if I was that keen on convincing the developers it was, I'd be looking for more data rather than arguing on the forum. 

 

Maybe there's something else you're keen on rather than arguing on the forum?

 

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, moosya said:

with all of these arguments on the table does anyone actually have any idea why the p47 is weaker than expected?

 

Why as in what's in the Damage Model that is not modeled properly for this particular aircraft?  Is the aluminum skin too thin and therefore the MG fire penetrates it too easily? Or the underlying spars and other structural elements are too thin so they break easily? Does Il2 Damage Model even consider these physical properties of the model structure?  

 

It would actually be extremely educational to understand how Il2 DM works and then draw the conclusions based on DM's specifications rather than using 70 year old books that have absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of the simulation in itself.

 

All aircraft skin is too thin to prevent MG penetration regardless of thickness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Maybe there's something else you're keen on rather than arguing on the forum?

 

 

Nah, I'm good. Though I have been doing a bit of historical research myself. Found nothing conclusive regarding the relative survivability of the P-47, but I have managed to convince myself that using statistics for this sort of thing isn't at all easy. See this paper on Abraham Wald's work on the topic. The maths is way beyond my capabilities, and I'm not sure I even understand what he was trying to prove, let alone how he did it.

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254286514_Abraham_Wald's_Work_on_Aircraft_Survivability 

 

A nice quote from there that might possibly be relevant though:

Quote

The statistical treatment of the problems that Wald studied is complicated by the fact that data on downed aircraft are unobservable.

 

Wald seems to have derived useful data even so, but it took the mind of a renowned statistician to do it. If there are any of those on the forum, they seem to be avoiding this thread...

 

Edit: Found a reprint of Wald's paper "A method of estimating plane vulnerability based on damage of survivors". Like I said, the maths is beyond me, but I've got a better idea of what he was trying to do. It goes a lot further than the simple tale about him advising the air force to reinforce the bits of aircraft that weren't found to have been shot up on returning aircraft (though even that is a useful insight, given the apparent reluctance of senior officers of the time to actually use their brains), and actually tries to arrive at a numerical probability, based only on data from aircraft that returned, that a single hit to a specific subcomponent (engine, cockpit, fuselage...) will down an aircraft, given certain assumptions. The extent to which this data was put to good use, I don't know. 

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~swu6/documents/A_Reprint_Plane_Vulnerability.pdf

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can see from a data set that a certain number of planes that returned from a mission had zero hits, 1 hits, 2 hits, 3 hits and so on. We can also see how many did not return. 

What is unobservable is how many of the downed planes had zero hits, 1 hit, 2 hits and so on.  (Note that in game testing unlike real life this need not be unobservable).

 

What Wald was trying to estimate was the probability of surviving 1 hit, 2 hits etc. To do that he had to make some assumptions and calculations about the range of the unobservable values, since P surviving 1 hit = (number of planes that returned with 1 hit/total number of planes with 1 hit). That is what all the maths is about.

 

Fortunately it is possible to get some useful information by asking a simpler question, namely, what is the probability of surviving being hit?  The only unobservable here is the number of downed planes that were not hit - by misjudging a dive, for instance.  So the only assumption we have to make is that all downed planes were hit. Sometimes that would not be true, but it should be a reasonable estimate. 

 

@AndyJWest good find, thanks for link!

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Maybe there's something else you're keen on rather than arguing on the forum?

 

 

[Edited]

 

Leave him alone, please.

Edited by Bearcat
Personal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

All aircraft skin is too thin to prevent MG penetration regardless of thickness.

 

Indeed. Only at extreme angles you might hope for a richochet, and even for that the planes that had such a built in deflector planes (such as the deflector plate on the Spitfire above the fuel tank) were usually 3-4 times the thickness of the normal aluminium skin used elsewhere.

 

To give some idea, the 109F and later used an aluminium plate behind the fuel tank for additional protection, made out of no less than 30 layers of .8 mm thick aluminium plates.

 

It was quite effective at rendering incendinaries ineffective and may have even stopped .303 AP, but any AP rounds above that went through it (albeit they were likely stopped by the pilots armor, having been slowed down).

 

Nonetheless, it shows you how easy it is to puncture aluminium skin, which was usually no more than .8-1.5 mm thickness.

Share this post


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

Nonetheless, it shows you how easy it is to puncture aluminium skin, which was usually no more than .8-1.5 mm thickness.

 

Yes, aluminum is weaker than steel, and I know first hand one can penetrate a steel barrell's (0,9 to 1,0 mm thick) both sides + some junk within the barrell with 22 LR standard velocity ammo out to at least 150 meters. Even mere .303 ball would have about 30-40 times the kinetic energy and somewhere around 4 to 5 times the velocity.

 

In game I have several times seen machine gun tracers richochet off upper and lower wing surfaces of Yaks, LaGGs and Las, but besides the Il-2 its not very common and I'm not 100 % sure that it isnt just a special effect.

Share this post


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

[Edited]

 

Unintentionally ironic post of the year.

 

Tell everyone again about...what was it, a certain group of individuals and a certain behavior regarding the P-47?

 

 

Andy has been around here a while - he can take care of himself.

10 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

What were the testers of the P-47 testing?

 

I tend to focus on AI behavior :)

 

Also sometimes something might be brought up, but takes a while for either the team to free up the resources to respond, or to verify that its legitimately a problem etc. They fix tons of things at pretty much a breakneck pace.

 

7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Nonetheless, it shows you how easy it is to puncture aluminium skin, which was usually no more than .8-1.5 mm thickness.

 

Theres a cutaway Blenheim fuselage/cockpit at a local air museum.

 

The aluminum skin is shockingly thin - basically no protection whatsoever.

Edited by Bearcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Tell everyone again about...what was it, a certain group of individuals and a certain behavior regarding the P-47?

 

 

[Edited]

 

Come on now .....

Edited by Bearcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just did a quick mission in a 109, got 4 P47s

2 wings detachments

1 engine on fire (short burst)

1 tail detachment

 

Plenty of ammo left , just quit the mission because.

 

Booooring, arcade and unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Just did a quick mission in a 109, got 4 P47s

2 wings detachments

1 engine on fire (short burst)

1 tail detachment

 

Plenty of ammo left , just quit the mission because.

 

Booooring, arcade and unrealistic.

Stop playing quick mission? Go play on TAW and see how boring and arcade it is hahahaha. Probably wouldn't last ten minutes up there. Clubbing p-47's at low altitude against the brain dead AI isn't a complete judgement of the game. The AI also seems to have trouble flying the p-47 properly. Nothing to really write home about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Just did a quick mission in a 109, got 4 P47s

2 wings detachments

1 engine on fire (short burst)

1 tail detachment

 

Plenty of ammo left , just quit the mission because.

 

Booooring, arcade and unrealistic.

Do the same against a 109/Spitfire/190/Yak, exact same story.
So gratz i guess? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have managed to get my airfield defence mission working with the new version, so I will be testing that with the P-47 and 109 G-4 for comparison,  46 aircraft making two fast low passes over 37mm Flak36 on normal AI.  It takes at least 10 runs of each case to be sure of getting a good average so this will take a while.

 

I expect the P-47s to take slightly more hits - being a larger target to hit, but slightly lower losses/hits, having more "hit points", but we shall see.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Just did a quick mission in a 109, got 4 P47s

2 wings detachments

1 engine on fire (short burst)

1 tail detachment

 

Plenty of ammo left , just quit the mission because.

 

Booooring, arcade and unrealistic.

At the end of the day you're shooting at a conventionally constructed aircraft with explosive/incendiary ammunition. The tail section of the Jug isn't fundamentally different from the tail section of any other aircraft. It might be stronger but its also dealing with the forces acting on a much heavier craft. The wings in this game come off relatively easily, maybe too easily, but there's ammo stored in the wings of a P-47 so hitting it with an explosive shell could easily ignite the ammo stores and de-wing a plane - much more likely than it happening in a 109 or a Yak IMO. once again Jug wings aren't fundamentally different than other wings, and they also have to support a heavier aircraft. Engine fires are to be expected if you hit an engine with incendiary or explosive rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 392FS_Jred said:

Stop playing quick mission? Go play on TAW and see how boring and arcade it is hahahaha. Probably wouldn't last ten minutes up there. Clubbing p-47's at low altitude against the brain dead AI isn't a complete judgement of the game. The AI also seems to have trouble flying the p-47 properly. Nothing to really write home about here.

I am in TAW so dont pretend to me you are the veteran warrior talking to a newbie.

Just testing how is the P47 DM, which is arcade.

6 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

At the end of the day you're shooting at a conventionally constructed aircraft with explosive/incendiary ammunition. The tail section of the Jug isn't fundamentally different from the tail section of any other aircraft. It might be stronger but its also dealing with the forces acting on a much heavier craft. The wings in this game come off relatively easily, maybe too easily, but there's ammo stored in the wings of a P-47 so hitting it with an explosive shell could easily ignite the ammo stores and de-wing a plane - much more likely than it happening in a 109 or a Yak IMO. once again Jug wings aren't fundamentally different than other wings, and they also have to support a heavier aircraft. Engine fires are to be expected if you hit an engine with incendiary or explosive rounds.

Wing is being detached at the root, time and time again not exploding, if it was ammo explosion and wing blowing up it would not bother me at all.

Edited by II./JG77_motoadve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

 

Not letting me quote the right section here, sorry.

Not an ammo explosion then, so you have a point there. However, wing separations happen regularly on other aircraft in-game, perhaps too often. Is there any evidence that the Jug's wings are stronger, relative to the weight of the aircraft, than other planes? e.g. is the wing structured in such a way that it would withstand more force or damage than a yak, 109, or P-40?

Also what 109 where you using? The guns would make a big difference in how many hits the P-47s soak up. A 30mm cannon shell with 12.7mm guns is going to do hell of a lot more damage than 15mm or 20mm with 7.9mm guns, and most of the P-47s more well-known encounters would have been with 7.9mm/20mm armed opponents.

Honestly it seems more likely that the game's perhaps optimistic view of catastrophic structural damage from gunfire is hitting the P-47 harder than other craft. its bigger, so more surface area to hit on structural components, and those components fail catastrophically from hits more frequently than in real life. IRL a larger wing area would mean that, for example, a 2 inch hole in the wing makes less of an impact on flight characteristics than on a smaller wing. That element may not really be modeled in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm just wondering, would it be plausable to gather data on the materials that a plane was built from? Thickness of spars, covers and all that? If yes, maybe we could get more accurate ratings at how easy/hard it is to penetrate, shatter, break such parts with certain ammo types? We could take those resoults back to the planes and see how they handle shots from there on? Also I tested the a5 fw190 on jugs yesterday, and tho it fires both MG and CN at the same time it did dewing the beasts rather easily, only their main structure seems to hold firm against bullets, and on one case the AI zoomed on me, missed and broke up into bits later on...

Edited by E4GLEyE

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

×