Jump to content
Han

Game version 3.008 discussion: Damage model update, fixes and improvements

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Can't stress enough how important this part is.

The fact that triggering a non-deactivated timer doesn't (re)start it anymore is a complete show stopper.

At the moment, it renders all missions on our FAC gameserver broken.

I'm not ready to check and touch hundreds of timers on the missions to work around this bug, especially not without knowing what further changes to this issue there will be.

I definitely vote for a quick hotfix that restores the old functionality at least.

Really, really, really...: This is a showstopper bug.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Yes. The Finnish VirtualPilots' server is currently down because of this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Last try before I lock this topic. Keep it on topic, bug reports have a section for that, do not post test related post here (third time its have been said) and also do not get personal with each other, if you feel someone is doing so (by using the reactions icons or otherwise) let us know and we will deal with him.

 

Haash

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 4:54 AM, SAS_Storebror said:

Can't stress enough how important this part is.

The fact that triggering a non-deactivated timer doesn't (re)start it anymore is a complete show stopper.

At the moment, it renders all missions on our FAC gameserver broken.

I'm not ready to check and touch hundreds of timers on the missions to work around this bug, especially not without knowing what further changes to this issue there will be.

I definitely vote for a quick hotfix that restores the old functionality at least.

Really, really, really...: This is a showstopper bug.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

From Han.

 

Both a bugs and to be fixed
Except 2nd one:
"I can set counters, e.g. to 1 using Set Val (data[0] = 1, index = 0). According to @Han this should change the threshold to 1. This is a minor issue, changing the value of a counter is what I expect I'll need, changing the threshold I don't have uses cases for yet."

From update notes:
"To alter a Counter value, use the 0 index of the controllable value or alter Counter threshold using the 1-st index"

So IDX=0 controlling counter's current value, IDX=1 controlling counter's treshold

 

Jason

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jason, that's good to hear and good to know.

So we can sit back and wait for the fix of the "re-trigger timer" issue instead of further trying to work around it.

I'm sure we'll get our heads wrapped around the value/threshold setting for counters as well ;)

 

Thanks again and best regards

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work on damage modeling was hit a few times in my 190 and i made it home landed .

Normally i wouldnt of made it . This for me is a far better experience than what I had before .

Thank you .

Edited by II./JG77_Con
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 22GCT_Hollywood said:

Hello,

with this version 3.008, IL2 on startup  does not recognize anymore Oculus rift. Somebody have the same problem?

Thx.

I narrowed it down to oculus home being the problem and not IL-2. I just had to make sure home started fully before launching the game and voila it works. I read you can disable oculus home but I have games on there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Field-Ops said:

I narrowed it down to oculus home being the problem and not IL-2. I just had to make sure home started fully before launching the game and voila it works. I read you can disable oculus home but I have games on there too.

 

 

I followed your suggestion but it still does not work. The simulator starts as if he did not see oculus. Other simulator as flight simulator, prepare 3d and DCS, function regolary.

 

THX!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same issue with the last patch already, but as Field-Ops said, after starting Oculus Home it worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Livai said:

@Han

I noticed that the MK108 use 30x184 Ammunition what only the MK101 and MK103 used. -> The MK108 use 30x91 Ammunition.

Download (PDF)

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK 108/Text/Entwurf Borsig 09.06.1943/Entwurf von Borsig.pdf

 

 

 

That is interesting, that is the round for the Hs129's gun. Can you read the ballistics text file? The key thing is whether the gun is firing at the correct MV for the Mk108 which was much lower.  Also should be possible to eyeball it in the game.   

 

EDIT: Doing just that it looks to me as though the K-4's gun has the lower mv, as it should, but I might be wrong. It is likely that the same file is being used only for the ballistic coefficient of the warhead, on the basis that that is the same for an HE round, either x184 or x 91, irrespective of the cartridge or gun.  

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

 

That is interesting, that is the round for the Hs129's gun. Can you read the ballistics text file? The key thing is whether the gun is firing at the correct MV for the Mk108 which was much lower.  Also should be possible to eyeball it in the game.   

 

EDIT: Doing just that it looks to me as though the K-4's gun has the lower mv, as it should, but I might be wrong. It is likely that the same file is being used only for the ballistic coefficient of the warhead, on the basis that that is the same for an HE round, either x184 or x 91, irrespective of the cartridge or gun.  

 

They share the same stats for AP and HE damage whatever - only the "BulletSpeed" for HE shells was reduced for the MK108.

 

Spoiler

AP.thumb.JPG.1720219d6b9886a7dab33dc25dc9e4a0.JPG

HE.thumb.JPG.71c43f57c3786ffe54bf7ea2afede4f6.JPG

 

The problem - Take a look how big the MK103 cartridge case is compared to MK108 and compare how big the MK108 shell case is compared to the MK103. BTW the x91 I readed from the Document other will say x90 for the MK108.......

 

Spoiler

image.png.cc61dd769165e8fa39438ae313b77be3.png

 

Edited by Livai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think there is a problem here: only the cartridge is a different size: the projectile is the same mass, size and shape, so it has the same ballistic coefficient. The larger charge on the x184 simply increases the MV, as the file shows and my game eye-balling suggests.  So when they are travelling at the same speed, the projectiles from the two rounds will behave the same way.

 

So no need for a different ballistics reference. 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah both the MK 103 and MK 108 fired the same HE projectile. If you differentiate the velocity the rest should be equal I think.

 

 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 9:50 PM, Jason_Williams said:

[...]

 

The team does their best to improve the product and I trust their judgement on some of these "in the weeds" items. Maybe some ammo is a little off, but there is absolutely no correct answer under the technology and circumstances we have to work with and under.


[...]

 

Jason  

 

That is exactly the point of those fellows who don't just whine...

 

It's not that we want a wunderwaffe or want a superior gun because we can't make kills otherwise...

 

We want the technology of WWII to simulated as realistic as possible - and since that is, what you wish to deliver we all should be talking the same language ^^

 

Can't understand all the hurt feelings over the undenyable progress this Sim is making with every update - even if one Improvement might lead to other parts of the game of the game being a step behind afterwards...

 

I agree that at least the effect a 30mm Minengeschoss has on aircraft is at the moment undermodeled in this game - and propably that of 37mm HE rounds as well...

 

The british Test of Gun and Ammo speaks for itself:

https://imgur.com/gallery/HkGqW

 

if you imagine that airframe under stress in the air it will most likely be ripped apart - a wing ripping of or the whole tailsection ripped of are realistic results from single hits of this magnitude...

 

The Mk108 had many weaknesses - poor MV and accuracy, tendancy to jam when fired during high G meneuvers - but the power of the single shell was never in question - not even by the allies.

 

I have three questions:

 

1st Does this Sim simulate, that the Minengeschoss has a much higher HE-Filler-to-jacket-ratio than usual Auto-Cannon HE rounds? *edited

 

2nd Does it simulate a delayed explosion? (the Mine did not explode on the aircraft skin but after piercing it)

 

3rd Are these two simulated for 20mm Minengeschosse?

 

Edited by Eisenfaustus
I stand corrected
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There,

Fist off all thanks for this update , have seen a slight improvement in perfomance .

Have just noticed that since the update I've lost the gunsight on the Fw 190 A8 . has anyone else had this problem?image.thumb.png.a7486376dd6f16527c21e1cb6d426fde.pngr

Edited by Jameswildwood

Share this post


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

I have three questions:

 

1st Does this Sim simulate, that the Minengeschoss is almost purely made of explosive elements and only a very thin jacket?

 

 

In reality the 30mm Minengeschoss had a weight of 330g, 75g of that was HE filler which leaves 255grams left of metal shards flying all over the place wherever it exploded.

 

See here for the original data:

 

 

MK 108 Mine.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Hi There,

Fist off all thanks for this update , have seen a slight improvement in perfomance .

Have just noticed that since the update I've lost the gunsight on the Fw 190 A8 . has anyone else had this problem?image.thumb.png.a7486376dd6f16527c21e1cb6d426fde.pngr

Move your head up until you see it again. Press f10 to set this position as your new standart position. fixed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Sarpalaxan,  I Have tried to move the pilots head using the numberpad but it just turns his head , how do i move the head  up and down keeping it facing forward?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jameswildwood said:

Thanks Sarpalaxan,  I Have tried to move the pilots head using the numberpad but it just turns his head , how do i move the head  up and down keeping it facing forward?

 

Page up/ page down,  insert/ home, delete/ home keys to move the head. F10 to save.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

In reality the 30mm Minengeschoss had a weight of 330g, 75g of that was HE filler which leaves 255grams left of metal shards flying all over the place wherever it exploded.

 

See here for the original data:

 

 

MK 108 Mine.jpg

 

Its not little, but not really much neither, especially as due to the shape of the round you can expect at least half of this weight to be in the fuze and the tail section of the round. With the thin walls no additional pressure build up is experienced and the fragments should fly at a lower or equal speed but with less momentum. 37mm M4 shell for example weights 610g with 48g filler.  So thats 560 gram of splinters likely flying with higher speed and more momentum. But contact fuze afaik, so not as effective as it could have been.

 

But it would be good to continue this discussion here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Its not little, but not really much neither, especially as due to the shape of the round you can expect at least half of this weight to be in the fuze and the tail section of the round. With the thin walls no additional pressure build up is experienced and the fragments should fly at a lower or equal speed but with less momentum. 37mm M4 shell for example weights 610g with 48g filler.  So thats 560 gram of splinters likely flying with higher speed and more momentum. But contact fuze afaik, so not as effective as it could have been.

 

But it would be good to continue this discussion here:

 

 

Are you sure about that? Not being an engineer I may have this wrong, but if you use the Gurney equations  [V/(SQRT(2E) = (M/C + 1/2)^-1/2]  to estimate the initial speed of the fragments you get the reverse result: with higher HE % content the fragments are faster not slower.  

     

Share this post


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

 

Are you sure about that? Not being an engineer I may have this wrong, but if you use the Gurney equations  [V/(SQRT(2E) = (M/C + 1/2)^-1/2]  to estimate the initial speed of the fragments you get the reverse result: with higher HE % content the fragments are faster not slower.  

     

 

That is true if the fragments were not acting as barrier confining the explosive energy until it got high enough to fragment the shell. A common example: If you put a fire cracker in your open hand and let it explode you will experience little to no harm, while when you close your fingers tightly around it they will come off and fly away with the same charge in the cracker. A thicker shellwall can confine more energy and the fragments are larger. Now in relation it might be that in the first moments the lighter fragments are equally fast or even faster, depending on the ration of explosives vs solid material and case strength, however due to lower weight their momentum will be much lower. Something as complex as this can only be (numerically) simulated with proper FEM simulations coupled with thermodynamic simulations. 

 

In essence, the sense of the Mineshell was to use the aircraft itself as the shell casing which would then rupture, and that makes a lot of sense .

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that was what the DM modeled - mineshells with more, smaller fragments that start faster but slow down faster too.  I seem to recall a dev post saying that, but my brain is turning to jelly....   I like your thought of using the aircraft's compartments as the shell casing, good way of putting it.

Share this post


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

I thought that was what the DM modeled - mineshells with more, smaller fragments that start faster but slow down faster too.  I seem to recall a dev post saying that, but my brain is turning to jelly....   I like your thought of using the aircraft's compartments as the shell casing, good way of putting it.

 

Afaik they increased the fragment speed to compensate for the missing effect on aircraft structure if an explosive charge is within the structure. Number of fragments should be lower however (more like sheets flying off - but that is just what I recall, I might be mistaken here).

 

Would be nice if we could find that post again somewhere.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


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

 

Page up/ page down,  insert/ home, delete/ home keys to move the head. F10 to save.

 Thanks guy's .Finally got it to work had messed all my keys up  and had to return to default , I must get a grip!!!!

Edited by Jameswildwood
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

In reality the 30mm Minengeschoss had a weight of 330g, 75g of that was HE filler which leaves 255grams left of metal shards flying all over the place wherever it exploded.

 

 

You are right - the HE Filler is only unprportionate large but not "most of the projectile". I changed my post accordingly. Thanks :)

 

8 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Afaik they increased the fragment speed to compensate for the missing effect on aircraft structure if an explosive charge is within the structure. Number of fragments should be lower however (more like sheets flying off - but that is just what I recall, I might be mistaken here).

 

Would be nice if we could find that post again somewhere.

 

That would be a poor compensation - the idea of mines from what I read was less to use the airframe as fragmentation source to hit some vital part and more to destroy the airframe itself by the shockwave.

 

A Blenheim IV fuselage after a single hit by a 30mm Mine

image.png.ed80f7f02341587c617034fac63dbbe7.png

Under stress in the air the tailsection would propably rip off...

 

The Wing of the Blenheim:

image.png.2e2605035fbfa2314a78888b0f7727b0.png

Even if the wing would not rip off under stress - I dare say the aircraft would be out of control...

 

Obviously even more destructive on a fighter sized target:

image.png.4aad0b5a390257db8c97fc042e69d58a.png

image.png.62131bff0d8aac448e874909caee9aa0.png

 

A Minengeschoss does have disadvantages though:

It won't penetrate any kind of armor and produces less Fragmentation on it's own

 

So it's a round specialized for light armored air targets and far less efficient for strafing or heavily armored air targets like B17 and Sturmoviks - both much harder targets than a Blenheim...

 

That's why the British decided against copying the design in 1940 and the Germans always mixed the round with other ammo types (for the Mk108 according to "Horrido! Des Jägers Schießfibel" 1 Mine and 1 Incendiary round)

image.png.a45f2f93e60c768e5debe963e55b8a8a.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

That would be a poor compensation - the idea of mines from what I read was less to use the airframe as fragmentation source to hit some vital part and more to destroy the airframe itself by the shockwave.

 

 

Precisely!

 

4 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

 

That's why the British decided against copying the design in 1940 and the Germans always mixed the round with other ammo types (for the Mk108 according to "Horrido! Des Jägers Schießfibel" 1 Mine and 1 Incendiary round)

image.png.a45f2f93e60c768e5debe963e55b8a8a.png

 

Thanks for that LDv snippet. Didn´t know that part. Funny sentence: "Die LDv liegt - Gottseidank- in irgendeinem Panzerschrank, bei irgendeinem fremden Mann, der sie bestimmt nicht brauchen kann." Funny how they used humour back then in their manuals, comparable to what I have seen in Tigerfibel and Pantherfibel also.

Share this post


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

That would be a poor compensation - the idea of mines from what I read was less to use the airframe as fragmentation source to hit some vital part and more to destroy the airframe itself by the shockwave.

 

 

I didn't say the idea was to use the airframe as fragmentation source but that itself would act like a shell exploding, or the firecracker in your hand if you so will.

 

I agree that the compensation is not appropriate, but having to deal with software simulations rather often I can see how this is one of the most challenging tasks. You really not to have a model that does support this kind of damage, especially if it differs so much when confined or unconfined. (How does the Sim know its at a point within a structure where the round cause maximum damage? - and that implemented in efficient functions and algorithms.) I hope they one day find a way or a nice approximation to model something like this but for now it seems higher splinter velocity seems to be the best they can do. Don't nail me on it, I'm not an expert on how exactly the DM works, after all they wouldn't really share something as important as that with the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

I didn't say the idea was to use the airframe as fragmentation source but that itself would act like a shell exploding, or the firecracker in your hand if you so will.

 

I agree that the compensation is not appropriate, but having to deal with software simulations rather often I can see how this is one of the most challenging tasks. You really not to have a model that does support this kind of damage, especially if it differs so much when confined or unconfined. (How does the Sim know its at a point within a structure where the round cause maximum damage? - and that implemented in efficient functions and algorithms.) I hope they one day find a way or a nice approximation to model something like this but for now it seems higher splinter velocity seems to be the best they can do. Don't nail me on it, I'm not an expert on how exactly the DM works, after all they wouldn't really share something as important as that with the public.

 

I imagine the current splinter model generates fliers with four properties per splinter:

 

1) Mass

2) Initial vector

3) Initial velocity (I am not convinced that the Gurney model does not have this right and that more HE should mean faster splinters)

4) Some other property that either slows the splinters or limits their range (this is the most complex bit if you were trying to get a true to life model), similar to a ballistic coefficient but maybe cruder.

 

What we want is the small fast splinters to do a lot of damage locally (as a substitute for a shock wave) but much less further from the detonation point. I suppose this is all bundled up into how point (4) is modeled, but even if it takes an arbitrary range limitation depending on splinter size that might possibly be an improvement. The main gripe of the critics (apart from those who just want one shot = one kill, every time), is that the splinters from 30mm mineshells are doing too much distant damage and not enough locally. 

 

I do not agree that the overall kill probability of 30mm is clearly wildly out, but this specific criticism has merit.

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...