German MK 108 footage - What did the effect on target look like and how much damage was done ?

[Panthera]

2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Probably because people want a meme cannon that kills everything in one hit. Fact is the Mk 108 in game is still plenty lethal it's just that players don't have the visual cues that they'd usually have.

 

Took me 1 shot to damage a P-47 severly and two more shots to take him out of the fight completely, I've also kill them with a single Mk 108 round. Players need to learn to aim, or at least aim for vital areas of the aircraft instead of the wing.

 

One hit to the cockpit and the pilot is dead, or one hit to the engine and it will die very soon. You can do a single pass on any aircraft and as long as you get good hits the plane will go down eventually a majority of the time.

 

Players are too accustomed to seeing instant kills when in reality instant kills were rare, sometimes the aircraft did not go down until much later.

 

It's best to make a good pass and move on to the next target.

 

That's just not it at all....

 

I really for the life of me just can't understand some people on here.

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

That's just not it at all....

 

I really for the life of me just can't understand some people on here.

Neither can I.

First players want less wing offs and now they want it back? Which is it?

 

This new DM is much better imo and it's still very easy to get kills in the K-4 or any other german aircraft. The Mk 108 is still the most powerful weapon in the game and can still get one hit kills.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Legioneod

[Panthera]

15 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The only conclusion I am making is that there is a difference between the average number of hits required to down a plane, taking into account all the shells that do not end up in the optimum position.

 

The tests weren't trying to have rounds land in anything close to optimum positions, they deliberately had the gun placed directly behind the aircraft to simulate a common 6'o'clock attack position, and then proceeded to shoot at different places on the wings of several Spitfires & Blenheims using the different types of Mk108 ammunition available. So most of the hits would've been at steep angles. Given a perfect flat target angle and the damage would've just been worse as demonstrated against the rear fuselage of both the Spitfire & blenheim (remember HE(M)'s with delayed duplex detonators would only travel 10cm after initial impact with the surface before exploding).

 

Even the non explosive incendiary "brandgranate" shells produced lethal damage with hits at glancing angles for the most part:

Entry:

Exit:

 

 

Report: "Probably lethal aerodynamically"

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[Ouky1991]

6 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Neither can I.

First players want less wing offs and now they want it back? Which is it?

 

This new DM is much better imo and it's still very easy to get kills in the K-4 or any other german aircraft. The Mk 108 is still the most powerful weapon in the game and can still get one hit kills.

 

One hit kills aren't the issue. they can still happen but look at the pics of what one he shell does to a wing and tell me that game simulates this correctly.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Ouky1991

[unreasonable]

12 minutes ago, Ouky1991 said:

 

One hit kills aren't the issue. they can still happen but look at the pics of what one he shell does to a wing and tell me that game simulates this correctly.

 

That is hard to say, because the game's graphical representation of structural damage is a bit ropey.  AFAIK, it does not matter what type of damage your wing, fuselage etc takes, whether it be a penetrating hit by MGs or a HE cannon shell, the structural damage is represented simply by the generic overlays as each level of damage is reached. 

 

So we never see chunks taken out of a wing, unless a whole component is destroyed and comes off.  If people expect BoX planes to look like the photos, they are going to be disappointed.  

[Panthera]

23 minutes ago, Ouky1991 said:

 

One hit kills aren't the issue. they can still happen but look at the pics of what one he shell does to a wing and tell me that game simulates this correctly.

 

I can't understand how some are overlooking this either. Perhaps they just want a challenge where there really shouldn't be one?

 

Personally I'm more concerned about realism myself seeing as this is supposed to be a simulator and not just a game like for example world of warplanes or war thunder, and in that case all the real life evidence is litterally screaming that you're just not surviving two wing hits by 30mm HE(M) in a fighter. Heck surving two hits anywhere was even assessed as being against the odds for a P-47 according to the US report, and that was without accounting for any cumulative effects.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[Legioneod]

31 minutes ago, Ouky1991 said:

 

One hit kills aren't the issue. they can still happen but look at the pics of what one he shell does to a wing and tell me that game simulates this correctly.

The game does not simulate graphical damage very well. What you see on the outside of the aircraft means nothing. Internal simulation is what really matters. You can hit a plane with the Mk 108 yet see very little outward damage but the actual damage is quite severe (frozen ailerons, broken control rods, etc)

 

Looking at the graphical DM wont tell you anything.

 

They can't model everything 100% accurately they can only get an approximation and imo they've done that with this new DM.

 

 

The visual DM needs lots of work but it's not what really matters when shooting at aircraft, what matters is the simulation underneath it all that you can't see.

9 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

I can't understand how some are overlooking this either. Perhaps they just want a challenge where there really shouldn't be one?

 

Personally I'm more concerned about realism myself seeing as this is supposed to be a simulator and not just a game like for example world of warplanes or war thunder, and in that case all the real life evidence is litterally screaming that you're just not surviving two wing hits by 30mm HE(M) in a fighter, not a chance. Heck surving two hits anywhere was even assessed as being against the odds for a P-47 according to the US report, and that was without accounting for any cumulative effects.

 

 

 

 

 

The highest I've ever survived iirc is 3 hits to the wing from a Mk 108, thats within the margin of error imo and is a decent (not perfect) representation.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Legioneod

[Panthera]

13 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The highest I've ever survived iirc is 3 hits to the wing from a Mk 108, thats within the margin of error imo and is a decent (not perfect) representation.

 

IMO it's far outside the margin of error, esp. considering the 6 further hits to other places on the same aircraft, 4 to the rear fuselage. In reality a P-47 hit that many times would've been in pieces.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[Rjel]

This is taken a 1974 issue of Wings/Airpower magazine. While the test wasn't with 30mm cannon, it is interesting to see how well the P-47 withstood a 20mm hit in the vulnerable turbo running at speed. However, the mention of the 20mm AP round going through the armor plate is a little disconcerting.

[Legioneod]

21 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

IMO it's far outside the margin of error, esp. considering the 6 further hits to other places on the same aircraft, 4 to the rear fuselage. In reality a P-47 hit that many times would've been in pieces.

You're focusing too much on the graphical side of things which does not represent damage accurately, I can guarantee that internally the P-47 was dead/out of the fight before all those rounds hit

[HR_Zunzun]

19 minutes ago, Rjel said:

This is taken a 1974 issue of Wings/Airpower magazine. While the test wasn't with 30mm cannon, it is interesting to see how well the P-47 withstood a 20mm hit in the vulnerable turbo running at speed. However, the mention of the 20mm AP round going through the armor plate is a little disconcerting.

I think its not contradictory. If the shell miss the turbine and reach the seat armour plate, the effects will be as described, especially with a AP round.

By the way, thanks a lot for the picture.

[Voidhunger]

I really like the new damage model, except the MK108 cannon effectiveness.

I know that you can damage P47 with one 30mm and she will go down after some time or kill the pilot, but if the average of rounds to shot down sturdy 4engined bomber was 3-4 hits (probably into wing area) its nor right that P74 can fly with 6 or more 30mm hits. And the P47 can withstand this punishment quite often.

Many times in QMB I said to myself, f..k what the hell, go DOWN please !

 

 

 

...also the advantage of the Thunderbolts high resistance to damage vanished when fighting the Bf109K, as the MK108 cannon took no respect of airframe robustness...

 

 

also there are reports from pilots to shot off wings(Pe-2) with just one MK108 hit and that is no possible now in the game

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Voidhunger

[Ouky1991]

30 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The game does not simulate graphical damage very well. What you see on the outside of the aircraft means nothing. Internal simulation is what really matters. You can hit a plane with the Mk 108 yet see very little outward damage but the actual damage is quite severe (frozen ailerons, broken control rods, etc)

 

Looking at the graphical DM wont tell you anything.

 

They can't model everything 100% accurately they can only get an approximation and imo they've done that with this new DM.

 

 

The visual DM needs lots of work but it's not what really matters when shooting at aircraft, what matters is the simulation underneath it all that you can't see.

 

The highest I've ever survived iirc is 3 hits to the wing from a Mk 108, thats within the margin of error imo and is a decent (not perfect) representation.

I'm not talking about visual damage. I expext to take the wing off if I hit it 1-2 times with cannon. I used cannon only on p-47 and I've hit middle of its left wing with 4 bursts and it was still flying. HE damage was modeled corectly before 3.008, now it's just wrong.

[HR_Zunzun]

15 minutes ago, Ouky1991 said:

I'm not talking about visual damage. I expext to take the wing off if I hit it 1-2 times with cannon. I used cannon only on p-47 and I've hit middle of its left wing with 4 bursts and it was still flying. HE damage was modeled corectly before 3.008, now it's just wrong.

Well, maybe taking off the wing with 1-2 wings is expecting too much. When in the tests they talk about lethality they don't implicitly make clear they are talking about wings snapping off. Do they? When the Luftwaffe said about 3-4 hits on avg to down a B-17, did they say about instant kill? They could have included as well all the cases that just simply went down slowly ending up land crashing.

I do think that statistically, the wing of a P-47 could sustain one 30mm (probably not all the time), 2 with good luck and 3 extremely rare (for not saying 100%). All depending where and how it was hit. And I am not talking about snapping the wing off necessarily,  but for the plane being aerodynamically unable to sustain flight for more than 5 minutes.

Due to the fast pace nature of the online game, instant kill is what people expect. Probably because we all want confirmation of our achievement and most likely because we all hate that our kill is stolen later on by someone else seeing a crippled plane (that was doomed anyway).

I think that although this version is not correct (will it ever happen this?), it is by far more plausible than the previous one.

Edited December 8, 2018 by HR_Zunzun

[Panthera]

7 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

You're focusing too much on the graphical side of things which does not represent damage accurately, I can guarantee that internally the P-47 was dead/out of the fight before all those rounds hit

 

No the visual damage doesn't matter to me, the fact that the wing stays attached after 2 let alone 3 hits is what matters. That the rear fuselage can take 4 straight on hits and still stay attached is even more ludicrous.

 

 

2 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Well, maybe taking off the wing with 1-2 wings is expecting too much. When in the tests they talk about lethality they don't implicitly make clear they are talking about wings snapping off. Do they? 

 

"lethal structurally & aerodynamically" kind of implies that.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

The game does not simulate graphical damage very well. What you see on the outside of the aircraft means nothing. Internal simulation is what really matters. You can hit a plane with the Mk 108 yet see very little outward damage but the actual damage is quite severe (frozen ailerons, broken control rods, etc)

 

Looking at the graphical DM wont tell you anything.

 

They can't model everything 100% accurately they can only get an approximation and imo they've done that with this new DM.

 

 

The visual DM needs lots of work but it's not what really matters when shooting at aircraft, what matters is the simulation underneath it all that you can't see.

 

The highest I've ever survived iirc is 3 hits to the wing from a Mk 108, thats within the margin of error imo and is a decent (not perfect) representation.

 

Thats why when wings were falling of untill 3.008 this was not problem, now when they decided that all airplanes should keep their wings, hits by big calibar guns dont show visualy what they do, and thats problem for all big guns in game impacting all airplanes.

 

Looking at outside damage will tell nothing on if airplane hit can servive or not after 1 hit, yesterday on berloga i played with 47 and only 1 time out of 20 i was serviving being hit by multiple shells from multiple enemys, other times usealy first hit would cripel me badly, but outside damage decals do bad job at showing this on all airplanes, and when wings were faling before 3.008 no one notied that mutch, but now they wil have to do something about it or it will look strange as it loks now, and you cant relay on what you see as damage graphics to be real damage you did to enemy airplanes in game. im no suprised that people complian about it so mutch im just suprised that only 108 is talked about as problematic in 3.008 ...

 

i guess this is 20mm shoting at pe-2, just look how damage decal is generated by number of hits,,

how can anyone expect to see thouse type of damages in pictures be represented in the game, when damage shown on outside of airplane is generated randomly on amount of hitpoints it loses or something like that, thts why when big callibar hit you would lose a wing and all were happy ( but problem was then wings were faling of on small calibar to easy ), now when wings are not falling of something els needs to be done to represent big calibar impacts.

Edited December 8, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[HR_Zunzun]

17 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

No the visual damage doesn't matter to me, the fact that the wing stays attached after 2 let alone 3 hits is what matters. That the rear fuselage can take 4 straight on hits and still stay attached is even more ludicrous.

 

 

 

"lethal structurally & aerodynamically" kind of implies that.

 

Are you sure that"lethal structurally & aerodynamically" equals to wing coming off? Because it could also means that the combination is lethal for the airplane (will go down) not that the wing will come off every time. It is nonetheless one of the effects expected (depending on how and where is hit).

Obviously I will expect the wing to come off after 4 hits in the same wing. It seems the logic effect. But if we talk about the DM in the game and if 2 hits are still "lethal"although not in a spectacularly way, then 4 hits not snapping the wing off is an annoying anomaly that will require tuning but doesn't invalidate the DM or makes it worse than the previous DM version.

[Legioneod]

17 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

 

 

"lethal structurally & aerodynamically" kind of implies that.

 

Not necessarily, for instance it could be a loss of lift due to structural damage and not the actual wing falling off. That would still be considered a kill due to structural failure.

 

10 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

Thats why when wings were falling of untill 3.008 this was not problem, now when they decided that all airplanes should keep their wings, hits by big calibar guns dont show visualy what they do, and thats problem for all big guns in game impacting all airplanes.

 

Looking at outside damage will tell nothing on if airplane hit can servive or not after 1 hit, yesterday on berloga i played with 47 and only 1 time out of 20 i was serviving being hit by multiple shells from multiple enemys, other times usealy first hit would cripel me badly, but outside damage decals do bad job at showing this on all airplanes, and when wings were faling before 3.008 no one notied that mutch, but now they wil have to do something about it or it will look strange as it loks now, and you cant relay on what you see as damage graphics to be real damage you did to enemy airplanes in game. im no suprised that people complian about it so mutch im just suprised that only 108 is talked about as problematic in 3.008 ...

 

Exactly, the Mk 108 is still very very dangerous yet people don't realize this because of the visual damage not representing actual damage done (which is nearly impossible to model anyways)

 

 

I've runs some test and I'll post the results here once I'm finished analyzing them, but from what I see the Mk 108 is still a 1-2 hit wonder weapons majority of the time.

 

If anyone wants to help me run test online just PM me and let me know, we can hop on TS and work out some test to see actual damage done per hit and averages of hits needed to get critical damage.

[Ouky1991]

21 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

No the visual damage doesn't matter to me, the fact that the wing stays attached after 2 let alone 3 hits is what matters. That the rear fuselage can take 4 straight on hits and still stay attached is even more ludicrous.

 

 

 

"lethal structurally & aerodynamically" kind of implies that.

 

This thread feels like playing chess with pigeon.

[Panthera]

 

I've said my piece, no point in further participation on my part.

[Mac_Messer]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

 

Probably because people want a meme cannon that kills everything in one hit. Fact is the Mk 108 in game is still plenty lethal it's just that players don't have the visual cues that they'd usually have.

 

Took me 1 shot to damage a P-47 severly and two more shots to take him out of the fight completely, I've also kill them with a single Mk 108 round. Players need to learn to aim, or at least aim for vital areas of the aircraft instead of the wing.

 

One hit to the cockpit and the pilot is dead, or one hit to the engine and it will die very soon. You can do a single pass on any aircraft and as long as you get good hits the plane will go down eventually a majority of the time.

 

Players are too accustomed to seeing instant kills when in reality instant kills weren't always the case, sometimes the aircraft did not go down until much later.

 

It's best to make a good pass and move on to the next target.

What you`re saying should be said only about MG151/20, not MK108. MK108 is a bomber killing gun, plain and simple. A 30mm HE shot to anything less than a twin engined bomber should be catastrophic most of the time, with 2-3 hits being on the rare side.  30mm is not about "taking out of the fight" but taking out of the air completely, meaning instant structural failure. The whole point was historically not aiming much, just putting 1-2 shells and be done with it regardless where you hit. The photo evidence posted everywhere on the forum portrays 30mm HE damaged airframes  that are several times more thicker and wider than in fighter sized planes.

 

As of now pretty much any fighter sized aircraft takes 2-3 MK108 rounds with no structural failure, with P47 taking 3-8 hits which is hilarious.

[Panthera]

8 minutes ago, Ouky1991 said:

 

This thread feels like playing chess with pigeon.

 

Sadly I have to agree. I don't know where some peoples sense of logic went.

 

Anyway I'll leave it be now and just hope the developers can tell for themselves what would be right.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Panthera

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Mac_Messer said:

What you`re saying should be said only about MG151/20, not MK108. MK108 is a bomber killing gun, plain and simple. A 30mm HE shot to anything less than a twin engined bomber should be catastrophic most of the time, with 2-3 hits being on the rare side.  30mm is not about "taking out of the fight" but taking out of the air completely, meaning instant structural failure. The whole point was historically not aiming much, just putting 1-2 shells and be done with it regardless where you hit. The photo evidence posted everywhere on the forum portrays 30mm HE damaged airframes  that are several times more thicker and wider than in fighter sized planes.

 

As of now pretty much any fighter sized aircraft takes 2-3 MK108 rounds with no structural failure, with P47 taking 3-8 hits which is hilarious.

I'll post my test results later, I'm compiling the data now but from what it shows so far on tacview and in the recordings it take on average 2 hits to take down a P-47.

[CrazyDuck]

So, I did some semi-scientific approach testing. I've fired up QMB, saddled up my 109 K4, picked 10 waves of P-47s (40% fuel, standard weapons) as target.

 

Then I dogfighted them, using MK 108 only, fired single shells only, and stopped firing after scoring 1 hit. I've tried to shoot from closest distance possible, hitting plane into the fuselage or wingroots. After single hit was scored, I disengaged and observed the plane for 3 minutes. Here are the results:

 

 

Fuel leak and visual damage are the most often result of a 108 hit. On one instance plane immediately started burning, on another one PK was scored.

Structural damage is the case, when I managed to hit the very tail of the aircraft - this didn't cause any leaks, but it did tear away rudder and one of the horizontal stabilizers (therefore the "Yes" assessment of structural failure).

 

Bottom line: In this quick and dirty test, 8 out of 10 P-47s were shot down with a single MK 108 shell hit, but only 2 out of 10 (nos. 4 and 10) exhibited obvious fatal damage after receiving a hit.

[HR_Zunzun]

First of all, thank you for doing the test.

For what I see, the caveat of your test is that you rely in the pilot bailing out to count as a destroyed plane. In online game that is not always the case.

Repeating your test but with an online pilot on the controls in the 47 and trying to land the p-47 after it would be much better.

[Mac_Messer]

56 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

I really like the new damage model, except the MK108 cannon effectiveness.

I know that you can damage P47 with one 30mm and she will go down after some time or kill the pilot, but if the average of rounds to shot down sturdy 4engined bomber was 3-4 hits (probably into wing area) its nor right that P74 can fly with 6 or more 30mm hits. And the P47 can withstand this punishment quite often.

Many times in QMB I said to myself, f..k what the hell, go DOWN please !

 

 

 

I think it is something wrong with big projectiles when compared to 12mm/20mm. Machinegun fire when concentrated on one spot is crippling and 2-3 20mm shells is heavy damage and still retaining plane ability to stay in the air but not fight. 30/37 mm now requires the player to concentrate hits because scoring 1-2 hits causes light skin damage. With current DM it doesn`t make sense to use gun bigger than 23mm.

 

Especially visible on planes such as FW190/P47.

[Legioneod]

3 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

First of all, thank you for doing the test.

For what I see, the caveat of your test is that you rely in the pilot bailing out to count as a destroyed plane. In online game that is not always the case.

Repeating your test but with an online pilot on the controls in the 47 and trying to land the p-47 after it would be much better.

I'm willing to do some test. If you or anyone else wants to help.

[HR_Zunzun]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

I'm willing to do some test. If you or anyone else wants to help.

 

I will. Please PM to see when could be done.

[Mac_Messer]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

That is hard to say, because the game's graphical representation of structural damage is a bit ropey.  AFAIK, it does not matter what type of damage your wing, fuselage etc takes, whether it be a penetrating hit by MGs or a HE cannon shell, the structural damage is represented simply by the generic overlays as each level of damage is reached. 

 

So we never see chunks taken out of a wing, unless a whole component is destroyed and comes off.  If people expect BoX planes to look like the photos, they are going to be disappointed.  

Fair point, yet take a look at what happens when you hit a wing or stabiliser or fuselage with 30mm/37mm. Externally it makes a moderately sized hole in aiframe which is unrealistic but looks fairly ok.

However, the hits placed next to ailerons/elevators/stabilizers don`t blast off the moving surfaces and they still work most of the time. It is only with direct aileron/elevator/stabilizer hits the sirfaces are blasted off.

 

The fuselage reacts the same with hits closer to the canopy shatter the canopy some times. But to kill or wound the pilot the 30/37mm hit needs to be placed directly in the cockpit.

[Rjel]

14 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I'm willing to do some test. If you or anyone else wants to help.

It sounds like an interesting test but to make it remotely accurate wouldn't you need to repeat the test dozens of times from numerous angles of attack and various distance to targets to get a true idea if or how much the 30mm has changed? Doing it from close range would seem to skew the result.              

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Rjel said:

It sounds like an interesting test but to make it remotely accurate wouldn't you need to repeat the test dozens of times from numerous angles of attack and various distance to targets to get a true idea if or how much the 30mm has changed? Doing it from close range would seem to skew the result.              

Sure but we can only do so much. We'll never get 100% accurate results but we can get an idea of how lethal it is.

[sevenless]

6 hours ago, Panthera said:

The film clips used for propaganda purposes we can't be sure about, for instance it seems the clip of the attack on B-17 at 7:17 in the first post was also present in another set of clips, this time attributed to a Fw190A7:

https://youtu.be/vfYMtSiFuIc?t=72

 

Maybe you want to look again? It is both times Film Nr. 9940 Me 110 G2 on Boeing? Or did I miss something? In general you are correct though,  we can´t be sure that Luftwaffe back then fudged footage due to whatever reason.

Edited December 9, 2018 by sevenless

[Panthera]

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Maybe you want to look again? It is both times Film Nr. 9940 Me 110 G2 on Boeing? Or did I miss something?

 

Rewatched it and it does actually say Bf-110G2, must have missed that and thought it was the A7 from earlier. Infact the entire film seems identical to the first you posted. That said there still appears to be no hits with Mk108s in that clip (would've been obvious), only very obvious 20mm hits (identical to all the other clips with 20mm only armament), so most likely just footage from a regular G2 with 4x MG151/20's + 4x MG15's and not footage from the later Mk108 armed G2/U9 variant. 

 

Quote

In general you are correct though,  we can´t be sure that Luftwaffe back then fudged footage due to whatever reason.

 

It's not the LW who would've fudged any footage, if it was done (example above turned out not to be a re run anyway) it would've been the theaters who were given the strips of film from which they would then likely reuse the footage they were given in different shows. The theaters no doubt weren't given that much footage as most of it would've been used by the LW for analysis and verification purposes. Otherwise we would've had a lot more footage to go by.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

Anyway..

 

Rattlesnake (CMBailey) and I just met each other on the airquake server and decided to run some simple tests, and the results are quite interesting.

 

Mk108 vs P-47D

Setup: Rattlesnake would fly straight in a P-47 and allow me to take pot shots at his wings from his direct 6'o'clock.

 

Results: In every case very little blast damage was inflicted with hits to the wings, i.e. it will definitely take more than 2 hits to sever the wing, and likely often more than 3 too. HOWEVER here comes the interesting bit: Shrapnel damage(!) This is pretty intense, more than it should be. We tried several times, and whilst 2-3 hits on the wings did not break the wings, instead shrapnel from these hits would seriously damage and kill the engine almost every time, even hits near the tips seemed to spray shrapnel into the engine. Oddly enough none of the hits hurt the pilot, not even hits at the wing root would hurt the pilot, instead it would be the engine every time.

 

MK108 vs Spitfire

Setup: Same as before

 

Results: 1 hit seemed to have little effect on the wings for some strange reason, infact Rattlesnake reported no effect to his airplane after the first hit to his wings. Second hit resulted in the wing snapping off. After this we decided to try again but stop after the first hit and then allow Rattlesnake to test out how much it would subsequently take to break it. Once again the hit to the wing seemed to cause no damage to anything, and following this Rattlesnake was even able to perform tight 4+ G maneuvers without the wing coming off, reporting along the way that he experienced no issues with control. It took a high speed dive and aggressive high G pull up to finally snap his wing.

 

 

So in conclusion the MK108 seemed to do way too little local blast damage whilst at the same time the shrapnel damage, atleast to the engine, was unrealistically severe. A R2800 should not sieze to function due to shrapnel from a 30mm round that strikes the wings. Turbocharger damage? Sure if the hit is at the root, but not engine damage. 

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by Panthera

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, Rjel said:

It sounds like an interesting test but to make it remotely accurate wouldn't you need to repeat the test dozens of times from numerous angles of attack and various distance to targets to get a true idea if or how much the 30mm has changed? Doing it from close range would seem to skew the result.              

 

The range issue should not matter too much for the 3cm shell, since the majority of it's effect is blast created by chemical energy in the shell, rather than kinetic energy that will drop off with range.  

 

The angle is more of a problem: especially as we are told effects vary with angle in 3.008  but we do not know exactly how. But even though it is not fully random, I do think CrazyDuck's test makes a very powerful point. Make good hits on P-47 at the angles common in a fighter vs fighter engagement and the 3cm shell is doing what the US OR report would categorize as A type kills, much more often than the report's estimate of about ~29%

 

That does not surprise me: the game's 37mm flak 36 also has a higher lethality than the report's estimates of ~30% for an A kill for a single hit.

 

The issue seems to be that people are expecting a high probability of instant total destruction or loss of control from a single hit while not taking into account the limitations of graphical representation and the fact that a fair proportion of random hits would not and could not do the sort of damage presented here as "typical".  

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by unreasonable

[SCG_motoadve]

This must be very frustrating for the developers, they are doing an amazing job, did a great upgrade to the DM, we get it quick, for free and un expected.

Now people want back the one shot one kill arcade kind of simulation.

Want to see wing or tail fall off so they are certain they got a kill (And that still happens , just not nearly as often, which is better)

 

I do think the majority are very happy with new DM, way more realistic, but still some people get annoyed because they cannot get an easy kill anymore.

Maybe a tweak to the 30mm if anything? I am really not sure if it is needed or not, hard to tell(If they keep it the way it is , I would dont mind it at all).

 

Would hate the DM to go back to what it was.

 

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

This must be very frustrating for the developers, they are doing an amazing job, did a great upgrade to the DM, we get it quick, for free and un expected.

Now people want back the one shot one kill arcade kind of simulation.

Want to see wing or tail fall off so they are certain they got a kill (And that still happens , just not nearly as often, which is better)

 

I do think the majority are very happy with new DM, way more realistic, but still some people get annoyed because they cannot get an easy kill anymore.

Maybe a tweak to the 30mm if anything? I am really not sure if it is needed or not, hard to tell(If they keep it the way it is , I would dont mind it at all).

 

Would hate the DM to go back to what it was.

 

 

Agreed, the DM overall feels much better. Now they just need to work on the engine DM a bit to make the sim even better.

[Gambit21]

9 hours ago, Ouky1991 said:

 

This thread feels like playing chess with pigeon.

 

You're the one who referenced visual damage/photos in relation to the game engine damage model above.

 

[Voidhunger]

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

Agreed, the DM overall feels much better. Now they just need to work on the engine DM a bit to make the sim even better.

Like I said before,  I really like the new damage model and I know the limitation of the graphic representation of the dmg model.  They are doing great job. But if you are unable to shot off wing in a P47 with 3 MK108 hits and even more rudder or elevator, for me its strange. Anyway I agree thst  MK108 is still lethal to the pilot or the engine with just single round if you place it right.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Voidhunger said:

Like I said before,  I really like the new damage model and I know the limitation of the graphic representation of the dmg model.  They are doing great job. But if you are unable to shot off wing in a P47 with 3 MK108 hits and even more rudder or elevator, for me its strange. Anyway I agree thst  MK108 is still lethal to the pilot or the engine with just single round if you place it right.

I've taken off rudders and control surfaces with single Mk 108 hits. Wings are tougher now which is good imo and I've been able to take them off with a few hits though I don't think there is ever a need to fire that many rounds into the P-47, it's basically dead after the first few hits.

[Voidhunger]

Just now, Legioneod said:

I've taken off rudders and control surfaces with single Mk 108 hits. Wings are tougher now which is good imo and I've been able to take them off with a few hits though I don't think there is ever a need to fire that many rounds into the P-47, it's basically dead after the first few hits.

Hmm after many qmb fights i was unable to shot off rudder or elevator.