Jump to content
JaffaCake

Developer asking feedback on damage model on russian forum

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

Just to get this clear, I'd like to see better HE damage model for normal as well as mineshells but I'd like to keep what we have until something more accurate can be introduced. Also nice for the bomber guys who always had to take the beating :cool:

 

That Mineshells aren't modelled at all is actually one of the biggest oversights of the DM currently considering that nearly half of the ww2 planes available use them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

If this new DM would have come together with the plane being shot at , starting to loose performance while pieces were shot and holes were made, there will have been a lot less complaints.

Plane looses performance like in real life would have been, then he cannot fight you back, just try to survive, which makes it easier to finish him off.

Great job developers, and even as it is now the votes are almost 70% in favor which means most people are happy with the change.

 

that's my sentiment as well, agreed. In Berloga I find it very amusing when La5 can still be the fastest on deck and easily run away after receiving 4-5 20mm shells with splash damage all over its airframe and holes in both wings, but hey.. the engine is still strooooong!.. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one observation from my real life experience:

 

When we fly our gliders we experience quite a bit of decrease in performance of the airfoil after accumulating hundreds of small flies on the leading edges (airfield is surrounded by creeks) throughout the day.

 

I'd simply expect the amount of lift and drag from airfoil damage to be de/increased when hit to what we have now (esp. from HE), which in itself would yield a much greater result on flying ability.

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 69TD_Joeasyrida said:

I've been lit on fire recently much more frequently than ever before.  It was maybe a once or twice a month occurance, I've burned 5-6 times since the new patch now.

 

You might find that is due to the fact your wing isn't falling off first and the plane behind is having to hit you considerably more times increasing the chance of igniting fuel tanks.

 

I like the fact that wings aren't popping off, but I don't feel that the damage to the planes aerodynamics and internal systems is enough to render the plane/pilot combat ineffective after taking what should be a crippling number of hits.

Edited by =EXPEND=Tripwire
Double post
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purely from a personal view point, the new damage model is extremely good However, as far as the MK 108 is concerned, I feel that prior to the latest update it was a bomber killer it should be. I genuinely hope that the damage for the larger calibre rounds will be revisited at  a later date.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Just one observation from my real life experience:

 

When we fly our gliders we experience quite a bit of decrease in performance of the airfoil after accumulating hundreds of small flies on the leading edges (airfield is surrounded by creeks) throughout the day.

 

I'd simply expect the amount of lift and drag from airfoil damage to be de/increased when hit to what we have now (esp. from HE), which in itself would yield a much greater result on flying ability.

And what about icing in real piston powered planes without de icing? wing airfoil is changed, less effective  just when it starts to form and in enough quantity will bring the plane down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted the same poll here.
Sorry guys, my Russian is numerous better than English, and it's a bit hard for me to keep the communication here at the same level. :blush:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 10
  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =11=Herne said:

 

those kind of statistics would have been the exception, not the rule. Otherwise Germany would have won the war through total air superiority. 

 

Not likely to happen, of course, but not really exception neither. Of course 4 kills or more the sortie was a marginal efficiency in the proportions of the whole air war, but among thousands and thousands AC kills it was still represented. I've read many many stories of a pilot becoming an ace in one day in dedicated litterature. So his point imho keeps valid : it was possible in reality (even 9-10 kills), for all nations and not only Germans, and I doubt you could do that in 3.008. And yes, I speak about quite confirmed kills, not claims.

 

38 minutes ago, 69TD_Joeasyrida said:

I've been lit on fire recently much more frequently than ever before.  It was maybe a once or twice a month occurance, I've burned 5-6 times since the new patch now.

 

Yes I also noted that happening to me or ennemy AC more often. I guess that's a good thing.

 

As said above by several people, I think 3.008 DM is better now overall but it seems obvious it (or weapons efficiency or both) needs tweaks on certain aspects in order to make it even closer to reality, though it's a tad early to make a "definitive" opinion.

Edited by Solmyr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 The DM has gone from glassplanes to flying tanks almost. 

Truely do not agree with this, having now spend hours on Berloga and other multiplayer servers.
I invite you to do some 1v1's with me on Berloga, and see if your view of "tank" planes still stands. :)

Edited by EAF_Sunde
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Truely do not agree with this, having now spend hours on Berloga and other multiplayer servers.
I invite you to do some 1v1's with me on Berloga, and see if your view of "tank" planes still stands. :)

 

Because winning/losing a 1v1 has always been the best way to validate DM claims...ever!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

Wing brokens against fighters where not such rare expecially when target was hit in the deep turn.  Also guncams show that short action was quite enough to be deadly for target. 

First, wing failure was predominant cause of aircraft loss in previous patch. Its was not rare or not such rare. It was very common cause of airframe loss. Second, guncams show various things and you cannot draw anything conclusive nor consistent from them. 

 

But you can base that on studies. I'm sure U.S. Army studied their losses in Europe, though I only have data about fires in the Pacific. U.S.A.A.F. study conducted late in the Pacific War indicated that fire was involved in 59 % of the American aircraft lost. 

U.S. Navy study of 501 single engine aircraft damaged in air to air combat from September 1944 to August 1945 indicated that the most common form of  damage was to the aircraft's structure, but nearly 90 % of the aircraft suffering such damage returned to base. In constrast of 57 aircraft suffering damage to their oil or fuel systems, only 18 % surived. Strikes in the cockpit hitting pilot or controls resulted in only about 25 % of the aircraft surviving and this was the second most common form of damage. Damage to engine and hydraulic systems resulted in losses of about 60 % of the time but was less common.

In general this study indicated that about 38 % of all aircraft receiving damge were lost. About 30 % of the aircraft damaged, received damage to the most vulnerable areas (fuel, oil, pilot and controls) and accounted fro 63 % of the losses.

Source: Dunn, Exploding Fuel Tanks - Saga of Technology That Changed the Course of the Pacific Air War, Richard L. Dunn, 2011

Price, Fighter Aircraft, Sterling Publishing, New York, 1990

 

In this regard new damage model is closer to the reality. Structural failure resulting in aircraft loss was rare if compared to loss generated by rupturing of fuel tanks and lines, oil system, pilot kill or breaking of control rods. And fires of course. 

We may dispute whether one or two 30 mm mineshells should deliver deadly blow but that is something that needs a look in specific. Previous damage model was consistent in that wing failure occured in all too many instances ... which was unrealistic in general. 

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Well, Custard and I tested the big Cannons on Berloga, firing directly into the fuselage from dead six at close distance, 23mm and upwards against a variety of Aircraft, and the Mk108 for example needs 5 to 8 Fuselage Hits to kill a P-47, and even a LaGG-3 takes more than 4 30mm Hits.

The same is true for the Russian 37mm Hits, which are only slightly more effective than the 108, requiring between 3 and 7 Hits to bring down Bf109s and P-47s.

 

We also recreated the Spit Wing and Fuselage Hits but the Spitfire ate the 30mm for Breakfast, half of the Rounds not doing any damage at all.

 

Armor Piercing was more effective than HE still, even when hitting at an angle. 

 

Overall I am not terribly impressed. 

We had Spits ignore 30mm in our tests as well.

Edited by Rattlesnake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Because winning/losing a 1v1 has always been the best way to validate DM claims...ever!

 

Fly for 90 minutes on berloga for both sides and you will see that damage can still sometimes be very catastrophic sooner than you think

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, =11=Herne said:

 

Fly for 90 minutes on berloga for both sides and you will see that damage can still sometimes be very catastrophic sooner than you think

 

 

on Berloga with 15+ players around you must absolutely make sure the opponent is dead, otherwise you turn around for 10 seconds and you're dead because he happened to do a quick loop with his last breath and nail you.. 😅   and this is when you start doubting the realism of the survivability of the opponent aircraft.. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes I also noted that happening to me or ennemy AC more often. I guess that's a good thing.

 

As said above by several people, I think 3.008 DM is better now overall but it seems obvious it (or weapons efficiency or both) needs tweaks on certain aspects in order to make it even closer to reality, though it's a tad early to make a "definitive" opinion.

I've been flying russian birds this month and it's mostly been from ju87 or bf110 defensive fire and aa.  I dont think anything is wrong yet.

35 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

You might find that is due to the fact your wing isn't falling off first and the plane behind is having to hit you considerably more times increasing the chance of igniting fuel tanks.

I dont recall dying from wing offs very often, mostly hitting trees, tail surface removal, or pilot death.  However many of my kills are from wing removal. 

 

Atleast 3 of fires I've so far suffered (mostly in p40/il2) have been the in the 1st burst recieved.  Too early to claim problems yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 69TD_Joeasyrida said:

I've been lit on fire recently much more frequently than ever before.  It was maybe a once or twice a month occurance, I've burned 5-6 times since the new patch now.

 

Observed this too - zippo time has augmented!

 

2 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Hans Joachim Marseille managed to kill enemy fighters (Spit and P40, we have both in game) with very short bursts of 7mm, in one approach. Now test this in game, is it possible? There were situations (quite a lot) were pilots managed to shoot down 6 or 7 or 8 aircraft in one sortie - confirmed, not claimed (that would have been quite a bit more). Before 3.008 this was surely possible..but try this now, even against rookie AI it will be quite the challenge. 

 

Again, it's difficult to compare things like this and as for Hans Joachim Marseille, his was very well known for his incredible marksmanship and spotting abilities. He very often, if

not most of the time, killed the pilot with the first burst - that's why he was war-weary in a short time and felt depressed*. He looked much older as he actually was at the end.

 

* which actually was very embarrassing for the propaganda as they made him a national hero and abused him for their needs.

Edited by -IRRE-Therion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, =11=Herne said:

 

Fly for 90 minutes on berloga for both sides and you will see that damage can still sometimes be very catastrophic sooner than you think

 

 

I flew Berloga for 2 hours today and catatrophic failures were very very rare.

 

I flew both sides with 20mm cannon ( Bf 109 or Yaks).   There very many situations where i hit enemy many times with 20mm and was still flying, the same i got also many times a lot of hits and was still flying.  

 

I generally think that cannos are now too weak. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

I flew Berloga for 2 hours today and catatrophic failures were very very rare.

 

I flew both sides with 20mm cannon ( Bf 109 or Yaks).   There very many situations where i hit enemy many times with 20mm and was still flying, the same i got also many times a lot of hits and was still flying.  

 

I generally think that cannos are now too weak. 

 

In 90 minutes I experienced 3 lost wings before I knew what hit me, but to be fair I will have had many flights in that 90 minutes so the percentage was small, my point is, they still happen, and even when it's not a one shot kill, I'm pretty much taken out of the fight

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Because winning/losing a 1v1 has always been the best way to validate DM claims...ever!

Uhm Hi.
Do you play the game? Just so happens that the best way to test a damage model, especially very broad claims like "planes feel like tanks" is by playing the game.

Dueling 1v1 would show anyone that are under the impression that "planes soak up countless 30mm hits" that it simply isn't the case in 90% of the cases. 
Or how would you prefer that such claims were put to test? By discussing them on the forum?

5 minutes ago, =11=Herne said:

 

and even when it's not a one shot kill, I'm pretty much taken out of the fight

 

Exactly, sure you might not instantly disintegrate after the first salvo, but people make it sound like you can take a good solid 30mm paddeling and just fight on like nothing happend. I invite anyone to do some duels and see if we can replicate this consistently. Seems that the "planes are tanks" sayers have little interest in this. :d

Edited by EAF_Sunde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, -IRRE-Therion said:

He looked much older as he actually was at the end.

 

* which actually was very embarrassing for the propaganda as they made him a national hero and abused him for their needs.

 

Many people forget this. Marseille was 22 when he was killed by the accident. Hartmann was 23 when he went into captivity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Which option is “no” on the new damage model?

The top one is "Before the 3.008 patch is better" the bottom one is "The 3.008 patch is better"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, EAF_Sunde said:

Uhm Hi.
Do you play the game? Just so happens that 

Exactly, sure you might not instantly disintegrate after the first salvo, but people make it sound like you can take a good solid 30mm paddeling and just fight on like nothing happend. 

Panthera and I did a small number of tests and I posted the results to YouTube. A Spitfire can unequivocally take a 30mm round to the wing and suffer virtually no handicap in dogfighting whatsoever. If you compare to the actual pictures of 30mm versus Spitfire airframe tests this is definitely no good from that standpoint of realism.

 

And from the standpoint of gameplay a mean little maneuver monster being able to ignore a hit from such a huge and awkward to use cannon is REALLY no bueno.

 

Always remember that these guns were refined over the course of WWII to be more than sufficient to their target. When there was a problem they went to bigger guns ASAP, such as the Brits switching from 8.303s to cannon. Furthermore, we as virpils have hundreds or thousands of times the flying and especially shooting experience than any real pilot ever got, and we are operating under no stress. Thus the idea that it should be a “challenge” in-game to shoot down fighter-sized targets caught squarely in the sights for a good burst at reasonable range with late war gun packages does not really stand up to close examination. Even in the infamous Robert Johnson P-47 story, he was on fire and spinning out of controls from an initiaL single pass with a 20mm armed 190, and only by luck or grace did the fire go out and the plane remained barely  flyable. And I think we all agree that the P-47 was about the toughest single-seat fighter of the war.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hope the developers are not overlooking the english speaking part of the forum. It is a bit disconcerting that a similar poll wasn't posted here, would've been a rather simple & fast thing to do. One could get the impression of Russian bias if repeatedly only the Russian community is asked for feedback.

 

6 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Well, Custard and I tested the big Cannons on Berloga, firing directly into the fuselage from dead six at close distance, 23mm and upwards against a variety of Aircraft, and the Mk108 for example needs 5 to 8 Fuselage Hits to kill a P-47, and even a LaGG-3 takes more than 4 30mm Hits.

The same is true for the Russian 37mm Hits, which are only slightly more effective than the 108, requiring between 3 and 7 Hits to bring down Bf109s and P-47s.

 

We also recreated the Spit Wing and Fuselage Hits but the Spitfire ate the 30mm for Breakfast, half of the Rounds not doing any damage at all.

 

Armor Piercing was more effective than HE still, even when hitting at an angle. 

 

Overall I am not terribly impressed. 

 

Yes the Mk108 is definitely doing way too little damage as it stands, at least structurally.

 

Also abit odd that the NS37 does more damage considering it only featured about half the HE filler. 

 

The developers definitely need to look into and fix this. 

Edited by Panthera
"One" not "I"
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Panthera and I did a small number of tests and I posted the results to YouTube. A Spitfire can unequivocally take a 30mm round to the wing and suffer virtually no handicap in dogfighting whatsoever. If you compare to the actual pictures of 30mm versus Spitfire airframe tests this is definitely no good from that standpoint of realism.

 

Cool cool, i never argued that the DM does not polishing. I just dispute the "planes are now flying tanks" comment, which is absurd:)

Edited by EAF_Sunde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, EAF_Sunde said:

Cool cool, i never argued that the DM does not polishing. I just dispute the "planes are now flying tanks" comment, which is absurd:)

As regards 30mm structural damage they are “tanks”. I don’t know how much or how little other gun packages have been screwed over for certain because formal tests are harder to do and I don’t know of much material equivalent to the British test of the MK.108 on airframes.

Edited by Rattlesnake

Share this post


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

As regards 30mm structural damage they are “tanks”. I don’t know how much or how little other gun packages have been screwed over for certain because formal tests are harder to do and I don’t know of much material equivalent to the British test of the MK.108 on airframes.

Then me and the people i fly with must all have experienced extreme luck, since none of us found planes to be acting like tanks, strange how that works.

Sometimes takes abit more than before the patch, which was kinda expected, hardly difficult to shoot down fighters however.
My interest in having someone tank some shells from my K4 still stands. From 100+ kills i'v now had in the k4 since the patch, i do not agree with this picture of "tanks". 

Share this post


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

Then me and the people i fly with must all have experienced extreme luck, since none of us found planes to be acting like tanks, strange how that works.

Sometimes takes abit more than before the patch, which was kinda expected, hardly difficult to shoot down fighters however.
My interest in having someone tank some shells from my K4 still stands. From 100+ kills i'v now had in the k4 since the patch, i do not agree with this picture of "tanks". 

Video of Spitfire wing taking a 30mm hit and then maneuvering just fine>your anecdote.

I accept your argument that it is still very possible to quickly destroy fighters in this game if you pour on enough shells from a gun designed to destroy B-17s quickly. That’s not the point. I also accept the argument “30mm to the cockpit works just fine” but that is again not the point. A burst of rifle-caliber MG to the pilot will also do the trick about as well. By the time we get to the late war period the guns in use had evolved to deal with their intended targets with no need to snipe the pilot in the brain stem.

Edited by Rattlesnake
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously a plane taking a 30mm to the wing should cause damage and be noticable, it has to be an issue with the DM no doubt, I am not saying thats not the case. 
I still disagree with fighters being tanks, and am open to being proved wrong. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if devs introduce a x5 more drag over the damaged surfaces simulating either a real hole or a 20cm piece of metal/plywood sticking out <-- I'd be soo happy.. 😄

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

He was known to over-claim IIRC.

 

Again I don't see how he could do this any easier than anyone else considering the confirmation procedure required for any claim made. 

 

Deliberately overclaiming was a serious offence in the LW as it screwed with the jobs of the loss analysts who's job it was to provide crucial statistical information to the general staff. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, EAF_Sunde said:

Obviously a plane taking a 30mm to the wing should cause damage and be noticable, it has to be an issue with the DM no doubt, I am not saying thats not the case. 
I still disagree with fighters being tanks, and am open to being proved wrong. :salute:

 

In most cases it should realistically sever the wing, at least on a fighter, esp. when considering the aerodynamic forces at play during flight. The only fighter I see has having a chance of keeping its wing after a hit by a single 3cm mineshell is the P-47, but it sure won't be doing any maneuvers after that or it's definitely coming off. Even then a P-47's wing should mostly come off with a single 3cm HE(M) hit, the damage these shells inflict is just too severe for it being likely that the wing would hold together more often than it would fail. 

 

In short a hit on the wing of any fighter by a Mk108 and it should be either 'bye bye wing', or an extremely careful flight straight back to base. It's basically the same story for hits to the rear fuselage.

 

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Again I don't see how he could do this any easier than anyone else considering the confirmation procedure required for any claim made. 

 

Deliberately overclaiming was a serious offence in the LW as it screwed with the jobs of the loss analysts who's job it was to provide crucial statistical information to the general staff.  

  

 

That might be true for the average pilot, but if propaganda needs an uber pilot it will create one.

Share this post


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

 

That might be true for the average pilot, but if propaganda needs an uber pilot it will create one.

 

The propoganda machine didn't need to create any, the LW's rotation system made sure that excellent pilots had the best of chances of racking up kills. Remember Marseilles achievements were esp. noted by his wingmen. Had he not shot down a number approaching what he himself claimed his wingmen would've known. 

 

That said the propoganda department of any nation could always inflate the numbers actually claimed by a pilot.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that wings aren't falling off every single time you shoot a plane is amazing, but the cannons could definitely be doing more damage. Just needs tweaks, I would absolutely be unhappy going back to the way it was. Seeing a wing fall off every single time you shot somebody and when you yourself were hit was so annoying.

4 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

I've posted the same poll here.
Sorry guys, my Russian is numerous better than English, and it's a bit hard for me to keep the communication here at the same level. :blush:

I figured that is the case since most of the devs use Russian as their native tongue.

Share this post


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

I've posted the same poll here.
Sorry guys, my Russian is numerous better than English, and it's a bit hard for me to keep the communication here at the same level. :blush:

 

Ah I missed this, good to hear Petrovich! 🙂👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This “wings are/were falling off too often” argument is based on assumptions that are less iron-clad than many may assume.

 

The average shot in WWII films is from astern. When you are dead astern do you shoot for and expect to hit the narrow sliver of wing? No, you shoot center of mass. That is where the juicy bits are, no question. And when the enemy is obviously on fire, out of control, or bailing do you waste more ammo trying to make his wing fall off? Nope.

 

In contrast because virtual pilots almost all have vastly more “hours” in combat than real pilots and we dogfight constantly we are almost all “ace” deflection-shooters. And a turning plane is both exposing more wing area as a potential target and subjecting said wing to much higher G-load than is typical in most historical gun camera kills.

 

In short, it is very likely that we are much more able to land accurate, concentrated, and sustained bursts of gunfire to wing planforms in our combat than was usual in the average guns pass in WWII, while the target plane is under high G load. So this must be factored in any discussion of WWII footage and in-game wing “fragility”.

Edited by Rattlesnake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 111 has improved.  It was too fragile for a such big plane. Probably still losing ailerons and flaps too easily. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone keeps getting stuck on the effectiveness of the MK-108 and the other big guns? Who cares about the fact that every fighter that went down in 3007 lost wings.... Just about every... I do agree that the effectiveness of the larger guns need some extra attention, but using only the MG151/20 i feel it's spot on. 

 

 

8 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

The 111 has improved.  It was too fragile for a such big plane. Probably still losing ailerons and flaps too easily. 

 

Just like the A-20 which could lose it's wings after an single burst of 20mm rounds. 

 

Grt M

Edited by I./ZG1_Dutchvdm
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, I./ZG1_Dutchvdm said:

Why does everyone keeps getting stuck on the effectiveness of the MK-108 and the other big guns?

The whole affair is blown out of proportion because of a single type of armament displaying inadequate performance. It's almost like Mk-108 constitutes the only relevant gun. Matter of fact is that its not only Mk-108 but all 30+ mm cannons that display issues. P-39s 37 mm HE rounds, NS-37, etc.

And frankly it's the entire HE ammunition that requires additional work. Right now it seems this type of ammo relies primarily on shrapnels, which in turn hinders rounds relying exclusively on a blast effect. But this is not an unknown thing, its been there every since Il-2 was in open beta. There was always a greater need to work on that as well as provide actual ammunition types and proper loads. For the time being all we have is this: blue pills and red pills.

 

Still, this is a great step forward, that just requires more work. Hopefully we will get there.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like they need to tweak the HE damage up a bit, but overall I like the change to the wing damage; emphasizing which angles will hit the longeron is pretty important.

 

One of the major things I like about it, is so far playing offline against AI, I see a lot of fires.  The first head on pass with a 109K4 vs P47, I hit dead on the engine with a single burst of 8mm MG, and set the P-47 on fire.  So yes, it can be done.  Second fight with a P-47 I got behind it and my cannons killed the pilot immediately.  So yes, it can be done.

 

Look at the guncam footage from WWII and you will see at least 5 fires for every wing lost.  That's just a guess, it's likely more biased towards fires.  Aircraft fuel tends to burn when exposed to air and high explosives, it turns out...

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

×
×
  • Create New...