Developer asking feedback on damage model on russian forum

[Mac_Messer]

3 hours ago, I./ZG1_Dutchvdm said:

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. 

 

Obviously, people find a firing solution and make pot shots. One hit, two hits, three consecutive hits and all you see is oil/fuel spill from 3-4 spots. Also, no detonation on ammoboxes and very "resilient" pilots.

 

With almost all other guns you have high rate of fire which means multiple strikes to the same spot and even if one or two shells don`t detonate, its overall effect on the damage of burst is negligible. OTOH even singular low calibre hits now cause engine fire very often wchi isn`t that different from a sliced wing anyway.

[Rattlesnake]

4 hours ago, I./ZG1_Dutchvdm said:

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. 

 

 

 

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

 

Grt M

Because the MK 108 is the easiest to compare to reality. We have clear test photographs of what single hits do to WWII fighter airframes and the game is very far off from what is shown. It’s not as easy with other gun types. Since 20mm also does damage with explosive one must wonder if the issues facing the 30mm are nerfing it as well.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the “Fighters are losing wings!!!” thing isn’t  quite the damning indictment people think it is.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[Kurfurst]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 3:27 PM, =11=Herne said:

Now i've seen vids posted on these forums of the 108 shells doing some really impressive damage in ground tests against brit airframes, but I don't think that tells the whole story. The round as I understand it has a much lower muzzle velocity to it's peers. What was it's effective range, not just in terms of ability to aim, but for penetration.

 

You mean a 30 mm round's penetration ability vs 1-2 mm thick aluminium skin that even .22 LR will penetrate easily hundreds of meters away...? Pretty much only limited by gravity. 

[Herne]

2 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

You mean a 30 mm round's penetration ability vs 1-2 mm thick aluminium skin that even .22 LR will penetrate easily hundreds of meters away...? Pretty much only limited by gravity. 

 

exactly ! given the low muzzle velocity, and the added drag from the size of the round what was the effective range when firing on a target you are chasing ?
 

Should these rounds be more effective with penetration at closer range, with an increasing probability of a deflection rather than a penetration as range increases ?

 

"To be effective it was necessary for fighter aircraft to get in close to 200 to 300 meters, making it especially challenging for the Me 262, with its high approach speed, to hit the target without colliding into it."

 

from http://www.aviation-history.com/guns/mk108.htm

 

What was the reason It was not effective beyond this range ? it's not like Bombers are overly agile, which makes me wonder if it was lack of penetration.

[unreasonable]

11 minutes ago, =11=Herne said:

 

 

What was the reason It was not effective beyond this range ? it's not like Bombers are overly agile, which makes me wonder if it was lack of penetration.

 

More likely just the trajectory. A rather low MV gives a "droopy" trajectory: hard to judge how far above the target to align the sights, and this is changing rapidly as you close the distance.  So the faster you are closing the faster the correct point of aim changes. Firing from long distance would be rather like doing an artillery shoot but without being able to use the shell bursts to adjust fire.  

[216th_Jordan]

4 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

You mean a 30 mm round's penetration ability vs 1-2 mm thick aluminium skin that even .22 LR will penetrate easily hundreds of meters away...? Pretty much only limited by gravity. 

 

Dont forget the angle.

 

Btw: Still wondering why our poll result is so much more in favor (88 : 12) of the new DM than the russian one (70 : 30).

Edited December 12, 2018 by 216th_Jordan

[Legioneod]

5 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Dont forget the angle.

 

Btw: Still wondering why our poll result is so much more in favor (88 : 12) of the new DM than the russian one (70 : 30).

Who knows. It is still in favor of the new DM just like our poll is. I think the majority of people are happy with the new DM just by looking at both polls.

 

There is always room for improvement but overall it is a step in the right direction.

[Livai]

There are many ways to kill a plane with all manner of calibers. Here Caliber "bird"

 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Livai

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

On 12/12/2018 at 5:38 AM, I./ZG1_Dutchvdm said:

 

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

 

Grt M

Talking about bombers now I believe the damage of multiple systems is the most common way to bring the "heavies" down. It is far more realistic than losing wings on a single pass of a fighter.

 

Fires are more rare too. I had only one engine fire but it was a cannon burst from below exactly on my left engine, demonstrating the accuracy of new DM. No more fuel tank fires happening all the time due to new fuel tank modeling.

 

The downside is that I am not sure if we can extinguish fires diving anymore.

Edited December 13, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[Bilbo_Baggins]

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Talking about bombers now I believe the damage of multiple systems is the most common way to bring the "heavies" down. It is far more realistic than losing wings on a single pass of a fighter.

 

Fires are more rare too. I had only one engine fire but it was a cannon burst from below exactly on my left engine, demonstrating the accuracy of new DM. No more fuel tank fires happening all the time due to new fuel tank modeling.

 

 

Agree that the critical damage of multiple systems rather than wings snapping off all the time is a positive change. However, definitely don't feel the fires are fewer now- at least engine fires anyway. Perhaps wing tank fires?

[Guest deleted@134347]

2 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Agree that the critical damage of multiple systems rather than wings snapping off all the time is a positive change. However, definitely don't feel the fires are fewer now- at least engine fires anyway. Perhaps wing tank fires?

 

The fires I've personally caused were all logical. From my not-a-real-pilot/engineer-but-a-gamer point of view. ?  In Mc202, chasing LA5  (or Mig3, or I16),  couple of rounds from 5 o'clock, the opponent starts leaking fuel, couple of follow up rounds, flash, ignition, fire...

[Zirashi]

Knock yourselves out:

 

 

[Panthera]

12 minutes ago, Zirashi said:

Knock yourselves out:

 

 

 

The Yak's wing should've come off first hit, same with the Spitfire in Rattlesnake and I's test which oddly enough also required 2 hits to sever. The P-47's wing should at most take two hits to sever, anything else just doesn't make sense based on the real life historical evidence - ingame however it can take 4 hits to achieve, the same number in random hits it historically took to down a B-17.

 

That said I experienced a La-5 take 3 hits to the wing a few days ago and it kept flying afterwards - albeit in a very restrictive manner obiously. Again though first hit should've severed the wing. So that justifies some investigating as well. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Panthera

[Hirachi]

On 12/11/2018 at 11:08 AM, II./JG77_motoadve said:

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.

 

From my experience flying round engine piston, turbo prop and hoover vacuums

 

Flying a fully load aircraft even with icing starting to form on the wings you will notice a decrease in performance even if it a thin layer,  usually the flight controls feel sluggish and you end up putting in extra power to maintain your cruise attitude or trying to climb out of it if you can.  (bush planes in mountainous area  you need to be careful and always have a back up route if you can't out climb the weather specially if the 100nm min safe alt is 11000 ft lol)

[Zirashi]

6 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

The Yak's wing should've come off first hit, same with the Spitfire in Rattlesnake and I's test which oddly enough also required 2 hits to sever. The P-47's wing should at most take two hits to sever, anything else just doesn't make sense based on the real life historical evidence - ingame however it can take 4 hits to achieve, the same number in random hits it historically took to down a B-17.

 

That Yak-1b's engine instantly seized and started leaking on the left wing with a single shot to the center right wing. Only 1C knows the extent of the damage on the right wing, but regardless of that, it's literally a one shot kill. The second shot on the P-47 severed right wing controls and ripped out a gear leg, rendering it combat ineffective and in a state that I would consider effectively dead. Best the pilot can hope for is a crash landing. Also note that reports posted by others on these forums showed that probability of a single shot kill (with kill being defined as failure to RTB) on a P-47 with the Mk108 was found to be around 40%, which seems within reason to me.

 

So now I'm confused. Is this about the effectiveness of 30mm HE and how "tanky" the planes are, or is it that you guys think the graphics are not dramatic enough and just want more eyecandy?

Edited December 14, 2018 by Zirashi

[Ouky1991]

38 minutes ago, Zirashi said:

 

That Yak-1b's engine instantly seized and started leaking on the left wing with a single shot to the center right wing. Only 1C knows the extent of the damage on the right wing, but regardless of that, it's literally a one shot kill. The second shot on the P-47 severed right wing controls and ripped out a gear leg, rendering it combat ineffective and in a state that I would consider effectively dead. Best the pilot can hope for is a crash landing. Also note that reports posted by others on these forums showed that probability of a single shot kill (with kill being defined as failure to RTB) on a P-47 with the Mk108 was found to be around 40%, which seems within reason to me.

 

So now I'm confused. Is this about the effectiveness of 30mm HE and how "tanky" the planes are, or is it that you guys think the graphics are not dramatic enough and just want more eyecandy?

I don't think people care about how it looks when you get hit by cannon, but rather that one hit from 30mm explosive round should take the wing off no matter under what angle you hit it. 

 

Most people agree this DM is better but cannons need some tweaking.

[Danziger]

3.007 "The P47 was historically a flying tank, please un-nerf the DM so the glass wings aren't falling off everywhere."

 

 

3.008 "The DM doesn't really matter as long as one hit from the Mk108 takes a wing off. Please un-nerf the Mk108."

 

Is that about the gist of it?

[Legioneod]

33 minutes ago, Danziger said:

3.007 "The P47 was historically a flying tank, please un-nerf the DM so the glass wings aren't falling off everywhere."

 

 

3.008 "The DM doesn't really matter as long as one hit from the Mk108 takes a wing off. Please un-nerf the Mk108."

 

Is that about the gist of it?

Odd isnt it.

Imo just based of my time flying the new update the cannons are fine, they may need a little tweaking but it's not a serious problem like people are claiming.

People won't be happy until cannons are one shot kills all the time I guess.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

56 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

People won't be happy until cannons are one shot kills all the time I guess.

Personally speaking, I'd just like the damage from MK 108's and all HE rounds to be modeled as accurately as possible. I understand and accept that it may not be possible to get it spot on, due to a whole range of variables but 6 hits from 30 mm rounds should disintegrate a single engines fighter, based on RL test information. 

 

The discussion in this section and other sections on the forum have referred to the US tests regarding probability of "kills" from various ammunition types.

If I'm reading the charts right, 2 30 mm hits on a P-47 would result in an 84% chance in destruction of the aircraft. 

 

Posted in (Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?) Thread.

 

Checking the video posted by the devs yesterday, both the aircraft in the tests were out of the fight after receiving 1 hit for the Yak and 2  when the P-47 got hit. 

 

(Video above) 

 

If these are improvements that are to be added at a later date to current DM in the video, then its very encouraging. However, if there were no changes (in the video) made then I'm amazed that after hours of testing the MK 108 and larger caliber rounds on various aircraft types, in the current build, some aircraft can soak up 4 to 6 30 mm hits and keep on flying.

 

Edit: Hopefully we'll get some news on further developments in the near future.    

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Custard
See edit

[Legioneod]

38 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Personally speaking, I'd just like the damage from MK 108's and all HE rounds to be modeled as accurately as possible. I understand and accept that it may not be possible to get it spot on, due to a whole range of variables but 6 hits from 30 mm rounds should disintegrate a single engines fighter, based on RL test information. 

 

The discussion in this section and other sections on the forum have referred to the US tests regarding probability of "kills" from various ammunition types.

If I'm reading the charts right, 2 30 mm hits on a P-47 would result in an 84% chance in destruction of the aircraft. 

 

Posted in (Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?) Thread.

 

Checking the video posted by the devs yesterday, both the aircraft in the tests were out of the fight after receiving 1 hit for the Yak and 2  when the P-47 got hit. 

 

(Video above) 

 

If these are improvements that are to be added at a later date to current DM in the video, then its very encouraging. However, if there were no changes (in the video) made then I'm amazed that after hours of testing the MK 108 and larger caliber rounds on various aircraft types, in the current build, some aircraft can soak up 4 to 6 30 mm hits and keep on flying.

 

Edit: Hopefully we'll get some news on further developments in the near future.    

 

The thing about those probability test is that they are not instant kills like everyone is talking about.

Iirc the test states that the 40% chance is for the P-47 to go down within 2 hours (minimum of 5min after being hit), the test isnt saying that it will be killed instantly. 

The chances of the P-47 going down within 5min (basically an instant kill) is lower than 40% iirc.

 

I'd be happy to have the Mk 108 represented accurately in-game, I'm all for historical accuracy but I don't think the cannon problem is a serious as most claim it is, especially when you consider after 1-2 hits you're basically dead anyways even if the kill isnt instant.

 

I think the problem stems from people thinking the aircraft should explode and go crashing down in 1-2 hits, thats not realistic. 1-2 hits can and will kill the aircraft but the likelihood is that it will go down later and not instantly.

[Lusekofte]

On 12/11/2018 at 1:49 PM, Feathered_IV said:

 

That sounds like the damage was altered for balance rather than realism.

Can they adjust effectiveness for each caliber ? Or is it a general adjustment or part of damagemodel on target

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

13 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

The Yak's wing should've come off first hit, same with the Spitfire in Rattlesnake and I's test which oddly enough also required 2 hits to sever. The P-47's wing should at most take two hits to sever, anything else just doesn't make sense based on the real life historical evidence - ingame however it can take 4 hits to achieve, the same number in random hits it historically took to down a B-17.

 

That said I experienced a La-5 take 3 hits to the wing a few days ago and it kept flying afterwards - albeit in a very restrictive manner obiously. Again though first hit should've severed the wing. So that justifies some investigating as well. 

Depends where it hits. The new angles modifiers make it extremely placement dependant. I've had runs in Berloga and single player in the K-4 where it took 1 shot to rip of a Spitfire's wing (90 degree deflection) sometimes 3 more hits. Either way, how the splash works, I've found 1-2 hits cripple the aircraft. Best tactic is to do a pass, and leave. That way I've been running tallies with 6-7-8 kills/life in Berloga

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

The thing about those probability test is that they are not instant kills like everyone is talking about.

Iirc the test states that the 40% chance is for the P-47 to go down within 2 hours

It seems if it was dependent on whether it was an A or a B kill. It also seems to depend where the damage occurred to individual aircraft. There is of course some test data for the thousands of aircraft that were shot down and didn't return to base but there is also a lot of evidence that cannot be examined. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that given a whole host of parameters a fighter aircraft could receive several hits from a 30 mm round and continue flying but following that course of logic, it's also perfectly reasonable to expect an aircraft could suffer catastrophic damage from one 30 mm round. The testing that I have carried out in the current build, on public servers is of course no reflection of what could happen in a real life situation. However, most of the fighters can take 4-6 30 mm HE hits.. Edit:(dead 6 into the fuselage and wings) and remain flying in current build. Considering the real life ammunition testing conducted by the  British, US and Germans yielded variable results, I'm not sure if the video posted by the devs yesterday is showing the results of some further additions made to their excellent damage model. If this is the case hopefully it will be a happy medium for everyone? 

Edited December 14, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Custard
See edit

[Legioneod]

24 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

It seems if it was dependent on whether it was an A or a B kill. It also seems to depend where the damage occurred to individual aircraft. There is of course some test data for the thousands of aircraft that were shot down and didn't return to base but there is also a lot of evidence that cannot be examined. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that given a whole host of parameters a fighter aircraft could receive several hits from a 30 mm round and continue flying but following that course of logic, it's also perfectly reasonable to expect an aircraft could suffer catastrophic damage from one 30 mm round. The testing that I have carried out in the current build, on public servers is of course no reflection of what could happen in a real life situation. However, most of the fighters can take 4-6 30 mm HE hits.. Edit:(dead 6 into the fuselage and wings) and remain flying in current build. Considering the real life ammunition testing conducted by the  British, US and Germans yielded variable results, I'm not sure if the video posted by the devs yesterday is showing the results of some further additions made to their excellent damage model. If this is the case hopefully it will be a happy medium for everyone? 

I agree, there should definitely be a good mix of randomness in the damage dealt and I think that there is a good mix already, though there can always be improvement.

 

[Jade_Monkey]

5 hours ago, Danziger said:

3.007 "The P47 was historically a flying tank, please un-nerf the DM so the glass wings aren't falling off everywhere."

 

 

3.008 "The DM doesn't really matter as long as one hit from the Mk108 takes a wing off. Please un-nerf the Mk108."

 

Is that about the gist of it?

 

That's an accurate description.

 

I think we have been exposes to the old DM for too long and its gonna take time to get used to the new one.

[unreasonable]

5 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Personally speaking, I'd just like the damage from MK 108's and all HE rounds to be modeled as accurately as possible. I understand and accept that it may not be possible to get it spot on, due to a whole range of variables but 6 hits from 30 mm rounds should disintegrate a single engines fighter, based on RL test information. 

 

The discussion in this section and other sections on the forum have referred to the US tests regarding probability of "kills" from various ammunition types.

If I'm reading the charts right, 2 30 mm hits on a P-47 would result in an 84% chance in destruction of the aircraft. 

<snip>

 

You are reading the single shot probability correctly, ~ 42%, but you are not calculating cumulative probabilities correctly. (Also this is the "B" Kill probability which means failure to RTB; the "A" kill number of ~29% more closely matches what people playing the game are looking for).

 

The probability of surviving after 1 hit is 1 - the probability of being shot down by one hit, in this case of the B kill,  1 - 0.42 = 0.58

 

To work out the probability of being B killed at some point in a run of hits, you first compound the probability of surviving each hit. So for two hits the probability of survival is 0.58^2 = 0.34

 

So the probability of being shot down by either the first or second hit = 1 - 0.34 = 0.66, not 0.84

 

The report gives cumulative probabilities for up to 10 hits, assuming independence: see chart. According to this, surviving 4 hits without being A killed would not be that uncommon: about 25% of P-47s will survive, although most of them would already be B kills. Given how many people play the game, if the game were modelling these results, a fairly large number of people would be seeing planes not crash immediately after 4-5 hits.

 

This assumes that the probability of being shot down by each hit is the same, like rolling a dice:  for a small shell and a large target this is close to true. For a large shell and a smaller target probably not true, but also hard to estimate by how much.

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by unreasonable

[Aap]

Another noteworthy thing about the test is that it was done from front-below aspect. It appears the test was done to evaluate P-47's survivability in ground attack role? From that aspect the probability of engine kill is surprisingly low. It also makes you wonder, if the test was done from 6 o'clock aspect, would the probability of a kill from structural damage be higher due to elevators, ailerons or tail getting destroyed from a 6 o'clock shot.

[SCG_motoadve]

Guys need to get used to the new DM, many still want easy kills , its not easy 1 shot 1 kill anymore, people dont want get to the challenge to learn to aim better.

 Developers please dont make the 1 shot 1 kill come back as it was.

Right now it can still be achieved, is just not as easy and as common.

Even the 30mm is not a missile

1 shot 1 kill = arcade.

 

It still can be done ,  it still happens ,wings also can be blown off , just not as common , which is pretty good now.

One good pass and let them go, that is how it was.

 

[dburne]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Guys need to get used to the new DM, many still want easy kills , its not easy 1 shot 1 kill anymore, people dont want get to the challenge to learn to aim better.

 Developers please dont make the 1 shot 1 kill come back as it was.

Right now it can still be achieved, is just not as easy and as common.

Even the 30mm is not a missile

1 shot 1 kill = arcade.

 

It still can be done ,  it still happens ,wings also can be blown off , just not as common , which is pretty good now.

One good pass and let them go, that is how it was.

 

 

Yes it can still be done. I have gotten a couple one shot kills where I hit the enemy aircraft and he starts trailing some white smoke. 2 or 3 minutes later he is then trailing some heavy black smoke. 2 or 3 more minutes and he is going down.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

1 shot 1 kill = arcade.

I don't think its as easy a statement to make as that.

 

A hit in the right place could down an aircraft with one hit.

 

I think the issue is that the tests between the different nations during WWII yielded differing results. As pointed out by @II./JG77_Kempthe US tests were conducted from a  front-below aspect. Looking at the British tests (shooting from behind), the 1 30 mm hit to Spitfire wings and fuselage would almost certainly have caused a catastrophic failure. The Luftwaffe "claim" of 4 hits to bring down a B-17 may need to be taken with a pinch of salt and further examination. The Williams/Gustin report on armament effectiveness states: 

"The outstanding performer is clearly the German 30 mm MK 108, which achieves ten times the destructiveness of the .50 M2 for only twice the weight."   Then there are all the variables to take into consideration. 

I know the devs are striving for the most accurate damage model that they can, given the limitations of a simulated environment. 

Thanks to @unreasonable for his explanations regarding the US tests.

 

[SCG_motoadve]

Most tests shown here are on the horizontal plane, which only happens when doing a surprise attack and plane in front its just cruising ind its at  the most durable position.

When hits are done while in Gs its more damaging, and higher chances of inflight break ups.

Go to Berloga, 5 and 6 kills in a mission are not uncommon, and few can be d wing  and one shot kill too.

 

Many times during WWII planes were accounted as a probable , instead of confirmed kills, shoot and leave them damaged smoking after a good pass,  and this is how works now in game many times.

Instant gratification arcade mentality wants boom destroyed and see it in pieces. (I am glad this sim is not going that direction)

Developers are trying to make this sim more realistic but some dont like it because its more challenging.

 

Take the challenge and enjoy guys, go to Berloga and test it there.

[wonders9]

With a 30 mm cannon, instant kill against a fighter other than the p47 is not at all 'arcade', as some, particularly red, pilots are crying. 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by wonders9

[Panthera]

On 12/14/2018 at 4:44 AM, Zirashi said:

 

That Yak-1b's engine instantly seized and started leaking on the left wing with a single shot to the center right wing. Only 1C knows the extent of the damage on the right wing, but regardless of that, it's literally a one shot kill. The second shot on the P-47 severed right wing controls and ripped out a gear leg, rendering it combat ineffective and in a state that I would consider effectively dead. Best the pilot can hope for is a crash landing. Also note that reports posted by others on these forums showed that probability of a single shot kill (with kill being defined as failure to RTB) on a P-47 with the Mk108 was found to be around 40%, which seems within reason to me.

 

So now I'm confused. Is this about the effectiveness of 30mm HE and how "tanky" the planes are, or is it that you guys think the graphics are not dramatic enough and just want more eyecandy?

 

Well to qoute myself from earlier:

 

The problem with the ingame damage model is quite clear when looking at it from a realism standpoint, at least when it comes to the mine shells. There simply is a very big lack of blast damage (i.e. local structural damage), whilst there is an excess of shrapnel damage (i.e. damage dealt to parts far away from impact point).

 

The effect of this ingame is that whilst large caliber high capacity HE shells are still effective, it is in a non-realistic fashion. Because instead of causing the immediately crippling or lethal structural damage that they should be doing, these rounds overwhelmingly tend to cripple the opponent via taking out powerplant systems, almost irrespective of hit placement.

 

In reality these large caliber high capacity HE shells bring down aircraft mainly via massive structural damage leading to airframe failure, they don't require striking vitals such as the engine or pilot. they are all about causing structural failure. And as real life testing clearly shows single wing hits by 30mm HE(M) shells would 99% of the time result in structurally or aerodynamically lethal damage to a fighter and even some medium bombers. Hence this is what we really ought to see ingame. 

 

In short this isn't about wether a particular weapon is effective or not, it's about the type of damage it inflicts.

 

[P51DMatt]

Just voted! Yes, I think it's much better post 3.008.

[ACG_KaiLae]

While I applaud 777/1C for their work to improve the sim, what's in the video is not accurate. Problem is I'm not sure what's going on here. Is it the actual damage is inaccurate, or the visual representation, or both? The effect of an actual MK108 strike on a wing - specifically a spitfire wing - is known, because the RAF actually tested and then videoed the results:

 

 

What you see in the video looks more like a detonation of a USN proximity fuse from a bofors 40mm. Again though, because the graphical damage model of BoX is inferior to CLoD - it shows maps of damage states instead of actual damage, which is why you can take a cannon hit and see machine gun bullet holes all over the place - it could just be the graphics and the result in reality is the same. 

 

I'll point out that at no time to my knowledge has 777/1C ever actually said how their damage model works with any detail, which is why some people say that it uses hitboxes with HP to individual component models that can be degraded by as much as one bullet. We actually don't know, just like they've never said exactly how their engine modeling works (though that has been effectively reverse engineered). 

[Ouky1991]

Can devs make old DM availible as a mod for singleplayer only? I'm tired of hitting wing 3 times with mk108 and plane going down because of engine failure.

[Mac_Messer]

7 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

 

In reality these large caliber high capacity HE shells bring down aircraft mainly via massive structural damage leading to airframe failure, they don't require striking vitals such as the engine or pilot. they are all about causing structural failure. And as real life testing clearly shows single wing hits by 30mm HE(M) shells would 99% of the time result in structurally or aerodynamically lethal damage to a fighter and even some medium bombers. Hence this is what we really ought to see ingame. 

 

In short this isn't about wether a particular weapon is effective or not, it's about the type of damage it inflicts.

 

Yes and no. In 3.008 a common result of MK108 hit is engine fire/failure due to shrapnel, although the same effect does not touch the pilot, fuel tanks or ammo boxes.  I`ve hit the pilot segment at angle of 65-95 degrees of pretty much all types of aircraft with pretty much all types of ammo. No detonation, just fuel leaks. Unless you hit the pilot directly and above the canopy line, the pilot is not damaged at all.  You can hit pilot compartment anywhere on the airframe but if it`s not canopy then DM acts as if pilot was immune or all of the shells bounced off the airframe.

 

Not realistic.

[Rjel]

Would an MK108 shell explode if it passed cleanly through the airframe without hitting any structure? In other words, if it only touched the skin material, would the fuse react? It seems like most RL pictures I've seen show blast damage that appears coming from inside of the target. 

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

Would an MK108 shell explode if it passed cleanly through the airframe without hitting any structure? In other words, if it only touched the skin material, would the fuse react? It seems like most RL pictures I've seen show blast damage that appears coming from inside of the target. 

 

https://imgur.com/gallery/HkGqW

 

http://www.eeoda.de/2008/0804_FB1_MunMK108.pdf

 

All you want to know about ammo and fuzes here:

 

https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/weapons15.htm#Type I

 

ZZ 1589 B fuse

Due to the riffling of the barrel, the shell is given a high rotational speed during firing. This leads to centrifugal forces that push the six balls (7) outwards, forcing them in the collar ring and keeping the firing pin housing (4) which holds the firing pin (5) in upper position. Meanwhile the wrapped safety coil (6) rolls out, thereby opening the way for the firing pin housing to move downward forced by spring (8), however held back by the balls in the groove. At impact the firing pin housing with firing pin is simply hammered down in the duplex detonator (the balls are forced back into the firing pin housing), exploding the shell. If the rotational speed decreases too much (long time of flight, i.e. the shell missed target) the force of the spring will force the balls back into the firing pin housing after which it moves down due to the spring force. This forces the firing pin into the duplex detonator (10), exploding the shell. This description also applies to the ZZ 1589 A fuse.

 

Delayed duplex detonator VC70

The VC 70 delayed duplex detonator delays the exploding of the shell for about 10 cm of flight, so the shell explodes after passing the aircraft skin, inside the aircraft. After the firing pin has hit the firing cap (3) the flame travels through a small hole outward into a circular chamber on the outside of the delay element (2). From there the flame travels half round the circular chamber where it follows a hole leading to the lower firing cap (4). The lower firing cap will ignite the penthrite charge, exploding the shell.

Edited December 15, 2018 by sevenless

[Rjel]

3 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

https://imgur.com/gallery/HkGqW

 

http://www.eeoda.de/2008/0804_FB1_MunMK108.pdf

 

All you want to know about ammo and fuzes here:

 

https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/weapons15.htm#Type I

 

ZZ 1589 B fuse

Due to the riffling of the barrel, the shell is given a high rotational speed during firing. This leads to centrifugal forces that push the six balls (7) outwards, forcing them in the collar ring and keeping the firing pin housing (4) which holds the firing pin (5) in upper position. Meanwhile the wrapped safety coil (6) rolls out, thereby opening the way for the firing pin housing to move downward forced by spring (8), however held back by the balls in the groove. At impact the firing pin housing with firing pin is simply hammered down in the duplex detonator (the balls are forced back into the firing pin housing), exploding the shell. If the rotational speed decreases too much (long time of flight, i.e. the shell missed target) the force of the spring will force the balls back into the firing pin housing after which it moves down due to the spring force. This forces the firing pin into the duplex detonator (10), exploding the shell. This description also applies to the ZZ 1589 A fuse.

 

Delayed duplex detonator VC70

The VC 70 delayed duplex detonator delays the exploding of the shell for about 10 cm of flight, so the shell explodes after passing the aircraft skin, inside the aircraft. After the firing pin has hit the firing cap (3) the flame travels through a small hole outward into a circular chamber on the outside of the delay element (2). From there the flame travels half round the circular chamber where it follows a hole leading to the lower firing cap (4). The lower firing cap will ignite the penthrite charge, exploding the shell.

Thanks for posting. That definitely answered my question.