Developer asking feedback on damage model on russian forum

[Rabitzky]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minenmunition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_shell_(projectile)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Малокалиберный_фугасный_снаряд

[Grancesc]

On 12/11/2018 at 2:19 PM, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 The DM has gone from glassplanes to flying tanks almost. A P40E eats easily 4 to 6 hits of 30mm to go down, and even then the damage is some leaks or severed control surfaces, pilot kill or controls gone. Once saw fire when a single 30mm put a La-5 ´s engine or oil tank on fire. IL-2 gets some leaks and possibly loses conrol surfaces, even a pilot kill. But no fires or lost wings so far. Even with Fw190A-8 and 2 x 30mm it soaks up tremendous amount of 30mm. Just strenghtens the feeling that this game values kinetic energy over chemical(HE) energy when determining lethality. Sure the Pe-2 rear gunner does not nail you in one shot anymore, but the already ridiculously tough Pe-2 just got even tougher. Pumping in 3 x 20mm just is a series of puffs causing some leaks, hardly fires or lost wing/surfaces. DM could use a review by the devs and refinement. It is a step towards better, but maybe a bit too much from extreme to another.

 

I fully agree with LLv34_Flanker opinion.

His statements are fully confirmed by the literature. In the reference publication for aircraft guns (the "Flying Guns" trilogy, by Antohony G. Williams and Dr. Emmanuel Gustin) one finds in vol. 2 on pages 329-331 a comparison of the most important WWII aircraft guns and their ammunition. Data used for this publication are based on real live tests of the RAF, the Dept. of the US Air Force TO 11A-1-39 and further validation test by the USN. Here is a tabular extract of the weapons that are of interest to us:

Gun                       Cartridge             ROF       Gun Power       Gun Weight       Gun Efficiency

MG17                   7.92x57                20            21                        12                           1.75

MG131                 13x64B                15            45                         17                           2.65

Breda                   12.7x81SR           12            36                         29                           1.24

.50M2                   12.7x99               13            58                         29                           2

12.7UB                 12.7x108              17          102                        25                           4.1

MG-FF                 20x80RB                8            120                        28                           4.3

MG151                 20x82                   12           204                       42                           4.9

ShVAK                  20x99R                 13           169                       42                           4

B-20                      20x99R                 13          169                       25                           6.8

Hispano II           20x110                 10           200                       50                           4

Hispano V           20x110                 12           240                       42                           5.7

Vya                        23x152B               9            234                      68                           3.4

MK108                 30x90RB              10          580                       60                           9.7

NS-37                   37x195                 4            424                       170                        2.5

 

ROF= Rate of Fire for an unsynchronized gun

Gun Power= It’s a calculated and normalized number that takes into account the destructive force of different types of ammunition multiplied by the ROF of the weapon. These calculations were compared with empirical data from RAF experiments. The results were nearly equal.

Gun Efficiency= To judge the efficiency of a gun installation in a plane the Gun Power was divided by the weight of the gun (in kg). The outstanding performer here is clearly the MK108/30mm, which achieves ten times the destructiveness of the 0.50M2 for only twice the weight.

 

For our discussion the Gun Power is decisive. Here you can see that the Hispano Mk II (Spitfire IX) has only 34% of the destructive power of the Mk108 and the NS-37 about 73%. According to the in-game experiences of many players (including some experiments) these facts do not seem to be taken into account in the new update 3.008.

[Livai]

12 min worth of time to watch it - enjoy

 

 

[Solmyr]

16 hours ago, Grancesc said:

 

I fully agree with LLv34_Flanker opinion.

His statements are fully confirmed by the literature. In the reference publication for aircraft guns (the "Flying Guns" trilogy, by Antohony G. Williams and Dr. Emmanuel Gustin) one finds in vol. 2 on pages 329-331 a comparison of the most important WWII aircraft guns and their ammunition. Data used for this publication are based on real live tests of the RAF, the Dept. of the US Air Force TO 11A-1-39 and further validation test by the USN. Here is a tabular extract of the weapons that are of interest to us:

Gun                       Cartridge             ROF       Gun Power       Gun Weight       Gun Efficiency

 

MG17                   7.92x57                20            21                        12                           1.75

 

MG131                 13x64B                15            45                         17                           2.65

 

Breda                   12.7x81SR           12            36                         29                           1.24

 

.50M2                   12.7x99               13            58                         29                           2

 

12.7UB                 12.7x108              17          102                        25                           4.1

 

MG-FF                 20x80RB                8            120                        28                           4.3

 

MG151                 20x82                   12           204                       42                           4.9

 

ShVAK                  20x99R                 13           169                       42                           4

 

B-20                      20x99R                 13          169                       25                           6.8

 

Hispano II           20x110                 10           200                       50                           4

 

Hispano V           20x110                 12           240                       42                           5.7

 

Vya                        23x152B               9            234                      68                           3.4

 

MK108                 30x90RB              10          580                       60                           9.7

 

NS-37                   37x195                 4            424                       170                        2.5

 

 

ROF= Rate of Fire for an unsynchronized gun

Gun Power= It’s a calculated and normalized number that takes into account the destructive force of different types of ammunition multiplied by the ROF of the weapon. These calculations were compared with empirical data from RAF experiments. The results were nearly equal.

 

Gun Efficiency= To judge the efficiency of a gun installation in a plane the Gun Power was divided by the weight of the gun (in kg). The outstanding performer here is clearly the MK108/30mm, which achieves ten times the destructiveness of the 0.50M2 for only twice the weight.

 

 

 

For our discussion the Gun Power is decisive. Here you can see that the Hispano Mk II (Spitfire IX) has only 34% of the destructive power of the Mk108 and the NS-37 about 73%. According to the in-game experiences of many players (including some experiments) these facts do not seem to be taken into account in the new update 3.008.

 

So if we wanted to play a bit with those numbers, in order to illustrate what could be a simplified modelization of weapons destructiveness (as devs are forced to make), and given the information by them that the in-game destructiveness of the Mk108 actually is 2,5 times the MG151/20, and assuming that ROF is number of projectiles per second, we have :

 

[Mk108]/[MG151/20] Ratio = (580/10)/(204/12) = 58/17 = 3.41

When in game it's 2.5.

 

So maybe there would be a little room for adjustment in favor of the Mk108 (comparing to MG151/20), but not to a large extend, as it would be raised by 136.4%.

 

Don't caught me on the fact it's just maths there, because, yes, it's just (very simple) maths. It's not reality, I know that.

But our sim isn't exatly reality neither..

Edited December 17, 2018 by Solmyr

[Ehret]

19 hours ago, Grancesc said:

ROF= Rate of Fire for an unsynchronized gun

Gun Power= It’s a calculated and normalized number that takes into account the destructive force of different types of ammunition multiplied by the ROF of the weapon. These calculations were compared with empirical data from RAF experiments. The results were nearly equal.

 

Gun Efficiency= To judge the efficiency of a gun installation in a plane the Gun Power was divided by the weight of the gun (in kg). The outstanding performer here is clearly the MK108/30mm, which achieves ten times the destructiveness of the 0.50M2 for only twice the weight.

 

For our discussion the Gun Power is decisive. Here you can see that the Hispano Mk II (Spitfire IX) has only 34% of the destructive power of the Mk108 and the NS-37 about 73%. According to the in-game experiences of many players (including some experiments) these facts do not seem to be taken into account in the new update 3.008.

 

Spit IX has two Hispanos and two 0.50" cals; it's total rating (from the same source) would be 520 where the 109 (108 + 2x 12.7mm) would get 676 - the latter has 30% more total "gun power". That's more but not that much more and the IX have overall higher RoF and better gun range; thought the 109 has its armament in the nose so that's a plus.

 

I recall that the power (and efficiency) of the 108 as a complete weapon system wasn't criticized as such in the forum. Some just questioned effectiveness of a single 108 round as being too weak. They counted HE J contents and solely on that one factor made the claim. From the source the 108' shell has the power rating of 58, the Airacobra' 37mm is 64, the NS-73 is 106, the 23mm is 26, the MG 151/20 is 16, the Hispano 20mm is 20.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Ehret

[eRoN]

23 hours ago, Grancesc said:

...

or our discussion the Gun Power is decisive. Here you can see that the Hispano Mk II (Spitfire IX) has only 34% of the destructive power of the Mk108 and the NS-37 about 73%. According to the in-game experiences of many players (including some experiments) these facts do not seem to be taken into account in the new update 3.008.

 

[edited]

 

I've just come out of a game hunting il-2s in my g2, and after spending the entirety of my ammo on a single il-2, none of which did any discernable damage, not even a fuel leak or any problem flying, i've decided personally this is unplayable at the moment. I'm not saying the DM change wasn't needed, because the wings coming off was also ridiculous before, but 1C really need to re-tune the guns to compensate, and keeping close to historical data like Grancesc provided as a reference. Particularly, it's about time they sorted out HE shells, which have been a glaring, obvious, and commonly understood problem since the games inception, and quite frankly, a disgrace, from a game development perspective, that 1C didn't address such a fundamentally important problem at the beginning, and more of a disgrace it remains unaddressed all these years later.

Edited December 17, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[Hanu]

I run dogfights with my mates where AI planes fly random routes/missions in bigger formations and you can easilly coop in those. After 3.008 I've been adding Command:Damage Minor once or twice on planes made of Stalinium (2x on Yak's, LaGG's and 1x on La's. IL-2 is IMO fine now compared to 3.007) to get more realistic feeling as HE ammo is more or less unusable now. Funny note that you cannot use this on Lend-lease planes, for example on P-39 even once as it can break without a hit ? when Yak can take it twice without any effect before multiple hits. This way even they break like others. I have not tried on LW planes yet if there is any need. At least Lend and Lease planes don't seem to need it.

 

Of course this is subjective, but the results have been well-liked so far in my group.

[KoN_]

On 12/11/2018 at 12:43 PM, 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. 

 

 

 

It is not exacly the case after 3.08 update in BOX.

Wish we had them spalsh marks . Im happy so far with DM . i think it was getting too arcade to be honest . Wings off Wings off .

I think that certain Gun rounds need tweaking .looking at the table above , Thank you .

History tells us what was tough and what was not plenty of good books to read .

We can talk about it all day back and forth .

The game just needs to become stable so that we can go forward .

Edited December 17, 2018 by II./JG77_Con

[SCG_motoadve]

4 hours ago, II./JG77_Con said:

Wish we had them spalsh marks . Im happy so far with DM . i think it was getting too arcade to be honest . Wings off Wings off .

I think that certain Gun rounds need tweaking .looking at the table above , Thank you .

History tells us what was tough and what was not plenty of good books to read .

We can talk about it all day back and forth .

The game just needs to become stable so that we can go forward .

Agreed, the sim looks and feels now like what the real gun cams show, more than it ever did.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, II./JG77_Con said:

The game just needs to become stable so that we can go forward .

 

It is stable. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

5 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

It is stable. 

Multiplayer is not stable at full server capacity

[Guest deleted@134347]

44 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Multiplayer is not stable at full server capacity

 

it's server dependent..

 

game is stable.

[unreasonable]

15 hours ago, Solmyr said:

 

So if we wanted to play a bit with those numbers, in order to illustrate what could be a simplified modelization of weapons destructiveness (as devs are forced to make), and given the information by them that the in-game destructiveness of the Mk108 actually is 2,5 times the MG151/20, and assuming that ROF is number of projectiles per second, we have :

 

[Mk108]/[MG151/20] Ratio = (580/10)/(204/12) = 58/17 = 3.41

When in game it's 2.5.

 

So maybe there would be a little room for adjustment in favor of the Mk108 (comparing to MG151/20), but not to a large extend, as it would be raised by 136.4%.

 

Don't caught me on the fact it's just maths there, because, yes, it's just (very simple) maths. It's not reality, I know that.

But our sim isn't exatly reality neither..

The reason there is a difference between the game and your calculated 3.4 may be that Williams/Gustin numbers are based on calculating the momentum of a round at the muzzle, as a base on which to add an HE multiplier, rather than on KE which other researchers doing similar work use.

 

Using momentum disadvantages guns with relatively high MVs. 

 

MG 151/20  projectile mass 92 g at MV 700 m/s = muzzle energy of  22540 J

 

Mk108 projectile mass 330 g at 540 m/s = muzzle energy of 48114 J

 

That is only 2.13 times.  The mineshells have ~ the same % of HE, so the end number will bear the same ratio, using the Williams multiplier method.

 

Then again multiplying the total energy (either using momentum or KE) by a factor equal to one plus the % of weight that is HE, as the Williams table does,  disadvantages the Mk108, since it's CE is being penalized for moving more slowly, which is nonsensical. An explicit calculation of HE/CE is much better. 

 

I do not know exactly how the game determines individual shell destructive power, BTW, but people should not take this table as being more than a broad indication of relative power, and a methodologically suspect one, at that.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by unreasonable

[Ehret]

8 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Then again multiplying the total energy (either using momentum or KE) by a factor equal to one plus the % of weight that is HE, as the Williams table does,  disadvantages the Mk108, since it's CE is being penalized for moving more slowly, which is nonsensical. An explicit calculation of HE/CE is much better.

 

It's counter-intuitive but just might not be. The HE filler has also a mass so will carry momentum+KE. In the nature nothing disappears - where the KE of the HE mass itself is going after it explodes?

 

There is a similar phenomena In the rocketry; it's just not enough to compute CE of fuels. How much deltaV you are going to get will depend on the rocket's velocity at the moment of burn. The faster you are going the better results will be.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Ehret

[unreasonable]

22 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

It's counter-intuitive but just might not be. The HE filler has also a mass so will carry momentum+KE. In the nature nothing disappears - where the KE of the HE mass itself is going after it explodes?

 

There is a similar phenomena In the rocketry; it's just not enough to compute CE of fuels. How much deltaV you are going to get will depend on the rocket's velocity at the moment of burn. The faster you are going the better results will be.

 

The KE of the HE component is already calculated in the KE at the muzzle, which takes into account the mass of the entire projectile, including the HE.  The KE of the HE is contributing to the blast; every atom of the HE has it's own KE before the shell explodes;  after it explodes it has that plus whatever is generated by the conversion of CE. All of which contributes to blast: which is just the movement of atoms after all. It just does not contribute a huge amount, compared to the CE.

 

The CE of the HE is independent of the velocity. To check this for yourself, first calculate the total "destructive power" of an HE mineshell that is sitting still on your desk using the W/G method or my reworking of it. It has zero momentum and KE, so using these formulae it has zero "destructive power".   Then set it off and observe the results. If you are still alive you will notice that the W/G method is somewhat approximate.

 

The game needs to be able to take into account the actual velocity of impact in individual hits in determining destruction. You might be able to get away without doing that in an aeroplane game, but in Tank Crew leaving this out would be a joke since it determines armour penetration for anything except HEAT shells. The game's DM has to be much more sophisticated than the W/G treatment, even using KE as a base instead of momentum.

 

All their method is good for is a very approximate ranking of entire weapons systems to generate an index of effectiveness and efficiency. It is not a useful model of single shot destructiveness and should not be misused in that way.

 

 

[Ehret]

14 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The CE of the HE is independent of the velocity. To check this for yourself, first calculate the total "destructive power" of an HE mineshell that is sitting still on your desk using the W/G method or my reworking of it. It has zero momentum and KE, so using these formulae it has zero "destructive power".   Then set it off and observe the results. If you are still alive you will notice that the W/G method is somewhat approximate.

 

The stationary HE charge won't shoot down any airplanes, thought, so yeah - zero destructive power against them. 

In fired shell part of the CE will go into fragments and the higher velocity will help there more. Velocity will also help getting hits so does a cycling-rate.

 

What about the brisance? The more energetic explosives tend to have high brisance. It can result in many but small/light fragments which could be undesirable. Perhaps, heavier shells like the 37mm M54 use weaker HE fillers to not overdo fragmentation so putting stronger (like the petn instead of the tetryl) HE in them would actually decrease their effectiveness.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

The stationary HE charge won't shoot down any airplanes, thought, so yeah - zero destructive power against them. 

In fired shell part of the CE will go into fragments and the higher velocity will help there more. Velocity will also help getting hits so does a cycling-rate.

 

What about the brisance? The more energetic explosives tend to have high brisance. It can result in many but small/light fragments which could be undesirable. Perhaps, heavier shells like the 37mm M54 use weaker HE fillers to not overdo fragmentation so putting stronger (like the petn instead of the tetryl) HE in them would actually decrease their effectiveness.

 

Yes it will: a 3cm mineshell placed inside the structure of an aircraft by a saboteur and detonated will have less total damage effect than one fired into the structure, but not much less. An AP round placed in a structure will have zero effect: it is obvious which round the saboteur would chose. The shoe-bomber did not put lead pellets in his trainers.

 

Clearly the brisance matters and the game attempts to model that, ( so I believe, based on devs comments); the mineshells get more fragments moving faster but they are smaller and hence have less range.  I am not saying that the DM is perfect; I suspect that it's use of fragment damage for HE shells is skewing results, but without knowing exactly how damage is calculated it is impossible to say.

 

But I stand by my overall comment: people are reading far too much into the W/G tables. Even by the standard of constructing an overall index it is a piss poor effort. If they had presented their index to me when I was running a research office that constructed similar indices on a much more difficult topic - the attractiveness of company shares as investment opportunities - I would have sent them home to think again, as the Scots say.  Janosek's treatment is much better; he still uses a multiplier, based on KE,  not momentum, but he does not confuse the probability of a hit with the effects of a hit, as W/G do, but addresses that explicitly. 

 

 

 

 

[Ehret]

BoX is supposed to be "a WW2 plane flight sim"; not a saboteur (today they have a different name, thought) "sim". Overall, I don't disagree but the example of "planting shells in a plane" was unfortunate.

[Grancesc]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

...But I stand by my overall comment: people are reading far too much into the W/G tables. Even by the standard of constructing an overall index it is a piss poor effort. If they had presented their index to me when I was running a research office that constructed similar indices on a much more difficult topic - the attractiveness of company shares as investment opportunities - I would have sent them home to think again, as the Scots say….

 

 

If the W/G index is a poor approach, why did the empirical data from real life experiments of the leading Allied Air Forces yield nearly the same results? And with what scientific foundations do you call into question a publication recognized in the whole professional world?

[ironk79]

On 12/17/2018 at 8:28 AM, eRoN said:

 

[edited]

 

I've just come out of a game hunting il-2s in my g2, and after spending the entirety of my ammo on a single il-2, none of which did any discernable damage, not even a fuel leak or any problem flying, i've decided personally this is unplayable at the moment. I'm not saying the DM change wasn't needed, because the wings coming off was also ridiculous before, but 1C really need to re-tune the guns to compensate, and keeping close to historical data like Grancesc provided as a reference. Particularly, it's about time they sorted out HE shells, which have been a glaring, obvious, and commonly understood problem since the games inception, and quite frankly, a disgrace, from a game development perspective, that 1C didn't address such a fundamentally important problem at the beginning, and more of a disgrace it remains unaddressed all these years later.

dont like the new dm, when before it was to easy to break wings, now f.e. a Yak 1b becomes basically an Il2, eating almost all of a 109 20mm and MG ammo, tunring into a crop duster, but still performing at almost 100%. You can spay it with 20mm from front to end, side to side, no real effect, tested multiple times since i could belief it. I really doubt an lightweight airframe that is dusted with HE shells can withstand that kind of punishment and still fly almost unimpressed.

 

P.S. Just remembered, on time strafing with cannons over the whole aircraft, looked like a chinese firecracker chain, even the canopy was covered in explosion, any effect from that strafe, no - the pilot was ok and not really bothered not to mention the aircraft.

As the previous DM was kind of easy (wings falling of) this dm seem unrealistic strong, esp. when looking at the cannons and their effect (MG feel good though)

Edited December 18, 2018 by ironk79

[ironk79]

On 12/11/2018 at 3:29 PM, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Like the new DM hundred times better, before it was like shooting missiles, every plane felt like paper, wings came off all the time, hated it , felt very arcade.

Maybe too many people got used to one pass and killed, which was easy, or seeing wing or tail come off , so they were sure they got a kill.

Developers please dont go back to the old DM.

The new one can be updated (your airplane should under perform when full of holes, and pieces missing, and 30mm revised if at all)

i think we are heading in the right direction and i slightly prefer (but still dont like) the new DM to the, like you said, arcadish feel from the old DM. Wings falling of like tree leafes in autumn were quite unrealistic.

But same seems now esp. with HE cannons and the effect they have. To me they have almost no effect on the enemy plane. the planes perfomance doesnt reflect the damage it must suffer (looking at photographs of HE testing) after being hit with a dozen shells all over the wings/fuselage or even canopy.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

After a lot more testing mostly in Berloga I think the DM went more "arcade" then before. Not even mentioning HE or Mineshells at all now.

 

Flew both sides and almost all aircraft and realized that a "kill" is almost always the same...engine damage. No matter where you hit aircraft (or get hit), 90% of the time the aircraft will die because of engine damage. I dogfighted for hours, at least 40 kills and 20 death and I didn't see a single kill because of structural damage.

- I saw zero kills because of structural fuselage damage

- I saw zero kills because of wing damage

- I saw 3 kills because of vital control parts falling off (e.g. half elevator)

- I saw around 5 pilot kills

 The rest was kill due to engine failure. And this in an environment where you hammer aircraft all the way down until they hit the ground. 

 

I understand that engine damage was a frequent reason for a kill back in the time, especially when your aim is good, but I deliberately aimed at everything else then the engine like wings and fuselage, but in the end it almost always resulted in an engine death kill again. This to me feels a lot less realistic then before, where you had more varied kills.

 

For me the engines of the aircraft feel too vulnerable right now (e.g. getting damaged when you hit a wing), while at the same time the rest of the aircraft feels a lot too durable.

Edited December 18, 2018 by II./JG77_Manu*

[303_Kwiatek]

It is also seen on videos recorded when K-4 is shoting to P-47 or SPitfire.   Wing hit ( only some small holes in wings covering)  but damages were in system inside fuselage ( engine, oxygen, etc).

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[unreasonable]

5 hours ago, Grancesc said:

 

If the W/G index is a poor approach, why did the empirical data from real life experiments of the leading Allied Air Forces yield nearly the same results? And with what scientific foundations do you call into question a publication recognized in the whole professional world?

 

Various air forces agree that cannons are better than HMGs, and fast firing cannons with high MVs are the best. That would be clear in any such index, including ones constructed properly, so that is not in dispute.  My issue with it is that it is a poor approach to assessing individual hit destructiveness, for the reasons I explained.   It is OK as a broad index of the entire weapon system in most cases: although as I said the W&G treatment has biases that are not made explicit by the authors, at least on their website.   

As for this W&G table being "recognized in the whole professional world" - this is hyperbole. W&G were not the first to generate indices of weapon systems: the 1947 US report compares the efficiency of possible bomber gun turret configurations,  although in a more sophisticated way. They use muzzle energy (ie KE) not momentum as a base for individual shot damage. The paper by Janosek that has been posted on this forum produces a similar system index to W&G, and also uses an HE multipler to estimate CE, but it uses KE as a base, not momentum.

 

As for my "scientific foundations" - I know the difference between momentum and kinetic energy, to start with, and I also know that you should not bundle the probability of hits with the effect of hits into one bodged number and call it cartridge destructiveness. That really is bad science.   If you want to hold up the W&G work as some great authority that is up to you, but you should not expect people who understand how this kind of index should be constructed to agree. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JtD]

The biggest merit imho is the simplicity of putting everything into one single number.

 

Personally I prefer detailed, complex reports that I need to work through and interpret on my own, but that's not for everybody. Most folks are happy to just look at the bottom line of someone else's interpretation, and often that's sufficient for a sufficient understanding of things. It's not good enough to serve as the basis for a somewhat complex damage model though, and if applied there, it's only misleading.

[ironk79]

did some more testing, have to say, DM worked quite well for me this time. for some reason my opponents didnt act like bullet sponges.

Cannons felt good ,dealing a good amount of damage. What i can say is, cannons arent that one kill shot powerful anymore, although i managed some kills with a single burst to the cockpit. but overall i have to approve the changes.

I had all kinds of kills while testing, damage and engine failure, pilot kills, burning engines, sawed of wings from close 20mm burst - overall a very pleasent difference to before DM, where it felt like every 2nd kill was wings coming off. now burning engines and plane are more common, that i appriciate. Overall, so far, i am pleased with the direction this is going.

[stupor-mundi]

I'd have a question regarding the DM. Here, with a plane focus, there is at least a sizable fraction who like the current DM.

Whereas in Tank Crew, the DM is currently widely regarded as quite broken, since the last update.

So, is this a unified DM, or are there different DMs for planes and tanks. I don't have an opinion on the DM plane-wise at the moment, but do have one tank-wise. So I wonder whether I should vote on that poll.

 

[Ehret]

30 minutes ago, ironk79 said:

I had all kinds of kills while testing, damage and engine failure, pilot kills, burning engines, sawed of wings from close 20mm burst - overall a very pleasent difference to before DM, where it felt like every 2nd kill was wings coming off. now burning engines and plane are more common, that i appriciate. Overall, so far, i am pleased with the direction this is going.

 

If you land a good burst or hit in the convergence range the damage still can be massive. The inline engines we have in the sim (imho) seem to be much more resilient to damage than they historically were. A leak from pressurized cooling system would seize the engine very quickly; in half minute or so.

[D3adCZE]

I Have few replays of BnZing yaks on berloga with 190A8. I was rather shocked when the yak survived only with leaks after I sprayed him with 2 second burst from four mk151/20 and two mk131. Will try to make video from it asap.

[ShamrockOneFive]

10 minutes ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

I Have few replays of BnZing yaks on berloga with 190A8. I was rather shocked when the yak survived only with leaks after I sprayed him with 2 second burst from four mk151/20 and two mk131. Will try to make video from it asap.

 

I've heard this from a few people now where they supposedly hit a Yak or an IL-2 or something else hard and there were only a few leaks. I haven't seen anything like that myself.

 

Video please... I have to see this.

[Guest deleted@134347]

42 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I've heard this from a few people now where they supposedly hit a Yak or an IL-2 or something else hard and there were only a few leaks. I haven't seen anything like that myself.

 

Video please... I have to see this.

 

i witnessed something similar, but it's a bit elusive. Unloaded around 6-8 HE's from my E7 in to a climbing yak from high 6. It kept on climbing and started to leak... i landed 2 or 4 more.. it kept on climbing.. then began to dive.. 2 more he's on the way down. No black smoke. No white smoke. Just green leaks. About 200m lower its prop stopped spinning...

 

i think it was already dead after the first salvo, however the visuals were misleading...

 

[unreasonable]

On 12/19/2018 at 5:43 AM, stupor-mundi said:

I'd have a question regarding the DM. Here, with a plane focus, there is at least a sizable fraction who like the current DM.

Whereas in Tank Crew, the DM is currently widely regarded as quite broken, since the last update.

So, is this a unified DM, or are there different DMs for planes and tanks. I don't have an opinion on the DM plane-wise at the moment, but do have one tank-wise. So I wonder whether I should vote on that poll.

 

 

TC is still very early access and the tank DM has to take armour penetration into account in a much more detailed way than we need in the air: defeating armour is 90% of the tank game! 

I would leave it for the moment or until there is a TC specific poll.

[Grancesc]

On 12/18/2018 at 4:39 PM, unreasonable said:

.... As for my "scientific foundations" - I know the difference between momentum and kinetic energy, to start with, and I also know that you should not bundle the probability of hits with the effect of hits into one bodged number and call it cartridge destructiveness. That really is bad science.   If you want to hold up the W&G work as some great authority that is up to you, but you should not expect people who understand how this kind of index should be constructed to agree. 

 

 

So you don't have any scientific foundations. Thank you.

[unreasonable]

20 minutes ago, Grancesc said:

 

So you don't have any scientific foundations. Thank you.

 

Your ignorance of my qualifications is matched only by your arrogance in assuming that I have none. I am not going to indulge you in some childish game of degree listing. If you want to base your decisions on some idea of authority rather than seeking truth for yourself, that is your problem, not mine.

 

I note that you have no substantive comments on my criticism of the W&G calculation of "cartridge destructiveness".  

[JaffaCake]

34 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

If you want to base your decisions on some idea of authority rather than seeking truth for yourself, that is your problem, not mine.

 

 

This is something so many people need to learn - degrees don't matter if the argument is reasoned and supported.

[216th_Jordan]

On 12/18/2018 at 11:04 AM, ironk79 said:

dont like the new dm, when before it was to easy to break wings, now f.e. a Yak 1b becomes basically an Il2, eating almost all of a 109 20mm and MG ammo, tunring into a crop duster, but still performing at almost 100%. You can spay it with 20mm from front to end, side to side, no real effect, tested multiple times since i could belief it. I really doubt an lightweight airframe that is dusted with HE shells can withstand that kind of punishment and still fly almost unimpressed. 

  

P.S. Just remembered, on time strafing with cannons over the whole aircraft, looked like a chinese firecracker chain, even the canopy was covered in explosion, any effect from that strafe, no - the pilot was ok and not really bothered not to mention the aircraft.

As the previous DM was kind of easy (wings falling of) this dm seem unrealistic strong, esp. when looking at the cannons and their effect (MG feel good though)

 

What are all you guys doing? I get Wingoffs still rather frequently with 109s and Mg151. Also the Shvaks perform better than the UBS while some claim otherwise.

Did this in one flight after writing this post:

 

 

PS. that does not mean I think cannon damage is right atm, but its not that off really.

Edited December 20, 2018 by 216th_Jordan

[Panthera]

On 12/14/2018 at 12:19 PM, RoflSeal said:

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

 

An La-5 was not going to survive 3 hits to the wings by the MK108 in real life. It would be highly unlikely that an La-5's wings would even survive just one hit seeing as this on average was not even considered as likely to be survivable for the larger winged Spitfire. So 3 hits is just ludicrous, esp. when this is the number of hits which was the expected average nr. of wing hits required to down a Lancaster. 

 

In short I don't think I'm off by saying something is awfully wrong if the La-5's wings can survive more than 3cm HE 1 hit ingame, let alone the 3 it can sometimes take atm. Hence why we're even complaining about the Spitfire's wings being able to take 1 hit and fly on most of time ingame, and often even whilst retaining the ability to effectively dogfight afterwards.

 

IMO the chance of a Spitfire, or any of the other normal sized fighters ingame for that matter, being able to stay airborne after a hit to the wing by a 3cm HE(M) shell should be very small, and if by luck that chance strikes it should only be possible to fly on with the most careful handling. A P-47 I can accept being stronger and at least having a reasonable chance of flying on after a single hit to the wing, but 2 hits I doubt it could take with any reasonable chance.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Panthera

[JtD]

There are significant structural differences between a La-5 and a Spitfire wing, and size doesn't really matter a lot.

 

Also you could do me a favour and in some way refer to hits as 'effective'. Frankly, shooting a high angle deflection shot at a thin part of the wing will have little effect as the projectile will mostly explode outside of the wing after exiting it, as will low angle deflection shots if the projectile explodes prior to entering the structures. Same thing if it hits fabric covered parts of an otherwise wood/metal (covered) wing, like ailerons. Academically, it's amazingly easy to construct examples of detonating MK108 hits that will only deal non-lethal amounts of damage. As long as you have no means to exactly determine hit location in game, you need to go with a general assumption, and there 1 hit per kill simply is too high (or low, depending how you look at it).

 

I don't know if the La-5 picture shows MK108 damage, but it may easily be so, looks fairly MK108ish to me. It not only illustrates the important structural differences between a Spitfire and a La-5 wing, it also shows another extremely important factor in the lethality of hits - the guy standing to the right. One must not forget how important pilot skill is when it comes to determining whether or not a plane is a loss. Something I think is missing from every test we've discussed so far and also from our discussions on these forums. If that La-5 flew in that condition, I don't think that safely landing it was an easy thing to do.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

In regards to the La-5 photo, it was posted on the Russian forums saying it was a 30mm, although I guess it could also be a 37mm. They also made an estimation of the total area missing in relation to the rest of the wing. If the hit was a bit more forward I guess it could have rip off the wing?

[D3adCZE]

On 12/19/2018 at 6:21 PM, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I've heard this from a few people now where they supposedly hit a Yak or an IL-2 or something else hard and there were only a few leaks. I haven't seen anything like that myself.

 

Video please... I have to see this.

Ok so yesterday I recorded few flights on Berloga. What seems to be the problem is the fact that german cannons(dunno about russian, didnt test them) do fragmentation damage to critical components, instead of structural damage to enclosed compartments of the aircraft. Most of the airplanes, except that yak at the end, went down rather quickly, but not from structural damage, but from engine damage or pilot snipe. One would expect an airplane to blow to pieces after few hits of 30mm or 4x 20mm cannons.

 

Here is the video, if you have any remarks towards this, feel free to tell me, I will be glad for feedback: