Jump to content
AnPetrovich

Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?  

289 members have voted

  1. 1. Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    • Befoe 3.008
      65
    • After 3.008
      224


Recommended Posts

Hi guys!

 

The question means exactly what it means: which DM do you like?

This poll doesn't mean that we gonna tweak something in DM according to any reaction, but we just want to know, what our community thinks and what kind of gameplay you like more.

 

Please, make your chose :)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 14
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Petrovich,

 

I like the new model better. Maybe there are some weird cases where there is some tweaking needed, but overall this one seems fare more plausible. 

 

Grt M

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for creating this on the english speaking forum. I believe the new DM it's great. It needs some further work but it's a quantum leap on what we had. I believe there are not choices for gameplay but for fetching realism. The sim has made a great progress so far and this update it's not less. Please don't go back to the older one, improve this.

Edited by LF_Gallahad
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have been a good idea IMO for an option that the answer lies somewhere in between maybe?

 

Thanks for the poll though!

 

I have to vote "after" but I still don't think "after" is perfect. I think we could use planes surviving about 80% of what they currently survive in 3.008.

 

Difference in DM:

I-----------------------------------------------+------------I

3.007                                                  3.008

Edited by Talon_
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage by AP is better now, damage by HE needs to be stronger overall, especially blast damage. So i don't vote for either.

 

Also incendiary rounds need to be added.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Damage by AP is better now, damage by HE needs to be stronger overall, especially blast damage. So i don't vote for either.

 

+1 and since this effects most aircraft's ammunition, I vote for "it was better before" because HE damage seemed more plausible in overall damage before the update (even if the specific damage was more simplified then it is now)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New DM much better , like it a lot, thanks for this update.

Needs to be complemented with the plane being hit and damaged loosing performance, slower, less turning capabilities .

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading through several pages of comments the general consensus, not necesarilly my own, is that large caliber/HE weapons still need an Up Tweak but the rest seems very favorable. I'm pretty happy with the update and don't mind having to sink a few more rounds into an opponent to get the kill. Then again, I enjoyed the challenge of flying our original 190 FM during EA. Call me a weirdo if you must :)

 

Edit: As motodave says above, aerodynamic performance loss does need to be revisited at some point. Thank you again, however, for strengthening the airframes and the main spars in particular. Much more realistic.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New DM is clearly better. No more falling off wings in high frequency. Finetuning with projectile damage of various calibers is still necessary. However, over all a step in the correct direction. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prefer the new DM for SP.   Too many wings coming off after a couple of 20mm hits in the old one.  Still a bit uncertain how each sort of round does what sort of damage for a particular sort of hit in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new model is better. However, that said, the 30mm minengeschoss is on the weak side and manoeuvrability of the planes after such a hit is too god.

Also a P47 should not be able to do much after a hit with Mk108 in the fuselage.

 

In all a very good patch but the heavy calibre weapons need a bit work.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

The new model is better. However, that said, the 30mm minengeschoss is on the weak side and manoeuvrability of the planes after such a hit is too god.

Also a P47 should not be able to do much after a hit with Mk108 in the fuselage.

 

In all a very good patch but the heavy calibre weapons need a bit work.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a tough time rating any damage model when a very significant part of it is left in a very neglected state or missing completely.

 

In my opinion you need 2 major things for a good damage model:

 

1. The most accurate possible model of an airplane and its simulation when being damaged

2. The most accurate possible guns and ammunition 

 

I feel like the devs are putting too much effort currently on number 1. while neglecting number 2. Otherwise i fail to understand why we still have no accurate depiction of ammunition belting and not modelled Mineshells, an ammunition type that nearly 50% of all airplanes use. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New one for sure, but as was already suggested above high caliber round (MK108 especially) need a little “bump” in performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mk. 108 is already 2.5 times more powerful then the 20mm and we increased its splash damage in the last update so control rods and other parts get damaged. Sometimes I think your guy's perception of our product is bit off and after using our previous settings for a long time new changes throw you guys off causing renewed interest in subjects you were accustomed to looking for perceived issues. 

 

Jason 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 16

Share this post


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

The new model is better. However, that said, the 30mm minengeschoss is on the weak side and manoeuvrability of the planes after such a hit is too god.

Also a P47 should not be able to do much after a hit with Mk108 in the fuselage.

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

The Mk. 108 is already 2.5 times more powerful then the 20mm and we increased its splash damage in the last update so control rods and other parts get damaged. Sometimes I think your guy's perception of our product is bit off and after using our previous settings for a long time new changes throw you guys off causing renewed interest in subjects you were accustomed to looking for perceived issues. 

 

Jason 

 

Well some people have issues with how the Mk. 108 performs because you need way more rounds to get an air kill than they are accustomed too and what they are reading wherever. Saying that it is already 2.5 times more powerful than the 20mm doesn't mean much when you don't put it into context to the "strengthened" aircraft damage model. 

 

I feel like there are two major ways people compare the DM that kinda make sense. Comparing it to historical data and comparing it to its in game counterparts. Currently i get the feeling that people are not really satisfied with the results of it. 

 

Also you can hardly blame people when their perception of the product is a bit off considering that the information they get, especially when it comes to the DM, is a bit lacking as well. Now i'd like to get as much information about the thought process and the sources as much as the next guy but i also understand why certain things aren't communicated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 30mm is only 2.5 times as powerful as 20mm that would explain things. Because it should be almost 4 times more powerful. If by more powerful, the weight of the HE charge is meant (which i'm assuming it is).

Edited by Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Well some people have issues with how the Mk. 108 performs because you need way more rounds to get an air kill than they are accustomed too and what they are reading wherever. Saying that it is already 2.5 times more powerful than the 20mm doesn't mean much when you don't put it into context to the "strengthened" aircraft damage model. 

 

I feel like there are two major ways people compare the DM that kinda make sense. Comparing it to historical data and comparing it to its in game counterparts. Currently i get the feeling that people are not really satisfied with the results of it. 

 

Also you can hardly blame people when their perception of the product is a bit off considering that the information they get, especially when it comes to the DM, is a bit lacking as well. Now i'd like to get as much information about the thought process and the sources as much as the next guy but i also understand why certain things aren't communicated.

 

Everything about the DM is subjective. There is no absolute right or wrong answer because the factors are infinite. Our thought process is built upon as much science as possible and any data we may have, coupled with video of actual dogfights and customer feedback. Add that all up, even with some scientific data it's still a subjective answer. We're not going to explain every single decision we make to you, but we've already given the community multiple tweaks to ammo and DM over the years, notice people are still unhappy with users on both sides of the fence. It will never end.

 

The Mk.108 was a powerful weapon and we've modeled it that way. There are many ways to kill a plane with all manner of calibers. We also can't model things exactly like real life which again has infinite factors and results.

Customers complained that our planes were too soft and easy to blow off wings etc. and we listened to you and did our own research and thinking on it, corrected some bugs and the result is what you see. Petrovich has asked for a simple yes of no question. The overall majority see our latest moves as an improvement so that's good. Whether or not I allow the team to spend more time on this I don't know. It's already disrupted our existing schedule. 

 

And some of you make comments as if this stuff is easy to make. We believe our damage model is the best on the market and our latest Feedback survey basically backs up that point. There is always room for improvement, but we're pretty happy with the current result.

 

Jason

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted that I liked after 3.008 best and would like to thank the developers for taking the time and effort to give us an improved DM. 

 

Thank you very much dev's for all you do.  It is very much appreciated.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted for after 3.008. I like this improved DM a lot, much better than before. There`s always things to improve but overall it`s great👍

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted  "after", but I think that it would be good to improve damage of large HE calibers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

The Mk. 108 is already 2.5 times more powerful then the 20mm and we increased its splash damage in the last update so control rods and other parts get damaged. Sometimes I think your guy's perception of our product is bit off and after using our previous settings for a long time new changes throw you guys off causing renewed interest in subjects you were accustomed to looking for perceived issues. 

 

Jason 

Agree, people just need to get used to how it is now, which is more realistic and a bit more challenging (no as easy to get 1 shot and a kill, many are getting annoyed because of this) aim better, get closer and you still can get easy kills, and many kills in one sortie.

Also on the pilot being shot at , not more instant death as easy as before, you have some reaction time.

Edited by II./JG77_motoadve
Text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is better now. I throw my vote in with the "Take another look at the HE and Mineshell modelling" hat. Hope you'll find another slot in the time table for that at some point:)

Share this post


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

Everything about the DM is subjective. There is no absolute right or wrong answer because the factors are infinite. Our thought process is built upon as much science as possible and any data we may have, coupled with video of actual dogfights and customer feedback. Add that all up, even with some scientific date and it's still a subjective answer. We're not going to explain every single decision we make to you, but we've already given the community multiple tweaks to ammo and DM over the years, notice people are still unhappy with users on both sides of the fence. It will never end.

 

First of all, thank you for engaging in this discussion because i know it can get tedious from a developers standpoint (and frustrating for both sides). 

 

I am fully aware that at least to a big degree the DM is a subjective matter. What i fail to grasp (the problem might be on my end) is why historical belting and modelling the Mineshells (which are used by nearly 50% of the aircrafts in IL2 GB) doesn't seem to be on the to-do list. 

 

2 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

The Mk.108 was a powerful weapon and we've modeled it that way. There are many ways to kill a plane with all manner of calibers. We also can't model things exactly like real life which again has infinite factors and results.

 

I think everybody who only even remotely dealt with damage test trial reports knows that it is impossible to replicate it in a sim. However there is scientific data on ammunition available and every single one of them that i am aware of pretty much paints the same picture when compared to the other available ammunition during that time. I know that you are doing a statistical interpolation and extrapolation of the available data, yet the results seem to differ a lot from the results leading scientists come up with. 

 

Especially when it comes to subjective topics like the DM i think there should be as much objective (as far as that is possible but it seems that there is a general consensus) data involved as possible.

 

2 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

And some of you make comments as if this stuff is easy to make. We believe our damage model is the best on the market and our latest Feedback survey basically backs up that point. There is always room for improvement, but we're pretty happy with the current result.

 

I think many of us, and i don't exclude myself from it at all, come across as being too unappreciative of your work and i can understand that this can be very frustrating to deal with. Your game has by far the best damage model as far as i am concerned. All the (constructive) criticism and even the moaning about changes is on a different level to other sims when it comes to the level of detail (if that makes sense). Especially the part of the "more engaged" community is fully aware of the greatness of the game or otherwise they wouldn't channel their inner keyboard warrior to spend hours and hours to do tests and search for historical documents or create historical skins etc. While the community (or parts of it) should be more appreciative about the work you guys put it in, maybe there should also be some appreciation towards the community who do what they are doing because they love the game. 

 

In short: thank you for the best combat sim on the market and please keep up the great work. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The keyword here is little. I presume nobody is suggesting that 30mm should be like 1 round = both wings are flying off, but damage it deals sometimes feel, well…inconsistent. I’m still easily able to get instant kills with it, but sometimes I’m putting (not wasting) a lot more rounds than before and the guy is still flying ;) All in all the new DM is big improvement, but nonetheless it need few tweaks here and there to be perfect. I’m confident that the devteam nail it shortly and everyone (well almost everyone) will be happy with it.   

Edited by Korowiov
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at historical data and anecdotal evidence available  the MK 108 was a devastating weapon. I remember watching a documentary featuring the test pilot, Eric Brown where he witnessed an attack  on B-26's and he stated that they were turned into confetti by the withering fire from MK 108's. There is also plenty of photographic and documented evidence to peruse.  

 

I think the new damage model is an excellent step forward.

 

However, before the update, the 30 mm rounds were deadly and you would be very fortunate to survive 1 hit and if you survived  2 hits then you felt a miracle had taken place.  

 

Flying online now you can take 5 , 6 or even more 30 mm hits and remain airborne, admittedly your aircraft will probably be terminally damaged but its can still be flown until the engine conks out or you take another hit.  Many would expect a catastrophic failure after the first or second hit with wing or fuselage failure.

 

I fully understand that you will never please everyone and that the changes to the damage model will have all sorts of effects that may not be what we perceived they should be. 

 

I think the devs continue to work wonders but I was surprised that  prior to our latest update virtually every one of the current aircraft was very vulnerable to 30 mm and now a Lagg can take 4 to 5 rounds to the fuselage and continue flying.

 

This is of course a personal opinion and is in no way a blanket criticism of a truly excellent product, but I'd like to see to see the 30 mm exhibit the same level of destructive power that we had before  3.008 but with all the goodies we have in the current build.

 

 

Edit: -

 

Just a quick video from the other night on BERLOGA public

 

 

 

      

 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard
Added video
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The Mk. 108 is already 2.5 times more powerful then the 20mm and we increased its splash damage in the last update so control rods and other parts get damaged. Sometimes I think your guy's perception of our product is bit off and after using our previous settings for a long time new changes throw you guys off causing renewed interest in subjects you were accustomed to looking for perceived issues. 

 

Jason 

 

Jason,

 

I don´t think 2,5 times more powerful is enough. Look:

 

30mm MK 108 shell weight = 330g, HE (RDX) filler weight = 85g 

 

20 mm MG 151/20 shell weight = 57g, HE filler weight = 3g

 

20mm MG 151/20 shell Minengeschoss weight = 95g, HE filler weight = 18,6g

 

shell weight ratio (30mm/20mm) = 5.78 times

 

shell weight ratio (30mm/20mm Mine) = 3,47 times

 

HE filler weight ratio (30mm/20mm) = 28 times

 

HE filler weight ratio (30mm/20mm Mine) = 4,5 times

 

My guess is, it needs extensiv playtesting, but for a start I´d expect the MK 108 round to be at least 28 times more powerfull than the normal MG 151 round and 4,5 times more powerfull than the 20mm Mine round. If you have it at 2,5 times right now, that seems a bit low if we look at the weight ratios between both shells.

 

Edited by sevenless
corrected for typos and Mine shell
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

 

Jason,

 

I don´t think 2,5 times more powerful is enough. Look:

 

30mm MK 108 shell weight = 330g, HE (RDX) filler weight = 85g 

 

20 mm MG 151/20 shell weight = 57g, HE filler weight = 3g

 

shell weight ratio (30mm/20mm) = 18.81 times

 

HE filler weight ratio (30mm/20mm) = 19 times

 

My guess is, it needs extensiv playtesting, but for a start I´d expect the MK 108 round to be at least 15 times more powerfull than the MG 151 round. If you have it at 2,5 times right now, that seems a bit low if we look at the weight ratios between both shells.

 

 

They don't consider any calculation to be of value to base their decisions on it as far as i know when it comes to ammunition no matter how credible the source is. 

 

That being said, calculating the destructive energy of both shells, you would be closer to 4 (3.87) times than 15 times.

 

We have like 100 threads about this and jason is very very likely aware of them so this is not the place to make it thread nr. 101 ;)

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


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

 

They don't consider any calculation to be of value to base their decisions on it as far as i know when it comes to ammunition no matter how credible the source is. 

 

That being said, calculating the destructive energy of both shells, you would be closer to 4 (3.87) times than 15 times.

 

Just out of my own curiosity: How do you get to your 4 (3.87) times ratio per shell?

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Just out of my own curiosity: How do you get to your 4 (3.87) times ratio per shell?

 

by calculating the destructive energy of both shells like i did in my 20mm Bug report (see my signature). While this approach certainly has some problems, it nonetheless gives an objective way to compare certain shell types.

 

Edit: i'll write you a pm to not further occupy this thread.

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


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

 

by calculating the destructive energy of both shells like i did in my 20mm Bug report (see my signature). While this approach certainly has some problems, it nonetheless gives an objective way to compare certain shell types.

 

Thanks. By calculating kinetic energy for each shell, if I understood your test correctly with my laymans brain ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Looking at historical data and anecdotal evidence available  the MK 108 was a devastating weapon. I remember watching a documentary featuring the test pilot, Eric Brown where he witnessed an attack  on B-26's and he stated that they were turned into confetti by the withering fire from MK 108's. There is also plenty of photographic and documented evidence to peruse.  

 

I think the new damage model is an excellent step forward.

 

However, before the update, the 30 mm rounds were deadly and you would be very fortunate to survive 1 hit and if you survived  2 hits then you felt a miracle had taken place.  

 

Flying online now you can take 5 , 6 or even more 30 mm hits and remain airborne, admittedly your aircraft will probably be terminally damaged but its can still be flown until the engine conks out or you take another hit.  Many would expect a catastrophic failure after the first or second hit with wing or fuselage failure.

 

I fully understand that you will never please everyone and that the changes to the damage model will have all sorts of effects that may not be what we perceived they should be. 

 

I think the devs continue to work wonders but I was surprised that  prior to our latest update virtually every one of the current aircraft was very vulnerable to 30 mm and now a Lagg can take 4 to 5 rounds to the fuselage and continue flying.

 

This is of course a personal opinion and is in no way a blanket criticism of a truly excellent product, but I'd like to see to see the 30 mm exhibit the same level of destructive power that we had before  3.008 but with all the goodies we have in the current build.

 

 

Edit: -

 

Just a quick video from the other night on BERLOGA public

 

 

 

      

 

 

i feel even more safer in lagg23 seing this :) 

did you test maybe vvs and p-39 37mm vs 109s or 190s, or only problem is 30mm vs allied airplanes in 3.008

Share this post


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

My guess is, it needs extensiv playtesting, but for a start I´d expect the MK 108 round to be at least 15 times more powerfull than the MG 151 round. If you have it at 2,5 times right now, that seems a bit low if we look at the weight ratios between both shells.

 

 

Mg151/20 Mineshell has 18,7 g filler. Also splinters need to be factored in too. Its not just explosives.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

did you test maybe vvs and p-39 37mm vs 109s or 190s, or only problem is 30mm vs allied airplanes in 3.008

Several different categories.with similar results.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Several different categories.with similar results.   

and its ok for them to servive multiple hits from 37mm?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

calculating kinetic energy for each shell

 

Always depends about what shell? - kinetic energy based ( damage done depending on distance ) or the chemical reaction based ( the same amount of damage done at any distance )

 

1 hour ago, Operation_Ivy said:

by calculating the destructive energy of both shells

 

Not enough, Germans loaded their MGFF, MG151,MK108,MK103....,......,....... with mixed shells. Mine shells had delay fuse allow the shell to explode two-thirds or more inside the aircraft. This delay fuze allow it to explode even in the air. And the fact that  Mine shells are not modelled and act as normal HE is a huge issue!

 

Quote

Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

 

None, as long vvs ammunition is more aerodynamic & effective than axis ammunition

-> I like CloD style DM

 

Edited by Livai

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...