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

3 hours ago, Solmyr said:

 

As far as I remember, neither here, always front fuselage (engine bay) fires. Maybe one better informed could tell us more on that modelisation ?

 

About the MiG-3, I mostly fly her in my career and sometimes I had to check for minor damages on one of my wings. Here are some fuel tank refill plugs, so I guess yes there are fuel tanks in the wings.

The pilot sits on top of the fuel tank. It is in the fuselage. You will see a panel with a bump on bottom of radiator fairing. This is drain plug cover for the fuel tank. The four circle panels on the wings are covers for the connection points of the wooden outer wings to metal inner wings. 

Share this post


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

In case of the nicely picture documented test results we must not forget that these were effective hits - for instance, all these hits occurred in positions and at angles that allowed the projectile to penetrate and explode inside of the structure. This will not be the case for every hit in combat and that should not be forgotten when shaping expectations. You'll need one effective hit to kill a Spitfire, not just any one hi

 

Right,

but since the game is able to differentiate between effective hits and not, I quite frankly do not see the point in discussing elaborate models at this point.

Whether the model that generates the distinction between an effective hit and and ineffective one is a whole other story and as far as I can tell hasn’t been the matter of debate, although it would also be interesting. Even though I do

not think that simple shell bounces off versus shell hits models offer bang for the buck advantage over more complex models in this regard.

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


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

The pilot sits on top of the fuel tank. It is in the fuselage. You will see a panel with a bump on bottom of radiator fairing. This is drain plug cover for the fuel tank. The four circle panels on the wings are covers for the connection points of the wooden outer wings to metal inner wings. 

 

Oh, ok.. So I feared several times for nothing but probably didn't when it was real. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Well again you are just not getting it right about what the report actually says. It very definitely deals with lethality vs hit placement, how on earth do you think they arrived at the probabilities for kills vs structure, pilot, fuel cells or engines? They fired at various parts and looked at what happened: just as in the UK trials but far more often and with more weapons/shells.  That it why it is so useful.

 


No, you're making the mistake of assigning each as the probability of a kill due to a direct hit to any of those areas, which most definitely is not what the report is trying to tell you. What it's trying to estimate is merely the probability of single randomly placed hit anywhere bringing down the aircraft due to damage caused to any of those areas, and that only when fired upon from a single direction & angle at 500 yards. So ofcourse structure rates highest, it's by far the biggest target.

 

To illustrate this abit more clearly the report assigns a 6% probability of a kill being due to damage to the pilot, which is NOT the same as saying that a hit directly to cockpit only has a 6% chance of taking out the pilot. I would hope we could both agree on that, esp. considering that we know from British testing that even a hit to the inboard section of the wing could result in shrapnel wounding the pilot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JtD said:

Actually it does that.

 

If so I've missed it. I remember seeing a graph about the probability pr. hit from a single direction however, but no overall average.

 

10 hours ago, JtD said:

Regarding the basis for the German figures, the US evaluated German evaluations of ~200 gun cam films, which the Germans used for their studies. Due to the mix of weapons installed at all the fighter aircraft investigated and other reasons, it's hard to get a specific number of weapon specific hits per kill from that. However, it can be assumed that the basis for the German evaluation is not smaller than these 200 films. What I also remember, for the decision about bomber killed / not killed, the number of visible hits was less relevant than the rank of pilot making the claim. :) Never ever take anything at face value.

 

Well seeing that the US didn't have the films (because they were all gone by wars end), they could've only assumed how each film was evaluated. That said could you link this US evaluation of the German one?

 

10 hours ago, JtD said:

What I keep noticing now is the general lack of fires in game, I don't recall having scored a single kill based on fuel tank fire. Not just for the MK108, but for all calibres I've tried.

 

Yes I agree, fires do seem to happen very seldom ingame. Perhaps this is due to a general lack of modelling the incendiary effect of various projectiles, or maybe said projectiles, like in the case of the MK108 ingame, simply aren't modelled?

Share this post


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


No, you're making the mistake of assigning each as the probability of a kill due to a direct hit to any of those areas, which most definitely is not what the report is trying to tell you. What it's trying to estimate is merely the probability of single randomly placed hit anywhere bringing down the aircraft due to damage caused to any of those areas, and that only when fired upon from a single direction & angle at 500 yards. So ofcourse structure rates highest, it's by far the biggest target.

 

To illustrate this abit more clearly the report assigns a 6% probability of a kill being due to damage to the pilot, which is NOT the same as saying that a hit directly to cockpit only has a 6% chance of taking out the pilot. I would hope we could both agree on that, esp. considering that we know from British testing that even a hit to the inboard section of the wing could result in shrapnel wounding the pilot.

 

 

That is complete and absolute rubbish, please stop making stuff up. I have never made that mistake. The tables are crystal clear, although you would never know it from your posts. 

 

The figures in the report table previously posted are, as the title says, the probability that a hit produces a kill due to X,Y,Z. Adding the components produces more than the overall figure since some hits produce kills in more than one location. I have pointed that out before, which alone demonstrates that the 0.04 figure for Pilot does not mean a 4% chance of a hit on the pilot producing a kill. That is beyond absurd.

 

To work out the probability that a kill is due to a hit on X,Y,Z, which is what you previously and wrongly claimed was the meaning of the table's figures, you would need to express the columns in reference to their total.  See attachment. Or in reference to the overall, if you do not mind the components adding up to more than 1.00   In this case the difference is very small.

 

I am mostly interested in the overall probability: if that is wildly off in the game then realism is impossible. Getting the distribution between E,S etc is nice to have but secondary.

 

On that note: I still ask, since you apparently place so much stock on the figure of "4" 3cm hits to down a B-17, when are we going to see your kill probability estimates - with or without compound damage effects - testable in the game?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

3cm ps.JPG

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

To work out the probability that a kill is due to a hit on X,Y,Z, which is what you previously and wrongly claimed was the meaning of the table's figures, you would need to express the columns in reference to their total.  See attachment.

 

What? No I have never claimed that! Infact I've only ever said the exact opposite, i.e. that each probability rating does NOT reflect the chance of a kill due to a direct hit to either of those areas! That's what I was trying to explain for gods sake! 

 

Hence this post:

 

Quoting myself: "@unreasonable I don't read it as the probability of a kill with hits to the engine, I read it as the probability of a kill being due to a hit causing damage to the engine, pilot, fuel tank or structure. There's a difference, seeing as even a hit to the wing could kill the pilot straight away with a stray piece of shrapnel."

 

Which was in response to you saying this:

Quote

No - it gave different probabilities for downing the aircraft for hits to the engine, pilot, fuel tank or structure, as well as an overall number. As in the table. 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just about to quote that exact extract ;)  

 

"the probability of a kill being due to a hit causing damage to the engine" means, there is a kill, and this is the probability that the kill was due to engine damage.  That is the logical structure of that proposition, to which I was responding.  That would be the 0.033 on the second line of my attachment, it is not what the chart says.

 

The probability of a hit (random) producing a kill, due to damage to the engine, is 0.010, which is the figure on the chart.

 

The problem appears to be that your quote does not mean what you think it means or apparently meant to say. 

 

If you agree that the OR reports tables are interpreted as per my attachment above, we can stop talking about what each other may or may not have said or meant and focus on the problem.

 

On that:

 

I like the US report for three principal reasons: 

 

1) It is sufficiently detailed that we know under what conditions the results were obtained.  This is good because it may be possible to replicate them in the game, at least to some extent.

 

2) It compares different shells in some detail. This allows for a comparison of the effects of say the 37mm and 3cm in a way that other reports do not.

 

3) It gives single shot kill probabilities. Whether the subsequent shot kill probabilities should be higher or not, we can at least test the effects of one hit against a neutral source, especially if we can roughly recreate the conditions. If that is wildly out then there is a problem. The game already includes a damage compounding mechanism, assuming components have "hit points", so what I would expect to see in game testing is that the probability of surviving later hits progressively reduces. 

 

4)It is the best source. As both I - and subsequently JtD - have pointed out, the UK trials only show the consequences of an effective hit.  From the German report you found we have very little to go on.

 

I have started some DM testing ( I hope 3.009 did not introduce any changes) as have others. The vast majority of the poll respondents are in agreement that 3.009 is an improvement. We need to give this some time and testing before agitating for change. 

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

The problem appears to be that your quote does not mean what you think it means or apparently meant to say.

 

I read it as saying what was written, i.e.:  "probabilities for downing the aircraft for hits to the engine, pilot, fuel tank or structure, as well as an overall number" . Indicating rather strongly you were talking about direct hits to said areas. At least I don't see how it could be interpreted differently, and neither did several other people, hence their responses in the same thread, as well as my later response where I said the following:

Quote

Like I said a pilot could be killed by shrapnel from a wing strike, which no doubt is considered, otherwise the report would in effect be saying that a direct hit to the cockpit would only mortally wound the pilot with 4% probability - I trust you can see how absurd that would be?

 

Bottom line is that the report is about the probability of a single hit downing the aircraft, and if so where the fatal damage was most likely to be done by that single hit, which with overwhelming likelihood would be due to structural damage.

 

Anyway I am going to assume we've been talking past each other on this and leave it at that, as it appears that direct hits to these parts is not what you actually meant.

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

like the US report for three principal reasons: 

 

1) It is sufficiently detailed that we know under what conditions the results were obtained.  This is good because it may be possible to replicate them in the game, at least to some extent.

 

2) It compares different shells in some detail. This allows for a comparison of the effects of say the 37mm and 3cm in a way that other reports do not.

 

3) It gives single shot kill probabilities. Whether the subsequent shot kill probabilities should be higher or not, we can at least test the effects of one hit against a neutral source, especially if we can roughly recreate the conditions. If that is wildly out then there is a problem. The game already includes a damage compounding mechanism, assuming components have "hit points", so what I would expect to see in game testing is that the probability of surviving later hits progressively reduces. 

 

4)It is the best source. As both I - and subsequently JtD - have pointed out, the UK trials only show the consequences of an effective hit.  From the German report you found we have very little to go on.

 

I have started some DM testing ( I hope 3.009 did not introduce any changes) as have others. The vast majority of the poll respondents are in agreement that 3.009 is an improvement. We need to give this some time and testing before agitating for change. 

 

Ok I'm going to post my issues with each of those points then:

 

1) The results were obtained from estimations based on firings at a single direction, angle & range. By comparison the British trials were

conducted from several directions and angles, and each hit was examined in detail, which IMO therefore make the British trials much more useful as we try to determine what damage to expect with certain hits ingame - like for example to the wings, which is where the discussion started.

 

2) Again the British trial is more complete for the MK108 itself, as it not only compares the different types of Mk108 shells employed in detail, but also examines the likelihood of each hit downing the aircraft seperately. With the number different locations, various impact angles and attack directions assessed, I simply don't understand why you feel that you get a more detailed picture of what to expect from looking at a probability calculation based solely on firings from a single direction, angle & range?

 

4) IMO the US report is by far the least detailed & useful source when trying to figure what damage to expect with hits to certain parts of an airframe (with the one exception being the engine as the US report actually lists the percentage wise result of direct hits to the engine area, which IIRC was damn near 100% chance of knocking it out every time), which is exactly what we're trying to do when assessing the damage to specific locations on an airframe ingame and exactly the type of information the British trials provide.

 

As for the German report, I find this useful mainly for determining the most likely average number of hits it took to down a bomber or fighter in real life, as it combines both recorded operational results and ground testing in its conclusion.

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US report gives single shot evaluations for 117 30mm hits against specific areas of a B-25 from two directions and divides the results into instant kill, A kill and B kill. It then goes on to take the results and arrive at probabilities for kills. On the bottom line there's little difference to British trials arriving at the conclusion "probably lethal". Pictures and detailed damage effect descriptions are missing, though.

 

The effectiveness of the mine shell against engine installations depends massively on the angle of attack, simply put it is useless against areas where its facing solid metal surfaces of an engine block, but extremely powerful when working against softer auxiliaries. So you have a lot lower probabilities of killing a B-25 engine when attacking it from the front then when attacking it from behind. If you check pages 25 to 28 you'll find 30-40% mean probabilities for rear attacks and ~0% for the front attack in terms of A kills (40-70 vs. 30 for B kills).

 

The US evaluation of the German evaluation was available at www.deutscheluftwaffe.de, but I cannot find it there right now.

Share this post


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

The US report gives single shot evaluations for 117 30mm hits against specific areas of a B-25 from two directions and divides the results into instant kill, A kill and B kill. It then goes on to take the results and arrive at probabilities for kills. On the bottom line there's little difference to British trials arriving at the conclusion "probably lethal". Pictures and detailed damage effect descriptions are missing, though.

 

Which really is what we need if we want to compare damage dealt to a specific location on an airframe in real life contra ingame. The British trials are therefore really our best source for determining what would be a realistic number of hits that a particular airframe part could take and still stay together in flight.

 

Atm we see Spitfires take a direct MK108 hit to the wing and keep on flying, even dogfighting no less, whilst other fighters such as the La-5 and in particular the P-47 atm can take 3-4 hits to the same wing and still fly on. The British trials pretty much rules this out as a possibility, and the US analysis simply does not address it.

 

1 hour ago, JtD said:

The effectiveness of the mine shell against engine installations depends massively on the angle of attack, simply put it is useless against areas where its facing solid metal surfaces of an engine block, but extremely powerful when working against softer auxiliaries. So you have a lot lower probabilities of killing a B-25 engine when attacking it from the front then when attacking it from behind. If you check pages 25 to 28 you'll find 30-40% mean probabilities for rear attacks and ~0% for the front attack in terms of A kills (40-70 vs. 30 for B kills).

 

Don't have the report available atm as I'm on my phone and I can't locate it via a search, but what you say makes sense considering we're talking HE rounds vs a solid engine block covering the softer vitals behind it - although we need to remember that the US didn't test the Incendiary shells, and likewise I don't remember reading which type of HE(M) shell they tested?  Makes you wonder how the std. MK108 belt load of HE(M) / INC. / HE-T(M) would've affected the US probability estimates. 

 

As for the 30-40%, I could've sworn I read 100% probability with a direct hit to the engine from the rear. But I probably wasn't looking at the mean then.

 

1 hour ago, JtD said:

The US evaluation of the German evaluation was available at www.deutscheluftwaffe.de, but I cannot find it there right now.

 

Ok, would be very interesting to see what German reports they had available.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


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

 

Which really is what we need if we want to compare damage dealt to a specific location on an airframe in real life contra ingame. The British trials are therefore really our best source for determining what would be a realistic number of hits that a particular airframe part could take and still stay together in flight.

 

 

The US tests used a number of military and civilian experts in engineering, operations and statistics to examine each test, physically, on the ground, then come up with a considered opinion of the effect of the damage on probability of a kill. The idea that a few people on the internet looking at a selection of decades old photographs will come up with better estimates is, well, let us just say, very strange.

 

I agree with JtD: the UK tests show what could happen, the US tests are about what will probably happen.

 

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

As for the 30-40%, I could've sworn I read 100% probability with a direct hit to the engine from the rear. But I probably wasn't looking at the mean then.

 

 

The mean is the white line with confidence intervals of 95% (the black bar).  "A" kill, rear above on B-25 engine is ~0.40 for 3cm, the black bar covers ~0.10 to ~0.90.  Rear below is ~ 35% also with huge black bar which you may have glanced at. 

 

The text does mention in p14 that the effect of the front and rear firings for the 3cm may have been affected by the fuzing as well: the rear firings being delay fuzes, the front superquick. Future comparisons to be made (which we have not found yet). So assuming that the delay fuze was more normal in practice, the very low front results might be out.

 

You might also want to consider that the report mentions compound effects on engines: for multi-engine bombers it considers these effects to be not very large.  This is partly due to the low probability of multiple hits on the same engine. It also considers and quantifies tests on compound damage on fuel cells in some detail: and determines that the effect of compounded fuel damage over 10 random hits is very small, at least on the B-25.  Bar charts on pp48-49

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

The US tests used a number of military and civilian experts in engineering, operations and statistics to examine each test, physically, on the ground, then come up with a considered opinion of the effect of the damage on probability of a kill. The idea that a few people on the internet looking at a selection of decades old photographs will come up with better estimates is, well, let us just say, very strange.

 

We're not attempting to come up with a better estimate, at least I never was. I trust in the figures given by the experts, and have been trying to reason with certain people to actually accept them. And in the case of the British trials, which IMO are more thurough for the reasons I already listed, their estimate was an average of 3-4 hits to shoot down a bomber, and 1 for a fighter (exactly the same as the Germans).However that is not the same as saying that a bomber or fighter couldn't possibly handle more hits, because even the British tests makes it clear that they could, it's all about where the majority of the hits are concentrated - and the Britis make it very clear that if its the wings then it just didn't take a lot.

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

I agree with JtD: the UK tests show what could happen, the US tests are about what will probably happen.

 

Can't say I saw him say that, but regardless like I've said from the beginning the UK, US & German reports don't really disagree with each other, they are merely useful for figuring out different things. The reason the US analysis is of little use in this case is that the actual firings conducted against the airframes for it were from one direction, angle & range only, and we get no details on any of the locations or damage inflicted by any hit, or how many hits were glances, duds etc... The US estimates for the engines however I would agree are quite useful, because they actually test fired from four different angles here IIRC, albeit I don't remember about the range. 

 

So since our goal here is to figure out the realistic amount of hits specific parts of an airframe (mostly that of a fighter) could take and still hold together, only the detailed British tests are really of use as they allow us to compare directly with ingame results of hits to the same locations. And this idea that the British tests only show optimal results needs to be dropped as nothing could be further from the truth, the aircraft and esp. the wings being shot at from every concievable angle and every single hit and the damage it inflicted being described in detail, even the duds and the near 90 deg glancing hits, some of which amazingly still managed to detonate - probably due to the shock of impact being enough to release the ball bearings in the detonator. 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think this should be a question.  What you should strive for s is the most accurate DM you can do regardless of whether we like it or not.

 

That's what I trust you to do anyway.

 

von Tom

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of those 400 rounds were 7.92; still dozens of 20mm hits so... The IL-2 tanks 0.50"s as well; even long connected bursts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

 

Great soundtrack...

 

LOL! Plane made out of Stalinium due to soviet secret weapons technology 😉

 

That soundtrack...was that a three year old trying his first instruments?

 

Share this post


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

Most of those 400 rounds were 7.92; still dozens of 20mm hits so... The IL-2 tanks 0.50"s as well; even long connected bursts.

Lol! Few dozen 20mm + something like 370 x 7.92 hit for 64% damages... Only in dream or in this simulator I rather think

 

22 minutes ago, sevenless said:

That soundtrack...was that a three year old trying his first instruments?

 

No, this is Mozart's 1st recording (if you believe me, you can also believe the story of the only 64% damage for 407 hits) 🤡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new DM is considerably better. I can take most fighters in one or two two second bursts as opposed to one or two 1.5 second bursts in the old version. Considerably fewer wing offs as well.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like that there are less wing offs now but they need to look at certain planes again. Especially twin engine fighters and the lagg and la5 currently tank a lot of damage which is not believable unless you think you are able to shoot through your previously created bullet holes. I think a lot would change if the drag etc. would increase in a more realistic matter when damaged. Currently the flying ability of twin engine aircrafts barely suffers when one wing gets damaged badly. 

 

In the end i think it is an improvement but there needs to be a lot of things done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 min ago: I put a 2 second burst (that's long, very long) of Mg151 right on his tail. It was a slight deflexion shooting so shells couldn't go through his aircraft, only the rear was hit.

 

Tell me how and why he didn't lost anything like the rudder or elevator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

Hit a 109 with 37mm in my P39. He kept turning like nothing has hit him.

 

well if it was a 37mm AP hit then it could very well happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was HE along with 50s.

 

 

Then i got outturned and shot down. But that's not the point.

I have noticed that 37mm and 30mm got way weaker than they were before.

Edited by MeoW.Scharfi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

109s/190s could already tank a 37mm shot to the fuselage before 3.008 and keep flying, it's nothing new.

 

If that clip is from WoL server, then that's the issue... WoL is seriously broken right now, I was flying there yesterday and got pinged by several rounds when absolutely nobody was to be seen around me.

 

Since 3.009 the 37mm has been a 1-2 hit kill for me on servers that aren't WoL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

Then i got outturned and shot down. But that's not the point.

I have noticed that 37mm and 30mm got way weaker than they were before.

 

It could be lag? That's why I understand with all the messages of delayed damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Otto_bann said:

Lol! Few dozen 20mm + something like 370 x 7.92 hit for 64% damages... Only in dream or in this simulator I rather think

 

The IL-2 armor and construction could resist rifle caliber fire; after all it was a ground attack plane used against troops. There are historic accidents including other aircraft which looked like sieves but returned. +30 hits from 20m (or +100x 0.50"s) and still flying - that's the dubious part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just DON'T get how 85% peoples voted better after 3.008 :o: 

It was REALLY REALLY better before, at least we didn't need such a ridiculous amount of ammo to shot down an aircraft (on both side!).

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

I just DON'T get how 85% peoples voted better after 3.008 :o: 

It was REALLY REALLY better before, at least we didn't need such a ridiculous amount of ammo to shot down an aircraft (on both side!).

 

Because it's... better. If you compare to historic gun camera footage it's much closer now. Except for cases like the IL-2, most planes don't need that much ammo to get shot down. However, it isn't as immediate nor spectacular as before. Neither the scoring system helps.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

The IL-2 armor and construction could resist rifle caliber fire; after all it was a ground attack plane used against troops. There are historic accidents including other aircraft which looked like sieves but returned. +30 hits from 20m (or +100x 0.50"s) and still flying - that's the dubious part.

 

Maybe it's happened in history, yes, like miracoulous rare case. Our problem in this simulator is it happens each day... since long time :

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Because it's... better. If you compare to historic gun camera footage it's much closer now. Except for cases like the IL-2, most planes don't need that much ammo to get shot down. However, it isn't as immediate nor spectacular as before. Neither the scoring system helps.

I agree. I set up a QMB mission flying a P-47 in pursuit of a flight of four Bf-109G6s that were low on fuel. I was able to kill all four from behind. Only one exhibited excessive damage, that being the vertical tail being shot off. Two others were killed with a single burst but neither went down immediately. Both belched heavy smoke and the pilots bailed within a minute or two. The last one took three bursts, one from behind, the other two at about a 3/4 aspect. After that it went down. As I still had 1200 rounds of ammo left, I was able to destroy two trucks and damaged a locomotive. I like the new DM a lot. All four 109s were peppered with .50 cal hits that caused fatal but not catastrophic damage at every burst. Even the ground units seem much more realistically damaged. The locomotive was stopped but I'd deem it only as damaged, not destroyed as it didn't explode (never have liked that effect) but just sat there emitting steam from its pierced boiler. All in all, it was a pretty satisfying mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a bug when planes exploded into thousand pieces in the multiplayer few days ago. Which doesn't affect singleplayer at all. It was only in mulitplayer like that.

 

I think singleplayer damage model testing should be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think after about 2 weeks I can rule out premature to judge. Unfortunately I have to say that the game feels wrong to me for the first time. Even if one takes into account all eventualities already discussed here.The fights last ridiculously long, although your opponent has actually been done long ago. The heavily armed FW 190 pilot will certainly have little or no cause for complaint, but if you're in a lightly armed fighter like a Yak1 or a default armed Mig 3, the fun is over quickly.
But a fighter is always a very vulnerable entity- regardless of the armament of its opponents. It can be destroyed more or less very quickly and in many cases it burns easily. That are facts and that, in my opinion, should not be falsified by a patch, for whatever reason. Actually, evrything in version 3.007 were already too resistant. I think of massive shots from behind or heavy hits directly into the cockpit, the pilot survived. That did not exist IRL. I could still mention heavy explosions of fuel tanks that have no consequences for the pilot, or planes that can remain offensive flight for minutes with obviously serious engine damage, where IRL's engine dies in seconds.The list of improvements and corrections is still long. But I wanted to say that.
In my opinion, the changes of the DM model must be completely withdrawn and replaced by a 3.007 improved on certain parts.
S!

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

We had a bug when planes exploded into thousand pieces in the multiplayer few days ago. Which doesn't affect singleplayer at all. It was only in mulitplayer like that.

 

I think singleplayer damage model testing should be avoided.

 

The developers disagree. when you test offline you are testing the DM. When you test online you are testing the netcode.

 

 

Test offline.JPG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RFG_Hisl said:

I think after about 2 weeks I can rule out premature to judge. Unfortunately I have to say that the game feels wrong to me for the first time. Even if one takes into account all eventualities already discussed here.The fights last ridiculously long, although your opponent has actually been done long ago. The heavily armed FW 190 pilot will certainly have little or no cause for complaint, but if you're in a lightly armed fighter like a Yak1 or a default armed Mig 3, the fun is over quickly.
But a fighter is always a very vulnerable entity- regardless of the armament of its opponents. It can be destroyed more or less very quickly and in many cases it burns easily. That are facts and that, in my opinion, should not be falsified by a patch, for whatever reason. Actually, evrything in version 3.007 were already too resistant. I think of massive shots from behind or heavy hits directly into the cockpit, the pilot survived. That did not exist IRL. I could still mention heavy explosions of fuel tanks that have no consequences for the pilot, or planes that can remain offensive flight for minutes with obviously serious engine damage, where IRL's engine dies in seconds.The list of improvements and corrections is still long. But I wanted to say that.
In my opinion, the changes of the DM model must be completely withdrawn and replaced by a 3.007 improved on certain parts.
S!

I'll have to double check my setting when I go back into my game. Maybe I've somehow changed the setting to easy because I'm not seeing much of what you're mentioning. Watching the replays, engines are damaged to the point that they're sputtering then die. Pilots break off when their planes are badly hit. Several AI pilots have died in their cockpits after getting hit. I've had a couple of 109s lose the outer portion of a wing from my gunfire, then spin in. The damage model now seems much improved to me. It almost sounds like we're playing a different sim. 

Share this post


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

Actually, evrything in version 3.007 were already too resistant.

 

Really ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 10:47 AM, unreasonable said:

 

 

You might also want to consider that the report mentions compound effects on engines: for multi-engine bombers it considers these effects to be not very large.  This is partly due to the low probability of multiple hits on the same engine. It also considers and quantifies tests on compound damage on fuel cells in some detail: and determines that the effect of compounded fuel damage over 10 random hits is very small, at least on the B-25.  Bar charts on pp48-49

 

 

While you accuse Panther of discounting US report, it seems to me that you favour it for the reasons you fail to justify. To me all three take different approach to weapon testing but not one of them is irrelevant.

 

Also take into account the fact that generally all three place the MK108 as 2-3 times as effective as a 20mm shell, let alone .50cal. The ingame MK108 is not anywhere of that currently.

 

22 hours ago, Rjel said:

I agree. I set up a QMB mission flying a P-47 in pursuit of a flight of four Bf-109G6s that were low on fuel. I was able to kill all four from behind. Only one exhibited excessive damage, that being the vertical tail being shot off. Two others were killed with a single burst but neither went down immediately. Both belched heavy smoke and the pilots bailed within a minute or two. The last one took three bursts, one from behind, the other two at about a 3/4 aspect. After that it went down. As I still had 1200 rounds of ammo left, I was able to destroy two trucks and damaged a locomotive. I like the new DM a lot. All four 109s were peppered with .50 cal hits that caused fatal but not catastrophic damage at every burst. Even the ground units seem much more realistically damaged. The locomotive was stopped but I'd deem it only as damaged, not destroyed as it didn't explode (never have liked that effect) but just sat there emitting steam from its pierced boiler. All in all, it was a pretty satisfying mission.

 

The locomotive boiler pierced effect has been there for very long now, it has nothing to do with 3.008.

 

The experience you describe feels realistic only for sp missions in which AI pilots bail when they`re programmed to, not necesarily being wounded or plane not having ability to fly. It is arguable that human pilots don`t bail that early.  So in sp you don`t really simulate DM but bailout threshold of AI pilots.

 

If a DM is to be realistic, it needs to take into account most vital areas of aircraft, especially fighter sized aircraft, which for their size have in them either fuel, pilot, control rods, control surfaces, engine, engine equipment or ammoboxes. Only then you could justfiy a DM that allows aircraft being virtually peppered with 20mm rounds and not go down from catastrophic structure failure. However offline tests have revealed no ammoboxes detonations, very rare fuel tanks fires and very rare pilot kills. Saying that such a DM is more realistic is really abusing the term.

20 hours ago, RFG_Hisl said:

I think after about 2 weeks I can rule out premature to judge. Unfortunately I have to say that the game feels wrong to me for the first time. Even if one takes into account all eventualities already discussed here.The fights last ridiculously long, although your opponent has actually been done long ago. The heavily armed FW 190 pilot will certainly have little or no cause for complaint, but if you're in a lightly armed fighter like a Yak1 or a default armed Mig 3, the fun is over quickly.
 

Currently with any plane that has limited ammo number (Yak, La) it is very hard to down even one fighter sized aircraft. If you get lucky and hit the vital parts maybe 3-4 kills. With machinegun sized ammo you need to get into 120m range to cause any substantial damage.

 

A simplified DM such as in BoX simply relies heavily on structure failure because it is unable to recreate other internal damages accurately.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

While you accuse Panther of discounting US report, it seems to me that you favour it for the reasons you fail to justify. To me all three take different approach to weapon testing but not one of them is irrelevant.

 

Also take into account the fact that generally all three place the MK108 as 2-3 times as effective as a 20mm shell, let alone .50cal. The ingame MK108 is not anywhere of that currently.

 

 

They are all useful, the problem is in reconciling their content. That there is an apparent discrepancy in the effectiveness of 3cm ammunition between the reports requires some investigation.  I like the US report because it is the best documented, and gives quantitative estimates for first shot kill probabilities under known conditions, that can be replicated (just about) and tested in the game.

 

As for the game results: we have earlier seen CrazyDuck's tests showing a majority of target aircraft (I have forgotten which ones) downed by a single 3cm hit. While you will certainly occasionally get a kill with a single 20mm hit, I have no doubt that this is much rarer.

 

Unfortunately I will have to rerun my flak tests: the last DM change came along just after I had completed the last set.  Perhaps in the new year.  

 

1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

 

The experience you describe feels realistic only for sp missions in which AI pilots bail when they`re programmed to, not necesarily being wounded or plane not having ability to fly. It is arguable that human pilots don`t bail that early.  So in sp you don`t really simulate DM but bailout threshold of AI pilots.

 

 

We have just had the developer post saying that testing in SP is better....  When you test in SP on AI controlled planes you can use clearly defined, objective criteria. Whether the AI, on a certain setting, bails or not is entirely determined by the code. Same if he slumps in the cockpit, or crashes because he cannot maintain course to a waypoint due of loss of control. On damage to other components, there is either a visible fuel leak, or there is not, the prop stops, or not, etc.   This is the only way to eliminate subjectivity from testing. It is also the easiest way to build a reasonable sample size, which very few MP tests do.  

 

1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:


A simplified DM such as in BoX simply relies heavily on structure failure because it is unable to recreate other internal damages accurately.

 

Actually, the DM can do a pretty good job of modeling internal damage, since that is mostly caused by AP or splinters hitting a given box.  What is very difficult is to model structural damage from blast, since this damage depends not just on the amount of HE in the shell but the ratio of the HE mass to the enclosed volume in which it detonates.  

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

The locomotive boiler pierced effect has been there for very long now, it has nothing to do with 3.008.

 

The experience you describe feels realistic only for sp missions in which AI pilots bail when they`re programmed to, not necesarily being wounded or plane not having ability to fly. It is arguable that human pilots don`t bail that early.  So in sp you don`t really simulate DM but bailout threshold of AI pilots.

 

As to your comment about the boiler effect, I did not claim it was a new effect, only that I didn't like the explosion effect from the past. The boiler steam effect goes back to RoF. I would like to see it increased so the plum of steam is more dense and dramatic.

 

I don't set myself up as an expert on the inner workings of this computer program or any other. I'll save that distinction for other posters here. To ME, the effects seem very realistic, very satisfying. While I understand the displayed damage on a given target is a generic one, when I see a plane peppered from wing tip to wing tip and/or nose to tail belching smoke and flame and going down, it feels like the program is acting correctly.

 

I do enjoy though, your pointing out how wrong I am. Thanks. :)

Share this post


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

They are all useful, the problem is in reconciling their content. That there is an apparent discrepancy in the effectiveness of 3cm ammunition between the reports requires some investigation.  I like the US report because it is the best documented, and gives quantitative estimates for first shot kill probabilities under known conditions, that can be replicated (just about) and tested in the game.

 

Once the again the US report really is of little use to us in this case as it only concerns itself with the 1 hit kill probability from one direction, angle & range, and crucially provides no details on the effects or locations of any hits at all. Thus when we record incidents of 3cm shells hitting specific locations on an airframe ingame the US analysis gives us absolutely no reference point with which to compare. Only the British tests in the form of photos, film & descriptions detailing the results of every hit to specific locations from various directions & angles actually provides us with a useable point of reference against which we can compare ingame incidents of hits to the same locations.

 

If you want to do a direct comparison with the US  analysis you're going to have to find a way in which you can perform randomly placed hits from 30 deg above and behind a P-47 or B-25 at a range of 500 yards and repeat this 45 times ingame. If you can manage this then you can say wether the 1 hit kill probability from a single direction, angle and range ingame matches the US estimates or not. I doubt that is a test anyone is likely going to be able to conduct ingame, and even if they do it would be of little value as it's just a probability figure for single scenario, i.e. a MK108 rear attack from 500 yards away at a 30 deg downward angle.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


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

×