Damage model questions

[Rattlesnake]

I'm getting some inconsistencies testing gun effectiveness that necessitate the following questions:
1. Is there any difference at all in the damage model between AIs and player-controlled craft?
2. Are there any damage model differences between the 109 K4 and earlier models of 109?
3. Is there any difference in how hard an AI plane is to kill with a given number of rounds between "novice" and "ace"?
Thank you in advance.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[ShamrockOneFive]

Giving my best guess since only a developer can give you a certain answer:

 

1) No.

2) Probably in some ways.

3) Almost certainly not.

 

Remember that this is a sim. The developers have gone so far as to ensure that the AI flies using the same flight physics as the player... which, to my knowledge, is a first in the industry (nearly everyone else uses a simplified FM for the AI). So with that in mind I'd find it inconsistent and illogical for them to do something like make expert aircraft hard to kill. That's very arcadey and not something I'd expect from 1CGS for this title.

 

I suspect that inconsistencies are more likely due to the damage model being fairly sophisticated and it being extremely unlikely that you could perfectly replicate the same ballistics profile each and every time in a test. Unless you were perfectly stationary during the test (using a turret?) and taking care to fire from the same distance and hit precisely the same point on the aircraft each time.

 

The last time I did damage model testing was during the ShVAK versus MG151/20 debate and I used a repeat method and then averaged the results.

[NO_SQDeriku777]

 It has always seemed to me that the AI can compensate for control surface and engine damage with 100% efficiency and continue to fly a damaged aircraft that would not be controllable by a human.

[Sunde]

7 minutes ago, NO_SQDeriku777 said:

 It has always seemed to me that the AI can compensate for control surface and engine damage with 100% efficiency and continue to fly a damaged aircraft that would not be controllable by a human.

My impression of the AI has always been that they ditch their aircraft, sometimes even in situations where the plane was still flyable. 
I thought it might be to "simulate" how an actual person would perform,  i get abit of a kick from trying to save my damaged plane... If i was actually inside that plane in reality, i'd probably wanna get the hell out... :d 

[WheelwrightPL]

14 minutes ago, EAF_Sunde said:

My impression of the AI has always been that they ditch their aircraft, sometimes even in situations where the plane was still flyable.

 

I noticed the opposite: the AI tried to take-off in a heavily damaged HE-111 with half of its wing blown-off by Aircobra's 37mm. The HE-111 predictably crashed soon after. There is no excuse on part of developers for this sort of sloppy AI-coding: just keep all critically damaged planes on the ground!

Instead how amazing it would be that any aircraft damaged on the tarmac taxis to the side (so it doesn't get it in the way of other aircraft) and then shuts down its engines.

Than maybe we could have an animation of this arcraft's crew exiting and proceeding to a nearby building.

A guy can always dream.