Too many lost wings / flaps / rudders ?

[yogy]

Observation: In the sim, looking at the aircraft I shoot down, most of them loose a control surface before going down while probably 50% loose one wing (or even two!!!). Opposite: when I am shot down, it is quite rare that the reason is "only" loss of control or drive without loosing a part of the airframe.

 

Reality: Historical data (combat reports, guncams, ...) indicate that many victim aircraft

- did not even loose a rudder but only smaller bits and rips

- started smoking / burning

 

Conclusion: The DM of the airframe, especially wing structure and hinges of control surfaces are too weak, at least relative to that of internal parts like control cables, water/oil/fuel pipes, electric cables, ...

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by yogy
spelling

[SCG_motoadve]

I posted about this in suggestions, I do like the effect, just feels too repetitive, happens a bit too often, which at the end looses its magic.

Full wing detachment .(dont like this effect ) 3.008 was my favorite  DM (where you did a good pass and shot down the plane but dont have to see a full wing come apart.)

 

This opinions are solely based by watching WWII guncam footage and comparing it to what I see in the game.

[yogy]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

I posted about this in suggestions, I do like the effect, just feels too repetitive, happens a bit too often, which at the end looses its magic.

Full wing detachment .(dont like this effect ) 3.008 was my favorite  DM (where you did a good pass and shot down the plane but dont have to see a full wing come apart.)

 

This opinions are solely based by watching WWII guncam footage and comparing it to what I see in the game.

@II./JG77_motoadve: You write it nicely... its a nice effect loosing its magic, but it is not realistic

 

[Legioneod]

We had a DM that made controls surfaces more sturdy but unfortunately people complained so now we are back to the constant control loss. Though I will say it's not as bad as it used to be.

[Leon_Portier]

I´m not gonna vote, because I´m pretty pleased with the plane damage right now.

I would not mind though, if the Flaps and Rudders Yogy mentioned were a bit sturdier also.

So much neutrality from me.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Leon_Portier

[=FEW=Hauggy]

It's not perfect but it's a lot better.

 

[von_Tom]

 

I'm fed up with the control surfaces that I've shot off hitting my plane.

 

von Tom

[Leon_Portier]

On 3/28/2019 at 12:16 PM, =FEW=Hauggy said:

It's not perfect but it's a lot better.

 

I like the new DM a lot too!

[Velxra]

Even though I greatly enjoy the new damage model and the adjustments over the old system. I find that wings fall off just far too often and I would like to see that area strengthened to make it more of a rare occurrence. I also like the current loss of control surfaces like flaps and the tail compared to the old system. So I hope the chances of a wing off become more of a rare or focused fire type of event compared to now.

It would also be nice if the smaller rifle caliber bullets actually had an effect on planes. In the current damage model, rifle rounds are pretty useless as they do next to nothing. In real life those AP rifle rounds would be penetrating much more than what we have modelled.  

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

In new DM model I think I see less amunition explosion.

[Lusekofte]

This is where the developers, most of the community and me go on separate ways. 

I would like more complex DM. More so than more planes. 

I  want more complex crew management in multi crew planes and ai crew doing their job at a realistic way. 

I want ai to behave realistic so SP could be more playable. 

 But this will make quantity suffer

[SCG_motoadve]

Just now, LuseKofte said:

This is where the developers, most of the community and me go on separate ways. 

I would like more complex DM. More so than more planes. 

I  want more complex crew management in multi crew planes and ai crew doing their job at a realistic way. 

I want ai to behave realistic so SP could be more playable. 

 But this will make quantity suffer

Same here.

[Sokol1]

On 3/25/2019 at 10:36 AM, II./JG77_motoadve said:

This opinions are solely based by watching WWII guncam footage and comparing it to what I see in the game.

 

Time ago someone did a compilation of WWII gun cam (think in ATAG) showing planes loosing wing when hit,

and except that "DeJavù"  Fw 190 wings exploding when hit in ammo boxes, in other planes are rare, I remember a Betty with Ohka in belly and a German plane, seems a Me 410.

 

Then are two cases: wings broken when hit, and broken after when plane goes down due G forces - about what are this pool?

 

Another detail, I have never seen a picture of World War II airplane that has lost entire ailerons, rudder or elevators - but only parts of this surfaces.

In combat flight games  ailerons, rudder, elevators falling off in one piece is a common occurrence.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Sokol1

[von_Tom]

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 10:33 PM, LuseKofte said:

This is where the developers, most of the community and me go on separate ways. 

I would like more complex DM. More so than more planes. 

I  want more complex crew management in multi crew planes and ai crew doing their job at a realistic way. 

I want ai to behave realistic so SP could be more playable. 

 But this will make quantity suffer

 

I want all of those things too, but the implication here is that the devs put quantity before quality.  I think quality is affected by time/money/software and hardware constraints, and not a specific strategy about quantity.

 

I think that we all want real world aeroplanes represented to 100% accuracy in all things.  Sadly it won't be in my lifetime.

 

von Tom

 

 

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, von_Tom said:

but the implication here is that the devs put quantity before quality. 

 

No I did not say that

I said complexity and AI suffer for quantity. 

I have not said anything about quality of what we have.

The developers have made this game easy available for all and that policy is a busyness modell. And that do not suit me, flying more for the historical feel to it, and have no interest in dogfighting.

It is not a critique, it is more kind of "well bugger this game is not for me" kind of thing.

If you take away the skill-building dogfighting expirience, this game have nothing to offer in the long run

 

Except if there where a good SP expirience around (there is a few) or FNBF  type of multiplayer 

Edited May 2, 2019 by LuseKofte

[LukeFF]

On 4/30/2019 at 11:58 AM, Geronimo553 said:

It would also be nice if the smaller rifle caliber bullets actually had an effect on planes. In the current damage model, rifle rounds are pretty useless as they do next to nothing.

 

The Soviets called the .30 cal MGs on their P-39s "paint scratchers" for good reason. It just wasn't that effective of a caliber any more. 

Edited May 2, 2019 by LukeFF

[Rei-sen]

I have no problem with rifle caliber MGs in the game. Their damage is quite accurate. I even manage to shoot down couple of IL-2s with just 7.92mm once in a while. 

[JG7_X-Man]

This is a very interesting topic. To be honest, the visual loss of control surfaces or other parts of an aircraft is something needed in computer games. It is necessary to once in awhile receives validation of airframe hits.

 

None of us participated in the Air War during WWII. However, given the very small percentage of guncam footage we have seen, does that give us insight to definitely predict what should or should not happen whenever a round hits an aircraft? My guess is no - it does not!

 

I think it is a tradeoff: Would we rather see an aircraft just fall out of the sky with no apparent physical damage, or would we rather see flying debris, parts, control surfaces etc... 

 

I will go with the latter.

 

For the record, I like the current DM. When you see a plane with major wing damage or tail damage have it ripe off under high G-loading, or the occasional fuel tank fire.

Edited May 5, 2019 by JG7_X-Man

[[DNKN]GoNuts4Donuts17]

The current DM makes planes seem too fragile. While it's nice to see a foe's ailerons, rudder, flaps or horizontal stabilizers fly off, we don't necessarily need all that as frequently as it happens to see we've hit the plane. We have the very obvious sparks and smoke from HE rounds hitting the planes as well as the many bits of small debris. Now of course a 20-30mm cannon will do far more than a 12.7-13mm MG which will do more than a .303-7.92mm. But the current DM makes rugged aircraft like the P47 look like a pussycat when hit with anything above a rifle caliber MG. Then again, I've even seen an AA MG34 manage to rip off a P47 aileron. Some great DM just for the sake of having a visual cue because people can't see other obvious signs they've hit an aircraft with gunfire.

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by CHSims
spelling

[[FD]_5_Scarecrow]

I'm sure that most are correct in assuming that in real life control surfaces likely separated from the airframe with less frequency. It seems to me that when a surface sustains catastrophic damage that would cause a critical malformation in real life, we see the entire surface removed in game. It's probably too time consuming for the developers to model control surface damage with more accuracy but it would certainly be nice if we occasionally saw control surfaces stuck in a deflected configuration, or loose and flapping in the wind, in addition to the break-aways. Any of these would result in a loss of control in one form or another with a similar net effect. So while I won't say that what he have now isn't good enough, I will always want more.

[Alexmarine]

6 hours ago, Niner said:

 It's probably too time consuming for the developers to model control surface damage with more accuracy but it would certainly be nice if we occasionally saw control surfaces stuck in a deflected configuration, or loose and flapping in the wind, in addition to the break-aways. 

 

Actually they do, sometimes the controls rods will get severed by hits and the surface will flaps around as the airflow goes. I think the problem is that we pass from a pristine control surface to the "so much damaged it goes off" without passing from a "only part of the surface is damaged / blown off" status