Jump to content
Sybreed

Is damage exaggerated in the game?

Recommended Posts

I just watched 15 minutes of footage of FW-190 A8 firing at B-17s and B-25s and it was interesting to see how much the bombers could "take" shots. We all know the FW fires 20mm ammunition and in IL-2, a few well placed burst usually means a wing off or even the tail off.

 

But, the footage I saw showed the pilots placing many well placed bursts and while you could see debris flying, parts were rarely completely dislocated from the plane. At one point, I even saw a Lagg-5 taking FW-190 shots and while it looked to be shot down, the plane still remained in one piece.

 

So, I wonder if damage isn't a bit exaggerated? Should wings and tails stick a bit more to the aircraft? 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went through an update earlier this year concerning the damage model and addressed much of the fragility of the general structure of the planes. There are still some examples of wings and tails being too delicate but it was a step in the right direction. Now you can at least take a few rounds before your plane falls apart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.08 had the best damage model IMHO.

But later on was changed.

Some wings in some airplanes are too weak, P47,  FW190,  ME110s, wing come apart clean from the root too easily, seeing a big explosion before they whole  wing comes apart would make it more believable to the eyes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked that robust DM in 3.08 until I used all my 109E7 cannon ammo on an i16 with no real noticeable effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.08 was the best DM imo, then some people complained alot about not instantly destroying the enemy aircraft and the dev changed it to something in between the new and old DM. Some aircraft DM are still way to weak imo.

 

Il2 still has one of the best DM in the business but it needs improvement and more detail imo.

Each aircraft needs it's own DM that takes into account construction material, spar number, engine type, etc. I'm sure the devs don't have the time or money to do something like this but imo it would be a worthwhile endeavor and would improve the game immensely.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Some aircraft DM are still way too weak imo.

 

I won't mention any names, but it rhymes with Schmunderdolt.

  • Haha 7
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game has very good DM , but they still working on new tech for DM !

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, if the aircraft would still go down after the same amount of hits as in current DM, but without broken wings 70-75% of time and in other 25-30% the wings would brake - that would be perfect. Or the proportion could be 75-80% of wings remain attached but the plane goes down. This is of course for anything <= 20mm. For larger calibers should be able to rip things apart. 

 

And of course P-47 rigidity should be revised.

 

On the other hand, it looks like 30mm and 37mm cannons are too weak. I guess I'll need  to do a bunch of tests in Quick Missions.

Edited by Arthur-A
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least its not like in 1946, one shot in any plane was enough to make it look like Hiroshima and Nagasaki together 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current DM may be a bit exaggered in terms of shedding wings/tails. Other than that fighter planes are fragile as it should be and bombers can take some 20mm punishment.

 

190 footage shows firing from few hundred meters usually. Ingame, a single 20mm will not do disintegrating damage from 350m to a bomber.

 

For the game it is a give and take situation. I don`t know how the DM actually works, but it seems structural integrity of planes, shells calibre, shell load all influence one another in a way that even a small change draws different results in all plane- weapon combinations. We went through several global DM revisions, all of them had glaring flaws.

 

The newest previous DM had planes structurally stronger, which made MG fire virtually useless for any type of damage outside PK. Planes like 190 took a LOT of direct hits from all angles and ranges, even 20mm calibre, the 109 was very strong for anything else than engine kill. Large calibre, 30 and 37mm, made good damage but still nothing close to disintegrating.

 

The P47 case in particular seems to be placed at community`s general consensus, though again, seems a bit more complicated issue than just buffing up one airplane sturdiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer to OP: basically yes, mainly because  engines and fuel tanks are more fragile to HE splinter damage from distant hits than they should be.   The problem with the P-47 in particular is also that it is a very large target.  I am not sure that it has a weaker DM as such, just that with exaggerated damage for everyone, and being so easy to hit, it suffers more than others.

 

Disentangling the hits per attack from the damage per hit factors requires careful testing. Which I have done, but of course the developers keep moving the goal posts, so I am not completely up to date.  What you should not try to do is draw conclusions from on line play, especially from single, cherry picked incidents. Unfortunately, 90% of the DM complaints are exactly that. A combination of lag effects and bias makes these reports worthless. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is one of the cases that one simply got to say” it is what it is”

I find it very annoying flying P 47 in particular. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also noticed that PK's are now more prevalent and occur more frequently with fewer hits.😣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, destroying the meat servo is the easiest way to bring down an aircraft.

 

Be sure.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I've also noticed that PK's are now more prevalent and occur more frequently with fewer hits.😣

 

that also explains why so many people posts "ace in flight" videos on youtube. Shooting someone down requires so little ammo you can down an entire squadron by yourself xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sybreed said:

 

that also explains why so many people posts "ace in flight" videos on youtube. Shooting someone down requires so little ammo you can down an entire squadron by yourself xD

 

There have been plenty examples of pilots doing this exact thing in ww2. With good aim it makes total sense. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After waching many guncam videos , I have noticed that far to many fw 190 , are destroyed by an explosion on the mid wing ( probably explosion of the 20 mm ammo or the fuel tank )

In IL 2 , this doesnt happen very often.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, INVADER_WARHAWK said:

After waching many guncam videos , I have noticed that far to many fw 190 , are destroyed by an explosion on the mid wing ( probably explosion of the 20 mm ammo or the fuel tank )

In IL 2 , this doesnt happen very often.

 

 

Keep in mind a lot of guncam compiliations will be cherry-picked for the most exciting and interesting footage

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is so exaggerated when some one hits my airplane, but its not exaggerated when i hit someone, funny how that works 😄

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

Is so exaggerated when some one hits my airplane, but its not exaggerated when i hit someone, funny how that works 😄

 

Selective realism, which is seen a lot in the community.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

Is so exaggerated when some one hits my airplane, but its not exaggerated when i hit someone, funny how that works 😄

No

it is the impression you get from a bombers point of view. While it is totally ok seen from a fighter hunting them. 
Personally I found a solution for this. Dont fly in late war servers and prioritize SP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

Is so exaggerated when some one hits my airplane, but its not exaggerated when i hit someone, funny how that works 😄

I'd say it's exaggerated across the board but more so in some aircraft than others.

 

3 hours ago, INVADER_WARHAWK said:

After waching many guncam videos , I have noticed that far to many fw 190 , are destroyed by an explosion on the mid wing ( probably explosion of the 20 mm ammo or the fuel tank )

In IL 2 , this doesnt happen very often.

 

 

It does happen though. I've seen it happen in game and I've had it happen to me. Just yesterday my friend and I were fighting each other and he exploded when my .50s hit him.

It certainly shouldn't happen all the time.

 

I've also seen this happen to 109s in-game, though I think they were carrying gunpods at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the DM is really good, but personally I would like to see some improvements, for intance, engines being blown off in flight.

marauder-engine.jpg

marauder-engine2.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all circumstantial and my perspective, but i feel like the wings generally come off in-game more often than they appeared to according to US guncam footage. My suspicion is that it's a combination of players aiming for the wings, or not aiming as properly as they should, and perhaps some damage model bug/quirks. I suggest this first point because there is a lot that we do differently in-game than pilots did IRL, which drastically changes the flow of combat. This is especially true of risky maneuvers that we're willing to pull since death means little to our virtual pilots. For the latter part, I bring this up not to claim there are issues with the dev's system, but mostly to point out that all of the rest of the damage model feels perfectly spot-on with what we see from guncam footage. 

 

Side-note: wouldnt it be great to have a record function in-game that works just like a guncam? cam goes on when you fire, and only records a little bit after that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

Is so exaggerated when some one hits my airplane, but its not exaggerated when i hit someone, funny how that works 😄

are you referring to me? I was mostly talking about how I feel about combat in general. I play mostly SP, and I often feel like combat is over too soon when I shoot someone down. A few hits and boom, there goes the wing. I feel like I should work a bit more for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the devs made a dev diary explaining the DM in full detail, similar to how they explained the gyro gunsight as far as detail is concerned? I think that would really clear things up with the damage model, as well as bring everyone together into a common understanding of how it works. Personally I'm also pretty curious about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MarderIV said:

Have the devs made a dev diary explaining the DM in full detail, similar to how they explained the gyro gunsight as far as detail is concerned? I think that would really clear things up with the damage model, as well as bring everyone together into a common understanding of how it works. Personally I'm also pretty curious about this. 

 

The damage model is almost certainly a closely held secret.  They're never going to release the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MarderIV said:

Have the devs made a dev diary explaining the DM in full detail, similar to how they explained the gyro gunsight as far as detail is concerned? I think that would really clear things up with the damage model, as well as bring everyone together into a common understanding of how it works. Personally I'm also pretty curious about this. 

 

I'm absolutely with you, but I'd think that is confidential information. The gyro sight is very specific and modeled closely to the real physics. Damage calculation on the other hand is extremely complex and shortcuts need to be taken - something that can, or cannot, give a competitive edge.

 

From everything we can see ingame, I can just assume that we have segmented damage accumulation, so every hit to a wing spar from the wing root to lets say 1/4th of the wing (for example) enters some sort of damage calculation that determines if the spar fails. Now IRL the closer the round would be to the intersection with the fuselage, the more damage would a wing spar take due to the torque produced by the lift of the wing, however, as the bullets are likely dispersed, more bullets impacting the spar at other separated spots would likely not lower the load bearing ability of the spar compared to its most critical hit, if they are not very close to each other.

As this simulator has to run on home computers however, it's unlikely that such complex calculations take place, at least not when there are 80 bullets in the air per second introducing realtime constraints. So it's likely that hits to an area count towards one defined spot with some weighted calculations, the design and exposition of these areas would then greatly affect the vulnerability of the spot. Just a wild guess, but it should be somewhere along these lines.

 

I still imagine the early days of this sim when all everybody did was 'spray and pray', as you'd only need to sneeze at planes for them to fall apart. What we have now seems largely great, really.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

I'm absolutely with you, but I'd think that is confidential information.

 

Ah, well then maybe in not too full a detail. Just enough to let folks get a peek just like what the competition did when they tried updating their DM (always found them curious, seemingly trying to play catch-up with Il-2). 

 

In any case, I can imagine this is the reason for a lot of heated discussions on DM. There's probably a reason why the devs haven't talked about the DM in detail that I can't quite see. And I agree on the constraints, this isn't an engineer's utility we're playing at and abstractions are indeed a necessity. 

 

Still, can't argue about how well the DM stands so far. Quirks in all; though I'm keen on seeing developments there. 

 

Maybe a decade in and we'll see soft-body physics eh? I bet that'll raise all sorts of hell here and in the virtual skies. Or our computers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balancing a plane's ability to take a beating with the fact that it really might only take just 1 bullet to hit just right is a very difficult thing.  

 

I'm starting to think that the 51 is able to take a beating better than a 47 but, I might be wrong as it only seems I've RTB'd in 51s that have only been hit by light MGs.  Nonetheless, said 51s I RTB'd with did have the crap kicked out of them.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut feeling is that planes in IL-2 BOX suffer critical structural failures a bit too often, and catch fires not often enough. In other words, compared to reality, I assume planes were set on fire more often and lost their wings less often than in IL-2 sim. But like I said, that's just my feeling, I can very well be wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

My gut feeling is that planes in IL-2 BOX suffer critical structural failures a bit too often, and catch fires not often enough.

 

Someone here mentioned that we see more of these fires potentially because the media out there has been cherry picked. That might be another thing to consider, and also a point of interest as well. Still, I agree the whole thing could use a bit more particle effects when possible just to give improved visual feedback. Nothing wrong with more explosions I suppose. Seeing as what the Devs have done with A/G munition effects, I definitely would want to see what else they could do with plane for planes.

Share this post


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

are you referring to me? I was mostly talking about how I feel about combat in general. I play mostly SP, and I often feel like combat is over too soon when I shoot someone down. A few hits and boom, there goes the wing. I feel like I should work a bit more for it.

You might be too good at aiming, I generally work really hard for a few hits which appear to do nothing to the planes i hit (VVS 12.7s and the Yak's guns). 

 

8 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

Now IRL the closer the round would be to the intersection with the fuselage, the more damage would a wing spar take due to the torque produced by the lift of the wing, however, as the bullets are likely dispersed, more bullets impacting the spar at other separated spots would likely not lower the load bearing ability of the spar compared to its most critical hit, if they are not very close to each other.

 

Keep in mind also that the spar is thickest closest to the fuselage. From an engineering standpoint a few holes roughly centered in the spar (from the aft to for) arent likely to reduce the strength that much, but holes which are punched so they're breaking the top or the bottom (again from aft to for) will result in the greatest reduction of strength. For a beam in bending (what a spar basically is) the upper and lowermost portions bear the brunt of the load as either tension (bottom part of the 'u' shape the beam makes) or compression (top part of the 'u'). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My earlier point was not a critique of DM in general. I have no doubt a burst of 30 mm have devastating effect. If a wing fell off a bit too early or the plane disintegrate. 
I find it just a bit boring. Correct or not is really hard to tell. How a plane goes kaput is basically 

less important, kaput it goes. This pack has shown me what I knew all along, I like early war better. I know the weapons in this sim is more effective compared to cod. But whos right is not for me to say

Share this post


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

Balancing a plane's ability to take a beating with the fact that it really might only take just 1 bullet to hit just right is a very difficult thing. 

Not to mention the special features and inner workings of different shell types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has somebody shot down a Bf 109 with a 50 cal? No? Then all is a guess. Footage is footage but we don't know about what has not been recorded. The same with pilot reports who managed to come back to base with their planes and call them "The sturdiest plane ever flown". I am sure the 80% who didn't make it won't tell you that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Has somebody shot down a Bf 109 with a 50 cal? No? Then all is a guess. Footage is footage but we don't know about what has not been recorded. The same with pilot reports who managed to come back to base with their planes and call them "The sturdiest plane ever flown". I am sure the 80% who didn't make it won't tell you that.

 

Couldn't agree more. The footage we see is such a small fraction of the events taking place that more than likely the specific films that survived are handpicked because they show something out of the norm. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Cliffs of Dover hurricanes have the wing come off more easily and spitfires rarely have the wings fully come off. I like how much more fidelity there is to the holes punched, it feels as if right where my shell struck there is a hole punched and I can see through it, something you don't get as much here. You also get more of a feel of the plane getting slowly and slowly more beat up with the propeller half heartedly spinning and all the optical illusions involved modelled. Planes also feel like they leak different stuff from different places more. Moreover Cliffs lets you see what part of the plane you knocked out which I thought was pretty cool.

 

If they spice up the detail a bit more and leave full wings coming off as rare for 20mm hits and hit/miss with 30mm that'd be nice. I kinda liked that DM with more robust planes. If you could see cannon ammunition ignite and explode on wings coming off especially if you're peppering them with .50s or something that'd be kewl (we all know which American gun cam clip I'm referring to where a 190 violently loses a wing to .50 fire)

 

From reading the Big Show though, the author makes it seem like Fw-190s did make huge fireballs of their targets at times. You can only imagine what that'd look like at convergence distance irl ... phew, makes me moist. With the video gamy attitudes aside, can you picture getting bounced from one 190 who shoots down one of your wingmen on the way down, and the other on the way up, terrifyingly surreal experience to find yourself in. I digress.

 

11 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

My gut feeling is that planes in IL-2 BOX suffer critical structural failures a bit too often, and catch fires not often enough. In other words, compared to reality, I assume planes were set on fire more often and lost their wings less often than in IL-2 sim. But like I said, that's just my feeling, I can very well be wrong.

 

That's what the first DM revision felt like but it had its drawbacks in other contexts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I'd say it's exaggerated across the board but more so in some aircraft than others.

 

 

It does happen though. I've seen it happen in game and I've had it happen to me. Just yesterday my friend and I were fighting each other and he exploded when my .50s hit him.

It certainly shouldn't happen all the time.

 

I've also seen this happen to 109s in-game, though I think they were carrying gunpods at the time.

 

On quick mission, I've made fireballs of 109s with convergence .50 hits, like explosions as if something ignited. However, aircraft rarely present themselves like that on MP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...