Jump to content
Sybreed

Is damage exaggerated in the game?

Recommended Posts

Guys, there are things in flight sims that are never going to be like real life. I've learned to accept that many years ago. It's a game, boys, with limitations. You'll never have fun with this stuff if you can't accept that.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

 

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. 

i'd be willing to bet that the US Army did research on this very topic through examining all of their guncam footage that they took. It's probably mixed in with the 40k-odd unlabeled boxes of WWII era archives at the National Archives. For god's sake they have boxes of reports on mold even...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 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.  

 

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.  

I feel the same as you BBQ

I just RTB with a 51 that had left aileron and flap completely removed on 1 side and only had 1/2 elevator on the other, smoking and leaking everywhere, 

If I had been hit in the P 47 like that, I would have lost the engine on my downward spiral while wingless and lawn darting to the ground!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 1:43 PM, Sybreed said:

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? 

 

I love the stock footage stuff they on on the military channels

 

A few things to consider:

#1, Actually with the B-17 not modeled, not sure what you have to compare the gun cam footage from what you see in game

#2, I would say what your saw that is exactly reason why the Luftwaffe introduced the 30mm shell in late '43. The 20mm was good enough to do the job (even 'til today - size anyway)

#3, Actually you cannot compare the size of the IL-2 Sturmovik to the B-17 (took some great shots at Dulles Airport (Udvar-Hazy Center Dulles and RAF Museum Cosford a few weeks ago)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 11:14 AM, Panp said:

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

 

In RL, bubble tops always were more vulnerable than razorbacks.  The P-38 doesn't really have much rearward protection either.  It's basically all legs and no ass.  The 47 is a relatively large target and along with the 51 has a rather big bubble area compared to the actual size of the plane.  

 

Even with the razorbacks, the side panels of the cockpit are just sheet metal.  Some of my best PKs have come from blasting the side panels of the pit rather than actually getting the shot focused on the canopy glass.  

 

The physiology model adds to explosive shells a chance to knockout the pilot if it hits close enough which, when coupled with pulling mid/high-G should compound the effect.  Getting knocked out or even dazed while the blood is already trying to rush towards your feet is probably feasible to just not wake up from. 

 

For game purposes though, I think the "pilot is stunned/ears ringing/vision blurred" effect should favor over the "pilot is outright knocked out" effect.

Edited by Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize if you are hit in the wing and you try to do a 9G turn, your Sh$% going to break off in this sim.  I find P-40 and Lagg-3 very rugged. 

DMs seem better now than ever. Just my thought. 

Edited by JG7_RudeRaptor
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DM is the best it has ever been right now, though there are some key flaws. I really, really, like how aircraft now frequently fly away with damage - eventually succumbing during a high G turn later in the fight.

These are the only ones I've noticed, and verified by targeting them in singleplayer - been flying the 109 mostly so only really noticed this on Allied planes:

 

  • Tempest loses its tail far too easily
  • Lightning loses its elevator far too easily - wings slightly too easily
  • Thunderbolts lose their wings slightly too easily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time any plane I fly get struck.... I'm sure the damage model is seriously exaggerated.

 

On the other hand, when I strike other craft.... it seems fine.  😁

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

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. 

 

Yet most films do not show major pieces (wings, entire tail assembles etc) detaching from their aircraft. There are a few that do, but mostly the target looks increasingly shredded and often streaming something. A few have small fires started by incediary rounds as well.

 

I agree that the .08 model seemed closer to footage and combat reports than the current model. I am sure that the team had their reasons fo the change, but I would like to see somehting closer to the former. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is still the baseline of a 30mm round hitting a fighter.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

This is still the baseline of a 30mm round hitting a fighter.

 

 

 

While this video does show the power of the 30mm it isnt something you can base a whole damage model on, you need actual reports and testing, or at the very least something with more detail.

The report I and others have listed of the test on the B-25 and P-47 would be a much better base line for a damage model than a singular video. The report shows probability of a shootdown in a given time based off multiple factors. (weapon used, type of damage, etc.)

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

While this video does show the power of the 30mm it isnt something you can base a whole damage model on, you need actual reports and testing, or at the very least something with more detail.

The report I and others have listed of the test on the B-25 and P-47 would be a much better base line for a damage model than a singular video. The report shows probability of a shootdown in a given time based off multiple factors. (weapon used, type of damage, etc.)

 

Indeed: as discussed in this thread, which shows that HE rounds are about twice as effective vs the P-47 as the US experts thought they were. I have considered updating for recent changes and doing some baseline testing of other radials to see if the blame lies with the P-47 specifically or is more general (which is my hypothesis) but I have not bothered, since as long as the developers prefer to prioritize the subjective feelings of players looking for instant gratification kills over what available empirical evidence there is, there seems little point.

 

  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Indeed: as discussed in this thread, which shows that HE rounds are about twice as effective vs the P-47 as the US experts thought they were. I have considered updating for recent changes and doing some baseline testing of other radials to see if the blame lies with the P-47 specifically or is more general (which is my hypothesis) but I have not bothered, since as long as the developers prefer to prioritize the subjective feelings of players looking for instant gratification kills over what available empirical evidence there is, there seems little point.

Harsh words, unnecessary I would say especially when devs try to make it right few times. No reason to say feelings of players are the directions they base their changes.

 

As you may know, DM modelling is not made from numbers placed in tables, such as in your empirical "evidence" or the US report. All you can do is gather the data and then you interpret it for the sake of the ingame DM. And that is a whole different story. The proof is in the pudding as they say, and it is widely visible in the sim that any and all changes send ripples through the DM as a whole every single time. For this reason it is hard to say if it is possible at all to even get close to what the real data states. Will buffing up the P47 again make all other aircraft DM inadequate, more or less? Do you know the answer, because I don`t think the devs know.

 

You have tested the P47 against 30mm and 20mm FlaK. Are you sure that it is the same as MK108, MG151/20, ShVak, ShKas or M4? Probably not. Then your "evidence" is no better than the other guy`s "evidence". Or maybe it is a case of P47 being hit mainly by German MG151/20 and MK108 shells?

 

In one of the DDs a change is listed that 20mm HE is made less effective when the hit surface is armored. I admit I understood that MG151/20, or generally HE shells will then be less effective against all metal airframes such as the P47. My subjective testing right after that says no. Hell, even the P51 seems more sturdy is some cases!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The thread I linked is not "my" evidence: I told everyone exactly how I did the tests, they are repeatable. You can have the .mis file if you want to test yourself: you could see if the P-51 is more sturdy than the P-47 objectively.  We have a systematic contemporary test program, the results of which do not match game outcomes. No need for any whataboutery.  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

You have tested the P47 against 30mm and 20mm FlaK. Are you sure that it is the same as MK108, MG151/20, ShVak, ShKas or M4? Probably not. Then your "evidence" is no better than the other guy`s "evidence". Or maybe it is a case of P47 being hit mainly by German MG151/20 and MK108 shells?

 

In one of the DDs a change is listed that 20mm HE is made less effective when the hit surface is armored. I admit I understood that MG151/20, or generally HE shells will then be less effective against all metal airframes such as the P47. My subjective testing right after that says no. Hell, even the P51 seems more sturdy is some cases!

 

We have an extensive set of objective testing which was performed and compared to real-life testing, then repeated yielding similar results vs subjective "testing." So yes his testing is better than anything else we have at the moment until something new surfaces. One might expect slight variance between in-game testing and IRL testing from the projectile differences; however, the US guns had a higher projectile energy than the german 37mm (191kJ vs 189kJ), with the german guns having a slightly heavier projectile mass (0.64kg vs 0.61 kg). The only thing we dont have to look at between these at the moment is the amount of explosive filler in each, and the relative energy content for those fillers. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

This is still the baseline of a 30mm round hitting a fighter.

 

 

 


It's a 30mm, but a very specific type of shell. 

It's not a baseline for anything 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

While this video does show the power of the 30mm it isnt something you can base a whole damage model on, you need actual reports and testing, or at the very least something with more detail.

The report I and others have listed of the test on the B-25 and P-47 would be a much better base line for a damage model than a singular video. The report shows probability of a shootdown in a given time based off multiple factors. (weapon used, type of damage, etc.)

 

52 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


It's a 30mm, but a very specific type of shell. 

It's not a baseline for anything 

 

This is being a bit disingenuous here. Surely you're aware this video is from the extensive test documented by the British, with documentation posted already many times on this forum?

 

If all that isn't something you can base an HE 30mm computer game damage model on, then can you tell us what is?

 

RGDS

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:


It's a 30mm, but a very specific type of shell. 

It's not a baseline for anything 

 

Why not? . You did read the subtitles explaining it was from test documented by the Brits? Please shed light what we base the 30mm effect on? 

Edited by JG7_RudeRaptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG7_RudeRaptor said:

 

Why not? . You did read the subtitles explaining it was from test documented by the Brits? Please shed light what we base the 30mm effect on? 


Because the Minengeschoß  had very specific construction. A drawn steel thin wall allowed for MORE explosive filler. 

The normal HEI round had a different composition and different filler amounts, so you CAN NOT use the "mine shell" as the baseline for 30mm destructive power when it was fundamentally different from a standard HEI 30mm shell from the Mk108. 

The *baseline* for a Mk108 shell should be the normal HEI, as it had LESS destructive power, particularly with regards to explosive filler, than the Minengeschoß  from the Mk108. 

See what I am meaning there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 357th_Dog said:


Because the Minengeschoß  had very specific construction. A drawn steel thin wall allowed for MORE explosive filler. 

The normal HEI round had a different composition and different filler amounts, so you CAN NOT use the "mine shell" as the baseline for 30mm destructive power when it was fundamentally different from a standard HEI 30mm shell from the Mk108. 

The *baseline* for a Mk108 shell should be the normal HEI, as it had LESS destructive power, particularly with regards to explosive filler, than the Minengeschoß  from the Mk108. 

See what I am meaning there? 


there were more Minnen than Hei in the standard belting anyway, 1tracer, 1Hei and 4MG if i remember correctly...

but if you insist on the Hei result: Probably lethal aerodynamically, it's still a one bullet on target, one kill.

BRMGRj0.jpg

Please visit this topic for more results of MK108 testing: i don't even understand how one could argue this, it's beyond terrestrial comprehension, it's like a sci-fi movie :popcorm:

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JV69badatflyski said:


there were more Minnen than Hei in the standard belting anyway, 1tracer, 1Hei and 4MG if i remember correctly...

but if you insist on the Hei result: Probably lethal aerodynamically, it's still a one bullet on target, one kill.

BRMGRj0.jpg

Please visit this topic for more results of MK108 testing: i don't even understand how one could argue this, it's beyond terrestrial comprehension, it's like a sci-fi movie :popcorm:

 



Probably due the fact I'm not a wehraboo 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see there is much debate that the damage model is pretty good in my opinion (...and you know I am not one to blow smoke). Let's look at pictures the Allies have noted as being either 30mm or 20mm rounds. Here we are just assessing vusal damage (..if out numbers, this is all just conversation anyway)

 

30mm round obviously

Image result for 30mm shell damage

 

This is either a IA or IIA so the damage had to have been done by 20mm rounds.

 

Related image

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:


there were more Minnen than Hei in the standard belting anyway, 1tracer, 1Hei and 4MG if i remember correctly...

but if you insist on the Hei result: Probably lethal aerodynamically, it's still a one bullet on target, one kill.

Please visit this topic for more results of MK108 testing: i don't even understand how one could argue this, it's beyond terrestrial comprehension, it's like a sci-fi movie :popcorm:

 

 

Probably because in the opinion of the US Ballistic Reseach Laboratory, it was not one bullet on target, one kill. Not sure why that is so hard to understand.

 

They assessed the probability of a hit from a 30mm mineshell on a P-47, from front and below, causing immediate loss of the aircraft, at 29%. 42% if you include all planes that fail to RTB. That is a very lethal shell: what these pictures show us is what one hit could do: and fairly often would do. But there are all sorts of hit locations where the full blast of a mineshell would not be effective.  

 

As to whether the 30mm MS is over or under modeled in the game I have no strong opinion, since I cannot test it in a consistent manner. If someone could mod a LAA gun to fire the 30mm HE it could be done). 

 

HE hits on wings apply various levels of stick-on decals to whole parts, ending with the whole part coming off.  You do not see bite size pieces missing from wings, for example; the decal damage can be hard to see from a distance and is anyway rather spread out.  There is also the question of whether it is too easy to maintain control when wing surfaces are badly damaged. All of this may make air-air HE hits in the game seem relatively ineffective in not giving the visual clues of damage that people expect from the "best case" photographs. 

 

What these game HE wing hits are doing, however, is damaging engines and fuel tanks far too often. These may not give the immediate kill that fighter pilots seek, but for the victim they usually mean a failure to RTB,  often leading to a crash or bail over enemy territory.  This is a huge problem in SP, where people have to prioritize survival over kills.  LAA only fires HE, and avoiding being hit for every single mission of an SP ground attack career/campaign is exceptionally unlikely even with good tactics.    Ground fire was a big enough problem in real life without making LAA  hits twice as effective as they should be. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 1:51 AM, 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.

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.

pure pure pure pure pure pure pure pure pure pure gold comment. This kills every other single comment in this entire topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has the best DM as far as feeling like your rounds are effective.  I especially like how the 50s and light machine guns are handled.  50s are respectfully lethal in pairs and meat shredders in bunches, and 30s do a decent job of causing critical damage (fires and leaks) and pilot kills. 

 

In ROF at least however, the wings were modeled as 'hitboxes with health bars,' rather than spars and ribs covered in fabric.  So rather than the fidelity of the round either passing through skin and causing no damage, hitting a rib and causing structural weakening of the wing, or hitting a spar and causing immediate failure, you had a case where the first few rounds would basically do nothing no matter where they hit, and a wing failure was guaranteed if you got a certain number of hits on any hitbox, so you have a generalized model of wing failure where the devs have to basically determine how many hits on average it would take to hit something vital.  But this stops players from making lucky hits of the spar.

 

I don't know if they refined things in BoS.

 

I think they've improved the pilot DM as well.  For the same reasons with the wing, the pilot was just a health bar in ROF so it seemed unusually difficult to make pilot kills since you could never get a headshot and had to wound the pilot several times before killing them.  I still don't see instant headshot deaths in BOS but the added lethality and effects makes the wounds feel much more like wounds and something approximating getting hit by heavy caliber fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

pure pure pure pure pure pure pure pure pure pure gold comment. This kills every other single comment in this entire topic.

Except it neglects that the spar is also *significantly thicker* the closer you get to the fuselage. The spar is not a constant-thickness section for aircraft -- that would be a wasteful and terrible design. A properly designed spar has roughly the same stress along the entire structure. Damage sustained at any point would have the same effect (arguably lesser near the fuselage since a single round will reduce the strength by a lower percentage than it would near the tip). 

 

 

post-542-1200770169.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

Except it neglects that the spar is also *significantly thicker* the closer you get to the fuselage. The spar is not a constant-thickness section for aircraft -- that would be a wasteful and terrible design. A properly designed spar has roughly the same stress along the entire structure. Damage sustained at any point would have the same effect (arguably lesser near the fuselage since a single round will reduce the strength by a lower percentage than it would near the tip). 

 

 

post-542-1200770169.jpg

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle, it depends on specifics of the plane. My point however was that a large part of the problem is torque related and IRL wing spar design factors that torque in and changes in thickness (so more complexity to simulate!), but I doubt it does so with expected damage in the calculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle, it depends on specifics of the plane. My point however was that a large part of the problem is torque related and IRL wing spar design factors that torque in and changes in thickness (so more complexity to simulate!), but I doubt it does so with expected damage in the calculations.

There's nothing to factor in, that "torque" you're talking about is a bending moment with the spar in a wing being a cantilever beam with a distributed load.

cantilever_beam_triangular_load_distribution_moment_shear_diagram.png

At the base you have the maximum shear force and maximum moment reaction; however, neither of those means much when the cross-section of the beam is not constant. If the cross-section area is thick enough the stress will remain constant through the section. This is what you'd design for. 

 

Now lets say you punch a 20mm hole in our spar at a point where it is half the size of the original cross-section.  you've punched a significant portion of material out of that. If we then do the same for the base we've punched significantly less material out relative to the previous section. This means a lower reduction in the spar's strength as the section gets thicker. this is because what matters is the stress on the spar, and stress is dependent on the area. And none of this is even getting into the area moment of inertia of the cross-section which increases as the cross-section area increases and as the vertical height of the spar increases.

 

The spar is under the most load at the base; however, the load is irrelevant since the cause of a failure is the stress and strain. If the base of the spar were the weakest point relative to the entire design, then the rest of the spar would taper even more, or the base would become thicker until it balances this out. Which is what we see exactly in most sound aircraft designs.

 

The DM doesnt really need to simulate the varying strength of the spars along the wing if an aircraft design has a properly designed wing spar. Each point along the spar should be seeing roughly the same stress at any point in time if the load on the wing is evenly distributed across the surface of said wing. Instead all that would need to be done is break the spar into hitbox sections with roughly the same HP and make it so that as the HP decreases the load able to be taken by that section decreases (and exceeding that would cause it to break). One can then account for slight increase of bullet resistance the spar gets as it grows larger by providing the closer-in spars with more HP, or some ability to resist damage. 

Edited by Kataphrakt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 8:43 PM, Poochnboo said:

Guys, there are things in flight sims that are never going to be like real life. I've learned to accept that many years ago. It's a game, boys, with limitations. You'll never have fun with this stuff if you can't accept that.

I am pretty sure one day games will be exactly like real life. You will put some helmet on and everything will be like in real life :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2019 at 2:47 PM, InProgress said:

I am pretty sure one day games will be exactly like real life. You will put some helmet on and everything will be like in real life :P

 

 

I am 100% sure that day will NEVER come!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 3:43 PM, Sybreed said:

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

 

Thing is the average players like of wings, tails, control surfaces... falling off - a rare event to see in gun cam's. Then the exception became rule, it's a game. ;)

Edited by Sokol1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I am 100% sure that day will NEVER come!

I am 100% sure that someone like you said similar thing when playing  pong 1972. And here we are with insane graphic or physics. It's really stupid to say that something will never come. You really think we reached our peak here and that's it, we can't go any furthere...? :fool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 4:08 AM, peregrine7 said:

Thunderbolts lose their wings slightly too easily

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

[video]

 

 

Yeah, case in point right there.

Though I didn't want to talk too much about Multiplayer as weird things happen there every now and then - a video like this could be excused as "just MP things".

Truth is this happens all the time, in singleplayer too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever they do to the DM I feel for sure that pure HE shells (30mm for example) are a tad bit too weak.  The game favors hard penetrations over blast it seems but blast was exceoptionally good deamibg wirh aircraft..  itd be a very very close thibg though to add some but not overdo it.

If they never did anything else though IMO they *have* to do somethibg for the P47- specifically it failling apart in a dive.  (I could also add that tbe FM doesnt allow it its famed 'zoom' dk why) but rhat one thing alone is the biggest complajnt I see for p47 lovers and Ive reas their arguments.  Theyre right its off.

On 11/10/2019 at 12:01 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

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

 

Be sure.

Hahahahahagagaga

"Meat servo"

Youre brilliant!

Blitz wins the internets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 3:20 PM, InProgress said:

I am 100% sure that someone like you said similar thing when playing  pong 1972. And here we are with insane graphic or physics. It's really stupid to say that something will never come. You really think we reached our peak here and that's it, we can't go any furthere...? :fool:

 

Even in 1972 anyone could have said that making 2019's IL2 is just a matter of computing power. So you just had to believe in 40 more years of Moore's law to believe in the feasibility of 2019's IL2. I can remember for sure than in the 90's it was expected that photo realistic flight simulators would be available at some point in a matter of one or two decades.

 

"Full dive" VR requires complete connection between a machine and the brain, including optic nerve and all other sensor nerves. It requires technological progress which have nothing to do with anything we have seen, ever. We have made very moderate progress in this field in decades.

 

I agree that you never know about the future, however I would not say it is "stupid" or even "unreasonable" to assume that it will never happen.

Share this post


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

I agree that you never know about the future, however I would not say it is "stupid" or even "unreasonable" to assume that it will never happen.

It is.

 

1 hour ago, haltux said:

It requires technological progress which have nothing to do with anything we have seen, ever.

Maybe you since you did not even bother to look for that.

Spoiler

 

or Elon Musk and Nauralink. There is tons of that stuff and would not be surprised if some govs would work on similar stuff in secret. While it may looks basic, in 100 years, 1000? 10 000? Technology will be insane in compare to today. You think anyone 1000 years ago would believe that people 1000 years later will build big metal thing that can fly 2000km/h? For me it's laughable if someone say "100% won't happen ever". Look at the world 2000 years ago and today, now imagine 2000 years of progress in the future, then 20 000. And what is 20 000 in compare to 200 000 years. Everything is possible.

 

:poster_offtopic:

Edited by InProgress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as dm this game DOES have the best 50 call damage modelling (besides combat mi$$ion) ;) but thats not a flying game.

It makes "the other games .50s " look weaker than a 7 7 in this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JV69badatflyski.

 

there were more Minnen than Hei in the standard belting anyway, 1tracer, 1Hei and 4MG if i remember correctly...

but if you insist on the Hei result: Probably lethal aerodynamically, it's still a one bullet on target, one kill.

 

 

Exactly!

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...