Jump to content
ECV56_Chimango*

A few issues degrading online MP experience on the EASTERN FRONT after last patch

Recommended Posts

Spotting is a pita at the moment, I think most agree on that. I can`t see s**t many times, many see much better than me. I don`t wan`t to play with Commodore 64 graphics to see better, I hope spotting is getting some attention from devs at the beginning of the 2020. 

 

Gunners are really bizarre sometimes, that`s how it`s been from the beginning. I would not use higher AI than normal for those at any circumstances. I`m sure many bomber pilots would not agree 😉

 

DM and stuff is basically easy to check, just make a mission and shoot planes. If theres something you find, report. If you think that netcode affects it, test both similarly. But there`s no difference if you shoot plane in the wing in the SP or MP. TAW stats are not exactly qualified as proof. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you turn on Tac View and check the actual G's your pilots are passing out at? its probably a lot more than you think and its the only way to tell properly.

Just keeping nose level in a 75* Banked Turn is Constant 4G in almost all Aircraft.,
do a few of those circles waiting for someone or checking a spot then get jumped and most people would be sore n tired.

Keep in Mind it is ww2 and not meant to be 100% Fit Healthy Pilots like those who went through Airforce training in the 50-60 and onwards.
half of the LW pilots or VVS pilots were Starving , Exhausted, and Overworked, Fighting previous injuries. 
(these weaknesses should be taken into account for physiology effects)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the issue isn't the damage that russian weapons deal. Chimango, you come up with statistics from TAW, I can explain all those without the need to invoke "russian guns don't deal enough damage".

 

* Observation: German 20mm minen blast knocking unconscious, wounding and killing pilots waaaaay better than before.  My opinion : it is too much (I agree with you here)

* Observation : Difficulty/Inability to bail when wounded above certain threshold. Since I suspect russians to be more often wounded than germans, simply because blast effect from 20mm minen + germans get PK'ed more often by the russian 20mm and 0.50 cal when shot in cockpit, ergo this feature is more detrimental for the survival of VVS pilots than LW pilots

* Opinion : New G-force model is really really really a boon to the 109F and G series when fighting the mid-war VVS planes (Yak, LaGG, La5).  

 

These combined make me feel that I don't need the hypothesis "russian guns don't do damage" to explain the current lack of "high-performing" fighter pilots or fighter squads on the VVS side in the current TAW iteration. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

 

Sorry, I did not know you were a Mikoyan test pilot. Jokes aside, the issue that has more importance is the visibility issue.

 

The thing is that some vocal minorities (always the same people) take advantge of this to keep on their conspirancy train on BIAS. 

 

I won't say anything on the gunners as this is not about the current patch but a general problem, thats why I think you are mixing things. Altough I thank you to answer me so kindly. I suggest taking a break if things are too hard for you after expending so many hours with the last patch released yesterday. There are more issues in my oppinion like the DM of the 47 engine and such.

 

Btw I've seen enough BIAS claims on this forum that I think we could write a novel. From "the mission starts at dawn so the Axis players have advantage with the sun " to "the Me-262 shouldn't be defeated by any prop".

 

It just... tiring.

 

PS: To be clear, you are saying that the last updated borked the visibility OK but you still implying that you still don't like the Gs and there is some german bias going on again? Not OK from me.

We are all sim players, aren´t we?  And what you and me may have in difference is that i'm just someone who spent with his squad hundreds of hours flying MP PvP competitions on the Eastern Front (TAW) during this and past years and have a lot of testing and stats that are quite telling specially after last patch. And regarding that, read carefully, not only i talk about latest patch but since few patches back, ok? Read again plaease. Also made it worse current physyo add on plus explosive ammo effect affecting the pilot. But VVS early guns feel weak few patches back and now the difference is notorious compared to the effect MG151/20mm has with it's HE rounds with the add ons mentioned before.

You keep talking about "Bias" in your whole post; i think you didn't understand it then. I never claim "Bias", never said that. Biased would imply i say devs do this on purpose to favour one side, that's ridiculous, and have laughed at those statements since day one in this sim. I think the sim is growing a lot and because of that some things appear to be difficult to control and keep same consistency than we had with smaller and first patches loke BOS/BOM. 

If you are tired, then ignore these posts as i usually have been doing the past 4 years in this area of the forum, where mainly there are LW fanboys asking for every kind of nonesense since the beggining. 

31 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Dont agree with those, I fly and experience G forces twice to 3 times per week and what we have in game is pretty good .

 Thanks Motoadve, good info. I tend to think that in the sim we don't have the "feel" you have in real life so it would be nice to lower the effects a bit. 

6 minutes ago, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

For me, the issue isn't the damage that russian weapons deal. Chimango, you come up with statistics from TAW, I can explain all those without the need to invoke "russian guns don't deal enough damage".

 

* Observation: German 20mm minen blast knocking unconscious, wounding and killing pilots waaaaay better than before.  My opinion : it is too much (I agree with you here)

* Observation : Difficulty/Inability to bail when wounded above certain threshold. Since I suspect russians to be more often wounded than germans, simply because blast effect from 20mm minen + germans get PK'ed more often by the russian 20mm and 0.50 cal when shot in cockpit, ergo this feature is more detrimental for the survival of VVS pilots than LW pilots

* Opinion : New G-force model is really really really a boon to the 109F and G series when fighting the mid-war VVS planes (Yak, LaGG, La5).  

 

These combined make me feel that I don't need the hypothesis "russian guns don't do damage" to explain the current lack of "high-performing" fighter pilots or fighter squads on the VVS side in the current TAW iteration. 


Exaclty HandyNasty; it's what i say since OP. The combination of these factors make  the difference...comparing LW 20mm to VVS 20mm, the effect it's exagerated. Altoghether it makes the whole experience way too difficult and less enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

* Observation: German 20mm minen blast knocking unconscious, wounding and killing pilots waaaaay better than before.  My opinion : it is too much (I agree with you here)

* Observation : Difficulty/Inability to bail when wounded above certain threshold. Since I suspect russians to be more often wounded than germans, simply because blast effect from 20mm minen + germans get PK'ed more often by the russian 20mm and 0.50 cal when shot in cockpit, ergo this feature is more detrimental for the survival of VVS pilots than LW pilots

 

This might be something to look at. If it`s not coming from directly above or the side to the cockpit, it should not happen.

9 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

 Thanks Motoadve, good info. I tend to think that in the sim we don't have the "feel" you have in real life so it would be nice to lower the effects a bit. 

I disagree, people just have to adjust and not to change this realistic feature for easier gameplay. You can see clearly when you have to ease a bit.

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

I disagree, people just have to adjust and not to change this realistic feature for easier gameplay. You can see clearly when you have to ease a bit.

Exactly my same thought , adapt and modify your flying style, if you dive at 500KPH and pull hard, after experiencing a few blackouts you kind of know how much are you going to able to pull, both in real life and in the sim. 

IMHO pilot physiology is the best feature developers added to the sim.

 

On the other hand, spotting its very bad.

So bad I started to fly SP turning icons ON and OFF, planes are so hard to see at medium distances.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

* Opinion : New G-force model is really really really a boon to the 109F and G series when fighting the mid-war VVS planes (Yak, LaGG, La5).  


This! Absolutely, we've been talking about this with the guys. A total boon for B&Zers. But if it is well implemented and realistic this way, then we have to adapt and deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:


This! Absolutely, we've been talking about this with the guys. A total boon for B&Zers. But if it is well implemented and realistic this way, then we have to adapt and deal with it.

I told this before.

 

G Effect Is well implementen according to average tolerance of a NORMAL person. Not pilots with actual training for high G

Is accurate but to low. 5G Is your limit before have issues with blackout...

 

6G is the top someone can ask for the historical context. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About b&z, it affects the most when pulling in high speed. So it`s not that simple imo. I have zoomed to death quite a few times before adjusting. And it`s not rare to hear from experienced people in our comms to curse that they just dived themselves to unconscious. And death. B&Z does not work as it used to in my experience. There`s also a fatigue effect to consider, it is modeled. You can`t pull G all the time, you get tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

This! Absolutely, we've been talking about this with the guys. A total boon for B&Zers. But if it is well implemented and realistic this way, then we have to adapt and deal with it.

 

TBH I specifically mentionned 109's and not necessarily all BnZ'ers. Before 4.001 the 109's were heavily gated by the lack of effective elevator control at higher speeds in comparison with LaGG, Yak, La5. Now all of them are gated not by elevator control but by G-forces.

 

Another plane to which I feel the new G-force model is advantageous (in the few flyouts I did) is the La-5FN. Before 4.001 it was control was gated by the elevator stiffness at higher speeds. Now This is less of an issue (not completely disappeared, especially negative G's), as the G's you can pull are now mainly the bottleneck.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can´t understand why some people try to dismiss this post or the comments from Chimango and other red pilots.

We are not an amateur player we have more than 10 year flying and our arguments have a real point.

If you see problems talk about that problems, we are trying to put our points to the DEVs, things that changes since last patch 4.00X, everybody knows that.

This game is not a 100% simulated, for many reasons, well we are looking to keep at list playable and balance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

I can´t understand why some people try to dismiss this post or the comments from Chimango and other red pilots.

We are not an amateur player we have more than 10 year flying and our arguments have a real point.

If you see problems talk about that problems, we are trying to put our points to the DEVs, things that changes since last patch 4.00X, everybody knows that.

This game is not a 100% simulated, for many reasons, well we are looking to keep at list playable and balance.

 

 

I`ve flown sims since 1990. So? You have to get some more than TAW stats to make your point. Make some proper reports, you made the claim, it`s up to you work it further.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I have a different experience than yours. For me the 20mm is very deadly and knock pilot's unconscious very often now. The spotting for me has improved considerably from far away but, sometimes, from close range, the contacts blend in too much with the ground. A lot of people have better spotting than before but, I'm afraid, there are more people with more issues with the visibility than not. I hope the devs can work on this again in order to make it more consistent across the board. Some guys in my previous unit could see stuff way before me and others just couldnt see a plane sitting 1km from their faces. It is very weird.

Maybe is related with net code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 12:59 AM, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

4. Why LW 20mm HE has become so deadly?

 

I don't want to derail your post because you have a lot of legit and solid claims, but as long as you don't do tests on this matter i would suggest to stop spreading this narrative of the german 20mm HE.

I am aware that you are know of my test, which has admittedly  its own problems due to its limitations by the game but you should at least try to find a way to compare things instead of spreading your point of view simply based on subjective impressions. Even the leading researchers on this subject (which is also linked in this thread) are viewing the 20mm Shvak HE as pretty poor in comparison, again as stated in my original post about it. 

 

Sadly, whenever i read a post from you i get the feeling that you are less interested in historical accuracy but rather in balancing. Ironically, when it comes to structural damage, the russian and german HE are basically the same. 

 

However, like i said at the start, you have other valid points i agree on.

 

PS: I own the original book gustin and williams if you are looking for more informations. In case you have some scientific sources of your own, i would also be very interested to read them.

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LLv24_Zami said:

I`ve flown sims since 1990. So? You have to get some more than TAW stats to make your point. Make some proper reports, you made the claim, it`s up to you work it further.

 As I told we make a point to the devs not to you. 

TAW is a good reference for stats because most of the better pilots play here. If you want to prove something different well as you said you can put a proper report to dismiss our affirmations

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

 As I told we make a point to the devs not to you. 

TAW is a good reference for stats because most of the better pilots play here. If you want to prove something different well as you said you can put a proper report to dismiss our affirmations

 

 

I was trying to help you in fact. If you don`t make anything else about this than your feelings and TAW stats, I doubt there will be any difference.

 

Why I should prove anything else that I`ve done? You`ve done the claims. I shot down planes in QM as anyone else can do, DM models and guns are identical. I just can`t see your logic on this. You are presenting something with nothing to back it. Everyone can make a list like that.

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Zami, maybe I miss understood you, sry.

But in QM I can easy shoot down as you did. I have many videos, I will send you if you have time to see it with an open mint.

Also I give you a proposition, fly on coms with me on discord or ts, on a server or made a 1 on 1 coordinate on comms trying to replay some of the points put on this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

Hello Zami, maybe I miss understood you, sry.

But in QM I can easy shoot down as you did. I have many videos, I will send you if you have time to see it with an open mint.

Also I give you a proposition, fly on coms with me on discord or ts, on a server or made a 1 on 1 coordinate on comms trying to replay some of the points put on this.

 

 

No problem.

 

It doesn`t matter if you hit the planes in QM or in MP the believe me. 

 

Of course I`ll fly with you, I`m now at work typing with my phone but when the chance comes we`ll fly and shoot each other. Glad you asked, I think that will clear some points.

 

Edit: Send me a PM and well see when it can be done

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zami with all respect, i'm surprised that you being a tester take this so lightly. I mean, we are discussing a combination of aspects that end up with an exagerated advantage to LW in the early BOS/BOM setups after last patches and specially during current one with all the aditions, specifically early VVS like MiG-3 and Yak-1 after hundreds of hours of PvP competition, and you decide to jump in, do a quick mission test with an ammo combo and plane we don't even talk about (1xshvak + 1xubs not mentioned in this whole thread by us) just by blasting a couple of ai's and come back saying "it's all good". Really? Seriously is this the method a tester uses? If this is the case then no wonder why we got till this point then. 

The ammount of planes you can shoot down offline has little to do with what is being pointed out here. But anyway, just like you i also did this "test" and it even confirms further more what i'm saying. Took a 109F4 default loadout, 100% fuel against Yak-1 100% fuel (waves=infinite). I shot down 9, and being a very mediocre 109 rider myself i'm sure is not parameter, a good 109 pilot i'm sure it can down around 12 Yak-1 or more. But again, this is not the important stuff, the key here is the ammo effect, and it goes as follow for the first 8 AKs (9th not into account cause it was done with machine guns and track ends before it goes down) 

The results for this quick tests like the one you did = it took 17 x  MG151/20 hits to shoot down 8xYak-1...yes, you read well, that's an average of 2.1 hits to shoot down a Yak-1

RESULTS


#1 - 1 hit (engine on fire)
#2 - 1 hit (even when it was in the right wingtip, engine stopped 
#3 - 5 hits
#4 - 2 hits (PK)
#5 - 2 hits
#6 - 1 hits (PK)
#7 - 3 hits
#8 - 2 hits

 

So with an average of 2.1 hits this is ridiculous, even if you wanna go historic and according to the table uploaded, this is twice the power the MG151/20 should have, and regarding playability, it's ruining the online PvP experience for VVS players.

PS. again, also check the smoke effect after you get hit by a Shvak and a MG151/20...it's almost bizarre, like comparing a light cigarette smoke with a hand granade explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

Zami with all respect, i'm surprised that you being a tester take this so lightly. I mean, we are discussing a combination of aspects that end up with an exagerated advantage to LW in the early BOS/BOM setups after last patches and specially during current one with all the aditions, specifically early VVS like MiG-3 and Yak-1 after hundreds of hours of PvP competition, and you decide to jump in, do a quick mission test with an ammo combo and plane we don't even talk about (1xshvak + 1xubs not mentioned in this whole thread by us) just by blasting a couple of ai's and come back saying "it's all good". Really? Seriously is this the method a tester uses? If this is the case then no wonder why we got till this point then. 

The ammount of planes you can shoot down offline has little to do with what is being pointed out here. But anyway, just like you i also did this "test" and it even confirms further more what i'm saying. Took a 109F4 default loadout, 100% fuel against Yak-1 100% fuel (waves=infinite). I shot down 9, and being a very mediocre 109 rider myself i'm sure is not parameter, a good 109 pilot i'm sure it can down around 12 Yak-1 or more. But again, this is not the important stuff, the key here is the ammo effect, and it goes as follow for the first 8 AKs (9th not into account cause it was done with machine guns and track ends before it goes down) 

The results for this quick tests like the one you did = it took 17 x  MG151/20 hits to shoot down 8xYak-1...yes, you read well, that's an average of 2.1 hits to shoot down a Yak-1

RESULTS


#1 - 1 hit (engine on fire)
#2 - 1 hit (even when it was in the right wingtip, engine stopped 
#3 - 5 hits
#4 - 2 hits (PK)
#5 - 2 hits
#6 - 1 hits (PK)
#7 - 3 hits
#8 - 2 hits

 

So with an average of 2.1 hits this is ridiculous, even if you wanna go historic and according to the table uploaded, this is twice the power the MG151/20 should have, and regarding playability, it's ruining the online PvP experience for VVS players.

PS. again, also check the smoke effect after you get hit by a Shvak and a MG151/20...it's almost bizarre, like comparing a light cigarette smoke with a hand granade explosion.

Yeah, well were counting on your report to make things right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Yeah, well were counting on your report to make things right.

 

Interesting, it's the same silly test than you did to discredit everything: "look guys, i went QMB and kill many 109s with a plane they don't even discuss here, all is good". Not even as silly, cause at least this one is more detailed. I truly hope when it comes to testing, you are in the mission checking or eye candy area and have nothing to do with DMs and FMs, or we are doomed. If you really care, at least check the stats we have talked about and have the nerve to say it's all the same and nothing has changed for the last patches this year. They are a solid proof? Of course not, who in the right mind would affirm that? But they are really telling and need to be checked...again, that is if you care at all.

 

Anyway, who -what dev specifically- should i send the track from that quick test? An average of 2.1 hits from a MG151/20 to kill a fighter like a Yak-1? really? I have gathered a lot of track recordings from TAW; making a video will take a while, specially now with holidays near, but there will be one not only for devs but for the whole community see what we are pointing out here.

Also, the thread it's about many things. Visuals, physyology tunning, gunners (you also think all is fine with gunners?), i-16 FM, etc. Probably the top priority for MP community is to have the visuals fixed, they have gone terrible after last patch and it's the most party spoiler aspect of them all afecting not only the Eastern Front but the whole sim. 

 

...

Edited by 666GIAP_Chimango
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

Anyway, who -what dev specifically- should i send the track from that quick test? An average of 2.1 hits from a MG151/20 to kill a fighter like a Yak-1? really? I have gathered a lot of track recordings from TAW; making a video will take a while, specially now with holidays near, but there will be one not only for devs but for the whole community see what we are pointing out here.

 

A couple of points:

 

  • Devs only acknowledge offline testing, because they consider desynch/netcode to be an issue (which is kind of ironic).
  • I also would like to see any actual "scientific" test to try to make it as reliable as possible. Which means, hitting the same spot with the same ammunition in different tests. Without it, all you do is worthless and a waste of time when it comes to actually making a valid point.  Just as an example, in your "test" nobody knows where you are hitting the enemy aircraft precisely and with what (MG/HE/AP?) which is difficult to tell in a real time scenario to begin with. Also you can't reliably tell what hit did what damage. There are way too many issues when testing on "live" targets. 2 Hits to get an airkill might be completely valid in some scenarios depending on where they are hitting, no matter the ammunition type. 8 test runs aren't really reliable either. I am not trying to blow my own trumpet but in my test i managed to negate most of these issues. The only thing that i can't test reliably is internal damage, which is arguably very important. Sadly there is currently no way to do it.
  • The table in question by gustin/williams sets the different ammunition types into relation to each other. They don't say anything about how many hits on average you require to down an enemy aircraft as far as i know (i am at work currently and can't check). That's why it is important to set the ammunition types ingame into relation to each other as well to get any meaningful information.

 

What we really need is a way to get information on internal and external damage. Only then we will be able to reliably tell how things stand, especially in comparison.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

 

Interesting, it's the same silly test than you did to discredit everything: "look guys, i went QMB and kill many 109s with a plane they don't even discuss here, all is good". Not even as silly, cause at least this one is more detailed. I truly hope when it comes to testing, you are in the mission checking or eye candy area and have nothing to do with DMs and FMs, or we are doomed. If you really care, at least check the stats we have talked about and have the nerve to say it's all the same and nothing has changed for the last patches this year. They are a solid proof? Of course not, who in the right mind would affirm that? But they are really telling and need to be checked...again, that is if you care at all.

 

Anyway, who -what dev specifically- should i send the track from that quick test? An average of 2.1 hits from a MG151/20 to kill a fighter like a Yak-1? really? I have gathered a lot of track recordings from TAW; making a video will take a while, specially now with holidays near, but there will be one not only for devs but for the whole community see what we are pointing out here.

Also, the thread it's about many things. Visuals, physyology tunning, gunners (you also think all is fine with gunners?), i-16 FM, etc. Probably the top priority for MP community is to have the visuals fixed, they have gone terrible after last patch and it's the most party spoiler aspect of them all afecting not only the Eastern Front but the whole sim. 

 

...

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. I know you are thick headed but this is something else 😄

 

I`m not the one making claims here, YOU are. I don`t have anything to prove, YOU have.

I just shoved how easy it is to test Yaks guns and I do not see anything wrong with them. You seem to think that if you say something, everyone has to agree without any proof. 

 

Once again. If you see something wrong, test it properly and report. Simple as that. There is a technical area even in this forum if you care to look around a bit. If you prove your point, It is possible that devs take action. But they don`t do it based on TAW stats. One track won`t do it either but if theres one coming, I`m looking forward to it.

 

I said earlier what I think about physiology and gunners, read it there. I-16 FM is fine.

Edited by LLv24_Zami
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

There is a technical area even in this forum if you care to look around a bit. If you prove your point, It is possible that devs take action. But they don`t do it based on TAW stats.

 

Sadly they don't take action nor engage in a dialogue even when faced with leading research sources that show that they damage values of ammunition in the game were decided on a whim by them as far as i can gather. So i wouldn't hold my breath in that regard...

 

Edit: they might read it but they will still choose to ignore it. Sure, you can argue that they had their reasons, but what reasons could there be to ignore research on this topic? There are just too many oddities in my testing for me to being convinced that they based their values on anything resembling historical sources or research data.

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Sadly they don't take action nor engage in a dialogue even when faced with leading research sources that show that they damage values of ammunition in the game were decided on a whim by them as far as i can gather. So i wouldn't hold my breath in that regard...

They don`t respond but they read it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

Edit: they might read it but they will still choose to ignore it. Sure, you can argue that they had their reasons, but what reasons could there be to ignore research on this topic? There are just too many oddities in my testing for me to being convinced that they based their values on anything resembling historical sources or research data.

 

Of course they have a choice to either agree or disagree. 

 

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

<snip>
The results for this quick tests like the one you did = it took 17 x  MG151/20 hits to shoot down 8xYak-1...yes, you read well, that's an average of 2.1 hits to shoot down a Yak-1

RESULTS


#1 - 1 hit (engine on fire)
#2 - 1 hit (even when it was in the right wingtip, engine stopped 
#3 - 5 hits
#4 - 2 hits (PK)
#5 - 2 hits
#6 - 1 hits (PK)
#7 - 3 hits
#8 - 2 hits

 

So with an average of 2.1 hits this is ridiculous, even if you wanna go historic and according to the table uploaded, this is twice the power the MG151/20 should have, and regarding playability, it's ruining the online PvP experience for VVS players.

PS. again, also check the smoke effect after you get hit by a Shvak and a MG151/20...it's almost bizarre, like comparing a light cigarette smoke with a hand granade explosion.

 

You may have some good points but your presentation is not helping.  Adding a huge number of issues into one post may make for a satisfying vent, but it makes it very difficult for anyone to address the points constructively. Nevertheless:

 

1) Your screenshot of the MG151/20 explosion is not of one hit, it is of at least two. That is based on watching 100 planes get hit by 274 20mm HE Flak shells in controlled conditions.

2) It is just a graphic: it may or may not correspond to the damage inflicted. 

3) The table you linked to says absolutely nothing about the absolute number of hits required to down a fighter: at best it only relates to the relative number, and then only by making some huge and unsupported assumptions. 

4)  Shooting down 8 planes is not enough to be confident of the true average number of hits required, especially if your ability to count the hits is suspect. 

5) You are bundling together the DMs of the targets and the effect of the shells: you should separate the effects using the QMB to attack 109s with a 109, and Yaks with a Yak as well as the 109 vs Yak scenarios.   Alternately, to test DM of planes only against a single type of shell, use LAA using the ME.

 

I am not entirely convinced by the DM myself, but you will only get anywhere with a more limited and logical approach. (No guarantees that will work either.... ;)  )  

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course that's the way to present a good test and i agree with you and Ivy,  i'm not presenting that lonely track as a cientific proof; i only did that to show Zami he is talking nonesense if he presents a QMB report (even with no details at all) just to say "all is ok nothing changed". If that is valid, then my test too...and confirms what i see of MG151/20mm; but i agree it's not valid on its own. Zami even still doesn't realize (or he is too proud to reconize it) the fact he even made that "test" with an ammo combination not even discussed here; so it really is useless.  It's like if i mention the i-16 FM and he does a test with a Lagg-3 and says, VVS planes are ok. 

Is this the way a deeper test will be taken when i present it? Don't make me go into a hugely time demanding task if you already know that nothing will be taken seriously.

 

TAW stats, again, not a 100% solid proof, but VERY telling indeed; you can only ignore them if you don't care, otherwise you would at least have a look and see whats going on instead of this "meh" atitude. If you ignore the stats from TAW which is the most active server, which lasts a couple of months long in the Eastern Front, with thousands of hours spent by hundreds of players in the early planeset scenarios, an environment not even testers here can have (unless testers go in private PvP sessions for months with 40v40 players and we are unaware of) 😉 ; if we show to you the huge difference from this edition starting after new patch was implemented compared to all previous ones, with VVS pilots dying like flies and blown out of the sky with a single shot or short bursts, and a vast difference in squads performances between LW and VVS during this edition compared to previous ones pointing out that latest changes (physyology, G's, and HE ammo effects) have done the difference and helped to weaken the VVS planes by a big margin losing the interesting "parity" sort of speak this sim had since the beggining and for years , if we present all these and you just go "nah, we don't care about it" then it shows no real interest in seeing what is going on. TAW is the best data bank you can have for real MP PvP activity using the kind of planeset we are discussing here (i-16, MiG-3, Yak-1, 110E, 109E7, 109F4).  

 

47 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

1) Your screenshot of the MG151/20 explosion is not of one hit, it is of at least two. That is based on watching 100 planes get hit by 274 20mm HE Flak shells in controlled conditions.

2) It is just a graphic: it may or may not correspond to the damage inflicted. 

3) The table you linked to says absolutely nothing about the absolute number of hits required to down a fighter: at best it only relates to the relative number, and then only by making some huge and unsupported assumptions. 

4)  Shooting down 8 planes is not enough to be confident of the true average number of hits required, especially if your ability to count the hits is suspect. 

5) You are bundling together the DMs of the targets and the effect of the shells: you should separate the effects using the QMB to attack 109s with a 109, and Yaks with a Yak as well as the 109 vs Yak scenarios.   Alternately, to test DM of planes only against a single type of shell, use LAA using the ME.


1) no, 1 hit only makes that cloud, not 2. I've also seen hundres of shots myself...and i can replicate that picture if you want.
2) I agree it may not represent real damage effect, but no other 20mm does that, not even Vya23 HE...so maybe it's an eye candy thing put there so the LW fighter jocks get aroused after they shoot  down a VVS plane with a single shot? " Look that hand granade explosion mom, I'm Hartmann!" (just kidding, no offense intended) 

3) The table includes links, my bad not mentioning that; here says it clearly and can be found in one of the links on those tables=> LUFTWAFFE RESOURCE CENTER and i quote "German statistics data showed that on average the 151/20 required an average of 25 hits to down a B-17, while 18-20 hits were required to down other 4-engine bomber types, and only four hits were required to down a single-engine fighter"
4-5) Agree. The test must be longer and under the circumstances you say; my ability to count hits is good enough though, but will support that with the corect parser.

 

4 hours ago, LLv24_Zami said:

I-16 FM is fine.


Hahaha...wow, and you write that with a straight face? No wonder...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

Of course that's the way to present a good test and i agree with you and Ivy,  i'm not presenting that lonely track as a cientific proof; i only did that to show Zami he is talking nonesense if he presents a QMB report (even with no details at all) just to say "all is ok nothing changed". If that is valid, then my test too...and confirms what i see of MG151/20mm; but i agree it's not valid on its own. Zami even still doesn't realize (or he is too proud to reconize it) the fact he even made that "test" with an ammo combination not even discussed here; so it really is useless.  It's like if i mention the i-16 FM and he does a test with a Lagg-3 and says, VVS planes are ok. 

 

Read my post again please: 

I took those QM mission just to see if theres huge difference as you claim. I did not see it. I`m not going to do the work for you. I don`t have time and I don`t see any need for it because I know nothing has changed. It`s a huge work and you just have to do it if you wan`t to prove something. Again, I`m not the one making these claims, YOU are.

8 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

Hahaha...wow, and you write that with a straight face? No wonder...

 

Yes, but I`m shaking my head. Quess why :)

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, if that was the case soviets should win every single TAW edition and that is not the case. Also by the end of it LW blonde knights would be mostly dead and young LW greenhorns slaughtered by better soviet pilots and airplanes, and the difference in numbers would be appauling for the VVS. Fortunately this is just a game, intending to be a sim, and far from real stuff and the horros of war 😉

 

And yes, TAW is the best database for this, and also the most demanding online campaign where the best squads gather and compete with each other. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup and there goes your rambling again. Nothing that you say is in any way coherent or follows any kind of logical path. If you talk about the numbers of downed aircraft in taw, then the results did get more realistic.

The point about germans being outnumbered actually supports my point, but from what I keep on reading from you, I doubt you can follow

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, i'm just responding at your derailing of the subject; if you want no rambling, start by doing it yourself and keep on topic. Although i don't hold my breath, you seem more interested in trolling than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Operation_Ivy I feel like a remake of your test could give some new info, plenty of time has passed and the DM has changed. If you want I can help with it ^^

In regards to the unscientific test I tried it too and got 14 Yak-1s with the whole ammo of the 109F, while only getting 6 109s with the ammo of the Yak-1. Tried 109 vs 109 to check if it was a different case and got 6 109s with half the ammo so the effectiveness is more or less the same against either Yak or 109.

A good number of the kills were by pilot getting unconscious with the new shock effect and engine damage by hits in the wings or the rear fuselage. I feel like this is a consequence of the compromise modelling of the mine shell as a fragmentation round. I suppose it would be hard to fix this without changing how it works. If you adjust it's fragmentation capability it would decrease it's effectiveness in the areas where it should work well (local damage).



 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what I've been saying and thanks very much SuperEtendard for taking the time to do some further testing. I don't expect to kill the same amount of fighters flying a Yak1 and a 109F4,  it's 120 x20mm rounds in the Yak against 200 x20mm ; and also the 109F4 is way better in performance and can just fly circles arond a Yak. But the effect the MG151/20mm has now is too exagerated, i also had that situation you describe in my quick test of a Yak having engine stooped even when it absorved just 1 hit from a 20mm  on the right wingtip.


Now the effect from UBS 12.7 and 20mm ShVAK is very weak compared to what the MG151/20 does on VVS fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

This is exactly what I've been saying and thanks very much SuperEtendard for taking the time to do some further testing. I don't expect to kill the same amount of fighters flying a Yak1 and a 109F4,  it's 120 x20mm rounds in the Yak against 200 x20mm ; and also the 109F4 is way better in performance and can just fly circles arond a Yak. But the effect the MG151/20mm has now is too exagerated, i also had that situation you describe in my quick test of a Yak having engine stooped even when it absorved just 1 hit from a 20mm  on the right wingtip.


Now the effect from UBS 12.7 and 20mm ShVAK is very weak compared to what the MG151/20 does on VVS fighters.

MG-151 Is not OP with the damage wich can perform. What Is exagerated Is that huge explosión. 

 

I tried to do some testing with the German and Russian cannon all over Russian planes. (Spit V and P-40 are out)

 

Results, even if is not 100% accurate.

I used half of my ammo on the Yak. I think i Made some pretty serious hits on Center fuselaje and wings. More than 5 on the Center for sure. 

 

Result? No structural failure. The plane went down due i cutted the control tractions.

 

With Germans i was able to shot down him with less efforts and ammo. Cutting a wing with 2 HE shots ir 3. And another one cutting His rear fuselaje off. 

 

Okey. It makes Sense its made of wood but it should happen the same with ShVAK in that case.

 

Then i tried with Hispanos.

 

Plane went down in a few hits.

 

And for end my testing 12,7 of P-51D.

 

Wing went down.

 

 

The problem is not the German OP cannon. Is the weakness of ShVAK.

 

For example on Berloga i catched a 190 with full HE round of La-5FN on His wing. More than 4 impacts. Guy was able to fly. Now i can do that with a Tempest or Spit and guy is in flames and with no Wing.

 

ShVAK has something weird. But i didn't Track it since actually want to keep steady the AI its imposible he he

Edited by -332FG-Ursus_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

 

Now the effect from UBS 12.7 and 20mm ShVAK is very weak compared to what the MG151/20 does on VVS fighters.

 

It should be weaker, but to what extent and in which situations needs a more detailed analysis and a more complex DM to reflect it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

Now the effect from UBS 12.7 and 20mm ShVAK is very weak compared to what the MG151/20 does on VVS fighters.

 

Do you have any scientific or historical source that states that the 20mm ShVAK was by any means comparable in effectiveness of the 20mm Minengeschoss? I am genuinely curious. 

 

Also, if you think the 20mm ShVAK looks weak against the 20mm Minengeschoss, wait till you compared it to the 20mm HE Hispano... 

On top of that i want to add, that the russian 20mm AP is way better than the german 20mm AP. 

 

59 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@Operation_Ivy I feel like a remake of your test could give some new info, plenty of time has passed and the DM has changed. If you want I can help with it ^^

 

I was thinking about it, but it is very time consuming and i don't even have IL2 installed currently because i considered it borderline unplayable in its current state. Also there is still no way to do my test with accurate internal damage data, which seems to be the main difference to the "old" system.

In the end, i also fear it is a waste of time because the IL2 devs seem to have already made up their minds to keep their imaginative approach to the DM instead of going with historical researchers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage you do with 1x20mm combining both AP and HE (Yak-1 ie) is a looong way from what it can do a MG151/20 currently; the LW 20mm HE should be a bit more powerful, but not to the extent we see currently in our sim...and let devs say if it is possible to code realistically the little difference between them. Anyway, I did a quick video showing what SE mentioned here and i experienced during that test:

(video not public listed)

 

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...