P-38 Durability

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

22 hours ago, Y-29.Silky said:

The 30mm was big, but it was still a bullet, that was meant for bombers, Chuck Yeager even said the 30mm rounds would explode outside of the wing and not damage and flight controls, but this game it's acting like artillery. There's no way it should be ripping planes in 4 pieces like it does now.

But the P-38 seems to only have 1 damage model... 

 

I don't believe Chuck Target was an expert on terminal or external ballistics, and I'm certain there was a certain amount of embellishment in this comment. Chuck hated the Germans and was a big douche bag at the same time; so why would he say anything positive about their equipment?

 

It's not "just a bullet", it's a giant projectile filled with explosives.

 

Aside from that, another thing to take into consideration is the fact that if the 30mm is making hits, then theoretically so are the other guns. So you're getting hit with more than just the 30mm; and if it's an A8, then you are getting a real pounding. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson

[BlitzPig_EL]

Was going to stay silent, as this issue has been repeated since the dawn of computer flight simulation, but what the heck, I'm still a BlitzPig and I can only hold my "tongue" so long.

 

Our friends that fly LW, and usually only fly LW, have always felt that any hit from an Mk. 108 should always instantly vaporize anything it touches.  Round hits wingtip: total destruction of airframe, round hits antenna post: total destruction of airframe, round passes anywhere in the same solar system as an Allied aircraft: total destruction of airframe.  And if it doesn't, then the Allied aircraft are overmodeled, Axis guns are porked, devs are biased, etc... etc... etc...

 

After 20 odd years of doing this, it never changes.  No one questions their own gunnery skills, ever.  No one is willing to accept that in multiplayer, which is where the vast majority of these complaints come from, that there are reasons beyond the control of the players, input lag, desynchronization over the net, etc. that have a great bearing on virtual aerial gunnery.

 

Nope, it's always Luftwaffe porked, Allied overmodeled.

 

It really does get tiring after a while.

 

[SCG_motoadve]

4 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Was going to stay silent, as this issue has been repeated since the dawn of computer flight simulation, but what the heck, I'm still a BlitzPig and I can only hold my "tongue" so long.

 

Our friends that fly LW, and usually only fly LW, have always felt that any hit from an Mk. 108 should always instantly vaporize anything it touches.  Round hits wingtip: total destruction of airframe, round hits antenna post: total destruction of airframe, round passes anywhere in the same solar system as an Allied aircraft: total destruction of airframe.  And if it doesn't, then the Allied aircraft are overmodeled, Axis guns are porked, devs are biased, etc... etc... etc...

 

After 20 odd years of doing this, it never changes.  No one questions their own gunnery skills, ever.  No one is willing to accept that in multiplayer, which is where the vast majority of these complaints come from, that there are reasons beyond the control of the players, input lag, desynchronization over the net, etc. that have a great bearing on virtual aerial gunnery.

 

Nope, it's always Luftwaffe porked, Allied overmodeled.

 

It really does get tiring after a while.

 

I hear you and agree with you ,  many are personal and many want instant gratification and an easy to shoot DM.

Some DMs are terrible though, like the wings are made of cardboard no matter which side.

P47 ,P38, FW 190s, Me110s.

Damage models on those planes are arcade, wings come off from the root way to easy, and in the case of the P38 breaks in half, which is an unrealistic poor simulation for 2020.

[BlitzPig_EL]

SCG_motoadve, I totally agree with you. 

[Bremspropeller]

31 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Our friends that fly LW, and usually only fly LW, have always felt that any hit from an Mk. 108 should always instantly vaporize anything it touches.  Round hits wingtip: total destruction of airframe, round hits antenna post: total destruction of airframe, round passes anywhere in the same solar system as an Allied aircraft: total destruction of airframe.  And if it doesn't, then the Allied aircraft are overmodeled, Axis guns are porked, devs are biased, etc... etc... etc...

 

Everybody knows the antenna-wire acts like a suspender - when the wire is gone, the airplane snaps itself...

 

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

While I can believe - just by the nature of it's design - that the tail of the P-38 isn't as resistant to catastrophic damage as a single-tail design, I also believe that the damage model we have in-sim folds more easily than a freshly-laundered bedsheet.

I also don't believe at all that the P-47 should be unable to tank damage less than a P-51 currently can.  On a toughness scale of 1 to 10, the 51 should be around a 5.8 and the 47 closer to 8.0.

 

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

39 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Was going to stay silent, as this issue has been repeated since the dawn of computer flight simulation, but what the heck, I'm still a BlitzPig and I can only hold my "tongue" so long.

 

Our friends that fly LW, and usually only fly LW, have always felt that any hit from an Mk. 108 should always instantly vaporize anything it touches.  Round hits wingtip: total destruction of airframe, round hits antenna post: total destruction of airframe, round passes anywhere in the same solar system as an Allied aircraft: total destruction of airframe.  And if it doesn't, then the Allied aircraft are overmodeled, Axis guns are porked, devs are biased, etc... etc... etc...

 

After 20 odd years of doing this, it never changes.  No one questions their own gunnery skills, ever.  No one is willing to accept that in multiplayer, which is where the vast majority of these complaints come from, that there are reasons beyond the control of the players, input lag, desynchronization over the net, etc. that have a great bearing on virtual aerial gunnery.

 

Nope, it's always Luftwaffe porked, Allied overmodeled.

 

It really does get tiring after a while.

 

 

I don't think I've really seen anyone say anything like that in this thread so far; but I did kind of skim over some of the replies so maybe I missed it haha. 

 

I think some of the German cannon rounds are indeed modelled differently than how they acted in the real world. I believe in game that projectiles are modelled to damage based on velocity and mass? I'm not certain it takes into consideration the fuze design of mineshells fired from MG/FF and MG151? I could be wrong though. 

 

Taking into consideration the size of the charge in the German 30mm, I think it should be one of the most potent weapons in game. At this point, I think it actually is; the reason many German flyers think it isn't is because many times they are seeing hits in high deflection fights and not realizing they are only hitting with 13mm and not the 30mm. 

 

I generally don't have a problem in the A8 as it has two 30mm and has far better high speed instantaneous turn than 109s so it can pull hard enough to land 30mm hits. Plus I know I I'm hitting with the 30s, I'm also hitting with the 20s and 13s.

[HerrBree]

^^ thats not what happens. What happens is most player see very clear 30mm hits followed by maybe a small leak if they are lucky and no change in flight characteristics.

21 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

Our friends that fly LW, and usually only fly LW, have always felt that any hit from an Mk. 108 should always instantly vaporize anything it touches.  Round hits wingtip: total destruction of airframe, round hits antenna post: total destruction of airframe, round passes anywhere in the same solar system as an Allied aircraft: total destruction of airframe.  And if it doesn't, then the Allied aircraft are overmodeled, Axis guns are porked, devs are biased, etc... etc... etc...

 

Complete hyperbole. When I hit a wing tip with a 30mm cannon, I expect total destruction of that wing tip. When i score a direct hit  on the rudder or elevator of an enemy plane. I expect total destruction of the rudder or elevator. Currently that happens maybe 2/3 of the time. Ive never once seen anybody post anything close to what you are suggesting people are saying.

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by HerrBree

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, HerrBree said:

^^ thats not what happens. What happens is most player see very clear 30mm hits followed by maybe a small leak if they are lucky and no change in flight characteristics.

Complete hyperbole. When I hit a wing tip with a 30mm cannon, I expect total destruction of that wing tip. When i score a direct hit  on the rudder or elevator of an enemy plane. I expect total destruction of the rudder or elevator. Currently that happens maybe 2/3 of the time. Ive never once seen anybody post anything close to what you are suggesting people are saying.

 

 

And that is the whole problem - your expectations.  To generate the full destructive power of the MS it has to go off inside the structure: hits that detonate on the surface will do only a fraction of the damage. In reality, slow moving and light MS were prone to ricochet away from the target altogether.  Here is some post war information on the 30mm Aden cannon, a very similar design (though better) than the MK108   

 

 

 

 

You will not and should not always get the optimum result. 

[HerrBree]

55-60% is massive, but why should that have any bearing on how the Mk 108 performs in-game? That data, while cool, is irrelevant as we already have plenty of sources both written and video on the Mk 108's performance. We have no reason to believe that unreliability of ammo is even simulated in-game unless I completely missed out on something.  Until the point (unless of course I missed something) that the devs state for themselves or it is added to in-game tech sheets that unreliability is simulated, I think that its the one thing we can easily rule out.

[MeoW.Scharfi]

 

few 20s hit, i bet other planes would look way better after these hits. The damage Model is not correct on the P38 in my opinion.

 

[Legioneod]

13 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

few 20s hit, i bet other planes would look way better after these hits. The damage Model is not correct on the P38 in my opinion.

 

Yep, sucks. P-38 and P-47 have the worst DM in the game currently. DM as a whole needs an overhaul imo but especially for these two aircraft, they're the poorest performers when it comes to durability.

I'll stick to the P-51 until the 38/47 DM gets looked at, at least I can take some damage in the P-51.

[unreasonable]

30 minutes ago, HerrBree said:

55-60% is massive, but why should that have any bearing on how the Mk 108 performs in-game? That data, while cool, is irrelevant as we already have plenty of sources both written and video on the Mk 108's performance. We have no reason to believe that unreliability of ammo is even simulated in-game unless I completely missed out on something.  Until the point (unless of course I missed something) that the devs state for themselves or it is added to in-game tech sheets that unreliability is simulated, I think that its the one thing we can easily rule out.

 

Because it is what happens when you fire a 30mm cannon with a light shell. We are not talking about malfunction, or even reliability, but what is a reasonable range of realistic outcomes when a shell hits the target. Assuming that the shell always performs to it's maximum is simply unreasonable, especially in the case of MS which need very specific conditions to trigger their maximum effect. Fuzes do not always go off at exactly the right time, shells do not always penetrate to the right depth to trigger the maximum damage. The range of damage a hit might cause is abstracted into the RNG and damage range, just as it is for all projectile hits.

 

 

 

 

[HerrBree]

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Fuzes do not always go off at exactly the right time, shells do not always penetrate to the right depth to trigger the maximum damage.

Yes, that's called unreliability of ammo. When your round cant penetrate a target it is unreliable. The FBI stopped using the .40 cal because amongst many issues similar in nature it was found unreliable at penetrating some surfaces like car doors and windscreens at certain angles. These issues deemed the type of bullet unreliable. Any time you mention minengeschoss, which also isn't modeled ingame afaik, fuses not working properly or cannon rounds deflecting off planes you are talking about ammo unreliability. There is no doubt this is gonna go in circles though, and we've undermined Scharfi's attempt at redirecting the thread so idk what to say anymore.

 

19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The range of damage a hit might cause is abstracted into the RNG and damage range, just as it is for all projectile hits.

This is the core of the issue, but we'll have to wait for the next damage model overhaul to see what changes. 

[HerrBree]

6 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

Redirecting the thread?

 

when the thread is actually about the P-38 damage model being wrong and not about bullets being too weak or too strong(like the 30mm discussion that redirected the topic already from earlier on)

 

Because it has nothing to do with the bullets when P38 and P47 are the only two weak planes from ALL allies planes that break appart after few hits no matter 20mm or 30mm

Lol no no. I was criticizing the inability of myself and unreasonable to stay on topic while you were making attempts to redirect the thread back to what it was originally intended for, which is bringing awareness to the funky P38 damage model.

[MeoW.Scharfi]

Just now, HerrBree said:

Lol no no. I was criticizing the inability of myself and unreasonable to stay on topic while you were making attempts to redirect the thread back to what it was originally intended for, which is bringing awareness to the funky P38 damage model.

 

ok okay i will delete it the last one sry, i clearly misunderstood that one 

Edited February 2, 2020 by MeoW.Scharfi

[HerrBree]

24 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

ok okay i will delete it the last one sry, i clearly misunderstood that one 

No apology needed. Misunderstanding is just a small price we pay for the much greater benefit of being able to communicate with people all over the world

[Taxman]

I do agree that the damage model needs addressing.  I also think that SA is very important as I would never do a head on in a 38, also if one is on your tail use dive brakes and full rudder as the 38 is a good turner.   If one is coming up at angel turn into the attacker as AI will almost always miss, note almost.  On my last mission I did the turn into the attacker and lost one of engines but I did manage to limp home with a wing man covering me, I was the flight leader so I ordered the cover, landing was a bit iffy but managed to not damage my bird any worse then it was.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Taxman

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

9 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

few 20s hit, i bet other planes would look way better after these hits. The damage Model is not correct on the P38 in my opinion.

 

 

Slowed down to 0.25x speed and watched in HD, I think I saw at least 4 tracers embedding themselves in the root of that wing before it came off. How many rounds are there for each tracer in the belt and what is the cyclic rate of the two 13mm and two 20mm on the D9? How many rounds could have theoretically walked across that wing root? 

 

@SCG_motoadve what's so funny? I like to look at a situation objectively and try to gather facts to obtain as legitimate a conclusion as possible.

Edited February 3, 2020 by III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson

[SCG_motoadve]

22 minutes ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Slowed down to 0.25x speed and watched in HD, I think I saw at least 4 tracers embedding themselves in the root of that wing before it came off. How many rounds are there for each tracer in the belt and what is the cyclic rate of the two 13mm and two 20mm on the D9? How many rounds could have theoretically walked across that wing root? 

 

@SCG_motoadve what's so funny? I like to look at a situation objectively and try to gather facts to obtain as legitimate a conclusion as possible.

You want the P38 to break in half , like we have it now? arcade and boring.

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

1 minute ago, SCG_motoadve said:

You want the P38 to break in half , like we have it now? arcade and boring.

 

You want something changed because you think it's boring? What if it turns out after intense investigation that it is a realistic representation of what can happen to that plane if hit with enough ordinance in the right place? Do you still want it changed because it's "boring"?

 

What kind of study have you done in an attempt to discover if this damage model is accurate? I've posed relevant questions and folks have responded with great data and schematics on the tail section. Now I'm looking to discover more information. Do you have anything to add, or just the feeling that this is arcade and boring?

[BlitzPig_EL]

What needs to be done is research damage done to real P38 aircraft. Sadly I doubt those kinds of details are available anywhere.

 

That said, a P38 or P47 wing being sheared off at its most robust point, with the frequency that it happens in the sim does seem more than a little absurd.  If there was a raging fire at that point, that burned for some time, I could see it.  But a short burst?  Not buying it.

[SCG_motoadve]

The simulation of the P 38 breaking apart  is horrible and very unrealistic, an immersion killer, like if it was made out of cardboard.

Have never read accounts of this happening, or seen a real WWII footage of a plane breaking up like this, at least an explosion during the break up will look better.

 

If you like the way it is and feel its realistic, good for you, you are lucky , so you can enjoy the way it is at the moment, I do not think is realistic and do not like it, and seems to be many of the guys posting here are not happy with the DM either.

I do fly German by the way, just want it to be more realistic , even if iit becomes  more challenging .

15 minutes ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

You want something changed because you think it's boring? What if it turns out after intense investigation that it is a realistic representation of what can happen to that plane if hit with enough ordinance in the right place? Do you still want it changed because it's "boring"?

 

What kind of study have you done in an attempt to discover if this damage model is accurate? I've posed relevant questions and folks have responded with great data and schematics on the tail section. Now I'm looking to discover more information. Do you have anything to add, or just the feeling that this is arcade and boring?

 

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

That said, a P38 or P47 wing being sheared off at its most robust point, with the frequency that it happens in the sim does seem more than a little absurd.  If there was a raging fire at that point, that burned for some time, I could see it.  But a short burst?  Not buying it.

 

^

[Turban]

The way some a/c break might have to do with how wing loss is triggered rather than weapons. I shot a small (really) burst of 50cal to a Ju52 and it "violently" broke in half, it was like the wings were jettisoned rater than the spars being damaged.

 

It was obviously too strong of an effect and looked scripted.

 

They're working on DM so.. wait and see.

[Legioneod]

24 minutes ago, Turban said:

The way some a/c break might have to do with how wing loss is triggered rather than weapons. I shot a small (really) burst of 50cal to a Ju52 and it "violently" broke in half, it was like the wings were jettisoned rater than the spars being damaged.

 

It was obviously too strong of an effect and looked scripted.

 

They're working on DM so.. wait and see.

My guess is larger aircraft have larger hitboxes, this leads to more damage in a much shorter time so the aircraft breaks quickly compared to smaller aircraft. I'm pretty they don't model the actual main spars but just a large hitbox over the wing and it's rng if the spars get damaged or the wing pops off or not.

 

If they actually modeled spars/structure that actually kept the wing attached it's unlikely the wing would come off due to gun damage alone.

A more detailed DM with more accurate/detailed hitboxes of internal structures would solve or at least mitigate the issues imo.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Legioneod

[Stab./JG3_Hartmann]

7 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

The simulation of the P 38 breaking apart  is horrible and very unrealistic, an immersion killer, like if it was made out of cardboard.

Have never read accounts of this happening, or seen a real WWII footage of a plane breaking up like this, at least an explosion during the break up will look better.

 

If you like the way it is and feel its realistic, good for you, you are lucky , so you can enjoy the way it is at the moment, I do not think is realistic and do not like it, and seems to be many of the guys posting here are not happy with the DM either.

I do fly German by the way, just want it to be more realistic , even if iit becomes  more challenging .

 

 

I would bet the reason you have never read of accounts of this happening or seen real WWII footage of a plane breaking up like this is that most pilots that could have told us such a story didn´t survive that "story". And not every pilot was carrying a camera around with him.

And if you search for it you even find videos of B-17/24/26 breaking apart, and some of them were "only" hit by 30mm guns.

 

I think we can agree that both sides have their strong points. But simply by one video (and I wonder how he even managed to hit something with wobbling up and down like this) one can´t say if its correct or not...and the best thing is: Somebody brought up lags and internet connection and so on. So if we won´t hit because of lagspikes, it could easily look like it was no hit when it was registered as a hit by the game. And did I mention that that P38 clearly pulled some G? Even if its not much, how fast do you get to 3G? And a damaged wing root may take some extra weight, but at some point it will be to much.

One thing that annoys me far more than wings breaking of is that every time I attack an B25 with an Me109 (for example) they either hit the engine, the radiator or the pilot. That´s a rather digital way of ruining a pilots day.

[Lusekofte]

I do not think  everything is based on simplified DM. It also got something to do with effectiveness in cannons and 0,50. 
The P 47 damage model both engine and structural is bordering to blasphemy 

I normally would be filled with joy waiting for the razorback, but it makes me afraid for being so disappointing that I uninstall this game

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I do not think  everything is based on simplified DM. It also got something to do with effectiveness in cannons and 0,50. 
The P 47 damage model both engine and structural is bordering to blasphemy 

I normally would be filled with joy waiting for the razorback, but it makes me afraid for being so disappointing that I uninstall this game

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath for the Razorback. As much as I'm looking forward to the Razorback, the current implementation of the P-47 doesn't give me much hope that it'll be anything other than a frustrating disappointment.

Not trying to be a pessimist but that's just the reality of the current DM.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Legioneod

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 LuseKofte. The DM seems to be a bit simplistic. According to devs more wingspars = sturdier wing, regardless of the structure otherwise. So planes with multiple spars, like LaaLaa, can take one heck of a beating without breaking while a puny 7,92mm can saw off a wing of a Bf109 or other. Because only one spar. Sigh. A hitbox based DM is arcade no matter how you spell it out. The hope lies in the revised DM system. And I will for sure compare this DM to the new DM coming to the "other sim" out there soon. 

 

A dream would be that the graphical presentation of the damage would match the actual hit area. Now you get hit on the wing, say a few MG rounds, and always get the same damage decal. Or control surfaces, either they are there or detach. Wings always break from same areas, root/mid or 1/4 from tip. The bending of a damaged wing continues even you have landed and there are no aerodynamic or other forces causing excess stress. Sounds pretty much like a timer: if damage then after X time wing breaks off.

 

And yes, the P38 breaking apart like a Lego toy looks silly. I would expect fire if hitting wing root and the fuel tanks there damaging the plane over time, but now it simply snaps off the whole thing. 

 

 

[Lusekofte]

22 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

can saw off a wing of a Bf109

I flown BF 110. A favorite from cod once in this game. A burst from a PE 2 gunner shot off the wing and I never flew it again. I am well aware of glasswing 110 and are not saying it is biased. 
I rather have fixed this than getting a new pack. 
 

Look at the P 51. It got the DM of a P 47.  It goes down in a more..... lets say respectable way. I like the P 47 to endure small calibers hits in engine but get damaged. I totally respect a full seizure when a cannon hit. I want the frame and construction to mirror real life. There where a whole lot of P 47 shot down , but they where not blown to smithereens as a rule. The P 38 detach itself every time. I alway fall from the sky  in two to 3 bits. No other way. 

[MeoW.Scharfi]

8 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I flown BF 110. A favorite from cod once in this game. A burst from a PE 2 gunner shot off the wing and I never flew it again. I am well aware of glasswing 110 and are not saying it is biased. 
I rather have fixed this than getting a new pack. 

 

To be fair the 110 can take a lot hits from all planes, it takes slightly less damage than a pe2 of course but it is still tanky.(pilot kills excluded they are different)

 

I was complaining about the 109 damage model that dies after one shots and earned critzism by the pro allies fraction for that who tried to justify how realistic it is..

Now I do the same with the P38 and P47, that they die too fast and what happens? The pro axis only flyers claim that this is realistic..

 

Forums never change ?

[Lusekofte]

3 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

To be fair the 110 can take a lot hits from all planes, it takes slightly less damage than a pe2 of course but it is still tanky.(pilot kills excluded they are different)

 

I was complaining about the 109 damage model that dies after one shots and earned critzism by the pro allies fraction for that who tried to justify how realistic it is..

Now I do the same with the P38 and P47, that they die too fast and what happens? The pro axis only flyers claim that this is realistic..

 

Forums never change ?

Well there are a lot of people enjoying full Hollywood effect when they shoot something. 
I get put off totally when my P 47 disintegrate , not by the fact I get shot down. I just like it to go down in a believable way. 
I fly A 20 for this reason. It seems to take damage like I imagine it would. I do not claim realism, but what my imagination allows. I have to believe in order to enjoy. And currently I do not with most US planes

[SCG_motoadve]

IMHO 109 and P 51 DM are acceptable.

190, 110, Spit , P47 and P38 are real bad and too fragile, wings coming off , plane breaking apart way to easy and way to often, there is not even an explosion when this happens.

I really like the IL2 series but those planes DMs are the most disappointing aspect of this game.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Even in the winky little missions/DF maps I host for the BlitzPigs, nothing makes me happier than seeing a P47 when I am flying Axis, even in an M.C. 202,  It's an easy kill.  P38s are a bit more difficult as they are more dynamic than the Thunderbolt, but the result is always the same. I fly away and the P38 is fluttering down in pieces.

 

I won't fly the P47 at all.  I will use the P38 for high speed, low level interdiction work, but if I see enemy fighters, I boogie on out of there.  I have no qualms about engaging enemy fighters in the Mustang, Tempest, Spit IX, or even the P39 or P40, but the T-Bolt and Lightening just don't cut it.

Edited February 3, 2020 by BlitzPig_EL

[MikhaVT]

On 2/1/2020 at 12:21 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

After 20 odd years of doing this, it never changes.  No one questions their own gunnery skills, ever.  No one is willing to accept that in multiplayer, which is where the vast majority of these complaints come from, that there are reasons beyond the control of the players, input lag, desynchronization over the net, etc. that have a great bearing on virtual aerial gunnery.

 

Nope, it's always Luftwaffe porked, Allied overmodeled.

This sounds a lot like my experience in Airsoft (running around IRL shooing plastic BBs at other people, but being serious). All the time i see people shooting at each-other and one player will get furious about another not calling that he has been hit. What i often see really happening is not someone ignoring their hits, but actually the shooter failing to see his rounds dropping at the target's feet! Many people could use a good humbling at the range so they can know the limits of their skills. It's difficult to improve when one is always blind to the cause of the issues. 

 

11 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

What needs to be done is research damage done to real P38 aircraft. Sadly I doubt those kinds of details are available anywhere.

 

That said, a P38 or P47 wing being sheared off at its most robust point, with the frequency that it happens in the sim does seem more than a little absurd.  If there was a raging fire at that point, that burned for some time, I could see it.  But a short burst?  Not buying it.

I would honestly bet that the US does have this info sitting in a box (or twenty) in the national archives. The amount of record-keeping that the US Army did in WWII was incredible. Many studies were performed in-field to get data on things like where tanks were hit when knocked out, what they were knocked out with, et. al. Heck, there are literally dozens boxes of reports on the impacts of mold on various rubber components! Biggest problem here is that while the US Army was meticulous in their record keeping, they were rather lax in their organisation of said records. The Chieftain (Wargaming's historical consultant) has talked about this before in how the way he gets records is he has to request a box of records, the box is brought out, and then he can dig through whatever is in the box. Information on what is in which box is scarce making it a kind of lottery... 

[Panzerlang]

On 1/30/2020 at 11:49 PM, Y-29.Silky said:

The 30mm was big, but it was still a bullet, that was meant for bombers, Chuck Yeager even said the 30mm rounds would explode outside of the wing and not damage and flight controls, but this game it's acting like artillery. There's no way it should be ripping planes in 4 pieces like it does now.

But the P-38 seems to only have 1 damage model... 

So the airframe of a bomber reacts differently to the airframe of a fighter. Probably good that Yeager wasn't in the engineering dept.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Bombers were larger and much easier to hit, especially considering the slow rate of fire of the Mk. 108.  Also the bombers had a large interior volume which gave the 30mm mine shell a better chance of working as it was designed.

 

No one is saying that Allied aircraft should never be shot down, or have catastrophic failures, but it certainly should not happen as often as it does in the sim, and this goes for the Axis planes as well.

 

The expectation that every "kill" should be fit for a Hollywood SFX sequence is just flat out wrong.

[danielprates]

On 1/28/2020 at 7:30 AM, Fern said:

 

 

I am trying to understand, by looking at the picture, if he landed this plane or if he is looking at a plane that crashed or belly-landed. 

[Tipsi]

After having some recent encounters with P-38s in my 109 K4/G14 over the last couple of weeks, I think I can be qualified to provide some anecdotal experiences.

 

I can safely say, without ego, that the mk108 and 20mm cannon are very effective against P-38s. Most of my cannon placements have always been centre and rear airfoil. These usually score a kill in small bursts.

 

However, here have been times when the P-38s do resemble ruggedness against mk108 and 20mm cannon fire which results in prolonged dogfights. 

 

Furthermore, P51's always seem to be the toughest nut to crack, even with mk108 cannon.

 

I think the key now is somehow for the devs to find a way to make the P-38 damage model consistent.