New DM

[SqwkHappy]

Here's a fact for you: 

    On Combat Box I dove on what looked like A Tempest, I had the G-4 with the cannon, about 4-6 rounds down range and both his wings were ripped off. It was my first volley of hits.  I'm reviewing ww2 gun cam footage and I'm going to say... Hm.... I've noticed a severe lack of big white puffs of smoke from cannon round hits. 

 

  

[AnPetrovich]

Hi guys!
I've read the last few pages very briefly and I would like to give a few quick answers:
 

1. We are aware that a significant part of FC players perceive the new DM as a step back to the RoF. We hear your voices and are working on this issue.
 

2. In the current DM, as in the previous one, the direction of the bullet's impact into the wing is taken into account. For example, if the bullet hits the wing from above or below, the chance of spars damage is significantly reduced. Thus, most likely, the bullet "hits the air" in this case. The probability of hitting the spar when hitting the wing depends on the direction in 3D-space.
 

3. We do not want to use detailed hit-boxes for each element of the airframe structure (such as spars, stringers, ribs, wires, rods, hinges, etc.) because of two major reasons:
 

3-a) we try to save CPU time, while increasing the number of hit-boxes leads to an increase in cross-checks in collision detection algorithms, as well as usage of memory for all layers of 3D-models in geometric progression; and
 

3-b) an increase in the internal detailing of 3D models increases the cost of producing detailed content (in terms of time and money) and pushes us out of business.

 

Therefore, we use major hit boxes with combination of methods of probability theory to clarify the fact of getting into a particular major element of the airframe structure.
 

4. Yes, we are aware that a couple of years ago ED started developing a very detailed model of hit-boxes for some airplanes in DCS. We still think that this significantly affects performance and this decision is premature for the real-time simulation of more or less massive dogfight on typical PC.

5. We do not take into account the angle of hit the fabric. Every bullet makes a 'virtual hole' in the skin of size that depends just on the caliber. As you know we have only three levels of visual damages to the skin for each part of the airplane. This is a convention of the simulator at this stage.

6. When a bullet hits a spar (taking into account the probability of hitting it), wing loses its strength. The load that the wing can withstand depends on the degree of damage of its spars.

7. The extent of damage to the spar depends on its material and on the number and caliber of bullets that hit the spar 'mathematically' at the same place (based on probability theory). That means that size of spar makes sense.

8. During the check of this 'FC problem' we figured out that the data source we used for determine dimensions of spars for all our WW1 airplanes was unexpectedly not very accurate. Last week I checked all blueprints and charts that we have, and I must say there is quite a difference with data we used. Some of our WW1 airplanes have almost right size of spars (Pfalz f.e.), while others have them from 10% to 30% (such as Albatross, Halberstadt, etc.), or even more than 70% thinner (Fokker D.7). That's sad, and we will correct this as soon as we are ready with the new and well checked data.

9. But this is only one side of the problem. The other side is that we need to improve the airframe DM from AP bullets anyway.

Work in progress...

[SCG_Neun]

Really great news! Thanks

Edited April 19, 2020 by SCG_Neun

[J5_HellCat_]

@AnPetrovich Thank you sir! S~

[SqwkHappy]

13 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

Hi guys!
I've read the last few pages very briefly and I would like to give a few quick answers:

Awesome

Edited April 19, 2020 by SqwkHappy

[AnPetrovich]

P.S.
By the way, I've noticed here a little discussion of a funny picture of a magic cat, after someone has quoted my post from the ru-forum. Sometimes Google translator makes me crying.  I must say that this Google-translation of my post is fully bullshit (sorry for my English) and has no sense in confusing words. Maybe someone here, who knows Russian (emely?) will translate my words better than Google.

[ZachariasX]

@AnPetrovich thanks a lot for these explanations!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@AnPetrovich , as you are here what could be done to the random shaking of airframes when damaged , something more like loosing lift , rolling aka ww2 maybe ?

[No.23_Triggers]

Thanks for the explanation. I am sure it will set a lot of our minds at ease!! 

[No.23_Gaylion]

 

1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

I have been painfully-aware of that all along.

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by US213_Talbot

[kendo]

Great post. Thanks.

 

10-30% up to 70% thinner! Wow!

 

 

[DD_Arthur]

16 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

 The Devs have said as well that damage to spars has been taken into account. I wonder if this is what's causing wings to fold up so easily. 

 

'Kin 'ell!  Big salute to the magic freakin' cat!

 

Edit;  Big salute to Petrov too.  It's sunday night in Moscow and he's working!

Edited April 19, 2020 by DD_Arthur

[emely]

39 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

Maybe someone here, who knows Russian (emely?) will translate my words better than Google.

If it will be absolutely necessary for anyone, I am ready to try.  But there are difficulties.  Literal translation loses its meaning, because in English I do not know analogues of such turns of speech.  And if I retell the meaning of your words, that is, in my own words, then I am afraid to add something from myself ?

I hope that those who wanted to understand, he understood everything.  And those who did not want to understand anything do not need explanation.

[No.23_Triggers]

22 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

'Kin 'ell!  Big salute to the magic freakin' cat!

Knew that Big Meow would see us through.


 

[J5_Adam]

Very reassuring. Thanks @AnPetrovich

[No.23_Gaylion]

22 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Knew that Big Meow would see us through.


 

 

Hail Chairman Meow of the DM Review Board!

[J5_Adam]

If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Meow, You ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow

 

John Lennon

[SeaW0lf]

I think I'm done with this game for the time being.

 

 

[Wolfpack345]

Fantastic news! Thank you very much for posting Petrovich.  

[Donik]

11 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

I think I'm done with this game for the time being.

 

 

 

You said that over a month ago when your DR1 got shot down by an invisible plane or something. Go take a break. Everything will still be here if and when you decide to come back. Have fun! 

[emely]

13 minutes ago, Donik said:

 

You said that over a month ago when your DR1 got shot down by an invisible plane or something. Go take a break. Everything will still be here if and when you decide to come back. 

Why do you recommend stopping flights to my best friend from Brazil?

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

He won't even last a week.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Sounds good Petrovich! Thanks for letting us know what you've learned so far and I look forward to what you're able to do to work through this issue. I have some faith that things will be working just fine soon enough.

[J5_Gamecock]

Thank you much for the explanation, it helps morale here incredibly!

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Jeez, the number of times I've seen "moral" instead of "morale" on the interweb - salute Gamecock!

 

But I'd also like to echo the sentiment

[J5_HellCat_]

1 minute ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Jeez, the number of times I've seen "moral" instead of "morale" on the interweb - salute Gamecock!

 

But I'd also like to echo the sentiment

 

I suppose you have the morale high ground

[J5_Gamecock]

10 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Jeez, the number of times I've seen "moral" instead of "morale" on the interweb - salute Gamecock!

 An awful lot of wargaming over the years, and many "Morale" checks  

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

I think I'm done with this game for the time being.

 

 

You are not allowed to leave.  The beatings will continue until moral improves.

[JG1_Butzzell]

4 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

9. But this is only one side of the problem. The other side is that we need to improve the airframe DM from AP bullets anyway.

 

Thank you for the detailed response.

Does 9 mean that the WW I ammunition is armor piercing?  Does the WW I ammunition need adjusting?

[No.23_Gaylion]

[Feathered_IV]

Thanks very much @AnPetrovich for looking into it.  I really appreciate the extra effort.   Is there any chance of looking at the pilot and gunner DM as well?   The gunner’s head seems to be made out of Fokker D7 wing spar.

 

 

[ST_Nooney]

While your in the code area have a look at the DR1 curve, my right arm is huge with wrestling with the warthog stick near on 50% forward at all times to get the thing to fly level.

[Spook109]

On 4/10/2020 at 6:58 PM, J5_Gamecock said:

If they did hit anything,  a  7.9mm or .303 round is approx. 5/16 of an inch in diameter. Damage to the wood would be minimal.

The diameter of the bullet isn't the sole determiner of the level of destruction it will cause. More important are the bullet's mass and velocity - the energy foot pounds that arrive at that piece of wood. It's not a drill bit going through wood, it's a sledgehammer hitting it, with all of the deforming shock that accompanies it. It's very conceivable that a few 303 rounds, fired from under 100yds, would be able to break, or weaken to the point of imminent failure, the strongest spar in one these aircraft given the forces already stressing that spar.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

6 hours ago, kendo said:

Great post. Thanks.

 

10-30% up to 70% thinner! Wow!

 

 

And I believe it must be 90% in the Bristol. Be happy when that gets fixed. ?

[emely]

1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

Thanks very much @AnPetrovich for looking into it.  I really appreciate the extra effort.   Is there any chance of looking at the pilot and gunner DM as well?   The gunner’s head seems to be made out of Fokker D7 wing spar.

I think at the moment it’s better to leave this machine gunner alone.  In the end, he is the only one who has not yet complained about anything in this forum ?

 

1 hour ago, OG_Porkchopper said:

 More important are the bullet's mass and velocity - the energy foot pounds that arrive at that piece of wood. 

You hit the very center of the target!  Absolutely, the most important thing is the kinetic energy that a bullet possesses.  But there are our ideas about “how it should really be”. I think that having learned more about the design of aircraft, about the technology of their manufacture and about the properties of their weapons, some of us will be able to slightly adjust our opinion about “how it should be  "  But this correction cannot be so strong as to perceive normally a broken wing from an accidental shot.

[Knarley-Bob]

1 hour ago, OG_Porkchopper said:

The diameter of the bullet isn't the sole determiner of the level of destruction it will cause. More important are the bullet's mass and velocity - the energy foot pounds that arrive at that piece of wood. It's not a drill bit going through wood, it's a sledgehammer hitting it, with all of the deforming shock that accompanies it. It's very conceivable that a few 303 rounds, fired from under 100yds, would be able to break, or weaken to the point of imminent failure, the strongest spar in one these aircraft given the forces already stressing that spar.

In 1899, at the Hauge Convention, Declaration III banned bullets that easily expanded or flattened. So they were shooting FMJ (Full metal Jacketed) bullets at each other. But that is not saying that said bullets cannot tumble after going through the first thing it hits. Another note: a fast lead bullet will punch a clean hole through a piece of wood, wheras the same slow moving bullet will take quite a chunk with it.

KB

[HagarTheHorrible]

I wonder if the “mathematical probability theory” takes into account the place that the damage occurs, or at least the probability of where on the spar the bullets might hit or does it just consider every hit to be at the centre, or the weakest point, structurally speaking ?  Why, I hear you ask,  because there is an enormous difference in the stresses that a spar might have to endure depending on the point you take to  be critical.  The closer a spar is hit to a support point then the stresses, or flexing, and therefore likelihood of giving way under load, is greatly diminished.  Presumably that’s why double bay biplanes are stronger than single bay biplanes.  It’s a bit like a suspension bridge, in reverse (cantilever bridge ?), or to put it more simply,  a plank, stretched between two points, the flex of the plank, is greater  the closer you put a weight to the centre of the  plank.

Edited April 20, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[J37_Spyboy]

@AnPetrovich Thanks you for your response.Это высоко ценится. Spasibo ?

 

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 The closer a spar is hit to a support point then the stresses, or flexing, and therefore likelihood of giving way under load, is greatly diminished.

I wouldn't expect it to matter where it is fractured. It is a push load on the spar. This one distributes evenly thoughout the whole spar. Not a torsional load, where outer/distal damage has less effect.

 

3 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Presumably that’s why double bay biplanes are stronger than single bay biplanes.

Double bay gives you different attachment points for wiring an strouts. Other than that, double bay would improve torsional stiffness, but this is taken care of by the rigging wires. If double spar aircraft are tougher, then it is because they have more redundant support in th very specific way they were built.

[Garven]

13 hours ago, OG_Porkchopper said:

The diameter of the bullet isn't the sole determiner of the level of destruction it will cause. More important are the bullet's mass and velocity - the energy foot pounds that arrive at that piece of wood. It's not a drill bit going through wood, it's a sledgehammer hitting it, with all of the deforming shock that accompanies it. It's very conceivable that a few 303 rounds, fired from under 100yds, would be able to break, or weaken to the point of imminent failure, the strongest spar in one these aircraft given the forces already stressing that spar.

Not entirely the whole picture as a FMJ bullet that hits a wooden spar will likely punch right through retaining most of its weight and a significant portion of its speed which means that only a portion of its energy is transferred to the spar and the rest wasted.  

Edited April 20, 2020 by US93_Furlow