Jump to content
Han

Game version 4.005 discussion: New airframe damage model

Recommended Posts

Im enjoying this new patch . Now you have to work harder . Either casing or being cased . Great work . !!!

New skills to learn .

Enjoy it while you can ,  you just never know whats round the corner . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By 1944, ammo used by the US was entirely API or API-T.  Use of tracer seemed to have varied from unit to unit, with some using a typical 1-5 tracer mix, and others using none or just loading them in the last 50 or so rounds of the belt to act as a low ammo indicator.

 

I think these options, plus historical convergence patterns  would make a significant  difference for the .50s.  Right now what I’m seeing with my test mission is that they are great at causing fuel, oil and coolant leaks, but thats about it.  Combined with the fact that pilot wounds often have zero practical effect with the new DM, you have to get a PK or a lucky engine fire/failure shot to actually down someone, and those damage effects basically  cannot occur from a stern shot on the 109 right now.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Russian 12.7mm HE, in those posts by Hiromachi he says the pure HE round (not HEI) had 2.1 grams of explosives, which while not much it's comparable to the lower amount of explosives in some of the ShVAKs HEI and HEI-Frag.

For comparison the 13mm in the MG 131 had 1.1g of explosives and that was used at least in 1943, later on it was more phased out by pure Incendiary and AP in their belts (in game we have a pure HE belt).

Petrovich has shared a couple images of Soviet planes getting hit by UB's HE rounds (don't know if it was a test firing or a friendly fire instance) that being said the wooden skin makes it more prone to have higher skin damage caused by explosive ammo

127.JPG

127-2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HR_Grajo said:
Bottom line... Please Devs, whatever you do in the future, try to balance all this and make it fairer for both sides.

No.

 

8 hours ago, Danziger said:

If you are taking the 37mm for shooting at planes, make sure you take the HE only loadout. The AP rounds are meant for armoured ground targets. They pass right though a plane with no explosive. So unless it makes a direct hit on something vital, it will not do anything but put a hole in the skin. 

AP is really good at taking out engines, it can punch through the block and destroy multiple cylinders and could potentially cause almost instant seizure if you manage to get a good hit to the crank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had literally a blast yesterday - gleich mission 11 in ten days of autumn and after mingling with a bunch of ratas I went after a vice of peshkas. Dove after one and got a good burst in his left engine but his gunner was up and ready and shredded my right wing - killing a lot of lift. So I had to limb home as did he. Felt very believable - I really like the new DM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So I updated my .50bmg test mission.  It now includes all the German Bodenplatte aircraft (3x K4, 3 x G14, 3 x A8, 3 x D9, 1 x 262) as well as a 110G2, He111, Ju88 and Ju52.  I also switched it to Rheinland so you aren't running out of time or room on the map, so you have literally all day to aim and make perfect shots.  I'm trying to just make dead stern shots right at convergence.  What I'm finding is that I can kill all 6 190s with ammo to spare.  I can easily kill the 262, 110, 111, 88 and 52 in one ammo load as well.  I can get 2-3 109s at best.  The contrast between the 109 and all the other aircraft is pretty stark; the 190 is fragile in comparison and mutli-engine bombers and transports take FAR fewer rounds to down.

P-51GunneryTestV2.zip.zip

Edited by KW_1979
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This patch is another wonderful improvement in IL2!

 

Playing again recently, i cannot stop noticing how incredibly beautiful and rich this sim is,  this patch is another illustration of "l'idéal de perfection" that characterize the Team. Wow.:good:

 

This is a dream!

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

About the Russian 12.7mm HE, in those posts by Hiromachi he says the pure HE round (not HEI) had 2.1 grams of explosives, which while not much it's comparable to the lower amount of explosives in some of the ShVAKs HEI and HEI-Frag.

For comparison the 13mm in the MG 131 had 1.1g of explosives and that was used at least in 1943, later on it was more phased out by pure Incendiary and AP in their belts (in game we have a pure HE belt).

Petrovich has shared a couple images of Soviet planes getting hit by UB's HE rounds (don't know if it was a test firing or a friendly fire instance) that being said the wooden skin makes it more prone to have higher skin damage caused by explosive ammo

127.JPG

127-2.JPG

 

Great pics. Makes me wonder what the result of a Mk108 30mm would be. I don't suppose there are any pics of that, do you know? 

Share this post


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

 

Great pics. Makes me wonder what the result of a Mk108 30mm would be. I don't suppose there are any pics of that, do you know? 

 

220px-Starwars_explosion.jpg

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm far from a rivet counter, but I just wanted to say that in general terms the new damage model feels and looks fantastic and I'm having a ball with it. Great work!

 

I'm not skilled enough to notice any real difference to my own vulnerability.. I get thrashed either way 🤭

Edited by crab_destroyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video was uploaded in the russian forums and quite shows what i was saying about this patch; i share it here. I also did testings with a friend yesterday, after 4 hours testing we made tracks, recorded the results and i hope to finish the edition for this evening. I will share it in Developer Assistance; it shows the difference in DM when a 20mm minengeschoss hits a target, and a comparison with ShVAK 20mm and VYa23mm
 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

This video was uploaded in the russian forums and quite shows what i was saying about this patch; i share it here. I also did testings with a friend yesterday, after 4 hours testing we made tracks, recorded the results and i hope to finish the edition for this evening. I will share it in Developer Assistance; it shows the difference in DM when a 20mm minengeschoss hits a target, and a comparison with ShVAK 20mm and VYa23mm
 

 

Its online so it will not count 😄

 

Also its not problem with allied guns didnt you here, you just need to learn how to aim, while problem with axis 20 and 30mm was real 😄

 

Your waisting time testing, its like problem with guns destroying buildings for last year, its just server hosts and mission makers dont know how to build missions all is ok, like with allied guns, its just players dont know how to aim .

 

Next thing will be thouse poor G forces axis pilots can sustain, compared to allied pilots, has to be fixed.

Edited by CountZero
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion, but the 109 F4 could use a slightly lesser chance of losing the landing gear wheels when hit in that area of the plane.  I was shooting at them with a Yak-7 and even a few light machine gun hits were causing wheels to fly right out of the wheel wells.  

 

I also used a P51 on a K4 and found similar results.  

 

This was QMB 1v1. 

 

I don't know if other planes have a similar likelihood of losing wheels this fast when hit as I haven't tried shooting them yet.

Share this post


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

 

Great pics. Makes me wonder what the result of a Mk108 30mm would be. I don't suppose there are any pics of that, do you know? 

a Shvak did that with 6.7 g HE ?
Can you imagine then a MG-151/20 HE what could do with 20 g of HE or a MK-108 with 81 g of HE.
Somebody by already copy pasted a topic about MK-108:Ouky1991
https://imgur.com/gallery/HkGqW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Just my opinion, but the 109 F4 could use a slightly lesser chance of losing the landing gear wheels when hit in that area of the plane.  I was shooting at them with a Yak-7 and even a few light machine gun hits were causing wheels to fly right out of the wheel wells.  

 

I also used a P51 on a K4 and found similar results.  

 

This was QMB 1v1. 

 

I don't know if other planes have a similar likelihood of losing wheels this fast when hit as I haven't tried shooting them yet.

 

 

Actually, looking at the 109 wheel assembly, the wheel shouldn't fall out at all unless the axle mount is broken AND the landing gear strut is either broken off or has come unlocked and dropped down. 

 

 

109 wheel well..png

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Historical battle outcome in real life depends on lots of factors other than DM. That`s why it`s BS.

 

Combat simulator and simulator is the same thing in my eyes.

It is not the same at all. If you judge this to be a flight sim you will get a very bad review in all aspects of the simulation. What a combat simulator does is to simulate the combat. That means the planes only need to perform historically against each other. Only is a wrong wording. It is hard. What I was reacting to is the whole picture painted. 
What we expirience online is not historical and absolute a what if scenario. In order to simulate a historical battle during bodenplatte you need to have a combined strategy / cfs simulator. 
You need to have just a few available expirienced pilots and rubbish fuel ( not a lot) and you have to take away much of the available ammo we got. 
Onthe Allied side it quite opposite. You cannot muster that many well trained pilots in a server. 
The planes was available, many of the bombs might not be but they simply had no shortage. 
I was not saying this is bad, I just say it is a limit on how realistic a combat flight sim can be. 
And no it isnot at all the same as a flight simulator. If it was in this magnitude none of us could afford it. We might have one airplane and one map if it was for the same price. 
so before you call BS be sure what you call BS is is. Calling a cfs a sim is BS. 

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

I agree, is a great simulator, and very nice. But i think we are missing someting...

 

Look at his pictures

 

 

 

bc2f06a5223798e1a952e17a41a841be.jpg.3d1a53b76ed2aa1487bf2a3940816e7a.jpg4d25554a58485b0e9300c2fab48770a2.jpg.47595ffce70108623f3916316419993e.jpg 

Look the wings.  

As u can see is a really complex estructure... for all who have some idea about structures.... knows they work togheter, every element is designed for accept some streng using safelty coeficients, the forces move around elements and all work togheter. Really nice.

 

I have some idea about structures.... but no about programming.

 

But i doubt, the absolutely complex of this elements are 100 simulated on this game. Or im wrong? i ask  from ignorance.

I think... for move all the game ... somethings like the complexity of structures are  simply limited. 

 

The amount of calcul needed es crazy

 

Now we can continue using  logic....

 

What is more easy for simulate.?... some 20 mm hits on a simply structure wing we have simulated .... or multiple 0.50 hitts on same simply wing....

 and if we really want obtain RL results... what is more easy... simulate some big impacts along complex structure ,or  smalls ( more than triple in same time ) impacts on same structure?

 

If we have a limited DM tools

 

Some big holes,  product of 20mm HP impacts on wing... easly hit some of the limited structure simulated... and do great damage .. 

What happens with small caliber?... yes, are more numerous, but the damage to the few structural elements simulated are less... the thing is
 what happens with the rest of ammo no hit this few elements ? ... nothing... for us dont exist... we cant say this is all 100 right, no?

On RL all this small impacts , acumulated  cause a damage ... or no?

 

Seems like we accept that ammo need hit vital part... On RL a of course some elements of a estructure are more "vitals" than others... but on enginery , economia on matterials is a rule... nothing is 100 free, all of this small parts you can see in the picture...have a sense... do some work, have some results ..this of course is missed in our simulation. 

 

We dont play with NASA computers.

 

Maybe is good idea accept, the limitations we have for simulate things... like DM. 

 

And if is the case... no doubt... for obtain results more aproximated to real results expected... some coeficients need be apply... "balance" no... is a recognition of limitations and aproximation to more realistic results.

 

Is my point of view.

 

* Due design of minneglosh ( sorry if i mistake name )  every impact made a big area of damage...  more area is more posibility to hit one element. especially in a simply estructure wing, in the same way, due desing of 0.50 every impact...  only affect to  really small area..... is ok... in our case. a small area of " nothing " , Thats the reasson why i say 20mm HE hit more easy.

 

bc2f06a5223798e1a952e17a41a841be.jpg

Edited by 666GIAP_Tumu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

It is not the same at all. If you judge this to be a flight sim you will get a very bad review in all aspects of the simulation. What a combat simulator does is to simulate the combat. That means the planes only need to perform historically against each other. Only is a wrong wording. It is hard. What I was reacting to is the whole picture painted. 
What we expirience online is not historical and absolute a what if scenario. In order to simulate a historical battle during bodenplatte you need to have a combined strategy / cfs simulator. 
You need to have just a few available expirienced pilots and rubbish fuel ( not a lot) and you have to take away much of the available ammo we got. 
Onthe Allied side it quite opposite. You cannot muster that many well trained pilots in a server. 
The planes was available, many of the bombs might not be but they simply had no shortage. 
I was not saying this is bad, I just say it is a limit on how realistic a combat flight sim can be. 
And no it isnot at all the same as a flight simulator. If it was in this magnitude none of us could afford it. We might have one airplane and one map if it was for the same price. 
so before you call BS be sure what you call BS is is. Calling a cfs a sim is BS. 

Sim is short for simulator, isn't it? CFS stands for combat flight simulator, doesn't it?

 

per definition every cfs is not only a sim - as are racing sims for example as well - but a flight simulator. 

 

Sure - development resources are limited. If I have to simulate a combat environment than this will eat resources that civilian flight sims can spend on weather, air port organisation or what ever...

 

but il2 is clearly set on delivering flight models as near to the original as they can. 

 

And flight physics are better than many non combat flight sims of older age. And please show me where flying a camel is modeled closer to reality than in FC1...

 

And yes - multiplayer is ahistorical and always will be...

 

But play a bodenplatte career on difficult in a Gruppe with 190a8 or 109g6/14 and allies with better training and greater numbers will butcher your wingmen...

 

Not perfectly historical accurate but much better than mp will ever be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first of all Tumu:  to a large extent that is what this update has tried (and I think mostly succeeded in) to do.  Major changes were made in both the damage model to these complex systems and the effect of different weapons systems on those complex systems was worked over and tweaked several times before the update was released.  

 

Now on your comments about 20 mm vs 50cal guns.  You seem to imply that these "small" holes are scattered over the airframe somewhat randomly.  Although that's what they show in the movies, reality was very different.  The planes with the 50's generally have 6 machine guns and these six are not put straight into the wing but rather are angled in a bit so that all 6 guns hit the same spot at a set distance.  That difference is calculated into the gun sight which is set to that point.  So your question should be, what would cause the most damage, a single 20mm hit or 6 50 cals at the same point.  And remember the firing speed of the 50's was much greater than the 20mm's .  

 

You are absolutely correct that the airframe is a system.  What you seem to forget is that the armament is also a system designed to work together.

 

Finally, you are also correct that this sim is not perfect and that some guess work and estimation has to be used.  That's why it is a simulation!  I doubt that home computers will ever have the power to do all the calculations needed to be 100% accurate.  However, this is something that I believe the dev team knows and is constantly working to make the sim the best it can be.  Will there be further changes and tweaks ahead?  I don't doubt it a bit.  I guess the question is, does that show the weakness of the dev team or their greatest strength?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank for understand me... 

On true, i have big limitation for explain me... but i agree...  my point of view about 0.50 ammo was very simple for try evidence simply on cuantity of impacts the calcul needed... but on true the real damage or 0.50  maybe , only do the whole thing more complex to manage.

 

And i agree.

Devs allways improve, and game become more great, I apreciated it too.

Edited by 666GIAP_Tumu
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

It is not the same at all. If you judge this to be a flight sim you will get a very bad review in all aspects of the simulation. What a combat simulator does is to simulate the combat. That means the planes only need to perform historically against each other. Only is a wrong wording. It is hard. What I was reacting to is the whole picture painted. 
What we expirience online is not historical and absolute a what if scenario. In order to simulate a historical battle during bodenplatte you need to have a combined strategy / cfs simulator. 
You need to have just a few available expirienced pilots and rubbish fuel ( not a lot) and you have to take away much of the available ammo we got. 
Onthe Allied side it quite opposite. You cannot muster that many well trained pilots in a server. 
The planes was available, many of the bombs might not be but they simply had no shortage. 
I was not saying this is bad, I just say it is a limit on how realistic a combat flight sim can be. 
And no it isnot at all the same as a flight simulator. If it was in this magnitude none of us could afford it. We might have one airplane and one map if it was for the same price. 
so before you call BS be sure what you call BS is is. Calling a cfs a sim is BS. 

You`re just throwing words around, I don`t care how you call this. 

 

Point is, game is trying to simulate realistically what happens when shooting different weapons at different airplanes. It has to be the main goal. Rest goes like it goes.

 

It can`t ever be like real life in the servers, it is what it is.

Edited by LLv24_Zami

Share this post


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

You`re just throwing words around, I don`t care how you call this. 

 

Point is, game is trying to simulate realistically what happens when shooting different weapons at different airplanes. It hast to be the main goal. Rest goes like it goes.

 

It can`t ever be like real life in the servers, it is what it is.

It will never be as it was in servers online due to modern human nature.

 

WW2 was something beyond anything we can imagine today, from backgrounds and upbringings of people involved to the day to day circumstances and to the bone headed military decisions that placed half a million or more people per battle in danger.

 

We have no concept but we play either to enjoy the challenge of WW2 aerial combat online / offline to get a slight glimpse of historical combat.

 

People think that the Allies in the West had superior pilots - no, they had fuel and numbers.  Skill was probably on a par.

People here whinge AI is not leet like they are online - well pilots in that era didn't have the comfort of hundreds of hours of simulation training.  Nor did they think their lives were throw away as many virtual pilots in our era think.  If they committed to a negative outcome - it was for a strong belief that it would be for the benefit of many others and for them, an ultimate personal sacrifice.

 

The whining on here  - bah humbug.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

Great pics. Makes me wonder what the result of a Mk108 30mm would be. I don't suppose there are any pics of that, do you know? 


Not that I am 100% sure about, there are some pics of IL-2s getting hit by 37mm and one La-5 with a nasty hit from what could be either 37mm or 30mm.

32-3.jpg

unknown.png

The 37mm mine had similar explosive mass to that of the 30mm, but since it weights a bit more it would have slighlty more fragmentation damage.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Thank for understand me... 

On true, i have big limitation for explain me... but i agree...  my point of view about 0.50 ammo was very simple for try evidence simply on cuantity of impacts the calcul needed... but on true the real damage or 0.50  maybe , only do the whole thing more complex to manage.

 

And i agree.

Devs allways improve, and game become more great, I apreciated it too.

Hello Tumu,

I got information about test of many weapons, cannons and machine guns(0.50 cal), at the end of the test the good thing about the 0.50 cal is: you put a lot of weight on target because of the cadence of the machine guns, that produce a lot of damage. If you shoot a 20mm cannon for X sec compare with the 0.50 cal machine gun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like in some servers there might be problems registering damage as Jason said, for example @-332FG-Ursus_ reported that in the 72AG Training server the IL-2 1941 was really hard to bring down even by the quad 30mms of the Me 262 but in Single Player there isn't much trouble shooting them down with say the single 30mm of the Bf 109 G-6.

A couple videos for comparison
 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30mm Shell used in guncam. (careful graphic warning)

 

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

People think that the Allies in the West had superior pilots - no, they had fuel and numbers

Depends on when during the six years you look at it. 

1939/40 Germans have veterans from Spain writing training manuals and leading squadrons - edge LE

1941 RAF has learned from BoB, pilots on par with LW but bad tactics on command level lead to great success by the jagdflieger, edge lw in kill ratio - but western allies have initiative

1942 RAF has learned from 41, raf and lw quite equal

1943 enter America in earnest. German Training Time reduced. But replacements get great training on the job by the many veterans. Americans have better training but no real experience yet. Still equal to RAF, slight edge over Americans early that year. This vanishes during 43. Now attrition sets in, German vets in the west are exhausted and try to protect the less trained replacements...

Anglo American vets send home to train the new guys means training level increases even further. 

1944 usaaf unleashes the fighters, trends of 43 continue and average lw pilot quality worsens. By the end barely trained boys are considered target practice by usaaf fighters. LW in no position to contest allied air supremacy. Single impressive events don't change this general fact. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... After letting this update sink in for a few days and playing around with a lot of different aircraft types, I feel like this is a great update. Massive upgrade to damage physics. Even the damage decals seem upgraded. I'm not sure if they actually were upgraded or if now they are just appearing in more appropriate ways depending on damage. Either way the damage decals seem a lot better than before. 

 

Has it highlighted things that also need improvement? Sure. I think more detail in the convergence and firing rates of M2 .50s will be important for American planes.

 

I haven't had this much fun in a long time. They did a really excellent job with this update.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

It is not the same at all. If you judge this to be a flight sim you will get a very bad review in all aspects of the simulation. What a combat simulator does is to simulate the combat. That means the planes only need to perform historically against each other. Only is a wrong wording. It is hard. What I was reacting to is the whole picture painted. 
What we expirience online is not historical and absolute a what if scenario. In order to simulate a historical battle during bodenplatte you need to have a combined strategy / cfs simulator. 
You need to have just a few available expirienced pilots and rubbish fuel ( not a lot) and you have to take away much of the available ammo we got. 
Onthe Allied side it quite opposite. You cannot muster that many well trained pilots in a server. 
The planes was available, many of the bombs might not be but they simply had no shortage. 
I was not saying this is bad, I just say it is a limit on how realistic a combat flight sim can be. 
And no it isnot at all the same as a flight simulator. If it was in this magnitude none of us could afford it. We might have one airplane and one map if it was for the same price. 
so before you call BS be sure what you call BS is is. Calling a cfs a sim is BS. 

Surely it's a flight combat simulator not a combat flight simulator then. Or is it a simulator of combat flight?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Surely it's a flight combat simulator not a combat flight simulator then. Or is it a simulator of combat flight?

Ha I think this is as close a combat flight sim actually get a flight sim

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Ha I think this is as close a combat flight sim actually get a flight sim

I know what you mean anyway. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PikAss said:

30mm Shell used in guncam. (careful graphic warning)

 

 

Looks real, just like this historical photo, this damage was obviously only a single P51, it probably only had 4 guns aswell, otherwise none of those buildings would be standing! 

image.thumb.png.6341b77139b30118f2aa020f2f2c65b6.png

Edited by Sunde
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

By 1944, ammo used by the US was entirely API or API-T.  Use of tracer seemed to have varied from unit to unit, with some using a typical 1-5 tracer mix, and others using none or just loading them in the last 50 or so rounds of the belt to act as a low ammo indicator.

 

I think these options, plus historical convergence patterns  would make a significant  difference for the .50s.  Right now what I’m seeing with my test mission is that they are great at causing fuel, oil and coolant leaks, but thats about it.  Combined with the fact that pilot wounds often have zero practical effect with the new DM, you have to get a PK or a lucky engine fire/failure shot to actually down someone, and those damage effects basically  cannot occur from a stern shot on the 109 right now.

Yep

11 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

So I updated my .50bmg test mission.  It now includes all the German Bodenplatte aircraft (3x K4, 3 x G14, 3 x A8, 3 x D9, 1 x 262) as well as a 110G2, He111, Ju88 and Ju52.  I also switched it to Rheinland so you aren't running out of time or room on the map, so you have literally all day to aim and make perfect shots.  I'm trying to just make dead stern shots right at convergence.  What I'm finding is that I can kill all 6 190s with ammo to spare.  I can easily kill the 262, 110, 111, 88 and 52 in one ammo load as well.  I can get 2-3 109s at best.  The contrast between the 109 and all the other aircraft is pretty stark; the 190 is fragile in comparison and mutli-engine bombers and transports take FAR fewer rounds to down.

P-51GunneryTestV2.zip.zip 8.11 kB · 3 downloads

Yep... get the exact same results. The 109s are bugged, needs fixed.

 

P-51 also has a bug with the rear elevator assembly just falling off with the slightest strike from and weapon, also needs fixed.

 

Less dramatic but I think still needs some tweaking:

Spit IX - too tough (almost as bad as 109)

P-47 - too weak, this aircraft was known for it's ability to absorb both structural and engine damage and still keep flying.

P-38 - just too fragile compared to anything else.

 

Overall the engine (leak/damage) model is a little too survivable atm, maybe unrealistic how most aircraft can just keep flying for quite some time with most of it's systems damaged/destroyed... baring a fire or losing a large piece of the air-frame (or removal of the pilot's head) they just keep going. Maybe working in some more variables on degrees of damage would bring some more realism.

 

Regards,

Mad-Moses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm grateful for this patch and the quick update that followed it, but I get the feeling that some people here might need to recalibrate their expectations perhaps.

Edited by Vortice
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mad-Moses said:

Yep

Yep... get the exact same results. The 109s are bugged, needs fixed.

 

P-51 also has a bug with the rear elevator assembly just falling off with the slightest strike from and weapon, also needs fixed.

 

Less dramatic but I think still needs some tweaking:

Spit IX - too tough (almost as bad as 109)

P-47 - too weak, this aircraft was known for it's ability to absorb both structural and engine damage and still keep flying.

P-38 - just too fragile compared to anything else.

 

Overall the engine (leak/damage) model is a little too survivable atm, maybe unrealistic how most aircraft can just keep flying for quite some time with most of it's systems damaged/destroyed... baring a fire or losing a large piece of the air-frame (or removal of the pilot's head) they just keep going. Maybe working in some more variables on degrees of damage would bring some more realism.

 

Regards,

Mad-Moses

It needs to be changed based on what though? Their data or your opinion?

 

If the P-47 still isn't tough enough, maybe try ticking the box next to invulnerability in the realism settings?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Mad-Moses said:

Regards,

Mad-Moses


 

Edited by Tipsi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Vortice said:

I'm grateful for this patch and the quick update that followed it, but I get the feeling that some people here might need to recalibrate their expectations perhaps.


+1 

 

  I believe if or when API is added, you’ll get better results for allied. As for Luftwaffe planes, realistically the guns pack more punch as a whole. If in 1944-45 the Luftwaffe has the strength in numbers as the allies, the results of the war would have been a lot different. I don’t play multiplayer hardly at all but I think that most of the time it’s balanced in numbers for both sides??

  The update I think was pretty spot on when we were testing. In multiplayer the results possibly vary some because of the server loads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the new patch, in general, but.... I just had a mid-air collision with a buddy of mine in MP, both flying spitfire mk IXs. I lost my prop and my tail and went spinning towards the ground. My buddy... nothing! Just kept on flying. And this wasn't a subtle collision or something (if such a thing is possible). If this is not expected behaviour I can put up a video, we happened to be recording because it was our one of our first attempts at formation flying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mad-Moses said:

Yep

Yep... get the exact same results. The 109s are bugged, needs fixed.

 

P-51 also has a bug with the rear elevator assembly just falling off with the slightest strike from and weapon, also needs fixed.

 

Less dramatic but I think still needs some tweaking:

Spit IX - too tough (almost as bad as 109)

P-47 - too weak, this aircraft was known for it's ability to absorb both structural and engine damage and still keep flying.

P-38 - just too fragile compared to anything else.

 

Overall the engine (leak/damage) model is a little too survivable atm, maybe unrealistic how most aircraft can just keep flying for quite some time with most of it's systems damaged/destroyed... baring a fire or losing a large piece of the air-frame (or removal of the pilot's head) they just keep going. Maybe working in some more variables on degrees of damage would bring some more realism.

 

Regards,

Mad-Moses

109s are bugged? What is the bug?

P-51 was not an IL-2.

Spit IX: What do you mean?

P-47 is very close to the real life surviveability in the game now the devs got a very good historical document about B.25,P-38,P-47 I read it myself.

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...