Game version 4.005 discussion: New airframe damage model

[[DBS]TH0R]

I am liking the new DM, though the bombers are far easier to shoot down now, especially with german 20mm. Making the gun pods completely useless, for me at least.

 

I don't feel the .50s have been changed much, rather more detailed. Just chased a 109 in a P-51 in QMB and upon very close trigger down on his 6 OC witnessed his tail wheel fall of and fly past me. The previous mission I had a piece of a wing fall off of an enemy plane and hit my right wing.

 

The thing I don't like about this patch is that it introduced stutters for me, that I never before had a problem with in this game. Sometimes even 1s long.

[Mad-Moses]

1 hour ago, Danziger said:

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?

 

I believe the purpose of the this thread is to test the new update and discuss the changes and point out issues so the developers can take a closer look... not act like a ignorant fool.

 

Cheers,

Mad-Moses

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

10 minutes ago, Mad-Moses said:

 

I believe the purpose of the this thread is to test the new update and discuss the changes and point out issues so the developers can take a closer look... not act like a ignorant fool.

 

Cheers,

Mad-Moses

 

So how exactly is the 109 bugged, again?   

 

 

[216th_Jordan]

1 hour ago, blue_max said:

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

 

This is (very likely) netcode however, not collision physics. His side just didn't register a collision. Happens quite often in MP.

[2/JG26_rudidlo]

On 4/9/2020 at 10:09 PM, Bilbo_Baggins said:

Explosions damage to buildings (i.e. from bombs) has been corrected;

I have found, that some buildings are indestructible. I thrown a bomb on hangar. It was 1000 kg bomb and it has fallen few meters from it (5 or 10), bomb exploded, but nothing happened to the hangar.

[Mad-Moses]

1 hour ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

109s are bugged? What is the bug?

Referred to several times in this thread.. the 109s take an absorbent amount of damage, especially in the fuselage compared to any other aircraft.

 

1 hour ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

P-51 was not an IL-2.

Does a IL-2 have a structurally stronger elevator assembly than an P-51? ... or any plane for that matter? I could probably shot down 30x P-51 with one load of ammunition simply tapping the trigger 30x times... maybe I'll make a video if I get motivated.

 

1 hour ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Spit IX: What do you mean?

Much the same as the 109 but didn't seem quite as severe in my test.

 

1 hour ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

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.

In all my off-line tests and flying against it online I put it down with one quick squirt 9 times out of 10. Small caliber munitions flame or seize the engine readily and cannons blow wings off as easily as the weakest air frames.

 

Regards,

Mad-Moses

Edited April 12, 2020 by Mad-Moses

[RedKestrel]

Having flown the P47 in 90% of my sorties since it was launched last year, I have to say that the new DM is much improved for the Jug. It is very nearly night and day. The engine can now survive much longer after being hit, rather than almost immediately seizing after only a single hit.. The wings and control surfaces do not come off as easily. But it is not overdone, well placed shots can still take you out in one pass. It is now much more pleasant to fly especially as a ground attacker. 

 

Im sure there will be some bugs and off behaviour but on the whole this is right up there with the improved pilot physiology in promoting realistic looking dogfights and aircraft behaviour.

[Hanu]

3 minutes ago, Mad-Moses said:

Referred to several times in this thread.. the 109s take an absorbent amount of damage, especially in the fuselage compared to any other aircraft.

 

Patch notes:

 

41. Bf-109 (all series except E7): the loss of the vertical stabilizer and the central part of the horizontal stabilizer is temporarily blocked due to the interdependence of this damage in the 3D model, which makes this point extremely vulnerable to combat damage and causes undesirable results. We will try to move the breaking point above the stabilizer in the future and fix this limitation. Damage to the rudder, elevators and horizontal stabs are still possible and the rudder and elevators can still be detached. And the left and right portions of the horizontal stab can also be lost.

 

 

[=SqSq=Civilprotection]

2 hours ago, Mad-Moses said:

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

The new damage model fixes my biggest gripe with the P-47, which was the tendency for the wing to snap at the root. I have yet to see that happen since the update outside of a fuel detonation. Now wings break at the mid section which I think is much better. The P-47 in my testing can tank 2 rounds of 30mm to a certain section of wing and survive, the third 30mm almost invariably snapping the wing (I ignored tests where one of the 30mm was spent removing a flap). This isn't founded on anything, but my gut tells me that the wing should be able to tank 3x 30mm rounds, with the fourth invariably snapping the wing. Again, not founded on anything, just a feeling. The engine seems fine to me so far. What feels weak about the 47 to me is that it has an alarming probability of getting a fuel leak, catching fire, and outright exploding due to fuel detonation. I think the P-40 shares this problem. Fires seem more likely on the whole, so maybe it makes sense that there are more fuel detonations. Maybe a 'fix' for this will come with a more detailed fuel system?

 

2 hours ago, Mad-Moses said:

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

I do in general agree with this assessment, particularly for inline engines. With the understanding that this is a placeholder system, would it be possible to tune it so that engine damage expresses itself sooner, but the time it takes for insufficient oil or coolant to kill the engine be lengthened? This might encourage players to seek an exit from a fight sooner instead of powering through for a kill, but they would still have the legs for a decent chance of returning to a friendly airfield.

 

As far as balance is concerned. I think the Devs are obligated to make as realistic a sim as possible. The responsibility of fair balance must fall to the mission makers. If it were up to me, I might balance a multiplayer map by restricting the 30mm on the G-14 when the A-8 can carry them, further restricting them when the K4 is available, and sharply restricting the G-14 30mm while 262s are on the map. The idea is that when planes that are only capable of carrying a 30mm are on the map, planes that have access to the 30mm as a mod largely loose that access. This is where, imho, balance should be incorporated. The same technique could be applied to other weapons beyond the 30mm.

[Mad-Moses]

Just now, Hanu said:

 

Patch notes:

 

41. Bf-109 (all series except E7): the loss of the vertical stabilizer and the central part of the horizontal stabilizer is temporarily blocked due to the interdependence of this damage in the 3D model, which makes this point extremely vulnerable to combat damage and causes undesirable results. We will try to move the breaking point above the stabilizer in the future and fix this limitation. Damage to the rudder, elevators and horizontal stabs are still possible and the rudder and elevators can still be detached. And the left and right portions of the horizontal stab can also be lost.

 

 

This isn't the problem... this plane doesn't get engine damage nearly as readily as any other aircraft. 10x more likely to get a pilot kill before you can knock the engine out. Against a Novice AI planes coming in waves on quick builder (easy kills), lucky to shoot down 3x max before running out of ammo in a P-51, usually 2x. Most of the time pilot kill is how they go down. I got one to catch on fire out of 30 tries. I can shoot down 10x FWs with the same amount of ammunition no problem.

 

Regards,

Mad-Moses

[Hanu]

27 minutes ago, Mad-Moses said:

this plane doesn't get engine damage nearly as readily as any other aircraft.

 

My DB605 is as kaputt as often it has always been. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective or blind luck, I cannot tell.

 

27 minutes ago, Mad-Moses said:

 I can shoot down 10x FWs with the same amount of ammunition no problem.

 

Ok, in that case this sounds more like a FW-190 problem then.

Edited April 12, 2020 by Hanu
typo

[KoN_]

23 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.

You P51,  jockeys have had an easy run with your 50 cals .

Ive seen one P51 shoot down three people in one engagement setting fire too all three in that engagement with just a few hits  .

Turn so tight with out any black outs . You will have retrain your aim . Had no problem so far in P51 with this new far better patch . 

The game was far too arcade . This is a good patch . 

All we need now is the visibility bug fixed . 

Edited April 13, 2020 by KoN_

[357th_KW]

I rebuilt a couple test missions to use the P-38 - no torque or lateral instability to contend with, no convergence, just set your trigger to fire .50s only (weapon group 1 on the P-38) and you should get much more consistent results.  I've only run through them a couple times, but what I'm seeing is just the same as with the P-51 based missions I used earlier - the 109 is MUCH tougher then the 190 from dead astern.  The ratios I was getting were almost exactly the same as earlier - for the same ammo expenditure you could down 6 190s, or 2 109s.  I made another mission with a mix of inline V12 fighters but I need to run this a bunch more to get some idea of how they compare.  When I get the time I'll try to put some tracks together.  Updated mission files attached for anyone who feels like testing this stuff out.

P-38GunneryTests.zip.zip

[KoN_]

6 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

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. 

Good pilots and good tactics by RAF . RAF made victory in 1940 . Germany lost good pilots in that time period . 

Edited April 13, 2020 by KoN_

[Mollotin]

33 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

I rebuilt a couple test missions to use the P-38 - no torque or lateral instability to contend with, no convergence, just set your trigger to fire .50s only (weapon group 1 on the P-38) and you should get much more consistent results.  I've only run through them a couple times, but what I'm seeing is just the same as with the P-51 based missions I used earlier - the 109 is MUCH tougher then the 190 from dead astern.  The ratios I was getting were almost exactly the same as earlier - for the same ammo expenditure you could down 6 190s, or 2 109s.  I made another mission with a mix of inline V12 fighters but I need to run this a bunch more to get some idea of how they compare.  When I get the time I'll try to put some tracks together.  Updated mission files attached for anyone who feels like testing this stuff out.

P-38GunneryTests.zip.zip 13.26 kB · 0 downloads

 

well, after all 109 and 190 are different planes so u might expect them to behave differently. U might be right. But u need to remember that 109 has strong fuel tank armor that could possibly eat lots of dead astern shots. on top of that, currently u cant detach its elevator or rudder...

[E69_geramos109]

16 hours 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
 

 

Looks like the 37 is quite unefective. 

[bzc3lk]

1 hour ago, Mollotin said:

 

well, after all 109 and 190 are different planes so u might expect them to behave differently. U might be right. But u need to remember that 109 has strong fuel tank armor that could possibly eat lots of dead astern shots. on top of that, currently u cant detach its elevator or rudder...

 

I don't think I would put it into the "strong fuel tank armor" category, made with laminated Dural plates. See the report below.

 

 

 

 

[Aero*Bohemio]

3 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Looks like the 37 is quite unefective. 

 

Yep; but you ain't n seen nothing yet. Wait for the video i'm uploading now comparing MG151/20 with ShVAK 20mm and VYa23mm

[[_FLAPS_]RogoRogo]

Wow.... actual patchnotes.
The decision to focus an update not on a series title, not on an asset or asset group but on the PLATTFORM - a necessary but also unexpected and extremely brave decision.
To see it through to the update with the ressources available shows motivation and commitment.
To make these changes actually settle into the live builds will require some more of that bravery and commitment - also stamina.

For the plattform, the foundation and its products this is a first step out of the cul-de-sac the company, the brand, the series was seemingly drifting and comfortably settling into.
A first step back towards the interstate - on which there was a lot of catching up to do before nontheless.

But I cannot help but wonder - if one of the elephants was pursuaded to move, what about the others silently standing under a different streetlamp there, more and more often casting a shadow big enough to block out the sun?
Some of those dissonances, those shadows can be well felt by an attentive reader even in this thread if focusing less on the immediate.

Will 1C/777 find the inner strength to muster what extremely limited push there is to get those proboscidiae moving as well?
On the other hand, what is there to lose - the concentration processes in the industry, the pressure on niches, in niches and intra-niches will not diminish in the coming times, quite to the contrary.
Just as much as where the markets will evolve to for any such product of any scope - things no actor and even less a miniscule one can steer or influence.

And just as I see a USP cristalize in those patchnotes again, maybe it is time for 1C/777 to be itself, be all you can and stop trying to be someone else (hint: the original outperforms the hommage - always, while an original creation and performance always stands for itself).
But that needs the ability to discern between the fishing grounds and the eligible catch(es), the ability to decide which dissonance to play, which one to accept, which one to exploit - as much as with which Potemkinism to just surf along, and to treat is as such even if it was to be a genuine and not a mirage.
And where to have a firm stance to the opposite.

Will you be up to it 1C/777?
 

Edited April 13, 2020 by [_FLAPS_]RogoRogo

[Birdman]

3 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]RogoRogo said:

...Snip...
 

 

What?

[Eisenfaustus]

4 hours ago, KoN_ said:

Good pilots and good tactics by RAF . RAF made victory in 1940 . Germany lost good pilots in that time period . 

Good tactics on command level. Good use of rdf and avoiding fighter vs fighter when possible to concentrate on the bombers. 

 

British fighter pilots were excellent flyers and fought bravely but yet lacked the tactics of their German adversaries. (Tight vic breaking into single aircraft vs finger four breaking into pairs) of course generally speaking - single events had various outcomes. 

 

16 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]RogoRogo said:

The decision to focus an update not on a series title, not on an asset or asset group but on the PLATTFORM - a necessary but also unexpected and extremely brave decision.

Have you been following updates and Dev diaries?

They are always improving the core game as well. Granted this was a bigger step than usual - but with every update came improvements ...

And unexpected? They announced better DM a month ago...

[357th_KW]

4 hours ago, Mollotin said:

 

well, after all 109 and 190 are different planes so u might expect them to behave differently. U might be right. But u need to remember that 109 has strong fuel tank armor that could possibly eat lots of dead astern shots. on top of that, currently u cant detach its elevator or rudder...

 

The fuel tank armor certainly doesn't seem to be stopping much given the number of fuel leaks I'm seeing (essentially every engagement results in a fuel leak after the first burst or two).  I am wondering if that issue with the horizontal and vertical stab being temporarily indestructible is resulting in some inadvertent "armor" effect.  That video posted earlier of the 109 taking 4 37mm's to the tail seems to be in agreement with this hypothesis.  Likewise, I was noticing that when using wing guns, if I dial the convergence way down, and get inside of 100 meters I start seeing pilot hits and engine fires - like I'm now shooting "around" the tail/rear fuselage and finally getting through to the good stuff.

 

Given that the 190 and not the 109 was the model chosen to turn into a dedicated fighter-bomber platform, and a dedicated bomber destroyer platform, both of which called for high durability, it seems pretty suspect to me.  Who knows, maybe the 109 toughness is correct and all the other German aircraft are way too flimsy.  But at least right now, the 109 is much tougher then the other German aircraft.  I haven't had a chance to try it out, but I'm curious to see how it compares to some of the other inline V-12 fighters.

[DN308]

8 hours ago, blue_max said:

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

Sure 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, Birdman said:

 

What?

 

Zackly!!!

[Danziger]

7 hours ago, Mad-Moses said:

 

I believe the purpose of the this thread is to test the new update and discuss the changes and point out issues so the developers can take a closer look... not act like a ignorant fool.

 

Cheers,

Mad-Moses

Then stop acting like one, maybe? Where is your data? Where are you getting your numbers from? Do you have some sort of historical documents that says a P-47 should be immortal? If you don't have some kind of historical data to compare to theirs then you are just wasting thread pages and server space with useless opinions.

 

Nobody cares what you think needs to be fixed. When you produce some kind of proof that something is not historically accurate, people will care. 

[Mad-Moses]

I would like to report after much more testing, the bugs I detected have been corrected.

 

Awesome work, IL-2 staff.

 

?

 

Thank you!

 

Mad-Moses

[357th_KW]

After running my P-38 test a few times now, I'm seeing that the ammo expenditure per 109 is about 3 times higher than the 190.  I tried my comparison with a mixed bag of inline V-12 fighters (Mc202, MiG-3, Yak-1b, Spit IX, P-51D, P-40E) it takes at least twice as many rounds to down a 109 as the others on average on the couple runs I've gotten through so far.  It's really noticeable in both cases - a perfect dead 6 shot @ 100m or so will almost always produce an instant (<50 rounds total expended from 4 x .50 M2 for a Pilot Kill, engine fire, or complete loss of control - in one case on a 190 I missed badly and still set off his wing cannon ammo and insta-killed him - very cool effect) kill on ANY of the other fighters.  If your aim is off a bit it might take a second or third quick burst.  I've yet to see a first burst instant kill occur with the 109, and I've probably shot about 100+ so far in single player tests.  Fire does seem to be the primary failure point on the 109 - usually if you get a touch low and hit the oil cooler presumably.  PKs and loss of controls are rare.

[Velxra]

8 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

 

The thing I don't like about this patch is that it introduced stutters for me, that I never before had a problem with in this game. Sometimes even 1s long.

 

 

This has been my experience as well. Very inconsistent random half second stutters both online and offline.

 

The other issue I have noted and tested today was low fps while online. My fps is always around 90fps. (Use to be 60 before 2019 so good work devs) however when online my fps drops to 30 fps and slowly builds to 50 fps. After that if another plane gets close in flight then my fps drops down to 20-30  fps. I have tested all manner of settings and turned off 4k textures. This problem persists as the fps never deviates from what I outlined regardless of lowered settings. Offline I can gain a 20 fps boost on low graphics for 110 fps. So this issue makes makes me believe its net code related as the issue was not present prior to the update.

 

Everything else about the update has been great in my experience. I have long awaited it!

Edited April 13, 2020 by Geronimo553

[Grajo]

I write to apologize for my latest post (that I have deleted already). I understand that It was mean and toxic and did not add much to the topic itself.

It came out from an angry moment about some reactions and for my frustration about the outcome of this latest patch... Still should not justify the manners...

In any case, I express my most sincere apologies for anyone that might have felt offended by it.

[Aero*Bohemio]

10 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

109s are bugged? What is the bug?

 

To begin with? Their guns...if they are OK, then ShVAK, VYa23mm and VVS 37mm are too weak. I've just posted a test we made after 4 hours of comparing one with another under current 4.005b patch=> 

 

 

[LukeFF]

One thing to note now as well with engine damage is that you really have to watch your engine temperatures. If you let your coolant, for example, get too hot and for too long, you are likely to end up with a seized engine in short order - even when you have not been damaged by enemy fire. Best to keep it within the rated temperature range and not try to push it up to the very edge of the max temperature rating.

[Hartigan]

4 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

One thing to note now as well with engine damage is that you really have to watch your engine temperatures. If you let your coolant, for example, get too hot and for too long, you are likely to end up with a seized engine in short order - even when you have not been damaged by enemy fire. Best to keep it within the rated temperature range and not try to push it up to the very edge of the max temperature rating.

 

 One thing I've noticed. LA-5FN oil temperature. It's already 100 Celsius before engine start up when warm engine is selected. Max oil temp is 85 C ?

[HR_Tofolo]

35 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

To begin with? Their guns...if they are OK, then ShVAK, VYa23mm and VVS 37mm are too weak. I've just posted a test we made after 4 hours of comparing one with another under current 4.005b patch=> 

 

 

This is terrible. I hope the devs really look at this issue, together with the 37mm AND the smaller caliber guns. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by HR_Tofolo

[=FSB=Man-Yac]

17 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

Wow did he manage to land that or was the damage done on the ground? Impressive photo!

[CountZero]

12 hours ago, blue_max said:

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

 

Net code is not improved, so when you put more presure on it strange things will happend. What server, what is your ping his ping (oh wait we cant see that in game like in other games ). I fully expect to see strange colisions, or suden 100% damages from 1x 0.3 calibar guns in MP, or server owerlods and time delays for bullet hits, as root of problem is not adresed. So if strange things happend in MP, that is not problem as DM changes cant fix that alone.

[blue_max]

15 minutes ago, CountZero said:

 

Net code is not improved, so when you put more presure on it strange things will happend. What server, what is your ping his ping (oh wait we cant see that in game like in other games ). I fully expect to see strange colisions, or suden 100% damages from 1x 0.3 calibar guns in MP, or server owerlods and time delays for bullet hits, as root of problem is not adresed. So if strange things happend in MP, that is not problem as DM changes cant fix that alone.

Ah, alright that explains it. Thanks! I don’t mind the somewhat buggy netcode (we just play for fun anyway and it was hilarious), just wondering whether it was a useful bug report.

[CountZero]

8 minutes ago, blue_max said:

Ah, alright that explains it. Thanks! I don’t mind the somewhat buggy netcode (we just play for fun anyway and it was hilarious), just wondering whether it was a useful bug report.

If you can replicate same thing happening in SP, then its problem with DM, but if its in only MP thing it can be so many things that its for sure not DM bug.

[kendo]

14 hours ago, [_FLAPS_]RogoRogo said:

Wow.... actual patchnotes.
The decision to focus an update not on a series title, not on an asset or asset group but on the PLATTFORM - a necessary but also unexpected and extremely brave decision.
To see it through to the update with the ressources available shows motivation and commitment.
To make these changes actually settle into the live builds will require some more of that bravery and commitment - also stamina.

For the plattform, the foundation and its products this is a first step out of the cul-de-sac the company, the brand, the series was seemingly drifting and comfortably settling into.
A first step back towards the interstate - on which there was a lot of catching up to do before nontheless.

But I cannot help but wonder - if one of the elephants was pursuaded to move, what about the others silently standing under a different streetlamp there, more and more often casting a shadow big enough to block out the sun?
Some of those dissonances, those shadows can be well felt by an attentive reader even in this thread if focusing less on the immediate.

Will 1C/777 find the inner strength to muster what extremely limited push there is to get those proboscidiae moving as well?
On the other hand, what is there to lose - the concentration processes in the industry, the pressure on niches, in niches and intra-niches will not diminish in the coming times, quite to the contrary.
Just as much as where the markets will evolve to for any such product of any scope - things no actor and even less a miniscule one can steer or influence.

And just as I see a USP cristalize in those patchnotes again, maybe it is time for 1C/777 to be itself, be all you can and stop trying to be someone else (hint: the original outperforms the hommage - always, while an original creation and performance always stands for itself).
But that needs the ability to discern between the fishing grounds and the eligible catch(es), the ability to decide which dissonance to play, which one to accept, which one to exploit - as much as with which Potemkinism to just surf along, and to treat is as such even if it was to be a genuine and not a mirage.
And where to have a firm stance to the opposite.

Will you be up to it 1C/777?
 

 

Great, now we have Eric Cantona on the forum!

 

Also....is anyone actually playing this game just to enjoy it....or are they all busy carrying out tests designed to prove that their personal favourite aircraft/armament has been nerfed, while the OTHER side's (boo/ hiss) is now unfeasibly strong.

 

Oh...the injustice of it all....

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by kendo

[kendo]

12 hours ago, =SqSq=Civilprotection said:

... What feels weak about the 47 to me is that it has an alarming probability of getting a fuel leak, catching fire, and outright exploding due to fuel detonation. I think the P-40 shares this problem. Fires seem more likely on the whole, so maybe it makes sense that there are more fuel detonations. Maybe a 'fix' for this will come with a more detailed fuel system?

 

6 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

 

The fuel tank armor certainly doesn't seem to be stopping much given the number of fuel leaks I'm seeing (essentially every engagement results in a fuel leak after the first burst or two).  I am wondering if that issue with the horizontal and vertical stab being temporarily indestructible is resulting in some inadvertent "armor" effect.  That video posted earlier of the 109 taking 4 37mm's to the tail seems to be in agreement with this hypothesis.  Likewise, I was noticing that when using wing guns, if I dial the convergence way down, and get inside of 100 meters I start seeing pilot hits and engine fires - like I'm now shooting "around" the tail/rear fuselage and finally getting through to the good stuff.

 

Given that the 190 and not the 109 was the model chosen to turn into a dedicated fighter-bomber platform, and a dedicated bomber destroyer platform, both of which called for high durability, it seems pretty suspect to me.  Who knows, maybe the 109 toughness is correct and all the other German aircraft are way too flimsy.  But at least right now, the 109 is much tougher then the other German aircraft.  I haven't had a chance to try it out, but I'm curious to see how it compares to some of the other inline V-12 fighters.

 

Regarding fuel leaks:

 

30. The calculations of a fuel tank leak probability, its size and leakage value take into account the peculiarities of the armor penetration and fragmentation effects of the munitions in detail. The fuel tanks leak protection will be taken into account later, when the next level fuel system modeling is finished;

 

32. When calculating the probabilities of a fuel tank fire and explosion, the different AP, blast and fragments effects are taken into account as well as the amount of the fuel leaking from the tank at the moment. Inert-gas pressurization and other fire countermeasures will be taken into account later when the next level fuel system modeling is finished;

Edited April 13, 2020 by kendo

[Sunde]

34 minutes ago, kendo said:

 

Great, now we have Eric f****g Cantona on the forum!

 

Also....is anyone actually playing this game just to enjoy it....or are they all busy carrying out tests designed to prove that their personal favourite aircraft/armament has been nerfed, while the OTHER side's (boo/ hiss) is now unfeasibly strong.

 

Oh...the injustice of it all....

 

Do not mess with my favorite UFO!

  Dont stress too much, for every vocal reeeing fanboy (of either side), there are 100 happy players enjoying the game, and just appreciating what they have. This patch is much awaited by many, the few who now watch with disbelief as their favorite and glitched UFO's no longer lolpen and 1 shot everything are obviously upset. 
As with any large patch there are issues to work out, the reeing fanboys act like its the end of the world, rather than just have patience and wait for the problems to get fixed.
We should really be thanking the 0.01% who does actual quality testes and post to the devs. If all you do is whine and point fingers, then you are just making worthless noise. ?