Jump to content
Han

Game version 4.005 discussion: New airframe damage model

Recommended Posts

3 hours 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.

 

Is that as a result of the initial engine damage modelling work, Luke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I've shot at in SP QMB has looked quite feasible as far as damage goes and every type of round that has hit has looked feasible as well. 

 

The only thing I will comment on is that I have not seen any 109 tail stabilizer assembly (vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer) break-offs - in whole or just part - when they are direct-hitted by cannons or sawed off by a strong volley of API rounds.  Yes, rudders and elevators get chewed up and sometimes break, but the "solid" parts of the assembly are skin damage only.  

 

That, and as I've already commented, the "wheels falling out" effect is something I'd like to see reworked.  There's times that even if the wheel axle is broken, the landing gear strut assembly should still keep it held in place. Either that, or the whole strut should either beak off, or come unlocked and drop down.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours 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.

From what kind of weapon?

 

13 hours ago, Mad-Moses said:

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.

With witch kind of weaponry are you did that?

 

13 hours ago, Mad-Moses said:

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.

What kind of "small caliber" 7.62? 12.7? 13?

 

 

But I agree, something is not okey with the P-39 37mm.

Edited by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

Share this post


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

 

The only thing I will comment on is that I have not seen any 109 tail stabilizer assembly (vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer) break-offs - in whole or just part - when they are direct-hitted by cannons or sawed off by a strong volley of API rounds.  Yes, rudders and elevators get chewed up and sometimes break, but the "solid" parts of the assembly are skin damage only.  

 

 

 

it was stated in the update notes that those parts are temporarily made so that they cant break off. 

 

That might be the number one reason why 109 can take so heavy punishment from 6 o clock.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

it was stated in the update notes that those parts are temporarily made so that they cant break off. 

 

That might be the number one reason why 109 can take so heavy punishment from 6 o clock.

 

 

 

Ok. I missed reading that part then.  It's probably a tough part to model feasible damage on.  After all, it wouldn't be good for tail hits to rip the tail feathers off every time - even though some would want exactly that. 😮  

 

Well, I've hit the underside on the tail, basically from a few degrees angle below the 6 and have sent the AP mg and cannon rounds straight through into the pilot. So, there's that.

I also like that AP rounds dropping onto the topside of the wings can punch through and royally bugger the radiator bays below too.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, bzc3lk said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

armour 1.jpg

Yes, dural is not as good as Steel plate but you have to consider that this protection is quite good compared with other planes. 22mm plate + the fuel tank itself+ liquid inside+ 8mm steel plate on the pilot seat. On later versions the Mw50 tank. That is great protection compared with planes that just had the pilot armored seat as the only protecion

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bzc3lk said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

armour 1.jpg

thank you, interesting report.

 

According to that report .303 and .5 incendiary rounds will not penetrate those dural plates.

 

.5 AP will penetrate the dural plates but will stop at full fuel tank.

 

anyways. as someone stated, in game u can rather easy make the fuel tank leak so i have no idea how strong the in game fuel tank armor is.

 

i bet the unbreakable tail part of 109 is the number one reason why 109 can take so heavy punishment right now.

Share this post


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

i bet the unbreakable tail part of 109 is the number one reason why 109 can take so heavy punishment right now.

Unbreakable tail?
You mean you want to cut off the tail of the 109?
That ll not happen, because as they said all the planes has very strong fuselage now, and now its very hard to cut off the tail for all the planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Unbreakable tail?
You mean you want to cut off the tail of the 109?
That ll not happen, because as they said all the planes has very strong fuselage now, and now its very hard to cut off the tail for all the planes.

 

I think you can't shoot out the horizontal stab of the 109 like before, the dev have temporarily disabled that type of damage iirc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Birdman said:

 

I think you can't shoot out the horizontal stab of the 109 like before, the dev have temporarily disabled that type of damage iirc.

yes this is what i meant

 

edit: still after seeing those videos about 109 tanking multiple 37mm HE hits makes me wonder if something is not right.

 

 

Overall feels like a good DM update tho

Edited by Mollotin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Birdman said:

 

I think you can't shoot out the horizontal stab of the 109 like before, the dev have temporarily disabled that type of damage iirc.

You cannot destroy the rudder holder, because its break under the horizontal stabilizer and if you lose the rudder holder, you gona lose all the horizontal stabilizer.
It was a realistic problem until the F-2, when the germans started make it more durable.This is why the devs not modified the E-7 tail.
Me personally gave historical sources about it for the devs.
They gona remodel the hole rudder holder damage and this "problem" ll be fixed.It ll fracture above the horizontal stabilizer.

Edited by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2020 at 9:24 PM, Jmo said:

Seems a lot of newer Mustang pilots are pitching a fit that they have to aim now instead of sprinkling 10 random rounds across a wing and it magically falling off. Practice your gunnery people. Learn the gyro sight. Set wingspan to 32 or 34 feet for 109 and 190 respectively, set the distance to your convergence, and shoot when the wing tips touch the edges of the sight. 😉 

 

Well, I've been binge flying the Mustang for a couple of months, and actually I don't see much of a change as to the general effectiveness of the .50s. What I think has changed is the variety of results you get when scoring hits.

 

I fly with the gyro but don't really use it - I just think it looks cool. Convergence set to 250. I try to stay disciplined and fire very short burst and watch what's going on, you know, brrr, assess, brrr, assess etc., ad mortem.

 

Sometimes a single brrr is enough and the enemy plane will roll over and go down, sometimes bits and pieces will fall off, sometimes there's instant engine fire, sometimes nothing seems to happen, and sometimes after many brrrs it seems the enemy a/c just loses its aerodynamics and tumbles out of the sky.

 

It all seems a lot less predictable, which is a good thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

You cannot destroy the rudder holder, because its break under the horizontal stabilizer and if you lose the rudder holder, you gona lose all the horizontal stabilizer.
It was a realistic problem until the F-2, when the germans started make it more durable.This is why the devs not modified the E-7 tail.
Me personally gave historical sources about it for the devs.
The gona remodel the hole rudder holder damage and this "problem" ll be fixed.It ll fracture above the horizontal stabilizer.

Good to know !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why would a 109 not be able to take multiple 37mm hits sometimes without falling to pieces? Usually they go down in 1 - 2 shots, even on Berloga, but it doesn't mean they immediatly explode.

 

From personal experience I find the larger calibers very satisfiying.

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours 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 · 4 downloads

Thanks for posting your missions. I've cannibalised them for my own purposes in my first stab at using the editor.

 

One thing I noticed in the plane settings was the (damage threshold) setting. This was set to 50 and I did have a Spitfire last for over an hour with a venting radiator after a very short burst of fire. I ran out of fuel so I guess the Spit just kept on trucking.

 

I changed the value to 1 in case the short burst of fire wasn't enough to go beyond this "damage threshold". Engines failed even after short bursts of fire.

 

Do you now what the setting does ? I know nothing about the editor. Would it affect results from minimal damage ?

 

Prey

 

 

Edited by 9./JG52_PreyStalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, great work to all the devs that work hard on this game. The new damage model overall feels a lot more realistic for the majority of the aircraft. However, I have one complaint regarding the P-51. The wing damage model appears to strong compared to other aircraft. I made a series of videos here, which test the wing damage model, and I found it almost impossible to cause a wing detachment compared to other aircraft, namely the P-47 and IL-2. I’m not sure if this intentional, but it seems worth addressing to me.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, 9./JG52_PreyStalker said:

I changed the value to 1 in case the short burst of fire wasn't enough to go beyond this "damage threshold". Engines failed even after short bursts of fire.

 

AFAIK this only affects damage reports not the actual DM. If it is set to 50% the mission will generate a "damage report" on the plane if it is damage more than 50%. That means that if you set the value to 1 you will get a damage report from the mission telling you that your 100% fine plane is damaged. The damage report can be used for additional in-mission commands like return to base or mission failed status.

 

Maybe the leak in the spit on the first time was very small. According to AnPetrovich cooling systems on average contain 60-70 liters so it could take some time for smaller holes to drain. Also small holes might be able to compensate for some pressure lost if pressure can be built up faster in the System than is lost. An actual hour would be quite much though.

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen absolutely no issues with the 109's so far, or any other plane for that matter - They leak and burn and wobble and crash like anything else - Are people seriously missing when the entire tail section of 109's used to go flying off at the first squirt of .303? 

 

I have nothing but good things to say about this new DM to be honest, I think it's is fantastic.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, =SqSq=SignorMagnifico said:

First of all, great work to all the devs that work hard on this game. The new damage model overall feels a lot more realistic for the majority of the aircraft. However, I have one complaint regarding the P-51. The wing damage model appears to strong compared to other aircraft. I made a series of videos here, which test the wing damage model, and I found it almost impossible to cause a wing detachment compared to other aircraft, namely the P-47 and IL-2. I’m not sure if this intentional, but it seems worth addressing to me.  

 

Very nice play list on DM!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:
17 hours 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.

From what kind of weapon?

 

17 hours ago, Mad-Moses said:

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.

With witch kind of weaponry are you did that?

 

17 hours ago, Mad-Moses said:

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.

What kind of "small caliber" 7.62? 12.7? 13?

Roland,

 

I did a ton of flying/testing, the day of the update and the day after with just the Bodenplatte planes, talking like over 20 hours worth. I don't see the consistent 'bugs' I saw with the initial release. I think most of it has already been fixed with the patches or there is some weird glitch with the game.

 

The 109s still seem to be a little on the hard side to shoot down side, absorbing a lot of punishment. KW_1979 has been doing some more clinical tests I'm sure the Devs can review. I still haven't been able to get a K-4 to catch fire but the AI pilot will bail out (maybe it's on fire without a visual?) but... I did get 3 out of 6 G-14s to light up last night. Don't see the simple easy flame-ups with the P-38 & 47 or the consistent elevator loss with the P-51 I got with the initial tests.

 

I actually did a live stream late last night (mind I was a little drunk and very tired) to show everyone here what I am talking about but most of the consistent issues didn't pop up.

 

You can review here:

 

Mad-Moses

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Roland,

 

I did a ton of flying/testing, the day of the update and the day after with just the Bodenplatte planes, talking like over 20 hours worth. I don't see the consistent 'bugs' I saw with the initial release. I think most of it has already been fixed with the patches or there is some weird glitch with the game.

 

The 109s still seem to be a little on the hard side to shoot down side, absorbing a lot of punishment. KW_1979 has been doing some more clinical tests I'm sure the Devs can review. I still haven't been able to get a K-4 to catch fire but the AI pilot will bail out (maybe it's on fire without a visual?) but... I did get 3 out of 6 G-14s to light up last night. Don't see the simple easy flame-ups with the P-38 & 47 or the consistent elevator loss with the P-51 I got with the initial tests.

 

I actually did a live stream late last night (mind I was a little drunk and very tired) to show everyone here what I am talking about but most of the consistent issues didn't pop up.

 

You can review here:

 

Mad-Moses

I suggest you this play list to check:

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new damage model is fantastic.  Cannon shot seems to really chew through aircraft rather than just causing 'explosive damage effects' to the paintscheme, machine guns seem to do a good job knocking out vital systems and filling aircraft full of holes.  Flying the P40 in career mode I find it only takes one or two on-target bullet streams to cause the enemy (109F and G) to bug out and eventually crash.  It's also really cool seeing all of the pieces fall off of aircraft like you'd expect when firing 20mm, and the 30mm blasts against targets are devastating, but look like what you see in photos -- widescale damage and huge pieces taken out of the skin.  Overall it feels more accurate and less 'hitpoint'ish and random.  The game has needed this since ROF, it's great to finally see it implemented and vastly increases the fidelity of the overall simulation. 

 

Hopefully they can adjust for some of the issues, though it's hilarious now to blast away at the WWI airplanes with moddern weaponry, as any competent pass with even small caliber machine guns turns them into a cloud of tumbling pieces.  But I do wonder just how 'off' the WWI damage is though, as one of the primary complaints about biplanes was how vulnerable they were to structural failure due to all of the little wires and struts all interdepnding on each other for wing strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Very nice play list on DM!!!!

Thanks! I tried to be as detailed as possible. It took a lot of time to fly/edit/compile just that amount of videos, so I might need another weekend to add more planes. I also only focused on the wing. I would have to make more videos to test engine damage or other surfaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2020 at 4:13 AM, ECV56_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

Spoiler

 


 

 

 

 

That video shows some very concerning things such as:

 

(second scenario with bomber target)

1. Right side of fuselage gets hit, so the left aileron goes flying off.

2. Fuselage gets hit, left motor starts smoking/leaks fuel or coolant.

 

There are a few more in the entire video, but those were the most concerning.

 

 

General observation:

 

  HE rounds seem to be tearing through the plane's fuselage and reaching engine/vital components, even though they are exploding on impact. I get the compressive and shrapnel affect, but when you see images of cannon damage in old photos you see little specks from shrapnel surrounding one nice sized hole where the cannon round impacted.  

 

 I have no idea how this kind of hit detection can be resolved without a ton of work, but I figure they've put in a good system at this point, it needs adjustments and some time to work out all the kinks.

 

 Nice video btw! Good work!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, alpino said:

This is not a WW2 aircraft, but I think it's interesting to see what five hits from a .50 BMG did to its wing.
 

asa1.jpg

asa2.jpg

asa3.jpg

 

Interesting, must be bullet tumbling I suppose? 

 

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, alpino said:

This is not a WW2 aircraft, but I think it's interesting to see what five hits from a .50 BMG did to its wing.
 

asa1.jpg

asa2.jpg

asa3.jpg

source: https://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/aviacao/lei-do-abate-e-aplicada-um-aviso-claro-da-forca-aerea-brasileira-na-fronteira
 

Damndable drug runners. What we need is a tall wall around the southern border...... wait, umm never mind. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kendo said:

Is that as a result of the initial engine damage modelling work, Luke?

 

I think so. I was flying a Ju 88 career mission last night when suddenly my engines slowly lost power and seized up. I'd not been hit by enemy fire, and I do remember seeing my engines venting off steam once the coolant temp was up around 110 degrees, which is the max allowable. What also was neat (from a systems modeling POV), is that the engines didn't lose power at the same time, but instead one slowly seized up and died before the other one. That shows there's some really good randomization going on there. :good:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =SqSq=SignorMagnifico said:

First of all, great work to all the devs that work hard on this game. The new damage model overall feels a lot more realistic for the majority of the aircraft. However, I have one complaint regarding the P-51. The wing damage model appears to strong compared to other aircraft. I made a series of videos here, which test the wing damage model, and I found it almost impossible to cause a wing detachment compared to other aircraft, namely the P-47 and IL-2. I’m not sure if this intentional, but it seems worth addressing to me.  

 

What à job ! Excellent ! Thanks 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

 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 ?

I believe the gauge is an oil outlet gauge as it is the same gauge in a IL2.  The IL2 has an inlet oil temp gauge as well where the La-5 has an cylinder head temp gauge instead.  I tested and got the La-5 to overheat at 115.  Very hard to do by the way.

 

So I believe just a small error in the spec sheet.  It should have the output numbers, not the intake.  Here is the IL2 specs:

 

Oil rated temperature in engine intake: 40..80 °C

Oil maximum temperature in engine intake: 85 °C

Oil rated temperature in engine output: 115 °C

Oil maximum temperature in engine output: 120 °C

Edited by Plurp
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

This is not a WW2 aircraft, but I think it's interesting to see what five hits from a .50 BMG did to its wing.

source: https://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/aviacao/lei-do-abate-e-aplicada-um-aviso-claro-da-forca-aerea-brasileira-na-fronteira
 


Damn, that's some nasty area effect at the exit of the bullets, if the wing skin structure of the EMB-721 isn't that different from WW2 fighters then I wouldn't mind this being modelled to the .50 cal AP increasing their loss of lift penalty.

Edit: Central pointed out there's a fuel tank at the leading part of the wing where the rounds came out, so that could explain the tumbling and how they managed to make such damage on exit, there's also burn markings in the exit areas. The crew was lucky.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

HE rounds seem to be tearing through the plane's fuselage and reaching engine/vital components, even though they are exploding on impact.

 

Please keep in mind, if we speak about German HE cannon rounds - they are not designed to explode on impact. Thus, they do not have regular impact detonators. They are delay - fused to explode inside the aircraft following impact/penetration. This way the chemical/blast pressure wave destroys or deforms internal components (or persons 😧).

If regular impact detonator would be used, force of explosion would be largely dissipated in surrounding air, thus reducing damage significantly.

 

So, Minengeschoß like used in MG151/20mm or MK-108 30mm had slightly delayed detonators, allowing the shell to pass through target’s outer cover without explosion, then triggering the explosive when the shell was already past the outer skin. Sometimes though, you may get "premature ejaculation" (such is life 😀) and the round does less damage.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if you're shooting at the rear of a plane, you have to think of the angle the round is striking at, too. From dead six you're hitting the surface of the wing or the side of the fuselage at quite the extreme angle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The drag penalty when you get hit in the wing is way too much. I mean especially with the P51D and the Tempest 1 20mm hit in the wing doesnt cut the wing(it didn't before either) but now you can't even turn. Sure physics and stuff and your lift goes a bit, but that is waaay too much and i don't like it.

Edited by MeoW.Scharfi
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The drag penalty when you get hit in the wing is way too much. I mean especially with the P51D and the Tempest 1 20mm hit in the wing doesnt cut the wing(it didn't before either) but now you can't even turn. Sure physics and stuff and your lift goes a bit, but that is waaay too much and i don't like it.

 

The BF 110 G2 likes to pitch/nose down quite heavily from drag with only a light skin damage as well. 

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

The drag penalty when you get hit in the wing is way too much. I mean especially with the P51D and the Tempest 1 20mm hit in the wing doesnt cut the wing(it didn't before either) but now you can't even turn. Sure physics and stuff and your lift goes a bit, but that is waaay too much and i don't like it.

I think is very nicely done, you get wing full of holes, then you get a lot of drag, as it should be, and it drops the wing, making it hard to turn and control, planes and specially the wings need unspoiled surfaces ,for example in real aircraft just a miss alignment of flaps drops a wing a lot, almost as what we get in game with some small even medium damage in game, also just opening or closing cowl flaps  decreases speed and adds drag and you get speed penalty.

Pilots at the Reno air races tape every single possible gap to reduce drag and make planes faster, everything counts.

 

Yes wings full of holes for sure will produce lots of drag penalty and make the wing drop , and make it hard to turn , the simulation of this in game its nicely done IMHO, the effect gets reduced when you slow down, makes it challenging to fly , behaves realistic , actually I am impressed, its very well modeled,  sometimes trim helps , sometimes flaps , sometimes less power , and other times you start to loose it and nothing you do helps , time to bail, never seen this in any other sim.

 

The elevator damage was discussed and could do some tuning , but I will not loose sleep over it.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

The drag penalty when you get hit in the wing is way too much. I mean especially with the P51D and the Tempest 1 20mm hit in the wing doesnt cut the wing(it didn't before either) but now you can't even turn. Sure physics and stuff and your lift goes a bit, but that is waaay too much and i don't like it.

Its the same in Bf109, i was hit by Yak yesterday by single 20mm to the wing and it was end of the flying.

Im not surprised that with such damage drag, enemy AI cant keep in the air after a few hits.

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...