Game version 4.005 discussion: New airframe damage model

[-332FG-Magic_Zach]

Please take a look at the drag modeling from damage.  It's very exaggerated for minor hits, and then not for major hits.  It's very inconsistent

[Voodoo_Slayer]

The drag model is terrible 

[Han]

3 minutes ago, Valkyrie77 said:

The drag model is terrible 

 

May you tell at least details of what you think is wrong?

2 hours ago, -332FG-Magic_Zach said:

Please take a look at the drag modeling from damage.  It's very exaggerated for minor hits, and then not for major hits.  It's very inconsistent

 

Let's take as possible that you're right. Than please - post a flight record which will illustrate the case which you're so much not happy about.

[E_Davjack]

I use an old Microsoft Force Feedback joystick, and FC and ROF have always had an issue where sometimes the stick pulses at varying frequencies, and to fix it you need to press ESC, Input Settings, and then hit Apply. This causes the game to reset the Force Feedback, but sometimes you need to do this multiple times to fix it, and sometimes that crashes the game.  It's always been manageable and the FFB is worth it imo, I can't use a spring anymore. 

 

After this patch it's gotten WAY worse.  Now when I load in a QMB or a multiplayer server, the stick will start off pulsing almost every time.  Please look into what might be causing this bug.  One idea would be to remove the FFB effect that the stick has when the engine is at low idle on the ground and chugging, that is something in game that naturally causes the stick to pulse, but it should go away after lift off.  The bug does also happen with air starts.  

 

[=KG76=flyus747]

Hans, 

 

Any word on the bomb damage models? Yesterday I dropped 2x250kg within 5-10m of a building and it still survived. In the past, this building would have definitely been obliterated.

[LuftManu]

3 minutes ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

Hans, 

 

Any word on the bomb damage models? Yesterday I dropped 2x250kg within 5-10m of a building and it still survived. In the past, this building would have definitely been obliterated.

Take into account that it's MP dependent. If the editor changed the durability values in the mission things like this can happen.

[VonMarts]

New version with trojan?

 

 

[Tipsi]

4 hours ago, -332FG-Magic_Zach said:

Please take a look at the drag modeling from damage.  It's very exaggerated for minor hits, and then not for major hits.  It's very inconsistent

 

 

Need evidence to show what you mean please

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Tipsi

[Han]

At the moment buildings damage much closer to RL than it was before. Beofre the explosion power was too low dependent on distance to explosion and it have been corrected. But some issues have remained and we have some plans how to improve that. It's allways hard task when it related to buildings because of their quantity - we allways got to keep in mind the performance.

[Haza]

Han,

Noting the local time in Moscow and assuming you are currently there, thank you for working on this game during 'Silly working hours' when you should be asleep. 

 

Take care

Regards

[=KG76=flyus747]

On 4/18/2020 at 2:23 PM, LF_Gallahad said:

Take into account that it's MP dependent. If the editor changed the durability values in the mission things like this can happen.

 

That was certainly taken into account. Issue is not as dismissive as it seems. After patch v4.005, I do not see durability being much of a factor anymore regardless of what the map maker chooses.

 

Because there are multiple IL2 versions mentioned, I have listed all version in question and their release dates just for clarification.

• IL2 v4.005 (April 8 ) 
• IL2 v4.005b (April 9)
• IL2 v4.005c (April 15)
• IL2 v4.005d (April 18)

I started noticing the issue after v4.005. Since v4.005 and its subsequent hotfixes, nothing has been mentioned about this issue which has drastically reduced effectiveness of bombs. Observations were gathered (between today and last night) from multiple servers which each have different "Durability" variables that Mission Designers can edit. Conclusion is consistent across the board: Bombs are much weaker than before. Currently there is almost little to no blast radius. Trucks are extremely resilient.

 

The following examples were gathered from 4 different servers listed below. The version of IL2 they are running at the time of testing is listed in parentheses. 

1. TAW (v4.005c)
2. Combat Box Training and Dogfight 0.2.0 (v4.005d)
3. WOL (v4.005d)
4. Custom map (v4.005d)

 

Case 1: TAW (v4.005c)

• Target Durability: 20000
• The red crosses mark where the 2x250kg landed. 
• As you can see, everything survived. Nothing in the picture was killed.

Juxtaposed

 

 

Case 2: Combat Box Training and Dogfight 0.2.0 (v4.005d)

 

Target 1:

• Durability of right group of barracks is 12000
• Durability of left group of barracks is 15000
• 1000kg lands in a group of barracks. Only nets 2 barracks in the right.

Juxtaposed

 

Target 2:

• Durability of Dugouts is 15000
• 1x1000kg dropped
• 1 dugout is destroyed.

Juxtaposed

 

 

Case 3: WOL (v4.005d)

• Durability of Dugouts is 6000
• 1x1000kg dropped
• 2 dugouts destoyed.

Juxtaposed

 

 

Case 4: Custom Map (v4.005d)

• 5 trucks lined astern
• Note: vehicles do not have "Durability" factors like static objects.
• 1x1000kg dropped
• 2 trucks destroyed

Juxtaposed

 

 

V4.005c fixed the exploit where 20mms could kill buildings, but these bombs continue to be underwhelming. At the moment, the most effective one can be on the battlefield is almost entirely dependent on the number of bombs he carries (no longer the type/size of bomb he carries.). This is assuming both examples will be attacking the same densely packed target of multiple objects.

 

A single 50kg has a 1:1 building to bomb ratio. This assumes bomb was direct hit. Kills with blast radius has no chance.

A single 1000kg has a 2 or 3:1 building to bomb ratio (on average.) This assumes bomb was within ~20m of building. Kills with Blast radius have very short 'kill range'

 

If I was flying a Bf110G2, it is more effective if I carry 12x50s instead of 2x500 or 1x1000.

 

The lower the durability factor, the more favorable the results. WOL has the lowest durability factor of all servers tested and in Case 3, my 1x1000kg only netted 2 dugouts. Unless the devs can explain how quickly a bomb's blast energy is dissipated, this recent patch just seems to make bomb destructiveness too far fetched from reality. 

 

 

On 4/18/2020 at 4:20 PM, Han said:

At the moment buildings damage much closer to RL than it was before. Beofre the explosion power was too low dependent on distance to explosion and it have been corrected. But some issues have remained and we have some plans how to improve that. It's allways hard task when it related to buildings because of their quantity - we allways got to keep in mind the performance.

If this is true then one of these bombs is incorrectly modeled. One is too overpowered or too underpowered.

 

Assuming the target is a dense concentration of wooden barracks...

 

A single 50kg can destroy a building with a direct hit. Indirect hits are useless.

 

A single 1000kg can destroy 2-3 buildings with a direct hit. Indirect hits will probably net 50-75% more destroyed.

Edited April 20, 2020 by =KG76=flyus747
Changed Case 3 and 4 images to AFTER

[=RS=Stix_09]

I played some of my older missions that I made (after not playing game for a while) and changes are going to be required as durability was altered in updates since (I've read patch notes since for later updates) , and experienced problems destroying targets in these older missions. ie I need to alter durability in these older missions as its too high for current patch level.

 

So if building and static objects are hard or easy to destroy one reason could be that the missions have not been altered to reflect updated durability changes in patches since mission was created, or just not set correct when creating a mission.

 

I'm not saying that is the cause for all people having problems destroying ground targets , just pointing out that it can be a cause (depending on durability set in missions)

 

Ive certainly also experienced this on some multiplayer servers , where durability is not set correctly for the particular target.

Edited April 19, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09

[SCG_motoadve]

8 hours ago, -332FG-Magic_Zach said:

Please take a look at the drag modeling from damage.  It's very exaggerated for minor hits, and then not for major hits.  It's very inconsistent

IMHO it is very well done, and its what I like the most about the new DM, you get to fly a damaged plane, with the wing dropping because the added drag from wing damage, have not found it inconsistent, on the contrary , feels pretty good, and as I imagine a plane should feel in real life to fly full of holes.

I have not found smaller holes making more drag than bigger holes, we need to take into account what we see graphically in game is not an exact representation of the exact damage the wing/plane has.

 

[Venturi]

2 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

 

 

WOL has the lowest durability factor of all servers tested and in Case 3, my 1x1000kg only netted 2 dugouts. Unless the devs can explain how quickly a bomb's blast energy is dissipated, this recent patch just seems to make bomb destructiveness too far fetched from reality. 

 

 

 

 

 

Bomb effectiveness drops non-linearly and rapidly with range. Buildings are surprisingly resilient. This is why firebombing was performed after HE bombs. The fires did far more damage than the bombs.

 

 

[Velxra]

6 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

 

I have not found smaller holes making more drag than bigger holes, we need to take into account what we see graphically in game is not an exact representation of the exact damage the wing/plane has.

 

 

If the visual damage does not align with the actual damage then some further refinements are necessary in this area. I myself have noticed crazy drag of the nose being pulled down after only a few rifle caliber hits. Multiple people have noticed and experienced it as well. I like the added effects of drag and how drag alters the plane. But right now the drag is too strong for light or minor damage. It's almost like all or nothing with drag from damage. Soon as there is any damage then the game gives you full drag penalties as if the damage was extensive.

 

A plane should not bob up and down fighting drag after a handful of 7.62 holes to the skin...

Edited April 19, 2020 by Geronimo553

[216th_Jordan]

1 hour ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

A plane should not bob up and down fighting drag after a handful of 7.62 holes to the skin...

 

 

What you are describing is I believe a different issue. Its the oscillation you get after control surfaces get damaged AFAIK. I do find it too strong but it is not necessarily drag.

[Paddy_-*-_]

I'm not sure if this is mentioned before but whats the story with the random yaw pitch and roll when the aircraft has skin damage? I can understand an increase in drag , a reduction in lift and reduced control surface effectiveness, but the wild yawing doesn't seems to have any basis in aerodynamics. Unless there is a broken control cable perhaps or a large piece of skin flapping, the drag should be (nearly)constant. The fact that it affects all 3 axis is very unrealistic.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

To be honest this random shaking for ww1 aeroplanes do to airframe damage  I do not find realistic at all , if you say that this is simulation of control surface flapping in the air , it's not because damage modeling of ww1 do not have control cables damage this is only ww2 future unfortunately for now, besides when this shaking is present I can roll my airplane using ailerons.

The worst for me is that I can't do nothing to try compensate or control what  feels like random shaking.

 

This is my personal opinion and I think hardly one know how it was , but I read many books about ww1 combat and don't remember something like this happens to badly shoot up airplane, only shaking I can recall was do to broken propeller by bulets and engine loose in the casket. I can be wrong and devs know it's right but always present and always random bob   still don't feel right to me ..

Edited April 19, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[THERION]

It's all about physics and aerodynamics - these parameters can be calculated and simulated virtually quite well. On the other hand we also know,

as good as theory might be and the modelling based on it is absolutely congruent, in reality there are some additional factors that cannot be

simulated very well.

 

Still, I think the integrated damage model in our sim is really well done - some tweaking here and there might be necessary, OK, but generally

speaking we should be very happy with this new enhancement. What we need now is the convincing visual effects or cues of the damage

received on the plane we are flying, so that visual effect are congruent with the damage effects (drag, loss/partial loss of controls) we are

feeling.

 

Now, the good news is, the dev team and Jason already mentioned earlier with this update, that the visual effects are not adapted at the moment

and this will be done in a next step, although maybe not in 3D as many of us would like it.

 

My last sortie in a Tempest on Combat Box Server ended with some serious flak damage on my right wing resulting in a lot of drag and difficulty

to keep my plane level. Visual effects didn't corresponded to the damage I was feeling/tackling, but already better than before the update. So,

with this in mind, I can live with this at the moment. Let's looking forward for the next update and hope, the visual damage will be toned up a
little bit.

 

Enjoy your next flight, take care of your cables and control surfaces.

 

Cheerio

 

P.S.: I forgot to mention, that I use the JeatSeat with the SimShaker Software, so damage cues are noticeable very well too.

Edited April 19, 2020 by -=-THERION

[Eisenfaustus]

Hotfix Saturday evening? I appreciate your dedication and hope you don't crunch to hard

[Tipsi]

19 hours ago, JG1_E_Davjack said:

I use an old Microsoft Force Feedback joystick, and FC and ROF have always had an issue where sometimes the stick pulses at varying frequencies

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Tipsi

[kerbokerbo123]

does anyone know the size of this update? everytime i start my game i get a 15gb download file

the same as when i first downloaded the game

 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by moguy164

[=SqSq=SignorMagnifico]

We appreciate the fast turnaround time with addressing the damage modeling concerns! Thanks a lot, devs!

[JG_deserteagle540]

Great update!

 

Just had a flight in QMB and the P-51  blew up in mid air after receiving a salvo of 20mm shells.

Was it the ammunition or the fuel tank exploding?  Really great work!

 

I really appreciate all the improvements which are done in this update and not just moving along towards Battle of Normandy.

[315_R2r]

20 hours ago, =KG76=flyus747 said:

 

That was certainly taken into account. Issue is not as dismissive as it seems. After patch v4.005, I do not see durability being much of a factor anymore regardless of what the map maker chooses.

 

Because there are multiple IL2 versions mentioned, I have listed all version in question and their release dates just for clarification.

• IL2 v4.005 (April 8 ) 
• IL2 v4.005b (April 9)
• IL2 v4.005c (April 15)
• IL2 v4.005d (April 18)

....

 

I have to agree that bombs are now totally ineffective... You take more of smaller bombs and aim at point blank and are force to direct hit everything, otherwise forget about any blast impact. You can see it against buildings but other targets as well, guns and tanks... From my experience on the multiplayer fronts would say the authors will not change the durability for buildings until it will clear up....

I notice it especially while attacking tanks since I stop bombing any infrastructure apart the bridges where direct hit give you 100% damage....

And while attacking tanks it does not matter if you take for example on the P38 6x500lbs, 4x1000lbs or 2x2000lbs - your bomb need to fall as close as possible otherwise forget about any blast effect. I know this is game and it is modelled to reflect reality which is why I play it even since first Il2 decades ago And I will keep playing it ...

Out of curiosity just FYI - I watch this one on YT and get accross it recently and it is related to the topic - from 7:20:

 

and since I am bit complaining here... I don't like as well the solution with tanks where your AI gunner sees the enemy faster then you as a commander and works for you as a radar.

[Mac_Messer]

On 4/19/2020 at 11:56 AM, Yo-Yo said:

I'm not sure if this is mentioned before but whats the story with the random yaw pitch and roll when the aircraft has skin damage? I can understand an increase in drag , a reduction in lift and reduced control surface effectiveness, but the wild yawing doesn't seems to have any basis in aerodynamics. Unless there is a broken control cable perhaps or a large piece of skin flapping, the drag should be (nearly)constant. The fact that it affects all 3 axis is very unrealistic.

That is a tough estimation to make, unless you are avionics engineer...?

 

How do we exactly imagine maneuverability of aircraft that is full of holes? Big ones, little ones, all that fabric / metal chunks sticking out of it, affecting its ability to fly.

I don`t know. I do like the idea of aircraft being far more affected by skin damage and engine damage than before. Rather than being destroyed or disintegrated (which people generally find unrealistic for some reason), I quickly lose lift or fuel/coolant and can only hang in the air so far as to just fly - and not being able to sharply maneuver or even attack. In my opinion planes that leak heavily or have huge holes in their airframe and which still attack me is very unrealistic.

 

What is more it hurts gameplay aswell. You can pop the IL2 full of 7-13mm and it can go on flying, but it will leak, it will lose its armament or bombs and it will probably have to ditch. The pilot lives on and I get a kill nonetheless. Very ok by me. Both AI and human player.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Mac_Messer

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

One thing the damage model does do, albeit rarely, that I can do without is this:  

 

The plane takes damage, usually rudder damage.  The plane will fly with some stability until the game clearly reverses the controls' input reaction.  Basically,  I'm holding the plane steady with hard right rudder and right aileron.  After a few seconds the controls will suddenly put full left rudder and aileron in - even though I'm holding right rudder and right aileron.  I can correct by pressing hard left rudder and left aileron and holding for a few seconds, but then the controls reverse and suddenly the game throws right rudder and aileron while I'm still holding left/left.  Switch to right/right and hold for a few seconds and then the game again throws left/left. etc. etc.   

 

I get it that damaged planes are unstable and unpredictable, but this is a rather poor way to cheese that unpredictability into the FM.  

[=RvE=Windmills]

On 4/19/2020 at 5:44 AM, Venturi said:

 

 

Bomb effectiveness drops non-linearly and rapidly with range. Buildings are surprisingly resilient. This is why firebombing was performed after HE bombs. The fires did far more damage than the bombs.

 

 

 

If you are referencing firebombing you are probably talking about city areas with tough brick buildings that are densely packed.

 

The targets in the picture are wooden barracks that do not even look permanent. No way these would resist the blast of a bomb like this. The trucks are not armoured, have flimsy sheet metal that would be penetrated by any kind of shrapnel, and even have exposed crew with not even that protecting them. Yet these all survive.

 

You could make an argument for the bunkers to survive these blasts, but even those have exposed ammunition lying next to them. Those should be vulnerable yet it all looks intact.

 

I haven't tested myself, but looking at these pictures this does not look correct.

[Sky_Wolf]

On 4/18/2020 at 11:44 PM, Venturi said:

Bomb effectiveness drops non-linearly and rapidly with range. Buildings are surprisingly resilient. This is why firebombing was performed after HE bombs. The fires did far more damage than the bombs.

 

To state that "bomb effectiveness drop non-linearly and rapidly with range" is to state something so obvious that it's probably better not to state it. 

 

As for your claim about firebombing and HE bombs, keep in mind that HE bombs were dropped before the incendiary bombs because they would blow the roofs off of buildings, making the incendiary bombs more effective. From the evidence that =KG76=flyus747 provides, the resilience of trucks, small barracks, etc. to 1 tonne HE bombs is simply unrealistic in the extreme IMO. 

[RedeyeStorm]

40 minutes ago, Pericles said:

 

To state that "bomb effectiveness drop non-linearly and rapidly with range" is to state something so obvious that it's probably better not to state it. 

 

As for your claim about firebombing and HE bombs, keep in mind that HE bombs were dropped before the incendiary bombs because they would blow the roofs off of buildings, making the incendiary bombs more effective. From the evidence that =KG76=flyus747 provides, the resilience of trucks, small barracks, etc. to 1 tonne HE bombs is simply unrealistic in the extreme IMO. 

Apparently only in MP or do people experience this in SP as well? Flying fighter at the moment and haven’t flown a ground attack since patch.

[ROCKET_KNUT]

@Han 

Dear devs, I´d like to thank you for the hard work and effort you all put into this project and I love how you keep on giving the player a better expierience.

 

With the latest update things are a bit different for me though. Why? Well, I´m talking of the DM the A-20 now features.

It looks like since then either all the fighter jockeys have been replaced by Wilhelm Tell himself or the hitboxes are as big as Texas.

Every 4.005-sortie I´ve flown on combat box, I got spotted and attacked. Nothing new so far. 

Only that now every single time the first hitting salvo is devastating already.

My pilot always gets wounded and is therefore unable to do anything for some vital seconds. So no evasive manouvering for me. Gives the F-jockey plenty of time to get out another salvo. Most of the time totally unnecessary since the first one not only put out the pilot but critical components as well: flight controls, engines etc.

All that, no matter what angle off or what amount of bullets / shells hitting the aircraft. It pretty much boils down to this: Spotted=Dead.

Don´t get me wrong. My A-20 has been attacked by one, two, three and even more 30mil-cannon-equipped-fighters at once before. The outcome used to be the same since you can´t outrun any BOBP-fighter in an A-20 anyway. But I was able to survive at least the first attack, mostly more than that whilst manouvering and fighting. Now to me it looks even easier for fighters to shoot down the A-20. Not a big amount of fun for the bomber jockey though...

 

So please look into this if there is anything wrong with the A-20-DM. I hope the result won´t be: "works as intended." Best Regards and thank you for your effort.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

@Han

 

great work! Love the new DM

 

cheers!

[6FG_Big_Al]

6 minutes ago, ROCKET_KNUT said:

@Han 

Dear devs, I´d like to thank you for the hard work and effort you all put into this project and I love how you keep on giving the player a better expierience.

 

With the latest update things are a bit different for me though. Why? Well, I´m talking of the DM the A-20 now features.

It looks like since then either all the fighter jockeys have been replaced by Wilhelm Tell himself or the hitboxes are as big as Texas.

Every 4.005-sortie I´ve flown on combat box, I got spotted and attacked. Nothing new so far. 

Only that now every single time the first hitting salvo is devastating already.

My pilot always gets wounded and is therefore unable to do anything for some vital seconds. So no evasive manouvering for me. Gives the F-jockey plenty of time to get out another salvo. Most of the time totally unnecessary since the first one not only put out the pilot but critical components as well: flight controls, engines etc.

All that, no matter what angle off or what amount of bullets / shells hitting the aircraft. It pretty much boils down to this: Spotted=Dead.

Don´t get me wrong. My A-20 has been attacked by one, two, three and even more 30mil-cannon-equipped-fighters at once before. The outcome used to be the same since you can´t outrun any BOBP-fighter in an A-20 anyway. But I was able to survive at least the first attack, mostly more than that whilst manouvering and fighting. Now to me it looks even easier for fighters to shoot down the A-20. Not a big amount of fun for the bomber jockey though...

 

So please look into this if there is anything wrong with the A-20-DM. I hope the result won´t be: "works as intended." Best Regards and thank you for your effort.

+1 And i want to add that the Tail feels even more fragile now. Got a a few hits from 13 mms and 20 mm (i believe it was only one real cannon hit) and the aircraft was after this burst done. All controls destroyed etc. No real fun to fly atm

[LukeFF]

28 minutes ago, ROCKET_KNUT said:

So please look into this if there is anything wrong with the A-20-DM. I hope the result won´t be: "works as intended." Best Regards and thank you for your effort.

 

As I've recalled reading, the A-20B was not particularly well-armored, so my guess at this point is you're just seeing the results of that ever more acutely now.

[LEAD_SLED_VR_]

Whats the consensus on .50 caliber damage in the current version of the game? Our group did some testing last night and the damage inflicted by Russian .50cals seems to be significantly higher than US .50cals. Anyone else experience this?

Edited April 20, 2020 by =JAGTF=LEAD_SLED

[RedKestrel]

9 minutes ago, =JAGTF=LEAD_SLED said:

Whats the consensus on .50 caliber damage in the current version of the game? Our group did some testing last night and the damage inflicted by Russian .50cals seems to be significantly higher than US .50cals. Anyone else experience this?

IIRC the Russian 12.7mm has a small HE charge in the ammo, which might account for it.

[LEAD_SLED_VR_]

6 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

IIRC the Russian 12.7mm has a small HE charge in the ammo, which might account for it.

Do you have an documentation on this? I'd love to see it.

[rieper_420]

 

I can confirm by snooping around in the game config (sorry ?)

 

=> US + GB planes fire only AP ammo while ITA+Ger+RU planes fire mixed AP+HE ammo loads.

 

Detailed explanation:

 

looking at the extracted game files: Scripts.gtp

• luascripts\worldobjects\ballistics\projectiles

 

we have the following projectile types defined, looking at the existing files

 

both AP+HE bullet types exist

• bullet_rus_12-7x108_ap
• bullet_rus_12-7x108_he
• bullet_ger_13x64_ap
• bullet_ger_13x64_he
• bullet_ita_12-7x81_ap
• bullet_ita_12-7x81_he

But only:

• bullet_usa_12-7x99_ap
• bullet_eng_11x59_ap

=> missing USA 12-7x99 API ammo - which confirms somebody's comment earlier that API is not modeled in game currently

 

=> Then looking at the planes configs: \luascripts\worldobjects\planes

 

Example from la5fns2config:

here seems to be the configuration file for the mixed AP-HE ammo

    object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.txt"
    object1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_HE.txt"
    object2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.txt"
    target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.bin"
    target1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_HE.bin"
    target2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.bin"

 

 

 

Which is not the case for US planes as the ammo type does not seem to exist:

Example from  p51d15

    object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.txt"
    target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.bin"

 

 

(I tried modding USA HE ammo, but this is currently not moddable as any change in the planes.txt files in the  \luascripts\worldobjects\planes causes a black screen when starting a mission)

 

Edit: regarding some sources: http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_145mm.html

 

(sorry for the long post)

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by rieper_420
source

[LEAD_SLED_VR_]

That confirms our speculation. We aren't seeing incendiary impacts with the US .50 cals like we are with other nations aircraft. Our speculation is that we were only firing ball rounds and tracer whilst other nations .50 cals were actually getting incendiary in their belts. I'm not very happy about this. Basically we are just getting a massive amount of over penetrations. Thank you so much for that response rieper_420.

Edited April 20, 2020 by =JAGTF=LEAD_SLED

[RedKestrel]

18 minutes ago, =JAGTF=LEAD_SLED said:

That confirms our speculation. We aren't seeing incendiary impacts with the US .50 cals like we are with other nations aircraft. Our speculation is that we were only firing ball rounds and tracer whilst other nations .50 cals were actually getting incendiary in their belts. I'm not very happy about this. Basically we are just getting a massive amount of over penetrations.

Actually it appears that there is no incendiary effect modeled at all, at least not as a distinct ammo type. All ammo appears to be either AP or HE. Explosive is not the same as incendiary. 

An incendiary round burns as it goes through, whereas an HE rounds explodes when the fuse is triggered. The effects of API rounds on aircraft skin and supports would IMO be minimal but would result in a more engine and fuel fires.

EDIT: Regardless it would be great to see API modeled for US air guns, or for any aircraft gun that used it. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by RedKestrel