Jump to content

Game version 4.005 discussion: New airframe damage model


Han
 Share

Recommended Posts

Roland_HUNter

The developers made it clear: The API ll be not in the game , until they remodelling the fuel system--> Making it more realistic.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=SqSq=Civilprotection
47 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?

This has been talked about a bit further back in the thread. There are some interesting sources about Russian 12.7 HE rounds. There are also some pictures of the damage .50 ball can to to a civilian aircraft as it tumbles. If you have the time, it's worth a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 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. Thank you so much for that response rieper_420.

 

It also doesn't help that 3 hotfixes in, the most common target for those .50 cals still has part of it's damage model turned off.  This is essentially giving it extra durability vs HE and small caliber AP as demonstrated in my bug report in the below thread (towards the bottom of page 3), and in the two linked videos.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlitzPig_EL

Getting API was a long struggle in the original version of IL2 as well.  That said, the standard .50 AP rounds seem to work well for me so far.  They tear up Ju 88s, and, FW190s well enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2020 at 11:44 AM, =VARP=Tvrdi said:

P51 is still a tank in this sim. You need to empty the 30mm gun to bring it down. P47 is almost fragile as it was. Nothing big changed in that regard. But yes, damage is more detailed now.

P51 is just as easy to bring down last 24hrs ive been flying P51 , and its coming down quick and with instant kills to the 109s . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ACG_KoN said:

P51 is just as easy to bring down last 24hrs ive been flying P51 , and its coming down quick and with instant kills to the 109s . 

Because he played on first patch, and last patch fix 51

 

8. P-51D has an extra (third) spar removed and the spars lengths corrected, adjusting the durability of its airframe;

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Because he played on first patch, and last patch fix 51

 

8. P-51D has an extra (third) spar removed and the spars lengths corrected, adjusting the durability of its airframe;

 

 

Thank you . 

Edited by ACG_KoN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bilbo_Baggins

Truly ridiculous that the devs couldn't work out something so basic as how many wing spars the P51 had in the first place. No wonder people were complaining it was a tank.

 

Makes you wonder what other fundamentals are wrong with this sim. 

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins
  • Confused 5
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jade_Monkey
21 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

Truly ridiculous that the devs couldn't work out something so basic as how many wing spars the P51 had in the first place. No wonder people were complaining it was a tank.

 

Makes you wonder what else is wrong with this sim. 

 

No need to be a dick.

 

Having a bug and not being able to figure things out are two completely different things.

 

They released a brand new feature that took a lot of work and within two weeks they released multiple hotfixes of all the issues that surface once the DM is released to the masses. That is a MUCH better turnaround than 99% of the devs out there.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bilbo_Baggins
Just now, Jade_Monkey said:

 

No need to be a dick.

 

Having a bug and not being able to figure things out are two completely different things.

 

They released a brand new feature that took a lot of work and within two weeks they released multiple hotfixes of all the issues that surface once the DM is released to the masses. That is a MUCH better turnaround than 99% of the devs out there.

 

No, it's just stating the obvious. You don't go modelling an airframe in the first place without knowing it's fundamentals. This is absolutely ridiculous. 

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jade_Monkey
1 minute ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

No, it's just stating the obvious. You don't go modelling an airframe in the first place without knowing it's fundamentals. This is absolutely ridiculous. 

Rawrr rawrr rawrrr 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin
1 minute ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

No, it's just stating the obvious. You don't go modelling an airframe in the first place without knowing it's fundamentals. This is absolutely ridiculous. 

 

I hate to point out the obvious, but if they didn't know the fundamentals, they would not have fixed the bug.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bilbo_Baggins
7 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

having a bug and not being able to figure things out are two completely different things.

 

 

 

This is a critical design failure, not a 'bug'. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bilbo_Baggins
1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

How would you know?

 

Because a P51 doesn't have 3 bloody wing spars! 

 

Stop with the apologist drivel, please. 

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Stop with the apologist drivel, please. 

 And let me be an ass🧐

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin
4 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Because a P51 doesn't have 3 bloody wing spars! 

 

Stop with the apologist drivel, please. 

 

You don't know the difference between a bug and a design feature, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, let it go. He's both entitled to his opinion and an ass.  we're having a conversation, he's arguing. Don't feed the troll.

 

Anyway, something...something... .50 caliber convergence settings matter more now.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG51_Beazil
Just now, The_Grim_1 said:

Guys, let it go. He's both entitled to his opinion and an ass.  we're having a conversation, he's arguing. Don't feed the troll.

 

Anyway, something...something... .50 caliber convergence settings matter more now.

Lol, okay, who's ass are we giving up for the cause?  😄

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Lol, okay, who's ass are we giving up for the cause?  😄

 The next post volunteers a tribute.

 

I congratulate the devs on making such a large improvement on something as vital as the damage model on a combat game. I can't wait to see what other core improvements are in the works. Coming from "another" game it truly great to see that invest in the core gameplay.  They want us to have an truly one of a kind experience that's rooted in verifiable documents. 

 

If they manage an overhaul of the engine model someday with the same care we're in for a real treat.

 

I think a lot of people are stuck on damage visuals not matching up with damage modeling 1:1. But are missing that the modeling is more important. Something like the wing spar could be a simple line of code in the DM calculation. I'm happy it was patched and shocked they were working on a Saturday for our enjoyment. 

2 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

See you're new around here. And let me guess, you're an American? Why don't we just give the P51 4 wing spars, right? Yeehaww, 'Murica... FFS 

To the form? Yeah.  but I also own every single module and have ample time in the game to have an opinion like you. It seems like your happy they fixed an error. I am too. Wouldn't it suck if the devs gave it 3 spars when it only had 2. Thank God they fixed it...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

See you're new around here. And let me guess, you're an American? Why don't we just give the P51 4 wing spars, right? Yeehaww, 'Murica... FFS 

 

Just calm the hell down. You made your point they made theirs. If they call you an ass maybe look at how you phrased what you said.

 

Forums are supposed to be a place to communicate and discuss about the sim we all enjoy. Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1CGS
AnPetrovich
9 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

Truly ridiculous that the devs couldn't work out something so basic as how many wing spars the P51 had in the first place. No wonder people were complaining it was a tank.

 

Makes you wonder what other fundamentals are wrong with this sim. 

 

I have no excuses, except for the well-known fact what a programming is. It's the same as if you would be a writer and wrote a novel, but only one missing comma on the page 327 would devalue whole your work.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LF_Gallahad
8 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

No, it's just stating the obvious. You don't go modelling an airframe in the first place without knowing it's fundamentals. This is absolutely ridiculous. 

 

Your rant is being ridiculous. Please, understand how much work and complexity this has. Who said that they don't have a clue in the fundamentals? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

I have no excuses, except for the well-known fact what a programming is. It's the same as if you would be a writer and wrote a novel, but only one missing comma on the page 327 would devalue whole your work.

You are doing great, guys. The new DM I think is better than the old one. It needs finetuning as I`d imagine any newly implemented feature.

It would seem that hiding the spar thing would be a better choice, given the inflammatory comments. However I think you did the right thing to point it out, let alone fix it during these hard times. It`s alright to make mistakes.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShadowStalker887
2 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

I have no excuses, except for the well-known fact what a programming is. It's the same as if you would be a writer and wrote a novel, but only one missing comma on the page 327 would devalue whole your work.

Happens to the best of us, you found and fixed the issue so I say it's nothing to get worked up about. And I wouldn't take Bilbo Baggins tantrum too personally, people tend to get emotional overinvested in there pixel warbirds if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

I have no excuses, except for the well-known fact what a programming is. It's the same as if you would be a writer and wrote a novel, but only one missing comma on the page 327 would devalue whole your work.

 

I for one appreciate that you are open about these issues. It gives me a glimpse into the dev process. It also builds a stronger relationship with the customers. What matters most is that you found the issue and are actively working to address it. Considering the current state of the world, I think that this takes more effort that usual. Same state can be probably blamed for the decreased tolerance level of some, hence some of the apparently angry comments you see from time to time.

 

The WW2 damage model is certainly an improvement over the previous one. Of course there will be some teething problems with an initial release, but I'm confident that these will be fixed in no time.

 

 

Edited by Raven109
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Who amongst us hasn't made some truly absurd typos that made it through  4 rounds of editing, official review and a government stamp? 

It, uh...happened to a friend of mine. Yeah, that's it.

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a question for the devs:

 

Currently, If an AP projectile damages an airframe part, does it stops its travel, or can it progress further and damage other parts?

 

Looking at this test video (not done by me), where a wing can sustain 10+ 37mm AP rounds from dead 6 o'clock in a localized area:

 

 

It feels like airframe damage for this kind of big AP round is a bit underestimated.

I would Imagine such a round would go through the thin alluminum structure without any problem, puncturing/shredding wathever it hits (possibly both spars in this case) and coming out from a big ragged hole on the other side. 

 

So, is that taken into account in the DM? Or can 1 projectile only damage 1 part?

 

Thanks

 

BTW, I want to say that the current system is definetely an improvement from my point of view, and I think the devs are doing an outstanding job by improving core mechanics of the simulation. I just think it's normal that a brand new system needs some tweaking.

Edited by Toppaso
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Toppaso said:

Just a question for the devs:

 

Currently, If an AP projectile damages an airframe part, does it stops its travel, or can it progress further and damage other parts?

 

Looking at this test video (not done by me), where a wing can sustain 10+ 37mm AP rounds from dead 6 o'clock in a localized area:

 

 

It feels like airframe damage for this kind of big AP round is a bit underestimated.

I would Imagine such a round would go through the thin alluminum structure without any problem, puncturing/shredding wathever it hits (possibly both spars in this case) and coming out from a big ragged hole on the other side. 

 

So, is that taken into account in the DM? Or can 1 projectile only damage 1 part?

 

Thanks

 

BTW, I want to say that the current system is definetely an improvement from my point of view, and I think the devs are doing an outstanding job by improving core mechanics of the simulation. I just think it's normal that a brand new system needs some tweaking.

Have you tested after the hot-fixes . I think this is old video before hot-fixes .

Can you confirm . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

216th_Jordan
24 minutes ago, Toppaso said:

 

So, is that taken into account in the DM? Or can 1 projectile only damage 1 part?

 

Ap rounds travel on if they pierced a part and have kinetoc energy left. They might get deflected after the impacts however. 

You can verify this by shooting the Ju 52 with a 37mm AP from dead 6 and being able to kill the pilot or even damage the engine in the front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=SqSq=SignorMagnifico
18 minutes ago, ACG_KoN said:

Have you tested after the hot-fixes . I think this is old video before hot-fixes .

Can you confirm . 

I made this one with 4.005d 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ACG_KoN said:

Have you tested after the hot-fixes . I think this is old video before hot-fixes .

Can you confirm . 

 

This excellent video was not done by me,

but as the description states it is 4.005d (current version).

 

I will do some qualitative testing later, and see if I can reproduce it and if it's something peculiar to the 51 wing or general

Link to comment
Share on other sites

216th_Jordan

Simulating DM in realtime is a hard task, I would largely doubt that the system is able to accurately determine hits at a same spot for structural failure. Some sort of approximation needs to be made to keep it realtime compatible. Thats why we have predefined points of failure.

 

Also under 1G load a wing that is designed to take more than 10G with a safety factor on top is not likely to fail by 2 or 3 or 5 37mm AP hits that also additionally need to pass through most load bearing parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roland_HUNter
5 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

I have no excuses, except for the well-known fact what a programming is. It's the same as if you would be a writer and wrote a novel, but only one missing comma on the page 327 would devalue whole your work.

Its totally normal.
Did you heard about that example when Einsten wrote a simple multiplication table on the school table?
"Einstein started to wrote:
1x1=1
2x2=4
3x3=9
4x4=16
5x5=25
6x6=36
7x7=49
8x8=64
9x9=82
Everybody started laughing
10x10=100
Then Einstein noticed:
See, my dear students. I made 1 mistake, everybody focused on that, but nobody cared about the other 9 good results. ;) "
SUM= If you make 1 mistake, everybody gona remember that, while everything else is correct, that is ="Normal".

Edited by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv34_Vellu

US 50 CAL (12,7 x 99) was very powerfull weapon but the biggest problem was bullets. They didn't explode and thats why they went straight through a targets strcture. First Picture shows its very clearly. Every pullets went trough the tail but the plane has been destroyed when its started to burn. With 50 CAL you have to hit to pilot or other critical component. Second picture shows damages after 20 mm and 30 mm hits. Next video shows what happen when 30 mm hits to Spitfire wing.

 

Tail.jpg

Wing.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

Simulating DM in realtime is a hard task, I would largely doubt that the system is able to accurately determine hits at a same spot for structural failure. Some sort of approximation needs to be made to keep it realtime compatible. Thats why we have predefined points of failure.

 

Also under 1G load a wing that is designed to take more than 10G with a safety factor on top is not likely to fail by 2 or 3 or 5 37mm AP hits that also additionally need to pass through most load bearing parts.

 

I assumed stuff like spars was 'discretized' in sub-elements and damage would add up until critical for each section. But of course I dont know.

 

Good point about the fact that the wing is designed for much higher loading.

 

Went and did some testing with various target planes (P51, P47, B25) and in general the 37mm AP of the P39 is not really effective, at least not as I would expect it to be.

You sometime knock out/flame an engine if you aim correctly, but really between the slow rate of fire and difficult ballistics you're gonna kill the targets quicker if you just use the 2 nose .50 cal. Even if the target is flying straight on. 

 

I'm no expert on ammunitions damage, so i'll leave the devs to it.

Just found it strange but maybe it's just me.

 

We are talking about a niche anyway. How many large caliber anti-aircraft AP weapons are there in game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ
15 hours ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Lol, okay, who's ass are we giving up for the cause?  😄

 

I think the "40 acres and a mule" offer expired long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Toppaso said:

 

I assumed stuff like spars was 'discretized' in sub-elements and damage would add up until critical for each section. But of course I dont know.

 

Good point about the fact that the wing is designed for much higher loading.

 

Went and did some testing with various target planes (P51, P47, B25) and in general the 37mm AP of the P39 is not really effective, at least not as I would expect it to be.

You sometime knock out/flame an engine if you aim correctly, but really between the slow rate of fire and difficult ballistics you're gonna kill the targets quicker if you just use the 2 nose .50 cal. Even if the target is flying straight on. 

 

I'm no expert on ammunitions damage, so i'll leave the devs to it.

Just found it strange but maybe it's just me.

 

We are talking about a niche anyway. How many large caliber anti-aircraft AP weapons are there in game?

Depending on how you look at it, I don't think we really have ANY AP anti-aircraft weapons. Since the AP loadouts were likely intended for attacking armored vehicles.

As far as big cannons go, we have:
LaGG-3: SH-37 37mm cannon as mod.
P-39: M4 37mm cannon as standard, default loadout is all HE. IIRC the P-39 got delivered via lend lease with HE ammo only.
Il-2 1942: Sh-37 37mm cannons as mod - clearly intended for ground attack, available with AP, HE, or a mix. 
Ju-87B - BK-37 37mm cannons as mod for anti-tank
Il-2 1943 - NS-37 37mm cannons as mod, again as ground attack. 
Bf-110G2 BK-37 37mm cannon - intended for ground attack, given their role on the eastern front. 
HS-129 Mk101/103 30mm cannon - obviously for ground attack.
And the upcoming Yak-9T with the NS-37 37mm cannon, for air to air.

So we only really have 3 fighters with big air-to-air cannons, generously 4 if you count the 110G2 modification. 

The P-39 was definitely designed and intended to use its heavy cannon in an air to air role, but used HE rounds for that purpose - though you can choose AP as a mod. The Yak-9T was also designed with that in mind, but I am not sure of the typical ammo type -and we don't know if we'll get AP rounds for it, though it maybe carried them on anti-tank sorties.. I'm unsure of the LaGG-3 mod was intended as a ground attack mod or to be more effective in air-to-air. 

Whereas in the old damage model AP cannons were very effective (and often tracerless for 'stealth') I think that that was a quirk of the way the old DM handled structural damage more than a realistic representation of what an AP round did to an aircraft. The damage from AP might be undermodeled now but, in a relative sense, IRL it was better to take HE, most air forces used HE rounds or a mix, and we see the same outcome in the sim. So I think things are trending in the right direction there.

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

My favorite bug is when I would type an O when it should be 0, or vice versa.   Those can be tough to find.

Especially with certain f0nts they l00k alm0st identical. (not the forum one though, lol)

But even obvious bugs can fade into the background when you are looking at them. When you have a small number of people proofreading anything, especially when they are familiar with the material, their brains are going to unconsciously assume the correct values for things. Your brain skips over the '3', thinking its a 2, because it has seen this all before a millions times. Anyone who's done a significant amount of writing language (code, or otherwise) will know the feeling when some rando points out an obvious problem that you literally didn't see despite looking right at it. 

This is why the 'reading backwards' method of proofing for spelling works so swell, your brain is stumbling a bit and so reads word for word, rather than breezing through and filling in the gaps. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jason_Williams unpinned this topic

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...