Jump to content

Game version 4.005 discussion: New airframe damage model


Han
 Share

Recommended Posts

NO.20_LEAD_SLED

😬 I'm sorry to see that I seem to have contributed to a crap storm. I just wanna state some points for clarity on my part.

 

- I have faith in the devs to continue to improve and build a realistic simulation. I was just attempting to understand the reality of the game as it is now.

 

- That reality seems to be that American/GB .50cals are missing critical ammo types in their weapons. If this will be implemented in the future, that's all I need to know.  Given the current situation, I am of the opinion that pilots using US/GB .50cals are not being given a realistic simulation of the damage inflicted by these weapons. This could be a result of the aircraft being hit, the weapons themselves, or both.

 

- There has never been, and probably never will be a PERFECT simulation of aerial combat.

 

- Your anecdotal experience in live servers is not very useful, nor is the opinion associated with them. However these videos that make a real attempt to establish constant conditions are useful.

 

- My hope is that we can dispense with opinions on what "should be" and deal more with "what is". In this way we can compare "what is" to what actual WW2/modern evidence we have available. That is how the best and lasting criticisms of games like this are made. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=SqSq=SignorMagnifico
1 hour ago, ACG_KoN said:

Thank you . 

No problem! Just doing my part to contribute to a better WWII sim. This sim looks so much better than what I played as a kid (CFS3 and 1946). What a time to be alive!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1CGS
-DED-Rapidus
13 hours ago, Toppaso said:

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.

👍

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this normal? -> that the DM clone the damage from wing A to add it to wing B, too?  I attacked some bombers but after the first attack I noticed this strange things on my both wing that the damage is exactly cloned! 🤣

 

20200422010714_1.thumb.jpg.c3c8b4c782cc402395ea920fef8fa637.jpg20200422010700_1.thumb.jpg.e01569467db7123415f6b321c94fca99.jpg

Edited by Livai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Livai said:

Is this normal? -> that the DM clone the damage from wing A to add it to wing B, too?  I attacked some bombers but after the first attack I noticed this strange things on my both wing that the damage is exactly cloned! 🤣

 

Thats not what your picture shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Thats not what your picture shows.

 

 

I have to agree, if you look at both images there are differences with each wing so certainly not cloned as far as I am concerned.;)

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.:biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Livai said:

Is this normal? -> that the DM clone the damage from wing A to add it to wing B, too?  I attacked some bombers but after the first attack I noticed this strange things on my both wing that the damage is exactly cloned! 🤣

 

20200422010714_1.thumb.jpg.c3c8b4c782cc402395ea920fef8fa637.jpg20200422010700_1.thumb.jpg.e01569467db7123415f6b321c94fca99.jpg

Both your wings took hits, and there are only so many varieties of damage decals applies to the skin of the craft, so they look similar. That's it really. They're not exactly cloned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kurgubigelzi

Good.
Dropped SC1800 on depot and _one_ building was destroyed - nothing around it. That was fun after 30+ minutes of flying one-way.

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

20 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

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.

 

Yes, I fully expect HE to be vastly superior to AP in damaging an unarmored thin-walled alluminum structure such as an airplane.

Everyone in his right mind would choose HE over AP if he knows he is going to be shooting planes and not tanks; in this sense we certainly have a better representation now than with the old DM.

 

It still looks suspicious to me when a wing eats up 10-12 37mm shells, but i don't have much to base my "sensations" on...

I even doubt that there is some photographic evidence of damage or test done with this kind of ammunition on planes, because it wouldnt make much sense or be extremely rare.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toppaso said:

 

Yes, I fully expect HE to be vastly superior to AP in damaging an unarmored thin-walled alluminum structure such as an airplane.

Everyone in his right mind would choose HE over AP if he knows he is going to be shooting planes and not tanks; in this sense we certainly have a better representation now than with the old DM.

 

I can only agree.

 

The new DM yet alone is a vast improvement for making HE-ammunition finally viable.

 

With the old DM AP-only loadouts (like those for the LA-5 planes) were way too effective, causing more damage than HE rounds plus giving the pilot the additional benefit of removing all tracers.

 

I only wish that the devs will find the time someday to integrate API ammunition into the sim.

Edited by Fritz_X
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the new damage model, good job!

As a beginner of this game I fly mostly a Bf-109 F at the moment and I have the impression the 20 mm Minenmunition has a much better performance now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P-51 looses Rudder and elevator control 90% of the time when hit now . Only option is try to bail . 

Anyone else notice this .It seems quite weak now . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roland_HUNter
1 hour ago, ACG_KoN said:

The P-51 looses Rudder and elevator control 90% of the time when hit now . Only option is try to bail . 

Anyone else notice this .It seems quite weak now . 

Lads, again, what do you expect?

The control surfaces are not armored, and the lightest things on every aircraft. ofc its gone detach from some hits.
If you checked SFF_Vellu linked video. Can u imagine  then what that would do with the rudder if, its destroyed the wing so easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2020 at 11:26 AM, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Lads, again, what do you expect?

The control surfaces are not armored, and the lightest things on every aircraft. ofc its gone detach from some hits.
If you checked SFF_Vellu linked video. Can u imagine  then what that would do with the rudder if, its destroyed the wing so easily.

Take the P-51 up in an online server let me know how you get on . 

Edit -  I've said that 90% of the time i loose rudder and elevator NOW  ...!!!! That`s a big increase . That`s what im stating here nothing to do with Armour plates . 

The reason i can state this is because i fly both Axis and allied . 

Edited by ACG_KoN
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roland_HUNter
1 hour ago, ACG_KoN said:

Take the P-51 up in an online server let me know how you get on . 

The 109s rudder/elevator is weak aswell. And everyplane in the game has weak control surfaces, not only the P-51.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ
1 hour ago, ACG_KoN said:

Take the P-51 up in an online server let me know how you get on . 

 

I did last night. 

 

Cannon hits to the wings will almost immediately throw the whole plane off-balance.  

 

The .50's (for me) are easiest to hit with at 400m convergence, but that is certainly not the best horizontal convergence.  Without separate vertical convergence settings, the bullets drop off way too fast when set for the ideal horizontal convergence. 

 

Lack of API .50 cal. is also a major setback.  It might be a very pinpoint-specific area that the fire from each individual round effects, but it still has more effect than plain AP or APT rounds.

A single API round into the oil reservoir of a plane might not start an outright fire, but it could potentially cause a fire or even a small explosion.  A few moments of API fire even next to non-flammable (but vital parts) can still cause catastrophic damage.  The API round incendiary effect is basically similar to inserting a cutting torch into the target and running it at full blast for a second.

Hold a cutting torch over a control cable that's at full tension and make note of how long it takes for some of the braided strands to break and fray.  It might not break the whole cable, but once those strands start to unravel, the chances of total failure increases rapidly.   

 

Meanwhile, the centerline/zero-horizontal convergence of Axis planes and their high-probability of getting a quick kill off of a single lucky cannon hit is "working as intended". 

Seriously, it might be that it actually might be working correctly for Axis loadouts. But, planes with wing mounted guns need that separate horizontal and vertical convergence sliders (yes, even planes like the 109 E7) need to be looked at and .50's + any other rounds that are lacking need that API.  I'm going to stick by that until I see the day it happens.  

 

Even if the enemy plane goes into a wild spin all the way to the deck,  you still have to treat it like a fully active hostile and wait to see whether your hits actually did anything.  Pressing the attack for another pass often results in other enemy planes latching onto you and shooting you down.  

 

If you do a high speed on-6 pass - the kind where you plan to overshoot and go back up - and the 109 doesn't dive away or has been instantly killed, said 109 can easily pull up behind you and kill you - even when they are heavily damaged.  Meanwhile, if the 109 BnZs a 51, it becomes the same scenario as a 109F4 BnZ attacking a Yak1.69. The Yak 1, or the 51 for that matter, will almost never be able to climb after the attacker that has  overshot and gone back up - even when the 51 is completely undamaged and at the top range of it's cruising speed.  Meanwhile all the 109 needs to do is push the throttle forward all the way.  

I still maintain my view that the 51 in-game is either underpowered in the engine, too inefficient when it comes to how the propeller works, or there's excess drag calculations that need to be re-worked.  Yes, I do understand that the 109 was the better climber in almost all circumstances, but I still stick with my view of the 51 underperforming.  Takeoff power,  51", 2700RPM, should NOT be the best setting for cruise power, but it seems that's what's needed to stay fast enough to be effective.

 

I took 2 or 3 light machine gun hits from a long range head-on with a 190. The LMG hits were on the upper engine cowling.  They all appeared to ricochet off - so there's that, at least.  

Oh, and as a new owner of some rudder pedals,  I can tell you that twist grip rudder on a joystick is a particularly harsh performance killer for the 51.  

I honestly don't know if there's any way to improve that for non-rudder pedal / twist grip players, but even if there was, I honestly think it should be left as-is. 

Edited by 69th_Mobile_BBQ
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I

Hold a cutting torch over a control cable that's at full tension and make note of how long it takes for some of the braided strands to break and fray.  It might not break the whole cable, but once those strands start to unravel, the chances of total failure increases rapidly.   The API round incendiary effect is basically similar to inserting a cutting torch into the target and running it at full blast for a second.

 

 

The incendiary mixture burns on contact at a high temperature but for a short period of time. I don't think there's a long enough time for an appreciable amount of heat transfer to damage steel cables. The kinetic energy of the round hitting the cable is going to do a lot more damage than the heat it dumps.

As far as igniting fuel, glycol and oil, I think that would be significant, especially if there is already a leak and the fuel is aerosolized. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ
18 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

The incendiary mixture burns on contact at a high temperature but for a short period of time. I don't think there's a long enough time for an appreciable amount of heat transfer to damage steel cables. The kinetic energy of the round hitting the cable is going to do a lot more damage than the heat it dumps.

As far as igniting fuel, glycol and oil, I think that would be significant, especially if there is already a leak and the fuel is aerosolized. 

 

You are probably correct that the bullet would have to at least graze the cable to cause fraying.  I wonder if there would be any possibility of a significant result if the bullet lodges into a place where the heat transfer would cause damage to an adjacent important part or if it would have to lodge directly into said important part in order to "flash fry" it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering: has the contrails issue been fixed? I thought i saw on here that it was, but i am still not seeing them,.It may be settings in my mission (i would be expecting them at 6000m, with 0°C on ground though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2020 at 5:50 PM, Toppaso said:

Yes, I fully expect HE to be vastly superior to AP in damaging an unarmored thin-walled alluminum structure such as an airplane.

Everyone in his right mind would choose HE over AP if he knows he is going to be shooting planes and not tanks; in this sense we certainly have a better representation now than with the old DM.

 

It still looks suspicious to me when a wing eats up 10-12 37mm shells, but i don't have much to base my "sensations" on...

I even doubt that there is some photographic evidence of damage or test done with this kind of ammunition on planes, because it wouldnt make much sense or be extremely rare.

That depends on many variables, both gameplay and player related.

Theoretically I prefer AP since most of my shots hit the fuselage. In this case AP theoretically should wound or kill the pilot, or even make a few holes in the engine block if placed right. From my purely sp experience using AP, with only exception being the 50cal, still is not effective enough to warrant the ammobelt selection. It`s mostly the same with causing fuel or coolant leaks and very rarely:  oil leak, fire or engine failure.

The M4 on the P39 fares laughably bad using any of the ammo it has and imo is the worst performing cannon in the game. Now purely from gameplay standpoint - the P39 is next to useless in BoK singleplayer career.

In both cases AP and HE weapons on all aircraft but 50cal - I keep shooting the same spot with leaking fuel, gives no fire at all. Just more leaks appear, even on surfaces I don`t hit (shooting one wing causes second wing to leak). If the fire appears, it is on the first few hits only. Smaller MG fire should be great on causing that after cannon hits but no.

 

Most of my kills is PK from direct HE cannon hit in the cockpit and pretty much the only way to be sure AI will not attack me back. So there is no reason to use AP since HE does the same and more.

 

This changed bomber busting experience too. Now since gunners mg fire is ineffective, I can park 120m behind my foe and keep hitting the engine until it catches fire.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv24_Sukka24
1 hour ago, Valkyrie77 said:

Why are the .50cals and the bombs so ineffective now?  Ruined the game for my 

 

Because you are not hitting anything vital with those fiddy cals, simple as that. I don't have any problems with them. They are still very lethal especially if you hit at converge. Bombing requires more accuracy too.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roland_HUNter
18 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I did last night. 

 

Cannon hits to the wings will almost immediately throw the whole plane off-balance.  

 

The .50's (for me) are easiest to hit with at 400m convergence, but that is certainly not the best horizontal convergence.  Without separate vertical convergence settings, the bullets drop off way too fast when set for the ideal horizontal convergence. 

 

Lack of API .50 cal. is also a major setback.  It might be a very pinpoint-specific area that the fire from each individual round effects, but it still has more effect than plain AP or APT rounds.

A single API round into the oil reservoir of a plane might not start an outright fire, but it could potentially cause a fire or even a small explosion.  A few moments of API fire even next to non-flammable (but vital parts) can still cause catastrophic damage.  The API round incendiary effect is basically similar to inserting a cutting torch into the target and running it at full blast for a second.

Hold a cutting torch over a control cable that's at full tension and make note of how long it takes for some of the braided strands to break and fray.  It might not break the whole cable, but once those strands start to unravel, the chances of total failure increases rapidly.   

 

Meanwhile, the centerline/zero-horizontal convergence of Axis planes and their high-probability of getting a quick kill off of a single lucky cannon hit is "working as intended". 

Seriously, it might be that it actually might be working correctly for Axis loadouts. But, planes with wing mounted guns need that separate horizontal and vertical convergence sliders (yes, even planes like the 109 E7) need to be looked at and .50's + any other rounds that are lacking need that API.  I'm going to stick by that until I see the day it happens.  

 

Even if the enemy plane goes into a wild spin all the way to the deck,  you still have to treat it like a fully active hostile and wait to see whether your hits actually did anything.  Pressing the attack for another pass often results in other enemy planes latching onto you and shooting you down.  

 

If you do a high speed on-6 pass - the kind where you plan to overshoot and go back up - and the 109 doesn't dive away or has been instantly killed, said 109 can easily pull up behind you and kill you - even when they are heavily damaged.  Meanwhile, if the 109 BnZs a 51, it becomes the same scenario as a 109F4 BnZ attacking a Yak1.69. The Yak 1, or the 51 for that matter, will almost never be able to climb after the attacker that has  overshot and gone back up - even when the 51 is completely undamaged and at the top range of it's cruising speed.  Meanwhile all the 109 needs to do is push the throttle forward all the way.  

I still maintain my view that the 51 in-game is either underpowered in the engine, too inefficient when it comes to how the propeller works, or there's excess drag calculations that need to be re-worked.  Yes, I do understand that the 109 was the better climber in almost all circumstances, but I still stick with my view of the 51 underperforming.  Takeoff power,  51", 2700RPM, should NOT be the best setting for cruise power, but it seems that's what's needed to stay fast enough to be effective.

 

I took 2 or 3 light machine gun hits from a long range head-on with a 190. The LMG hits were on the upper engine cowling.  They all appeared to ricochet off - so there's that, at least.  

Oh, and as a new owner of some rudder pedals,  I can tell you that twist grip rudder on a joystick is a particularly harsh performance killer for the 51.  

I honestly don't know if there's any way to improve that for non-rudder pedal / twist grip players, but even if there was, I honestly think it should be left as-is. 

I ll just send you a video, what Petrovich sent to us, when we complained about .50 cal:

And I copy you from the forum, how many calculations they did:
Kendo commented this in the Dev Assistence forum when we debated about gun performance in the new DM:(the debate was about MG-151/20 vs VYa-23 )

"Interesting posts from Petrovich responding to 'concerns' about 23mm on the Russian forum. I copy the translations below from Google. Interestingly (to me anyway) he says they have utilities that automate the damage testing of any particular weapon against any chosen aircraft which can generate 1000 or even a million tests - he talks of the importance of large number of trials to get accurate results. This is a long post.....

1:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13303-обсуждение-версии-4005-новая-модель-повреждений-планера-самолёта/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-766802

We have each ammunition set by a set of physical parameters, either directly taken from the TTD (mass, TNT, shot speed, etc.), or calculated according to a single system (number of fragments, mass of fragments, etc.). With this approach, it is difficult to make a mistake in the wrong balance of weapon efficiency. Now I don’t have at hand the specific numbers of 20 and 23 mm (I don’t remember for memory), I will write later. I just want to note that to correctly compare the effectiveness of ammunition, you need to conduct a series of tests and collect statistics on them, the more, the more accurately you can estimate the average expectation. We use special utilities that allow you to carry out large series of shooting tests (millions of shots) with a specific ammunition strictly in a certain part of the aircraft, and from a certain angle, and so on for each part of it. This allows you to more accurately estimate the average how many hits are needed to "unfasten", for example, the wing with this ammunition. And if you focus on some "limiting" cases, then of course you can fabricate an opinion in one direction or the other. However, the average picture may be slightly different.

2:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13303-обсуждение-версии-4005-новая-модель-повреждений-планера-самолёта/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-766885

I do not keep up with you. :)

 

It takes some time to answer substantively (in numbers). As promised, I just looked at what characteristics we have set for two shells:

 

OF 20 mm:

Shell weight: 89.7 g.

Shot speed (MG 151/20 gun): 805 m / s

Mass of explosives: 20 gr.

Mass of significant fragments: 28.7 gr. (or 32% of the mass of the projectile)

Fragmentation: 41 fragment of 0.7 g.

 

RP 23 mm:

Projectile mass: 196 g

Shot speed (VYA-23 gun): 900 m / s

Explosive mass: 11 g.

Mass of significant fragments: 75.6 gr. (or 39% of the mass of the projectile)

Fragmentation: 27 fragments of 2.8 g.

 

Fragmentation of fragments, as far as I know, is calculated taking into account the fill factor and the well-known empire for significant / insignificant fragments for various types of shells. I don’t know the details, not my sector. Thus, our 20 mm projectile now has a 1.4 times more powerful high-explosive effect (and not 1.8 times, as one might think when comparing the mass of explosives, because the dependence on TNT is, as is known, non-linear). But the 23 mm shell has 2.6 times the mass of fragments, and the fragments themselves are 4 times larger (by weight), but due to this, they are about 1.5 times smaller in number.

 

Well, and, in fact, the main question: how do these shells "work" according to the glider .

 

I just took the Bf-109 G2 from the current version of the game for the test, and in the utility mentioned above I performed 1000 test firing on each part of the airframe. That is, for each part of the airframe, 1000 experiments are carried out, and in each of them it is determined on which account the projectile breaks (the plane is not loaded, overload = 0, only the combat resistance of the force set to damage is tested). The plate below shows how many times more HE 20 mm shells are required than 23 mm to break the power pack:

 

Wing (root, middle, end parts) before breaking: 1.81

Stabilizer (console) before breaking: 1.79

Steering wheels (ailerons, PB, PH), before breaking: 0.99

Flaps, before breaking: 1.00

Fuselage, before breaking: 0.78

Chassis (struts, wheels), before the lift: 1.74

 

That is, as can be seen from this plate, the 23 mm HE shell is now almost 2 times more effective in the wing and stabilizer of this particular Bf-109 G2 aircraft, both shells are equally effective in the rudders, and the 20 mm shell is almost a quarter more effective in the fuselage . I repeat, we are talking only about the power set of the glider, and not about systems, control wiring, breakdown of tanks, cooling systems, etc.

 

However, based on the above initial data on high-explosive fragmentation and high-explosive impact, a 20 mm projectile is approximately 1.42 times more effective than a 23 mm shell projectile (in the case of an explosion at point-blank range). Which, in my opinion, is quite logical, given the difference between a high-explosive action and the number of fragments.

 

Also, using another utility, I can compare the effectiveness of these two shells on an unarmored engine. When a Bf-109 G2 plane directly hits the engine (an explosion at point-blank range) from a firing range of 200m (1 million tests), a single hit of a 23 mm projectile will damage the engine 1.02 times more often, of which fires occur 1.39 times more often, 6.00 times stronger, on average, the crankshaft is damaged, the cylinder block is damaged 1.73 times more, the oil leakage is as much times, and 1.71 times stronger than the coolant leakage from the engine jacket. If two of the same type of shells hit, the difference in the number of fires decreases to 1.27, the difference in average damage to the crankshaft decreases to 4.50, the cylinder block is damaged by 23 mm shells 1.69 times stronger, oil leaks become 1.70 times stronger and coolant leaks from the engine jacket are 1.84 times stronger times.

 

I hope that this information helped you better navigate about the difference in the effectiveness of 20 mm and 23 mm HE shells that we have in the game now, and from what characteristics of the shells it is obtained. I fully admit that in our initial data on these shells there may be some inaccuracies (I repeat, not my sector). Therefore, if there is something to clarify, specify, only please, with reference to the source, and I will give it.

 

PS

Yes, and I also see that there are doubts about the supposedly equal efficiency of 20mm ShVAK and 23mm VYA. Take my word for it, do not force me to write a sheet with the test results again, that 20 mm ShVAK is certainly less effective than 20 mm MG 151/20, and I gave the comparison of 20 mm German shell and 23 mm Soviet."


 

Edited by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

You are probably correct that the bullet would have to at least graze the cable to cause fraying.  I wonder if there would be any possibility of a significant result if the bullet lodges into a place where the heat transfer would cause damage to an adjacent important part or if it would have to lodge directly into said important part in order to "flash fry" it. 

My understanding of how the WWII-era incendiary ammo works is that there is an incendiary charge in the bullet with a hardened AP 'head' - this essentially causes a 'burst' of intense heat when it is triggered by the impact fuse. The AP head punches a hole in what you are shooting at and the incendiary charge delivers heat shortly afterward. So rather than your round just keeping going until it runs out of energy, leaving a relatively neat hole, a portion of it combusts delivering heat to the target. 

The solid steel portion of the round would likely absorb some of this heat - how much I cannot say, but presumably enough to soften it a little. This would generally reduce its penetrating power. There's also a question of just how hot the remains of the projectile would become from the instantaneous exposure to high heat - I'm sure there is a calculation for this, if we know the amount of heat energy released, the time of the exposure (surely measured in milliseconds), and the weight of the round. My suspicion is that the initial burst heats the round but not enough for the round itself to become hot enough in and of itself to damage aircraft components in the long term.

If we assume the remains of the round become quite hot, but not so hot as to liquify, if it becomes lodged in something the level of heat will begin equalizing rapidly as the object it is lodged in soaks up the heat. The problem is the relative mass of the round compared to the mass of the object it is lodged in. The material directly surrounding the round will heat up quickly as the difference in temperature tries to even out (thanks, entropy!) and that material will try and transfer the heat to adjacent material. In the case of bigger components, the area around the bullet hole will basically take the most heat damage but temperatures will drop very quickly a short distance from the bullet, and components large enough to stop and hold a .50 cal round are probably capable of absorbing the heat itself quite easily, since the total heat the round can hold will be very small. Any components that may be set aflame by the heated round are probably already on fire due to the burst of incendiary material a millisecond earlier.

TL;DR: anything thin and light enough to be 'flash fried' by contact with a hot round will probably either be set afire by the incendiary burst or destroyed/punched through by the round itself, and anything substantial enough to stop the round and lodge it in place (an armor plate, an engine block, etc.) will be massive enough to disperse the heat quite effectively. 

The API round sacrifices a bit of its penetration power to deliver intense heat to the target, in the hopes that it hits something highly flammable like fuel. Since WWII aircraft are basically a bunch of fuel, oil, steel, and meat wrapped in very thin aluminum skin, the tradeoff makes sense given how much of the aircraft is filled with flammable materials or squishy mortals. I believe that straight AP rounds would do more damage to aircraft structure compared to API simply by their improved penetration ability. But that advantage makes little sense when taking on soft targets like aircraft, because it just doesn't do enough structural damage to make it more efficient than trying to set the plane on fire. Straight AP would perhaps be more likely to penetrate armor plate and kill the pilot, but that is relatively low margin compared to starting a fire considering the limited angles the armor protects the pilot from in most planes.

I think if we saw API modeled you would see somewhat more fuel and engine fires, but not more gross airframe damage. Exactly how much difference I could not say - IRL I suppose we could look at combat reports from before and after the USAAF introduced API ammo to see if fuel and engine fires were more common in enemy aircraft, and by how much it increased.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voodoo-BlackDog
On 4/23/2020 at 10:10 AM, ACG_KoN said:

The P-51 looses Rudder and elevator control 90% of the time when hit now . Only option is try to bail . 

Anyone else notice this .It seems quite weak now . 

Yes. The new damage model is appalling 

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

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Well here you can see what .50 can do to a running engine at max RPM, if hit in the right place it can be fatal with just a couple hits. He fired 10 but in the engine camera with the first 2 hits it started sounding really hurt and would have died there it seems.
 

 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voodoo-BlackDog
4 hours ago, LLv24_Sukka24 said:

 

Because you are not hitting anything vital with those fiddy cals, simple as that. I don't have any problems with them. They are still very lethal especially if you hit at converge. Bombing requires more accuracy too.

Shall I point you in the direction of WW2 gun cam footage on you tube. 
I’dsuggest every one takes 20 mins to watch these ww2 gun cam films on you tube to see what I’m talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Valkyrie77 said:

Yes. The new damage model is appalling 

In general, or just for the Mustang, because everything I've flown doesn't seem to have that problem?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Valkyrie77 said:

Yes. The new damage model is appalling 

On WoL axis won more missions on airplanes shot down in last few weeks since patch then you can see normaly, i bet its great DM for them :) 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Valkyrie77 said:

Shall I point you in the direction of WW2 gun cam footage on you tube. 
I’dsuggest every one takes 20 mins to watch these ww2 gun cam films on you tube to see what I’m talking about. 

Not sure what the value is, these will show only the successful engagements. You can't base a judgment on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
27 minutes ago, Valkyrie77 said:

Yes. The new damage model is appalling 

Why don't you tell us what is exactly wrong? The only thing you are posting is this is wrong, that is wrong this is awful etc ..... those statements are about as useful as a chocolate tea pot. You have even had the Project manager ask you  to provide more detail but you just keep telling the forum that everything is awful.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

The 109s rudder/elevator is weak aswell. And everyplane in the game has weak control surfaces, not only the P-51.

Ill test . 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ
1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

In general, or just for the Mustang, because everything I've flown doesn't seem to have that problem?

 

 

To be honest, I can't speak for any other plane, but the 51 flights I took in MP resulted in some pretty bad reduction of control from light machinegun wingtip grazes.  Full cannon hits closer to the wing root were terminal loss of control 8/10 of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think anyone with a reasonably strong understanding of combustion engine design and function will also understand that it is absolutely possible to cause both a critical failure or not based on bullet placement and chance alone. I have seen engines running with dropped cylinders and a hole through the block. Mind you they didn't run well and were not long for this world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frequent_Flyer
7 hours ago, Valkyrie77 said:

Yes. The new damage model is appalling 

This , the absence of .50 incendiary  load, and the flight/engine models of the P-47,P-40 and P-39 -anyone else experiencing Deja Vu ?

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
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...