Jump to content
Han

Game version 4.005 discussion: New airframe damage model

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

Personally, I think the Devs did a great job on this feature and makes the game way more realistic, which is the point of the exercise.  What specific problem do you have?

Absolutely, one of the best updates the game has received.

  • Upvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's exceedingly easy to underestimate how quickly and dangerously G's can climb if you've never pulled any G's in an airplane. Even just a sharp turn in a slow-moving piper or cessna is enough to make you go "Oh THAT's why I black out in a 700km/h pullout". I think the pilot physics are well implemented and vastly improved the game.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2020 at 6:37 PM, =ILS=_AirC0mbatN00b_34 said:

Finally I really appreciate what you have done for the new DM,a great update.But maybe the mg151 is a little too powerful?I was surprised to see that my Fw190A3 shot down six reds in a single sortie, and the hit rate was 8.5 percent. The 151 is so efficient at destroying the aerodynamics and pilot snipe that I now drive the bf109G14 without replacing the MG151 with MK108.At the same time, the challenge of piloting a Soviet aircraft in a multiplayer game has risen dramatically, and I'm sure you've seen a number of complaints about it that I won't dwell.I understand that as a flight simulator,it's very difficult to balance simulacra and  MP balance,but the multiplayer part really adds a lot of appeal to the game.Please forgive me for my unkind request,but I do think the game is a little unbalanced.

Any plane armed with that many guns as FW190 would do great. That is no material for comparison at all.

 

Been explained many times before, including developpers. The Minengeschoss is just the best HE shell, not counting the Hispano. And even if that, the number of ammo you have on the MG151/20 does much to diminish any problems one could have with using the cannon. Single MG151/20 or MK108 was always a matter of preference / target, never one being better than the other.  What is never said is that in 109 configuration, the machineguns - 8 or 12mm - really influence on which cannon to take along on mission. My preference is If I am to face soft targets with weak DM, then the machineguns will do the job and MK108 I take as point blank destroyer. But for the more robust planes like A20 or IL2 the high DM threshold requires taking 30mm.

 

After DM revolution, the earlier 109s equipped with 7mm mg must again use cannon to down anything.

 

For the very same reason - if you make Soviet ammo more powerful, the German 20mm will be even better, and with bigger ammoload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/6/2020 at 8:52 PM, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

@=ILS=_AirC0mbatN00b_34

 

Perhaps someone (or yourself) can video and scientifically show this like the guys did with the Flying Circus wing failure issue along with some context (i.e. game settings, PC setup) so it can be seen what's going on. That's the best way to authenticate this claim. There are still inconsistencies and issues with the new DM (like with any new system).

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Kg4y167tr/
I made some test,the P51's tail problem part is around 3:00 to 6:00 

This video also includes the following sections:La5FN shoot G14 from low six;P51 shoot G14 from low six,G14 shoot G14 from low six(using mg151),simulate a sneak attack in real combat.I'd be honored if you'd like to watch it all xD。

Edited by =ILS=_AirC0mbatN00b_34
supplement
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

The Minengeschoss is just the best HE shell, not counting the Hispano. And even if that, the number of ammo you have on the MG151/20 does much to diminish any problems one could have with using the cannon. Single MG151/20 or MK108 was always a matter of preference / target, never one being better than the other.

The extraordinary superiority of the MG151 which we've come to witness lately somehow doesn't want to fit to the complaints of real life pilots when it got introduced with the 109F, just saying.

And the ones complaining weren't all stupid morons, there's been quite a couple hotshots among them, most prominently probably Adolf Galland, who was so utterly convinced of the 151 that he let his mechanics add two MG/FF to the wings of one of his 109F planes (and replace the MG 17 with MG 131 on another).

Probably he did so because downing planes with the new wonder-151 became just too easy so he wanted to add some weight penalty?

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally sure your anecdotes are 100% accurate. I would love the devs to change the game according to your interpretation of hearsay and war stories.

 

I am absolutley pissed off at the devs base their DM on actual ballistic calculations. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

The extraordinary superiority of the MG151 which we've come to witness lately somehow doesn't want to fit to the complaints of real life pilots when it got introduced with the 109F, just saying.

And the ones complaining weren't all stupid morons, there's been quite a couple hotshots among them, most prominently probably Adolf Galland, who was so utterly convinced of the 151 that he let his mechanics add two MG/FF to the wings of one of his 109F planes (and replace the MG 17 with MG 131 on another).

Probably he did so because downing planes with the new wonder-151 became just too easy so he wanted to add some weight penalty?

 

:drinks:

Mike

It was the 15 mm in the F2 he replaced with the MG/FF and not the 20 mm. I read that on the IL2 1946 forums couple of years ago. Correct me if i'm wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand said:

I am totally sure your anecdotes are 100% accurate. I would love the devs to change the game according to your interpretation of hearsay and war stories.

 

I am absolutley pissed off at the devs base their DM on actual ballistic calculations. 

 

That is a big problem.

Imo when someone hears a juice story, it should be immediately included to the game. 

 

All kinds of calculations are so boring.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QMB still a pain the ass -  German planes eat dozens of hits and keep flying.

 

Even heavy visible damage does not force them to bail out/head back to base.

 

Bodenplatte module sucks hard from a singleplayer perspective right now.

 

It's not like Luftwaffe wasn't overpowered before...

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, airacobrafan said:

 

QMB still a pain the ass -  German planes eat dozens of hits and keep flying.

 

Even heavy visible damage does not force them to bail out/head back to base.

 

Bodenplatte module sucks hard from a singleplayer perspective right now.

 

It's not like Luftwaffe wasn't overpowered before...

 


+1000

 

Absolutley!

 

if the plane I love does not perform like I want ti to, then this should suffice as an argument for devs to change things.


totally sick of having to support my opinion with data.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

The extraordinary superiority of the MG151 which we've come to witness lately somehow doesn't want to fit to the complaints of real life pilots when it got introduced with the 109F, just saying.

And the ones complaining weren't all stupid morons, there's been quite a couple hotshots among them, most prominently probably Adolf Galland, who was so utterly convinced of the 151 that he let his mechanics add two MG/FF to the wings of one of his 109F planes (and replace the MG 17 with MG 131 on another).

Probably he did so because downing planes with the new wonder-151 became just too easy so he wanted to add some weight penalty?

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

The superior effectiveness of the MG151/20 based on the combination of the weapon itself and its ammunition M-Geschoss (92g) and MX-Geschoss (105g). The former ammunition was introduced in the first months of 1941. These German mine projectiles were deadly against the usual design of WW II aircraft and their armor at that time. Unfortunately there was nothing comparable on the Allied side during World War II. I would advise you to consult the corresponding specialist literature (e.g. Flying Guns World War II, A.G. Williams and Dr. E. Gustin) instead of spreading any anectodes that lack any scientific basis.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll accept that the German weapons are what they are when the American .50s get API rounds and correct damage values, the P-51 gets the correct engine power and the full 109 tail damage model get re-enabled.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Grancesc said:

I would advise you to consult the corresponding specialist literature (e.g. Flying Guns World War II, A.G. Williams and Dr. E. Gustin) instead of spreading any anectodes that lack any scientific basis.

I would not advise you of anything, but would recommend to try not to come across as a complete... you know what.

It's not an anecdote that many german pilots were less than happy with the new armament of the 109 "Friedrich", that's a well known fact all across the 109 history.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Hi Valkyrie, it sounds to me like you hate every aspect of this product because you keep broadcasting to the forum just how terrible it all is. I'm not sure if you are a troll or just someone who likes to complain? I think I could take you more seriously if you actually did some bug reports and based your complaints on some sort of reference with valid data to check instead of going on "feels". 

Like I said. The pilot blackout feature is unrealistic.  The .50 cal firepower in inadequate unrealistic.  The allied damage model is unrealistic.  The P47 flight dynamics are unrealistic and the spotting issues are absurd. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

I'll accept that the German weapons are what they are when the American .50s get API rounds and correct damage values, the P-51 gets the correct engine power and the full 109 tail damage model get re-enabled.  

Nah making most popular airplane in game undamagable from direct 6 attacks makes no advantage to that airplane players... who attacks you from dircet 6 when you unnotice him its so rear ocasion , wonder why same fix was not done to Tempest, it can also fly without tail fin and it looks funny so why not lock damage to it untill its fixed like for 109s, so its players also dont have to worry about checking 6 and geting suprised. 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13303-обсуждение-версии-4005-новая-модель-повреждений-планера-самолёта/?do=findComment&comment=767960

 

no wonder we get god mod for 109 tail when testers are ones decideing what airplane gets it, why wait to fix it properly or applay same fix to all airplanes with problem when you can make it wors 😄

 

"In the meantime, such a difficult decision was made: to temporarily lock it up. We discussed both options with testers (leave it as it was, or lock it), and, having sorted through this whole situation, they almost unanimously voted for the option "lock". It’s better that way than the “crystal” tail flying off at once, believe me."

 

Edited by CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am starting to believe that the only people that should be allowed as testers should be able to:

 

 

A.)  Perform specific flight plans or actions for the developer.  

 

B.) Provide video. 

 

C.) Report bugs.

 

And that's it.  

 

 

Edited by 69th_Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


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

I am starting to believe that the only people that should be allowed as testers should be able to:

 

 

A.)  Perform specific flight plans or actions for the developer.  

 

B.) Provide video. 

 

C.) Report bugs.

 

And that's it.  

 

 

Oh, do the testers annoy your existence here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand said:


+1000

 

Absolutley!

 

if the plane I love does not perform like I want ti to, then this should suffice as an argument for devs to change things.


totally sick of having to support my opinion with data.

Remember, when submitting a FM or DM complaint, use the following tips..

Avoid objective comparisons with historical data.
Try to not quantify your complaint at all. Simply say "it's XXXX (insert invective here)" and take it that the Dev's will work out which way it is wrong by displaying totally infantile bias to one 'side'
For bonus points come up with some hyperbole like "this is killing multiplayer", or "this makes the game unplayable".

Here to help o7.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Oh, do the testers annoy your existence here?

 

Well, they are part of the reason that only one side is currently "historically accurate". 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Well, they are part of the reason that only one side is currently "historically accurate". 

Whats the other parts?

 

 

Share this post


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

 

It's not an anecdote that many german pilots were less than happy with the new armament of the 109 "Friedrich", that's a well known fact all across the 109 history.

 

:drinks:

Mike

I mean, this is anecdotal evidence almost by definition. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valkyrie77 said:

Like I said. The pilot blackout feature is unrealistic.  The .50 cal firepower in inadequate unrealistic.  The allied damage model is unrealistic.  The P47 flight dynamics are unrealistic and the spotting issues are absurd. 

Compared to what? Where are your comparisons?

Share this post


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

I mean, this is anecdotal evidence almost by definition. 

 

Well, the F series did have 1 less cannon than the E series.  Also, convergence aiming has certain advantages over centerline aiming giving a little more "forgiveness" in the accuracy department in dead-on-6 tail chases.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants

Armament[edit]

The armament of the Bf 109 F was revised and now consisted of the two synchronized 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17s with 500 rpg above the engine plus a Motorkanone cannon firing through the propeller hub. The pilot's opinion on the new armament was mixed: Oberst Adolf Galland criticised the light armament as inadequate for the average pilot, while Major Walter Oesau preferred to fly a Bf 109 E, and Oberst Werner Mölders saw the single centreline Motorkanone gun as an improvement.

 

  

Share this post


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

I would not advise you of anything, but would recommend to try not to come across as a complete... you know what.

It's not an anecdote that many german pilots were less than happy with the new armament of the 109 "Friedrich", that's a well known fact all across the 109 history.

 

:drinks:

Mike

the first 109Fs had MG FF cannons and 15mm MG151, the 20mm MG151 came half a year later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Well, the F series did have 1 less cannon than the E series.  Also, convergence aiming has certain advantages over centerline aiming giving a little more "forgiveness" in the accuracy department in dead-on-6 tail chases.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants

Armament[edit]

The armament of the Bf 109 F was revised and now consisted of the two synchronized 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17s with 500 rpg above the engine plus a Motorkanone cannon firing through the propeller hub. The pilot's opinion on the new armament was mixed: Oberst Adolf Galland criticised the light armament as inadequate for the average pilot, while Major Walter Oesau preferred to fly a Bf 109 E, and Oberst Werner Mölders saw the single centreline Motorkanone gun as an improvement.

 

  

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from stories or anecdotes. If someone says "Mr. Breaker told me that the hot dogs down at the drive-in are made of possum meat!', that's anecdotal evidence. Mr. Breaker might be right, but its still anecdotal. A test of the meat showing it was 50% oppossum, 32% raccoon, and 18% hairy cryptid, would not be anecdotal evidence, since it is not someone saying it, it is someone documenting it with a physical test. Or someone could do a survey for oppossums in the region of the drive in and show that oppossum populations have declines sharply since the introduction of the drive-in's new frankfurters. That would be statistical evidence of the circumstantial variety.

If someone were to produce weapons tests showing the 109F was significantly worse at shooting down enemy aircraft, or even produce aggregated combat results and statistically analyzed them, they would not be anecdotal evidence. Or someone could say that the total energy delivered by the guns of the 109F was worse and showed the ballistics calculations and tests to prove it, that would also not be anecdotal evidence. hell, even producing a survey that says "77% of german pilots reported being unsatisfied with the armament" is polling evidence at least, and the number of respondents and information about them is at least known for sure, and not anecdotal- though not particularly useful for producing a flight sim damage model.

But reading a number of pilot accounts and saying 'Lots of pilots hated the armament' is, quite literally, a type of anecdotal evidence, as it is based on anecdotes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Whats the other parts?

 

 

 

Couldn't tell you but, it makes me wonder why the P-38, P-47 and P-51 released in the state they did. 

About the only one I find believable now that it doesn't fold like an origami duck is the P-38.  The P-47 I'm on the fence about whether it's incorrect or whether most are using it wrong but, it was hell for the community to get it into the not-glass jaw DM state it currently enjoys.  The P-51 is definitely underpowered / over-dragged / improperly modelled prop - take your pick or maybe all of the above. There is no reason why flying a takeoff power should also be the only way to get the best cruise speed out of it.  It's nice to see that it's not the toughest of the 3 anymore.  But, if you ask me it flies stiffer than a Viagra overdose and more unstable than Charlie Sheen on a coke, shrooms and hookers binge at the same time. Yes, that is with adjusted fuel level.  

22 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

If someone says "Mr. Breaker told me that the hot dogs down at the drive-in are made of possum meat!', that's anecdotal evidence. Mr. Breaker might be right, but its still anecdotal. A test of the meat showing it was 50% oppossum, 32% raccoon, and 18% hairy cryptid, would not be anecdotal evidence, since it is not someone saying it, it is someone documenting it with a physical test. Or someone could do a survey for oppossums in the region of the drive in and show that oppossum populations have declines sharply since the introduction of the drive-in's new frankfurters. That would be statistical evidence of the circumstantial variety.

 

 

If Mr. Breaker told me that, I'd be hiring some thugs to rough up the guy cutting into my business. 

 

Well, anecdotal or not,  I could certainly see why some 109 aces were not happy with the change.  In a 1:1 comparison of one of the E7's 20mm cannons vs. the one of the F2's 15mm cannon, that is a loss of power of over half.  With the F2 20mm variant, it's still a loss of half the cannon power of the E7.  Add to that the need to adapt to a different aiming style for certain shooting situations.  So, yes the complaints and some pilots trying to keep on with their trusty E models could well be a simple unwillingness to adapt. 

 

Whether or not the gun was inadequate in it's solo form, you are correct.  The recorded statements of the pilots do not provide much context.  

 

I do recall reading somewhere that the German 15mm was comparable to the Russian 20mm and that the German 20mm was where the gun really started to come into a class all its own.  I doubt I can find the source but, if I do, I'll post it. 

 

Oh and...  Testing the hot dogs for possum meat, and finding it, would be proof.  Finding a declining population near the theater without testing the meat would not mean that the theater's hot dog production was responsible.  I mean, maybe the possums got a free viewing of the last Star Wars film and just haven't been able to "do their thing" (if you know what I mean) ever since.

Edited by 69th_Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm growing weary. For years and years we've had complaints about russian bias,  and this was when damage models were quite literally input by hand by the devs, based on their own interpretation of available data into numbers that suited their code.

 

When the devs take the ENORMOUS effort to construct a hands-off system that looks at the actual data of the weapons and calculates a consistent model applied to ALL WEAPONS, with the intention to drastically reduce the amount of guesswork and entirely delete the possibility of any (unintentional) bias, it's immediately "German bias" from this Russian team?

 

I realise everyone wants their .50's to knock out tanks but please look at the system for what it is, and appreciate the huge improvement it represents over individuals having to 'make up' damage numbers for every new gun. Any way you look at it it's a system much less liable to error or bias, it will speed up development and provides a much more consistent and interesting experience than anything we've had previously. Indeed, I'd argue the damage model is, as the devs love to say, the finest in any flight sim.

 

It might be worth saying thank you, wait for the next update to the DM that will fix obvious issues like the 109 tail being temporarily disabled, and then politely and without sweeping statements raise any concerns you may still have, if you can support it with evidence

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set some popcorn aside for when the 109 tail damage is unlocked, because we're gonna see a torrent of complaints I'm sure.

Share this post


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

 

Couldn't tell you but, it makes me wonder why the P-38, P-47 and P-51 released in the state they did. 

About the only one I find believable now that it doesn't fold like an origami duck is the P-38.  The P-47 I'm on the fence about whether it's incorrect or whether most are using it wrong but, it was hell for the community to get it into the not-glass jaw DM state it currently enjoys.  The P-51 is definitely underpowered / over-dragged / improperly modelled prop - take your pick or maybe all of the above. There is no reason why flying a takeoff power should also be the only way to get the best cruise speed out of it.  It's nice to see that it's not the toughest of the 3 anymore.  But, if you ask me it flies stiffer than a Viagra overdose and more unstable than Charlie Sheen on a coke, shrooms and hookers binge at the same time. Yes, that is with adjusted fuel level.  

Okay, that's your opinion. Lot's of wrong it seems but just saying things at forum doesn't help much. I know saying this annoys and feels wrong to many but if you claim something about DM, FM etc you need to back it up with something to be taken seriously by devs.

 

You think that testers are the problem, or part of it. I can tell you that there are many nationalities among testers. You could not name other faults in the process so thats not very helpful either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Luftschiff said:

I'm growing weary. For years and years we've had complaints about russian bias,  and this was when damage models were quite literally input by hand by the devs, based on their own interpretation of available data into numbers that suited their code.

 

When the devs take the ENORMOUS effort to construct a hands-off system that looks at the actual data of the weapons and calculates a consistent model applied to ALL WEAPONS, with the intention to drastically reduce the amount of guesswork and entirely delete the possibility of any (unintentional) bias, it's immediately "German bias" from this Russian team?

 

I realise everyone wants their .50's to knock out tanks but please look at the system for what it is, and appreciate the huge improvement it represents over individuals having to 'make up' damage numbers for every new gun. Any way you look at it it's a system much less liable to error or bias, it will speed up development and provides a much more consistent and interesting experience than anything we've had previously. Indeed, I'd argue the damage model is, as the devs love to say, the finest in any flight sim.

 

It might be worth saying thank you, wait for the next update to the DM that will fix obvious issues like the 109 tail being temporarily disabled, and then politely and without sweeping statements raise any concerns you may still have, if you can support it with evidence

109 is not only airplane with that problem, BUT its only one that got locked damage to that part, other airplanes are skiped and wait for full fix.

5-6 years it worked with that 3D bug, why was problem to wait few more weeks or months untill full fix, and on top fix it also on other airplanes. How is good decision to make half fix and on top favor one airplane with problem, left others, if full fix is planed at some quick time, or full fix will come only after few more years so it was so urgent now after 5-6 years to fix only 109 with this half fix but skip others. Or testers decided that only 109 needs fix others can wait. No API ammo for P-51 so why not just use half fix and give HE that is in game to represent API untill real is made ? same thing like half fix on 109 tail only.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Birdman said:

Set some popcorn aside for when the 109 tail damage is unlocked, because we're gonna see a torrent of complaints I'm sure.

Save your popcorn. Nothing miraclous is going to happen. Don't know if you've seen the posta here explaining the issue but the rudder and elevators can be damaged as in other planes. The whole tail just won't fall off. It won't even after the 3D model fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Birdman said:

Set some popcorn aside for when the 109 tail damage is unlocked, because we're gonna see a torrent of complaints I'm sure.

 Yes with half fix you make more problems as players get used to it so then when real fix come how it will look, ah allieds complained so devs had to nerf 109, it must be that, again that rusian bias

Share this post


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

 

I realise everyone wants their .50's to knock out tanks 

 

No, I just want them to be accurate.   Strafing a truck and having it appear to be intact from the air but, still needing to be abandoned on the ground would be realistic. At least we DO have that going right. 

Wanting .50s to do anything more than explode external gas cans that might be attached to a tank or kill a crew man that's outside of his hatch is idiotic.  

 

Maybe it will be better with the 109 tail damage re-enabled.  Hitting at low six and getting shots that should blow through the pilots lower back seat armor are just not happening at the moment, so it does seem that it's not only the tail stabilizer assembly that's been disabled.  Yes, at proper range and convergence a volley .50 AP rounds could certainly PK from that angle, much less a (nonexistent in-game currently) API.    That's not to say that a kidney shot like that wouldn't have a possibility of survival but, it would be less likely than death.   

Edited by 69th_Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not sure where this "disabled tail damage" story comes from, but it's not something that has been announced by the devs. All that's been announced is that the stabilizer/rudder assembly cannot be damaged, not that the whole tail starting behind the cockpit to the end of the rudder cannot be damaged.

 

People used the disabled stabilizer/rudder assembly as an excuse (by mistake or on purpose) for videos where you could see the rounds clearly hit the underside of the tail (away from said assembly) and nothing happened. When you pointed that the rounds were not hitting the assembly, there was only silence...

 

----------------

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

 

Since we've seen videos where many cannon rounds are needed to stop an engine, we could risk the assumption that there might be a bug with the 109 tail.

Edited by Raven109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Not sure where this "disabled tail damage" story comes from, but it's not something that has been announced by the devs. All that's been announced is that the stabilizer/rudder assembly cannot be damaged, not that the whole tail starting behind the cockpit to the end of the rudder cannot be damaged.

 

People used the disabled stabilizer/rudder assembly as an excuse (by mistake or on purpose) for videos where you could see the rounds clearly hit the underside of the tail (away from said assembly) and nothing happened. When you pointed that the rounds were not hitting the assembly, there was only silence...

 

----------------

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

 

Since we've seen videos where many cannon rounds are needed to stop an engine, we could risk the assumption that there might be a bug with the 109 tail.

From the your post: Damage to the rudder, elevators and horizontal stabs are still possible and the rudder and elevators can still be detached. And the left and right portions of the horizontal stab can also be lost;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, but people are talking about the rest of the tail: starting from behind the cockpit till the assembly. That is the tail section everyone is worried about. Not the rudder assembly.

 

If you look at test videos, you'll see that that part of the tail (the one I'm talking about, and most other people are) is eating up cannon rounds like a sponge.

Edited by Raven109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

 

People used the disabled stabilizer/rudder assembly as an excuse (by mistake or on purpose) for videos where you could see the rounds clearly hit the underside of the tail (away from said assembly) and nothing happened. When you pointed that the rounds were not hitting the assembly, there was only silence...

 

----------------

 

Yep, seen those videos.  Those underside tail shots - if made by armor piercing cannon or .50 AP should blow the kidneys right out of the pilot.  They do very little, which makes it seem the whole tail is immune to damage.  Behind the seat plating wasn't that thick.  Unless the radio unit was placed in line and added extra protection, there's no reason those aren't PK or short-time to bleed out shots.

 

46 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Okay, that's your opinion. Lot's of wrong it seems but just saying things at forum doesn't help much. I know saying this annoys and feels wrong to many but if you claim something about DM, FM etc you need to back it up with something to be taken seriously by devs.

 

You think that testers are the problem, or part of it. I can tell you that there are many nationalities among testers. You could not name other faults in the process so thats not very helpful either.

 

 

I guess we can go around this circle again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raven109 said:

Yes, but people are talking about the rest of the tail: starting from behind the cockpit till the assembly. That is the tail section everyone is worried about. Not the rudder assembly.

There's an explanation with a picture inside this thread. If you haven't seen it, dig it up. I can't do it right now with my phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Couldn't tell you but, it makes me wonder why the P-38, P-47 and P-51 released in the state they did. 

About the only one I find believable now that it doesn't fold like an origami duck is the P-38.  The P-47 I'm on the fence about whether it's incorrect or whether most are using it wrong but, it was hell for the community to get it into the not-glass jaw DM state it currently enjoys.  The P-51 is definitely underpowered / over-dragged / improperly modelled prop - take your pick or maybe all of the above. There is no reason why flying a takeoff power should also be the only way to get the best cruise speed out of it.  It's nice to see that it's not the toughest of the 3 anymore.  But, if you ask me it flies stiffer than a Viagra overdose and more unstable than Charlie Sheen on a coke, shrooms and hookers binge at the same time. Yes, that is with adjusted fuel level.  

 

If Mr. Breaker told me that, I'd be hiring some thugs to rough up the guy cutting into my business. 

 

Well, anecdotal or not,  I could certainly see why some 109 aces were not happy with the change.  In a 1:1 comparison of one of the E7's 20mm cannons vs. the one of the F2's 15mm cannon, that is a loss of power of over half.  With the F2 20mm variant, it's still a loss of half the cannon power of the E7.  Add to that the need to adapt to a different aiming style for certain shooting situations.  So, yes the complaints and some pilots trying to keep on with their trusty E models could well be a simple unwillingness to adapt. 

 

Whether or not the gun was inadequate in it's solo form, you are correct.  The recorded statements of the pilots do not provide much context.  

 

I do recall reading somewhere that the German 15mm was comparable to the Russian 20mm and that the German 20mm was where the gun really started to come into a class all its own.  I doubt I can find the source but, if I do, I'll post it. 

 

Oh and...  Testing the hot dogs for possum meat, and finding it, would be proof.  Finding a declining population near the theater without testing the meat would not mean that the theater's hot dog production was responsible.  I mean, maybe the possums got a free viewing of the last Star Wars film and just haven't been able to "do their thing" (if you know what I mean) ever since.

I've been flying the P-47 in 90% plus sorties since it launched about a  year ago. I flew it even when people thought it was useless and fragile, and it was overly fragile, but it was also clear that people were seriously expecting way too much from a conventionally built airplane.

The DM for the P-47, engine and airframe, is absolutely night and day from before the patch. Often even the heavily armed late war fighters have to have multiple passes on me to bring me down. I have dragged two or three K-4s across the map for a several minutes, with both making repeated attacks on my plane - we are talking multiple Mk. 108 hits and still flying. I can nurse the engine for long periods of time, with oil coating the windshield, whereas before the engine would pack up very quickly. The pilot is the most vulnerable part of the plane, often I am PK'd on the second or third attack run by a cannon round in the cockpit, but the plane itself would still fly.

The problem is that online players are just as bloodthirsty as the terminator AI and will chase you forever until you die. So surviving lots of hits doesn't help much when they can just hit you again.

The new DM has been very kind to the Jug, there is no question in my mind. This is my anecdotal evidence but if we are talking about pilot impressions of aircraft, I would say that the P-47 now matches up to its reputation in terms of ability to absorb punishment. It would be very difficult to argue that it should be any stronger than it currently is.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

 

 

 

I guess we can go around this circle again.  

Go around. I've seen that video. It proofs everything you claimed?

  • Upvote 2

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...