Jump to content

Game version 4.005 discussion: New airframe damage model


Han
 Share

Recommended Posts

69th_Mobile_BBQ
4 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

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

 

This one too?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

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.

Are you talking about this one? 

 

unknown.png.cd00fdc20c1f85ea7773f797e9c8b4c5.png

 

I'm talking about this (and I'm getting the feeling that many are talking about this):

 

2020_5_8__14_24_34.thumb.jpg.537138b1997b2a1264a14ea37aa7a86f.jpg

Edited by Raven109
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luftschiff
9 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

I'm talking about this (and I'm getting the feeling that many are talking about this):

 

2020_5_8__14_24_34.thumb.jpg.537138b1997b2a1264a14ea37aa7a86f.jpg

 

He's merely reiterating the stated facts. Unless the devs are lying in the dev diary/patch notes, which isn't something you should assume, that section isn't affected.

Moreover, what is it you're expecting to happen? That entire section is basically empty, just a lot of structure for bullets to lose vector and kinetic energy to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Luftschiff said:

 

He's merely reiterating the stated facts. Unless the devs are lying in the dev diary/patch notes, which isn't something you should assume, that section isn't affected.

Moreover, what is it you're expecting to happen? That entire section is basically empty, just a lot of structure for bullets to lose vector and kinetic energy to.

 

I think you may have missed my point. No one is saying anything about the devs (i'm not sure where this defensive stance is coming from, I see it in many topics, people defending the devs as if the devs are little children and cannot defend themselves, even if no one has said anything about the devs).

 

Back to the topic. Many people are complaining about the "body" of the tail absorbing damage. But there are others who are defending this by saying: "look, the devs already acknowledged that the tail DM is disabled". This is not correct. The tail-end assembly DM was disabled, not the tail body DM, according to the dev notes. 

 

I'm just trying to clarify the misunderstanding. Whether this misunderstanding is on purpose, or just a mistake, I cannot say. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luftschiff
6 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

 

I think you may have missed my point. No one is saying anything about the devs (i'm not sure where this defensive stance is coming from, I see it in many topics, people defending the devs as if the devs are little children and cannot defend themselves, even if no one has said anything about the devs).

 

Back to the topic. Many people are complaining about the "body" of the tail absorbing damage. But there are others who are defending this by saying: "look, the devs already acknowledged that the tail DM is disabled". This is not correct. The tail-end assembly DM was disabled, not the tail body DM, according to the dev notes. 

 

I'm just trying to clarify the misunderstanding. Whether this misunderstanding is on purpose, or just a mistake, I cannot say. 

 

 

Ah, then I did indeed misunderstand you, we're basically arguing the same point then 😄

My apologies, sir! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Luftschiff said:

 

Ah, then I did indeed misunderstand you, we're basically arguing the same point then 😄

My apologies, sir! 

 

No worries. Yes, we might be talking about the same point, but from different perspectives. I was just trying to point out the misunderstanding, and how I think that it might be the reason why the "109 is invincible" discussion seems to be going on forever.

 

Since you asked, and I admit that this is a hairy topic and I avoided it on purpose (since I don't have any hard proof), I would expect to see some kind of damage when the tail "body" is hit. I have seen fuel leaks in some of the test videos, but rarely fuel fire. Part of the fuel tank is in the tail body. I would expect control lines to be broken, or at least the mounts which hold the control lines. I would also expect structural damage which might be fatal under increased G.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
Just now, Raven109 said:

 

No worries. Yes, we might be talking about the same point, but from different perspectives. I was just trying to point out the misunderstanding, and how I think that it might be the reason why the "109 is invincible" discussion seems to be going on forever.

 

Since you asked, and I admit that this is a hairy topic and I avoided it on purpose (since I don't have any hard proof), I would expect to see some kind of damage when the tail "body" is hit. I have seen fuel leaks in some of the test videos, but rarely fuel fire. Part of the fuel tank is in the tail body. I would expect control lines to be broken, or at least the mounts which hold the control lines. I would also expect structural damage which might be fatal under increased G.

 

 

Unfortunately the only solution is to obtain hard proof. I would personally expect structural damage and fire to be relatively rare in that area without incendiary or high explosive ammo. Fuel leaks are the most likely thing. I am not even sure if cable connections like this are modeled as going through the tail.  

My biggest concern with hits in that area with HMG from low six or dead six would be, is the bullet penetrating enough to hit the pilot, engine or other systems. I know this penetration works on another aircraft (Ju-87) from some more concentrated testing - shots directly into the tail  from low to dead six resulted in smoke and fire from the engine on one plane and a pilot kill on another plane, so penetration of this type is modeled generally. Its much harder to test this on AI because the 109 will turn hard enough to only present a deflection shot. I have killed a couple 109s from dead six since the patch but I can't be sure what caused the kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ

I also never said that the full tail was disabled, only that it seems that way on shots from low 6 that would almost certainly make it though the pilot's seat plate and into his lower back.  

 

I'm also not disputing that the German guns were that good and that they were "if you want to live, don't get hit" weapons.   I am disputing that the idea that the .50s weren't is wrong.

Granted, there are more scenarios where being hit by .50s would not be instant death, but the damage rendering the target unable to fight would probably be a lot higher than not. 

 

I'm even willing to bet that there were a lot more shared kills from American pilots doing leader/wingman hit-hit-run attacks vs. solo kills than there were German shared vs. solo.  That is to say the Germans probably were able to report more solo kills than shared leader/wingman follow-up attacks.  Still, that doesn't negate the .50 as being a weapon that couldn't do the job solo more than adequately. 

 

The German cannons should be even more effective in combination with AP machine gun rounds than without too.  I would imagine that the AP machine gun rounds would break the skin allowing the cannon shell to penetrant farther into the plane before exploding.  The machine gun rounds would be the battering ram. The cannon shell would be the SWAT team storming through the door.  

 

I'm fine with all of that.  I want accuracy in modelling for both sides.  

Edited by 69th_Mobile_BBQ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Unfortunately the only solution is to obtain hard proof. I would personally expect structural damage and fire to be relatively rare in that area without incendiary or high explosive ammo. Fuel leaks are the most likely thing. I am not even sure if cable connections like this are modeled as going through the tail.  

My biggest concern with hits in that area with HMG from low six or dead six would be, is the bullet penetrating enough to hit the pilot, engine or other systems. I know this penetration works on another aircraft (Ju-87) from some more concentrated testing - shots directly into the tail  from low to dead six resulted in smoke and fire from the engine on one plane and a pilot kill on another plane, so penetration of this type is modeled generally. Its much harder to test this on AI because the 109 will turn hard enough to only present a deflection shot. I have killed a couple 109s from dead six since the patch but I can't be sure what caused the kill.

 

Well, yes, hard proof would be best, I agree (the devs don't have it either - hard proof - if we want to go that far), but none of us have 109s, and even if we had, it would be heartbreaking to shoot their tails off with cannons, just to make a point. Even if we had the most detailed evidence about what happens when a 109s tail is hit by explosive shells, we still would be limited in our simulation by the usual factors - computing power, development time, price, etc - and we still wouldn't get something ultra realistic, so much so that one should perhaps question if such detailed research is really necessary for a game.

 

Anyway, I'm not comparing the plane with real life, and neither are most of the guys who are complaining about its durability (i doubt many people here, myself included, really know the details of what happened when a 109 got shot). Most people are complaining about its durability when compared to other DMs in-game. If the 109s tail was really more durable than other aircraft, then there must be a reason for that (I think it's a bug).

 

I think you can get the AI to fly straight by using the ME to change the waypoint types. There are a few videos posted lately where people shoot the 109 from behind without it dodging.

Edited by Raven109
Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ
2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:


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.

 

I agree that the new DM has made the P-47 a worthy battle wagon.  

When I said I was on the fence, it's not because of that.   

Some people have described the engine as still underpowered but, I've tried a few different ways to operate it, and have come up with some better than expected results. The extra bit of management that goes with the turbo and such makes me believe that mis-operation in the main culprit for underperformance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
4 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

 

Well, yes, hard proof would be best, I agree (the devs don't have it either - hard proof - if we want to go that far), but none of us have 109s, and even if we had, it would be heartbreaking to shoot their tails off with cannons, just to make a point. Even if we had the most detailed evidence about what happens when a 109s tail is hit by explosive shells, we still would be limited in our simulation by the usual factors - computing power, development time, price, etc - and we still wouldn't get something ultra realistic, so much so that one should perhaps question if such detailed research is really necessary for a game.

 

Anyway, I'm not comparing the plane with real life, and neither are most of the guys who are complaining about its durability (i doubt many people here, myself included, really know the details of what happened when a 109 got shot). Most people are complaining about its durability when compared to other DMs in-game. If the 109s tail was really more durable than other aircraft, then there must be a reason for that (I think it's a bug).

 

I think you can get the AI to fly straight by using the ME to change the waypoint types. There are a few videos posted lately where people shoot the 109 from behind without it dodging.

By hard proof I meant a controlled test in-game that the fuselage/ tail is not taking damage, or taking inappropiate amounts of damage. People are saying that the tails are more durable than they should be, so we need tests showing how many hits and where. A perfectly controlled test is probably impossible but you could probably eliminate many possible sources of error.

Capture the information, send it to the devs. They built the DM, they will be able to say if its working as intended or modeled or not. So if the bullets just go through the tail section, and the devs say "Yes, this is correct, we do not have anything important modeled there and fuel leaks are all you get, 109 tail is very strong as intended" then you know. If they reproduce and go "oh, looks like there was a little bug preventing proper damage to this section" then they can fix it. The important thing is to try and capture the information as accurately as possible. Trying to guess where/how many hits in a fast moving dogfight is difficult and contains a lot more randomness.

People have managed to do DM tests before, it is of course difficult but without something that can be evaluated and reproduced, how will they know how to fix anything? The devs have an internal DM testing utility that allows them to evaluate damage many hundreds or thousands of times, so they clearly feel things are fairly correct. If there is some in-game situation or bug that is preventing proper damage to the fuselage section of the 109, then tracks and video are necessary so they can reproduce it. 

The best way would be to get on a low six of an AI 109 that does not maneuver, and make controlled bursts into the section to see what happens. Doing this online with a friend might also work but may include some netcode issues. However, I think as long as both players recorded tracks and video it may still be helpful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

By hard proof I meant a controlled test in-game that the fuselage/ tail is not taking damage, or taking inappropiate amounts of damage. People are saying that the tails are more durable than they should be, so we need tests showing how many hits and where. A perfectly controlled test is probably impossible but you could probably eliminate many possible sources of error.

Capture the information, send it to the devs. They built the DM, they will be able to say if its working as intended or modeled or not. So if the bullets just go through the tail section, and the devs say "Yes, this is correct, we do not have anything important modeled there and fuel leaks are all you get, 109 tail is very strong as intended" then you know. If they reproduce and go "oh, looks like there was a little bug preventing proper damage to this section" then they can fix it. The important thing is to try and capture the information as accurately as possible. Trying to guess where/how many hits in a fast moving dogfight is difficult and contains a lot more randomness.

People have managed to do DM tests before, it is of course difficult but without something that can be evaluated and reproduced, how will they know how to fix anything? The devs have an internal DM testing utility that allows them to evaluate damage many hundreds or thousands of times, so they clearly feel things are fairly correct. If there is some in-game situation or bug that is preventing proper damage to the fuselage section of the 109, then tracks and video are necessary so they can reproduce it. 

The best way would be to get on a low six of an AI 109 that does not maneuver, and make controlled bursts into the section to see what happens. Doing this online with a friend might also work but may include some netcode issues. However, I think as long as both players recorded tracks and video it may still be helpful. 

 

I agree wholeheartedly, posting a bug report is the best way to go. There are several videos in these forums showing controlled tests against the 109, but since they are posted in the discussion section, they get drowned in endless debates. 

 

My point when replying to this thread was just to highlight that what the devs said about the tail assembly damage being disabled cannot be used to dismiss what people say about the durability of the 109s tail - the tail is more than that tail assembly, unless the fixed part of the tail is just one large hit-box, which I doubt. 

 

Yes, since you mentioned it, I'd expect the pilot to get hit as well, I didn't consider the cockpit as being part of the tail, so I didn't say anything about the pilot before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_KW
18 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

By hard proof I meant a controlled test in-game that the fuselage/ tail is not taking damage, or taking inappropiate amounts of damage. People are saying that the tails are more durable than they should be, so we need tests showing how many hits and where. A perfectly controlled test is probably impossible but you could probably eliminate many possible sources of error.

Capture the information, send it to the devs. They built the DM, they will be able to say if its working as intended or modeled or not. So if the bullets just go through the tail section, and the devs say "Yes, this is correct, we do not have anything important modeled there and fuel leaks are all you get, 109 tail is very strong as intended" then you know. If they reproduce and go "oh, looks like there was a little bug preventing proper damage to this section" then they can fix it. The important thing is to try and capture the information as accurately as possible. Trying to guess where/how many hits in a fast moving dogfight is difficult and contains a lot more randomness.

People have managed to do DM tests before, it is of course difficult but without something that can be evaluated and reproduced, how will they know how to fix anything? The devs have an internal DM testing utility that allows them to evaluate damage many hundreds or thousands of times, so they clearly feel things are fairly correct. If there is some in-game situation or bug that is preventing proper damage to the fuselage section of the 109, then tracks and video are necessary so they can reproduce it. 

The best way would be to get on a low six of an AI 109 that does not maneuver, and make controlled bursts into the section to see what happens. Doing this online with a friend might also work but may include some netcode issues. However, I think as long as both players recorded tracks and video it may still be helpful. 

 

If only someone had done this almost a month ago.  Oh wait ....

 

Additionally see:

 

 

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

RedKestrel
16 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

 

If only someone had done this almost a month ago.  Oh wait ....

 

Additionally see:

 

 

That looks pretty good - in the second video in particular the pilot did a good job of putting rounds only into the rear fuselage or tail area.  So now you just wait for a fix or a response - we haven't seen a major patch yet. There's only been hotfixes since then for some easy to fix issues. Next patch is not too far off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_KW
10 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

That looks pretty good - in the second video in particular the pilot did a good job of putting rounds only into the rear fuselage or tail area.  So now you just wait for a fix or a response - we haven't seen a major patch yet. There's only been hotfixes since then for some easy to fix issues. Next patch is not too far off.

 

Sadly I'm starting to question whether one is coming at this point.  Given how big of an issue this is - the most common fighter in the game is nearly immune to a classic bounce attack - you'd think someone would be trying to get a fix out ASAP.  Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
4 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

 

Sadly I'm starting to question whether one is coming at this point.  Given how big of an issue this is - the most common fighter in the game is nearly immune to a classic bounce attack - you'd think someone would be trying to get a fix out ASAP.  Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.

I understand but we haven't even had another full patch yet. Maybe things are moving more slowly than we like but we are in the middle of a pandemic and the working environment is not normal - not sure if everyone is working from home but it seems very likely, in fact I hope it is the case for their health and wellbeing. Things in Moscow have gone seriously downhill in the past month. 

So fixing an issue requiring any kind of coordination of the team is probably a lot harder than normal. I don't know about you but in my work even with people working from home and supposedly being able to work at almost full efficiency, getting anything done across departments in a gigantic pain and everything takes twice as long or more. Maybe there is something complex going on, maybe the patch got pushed back longer than they thought and they were leaving it for the next patch along with updated DM for the rest of the tail assembly, so it was not meant to take this long. Or maybe the engineering team has other deadlines to hit and doesn't have time. Who knows? I don't think its time to panic just yet.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero
1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

I understand but we haven't even had another full patch yet. Maybe things are moving more slowly than we like but we are in the middle of a pandemic and the working environment is not normal - not sure if everyone is working from home but it seems very likely, in fact I hope it is the case for their health and wellbeing. Things in Moscow have gone seriously downhill in the past month. 

So fixing an issue requiring any kind of coordination of the team is probably a lot harder than normal. I don't know about you but in my work even with people working from home and supposedly being able to work at almost full efficiency, getting anything done across departments in a gigantic pain and everything takes twice as long or more. Maybe there is something complex going on, maybe the patch got pushed back longer than they thought and they were leaving it for the next patch along with updated DM for the rest of the tail assembly, so it was not meant to take this long. Or maybe the engineering team has other deadlines to hit and doesn't have time. Who knows? I don't think its time to panic just yet.

And stil there was time to hotfix P-51 wing, so it brakes easyer, it was as obvious as 109 that something is wrong, and there is hold up on most used airplane in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
8 minutes ago, CountZero said:

And stil there was time to hotfix P-51 wing, so it brakes easyer, it was as obvious as 109 that something is wrong, and there is hold up on most used airplane in game.

You're right, I'm sure its an eeeeevil conspiracy and not that some problems are easier to fix than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero
13 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

You're right, I'm sure its an eeeeevil conspiracy and not that some problems are easier to fix than others.

Prioritys are clearly set.

 

They can just say we found there was t-34 in 109s tails by mistake and that was making them absorb ammo from desd 6, same as sudenly they found extra spars in 51 wings and esay fix it 😄

Edited by CountZero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ

We're on 4.005d version. These videos are b and c.  Whether or not changes have been made isn't apparent - at least to me.   

 

What I see in the videos is that AP rounds are punching through while HE rounds are getting no penetration and exploding on the surface, only causing shrapnel damage to the skin.  This could have been an actual RL issue with the Russian HE rounds, though I would think that enough hitting in a similar area would "strip away" the surface and allow further penetration.  I would also think that AP rounds punching holes first to allow the HE rounds to go deeper would be a great help to the HE rounds, which is what we see in the mixed loadout shots.  I'm willing to bet that AP machine gun rounds are good help for the HE rounds too.  

 

I doubt that HE 20mm exploding on contact with the surface of the plane would be enough to punch through the armor plate behind the pilot's seat.  

 

I recently watched an interview from a Vietnam veteran infantry man recently, and he said (to paraphrase) "(he) took shrapnel from enemy mortars and other sources. Most of it was just as small as wood slivers. Sometimes you could get a buddy to pick it out of your skin with tweezers.  Whatever you couldn't get, you would just have to let the skin "fester and push it out" just like a wood sliver." 

 

Perhaps people have an idea that HE rounds are solid bullets that convert into shotgun bee bees when they hit. After hearing that man's words, I changed my mind about what an HE round that has exploded against a metal surface without actually going inside first can really do.  Yes, there should be damage where the round directly hit, and yes, there should be some decent-sized pieces of shrapnel but, without penetration, it shouldn't be all that effective.  

Edited by 69th_Mobile_BBQ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAS_Storebror
17 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

I mean, this is anecdotal evidence almost by definition. 

 

Yeah, got the message.

100% of lufties were 100% happy with anything they got.

Put my anecdotal crap aside, it's just what every book on this world tells you but hey, it's missing calculations... *sigh*.

 

I'm starting to wonder why the germans didn't win the war now that they've had such utterly superior weapons.

And why didn't they kick out the 8.8 flak in favour of the superior MG 151/20?

Just anecdotal. Don't you take it serious please.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geronimo553
57 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Yeah, got the message.

100% of lufties were 100% happy with anything they got.

Put my anecdotal crap aside, it's just what every book on this world tells you but hey, it's missing calculations... *sigh*.

 

I'm starting to wonder why the germans didn't win the war now that they've had such utterly superior weapons.

And why didn't they kick out the 8.8 flak in favour of the superior MG 151/20?

Just anecdotal. Don't you take it serious please.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

Logistics and manufacturing probably played the biggest role above all else. Neither of which the Germans could be picky and they were more tooled for the standardized items already in short supply. 

Edited by Geronimo553
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aurora_Stealth

Guys, please don't keep whipping up antagonism - that might well be one of the reasons the Dev's have been ignoring this type of feedback in the first place... it tends to end up with threads being locked.

 

Anyway, thanks to everyone who has posted the videos including the earlier posted ones... they are useful.

 

Seems pretty conclusive that the rear fuselage of the '109 is a key issue from the videos KW_1979 posted. It was in reality engineered using a series of overlapping sections that slotted into each other. This helped to transfer the loads quite well and gave surprising strength - but it clearly should not be able to take so many, repeated direct hits like that.

 

That may require an investigation, but please don't forget the Dev. engineering team are knee deep in addressing the Flying Circus wing issues so please be patient.

 

There seemed to be two clear issues presented with the earlier video by @=ILS=_AirC0mbatN00b_34.

 

First, regarding the tail section (not the fuselage) - you may find that once the DM for the Bf 109 tail stabilisers is addressed in the update that it will affect the aircraft's stability and control like with that of the La-5 in the video. This causing a similar induced stall from a direct hit by an explosive shell. The Bf 109 does have a very high lift coefficient and some of the most benign stall characteristics so I'd expect it to be easier to recover - so don't expect it to end in a flat spin like that but right now it doesn't seem affected as seriously as it should.

 

Secondly, the P-51 does seem to have a pattern where it loses control and tips over easily, which seems very exaggerated. It shouldn't be so sensitive, I'd expect some drop in height and a nose down attitude (stalling) especially with approximated laminar flow surfaces and a high stall speed - this would be a hard recovery.

 

Regards to the Bf 109 - let the tail section be actioned by the team in the next update then assess whether that issue still stands. By the way, the change to the tail stabilisers might actually cause a cumulative effect on the loading of the fuselage. If the tail is badly shaken and loads are transmitted this could have a knock-on effect down the rear part of the fuselage. I could be wrong, but its possible as these are interconnected parts of the airframe.

 

14 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

We're on 4.005d version. These videos are b and c.  Whether or not changes have been made isn't apparent - at least to me.   

 

What I see in the videos is that AP rounds are punching through while HE rounds are getting no penetration and exploding on the surface, only causing shrapnel damage to the skin.  This could have been an actual RL issue with the Russian HE rounds, though I would think that enough hitting in a similar area would "strip away" the surface and allow further penetration.  I would also think that AP rounds punching holes first to allow the HE rounds to go deeper would be a great help to the HE rounds, which is what we see in the mixed loadout shots.  I'm willing to bet that AP machine gun rounds are good help for the HE rounds too.  

 

I doubt that HE 20mm exploding on contact with the surface of the plane would be enough to punch through the armor plate behind the pilot's seat.  

 

I recently watched an interview from a Vietnam veteran infantry man recently, and he said (to paraphrase) "(he) took shrapnel from enemy mortars and other sources. Most of it was just as small as wood slivers. Sometimes you could get a buddy to pick it out of your skin with tweezers.  Whatever you couldn't get, you would just have to let the skin "fester and push it out" just like a wood sliver." 

 

Perhaps people have an idea that HE rounds are solid bullets that convert into shotgun bee bees when they hit. After hearing that man's words, I changed my mind about what an HE round that has exploded against a metal surface without actually going inside first can really do.  Yes, there should be damage where the round directly hit, and yes, there should be some decent-sized pieces of shrapnel but, without penetration, it shouldn't be all that effective.  

 

With regards to penetration of HE, one big variable is whether the shells use a timed delay - this will affect how deep the round explodes and proximity to the internal equipment and the pilot also. This is also not black and white as deflection angle plays a part, speed and distance when firing etc (like with calculating tank shells and their penetration but with faster changing conditions).

 

Also would say, a wound does not have to be caused by a major penetration but simply a shock wave of fragments being carried forward .. one example is fragments being thrown forward into the pilot's instrument panel and sprayed back into them.

 

Cheers,

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
9 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Yeah, got the message.

100% of lufties were 100% happy with anything they got.

Put my anecdotal crap aside, it's just what every book on this world tells you but hey, it's missing calculations... *sigh*.

 

I'm starting to wonder why the germans didn't win the war now that they've had such utterly superior weapons.

And why didn't they kick out the 8.8 flak in favour of the superior MG 151/20?

Just anecdotal. Don't you take it serious please.

 

:drinks:

Mike

The point

 

 

 

—————————->

you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ
16 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

Logistics and manufacturing probably played the biggest role above all else. Neither of which the Germans could be picky and they were more tooled for the standardized items already in short supply. 

 

Yep, the Allies most definitely were only able to win against the German Wolves by drowning them in the blood from our absolutely massive flock of sheeple. :rolleyes:  Not one bit of outsmarting them, out-teching them or out fighting them involved....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=ILS=_AirC0mbatN00b_34
13 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

There seemed to be two clear issues presented with the earlier video by @=ILS=_AirC0mbatN00b_34.

 

First, regarding the tail section (not the fuselage) - you may find that once the DM for the Bf 109 tail stabilisers is addressed in the update that it will affect the aircraft's stability and control like with that of the La-5 in the video. This causing a similar induced stall from a direct hit by an explosive shell. The Bf 109 does have a very high lift coefficient and some of the most benign stall characteristics so I'd expect it to be easier to recover - so don't expect it to end in a flat spin like that but right now it doesn't seem affected as seriously as it should.

 

Secondly, the P-51 does seem to have a pattern where it loses control and tips over easily, which seems very exaggerated. It shouldn't be so sensitive, I'd expect some drop in height and a nose down attitude (stalling) especially with approximated laminar flow surfaces and a high stall speed - this would be a hard recovery.

 

Regards to the Bf 109 - let the tail section be actioned by the team in the next update then assess whether that issue still stands. By the way, the change to the tail stabilisers might actually cause a cumulative effect on the loading of the fuselage. If the tail is badly shaken and loads are transmitted this could have a knock-on effect down the rear part of the fuselage. I could be wrong, but its possible as these are interconnected parts of the airframe.

Thank you very much indeed. Thank you for staying rational under this controversial topic,and thank you for watching my video,respecting my point of view,and gaving your thoughts to my tests' results. I believe your efforts will definitely make the discussion on the forum more rational and make the IL2 GB better and better.
Cheers,:D

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Oberst Adolf Galland criticised the light armament as inadequate for the average pilot,

 

The bolded may be the salient point, otoh 2 or more extra cannons wouldn't necessarily have helped the average pilot if he couldn't hit his target. From the Mediterranean Air War series by Shores et al, there are these two accounts that would indicate that 109F4's armament was quite effective in the right hands.

 

Jan 14 1942 a pair of II/ Jg27 pilots bounce 94 Sqd; Hptm. Gerlitz shoots down one Hurricane but then announces that he is RTB due to his engine running rough. His rottenflieger Horst Reuter decides to stay and claims 4 Hurri's. Shores attributes 6 actual victories to him, as total losses in the encounter is 7 Hurricane IIb's.

 

A month later on  Feb 15,  Oblt. Otto Schulz scrambles and shoots down 4 Kittyhawk I's; 94 Sqd had converted to P-40's since the last bashing, but they were the hard luck  squadron of the WDAF. Schulz claimed 5, and a 112 Sqd Kittyhawk was badly damaged at around the same time and area, but there was also an Italian claim for a P-40 at this time. The 112 Sqd aircraft made it back to base, but it never flew again.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./JG52_Woutwocampe

About this new damage model, one thing I noticed is that as of now, its easiser to down a Wurger than a Gustav. Im especially worried about the DB inline engine being able to withstand as much or even more damage than the BMW radial engine. 

 

Also, for how long can you remain at full throttle with coolant leaks before your engine fails? I have seen the AI fly 100kms at full throttle and successfully land with a Gustav that was leaking coolant from both radiators and leaking fuel since the beginning of the fight. It makes such leaks trivial. Is that realistic?

 

Thanks 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UrrrrhhhhhWoutwocampe said:

I have seen the AI fly 100kms at full throttle and successfully land with a Gustav that was leaking coolant from both radiators and leaking fuel since the beginning of the fight. It makes such leaks trivial. Is that realistic?

 

I've seen AI Yak do the exact same thing. I had a P-40 that I left for dead fly across the map and strafe me after I landed while streaming heavy vapor the whole time.

 

Is it realistic? I seriously doubt it if it's an actual coolant leak - a real pilot would put the plane on the ground as soon as he could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./JG52_Woutwocampe
15 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

I've seen AI Yak do the exact same thing. I had a P-40 that I left for dead fly across the map and strafe me after I landed while streaming heavy vapor the whole time.

 

Is it realistic? I seriously doubt it if it's an actual coolant leak - a real pilot would put the plane on the ground as soon as he could.

Yup, the game itself tells you to break from the fight and land asap if you leak coolant....but the AI wont do it, in fact why would it do it? Ive been outclimbed by several 109s with engines looking like swiss cheese and that for several minutes, without the 109s even slowing down. In reality most inline engines cant take much damage before quickly failing.

Edited by UrrrrhhhhhWoutwocampe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UrrrrhhhhhWoutwocampe said:

Yup, the game itself tells you to break from the fight and land asap if you leak coolant....but the AI wont do it, in fact why would it do it? Ive been outclimbed by several 109s with engines looking like swiss cheese and that for several minutes, without the 109s even slowing down. In reality most inline engines cant take much damage before quickly failing.

 

Yeah, been there and done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
22 minutes ago, UrrrrhhhhhWoutwocampe said:

About this new damage model, one thing I noticed is that as of now, its easiser to down a Wurger than a Gustav. Im especially worried about the DB inline engine being able to withstand as much or even more damage than the BMW radial engine. 

 

Also, for how long can you remain at full throttle with coolant leaks before your engine fails? I have seen the AI fly 100kms at full throttle and successfully land with a Gustav that was leaking coolant from both radiators and leaking fuel since the beginning of the fight. It makes such leaks trivial. Is that realistic?

 

Thanks 

 

 

Maybe the engine coolant is not being modeled as lost from damage? Each plane should have a finite reservoir of coolant, and once that expires the engine heat should spike very quickly. I know I have cooked off all my coolant in liquid-cooled engines in game and overheated shortly afterward.

Fuel leaks take a while to empty a full aircraft. I definitely notice my fuel levels going down when I have a leak, so it is modeled. But only severe fuel leaks are immediately a problem.

The engine damage model we have right now is something of a placeholder, since it was apparenly jarring to have the aircraft structures be more realistic while we still had 'glass engines'. So we are dealing with an interim engine model, better than the previous one but with some kinks to work out, posisbly like this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./JG52_Woutwocampe
3 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Maybe the engine coolant is not being modeled as lost from damage? Each plane should have a finite reservoir of coolant, and once that expires the engine heat should spike very quickly. I know I have cooked off all my coolant in liquid-cooled engines in game and overheated shortly afterward.

Fuel leaks take a while to empty a full aircraft. I definitely notice my fuel levels going down when I have a leak, so it is modeled. But only severe fuel leaks are immediately a problem.

The engine damage model we have right now is something of a placeholder, since it was apparenly jarring to have the aircraft structures be more realistic while we still had 'glass engines'. So we are dealing with an interim engine model, better than the previous one but with some kinks to work out, posisbly like this one.

 

That makes sense, of course its a work in progress and going in the right direction.

 

Also, are self sealing fuel tanks modeled? Seems that on every plane, leaks will never stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
11 minutes ago, UrrrrhhhhhWoutwocampe said:

 

That makes sense, of course its a work in progress and going in the right direction.

 

Also, are self sealing fuel tanks modeled? Seems that on every plane, leaks will never stop.

I'm not sure they are. If they are, they only stop leaks from very small amounts of damage.  That said I don't know how big of a hole the self sealing tanks will seal IRL, but I suspect that cannon round damage or multiple HMG shots would be too much for them to handle.

Fuel system improvements are supposed to come at some point so maybe then they will take a look at more complex modeling there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./JG52_Woutwocampe
1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

I'm not sure they are. If they are, they only stop leaks from very small amounts of damage.  That said I don't know how big of a hole the self sealing tanks will seal IRL, but I suspect that cannon round damage or multiple HMG shots would be too much for them to handle.

Fuel system improvements are supposed to come at some point so maybe then they will take a look at more complex modeling there.

 

It would take one hell of a self sealing tank to stop the leak after a succesfull mk108 burst that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuel system self sealing, etc is to come soon. From 4.005 release notes:

...

30. The calculations of a fuel tank leak probability, its size and leakage value take into account the peculiarities of the armor penetration and fragmentation effects of the munitions in detail. The fuel tanks leak protection will be taken into account later, when the next level fuel system modeling is finished;

31. The visual intensity of a fuel, oil, and coolant leaks now corresponds to the actual severity of a leak closer;

32. When calculating the probabilities of a fuel tank fire and explosion, the different AP, blast and fragments effects are taken into account as well as the amount of the fuel leaking from the tank at the moment. Inert-gas pressurization and other fire countermeasures will be taken into account later when the next level fuel system modeling is finished;

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAS_Storebror

Since people kept complaining about the 30mm guns not being as efficient as they expected, I thought I'd take a duck and give the 103 a try.

Very first encounter, shortest trigger squeeze I could apply... mind you, just anecdotal, as always.

 

 

:drinks:

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2020 at 8:19 AM, SAS_Storebror said:

Since people kept complaining about the 30mm guns not being as efficient as they expected, I thought I'd take a duck and give the 103 a try.

Very first encounter, shortest trigger squeeze I could apply... mind you, just anecdotal, as always.

 

 

:drinks:

Mike

They never been on the receiving end. 
the duck is epic by the way. I had some snipershots in the IL 2 but the 129 take the cake

  • Like 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...