Test comparing MG151/20, ShVAK20mm and VYa23mm power and effects under current DM online (4.005b)

[Aero*Bohemio]

Hi; over the last year some guys within our squad and some other friends who usually fly VVS have been noticing that the effectivness of russian weapons had decresed compared to what we had from the beggining of this sim some years ago till late 2018/early 2019...don't recall the exact patch where this changed. Now after current patch this became more evident. So we decided to make a test now that the developers are tuning the DM of weapons in the simulator. I hope the video helps to understand what we are experiencing in Multiplayer.

Test: this comparative was made during 4 hours testing with these guns; 2 pilots, same private server. We replicated what you see in the video many times, but as it wasn't possible or useful to have a 2hrs long video we put a snip of it. We have all tracks available for the Devs if they'd like to check and see them. The following video is not listed in YT, kept private and only access is by direct link.

In the video the reference used ( http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm ) and the information of how it was done.

I hope devs find a good fix to the VVS guns issue. Thanks in advance.

*****
 

Oh, and for the people who doesn´t read the russian forum, i share a video here that they made, also russian 37mm is non effective.

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by ECV56_Chimango

[357th_KW]

I've been doing a bunch of single player testing using custom missions with the US M2 .50s and I'm finding that the Bf109 is really an outlier - it seems to take MUCH more punishment compared to other aircraft.  It would be interesting to see your tests replicated with a different target aircraft to see how the different guns fare.

[Talisman]

48 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

I've been doing a bunch of single player testing using custom missions with the US M2 .50s and I'm finding that the Bf109 is really an outlier - it seems to take MUCH more punishment compared to other aircraft.  It would be interesting to see your tests replicated with a different target aircraft to see how the different guns fare.

 

Strange, because the Bf109 is really a very small fighter.  Very small so harder to hit, but when hits are on target on a very small aircraft like the Bf109 then the percentage of damage per hit should be much higher than for larger aircraft I would have thought.  On average, I would expect to shoot down and/or do more damage to a very small aircraft, like the Bf109, with far fewer hits on target than on a larger aircraft.

 

So, I would expect the Bf109 to take MUCH less punishment compared to larger fighters.  Perhaps my thinking is too simplistic, but I just can't get my head around such a small aircraft being able to take more punishment when all the critical components are compacted in a much smaller space.  Something seems rather odd about this Bf109 damage model.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited April 13, 2020 by 56RAF_Talisman

[CountZero]

This could be sorce of problem with titinium 109s 

 

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;

 

From my tests in SP if p-39 37 mm hit 109 in wing it was over in 1 shot, and also if it hits in turns.

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by CountZero

[Aero*Bohemio]

3 minutes ago, CountZero said:

This could be sorce of problem with titinium 109s 

 

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;

 

From my tests in SP if p-39 37 mm hit 109 in wing it was over in 1 shot, and also if it hits in turns.

 

 

1 hour ago, KW_1979 said:

I've been doing a bunch of single player testing using custom missions with the US M2 .50s and I'm finding that the Bf109 is really an outlier - it seems to take MUCH more punishment compared to other aircraft.  It would be interesting to see your tests replicated with a different target aircraft to see how the different guns fare.

I see. In my case i'm more interested on the MP performance of the sim cause that's the reason i bought the product for, i never ever use it SP other than QM for quick tests; sometimes the results from SP to MP will differ also. And this test is not about the 109 durability, the test as you can see is about the power of MG151/20 and the weaknsess of VVS guns, cause if it was about 109 durability, the Messer would resist the impact of MG151/20 but as you can see in the video it just goes out of control after the 2nd hit and also explodes or gets set on fire on 3rd hit.

 

The MG151/20 should be more powerful than the ShVAK, yes, but by a margin of approx 25/30% more; not the huge overpower we see lately in the sim.

The MG151/20 should be weaker than VYa23mm by approximately a 18%...well not only is not weaker, it actually is more powerfull. As you can see in the video posted by 72AG in the russian forum, the MG151/20 causes more damage than the M4 37mm.

This is why it gets frustrating online sometimes, when after one hit your plane becomes almost unflyable, while the 109F/G seem to laugh at VVS guns, and specially when you shoot from it's dead 6...it can be a ShVAK/UBS spounge.

Edited April 13, 2020 by ECV56_Chimango

[Talisman]

7 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

I see. In my case i'm more interested on the MP performance of the sim cause that's the reason i bought the product for, i never ever use it SP other than QM for quick tests; sometimes the results from SP to MP will differ also. And this test is not about the 109 durability, the test as you can see is about the power of MG151/20 and the weaknsess of VVS guns, cause if it was about 109 durability, the Messer would resist the impact of MG151/20 but as you can see in the video it just goes out of control after the 2nd hit and also explodes or gets set on fire on 3rd hit.

 

The MG151/20 should be more powerful than the ShVAK, yes, but by a margin of approx 25/30% more; not the huge overpower we see lately in the sim.

The MG151/20 should be weaker than VYa23mm by approximately a 18%...well not only is not weaker, it actually is more powerfull. As you can see in the video posted by 72AG in the russian forum, the MG151/20 causes more damage than the M4 37mm.

This is why it gets frustrating online sometimes, when after one hit your plane becomes almost unflyable, while the 109F/G seem to laugh at VVS guns, and specially when you shoot from it's dead 6...it can be a ShVAK/UBS spounge.

 

Yes, I too purchased this product because of the on-line MP potential of flying with and against others.  I can see that this thread is about the difference between guns and not the durability of the Bf109, so I am sorry if I have distracted from that.  Thank you to the OP for your investigation and video work.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited April 13, 2020 by 56RAF_Talisman

[LuftManu]

Seems useful, thanks!  

 

Have you tried it in SP? are there some differences?

[SYN_Haashashin]

Just now, LF_Gallahad said:

Seems useful, thanks!  

 

Have you tried it in SP? are there some differences?

Not useful until tested in SP, its well known around the community by now. MP have several external factors that render any DM, FM test or any ammo effect unusefull (delay times been one) for the most part.

 

Haash

[LuftManu]

3 minutes ago, SYN_Haashashin said:

Not useful until tested in SP, its well known around the community by now. MP have several external factors that render any DM, FM test or any ammo effect unusefull (delay times been one) for the most part.

 

Haash

Totally agree. Tracks from SP would be more useful if he has them.

Edited April 13, 2020 by LF_Gallahad

[CountZero]

Example of how it behaves in SP and when hits are at angle:

 

This is what i expirianced when testing in SP P-39, if hits are at angle its quickly over for AI 109s

[Aero*Bohemio]

29 minutes ago, SYN_Haashashin said:

Not useful until tested in SP, its well known around the community by now. MP have several external factors that render any DM, FM test or any ammo effect unusefull (delay times been one) for the most part.

 

Haash

Are you saying that what we experience online is not useful? How? Could you elaborate? No not rendering issue here, the hits i saw were confirmed by the pilot recieving them.

If the problem is netcode, i hope it also gets fixed ASAP, it's game breaking. But IMO this is not the issue here; two virtual pilots, our own private dedicated server, no load stress as it was just 2 spawn AF with no objects. I repeat we confirmed in TS every hit i saw he copnfirmed he received it.

Also, the online MP community is huge, what should we do then, go offline to have an expected experience? I bought this sim and invested money and time for it's MP, i want to have that experience and not SP. Why should i care that SP works well when online it's obvious it's faulty? The video clearly shows the sim is not behaving properly. 

And the most important fact:   if it is netcode or similar related, my question is: why it only affects the VVS guns performance while the 151/20 behave like hand granades?

*

Edited April 13, 2020 by ECV56_Chimango

[216th_Jordan]

5 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Are you saying that what we experience online is not useful? How? Could you elaborate? No no rendering issue here, the hits i saw were confirmed by the pilot recieving them.

 

 

It's about isolating the cause. So if you can replicate the tests in SP and different results arise, then you can compare the results and get to more valuable conclusions.

[SYN_Haashashin]

4 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

And the most important fact:   if it is netcode or similar related, my question is: why it only affects the VVS guns performance while the 151/20 behave like hand granades?

 

Just now, 216th_Jordan said:

It's about isolating the cause. So if you can replicate the tests in SP and different results arise, then you can compare the results and get to more valuable conclusions.

 

Couldnt say it better, thanks Jordan

 

Haash

[Aero*Bohemio]

Gentelmen, let's please don't turn things around. I didn't buy this game to become a profesional tester. I spent two full days and a lot of hours gathering data, making tracks and editing instead of enjoying this product; i won't spend more time with this; i'm not the brands tester like many are here, i don't work for the company neither. You do the testing required to fix this. I already did my part.

If after the SP tests there is a discrepancy in gun performance between SP and MP, this is serious! Please fix it. 

 

And don't take this as lack of appreciation please, i really admire all the effort you guys put into this great sim, and how fast you work to solve things. That's why i want to enjoy it, but tickling 109s with ShVAks while i have to pray i don´t get hit by a single hand granade from their MG151/20s, is not really fun, not that much inmersive...quite an arcadish experience really.

[666GIAP_Miji]

46 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

 

It's about isolating the cause. So if you can replicate the tests in SP and different results arise, then you can compare the results and get to more valuable conclusions.

 

Sorry but i can't agree whit you, if this program has only SP, i never buy it, simple .....

 

Year 2020 no Multiplayer,  no future,

 

BTW all we know, about netcode problems and so on.

Edited April 13, 2020 by 666GIAP_Miji

[HR_Tofolo]

 

1 minute ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

... I spent two full days and a lot of hours gathering data, making tracks and editing ....

 

This is the key. It's a reproduceable issue, so that this means that it's not something that happened once during a sortie and by fortune he recorded it. 

 

If you read the text from the first seconds of the video it clearly states that it's a controlled environment (i.e. no unnecessary objects, nothing else than tow aircraft in a private server with a known internet speed and a dedicated server that has been tested throughout these last years with other missions).

 

If this does replicate in SP (which BTW it does) then it's very likely a DM problem. If this replicates also on a MP, it's still a DM problem. But if it wouldn't replicate in a MP environment then the problem is the MP feature itself and then needs to be adressed. 

 

I don't see why a respectful video has to be disregarded in that manner just because it's a MP test. And we will continue to do serious tests instead of the usual toxic writing of the "I feel", or "I once read". These are proofs of something that is happening at the moment, not attacks to the devs or to some part of the comunity. Feedback of a product and nothing else. 

 

Perhaps Chima you should send it directly to the devs via PM to make it easier for them, but anyways thank you and your test partners for taking the time to reveal this flaws.     

[Roland_HUNter]

2 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

The MG151/20 should be weaker than VYa23mm by approximately a 18%...well not only is not weaker, it actually is more powerfull.

Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23

Had 12-15 gramm of HE with thicker wall, while the MG-151/20 Minengeschoss had 18-20 g of HE and thinner wall+delayed fuse which means its penetrated the plane and exploded inside, not on the surface. Minengeschoss was stronger in real life.

But I agree, something is not okey with the P-39 37mm.

I like the video, the video make forgot to mention:
-half of the Shvak and half of the VYa-23 hit was AP, what is just going through the plane and do no damage if the armor plate stop it or not hit a internal component.

-Shvak HE is 3 times weaker than the MG-151.( we talking about real life)
-Next time please test the Shvak with LA-5FN only HE belt. You ll shot down the 109 with 4-12 hit. What is almost 100% realistic if we compare it to the real life reports.

Gentlemen, you should do some military resarch before you start to compare things. I'm begging you.
And the most important:Be objective.

Edited April 13, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[SYN_Haashashin]

Just now, HR_Tofolo said:

If this does replicate in SP (which BTW it does)

Are you sure about that that?? (Posted previuosly by Countzero) 

 

 

[HR_Tumu]

Thank you chima.

 

Very usefull test, no matter if is MP ...  your test is about power of ammo.... any posible "desviation" caused for MP is perfectly apply in all ammo you  tested... then , from stadistic point of view yours results are ok.

 

From my point of view, is more unusefull simply say is a MP issue.

 

Again thx chima.

 

****

 

Decir que el MP falsea los resultados y estos deben descartarse si no se reproducen en SP , no tiene sentido.

 

 El  error causado por MP sera exactamente igual para todas las municiones testeadas, y aun asi obtienes igual un patron.... quiero decir, podras corregir como quieras todos los resultados, que el patron se conserva.  .

 

SI el test esta mal y en vez de 5 impactos de HE minnesgloh , diste 6 o 7 y no los conto.... igual entonces cuando hiciste el test con el shvak y diste 12 , seguramente diste 14 o 15 y no los conto. Esto es para todos los test,  en todas las municiones, en  todos los casos   

 

Asi que los resultados para mi, muestran una Minnesglosh que parece ser como el doble o triple de potente que la shavak , cuando deberia ser aproximadamente un 50 % mejor. Y esto se mantendria igual, por muy mal que funcionase el MP,  porque el error seria para todas las munciones.

 

Gracias chima.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HerrBree]

32 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23

Had 12-15 gramm of HE with thicker wall, while the MG-151/20 Minengeschoss had 18-20 g of HE and thinner wall+delayed fuse which means its penetrated the plane and exploded inside, not on the surface. Minengeschoss was stronger in real life.

But I agree, something is not okey with the P-39 37mm.

I like the video, the video make forgot to mention:
-half of the Shvak and half of the VYa-23 hit was AP, what is just going through the plane and do no damage if the armor plate stop it or not hit a internal component.

-Shvak HE is 3 times weaker than the MG-151.( we talking about real life)
-Next time please test the Shvak with LA-5FN only HE belt. You ll shot down the 109 with 4-12 hit. What is almost 100% realistic if we compare it to the real life reports.

Gentlemen, you should do some military resarch before you start to compare things. I'm begging you.
And the most important:Be objective.

Thank you I was literally coming here to post exactly this. Russian rounds especially the Shvak had significantly less explosive power than the mg151.

That being said I managed to one shot two Hs129s yesterday with the P39, and then missed a FW190 28 times, but it seemed ok

[HR_Tofolo]

32 minutes ago, SYN_Haashashin said:

Are you sure about that that?? (Posted previuosly by Countzero) 

 

Let's say it the other way around:

BEFORE 4.005 (Old DM) you didn't need +10 shvak hits to shoot down an enemy planein MP.

AFTER 4.005 (New DM - no Netcode changes stated from the dev team) +10 shvaks are required to bring the 109 down in the same MP environment.

 

What has changed here?

[SYN_Haashashin]

Just now, HR_Tofolo said:

Let's say it the other way around:

BEFORE 4.005 (Old DM) you didn't need +10 shvak hits to shoot down an enemy planein MP.

AFTER 4.005 (New DM - no Netcode changes stated from the dev team) +10 shvaks are required to bring the 109 down in the same MP environment.

 

What has changed here?

The airframe DM has changed and the way hit and their effects are calculated too, thats a big change. Lets be clear, all changes done before to this sim due to people reporting stuff (FM, DM or ammo related issues) has been done using SP tests as base. Any Beta tester can tell you that. SP is the only real controled enviroment with no external input to test all DM and FM relates issues, and its not me who is telling you this, the team have told us several times past 8 years.

 

And that 10+ shvaks shoots...were all placed at the same place during before and after tests? As you can see in the video, if you place them well..109s are down to pieces with the new DM.

 

Haash

[HR_Tumu]

About this video of lagg shoting 37mmm

 

This 37 mm are hitting perpendiculary whit high speed ... i can imagine better shot...

The best is at the end... when 37mm have to shot a enemy maneuvering from six... 

then are needed 3 hits.. practically one more than its needed using HP minnesglosh

 

Again , for me , something is wrong in ammo power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aero*Bohemio]

40 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23

Had 12-15 gramm of HE with thicker wall, while the MG-151/20 Minengeschoss had 18-20 g of HE and thinner wall+delayed fuse which means its penetrated the plane and exploded inside, not on the surface. Minengeschoss was stronger in real life.

Where do you get your data from? This is totally wrong. VYa23mm is MUCH stronger than MG151/20. The problem with your assumtions is that the only important thing you take into account is the ammount of explosive; but say nothing about cartridge weight, size, muzzle speed, etc. The destructivness of a round is a combo of all of it. Check this table from here=> http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

* So as you can see, the damage VYa (23x152B) can do and it's destructive power is larger by a good margin than the (20x82HE-M)

* Also check results for ShVAK, under no rational statement the MG151/20 HE is 3x times better; in the most optimistic scenario es twice as good. That would mean that if it takes 2 hits to the wing to kill a 109F with a 151/20, it should take 4 hits by ShVAK...guess what, it takes 8. Also to the main structure, after 16x20mm ShVAK hits the 109F kept flying, but after 2/3 hits by granade LW 20mm the 109 set on fire or exploded...that is 8x times stronger. 

Please let's be objective. We all want to have a good time, not only the 109/FW riders with their 151/20 panzerfausts.

 

[Roland_HUNter]

5 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

About this video of lagg shoting 37mmm

 

This 37 mm are hitting perpendiculary whit high speed ... i can imagine better shot...

The best is at the end... when 37mm have to shot a enemy maneuvering from six... 

then are needed 3 hits.. practically one more than its needed using HP minnesglosh

 

Again , for me , something is wrong in ammo power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still its not wrong. The devs told us, and told to everybody here:

Now its hard to break in a  half for the all the planes hull.

[Aero*Bohemio]

13 minutes ago, SYN_Haashashin said:

And that 10+ shvaks shoots...were all placed at the same place during before and after tests? As you can see in the video, if you place them well..109s are down to pieces with the new DM.

 

Haash

Please check your information before posting or this topic can be derailed with confusing information. The video you posted is not from ShVAK 20mm, but from 37mm set on Lagg3, shot in high angles.

Thank you!

[HR_Tofolo]

12 minutes ago, SYN_Haashashin said:

The airframe DM has changed and the way hit and their effects are calculated too, thats a big change.

 

Well, that's the definition of the DM. So we agree here that the change comes from the DM. 

2 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Still its not wrong. The devs told us, and told to everybody here:

Now its hard to break in a  half for the all the planes hull.

 

It's not wrong that a more powerful weapon needs more hits than a less one to shoot down an enemy plane? Nobody here is talking about breaking planes in half!!

[Roland_HUNter]

8 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Where do you get your data from? This is totally wrong. VYa23mm is MUCH stronger than MG151/20. The problem with your assumtions is that the only important thing you take into account is the ammount of explosive; but say nothing about cartridge weight, size, muzzle speed, etc. The destructivness of a round is a combo of all of it. Check this table from here=> http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

* So as you can see, the damage VYa (23x152B) can do and it's destructive power is larger by a good margin than the (20x82HE-M)

* Also check results for ShVAK, under no rational statement the MG151/20 HE is 3x times better; in the most optimistic scenario es twice as good. That would mean that if it takes 2 hits to the wing to kill a 109F with a 151/20, it should take 4 hits by ShVAK...guess what, it takes 8. Also to the main structure, after 16x20mm ShVAK hits the 109F kept flying, but after 2/3 hits by granade LW 20mm the 109 set on fire or exploded...that is 8x times stronger. 

Please let's be objective. We all want to have a good time, not only the 109/FW riders with their 151/20 panzerfausts.

 

"The 'DAMAGE' column shows the results of the calculations described above. To run through an example, let us look at the case of the 7.7x56R (.303") incendiary. The projectile (a "De Wilde") weighs 9.8 g, (which equals 0.0098 kg) and was fired at 747 m/s. Multiplying these gives 747 x 0.0098 = 7.3206, so you have a momentum factor of 7.32. As the bullet contains 5% by weight of incendiary material, the momentum is multiplied by 1.5 to give a destructive power score of 10.98 - rounded to 11."

Nice own made theoretical calcualtion, but the developers are using REAL reports, when the military researchers were shot planes into a cheesees.

Btw:
based on this theoretical table:
Mg-151 HE(M) power:236
VYa (23x152B)power:300
!!!!in theory!!! 25% stronger. But still it had less fragments and less HE power so...still in theory.

3 minutes ago, HR_Tofolo said:

 

Well, that's the definition of the DM. So we agree here that the change comes from the DM. 

 

It's not wrong that a more powerful weapon needs more hits than a less one to shoot down an enemy plane? Nobody here is talking about breaking planes in half!!

American military research report said P-47 COULD SURVIVE 10 MK-108 hit.
As I said and now I finished: Start research before start write  comment based what you think, not what was in real life.

Edited April 13, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Guys a few things to consider:

The new DM is based on a new modelling of ammo that takes into account several factors accross all ammo types: explosive weight, fragmentation, projectile weight, speed. The difference between the rounds is how the model fits for each one of them, for what the devs told us in testing you can't make one type stronger relative to the others, for example if you increase the damage of 20mm ShVAK you will increase the damage of all explosive types, so 20mm MG 151/20 would be more powerful too.

There is difference in the belts of the different guns: the nose MG 151/20 has 1/3 AP and 2/3 HE. The ShVAK is 2/3 AP and 1/3 HE, so not only the MG 151/20 has a more powerful HE round but also much more of them are hitting the target with a similar burst of each gun, twice as much for the same number of total rounds hit. AP now deals a different type of damage than before in this new DM. The VYa-23 has 1/2 AP and 1/2 HE.

There are different types of damage in this new DM:

Structural damage: affects structural elements like spars and ribs, and it contributes to have parts of the airframe break off, like wings, tails etc. Similar to the ammo all planes structure was reworked taking into account their construction (number of spars, ribs, materials, etc).

Aerodynamic damage: drag and loss of lift penalties because of having holes in the skin, it's what causes the planes to go down because of lack of control, spinning, etc. In this regard the German cannons deal the most aero damage since the mine shells create big holes in the aircraft skins, wooden planes being the most affected in this regard.

Fire chance: Affects both engines and fuel tanks,

The mineshells do lots of skin damage with some significant fire chance thanks to their big load of explosives, the other 20mm cannons such as the Hispano and Shvak do much less of this type of damage but they have more fragmentation, which can damage other components like structural elements, fuel tanks, pilot, etc.

The AP rounds won't do much unless they are spammed in pretty big quantities like in the case of having multiple .50 cals. With little aerodynamic damage because of being small holes, structural damage only if hit spars in some quantity (kinda hard to hit) and most of their damage is either to systems like engine, radiators /pilot and fire probability.

With a single cannon firing mostly AP rounds the best is to aim for the cockpit / fuel tank areas to cause pilot kills or fuel fires, though currently without API modelling it might not be as effective as it perhaps should be for lesser quantities of 20mm API hits.

It is also affected by the server state, like we have seen with the Russian video in the 72AG training server, Bf 109 tanking 4 hits of 37mm while in SP it doesn't need more than 2 hits in most cases. Also I have posted in the update thread about it in the same server with the 30mm (IL-2 tanking a Me 262 burst but in SP with a G-6 it goes down easily).

The new DM has been in testing for 2 months and there was plenty of feedback back and forth between the devs and the testers, the update was even delayed to tweak a couple things based on tester feedback. And both devs and testers have worked pretty hard on this update, I have probably shot down well over 150 aircraft in testing with different ammo types and reporting my findings to the devs.

It may not be perfect and maybe there have been some bugs that slipped through or got generated in this public version but most of it should be working as intended and how the devs research determined it. Also some of the fragmentation modelling was done thanks to the developers of the Tank Crew expansion that found documents on real research done on tank shells.

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Roland_HUNter]

9 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Please let's be objective. We all want to have a good time, not only the 109/FW riders with their 151/20 panzerfausts.

Its not objective. Its about "balance" and balance is not an option in simulator games.

[Aero*Bohemio]

1 minute ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Btw:
based on this theoretical table:
Mg-151 HE(M) power:236
VYa (23x152B)power:300
!!!!in theory!!! 25% stronger. But still it had less fragments and less HE power so...still in theory.

 

Now tell me with a straight face, after watching the video and checking the data that it is ok to score 2x 151/20mm hits on a 109 and set it on fire or blow it away, while it can take up to 15 VYa23mm to get the same result. I start to think you defend LW priviledges after last patches at all coasts

2 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Its not objective. Its about "balance" and balance is not an option in simulator games.

 I never said anything about balance.

[Roland_HUNter]

1 minute ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

Now tell me with a straight face, after watching the video and checking the data that it is ok to score 2x 151/20mm hits on a 109 and set it on fire or blow it away, while it can take up to 15 VYa23mm to get the same result. I start to think you defend LW priviledges after last patches at all coasts

Are you really don't like to read my comments?
Half of the VYa23 was AP and I already wrote it down: Ap does nothing if its not hiting the pilot, engine etc.
And I guess -=PHX=-SuperEtendard very well described what is going on now in the game.

2 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

I start to think you defend LW priviledges after last patches at all coasts

Yes I defend it with this:
American military research report said P-47 COULD SURVIVE 10 MK-108 hit.

Stop this Bs please.

Edited April 13, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[Aero*Bohemio]

Just now, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Half of the VYa23 was AP and I already wrote it down: Ap does nothing if its not hiting the pilot, engine etc.

 

So i guess you didn´t check the video with attention. 

[HR_coli]

 

It seems to me that these two videos provide objective data, it can be seen that the German weapon is devastating, while the Soviet weapons seem to throw jelly beans

Edited April 13, 2020 by HR_coli

[Roland_HUNter]

5:44 AP hit
5:59 AP HIT
6:04 pilot missing from 109, what means 5:59 was a pilot kill.
6:12 AP HIT
6:28 AP HIT
6:41 AP HIT
6:46 AP HIT
7:01 AP HIT
7:12 AP HIT
7:40 AP Hit fuel tank on fire

I hope you realised, you did shot the fuselage with VYa23 HE,  here:

Right arrow: Right radiator+wing
Under arrow is fuselage and fuel tank, but you should not forget, the 109 had a 6 mm thick armor plate behind the fuel tank(from G-1 it was 27 mm and around all the fuel tank was 4 mm of armor EXPECT under the fuselage)-->
Where did you hit the 109 with your 109 and then the fuel tank exploded:

 

If this not convince you its very well simulated, then nothing will.

 

[LuftManu]

28 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

American military research report said P-47 COULD SURVIVE 10 MK-108 hit.

False or at least, can't find it. This is from a good report, AIRPLANE VULNERABILITY OVERALL. ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS, REPORT NO.462 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf

 

 

 

This is the kind of info, as you said Roland, would be helpful

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by LF_Gallahad

[Aero*Bohemio]

15 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

It may not be perfect and maybe there have been some bugs that slipped through or got generated in this public version but most of it should be working as intended and how the devs research determined it. Also some of the fragmentation modelling was done thanks to the developers of the Tank Crew model that found documents on real research done on tank shells.

Like the "small tiny" bug of the damage online being server dependent? Or like the pilot getting injured after a MG151/20mm round hits near the wingtip as you can see on the video?
 

[Roland_HUNter]

4 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

False or at least, can't find it. This is from a good report, AIRPLANE VULNERABILITY OVERALL. ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS, REPORT NO.462 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf

 

 

 

Can you share information about this or better, data from both Soviet 20mm and 23mm too? 

This could be helpful.

 

They not shared with me the soviet reports(I mean like a pdf) just showed me pages from it. I now searching it.

Edited April 13, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[LuftManu]

1 minute ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Yes, this means that if the aircraft is hit 10 times (and is still flying, wich is doubtful taking into account rest of data) would be a B kill 100% sure.I agree now on your statement, just a different pov.  I hope we could find more information for the rest of the guns. Oppinions aren't data. This is data.

[Roland_HUNter]

6 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Like the "small tiny" bug of the damage online being server dependent? Or like the pilot getting injured after a MG151/20mm round hits near the wingtip as you can see on the video?
 

The devs told us there is random fragmentation implemented into the game, example you hit the IL-2 wing(from six a clock above) with 30 mm and the horizontal stabilizer ll tear apart because of the fragments.