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

[Aero*Bohemio]

2 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

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)-->

See, this so specific detail leads to the following:  every new patch it seems for the sake of realism only VVS planes get the worse part; for the sake of realism engine and rad management was tweaked long ago so it punished the Yak acceleration and speed; for the sake of realism the FW190A3 got all the goodies (remember?); for the sake of realism now VVS fighters can´t turn crap before their pílot go to sleep; for the sake of realism now the LW 20mm acts like a panzerfaust...it's all good, i love realism too, but it would be nice next patch and for the sake of realism the rocket climbing performance and acceleration of 109F4 gets revised; or the a6M2 Zeke wannabe turn capabilities of the BF110 gets revised...etc. 

But sorry for the OT; this will be approached later in a different report with tacview included.

 

9 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

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

Yes, just as i did with the MG151/20; and while nothing happened to the first one, the MG151/20 made the plane unflyable....with one shot. 
 

[LuftManu]

I really think @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard did a great explanation of things considered in the new DM. Providing reliable data (you can also find how to inside this very thread) will be really helpful! ?

 

Testing of these things take time (we know firsthand as we tested the beta) so please, provinding reliable info will be really, really helpful.

[Roland_HUNter]

8 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

See, this so specific detail leads to the following:  every new patch it seems for the sake of realism only VVS planes get the worse part; for the sake of realism engine and rad management was tweaked long ago so it punished the Yak acceleration and speed; for the sake of realism the FW190A3 got all the goodies (remember?); for the sake of realism now VVS fighters can´t turn crap before their pílot go to sleep; for the sake of realism now the LW 20mm acts like a panzerfaust...it's all good, i love realism too, but it would be nice next patch and for the sake of realism the rocket climbing performance and acceleration of 109F4 gets revised; or the a6M2 Zeke wannabe turn capabilities of the BF110 gets revised...etc. 

But sorry for the OT; this will be approached later in a different report with tacview included.

 

Yes, just as i did with the MG151/20; and while nothing happened to the first one, the MG151/20 made the plane unflyable....with one shot. 
 

As I told you the first time:
Before you start wrote a comment based on what you think, you should start research about history/military history.

1. Fw-190 had smaller wing, higher wingload, stronger engine--->Higher top speed, better accleration.Its basic aerodynamics.
2.High G is not good for the human. The germans know it: they built the FW-190 seat position for high G. Americans used anti-G uniform.
3.Everybody already knew it ( if you would read forum about 20mm cannons effectiveness you would know it) in 4.004 the Hispano was the strongest in the game(what is very unhistorical):

Bf-110 has a big wing area, and with 45% less fuel, all the fuel from the wing ll be pumped into the fuselage(there is a white light what is tolding you its happening) after that the 110 ll have the same wing load as a Yak and it ll be more maneouvarble because there is no weight in the wings.Í

Edited April 13, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[Aero*Bohemio]

1 minute ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Testing of these things take time (we know firsthand as we tested the beta) so please, provinding reliable info will be really, really helpful.

 

If after this video and the one posted in russian forums by 72AG you choose to look somewhere else and say "all it's fine" then any further "data" i gave to you would be helpless. The reliable info is there, it's up to you to act in denial or take it and tweak current patch.

[E69_geramos109]

I will coment what I can see from your test. 

 

Svak vs 109 You are hitting most of the shots on the water radiators and this part of the wing. There are no critical parts on this place except the water radiator wich seems to take damage with the hits. I guess would be quite big leacks there.Only couple of shots Are more weird for me are the ones that went on to the lower part of the fuselage near the oil radiator. Sells are exploding under the engine on the skin of the plane. Maybe the shells are not toching the engine but there are some hydraulic lines there that can be damaged and maybe on the next path when they are going to model that you will be able to inflict more damage there. Other than that consiering where you are hitting seems ok not to have a catastrofic failture but take in mid that this plane will be down in a few minutes due to the leaks. 

 

Mg vs 109 First hit is placed just next to the fuel tank so i guess sharpnell made some leaks, after that next explossion ignites the fuel with looks normal. I guess you can do the same placing a he shell from svack on a leak

 

Svak vs Wing. Again SVAK power is weak compared with Mg regarding the He shell because of the amount of explosive and the way the shell explodes. Most of the explosion on Svak round are out the skin with contact spolete what makes most of the presure of the shells to disipate So there you are causing some damage to the wing and when you placed couple of AP right on the spar the wing falls. Again seems ok for me.  

 

Mg vs Wing. Here you can see the magic of the minnen shells and the reason why a lot of people was complaining making this round as a normal He. The minnen not like the Svak is able to penetrate the plane skin and then make explosion inside so all the presure and the sharpnell are inside de wing not disipated outside like svak so is able with similar amount of explosive to ripp off a lot of skin and even to deform some parts on the structure that makes arodinamic failture. On small wings like yak, 109s this round was so devastating but on planes like P47 or jabos with bigguer wings the effect is not as big because you still have quite big surface to control de plane so I guess those planes are capable of eating 4 or 5 hits on the wing. Pilot injuries there seems also kind of lucky shot so I am inteserted on knowing if that is something that happens frecuently or just sometimes. If happens frecuently that a hit on the wing tip with 20mm wounds the pilot is weird for me. 

 

Ya23 vs 109 Again you are hitting all the time the lower part of the fuselage and you damage the engine, oil radiator and the fuel tank. There are no more to damage there and when the shot goes up you can kill the pilot inmediatly. On the second example with the Ya23 you do the exact same and the only weird thing for me is that the fuel did not ignite after some explosions near so I give you some credit there. Regarding the gun itself Ya23 has more explosive than the 151/20 but not by much and the true advantage are the AP rounds. Place some shell on the middle and not on the lower part and you will kill the pilot almost allways. 

 

Mg vs 109 You are shoting the same spots more or less. At first you are making similar damage like the Ya23 and the explossion comes when you place a shell right in to the fuel tank making it to explode. So there the shell is penetrating the fuel tank and after that making explosion inside detonating everything. 

 

Your table just is showing the amount of weight of explosive that each round has but the technology inside the espolete is making huge difference. Germans had normal He round and they almost left all to place the minnen as the main roudn and that was because it was much better than the normal He 

So what I can see now is that I am happy that devs added more variety to the Dm and they finally were able to reproduce the different types of ammo

 

I have to admit that the 37mm result is very weird

I recomend you to make the test on SP and you will forget about that. If there is problem on the Dm you are going to see it on the SP anyway and if not, then you know that you need to blame a problem with the Mp. I got some posts poluted with coments about the Mp as well so the best for you if you want people to hear is making the test on SP. Even if you dont want to use it but the result will be more valid and more consistent. All we now that the net code is not the best on the game and that the people like us who just want the game for the Mp are having a lot of problems online not only with Dm aspects. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by E69_geramos109

[LuftManu]

3 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

If after this video and the one posted in russian forums by 72AG you choose to look somewhere else and say "all it's fine" then any further "data" i gave to you would be helpless. The reliable info is there, it's up to you to act in denial or take it and tweak current patch.

Sorry, but I didn't say this was neither a bug or working as intended. Just trying to lend a hand here. As others have already stated several times, there are conditions to submit a good report and check things better. 

Have a good day!

[ECV56_Necathor]

Hello everybody, hope you and all your families are on good health.

Thank you Chima for this test.

I will like to put my 5 cents.

This test is really good because is made with the same parameters on all shoots:

1. shooting from the same position (pure 6)

2. Dedicated sever with only 2 persons, that means no problems with net code, lag or other things.

3. Same speed of both planes

4. Counting each shoot that hit.

5. Shoot firing from less than 150m

6. Change only the plane that fires.

7. One person on each plane in communications.

 

All these points demonstrate a big difference in the DM from German guns and VVS guns, this is a reality now, that many people test already and know.

I will like to said that don´t try to dismiss or put a lot of obstacles about this test because we are clients also that pay for this game(the complete game SP and MP)and support it for all these years and if  the MP need to be optimize we need the support of the Devs to do it.

 

Devs, thank you for your hard work, we know that anything is perfect and I´m sure that all this points will be corrected in the near future.

 

Regards,

 

[SCG_motoadve]

 

Damage model is very subjective, everyone can have their own interpretation.

The side you fly should not drive your desire for stronger guns or planes, what the developers want to achieve is realism, the sensation of being there. I think they succeeded.

The developers did an amazing job and the vast majority of the Il2 community is very impressed and like it a lot

With this new DM we need to take into account , the plane might not fall apart and go down immediately on fire or broken wing, but be very damaged and go down five or ten minutes later from its damages.

 

Now DO NOT TEST IN MP please!

Lots of testing, hundreds of hrs , couple months, and work has been put thru this DM to make it more detailed, sophisticated and realistic, which the majority of Il2 community are really enjoying, then someone goes tests for four hrs in MP and says its wrong because now its harder to shoot down the enemy with my guns. 

Then the cycle starts, grabbing data from the internet to show they are right, like if the developers don have data sources?

then the endless debate back and forth trying to convince everyone they are right.

 

Instant gratification boom, destroyed ,  go to next one = arcade, is not the sim I want to be flying.

Or I want balance because my team cannot shoot down the enemy as easy? = arcade , not the sim I want to be flying.

 

I know things cannot be perfect as released, but too much complaining luckily just by a very few people, trying to make lots of noise.

I fly reds too SP and MP, I enjoy  the challenge , the realism and think the developers did an amazing job with this new DM

Also remember the tail of the 109 needs to be fixed.

Might not be perfect on the first update but for such a big update its very close to perfect.

[Aero*Bohemio]

1 hour ago, SCG_motoadve said:

 

Damage model is very subjective, everyone can have their own interpretation.

There are quite some charts and data, is not "very" subjective...it's ammo data, not filosophy. If a small fighter plane like a 109F4 gets hit by 14x 23mm huge VYa rounds,  it doesn´t matter if it's cartridge has no explosive at all and it's loaded with dozens of mini Spongebob and you hit the 109 in the radio antena...it has to go down. Period. Specially if by contrary same plane goes down after just 2, read well: just 2 hits of german 20mm. 

Any other claim is biased and blinded. VYa23mm...let's make sure people knows what we are talking about:

 
 

1 hour ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Now DO NOT TEST IN MP please!

 

Then if MP is really so untrusty (i don't think so)  admit MP is broken publicly, so you let people who just wants to use it online decide if they purchase this product or not.
 

1 hour ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

Hello everybody, hope you and all your families are on good health.

Thank you Chima for this test.

I will like to put my 5 cents.

This test is really good because is made with the same parameters on all shoots:

1. shooting from the same position (pure 6)

2. Dedicated sever with only 2 persons, that means no problems with net code, lag or other things.

3. Same speed of both planes

4. Counting each shoot that hit.

5. Shoot firing from less than 150m

6. Change only the plane that fires.

7. One person on each plane in communications.

 

All these points demonstrate a big difference in the DM from German guns and VVS guns, this is a reality now, that many people test already and know.

I will like to said that don´t try to dismiss or put a lot of obstacles about this test because we are clients also that pay for this game(the complete game SP and MP)and support it for all these years and if  the MP need to be optimize we need the support of the Devs to do it.

 

Devs, thank you for your hard work, we know that anything is perfect and I´m sure that all this points will be corrected in the near future.

 

Regards,

 

 

+1000

 

PS. how many members of the testers team fly MP daily at least 2 hours? 

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by ECV56_Chimango

[HerrBree]

7 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

just 2 hits of german 20mm. 

You keep quoting this as if your single test where a bf109 got shot down in 2 hits is gospel. I just finished a QMB where it took me 8 hits from a 151 to bring down a yak 1.  Yesterday I had to take 3 passes at a lagg to take it down where I hit with easily 10+ he rounds from an mg151. You aren't proving anything other than you think the game should be changed based off your opinion.

[HR_Tofolo]

 

47 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

 

Damage model is very subjective, everyone can have their own interpretation.

The side you fly should not drive your desire for stronger guns or planes, what the developers want to achieve is realism, the sensation of being there. I think they succeeded.

The developers did an amazing job and the vast majority of the Il2 community is very impressed and like it a lot

With this new DM we need to take into account , the plane might not fall apart and go down immediately on fire or broken wing, but be very damaged and go down five or ten minutes later from its damages.

 

Now DO NOT TEST IN MP please!

Lots of testing, hundreds of hrs , couple months, and work has been put thru this DM to make it more detailed, sophisticated and realistic, which the majority of Il2 community are really enjoying, then someone goes tests for four hrs in MP and says its wrong because now its harder to shoot down the enemy with my guns. 

Then the cycle starts, grabbing data from the internet to show they are right, like if the developers don have data sources?

then the endless debate back and forth trying to convince everyone they are right.

 

Instant gratification boom, destroyed ,  go to next one = arcade, is not the sim I want to be flying.

Or I want balance because my team cannot shoot down the enemy as easy? = arcade , not the sim I want to be flying.

 

I know things cannot be perfect as released, but too much complaining luckily just by a very few people, trying to make lots of noise.

I fly reds too SP and MP, I enjoy  the challenge , the realism and think the developers did an amazing job with this new DM

Also remember the tail of the 109 needs to be fixed.

Might not be perfect on the first update but for such a big update its very close to perfect.

How can Damage Model be subjective??? It needs to be objective. "In my opinion this system is not broken, so regardless a 37mm HE bullet has hit it if I think it's ok it has to be ok and my plane should have to fly perfectly." or "Bullet in the head of the pilot, but in my opinion it was not a direct hit so that my pilot should be alive".

 

You cannot be serious mate.

 

We are not complaining in vane. We are posting in-game evidences (not feelings neither opinions -LOL-) of the sim behaviour. We don't know how do you tester guys undergo with these tests, do you have any instructions so that y'all follow the same directives? Or you just start shooting at planes in SP (because aparently it's the only thing that matters from what has been exposed by the presumably Team Members is SP) and give your opinion. Can you please make this information public? 

 

Nobody here is denying the hard work of the tester team nor the dev team, but as final customers we have the right to show possible flaws (similar of what has happened with the WW1 module). 

 

Judging by the answers of the people who are aparently testers we are not allowed to test ourselves and even less to contradict their opinions with facts and data.

[Roland_HUNter]

4 minutes ago, HR_Tofolo said:

How can Damage Model be subjective???

Damage model is subjective because like here Chimango want to change the DM based on his subjective feelings/subjective hits on plane, and a "arcade" theoretical ammunition table.
If we want to be objective -like the devs doing it now- the DM should be based on objective military reports from the past.

The problem is here, I already posted many things for Chimango to prove, the DM is realistic now -expect the P-39 37mm HE-, but he still not accept it.
If I would bring 10000 soviet/german document what would prove, the MG-151 HE(M) was stronger than 23mm VYa-23/or ShVAK, with this behaviour/arguing He would still not accept it.

[Birdman]

9 minutes ago, HR_Tofolo said:

 

How can Damage Model be subjective??? 

 

Because people play to win, if you don't get the kill you are frustrated and blaming the DM bc obviously you deserved that kill but you didn't get it is easy and comforting in a way.

 

Nobody blames the DM when they get 3 kills in a row in MP, but one guy escaping from you and it's cataclysmic.

 

29 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

how many members of the testers team fly MP daily at least 2 hours? 

 

Lol

[Aero*Bohemio]

3 minutes ago, Birdman said:

Because people play to win, if you don't get the kill you are frustrated and blaming the DM bc obviously you deserved that kill but you didn't get it is easy and comforting in a way.

Some yes. But some other people blame the DM (or whatever causing the discrepancy in MP)  when for example four fighters attack a 110 in TAW, they hit it dozens of times with UBS, 20mm ShVAK and 0.50 during several passes and the BF110 keeps flying and makes it home. So when it doesn’t act like a simularor, these people get frustrated, specially when in the other hand a single snapshot from a 109F makes your plane unflyable.

 

Anyway, this is not the case here, the claim is not anecdotical but documented on video with references, data and sources added.

[Roland_HUNter]

16 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

when for example four fighters attack a 110 in TAW, they hit it dozens of times with UBS, 20mm ShVAK and 0.50 during several passes and the BF110 keeps flying and makes it home.

This is a perfect comment to describe:
We are too accustomed the arcade damage model like War thunder when 3-5  .50 cal rip the wing or 1 20mm tear apart a hole plane.

  

14 minutes ago, =SqSq=SignorMagnifico said:

First of all, great work to all the devs that work hard on this game. The new damage model overall feels a lot more realistic for the majority of the aircraft. However, I have one complaint regarding the P-51. The wing damage model appears to strong compared to other aircraft. I made a series of videos here, which test the wing damage model, and I found it almost impossible to cause a wing detachment compared to other aircraft, namely the P-47 and IL-2. I’m not sure if this intentional, but it seems worth addressing to me.  

 

I guess this video describe everything. He has a play list about the damage model ammo vs planes. You should check it out.

Edited April 13, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[Aero*Bohemio]

35 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Damage model is subjective because like here Chimango want to change the DM based on his subjective feelings/subjective hits on plane, and a "arcade" theoretical ammunition table.
If we want to be objective -like the devs doing it now- the DM should be based on objective military reports from the past.

The problem is here, I already posted many things for Chimango to prove, the DM is realistic now -expect the P-39 37mm HE-, but he still not accept it.
If I would bring 10000 soviet/german document what would prove, the MG-151 HE(M) was stronger than 23mm VYa-23/or ShVAK, with this behaviour/arguing He would still not accept it.

If you keep expecting me to believe that a 109F4 can survive 14 hits from VYa23mm both HE and AP -some also placed in critical areas- while it is OK and expected to go down in flames after just 2 hits from MG151/20...thats insulting.

 

You have your data, i have mine. And even with your data you contradict yourself. The damage ingame (MP) is way off for VVS guns and i hope they get fixed. You are not objective, you are doing propaganda.

1 hour ago, HerrBree said:

You keep quoting this as if your single test where a bf109 got shot down in 2 hits is gospel. I just finished a QMB where it took me 8 hits from a 151 to bring down a yak 1.  Yesterday I had to take 3 passes at a lagg to take it down where I hit with easily 10+ he rounds from an mg151. You aren't proving anything other than you think the game should be changed based off your opinion.

Not “a” 109, many 109s as it was replicated many times. Your QM experience has little to do with this test, totally irrelevant. The video i posted, like it or not, it’s very telling.

[Roland_HUNter]

4 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

you are doing propaganda.

xD Okhey.
You have 1 theoretical table. Wow.
Devs have historical documents.
And stop attacking my person, thats mean you are out of facts and starting blame on me. Stop it please.

6 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

while it is OK and expected to go down in flames after just 2 hits from MG151/20...thats insulting.

Then go and play War Thunder. What you want is not realistic.

[Aero*Bohemio]

Just now, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

xD Okhey.
You have 1 theoretical table. Wow.
Devs have historical documents.
And stop attacking my person, thats mean you are out of facts and starting blame on me. Stop it please.

Stop highjacking the thread, that’s rude. You made your point a thousand times and you are not objective, you just want to diminish a very clear and telling report. You disagree? Ok we got it.
 

I have that table as reference, also guns database and RKKA weapon performance charts. Im sure devs data doesn’t differ much from what i have, the thing is the way it’s implemented and reflected in the sim.

 

 Now rest a bit your crusade against this thread. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

2 hours 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?
 

It's not a small tiny bug... I hope netcode performance can be improved as I only play MP too. However if DM adjustments are made because of problems caused by connection in the servers then the end result would be very inconsistent. One thing Jason pointed out for the time being would be for mission creators to try to not saturate the missions if possible, I guess having better connection and server hardware would help too.

[HerrBree]

16 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Not “a” 109, many 109s as it was replicated many times. Your QM experience has little to do with this test, totally irrelevant. The video i posted, like it or not, it’s very telling.

More irrelevant than the "data table" you posted that looks like it was taken right out of a Dungeons and Dragons manual?

[Roland_HUNter]

13 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Stop highjacking the thread, that’s rude. You made your point a thousand times and you are not objective, you just want to diminish a very clear and telling report. You disagree?

I quoted, mentioned the devs, and I'm with the devs, and are you talking about my disagreement and CRUSADE against this thread? What the hell are you talking about?!
And I proved in many comments your report is not clear, and not objective. And I was not the only 1 who said the same.
Your "report" is very-very subjective.

And please can u show us your soviet report about 2 hit and 109 was in flame?

Edited April 13, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[Aero*Bohemio]

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

It's not a small tiny bug... I hope netcode performance can be improved as I only play MP too. However if DM adjustments are made because of problems caused by connection in the servers then the end result would be very inconsistent. One thing Jason pointed out for the time being would be for mission creators to try to not saturate the missions if possible, I guess having better connection and server hardware would help too.

Thank you! Now this makes sense. So, what kind of test would be accepted by devs, no SP test please!  Because the problem i see is MP in SP the ShVak and VVS guns seem to act acceptable. So, would it help i did same test in lets say not 1 but 3 different servers? Would it be useful if i can replicata sane perdormance in those different 3? Otherwise how could i do it.
 

Also, please i hope Netcode gets taken care off next, MP crowd needs some love! ?

9 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

I'm with the devs

No wonder. You should have started your first comment in this thread clarifying this. Thanks, now i understand your relentless attack to this thread.
 

Ignored from now on.

Edited April 13, 2020 by ECV56_Chimango

[Roland_HUNter]

13 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

No wonder. You should have started your first comment in this thread clarifying this. Thanks, now i understand your relentless attack to this thread.

Relentless attack what is based on historical documents not on my opinion.

Where is your documents to prove me wrong?

[Aero*Bohemio]

14 minutes ago, HerrBree said:

More irrelevant than the "data table" you posted that looks like it was taken right out of a Dungeons and Dragons manual?

Yes, much more irrelevant. The table it’s useful to this thread, your QM anecdotes aren’t.

 

But if you wanna study the subject a bit more (i doubt it) check this deep analysis of WW2 VVS gun performances....you will have to read spanish, or use translator:

 

http://www.rkka.es/Armamento/001_eficacia_empleo/002_canones_ametralladoras/002_canones_ametralladoras.htm

[E69_geramos109]

Is that difficult for you to test on SP? 

If there is a problem with Dm wich is what you are claiming here it will be there on SP as well. 

If the test on SP is Ok then this post makes no sense and you would rather post a complain about net code

[HerrBree]

37 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Because the problem i see is MP in SP the ShVak and VVS guns seem to act acceptable.

So now you've found out that tests cant and shouldn't be done in multiplayer and you've admitted that in single player Russian weapons seem to be working as they should, whats the issue?

 

[Roland_HUNter]

2 hours ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Yes, much more irrelevant. The table it’s useful to this thread, your QM anecdotes aren’t.

 

But if you wanna study the subject a bit more (i doubt it) check this deep analysis of WW2 VVS gun performances....you will have to read spanish, or use translator:

 

http://www.rkka.es/Armamento/001_eficacia_empleo/002_canones_ametralladoras/002_canones_ametralladoras.htm

Very nice topic: I understood I guess less than half of it with translate, but:
-it says average 84 Shvak and ~200 UBS needed to shot down 1 plane. And it was avg. calculated by used ammunition, so we don't know exactly each plane how many shots got.
-It says avg. 1-2 37mm hit needed against german fighters
-it says Yak-9t was less effective against bombers, because you cannot shot accurately with it.

All of these are same in the IL-2 now.(expect yak-9t, its not in the game yet)

They not compared the russian ammunitions to the german, and they not mentioned the 23mm VYa-23.

Edited April 13, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[Velxra]

I went ahead and ran the same test against an A-20 (its my test plane target I'm most familiar with destroying). I can also confirm the same results as shown in the video against the A-20. The 20mm SHVAK took about three times as much ammo to destroy an A-20 engine compared to the German 20mm at five or less rounds. There is definitely a massive difference in damage between the two 20mm ammo types. The German 20mm seemed to be very explosive. While the Russian 20mm had very little of an explosive effect. This can easily be observed by hitting a target up close or shooting a paved runway on the ground to compare the AP or HE rounds impacting. My assumption is the HE explosive round of the SHVAK 20mm is underperforming compared to the German HE 20mm . (unless it's historically this way of course)

A secondary find I discovered is that the Russian 7.62 SHKAS are actually more effective than the German 8mm. The SHKAS deal a lot of destruction and were actually more effective at taking down an A-20 compared to the 20mm SHVAK.  With the 8mm I was only able to cause leaks with minimal damage and often expanded all stored ammunition without destroying or even causing critical damage of the A-20.


So I will conclude that these weapons/calibers need an alteration or re-evaluation of their damage figures.


Planes used to test damage against A-20s were all fired from the close six position at the rear of the A-20s in flight with primary focus against the engines. All planes tested used rifle caliber and 20mm ammunition and did not use both calibers together against single target. Each target was damage tested purely using one caliber at a time. List of planes used during the tests.
Lagg-3
Yak-1
Yak-1b
Yak-1b series 127

BF 109 F2
BF 109 G2
BF 109 G4

Edited April 13, 2020 by Geronimo553

[Aero*Bohemio]

2 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

There is definitely a massive difference in damage between the two 20mm ammo types.

 

And this is the key; also still is a difference with more powerful VYa23mm. The problem is when you don't have unbiased testers in a flightsim; Devs shouldn't accept as a tester any guy who is known and clearly a fan of any faction. The most ferocious defenders of such a difference in performance here are all LW fans. LW propaganda is historically very heavy and noisy in every WW2 flightsim...the problem starts when the developers of a sim start to listen too much to their demands. 

 

I hope devs fix the way this damage it's applied online; i hope they fix the bloody netcode for once...or whatever is causing this discrepancy.

[Roland_HUNter]

7 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

And this is the key; also still is a difference with more powerful VYa23mm. The problem is when you don't have unbiased testers in a flightsim; Devs shouldn't accept as a tester any guy who is known and clearly a fan of any faction. The most ferocious defenders of such a difference in performance here are all LW fans. LW propaganda is historically very heavy and noisy in every WW2 flightsim...the problem starts when the developers of a sim start to listen too much to their demands. 

 

I hope devs fix the way this damage it's applied online; i hope they fix the bloody netcode for once...or whatever is causing this discrepancy.

You are so hopeless. I said P-47 could survive 10 MK-108 and I am a Luftwaffe fan?
Stop this nonsense right now.

2 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

I went ahead and ran the same test against an A-20 (its my test plane target I'm most familiar with destroying). I can also confirm the same results as shown in the video against the A-20. The 20mm SHVAK took about three times as much ammo to destroy an A-20 engine compared to the German 20mm at five or less rounds. There is definitely a massive difference in damage between the two 20mm ammo types. The German 20mm seemed to be very explosive. While the Russian 20mm had very little of an explosive effect. This can easily be observed by hitting a target up close or shooting a paved runway on the ground to compare the AP or HE rounds impacting. My assumption is the HE explosive round of the SHVAK 20mm is underperforming compared to the German HE 20mm . (unless it's historically this way of course)

A secondary find I discovered is that the Russian 7.62 SHKAS are actually more effective than the German 8mm. The SHKAS deal a lot of destruction and were actually more effective at taking down an A-20 compared to the 20mm SHVAK.  With the 8mm I was only able to cause leaks with minimal damage and often expanded all stored ammunition without destroying or even causing critical damage of the A-20.


So I will conclude that these weapons/calibers need an alteration or re-evaluation of their damage figures.


Planes used to test damage against A-20s were all fired from the close six position at the rear of the A-20s in flight with primary focus against the engines. All planes tested used rifle caliber and 20mm ammunition and did not use both calibers together against single target. Each target was damage tested purely using one caliber at a time. List of planes used during the tests.
Lagg-3
Yak-1
Yak-1b
Yak-1b series 127

BF 109 F2
BF 109 G2
BF 109 G4

You are right, the A-20 body and engine could survive many 20 mm Shvak HE(the elevator and rudder control sheets fallen very easily), but with only AP, after 1-4 Hit the A-20 engine was on fire.

Edited April 13, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[Aero*Bohemio]

6 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Is that difficult for you to test on SP? 

If there is a problem with Dm wich is what you are claiming here it will be there on SP as well. 

If the test on SP is Ok then this post makes no sense and you would rather post a complain about net code

Damage model online, you get it or not? I could't care less (as most MP players) the performance in SP as i didn't buy this product for that usage. DM or Netcode, whatever is causing this discrepancy. Again, one more time: the damage model applied online and the massive discrepancy between ammo types in favour of MG151/20 panzerfaust.

It needs a serious fix. 

[gimpy117]

my .02

 

if the water radiators are eating damage, that is WRONG. very wrong. rounds should pass though those and damage spars, internal structures you name it. only if a component can fully stop a shot should there be no damage transfer.

 

the 109 passing shots straight through the aft to front of the wing, two shots makes sense, pieced both spars, massive damage

the Russian round not doing the same just baffled me 

 

something is wrong, and once again...broken in german favor 

 

28 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

And this is the key; also still is a difference with more powerful VYa23mm. The problem is when you don't have unbiased testers in a flightsim; Devs shouldn't accept as a tester any guy who is known and clearly a fan of any faction. The most ferocious defenders of such a difference in performance here are all LW fans. LW propaganda is historically very heavy and noisy in every WW2 flightsim...the problem starts when the developers of a sim start to listen too much to their demands. 

 

I hope devs fix the way this damage it's applied online; i hope they fix the bloody netcode for once...or whatever is causing this discrepancy.

i totally agree. there are some shady things with german flight models and control schemes (109 stab mapping) that continue not to be fixed 

Edited April 14, 2020 by gimpy117

[E69_geramos109]

11 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Damage model online, you get it or not? I could't care less (as most MP players) the performance in SP as i didn't buy this product for that usage. DM or Netcode, whatever is causing this discrepancy. Again, one more time: the damage model applied online and the massive discrepancy between ammo types in favour of MG151/20 panzerfaust.

It needs a serious fix. 

As you want mate. If you want to be lisened by devs or not. If you want to complain about Dm they will not accept online tracks and if you want to talk about netcode maybe you should post some comparations or test comparing both to se the deviation. 

[CountZero]

11 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Damage model online, you get it or not? I could't care less (as most MP players) the performance in SP as i didn't buy this product for that usage. DM or Netcode, whatever is causing this discrepancy. Again, one more time: the damage model applied online and the massive discrepancy between ammo types in favour of MG151/20 panzerfaust.

It needs a serious fix. 

 

Soooo   your saying Tempest V and Hispanos are to stong ?

 

Dont worry it will be adjusted like 51 was in no time. 

[Cpt_Siddy]

I have come in to stark realization that soviet HE are worse than the 12.7 mm in mig. There is lots of odd stuff going on, but most of it seems to revolve around dead 6 hits on 109.

 

Is this unrealistic or non historic? I don't know, i mainly play online for the pew pew kills, so i use what is meta :^) 

If something dont work online but works in offline mode, online takes precedent for me, as i have 0% interest in the careers or whatever, and 100% interest in online campaigns and chute killing. Testing online may be partially testing the netcode over the damage model, but that just shifting issues, not eliminating them. 

For me, personally, it is irrelevant if 12.7 mm works better in online to kill people because of netcode or new DM, result is the same  - preferential usage of this weapon and avoiding game assets that rely on russian 20mm HE. 

 

Ofcorse, idd rather prefer that all assets work as advertised, as this will expand the available tool set to engage in this wonderful product in online arena! ♥ 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Cpt_Siddy

[LLv24_Zami]

Two things to consider.

 

1. Afaik over 90% of the Il-2 players are playing SP. I don`t think that who are online are paying the whole thing.

 

2. SP and MP damage models are the same. If there`s something wrong in the netcode it`s entirely different matter.

[Aero*Bohemio]

10 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Two things to consider.

 

1. Afaik over 90% of the Il-2 players are playing SP. I don`t think that who are online are paying the whole thing.

 

2. SP and MP damage models are the same. If there`s something wrong in the netcode it`s entirely different matter.

 

1. So? 

 

2. I agree, the DM online differes severely from SP, it's broken and that s what the video shows. I hope devs find a quick solution to this MP game braking bug.

[LLv24_Zami]

3 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

 

1. So? 

 

2. I agree, the DM online differes severely from SP, it's broken and that s what the video shows. I hope devs find a quick solution to this MP game braking bug.

1. You do realize that no matter what the Great Chimango says here, they are the ones paying the bills. In other words, online might not be the highest priority. And this is only my opinion

 

2. I did say that IF there`s something wrong in the netcode, I just can`t see what you agree. But let`s hope the MP get`s some attention though.

[peregrine7]

1 hour ago, LLv24_Zami said:

Two things to consider.

 

1. Afaik over 90% of the Il-2 players are playing SP. I don`t think that who are online are paying the whole thing.

 

2. SP and MP damage models are the same. If there`s something wrong in the netcode it`s entirely different matter.

 

Almost 50% of people who buy the game never play it, and the vast majority have less than 4hrs. Not an attack on you guys, that's just how people are.

Also, Mp is pretty awkward in this sim with no training, community made... everything, no voip. If it is not well implemented people won't play it, if people don't fly in mp then you have nobody to fly with/against. If you have nobody to fly with/against then you don't fly mp. You could also spin low % players flying many hours in mp as showing that mp needs the most work (not that I'd agree with that argument either).

So I don't see that as being a valid response. No dig at you or the devs meant but it isn't exactly the most polished mp experience out there. And I fly mp a lot, I love it. After all your main competitor is DCS WW2 mp and you've beaten that by miles!

The original post shows a difference between the effective damage in an Mp scenario. Whether this comes from Mp netcode or DM differences is irrelevant. The effect is apparent and real. If the one team's weapons did no damage at all in mp, but worked fine in sp then that wouldn't be acceptable. Obviously this isn't that bad, and people are overly riled up (sheesh guys, cool it!), but it is not something to dismiss either.

 

personally, based on historical documents (both read and posted here) I do believe there is some issue with Russian 20mm, 23mm HE rounds (and the p39's 37mm HE). I also believe the p51 is too strong and that the german 30mm may be doing too little structural damage in some situations. Those are discussions for another thread. Suffice to say this new DM is great but may have a few issues that require correction.

 

More research needs to be done, does this imbalance exist in sp? We can conjecture all day on that but until it is verified we can't say where the issue lies. I would also suggest re-doing the tests with HE only for the Russian planes. Does that bring it in line (or closer to the 151/20)? If devs and testers are dismissive then don't argue, just come up with irrefutable proof. That way the only argument can be over technical documents - which is where everybody should be looking. The end goal is not to be "right" but to have an accurate sim. We can't forget that currently this is the best out there, the devs have done a fantastic job.

Kudos to those who have put in work testing this (and recording  it), and please can we all keep it civil? 

 

S!

Edited April 14, 2020 by peregrine7

[HerrBree]

3 minutes ago, peregrine7 said:

Does that bring it in line (or closer to the 151/20)

What does this even mean though? This entire thread has been trying to effectively balance the shvak against the mg151. Why is that?