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

[Roland_HUNter]

Here, Chimango, I made this video for you:
 

You can check it out for yourself. Track attached:
https://easyupload.io/khf400

Edited April 14, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[peregrine7]

7 minutes ago, HerrBree said:

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

 

To be very precise: In line with how it should compare to the 151. I.e. not more balanced, rather as accurate to reality as is possible.
Not to make it the same as, or to balance them. I could have been clearer with that line.

[HerrBree]

11 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Here, Chimango, I made this video for you:
 

You can check it out for yourself. Track attached:
https://easyupload.io/khf400

Anecdotal propaganda, or something like that.

[Cpt_Siddy]

18 hours 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.

 

 

But that's not how ballistics work...

 

Thin walled, lighter projectile has harder time to penetrate anything with bleak angels. 

 

At dead 6, bullets have very high chance of ricocheting and exploding on the outside of the skin. And the high brisance with thin walls means there is not real shrapnel effects to speak off, only shock wave.  If mineshot gets inside plane, its deadly, if it don't penetrate, its a firecracker. 

 

The 23 mm and 20mm thicker walled projectiles should have advantage at dead 6, where all plane skin angles are in between 89 and 85 towards the shooter. 

 

Something along these lines :^) 

 

 

 

 

The fact that 109 dead 6 eats up HE ammo is nothing new tho, i remember using Mig-3 with 20mm on a dead six on 109 with more or less similar effect as what you show in your video, and that was pre DM patch, so i think the problem is not necessarily in DM but more in weird hitboxes that eat up the shells. 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Cpt_Siddy

[Velxra]

I really dont understand all the videos and up roar about the BF 109 tail. The devs clearly stated the damage has been turned off for that "particular" area reason being further development is required and suddenly it's the biggest concern in the community screaming bias. Like do people read the patch notes...

 

So complaining/arguing over the 109's tail assembly being damage resistant is kind of a moot discussion given that, it is still being developed for the update.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Geronimo553

[LLv24_Zami]

4 hours ago, peregrine7 said:

 

Snip

No other than devs have that information who play it and how they do it. I assume you`re not one of them. I just said what`s known to us.

 

I`m letting you to argue the rest by yourself, because I know it`s pointless to say anything. In fact everything is already said about the DM in this thread, just read it trough.

 

Yes, we can keep it civil.

19 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

I really dont understand all the videos and up roar about the BF 109 tail. The devs clearly stated the damage has been turned off for that "particular" area reason being further development is required and suddenly it's the biggest concern in the community screaming bias. Like do people read the patch notes...

 

So complaining/arguing over the 109's tail assembly being damage resistant is kind of a moot discussion given that, it is still being developed for the update.

The whole tail won`t fall of completely. Other than that it can be damaged as in every other plane.

[Dakpilot]

Even in the patch notes it is explained that 109's except E7 have "unfinished" DM in the tail area

 

Until this is finished people should dial back the hysteria a bit, overall this seems like a great update, but not yet completely finalised.

 

Another read of Jason's - A Heads Up - post in General Discussions will benefit. 

 

Such a huge update (done in difficult conditions that we all all aware of and struggling with) needs a bit of patience. 

 

Testing needs to be done offline to show issues that are purely related to new DM whether  interested only in MP and have no interest in offline, to isolate issues, otherwise it is just noise, and little use to Dev's. 

 

The fact that 109 is mentioned in patch notes indicates that Devs are aware and working on this, just very unfortunate that late changes on the one aircraft that is in every single fight/battle/MP experience was effected in the patch. 

 

Overall (I feel) the initial growing pains will be outweighed by such a fundamental improvement to the way damage is modeled. 

 

Perhaps this is the wrong thread.. but just a little more patience is needed regardless of how some feel MP is totally broken

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Aero*Bohemio]

2 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

Testing needs to be done offline to show issues that are purely related to new DM whether  interested only in MP and have no interest in offline, to isolate issues, otherwise it is just noise, and little use to Dev's. 

 

Dakpilot i agree with your post, and regarding this quote the sim testers have done a lot of SP testing, so they know how the DM works there...MP is another story.

 

I think DM when tested offline is very good, really nice, guns generally act as expected (even knowing the 109 tail still is a WIP). All i and other guys within our community wanted to show in the video is how the DM is shown online, and the very strange issue is how it affects certain ammo and not the other.

Devs will find a solution as always, for sure.

***

Edited April 14, 2020 by 666GIAP_Chimango

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

You know me Chimango, if there is a DM post, i am not far away from it

I hope i don't repeat other posts in this thread too much, i tried reading through it thoroughly.

 

On 4/13/2020 at 10:13 AM, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

[...] 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 [...] 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.

 

This is already a biased premise. You are only focusing on one perceived issue and have a clear agenda to prove your point with the test. Scientifically this is problematic. 

 

On 4/13/2020 at 10:13 AM, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

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.

 

As was stated before, as long as you don't mod weapons to eliminate either AP or HE (depending on what you want to test) from the "belt" it will always screw with your results like you can see in the posted videos. Additionally, shooting at flying planes has advantages and disadvantages. While it makes the test more realistic due to it being affected by g-loads, it makes it substantially harder to hit the same spot of the target area. Potentially this also invalidates your test results. It also makes you wonder why you only test against 109s. What about 190s? Spits? Yaks? this further invalidates your test because you can't single out the issue at hand. There might simply be a different reason for your perceived issue, for example the DM of the 109 might be in fact the issue and not the weapon. Last but not least, in general you should always make the complete results public for review if you plan on an more extensive and correct test in the future, which i would be genuinely interested in. 

 

23 hours ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

[...] UBS spounge.

 

This is obviously just a personal observation and i have no way to back this up but i feel like the UBS is one of the best VVS guns around currently and i experienced very good results with it. It is not all VVS guns being "nerfed". The Devs and testers don't have a agenda even though you imply that and it can feel like it sometimes.

 

Considering the Vya-23mm:

While i haven't done any reliable testing at all, i got the impression as well that it performs significantly worse than it should. Definitely would be interesting to take a closer look. 

 

22 hours ago, 666GIAP_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?

 

You don't know. We don't know. But it certainly does not only affect VVS guns. Again, biased premise. 

 

20 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

"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.

17 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

xD Okhey.
You have 1 theoretical table. Wow.
Devs have historical documents.

 

There are very little "REAL reports" out there. This calculation you are trying to delegitimize is from the leading researchers for ww2 guns A.G. Williams and Dr. Gustin. Maybe look it up some more before you start slandering it. You can certainly criticize them but their calculation is very very likely "based" on the same reports as the Devs used. 

On a little side note, if you have read some of these extensive reports, you know that it is impossible to replicate in a sim game. Unless you want a sim game about damage calculations...

 

19 hours ago, 666GIAP_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.

 

I am very much and genuinely  looking forward to the report. I hope it will take some of the feedback in this thread into account.

 

3 minutes ago, 666GIAP_Chimango said:

Dakpilot i agree with your post, and regarding this quote the sim testers have done a lot of SP testing, so they know how the DM works there...MP is another story.

 

Testing was also conducted in MP. However, i was not involved in the testing so i don't know specifics. 

 

 

I think many people (myself included to a degree) need to change their mindset when it comes to this sim game. It is not intended as being competitive (in an e-sport sense). There is no balance. Therefor i think people shouldn't treat it that way and appreciate it more when people take up the challenge and fly significantly worse performing aircrafts.  

[Aero*Bohemio]

I don't expect balance, for the million time: i expect that all guns act similar to RL data. If you see a test when you compare a gun than in most optimistic cases should be twice as destructive in RL but it actually is 4 times that ingame, or when you see MG151/20 nowadays is as powerful (and even more powerful) than VYa23mm then there is no bias, is pure facts this shouldn't be happening. Again, in SP i like very much what i see, it's a gfreat job and i appreciate what devs have accomplished; if ShVAK, VYa23mm and other weapons to be tested yet behave in MP just as they do in SP, this post wouldn't exist.

There seems to be a netcode issue; let's hope it can be solved.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

5 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

I really dont understand all the videos and up roar about the BF 109 tail. The devs clearly stated the damage has been turned off for that "particular" area reason being further development is required and suddenly it's the biggest concern in the community screaming bias. Like do people read the patch notes...

 

So complaining/arguing over the 109's tail assembly being damage resistant is kind of a moot discussion given that, it is still being developed for the update.

About the damage to the 109 tail, just to clarify, the damage has been disabled for one part of the tail, the vertical stabilizer and the joining point of the horizontal stabs (red), the rest of the tail can still be damaged and ripped off (blue):



 

Edited April 14, 2020 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[E69_Qpassa_VR]

10 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Here, Chimango, I made this video for you:
 

You can check it out for yourself. Track attached:
https://easyupload.io/khf400

Did you see it @ECV56_Chimango? Maybe it was because of your server.

 

Regards 

Edited April 14, 2020 by E69_Qpassa_VR

[E69_geramos109]

@ECV56_Chimango Did you read my comments about your test? You are hitting useless spots all the time like the under fuselage or the water 

 

 

Seems that you are not making comments about the video on berloga where that guy needs few random shots to shot down 109s 

Is on MP so i guess you are interested on that result. Or maybe is not fitting  what you want to beliebe and of course this test is not valid for you?

Edited April 14, 2020 by E69_geramos109

[Cpt_Siddy]

I am starting to see a trend here.

 

Shots fired at dead 6 have totally different effect than shots fired at 60+ deflection angle. This is why we see test footage that tells one story and berloga furball other. 

 

So far most static test have been done at dead 6, while most live server combat is not so sterile. We need to have more deletion shot test done. Tho i admit that 109 has some mysterious hitbox configuration at it dead 6 on its lower part of its tail that eat up a lot of shots from russian 20mm's. This was something i noticed before DM change, and it appears it is still there post change. 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Cpt_Siddy

[Aero*Bohemio]

Have you been following this thread E69 guys? Im sure you have cause we have touched your beloved 109 and it’s panzerfaust launchers (online). Then you should already know why i have ignored that user and anything he has to add. Check earlier posts.

 

BTW a video showing some VYa23 sprayed randomly with no replication and no comparison those same shots with 151/20 worths very little. Even then, it acts in this thread favour when you see as much  as 5xVYa23mm needed to bring down a 109, even when shot at good angles! unacceptable if only 2x151/20mm are required to get the same outcome.

 

Not a “server” issue, a netcode issue with discrepancy between some guns, and not the MG151/20 power.

 

***

Edit: Siddy exactly my thaughts; it’s quite obvious why some guys are desperate and attack this test frenetically. Anyway, we have been noticing this rear hits to 109s 6 issue since last year and complained by then about it in that area of the forums.

Edited April 14, 2020 by ECV56_Chimango

[Hawk-2a]

32 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

Anyway, we have been noticing this rear hits to 109s 6 issue since last year and complained by then about it in that area of the forums.

So is this now about how robust a tail section of a 109 is or is it about effeciveness of VVS cannons? also for the tail, take the patch notes into account that the damage to a certain part is currently disabled.

 

there would need to be data and tests conducted with the VVS cannons on many other aircraft types from different angles and on different spots to reliably tell if something is wrong.

 

it is laughable to call this a test as long as you only have your biased point of view and very very little data to back your stuff up.

 

VVS cannons still obliterate when hit properly and i have been downed by 2-3 hits on the wing by them even since the new DM. i am also pretty sure others can confirm that experience.

[SCG_motoadve]

21 hours ago, HerrBree said:

22 hours 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?

 

Imagine if the developers listen to someone like the OP and change the guns, then all becomes an arcade mess.

This thread shows OP is biased, wants balance instead of realism, and his guns to be more powerful,  OP tests in MP and makes a big fuss , when it has been said tests should be in SP.

Sorry but for me OP lost credibility in his tests and his arguments cannot be taken serious.

Edited April 14, 2020 by SCG_motoadve

[Aero*Bohemio]

30 minutes ago, H_Stiglitz said:

it is laughable to call this a test

Thanks for the compliment, anyway, go somewhere else with your agenda. 

23 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

 

Imagine if the developers listen to someone like the OP and change the guns, then all becomes an arcade mess.

This thread shows OP is biased, wants balance instead of realism, and his guns to be more powerful,  OP tests in MP and makes a big fuss , when it has been said tests should be in SP.

Sorry but for me OP lost credibility in his tests and his arguments cannot be taken serious.

Your interpretation of the whole thread is way off, nearly insulting. Relax now, you are biased for personal reasons evidently.

Nobody lost credibility, some of you guys are trying too hard.

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by ECV56_Chimango

[Roland_HUNter]

ECV56_Chimango

Because you are so stubborn already, I ll do a test video ONLINE against 109s and FW-190 with 23mm from dead 6. I ll post it when its ready.

Edited April 14, 2020 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Chimango. People would take you more seriously if you stopped using degratory language and writing in a way that looks like you have Red Army goggles on. That is the first impression I got. 

 

The new damage model just got released last week and devs are gathering info on it and for sure know issues they do not have to reveal here. Let's say after a patch or two we might get a better picture of this new DM. The game is fully playable, you can shoot down planes and so forth just fine until then. 

[HerrBree]

35 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

go somewhere else with your agenda. 

LOL everyone has an agenda but you? Everyones experiences are anecdotal but yours? 

 

Roland already posted a video taking place in a multiplayer match proving every single thing you are whining about wrong. So what else have you got? Are you gonna make up your own data table with damage values now to try and prove yourself right?

Edited April 14, 2020 by HerrBree

[Aero*Bohemio]

12 hours ago, peregrine7 said:

 

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!

This is brilliant Peregrine, +1.000.000

Thank you for this post. It reflects exactly what we intend to show even when some people here desperately try to ignore it or deny it; so for those taking this test and video so incredibly personal (for whatever reason they may have) and respond in clan fashion, read this post by Peregrine7 before attacking with nonesense this test.

The interpretation of the quoted post about the whole issue is SPOT ON.

[Raven109]

So, just curious, am I getting this straight, are some of you saying that it's ok for multi-player to not work like single-player in a payed-for product which doesn't state on its store page that the experience from MP is different from the experience in SP? 

 

So, are we having two games in one, SP having one physics model, and MP having another physics model? Is this what some of you are saying? Are you really expecting people to be ok with this discrepancy and just shrug it off as a "net-code issue"?

 

None of the tests following the initial one have been using the same test conditions, and yet somehow people expect to draw an objective conclusion from that. 

 

So the OP realized after receiving feedback that the issue might be MP only. Why does it matter to some of you whether the issue is MP or SP? The 109 is reacting differently in those environments. That's an issue already, who cares as a customer whether the underlying cause is the net-code, the 109 paint scheme, or the ammo model? 

 

The issue is the discrepancy between MP and SP when it comes to the DM.

 

Why should people not test in MP? Is that a non-testable feature, how do the testers do it then, the devs? Do we not expect any predictable behavior from MP at all? Should we just expect anything and everything from multi-player, like someday getting to fly cows against unicorns instead of 109s vs Mustangs?

 

I like the new damage model, as it brings more depth and diversity, and it's taking us away from the nice-looking, but too predominant broken-wing damage effect. But, as some said, there still are issues (the devs might know about some, and some others not) and this post is (as far as i can tell) pointing to an issue which needs to be looked at (no matter if it's MP or SP).

Edited April 14, 2020 by Raven109

[Birdman]

13 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

 

 

Why should people not test in MP? Is that a non-testable feature, how do the testers do it then, the devs? 

 

Your MP experience depends heavily on your internet connection / ping to the server etc...

 

What you experience is a combination of these factors that are pretty hard to recreate for anybody but yourself.

 

To me it seems that it's more of a netcode issue that is exacerbated by the new DM rather than a DM issue proper.

 

 

 

[LLv24_Zami]

18 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

So, just curious, am I getting this straight, are some of you saying that it's ok for multi-player to not work like single-player in a payed-for product which doesn't state on its store page that the experience from MP is different from the experience in SP? 

 

So, are we having two games in one, SP having one physics model, and MP having another physics model? Is this what some of you are saying? Are you really expecting people to be ok with this discrepancy and just shrug it off as a "net-code issue"?

 

None of the tests following the initial one have been using the same test conditions, and yet somehow people expect to draw an objective conclusion from that. 

 

So the OP realized after receiving feedback that the issue might be MP only. Why does it matter to some of you whether the issue is MP or SP? The 109 is reacting differently in those environments. That's an issue already, who cares as a customer whether the underlying cause is the net-code, the 109 paint scheme, or the ammo model? 

 

The issue is the discrepancy between MP and SP when it comes to the DM.

 

Why should people not test in MP? Is that a non-testable feature, how do the testers do it then, the devs? Do we not expect any predictable behavior from MP at all? Should we just expect anything and everything from multi-player, like someday getting to fly cows against unicorns instead of 109s vs Mustangs?

 

I like the new damage model, as it brings more depth and diversity, and it's taking us away from the nice-looking, but too predominant broken-wing damage effect. But, as some said, there still are issues (the devs might know about some, and some others not) and this post is (as far as i can tell) pointing to an issue which needs to be looked at (no matter if it's MP or SP).

Who is saying it's ok IF there is issue in the netcode? 

 

SP gives stable results when adjusting something like DM as the OP demanded. You can't use random MP shots for the reasons said here many times. I can't see how it's so hard to understand.

 

 

[Raven109]

12 minutes ago, Birdman said:

 

Your MP experience depends heavily on your internet connection / ping to the server etc...

 

What you experience is a combination of these factors that are pretty hard to recreate for anybody but yourself.

 

To me it seems that it's more of a netcode issue that is exacerbated by the new DM rather than a DM issue proper.

 

 

 

Ok, sure, that's understandable, but surely there must be a threshold up to where the MP environment is expected to be reliable and performing close to SP to a high degree. Something like the MP environment feature set is 95% similar to the SP feature set when the following test conditions are met: e.g <100ms latency,  <20% packet loss, 1000 game events per second, etc.

 

Basically, having a test environment with well defined rules and constraints forces anyone doing tests to replicate the same environment if they want to compare apples to apples. This way you can obtain controlled tests, which reduce the level of ambiguity and unknowns and help find issues easier.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Raven109

[Hawk-2a]

2 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Ok, sure, that's understandable, but surely there must be a threshold up to where the MP environment is expected to be reliable and performing close to SP to a high degree.

Yes, BUT for a dm test you want consistency, and consistency is not gained if you have external factors such as ping and netcode affecting the outcome.

for consistency one wants to eliminate as many external influences as possible. Therefore, consistency is better tested in SP

[Birdman]

5 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Ok, sure, that's understandable, but surely there must be a threshold up to where the MP environment is expected to be reliable and performing close to SP to a high degree. Something like the MP environment feature set is 95% similar to the SP feature set when the following test conditions are met: e.g <100ms latency,  <20% packet loss, 1000 game events per second, etc.

Yes but how do you know your hardware and internet connection + the server hardware and location guarantee these conditions ? It's not the devs job for sure.

 

(Popular) IL2 servers are in Eastern Europe or NA you'll get Evey possible combinations under the sun given the global player base.

 

 

[HerrBree]

How hard is it to understand that to perform a reliable experiment you need a controlled environment

[Raven109]

6 minutes ago, H_Stiglitz said:

Yes, BUT for a dm test you want consistency, and consistency is not gained if you have external factors such as ping and netcode affecting the outcome.

for consistency one wants to eliminate as many external influences as possible. Therefore, consistency is better tested in SP

But the issue is not the DM in SP. The issue at hand is the DM in MP. Different environments, I can't see how doing tests in SP,  can help the devs figure out what the issue is in MP, when SP is working fine according to the original poster.

 

I get all the SP is a "more" predictable environment. But, apparently there is no issue with SP. Consistency can be achieved in MP as well to a high degree. No one is forcing the tester to do tests on a public server. Tests can be run in a controlled environment, even in MP.

 

But this was not my point at all. The point is, why are MP issues considered non-issues? 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Raven109

[HerrBree]

1 minute ago, Raven109 said:

But the issue is not the DM in SP. The issue at hand is the DM in MP. Different environments, I can't see how doing tests in SP,  can help the devs figure out what the issue is in MP, when SP is working fine according to the original poster.

There is no DM in SP and DM in MP, there is only THE DM. Any discrepancy between the way the dm works in sp and mp comes from ping, latency, connection, etc

[Birdman]

3 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

But the issue is not the DM in SP. The issue at hand is the DM in MP. Different environments, I can't see how doing tests in SP,  can help the devs figure out what the issue is in MP, when SP is working fine according to the original poster.

 

I get all the SP is a "more" predictable environment. But, apparently there is no issue with SP.

It is the same DM, there are no SP DM or MP DM.

 

You have no external factors in SP but you do in MP.

 

If you want to prove something is wrong with the DM you need to do it in SP. Otherwise it's impossible to have something reproductible by other users.

[Aero*Bohemio]

I wonder how the devs test the MP performance of their game, when apparently the only important data to take comes from offline. 

 

Absurd logic.
 

9 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

But the issue is not the DM in SP. The issue at hand is the DM in MP. Different environments, I can't see how doing tests in SP,  can help the devs figure out what the issue is in MP, when SP is working fine according to the original poster.

 

Clearer than cristal water. Otherwise, it's just not willing to see, nor at least trying to understand this simple logic.

[Hawk-2a]

1 minute ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

I wonder how the devs test the MP performance of their game, when apparently the only important data to take comes from offline. 

 

Absurd logic.

The absurd logic is to think the dm in SP is fine but the dm in MP is not. The dem is the DM, the rest is external influence. The devs do not change the DM to fire nukes just to make up for latency. „cuz if this was SP he would be dead“ argumentations are pure bullshit.

the SP part is the only „pure“ result you will get for any kind of model, especially when it comes to damage and ballistics.

if it is fine in SP, it is „theoretically“ fine in MP (excluding external influence such as ping and netcode).

[LLv24_Zami]

5 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

I wonder how the devs test the MP performance of their game, when apparently the only important data to take comes from offline. 

 

Absurd logic.
 

 

Clearer than cristal water. Otherwise, it's just not willing to see, nor at least trying to understand this simple logic.

Keep wondering. You haven't got basically anything what people have been telling you so far, so why would you get it now. 

[Raven109]

14 minutes ago, Birdman said:

It is the same DM, there are no SP DM or MP DM.

 

You have no external factors in SP but you do in MP.

 

If you want to prove something is wrong with the DM you need to do it in SP. Otherwise it's impossible to have something reproductible by other users.

 

By SP/MP DM i'm referring to the perceived effects, not to the software abstractions. To the observer (the customer) that's all that matters, the things he experiences. Most people have no idea that the distance to the servers might impact their online behavior, all they care about is consistency. The SP DM experience should be close to the MP DM experience, within certain server connectivity constraints.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Raven109

[Aero*Bohemio]

2 minutes ago, H_Stiglitz said:

The absurd logic is to think the dm in SP is fine but the dm in MP is not. The dem is the DM, the rest is external influence. The devs do not change the DM to fire nukes just to make up for latency. „cuz if this was SP he would be dead“ argumentations are pure bullshit.

the SP part is the only „pure“ result you will get for any kind of model, especially when it comes to damage and ballistics.

if it is fine in SP, it is „theoretically“ fine in MP (excluding external influence such as ping and netcode).

If it is only a netcode issue, explain to us why it afects in the same test at the same time only a type of gun efficiency, and not the others.

[Hawk-2a]

1 minute ago, Raven109 said:

The SP DM experience should be close to the MP DM experience.

 

it IS the same IF you are litterally next to the server. it is not however, the further away you are, as with latency, certain bullets might not register as a hit. that's how it works in EVERY online game EVER created that involves shooting.

1 minute ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

If it is only a netcode issue, explain to us why it afects in the same test at the same time only a type of gun efficiency, and not the others.

that's pure bullshit, and you know it. it affects every player, no matter what he flies. netcode is netcode.

[Aero*Bohemio]

For being a tester Zami, you rush too fast to wrong interpretations; i'd expect from a  tester to be more calm and do good analysis before compulsory replying on the forums. Here i show to you a clear example of what i mean:
 

34 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

SP gives stable results when adjusting something like DM as the OP demanded. 

See? You even seem to miss the title itself; a title which clearly says Test comparing MG151/20, ShVAK20mm and VYa23mm power and effects under current DM online (4.005b)

[HerrBree]

Your video is anecdotal dude