Jump to content
ECV56_Chimango*

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, H_Stiglitz said:

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.

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

Then check the video again; and be amused. While MG151/20mm still very powerful, the others aren´t.

And relax your tone please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

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.

 Behaving like a sassy 5 years old is not helping your cause dude.

4 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

Edited by Birdman
Multipost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ECV56_Chimango said:

Then check the video again; and be amused. While MG151/20mm still very powerful, the others aren´t.

well your video is very one sided. have you tested on other planes since you claim the 109 is broken? what is the result against a 190? a MC202? a HE111? A p40? anything other than a 109?

 

your test is barely a test without anything to compare it to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

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:
 


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)

I'm really out of means to try to tell you how things work. And many others has tried it. I just don't know how. Everything you need to know is in this thread but you just won't accept it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 Behaving like a sassy 5 years old is not helping your cause dude.

 Behaving like a sassy 5 years old is not helping your cause dude.

 Behaving like a sassy 5 years old is not helping your cause dude.

Language barrier maybe? I'm trying to be as clear as possible, but english is not my native language and i don't have the skills for it like Raven or Peregrine. Sorry if i sound like that to you, is not my intention.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

your test is barely a test without anything to compare it to

or reliable reproduction

Share this post


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

I'm really out of means to try to tell you how things work. And many others has tried it. I just don't know how. Everything you need to know is in this thread but you just won't accept it.

 

While many others have not agreed with your explanations or logic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

While many others have not agreed with your explanations or logic. 

I know. They can live in a reality they wan't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, peregrine7 said:

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. 

 

S!


S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know, you're wasting your time trying to convince us the VVS cannons are broken. how about you invest that time in actually testing it and documenting the results in SP on various aircraft in similar, or, if possible, the same situation and share it here? only consistent data such as the one of the original 20mm HE bug report is actually useful.

 

if you claim something broken and you can prove it and reproduce it at any given time, you have a valid point and a correctly filed bug report that can be reproduced will get the devs attention.. if not, you have wasted your time and are just another "biased" pilot who wants his side to shoot nukes and the other side to fly paper airplanes.

 

i'm looking forward for a very detailed bug report :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This tread was made to point a difference, a call to Devs, I´m really can´t understand why someones try to dismiss this thread, are you devs with others names? Are you a shareholder of the company?

If this game was made only to kill AI on SP well I really need a refound, I buy all releases because I believe on this game and on the people who made it real.

I´m pretty sure that is a big part of people that buy the game but if they play 4 hrs per moth is a lot time and they don´t care about this threads. We all know each other because we saw our names on most of the 5 MP servers  online with more of the 50% occupancy.

Normally I hate big updates, always something go wrong, a small ones are more specific, but there are many small things that need to be correct since they appear from years ago and we don´t see any change, for example, you choose your own skin on a winter map and the server gives the default summer skin, terrible. The A20s light when you open the bomb bay door,  terrible.  Net code, dam it, take time that you need to optimize it.

Nothing is perfect, we just ask  DEVs to take a look please.  

 

 

Edited by 666GIAP_Necathor
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

the be honest, testing different guns on the same section of an aircraft is actually better data than testing the same gun on different aircraft

it helps to eliminate variables. in a perfect world this would be done over and over again with each aircraft and every single gun in the game to establish damage, but that would take gobs of time

 

to me, something that is very telling is the amount of shots on average it takes to kill the 109 with 23mm vs the German 20mm. if this can be repeated that is a discrepancy that can't really be explained by "well it's just because every 20mm shot is HE". you forget that 23mm, although every other round is HE does not mean at AP should do no damage at all to structure. I don't think anyone can deny that all HE rounds is a very nice advantage, but the difference in stopping power, according to the video is staggering  

 

if people really want this game to be realistic, than a discrepancy like those should be hunted down. I worry some people really like to selectively quash bug reports, or dismiss historical data to benefit themselves. 

Edited by gimpy117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 666GIAP_Necathor said:

Snip...

Nothing is perfect, we just ask  DEVs to take a look please.  

 

 

Yes, I also don't get all the hate in the thread and the caps-lock posting, as if large letters can replace well formed arguments. (Well, i actually assume that it's all about the TAW competitive setting - but what do I know).

 

Anyway, getting back to the topic amid all the "3 words" posts: to the guys who are suggesting that the issue is MP, how can a customer report MP issues if there is no valid test environment?

 

According to some here, you can only accurately isolate issues by testing them in SP. If the issue is not reproducible in SP, how does a customer identify and report an issue from MP which is not visible in SP? Should all people who see issues in MP just stop posting, and just live with them, as the "feelings" in this thread seem to suggest?

Share this post


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

Anyway, getting back to the topic amid all the "3 words" posts: to the guys who are suggesting that the issue is MP, how can a customer report MP issues if there is no valid test environment?

 

According to some here, you can only accurately isolate issues by testing them in SP. If the issue is not reproducible in SP, how does a customer identify and report an issue from MP which is not visible in SP? Should all people who see issues in MP just stop posting, and just live with them, as the "feelings" in this thread seem to suggest?

 

I wish i could be as clear as you; this is what i asked also. Would it help if did that test for instance in three different servers? What MP conditions should i look for?

The test in this video took 4 hours; two guys using a dedicated server with no other thing in the map than 2 spawn points, no map objects. We live in the same province and have good ping (less than 50 IIRC).

Share this post


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

 

According to some here, you can only accurately isolate issues by testing them in SP. If the issue is not reproducible in SP, how does a customer identify and report an issue from MP which is not visible in SP? Should all people who see issues in MP just stop posting, and just live with them, as the "feelings" in this thread seem to suggest?

 

If the feature doesn't work in SP, all user are impacted the same way.

 

If the feature doesn't work in MP it is much harder to tell if everybody is impacted or if the issue comes from the player side of things and if everybody is impacted the same way.

 

Test away in MP, but saying you and your buddy seeig something doesn't have the same weight as when there's a bug in SP where everybody will be impacted for sure.

Share this post


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

Yes, I also don't get all the hate in the thread and the caps-lock posting, as if large letters can replace well formed arguments. (Well, i actually assume that it's all about the TAW competitive setting - but what do I know).

 

Anyway, getting back to the topic amid all the "3 words" posts: to the guys who are suggesting that the issue is MP, how can a customer report MP issues if there is no valid test environment?

 

According to some here, you can only accurately isolate issues by testing them in SP. If the issue is not reproducible in SP, how does a customer identify and report an issue from MP which is not visible in SP? Should all people who see issues in MP just stop posting, and just live with them, as the "feelings" in this thread seem to suggest?

There you go buddy: 

I'm sorry if my posts does not meet yout criteria, I'm a bit lazy to type with a phone. But when people clearly refer to something I've said, I usually respond. How many marks is the minimum post lenght in your opinion?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

 

I wish i could be as clear as you; this is what i asked also. Would it help if did that test for instance in three different servers? What MP conditions should i look for?

The test in this video took 4 hours; two guys using a dedicated server with no other thing in the map than 2 spawn points, no map objects. We live in the same province and have good ping (less than 50 IIRC).

Who needs MP when all will play Axis vs AI online. Problem solved, no need to fix net code then 😄

 

10 kills in 51 , something is wrong with it guns to strong airplane to uber

10 kills in 109 something is wrong with it guns to week airplane to week, rusian bias

 

Share this post


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

There you go buddy: 

...

 

Great! So it seems that the devs do expect customers to voice their MP concerns, and that there is no strict procedure or requirements when it comes to your personal home connection in order to report bugs (sure, it would be perfect if we all had our own test servers right next to us, we would get the best results, but we are mere customers).

 

So, @ECV56_Chimango, why not report the bug there, and bypass the crowd? It seems that some of the people here don't like you and are ready to dismiss/oppose by default anything you post, whether it's legit or not. You're getting a lot of attention in the process, I'll give you that, and the issue stays on top of the other threads, but you should also use the agreed reporting system.

 

To help your case you could also post a video of the same test repeated in single player. If the behavior is really different there, then it should at least help the dev team narrow down the possible causes. If the issue is really caused by the connection to the server, then I think that they can rule that out by using their own test setup, which I'm assuming it's more controlled.

 

There are other recordings which show issues with the damage system, even in SP. As Jason stated just before the release, this is a big update and many unintended things may happen, so I'm hoping for the best that these unintended things will get their deserved attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Great! So it seems that the devs do expect customers to voice their MP concerns, and that there is no strict procedure or requirements when it comes to your personal home connection in order to report bugs (sure, it would be perfect if we all had our own test servers right next to us, we would get the best results, but we are mere customers).

 

So, @ECV56_Chimango, why not report the bug there, and bypass the crowd? It seems that some of the people here don't like you and are ready to dismiss/oppose by default anything you post, whether it's legit or not. You're getting a lot of attention in the process, I'll give you that, and the issue stays on top of the other threads, but you should also use the agreed reporting system.

 

To help your case you could also post a video of the same test repeated in single player. If the behavior is really different there, then it should at least help the dev team narrow down the possible causes. If the issue is really caused by the connection to the server, then I think that they can rule that out by using their own test setup, which I'm assuming it's more controlled.

 

There are other recordings which show issues with the damage system, even in SP. As Jason stated just before the release, this is a big update and many unintended things may happen, so I'm hoping for the best that these unintended things will get their deserved attention.

The bug reporting has been there for ages, nothing new here. I'm surprised that you're surprised. Or anyone for that matter.

 

Of course you can post there what you wan't, other thing is if it's valid. Bug reports has always been welcomed there, people should use it.

 

And if you make a thread like this, you can expect people to comment it. 

Edited by LLv24_Zami
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LLv24_Zami said:

The bug reporting has been there for ages, nothing new here. I'm surprised that you're surprised. Or anyone for that matter.

 

Of course you can post there what you wan't, other thing is if it's valid. Bug reports has always been welcomed there, people should use it.

 

Sure, the bug reporting thread was there all along, no one has ever stated the opposite, but the opinions of people regarding this behavior not being a bug, because MP is not a good environment, that the bugs must be repro'ed only in SP to deserve any attention, etc etc are here. So, we had to somehow bring the official view on MP bugs into this thread. And here we are.

Share this post


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

 

Sure, the bug reporting thread was there all along, no one has ever stated the opposite, but the opinions of people regarding this behavior not being a bug, because MP is not a good environment, that the bugs must be repro'ed only in SP to deserve any attention, etc etc are here. So, we had to somehow bring the official view on MP bugs into this thread. And here we are.

I just did the palmface. Are you understanding this wrong on purpose?

 

Once more, if you wan't to test DM, it's done in SP to get valid data. SP and MP damage model are the same. MP is not good enviroment to do this.

 

If you wan't to proove something wrong in MP, or difference between SP and MP DM,  I suggest you compare two excatcly same scenarios in SP and MP obviously. Many times. Or do it like you wan't. Post it to the bug thread.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As I promised ECV56_Chimango

And you were right, there is a problem with the 109 tail, but there is no problem with the soviet cannons.

You can test it against E-7 after 2   37mm of HE hit the plane gona lose the rudder holder and the horizontal stabilizer+elevator. Its historical for E-7 but not historical for F,G,K series.

The test  made on Berloga.

Edited by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here's what you said:

36 minutes ago, LLv24_Zami said:

I just did the palmface. Are you understanding this wrong on purpose?

 

Once more, if you wan't to test DM, it's done in SP to get valid data. SP and MP damage model are the same. MP is not good enviroment to do this.

 

If you wan't to proove something wrong in MP, or difference between SP and MP DM,  I suggest you compare two excatcly same scenarios in SP and MP obviously. Many times. Or do it like you wan't. Post it to the bug thread.

 

Here is what i said:

1 hour ago, Raven109 said:

why not report the bug there, and bypass the crowd? It seems that some of the people here don't like you and are ready to dismiss/oppose by default anything you post, whether it's legit or not. You're getting a lot of attention in the process, I'll give you that, and the issue stays on top of the other threads, but you should also use the agreed reporting system.

 

To help your case you could also post a video of the same test repeated in single player. If the behavior is really different there, then it should at least help the dev team narrow down the possible causes. If the issue is really caused by the connection to the server, then I think that they can rule that out by using their own test setup, which I'm assuming it's more controlled.

 

It seems we both agree more or less, doesn't it? I'll leave it at that.

 

How about we follow the instructions from the MP bug thread, when it comes to reporting, ok? If you want other instructions to be followed by users, then why not update that thread? Thank you in advance.

Edited by Raven109

Share this post


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

Here's what you said:

 

Here is what i said:

 

It seems we both agree more or less, doesn't it? I'll leave it at that.

 

How about we follow the instructions from the MP bug thread, when it comes to reporting, ok? If you want other instructions to be followed by users, then why not update that thread? Thank you in advance.

Sure, do what you wan't. I and other testers have just said to you how devs have instructed us to do DM testing. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

DM only works 100% as intended in SP this is why you should test in SP and not MP.

MP has netcode issues that can lead to unforeseen issues with DM registering.

MP and SP DM are exactly the same it's just that MP can have problems with registering the DM properly.

 

Test in SP if you want to PROVE that something is wrong.

 

In my SP testing I haven't really had any issued with bringing down aircraft with Russian cannons. Sometimes I can bring them down with a few hits, other times it takes multiple burst to bring them down. It just depends on where I hit and on how well I aim.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

DM only works 100% as intended in SP this is why you should test in SP and not MP.

MP has netcode issues that can lead to unforeseen issues with DM registering.

MP and SP DM are exactly the same it's just that MP can have problems with registering the DM properly.

 

Test in SP if you want to PROVE that something is wrong.

 

In my SP testing I haven't really had any issued with bringing down aircraft with Russian cannons. Sometimes I can bring them down with a few hits, other times it takes multiple burst to bring them down. It just depends on where I hit and on how well I aim.

I tested it in SP aswell, the result is the same.

I just wanted to prove, the DM working in MP aswell in SP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting posts from Petrovich responding to 'concerns' about 23mm on the Russian forum. I copy the translations below from Google. Interestingly (to me anyway) he says they have utilities that automate the damage testing of any particular weapon against any chosen aircraft which can generate 1000 or even a million tests - he talks of the importance of large number of trials to get accurate results. This is a long post.....

1:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13303-обсуждение-версии-4005-новая-модель-повреждений-планера-самолёта/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-766802

We have each ammunition set by a set of physical parameters, either directly taken from the TTD (mass, TNT, shot speed, etc.), or calculated according to a single system (number of fragments, mass of fragments, etc.). With this approach, it is difficult to make a mistake in the wrong balance of weapon efficiency. Now I don’t have at hand the specific numbers of 20 and 23 mm (I don’t remember for memory), I will write later. I just want to note that to correctly compare the effectiveness of ammunition, you need to conduct a series of tests and collect statistics on them, the more, the more accurately you can estimate the average expectation. We use special utilities that allow you to carry out large series of shooting tests (millions of shots) with a specific ammunition strictly in a certain part of the aircraft, and from a certain angle, and so on for each part of it. This allows you to more accurately estimate the average how many hits are needed to "unfasten", for example, the wing with this ammunition. And if you focus on some "limiting" cases, then of course you can fabricate an opinion in one direction or the other. However, the average picture may be slightly different.

2:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13303-обсуждение-версии-4005-новая-модель-повреждений-планера-самолёта/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-766885

I do not keep up with you. :)

 

It takes some time to answer substantively (in numbers). As promised, I just looked at what characteristics we have set for two shells:

 

OF 20 mm:

Shell weight: 89.7 g.

Shot speed (MG 151/20 gun): 805 m / s

Mass of explosives: 20 gr.

Mass of significant fragments: 28.7 gr. (or 32% of the mass of the projectile)

Fragmentation: 41 fragment of 0.7 g.

 

RP 23 mm:

Projectile mass: 196 g

Shot speed (VYA-23 gun): 900 m / s

Explosive mass: 11 g.

Mass of significant fragments: 75.6 gr. (or 39% of the mass of the projectile)

Fragmentation: 27 fragments of 2.8 g.

 

Fragmentation of fragments, as far as I know, is calculated taking into account the fill factor and the well-known empire for significant / insignificant fragments for various types of shells. I don’t know the details, not my sector. Thus, our 20 mm projectile now has a 1.4 times more powerful high-explosive effect (and not 1.8 times, as one might think when comparing the mass of explosives, because the dependence on TNT is, as is known, non-linear). But the 23 mm shell has 2.6 times the mass of fragments, and the fragments themselves are 4 times larger (by weight), but due to this, they are about 1.5 times smaller in number.

 

Well, and, in fact, the main question: how do these shells "work" according to the glider .

 

I just took the Bf-109 G2 from the current version of the game for the test, and in the utility mentioned above I performed 1000 test firing on each part of the airframe. That is, for each part of the airframe, 1000 experiments are carried out, and in each of them it is determined on which account the projectile breaks (the plane is not loaded, overload = 0, only the combat resistance of the force set to damage is tested). The plate below shows how many times more HE 20 mm shells are required than 23 mm to break the power pack:

 

Wing (root, middle, end parts) before breaking: 1.81

Stabilizer (console) before breaking: 1.79

Steering wheels (ailerons, PB, PH), before breaking: 0.99

Flaps, before breaking: 1.00

Fuselage, before breaking: 0.78

Chassis (struts, wheels), before the lift: 1.74

 

That is, as can be seen from this plate, the 23 mm HE shell is now almost 2 times more effective in the wing and stabilizer of this particular Bf-109 G2 aircraft, both shells are equally effective in the rudders, and the 20 mm shell is almost a quarter more effective in the fuselage . I repeat, we are talking only about the power set of the glider, and not about systems, control wiring, breakdown of tanks, cooling systems, etc.

 

However, based on the above initial data on high-explosive fragmentation and high-explosive impact, a 20 mm projectile is approximately 1.42 times more effective than a 23 mm shell projectile (in the case of an explosion at point-blank range). Which, in my opinion, is quite logical, given the difference between a high-explosive action and the number of fragments.

 

Also, using another utility, I can compare the effectiveness of these two shells on an unarmored engine. When a Bf-109 G2 plane directly hits the engine (an explosion at point-blank range) from a firing range of 200m (1 million tests), a single hit of a 23 mm projectile will damage the engine 1.02 times more often, of which fires occur 1.39 times more often, 6.00 times stronger, on average, the crankshaft is damaged, the cylinder block is damaged 1.73 times more, the oil leakage is as much times, and 1.71 times stronger than the coolant leakage from the engine jacket. If two of the same type of shells hit, the difference in the number of fires decreases to 1.27, the difference in average damage to the crankshaft decreases to 4.50, the cylinder block is damaged by 23 mm shells 1.69 times stronger, oil leaks become 1.70 times stronger and coolant leaks from the engine jacket are 1.84 times stronger times.

 

I hope that this information helped you better navigate about the difference in the effectiveness of 20 mm and 23 mm HE shells that we have in the game now, and from what characteristics of the shells it is obtained. I fully admit that in our initial data on these shells there may be some inaccuracies (I repeat, not my sector). Therefore, if there is something to clarify, specify, only please, with reference to the source, and I will give it.

 

PS

Yes, and I also see that there are doubts about the supposedly equal efficiency of 20mm ShVAK and 23mm VYA. Take my word for it, do not force me to write a sheet with the test results again, that 20 mm ShVAK is certainly less effective than 20 mm MG 151/20, and I gave the comparison of 20 mm German shell and 23 mm Soviet.

  • Thanks 7
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the ammunition modelled for the VYa-23 is the tracer round with smaller amount of explosive filler (some space taken by tracer).  Seeing Roland's video of multiple 23mm HEI impacts in the leaking fuselage tank I would like to see an increased fire probability.

unknown.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kendo said:

--massive quote--

 

Well looks the like damage of 20mm and 23mm is about as "working as intended" as it truly gets. The devs really hammered out an iron way of testing damage and I'm quite impressed. Knowing this, I will conclude that the only way they could be incorrect in their damage, is if the data of the shell/bullet/cartridge itself was incorrect. So let us gather up the mathematics side of the calibers in question to double check their data. Otherwise, I believe the "problem" is pretty well debunked and/or solved as the damage inflicted by these calibers is authentic and realistic.  

Also SuperExtendard posted an excellent graphical piece of information. That is what is now required for further discussion of imbalance or incorrect data figures.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! 

 

Pretty much closes the case. Only thing that could go wrong is at devs' end, punching in incorrect numbers etc. Good post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Looks like the ammunition modelled for the VYa-23 is the tracer round with smaller amount of explosive filler (some space taken by tracer).  Seeing Roland's video of multiple 23mm HEI impacts in the leaking fuselage tank I would like to see an increased fire probability.

unknown.png

Correct and not correct. I mean I don't know.
I read what kendo copy pasted, and I'm amazed. They are working harder than I ever imagined.

What I'm try to say, when I hit the dead 6 of the 109 there is no fire, I think you already know the 109s fuel tank was protected with a 6mm thick armor plate until F-4, after G-1 the armor thickness increased to 27mm(Even 20  mm of AP shouldn't pen it).
But in my testes if I hit the side of the fuselage from 5-6-7 o'clock there was instant fire from the fuel tank.(ofc you have less chance to do it from G-2 because the germans put a 4-6 mm of armor around it, except below.)
So I guess the devs calcualted all of these things. Its looks like for me.(maybe I'm wrong ofc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

Well looks the like damage of 20mm and 23mm is about as "working as intended" as it truly gets. 


It does offline.

 

24 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

Pretty much closes the case.


Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the devs finish work on the 109s I really cant see them as a valid test bed for anything involving damage model. Especially if the tail assembly is the concern of discussion. That area is simply in place holder mode and under development. So critiqueing that area in its current state holds no validity until the devs finish it. Besides the 109s go down as expected from hits into the fuselage from the sides and anywhere into the engine. There was a video posted showing this very recently using shvaks.

 

In the mean time, I suggest to use the A20 or 190 A8 as the means to conduct comparative testing. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! 

 

Basically Chimango attacks devs and implies that their testing method produces wrong data and favors German guns and planes. He also complains how his precious Yak must use radiators not to overheat. Live with it, Yak had serious issues with cooling until to later series Yak-9/3..but that is another matter. You seem to have a very clear bias in the whole matter and do not listen to anything after you have set your mind. 

 

Devs can setup a test doing 1000 shots and get data immediately in a consistent manner. They can check the numbers and re-run the test. Rinse and repeat until results match their data. We can not and I tend to believe the devs more in this case, having a consistent testing method and tools for it. 

 

I do not know what Chimango wants to happen, VVS being an automated "I Win" button? From my experience, mostly online, the better pilot wins no matter what plane you fly or no matter what guns it has. The idea is not to get shot at in the first place.

 

If getting shot at then a lot of things have gone wrong. Or if failing to execute the attack properly, again up to the pilot. One has to use the tools provided to maximum efficiency and adapt to any situation. Pretty much what Siddy said with using the current meta to achieve his goal, aerial victories. 

 

TL;DR Devs have the tools and methods for consistent testing. They will adjust things based on hard data and results, adjusting if needed. Their post confirmed this. 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

Basically Chimango attacks devs and implies that their testing method produces wrong data and favors German guns and planes. He also complains how his precious Yak must use radiators not to overheat. Live with it, Yak had serious issues with cooling until to later series Yak-9/3..but that is another matter. You seem to have a very clear bias in the whole matter and do not listen to anything after you have set your mind.

...

I do not know what Chimango wants to happen, VVS being an automated "I Win" button? 


What a sad statement. If you’ve been following the whole thread, then such a ridiculous interpretation of the whole matter can only be considered as trolling. 

 

Read previous posts and check what people with an unbiased position and a clear mind understood about this whole thread.
 

***

11 hours ago, Raven109 said:

So, @ECV56_Chimango, why not report the bug there, and bypass the crowd? It seems that some of the people here don't like you and are ready to dismiss/oppose by default anything you post, whether it's legit or not. You're getting a lot of attention in the process, I'll give you that, and the issue stays on top of the other threads, but you should also use the agreed reporting system.


I agree with this and again you are spot on, most people attacking here i’ve know them for some time of online competitions and hide a personal dislike 😉 So they are blinded, and the funny thing is this same people have the nerve to call others biased! 

 

And yes, we are already performing further testing this time 4 different people in different servers and will hand those results in a detailed manner to devs.

 

Thank you for your advice.

Edited by ECV56_Chimango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

S! 

 

I have read it though. You go to a dogged and stubborn defence mode of your opinion, every single time. References how there must be a clear German bias because X or Y VVS item does not correspond to your view or posts. And there are quite many neutral posts, but you refuse to accept them at all. 

 

The post about devs answering how they test, with an example of 23mm and 20mm, was very comprehensive and very clear. They have developer tools to easily test and verify data produced in game against real life documents/data. They also stated things are being checked. Yet you argue against it. 

 

How about taking a deep breath and wait for a patch? I am confident issues will be looked into and tested accordingly, adjusted if needed. Until then the game is fully playable. 

Edited by LLv34_Flanker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You read it, but you misinterpreted it. Sorry, but yet again as everytime time you posted here, you seem to miss the main core of the whole thread; with personal attacks almost insulting, and clearly trolling.

 

This thread is not about SP guns performance. Read well before further replying please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ECV56_Chimango said:

not about SP guns performance

sorry you missunderstood all people commenting above.

there is not a SP gun performance and an MP gun performance. there is simply gun performance. in MP with a very low ping, you will get the same results as in SP. the performance is the same everywhere. BUT in MP it is affected by hit registration due to netcode and latency of the other player and/or you.

 

this thread should not be about the damage the VVS guns do, but about optimizing the netcode.

 

if you read and understand @kendos post carefully about what AnPetrovich states on the RU forum, you would understand that the issue in MP is not the guns.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

this thread should not be about the damage the VVS guns do, but about optimizing the netcode.


Yet, when you watch our video and the ones posted by 72AG squadron in the russian forum (ours and one of theirs already attached in the OP) you see the diminished power from VVS guns online while MG151/20 keeps it’s strength. If it is a netcode issue only, it should affect all equally...right?


We are still doing further testing today.

 

Anyway, if after tests are over we conclude than the faulty aspect is netcode, good enough... all we are looking for is to have it fixed whenever the devs are able to; and in the meantime let them acknowledge the issue (if it exists)

PS. thanks to some useful insights added in this thread by some users, we will be looking for an even more detailed test than the previous one, taking in consideration the 109 tail matter as well. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

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...

 

These tables by Tony Williams are not based on any such reports. Its simply an arbitrary calculation that take the KE of the shell fired as basis and almost completely ignores the CE content of the shell, since explosive charge in the calculation is just a multiplier for damage. Its not a scientific or engineering based approach, but a rough, ballpark estimate that more or less agrees with anecdotal 'data'. But since there is no connection between kinetic energy and explosive energy in real life (hand granade would do the same damage if its in your hands and pretty much the same damage if its thrown at you), relying on these to verify the validity of scientific and engineering based precise calculations that are actually performed in this sim in real time is simply misleading. The tables cannot be used for that, they just give an avarage reader a rough idea but nothing more. BTW Tony himself readily admits that nature of his tables and by no means he wants anyone to take them as a gospel. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...