WTF is wrong with the armament of the mc 202?

[[CPT]Crunch]

Make sure your running RPM's maximum in the Macci when in combat, your guns ROF are RPM dependent.

[ShamrockOneFive]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

That's something I think a lot of people are overlooking. I've yet to see any assessment that the Breda 12.7 mms were anything more than "barely adequate." So, what do people really expect when going up against a tough target like an Il-2?

 

Yep, this. The Breda 12.7mm was, from what I've read, the least effective heavy machine gun of WWII. So I'm not surprised when an aircraft like an IL-2 comes along with a reputation for taking hits and still flying home to absorb a lot of fire from this gun.

 

It's still better than IL-2: 1946 where you could fire all day at something with those Breda's and not bring it down.

[TheSublimeGoose]

8 hours ago, P40eWarhawk said:

mate i dont now where that "accurate modeling" comes from i shot mg irl also 50s... they go through that engine block no problem what so ever and one shot lets an engine die i dont dont know where the "accurate" modeling was there also i shot a il2 in the tail all my ammo... if you shoot a tail in the plane with two 50cals not matter how weak they are that tail is absolutley shredded and unuseable... not after wone shot like with a 30 mm but after 100drs?? that think is going down... and yeah i know how to aim thanks very much i also dont spray and pray those shots hit you see how they hitits just absolute nonesense that the whole ammoload that hits a plane wouldnt bring it down and yeah i thx i red the dev blog and i was ecited that 50 cals finally would work (you know how they did IRL) but know... apparently not.

I’ve been saying this for a couple of years now (mainly on the IL-2 Reddit); but the US .50s are, IMO, not modeled accurately, and still aren’t, even post-DM update.

 

I speak from two sources; historical & personal.

 

Historically, pilots speak of 6-8 .50s absolutely decimating anything they touched. Pilots speak of sawing wings/tails off, seeing blood explode on the inside of cockpits, etc, all from a couple of bursts. Look at combat footage from the time. One, maybe two bursts from the .50s and that airframe is at least out of action. Obviously A LOT comes down to good convergence, I’ll readily admit that. But a well-converged 8-gun burst of .50s — do people understand how much lead that is impacting a (relatively) small area?

 

A one-second burst from 8 .50s put out 4.44kg (9.8lbs). A single MG 151/20 put out 1.38kg/s. This put the 47’s armament in league with x3 151/20s. Now, does it seem that way in-game? Don’t get me wrong; I fully understand that burst-mass isn’t everything, and it certainly doesn’t take into account explosive content (or lack thereof). But it counts for something, which is why it’s a heavily-used metric in any formula that attempts to calculate weapon ‘power.’

 

Then, personal experience; I’ve seen what a single HMG does to engine blocks, vehicles, people, concrete, even steel. And these weren’t special rounds, for the most part they were simple ball rounds. I can’t imagine what a converged 8 would do.

 

In-game, I can chase around 109s, putting burst after burst into them, and the keep on putting along. Yes, occasionally I’ll get a pilot kill. But that’s a rarity. More often than not it’s a long game. Merely from turning the aircraft surface into Swiss-cheese, it should be unflyable.

 

I realize this is mostly anecdotal, so I’d definitely like to hear other’s thoughts on this.

 

As for the Breda 12.7mm, it didn’t even have half the explosive content of the MG 131 13.2mm round (0.8 grams PETN for the Breda, 1.4 grams PETN & 0.3 grams thermite for the 131). The Breda also had a lower RoF than most .50s, which became abysmal when synchronized to a prop (as in the 202) coming in at 575/min.

 

If anything, I think x2 Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm outperforms x8 well-converged M2s in many cases, which is simply BS. Perhaps they’d be better at igniting a fuel fire, but that’s about it.

Edited May 4, 2020 by KotwicaGoose
specification of weapon

[357th_KW]

Well the US late war .50s are literally using the wrong ammo (AP instead of API), and more often than not are shooting at an airplane (109F-K) that literally has part of its damage model disabled by the devs.  So yeah, the current model is incorrect, and they work like poo-poo in many instances.

[SAS_Storebror]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

That's something I think a lot of people are overlooking. I've yet to see any assessment that the Breda 12.7 mms were anything more than "barely adequate." So, what do people really expect when going up against a tough target like an Il-2?

 

Now that I did that test myself and I wasn't surprised that the IL-2 was able to eat lots of ammo when being hit "outside the sweet spots", I totally agree as for the amount of randomly dispersed hits it could take.

What surprised my a bit however was how the oil cooler was virtually invulnerable to well placed hits (lots of them) while it was (at least visually) fully open, so no armoured flaps that would have protected it.

What surprised me as well was how the control surfaces were virtually invulnerable to the Breda guns. An MG151/20 sweep coughs them off in no time in comparison.

What surprised me further on was how weak the gears seem to be. Whenever I attack an IL-2 with AP ammo equipped planes, the "spread" bullets are sufficient to kick out gear doors within the first two sweeps and the gears come down another 1-2 sweeps later, and that's just the few random bullets that stray right or left of my aim point (engine, cockpit, oil cooler).

Finally after having put a few hundred rounds into the cockpit from all kind of deflection angles with no effect, I was surprised that finally it is a pilot kill that ends most of IL-2's lifes when I attack them.

 

In summary, the amount of supposedly "weak" AP ammo swallowed by an IL-2 is way less of a surprise than the actual things happening in detail.

 

Mike

Edited May 4, 2020 by SAS_Storebror

[TheSublimeGoose]

1 hour ago, KW_1979 said:

Well the US late war .50s are literally using the wrong ammo (AP instead of API), and more often than not are shooting at an airplane (109F-K) that literally has part of its damage model disabled by the devs.  So yeah, the current model is incorrect, and they work like poo-poo in many instances.

I swear I saw a dev mention the 47 and 51’s rounds are AP-I? Definitely could be wrong about that.
 

I really, REALLY wish we could simply choose our ammo types. The ‘but it’s a sim’ argument just doesn’t hold weight with me. There are numerous arcadey-aspects to this game. Allowing us to choose ammo types would be a huge boon, especially for some of the weapons with middling performance.

 

I don’t need a belt of pure AP/AP-T rounds on my .50s when I’m expecting to engage fighters. I wouldn’t want incendiary rounds if I’m going to be strafing ground targets. 
 

At least allow this for 13.2mm weapons and below. I understand not allowing it on German cannons, as everyone would just load their belts with minengeschoß and the occasional HE-T.

 

I know the historical accuracy of this is dubious at best — I’ve seen contradictory sources on this very forum say pilots had control over their belts, that some pilots had control over them, that pilots only had some control over their belts, that only squadron CCs had control over it, and that basically no one had control over it (then whom did??) — but I think it’s minor enough that we could let it slide. Not saying we need full customization a la IL-2: CloD, but more belt choices would be nice. An AP/ground belt, incen/HE belt, mixed/universal, maybe a pure tracer or stealth belt a la WT? 

 

 I know this will never happen, but a guy can dream...

 

I’d love to see this implemented for the 12-gun Hurricane; that could turn a potentially middling gun platform into something fairly dangerous for a .303-armed airframe.

 

 

[jojy47jojyrocks]

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

That's something I think a lot of people are overlooking. I've yet to see any assessment that the Breda 12.7 mms were anything more than "barely adequate." So, what do people really expect when going up against a tough target like an Il-2?

 

 

I mostly play SP.

 

Pretty sure all planes got their damage sweetspots/weakpoints. When shooting at an IL-2...I most go for the radiators under the plane. For Pe-2, I go for the engines hoping to damage the engine, cooling systems as well as the landing gear too. So its kinda inconsistent how the AI is affected by the damage.

 

So far even with the new damage model and when you hit the weakpoints...its still hard to bring them down.

Edited May 4, 2020 by jojy47jojyrocks

[RedKestrel]

22 hours ago, MattS said:

 

Not to put too many words in other people's mouths, but I think what he's talking about is how well the AI continues to fly despite substantial damage, oil-covered windscreen etc. compared to how these things influence a human online.

 

Back on the topic I was discussing with @RedKestrel, I just did a QMB mission with a 4-gun P-40 (with extra ammo) and shot down all of the Stukas...so now I'm not sure what to think. I suspect that my tactic of bearing down on the bad guys and waiting until the last minute to give them a burst into the engine/cockpit area at point-blank range is not really the way to go. Modifying my attacks to be shallower, with a longer firing window (plus more of that firing time closer to convergence) seems to offer more bullet impacts / more dice rolls for a pilot snipe or fire to occur. With the MGs at least there's no replacement for quantity of "hose time".

I finally had some time to take the P-47 up against some stukas. I didn't do it 25 times, just a couple. For reference I took 8 guns and used a 300 m  convergence. 

The first round I fought them I got hit in the engine during a tail chase and wasn't able to hit much with oil all over my windscreen. Hits all over the wings and in the fuselage prompted a lot  of fuel leaks but not much else. I did kill one and damage two others before I lost sight of them. One thing I noticed was that those with tail damage were easier to get behind. The ones that were pristine would often try and dogfight and they could easily out-turn me for a short time. So hits on the tail appear to be reducing elevator effectiveness IMO. 

The second batch I focused a bit more on avoiding the gunners. I did a head on pass with the formation and got a couple hits on a wingtip on the leader. Followed it up with a split s and then came up in a shallow angle at low six o'clock. I lined up three of the four in the formation. A 2 second burst into the rear one resulted in an abrupt nose up and I went underneath him- when I looked over my shoulder the gunner was bailing out, so that was pilot kill. I got hits on wings and fuselage and shot off a wheel on the second one, and the third was too close by the time I opened fire and only hit with one bank of guns on his wing.

The one I had hit hardest broke formation low and headed away - usually if the AI does this it means they're trying to ditch somewhere or land. I stuck with the other two, one pristine, the other leaking fuel and with a small amount of wing damage.

I managed to settle into the gunner's blind spot at low 6 o'clock, so I was able to keep very steady  and he was flying straight and level. I fired bursts on my approach before convergence, at convergence, and within convergence. I say bursts but what I did was just click the trigger once each time - not sure how many bullets this fires. In any case, the first burst from too far out got a couple hits on the wings, the burst at convergence shredded the tail and prompted black smoke, and the third burst prompted thick smoke and flames. This was from nearly dead six, so the bullets must have traveled through the plane to hit the engine on several occasions. The AP rounds seem to be doing what they were meant to do.

The last one was the leader and this one turned hard into me. Hits all over the fuselage and the wings started a ton of fuel leaks. A second attack once again had hits all over, and after this he started a death spiral, either out of control or a pilot kill. I still had plenty of ammo but no more targets, as I had lost track of the earlier damaged stuka. 

I'll admit this is not particularly rigorous. But with the P-47 armament, when I avoided the gunners I was able to down 3 stukas and probably kill a 4th with minimal issues. When the gunner got me on the first pass I was still able to maul the formation, since the Jug engine is no longer so fragile. In both cases I still had plenty of ammo left. My gunnery is not excellent or anything. I was able to kill pilots, cause engine fires, and cause control loss and maneuverability issues. That's the kind of damage I would expect with AP HMG rounds to an aircraft. I was never able to get concentrated fire into a wing to see if I could cause a failure. I think that would be difficult to do ...you would have to get good hits, at convergence, probably with a deflection shot to hit the wing spars. You have to pull lead so you're basically exposing your belly to the gunner while traveling in the same plane of motion...not great. 

 Probably hits on aircraft structure and skin with AP do damage but not a lot, so if you aren't hitting anything vital a structurally robust plane like the Stuka will soak up a lot of rounds. With the new DM, AP rounds have to hit something vital to get a kill, the skin damage from AP ammo is not enough to bring down planes efficiently, which I feel is fairly realistic. If incendiary ammo was modeled I think you would see the .50 cals causing many more fuel fires and the Stuka's IIRC were particularly vulnerable to being set ablaze by the RAF incendiary rounds in the Battle of Britain. 

[HR_Tumu]

On 5/3/2020 at 7:34 AM, LukeFF said:

There is no difference in the damage modeling in SP vs Multiplayer.

 

This a very interesting point, because  "no difference in the damage modeling"  is a design objective.... but lot of players  reports differences between SP and MP , then, cause no its difference on damage modeling , i really dont know what is the cause.... but the difference on results is here. This point for players like me, Who fly only MP is all the true... for us, no matter if on SP all works super right.... because we are focusing on MP.

 

Anyway, continues be important the thing.  " no difference in the damage modeling in SP vs MP "  but dont solve nothing for MP players experience.  I repeat for MP players like me, will be fantastic reach the point, where results on SP and MP are practically the same. I mean, tranlate de design objective to final experience for MP players.

 

Of course, maybe im wrong. On maybe no.

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The big issue for those of us that enjoy multiplayer is problems with connectivity. Packet loss and lag are real things, and there is nothing the developers can do about it.  Good netcode can only go so far when, like the BlitzPigs, you have myself hosting from Northwest Ohio, and players from the US, Canada, the UK, The Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Brazil, France, and Israel.

 

It just makes for a lot of issues.  In a flight we can all be indicating the same airspeed, yet some are visibly faster.  Also, skin downloads are very iffy, especially for our buddy from Tel Aviv.  As much as I hate to say it, I think that for online, reverting to default 2K skins would be a good idea.  I know I would trade pretty skins for more accurate hit detection and reporting, which would, I think, end a lot of the weapons/DM complaints we are getting now in the online side.

[Mac_Messer]

On 5/3/2020 at 11:27 AM, blitze said:

Mc202 - career armament = anemic but with Il2's, fly low 6 and come up under them going for the Oil Cooler / Radiator (same package as they are sandwiched).

 

Burst of fire at close range ensuring black smoke and them leave them be.  No point wasting ammo.  They eventually fall.

Not an option currently. Will keep on flying normally at least for another 5 minutes, I tested it. Offline it means the IL2 will go on attacking his targets or go around and lend you a nice 23mm burst.

 

What`s up with AI overheating? When I fly whatever plane, radiator puncture means temperature goes up immediately, literally a minute later of the gauge striking 120C I`m dead. AI flies like a champ.

8 hours ago, KotwicaGoose said:

At least allow this for 13.2mm weapons and below. I understand not allowing it on German cannons, as everyone would just load their belts with minengeschoß and the occasional HE-T.

People tend to overlook the modelling of the MG 151/20 since its weakness is offset by the sheer number of rounds it has. More important is that even with good accuracy, one must give IL2 / Pe2 at least 2-3 passes most of the time.

[RedKestrel]

1 minute ago, MattS said:

 

 

Makes sense...if you can get a sustained burst into the enemy from a relatively shallow angle you can get decent results.

 

What has been demoralizing to me is getting good high-deflection shots where the target gets raked from nose to tail down the centerline but the bullets don't hit "anything important" and it has no discernable effect on the enemy. That said it would be nice to know how many bullets actually hit since the visual effect is pretty substantial even for minor. I thought Tacview provided that info but it seems inconsistent.

 

 Here's a nice .gif of an extremely rare event with the new DM: stopping an engine cold (probably with a 20mm round).

 

https://gfycat.com/unequaledaggressiveheifer

 

 

 

With the new engine damage modeling it is possible to destroy or damage individual cylinders of the engine rather than kill the whole engine. The upside of this is that in the Jug the big radial is actually an advantage in ground attack now rather than a liability - previously light MG AA could kill your engine with one lucky hit. Now you can nurse your engine back to friendly lines or even your airfield with some care. As long as you don't get followed by bloodthirsty enemy fighters. 

The downside  is that if you hit with non-explosive rounds you are likely to be only damaging or destroying one cylinder in the engine rather than killing the entire engine at once. So enemy planes will slow down significantly and the engine may eventually seize but it is unlikely to get one-shotted, especially by MG fire. 

High deflection shots with wing mounted MGs not hitting at convergence aren't as effective as they once were because of the engine modeling and structural modeling. Since the HMGs don't do a lot of structural damage, you don't see aircraft structure failing even in hard turns as often from a few hits to the wing, which is what happened before - you would get 5 or 6 rounds into the wing while the guy was in a turn and the wing would go off. Now the damage modeled to the wing is mostly going to be skin damage with a little bit of structural issues if you hit in just the right spot.  At 45-90 degree angles the bullets are passing through a smaller amount of aircraft structure and so the likelihood of hitting something vital in their path is smaller than a shallower angle. Starting engine fires has an element of randomness so your most likely outcome from raking an aircraft is leaks, engine damage, and pilot injuries or kills. If you hit at convergence in the engine/cockpit area I have found that the engine almost always catches fire or the pilot is killed or heavily wounded.

The fuselage aft of the cockpit is just a bullet sponge, unless you hit a cable or something the most you can hope for is a fuel leak. I'm not sure how the game models the damage of cables and wires for control surfaces, perhaps its randomized when you hit an area of the fuselage it passes through.

High deflection snap shots are effectively the realm of cannon-armed aircraft now, at least in terms of the likelihood of producing immediate kills. Not saying you can't do it, but with HMG equipped aircraft you will probably need to follow up on an aircraft with engine damage. Or choose to disengage and leave it to die.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The Stuka, like all water cooled V engines in German and Italian aircraft in the sim is an inverted V type. It's crankshaft is at the top of the engine.

Looks like you put a 20mm round right into the crank, thus stopping the engine.

Though with the rotational speed, and mass of the crank and prop, it was lucky it wasn't torn out of it's mountings all together.

 

Can that even happen in the sim?

[SAS_Storebror]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

skin downloads are very iffy, especially for our buddy from Tel Aviv.  As much as I hate to say it, I think that for online, reverting to default 2K skins would be a good idea

Wait... Did I miss something?

My understanding is that there is no such thing like skin replication online.

Either you have your buddy's skin beforehand, or you'll just see him carry the default skin.

Did that change?

 

Mike 

[RedKestrel]

31 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The Stuka, like all water cooled V engines in German and Italian aircraft in the sim is an inverted V type. It's crankshaft is at the top of the engine.

Looks like you put a 20mm round right into the crank, thus stopping the engine.

Though with the rotational speed, and mass of the crank and prop, it was lucky it wasn't torn out of it's mountings all together.

 

Can that even happen in the sim?

Someone asked in the new DM dev diary thread and I think Jason said that engines coming off their mountings would be cool, but that it is not modeled. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

23 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Wait... Did I miss something?

My understanding is that there is no such thing like skin replication online.

Either you have your buddy's skin beforehand, or you'll just see him carry the default skin.

Did that change?

 

Mike 

 

You are correct, both parties, or all parties for that matter, have to have the skin in their install for it to be viewed, but the information to display that skin still has to be transferred somehow over the net.  My opinion, and it's just that, is that anything that lowers net traffic is a good thing

[SAS_Storebror]

Well that's just one filename plus maybe a hash replicated when the plane spawns, nothing to worry about.

[PatrickAWlson]

Curious, but how many people think that multiple kills in a mission all the time is realistic?  Even against relatively "easy" targets like.a JU87?  The very best pilots could manage a kill about once every two combats.  Why do we expect multiples every time and complain about the DM when we don't get them?

 

Some posters like to point to pilot accounts of shredding an airplane ... I'm sure that happened.  I'm equally sure that for every one of those there was a plane that got hit, got damaged, and limped home.  

 

You asked @RedKestrel to run a test and he obliged, shooting down four Ju87s, some of which were maneuvering.  Do you really want more than that?

 

Posting this because I dread the thought of going back to a weaker DM just to please the people who want to be ace in a day every day.  Before the DM changes I was sawing the wings off of three at a time with the 109 F4.  Way too easy, and I'm a lousy shot.  Since that time I have been forced to hold fire until I am at point blank range.  I almost always get one.  If I get two I feel like I have really done something.  

 

[RedKestrel]

29 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Curious, but how many people think that multiple kills in a mission all the time is realistic?  Even against relatively "easy" targets like.a JU87?  The very best pilots could manage a kill about once every two combats.  Why do we expect multiples every time and complain about the DM when we don't get them?

 

Some posters like to point to pilot accounts of shredding an airplane ... I'm sure that happened.  I'm equally sure that for every one of those there was a plane that got hit, got damaged, and limped home.  

 

You asked @RedKestrel to run a test and he obliged, shooting down four Ju87s, some of which were maneuvering.  Do you really want more than that?

 

Posting this because I dread the thought of going back to a weaker DM just to please the people who want to be ace in a day every day.  Before the DM changes I was sawing the wings off of three at a time with the 109 F4.  Way too easy, and I'm a lousy shot.  Since that time I have been forced to hold fire until I am at point blank range.  I almost always get one.  If I get two I feel like I have really done something.  

 

I really hope they keep the current DM, everything feels so much better now. Sure there are tweaks and bug-squishing needed but the model over all has been a sea change in the right direction. I don't see any evidence that they're going to change it back and why would they? Even if there are bugs or problems, the underlying structure of the DM is much more robust and evidence based and in 95% of scenarios it produces reasonable results. There's always going to be some edge cases that people can point to as proof something is broken but a model can only be so good.

Edited May 4, 2020 by RedKestrel

[Avimimus]

15 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Curious, but how many people think that multiple kills in a mission all the time is realistic?  Even against relatively "easy" targets like.a JU87?  The very best pilots could manage a kill about once every two combats.  Why do we expect multiples every time and complain about the DM when we don't get them?

 

...and when one considers that some accounts of multiple kills also involve unintentional overclaiming (i.e. the enemy aircraft that went down in smoke or out of control actually recovered, or the fireball spotted on the ground a short time after the flyby was actually another aircraft etc.)

 

As for the Il-2:

1) The Il-2 is *supposed* to be armoured against 12mm bullets...

2) The total weight of the bullets in the MC202 is 30kg.... the main armoured 'bathtub' of the Il-2 is 700kg... Of course, your bullets are flying at high velocity (>750m/s, 2500ft/s)... but still, should one be surprised when the aircraft doesn't easily get destroyed?

 

Next question:

How many of your bullets are hitting? How many are hitting something important? If I shoot 400 bullets at an Il-2, maybe 100 hit, and maybe 12 hit the radiator (if I'm aiming at it)... and that is assuming I'm aiming well... (you might thing you are doing better than me, but you might also be deluding yourself)!

 

Now how many of those bullets should hit critical parts of the radiator? That is a question to ask yourself. There is also the question to ask yourself: Should a single bullet to the radiator or to the engine stop a plane? How quickly should the engine fail? If the pilot throttles back to avoid overheating?

 

I just flew two missions in the MC-202... In one a shot down an Il-2... in the other I expended all of my ammunition and shot down two Il-2 in the process... the 12.7mm guns work! However, it is worth noting that one of the Il-2 flew for several minutes before its engined seized up...!

[PatrickAWlson]

1 minute ago, MattS said:

 

 

If you guys like it this way, then great. And maybe you're right that this is our best option since the alternative is what we had before where one Gym Class Hero in a .30 turret can seize a P-47's engine instantly from >500m.

 

I just find it silly that a lone, damaged Stuka cut off from the rest of the formation should be able to take an attacking fighter for a 5-minute joyride, but it happens constantly...because the majority of hits that a human is able to achieve against the omniscient AI. Wing shots don't slow it down much and fire that rakes along the top surface of the fuselage with the engine, fuel, and cockpit misses the critical hitboxes or loses the dice roll. I've had QMB missions where I have made half a dozen or more hit-scoring passes on a Stuka doing max-performance turns on the deck the entire time until he finally lost the ability to fly and control his plane. Meanwhile I am constantly on the edge of a blackout. I don't even bother chasing the guys that break from the pack anymore, it's too annoying and stupid.

 

I'm not sure where the complaint is.  The damage model?  The omniscient AI?  The fact that your target is taking evasive action?  The blackout model?  Lots wrapped up in one post.

 

What is a hit scoring pass?  How many of your rounds are actually hitting?  Where are they hitting?

 

The Stuka, which was pretty maneuverable at low speeds, is doing everything he can to survive.  Stukas, especially the later D model that you are firing on, are also fairly tough.  You do, however, manage to fill him with enough lead to eventually cause him to crash.   A victory.  For any historical pilot that would be a decent days work. 

 

What are your expectations?  How many aware, evading targets would you expect to destroy? 

 

TBH of the things you listed the omniscient AI is the one that I would like to see changed.  A bounce is almost impossible.  I would like to see awareness tied to AI skill level.  But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[Stoopy]

Proper gunnery technique with the MC202 calls for the canopy to be open, so you can wave one hand around in the air and yell as you're pulling the trigger. 

 

[RedKestrel]

34 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

 

If you guys like it this way, then great. And maybe you're right that this is our best option since the alternative is what we had before where one Gym Class Hero in a .30 turret can seize a P-47's engine instantly from >500m.

 

I just find it silly that a lone, damaged Stuka cut off from the rest of the formation should be able to take an attacking fighter for a 5-minute joyride, but it happens constantly...because the majority of hits that a human is able to achieve against the omniscient AI do nothing. Wing shots don't slow it down much and fire that rakes along the top surface of the fuselage with the engine, fuel, and cockpit misses the critical hitboxes or loses the dice roll. I've had QMB missions where I have made half a dozen or more hit-scoring passes on a Stuka doing max-performance turns on the deck the entire time until he finally lost the ability to fly and control his plane. Meanwhile I am constantly on the edge of a blackout. I don't even bother chasing the guys that break from the pack anymore, it's too annoying and stupid.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. It's not been my experience that the aircraft need insane punishment to go down. I am a human pilot too and was able to place hits needed to kill 3 stukas with ammo to spare within the space of about 5 minutes, and critically damage a 4th. I made a grand total of 4 or 5 attacks, depending on how you count - one head on pass (glancing hits), a second pass through the formation (1 kill, 1 damaged), a third pass from behind (1 kill), then a dogfight with the final Stuka (1 kill).  This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Even my earlier attempt where I only managed to destroy one was not all that out to lunch, given time and ammo expended.

And if you are trying to turn tightly with a plane that is slower than you, you are always going to pull more G than they are, which is why you are close to blacking out. The Stuka probably isn't even fast enough to pull enough G to black out in a horizontal turn.
 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, MattS said:

I just find it silly that a lone, damaged Stuka cut off from the rest of the formation should be able to take an attacking fighter for a 5-minute joyride, but it happens constantly...

I fond it rewarding to shoot Tempests in MP using the Stuka with MG pods.

 

Why people want to fly circles with planes that can do those at 250 km/h is beyond me. But it often gets you a customer.

 

With a good fighter, you shouldn‘t need to do that. Just come in fast and shoot well. if you have 20 mm guns, one pass does the job usually.

Edited May 4, 2020 by ZachariasX

[Stoopy]

On 5/3/2020 at 12:35 PM, DD_Arthur said:

 

From an online coop last night....

 

Unexpectedly came across six Ju's on the way home.  I thought they were unescorted so foolishly closed the throttle which renders the P47 a truck which can be easily outflown by ai Ju87.

 

Then the escort showed up to drive me off.  After landing I was surprised to see I'd been credited with three of them.

 

Geez.  Forget the poor guy who can't kill enough Stukas with his P-47...   How 'bout the 109 pilot who was in your mirror for all that time, hosing you down, only being able to "drive you away".   Should we preemptively  start a complaint thread for him? 

 

 

[Avimimus]

20 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Well, I don't know what to tell you. It's not been my experience that the aircraft need insane punishment to go down. I am a human pilot too and was able to place hits needed to kill 3 stukas with ammo to spare within the space of about 5 minutes, and critically damage a 4th. I made a grand total of 4 or 5 attacks, depending on how you count - one head on pass (glancing hits), a second pass through the formation (1 kill, 1 damaged), a third pass from behind (1 kill), then a dogfight with the final Stuka (1 kill).  This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Even my earlier attempt where I only managed to destroy one was not all that out to lunch, given time and ammo expended.

And if you are trying to turn tightly with a plane that is slower than you, you are always going to pull more G than they are, which is why you are close to blacking out. The Stuka probably isn't even fast enough to pull enough G to black out in a horizontal turn.
 

 

Yes, I was thinking that tactics in lining up the shot, firing at the right range for the gun convergence might be areas to diagnose here. Also, just practicing marksmanship.

 

I'm pretty out of practice. But I took up the Mig-3 (One 0.50 cal instead of eight, augmented by two machine guns) and flew a few quick missions against Ju-87s...

 

I averaged three kills... the fourth sometimes got away as a result of me running out of ammo, but more often it was because I damaged it and it fell out of formation ...which allowed it to sneak away without me being able to find it again. In two cases the Ju-87 exploded!

[LukeFF]

17 hours ago, KotwicaGoose said:

I swear I saw a dev mention the 47 and 51’s rounds are AP-I? Definitely could be wrong about that.

 

No, AP-only for the time being.

[CountZero]

19 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

Well the US late war .50s are literally using the wrong ammo (AP instead of API), and more often than not are shooting at an airplane (109F-K) that literally has part of its damage model disabled by the devs.  So yeah, the current model is incorrect, and they work like poo-poo in many instances.

 

nah man you just have to learn to aim ?  while problem with mc202 guns is real problem with guns and ammo

[TheSublimeGoose]

45 minutes ago, MattS said:

Epilogue: I drank the better part of a bottle of wine to drown my sorrows, then took out a P-39 and decimated a flight of 4 Stukas. The implication of this is clear LOL.

I mean, we’re you nailing ‘em with the 37mm?

 

I maintain the US AN/M2 isn’t modeled properly. I’m playing a career mission as I type; I’m in a P-47, just did a frontal pass on a G-14. I saw multiple .50s impact his engine block, and he kept flying along like someone had just thrown some rocks at his airframe. Please...

 

I’ve seen what a single .50 ball round will do to an engine block. I can’t imagine what x8 converged .50s would do to one.

Edited May 5, 2020 by KotwicaGoose
Spelling

[Voyager]

On 5/3/2020 at 12:38 AM, PatrickAWlson said:

No cannons.  2x 12mm and 2x 7mm.

 

The planes that did not have cannons and were still effective had 6x or 8x .50. cal.  That weaponry was very good against fighters, but iMHO if the Americans had to shoot down something like a B-17 they would have gone to cannons in a hurry.

 

 

 

As I understand it, the US did try to move to the 20mm cannon, but there was a localization error that ended up causing light primer strikes and made the US guns almost totally unreliable. I don';t think the US was ever able to field a reliable 20mm cannon until after they got a hold of the Mauser MK213 revolver based designs.

 

Even so, the kamikaze threat was sufficient that the USN fielded them anyways, so they could knock down incoming faster, despite the guns tendency to just not work.

 

 

On 5/4/2020 at 1:05 AM, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Now that I did that test myself and I wasn't surprised that the IL-2 was able to eat lots of ammo when being hit "outside the sweet spots", I totally agree as for the amount of randomly dispersed hits it could take.

What surprised my a bit however was how the oil cooler was virtually invulnerable to well placed hits (lots of them) while it was (at least visually) fully open, so no armoured flaps that would have protected it.

What surprised me as well was how the control surfaces were virtually invulnerable to the Breda guns. An MG151/20 sweep coughs them off in no time in comparison.

What surprised me further on was how weak the gears seem to be. Whenever I attack an IL-2 with AP ammo equipped planes, the "spread" bullets are sufficient to kick out gear doors within the first two sweeps and the gears come down another 1-2 sweeps later, and that's just the few random bullets that stray right or left of my aim point (engine, cockpit, oil cooler).

Finally after having put a few hundred rounds into the cockpit from all kind of deflection angles with no effect, I was surprised that finally it is a pilot kill that ends most of IL-2's lifes when I attack them.

 

In summary, the amount of supposedly "weak" AP ammo swallowed by an IL-2 is way less of a surprise than the actual things happening in detail.

 

Mike

 

The oil cooler resilience against Breda guns is interesting, and would be worth more investigation. Could the rounds have a wrong diameter value on them, that causes them to interact with the armour plates when they shouldn't? That would be one explanation for its tendency to sweep away gear doors too. There have been some other issues already with dimensions causing weird behaviours (ref The Flying Circus and the Detachable Wings). These are uncommon enough guns, that it might be a similar issue.

 

Is there a controlled way to test this?

[Guest deleted@210880]

On the durability of the IL2:

 

I found this a very good read particualrly in the durability and pilot fears went:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Red-Star-Against-Swastika-Eastern/dp/1853676497

 

To sum up, Il2s sometimes went down in flames on the first hits from AAA or a fighter, (but AAA was always considered the bigger threat). However there were also many instances of Il2s taking massive damage and flying until the aircraft engine locked up or they successfully made it home. I haven't enough time in an Il2 since the DM changes to know if both these possibilities are represented. Before the DM changes, the Il2 went down very easily (unless I was shooting at it of course).

 

The book also mentions that the Il2 gunner was considered more effective as an observer than a defence, I figure this was to help call defensive manauvers, and, that some pilots preferred to not have one(!) as they felt guilty when the gunner died because the gunner was not in the armoured section of the aircraft that the pilot was!

 

On kill numbers per mission:

 

Pilot accounts from Malta and Battle of Britain and France that I have read often state 'Bob got two 110s' or similar, this is of course the pilot claim at the time, the reality, and the official records is mostly less. My latest read was:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighter-Operations-Europe-Africa-1939-1945/dp/1848844816/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=fighter+operations+in+europe+and+africa&qid=1588670316&s=books&sr=1-1

 

Whilst there are (typing) errors in this book (it mentions 8 machine guns equiped on a 109E at one point!) so I take its content with a pinch of salt, it again has pilots often claiming double kills per mission, including axis pilots on p47s and other late war aircraft (obviously using the much better armament than anythgin criticised in this thread).

 

So some pilots would surely have had double kills or more per mission,  but this could be because of how they (humans) fly, with the leader possibly making the kill shots/attacks and the others providing him with cover. So as a flight they may all equal out to 0.5 of a kill each, but the reality was one guy got the two? When I've seen numbers of kills, there are some acclaimed pilots who got through their service with 'just' 7 kills or so, but of course there are those with their hundreds. Different theatres, opposition, tactics, weapons all surely play their part.

 

In the game, none of this really matters in my experience because the AI (and a lot of online people) fight to the death in every engagement, they shoot and shoot until out of ammo or enemies hit the ground, and they don't run. The real accounts I have read, have pilots running something like 90% of the time, and most engagements being a bounce, maybe a couple of circles of dogfighting until one side realises they have lost any chance of advantage and runs, and the 'victors' mostly don't then chase them all the way into enemy territory, but instead get home and drink to their lost comrades before flying another day.

 

I mean if people are seeking only 'instant kills'  as a measure of effectiveness they are likely to be dissapointed, especially so when the AI and online players are still fighting back when on fire or heavily damaged and there is no teamwork or support. The sources I have read often mention kills being confirmed by ground units/observers/civilians reporting the aircraft going down elsewhere.

 

As a fighter in SP I mostly find myself getting 2-3 kills in long, long engagements, with the minority of the time is me being caught out by something on my six and I get shot down (my experience of life as an axis fighter pilot is that it is much easier as you can disengage at will (not sure of this ease though in BoK/BoBP)).

 

I would MUCH rather have gameplay experience of the bounce, turn a couple of times, get some hits, and then either my flight or the enemy run for home and we disengage,....then submit a probable kill claim (if that) and hope for confirmation. So get a confirmed kill every 3, 4 or 5 missions instead of 2-3 in one mission. Racking up so many kills detracts from the tension and reward feeling of a SP experience.

 

On differences between MP and SP:

 

I did some tests that suggested that the fuel mix for an A20 now triggers at different points in SP and MP. I had originally reported the mix issue (triggering at 50% not 66%) and they seem to have changed (fixed) it in SP so that it triggers a change at 66% or so (where the auto rich setting is), but in MP it still changes at 50% which does not tally with any lever position. 

 

How on earth can it be different in SP and MP, surely it can't be, yet that is what I was seeing. This doesn't mean there are any other differences in SP and MP, I don't really trust my eyes on this still, but it has certainly placed a seed of doubt that things really are the same in both SP and MP for me; until someone can report that they see the light smoke dissappear at 66% fuel mix (auto rich) in MP.

 

(Hmm, is it not the case that there is no turbulant airstream behind an aircraft in MP, but there is in SP?)

 

   

 

 

 

 

[SAS_Storebror]

1 hour ago, John_Yossarian said:

On differences between MP and SP:

 

I did some tests that suggested that the fuel mix for an A20 now triggers at different points in SP and MP. I had originally reported the mix issue (triggering at 50% not 66%) and they seem to have changed (fixed) it in SP so that it triggers a change at 66% or so (where the auto rich setting is), but in MP it still changes at 50% which does not tally with any lever position. 

 

How on earth can it be different in SP and MP, surely it can't be, yet that is what I was seeing. This doesn't mean there are any other differences in SP and MP, I don't really trust my eyes on this still, but it has certainly placed a seed of doubt that things really are the same in both SP and MP for me; until someone can report that they see the light smoke dissappear at 66% fuel mix (auto rich) in MP.

 

(Hmm, is it not the case that there is no turbulant airstream behind an aircraft in MP, but there is in SP?)

 

Confirmed, we've just had a sortie with 3 chaps together in A-20s last sunday.

At auto rich (66%) we were all trailing smoke, at 33% (auto lean) the smoke is gone.

Clearly around 66%, even slightly lower than 66%, there's still smoke visible.

No wake turbulence behind other planes online for me either.

 

Mike

[Guest deleted@210880]

fyi: Here is my post in the bug report where I originally reported it, and then the fix came, but then I updated it to tell of the difference between SP and MP that I seemed to see:

 

 

It's dropped well down the list of posts now though. It's no game breaker I just found it odd that a change happened in SP mode but didn't happen in MP (relating to the fuel mix visual effect).

[Stoopy]

1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Confirmed, we've just had a sortie with 3 chaps together in A-20s last sunday.

At auto rich (66%) we were all trailing smoke, at 33% (auto lean) the smoke is gone.

Clearly around 66%, even slightly lower than 66%, there's still smoke visible.

No wake turbulence behind other planes online for me either.

 

Mike

 

Really curious about this.  Is it possible that something in the server realism settings related to engine management was set differently than your settings in SP mode?

 

[Toppaso]

Back on the topic, this is not specifically about the MC202 12.7 armament I think,

rather about the general effectiveness of AP rounds.

 

It is a fact that AP rounds effectiveness in damaging Engines/systems has been noticeably reduced since the last patch.

I don't know if it is because Engine were thoughened up, or if the airframe DM makes it more difficult for the bullet to pass through various elements.

 

Two points should be considered before making any claims:

 

1) We don't have a consistent method to test and evaluate the results. We dont actually know how many times we hit and what part, taking into accounts penetrations/deviations of the bullets etc, and if we test in SP we have almost no feedback on the "invisible damage" we dealt such as pilot injury, power loss, control authority loss and so on. This makes evaluating the damage very difficult. The old IL-2 had a mode that would let you see registered projectile impacts as vectors; I guess we dont have anything like that, do we?

 

2) As of now we probably have an "interim" DM. In the DD explaining the Airframe DM, the devs said they changed the engine DM but that there was still room for improvement, that they were going to look at fuel systems (i.e. fires) next and possibly in the future some other systems DM (electrical? hydraulics?). These are all parts of DM that are the main victims of AP rounds. Perhaps now we transitioned to a more advanced DM but there is a general lack of stuff to damage.

 

With that said, overall my personal feeling (as I dont have any solid data, see point number 1) is that while before the AP rounds felt too reliable in causing damage, now they might be a tad undermodeled. Before engines stoppages were extremely frequent and "immediate". If you were leaking oil you had 30 seconds left, thats it. Now the damage feels more realistic as depending on the severity you might be able to make it home or reach friendly territory.

 

When you hit someone with AP rounds now, you have to look for cues to assess the damage. If you dont hit vital parts you might have caused nothing at all. This feels a lot more realistic and believable.

 

Still, I feel  that the amount of AP rounds the engines can eat up now before obvious and catastrophic damage is wrong.

Try the following:

Switch on invulnerability and infinite ammo; park yourself behind an AI bomber and fire at point blank range at engine nacelles (with i presume little between your rounds and the engine itself), with 12.7mm (P39), 20mm (La-5) and 37 mm (P-39) AP rounds, the amount of rounds that are needed to cause an engine stop feels off to me.

 

But there is still no denying that the new DM is an improvement and a step in the right direction.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Toppaso

[PatrickAWlson]

@Toppaso As pointed out so eloquently by @Danziger above, it's a double edged sword.  Bring an AI plane down more easily and you will also be brought down more easily.  Not suggesting that you specifically are not OK with that, but somehow I think others may feel differently. 

 

My own experience on the receiving end is that I like it as is.  I get dinged, some oil starts spraying or liquids start leaking, and I can fly a few KM to make an emergency landing at a friendly field.  Such damage definitely motivates me to get out of combat, but it is not immediately fatal.  If I like it on the receiving end then I have to be good with it when an EA flies away after I ding them.  Note to self: get closer, shoot better.

 

In real life it was very hard to shoot down an airplane.  The average pilot didn't score - ever.  Getting five kills over a career meant you were an ace.  So in a one year tour of duty, scoring one victory every two months made you a very good pilot.  I'm scoring once a day - Hartmann in a year.  I really don't want it to be any easier.

[jojy47jojyrocks]

1 hour ago, Toppaso said:

Back on the topic, this is not specifically about the MC202 12.7 armament I think,

rather about the general effectiveness of AP rounds.

 

It is a fact that AP rounds effectiveness in damaging Engines/systems has been noticeably reduced since the last patch.

I don't know if it is because Engine were thoughened up, or if the airframe DM makes it more difficult for the bullet to pass through various elements.

 

Two points should be considered before making any claims:

 

1) We don't have a consistent method to test and evaluate the results. We dont actually know how many times we hit and what part, taking into accounts penetrations/deviations of the bullets etc, and if we test in SP we have almost no feedback on the "invisible damage" we dealt such as pilot injury, power loss, control authority loss and so on. This makes evaluating the damage very difficult. The old IL-2 had a mode that would let you see registered projectile impacts as vectors; I guess we dont have anything like that, do we?

 

2) As of now we probably have an "interim" DM. In the DD explaining the Airframe DM, the devs said they changed the engine DM but that there was still room for improvement, that they were going to look at fuel systems (i.e. fires) next and possibly in the future some other systems DM (electrical? hydraulics?). These are all parts of DM that are the main victims of AP rounds. Perhaps now we transitioned to a more advanced DM but there is a general lack of stuff to damage.

 

With that said, overall my personal feeling (as I dont have any solid data, see point number 1) is that while before the AP rounds felt too reliable in causing damage, now they might be a tad undermodeled. Before engines stoppages were extremely frequent and "immediate". If you were leaking oil you had 30 seconds left, thats it. Now the damage feels more realistic as depending on the severity you might be able to make it home or reach friendly territory.

 

When you hit someone with AP rounds now, you have to look for cues to assess the damage. If you dont hit vital parts you might have caused nothing at all. This feels a lot more realistic and believable.

 

Still, I feel  that the amount of AP rounds the engines can eat up now before obvious and catastrophic damage is wrong.

Try the following:

Switch on invulnerability and infinite ammo; park yourself behind an AI bomber and fire at point blank range at engine nacelles (with i presume little between your rounds and the engine itself), with 12.7mm (P39), 20mm (La-5) and 37 mm (P-39) AP rounds, the amount of rounds that are needed to cause an engine stop feels off to me.

 

But there is still no denying that the new DM is an improvement and a step in the right direction.

 

 

The difference is actually negligible with the 12.7 Breda and the .50 cal of the its class of the Allied weapons ( Russians included).

 

In multiplayer this is actually not that much of an issue as you are fighting with Human controlled planes.

 

The new DM model shines on the MP.

 

But for SP...thats where most of the damage effect difference is seen. On the AI dudes. The damage model on how the AI is affected is different than how the effects are on human controlled planes. Even if you do strike the underside of the IL-2 open radiator area for example and expend SEVERAL rounds on and do manage to at least trail smoke(Mostly if one is using calibers of LMG and HMG class bullets)...it majority of the time ( FOR AI) still keeps flying like a champ. For human players on SP campaigns, our IL2 is not that resilient like that of the AI controlled. I get shot down easy by LMG class (MG 34 AAA) short burst on my IL2 most of the time. But for AI we still need to majority of the time expend so much lead till it spirals down or at least trails dark greyish smoke...sometimes, they still manage to limp back with grayish smoke trails.

 

 

Today, I had an Me-109 that I managed to damage with the .50 cal of P-47, and made him trail thick cente line white smoke ( and light white smoke from left wing radiator area as well..maybe fuel leak)and most of the wings crippled with the right flap gone. Thought I'd leave him be after that and was heading home. All of Sudden I get pumped with lead and see that he had somehow managed to play catch up with me and shoot me down.

 

I always shoot between ranges of 100-300m and my convergence is mostly always between 170m and 250m. 170-200m for wing gun planes.

Edited May 5, 2020 by jojy47jojyrocks

[Lusekofte]

Apparently 3 long sides wrong with it....

[Toppaso]

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@Toppaso As pointed out so eloquently by @Danziger above, it's a double edged sword.  Bring an AI plane down more easily and you will also be brought down more easily.  Not suggesting that you specifically are not OK with that, but somehow I think others may feel differently. 

 

Well I know, and I wont complain when i get shot down i promise ? 

 

The point is that when you're getting shot at, it's almost impossible to judge how much you've been hit and where.

In this sense, the shooter has a better feedback of the hits and locations.

If I put 3 37mm AP rounds in the nacelle of an A20 from 80m, I have a pretty solid basis to think that the majority of those rounds should have reached the engine.

 

Dont get me wrong i like how engine damage is now, before the engine/oil DM seemed like an ON/OFF switch, If you got hit, you were losing your engine in a time variable from 30 to 1 second.

Now the severity of oil or coolant leaks are taken into account which results in more varied and realistics failure modes and timings.

 

Its the specific "damage potential" of some AP rounds when clearly hitting vital components that I think could be looked into. And only a slight adjustments might be needed.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Toppaso

[ZachariasX]

I tried the MC202 against an IL2. While i can pump all Breda ammo into that thing from dead astern and it keep son flying, one salvo at the cooler (you can see that one leaking specifically) made the engine stop after about one minute.

 

I don't think there's much wrong with that.