Barnacles Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) There's been a lot of chat about the effectiveness of the .50" cals in game after the new DM update. To better objectify this, I did a bit of in game research to compare the speed loss from various amounts of .50" cal hits, to compare it to historical aero improvements, for a bit of a plausibility check. BACKGROUND. When purchasing the p39, the UK contract stated that a 400mph top speed was required. According to a reference on the Wikipedia page (Matthews 1996, p. 120)... "actual production aircraft were found to be capable of only 371 mph, although some were as low as 359 mph and 355 mph in some tests" "To enable the aircraft to make the guarantee speed, a variety of drag-reduction modifications were developed by Bell" These included things like removing 91kg, sanding and polishing the paint, removing the aerials, fairing over gun ports etc. They ended up getting a 391 mph top speed. SO: A bit of tidying up of the airframe, and covering gunports + new paint = 20 mph improvement, (32 kmh) For IN GAME. (assisted by @=FEW=N3cRoo, thank you) 10 .50" cal hits in the wing: there was a 5 kmh penalty. 25 .50" cal hits in the wing: there was a 10 kmh penalty. 60 .50" cal hits in the wing* (which also removed the undercarriage doors) 35 kmh penalty. 1 (ONE) MG/FF Mine shell in the wing) was a 75 kmh penalty. Caveats: This was done in MP, but I don't think there's anything in the nature of MP which would effect the validity of it. I've not included the plane type or atmosphere, temperature altitude etc, as what's relevant is the relative speed loss. I'll provide details if a developer wants to reproduce. I know it's an emotive subject for some people. I'll put my cards on the table and say I personally do not agree with the people saying 50s are totally ineffective now, as you still get lots of PKs, critical hits to equipment and control surfaces etc. HOWEVER, My personal conclusion, (assisted by actually seeing these types of weapons in action when I was a training officer at a military gunnery school) is that you'd expect even the damage that 10 .50" cal hits would cause would cause a lot more roughness and loss of surface area (and therefore speed loss) than the polishing and fairing in the p39 would counteract. I therefore think that the aero penalty for .50" cal hits in game would need to be greater if it were to be plausible in this type of thought experiment. Edited May 15, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles 1 1 17
[DBS]Browning Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 I suspect in reality you could put many shots in one area and receive no speed loss, but one shot in the wrong area to cause 100kmh+ loss of speed due to drag.
Barnacles Posted May 15, 2020 Author Posted May 15, 2020 2 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said: I suspect in reality you could put many shots in one area and receive no speed loss, but one shot in the wrong area to cause 100kmh+ loss of speed due to drag. Of course, but if you had no significant speed loss with a significant amount of hits, it'd be an outlier. We did this enough times and to discount that. Also the shots were spread all over the wing, or both wings.
CIA_Yankee_ Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 Entirely agreed. This is especially true when we consider that the .50s don't just fire AP ammo, but API. I imagine that would do more than just drill a neat hole in a surface. Given this, and the above in the OP, the .50s almost certainly need to have their aero effects increased. Alongside this, of course, it seems very important that API effects also be modeled. Right now the .50s act like they're firing AP slugs only, and that severely decreases their effectiveness. As things are currently modeled, we'd be better off using the VVS .50s, with their mix of AP and HE ammo. Until we have proper aero damage modeled, and the API effects, the .50s will continue to be anemic. 1
CountZero Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 4 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said: Entirely agreed. This is especially true when we consider that the .50s don't just fire AP ammo, but API. I imagine that would do more than just drill a neat hole in a surface. Given this, and the above in the OP, the .50s almost certainly need to have their aero effects increased. Alongside this, of course, it seems very important that API effects also be modeled. Right now the .50s act like they're firing AP slugs only, and that severely decreases their effectiveness. As things are currently modeled, we'd be better off using the VVS .50s, with their mix of AP and HE ammo. Until we have proper aero damage modeled, and the API effects, the .50s will continue to be anemic. You only have either AP or HE ammo for airplanes, and .50 uses only AP. Yes it would be fair to just have added HE also to represent missing incendiary ammo, its same as how they made tail part on 109s month ago indestructable untill real fix is done who knows when in future, testers said its better to do that then leve it as it was before, so why not give .50 HE as quick fix what could go wrong ? 6
Barnacles Posted May 15, 2020 Author Posted May 15, 2020 Even if a .50" cal hit to just leave one neat .5" hole in the wing for every hit (which it doesn't , because of tumbling, KE damage etc) it should still a significant drag penalty if you get 30 such holes in your wing. 1
[DBS]Browning Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 Whilst I somewhat suspect you are right in your assessment Barnacle, I also think there is plenty of room for doubt left by the lack of data. I don't think many conclusions can be drawn from the P39 information; there are too many variables in play. The current implementation ingame isn't completely implausible either. It would be great if a stronger case could be made from more real life data, but does such information exist?
RedKestrel Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said: There's been a lot of chat about the effectiveness of the .50" cals in game after the new DM update. To better objectify this, I did a bit of in game research to compare the speed loss from various amounts of .50" cal hits, to compare it to historical aero improvements, for a bit of a plausibility check. BACKGROUND. When purchasing the p39, the UK contract stated that a 400mph top speed was required. According to a reference on the Wikipedia page (Matthews 1996, p. 120)... "actual production aircraft were found to be capable of only 371 mph, although some were as low as 359 mph and 355 mph in some tests" "To enable the aircraft to make the guarantee speed, a variety of drag-reduction modifications were developed by Bell" These included things like removing 91kg, sanding and polishing the paint, removing the aerials, fairing over gun ports etc. They ended up getting a 391 mph top speed. SO: A bit of tidying up of the airframe, and covering gunports + new paint = 20 mph improvement, (32 kmh) For IN GAME. (assisted by @=FEW=N3cRoo, thank you) 10 .50" cal hits in the wing: there was a 5 kmh penalty. 25 .50" cal hits in the wing: there was a 10 kmh penalty. 60 .50" cal hits in the wing* (which also removed the undercarriage doors) 35 kmh penalty. 1 (ONE) MG/FF Mine shell in the wing) was a 75 kmh penalty. Caveats: This was done in MP, but I don't think there's anything in the nature of MP which would effect the validity of it. I've not included the plane type or atmosphere, temperature altitude etc, as what's relevant is the relative speed loss. I'll provide details if a developer wants to reproduce. I know it's an emotive subject for some people. I'll put my cards on the table and say I personally do not agree with the people saying 50s are totally ineffective now, as you still get lots of PKs, critical hits to equipment and control surfaces etc. HOWEVER, My personal conclusion, (assisted by actually seeing these types of weapons in action when I was a training officer at a military gunnery school) is that you'd expect even the damage that 10 .50" cal hits would cause would cause a lot more roughness and loss of surface area (and therefore speed loss) than the polishing and fairing in the p39 would counteract. I therefore think that the aero penalty for .50" cal hits in game would need to be greater if it were to be plausible in this type of thought experiment. I would agree with the premise here. I would expect the 'exit wounds' of the rounds would not likely be neat and tidy but pushed out at the edge, even if the entries were neat. And of course the entry and exit are unlikely to be perpendicular to the wing surface, meaning you are unlikely to see any kind of 'neat' hole from almost any angle. Of course what the speed loss should be is up for debate.
Avimimus Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 This is a quantitative question... How much of the surface area is effected by the damaged surface? Get a skinner to take the template and measure the surface area of the outside of the plane... then convert that to real numbers. I think people will find that these aircraft had huge surface areas compared to a bullet. The next question is how much the power to drag ratio is affected. This should be pretty easy to calculate. I think people will find that these aircraft had big engines. Finally, does the bullet hole lead to a significant increase in turbulence or drag? This is where it gets hard using fluid dynamics... and probably requires someone finding an actual study. I think people will find that these aircraft were already pretty bumpy (i.e. their body drag coefficient wasn't as low as people think to start with), but that the bullet holes do have a significant effect if they hit in the right locations. 1
QB.Gregor- Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said: Even if a .50" cal hit to just leave one neat .5" hole in the wing for every hit (which it doesn't , because of tumbling, KE damage etc) it should still a significant drag penalty if you get 30 such holes in your wing. Not sure that is quite true, 30 neat .5" holes have about the same total area as an 7cm diameter hole (37cm² or 0,0037m²). That's like nothing compared to the entire wing area of 16,2 m² of a bf109. If we are talking about neat holes, I'd think the effect is minimal, especially if they are top to bottom of the wing and the air just has to pass over them. Would be interesting to see the effect of a tumbling bullet on appropriate thick aluminium sheets. Edited May 15, 2020 by QB.Gregor-
Barnacles Posted May 15, 2020 Author Posted May 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, Avimimus said: This is a quantitative question... How much of the surface area is effected by the damaged surface? Get a skinner to take the template and measure the surface area of the outside of the plane... then convert that to real numbers. I think people will find that these aircraft had huge surface areas compared to a bullet. The next question is how much the power to drag ratio is affected. This should be pretty easy to calculate. I think people will find that these aircraft had big engines. Finally, does the bullet hole lead to a significant increase in turbulence or drag? This is where it gets hard using fluid dynamics... and probably requires someone finding an actual study. I think people will find that these aircraft were already pretty bumpy (i.e. their body drag coefficient wasn't as low as people think to start with), but that the bullet holes do have a significant effect if they hit in the right locations. I would be possible to do that of course, my initial desire was to illustrate the broad brush credibility of the aero DM by comparing IRL improvements to the finish and detailing of an aircraft to what we'd expect from making the wing look like a cheese grater. (ie 30 odd .50" cal hits). 11 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said: Whilst I somewhat suspect you are right in your assessment Barnacle, I also think there is plenty of room for doubt left by the lack of data. I don't think many conclusions can be drawn from the P39 information; there are too many variables in play. The current implementation ingame isn't completely implausible either. It would be great if a stronger case could be made from more real life data, but does such information exist? It would of course be a stronger case with more real life values. But I'd definitely say the current in game can only just be argued to be at the extreme edge of what's credible. IRL a simple polish of the plane would give the same increase in speed as 10 hits took off. That seems only plausible if every hit would be a neat half inch hole, which would not be the case. I mean you can get pictures of 30mm mk108 rounds causing a hole about a foot across. Possible? Yes, but with a sample set like 10 hits you'd expect a variety in the severity of hits. 12 minutes ago, QB.Gregor- said: Not sure that is quite true, 30 neat .5" holes have about the same total area as an 7cm diameter hole (37cm² or 0,0037m²). That's like nothing compared to the entire wing area of 16,2 m² of a bf109. If we are talking about neat holes, I'd think the effect is minimal, especially if they are top to bottom of the wing and the air just has to pass over them. Would be interesting to see the effect of a tumbling bullet on appropriate thick aluminium sheets. Well, so's polishing the wing which means that the area of the wing's exactly the same, yet you get a 5km speed increase. There was a picture somewhere of a drug runner's plane where the warning shots had hit the wing (50 cals) the holes were huge, because of tumbling. 1
QB.Gregor- Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 20 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said: Well, so's polishing the wing which means that the area of the wing's exactly the same, yet you get a 5km speed increase. There was a picture somewhere of a drug runner's plane where the warning shots had hit the wing (50 cals) the holes were huge, because of tumbling. Just meant to say that the affected area would be incredibly small in comparison the entire wing, not how it changes the area. Added a sketch to show tiny it would be. (btw 1 foot for the 30mm looks way to small) In relation to all those rivets and panel lines it doesn't look like it would noticeably change the speed. But as stated we are just talking about neat holes not actual real damage. I have seen that picture but I am not sure how comparable a modern civilan plane's wing is to a ww2 fighter. There surely is a wartime picture of a wing hit by 50s? 2
Barnacles Posted May 15, 2020 Author Posted May 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, QB.Gregor- said: Just meant to say that the affected area would be incredibly small in comparison the entire wing, not how it changes the area. Added a sketch to show tiny it would be. (btw 1 foot for the 30mm looks way to small) In relation to all those rivets and panel lines it doesn't look like it would noticeably change the speed. But as stated we are just talking about neat holes not actual real damage. I have seen that picture but I am not sure how comparable a modern civilan plane's wing is to a ww2 fighter. There surely is a wartime picture of a wing hit by 50s? Probably very similar construction and materials. 109s are stressed aluminium skin and so would the aircraft in the photo. It was quite rare to have parts of an aircraft beefed up because they were a warplane. Things like the IL2 and A10 are exceptions. 1
BlitzPig_EL Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 Bullet destabilization (tumbling) would only happen after the initial penetration of the aircraft skin, and even then it's more likely to deflect it's trajectory path, than to tumble end over end. 1
Barnacles Posted May 15, 2020 Author Posted May 15, 2020 1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said: Bullet destabilization (tumbling) would only happen after the initial penetration of the aircraft skin, and even then it's more likely to deflect it's trajectory path, than to tumble end over end. And I'd say that tumbling would be the likeliest outcome for a penetrating round at an oblique angle. If at a really glancing angle you'd get a lot more than a small circular hole too.
zdog0331 Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) Its though to say. Its a decent test @71st_AH_Barnacles however what i think is missing is looking at a model standpoint and figure out how much surface area was cleared up by the various modifications that was done to the p-39. (For the weight you can compare the numbers ingame to that much weight difference by using a different fuel load to calculate that) You can then use those numbers to get a rough estimate for how much surface area those 50 cal holes represent and compare that to how large the holes for a 50 cal bullet should be which does have a lot of data from various sources. There are also a lot of other aspects that effect this, for example wing design. Literally hitting bugs in the p-51d can cause problems. A single fly can decrease the effective surface area by 1 square inch and getting a bunch of bug hits on the wings can actually cause the plane to fly very poorly due to how perfect the wing design is. And things like bullet hits were very problematic if they compromised the leading edge of the wing. Where other planes this isn't an issue. Literally you cannot fly a P-51 if there is a large amount of bugs out like you will see from time to time the american Midwest due to this issue. So technically 1 burst of .50 cals to the leading edge of that plane would cause it to be horribly difficult to control and loose a significant amount of speed and even more lift. Edited May 15, 2020 by zdog0331 1
CIA_Yankee_ Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 37 minutes ago, zdog0331 said: There are also a lot of other aspects that effect this, for example wing design. Literally hitting bugs in the p-51d can cause problems. A single fly can decrease the effective surface area by 1 square inch and getting a bunch of bug hits on the wings can actually cause the plane to fly very poorly due to how perfect the wing design is. And things like bullet hits were very problematic if they compromised the leading edge of the wing. Where other planes this isn't an issue. Literally you cannot fly a P-51 if there is a large amount of bugs out like you will see from time to time the american Midwest due to this issue. So technically 1 burst of .50 cals to the leading edge of that plane would cause it to be horribly difficult to control and loose a significant amount of speed and even more lift. I'm going to have to dispute the idea that you cannot fly a P-51 if there's a lot of bugs on it. The P-51 could fly very well with imperfections in its leading edge... what you're talking about is the notion that Laminar Flow played a major role in the P-51's performance. And the truth is that it didn't, for precisely the reason you are citing: the laminar flow was very easily disrupted by any imperfection on the leading edge, be it minor bumps or bugs or what have you. The performance of the P-51 is more related to its general aerodynamics (such as its radiator design) than any kind of special properties of laminar flow, which was a very ephemeral effect (for the reasons you mention). Regardless, concerning the main point of the original post, the notion that .50 cal weaponry would make neat holes in the skin of a plane is fairly silly. For one thing, as Barnacles mentions very rarely would strikes be perfectly perpendicular to the impacted surface. Hitting obliquely would create much more pronounced damage, as would effects such as tumbling. And that's for ball or AP ammo alone. When you consider that API was the shell of choice, the effect should absolutely be more pronounced than what we see in the sim at this time. 2
[DBS]Browning Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 56 minutes ago, zdog0331 said: Literally hitting bugs in the p-51d can cause problems. A single fly can decrease the effective surface area by 1 square inch and getting a bunch of bug hits on the wings can actually cause the plane to fly very poorly [...] Literally you cannot fly a P-51 if there is a large amount of bug These are rather outlandish claims. Have you got some sources?
CountZero Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 59 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said: These are rather outlandish claims. Have you got some sources? Its comon knowlade that when Germans saw Mustangs over Berlin, they just relised the flys and drop bugs in air and won the war. P-51 was rather poor peace of machine and pilots trown in it didnt even know that single bug could be death to them. Edited May 15, 2020 by CountZero
flagdjmetcher Posted May 15, 2020 Posted May 15, 2020 Remember top speed is an asymptote. The P39 fettling was an attempt to squeeze out that last 5%, very difficult to do and very easy to lose. Bugs, bad paint, a few bullet holes, a warp in a frame, imperfect butt joints, almost anything is going to knock you off your perch. The next 5%, not so much, and after a point neither polishing nor some bullet holes is going to make any difference. What that point is, and how many bullet holes - no idea.
zdog0331 Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said: These are rather outlandish claims. Have you got some sources? Yea. I don't have the documentation, because i heard it from a couple of different people. The main and most trustworthy source is a man who flies the p-51 as part of the Erickson foundation. The guy flies the red tail mustang and is very knowledgeable on the subject. I also heard the same thing from one of the sac city aircraft maintenance instructor who has worked on a variety of WWII aircraft. Do also note that is on the leading edge of the wing. Just at the rear on on the top doesn't do much, but its an almost perfect design as far as airflow goes. But a small gnat equates to 1 inch of surface area loss was what the mechanic told me. If you ever stop buy the hanger that guy is very fun to talk to. He somehow managed to get a dirigible license. But the p-51 pilot had some story about how poor the performance can get when the leading edge gets way too dirty and recalled an insistent where he hit a patch of bugs and the plane was significantly impacted by the hit and he claimed that he nearly had to put it down in the field due to how unruly the flight characteristics became. I will give you that large probably wasn't the proper word to use. I meant like during a swarm of locusts. Not just a random clump hitting the wing. The plane is unflyable in one of those settings where there are so many bugs in the air that it looks almost like a dust storm from the distance. If it were down to just a clump of bugs, then the aircraft would never have been used. edit: on short notice don't see a lot of stuff regarding specifically the p-51, though there is a decent amount on the Laminar flow design wings like on the p-51 talking about the cons of such designs being the issues with dirt and insect accumulation causing issues which are unique to Laminar Flow designs. "Incidentally, in the flight testing of the Hurricane II reported by Plascott et al. (1946), no flies or insect debris was observed in this NLF flight test. However, the drag measurements from previous flight tests where flies and insects were picked up indicated an increase in the drag due to insect debris. Hence, the full advantages of laminar flow and the subsequent low drag would require some method to prevent the insects from adhering to the surface......Atkins (1951) formally looked at the insect contamination problem by generating correlations 27 using the Dakota, Wirraway, Mustang, and Vampire aircraft. The results gathered from 24 flights showed that contamination extended to about 14 percent chord on the upper surface and about 9 percent chordon the lower wing surface. A bug hit was only recorded if it had sufficient mass to trip the boundary layer. Furthermore,it was reported that insect contamination was evident in the winter, even though Melbourne, Australia,had a cool climate" (Joslin 27) https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980232017.pdf Lot more information here about it, but I don't feel like reading through the entire thing, but insect debris has an entire section dedicated to it in regards to Laminar flow and was usually considered to be significant in terms of known literature which will probably be found in the sources. Like i said i heard it from experts in the field. this is just what I turned up with about 5 minutes of research and reading. But if you feel its not enough I'd be happy to go further, but I'm kind of tired today and for proper research you need a couple of days. Edited May 16, 2020 by zdog0331 adding sources
=RS=Stix_09 Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said: For IN GAME. (assisted by @=FEW=N3cRoo, thank you) 10 .50" cal hits in the wing: there was a 5 kmh penalty. 25 .50" cal hits in the wing: there was a 10 kmh penalty. 60 .50" cal hits in the wing* (which also removed the undercarriage doors) 35 kmh penalty. 1 (ONE) MG/FF Mine shell in the wing) was a 75 kmh penalty. Q:How are you measuring the number of hits here? Notes: Visuals in game do not accurately represent hits. Tracers only show tracer bullets, not the other 4 or 5 rounds you do not see. Limits on hit boxed modeled (see this post here. The links with 2 posts from one of developers in DM discussion thread) (based on costs and performance as to why DM is like it is, and its still a work in progress DM and always will be) Something to also consider is the p51 for example has a combined fire rate of 6x850 rounds/minute = approx 5000+ rounds/ minute (of course thats if they are all on target /which is unlikely due to weapon spread,/distance to target etc) (all we know if it is its possibly all made up of some combination of AP round types as devs do not document this)_ Personally the thing i like least about 50 cal wing guns is lack of a vertical convergence setting , esp on wing mounted guns like p51/p47/p40. (game only gives a combined vert/horizontal convergence option(for all guns) , and that was not how they were used IRL) Quote Forward-firing armament: 6 x 12.7mm machine gun "M2 .50", 400 rounds for inboard and 270 rounds for central and outboard, 850 rounds per minute, wing-mounted It is possible to remove 2 central machine guns, and increase the ammo load of outboard to 500 rounds per gun It is possible to increase the ammo load of inboard to 490 rounds per gun Edited May 16, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09
[DBS]Browning Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 45 minutes ago, zdog0331 said: [...] It's absolutely true that insect debris are enough to disrupt laminar flow. However, contrary to popular belief, the P-51 did not have any significant amount of laminar flow. Although it's airfoil was suitable, any chance of significant laminar flow was destroyed by its prop wash, the use of rivets, low manufacturing tolerances, use of paint and other such problems. The damage was already done long before any insects got in the way. I agree that it would be a bad idea to fly anything, even a kite, through a swarm of locusts.
Barnacles Posted May 16, 2020 Author Posted May 16, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said: Q:How are you measuring the number of hits here? I got N3croo to fire one at a time. We're big boys so we didn't need to use our fingers when we got to ten. Plus the A 20s magazine has 30 rounds in it and you can see the remaining rounds Edited May 16, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles
[DBS]Browning Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 I always thought it was .30cals in the early A-20's nose. I must be mistaken.
Barnacles Posted May 16, 2020 Author Posted May 16, 2020 14 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said: I always thought it was .30cals in the early A-20's nose. I must be mistaken. Nah it's .50"s in the nose, .50" on the back, .30" on the belly. We used the back one. 1
=RS=Stix_09 Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said: I got N3croo to fire one at a time. We're big boys so we didn't need to use our fingers when we got to ten. Plus the A 20s magazine has 30 rounds in it and you can see the remaining rounds Ya I get that , what I'm saying is there is no way to know accurately exactly how many of the shots fired actually hit because most are not tracer rounds, and visuals do not match actual even if u could see every round in slow motion. Even if u know how many rounds are in a magazine its still a rough approximation of number that actually hit. Summary(See ref links below for full details from dev posts) This has to do with limited number of hit boxes being modeled (on parts of the plane) and probability (RNG) being used in damage model...RNG is used to give probability of damage to parts of the plane, based on a limited number of hit boxes. Not all planes have internal structure modeled (DEV confirmed) Cost $ of modeling all the required hit boxes (the more there is the more accurate the DM can be) and for performance , so it works in real time is why its like this. (peoples understanding and expectations are far lower/higher in some cases than what is realistic for this sim engine) The DM is and will always be an approximation. It will never be close to the real thing, unless we get a new game engine, and the devs spend a lot more $ than we want to pay to develop all the hit boxes required, and we have computing power to make it work in real time. (and even then its still a calculation) The DM is just not that accurate , and neither is any visual representation... The best we can hope for is something somewhat believable (and that is where all the controversy is. What is believable? ) IMHO il-2 has the best current DM of any ww2 combat sim, and its still a work in progress.... REF Info ( developer quotes and links to dev posts): Spoiler On 4/16/2020 at 7:29 AM, Jason_Williams said: On 4/16/2020 at 7:19 AM, chuter said: However, I do understand the significant difficulty of attempting to produce a damage model for a complex semi-monocoque structure. Not difficult, impossible. On 4/16/2020 at 7:41 AM, II/JG17_HerrMurf said: All I'm really hoping for in the visuals department is cleaning up of the exsisting decals. I'd like to see the small holes have more chipping and exposed metal around the edges. If a little more simulated 3d bending of the entry and exit holes is possible that would be ideal. Mostly an artistic touch up for the exising decals. For the larger ones I'd like to see the same plus more light let into the interior structure so you can see inside the wing. For a long time we didn't even know there was internal stucture viusally modeled because the shadow inside was so dark. Outside of that, visual damage is not a deal breaker for me. Sorry, not possible. Not all planes have internal structure. No resources to build structure in all planes and all surfaces. Jason Spoiler Edited May 16, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09
Barnacles Posted May 16, 2020 Author Posted May 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, =RS=Stix_09 said: Ya I get that , what I'm saying is there is no way to know accurately exactly how many of the shots fired actually hit because most are not tracer rounds, and visuals do not always match actual even if u could see every round in slow motion. Even if u know how many rounds are in a magazine its still a rough approximation of number that actually hit. The linked posts from the developer confirm this (in my previous post above) , to do with limited number of hit boxes being modeled (on parts of the plane) and probability (RNG) being used in damage model... RNG is used to give probability of damage to parts of the plane, based on a limited number of hit boxes. They also confirmed not all planes have internal structure modeled Cost $ of modeling all the required hit boxes (the more there is the more accurate the DM can be) and for performance , so it works in real time is why its like this. (peoples understanding and expectations are far lower/higher in some cases than what is realistic for this sim engine) The DM is and will always be an approximation. It will never be close to the real thing, unless we get a new game engine, and the devs spend a lot more $ than we want to pay to develop all the hit boxes required, and we have computing power to make it work in real time. (and even then its still a calculation) The DM is just not that accurate , and neither is any visual representation... The best we can hope for is something somewhat believable (and that is where all the controversy is. What is believable? ) IMHO il-2 has the best current DM of any ww2 combat sim, and its still a work in progress.... REF Info (links and developer quotes): Reveal hidden contents Reveal hidden contents I'm not going to argue whether I'm able to count clicks on a mouse or not, or whether some hits fall through the cracks in the engine's floorboards, whether 55 or 61 hits doesn't really affect my point, it's a broad brush, 'here's a simulated wing with a shed load of .50 cal hits, is it reasonable that there's half the speed loss as from one mine shell hit?' I honestly don't think that's credible if the DM takes into account the possibility that rounds might not create just one clean hole when they hit. (Exit wounds, ripping off panels etc.) Totally recognise that it's as you say, a statistical approximation. If the prevailing opinion is that the speed loss for lots of holes should be negligible, I'd buy that. I'm just interested what the collective opinion is when presented with something slightly more quantifiable. I read those DDs too, I know they considered where to place the aerodynamic damage wrt. to 50 cals. It's possible they should turn it up a notch. Edited May 16, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles 1
=RS=Stix_09 Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said: I'm not going to argue whether I'm able to count clicks on a mouse or not, or whether some hits fall through the cracks in the engine's floorboards, whether 55 or 61 hits doesn't really affect my point, it's a broad brush, 'here's a simulated wing with a shed load of .50 cal hits, is it reasonable that there's half the speed loss as from one mine shell hit?' I honestly don't think that's credible if the DM takes into account the possibility that rounds might not create just one clean hole when they hit. (Exit wounds, ripping off panels etc.) Totally recognise that it's as you say, a statistical approximation. If the prevailing opinion is that the speed loss for lots of holes should be negligible, I'd buy that. I'm just interested what the collective opinion is when presented with something slightly more quantifiable. Yep that's fine, just making a point it's an approximation , did not say it was not useful. We can only work with what we have. Only the devs have debug info. I also don't know if the engine can give what you want or if they want to invest the dev time and $ to make it that accurate (if its even possible with current engine) We don't even know the makeup of AP load in the magazine of the 50cal . Game lacks a separate vertical convergence setting (really needed for wing mounted armament). Game is good, but still more could always be done... Edited May 16, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09
Barnacles Posted May 16, 2020 Author Posted May 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said: Yep that's fine, just making a point it's an approximation , did not say it was not useful. We can only work with what we have. Only the devs have debug info. I also don't know if the engine can give what you want or if they want to invest the dev time and $ to make it that accurate (if its even possible with current engine) Your points are very important, it is indeed about the statistical 'fit' And of course if it's not simple to get a correct 'fit' then it's something we can only speculate on, but maybe it's not so difficult? Even so deciding if something can be changed is different from whether it should be changed.
=RS=Stix_09 Posted May 16, 2020 Posted May 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said: Your points are very important, it is indeed about the statistical 'fit' And of course if it's not simple to get a correct 'fit' then it's something we can only speculate on, but maybe it's not so difficult? Even so deciding if something can be changed is different from whether it should be changed. Absolutely, constructive criticism is a good thing and its how things improve.
CIA_Yankee_ Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 19 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said: It's absolutely true that insect debris are enough to disrupt laminar flow. However, contrary to popular belief, the P-51 did not have any significant amount of laminar flow. Although it's airfoil was suitable, any chance of significant laminar flow was destroyed by its prop wash, the use of rivets, low manufacturing tolerances, use of paint and other such problems. The damage was already done long before any insects got in the way. I agree that it would be a bad idea to fly anything, even a kite, through a swarm of locusts. This. Precisely what I wrote in my first reply. And in any case, this is entirely besides the point of the OP, which is that the .50s should do more aero damage. Right now they're really anemic, even if you don't count the API effect. And of course the fact that API isn't modeled at all is a massive nerf to .50s, as that ammo was used extensively. 2
=RS=Stix_09 Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said: This. Precisely what I wrote in my first reply. And in any case, this is entirely besides the point of the OP, which is that the .50s should do more aero damage. Right now they're really anemic, even if you don't count the API effect. And of course the fact that API isn't modeled at all is a massive nerf to .50s, as that ammo was used extensively. yes probably. Can you confirm this statement "And of course the fact that API isn't modeled at all" Is that confirmed by devs somewhere (link/quote etc) is best, please? Would need someone with expert knowledge to answer all this or some good references of what the ammo used in 50 call in planes like the p51 was? I prefer facts/refs/quotes over statements on the forum (even if it sounds plausible). If you can back up statements with links or quotes that would be clear and not in disputed that and there is no argument. I have seen shots of modern 50 cal API rounds(LINK) and the flash is quite distinct (and considerable) , but not sure how this compares to ww2 time period and the Browning M2 50 Cal Machine Guns used in fighters like the p51. But it's not easy to find shots at a sheeted wing from the low profile angle you would expect to see. I do know the visuals are not modeled currently for this kind of damage in game, and I have yet to have confirmation of the exact makeup of the ammo belts in the M2 guns used in game. Edited May 17, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09 link of modern 50 cal api rounds
CIA_Yankee_ Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 1 hour ago, =RS=Stix_09 said: yes probably. Can you confirm this statement "And of course the fact that API isn't modeled at all" Is that confirmed by devs somewhere (link/quote etc) is best, please? Would need someone with expert knowledge to answer all this or some good references of what the ammo used in 50 call in planes like the p51 was? I prefer facts/refs/quotes over statements on the forum (even if it sounds plausible). If you can back up statements with links or quotes that would be clear and not in disputed that and there is no argument. Would need someone for what, exactly? I imagine the devs are the arbiters of such issues, and are the ones to demand proof, not us random posters. Concerning API effect not being modeled, Barnacles has heard it direct from one of the developers. No, I don't have a recording or empirical evidence of this conversation actually occurring. As for API itself being used, I don't have any specific sources. I've read of it in countless military history books and documentaries over many years, and I'm confident the devs are well aware of its existence and usage by the USAAF, and have access to actual first hand historical sources that document it. We're not under obligations to dig into the national archives for simple internet discussions, especially for a matter this benign and well known.
=RS=Stix_09 Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said: Would need someone for what, exactly? I imagine the devs are the arbiters of such issues, and are the ones to demand proof, not us random posters. Concerning API effect not being modeled, Barnacles has heard it direct from one of the developers. No, I don't have a recording or empirical evidence of this conversation actually occurring. As for API itself being used, I don't have any specific sources. I've read of it in countless military history books and documentaries over many years, and I'm confident the devs are well aware of its existence and usage by the USAAF, and have access to actual first hand historical sources that document it. We're not under obligations to dig into the national archives for simple internet discussions, especially for a matter this benign and well known. Of course I have my thoughts and suspicions on aspects of the game and how things are done. There obviously is some thermal modeling of ammunition or things would not ignite, but specifics, no idea, only what I see stated by devs or documented by accepted reference material. Similar thread to this one here, but more specific to DM in general Edited May 17, 2020 by =RS=Stix_09 typo
Barnacles Posted May 17, 2020 Author Posted May 17, 2020 The API or not is a bit of a red herring, the I bit of the API round is in the arse end of the bullet, and fires off after it's done it's penetrating. It also is a intense burn with a lot of heat, but not a blast that would cause a significant pressure wave like an HE round. a few DDs ago, the DD before 5.005 got released said the future DM beyond this one will address the fuel tanks, fire fighting equipment etc. Elsewhere, possibly a translate from the Russian forum, said that the 2nd stage DM update would also have more detailed incendiary damage to go with the fuel modelling. Can't find it right now though. 1
CountZero Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said: yes probably. Can you confirm this statement "And of course the fact that API isn't modeled at all" Is that confirmed by devs somewhere (link/quote etc) is best, please? Would need someone with expert knowledge to answer all this or some good references of what the ammo used in 50 call in planes like the p51 was? I prefer facts/refs/quotes over statements on the forum (even if it sounds plausible). If you can back up statements with links or quotes that would be clear and not in disputed that and there is no argument. I have seen shots of modern 50 cal API rounds(LINK) and the flash is quite distinct (and considerable) , but not sure how this compares to ww2 time period and the Browning M2 50 Cal Machine Guns used in fighters like the p51. But it's not easy to find shots at a sheeted wing from the low profile angle you would expect to see. I do know the visuals are not modeled currently for this kind of damage in game, and I have yet to have confirmation of the exact makeup of the ammo belts in the M2 guns used in game. This is list of ammo modeled in game from game files: "MG15-AP, MG 15, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG17_AP.dds| MG17-AP, MG 17, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG17_AP.dds| MG81-AP, MG 81, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG17_AP.dds| MG131-APHE, MG 131, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG131_APHE.dds| WB81B-AP, WB 81 B, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_WB81B_AP.dds| MG15115-AP, MG 151/15, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-15_AP.dds| MG15115-HE, MG 151/15, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-15_HE.dds| MG15115-APHE, MG 151/15, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-15_APHE.dds| MG15115pod-AP, MG 151/15, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-15_AP.dds| MG15115pod-HE, MG 151/15, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-15_HE.dds| MG15115pod-APHE, MG 151/15, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-15_APHE.dds| MGFF-AP, MG FF/M, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MGFF_AP.dds| MGFF-HE, MG FF/M, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MGFF_HE.dds| MGFF-APHE, MG FF/M, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MGFF_APHE.dds| MGFFpod-AP, MG FF/M, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MGFF_AP.dds| MGFFpod-HE, MG FF/M, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MGFF_HE.dds| MGFFpod-APHE, MG FF/M, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MGFF_APHE.dds| MG15120-AP, MG 151/20, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-20_AP.dds| MG15120-HE, MG 151/20, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-20_HE.dds| MG15120-APHE, MG 151/20, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-20_APHE.dds| MG15120pod-AP, MG 151/20, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-20_AP.dds| MG15120pod-HE, MG 151/20, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-20_HE.dds| MG15120pod-APHE, MG 151/20, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-20_APHE.dds| BK37-AP, BK 3.7, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_BK37_AP.dds| BK37-HE, BK 3.7, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_BK37_HE.dds| MK101-AP, MK 101, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MK101_MK103_AP.dds| MK101-HE, MK 101, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MK101_MK103_HE.dds| MK103-AP, MK 103, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MK101_MK103_AP.dds| MK103-HE, MK 103, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MK101_MK103_HE.dds| MK103-APHE, MK 103, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MK101_MK103_APHE.dds| MK108-AP, MK 108, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MK108_AP.dds| MK108-HE, MK 108, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MK108_HE.dds| MK108-APHE, MK 108, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MK108_APHE.dds| SHKAS-AP, SHKAS, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SHKAS_AP.dds| UB-APHE, UB, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_UB_APHE.dds| UBT-APHE, UBT, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_UB_APHE.dds| BS-APHE, BS, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_UB_APHE.dds| BK-APHE, BK, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_UB_APHE.dds| SHVAK-AP, SHVAK, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SHVAK_AP.dds| SHVAK-HE, SHVAK, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SHVAK_HE.dds| SHVAK-APHE, SHVAK, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SHVAK_APHE.dds| VYA23-AP, VYA-23, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_YA23_AP.dds| VYA23-HE, VYA-23, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_YA23_HE.dds| VYA23-APHE, VYA-23, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_YA23_APHE.dds| SH37-AP, SH-37, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SH37_AP.dds| SH37-HE, SH-37, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SH37_HE.dds| SH37-APHE, SH-37, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SH37_APHE.dds| NS37-AP, NS-37, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SH37_AP.dds| NS37-HE, NS-37, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SH37_HE.dds| NS37-APHE, NS-37, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SH37_APHE.dds| BREDA7-AP, Breda 7.7, il2/ammunition/images/ita_gun_BREDA7_AP.dds| BREDA12-APHE, Breda 12.7, il2/ammunition/images/ita_gun_BREDA12_APHE.dds| M230-AP, M2.30, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SHKAS_AP.dds| M250-AP, M2.50, il2/ammunition/images/usa_gun_M250_AP.dds| BRN303-AP, Browning .303, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SHKAS_AP.dds| BRN50-AP, Browning .50, il2/ammunition/images/usa_gun_M250_AP.dds| HISMK2-APHE, Hispano Mk.II, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-20_APHE.dds| HISMK5-APHE, Hispano Mk.V, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-20_APHE.dds| M2-APHE, M2, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG151-20_APHE.dds| M4-AP, M4, il2/ammunition/images/usa_gun_M4_AP.dds| M4-HE, M4, il2/ammunition/images/usa_gun_M4_HE.dds| VickersMk1-AP, Vickers Mk.I, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SHKAS_AP.dds| BalloonGun-AP, Balloon Gun, il2/ammunition/images/ww1_anta_gun_BalloonGun_AP.dds| Lewis-AP, Lewis gun, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SHKAS_AP.dds| LMG0815-AP, LMG 08/15, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG17_AP.dds| Parabellum-AP, Parab. MG14, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG17_AP.dds| Becker-AP, 20mm Becker, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MGFF_AP.dds| Becker-HE, 20mm Becker, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MGFF_HE.dds| Becker-APHE, 20mm Becker, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MGFF_APHE.dds| ZIS5-AP, 76mm AP, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_AP.dds| ZIS5-HE, 76mm HE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HE.dds| ZIS5-HV, 76mm APCR, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HVAP.dds| ZIS5-CV, 76mm APHE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_CAVITY.dds| F34-AP, 76mm AP, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_AP.dds| F34-HE, 76mm HE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HE.dds| F34-HV, 76mm APCR, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HVAP.dds| F34-CV, 76mm APHE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_CAVITY.dds| M30S-HE, 122mm HE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HE.dds| M30S-HT, 122mm HEAT, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HEAT.dds| ML20S-HE, 152mm HE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HE.dds| ML20S-CV, 152mm APHE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_CAVITY.dds| KWK36-HE, 8.8сm HE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HE.dds| KWK36-HV, 8.8сm APCR, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HVAP.dds| KWK36-CV, 8.8сm APHE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_CAVITY.dds| KWK36-HT, 8.8сm HEAT, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HEAT.dds| KWK40-HE, 7.5сm HE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HE.dds| KWK40-HV, 7.5сm APCR, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HVAP.dds| KWK40-CV, 7.5сm APHE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_CAVITY.dds| KWK40-HT, 7.5сm HEAT, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HEAT.dds| KWK39-HE, 5.0сm HE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HE.dds| KWK39-HV, 5.0сm APCR, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HVAP.dds| KWK39-CV, 5.0сm APHE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_CAVITY.dds| KWK42-HE, 7.5сm HE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HE.dds| KWK42-HV, 7.5сm APCR, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HVAP.dds| KWK42-CV, 7.5сm APHE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_CAVITY.dds| M3-AP, 75mm AP, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_AP.dds| M3-HE, 75mm HE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_HE.dds| M3-CV, 75mm APHE, il2/ammunition/images/tank_gun_CAVITY.dds| DT-AP, DT, il2/ammunition/images/rus_gun_SHKAS_AP.dds| MG34-AP, MG34, il2/ammunition/images/ger_gun_MG17_AP.dds|" NO API, there is only AP or HE for airplanes and then few more variations for tanks, not like you have for example in CLOD where you have all historical ammo airplanes had and on top you can use to create your own belts and edit your one horisontal separated and separate vertical convergances and on top for each gun. Here you have AP or HE and one convergance seting for at same time both horizontal and veritcal and on top for all guns airplane have. So, arcade level at best. make up of ammo belt // Зарядка пулеметов [GunAmmunition=0] // 400 бронебойных пуль 12.7х99 (стандартный (поздний) запас для внутренних пулемётов M2.50) ExpendableMass = 49.676 ResidualMass = 0 MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0 MaxRoundsInMagazine=400 RoundsInMagazine=400 ReservedMagazines=0 AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=4 // каждая 8-я пуля с трассером object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.txt" target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.bin" BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case12-20mm.txt" [end] [GunAmmunition=1] // 270 бронебойных пуль 12.7х99 (стандартный запас для средних и внешних пулемётов M2.50) ExpendableMass = 33.531 ResidualMass = 0 MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0 MaxRoundsInMagazine=270 RoundsInMagazine=270 ReservedMagazines=0 AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=4 // каждая 8-я пуля с трассером object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.txt" target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.bin" BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case12-20mm.txt" [end] [GunAmmunition=2] // 500 бронебойных пуль 12.7х99 (увеличенный запас к внешним пулемётам M2.50 при снятых средних) ExpendableMass = 62.095 ResidualMass = 0 MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0 MaxRoundsInMagazine=500 RoundsInMagazine=500 ReservedMagazines=0 AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=4 // каждая 8-я пуля с трассером object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.txt" target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.bin" BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case12-20mm.txt" [end] [GunAmmunition=3] // 490 бронебойных пуль 12.7х99 (увеличенный (ранний) запас для внутренних пулемётов M2.50) ExpendableMass = 60.853 ResidualMass = 0 MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0 MaxRoundsInMagazine=490 RoundsInMagazine=490 ReservedMagazines=0 AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=4 // каждая 8-я пуля с трассером object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.txt" target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/BULLET_USA_12-7x99_AP.bin" BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case12-20mm.txt" [end] // Варианты подвески вооружения AmmunitionArg=12900 [Ammunition=0] WeaponModes=-1,-2,-3,-4,-5 AnimationVal=0.0 name="0,1,2,3,4,5-M250-AP-1880" GunAmmunition0=0 GunAmmunition1=0 GunAmmunition2=1 GunAmmunition3=1 GunAmmunition4=1 GunAmmunition5=1 Bomb0=-1 PrimaryAimingGun=0 [end] [Ammunition=1] WeaponModes=1,-2,-3,-4,-5 AnimationVal=0.0 name="0,1,2,3-M250-AP-1800" GunAmmunition0=0 GunAmmunition1=0 GunAmmunition2=2 GunAmmunition3=2 Bomb0=-1 PrimaryAimingGun=0 [end] [Ammunition=2] WeaponModes=2,-1,-3,-4,-5 AnimationVal=0.0 name="0,1,2,3,4,5-M250-AP-2060" GunAmmunition0=3 GunAmmunition1=3 GunAmmunition2=1 GunAmmunition3=1 GunAmmunition4=1 GunAmmunition5=1 Bomb0=-1 PrimaryAimingGun=0 [end] [Ammunition=3] WeaponModes=12,-3,-4,-5 AnimationVal=0.0 name="0,1,2,3-M250-AP-1980" GunAmmunition0=3 GunAmmunition1=3 GunAmmunition2=2 GunAmmunition3=2 Bomb0=-1 PrimaryAimingGun=0 [end] ... AP AP AP AP AP AP :D Edited May 17, 2020 by CountZero 1
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 (edited) 48 minutes ago, CountZero said: ... So to me it also seems that tracer is a graphical effect, rather then (with regards to the .50 cal) actually shooting a M1/M10 Tracer that would have little penetration or effect on fuel tanks. Early war standard US 50.cal belts (at least for USAAF) were: 3 AP - 2 I - 1 T Some time in 1942 this changed to 2 AP - 2 I - 1 T In late 1943 with the introduction of M8 API it changed to API - I - API - I - T And Late 1944 it with the introduction of M20 API-T it was API - I - API - I - APIT Edited May 17, 2020 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
Night0wl Posted May 17, 2020 Posted May 17, 2020 12 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said: This. Precisely what I wrote in my first reply. And in any case, this is entirely besides the point of the OP, which is that the .50s should do more aero damage. Right now they're really anemic, even if you don't count the API effect. And of course the fact that API isn't modeled at all is a massive nerf to .50s, as that ammo was used extensively. I really doubt API .50 is really going to make a different size hole compared to ball .50 Its not gonna explode into shrapnell like a HE round. Sure if API hits a fuel tank thats a big difference compared to ball hitting the fuel tank. 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now