Thoughts on the aerodynamic penalty for .50" cal hits.

[Creep]

[LemonQuat]

Get away from my meta you creep.

[Bremspropeller]

19 hours ago, CountZero said:

 

 

That slogan works for a different "RAF", too:

 

[CountZero]

So video clearly shows that P-51 is to OP when it can falow 262 like that, fix to good P-51!

[CountZero]

51 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

That slogan works for a different "RAF", too:

 

O man you would see how they would fly and shoot like pros if only americans build few 47 or 51 in russia or even better in germanys underground factorys during ww2, 30min emergancy timers, unbrakable tails and .50 cals with APHE ammo belts, one can dream or just take Tempest, Spit14 for moon alt fights in month or two or Typhoon for GA at summer time ?

Edited February 3, 2021 by CountZero

[von_Tom]

 

 

What do you expect to see representing aerodynamic drag?  Vortices or what?

 

If that was on Combat Box on the 2nd it shows 33 rounds hitting the target.  Where does the 147 rounds hitting come from?  Is that from the actual server log?

 

von Tom

[Creep]

57 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

What do you expect to see representing aerodynamic drag?  Vortices or what?

There are three levels of aerodynamic damage. Appreciable drag and maneuvering penalties only occur once a surface reaches level two damage. With this many strikes on a plane, I would expect to see something more than the tiny pin-prick holes that we see currently when AP rounds strike a surface (level one damage).

 

1 hour ago, von_Tom said:

If that was on Combat Box on the 2nd it shows 33 rounds hitting the target.  Where does the 147 rounds hitting come from?  Is that from the actual server log?

It is not from a sortie that I flew. The 147 round count is coming from IL2 Stats via dserver logs. This is the sortie: https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/1116625/?tour=30

[von_Tom]

2 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

There are...

 

Cheers.

 

von Tom

[RedKestrel]

21 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

There are three levels of aerodynamic damage. Appreciable drag and maneuvering penalties only occur once a surface reaches level two damage. With this many strikes on a plane, I would expect to see something more than the tiny pin-prick holes that we see currently when AP rounds strike a surface (level one damage).

 

It is not from a sortie that I flew. The 147 round count is coming from IL2 Stats via dserver logs. This is the sortie: https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/1116625/?tour=30

Looking at the log vs. the bullets that hit, it looks like a lot of bullets did no damage at all, or the log stating the number of hits is counting multiple 'hits' from a single bullet impacting several hitboxes (like going through the skin and hitting wing spars or something)but those amounts are lumped together into a single damage log event. Just a quick count of individual damage logs doesn't show 147 damage events recorded. 

I suspect sometimes AP MG rounds don't do enough damage to enemy planes to cross the threshold for damage to be recorded in the sortie log. I have flown sorties where I saw one or two hits on a wing and then saw nothing in the log later. Either a network issue (certainly possible) or the bullets just going "through and through" and leaving no perceptible impact. 

 

[QB.Shallot]

@RedKestrel, don’t put too much weight on the damage logs. I’ve taken 4 30mm hits before that have registered as only 3 different logs on the damage log before. I doubt the log tick rate can keep up with 6x .50’s operating at their max ROF, so it likely rolls several hits into a single datapoint. Also it’s possible that some logs are doing such little damage (<.05%) that the log doesn’t count them.

[CountZero]

24 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Looking at the log vs. the bullets that hit, it looks like a lot of bullets did no damage at all, or the log stating the number of hits is counting multiple 'hits' from a single bullet impacting several hitboxes (like going through the skin and hitting wing spars or something)but those amounts are lumped together into a single damage log event. Just a quick count of individual damage logs doesn't show 147 damage events recorded. 

I suspect sometimes AP MG rounds don't do enough damage to enemy planes to cross the threshold for damage to be recorded in the sortie log. I have flown sorties where I saw one or two hits on a wing and then saw nothing in the log later. Either a network issue (certainly possible) or the bullets just going "through and through" and leaving no perceptible impact. 

 

Vaal system desregards showing dmg% below 0.1%, but all bullets that hit will be counted corectly, back then when i took this 0.50 thing seriously i did tests and then run them on offline stats from QM and all was correctly shown and when you take time to manualy check game logs youll see all hit % there for each bullet, TAW system will show you all % last time i check.

[Creep]

26 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Vaal system desregards showing dmg% below 0.1%, but all bullets that hit will be counted corectly, back then when i took this 0.50 thing seriously i did tests and then run them on offline stats from QM and all was correctly shown and when you take time to manualy check game logs youll see all hit % there for each bullet, TAW system will show you all % last time i check.

This is really interesting, thank you for sharing that detail. I wasn't quite sure what I was looking at when I tried to compare the raw dserver logs to what IL2 Stats parsed for a sortie. Now this makes perfect sense! ?

[Tempus]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

Either a network issue (certainly possible) or the bullets just going "through and through" and leaving no perceptible impact. 

 

If it were true this forum would be full of complains from pilots who normally fly germans, and that is not the case. So clean and erase the theory  of lags only affecting planes using 50's.

 

Instead of lack of punch in any specific type of bullet we should talk about Lack of damageable internal systems in each model. Basically DM is far away from its final level of complexity, at least in internal systems, but on the other hand the external skin damage has been working from the begining, even before brand new DM implementation . You would notice what I'm explaining once you use CountZero's 0.50 AP to 12.7 HE MOD and observe same heavy damages in a 109 from a P-51D like if I were shooting it from another 109 usin its 13 mm., with this mod you can also put in flames a 109...and the fire doesn't come from the engine.... comes from the fuel tank, and if you insist in putting in it more rounds 109 explodes!!!!!. Basically it means that HE rounds once impact they inflict from level 2 to level 3 type of damage.  0.50 AP rounds need, in terms of working properly, a depth forward step into internal systems recreation and their specific DM, also another playmate to generate damages by fire ( pure Incediary rounds or in API-APIT belt configurations): It means a lot of work.... but how beautiful will looks like my A/C  with the auto gen squadron marks even when 13 mm rounds crush you, meanwhile my AP rounds have nothing to damage: OH Lord... HOW SPECTACULAR LOOKS THE SQUAD MARKS IN SIDES WITH THE FLAMES!!!!! 

Self test done it in SP quickstart missions from a position of advantage.

 

  

 

 

If you don't like mine you can also try this one from a reliable mate

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Tatata_Time

[RedKestrel]

29 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

 

If it were true this forum would be full of complains from pilots who normally fly germans, and that is not the case. So clean and erase the theory  of lags only affecting planes using 50's.

 

Instead of lack of punch in any specific type of bullet we should talk about Lack of damageable internal systems in each model. Basically DM is far away from its final level of complexity, at least in internal systems, but on the other hand the external skin damage has been working from the begining, even before brand new DM implementation . You would notice what I'm explaining once you use CountZero's 0.50 AP to 12.7 HE MOD and observe same heavy damages in a 109 from a P-51D like if I were shooting it from another 109 usin its 13 mm., with this mod you can also put in flames a 109...and the fire doesn't come from the engine.... comes from the fuel tank, and if you insist in putting in it more rounds 109 explodes!!!!!. Basically it means that HE rounds once impact they inflict from level 2 to level 3 type of damage.  0.50 AP rounds need, in terms of working properly, a depth forward step into internal systems recreation and their specific DM, also another playmate to generate damages by fire ( pure Incediary rounds or in API-APIT belt configurations): It means a lot of work.... but how beautiful will looks like my A/C  with the auto gen squadron marks even when 13 mm rounds crush you, meanwhile my AP rounds have nothing to damage: OH Lord... HOW SPECTACULAR LOOKS THE SQUAD MARKS IN SIDES WITH THE FLAMES!!!!! 

Self test done it in SP quickstart missions from a position of advantage.

 

  

 

 

If you don't like mine you can also try this one from a reliable mate

 

 

My apologies, I was speaking only in terms of my own setup - I'm willing to accept that me witnessing a single or pair of bullets hit an enemy and not get registered by the server or the other player be a function of my sometimes less than stellar connection.  It seemed possible to me that this happened on occasion. I wasn't aware that certain hits were culled or collated by the stats software if they were below a certain threshold.

I also figured that those flying german planes wouldn't be complaining even if this did happen on occasion since even one hit with an HE 12.7mm does a lot of damage, so you might not even notice 1 bullet missing out of a burst of five or six, since that would be enough to make many planes uncontrollable. Certainly the video demonstrates the absurdity of the HE HMG guns...if they were that effective IRL no one would bother with cannons, and everyone would be mounting large numbers of HMG with lots of ammo.

Turns out I was wrong, I'm glad to be corrected.

[von_Tom]

41 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

 

If it were true this forum would be full of complains from pilots who normally fly germans... 

Not necessarily so. With 6 guns firing at such a high rate with AP only a problem with net code will seem a lot worse than missing say 1 out of 4 20mm.

 

I have no idea about net code so I’ll leave it to others to figure out if the rate of fire or distance from server etc causes a problem. 

 

von Tom

[Tempus]

58 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

Not necessarily so. With 6 guns firing at such a high rate with AP only a problem with net code will seem a lot worse than missing say 1 out of 4 20mm.

 

I have no idea about net code so I’ll leave it to others to figure out if the rate of fire or distance from server etc causes a problem. 

 

AN/M2 MG rate of fire 750-850 rounds per minute

MG 131 rate of fire 900 rounds per minute 

MG 151 rate of fire 680-740 rounds per minute

 

Germans also would have anything to complain in bullets magic dissapearences due net issues. 

 

 

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

My apologies, I was speaking only in terms of my own setup - I'm willing to accept that me witnessing a single or pair of bullets hit an enemy and not get registered by the server or the other player be a function of my sometimes less than stellar connection.  It seemed possible to me that this happened on occasion. I wasn't aware that certain hits were culled or collated by the stats software if they were below a certain threshold.

 

You got nothing to apologice of. The real mission is actually running in the server and you connect to it and server is every time sharing info with your local PC. So what you see in stats is what actually happened: if you shot 713 rounds you really shot 713 and you only generated 0.23% damage in opponent. The main problem is how you interpret that data. Would you affirm with the total and absolute certaint all issues commented in this and several other closed (by admins) / nowadays opened related posts from almost 10 months is actually the result of an unfixable (or hard to fix in months)  big lag (we can talk in terms of black holes in the core of internet) that always sucks out only 0.50 rounds?

 

Let's talk about DM lacks not net lacks. 

[von_Tom]

7 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

 

AN/M2 MG rate of fire 750-850 rounds per minute

MG 131 rate of fire 900 rounds per minute 

MG 151 rate of fire 680-740 rounds per minute

 

I know the rates.  1 in 4 means maybe 2 or 3 20mm disappearing in a 1 second burst when you only need 2 or 3 to hit to see noticeable damage and so you won't necessarily miss the absent rounds. For the An/M2 that is missing maybe 20 out of 80 rounds.  Given the inherent difficulties with aiming at convergence rate with wing-mounted weapons i.e. you hit less, and les damage per .50 cal it means the likelihood of a lot less damage being done.

 

I have no idea how net code might affect performance and loss of rounds in the air, and it may be more or less than my example, or it could fluctuate, but comparing damage offline to damage online there is an obvious difference.

 

von Tom

[Creep]

@von_Tom Please please please, stop using the netcode argument. It makes no sense - in so many of the examples we have posted, the server is registering a high number of bullet hits and the bullets are not having any effect. We aren't noobs talking about something anecdotally, or only posting a client-side track file or tacview. We have the server data to back it up. A lot of .50 caliber AP bullets = almost no damage, whereas a single HE bullet (MG131 or UBS) instantly causes appreciable aerodynamic drag and makes maneuvering difficult.
 

[von_Tom]

8 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

@von_Tom Please please please, stop using the netcode argument..
 

 

My response was to the point that those flying other crates would also be complaining if net code was an issue.  My argument is that it may not be so readily apparent as it is to the P51 drivers.  It isn't anything to do with whether or not the .50 cal is incorrectly modelled, as is claimed in so, so , so many threads.

Server data doesn't record position, location, aerodynamic effect, structural damage effect or anything like that.  Comparing it to HE doesn't help either because they are very different rounds.  Some of the arguments are cogent but anyone who starts on dev bias or LW whingers or whatever loses all credibility.  They should be asking for accuracy not parity.

 

I'll grant you that something seems off but the constant bleating about it doesn't help.

 

von Tom

[Creep]

@von_Tom Bleating? Whinging? We are doing nothing of the sort. There is very clearly a problem, as has been demonstrated here. The only way it is going to get the attention it deserves is by talking about it. Over and over again. Which is what I am going to do until it gets solved. Sorry not sorry if that is inconvenient for you.

 

I've never heard of any problem getting solved by ignoring it.

[von_Tom]

 

Yep, bleating and whinging.  If it was simple factual explanations demonstrated by evidence it'd be fine.  The bleating comes in when everyone starts complaining about HE or saying that LW pilots would also whinge, or the devs are ignoring the issue because the LW pilots are happy.  There is very interesting info in this thread but it is rather spoiled by the "OMG look at this " posts and threads which look like hyperbole and dilute the message.

 

I will also grant you that I'd like to see some kind of acknowledgement that this is being considered, but experience tells us that often there is something going on behind the scenes and the fix will come.  The FW stall characteristics is probably the best example of this.

 

von Tom

[Dakpilot]

How many bug reports have been made in the correct place..? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Creep]

51 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

Yep, bleating and whinging.  If it was simple factual explanations demonstrated by evidence it'd be fine. 

I am going to ask you again - did you read the first post in this thread here? Do you consider it to be "bleating" and "whinging"? 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I personally believe (as a customer) that there are indeed problems with M2 ammunition. The fundamental problem "as I see" it is APi rounds not being modeled and added to that an extremely tough airframe on the 109's. 

 

I genuinely hope that the Devs will have a drains up and re-look at the damage model and implement API and a more advanced fuel system ASAP 

 

Having said all that, the endless videos, the rudeness and the I WILL NOT BE IGNORED attitude are really not helping one bit. It is slowing diluting any issues because of the vitriolic attitude and posts that has been on display by some individuals on the forum. 

 

I have said this previously that people were complaining that AP was far too powerful and HE was too weak in previous builds. Then we had a reversal of that. We also had the complaint that aircraft were structurally too weak and now we seem to have a reversal of that once again. 

 

Changing the damage model is not a 5 minute job and I'm fairly convinced that there are thousands of hours of work required to complete a rework of the damage model system.

 

Regardless of what some people may think on the forum, the developers are constantly updating and trying to improve the Great Battles and they really are aware of problems and issues.

 

 

 

  

[Tempus]

2 hours ago, von_Tom said:

Server data doesn't record position, location, aerodynamic effect, structural damage effect or anything like that.  Comparing it to HE doesn't help either because they are very different rounds.  Some of the arguments are cogent but anyone who starts on dev bias or LW whingers or whatever loses all credibility.  They should be asking for accuracy not parity.

 

Is anything incorrect in your reading comprehension? 

26 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

I will also grant you that I'd like to see some kind of acknowledgement that this is being considered, but experience tells us that often there is something going on behind the scenes and the fix will come

 

Are you rather kinda politely whinning in this sentence but not with enough emphasy to get kicked out your circle of trust? That's why you used "would like" instead of "I like"?

How many times I've read any of your post in all these 0.50 issues threats since April 2020? Between zero and zero  of them contributing with  interesting data to demonstrate whatever you think is correct. I'm afraid not. Sorry for advance if I missed any intersting one, let me send me it/them and I'll be very pleased in reading it and giving my opinion.

Also due you got the extreme faith in sooner or later the solution will come you don't have to stay right here walking in circles with past discarded topics

41 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

How many bug reports have been made in the correct place..? 

 

Are you considering to call them borderlines cause they can read anything related with this issue cause it is written in the incorrect place in this forum fot ten months? or are you suggesting everybody complaining here is borderline cause they're here giving opinions and info in an incorrectly placed threat in the forum? I got to tell you Big Brother is always watching and when they are interested in anything out of place they got no objections in cut and paste, put it in the right place, rename it  or also ban it. 

[von_Tom]

14 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

I am going to ask you again - did you read the first post in this thread here? Do you consider it to be "bleating" and "whinging"? 

 

You didn't ask me before, but yes and it's great and informative though I'm not convinced by:

 

1.  The comparison with HE which is designed to explode either on the surface or within a very short time period, thus creating more of an aerodynamic penalty;

2.  The proposition that the data shows that the HE is over-modelled - that the MG131 or VVS rounds do more aerodynamic damage than the .50 cal is not evidence that they are over-modelled.

 

There is also no extrapolation fo the difference between the airfoils of the LW crates and the laminar flow wing of the P51.  I have no idea if it would make a difference, but it is another factor to take into account, as would power/weight ratios and all of that.

 

It was a great starting point.

 

von Tom

[Tempus]

2 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I personally believe (as a customer) that there are indeed problems with M2 ammunition. The fundamental problem "as I see" it is APi rounds not being modeled and added to that an extremely tough airframe on the 109's. 

 

I genuinely hope that the Devs will have a drains up and re-look at the damage model and implement API and a more advanced fuel system ASAP 

 

Having said all that, the endless videos, the rudeness and the I WILL NOT BE IGNORED attitude are really not helping one bit. It is slowing diluting any issues because of the vitriolic attitude and posts that has been on display by some individuals on the forum. 

 

I have said this previously that people were complaining that AP was far too powerful and HE was too weak in previous builds. Then we had a reversal of that. We also had the complaint that aircraft were structurally too weak and now we seem to have a reversal of that once again. 

 

Changing the damage model is not a 5 minute job and I'm fairly convinced that there are thousands of hours of work required to complete a rework of the damage model system.

 

Regardless of what some people may think on the forum, the developers are constantly updating and trying to improve the Great Battles and they really are aware of problems and issues.

 Hey Mate!!!!! How long!!!! Must be destiny. We meet again in a threat related with 0.50 issues. When was it? in May, June,....? I can barely remember.... so, so long doesn't it?. How is everything? I guess like first day We met.... Oh Lord.... Old times sake!!!!

[CUJO_1970]

6 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

CountZero's 0.50 AP to 12.7 HE MOD

 

???

This shyt is not helping your case.

[von_Tom]

15 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

 

...

 

 

[Creep]

1 hour ago, von_Tom said:

 

You didn't ask me before, but yes and it's great and informative though I'm not convinced by:

 

1.  The comparison with HE which is designed to explode either on the surface or within a very short time period, thus creating more of an aerodynamic penalty;

2.  The proposition that the data shows that the HE is over-modelled - that the MG131 or VVS rounds do more aerodynamic damage than the .50 cal is not evidence that they are over-modelled.

 

There is also no extrapolation fo the difference between the airfoils of the LW crates and the laminar flow wing of the P51.  I have no idea if it would make a difference, but it is another factor to take into account, as would power/weight ratios and all of that.

 

It was a great starting point.

 

von Tom

 

It takes an average of 83.4 rounds of AP ammo to do the same amount of damage that can be achieved with an average of 3.4 rounds of HE of a similar caliber. We aren't talking about the difference between a bullet and a mine-shell; the amount of explosive charge in these bullets is quite small. To me, it just doesn't pass the sniff test. Something is very obviously wrong. Not sure why you cannot see that.

 

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with the wings of various planes; our testing used the wing of a 109 to maintain a like-for-like comparison. Also not sure how in the world power/weight ratios come into play in any way, shape, or form.

 

We at least agree that it is only a starting point. The next logical step is for 1c to prioritize this issue and fix it.

Edited February 4, 2021 by QB.Creep

[Tempus]

2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

This shyt is not helping your case.

 

Sorry mate the official stuff is not better, even worse. Also I have to inform you this is not "my" case is "our" case....I included you to this rave party, let's see if you got something related to contribute and fix this s....stuff asap and 100% sure you won't read me in post like these.

2 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

This is how I like to treat people: leaving them with no arguments and with a big smile in their face. I'm really happy for you. Let's try to do an answer at same level as yours

..............................................................................................................................................?

[HR_Zunzun]

 

10 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

My response was to the point that those flying other crates would also be complaining if net code was an issue.  My argument is that it may not be so readily apparent as it is to the P51 drivers.  It isn't anything to do with whether or not the .50 cal is incorrectly modelled, as is claimed in so, so , so many threads.

 

von Tom

 

In that case it would also be a problem with the 0.5 modelling. If you knew (they surely would know) that the server couldn´t register all the 0.5 impact, then you should do something about it. If the state of current technology doesn´t let your DM work as intendend, then you must change your DM to allow for this shortcoming. Otherwise, your modelling will be poor. Simple as that.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

8 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

 Hey Mate!!!!! How long!!!! Must be destiny. We meet again in a threat related with 0.50 issues. When was it? in May, June,....? I can barely remember.... so, so long doesn't it?. How is everything? I guess like first day We met.... Oh Lord.... Old times sake!!!!

Yes!!!! it's all very much like a some in the forum are just stuck in an endless loop!!!!!  Just like old times!!!. 

 

The problem is that a large amount of damage has already been done on the forum to credible argumentation on the subject.  Posting Memes, insulting the developments, caustic statements, endless videos and a never ending round robin of "there is a problem" really do not help and many of the good points are washed away in a sea of nonsense. 

 

The developers have already acknowledged that they are going to study the damage modelling.

      

Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.  

[von_Tom]

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

In that case it would also be a problem with the 0.5 modelling. If you knew (they surely would know) that the server couldn´t register all the 0.5 impact, then you should do something about it. If the state of current technology doesn´t let your DM work as intendend, then you must change your DM to allow for this shortcoming. Otherwise, your modelling will be poor. 

 

I'll respectfully disagree here, because if the .50s are buffed to allow for netcode issues then everything else should be buffed by the same amount as other rounds might also be affected, and then you have extremely unrealistic scenarios which will very much impact on online players with differing connections, and the offline players.

My lay view is that there seems to be something off with the .50s that is maybe made worse by net code and damage model issues, all of which are being conflated and being presented as solely a .50 cal problem.

 

But in all of this, I trust the devs to do whatever is needed.  It isn't blind trust, but is based on experiences in this platform since 2013.

 

von Tom

[Tempus]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Yes!!!! it's all very much like a some in the forum are just stuck in an endless loop!!!!!  Just like old times!!!. 

 

 I guess you also have included yourself in that selected VIP club of endless loop, otherwise I would be disappointed, please don't be shy, just like in old times, be yourself all time.

 

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Posting Memes

 

 quote- - unquote

 

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

endless videos

 

Quote- Then perhaps YOU should make a bug report with tracks or video and send it to the devs then? That might be more helpful and It tends to get more things done.-unquote

 

Dude you're a gold mine ;)))))). I've read long time ago a wise sentence: "You're slave from your own words". I really am..... and you? 

[Creep]

1 hour ago, von_Tom said:

... because if the .50s are buffed to allow for netcode issues then...

Netcode cannot be blamed for ineffective AP / too effective HE. please refer to our study of this here.

 

1 hour ago, von_Tom said:

... being presented as solely a .50 cal problem

It is not being presented as an issue only with .50 cals, it is a problem with AP.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

41 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

 

 I guess you also have included yourself in that selected VIP club of endless loop, otherwise I would be disappointed, please don't be shy, just like in old times, be yourself all time.

And it's stuff like this that prove my point you're not adding anything to discussion you're just sounding off and diluting the issue. 

43 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

Quote- Then perhaps YOU should make a bug report with tracks or video and send it to the devs then? That might be more helpful and It tends to get more things done.-unquote

 

Dude you're a gold mine ;)))))). I've read long time ago a wise sentence: "You're slave from your own words". I really am..... and you? 

When the developers having acknowledge a problem  say they will look at something what is the point of endlessly posting videos across multiple forum threads instead of in bug reports? Job done, no? 

It's  got to the point where we are just seeing a lot of hysterical nonsense that isn't helping. 

 

[von_Tom]

14 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Netcode cannot be blamed for ineffective AP / too effective HE. please refer to our study of this here.

 

Quoting me out of context doesn't help.  I appreciate the methodology of the test but I have no idea if a server recorded hit correlates to actual damage.  Going by sortie logs sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.

 

14 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

It is not being presented as an issue only with .50 cals, it is a problem with AP.

 

I've only seen tests done with the P51 .50 cals.  Is it all AP rounds?  Is it more specifically the .50 cals in the P51 as opposed to the .50 cals in the P40 or P47?  I recall a post saying the P40 seemed more effective, but cannot recall where I saw it.

 

Actually scratch that - no need to reply as I'll wait for the devs to sort it all out.  The .50 cals kill me easily enough as it is.

 

von Tom

[Creep]

12 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

I have no idea if a server recorded hit correlates to actual damage.  Going by sortie logs sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.

The sortie log (IL2Stats) are parsed directly from the dserver logs. We have documented both of these, including client-side recordings (track files and tacview files). The only variance with the sortie logs is, as @CountZero said, if a bullet does less than 0.1% damage it will not show up. However, it still counts as a hit if you view the total rounds hit in the sortie summary. And that's the whole point really - AP bullets are doing an incredibly small amount of damage.

 

12 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

I've only seen tests done with the P51 .50 cals.  Is it all AP rounds?  Is it more specifically the .50 cals in the P51 as opposed to the .50 cals in the P40 or P47?  I recall a post saying the P40 seemed more effective, but cannot recall where I saw it.

Yes, it is all AP ammunition. This issue is the same for all ammunition labeled as "M2 .50" in the game. We actually used the .50s in a P-38 for our tests as it was easier to be consistent with the center-mounted gun. 

 

12 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

The .50 cals kill me easily enough as it is.

No, they don't.

 

27 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

what is the point of endlessly posting videos across multiple forum threads instead of in bug reports?

To impress upon them the seriousness of the issue, and to hopefully get them address the issue sooner rather than later. This issue makes the game frustrating if you fly late-war allied birds that currently only have AP rounds.

Edited February 4, 2021 by QB.Creep

[Tempus]

16 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

And it's stuff like this that prove my point you're not adding anything to discussion you're just sounding off and diluting the issue. 

 

Just ask yourself in what do YOUR interventions contribute? Are they also contributing in diluting the original post? Stop that crapp at this point a do it yourself a great favor.