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

[Bremspropeller]

The 50s suffer from a lack of seondary effects (e.g. fuel-tanks, pressure-bottles, ammo exploding).

 

If you hit at convergence-range, they still can be devastating, though.

[cardboard_killer]

I recommend you read all 21 pages of this thread:

 

 

[216th_Jordan]

57 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The 50s suffer from a lack of seondary effects (e.g. fuel-tanks, pressure-bottles, ammo exploding).

 

Just to add: Airfoil damage drag/lift impact seems quite low even after many hits.

 

As other have said its been heavily discussed and yes the guns can still be devastating.

Edited November 13, 2020 by 216th_Jordan

[MylorTorlone]

.50s have been broken for a while now. Not clear if they're planning on addressing it yet 

[-332FG-Buddy]

Thank you @Cass for all these test!, The question is now how can we bring this up to the devs without pissing them off. Jason did say "the damage model would NOT be revisited" do we just keep post videos and tests?

[Elem]

13 minutes ago, MylorTorlone said:

.50s have been broken for a while now. Not clear if they're planning on addressing it yet 

And your evidence in support of this statement is...?

[CountZero]

YES!

[=621=Samikatz]

Dead six of a lot of planes is like shooting into a black hole for machine guns right now. You want to go for deflection shots if you can

[[DBS]Browning]

It takes an average of 28.8 50cal rounds to down a fighter in multiplayer currently.

How many do you think it should take?

[cardboard_killer]

6 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

How many do you think it should take?

 

One. The .50cal is the Chuck Norris of bullets. Indeed, even getting shot at by a .50cal should be enough to bring planes down out of pure fear.

[216th_Jordan]

11 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

It takes an average of 28.8 50cal rounds to down a fighter in multiplayer currently.

How many do you think it should take?

 

Seems about right - but where do the numbers come from? It does not go together with my findings, but I rarely use the .50s to have enough samples.

[[DBS]Browning]

4 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Seems about right - but where do the numbers come from? It does not go together with my findings, but I rarely use the .50s to have enough samples.

 

The combat box stats. If you follow the link you quoted, you can find the data collection method.

I would still encourage you to use the stats to gather your own data. My sample size was ok, but could be improved upon and I did not do a good job of documenting the results.

[216th_Jordan]

2 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

The combat box stats. If you follow the link you quoted, you can find the data collection method.

I would still encourage you to use the stats to gather your own data. My sample size was ok, but could be improved upon and I did not do a good job of documenting the results.

 

I must be blind. Thank you.

[PatrickAWlson]

Anecdotal, but so are most of the other posts ( @[DBS]Browning  excluded - damn you man, introducing actual data to an emotional argument!  What are you thinking?! ) so why not ... 

 

I find that I get a lot of flamers and pilot kills with 50 cals.   Really don't have any problem bringing down fighters at all.  Not sure how they would fare against more heavily armored planes, but Americans did not face those planes so who cares.  Besides, there was a reason the rest of the world went to cannons.

[jollyjack]

So that's it .... i was uses to Migs, i16, YakketyYaks, Spits, Tempest etc. Hadn't been doing much dog fighting in BoX anyway; it's more fun in FC1.

Luckily you can edit the Lullaby files, i'll exchange P51 for another plane as a tester ... couldn't finish the first mission even, thinking it was MY fault LoL.

 

Added: trying Quick missions with various planes ... P39, P40 same thing; with a Spit and the hispano, or a Hurricane with 3.03s stuff it's a piece of cake ...

Edited November 13, 2020 by jollyjack

[NIK14]

2 hours ago, Elem said:

And your evidence in support of this statement is...?

 

The fact that the ammo loadout lacks API's would suggest it.

[dburne]

I have been doing ok with the P-51's 50 cal ammo I think.

Nice to have so much of it also.

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I find bagging FWs with the P51 is far easier than killing 109s. Though most are brought down by pilot kills.  The 109 just absorbs bullets and keeps on going.

 

API for the 50s would be a big help.

[jollyjack]

Well as for 'flying' it in the game it it's certainly a nice plane.

Pity it's not effective enough with my 'skills'. For Hun Hunting i'll choose UK fighters for now LoL. API on the wishlist !

[Rjel]

33 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I find bagging FWs with the P51 is far easier than killing 109s. Though most are brought down by pilot kills.  The 109 just absorbs bullets and keeps on going.

 

API for the 50s would be a big help.

That’s been my experience too. I seem to set the Fw-190s engines on fire more often than I do 109s. I can live with .50s as they are but, going back to when the P-51 was first released, they don’t seem to hit nearly as hard. I don’t get as many one burst kills now as I remember getting then. 

[Legioneod]

 

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I find bagging FWs with the P51 is far easier than killing 109s. Though most are brought down by pilot kills.  The 109 just absorbs bullets and keeps on going.

 

API for the 50s would be a big help.

Agree with this 100%. I don't fully know why but 109s just absorb rounds, 190s on the other hand are far easier to take down.

[Legioneod]

4 hours ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

Thank you @Cass for all these test!, The question is now how can we bring this up to the devs without pissing them off. Jason did say "the damage model would NOT be revisited" do we just keep post videos and tests?

DM won't be revisited right now, I don't think he meant that it would never be improved on in the future. There is always room for improvement and there are plenty of things the devs could add to the damage model to make it even more realistic. The problem is they devs have alot on their plate right now and they can't just stop work on more important things to revisit the .50 damage model when it's functional and does work (though maybe not as much as some would like).

[ACG_Cass]

@-332FG-Buddy

I'm not sure at this point. I'm happy to do some more similar tests if anyone can think of anything relevant to try. 

 

Jason's statement didn't fill me with hope on the subject. I really don't want to come across as some ungrateful consumer as they've done a lot of great work during a very difficult period. But something this fundamentally wrong with part of the product for this long is a little frustrating.

 

The issue is that each time .50s are brought up there will be a crowd of people who think they are working as intended, and there is some truth to that. They do work providing you hit either the pilot, engine or from below. This is correct in terms of killing the aircraft, you can put a lot of .50s into a plane and it will still fly. But the problem you find is that you don't end up hitting anything vital, there is almost no penalty. So if you decide to disengage thinking a plane with 20-25 in it is wounded,  you find yourself in for a nasty suprise when that plane can fight on as if it's taken a single round. 

 

That's all that needs to change. They aren't cannons, they aren't going to rip massive holes in the skin and cause huge drag, but they are going to do something. It certainly becomes more apparent when damage from a single, slightly larger caliber gun can knock 100kmh+ off of a planes speed and yet 8 x .50s do literally nothing. 

 

I would have hoped it was something they could change relatively easily judging by the people who modded the russian cannons onto US planes. But the fact nothing has been done doesn't fill me with confidence. 

 

I mean I'd take even a stop gap fix of .50s doing 10% of the aero damage a 15mm is able to. 

 

edit:

@Legioneod - didn't see that and that's a good point. If it's something they want to spend time on and review then completely understand it could take resources away from other important projects. I think the frustration a lot of us have is not hearing anything from them in terms of acknowledgement of the issue. 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Cass

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, Cass said:

@-332FG-Buddy

I'm not sure at this point. I'm happy to do some more similar tests if anyone can think of anything relevant to try. 

 

Jason's statement didn't fill me with hope on the subject. I really don't want to come across as some ungrateful consumer as they've done a lot of great work during a very difficult period. But something this fundamentally wrong with the product for this long is a little frustrating.

 

The issue is that each time .50s are brought up there will be a crowd of people who think they are working as intended, and there is some truth to that. They do work providing you hit either the pilot, engine or from below. This is correct in terms of killing the aircraft, you can put a lot of .50s into a plane and it will still fly. But the problem you find is that you don't end up hitting anything vital, there is almost no penalty. So if you decide to disengage thinking a plane with 20-25 in it is wounded,  you find yourself in for a nasty suprise when that plane can fight on as if it's taken a single round. 

 

That's all that needs to change. They aren't cannons, they aren't going to rip massive holes in the skin and cause huge drag, but they are going to do something. It certainly becomes more apparent when damage from a single, slightly larger caliber gun can knock 100kmh+ off of a planes speed and yet 8 x .50s do literally nothing. 

 

I would have hoped it was something they could change relatively easily judging by the people who modded the russian cannons onto US planes. But the fact nothing has been done doesn't fill me with confidence. 

 

I mean I'd take even a stop gap fix of .50s doing 10% of the aero damage a 15mm is able to. 

 

edit:

@Legioneod - didn't see that and that's a good point. If it's something they want to spend time on and review then completely understand it could take resources away from other important projects. I think the frustration a lot of us have is not hearing anything from them in terms of acknowledgement of the issue. 

 

 

One thing I think we need to consider is the data we provide. If all we have is in-game test with no real world data to compare it to then how will the devs know if something is truly wrong in the .50 performance? They used real data when they worked on the damage model and they try to get it as close as possible, so unless we can provide real world data to show that something is wrong I'm really not sure how the devs can make a good decision one way or the other.

 

From my understanding things like control rods, engine cylinders, crankcase, fuel tanks, oil system, etc all have their own hit boxes and can be damaged. Maybe the .50s aren't getting the penetration that they need so they aren't doing much damage to the internals? I'm not sure if we could ever prove this but I've wondered if the skin of the airframe stops damage from .50s sometimes and that's why aircraft like the 109 just seem to absorb tons of hits. Or it may just be that the .50s aren't penetrating as far as they should so they aren't doing much if any damage to internals.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Lets just say that I'd rather eat a full P-51 .50 3 seconds burst than be hit by 3 bullets from the UBS turret of a IL2 600 meters away.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

51 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The 109 just absorbs bullets and keeps on going.

 

i think it is more worrying how allied fighters in game just absorb a 30 mm explosive shell and keeps on going.
It is very know that the american .50" cal. was a very effective ammunition, because it was able to drilling all systems of the enemy airplanes. That does not mean that the entire aircraft could be explode with a simple hit from 800 metres of distance.  ...
I don't know why a .50 cal. can kill Bf-109 pilots from 6-o'clock at 800 m. of distance, without drilling the MW-50 tank, fuel tank, the radio, or other systems behind the pilot, even without hitting in the armoured glass headrest.
Other different thing is the score policy of the game, what give the "victory" to the last pilots who hit the enemy, instead of to give the victory to first pilot who damaged severely them.
By the way, i don´t like to kill pilots in the game, i prefer that they bailed out and save his virtual life.
I dislike a lot the voices crying in the audio in game, "i´m on fire " it is macabre and unuseful thing.  Why they does not said the map square where they fall in flames at least?? that could help a bit.

Edited November 13, 2020 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Legioneod]

Just now, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

i think it is more worrying how allied fighters in game just absorb a 30 mm explosive shell and keeps on going.

They can't, at least they aren't combat effective once hit. If you expect a one hit kill then you'll be disappointed, not even real data supported a 1 hit kill all of the time, there is a chance the aircraft could limp home.

In-game getting hit by a 30mm is pretty much a death sentence unless you can find a way to escape (if you didn't already die from the hit) The hit makes you so combat ineffective that you don't have much chance of fighting back, 30mm completely destroys aerodynamics.

 

Just now, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

It is very know that the american .50" cal. was a very effective ammunition, because it was able to drilling all systems of the enemy airplanes. That does not mean that the entire aircraft could be explode with a simple hit from 800 metres of distance.  ...

No one is saying this.

 

Just now, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

I don't know why a .50 cal. can kill Bf-109 pilots from 6-o'clock at 800 m. of distance, without drilling the MW-50 tank, fuel tank, the radio fug 25, or other systems behind the pilot, even without hitting in the armoured glass headrest.

Depends on the hit angle and if the round has to actually go through all of that or not.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

They can't, at least they aren't combat effective once hit. If you expect a one hit kill then you'll be disappointed, not even real data supported a 1 hit kill all of the time, there is a chance the aircraft could limp home.

In-game getting hit by a 30mm is pretty much a death sentence unless you can find a way to escape (if you didn't already die from the hit) The hit makes you so combat ineffective that you don't have much chance of fighting back, 30mm completely destroys aerodynamics.

 

That is not my experience in game. I ´ve shootdown several times by an enemy who i hit previously with my 30 mm cannon. 
Actually in game Spits, Tempest and Pony´s can do many aggressive maneuvers after adsorb ONE 30 mm explosive shell. .. witch in according with historical data it could be ripped about one square meter of the aircraft structure.  ..and it not occurs.

This is a RAF test of one hit 30 mm cannon MK-108 in a Spitfire fuselage.

Edited November 13, 2020 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[357th_KW]

4 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

It takes an average of 28.8 50cal rounds to down a fighter in multiplayer currently.

How many do you think it should take?

Having gone down this rabbit hole myself, I came up with very different numbers: roughly 70 rounds per kill.  

 

At an average accuracy of 10% (which is way above what most can actually achieve) that’s 9 seconds of firing time for a 6 gun P-51.

 

Not my video, but it demonstrates what we’re talking about pretty nicely.

 

 

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

11 minutes ago, -332FG-KW_1979 said:

Having gone down this rabbit hole myself, I came up with very different numbers: roughly 70 rounds per kill.  

 

At an average accuracy of 10% (which is way above what most can actually achieve) that’s 9 seconds of firing time for a 6 gun P-51.

 

Not my video, but it demonstrates what we’re talking about pretty nicely.

Spoiler

 

 

Are you kidding?? ..really you think that you would must shootdown an airplane in movement with a few .50".cal hits, shooting from 650 meters of distance. it is a joke? 
 

 

[357th_KW]

2 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Are you kidding?? ..really you think that you would must shootdown an airplane in movement with a few .50".cal hits, shooting from 650 meters of distance. it is a joke? 
 

 

The point of the video was that the 109F2’s 1x15mm and 2x7.9mm are equal or better then the P-47’s 8x.50.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Please pay attention to the bullets dispersion at 2,000ft (about 610 meters) and many people in game are shooting from 600 or 800 meters of distance.

12 minutes ago, -332FG-KW_1979 said:

The point of the video was that the 109F2’s 1x15mm and 2x7.9mm are equal or better then the P-47’s 8x.50.

Do you know that Mg-151/ 15 mm had explosive shells??

Edited November 13, 2020 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[unreasonable]

55 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

One thing I think we need to consider is the data we provide. If all we have is in-game test with no real world data to compare it to then how will the devs know if something is truly wrong in the .50 performance? They used real data when they worked on the damage model and they try to get it as close as possible, so unless we can provide real world data to show that something is wrong I'm really not sure how the devs can make a good decision one way or the other.

 

From my understanding things like control rods, engine cylinders, crankcase, fuel tanks, oil system, etc all have their own hit boxes and can be damaged. Maybe the .50s aren't getting the penetration that they need so they aren't doing much damage to the internals? I'm not sure if we could ever prove this but I've wondered if the skin of the airframe stops damage from .50s sometimes and that's why aircraft like the 109 just seem to absorb tons of hits. Or it may just be that the .50s aren't penetrating as far as they should so they aren't doing much if any damage to internals.

 

I think that the fuel tank and engines have a hit box each: apart from that most sub components like control rods are rolled for with RNG and probability tables: like wing spars, they do not have their own hit boxes.  The reasoning for this approach was all discussed by AnP in one of the FC DM threads: in brief, hit recognition is very resource intensive, so limiting the number of hit boxes is essential. 

 

When I look at the tests posted by Cass, the .50s seem to be doing plenty of damage to internals: it is not as though the P-47s are having much difficult shooting the 109s down from dead six, with PKs, fires and engine damage in a few seconds in each case. His complaint, I think, is about the fact that the target plane loses no significant speed during these tests, and hence in a manoeuvring battle snap shots at the wings would not cripple the target, while those from cannons often do.  I agree with you, however, that it is not so obvious from any real world source how much, if any, speed they should lose. 

[[DBS]Browning]

46 minutes ago, -332FG-KW_1979 said:

Having gone down this rabbit hole myself, I came up with very different numbers: roughly 70 rounds per kill.  

 

At an average accuracy of 10% (which is way above what most can actually achieve) that’s 9 seconds of firing time for a 6 gun P-51.

 

Would you be interested in working together to get a sample of 500 and document it all a bit better with me? 

Edited November 13, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[357th_KW]

Absolutely, shoot me a PM.

[Legioneod]

17 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I think that the fuel tank and engines have a hit box each: apart from that most sub components like control rods are rolled for with RNG and probability tables: like wing spars, they do not have their own hit boxes.  The reasoning for this approach was all discussed by AnP in one of the FC DM threads: in brief, hit recognition is very resource intensive, so limiting the number of hit boxes is essential. 

 

When I look at the tests posted by Cass, the .50s seem to be doing plenty of damage to internals: it is not as though the P-47s are having much difficult shooting the 109s down from dead six, with PKs, fires and engine damage in a few seconds in each case. His complaint, I think, is about the fact that the target plane loses no significant speed during these tests, and hence in a manoeuvring battle snap shots at the wings would not cripple the target, while those from cannons often do.  I agree with you, however, that it is not so obvious from any real world source how much, if any, speed they should lose. 

That's unfortunate but I can understand the reasoning behind it. Having hitboxes for those sub components would make for a much more accurate model though, I know DCS is doing it for their new DM, I was hoping Il2 did the same.

[HR_Zunzun]

36 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Please pay attention to the bullets dispersion at 2,000ft (about 610 meters) and many people in game are shooting from 600 or 800 meters of distance.

One bullet hitting the pilot and is game over. What is the lethal range of a fiftie? 2000 m? Well beyond that then.

Before you mention armor again, that would i only protect the pilot in an almost perfect dead 6 situation. Add some degrees of angle off and your pilot is no longer as well protected by the armor as you would expect.

Possible is. Piece of cake is not.  I do agree, however, that long shots seems easier in il2. There is few sideslide movement compared to other sims.

Edited November 13, 2020 by HR_Zunzun

[ACG_Cass]

@unreasonable

@Legioneod

Perfectly put by both of you. I think that's reason why this topic always creates so much drama is there isn't data out there on what kind of drag a half inch hole creates, or whether it's a half inch hole, or two half inch or not half inch holes. 

 

My point with the final video shows that, relatively speaking, the round is under-performing massively in comparison to not dissimilar size rounds. 

 

The 15mm has 2.8g of PETN in it. A very potent explosive, but still that amount isn't going to give you the skin damage of a 20mm, which has 25g. They were nose fuses so more than likely it would explode on impact and you'd get a slightly bigger entrance hole. 

 

Now a single 15mm should absolutely significantly out perform a 12.7mm M2. Especially with the additional PETN component. But for it to outperform 8 12.7mm guns I don't think is accurate. Even without an official test I'd be happy to wager a fair chunk of cash on the fact that they going to, at minimum, have some kind of parity in the amount of aerodynamic damage they can dish out although that's being generous and I feel the 8 12.7mm should be out ahead. 

 

What we see in that video is a 100kmh speed loss (25% of the planes speed) being dished out by 1 15mm gun vs. almost no (and sometimes literally none) penalty being dished out by 8 12.7mm guns.

 

Is the 15mm overperforming or the 12.7 underperforming? I absolutely think it's the former, but that doesn't mean the latter isn't true either. But there's the point where it's perception and opinion based. I really don't think a .50 cal round is going to have much effect, but what about 5, what about 5 spaced apart, what about 5 close together, what about 10, what about 20.....well you get my point. My issue with the implementation at the moment is that you could put 50 rounds into a 109 and see very little speed loss. 

 

If anyone has any experience with CFD software and could whip together a 109 fuselage and wing, the put a couple of holes in it, then we could perhaps have a discussion (argument) around that. 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Cass

[Barnacles]

23 hours ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

This is a RAF test of one hit 30 mm cannon MK-108 in a Spitfire fuselage.

Are you sure that's not an mg131 HE hit.

Edited November 14, 2020 by Barnacles

[ACG_Cass]

wait have these threads been combined? I'm confused.