Jump to content
71st_AH_Barnacles

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

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

The US armed forces were clearly aware of the relative performance of their weapons to the enemy, (even though this is a morale boosting propaganda piece) and I think would have at least mentioned it if there was such a disparity.

 

 

I'd go one better and say that WE certainly would know today if there was such a disparity.

 

Think of all the ways the allied were actually deficient, all those problems they dealt with, the disadvantages they operated under in multiple arenas. Historians have harped on these and highlighted them for decades now. Whatever flaws the allied had, we definitely heard about them by now and people with and without agendas have pounced on them ad finitam... and never have we heard about the M2s somehow being a major deficiency for allied planes.

 

Indeed, quite the contrary, the USAF kept on using the .50s for quite some time yet. Why even when they glued two mustangs together they thought 6 .50s was good enough.

 

Whereas, if the current state of the sim was even REMOTELY close to reality, the allies could have just put two .50s in the P-51D, loaded it with HE .50 ammo (which absolutely could have been procured by the USAAF), and would have a much deadlier aircraft than what we currently have.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

I'd go one better and say that WE certainly would know today if there was such a disparity.

 

 

An extraordinary argument - just because you are ignorant of the deficiencies does not mean that everybody else is or was.  The US kept on with the .50 cals for a long time because it made so many errors in producing a 20mm gun that worked consistently, due to manufacturing to the wrong measurements and the wrong tolerances. They made a hash of the procurement process. This is all in the historical record.

 

Here is an extract on the US experience with the 20mm HS, from "The Machine Gun"  pub 1951 By Lt Col George Chinn, a US weapons expert, active during WW2. Note in particular the words "But everyone even remotely connected with weapons development agreed on one thing, namely, that 20 millimeters was the minimum caliber for aerial warfare".

 

 

 

723055993_TheMGextract1.thumb.JPG.ec8f0abbd1af5831944778b88546d324.JPG

731845501_TheMGextract2.thumb.JPG.e7703ab59331fbb15d3ff0045986dc45.JPG

1681227008_TheMGextract3.thumb.JPG.83297a54ee5ca9baaeb6c531e683899d.JPG

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

An extraordinary argument - just because you are ignorant of the deficiencies does not mean that everybody else is or was.  The US kept on with the .50 cals for a long time because it made so many errors in producing a 20mm gun that worked consistently, due to manufacturing to the wrong measurements and the wrong tolerances. They made a hash of the procurement process. This is all in the historical record.

 

Here is an extract on the US experience with the 20mm HS, from "The Machine Gun"  pub 1951 By Lt Col George Chinn, a US weapons expert, active during WW2. Note in particular the words "But everyone even remotely connected with weapons development agreed on one thing, namely, that 20 millimeters was the minimum caliber for aerial warfare".

 

 

Because the nation that basically won WW2 through logistics absolutely could not have resolved procurement issues for 20mm if it had wanted to, right? If the .50s were as weak as they are currently depicted in the sim, you can rest assured that the USAAF would have found a way to obtain 20mm weapons from its allies. If it could get engines from the british, getting 20mm cannons would not have been beyond their capabilities.

 

But in truth that is a complete red herring. The issue is not the gun, nor its caliber. The .50 is fine: it's got pretty good ballistics and range and so on. The problem is with the modeling of ammunition effects: HE ammo is king in the sim right now. As previously written, the USAAF could have made its fighters far more lethal if it had just stripped all but two of its machine guns (that's right, gone down to just 2 .50s) and loaded them with HE ammo. Heck, give us 4 .50s with HE ammo, and we'd be back to the pre-DM update lethality on USAAF fighters, let alone 6 or 8. Since the USAAF didn't do so, there is no doubt that there's something iffy with the the current DM (and let's not be absurd by suggesting that the USAAF couldn't have procured HE ammo if it had wanted to).

 

Either HE effects are too strong, AP effects are too weak (particularly aerodynamic impacts, as discussed by Barnacles), or API ammo is what would bridge the lethality gap. Or, more likely, a combination of all of the above.

  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say, at this point, maybe HE is spreading damage all over the place too far. could also be the reason why pilots get knocked out by it so often too 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:


Because the nation that basically won WW2 through logistics absolutely could not have resolved procurement issues for 20mm if it had wanted to, right? 

 

The US did not "get engines from the British" - they got a sample and a licence, then made their own, to rather higher standards than the British RR versions by most accounts.  They took an inordinately long time to do this with the HS gun because they left the process of specifying manufacturing drawings and tolerances in the hands of a government department that was responsible for artillery, that used higher tolerances than required for small arms.  Manufacturing things that work is not  a logistics issue, but an R&D issue.  No doubt, if the US had been able to produce 20mm HS guns that worked early enough, they would have been capable of supplying their forces with huge quantities. They did not - the reasons are all well documented in Chin's book, which, IIRC is a download from google books.  

 

The US government, with all it's sprawling parts, is not perfect. That it did not do something, does not mean that doing it would have been no improvement over what they chose to do instead. 

 

Barnacles does not show that .50 cal aerodynamic effects are too weak - he assumes they are, by assuming that every .50 cal exit hole is the size of a filler cap and taking a reference hole for the 20mm smaller than the test evidence for wing damage. Also by assuming that aerodynamic penalties are purely a function of the sum of the areas of the holes. This is a perfectly reasonable thought experiment, but I have no idea if this is backed up by physics.   

 

In terms of the "lethality gap" - what exactly is it? Has anyone actually measured it in objective trials? Or is this just an impression - which is my impression ;) 

 

As for your last comment - that HE is too strong, AP too weak and API might bridge the gap: you may even be right. My point is that - to date - no one has proved this. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

I would say, at this point, maybe HE is spreading damage all over the place too far. could also be the reason why pilots get knocked out by it so often too 

 

It certainly used to do that in prior DM iterations, and components were too fragile to splinter damage, but according to the devs, IIRC, this kind of damage should have been reduced. Although the Spitfire pilot in the pictures in the previous posts was wounded in the legs by splinters from HE hits in the mid fuselage.  What is the case is that the visible damage is spread out over wing areas far from the hit and I agree that it looks odd, particularly for the rounds with a low HE component. 

 

It would be great if the game's DM was capable of showing location specific holes of realistic size, especially from HE hits - ie like the photos. This would make it far easier to align our impressions of visible damage and resultant penalties - unfortunately it seems that the engine cannot handle this. 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Has anyone actually measured it in objective trials? Or is this just an impression - which is my impression ;)

 

The typical "killer" argument to end any discussion.

Straight from the one who quoted before:

 

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Note in particular the words "But everyone even remotely connected with weapons development agreed on one thing, namely, that 20 millimeters was the minimum caliber for aerial warfare".

 

Has anyone actually measured it in objective trials? Or is this just an impression - which is my impression ;)

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

The typical "killer" argument to end any discussion.

Straight from the one who quoted before:

 

 

Has anyone actually measured it in objective trials? Or is this just an impression - which is my impression ;)

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

Even you might want to admit that there is a difference between the impressions of contemporary weapons designers  interested in - well, winning the actual war, and the impressions of a bunch of MP gamers whining about their kill stats.  Can you not do any better than this passive aggressive crap? 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Even you might want to admit that there is a difference between the impressions of contemporary weapons designers  interested in - well, winning the actual war, and the impressions of a bunch of MP gamers whining about their kill stats.  Can you not do any better than this passive aggressive crap? 

 

I was taught right here that any "anecdotal" acounts are not accepted to backup any claims in either direction.

IIRC you've been one of those who reached out and denounced quite a couple of my posts as "anecdotal".

If this is "passive aggressive crap" to you, I'd recommend to put your own house in order first as this wasn't my invention.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

He already has Storebor, Barnacles and unreasonable (credit where due) looked at this yesterday and calculated the proportion of damage effects between .50 calibre rounds compared to weapons such as the 20mm cannon.

 

The difference they gave is between a ratio of 1:33 - 1:500 in favour of a 20mm vs .50 calibre. That's no longer anecdotal, that is substantiation by analysis. The final effect being down to many variables, such as distance and angle to target, the pilot's accuracy, the weapon's placement (i.e. wings, nose), convergence, ammunition used and dud bullets. Online we also have the issue of netcode to contend with. This helps explain why people's results differ so much in this game as no doubt they did in real life...

 

This assumption that three .50 calibres is roughly equivalent to a 20mm cannon is an extremely misleading statement. It's a practical number that has been given as to how many guns are acceptable for the needs of the USAAF i.e. we need six guns to get an acceptable effect on a typical USAAF target i.e. Luftwaffe fighters knowing their armament. That doesn't mean that the overall damage effects are actually equal if firing on the same target with comparison of both a .50 calibre and 20 mm gun.

 

 

Regarding the above comment, why would the game implement HE rounds for a gun that doesn't have HE rounds during WW2? I know there's a disparity while we wait for API rounds... we are all impatient to see that (!) but that's just muddying the water even more. The result of doing that will be many more people will then expect and demand in future that a .50 calibre round behaves like a cannon and that's just satisfying populism - which is a massive mistake and will open the door to "quick fixes" and this will harm the reputation of the game if it becomes a policy. The MG131 did have a HE round, the .50 calibre did not during WW2. I know its inconvenient, and yes it may be currently over-modelled but its still a fact that is indisputable.

 

I think its better the team concentrates on getting the fuel systems DM and API implemented, not quick fixing the game and delaying things further to satisfy people's impatience.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

He already has Storebor, Barnacles and unreasonable (credit where due) looked at this yesterday and calculated the proportion of damage effects between .50 calibre rounds compared to weapons such as the 20mm cannon.

 

The difference they gave is between a ratio of 1:33 - 1:500 in favour of a 20mm vs .50 calibre. That's no longer anecdotal, that is substantiation by analysis. The final effect being down to many variables

 

 

I think the most important thing about that was what @unreasonable pointed out. That the game's simulation of the relative damage varies from a good fit to favouring HE too much, depending on what assumptions are made.

I believe originally I went for a worst case scenario for 50 Cal damage, ie ALL hits leave a gash you can fit four fingers thorough, and ALL 20mm hits leave an over two foot hole BUT neglected to factor in any reverse side damage for the 20mm. This last bit was definately wrong.

HOWEVER, if you double the HE damage in my calculation for area, you do still get that the game undervalues 50 cals by just under 300%, and if you assume only one in three hits cause a significant exit hole, the game will be a good match.

So it muddies the water a bit, but it goes to show how dependent these things are on estimation and guesswork.

I'm not sure how useful seeing how the DM effected on line kills, (from memory there was a significant increase in German kill relative to allied kills on the Combat box server), because the MP environment is very false, subject to netcode, gamer cheese tactics (the 'wobble') etc.

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

He already has Storebor, Barnacles and unreasonable (credit where due) looked at this yesterday and calculated the proportion of damage effects between .50 calibre rounds compared to weapons such as the 20mm cannon.

 

The difference they gave is between a ratio of 1:33 - 1:500 in favour of a 20mm vs .50 calibre. That's no longer anecdotal, that is substantiation by analysis.

 

I'm not arguing against analysis and I absolutely appreciate when someone takes the time to dive deep enough into such topic to get back with numbers.

And even if the resulting numbers have a range of 1:15 as in the current case - which essentially backs any argument you'd like to have on that matter, I'm not arguing against that either.

Investigations can yield results that don't match what you'd like to see, that's life. Shit happens.

 

You guys need to read a bit more careful: The only thing I've been pointing out here is that you just cannot come and eat someone alive when he's posting "anecdotal" evidence from one WW2 guy just because it doesn't suit your agenda, only to return the other day and quote another guy who's expressing his point of view in just another book because it does suit you.

That's dishonest and that's what I've pointed out.

 

I know that people get pretty hostile about such things and frankly I don't give a flying f**k about it.

What goes around comes around. Deal with it.

 

Coming back to topic, let me simply chip another $0.02 off my pocket into the debate by noticing that IMHO from a drag penalty point of view, the square of a hole in the wing probably doesn't matter as much (as long as it doesn't get too large, i.e. destruction of like 10% of a wing's square) as the surface being bent to the outside of the wing - since that one actually looks and acts like an airbrake, whereas a "simple" hole would just cause a minor additional turbulence in the already turbulent boundary layer on the wing.

As such, I'd expect the exit hole's diameter to play the major part in drag penalty.

Not because of any anecdotal accounts, just because of physical considerations.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

106224807_2859920000783014_7096908791870809766_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=H4QIqXsvOeIAX_RTYcO&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=3046a8cdea69af7236faeb08d836e2f5&oe=5F4E604E

This He 111 was shot down over Chester in 1940. It shows some bullet holes, although it could be from ground fire, or splinters from AAA explosions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

 

You guys need to read a bit more careful: The only thing I've been pointing out here is that you just cannot come and eat someone alive when he's posting "anecdotal" evidence from one WW2 guy just because it doesn't suit your agenda, only to return the other day and quote another guy who's expressing his point of view in just another book because it does suit you.

That's dishonest and that's what I've pointed out.

 

I know that people get pretty hostile about such things and frankly I don't give a flying f**k about it.

What goes around comes around. Deal with it.

 

What is dishonest - or just plain stupid - is characterising Chin's work as "just another book".  You may be incapable of making distinctions between the credibility of various sources, but that does not mean that everyone else has to be so blind. 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@unreasonable if you were to fly on a multiplayer server and you had to take a Mustang but could choose either 8 .50s or 2 MG131s as currently modeled, what would you take?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright @unreasonable: I'm passive aggressive, writing crap, dishonest, plain stupid, incapable of making distinctions, blind, just whining about my stats - and above all, your books are better than my books.

 

Message received.

Thank you for the flowers.

 

For what it's worth, on Sunday I've had one of the rather rare opportunities to engage a group of german bombers in a P-40.

Online.

Much to my surprise, the cal .50s worked perfectly fine against the Ju-88.

I could set the wing fuel tanks on fire and much more than this, 3 times in a row killed almost the whole crew of a bomber in a single attack.

Absolutely no comparison to what happens when dealing with enemy fighters using cal .50s.

Which leads me to another idea which for the moment is simply this: An idea. Not even a theory.

 

From previous investigations I've learned that IL-2 Great Battles has a completely different way of calculating hits and damage results online than e.g. IL-2 1946.

 

In IL-2 1946, the distinction between hit or miss happens at the shooting player's client side.

If the player who is shooting his guns sees the guns hitting the enemy, it's a hit - whether or not the server or the other player sees the same thing. It's a hit.

The calculation of damage results from such hits happens at the victim player's client side.

If the victim's game - the one that got hit - say the hit was fatal, it was fatal. If it thinks the hit did no damage, it does no damage. Whether or not the server or the other player sees the same thing.

There's one thing that comes on top of this, which is the very first level of damage effects, like skin damage and the first levels of smoke effects: That's something that gets applied to the victim's plane on the shooting player's game's account, i.e. the victim plane will look damaged from the shooting player's point of view, whether or not it actually is - remember the real damage result gets calculated on victim player side only.

That much for 1946.

 

In IL-2 Great Battles, hit or miss and damage calculations are solely a server thing to do.

Neither of the clients has a word in whether a bullet hits or not, and whether or not it does any damage if so, and how much that damage is if it did any.

Only the Server has a say. The shooting client just notifies the Server about the bullets that left their guns, and the server does all the rest.

It could be that apart from position offsets between shooting and victim clients - due to lag - there's also a certain issue with different plane sizes, which makes it much easier to hit something as big as a bomber, compared to a fighter online. With a little bad luck, the Server might be missing a couple of hits on fighters completely, or think of the bullets hitting wrong parts.

Say you shoot a fighter's wing online: Timestamp x the bullet has not hit the wing yet, timestamp x+1 it's already past the wing.

The server could interpolate the line between the two timestamps and apply a real hit where the line touches the wing, or it could say "no hit, but for some reason it went through the wing - let's punch a neat cal .50 hole right where it did".

Same with the fuselage: Timestamp x the bullet didn't touch it yet, timestamp x+1 it's already on the other side.

The server could interpolate the line again, and take all points where the bullet would collide with anything on that way into account, one after another, and calculate hit effects accordingly.

Or - quick and dirty, just say "let's punch neat cal .50 holes in there again", except for when the part hit is armor or crew - the first would just stop the bullet, the latter get hurt.

If the Server calculates hits the "quick and dirty" way online, it would explain why damaging bombers is so much easier than damaging fighters using AP ammo.

It would also explain why HE ammo in comparison is extremely efficient: It would still explode on the first point of interpolated collision, where the AP ammo just punches the neat hole whatever there was.

 

Add to that the IL-2 1946 way of applying first level - non lethal - damage effects on the shooting client's behalf: If that happens in Great Battles too, then this would explain why we see planes leaking each and everything and still keep fighting as if nothing happened: It'd be because nothing happened.

 

As I said, just an idea, not even a theory.

But an idea which would describe what I've witnessed online for the past 3 months pretty well.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

S!

 

@SAS_Storebror You are proipably right with your theory. EVERYTHING is synced thru the server in BoX. This of course lessens chance of cheating etc. but also creates unnecessary lag/delay/whatever. To put it nicely BoX netcode is not in the top 10 when comparing to other games, be it FPS or flight sim. Assessment made by people who are professionals in networking business, not my own assumption. Having a netcode that is not really up to it´s task causes many things that lead to frustration etc. One of the many reasons why I dumped BoX and moved to other sims.

 

As of .50cal damage. It is a very potent weapon but at times people expect it to blow up a Deathstar with 2 hits etc. It has gotten a certain status of a mythical end it all weapon, like the IL-2 plane or T-34 tank for russkies. We had aluminum sheets at our Tech school which were same thickness and quality than on planes. They were shot with different calibre guns. Hole sizes were easy to compare. The .50cal had made a hole little bigger than the bullet(AP, no HE), 20mm had made a hole sized of a human head(HE) and the 30mm(HE) a hole sized a bit larger than a basket ball. Take in account that these were sheets of aluminum shot through, so there was no pressure damage, just penetration holes. Gives and idea though.

Edited by LLv34_Flanker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply @LLv34_Flanker :salute:

Concerning netcode, yes I agree that having all net hit/damage handling being dealt with server-side only has probably been an anti-cheater consideration.

I don't think it's been a clever thing to do as cheaters will always find their way through, and what remains is the fallout like lag/delay issues which all players have to deal with, i.e. you don't win against the hardcore cheaters but you piss off the normal players.

But it's not me who has to decide and the design decision has been made long time since and it's likely impossible to revert.

By the by, IL-2 1946 is all but perfect in terms of netcode either, but it seems to have a couple of more level headed and reasonable approaches implemented - and I'm saying so from a developer's point of view, being someone who has been swearing about 1946's netcode himself forth and back while I've added new online compatible mods to it.

 

As for the cal .50s, yes they "only" punch holes through aluminium skins, however you can't have your cake and eat it too:

Either the bullets walk through the structures of an airplane without being deflected/tumbling too much, which would mean they'll keep going and this in turn would mean that they'd be pretty successful in ruining a fighter's day when hitting the fuselage from around six o' clock position.

Or they do get deflected and/or start tumbling, which in turn means they do release a substantial amount of kinetic energy to the structure deflecting them and in turn, cause significant damage to it, plus they'd cause a much bigger exit hole in such case if they make it through the structures all the way (wings for instance).

I do sense that some people like to picture a cal .50 like it would always come in on a .5mm aluminium skin at 90° deflection, punch a neat cal .50 hole in it, and then either simply disappear (fuselage) or go through an empty void and punch another neat .50 hole on the other side, without bending anything outwards or causing any other kind of damage.

Bullets don't do that though.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2020 at 9:05 AM, Aurora_Stealth said:

Regarding the above comment, why would the game implement HE rounds for a gun that doesn't have HE rounds during WW2? I know there's a disparity while we wait for API rounds... we are all impatient to see that (!) but that's just muddying the water even more. The result of doing that will be many more people will then expect and demand in future that a .50 calibre round behaves like a cannon and that's just satisfying populism - which is a massive mistake and will open the door to "quick fixes" and this will harm the reputation of the game if it becomes a policy. The MG131 did have a HE round, the .50 calibre did not during WW2. I know its inconvenient, and yes it may be currently over-modelled but its still a fact that is indisputable.

 

I think its better the team concentrates on getting the fuel systems DM and API implemented, not quick fixing the game and delaying things further to satisfy people's impatience.

 

As I said, it's a short-term fix that I believe would be able to be implemented quickly and easily. I don't believe that would delay work on API and fuel system modeling - the hotfix could simply be removed once that work is complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can introduce any change without affecting the timeline of the work already being done, one way or another resources will be diverted from the tasks in hand (i.e. the fuel systems, their DM and the API). It's going to create more controversy and then more issues than its going to solve, for the reasons mentioned.

 

Quick fixes have really harmed the reputation of another leading simulator (DCS) recently. Surely we want things to be carefully looked over and corrected where necessary, and thoroughly tested so people can have confidence in the work/changes done. I doubt that is going to happen with what you're proposing and its extremely risky when talking about the credibility of the game... essentially fudging things in the hope it temporarily satisfies some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/3/2020 at 12:26 AM, QB.Creep said:

@unreasonable if you were to fly on a multiplayer server and you had to take a Mustang but could choose either 8 .50s or 2 MG131s as currently modeled, what would you take?

 

Although I do not play MP any more, I would take the .50 cals, since that is what the Mustang had. Just like I often took a Lagg  in MP when Yaks were available. I do not play this game for competition but for immersion. I expect I share that attitude with most SP users.

 

The effect of the MG131 in the game is ... interesting. I cannot say if it is wildly off in comparison, since the graphic damage we see in the game is so generic, also because I do not recall seeing any actual test data or damage photographs. Although if the GA aircraft wing in the pictures posted previously were hit using a modern explosive .50 cal round, as has been suggested, that might give some indication of what the WW2 equivalents might have done. 

 

 It would be much easier to make rational assessments if we could see specific locations for damage, ie the holes left by the shell burst and the splinters, rather than a generic sticker, but this is not going to happen. So if the developers are unwilling to say exactly how they calculate the damage to skin from various shells, it is very difficult to be sure that what you see in the game is really wrong, when tested offline. .50 cals do create aerodynamic penalties, on fighters too, but they do need many more hits than the MG131.  If results really are different online, that is not the DM. 

 

In RoF the DM was moddable, to a degree. I do not know how easy it is in the BoX universe, but my modest proposal is that the developers open up the DM for modding, if it is not already, so that you can have one mods on server with a high ratio of HE/AP effect for the German side players and another with a low ratio of HE/AP for the American side players.  ;) 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Although I do not play MP any more, I would take the .50 cals, since that is what the Mustang had. Just like I often took a Lagg  in MP when Yaks were available. I do not play this game for competition but for immersion. I expect I share that attitude with most SP users.

You don't play multiplayer? With all due respect... I don't think it is possible to appreciate the issue at hand if your only frame of reference is single player where the AI's only maneuver is perform a flat turn at their best sustained turn rate. 

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

I don't see how you can introduce any change without affecting the timeline of the work already being done, one way or another resources will be diverted from the tasks in hand (i.e. the fuel systems, their DM and the API). It's going to create more controversy and then more issues than its going to solve, for the reasons mentioned.

I know a bit about software development, and I believe changing the properties of one ammunition type should be quite trivial. If it isn't trivial then of course I would agree with you - it shouldn't be done and we should wait for enhancements to fuel system damage and API effects. I cannot imagine there would be much controversy if there is a patch note indicating that .50s have been buffed slightly, and it was done in a way that makes their damage on par with MG131s.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

...and I believe changing the properties of one ammunition type should be quite trivial....

With mods on apparently it's simple as editing a parameter in an aircraft's file. 


I recall someone testing ammo by making the turret in a bomber fire all the different possible types of rounds, and shooting his own wing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

You don't play multiplayer? With all due respect... I don't think it is possible to appreciate the issue at hand if your only frame of reference is single player where the AI's only maneuver is perform a flat turn at their best sustained turn rate. 

I know a bit about software development, and I believe changing the properties of one ammunition type should be quite trivial. If it isn't trivial then of course I would agree with you - it shouldn't be done and we should wait for enhancements to fuel system damage and API effects. I cannot imagine there would be much controversy if there is a patch note indicating that .50s have been buffed slightly, and it was done in a way that makes their damage on par with MG131s.

 

@QB.Creep

 

Well as its so easy for you, why not create a mod for it then as you have the software skills - then you can suit the game to your liking and show us the results. There's plenty of controversy, just look at the last four months of discussion on various update threads since the last damage model changes were made circa 4.006 / 4.008.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

With mods on apparently it's simple as editing a parameter in an aircraft's file. 


I recall someone testing ammo by making the turret in a bomber fire all the different possible types of rounds, and shooting his own wing.


That raises some interesting possibilities.  Can a server allow just a specific mod, or is it an all or nothing scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a mod to fix it? What a non-solution for multiplayer. Mods are an all or nothing proposition. You can't simply mod one aspect of the game without opening the server to all manner of other modifications. That is why it isn't done on most servers.

 

On a separate note, does anyone know how accurate tacview is when identifying what weapons are being fired in multiplayer? I snagged a track the other day and found that K-4's are firing "NPC_SHELL_RUS_85_HE" rounds from their MG's and a P-38 is flagged as firing "NPC_BULLET_GER_7-92" and "SHELL_GER_88_HE." Is this just more tacview strangeness? If it isn't that might go some way to explain what is going on here.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

You don't play multiplayer? With all due respect... I don't think it is possible to appreciate the issue at hand if your only frame of reference is single player where the AI's only maneuver is perform a flat turn at their best sustained turn rate. 

 

 

As I said - I do not play MP now, but I have.  With all due respect...by this comment you have not played much SP lately. All that is, however, irrelevant if the issue at hand is actually the DM, as has been claimed. The DM is the same, the developers only take regard of tests done offline, the offline tests show the .50 cals can and do create aerodynamic penalties.  Indeed the online tests posted earlier showed the same thing, once you understand how the DM works.

 

If you are having problems with online hit recognition, then people should say so, stop making false claims about the DM and work out options for fixing it what is broken rather than suggesting arbitrary adjustments to suit a few people, that we will all have to live with. 


With reference to the MG131, the issue is how the game is assigning damage between AP/ball and HE. The problem is that we just do not know. It may be that the recent changes to HE have created a type of mineshell pressure effect where it does not belong, inflating the effect of the MG131's HEI-T shell on structures. Unless the developers are willing to share more information it is difficult to tell. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it curious how those that are most resistant to restoring some degree of parity to the .50s are people that either haven't played multiplayer since the latest patch or only fly Axis in multiplayer?

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=22

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=23

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=24

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=25

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Make a mod to fix it? What a non-solution for multiplayer. Mods are an all or nothing proposition. You can't simply mod one aspect of the game without opening the server to all manner of other modifications. That is why it isn't done on most servers.

 

On a separate note, does anyone know how accurate tacview is when identifying what weapons are being fired in multiplayer? I snagged a track the other day and found that K-4's are firing "NPC_SHELL_RUS_85_HE" rounds from their MG's and a P-38 is flagged as firing "NPC_BULLET_GER_7-92" and "SHELL_GER_88_HE." Is this just more tacview strangeness? If it isn't that might go some way to explain what is going on here.

 

I do understand that mods create problems for MP as it happens: apart from anything else the paranoia about cheating would reach record heights.  But similarly MP players need to recognise that changes to DMs that suit (some of) them may not suit the rest of the player base. 

 

Tacview is obviously wrong - surely? If planes are firing 85mm and 88mm ammunition at one another in MP would someone not have noticed?  

Just now, QB.Creep said:

Isn't it curious how those that are most resistant to restoring some degree of parity to the .50s are people that either haven't played multiplayer since the latest patch or only fly Axis in multiplayer?

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=22

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=23

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=24

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=25

 

This is not about the .50 cals specifically - if we get a .303 equipped Hurricane it will also need to get a lot of rounds on target to get wing damage.  It is about the ratio of damage to different objects/structures between solid rounds - all solid rounds - and those with an HE content.

 

The last patch accentuated the difference across the board. It is an open question whether the current balance is right, but turning this into a .50 cals lovers vs the rest battle does not help.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

 

Isn't it curious how those that are most resistant to restoring some degree of parity to the .50s are people that either haven't played multiplayer

 

Yup - that is because you demand something fixed that isn’t broken in SP.

 

you admit it’s an MP problem and we lesser SP players shouldn‘t have a say. But changing DM affects us as well. And again - .50s work in SP as they should.

 

so it’s a netcode problem - not a DM problem. So stop demanding DM changes and start demanding netcode changes! Then we unworthy SP guys will stay out of the discussion. 
 

that’s pretty much what unreasonable said quite reasonably as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, QB.Creep said:

Isn't it curious how those that are most resistant to restoring some degree of parity to the .50s are people that either haven't played multiplayer since the latest patch or only fly Axis in multiplayer?

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=22

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=23

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=24

https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/2429/Aurora_Stealth/?tour=25

 

@QB.Creep

 

What is very obvious here is you have now given up making a rational argument because I called your bluff, and now... your only way of making a case is trying to smear me and others.

 

This is a pretty desperate attempt to try make yourself look strong to others... and you've clearly already failed. You're not fooling anyone. It was a nice try and thanks for making it clear now your real motives.

 

I have the right to fly whatever I like and will continue to do so - and urge others to do the same - that is their choice and not yours. I enjoy flying my favourite aircraft online and I have in the past flown allied aircraft online. I regularly fly allied aircraft offline, and have given advice on how to better use the .50 calibre weapons to other players on this forum including with the Mustang which has helped people out. People who respect eachother, unlike you QB.Creep.

 

But you can't track what I do offline can you?

 

This was very predictable, and is exactly the reason why we don't want you interfering in the development of this simulator game. You can't help yourself and you have just signalled to everyone that you cannot be trusted to stay neutral, factual and on-topic without trying to smear others or manipulate people.

 

p.s. I've been supportive of many investigations and changes at the detriment of my favourite aircraft (Bf 109) and support further changes to the fuel systems DM and the API (which will benefit the .50 calibre).. and have even said I believe the MG 131's may need revisiting based on some analysis online that SAS_Storebor gave.. so your argument really doesn't add up at all.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

This is not about the .50 cals specifically - if we get a .303 equipped Hurricane it will also need to get a lot of rounds on target to get wing damage.  It is about the ratio of damage to different objects/structures between solid rounds - all solid rounds - and those with an HE content.

 

 

I'd somewhat agree, except the .303 started off as a deer rifle. 

 

2 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

 

so it’s a netcode problem - not a DM problem. So stop demanding DM changes and start demanding netcode changes! 

 

Again:  Somewhat agree.   API is still needed and there are instances where .50s are less effective than should be in SP.  Granted, most of the time, a short burst of .50 is devastating but, other times full-on fire-hosing the enemy, hitting everything vital at convergence, to little result does happen.  From my observations, I'd say there's about a 15%-20% chance of going against the luckiest enemy plane in the world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! This is getting heated!

 

Can we please remember that the developers are just trying to simulate reality/history with a bunch of 0s and 1s.

Will it be 100% accurate never!

This what I have gathered so far fro this argument:

 

1. Faction A  tends to think the .50 cal round isn't doing enough damage to aircraft in terms of performance degradation when hit

2. Faction B think that Faction A are giving the .50 cal round too much credit and should expect what you see in-game as an accurate representation of the round

 

If we look at it logically, there is a sweet spot for wing mounted guns to have all 6/8 guns hit a concentrated area (convergence) to deliver its maximum wight of fire.

There is no such limitation to a single nose mounted weapon. We are leaving the MG 131 out of the conversation for now.

 

Let's take about bring down a maneuvering target. I believe studies showed a max time on target to be 3 seconds (going of memory here - I will have to verify). 

 

Which would you use if you had an avg 3 sec on a target (per War Thunder but an accurate assessment none the less)?

 

M.2 Browning (12.7 mm)

  • AP, API, and API-T rounds are effective against light pillboxes, light tanks, armored trucks, SPGs, artillery, AAA.
  • Usually incapable of an instant kill or a "snapshot" kill unless you pilot snipe, but is quite capable of a "snapshot fire" (not guaranteed though)... which is almost a kill...
  • Incredible range (can hit and still light a fire at 1.5km+, but damage does drop off). Good for long range desperation/harassment shots.

MG 151 (20 mm)

  • This weapon is very dangerous to air targets due to the minengeschoß shell, which makes the MG 151/20 arguably the best 20 mm cannon against air targets.

 

It's my contention that the 20 mm was designed to bring down an aircraft with 2-3 hits. That didn't work with bombers so the 30mm was introduced to get back to that 2 -3 hit rule of thumb.This goes back to time time on target study.

 

The M.2 is a very good weapon - but you need a lot of rounds (i.e time on target)  to do the same amount of damage that can be delivered by a few 20 mm rounds. There is a reason modern fighter aircraft designers went with a 20 mm round verses a .50 cal round (we are just talking about size).

 

So I think the issue here is what I call "The History Channel Effect". We watch an hour of "How the P-51 Mustang Won the War" with stock footage of a kill in slow motion and expect to see the same in game. Well let me ask you this, watch the video below (sorry it's only that of the 20 mm - granted it's not the same used in WWII, nor is the .50 cal of today) but you will get the gist.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Yup - that is because you demand something fixed that isn’t broken in SP.

 

you admit it’s an MP problem and we lesser SP players shouldn‘t have a say. But changing DM affects us as well. And again - .50s work in SP as they should.

 

so it’s a netcode problem - not a DM problem. So stop demanding DM changes and start demanding netcode changes! Then we unworthy SP guys will stay out of the discussion. 
 

that’s pretty much what unreasonable said quite reasonably as well.  

It is not a problem with multiplayer only. People playing competitively in a multiplayer environment notice it more because skilled players are more difficult to kill. AI flies in predictable paths and it is far easier to put more rounds on target against them.

4 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

I have the right to fly whatever I like and will continue to do so - and urge others to do the same - that is their choice and not yours

You are absolutely right - no one can tell you what you can and cannot do when it comes to this wonderful combat simulator we all love. What I am telling you is that your opinion on this topic means very little to me since you only fly against humans while flying Axis aircraft.

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The last patch accentuated the difference across the board. It is an open question whether the current balance is right, but turning this into a .50 cals lovers vs the rest battle does not help.

Yeah, fair point. I just want to see .50s back to where they were pre-patch relative to other similar projectiles.

Edited by QB.Creep
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just scored my 1st kill in an allied aircraft and it was in a P-51D.

Here are my takeaways:

 

I spotted the Me 110 on my six (BoX server) and did a lazy wide barrel roll which made him overshot and put me on his six.

 

The P-51D is a dogfighter indeed! Super responsive and very forgiving and what a great view for situation awareness.

 

From a gunnery perspective , my convergence was set to 200 M. it is just like I suspected, even chasing a less agile target like a 110, I had to make sure my range was dead on or my rounds (trackers) overshot and It took me three 1.5 sec burst to bring it down, which seems very reasonable. I would have taken three direct hits (...a single burst with 3 direct hits) from a 20 mm to bring it down as well - but the 110 would have been in much worst shape since to 20 mm is a bigger round and will do more damage.

 

I consider this argument a moot point.

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come back and tell us all how moot this is when you've put a burst of similar length into a 109 only to have the 109 reverse on you and kill you like no rounds hit them at all. I'm so thrilled to have people tell me this kind of stuff doesn't happen. I can't wait for another one to add to the list.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Again:  Somewhat agree.   API is still needed and there are instances where .50s are less effective than should be in SP.  Granted, most of the time, a short burst of .50 is devastating but, other times full-on fire-hosing the enemy, hitting everything vital at convergence, to little result does happen.  From my observations, I'd say there's about a 15%-20% chance of going against the luckiest enemy plane in the world. 

API should be added - agreed. 
But the „luckiest enemy plane in the world thing“ happens with other guns to. Usually short mg151/20 bursts are enough to down a plane. Other times I can empty the remaining 1/3 of ammo into an I16 with lots of hits and then watch it limp home. 

 

5 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

It is not a problem with multiplayer only. People playing competitively in a multiplayer environment notice it more because skilled players are more difficult to kill. AI flies in predictable paths and it is far easier to put more rounds on target against them.

Most tests that lead to complaints about useless.50s I read in this forum were conducted online against straight and level flying players. 
Most opinions of offline tests I read came to the conclusion that .50s seem quite realistic. That is also my own impression. So I completely disagree with this statement. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're drifting off a bit again.

There's plenty of discussions about the general effectivity of cal .50s and their kill probability.

This thread however deals with the drag penalty from surface hits.

 

These two videos show a modern cal .50 APIT round hitting a steal plate, 1st is hanging in the air (rather shows impact fire and penetration abilities than anything else), 2nd is covered in ballistic gel so you can see what it would do e.g. on the inside of a wing when exiting through the "backside" skin:

 

 

 

 

 

Granted, modern vs. WW2 ammo, but mind you it's APIT so this is not too far off from the API rounds we need.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballistic gel models human/animal tissue through which the shock wave travels - I am not made of metal ribs and stringers surrounded by empty space, YMMY. An absurd comparison. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

It is not a problem with multiplayer only. People playing competitively in a multiplayer environment notice it more because skilled players are more difficult to kill. AI flies in predictable paths and it is far easier to put more rounds on target against them.

You are absolutely right - no one can tell you what you can and cannot do when it comes to this wonderful combat simulator we all love. What I am telling you is that your opinion on this topic means very little to me since you only fly against humans while flying Axis aircraft.

Yeah, fair point. I just want to see .50s back to where they were pre-patch relative to other similar projectiles.

 

You are conveniently ignoring (again) the majority of people who have made it clear that in SP the .50 calibre works effectively, considering it only uses AP rounds right now. Once API is introduced this will enhance its capability. The AI at veteran/ace level is still competitive enough, you're just trying hard to devalue all those people's opinion's from SP again to make your opinion look more important. Your opinion is not more important than anyone else's and you will respect this.

 

If you really believed that its my right @QB.Creep ... which you clearly don't... as you gave away earlier... then you wouldn't try and insinuate and smear people for their choices by displaying their personal data would you? I don't care if my opinion means little to you, your opinion is still no more important than anyone else's here and you will respect that.

 

SP is the only way to assess things clearly and fully avoid the issues that netcode and server settings present. The developers clearly communicated this and continue to be ignored by some people it seems. You choose to ignore this because its an inconvenient truth for you and it undermines your argument.

 

No - we will not revert to an inferior damage model system in order to soften the world and its reality for you, this is a simulator - one weapon operates differently to another. Improvements, corrections and changes will continue to be carefully assessed by the dev team, not quick fixed for your liking or based on entertainment videos on youtube with setups that do not represent their WW2 counterparts.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bullying of people who are just trying to point out obvious issues is beyond imagination.

Toxic atmosphere on internet forums is nothing new, but the level of ignorance is something that's really special to this one.

Maybe it's because this is such a niche product within a niche of niche products, but maybe it's simply because people act exactly like what they are - impossible to mention what that is without breaking the rules though.

 

@QB.Creep: Don't let yourself get draught into this mess.

You are not alone.

Your issues are real.

The tests conducted are valid.

Certain people will never acknowledge those facts and you've already pinpointed the reason why.

 

You can't have a factual debate with people simply following a certain agenda for obvious reasons, whatever it takes.

That's simple genuine waste of precious lifetime.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...