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

[SAS_Storebror]

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.

 

Mike

Edited August 6, 2020 by SAS_Storebror

[Tempus]

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.

 

Well..... Let "Experten" & Experts give their oppinions based in real & true combat experience, but extracted from youtube vids. As a simple player I really mind a crapp where is the technical origin of this issue (source code, net code.... "honour" code.....whatever, however & wherever, cause that information is useless for me as a "Sim-combat pilot-player".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LukeFF]

So, after 5 pages of back and forth arguments, we've learned that:

 

-some people like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree with those who say it is not accurate

 

-some people do not like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree if those who say it is accurate.

 

Sounds about par for the course for the typical combat flight simulator forum argument. ?

Edited August 6, 2020 by LukeFF

[MiloMorai]

Someone mentioned rivets and such on the P-51's wing that disturbed the laminar airflow. Not so as there was a putty appled.

 

Blue areas - two layers of sprayed putty and polished for the smooth surface entirely with no rivets seen. Then sprayed with a silver paint.
Green areas - one layer of sprayed putty and polished for the smooth surface entirely with no rivets seen. Then sprayed with a silver paint.
Yellow areas - a silver paint only.

 

[Aurora_Stealth]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So, after 5 pages of back and forth arguments, we've learned that:

 

-some people like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree with those who say it is not accurate

 

-some people do not like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree if those who say it is accurate.

 

Sounds about par for the course for the typical combat flight simulator forum argument. ?

 

Hahaha! ? yeah spot on... I think we can manage at least another 20 to 30 pages at this rate and maybe do a few more laps around, maybe we go for gold and make a Guinness World Record attempt? think this is now thread five or six (losing count) of Similar story, definitely not attention seeking; and not quite the patriot we we're looking for™ line of topics we've been enjoying recently.

 

Many more moans, victimisation's and narcissistic injuries to go... so get comfortable, sit back; grab some high quality popcorn and enjoy world class entertainment on us. ?

 

"Coronavirus!? what coronavirus Aurora? what do you mean you have to wear a MASK!... you're bullying M-EEEEE! I can't see anything wrong with the air! and I've got 20/20 vision - my optician told me! telling us to use sense lol... won't be doing that in a rush... can't you see! its the damage modelling that's causing me to cough! for f**k sake AURORA we told you it was the DM"

 

*shakes up and down with flight turbulence*... watches as Leslie Nielsen approaches down the aisle...

Edited August 6, 2020 by Aurora_Stealth

[357th_KW]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So, after 5 pages of back and forth arguments, we've learned that:

 

-some people like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree with those who say it is not accurate

 

-some people do not like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree if those who say it is accurate.

 

Sounds about par for the course for the typical combat flight simulator forum argument. ?

We know objectively that the new DM has problems and bugs.  

Incendiary ammo isn’t modeled.  

 

In the very first release they turned off the entire tail section of the 109 because the new DM (that others are trying to claim is brilliant and great as is) was giving results where they felt the 109 was being killed “too easily”.  So right off the bat, the devs kludged it to cover up one problem.  4 months and 3 patches later, the vert stab of the 109 is still turned off (and the DM produces some laughable results if you try to shoot one off).

 

Possibly related that (or possibly not) the rear quarter of the 109 is FAR more durable than its contemporaries.

 

The P-51 was originally modeled with an extra wing spar.  Which has since been patched.

 

So any argument that things are fine and it should stay this way and everyone should stop rocking the boat and trying to find other problems, is either being made from a position of ignorance or partisanship.

 

This thread was about aero penalty from .50s.  The best we can take from testing at this point is that they do produce an aero penalty, but it takes a lot of concentrated fire.  Whether that volume of fire, or the penalty that results is accurate is hard to judge.

[RedKestrel]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So, after 5 pages of back and forth arguments, we've learned that:

 

-some people like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree with those who say it is not accurate

 

-some people do not like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree if those who say it is accurate.

 

Sounds about par for the course for the typical combat flight simulator forum argument. ?

Well, @unreasonable had some actual insights into when damage to the wings manifests in an actual aerodynamic impact. And that alone explains why people are being frustrated - if you scatter hits across an airplane you can hit them potentially dozens of times and they will incur no aerodynamic penalty. I think it would be reasonable to have a minor aerodynamic penalty occur earlier based on fewer  hits, or for the .50cal hits to do a little more skin damage than they are currently modeled doing. But the hue and cry of "totally broken does no damage at all" makes it hard to make a good case unfortunately.

And the MG131 is perhaps doing too much aircraft skin damage based on the small amount of HE present in each round.

Personally I find the pilot and engine killing abilities of the .50 pretty effective, its only when you don't hit something critical that you get situations where you pour fire into a plane and nothing happens. 

[DD_Arthur]

25 minutes ago, KW_1979 said:

This thread was about aero penalty from .50s.  The best we can take from testing at this point is that they do produce an aero penalty, but it takes a lot of concentrated fire.  Whether that volume of fire, or the penalty that results is accurate is hard to judge.

 This?

[Legioneod]

Any reason besides netcode that some rounds simply don't do any damage? My buddy and I shot up a D9 and we hit him over 130 times (not alot) with .50s but only 30-40 of those hits registered as damage to the aircraft. Every single one of those hits should have done damage even if it was only to the skin. Something is very wrong with the way things register in-game imo.

I know netcode is an issue but the game registered all the hits yet only a few registered as damage.

[SAS_Storebror]

 

...waiting for someone to explain that this is exactly how it's supposed to be and how dare you to expect any bigger damage from cal .50s.

 

Mike

[Caudron431]

On 8/6/2020 at 9:59 PM, LukeFF said:

 

 

-some people like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree with those who say it is not accurate

 

-some people do not like the damage model as it currently stands and disagree if those who say it is accurate.

 

 I believe it is how things work in the sim community, there's nothing strange in this and it doesn't necessarily mean that things are OK and that those who don't like the .50cal DM are completely wrong.

 

It reminds me when the 20mm minengeschoss were doing unsufficient damage: same reactions! Everything is OK, it is possible to have loads of kills, learn how to aim, concentrate your fire on weak points, you want uber 20mm, etc... And in the end the 20mm were rightly corrected (still not perfect) and it has improved the sim. At the time i was upvoting for improving the DM effect of the German 20mm, and i already like the Ammo even if it was, lets say it, clearly undermodelled.

 

For instance, in this thread we learned that, amongst other things: you shoot at a plane from a dead six position with 50 cals, the bullets (though being AP) won't go through soft structural elements like flaps or ailerons, those  acting like armour plates and the rounds won't damage the wing at all?

 

All rounds not hitting the wing DM boxes are considered blank and would not cause any damage structural or aero.

 

That mentionned by someone who really likes the .50cal in this sim! So i like the 50.cal DM but i think it is not completely accurate. I do not belong to any of your two simplifiying categories.

 

It could be that some people that like the DM are more often on the .50cal revieving end, and that those that don't like it are more often on the shooting side of it. It is useless to try to analyse the topic by putting face to face people that like it and people that don't like it, it tells nothing and gives the impression that the topic is only about whining, which is obviously the objective of some of those that pretend to like the DM. It is not a matter of liking it or not, it is a matter of having it more accurate if it is required.

 

Simply look at the tracks made and at the experiment done and make your opinion.

 

A sim is not accurate because some people like the current DM and some other don't like it.

 

 

[Legioneod]

12 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

...waiting for someone to explain that this is exactly how it's supposed to be and how dare you to expect any bigger damage from cal .50s.

 

Mike

I'm not saying they should do more damage, I'm saying every round should do some damage if it hits.

I fully expect netcode to cause problems but when the server registers 130 hits just fine but only 30-40 do any damage that doesn't seem like a netcode issue.

If the server registers 130 rounds as hits then all 130 rounds need to do damage of some kind.

 

If the server can register the hits then it can certainly register the damage as well, something seems off with how .50s are register. If not every round is doing damage that could be the reason they seem so weak.

Edited August 8, 2020 by Legioneod

[SAS_Storebror]

I'm not saying you're wrong, quite the contrary.

It's just that because...

10 hours ago, Legioneod said:

when the server registers 130 hits just fine but only 30-40 do any damage that doesn't seem like a netcode issue

...it's just a matter of time until someone comes around and presents a wild theory about why this shall be "just fine", cause essentially anything but pure netcode issues would mean that there is something wrong with the damage model, and that fact is not accepted by those being just too happy with it on the receiving end.

The reason why deniers like to blame things on netcode is pretty simple:

"This needs to be addressed in netcode" is just a 2nd grade version of "keep whining till the cows come home".

 

Mike

[JG13_opcode]

On 8/7/2020 at 4:20 PM, Legioneod said:

I know netcode is an issue but the game registered all the hits yet only a few registered as damage.

 

Can you explain what you mean?  If you went on the combatbox stats for your sortie, were there 130 lines that said e.g. "damaged 0.1%" or were there 30-40 such lines?

[Legioneod]

51 minutes ago, JG13_opcode said:

 

Can you explain what you mean?  If you went on the combatbox stats for your sortie, were there 130 lines that said e.g. "damaged 0.1%" or were there 30-40 such lines?

Was my friend that did it. He hit the aircraft over 120 times but when you look at damage done only around 30 or so hits showed up, mostly as 0.1% damage. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by Legioneod

[RedKestrel]

41 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Was my friend that did it. He hit the aircraft over 120 times but when you look at damage done only around 30 or so hits showed up, mostly as 0.1% damage. 

Out of curiousity, how does he know the server registered 120 hits if there are only 30 records in the game log?

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

Out of curiousity, how does he know the server registered 120 hits if there are only 30 records in the game log?

It says he got 120 or so hits on target.

[JG13_opcode]

I'm confused, can you link to the sortie log?  Maybe I just don't understand what you're describing but it can either register 30 hits or 120, not both.

[Legioneod]

3 hours ago, JG13_opcode said:

I'm confused, can you link to the sortie log?  Maybe I just don't understand what you're describing but it can either register 30 hits or 120, not both.

https://combatbox.net/en/sortie/819004/?tour=25

128 total hits on the aircraft, only around 37 registered or showed up as doing damage.

 

Someone did say that it only counts hits that do above a certain amount of damage. Seems odd that out of 128 hits most did less than 0.1% damage if any damage at all. Something seems off to me.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Legioneod

[-SF-Disarray]

There is a warning just below the block where all the shooting and bombing info is that says the data may be inaccurate due to errors in the game log. I suspect that might be at play but it is hard to say with how little data we actually have to work with. It could be that the number of shots fired is off, or the number of hits or even the damage calculations. It does fit the fact pattern though, lots of .50 hits to little effect. Why is the mystery.

 

I've heard speculation that the net coding can't keep up with the number of rounds in the air from these planes with so many guns but that doesn't seem to fit. The guns were working just fine a few patches back, now we are seeing this and it seems to be a factor independent of server loading; if it were the network traffic getting lost I'd expect the issue to get worse as the server gets more traffic. It would sure be nice if someone who had some knowledge on the inside of this issue would shed some light on things.

[Cpt_Siddy]

109 was a very small plane. Its construction was light and some key components were made from powdered, pressed magnesium. 

 

There were accounts of the plane structure catching fire and burning. 109 was not, by any stretch of imagination, a resilient plane to damage. Yet in here it can shrug off 50 cal hits like its MnM's. It still does get shredded by cannon hits, even one hit to the wing, wing root or center fuselage is usually enough to make average MP opponent to bail out due to uncontrollable plane. 50 cals however? Nah, i have many times seen a 109, that have lost wing parts like flaps to 50 cal fire to continue engagement and even outmaneuver a clean intact pursuer. 

 

Is the culprit the 50 cals or the 109 damage model? I think its a bit of both. The damage model in this game is geared towards HE damage and deals with it in a somewhat acceptable manner. However, many things that made 50 cals the choice of armament among US army are either undermodelled or totally lacking in this game. 

 

Here are a list of few things that makes any sort of non explosive 50 cal worthless. 

 

Things like incendiary effects, i have seldom seen a plane catch fire. Fires are rare in this game, something they were NOT in real life. And a spray of 50 cal incendiary was notoriously good at setting things on fire, on the ground and in the air. Here you can hole HE 111 from tip to tip, making it leak fuel like a crop duster and not have it catch fire. 

 

In MP environment, the way that pilots fly, and the way that pilots flew in real world differs slightly, (having a negative G seizures at the stick to force overshoot or dodge) heavily favors any weapon that needs only 1 hit do do the job. As long as this trend holds, any weapon that need a sustained stream of damage to finish the job will be at disadvantage. Ive seen HE 111 do a negative G's that would make the bombs fly off trough its roof irl dance just fine in here. (But don't worry, at least Tempest cracks its wing at 9G  that it can somehow pull at 400 MHP)

 

The points above is made worse by the lack of any and all gun customization apart of coverage. All 50 cal guns shoot with laser pin point accuracy to the coverage point, when in reality, they had far much bigger spread and you could spread the field of fire by giving each gun its own elevation. In this game you get the historical spread pattern when you severely overheat it.

 

 

[SAS_Storebror]

Can't add more reactions today but @Cpt_Siddy, take this reply as 10 upvotes in a row from me.

 

Mike

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

109 was a very small plane. Its construction was light and some key components were made from powdered, pressed magnesium. 

 

There were accounts of the plane structure catching fire and burning. 109 was not, by any stretch of imagination, a resilient plane to damage. Yet in here it can shrug off 50 cal hits like its MnM's. It still does get shredded by cannon hits, even one hit to the wing, wing root or center fuselage is usually enough to make average MP opponent to bail out due to uncontrollable plane. 50 cals however? Nah, i have many times seen a 109, that have lost wing parts like flaps to 50 cal fire to continue engagement and even outmaneuver a clean intact pursuer. 

 

Is the culprit the 50 cals or the 109 damage model? I think its a bit of both. The damage model in this game is geared towards HE damage and deals with it in a somewhat acceptable manner. However, many things that made 50 cals the choice of armament among US army are either undermodelled or totally lacking in this game. 

 

Here are a list of few things that makes any sort of non explosive 50 cal worthless. 

 

Things like incendiary effects, i have seldom seen a plane catch fire. Fires are rare in this game, something they were NOT in real life. And a spray of 50 cal incendiary was notoriously good at setting things on fire, on the ground and in the air. Here you can hole HE 111 from tip to tip, making it leak fuel like a crop duster and not have it catch fire. 

 

In MP environment, the way that pilots fly, and the way that pilots flew in real world differs slightly, (having a negative G seizures at the stick to force overshoot or dodge) heavily favors any weapon that needs only 1 hit do do the job. As long as this trend holds, any weapon that need a sustained stream of damage to finish the job will be at disadvantage. Ive seen HE 111 do a negative G's that would make the bombs fly off trough its roof irl dance just fine in here. (But don't worry, at least Tempest cracks its wing at 9G  that it can somehow pull at 400 MHP)

 

The points above is made worse by the lack of any and all gun customization apart of coverage. All 50 cal guns shoot with laser pin point accuracy to the coverage point, when in reality, they had far much bigger spread and you could spread the field of fire by giving each gun its own elevation. In this game you get the historical spread pattern when you severely overheat it.

 

 

Well when you leve decision to testers to make 109s tail as it was or like its now, no suprise 109 tail become most tuff thing in game.

 

In the meantime, such a difficult decision was made: to temporarily lock it. We discussed both options with the testers (leave it as it was, or lock it), and, having figured out the whole situation, they almost unanimously voted for the option to lock it. It’s better than a "crystal" tail flying off at once, believe me.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13303-обсуждение-версии-4005-новая-модель-повреждений-планера-самолёта/?do=findComment&comment=767960

 

And then why was same not done to Tempest or 190s, they also have same problem, would like to have this type of undestructable tail and aditional pilot protection on Tempest also, or they dont have to many fans in testers to have same "temporarily fix".

 

Also no suprise game shifted so heavy in axis favor last few updates:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13303-обсуждение-версии-4005-новая-модель-повреждений-планера-самолёта/?do=findComment&comment=766750

 

and still that temporarily lock after 5 months is still here , on most used airplane in game making it perfectly protected from most used attacks in game, dead 6 extra armor , great job leving decision to make 109 undestructable from dead 6 to fans of it , no suprise its mess what we have now lol

Edited August 15, 2020 by CountZero

[[DBS]TH0R]

Temporary fixes have a habit of becoming permanent ones. This issue is no different it seems. ?

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 minute ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Temporary fixes have a habit of becoming permanent ones. This issue is no different it seems. ?

 

Nothing is as permanent as a temporary fix or a temporary government program 

[Cpt_Siddy]

30 minutes ago, CountZero said:

 

 

Also no suprise game shifted so heavy in axis favor last few updates

 

 

Even if it has, i dont think it is intentional, its just the sad state of the game.

 

The priority of new content has taken over polish of old, and the simulation aspect of the game, outside of easy stuff, has degraded.

 

Story as old as gaming industry. 

 

This to be simulation, it should strive to make people fly this like a simulation. As close to the real as possible.

 

Let me list a few things that needs to be simulated. This is a huge tangent to this thread in question but it shows how the 50 cal issue is a perfect storm of all other issues working together to make it worse.

 

Stick forces: unless you have force feedback stick, you will be able to pull stupendous stick forces on some planes. There is huge discrepancy of how historic pilots flew and fought in the skies, and how we do battle. The fact that you can, with your own muscle power, break off a Tempest wing from level flight tells a big tale here. There is issues with instantaneous loading and pilot strength and stamina. Only time stick forces get "realistic" is when you are nearing actual aerodynamic limits of the plane. 

 

(The problem with Bf 110 flaps abuse also stems from this, XJammer is notorious abuser of max deflection stick negative then positive G maneuver --> force negative G overshoot then pull max G with flaps to follow in to climb and use 110 stable characteristics in near stall situation to land hits on your pursuer. This is something no pilot in WW2 would even dream of doing for the fear of your back gunner murdering you. )

 

If you look at the guncams of the WW2 allied planes, you never see any of the behavior displayed in MP environment on servers. So either ALL the planes who ended up on guncam footage were n00bs who slept during the "Negative G class" in the academy, or that just for some reason NEVER HAPPENED.

 

The G force addition, that is now in, is weird, it punishes real defensive maneuvering (some times correctly but...) by making you G-Lock for long time if you do a "Jerk". Argument can be made that some of that is realistic, and apart of the "Jerk" (look the term up) related 10 seconds G-loc, i mostly agree with current sustained G system. 

 

However, the pilot strength to instantaneously operate the stick and have stupid negative G moves are out of this world. 

You can pull moves, that would in real life require pilot to brace his whole body and use both hands to pull in one direction... to do in ALL direction, instantaneously, by just vigorously shaking your joystick like it owes you money.  

 

As long as there is no reason to fly realistically, then all the aces wont. Why expose yourself to the enemy fire, when you can just do a break dance routine at 360 MpH indicated. 

 

 

 

And this is what makes 50 cals even worse. Even if you modeled 50 cals "right", they will still suck in MP environments, because the targets that 50 cals engaged in real life simply does not exist in MP simulations. 

 

After first tracer flies past the Harmanns cabin, he will slam the stick to the dashboard so hard you can hear the instrument panel cracking from Berlin. And Anyone who have done any areal gunnery in this game knows that after this is done, you will have hard time on landing any consistent shots on the target what so ever.

 

This is also the reason why gyroscopic sight is largely a joke in MP. 

 

Until this is fixed, cannons will have a distinct, 1 hit crippling, advantage. Landing few 50 cals vs landing 1 HE difference is so huge, that there is no point using 50 cals if given a choice. 

[HR_Tumu]

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=15126&name=FTM_1974BR

 

 

Around hit number 83, u can apreciate big damage ( 38% ) this corresponds to engine malfunction.

Enenemy no have problems in mantain defensive maneuvors, he only ends bailing because engine fails and in next round pilot was damaged.

 

For better comprension about the secuence, u can aprecciate how my mate neca and me, hit objective, each damage by pilots is damage done in one attack... in 6th attack egine was damaged, for 7h attack pilot bail out....

 

As you can aprreciate on date data. 
First attack for enemy is in  00:33:31 , this not was a straight kill, enemy still fighting and was needed take enought time to aim correctly , enemy was out of combat in 00:35:24 .... practically 2 min after attack started.

Maybe is a extreme case, but is really usual , i dont expected kill , explode a enemy in first round ... but i expected no need seven rounds.
And more important, after , first or second round, i expected  enemy have enought problems to fly well, and become a easy prey.

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by HRc_Tumu

[Legioneod]

13 hours ago, CountZero said:

Well when you leve decision to testers to make 109s tail as it was or like its now, no suprise 109 tail become most tuff thing in game.

Thats not really how it happened. The testers and the devs discussed the problem and agreed that its better to disable the damage than to have the whole tail come off in 1-2 hits.

No offense to you or anyone but I'm seeing alot of hate thrown at testers and the dev team for no reason. The devs are working with what they have and imo they are doing a good job.

I agree the .50s seem a little lacking in some areas but that could be due to a number of reason and not necessarily the damage model itself.

 

The devs explained their reason for the tail lock on the 109 and until it's fixed thats just how it is.

 

13 hours ago, CountZero said:

 

In the meantime, such a difficult decision was made: to temporarily lock it. We discussed both options with the testers (leave it as it was, or lock it), and, having figured out the whole situation, they almost unanimously voted for the option to lock it. It’s better than a "crystal" tail flying off at once, believe me.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13303-обсуждение-версии-4005-новая-модель-повреждений-планера-самолёта/?do=findComment&comment=767960

 

And then why was same not done to Tempest or 190s, they also have same problem, would like to have this type of undestructable tail and aditional pilot protection on Tempest also, or they dont have to many fans in testers to have same "temporarily fix".

 

No they don't have the same problem. The whole entire tail assembly of the 109 would come off with a few hits from .50 cals (the rudder, elevators, and vertical and horizontal stabilizers would come off) That is why they blocked it for now but you can still damage certain parts of the tail until they fix the problem. Believe me, the 109 during testing was one of the the most fragile aircraft in the game because of it's tail. I agree with the decision the devs made, I'm sure they will fix it eventually.

 

[SAS_Storebror]

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The whole entire tail assembly of the 109 would come off with a few hits from .50 cals (the rudder, elevators, and vertical and horizontal stabilizers would come off) That is why they blocked it for now but you can still damage certain parts of the tail until they fix the problem. Believe me, the 109 during testing was one of the the most fragile aircraft in the game because of it's tail.

 

But truth being told, there was no such issue before the 4.005 DM change.

Or to rephrase this: The issue might have been sleeping under the hood for all those years, but it was the DM change in 4.005 release four months ago (!!) that pronounced the issue to a point where devs and testers felt that they needed to do this drastic move which we have to suffer from until today and for an unforseeable future (!!) - see Jason's comment on the issue a day ago:

 

Now... I'm developing software myself to earn a living, and there's a couple of things I'm considering a no-brainer, including the fact that whatever fancy new feature I might have created in an update for any existing Software I've ever made or touched, if such update-feature would break a significant portion of the software in question, it would simply be postponed until I've fixed the issue, or I'd get the axe on the day I'd dare to release such "update" - rightfully I should say.

 

4 hours ago, Legioneod said:

I agree with the decision the devs made, I'm sure they will fix it eventually.

 

Please bear with me when I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

Mike

Edited August 16, 2020 by SAS_Storebror

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

But truth being told, there was no such issue before the 4.005 DM change.

Or to rephrase this: The issue might have been sleeping under the hood for all those years, but it was the DM change in 4.005 release four months ago (!!) that pronounced the issue to a point where devs and testers felt that they needed to do this drastic move which we have to suffer from until today and for an unforseeable future (!!) - see Jason's comment on the issue a day ago:

 

Now... I'm developing software myself to earn a living, and there's a couple of things I'm considering a no-brainer, including the fact that whatever fancy new feature I might have created in an update for any existing Software I've ever made or touched, if such update-feature would break a significant portion of the software in question, it would simply be postponed until I've fixed the issue, or I'd get the axe on the day I'd dare to release such "update" - rightfully I should say.

 

 

Please bear with me when I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

Mike

 

Well I'm on the side of the devs with this one. I was there during the whole testing period of the new DM and the 109 tail section was extremely weak. It's not something that can be fixed overnight either like some here think.  It's linked to the 3d damage model of the aircraft and in order to be fixed the 3d model needs to be changed iirc.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Legioneod

[SAS_Storebror]

You missed my point: I'm not saying the issue isn't there.

All I'm saying is that the 4.005 update brought it to life, so whatever has been changed there that made this an issue must not have been released until the issue was fixed.

Simple as that.

Anything else is - since we cannot skip updates in this game - forcibly breaking a product where customers have spent money upon.

 

Mike

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, SAS_Storebror said:

You missed my point: I'm not saying the issue isn't there.

All I'm saying is that the 4.005 update brought it to life, so whatever has been changed there that made this an issue must not have been released until the issue was fixed.

Simple as that.

Anything else is - since we cannot skip updates in this game - forcibly breaking a product where customers have spent money upon.

 

Mike

.50s aren't broken in singleplayer. If you can't live with it for now in multiplayer I'd go and play singleplayer for a while or just take a break from the game maybe.

The 109 tail can still be damaged but something seems off with how damage is registered in multiplayer. It could be a number of reasons and some of them aren't even directly tied to the damage model.

[SAS_Storebror]

Now we start running in circles again...

I should stop playing - online or completely - because devs and testers were so ever-excited about their precious 4.005 DM change that they didn't bother to turn one side's main fighter plain into a flying concrete block while at the same time nerfing the other side's main fighter gun to death?

 

Thank you, message received.

 

Mike

[LukeFF]

17 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Now we start running in circles again...

I should stop playing - online or completely - because devs and testers were so ever-excited about their precious 4.005 DM change that they didn't bother to turn one side's main fighter plain into a flying concrete block while at the same time nerfing the other side's main fighter gun to death?

 

Thank you, message received.

 

Just my opinion of course, but I really think you should dial down the rhetoric a bit.  Us testers are never, ever the decision makers in this or any other matters that are discussed in the closed testing cycle. Yes, we provide our feedback (sometimes vigorously, yes), but at the end of the day the final decisions lie with the guys and gals who actually create the game. 

[SAS_Storebror]

I like people practicing delicacy.

As such, you will have noticed that in the post I replied to, I've essentially been asked to write off my investments in this game and leave.

 

As for the role of testers, I can only rely on the official statements which, concerning the issue in question, said this:

"We discussed both options with the testers (leave it as it was, or lock it), and, having figured out the whole situation, they almost unanimously voted for the option to lock it."

 

I never said you were decision makers.

The statement however doesn't quite take us into thinking that the testers insisted a lot against the critical decisions taken on 4.005 release.

 

Mike

Edited August 16, 2020 by SAS_Storebror

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Now we start running in circles again...

I should stop playing - online or completely - because devs and testers were so ever-excited about their precious 4.005 DM change that they didn't bother to turn one side's main fighter plain into a flying concrete block while at the same time nerfing the other side's main fighter gun to death?

 

Thank you, message received.

 

Mike

You know, as soon as you change a big portion of something, a lot of dependencies will be tuned accordingly. That does need time and if there‘s something you can count on in life, is that no dev will ever follow all these dependencies if if it works in his hands.

 

Taken out of context, some statements are preposterous and not helpful in bringing the game forward. No aircraft in the game is „invulnerable“ and you can shoot down any central plane with the .50 cals. What we see here is more of a detail in the extremely competitive MP fraction, where such changes clearly reshuffle some cards in who‘s gaming the game best. Now axis has an advantage not only because of „concrete“ but also because the Tempest needs an oaf-limiter as „problem in MP = yank stick full forward and backward until problem gone“ ends at reaching 14 g.

 

The new DM made a couple of changes to game play. Other aircaft became fragile, even without „temporary concrete fix“. I have some WW1 crates that come to mind. Some of the changes are a headache, some are for the better.

 

What we can do is keep the devs at work. Producing content pays, quality control beyond a certain point simply doesn‘t pay, nowhere. You need to make good business to afford the luxury going beyond a certain minimum in QC. Software has by great margin the lowest standards in that. I applaud your statement that you‘d never go live with something that doesn‘t totally work, but you are either definitely, or, most certainly, the only one under the sun doing so. I can think off a software company of about 1000 employees that just decided to lay off 250 of them. Guess what those 250 worked on? Just the most fundamental aspect of QC in their software. All this in the time where they secured a deal of about twice their yearly revenue. So, that is real world software developpment. Software the world actually uses. What we have here is an almost pathological dedication to the product not just from the dev team, but even from the managent side. Must be a niche product, huh?

 

Given this situation, I think the devs are running a tight ship. Also, the alternative to this game is no game.

 

 

[SAS_Storebror]

Thank you very much for your reply @ZachariasX, I get the gist however there's a few things I'd like to add:

 

7 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

No aircraft in the game is „invulnerable“ and you can shoot down any central plane with the .50 cals.

Nobody said any different.

Just as a matter of fact, 109s are swallowing bullets seemingly without any effect for four months now, and .50s can bring down any axis plane, but only after tremendous efforts.

Neither of this has been the case before patch 4.005, therefore the matter stands that 4 months ago, with version 4.005, the game was updated to the worse in quite a siginificant regard, and knowingly so.

 

10 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

What we see here is more of a detail in the extremely competitive MP fraction

I'm afraid this is an enormous belittlement of the issue(s).

 

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I applaud your statement that you‘d never go live with something that doesn‘t totally work

I never said so.

It can be a tradeoff at times.

However if the issue being introduced with an update exceeds certain levels, the update simply will be stopped and reworked until the issues are either solved or at least toned down to an acceptable level.

The issues introduced with version 4.005 easily ruin the game for half of the online multiplayer community - the other half doesn't care or pisses themselves from laughter.

Rolling out a software update with issues of that level would indeed get me axed, and it won't fit my own standards of quality either.

 

14 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

So, that is real world software developpment.

As mentioned earlier, real world software development earns my life (which lasts more than half a century now).

I've seen things like this dreaded version 4.005 happening in real life on the job too, however the brutal truth is that none of the companies I've witnessed doing this, ever managed to pull such stunt more than twice.

Either they vanished on the very first such incident, or if they didn't immediately learn from it, they left the scene on the 1st repitition of such mistake.

 

Mike

[ZachariasX]

22 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

I'm afraid this is an enormous belittlement of the issue(s).

I‘d say mileage varies on that. The last really weak .50 cals I can think of were in Olegs IL2 and they persisted over a decade. The current ones are not like those.

 

I wouldn‘t say that the new DM is optimal yet. I‘ve written enough in the FC section about that. But I think in a game, you can be slightly more relaxed on some effects regarding gameplay to move forward, else you‘d never do any change and remain on a level „mutually agreed upon“. We‘d still play „Red Baron“.

 

Again, I am very impressed by your professional ethos and diligence. 

29 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

I've seen things like this dreaded version 4.005 happening in real life on the job too, however the brutal truth is that none of the companies I've witnessed doing this, ever managed to pull such stunt more than twice.

This is what I see happening all the times. There‘s critical flaws that you CAN deliver, and there‘s such that you absolutely CANNOT. The only errors that are potentially terminal for your business are the ones regarding usability and prettyness of the UI. This is the only thing that matters. The rest are software errors, you just can‘t do anything about that, right? Or why would anyone buy Cisco (just as example)? How many full remote access 0days did they have so far? Nobody is liable for that kind of error. I absolutely don‘t share your view of the business pracises in your sector. But I suppose they would change if you could hold the software vendor liable for the damage done by „software errors“ in their products. Charge MS for Emotet. How long was this an issue? How long do you think will it take for MS to change things such that one click on an email will not make your whole Active Directory network go the way of the Dodo, if they were liable for it? You know, the car industry for a long time thought that it was impossible to give warranty for their products („as every road and driver are different“). Look at cars now and at cars then.

 

I‘m sorry, but defective products are the rule with Software.

 

The product at hand here commits the cardinal sin of not catering your expectations, however well reasoned. As for the rest, it is about the only sim you just can install, start and it works while looking pretty. But as this product evolves, so will the basis on which the perceived bug is based, so everything is subject to change. The devs do things at their pace and unless you know their schedule, we better let them decide what works. In the meantime, I‘m sure the current issues are not forgotten.

[-SF-Disarray]

Are the current issues known though? Aside from the 109 tail thing, nothing in this thread has been commented on by the devs in so far as I know. Well, I guess there was that bit about API coming, maybe, sometime in the future, if they can get around to it. I get that they can't just drop everything and respond to every little thing as soon as someone brings it up, but this is a fairly large thing and has been a thing for months now and based on all the information I've been able to scrape together will continue being a problem for the long term. The devs need financial support to keep doing development, I get that, but this seems like an odd way to get it.

[Cpt_Siddy]

 

 

 

This is the reason 50 cals will suck no matter what.

 

Your average luftie ace is well versed in this bull... and landing 1 20mm vs landing 2-3 50 cals on that thing makes a wold of difference in MP.