Jump to content

.50 cal damage, or lack there of


Recommended Posts

 109:
"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'. The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meter, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without a problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109."
- Pinter Gyula, 2nd Lt., JG101. Source: internet account

 

 

 

notice he was attacking Bostons, which at best are armed with 50cals. And the damage was 1m ripped off. Now that is not simulated in game, ie the possibility that the 50 cal can leave more than a simple neat 50 cal shaped hole

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

 109:
"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'. The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meter, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without a problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109."
- Pinter Gyula, 2nd Lt., JG101. Source: internet account

 

 

 

notice he was attacking Bostons, which at best are armed with 50cals. And the damage was 1m ripped off. Now that is not simulated in game, ie the possibility that the 50 cal can leave more than a simple neat 50 cal shaped hole

 

Some A20-Gs were equipped with four 20mm Hispanos in the nose, although this may well have been 50 cal damage. But half square meter =/= 1m ripped off. 

 

More generally, there are no round specific "holes" in BoX, neat or otherwise, simply an accumulation of abstract damage points per hit box. The number required to get to a given level of visible damage varies, including with the MGs, so not all hits do the same amount of damage. The game really is modelling a range of outcomes per hit.  

 

It is true that there are some components that ideally should be subject to damage but seem not to be - but remember if you add new components that can be damaged, they can be damaged by HE hits and splinters too, so be careful what you wish for.  Adding them will not necessarily alter the AP/HE balance in favour of AP - given the fairly large zone of damage of the HE rounds, I would expect the reverse.

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say it's about shifting balance. Most of the 20/30mm damage effect now comes from it's ability to reduce surface lift. It wouldn't matter if you had components in your wing that aren't working if the whole wing isn't doing the main thing it's supposed to be doing. I'd happily trade losing some parts or functionality of systems in the wings if they were hit by 20mm if it meant that happened with .50 cal. 

 

It's like having a pc case with nothing it it, if you hit it a couple of times with a sledge hammer you're going to smash it to pieces. But hammer a load of long nails into it you aren't really going to do anything (on fire nails technically with API). You have to put a CPU/Gfx card etc. in it to make those nails effective otherwise you're going to need a whole lot of nails. 

 

That is a super weird analogy but I'm going with it. 

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

 

Some A20-Gs were equipped with four 20mm Hispanos in the nose, although this may well have been 50 cal damage. But half square meter =/= 1m ripped off. 

 

More generally, there are no round specific "holes" in BoX, neat or otherwise, simply an accumulation of abstract damage points per hit box. The number required to get to a given level of visible damage varies, including with the MGs, so not all hits do the same amount of damage. The game really is modelling a range of outcomes per hit.  

 

It is true that there are some components that ideally should be subject to damage but seem not to be - but remember if you add new components that can be damaged, they can be damaged by HE hits and splinters too, so be careful what you wish for.  Adding them will not necessarily alter the AP/HE balance in favour of AP - given the fairly large zone of damage of the HE rounds, I would expect the reverse.

 

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

More generally, there are no round specific "holes" in BoX, neat or otherwise, simply an accumulation of abstract damage points per hit box. The number required to get to a given level of visible damage varies, including with the MGs, so not all hits do the same amount of damage. The game really is modelling a range of outcomes per hit.  

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

My point is that the game surely attempts to relate a range of damage to an appropriate aerodynamic effect on your flight model

 

What does it assume a 50 cal does then? As for even double figures ap hits it gives you a couple of kmh speed reduction. ( In testing planes small pieces of telemetric equipment have a speed loss of 2 or 3 mph )

 

So bet a pound to a pinch of s*** that's it doesn't ever assume anywhere near a half square metres worth of speed loss even given a double six roll on the games RNG. The microscopic speed losses associated with even bulk 50 cal damage must be assuming worst case scenario of neat little holes. Not the rip and tear of HE hits of any calibre. The minimum a 20mm he mine shell gives you is 65 kmh speed loss despite most pictures of IRL hits with that weapon generally at worst are 6 to 12 inch diameter holes. Yes there are occasionally pictures of more substantial panels ripped off sometimes but that can happen with 50 cals too, I believe.

 

And finally yes you can dismiss pretty much everything online if you hold it to forensic levels of evidential standard, yes it could have been one of those a20gs 20mm but in all likelihood, given common sense, sometimes the emperor is actually naked.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is that HE hits to the wing will not just damage components in the wing in one hitbox - they will roll to damage components inside hitboxes anywhere in the cone or sphere by which the game is modelling splinters.  They already do - hence the potential for engine damage from hits to wings, for instance. 

 

Quite a good analogy though, I take your point.  We will just have to see what the team does next.  

 

  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

The difference is that HE hits to the wing will not just damage components in the wing in one hitbox - they will roll to damage components inside hitboxes anywhere in the cone or sphere by which the game is modelling splinters.  They already do - hence the potential for engine damage from hits to wings, for instance. 

 

Quite a good analogy though, I take your point.  We will just have to see what the team does next.  

 

 

Yes, good point. My solution would be to model panels in the wing like they do with wheel covers, but that's impossible without redoing the 3d model I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Yes, good point. My solution would be to model panels in the wing like they do with wheel covers, but that's impossible without redoing the 3d model I think.

I doubt that would be feasible judging by the limitations of the engine. If they can't even put tail numbers on the planes, modelling numerous removable panels is undoubtedly a no unfortunately. Would probably be a heavy hitter on performance and probably require an enormous amount of work. 

 

I'd be more than happy for them to throw in a little RNG. Hit this area and you have a certain chance of hitting x/y/x and so on throughout the wing and tail section. For something like slats, they already have their functionality modelled so taking them away shouldn't be so difficult. Perhaps have certain components that if they do register a hit, will cause damage to neighbouring components and/or effect lift. Also then generate a particle effect of something falling off (even if we don't actually see the damage on the wing). It's set up to some degree but I've only ever had one of my axis knocked out once in a 109.

 

Even this would be fairly complex and to model it in efficient code that a server is able to cope with......on an engine as old as this is probably no easy task. I'd wager that's why we aren't seeing much comment from the devs - they aren't sure the best way to model this properly and efficiently in even in it's most basic form (no judgement meant by this it's a difficult task).

 

Please also excuse my blatant conjecture.  

Edited by Cass
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cass said:

I doubt that would be feasible judging by the limitations of the engine. If they can't even put tail numbers on the planes, modelling numerous removable panels is undoubtedly a no unfortunately. Would probably be a heavy hitter on performance and probably require an enormous amount of work. 

 

 

The under the hood mechanics that have to do with applying tail numbers/decals etc has nothing to do with the 3D model itself, the "break away" zones or panels of the 3D model, LOD's etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2020 at 9:32 AM, HR_Zunzun said:

 

I have been reading reports from p-47 and in many of the cases in which the said the enemy plane exploded, they mentioned getting strikes "all over".

126hits of 0.5 is the equivalent of (being very conservative) of a minimum of 20 hits of 20mm. According to Lw and US Navy is would be like 36 hits of 20mm.

When you hit 100+ times with 12.5 ammo, convergence is completely irrelevant. At lest it was in real life.

If the DM is simple and is part of the problem then they should work a "patch" until they can provide the correct simulation.

 

 

 

Of course they would explode sometimes. Ever seen a rapid depressurization of an oxygen tank? Imagine that inside an aluminium tube. You can do a lot of damage with an oxygen tank and a hammer. A bullet strike will be sudden and catastrophic.

 

I've also seen a lot of footage of .50 strikes all over that don't disintegrate aircraft.

 

The damage model is simple. There is no "if".

 

In Cliffs of Dover you can have your cowling blown off. That creates a lot of drag. There is no "patch" to fix the weak DM. It's a complete overhaul. You are asking for an oil change when we need a complete engine rebuild. Tranny is trashed too.

18 hours ago, messsucher said:

 

There are many variables in that. What was the condition of said aircraft? How was the structural fatigue in the plane? How well it was built in the first place? What was the quality of metal?

 

 

 

15 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

 

Yes there are occasionally pictures of more substantial panels ripped off sometimes but that can happen with 50 cals too, I believe.

 

 

 

 

I could see it happening. A tumbling bullet shock loads the rivets and pop, there goes a panel. I wonder what slowed the bullet down enough to do that?

 

Neat.

 

Edit/// The wheel hub. Shredded tire..... Bullet hit the wheel hub tumbled and slowed down enough to be able to shock load the rivets instead of punching a hole in the skin. Freaking cool!

Edited by ACG_Smokejumper
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The difference is that HE hits to the wing will not just damage components in the wing in one hitbox - they will roll to damage components inside hitboxes anywhere in the cone or sphere by which the game is modelling splinters.  They already do - hence the potential for engine damage from hits to wings, for instance.   

 

Could be one of the key issues: Splinter damage totally exaggerated in comparison to bullet damage.

This, together with a lack of hitboxes for essential structures inside the plane (or at least a reasonable random approximation of hitting such, if dedicated hitboxes are out of reach).

And talking about hitboxes: A major part of the 109 tail issue could be solved by simply removing the tail's hitbox. You would still be unable to detach the tail, but at least it would not swallow all your bullets either, so they can do damage elsewhere.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ACG_Smokejumper said:

 

 

Of course they would explode sometimes. Ever seen a rapid depressurization of an oxygen tank? Imagine that inside an aluminium tube. You can do a lot of damage with an oxygen tank and a hammer. A bullet strike will be sudden and catastrophic.

 

I've also seen a lot of footage of .50 strikes all over that don't disintegrate aircraft.

 

The damage model is simple. There is no "if".

 

In Cliffs of Dover you can have your cowling blown off. That creates a lot of drag. There is no "patch" to fix the weak DM. It's a complete overhaul. You are asking for an oil change when we need a complete engine rebuild. Tranny is trashed too.

 

If that change of engine is going to take a substantial amount of time then at least change the oil.

There are many imperfect ways to render the .50s competitive again without having to rely on a new engine. Is not about bringing the .50s to OP, just something plausible in the mean time. It would be difficult to create an instance as bad as this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

There are many imperfect ways to render the .50s competitive again...

 

I respectfully suggest this is the wrong way to look at this issue.  The question isn't whether or not they are competitive, but are they modelled correctly?

 

If they are not modelled correctly then it'll be changed.  If they are modelled correctly and someone else is wrong, then that will be changed.

 

Changing one thing to be more competitive at the expense of historical accuracy will just lead to a storm of requests for other fixes, or the potential for future allegations of bias, when it does appear that historical accuracy is the thing being striven for.

 

von Tom

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

I respectfully suggest this is the wrong way to look at this issue.  The question isn't whether or not they are competitive, but are they modelled correctly?

 

If they are not modelled correctly then it'll be changed.  If they are modelled correctly and someone else is wrong, then that will be changed.

 

Changing one thing to be more competitive at the expense of historical accuracy will just lead to a storm of requests for other fixes, or the potential for future allegations of bias, when it does appear that historical accuracy is the thing being striven for.

 

von Tom

 

Exactly this. But in order to cater to more folks I would prefer the game have "make all flight models and guns the same" button, meaning there would be a realism button "historical guns" and "historical flight models". This is million times better than that they really begin to make planes "competitive".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

I respectfully suggest this is the wrong way to look at this issue.  The question isn't whether or not they are competitive, but are they modelled correctly?

 

If they are not modelled correctly then it'll be changed.  If they are modelled correctly and someone else is wrong, then that will be changed.

 

Changing one thing to be more competitive at the expense of historical accuracy will just lead to a storm of requests for other fixes, or the potential for future allegations of bias, when it does appear that historical accuracy is the thing being striven for.

 

von Tom

 

Modelled correctly? It is pretty obvious is not (the average of dozen to hundres of impact with minimal performance impact speaks volume).

By competitive I meant with a resamblence of actual performance even if is not accuretaly represented. Many people worry about bringing an OP gun if modelled incorrectly but seem to be quite happy with the current situation. I find this quite contradictory.

In essence. A full rich, deep and realistic DM is what everybody desires. I think we are all in the same page, but if after 5 months there isn´t any fix and no dead line by the devs on when is going to be fix (two weeks? another 5 months? one year, more?) is not crazy to ask for a temporary fix that would bring things closer to reality.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue we have is this is not like an engine or flight model. There weren't any precise numbers crunched back then, just estimations and estimations based on an incredible variety of sources. Even if they could say x amount of .50s were the same as x amount of 20mms. You can't use that to create a DM as each situation is completely different and dynamic. 

 

Even with the sources I suggested above. These are kill reports so there is some (un)survivorship bias in these. How many of these reports were accompanied by reports of people emptying all their ammo into 109s and still seeing them fly? There certainly are some reports like that out there and I believe situations like that should still happen even with a great DM - there's always a little bit of luck in there about what you hit.

On 9/29/2020 at 10:36 AM, Cass said:

 

It's also difficult for us to understand exactly what is wrong in certain scenarios. I was on CB training last night with a friend and emptied almost all of the P-51 ammo into a G-2 he was flying, seeing multiple long bursts strike across the wings, all along the fuselage, on the engine. Without seeing a log I couldn't tell you how many hits it was but he was still flying well, and able to manoeuvre enough at low speed on full power. I then took his wing off with a quick burst on the next flight. 

 

In these scenarios, without seeing exactly what the DM was registering we are fairly blind to what is actually going on behind the scenes. There are certainly some obvious issues like the 109 tail that the devs know are a problem. But outside of that all we can do is make assumptions of what we think is happening and then make further assumptions of what we think should be happening. 

 

All I can say is under my interpretation (assumption) of seeing gun cam + those reports, we should be seeing: 

  • Larger aero penalty when a wing is stuck multiple times (~20+) by .50 cal - this is largely linked to point 3 and those components braking off or causing damage to flight surfaces.
  • More severe penalty for running at low speed on full power with a leaking coolant system (across all liquid cooled planes)
  • More debilitating components to strike and disable in the wing and tail section - MW50 (onboard grenade/BBQ) tank probably being the most obvious for LW planes
  • Glorious fire bullets (API)

I've no doubt some of these are being worked on at the moment. I imagine the Hurricane with it's 2x40mm and 12x.303 have probably meant the team have had to have a hard look at the DM anyway. 

 

Final point, and this is something that is over looked in a lot of these discussions: this is fundamentally a game. We're taking the human "hey i'd like to live please" element out of all these interactions. In any post mid-1944 combat report you can correctly say that it's incredibly likely the LW pilot being shot down didn't have a whole lot of experience so was likely to bail or unlikely to be able wrestle control of a damaged aircraft. In our world pilots are incredibly experienced compared to their IRL counterparts and if are obviously going to lose the fight, are happily going to sacrifice their life getting that sweet sweet kill. So even when .50s are on point, we're still going to get scenarios where a 109 is absolutely finished, but if the pilot can engineer an overshoot and get his guns on point, an allied pilot is still going to have his day ruined. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

after 5 months there isn´t any fix and no dead line by the devs on when is going to be fix (two weeks? another 5 months? one year, more?) is not crazy to ask for a temporary fix that would bring things closer to reality.

I would have thought that the last 5 months have been spent working on the spotting and G-Modelling etc. Air Marshall is another big project that has undoubtedly take months to develop.

Personally speaking I don't think the main issue is with the .50 cals, having said that I think that it is imperative that API (the exclusive ammunition load used by 99.9 of US aircraft by 1944)   be implement ASAP.  It certainly looks like something is off with the 109 though.

 

If it is more of an issue with the damage modelling or aircraft modelling then I would assume that is not a quick fix.  

 

I rarely, if ever fly the 109 when but flying other aircraft types (110 ,190 Jabo, Stuka etc) the .50's can ruin your day in quick order.  The .50's against the 109 and some DM anomalies seems to be the major issue with what we currently have. 

 

Prior to the release of 4.005 this is what happened to principle Luftwaffe fighter if you got even "one" hit on the 109's tail.

 

 

I'm not defending anything and I know the P-51 has tail issues but just to play devils advocate, should the 109's tail have been left as it was prior to update 4.005?    

 

You can still shoot down 109's with the .50's, albeit you don't seem to get catastrophic air frame damage and wings flying off. Most of the time it's by pilot kills or engine fires. I can understand the frustration.  However, if the 109 tail was left as a one hit wonder that is more or less the end for the main German fighter. 

 

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

The question isn't whether or not they are competitive, but are they modelled correctly?

The main reason they're not competitive is because their DM is not correctly modelled. Talking about historical accuracy, where are the API-APIT rounds? Just for historical- histerical reassons, but as I read few posts ago: we need to be careful in what we wish. I really wish a better sim and that happens through a more accurate 50's DM and its implementation in all A/C's that use them. May I have a dream or a long term nightmare?

Edited by Tatata_Time
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Could be one of the key issues: Splinter damage totally exaggerated in comparison to bullet damage.

This, together with a lack of hitboxes for essential structures inside the plane (or at least a reasonable random approximation of hitting such, if dedicated hitboxes are out of reach).

And talking about hitboxes: A major part of the 109 tail issue could be solved by simply removing the tail's hitbox. You would still be unable to detach the tail, but at least it would not swallow all your bullets either, so they can do damage elsewhere.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

I certainly felt this first point to be true when I systematically tested a previous version of the DM using the P-47 vs the US Ballistics report for comparison. It was not that splinters should never damage areas well away from the impact: but they seemed to do it far too often. Generally HE rounds were about twice as effective as the US report thought they would be in terms of the probability of a hit downing the aircraft. 

 

Not having redone those tests I cannot say for sure that this is still the case with the current DM but casual testing suggests it.  Possibly the structural damage from HE has been dialled up (which is arguably correct) but the splinter damage was not correspondingly reduced. But only many hours of testing can demonstrate that, which I do not feel inclined to do, although having a player controlled LAA gun will allow for analysis of single hits .......

 

On the 109 tail I am at a bit of a loss: while making it "transparent" would certainly solve any issue, test firing .50 cal at a stationary K-4, there seems to be only a very small area that is immune and is actually quite hard to hit even with a stationary firer and target 20m away: the bottom end of the tail appears to part of the rear fuselage, and the vertical stab is very narrow: firing from six in a normal flight only a very small proportion of shots would actually hit the vertical stab area. Hits to the rear fuselage firing just below the stabiliser show damage decals on the surface, so damage and hits there are being recorded. 

 

I suspect that people just expect to see more PKs and fuel fires from rear hits (some people expect this every time): so a matter of the team's analysis of armour penetration, chance to ignite fuel cells etc. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

I'm not defending anything and I know the P-51 has tail issues but just to play devils advocate, should the 109's tail have been left as it was prior to update 4.005?    

 

You can still shoot down 109's with the .50's, albeit you don't seem to get catastrophic air frame damage and wings flying off. Most of the time it's by pilot kills or engine fires. I can understand the frustration.  However, if the 109 tail was left as a one hit wonder that is more or less the end for the main German fighter. 

From these images were 50's can rip off tails to the nowadays iron ass there is a point where 50's DM should be. I got to say, as a 50's main user, I've always thought ripping out tails is as unnacurate as the actual situation, but the difference is that 109 users complained about that "ergo" the "solution" was the nowadays 109's "iron ass" . To be fare I want an accurate 50s DM and at the same time a better 109's DM, Am I  demanding too much? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

From these images were 50's can rip off tails to the nowadays iron ass there is a point where 50's DM should be. I got to say, as a 50's main user, I've always thought ripping out tails is as unnacurate as the actual situation, but the difference is that 109 users complained about that "ergo" the "solution" was the nowadays 109's "iron ass" . To be fare I want an accurate 50s DM and at the same time a better 109's DM, Am I  demanding too much? 

 

 I see you have been with us since April of this year which would mean you joined around update 4.005 and you don't have any product badges so what aircraft are you flying? If you are a customer then I don't think its demanding too much to expect a decent DM but I also think it's important to temper expectations and understand that it's a continuing development. 

 

I, like you want an accurate damage model  but my question is should the 109 tail have been left as it was until a DM solution is worked on?

 

If it had, would that mean that the 109 (the principle Luftwaffe fighter) would have effectively been finished as a viable option to fly? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

I suspect that people just expect to see more PKs and fuel fires from rear hits (some people expect this every time): so a matter of the team's analysis of armour penetration, chance to ignite fuel cells etc. 

 

To be honest, I only expect a real disabled opponent after receiving a solid burst from her/his low and/or pure 6. The visual fireworks?..... I choose a visual demonstration of its disabling, as lack of performance due coolant and/or oil leaks, lack of lift, also wing spins due lack of lift,.... you know I change the hollywood VFX for real more effective visual clues. As I said fireworks? Leave them to TOP GUN 2  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

From these images were 50's can rip off tails to the nowadays iron ass there is a point where 50's DM should be. I got to say, as a 50's main user, I've always thought ripping out tails is as unnacurate as the actual situation, but the difference is that 109 users complained about that "ergo" the "solution" was the nowadays 109's "iron ass" . To be fare I want an accurate 50s DM and at the same time a better 109's DM, Am I  demanding too much? 

 

Extactly, there must be a medium point somewhere.

Enhance the DM? I am all for it. At the cost of waiting to 2030? I would say no. If you can´t provide that "perfect" DM in due time (for a myriad of reason) then put a temporary place holder.

If that is not acceptable why then have they done it with the 109 tail (and creating a mess)?

 

17 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

 

To be honest, I only expect a real disabled opponent after receiving a solid burst from her/his low and/or pure 6. The visual fireworks?..... I choose a visual demonstration of its disabling, as lack of performance due coolant and/or oil leaks, lack of lift, also wing spins due lack of lift,.... you know I change the hollywood VFX for real more effective visual clues. As I said fireworks? Leave them to TOP GUN 2  

 

I have been reading through the p-47 reports at ww2performance web page and what I have found is that about 40% of the claims are described as burning or exploding. So in real life they weren´t rare. Far from it. Obviously that did require a solid long burst. But not dismilar of what you describe. But I am with you, the bare minimum is that with that type of attack the e/a should be render combat innefective. That is not what is happening (unless you are lucky to cause a PK).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I see you have been with us since April of this year which would mean you joined after update 4.005 and you don't have any product badges so what aircraft are you flying? If you are a customer then I don't think its demanding too much to expect a decent DM but I also think it's important to temper expectations and understand that it's a continuing development. 

 

I, like you want an accurate damage model  but my question is should the 109 tail have been left as it was until a DM solution is worked on?

 

If it had, would that mean that the 109 would that have have effectively finished off (the principle Luftwaffe fighter) as a viable option to fly? 

 

I joined april the forum due I detected something wierd and different from previous releases in 4.006 release, as an Il-2 BOS customer, I joined it in 2016. As a BoBP customer from december 2018? Do I need any more badges  to give my oppinion or will I be banned as in previous posts?

As you and answering you in  keeping the invisible 109 tail til a solid solution? ABSOLUTELY NO. This "Kinda Cheat" is having 109 pilots a non natural advantage and as I explained in a previous banned post, they're developing non natural tactics like leaving you shoot them cause that non natural tail can absorve most rounds you deliver on them and due they have a none/minimal aerodynamics penalty they can push nose up after you overshoot them and put your tail in heaven due an "spray & pray" fatal 13mm. single lucky shot . 

Imagine this pack of issues in a P-51 B/C (only 4x0.50 MG's)

Edited by Tatata_Time
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

To be honest, I only expect a real disabled opponent after receiving a solid burst from her/his low and/or pure 6.

 

I agree.   

 

95% ot times im attacked by plane with minnesglosh , my plane was disabled if i recibed more than  3 hits of minnesglosh. For me this is a solid attack,  maybe u still flying but only for try ditch the plane.

 

I expected the same in the other side, solid attack, burst where you can place 60/80 hits of 0.5 , or 4/5 20 mm need be enought to disable , small, fulled and fragile fighter as bf or foke.

the ñack of damage in 0.50 or 37mm  ( due DM? ) and too strongest tail for bf and hughe difference betwenn damage needed between planes for suffer same penality in aerodinamycal performance,  do situation more noticiable and unfair.  I think now my chance of disable enemy on single burst atack can be around 20% and i dont disable plane... most usuall is kill the pilot.

 

This is refelcted in general around servers , only need look to stats. And for most competitive pilots this kills the game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 

I, like you want an accurate damage model  but my question is should the 109 tail have been left as it was until a DM solution is worked on?

Yes it should have been left like it was, until plausible solution would be made as current state is absolutely unacceptable as it can be marked as cheat or artificial buff to that airframe. Using proper tactics will remove every possibility of enemy to chop off your tail but now? Its flying tank. When i fly 109, my defensive against only 50cal plane, is flying straight with slight banks to limit hits into the wing and random super lucky strut hit as there is 0% chance to get killed. That first hit into me was from above, if he have missed those,  i would have made it to friendly airfield without problem. Even in that scenario where my engine should have died in the second i took hits as i lost all cooling and injection which means dead engine if its on full power, no mw50 and dead cooling. Max few seconds of function and then dead, yet i took it over friendly land and landed while running away on full power. 

 

Edited by =DMD=Honza
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean that's kinda describes the problem perfectly. The best solution to down an enemy plane (right behind it), isn't viable and wing hits don't seem to have an effect. 

 

@6./ZG26_Custard

I don't think they should have left it like that but to just make it a bullet black hole is a little confusing (I assume there is some reason for this that we aren't aware of), we've lived with the P51 tail giving a 3g nose dive if it's hit by 1mg bullet for quite some time now and haven't seen a magic black hole put on the tail. Although not as extreme as ripping the whole thing off, in most cases it's gonna put you in the ground or force you to bail. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am beginning to wonder if there is more to this than I originally suspected. I still think the aero penalties from AP hits isn't correct but some things I've seen have crystalized after a recent sortie I did in a D-9.

 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/754676154

 

This is the highlights from that sortie; I just cut out all the waiting for something to happen. I get tagged by the .50's off a Spitfire. The number of hits is fairly low but the apparent damage should have been significant. The rounds cut my control connections to the right wing but I'm still able to control the plane as if nothing is wrong. I didn't even get one of those popup notifications on the side saying the controls were cut. The only way I knew the aileron was inop is I happened to look over at that wing after landing only to see it hanging loose. It was only as I was editing the footage down I noticed the right aileron wasn't moving the few times I was looking over that wing in some of the fighting. I don't know if this is a common occurrence or limited to just the D-9 but it could go a long way in explaining some of the lack of effectiveness of .50 AP rounds. This is obviously only a preliminary result and further testing/exploration is needed on this.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cass said:

I don't think they should have left it like that but to just make it a bullet black hole is a little confusing

I don't think it should have been left like that either but I think the problem is bigger that the 109s tail and its probably not a simple fix or it would have already been done. I am hoping that the developers are going to take a deep dive into the damage model at some point.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, -SF-Disarray said:

I am beginning to wonder if there is more to this than I originally suspected. I still think the aero penalties from AP hits isn't correct but some things I've seen have crystalized after a recent sortie I did in a D-9.

 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/754676154

 

This is the highlights from that sortie; I just cut out all the waiting for something to happen. I get tagged by the .50's off a Spitfire. The number of hits is fairly low but the apparent damage should have been significant. The rounds cut my control connections to the right wing but I'm still able to control the plane as if nothing is wrong. I didn't even get one of those popup notifications on the side saying the controls were cut. The only way I knew the aileron was inop is I happened to look over at that wing after landing only to see it hanging loose. It was only as I was editing the footage down I noticed the right aileron wasn't moving the few times I was looking over that wing in some of the fighting. I don't know if this is a common occurrence or limited to just the D-9 but it could go a long way in explaining some of the lack of effectiveness of .50 AP rounds. This is obviously only a preliminary result and further testing/exploration is needed on this.

Yeah 

I played around with the d9 this month.  It's amazing how well it flies missing important pieces.  Already posted about the vertical stab missing, there was another time I was missing my whole right horizontal stab and didn't even know it until my wingman told me.  It flew perfectly great without it.  ......

Ze German... Ahhh I don't need that part.  I will shoot you down with one stab and half a wing.  And you will like it.  😋

 

Edited by VBF-12_Snake9
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, yesterday I was in my 109 and I got hit by very few UBS bullets from a IL2 1943 turret. 

 

You should have seen my left wing. It was barely holding together, a swiss cheese. 

 

I've never been able ton inflict such structural damage to a german plane with .50. Not even with 750 rounds.

 

Im pretty sur that both the DM and the .50 are a problem here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some Luftwaffe gun cam.

One thing we all can agree on - all the guns need to be revisited. The 37mm and 30mm should do about the same damage  - one shot one kill against fighters!

 

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the vaunted 30mm + weapons weren’t a guaranteed kill.  There are numerous photos of aircraft that returned to base with giant chunks of wing or tail torn off by 37mm flak etc.  There are known cases of 262s attacking and damaging Allied fighters that returned to base. Obviously hits to critical components (cockpit, engine, fuel, oil) should be devastating, but a poor hit wasn’t a guaranteed loss no matter the caliber.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

 

In essence. A full rich, deep and realistic DM is what everybody desires. I think we are all in the same page, but if after 5 months there isn´t any fix and no dead line by the devs on when is going to be fix (two weeks? another 5 months? one year, more?) is not crazy to ask for a temporary fix that would bring things closer to reality.

 

It says founder under your name like it does mine. Five months of no fix? I wish things got fixes in five months. When did the SpitV come out? That thing is still weird.

 

two weeks even   :P

6 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

So, yesterday I was in my 109 and I got hit by very few UBS bullets from a IL2 1943 turret. 

 

You should have seen my left wing. It was barely holding together, a swiss cheese. 

 

I've never been able ton inflict such structural damage to a german plane with .50. Not even with 750 rounds.

 

Im pretty sur that both the DM and the .50 are a problem here.

 

 

Russian bullet has a bit of explosive in it. Explosive DO work.

 

Someone pls correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just repeating what I read in here somewhere. Someone posted the .8 of a g vs 1.6 or something between Ruskie and Germeanies,

Edited by ACG_Smokejumper
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Based on what I've dredged up from the internet the Soviet round has 2.4g of PETN while the German round had only .8g. Not a lot of bang all told though you'd never know that with the way it is portrayed in game.

 

That is  correct. Though for the russians rounds Iam still looking for primary sources as we have for the German ammunition. The Germans then substituted subsituted the HE-I round for the pure Incendiary round (works like a little flame thrower or welding torch spewing its incediary content forth over 5m of flight path which should be quite effectiv against the unarmoured wing tanks of allied planes). One has to keep in mind, that both HE-rounds dont have any delay charges so, most of the destructive blast will happen outside of the plane and the russian round does not seem to have very much fragmentation material. So IIRC the russians also phased out the HE-rounds for the AP and API round, since they have found them more effetive against e/a in combination with their 20mm HE-Shells. But again, for the late war belting of russian heavy machinge guns in fighter aircraft Iam still looking for primary sources....

12.7mm.png

13mmBrgmL.PNG

13mmBrgSprGr.PNG

Edited by the_emperor
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Based on what I've dredged up from the internet the Soviet round has 2.4g of PETN while the German round had only .8g. Not a lot of bang all told though you'd never know that with the way it is portrayed in game.

 

In IL-2 the german 13mm HE round has 0.8g TNT and the russian 12.7mm has 2g.

However the definition files for the projectiles look partly odd.

 

German 13mm:

Radius = 1.3 // Radius of the sphere of influence of the explosion, which determines the selection of objects
TNT_equ = 0.0008 // TNT equivalent for atmospheric shock wave simulations

// High-explosive effect: range, (-1 not used), pairs (armor, damage for armor)
ArmorFoug = 0.0, -1, 0.257
ArmorFoug = 0.5, -1, 0.83
ArmorFoug = 0.6, -1, 0.65
ArmorFoug = 0.7, -1, 0.50

// Shrapnel impact
ShrapnelQuantity = 2
FragmentMass = 0.0071
// Single shard: range, speed, pairs (armor, damage beyond armor)
ArmorShr = 0.0.342, 1.42, 0.167
ArmorShr = 1.3.336, 1.40, 0.161

Russian 12.7mm:

 

Radius = 2.0 // Radius of the sphere of influence of the explosion, which determines the selection of objects
TNT_equ = 0.002 // TNT equivalent for atmospheric shock wave simulation

// High-explosive effect: range, (-1 not used), pairs (armor, damage for armor)
ArmorFoug = 0.0, -1, 0.453
ArmorFoug = 0.5, -1, 0.140
ArmorFoug = 0.7, -1, 0.83
ArmorFoug = 0.9, -1, 0.50

// Shrapnel impact
ShrapnelQuantity = 5
FragmentMass = 0.0030
// Single shard: range, speed, pairs (armor, damage beyond armor)
ArmorShr = 0.0.535, 2.42, 1.106, 0.169
ArmorShr = 2.0.509, 2.38, 1.96, 0.153
  1. The "ArmorFoug" lines are supposed to end on pairs (armor, damage for armor), but they end on single values only.
  2. The "ArmorShr" lines are supposed to end on pairs (armor, damage beyond armor), but they do so for the russian 12.7mm rounds only, whereas the german 13mm rounds end on single values. What's the meaning, what's the impact? Bug?
  3. Why is the last value of the "ArmorFoug" lines on the 2nd line (ArmorFoug = 0.5, -1, (...)) so much smaller for the russian than for the german round? All other lines show bigger or equal numbers on the russian side.
  4. What's more effective? 2 Fragments of 7.1 grams each, or 5 fragments of 3 grams each? Why the difference? Source?

:drink2:

Mike

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

Even the vaunted 30mm + weapons weren’t a guaranteed kill.  There are numerous photos of aircraft that returned to base with giant chunks of wing or tail torn off by 37mm flak etc.  There are known cases of 262s attacking and damaging Allied fighters that returned to base. Obviously hits to critical components (cockpit, engine, fuel, oil) should be devastating, but a poor hit wasn’t a guaranteed loss no matter the caliber.

 

I think you mean "Even the vaunted 30mm + weapons weren’t a guaranteed single shot kill." Shells do misfire and sometimes an aircraft sneaks home undetected with major control surface damage but the shell missed critical components -- like you said. I would suspect these are usually Allied aircraft because of air superiority they had. There is safety in numbers. So I agree with you. However, I wouldn't call  a 1 in 100 a statistic the norm.

9 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

In IL-2 the german 13mm HE round has 0.8g TNT and the russian 12.7mm has 2g.

 

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/mg131.html

 

Round Types:
– 13 mm APT 710 m/s, projectile mass 38.5 g, muzzle energy 9700 joules
– 13 mm API 710 m/s, projectile mass 38 g, muzzle energy 9580 joules
13 mm HEI-t with 1.4 g PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate) + 0.3 g thermite
   750 m/s, projectile mass 34 g, muzzle energy 9560 joules

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

I think you mean "Even the vaunted 30mm + weapons weren’t a guaranteed single shot kill." Shells do misfire and sometimes an aircraft sneaks home undetected with major control surface damage but the shell missed critical components -- like you said. I would suspect these are usually Allied aircraft because of air superiority they had. There is safety in numbers. So I agree with you. However, I wouldn't call  a 1 in 100 a statistic the norm.

 

I would say that a 30/37mm hit gives a 99% chance of render such a plane combat ineffective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I would say that a 30/37mm hit gives a 99% chance of render such a plane combat ineffective.

 LOL So you agree with me - that is 1% = 1/100 = 1 in 100  = 1:100 chance of not rendering an aircraft combat ineffective.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • LukeFF locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...