.50 cal damage, or lack there of

July 27, 2020

5 hours ago, -332FG-Eggnog said:

First off, I appreciate your level-headed response! Curious though, did you watch Poy's Tacview video? It shows a LOT of hits going into that 109, and it just flies along without a care in the world. Poor dogfighting with almost no repercussions. Or did you actually check out SAS_Storebror's sortie report? I agree with you that the damage model overall is in a pretty good spot right now! I think the devs have done some fantastic work on it! And like you, I bet given some time, they will get there with the .50 cals and/or the 109 dm. All we're trying to do is point out that there's some work to do yet. I don't believe you could have watched Poy's Tacview video and disagree on that point. We're not talking about missing when we "think" we're hitting. We're talking about confirmed hits in either Tacview or Combat Box sortie report that are not having the appropriate aero penalties on the 109s in particular.

And actually I agree as well that the 109G in Normandy would be a logical time for the devs to look at a fix. That would be somewhat unfortunately far out though, considering the negative impact this having on the experience of those of us who main P-51 / P-47 today. My fingers are crossed that they'll be willing to look into it sooner.

I watched the videos but like I said, it could be that the rounds are hitting but not doing any damage, this has to do with multiplayer and not the DM itself. Unless of course the same thing happens in single player in which case there is something wrong with the DM.

4 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

I totally get the reason why tail damage was disabled on the 109s initially.

I do not fully buy the argument about the glassy tail though, as in pre-DM rework times this was no (no big?) issue, so IMHO it would have been a better choice to just leave the regarding 109s with the old DM for the time being, or maybe even just their tail.

In it's current state the 109 tail just swallows all bullet coming from 6 o' clock and it feels like it's got a massive indestructible hitbox down there.

You can even see in @-332FG-poy's video posted before, how the 109 pilot seems to be totally aware of being remotely untouchable from behind, as quite opposite to any normal player, he's just keeping to fly straight at his target regardless the poor bugger that's trying to throw all his ammo at him from behind.

Finally, what I don't get at all is how the absolute super-main-majority of fighter planes from one side can be set off all DM limits for such a prolonged time.

I mean it's not just been the last two hotfixes since we got this issue introduced, and there seems to be no priority, no deadline, nothing in sight to fix this.

Cover the main blue fighter's tail with Adolfinium and at the same time, nerf the main ammo type of red side.

Perfect receipt for a shitstorm if you ask me.

And then... blame it on netcode and try to get away with it.

Lol? Lol.

Mike

The tail was falling off at the slightest hit, if devs would have left it without fixing it there would be an even greater outrage than what we currently see.

55 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

I think this might be the problem, maybe because of netcode only half the rounds are hitting in MP.

Something that needs to be addressed.

This is something that I've thought of as well, maybe the server can't keep track of all the rounds in the air? I've noticed that of all the rounds that actually hit only a fraction register any damage.

For the most part I think .50s are average at best and could probably use some (very slight) increase in performance but I do not think they should be sawing wings or structure left and right.

Imo they should cause a bit more drag penalty due to skin being damaged and the rounds tumbling through the structure. I think some players are under the impression that they should get a kill every time they open fire on someone and this is just false, there were times irl when aircraft made it back after being filled with lead.

Some things that imo would benefit .50s even if they don't increase the damage itself.

-Overheat model needs to be looked at for all liquid cooled aircraft on both sides. Currently overheat is too slow imo, irl as soon as the water starts to vent it will quickly start boiling off and you will not be able to cool the engine no matter what you do.

-.50s should cause a bit more drag imo but not as much as a mg 131 but close.

More internals to actually damage.

currently we have (we may have more idk)

-engine cylinders

-crankshaft

-oil system

-cooling system

-spars

-control surfaces

-control cables

-fuel system

-guns

Things that would be nice to see if they aren't already in.

-Hydraulic system damage (depending on the aircraft it could effect things like flaps, gear, gear doors, etc. Could also lead to things like gear drops or flaps dropping maybe)

-flaps mechanism being damaged by gunfire making flaps inoperable. Flaps can be damaged but I don't think they can be damaged this way by gunfire.

-stabilizer mechanism being shot out/ made inoperable by gunfire/damage.

-wing slats being able to be shot off, I've personally never seen this happen and it'd be a very nice addition to see added. The ability to shoot off one or more slats or being able to jam them would be nice.

-Oxygen system being damaged. It can be damaged but it currently has no effect iirc. It'd be nice to see it have an effect on the pilot due to asphyxiation and even the chance of an oxygen explosion maybe if that happen irl.

-Prop governor, runaway prop, etc.

-anything else that would be interesting to see.

July 27, 2020

6 hours ago, -332FG-Dab said:

According to you, And whoever else, online is not the place to test DM in an ONLINE FLIGHT SIM? Seriously guy?

That's not originally from him - it's from the main flight model developer @AnPetrovich. As has been said, trying to test the damage model online introduces too many variables that make it difficult to see where there may be an issue (high ping, packet losses, lagging, etc.). That's why they've asked people to submit damage model reports from offline tests - it's the only way to ensure there aren't external factors causing issues.

July 27, 2020

19 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

That's not originally from him - it's from the main flight model developer @AnPetrovich. As has been said, trying to test the damage model online introduces too many variables that make it difficult to see where there may be an issue (high ping, packet losses, lagging, etc.). That's why they've asked people to submit damage model reports from offline tests - it's the only way to ensure there aren't external factors causing issues.

Well, this might have nothing to do with the damage model and everything to do with how multiplayer is handling the M2's. I don't know any other way to test it except online. You could submit a DM report and be reporting on the wrong thing. Maybe submit a "Multiplayer M2 .50 Damage Not Working Correctly" report instead. It's really in 1C's best interests to have a happy online community since my guess is that this a large number of customers.

July 27, 2020

35 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I watched the videos but like I said, it could be that the rounds are hitting but not doing any damage, this has to do with multiplayer and not the DM itself. Unless of course the same thing happens in single player in which case there is something wrong with the DM.

The tail was falling off at the slightest hit, if devs would have left it without fixing it there would be an even greater outrage than what we currently see.

This is something that I've thought of as well, maybe the server can't keep track of all the rounds in the air? I've noticed that of all the rounds that actually hit only a fraction register any damage.

For the most part I think .50s are average at best and could probably use some (very slight) increase in performance but I do not think they should be sawing wings or structure left and right.

Imo they should cause a bit more drag penalty due to skin being damaged and the rounds tumbling through the structure. I think some players are under the impression that they should get a kill every time they open fire on someone and this is just false, there were times irl when aircraft made it back after being filled with lead.

Some things that imo would benefit .50s even if they don't increase the damage itself.

-Overheat model needs to be looked at for all liquid cooled aircraft on both sides. Currently overheat is too slow imo, irl as soon as the water starts to vent it will quickly start boiling off and you will not be able to cool the engine no matter what you do.

-.50s should cause a bit more drag imo but not as much as a mg 131 but close.

More internals to actually damage.

currently we have (we may have more idk)

-engine cylinders

-crankshaft

-oil system

-cooling system

-spars

-control surfaces

-control cables

-fuel system

-guns

Things that would be nice to see if they aren't already in.

-Hydraulic system damage (depending on the aircraft it could effect things like flaps, gear, gear doors, etc. Could also lead to things like gear drops or flaps dropping maybe)

-flaps mechanism being damaged by gunfire making flaps inoperable. Flaps can be damaged but I don't think they can be damaged this way by gunfire.

-stabilizer mechanism being shot out/ made inoperable by gunfire/damage.

-wing slats being able to be shot off, I've personally never seen this happen and it'd be a very nice addition to see added. The ability to shoot off one or more slats or being able to jam them would be nice.

-Oxygen system being damaged. It can be damaged but it currently has no effect iirc. It'd be nice to see it have an effect on the pilot due to asphyxiation and even the chance of an oxygen explosion maybe if that happen irl.

-Prop governor, runaway prop, etc.

-anything else that would be interesting to see.

Add to the list pneumatic lines damage, some of the Russian planes have pneumatic systems that control the flaps, gear, brakes and starting systems, if a line gets hit you loose all the air in a few minutes, and this systems wont work, even guns on some Yak models worked with a pneumatic/electrical system instead of mechanical.

July 28, 2020

5 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

I think this might be the problem, maybe because of netcode only half the rounds are hitting in MP.

Something that needs to be addressed.

You know, now that you mention it. I've been the only one to see it this clearly thus far. If i spray someone down with .50s at close range only the first 10 or so rounds produce puffs of smoke. therefore i have to let off the trigger and spray again to get the next rounds to puff.
However, that being said....
this is not the same issue as the peashooter damage.
this is a game code issue, whereas the damage is a modelling issue. and as one of you said, the majority of il2 players are multiplayer guys. so tweaking DMs to single player only will kill off half or more of IL2's player base.
when we are talking about the damage we are talking about confirmed, (registered) hits.
in other words, yes you have a point. but that is separate to this issue.

July 28, 2020

38 minutes ago, -332FG-TheAmazingFire said:

and as one of you said, the majority of il2 players are multiplayer guys. so tweaking DMs to single player only will kill off half or more of IL2's player base.

Ummm, go talk to Jason - it is actually the exact opposite (majority are single players). But there is certainly room for all player types

July 28, 2020

7 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Well, this might have nothing to do with the damage model and everything to do with how multiplayer is handling the M2's. I don't know any other way to test it except online. You could submit a DM report and be reporting on the wrong thing. Maybe submit a "Multiplayer M2 .50 Damage Not Working Correctly" report instead. It's really in 1C's best interests to have a happy online community since my guess is that this a large number of customers.

If you want to be sure that a particular issue is either generic DM, or specific to MP, you need a test which can be performed in both and the results compared. That rules out tests using two humans. AFAIK any ME created mission can be imported to MP, so there is no reason why you could not carry out static or flying tests of the .50 cals in a server, similar to the ones I posted, and see if there is a difference to offline.

If you want to rule out a difference between firing at a player vs firing at a bot, you need a test in which the target plane could be either. Having a plane attacked by ground fire will do that. There is an M2 MGAA in the ME, so it would not be too difficult to set up a test in which an aircraft is attacked by .50 cal ground fire. Make track, count hits needed to get an effect, see if there is a difference when plane is AI or player plane on autopilot.

(I do feel for the developers - here we have multiple threads from MP players complaining that machine gun bullets are ineffective against wings - while in the FC forum we have multiple threads from MP players complaining that machine gun bullets are too effective against wings. )

Edited July 28, 2020 by unreasonable

July 28, 2020

1 hour ago, Redwo1f said:

Ummm, go talk to Jason - it is actually the exact opposite (majority are single players). But there is certainly room for all player types

I stand corrected

July 28, 2020

8 hours ago, Legioneod said:

The tail was falling off at the slightest hit, if devs would have left it without fixing it there would be an even greater outrage than what we currently see.

It wasn't in the pre "DM fix" (i.e. pre-4.005) era, that's why I was suggesting to leave such planes untouched and not apply the "DM fix" on them at all for the time being.

The 109s didn't feel odd in terms of battle damage to me until they got "fixed".

4 hours ago, -332FG-TheAmazingFire said:

the majority of il2 players are multiplayer guys

I'm afraid (and IIRC Jason mentioned it somewhere) that the majority of IL-2 customers is offline guys.

Hence the focus on campaigns rather than online stuff.

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

If you want to be sure that a particular issue is either generic DM, or specific to MP, you need a test which can be performed in both and the results compared.

Honestly after 3 months dealing with this issue, and a fair number of players reporting exactly the same thing over and over and over again - and just the usual number of suspects pretending that real life was wrong and IL-2 was right - we should not have to perform any further to the hundreds of tests done already, we should not have to answer any of the questions that we did answer a hundred times before already, we should not have to discuss this topic any further and we should definitely not have to wait any longer for it to be fixed for real.

Having to wait 3 months, with 3 other major game updates passing by that left the issue untouched, heck 3 major game updates and a bunch of new aircraft and other stuff, but still the major axis fighter series has a tail made of Adolfinium swallowing all bullets from behind, 3 months of endless discussions, tests, debates, partly - excuse me - ignorant comments on it, and there's not even a silver lining on the horizon that this is being addressed right now while we're speaking?

I do believe in this product.

I do believe that this is the last hope for WW2 CFS.

I did buy everything that is to buy from it, and bought a tad more to hand it over to friends.

I'm probably a "follower" of IL-2 in the best sense of the word.

If I find it harder every day to stay such, what should newcomers think if they come here these days and find such major issues unaddressed?

I don't think that what has done 3 months ago was a clever move, and I don't think that not taking the resulting issues serious - and they are not taken serious yet, they're possibly not even being acknowledged to be issues at all - will pay out.

Mike

July 28, 2020

At this point I'd be satisfied with even an acknowledgement of the issue from the devs. Up to this point, and moving forward if the trend holds, I can't even say for certain that the devs even know about this. There has been no official word on this anywhere that I have found in the English or Russian language forums. I'm not even asking for a timeline for a fix or explanation of what they think the issue is; even an explanation why we are all wrong about this and that the guns in game are acting in a perfectly expected manner would be nice, though I can't say I'd be thrilled to hear it. Some communication would be nice.

July 28, 2020

4 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Honestly after 3 months dealing with this issue,

Which issue - that is my point.

People say the DM is broken because the .50 cals are incapable of producing an aerodynamic penalty and produce videos - showing that .50 cals do in fact produce an aerodynamic penalty! I demonstrate how easy it is to do that in SP - took me about an hour to set up missions to do it for a range of different targets, firing both static and wing mounted guns. It does not even take many hits. Not one single person has yet demonstrated that there is anything obviously wrong with the DM for .50 cal guns offline. Mostly they have demonstrated that they either cannot shoot or cannot count.

Thread tile - 50-cal-damage-or-lack-there-of Now you are on about the 109's tails. We all know there is a problem with these, the developers have acknowledged it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with .50 cals

July 28, 2020

Yeah that's part of the problem: The naysayers.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the issue is a combination of multiple things being "wrong", but we're always ending up in those meaningless hair-splitting battles the naysayers are trying to drag us into.

Sorry @unreasonable, but as clear as your stance on these issues is, as little am I gonna enter that debate with you again.

Mike

July 28, 2020

15 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Yeah that's part of the problem: The naysayers.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the issue is a combination of multiple things being "wrong", but we're always ending up in those meaningless hair-splitting battles the naysayers are trying to drag us into.

Sorry @unreasonable, but as clear as your stance on these issues is, as little am I gonna enter that debate with you again.

Mike

So posting pictures and missions that prove that the .50 cals do in fact create aerodynamic penalties is "naysaying"? Being capable of differentiating between a problem with the 109's tail and the damage done to wings by .50 cals is "hairsplitting"?

No wonder you have to wait so long before you get the attention you think you deserve.

July 28, 2020

25 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Yeah that's part of the problem: The naysayers.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the issue is a combination of multiple things being "wrong", but we're always ending up in those meaningless hair-splitting battles the naysayers are trying to drag us into.

Sorry @unreasonable, but as clear as your stance on these issues is, as little am I gonna enter that debate with you again.

Mike

Well said, I agree 100 percent and it's sad that video evidence is not enough. That's all they want is to debate when a clear problem exists. it's been said by a couple of my group members, these people like their advantage and don't wanna lose it cause .....reasons. again I hope the devs take notice and look into this, and these peoples tactics mudding up the conversation don't work.

July 28, 2020

1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Yeah that's part of the problem: The naysayers.

For what it’s worth, I think there is some sort of problem with .50 caliber weapons at the moment but this is a ridiculous thing to say.

July 28, 2020

3 minutes ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

Well said, I agree 100 percent and it's sad that video evidence is not enough. That's all they want is to debate when a clear problem exists. it's been said by a couple of my group members, these people like their advantage and don't wanna lose it cause .....reasons. again I hope the devs take notice and look into this, and these peoples tactics mudding up the conversation don't work.

"This person" has not played MP for years and has no side. I got just the same kind of crap from the luft----s when I argued that mineshells were not nukes , the P-47 was too fragile and HE shells in general over-modelled, backing that up with DM tests. The only people "mudding up" the conversation are those who refuse to make clear distinctions between entirely different issues and will not face up to inconvenient facts. It seems like people debating is something that some do not actually want - they just want agreement.

There have been plenty of people posting in these threads who fly US planes regularly who disagree that there is a problem with the guns, or at least nothing that up coming changes to fuel systems and maybe the introduction of an incendiary round will not fix.

I hope the 109 tail issue is solved as soon as possible - a DM problem with that model has been acknowledged and should, IMHO, be a priority. It is not, however, a .50 cal problem, and not just a MP problem.

Test vs He111s flying side by side to same waypoint - one box fired. Mission posted elsewhere so you can try it yourself. It took about 15-20 hits at most to the wing to produce these effects offline. It is a trivial exercise to determine how many .50 cal hits produce this level of damage in static firing tests.

Vs 109s in the air: again damaged aircraft cannot maintain waypoint speed. One box fired, not all of which hit.

Claims that the .50 cal produces no aerodynamic effects are false.

July 28, 2020

@unreasonableLet me get this straight, you don't play on multiplayer but are commenting on a multiplayer issue?...

July 28, 2020

12 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

For what it’s worth, I think there is some sort of problem with .50 caliber weapons at the moment but this is a ridiculous thing to say.

Thanks and yes, I know the statement is quite mean, but that's what you get in all honesty after having had the very same debate for 3 months over and over and over again now.

It reminds me of something I've witnessed more than 20 years ago, when I was working for a company that installed automated locker systems.

I've been standing in one of those installations, watching one of the robots making it's way through the shelf (literally), with lots of noise and metal shavings flying around like crazy.

I've called the responsible technician of the engineering company that built that thing and described what I was just seeing, and the reply was:

"No, that can't be."

This is exactly what it feels like in this case - and almost every time when you report an issue here, honestly.

Mike

Edited July 28, 2020 by SAS_Storebror

July 28, 2020

9 minutes ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

@unreasonableLet me get this straight, you don't play on multiplayer but are commenting on a multiplayer issue?...

This is not just a MP issue - the problem as presented is in the Damage Model. Any changes to the DM, for instance to the effectiveness of guns, affects everyone: all modes of the game use the same DM. If you change the game to get what you want in MP, we all get the same results.

Personally I am all in favour of having two DMs, one that the developers decide is their current best estimate for offline, and the other arrived at by acclamation online, but I do not think that will happen, unfortunately.

What does happen on occasion is that the DM seems to give different results online and off - perhaps it does. If this is the case, this is netcode or lag related, in which case that is what needs fixing, but not with arbitrary changes to the DM to align with MP expectations.

Hence my suggestion that to be sure if an odd observation is due to an actual DM issue rather than a netcode issue, you need a test that can be run online and off.

July 28, 2020

22 minutes ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

@unreasonableLet me get this straight, you don't play on multiplayer but are commenting on a multiplayer issue?...

To be far, it's not *just* a multiplayer issue.

July 28, 2020

I guess sometimes you have to give 'em the whole nine yards.

July 28, 2020

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

This is not just a MP issue - the problem as presented is in the Damage Model. Any changes to the DM, for instance to the effectiveness of guns, affects everyone: all modes of the game use the same DM. If you change the game to get what you want in MP, we all get the same results.

Personally I am all in favour of having two DMs, one that the developers decide is their current best estimate for offline, and the other arrived at by acclamation online, but I do not think that will happen, unfortunately.

What does happen on occasion is that the DM seems to give different results online and off - perhaps it does. If this is the case, this is netcode or lag related, in which case that is what needs fixing, but not with arbitrary changes to the DM to align with MP expectations.

Hence my suggestion that to be sure if an odd observation is due to an actual DM issue rather than a netcode issue, you need a test that can be run online and off.

i must of misinterpreted. A couple people have mentioned to me, that they have tested in a single player or quick mission capacity and could not replicate any findings of our complaints with the 50s/and or damage model. I thought that is what you where saying, if not i meant no offence

July 28, 2020

24 minutes ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

i must of misinterpreted. A couple people have mentioned to me, that they have tested in a single player or quick mission capacity and could not replicate any findings of our complaints with the 50s/and or damage model. I thought that is what you where saying, if not i meant no offence

That's the problem. In the controlled environment of SP the 50s are, IMO, credible, convincing and I must say the new DM has been excellent and an all round improvement on before.

In MP though, it's tough.

For example, I pressed record just before a fight, in mind of collecting evidence. During the fight I was thinking "why aren't these 50s doing anything".

When I watched the replay, I realised I seriously underestimated the 'quality' of the hits I was getting.

Didn't help that I got one-shotted by the rear gunner whilst the 110 merrily flew for around 5 minutes more.

But there is one thing concrete I think should be considered as straight up wrong.

MG131 are *often* devastating
Single hit
Wing and aileron authority was devastated.

-50 kmh speed loss

Now I've never been able to measure that sort of speed loss by even a full box of 50 cals (30 rounds) during testing, online or offline.

Edited July 28, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

July 28, 2020

3 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

1). In the controlled environment of SP the 50s are, IMO, credible, convincing and I must say the new DM has been excellent and an all round improvement on before.

2). Didn't help that I got one-shotted by the rear gunner whilst the 110 merrily flew for around 5 minutes more.

1). I agree.

2). When attacking 110's online, I always accept I'm going to get hit. I've never flown an allied plane fast enough to position for attacks on a 110 that are out of the gunner's arc within a reasonable amount of time. ie; fast enough to set up the attack before the cover fighters get on my 6. I just roll the dice and hope the damage I get stuck with will at least let me skid it in on the friendly side of the map. That's about all that can be done vs. 110's running on the deck, apparently.

July 28, 2020

1 minute ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

1). I agree.

2). When attacking 110's online, I always accept I'm going to get hit. I've never flown an allied plane fast enough to position for attacks on a 110 that are out of the gunner's arc within a reasonable amount of time. ie; fast enough to set up the attack before the cover fighters get on my 6. I just roll the dice and hope the damage I get stuck with will at least let me skid it in on the friendly side of the map. That's about all that can be done vs. 110's running on the deck, apparently.

Yeah and before anyone says it, I know you should expect to get hit if you sit on a 110s six. But equally Mummy 110s tell their kids not to sit in front of 8x50 cals, but the 2x mg42s came up trumps in this unhappy tale.

July 28, 2020

12 hours ago, -332FG-TheAmazingFire said:

and as one of you said, the majority of il2 players are multiplayer guys. so tweaking DMs to single player only will kill off half or more of IL2's player base.

Jason back in late december 2018 mentioned 95% of the entire userbase was only using singleplayer.

July 28, 2020

42 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

Jason back in late december 2018 mentioned 95% of the entire userbase was only using singleplayer.

So in combat box for this month there are 3,547 active players, for just this month. Using that number as a 5 percent mark that would mean 70,940 other players are playing single player.....now mind you:

-that is just combat box and boldenplatte users (3,547), not Moscow, stalingrad, or kuban

-thats just the month of july 2020

-boldenplatee is 79.99 (69.99 if u pre ordered like I did) if u bout it before, 39.99 if u bought it on sale which just doing a revenue from the sales price puts them at 141,000$ .....again just for users in July, only boldenplatte sales, and the active sale price not standard 79.99...

Myself I have every module except tanks, and I have purchased all the premium acft other then the new take. Im thinking I'm not the only one with this purchase set or the most expensive. This pricing is not for any other modules and this info I have gathered is available for all and not my own.

MY POINT IS......in my mind that statement of 95percent player base doesn't make sense to me. I could be wrong but either way multiplayer players produce a large stream of revenue for this game and if there is something we see wrong , with money we spent, we should be able to voice that with out being told we are irrelevant cause we make up only 5 percent of game sales, which I personal disbute btw.

So @ww2fighter20thank you for the post but again the issue, "for me& others" is simple, either the 50s and/or the 109 dm (which I have been told has already been identifed as an issue). Video evidence has been given and more is available upon request, but I don't think we need to "keep showing shooting victims to realize guns can kill people" (analogy)/ or keep showing the same issue in different videos.

We are the loud minority, now we are the 5 percenters, we are the once who want crazy guns, just more tactics to try and deflect ours issues that we are trying to share....

Edited July 28, 2020 by -332FG-Buddy

July 28, 2020

1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

But there is one thing concrete I think should be considered as straight up wrong.

MG131 are *often* devastating
Single hit
Wing and aileron authority was devastated.

-50 kmh speed loss

Now I've never been able to measure that sort of speed loss by even a full box of 50 cals (30 rounds) during testing, online or offline.

I suspect I am with you on that, provisionally. Not done much test firing of MG131 but what I have done using the He111h16 on the ground vs P-47 surprised me. I can see a case for damaging the surface of the hit box that is hit after 1-2 HE hits, but not the whole wing, including flap and aileron.

Even accepting a need to make HE more effective against skin and structure, (and I hope, less so at distant objects like engines and fuel tanks) the current DM seems to have gone overboard, at least with the MG131. Although looking at what one MGFF hit did this may not be a MG131 issue specifically.

Edited July 28, 2020 by unreasonable

July 28, 2020

41 minutes ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

MY POINT IS......in my mind that statement of 95percent player base doesn't make sense to me.

Why?

July 28, 2020

1 hour ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

So in combat box for this month there are 3,547 active players, for just this month. Using that number as a 5 percent mark that would mean 70,940 other players are playing single player.....now mind you:

-that is just combat box and boldenplatte users (3,547), not Moscow, stalingrad, or kuban

-thats just the month of july 2020

-boldenplatee is 79.99 (69.99 if u pre ordered like I did) if u bout it before, 39.99 if u bought it on sale which just doing a revenue from the sales price puts them at 141,000$ .....again just for users in July, only boldenplatte sales, and the active sale price not standard 79.99...

Myself I have every module except tanks, and I have purchased all the premium acft other then the new take. Im thinking I'm not the only one with this purchase set or the most expensive. This pricing is not for any other modules and this info I have gathered is available for all and not my own.

MY POINT IS......in my mind that statement of 95percent player base doesn't make sense to me. I could be wrong but either way multiplayer players produce a large stream of revenue for this game and if there is something we see wrong , with money we spent, we should be able to voice that with out being told we are irrelevant cause we make up only 5 percent of game sales, which I personal disbute btw.

So @ww2fighter20thank you for the post but again the issue, "for me& others" is simple, either the 50s and/or the 109 dm (which I have been told has already been identifed as an issue). Video evidence has been given and more is available upon request, but I don't think we need to "keep showing shooting victims to realize guns can kill people" (analogy)/ or keep showing the same issue in different videos.

We are the loud minority, now we are the 5 percenters, we are the once who want crazy guns, just more tactics to try and deflect ours issues that we are trying to share....

Dude you can't surely be claiming to know that kind of detail better than the people actually producing and selling the game... really!? this is a poor joke.

I also agree there could well be merit regarding the MG131 but that's not the title of this thread.

The fact people keep diverting from the thread title indicates some people are not being genuine in their reasons for discussing this thread in the first place. This is just going to keep repeating/ruminating as the dev's are not going to give into this emotional blackmail and why would they - its a giant warning sign to stay well away.

It really raises the question about some people's actual intentions and motives here - it looks even more suspicious with the number of excuses and diversions being given and so much "in my mind" rubbish on each of these threads. The fact things operate well on SP for the vast majority of people is again, a giant red-flag that what is being alleged isn't adding up to being issues specifically and only with the DM. Many having mentioned the effect on net-code playing its part in this, a complex issue not easily solved.

If you cannot keep to the thread title, why would anyone on earth (who is neutral about this)... believe you are being genuine about the original issue? why should the development team be pushed from their current development schedule when they are methodically looking through and reviewing this stuff? why if this thread is all about the .50 calibre.. are you guys bothered so much about the MG131?

The reason you haven't got sincere answers to these questions... is because there is a clear motive from some people behind this constant pushing and its extremely manipulative and disingenuous.

Jason figured this out a long time ago, clearly.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Aurora_Stealth

July 28, 2020

Insofar as my opinion matters here, I think that what @unreasonable has revealed through his testing holds the key for what makes the .50cal's sometimes unsatisfying in online play.

To get the aerodynamic impacts from hits from the MG fire requires a significant enough amount of damage on a specific hit box to produce the 'level 2' damage. So if you hit a guy 20 times in the wing, you may get no aerodynamic impact if those hits are spread across three hitboxes. In reality, even scattered across the wing, the bullet holes would induce significant enough drag to be noticed, even if not so much as it would be if it were concentrated.

Unlike the DM's issues with netcode, this appears to be much more of a 'solvable' issue. Tweaking the point at which the DM models impacts on speed, and maybe toning down the HE damage from small-charge HE-HMG shells, would go a long way to resolving the issues people have. Although on the whole, an overhaul of the netcode would probably be a bigger leap forward for the sim.

42 minutes ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

So in combat box for this month there are 3,547 active players, for just this month. Using that number as a 5 percent mark that would mean 70,940 other players are playing single player.....now mind you:

-that is just combat box and boldenplatte users (3,547), not Moscow, stalingrad, or kuban

-thats just the month of july 2020

-boldenplatee is 79.99 (69.99 if u pre ordered like I did) if u bout it before, 39.99 if u bought it on sale which just doing a revenue from the sales price puts them at 141,000$ .....again just for users in July, only boldenplatte sales, and the active sale price not standard 79.99...

Myself I have every module except tanks, and I have purchased all the premium acft other then the new take. Im thinking I'm not the only one with this purchase set or the most expensive. This pricing is not for any other modules and this info I have gathered is available for all and not my own.

MY POINT IS......in my mind that statement of 95percent player base doesn't make sense to me. I could be wrong but either way multiplayer players produce a large stream of revenue for this game and if there is something we see wrong , with money we spent, we should be able to voice that with out being told we are irrelevant cause we make up only 5 percent of game sales, which I personal disbute btw.

So @ww2fighter20thank you for the post but again the issue, "for me& others" is simple, either the 50s and/or the 109 dm (which I have been told has already been identifed as an issue). Video evidence has been given and more is available upon request, but I don't think we need to "keep showing shooting victims to realize guns can kill people" (analogy)/ or keep showing the same issue in different videos.

We are the loud minority, now we are the 5 percenters, we are the once who want crazy guns, just more tactics to try and deflect ours issues that we are trying to share....

I think that Battle of Bodenplatte's release increased multiplayer numbers by a fair margin. I don't think that the often quoted "95%" number is really valid anymore. Or if it is, the raw numbers have increased substantially. And as you've noted, I think that hardcore MP players are somewhat more likely to pre-order modules to use online, and also to buy new modules, since you want to be able to fly on lots of servers with different planesets and be competitive, so you really need the new planes.

The big, unspoken reason MP doesn't get more attention, IMO, is that netcode and networking stuff is very difficult to get right, and very easy to get wrong. But any issues with the underlying netcode just exacerbates any other issues with the game so they can become worse in online play than in SP. It's the same issue with the AI - AI is difficult to deal with, and there's a reluctance to crack open the code of something that is functioning sub-optimally, because you risk breaking it entirely. Now instead of something unsatisfying, you have something that doesn't work at all, and no guarantee you can fix it.

The recent attempts to fix the disappearing plane bug (it does appear to have solved many occurrences of it) shows a step in the right direction, they are obviously at least nudging the netcode. I dream that we get something similar as the AI has, where they hire a guy to get into the netcode and begin making incremental improvements. More consistent DM, better capacity for servers to do more mission logic, AA and moving targets, higher player caps. It would pay dividends for sure.

July 28, 2020

S!

It does not make the task of improving netcode easier when the guy who actually wrote it is not working with the dev team anymore. How well did he document his work etc. is out of our knowledge, but in general it is not easy to work on someone else´s code and it is timeconsuming to write a totally new one. So expecting magical improvements in a short timespan might be a bit far fetched and unrealistic.

July 28, 2020

17 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

It does not make the task of improving netcode easier when the guy who actually wrote it is not working with the dev team anymore. How well did he document his work etc. is out of our knowledge, but in general it is not easy to work on someone else´s code and it is timeconsuming to write a totally new one. So expecting magical improvements in a short timespan might be a bit far fetched and unrealistic.

I'd heard the network programmer was no longer with them a while back. IIRC the AI programming was in a similar situation. If there's anything worse than working on someone else's (possibly poorly documented) code...it's probably working on somebody elses' (possibly poorly documented) netcode.

I used the example of the AI situation because I think a similar approach would work - to make improvements is to start slowly, methodically working through it, pushing minor improvements where feasible and taking the time to familiarize themself with the code, and building on that familiarity.

Ultimately if Jason said tomorrow they had hired a netcode developer to overhaul Il-2, I would be expecting to see a trickle of minor improvements over 6 months but nothing truly earthshattering for quite some time, even up to a year or more depending on the state of things. If it was easy, they would have done it already.

July 28, 2020

At the end of the day, this all boils down to two solutions. Buff the .50s or nerf the 109 tail/ fuselage. if one of these is solved the other will solve itself... whether that be adding incendiary belts/ gun buff or making the 109 slightly more fragile on the tail. I dont care. as long as one of these is fixed. Thats all we are asking for.

as for the whole sp vs mp deal, the solution is simple. Test in SP and MP when developing big changes like this. I understand that this could introduce variables into the testing, but its better than nothing.
then again, the process is not our concern, we just want one of these two issues fixed.

July 28, 2020

1 hour ago, -332FG-TheAmazingFire said:

At the end of the day, this all boils down to two solutions. Buff the .50s or nerf the 109 tail/ fuselage. if one of these is solved the other will solve itself... whether that be adding incendiary belts/ gun buff or making the 109 slightly more fragile on the tail. I dont care. as long as one of these is fixed. Thats all we are asking for.

as for the whole sp vs mp deal, the solution is simple. Test in SP and MP when developing big changes like this. I understand that this could introduce variables into the testing, but its better than nothing.
then again, the process is not our concern, we just want one of these two issues fixed.

109 tail is going to be fixed but it may not be for a while, all depends on the devs priority.

Multiplayer and Singleplayer was tested when they were working on the DM. The fact remains that just because something is "off" in multiplayer doesn't prove anything is wrong with the damage model. You can't have two separate models for singleplayer and multiplayer, it's all the same. If it works as intended in singleplayer then it's not a DM issue and the problem lies elsewhere.

July 28, 2020

3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

109 tail is going to be fixed but it may not be for a while, all depends on the devs priority.

Multiplayer and Singleplayer was tested when they were working on the DM. The fact remains that just because something is "off" in multiplayer doesn't prove anything is wrong with the damage model. You can't have two separate models for singleplayer and multiplayer, it's all the same. If it works as intended in singleplayer then it's not a DM issue and the problem lies elsewhere.

as long as it gets fixed im happy.

July 29, 2020

2 hours ago, Legioneod said:

109 tail is going to be fixed but it may not be for a while, all depends on the devs priority.

Is it? I haven’t seen anyone even acknowledge that there is an issue, never mind promise a fix.

July 29, 2020

1 hour ago, KW_1979 said:

Is it? I haven’t seen anyone even acknowledge that there is an issue, never mind promise a fix.

I'd have to look back at the DD or updates threads. Devs stated that part of the 109 tail damage is disabled currently due to an issue with the 3d model and how the tail separates from the aircraft. Currently the tail cannot be destroyed iirc, only the control surfaces can be taken off (rudder, elevators) Even still it seems very difficult to take of control surfaces from the tail of the 109.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Legioneod

July 29, 2020

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

I'd have to look back at the DD or updates threads. Devs stated that part of the 109 tail damage is disabled currently due to an issue with the 3d model and how the tail separates from the aircraft. Currently the tail cannot be destroyed iirc, only the control surfaces can be taken off (rudder, elevators) Even still it seems very difficult to take of control surfaces from the tail of the 109.

From the 4.005 patch notes:

Quote

41. Bf-109 (all series except E7): the loss of the vertical stabilizer and the central part of the horizontal stabilizer is temporarily blocked due to the interdependence of this damage in the 3D model, which makes this point extremely vulnerable to combat damage and causes undesirable results. We will try to move the breaking point above the stabilizer in the future and fix this limitation. Damage to the rudder, elevators and horizontal stabs are still possible and the rudder and elevators can still be detached. And the left and right portions of the horizontal stab can also be lost;

From the 4.006 patch notes:

Quote

62. All Bf-109 fighters except E7 can now lose the left or right side of the horizontal stabilizer when hit at its central part (Bf-109 E7 has a central part of the stabilizer which can be lost by itself)

When I read this I assumed that was the "fix" (and maybe it is). You can definitely shoot off either horizontal stab now. But the vertical stab is basically invulnerable as best I can tell from a couple quick static tests. The full 390 rounds from the A20's .50 failed to chop it off in three tries, firing from 80m, at a 9 o'clock position relative to the 109K-4 and aiming just behind the tail wheel. Strangely the engine died twice, and the fuselage split in half just behind the pilot once after expending all but 2 rounds. I upped the ante to a 20mm MGFF, which pretty quickly strips off the rudder, elevators, tailwheel and parts of the horizontal stab (while also holing the radiators in the wings, and the fuel tank) before eventually chopping the fuselage in half or exploding the engine after 90 or so rounds. The DM here is such a kludge in this case it's laughable. This track is really something else.

20mmMGFFvs109K4VertStab.zip

August 9, 2020

This is ridiculous!

It's to the point that even people who fly mainly German aircraft are calling it out. The .50cals DO NOTHING.

DO THE DEVELOPERS KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW?

And no, "aim better" isn't an answer, and no, "you got the wrong convergence" isn't an answer.

Can we at least get a word from Jason Williams?

No one is flying any plane that has .50 cals right now because they're absolutely worthless!

Edited August 9, 2020 by Y-29.Silky

.50 cal damage, or lack there of

Recommended Posts

Legioneod

LukeFF

BCI-Nazgul

SCG_motoadve

-332FG-TheAmazingFire

Redwo1f

unreasonable

-332FG-TheAmazingFire

SAS_Storebror

-SF-Disarray

unreasonable

SAS_Storebror

unreasonable

-332FG-Buddy

DD_Arthur

unreasonable

-332FG-Buddy

SAS_Storebror

unreasonable

Barnacles

Barnacles

-332FG-Buddy

Barnacles

69th_Mobile_BBQ

Barnacles

ww2fighter20

-332FG-Buddy

unreasonable

Eisenfaustus

Aurora_Stealth

RedKestrel

LLv34_Flanker

RedKestrel

-332FG-TheAmazingFire

Legioneod

-332FG-TheAmazingFire

357th_KW

Legioneod

357th_KW

Y-29.Silky

Browse All

Activity