Is this possibly a valid 109 FM/DM test?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Step 1:  Select QMB 1v1 Duel.

 

Step 2: Choose any plane to fly.

 

Step 3:  Select any model of 109 as an opponent 

 

Step 4: Score shots on the 109 that break a tire from the wheel well -  The fewer the hits the better.  

 

Step 5:  Observe results and repeat as many times as necessary.  

 

Also, will this work with / deliver similar results on other fighters that can have wheels detached from damage?

[Aurora_Stealth]

I'll try and answer this the best I can, I'd say setting up a single mission with waypoints being blindly followed for the opposing AI aircraft (Bf 109) to follow would be better than QMB as aircraft tend to evade you and this means you can't be so accurate / scientific.

 

If you could set up a Bf 109 on the ground to shoot at, using the rear gunner of an aircraft that would probably be ideal and reduce the variation from shooting using a static target.

 

The problem is in-flight AI will behave and react differently to real people and this can confuse what realistically occurs afterwards e.g. an AI plane can react /compensate for damage in a way a real person cannot really do.

 

It depends what you're trying to understand of the FM / DM (consistency I guess across the models?), breaking a tire/wheel doesn't tell you a great deal and is a bit obscure .. the wheel sizes change a little bit across the variants...the rear fuselage of the Bf 109 is generally (design wise) pretty consistent across its variants, so shooting at it in the centre at say a 90 degree angle might give you a good idea.

 

If you're trying to compare different aircraft, well even Tyre sizes can be different but yes that's probably the closest item shared.

 

Just be careful if you do use fuselage the spot you pick as some variants of Bf 109 have different equipment and reinforcement (i.e. the very back near the tail section is reinforced, and some have the MW50 installation behind fuel tank close to canopy).

 

 

Another alternative is you could get onto an empty online server (that you know has good ping / connection for you) with a friend in the opposing fighter (109) then you can confirm that you're internally damaging (making inoperable) a specific element.

 

Hope that gives some more ideas, thoughts at least.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Aurora_Stealth

[unreasonable]

Agree with Aurora_Stealth.   What exactly are you trying to find out? How many hits to detach a tyre is rather an odd measure.....  have you taken a bet on it?  

 

Tests are best done reducing the number of variables as much as possible, so if you can do it in a mission set up in the ME with a static target, or a target flying to a high priority waypoint so that they do not evade, it is much easier to hit just where you want.  Using turret guns on the player aircraft also makes control of hits easier, although it is hard to be completely accurate even in static ground tests.

 

 

[HR_Tumu]

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

If you could set up a Bf 109 on the ground to shoot at, using the rear gunner of an aircraft that would probably be ideal and reduce the variation from shooting using a static target.

 

Do 

 

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

onto an empty online server (that you know has good ping / connection for you) with a friend in the opposing fighter (109) then you can confirm that you're internally damaging (making inoperable) a specific element.

 

maybe is best option

 

thx Aurora for answer

 

[Aurora_Stealth]

No problem, happy to help.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

The main reason I thought of this is that:

 

A).  MP testing of anything always seems to get invalidated as "teh inturnet" is considered a too random variable.  

 

B).  The test works better with as few hits as possible.  If there was a way (for testing purposes) to program the test plane to shed the wheel without being shot at all, that would be even better.

 

C). With the fewest hits, the lift and drag penalties of a vacant wheel well should be the almost the same every time.  With the size of the wheel well, the penalties should also be fairly strong too.

 

My observation is that loss of the wheel doesn't affect anything concerning the 109's performance and handling - at least as far as AI are concerned.  They can still turn as tight and maintain speed the same as they do undamaged.  This could be an indicator of a larger problem with the FM, DM and lift/drag penalties occurring when heavier damage is dealt to the model.

 

The test can be done on any plane where loss of a wheel from an under-wing wheel well is possible, too.

[-SF-Disarray]

If you are trying to test specifically for the effect of the missing wheel, the test you outlined wouldn't be a bad way to investigate it given the tools we have to work with. Obviously the devs have tools that would make the testing much more accurate and perhaps easier. But with what we have to work with a plane like the P-39 would work well if you remove the wing guns. This minimizes the number of guns shooting and, as has been demonstrated, the .50's you'd be left with impart an almost no aerodynamic effect. If you can get the wheel shot off with the .50 AP rounds any large or noticeable increase in drag would likely be down to the missing wheel. The next best candidate would probably be the P-38 with only 4 .50's.

 

Setting it up with bots on a fixed flight path would eliminate the network variable, but as you mentioned the data that you can gather is somewhat limited because the bot can just add power to compensate for increased drag and that might not be noticed if the power increase isn't high enough. You can still see the effects of increased or asymmetric drag on a plane though. As the bot counters the new force the control surfaces will move, so if you see some movement there is obviously some need to counter a new force.

[357th_KW]

I think the big challenge is going to be shooting the wheel off (and just the wheel, since a bunch of additional hits could be producing other damage that you can't necessarily see or quantify).  Once you are dealing with air to air gunnery its REALLY hard to generate anything close to consistent results - especially once your target gets that small.

 

One idea that jumped at me was to have the target aircraft take off over you while you're in a bomber turret on the runway - that would potentially give you a fairly clean shot at the wheel where at least one of you wasn't moving.

 

A better idea might be to tell the AI target to takeoff with a timer delay of some amount (60 seconds or something to give yourself time to aim and shoot) - just shoot the target airplane in the wing from a bomber turret while they are parked, record the rounds hit and see at what point it starts hampering their takeoff.  The only real hard part of this is trying to find the right angle/orientation to get the target into the specific bomber turrets field of fire - just a matter of guess and check.

[unreasonable]

If you did this in a private MP server, you could have someone test speed at a set throttle/rpm position, then lower gear and have the second player shoot off one "leg", best with a bomber gun to ensure that the damage is precisely applied. Raise gear and retest speed at same throttle/rpm.

 

Alternatively you could try flying low enough with gear down to have a ground object like a tank remove gear by colliding with it. This would be doable in SP but would obviously require some practise and a good pilot. Particularly hard to get right in a 109 since the gear track is so narrow that you will have difficulty hitting the tyre against the tank without also hitting the prop, but might be achievable.

 

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I only asked about this test because, to me, it looked like a way to consistently "control" the damage received by the plane and also observe AI behavior.   

 

It's not about that particular type of damage.  My main goal was to find a consistent way to test things like FM and DM.  

 

Since we don't have dev tools that allow us to "type-in" various states of damage on the model, then observe the results, I was hoping to (overall) help get closer to developing a "standardized" method of testing on the consumer end of things.  

Ultimately, I think that's a good goal to aim for.  

 

If I may, I'd like to shift the conversation towards that.  

[-SF-Disarray]

The problem with a single standard for testing is the method of testing will vary significantly based on what is being tested. If you want to, for example, test plane durability, or the durability of a specific part of a plane, a static on the ground type test will work well as everything is sitting still and damage can be meted out in a controlled and precise manner. If you want to test for something that requires movement, such as aerodynamic effects of missing parts, your test cannot be done on the ground and it may be difficult to do this kind of test with only one person in a way that produces reliable and useful data. The test methodology will necessarily be shaped by the question that is being asked so a process formalized in this way isn't really that useful.

[unreasonable]

Exactly - if you want convincing results, you have to test controlling holding all other variables constant, except for the particular one you are testing, which you have to be able to measure, not just look at. Preferably measure often enough to reduce the risk that you are just getting an extreme result from the RNG.

 

That is the ideal at least, difficult to achieve but you can get close in some cases.  There is no single experimental set up that will do this.

 

 

[HR_Tumu]

I think is perfectly ok use MP . The famous netcode no matter here. Idea is archive ,from ground the damage desired to airplane, under controlled situation, on human plane parked to test, one human shoting from bomber.

 

MP netcode issues affect only on " hits count" i mean, u can lose some paket and dont count some hit, ok. Using external views u can verificate if u reached damage level desired.

 

When you reach to damage point desired, human fighter take off and test dinamic parameters.

[-SF-Disarray]

While I agree that MP testing is valuable the devs seem to disagree for some reason. I can understand some of this disagreement, when a clip is sent in and there are so many things going on as is often the case in MP fights it can be hard to determine what is the cause of a particular event. But in a controlled environment on a MP server there should be little difficulty in figuring things out. This difference lies in the distinction between testing data and examples.

[HR_Tumu]

i allways thinked, main reason is netcode , is like some info can be lost and some hits cant count.... for the test ,objective  are reaching "graphic level of damage" no matter to much if you "lost" one bullet, u  can shot another bullet until reach damage level desired and go test aerodinamical results.

If some "pakets" be lost, the number of hits you count maybe isnt exactly what are u seeing, but this "lost paquets coeficient" is easy imagine works in both sides .. and results can be compared.

 

one cuestion...

 

any of you, in a dogfight turning..... recibes a hit ( minnesglosh )  on plane nose* and aprecciate how plane jumps, and change trayectory? is this posible? can u move a 2.5 tones airplanes at 300km/h  with single hit on nose?

 

* it happens to me several times flying P39 with engine rear cockpit.

Edited July 26, 2020 by HRc_Tumu

[Aurora_Stealth]

Like you say, if there's only one or two people on an empty (private) server on a small map - and you can maintain a healthy internet connection and the map is lightly populated (few objects) it should not cause latency and there shouldn't be packet loss.

 

The reason the dev's say to be careful doing tests online is because most people play on the "popular" servers which have 60 - 80 people and all that data is being transferred at the same time. That's a lot of data, especially if its streaming from opposite ends of the world - so where significant events occur (lots of calculations i.e. many bullets, explosions etc) that then causes a spike and some people's excess data can be lost during those data spikes.

[gimpy117]

On 7/26/2020 at 10:50 AM, Aurora_Stealth said:

Like you say, if there's only one or two people on an empty (private) server on a small map - and you can maintain a healthy internet connection and the map is lightly populated (few objects) it should not cause latency and there shouldn't be packet loss.

 

The reason the dev's say to be careful doing tests online is because most people play on the "popular" servers which have 60 - 80 people and all that data is being transferred at the same time. That's a lot of data, especially if its streaming from opposite ends of the world - so where significant events occur (lots of calculations i.e. many bullets, explosions etc) that then causes a spike and some people's excess data can be lost during those data spikes.

but is damage to an aircraft calculated client side or server side? where does the RNG roll happen for damage?