Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why would you think there is more than one damage model ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Why would you think there is more than one damage model ?

 

I'd guess because some claim Camels and Bristols fall to bits with one hit in MP.

Whereas against the bots - they're quite capable of doing a good impression of 'The Black Knight'.

 

S!

 

 

The Black Knight. Big Data the Holy Grail | by Corsair's Publishing |  Creative Analytics

Edited by Zooropa_Fly
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are clearly two different damage models: one for when I'm doing the shooting, and one for when I'm the one being shot at. 😉

  • Haha 11
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Bristols fall to bits with one hit in MP.

Bristol's don't fall to bits, they're as tough as the D7, They do lose their controls with 1 burst though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find when fighting bots, just giving the camel a burst will cause the AI to eventually break it apart if you keep turning with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it sometimes might appear that there are discrepancies between SP and MP DMs because in MP you don't always get  the whole picture in terms of numbers of bullets fired at you and also numbers of bullets hitting you.  Thus you have the common experience of getting hit (and often badly damaged) by what  is apparently your opponent's first burst.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Bristol's don't fall to bits, they're as tough as the D7, They do lose their controls with 1 burst though. 

Camels too. And the funny fact is that you always lose your elevators when first bursts strike you head on (yes, with that massive radial engine in front of you, what you lose is your tail, right).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Camels too. And the funny fact is that you always lose your elevators when first bursts strike you head on (yes, with that massive radial engine in front of you, what you lose is your tail, right).

Don't know if I'm imagining it but I swear the further away the enemy sends you a burst the more likely you lose your controls, I had an enemy shoot me from at least a kilometer away and took out all my controls sending me into the ground.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Don't know if I'm imagining it but I swear the further away the enemy sends you a burst the more likely you lose your controls, I had an enemy shoot me from at least a kilometer away and took out all my controls sending me into the ground.  

This dm has always been weird for long range shooting, I remember back in RoF flight how your pilot could get double wounded from hundreds of rounds being sprayed and airframe and engine would be undamaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Well, for the time being FC is dormant on my ssd. I'm having a blast with wwii content and dcs as well. I'm sure there will be more changes down the road and these game breakers will be solved. Until then, whenever wwi itches, I fire up RoF and voilá. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

I think it sometimes might appear that there are discrepancies between SP and MP DMs because in MP you don't always get  the whole picture in terms of numbers of bullets fired at you and also numbers of bullets hitting you.  Thus you have the common experience of getting hit (and often badly damaged) by what  is apparently your opponent's first burst.

 

My experience also. There is always some lag in MP; sometimes so tiny it isn't noticeable but many bullet strikes get 'lost' in transit. It happens all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been many comments in several other threads that suggest the current thinking is that we don't "see" evidence of every bullet, just some of them.   It would be nice to move beyond the idea that we should be seeing evidence of every bullet strike.  We don't.  Count how many bullet strikes there are in any video and/or count how many bullet holes there are in a plane that gets shot down and compare with how many bullets the shooter (or target) "thinks" actually hit and compare that with the actual parser data.  It will never match.   Parser data shows essentially each "hit" and generally, each hit that isn't a "critical" hit (to pilot, engine, or system and now control wires) shows up as .01% of damage.  Every hit is not alike, so each hit is represented as the percentage of damage it does to the plane (or pilot).   Each plane has 100 hit points of damage it can take, including all the above systems etc. but not including the pilot.  Pilots have a separate 100 hit points they can take.   Hits to pilots are expressed in % based on how serious the hit is (again, not every "hit" is the same).  One bullet can do 100% of damage to either the plane or the pilot, with either ending in the same result.   

 

The other thing that we pretty much have come to a conclusion on (pending any clarification or rebuttal by the devs) is that there is no difference between SP and MP except that our individual experience/perception of them both can lead us to think there is a difference where none exists.   It is likely due to the following, as stated by many before:  AI planes fly within their performance envelope for their current plane state.  So they act very different that players.   Players like to "yank and bank" and tear off their plane parts as a result.  AI doesn't do that.   Of course in SP the AI setting you select makes a difference as well.  Comparing flying against AI vs. players is therefore apples and oranges.   Its different.  But not likely due to the DM being different, because the DM likely is not different.

Edited by J5_Baeumer
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

 

 

The other thing that we pretty much have come to a conclusion on (pending any clarification or rebuttal by the devs) is that there is no difference between SP and MP except that our individual experience/perception of them both can lead us to think there is a difference where none exists.   It is likely due to the following, as stated by many before:  AI planes fly within their performance envelope for their current plane state.  So they act very different that players.   

I think it would be accurate to say that the ai flies well below the envelope for their current plane state, very, very well below.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Count how many bullet strikes there are in any video and/or count how many bullet holes there are in a plane that gets shot down and compare with how many bullets the shooter (or target) "thinks" actually hit and compare that with the actual parser data.

I know for a fact that my Yak was hit by 10,000 bullets. And it still flew, at a very steep angle, until the ground stopped it. And the flames had no effect on my IAS. :lol:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

There have been many comments in several other threads that suggest the current thinking is that we don't "see" evidence of every bullet, just some of them.   It would be nice to move beyond the idea that we should be seeing evidence of every bullet strike.  We don't.  Count how many bullet strikes there are in any video and/or count how many bullet holes there are in a plane that gets shot down and compare with how many bullets the shooter (or target) "thinks" actually hit and compare that with the actual parser data.  It will never match.   Parser data shows essentially each "hit" and generally, each hit that isn't a "critical" hit (to pilot, engine, or system and now control wires) shows up as .01% of damage.  Every hit is not alike, so each hit is represented as the percentage of damage it does to the plane (or pilot).   Each plane has 100 hit points of damage it can take, including all the above systems etc. but not including the pilot.  Pilots have a separate 100 hit points they can take.   Hits to pilots are expressed in % based on how serious the hit is (again, not every "hit" is the same).  One bullet can do 100% of damage to either the plane or the pilot, with either ending in the same result.   

 

The other thing that we pretty much have come to a conclusion on (pending any clarification or rebuttal by the devs) is that there is no difference between SP and MP except that our individual experience/perception of them both can lead us to think there is a difference where none exists.   It is likely due to the following, as stated by many before:  AI planes fly within their performance envelope for their current plane state.  So they act very different that players.   Players like to "yank and bank" and tear off their plane parts as a result.  AI doesn't do that.   Of course in SP the AI setting you select makes a difference as well.  Comparing flying against AI vs. players is therefore apples and oranges.   Its different.  But not likely due to the DM being different, because the DM likely is not different.

 

Agree with the second paragraph but not so sure about the first.

 

If you have 100 HP for the plane, and a hit that (appears) to do nothing special does 0.01% of damage, that would imply that 10,000 generic hits - irrespective of the aircraft - will destroy it.. This seems to have no relationship at all with how the DM actually works in practise. 

 

Every (almost?) hit has some cumulative effect on the specific hit box it contacts, directly or via splinter damage for HE rounds. So  hits on surfaces accumulate to give the surface damage textures that trigger lift/drag penalties. This is specific to each hit box. Similarly AP shots to wings roll for a "spar" hit, with cumulative reduction in G load capability. Hits on engines may trigger engine failure or fire.  An so on - the practical effect of hits is hit box specific. A HP total for the pilot I can see working, since he is in effect a single hit box.

 

The one machanism for which I can see a global health pool working is in certain workings of the ME, especially for AI controlled planes. AI need triggers to make them run away or RTB with damage: the ME also has a "damage threshold" and "delete after death"  option in plane properties, which I assume are where these decisions are controlled, although I have never much experimented with them. So my working hypothesis is that the % damage numbers are nothing more than a simple way of recording damage to control the AI, thus eliminating the need for very complex "if>then" conditions on the whole range of possible damage states. 

 

So if there is an aircraft HP pool, it  appears to have no real meaning for a human player whose behaviour will be controlled by the specific damage to individual components, all of which have their own air craft type defined HP pools, affected in different ways by a range of munitions.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be an RNG element. If you are shot at you are never safe. WW2 flight sim is not Fortnight or MMORPG where you can just "tank some damage". WW2 is risky business. One bullet can end your day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Is there a RNG on "fun"?

 

Yeah. For example in offline CPU aircraft is pretty non RNG, and hence even more boring when compared to online where there is a ton of RNG on what a pilot will do. Also if you go to work there is very little RNG about women working there. But if you go to some new bar there is heckloads of RNG about the women in bar. Back to flying, knowing that you can tank shots safely is boring and unrealistic. You are deprived of the choice of will I have to cut more speed and delay my attack or can I just tank it through. You can just tank it through. I enjoy it the most when bullets can be deadly, and the least when I have hit point bar gradually going down. But that's just me, you are free to enjoy things your way. We don't have to begin to argue which of us is right.

 

Edit: I suspect you think it is not fun if you can get a bullet doing critical damage on your aircraft. I would agree in real. That would totally suck! But since this is a game it matter very little, you just spawn a new plane.

Edited by messsucher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Work women RNG is quite low where I'm at. 🤣

 

Go fly a D7 online, then go fly an albatros online, then come back and tells us which one was more fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Work women RNG is quite low where I'm at. 🤣

 

Go fly a D7 online, then go fly an albatros online, then come back and tells us which one was more fun.

 

😄

 

I have to admit I shamefully wait for sales, then will for sure launch FC right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@unreasonable
 and anyone else interested:  you can confirm what I have said in paragraph one yourself.   Just spend some time reviewing your personal sortie records tab in the parser counting up (separately) the damage and pilot wound totals.  You will see I am 100% correct (pun intended)! 

Share this post


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

 

😄

 

I have to admit I shamefully wait for sales, then will for sure launch FC right away.

My friend waiting for sales is nothing to be ashamed about, especially concerning FC. 😁

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

@unreasonable
 and anyone else interested:  you can confirm what I have said in paragraph one yourself.   Just spend some time reviewing your personal sortie records tab in the parser counting up (separately) the damage and pilot wound totals.  You will see I am 100% correct (pun intended)! 

 

I accept that your account of what the parser says is accurate: I have never used it.  What I am saying, is that this is a misleading description of how the DM actually works. 

 

For instance, you can be relatively undamaged and get a couple of unlucky hits in a wing that weaken or break a spar, leading to loss of the plane very quickly. You do not lose your plane because the hits to the wing do x amount of global hit points: you lose it because your virtual spar in that particular wing hit box takes x amount of hits, via RNG applied to hits in that hit box, reducing it's ability to carry G.  This was described in great detail by AnP  in the great FC-wing-DM thread: no mention whatever of "global hit points". Likewise you can now get a single unlucky hit which freezes your elevators - your plane is now lost, irrespective of the number of hits you have taken.

 

How many "Hit Points" lost is the parser showing in this kind of case?  There is no way that the upper outer spar, or the elevator control rods, for instance, can each be pre-assigned 90-100% of the "total hit point pool" - so if the parser is showing 100% damage after this kind of loss, it is reversing cause and effect and assigning a % to make the total add up to 100%, (perhaps when you crash or bail out?) 

 

Why would the DM maintain a running total of % damage including topping up in the way I have hypothesised?  Because the mission editor needs it for AI decisions (damage reports and RTB) and also the "delete after death" option to clear up objects.  

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ME works fine using the method.  The devs have already stated there are no hitboxes, just probabilities of various critical hits based on variables such as relative plane positions and other factors.  

 

Suggest you review the posts by developer APetrovich and related discussion around the damage model.

 

This is why damage is expressed in % underscoring the point (another pun intended)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airplanes do have hitboxes but not to degrade of individual  spars or cables unfortunately,  what would happen in that particular location depends of what vital parts are there, outcome is calculated in formula where RNG is applied.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh ....

 

So there's only one damage model then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

The ME works fine using the method.  The devs have already stated there are no hitboxes, just probabilities of various critical hits based on variables such as relative plane positions and other factors.  

 

Suggest you review the posts by developer APetrovich and related discussion around the damage model.

 

This is why damage is expressed in % underscoring the point (another pun intended)!

 

Please link to any developer post stating that there are no hit boxes.  I will swap you for this: 

 

The damage is expressed in % in the parser - which is not AFAIK an official IL-2 piece of software - I suspect for the reasons I gave: the ME needs a simple way of adding up cumulative damage to force AI decisions. It is not practical to code the  AI to react to all of the various combinations of damage it could take: you need a shortcut.  The ME works fine like that: but this is not how the DM actually works. You are confusing cause and effect: the % damage is just an accounting trick, it determines nothing except AI behaviour and object deletion. 

 

Just to save you the trouble of sorting through the linked thread: 

 

 

1547924058_AnPHitboxes.thumb.JPG.7a6a8c872cc358719f9a86c9a018ff1d.JPG

 

3 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Airplanes do have hitboxes but not to degrade of individual  spars or cables unfortunately,  what would happen in that particular location depends of what vital parts are there, outcome is calculated in formula where RNG is applied.

 

Although there are no spar hit boxes within the wing hit boxes, the RNG to hit a spar is based on the angle and the particular hit box in the wing that is hit. I think that is what you are saying here - just want to clarify. Again no global pool of hit points - you break the spar in a particular wing hit box or you do not.

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

Ahhhh ....

 

So there's only one damage model then?

 

Yes - but given that the individual components in it have different strengths, and the various ammunition types different destructive power, each of which no doubt the developers have made their best efforts to model within the current limitations of the game, you have people having psychotic episodes of anger and hatred over in GB because planes are felt to be too stronk, while here the same because planes are felt to be too weak! 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what little I have read it appears the game does have a decent damage modelling design, but naturally some parameters need adjusting, everything rarely go right in the first get go.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, wasn't there a thread showing the hit boxes that are modeled in game?

 

Ive tried looking for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 9./JG52_JamzDackel said:

Guys, wasn't there a thread showing the hit boxes that are modeled in game?

 

Ive tried looking for it

 

In the thread I linked there are some player speculations about the SPAD's wing hit boxes just before AnP's post,  which seem roughly correct. (April 22 in the thread) The Camel's would be a bit different. Easiest way to see them is a static ground test and shoot them off a bit a t a time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 9./JG52_JamzDackel said:

Guys, wasn't there a thread showing the hit boxes that are modeled in game?

 

Ive tried looking for it

 

Hit boxes 🙂

 

image.png.b83cf80f6424ede89655a2341b10105e.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, messsucher said:

From what little I have read it appears the game does have a decent damage modelling design, but naturally some parameters need adjusting, everything rarely go right in the first get go.


Oh ! The irony.  Everybody, more, or less, was, actually, quite happy with the DM at the first go. It was only when they tried to improve it, off the back of the other modules that things became “less fun”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

less fun”.

Sometimes less fun is more realistic, and personaly I like it. What we don't see is best in genere but what we see is unfortunetly not and therefore  we relay more on probalistic model.  Whats this simulation  lack is very close visual representation of given damage. For example if I would see my  tension wires dangling loose or exactly  that  broken spar I would not make any G-load maneuver for sure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Sometimes less fun is more realistic, and personaly I like it. What we don't see is best in genere but what we see is unfortunetly not and therefore  we relay more on probalistic model.  Whats this simulation  lack is very close visual representation of given damage. For example if I would see my  tension wires dangling loose or exactly  that  broken spar I would not make any G-load maneuver for sure.

 

Yeah, absolutely, except more realistic is more fun too because simulators itself are fun. I haven't ever had so much fun as I have in no technochat TAW server even though I haven't shot down a single aircraft!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

Yeah, absolutely, except more realistic is more fun too because simulators itself are fun. I haven't ever had so much fun as I have in no technochat TAW server even though I haven't shot down a single aircraft!

Yes , fighting without technochat is really rewarding,  you need to know machine and it's limits and observe it behavior to act accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...