Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It all makes the assumption that what we have now, because it “might” be more complex is therefore “more” realistic.  Interestingly The Dolphin, one of the most fragile aircraft in the game, in the guise of the Dolphin 2, with a 300hp engine, was slated as the successor to the SE5a and Spad XIII In the British, French and American airforces.  I can’t imagine for one moment that that would have been the case if it was considered a death trap and not up to the rigours of combat, therefore we all have the right to question the “realism” that we are being presented with, whatever the ultimate cause of the problem.  
 

Nobody seemed overly concerned with a lack of realism prior to the DM overhaul

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are more subtleties to this.  Almost as if there are layers to the DM.  He mentions, "skin DM" and visual DM.   The discussion was about visual representation of damage..... bullet/hit counting.   This suggests graphic tiles/files that compose each plane model....and representing damage....visually.... by swapping out graphic files to visually represent damage to a part of the plane model....like when we see struts broken or bent, as an example.   Damage to sections of the model to represent damage visually.  This would be different than an underlying damage model and hit boxes per se, as I am at least thinking of the traditional "hit box" modeling, like in the older sims.

 

image.thumb.png.a2e2dea3031c70d8ff69f4ac6c70842f.png

 

However, reading further UP in the thread we come to his earlier post below...

 

image.thumb.png.7fdf118fa6291cf6cfdb36a15ff35925.png

 

 

(click the arrow in the upper right corner in the post below to go directly to the post in question.

 


I think there is a bit of semantics going on here, but I believe all the highlighted points read 3 or 4 times makes it clear, especially in #5.   There are pieces of the plane model.  Some may want to call these "hitboxes", but they are graphic files assembled to visually represent the object model (planes for this disucssion).  There are layers to these pieces (aka hitboxes).  But there is no damage point value per se like hit points. 

 

I contend that to really BE a "hitbox", that box needs to have hit points, in the traditional sense of "hitboxes" that people seem to be referring to in the posts.

 

Read and reflect on his statement between 3b and 4 in his post carefully. 

 

Then consider that what everyone's complaint has been is that the damage model is borked and causes wings to shed (and now critical damage to surface control modelling complaints, which is a related but separate issue.  

 

The conversation here and elsewhere is about the wingshedding and that is governed by the spars and that does not use any hitbox, as he states clearly in #3.

 

Don't confuse visual damage modeling with damage modeling, which is more based on probability theory.  The results of the probability theory algorithms Andy references RESULT in visual damage modeling to provide for visual cues to players, which he clearly states and we all know from experience by now, does not model (visually) every single bullet strike.

 

Its an algorithm that drives visual damage representations on various pieces ("boxes") of the modeled object.   I contend that what Andy referrs to once as "major hit boxes", are in fact graphic files that are separate and reflect the results of the damage to a particular part of the "visual" damage model, as determined by the probability algorithms Andy references frequently. 

I think that what seems to add to the confusion is that the following table, provided by Andy, might lead some of us to believe that this is a graphical representation illustrating or being related to a spar hit box, which we know by reading Andy's statement in #3 above, does not exist.

 

image.png.57a3ce007e5f30aff44b73da774b40ac.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please dial back the condescension a little. 

 

You can contend what you like, but AnP explicitly discusses hit boxes, and everyone except you seems to understand what they are perfectly. They do not necessarily have to have a Hit Points pool.  They are used in the first instance to determine initial hit/collision recognition. That is what a hit box is, by definition, and why adding more of them is a problem, as AnP explains. Once you have recognised the hit or collision, the programmer can then create any consequences he likes.

 

The game uses hit boxes, but not everything in the game that can be damaged has it's own hit box: which anyone who has read the FC DM threads carefully already knows.

 

Really, it is not complicated, you would be much better off just accepting that you have got this a little bit wrong and move on. 

 

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 7:23 PM, unreasonable said:

Please dial back the condescension a little. 

 

Once you have recognised the hit or collision, the programmer can then create any consequences he likes.


 

 

 

 

  

An important point here is the programmer is using probability theory, which means that the outcome is uncertain because the CPU is just throwing a dice at this point. This also means that the outcome can, and will, be different for similar conditions depending on a random throw of a dice (within certain parameters). In other words, you may shed a wing or you may not. You have no real way of assessing wing damage other than probabilities, nothing is certain.

The only way of being certain is to avoid being hit in the first place.

 

 

 

Edited by Rail

Share this post


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

An important point here is the programmer is using probability theory, which means that the outcome is uncertain because the CPU is just throwing a dice at this point. This also means that the outcome can, and will, be different for similar conditions depending on a random throw of a dice (within certain parameters). In other words, you may shed a wing or you may not. You have no real way of assessing wing damage other than probabilities, nothing is certain.

 

 

Which, I think, is a good thing for realism.  However,  it leads to frustrations because we remember the one time we "took two hits and the wings folded", but we forget the many times we "took two hits".

 

To go back to the hitbox discussion, it seems to me that the spar-damage-probability is not the problem in terms of discrepancies between the DM's effect on different airframes.  The problem is more to do with the fact that spar thickness and/or strength seem to be the only criteria for  assessing the probability of wing-shedding.  Airframes that employ a big spar as the main way of engendering structural stability suffer less at the hands of the current DM than those which employ rigging wires to do the same thing.  This change to the DM is, as we know,  about improving the DM for WW2 modules where spars important, but rigging wires are not.

 

As for the control cables/rods being so easily shot out, I've no fucking clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Which, I think, is a good thing for realism.  However,  it leads to frustrations because we remember the one time we "took two hits and the wings folded", but we forget the many times we "took two hits".

 

To go back to the hitbox discussion, it seems to me that the spar-damage-probability is not the problem in terms of discrepancies between the DM's effect on different airframes.  The problem is more to do with the fact that spar thickness and/or strength seem to be the only criteria for  assessing the probability of wing-shedding.  Airframes that employ a big spar as the main way of engendering structural stability suffer less at the hands of the current DM than those which employ rigging wires to do the same thing.  This change to the DM is, as we know,  about improving the DM for WW2 modules where spars important, but rigging wires are not.

 

As for the control cables/rods being so easily shot out, I've no fucking clue.

I agree. I was trying to say that it is the nearest thing that you will get to realism. Folk tend to believe that fate is written in the stars and that maths can explain everything. It doesn't! Quantum mechanics is based on probabilities and the uncertainty principle. Here we have it in full glory.

Share this post


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

I agree. I was trying to say that it is the nearest thing that you will get to realism. Folk tend to believe that fate is written in the stars and that maths can explain everything. It doesn't! Quantum mechanics is based on probabilities and the uncertainty principle. Here we have it in full glory.

 

I am both shot down and not shot down until the wave collapses. ;) 

 

But yes I agree - some people find this immensely frustrating, preferring a clear causal explanation for each event, preferably through mechanisms under their complete control. Like chess.  I find the uncertainty entirely in line with my experience of life!

 

Whether the probabilities baked into the game is another matter: for spar hits they should be, as that is just geometry. 

 

8 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Which, I think, is a good thing for realism.  However,  it leads to frustrations because we remember the one time we "took two hits and the wings folded", but we forget the many times we "took two hits".

 

To go back to the hitbox discussion, it seems to me that the spar-damage-probability is not the problem in terms of discrepancies between the DM's effect on different airframes.  The problem is more to do with the fact that spar thickness and/or strength seem to be the only criteria for  assessing the probability of wing-shedding.  Airframes that employ a big spar as the main way of engendering structural stability suffer less at the hands of the current DM than those which employ rigging wires to do the same thing.  This change to the DM is, as we know,  about improving the DM for WW2 modules where spars important, but rigging wires are not.

 

As for the control cables/rods being so easily shot out, I've no fucking clue.

 

On the spars vs wires issue, it is clear that the wire construction allows planes to take loads that the same spars sans wires cannot. What I am less sure about is whether this composite construction is more vulnerable to having a piece damaged, but I suspect this is the issue.  I do not think the max g loads of the planes are arrived at - in general - just by looking at the thickness of the spars and multiplying by some set variable. They are arrived at through a load test or similar for an undamaged structure. But a thin spar is obviously going to take a bigger percentage degradation per hit than a thick spar. It seems reasonable to me that the total load bearing of the system is also reduced proportionately.

 

It seems to me that what we have is a representation of a genuine change or difference in design philosophy - wires allowed for a reduction in weight to get a certain G load strength, but at the cost of lack of redundancy to damage. 

 

The control rods issue is a puzzle and annoyance for me too - seems to happen remarkably often.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah yeah I get it but what about ones online stats and kill/death ratio! And frickin cred on the leader boards! Have pity man .... for the love of .... oh what's the use. :cray:

 

Back to Battlefield 1 :huh:

Share this post


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

Yeah yeah I get it but what about ones online stats and kill/death ratio! And frickin cred on the leader boards! Have pity man .... for the love of .... oh what's the use. :cray:

 

Back to Battlefield 1 :huh:

Well I'm such a piss-poor virtual combat pilot that I don't think my K/D has been altered by the DM changes, so perhaps that's why I'm more sanguine about them than others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

«Structural weakness of Sopwith Triplane??»

 

Found this link o The Aerodrome page, it concerns the Sopwith Triplane, but nevertheless makes interesting reading: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65902

Great read. The thread is pointing towards the idea that some Tripes built by subcontractors had structural weakness, but that the issue was fixed later and Collishaw was satisfied with the modification. Reminds me of the issues with some of the early Dr1s with substandard glue.

 

Clearly some examples of both types with inherent structural issues from construction would risk wing failure, but it doesn’t add much to the discussion on the FC DM.

Edited by US93_Rummell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

 built by subcontractors had structural weakness

 

Yeah nowt to do with the FC DM but does raise the unfortunate circumstance of subcontracted manufacturers delivering substandard planes which killed pilots. And not just the Tripe or Dr1 I expect. War is hell indeed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of spars and bracing wires, I’m assuming a wing with smaller spars and lots of bracing wires would still offer similar strength to a wing with thicker spars and no wires? Also surely wires are harder to hit than a thick wing spar?

 

The Dvii may have a thickish spar but it will still break after a certain amount of bullets, and without additional bracing wouldn’t that be weaker than say a Bristol wing with a hit spar?

 

What I’m trying to get at is why Fokker went for wings without wires - was it to make the wings much tougher? I’ve not come across much in the literature to suggest the Dr1 or Dvii was considerably more durable than the Spad xiii. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong but  I believe Fokker's wings were of self supporting rigid cantilever construction. Wire braced wings (non-rigid) used the box kite rigging method to give rigidity otherwise they'd just just flop about leading to catastrophic failure. Both were equally strong if they remained undamaged of course.

 

I've often wondered why the allies persisted with wire braced wings when clearly cantilever design was the future. I can only guess (perhaps) they were cheaper/easier to manufacture or allowed thinner wings for greater speed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

Fokker found that he could make a spar out of several layers of boards. It was a box. A very long box. The structure was stronger and much lighter than a solid piece of wood.

 

Most planes had a thin wing to reduce drag. There were some shapes that were thicker and still had a low drag number.

 

In WW I, most biplanes had the top wing attached to the fuselage with some struts in front of the cockpit. The lift force of the top wing travels through the spars and over to these struts. Unfortunately the lift force is stronger than the spars. To keep the wing from lifting up and snapping, wires attacked to the outer part of the wing that go to the bottom of the fuselage carry some of the lift force and keep the wing from folding upwards. The lift force from the bottom wing goes up through the outer struts to the top wing and then down through the wires to the fuselage. The wires add a lot of drag but no wires no flying.

 

Fokkers wings were strong and did not need the wires. A step forward that would eventually lead the the fast mono planes of W II.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Correct me if I'm wrong but  I believe Fokker's wings were of self supporting rigid cantilever construction. Wire braced wings (non-rigid) used the box kite rigging method to give rigidity otherwise they'd just just flop about leading to catastrophic failure. Both were equally strong if they remained undamaged of course.

 

I've often wondered why the allies persisted with wire braced wings when clearly cantilever design was the future. I can only guess (perhaps) they were cheaper/easier to manufacture or allowed thinner wings for greater speed? 

 

I am not sure if they (braced wings) were necessarily easier/cheaper to manufacture in the long run, but they would have been both initially, for suppliers with a few years of experience of making the wire braced designs and none of cantilever box spars. Once they had settled on a wing design that seemed to work, changing over would have caused a new set of problems and would probably have caused delays in prototype development and deliveries: possibly lower profits!  

 

Just shuffling around the basic components on new prototypes while tinkering with each one - a bit bigger engine, larger rudder, extra wing bay, etc was easier and quicker to do than a radical change. As a bit of an outsider, I think Fokker had to come up with something drastic to get a look in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Hugo Junkers was way ahead of Tony Fokker. Not only in cantilever wings but also in metal construction. (I wouldn't be surprised if someone else presaged him also).

 

The general consensus of the time saw monoplanes as weak. The RAF actually outlawed them. Also, they thought that thin \ undercambered wings were less drag (it seems to be common sense... right? Bird wings are all like that). With 20 / 20 aftersight, we forget that they were ALL in the dark at that early point of aerodynamics. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_J_1 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. I still don’t see why a damaged Fokker wing spar would be a stronger structure than a damaged Sopwith wing spar with all bracing still in tact. Surely the bracing shares some of the load with the spars?

 

Without wires, wouldn’t the Fokker spar represent a greater risk of failure to the overall wing? Moreover, the spar is a bigger target than the tiny metal wires. I get that it could potentially absorb more hits than the Sopwith, but the way it’s modelled it feels like the Fokker wing is all metal and near indestructible like the RoF dviii. Ive not come across a single source in the main literature that the Fokker wing was known to be considerably more resistant to damage than Entente mainstays allowing pilots to stay longer in fights. The only reference I have found is to a pair of Fokkers losing their wings following a Spad XIII down in a dive.


There’s lots of evidence to show the Fokker model benefited from less wire drag and allowed for excellent lift and turn - that makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are designing a structure for maximum efficiency in terms of strength to weight, you make all components no thicker/heavier than they need to be - expected maximum load, plus a safety factor. Now, the loads in a Fokker cantilever-wing design are clearly distributed very differently than in the complex multiple-spars-and-rigging-wires 'box girder' layout more common at the time, but in either case, if you do sufficient damage to any structural part under load, it is going to fail. Neither design is inherently stronger or weaker - it depends on how accurately you estimate the loads, how well you match your structure to those loads, and what your safety margin is.

 

As far as damage goes, in the WW1 air combat context you are looking at what rifle-calibre hits are going to do to the structure. Hit anything structural directly, wood or wire, and you are going to damage it. A wire will likely break, if not immediately then when subsequently put under high load. With a wooden spar, where you hit it, and how thick it is in relation to the size of the projectile, are going to matter more, With a thick cantilever box spar, a hole near the top - under compression under normal loads - or the bottom - under tension - is going to have more of an effect on ultimate strength than one through the middle, where the structure is largely resisting relatively low shear loads. Wire-braced wings almost always have much thinner spars, since the bending loads are largely taken by the wires. A hit on such a spar is less likely than a larger Fokker box spar, but simply because the projectile is larger in relation to the spar cross-section, any such hit is likely to compromise it more. So again, neither wing structure design is inherently more damage resistant - it depends on where the damage occurs.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Thanks for the replies. I still don’t see why a damaged Fokker wing spar would be a stronger structure than a damaged Sopwith wing spar with all bracing still in tact.

 

Also, because an undamaged Fokker cantilever wing spar is a stronger structure than an undamaged Sopwith wing spar with all the bracing still intact.

 

They might have been designed to expected load plus a safety factor, but the evidence is that the total allowable load for cantilever Fokker wings was considerably more than for Sopwiths, especially evident on the D.VII, and these loads are reflected in the game. (Except the Pfalz, apparently). 

 

  

 

    

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, to clarify I accept that the undamaged Fokker structure was likely more durable. I’m unconvinced on the level of disparity between the durability of a damaged Dvii wing to say a Spad wing, particularly after 0.1% damage and the impact even a single bullet has permanently on the wing strength regardless of which part it hits. If you read Leon Bennett’s study on bullet grouping from actual ww1 experiments, it seems unlikely that the majority of hits to anything but meat and metal would result in catastrophic damage; there is little to no evidence I’ve seen that the Dvii design was substantially stronger after damage than the Spad. Please cite multiple sources if you have them. I question whether spar strength should be the single measure of durability and the now tank-like Dvii.

 

Bennett also notes the large number of bullets fired by MvR for some of his kills, including where broke up occurred. In some cases breakup was possibly dude to a dead or wounded pilot losing control and over stressing - hard to be 100% sure without subsequent autopsy. The higher the number of bullets fired the more likely it was to hit a smaller key component: “...but given some thought, he decided that close range was overly dangerous - a few well-aimed rounds might find him or, and far more likely, collision might result. As he put it: “I had gone so close that I was afraid I might dash into the Englishman.”...Richthofen officially expended bullet counts ranging from 200 to 300 to 400 and even 800 cartridges.” 

 

Just reading through Under the Guns of the Red Baron, the first dozen kills mostly required hundreds of rounds; even at kill 54 he’s firing 300 odd rounds. I regularly snap Dva wings with a single Vickers burst from 300m+.

 

Here is a thought experiment: do you think a burst of 50 rounds at 200m from astern are more likely to hit multiple c.5mm or smaller bracing wires and a smaller spar in the wing, or a bigger spar?
 

I welcome evidence that the Dvii could take several times the wing punishment than say a Spad and still be able to pull substantial G loads; the weight of evidence from what I’ve read does not match our current situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addendum: Sous Lt Risacher witnessed three DVIIs disintegrating on 18/10/1918. “Suddenly I saw a SPAD coming in shooting. The Germans saw the source of the attack - one German passed to my left with the SPAD on his tail. The SPAD shot him and he fell to pieces...At the very same moment a second SPAD - I knew it was American aeroplane by his cockade - coming in at full speed took on another hun and shot him to pieces. I said ‘God save America!’, and at that moment I put speed into my old aeroplane and took a third DVII in a loop. He looked behind me and then fell to pieces, crashing to earth”. The only time I have ever seen a DVII break up under the current model in FC is when they dive and pull violently after heavy damage. I’ve never managed to saw off wings on one remotely as easily as you can with the CL2, Dv or even Dr1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to convince you of anything, but a few comments seem relevant:

 

1) As I am sure you are aware, "multiple sources" for just about anything WW1 aviation related is an unrealistic expectation.  You asked "why a damaged Fokker wing spar would be a stronger structure than a damaged Sopwith wing spar with all bracing still intact." and you have a reasonable answer.

 

2) The DM is inevitably an approximation, based as far as possible on some objective rules applied to what is known to the developers about WW1 aircraft structures. IMHO the current implementation is broadly reasonable and consistent with the sources I have read, especially given the difficulty of interpreting anecdotes. (See (3)). You disagree.  If you want to present the developers with new information, or propose a different DM to that currently implemented based on other rules no-one is stopping you.

 

3)  Anecdotes - we all got 'em.  Going through MvR's kills, a substantial proportion of them involved planes reported as breaking up, sometimes after very few shots.  See my earlier detailed thread on MvR's kills.   But MvR's language is specific and varied: his wings came off, wings folded up, fuselage collapsed etc.  "Shot him to pieces" could be anything: perhaps wings, or perhaps he means the pilot. 

 

4)   0.1% damage is meaningless unless you actually know how the % damage from the stats used in MP relate to the underlying mechanics of the DM.  These stats are, I think, a mechanism for the game to keep an approximate score so that it can trigger certain AI actions. In the ME you can set a "level" of damage which triggers damage reports and RTB decisions. This has been in the ME forever, years before the current "virtual spar" wing DM was developed.  So there is no way of knowing how well these % numbers match up with the detailed calculations of component damage as they now stand.  We all know - or should know by now - that there is no "location" for hits below the level of the hit box. Hits on components below hit box level are RNG and p related. 

 

5) The main, obvious inaccuracy in FC's current DM has nothing to do with wings: it is that it does not model incendiary or explosive bullets, which were in common use in 1918 by GAF and RAF units, also in balloon guns in US units (and I assume the French, since they also ordered 11mm Vickers).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m with you on the incendiary rounds. The balloon guns in particular don’t seem to have this modelled.

 

I already took your point on the overall strength of the Dvii structure vs earlier designs, but you’ve not convinced me that it should be as tough as it is at present. There’s anecdotal evidence to suggest that the Dvii could and did break up after typical battle damage; the modelled plane in sim now can take an absurd beating. The weakness of other wings is open to debate.
 

My feeling is that we have extremes at the moment with say the Dva and the Dvii; one too weak and one too strong. Likewise, the amount of flamers was probably too high when the game released; now it feels too rare and well off the various firsthand accounts.

 

The point about the 0.1% damage is that we have accumulative damage (as I understand it) where a single hit will always have an effect on the Gs you can pull, rather than (far more likely) travelling through the canvas and having a negligible impact on structure or performance. Surely a hit should have a low random chance of hitting a spar and most others doing little to nothing. If wings were so weak and easy to shoot off, why did MvR, McCudden, Fonck etc etc all aim for meat and metal? It seems insultingly obvious to point out that this was the best way to take down a plane - one or two rounds in the wing usually did nothing; one or two in the pilot or tank was often fatal.


My suggestion: randomise the chance of wing hits landing on a spar and causing additional damage/critical hit (higher chance with a bigger spar), strengthen the weaker wings and dial back the toughest ones, increase flamer chance, and model incendiary rounds.

 

Salute!

PS I don’t think you’re unreasonable! You’re very reasoned for a forum poster 🙂

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

The point about the 0.1% damage is that we have accumulative damage (as I understand it) where a single hit will always have an effect on the Gs you can pull, rather than (far more likely) travelling through the canvas and having a negligible impact on structure or performance. Surely a hit should have a low random chance of hitting a spar and most others doing little to nothing. If wings were so weak and easy to shoot off, why did MvR, McCudden, Fonck etc etc all aim for meat and metal? It seems insultingly obvious to point out that this was the best way to take down a plane - one or two rounds in the wing usually did nothing; one or two in the pilot or tank was often fatal.


My suggestion: randomise the chance of wing hits landing on a spar and causing additional damage/critical hit (higher chance with a bigger spar), strengthen the weaker wings and dial back the toughest ones, increase flamer chance, and model incendiary rounds.

 

Salute!

PS I don’t think you’re unreasonable! You’re very reasoned for a forum poster 🙂

 

Thank you! 

 

From AnP's explanation, and much experimentation with the WW2 planes, a single hit on a wing does not always have an effect of Gs: my understanding is that it does three things:

 

1) It adds some quantity of cumulative damage to the score that affects the appearance of the visible damage graphic on the wing surface.  There are three levels of surface damage graphic, the first of which just shows that you have been hit, the second adds a lift/drag penalty to that wing area, the third likewise but more so. These have cumulative effects if more than one area is damaged. I do not think these can accumulate to complete failure of the section: that depends on the "spar", see (2).

 

2) It rolls an RNG against a probability to hit a "spar". The probability of the spar hit is a matter of the angle and the relative size of the wing hit box and the spar - ie geometry. So from shots from near to 90 degrees, the probability of a "spar" hit is proportional to the width of the spar(s) and the wing. From the rear or front, it is very high. Even from 45 degrees it is quite high as the top and sides of the spar are exposed. If it rolls for a miss, then there is no effect on maximum G load.

 

If it rolls for a hit, I think it rolls again to "place" the hit along the spar. Hits close together on the length of the spar have more effect than those far apart: as though hits are ticking off boxes in an array, say x deep and y wide, where the maximum G load is represented by the number of unticked x boxes left in each column.  Tick all the boxes in a column and the wing breaks off at any G.

 

So a thin "spar" loses maximum G faster than a thick one, as the Gs per x are be higher to start with, assuming the same original load.  Also, if hit, a short wing section is more likely to be broken than a long one: as it is more likely to get two hits in a column. 

 

3) It does something that corresponds to the 0.1% or whatever, that you see in the parser for AI damage accounting and decision making. Quite how this relates to the specifics of (1) and (2) I have no idea.  

Edited by unreasonable

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...