Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Recommended Posts

I like the clear breakdown in this one and the highlighted differences. The one thing that could improve is more testing like maybe 10 or more times per section but I strongly feel the results would be the same based on my experiences playing both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your waisting time testing they can test things faster and fix whats broken if they wonted to, 0.50 were just fine untill 4.005 changed something and it was imidiatly clear that they become mutch weeker since then, you aint gona change mineds of people after 7-8 monhs, their mineds are set in 0.50 is broken or its just fine as its now. When you have to make ammo work in tanks ww1 and ww2 airplanes one part will be brokn.

They can easy test all guns in game if they wont to fined where the problem is:

As I told you recently, I have a special dev-tool that allows me to perform thousands and thousands tests very quickly, instead of firing at an airplane in the game. Using this tool in each test I can measure the number of hits required to break a particular airframe part of the particular airplane, taking into account the direction of shooting (in 3D space) and the particular type of ammo. In the past there was an issue with this tool: the airframe was tested unloaded (meaning the zero-gravity conditions). Thus, this tool measured the number of hits taking into account only the self-strength of the airframe.
 

But here is a good news: last week I improved this tool. Now we can perform this test for the airplane in flight, at given altitude, airspeed, and G-load (in the level-turn other than 1G), while the airplane remains balanced by control surfaces. If the airplane can not be balanced at given airspeed and G-load because of the power deficiency, than we simulate a hard-break turn, meaning that the airplane reaches this G-load at this airspeed while it decelerates during the level turn.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =[PANDA]=TheRedPanda said:

I like the clear breakdown in this one and the highlighted differences. The one thing that could improve is more testing like maybe 10 or more times per section but I strongly feel the results would be the same based on my experiences playing both sides.

I understand what you're saying, however there was very little deviation from one test to the next in terms of the number of hits required to achieve the desired effect. We did more testing than we have reported here on other aspects of the sim that I will not mention and came to the conclusion that, for those, we did need much larger sample sizes.

 

22 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Your waisting time testing they can test things faster and fix whats broken if they wonted to, 0.50 were just fine untill 4.005 changed something and it was imidiatly clear that they become mutch weeker since then, you aint gona change mineds of people after 7-8 monhs, their mineds are set in 0.50 is broken or its just fine as its now.

I disagree that it is a waste of time. What then should we do, throw our hands up into the air and walk away? Let's not be quitters. :)

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

I understand what you're saying, however there was very little deviation from one test to the next in terms of the number of hits required to achieve the desired effect. We did more testing than we have reported here on other aspects of the sim that I will not mention and came to the conclusion that, for those, we did need much larger sample sizes.

 

I disagree that it is a waste of time. What then should we do, throw our hands up into the air and walk away? Let's not be quitters. :)

This also lines up with other testing I've seen from Unreasonable, and my personal experience. 

 

Hopefully it will help that it's been presented so professionally.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This confirms most of what people have been saying, (including me ;) ). One caveat : your "hits to damage" reflect your particular test set up, and the resulting hit distribution. This may well model an idealised in-flight attack, but it is not the absolute minimum numbers required to get the required levels of damage, which are much lower.

 

For instance: "What we discovered was that it literally is not possible to achieve level two aerodynamic damage with the M2 .50 before structural failure occurs on the wing of a Bf-109G14."

 

If you do static testing with the A20 top .50 cal, aiming the shots into one (middle) wing section you get level 2 before the wing breaks off about 1/3 of the time, after about 25 hits.  Additionally, when I test the Fw190 D wing using the same method, I get level 2 damage after about 30 hits: ie less than half your result.

 

So there is certainly some other variable in your tests: assuming that your hit recognition numbers are correct, this is possibly hits being spread over multiple hit boxes, including flaps and ailerons. 

  

 

 

G14 level 2.jpg

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2021 at 8:18 AM, unreasonable said:

This confirms most of what people have been saying, (including me ;) ). One caveat : your "hits to damage" reflect your particular test set up, and the resulting hit distribution. This may well model an idealised in-flight attack, but it is not the absolute minimum numbers required to get the required levels of damage, which are much lower.

 

For instance: "What we discovered was that it literally is not possible to achieve level two aerodynamic damage with the M2 .50 before structural failure occurs on the wing of a Bf-109G14."

 

If you do static testing with the A20 top .50 cal, aiming the shots into one (middle) wing section you get level 2 before the wing breaks off about 1/3 of the time, after about 25 hits.  Additionally, when I test the Fw190 D wing using the same method, I get level 2 damage after about 30 hits: ie less than half your result.

 

Thanks for pointing that out, that is interesting. I wonder what about the damage model calculations change with altitude, planes in flight, etc? Were the planes that you were shooting player-controlled aircraft or static objects?

 

In any event, using bombers on the ground to focus fire on a component changes several variables in the process (altitude, airspeed, forces on the aircraft, etc). It's an interesting point, but it doesn't make me question our conclusions since we saw incredibly consistent results each time we performed the test with the same parameters.

 

One last thing... the screenshot you shared doesn't coincide with what we considered "level two" damage to be. It was only once we got to this level of visual damage that we saw an appreciable drag penalty. See below:
_t1zgPSBSMEtr8x02ZmhvSZxEg4eubRc_YgeWqhqPzuvdq4Kc3w27HlD5wyFtf4s6iVUReivoDiDHTbsZWysNUgYczjceCc2SDYROFMHuYUSK1OJeiBsvQRYQ41JVIS5dNwRzLRK

Since @unreasonable believes that we have misrepresented what we consider "level two" aerodynamic damage to be, I want to clarify something: our testing was done against aircraft in flight while shooting at the wing from zero degrees angle off tail approximately 100-200m away with zero closure. All of his testing was done on the ground with bombers shooting at stationary targets hitting wings at oblique angles. There are at least three critical differences between the two tests. I also want to point out that we observed the HE rounds causing "splash" damage to multiple segments of a wing with a single burst. In the above screenshot, I consider this to be "level two" aerodynamic damage on two segments of the wing (inner and middle). Here are a few more screenshots taken from the track files that we uploaded showing our testing:

image.thumb.png.7750850d43bd71429e28dd8c5f97431a.png

In the above screenshot, a single burst of MG131 caused "level two" aerodynamic damage to the middle and outer segments of the wing. Here is another:image.thumb.png.c8d6435c3d9651617439a6a682a8ec12.png
Notice that in the above screenshot, the damage doesn't look quite the same as the screenshot above for the same wing segment. The difference is irrelevant because our testing was about appreciable drag. It's very obvious when it happens because the plane begins to yaw towards the wing with damage. It is when that occurred that we concluded each aerodynamic test.

Edited by QB.Creep
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

If you do static testing with the A20 top .50 cal, aiming the shots into one (middle) wing section you get level 2 before the wing breaks off about 1/3 of the time, after about 25 hits.  Additionally, when I test the Fw190 D wing using the same method, I get level 2 damage after about 30 hits: ie less than half your result.

A static unloaded wing at point blank vs a flying loaded wing with a round covering distance at speed isn't going to be a comparable test.

 

There are definitely some discrepancies though so it is worth pointing out. The fact you can sheer off a wing before it having an appreciable effect on the aerodynamics of a plane does seem a bit off to me.

 

I did some similar tests with the A20 and sheering off the wing doesn't seem to take that many more rounds than sheering off surfaces from the tail section. 

 

When you run these tests on the ground it seems to bring up even more issues.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@unreasonable

You make a fair point, but seeing as we don't have access to dev tools, we wanted to keep the test as simple as possible to remove any potential outliers. 

Perhaps we should have said ""What we discovered was that it literally is not possible to achieve level two aerodynamic damage with the M2 .50 before structural failure occurs on the wing of a Bf-109G14, when attacking from the 6 o'clock level position."

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:

@unreasonable

You make a fair point, but seeing as we don't have access to dev tools, we wanted to keep the test as simple as possible to remove any potential outliers. 

Perhaps we should have said ""What we discovered was that it literally is not possible to achieve level two aerodynamic damage with the M2 .50 before structural failure occurs on the wing of a Bf-109G14, when attacking from the 6 o'clock level position."

If you are firing from the dead-six position it seems reasonable (pardon the pun) that the bullets would pass through the aileron and/or flaps as well as the wing, and (would do so pretty consistently.)

 

But if the case is that the control surfaces are absorbing some of the energy of the rounds, then it shows the HE rounds are still doing excessive damage, since they too would be hitting flaps or ailerons before the wing. 

Anyway, what this test best shows is the relative difference in effectiveness between the various HMGs. I wonder what would happen if you were able to test the MG131/UBS as AP only. Is it simply a matter of overperforming HE, or something with the M2 in particualar?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cass said:

A static unloaded wing at point blank vs a flying loaded wing with a round covering distance at speed isn't going to be a comparable test.

 

There are definitely some discrepancies though so it is worth pointing out. The fact you can sheer off a wing before it having an appreciable effect on the aerodynamics of a plane does seem a bit off to me.

 

I did some similar tests with the A20 and sheering off the wing doesn't seem to take that many more rounds than sheering off surfaces from the tail section. 

 

When you run these tests on the ground it seems to bring up even more issues.

We didn't put it in the report, but since you bring it up... I think it is worth mentioning that for the structural tests, we didn't exert forces on the wing in-between bursts of fire. We know that sometimes only a few rounds in a wing will cause it to pop off under extreme G-loads. The goal of this test was simply to compare the ammo types for HMGs, so we thought it best to keep things as uniform as possible. And since it is difficult to be precise with the amount of G you are exerting, we thought it best to eliminate that as a variable from our testing.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to Shallot and company for conducting this test and writing it up so well.  I'm definitely part of the group who has found the M2 .50s very frustrating in recent months, and your data perfectly aligns with my experiences with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, QB.Creep said:

 

Thanks for pointing that out, that is interesting. I wonder what about the damage model calculations change with altitude, planes in flight, etc? Were the planes that you were shooting player-controlled aircraft or static objects?

 

In any event, using bombers on the ground to focus fire on a component changes several variables in the process (altitude, airspeed, forces on the aircraft, etc). It's an interesting point, but it doesn't make me question our conclusions since we saw incredibly consistent results each time we performed the test with the same parameters.

 

One last thing... the screenshot you shared doesn't coincide with what we considered "level two" damage to be. It was only once we got to this level of visual damage that we saw an appreciable drag penalty. See below:
_t1zgPSBSMEtr8x02ZmhvSZxEg4eubRc_YgeWqhqPzuvdq4Kc3w27HlD5wyFtf4s6iVUReivoDiDHTbsZWysNUgYczjceCc2SDYROFMHuYUSK1OJeiBsvQRYQ41JVIS5dNwRzLRK

 

I fully agree with your overall conclusions that the ratio of surface damage per hit between HE and AP rounds is very large, to a degree that is implausible for the small HE rounds. 

 

Static testing firing at an AI plane with engine on, on the runway.  At close range the energy is not much different from at 100-200m, and you can place 1-2 shots at a time exactly - with a bit of practice - only damaging one hit box (with AP).  While in flight a wing section will usually fall off earlier, if it is subjected to more than 1G, whether drag forces also affect the DM I know not: although I doubt it. Similarly I doubt that the hits required for surface damage are affected by aircraft speed or Gs: it seems like an unnecessary complication. 

 

Your screen shot is showing damage in two wing hit boxes, middle and inner. (As well as flaps and aileron). To me that looks like level 3 on each, but after a few tries I cannot get level 3 with .50 cal AP without the wings dropping off.  I imagine this was one of the HE test runs?  Level one is the initial "bullet holes" graphic. 2 Is a few larger holes as per my screenshot, which you can sometimes see through. 3 is widespread large holes as in your screenshot. 

 

So if that is what you were testing for, you might consider amending the description of the results. It would also help explain why your numbers are so much higher than mine! 

 

On the issue of "What should be done?" I am agnostic on the real aerodynamic effects of .50 cals in the absence of any real evidence:  I am more convinced that the damage from small HE rounds is way OTT. I certainly do not think that aerodynamic damage should be exaggerated because some MP pilots fight on in situations where a real human (or for that matter the game AI) would bail out. So I would rather the HE aero damage was scaled back considerably rather than the AP enhanced.

 

(Although where appropriate the game clearly needs an incendiary component. That is not just a .50 cal issue BTW, the 303s had them too, and so did most of the guns in the FC planes - although most of the FC grognards will hate it. They like long fights.  ;) )   

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick heads up, there were some complaints that the line: "It is worth mentioning that this does not exceed the explosive mass found in a firecracker." was misleading. In retrospect, I agree, and have removed the line from the report, as it gives a false sense of the explosive power when the material is under containment. 

I've replaced it with "It is worth mentioning that this is 8.3% of the amount of HE found in the Minengeschoß shell" to provide a relative comparison. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this kind of empirical testing is 100% worthwhile. The devs have a tool that simulates the damage, which is great, but that's not the same as the game actually behaving in the same way once it's running on a server, game clients are connected, and planes are in the air.

 

There seems to be a significant discrepancy in HE vs non-HE when it comes to creating aerodynamic damage. These results would at least cause me, as a developer, to check if everything's wired up the way I thought it was. This is an odd result and might imply some sort of bug or edge case in the modeling.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

I understand what you're saying, however there was very little deviation from one test to the next in terms of the number of hits required to achieve the desired effect. We did more testing than we have reported here on other aspects of the sim that I will not mention and came to the conclusion that, for those, we did need much larger sample sizes.

 

I disagree that it is a waste of time. What then should we do, throw our hands up into the air and walk away? Let's not be quitters. :)

You and others can spend weeks months on testing something that they can do in a day, and if things are ok they would have no problem show with that tool that all is all ok with AP ammo in game and problem is in players heads or in netcode.

 

11 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

If you are firing from the dead-six position it seems reasonable (pardon the pun) that the bullets would pass through the aileron and/or flaps as well as the wing, and (would do so pretty consistently.)

 

But if the case is that the control surfaces are absorbing some of the energy of the rounds, then it shows the HE rounds are still doing excessive damage, since they too would be hitting flaps or ailerons before the wing. 

Anyway, what this test best shows is the relative difference in effectiveness between the various HMGs. I wonder what would happen if you were able to test the MG131/UBS as AP only. Is it simply a matter of overperforming HE, or something with the M2 in particualar?

It can be done in mods, just replace MG131 HE ammo with its AP ammo so it will fire only 13mm AP, same to russian 12.7 with its HE replaced with its AP, and same thing would happend as with american 0.50 AP only, problem is as it was always they buffed HE and make AP more week, like they said in DDs and updates from that 4.005 somehow before 4.005 there was perception that AP ammo does more damage and HE is to week, and this is how we ended up with this week AP we have since 4.005. Its not like its mistery on what happend all is pointed out many times.

 

Edited by CountZero
Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth adding, in case anyone is confused about what the damage levels really look like.

 

Here are the three stages of surface damage on an He111 outer wing section, chosen because this is easy to get with the onboard MG81 without anything falling off. 

 

1701202296_He111level1crop.thumb.jpg.ca6c394c632e7ca6381c93a3f17fd3a0.jpg Level 1

414245451_He111level2crop.thumb.jpg.a6af5d3ca2fd391be97f5539f1c0dccf.jpg Level 2

1386282883_He111level3crop.thumb.jpg.adfdd87f9d684af4958168ed2caf8cca.jpg Level 3

 

 

Here is 109 G14: middle wing hit box. First two done with MG81, last with MG131. The line of damage through the inner side of the cross means the section is close to breaking off.

 

 

1008263238_109level1crop.thumb.jpg.2470e94d52c69a1efd49dcdbffde1107.jpg Level 1

1711232111_109level2crop.thumb.jpg.517fd6360f4536e84a0e9ef2f67c76ab.jpg Level 2

1267620893_109level3crop.thumb.jpg.616b27befb4f28dc432ac5ea108c6a8e.jpg Level 3

Edited by unreasonable
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

So where should the Browning .50 sit compared to the MG131 and the UB? How many rounds should be needed to cause the damage described above?

 

In the middle, between them both, with the UB being the best of the three. This according to A.G. Williams & Dr E. Gustin in "Flying guns WWII".

 

Here is the data they work from:

 

UB* 12.7mm x 108mm: 840 m/sec velocity, 13 rounds per second synchronised, 17 rounds per second un-synchronised, 48gm round with 2gm of HE.

 

M2 .50": 12.7mm x 99mm, 890 m/sec, 13 rps unsynchronised, 43gm bullet 0.9gm incendiary in the M8 round. so slightly lighter round and less Chemical energy.

 

MG131 13mm x 64mm:

AP 710 m/sec, 38.5gm 15 rounds per sec'. Lower velocity, less weight.

HE 750 m/sec, 34gm 1.2gm of HE. Lower velocity, less weight and less chemical energy than the USB.

 

The authors use a formula to get a "score" for comparing different weapons: 

 

"momentum" = projectile weight multiplied by the muzzle velocity, to calculate the kinetic energy.

 

Chemical energy: they treat HE and Incendiary as the same because fire was a big killer of aircraft, and although they "work" differently one is not more effective than the other because of the random way rounds hit different parts of an aircraft, so the score can be considered as an average when comparing weapons using HE or Incendiary or even HEI.

 

The authors say the comparison between the effect of kinetic and chemical energy is a difficult and complex subject, and quote the example of a delayed fuze HEI round, it will first cause kinetic energy as it strikes the structure, then chemical blast energy as the HE detonates, thirdly the shell fragments will inflict further kinetic energy and finally the incendiary, spread by the explosion, could cause further chemical (fire) damage.

 

Once each cartridge's score is calculated they then take into account the different rounds in a belt or magazine, they also allow for tracer rounds, which "can" reduce the amount of HE in certain shells, and finally the rate of fire is calculated, however, as in this case we are talking about a few rounds doing measurable damage I shall include only their single cartridge scores and the "average" score of rounds within a belt.

 

Here are the authors scores for these 3 HMG's.

 

MG131 AP: single cartridge score 27. comparison score 3.

MG131 HE: single cartridge score 34. comparison score 3.

M2 .50 API: single cartridge score 46. comparison score 4.5.

UB*: single cartridge score 57. comparison score 6.

 

According to the authors, the Browning .50 M8 round sits almost exactly between the MG131 and the UB* for damage potential of a single round and the average damage of several rounds hitting.

 

The authors state, "The Browning .50 M2 is an undistinguished performer, particularly when compared to the 12.7mm Berezin. The relatively small incendiary content in the .50 (0.9g compared to 2g) gives the Soviet round a flying start which it adds to with its higher rate of fire, and the .50 round is lighter as well.

 

The UB* (universal gun) came in 3 forms:

UBT, fitted in turrets.

UBK, fixed wing installation. 1050 rpm.

UBS, synchronised. 800 rpm.

 

It should be remembered that the US M8 round only became available in late '43 early '44, roughly when the P-51B's arrived, before that there were 2 rounds for the M2 .50, the M2 AP round and the M1 Incendiary round, these 2 would have been used in the P-39, P-40 and P-47 before the M8 became available.

 

Witch

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Black-Witch said:

So where should the Browning .50 sit compared to the MG131 and the UB? How many rounds should be needed to cause the damage described above?

 

In the middle, between them both, with the UB being the best of the three. This according to A.G. Williams & Dr E. Gustin in "Flying guns WWII".

 


<snip>

 

 

I suspect everyone here has read the Gustin and Williams stuff: it really does not help at all in this case.

 

AP vs HE create types of damage in different ratios, which is what the game has to model to get a plausibly realistic outcome.  The OPs are concerned with the surface damage, but not the internal structural damage, so averaging out the total numbers using an index score conceals rather than adds information. You have to have a view on how much of the total energy from each round - which is reasonably easy to calculate - is transferred to the skin, passes through into the structure, or is wasted in space. Then you have to have a view on the vulnerability to damage of various aircraft components that absorb the energy, and the wider effects on the aircraft's performance.

 

G&W's index cannot do any of that.

 

(BTW: "momentum" = projectile weight multiplied by the muzzle velocity, to calculate the kinetic energy." - actually, no. The kinetic energy is = 1/2 * m * V^2 , which Gustin et all quite explicitly do not use, giving bizarre reasons. They use momentum to calculate kinetic damage. Every other source I have found that does this kind of index uses kinetic energy instead.)

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

A generalistic score is great in terms of a guide but it's how they damage that's the key to simulating their effectiveness.

 

Sub 20mm HE calibre rounds are largely ineffective in actually causing additional damage, that's why they were replaced with incendiary rounds. Hit a spar with each round and you will see little difference as the explosive potential of the round doesn't create enough pressure to do additional damage.

 

The Minengeschoß rounds were so effective because the unarmoured surfaces and internals of a plane are relatively weak and the pressure created by the explosion causes ruptures and massive amounts of damage. We don't see that but it’s supposedly in the sim. For some reason, all HE seems to have that potential at the moment.

 

The counterpoint is obviously that, yes HE is borked but where should they both be? Unfortunately that's a difficult question to ask. I think if this was a discussion around 4x equipped planes, then yes there would valid arguments in the current model being correct. But the issue is that when you upscale to an 8x, you begin to see that something is being undermodelled. I don't think anyone has really questioned the P47's firepower, it was known for it. Yet in game it still feels very ineffective. Perhaps the "shredding" element of lot's of hits needs to be modelled in some way if it's possible to divorce the single round damage after a certain point.

 

 

You can see below a modern day Raufoss (.50) round vs a .50 API.

 

The Rafouss is an absolute beast and a apparently has the same energy output as a Hispano 20mm round. Yet the actual hole isn't much larger.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Black-Witch Thank you so much for sharing this valuable information. I know that the devs aim for historical accuracy and rely on real-world data to model the sim. Our research shows definitely that there is a huge disparity between the HMG ammo types, and the data you have presented shows that the disparity is not historically accurate. 

 

Over to you, devs! 😄

Edited by QB.Creep
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read Black-witch's post, I'd call it fair and have an evil laugh with 6x MG131's in the Mustang....or 8 in the jug...that would make the game likeable again for me.

 

Simple update for the devs as well....

Edited by NIK14
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

the data you have presented shows that the disparity is not historically accurate

 

Mind you, it's not data, it's an opinion that been presented. Just because there's some basic physics in there, doesn't make it data. And as unreasonable has pointed out, this opinion completely excludes actual damage mechanisms.

 

And how this 20 year old stuff is still news to some people (which then draw the same wrong conclusions as other people did 20 years ago) gets increasingly amazing. :)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Black-Witch said:

So where should the Browning .50 sit compared to the MG131 and the UB? How many rounds should be needed to cause the damage described above?

Witch

 

 

is there any data that has been used to extrapolate from those figures to calculate the actual energy/damage done from an aircraft against another aircraft?

 

I'm thinking that if a .50 is fired at 890m/s that as soon as it leaves the barrel it is facing not only normal air pressure but also the air pressure caused by a an aircraft forcing its way through the air at 300mp or at whatever speed it is i.e. it hits a wall of air.  Then it takes a split second to reach the target, during which time it is losing velocity/energy.  Then when it hits it is hitting a target that might be travelling at 300mph (134m/s) so the actual impact speed might be a lot less that 890m/s.

 

(I've also assumed higher retained energy/velocity when both aircraft are slower, when fired against a target with a lower speed, or where the firing aircraft is going a lot faster than the target.)

 

I'm thinking this is more relevant to AP/ball rounds and I'd love to know what actual velocity/energy the rounds would be impacting with and how that might effect what people are experiencing.

 

von Tom 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, von_Tom said:

 

I'm thinking this is more relevant to AP/ball rounds and I'd love to know what actual velocity/energy the rounds would be impacting with and how that might effect what people are experiencing.

 

von Tom 

 

You can find impact energies if you use a ballistics calculator. I like this one: it has a .50 cal ball preset, but you can adjust all the numbers.

 

http://www.shooterscalculator.com

 

You can adjust for air density, wind speed and direction etc and see the impact velocity and KE for various round types at range.

 

In practice, for .50 cal rounds at the sorts of ranges people usually shoot at in the game - 300m or so - it makes relatively little difference, as the flight time is so short. With lighter, slower rounds and longer ranges the effects of flight time are much more obvious.   

 

AFAIK the game's modelling of ballistics is remarkably good for a program that has to model multiple rounds in the air at time.  It is obviously simplified, but the basic energy and drag outcomes look OK to me.  I do not think there is anything significantly wrong with the model up to the point a bullet hits. It is what happens afterwards that gets tricky. 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JtD said:

 

Mind you, it's not data, it's an opinion that been presented. Just because there's some basic physics in there, doesn't make it data. And as unreasonable has pointed out, this opinion completely excludes actual damage mechanisms.

 

And how this 20 year old stuff is still news to some people (which then draw the same wrong conclusions as other people did 20 years ago) gets increasingly amazing. :)

 

You guys can argue the minutiae until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that there is very clearly a problem. It's up to the devs to decide how to remedy it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

There certainly is a problem, quite obvsiously so. Bringing up a simple, 20 year old internet source however is, at best, not helpful in this case. Realistic historical test reports as well as empirical data has been posted on this forum over the years, some of it several times. It gives a much better idea of what to expect than an internet page that states "the damage is 4".

 

QB.Shallot has done a great job with providing some numbers for the current in game situation, and that's essentially what we can take away from this topic.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

 

You guys can argue the minutiae until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that there is very clearly a problem. It's up to the devs to decide how to remedy it. 

 

2 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

@Black-Witch Thank you so much for sharing this valuable information. I know that the devs aim for historical accuracy and rely on real-world data to model the sim. Our research shows definitely that there is a huge disparity between the HMG ammo types, and the data you have presented shows that the disparity is not historically accurate. 

 

Over to you, devs! 😄

 

You're welcome QB.Creep, the guns on the Mustang have been infuriating me for a while and I hope this discussion helps to bring about a resolution.

 

One thing seems clear to me though, all other opinions taken into account, you can see that the .50 should be VERY similar to the UBS and MG131 in the amount of damage it does when you compare calibre, velocity, weight of round and chemical energy.

 

If the .50 varies greatly from the other 2 weapons I'd be very interested to see how.

 

Cheers

 

Witch

 

Edited by Black-Witch
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JtD said:

There certainly is a problem, quite obvsiously so. Bringing up a simple, 20 year old internet source however is, at best, not helpful in this case. Realistic historical test reports as well as empirical data has been posted on this forum over the years, some of it several times. It gives a much better idea of what to expect than an internet page that states "the damage is 4".

 

QB.Shallot has done a great job with providing some numbers for the current in game situation, and that's essentially what we can take away from this topic.

 

I'd be surprized if the developer team uses any high tech algorithms for the way the guns work in this GAME. More inclined on your latter view...ie. 20 rounds of M2= damage level 1, whereas the UB and MG131 would be something like 2 rounds = damage level 1

Let's not make this into rocket science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again they aint gona do a thing about it in any near future, you guys are waisting your time:

"Damage Model Comments

 

I am aware some of you are not totally satisfied with the current damage model as it pertains to WWI. We recently overhauled our entire damage model for the engine and making further changes to it for WWI will also affect WWII. This requires some thinking and more study, but at this moment I cannot make further changes to just WWI. I see this as a long-term project to somehow change only WWI damage modeling. Even so, there are mixed opinions on this issue. Just because there are some vocal critics out there, does not make the loudest voice correct. As usual, we would need to study the issue further before any more changes are made.

 

And finally, some of you want special ammo like incendiary bullets added. This again is a general wish for the engine that can only come at a later date and would require much work from our engineers and special effects dept. I currently have no ETA on this topic, but we are well aware of the desire to have them. "

 

 

Also its not gun whats problem its type of ammo, why UB or MG131 is so mutch uber and M2 crap is non have historical ammo and one does not have HE in mix. Problem is AP vs HE ammo type and how game sim it, you place only AP ammo in 131 or ub and youll get same crapy performace you have in 0.50, you place mix of AP/HE ammo in M2 and you get normal damages eaqaul to mg131 or ub now.

 

Best is play with airplanes that work, and leve broken ones in hangar

Edited by CountZero
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NIK14 said:

I'd be surprized if the developer team uses any high tech algorithms for the way the guns work in this GAME. More inclined on your latter view...ie. 20 rounds of M2= damage level 1, whereas the UB and MG131 would be something like 2 rounds = damage level 1

 

Even the original Il-2 is far more complex than that, and that was 20 years ago, on computers from 20 years ago...

 

1 hour ago, NIK14 said:

Let's not make this into rocket science.

 

It certainly is not, it is some aspects of mechanical engineering and some computer programming.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CountZero said:

Again they aint gona do a thing about it in any near future, you guys are waisting your time

If enough players make a big enough stink about it, perhaps this work will get prioritized. Where's the harm in trying? It sounds like you agree that there is a problem, and it isn't costing you time or energy if others are raising these issues Why are you trying so hard to dissuade us from this endeavor?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

If enough players make a big enough stink about it, perhaps this work will get prioritized. Where's the harm in trying? It sounds like you agree that there is a problem, and it isn't costing you time or energy if others are raising these issues Why are you trying so hard to dissuade us from this endeavor?

His whole thing is to be a perennial cynic.

FWIW I think this is the best way this has been presented in the forums so far, as you guys have been thorough and professional about it. It can't hurt.

This may sound strange but the recent bug where the .50cals were doing zero damage against enemy planes after an update gives me hope that they are actually looking at it again and accidentally messed it up lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

This may sound strange but the recent bug where the .50cals were doing zero damage against enemy planes after an update gives me hope that they are actually looking at it again and accidentally messed it up lol.

 

You know the funniest part is for the first hour or so playing with the bug, I didn't think much was off. It just seemed to me like my aim must have been bad that particular day.

 

And @CountZero Yes it is the ammo types that are busted, but the problem can be most easily demonstrated by comparing the weapons systems. The devs are not stupid, they know the guns they modeled and how. If all 3 of the HMG's just fired AP they would all have miserable performance. The solution is to reduce the discrepancy between the two that's caused by the difference in ammunition. 

  • Upvote 2
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...