Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Sublime
 Share

Recommended Posts

@QB.Shallot

 

That would be much better but it doesn't seem they are able to do that without borking the DMs on the other platforms. You're right though a stop gap implementing a broken system isn't the right move.

 

I can't seem to find where it's from I have another page if that helps. It's apparently one of the studies into weapon effectiveness.

 

1604702472190.thumb.png.999f50c27de54610a55b856e05a68ad2.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Shallot
1 hour ago, Cass said:

snip

Googling the key words in the second page you shared yielded this : http://www.allworldwars.com/The Defeat of the German Air Force.html

Which seems to be a breakdown of the document you provided. The first page you shared is covered as well. Looks like the X axis is some arbitrary firepower rating determined by weapon caliber and quantity of guns. Not super in depth, but I guess it provides some context to how the total firepower of the various airframes compared with each other. 

 

Edit, so the graph shows that both the P-51 and P-47 were more heavily armed than mid war 109's in fighter configuration, and the P-51 on par, with the P-47 superior to the late war 109s in fighter configuration. Interesting, but the document lacks a lot of context or depth to yield much from it. Particularly how they came to that conclusion. 

Edited by QB.Shallot
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo
2 hours ago, QB.Shallot said:

Can you provide anymore context to what that page is explaining?

 

1 hour ago, Cass said:

I can't seem to find where it's from I have another page if that helps. It's apparently one of the studies into weapon effectiveness.

 

Those figures appear in several publications related to the Strategic Bombing Survey.

 

Unfortunately, the method seems to be no more sophisticated than assigning values to classes of projectiles, multiplying by the rate of fire per second, and adding them up for for all the aircraft's guns. Here is the information they use to derive the numbers in that chart:

12.thumb.png.88c697c55e27192f4171228779f7722b.png

 

13.thumb.png.d6a9b24eaf1c97c8a150ad41239ce06a.png

 

14.thumb.png.e69705ec483d34a750bd18d7a4ec9d15.png

 

guns.thumb.png.7154044c7d68930ccaad3ece2b221627.png

 

armaments.thumb.png.92c175706eb91001f322d340706c17c0.png

 

 

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says from the end of page 13 through 14:

 

These coefficients were arrived at by an examination of the design and construction of operational projectile types: ....an evaluation of relative combat damage to allied aircraft: through results of structural-damage firing tests by Allied and G.A.F research establishments: and by assessment of G.A.F gun cameras films

 

Surely that means there's more than that behind them? I know double guns = double firepower is a little simplistic but it isn't going to be miles off at this scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray
1 hour ago, Tatata_Time said:

They are not going to accept to implement any interim solution 

But they have demonstrated a willingness to do just that. The tail of the 109 was overly fragile so they simply turned the damage to this section off entirely until they could come up with a fix. If that isn't an interim solution, I don't know what is.

 

If this whole issue stems from trying to integrate the WW1 planes into the DM, and from what I can see that seems to be the case, why not just make a DM for canvas clad planes and one for metal clad planes?

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sniperton
6 hours ago, Cass said:

The hit on the tail is obviously an example of not leaving a nice neat hole. But again, that doesn't prove anything.

Sure, it doesn't prove anything, it's only one of the rare examples where an airplane manufactured according to US standards was lightly hit by .50cals in 1944.

This did not render this aircraft unoperable objectively, but forced the pilot to quit the fight.

 

@JtD made me aware of the piece chipped off from the propeller blade, but this may also have been the same hit that went through the right wing root.

Also note the left rear panel of the canopy hood is missing, and that the left front panel, at least when seen from the left, appars to be not intact either.

 

For the context: the pilot remembered later that he was leading a three-ship formation of Héjas that took off from Tapolca airfield to defend it from strafings and low-altitude raids. While climbing and still gaining altitute and speed, they noticed tracers all around, but could not see the attacker. At this point his wingmen separated and he noticed a twin-beam aircraft above him in a steep climb. [Sounds like a classic B&Z ambush]. Then he made a fast turn to clear his 6, just to face another two twin-beam aircrafts, one of them opening fire "as if its nose went ablase". Then occured "a big bang" on his own plane and he was injured both on his forehead and his right hand "by splinters of explosive projectiles". [Here he either dove or lost altitude rapidly, anyway he realized] that the engine was still operational and he could RTB while using the cover provided by the hilly terrain.

 

Story ends here.

Edited by sniperton
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo
6 hours ago, Cass said:

Surely that means there's more than that behind them? I know double guns = double firepower is a little simplistic but it isn't going to be miles off at this scale.

 

Yes, but in the process they assigned nonspecific "coefficients" for each calibre, conflating different damage mechanisms and ammunition types.

  • 7.92 mm (.30; .303) = 0.25
  • 13 mm (.50) = 1.0
  • 15 mm = 1.5
  • 20 mm = 2
  • 30 mm = 4

Based on this document, we can only conclude that the German 13 mm and US .50 in weapons were roughly equal in overall performance, which primarily relied on incendiary effects ("This type was limited principally to use as an incendiary. The plain AP projectile was of very little value"). This doesn't tell us much about aerodynamic surface damage, other than that the author didn't feel it was necessary to mention.

 

 

(exhibits I, J, and K are the illustrations of the projectiles shown previously and structural damage from a 30 mm hit)

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
Just now, BCI-Nazgul said:

The only problem I have with the study is that the targets they chose (P-47 and B-25 IRRC) are not Axis planes.    I could accept results for the two engine bomber as typical, but to derive results as typical for fighters from a P-47 is more of a stretch since it is about twice the size of anything else, especially the 109 and Spitfire, and generally regarded as a very tough target.  (As well as the weapons you mentioned.)  A similar mid-war German study, if one exists, would probably help us greatly.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a179871.pdf 

 

This article (that I have posted before) does seem to point to sources in the German military somewhere as evidenced by the the following quote on page 4.

 

"German experience showed that it took 50-100 hits with 12.7mm (.50 in.) projectiles to down a B-17. By way of comparison, they obtained similar results from only 18-20 hits with 20mm high explosive (HE) projectiles, or four hits with 30mm HE projectiles. (15:44)"

 

The references (15:44) seem to point back to this magazine article:  15. Marsh, Roger. "Mauser MG-213 Cannon." Aviation Ae, Vol. 18 (August 1952), pp. 44-45.

 

I'm assuming if someone could trace that back to original German source we may have something.  It may be cited in the magazine article.

 

Size matters for determining the number of hits more than their effects, and most of the difference in size for a single seat fighter is in the structure, not pilot, engine or fuel tanks. The underlying test kill probabilities are per hit on specific systems.  Once you have hit a system, the results are likely to be more or less similar. So if you hit the engine, then x, etc.. The document's overall kill probabilities are built up from system effects and size effects, so this is fairly easy to adjust.

 

So you could use the results of a 20mm HE hit on a P-47's engine to ball park the effect of the same hit on a Fw190's engine. For a 109 you have to make some additional assumptions about the additional frailty of in line engines. And so on for fuel tanks and pilot.

 

For structure kills I think (tentatively) that size matters more, as hits are more or less spread out - adjusting the structure kill probabilities inversely proportionally to size would be a start.

 

There will always be a large margin of error: as there was in the original study in cases of small effects and small samples. But still better than guessing. Saying to base a model on this may be the wrong words: what I meant was build the model bottom up, physics based, as it is in the game: but use the data points as checks for reasonableness. So if game hits from 20mm HE at the range and angle specified are twice as likely to cause an A kill as in the reference document - as they were - there are grounds for thinking some variable is well off. If it is off in this case, it is off in every case.   

 

None of this bears on the issue of how many AP hits = HE hits for the purposes of slowing down targets, but average numbers estimated by German sources do not do that either. 

 

 

Just now, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

Yes, but in the process they assigned nonspecific "coefficients" for each calibre, conflating damage mechanisms and ammunition types.

  • 7.92 mm (.30; .303) = 0.25
  • 13 mm (.50) = 1.0
  • 15 mm = 1.5
  • 20 mm = 2
  • 30 mm = 4

Based on this document, we can only conclude that the German 13 mm and US .50 in weapons were roughly equal in overall performance, which primarily relied on incendiary effects. This doesn't tell us much about aerodynamic surface damage, other than that the author didn't feel it was necessary to mention.

 

(exhibits I, J, and K are the illustrations of the projectiles shown previously and structural damage from a 30 mm hit)

 

edit If you take the muzzle energy of each round (just KE, excluding HE content or rate of fire) you get ratios pretty similar to these. I would  not put much weight on it.

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAS_Storebror
9 hours ago, Cass said:

we shouldn't have the .50 as a singilarity doing decent amounts of skin damage as that's been proven false. We've seen the absurdity of upscaling 12.7mm HE on the P47 and P51.

 

 

 

What we see in that video in fact is the absurdity of HE damage compared to AP damage.

For any sane person, this would sufficiently cover the "proof" needed to get devs to fix it - by far - , however there's a significant number of players who enjoy the HE superpowers and the AP weakness, providing cover for the devs who in turn use this as a reason not to react.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
12 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

What we see in that video in fact is the absurdity of HE damage compared to AP damage.

For any sane person, this would sufficiently cover the "proof" needed to get devs to fix it - by far - , however there's a significant number of players who enjoy the HE superpowers and the AP weakness, providing cover for the devs who in turn use this as a reason not to react.

 

:drinks:

Mike

I'm with you 100%.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

... there's a significant number of players who enjoy the HE superpowers and the AP weakness, providing cover for the devs who in turn use this as a reason not to react.


It sure does seem that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
On 1/26/2021 at 7:20 PM, BCI-Nazgul said:

Probably because the pilot either bailed out or immediately lost control and went into the dirt.  No sensible RL pilot is going to stick with a plane that is hard to control unless they are over enemy territory, deadly terrain, or think they'll be treated badly as a POW.  There are plenty of accounts of enemy planes believed to have been hit diving away and not being seen again too.  It's really hard to say what happened.

 

You guys act as if the DEV's haven't put significant effort into the DM and aren't among the best in the business at listening to and informing their audience. There has been at least one deep dive into the DM and I think two since EA. You also act as if the DEV's don't know. Deep dives take time and resources. I'd bet a nice dinner that there will be another deep dive at some point. Right now they are pumping out content for Normandy. I'm sure the "blue" side will lose their minds when API/APIT is eventually introduced as well. It will get looked at and revamped on their schedule, not ours.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sniperton
20 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

You guys act as if the DEV's haven't put significant effort into the DM and aren't among the best in the business at listening to and informing their audience.

Nine months without a single word? Come on, it's not a matter of loyalty and faith.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
22 minutes ago, sniperton said:

Nine months without a single word? Come on, it's not a matter of loyalty and faith.

 

You've been here long enough to know better than this as an argument in the overall scheme of things. How long did the Fw flight model go on for? Then it almost suddenly showed up out of nowhere. It will be the same with the DM and .50's. Asking the DEV's to highlight a deficiency has never gone over well in these forums. They address what is ready or can be fixed and offered. It makes sense for them to not get embroiled in these chippy discussions......and most times they don't. You guys can stew all you want but it doesn't move the needle much on the overall roadmap. You, we, and I have no idea what they are looking at or addressing in the background until it shows up in a DEV diary. My statement stands. They are among the best at tackling perceived problems and addressing their audience.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard
14 minutes ago, sniperton said:

Nine months without a single word? Come on, it's not a matter of loyalty and faith.

Check towards the bottom of the post on the 15th of December 2020

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sniperton
5 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

You've been here long enough to know better than this as an argument in the overall scheme of things. My statement stands.

I live in a country where I know all too good the "averall scheme of things". No, thank you, not my cup of tea, but peace, brother, bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, sniperton said:

Nine months without a single word? Come on, it's not a matter of loyalty and faith.

 

On 09/11/2020 at 1:40 PM, -DED-Rapidus said:
 
in version 4.502, there were many changes in the damage model and we are planning to study this issue soon, please be patient

 

Edited by Dakpilot
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they'll announce anything properly unless they have come up with a workable solution. 

 

I'm not sure if it's possible with the way they are implemented but having the ability to select some kind of pattern harmonisation would have such a massive impact. Perhaps having your setting be the first inboard set of guns and then all guns preceding are set out a further 50 or 70m.

 

The point convergence and seemingly laser accuracy of the .50s really doesn't allow for the advantage of having 6 or 8 guns to be maximised.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black-Witch
On 2/2/2021 at 7:50 PM, QB.Shallot said:

 

If I could get my hands on a .50 and some reconstructed 109 wings I'd love a chance to see what actually happens. One can dream. 

 

 

This?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
16 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I'm sure the "blue" side will lose their minds when API/APIT is eventually introduced as well. It will get looked at and revamped on their schedule, not ours.

There's a lot more to this than just having API ammo.  The way the guns fire, the firing pattern, lack of detail in the DM and the OP HE/skin damage for small HE rounds are all part of the problem.   

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
48 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

There's a lot more to this than just having API ammo.  The way the guns fire, the firing pattern, lack of detail in the DM and the OP HE/skin damage for small HE rounds are all part of the problem.   

 

If you are going to quote me, quote me. Don't take a single sentence out of context. Here, I got ya' covered.

 

You guys act as if the DEV's haven't put significant effort into the DM and aren't among the best in the business at listening to and informing their audience. There has been at least one deep dive into the DM and I think two since EA. You also act as if the DEV's don't know. Deep dives take time and resources. I'd bet a nice dinner that there will be another deep dive at some point. Right now they are pumping out content for Normandy. I'm sure the "blue" side will lose their minds when API/APIT is eventually introduced as well. It will get looked at and revamped on their schedule, not ours.

 

"You also act as if the DEV's don't know. Deep dives take time and resources. I'd bet a nice dinner that there will be another deep dive at some point."

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
3 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

If you are going to quote me, quote me. Don't take a single sentence out of context. Here, I got ya' covered.

 

You guys act as if the DEV's haven't put significant effort into the DM and aren't among the best in the business at listening to and informing their audience. There has been at least one deep dive into the DM and I think two since EA. You also act as if the DEV's don't know. Deep dives take time and resources. I'd bet a nice dinner that there will be another deep dive at some point. Right now they are pumping out content for Normandy. I'm sure the "blue" side will lose their minds when API/APIT is eventually introduced as well. It will get looked at and revamped on their schedule, not ours.

 

"You also act as if the DEV's don't know. Deep dives take time and resources. I'd bet a nice dinner that there will be another deep dive at some point."

It's been nine months now that people who bought the American planes because they wanted to fly competitively in multiplayer have been fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.  I know the old spiel about "time and resources", but I'm trying to figure out why whatever adjustments were possible weren't made after the HE/AP modeling was changed and the M2 .50s became close to useless in multiplayer.  You can't just change something on your users and not go back right away and make sure it's working correctly from their perspective.  That's part of the process.   I worked for 35 years in IT and we would never have done that to a customer.  Even if it cost extra time and money to fix it.  If for no other reason than pride in our product.  At a minimum we would have rolled back to the previous version and taken another swing at it later.  So, you can keep making excuses for the Devs for whatever reason you can come up with, but I'm not buying it.   They're running a business not a volunteer charity organization.   What really floors me is that the beta testers didn't see these problems immediately when this was in development.  It's almost like they never tested this in multiplayer.   Did no one think that a single 13mm hit doing as much aero damage as a 20mm hit was a bit odd?   Or that pouring 50+ rounds of AP into a target with no immediate effect was a bit strange? 

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_KW

Most of the Allied fighters and bombers in BoBP and BoN use .50s, and these issues have a BIG impact on gameplay.  There are a lot of long-term repeat customers who have stopped playing, chosen not to pre-order BoN, or even gone over to the competitors product.  This is going to be a big problem for any future pacific or Mediterranean themed expansion.  Why this wouldn’t be a priority is hard to understand.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
13 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

It's been nine months now that people who bought the American planes because they wanted to fly competitively in multiplayer have been fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.  I know the old spiel about "time and resources", but I'm trying to figure out why whatever adjustments were possible weren't made after the HE/AP modeling was changed and the .50s became close to useless in multiplayer.  You can't just change something on your users and not go back right away and make sure it's working correctly from their perspective.  That's part of the process.   I worked for 35 years in IT and we would never have done that to a customer.  Even if it cost extra time and money to fix it.  If for no other reason than pride in our product.  At a minimum we would have rolled back to the previous version and taken another swing at it later.  So, you can keep making excuses for the Devs for whatever reason you can come up with, but I'm not buying it.   They're running a business not a volunteer charity organization.   What really floors me is that the beta testers didn't see these problems immediately when this was in development.  It's almost like they never tested this in multiplayer.   Did no one think that a single 13mm hit doing as much aero damage as a 20mm hit was a bit odd?   Or that pouring 50+ rounds of AP into a target with no immediate effect was a bit strange? 

 

It's not an excuse, it's simple workflow. I fly both sides and can make .50's work just fine. It's roughly a two second burst as opposed to an historical second and half burst from the P-51 to secure a kill. And rolling back to the previous version would negate EVERY other advance they put out. It's a package deal. Even if they could tweak just the .50's for you there is no reason to believe it wouldn't affect other aspects of the sim and turn into an endless bug hunt. The team does not have the resources to get distracted and bogged down in that way. The .50's are, admittedly, a little underpowered. It's not a critical thing for most. .With 35 years in IT and seeing it happen several times in this sim over it's evolution, you should know that as well. Just because it is high on a vocal minority's priority list doesn't necesarilly make it a priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_KW
30 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I fly both sides and can make .50's work just fine. It's roughly a two second burst as opposed to an historical second and half burst from the P-51 to secure a kill.

 

Based on a lot of testing and stat gathering this is simply not the case.  @Zruty was kind enough to scrape some data out of the stats from both CombatBox and FVP, and it takes at least 60 hits on average to score a kill with .50s right now in MP (as compared to 45, prior to the big DM update back in April) .  My own experience hand crunching those numbers, as well as spending a bunch of time shooting static targets and recording the data (which I submitted as a bug report many months ago) agrees with this.  That's about 15 seconds of fire from a P-51 with an average pilot hitting at 5%.  For a top tier shooter at 20% accuracy that's still just under 4 seconds of fire on average. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

It's not an excuse, it's simple workflow. I fly both sides and can make .50's work just fine. It's roughly a two second burst as opposed to an historical second and half burst from the P-51 to secure a kill. And rolling back to the previous version would negate EVERY other advance they put out. It's a package deal. Even if they could tweak just the .50's for you there is no reason to believe it wouldn't affect other aspects of the sim and turn into an endless bug hunt. The team does not have the resources to get distracted and bogged down in that way. The .50's are, admittedly, a little underpowered. It's not a critical thing for most. .With 35 years in IT and seeing it happen several times in this sim over it's evolution, you should know that as well. Just because it is high on a vocal minority's priority list doesn't necesarilly make it a priority.

 

Well would you look at that, another fellow with JG tags that doesn't think it is that big of a deal. Surely it isn't for you. :)

 

Show me an equal number of sorties from a competitive multiplayer server - one set in which you use only late war planes with the anemic .50s and another in which you use anything else. I will bet a nickel that the latter will have far better results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
1 hour ago, QB.Creep said:

 

Well would you look at that, another fellow with JG tags that doesn't think it is that big of a deal. Surely it isn't for you. :)

 

Show me an equal number of sorties from a competitive multiplayer server - one set in which you use only late war planes with the anemic .50s and another in which you use anything else. I will bet a nickel that the latter will have far better results.

 

I fly with another handle. I've actually bought the game twice and that one remains annonymous. The multiplayer server shows my prefered ride is the P-38 with plenty of P-51 time. 42 hours of plane time. I fly both sides and all timeframes as the server dictates. It's a red herring anyway. I already said the .50's need work. The argument is whether it is a high priority and where it fits into the DEV schedule.

 

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

 

Based on a lot of testing and stat gathering this is simply not the case.  @Zruty was kind enough to scrape some data out of the stats from both CombatBox and FVP, and it takes at least 60 hits on average to score a kill with .50s right now in MP (as compared to 45, prior to the big DM update back in April) .  My own experience hand crunching those numbers, as well as spending a bunch of time shooting static targets and recording the data (which I submitted as a bug report many months ago) agrees with this.  That's about 15 seconds of fire from a P-51 with an average pilot hitting at 5%.  For a top tier shooter at 20% accuracy that's still just under 4 seconds of fire on average. 

 

Putting two seconds of fire on an engine is plenty. I rarely just plant on a dead six. My hit rate average is around 9% according to server stats.

 

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_Snake9
2 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

They're running a business not a volunteer charity organization

The GD truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
3 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Putting two seconds of fire on an engine is plenty. I rarely just plant on a dead six. My hit rate average is around 9% according to server stats.

What kind of server/opponents are you flying against online?  Even a noob isn't going to just sit there for 2 seconds and let you put well aimed fire into him/her.  Nearly every fight is short bursts of .5 seconds or less and with .50s and it takes a lot of those to bring someone down unless you're lucky.   Even with a good burst there is a high probability that your opponent will be 100% combat effective long enough to continue fighting and possibly shoot you down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tatata_Time
4 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

It's not an excuse, it's simple workflow

 

4 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

The .50's are, admittedly, a little underpowered

 

3 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I already said the .50's need work. The argument is whether it is a high priority and where it fits into the DEV schedule.

 

With these Highlight sentences and you don't want to be quoted.... c'mon dude give us a chance. Yours are better than Custard's ones. Gold mine too. Workflow..... hilarious... one of the main complains  should be about lack of ....flow, I never doubt about work but not the same about flow in these issues. 

8 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

"You also act as if the DEV's don't know. Deep dives take time and resources. I'd bet a nice dinner that there will be another deep dive at some point."

After almost ten months and the amount of daily  posts related to 0.50 issues also DM.... In May 2020 I could buy your "unaware devs & testers teams" excuse theory: maybe they all dev's & testers did know a crapp related to these issues..... but, nowadays..... what do you think about that? I'm really curious what is going to be your alliby  for them nowadays. Changing a bit the line: Would you recomend me buying BoN in EA with a P-47D-22 with a cut & paste 0.50 AP 8 MG's inherited from BoBP, also a P-51B (WIP) equipped with a weaker configuration of 4 x 0.50 cal.MG's. 

"at some point": with sentences like this you are not ever going to fail in guessing the future like a gipsy woman reading the lines of the hand. At some point of your life you're going to have 3 children.... sorry Lady do you think I got real chances of that being 90 years old and single? Seriously??? Are you putting in doubt the ancient & accurate science of gipsy divination I own????? Not bad, even funny....or not, but. only as a joke. 

For next posts use also "sooner or later", with sooner you would give us expectations in short term, and also you would make us happy at least for a while.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
6 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

It's not an excuse, it's simple workflow.

Workflow?  Seriously?  The planned workflow is delayed until the customers are happy with the last changes.   You don't just charge ahead on new stuff until the stuff you just added/changed is working as promised since they're already using it.  Holy smokes have you ever had a real job?  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
9 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Workflow?  Seriously?  The planned workflow is delayed until the customers are happy with the last changes.   You don't just charge ahead on new stuff until the stuff you just added/changed is working as promised since they're already using it.  Holy smokes have you ever had a real job?  

 

Actually, as has been demostrated here since 2012, you do.

 

I'm also done with the ad hominems as it only shows weakness in your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
3 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Actually, as has been demostrated here since 2012, you do.

 

I'm also done with the ad hominems as it only shows weakness in your arguments.

Please, just because someone is doing something doesn't mean it's the best way to treat your customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

Then I suppose you have to consider whether a vocal minority represent your customers in the overall scheme of things.

 

It's not like they don't address issues as they are able. The constant evolution of the sim is proof of that. It's a matter of workflow and no matter how much or loud it gets around in a couple of threads it's not going to change the arc of a successful model they have been running for a decade in this branch of the sim and two overall as a company.

 

I've said my peace for the moment. I don't think there is much more to argue here anyway. It's a very good product and it is demonstrably improving as they go.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
Just now, VBF-12_KW said:

 

Based on a lot of testing and stat gathering this is simply not the case.  @Zruty was kind enough to scrape some data out of the stats from both CombatBox and FVP, and it takes at least 60 hits on average to score a kill with .50s right now in MP (as compared to 45, prior to the big DM update back in April) .  My own experience hand crunching those numbers, as well as spending a bunch of time shooting static targets and recording the data (which I submitted as a bug report many months ago) agrees with this.  That's about 15 seconds of fire from a P-51 with an average pilot hitting at 5%.  For a top tier shooter at 20% accuracy that's still just under 4 seconds of fire on average. 

 

This argument is going round in circles and I have said this before, but it needs saying again.

 

If you are calculating the mean average, adding up hits per killed plane and dividing by the number of cases - this is a misleading guide to ammo performance. A much better guide is the number of hits required to shoot down 50% of the targets. This is likely to be considerably lower. The reason is that the distribution of the number of hits required is not the normal distribution everyone knows about. The underlying shape is more likely to look something like this (don't worry about the numbers, the point is the shape). 

 

853990128_25constantdistribution.thumb.JPG.f6ec98af39700322a13e3371e8c0f656.JPG

 

A very large number of hits happens relatively infrequently, but each has a large effect on the mean. 

 

AFAIK no-one who has calculated these averages has yet posted their raw data, so we have no way of seeing what their actual distribution looks like.

 

Just as an example, a mean of 60 on this distribution is consistent with an independent p per hit of 1/60 = 0.167 but 50% of targets are killed after 43 hits, and 25% after 18. 

 

(This is an idealised case, and I am aware that the p of a hit being a kill is not entirely independent). 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_KW
4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

... This is likely to be considerably lower. The reason is that the distribution of the number of hits required is not the normal distribution everyone knows about. The underlying shape is more likely to look something like this (don't worry about the numbers, the point is the shape). 

 

853990128_25constantdistribution.thumb.JPG.f6ec98af39700322a13e3371e8c0f656.JPG

 

A very large number of hits happens relatively infrequently, but each has a large effect on the mean. 

 

AFAIK no-one who has calculated these averages has yet been posted their raw data, so we have no way of seeing what their actual distribution looks like.

 

Just as an example, a mean of 60 on this distribution is consistent with an independent p per hit of 1/60 = 0.167 but the 50% of targets are killed after 43 hits, and 25% after 18. 

 

(This is an idealised case, and I am aware that the p of a hit being a kill is not entirely independent). 

 

Do you have a dataset from in game that bears this out?  Because that's a BIG assumption to make otherwise.  Having looked through a LOT of this stuff, and having spent dozens of hours testing on AI targets both flying and static, I just don't see this. 

 

Exceedingly low round counts for a given kill can impact your average quite a bit as well.  An exampleA second example.  Both of those look pretty good, and are some of the lowest round count kills I got that month.  In both cases I misjudged my bounce and rammed the target - the guns didn't actually kill it (there was one other really low round count one I saw where the target appears to have maneuver killed themself minutes after I'd last hit them).  But if you look through the rest of the sorties for that month, you'll see a whole lot of kills that took north of 50 hits, and quite a few north of 100 (and in many cases, the targets were also hit by other aircraft and the numbers are even higher then my individual stats alone would suggest). 

 

In the numbers I posted earlier, all those kind of kills where just a few rounds landed and the target blacked out, crashed an otherwise flyable aircraft etc got counted (as there was no way to filter them out).  Likewise, many of those kills were on targets that also took damage from other weapon types (and those hits aren't counted into the total).  That's why I described it as at least 60.  The actual number may be substantially higher.

 

In the various SP testing I've done the numbers appeared to be distributed in a much more standard fashion (central cluster with outliers on both ends).

 

While it is possible for a single .50 round to kill an aircraft in BoX, that doesn't make it a more likely outcome as your distribution would guess.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The distribution unreasonable posted doesn't take accumulated damage into account. It is single hit = kill probability, which isn't 100% accurate, but actually not too far off the real thing. Eventually, the hit that kills, in particular with AP or API rounds, is often decisive on its own. May it be pilot, controls, engine or other systems. This assumption, as he posted, has its flaws (it doesn't work if you have redundant systems, like a co-pilot), but was still considered good enough for real life damage analysts, which preferred it over any other model.

 

What is also good with this model is that you know it gives you conservative estimates. So if you know that if you have estimated a single hit-kill probability of 2% (for a 50% value of 34 hits, average 55 hits), you can draw that curve and can be pretty sure that this is the upper limit, with the truth not too far off.

 

How this (the distribution) pans out when compared to what we see in game, is more likely an issue with the game than an issue with this simple assumption. For instance, the game doesn't model all details of the aircraft, and uses accumulated damage instead. In some places, that is. Still, this will lead to more of a normal distibution than real life would see. I would expect the effect of this to be small, a functioning gun and damage model provided (meaning don't use 109's tails as a game reference).

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the average number of rounds to kill isn't too far off. If you told me that there were a few IRL examples of 109s tanking 60-70 rounds of AP before they fell out of the sky I'd happily believe you. Even more is possible if they all hit in the right places. 

 

The problem is the lack of damage before that single round that makes the kill. Aircraft are seemingly unaffected up until that point in some cases and are able to manoeuvre and reach speeds close to their maximum performance. The argument is that 20 rounds of AP shouldn't necessarily lead to a kill 100% of the time, you still have to hit the right places, but should almost certainly lead to a loss of performance. 

 

With regards to actually trying to understand the "pieces flying off" and why the occurs seeing as the model show's us that on thin aircraft skin alone a <70 degree shot is likely to do small amounts of damage. 

 

Random video popped into my recommend on Spitfire armament and how it's layed out/reloaded. There were some interesting shots of the internals of the wing of the Spitfire and Hurricane and you can clearly see the support struts and structure that holds the skin into place. The model shows that rounds impacting thicker metal impart a lot more of their energy and cause significant damage. We'd need to understand the thickness of these support elements to fully apply the model but it's clear that hits to them would likely compromise what's holding the skin in place. But I've no doubt a glancing shot (>80 degrees) is almost certain hit one of those during its travel through the aircraft skin and I'm making the assumption this is likely why chunk of skin are seen falling off on guncams, and being reported by pilots. 

 

Screenshot_20210205-094857_YouTube.thumb.jpg.2eeb733b4d8f11f5ed0d92d3392064e7.jpg

 

Screenshot_20210205-095013_YouTube.thumb.jpg.daee849db77e86eff4cf26ac760aabba.jpg

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning
34 minutes ago, Cass said:

I think the average number of rounds to kill isn't too far off. If you told me that there were a few IRL examples of 109s tanking 60-70 rounds of AP before they fell out of the sky I'd happily believe you. Even more is possible if they all hit in the right places. 

 

The problem is the lack of damage before that single round that makes the kill.

 

I agree with this.

I find the number of rounds for 50%pk to be plausible, but there is a lack of stuff going wrong.

 

Some nice things to happen before the kill might include:

Electric system failure

Hydraulic  system failure

Gear dropping

Flaps dropping

Ammunition chain broken, leading to later jam

Throttle leaver broken

Pitch lever broken

Pitch governor broken

Bomb bay doors sticking

Bombs releasing

Bombs not releasing

Gun/cannon trigger wire cut

Bombs detonating

Ammo detonating

Partial control surface control lost (i.e. pilot can move rudder/elevator left, but not right or up, but not down)

Flaps not deploying or deploying asymmetrically

 

I'm sure others could come up with many more.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jason_Williams locked this topic
  • Jason_Williams unlocked, locked, unlocked and locked this topic
  • Jason_Williams unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...