Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Sublime

Recommended Posts

HR_Zunzun
14 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:


In a niche within a niche you really don’t have a choice.  As simple as that.

Yes, you have

 

Edited by HR_Zunzun
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
SAS_Storebror
22 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

You assume that all "quic fixes" are equal and equally easy to implement. I'm not sure (doubt actually) that is a valid hypothesis.

The indestructible tail was easy enough to qualify for a "quick fix" implementation by the devs (and dare I say... it was accepted as such by the majority of testers, according to the dev's statements that is).

Do you think changing the cal .50s belting to make let's say every 4th bullet become an HE one, or alternatively introduce a new "semi APIT" bullet which would have the current AP bullet's specs, plus an extremely tiny amount of HE filler to make it scratch the target surface, would be a much harder to implement "quick fix" than changing a whole plane family's tail specs?

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
II/JG17_HerrMurf
1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

The indestructible tail was easy enough to qualify for a "quick fix" implementation by the devs (and dare I say... it was accepted as such by the majority of testers, according to the dev's statements that is).

Do you think changing the cal .50s belting to make let's say every 4th bullet become an HE one, or alternatively introduce a new "semi APIT" bullet which would have the current AP bullet's specs, plus an extremely tiny amount of HE filler to make it scratch the target surface, would be a much harder to implement "quick fix" than changing a whole plane family's tail specs?

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

So your demand for .50’s historical accuracy is to introduce an ahistorical .50?


This is an ammo thread. I’m not here to address DM of the 109 which we have no idea, as users, if that quick fix was easy or difficult or the false equivalency of whether a .50 quick fix compares to it in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VBF-12_KW
1 hour ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

So your demand for .50’s historical accuracy is to introduce an ahistorical .50?


This is an ammo thread. I’m not here to address DM of the 109 which we have no idea, as users, if that quick fix was easy or difficult or the false equivalency of whether a .50 quick fix compares to it in any way.


As was posted above, the current pure AP .50 belt is ahistorical.  The current modeling of .50s in game is objectively incorrect due to the ammo selection available.  There are possibly (even probably) other issues, which this thread points to.  
 

Since the correct ammunition is impossible or impractical due to engine limitations or developer resources or whatever other reasons people care to guess at, wouldn’t it then make sense to find a quick and easy tweak that’s already supported in the game that would at least give a reasonable facsimile of the correct ammo?  Or should we stick with what we know is fundamentally wrong to maintain the status quo?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
II/JG17_HerrMurf

How do we know tweaking the ammo is even a quick fix? A quick fix can have huge negative implications down ‘the supply chain” and cause problems throughout the code.
 

Further, a quick fix might take just as much effort to implement as API/T. So then, what sense would it make to duplicate efforts that we know is on the horizon but the DEV’s can’t tackle for the moment?

 

None of us, including me, knows the answer. Based on the largely outstanding track record of the team, however, I think I’ll trust in them over the long haul. We all want better .50 in that long haul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BCI-Nazgul
48 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

How do we know tweaking the ammo is even a quick fix? A quick fix can have huge negative implications down ‘the supply chain” and cause problems throughout the code.

We know because all you have to do is change one config file in a text editor.  People have already done it for single player just to see what how it tests.   The .50s become killers instead of Nerf guns.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
II/JG17_HerrMurf

First I’ve heard of a Mod to make .50 API/T. Or are you saying they just turned the .50 AP back to the old version?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sniperton
14 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

First I’ve heard of a Mod to make .50 API/T. Or are you saying they just turned the .50 AP back to the old version?

No, IIRC they turned Brownings to use MG 131 ammo in SP. Six of them proved to be fatal, literally obliterating everything we have, and as devastating as nuke. It was an experiment to demonstrate that HE ammo was vastly OP.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatata_Time

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZXkvZAzcxBdUe2SVGhhBRwt7XVvQfIdN?usp=sharing

 

1- Copy paste in local sub folder LuaScripts inside IL-2 main folder

2- Run game launcher

3- Go to Settings -> Game-> alow Mods

4- Restart game

5- Enjoy the pleasure of having a 6 or 8 gun flying platform using the performances of the russian 12.7 mm.HE  ingame round. Use with caution otherwise could create addiction.

6- Prepare a salad

 

API rounds damage power ( interim possible solution or final version) should be in a "middle" point between these HE rounds and deffault actual AP ones.

 

There's no older or newer version of 0.50. We have a pre new DM implementation or a post one. Once you give a try to the mod you could take your own conclusions not only in the 50's also on the new DM lacks & improvements.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
gimpy117

I honestly think at this point since we've been going in a circles for a long time, we need some chance to test Analogs for aircraft fuselages with .50 bmg Impacts. the tough part is finding something suitable to shoot at and someone with a .50 BMG rifle. I suppose Riveting some pretend aircraft wings wouldn't be really difficult, but it would need facilities that I don't currently have, since I just got my A&P. 

 

but if we could do that we could get an idea of the size and exit holes caused by 50 cal ball, and extrapolate from there 

Link to post
Share on other sites
VO101Kurfurst
7 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

but if we could do that we could get an idea of the size and exit holes caused by 50 cal ball, and extrapolate from there 


Its nothing fancy, its just a hole (tested on aluminium frying pan).

 

Diameter roughly the same as caliber.

 

 

E23344A9-E548-49D5-A6EB-9196CAF63123.jpeg
 

Below - entry and exit holes on a the light steel ‘skin’ of an old van.

 

 

81F3F862-B677-4D9A-8544-57591DF2CB63.jpeg

78702A23-C806-4506-8D56-BA35DF3764AC.jpeg

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
Link to post
Share on other sites
SAS_Storebror

We've had that how many million times now?

That neat .50 diameter exit hole is what happens when you hit a comparably weak, thin surface at 90° angle.

Hit something that distorts your round(s) for any reason (e.g. for being a tad tougher or for getting hit at a certain angle, or simply for not having been the first thing the round travelled through - iow "tumbling" round(s)) and the result will be vastly different.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
VO101Kurfurst
19 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Hit something that distorts your round(s) for any reason (e.g. for being a tad tougher or for getting hit at a certain angle, or simply for not having been the first thing the round travelled through - iow "tumbling" round(s)) and the result will be vastly different.

 

:drinks:

Mike


Distort a high hardness steel penetrator core using soft tinfoil aluminium how, exactly? Magic?

 

Even at extreme angles or impact, even if the round would be instabilised in flight, the only thing that would happen is that the round would ‘keyhole’ the target, ie the shape of the hole would be the same as the shape of the round.

 

Introducing  M8 API would have zero impact on aerodynamic damage, given that its essentially the same rigid steel core with a bit of incendiary material stuffed into the tip, which itself has zero potential for causing structural damage. Its meant for setting flammable things on fire, not destroying structure.

 

image.jpeg.dfec8f63368aeeadb3afa88a3a3ff7ec.jpeg

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatata_Time

Now imagine around 50 holes near the original one or overlaping it every single second by 6 MG's. If you insist in focusing your efforts in a single shot damage power then I insist in you're wrong from the base. Why people still insisting  in demonstrate how weak are 0.50 cal.? Of course they're not a destroyer of worlds but why the hell an army of engineers from NAA decided to add only 2 more MG's as an improvement from P-51B/C to P-51D/K? Why an Army of engineers from Republic Aviation decided to keep the 8 0.50 MG's in next models of P-47? Why Navy's newest models in late war (F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair,...) keep the 0.50 MG's? Were they all crazy in those times?

 

You showed pictures of statics targets impacted by single 0.50 cal round.... I show you a vid showing an single 0.50 cal M2 MG... add 5 more MG's to that.

 

The main damage has been generated by the fuel carried by the car... the API rounds only "zippo" it, as easy as that. 

Edited by Tatata_Time
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
gimpy117
17 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:


Its nothing fancy, its just a hole (tested on aluminium frying pan).

 

Diameter roughly the same as caliber.

 

 

E23344A9-E548-49D5-A6EB-9196CAF63123.jpeg
 

Below - entry and exit holes on a the light steel ‘skin’ of an old van.

 

 

81F3F862-B677-4D9A-8544-57591DF2CB63.jpeg

78702A23-C806-4506-8D56-BA35DF3764AC.jpeg

you shot a thicker pan of Aluminum which has no bearing on an real aircraft structure and a fan with thin steel and empty structure between it. this proves nothing. 

Edited by gimpy117
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnacles
8 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

what did you shoot at? I see red rust...looks like steel aluminum rusts white. and a frying pan is significantly thicker than aircraft wing  sheeting. .040 and .050 is what we see a lot 

 

edit: I guess what I'm saying is, i'm really not convinced these pictures are legit, they aren't any kind of realistic analogs of a wing structure and they look like they are actually steel. even a steel frying pan will have little to no geometry inside to deflect a round from it's initial path. real aircraft have spars, fuel tanks, bell cranks, tail structures that are actually modeled, and other things to do that. 

If you read back in the thread, I'm sure someone posted a link to some research regarding hole size, including probability of large exit holes based on velocities of impacting rounds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
gimpy117
23 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

If you read back in the thread, I'm sure someone posted a link to some research regarding hole size, including probability of large exit holes based on velocities of impacting rounds. 

i actually edited my post due to mis reading, but, the pictures there do not represent a real aircraft anyways 

 

edit: to explain. the powers that be at the time did not seem to worry about .50 cal arrays to be ineffective, up to the point that the F86  had them, so, I wonder until we actually test .50 ball on a real wing and or aircraft structure we won't know. 

 

edit 2: heres a wing from a 182 IPC, its not empty, that's also devoid of all the other things stuffed in there like fuel tanks 

 

182 wing.png

Edited by gimpy117
Link to post
Share on other sites
II/JG17_HerrMurf
1 hour ago, gimpy117 said:

i actually edited my post due to mis reading, but, the pictures there do not represent a real aircraft anyways 

 

edit: to explain. the powers that be at the time did not seem to worry about .50 cal arrays to be ineffective, up to the point that the F86  had them, so, I wonder until we actually test .50 ball on a real wing and or aircraft structure we won't know. 

 

edit 2: heres a wing from a 182 IPC, its not empty, that's also devoid of all the other things stuffed in there like fuel tanks 

 

182 wing.png

That’s not actually true. The .50’s were well known to lack punch during the war but were widely available and, more importantly, widely reliable. American aircraft were fitted with 20mm cannons during and after the war but reliability was generally poor. The decision to fit .50’s was never about destructive power and the number of guns was steadily increase to makeup for it. The F-86 was eventually fitted with 20mm cannons along with Bearcats, Corsairs, etc for exactly this reason.

 

See below:

 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p86_25.html

 

And before the usual suspects start bombing in here: I reiterate; our in-game .50’s are under performing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
SAS_Storebror
2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

The .50’s were well known to lack punch during the war (...) and the number of guns was steadily increase to makeup for it.

That's it in a nutshell.

The guns weren't the most powerful ones to dream of, so they got stacked up until the increased number of guns made up for the lack of each single gun's punch.

Whereas in IL-2 Great Battles, 8 cal .50s don't even remotely cause damage in the scale of a single MG 131.

 

That's the issue, that's historically incorrect and regardless how many people try to convince you of the opposite, simple human logic tells you that this is just fishy and would need to be addressed with absolutely top priority as it severely cripples the main allied frontline fighter's main weapons - which was acceptable if we were playing Sim City, but we're not.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand
5 hours ago, Barnacles said:

If you read back in the thread, I'm sure someone posted a link to some research regarding hole size, including probability of large exit holes based on velocities of impacting rounds. 

The probability of large exit holes was actually never stated, which was the matter of discussion earlier on in the thread. What the test shows is the probability of maximum damage being in a given direction. This is something very different from the probability of getting mx damage (i.e. having large holes), in fact it has nothing do with it.

4 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

And before the usual suspects start bombing in here: I reiterate; our in-game .50’s are under performing.

 

Don´t bother the .50cal inquisition does not tolerate you heresy

Edited by =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
VBF-12_KW

People love to make all sorts of claims and guesses as to why the US used the guns they did.  Here's some actual period material on the subject.

 

Report of Joint Fighter Conference

 page 169

 page 170

 

Mustangs had gone into service with RAF in 1942 armed with 4x20mm.  The P-38 had been in service with a 20mm since 1942.  If the USAAF had wanted 20mm's they could have mounted them.  The fact of the matter is they didn't, for reasons discussed in the text.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
SAS_Storebror

Thanks a lot @VBF-12_KW.

One thing to note from the JFC report is that the army cared much more about initially hitting an enemy aircraft than scoring an instant kill.

Which matches the initial fight pattern we've had in IL-2 Great Battles in pre Patch 4.005 times:

In a 1:! fighter vs. fighter battle, what mattered most was who scored the first hits on the enemy.

Because once you hit your enemy's fighter plane, he'd almost invariably lose certain abilities to carry on with the fight like he did before, so you'd gain a certain advantage which would enable you to take all the time you need to precisely arrange the final kill.

Which still comes true if you have HE ammo now.

But it doesn't come true if you have AP ammo "only" anymore, particularly if your enemy is flying a 109 (sans "Emil").

In such case since the dreaded 4.005 patch, you can put half or even all of your cal .50 AP ammo into your enemy's 109 and he'll just laugh about you, turn the table and score the famous single-bullet-13mm-kill on you.

And that's simply wrong, shouldn't happen, matter of reason: A 109 simply isn't able to swallow a few hundred cal .50 rounds and still keep fighting as if nothing happened. Never ever. Not in this universe. But in IL-2 Great Battles past patch 4.005, it can.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
[DBS]Browning
20 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

The main damage has been generated by the fuel carried by the car... the API rounds only "zippo" it, as easy as that. 

 

That is not a fuel tank explosion.

The detonation velocity is far too high for fuel, there is no extensive burning afterwards, it happens in the wrong place for a fuel tank and fuel tanks don't explode twice. It is also exceptionally difficult to cause a fuel tank to explode.

They have added something explosive to the car.

1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

People love to make all sorts of claims and guesses as to why the US used the guns they did.  Here's some actual period material on the subject.

 

Report of Joint Fighter Conference

 page 169

 page 170

 

Mustangs had gone into service with RAF in 1942 armed with 4x20mm.  The P-38 had been in service with a 20mm since 1942.  If the USAAF had wanted 20mm's they could have mounted them.  The fact of the matter is they didn't, for reasons discussed in the text.

 

This is not the full picture.

Before entry to the war, the USAAF and the USN planned to replace all air armament with US made 20mm Hispanos. The USAAF was so confident that all its planes would carry 20mm cannon that by 1942 they had stockpiled 40 Million rounds of 20mm Hispano ammo that would largely go unused.

The US's 20mm cannons were made to a slightly different design and suffered from manufacturing and design problems all the way through the war and beyond into the early jet age.

 

The .50 wasn't used because of its advantages. It was used because it was the only suitable working weapon the US had.

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

The US's 20mm cannons were made to a slightly different design and suffered from manufacturing and design problems all the way through the war and beyond into the early jet age.

 

Later U.S. jets were switched to 20mm instead of more .50cal because it didnt suffice.

 

2 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Because once you hit your enemy's fighter plane, he'd almost invariably lose certain abilities to carry on with the fight like he did before, so you'd gain a certain advantage which would enable you to take all the time you need to precisely arrange the final kill.

 

Taking planes out of the game was a consideration why .50s were used. Lots of ammo and lots of spray and pray. Keep i mind that the the job for allies was bomber protection. A hit 109 was out of the game no matter if it was actually downed or not and this tactically did the job. More firepower to bring down bombers was paramount for the axis planes. The way people fly in game i.e not bailing even out of heavily damaged planes does not do justice to real life areal combat. This further downplays the in game efficiency of the .50cal, without having anything to do directly with damage modelling. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
the_emperor
55 minutes ago, =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand said:

The way people fly in game i.e not bailing even out of heavily damaged planes does not do justice to real life areal combat. This further downplays the in game efficiency of the .50cal, without having anything to do directly with damage modelling. 

The Problem is the lacking depth of the DM, there is simply not enough to damage and take you oppent out of the fight (not exploding him in a blaze of glory, but force him to start limping back home, looking for a field to ditch or bailing if over allied territory to not get killed)e.g. Super/turbo-charchger damage, Fuel Pump damage, Damage to the injection system/Carburettors, electric system. Damage to the undercarriage to have it come down (big drag penalty, or not beeing able to lock when extended so it collapses when landing) when damaged and render your plane not any longer fully operational to compete in a fight and you are forced to look for a nice flat flied to ditch, or to bail out if you dont wont to risk getting killed when you oppenent comes around for the second pass to finish you....

compare that with the DM of Cliffs of dover, where for example every single fuel/oil line is modeled and a single bullet (even a .303) servering one could end you ditching in the channel....BoX feels very simplified in that regard.

 

Edited by the_emperor
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
II/JG17_HerrMurf

Another problem which will not be solved is how long people stay in the fight regardless of damage. When I’ve had a tiny bird strike on my helicopter skid it sounded like someone hit me with a hammer. I don’t go, “Oh, three percent damage, I can keep flying.” I turn for my home airport immediately to do a complete inspection. I’m also not three hundred miles from a friendly airport. When a guy had an iffy magneto back in the day it was time to retire. Huge numbers of claimed kills were essentially the same scenario; pilots retiring because they were hit and had no idea what or if they were damaged. Sim pilots remain in the fight WAY longer than any real pilot would consider staying in the fight. That will not be resolved regardless of the weapon system. If this were IRL, even the “nerfed” .50’s would be more than sufficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[DBS]Browning
2 hours ago, =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand said:

 

Later U.S. jets were switched to 20mm instead of more .50cal because it didnt suffice.

 

Sort of. 

By 1949 the US has finally fixed its 20mm hispano problems, however it was clear that 20mm hispanos where also outdated compared to German and French rotary cannon developments. 

By the time designers where ready to incorporate 20mm cannon into designs, they where already outdated. 

The US never really switched to cannon at all, they just moved on to rotary cannon, which are a different beast. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SAS_Storebror

Mates we've been there before, it's all in front of the dev's nose and we should not be forced to run in circles for 10 months and counting.

In pre-4.005 times, a solid cal .50 burst into a 109 (or 190 or any other small fighter plane to the same effect) would cause enough damage to it to make any attempt to continue fighting as if nothing happened would have been futile. Been there, done that. IL-2 Great Battles up to 4.004 was the "first one to hit, first one to win" as you would expect from a 1:1 fighter vs. fighter engagement.

 

And even 4.005 still works that way, but only for guns with HE ammo.

If a 109 scores the 1st hit against a P-47 in a 1:1 dogfight, then the P-47 is out of the fight no matter what.

It's "just" that the other way around, the P-47 can have half a dozen bursts into the 109 and nothing changes for it.

It's also not just that the typical overconfident virtual fighter jockey doesn't realize that he's just lost the game: The 109 (or 190 or any other small fighter plane to the same effect) really, actually, factually doesn't lose any of it's abilities in IL-2 Great Battles past patch 4.005 "just" because it got hit by a few hundred cal .50 rounds.

 

Which is just wrong.

And since it's just wrong in one single regards, just for one single type of ammunition, and since dead simple community-made mods showed how to (over) cure this, it's unbelievable that no hotfix to this blatant issue has been release yet and instead we are left ripping the community apart since 10 months and counting.

Simply unbelievable.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
Denum

My favorite is putting 40 .50 rounds into a 109 and it not only being completely flyable after, but flying home and landing.

I got completely deleted by 5 rounds from a 190. I'm talking wing broken off, pilot dead deleted.

 

TLDR..

 

Any of you that fly aircraft with .50 in Multiplayer and do well.

 

Your level of skill and accuracy is something else. I don't know how people do it.

 

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

If we're right to assume that aero penalty only applies when "Level 2" skin damage is triggered, then our main problem is that "Level 2" skin damage is inconsistently triggered across various aircraft.

2021_1_31__15_52_15.thumb.jpg.9a3b978fa08072dd72b274e5ceaea942.jpg

Have you ever seen this kind of damage on a 109?

 

I ask it because the damage you see here on this Heinkel was done by ~70 .303 bullets (according to Tacview).

Realistic? I can't tell. (Anyway, the AI crew of the bomber considered the damage serious enough to break the bombing run and even abandoned the plane after my second pass.)

 

Now have a look at this peppered 109 leaking fuel and coolant.

2021_1_24__18_22_45.thumb.jpg.fe680fce078e8a000bf919747774f983.jpg

It absorbed ~30 .303 bullets according to Tacview, but shows no aero damage even though ~30 hits per 16 sqm wing area gives the same hit concentration as ~70 hits on the affected area of the Heinkel's right wing.

 

(Also note that the screenshot was taken ~15 mins after the 109 had been damaged and 2 mins before its engine quitted over my home airfield ca. 80 km beyond the frontline.

 

Full story in the AI bugs section, but what really matters here is not that this AI pilot behaved as a true samurai, but that he was allowed to play the true samurai for quite a long time without any sensible loss of performance.)

 

BTW it would be great to be able to "read" the .mlg files in the FlightLogs folder.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
QB.Shallot

@VBF-12_KW

Thank you tons for sharing that. I appreciate the insight into the philosophy of use for the .50's, especially the amount of emphasis on the pattern of fire as opposed to the effectiveness of it. That just further speaks to how awkward their implementation is in IL2 BoX without any sort of box convergence being an option. 

Edited by QB.Shallot
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JV69badatflyski



Mike, 
From 2001 there was an issue with the 20HE effects in il2 series, i remember having pumped all the mgFF ammo into a Razorback and that thing continued to fly, ok it was in il-2-46 but neverless the same issue happend until last year here, the 20mm HE had less effect than an AP!  So now the roles are inverted since few months but i'm sure that won't last long, they will take the issue into their hands. The DM is more complicated to represent than the FM.

Actually, Kurfust is right here, the 0.50 make nice clean holes...when fired from 90°
When fired with a slope, the exit hole isn't so clean anymore (that's the normal combat situation) but still the holes are not so big.
should it have an effect on aerodynamics? yes certainly. should it render a plane unable to fly or maneuvre? not so sure . (personnal conclusions)

In the following vid, you can clearly seen the effect on a simulated wing when shot "from 6"
 


And for those that complain that one 20mm HE bullet renders your plane unresponsive, go directly to 2min48.:biggrin:

What i see as issue with the 0.50 is : 1: dammage model of the 109  and 2 too few aero effects coded into the DM. The remaining question is with what precision is the DM modelled in BoX? for me it looks more like a better 46/rof DM, but not going as deep as (far from) the CoD's DM.

Maybe Mike (the boss) is just smiling when reading the topic cause maybe he'll show some nice suprise with the new DM just before the release of BoN and it's not worth to put a coder dozen of hours on the actual 0.50 issue knowing it will be replaced by the new DM, who knows?!

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
QB.Creep
31 minutes ago, alpino said:

81c2f886f91e18fe16d6f4e865877cb6_1.jpg.40c16609986adcee6d9afde4ecf09a3f.jpgWhatsApp-Image-2020-08-02-at-22_08_46.thumb.jpg.7a79d83624ab21d993042bdb65d80e15.jpgWhatsApp-Image-2020-08-02-at-22_08.46-3.thumb.jpg.add0ad47c63b1c47d34c24d20bcfc237.jpgWhatsApp-Image-2020-08-02-at-22_08.46-5.thumb.jpg.1934da4e01c97a67cd3bd2951731257e.jpg

Is that a Baron? Please tell me you shot at a plane for IL2 science lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mitthrawnuruodo
12 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Is that a Baron? Please tell me you shot at a plane for IL2 science lol

 

It was intercepted while transporting drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
alpino
39 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Is that a Baron? Please tell me you shot at a plane for IL2 science lol

I wish I could do that 😆

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

If we're right to assume that aero penalty only applies when "Level 2" skin damage is triggered, then our main problem is that "Level 2" skin damage is inconsistently triggered across various aircraft.

2021_1_31__15_52_15.thumb.jpg.9a3b978fa08072dd72b274e5ceaea942.jpg

Have you ever seen this kind of damage on a 109?

 

I ask it because the damage you see here on this Heinkel was done by ~70 .303 bullets (according to Tacview).

Realistic? I can't tell. (Anyway, the AI crew of the bomber considered the damage serious enough to break the bombing run and even abandoned the plane after my second pass.)

 

Now have a look at this peppered 109 leaking fuel and coolant.

2021_1_24__18_22_45.thumb.jpg.fe680fce078e8a000bf919747774f983.jpg

It absorbed ~30 .303 bullets according to Tacview, but shows no aero damage even though ~30 hits per 16 sqm wing area gives the same hit concentration as ~70 hits on the affected area of the Heinkel's right wing.

 

(Also note that the screenshot was taken ~15 mins after the 109 had been damaged and 2 mins before its engine quitted over my home airfield ca. 80 km beyond the frontline.

 

Full story in the AI bugs section, but what really matters here is not that this AI pilot behaved as a true samurai, but that he was allowed to play the true samurai for quite a long time without any sensible loss of performance.)

 

BTW it would be great to be able to "read" the .mlg files in the FlightLogs folder.

 

There are well over 200 "holes" in this picture, that is just counting the ones I can see. If that is from ~30 hits, so one thing it shows that the visual damage graphics and the hit count do not correspond except as a very general indicator. Try photoshopping out all except 30 holes ( or some more for exits) and it looks much less scary.

 

The 109 has 5 hit boxes on each wing - inner, middle, outer, flap, airleron. You have hits to both elevators, both horizontal stabs, rear and forwards fuselage. Possibly more not easy to see from this angle. So that is ~16 + hit boxes that have taken level one damage. So the most that one box could have taken is ~15 hits, and that is extremely unlikely.

 

In contrast the He111 has absorbed a significant concentration of hits in the right inner wing hit box and the tail areas from it's ~70 hits.

 

What the DM is doing is rewarding concentration of hits: in effect is it saying that 30 hits spread evenly over a target is worth less, in aerodynamic effect, than some number < 30 concentrated in one area.  From an engineering perspective I cannot say that is right or wrong, but I do not find it implausible. It is just a matter of fact, perhaps someone can shed some light on this.

 

Where they may be an issue, is that it is easier to get concentration against an He111 wing than a 109 wing: not just because the wing is bigger but because the He111 wing has two hit boxes while the smaller 109 wing (like some other planes with a rounded wing tip), has three. Unless all planes are designed with hit boxes that are of equal size (which means more for the larger planes, and less on some fighters), I cannot see a way around that problem. 

 

  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
pocketshaver

Well after the discussions on here I ended up with the impression that the .50 bmg were going to be crappy things to use.   Oddly enough i think it just depends on the plane being used to fire them. 

 

Using the P-40, the 50s give the same impression as the .303 brownings and 8mm german machine guns do. That is to say,  make one feel extremely fond of the 202 with its Breda 12.7

 

P47 didnt give me a better feeling at all. 

 

The P51 made me feel like i was using an american version of the MG 17, getting the same black smoke puffs on structural hits. Got me 5 C47s with P51 first spin with it. 

 

But I have to ask and wonder, is teh damage model preset to favor explosive ammunition

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandoble

With the 50s I've got pilots kills, engines damaged, engines burning, fuel and oil leaks, but I'm yet to see any structural damage. Anyway it is just a small caliber AP or API weapon so I do not expect to cut any plane in piezes with them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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.
×
×
  • Create New...