Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals

[QB.Shallot]

Oh it got moved here lol. I feel like I have magical powers. Anything I comment on will be teleported to this barren island of .50 complaints. 

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Go sit in the corner and shut up.  ?

[LUZITANO]

I can't wait until they improve the DM and add API/HE for the muricas.
But you need to be patient and wait a little bit...

One step after other, one block at a time.

I heard several times from several players that the .50 do not works, but .50 work if u aim good and use a good convergence. I made a video about convergence that was moved to this topic and even though I understand you, the people are very aggressive and toxic. I put the video as "not listed" so as not to create a negative image for the game with the negative comments.

Why am I saying this? I heard that there are two websites talking badly about the game on this .50 subject.

I hope the game will always improve, but we need to be patient. The approach could less heavy, right?
 

Edited March 6, 2021 by LUZITANO

[BCI-Nazgul]

6 hours ago, LUZITANO said:

I can't wait until they improve the DM and add API/HE for the muricas.
But you need to be patient and wait a little bit...

One step after other, one block at a time.

I heard several times from several players that the .50 do not works, but .50 work if u aim good and use a good convergence. I made a video about convergence that was moved to this topic and even though I understand you, the people are very aggressive and toxic. I put the video as "not listed" so as not to create a negative image for the game with the negative comments.

Why am I saying this? I heard that there are two websites talking badly about the game on this .50 subject.

I hope the game will always improve, but we need to be patient. The approach could less heavy, right?
 

The other side of this is that the 13mm HE and 12.7 HE needs to be toned down, possibly even the 20mm HE.

[RedKestrel]

6 hours ago, LUZITANO said:

I can't wait until they improve the DM and add API/HE for the muricas.
But you need to be patient and wait a little bit...

One step after other, one block at a time.

I heard several times from several players that the .50 do not works, but .50 work if u aim good and use a good convergence. I made a video about convergence that was moved to this topic and even though I understand you, the people are very aggressive and toxic. I put the video as "not listed" so as not to create a negative image for the game with the negative comments.

Why am I saying this? I heard that there are two websites talking badly about the game on this .50 subject.

I hope the game will always improve, but we need to be patient. The approach could less heavy, right?
 

.50 works if you aim good and use convergence...unlike the crazy german HE ammo, where you just need to hit somewhere on the plane to do nigh-crippling damage immediately.

[Mac_Messer]

10 hours ago, LUZITANO said:

I heard several times from several players that the .50 do not works, but .50 work if u aim good and use a good convergence. I made a video about convergence that was moved to this topic and even though I understand you, the people are very aggressive and toxic. I put the video as "not listed" so as not to create a negative image for the game with the negative comments.

Why am I saying this? I heard that there are two websites talking badly about the game on this .50 subject.

The fifties work just as any AP round of the same calibre ingame. Good aim is needed for all wing based guns because the game didn`t get convergence feature to work too well. Simulating box type convergence with wing guns is very difficult here which makes shooting outside of 30m outside convergence range practice of frustration. On top of that the hitting force of all machinegun rounds falls off drastically when exceeding the 150m mark.

 

The very same gun does much better on the P38 since it is located in the nose. In that plane you can set convergence to 500m, wont make much difference when shooting planes since the projectiles travel in a box shaped convergence. When you open fire, the projectiles conver a much wider range of aircraft frame and are bound to hit the pilot or the engine.

 

The wing based fifties always end up converging on point which defeats the purpose of sending many projectiles of lower calibre through aircraft frame. They end up acting the same as cannon rounds, which base their effectiveness on fewer hits with bigger ooomph but placed in one spot.

 

Finally, there seems to be a wide misunderstanding of how AP round works. It doesn`t explode on contact with aircraft frame like HE shells do, nor it explodes few ms after penetrating like some HE shells do. The AP round should do pilot kill, engine kill, coolant system kill, control cables kill, damage weapon systems etc. It doesn`t since the ingame DM is not that detailed to start with. Then again, all AP based guns in this game suffer from it.

[Tempus]

18 hours ago, LUZITANO said:

I can't wait until they improve the DM and add API/HE for the muricas.
But you need to be patient and wait a little bit...

One step after other, one block at a time.

I heard several times from several players that the .50 do not works, but .50 work if u aim good and use a good convergence. I made a video about convergence that was moved to this topic and even though I understand you, the people are very aggressive and toxic. I put the video as "not listed" so as not to create a negative image for the game with the negative comments.

Why am I saying this? I heard that there are two websites talking badly about the game on this .50 subject.

I hope the game will always improve, but we need to be patient. The approach could less heavy, right?
 

 

If we were 11 months ago I should have enough patience to answer you sentence by sentence, but....After 11 months Admins have simplified you the task to catch up about this thread. Everything they've thought is related with 0.50 "un"effectiveness and FM-DM issues are here. Check all info here, but.... please start reading from the beginning otherwise I could only focus in the "Little Joseph" with laser beam eyes.... it's also funnier than the sentence: your aiming sucks murica!!! 

[LUZITANO]

5 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

 

If we were 11 months ago I should have enough patience to answer you sentence by sentence, but....After 11 months Admins have simplified you the task to catch up about this thread. Everything they've thought is related with 0.50 "un"effectiveness and FM-DM issues are here. Check all info here, but.... please start reading from the beginning otherwise I could only focus in the "Little Joseph" with laser beam eyes.... it's also funnier than the sentence: your aiming sucks murica!!! 

you is funny, too spoiled.

I don't like to rush other people's work, this is very unpleasant.
 

Edited March 7, 2021 by LUZITANO

[Tempus]

1 hour ago, LUZITANO said:

I don't like to rush other people's work, this is very unpleasant

 

Agree. This is the only reasonable thing you've written.

[-SF-Disarray]

Is asking for a fix for a problem that has been identified, explored, and known for a year that effects multiple planes really rushing anyone at this point? I mean, it isn't like all of this is happening the day after the DM 'upgrade' was rolled out. I kind of feel entirely justified in asking for a fix at this point, being a paying customer and all. Similarly I understand the frustration in the total lack of movement on this issue; the issue that has been an issue for a year now. Other issues have been fixed, entire new mechanical systems have been put into the game and revised in this same year. Why not this issue? Why not even a temporary hot-fix? Why no more 'discussion' form the dev team other than 'we'll get around to it when we want to' or 'stop talking about this'?

Edited March 7, 2021 by -SF-Disarray

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Im not gonna lie, Im still shocked by the fact that, after 11 months, not only nothing has been done about this glaring issue but by the fact that the devs say that they did not even check it out. Since April 2020 discussions about .50 have been almost 50% of the forums content. 

 

I understand that thoughts and efforts are towards BON at this point but this should have been taken care of QUICKLY. Not left aside for a whole year locking a thread once in a while with fingers in their ears. Pretty dissapointing imo. 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

The German cannons are also WAY overpowered based on this:

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by =AW=drewm3i-VR

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

6 hours ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

The German cannons are also WAY overpowered based on this:

? do yo mean the part, where the p47 is hit by a single 20mm before it goes down?

[Tempus]

 

Video edit 03/02/2021...... interesting

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

13mm HE on the german side is probably OP right now but what about UBS MG's? They hit ridiculously hard too. I currently have two BOK careers running, Yak 7B and FW190A5. In both I'm regularly shocked by the huge power these MGs pack. Last night in my 7B I downed 3x A5s with less than 120 rounds of UBS left, no 20mm. All 3x 190s suffered extensive damage all over like they were badly shelled by AAA. On the other hand, when I fly 190, there's one type of enemy plane I'll avoid like the plague; the Il2 43 mod. Because of that UBS turret that can obliterate my plane from 500m away. However I will dive through a formation of A20s with abandon with zero fear of all the turrets firing at me. Makes no sense.

 

Honestly, in my Yak career, I would gladly replace the nose shvak by another UBS MG with 200 rounds. Never heard of such a field modif, nor have I heard any pilot saying he wished he could replace a 20mm cannon by a UBS MG. 

 

Right now, the MG 131 and UBS love to remind you how innefficient the .50 M2 is. Its like they rubbed it in your face. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[Denum]

We got banished to the complaints corner.

 

What!

[the_emperor]

1 hour ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

Honestly, in my Yak career, I would gladly replace the nose shvak by another UBS MG with 200 rounds. Never heard of such a field modif, nor have I heard any pilot saying he wished he could replace a 20mm cannon by a UBS MG. 

 

That is why in multiplay the Mig-3 with two 12.7mm with 700 rounds is my first choice.

Higher rate of fire, higher muzzle velocity, flatter trajectory, and hits almost as hard as the 20mm Shvak.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Just now, the_emperor said:

 

That is why in multiplay the Mig-3 with two 12.7mm with 700 rounds is my first choice.

Higher rate of fire, higher muzzle velocity, flatter trajectory, and hits almost as hard as the 20mm Shvak.

 

Yep clearly and I can tell ya that this weapon config right now owns 6x .50 easily, even 8x .50.

 

Now that you mention mp, its time to stop thinking that these DM issues are netcode related. WRONG. For everyone who thinks the .50 is only an issue in MP, its BS. It has nothing to do with netcode or AI. Its simply innefficient as it causes no structural damage to the planes therefore no drag penalty or loss of maneuvrability. In both SP and MP.

 

 

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

13mm HE on the german side is probably OP right now but what about UBS MG's? They hit ridiculously hard too. I currently have two BOK careers running, Yak 7B and FW190A5. In both I'm regularly shocked by the huge power these MGs pack. Last night in my 7B I downed 3x A5s with less than 120 rounds of UBS left, no 20mm. All 3x 190s suffered extensive damage all over like they were badly shelled by AAA. On the other hand, when I fly 190, there's one type of enemy plane I'll avoid like the plague; the Il2 43 mod. Because of that UBS turret that can obliterate my plane from 500m away. However I will dive through a formation of A20s with abandon with zero fear of all the turrets firing at me. Makes no sense.

 

Honestly, in my Yak career, I would gladly replace the nose shvak by another UBS MG with 200 rounds. Never heard of such a field modif, nor have I heard any pilot saying he wished he could replace a 20mm cannon by a UBS MG. 

 

Right now, the MG 131 and UBS love to remind you how innefficient the .50 M2 is. Its like they rubbed it in your face. 

The HE in both of those MGs is doing exaggerated damage for sure. If the HE-MG rounds were capable of that kind of damage output no one would have bothered with cannon, even 30mm cannons - the extra weight and low ammo counts wouldn't be close to worth it. Just slap two more HMGs with HE rounds in it and call it a day.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

23 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

The HE in both of those MGs is doing exaggerated damage for sure. If the HE-MG rounds were capable of that kind of damage output no one would have bothered with cannon, even 30mm cannons - the extra weight and low ammo counts wouldn't be close to worth it. Just slap two more HMGs with HE rounds in it and call it a day.

 

Exactly. Just field modif a Hurri mkII and mount 4x UBS MGs with 300 rounds each instead. In reality though we all know the russians were looking from day 1 to be able to fit 4x SHVAKs in their fighters. We have also read about vvs pilots saying that the only main issue with late war Yaks was that they were under powered with their weapon config, which was not well suited against modern luftwaffe fighters. You'd currently eat A8's for breakfast only with 2x UBS.

[QB.Shallot]

I./JG52_Woutwocampe  @I./JG52_Woutwocampe  That issue was also covered in QB.'s big fat test document. We found the UB's to be just as effective as the 131's in the aero damage department, and as such, they should also be addressed in any DM revisions. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by QB.Shallot

[Mac_Messer]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

The HE in both of those MGs is doing exaggerated damage for sure. If the HE-MG rounds were capable of that kind of damage output no one would have bothered with cannon, even 30mm cannons - the extra weight and low ammo counts wouldn't be close to worth it. Just slap two more HMGs with HE rounds in it and call it a day.

No, the Germans did not need cannons for bomber busting at all.

3 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

13mm HE on the german side is probably OP right now but what about UBS MG's? They hit ridiculously hard too. I currently have two BOK careers running, Yak 7B and FW190A5. In both I'm regularly shocked by the huge power these MGs pack. Last night in my 7B I downed 3x A5s with less than 120 rounds of UBS left, no 20mm. All 3x 190s suffered extensive damage all over like they were badly shelled by AAA. On the other hand, when I fly 190, there's one type of enemy plane I'll avoid like the plague; the Il2 43 mod. Because of that UBS turret that can obliterate my plane from 500m away. However I will dive through a formation of A20s with abandon with zero fear of all the turrets firing at me. Makes no sense

I pick the 190 whenever I want to have higher chance to survive my flight. The 190 can go through bomber defensive fire like no 109.

As for being its enemy, the 50cal has just as much power killing the 190 as the UBS. Easy visible the lack of HE shells, 50cal causes only engine pk, pilot pk, many oil, fuel, coolant leaks and detaches movable surfaces aswell as wheels and it explodes ammo cases. That is accurate for a AP only weapon.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

5 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:

@I./JG.52LukasKlausmann That issue was also covered in QB.'s big fat test document. We found the UB's to be just as effective as the 131's in the aero damage department, and as such, they should also be addressed in any DM revisions. 

 

I dont know if you wanted to @ me instead but if so then yes, we agree that UBs should also be addressed. I legit consider requesting a squadron switch in my career to fly yak 9 or 1b instead simply because the 2x UBs on the 7B feel like Im using a cheat engine. 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

As for being its enemy, the 50cal has just as much power killing the 190 as the UBS. Easy visible the lack of HE shells, 50cal causes only engine pk, pilot pk, many oil, fuel, coolant leaks and detaches movable surfaces aswell as wheels and it explodes ammo cases. That is accurate for a AP only weapon.

Wrong. You state that the .50 is as powerful as UBS vs a 190 then you state what AP (should be API btw) does to a 190. Oil leaks, fire, pilot kills, etc etc. UBS MGs do all of that, big time, plus inflict heavy structural damage that cripples the performance of the plane if its not going down already, giving you a big edge in the rest of the fight. The .50 simply doesnt do that. Even if you land insane smount of bullet at optimal convergence. Unless the pilot's dead or the engine burning you wont see a diff.

 

So no, the .50 certainely doesnt compare to the UBS in terms of efficiency and power and thats the case vs ANY luftwaffe plane. 

[Mac_Messer]

Nope. You see, attacking bomber formations with 190 is done from high range and frontally, where the pilot is heavily protected. Downing the 190 is done from low range, from 5/6/7 o`clock where 50 cal has enough penetration to kill anything (results vary from hitting angle).

 

UBS has HE filling in the mix, 50cal has not, additionally has no Incediary.  So structural damage for UBS is obviously provided, for 50cal obviously not. A simple enough difference between HE/AP to understand.

 

So yes, the 50cal certainly compares to UBS for killing the 190. The only thing I`d say is strange about UBS is better ballistics/range than 50cal, theoretically should be the other way around.

 

[ACG_Cass]

B17s shot down a fair few 190s in there time and that's with a load of single .50 pointed at various angles.

 

HE rounds under 20mm should have a slight advantage over their AP or API counterparts. The HE component ensures a significant hit every time. The problem we have with AP is that only an entry hole seems to be modelled and unless you hit one of the very few, sparsely modelled internal components you are going to to literally no damage to the aircraft. Sure, that should happen. But it would be rare for a round to sail perfectly through a 190s wing or fuselage without clattering into something, tumbling, and then leaving massive exit hole or taking a panel out. That's the problem we have in game across all AP/HE round.

 

Every HE hit is its best case scenario from a skin damage perspective. Every AP is it's worst case. The model either needs to be more dynamic or there needs to be a middle ground found between the 2 weapon types.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Cass

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

Nope. You see, attacking bomber formations with 190 is done from high range and frontally, where the pilot is heavily protected. Downing the 190 is done from low range, from 5/6/7 o`clock where 50 cal has enough penetration to kill anything (results vary from hitting angle).

 

UBS has HE filling in the mix, 50cal has not, additionally has no Incediary.  So structural damage for UBS is obviously provided, for 50cal obviously not. A simple enough difference between HE/AP to understand.

 

So yes, the 50cal certainly compares to UBS for killing the 190. The only thing I`d say is strange about UBS is better ballistics/range than 50cal, theoretically should be the other way around.

 

 

You say things that make sense of course. Yes using the .50 on a 190 can result in a kill. Of course if you engage b-25s from 6 o'clock it can get you killed. My point is, currently, eating 300x .50 bullets in your wing causes very low damage, minimal structural damage and drag/maneuvering penalty while 20x UBS bullets in the same wing at the same range will result in catastrophic structural damage. Same with mg 131. 

 

Can you down several 190s with a P-51? Yeah. Fires and pk's. However, if you dont kill the pilot or light up the engine, it does NOTHING. No way in hell an A8 could eat 200 .50 bullets from 220m and fly like nothing happened. But its the case right now. Thats what I'm saying. 

 

Right now I'd take 2x UBS over 6x .50 MGs to fight a 190 because if I significantly hit a wing or the tail, something will happen. With the .50, you just wasted the ammo unless the pilots dead or the engine's on fire.

[Mac_Messer]

1 minute ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

You say things that make sense of course. Yes using the .50 on a 190 can result in a kill. Of course if you engage b-25s from 6 o'clock it can get you killed. My point is, currently, eating 300x .50 bullets in your wing causes very low damage, minimal structural damage and drag/maneuvering penalty while 20x UBS bullets in the same wing at the same range will result in catastrophic structural damage. Same with mg 131. 

 

Can you down several 190s with a P-51? Yeah. Fires and pk's. However, if you dont kill the pilot or light up the engine, it does NOTHING. No way in hell an A8 could eat 200 .50 bullets from 220m and fly like nothing happened. But its the case right now. Thats what I'm saying. 

 

Right now I'd take 2x UBS over 6x .50 MGs to fight a 190 because if I significantly hit a wing or the tail, something will happen. With the .50, you just wasted the ammo unless the pilots dead or the engine's on fire.

Yes, there is a reason for it - lack of Incendiary.  UBS/MG131 has HE which causes structural damage many times bigger and wider than AP only ammobelt.

 

Well, no. Talking about the 190 only, it does lose wing as a result from 50cal fire. But it has to be damaged from better angles than dead six and at relatively low ranges, up to 150m imo. In addition to that, you can get luck and score a ~300m hit in the ammobelt and it will cause a huge explosion.

 

Sure, UBS has HE, 50cal has none. With UBS you don`t have to be so close, becuase HE manages to deliver chemical energy that is enough to cause big holes in airframe. With 50cal you need enough penetration from close range to get reasonable results, otherwise you can fire at 200m and achieve nothing.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

1 minute ago, Mac_Messer said:

Yes, there is a reason for it - lack of Incendiary.  UBS/MG131 has HE which causes structural damage many times bigger and wider than AP only ammobelt.

 

Well, no. Talking about the 190 only, it does lose wing as a result from 50cal fire. But it has to be damaged from better angles than dead six and at relatively low ranges, up to 150m imo. In addition to that, you can get luck and score a ~300m hit in the ammobelt and it will cause a huge explosion.

 

Sure, UBS has HE, 50cal has none. With UBS you don`t have to be so close, becuase HE manages to deliver chemical energy that is enough to cause big holes in airframe. With 50cal you need enough penetration from close range to get reasonable results, otherwise you can fire at 200m and achieve nothing.

 

I have never seen a 190 lose a wing out of pure .50 damage. NEVER. I have seen however 109's lose part of a wing after eating many .50 bullets. The wing would not give out right away but would fail when the 109 would put much stress on that wing (in a dive for instance). So my theory is that after getting hit by many .50 bullets, a wing will suffer internal invisible damage that will cause the wing to break because of intense stress. However there wont be any surface structural damage that will affect the plane's performance, nothing noticeable. And thats the problem I have with .50. After 200 bullets, surface structural damage should be extensive despite the lack of explosive components in the bullet. 

[Mac_Messer]

That many hits in one wing, certainly so. Personal guess is that ingame it would be fire/explosion much sooner. However, the way API projectile works is nowhere near similar to HE and I think such comparisons are way off. One can always discuss how many AP projectiles does it take to cause structural failure or surface structural damage that translates into maneuvering / speed penalty ingame.

1 hour ago, Cass said:

Every HE hit is its best case scenario from a skin damage perspective. Every AP is it's worst case. The model either needs to be more dynamic or there needs to be a middle ground found between the 2 weapon types.

That is debatable but compared to AP (no I) round, more often than not. Middle ground is what I think also is an idea for a solution. The .30/.50cal problem imo is multidimensional and AP round modelling is just one issue to resolve. Does not work like HE and should not however.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

@Mac_Messer

 

Agreed, AP and API are different from HE and HEI. Theres a mod around to replace .50 M2 ammo by HE. I aint gonna install it as it doesnt fix the issue imo. It just replaces it by a now OP .50.

 

Im just hoping the devs will put the necessary work to improve this. As you said, there are several issues to resolve about MG's. A simple hotfix to make .50 OP and simulate HEI is not what Im looking for.

 

 

[BCI-Nazgul]

4 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

 

Sure, UBS has HE, 50cal has none. With UBS you don`t have to be so close, becuase HE manages to deliver chemical energy that is enough to cause big holes in airframe. With 50cal you need enough penetration from close range to get reasonable results, otherwise you can fire at 200m and achieve nothing.

Except the HE is grossly overrated in these rounds.  2 grams of HE just isn't enough to produce the damage that the Devs have given these rounds.  They seem to think a 12" hole is outcome which is complete fantasy.   I've detonated 20 grams of less powerful explosives personally (10x as much) and I can assure you there is no way 2 grams of slightly more powerful HE is going to blow dinner plate sized hole in an airplane wing.  I could see 3" or 4" maybe, but 6" or 12" is ridiculous.

[QB.Shallot]

@I./JG52_Woutwocampe Yes I did, corrected. You JG guys and your extensive tags make my fingers sore :(.

Here's to hoping the devs don't listen to the naysayers and give the DM a look over. 

 

Edit:

 

I've shared it like 10 times already, but @Mac_Messer, before you go on talking about how 131's should cause more structural damage, and AP should make dainty little holes, kindly check out this response I made to dev claims on the matter. 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by QB.Shallot

[=RS=Stix_09]

This argument is still ongoing , how many years now? Getting a bit old...?

I will say this , the UB was known to be one of the most powerful 50 cal size guns in ww2. A large cartrige with incendiay content which none of the other 50 cals have modelled currently.So it has high kinetic and chemical energy with a good rate of fire, Its also why the browning 50 cals where used in such numbers (6-8 guns in comparison, because in comparison its not as efficent in doing damage.

 

Its also nose mounted in russian planes unlike brittish and american planes with 50 cals, which has a big impact on concentation of fire and its easier to get on target.

 

I often refer to this article and it does a pretty good job of comparing various ww2 gun/ammo types used through the war

 

 

Quote

To return to the obviously controversial question of the relatively poor performance of the .50 Browning: as has already been stated in this study, "the preferred US armament fit [of six or eight .50 HMGs] was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon". 

REF:
WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS (quarryhs.co.uk) (def an interesting read)

 

Regarding game damage models. My opinion is this:
Due to the compexity of this topic we will never get a super accurate DM in this game(or any flight sim). Its just too costly to implement both in terms of computer performance in realtime and cost to make a DM with all the hitboxes and the ballistics and ammunition modeling required and It will always be a work in progress as the game develops with new stuff. It one of the great things about this game its always moving forward.

 

We have something that is very good, but not perfect. One of the best of any ww2 combat sim out there, don't forget that, when you get killed or don't get the kill and get upset.

 

I'll leave with a final quote from the developer about the future in

 

REF: Jason's Briefing Room and Officers Club discussion..

 

Quote

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. 

 

They are listening.... just play the game and have fun.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by =RS=Stix_09
updated quote content to include info about DM.

[QB.Shallot]

@=RS=Stix_09

The Jason thing you quoted literally says in its first sentence that its only discussing the DM in regards to the WW1 birds, and has no bearing on WW2 as a result. 

 

The DM does not need an overhaul, it just needs another pass. Community mods have already shown that it's possible to modify values to get the M2's and similar AP projectiles acting more in line with their historical performance. As of right now, the assumption for low yield HE rounds (see MG131 and UB) is that they make roughly 30cm holes per hit. The assumption for their AP counterpart is they make little perfect 12.7mm or 13mm holes. Note that it doesn't seem like exit holes are accounted for either ammunition type. 

 

The core of the DM is amazing, I still remember how floored I was when I saw aircraft spinning out of control instead of falling apart like paper toys. I'd never seen a sim model aerodynamic damage in such a convincing manner. With the passage of time, little flaws have become more obvious, and especially with BoBp, and soon BoN where you have several star aircraft leaning on a weapons platform that doesn't even have it's historical ammunition modeled (not to mention the AP projectile in game has the mass and velocity specs of a M2 Ball round), it slowly become harder to ignore. 

 

Note: The website you linked to back your point doesn't help your case. It's "damage" reading shows 12.7x108 (UB) to be 20% more effective than 12.7x99 (M2). In game one round of UB HE is roughly 2,350% more effective than a AP M2 projectile. I don't understand why people defend this aspect so much. Admitting the DM has a flaw in it doesn't render the game inept. I just had a bangin' sortie in the P-51 on Combat Box, and that speaks volumes to how flushed out the other aspects of this sim are.

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

It goes back to what has been mentioned before. Without API modelled we do not have a close representation of post 1944 ammunition loads for US aircraft.

The question remains though, what will be the expectations for structural/ aerodynamic damage caused by an API round?

It's also important to mention again that there were numerous complaints in earlier builds regarding AP ammunition being completely OP and HE ammunition being nerfed. This didn't create the circular and in some cases, toxic and unhelpful postfests that we have seen spread across multiple sections of this forum, other website and Facebook. Certainly, there have been some very decent and helpful posts among the weeds and it's good to see that mods are being created to try and represent a more accurate .50 cal loadout. However, I have to agree with @I./JG52_Woutwocampe it makes them OP and doesn't really solve the problem. As an online player, I have been shot down numerous times by US aircraft when flying in a 110 but invariably the cause is from a pilot kill, engine fire or shredded systems but rarely airframe failure. So maybe not so much a ammunition problem and maybe more of DM gremlin as many suspect. 

There were many complaints that the developers were ignoring the "problem" but they have now said they will study the DM when the schedule allows. As a customer that is encouraging news and I hope that they will come up with some solutions that will please the majority but as sure as eggs is eggs they won't please everyone. 

 

 

 

[354thFG_Rails]

19 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

@Mac_Messer

 

Agreed, AP and API are different from HE and HEI. Theres a mod around to replace .50 M2 ammo by HE. I aint gonna install it as it doesnt fix the issue imo. It just replaces it by a now OP .50.

 

 

There was is a mod that replaced m2’s with 131 he and it does make it OP if you haven’t tried mine I suggest you do try it. It still maybe slightly op but the lack of a mixed belt hurts it in that regard.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

8 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

There was is a mod that replaced m2’s with 131 he and it does make it OP if you haven’t tried mine I suggest you do try it. It still maybe slightly op but the lack of a mixed belt hurts it in that regard.

 

I will! Got a link? 

[354thFG_Rails]

17 minutes ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

 

I will! Got a link? 

 

[Creep]

On 3/10/2021 at 12:10 PM, Mac_Messer said:

As for being its enemy, the 50cal has just as much power killing the 190 as the UBS. Easy visible the lack of HE shells, 50cal causes only engine pk, pilot pk, many oil, fuel, coolant leaks and detaches movable surfaces aswell as wheels and it explodes ammo cases. That is accurate for a AP only weapon.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. When it comes to AP v HE HMGs, your statement is objectively false.