Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Sublime
 Share

Recommended Posts

QB.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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09
14 hours ago, QB.Shallot said:

@=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. 

 

Not quite, as he also says,

 

Quote

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.

 

the point is nothing is a done deal 

my comments were of a general nature , no specific, as I'm tired of the argument in general, ppl will always be unhappy no matter what they do.

There are many things in the sim that I feel need tweaking. but in general its still very good.

and I do expect changes to the HMG's in the future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep
1 hour ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

 

Yes, excellent video. Sadly it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation (AP v HE HMGs). Would you care to share the video of 30mm hitting a Spitfire tail again?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09

everyone already knows its only AP/APT at present, and the damage represents that, we don't have other types yet, end of story, (for now)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Shallot

Goodness Gracious.

@=RS=Stix_09 The AP damage in game as of this moment is vastly under represented. The damage level does not represent AP ammunition, it represents 12.7mm laser beams that do not tumble or fragment. This is not something that will be fixed with adding new stuff like API, it's about rectifying what's already in the game. 
 

And again, your Jason quote is still in regards to WWI. There is a different post he made where he acknowledged that they may review the DM down the road, but stop misconstruing that particular post as something it's not. It's solely relating to WWI.

 

In regards to the Military Aviation History video, it doesn't bring much to the conversation. Just reconfirms that the Browning M2 and it's contemporaries were not cannons (shocker) and that they were perfectly sufficient at shooting down single engine fighters and twin engine medium bombers. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09

ya you may be right. I don;t know how the specifics of the DM I'm not one of the developers. I do know it needs work. It always will.

 

but i also think some ppl are always right no matter what others say.

 

I do know it will always be an approximation within the limits of the game engine.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Rails
16 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

everyone already knows its only AP/APT at present, and the damage represents that, we don't have other types yet, end of story, (for now)

We don’t even have tracer rounds. It’s a graphical effect. The tracer round still acts like an AP round when it comes to damage done. Which in the case of AP is basically one hole the size of the round. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09

 

4 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

We don’t even have tracer rounds. It’s a graphical effect. The tracer round still acts like an AP round when it comes to damage done. Which in the case of AP is basically one hole the size of the round. 


ya possible , has that been confirmed by the devs?, 
the game engine (and cost to implement in development)  will always limit what is possible and what ppl want in damage and ballistics, and FM

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./JG52_Woutwocampe
4 hours ago, QB.Rails said:

 

 

Thanks. Appreciate your efforts btw.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Rails
55 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 


ya possible , has that been confirmed by the devs?, 
the game engine (and cost to implement in development)  will always limit what is possible and what ppl want in damage and ballistics, and FM

Could ask them, but I’ve looked at the ballistic files and effects files. It’s just a graphical effect. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./JG52_Woutwocampe
1 hour ago, QB.Shallot said:

Goodness Gracious.

@=RS=Stix_09 The AP damage in game as of this moment is vastly under represented. The damage level does not represent AP ammunition, it represents 12.7mm laser beams that do not tumble or fragment. This is not something that will be fixed with adding new stuff like API, it's about rectifying what's already in the game. 
 

 

 

 

 Yep, this, exactly. Imagine punching a hole through glass with your fist. There will be cracks around the hole, the glass might even shatter. But in this case, there will simply be a hole the size of your fist. The rest of the glass will be flawless. You punch another hole in the glass and rince and repeat. Adding fire to your punch doesnt fix the issue of the surface not cracking or shattering like it should after being punched relentlessly. Thats current AP for you. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09

The 50 cal damage is not correct I do agree , just not convinced ppl's interpretation  is correct either, its a complex topic. 


I also stand behing the fact it will never be that accurate in this sim any time soon. Prob never, because as I stated before due to limits of sim engine and costs to do so.

Books have been written about it, So I don't expect a few paragraphs on a forum would do the topic justice.

 

I will certainly never live up to some ppl's wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./JG52_Woutwocampe
1 minute ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

The 50 cal damage is not correct I do agree , just not convinced ppl's interpretation  is correct either, its a complex topic. 


I also stand behing the fact it will never be that accurate in this sim any time soon. Prob never, because as I stated before due to limits of sim engine and costs to do so.

 

It is complex and no one said it was supposed to be perfect. For AP ammo though, there is LARGE room for improvement. It is perfecly reasonnable to think that it could be vastly improved within the games current limitations. We are not requesting a perfect AI here which totally emulates a human being.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09

 "there is LARGE room for improvement." 

 

Thats overstating I think, but I'm sure as going by past history of development in this  game we will get changes, though I think its pretty good now. I don't believe it needs LARGE improvements, just lots of tweaks , some I want will prob never happen , I can live with that.

In terms of developer cost tho small tweaks may not be low cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./JG52_Woutwocampe
23 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 "there is LARGE room for improvement." 

 

Thats overstating I think, but I'm sure as going by past history of development in this  game we will get changes, though I think its pretty good now. I don't believe it needs LARGE improvements, just lots of tweaks , some I want will prob never happen , I can live with that.

 

For me, an issue that needs 'lots of tweaks' is the same as saying 'large room for improvement. Its not subtle, its something that most noticed immediately about the update that caused it all. If its so obvious, it means that it is not a good depiction of reality. We are talking about IL2 great battles here, cream of the crop of ww2 airwar sims. It does so many things right, some tweaking here and there yeah, and AP ammo is the elephant in the room right now, so yeah, vast improvement is needed. And realistic within the games limitations. What we dont know is how deep the issue runs and whats required to really fix it, what investment is required from the devs without messing something else up while trying to fix it. Thats a bit worrying tbh. 

 

 

Edited by I./JG52_Woutwocampe
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
4 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

 

Nice info, BUT at the end you'll notice he says that the .50 was effective for it's purpose (shooting down fighters and medium bombers) in this game it is NOT.   It's probably because the DM is not complex enough and the aero effects are under modeled.  Yes, it would more effective with the API effects added, but even as is it is grossly under modeled.  On the other hand the small HE rounds are grossly over modeled.  This combination makes US planes close to useless in a dogfight.  That makes an entire subset of planes (nearly all the US fighters) junk in multiplayer.  Planes that I paid good money to own.

 

If the .50s were as useless in real life as they are in this game the American pilots would have been screaming for a fix and it would have happened.   Just like the US torpedoes were fixed after US sub commanders found they wouldn't detonate most of the time.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero

Ok lets forghet about .50 for example you can just use MG131 and run test when it has only AP ammo and then only HE ammo and copare how effective your shooting down airplanes in game just using 2xMG131. When you see the differance that same caliber AP and HE have , who in his right mined would use AP round when he can use HE. Also why would you take 20mm when you have so good 13mm HE gun compared to it benefits if game models HE HMG round realisticly.

 

To me problem was clearly created when they decided that AP was to strong and HE to weak and they made adjustments to it in 4.005. 

 

Its not 6x.50 should do same as 1x30mm or 20mm its WHY 12.7 or 13mm AP round is so week compared to 12.7 or 13mm HE round.

 

also when you have game with no gun jams you cant realy see benefits of HMGs insted cannons. If high cal gcannons would jam on high Gs they would not be so popular in flying games.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Rails
13 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Ok lets forghet about .50 for example you can just use MG131 and run test when it has only AP ammo and then only HE ammo and copare how effective your shooting down airplanes in game just using 2xMG131. When you see the differance that same caliber AP and HE have , who in his right mined would use AP round when he can use HE. Also why would you take 20mm when you have so good 13mm HE gun compared to it benefits if game models HE HMG round realisticly.

 

To me problem was clearly created when they decided that AP was to strong and HE to weak and they made adjustments to it in 4.005. 

 

Its not 6x.50 should do same as 1x30mm or 20mm its WHY 12.7 or 13mm AP round is so week compared to 12.7 or 13mm HE round.

 

also when you have game with no gun jams you cant realy see benefits of HMGs insted cannons. If high cal gcannons would jam on high Gs they would not be so popular in flying games.

This would be easy to test with a mod too. just switch what 131 HE does effects wise and you'll see the difference right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roland_HUNter
10 hours ago, CountZero said:

Ok lets forghet about .50 for example you can just use MG131 and run test when it has only AP ammo and then only HE ammo and copare how effective your shooting down airplanes in game just using 2xMG131. When you see the differance that same caliber AP and HE have , who in his right mined would use AP round when he can use HE. Also why would you take 20mm when you have so good 13mm HE gun compared to it benefits if game models HE HMG round realisticly.

 

To me problem was clearly created when they decided that AP was to strong and HE to weak and they made adjustments to it in 4.005. 

 

Its not 6x.50 should do same as 1x30mm or 20mm its WHY 12.7 or 13mm AP round is so week compared to 12.7 or 13mm HE round.

 

also when you have game with no gun jams you cant realy see benefits of HMGs insted cannons. If high cal gcannons would jam on high Gs they would not be so popular in flying games.

 

Germans counted that 2x MG-131 good enough. They postponed the belly 20mm because of the G-6 with 2 new MG-131.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, the neverending discussion about M.2 .50 cal ineffectiveness. I remember this was a discussion in IL2 1946 as well and I have been a little loath to add my 2 cents worth, but I have some personal experience to bring to the table so I'll post this one time only.

 

I served in the 82nd ABN DIV and then 5 years in the 3RD AD in Germany. At both locations I got to  livefire M.2s on many occasions, even serving as a range safety NCO several times in Germany due to my experience with it, sitting on top of my old wornout M113 APC all day training troops on setting the headspace and how to put rounds on target. In Germany we had old M113 APCs, as well as 2 1/2 ton trucks which are steel sided, downrange as targets usually at several ranges out to 1000 meters. Now if I remember correctly the M113 had supposedly "toughened" aluminum armor siding of about 1.5 inches thick to stop small arms fire, but .50 cal AP would go right through that like a hot knife through soft butter, even at the longer ranges! We could even hear and distinguish the double "tok-tok" sound of it going through one side and hitting the other side. I had the opportunity to go downrange and look at the damage which was considerable even to the second side impacts. Even tracer rounds could completely penetrate one side! That did not inspire confidence in the troops about how well these vehicles would protect us in combat (I served as a Combat Engineer and in the mid-'80s while everyone else was getting Bradleys, etc. we were still using M113s as our primary squad vehicle). These AP rounds would also go right through the steel bed siding of the old trucks which was about a little under a 1/4 inch thick, maybe around 3/16", so even a "thick" aluminum aircraft skin and many aluminum structural components on the interior should provide little obstruction to this round.  

 

Now there probably had been some small improvements in the API round, like better powder and projectile, but I have a hard time believing that the thin aluminum skin of any WW2 aircraft or even the ribbing, is going to do much to stop a .50 cal AP from causing some serious damage on it's way through. I can see the pilot protection armor being effective, etc. but it does seem that it takes an awful lot of rounds to damage a Me109 in GB, especially when I see dozens of strikes along the fuselage and cockpit area and the pilot keeps flying like nothing happened, then I hit him again, and again, and again, etc. I must admit that when I get a good headon shot with maybe a slight bit of deflection it almost always starts a fire and they go in quick, but from the rear, or a good side deflection fuselage raking, it seems rather ineffective. It does not seem to jive with historical accounts of it's effectiveness in battle nor my own personal experience with this round. The FW190s seem to an easier kill but not by much. To be fair I have sawed off the wing on rare occasion on both aircraft, which is quite satisfying. 

 

Oops, quick edit my bad - I posted using the term API (armor piercing incendiary) when I meant just AP, armor piercing, rounds. We never used API as I recall just AP and occasionally in a tracer mix 1:5 ratio, but you didn't really need tracer in daytime as you just kinda look over the barrel and march your rounds onto the target. We'd only use the sight for initial sight in, pop off a couple of rounds to see where you stand and let loose, as once you got the gun rolling you really couldn't see anything through the sight what with it bobbling all over the place.

 

At any rate it does seem under modelled in the sim and I hope we see some improvement. I also want to note that I have nothing but admiration for the amount of hard work that the devs have put into IL2 GB and that I'm sure they'll get around to addressing this issue when they can.  

Edited by Props
incorrect terminology
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
2 hours ago, Props said:

Wow, the neverending discussion about M.2 .50 cal ineffectiveness. I remember this was a discussion in IL2 1946 as well and I have been a little loath to add my 2 cents worth, but I have some personal experience to bring to the table so I'll post this one time only.

 

I served in the 82nd ABN DIV and then 5 years in the 3RD AD in Germany. At both locations I got to  livefire M.2s on many occasions, even serving as a range safety NCO several times in Germany due to my experience with it, sitting on top of my old wornout M113 APC all day training troops on setting the headspace and how to put rounds on target. In Germany we had old M113 APCs, as well as 2 1/2 ton trucks which are steel sided, downrange as targets usually at several ranges out to 1000 meters. Now if I remember correctly the M113 had supposedly "toughened" aluminum armor siding of about 1.5 inches thick to stop small arms fire, but .50 cal AP would go right through that like a hot knife through soft butter, even at the longer ranges! We could even hear and distinguish the double "tok-tok" sound of it going through one side and hitting the other side. I had the opportunity to go downrange and look at the damage which was considerable even to the second side impacts. Even tracer rounds could completely penetrate one side! That did not inspire confidence in the troops about how well these vehicles would protect us in combat (I served as a Combat Engineer and in the mid-'80s while everyone else was getting Bradleys, etc. we were still using M113s as our primary squad vehicle). These AP rounds would also go right through the steel bed siding of the old trucks which was about a little under a 1/4 inch thick, maybe around 3/16", so even a "thick" aluminum aircraft skin and many aluminum structural components on the interior should provide little obstruction to this round.  

 

Now there probably had been some small improvements in the API round, like better powder and projectile, but I have a hard time believing that the thin aluminum skin of any WW2 aircraft or even the ribbing, is going to do much to stop a .50 cal AP from causing some serious damage on it's way through. I can see the pilot protection armor being effective, etc. but it does seem that it takes an awful lot of rounds to damage a Me109 in GB, especially when I see dozens of strikes along the fuselage and cockpit area and the pilot keeps flying like nothing happened, then I hit him again, and again, and again, etc. I must admit that when I get a good headon shot with maybe a slight bit of deflection it almost always starts a fire and they go in quick, but from the rear, or a good side deflection fuselage raking, it seems rather ineffective. It does not seem to jive with historical accounts of it's effectiveness in battle nor my own personal experience with this round. The FW190s seem to an easier kill but not by much. To be fair I have sawed off the wing on rare occasion on both aircraft, which is quite satisfying. 

 

Oops, quick edit my bad - I posted using the term API (armor piercing incendiary) when I meant just AP, armor piercing, rounds. We never used API as I recall just AP and occasionally in a tracer mix 1:5 ratio, but you didn't really need tracer in daytime as you just kinda look over the barrel and march your rounds onto the target. We'd only use the sight for initial sight in, pop off a couple of rounds to see where you stand and let loose, as once you got the gun rolling you really couldn't see anything through the sight what with it bobbling all over the place.

 

At any rate it does seem under modelled in the sim and I hope we see some improvement. I also want to note that I have nothing but admiration for the amount of hard work that the devs have put into IL2 GB and that I'm sure they'll get around to addressing this issue when they can.  

If we get API we should see reduced penetration from those rounds compared to AP but greater fire chance, if we go by combat reports about their implementation.

The logic for skin damage seems to be that the aircraft are stressed skin structures, and hitting the aluminum skin isn't enough of a barrier to instigate tumbling of the rounds, so every hit is a clean through-and-through leaving two perfect 13mm holes. Which doesn't really make internal sense since we see bullets can ricochet, so clearly aircraft skin is assumed to be strong enough to affect the path of the bullet. Really the round should punch a clean hole in the skin, hit a bunch of stuff on the inside and either expend it's energy on internal structures (which could be abstracted as greater structural damage without adding much to the DM to calculate) OR be tumbling on exit and leave a greater sized exit wound, which could be abstracted as greater skin damage.

It keeps being stated that the DM can't be complex enough to represent AP damage effectively, but everything in the DM is abstracted to some extent and you can get closer to reality by abstracting a bit further to compensate. 



 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
3 hours ago, Props said:

Wow, the neverending discussion about M.2 .50 cal ineffectiveness. I remember this was a discussion in IL2 1946...

I never had an issue with .50s in 1946.  They were good enough shoot down any plane with a decent burst or a couple short ones.  The German 4x cannon planes were better, but that is to be expected.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray
4 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

 

Germans counted that 2x MG-131 good enough. They postponed the belly 20mm because of the G-6 with 2 new MG-131.

 

They went with the internal gun configuration that the G-6 had because the gun-pods, both under wing and center mounted, were objectively bad for maneuverability and speed; a problem not evident in the game as a 109 with underwing pods is as maneuverable as ever but that isn't the point. The final nail in the coffin for this project was the MK-108 cannons coming on line. As much is said in this video. The whole idea behind the cannon pod was to give the plane more firepower and that was better achieved with a bigger gun. This holds with German design philosophy from the war as well: Keep the plane as light and maneuverable as possible while still delivering the maximum weight of fire in a snap shot as possible.

 

The 13mm HMGs were put into the plane because they were better than the MG 17's that were found to be lacking by this point in the war. Not because German design engineers thought two 13mm HMG's were the equivalent of a 20mm cannon.

Edited by -SF-Disarray
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HR_Zunzun

It is kind of funny that, apparently, the same people that says that 0.5cal was an outdated armament option and cannon was the way to go now says that the german thought that (TWO) 13mm HMGs were good enough and they didn´t need anything bigger.

Also, funny as well that have been argued that the 0.5cal can richotet off or just leave neat perfect round holes but nothing in between.

In any case, in game tests have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the perfomance of the in-game AP compared to the HE is beyond any minimum plausability.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09

Well with new Dynamic Visual Damage coming ,you will be able to see a more detailed presentation of the damage being done. (at least where hits are and some closer approximation visually of the type of impact, Current visuals do not give this mainly for looks).
Its still premade skin effects but a more accurate presentation.

Not sure the preformance impact , but its a very welcom addition to the game I think.


Latest Dev Diary REF:

Quote

 DVD means Dynamic Visual Damage. In a nutshell, it places an impact mark where a projectile hit.

Among the many neat possibilities this tech brings, the size of the mark corresponds to the caliber of the projectile and/or explosive power of the shell if it was of the HE variety. They also look different depending on the material the projectile hit - whether it was armor, thin metal, or not a metal at all. There are also separate marks for ricochets of high caliber armor-piercing rounds. The look of these marks is thoroughly prepared by our partners at Digital Forms and is based on real-world photos of combat damage on different objects. The marks placed by this tech are not simple 2D textures - thanks to modern graphical techniques they have visual depth. Even the penetrations can look different such as near penetrations when the armor (barely) stopped a projectile. We concentrated on making these marks as realistic looking as possible.

 

 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roland_HUNter
5 hours ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Not because German design engineers thought two 13mm HMG's were the equivalent of a 20mm cannon.

Who said this?
Good enough=equal? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul: I agree that .50 cal wasn't an issue in IL2 1946, at least not in my experience, but I do remember a bunch of moaning and groaning discussions just the same in the forums back then. I was just noting that as it seems that there will always be some angst about the effectiveness of different caliber weapons in the flight sim world regardless of how well it is or isn't applied within the constraints of pc computing sims development. It does seem to be a neverending discussion, and will probably remain so no matter how well the devs implement it over time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tatata_Time
16 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Well with new Dynamic Visual Damage coming ,you will be able to see a more detailed presentation of the damage being done. (at least where hits are and some closer approximation visually of the type of impact, Current visuals do not give this mainly for looks).
Its still premade skin effects but a more accurate presentation.

Not sure the preformance impact , but its a very welcom addition to the game I think.

 

The main problem with 50's is not visual,..... is far away of being visual. You can stay in the 6 of a 109 swiss chees full of holes from your 6x0.50's and it can perform a sustained 4 G's tight turn to the infinite. It's something weird and complex, something that has not been implemented (Hope YET) ingame.... but when you have a bullet with complex damage capacities you need to join it with a DM that represents something near to plaussible to IRL.

Can you honestly answer to this question?: Do you really think the ingame damage representation of the 0.50 6x or 8x MG's tends to be realistic for a caliber  IRL is so called "Heavy"? 

 

If you honestly think so.... then the day you test the Hurricane 12 x 0.303 you're going to freak out.... 100% guaranteed.

 

In the case you don't want to wait for testing the Hurricane, here I leave a video I've posted before, but I can't remenber in which thread related to 0.50 cal was. Have fun with Master Scharfi.... at least.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09
On 3/14/2021 at 2:37 AM, Tatata_Time said:

 

The main problem with 50's is not visual,..... is far away of being visual. You can stay in the 6 of a 109 swiss chees full of holes from your 6x0.50's and it can perform a sustained 4 G's tight turn to the infinite. It's something weird and complex, something that has not been implemented (Hope YET) ingame.... but when you have a bullet with complex damage capacities you need to join it with a DM that represents something near to plaussible to IRL.

Can you honestly answer to this question?: Do you really think the ingame damage representation of the 0.50 6x or 8x MG's tends to be realistic for a caliber  IRL is so called "Heavy"? 

 

If you honestly think so.... then the day you test the Hurricane 12 x 0.303 you're going to freak out.... 100% guaranteed.

 

In the case you don't want to wait for testing the Hurricane, here I leave a video I've posted before, but I can't remenber in which thread related to 0.50 cal was. Have fun with Master Scharfi.... at least.

 

 

Yes  you are right its not currently an accurate representation of 50 cal damage, they are not fully modelled neither is the ammo types in use (damage should be higher). I only question the amount of damage they did do matches your expecations. (maybe it does , maybe it doesn't)

Also with cannons the "chances" are higher the damage done will be more critical or impact flying character of the plane more than HMG's. I'm not saying how it is in game is correct, obviously DM is not right  (it never will be IMHO). I do think in general its very good though (certainly compared to similar sims). While  I do think it will improve I also  have lower expecations of what we will get in this game than some.

 

Comparing weapons:

It's a fact that M2 50 cals were less effective than german and russian guns (certainly as the war progressed firepower got more powerful in general, especially on the german fighters), americans just added more 50 cals AND they were enough for the intended targets they where shooting at (other fighters and medium bombers), they were proven and they had plenty of them , no need to change the weapon if it does the job intended. However many ppl don't get that late war german fighter were also heavily outnumbered. (it was not combat like we see in MPlayer servers) They were  mainly trying to shoot down armored  heavy bombers,  (and escort fighters where secondary), hence the move to bigger cannons or more of them.

(video above "ugly truth.."☝️ explains this in detail)

 

In game some ppl get expectations not realistic  (when you don't take historic context in to consideration) and ppl see an  imbalance in fighter  firepower (because it was), however 50 are still an effective gun (with enough of them) against fighters and medium bombers (or will be more so I hope with more work)

 

 

RE: visuals .
My point is right now they are virtually useless to know where plane was hit and the damage done by the hit, with DVD at least you can see where hits are and an approximation of damage done. Many ppl current look at visuals and think they are DVD right now when they are not.

 

Fun competitive fighter combat in Mplayer and historic accuracy are at odds with each other. Players expectations of what they want are at odds too.

The more accurate you make it the less balanced it gets, more so as the war progresses in the airwar, and I don't just mean the hardware used, but the scenario of the combat.


 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tatata_Time
1 hour ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

I only question the amount of damage they did do matches your expecations.

 

After almost a year and counting..... my expectations are very low, just the same as 11 months ago, but any change, even small one would be better than what we got nowadays. Never complained how work the 13 mm MG's: they do their work.... and a bit more (it depends on who you ask for), but only 0.3 mm of difference between 13 mm and 12.7 mm doesn't give the room they got ingame, even HE.

 

Life has shown me that most of the times (100% times) people never complains about something that gives them any significant advantage. That's the main reason We've been only discussing what is wrong with the 0.50 cal. M2's, even some people had demonstrated how 2x13 mm MG's are overpowered..... but at least they do their work: dissable the opponent as a flying threat in the first pass and put you in coma in the second one.

 

2 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Fun competitive fighter combat in Mplayer and historic accuracy are at odds with each other

 

Should be accurate to have an AP-API round that damage any component inside A/C's and competitive people nowadays would be bloody aces. And We're are discussing at this point of how weird and strange is all this in fighters equipped with 6 or 8 MG's. Let's see how will be for a 4 guns model....

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09

Problem is with agreement on what is realistic damage. This varies wildly depending on who you ask.
I do know adding incendiary rounds will be a good thing, (while not a panacea will quiet some)

 

I also know this is a very contentious topic and will continue for the life of this game.

I also have been around sims including this one for years, and have seen continual improvements , some I thought I would never see. 

Better to have high hopes lower expectations and you will be less disappointed and have more fun in the game.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09
2 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

 

 Never complained how work the 13 mm MG's: they do their work.... and a bit more (it depends on who you ask for), but only 0.3 mm of difference between 13 mm and 12.7 mm doesn't give the room they got ingame, even HE.

 

 

I think the part of the reason is they are nose mounted and more accurate to aim and hit what u are trying to (no need to get horizontal convergence accuracy), (in kill power), in missions made to test them, but its not apples comparison because the mg131 has he rounds and its only 2x. Also incendiary rounds have more complex modelling or we would have them already, and they are still in development analysis according to devs.(my previous posts).

 

I think i'd just be happy if we had incendiary M2 myself.


I don't know how they get mplayer weapon ballistics sync working , thats got to be some interesting coding. I could not imagine trying to do some of the stuff ppl think they can do with this sim in real time and sync that in mplayer.

This article talks about the ballistics problem in arma mplayer (not sure how its managed in il-2 GB)
 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
2 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

Problem is with agreement on what is realistic damage. This varies wildly depending on who you ask.

There is a way to get close to realistic damage.    All you need to do is do a statistical study of the average number of hits each weapon takes to shoot down whatever type of plane you have data for.   For the .50 cal M2 MG the historical number of hits was around 15 or 20 to bring down a German fighter (don't ask me where I came up with that number because I can't find the source anymore, it's just burned in my mind from years ago.  Anyway, it is something you can find with enough research.)   Once you have that number you just run combat trials in the game and adjust the gun parameters until you are averaging the same number of hits for a shoot down in game.  It's not magic or particularly difficult.  That's one approach.   The other approach would be keep increasing the complexity of the DM and studying/programming the projectile terminal ballistics for the best accuracy until the numbers are close.   If the game is a true simulation of real life the number of hits required ought to be close to the historical statistics.  However, I have serious doubts it that the direct modelling approach will ever work correctly because of the overall complexity evolved.   I think the computing power required just isn't feasible in a fast moving sim at least not with the hardware available for gamers.

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

-SF-Disarray
53 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

I think the part of the reason is they are nose mounted and more accurate to aim and hit what u are trying to (no need to get horizontal convergence accuracy), (in kill power), in missions made to test them, but its not apples comparison because the mg131 has he rounds and its only 2x. Also incendiary rounds have more complex modelling or we would have them already, and they are still in development analysis according to devs.(my previous posts).

 

...

The reason the 13mm rounds are so much more effective in the game is they are doing damage, according to the devs, that is equal to the damage done by 20mm HE rounds in testing done during and after the war. They have said that a 13mm HE round will punch a 300mm hole in a plane; and if you know how to get 2 grams of PETIN to make that kind of hole when packed into a 13mm cavity I'm sure there are people that would like to talk to you. You could place such weapons in any location on a plane and as long as you could bring them onto target they would be as effective as they currently are. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=RS=Stix_09

yes ,I'm not in disagreement on what u are saying about damage done when they do hit. the mg131 HE no question does more damage in the game(exactly how much is unclear)

 

(as started "I think the part of the reason") 

my point was  if you get hits easier it can also give "More" of an impression the m2 is less effective, just adds to perception of them even them being less effective. They certainly appear to be to be less damaging than I would expect, based on the effect it has on the plane FM, which is not a very accurate indication of specifics.

 

Quote

They have said that a 13mm HE round will punch a 300mm hole in a plane;

 

I have not read that from the developers , was that in a dev diary discussion? If that is the case its clearly incorrect for them to do so.

 

Currently we have to guess and test to try to get a feel of  the reality in the game, without developer tools to show actual damage being done, it's still very much  approximation via trial and error testing, with no real method that can give accurate results.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZachariasX

It would help a lot if it was understood that thise puny 2 g of PETIN do hardly more internal damage than a tumbling ball round of that caliber potentially can do. This with the downside that this small HE round is far less efficient penetrating hard stuff.

 

The only practical real world advantage such a small HE round has is when it hits almost nothing, as shown by the video posted by the devs of those dudes shooting such barrels.

 

The more densely packed a section of an aircraft is, the more effective AP gets. The larger your aircraft (in these days), the more higher is the ratio of sections consisting of empty space. Hence, it was a good idea that the Germans retained HE, while the Americans shot mostly smaller aircraft like fighters, that are denser packed with structure. As the incendary doesn‘t really come with a downside regarding penetration damage, there you go.

 

This means, if you shoot a wing from above you will have indeed a much higher skin damage from HE rounds, as they go through only skin and make larger exit holes instead of ounching clean through. If you shoot e.g. wing structure from the front or from behind, all the hard stuff in there like the spars etc. will send the round tumbling. Hence you get exit damage very comparable to HE damage. (As the famous damage photo of this smuggler aircrafts wing shows.)

 

I would say in context of our current DM, for wing damage, aerodynamic penalty should reflect a function of impact angle, from very little penalty (as we have) to what we see currently caused by HE.

 

I just think it is not ideal taking best case for HE and worst case for AP and model just from that. I seriously doubt that having AP-I will change much, unless you declare self sealing tanks not really self sealing. But in both the 109 or the 190, you will get most tank fires only after you shot through the pilot first. So yes, you get the effect, but fragging helping, little it does.

 

Having this wrong leads to the grotesque situation in the planes being largely immune to BMG fire from dead 6. It just assumes these tiny finger thick holes per strike, takes that for aerodynamic as structural damage. (But this is largely fine if you hit at a high striking angle.) You can do that for SMG that have relatively little energy and impulse. But it negates what BMG rounds will do if you send them through 1+ meter of relatively dense structure, as the wing is, seen from behind (or the front).

 

Bottom line is, if HE reduced time on target in the real world, the Americans had used them. Also the Germans wouldn‘t have laced their gun belts with what basically required them to kill the pilot. It can also be said that HE rounds certainly do not extend time on target on average, hence the Germans and the Russians would have ceased doing as they always did, namely making mixed belts for heavy machine guns in aircraft.

 

Taken together, I don‘t think the cal.50 rounds as we have them are wrong per se, I think what is wrong is assuming one case (where these rounds do poorest) and apply that for all cases in the DM. That the DM can process angular strikes AnP has demonstrated with FC where the striking angle factors the probability of spar damage. This where I want to see changes.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray
9 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

yes ,I'm not in disagreement on what u are saying about damage done when they do hit. the mg131 HE no question does more damage in the game(exactly how much is unclear)

 

my point however was  if you get hits easier it can also give "More" of an impression the m2 is less effective, just adds to perception of them even them being less effective. They certainly appear to be to be less damaging than I would expect, based on the effect it has on the plane FM, which is not a very accurate indication.

 

 

I have not read that from the developers , was that in a dev diary discussion? If that is the case its clearly incorrect for them to do so.

 

Currently we have to guess and test to try to get a feel of  the reality in the game, without developer tools to show actual damage being done, it's still very much  approximation via trial and error testing, with no real method that can give accurate results.

 

Han said this in the bug reports section when this damage disparity and the general under performance of the AP HMG rounds were brought up. How it was determined that an insignificant HE charge should make a hole this big when rounds packing ten times that much demonstrated this same characteristic, I cannot even begin to speculate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...