Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Recommended Posts

On 6/18/2020 at 12:52 AM, -SF-Disarray said:

For further clarity the 131 HE round packs .9 g of PETN into it.

That is correct. and IIRRC it was phased out by 1944 in favour of the Brandgranate Leuchtspur (Incendiary tracer) which did work like a little flame thrower or welding torch spewing its incendiary contingent forth over 5m of flight path while beeing able to penetrate  multiple compartments (Schotten) of the aicraft and staying intact (lose translation). So they the swapped the small explosive effect for deep penetration incendiary effect. Which will still be able to bite out bits and pieces of the aircraft but not as nearly as much as a true HE-round let alone a 20mm MineShell with 18.6g of HA-41 explosive and delay charge.

 

Here you can probably see MG131 (high tracer ammount mostly every second round) doing work on a La-5 2:39-2:55 (unfortunately I cant find the original video on my hard drive but if my memory service me correctly it was from the Jäger Schießschule der Luftwaffe 1944 and was Fw 190 A8 vs La-5): 

 

13mm2.PNG

13mm1.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Common trend to all the "weapon is nerfed" threads is that none (or very few) provide a track to see what they mean by "nerfed". You can take 4xJu-88 bombers down with the standard ammo load of a P-51. Compared to reality that is quite a heavy toll.

 

Does anyone expect to be able to shoot down 6, 8, 10 bombers on a single ammo load? What is the expected behavior?

Edited by Raven109
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raven109 said:

Common trend to all the "weapon is nerfed" threads is that none (or very few) provide a track to see what they mean by "nerfed". You can take 4xJu-88 bombers down with the standard ammo load of a P-51. Compared to reality that is quite a heavy toll.

 

Does anyone expect to be able to shoot down 6, 8, 10 bombers on a single ammo load? What is the expected behavior?

Well, since you asked:
No, not a track but a direct screen capture and you can see how many rounds went in the D9 without causing any apparent control loss with your own eyes. All 8 guns, Converge 250 meters. You can go into Berloga, take a 6-8 .50s plane and repeat the results all day long, albeit there will be lucky insta-kills mixed in. But those are effectively random. Also the insta-kill seems much more likely to happen with AI, so you can't replicate the experience multiplayers are having offline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjiaY9zcXoU

 

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

Well, since you asked:
No, not a track but a direct screen capture and you can see how many rounds went in the D9 without causing any apparent control loss with your own eyes. All 8 guns, Converge 250 meters. You can go into Berloga, take a 6-8 .50s plane and repeat the results all day long, albeit there will be lucky insta-kills mixed in. But those are effectively random. Also the insta-kill seems much more likely to happen with AI, so you can't replicate the experience multiplayers are having offline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjiaY9zcXoU

 

 

Ok, is that proof of .50 cal being nerfed or of issues with the netcode/player connection/server stability etc? You can see the 190 warping heavily at one point. Since the 50s seem to be behaving ok in single player, I would venture to assume that the issue is the multiplayer environment (be it netcode, connection, server setup, etc), as some of others have noted. 

 

Something needs to be addressed obviously, but I don't think the 50s need to be transformed into cannons, just so they compensate for other issues.

 

The other video with the P-47M you've posted is not what I'd see the 50s should look like. That is a huge exaggeration/simplification, in my opinion.

Edited by Raven109
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not having any problems with the 50.cals

 

Short bursts (0.5-1.5 sec bursts where a majority of the guns are hitting) are usually enough to either kill the Pilot, the engine or starting a fire.

For example A normal 4v4 SP sortie in the P-47 against 109s or 190s tends to result in 4 kills with less then 500-1000 rounds spent (most missing the target)

with 2-3 fires,1-2 pilot kills and atleast 1 dead engine (with often the damages overlapping).

 

I find that shooting from a pure chase (directly behind) it can often be less effective (Since you are less likely to hit the Fueltanks,Pilot or engine)

as well as the wing mounted guns making a hit on the fuselage trickier.

 

But even in MP i tend to have no problems with the 50 cals

(and the P-47 is my favorite Allied Bodenplatte aircraft with the P-40 and P-39 being my prefered aircaft in the eastern front Scenarios, So when i fly red i tend carry 50s =P)

I have several flights where i get 2-3 kills flying the P-47 in MP with 150-200 hits (across all targets) according to IL2 Stats

(and with 8x50s you get around 100 rounds a sec)

With one example being killing 3x Bf 110 on Combat Box in less then 1 minute with 218 registered hits across the three

and with so many rounds per second that is probably more hits then needed

(Since 1-5 rounds a certain location might do enough damage that the other 10-14 would not have been needed).

 

Personally i find that my issue with the 50.cals is not the damage they cause when they hit.

But rather hitting in the first place (In MP Against aerial targest i tend to sit between 8-16% hits)

 

So the thing that i would ask for regarding the 50.cal equipped aircraft would probably be to make the gun convergence more in depth.

(Being able to set up a convergence pattern or setting specific convergence ranges for each pair of guns etc)

as i think that is something that would make 50.cal equipped airplanes like the P-40,P-47 and P-51 more effective for many pilots.

Edited by mattebubben
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raven109 said:

 

Ok, is that proof of .50 cal being nerfed or of issues with the netcode/player connection/server stability etc? You can see the 190 warping heavily at one point. Since the 50s seem to be behaving ok in single player, I would venture to assume that the issue is the multiplayer environment (be it netcode, connection, server setup, etc), as some of others have noted. 

 

Something needs to be addressed obviously, but I don't think the 50s need to be transformed into cannons, just so they compensate for other issues.

 

The other video with the P-47M you've posted is not what I'd see the 50s should look like. That is a huge exaggeration/simplification, in my opinion.

3/4s of the players I'm shooting at have net issues bad enough to absorb this many bursts with hardly any effect? Big Doubt. And I thought these games were client-side anyway (i.e If I see the bullets landing on my screen the damage is allotted). And as others have pointed out, other gun packages don't seem to have "net issues" so we can rule that out immediately.

There's your opinion about what 8 .50s hitting all in roughly the same place do, and then there's Bob Johnson's actual experience, which involved many cases of quick disintegration. He was of course likely a fantastic shot compared to the average WWII fighter pilot, but so are most of us, having the benefit of literal decades of practice in these games.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/62134-all-of-robert-s-johnsons-kills-described-in-his-book-thunderbolt/?tab=comments#comment-949733

 

Oh, and .50s definitely aren't cannons in War Thunder.  The cannons are very much more lethal in short bursts. Planes do fly through short snapshots of .50s without getting destroyed, but that was more of a high G tracking shot close to converge range, things should be disintegrating quickly.

BTW, I don't find wings coming off super often in WT, if that's a trigger for you. They usually die to fire, pilot kill, or loss of control first, so why keep firing?

 In case you didn't know it, War Thunder's primary brag is being very autistic about their modeling of every single bullet, penetration, damage, etc. IOW, they will claim a very high stnadard of accuracy. Who is right? Here's the truth: Without the ability to shoot at actual WWII airplanes in flight with actual guns under controlled scientific conditions everyone is FREAKIN' GUESSING, let's be honest about that.

But WT's guess is definitely leading to better gameplay right now. If I fly myself to a proper gun solution on a 190 he's quite dead, of course if he does the same to me I'm much, much deader, but that's fine. Kind of like hitting a fly with a swatter versus with a hammer. Those conditions make a better experience than what you saw in the video I linked, for many reasons. If you don't want to get shot down fly out of his guns envelope.



What's NOT a good experience is a stick-stirring enemy you're firmly saddled on being able to tank hundreds of bullets (because he is strategically making sure they get spread across his plane by stirring) and come out with leaks at worse, and still be in enough control to shoot you when you literally have to break off firing at point blank to avoid collision. 

Edited by Rattlesnake
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

3/4s of the players I'm shooting at have net issues bad enough to absorb this many bursts with hardly any effect? Big Doubt. And I thought these games were client-side anyway (i.e If I see the bullets landing on my screen the damage is allotted). And as others have pointed out, other gun packages don't seem to have "net issues" so we can rule that out immediately.

There's your opinion about what 8 .50s hitting all in the same place do, and then there's Bob Johnson's actual experience, which involved many cases of quick disintegration. He was of course likely a fantastic shot compared to the average WWII fighter pilot, but so are most of us, having the benefit of literal decades of practice in these games.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/62134-all-of-robert-s-johnsons-kills-described-in-his-book-thunderbolt/?tab=comments#comment-949733

 

 

Is Bob Johnson the same guy who claimed that the P-47 out rolls anything in the sky and also the one who claimed he got his P-47 to 470mph in level flight? Let's assume he's not exaggerating, how do you quantify disintegrate... how many bullets until disintegration? At what range? Does disintegration mean a wing ripped off, total obliteration? Why would a fighter disintegrate when fired upon with a few non explosive rounds? Did he manage to disintegrate all fighters that he shot at? If so, why aren't there more accounts to confirm this, from other pilots or gun cams? Does one example prove a rule? Are people reliable observers? Was Bob Johnson trying to sell a book? 

 

And yes.. players have net issues, or the net code has them. Go into SP to see how effective the .50s are (especially if you hit.....). I did disintegrate planes (FW) in game with a P-47 (all it takes is to hit it right). Please see above your last post where someone is saying that they don't have issues, be it online or offline.

 

I think games which try to be realistic should use test/documented data to build the simulation, rather than opinions.

Edited by Raven109
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

 

Is Bob Johnson the same guy who claimed that the P-47 out rolls anything in the sky and also the one who claimed he got his P-47 to 470mph in level flight? Let's assume he's not exaggerating, how do you quantify disintegrate... how many bullets until disintegration? At what range? Does disintegration mean a wing ripped off, total obliteration? Why would a fighter disintegrate when fired upon with a few non explosive rounds? Did he manage to disintegrate all fighters that he shot at? If so, why aren't there more accounts to confirm this, from other pilots or gun cams? Does one example prove a rule? Are people reliable observers? Was Bob Johnson trying to sell a book? 

 

And yes.. players have net issues, or the net code has them. Go into SP to see how effective the .50s are (especially if you hit.....). Please see above your last post where someone is saying that they don't have issues, be it online or offline.

Considering how much aileron deflection in WWII depended on upper body strength, and that the Jug is a good roller anyway, it's perfectly plausible that he was never out-rolled. Athlete before being a pilot. Greg of Greg's Airplanes has examined his speed claim, and guess what, it's also plausible that when you hot-rod the R-2800 to produce nearly the same power as a 470mph P-47M in the less draggy razorback you will get the same speed. Also his claim IIRC was 300mph IAS in level flight, the TAS has to be calculated based on factors he may or may not be guessing right.

The man's books sold on the basis of being a fighter pilot credited with a large number of kills in the recent war. There is no need for him to describe the kills other than how they happened. The very first description is a bit self-deprecating, and obviously a short burst, as his own gun noise scared him, highly excited state having something to do with this no doubt. Also there is sufficient confirmation of 109s and 190s suddenly exploding or having bits of wing or surface fall off from other pilots and gun camera footage. Keep in mind that because of the difference in practice time the average WWII fighter pilot was certainly a terrible shot compared to the online pilots with thousands of hours shooting at virtual planes and no life or death worry on our minds.

AIs are also vastly more likely to die quickly to .50s in online arenas, so it's not a net issue. Also other gun packages still seem effective enough, so not a net issue, unless net issues can somehow effect .50s alone.

19 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

 

 

 

I think games which try to be realistic should use test/documented data to build the simulation, rather than opinions.

There's no truly scientific data in existence on this question because as I say, it would involve shooting at the real fighter in question in flight with real guns under conditions much more controlled than combat. There are only pilot descriptions and gun cam footage. 

I don't know how long you've been in sims, but most devs of most simulators have done their dead level damndest to be realistic when it comes to flight model and damage factors at least. And guess what? They frequently come out with greatly varying results. Just look at DCS versus Il-2, for instance. If you can play multiple different sims and still have faith in "we know this is accurate because our program which runs on a personal desktop in some guy's den calculated it to be so", well I can't help you. For years the most cutting edge and expensive computer technology on the planet has been used to help engineers decide how a new airplane will fly, and sure it's gotten more capable, but still, in the year of our lord 2020 flight test often reveals surprises. 

Edited by Rattlesnake
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Considering how much aileron deflection in WWII depended on upper body strength, and that the Jug is a good roller anyway, it's perfectly plausible that he was never out-rolled. Athlete before being a pilot. Greg of Greg's Airplanes has examined his speed claim, and guess what, it's also plausible that when you hot-rod the R-2800 to produce nearly the same power as a 470mph P-47M in the less draggy razorback you will get the same speed. Also his claim IIRC was 300mph IAS in level flight, the TAS has to be calculated based on factors he may or may not be guessing right.

The man's books sold on the basis of being a fighter pilot credited with a large number of kills in the recent war. There is no need for him to describe the kills other than how they happened. The very first description is a bit self-deprecating, and obviously a short burst, as his own gun noise scared him, highly excited state having something to do with this no doubt. Also there is sufficient confirmation of 109s and 190s suddenly exploding or having bits of wing or surface fall off from other pilots and gun camera footage. Keep in mind that because of the difference in practice time the average WWII fighter pilot was certainly a terrible shot compared to the online pilots with thousands of hours shooting at virtual planes and no life or death worry on our minds.

AIs are also vastly more likely to die quickly to .50s in online arenas, so it's not a net issue. Also other gun packages still seem effective enough, so not a net issue, unless net issues can somehow effect .50s alone.

 

Well, yes, but then you see my point regarding pilot stories? With the new assumption (that his physical strength was the real cause), it's not the P-47 out rolling anything, it's the pilot inside. Does that mean that the devs should model, based on Johnson's account, a P-47 that out rolls anything, if we go and believe his initial absolute "bar none" statement? Should they go and model disintegrating planes based on the account of the same person until we find another piece of information about this, which then will just prove that he meant something else when he said that aircraft disintegrated? 

 

You can disintegrate FWs in game with a P-47, if by disintegrate you mean blowing them to bits.

Edited by Raven109
Link to post
Share on other sites

First in regards to net issues.

It effects all guns.

not just .50s (All weapons seem more effective in SP)

 

And secondly in regards to pilot accounts.

No recollection of an event is exact as to how it actually happened.

 

Memory is not a perfect recording of what occurred.

Its what a person thinks happened based on his experience of the events.

And it will become more distorted both over time and based on how hectic the situation was

(There is plenty of research on this topic for example in regards to witnesses accounts).

 

So over time a flash from a hit might become an explosion and a part of the aircraft falling off (ailerons or flaps etc) might be it disintegrating into small pieces etc.

 

And it does not mean a pilot lying or embellishing its just a matter of memory being faulty.

As a simple test

 

Fly a mission in il2 and save the track (without watching it)

wait 2-3 hours (while thinking about what happened and trying to remember it while going about your day)

then after 2-3 hours Write out how that mission went in detail

(how you maneuvered how many kills you scored, how much you had to fire, the damage caused to the enemy aircraft etc).

 

And then watch the track of the mission.

I promise you there will be significant differences from how you remember it to what actually happened.

 

And yes a real life mission would be a much more memorable event then a simple IL2 flight.

But it would also be much more chaotic and stressfull with a lot more other things going on before during and after the kill was scored.

 

This is also the same reason why there were so many more kill claims then actual aircraft shot down.

 

Since a pilot might have seen something fall of the enemy aircraft as he fired on it before it dove towards the ground from 15-30,000 feet

and because he saw something fall off and then the aircraft seemingly plummeted towards the ground he might have assumed that the damage was catastrophic and caused the dive, and then on the flight back to base he goes over the encounter in his head trying to remember what happened

so by the time he gets back to base that 1 part he saw falling off might be remembered as several parts or even an entire wing,

 

So when he gets back and reports the encounter that he now remembers as seing large parts of the enemy airplanes wing falling off after being hit by his gunfire he gets credited with a kill.

 

While in reality the enemy fighter got hit lost his flaps on one wing before diving away to escape and managed to fly back and land at his base etc.

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

 

There's no truly scientific data in existence on this question because as I say, it would involve shooting at the real fighter in question in flight with real guns under conditions much more controlled than combat. There are only pilot descriptions and gun cam footage. 
 

 

Not true - there is also the US Ballistics laboratory report, which gets mentioned in just about every thread on this issue (and the equivalent "mineshells are nerfed" threads), although it is clear that many of the people who complain have never read it. Which is understandable - making sense of it does require some knowledge of the mathematics of probability.

 

This did involve shooting at real planes with real guns - not in the air, but on the ground, which has the huge advantage that the testers can stroll over to the target and assess what actually happened after each hit.  Not so easy to do on a plane that has crash damage, much harder to do while flying in the middle of a fight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

I don't know how long you've been in sims, but most devs of most simulators have done their dead level damndest to be realistic when it comes to flight model and damage factors at least. And guess what? They frequently come out with greatly varying results. Just look at DCS versus Il-2, for instance. If you can play multiple different sims and still have faith in "we know this is accurate because our program which runs on a personal desktop in some guy's den calculated it to be so", well I can't help you. For years the most cutting edge and expensive computer technology on the planet has been used to help engineers decide how a new airplane will fly, and sure it's gotten more capable, but still, in the year of our lord 2020 flight test often reveals surprises. 

 

DCS is derived from LOMAC, which was based in turn on Su-27 Flanker, which had a damage model meant for fighter jets and missile combat, not very detailed since they were more interested in simulating direct missile hits (proximity detonation is not a thing in DCS). The WW2 war birds were an afterthought in the development of DCS and they implemented them to work in an environment meant for fighter jets. Nothing to do with there not being any sources to base their calculations on.

 

This is not the first time that the .50s are being discussed in the history of WW2 sims (and it's certainly not the 1st time they are being discussed on this forum). Il2 Ace Expansion Pack lead to exactly the same discussions about how the .50s should be desync'ed, and how they should destroy Tiger tanks, this was 13-14? years ago. 

You mention WT several times, which leads me to believe that you prefer its damage model over Il2. There's nothing wrong with liking WT, of course, but I think it's wrong to try and transform another simulation into WT. If WT is good for you, then you can play that, there doesn't need to be multiple WT clones.

 

Regarding DCS's current damage model, still no disintegration:

Spoiler

 

Edited by Raven109
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

Keep in mind that because of the difference in practice time the average WWII fighter pilot was certainly a terrible shot compared to the online pilots with thousands of hours shooting at virtual planes and no life or death worry on our minds.

 

5 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

What's NOT a good experience is a stick-stirring enemy you're firmly saddled on being able to tank hundreds of bullets (because he is strategically making sure they get spread across his plane by stirring) and come out with leaks at worse, and still be in enough control to shoot you when you literally have to break off firing at point blank to avoid collision. 

 

There is some truth to these quotes. But then it means that you also accept the fact that comparing intense dogfight servers to real world combat is a moot point. Mainly because dogfight servers are not simulating a real situation (i.e. virtual pilot experience is not similar to real life, physical and psychological limits don't really exist or don't have a huge impact on how virtual pilots fly and as a consequence the maneuvers are not realistic).

 

I also think, as you do, that one of the causes for the .50s not being perceived as effective (when compared to real world accounts) is due to the way the target maneuvers, especially on-line. Due to violent maneuvering (perhaps not realistic), the time on target is considerably reduced, and as such, the .50s are considered ineffective by some. This however, doesn't really mean that the .50s should be made stronger. It could just mean that a method must be devised to limit the violent maneuvering. And then you'll have a bunch of people complaining about physiology instead of .50s.

Edited by Raven109
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raven109 said:

... and how they should destroy Tiger tanks, ...

 

My all time favorite for years...it is coming up again and again...you can't kill that stuff...like in the whack-a-mole game...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 11:48 PM, Raven109 said:

I also think, as you do, that one of the causes for the .50s not being perceived as effective (when compared to real world accounts) is due to the way the target maneuvers, especially on-line. Due to violent maneuvering (perhaps not realistic), the time on target is considerably reduced, and as such, the .50s are considered ineffective by some. This however, doesn't really mean that the .50s should be made stronger. It could just mean that a method must be devised to limit the violent maneuvering. And then you'll have a bunch of people complaining about physiology instead of .50s.


Unpopular opinion: from my point of view, the armament of six .50 MGs is very effective in the game, especially when the target is maneuvering. Due to their high rate of fire and large ammo, you can saturate air with a cloud of bullets and if your opponent maneuvers, he exposes his engine(s) and pilot, and there is a very high chance that at least something will hit the vulnerable soft spots, causing an engine fire or an instant PK. It is one of the easiest armament settings to make kills on deflection shots. The only easier one is of the mighty Fw-190A. If your opponent does not maneuver, then it is even easier, shooting at straight six for a relatively long period of time usually results in a PK eventually.

Killing bombers is even easier. You can cause a lot of damage from a very long distance before the gunners are effective. Again, from a cloud of bullets at least something will hit the engines and control surfaces/rods/crew.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the .50 rounds are very effective if you hit the pilot or engine they are almost entirely ineffective if you hit anything else. They are all or nothing. If you drop rounds into the wing of a plane they will not slow down, they will not lose maneuverability the stall speed will not go up. This is even the case if you rake a plane from wingtip to wingtip. The plane is as effective as it ever was. If things like removing paint and polishing the metal of a plane can make it go measurably faster absent any other changes, why won't punching ragged holes in the plane do the opposite? Why do German .51 rounds with a very small HE charge wrecking the aerodynamics of planes with a few hits? A handful of those rounds will chop between 25 and 30 MPH off a plane maintaining the same power settings. In every fight I have been in where these guns are in play, this has played a pivotal role in the fight. If I score a small number of nonfatal hits with 131's that fight is all but over. If I get hit by M2's, even large numbers of them, but they all land in the wings I can keep on keeping on like it never even happened.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Raven109

 

any video where you kill  4 ju88 with standard P51 ammo... or simply is your especulation?

and , if your sentence was true... you can test how many bombers you can kill with your 109.. standard aramament... is enought realistic in this case? 

 

Many people  now are happy with grenadehand ammo ( minnesglosh ) let be happy  others with their guns.

 

This is a videogame... more or less complex.  We cant simulate whole reality.... lot of things are allways missing... and of course allways need , coeficients, and tricks for simulate things.... 0.50 ( no matter whar are the reassons due game limitations)  and how enemy hitted continue flying like nothing happening 
 are obviusly bad simulated.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 11:29 PM, -SF-Disarray said:

While the .50 rounds are very effective if you hit the pilot or engine they are almost entirely ineffective if you hit anything else. They are all or nothing. If you drop rounds into the wing of a plane they will not slow down, they will not lose maneuverability the stall speed will not go up. This is even the case if you rake a plane from wingtip to wingtip. The plane is as effective as it ever was. If things like removing paint and polishing the metal of a plane can make it go measurably faster absent any other changes, why won't punching ragged holes in the plane do the opposite? Why do German .51 rounds with a very small HE charge wrecking the aerodynamics of planes with a few hits? A handful of those rounds will chop between 25 and 30 MPH off a plane maintaining the same power settings. In every fight I have been in where these guns are in play, this has played a pivotal role in the fight. If I score a small number of nonfatal hits with 131's that fight is all but over. If I get hit by M2's, even large numbers of them, but they all land in the wings I can keep on keeping on like it never even happened.

An aircraft not losing speed when hit by a lot of 50.cal rounds (or any types of rounds actually) in the wing is nothing less than disturbing, no matter how you try to explain it.

 

I am really surprised that many knowledgeable people around here are willing to accept it as something non critical while it could easily be corrected. Especially when nobody serious is wanting the .50cal damage to be as important as other better rounds modelled in game. What is needed is excess drag caused by 50 cal ammo damaging a wing because it seems not to be there.

 

I can not see the issue (apart an issue of double standard thinking) of modelling drag due to 50 cal. damage to the wings, nobody wants it to be equivalent to better weapons like the 131, or a 20mm shell lol,  what is needed is the existence of a drag effect for a wing hit by  50 cal that's all, it could be a fraction of the damage made by similar but more powerfull rounds: nobody wants to be able to kill a Tiger tank by making 50 cal round bounce under it.

 

There can be mistakes or inaccuracies in a constantly improving and complex sim as IL2GB, and i am confident that this issue, if confirmed, will be examined, and corrected if needed.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Caudron431Rafale
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Caudron431Rafale

 

Hi Caudron,

 

As we've tried many times to get across (hence why this topic is in the complaints section)... there has been a decision made by the development team to focus on the fuel systems after two to three months solidly of working on the damage model itself. The fuel systems modelling is considered a higher priority right now in terms of its magnitude of effect on an aircraft's damage. That's not saying its not an issue, just not a big enough one to delay work on the fuel systems.

 

They decided there is a higher development priority and are working based on priorities but there is a chance the team will come back to this later.

 

There is nothing disturbing about it, the order of magnitude between the effects of cannons and machine guns has been very clearly laid out.

 

I'm sure if the team gets some spare time they'll try looking into it... and once again we're not saying there isn't an issue - but you are probably looking at something like a half mph speed loss for each .50 calibre round. That in contrast to an aircraft effectively burning on fire or not, take your pick.

 

If it can be easily corrected why don't you offer your services to easily correct it? it all takes time I'm afraid.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

And do you have confirmation on this, or is that just you speculating? Yes, they have said they are working on the fuel systems now. Are they going to come back to this aspect of the DM particularly? I haven't seen word one on this issue specifically. I haven't even been told by a reliable source that they know this is a problem and aren't going to do anything about it. In so far as I can tell there is no indication that this is something they are even aware of. I can't even say for sure that this phenomenon was noticed in the testing of the new DM. I can't imagine that it was picked up in testing as it would be a very odd choice to see that the .50 AP ammo is having no effect on the flight characteristics of a plane and just go ahead with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

@Caudron431Rafale

 

Hi Caudron,

 

As we've tried many times to get across (hence why this topic is in the complaints section)... there has been a decision made by the development team to focus on the fuel systems after two to three months solidly of working on the damage model itself. The fuel systems modelling is considered a higher priority right now in terms of its magnitude of effect on an aircraft's damage. That's not saying its not an issue, just not a big enough one to delay work on the fuel systems.

 

They decided there is a higher development priority and are working based on priorities but there is a chance the team will come back to this later.

 

There is nothing disturbing about it, the order of magnitude between the effects of cannons and machine guns has been very clearly laid out.

 

I'm sure if the team gets some spare time they'll try looking into it... and once again we're not saying there isn't an issue - but you are probably looking at something like a half mph speed loss for each .50 calibre round. That in contrast to an aircraft effectively burning on fire or not, take your pick.

 

If it can be easily corrected why don't you offer your services to easily correct it? it all takes time I'm afraid.

 

Thanks

Hi Aurora,

 

There is nothing to be criticized about how the team chose to do things: they have their strategy, i have noticed that it is, in the long term always the best one, and i generaly have no opinion on the way they do their things, i  purchase their fine products as a simple way for me to show my appreciation, and i must say admiration.

 

As i mentionned in another post: even as they are now, the 50.cal are, even only in fours, a leathal weapon in the hand of a good pilot, no question. The new DM is very fine, and differences between calibers, between kinetic and chemical effects has greately improved and is becoming more an more believable (he rounds, wings off, etc).

The team's work is accurate, and the guys there are trying hard to simulate physics phenomena hard to render realistically with the puny gaming rigs we have; they do it brilliantly!

 

No really i'm not talking about the team when i use the world "disturbing", and it is really clear in my post. I want to precise  this because it would be sad that other people think so because of your interpretation of my post. BTW It is strange that you interpreted it that way.

 

I wrote :

 

"An aircraft not losing speed when hit by a lot of 50.cal rounds (or any types of rounds actually) in the wing is nothing less than disturbing, no matter how you try to explain it. "

 

What i meant is that no scientific argument can explain that there is no noticeable loss of speed when an airplane wing is damaged by .50cal rounds. It is not possible to accept it as accurate in our sim.

 

And i maintain it.

 

I was wondering why it was so difficult for some on these boards to admit this drag (small) issue. And that is disturbing to me. Just my opinion.

 

  I don't understand why you think that i don't trust the team to look into it when they will have time: it is very clear in the  last part of my post where i encourage people to be patient about it if you read carefully.

 

quote:

" but you are probably looking at something like a half mph speed loss for each .50 calibre round. "

 

One can put a lot of hits in the wings especially when they are exposed full plan in a banking turn! As everyone knows speed is life: in a dissimilar scenario P47 or P40 vs a geat turning aircaft it is important to weaken the ability to sustain turns and moves to counter high speed tactics. In two successful snapshots i'm sure i can put 30 rounds in a turning bogey's wings. Its a few knots less that will have to be compensated by more engine power meaning faster overheating meaning reducing power meaning opening rads more etc etc.

 

Against an opponent of the same level, those details are crucial!

 

quote:

"That in contrast to an aircraft effectively burning on fire or not, take your pick."

 

My pick, yes to the dev team improving the sim and let them make it as accurate as possible, i simply think it is possible to have both, i will wait happily and patiently having fun with my p40 until then, no problem: you fire up this sim and it's christmas anyway. Let them know what we think, what we found out, what we tested; this can help the team actually!

 

As for your last comment you well know i don't have the understanding, the skills nor the talent and ability on the subject of any member of 1CGS. This team is a powerful and motivated group of skilled people! I meant they, with their experience and know-how will be able to easily correct this if needed. Not me of course lol! Again that was obvious i think.

 

But just let people express what they think is an issue, let them show their tests so that the devs can know and maybe answer. It can help the team actually.

 

If we can try to agree in good faith on what appears to be wrong in the DM and on the importance of its consequences in a fight, it can be of great help for the team.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2020 at 11:17 AM, HRc_Tumu said:

Raven109

 

any video where you kill  4 ju88 with standard P51 ammo... or simply is your especulation?

and , if your sentence was true... you can test how many bombers you can kill with your 109.. standard aramament... is enought realistic in this case? 

 

Many people  now are happy with grenadehand ammo ( minnesglosh ) let be happy  others with their guns.

 

This is a videogame... more or less complex.  We cant simulate whole reality.... lot of things are allways missing... and of course allways need , coeficients, and tricks for simulate things.... 0.50 ( no matter whar are the reassons due game limitations)  and how enemy hitted continue flying like nothing happening 
 are obviusly bad simulated.

 

I only have tracks of the 51 taking down 4 Ju88s, no videos.

 

Here are 4 tracks showing what the P-51 with default ammo load can do:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y1ZL5Ud5vCKQfbqCiatznCKeC60TJMMZ/view

 

NOTES:

1: I'm pretty much a beginner at the game, so I believe someone with more experience can take down much more than 4 Ju88s with the default load out.

2: the tests against the Ju88 were performed to get an idea of how easy it is to shoot down twin engine bombers by shooting exclusively at the engines and fuel tanks. However, since the cockpit of the Ju88 is very close to these and very exposed I sometimes get my aim wrong and hit the cockpit instead, which many times leads to the pilot being hit. This looks to be a much more efficient method of taking down Ju88s, when compared to shooting at the engines and I could probably get even more victories had I used it, but that was not the purpose of the test.

3: the tests prove that spraying and praying is not a good strategy. This can be seen in one of the tracks (the final victory in the 3xPK track), where for each pass on the same Ju88 I keep shooting at a different component. Once I focus on just one component it soon catches fire. (aka... aiming instead of spraying and praying is important in this game as it was in real life)

4: I make it a point to shoot at all targets until they reach critical damage; however, I think that shooting at the engines and letting them stream oil will make the target go down after a short while, once the engines seize, which means I can conserve ammo and in theory get even more targets;

 

I also have tracks of 109s shooting down a maximum of 4xJu88s (and sometimes damaging a 5th), however since it was not me who claimed that you can take down much more than 4 Ju88 with the 109s default ammo load, I think it is only fair for you to post your findings to support your claim. 

 

Edited by Raven109
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do test Raven

 

Single mission.

Plane invulnerable vs 8 Ju88

 

Results

 

Bf109 F4- Standard ammo - 7 Ju88 down + 1 several damaged

P51- Standard ammo           - 4 Ju88 Down + 1 medium damaged.

 

Note

 

I think if im better aiming p51 the 5th ju88 will shot down for sure, and maybe 6th can be damaged.

I fail some shots in bf... but with a bit better aim, 8th was shot down for sure ( ends very damaged )

4 ju88 death on a first attack on bf109

I hit until they go down. aim to engines.

No video, only 2 tracks.

 

Any way , thats not exactly the point. 

Mineesglosh is simply a beast, all we know. No problem.

 

The main point is how affects in aerodinamical terms the 0.50 caliber.  As you sae, hit this small caliber over engines can cause fire and critical damaged.  This is right. 

The problem is in consecuences in aerodinamical terms , expecially on fighters. They take lot of damage and have  practically 0 less of performance.

 

PD , my internet is very poor and say me i need more than 1 hour to upload tracks.... if u want i cand send u via PM.

Edited by HRc_Tumu
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HRc_Tumu said:

I do test Raven

 

Single mission.

Plane invulnerable vs 8 Ju88

 

Results

 

Bf109 F4- Standard ammo - 7 Ju88 down + 1 several damaged

P51- Standard ammo           - 4 Ju88 Down + 1 medium damaged.

 

Note

 

I think if im better aiming p51 the 5th ju88 will shot down for sure, and maybe 6th can be damaged.

I fail some shots in bf... but with a bit better aim, 8th was shot down for sure ( ends very damaged )

4 ju88 death on a first attack on bf109

I hit until they go down.

No video, only 2 tracks.

 

Any way , thats not exactly the point. 

Mineesglosh is simply a beast, all we know. No problem.

 

The main point is how affects in aerodinamical terms the 0.50 caliber.  As you sae, hit this small caliber over engines can cause fire and critical damaged.  This is right. 

The problem is in consecuences in aerodinamical terms , expecially on fighters. They take lot of damage and have  practically 0 less of performance.

 

PD , my internet is very poor and say me i need more than 1 hour to upload tracks.... if u want i cand send u via PM.

 

I didn't test with invulnerability on, so aiming was certainly affected by this since I did passes just like I would do against a normal opponent which can fire back. This should be much closer to what someone sees on the servers/SP/reality.

 

I used a G6 to conduct my 109 tests, which raises the question why an aircraft with more powerful ammo only manages to bring down 4 bombers, whereas you in a F4 manage to shoot more down, but this could be put down to the test conditions, since your test seems to be more controlled. I ran several 109 tests, and the average revolves around 4 bombers shot down + 1 damaged.

 

Had I enabled invulnerability I would've just camped behind the bomber with my P-51 at a distance equal to that of the convergence setting, thus increasing the chance of more victories. This certainly would be a more precise test of what the 50s can do if used at their optimum, but I think this optimum case can rarely be reproduced in a competitive setting. (On second thought maybe camping straight behind the bomber might not be the most effective way to inflict damage with the 50s - my tests indicate that shooting at an angle is much more effective)

 

Then again, the test was not supposed to show anything about the 50s. It was more about how easy it is to set engines, fuel tanks on fire, and to show to myself that precise aiming really has benefits when compared to spray and pray, in a situation similar to everyday game play.

 

My question above regarding the number of bombers was out of curiosity. Since my personal experience was to get 4 victories against bombers (and I'm not an expert shooter), I was curious about the expectations regarding victories against bombers. To me 4 bombers on one ammo load, in realistic war conditions where you are flying conservatively (i.e you care about your plane and pilot) is already a lot.

 

My note about posters adding tracks to the weapon effectiveness threads was addressed to the OP. I think it's useful when creating a performance thread to clearly show what you think is wrong with the weapon system you're posting about. Otherwise the discussion will just go in all directions. The discussion of the 50s not inflicting as much drag as expected was not part of the original discussion.

 

Since you took the time to do the tests I would like to see the tracks, if it's not too much trouble for you, of course.

 

----------------------------------------

 

Later edit, just to close the loop: you can attach your tracks to the forum Tumu, if you wish, of course, no need to send them to me in private, let's keep it transparent; I think many are waiting to see how an F4 can consistently destroy 7 Ju88s, I know I'm anxiously waiting, to see which tactic has been employed with a less powerful armament than that of the G6.

Edited by Raven109
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im uplading track

 

:)

 

I review it...  i miss some shots.... 

 

3 was killed on first attack ... one explodes and 2 more engine go on fire and dives....

I aprecciated, both of  them are leaking fuel due friendly fire i suposse... but if you check on video the enemy status is good, only small hole leaking.

but for the rest i need be more persistent...  im sure more skilled bf109 pilot than me , can do better for sure.

The last one , i dont know how long can travel.... but no was shotdown at the end of track.

 

im uploading only bf attack, maybe P51 i less important ... but i can upload another day. Both at same time, are two much for my patience :)

Edited by HRc_Tumu
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do some test more.

 

As you say,  is better concetrate  fire on one point . For this purpose i change P51 for P38 . I obtain better results.

 

With standard ammo, u can kill 6 Ju88 and another be medium damaged.

 

The first four go down on first attack. Long burst on same place and fire in wing. Enemy dives. I waist some ammo but seems efective.

 

But for the 5th, i wasted 2xM2 ammo and only have avaliable 4 of them.  With less power of fire and i recognice missing some shots. 2 more was shotdown. 

 

The 7h bombers recives good damage... but he can recibed more before go down.

 

Maybe with more practice, 7 can be shot down,  and is only a short step rear F4

 

edit; stanadard ammo. With extra ammo i think 8 can be shot down if you dont crash before :)

Edited by HRc_Tumu
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Hello,

 

During a flight out we noticed USA planes not causing any leaks to their opponents. We decided to go into a training server and tested out various aircraft and weapons and noticed the following:

 

USA 50s and 303s cause NO engine damage/coolant damage/oil damage

Structural integrity is slightly effected but no destruction of flight surfaces

Pistols still cause full damage to aircraft (can cause fuel leaks etc)

Any aircraft with only LMG or HMG AP cause no damage to engines/coolant/oil

Cannon caliber AP seems unaffected (russian 20mms)

 

I have linked a twitch clip (its a little long  so skip through to see different examples).

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/853672697

 

Canuck

 

Edit: noticed this after the latest patch 4.505 I believe it is 

Edited by =SFG=Canuck52
  • Upvote 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =SFG=Canuck52 said:

Hello,

 

During a flight out we noticed USA planes not causing any leaks to their opponents. We decided to go into a training server and tested out various aircraft and weapons and noticed the following:

 

USA 50s and 303s cause NO engine damage/coolant damage/oil damage

Structural integrity is slightly effected but no destruction of flight surfaces

Pistols still cause full damage to aircraft (can cause fuel leaks etc)

Any aircraft with only AP cause no damage to engines/coolant/oil

 

I have linked a twitch clip (its a little long  so skip through to see different examples).

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/853672697

 

Canuck


Is this a new bug? I mean I know that the 50 cal damage is somewhat underwhelming but it did cause leaks. same for rifle calibres

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can confirm offline as well. That 50 cal. only does skin damage and can kill the pilot. They do not cause any structural failure or mechanical failure on aircraft. I did not check 30 cal. guns. Only seems to affect AP rounds as I used a 109G-6 late and the 13mm's still did damage to the 51 I was shooting. 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DerSheriff said:


Is this a new bug? I mean I know that the 50 cal damage is somewhat underwhelming but it did cause leaks. same for rifle calibres

 

Yes - nothing to do with the overall level of damage. You can put a hundred rounds into a 109 fuel tank in a static test and there is no leak: it usually takes 3-10 hits in that particular test. 

 

I also ran the "Verify file integrity" routine (on Steam version) until all files verified - it made no difference.

 

Edit: -DED-Rapidus (QA) has seen it in the update thread so I expect we will find out what is going on soon enough.

Edited by unreasonable
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...