Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals

[unreasonable]

Just now, raaaid said:

20 years discussing unefectiveness of 50s

 

No, raaaid, they have messed up in a spectacular manner here with an amazing bug. If it were an update issued on the first of April I would call it a classic.

 

Personally I find it funny: and completely forgivable given that they have been working so hard at the end of a horrible, crazy year to give us more nice things.  

[Creep]

What concerns me most about this whole issue is the lack of response from 1C/777 regarding the issues with the damage model. People have been talking about the lack of aerodynamic penalty from the US .50 caliber round for quite awhile, and all I see is threads getting locked. Now this "bug" gets introduced in this last update with no mention of air to air damage model changes. Is that truly an accident, or are they making changes to the damage model without mentioning them? I'm not claiming to know what the code for this game looks like, but I do know a thing or two about developing large-scale business applications. I have looked at the patch notes and I don't understand how any of the items mentioned in it could have caused this bug. Thinking about separation of concerns and dependencies here: how in the world could cosmetic changes affect the damage model calculations? To me it seems plausible that damage model changes were intentionally merged into the release branch, were not included in notes and therefore not tested by QA.

 

Again, the silence is deafening. Can we please get a response from someone in a position of authority on this matter? @Han @Jason_Williams

[Barnacles]

14 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

What concerns me most about this whole issue is the lack of response from 1C/777 regarding the issues with the damage model. People have been talking about the lack of aerodynamic penalty from the US .50 caliber round for quite awhile, and all I see is threads getting locked. Now this "bug" gets introduced in this last update with no mention of air to air damage model changes. Is that truly an accident, or are they making changes to the damage model without mentioning them? I'm not claiming to know what the code for this game looks like, but I do know a thing or two about developing large-scale business applications. I have looked at the patch notes and I don't understand how any of the items mentioned in it could have caused this bug. Thinking about separation of concerns and dependencies here: how in the world could cosmetic changes affect the damage model calculations? To me it seems plausible that damage model changes were intentionally merged into the release branch, were not included in notes and therefore not tested by QA.

 

Again, the silence is deafening. Can we please get a response from someone in a position of authority on this matter? @Han @Jason_Williams

What is telling is that this bug doesn't effect PKs 

Yet panda's video shows that it's virtually impossible, even if a 109 pilot lets you mount up on him and unload all your ammunition into his rear, to actually pk him.

 

So please, I recognise that bugs happen, so the system damage will be fixed I'm sure but please please take the opportunity here to just unravel some of the stuff that's just plain wrong.

 

 

[NIK14]

1 minute ago, Barnacles said:

So please, I recognise that bugs happen, so the system damage will be fixed I'm sure but please please take the opportunity here to just unravel some of the stuff that's just plain wrong.

 

Yes...

Afterall the most fierce opposers even admit that 50 cals "only" penetrates the target....doesn't look like they penetrate the armor plate...let alone hundreds of them.

[=SFG=Canuck52]

7 hours ago, 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

Yeah it was the newest patch. I updated my original post to mention that should have done that on the beginning.

[NIK14]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

No, raaaid, they have messed up in a spectacular manner here with an amazing bug. If it were an update issued on the first of April I would call it a classic.

 

Personally I find it funny: and completely forgivable given that they have been working so hard at the end of a horrible, crazy year to give us more nice things.  

 

Even with this bug exposing the overall lack of effectiveness in the 50 cals you still claim they are working as expected, were it not for the bug I mean?

Edited December 29, 2020 by NIK14

[6./ZG26_Custard]

31 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

What concerns me most about this whole issue is the lack of response from 1C/777 regarding the issues with the damage model

Check December 15th Post. 

[cardboard_killer]

What is irksome is that the ".50cals are John Browning's gift to mankind and should be dragonslayers" idea has to get involved in what is an obvious bug that has little to do with .50cal specific effectiveness. Can't you guys go back to your own threads and leave the actual bug threads alone?

[=SFG=Canuck52]

The lol for me is pistols are still 100% effective.

 

Suggest changing all AP 50s and 303s to 9mm/.45 cal pistol ammo.

 

Glad to see others have jumped on this right away as well ❤

Edited December 29, 2020 by =SFG=Canuck52

[NIK14]

4 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

What is irksome is that the ".50cals are John Browning's gift to mankind and should be dragonslayers" idea has to get involved in what is an obvious bug that has little to do with .50cal specific effectiveness. Can't you guys go back to your own threads and leave the actual bug threads alone?

 

Why is this bothering you? Is it painful for you that this bug exposes and amplifies what many of us claim is wrong with the .50 cals hitting power? We all want a historically accurate game don't we, but also a well balanced game?

Doesn't mean .50 cals have to be "dragonslayers" but also the cannons shouldn't be mininukes either. Balance my friend...it's a game afterall.

[cardboard_killer]

7 minutes ago, NIK14 said:

Why is this bothering you?

 

Simple, it conflates two separate problems making each less likely to get the attention they deserve.

[NIK14]

23 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

 

Simple, it conflates two separate problems making each less likely to get the attention they deserve.

 

I hear you, however when people start dropping off this franchise because they feel let down...both issues will get attention like you wouldn't believe. And I have bought almost everything they've offered so far only to support the team, however I decided to hold back with the upcoming FC until certain things improve with the current game.

I was merely underlining the fact that it is clear that the 50s and other non-cannon weapons are pretty undevastating to the pilot from dead astern as can be seen in the video.

The devs have their work cut out that's for sure...maybe a version rollback would be in order even?

Edited December 29, 2020 by NIK14

[336th_Ledo_]

Hopefully this bug gets the devs to actually revisit the 50cal damage.

 

I can’t wait for the comment from JG.420 to tell me to get gud and aim better while they fly the most broken plane In the game

Edited December 29, 2020 by 336th_Ledo_

[Creep]

37 minutes ago, 336th_Ledo_ said:

Hopefully this bug gets the devs to actually revisit the 50cal damage.

 

I can’t wait for the comment from JG.420 to tell me to get gud and aim better while they fly the most broken plane In the game

ok now i really want to make a squad called JG 420 lol

[336th_Ledo_]

4 hours ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

The P-47 Ingame wishes it could tank that many hits and keep on flying.

 

im actually flabbergasted at the state of German planes In this game, from the Invincible tail sections to funky energy retentions.

[PikAss]

1 hour ago, 336th_Ledo_ said:

I can’t wait for the comment from JG.420 to tell me to get gud and aim better while they fly the most broken plane In the game

 

Hello Mister,

 

a friendly reminder that

 

youhavetogetgoodandimproveyouraiming. Moreoverdon'tforgetthat30mmhasexplosiveswhilecal50not. Postvideosof30mmhitonthatbritishplane. Postpictureof30and20mmdamageonplane.germanydidnothingwrong.notallwerenazis.iflyblueonlybecauseenginemanagmenthardforme.HISTORYISWRITTENBYTHEVICTORS.WW2WASREDFLAG.5SHERMANS=1TIGER.IFGERMANYHAD200ME262WW2WOULDHAVEBEENWON.BF109BESTESTTESTESTPLANEINWW2CHANGEMYIDOLOGY.FW190WASTHEREBEFOREP47.YOUTHINKCAL50SHOULDDOTHESAMEDAMAGEAS30MM??????QUESTIONMARK???BEST100ACESWEREGERMANS.ERICHHARTMANNSHOTDOWNAPOLLO11FROMLOW6.ICHSPRECHENKEINWORTDEUTSCHABERICHFLIEGENURBLAUWEILKOMMUNISTENSINDBAD,OK?IBUYAFULLGAMEBUTPLAYONLY50%.THATURFRAKINGCONCERNTHATIAMANAZI.GERMANSWEREACTUALLYTHEGOODGUYS.

[NIK14]

22 minutes ago, 336th_Ledo_ said:

The P-47 Ingame wishes it could tank that many hits and keep on flying.

 

im actually flabbergasted at the state of German planes In this game, from the Invincible tail sections to funky energy retentions.

 

The ingame 47 wishes it could be as agile as the A-20...

[Denum]

@PikAss 

 

[VBF-12_Snake9]

? @ all those really ...... good 109 pilots the last few days.  ?

Edited December 29, 2020 by VBF-12_Snake9

[336th_Ledo_]

58 minutes ago, PikAss said:

 

Hello Mister,

 

a friendly reminder that

 

youhavetogetgoodandimproveyouraiming. Moreoverdon'tforgetthat30mmhasexplosiveswhilecal50not. Postvideosof30mmhitonthatbritishplane. Postpictureof30and20mmdamageonplane.germanydidnothingwrong.notallwerenazis.iflyblueonlybecauseenginemanagmenthardforme.HISTORYISWRITTENBYTHEVICTORS.WW2WASREDFLAG.5SHERMANS=1TIGER.IFGERMANYHAD200ME262WW2WOULDHAVEBEENWON.BF109BESTESTTESTESTPLANEINWW2CHANGEMYIDOLOGY.FW190WASTHEREBEFOREP47.YOUTHINKCAL50SHOULDDOTHESAMEDAMAGEAS30MM??????QUESTIONMARK???BEST100ACESWEREGERMANS.ERICHHARTMANNSHOTDOWNAPOLLO11FROMLOW6.ICHSPRECHENKEINWORTDEUTSCHABERICHFLIEGENURBLAUWEILKOMMUNISTENSINDBAD,OK?IBUYAFULLGAMEBUTPLAYONLY50%.THATURFRAKINGCONCERNTHATIAMANAZI.GERMANSWEREACTUALLYTHEGOODGUYS.

Is this a copypasta?

[Creep]

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by QB.Creep
fixed typo

[Thad]

Never.

 

It is well known that the Russian developers are biased towards the German side. ?

[Jayhawk]

So to keep the discussion going with a larger audience. I don't believe that there is an issue with .50's.

A studying of WWII aircraft metal composition found that BF109's had between .5mm and 3mm skin thickness and FW190's had 1.4mm skin thinkness (Source)

If you look at a US Army Study on aircraft survivability from 1971 (Here), you will see on Page 79 that a .50 hitting aircraft aluminum will make a clean hole the size of the round though the aluminum without petaling or crack propagation.The .50 has so much energy it is just blasting though the aluminum not causing any damage.

[Creep]

 

15 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

So to keep the discussion going with a larger audience. I don't believe that there is an issue with .50's.

If you truly believe that 93 rounds hitting from an almost dead six position (meaning that those rounds moving laterally through the wing, the fuselage, etc) should not cause more significant damage than what you see here, then I don't think anything will convince you that there is a problem.

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by QB.Creep
removed snarky response

[VBF-12_Snake9]

I can back that up.  ?

Yea we laugh at this game all the time ?

Edited January 8, 2021 by VBF-12_Snake9

[Jayhawk]

Creep, I do fly allied. Just not all the often in MP or in CombatBox where I see you the most, since the majority of my wingmates fly Axis.

It's hard to tell from your video, and really only possible with a developers tool, to tell exactly where your rounds were hitting. I know from experience that .50's can result in a lot of pilot kills, and some serious engine damage, and drag issues.

I'll ask you this, what would be your proposed solution?

[354thFG_Rails]

How bout that 190 should spin out control when missing a vertical stabilizer for starters! Or fixing the 109’s broken tail section that they locked. There’s a lot more wrong to name off as well

[=TU=crew379]

That vstab is a problem as is the Tempest flying without a wing seen that and done that several times must be why that ufo on allies is so easy to fly! ?

[Jayhawk]

Those aren't issues with the .50, but issues with the damage model, that yes, would be nice fixes.

In the discord chat, I said it's a damage model issue, not a .50 issue.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Jayhawk

[Creep]

9 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

I'll ask you this, what would be your proposed solution?

First off, I apologize for the extremely snarky reply at first. Please understand it is incredibly frustrating when folks say there is nothing with .50s.

 

I think that the % chance for component damage from .50s should be increased and that many hits should cause an appreciable drag penalty. Currently they do very little. Contrast that with even a single MG131 round hitting the tip of your wing - that causes a ton of drag and basically takes you out of the fight. 

 

 

[354thFG_Rails]

That and model API or up the 50’s chance of fire to match actual data in the interim till fuel systems are modeled. As it currently stands it’s rare to get a fuel tank fire when shooting 50’s. More than likely it’s an engine fire if you’re lucky. 

[357th_KW]

There’s also that minor issue that the .50s are coded with the incorrect type of ammo.

[QB.Shallot]

On 1/8/2021 at 3:38 PM, Jayhawk said:

It's hard to tell from your video, and really only possible with a developers tool, to tell exactly where your rounds were hitting. I know from experience that .50's can result in a lot of pilot kills, and some serious engine damage, and drag issues.

The .50 are only good for pk’s and engine fires. They used to be able to shoot out engines before damage model was updated, but its less effective now. I don’t know if that’s a function of AP being weaker, or engines being tougher.
 

The primary issues are the inability to consistently set engine or fuel fires, a capability that API was known for, and the total lack of effective aero damage. A target will sooner experience critical structural failure, like losing a wing or vertical stab, than reach “level 2” aero damage. When firing at a target from dead 6, they should do more than punch near entry and exit holes, especially when they’re traveling parallel to the wings surface.
 

The PK is nice, but struggles dearly against 109’s from the low 6. This is both due to the relative inability for the 50’s to cause fuel fires, and the way that the 109’s rear armor and/or tail is modeled in the DM.

 

 

Do note there’s also some issues that are likely netcode related. As longer bursts of fire will result in impact decals not occurring, making the shooter think that they’re missing their target. Tracers will go so far as to phase through the target in longer bursts as well. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by QB.Shallot

[Jayhawk]

I do agree that I would like to see more effects modeled into the damage model. It would be awesome to get hit and have a control cable severed, electronics go out, fuel tank fires, engine vibrations that knock your teeth out, or a slew of other things. But I also understand that this may require a complete rework of the engine and damage models, which would be very extensive.

[CountZero]

LOL didnt know ppl still waist time on american crap in this game

 

[QB.Shallot]

@Jayhawk I absolutely agree. But I think not modeling these kinds of features does a major disservice to aircraft that rely on AP ammunition. A work around would be the inclusion of a trigger box. For example. A 190 doesn't have all its fuel lines modeled in the DM right now, but a hitbox could be placed in the general area of the lines, and the hitbox were to be trigger, it could have an XX% chance of the lines caching fire. 

The same goes for API ammunition. It's possible the devs don't have the tools to properly model it, but not even trying to reach an interim solution simply exacerbates the issue.

[VBF-12_Mister26]

I'm an 18D in the U.S. Army, so when I say I have very intimate experience with the .50 cal (affectionately known as the Ma Deuce) it's coming from 18 years of experience in SOF.  I have seen one, JUST ONE, M2 .50 cal turn vehicles into mush and collapse concrete structures several times over my career.  I can just imagine what six or eight could do.  The developers say "But we did the math on our computers with our super accurate calculations to simulate the most accurate DM!".  My question to you is, did you actually shoot a .50 cal at the range to see firsthand the devastation?  Try six or eight aimed at a concrete structure or vehicle at 300 meters and tell me what happens in less than 6 secs. 

 

v/r

 

-26

[ACG_Cass]

@Jayhawk I understand your thought process source in terms of the round making a nice hole. "For a straight-in penetration (normal to the surface) of ductile metal, such as aluminum alloy, the entry hole would be approximately the same size as the projectile."

 

But that is in a controlled environment against a flat surface. Very few hits into the back of a plane doing 300mph and moving through the frame would do this. In real terms the rounds would be hitting components, leaving large cuts if they hit at a very oblique angle. Causing structural failures at high-G after hits to support elements, certainly disabling things like slats and damaging flaps and ailerons significantly. 

 

Granted it's not a cannon and should be nowhere near as effective as them when considered as a single entity. But the problem we are seeing is that there is no exponential impact from a large number of rounds. They seem to be effectively neutered from causing lift or aerodynamic damage, regardless of how many rounds that hit. 

 

I'd happily have the PK chance reduced massively in favour of actual aircraft damage. 

 

 

 

[Jayhawk]

26, it comes the .50 passing through aircraft aluminum before energy can be transferred. I too have seen the devastation that .50's will do on solid thick targets. But when you compare a .50 passing though paper or the green man at the range to a 5.56, the only different will be a bigger hole from the .50.

It's what is reflected in the survivability study that I posted. You can't compare a .50 hitting a 3-6 inch thick mud brick house to a 1mm thick piece of aluminum. And I know from personal real life experience of my combat experiences small arms fire going directly though aircraft.

[VBF-12_Mister26]

15 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

26, it comes the .50 passing through aircraft aluminum before energy can be transferred. I too have seen the devastation that .50's will do on solid thick targets. But when you compare a .50 passing though paper or the green man at the range to a 5.56, the only different will be a bigger hole from the .50.

It's what is reflected in the survivability study that I posted. You can't compare a .50 hitting a 3-6 inch thick mud brick house to a 1mm thick piece of aluminum. And I know from personal real life experience of my combat experiences small arms fire going directly though aircraft.

Understood, but are planes more resilient than ground vehicles (i.e. lightly armored combat vehicles)?  Because I have seen up-armored vehicles get disintegrated by our .50 cals and ours vics by the Russian equivalent "Dishka".  I love flying German planes, but seems like they receive no penalty from .50s in the likes of drag...in fact, sometimes I don't even know I am hit, and sometimes even if I know, I still keep fighting because I'm flying just fine.  I could never do that in an Allied plane....

 

v/r

 

-26

Edited January 8, 2021 by VBF-12_Mister26