Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Recommended Posts

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.  

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by NIK14
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Confused 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by NIK14
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the clear breakdown in this one and the highlighted differences. The one thing that could improve is more testing like maybe 10 or more times per section but I strongly feel the results would be the same based on my experiences playing both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your waisting time testing they can test things faster and fix whats broken if they wonted to, 0.50 were just fine untill 4.005 changed something and it was imidiatly clear that they become mutch weeker since then, you aint gona change mineds of people after 7-8 monhs, their mineds are set in 0.50 is broken or its just fine as its now. When you have to make ammo work in tanks ww1 and ww2 airplanes one part will be brokn.

They can easy test all guns in game if they wont to fined where the problem is:

As I told you recently, I have a special dev-tool that allows me to perform thousands and thousands tests very quickly, instead of firing at an airplane in the game. Using this tool in each test I can measure the number of hits required to break a particular airframe part of the particular airplane, taking into account the direction of shooting (in 3D space) and the particular type of ammo. In the past there was an issue with this tool: the airframe was tested unloaded (meaning the zero-gravity conditions). Thus, this tool measured the number of hits taking into account only the self-strength of the airframe.
 

But here is a good news: last week I improved this tool. Now we can perform this test for the airplane in flight, at given altitude, airspeed, and G-load (in the level-turn other than 1G), while the airplane remains balanced by control surfaces. If the airplane can not be balanced at given airspeed and G-load because of the power deficiency, than we simulate a hard-break turn, meaning that the airplane reaches this G-load at this airspeed while it decelerates during the level turn.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =[PANDA]=TheRedPanda said:

I like the clear breakdown in this one and the highlighted differences. The one thing that could improve is more testing like maybe 10 or more times per section but I strongly feel the results would be the same based on my experiences playing both sides.

I understand what you're saying, however there was very little deviation from one test to the next in terms of the number of hits required to achieve the desired effect. We did more testing than we have reported here on other aspects of the sim that I will not mention and came to the conclusion that, for those, we did need much larger sample sizes.

 

22 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Your waisting time testing they can test things faster and fix whats broken if they wonted to, 0.50 were just fine untill 4.005 changed something and it was imidiatly clear that they become mutch weeker since then, you aint gona change mineds of people after 7-8 monhs, their mineds are set in 0.50 is broken or its just fine as its now.

I disagree that it is a waste of time. What then should we do, throw our hands up into the air and walk away? Let's not be quitters. :)

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

I understand what you're saying, however there was very little deviation from one test to the next in terms of the number of hits required to achieve the desired effect. We did more testing than we have reported here on other aspects of the sim that I will not mention and came to the conclusion that, for those, we did need much larger sample sizes.

 

I disagree that it is a waste of time. What then should we do, throw our hands up into the air and walk away? Let's not be quitters. :)

This also lines up with other testing I've seen from Unreasonable, and my personal experience. 

 

Hopefully it will help that it's been presented so professionally.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This confirms most of what people have been saying, (including me ;) ). One caveat : your "hits to damage" reflect your particular test set up, and the resulting hit distribution. This may well model an idealised in-flight attack, but it is not the absolute minimum numbers required to get the required levels of damage, which are much lower.

 

For instance: "What we discovered was that it literally is not possible to achieve level two aerodynamic damage with the M2 .50 before structural failure occurs on the wing of a Bf-109G14."

 

If you do static testing with the A20 top .50 cal, aiming the shots into one (middle) wing section you get level 2 before the wing breaks off about 1/3 of the time, after about 25 hits.  Additionally, when I test the Fw190 D wing using the same method, I get level 2 damage after about 30 hits: ie less than half your result.

 

So there is certainly some other variable in your tests: assuming that your hit recognition numbers are correct, this is possibly hits being spread over multiple hit boxes, including flaps and ailerons. 

  

 

 

G14 level 2.jpg

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2021 at 8:18 AM, unreasonable said:

This confirms most of what people have been saying, (including me ;) ). One caveat : your "hits to damage" reflect your particular test set up, and the resulting hit distribution. This may well model an idealised in-flight attack, but it is not the absolute minimum numbers required to get the required levels of damage, which are much lower.

 

For instance: "What we discovered was that it literally is not possible to achieve level two aerodynamic damage with the M2 .50 before structural failure occurs on the wing of a Bf-109G14."

 

If you do static testing with the A20 top .50 cal, aiming the shots into one (middle) wing section you get level 2 before the wing breaks off about 1/3 of the time, after about 25 hits.  Additionally, when I test the Fw190 D wing using the same method, I get level 2 damage after about 30 hits: ie less than half your result.

 

Thanks for pointing that out, that is interesting. I wonder what about the damage model calculations change with altitude, planes in flight, etc? Were the planes that you were shooting player-controlled aircraft or static objects?

 

In any event, using bombers on the ground to focus fire on a component changes several variables in the process (altitude, airspeed, forces on the aircraft, etc). It's an interesting point, but it doesn't make me question our conclusions since we saw incredibly consistent results each time we performed the test with the same parameters.

 

One last thing... the screenshot you shared doesn't coincide with what we considered "level two" damage to be. It was only once we got to this level of visual damage that we saw an appreciable drag penalty. See below:
_t1zgPSBSMEtr8x02ZmhvSZxEg4eubRc_YgeWqhqPzuvdq4Kc3w27HlD5wyFtf4s6iVUReivoDiDHTbsZWysNUgYczjceCc2SDYROFMHuYUSK1OJeiBsvQRYQ41JVIS5dNwRzLRK

Since @unreasonable believes that we have misrepresented what we consider "level two" aerodynamic damage to be, I want to clarify something: our testing was done against aircraft in flight while shooting at the wing from zero degrees angle off tail approximately 100-200m away with zero closure. All of his testing was done on the ground with bombers shooting at stationary targets hitting wings at oblique angles. There are at least three critical differences between the two tests. I also want to point out that we observed the HE rounds causing "splash" damage to multiple segments of a wing with a single burst. In the above screenshot, I consider this to be "level two" aerodynamic damage on two segments of the wing (inner and middle). Here are a few more screenshots taken from the track files that we uploaded showing our testing:

image.thumb.png.7750850d43bd71429e28dd8c5f97431a.png

In the above screenshot, a single burst of MG131 caused "level two" aerodynamic damage to the middle and outer segments of the wing. Here is another:image.thumb.png.c8d6435c3d9651617439a6a682a8ec12.png
Notice that in the above screenshot, the damage doesn't look quite the same as the screenshot above for the same wing segment. The difference is irrelevant because our testing was about appreciable drag. It's very obvious when it happens because the plane begins to yaw towards the wing with damage. It is when that occurred that we concluded each aerodynamic test.

Edited by QB.Creep
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

If you do static testing with the A20 top .50 cal, aiming the shots into one (middle) wing section you get level 2 before the wing breaks off about 1/3 of the time, after about 25 hits.  Additionally, when I test the Fw190 D wing using the same method, I get level 2 damage after about 30 hits: ie less than half your result.

A static unloaded wing at point blank vs a flying loaded wing with a round covering distance at speed isn't going to be a comparable test.

 

There are definitely some discrepancies though so it is worth pointing out. The fact you can sheer off a wing before it having an appreciable effect on the aerodynamics of a plane does seem a bit off to me.

 

I did some similar tests with the A20 and sheering off the wing doesn't seem to take that many more rounds than sheering off surfaces from the tail section. 

 

When you run these tests on the ground it seems to bring up even more issues.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@unreasonable

You make a fair point, but seeing as we don't have access to dev tools, we wanted to keep the test as simple as possible to remove any potential outliers. 

Perhaps we should have said ""What we discovered was that it literally is not possible to achieve level two aerodynamic damage with the M2 .50 before structural failure occurs on the wing of a Bf-109G14, when attacking from the 6 o'clock level position."

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:

@unreasonable

You make a fair point, but seeing as we don't have access to dev tools, we wanted to keep the test as simple as possible to remove any potential outliers. 

Perhaps we should have said ""What we discovered was that it literally is not possible to achieve level two aerodynamic damage with the M2 .50 before structural failure occurs on the wing of a Bf-109G14, when attacking from the 6 o'clock level position."

If you are firing from the dead-six position it seems reasonable (pardon the pun) that the bullets would pass through the aileron and/or flaps as well as the wing, and (would do so pretty consistently.)

 

But if the case is that the control surfaces are absorbing some of the energy of the rounds, then it shows the HE rounds are still doing excessive damage, since they too would be hitting flaps or ailerons before the wing. 

Anyway, what this test best shows is the relative difference in effectiveness between the various HMGs. I wonder what would happen if you were able to test the MG131/UBS as AP only. Is it simply a matter of overperforming HE, or something with the M2 in particualar?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cass said:

A static unloaded wing at point blank vs a flying loaded wing with a round covering distance at speed isn't going to be a comparable test.

 

There are definitely some discrepancies though so it is worth pointing out. The fact you can sheer off a wing before it having an appreciable effect on the aerodynamics of a plane does seem a bit off to me.

 

I did some similar tests with the A20 and sheering off the wing doesn't seem to take that many more rounds than sheering off surfaces from the tail section. 

 

When you run these tests on the ground it seems to bring up even more issues.

We didn't put it in the report, but since you bring it up... I think it is worth mentioning that for the structural tests, we didn't exert forces on the wing in-between bursts of fire. We know that sometimes only a few rounds in a wing will cause it to pop off under extreme G-loads. The goal of this test was simply to compare the ammo types for HMGs, so we thought it best to keep things as uniform as possible. And since it is difficult to be precise with the amount of G you are exerting, we thought it best to eliminate that as a variable from our testing.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to Shallot and company for conducting this test and writing it up so well.  I'm definitely part of the group who has found the M2 .50s very frustrating in recent months, and your data perfectly aligns with my experiences with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, QB.Creep said:

 

Thanks for pointing that out, that is interesting. I wonder what about the damage model calculations change with altitude, planes in flight, etc? Were the planes that you were shooting player-controlled aircraft or static objects?

 

In any event, using bombers on the ground to focus fire on a component changes several variables in the process (altitude, airspeed, forces on the aircraft, etc). It's an interesting point, but it doesn't make me question our conclusions since we saw incredibly consistent results each time we performed the test with the same parameters.

 

One last thing... the screenshot you shared doesn't coincide with what we considered "level two" damage to be. It was only once we got to this level of visual damage that we saw an appreciable drag penalty. See below:
_t1zgPSBSMEtr8x02ZmhvSZxEg4eubRc_YgeWqhqPzuvdq4Kc3w27HlD5wyFtf4s6iVUReivoDiDHTbsZWysNUgYczjceCc2SDYROFMHuYUSK1OJeiBsvQRYQ41JVIS5dNwRzLRK

 

I fully agree with your overall conclusions that the ratio of surface damage per hit between HE and AP rounds is very large, to a degree that is implausible for the small HE rounds. 

 

Static testing firing at an AI plane with engine on, on the runway.  At close range the energy is not much different from at 100-200m, and you can place 1-2 shots at a time exactly - with a bit of practice - only damaging one hit box (with AP).  While in flight a wing section will usually fall off earlier, if it is subjected to more than 1G, whether drag forces also affect the DM I know not: although I doubt it. Similarly I doubt that the hits required for surface damage are affected by aircraft speed or Gs: it seems like an unnecessary complication. 

 

Your screen shot is showing damage in two wing hit boxes, middle and inner. (As well as flaps and aileron). To me that looks like level 3 on each, but after a few tries I cannot get level 3 with .50 cal AP without the wings dropping off.  I imagine this was one of the HE test runs?  Level one is the initial "bullet holes" graphic. 2 Is a few larger holes as per my screenshot, which you can sometimes see through. 3 is widespread large holes as in your screenshot. 

 

So if that is what you were testing for, you might consider amending the description of the results. It would also help explain why your numbers are so much higher than mine! 

 

On the issue of "What should be done?" I am agnostic on the real aerodynamic effects of .50 cals in the absence of any real evidence:  I am more convinced that the damage from small HE rounds is way OTT. I certainly do not think that aerodynamic damage should be exaggerated because some MP pilots fight on in situations where a real human (or for that matter the game AI) would bail out. So I would rather the HE aero damage was scaled back considerably rather than the AP enhanced.

 

(Although where appropriate the game clearly needs an incendiary component. That is not just a .50 cal issue BTW, the 303s had them too, and so did most of the guns in the FC planes - although most of the FC grognards will hate it. They like long fights.  ;) )   

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick heads up, there were some complaints that the line: "It is worth mentioning that this does not exceed the explosive mass found in a firecracker." was misleading. In retrospect, I agree, and have removed the line from the report, as it gives a false sense of the explosive power when the material is under containment. 

I've replaced it with "It is worth mentioning that this is 8.3% of the amount of HE found in the Minengeschoß shell" to provide a relative comparison. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this kind of empirical testing is 100% worthwhile. The devs have a tool that simulates the damage, which is great, but that's not the same as the game actually behaving in the same way once it's running on a server, game clients are connected, and planes are in the air.

 

There seems to be a significant discrepancy in HE vs non-HE when it comes to creating aerodynamic damage. These results would at least cause me, as a developer, to check if everything's wired up the way I thought it was. This is an odd result and might imply some sort of bug or edge case in the modeling.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...