Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Sublime
 Share

Recommended Posts

BCI-Nazgul

It's also worth pointing out that intersecting "cuts" from AP rounds could lead to huge pieces of skin detaching/peeling back from the surfaces of the target when they catch the high speed air flow.  That's probably why some pilot accounts mention "pieces" flying off the target.

 

It's possible in test to get level 2 with AP if you put every round into one hit box.  That is basically impossible in actual play.   As I stated before the problem is that aero damage should occur from accumulated AP hits all over the target as well as X number of hits in one box.  The fact that you can turn a plane into a flying colander with AP hits all over but with little to no aero effects because one certain spot has not been hit enough times is silly.  100 hits all over a plane is certainly going to cause a lot of drag, but in IL2 that doesn't matter apparently.   If lots of "little" holes don't matter than why do they bother putting skin all over the plane?  The only thing that matters in this DM is 20-30 hits in the magic hit box.  And now we also have REAL evidence that AP can do real and potentially devastating skin damage at oblique angles as well.

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

QB.Shallot

@unreasonable I appreciate the detailed critiques you bring, but I think it's important to make a distinction here.

 

We are not the developers. We do not have the time, nor resources that they do. They understand their DM far better than we do simply due to the tools and experience they have at their disposal. It is best to keep this simple and not hypothesize too much. Ideally we can stick to what we know in practice instead of breaking down exactly how the DM works. The problem is clear, MG131's and UB's cause a disproportionate amount of aerodynamic damage compared to the Browning M2.

 

Community consensus is equally clear. Make the HE damage on the HMG's more reasonable, and stop modeling AP ammunition as a 'worst case perfect hole' for every hit it makes. 

 

I'm not going to do the devs job for them, nor will I derive how their own DM works by flying more test missions. This test was time consuming enough. This is simply to tell the devs "Hey guys, in practice, your DM has some really questionable behavior". This "in practice" being 'shooting at an aircraft in the wing from the 6 o'clock in an MP server'. How the DM works in perfect isolation, or under extreme scrutiny is useless if it doesn't perform 'in the field.' If the issue is because of how the spars are modeled, cool, but that's something that the devs are more suited to determine. 

 

TLDR: Focus on the state of the game, instead of why it is in that state. That way the community can say where they think the game should be, and provide evidence to support this claim. The devs been wrong before, and they've been right before.

They'll figure out the 'why' that causes the problem. They made the game after all. 

Edited by QB.Shallot
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
Just now, BCI-Nazgul said:

It's also worth pointing out that intersecting "cuts" from AP rounds could lead to huge pieces of skin detaching/peeling back from the surfaces of the target when they catch the high speed air flow.  That's probably why some pilot accounts mention "pieces" flying off the target.

 

Yes.  The level three damage, (the final level), as I understand it, is meant to model the most extreme skin damage possible consistent with the plane still being able to fly, before whole structures fall off. That is what it does in the sim, anyway.

 

Assuming the pics are all of genuine air-air damage, this sort of thing.  Do you think AP shots can do this? (Or 15mm HE rounds for that matter?) Is it not in fact very likely that a plane hit by large numbers of AP will almost always suffer a PK, fire or terminal structural damage before reaching anywhere near this level of skin damage? 

 

If you are going to model AP shots so that it does the highest possible level of skin damage much more easily, so that you can see an appreciable performance penalty, what is going to represent these kinds of damage? Do we need another level? Or should the drag penalty from the lower levels be increased somewhat?

 

 

1803191247_Il-2damaged.jpg.8306daec04d3189218ec2fd0d6ccfd6f.jpgb17-damage-tail.jpg.3deff1f1517b035ecdd732b76f0e5a8a.jpgb17-damage-wings.jpg.8318c82053d756cb77c9286f42a0a1d7.jpgb17-damage-fuselage.jpg.c210432859ea2eac4e6cdcb813c03229.jpgSpitfire.thumb.JPG.afdcafd2d842967f2fae3c0d51741e8b.JPG

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
34 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

If you are going to model AP shots so that it does the highest possible level of skin damage much more easily, so that you can see an appreciable performance penalty, what is going to represent these kinds of damage? Do we need another level? Or should the drag penalty from the lower levels be increased somewhat?

 

Not sure if we need another level but I do think the drag penalty should be increased at the mid and high levels for sure. Low level, I'm undecided. While I don't think the .50 is significantly underpowered, I do think it's damage level should be bumped up slightly and am hoping the eventual introduction of API/APIT will come with a corresponding bump in destructive power of it's own. The team has always been good about listening to the crowd, within reason, and I'm pretty sure the calls for API/APIT will be answered. Not being an ammo master, was API exclusive to fighters or did bomber defensive armament get the ammo as well?

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
Just now, JtD said:

The first picture is a screenshot from Il-2, a historical reference of a different kind. :)

 

I wondered about that... oh well. 

Just now, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Not sure if we need another level but I do think the drag penalty should be increased at the mid and high levels for sure. Low level, I'm undecided. While I don't think the .50 is significantly underpowered, I do think it's damage level should be bumped up slightly and am hoping the eventual introduction of API/APIT will come with a corresponding bump in power of it's own. The team has always been good about listening to the crowd, within reason, and I'm pretty sure the calls for API/APIT will be answered. Not being an ammo master, was API exclusive to fighters or did bomber defensive armament get the ammo as well?

 

In the excellent book about operational research in the WW2 USAAF, (which is pretty close to it's title), it states that the bomber MG loadouts were very much up to the individual crew chiefs or armourers, (but not the flight crew!) who continued to use whatever mixed belts they liked throughout the war. The operations people managed to convince the fighter group high command that API was the best fairly quickly, but not the bombers for some reason.

 

I will dig out the reference later today. (Not much later...)

 

Operations Analysis in the US Army Eight Air Force in World War II Charles .W.McArthur. (Who was a bombardier and later Maths prof)

This is one of the most interesting books on the WW2 air war I have, not just on belting but the whole issue of bombing accuracy. Certainly anyone who thinks the USAAF engaged in surgical precision bombing on more than a few occasions needs to read it.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul

No, I don't expect holes like 88mm and 37mm FLAK guns can make.  But I do think the aero damage for all AP needs a bump and a probability of causing extra aero damage from time to time on oblique impacts (simulating a cut instead of a hole.)

 

I also think that aero damage should be cumulative across the whole target not limited to hit boxes i.e. 20 hits all over the plane will slow it down (like level 1 - 2??), but not cause the control issues that 20 hits in one wing would cause aka "a heavy wing".  The entire plane is a "hit box" for aero drag damage.  From what I can this how DCS works.  All hits slow your plane and can also cause control issues if they're concentrated on one wing or whatever.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

There would still be yaw issues if most of the damage was on one side, which is why I suspect not distributing the drag over the whole plane ( ie damage is hit box specific) also has some advantages.  Modelling damage at a much more detailed level in respect of where it happens. (In effect more hit boxes) is theoretically desirable -  real planes have no hit boxes. I doubt BoX can do much in a complex MP environment, but I am not a programmer, and no opinions on DCS, so perhaps it can - or soon will - be able to do this.  

 

Admittedly only in SP career, so this may not count in some eyes, but sometimes if you get heavy damage on one wing but not the other it is the asymmetrical drag  that causes the flight control problems more than the total extra drag. Yaw has it's own drag.

 

The hit box method of modelling the DM certainly comes with some disadvantages. On the other hand, more hit boxes mean an exponential increase in complexity.  

 

We have some idea of the holes created by AP or HE hits under a variety of conditions. Some really good finds posted on this.  What I am missing from all of this, is how many Newtons of drag a number of holes N of size X and "roughness" Y creates? That is what the developers have to plug in to their model. 

 

TBH I have no idea - but given that almost none of the seemingly thousands of posts on this issue have even attempted to give an answer to this question, although in all fairness a few have sort of tried ( credit to @Barnacles ) I am guessing that no one else does either.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray

A decent way of getting to a happy middle ground would be to add a a hit box the size and shape of the whole plane and have any AP round that hits this box apply a negative to aerodynamic efficiency. How big a negative, how much deviation in this negative, and how much difference there should be based on the size of the round doing the hitting are separate questions. In this way way a penalty for getting shot, regardless of shot placement, could be applied while still retaining the behavior that is demonstrated in game when damage stacks on one side of the plane. It would be a place to start, at the very least, and would not require the development of a complex real time physics simulation of air resistance, real time deformation of materials and more than enough math to make me feel uncomfortable just conceptualizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

216th_Jordan

I do not understand where the info comes from that the current hitbox design should be insufficient to model more drag accurately for AP rounds, I personally would not see why an extended aerodynamic drag calculation for the hitboxes would induce an over the top performance impact if the integration is not too complicated within the current system. Neither of us has knowledge about the exact system in use and hence arguing against a more detailed system is moot at this point,  if a dev does not tell us otherwise.

 

 

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf
15 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

I do not understand where the info comes from that the current hitbox design should be insufficient to model more drag accurately for AP rounds, I personally would not see why an extended aerodynamic drag calculation for the hitboxes would induce an over the top performance impact if the integration is not too complicated within the current system. Neither of us has knowledge about the exact system in use and hence arguing against a more detailed system is moot at this point,  if a dev does not tell us otherwise.

 

 

Agreed. You beat me to this post as I was pondering it at the breakfast table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
2 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

I do not understand where the info comes from that the current hitbox design should be insufficient to model more drag accurately for AP rounds, I personally would not see why an extended aerodynamic drag calculation for the hitboxes would induce an over the top performance impact if the integration is not too complicated within the current system. Neither of us has knowledge about the exact system in use and hence arguing against a more detailed system is moot at this point,  if a dev does not tell us otherwise.

 

 

It doesn't seem to work correctly at the moment because the level of damage required to really slow a plane has to be applied to a single hit box.  For AP rounds this means 20-30 .50 AP rounds need to hit a single location on the target before a substantial slowing occurs.   That means that many hits all over a plane but NOT concentrated don't seem to have any ill effects on the target's speed.  It MAY be possible to fix this another way, but considering the entire plane as one big hit box for aero damage purposes could solve the problem.  Obviously, since we're not devs who knows if this is even possible OR the even exactly how the DM works.  The only thing most people seem to agree on is that AP hits aren't having enough effect on aero drag and 13mm HE seems to have too much by comparison.

 

I think adding up the hits across all the hit boxes and calculating a cumulative drag as you suggest may also be a viable solution.  We're all just guessing to a great extent on this since we have no access to the source code.

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

216th_Jordan
1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

It doesn't seem to work correctly at the moment because the level of damage required to really slow a plane has to be applied to a single hit box.  For AP rounds this means 20-30 .50 AP rounds need to hit a single location on the target before a substantial slowing occurs.   That means that many hits all over a plane but NOT concentrated don't seem to have any ill effects on the target's speed.  It MAY be possible to fix this another way, but considering the entire plane as one big hit box for aero damage purposes could solve the problem.  Obviously, since we're not devs who knows if this is even possible OR the even exactly how the DM works.  The only thing most people seem to agree on is that AP hits aren't having enough effect on aero drag and 13mm HE seems to have too much by comparison.

 

I think adding up the hits across all the hit boxes and calculating a cumulative drag as you suggest may also be a viable solution.  We're all just guessing to a great extent on this since we have no access to the source code.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but we already had more drag before, with individual hitbox design

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheAngryGamer

So, when are you geniuses finally gonna actually fix the 50 cal ammo? I don't know if you realize this, but the Americans actually DID have incendiary rounds in the 50.  I am real sick and tired of you devs for every game company rolling out crap that is wrong or just doesn't work. Its just LAZY and STUPID. And you're not the only company. But Youtubers have made videos clearly showing your design is crap. Especially when compared to REAL WW2 COMBAT FOOTAGE. Now I realize, you may have never seen actual footage, but it was NOT REQUIRED to unload the equivalent of 2 full plane loadout to shoot down 1 plane!!! How about people just stop buyingn your crap til you learn to do your job? I read your devs strive for accuracy. WHERE???

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tatata_Time
5 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

Neither of us has knowledge about the exact system in use and hence arguing against a more detailed system is moot at this point,  if a dev does not tell us otherwise.

 

This is the golden egg WE ALL are waiting from the first complaining threat about 50's opened in this forum around May- June 2020, because from September 2019 (do you remember P-51 D, P-38J and Tempest mk.II first release?) til April 2020 there were ZERO, I mean ZERO complains from pilots who flew allies with 0.50 caliber MG's mounted (Spit Mk.IX, P-47D-28, P-51D, P-38J).Also I have to mention there were ZERO, I mean ZERO complains from pilots flying axis about the 50's damage effects. After that period  was introduced the Damage model: I don't complain about this new system. In the case it were really accurate and the 0.50 AP rounds really do these kind of damages I can only affirm with total rotundity the total lack of accuracy in a system that doesn't simulate one or various types of rounds if the A/C worked with them IRL and their effects after impacting A/C's.

Let's do simple maths: 370th FS (P-51B) reports, from this actual combat report of a:

P-51B equipped with only 4 x 0.50 cal MG's 

The mix A/C was using: 2 API- 2 I- 1 AP ratio.

Rate of fire AN/M2 MG: 750-850 rounds/minute same 12,5 rounds/second, So a P-51B can spit 50 rounds/second ( 12,5 x 4 MG's). So He used around 200-300 rounds ( 4 seconds burst from 500 yards at 30) to dissable  a 109 as a flying threat. (*)

 

And the rest of a total rounds of 615 had been used to dissabled another 109 as a flying threat from a close shot at 75 yards

 

Now coming back to our virtual world: To do  it easy for every kind of ammo we assign a simple number due its damage capability, so:

 

Ball 1

AP  2

I      2

API-APIT 3 (tracer means ZERO in damage terms) 

 

If you apply the P-51B example  to this numbers you got for a 200 rounds burst a mixture of  80 API, 80 Incendiary and 40 AP expent, so...

 

(80 x 3) + (80 x 2) + (40 x 2)= 480 damage points  in the first encounter 

 

415 rounds expent in the second 109 so:

 

(166 x 3) + (166 x 2) + (83 x 2)= 976 damage points in the second encounter

 

But at this point somebody could say: dude not all bullets impact in the A/C: True.... so let's be generous and say that the 25 %( the % doesn't affect to the concept I'm developing or if anyone tell an actual % then... NP in redo numbers... concept won't change) of the rounds in every burst  that IRL mate did impact in the 109's. 

 

440 x 0.25 = 110 rounds 

 

893 x 0.25 = 223.25 (seems we have a 0.25 bullets ricocheting) so 224 rounds impacting.

 

in damage terms: 

For the first burst : (44 API x 3)+ (44 I x 2)+ (22 AP x 2)= 242 damage points with mix belt

For the second burst: ( 89.6 x 3) + (89.6 x 2) + ( 44.8 x 2)= 537.6 damage points with mix belt

 

As in the game,  if we eliminate balls, Incendiary and Armour-piercing Incendiary rounds from the list we only have AP with 2 damage points then:

 

110 x 2 = 220 damage points for the first encounter with pure AP belt

 

224 x 2 = 448 damage points for the second encounter with pure AP belt

 

779.6 damage points in total - 668 damage points = 111.6 this is the total GAP between the mix and the only AP in our example terms of damage,

 

so, after that, everyone got your own conclusions. I'm not american, neither german or english but there's a sentence that resume very well the evolution of the late WW2 allied fighters : If it ain't broke..... DON'T FIX IT! Need more backwards visibility... then bubble  canopies, Lack of punch? then 6 50's instead of 4 50's.

 

From my point of view this "issue" needs to be fixed or temporary mended ASAP ( 10 months with it) because it's a great game killer not only in MP also in SP (oh lord!!!!: the eternal AI turning right with the lack of punch of some weapons!!!!).

 

(*) I said flying threat cause 109 accumulated too much damage to stay in combat: most of it caused by a great decrease in A/C normal performance due the sum of various facts: decrease in engine performance, parasite drag, lack of control surfaces capability, misc. leakings (fuel, oil, glycol,...A/C's blood), also pilot wounds). I don't talk about cutting wings, tail stabs... cause from my experience in game 100% times a 109 looses any wing because he's trying to dive hard or turn hard after been shot by a great burst that generates a potential damage in 109 wing and only becomes in act when they put their wounded A/C out of limits of G tollerance for that wounded wing, so this point is really well simulated. The main capability from 50's IMAO is hard dissabling opponents).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II/JG17_HerrMurf

I have a problem with some of your opening theory as people have been complaining about weapons on these forums since it's creation and the .50's since their release. Futher, people have been complaining about weapons and the .50's for at least a couple of (or three) decades in flight sims in general. That is considerably more than ZERO, ZERO or ZERO.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cybermat47

Well, at least you're living up to your username. But have you considered talking about this like an adult instead of acting like a brat?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 7
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25% would be extremely generous for world war 2 averages. If I recall if a pilot was shooting higher than 5% accuracy they were considered really good. On average most pilots shot 5% or worse. So even being generous and saying the pilot shot 5% that’s 10-20 rounds landing. The worse part about these after action reports is that they are very one sided in what happened. For all we know the 109 pilot got scared and jumped. Was wounded or his plane was crippled. Or he thought the plane was more damaged than it was or he was killed. We just don’t know. But you could definitely do the math of those after actions to see how many rounds were expended and just apply a general 5% hit rate to see the average expended rounds per kill. 

Edited by QB.Rails
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tatata_Time
1 hour ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I have a problem with some of your opening theory as people have been complaining about weapons on these forums since it's creation and the .50's since their release. Futher, people have been complaining about weapons and the .50's for at least a couple of (or three) decades in flight sims in general. That is considerably more than ZERO, ZERO or ZERO.

If ZERO is the only number we have to discuss about it  then better stop here. I invite you to open a new threat talking about complains and how long and why some people can suffer those people talking nonsense.

1 hour ago, QB.Rails said:

25% would be extremely generous for world war 2 averages. If I recall if a pilot was shooting higher than 5% accuracy they were considered really good. On average most pilots shot 5% or worse. So even being generous and saying the pilot shot 5% that’s 10-20 rounds landing. The worse part about these after action reports is that they are very one sided in what happened. For all we know the 109 pilot got scared and jumped. Was wounded or his plane was crippled. Or he thought he plane was more damaged that it was or he was killed. We just don’t know. But you could definitely do the math of those after actions to see how many rounds were expended and just apply a general 5% hit rate to see the average expended rounds per kill. 

Thx for the real %, but for my example, as I said in the post, mixed belts always are the winning horse. You can do same with any german fighter.

Even the fact pilots in general and combat pilots specifically tend to "fanta-size" due "in pub Ace trophy is at stake",  you can't deny the 2 opponents dissabled, that's why I talked about flying threats, not about KILLS.

I only used that report because belive it or not is an official report from anyone who did the WW2. If I would belived 100% in this report then I must say He did a great job shooting only 615 with 4 0.50 MG's in total to set aside  2 enemy fighters away from the pack of bombers. Bosses don't mind if the 109 finally RTB or were 2 non confirmed kills, they only mind how many bombers departed and how many landed safetly and the causes why some have not returned back home and find any solution for next sorties to come. 

As I said, engineers don't equip first models of any A/C with 4 crapp MGs (P-51) and 8 peashooter MGs (P-47) and keep mantaining also increasing the number per A/C only for pleasure. If they changed the canopy and introduced other expensive improvements  but mantained the "weak" weapons in later models is because they did their job properly well. I've seen vids from Hurricanes dealing 3 level of damage faster and better with 12 X 0.303 than 0.50 equipped fighters.

Edited by Tatata_Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

The other problem about the P-51 and P-47 AARs is that the vast majority are using API rounds - which we do not have - and while they do on occasion say pieces were seen to come off, they do not identify aerodynamic damage in any useful way, let alone quantify it. How could they? I think the best use of the AARs is to get a rough feel for the proportion of PKs and flamers. 

 

If you look at a picture of the level 2 holes (my definition), the holes are certainly large enough to be compatible with seeing pieces come off. It is only level one ( the "bullet holes") that are compatible with cleanish holes and no detached pieces. Maybe more visible, larger fragments coming off level 2 and three damaged areas would help.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

Thx for the real %, but for my example, as I said in the post, mixed belts always are the winning horse. You can do same with any german fighter.

Even the fact pilots in general and combat pilots specifically tend to "fanta-size" due "in pub Ace trophy is at stake",  you can't deny the 2 opponents dissabled, that's why I talked about flying threats, not about KILLS.

I only used that report because belive it or not is an official report from anyone who did the WW2. If I would belived 100% in this report then I must say He did a great job shooting only 615 with 4 0.50 MG's in total to set aside  2 enemy fighters away from the pack of bombers. Bosses don't mind if the 109 finally RTB or were 2 non confirmed kills, they only mind how many bombers departed and how many landed safetly and the causes why some have not returned back home and find any solution for next sorties to come. 

As I said, engineers don't equip first models of any A/C with 4 crapp MGs (P-51) and 8 peashooter MGs (P-47) and keep mantaining also increasing the number per A/C only for pleasure. If they changed the canopy and introduced other expensive improvements  but mantained the "weak" weapons in later models is because they did their job properly well. I've seen vids from Hurricanes dealing 3 level of damage faster and better with 12 X 0.303 than 0.50 equipped fighters.

Not taking anything away from that pilots accomplishments but they only paint one side of the picture. I for one do take after actions with a grain of salt as people’s memories tend to be fuzzy when under stress. You can see this problem first hand by witness statements in police reports. I am on the side of upping the 50 calibers damage and aero penalty. 20-40 rounds should be plenty to bring down a plane in my opinion. We do not currently see this in game unless you kill the pilot or set fire to the plane.

Edited by QB.Rails
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
31 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The other problem about the P-51 and P-47 AARs is that the vast majority are using API rounds - which we do not have - and while they do on occasion say pieces were seen to come off, they do not identify aerodynamic damage in any useful way, let alone quantify it. How could they? I think the best use of the AARs is to get a rough feel for the proportion of PKs and flamers. 

 

If you look at a picture of the level 2 holes (my definition), the holes are certainly large enough to be compatible with seeing pieces come off. It is only level one ( the "bullet holes") that are compatible with cleanish holes and no detached pieces. Maybe more visible, larger fragments coming off level 2 and three damaged areas would help.  

 

Probably because the pilot either bailed out or immediately lost control and went into the dirt.  No sensible RL pilot is going to stick with a plane that is hard to control unless they are over enemy territory, deadly terrain, or think they'll be treated badly as a POW.  There are plenty of accounts of enemy planes believed to have been hit diving away and not being seen again too.  It's really hard to say what happened.

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

unreasonable
8 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

...people talking nonsense.Thx for the real %, but for my example, as I said in the post, mixed belts always are the winning horse.

 

No they are not. That is what was thought until the US 8th AF operations research scientists realised that this was wrong, and recommended switching from mixed belts to 100% API (or API-T if tracer was required).

 

The reasoning is set out in the book I referred to earlier.   Having had a little more time: for people who want to know the answer but also want to know why - and cannot wait days for the book - I have no means of taking a picture of the text, but I can show an example of the calculations that were done: purely illustrative of the fallacy, the numbers are made up.

1006609562_Beltingfallacy.thumb.JPG.8a26e306fedbf430a86377e2cb1a6c8c.JPG

 

edit: now with the right non-overlap formula!

 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SAS_Storebror

Putting all the lametta aside and focussing on the main statement, the OP has a point.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

What I think is lazy and stupid is buying games, where a little research would tell you that they have a feature that will make you so angry. 

 

Try Baby Milk Simulator, it may be more satisfying.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LR.TheRedPanda

How are the devs going to take you seriously if you are out here insulting them while they have a lot on their plate to do already for the year. Its comments like this which probably makes them more unlikely to address anything in the future. We already have a productive AP evaluation thread going with information from sources to help and in game testing analysis. Instead the subject is turned into a unfunny joke

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

Then again, it could just be someone testing the limits of Poe's Law. Either way I do not suppose the thread will survive very long. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tatata_Time
4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

No they are not. That is what was thought until the US 8th AF operations research scientists realised that this was wrong, and recommended switching from mixed belts to 100% API (or API-T if tracer was required).

Well,.... basically this a question of points of view: that book and maybe you consider an APIT belt a pure belt and I see APIT rounds as an "all-in-one" mixed rounds. But numbers still been in the same place IRL and in game. APIT pure belts got better numbers than AP pure belts, don't they? Maths are even simplier. In my example I gave more damage points to  API-APIT (3) rounds than balls (1), AP (2) or Incendiary (2).... then....do maths. 

 

The I+D+I + manufacture costs aplied to a 1 regular ball round are, at least... if not higher, 2 or 3 times fewer and lower than for APIT's. So if they kept using and, in late times of war, they recommended API-APIT instead of AP, Incendiary or balls pure or mixed belts is because pilots reported anything more positive in their damage capability than the rest.  You don't need to be a scientific to notice if APIT rounds got more damage power than others and if the last users reported any lack of punch in them the money men would canceled their massive production before war were over.   

Edited by Tatata_Time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

I just did maths: illustrating why mixed belts are not "the winning horse". API is not better in every circumstance - it averages as better, given that hits are to all intents randomly distributed. It was nothing like as simplistic as damage of 3:2:1.

 

Really, get the book: it is very interesting, not just on this topic.  It will actually tell you when, how and why the switch to API was made, so that you do not have to make stuff up.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tatata_Time
55 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Really, get the book: it is very interesting, not just on this topic.  It will actually tell you when, how and why the switch to API was made, so that you do not have to make stuff up.

 

Thx sure I will, but now would be better you recomend it as a "required lecture" to dev's, because is in their hand to fix all this mess.

 

One thing I can really extract from reading your last post is: from Bodenplatte times til the end of war in Europe (from January to May 1945) API- APIT was the standard equipment. So... We all have a total lack of them in game.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero
11 hours ago, 336thTheAngryGamer said:

So, when are you geniuses finally gonna actually fix the 50 cal ammo? I don't know if you realize this, but the Americans actually DID have incendiary rounds in the 50.  I am real sick and tired of you devs for every game company rolling out crap that is wrong or just doesn't work. Its just LAZY and STUPID. And you're not the only company. But Youtubers have made videos clearly showing your design is crap. Especially when compared to REAL WW2 COMBAT FOOTAGE. Now I realize, you may have never seen actual footage, but it was NOT REQUIRED to unload the equivalent of 2 full plane loadout to shoot down 1 plane!!! How about people just stop buyingn your crap til you learn to do your job? I read your devs strive for accuracy. WHERE???

When ? In a year time if your lucky.

Look at airplanes they have to do this year:

Fokker D.VIII
Spad 7 150hp
Spitfire Mk.XIV
Fw-190 A-6
Nieuport 28.C1
Spad 7 180hp
Typhoon Mk.Ib
P-51B/C
Pfalz D.XII
Sopwith Triplane
Breguet 14.B2
DFW C.V.
Airco DH.4
Ju 88 C-6
Handley Page 0-400
Gotha G.V
B-26 (AI)
V-1 Cruise Missile
Ar-234
Mosquito FB Mk.VI
Me-410

 

And last time i check same guy doing FM for all of the airplanes is same guy doing DM in game, and new airplanes bring in the money, so after they get done maybe youll get realsitic ammo in aircombat "sim" 😄 oh yes i forghot fuel system is suposed to be done before also, and lets not forget "quick" fix for 109 tail lol.

 

Best for you is to take fancy of axis side or raf (before hispanos get new look and get fixed). It seams there is a lot of fans of american airplanes but they are mostly flying 30mm DC 109s and 262s, so you starting to fly axis will give them chance to fly p-51s they think are so great 😄

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero
11 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

I have a problem with some of your opening theory as people have been complaining about weapons on these forums since it's creation and the .50's since their release. Futher, people have been complaining about weapons and the .50's for at least a couple of (or three) decades in flight sims in general. That is considerably more than ZERO, ZERO or ZERO.

Yes in other games not here untill 4.005 fixes, I dont remenber single topic about 0.50 cal guns being to strong or week in this game and we have them for few years since P-40 come with BoM, when P-47 come only prais about it was good 0.50 cal guns it had in this game.

They got 0.50 good from start and then they screw it up in 4.005, there was ZERO complains about them in this game untill they got "fixed".

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@unreasonable

I think providing the model is balanced across the different weapons, the amount of drag doesn't have to be exactly spot on. I don't think you'd need to go much more advanced than working out surface area damage and making assumptions there.

 

I think the idea of creating additional larger hitboxes (e.g. a whole wing) that can cause drag and lift loss isn't a bad idea. You can see at 3:07 in the first example below that despite taking a lot of hits at what would definitely be ~70 degree angle, there's no Level 2 damage an any section. These are extreme examples but highlight the issues. We can see from some example charts from the report that the average of the spread is somewhere around 30-50% of the maximal lateral damage. 20210126_114908.thumb.jpg.dbaf4da0aea10852055e71dc1ed4d107.jpg

20210126_114841.thumb.jpg.35ae23979454e95e53dcfc7ae2d7e642.jpg

 

We'd need some more info to actually make the calculation but judging by the examples in the report, that wing would likely be in an absolutely dire state.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand
2 hours ago, CountZero said:

They got 0.50 good from start and then they screw it up in 4.005, there was ZERO complains about them in this game untill they got "fixed".

 

I don´t know if that´s true many people actually thought they were pretty OP. back in the days when AP was the meta, they absolutley murdered. I think it was overdone and many others did. Since (for the longest time before BoBP) only really the p40 had them, not so many people were affected with and the other side probably wasn´t complaining since it was the only strength the p40 had. But yeah, I think it was too much, it was shaving off wings like a hot knife through butter, not realistic either tbh honest and far from spot on.

But back in the day the discusion was centered around AP vs Minengeschoss more than anything, so the .50 cal didn´t play a big role, but like Murf said people have been complaining about all kinds of ammo since day 1.

Edited by =EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
17 minutes ago, Cass said:

@unreasonable

I think providing the model is balanced across the different weapons, the amount of drag doesn't have to be exactly spot on. I don't think you'd need to go much more advanced than working out surface area damage and making assumptions there.

 

I think the idea of creating additional larger hitboxes (e.g. a whole wing) that can cause drag and lift loss isn't a bad idea. You can see at 3:07 in the first example below that despite taking a lot of hits at what would definitely be ~70 degree angle, there's no Level 2 damage an any section. These are extreme examples but highlight the issues. We can see from some example charts from the report that the average of the spread is somewhere around 30-50% of the maximal lateral damage.

20210126_114908.thumb.jpg.dbaf4da0aea10852055e71dc1ed4d107.jpg

20210126_114841.thumb.jpg.35ae23979454e95e53dcfc7ae2d7e642.jpg

 

We'd need some more info to actually make the calculation but judging by the examples in the report, that wing would likely be in an absolutely dire state.

 

 

I do not find these videos at useful - there is no hit count and we never get a clear view of any wing surface. That aside, what do you think the projectile velocity and impact velocities are in the video? Where on the graphs would the impacts be?

 

For both .30 cal and .50 cal at 200-300yds, over  2,000ft/s  using a  ballistics calculator). Ie well into the "clean hole" regime.  Bullets that exit might get into the high damage area of the graphs if they slow considerably, especially if they tumble.  

 

I expect that the game is making a calculation of surface damage in terms of area: I cannot see how else it could work. If that calculation can be improved fine, but if we do not know exactly how it works it is hard to say how. We are not going to be able to build a new DM from this report, even if we wanted to. The reality is the complaints are lobbying for a certain outcome (or outcomes): I do not think they are that bothered how they get it. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard

And people on this forum wonder why the developers won't respond to their posts. The vitriol seen at times is extremely counterproductive to any genuine posts attempting to get to the root of the problem. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats valid, it's not massively useful. That was recorded to show the absurdity of it more than a definitive test that has started this thread. You can see the wing at 3:07 that shows only stage 1 damage (the speed loss in the bottom left also doesn't correlate with stage 2). This was in SP so all hits shown should be counted.


The only way to actually definitively work this out is to run the calculation with a couple of examples through. We only have 1 example and that's for .30 AP, alongside some graphs that have a wide range of velocities wrapped together.

 

20210127_175929.thumb.jpg.e201a3c3120cc17a70a4b65130395a94.jpg

We have another graph specific to velocity but the material is too thick for aircraft skin.

 

If I'm bored this weekend I might have a stab at a couple of .50 calculations. They will no doubt have to be checked extensively as maths is not my strong suit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry I'm not suggesting that's the definitive size hole. Judging by the graphs we have the maximum is usually an outlier with most concentrated between 30-50%. Those graphs are from perpendicular angles so higher velocity will obviously leave smaller holes.

 

What would be interesting to understand is the velocity loss incurred from going through the skin and ricocheting. As judging by what the report said, the bullet exiting the aircraft will be doing more damage.

Edited by Cass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tatata_Time
5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

I do not think they are that bothered how they get it

 

With the passing of time you get used to it but the pain is still there.

 

 

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

I expect that the game is making a calculation of surface damage in terms of area: I cannot see how else it could work

 

May I suggest you to use this mod an repeat any of your experiments you've done before and compare them?  You've already studied the nowadays AP 0.50 damage. You can study the damage with this mod. Once you've done it we should have, in one extreme the actual ingame damage and in the other extreme this mod results so "the one day  becoming API" should be, given or taken,  near the middle, shouldn't it?

 

I did my own test with this Russian 12.7 mm.  mod in a P-51D 100 oct. with 35% fuel and the AI opponent has been a 109 K4 (the mos tanky 109 against the regular 50's) with 100% fuel. Always started from a position of advantge at 5000m while 109 at 3000m (just to get more and different angles of impact) in the Rhineland spring 1944 (no G-suit), I've repeated it 10 times in batches of 5 enemies. The most shocking data for me even the fast 3rd level of damage you can produce in opponents is the ZERO pilot kills. 

 

 

worldobjects.rar    install it in the IL-2 LuaScripts folder start the game, go to game settings and tick to allow mods. Restart the game and enjoy it in SP. You can allow it or disallow it  by ingame main settings and restarting the game, so you don't need to uninstall it from the folder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

@Cass Also read the definition of "damage" in the text carefully: damage in their definition is not necessarily  the size of the "hole". It is the maximum distance between the ends of any signs of damage, whether cracks holes or splits, not all of which would create significant drag. It might be a useful index: but you still have to make some heroic assumptions about what drag impact any level would have.

 

Good luck with the modelling! 

 

@Tatata_Time Downloaded. On a quick look static test vs wing it looks broadly similar to the MG131 damage, as expected, but hard to count exactly as the MG131 is firing alternate AP/HE and I can only get the .50 cal to fire two shots at a time just now. Against a tougher wing it would be easier to detect any difference.

 

The zero pilot kills may be because the pilot armour is very effective against fragments from a rear attack. I expect that other angles will give them on occasion.

 

  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...