37mm AP vs Tempest

[III./SG77-R_Lehmann]

 

[PatrickAWlson]

And the point is?

 

Do you know how your round hit the Tempest?  Did it penetrate into the engine or just strike a glancing blow off the cowl?  It's AP so it is not going to explode.  I can't tell anything from the video except that you fired an ineffectual 37mm AP round and then decided to express your outrage on YouTube.

[Vortice]

Luftwhining on steroids.

[Aurora_Stealth]

Once the DVD (damage visualisation) change is retrospectively added to each aircraft we'll be able to see better what's going on with individual rounds. Right now we get somewhat vague and not always corresponding visual effects, but yeah have to agree that an AP round isn't going to show much surface damage in either case. Especially if its going through something chunky like an engine block which will (damage) it but also absorb most of the blast.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, III./SG77-R_Lehmann said:

 

Aim harder 

[RedKestrel]

Basically the philosophy of AP in the current DM is that the AP rounds leave a neat hole that is roughly the size of the diameter of the round. If it doesn't hit something critical it's a perfect through and through with little in the way of aerodynamic damage.

If you're going air to air, HE is the way to go. 20mm HE rounds will do more than 37mm AP rounds. Hell, 12.7mm rounds with an HE component will do more than a 37mm AP round that doesn't hit an engine or pilot.

[III./SG77-R_Lehmann]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

And the point is?

 

Do you know how your round hit the Tempest?  Did it penetrate into the engine or just strike a glancing blow off the cowl?  It's AP so it is not going to explode.  I can't tell anything from the video except that you fired an ineffectual 37mm AP round and then decided to express your outrage on YouTube.

 
Solid hit into the engine and the wing. Of course AP is not going to explode. But it baffles me that AP ammunition throughout the whole game is pretty bad. The BK's shells fire at a velocity of 1.170 meters per second. Capable of penetrating roughly 140mm of armor at point-blank range. The projectile itself weighs about 685gr. So if I calculate this all according to KE=12mv2....  The impact is about 468.848,25 Joules. A mid-19th-century 12-pounder (cannon of a pirate ship), which fired a 4.1 kg (9.0 lb) round, with a kinetic energy of 240.000 joules.

Combine all of that and have a moment of thought. This Tempest basically continues to fly without a scratch? Not even some hindrance in flight performance. I am not outraged. Just like the video, this is an absolute joke.


 

3 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Once the DVD (damage visualisation) change is retrospectively added to each aircraft we'll be able to see better what's going on with individual rounds. Right now we get somewhat vague and not always corresponding visual effects, but yeah have to agree that an AP round isn't going to show much surface damage in either case. Especially if its going through something chunky like an engine block which will (damage) it but also absorb most of the blast.

 

Like I mentioned in an other comment, the BK37 Bordkanone was basically designed to destroy tanks. At point blank range, the BK's can penetrate roughly 140mm of armor. I am pretty sure that engine block should be toast. If a .50 caliber sniper rifle can actually render cars and trucks immobile by shooting the engine, making it stop or heavily damage it. There are enough videos on YouTube where they actually do that. And be aware, that's only a .50 caliber. So imagine what a 37mm projectile could do.


 

2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Basically the philosophy of AP in the current DM is that the AP rounds leave a neat hole that is roughly the size of the diameter of the round. If it doesn't hit something critical it's a perfect through and through with little in the way of aerodynamic damage.

If you're going air to air, HE is the way to go. 20mm HE rounds will do more than 37mm AP rounds. Hell, 12.7mm rounds with an HE component will do more than a 37mm AP round that doesn't hit an engine or pilot.

And I think that should be changed in the game. The engine was directly hit and the wing, near the fuselage. Given the huge kinetic energy and the spots where the rounds have hit the Tempest, the severe lack of damage is troublesome. The Tempest flew on without any worthwhile damage. Just like the 37mm HE hits the tank armor, the fragmentation that occurs due to the impact should have been a contributing factor in accounting the damage. Especially for the engine.

The wing however, in the recording I saw it did not deflect nor did it hit at an angle to do so. It hit it pretty much bang on. So it must have hit one of the spars or the connecting spars inside the wing. And likewise do damage within the wing. Likely that the shell will fly out on the other end while doing so or even bouncing off inside it when penetrating, causing it to deflect at still a high velocity to cause damage to parts where it was not hit from the beginning.

Edited April 28, 2021 by III./SG77-R_Lehmann

[Avimimus]

One can use a 37mm AP (or even a high velocity Vya 23mm AP) to penetrate all the way through a bomber from behind and kill the pilot... it is a neat trick once one gets the hang of it.

 

However, if one misses the pilot the round goes all the way through and out the other side with no effect. With the Tempest you might just have poked a hole in a fuel tank or through some of the wing near the fuel tank... there is no guarantee that a 37mm sized hole will do much (and a few milimetres of duraluminum sheeting will not deform a 37mm AP projectile enough to cause it to spread out).

 

Part of me wishes that all of the complaints about the 0.50 M2 will lead to a reassessment of small 'ball' ammunition - leading to the ShKAS on the I-16 (and 0.303 on the Spit V) becoming more effective along the way...! But that is a completely different type of ammunition from these larger AP rounds.

[Voidhunger]

4 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Once the DVD (damage visualisation) change is retrospectively added to each aircraft we'll be able to see better what's going on with individual rounds.

Nope, it was mentioned that the visual of the impact do not correspond to the actual damage.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Its just one vid. I could post a vid of me in a mustang chopping the wing of a 109 with .50 M2 but that would certainely not prove its perfectly modelled.

 

Why dont you show us the vid where all the other tempests went down after being hit by a few 37mm shells?

[III./SG77-R_Lehmann]

38 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

One can use a 37mm AP (or even a high velocity Vya 23mm AP) to penetrate all the way through a bomber from behind and kill the pilot... it is a neat trick once one gets the hang of it.

 

However, if one misses the pilot the round goes all the way through and out the other side with no effect. With the Tempest you might just have poked a hole in a fuel tank or through some of the wing near the fuel tank... there is no guarantee that a 37mm sized hole will do much (and a few milimetres of duraluminum sheeting will not deform a 37mm AP projectile enough to cause it to spread out).

 

Part of me wishes that all of the complaints about the 0.50 M2 will lead to a reassessment of small 'ball' ammunition - leading to the ShKAS on the I-16 (and 0.303 on the Spit V) becoming more effective along the way...! But that is a completely different type of ammunition from these larger AP rounds.

Well it did not damage at all. Not even a fuel leak. I think AP ammunition in general is pretty broken in the game.

 

 

10 minutes ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

Its just one vid. I could post a vid of me in a mustang chopping the wing of a 109 with .50 M2 but that would certainely not prove its perfectly modelled.

 

Why dont you show us the vid where all the other tempests went down after being hit by a few 37mm shells?

I have done it multiple times and used the clip that had the most/best hits. You can try this out for yourself. Load the game and go into Quick mission. Do a 1vs1 duel with a Tempest where you take the Stuka. When selecting the Stuka, take the BK's and select the BLUE ammunition. This is AP. In the difficulty setting (custom), enable infinite ammunition (makes it easier to actually spamfire).

And voila, you're now going head on with a Tempest and you'll see how awfully bad AP ammunition is.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Not to mention all the 109s and FWs that I have hit with the 37 on the P39 to no effect.

[Avimimus]

17 minutes ago, III./SG77-R_Lehmann said:

Well it did not damage at all. Not even a fuel leak. I think AP ammunition in general is pretty broken in the game.

 

Well... my experience has been that I can fire straight through the airplane from any direction to kill the pilot.

 

One can also often cause an engine to seize with a couple of shots (although it takes time before the engine stops - as there isn't a fire like one gets with other weapons, and the damage is to the pistons etc.)

 

In my experience the AP rounds require a very precise aim (not really possible with the wing mounted Bk 3.7 of the Stuka) and are a bit less predictable in how much damage they do (as they don't light fires and do indirect damage the same way as HE rounds) - However, they are extremely powerful.

 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

42 minutes ago, III./SG77-R_Lehmann said:

Well it did not damage at all. Not even a fuel leak. I think AP ammunition in general is pretty broken in the game.

 

 

I have done it multiple times and used the clip that had the most/best hits. You can try this out for yourself. Load the game and go into Quick mission. Do a 1vs1 duel with a Tempest where you take the Stuka. When selecting the Stuka, take the BK's and select the BLUE ammunition. This is AP. In the difficulty setting (custom), enable infinite ammunition (makes it easier to actually spamfire).

And voila, you're now going head on with a Tempest and you'll see how awfully bad AP ammunition is.

 

No need to do it. I have to give it to you, AP ammo is not well modelled right now. It has been focused on .50 M2 because its so obvious on american fighters because it makes them really weak and you have no alternative. But AP ammo overall is a problem imo. I tested it also on the il2. Took off with AP only 23mm ammo and unloaded on 109's. Extremely underwhelming results and minimal structural damage, only small holes causing very low drag penalty. You'd get better results using UBS MG's than AP only 23mm cannons right now. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

AP rounds damage is just too low in regards to skin damage, same issue that plagues the M2 50 cal and the ShVAK in the Yak-1 series 69 which only 33% of the rounds it fires are explosive, so you gotta hope for those to connect to deal any significant effect on target, without any other high explosive weapon to back them up like in the other Yaks with their Berezins or La-5 that can choose a full HE belt.

[Creep]

AP is buggered and everyone with half a brain knows it. 

[Legioneod]

The problem with all AP (.50, 20mm, etc) is that the internals (hitboxes) of the aircraft aren't really modeled to a great degree from my understanding. Currently it is more RNG with large hitboxes.

 

The only way AP will ever be accurate is if they model internal hitboxes. It doesn't have to be complex (just model the main systems/components.) If things like wing spars, control rods, oil/fuel system get their own hitboxes then AP would improve dramatically imo.

 

Look at DCS, their DM used to be terrible but hey updated it for the warbirds so that all the main components have their own hitbox, as a result their DM is quite good (imo getting better than il2 even) and things like .50 and other AP work very well.

 

I don't think AP damage or .50 cal is the problem in IL2, I think the problem with the Il2 DM is the lack of internal systems hitboxes. Add the hitboxes (even just the basics like spars, control rods, etc) and the AP performance will improve greatly imo.

 

PS. I may be wrong about the il2 hitboxes but last I heard most internals didn't have their own hitbox and it was more rng than anything.

This is an image from DCS but I think it shows what I mean. I think that Il2 dm is more in line with the hitboxes on the right (though I think engines now have their own hitbox and its probably more detailed, not 100%sure)  imo the hitboxes on the left would make for a more accurate model and would fix the AP/.50 issue, they dont have to have as much modeled but all the major components need their own hitbox)

 

(Need these for a good accurate damage model, imo these are the bare minimum needed)

-Control rods

-engine system/engine cylinders/crankcase

-oil system

-wing spars

-weapons/ammo

-cooling system

-fuel system

-control surfaces

 

Extra that could be modeled but imo aren't required and can be left to RNG.

-Detailed engine components, prop gov, supercharger, etc.

-hydraulic system

-electronics

-prop

-etc.

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Legioneod

[354thFG_Rails]

You might be right with the lack of internals modeled but the fact remains in game HE is doing 3 different damages to AP’s 1. Fixing the damage model won’t fix the fact that HE is over performing 

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

You might be right with the lack of internals modeled but the fact remains in game HE is doing 3 different damages to AP’s 1. Fixing the damage model won’t fix the fact that HE is over performing 

I do agree that it "feels" like HE is overperforming to some degree but I think that has more to do with the aerodynamic penalties it causes more than anything.

EDIT: Whats the three different damages of HE? I know it can cause shrapnel damage and lots of drag.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Legioneod

[354thFG_Rails]

I think that’s a by product of it hitting to hard. 131 HE with 1 gram explosive is doing 1.3 meter damage radius. UBs with 2 grams is doing 2.2 meter damage radius. To me that’s huge for the amount of high explosive in those shells. And it only gets worse with bigger caliber guns. I think HE needs to be brought back down. And AP needs to have some sort of shrapnel type damage to account for tumbling and redirects once it enters an object. In game AP has nothing but its kinetic energy values doing damage which doesn’t translate well to any sort of aero penalty in game when you get struck with multiple hits. 

[Legioneod]

12 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

I think that’s a by product of it hitting to hard. 131 HE with 1 gram explosive is doing 1.3 meter damage radius. UBs with 2 grams is doing 2.2 meter damage radius. To me that’s huge for the amount of high explosive in those shells. And it only gets worse with bigger caliber guns. I think HE needs to be brought back down. And AP needs to have some sort of shrapnel type damage to account for tumbling and redirects once it enters an object. In game AP has nothing but its kinetic energy values doing damage which doesn’t translate well to any sort of aero penalty in game when you get struck with multiple hits. 

AP doesn't produce much shrapnel so I don't really think that's a solution. AP should absolutely cause areo penalties but it would take more hits to cause the same as HE.

As the skin is damaged by AP the drag/areo penalties should increase (since the skin/airframe is getting more and more holes punched into it. imo AP currently isnt doing much in regards to skin damage/areo penalties.

 

I think the damage radius on HE is the shrapnel but it could be overperforming and counting the large redius as too much damage? Shrapnel damage would be more similar to small ap rounds hitting the skin and not an explosion. It could be counting the entire radius as HE damage (explosive) and not shrapnel damage (not sure if this is even how it works). No way to truly tell though in game unfortunately.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Legioneod

[354thFG_Rails]

16 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I do agree that it "feels" like HE is overperforming to some degree but I think that has more to do with the aerodynamic penalties it causes more than anything.

EDIT: Whats the three different damages of HE? I know it can cause shrapnel damage and lots of drag.

The 3 different damages are it’s base damage of kinetic energy, there’s shockwave damage it causes from the explosion and shrapnel. Shockwave is a huge deal in game too. I’ve been messing around tweaking those values and it has a size-able impact on aero damage. 

[von_Tom]

 

Do a report to the technical issues/bug reports forum otherwise this is all hot air and will just go round and round in a descending Lufbery circle until we hit the bottom.

 

von Tom

[Legioneod]

9 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

The 3 different damages are it’s base damage of kinetic energy, there’s shockwave damage it causes from the explosion and shrapnel. Shockwave is a huge deal in game too. I’ve been messing around tweaking those values and it has a size-able impact on aero damage. 

Ah ok. So maybe its the shockwave damage that is overperforming. Imo the shockwave/pressure damage shoudln't be that large in size compared to shrapnel damage. And it should really only damage the immediate area of the hit. Currently it seems that the whole area is getting tons of damage when in reality it should only be the immediate area with the rest being minimal shrapnel damage (depending on what the shrapnel hits of course.

 

EDIT: Heres a P-47 that got hit by HE from ground fire, notice only the immediate area of the explosion is significantly damage. The rest of the area around the explosion has minimal damage.  You can see some shrapnel damage in the area nut it's not significant compared to the immediate area of the explosion.

(This P47 was also hit in the engine and left wing by ground fire as well)

Edited April 28, 2021 by Legioneod

[354thFG_Rails]

4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

AP doesn't produce much shrapnel so I don't really think that's a solution. AP should absolutely cause areo penalties but it would take more hits to cause the same as HE.

As the skin is damaged by AP the drag/areo penalties should increase (since the skin/airframe is getting more and more holes punched into it. imo AP currently isnt doing much in regards to skin damage/areo penalties.

 

I think the damage radius on HE is the shrapnel but it could be overperforming and counting the large redius as too much damage? Shrapnel damage would be more similar to small ap rounds hitting the skin and not an explosion. It could be counting the entire radius as HE damage (explosive) and not shrapnel damage (not sure if this is even how it works). No way to truly tell though in game unfortunately.

AP doesn’t need to produce shrapnel to the degree HE would. The problem is the game isn’t giving AP any tumbling component or redirection as far as I can tell. It’s straight through or stops internally if it loses enough energy. Giving it a small shrapnel damage value actually helps it produce aero damage quicker. 
 

to answer your second part you can totally tell in game. All you have to do is look at the files. HE is doing damage out to it’s given radius. Usually the shockwave damage is half the shrapnel radius. And it falls off a bit but not dramatically as it goes out. Tweak any of these values and you can make 131’s hit like mk. 108’s or Russian 20’s hit like 40mm bofors. 

8 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

Do a report to the technical issues/bug reports forum otherwise this is all hot air and will just go round and round in a descending Lufbery circle until we hit the bottom.

 

von Tom

There is no bug though? The game works as it does with the values they gave them. If anything you’d have to convince the devs that their values are off. And good luck doing that. 

[von_Tom]

9 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

There is no bug though? The game works as it does with the values they gave them. If anything you’d have to convince the devs that their values are off. And good luck doing that. 

 

So it's a feature ?.  Fair enough - it should be reported in the FM/DM forum.

 

von Tom

[354thFG_Rails]

Others have made the case and it got shoved into the complaints section. Devs aren’t going to visit ballistics and effects any time soon, they’ve made that very clear. 

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, QB.Rails said:

AP doesn’t need to produce shrapnel to the degree HE would. The problem is the game isn’t giving AP any tumbling component or redirection as far as I can tell. It’s straight through or stops internally if it loses enough energy. Giving it a small shrapnel damage value actually helps it produce aero damage quicker. 
 

to answer your second part you can totally tell in game. All you have to do is look at the files. HE is doing damage out to it’s given radius. Usually the shockwave damage is half the shrapnel radius. And it falls off a bit but not dramatically as it goes out. Tweak any of these values and you can make 131’s hit like mk. 108’s or Russian 20’s hit like 40mm bofors. 

There is no bug though? The game works as it does with the values they gave them. If anything you’d have to convince the devs that their values are off. And good luck doing that. 

 

Are you sure AP is not doing redirect damage? From the original 4.5 world objects you posted in your mod thread, (thanks!) the bullet_eng_7-7x56_ap.bin file contains the line "MaxRedirections = 2"  As do the other bullet ap files I checked (did not look at them all).  The Hispano 20mm ap file says "MaxRedirections = 3"

 

If you fire .50 cal on a static test at an upper wing surface, the lower wing will also show generic damage, so they can go straight through as you say, but on the P-51 with the new damage graphic the lower wing surface damage is still the old generic effect.  

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by unreasonable

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@Legioneod  Hitbox model would help with structural damage and systems damage, but at the end of the day if you hit flight surfaces it wouldn't change much. Still a fairly binary state of "can fight without much issue" or "dead". And I heard complains that DCS new DM suffers from this as well, if you don't get the pilot or engine it's still very reliant on structural damage, little skin damage in regards to AP.

[Legioneod]

21 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@Legioneod  Hitbox model would help with structural damage and systems damage, but at the end of the day if you hit flight surfaces it wouldn't change much. Still a fairly binary state of "can fight without much issue" or "dead". And I heard complains that DCS new DM suffers from this as well, if you don't get the pilot or engine it's still very reliant on structural damage, little skin damage in regards to AP.

Internal damage is what really matters imo, yes AP should do aerodynamic damage but it will never be as devastating as HE is. What AP needs is things to actually destroy/hit inside the aircraft. Things like controls rods, wing spars, cooling and oil systems, engine, etc. You can't fight with destroyed control rods or a destroyed spar no matter what shape your aircraft surfaces are in.

 

AP is meant to punch through and destroy systems, it doesn't matter to a large degree how much drag those tiny holes cause, what matters is is it hitting the internals. While AP should cause drag that isnt the main focus/issue, the problem with AP is that it has nothing to physically hit on the inside, its just random.

 

DCS has the benefit of having the internals modeled so AP performs much much better in DCS than it does in Il2. IMO the DCS damage model has surpassed IL2.

 

If players are expecting AP to give the same penalties as HE then imo you're dreaming and have unrealistic expectations. AP and HE have two different purposes. If you expect AP to take you out of the fight just because it punches holes in the surface and causes drag then you'll always be disappointed with AP.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Legioneod

[354thFG_Rails]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

Are you sure AP is not doing redirect damage? From the original 4.5 world objects you posted in your mod thread, (thanks!) the bullet_eng_7-7x56_ap.bin file contains the line "MaxRedirections = 2"  As do the other bullet ap files I checked (did not look at them all).  The Hispano 20mm ap file says "MaxRedirections = 3"

 

If you fire .50 cal on a static test at an upper wing surface, the lower wing will also show generic damage, so they can go straight through as you say, but on the P-51 with the new damage graphic the lower wing surface damage is still the old generic effect.  

 

 

Without the devs coming out and saying it does or doesn't, I'm just guessing. But from what I've seen it's not the case. My assumption for that max redirection has to do with ricochets before the bullet is terminated. Like I said I could be completely wrong, I'm just merely guessing.

[Aurora_Stealth]

13 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

Nope, it was mentioned that the visual of the impact do not correspond to the actual damage.

 

It will in future, that's the point of the incoming DVD change/updates specified below... It's not going to be perfect for the OCD among us, but it'll be a huge improvement in terms of identifying what's happened through visual recognition.

 

Diary 275 Extract (Regarding Dynamic Visual Damage)

 

In a nutshell, it places an impact mark where a projectile hit.

 

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

 

Tanks will be adapted first and then aircraft. It is a long-term project that will take several months.

 

Please be aware though that this tech is visual, it doesn't affect the physical interaction between the projectiles and aircraft and tank parts or systems. We're working on the improvements in the physical damage system as well, but we'll tell you more about that later. 

 

Speaking of this new DVD tech, we must note that due to ever complex issues of graphics performance and network traffic and stability, there are some limitations to what can be done. This may be apparent in some rare cases, but we have to mention them. In certain 'critical' cases the mark may not appear or a wrong mark type may appear (like a visual penetration when there was a near penetration in fact). There is also a limit to the total amount of marks that can be placed on the object. In multiplayer, you'll see the marks on your aircraft or tank, but you'll only see the marks on other player aircraft or tanks that appeared when they were in your view. To alleviate this limitation, we added a special transmission of the most recent marks to other players even if they were looking the other way.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[Creep]

15 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

Do a report to the technical issues/bug reports forum otherwise this is all hot air and will just go round and round in a descending Lufbery circle until we hit the bottom.

 

von Tom

 

14 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

So it's a feature ?.  Fair enough - it should be reported in the FM/DM forum.

 

von Tom

This has already been done via official channels with plenty of supporting evidence and the response we received from the project manager was "please stop complaining".

[Voidhunger]

6 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

It will in future, that's the point of the incoming DVD change/updates specified below... It's not going to be perfect for the OCD among us, but it'll be a huge improvement in terms of identifying what's happened through visual recognition.

 

Diary 275 Extract (Regarding Dynamic Visual Damage)

 

In a nutshell, it places an impact mark where a projectile hit.

 

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

 

Tanks will be adapted first and then aircraft. It is a long-term project that will take several months.

 

Please be aware though that this tech is visual, it doesn't affect the physical interaction between the projectiles and aircraft and tank parts or systems. We're working on the improvements in the physical damage system as well, but we'll tell you more about that later. 

 

Speaking of this new DVD tech, we must note that due to ever complex issues of graphics performance and network traffic and stability, there are some limitations to what can be done. This may be apparent in some rare cases, but we have to mention them. In certain 'critical' cases the mark may not appear or a wrong mark type may appear (like a visual penetration when there was a near penetration in fact). There is also a limit to the total amount of marks that can be placed on the object. In multiplayer, you'll see the marks on your aircraft or tank, but you'll only see the marks on other player aircraft or tanks that appeared when they were in your view. To alleviate this limitation, we added a special transmission of the most recent marks to other players even if they were looking the other way.

 

 

Quote

Please be aware though that this tech is visual, it doesn't affect the physical interaction between the projectiles and aircraft and tank parts or systems

 

Im reading this as you have hit mark somewhere on the engine, thats all.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Voidhunger

[unreasonable]

I agree it is not clear - at the moment the location of DVD damage cannot be used to predict hitting an element which is RNG determined, like a spar in a wing hit box.

 

"Working on the improvements in the physical damage system" may indicate that there will be more detailed internal hit boxes: so that you could predict internal damage from the location of the DVD hit damage. But then again maybe not. Perhaps just a larger variety of virtual RNG determined effects.

 

We will just have to wait and see. 

[Aurora_Stealth]

33 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

Im reading this as you have hit mark somewhere on the engine, thats all.

 

If what you're trying to get at is to change the strength or integrity of the engine or its surrounding parts then...

 

a) You're going to need repeatable and detailed testing and analysis to justify it (believe this was done for other calibers in other threads), a very low-probability event or randomly occurring situation in a single video isn't going to be credible for any developer. Can you imagine how much time would be wasted if they tried to respond to this every time a concern was made.

b) You need to be absolutely certain this was not a ricochet (which you can't be much sure of because DVD is not implemented yet and the video shows only a few shots fired).

c) This thread should not be used to generalise all effects of AP in game based on a quick video, that becomes sensationalism / emotionalism. I understand these events are very, very frustrating but its not helpful to expect changes on this kind of ad-hoc basis.

 

My point about DVD is that, once integrated with aircraft damage visuals, we can then understand far better about what damage is actually occurring/calculated in-game, we can barely make out in the video if it was calculated as a ricochet (which it may have).

 

Whether or not that is actually a realistic outcome, that can then be studied after you have a good idea what the model is trying to show/do.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[354thFG_Rails]

DVD is just a graphic does not correlate to damage done internally. If anything you could determine aero damage easier. Then again we have this now in game. DVD probably won’t be a game changer you’re thinking it will be. It’ll be nice for screenshots and videos. 

[BCI-Nazgul]

22 hours ago, III./SG77-R_Lehmann said:

Capable of penetrating roughly 140mm of armor at point-blank range.

I think you better recheck your numbers.   An 88mm anti-tank gun is required for that amount of penetration.   Only the 37mm HEAT grenade round could penetrate that much and it was a round that could never work in an aircraft gun.  If 37mm could penetrate that much armor WW II tanks would not have needed anything bigger.

[Aurora_Stealth]

Thing is, if we don't have a visual effect to determine bullet holes/positions/effect types with aircraft other than the P-51 (currently) and we don't know precisely the effect intended by judging from an external view... how can we be sure that [should] have a greater effect internally - bearing in mind that could be an AI aircraft shot at and we don't know if the engine has indeed suffered damage or the internal details in the first place. Unless you actually do a ballistics calculation... I mean are people planning on doing that each time a new video is uploaded? ...you see what I'm saying

 

I agree though, DVD itself won't physically change things but it will show up inconsistencies and clarify what the damage type/effect is and whether it was actually a ricochet.

[BCI-Nazgul]

3 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

I agree though, DVD itself won't physically change things but it will show up inconsistencies and clarify what the damage type/effect is and whether it was actually a ricochet.

I find the "ricochet" concept in general a little humorous, but I suppose it could happen specially if the round already went through some other part of the plane.  Tank combat is another matter.   AP rounds ricocheted off armor pretty regularly in armored combat.