Jump to content

HE area of affect too high along with lift/drag penalty


Hitcher
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hitcher
Posted (edited)

It is my opinion aswell as many other members of the community that the level of damage caused by HE ammunition is greatly exaggerated.

 

Currently a single hit from most types of HE ammo is sufficient to cripple a fighter sized aircraft aero dynamically, making control extremely difficult and causing drag penalties in excess of 100kph.

 

I have observed unusual behaviour from hits by 20mm cannons such as hits to 1 wing triggering aero damage across the entire wing and sometimes damaging the opposite wing aswell as 1-2 20mm hits triggering component damage across the entire airframe.

 

Historical tests and ingame results dont seem to match in regards to damage caused by HE projectiles and there are alot of aircraft ingame that suffer more than others from the damage HE causes; one example being the spitfire which can be completely disabled with a single hit to the tail.

 

Data for HE projectiles in the game files suggest damage radii well in excess of what would seem realistic, however I'm unsure if this is a limitation of the engine.

 

This is no attempt at a bug report nor have I provided any documentation on the subject however I am curious as to what other pilots think on the matter.

If there can be historical data brought into the discussion that would be even better.

 

 

 

Edited by Hitcher
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VBF-12_KW

You can shoot the right wing of a B-25 with a 20mm MG/FF and set the left wing on fire.  So yeah, I'd agree.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mtnbiker1998

I would agree its a little much. Especially seeing the new DVD on the P-51 and seeing the exact damage being done by a single HE round (oftentimes just a little 13mm) is pretty jarring. 

 

I recall someone did some tests against historical data comparing the 30mm in game vs tests by the British on an old spitfire, the result he came to was that the shrapnel effects affect a much greater area than they should, even though the blast itself may be too small (though that may be just the 30mm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LukeFF
1 hour ago, VBF-12_KW said:

You can shoot the right wing of a B-25 with a 20mm MG/FF and set the left wing on fire.  So yeah, I'd agree.

 

Track files can help fix those sorts of things. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
11 hours ago, Hitcher said:

one example being the spitfire which can be completely disabled with a single hit to the tail.

Funny, because only the other day someone came up with historical test results that show that, under the right circumstances, a Spitfire's tail could be completely blown off by a single 30mm shell, and used it to argue that this should be more or less the standard result and HE shells actually cause *too little* damage.

 

I guess we're a hard lot to please.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LR.TheRedPanda

While I agree with OPs general assessment, its only the lower end of HE shells that seem to be extremely powerful relative to the higher end (which need a re-evaluation).

 

Currently there is no reason to take the 30mm in a 109 compared to the damage 1 20mm does.

Essentially a dollar store 30mm (performance wise in game not in real life) that can remove vast amounts of lift with a single hit while having a lot more ammo. With the historical test conducted on 30mm, the in game representation is very very questionable. This is the same for russian and american 37mm.

 

Blast radius seems to be extremely huge and leading to major indirect pilot kills and very common fuel tank detonations. Regardless of the cannon/ heavy machine gun, Hispano/shvak/151/UBS and even 131 seem to blow things up frequently while causing extreme drag and lift reduction.

 

People are fully aware (multiplayer) on how strong HE is that they are willing to get the shot on an opponent no matter the cost of thier energy, basic maneuvering and tactics. This leads to seeing such desperate shots and then dropping a wing non stop. This also leads to spraying mass amounts or bullets in every direction to get that one sweet hit.

They are rewarded for it....

 

Why are they so desperate to get the shot?

 

If 1 HE 20mm hispano or 151 shell lands on the wing (not an exaggeration). The opponent is completely out of the fight. The person who gets shot will have to use nearly full stick deflection to counteract the moment as well as rudder. Skilled pilots will obviously be a threat but the average to good ones should just bail.

 

Overall, HE is simulated in game pretty well and the devs have done a very good job.👍 It would be nice to see a re-evaluation for the lower end shells to be less catastrophic and for the big shells to really decimate aircraft.

 

 

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

Hitcher
1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Funny, because only the other day someone came up with historical test results that show that, under the right circumstances, a Spitfire's tail could be completely blown off by a single 30mm shell, and used it to argue that this should be more or less the standard result and HE shells actually cause *too little* damage.

 

I guess we're a hard lot to please.

In the case of large calibre cannons I'd agree that their damage also needs adjusting.

 

After the damage model update last year it's practically impossible to detach an aircrafts tail no matter what ordinance you hit it with.

 

There is the famous spitfire test which showed the tail hanging on by a few ribs, which certainly would have come off under the stresses of G and incoming airflow, I'd be willing to accept that as the standard outcome from 1-2 30mm hits in that area.

However currently even a single hit from 13mm or 20mm can render the spitfires elevator completely ineffective.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=[TIA]=I-Fly-Central
Posted (edited)

I support this assessment. Hard to put a number on it, but the P-47 (a historically resilient plane) seems to lose about 40% of it's ability to maneuver, and climb from even one hit from 20mm, or even 13mm, and regardless of where it is hit on the airframe. 

Edited by =[TIA]=I-Fly-Central
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
20 minutes ago, Hitcher said:

There is the famous spitfire test which showed the tail hanging on by a few ribs, which certainly would have come off under the stresses of G and incoming airflow, I'd be willing to accept that as the standard outcome from 1-2 30mm hits in that area.

However currently even a single hit from 13mm or 20mm can render the spitfires elevator completely ineffective.

So a single 30mm hit should be enough to reliably detach a whole tail, but a 20mm shell not enough to in some circumstances heavily damage just the elevator? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

 

8 minutes ago, =[TIA]=I-Fly-Central said:

I support this assessment. Hard to put a number on it, but the P-47 (a historically resilient plane) seems to lose about 40% of it's ability to maneuver, and climb from even one hit from 20mm, or even 13mm, and regardless of where it is hit on the airframe. 

The only historical data I could find within the first couple search results are Luftwaffe estimates that say that it takes between 15 and 20 20mm shells to take down a B-17 bomber, which is for sure a lot tougher than a P-47. How exactly the two aircraft compare, I don't know.

 

1 hour ago, LR.theRedPanda said:

People are fully aware (multiplayer) on how strong HE is that they are willing to get the shot on an opponent no matter the cost of thier energy, basic maneuvering and tactics. This leads to seeing such desperate shots and then dropping a wing non stop. This also leads to spraying mass amounts or bullets in every direction to get that one sweet hit.

What happens or doesn't happen in multiplayer can hardly be considered to have any value for a realistic historical perspective.

 

1 hour ago, LR.theRedPanda said:

Currently there is no reason to take the 30mm in a 109 compared to the damage 1 20mm does.

And I haven't seen any conclusive evidence either that shows there's any good reason not to.

 

If 20mm cannons are indeed shown to be overpowered, then I will fully support any petition to have their damage reduced. However so far all I have seen are peoples' opinions. Which I have little regard for if they aren't backed by historical evidence. A thousand people can give their opinions, but until someone digs up some relevant scientific or historical data beyond a single anecdote, showing that there's a structural problem with HE damage, it matters little and I see no reason to change anything.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnacles
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 

If 20mm cannons are indeed shown to be overpowered, then I will fully support any petition to have their damage reduced. However so far all I have seen are peoples' opinions. Which I have little regard for if they aren't backed by historical evidence. A thousand people can give their opinions, but until someone digs up some relevant scientific or historical data beyond a single anecdote, showing that there's a structural problem with HE damage, it matters little and I see no reason to change anything.

 

How about this.

IN GAME, with certain aircraft, 1 20MM HE mg 151 hit to the wing almost always causes more speed loss than lowering your landing gear.

Now for me, that is far beyond the point at which the 5heads need to prove that that's simply not credible. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. Not even close.


 

And then there's the problem with the fact that you can get a handful of further hits and the plane will not be affected nearly as much as when the 1st hit happened.

So you get the situation where 1 pilot says "OMG 20mm HE is soooo OP" I could barely fly after 1 hit".
And the second pilot is like, "nooo, it's so ineffective, you were flying after half a dozen hits."

MAYBE

They're both right?


Initial aero damage is OP
Subsequent bulk damage is UP?

 

 

Edited by Barnacles
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the_emperor
Posted (edited)

Regarding the damage of the 20mm HE-rounds one should also keep in mind, that the rounds in use are very different and therefor have a very different effect:

 

British/US:

5.44g Tetryl R.E. factor 1.25 (and 2.27g incendiary)

131g in weight -> good frag damage potential

no delay charge

 

Soviet:

5.6g A-IX-2 (73% RDX, 23% aluminum powder, phlegmatized with 4% wax; R.E. factor 1.54 -> very good blast effect and good fire potential)

96g in weight

no delay charge

 

German:

18g HA41 (75% RDX, 20% aluminum powder, phlegmatized with 5% wax; R.E. factor ~1.54 -> very good blast effect and good fire potential)

92g in weight (thin walled except for the fuze not much frag material)

delay charge to have the round explode inside the planes structure to further increase blast damage and damage to fuel tanks and increased potential to ignite fuel.

 

Regarding the 13mm/12.7mm HE rounds:

1g PETN for the Germans

2g for the Soviets.

The Germans quickly sorted out the HE in favour of the pure incendiary tracer round.

as for the Soviets, their API and API-T are pretty much similar to their US counterpart (both not yet implemented in the game).

I have not yet seen a primary source for the belting of soviet machine guns in their aircrafts, so if someone can provide these, that would be fantastic.

As a stopgap and in light of the exaggerated damage these rounds do, I would propose that they are also limited to AP rounds only, until the API and API-T for the 12.7mm (soviet and US/Brit. alike) and the German 13mm Incendiary-T can be correctly implemented in the game.

 

Cheers 🙂

 

 

 

Edited by the_emperor
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

von_Tom

“In my opinion…” doesn’t work. Nor does “this happens” without evidence I.e. a track. 
 

There’s a FM/DM sub-forum for this sort of stuff. Do the tests, post the data, highlight any inaccuracies then take it from there. 
 

Anything other than that is a virtual hearsay argument that is purely anecdotal and has no place in a discussion about computational damage modelling. 
 

 von Tom

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
55 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

IN GAME, with certain aircraft, 1 20MM HE mg 151 hit to the wing almost always causes more speed loss than lowering your landing gear.

Now for me, that is far beyond the point at which the 5heads need to prove that that's simply not credible. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. Not even close.

Your argument is basically the same as the one used in medieval science: "It's incredible that the earth rotates around the sun, with us not feeling a thing and the bible saying that the earth is in the center, so it must be the other way around". Modern science requires objective evidence.

 

It's not too hard to come up with an explanation for the speed loss either. A damaged wing has worse aerodynamic properties -> more drag, while the loss in lift requires a higher AOA to maintain lift -> more drag. The difference in drag between the wings requires constant aileron input -> more drag, and probably some rudder as well -> more drag. Also, combat and hence damage often occurs at high speeds, while the gear is only deployed at low speed. As drag increases quadratically with speed, combat damage will therefore have a higher apparent initial speed loss.

 

Does this sufficiently explain the claimed speed loss, or is there indeed something wrong with 20mm damage? I don't know, and I don't claim to. I just demand that people use evidence to back up their claims, rather than just state that something is wrong because "it's simply not credible".

  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitcher
13 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

“In my opinion…” doesn’t work. Nor does “this happens” without evidence I.e. a track. 
 

There’s a FM/DM sub-forum for this sort of stuff. Do the tests, post the data, highlight any inaccuracies then take it from there. 
 

Anything other than that is a virtual hearsay argument that is purely anecdotal and has no place in a discussion about computational damage modelling. 
 

 von Tom

I agree, opinions usually cant be trusted. However with this specific subject there is clearly a glaring problem.

In my original post I disclaimed that I havnt provided evidence.

 

I was hoping that the discussion would get the ball rolling for possible ingame tests and presentation of data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

von_Tom
19 minutes ago, Hitcher said:

I agree, opinions usually cant be trusted. However with this specific subject there is clearly a glaring problem.


How can there clearly be a glaring problem if opinion cannot be trusted?  No insult intended - just pointing out the fallacy here. 
 

If someone doesn’t have the technical know-how (like me) it’s be better to raise the concern in the DM section rather than complaints, then let those who know about this stuff do the testing and maths. 
 

von Tom

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep
34 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Your argument is basically the same as the one used in medieval science: "It's incredible that the earth rotates around the sun, with us not feeling a thing and the bible saying that the earth is in the center, so it must be the other way around".

This is false equivalence if I have ever seen it. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

This is false equivalence if I have ever seen it. 

How that? Medieval science uses opinions (i.e. the bible) and common sense ("we don't feel the earth move") to prove something that modern science later proved to be completely false. The argument I replied to used opinions ("it's too far beyond what I'm willing to believe") and common sense ("it causes lots of speed loss") to "prove" something as well. To me, that makes pretty good equivalence.

 

Are you saying that the scientific requirement that statements need to be objective, measurable and verifiable either don't apply to 20mm damage, or that the opinions given in the above posts do tick those boxes?

 

 

Anyhow,

1 hour ago, Hitcher said:

I was hoping that the discussion would get the ball rolling for possible ingame tests and presentation of data.

Absolutely! If someone actually comes up with scientific data and corroborates it with in-game tests, that should be very interesting and something I'd love to see, regardless of the results. Until that time, however, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

Edited by AEthelraedUnraed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LR.TheRedPanda
2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

So a single 30mm hit should be enough to reliably detach a whole tail, but a 20mm shell not enough to in some circumstances heavily damage just the elevator? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

 

The only historical data I could find within the first couple search results are Luftwaffe estimates that say that it takes between 15 and 20 20mm shells to take down a B-17 bomber, which is for sure a lot tougher than a P-47. How exactly the two aircraft compare, I don't know.

 

What happens or doesn't happen in multiplayer can hardly be considered to have any value for a realistic historical perspective.

 

And I haven't seen any conclusive evidence either that shows there's any good reason not to.

 

If 20mm cannons are indeed shown to be overpowered, then I will fully support any petition to have their damage reduced. However so far all I have seen are peoples' opinions. Which I have little regard for if they aren't backed by historical evidence. A thousand people can give their opinions, but until someone digs up some relevant scientific or historical data beyond a single anecdote, showing that there's a structural problem with HE damage, it matters little and I see no reason to change anything.

 

And I haven't seen any conclusive evidence either that shows there's any good reason not to.

 

- 200 rounds with 20mm

- 1 hit and they are aerodynamically crippled/out of the fight 

- superior ballistics

 

The 30mm in game is marginally better at damage concentration while having less ammo and worse ballistics. There is no reason to take it unfortunately.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup I'd agree the speed loss and damage is pretty insane at times.

 

Flying the 109/190 I know a single hit is all I need to gain complete control of a fight. I've taken long range shots and lit guys on fire with the D9 that I had absolutely no business landing.

 

Meanwhile I've got players shrugging the 37mm off from the P39 with no noticeable decrease in performance. 

 

Mileage may vary on this next point but I swear the allied guns don't cause the same level of drag to axis aircraft. I've zipped home at 400kph and my plane is shot to complete hell, with similar damage my P40/yak would be struggling to even fly

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray
1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

How that? Medieval science uses opinions (i.e. the bible) and common sense ("we don't feel the earth move") to prove something that modern science later proved to be completely false. The argument I replied to used opinions ("it's too far beyond what I'm willing to believe") and common sense ("it causes lots of speed loss") to "prove" something as well. To me, that makes pretty good equivalence.

 

Are you saying that the scientific requirement that statements need to be objective, measurable and verifiable either don't apply to 20mm damage, or that the opinions given in the above posts do tick those boxes?

 

 

Anyhow,

Absolutely! If someone actually comes up with scientific data and corroborates it with in-game tests, that should be very interesting and something I'd love to see, regardless of the results. Until that time, however, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

 

There you go. Some data. I searched really hard to find it too. Really it took me all of 10 seconds; I'm still not sure how I managed it. It is even in the DM bug report thread. Too bad it was dismissed or ignored... I can't imagine why people don't just put in the work of proving this kind of thing to the devs anymore.

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

AEthelraedUnraed
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

 

There you go. Some data. I searched really hard to find it too. Really it took me all of 10 seconds; I'm still not sure how I managed it. It is even in the DM bug report thread. Too bad it was dismissed or ignored... I can't imagine why people don't just put in the work of proving this kind of thing to the devs anymore.

Finally, someone who (re)posts some statistical in-game data. I completely agree, why is it so hard for people to come up with data and instead just give unsubstantiated opinions?

 

What is still missing now is historical ground-truth data to compare to.

Edited by AEthelraedUnraed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray

Where is your proof that the DM is right? Show me some evidence that a single 20 mm HE round should damage an entire wing. Show me evidence that a handful of 13 mm HE rounds should do anything close to what we are seeing in game. Come on now. Prove your point.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Cass
Posted (edited)

Tested it. 

 

A single 20mm round to the left wingtip and then see what max speed is achievable on the deck. Test was repeated with the Spit and Tempest and showed the same result within a few km/h (not conclusive though and would still need further tests). I've added some comparisons of other drag levels.

 

Results:

 

Spitfire 9: 450km/h

Spitfire 9 undamaged with gear down: 456 km/h  (doors ripped off)

Spitfire 9 undamaged with 2 x250lb bombs and 1x500lb bomb: 481 km/h

Tempest 9lbs:  479 km/h

Tempest undamaged with gear down: 461 km/h

Tempest undamaged with 2x 1000lb bombs: 531 kmh

P47  D22: 451 km/h

109 K4 DB: 531 km/h (no autopilot as it couldn't fly straight)

FW190 A8: 490 km/h

FW190 D9: 523 km/h

 

I've got a video I'll put up later. 

Edited by ACG_Cass
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
16 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Where is your proof that the DM is right? Show me some evidence that a single 20 mm HE round should damage an entire wing. Show me evidence that a handful of 13 mm HE rounds should do anything close to what we are seeing in game. Come on now. Prove your point.

Sigh...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Quote

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

It is not my job, nor necessary in any way, to come up with any evidence to maintain the status quo. The OP claims that HE in the current status quo is overpowered. That means that the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that this status quo is wrong, not on me to prove that it is right.

 

This is really basic scientific philosophy, really....

 

 

18 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

Tested it.

Thank you! Finally something really useful.

 

Still, historical ground truth data or aerodynamic simulations are needed to prove whether or not these results are historically accurate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray

I'm well aware of how argument works. Now back up your counter claim. You say that we are wrong. Fine. Prove us wrong. Do it. If you are right there should be oodles of evidence you can throw at us. Come on. Where is the evidence.

 

I mean, come on, you threw out claims that 30mm rounds should blow off a Spitfire's tail reliably with one shot. You claimed that a 20 mm round should do catastrophic damage to the same area. Where is your proof for these claims. Where is your proof that the DM isn't busted? Prove. Your. Point. I'm not giving it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep
2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

How that? Medieval science uses opinions (i.e. the bible) and common sense ("we don't feel the earth move") to prove something that modern science later proved to be completely false. The argument I replied to used opinions ("it's too far beyond what I'm willing to believe") and common sense ("it causes lots of speed loss") to "prove" something as well. To me, that makes pretty good equivalence.

 

Are you saying that the scientific requirement that statements need to be objective, measurable and verifiable either don't apply to 20mm damage, or that the opinions given in the above posts do tick those boxes?

 

 

Anyhow,

Absolutely! If someone actually comes up with scientific data and corroborates it with in-game tests, that should be very interesting and something I'd love to see, regardless of the results. Until that time, however, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

Because this isn’t the Middle Ages and we aren’t arguing a topic on the edge of human understanding. It should be common sense that a single round of HE HMG should not cause the same amount of drag as lowering the landing gear on a P-51. 
 

But as they say, common sense isn’t common - especially for wehrbs on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

You say that we are wrong.

But I don't. Read my posts. Literally nowhere do I claim you are wrong. The only thing I have done is point out that the many arguments in this thread claiming that HE is overpowered don't pass simple tests for scientific reliability and should therefore be discarded. Pointing out that your evidence is not sufficient is something else entirely from claiming that you're wrong, which I am not. (And even if I were, which again I am not, the burden of proof would be on you because you're the ones challenging the status quo.)

 

Even regarding the 30mm shell, the only thing I claimed was that *someone else* said it should reliably blow off a Spitfire tail.

 

10 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Because this isn’t the Middle Ages and we aren’t arguing a topic on the edge of human understanding. It should be common sense that a single round of HE HMG should not cause the same amount of drag as lowering the landing gear on a P-51.

It's not the middle ages, but "common sense" should somehow still prevail over scientific arguments? The only thing I have argued for in this thread is that people come up with scientific arguments rather than give opinions and rely on "common sense". I cannot quite grasp why that is apparently so controversial.

Edited by AEthelraedUnraed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep
3 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

But I don't. Read my posts. Literally nowhere do I claim you are wrong. The only thing I have done is point out that the many arguments in this thread claiming that HE is overpowered don't pass simple tests for scientific reliability and should therefore be discarded. Pointing out that your evidence is not sufficient is something else entirely from claiming that you're wrong, which I am not. (And even if I were, which again I am not, the burden of proof would be on you.)

 

Even regarding the 30mm shell, the only thing I claimed was that *someone else* said it should reliably blow off a Spitfire tail.

 

It's not the middle ages, but "common sense" should still prevail over scientific arguments? The only thing I have argued for in this thread is that people come up with scientific arguments rather than give opinions and rely on "common sense". I cannot quite grasp why that is apparently so controversial.

It is difficult to prove anything when it comes to the damage model, and I think you know this. Nothing you are saying is controversial so much as it is pedantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Cass

The only thing I'd suggest is to make other comparisons in game and suggest those.

 

For example the drag penalty of a 109 with with canopy jettisoned is likely similar to a very good 20mm hit. Or perhaps with it's radiators manually put at a 100%. Both of these would arguably significantly more drag but its a start. I think a jettisoned canopy if probably the better comparison as most BoBp planes are capable of that.

 

How the system delves out these drag penalties is a mystery though so how they would make those changes I don't know. We have an enormous number of planes in the game now and the amount of work it took apparently to fix the 109s tail after 12 months means this would likely be a massive undertaking. 

 

There is an argument to that they need to address these at some point before Normandy comes out as they are building planes under a flawed system.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
1 minute ago, QB.Creep said:

It is difficult to prove anything when it comes to the damage model

Which is exactly the reason why good, well substantiated scientific arguments are needed rather than a bunch of opinions, as otherwise we'd just end up in an endless loop of "HE is overpowered" -> HE nerfed -> "HE is underpowered" -> DM adjusted -> "But now 50cal is overpowered" -> 50cal nerfed et cetera ad nauseam.

 

If you call it pedantic to insist on applying the basic rules of science, then I'm concerned for your believability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the_emperor
Posted (edited)

Regarding the 13mm/12.7mm HE rounds:

1g PETN filling for the Germans

2g filling for the Soviets.

The Germans quickly sorted out the HE in favour of the pure incendiary tracer round.

as for the Soviets, their API and API-T are pretty much similar to their US counterpart (both not yet implemented in the game).

I have not yet seen/found a primary source for the belting of soviet machine guns in their aircrafts, so if someone can provide these, that would be fantastic.

I only have a German source for russian aircraft ammountion ("russiche Bordwaffenmunition 7.62mm-23mm) and it only mentions AP-T, API-T and API for 12.7mm.

As a stopgap and in light of the exaggerated damage these small HE-rounds do, I would propose that russian and german HMGs are also limited to AP rounds only, until the API and API-T for the 12.7mm (soviet and US/Brit. alike) and the German 13mm Incendiary-T can be correctly implemented in the game.

Edited by the_emperor
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-SF-Disarray

Why not just switch the planes that should be shooting API rounds to HE? It is good enough for the German planes. I'm sure there won't be any problems with doing it for US and UK planes.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kablamoman
11 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Why not just switch the planes that should be shooting API rounds to HE? It is good enough for the German planes. I'm sure there won't be any problems with doing it for US and UK planes.

 

Because anything firing US .50cals would become instant delete machines.

 

To me the user mods that do exactly this should be the only evidence that anybody needs to understand the HE/AP disparity needs some attention pretty urgently.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitcher
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Kablamoman said:

 

Because anything firing US .50cals would become instant delete machines.

 

To me the user mods that do exactly this should be the only evidence that anybody needs to understand the HE/AP disparity needs some attention pretty urgently.

QB.Rails has created a weapon damage mod that has added a HE element to the .50 cals to simulate skin tearing and round tumbling, they are almost identical to the base game .50s just slightly more powerful, so it can be done.

 

This thread is more to do with the effectiveness of HE weapons anyway. Trying to avoid an AP weapon discussion.

Edited by Hitcher
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kablamoman
Posted (edited)

 

26 minutes ago, Hitcher said:

QB.Rails has created a weapon damage mod that has added a HE element to the .50 cals to simulate skin tearing and round tumbling, they are almost identical to the bae game .50s just slightly more powerful, so it can be done.

 

 

Yeah, that's what I was referring to: That demonstrates, without the need to get bogged down in the weeds about historical accuracy and internet pedants arguing about minutia, that there is a huge disparity between the HE and AP damage modelling we have in the game.

 

You can see with that simple change -- with only 5 minutes of effort expended to alter weapon variables in plain text format -- that it is a fact that when you switch out those AP rounds for the equivalent HE type they are orders of magnitude more effective in the game within the context of the current damage model.

 

Any way you cut it, this obviously can't jive with real life, or every belligerent in the war would have foregone AP rounds for pure HE. The logic is simple and irrefutable and uses the game's own DM modeling to prove how out-of-whack the current situation is with the historical reality.

 

Now I'm not a blathering idiot and I realize that in the grand scheme of things it's not the end of the world, and that it really only impacts people online -- you may not even notice it if you only play as one faction in multiplayer. If you only play by yourself offline, it probably doesn't even register on your radar, and that may well be the majority of customers who bought IL2. So I get why it may not be high on the list of priorities for the development team.

 

My main concern is that it does factor into almost every adversarial  encounter in online play. So the relatively small community of players on servers like Finnish or Combat Box -- where user mods aren't allowed -- are absolutely starved for something to be done about it, to the point where it does impact their enjoyment of the game at that level and subsequently the health and vitality of those particular online communities.

 

Now, if there was an incentive for the devs to address this, it's that those online competitive communities do a lot to elevate the overall profile of the sim amongst its contemporaries -- those communities generate real excitement around their exploits in the form of videos and streams -- and that may directly translate to increased sales and market share in the longer term. I hope they do take it a bit more seriously in light of this.

 

 

Edited by Kablamoman
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kablamoman said:

My main concern is that it does factor into almost every adversarial  encounter in online play. So the relatively small community of players on servers like Finnish or Combat Box are absolutely starved for something to be done about it, to the point where it does impact their enjoyment of the game at that level and subsequently the health and vitality of those particular online communities.

 

Now, if there was an incentive for the devs to address this, it's that those online competitive communities do a lot to elevate the overall profile of the sim amongst its contemporaries -- those communities generate real excitement around their exploits in the form of videos and streams -- and that may directly translate to increased sales and market share in the longer term. I hope they do take it a bit more seriously in light of this.

 

 

 

 

I'd also like to think that us making noise isn't perceived as us disliking the game. 

 

Alot of the people saying something are/have been life long customers. 

 

 

You conveyed the online community portion very well. I don't think I could add anything. 

 

What I can say, is that perhaps 1C needs to look at offering a mode similar to RB on warthunder as I see alot, and I mean alot of new names pop up and then disappear after a few days. 

 

I can't decide if it's frustration or just genuinely just wasn't a game for them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=621=Samikatz
19 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

What I can say, is that perhaps 1C needs to look at offering a mode similar to RB on warthunder as I see alot, and I mean alot of new names pop up and then disappear after a few days.

 

 

There's already mouse aim, third person, and icons as options in game, just need to populate a good server on the regular. Non-full-real servers tend not to thrive in this community for whatever reason, though

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the tools are all there, but I think there needs to be servers ran by 1C to help grow the multiplayer side. 

 

I find some people don't feel that multiplayer is a viable market for BoX thou.. (I know they are wrong)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CountZero

who ever was picking ammo types in ww2 for airplanes was a idiota, having HE ammo of any caliber and then saying no thanks ill just use more AP and API APT, lol what a noob, all airplanes had to have full belts of HE ammo and no bomber would reach any citys.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2021 at 3:15 PM, von_Tom said:

Anything other than that is a virtual hearsay argument that is purely anecdotal and has no place in a discussion about computational damage modelling. 
 

 von Tom

 

LOL!

"Computational damage modelling" sounds so sophisticated...

Is it the same computations that are used for mid-air collisions that cause either or both victims to start spinning at a rate of 50 billion rpm?

If you believe this is as high tech as you portray it to be, then my friend you are lacking education or common sense.

 

Crash damage/deformation simulations in the automotive business run overnight with todays "computational damage modelling" and the hardware they have at their disposal can crunch a few numbers more than our gaming rigs. Yes, speaking from experience.

...this is a game and as such "anecdotal arguments/compromizes" and feelings is why this game is at the level it is.

 

I am fed up with people trying to shut others opinions down with arguments stating that "what we have in game is accurate to a tee".."it's based on facts"..."if you have doubts do some tests and pove it"...etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...