von_Tom Posted June 2, 2021 Posted June 2, 2021 2 hours ago, NIK14 said: LOL! 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 Whatever. Are you saying that computational damage modelling is NOT what the software does? (I’m puzzled why you are so threatened by that phrase, as it’s a neat way of summarising what the software does.) Are you saying that opinions count more than proper testing? The thrust of the points being made is that opinions have no place unless they are supported by testing and some kind of logical analysis. The folks that do the best job of reporting have a suspicion or opinion that they then back up by testing then they report it with something called evidence. von Tom 2
354thFG_Rails Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 10 hours ago, von_Tom said: Whatever. Are you saying that computational damage modelling is NOT what the software does? (I’m puzzled why you are so threatened by that phrase, as it’s a neat way of summarising what the software does.) Are you saying that opinions count more than proper testing? The thrust of the points being made is that opinions have no place unless they are supported by testing and some kind of logical analysis. The folks that do the best job of reporting have a suspicion or opinion that they then back up by testing then they report it with something called evidence. von Tom All the testing has been done. Reports have been posted on these forums. You can find them in the bug reports section. So even though this thread has been started as probably an opinion. Evidence of how the game is performing has been shown despite what you might believe. But I have a sneaking suspicion you don’t really care at the end of the day or you don’t want the damage model and ballistics to change from what it currently is.
von_Tom Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 1 hour ago, QB.Rails said: But I have a sneaking suspicion you don’t really care at the end of the day or you don’t want the damage model and ballistics to change from what it currently is. You’ve jumped from me saying research then report, to an assumption that I don’t want any changes. Quite a leap there. It does beg the question why I’d suggest research and reporting rather than just giving a contrary opinion doesn’t it? Newsflash - just because some folks suggest a course of action doesn’t mean they’re anti- anything. That’s a concept to bear in mind for the future. von Tom 5
Barnacles Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 59 minutes ago, von_Tom said: just because some folks suggest a course of action doesn’t mean they’re anti- anything. But where's the evidence? Just because you feel that's the case, we can't know for sure.
von_Tom Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 6 minutes ago, Barnacles said: But where's the evidence? Just because you feel that's the case, we can't know for sure. Ah, but I didn't state that I feel anything. I stated the existence of a concept which by definition is an abstract idea. My opinion (unsupported by any kind of empirical evidence) is that pretty much everyone wants the game to be as correct and accurate as it can be. So there. ? von Tom
Barnacles Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 6 minutes ago, von_Tom said: I stated the existence of a concept ? No you didn't. 7 minutes ago, von_Tom said: So there. ? So there 1 1 1
DBFlyguy Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 (edited) Central made a recent video concerning this. The amount of damage seems a bit high honestly IMHO especially when compared to the caliber that shall not be named. Would it be possible for the devs to take a look sooner than later? Couldn't hurt right? Regardless of which side you come down on with your opinion, I think everyone on the forums in general wants IL-2 to be the best sim possible. I don't think any of us want to be part of a community that stifles feedback, good or bad. Edited June 3, 2021 by DBFlyguy 6
Hitcher Posted June 3, 2021 Author Posted June 3, 2021 (edited) 40 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said: Central made a recent video concerning this. The amount of damage seems a bit high honestly IMHO especially when compared to the caliber that shall not be named. Would it be possible for the devs to take a look sooner than later? Couldn't hurt right? Regardless of which side you come down on with your opinion, I think everyone on the forums in general wants IL-2 to be the best sim possible. I don't think any of us want to be part of a community that stifles feedback, good or bad. From that short clip alone it's pretty clear the damage radius is too high for HE, 13mm with just over 1g of explosives, should not be hitting a horizontal stabilizer and spreading damage to the other side of the tail/fuselage. But then again where's my proof huh? Its "medieval science" to assume something isnt quite right. Edited June 3, 2021 by Hitcher 5
354thFG_Rails Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 6 hours ago, von_Tom said: You’ve jumped from me saying research then report, to an assumption that I don’t want any changes. Quite a leap there. It does beg the question why I’d suggest research and reporting rather than just giving a contrary opinion doesn’t it? Newsflash - just because some folks suggest a course of action doesn’t mean they’re anti- anything. That’s a concept to bear in mind for the future. von Tom Yes because like I said the research and report has been done. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. And I said I hate a sneaking suspicion. That would imply I have no evidence just a gut feeling on where you stand based on what you’ve been saying ?♂️ 1
von_Tom Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 57 minutes ago, QB.Rails said: Yes because like I said the research and report has been done. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. And I said I hate a sneaking suspicion. That would imply I have no evidence just a gut feeling on where you stand based on what you’ve been saying ?♂️ Understood, but all I have said is to research and analyze the issue then report it. I don't have an opinion either way on the HE. The only opinion I have is that I want this sim to be as accurate it can be within the limitations that we have in software/hardware. I don't make any apology for sounding pompous about that! von Tom 1
354thFG_Rails Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 (edited) 24 minutes ago, von_Tom said: Understood, but all I have said is to research and analyze the issue then report it. I don't have an opinion either way on the HE. The only opinion I have is that I want this sim to be as accurate it can be within the limitations that we have in software/hardware. I don't make any apology for sounding pompous about that! von Tom Like I said this has been analyzed and reported. I suggest you read the findings. Page 4, QB.Shallot and Creep’s report. Edited June 3, 2021 by QB.Rails 1
sturmkraehe Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 3 hours ago, DBFlyguy said: Central made a recent video concerning this. The amount of damage seems a bit high honestly IMHO especially when compared to the caliber that shall not be named. Would it be possible for the devs to take a look sooner than later? Couldn't hurt right? Regardless of which side you come down on with your opinion, I think everyone on the forums in general wants IL-2 to be the best sim possible. I don't think any of us want to be part of a community that stifles feedback, good or bad. That is pretty self-speakting. What I find weird is that it seems that the explosion occurs pretty sideways to the bullet stream. Is this an optical illusion?
von_Tom Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, QB.Rails said: I suggest you read the findings. Page 4, QB.Shallot and Creep’s report. Already did, and I read most of the reports too. I don't know enough about it to critique/support the findings though. Some of it is fascinating stuff though, even if it is beyond my knowledge. von Tom
Creep Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 1 hour ago, von_Tom said: Already did, and I read most of the reports too. I don't know enough about it to critique/support the findings though. Some of it is fascinating stuff though, even if it is beyond my knowledge. von Tom Read evidence, unable to critique it, still doubts findings, has no agenda... ok 1
von_Tom Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, QB.Creep said: still doubts findings Where? Link me to the post where I disagree with someone's evidence or testing. Thanks von Tom
sturmkraehe Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 Maybe we could return to the topic and discuss HE modelling in game. What do you think?
von_Tom Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 I agree, but I do dislike ad hominem arguments based on nothing. von Tom
the_emperor Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, sturmkraehe said: Maybe we could return to the topic and discuss HE modelling in game. What do you think? I did already suggest that, but couldn’t the german and soviet HMGs could be set to AP rounds only until the historical correct rounds and their terminal ballistic and effect can be modelled correctly (API/API-T for the US and Soviets 12.7mm alike as the rounds were pretty much similar and the specialised incendiary-tracer 13mm for the germans)? At least then all sites would have the same perspective on the AP issue in that regard. Cheers ? Edited June 3, 2021 by the_emperor 5
Creep Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 (edited) 22 hours ago, von_Tom said: Where? Link me to the post where I disagree with someone's evidence or testing. These threads are confusing since they have all been merged / moved / locked multiple times, but here are a few examples of you disagreeing with the evidence that Shallot and I originally presented on January 20th of this year: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/61568-thoughts-on-the-aerodynamic-penalty-for-50-cal-hits/?do=findComment&comment=1056100https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/61568-thoughts-on-the-aerodynamic-penalty-for-50-cal-hits/?do=findComment&comment=1056120https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/61568-thoughts-on-the-aerodynamic-penalty-for-50-cal-hits/?do=findComment&comment=1056143https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/61568-thoughts-on-the-aerodynamic-penalty-for-50-cal-hits/?do=findComment&comment=1056295 It's odd to hear you say now that you don't know enough to critique/support the findings - you certainly had no qualms doing it in February. Edited June 4, 2021 by QB.Creep fixing urls 2 2
von_Tom Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 How much time did you waste finding those? Take them in context and it is commentary that testing online isn’t worthwhile and asking if it was P51 AP only. Oh, and that the whinging is annoying. I’ll stand by those points and also that personal attacks are simply stupid. If that doesn’t fit with your world view I can live with it. von Tom ps. I’ll leave this topic now. 2
Creep Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, von_Tom said: How much time did you waste finding those? about 3 minutes. time well spent if i don't have to see any more replies from you in the future! 4
BCI-Nazgul Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 (edited) On 5/31/2021 at 2:43 AM, 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. I think he was referring to a 20mm HE hit not a 30mm. My research shows that a 30mm round can make a hole as big as 3 feet across in airplane skin. So, blowing the tail off a Spitfire is not impossible. However, 20mm HE rounds leave about a 12" hole in airplane skin. Unfortunately, the Devs seem to think a single 13mm HE can also put a 12" hole in airplane skin which is completely wrong. Those holes are usually < 6". All you need to do is look pictures of aircraft damage that detail the rounds that caused to them to see that there is a problem in IL2. The flip side of this argument is that AP of all calibers basically do no aerodynamic damage to a target which is ridiculous. Rounds coming in at oblique angles such as fire from the six o'clock position into the wings have a fair chance of slicing long troughs into the skin and even removing sections if seams are hit or two troughs converge. Edited June 4, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul
Makz Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 Most likely, the error lies in the fact that the developers equated the damage from the shells simply to the mass of the explosive and its equivalent to TNT. In fact, high-explosive shells and high-explosive fragmentation have different damage factors. They do not take into account the fact that the fragments of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles fly at hypersonic speed and inflict damage to the thin skin with their large size and also by the shock wave along the thin skin that spreads behind them.
BCI-Nazgul Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 5 hours ago, von_Tom said: How much time did you waste finding those? Take them in context and it is commentary that testing online isn’t worthwhile and asking if it was P51 AP only. Oh, and that the whinging is annoying. I’ll stand by those points and also that personal attacks are simply stupid. If that doesn’t fit with your world view I can live with it. von Tom ps. I’ll leave this topic now. "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein
354thFG_Rails Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Makz said: Most likely, the error lies in the fact that the developers equated the damage from the shells simply to the mass of the explosive and its equivalent to TNT. In fact, high-explosive shells and high-explosive fragmentation have different damage factors. They do not take into account the fact that the fragments of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles fly at hypersonic speed and inflict damage to the thin skin with their large size and also by the shock wave along the thin skin that spreads behind them. Damage model takes into account shockwave damage, shrapnel damage and kinetic damage for HE. There is only kinetic damage for AP in game. Edited June 4, 2021 by QB.Rails
Denum Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 Guess I was a little too on the nose there. Such a shame they can't offer small quick adjustments to atleast mend the problem a little bit. Either by removing HE from MGs or atleast addressing the .50s. Was flying the early yaks and you'd swear the 109s still had iron tails. Those 80 AP rounds in that belt really screw you! 1
DBFlyguy Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 6 hours ago, Denum said: Guess I was a little too on the nose there. Such a shame they can't offer small quick adjustments to atleast mend the problem a little bit. Either by removing HE from MGs or atleast addressing the .50s. Was flying the early yaks and you'd swear the 109s still had iron tails. Those 80 AP rounds in that belt really screw you! Yeah, definitely agree here. I get and appreciate the devs are busy trying to deliver new products and features, I'm looking forward to them but when there are questions/issues with a core feature of your game, like the default weapons that has been lingering for months...I think that should probably be a top priority to solve over literally everything else including adding new stuff.
sturmkraehe Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 1 hour ago, DBFlyguy said: Yeah, definitely agree here. I get and appreciate the devs are busy trying to deliver new products and features, I'm looking forward to them but when there are questions/issues with a core feature of your game, like the default weapons that has been lingering for months...I think that should probably be a top priority to solve over literally everything else including adding new stuff. I cannot blame the devs for focussing on putting new stuffs out because that's what gets their bills paid. But of course I agree with you that such things need to be fixed.
Q_Walker Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 9 hours ago, Denum said: Guess I was a little too on the nose there. No, you weren't on the nose. When you make comments saying they are "spoon-feeding" Axis planes, all you are doing is making false claims and acting as if the developers are only out to help the Blue side. Please... ? 2 3
Denum Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 6 minutes ago, Q_Walker said: No, you weren't on the nose. When you make comments saying they are "spoon-feeding" Axis planes, all you are doing is making false claims and acting as if the developers are only out to help the Blue side. Please... ? Hey at this point I'm not wrong, the data is there. Show me otherwise ? 1
Q_Walker Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 I've read through some of the data and I do agree that there is room for improvement. However, to say that the developers are only looking out for the Blue side, that is just absolutely wrong. 1
Dakpilot Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 5 minutes ago, Denum said: Hey at this point I'm not wrong, the data is there. Show me otherwise ? Nope it sounds as sensible as when some people were raging about Dev bias against axis and Russian bias was claimed all the time Cheers, Dakpilot 2
Denum Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 3 minutes ago, Q_Walker said: I've read through some of the data and I do agree that there is room for improvement. However, to say that the developers are only looking out for the Blue side, that is just absolutely wrong. No you're right, that is wrong, and there is no intentional bias. I will concede to that. However, current game design does benefit the blue side quite heavily.
Q_Walker Posted June 8, 2021 Posted June 8, 2021 1 minute ago, Denum said: No you're right, that is wrong, and there is no intentional bias. I will concede to that. Thank you.
NIK14 Posted June 9, 2021 Posted June 9, 2021 23 hours ago, Denum said: However, current game design does benefit the blue side quite heavily. Thank you.
ACG_Cass Posted June 11, 2021 Posted June 11, 2021 Just an example of how preposterous the splash damage is for even only 20mm HE rounds. As a comparison, here are some M67 hand grenades going off (they have 180g's of Comp B in, twice the weight of explosive that's in a 30mm mine shell) 1 4
Nocke Posted June 11, 2021 Posted June 11, 2021 Doesn't it just look not so impressive because you don't see what really does the damage - the splinters? Just guessing.
Hitcher Posted June 11, 2021 Author Posted June 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, 216th_Nocke said: Doesn't it just look not so impressive because you don't see what really does the damage - the splinters? Just guessing. You can see the latter 2 aircraft getting physically knocked around by 18g of explosives. Unlikely. 8
Recommended Posts