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

[BCI-Nazgul]

1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

He was being sarcastic

Well, I sure missed that.   If that is case I apologize.

1 hour ago, Barnacles said:

That car can only go 45mph now. 

Hilarious!   ? But if it had 100 AP holes in it it could still go 120 mph.

[Yak_Panther]

On 6/13/2021 at 8:35 PM, QB.Creep said:

@JG7_X-Man I am not referring to visual damage when I say 300mm - these are the values being modeled within the game. Rails discovered this while working on his mod and the devs confirmed it here. Note that he says "up to" even this is the value that is used 100% of the time in-game. 

300mm seems like a lot for a 13 mm round.

 

Someone over at SOCOM got an idea for a 20mm Hispano anti material rifle to replace the 50 cal. They fired  a 20mm M210 and a 50 cal Mk 211 into simulated and real car doors. The 20 mm round has 120 grains / 7.7 grams of explosive filler compared to the 50 cal's 36.6 grains / 2.33 grams.  The size of the damage is instructive, because the amounts of explosives are comparable to some of the 20 mm and 12.7-13mm HE rounds in game. The largest size hole 50 cal/ 12.7mm explosive round creates is 6.5 inches ~165 mm.

 

The 20 mm HEI round makes holes 9 to 13 inches (230mm to 330mm) in diameter.

Which show good agreement with German war time tests involving 20 mm rounds

.

 

What's interesting about these tests is that witness plates behind impact target give us an indication of fragmentation damage beyond the impact. 

 

From the 20mm tests, We can observe that by 36 inches beyond the target plate, the fragmentation damage drops considerably. The game may overestimate the fragmentation damage a considerable bit.  The Hispanos  have a blast and fragmentation damage radius of 4.6 meters in game.

// БЧ 20мм английского снаряда пушки Hispano MkII, расчитнано из ТНТ=11.3г, массы пули 130г, калибра 20мм

Radius=4.6	// Радиус сферы воздействия взрыва, определяющий выборку объектов
TNT_equ=0.0113	// Тротилловый эквивалент для моделирования атмосферной ударной волны

// Фугасное воздействие: дальность, (-1 не использ.), пары (броня, дамаг за броней)
ArmorFoug=0.0,-1,	1,643,	0,1286
ArmorFoug=0.6,-1,			0,346
ArmorFoug=1.1,-1,			0,116
ArmorFoug=1.6,-1,			0,50

// Осколочное воздействие
ShrapnelQuantity=27
FragmentMass=0.0018
// Единичный осколок: дальность, скорость, пары (броня, дамаг за броней)
ArmorShr=0.0,701,	4,44,	3,109,	0,174
ArmorShr=2.2,656,	3,38,	2,95,	0,153
ArmorShr=4.6,612,		2,33,	0,133

So the distance at which the fragmentation damage occurs is probably 4 times to high. I think the HE model should be tuned to do more much more damage locally and the area where shrapnel damage occurs should be reduced considerably. 

 

link to the 20mm Vs 50 cal tests.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2009/infantrysmallarms/thursdaysessionxi8503.pdf

[the_emperor]

8 hours ago, Yak_Panther said:

The 20 mm round has 120 grains / 7.7 grams of explosive filler

The modern rounds uses a RDX-Aluminium filling so

One also has to keep in mind that the WW2 Hispano round only contained 0.012/5.44g of Tetryl (RE factor 1.25~6.8g TNT) so some less blast power as the modern version. and the ingame round seems to be overrated with 11.3g TNT.

Russian and German HE (I) Rounds did use RDX-Aluminium explosive/incendiary filling (RE Factor ~ 1.54) in contrast

 

And I would also like to add this picture of a 20x82mm HE-I round vs a barrel (no mineshell design, or delay mechanism), as I think it would help to bring into perspectiv if small HMG-HE rounds (13/12.7mm) should be as powerfull as they are right now:

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by the_emperor

[Yak_Panther]

11 hours ago, the_emperor said:

The modern rounds uses a RDX-Aluminium filling so

One also has to keep in mind that the WW2 Hispano round only contained 0.012/5.44g of Tetryl (RE factor 1.25~6.8g TNT) so some less blast power as the modern version. and the ingame round seems to be overrated with 11.3g TNT.

The Mk1 HE shell had .025 lbs / ~11 grams of filler. I’m not familiar with what shells the Brits were using  when though. 
 

https://bulletpicker.com/pdf/OP 1664, US Explosive Ordnance, Volume 1.pdf#page=70

[the_emperor]

On 7/14/2021 at 9:00 PM, Yak_Panther said:

The Mk1 HE shell had .025 lbs / ~11 grams of filler. I’m not familiar with what shells the Brits were using  when though. 

 

Yes, 0.025lbs Tetryl and Incendiary filler. But the MK I only has a greater incendiary filling. The HE filling is about the same. One has to note, that the western allies still used a seperate mix of incendiary and HE filling, while the russians and germans used modern RDX-Aluminium filling for increased blast

and  incendiary effect, hence better RE factor.

1960s test of the M97 HEI round showed that it had very underwhelming perfomance when it came to ingiting fuel cells.

Compared to the German and russian HE rounds the western allied round yields the least of explosive and blast damage.

British/US:

5.44g Tetryl R.E. factor 1.25 ~6.8g TNT

Soviet:

5.6g A-IX-2 (73% RDX, 23% aluminum powder, phlegmatized with 4% wax; R.E. factor 1.54)~8,624g TNT

German:

18,6g HA41 (75% RDX, 20% aluminum powder, phlegmatized with 5% wax; R.E. factor ~1.54)~28.644g TNT

Here are the rounds in question, the new M97 HE-I was intruduced in Summer ´44 in and replaced the HEI MkI due to better ballistic perfomance in the Allied arsenal (131g at 2,730feet/s and 1.66s/1,000feet flight time for all three new rounds: AP-T, Incendiary and HE-I for the M3/Mk V Hispano) :

 

 

 

 

Though different in shape the fuzes in these do work the same way and are of the superquick type: "The superquick fuze functions immediately upon impact with the target". The  M210 round in the test abouve uses a M505A3  fuze. This type of fuze i gives about 2.3 on normal impact  to 1.5  inch at 60-degree Obliquity delay when hitting aircraft skin depending on striking velocity and angle of impact (lower velocity/shallower striking angle reduce delay), when tested for the GAU-7 program to find a way to have the greater delay action.

Edited August 8, 2021 by the_emperor

[Ribbon]

I've seen a lot of bird strikes in my AME career, on average 5 per year (low alt working horse).

Once seagull made a hole in the leading edge of the wing, hole size of the soccer ball and pilot didn't notice it at all, nor hit moment nor felt aerodynamic penalty.

As soon he disembark the aircraft as usual i asked him "everything fine with the ac?", he replied "yes" then i pointed him to the hole in the wing.

Seagull was inside wing as he was sleeping, no blood or dissembled parts as it usually is the case.

I may have a pic somewhere!

In second case pilot had a bit rough landing on water and lost pylon (wing pylon), he also didn't notice it.

 

But it all varies from aircraft to aircraft (aerodynamic shape, finesse, speed, flight surface area vs the damage size, tail/wing/fuselage size ratio.....bla bla.

 

In flight sims we can only have rough estimate especially in this sim with a lot of planes where modeling individual DM for every plane seems a lot of work.

 

Should it be changed, maybe and at what cost!

While ago i reported really unrealistic tail DM behaviour where plane would go in excessive up or down aftter elevator being damaged (like on rubber bands instead of wire cables where after damage elevator travel and response should be reduced, limited or blocked ), not sure is it fixed yet! 

[gimpy117]

I will just point out the obvious fact, these damage areas are local, and do not effect the opposite side of the plane, or other control surfaces 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, gimpy117 said:

I will just point out the obvious fact, these damage areas are local, and do not effect the opposite side of the plane, or other control surfaces 

This I think is the key issue at hand. No one is saying that the HE should not be devastating locally to systems/skin, but the scripted levels of damage that happen now plane wide are not cutting it and are very unrealistic.

[gimpy117]

21 hours ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

This I think is the key issue at hand. No one is saying that the HE should not be devastating locally to systems/skin, but the scripted levels of damage that happen now plane wide are not cutting it and are very unrealistic.

yes indeed, I think it's because "blast radius" is being interpreted as "damage radius", as if the aircraft is made of eggshells. I would surmise that if the blast radius was reduced to the size of the hole a shell actually makes we'd see a different HE model. In effect the engine is being told to spread damage all over the place in error.    

[the_emperor]

3 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

I would surmise that if the blast radius was reduced to the size of the hole a shell actually makes we'd see a different HE model.

I guess that would manly effect allied 20mm HE-I rounds since they used considerable less explosive filling than the german 20mm

on the other hand the german 20mm lacks in the shrapnel department.

 

British/US:

5.44g Tetryl R.E. factor 1.25 (and 2.27g incendiary for the M97 round or ~ 5,9g for the Mk. I)

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)

92g-96g in weight (depending on the source, I have yet to find good primary sources)

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 for increased potential to ignite fuel.

[oc2209]

When I can't fly time consuming career sorties, I fly a few quick missions a day to keep my edge. No joke; if I don't fly a little every other day at least, my skills atrophy.

 

Anyway, I happened to get this result today, and I wondered where to post it. Seems fitting enough here:

 

 

All of my 13mm were misses, and fired separately from the 30mm. I've circled all the 30mm strikes. I find this example interesting for a variety of reasons; foremost, this is the tightest concentration of 30mm strikes I have ever managed to achieve, which is good for isolating cause and effect. We can see that the center of the plane should be absolutely shredded with shrapnel, and we can also see how far it travels. The right wing surprisingly looks quite undamaged, while the left wing tip is also undamaged.

 

The first and most obvious detail I notice is that the tail section is apparently impossible to detach from ballistic damage alone. Which means the damage model is somehow ignoring portions of the ballistic damage and treating it differently than impact damage from collisions with the ground or other objects. I suspect this may be a factor in .50 AP's inconsistent performance.

 

The second detail is that shrapnel ignited neither the fuselage tank nor the wing tanks. The HE effects in the fuselage must've been direct hits to the fuel tank there, you would assume; not just shrapnel effects. 

 

I have one more screen to show overall damage (sadly, I wasn't recording at the time, since I wasn't expecting anything worth recording):

 

 

As you can see, he quite literally disintegrated without any explosion or fire. So many parts flew off at once, I suffered a prop strike.

 

My point, as I have mentioned, is that fuselages have an uncanny ability to absorb HE shell damage. I have noted this phenomenon in the Tempest, Typhoon, 109, and even the Yak.

 

So any talk of diluting the power of HE shells needs to be carefully considered; chiefly because HE only overperforms when it hits wings and control surfaces. It does not overperform all the time, quite the contrary. The fact that the above plane isn't burning/exploded or broken clean in half, shows there is something amiss with the damage model more than HE itself. At least, that's my conclusion.

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

When I can't fly time consuming career sorties, I fly a few quick missions a day to keep my edge. No joke; if I don't fly a little every other day at least, my skills atrophy.

 

Anyway, I happened to get this result today, and I wondered where to post it. Seems fitting enough here:

 

 

All of my 13mm were misses, and fired separately from the 30mm. I've circled all the 30mm strikes. I find this example interesting for a variety of reasons; foremost, this is the tightest concentration of 30mm strikes I have ever managed to achieve, which is good for isolating cause and effect. We can see that the center of the plane should be absolutely shredded with shrapnel, and we can also see how far it travels. The right wing surprisingly looks quite undamaged, while the left wing tip is also undamaged.

 

The first and most obvious detail I notice is that the tail section is apparently impossible to detach from ballistic damage alone. Which means the damage model is somehow ignoring portions of the ballistic damage and treating it differently than impact damage from collisions with the ground or other objects. I suspect this may be a factor in .50 AP's inconsistent performance.

 

The second detail is that shrapnel ignited neither the fuselage tank nor the wing tanks. The HE effects in the fuselage must've been direct hits to the fuel tank there, you would assume; not just shrapnel effects. 

 

I have one more screen to show overall damage (sadly, I wasn't recording at the time, since I wasn't expecting anything worth recording):

 

 

As you can see, he quite literally disintegrated without any explosion or fire. So many parts flew off at once, I suffered a prop strike.

 

My point, as I have mentioned, is that fuselages have an uncanny ability to absorb HE shell damage. I have noted this phenomenon in the Tempest, Typhoon, 109, and even the Yak.

 

So any talk of diluting the power of HE shells needs to be carefully considered; chiefly because HE only overperforms when it hits wings and control surfaces. It does not overperform all the time, quite the contrary. The fact that the above plane isn't burning/exploded or broken clean in half, shows there is something amiss with the damage model more than HE itself. At least, that's my conclusion.

maybe its because AP round would not do same, you would need to test AP vs HE to see if its HE problem or its game DM problem if AP also dosent brake airplane apart. 37mm have option of HE only and AP only, so try only 37mm AP and see if it can brake P-51 apart. Since 4.005 come crashing on this games DM, players noticed 30 and 37mm dont blow up airplanes as goal was back then to make airplanes fall apart less, so they get buffed, you see nothing new here. 4005 update was big mistake for games DM and its still not fixed after so many time.

 

It would be funny as heck to see them solving this problem by making HE even more powerfule, with state of comedy this games DM is it would not suprised me.

[oc2209]

11 hours ago, CountZero said:

maybe its because AP round would not do same, you would need to test AP vs HE to see if its HE problem or its game DM problem if AP also dosent brake airplane apart. 37mm have option of HE only and AP only, so try only 37mm AP and see if it can brake P-51 apart. Since 4.005 come crashing on this games DM, players noticed 30 and 37mm dont blow up airplanes as goal was back then to make airplanes fall apart less, so they get buffed, you see nothing new here. 4005 update was big mistake for games DM and its still not fixed after so many time.

 

It would be funny as heck to see them solving this problem by making HE even more powerfule, with state of comedy this games DM is it would not suprised me.

 

AP can break parts of wings (especially the tips, especially the 109's), but no, nothing that I've observed can break a wing at the root (without an accompanying explosion), or break the tail from the fuselage. Not AP or HE. This is some recent testing of mine, 4x20mm with both AP and HE:

 

Spoiler

 

 

It's clear that certain portions of planes are effectively indestructible. I believe these areas are absorbing or deflecting both AP and HE damage, which then creates unpredictable, illogical damage effects. More often than not, something catastrophic will break nearby, or there will be an explosion, or the pilot will die, etc, so we don't notice. But the oddities remain, whether we notice each time or not.

 

Naturally, the ballistically weakest rounds in the sim, the .30 and the .50, will be most adversely affected when they are fired into these indestructible areas.

[CountZero]

This is what i dont like about 30-37mm rounds, inability to brake airplanes tails or wings, i remenber when yak-9t come out i was so disapointed in how 37mm behaves, i would expect if 2-3 37mm hit tail section on fighter it would atleast fall apart.

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, CountZero said:

This is what i dont like about 30-37mm rounds, inability to brake airplanes tails or wings, i remenber when yak-9t come out i was so disapointed in how 37mm behaves, i would expect if 2-3 37mm hit tail section on fighter it would atleast fall apart.

 

Breakage from one shot can still happen near the wingtip, but it's very inconsistent.

 

German 30mm:

 

 

I circled the impact location in yellow, and the roughly estimated destruction area in red. With the close grouping of shots, the wing should have no structural integrity remaining. But because it's in the nigh-invincible root-to-mid wing area, nothing happens.

 

Again, German 30mm:

 

 

The forward wing spar must've been destroyed by the two strikes near the cockpit. There's a good chance the flap hit would've weakened the rear spar if it survived the other two hits. So, again, I'm not sure what's holding the wing together.

 

Here's another German 30mm:

 

 

Surprisingly, this hit did very little damage. The aileron control wasn't lost, and the plane was still able to maneuver.

 

The following 2 screens are of Russian 37mm HE, from a Yak-9T.

 

This one did not break the wing, despite the perfect shot placement between the two spars (that should've destroyed both, you would assume):

 

 

The red circle is not precisely measured, but just a visual aid to help guess the probable area of maximum destructive potential. Note that aileron control has been severed.

 

This next example is taken in slow motion, after the DVD impact has registered, but before the flash and smoke effects (the red circle is too large, but I didn't feel like redoing it):

 

 

I don't think it had the proper location to break the wing; I believe it's too far back. Yet, the wing did snap off afterwards:

 

 

I put a yellow line beside the crack in the wing, and left the yellow circle to show the initial impact location.

[the_emperor]

well, that does seem weird for the rear fuselage.

It has been well documented by british tests (some one in this forum compiled this in a thread) that at least the german 30mm HE was able to cut the rear fusalge of a spitfire and Blenheim in half due to giving the blast effect enough room to fully develope its effect.

[gimpy117]

On 8/10/2021 at 10:32 PM, oc2209 said:

 

Breakage from one shot can still happen near the wingtip, but it's very inconsistent.

 

German 30mm:

 

 

I circled the impact location in yellow, and the roughly estimated destruction area in red. With the close grouping of shots, the wing should have no structural integrity remaining. But because it's in the nigh-invincible root-to-mid wing area, nothing happens.

 

Again, German 30mm:

 

 

The forward wing spar must've been destroyed by the two strikes near the cockpit. There's a good chance the flap hit would've weakened the rear spar if it survived the other two hits. So, again, I'm not sure what's holding the wing together.

 

Here's another German 30mm:

 

 

Surprisingly, this hit did very little damage. The aileron control wasn't lost, and the plane was still able to maneuver.

 

The following 2 screens are of Russian 37mm HE, from a Yak-9T.

 

This one did not break the wing, despite the perfect shot placement between the two spars (that should've destroyed both, you would assume):

 

 

The red circle is not precisely measured, but just a visual aid to help guess the probable area of maximum destructive potential. Note that aileron control has been severed.

 

This next example is taken in slow motion, after the DVD impact has registered, but before the flash and smoke effects (the red circle is too large, but I didn't feel like redoing it):

 

 

I don't think it had the proper location to break the wing; I believe it's too far back. Yet, the wing did snap off afterwards:

 

 

I put a yellow line beside the crack in the wing, and left the yellow circle to show the initial impact location.

umm are impact locations now modeled? i thought it was all just damage levels with no hit meanings 

[Hitcher]

10 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

umm are impact locations now modeled? i thought it was all just damage levels with no hit meanings 

It is for the p51 and typhoon, that's it so far, and the DVD is hugely misrepresentative of the damage actually done and the size of the hole.

[oc2209]

19 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

umm are impact locations now modeled? i thought it was all just damage levels with no hit meanings 

 

I understand everyone doesn't study the sim as much as I do, but I'm getting a little tired of explaining this. I've had to explain this same point to several people in different threads, and I would have assumed this to be common knowledge by now. But whatever. Once more.

 

(The following is all from a replay at 1/16 speed)

 

1) Initial impact flash of an HE shell is visible reflecting off the fuselage (before the flash is fully rendered). The DVD mark/decal has already generated. For the record: 30-37mm HE marks are different looking than 20mm HE marks; 13mm-20mm HE marks are all the same in appearance but different in size; Russian 20mm HE holes are smaller than German 20mm HE holes, etc.

 

 

2) Full flash effect generated at this point:

 

 

3) After-effects of the strike, and smoke/debris puff:

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by oc2209

[oc2209]

As an aside, I wanted to mention something briefly.

 

I think 30-37mm DVD decals are too small; they look more like 20mm hits (HE). If no one has ever seen what air-to-air rocket impacts look like in DVD, here's what R4M direct hits do:

 

 

If you take away the little holes, or spread their pattern more realistically, and make the center large hole just a black spot as it should be, it would make a good 30mm shell hole.

 

Then, turn what's now the 30-37mm into 20mm decals; and turn the current 20mm decals into 13mm HE decals.

 

Here's another example screen:

 

 

Yellow circle is German 20mm HE. Red circle is German 13mm HE. White triangle is German 13mm AP. Orange square is German 20mm AP. Obviously I didn't bother to highlight every single DVD hole in the picture, but you can see from the examples what decals belong to what ammo type and caliber.

 

[Creep]

16 hours ago, oc2209 said:

I understand everyone doesn't study the sim as much as I do, but I'm getting a little tired of explaining this.

Making inferences about how the game is modeled based on screenshots you took while shooting at AI - this is truly the pinnacle of studying IL2.

[sturmkraehe]

If we come back to the original topic of this thread: The impact of HE on drag/lift. My understanding is that the question is not so much if the visual impact is correct or not but if the consequences of the impacts (whether they are reflected visually or not at all) on the flight performance are correct. Where are we now in the discussion on this point? I am a bit lost with all the discussion about visual representation here.

[Denum]

1 hour ago, QB.Creep said:

Making inferences about how the game is modeled based on screenshots you took while shooting at AI - this is truly the pinnacle of studying IL2.

 

 

 

I laughed out loud.

 

Real loud 

 

 

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

Making inferences about how the game is modeled based on screenshots you took while shooting at AI - this is truly the pinnacle of studying IL2.

 

And endlessly bitching about being shot down by 1 HE hit in multiplayer without noting exactly where the hit occurred is also a valid method of study.

 

At least I'm trying to ascertain whether HE rounds are as overpowered as some people claim. It turns out they're situationally overperforming; it's very much dependent on the context. Just as AP ammo situationally underperforms. If both ammo types are situationally flawed, that implies a shared cause in the damage model.

 

That's called deductive reasoning.

 

But, you know, go ahead and ignore my examples like this: 

 

 

Or any of the other countless examples I have of repeated and concentrated 20mm-37mm HE strikes failing to break structures, explode gas tanks or ammo magazines.

 

Keep ignoring everything else and acting like multiplayer examples where planes take 100x.50 AP hits are the only aberrations, or the only ones worth whining about.

 

4 hours ago, sturmkraehe said:

If we come back to the original topic of this thread: The impact of HE on drag/lift. My understanding is that the question is not so much if the visual impact is correct or not but if the consequences of the impacts (whether they are reflected visually or not at all) on the flight performance are correct. Where are we now in the discussion on this point? I am a bit lost with all the discussion about visual representation here.

 

 My theory is that HE impacts near the wing tip create disproportionately high drag effects, compared to hits from the mid-wing to the root. I believe this is a flight model or damage model problem, and that cutting HE shell damage output across the board would not rectify the source of the problem, but would assuredly make HE rounds exceedingly weak.

 

Regardless of the validity of my theory, DVD hit locations are helpful in determining precise hit locations and their effects on flight. That's why it's important to establish that the DVD hit markers are quite accurate.

Edited August 13, 2021 by oc2209
Merged post edit.

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, sturmkraehe said:

If we come back to the original topic of this thread: The impact of HE on drag/lift. My understanding is that the question is not so much if the visual impact is correct or not but if the consequences of the impacts (whether they are reflected visually or not at all) on the flight performance are correct. Where are we now in the discussion on this point? I am a bit lost with all the discussion about visual representation here.

 

I'm re-answering this with a clip I just made:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Here are two still shots taken from the above clip:

 

 

11x12.7mm HE strikes in the wing root. The pilot maintains control of the aircraft.

 

 

1x12.7mm HE strike in the mid-wing area. The pilot loses control of the aircraft.

 

Before anyone says this behavior has anything to do with the Typhoon's flight model, I can shoot down any other plane with similar shot placement. The Typhoon is useful because A) it has DVD, and B) it's an easier target than the P-51, especially for a relatively slow plane like the Yak.

[Creep]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

And endlessly bitching about being shot down by 1 HE hit in multiplayer without noting exactly where the hit occurred is also a valid method of study.

 

At least I'm trying to ascertain whether HE rounds are as overpowered as some people claim.

 

You still don't get it. There is absolutely no link between the dynamic visual damage and the existing aircraft segments and the damage calculations for them. From the devs: 

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. 

 

Your entire approach is flawed. You've said yourself that you're shooting at AI - that alone introduces a lot of variables that you cannot control and make the tests difficult to measure. Exactly how many rounds and of which type are hitting the aircraft at which you are shooting? How many rounds were required to achieve an effect? What effect are you even measuring other than "the AI crashed"? How many times did you repeat each test? Where is the data supporting your tests?

 

We conducted a series of tests in a controlled environment that eliminated as many variables as possible, performed each test multiple times to ensure there were no outliers, supplied client-side recordings, dserver logs, and sortie statistics extracted from those logs. Perhaps you should re-read it and download the supporting data. Don't criticize the testing that we did when yours is laughably inferior in every way imaginable.

Edited August 13, 2021 by QB.Creep
typo

[CountZero]

i just dont understand how DM is not one of top priority in combat sim 

 

Posted April 8, 2020

Update 4.005

 

Dear friends,

Edited August 13, 2021 by CountZero
so i can see when was 4.005 made :D

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

Your entire approach is flawed. You've said yourself that you're shooting at AI - that alone introduces a lot of variables that you cannot control and make the tests difficult to measure. A) Exactly how many rounds and of B) which type are hitting the aircraft at which you are shooting? How many rounds were required to achieve an effect?

 

If you're desperately trying to ignore everything I post (like a P-51's fuselage--directly over the fuel tank--taking 9x30mm HE strikes without exploding; that has nothing to do with AI being the pilot in these instances) because it conflicts with your myopic view that "AP=trash" and "HE=win", go ahead and do so.

 

But if you ask me insultingly stupid questions to which I've already given the answers, I'm bound to get a little pissed.

 

I said how many rounds of HE hit each wing. HE impacts are the only pertinent ones for this discussion. 11 on one wing, 1 on the other. There's a very clear indication of when the AI lost control. It shrugged the first 11 off. It crashed on the 12th because the 12th was in a different location on the wing.

 

As I established with another 'test' (as the great sage, Yak_Panther snidely called them), there is a clear point at which lift is disturbed:

 

 

Hits above the yellow line do nothing to the AI's ability to pilot the plane; the implication is that they produce less aerodynamic penalty. So, when people present arguments that the overall aerodynamic damage level of the wing (using the old damage decals) is the only thing that matters--not the hit locations specifically--they're missing the point.

 

Hits below the yellow line affect handling. Hits below the red line affect handling even more.

 

As evidenced here:

 

Spoiler

 

 

And here:

 

Spoiler

 

 

And here:

 

Spoiler

 

 

And here:

 

Spoiler

 

 

And here:

 

Spoiler

 

 

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

You still don't get it. There is absolutely no link between the dynamic visual damage and the existing aircraft segments and the damage calculations for them. From the devs: 

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. 

 

Your entire approach is flawed. You've said yourself that you're shooting at AI - that alone introduces a lot of variables that you cannot control and make the tests difficult to measure.

 

I was going to ignore this, but it's so offensively stupid that I just can't.

 

What am I not getting? Tell me what I'm failing to grasp.

 

When I watch a replay that shows HE shells impacting the plane I'm shooting at (even without the DVD system, the impact effects of AP and HE are possible to differentiate at 1/32 replay speed); and I know I only pushed either the cannon button or the machine gun button, not both at the same time; and I can also verify what I shot by looking at the HUD ammo counter; and then I pause the game and zoom in to count the DVD impact decals, and it correlates to the number of rounds I fired (I've never seen 20 DVD marks when I've fired 10 rounds) and the number of impact flashes I counted...

 

...tell me where, exactly, I'm missing something.

 

Here's another quote from the same DVD announcement:

 

Quote

The answer is, DVD means 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.

 

That's what I use it for. Impact marks. What are you implying that I'm using it for?

 

So, let me get this straight... if there are 9x30mm HE impact marks behind the P-51 cockpit, one or two of those shouldn't detonate the fuel tank located there?

 

I mean, if shrapnel effects are as OP as some say, I just don't understand how you're ignoring the obvious implication: that something is wrong with the damage model.

 

As for testing with AI:

 

How do you propose I better test my theory? Shoot at a human pilot's wing in a coop flight, and have him say, "yeah bro, I can't turn at all now."

 

The AI is safe to test in the examples I use. It's turning at an even rate. It's obviously stable. Then I shoot the wing root many times (11x12.7mm HE hits, in the one example detailed before), and it still keeps turning like nothing happened.

 

Then I shoot it further towards the center of the other wing, with one HE round from the same caliber, and it crashes immediately.

 

The AI's reaction to stimuli is predictable. A human's is not. I don't care if a human could still maneuver the plane. The point is that the AI lost control in one instance, and didn't lose control in another.

 

Care to explain that? Care to even try to explain it?

 

Or will you just come back with more petty jabs? 'Cuz those really win arguments.

Edited August 14, 2021 by oc2209

[BCI-Nazgul]

4 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

 

There is absolutely no link between the dynamic visual damage and the existing aircraft segments and the damage calculations for them.

There isn't much link between the DM and reality either.

[=RS=Haart]

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I was going to ignore this, but it's so offensively stupid that I just can't.

 

What am I not getting? Tell me what I'm failing to grasp.

 

When I watch a replay that shows HE shells impacting the plane I'm shooting at (even without the DVD system, the impact effects of AP and HE are possible to differentiate at 1/32 replay speed); and I know I only pushed either the cannon button or the machine gun button, not both at the same time; and I can also verify what I shot by looking at the HUD ammo counter; and then I pause the game and zoom in to count the DVD impact decals, and it correlates to the number of rounds I fired (I've never seen 20 DVD marks when I've fired 10 rounds) and the number of impact flashes I counted...

 

...tell me where, exactly, I'm missing something.

If I put a sticker on the door or external wall of a house with an angry face on it, but go inside the house and not do any damage to it structurally that's what the equivalent at least in my mind is, of a lot of the AP/HE strikes in game that do no conceivable/visual damage. It's a sticker that shows surface damage like you'd paint on a model, unfortunately the only comparison I could make to get across my inference would be to look at the X-ray view available in Warthunder as it shows the pilot damage to components/spars etc. I apparently got hit while flying the A-20 on Finnish the other day by a 110e2 on his screen, but nothing happened on my screen and I managed to shoot him down by popping his rads and keeping him turning until he cooked his engines.

RE: Mustang fuel tank, it's my understanding that if you have the fuel set to a certain point/percentage in the settings, that tank (the auxiliary tank if I understand correctly) isn't filled at all, meaning no vapours or fuel to ignite. No-one online fills that tank due to the CoG being shifted back and making manoeuvres more dangerous to spinning out with.
 

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

As for testing with AI:

 

How do you propose I better test my theory? Shoot at a human pilot's wing in a coop flight, and have him say, "yeah bro, I can't turn at all now."

 

The AI is safe to test in the examples I use. It's turning at an even rate. It's obviously stable. Then I shoot the wing root many times (11x12.7mm HE hits, in the one example detailed before), and it still keeps turning like nothing happened.

 

Then I shoot it further towards the center of the other wing, with one HE round from the same caliber, and it crashes immediately.

 

The AI's reaction to stimuli is predictable. A human's is not. I don't care if a human could still maneuver the plane. The point is that the AI lost control in one instance, and didn't lose control in another.

 

Care to explain that? Care to even try to explain it?

The AI in-game don't reflect the mentality of what I, and arguably several others, would consider a human reaction, you get no feedback from them as targets aside from bail out/dead on becoming an impromptu European garden bed. So yes have a friend pilot a drone for you and let them tell you what is damaged, how much speed they lose, whether the shell injured the pilot etc would be a good data point.

An AI doesn't care if it gets killed or shot down as they'll just bail, they have no incentive to land and gain a kill which directly opposes the players perspective even in single player. So if you take a 30mm HE and lose 65km/h worth of speed as a player it's a loss, whereas if you're an AI it's null because your purpose is to literally be a target. Then you compare that to what you can control, like full flaps or gear down speed penalty and compare that to the size of the "sticker". That would be my suggestion, Creep might have others.

[gimpy117]

Thanks. 

 

taking pictures and drawing lines in paint and going "see! my 30mm's aren't really that powerful" is a large effort for sure, and worth a nod for trying...but it pails in comparison for the scientific tests that others have done (which I am grateful for as I do not possess the connections to set something like that up).  

 

I think the case has been pretty shut as how much damage HE does aerodynamically (especially when compared to AP) I however am floored by the really flippant attitude by representatives of the Devs towards this issue. They've said they know, and apparently don't care. I guess they were too wrapped up in the #1 priority of giving drop tanks to the 109 first (because it needed the most).       

[Eisenfaustus]

24 minutes ago, gimpy117 said:

They've said they know, and apparently don't care. I guess they were too wrapped up in the #1 priority of giving drop tanks to the 109 first (because it needed the most).   

Yes it does - no need for being sarcastic. 
Most Allied fighters either have enough internal fuel or have their airfields close enough to the front. 
 

Due to allied air superiority Germans used airfields much farther from the front. Historically in late 1944 most German fighters started with drop tanks when they didn’t have to carry bombs. 
 

And in the Moscow career there are some really long escort missions where I often returned on fumes - there I wished for drop tanks. 
 

The 109 correctly has short legs - I never had any fuel problems in my P51 career…
 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, gimpy117 said:

Thanks. 

 

taking pictures and drawing lines in paint and going "see! my 30mm's aren't really that powerful" is a large effort for sure, and worth a nod for trying...but it pails in comparison for the scientific tests that others have done (which I am grateful for as I do not possess the connections to set something like that up).  

 

I think the case has been pretty shut as how much damage HE does aerodynamically (especially when compared to AP) I however am floored by the really flippant attitude by representatives of the Devs towards this issue. They've said they know, and apparently don't care. I guess they were too wrapped up in the #1 priority of giving drop tanks to the 109 first (because it needed the most).       

 

 

But how els can i fly with 10% fuel and Drop Tank to outturn yaks and spits who have to have 70+% if they dont add drop tank for 109s, i lol realy hard when they said 109 will be first and only one to get it in next update, princes 109 always top priority ?

 

maps in game are short range no airplane need any drop tanks, you just need to manage your fuel better i do 100-120min flights in lagg3 or yaks, DT is waist of code for small maps we have, same with marshal thing if it gets added to game, at this point is meme

Edited August 14, 2021 by CountZero

[LukeFF]

2 minutes ago, CountZero said:

maps in game are short range no airplane need any drop tanks, you just need to manage your fuel better i do 100-120min flights in lagg3 or yaks, DT is waist of code for small maps we have, same with marshal thing if it gets added to game, at this point is meme

 

You do realize people play the game in SP, right?

[CountZero]

and what ? they have 3h missions with 109s ? i highly doubt ppl play SP missions longer then 1h judging from poor SP content in this game.

Edited August 14, 2021 by CountZero

[Eisenfaustus]

44 minutes ago, CountZero said:

and what ? they have 3h missions with 109s ? i highly doubt ppl play SP missions longer then 1h judging from poor SP content in this game.

You judge wrongly. 

[=621=Samikatz]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

 

 

But how els can i fly with 10% fuel and Drop Tank to outturn yaks and spits who have to have 70+% if they dont add drop tank for 109s, i lol realy hard when they said 109 will be first and only one to get it in next update, princes 109 always top priority ?

 

If they're taking the time to model it properly you don't have to worry about that, the 109's drop tank feeds into the main fuel tank, so taking a low amount of fuel with a drop tank will just very quickly drain the drop tank and make it dead weight. On top of that the rack for the drop tank weighs 30kg and is a noticeable amount of drag, which probably negates any videogame minmax nonsense anyway

[oc2209]

13 hours ago, =RS=Haart said:

If I put a sticker on the door or external wall of a house with an angry face on it, but go inside the house and not do any damage to it structurally that's what the equivalent at least in my mind is, of a lot of the AP/HE strikes in game that do no conceivable/visual damage. It's a sticker that shows surface damage like you'd paint on a model

 

This analogy makes no sense. The walls of a house are much thicker than the skin of an airplane, for one thing. For another, bullets can go through a house's walls and cause damage to whatever's in the house; especially with large caliber, military-grade ammunition. More to the point, people are claiming that HE shells have too much area of effect damage and shrapnel blast radius.

 

If I land dozens of 12.7-20mm HE shells, or as many as 9x30mm, over an area of a plane that has a fuel tank in it (typically the wing root or the fuselage behind the pilot), or an area where ammunition is stored, and no explosion or fire results from these sensitive areas, then it does beg the question of just how consistently effective HE shells are.

 

If 9x30mm HE hits to the same area can't destroy the structure there, and everything within the structure, then we are looking at the same kind of problem the concrete tail of the 109 presented; except all planes' fuselages and wing roots are concrete. And that's not supposed to cause any peripheral, negative effects on how the damage model registers hits?

 

Really?

 

13 hours ago, =RS=Haart said:

RE: Mustang fuel tank, it's my understanding that if you have the fuel set to a certain point/percentage in the settings, that tank (the auxiliary tank if I understand correctly) isn't filled at all, meaning no vapours or fuel to ignite.

 

Too bad I always test the Mustang with 100% fuel load to make it an easier target drone. You'll have to come up with some other mental gymnastics to explain away the 9x30mm HE strikes failing to set off the fuel tank.

 

13 hours ago, =RS=Haart said:

The AI in-game don't reflect the mentality of what I, and arguably several others, would consider a human reaction, you get no feedback from them as targets aside from bail out/dead on becoming an impromptu European garden bed. So yes have a friend pilot a drone for you and let them tell you what is damaged, how much speed they lose, whether the shell injured the pilot etc would be a good data point.

An AI doesn't care if it gets killed or shot down as they'll just bail, they have no incentive to land and gain a kill which directly opposes the players perspective even in single player. So if you take a 30mm HE and lose 65km/h worth of speed as a player it's a loss, whereas if you're an AI it's null because your purpose is to literally be a target. Then you compare that to what you can control, like full flaps or gear down speed penalty and compare that to the size of the "sticker".

 

So, you also don't care to venture an explanation why the AI crashed after 1 hit to 1 wing, but didn't crash after 11 hits to the other? And all the other examples I have that show a clear indication between wing strike location and AI loss of control.

 

That's the pertinent issue here. Not the AI's desires to stay alive and fight another day.

 

Beyond that, any smaller-than-a-bomber airplane that took 1x30mm HE hit in real life would also be out of the fight, and the pilot would immediately use what little control they had of their aircraft to run for friendly territory. So I'm not sure what your point is here. Given that a single 30mm hit would be fatal to a single-engined aircraft more often than not, I think survival with a heavy loss of maximum speed would still be pretty lucky. Unless you're saying that a 30mm hit should be able to be shrugged off and ignored, with like a 15 KPH speed loss and little loss of handling qualities?

 

5 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

taking pictures and drawing lines in paint and going "see! my 30mm's aren't really that powerful" is a large effort for sure, and worth a nod for trying...

 

Once again, someone completely misses my point. When all else fails, like questioning my grasp of how the DVD system works, then you just dismiss my conclusions anyway.

 

My point is to establish that the damage model is interfering with weapon performance. My point is that weapon performance is highly variable (too much so) based on hit location.

 

Period. End of story. 

 

I've presented my case. The burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to come up with a plausible explanation for what I've demonstrated; instead of trying their damnedest to ignore evidence that both HE and AP rounds are adversely affected by the damage model, for different reasons, in different circumstances.

 

Why does everything have to be stupidly black and white? Obviously this is a complex set of problems. Obviously buffing AP and nerfing HE would only be bandaid fixes that would go on to create their own set of new inaccuracies. Is that the kind of crudity and laziness in the sim we're going to aspire to? Is that the goal?

Edited August 14, 2021 by oc2209
Merged post.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Looks like we got another known forum ?

Edited August 14, 2021 by drewm3i-VR