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

[gimpy117]

3 hours ago, oc2209 said:

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.

yes, we already came up with a possible explanation: relying on AI behavior after hits is not a substitute for actual pilot reports after a hit. someone else even mentioned how it added variables you can account for. 

 

Quote

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?

It may be a complex set of problems, but, it seems pretty evident what needs to be done. you even said it. Buff AP and Nerf HE. it seems the new damage model system is only 3/4 baked. if anything in a sim is performing wildly above others, then scrutiny should be placed on the far an away outliers. I think in the interest of simulation a change like that should be done. It just doesn't come close to passing the sniff test when you see the giant chasm between 50 cal arrays and HE cannons. Therefore: It is my belief that changes should be made in the interim since the devs are "busy". I'm sure some will dismay that their favorite aircraft have a little less punch but I'm always an advocate for the lesser of two evils. and I feel a weapon system being "OP" is much worse than making weapons systems a little more equal, especially in multiplayer.       

[Denum]

The fact he thinks after 9 hits that Mustang was going home or capable of fighting still just warms the cockles of my heart. 

 

 

[=RS=Haart]

7 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

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?

This was a general comment on how I personally perceive the application of the DVD system, not gospel word, if you allow yourself some outside the box thinking it makes sense as the general structure of things remains the same, I can punch a hole through a house wall where there is no stud and there be no damage, but where there is a stud there will be structural damage. The same applies to the game models, if there is damage, the sticker will be applied for immersion. 
Take the 20mm HEI for example:
http://i.imgur.com/zjrtFfz.jpg
You can see that the round itself is mainly detonating outwards of the thin casing around the "belly" of the shell, now, admittedly this isn't a 30mm mine shell as I don't seem to be able to find any that are close to it, what I have found is the old 1946 DM photo from a similar forum post from back in 2018 that shows the fragmentation directions in '46, which makes me wonder if such a possibility is available to us in BoX however as the game engine is different I can't be sure, and an apparent 30mm mine shell hit on a polish mkV spit.

7 hours ago, oc2209 said:

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.

If the tank is without oxygen, then what I've been taught as the "fire triangle" cannot cause a fire, you need oxygen in order to create a fire, not just fuel source and heat, I would wager that the mustang's auxiliary tank is also a self sealing tank. The vapours IRL would be what causes the explosion, that's why you're not allowed to smoke at petrol stations for that risk.
Here is a link by the Kalashnikov group on gasoline in fuel tanks being shot with ball/ap/tracer rounds from rifle calibre rounds which serve as an explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIo_0qBR8nU 
Unfortunately this could also be the reason why you're not seeing your desired effect, the wing tanks hold 92gal/348L each and the rear auxiliary tank holds 85 gal/321L.

7 hours ago, oc2209 said:

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?

I'm not an AI or computer programmer by any stretch of the imagination, and I'd wager you aren't either, the only ones who can give you a definitive answer on that would be the devs themselves, I'm merely stating that in my experience in-game that the AI behaviour doesn't reflect what I encounter online vs a human pilot intent on staying alive which would be the case IRL, which is also what I tried to point to you, that the AI won't say in text chat that "that hit my right aileron cable and damaged my elevator cables, I can't turn so I'll have to bail" where as a friend in a player controlled aircraft can. 

Talking of survivor bias and fighter aircraft taking hits from 30mm cannon, I have seen several photos of aircraft such as spitfires, mustangs, and thunderbolts (like the one above) returning with holes caused by either what appears to be 30mm flak or aerial gunnery. One comes to mind of a P-47 with a large hole in the wing near the ammunition compartment, however in no way am I suggesting that they can simply be shrugged off. I do think that to give a real world example, if someone were to find a radiography/highspeed footage of a 30mm ADEN/DEFA (30x113B ADEN HEI or SAPHEI) round exploding that could be served as a substitute given the lack of documentation aside from those infamous tests everyone posts whenever the topic of mine shells comes up, especially as it seems the old deutscheluftwaffe.de archived documentation has either been moved from their original links or no longer available. 

Finally, regarding mental gymnastics, you asked for variables and received them, I'm being  courteous enough to provide what I would consider appropriate variables and polite in the way I write them, manners cost nothing and I understand that this often becomes a heated topic regarding flight performances and is a very grey area topic. So I would probably suggest the above (ADEN/Mauser cannon test document comparisons) be our overall best bet as in the case of the 30mm it is my understanding that the MK 213 was the forefather for the weapon and early cannon rounds testing would provide the most accurate representation we can get without a time machine or a miraculous discovery in war era documentation from one of the axis powers.
 

 

[the_emperor]

At least the german 30mm is  well document by a british test. All comprehensively compiled together by a forum member:

And here an additional yt compilation:

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by the_emperor

[=RS=Haart]

Awesome, now we need to have a comparison test done with the current damage model 

[CountZero]

 

15 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

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

 

I doubt they gona do it right, i full expexct same system like in old il-2.

 

16 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

You judge wrongly. 

 

Wonder why QM is most popular thing if SP players play 1h+ missions, or why scripted campaings make short duration missions, SP players usealy dont have time to play long.

 

4 hours ago, the_emperor said:

At least the german 30mm is  well document by a british test. All comprehensively compiled together by a forum member:

And here an additional yt compilation:

 

and 37mm hiting 109 should be doing same, game dont know how to separate small cal from big when it comes to braking parts, they had to buff braking airplanes parts as before you could cut lagg3 or 109 tail with few .303 or 7mm , now you cant cut it with 88mm lol, DM is arcade how it is, now only 20mm look ok, rest is basic level for flying game, not combat sim, and no historical ammo types...even "arcade" WT bother to give players historical ammo types, not just AP or HE...

Edited August 15, 2021 by CountZero

[[DBS]TH0R]

37 minutes ago, CountZero said:

DM is arcade how it is, now only 20mm look ok, rest is basic level for flying game, not combat sim, and no historical ammo types...even "arcade" WT bother to give players historical ammo types, not just AP or HE...

 

I share this view and wish is that devs up the priority on giving another go at DM. In spite being under staffed like Jason said recently.

 

At least one can fly bombers in this sim and mostly enjoy them.

Edited August 15, 2021 by [DBS]TH0R

[Hitcher]

Devs seem pretty happy with the current damage model, they have expressed the desire to change it "if they have the time or desire to" so it looks like we'll have to deal with aircraft of any size getting crippled by single 20mm hits and AP doing nothing else but poking clean holes.

While an improvement the damage model is in a sorry state and while the team might be under pressure I would have thought the damage model in a combat flight sim about shooting aircraft would be one of their top priorities.

 

I could deal with the current implementation of AP ammunition if HE shells did reasonable damage and wern't dealing damage over 10 meters like some do.

 

The fact HE shells with 1.5g of explosive are enough to cause significant drag and loss of lift to any fighter shows that the damage model clearly needs adjusting.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Hitcher

[Panzerlang]

Are there different DMs in MP and SP? 20mm does not a lot if it's detonating outside the airframe (6 o'clock attacks) but does plenty if it penetrates before going off. I'm assuming that actually happens in the game, else I've been hallucinating for years. This is in SP. I've not seen much of anything to suggest the DM is awry.

[[DBS]TH0R]

 

32 minutes ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

Are there different DMs in MP and SP? 20mm does not a lot if it's detonating outside the airframe (6 o'clock attacks) but does plenty if it penetrates before going off. I'm assuming that actually happens in the game, else I've been hallucinating for years. This is in SP. I've not seen much of anything to suggest the DM is awry.

 

From day one this new DM was introduced my impression it was way off target. Placing just a few round in between wings of a B-25D for the example completely obliterates the thing (I've used Dora for my testing, stock loadout). Eliminating the need for gun pods of mk108s. The HE is out of the world powerful indicating there definitely is something awry with DM.

 

There are other issues that have already been mentioned a dozen times on these forums, but I won't go there since the topic is HE.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hitcher said:

The fact HE shells with 1.5g of explosive are enough to cause significant drag and loss of lift to any fighter shows that the damage model clearly needs adjusting.

 

+1

[Panzerlang]

8 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

From day one this new DM was introduced my impression it was way off target. Placing just a few round in between wings of a B-25D for the example completely obliterates the thing (I've used Dora for my testing, stock loadout). Eliminating the need for gun pods of mk108s. The HE is out of the world powerful indicating there definitely is something awry with DM.

That's the thing, it's an "impression". A subjective one I guess. Is there any empirical data on this stuff? I've seen videos of static tests but they're not ideal. There would have to be live tests against airborne drones, preferably real airframes. There's plenty of anecdotal stuff, plenty of which is contradictory. B17 went down with a few 20mm hits vs one kept going with numerous 30mm etc.

It's a computer game with limited CPU resources at its disposal. How much could be calculated on multiple planes simultaneously before it became a stutter-fest? From personal observation I don't regard 20mm HE being over-modelled at all, not with the amount often needed to bring down Pe2s and Il2s. A-20s on the other hand, big lol, they go down just from being looked at. C47s go down with just two 7.92mm MGs. So yeah, there are 'oddities', as to be expected with a game. But, overall, I consider stuff to be credible. Hit an Il2 from above, so the rounds can penetrate, they go down pretty quick.

My own planes have been shot to shit but I've been able to get them down and survive. The only time I can recall having to bail from a non-fire situation was when the elevator cables were completely severed. Wings torn to shreds, I had to keep a wing up with ailerons but I could land (DVD from root to tip).

.50 cals, I can't comment, I've neither used or been hit by them (not the western front stuff at least, eastern-front equivalents do me plenty of harm).

Everyone has their own subjective opinion and personal wants/agendas. The devs have to implement their best honest shot (lol) amongst all that. All I can say is it seems decent to me.

[[DBS]TH0R]

 

 

1 hour ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

That's the thing, it's an "impression". A subjective one I guess. Is there any empirical data on this stuff? I've seen videos of static tests but they're not ideal. There would have to be live tests against airborne drones, preferably real airframes. There's plenty of anecdotal stuff, plenty of which is contradictory. B17 went down with a few 20mm hits vs one kept going with numerous 30mm etc.

 

The test is easily repeatable over and over again. Perhaps not valid for the sake of arguing objectively but one has to look at both objective and subjective side in order to reach a conclusion or simulate an event. An algorithm is only good as its defined constants and variables.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

It's a computer game with limited CPU resources at its disposal. How much could be calculated on multiple planes simultaneously before it became a stutter-fest? From personal observation I don't regard 20mm HE being over-modelled at all, not with the amount often needed to bring down Pe2s and Il2s. A-20s on the other hand, big lol, they go down just from being looked at. C47s go down with just two 7.92mm MGs. So yeah, there are 'oddities', as to be expected with a game. But, overall, I consider stuff to be credible. Hit an Il2 from above, so the rounds can penetrate, they go down pretty quick.

 

Please tell me I just didn't read "CPU limitations" as an excuse for misrepresentation of DM?! In 2021 no least. ?

 

I've been shot at by 20mm in bombers from pretty much day one of this sim. When at one point they started inflicting damage as 30mm you can tell something is off. But then again, it is only me and my subjective impressions... Or perhaps I am not alone here.

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by [DBS]TH0R

[Panzerlang]

1 minute ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

I've been shot at by 20mm in bombers from pretty much day one of this sim. When at one point they started inflicting damage as 30mm you can tell something is off. But then again, it is only me and my subjective impressions... Or perhaps I am not alone here.

What kind of damage do you think would be correct, and why?

[Denum]

The fact you can fly the 190/109 home after being "shot to shit" shouldn't pass the smell test imo.

 

Most, if not all of the allied aircraft lose so much speed and control that it's nigh impossible to do the same.

 

I swear, it seems like two different standards are being applied to the DM and weapons in game at times. 

 

The 190s can absorb so much damage and can survive several HE hits and I've got them home. Take the P47 and it's anecdotal durability from real life and you often find yourself asking what the hell happened. 

 

 

Personally my frustrations with the game are starting peak. It's early war on Finnish VP and it's not a good time. The last two nights post patch flying allied have been extremely irritating. Looking at the team counts I think others are feeling the same as we are outnumbered 2 to 1 constantly.

 

-I'm getting one shot detonated more often then ever.

 

-The AP HE gap is bigger then ever. 

It is extremely irritating to see changes made that make HE even MORE POWERFUL AND AP IS STILL UNDERPERFORMING. 

 

 

 

 

After hearing guys talk about DCS and how you can't prop snipe because it'll blow the engine, you can't luftwobble because losing speed actually matters there. The .50s work well there. I can see why they went over.

 

 

I'm not trying to be a wanker here. Just the current state of the DM is extremely frustrating for someone who usually has to fly allied.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Denum

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, CountZero said:

I doubt they gona do it right, i full expexct same system like in old il-2.

 

It's nothing like the old IL2 system.

[Denum]

At this point, I'm setting money aside to try DCS. I'm glad I hadn't purchased the C47 or either ground AA.

 

I kick myself for being so quick to preorder Normandy knowing I was unhappy with certain things in the game. 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Denum

[DBFlyguy]

3 hours ago, Denum said:

The fact you can fly the 190/109 home after being "shot to shit" shouldn't pass the smell test imo.

 

Most, if not all of the allied aircraft lose so much speed and control that it's nigh impossible to do the same.

 

I swear, it seems like two different standards are being applied to the DM and weapons in game at times. 

 

The 190s can absorb so much damage and can survive several HE hits and I've got them home. Take the P47 and it's anecdotal durability from real life and you often find yourself asking what the hell happened. 

 

 

Personally my frustrations with the game are starting peak. It's early war on Finnish VP and it's not a good time. The last two nights post patch flying allied have been extremely irritating. Looking at the team counts I think others are feeling the same as we are outnumbered 2 to 1 constantly.

 

-I'm getting one shot detonated more often then ever.

 

-The AP HE gap is bigger then ever. 

It is extremely irritating to see changes made that make HE even MORE POWERFUL AND AP IS STILL UNDERPERFORMING. 

 

 

 

 

After hearing guys talk about DCS and how you can't prop snipe because it'll blow the engine, you can't luftwobble because losing speed actually matters there. The .50s work well there. I can see why they went over.

 

 

I'm not trying to be a wanker here. Just the current state of the DM is extremely frustrating for someone who usually has to fly allied.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm fairly new to online play but I flew 109s (F4) on Finnish last night on a flight I got jumped by two guys (1 Lagg and 1 Yak1) who took turns pummeling me with cannon fire I was still able to fly around and evade .... it took me literally getting accidentally rammed by the Lagg to finally bring me down ?  definitely does not pass the smell test....

 

I'm definitely looking forward to all the new shiney toys in BON and FC II but I wouldn't be upset and would understand if those releases took longer so DM and related AP/HE issues could be put higher on the priority list.

48 minutes ago, Denum said:

At this point, I'm setting money aside to try DCS. I'm glad I hadn't purchased the C47 or either ground AA.

 

I kick myself for being so quick to preorder Normandy knowing I was unhappy with certain things in the game. 

 

 

I definitely empathize with you.... I don't necessarily "regret" getting BON but I am definitely getting frustrated with the priority list for things being addressed.  Base features in a combat sim like the base armament for several aircraft should take priority over new aircraft...pilot models...clouds etc.. IMHO.

 

DCS is an option but honestly there just isn't much to do in DCS from a WWII standpoint. Most of the aircraft there don't really match from a realistic face off standpoint and there is barely any assets in the "Asset pack"... BUT the base armament guns do actually perform realistically like you would expect them to....

 

no matter what combat sim we pick, we're gonna have to accept sacrifices and short comings.....

Edited August 15, 2021 by DBFlyguy

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

If they do not fix the dm, the sim will die a slow death. Simple as that. About 40-50 former il-2 pilots I know through Discord have already moved to DCS and are not looking back. I myself am still on the fence because there is so much good here too, but the damage model and low speed wonkiness are driving me away also.

[Denum]

The WarThunder additions will leave as fast as they came once they try late war Allied IMO.

 

Allied is pretty popular with their player base (hence why randoms battles end up as mixed nations so often) 

 

 

 

[[DBS]TH0R]

5 hours ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

What kind of damage do you think would be correct, and why?

 

To tired and uninspired for a long reply ...

 

My honest opinion : revert to the old DM that was at least plausible. And wait for better times when there is time and manpower to develop a more sophisticated one.

 

 

2 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

If they do not fix the dm, the sim will die a slow death. Simple as that. About 40-50 former il-2 pilots I know through Discord have already moved to DCS and are not looking back. I myself am still on the fence because there is so much good here too, but the damage model and low speed wonkiness are driving me away also.

 

Add me to the list. I am here only for the bombers. That being said... the only thing I would consider buying from this sim in the future is a flyable B-25 (or B-26).

 

I don't need proper DM, ammo belts, gun harmonization etc. for my future C-47 sorties. Just my paratroopers. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by [DBS]TH0R

[oc2209]

15 hours ago, =RS=Haart said:

Finally, regarding mental gymnastics, you asked for variables and received them, I'm being  courteous enough to provide what I would consider appropriate variables and polite in the way I write them, manners cost nothing and I understand that this often becomes a heated topic regarding flight performances and is a very grey area topic.

 

You're correct.

 

What pisses me off is the snide commentary from the peanut gallery, that does absolutely nothing to enhance the quality of the ongoing debate.

 

I allowed my resentment of the above bullshit to influence how I spoke to you, which is, of course, unfair to you. So I apologize for my bad attitude thus far.

 

15 hours ago, =RS=Haart said:

If the tank is without oxygen, then what I've been taught as the "fire triangle" cannot cause a fire, you need oxygen in order to create a fire, not just fuel source and heat, I would wager that the mustang's auxiliary tank is also a self sealing tank. The vapours IRL would be what causes the explosion, that's why you're not allowed to smoke at petrol stations for that risk.

 

I still believe that the sheer volume of damage concentrated in such a small area should overwhelm the self-sealing properties. Forgetting that, in reality, the entire fuselage in that area would no longer exist at all; just going by game's damage model properties, the tank should have been pierced many, many times.

 

I have noticed that it's fairly easy (relatively speaking) to start a wing tank, for example (on any plane), on fire after it has already begun to leak. Even with lowly .30 cals.

 

So if you imagine the amount of shrapnel that must've passed through the Mustang's fuel tank with all those concurrent strikes, coupled with the nearby explosive effects of the HE... I just don't see a way around it.

 

Rather, my explanation is that something in the fuselage must be unnaturally deflecting or absorbing much of the shrapnel damage from the shells, and the fuel tank wasn't hit nearly as hard enough as it should have been.

 

15 hours ago, =RS=Haart said:

This was a general comment on how I personally perceive the application of the DVD system, not gospel word, if you allow yourself some outside the box thinking it makes sense as the general structure of things remains the same, I can punch a hole through a house wall where there is no stud and there be no damage, but where there is a stud there will be structural damage. The same applies to the game models, if there is damage, the sticker will be applied for immersion. 

 

Unfortunately this isn't true in my experience. You can hit the damage model's 'joint' or 'seam' where the fuselage can be broken from the tail, directly with multiple cannon strikes, and it still never breaks apart in mid-air. It's my understanding that this wasn't always the case; the latest version of the damage model apparently made these areas nigh indestructible, which is the foundation of my theory that indestructible areas are causing massive discrepancies in damage outputs.

 

Even engine areas can take direct 30mm HE strikes and survive:

 

 

And cockpits:

 

 

So, when I see the above examples, and I hear people claim that HE effects are too strong, over too wide of an area, I think... why do HE effects seem so underwhelming in these (not infrequent) instances? In both cases above, the pilot and engine were unaffected.

 

Once again, I feel it's because of the damage model. The flaw is in how the plane receives damage, not in the ammunition itself.

 

15 hours ago, =RS=Haart said:

Talking of survivor bias and fighter aircraft taking hits from 30mm cannon, I have seen several photos of aircraft such as spitfires, mustangs, and thunderbolts (like the one above) returning with holes caused by either what appears to be 30mm flak or aerial gunnery. One comes to mind of a P-47 with a large hole in the wing near the ammunition compartment, however in no way am I suggesting that they can simply be shrugged off.

 

I'll accept a fighter-sized plane being able to survive 1 30mm hit. 2 hits is unlikely but possible. Anything over 3 hits, and you're entering the realm of astronomically low odds. So if we have a damage model that can absorb direct 30mm hits to critical areas, and multiple hits to less critical areas, I think those results speak for themselves.

 

20 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

yes, we already came up with a possible explanation: relying on AI behavior after hits is not a substitute for actual pilot reports after a hit. someone else even mentioned how it added variables you can account for.

 

No, that's not an explanation for planes taking multiple 30-37mm HE strikes. No one's tackled that problem with a credible explanation yet. No one will be able to, because it obviously defies real-world data and common sense.

 

Just like planes taking ~100 AP hits also defies common sense.

 

You're willing to accept the blatant wrongness of an airplane being unaffected by 100 AP strikes, but you're totally unwilling to admit that HE can underperform just as spectacularly, even when I show numerous examples of it being grossly inadequate depending on hit locations. I can't really emphasize that last point enough.

 

20 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

It may be a complex set of problems, but, it seems pretty evident what needs to be done. you even said it. Buff AP and Nerf HE. it seems the new damage model system is only 3/4 baked.

 

Okay, then I can look forward to things like this happening all the time, instead of a lot of the time:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I'd already hit the Yak with several 20mm HE prior to starting this recording. But just in the observable hits, you can see the belly, tail, and wing root areas are simply eating 20mm HE hits like nothing.

 

When the plane lurches near the end of the clip? That's because the pilot died. Since the HE hits were clearly doing nothing, it was most likely an AP 20mm shot that killed him.

 

So, yeah, I definitely want HE nerfed so I can put 30, maybe 40, 20mm shots into a Yak's belly at point blank range to score a kill. I think that would help the sim's realism immensely.

 

Notice the striking similarity in the above clip with .50 AP performance? Hitting multiple times to no effect, because the damage model has decided that nothing 'critical' is being hit? It took the pilot kill to finally bring it down. Just like it would with .50 AP.

Edited August 15, 2021 by oc2209
Unwanted post merge.

[oc2209]

19 hours ago, Denum said:

The fact he thinks after 9 hits that Mustang was going home or capable of fighting still just warms the cockles of my heart. 

 

 

Yeah, I'm really that dimwitted. Once again, for those with no reading comprehension: the point wasn't whether he crashed or died from 9 hits; the point is that the plane didn't break in half or explode, or even catch on fire.

 

Why don't you try presenting a legitimate argument rather than trying to score cheap likes with cheap digs, or talking about how everyone and their mother is jumping ship to DCS?

 

Here, this is something in the debate community we call 'evidence':

 

Spoiler

 

 

The P-51 was still flyable, the pilot wasn't dead, after 4x30mm HE strikes.

 

Or how about this one, with 37mm HE:

 

Spoiler

 

 

He was alive and kicking after 5 hits.

 

Can't wait to hear the comedy gold you turn this into. You're so funny.

[Denum]

Strange you're so focused on the 30mm, which on average in game with our actual stats and data with real players, not just a handful of screenshots against AI, will give you a kill with a single shell 60% of the time.

 

That's pretty good odds, and lines up real stinking close to any historical information.

 

 

HE is over modelled in many situations. The splash damage is enormous with enough force to physically throw aircraft around on the ground.

 A single 20mm is enough to cripple the majority of allied aircraft. Using AI as a metric is quite possibly the most inaccurate way of measuring damage effectively. 

 

This isn't a plane issue. It's an ordinance issue. 

 

The P51 WILL NOT SHEAR THE TAIL without some form of lateral input from the rudder. If the AI doesn't use it because it's damaged, it will not come off. This also applies to the supposed 109 tail fix. They're still flying black holes soaking up multiple rounds.

 

 

 

Mk108 HE wouldn't penetrate the engine the same as AP.

 

I doubt hitting an aircraft in its strongest area with something that has as low of penetration as HE would yield much damage VS hitting the wings.

 

 

 

Can't wait to hear the comedy gold you turn this into. You're so funny.

 

 

Oh I'm really funny. But believe me. Your screenshot slide shows are funnier. ? 

 

 

Try flying the P51 after 5 HE hits and get it home. Would love to see it.

 

 

Oh and seeing entire squadrons of online guys jump ship to other platforms is a big deal to me.

 

That's the community I care about. The single player guys hardly notice changes in game because the AI easy to fight. Predictable and makes the player feel "good". 

 

Singleplayer is easy to please. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Denum

[oc2209]

34 minutes ago, Denum said:

Strange you're so focused on the 30mm, which on average in game with our actual stats and data, not just a handful of screenshots, will give you a kill with a single shell 60% of the time. That's pretty good odds.

 

You're saying a 60% 1-hit-per-kill rate is too high? That means 40% take 2 or more. That sounds remarkably generous based on what we know of 30mm performance. How is this at all different from the online data that shows X percentage of .50 AP kills taking over 50 hits?

 

40% requiring another hit, or more, sounds like underperformance to me.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"Testing verified that the autocannon was well suited to this role, requiring on average just 4 hits with its 85g RDX-load (in a 330g shell) and a resulting strongly brisant high-explosive ammunition, to bring down a heavy bomber such as a B-17 Flying Fortress or B-24 Liberator, and just a single "shattering" hit to down a fighter. In comparison, the otherwise excellent 20 mm MG 151/20 (18g of HE in a 92g shell) required about 15-20 hits to down a B-17."

 

Russian sources also state that a 37mm HE round typically downs a fighter in one hit. There are always exceptions, but a 40% failure rate to get it done in one shot seems, as I said, generous.

 

If your online data showed a 90% 1-shot rate, I would say that sounds a little too high. Not 60%.

 

So I'm not sure what you intended to prove by posting that.

 

34 minutes ago, Denum said:

A single 20mm is enough to cripple the majority of allied aircraft. Using AI as a metric is quite possibly the most inaccurate way of measuring damage effectively. 

 

*In multiplayer situations only.

 

34 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

Mk108 HE wouldn't penetrate the engine the same as AP.

 

Okay. So, planes can take direct 30mm HE hits to the engine and suffer zero damage. I guess that location also wouldn't have any oil to be set on fire or anything like that, either. Okay.

 

34 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

The P51 WILL NOT SHEAR THE TAIL without some form of lateral input from the rudder. If the AI doesn't use it because it's damaged, it will not come off.

 

The tail will never or almost never (I've never witnessed it) break off at the fuselage joint. No matter the inputs.

 

34 minutes ago, Denum said:

Try flying the P51 after 5 HE hits and get it home. Would love to see it.

 

In my clip, it was 4 hits for that instance. It only spun out of control after the pilot was wounded from 3 more hits. The pilot wasn't dead. The plane didn't explode. Nothing broke off aside from the flaps.

 

Given that in real life, the P-51 would no longer exist, and be floating down to earth as metal confetti after taking between 4 and 7x30mm hits... while in the game it's still flyable at least in a straight line after 4 hits...

 

I again don't see what you're arguing here.

 

Quote

The single player guys hardly notice changes in game because the AI easy to fight. Predictable and makes the player feel "good". 

 

Singleplayer is easy to please. 

 

I get that you're really trying, desperately, to insult my manhood by saying I can't compete in multiplayer. I get that you want to demean my single player experiences, and by extension, everyone else who enjoys using the single player elements of the game.

 

I get that. It makes you feel good to demean people.

 

And you also want to nerf HE so you can lord it over your online enemies, and feel better than them, instead of having them feel better than you for being able to cripple you with 1x20mm HE hit. I get that you take this all very, very personally.

 

Out of curiosity: how many 20mm HE hits would you prefer to take without losing any speed or handling? 5 hits? 10?

 

Tell us what's fair and right for the multiplayer community.

Edited August 15, 2021 by oc2209

[Denum]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

You're saying a 60% 1-hit-per-kill rate is too high? That means 40% take 2 or more. That sounds remarkably generous based on what we know of 30mm performance. How is this at all different from the online data that shows X percentage of .50 AP kills taking over 50 hits?

 

40% requiring another hit, or more, sounds like underperformance to me.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"Testing verified that the autocannon was well suited to this role, requiring on average just 4 hits with its 85g RDX-load (in a 330g shell) and a resulting strongly brisant high-explosive ammunition, to bring down a heavy bomber such as a B-17 Flying Fortress or B-24 Liberator, and just a single "shattering" hit to down a fighter. In comparison, the otherwise excellent 20 mm MG 151/20 (18g of HE in a 92g shell) required about 15-20 hits to down a B-17."

 

Russian sources also state that a 37mm HE round typically downs a fighter in one hit. There are always exceptions, but a 40% failure rate to get it done in one shot seems, as I said, generous.

 

If your online data showed a 90% 1-shot rate, I would say that sounds a little too high. Not 60%.

 

So I'm not sure what you intended to prove by posting that.

That simply means anything after that 60% you were potentially hit a second time.

 

 

It is a "shattering" hit. Your aircraft is not capable of fighting. Again. Stop shooting AI and find out for yourself. The AI is capable of holding exact inputs for extended periods of time. Human players aren't not capable of it. 

 

Fine line between fun game play and rivet counting here. The MK108 is wildly effective in most situations. The issue is the MG151s overperforming. But please, prattle on about how you don't get your Hollywood sized explosion from a single shot. 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

*In multiplayer situations only.

The only relevant metric to use. Yes. Refer to comment above. Yes the AI can keep control better then humans. Color me surprised.... 

 

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

The tail will never or almost never (I've never witnessed it) break off at the fuselage joint. No matter the inputs.

Minor. Frankly I don't care. The 109 had a iron tail for years. At this point its safe to assume there maybe other issues with aircraft.

I've yet to see any guncam footage showing the rear portion of the fuselage coming away from aircraft also. 

 

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

In my clip, it was 4 hits for that instance. It only spun out of control after the pilot was wounded from 3 more hits. The pilot wasn't dead. The plane didn't explode. Nothing broke off aside from the flaps.

 

Given that in real life, the P-51 would no longer exist, and be floating down to earth as metal confetti after taking between 4 and 7x30mm hits... while in the game it's still flyable at least in a straight line after 4 hits...

 

I again don't see what you're arguing here.

Nah you're right, not like there's tons of examples of aircraft returning home after collisions, bombs and 88mm hits. This isn't Hollywood. 

 

 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

I get that you're really trying, desperately, to insult my manhood by saying I can't compete in multiplayer. I get that you want to demean my single player experiences, and by extension, everyone else who enjoys using the single player elements of the game.

 

I get that. It makes you feel good to demean people.

 

And you also want to nerf HE so you can lord it over your online enemies, and feel better than them, instead of having them feel better than you for being able to cripple you with 1x20mm HE hit. I get that you take this all very, very personally.

 

Out of curiosity: how many 20mm HE hits would you prefer to take without losing any speed or handling? 5 hits? 10?

 

Tell us what's fair and right for the multiplayer community.

 

Not going to even address that first point because you're projecting your own insecurities there. 

You don't need to worry about balance in single player because it doesn't matter if the .50s suck or if the HE is too strong. You just roll the difficultly level down and the player is happy. 

You can't do that in multiplayer. So if one nation has wildly overperforming weapons vs one that's basically shooting training ammo, it's going to cause a ton of issues. The skill level difference between American and Axis aircraft is staggering. It needs to be addressed. 


The speed loss wouldn't be an issue if axis aircraft lost the same speed as allied. There's a reason Axis is so popular. They're insanely easy to use. Require very little skill and even if your aim is dumpster levels of crap you will still do reasonable well because 
A- Your weapons do significantly more damage

B- Your air frame is better at taking damage and you don't lose nearly the same level of speed and control 

C-On the G6 and up you get non-historical ammo belts. While Russian and American aircraft get what's essentially ball ammunition.

 

If a single 20mm is enough to end the fight then 3 or 4 20mm AP should be capable of doing the same. 30 .50s should do the same. 


Until you start actually flying the damaged aircraft, you have literally zero, and I mean ZERO idea what's going on after those hits. 

[354thFG_Panda_]

What would be great to see in future is the same statistical effectiveness of the current HE performance but the consequences are not from pure harsh aerodynamic reasons.

 

For example if a 30mm shell hits a Spitfires Vs wing where the radiator is, it is safe to say that the radiator is completely popped/damaged or non existent. The aircraft is pretty much out of the fight or even functioning after a few minutes.

This type of specific zone damage which is highly consequential (and varied across armaments) would really add to the gameplay and realism. With the introduction of more aircraft systems failures it would make downing aircraft more consistent. The current systems seem to lack in damage consequences as well as variety.

 

In terms of aerodynamic damage the assumptions need to be reviewed once more for what type of hole(s) damage the armaments cause and where it happens on the wing(towards leading edge, trailing edge and span distance)which impact the lifting capabilities and moments. Currently any hit from a HE shell like a Hispano 20mm to the wing tip region of a 109 will make it so stiff to control regardless of where it was on that wing tip panel region, leading edge, trailing edge etc... It ends up being a super dive into the ground with no roll and no pitch up like there is no lift in one wing.

 

It is suspicious currently with 13mm HE performance currently outdoing AP 50cals in aerodynamic damage in very bold ratios 1:50~80 (as tested in other threads) in this regard despite it being a surface detonating (generally no loss of wing area but maybe towards the back trailing edge it could lose some) ~1.5g explosive and 20mm from the many pictures available online produce approximately +-300mm holes ballpark with ~20g HE Mine-shell (this one even has a delay charge so the bottom of the wing potentially develops a hole leading to a loss in area).

(Simplified):

Lift = Wing Lift + Tail Lift (generally negative)

Lift = 0.5 * density * wing area * Velocity^2 * Coefficient Lift 3D

If we assume 12.7mm cut clean straight holes(may be bigger measuring flat against the wing surface due to the angle), an entrance and exit from behind dead 6 position and penetration occurs we have created a region in the wing where the high pressure underside surface flow leaks into the low pressure region above skin surface. Unfortunately many spars ribs are cut with holes, trussed and framed to save weight of an aircraft so flow can circulate inside and allow this phenomenon. If we were to go into more detail the positioning of the entrance and exit could alter the results further for better or worse. A wing area loss of 12.7mm may not be big but the geometric changes to the airfoil would definitely alter CL CM and CD.

You can see how the ratio of HE 13mm which has about ~8% the filler of something that produces consistently ~300mm and with a delay charge is greatly exaggerated and maybe even extreme.... Also will planes with thicker wings reduce the chances of having a hole above and below even with shells with a delay charge? Maybe research needed for this....

 

You can see with all these implications thoughts and nuances it can provide a more complete experience which is more consistent and less extreme.

 

Another thing to add is more types of failures to other systems (like hydraulics damage and consequences etc...) which we see in other Sims modelling like CloD which is one of its strengths. All of this will probably arrive along the way with updates as the team finds something and starts hacking away at it delivering us content. 

 

I fully understand that this brings even more complexity, time, patience and Alcohol intake for Jason but I don't think it is as simple as NERF HE or BUFF AP. How do we physically model these things in code with the best assumptions possible? Maybe the developers could settle for HE hits from the mid chord but certainly whether the HE hit type varies, has a delay charge etc.... Is it wrong to purely focus or statistical approach with the damage output sets we have or implement new methods and standards to produce those goals instead. Maybe combine both with assumptions))) We must wait patiently for the future. 

 

Panda

Edited August 16, 2021 by LR.TheRedPanda

[=RS=Haart]

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Unfortunately this isn't true in my experience. You can hit the damage model's 'joint' or 'seam' where the fuselage can be broken from the tail, directly with multiple cannon strikes, and it still never breaks apart in mid-air. It's my understanding that this wasn't always the case; the latest version of the damage model apparently made these areas nigh indestructible, which is the foundation of my theory that indestructible areas are causing massive discrepancies in damage outputs.

 

Even engine areas can take direct 30mm HE strikes and survive:

 

 

And cockpits:

 

 

So, when I see the above examples, and I hear people claim that HE effects are too strong, over too wide of an area, I think... why do HE effects seem so underwhelming in these (not infrequent) instances? In both cases above, the pilot and engine were unaffected.

 

Once again, I feel it's because of the damage model. The flaw is in how the plane receives damage, not in the ammunition itself.

Indeed, that's why if we could get some clarification on the spread pattern of ingame frag from the Devs would be helpful, that pattern from iL2 1946 is about the only thing I've ever seen on the topic of frag pattern. The DM of the game seems to be for lack of a better term, hit and miss, depending on individual experience. That's why I'm searching for anything regarding the 30x113B HE frag patterns if they exist as the round looks similar in composition minus the modern explosive filler. Hopefully, with the upcoming changes to the fuel system etc. we'll see more component damage. Perhaps the mineshells need to be modelled as an APHE shell for the game to make more sense of the apparent fuse they had instead of a contact explosion. 

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, Denum said:

The AI is capable of holding exact inputs for extended periods of time. Human players aren't not capable of it.

 

The only relevant metric to use. Yes. Refer to comment above. Yes the AI can keep control better then humans. Color me surprised....

 

Oh, this is an interesting development.

 

So now you're saying the AI can keep better control of a plane than people... yet, my theory that HE shot placement matters more than HE damage itself, where I show examples like this: 

 

Spoiler

 

 

11x12.7mm HE strikes to the wing root doesn't cause the AI to crash, but one mid-wing HE hit does cause it to crash.

 

The AI, which according to what you just said, can control a damaged/crippled airplane better than any human--that same AI still crashes from 1 HE 12.7mm strike, depending entirely on where the strike occurs.

 

Yet, I'm not supposed to infer from any of the above that the flight or damage model is possibly creating problems regarding HE strikes, more than HE simply causing too much damage.

 

4 hours ago, Denum said:

But please, prattle on about how you don't get your Hollywood sized explosion from a single shot. 

 

 

Fighters taking more 30mm punches than bombers is very Hollywood, you're right. That's exactly what I want.

 

If you weren't so bitter from bad multiplayer experiences (for the record, you can grow to hate any game for its multiplayer mechanics and the failings thereof--which is the reason I stopped doing multiplayer years ago), you would see that what I want is a more realistic damage model for everyone who plays the game. I want things like the above screenshot to happen less often--you want them to happen more often, solely because that suits your personal multiplayer needs.

 

4 hours ago, Denum said:

Minor. Frankly I don't care. The 109 had a iron tail for years. At this point its safe to assume there maybe other issues with aircraft.

 

I see. So sim realism only matters when it affects your online K/D. Otherwise, who cares? Thanks for making that very clear, yet again.

 

4 hours ago, Denum said:

Not going to even address that first point because you're projecting your own insecurities there. 

 

Oh, that's rich. You get to blatantly insult me (not the first time, by the way) about my lesser-than single player status, how inferior my skillz are to yours, and then you act like I have a problem for noticing that you just insulted me?

 

Christ. That's low. At least admit you insulted me.

 

4 hours ago, Denum said:

You don't need to worry about balance in single player because it doesn't matter if the .50s suck or if the HE is too strong. You just roll the difficultly level down and the player is happy.

 

What if I don't 'roll it down?'

 

Did that... ever occur to you?

 

So, as a lowly single player, I don't need or desire realism in the sim. I just change my difficulty. Says you.

 

Just your use of the word 'balance' is so obviously a gamer mentality.

 

4 hours ago, Denum said:

There's a reason Axis is so popular. They're insanely easy to use. Require very little skill and even if your aim is dumpster levels of crap you will still do reasonable well

 

I see a lot of petty insults here, for once aimed at people other than me (since I'm a lowly single player), but I wonder why you feel the need to insult people who aren't even participating in this conversation?

 

4 hours ago, Denum said:

If a single 20mm is enough to end the fight then 3 or 4 20mm AP should be capable of doing the same. 30 .50s should do the same.

 

You finally managed to say something we can both agree on.

 

Maybe we should just end it there, eh?

 

4 hours ago, LR.TheRedPanda said:

I fully understand that this brings even more complexity, time, patience and Alcohol intake for Jason but I don't think it is as simple as NERF HE or BUFF AP. How do we physically model these things in code with the best assumptions possible? Maybe the developers could settle for HE hits from the mid chord but certainly whether the HE hit type varies, has a delay charge etc.... Is it wrong to purely focus or statistical approach with the damage output sets we have or implement new methods and standards to produce those goals instead. Maybe combine both with assumptions))) We must wait patiently for the future. 

 

Panda

 

Thank you for this reasonable assessment. That's all I'm looking for here; a measured approach to solving the realism issues.

 

2 hours ago, =RS=Haart said:

Hopefully, with the upcoming changes to the fuel system etc. we'll see more component damage. Perhaps the mineshells need to be modelled as an APHE shell for the game to make more sense of the apparent fuse they had instead of a contact explosion. 

 

More components to be damaged would go a long way in preventing many of the apparent 'dead space' hits we see.

 

The rear fuselage will likely remain an HE-sink. I don't see many ways to fix that particular issue; but it can be worked around in most cases.

Edited August 16, 2021 by oc2209
Merged post.

[Denum]

Until you're actively taking this info from the receiving end I'm not discussing this with you, that's how I'm ending it. 

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by Denum

[Panzerlang]

I'm minded of the B17 that had its rear fuselage almost entirely severed by a 109's wing. It wasn't until it landed that the structure failed, the airflow while still airborne kept it working.
So HE rounds going off in 'dead space', blowing out big jagged areas of aluminium. They'll affect the airflow, might even catch it and cause bigger areas to peel back or tear completely off. None of that is visually modelled but I guess it's coded to some degree, as experienced with planes becoming unstable after taking hits. But yes, the DM is incredibly simplistic, practically arcade. I've seen one 20mm hit on a wingtip result in a sudden stream of five or six flows of white and green smoke from both wings. Talk about an immersion killer. Do we ever see an undercarriage leg drop down? Nope, that's CoD exellence that BoX doesn't match. But it is what it is and with that reality in mind I think we're flogging a dead horse down to the bones with all this debate about the effects of munitions on airplanes. I guess it matters a whole lot more in the E-Sport that is MP but in SP not so much. I can shoot down up to seven planes in one mission so I guess my munitions are working and I've read the AARs of allied pilots who have done the same in SP.

Human nature...no matter what we have, we want more and better. I would hugely enjoy BoX having CoD DMs but it ain't going to happen in the forseeable. I learned long ago that progress with BoX, if it happens at all in a given area, is glacial. So suck it up or move to a different sim I guess.

[Alexmarine]

13 hours ago, Denum said:

I kick myself for being so quick to preorder Normandy knowing I was unhappy with certain things in the game. 

 

 

 

Same but since Bodenplatte, didn't made the same mistake with Normandy, the switch to the Western Front kinda highlited some of the engine shortcomings ngl

[Panzerlang]

On the flip-side, regard the physiology modelling and pilot injury stuff. Truly sublime (without getting into yet another area of debate re blackout limits etc). I don't know of any other sim that comes even close to what BoX delivers there.

Then the in-cockpit smoke and fire effects. OMG! Lol.

Re the DM...when you look out your window and see this:

 

You should be imagining this and worse:

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by Hetzer-JG51

[Alexmarine]

8 minutes ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

On the flip-side, regard the physiology modelling and pilot injury stuff. Truly sublime (without getting into yet another area of debate re blackout limits etc). I don't know of any other sim that comes even close to what BoX delivers there.

Then the in-cockpit smoke and fire effects. OMG! Lol.

Re the DM...when you look out your window and see this:

 

You should be imagining this and worse:

 

Negative G and some G pulling effects need some work though but the system overall works, especially the injury system

[Panzerlang]

Just now, Alexmarine said:

Negative G and some G pulling effects need some work though but the system overall works, especially the injury system

I imagine in RL there were pilots who said of the G-Suits "OMG, awesome kit!" while a percentage of others said "These suck". 

No matter what the devs do there will be a similar scenario. Perfection will never be achieved, anymore than RL pilot physiology is equal across the board.

I recall reading in one of my WW1 pilot books a famous allied pilot mentioning how "A tiny number of pilots have the ability to 'manually' equalise their eustachian tubes". Which, funnily enough, I can do too. ?

Interesting stuff. 25mm and 30mm cannon against a far sturdier structure (patrol boat with 1/8th inch alu hull).
 

 

[Denum]

10 hours ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

Human nature...no matter what we have, we want more and better. I would hugely enjoy BoX having CoD DMs but it ain't going to happen in the forseeable. I learned long ago that progress with BoX, if it happens at all in a given area, is glacial. So suck it up or move to a different sim I guess.

Judging by the squad tag, I'd assume you fly plenty of Axis which the current game DM benefits heavily. Of course you're fine with it.

 

That's not a bad thing, it's just you're least effected from it, so it's easy to say it's ok. 

 

You're not on the receiving end. 

 

Mid war allied on Finnish we are out numbered 2 to 1 usually with poor guns. It's difficult to even have fun because you're getting chased down by A3s and G2s that basically shrug off your Shvak 20mms with ease. The only other option is the Hurricane (which is very slow at this point) or the spitfire MKV which the A3 kinda memes on (as it should, it did historically also)

 

The fact of the matter is these are very simple issues to atleast make a temporary fix for. 

 

They had time to fix the Axis AA shells, found time to look into the Typhoon FM while the Tempest remains a UFO? Like come on. Surely we are not that gullible.

 

 

They are quickly becoming a content factory and the technical debt is growing. I fear some of this may not be fixed for a very long time.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Denum

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Denum said:

Judging by the squad tag, I'd assume you fly plenty of Axis which the current game DM benefits heavily. Of course you're fine with it.

 

That's not a bad thing, it's just you're least effected from it, so it's easy to say it's ok.

 

I'll have to remember this the next time I get 7 kills in a P-38 sortie.

 

You keep telling me I need to experience multiplayer to have a proper perspective; why don't you lower yourself to do some single player combat and see the game from that end?

 

It's not like you enjoy multiplayer anymore, as you keep reminding everyone. How bad could single player be? What's stopping you from playing it?

 

See how far you get in an iron man career with max difficulty in both AI and realism settings (I'm talking about the base game here, not PWCG or mods). The challenge is decent enough, and you might learn something.

 

Just a thought.

 

For the record, in my limited multiplayer experience in this sim, I flew a 109G-14, a 190D, a Spit IX, and a Tempest (each for 1-2 sorties). The only time I lived long enough to get guns on target was in the Spit, on two different occasions. In the 109, I was dropped by Mustangs twice with wing hits while I was turning. In the 190, I was hit by a P-38 that boom/zoomed me and I was in no condition to chase him; I force landed. In the Spit, I hit a 190A-8 pretty hard (not hard enough, because my gunnery was pure shit at the time) and I also hit a Bf-110 on another occasion. In the Tempest, I stupidly allowed a 109 to hit me in a head-on pass that I easily could have avoided had I reacted faster.

 

I have no desire to put the time in to improve my tactics and reactions against human opponents. I've done the multiplayer scene, from Rainbow Six to World of Tanks to EVE Online. I've been competitive. I don't care to compete anymore. If I have X amount of time to play the game, I want to do it my way, not in the multiplayer jumble, which involves a lot of 'hurry up and wait' moments.

Edited August 16, 2021 by oc2209

[Denum]

I use single player QMB to practice deflection shooting and evasion tactics just about everyday.

 

 

AI on ace, 4 v 2 usually, I tried the 4 v 1 but that's just to many guns on you at any given time if you're in a lower performance aircraft. It ends up just being a ton of dodging and a few snap shots here and there.

If I use the 190 or Tempest I can sometimes manage the 4 v 1 as you basically delete everything you shoot at. So I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do? There's nothing to really learn here. 

 

 

 

I generally put myself at a disadvantage also, enemy head on with altitude advantage or I'll do G6s vs me in a P40. 

 

 

I've played the campaign. I fly to a mission target zone, watch my wingmen either crash or get murdered. Score a few kills and fly home. Rinse and repeat. It's no fun. There's no interaction, no cooperation from your squad and you're basically trying to shoot down as many AI as possible so they don't completely kill your squadron. Half the time they don't follow orders either. 

 

 

 

Hence why I prefer multiplayer. I can play with other people. Face enemies that I can't make overshoot at will. I actually have to be sneaky. 

 

But when the damage model is out of whack that you're constantly stuck playing this 

 

Seems to me something is wrong and it should be dealt with.

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by Denum

[[DBS]TH0R]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

You keep telling me I need to experience multiplayer to have a proper perspective; why don't you lower yourself to do some single player combat and see the game from that end?

 

It's not like you enjoy multiplayer anymore, as you keep reminding everyone. How bad could single player be? What's stopping you from playing it?

 

See how far you get in an iron man career with max difficulty in both AI and realism settings (I'm talking about the base game here, not PWCG or mods). The challenge is decent enough, and you might learn something.

 

Just a thought.

 

Just FYI: for MP guys, SP is mostly used as gunnery training (like Denum said). Once you taste combat vs. an opponent that thinks, acts, and actually is human - no AI will ever substitute that. At least not in 2021.

 

This is not saying SP is bad in any way. It does have its merits, but it is like comparing apples and oranges really...

[BCI-Nazgul]

3 hours ago, oc2209 said:

You keep telling me I need to experience multiplayer to have a proper perspective; why don't you lower yourself to do some single player combat and see the game from that end?

 

For the record, in my limited multiplayer experience in this sim

 

I have no desire to put the time in to improve my tactics and reactions against human opponents

Then you have no idea of the frustration of dealing with the current DM and gunnery setup.   You can beat the AI so easily with anything that the weapon effectiveness is far less critical than it is against real opponents.  If anything, you should be happy the online community has found issues and wants them fixed because it will benefit the game all around.

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Denum said:

I've played the campaign. I fly to a mission target zone, watch my wingmen either crash or get murdered. Score a few kills and fly home. Rinse and repeat. It's no fun. There's no interaction, no cooperation from your squad and you're basically trying to shoot down as many AI as possible so they don't completely kill your squadron. Half the time they don't follow orders either.

 

If you've tried career mode lately (since the AI improvements--it does act a little differently in career sorties than it does in QMB), then that's fair enough.

 

However, when you say that I need to be on the receiving end of cannon fire, you're forgetting that when the AI hits me, the effects are no different than if a human would. Just in a few 8v8 QMBs today, I had the following things happen:

 

 

I didn't bother circling it because I think it's obvious enough: the DVD hole is a 20mm HE, on the leading edge of my wing.

 

I was able to turn alright on this side, but when I began to turn on the other side (the damaged wing closer to the ground), the drag effect was very noticeable.

 

Which doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know from all the times I shot down AI from one wing hit. As I've said, the closer you get to the wing tip, the more pronounced the drag effects seem to be.

 

In another fight I didn't take a screen of, I got a 20mm HE hit tucked under my right elevator. I didn't notice it much during regular movement, but when I entered a loop, I fell into a spin (fuel load was well under 50%, so it wasn't from that).

 

In the following screen, I was hit 3 times:

 

 

The 2 tail hits are 13mm HE from a 109. Despite the fact that, based on the old visual damage indicators, the tail looks just as shredded from 2x13mm HE hits as it does from 1x20mm HE; I didn't notice any real loss of stability here (in subsequent full dogfighting maneuvers). Also took an AP 20mm through the fuselage, which evidently damaged my engine, but not in an appreciable way for the duration of the battle.

 

2 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Once you taste combat vs. an opponent that thinks, acts, and actually is human - no AI will ever substitute that.

 

Of course AI can't compare to human behavior. I wasn't implying that it could. However, what I am saying, is that AI poses a different kind of challenge that can still be entertaining. Is AI equal in complexity to a human opponent? No. Is it still satisfying to defeat AI? It can be. Depending on how you want to look at it.

 

If the multiplayer aspect of the sim is so frustrating, then you can either try to play a different part of the sim, or move on. I'm not saying that in a dismissive, 'don't let the door hit you on the way out' kind of way. I'm just saying those are the options until comprehensive change occurs.

 

Getting increasingly negative about the lack of change isn't going to force an immediate reaction from the devs, nor will it make the forum a very pleasant place when these issues are brought up.

 

35 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Then you have no idea of the frustration of dealing with the current DM and gunnery setup.   You can beat the AI so easily with anything that the weapon effectiveness is far less critical than it is against real opponents.  If anything, you should be happy the online community has found issues and wants them fixed because it will benefit the game all around.

 

I get what you're saying, but I personally wouldn't benefit much from enhanced AP .50s. In the above 8v8 QMBs I mentioned, I got 3-4 kills per battle. That's all anyone can reasonably expect from 6x.50s (wing mounted).

 

The P-38 is easier to score 5+ kills in because of its nose-mounted guns. I would actually prefer it had 5 or 6 .50s instead of 4x.50s and the cannon. A short burst of 6 nose-mounted .50s would be devastating, even with .50s being as inconsistent as the DM currently makes them.

Edited August 17, 2021 by oc2209