AP Fix

June 21, 2021

LOOK people GROW UP....

Its a game for crying out loud and NO MATTER the amount of diagrams and videos you can cut and paste from the internet the following things are here to stay:

1. The developer team will do what it wants to do.

2. Production is all on Normandy and Flying Circus 2. All else is unimportant to them.

3. If you want to have good performance from the 50 calibers you need to WORK THEM.

4. Working them means that ........ if you want AP for your 50 BMG you can do the following

1. Play the Lightning Strikes campaign from the game creators, those lightnings have 50 BMG AP ammunition.

2. Fly the planes in the single player game. THEY have improved the performance in Single Player TREMENDOUSLY with the latest update.

Yep, in the latest update the 50 BMG FMJ loadout we get is actually EFFECTIVE.... provided you can hit. Sure you can get random results. Some times it takes 100 rounds to make a A-20 engine turn into a fire ball. Other times I swear at .3 to .5 range i can walk the bullets from wingtip to wing tip right along the aileron's , engine pods, and fueselage, and it will suffer catostrophic damage.

NORMALLY ill blow off an aieleron and nothing more, other times ill get an aieleron to fly off AND get an engine pod burning.

Ive been playing with the tempest last few days and it is wonderful with the 50 bmg loadout. Spitfires not so much for some reason.

June 21, 2021

43 minutes ago, Denum said:

With the P51B/C coming that's armed with 4 .50s, there's going to a be a bit of community noise because the guns are truely that bad.

No doubt there will be complaints, but the real-world version must've been considered inadequate or they wouldn't have up-gunned it to the standard 6 .50s.

Hub Zemke said the P-51D's guns (so we're talking about 6 guns here, not 4) were "sufficient" as long as they were used under 250 yards and at less than 10 degrees deflection. Can you say how often those conditions are repeated in multiplayer? My guess: not many.

It's easy to (rightfully in some cases) pick apart the .50's performance in the sim, but let's not go overboard with expectations and condemnations.

June 21, 2021

50 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

No doubt there will be complaints, but the real-world version must've been considered inadequate or they wouldn't have up-gunned it to the standard 6 .50s.

Hub Zemke said the P-51D's guns (so we're talking about 6 guns here, not 4) were "sufficient" as long as they were used under 250 yards and at less than 10 degrees deflection. Can you say how often those conditions are repeated in multiplayer? My guess: not many.

It's easy to (rightfully in some cases) pick apart the .50's performance in the sim, but let's not go overboard with expectations and condemnations.

My coverage is set to 200 with MGs.

There's been plenty of sorties where someone caught 100+ rounds and lived.

Generally unless you score a PK right away there's a solid chance you're not getting the kill.

Someone is currently combing the stats to confirm that.

I think the adequate argument is somewhat flawed.

If better weapons or the possibility of shortening a fight was available. Everyone more or less went for bigger or more guns if it didn't adversely affect the aircraft performance.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Denum

June 21, 2021

I've learned to make my clips much shorter so they're faster to upload. I decided to see what the P-51 with only 4 guns will feel like, and the only way to do that right now is to use a modded P-47 with only 4 guns. I performed 2 tests. And no, I'm not picking the best of 10 tries. These were each done in one attempt.

Versus a Typhoon (so I could count the bullets that hit):

Spoiler

I hit the Typhoon about 28-30 times. Only the last burst in the cockpit area was what I'd call a good one. You can well imagine that shooting from further out would rapidly cause the number of ineffectual "peppering" hits to rise.

The second test was against a Fw-190A-6:

Spoiler

Again, I fired as Hub Zemke described. Little deflection, close up. The results speak for themselves. The difference is, against a human pilot in multiplayer, they'd be jinking a hell of lot more than the AI here. And more than 99% of actual Luftwaffe pilots in 1944-45.

Meaning the end result is that .50s in this sim will feel a lot more worthless than they felt in actual combat, because you're much, much less likely to get a good concentration of hits.

By the way, my total rounds expended in the first clip was 312, second clip, 292. Not great, not horrible, as gunnery goes.

June 21, 2021

What exactly are you trying to establish here?

We have all of that data. We have hit averages, aircraft survival and aircraft lethality ratings.

Averages are already substantially higher then anything indicated from any war time documentation.

I can make the 4x .50s work in single player also. The AI gives up much more easily then a human opponent. In some cases I've tapped aircraft in QMB and watched them just fall from the sky. It's not a reliable test. I'd have you do 10 runs and see what your take is from there.

I've had several occasions while flying German where I had been taking hits from enemy planes and didn't know for a few seconds.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Denum

June 21, 2021

21 minutes ago, Denum said:

What exactly are you trying to establish here?

We have all of that data. We have hit averages, aircraft survival and aircraft lethality ratings.

Averages are already substantially higher then anything indicated from any war time documentation.

That... is my point. I said it above.

Because the competency of pilots in the sim is far and away greater than the competency of the average Luftwaffe pilot, and because, even with the new G-model, let's be honest, virtual pilots can still push the limits of their planes far easier than real pilots could, all of that combines to make the .50's performance in this sim lackluster.

In my clips, you could see the 'glancing blows' that will not, unless you get very lucky, cause a fire or snap a control rod. Then you could see the concentration of strikes, and how that resulted in a pilot kill and a fire.

I'm saying that because sim pilots evade much better than the AI and real WWII pilots could, you will see, statistically, a lot more ineffectual glancing hits to non-critical areas. Which then inflates the number of hits it takes to score a kill, on average.

In WWII, most of the .50's kills were against unsuspecting targets. Most of all air-to-air kills were against unaware targets. That is 100% antithetical to how combat works in this sim.

I'm not saying .50s perform perfectly here. I'm saying whatever issues they have, are exaggerated tenfold by how people fly in the sim, versus how they flew in real life.

21 minutes ago, Denum said:

I've had several occasions while flying German where I had been taking hits from enemy planes and didn't know for a few seconds.

And the Russians added an extra 20mm to the La-7 because 2x20mm weren't good enough against armored late-war Fw-190s. So from that anecdote, I consider it within the realm of reason to not notice having your airframe ventilated with some AP .50 hits. There's no reason you're going to feel an AP .50 unless it hits you or breaks something.

Edited June 21, 2021 by oc2209

June 21, 2021

3 minutes ago, Denum said:

What exactly are you trying to establish here?

We have all of that data. We have hit averages, aircraft survival and aircraft lethality ratings.

Averages are already substantially higher then anything indicated from any war time documentation.

I can make the 4x .50s work in single player also. The AI gives up much more easily then a human opponent. In some cases I've tapped aircraft in QMB and watched them just fall from the sky. It's not a reliable test. I'd have you do 10 runs and see what your take is from there.

I've had several occasions while flying German where I had been taking hits from enemy planes and didn't know for a few seconds.

Unless you are flying with an external view set, you really are not going to KNOW you are taking rounds at all for some time.

Or what is getting hit.

The various noises that we hear when bullets hit dont always jive with the human brain over the engine noises, or noises that are played when a person pulls high G turns, etc.

Still proves NOTHING.

And you and your "simple tapping an aircraft in GMB" Proves nothing as well. Sadly, it just doesnt prove anything.

you can find gun cam footage from european and pacific theater that shows planes being killed in 100 round bursts, those seem to have gone right into fuel tanks and engines and cockpit canopy. While you WILL find gun site footage that shows planes taking half the planes ammunition load in 50 BMG because the rounds were all hitting in the wings and rear feuselage... ie not the "easy kill zone".

There have been times that I have flown the i-16 against the U,,, and have used standard machine gun load out, and have used 1,000 rounds into its wings and feuselage before i just gave up. And i have had the same issue when flying the Dr1 against that little plane. And even when flying the DR 1 against the brisfit, i have expended the entire 1,000 rounds of 8mm machine gun ammo and not killed a single brisfit... but at other times a lucky 20 round burst will take out the wing mounted fuel tank and the plane goes down in flames.

Ive gotten the same results in Blitz, the first time i went against a Walrus, i fired roughly 350 rounds of 8mm at it from half a mile. ONE bullet hit the engine pod making it blow into a fire ball, and that ONE bullet also killed the PILOT...

Thats what, .01 hit percentage but i killed the plane. By HITTING the most critical component zones.

Yet i have straffed various Walri and have pumped them with 4-500 at distances of 50 to 300 yards, pumping rounds at wings, fueselage, and engine, and never doing ANY critical damage or enough damage to get past the 50% stats at end of mission.

Half the problem is PERSONAL EXPECTATION doesnt match REALITY in anyway.

Sometimes 20 rounds between engine and fueselage into wing will take ANY plane out, other times it does nothing more then give that vapor trail of fuel.

Sometimes the big cannon on the p39 will take a plane out at a single hit, other times it will take 4 hits to just knock a piece of rudder off a b25.

Sometimes i can walk the wing from tip to tip with the 50 bmg in a tempest and it will turn the engines, at least one, into a fire ball and only use 200 rounds. Other times i can aim right into an engine and 200 rounds barely makes it smoke.

June 21, 2021

Again, we have data to back this all up.

This isn't from the seat of our pants.

I'd bring up how HE is over performing but that's another thread.

I would strongly suggest taking a few flights in MP and see exactly what we are talking about.

Fighting the AI will NOT provide you with the perspective required.

This isn't a bunch of people seeking an unfair advantage by getting overpowered guns.

By arguing against this it's counterproductive to the online communities health. Because you have to look really hard to find someone that flies allied routinely, and will say the .50s are fine.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Denum

June 21, 2021

27 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

No doubt there will be complaints, but the real-world version must've been considered inadequate or they wouldn't have up-gunned it to the standard 6 .50s.

Hub Zemke said the P-51D's guns (so we're talking about 6 guns here, not 4) were "sufficient" as long as they were used under 250 yards and at less than 10 degrees deflection. Can you say how often those conditions are repeated in multiplayer? My guess: not many.

It's easy to (rightfully in some cases) pick apart the .50's performance in the sim, but let's not go overboard with expectations and condemnations.

The 4 x .50 armament was certainly considered problematic - particularly due to jamming issues caused by the guns mounting arrangement. And yet the RAF (who had received some Mustangs with a 4 x 20mm armament in 1942, and were used to cannons in their Spits and Typhoons) used the Mustang III with great success, well into 1945. And in USAAF use from March through May of 1944, P-51B’s scored at 4 times the rate of their cohorts flying the 8 gun Thunderbolt.

4 x .50 in action. Lt. Thornell’s AAR. 650 rounds fired - if we assume 5% accuracy that would be about 32 hits. There’s only 10 or so visible API strikes on the film.

Bud Anderson’s famous climbing fight. His AAR. Maybe a dozen or so visible strikes from 529 fired.

And sometimes just a few hits in the right spot we’re enough.

Clearly .50s could destroy enemy aircraft and didn’t require hundreds of strikes to do so, as they sometimes do in game. In fact I demonstrated this issue in game, in single player (that it could sometimes take hundreds of hits to produce a kill with 50s even at point blank range) in a bug report a YEAR ago.

1 hour ago, pocketshaver said:

LOOK people GROW UP....

Its a game for crying out loud and NO MATTER the amount of diagrams and videos you can cut and paste from the internet the following things are here to stay:

1. The developer team will do what it wants to do.

2. Production is all on Normandy and Flying Circus 2. All else is unimportant to them.

3. If you want to have good performance from the 50 calibers you need to WORK THEM.

4. Working them means that ........ if you want AP for your 50 BMG you can do the following

1. Play the Lightning Strikes campaign from the game creators, those lightnings have 50 BMG AP ammunition.

2. Fly the planes in the single player game. THEY have improved the performance in Single Player TREMENDOUSLY with the latest update.

Yep, in the latest update the 50 BMG FMJ loadout we get is actually EFFECTIVE.... provided you can hit. Sure you can get random results. Some times it takes 100 rounds to make a A-20 engine turn into a fire ball. Other times I swear at .3 to .5 range i can walk the bullets from wingtip to wing tip right along the aileron's , engine pods, and fueselage, and it will suffer catostrophic damage.

NORMALLY ill blow off an aieleron and nothing more, other times ill get an aieleron to fly off AND get an engine pod burning.

Ive been playing with the tempest last few days and it is wonderful with the 50 bmg loadout. Spitfires not so much for some reason.

I find this attitude pretty amusing. I’ve bought a TON of content for this game that I had no intention of ever using. I’ve even bought copies to encourage others to start playing. I’m sure as hell not opening my wallet again for single player campaigns I’ll never play or gun trucks I’ll never use when there are major outstanding issues, that have been raised again and again for over a year now, that players have demonstrated can be quickly addressed (through mods).

June 21, 2021

5 minutes ago, Denum said:

Fighting the AI will NOT provide you with the perspective required.

The irony is that the AI performs more closely to real WWII pilots than online humans do.

I've a combat excerpt here from a Polish Mustang III pilot (P-51-B/C), where he fired on a completely oblivious 109 with a '3 second burst'.

3 seconds is a long time to fire, I just want to point out. Moving on.

His totally immobile target caught on fire. Then he came upon another unsuspecting 109, to which he also gave a 'long burst'.

'Strikes were seen in the cockpit and on the wings, glycol began to leak, and it was losing speed and height.'

His guns then jammed. He called his wingman in to finish off the 109, which he only managed to do with 2 more bursts.

I'm pretty sure most kills weren't achieved against targets pulling 5.5g and doing negative-G rolls.

June 21, 2021

14 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

Unless you are flying with an external view set, you really are not going to KNOW you are taking rounds at all for some time.

Or what is getting hit.

The various noises that we hear when bullets hit dont always jive with the human brain over the engine noises, or noises that are played when a person pulls high G turns, etc.

Still proves NOTHING.

And you and your "simple tapping an aircraft in GMB" Proves nothing as well. Sadly, it just doesnt prove anything.

you can find gun cam footage from european and pacific theater that shows planes being killed in 100 round bursts, those seem to have gone right into fuel tanks and engines and cockpit canopy. While you WILL find gun site footage that shows planes taking half the planes ammunition load in 50 BMG because the rounds were all hitting in the wings and rear feuselage... ie not the "easy kill zone".

There have been times that I have flown the i-16 against the U,,, and have used standard machine gun load out, and have used 1,000 rounds into its wings and feuselage before i just gave up. And i have had the same issue when flying the Dr1 against that little plane. And even when flying the DR 1 against the brisfit, i have expended the entire 1,000 rounds of 8mm machine gun ammo and not killed a single brisfit... but at other times a lucky 20 round burst will take out the wing mounted fuel tank and the plane goes down in flames.

Ive gotten the same results in Blitz, the first time i went against a Walrus, i fired roughly 350 rounds of 8mm at it from half a mile. ONE bullet hit the engine pod making it blow into a fire ball, and that ONE bullet also killed the PILOT...

Thats what, .01 hit percentage but i killed the plane. By HITTING the most critical component zones.

Yet i have straffed various Walri and have pumped them with 4-500 at distances of 50 to 300 yards, pumping rounds at wings, fueselage, and engine, and never doing ANY critical damage or enough damage to get past the 50% stats at end of mission.

Half the problem is PERSONAL EXPECTATION doesnt match REALITY in anyway.

Sometimes 20 rounds between engine and fueselage into wing will take ANY plane out, other times it does nothing more then give that vapor trail of fuel.

Sometimes the big cannon on the p39 will take a plane out at a single hit, other times it will take 4 hits to just knock a piece of rudder off a b25.

Sometimes i can walk the wing from tip to tip with the 50 bmg in a tempest and it will turn the engines, at least one, into a fire ball and only use 200 rounds. Other times i can aim right into an engine and 200 rounds barely makes it smoke.

I don't post on the forum at all for the most part, I tend to take an Obi-wan approach of "not being brave enough for politics" in regards to it, but I just thought I'd point out for the sake of clarity, you're arguing the same thing here as everyone else.

8mm/.303/.30cal all are standard AP in game, no incendiary or HE filler in them, so it makes sense given how earlier in this thread it was discussed that the current damage model calculates it as 8mm hole in and out, no tearing or tumbling, and therefore would do little to no damage to the cloth wrapped skins of the WW1 airframes you're referencing, if it followed the same calculations as the .50 being scaled to 19mm for the sake of tumbling in the mod on the previous page, I imagine it (rifle calibre projectiles) would probably be scaled equivalent to current .50AP.

In-game there is currently no API or APIT rounds as stated by the devs, the P-38 campaign you reference above is no exception to the rule otherwise we'd see it in multiplayer as well. AP is a hit or miss kind of round online, you can get moments where a 2 second burst will do nothing, and sometimes a .5 second burst will set an engine aflame.

June 21, 2021

The players are shooting better then their real life counterparts also.

If anything I'd wager the hits to kill would average out lower if the weapon damage was on the same level.

June 21, 2021

22 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

you can find gun cam footage from european and pacific theater that shows planes being killed in 100 round bursts, those seem to have gone right into fuel tanks and engines and cockpit canopy. While you WILL find gun site footage that shows planes taking half the planes ammunition load in 50 BMG because the rounds were all hitting in the wings and rear feuselage... ie not the "easy kill zone".

There’s a difference between rounds being fired and rounds actually hitting the target and you seem to have those confused. One of the benefits of running belts loaded with 100% API is that it’s REALLY obvious when hits are being scored. Here’s what hundreds of hits look like. Long stretches of inconclusive gun camera footage don’t look like that. They look like only a handful of strikes,

Any time we see good concentrations of strikes in film, we see a result. But in game that isn’t the case. Like this. 240 hits on a Stuka at 30% accuracy, which caused a fuel leak.

June 21, 2021

9 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

4 x .50 in action. Lt. Thornell’s AAR. 650 rounds fired - if we assume 5% accuracy that would be about 32 hits. There’s only 10 or so visible API strikes on the film.

Clearly .50s could destroy enemy aircraft and didn’t require hundreds of strikes to do so, as they sometimes do in game. In fact I demonstrated this issue in game, in single player (that it could sometimes take hundreds of hits to produce a kill with 50s even at point blank range) in a bug report a YEAR ago.

I also demonstrated a kill with ~30 hits in my above clip. Showing that it's possible in the sim, against a target that's moving more similarly to how actual planes fly in gun-cam footage. Most evasive actions I see in gun-cams look incredibly lazy compared to how things move in a sim; even AI pilots move more than most WWII air victims.

In terms of .50 lethality even in single player, I've also established with my own testing that there are certain places on a plane (like the fuselage just ahead of the tail) where you can sink multiple 30-37mm HE rounds, with no effect.

The damage model is not perfect. .50s are not perfect.

But the only reason this imperfection is seen as a deal breaker for some people, is the competitive nature of multiplayer gaming. In single player, .50s perform just about what you'd expect from real life, on average. Close enough to not bother complaining about it. It's only in multiplayer that the issue becomes much more severe, for reasons I've already mentioned.

June 21, 2021

2 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

NORMALLY ill blow off an aieleron and nothing more, other times ill get an aieleron to fly off AND get an engine pod burning.

Ive been playing with the tempest last few days and it is wonderful with the 50 bmg loadout. Spitfires not so much for some reason.

So the others were content to let your gaffe go but I figured for the benefit of everyone not getting the joke that a correction needs to be made.

The Tempest doesn't have .50BMG, it has Hispano 20mm HE/AP.

Given your attitude, I think you owe an apology.

Edited June 21, 2021 by =RS=EnvyC

June 21, 2021

16 minutes ago, =RS=Haart said:

I don't post on the forum at all for the most part, I tend to take an Obi-wan approach of "not being brave enough for politics" in regards to it

Don't be afraid. I got over my initial fear of being judged for saying X, Y, or Z.

The secret is to not give a damn. And be polite while not giving a damn. Which seems paradoxical.

You get the idea.

June 21, 2021

I think the problem goes beyond multiplayer or .50 cals, though. I play mostly offline, and the weirdness of the new(er) damage model is frustrating. Shooting AP of any calibre is like throwing marshmallows, especially against larger aircraft (Stukas seem nearly invulnerable, unless you chew off a wing).

June 21, 2021

27 minutes ago, =RS=Haart said:

I don't post on the forum at all for the most part, I tend to take an Obi-wan approach of "not being brave enough for politics" in regards to it, but I just thought I'd point out for the sake of clarity, you're arguing the same thing here as everyone else.

8mm/.303/.30cal all are standard AP in game, no incendiary or HE filler in them, so it makes sense given how earlier in this thread it was discussed that the current damage model calculates it as 8mm hole in and out, no tearing or tumbling, and therefore would do little to no damage to the cloth wrapped skins of the WW1 airframes you're referencing, if it followed the same calculations as the .50 being scaled to 19mm for the sake of tumbling in the mod on the previous page, I imagine it (rifle calibre projectiles) would probably be scaled equivalent to current .50AP.

In-game there is currently no API or APIT rounds as stated by the devs, the P-38 campaign you reference above is no exception to the rule otherwise we'd see it in multiplayer as well. AP is a hit or miss kind of round online, you can get moments where a 2 second burst will do nothing, and sometimes a .5 second burst will set an engine aflame.

flying in quick missions all m2 armed planes say, in the HUD "number x m2 50

in the lightning strikes campaign it says "4x m2 50 AP" That tells me there be something different and special....

would LOVE to have a go with that mustang with 4 20mm on it

June 21, 2021

5 minutes ago, gorice said:

I think the problem goes beyond multiplayer or .50 cals, though. I play mostly offline, and the weirdness of the new(er) damage model is frustrating. Shooting AP of any calibre is like throwing marshmallows, especially against larger aircraft (Stukas seem nearly invulnerable, unless you chew off a wing).

Just practice until your fingers are crippled and your eyes bleed, and eventually you'll find even .50s are (reasonably) easy to get kills with.

A critical factor is in setting the right convergence distance (under 300m) and learning how to line up one wing on your target's soft underbelly when you're closer than convergence.

I would consider practicing on Sturmoviks. If you can reliably hit their radiators with wing-mounted .50s, you can do just about anything else you need to do.

I do agree, though, that .30 caliber feels pretty much worthless. Like, a little too worthless, even knowing its drawbacks in real life.

Unless the .30 cal is coming from an AI defensive gunner. Then I'm on fire at 500m.

In all seriousness, a good way of improving with AP ammo would be to use either the Yak-9T with all AP, or the La-5FN with all AP. You will hate it until you learn to shoot at 'center of mass' only. As in, only shoot when you have a clear fix on the pilot or engine. It's a good habit to form regardless of what you're shooting.

June 21, 2021

I also want to note that after Yak Panthers amazing post we're still discussing the thesis of the mod based on nothing more than subjective feelings.

The mod mathematically checks out. Unless you can prove Yak wrong there's honestly no discussion to be had.

June 21, 2021

1 minute ago, pocketshaver said:

flying in quick missions all m2 armed planes say, in the HUD "number x m2 50

in the lightning strikes campaign it says "4x m2 50 AP" That tells me there be something different and special....

would LOVE to have a go with that mustang with 4 20mm on it

I would imagine that the difference is that the weapons are housed in the nose of the aircraft, and are all hitting the target within a dinner plate sized cone instead of an 11ft wide cone as in the case of the P-51's wing mounted guns, the 4 x .50cal AP just means that it only has a solid projectile for the .50cal weapons, the P-38 also has a 20mm cannon in the nose that's armed with HE, which is why it probably feels different and special.

June 21, 2021

17 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

So the others were content to let your gaffe go but I figured for the benefit of everyone not getting the joke that a correction needs to be made.

The Tempest doesn't have .50BMG, it has Hispano 20mm HE/AP.

Given your attitude, I think you owe an apology.

just flew a 51d, used 40 rounds to take out an engine on a a20 at 300 yards.. proves aiming and hitting the right part count.

Have made countless passes last 20 minutes with m2 50s and sometimes it takes 1000 rounds fired to kill an a 20. Other times 100 rounds. Closer firing range has this really wierd result of needing less rounds to kill... Perhaps people need to stop trying to kill other planes at massive ranges?

3 minutes ago, =RS=Haart said:

I would imagine that the difference is that the weapons are housed in the nose of the aircraft, and are all hitting the target within a dinner plate sized cone instead of an 11ft wide cone as in the case of the P-51's wing mounted guns, the 4 x .50cal AP just means that it only has a solid projectile for the .50cal weapons, the P-38 also has a 20mm cannon in the nose that's armed with HE, which is why it probably feels different and special.

To be honest, the american 20mm ammunition in the lightning is crap compared to all others. I actually prefer the 13mm Breda ammunition in the mc 202 over it. Even the german 15mm ammunition seems better, and that stuff gives the impression of .303 ammo to me.

I USED to fly nothing but the A8 armed with the mk 108. I used alot of ammunition to kill planes with it. Some times 6 hits could kill a b25, other times i needed 20 hits. It was random. It made me prefer the german and english 20 mm.

Even the russian 23mm stuff is lackluster when im the one using it.

June 21, 2021

9 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

I also want to note that after Yak Panthers amazing post we're still discussing the thesis of the mod based on nothing more than subjective feelings.

The mod mathematically checks out. Unless you can prove Yak wrong there's honestly no discussion to be had.

I just saw a bunch of squiggly numbers, and then I felt funny, and then I went to bed.

Seriously though: if it's as simple as changing the math, why are the devs seemingly averse to merely changing the math?

June 21, 2021

Just now, pocketshaver said:

just flew a 51d, used 40 rounds to take out an engine on a a20 at 300 yards.. proves aiming and hitting the right part count.

Have made countless passes last 20 minutes with m2 50s and sometimes it takes 1000 rounds fired to kill an a 20. Other times 100 rounds. Closer firing range has this really wierd result of needing less rounds to kill... Perhaps people need to stop trying to kill other planes at massive ranges?

Aim better isn't an argument.

The AP simulation is fundamentally flawed. The simulation of USAAF gunnery is even worse and high nonexistent. You shouldn't need sniper aim to kill a target, that was the point of box convergence and API ammunition, neither of which feature in the game.

This unfairly affects aircraft with pure AP ammunition or a greater AP to HE ratio in the belt such as the Shvak and Hispano. Yes, a AP Hispano shell does basically nothing, and neither does an AP Shvak.

Range has nothing to do with the problem. You get the same results whether it's 200, 300 or 460m convergence. AP rounds don't do enough skin damage, control component damage or engine damage. This mod at least allows a more realistic simulation of AP for the .50BMG that allows it to do lasting damage to control surfaces of enemy aircraft.

June 21, 2021

11 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

Even the russian 23mm stuff is lackluster when im the one using it.

As someone who flies a good deal of Russian, I can say: I don't like Russian cannons of any caliber.

What I do like is the handling of Russian planes, so I just put up with the guns.

I still believe the best gunnery teaching aid in the entire sim is the Yak-9 with iron sights. If a few dozen hours of practice in that doesn't turn you into a crack shot, not much else will. You have a lot of incentive to 'git gud' with that amount of ammo.

June 21, 2021

10 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Seriously though: if it's as simple as changing the math, why are the devs seemingly averse to merely changing the math?

Thats an excellent question and the most relevant you've asked so far.

The search continues...

Re: Yak

The reason why you need crack aim with the Shvak cannons is that the AP rounds lack API. You shouldn't need that kind of aim on the Yak either. If the AP shells were more adept at causing fires as they should be, then you'd find flying it a lot nicer.

Ask yourself this. Why does no one ever recommend taking the pure AP or mixed AP/HE belts on the La5S8F/FN?

Edited June 21, 2021 by =RS=EnvyC

June 21, 2021

3 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

As someone who flies a good deal of Russian, I can say: I don't like Russian cannons of any caliber.

What I do like is the handling of Russian planes, so I just put up with the guns.

I still believe the best gunnery teaching aid in the entire sim is the Yak-9 with iron sights. If a few dozen hours of practice in that doesn't turn you into a crack shot, not much else will. You have a lot of incentive to 'git gud' with that amount of ammo.

Il-2 makes a good replacement for the 110 destroyer and the gladiator.

The il-2 is also an easy one to take off in, so i really give it a hug.

But we also have an issue that people are not happy that they want to fly specific planes, and that those planes have the M2 50 bmg on it.... and the modelled ammunition doesnt work the way they want it to. That can be based upon:

1. Not understanding the ammunition limitations

2. Not trying to aim.. or aim at important parts.

3. Having unrealistic ideas of what actual ammunition does. That is really really common. Seriously have had the opportunity of watching people fire weapons for the first time in real life, and actually get angry when a load of bird shot from a 12 guage did not make a mannequin fly back 10 feet. Or when they couldnt hit a fridge box at ten feet firing a gun "gangsta style".

June 21, 2021

9 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

Aim better isn't an argument.

This unfairly affects aircraft with pure AP ammunition or a greater AP to HE ratio in the belt such as the Shvak and Hispano. Yes, a AP Hispano shell does basically nothing, and neither does an AP Shvak.

'Aim better' kinda is an argument, in some cases.

Plant yourself behind an AI-piloted 190 in a Yak-9 or 1B, fire just the cannon, and then tell me how ineffectual the AP shot is.

What pisses me off most about Russian cannons is the low ammo count, and the small HE effect. But the 20mm AP will kill a pilot and cause engine fires, usually at the same time.

June 21, 2021

1 minute ago, pocketshaver said:

1. Not understanding the ammunition limitations

2. Not trying to aim.. or aim at important parts.

3. Having unrealistic ideas of what actual ammunition does. That is really really common.

All three of these points are relevant because as mentioned by Yak Panther's space maths and wizardry the game doesn't calculate round tumble or tearing where as the mod allows for some semblance of simulating this through increasing the round size to 19mm.

They can also be applied to the damage done by HE rounds in game, but as mentioned, that's another thread.

The game works on point convergence, as in all guns converge on one spot with no deflection, which wasn't the case as far as documentation goes, which is where the request for a box convergence or greater adjustability to convergence/harmonisation comes into play like in CLoD.

Finally, with the absence of API in planes that would have at least had some form of incendiary tracer ammunition by the theatre dates used in game.

This combination of things leads the player to create some really funky work arounds, like how I use the gyro when available and a 460m/500y approx. convergence setting to get some semblance of a box convergence pattern at combat ranges.

June 21, 2021

9 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

Ask yourself this. Why does no one ever recommend taking the pure AP or mixed AP/HE belts on the La5S8F/FN?

Presumably because you'll never be able to attack a non-evading target with them in multiplayer or single player; the AI can't be bounced, but 1v1, it can be followed so closely that it tries to force you to overshoot. If you stick like glue behind a jinking AI, at point blank range, you can kill the pilot and start a fire with 10-20 rounds (~3 of which actually hit), easily.

Most WWII aces suggested firing at close range. The sim broadly reflects the veracity in those suggestions.

June 21, 2021

5 minutes ago, =RS=Haart said:

All three of these points are relevant because as mentioned by Yak Panther's space maths and wizardry the game doesn't calculate round tumble or tearing where as the mod allows for some semblance of simulating this through increasing the round size to 19mm.

They can also be applied to the damage done by HE rounds in game, but as mentioned, that's another thread.

The game works on point convergence, as in all guns converge on one spot with no deflection, which wasn't the case as far as documentation goes, which is where the request for a box convergence or greater adjustability to convergence/harmonisation comes into play like in CLoD.

Finally, with the absence of API in planes that would have at least had some form of incendiary tracer ammunition by the theatre dates used in game.

This combination of things leads the player to create some really funky work arounds, like how I use the gyro when available and a 460m/500y approx. convergence setting to get some semblance of a box convergence pattern at combat ranges.

SO you can agree that the ancient clod Blitz is better? im grinning...

In rise of flight i was able to simply fire into one spot on a wing and saw through it. I was also able to stay at long range and snipe bomber engines.

Also forget is that the planes with m2 50 are 95% wing mounted, and most people seem to have a hard time adjusting to the enemy plane flying between the slugs at range unless the shooter hits a little rudder now and then

4 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Presumably because you'll never be able to attack a non-evading target with them in multiplayer or single player; the AI can't be bounced, but 1v1, it can be followed so closely that it tries to force you to overshoot. If you stick like glue behind a jinking AI, at point blank range, you can kill the pilot and start a fire with 10-20 rounds (~3 of which actually hit), easily.

Most WWII aces suggested firing at close range. The sim broadly reflects the veracity in those suggestions.

Also the way it was in ww1. But its still the users issue to decide what to do...

stop using planes with ammunition they dont like? Or start growing up and learning to shoot carefully and at short range if they wanna fly that really bad ass mustang

June 21, 2021

2 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

SO you can agree that the ancient clod Blitz is better? im grinning...

As I've got maybe 1hr of flight time in that game, I can't give a yes or no on that, I was merely commenting on the fact that it has a much more in depth harmonisation mechanic for the guns, which seems to be missed as the point I thought I had illustrated.

June 21, 2021

5 minutes ago, =RS=Haart said:

As I've got maybe 1hr of flight time in that game, I can't give a yes or no on that, I was merely commenting on the fact that it has a much more in depth harmonisation mechanic for the guns, which seems to be missed as the point I thought I had illustrated.

It also has the issue that most rounds used, have huge issues with results.

Its not abnormal to put 200 rounds into a stuka or 111 and only get credited with 13% damage when you did obvious damage. Also easy to do a strafing run on 4 stukas and use 600 rounds, and only hit 1 of them.

But it also has realistic magic bullets that sometimes result in a .01% hit rate on a single plane to totally destroy it.

And will even let you kill a plane with 5 rounds of HE cannon fire into a wing root fuel tank.

26 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

'Aim better' kinda is an argument, in some cases.

Plant yourself behind an AI-piloted 190 in a Yak-9 or 1B, fire just the cannon, and then tell me how ineffectual the AP shot is.

What pisses me off most about Russian cannons is the low ammo count, and the small HE effect. But the 20mm AP will kill a pilot and cause engine fires, usually at the same time.

Russian philosophy was more on the "you send 20 planes to bomb this factory, we send 300 fighters to deal with you".. meaning that you dont need huge ammunition supply for each plane. you dont need 1,000 rounds on a plane when you have sent 300 planes each with 600 rounds on board against 20 enemy planes.

June 21, 2021

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

Just practice until your fingers are crippled and your eyes bleed, and eventually you'll find even .50s are (reasonably) easy to get kills with.

A critical factor is in setting the right convergence distance (under 300m) and learning how to line up one wing on your target's soft underbelly when you're closer than convergence.

I would consider practicing on Sturmoviks. If you can reliably hit their radiators with wing-mounted .50s, you can do just about anything else you need to do.

I do agree, though, that .30 caliber feels pretty much worthless. Like, a little too worthless, even knowing its drawbacks in real life.

Unless the .30 cal is coming from an AI defensive gunner. Then I'm on fire at 500m.

In all seriousness, a good way of improving with AP ammo would be to use either the Yak-9T with all AP, or the La-5FN with all AP. You will hate it until you learn to shoot at 'center of mass' only. As in, only shoot when you have a clear fix on the pilot or engine. It's a good habit to form regardless of what you're shooting.

To clarify, I have no problem downing fighters with the wing guns on planes like the p-51. It's the lack of structural damage, and the seeming inability of AP to 'core' the fuselage, that make it feel weak. This is really notable with the La-5, as you mentioned, especially against larger targets.

June 21, 2021

1 hour ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

Re: Yak

The reason why you need crack aim with the Shvak cannons is that the AP rounds lack API. You shouldn't need that kind of aim on the Yak either. If the AP shells were more adept at causing fires as they should be, then you'd find flying it a lot nicer.

Ask yourself this. Why does no one ever recommend taking the pure AP or mixed AP/HE belts on the La5S8F/FN?

Sorry to double quote this, but now I have some clips. I know, anecdotal evidence versus lowly AI, but still.

La-5FN, AP-only, test 1. Result: pilot killed. Ammo spent: 51 rounds. Most missed.

Spoiler

La-5FN, AP-only test 2. Result: Engine fire started from approximately 400m. Ammo spent: a lot. My long distance shooting isn't great.

Spoiler

Yak-9, 20mm cannon only, test 2. Result: pilot killed. Ammo spent: 27 rounds.

Spoiler

Yak-9 20mm cannon only, test 1 (I'm posting this out of order, saving the best for last). Result: explosion. Ammo spent: 25 rounds.

Spoiler

June 21, 2021

2 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

SO you can agree that the ancient clod Blitz is better? im grinning...

The DM is better yes. There are a lot more ammo types modeled, way more components to be damaged and AP or Ball ammunition is capable of damaging aircraft skin in a more reasonable manner. It's definitely not perfect but is much more complex than we have in BoX.

I don't understand what you're exactly trying to accomplish here? You tell us to grow up, give us a load of advice (half of which is incorrect) and then say that 50s changed in the last update, which isn't true.

If you've not got anything to add simply don't comment. If you have some questions around the suggestions or want to refute any of the points being made that's fine.

5 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

LOOK people GROW UP....

Please stop. It's just rude and pretty childish.

4 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

Unless you are flying with an external view set, you really are not going to KNOW you are taking rounds at all for some time.

So a half inch shell hitting the aircraft you're flying is completely unnoticeable. Cool. I'm sure you've got lots of experience of this so feel comfortable believing you.

4 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

While you WILL find gun site footage that shows planes taking half the planes ammunition load in 50 BMG because the rounds were all hitting in the wings and rear feuselage... ie not the "easy kill zone".

Would love to see these. Please provide links.

4 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

There have been times that I have flown the i-16 against the U,,, and have used standard machine gun load out, and have used 1,000 rounds into its wings and feuselage before i just gave up. And i have had the same issue when flying the Dr1 against that little plane. And even when flying the DR 1 against the brisfit, i have expended the entire 1,000 rounds of 8mm machine gun ammo and not killed a single brisfit... but at other times a lucky 20 round burst will take out the wing mounted fuel tank and the plane goes down in flames.

Okay at this point its clear you haven't actually read the original post so please go and do that, look at Yak Panthers as well where he uses a mathematical model created by NATO and then come back with a coherent post about why we should all grow up, aim better etc.

June 21, 2021

On 6/18/2021 at 9:18 PM, =RS=EnvyC said:

I understood none of this but I love it as the mod works per the conclusion.

This should be standard for the game at mininum

Jensen’s work gives us a simple way to compute the effective size of the damage from an AP round. Experimentally he established a mathematical relationship to the impact angle and the reduction in the panel’s strength.

The additional reduction in panel strength due to angular impact is = the strength of a panel with 1 ap hole * the cosine of the impact angle. This method gives a clean, simple, research backed way to scale the AP damage, for all the rounds, based on the impact angle.

There’s a flaw / error in my previous post. Jensen is scaling downwards to normalize the damage from an oblique impact to a normal impact. We want to increase the scale of the damage based on the impact angle. So instead of using the cosine of the impact angle we use the sine. Which is functionally the inverse. So we can say the damage of the AP round is = AP base damage(bullet diameter) * (1+ sine of the impact angle)

So for a 12.7mm round impacting at 30 degrees the damage is,

Damage = 12.7 * (1+sine of 30)

Damage = 12.7* 1.5 = 19.05 Damage

Avery, who contributed to the AGARD damage model, Goes further in his modeling. He accounts for the velocity of the round, the material of the target and type of round fired to determine the damage size. This is what's described in the AGARD report, a means to calculate damage size.

The computational model presented in the AGARD report just gives a means to compute the damage size. What’s not clear in the AGARD document is how the size of the damage reduces the strength of the target. In game terms, it left out how much to increase the damage based on the impact conditions.

Going Deeper:

Jensen predicts the residual strength of the panel is simply effected by the amount of the material removed by the bullet. He treats oblique hits as larger diameter bullet holes.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7dezlgEuk_oC&

Page 554

Seen a bit more clearly in the AGARD document as.

The game currently models AP damage in a similar way. The caliber of the AP rounds * the number of hits determine the strength of the structural panel impacted. So we can apply Jensen’s Cosine\Sine rule to the Il 2 damage model to better represent how AP rounds do damage based on the impact angle, without having to do to much.

Jensen’s full residual strength model is.

σcr/Ftu= .920/(Le/t^.4)^.5

% reduction in strength = .920 / (Damage size / panel thickness^.4)^.5

Where .920 is constant based on the material properties of 7075 T6 Al

Avery, who contributed to the AGARD model, expands on Jensen's work and accounts for velocity, angle, and material, ect to determine the strength of the panel after impact. By combing his damage size prediction model and utilizing a slightly different method Avery developed a model for predicting the strength reduction of panel based on damage size too.

Above: Source: Comparison of the Ballistic Impact Response of Metals and Composites for Military Aircraft Application ASTM STP586

https://books.google.com/books?id=An3CkhQUW6MC

Page 415.

Again presented more clearly from AGARD 238

The governing equation is:

Λc = σc * (pi/2* Lat Damage)^½

Paraphrasing,

Λc = is the undamaged yield strength

σc = reduced strength due to the damage.

(pi/2* Lat Damage)^½= is the area of the lateral damage.

It works a bit like this. We take Λc from the table. Then, based on the damage size we solve for σc

For charts posted above Avery solved the residual strength, σc, like

66 = X(pi/2* Lat Damage)^½

for a 2 inch Lat damage we have

66 = X (Pi/2 *2)^.5

66 = X*1.77

X = 37.28ksi = the residual strength of the panel in ksi = σc

So we can say that an impact which results in a 2 inch hole reduces the residual strength of the panel to 37.28 ksi which is an 44 % reduction in the panel’s strength.

Jensen’s Model says we need a hole 2.51 inches wide to do the same amount of damage.

σcr/Ftu= .920/(Le/t^.4)^.5

for a 44% reduction in the strength of the damage size is

.44 = .920/(x/.25^.4)^.5

X = 2.511

Jensen is basically a half inch more conservative with his estimate. Given the simplicity of his equations, the method of scaling the damage based on the sine of the impact angle seems like a much better solution. I think this method should be done for all the AP rounds. Also this won’t be a huge boost to the AP ammo. Given the ricochet effects, you wont see many impacts above 70 degrees, where the 12.7mm ap would scale up to a 24.6mm round.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Yak_Panther

June 21, 2021

I'd hate to think how a 20mm round would scale up with that model. Shvak AP might actually be useful.

June 21, 2021

Just now, =RS=EnvyC said:

I'd hate to think how a 20mm round would scale up with that model. Shvak AP might actually be useful.

at a 70 degree impact it would be, 1.93 * 20 = 38.6mm equivalent.

Edited June 21, 2021 by Yak_Panther

June 21, 2021

2 minutes ago, Yak_Panther said:

1.93 * 20 = 38.6mm equivalent.

I want this so bad. Make Yak great again.

Thankyou for your brain

Edited June 21, 2021 by =RS=EnvyC

AP Fix

Recommended Posts

Angry_Kitten

oc2209

Denum

oc2209

Denum

oc2209

Angry_Kitten

Denum

357th_KW

oc2209

=RS=Haart

Denum

357th_KW

oc2209

=RS=EnvyC

oc2209

gorice

Angry_Kitten

oc2209

=RS=EnvyC

=RS=Haart

Angry_Kitten

oc2209

=RS=EnvyC

oc2209

=RS=EnvyC

Angry_Kitten

oc2209

=RS=Haart

oc2209

Angry_Kitten

=RS=Haart

Angry_Kitten

gorice

oc2209

ACG_Cass

Yak_Panther

=RS=EnvyC

Yak_Panther

=RS=EnvyC

Browse All

Activity