AP Fix

June 21, 2021

Please feel to not answer this if its too much work.

So, under the scenario of a 12.7m projectile having penetrated something, losing almost 50% of its velocity (1000-1200fps) and has begun tumbling.

As the length of a .50 calibre shell is 37mm, what would be the potential damage output of it striking side on (diameter 37mm) aircraft skin at the maximum damage velocity?

June 21, 2021

7 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

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.

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

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.

Would love to see these. Please provide links.

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.

The gun cam footage already linked to is CRAP... sure it exists but when it pops up on youtube its postage stamp sized and blurry, cant even see more then plane shaped blobs moving for maybe 3 seconds before the videos end.

And who is the guy who has racked up almost 200 kills in multi player flying the mustang and using its insufficient half assed half powered ammunition?

And the ammunition HAS changed for the 50 BMG in the last update. Try it out in single player for a while and youll see something different about it.

The MK 108 is more powerful, we can agree on that, but in real world testing and in combat it wasnt as powerful on the plane being hit as hoped.

June 21, 2021

MK108??

Looks at AP fix title

You know what we call that right? The "after update the .50s feel better".

We call it the update placebo.

The damage model did change a little bit yes. But that's more related to fuel tank behavior then the .50s.

That change also means the P-38 explodes even better then before.

June 21, 2021

15 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

The gun cam footage already linked to is CRAP... sure it exists but when it pops up on youtube its postage stamp sized and blurry, cant even see more then plane shaped blobs moving for maybe 3 seconds before the videos end.

And who is the guy who has racked up almost 200 kills in multi player flying the mustang and using its insufficient half assed half powered ammunition?

And the ammunition HAS changed for the 50 BMG in the last update. Try it out in single player for a while and youll see something different about it.

The MK 108 is more powerful, we can agree on that, but in real world testing and in combat it wasnt as powerful on the plane being hit as hoped.

Could you do me a favor and point out, in the patch notes, where this supposed .50 fix is mentioned? I read through them again and can't find any mention of anything even approaching the same ballpark as a fix.

Edited June 21, 2021 by -SF-Disarray

June 21, 2021

47 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

The gun cam footage already linked to is CRAP... sure it exists but when it pops up on youtube its postage stamp sized and blurry, cant even see more then plane shaped blobs moving for maybe 3 seconds before the videos end.

And who is the guy who has racked up almost 200 kills in multi player flying the mustang and using its insufficient half assed half powered ammunition?

And the ammunition HAS changed for the 50 BMG in the last update. Try it out in single player for a while and youll see something different about it.

The MK 108 is more powerful, we can agree on that, but in real world testing and in combat it wasnt as powerful on the plane being hit as hoped.

At this point are you trolling the thread? I would let people like Yak Panther and Cass continue their work/research and do something productive if I were you. Telling people to grow up then suggesting no evidence secret updates is not helping at all and derailing the suggestion.

Nothing has changed with the 50cals at all and 50cals in single player down targets fairly easily thanks to the way AI fly/react to damage and no issues with connection/netcode. There is this strange thinking that there is always some secret change they do when there is not. I think Jason got mad about an accusation of secret updates at one point.

You are like the 500th person saying 50cals are good now after an update. It happens every time sorry. Something changing like this would be in the patch notes as it effects a lot of planes. The Developers would never change one type of ammunition to be better in an artificial way while others are not in the same. They would instead work on the system as a whole to improve the simulation.

What has changed is the the fix to shoot off a 109s tail and fuel tank explosions can happen although from testing this it is a rarity with AP but common with HE hits. Also the graphical effects have changed for AP rounds across the game and there are more visible puffs. The effect of these changes are very small for AP only guns experience.

Edited June 21, 2021 by LR.-Astra-theRedPanda

June 21, 2021

3 hours ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Could you do me a favor and point out, in the patch notes, where this supposed .50 fix is mentioned? I read through them again and can't find any mention of anything even approaching the same ballpark as a fix.

Aye, there were no updates made to the .50s in the last update. @pocketshaver, please slow down and think your replies through a bit more before pressing that blue Submit button.

June 21, 2021

9 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Aye, there were no updates made to the .50s in the last update. @pocketshaver, please slow down and think your replies through a bit more before pressing that blue Submit button.

Ah... real thought is expect by us forum posters. what a great concept. :yahoo:

June 21, 2021

3 hours ago, LR.-Astra-theRedPanda said:

Nothing has changed with the 50cals at all and 50cals in single player down targets fairly easily thanks to the way AI fly/react to damage and no issues with connection/netcode.

This is the point I've been unsuccessfully arguing.

I made another 4-gun P-47 clip in anticipation of the upcoming P-51. I had 35% fuel load, extra ammo, 150 octane. 108 rounds spent.

Spoiler

I don't make these clips to show off my low-end laptop's graphical brilliance, or my gunnery against lazily evading AI. I'm posting these to show how the guns work as you would expect them to work most of the time.

Yes, there are bad exceptions. Yes, most of these exceptions occur online for reasons I've mentioned (more evasive targets) and probably netcode.

What the issue boils down to, is HE rounds of any type having inherent advantages in multiplayer combat. This is possibly related to the fact that HE effects on aerodynamics are exaggerated, but that's not pertinent here.

The point is that .50s do work, evidently, in the eyes of the devs. To make changes to ameliorate multiplayer-specific deficiencies would be tantamount to buffing a weak class' stats in an MMO. I'm not saying that's a perfectly fair comparison, but that's how it would look in the end. The devs are surely aware of the discontent surrounding .50s, but the fact that they haven't done anything yet implies, to me at least, not that they're saying 'let them eat cake' but rather, they're sticking to their guns (bad pun not intended) as a matter of principle.

That's the only explanation I can see why the issue hasn't been resolved yet.

June 21, 2021

29 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

I don't make these clips to show off my low-end laptop's graphical brilliance, or my gunnery against lazily evading AI. I'm posting these to show how the guns work as you would expect them to work most of the time.

Can you show me similar kind of test vids but with the 109 G-14 & the K-4, please?

Using your idea that guns works as expected: I agree with that concept in a high grade but not 100%, and applying the Ockham's razor principle then the simpliest explanation should be found in the receiver (opponent's aircraft) of those bullets, shouldn't it?

Let's see if they will introduce any kind of changes once the P-51B/C next release, otherwise it would be the fastest recon plane in allied side.....with 4 stupid guns full of tracers.

June 21, 2021

Just thought it's worth mentioning, while we specifically mention the planes that use majority AP belts, any AP fix inherently fixes the AP shells in the German planes too.

I.e literally everyone wins with a more accurate AP model.

June 22, 2021

6 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

Can you show me similar kind of test vids but with the 109 G-14 & the K-4, please?

Let's see if they will introduce any kind of changes once the P-51B/C next release, otherwise it would be the fastest recon plane in allied side.....with 4 stupid guns full of tracers.

You asked, I delivered.

All 3 clips somewhat undermine my argument, but I'm trying to be honest here and not cherry-pick my best attempts. I'll let the viewers judge.

I made the first 2 clips full-length because I enjoy watching a lightened Jug dancing around the sky. I figure maybe someone else will enjoy that too. I honestly didn't think I could even catch the AI in a late 109, based on how they usually perform in career mode. But the wing guns catastrophically lower their speed and agility, which makes them quite manageable for a light '47.

Again: 35% fuel load for me, 150 octane, 4 guns, extra ammo (1700 rounds total). The 109s are all default, aside from the wing guns. Enjoy.

Test 1, versus 109 G-14:

Spoiler

Test 2, versus 109 K-4:

Spoiler

Test 3, versus a different 109 K-4 than above, in special chase view:

Spoiler

June 22, 2021

8 hours ago, oc2209 said:

This is the point I've been unsuccessfully arguing.

I made another 4-gun P-47 clip in anticipation of the upcoming P-51. I had 35% fuel load, extra ammo, 150 octane. 108 rounds spent.

Reveal hidden contents

I don't make these clips to show off my low-end laptop's graphical brilliance, or my gunnery against lazily evading AI. I'm posting these to show how the guns work as you would expect them to work most of the time.

Yes, there are bad exceptions. Yes, most of these exceptions occur online for reasons I've mentioned (more evasive targets) and probably netcode.

What the issue boils down to, is HE rounds of any type having inherent advantages in multiplayer combat. This is possibly related to the fact that HE effects on aerodynamics are exaggerated, but that's not pertinent here.

The point is that .50s do work, evidently, in the eyes of the devs. To make changes to ameliorate multiplayer-specific deficiencies would be tantamount to buffing a weak class' stats in an MMO. I'm not saying that's a perfectly fair comparison, but that's how it would look in the end. The devs are surely aware of the discontent surrounding .50s, but the fact that they haven't done anything yet implies, to me at least, not that they're saying 'let them eat cake' but rather, they're sticking to their guns (bad pun not intended) as a matter of principle.

That's the only explanation I can see why the issue hasn't been resolved yet.

t"his is possibly related to the fact that HE effects on aerodynamics are exaggerated, but that's not pertinent here."

BUT that small fact comprises at least HALF of the issues with all of the demands for the 50 bmg damage to be increased.

"They decide/feel/assume/agree with someone that the HE effects are "exaggerated" and thus they want the same results from a non exploding bullet option called the 50 BMG...

I do NOT understand why you are making these videos as crappy shooting, I would believe that if EVERYONE griping about the "lack of performance" WATCHED and saw that

when you were shooting the WINGS,,, you just made puffs of debris and pretty noises, but no results to the enemy plane. But when you started putting bullets THROUGH the pilot, the cockpit, and the engine, that suddenly ENEMY PLANES GOT SHOT DOWN....

and with THE CRAPPY AMMUNITION MODELS....... oh goody, it works. WE HAVE PROOF....

OH wait, i hear some bitching from the multi player people who want a 3 second burst into the wing to make any enemy plane turn into a fire ball. Dont work that way unless you use HE

9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Aye, there were no updates made to the .50s in the last update. @pocketshaver, please slow down and think your replies through a bit more before pressing that blue Submit button.

Before the update i didnt fly the 50 caliber skies because i had BETTER results with the german 8mm machine guns. I was needing 3 times the round expenditure to get a b25 engine to make fire then the german machine guns did.

NOW after the update i can get a b25 or a 20 engine to play roman candle with 100 50 bmg

now its merging responses to different threads into the first one..... sweet goodness someone is getting a grudge..

June 22, 2021

1 hour ago, pocketshaver said:

I do NOT understand why you are making these videos as crappy shooting, I would believe that if EVERYONE griping about the "lack of performance" WATCHED and saw that

when you were shooting the WINGS,,, you just made puffs of debris and pretty noises, but no results to the enemy plane. But when you started putting bullets THROUGH the pilot, the cockpit, and the engine, that suddenly ENEMY PLANES GOT SHOT DOWN....

Yeah, I just meant that my results weren't as spectacular as I wanted. Explosions, fire, etc.

The first clip is pretty good. I feel that last burst was solid and nearly killed the pilot (he was heavily wounded, judging by how long he was unconscious).

The second clip was a little iffy, because if I hadn't flipped on my side and hit the pilot through the top of the canopy (the one instance wing guns are desirable), his plane was going to escape that last attack of mine. Granted, he was losing oil by then, but his plane was still fully controllable.

The third clip is the one where I hit the target the hardest throughout the recording. While he did lose his right radiator/flap, the pilot wasn't dead or severely injured by my estimation. I'm unsure why he spiraled in; it seemed like maybe there was some control damage.

In terms of destroying the 109's wing, that's actually pretty easy with .50s alone; provided you hit it from deflection in a turn, preferably with a convergence strike. It will snap off like a dry twig in those conditions. The key is to aim towards the end of the wing, not the root.

June 22, 2021

14 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Yeah, I just meant that my results weren't as spectacular as I wanted. Explosions, fire, etc.

The first clip is pretty good. I feel that last burst was solid and nearly killed the pilot (he was heavily wounded, judging by how long he was unconscious).

The second clip was a little iffy, because if I hadn't flipped on my side and hit the pilot through the top of the canopy (the one instance wing guns are desirable), his plane was going to escape that last attack of mine. Granted, he was losing oil by then, but his plane was still fully controllable.

The third clip is the one where I hit the target the hardest throughout the recording. While he did lose his right radiator/flap, the pilot wasn't dead or severely injured by my estimation. I'm unsure why he spiraled in; it seemed like maybe there was some control damage.

In terms of destroying the 109's wing, that's actually pretty easy with .50s alone; provided you hit it from deflection in a turn, preferably with a convergence strike. It will snap off like a dry twig in those conditions. The key is to aim towards the end of the wing, not the root.

half the time i am loosing engine oil, the game tells me to bail.. The other half it tells me to break off and land..

Im am rather more sure that the urgent demands to "fix" the 50 caliber is better served by the creation of a hit statistic break down like in clod blitz. But with say an image of the enemy plane and an overlay of the hits if possible. Imagine the results, people seeing that an enemy plane with 300 bullets in the wing tip flies off, but the one with 20 random hits in the engine pod went down like a fireball...

and on the inverse,,,, getting screamed at that using the auto engine controls and auto throttle isnt realistic but suggesting them to AIM is not realistic

June 22, 2021

1 hour ago, pocketshaver said:

Before the update i didnt fly the 50 caliber skies because i had BETTER results with the german 8mm machine guns. I was needing 3 times the round expenditure to get a b25 engine to make fire then the german machine guns did.

NOW after the update i can get a b25 or a 20 engine to play roman candle with 100 50 bmg

Luke just said that there was no update to the .50s. Perhaps it was your aiming...

June 22, 2021

On 6/21/2021 at 6:32 AM, ACG_Cass said:

@Yak_Panther

Please feel to not answer this if its too much work.

So, under the scenario of a 12.7m projectile having penetrated something, losing almost 50% of its velocity (1000-1200fps) and has begun tumbling.

As the length of a .50 calibre shell is 37mm, what would be the potential damage output of it striking side on (diameter 37mm) aircraft skin at the maximum damage velocity?

AGARD 238 / The Avery model says it can be used to compute the damage size of a yawed (tumbled) bullet. You substitute the projection of the projectile length for the diameter of the round in the model. At normal angles the full projection should be used. The length should be reduced for oblique impacts since the model already accounts for an increased projectile diameter caused by tumbling during oblique impact. AGARD 238 also notes, “there is insufficient experimental verification for confident application to yawed projectiles.”

I haven’t finished my implementation of the AGARD model and probably won’t have time this week. So I can’t give the results of an Avery / AGARD modeling for your parameters. However we can look at what Jensen predicts in this case and compare it to a NASA test of tumbled 50 cal rounds.

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

37 mm = 1.45 inch = Le

For a skin thickness the NASA tests only specify helicopter fuselage for the thickness. We’ll assume ~ 1.1mm =.04 inches = t.

Based on on a generic helicopter model

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/86639449.pdf

Jensen’s model looks like this given the conditions above

.4027 = .920/(1.44/.04^.4)^.5

The model predicts that the panel will have 40 % of the residual strength of a undamaged panel, if we assume projected length of the round is 37 mm (1.44 inches) and is impacting with zero obliquity.

Nasa conducted a series of tests on aluminum panels with tumbled rounds.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19850018613

The impact velocity of the rounds was 671 m/sec (2200 ft sec). This speed was chosen as it was the “expected projectile speed after traveling 366 m, 1200 ft, from a weapon with a 76 cm (30 in) barrel." The rounds were fired perpendicular to the target plate and tumbled to various angles. After firing, the size of the damage is noted then the panel's strength was tested and compared to an undamaged panel.

There are more tables in the report too. Rounds tumbled at 90 degrees resulting in varying damage size from 5.6 cm to 3.6 cm. The average residual strength was .45~ 45% for square panel and the mean was .57 % for all the panels. There is decent agreement with Jensen’s model which reduced the residual strength to 40 %.

However, I haven’t seen a model for aluminum plates that accounts for tumbled rounds impacting at oblique angles and velocity too. Given the how closely Jensen’s model tracks with the NASA result. You could probably multiply the apparent length times the 1+ sine of the impact angle to compute the damage size of a tumbled striking at an oblique angle. For 1.44 inch round impacting at an angle of 60 degrees., 1.44*1.866 = 2.68 inches = 68.072mm. The model predicts a 2.68 inch / 68 mm hole. Which is a 33% increase in size from the NASA results. Which impacted fully yawed with 0 obliquity.

There is an addendum to AGARD 238, which presents a method for computing the Effective Damage size for composite laminated panels for a tumbled round impacting at an oblique angle. However it does not account for velocity.

AGARD-AG-238-Add.pdf

The model is:

D eff = (0.8* Lp / Cos Obliquity(impact) angle) + 4.3*thickness of the panel

Lp= Length of projectile presented to the plate.

Lets see how big of a hole this predicts for your 37 mm(1.44 inch) round impacting a 1.1mm (.04 inch) plate at 60 degrees.

Effective Damage = (0.8* 1.4 / .5) + 4.3 * .04

Effective Damage = (1.15/.5)+4.3*.04

Effective Damage = 2.472 inches = 62.78mm

This model predicts a damage size of 2.472 inches (62.77 mm) for a tumbled round impacting a sheet of laminated composite material.

How applicable it is to aluminum, I can’t really say. However it does follow some of the principles Avery mentions regarding using his / The AGARD model for tumbled rounds. It reduces the effective size of the projectile. That’s what 0.8 * Lp does, reduces the length by 20%. Your best bet for an analytical model is probably Jensen's approach.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Yak_Panther

June 22, 2021

This post feels pretty inane after the one above, but I thought it was funny.

It's a blooper I took from my earlier testing:

Spoiler

When you're in a normal plane and about to collide with any object, you think: "Well, I'm a goner."

When you're in a P-47 and collide with another plane, you think: "Hmm, what was that thump? Did I hit a bird? Oh well."

June 22, 2021

Thanks to you oc2209 for your fast reply and for you honesty. Your vids didn't undermine your affirmations, they corroborate all what has been discussed for a too long period.

And now I ask you again: in general terms, in most previous combat situations you've experienced: Do you have similar "tanky" feeling in all main three 109 late models that 0.50 cal guns have to deal with? ,of course taking in count their specific characteristics.... But it's really curious how easy is for 50's Pk'ing 109's and how hard is downing them for engine management issues due coolant leaks, not oil leaks (I can barely remember last time I've watched a 109 oil leaking.... several updates ago).

From my 2000+ hours in the P-51D Mustang I can afirm (not confirm cause I'm fed up about this threat after more than a whole year) that AP 0.50 rounds work in a weirdly random way, cause I got ZERO problems to deal with all FW 190 A's & D's models (supposedly historically better armored against 0.50 cal) but for any reason that NOBODY from the beginning of these issues couldn't or wouldn't or shouldn't explained to the rest of mortals, 109's had became the flying tank that IRL Lufftwafe NEVER had, for one simple reason: the weaknesses inherited in any in-line block liquid cooled engine. Most of the times you vent any 109 flown by a human pilot and you can expect 2 things from them:

1- To go even more agressive than they were fresh and perform very agressive maneuver with a very high AoA (it means they got ZERO engine lack of power also ZERO drag penalties in their airfoils or A/C shape)

or

2- Run away like if they were the Road Runner and you, the fresh one, the Coyote in you ACME stuff: both are "nuts" if we were talking about a "normal" situation cause it would be a matter of few minutes- even seconds a "normal" inline engine fail appear once a complete blead out (and that bled out is faster than you can experiment here, because a fighter engine is a high performance engine where everything is put in their limits just to give the max. performance everytime) of its fluids (coolant and/or oil). I stop counting times I hardly vent a 109 and observe it staying in combat and/or emergency power for several and unreal long minutes.

Have you noticed in your record with the G-14 that you vented the rads, ZERO holes in the wing and suddently by art of magic pilot killed and something similar with the K-4: basically 2 different models and same PK finish.... lucky chance?

And the pure 6 sponge bob duramantium shield still being there. 0.50 bullets need to be shot in any deflection angle different from ZERO to be effective, even you impact them from 15 yards away, otherwise bullets would be absorved by an astral plane energy vortex that allows you to see the puff impact clouds but nothing more.

At this point you can recheck all this past year bla, bla, bla about all this paranormal event in this forum and I wish you luck if you find any kind of explanation from "GODS", also any kind of solution from them.

I think it's easier to dim the unreal X-mas tree position lights than fix this, but it's only my guess and all this time I've been crossing fingers for a formal solution.... for the X-mas tree... of course.

Spoiler

Enjoy the music.... is the best you will find here and again Thank you for your promtly answer.

June 22, 2021

@pocketshaver @oc2209 Welcome to the party, fellas!

Please know that the arguments that many people have been making on behalf of underwhelming AP ballistics are not based on "feel" - there has been a great deal of time devoted to showing that the behavior in-game is not representative of real life. If you haven't seen the other threads on the topic, I suggest reading them. The biggest takeaway is that ammunition of a similar size and velocity for HE does 80 times more damage than AP. Take the MG131 HE round and compare it to the M2 .50 AP round - according to the developers and analysis of how the game computes damage, the former makes a 300mm hole whereas the latter makes a 12.7mm hole. Think about that - one HMG round makes a hole the size of a basketball whereas the other makes a hole the size of the bullet.

Honestly, all I want is for this sim to be realistic. I'm not looking to game something to give an advantage I can exploit - I enjoy flying all planes for both coalitions.

June 22, 2021

Evasive human pilots IS NOT the reason people are complaining about AP being ineffective. The average number of AP hits required to bring enemy AC in game simply doesn't track with historical averages. This has been proven multiple times with stats from various people. Hits are hits. If an enemy is highly evasive you will get less hits over time, but the number of hits required to shoot him down should still be the same as a non-evading target. When you couple that with small HE literally killing/crippling with one hit while AP is hard pressed to cripple anything even with multiple hits the frustration is understandable.

Edited June 22, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

June 22, 2021

6 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

And the pure 6 sponge bob duramantium shield still being there. 0.50 bullets need to be shot in any deflection angle different from ZERO to be effective, even you impact them from 15 yards away, otherwise bullets would be absorved by an astral plane energy vortex that allows you to see the puff impact clouds but nothing more.

At this point you can recheck all this past year bla, bla, bla about all this paranormal event in this forum and I wish you luck if you find any kind of explanation from "GODS", also any kind of solution from them.

For most of the past year 109's had an acknowledged problem with "concrete" tail was a well known problem

Cheers, Dakpilot

June 22, 2021

An almost effortless fix would be to add a damage multiplier based on the cosine of the impact angle.

June 22, 2021

2 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

For most of the past year 109's had an acknowledged problem with "concrete" tail was a well known problem

Ok, aaaaaannnnndddd?

June 22, 2021

Okay, this will be my last series of tests for a while. I'm mostly doing them for my own curiosity, but I'm posting them for anyone else who's on the fence about the issue.

First test, P-38 versus 109K. My verdict is that it took a few too many hits to be credible, considering the concentration of firepower from the nose guns.

Spoiler

P-38 vs 109K, test 2. Again, I feel it took too many hits. The eventual explosion was, by my estimation, a wing root ammo hit. *Edit correction* I think it was the 20mm in the wing gondola that blew up, after watching the clip in 1/4 speed. Also note the frequency of propeller strikes in slow motion. At regular playback, it looks like the engine's getting hit a lot more than it actually is, in several clips. But the hit marks are actually on the prop. I've also hit props with 30mm HE, and they do zero collateral damage to the engine or prop itself.

Spoiler

P-47 vs 109K, Test 1. Very short burst, pilot killed. Unlike the earlier P-47 tests I posted, these 3 will have the full 8-gun armament.

Spoiler

P-47 vs 109K, test 2. I think the wing broke pretty easily. The attacks were from nearly zero deflection.

Spoiler

P-47 vs 109K, test 3. This one felt the most realistic to me. I would define this as 'getting clobbered.'

Spoiler

And finally, a P-38 doing a full roll to avoid overshooting the target. Kind of funny how close I came to colliding.

Spoiler

Edited June 22, 2021 by oc2209

June 22, 2021

3 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

For most of the past year 109's had an acknowledged problem with "concrete" tail was a well known problem

Cheers, Dakpilot

Basically meaningless unfortunately. I've still only managed to shoot off 109 tails with HE Shvak and Hispano and it still takes a disproportionate amount of rounds to do so.

This mod however actually does what 1C said their supposed "fix" does because, shock horror, it actually makes the round do the damage it should

June 22, 2021

2 hours ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

An almost effortless fix would be to add a damage multiplier based on the cosine of the impact angle.

I agree that 'glancing blows' should do more skin/aerodynamic damage.

However, as others have said in the last few posts, I tend to think there's some damage model issues that exacerbate the .50's natural weaknesses.

It's my final conclusion that the penetrative power and overall destructive power of the AP .50 is adequately modelled on average. Where problems arise is with certain planes' damage models, the lack of aerodynamic penalty from oblique tears, and inherent issues with online multiplayer combat.

It's a complex combination of problems, in other words. But the solutions proposed here, to at least the skin damage problem, are seemingly valid.

June 22, 2021

3 hours ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

An almost effortless fix would be to add a damage multiplier based on the cosine of the impact angle.

I hate to be this guy.

But since I started this mess. It should be the damage (bullet diameter) * sine of the impact angle + 1.

The difference is in how we're scaling. This is a graph of how using a sine + 1 damage modifier, would effect the damage from 0 to 90 degrees. On the left is the damage multiplier on bottom is the impact angle.

This says at impact angle of 30 degrees, we scale the bullet diameter 1.5 * it base. The damage model should treat a 12.7mm round at 30 degrees as a, 12.7 *1.5, = A 19.05mm round. A 20mm is treated as 30mm by the damage model and so on.

Edited June 22, 2021 by Yak_Panther

June 22, 2021

10 minutes ago, Yak_Panther said:

I hate to be this guy.

But since I started this mess. It should be the damage (bullet diameter) * sine of the impact angle + 1.

The difference is in how we're scaling. This is a graph of how using a sine + 1 damage modifier, would effect the damage from 0 to 90 degrees. On the left is the damage multiplier on bottom is the impact angle.

This says at impact angle of 30 degrees, we scale the bullet diameter 1.5 * it base. The damage model should treat a 12.7mm round at 30 degrees as a, 12.7 *1.5, = A 19.05mm round. A 20mm is treated as 30mm by the damage model and so on.

Ok well this then. It would be a very simple and easy to make change I would think.

June 23, 2021

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-50-cal-browning-machine-gun-the-gun-that-won-the-war/

Our ammunition usage per kill is not exactly "outrageaus" compared to what the stated units were needing to get a single kill in period, and these units were using AP and API.....

Although from what ive seen in the 50 cal threads, the stated velocity being used actually IS the velocity for the standard AP round... thus the question becomes "why are so many people trying to have the AP round switch into the API round, when the current AP round is actually performing CORRECTLY given the listed velocity and bullet weight matches period government data points?"

my bad, cliffs of dover blitz just changed the 50 BMG ammunition types and data to the ammunition used in theatre of each location , ie battle of britain or tobruk

IT doesnt actually matter in the real world, that the ammunition doesnt perform well IN THE MULTI PLAYER VERSION of the game.

June 23, 2021

On 6/21/2021 at 1:39 AM, BCI-Nazgul said:

and a long time ago I read that the average number of .50 hits to bring down a German fighter was around 14 hits

So long as these are the expectations there will be little happiness

Cheers, Dakpilot

June 23, 2021

You'd be silly to expect a consistent 14, even with this mod you're still needing to land 30-40 hits (if not more) for a quick kill.

Can't stress it enough. No one wants death lasers yeeting enemies out of the sky!

The part that's most valuable here is that you're actually removing parts and doing some damage to the enemies plane.

If you put several rounds into the wing and catch the aileron, you actually shoot it off.

So if you take a well aimed snap shot it actually has an effect.

Where with the current model, even if you shoot extremely well, you still need what we refer to as the "golden boolet" to have enough of a

effect on the enemy.

In that same situation if you catch a single 13mm HE round you're in a pickle!

Edited June 23, 2021 by Denum

June 23, 2021

34 minutes ago, Denum said:

You'd be silly to expect a consistent 14, even with this mod you're still needing to land 30-40 hits (if not more) for a quick kill.

Can't stress it enough. No one wants death lasers yeeting enemies out of the sky!

The part that's most valuable here is that you're actually removing parts and doing some damage to the enemies plane.

If you put several rounds into the wing and catch the aileron, you actually shoot it off.

So if you take a well aimed snap shot it actually has an effect.

Where with the current model, even if you shoot extremely well, you still need what we refer to as the "golden boolet" to have enough of a

effect on the enemy.

In that same situation if you catch a single 13mm HE round you're in a pickle!

I'm not expecting 14 hits to immediately bring down a fighter. I assume the 14 hit average included a lot of planes that were abandoned in flight, some crashed much later, some crashed while trying to land, etc... What I'm hoping for is hits actually doing enough damage that the enemy can't just keep fighting like nothing happened until the "golden bullet" hits him and that we don't have planes consistently requiring 50+ hits before they go down.

Edited June 23, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

June 23, 2021

1 hour ago, Denum said:

Can't stress it enough. No one wants death lasers yeeting enemies out of the sky!

Funny, that's how German guns seem to work...man this is so ridiculous. All these American planes that use .50 as armament and we still don't have "historically accurate" .50 ammo. The convergence isn't even done correctly as far as "realism" for the .50's. We argue with each other and present all kinds of good information and more than a year later what do we have? A highly Imbalanced combat system in a "combat flight simulator". German HE is a bit much, all you gotta do is prop hang or pull some silly AOA at low speed and spray a bunch of rounds to get one hit and you win after you recover a spin almost instantly and fly away or finish off a plane that can't maneuver, usually after you take a few bursts from a plane with 6-8 .50 MGs firing 600-800 rounds per minute.

June 23, 2021

6 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

IT doesnt actually matter in the real world, that the ammunition doesnt perform well IN THE MULTI PLAYER VERSION of the game.

For the umpteenth time, this is not a netcode or multiplayer issue.

June 23, 2021

Best solution:

1) calculate AP Bullet size by the presented calculation depending on impact angle for all AP rounds

2) give all HMGs (soviet 12.7mm and German 13mm) AP -only belts

that brings every one on the same level

and we cant start dicussion about the DM-Modell new, when the API rounds are intruduced ?

Cheers

Edited June 23, 2021 by the_emperor

June 23, 2021

5 hours ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said:

Funny, that's how German guns seem to work...man this is so ridiculous. All these American planes that use .50 as armament and we still don't have "historically accurate" .50 ammo. The convergence isn't even done correctly as far as "realism" for the .50's. We argue with each other and present all kinds of good information and more than a year later what do we have? A highly Imbalanced combat system in a "combat flight simulator". German HE is a bit much, all you gotta do is prop hang or pull some silly AOA at low speed and spray a bunch of rounds to get one hit and you win after you recover a spin almost instantly and fly away or finish off a plane that can't maneuver, usually after you take a few bursts from a plane with 6-8 .50 MGs firing 600-800 rounds per minute.

uhh last time i went looking at the weapon loadout on the german planes....

to qoute 2000's net parlance,,,,, "them german planes use those big 20 mm cannons with the extra big charge of HE yeet laser boom boom juice in 'em". Even the backwards british concluded BEFORE the war that cannons were better for killing planes. The united states navy stopped using the 50 bmg as an AA gun BEFORE the war due to short range, and inconsequential ability when compared to the lowly 20mm HE round..

If you want to get some realistic outlook on what the 50 BMG does IN GAME start up a quick mission, put yourself against two Veteran level B 25 and simply follow them at 300 yards distance. You get in the convergence zone for ALL of their guns, your dead..

I have had alot of fun flying with pieces of my wing missing, wing bent at odd angles, and survived. But yet it ONLY takes ONE 50 BMG to my engine or radiator or oil tank to PUT ME OUT OF ACTION when im in my magically armed 109 or 190

2 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

For the umpteenth time, this is not a netcode or multiplayer issue.

various people have said it WAS netcode or multiplayer issue because the "problems only seem to happen when online in multiplayer" and "in SINGLE PLAYER the 50 bmg works with realistic results"

Its boiling down to a bunch of cry babies who want their ammunition changed to magic bullets so that they can kill an enemy fighter or bomber with a single 1 second burst at 800 yards while they vulch the main spawn point to get their multi player kill rate up.

Everyone else is happy to either follow the doctrine "give 'em everything till you see tracers" or just fly british airlines and keep that tempest yeet juice known as 20mm HE flowing

June 23, 2021

12 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

Its boiling down to a bunch of cry babies who want their ammunition changed to magic bullets so that they can kill an enemy fighter or bomber with a single 1 second burst at 800 yards while they vulch the main spawn point to get their multi player kill rate up.

At this point nothing you say helps the conversation. Your constant babbling does nothing for the conversation. Take a hike.

June 23, 2021

1 hour ago, the_emperor said:

Best solution:

To be honest I've been expecting for a long period to be anything else than a mere 0.50 AP user..... something more pretentious.... something like.... just to put it as a mere example..... 0.50 API user. Maybe I'm too pretentious but after all this time I'm still having high expectations and no one of them should be missunderstood as any kind of hype (more extended in this forum than the corona world wide).

simulation

/sɪmjuːˈleɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

imitation of a situation or process.

"simulation of blood flowing through arteries and veins"
- the action of pretending; deception.
  
  "clever simulation that's good enough to trick you"
- the production of a computer model of something, especially for the purpose of study.
  
  "the method was tested by computer simulation"
  
  Are 0.50 AP rounds well simulated ? IMHO Can be an afirmative answer in most aspects as a "FEW" had burnt their spare time to demonstrate it.
  
  Are WW2 0.50 rounds well simulated? OUTRIGHT NOOOOOOO!!!!

June 23, 2021

This place seems more like warthunder forums by the day

(how I would imagine them anyway)

Well done guys

LOL

Cheers, Dakpilot

June 23, 2021

I think that is typical of any forum.

Good discussion, then someone pulls pigeon, runs up. Kicks all the pieces over while defecating all over the board and says, Look, I won!

Although I must say, @Yak_Panther your addition to this thread with the math and data is phenomenal. Numbers rarely lie!

Edited June 23, 2021 by Denum

AP Fix

Recommended Posts

ACG_Cass

Angry_Kitten

Denum

-SF-Disarray

354thFG_Panda_

LukeFF

Thad

oc2209

Tempus

=RS=EnvyC

oc2209

Angry_Kitten

oc2209

Angry_Kitten

Q_Walker

Yak_Panther

oc2209

Tempus

Creep

BCI-Nazgul

Dakpilot

LColony_Kong

Tempus

oc2209

=RS=EnvyC

oc2209

Yak_Panther

LColony_Kong

Angry_Kitten

Dakpilot

Denum

BCI-Nazgul

-332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138

Creep

the_emperor

Angry_Kitten

Q_Walker

Tempus

Dakpilot

Denum

Browse All

Activity