oc2209 Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Denum said: I think using the AI as an metric can be a bit dangerous, you may be better off seeing how it feels for you to fly after taking hits. But the AI instructor mode can often fly the plane better then a player with damage. From my perspective, this is exactly what makes the AI a good test subject. It is uniform in its skill level, and predictable in its reactions. The purpose of the wing strike test (I have multiple videos of these in the complaints section, on the 3rd page of the HE thread) is to watch for the exact moment when the AI rolls over and begins its swan dive. Because it always has the same reaction, you can see how it reacts from the location of one shell strike compared to another. This is what I mean: The circled cluster of 4 shots did nothing to the AI's ability to maneuver or maintain a normal flight attitude. Now look below: Those two hits caused it to immediately roll over and crash. And the aileron hit has nothing to do with it, as I've done many of these tests without hitting the aileron. In all the examples I use, I watch the recordings closely to ensure aileron control is still possible (i.e, the control rod/cable isn't broken). What's most interesting is that in all examples (whether the aileron's hit or not), the ailerons are kept full-down. Meaning the pilot is doing everything in its power to roll away from the direction it's crashing in. And the wing is not providing sufficient lift for it to matter. Not that this matters from a scientific evidence perspective, but I've done untold numbers of these 'tests' that I didn't bother to record. Just during the course of regular quick mission 1v1 duels, I would happen to hit the target once or twice in the wing and watch it crash the same way, every time. The plane type didn't matter, nor did the gun type. All that mattered was that it was 12.7mm-20mm HE of any nation, and that the strike location was from roughly the middle of the wing to the tip of the wing, anywhere therein. Trailing edge, leading edge, smack between the spars, didn't matter. 59 minutes ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said: I agree with the post that says one hit of HE is often enough to destroy the tail section of the spit...has happened to me a bunch of times online in the spit, but seemingly never in any other plane including the tempest or any of the German fighters (that also get hit by Hispano and Russian HE 20mm). I have also witnessed more than once multiple direct hits with Hispano 20mm HE to the 109 and 190 tail with zero damage and then the opponent keeps fighting as if nothing happened. Yeah, the Spit acts like it was being hauled around by a rubber band that suddenly snapped. That's the best way I can describe its reaction to taking an HE hit to the tail. The I-16 also reacts similarly to tail and most wing hits, but that plane was well known to have stability issues due to the shortness of its fuselage and wings. The only way to properly test it is to strike the Spit in the tail at level attitude, and then in a separate test during a turn. Excessive load on the elevators might cause a dramatic spin out if you're hit while turning, due to the Spit's exceptional turning ability (and heavy G-load if you turn at too high of speeds). That's the only explanation I can muster. Edited July 1, 2021 by oc2209
Angry_Kitten Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 the inboard 1/3rd of a wing is the thickest and strongest, only scientific its the most resilient.... And ill say again, the wings are essentially hollow with only a few rods and cables. just like the tail. I have before recommended people should watch Battle of Britain, and they really need to. Alot of the movie sucks but they had actual ACES as consultants allowed to get realism highest possibly done. You guys should pay attention to the german bombers getting machined by .303 spitfires.... thats whats happening in the game essentially. A 5 foot diameter tube with 6 important cables running through it, and everyone wants 3 randomly placed shots through it to send it tumbling down into the sea... E7 engine gun blows, E4 isnt that much better, but it looks nicer for some reason. Even in CLOD Blitz the first thing you do is AIM for important functions, engines and fuel tanks then cock pit. 3
-SF-Disarray Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 There sure are a lot of things inside of the wing for it being essentially empty. It is almost as if you'd be hard pressed to shoot a bullet into the wing without hitting something inside there. It is almost like you don't even have the beginning of a clue as to what you are talking about... Or you are just trying to derail this discussion for some reason. 4
41Sqn_Skipper Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) Inner 2/3 are occupied by landing gear, fuel tank, ammo/guns, landing light/camera Outer 1/3 is empty space (but also the ailerons) Edited July 1, 2021 by 41Sqn_Skipper
Yak_Panther Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) Where you hit matters because parts of the flight controls are more armored than others In the damage model. The amount of flight control armor varies by craft. Another critical factor is the The number of fragments a HE shell produces in the damage. As the damage is a probability. EG, 2 fragments impacting a flight control surface with a 50% chance of being destroyed is mathematically certain to be destroyed by 1 hit. Lets look at some of the flight control damage models. First, The K-4’s stabilizer trim system // wiring section inside the convex, wiring channel number, thickness in millimeters, //rupture probability in percent, wedge probability in percent [STABILIZER=0] Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_4", 3.0, 0.5, 0.1 // STABILIZER_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_7", 3.0, 0.5, 0.1 // STABILIZER_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_MdlLft_0", 3.0, 0.5, 0.1 // STABILIZER_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_MdlRgt_0", 3.0, 0.5, 0.1 // STABILIZER_DM_SETTINGS Vs the Spitfire IXe [ELEVATOR_TRIM=0] Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_4", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_7", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_10", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_L_0", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_R_0", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS The Spitfire has less armor and double the chance to jam. Lets look at the K-4 vs the P-51 First the Flaps and ailerons. The wing sections differentiate the flaps and ailerons. the K-4’s Aileron and flap damage model: [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "Wing_MdlLft_5", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Wing_MdlLft_3", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Wing_MdlLft_1", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Vs the ailerons and flaps of the P-51 [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "^_WingL_In_0", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^_WingL_Mid_0", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS The K-4 has 20 millimeters of armor on ailerons and the flaps. Compared to the P-51’s 4 mm. The K-4 is much better protected against AP and HE rounds. Given that fragments and blast effects from HE shells both have penetration values This is the shell fragments damage table from the German 20mm HE round. ShrapnelQuantity=41 FragmentMass=0.0007 // Single shard: range, speed, pairs (armor, damage beyond armor) ArmorShr=0.0,1069, 4,40, 3,101, 0,162 ArmorShr=2.8,964, 3,33, 2,82, 0,132 ArmorShr=5.7,861, 2,26, 0,105 This says, There are 41 fragments, each weighs .0007. At 0 range, the impact location, the fragment will penetrate 4mm of armor and do 4 damage. The armor on the K-4 ailerons and flaps will always defeat the fragments' effects of the HE round. However the P-51 will always take damage from this round. The K-4’s flaps and ailerons can be damaged, you just have to hit them enough times to remove the armor. The same is true of Elevators. First the K-4 [ELEVATOR=0] Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_4", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_7", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_MdlLft_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_MdlRgt_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Has the standard 20 mm of armor and 2% chance to jam when hit. Lets look at the P-51 elevator damage model [ELEVATOR=0] Link = 0, 0, "^_Fuse_Ctl_4", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^_Fuse_Ctl_6", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^_Fin_Ctl_0", 4.0, 2.0, 0.1 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 1, "^_Fuse_Ctl_4", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 1, "^_Fuse_Ctl_6", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 1, "^_Fin_Ctl_0", 4.0, 2.0, 0.1 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS The P-51 has less armor on elevator than the K-4. However one section Fin_Ctl_0 has a 1% less chance to jam. The damage model varies greatly from aircraft to aircraft. So what aircraft you test against will heavily influence your impression of the damage model. For example, shooting 30 mm rounds at a Typhoon. That aircraft’s control system damage model is closer to the K-4’s DM than the P-51’s. Which is why 30 mm round seem to do less damage per hit to the Typhoon. Typhoon DM [ELEVATOR=0] Link = 0, 0, "^Fuse_Ctl_5", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^Fuse_Ctl_8", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^Stab_L_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^Stab_R_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS [END] [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "^WingL_In_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^WingL_Mid_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Notice it has the same 20mm of armor on the flight controls and a 2% chance to jam as the K-4. The fragments and blast effects of 30 m HE round can’t penetrate the armor of many of the flight controls of the Typhoon. So it will take a hit or two to disable them. 30 mm shell effects. // High-explosive effect: range, (-1 not used), pairs (armor, damage for armor) ArmorFoug=0.0,-1, 4,1878, 0,3756 ArmorFoug=0.7,-1, 1,397, 0,793 ArmorFoug=1.7,-1, 0,147 ArmorFoug=3.0,-1, 0,50 ShrapnelQuantity=142 FragmentMass=0.0007 // Single shard: range, speed, pairs (armor, damage beyond armor) ArmorShr=0.0,1070, 7,42, 6,104, 0,167 ArmorShr=1.1,1030, 6,39, 5,97, 0,155 ArmorShr=5.3,879, 3,28, 0,113 ArmorShr=10.6,711, 2,18, 0,74 Part of the reason the 50 cal AP seem to underperforms is that: you have to be less than 100 meters from the round to penetrate the elevators, ailerons and flaps of many of the German aircraft. From the in game ballistic table: 50 cal AP round. Armor=100,789, 20,135, 16,338, 0,541 This says that at 100 meters the round will be traveling 789 mps and penetrate 20 mm of armor and do 135 damage. Since many of the rounds are defeated by the protection in the Flight controls damage model. If you're shooting 50 cal AP, Unless your under a 100 meters, you have hit the aileron with enough 50 cal ap rounds to break it off, before you'll degrade the roll performance of a aircraft with 20mm armored flight controls. So it's important to normalize what you're shooting when we talk about how effective a round is. 3 hours ago, oc2209 said: What's most interesting is that in all examples (whether the aileron's hit or not), the ailerons are kept full-down. Meaning the pilot is doing everything in its power to roll away from the direction it's crashing in. And the wing is not providing sufficient lift for it to matter. It's more likely that blast or fragmentation effects have jammed the aileron and the craft can't be recovered. The animation of the model may not match. Edited July 1, 2021 by Yak_Panther 3
[DBS]Browning Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 2 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: 2 fragments impacting a flight control surface with a 50% chance of being destroyed is mathematically certain to be destroyed by 1 hit. just on a technical note, that's not how you add probabilities. If there is a 50% chance of something breaking when hit by a fragment and it is hit by two fragments, then the result is a 75% chance that it broke.
=RS=EnvyC Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: The K-4 has 20 millimeters of armor on ailerons and the flaps. Compared to the P-51’s 4 mm. The K-4 is much better protected against AP and HE rounds. Given that fragments and blast effects from HE shells both have penetration values What. The. F. Thats insane and unacceptable. Are you sure you're interpreting the game files there correctly? Edited July 1, 2021 by =RS=EnvyC
Yak_Panther Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said: just on a technical note, that's not how you add probabilities. If there is a 50% chance of something breaking when hit by a fragment and it is hit by two fragments, then the result is a 75% chance that it broke. the probability that any given fragment will break the elevator=.5 .5 *.5 = .25 = the probability that 2 fragments in a row break elevator. .75 probability that 2 fragments in a row do not break the elevator. the probability that fragment 3 breaks the elevator =.5 the probability that all 3 fragments do not break the elevator= .875 the probability that all 3 fragments break the elevator =.125%
[DBS]Browning Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 11 minutes ago, Yak_Panther said: the probability that any given fragment will break the elevator=.5 .5 *.5 = .25 = the probability that 2 fragments in a row break elevator. .75 probability that 2 fragments in a row do not break the elevator. the probability that fragment 3 breaks the elevator =.5 the probability that all 3 fragments do not break the elevator= .875 the probability that all 3 fragments break the elevator =.125% Exactly so.
QB.Gregor- Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 @Yak_PantherI'm not sure we can say for certain that the 4mm/20mm are actually modelled as armor. I believe the number is for the thickness of the control rod/cable respectively (would line up with the real numbers), not armor for the entire control surface. It's also linked to certain fuselage hitboxes and I doubt it would be modelled as an armored plate filling entire tail-hitboxes. If anything I'd assume it's applied as armor in case of a jam or rupture event but since those are so rare it shouldn't have much of an effect. Anyways it'd be odd to model a presumably hollow control rod as solid 20mm armor.
Denum Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) If those numbers mean, what they appear to mean. Yak you might have stirred the hornets nest. If it jives from a historical POV then so be it, but I've got a bad feeling something is fairly amiss here.. Edited July 1, 2021 by Denum bacon
357th_Dog Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 @Yak_Panther Would you be so kind as to compile your findings on the disparity in terms of control rods/wires/armor and post it on a unique thread so as to not let it get smothered in the mess of AP/API/.50 cal talk?
Angry_Kitten Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 9 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: Where you hit matters because parts of the flight controls are more armored than others In the damage model. The amount of flight control armor varies by craft. Another critical factor is the The number of fragments a HE shell produces in the damage. As the damage is a probability. EG, 2 fragments impacting a flight control surface with a 50% chance of being destroyed is mathematically certain to be destroyed by 1 hit. Lets look at some of the flight control damage models. First, The K-4’s stabilizer trim system // wiring section inside the convex, wiring channel number, thickness in millimeters, //rupture probability in percent, wedge probability in percent [STABILIZER=0] Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_4", 3.0, 0.5, 0.1 // STABILIZER_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_7", 3.0, 0.5, 0.1 // STABILIZER_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_MdlLft_0", 3.0, 0.5, 0.1 // STABILIZER_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_MdlRgt_0", 3.0, 0.5, 0.1 // STABILIZER_DM_SETTINGS Vs the Spitfire IXe [ELEVATOR_TRIM=0] Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_4", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_7", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_10", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_L_0", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_R_0", 2.0, 0.3, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_TRIM_DM_SETTINGS The Spitfire has less armor and double the chance to jam. Lets look at the K-4 vs the P-51 First the Flaps and ailerons. The wing sections differentiate the flaps and ailerons. the K-4’s Aileron and flap damage model: [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "Wing_MdlLft_5", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Wing_MdlLft_3", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Wing_MdlLft_1", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Vs the ailerons and flaps of the P-51 [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "^_WingL_In_0", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^_WingL_Mid_0", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS The K-4 has 20 millimeters of armor on ailerons and the flaps. Compared to the P-51’s 4 mm. The K-4 is much better protected against AP and HE rounds. Given that fragments and blast effects from HE shells both have penetration values This is the shell fragments damage table from the German 20mm HE round. ShrapnelQuantity=41 FragmentMass=0.0007 // Single shard: range, speed, pairs (armor, damage beyond armor) ArmorShr=0.0,1069, 4,40, 3,101, 0,162 ArmorShr=2.8,964, 3,33, 2,82, 0,132 ArmorShr=5.7,861, 2,26, 0,105 This says, There are 41 fragments, each weighs .0007. At 0 range, the impact location, the fragment will penetrate 4mm of armor and do 4 damage. The armor on the K-4 ailerons and flaps will always defeat the fragments' effects of the HE round. However the P-51 will always take damage from this round. The K-4’s flaps and ailerons can be damaged, you just have to hit them enough times to remove the armor. The same is true of Elevators. First the K-4 [ELEVATOR=0] Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_4", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_7", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_MdlLft_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "Stab_MdlRgt_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Has the standard 20 mm of armor and 2% chance to jam when hit. Lets look at the P-51 elevator damage model [ELEVATOR=0] Link = 0, 0, "^_Fuse_Ctl_4", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^_Fuse_Ctl_6", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^_Fin_Ctl_0", 4.0, 2.0, 0.1 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 1, "^_Fuse_Ctl_4", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 1, "^_Fuse_Ctl_6", 4.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 1, "^_Fin_Ctl_0", 4.0, 2.0, 0.1 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS The P-51 has less armor on elevator than the K-4. However one section Fin_Ctl_0 has a 1% less chance to jam. The damage model varies greatly from aircraft to aircraft. So what aircraft you test against will heavily influence your impression of the damage model. For example, shooting 30 mm rounds at a Typhoon. That aircraft’s control system damage model is closer to the K-4’s DM than the P-51’s. Which is why 30 mm round seem to do less damage per hit to the Typhoon. Typhoon DM [ELEVATOR=0] Link = 0, 0, "^Fuse_Ctl_5", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^Fuse_Ctl_8", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^Stab_L_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^Stab_R_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS [END] [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "^WingL_In_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "^WingL_Mid_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Notice it has the same 20mm of armor on the flight controls and a 2% chance to jam as the K-4. The fragments and blast effects of 30 m HE round can’t penetrate the armor of many of the flight controls of the Typhoon. So it will take a hit or two to disable them. 30 mm shell effects. // High-explosive effect: range, (-1 not used), pairs (armor, damage for armor) ArmorFoug=0.0,-1, 4,1878, 0,3756 ArmorFoug=0.7,-1, 1,397, 0,793 ArmorFoug=1.7,-1, 0,147 ArmorFoug=3.0,-1, 0,50 ShrapnelQuantity=142 FragmentMass=0.0007 // Single shard: range, speed, pairs (armor, damage beyond armor) ArmorShr=0.0,1070, 7,42, 6,104, 0,167 ArmorShr=1.1,1030, 6,39, 5,97, 0,155 ArmorShr=5.3,879, 3,28, 0,113 ArmorShr=10.6,711, 2,18, 0,74 Part of the reason the 50 cal AP seem to underperforms is that: you have to be less than 100 meters from the round to penetrate the elevators, ailerons and flaps of many of the German aircraft. From the in game ballistic table: 50 cal AP round. Armor=100,789, 20,135, 16,338, 0,541 This says that at 100 meters the round will be traveling 789 mps and penetrate 20 mm of armor and do 135 damage. Since many of the rounds are defeated by the protection in the Flight controls damage model. If you're shooting 50 cal AP, Unless your under a 100 meters, you have hit the aileron with enough 50 cal ap rounds to break it off, before you'll degrade the roll performance of a aircraft with 20mm armored flight controls. So it's important to normalize what you're shooting when we talk about how effective a round is. It's more likely that blast or fragmentation effects have jammed the aileron and the craft can't be recovered. The animation of the model may not match. Thanks for proving my point. People focusing on "i want more damage from my gun" but when it gets pointed out they are shooting at Tiger Tanks with a hand gun.... ooh boy.. 1
357th_Dog Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 14 minutes ago, pocketshaver said: Thanks for proving my point. People focusing on "i want more damage from my gun" but when it gets pointed out they are shooting at Tiger Tanks with a hand gun.... ooh boy.. You didn't prove anything. All that was shown here is that apparently there are areas of aircraft that are armored with up to 20mm of armor and thus are *unreasonably protected*. This only compounds the problem of poorly modeled, ineffective AP round and lack of incendiary rounds as well as the disparity in aircraft durability between Allied and Nazi aircraft.
Denum Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 Might just be me, but the K4 requires considerably more ammo to down then a P51...? Anyone want to try it and see?
oc2209 Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 13 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: It's more likely that blast or fragmentation effects have jammed the aileron and the craft can't be recovered. The animation of the model may not match. I did 5 tests last night, in which I obtained the fatal wing hit in 2 of those. So a 40% success rate at damaging/destroying aileron control with anywhere from 1-5 Russian 12.7mm hits seems a little unlikely, given all that you posted above. The Typhoon, in particular, goes down easily with wing hits, despite its apparently thicker control armor. Here's the successful tests: Yak-9 vs 109G-6. The really absurd part is how one 12.7mm HE evidently rolled the 109 over. Even if the aileron control was destroyed here, I see no reason for the severe rolling motion the hit produced. I did accidentally hit the tail once prior to the wing, but that had little visible effect. While many people see something like this and assume the HE effect must be too powerful, I'm starting to think it's more a flight model issue. Spoiler Here's a P-47 test; the first few seconds are in slow motion, and after the strikes, I resume normal speed. At most, there are 4 hits that I can see: Spoiler 14 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: The damage model varies greatly from aircraft to aircraft. So what aircraft you test against will heavily influence your impression of the damage model. For example, shooting 30 mm rounds at a Typhoon. That aircraft’s control system damage model is closer to the K-4’s DM than the P-51’s. Which is why 30 mm round seem to do less damage per hit to the Typhoon. I want to remind everyone here that I did put 7x30mm (German) into a P-51 that endured those hits just about as well as a Typhoon. The major difference was that the P-51 lost its flaps, the Typhoon didn't. Both planes retained some level of controllability, had their pilots not eventually been killed/wounded by shrapnel.
oc2209 Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 Here, this is another test I did just now. No, I don't have a life. Moving on. La-5FN, HE-only, versus a Typhoon. I purposely didn't give it rockets this time, so as to not skew its handling excessively. Spoiler As you can see in the early part of the clip, it's handling decently. It's taken 2 HE strikes by this time, and is downed by 2 more. The final 2 hits were from ~420m, so it's not like the shells themselves lent much energy to the impact. This is the grouping of all 4 shots: 2 above the line I drew, 2 below. 1 hit was on each side of the line prior to the final 2 hits. They appear too far away to damage the ailerons controls. Speculation, I know, but I just don't see the plausibility. Rather, it appears as though any HE hits below the line I drew have a much greater effect on lift than any hits above the line. I have shot down Typhoons with as few as one HE strike; so long as it's lower than that line. HE hits above the line seem to do nothing aerodynamically. My point is that if HE shells were creating too much aerodynamic damage from having too large a blast radius, then the location of the HE strike would matter far less than it apparently does.
BCI-Nazgul Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) 10 hours ago, QB.Gregor- said: @Yak_PantherI'm not sure we can say for certain that the 4mm/20mm are actually modelled as armor. I believe the number is for the thickness of the control rod/cable respectively (would line up with the real numbers), not armor for the entire control surface. It's also linked to certain fuselage hitboxes and I doubt it would be modelled as an armored plate filling entire tail-hitboxes. If anything I'd assume it's applied as armor in case of a jam or rupture event but since those are so rare it shouldn't have much of an effect. Anyways it'd be odd to model a presumably hollow control rod as solid 20mm armor. A control cable armor with 20mm of armor for it's full length would be ridiculously heavy. That's more armor than WWII tanks had in some places. I have serious doubts that is a correct number or more likely it's being interpreted wrong or it could just be an error by 1C. Also, hardened steel armor is much tougher and heavier than an equal thickness of aluminium armor, so whole set of numbers smells a little funny to me. .50 AP rounds could penetrate 25mm of steel armor at point blank range IIRC, the amount of aluminium armor would be much more. Edited July 1, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul
oc2209 Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 16 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: Where you hit matters because parts of the flight controls are more armored than others In the damage model. The amount of flight control armor varies by craft. Another critical factor is the The number of fragments a HE shell produces in the damage. As the damage is a probability. EG, 2 fragments impacting a flight control surface with a 50% chance of being destroyed is mathematically certain to be destroyed by 1 hit. Lets look at some of the flight control damage models. The K-4 has 20 millimeters of armor on ailerons and the flaps. Compared to the P-51’s 4 mm. The K-4 is much better protected against AP and HE rounds. Given that fragments and blast effects from HE shells both have penetration values Notice it has the same 20mm of armor on the flight controls and a 2% chance to jam as the K-4. The fragments and blast effects of 30 m HE round can’t penetrate the armor of many of the flight controls of the Typhoon. So it will take a hit or two to disable them. Part of the reason the 50 cal AP seem to underperforms is that: you have to be less than 100 meters from the round to penetrate the elevators, ailerons and flaps of many of the German aircraft. From the in game ballistic table: 50 cal AP round. Armor=100,789, 20,135, 16,338, 0,541 This says that at 100 meters the round will be traveling 789 mps and penetrate 20 mm of armor and do 135 damage. Since many of the rounds are defeated by the protection in the Flight controls damage model. If you're shooting 50 cal AP, Unless your under a 100 meters, you have hit the aileron with enough 50 cal ap rounds to break it off, before you'll degrade the roll performance of a aircraft with 20mm armored flight controls. Okay, this is maddening. I'm not directing my frustration at the devs or anyone else; I'm just saying I can't make any sense out of any of this. I put myself in a Yak-9 versus a 109K-4. I crippled the 109 with 2 hits to the aileron. This is all the relevant evidence: Spoiler Some screen shots: The 109 was hit 4 times (I watched in 1/32 speed to confirm, which is painful). This was the first hit: Second hit: 3rd and 4th hit; note that the dark puff beside the flash indicates AP and HE both struck the aileron at that point: My distance when I hit the aileron (approximately 170m): By all of Yak Panther's statements and data above, I should not have been able to disable/destroy the aileron, nor should I be able to all the other times I possibly have disabled ailerons. Unless I'm getting really lucky with those 1-2% jamming chances.
=RS=EnvyC Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 You can't legitimately say you crippled a plane if it's AI. When player controlled you'll find that the AI bails or stops fighting long before the plane is actually beyond a combat ineffective state.
oc2209 Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 46 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said: You can't legitimately say you crippled a plane if it's AI. When player controlled you'll find that the AI bails or stops fighting long before the plane is actually beyond a combat ineffective state. Right. Well, I'll just leave these old clips here, since you must have missed them. Spoiler Spoiler Regardless of the AI's piloting ability, all of my wing-kill tests indicate, at the very least, when the target airplane suffers a major loss of lift that the AI is incapable of correcting. The point is not whether the AI can recover where a human could. The point is that the plane has become aerodynamically compromised from, in many cases, 1-4 bullet strikes.
Stonehouse Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 20mm of steel or aluminium armor on a control surface is very unlikely. A control surface has a top and bottom skin with a duralium/aluminium or perhaps wood skeleton inside for this period. So if you say 20mm of armor that really means two sheets of armor 20mm thick, one on top and one on the bottom surface - As far as I know the sheet of armor behind the pilots seat generally maxed out at about 20-25mm and no more because of the weight involved. There is no way there would be material that thick on a control surface because of the weight factor - especially in places like ailerons and elevators which are a long way from CofG and even if there was you would expect the rest of the wing to have similar armor or better as control systems, weapons, ammo and other more valuable things etc are all within. Ditto for the fuselage which has the pilot, more fuel perhaps, coolant, radio, oxygen bottle (which if hit was usually a catastrophic explosion) etc. So the 20.0 in the 109 definition is much more likely either a typo or a misinterpretation in this discussion or perhaps a empirical value the devs arrived at via play testing to get a certain result from the damage modelling logic. First would be a bug, last could be a bug as the play testing might have happened a while ago. The risk of tuning the M2 ammo or any ammo against a particular aircraft is logically that it may be wrong against other aircraft or ground or sea targets. You would logically expect that the devs would set up the weapons and ammo and damage they deal and then tune the damage model of the individual target against that to get the desired result. eg a tank with weak rear armor would have specific values to make the damage model of the tank reflect this. ditto aircraft. Edited July 2, 2021 by Stonehouse
Yak_Panther Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, oc2209 said: Okay, this is maddening. I'm not directing my frustration at the devs or anyone else; I'm just saying I can't make any sense out of any of this. 3rd and 4th hit; note that the dark puff beside the flash indicates AP and HE both struck the aileron at that point: My distance when I hit the aileron (approximately 170m):By all of Yak Panther's statements and data above, I should not have been able to disable/destroy the aileron, nor should I be able to all the other times I possibly have disabled ailerons. Unless I'm getting really lucky with those 1-2% jamming chances. Your test parameters are inadequate to judge the effects. You're not controlling for all the variables. .You have multiple hits to the wing causing the craft to crash. So It's hard to isolate which effects are causing the craft to crash. 1. You can't localize the damage to aileron alone with HE. You're results are likely the results of the cumulative hits to the wing resulting in a loss of lift. 2. These are the HE effects for the 12.7mm x 108 Russian HE round. Radius=2.0 // TNT_equ=0.002 // // High-explosive effect: range, (-1 not used), pairs (armor, damage for armor) ArmorFoug=0.0,-1, 0,453 ArmorFoug=0.5,-1, 0,140 ArmorFoug=0.7,-1, 0,83 ArmorFoug=0.9,-1, 0,50 // Shrapnel impact ShrapnelQuantity=5 FragmentMass=0.0030 // Single shard: range, speed, pairs (armor, damage beyond armor) ArmorShr=0.0,535, 2,42, 1,106, 0,169 ArmorShr=2.0,509, 2,38, 1,96, 0,153 The first type of damage: TNT_equ has a radius of 2 meters. applies force to the aircraft = .002 kg for TNT The second type of damage, ArmorFough. Destroys the armor of the flight controls, does structural and aero damage. It has a radius of .9 meters. The third type of damage, ArmorShr, is functionally equivalent to 5 ap rounds impacting where the HE round strikes. An 12.7mm HE to the aileron alone is enough to break it. It's 453 damage, destroys the 20 mm of armor and breaks it. The chance to jam or rupture is likely only applied to AP rounds and fragments with enough penetration to defeat the armor. The only conclusion I can draw from your "tests" are, that HE shells are orders of magnitude better than AP rounds at disabling flight controls If you want to test the HE rounds, mod the game to control the variables. I.E. reduce the radius of the effects to isolate the damage to a small area. Then, elimante all the damage effects except for one. This is how I tested my hypothesis that flight controls were, in effect, armored. I took the HE 111 h6 and h6. I set the h6 to have a "thickness" of 1. The H16, I set the "thickness" to 99999. I gave both aircraft ailerons a high probability to "rupture" and "wedge". The H6 damage model with 1 mm of"thickness" and a high probability to rupture and wedge. //AIRPLANE DAMAGE HE111 H6 // section of the wiring inside the convex, the number of the wiring channel, //the thickness in millimeters, //the probability of rupture in percent, //the probability of a wedge in percent. [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "WingL_In_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.0100 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Mid_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.0100 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Out_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.0100 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS [END] [AILERON=2] Link = 0, 0, "WingR_In_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.01 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Mid_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.01 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Out_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.01 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS The HE 111 H16 with a thickness of 99999 and a high probability to rupture and wedge. //AIRPLANE DAMAGE HE111 H16 // section of the wiring inside the convex, the number of the wiring channel, //the thickness in millimeters, //the probability of rupture in percent, //the probability of a wedge in percent. [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "WingL_In_0", 99999, 99.0, 99 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Mid_0", 99999, 99.0, 99 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Out_0", 99999, 99.0, 99 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS [END] [AILERON=2] Link = 0, 0, "WingR_In_0", 99999, 99.0, 99.9 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Mid_0", 99999, 99.0, 99.9 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Out_0", 99999, 99.0, 99.9 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS The test methodology: set game to unlimited ammo, turn on invulnerability. use the P-39 to fire only 50 cal ap into ailerons only. Fire a burst of 1 to 2 rounds. Fly close enough to observe if the aileron becomes stuck. Repeat until the aileron jams or breaks off. Results. The ailerons on the low thickness H6 become jammed in a few hits. They will stop moving. The H16 with a "thickness" of 99999, will never jam. You have to hit them enough times to remove them. Conclusions: that the variable "thickness" is not the size of the flight control damage box. If it were, AP rounds impacting the aircraft with a larger thickness, would be more likely to jam or rupture the control cable. Give the hypothesized larger area of the H16 damage box. The aileron still takes takes skin damage, however it will not jam or rupture / break until it is removed from the aircraft. The thickness value is likely a form of armor. As the 50 cal AP rounds will always penetrate the low thickness HE 111 H6 aileron. The rounds which do impact have a high probability to jam or rupture / break the controls, before the aileron is shot off the aircraft. I've attached a mod that is JSGME / OVGME compatible. It includes the changes to HE 111 damage model as described above. It also reduces the thickness of the flight control DM to 1mm on 109 G6, 110 G2, Fw190 A5, Tempest and Typhoon. The variety of aircraft included give you away to compare and contrast how these changes effect similar aircraft. The mod also increase the time tracers is displayed on the 50 cal AP round, to aid in aiming. Aircraft FC DM.zip Edited July 2, 2021 by Yak_Panther fixed mod.
Tempus Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) I'm going to suppouse that the 20mm thickness number has been well demonstrated (Thanks Yak_Panther for your tech contributions). So using an online weight calculator that you can easily find in some webs from metal suppliers then... 20mm thick x 300mm wide x 1500mm long x the stipulated density for aluminium by tables (info not accesible in the web) = arround 25 KGS. per side. and remeber the aileron has upper and lower side, also the weight of its internal structure and all the unions with the wing,.... In this case I'm doing this guess thinking they're using duraluminium to manufacture the aileron cause if you try to do same numbers but with steel..... 70 Kgs x side????!!!!!! As Stonehouse pointed out in his post and he said unlike (totally agree) I say odd and against any logics for any engineer. You can put arround 50 kgs. in each wingtip.... of course you can.... but of course you're going to evade that kind of weights that far from the A/C CofG (center of gravity), at least if your design got the main goal of been as nimble as materials and calculations allows it, and fighters from their beginnings in the Great War til nowadays 5th. Gen. got a main thing in common: high maneuravility. But...... Here comes a sim where magic is still possible.... with a spoonful of sugar.... Let's encourage them Mary!!! Edited July 2, 2021 by Tatata_Time 1
Stonehouse Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) It's possibly more like a location hit points number than armor thickness. As I hypothesized it is possibly an empirical value or semi empirical value arrived at by play testing and/or play testing with knowledge of the DM logic so you set a base set of numbers and then tweak through testing to represent the amount of damage required to knock out a control surface. I really don't think it is mm of steel or aluminium. I used to do modding for one of the other sims and up until recently hit points per location tied to an animation was pretty much how damage was handled for AI aircraft. So x damage points in location y meant a damage texture appeared or a wing fell off type thing. It changed recently to become more complex. Anyway continuing on point....these values would be set at a point in time in the dev timeline and possibly not often reviewed unless there was a need. If the idea above is the case here then changing the M2 weapon damage becomes only a small fragment of the problem as you need to consider much more than the 109 and would need to play test it against all other targets in the game that use that system - I don't know if things other than aircraft use something similar - to ensure you don't end up with strange things happening in other places in the game. It could become a big juggling of compromises exercise. Changing the values for the 109 would presumably impact all other weapons and how they interact with that aircraft so again would indicate lots of testing. Only an opinion but I would suggest trying to limit the scope of things as much as possible. Maybe it has already been done but possibly raise the numbers for the 109 "hit points" v's aircraft xyz in the bugs forum as perhaps that is a new way to get the dev team interested in looking at it? Bit like the recent changes for the 109 tail? I know a lot of the discussion is about lack of APIT ammo for the M2 but considering the DM may not cover complex systems in detail and may be representational - does the stock M2 values generally reflect the damage from pure AP ammo which I assume would generally simply punch a reasonably neat hole through an empty wing cell - two sheets of aluminium would likely hardly slow a .50 cal bullet down surely? I guess my thought here is perhaps it is the DM that needs tweaking not the M2 if APIT is not a consideration? It is very hard to make a useful comment without knowing how the DM really works and what is the true level of damage simulation. Edited July 2, 2021 by Stonehouse 1 1
=RS=Haart Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 21 hours ago, pocketshaver said: People focusing on "i want more damage from my gun" but when it gets pointed out they are shooting at Tiger Tanks with a hand gun.... ooh boy.. @Yak_Panther sorry to bother you, but I have had this question for quite a time bubbling away in the back of my head and this comment reminded me of it, do you happen to be able to tell us what the damage differences between the .45ACP for the player sidearm and the .50 are, I just want to see if insult is added to injury
354thFG_Rails Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 9 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: Your test parameters are inadequate to judge the effects. You're not controlling for all the variables. .You have multiple hits to the wing causing the craft to crash. So It's hard to isolate which effects are causing the craft to crash. 1. You can't localize the damage to aileron alone with HE. You're results are likely the results of the cumulative hits to the wing resulting in a loss of lift. 2. These are the HE effects for the 12.7mm x 108 Russian HE round. Radius=2.0 // TNT_equ=0.002 // // High-explosive effect: range, (-1 not used), pairs (armor, damage for armor) ArmorFoug=0.0,-1, 0,453 ArmorFoug=0.5,-1, 0,140 ArmorFoug=0.7,-1, 0,83 ArmorFoug=0.9,-1, 0,50 // Shrapnel impact ShrapnelQuantity=5 FragmentMass=0.0030 // Single shard: range, speed, pairs (armor, damage beyond armor) ArmorShr=0.0,535, 2,42, 1,106, 0,169 ArmorShr=2.0,509, 2,38, 1,96, 0,153 The first type of damage: TNT_equ has a radius of 2 meters. applies force to the aircraft = .002 kg for TNT The second type of damage, ArmorFough. Destroys the armor of the flight controls, does structural and aero damage. It has a radius of .9 meters. The third type of damage, ArmorShr, is functionally equivalent to 5 ap rounds impacting where the HE round strikes. An 12.7mm HE to the aileron alone is enough to break it. It's 453 damage, destroys the 20 mm of armor and breaks it. The chance to jam or rupture is likely only applied to AP rounds and fragments with enough penetration to defeat the armor. The only conclusion I can draw from your "tests" are, that HE shells are orders of magnitude better than AP rounds at disabling flight controls If you want to test the HE rounds, mod the game to control the variables. I.E. reduce the radius of the effects to isolate the damage to a small area. Then, elimante all the damage effects except for one. This is how I tested my hypothesis that flight controls were, in effect, armored. I took the HE 111 h6 and h6. I set the h6 to have a "thickness" of 1. The H16, I set the "thickness" to 99999. I gave both aircraft ailerons a high probability to "rupture" and "wedge". The H6 damage model with 1 mm of"thickness" and a high probability to rupture and wedge. //AIRPLANE DAMAGE HE111 H6 // section of the wiring inside the convex, the number of the wiring channel, //the thickness in millimeters, //the probability of rupture in percent, //the probability of a wedge in percent. [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "WingL_In_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.0100 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Mid_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.0100 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Out_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.0100 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS [END] [AILERON=2] Link = 0, 0, "WingR_In_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.01 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Mid_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.01 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Out_0", 1.0, 99.0, 99.01 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS The HE 111 H16 with a thickness of 99999 and a high probability to rupture and wedge. //AIRPLANE DAMAGE HE111 H16 // section of the wiring inside the convex, the number of the wiring channel, //the thickness in millimeters, //the probability of rupture in percent, //the probability of a wedge in percent. [AILERON=1] Link = 0, 0, "WingL_In_0", 99999, 99.0, 99 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Mid_0", 99999, 99.0, 99 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Out_0", 99999, 99.0, 99 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS [END] [AILERON=2] Link = 0, 0, "WingR_In_0", 99999, 99.0, 99.9 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Mid_0", 99999, 99.0, 99.9 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Out_0", 99999, 99.0, 99.9 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS The test methodology: set game to unlimited ammo, turn on invulnerability. use the P-39 to fire only 50 cal ap into ailerons only. Fire a burst of 1 to 2 rounds. Fly close enough to observe if the aileron becomes stuck. Repeat until the aileron jams or breaks off. Results. The ailerons on the low thickness H6 become jammed in a few hits. They will stop moving. The H16 with a "thickness" of 99999, will never jam. You have to hit them enough times to remove them. Conclusions: that the variable "thickness" is not the size of the flight control damage box. If it were, AP rounds impacting the aircraft with a larger thickness, would be more likely to jam or rupture the control cable. Give the hypothesized larger area of the H16 damage box. The aileron still takes takes skin damage, however it will not jam or rupture / break until it is removed from the aircraft. The thickness value is likely a form of armor. As the 50 cal AP rounds will always penetrate the low thickness HE 111 H6 aileron. The rounds which do impact have a high probability to jam or rupture / break the controls, before the aileron is shot off the aircraft. I've attached a mod that is JSGME / OVGME compatible. It includes the changes to HE 111 damage model as described above. It also reduces the thickness of the flight control DM to 1mm on 109 G6, 110 G2, Fw190 A5, Tempest and Typhoon. The variety of aircraft included give you away to compare and contrast how these changes effect similar aircraft. The mod also increase the time tracers is displayed on the 50 cal AP round, to aid in aiming. Aircraft FC DM.zip 84.09 kB · 0 downloads This doesn’t break the game? I’ve found if you touch anything with the aircraft files the game doesn’t like it.
Yak_Panther Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 9 minutes ago, QB.Rails said: This doesn’t break the game? I’ve found if you touch anything with the aircraft files the game doesn’t like it. It will depend on what you change and sometimes the aircraft. On most aircraft you can get away with changing the flight control damage model and the protection systems. Modding the weapons and ammo never seems to work though. I tested the Mod fighting against all the aircraft included, not flying them. 1 1
CountZero Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 20 minutes ago, QB.Rails said: This doesn’t break the game? I’ve found if you touch anything with the aircraft files the game doesn’t like it. You can change it for AI, human cant fly it (crashes game) but you can use it if you go vs AI whos files you changed. 1 1
oc2209 Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) 15 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: Your test parameters are inadequate to judge the effects. You're not controlling for all the variables. .You have multiple hits to the wing causing the craft to crash. So It's hard to isolate which effects are causing the craft to crash. 1. You can't localize the damage to aileron alone with HE. You're results are likely the results of the cumulative hits to the wing resulting in a loss of lift. 2. These are the HE effects for the 12.7mm x 108 Russian HE round. The first type of damage: TNT_equ has a radius of 2 meters. applies force to the aircraft = .002 kg for TNT The second type of damage, ArmorFough. Destroys the armor of the flight controls, does structural and aero damage. It has a radius of .9 meters. The third type of damage, ArmorShr, is functionally equivalent to 5 ap rounds impacting where the HE round strikes. An 12.7mm HE to the aileron alone is enough to break it. It's 453 damage, destroys the 20 mm of armor and breaks it. The chance to jam or rupture is likely only applied to AP rounds and fragments with enough penetration to defeat the armor. I say again: none of this makes sense to me. You said above that a 30mm wouldn't assuredly break a Tempest/109K's 20mm control armor in only one hit: On 7/1/2021 at 12:01 AM, Yak_Panther said: Notice it has the same 20mm of armor on the flight controls and a 2% chance to jam as the K-4. The fragments and blast effects of 30 m HE round can’t penetrate the armor of many of the flight controls of the Typhoon. So it will take a hit or two to disable them. Why, then, is a Russian 12.7mm HE able to destroy/disable the 109's aileron in one hit? (assuming aileron damage is even causing the instability) Observe the effects of multiple Russian 20mm HE on a P-51's aileron; which, according to your data, has much less armor than a 109K-4: There are 6 HE hits in the aileron area, and at least 2 hits further towards the leading edge. Note: the P-51 didn't crash from the above damage. In fact, it seems quite resilient to aerodynamic damage. This is 12.7mm Russian, mixed AP and HE: I count at least 10 HE strikes here. Now, observe the effect of one Russian 20mm HE on a 109K-4: Spoiler It's not a direct hit to the aileron; it's not a multi-hit to the wing. It is one strike well forward of the aileron itself and its control linkage. The aileron looks like it still works. The forward slat still works. The only explanation I can find is that the 109 stalled on that wing, and for whatever reason (notice the AI throttled up before the roll into the stall; maybe torque effects exacerbated the stall?) was unable to recover. Edited July 2, 2021 by oc2209 Edited for clarity.
oc2209 Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 12 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: Your test parameters are inadequate to judge the effects. You're not controlling for all the variables. .You have multiple hits to the wing causing the craft to crash. So It's hard to isolate which effects are causing the craft to crash. 1. You can't localize the damage to aileron alone with HE. You're results are likely the results of the cumulative hits to the wing resulting in a loss of lift. I've already posted this recording once before, but in specific response to this quote, I'm posting it again: Spoiler Obviously it's very difficult to get only 1 hit against a turning target, when most of the time I'm firing blindly over my nose. The accidental tail strike in this clip is immaterial to the pronounced roll effect caused by the single 12.7mm HE to the very end of the wing/aileron. This is another example I have of 1x20mm HE wing strike downing a plane; this time from a P-38: Spoiler Again, I accidentally hit the tail once. But that has no bearing on the wing's lift properties, and the extent to which they've been degraded. In all cases where 1-2 strikes down a plane, the possible reasons are: 1) AI pilot error 2) Aileron damage/inoperability 3) Loss of lift Let's explore these options. In the first case, AI pilot quality is irrelevant because many people here and elsewhere have noted handling degradation and top speed loss from 1-2 HE hits of sub-30mm caliber. The point to my tests, as I have said, is to show where (at which points after damage was inflicted) the aerodynamic performance degrades severely; whether the AI crashes or not is beside the point. Secondly, in the case of aileron damage, your data indicates that jamming is exceedingly unlikely; and that armored controls also reduce the probability of 1-2 hits having a reliable chance of destroying control functionality. Beyond that, there's the visual evidence indicating the control surfaces still work, or at least are jammed in a downward position if they are jammed at all, which would not explain the immediate stalling behavior in the crashes I've recorded. Finally, the loss of lift explanation is the only one that remains. And, as I've said, is corroborated by not just AI pilot reactions, but human experience as well. So if loss of lift from a single HE hit is so catastrophic (in some cases, not all), the next question then becomes: Is it a matter of HE effects simply being too strong; or is it a matter of the flight model miscalculating HE damage effects in certain specific scenarios?
oc2209 Posted July 2, 2021 Posted July 2, 2021 (edited) For everyone's edification, this is an example of what a jammed/broken aileron looks like: I circled the location of the 20mm HE hits that caused the aileron failure. The starboard aileron is clearly not moving to correspond with the port's up position. It's flat. This is the only example of aileron control loss I've witnessed so far (in my recent tests). Edited July 2, 2021 by oc2209
Yak_Panther Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 The HE damage decal is not indicative of where on the aircraft or what system is taking damage. The game places a set of damage decals on the model. As defined defined by the shell file VisualImage=0,"graphics\effects\Arm\hit_shell_he_2-10g_object.epl" visualradius=3 This says the effect as defined in the file, effects\Arm\hit_shell_he_2-10g_object.epl, is applied to a radius of 3 on the target object. The HE shell damage decals are not representative of what is taking damage because they are applied to a large area. This is why it's important to control the variables in your testing regime. You can't infer the effects of a shell because you can't even be sure what's taking damage in your "tests". 2 hours ago, oc2209 said: Is it a matter of HE effects simply being too strong; or is it a matter of the flight model miscalculating HE damage effects in certain specific scenarios? Different discussion, happy to discuss it. But another thread is probably the a better place to do it. 1 hour ago, QB.Rails said: How do you know it was 20mm? Also this: the Soviet 12.7mm and soviet 20mm use the same set of decals applied over the same area. It gets even harder to differentiate the effects of German HE shells because the effect is applied over a larger radius, 4, For the 20mm and 30mm.
oc2209 Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 3 hours ago, QB.Rails said: How do you know it was 20mm? Very simple. I was in an La-5FN, and it was loaded with only HE shells. I could only be hitting with 20mm HE. When I'm in a Yak, I only fire one of the guns (12.7mm or 20mm), never both. Thus all hits in a Yak are either 12.7mm HE/AP, or 20mm HE/AP. 1 hour ago, Yak_Panther said: The HE damage decal is not indicative of where on the aircraft or what system is taking damage. The game places a set of damage decals on the model. So when I see a flash in 1/32 speed replay, and then a bullet hole in the DVD model (if the plane has DVD implemented, like the Typhoon and P-51) corresponds exactly to where I saw the initial flash of impact; and I can easily tell between the visual effects of AP versus HE; you're telling me that none of that has any meaning at all? And when I see a flash on the headrest behind the pilot, and then he dies right after, that doesn't mean I just witnessed the bullet penetrate the headrest that subsequently killed him?
oc2209 Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 2 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: The HE shell damage decals are not representative of what is taking damage because they are applied to a large area. This is why it's important to control the variables in your testing regime. You can't infer the effects of a shell because you can't even be sure what's taking damage in your "tests". I just want to be perfectly clear on how the damage model and visual models work. Here's the P-51 getting hit in 1/32 speed: Spoiler And here's a still shot: I drew an indigo line to represent the likely location where the aileron controls are. The yellow circles are where the 2 hits landed that I believe disabled the aileron controls. The red circle on the leading edge of the wing is a strike made after the first two near the aileron. Am I to believe that the impacts indicated by the yellow circles, and their proximity to the ailerons, are in no way related to the probable destruction of the aileron controls? And that the subsequent hit to the leading edge of the wing is just as likely for having caused the aileron breakage? Despite the fact that we can clearly see tracer going over the leading edge of the wing long after (relatively) my first hits landed? My hits went from the trailing edge of the wing to the leading edge and beyond. Then I paused, fired again, and that's where the wing root hits begin.
Yak_Panther Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, oc2209 said: Secondly, in the case of aileron damage, your data indicates that jamming is exceedingly unlikely; and that armored controls also reduce the probability of 1-2 hits having a reliable chance of destroying control functionality I said the that aircraft with smaller amounts "thickness" / armor, in the damage model, like the P-51 are more vulnerable to HE effects disabling their flight controls. And, that the 50 cal AP rounds are bad at disabling the flight controls. 6 hours ago, oc2209 said: I drew an indigo line to represent the likely location where the aileron controls are. The damage model tells you where the aileron controls are located "WingL_In_0" and "WingL_Mid" on the left side. You can open the aircraft data and pull the dimensions. It would be useful data in a controlled test. 6 hours ago, oc2209 said: Am I to believe that the impacts indicated by the yellow circles, and their proximity to the ailerons, are in no way related to the probable destruction of the aileron controls... the subsequent hit to the leading edge of the wing is just as likely for having caused the aileron breakage? How many shots do you think you hit the P-51? Can you verify this by any other means, Tacview, game logs? What makes you think 2 shells hit there? To me it looks like both of those holes are there after the first impact. Do you know how the decal system applies the damage graphics? Which ones it uses for each level damage? Have you tried to quantify that? How do you know the first shell didn't destroy the aileron, or third one? The soviet 20mm does has a blast radius of 1 meter, The fragments spray a 2.3 meters radius. Seems like it could be anyone of those bullets.Your indigo seems to intersect the effect radius of all three impact. Since you didn't measure or observe the effects of the first hit before you shot it again, how do you know what's going on? Do you know if the fragments or the blast effect destroyed the aileron controls? Maybe you should develop a method to eliminate all the variables and test 1 damage effect at a time. This is my whole point. Your lack of methodology means, you can't quantify any of the effects to any of the causes. Double tapping AI with HE rounds, only shows how vulnerable aircraft with low levels of protection, like the P-51, are and misses the point of this thread. Unless you develop a better test methodology, you have nothing valuable to contribute here. Edited July 3, 2021 by Yak_Panther 3 4
oc2209 Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 10 hours ago, Yak_Panther said: This is my whole point. Your lack of methodology means, you can't quantify any of the effects to any of the causes. Double tapping AI with HE rounds, only shows how vulnerable aircraft with low levels of protection, like the P-51, are and misses the point of this thread. Unless you develop a better test methodology, you have nothing valuable to contribute here. It's obvious that you're needlessly nitpicking only the results that are easiest to nitpick, while totally avoiding addressing clear-cut examples like this: Spoiler One hit in the above shot. One hit. Try to find another. How about this one: Spoiler One 12.7mm HE hit to the wing sent it down. Are you going to say the hit to the tail knocked the wing out? Here's another: Spoiler One HE hit to the wing in all of the above cases. You do realize that you've done nothing but struggle to find ways to ignore everything I've shown, based on the most specious arguments, right? First, you said I was probably knocking out the ailerons. You said the lack of aileron movement maybe wasn't modelled. Then it was established that disabled ailerons can be visibly confirmed to no longer move. Secondly, you said that multiple wing hits were causing the crashes; then I posted recordings with only 1 wing hit. Finally, you say that I don't really know where I'm hitting the wing or what I'm hitting the wing with. Then I explain how it's obvious where the hits are occurring, and how I'm not dimwitted enough to fire multiple calibers at the same target when it's pretty easy to have 2 different trigger buttons for two different gun types... You're so desperate to defend your own conclusions, you don't really want to address cases where a P-51's aileron takes 8 hits within the shrapnel radius (according to you, anyway) of a Russian 20mm HE shell, and nothing happens; while a 109K with tank armor on its controls (again, according to you) will go down with 1x20mm HE hit, and no evident loss of aileron control. Those are the salient points you are choosing to ignore (in a very disdainful and disrespectful way; saying "tests" repeatedly with sarcasm is really a constructive way to argue). My only sin here is saying the numbers and explanations you gave for how armored controls work--those numbers make no sense to me, based on my experience. If you have such thin skin that someone saying they can't make sense of your explanations is somehow offensive to you, there's not much I can do about that. Edited July 3, 2021 by oc2209
oc2209 Posted July 3, 2021 Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) On 7/2/2021 at 12:45 AM, Yak_Panther said: An 12.7mm HE to the aileron alone is enough to break it. It's 453 damage, destroys the 20 mm of armor and breaks it. The chance to jam or rupture is likely only applied to AP rounds and fragments with enough penetration to defeat the armor. The only conclusion I can draw from your "tests" are, that HE shells are orders of magnitude better than AP rounds at disabling flight controls It's statements of yours like these that I object to. You contradict yourself. Another time, you said a Typhoon's controls (same armor amount as the 109's) could take 1-2 30mm HE hits. In the above quote, you say a 12.7mm HE can cut through 20mm of armor and destroy an aileron in one hit. Well, what am I supposed to think when I see this: This is from a Yak-9's 12.7mm. There's an HE and AP strike on the aileron directly. There are multiple strikes on the flap. Nothing has detached or ceased to work. Despite the P-51 having only 4mm of armor on these controls. Does anyone else see the disparity here? Or will I just be shunned for having an unpopular opinion? The sim is evidently more complex than what the numbers are telling us. Maybe that's why the devs don't listen to any of these community driven "tests". I'm not saying I have the answers either. I'm only saying that I suspect a lot more issues are at play here, besides HE damage radii and AP penetration values. Edited July 3, 2021 by oc2209
Angry_Kitten Posted July 4, 2021 Posted July 4, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, -332FG-SGTSAUSAGE138 said: ..... disparity is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing more, nothing less. What we have is folks who demand that the ammunition in question, 50 BMG AP, should behave like german or russian AP/API and have a damage to the flight model similar to russian and german HE ammunition,,,, some feel it should duplicate german and soviet 13mm machine guns, others give the feel they want it to mimic the abilities of 20mm ap/he. Alot of the issues springs from careful cherry picking of historical anecdotes, and carefully cherry picked testing that happened after the war. BUT what is overlooked is ANYTHING that disproves their view point. ln the SINGLE PLAYER game, 50 BMG AP can be a magic bullet, and a person can gun down 5 A-20B with a p40 using 2100 rounds to do so... YES i missed with the deflection shots, but when i am hovering by matching speed with the A-20B and going to short range, and pumping the wings and engines till engines explode into flames.. flying close enough that a few times i had to dodge crewmen BAILING OUT BEFORE they opened chutes.... Then an hour later needing 2000 rounds to kill TWO A-20B.... its realistic. Next the plane damage model.... its odd how the fueselage snaps right on the armor plate inside at the back of the fuel tank. every time.... or that EVERY air collision in a soviet fighter snaps one wing off at the wing gun, and cracks the other wing in the same spot.... sometimes rips the rear off... but yet the plane can EASILY be controlled with joy stick to a slow drop and happy ejection. While on most 109/190 collisions the plane goes into a spin that is instantly pilot nullifying to the point you cant eject. Edited July 4, 2021 by SYN_Haashashin
Recommended Posts