Jump to content

Ending the debate between AP and HE... FOREVER!!!


oc2209
 Share

Recommended Posts

Forgive the melodramatic title. Rather than derail other threads, I'm throwing the gauntlet down here.

 

@Denum and I have been having a pointless argument lately where I give evidence of AP ammunition's value and HE ammunition's failings, which he consistently ignores.

 

Well, I'd like some other opinions on the matter.

 

His latest claim is that the Yak-1B's 20mm ammo belt is 2 AP for every 1 HE shell; which he says makes it inferior to the Yak-9's belt that he says is a 50/50 mix. My counter claim is that AP ammo is exceptionally valuable in getting the most out of the limited ammo capacity of Russian fighters. A well-aimed HE shot has no guarantee of killing the pilot or setting fires; a well-placed AP shot is guaranteed to work in my experience. 

 

I decided to test the claims and recorded the following clip from a Yak-1B's guns:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Then I decided to up the ante.

 

I took an La-5FN and loaded it with all HE rounds. This was the result (of one test; not cherry-picked from several):

 

Spoiler

 

 

Followed by an La-5FN with all AP rounds (this was the second test; the first was ruined because I sawed off the vertical stabilizer and didn't hit the fuselage):

 

Spoiler

 

 

I left markers on to show the approximate range for the AP hits.

 

I realize this is anecdotal evidence. Nevertheless, it bears out all of my experiences in the sim to date. It is a perfect encapsulation of everything I've learned through trial and error.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD_Arthur

Er...is this a complaint or an invitation to participate in a personal slanging match?

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_Custard

The back and forth is pointless. The devs have given their answer. That is to take a look when they have time.

Unless we can be transported back in time and be shot at while flying WWII aircraft we can't really say "that is wrong" when referring to real life, while "flying" in a computer game. Gunman footage and pilot anecdotes are useful but not scientific in anyway. The community invariably will be split no matter what happens .  Months ago, the forum was filled with howls of derision about the " flimsy" airframes and how wings folded up at the slightest touch. Now we are hearing the reverse. As a customer, I'm happy with "most" but not all aspects of the airframe damage. I would add that I don't think 30 mm is powerful enough and the 50 cal ammunition desperately needs incendiary loadouts. AP in general needs a second look IMO. Regarding "showdowns" with other forum members. Sections of the forum have now become slanging matches and the quality of some the posts have deteriorated that much that we now have people openly being abusive to the developers using the most despicable language. We also have folks constantly telling us how wonderful DCS is. The Amusing thing about that is, the developers of that sim would have banned any forum member for even the slightest criticism. Constructive criticism is great, but this whole debate has been soured by some truly ridiculous posts. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The back and forth is pointless. The devs have given their answer. That is to take a look when they have time.

Unless we can be transported back in time and be shot at while flying WWII aircraft we can't really say "that is wrong" when referring to real life, while "flying" in a computer game. Gunman footage and pilot anecdotes are useful but not scientific in anyway. The community invariably will be split no matter what happens .  Months ago, the forum was filled with howls of derision about the " flimsy" airframes and how wings folded up at the slightest touch. Now we are hearing the reverse. As a customer, I'm happy with "most" but not all aspects of the airframe damage. I would add that I don't think 30 mm is powerful enough and the 50 cal ammunition desperately needs incendiary loadouts. AP in general needs a second look IMO. Regarding "showdowns" with other forum members. Sections of the forum have now become slanging matches and the quality of some the posts have deteriorated that much that we now have people openly being abusive to the developers using the most despicable language. We also have folks constantly telling us how wonderful DCS is. The Amusing thing about that is, the developers of that sim would have banned any forum member for even the slightest criticism. Constructive criticism is great, but this whole debate has been soured by some truly ridiculous posts.

Well said, and I couldn't agree more. On all sides of the HE/50cal discussion, there are people acting completely unreasonably towards not only the Devs but also other forum members that do not agree with them. This is completely unacceptable and those people need to grow up. Please, let them go to DCS if they like it so much better. And stay there. Good riddance.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-drewm3i-VR
12 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Well said, and I couldn't agree more. On all sides of the HE/50cal discussion, there are people acting completely unreasonably towards not only the Devs but also other forum members that do not agree with them. This is completely unacceptable and those people need to grow up. Please, let them go to DCS if they like it so much better. And stay there. Good riddance.

Who is acting unreasonable? I get that a mud slinging match between two forum users is fruitless, but this is the current state of the .50 caliber (and has been for 17 months) which makes every US plane nearly unusable (unless you'd rather fight with one arm behind your back). The data has been presented by Yak Panther and the QB guys ad nauseam yet nothing changes, not even as a temporary hotfix. Most of us would rather just revert to the old damage model for now until systems under the hood can be more deeply modeled. Don't believe me? Take a look at the daily soapboxes on both the Finnish and Combat Box discord servers. CB has a whole section dedicated to ballistics now for crying out loud!

 

 

 

 

Edited by drewm3i-VR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Who is acting unreasonable? I get that a mud slinging match between two forum users is fruitless, but this is the current state of the .50 caliber (and has been for 17 months) which makes every US plane nearly unusable (unless you'd rather fight with one arm behind your back). The data has been presented by Yak Panther and the QB guys ad nauseam yet nothing changes, not even as a temporary hotfix. Most of us would rather just revert to the old damage model for now until systems under the hood can be more deeply modeled. Don't believe me? Take a look at the daily soapboxes on both the Finnish and Combat Box discord servers. CB has a whole section dedicated to ballistics now for crying out loud!

 

What's unreasonable is, besides the obvious mud slinging, (in no particular order, and some are related):

  1. Ridiculing the other side of the argument.
  2. Taking "daily soapboxes on both the Finnish and Combat Box discord servers" to represent the overall and unbiased opinion of IL2 players.
  3. Presenting so-called "sniff tests" as hard evidence and implying that anyone who doesn't take those for granted isn't in his right mind.
  4. Expecting the Devs to completely disregard the other side of the argument as well, and to just take whatever your side claims as the ultimate truth.
  5. Expecting the Devs to not do any research of their own but just take the actions that your side proposes, regardless of any disadvantages this has that the Devs may be aware of.
  6. Expecting the Devs to do all of this right now while they have already said that this is a complex and time-consuming subject and they will look into it in the future when time and budget allows.
  7. Presenting data about the current in-game state over and over again ad nauseam, while the only question that matters is whether this matches with historical accounts and/or scientific calculations.
  8. Exaggerating the purported lack of or overdone usefulness of the 50cal or HE.
  9. Starting new threads over and over again and hijacking unrelated threads to complain about the damage model or make sneering remarks towards the Devs.
  10. Abusing every opportunity to restart the debate. You reply to my post about the behaviour of people in this debate by firing up the debate again. Your reply has nothing to do with my entire post, you just use it to forward your claims once again.

Look, I can understand that people are frustrated about what they feel are severe bugs in the game. I just hope that those people can also understand that whether the current damage system is fine or not is subject to discussion, and that seeing the exact same discussion from the same people popping up over and over again is also very frustrating and annoying for those who are fine with the current damage system, and can work antagonising. As for me, I've gone from a "I'm personally fine with the current system, but they may be on to something" viewpoint to "I don't give a damned, please let them all just move to DCS so we're rid of all the thread hijacking."

Edited by AEthelraedUnraed
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep

@oc2209I'm still waiting for you to provide data to support your claims instead of circles drawn on screenshots in MS Paint.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The back and forth is pointless. The devs have given their answer. That is to take a look when they have time.

Unless we can be transported back in time and be shot at while flying WWII aircraft we can't really say "that is wrong" when referring to real life, while "flying" in a computer game. Gunman footage and pilot anecdotes are useful but not scientific in anyway. The community invariably will be split no matter what happens .  Months ago, the forum was filled with howls of derision about the " flimsy" airframes and how wings folded up at the slightest touch. Now we are hearing the reverse. As a customer, I'm happy with "most" but not all aspects of the airframe damage. I would add that I don't think 30 mm is powerful enough and the 50 cal ammunition desperately needs incendiary loadouts. AP in general needs a second look IMO. Regarding "showdowns" with other forum members. Sections of the forum have now become slanging matches and the quality of some the posts have deteriorated that much that we now have people openly being abusive to the developers using the most despicable language. We also have folks constantly telling us how wonderful DCS is. The Amusing thing about that is, the developers of that sim would have banned any forum member for even the slightest criticism. Constructive criticism is great, but this whole debate has been soured by some truly ridiculous posts. 

 

 

Agree totally. And when the devs get around to examining these issues again, I have one plea to make to them...please, please do not bring back the 'glass wings'. Please! I mean it. Really! Please don't even think about it!!     

 

2 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Who is acting unreasonable? I get that a mud slinging match between two forum users is fruitless, but this is the current state of the .50 caliber (and has been for 17 months) which makes every US plane nearly unusable (unless you'd rather fight with one arm behind your back). The data has been presented by Yak Panther and the QB guys ad nauseam yet nothing changes, not even as a temporary hotfix. Most of us would rather just revert to the old damage model for now until systems under the hood can be more deeply modeled. Don't believe me? Take a look at the daily soapboxes on both the Finnish and Combat Box discord servers. CB has a whole section dedicated to ballistics now for crying out loud!

 

 

They have explained (several times) that they will look at the issue again. They are also obviously extremely busy and under pressure with a whole host of other scheduled tasks that have drifted behind schedule (fuel system rework, Air Marshal). And they have explained that it is not as simple as providing a temporary 'hotfix', as there would be knock-on effects for other aspects of the game.

 

Also.... "Most of us...."  Careful when making claims like that - I sure as hell would NOT want to revert to the previous DM. (see above) 

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AEthelraedUnraed

 

The time argument went out the window when they were able to change the AI 20mm AA. 

 

I don't agree with the guys making personal attacks at Jason and others on the team. Make no mistake there. That's over the line.

 

 

 

In my case bought modules I don't even play (TC and FC1) because I want them to succeed and basically get a middle finger back. Alot of the multiplayer guys have bought modules they don't play for the same reason. It's not alot of money but even if 100 shared that train of thought, it not a small amount I guess.

 

The .50 effectiveness isn't exaggerated. Even using Yaks mod which changed just the rounds weight and speed made enormous differences.

 

 

Will say I was wrong about the Shvak belts being different between the Yak 1/ Yak 9. Both are AP heavy. 

 

If a person is purely dogfighting the La5 FN is the better choice.

 

 

Edited by Denum
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

rieper_420

Hello fellow pilots,

 

Since I finally bought the Yak-9 today, I was reading the discussion on different AP/HE mix between Yak-1b & Yak-9 with great interest:

 

Looking at the game files:

translating the comment from russian:

yak1s127.txt: // 93 armor-piercing and 47 high-explosive fragmentation shells 20x99 (for the ShVAK cannon)

\yak9s1.txt // 80 armor-piercing and 40 high-explosive fragmentation shells 20x99 (for the ShVAK cannon)

 

 

=> looks the same to me - seems like there is no difference in ammo belt for Yak-1b & Yak-9 (??)

Please correct me if I'm wrong

 

 

\luascripts\worldobjects\planes\yak1s127.txt

[GunAmmunition=1]    // 93 бронебойных и 47 осколочно-фугасных снарядов 20х99 (к пушке ШВАК)
    ExpendableMass = 28.0
    ResidualMass = 0.75    // Лишняя масса в рефе-отчете по сравнению с расчетом
    MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0
    MaxRoundsInMagazine=140
    RoundsInMagazine=140
    ReservedMagazines=0
    AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=4    // каждая 4-я пуля с трассером
    object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.txt"
    object1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_HE.txt"
    object2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.txt"
    target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.bin"
    target1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_HE.bin"
    target2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.bin"
    BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case12-20mm.txt"
[end]

 

\luascripts\worldobjects\planes\yak9s1.txt

[GunAmmunition=1]    // 80 бронебойных и 40 осколочно-фугасных снарядов 20х99 (к пушке ШВАК)
    ExpendableMass = 27.0
    ResidualMass = 0
    MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0
    MaxRoundsInMagazine=120
    RoundsInMagazine=120
    ReservedMagazines=0
    AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=4    // каждая 4-я пуля с трассером
    object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.txt"
    object1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_HE.txt"
    object2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.txt"
    target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.bin"
    target1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_HE.bin"
    target2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.bin"
    BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case12-20mm.txt"
[end]

 

... La5fns2.txt:

 

Default La-5 loadout seems also AP HE AP

 

la5fns2.txt

// Зарядка пулеметов

[GunAmmunition=0]    // 114 бронебойных и 56 осколочно-фугасных снарядов 20х99 (к пушке ШВАК)
    ExpendableMass = 37.018
    ResidualMass = 0.482    // Лишняя масса в рефе-отчете по сравнению с расчетом
    MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0
    MaxRoundsInMagazine=170
    RoundsInMagazine=170
    ReservedMagazines=0
    AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=4    // каждая 4-я пуля с трассером
    object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.txt"
    object1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_HE.txt"
    object2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.txt"
    target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.bin"
    target1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_HE.bin"
    target2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_RUS_20x99_AP.bin"
    BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case12-20mm.txt"
[end]

 

 

Interestingly, german guns seem to be firing HE AP HE

 

from fw190a6.txt:

 

[GunAmmunition=1]    // 83 бронебойных и 167 осколочно-фугасных снарядов 20х82 (к пушке MG 151/20)
    ExpendableMass = 52.524 // Лишняя масса в рефе-отчете по сравнению с расчетом порядка 2кг // TODO190
    ResidualMass = 0.0    
    MaxMisFiresInMagazine=0
    MaxRoundsInMagazine=250
    RoundsInMagazine=250
    ReservedMagazines=0
    AmountRoundsWithOneTracer=4    // каждая 4-я пуля с трассером
    object0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_GER_20x82_HE.txt"
    object1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_GER_20x82_AP.txt"
    object2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_GER_20x82_HE.txt"
    target0="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_GER_20x82_HE.bin"
    target1="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_GER_20x82_AP.bin"
    target2="LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Ballistics/Projectiles/SHELL_GER_20x82_HE.bin"
    BushConfig = "LuaScripts/WorldObjects/Trash/Batch_case12-20mm.txt"
[end]

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@rieper_420

 

I was wrong, the Yak shoots same belts with the Shvak. So AP, AP, HE. You are correct. They are the same.

 

The La5FN allows special belts that shoot pure HE is what I was saying here.

Edited by Denum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eisenfaustus

I also think it’s funny that a small group of competitive online flyers who feel their favourite aircraft are not competitive due to the current DM pretend to speak for the community (or the only part that counts) when they demand to undo the last DM changes. 

 

I think the new DM at a whole is a huge step forward in realism and immersion and going back because of balance wouldn’t befit a sim. 
 

That said - there is of course room for improvement (there always will be). 
 

Simulation of incendiary ammo, historical gun harmonisation and a deeper system damage modelling would all be very welcome.
 

Yet all of these sound quite time consuming - and Jason time and again stated the team is hard pressed. This is not an indie developer - they do have a publisher in the back who wants results. 

Edited by Eisenfaustus
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Eisenfaustus said:

I also think it’s funny that a small group of competitive online flyers who feel their favourite aircraft are not competitive due to the current pretend to speak for the community (or the only part that counts)

 

 Well, it's the group most effected by it. Unless you fly straight the AI generally can't hit you, they can't hit you doing hard turns either. 

 

I'd say it's not as noticeable in single player because the AI doesn't evade as aggressively. 

 

I understand why the single player only community doesn't see why we have an issue. 

 

Online if you park on someone's 6 for longer then a few seconds you are very likely to die doing so. 

 

I don't think it's super small however. If 20% decides they don't want to buy the next installment that's potentially a six figure hole in that sale. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]TH0R
35 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I also think it’s funny that a small group of competitive online flyers who feel their favourite aircraft are not competitive due to the current DM pretend to speak for the community (or the only part that counts) when they demand to undo the last DM changes. 

 

I think the new DM at a whole is a huge step forward in realism and immersion and going back because of balance wouldn’t befit a sim. 
 

That said - there is of course room for improvement (there always will be). 
 

Simulation of incendiary ammo, historical gun harmonisation and a deeper system damage modelling would all be very welcome.
 

Yet all of these sound quite time consuming - and Jason time and again stated the team is hard pressed. This is not an indie developer - they do have a publisher in the back who wants results. 

 

I don't get the constant splitting the SP and MP community. As if one group doesn't play the other part of the sim. In my eyes both are as affected and the same shortcomings are also present in SP but perhaps more noticeable in MP.

 

The reason why last version of DM was mentioned being desired ("longed for" for the lack of a better term) is because the new one we're using right now feels like an unfinished job.

 

I am not getting the immersion part. My bombers go down easily than ever with HE rounds and certain planes with certain armaments require you to be an ace in order to be effective which was hardly the case IRL - IMHO. Secondly, I am also prevented from flying the LW planes with the again constant 1/3 vs. 2/3 split in MP servers in favor of one side. Because everyone and their mother wants to fly planes from certain side in MP.

 

Incendiary ammo and gun harmonization is half the story - but definitely desired. HE / AP effectiveness should definitely be looked into.

 

My 2€

 

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

IMHO. Secondly, I am also prevented from flying the LW planes with the again constant 1/3 vs. 2/3 split in MP servers in favor of one side.

Yes I definitely feel that. 

 

It's very rare I get any blue plane seat time online! It's a bit of a bummer because some are really fun to fly.

 

You can't not have fun slamming two 1000KG bombs home into a depot. 

 

The A8 is easily my favorite blue aircraft. But I can't bring myself to join the team that's already vastly outnumbering the other. I just don't see the sport in it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
1 hour ago, Denum said:

 Well, it's the group most effected by it. Unless you fly straight the AI generally can't hit you, they can't hit you doing hard turns either. 

 

I'd say it's not as noticeable in single player because the AI doesn't evade as aggressively. 

 

I understand why the single player only community doesn't see why we have an issue. 

 

Online if you park on someone's 6 for longer then a few seconds you are very likely to die doing so. 

 

I don't think it's super small however. If 20% decides they don't want to buy the next installment that's potentially a six figure hole in that sale. 

 

 

I am as a long term supporter of BoX probably one of those who will drop out. I am an MP only flyer and I just cannot get myself into SP. So the competitive part is very strong. I don't mind to fly historically less performing planes as long as I have a realistic chance to succeed with proper tactics, technics and skill. If a success is nevertheless denied by the modelling I cannot see how I could motivate myself to continue.

 

I've flown BoS during Early Access and did not shy away to fly Lagg3 vs the 109Fs all the time as I am predominantly allied flyer. But I didn't mind to be outperformed all the time by 109ers as with a sound plan and tactics I was able to still kill them from time to time.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a real soft spot for the Lagg, I've even been flying it against the A3s and G2s 😄 

 

Not with much success mind you. It seems like no matter how much I hit them I can't do enough damage with the Shvaks. They wobble. I overshoot and that poor Lagg just isn't fast enough to escape. I'd be better off practicing Taran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the_emperor

I am purposefully derailing here a bit:

 

Yes the current Lagg-3 is not fast enough to get out of trouble, but

a late Lagg-3 series with the improved design and built quality would be a neat treat, as it is rated with 542kph on the deck and is the fastes Klimov M-105PF engine driven in 1943 and should be able outrun the 109G models that are not MW50 infused.

Cheers

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
1 minute ago, the_emperor said:

I am purposefully derailing here a bit:

 

Yes the current Lagg-3 is not fast enough to get out of trouble, but

a late Lagg-3 series with the improved design and built quality would be a neat treat, as it is rated with 542kph on the deck and is the fastes Klimov M-105PF engine driven in 1943 and should be able outrun the 109G models that are not MW50 infused.

Cheers

 

 

I was talking about the very first planeset where the early Lagg3 had to compete with the 109Fs during release of BoS. 109 outpaced and outclimbed with ease the Lagg3. But still you could punch them with good tactics.

 

And the guns did sufficient damage to the 109ers so that you had good chances to down them when you got a firing solution.

 

But this is long time ago. Now it is really hard to down those sturdy planes and combined with the strong g-effect that kicks in always when I need it least 😄 there is enough fodder for demotivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

I am purposefully derailing here a bit:

 

Yes the current Lagg-3 is not fast enough to get out of trouble, but

a late Lagg-3 series with the improved design and built quality would be a neat treat, as it is rated with 542kph on the deck and is the fastes Klimov M-105PF engine driven in 1943 and should be able outrun the 109G models that are not MW50 infused.

Cheers

 

 

 

I'd love to see the Lagg 3-66 in game. Would certainly be more even footing during mid war. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
3 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I also think it’s funny that a small group of competitive online flyers who feel their favourite aircraft are not competitive due to the current DM pretend to speak for the community (or the only part that counts) when they demand to undo the last DM changes.

You should be thankful that the online gamers have found a problem with the realism and are trying to get it fixed.  If you're oblivious to a problem that doesn't mean something isn't wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-drewm3i-VR
3 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I also think it’s funny that a small group of competitive online flyers who feel their favourite aircraft are not competitive due to the current DM pretend to speak for the community (or the only part that counts) when they demand to undo the last DM changes. 

 

I think the new DM at a whole is a huge step forward in realism and immersion and going back because of balance wouldn’t befit a sim. 
 

That said - there is of course room for improvement (there always will be). 
 

Simulation of incendiary ammo, historical gun harmonisation and a deeper system damage modelling would all be very welcome.
 

Yet all of these sound quite time consuming - and Jason time and again stated the team is hard pressed. This is not an indie developer - they do have a publisher in the back who wants results. 

What is more important to the success of a combat flight sim than a plausible damage model? Maybe flight models, but that is it. This is no small or superfluous issue. One example of something hugely implausible is the never ending stream of coolant and oil that can flow out of damaged planes yet never seize their engine.

Edited by drewm3i-VR
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
14 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

What is more important to the success of a combat flight sim than a plausible damage model? Maybe flight models, but that is it. This is no small or superfluous issue. 

Exactly, otherwise we'd all just fly MSFS 2020.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VA_chikinpickle
4 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I also think it’s funny that a small group of competitive online flyers who feel their favourite aircraft are not competitive due to the current DM pretend to speak for the community (or the only part that counts) when they demand to undo the last DM changes. 

 

I think the new DM at a whole is a huge step forward in realism and immersion and going back because of balance wouldn’t befit a sim. 
 

That said - there is of course room for improvement (there always will be). 
 

Simulation of incendiary ammo, historical gun harmonisation and a deeper system damage modelling would all be very welcome.
 

Yet all of these sound quite time consuming - and Jason time and again stated the team is hard pressed. This is not an indie developer - they do have a publisher in the back who wants results. 

 

 

Nobody is asking anyone to roll back the DM. We are asking for it to be further improved! I speak for myself, not the community. Please dont try to dismiss my opinion by assuming my motives. If I dont speak for the community, are you implying that you do? We are all members of the community and thus each opinion here is valid.

 

You have multiplayer later war game play where AP only MG armed aircraft take up to 200+ hits to kill, and HE ammunition including HE heavy machine guns kill in 1-5 hits. Many weapons are missing the incendiary effects which made them much more effective at shooting down aircraft in real life and instead have AP only ammo. Which has a far weaker effect in game. The main ask is some adjustment of ballistic qualities and addition of historically accurate incendial ammunition types (which were used by all factions). When flying against human pilots who defend more creatively and aggressively than some ai planes will, there is a big disparity in terms of lucky shots getting kills/crippling with certain weapons very quickly and other weapons/planes taking 6,7 passes to kill and the ebemy aircradt remaining fully effective.

 

Simply, this current state creates a bad gameplay experience for multiplayer gamers in il2. Especially for those who are fans of USAAF aircraft. There are a fair number of players, myself included who play multiplayer exclusively. Do we not also seek a good gameplay experience and a plausible simulation?

 

That being said, I understand there are a lot of frustrated players out there and not much competition in this market. Many of the online players are very passionate and thats been misdirected into anger against the il2 devs.

 

Being an asshole to them (devs) and name calling is a poor response and I dont condone it. This team does good work when they decide to do something. The complainers are still here trying to get things changed because il2 is the best ww2 simulation product on the market currently. If it wasnt Im sure people would just quietly move on to other products.

 

Im also frustrated at times with the effects of the damage model in online play for the record. I dont think being a dick online does anything but make us all unhappy though.

 

Devs should take note, there is an opportunity to market your game to online players, many of whom are looking towards abandoning one of the competing products because of some changes they made to their game mechanics that were also not in their (online multiplayer sim pilots) favor. But the current multiplayer experience could be greatly improved by adjusting the damage model a bit.

 

The DM disparity is clearly turning into a public relations problem for il2 great battles. Im sure it will need to be addressed. But I do believe there is more than we know moving around in this project so patience will help. It is a video game at the end of the day, dont get too worked up.

 

Then some of us will argue against changing anything simply to argue. That is also counterproductive to success.

Edited by VA_chikinpickle
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep
3 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

I also think it’s funny that a small group of competitive online flyers who feel their favourite aircraft are not competitive due to the current DM pretend to speak for the community (or the only part that counts) when they demand to undo the last DM changes.

 

Most of the people I know that are upset with the current state of things fly both coalitions. The ones that only fly late-war Axis aren't concerned at all - that should tell you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q_Walker
35 minutes ago, VA_chikinpickle said:

Nobody is asking anyone to roll back the DM. We are asking for it to be further improved!

 

9 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Most of us would rather just revert to the old damage model for now until systems under the hood can be more deeply modeled.

 

These two responses are what makes every topic that is started on the damage model subject ridiculous. There is no consensus on what is wanted, merely complaints regarding the damage model, despite already being told where the developers stand on the subject. Jason states that they have neither the time or resources to look into the damage model right now, and yet there are still complaints to this day. Have these complaints changed the time and resources that are available to the team? I think not. It's a pity that these complaints go on despite being told, very clearly, that the damage model is not being looked at right now. Play the game as it is or look elsewhere, however, discontinue these complaints, they certainly do nothing to help.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would sooner see the DM revisited then the clouds be improved. 

 

I know that's a poor example as it's a community member helping and I don't want to discredit his efforts. Because they do look wonderful. 

 

But I can certainly wait a little while longer for clouds and even some of the planes if the DM was getting improved even a tiny bit.

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VA_chikinpickle
21 minutes ago, Q_Walker said:

 

 

These two responses are what makes every topic that is started on the damage model subject ridiculous. There is no consensus on what is wanted, merely complaints regarding the damage model, despite already being told where the developers stand on the subject. Jason states that they have neither the time or resources to look into the damage model right now, and yet there are still complaints to this day. Have these complaints changed the time and resources that are available to the team? I think not. It's a pity that these complaints go on despite being told, very clearly, that the damage model is not being looked at right now. Play the game as it is or look elsewhere, however, discontinue these complaints, they certainly do nothing to help.  

 

My observations while lurking on various Forums is that while some people are upset and enjoy pot stirring and "trolling" these threads for angry responses, among those who approach this more seriously there is a loose consensus on three items that they would like to see the development team look at implementing. (This is my opinion, take it for what it is.)

 

1. Add incendiary ammunition types into the game for all nations which used them historically. (All had some version of this ammunition)

 

2. Adjust the ballistic qualities of AP .50 M2 rounds to match historical data provided by community members.

 

3. Adjust the dispersion of .50 caliber guns to simulate "Box Convergence Patterns" that were historically used with the 6c and 8x .50 caliber weapon system. Shown in USAAF gunnery manuals and historical documents provided by community members.

 

I understand the time and resource limitations of the team, they must be respected. Coming from a technical background, Im sure that their current work was decided well in advance of our discussion. Im also sure that it is easy for any of us to say "just do this or make this change its easy" with no understanding of the tasks true complexity.

 

But complaints will still remain valid, they must be issued civilly, but attempting to silence only makes one attempt to speak louder.

 

The more information the community can provide in the meantime should help the devs at that time these resources become available. 

Edited by VA_chikinpickle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-drewm3i-VR

@Q_Walker Check out this clip back when the .50s could do something other than start an engine fire (rare) or pilot kill, and could seize an engine in short order (with consistency) as they did in real life. This part of the old DM looks better and more/realistic to me by far and is much more in line with both guncam footage and what you see from the .50s in other sims like Tobruk and DCS (both of which model api, as did il-2 1946). And I won't even mention the .303s which won the Battle of Britain amd were able to shoot down bombers...

 

I would be patient if the devs would simply acknowledge the issue and say that it is being worked on/hotfixed. Jason has instead told us "if you dont like our guns, go play with mods." This is not a new issue and has been going on for a year and a half and makes a lot of what we have purchased essentially useless, except when modded to use offline. 

 

 

Edited by drewm3i-VR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q_Walker
6 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

@Q_Walker Check out this clip back when the .50s could do something other than start an engine fire (rare) or pilot kill, and could seize an engine in short order (with consistency) as they did in real life.

Literally every kill, with the exception of one, was an engine fire or a pilot kill. 

 

10 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I would be patient if the devs would simply acknowledge the issue and say that it is being worked on/hotfixed.

Why is it unacceptable to be patient when the developers say that they don't have the time or resources to work on it?

 

13 minutes ago, VA_chikinpickle said:

But complaints will still remain valid, they must be issued civilly, but attempting to silence only makes one attempt to speak louder.

The more information the community can provide in the meantime should help the devs at that time these resources become available. 

I do think that there is a general consensus on what needs to be fixed, but in the topics I still see that not everyone is sure what needs or does not need to be fixed. I agree that providing information is an excellent way to help, but I do not think that the endless complaining is constructive.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VA_chikinpickle
4 minutes ago, Q_Walker said:

Literally every kill, with the exception of one, was an engine fire or a pilot kill. 

 

Why is it unacceptable to be patient when the developers say that they don't have the time or resources to work on it?

 

I do think that there is a general consensus on what needs to be fixed, but in the topics I still see that not everyone is sure what needs or does not need to be fixed. I agree that providing information is an excellent way to help, but I do not think that the endless complaining is constructive.

 

Of course it isnt constructive but neither are many other things people do. Patience isnt a gift everyone possesses unfortunately and some players have invested quite a bit into their sim rigs and time etc to play this game. Its understandable their patience is low when they are heavily invested in something they consider a poor experience when it can be fixed.

 

I have little control over the situation, but many people want to influence the games development to resolve this and improve the multiplayer experience. I believe their intent is well placed even if the methods chosen are not.

Edited by VA_chikinpickle
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
14 minutes ago, Q_Walker said:
14 minutes ago, Q_Walker said:

Why is it unacceptable to be patient when the developers say that they don't have the time or resources to work on it?

 

Two years and counting... We all get the problems cause by COVID, but that still makes one year and counting if you toss out all of 2020.   We also have no idea IF or WHEN a fix/change/"it's fine the way it is" is coming.   It could very well be another 2 or more years the way things are going.  So, the frustration level is HIGH among the people that like to fly US planes online.  A lot of other seemingly less important has been fixed and added in the meantime and some would argue stuff that is really completely unimportant.  Like Drew said above, "What is more important to the success of a combat flight sim than a plausible damage model? Maybe flight models, but that is it."  It also worth noting that while more people play single player the online players are probably spend the most time and money and are the most vocal about IL2 because they really invested in the game or were until this issue came up.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eisenfaustus
9 minutes ago, Denum said:

I would sooner see the DM revisited then the clouds be improved. 

 

I know that's a poor example as it's a community member helping and I don't want to discredit his efforts. Because they do look wonderful. 

 

But I can certainly wait a little while longer for clouds and even some of the planes if the DM was getting improved even a tiny bit.

 

Even if clouds were improved by the team itself - it would hardly be by a coder who does DM relevant things - more likely by a graphical designer I guess. 
 

1 hour ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

You should be thankful that the online gamers have found a problem with the realism and are trying to get it fixed.

Reporting a realism issue to the devs is not the same as using every threat available to tell everyone that some players are unhappy with the DM. The devs answered - no need to keep bickering. 

 

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

What is more important to the success of a combat flight sim than a plausible damage model? Maybe flight models, but that is it. This is no small or superfluous issue. One example of something hugely implausible is the never ending stream of coolant and oil that can flow out of damaged planes yet never seize their engine.

DM is very important no doubt - and I agree that any improvement that adds realism is welcome. But other stuff is also important. AI and Mission design for example. Time dilation is also a serious issue. And new content is what pays the bills. I personally would love a complete revamp of the comms as they current implementation is next to useless. Yet I don’t write in every patch discussion that I‘m disappointed they still haven’t revamped the comms. 
 

Furthermore the drop tanks are part of a fuel system revamp which should lead to more sophisticated systems failure and Jason said was a prerequisite before incendiary could be developed. 
 

27 minutes ago, VA_chikinpickle said:

Adjust the dispersion of .50 caliber guns to simulate "Box Convergence Patterns" that were historically used with the 6c and 8x .50 caliber weapon system. Shown in USAAF gunnery manuals and historical documents provided by community members.

 

Yes please - but for all planes. German and British planes didn’t use point harmonisation either as far as I know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

357th_Dog

If anyone still has remaining doubts as to the outsized impact HE has over AP, check out the video below of US .50 cals modded to fire (unmodified) Russian 12.7 HE rounds. 

And then tell me...is that a normal reaction?
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Er...is this a complaint or an invitation to participate in a personal slanging match?

 

It wasn't a complaint. It was a thread designed to take complaints out of other threads where they don't belong, and condense them into one thread no one cares about.

 

Consider it a lightning rod.

 

More specifically, I was pissed off that @Denum decided to bring his holy crusade of AP-bashing into the Yak-9 thread, where it didn't belong at all.

 

If people want to argue that the .50 AP has questionable performance, fine. I can see some merit in those complaints (however exaggerated they often are). But once someone starts claiming that 20mm AP are worthless--that's when I know for a fact they're trolling. Stirring up trouble for no apparent reason, and with nothing to back it up in terms of evidence.

 

9 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

@oc2209I'm still waiting for you to provide data to support your claims instead of circles drawn on screenshots in MS Paint.

 

Why? You ignore every recording I post. I take screenshots to better elucidate certain parts of the recordings that would be otherwise difficult to notice on a paused video, where you can't zoom in at will.

 

The devs take recordings as proof. Why don't you?

 

Again, @Denum made two absurd claims in the Yak thread: that 20mm AP is weak; and that the 12.7mm is so useless, he doesn't even bother to shoot it, and would rather ram an enemy.

 

Hyperbole on that level is no longer constructive criticism of the sim. It's a smear campaign. Nothing less.

 

I counter with evidence, like the following:

 

Spoiler

 

 

30 rounds fired from 400m. Dead pilot. But yet AP is broken and worthless. Okay.

 

Here's another example of the useless 12.7mm in action:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The thing about multiplayer AP efficacy is, it's not the devs' fault that people fly like epileptic monkeys on meth. Everyone knows AP is only effective when you can keep your guns on target and get accurate bursts in. HE has the inherent, God-given advantage that you can spray and pray and get better results. Nothing will ever change that, especially in a multiplayer game where people will always, always push the mechanics of any game to the absolute, absurd limit and do things that are no longer plausible or realistic.

 

AP also suffers because the damage model isn't complex enough to model better/more component failure.

 

But that's a far cry from saying it's useless and broken. That's where justifiable criticism crosses the line and goes into worthless, flailing histrionics.

Edited by oc2209
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BCI-Nazgul
10 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The thing about multiplayer AP efficacy is, it's not the devs' fault that people fly like epileptic monkeys on meth.

Actually, it is very much the Devs fault.  If the flight model and flight controls code was accurate flying like an "epileptic monkey"  (funny, BTW) should knock you out and/or put your plane into an uncontrolled state very quickly.  Very fatal at low level.

19 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

If anyone still has remaining doubts as to the outsized impact HE has over AP, check out the video below of US .50 cals modded to fire (unmodified) Russian 12.7 HE rounds. 

And then tell me...is that a normal reaction?
 

 

Wow!   That's pretty convincing and obviously totally OP.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-drewm3i-VR
27 minutes ago, Q_Walker said:

Literally every kill, with the exception of one, was an engine fire or a pilot kill. 

 

Why is it unacceptable to be patient when the developers say that they don't have the time or resources to work on it?

 

 

1. In the video, most of the kills came from seizing the engine which the .50s were known to do, either through perforating radiators or oil tanks or by penetrating the engine block itself. Yes there was a greater frequency of fires than we currently have in game which is more realistic IMO and a good approximation of the missing api rounds. I think most of us here are looking for approximate results, not exact ones.

 

We understand that not every system can or should be modeled like in DCS because IL-2 is simulating air combat and war and not simply the planes themselves. This is the beauty of il-2 and why I care to save it but it is becoming hard to do as many squadrons are migrating to other sims.

 

2. Penny wise, dollar foolish: there is nothing more important for the long term viability of the sim than a believable damage model where different weapon systems achieve similar results in different means. The US .50s (after the early jamming kinks were worked out) were a great air-to-air weapon vs. fighters, while the German cannons were great at bomber killing despite their drawbacks (slow rate of fire and tendency to jam). The people that are most passionate and currently the most dissatisfied are actually the most loyal supporters of the il-2 project. In the long run, pumping out new content before fixing massive underlying issues with the sim will prove foolish and likely irrevocably harm the sim. I don't want to see this happen as I love the il-2 ecosystem and vision overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SYN_Haashashin locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...