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

[Denum]

20 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

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.

I'm still not wrong. The AP does suck. If I all have left is UBs. You bet your sweet biscuit I'm going to ram you instead of wasting time with the MGs. 

 

The devs want recordings because they have software to deconstruct it. They aren't eyeballing it ? 

 

 

So... Have you noticed that your incessant need to argue with everyone that says "Hey I'm not happy with the DM" is the cause of so many threads getting locked? 

 

Our .50 thread was just fine, with actual historical data and numbers pulled right from the game and yet, you still felt the need to argue things are fine. Even through we can show you the absolute truth with math no less? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Denum

[Creep]

1 hour ago, Q_Walker said:

Play the game as it is or look elsewhere, however, discontinue these complaints, they certainly do nothing to help.  

You're absolutely right. I've moved on and many others have also. That said, telling your customers to stop complaining isn't exactly a recipe for success.

[oc2209]

1 minute ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

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

 

Fine, whatever. What I really meant was that in WWII guncam footage, you don't see the target making 5G turns while getting pasted.

 

The point is that AP ammo works most of the time* against targets that aren't maneuvering wildly. AP penetrates things. That's what it does, that's all it's supposed to do.

 

The asterisk is for when the damage model gets in the way; which happens more with .50 AP than 20mm AP. Much more.

 

As I've shown in another thread, however, the damage model can still allow things like this to happen for 30mm HE:

 

 

I don't care if the pilot's dead. The point here is that the fuel didn't explode or burn, in any of the nearby tanks. With a 100% fuel load.

 

The damage model screws over HE rounds (as also shown in the clip from my opening post), but with less frequency. As you might expect, things that explode have a higher probability of causing catastrophic damage than things that do not explode.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

26 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

 

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. 

 

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. 
 

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

1. I agree

 

2. The ai has been massively improved and I recently bumped a thread to praise the devs. Kudos to the ai guy!

 

3. Yes comms need work too, but the DM should take precedence IMO, but comms should be far ahead of flak trucks.

 

4. Time dilation is an engine issue with how the ai is coded but can be fixed with adjusting mission settings amd upgrading your cpu/ram. If you want help with this, pm and we can chat. I've all but eliminated it, even in vr with a reverb g2.

 

5. Yes, the fuel systems needed to be reworked but they are and that is good, but there is nothing more important than the DM and the generous low speed handling.

[Creep]

1 minute ago, Denum said:

Even through we can show you the absolute truth with math no less? 

Who needs a scientific approach to the problem that includes actual evidence? Just make some slow motion videos of yourself shooting at AI planes and call it a day.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 minute ago, oc2209 said:

 

I don't care if the pilot's dead. The point here is that the fuel didn't explode or burn, in any of the nearby tanks. With a 100% fuel load.

 

The damage model screws over HE rounds (as also shown in the clip from my opening post), but with less frequency. As you might expect, things that explode have a higher probability of causing catastrophic damage than things that do not explode.

You do realize full fuel greatly reduces the risk of explosion, do you not? Fuel VAPOR is what explodes.

[oc2209]

16 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

 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).

 

I guess the German cannons' tendency to jam and low rate of fire didn't impair their ability to down tens of thousands of Russian fighters, and utterly stonewall the British attempts to lean into France throughout all of 1941 and 1942, which had a lot of fighter-to-fighter combat.

 

As if cannons are only useful against bombers.

 

If .50s were a universally great air weapon, why is it that 20mm-30mm are still used today, even in 5th generation stealth fighters?

 

There's nothing great about the .50, other than expedience. It was practical and efficient for the American war machine to put them in every fighter design, both for training, equipping, and manufacturing.

 

That doesn't mean they were the best guns for the job. Not by a long shot.

 

7 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

You do realize full fuel greatly reduces the risk of explosion, do you not? Fuel VAPOR is what explodes.

 

I guess it also makes it immune to catching fire, too?

 

Don't try to make excuses for nothing happening there, please.

Edited August 19, 2021 by oc2209

[Denum]

12 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

I don't care if the pilot's dead. The point here is that the fuel didn't explode or burn, in any of the nearby tanks. With a 100% fuel load.

 

 

Well you're going to learn something today. 

 

 

Full tanks don't explode or burn that easily. 

 

So much so that guys will often fill them full of fuel and weld truck tanks. It's not a preferred method but in a pinch it can be done.

 

[oc2209]

20 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

So... Have you noticed that your incessant need to argue with everyone that says "Hey I'm not happy with the DM" is the cause of so many threads getting locked? 

 

Our .50 thread was just fine, with actual historical data and numbers pulled right from the game and yet, you still felt the need to argue things are fine. Even through we can show you the absolute truth with math no less?

 

So you should be allowed to spread misinformation in the Yak thread, and no one should speak up?

 

I also wasn't doing anything in the locked HE thread, other than pointing out that HE isn't universally OP like some claim. Then you and your peanut gallery came into that thread to get it locked.

 

I never argued everything was fine with .50 AP. My argument always was and always has been that the damage model should be adjusted before changes are made to either HE or AP.

 

Since the damage model is the clear weakest link in the process, that should be brought up to a reasonably realistic standard; and then change ammunition to better interact with the improved (however marginally) damage model.

 

3 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

 

Well you're going to learn something today. 

 

 

Full tanks don't explode or burn that easily. 

 

So much so that guys will often fill them full of fuel and weld truck tanks. It's not a preferred method but in a pinch it can be done.

 

 

So now all of a sudden 100 AP rounds failing to start a fire or explode a target is the greatest sin any sim could allow; but 9x30mm strikes failing to ignite or detonate a fuel tank isn't a problem in your eyes at all?

 

Do you not see how you change the goalposts to suit your argument?

Edited August 19, 2021 by oc2209

[VA_chikinpickle]

34 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

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.

 

 

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:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

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:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

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.

 

 

See what you are now doing is insulting a group of people who are passionate about il2 and its development. What exactly are you doing accusing people of histrionics and hyperbole? When you yourself engage in such tactics of discussion right here in this very thread! You've told several people their opinions are worthless histrionics! Then criticize them for being upset with you??

 

I will speak nothing negative about your character or motivations here. But I will point out that your chosen communication style is inflammatory and counter productive to a good discussion of weapons. We should base these discussions on historical accuracy and available data and keep our disparaging of other community members to a minimum. 

 

We are all very passionate here, but lets makre sure this energy is channeled into productive discussions. Thanks.

[oc2209]

26 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Who needs a scientific approach to the problem that includes actual evidence? Just make some slow motion videos of yourself shooting at AI planes and call it a day.

 

You'll need to explain to me how showing screenshots of multiplayer engagements where people are shot down with 3 HE hits are scientific. We don't know any of those hit locations, we just know "HE=OP."

 

At least in slow-mo, you can see the impact locations.

 

I guess I didn't hit the Fw-190 in the engine and cockpit with several 20mm HE each. It was all a delusion.

 

6 minutes ago, VA_chikinpickle said:

See what you are now doing is insulting a group of people who are passionate about il2 and its development. What exactly are you doing accusing people of histrionics and hyperbole? When you yourself engage in such tactics of discussion right here in this very thread! You've told several people their opinions are worthless histrionics! Then criticize them for being upset with you??

 

I will speak nothing negative about your character or motivations here. But I will point out that your chosen communication style is inflammatory and counter productive to a good discussion of weapons. We should base these discussions on historical accuracy and available data and keep our disparaging of other community members to a minimum. 

 

We are all very passionate here, but lets makre sure this energy is channeled into productive discussions. Thanks.

 

I'm a dick, you're right.

 

But this same small group of people have been hounding me in various threads. They attack my arguments with extremely insulting implications; for example, claiming I'm too dimwitted to know how the DVD system works, whether I'm firing 20mm or 12.7mm at a target, etc.

 

Everything they say reeks of disdain and disrespect. So yeah, I come out swinging now. Sorry if it's ugly to watch. I genuinely mean that. But I'm tired of this group of loudmouths having its way with the board.

 

I never said that criticism shouldn't occur. I never said the sim was perfect.

 

But when people like @Denum claim that the Yak's 20mm AP is useless, yes, I damn well consider that unfounded histrionics.

Edited August 19, 2021 by oc2209

[Denum]

19 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

So now all of a sudden 100 AP rounds failing to start a fire or explode a target is the greatest sin any sim could allow; but 9x30mm strikes failing to ignite or detonate a fuel tank isn't a problem in your eyes at all?

 

Do you not see how you change the goalposts to suit your argument?

 

I don't care if it doesn't start a fire. I care that it has no obvious effect on the aircraft. No loss of speed, no engine issues. Nothing. 

 

Also with how often I've been detonated in multiplayer I'd suggest you try shooting aircraft with 50% fuel before you say the damage model isn't working. Full tanks don't often explode or burn that easy without API munitions. 

 

It's possible a 30mm could completely rupture a tank but that is a damage model limitation and frankly compared to the state of AP. Pretty low on the totem pole for me.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Denum

[VA_chikinpickle]

7 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

You'll need to explain to me how showing screenshots of multiplayer engagements where people are shot down with 3 HE hits are scientific. We don't know any of those hit locations, we just know "HE=OP."

 

At least in slow-mo, you can see the impact locations.

 

I guess I didn't hit the Fw-190 in the engine and cockpit with several 20mm HE each. It was all a delusion.

 

 

Well my friend, my personal opinion is that the collection of software performance statistics and their subsequent analysis would be a scientific endeavor. 

 

The collection of historical documents and weapons performance data would additionally be considered scientific.

 

Designing software in which the performance of the software output aligns with real world performance is the expertise of our dev team. But it would also be scientifically based.

 

This is before we reach the distinction between qualitative (guncam footage, historical reports etc) and quantitative evidence (hard data). Both are valid, as typically the first leads to the second.

 

You are welcome to disagree. I wont comment on delusions you may or may not have. I have enough of my own to deal with.

Edited August 19, 2021 by VA_chikinpickle

[Creep]

5 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

I also wasn't doing anything in the locked HE thread, other than pointing out that HE isn't universally OP like some claim.

Claimed and proved with data, instead of “tests” where we shot at AI a couple times, then circled visual damage markers that do not coincide with damage calculations. 
 

I have an idea - let’s meet up on Berloga or CB training and do some duels with the La-5 - you with AP only and me with HE only. I’ll eat my hat if you are able to destroy me one out of 10 times. I’ll even give you my six at the start. It’s not a great test, but it will make me happy and may impress upon you how woefully inadequate AP is.

[Denum]

7 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

You'll need to explain to me how showing screenshots of multiplayer engagements where people are shot down with 3 HE hits are scientific. We don't know any of those hit locations, we just know "HE=OP."

My point of showing that was to hopefully bring awareness to your screenshots and clips. 

 

They tell a story sure. But is there enough data to make anything of it from there?

 

I say no. No there isn't.

[BCI-Nazgul]

4 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

You'll need to explain to me how showing screenshots of multiplayer engagements where people are shot down with 3 HE hits are scientific. We don't know any of those hit locations, we just know "HE=OP."

 

At least in slow-mo, you can see the impact locations.

 

I guess I didn't hit the Fw-190 in the engine and cockpit with several 20mm HE each. It was all a delusion.

Except the locations you see on the video are NOT the exact locations of hits nor do they tell where the splash damage went, what internal system were actually hit, where the AP carried through inside the target, etc...   The Devs have said this much.   You need to think of them like special effects/eye candy in a movie not real gun cam footage.  

[VA_chikinpickle]

It is true that the developers have told us several times that graphical representations of damage do not necessarily describe what is happening within the program itself.

Edited August 19, 2021 by VA_chikinpickle

[Creep]

10 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

You'll need to explain to me how showing screenshots of multiplayer engagements where people are shot down with 3 HE hits are scientific. We don't know any of those hit locations, we just know "HE=OP.”

Go back and look at our post - in it we linked to our dataset which includes recordings, server logs, and the IL2 stats (which come from the server logs) for all instances of the tests we conducted. 
 

Sorry bud, but your “tests” don’t compare.

[oc2209]

3 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

I have an idea - let’s meet up on Berloga or CB training and do some duels with the La-5 - you with AP only and me with HE only. I’ll eat my hat if you are able to destroy me one out of 10 times. I’ll even give you my six at the start. It’s not a great test, but it will make me happy and may impress upon you how woefully inadequate AP is.

 

Why not do it with one of your friends instead, and show the results here?

 

I can only shoot at AI, after all. As you just reminded me a few minutes ago.

 

I mean, in all seriousness, I don't get this disdain about using the AI for a target drone and test bed.

 

If you can show me a clip in 1/32 speed of an La-5 loaded AP-only pasting a Fw-190 in the cockpit and engine area, with nothing happening, I'd consider that a perfectly valid form of evidence for the purposes of this debate.

 

In my experience, when I see AP strikes in vital areas, things tend to happen.

 

The fact that multiplayer doesn't bear this out is not a problem with the AP round itself, but with the inherent problems of expecting realistic dogfights in multiplayer. Most pilots who were shot down in war never saw their attacker, and didn't evade. Another large statistical group probably did evade, but poorly. Only the smallest percentage of skilled pilots would put on a great aerobatics show--and in multiplayer, everyone is a trick flier.

[357th_Dog]

2 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

Why not do it with one of your friends instead, and show the results here?

 

I can only shoot at AI, after all. As you just reminded me a few minutes ago.

 

I mean, in all seriousness, I don't get this disdain about using the AI for a target drone and test bed.

 

If you can show me a clip in 1/32 speed of an La-5 loaded AP-only pasting a Fw-190 in the cockpit and engine area, with nothing happening, I'd consider that a perfectly valid form of evidence for the purposes of this debate.

 

In my experience, when I see AP strikes in vital areas, things tend to happen.

 

The fact that multiplayer doesn't bear this out is not a problem with the AP round itself, but with the inherent problems of expecting realistic dogfights in multiplayer. Most pilots who were shot down in war never saw their attacker, and didn't evade. Another large statistical group probably did evade, but poorly. Only the smallest percentage of skilled pilots would put on a great aerobatics show--and in multiplayer, everyone is a trick flier.

The reason why the AI makes for a poor demonstration is because they will bail out at an extremely low threshold, where as the FM and DM allow for people to push beyond what the AI would consider "severe damage" and keep fighting a nearly fully capable aircraft.  When actually playing against a human who can reason and compensate for damage and likewise having to utilize underperforming rounds against said human player will you actually get an idea of the current state of the game. 

Put simply, SP is good for confirming peoples need to be superhuman pilots against witless wonders, but a very poor substitute for a real challenge 

[Denum]

Now Oc 

 

I feel like you're under the impression I want to be your enemy here. 

 

You should feel assured that's not my intentions. 

 

All I'm angling for is a fair damage model. Not balanced. But fair. 

 

You said you had a hard time in multiplayer, the better we can make that experience. The more open that side of the community becomes. You might not like the PvP servers but I'd be willing to bet you'd have a great time playing PvE missions with people. 

 

I've made some really good friends flying online and I think that experience should open to everyone. 

 

But as it sits currently, people are going jump in. Join the lower team (usually allied) get completely smeared and never come back. 

 

I don't think that's fair and it's certainly not a way to grow the online portion of the game. 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Denum

[oc2209]

9 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Except the locations you see on the video are NOT the exact locations of hits nor do they tell where the splash damage went, what internal system were actually hit, where the AP carried through inside the target, etc...   The Devs have said this much.   You need to think of them like special effects/eye candy in a movie not real gun cam footage.  

 

So, when my recording showed the Fw-190 pilot being killed from 2 AP impact flashes to the upper fuselage/canopy--where are you saying the hit locations actually were?

 

When an impact flash--and a DVD marker if the plane has DVD--is right over a vital area like an engine or a cockpit or a fuel tank, why should I assume the hit was, what, a dud? Deflected completely away from the plane's innards?

 

When I see flashes in a wing root and then see fuel leaking a second later--that means the flashes corresponded to penetrating the tank in the wing I know I hit.

 

When I fire into a Sturmovik's radiator, precisely fire into it, and then I see the oil trail a moment later--again, that's visual hit identification using flashes that subsequently correspond to logical internal damage within the location you just struck.

 

Why are people trying to make this more convoluted than it really is?

[357th_Dog]

1 minute ago, oc2209 said:

 

So, when my recording showed the Fw-190 pilot being killed from 2 AP impact flashes to the upper fuselage/canopy--where are you saying the hit locations actually were?

 

When an impact flash--and a DVD marker if the plane has DVD--is right over a vital area like an engine or a cockpit or a fuel tank, why should I assume the hit was, what, a dud? Deflected completely away from the plane's innards?

 

When I see flashes in a wing root and then see fuel leaking a second later--that means the flashes corresponded to penetrating the tank in the wing I know I hit.

 

When I fire into a Sturmovik's radiator, precisely fire into it, and then I see the oil trail a moment later--again, that's visual hit identification using flashes that subsequently correspond to logical internal damage within the location you just struck.

 

Why are people trying to make this more convoluted than it really is?

 Because the devs have said time and time again that the damage impacts and decals do not correspond to the actual logged damage. The only way to determine exactly what was hit by when and how is with dev tools x-ray vision for a replay, which we do not have access to. 

[BCI-Nazgul]

2 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Why are people trying to make this more convoluted than it really is?

They're not.   They are just telling you that by definition you can't rely on the special effects as solid evidence.  I bet if we/you ever got a true listing of where and what was being hit by our shots we'd be surprised maybe even shocked.  Your videos would indeed be good evidence and useful if they reflected reality 100% of the time, but they can't at the moment.

Edited August 19, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

[oc2209]

4 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

The reason why the AI makes for a poor demonstration is because they will bail out at an extremely low threshold, where as the FM and DM allow for people to push beyond what the AI would consider "severe damage" and keep fighting a nearly fully capable aircraft.

 

I've debunked this claim before.

 

Here:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

And here:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Seriously, if you're going to talk about the AI to me, you'd better come prepared.

 

Because I know the AI pretty damn well.

 

Beyond all that, when I put AP rounds into the back of the AI's head, it doesn't matter whether it's an AI pilot or a human pilot. Getting pilot kills and engine fires is unrelated to who's flying the plane.

[VA_chikinpickle]

22 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

You'll need to explain to me how showing screenshots of multiplayer engagements where people are shot down with 3 HE hits are scientific. We don't know any of those hit locations, we just know "HE=OP."

 

At least in slow-mo, you can see the impact locations.

 

I guess I didn't hit the Fw-190 in the engine and cockpit with several 20mm HE each. It was all a delusion.

 

 

I'm a dick, you're right.

 

But this same small group of people have been hounding me in various threads. They attack my arguments with extremely insulting implications; for example, claiming I'm too dimwitted to know how the DVD system works, whether I'm firing 20mm or 12.7mm at a target, etc.

 

Everything they say reeks of disdain and disrespect. So yeah, I come out swinging now. Sorry if it's ugly to watch. I genuinely mean that. But I'm tired of this group of loudmouths having its way with the board.

 

I never said that criticism shouldn't occur. I never said the sim was perfect.

 

But when people like @Denum claim that the Yak's 20mm AP is useless, yes, I damn well consider that unfounded histrionics.

 

To get back to your earlier post, I see lots of dicks running around. I tend to agree with you. Im a dick sometimes to people you know its easy to get heated especially since everyone here has huge nerd bonors for ww2 planes so no wonder its a big sword fight in here. But its best if they stop swinging you know? More productive that way.

 

Do you ever play multiplayer? If you havent you should give it a try. Our little group of people is just upset because certain gameplay mechanics have affected how we all play and the experience we have in a negative way. It was a big change from before and upset the dynamics in a major way. 

 

Some of these dudes are so passionate about il2 they've spent hours personal time collecting data and doing some rather extensive testing and data collection on the weapon performance. Thats why all the insistence on getting the point across.

[357th_Dog]

Just now, oc2209 said:

 

I've debunked this claim before.

 

Here:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

And here:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Seriously, if you're going to talk about the AI to me, you'd better come prepared.

 

Because I know the AI pretty damn well.

 

Beyond all that, when I put AP rounds into the back of the AI's head, it doesn't matter whether it's an AI pilot or a human pilot. Getting pilot kills and engine fires is unrelated to who's flying the plane.

 Yeah, I don't see the AI trying to fight either. A lazy constant turn isn't a fight, it's a simple script with no variance.  

Unless you have demonstrations of the DM and weapons modeling being fine in MP against a real human who can adapt, attempt to max perform and fight, then what you've shown is utterly worthless. 

Congrats on beating AI, next thing you'll do is show us your trophy for beating up kids hopping off the short bus

[QB.Shallot]

37 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

There's nothing great about the .50, other than expedience. It was practical and efficient for the American war machine to put them in every fighter design, both for training, equipping, and manufacturing.

I actually have a wonderful quote to answer this assertion.

Pulled from page 169 of "Report of Joint fighter Conference".
Basically all the bigwigs sat down and discussed why they were fighting the air war in their manner, and methods to improve on it. 

The .50's were used because they were the smallest caliber that could reliably shred an enemy fighter aircraft. By choosing the smallest caliber, they also chose the smallest gun. This allowed them to put the most guns and ammunition possible on an aircraft, and by extension the densest possible firing pattern. When you have a highly effective ammunition (see: API) and excess horsepower available to carry a greater weight of ammunition and guns (see: most American Fighters) this is a solution that works effectively, especially when your logistical chain is so optimized for the .50 round.

 

WWII fighter aircraft are not 5th Gen fighters. They are WWII fighter aircraft.

[oc2209]

24 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

 Yeah, I don't see the AI trying to fight either. A lazy constant turn isn't a fight, it's a simple script with no variance.  

Unless you have demonstrations of the DM and weapons modeling being fine in MP against a real human who can adapt, attempt to max perform and fight, then what you've shown is utterly worthless. 

Congrats on beating AI, next thing you'll do is show us your trophy for beating up kids hopping off the short bus

 

Are you serious?

 

You're telling me a single-engine plane should able to withstand multiple 30-37mm HE hits, and still maneuver and fight?

 

A human would likely have totally lost control by over-controlling after taking even 1-2 30mm hits.

 

The salient point here is that you said the AI 'bailed at an extremely low threshold.'

 

I show evidence of the AI getting pasted by artillery-sized shells and still flying--not bailing out or just crashing from control loss--and you turn this around into a personal attack on how I feel good about shooting down the AI.

 

This is exactly the kind of shit that gave me my current attitude.

 

11 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:

WWII fighter aircraft are not 5th Gen fighters. They are WWII fighter aircraft.

 

I'm saying the Germans, Japanese, Russians, and British (after they abandoned their peashooters) were all forward-thinking in favoring the clear advantages of a cannon.

 

Only the Americans didn't jump on board the cannon wagon. If the Americans had been right and everyone else wrong, then .50s would still be used in air-to-air combat 75+ years later, and not cannons.

 

That was and remains my point.

Edited August 19, 2021 by oc2209

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

9 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

 

I'm saying the Germans, Japanese, Russians, and British (after they abandoned their peashooters) were all forward-thinking in favoring the clear advantages of a cannon.

 

Only the Americans didn't jump on board the cannon wagon. If the Americans had been right and everyone else wrong, then .50s would still be used in air-to-air combat 75+ years later, and not cannons.

 

That was and remains my point.

A red herring is your point? Well okay then. I thought we were talking about ww2 here.

Edited August 19, 2021 by drewm3i-VR

[357th_Dog]

8 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

Are you serious?

 

You're telling me a single-engine plane should able to withstand multiple 30-37mm HE hits, and still maneuver and fight?

 

A human would likely have totally lost control by over-controlling after taking even 1-2 30mm hits.

 

The salient point here is that you said the AI 'bailed at an extremely low threshold.'

 

I show evidence of the AI getting pasted by artillery-sized shells and still flying--not bailing out or just crashing from control loss--and you turn this around into a personal attack on how I feel good about shooting down the AI.

 

This is exactly the kind of shit that gave me my current attitude.

 

 

I'm saying the Germans, Japanese, Russians, and British (after they abandoned their peashooters) were all forward-thinking in favoring the clear advantages of a cannon.

 

Only the Americans didn't jump on board the cannon wagon. If the Americans had been right and everyone else wrong, then .50s would still be used in air-to-air combat 75+ years later, and not cannons.

 

That was and remains my point.

No, I'm saying you shouldn't see it be able to perform these twists and daring maneuvers after getting hit by multiple 20mm and 30mm rounds, or by 75+ .50 cal rounds

Yet they do in multiplayer. There are server logs of 109's taking *400* .50 cal rounds and not only making it back, but being able to effectively, *offensively* maneuver and get kills. 

That is what people have been trying to say when they say the DM is severely broken and AP is useless. 

 

[oc2209]

31 minutes ago, VA_chikinpickle said:

 

Our little group of people is just upset because certain gameplay mechanics have affected how we all play and the experience we have in a negative way. It was a big change from before and upset the dynamics in a major way. 

 

 

You have every right to be disappointed.

 

All I've tried to do is temper the disappointment a bit with some alternate perspectives.

 

I've never claimed to be infallible in my observations--I only provide my observations to act as a balance to extreme viewpoints; to show 'hey, maybe there's more to this issue than the obvious.' 

 

I've never, ever said .50s were totally fine and didn't need some kind of alterations. I've also never said HE rounds are too weak; that's not my point, even when I show examples of HE looking rather weak.

 

I have only ever intended to show that the damage model creates inconsistent and, by all outward appearances, illogical results in both ammunition types. It is your distinct misfortune that AP suffers more because of compounded multiplayer effects, DM shortcomings both inherent and fixable, and inherent limitations of AP ammunition in the sim and in reality.

[Creep]

53 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The fact that multiplayer doesn't bear this out is not a problem with the AP round itself, but with the inherent problems of expecting realistic dogfights in multiplayer. 

I'd say the opposite is true. Multiplayer is more competitive than single player and therefore imbalances are far more obvious, which is why many people that only play single player don't notice how severe the issue is. Hell, it took me months to realize it, and only after Shallot and I did a lot of testing did I realize just how ridiculously bad it was.

[the_emperor]

24 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Only the Americans didn't jump on board the cannon wagon. If the Americans had been right and everyone else wrong, then .50s would still be used in air-to-air

 

the US  chose one HMG to field for their tanks, trucks, halftracks, fighters and bombers -> and the needed it fast in big numbers ->

that eases up the logistic for suppling guns, ammunition, spare parts, training of crews and technicians, and standardization ...and that is what is what enabled the US to deploy more material in higher steady quality than the germans (and the Brits, the Spitfire and Merlin engine were in many parts still hand made) and won the war...

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by the_emperor

[Creep]

57 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Why not do it with one of your friends instead, and show the results here?

Imagine being so bad at the game that you cower from multiplayer, then you decide to get confrontational with people on the forums and lose there too ?

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Denum said:

Now Oc 

 

I feel like you're under the impression I want to be your enemy here. 

 

You should feel assured that's not my intentions.

 

If you stop belittling my opinions, I'll stop trying to debunk your opinions. Fair enough?

 

I don't believe anything I've said is so ridiculously beyond the realm of reality as to be dismissed out of hand. We're all free to agree or disagree with each other. But there's a big difference between disagreement and trying to humiliate someone with snide commentary until they just go away or stop talking.

 

I feel like your brute force method has largely failed to win converts to your cause, with the devs or otherwise.

 

It's not that you don't have valid points; it's that you present them as abrasively as possible. And talking about jumping ship to DCS is really not the way to further your cause.

 

I understand you're exasperated after waiting for change for so long. But a scorched earth campaign won't make things happen any faster.

 

16 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

 

the US  chose one HMG to field for their tanks, trucks, halftracks, fighters and bombers -> and the needed it fast in big numbers ->

that eases up the logistic for suppling guns, ammunition, spare parts, training of crews and technicians, and standardization ...and that is what is what enabled the US to deploy more material in higher steady quality than the germans (and the Brits, the Spitfire and Merlin engine were in many parts still hand made) and won the war...

 

 

I did state that America's choice of the .50 was one of expedience and practicality, yes.

 

I never said it was the wrong choice. I said that America's preference for the .50 in no way proved that it was the best gun for air-to-air combat.

 

15 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

Imagine being so bad at the game that you cower from multiplayer, then you decide to get confrontational with people on the forums and lose there too ?

 

I don't have to explain my reasoning to you. Infer whatever you want.

 

Tell me though, why don't you shoot the AI drone like I said? Afraid the results won't be what you want them to be?

 

Put up or shut up. Cheap taunts don't impress me.

Edited August 19, 2021 by oc2209

[=RS=EnvyC]

How many times does it have to be said that AI don't count as a practical example of damage limits? You say you debunk it yet just keep chasing your tail in a circle.

 

Sounds to me you're intentionally ignoring that incredibly important and valid point to push your own agenda to once again FUD the discussion. Not that the rest of your language wasn't an indication in itself.

 

Why do you consistently refuse to play on a MP server? Play on CB in a P51 *only* for a month then come back

Edited August 19, 2021 by =RS=EnvyC

[=RS=Haart]

I come from a reenactment background outside this sim, where I have to wear the right clothes for the period + have the right equipment, ironically down to the pattern of shirt, stitches on that shirt, the arrows I use for my bow, and even my underpants if I'm being anal about things. Essentially, I want the claim by the devs on their storefront that the sim is based on museum information and historical sources to be correct, and open to adjustment when historical sources are presented. 

 

The way I've come to terms with it is this, we know thanks to Yak_Panther's amazing work that at very least the .50s are not modelled correctly according to scientific tests of the day, for me this calls into question the validity of all armour piercing ammunition in the game. I feel for Jason and his team being 9 people down in their dev team and hope that they'll be true to their word of adjusting the values when it comes time. I've all but given up with the exception of on occasion, flying any aircraft armed with pure AP ammo in a multiplayer setting, and if I bother doing an offline campaign which is rare in my case, I will pick an airframe armed with both AP and HE weapons where available, with infinite ammo turned on because I couldn't be bothered hamstringing myself.

It is possible with early war airframes in the quick mission builder to set engine/fuel fires or sever the control surface cables on the 110e2 with even .303s sub 200m, but in an online multiplayer setting this is not an engagement distance I regularly see. However when using the .50 armed Mustang or P-47 vs the 110G2, even at sub 200m in my experience the pilot snipe is a more likely resulted kill over something like an engine/fuel fire or a structure failure. 

At the end of the day, I'm hopeful that it does get fixed before the end of the year.

My point being
I just want AP ammo that acts like real AP ammo

 

[VA_chikinpickle]

54 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

I have only ever intended to show that the damage model creates inconsistent and, by all outward appearances, illogical results in both ammunition types. It is your distinct misfortune that AP suffers more because of compounded multiplayer effects, DM shortcomings both inherent and fixable, and inherent limitations of AP ammunition in the sim and in reality.

 

If you would let us present you with statistical data that has been collected on multiplayer servers, you would see that the results of each ammunition type are actually fairly consistent. There are outliers of course. But there is a pattern. Yet this is where we begin to leave the realm of opinions and enter into data and its analysis.

 

To have a bad attitude about conflicting opinions is unproductive especially two strong opinions. We simply see that il2 has the potential to offer the best ww2 multiplayer flight sim experience ever and want to help it realize this potential.

 

Has anyone analyzed the weapons stats from the stats mods?

Edited August 19, 2021 by VA_chikinpickle

[Guest deleted@258843]

@oc2209

 

Hey, friend.

 

Everybody is really riled up about this because it is actually a pretty big deal online. Especially for scenarios with late war American planes.

 

It's probably hard to look past their negative responses, and I know you mean well, but if you actually want to understand where they're coming from, and gain a little perspective yourself, you should go spend some time on Combat Box or Finnish.

 

Get some experience under your belt with both factions online, and see what you think. You may end up feeling a bit silly you didn't do it sooner (it's pretty fun, after all!)