Jason's briefing room

[Denum]

I'm not interested in digging up old bones at this point. 

 

I sincerely hope you guys don't have to experience what we did and as long we did. In the grand scheme of life it's pretty minor. But it could have been acknowledged earlier also.

 

I'll just leave it at that. 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Denum

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, Denum said:

I'll keep that in mind when there's something that's heavily effecting gameplay for the singleplayer community and insist that "since I can make it work, it shouldn't be dealt with and you're all a bunch of a whiners" 

 

Is not the 0.50cal question equally relevant to both single player and multiplayer?

 

I personally can't help but feel like a lot of the complaints are being driven by some misapprehensions. I would argue:

 

0.50 cal Brownings are exactly where they should be when compared to other comparable weapons (i.e. UB, MG-131, Breda-SAFAT). If one examines the kinetic energy of the guns and the amount of filling it is pretty clear that it is modelled consistently. So we shouldn't be complaining about the 0.50 cal but the weakness of AP rounds from machine guns generally (if we are complaining at all).

 

Flying the P-39 (without the wing guns) one quickly finds that the machine guns are as effective as we should expect when compared to the MC.202 etc. However, people might not notice this if they mainly fly American aircraft and avoid flying the P-39. This makes me suspect that people under-estimate the impact of convergence settings - The fact that people only complain about the Browning 0.50cal makes me suspect that a lot of what is happening is the difficulty firing at the right range, since all guns converge on a single point rather than multiple points (as was historical practice). 

 

There are serious issues - AP rounds are actually less effective against ships than HE rounds (for instance). This is a much more obvious historical discrepancy... and modelling something like waterline hitboxes would help a lot (or increasing the armour of some parts of the ships). 

 

I also think that re-evaluating the damage to components from rifle calibre weapons is worth a shot... given how weak the I-16, Hurricane, MG-17 equipped Bf-109 and FW-190s end up being... certainly that is more frustrating than anything people using 0.50 cal weapons experience.

 

So, there isn't a point in evaluating the 0.50 cal on its own - but it makes sense to re-evaluate the effects of all AP and Ball ammunition (including the .50 cal)... against ground targets and parts of aircraft.

[357th_KW]

37 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Is not the 0.50cal question equally relevant to both single player and multiplayer?

 

I personally can't help but feel like a lot of the complaints are being driven by some misapprehensions. I would argue:

 

0.50 cal Brownings are exactly where they should be when compared to other comparable weapons (i.e. UB, MG-131, Breda-SAFAT). If one examines the kinetic energy of the guns and the amount of filling it is pretty clear that it is modelled consistently. So we shouldn't be complaining about the 0.50 cal but the weakness of AP rounds from machine guns generally (if we are complaining at all).

 

Flying the P-39 (without the wing guns) one quickly finds that the machine guns are as effective as we should expect when compared to the MC.202 etc. However, people might not notice this if they mainly fly American aircraft and avoid flying the P-39. This makes me suspect that people under-estimate the impact of convergence settings - The fact that people only complain about the Browning 0.50cal makes me suspect that a lot of what is happening is the difficulty firing at the right range, since all guns converge on a single point rather than multiple points (as was historical practice). 

 

There are serious issues - AP rounds are actually less effective against ships than HE rounds (for instance). This is a much more obvious historical discrepancy... and modelling something like waterline hitboxes would help a lot (or increasing the armour of some parts of the ships). 

 

I also think that re-evaluating the damage to components from rifle calibre weapons is worth a shot... given how weak the I-16, Hurricane, MG-17 equipped Bf-109 and FW-190s end up being... certainly that is more frustrating than anything people using 0.50 cal weapons experience.

 

So, there isn't a point in evaluating the 0.50 cal on its own - but it makes sense to re-evaluate the effects of all AP and Ball ammunition (including the .50 cal)... against ground targets and parts of aircraft.

The reason we notice the issue with 50 caliber as opposed to the various 12.7mm and 13mm is the difference between AP and HE as you point out.  All the 12.7mm/13mm are modeled with HE (even late war Luftwaffe guns which used API rather than HE historically) while 50 caliber weapons are modeled as pure AP, which was never used.  These were always at least a belted combination of AP and Incendiary, and typically pure API in the case of 1944/45 US aircraft.  So right off the bat we can see a big problem with what has been modeled.  
 

Further, the aero damage applied by the HE HMGs is so great that they can often shoot down Allied fighters with a single hit to the wing or tail.   This was addressed to a degree on the 51 (though you are often crippled to the point of combat ineffective from that hit), but the 38, 47 and Spit (and possibly others) all still suffer from this problem to varying degrees.  You’ll never notice this issue shooting AI targets, because just as the AI can fly perfectly level, it can continue to fly without immediately losing control with those heavily compromised controls - you’ll just shoot it again and kill it without noticing.  But in MP it’s a big problem when a long range or high deflection spray lands a single HMG round to the very edge of your wing or tail - something that would be considered superficial in real life - and your aircraft then spins out of control, or loses 50 mph of speed.  Likewise if you are flying with those weapons, the best tactic is to just spray with them at crazy distance and extreme deflection - so what if it’s a low percentage shot, a single hit will decide the fight in your favor in most cases.  
 

Also, wing mounted guns weren’t necessarily aligned for point harmonization - in fact US manuals advise to use pattern harmonizations.  And it’s worth noting that the ultra close convergence settings many use (including myself) to have some success with the current iteration of the 50s are MUCH closer than what was typically used on these aircraft historically.  Even if you were firing at the wrong convergence distance in game, a single wing bank of a P-40 or P-51 has over 50% more firepower than a P-39’s nose mounted weapons packed into a fairly similar footprint, due to the additional gun and the higher rate of firing since they aren’t synchronized through the prop arc.

 

 I demonstrated over a year ago, that the round counts required to generate kills with 50s were wildly high in static single player testing.  This got largely ignored, but we still see it playing out.  Even after adjustments to the previously indestructible tail of the 109 these problems persist.  It’s likely related to the fact that the mass, velocity and armor penetration values in the game right now for 50 caliber aren’t even historically correct, and are all low.  It’s worth noting that the rifle caliber machine guns you mention generally didn’t have the necessary penetration to deal with aircraft armor - the era of success for fighters armed with 30 caliber weapons was in 1939 and 1940 when most aircraft carried little or no armor.  By comparison the HMGs (particularly the Russian 12.7mm and US 50 caliber armor piercing rounds) were still very capable of punching through the thickest armor employed on aircraft right up to the end of the war.

 

So looking at those issues, we see that 4 weapons (UB, MG131, Breda, AN/M2) that were considered fairly similar and in the same class, are wildly different in game due to the chemical components of some being modeled and others not, along with inaccuracies in AP specific values for the M2.  Many of these issues are much less apparent in single player, largely due to the difference between the capabilities of AI and players.  I’m very happy to read Jason’s update on the issues and I’m optimistic that progress will be made and we’ll see some great improvements in the game.

 

[Beazil]

Team.  Jason.  Ann Petrovich, Rapidus, and all others that make this team great, thank you for thousands of hours of my personal time spent being entertained by your product.  I ram.  I die.  I get frustrated when my stuff doesn't work the way I want it to.... Etc, ...thank you again.  Thanks for supporting my fringe interests like triple monitor, 3d rendering, VR, et cetera over the years.  Thanks for developing new tech.  Thanks for attracting swarms of my old wingmates and opponents from other sims.  Thanks for being fun.  Thanks for working through a crazy pandemic that seems never ending.  Cheers to all of you and the team.  

 

Looking forward to seeing how the next chapters in development unfold.  

 

Edit:. Lol!  Oh crap!  Thanks also for looking at the meticulously researched issues by my fellow virtual pilots .  S!

/grin.

6 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Team.  Jason.  Ann Petrovich, Rapidus, and all others that make this team great, thank you for thousands of hours of my personal time spent being entertained by your product.  I ram.  I die.  I get frustrated when my stuff doesn't work the way I want it to.... Etc, ...thank you again.  Thanks for supporting my fringe interests like triple monitor, 3d rendering, VR, et cetera over the years.  Thanks for developing new tech.  Thanks for attracting swarms of my old wingmates and opponents from other sims.  Thanks for being fun.  Thanks for working through a crazy pandemic that seems never ending.  Cheers to all of you and the team.  

 

Looking forward to seeing how the next chapters in development unfold.  

 

Edit:. Lol!  Oh crap!  Thanks also for looking at the meticulously researched issues by my fellow virtual pilots .  S!

/grin.  Should have mentioned that too.

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by JG51_Beazil

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Is not the 0.50cal question equally relevant to both single player and multiplayer?

 

I personally can't help but feel like a lot of the complaints are being driven by some misapprehensions. I would argue:

 

0.50 cal Brownings are exactly where they should be when compared to other comparable weapons (i.e. UB, MG-131, Breda-SAFAT). If one examines the kinetic energy of the guns and the amount of filling it is pretty clear that it is modelled consistently. So we shouldn't be complaining about the 0.50 cal but the weakness of AP rounds from machine guns generally (if we are complaining at all).

 

Flying the P-39 (without the wing guns) one quickly finds that the machine guns are as effective as we should expect when compared to the MC.202 etc. However, people might not notice this if they mainly fly American aircraft and avoid flying the P-39. This makes me suspect that people under-estimate the impact of convergence settings - The fact that people only complain about the Browning 0.50cal makes me suspect that a lot of what is happening is the difficulty firing at the right range, since all guns converge on a single point rather than multiple points (as was historical practice). 

 

There are serious issues - AP rounds are actually less effective against ships than HE rounds (for instance). This is a much more obvious historical discrepancy... and modelling something like waterline hitboxes would help a lot (or increasing the armour of some parts of the ships). 

 

I also think that re-evaluating the damage to components from rifle calibre weapons is worth a shot... given how weak the I-16, Hurricane, MG-17 equipped Bf-109 and FW-190s end up being... certainly that is more frustrating than anything people using 0.50 cal weapons experience.

 

So, there isn't a point in evaluating the 0.50 cal on its own - but it makes sense to re-evaluate the effects of all AP and Ball ammunition (including the .50 cal)... against ground targets and parts of aircraft.

Problem is not 0.50 cal vs other guns, its AP vs HE changes they did in 4-005 update that made AP weeker and HE stronger.
Why ppl complain about 0.50 mostly is its ammo belts are not historical and insted incendiary they only have AP ammo. while for example german HMG insted incendiary have HE.

You mention Mc202, well after that 4-005 update there was complains how all of sudden its HMG are week, and when we looked at its files we found out that its ammo belt has error, insted HE+AP mix it had only AP ammo, so after AP ammo got changed in 4.005 complains started, no one complained before, so this bug with its ammo belt was not found out before 4.005 update and AP ammo got changed to be weeker.ince it belt was fixed and it got HE ammo , no complains about week guns on it, wonder why ?

 

Changes they gona make to 0.50 guns in week or two wont change a thing regarding week AP ammo, guns will make them have bigger spreed but it wont change main problem that is wrong ammo used or wrong belts that favor axis guns where incindeary is replaced by HE ammo while same is not done for american airplanes when we have only AP and HE types simed for airplnes.

They can do fair thing and easy just add AP+HE mix , heck it dont even have to be 50/50 split , make every 5th ammo in 0.50 HE and it would be something, just add HE in belts of 0.50 cal guns for mising incindiary, and make it same as its for axis guns that stop using HE and used incindiary, that in game they still have 66% of ammo HE, when making incendeary ammo will take months or more. That would be quick fix to problem 4.005 made.
Good thing in replay is its said things wont change for months so atleast ppl who dont wont to play anything els then american airplanes online dont have to come and complain about problem with AP ammo and can play DCS untill DM gets looked and incendiary gest added, and in post that is last thing planed.

 

If you wont we can go back to, aim better, itz netcode, get good, there is no problem with 0.50 or 0.50 cant be strong as 30mm stpid arguments from ppl who dont belive there is problem with AP vs HE changes they did almost 2 years ago, or we can stfup and waith for next year when they fix DM. It takes two to tango.

Edited September 13, 2021 by CountZero

[Avimimus]

Yes, well - that would require an HE round to have been in use for the 0.50 cal, wouldn't it though?

 

  

50 minutes ago, VBF-12_KW said:

Further, the aero damage applied by the HE HMGs is so great that they can often shoot down Allied fighters with a single hit to the wing or tail.

 

Interesting post and research! What I find most interesting is that I think I'm basically in agreement - except for the fact that I don't find the bursting charges of the heavy machine guns to be that advantageous (except maybe in the UB). Of course, that is quite subjective. Your points overall seem quite thorough.

[BladeMeister]

A good post Jason. Simple honest communication goes a very long way with your customer base. It is hard enough working with scheduled deadlines, but doing it with the team short handed and during the Covid quarantine just makes it that much more stressful and tough to meet the deadlines. Thanks to ALL of the 1C Team for your dedication and hard work, but please do remember, you have to have some time away from the stress of work. You have to have a life outside of work, so take care of yourselves both mentally and physically, get some exercise, it is a great stress reliever. Thanks for all that you are working on for the future, but more importantly, thanks for all of the content you as a Team have already provided for our entertainment. GBS has come a long, long way from the beginning in BOS and hopefully the situation will improve so that the Team can continue to create an even better series in the future. Thanks to ALL of the 1C Team!!!

 

S!Blade<><

[CountZero]

15 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Yes, well - that would require an HE round to have been in use for the 0.50 cal, wouldn't it though?

...

Dont stop using HE insted Incendeary on other airplanes belts, why its stoper on 0.50s , you already have other airplanes with unhistorical belts, where HE is insted Incendiary, why their belts are not all AP also ? why they have 66% HE belt ? you have situation where things were just copy paste from plane to plane and no mather what ammo was used as yers go by... thats how you have this problem they plan to fix in few weeks, it was just copy pasted from 0.50 when P-40 was created and same goes for any other airplane, bug on mc202 was copy pasted on mg131, and any new airplane... thing is if you have AP HE mix on other airplanes that didnt use HE, same should be done to .50 why single that belt out and give them ony AP if you dont have Incendiary, and others get HE insted.

Oh well they used this in 1941 so ts ok to just copy paste same for 45 who cares its just ammo in combat sim.

[Jason_Williams]

For those that appreciated my message thank you. I will now close this thread because it's devolving into the usual arguing. It's just not worth it. I've explained what we are going to do so it's time to go focus on that.

 

Jason