Game version 4.702 discussion: P-51B, Two new Flying Circus Campaigns, improvements

[ghostly_doggo]

1 hour ago, Denum said:

We atleast posted with data to back it up. We've also posted data that shows the "1 MK108 hit" trope is BS. 

 

We also kept it in the appropriate area after we were asked to. 

 

 

You guys are posting in game clips and complaining they don't explode from a single hit?

 

Not even remotely comparable my dude.

I have!

 

I know it's the fuel trailer and there's no way it was the tank though ?

You posted a statistic that shows there is an issue. An aircraft surving a 30 mm hit is not the norm, it's an exception. The video I sent you was a British test done in ww2 with numerous photos and two videos of the actual round hitting aircraft. Oc2209 has numerous videos that show even with the new damage model its still flawed and needs re working which Jason had said they will eventually get to. Problem solved. I'm not sure why you are still going on about it in a toxic way. I can lead a horse to water but I cannot force it to drink. We showed evidence up to you if you want to review it.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Just for the sake of clarity, it isn't a new damage model, just a better implementation of the visual damage decals.  The underlying DM is still what it has been for a while.

[Denum]

7 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

A number of folks in this thread are arguing that it’s wrong for a fighter to be able to survive a 30mm strike.  There are real world, documented cases of fighters being struck by 30+ mm weapons and surviving to return to base.  In post-war testing,  the US determined that a single MK 108 30mm or US 37mm only had about a 30-40% chance of producing an instant kill on a P-47, and only 6-12% on a B-25.  These weren’t guaranteed one shot weapons in real life.  We shouldn’t expect them to be in game either.  There are quite a few photos out there of Allied fighters that returned to base with large caliber cannon hits to their wings and tails - engine, cockpit, fuel tank etc are the vulnerable spots on an aircraft.  Yes, you can get kills with scatted wing and tail hits, but you shouldn’t expect those hits to produce consistent kills.

Refer to the link in this post @ghostly_doggo

 

Our in game stats line up extremely close with real life.  

 

This is post war testing done by the American Ballistic research laboratories on numerous airframes. 

 

It's a 48 page document so it'll take a minute to load. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Denum

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Denum said:

We also kept it in the appropriate area after we were asked to.

 

Really? All those times Jason locked threads, and you threatened to go play DCS if .50s weren't fixed, and you said everyone you knew was abandoning this game over the .50s issue--that was all strictly on-topic?

 

Okay.

 

3 hours ago, Denum said:

You guys are posting in game clips and complaining they don't explode from a single hit?

 

Not even remotely comparable my dude.

 

No. That's not what I'm 'complaining' about. I'm not demanding action, which usually follows a complaint. I'm saying a phenomenon exists, and its existence shouldn't be denied. It's up to the devs if/when they feel like addressing it. I don't care beyond the point of observation.

 

And I'm observing, consistently, that planes can take multiple 30mm hits and still remain flyable. There's a huge difference between 'not exploding' and 'flying like nothing happened.'

 

There's this thing called 'nuance' in arguments. I suggest you try it sometime.

 

Spoiler

 

 

That's the last clip I'm going to show here. Just made it today.

 

If anyone can explain to me how a plane in a hard turn can take a 30mm to the middle of the wing and, aside from a small wobble, remain in the hard turn--I'll concede the point.

[Denum]

15 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

'flying like nothing happened.'

 

Clearly has full aileron deflection and massive rudder input and limited control. Most human players would not have maintained that turn.

 

Hence why we say using AI as a test bench is bad but oh well. 

 

 

I'm disappointed I didn't get to dot my MSPaint box on my bingo card today. 

 

Weird that we can provide actual scientific, real world data and people conveniently ignore it. 

 

Until you do the same, the videos you post mean very little. 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Denum

[ghostly_doggo]

2 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

Clearly has full aileron deflection and massive rudder input and limited control. Most human players would not have maintained that turn.

 

Hence why we say using AI as a test bench is bad but oh well. 

 

 

I'm disappointed I didn't get to dot my MSPaint box on my bingo card today. 

 

Weird that we can provide actual scientific, real world data and people conveniently ignore it. 

 

Until you do the same, the videos you post mean very little. 

 

 

 

Literally posted a video made by the British show casing a rheinmentall 30mm hitting a spitfire and a beaufighter. Significant damage to the spitfires wing. Blew the tail off of it on the next hit and same with the beaufighter. As for your report I need to read it still. And your telling me a player couldn't do that? I beg to differ. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Although I didn't always agree with Denum over the 50cals, I do agree with him here. Videos of a single instance where something happens are anecdotal evidence, whether it's an in-game or a real-life video. I'm sure that if we had all the data, you'd find a P-51 surviving multiple 30mm hits IRL as well. A shell malfunctions, detonates to early, detonates too late, hits a spot on the wing where it just blasts away some skin with little structural damage; you name it.

 

Anecdotes mean very little next to statistics. If the stats from thousands of online kills line up with real-life stats, then the guns are not over- or underpowered. I in no way imply that the damage model is perfect, and there may well be some cases where it performs better or worse than in real life, but if it matches the statistics, then on the whole it's fine.

[ghostly_doggo]

Again the statistics still show there is an issue, multiple videos showing the same thing is not anecdotal. If it's repeatable which it is. Then it clearly supports at certain points in the airframe damage is not transferred or portrayed correctly. That is true with the 15,20 and 30 mm. Video real world video evidence shows the effects, that 41 page report shows in certain instances it is survivable but rarely. More often than not you are going into the dirt. Il2 does not simulate bad shells as far as I know. So I can not say that point is valid although I know I did happen often in ww2 and in that sense is very valid. As you said it works sometimes and at other times doesn't. As this is a sim it should try to portray it as perfectly as you could possibly get it. Which the developers are doing. They have very much said they are working on this, but as this is a forum problems are posted here talked about and discussed then they deal with them as they see fit and in their own time. As long as it has been identified and acknowledged I'm perfectly fine with that, in fact it makes me happy. But you cannot say there isn't an issue with it. That is my issue with what Denum is saying. 

Edited January 3, 2022 by ghostly_doggo
Quote is doing something weird

[Denum]

54 minutes ago, ghostly_doggo said:

Literally posted a video made by the British show casing a rheinmentall 30mm hitting a spitfire and a beaufighter. Significant damage to the spitfires wing. Blew the tail off of it on the next hit and same with the beaufighter. As for your report I need to read it still. And your telling me a player couldn't do that? I beg to differ. 

 

Trust me we've seen those so, so many times. It's become kind of a running joke. 

 

Anyway 

 

They didn't shoot those rounds into the aircraft. They were suspended then detonated. They were able to provide basically the "best case scenario" for the round. I would not consider them to be average, or even realistic in terms of expectation.

 

In game sometimes the 108 is a one and done, sometimes it takes two or three because we hit something unimportant. On rare occasions maybe it's 5. In the same fashion some planes gobble up 100+ .50 cals. But those happen so rarely, that it's almost acceptable

They happened in real life. 

 

 

Attached a few aircraft here that took hits ranging from 40mm Bofors to 88mm. 

 

They all flew home. 

 

 

 

 

The 108 closes kills pretty darn close to historical references, just how the damage model achieves it isn't quite the same. But then we get into simulator fidelity and a bunch of other things. 

 

What range are you shooting the 108 at? It's a pretty slow round and you maybe to far back to get sufficient penetration with it?

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Denum

[ghostly_doggo]

11 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

Trust me we've seen those so, so many times. It's become kind of a running joke. 

 

Anyway 

 

They didn't shoot those rounds into the aircraft. They were suspended then detonated. They were able to provide basically the "best case scenario" for the round. I would not consider them to be average, or even realistic in terms of expectation.

 

In game sometimes the 108 is a one and done, sometimes it takes two or three because we hit something unimportant. On rare occasions maybe it's 5. In the same fashion some planes gobble up 100+ .50 cals. But those happen so rarely, that it's almost acceptable

They happened in real life. 

 

 

Attached a few aircraft here that took hits ranging from 40mm Bofors to 88mm. 

 

They all flew home. 

 

 

 

 

The 108 closes kills pretty darn close to historical references, just how the damage model achieves it isn't quite the same. But then we get into simulator fidelity and a bunch of other things. 

 

What range are you shooting the 108 at? It's a pretty slow round and you maybe to far back to get sufficient penetration with it?

 

Those are pretty astounding photographs. Although flak rounds are constructed completely differently than cannon rounds. As for the video I showed you they 100% shot the round into the aircraft, it was a captured 30mm theycused for the testing. Greg's airplanes and automobiles has done a video specifically on the cannon in question and is well worth a watch. But when I have used the cannon I get as close as I can since with it I'm not very accurate. Probably around 100 meters or less. https://youtu.be/bIYd7RYoNsM

[357th_Esco]

19 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

Trust me we've seen those so, so many times. It's become kind of a running joke. 

 

Anyway 

 

They didn't shoot those rounds into the aircraft. They were suspended then detonated. They were able to provide basically the "best case scenario" for the round. I would not consider them to be average, or even realistic in terms of expectation.

 

In game sometimes the 108 is a one and done, sometimes it takes two or three because we hit something unimportant. On rare occasions maybe it's 5. In the same fashion some planes gobble up 100+ .50 cals. But those happen so rarely, that it's almost acceptable

They happened in real life. 

 

 

Attached a few aircraft here that took hits ranging from 40mm Bofors to 88mm. 

 

They all flew home. 

 

 

 

 

The 108 closes kills pretty darn close to historical references, just how the damage model achieves it isn't quite the same. But then we get into simulator fidelity and a bunch of other things. 

 

What range are you shooting the 108 at? It's a pretty slow round and you maybe to far back to get sufficient penetration with it?

 

How awesome would it be if the damage model actually looked like that when hit in the game! Maybe someday or the next IL2 engine.?

[Denum]

2 minutes ago, ghostly_doggo said:

Those are pretty astounding photographs. Although flak rounds are constructed completely differently than cannon rounds. As for the video I showed you they 100% shot the round into the aircraft, it was a captured 30mm theycused for the testing. Greg's airplanes and automobiles has done a video specifically on the cannon in question and is well worth a watch. But when I have used the cannon I get as close as I can since with it I'm not very accurate. Probably around 100 meters or less. https://youtu.be/bIYd7RYoNsM

Spitfire test was shot sorry, you're right. Spitfire , MKII, closest thing in game would be the Vb, and I know that thing won't survive a 30mm. One thing to keep in mind is as the war progressed aircraft construction changed greatly. Can't really use a 1940s airframe as a standard of damage. Otherwise we could argue that .303 can still kill the 109 drivers from behind .



Beaufighter Blenheim was suspended then popped if I recall.  Fuselage structure of those things was like wet cardboard. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, VBF-12_Esco said:

How awesome would it be if the damage model actually looked like that when hit in the game! Maybe someday or the next IL2 engine.?

 
Would be awesome wouldn't it! 

[ghostly_doggo]

11 minutes ago, Denum said:

Spitfire test was shot sorry, you're right. Spitfire , MKII, closest thing in game would be the Vb, and I know that thing won't survive a 30mm. One thing to keep in mind is as the war progressed aircraft construction changed greatly. Can't really use a 1940s airframe as a standard of damage. Otherwise we could argue that .303 can still kill the 109 drivers from behind .



Beaufighter Blenheim was suspended then popped if I recall.  Fuselage structure of those things was like wet cardboard. 

 

 

 
Would be awesome wouldn't it! 

Your right it is a Blenheim always get those confused my bad. And your right on the construction but the main strength in aircraft construction is the aircraft skin. Once that's ripped you loose a lot of rigidity in the frame. Which is why HE was deadly and the same reason flak was so affective. Hate the 303s thou it was like throwing a rock at a 109 lol or at least how many Raf pilots had put it 

[Denum]

Try shooting the Spitfire Vb with the 108, it's pretty satisfying. 

[357th_Esco]

48 minutes ago, Denum said:

Spitfire test was shot sorry, you're right. Spitfire , MKII, closest thing in game would be the Vb, and I know that thing won't survive a 30mm. One thing to keep in mind is as the war progressed aircraft construction changed greatly. Can't really use a 1940s airframe as a standard of damage. Otherwise we could argue that .303 can still kill the 109 drivers from behind .



Beaufighter Blenheim was suspended then popped if I recall.  Fuselage structure of those things was like wet cardboard. 

 

 

 
Would be awesome wouldn't it! 

Imagine a much more advanced version of this damage which affected aerodynamics. I would love to see some runway accidents at a level higher than this in IL2.?
 

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by VBF-12_Esco

[ACG_Cass]

4 hours ago, ghostly_doggo said:

Which is why HE was deadly and the same reason flak was so affective.

Flak was deadly due to the shrapnel. A direct hit was incredibly unlikely. It relied on fragmentations penetrating the aircraft mainly.

 

Pure HE was a mixed bag and lost some of its effectiveness the altitude. It relies on penetrating a "pocket" of skin and then blowing that out. In IL2 we get the best case hit every time and with the drag and lift penalties when getting hit by a 30mm, someone really has to have massively disadvantaged themselves to get shot down after landing a hit.

 

[ghostly_doggo]

3 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

Flak was deadly due to the shrapnel. A direct hit was incredibly unlikely. It relied on fragmentations penetrating the aircraft mainly.

 

Pure HE was a mixed bag and lost some of its effectiveness the altitude. It relies on penetrating a "pocket" of skin and then blowing that out. In IL2 we get the best case hit every time and with the drag and lift penalties when getting hit by a 30mm, someone really has to have massively disadvantaged themselves to get shot down after landing a hit.

 

HE and flak work roughly the same way. Both cause ripping of skin, wires and other "softer bits" via fragmentation and pressure. I don't understand why your trying to correct me on this especially since I more or less covered the loss of structural strength and aerodynamics. And if you boom and zoom land a 30mm hit expecting the enemy aircraft to spiral out of the sky only to find it shaken and slightly slower. The next thing that happens is you overshoot because your in a boom and zoom maneuver and he shoots your aircraft up pretty good and now has your six. Has happened to me a few times and is quite frustrating. 

[Guster]

If you lads don't mind my changing the subject, I've got to say I'm thoroughly enjoying the P-51B. Impressive performance aside, the cockpit has atmosphere in spades and I find the 4x50s more than adequate for bringing down enemy planes.

 

I know this is old news, but on a side note the Typhoon and the Razorback Jug are lovely birds as well. Down low the P-47 feels like a single engine B-17 only without the defensive armament, but up high it's a different beast, especially with 150 grade fuel where it really shines, though I'm not sure exactly when this was introduced.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

8 hours ago, ghostly_doggo said:

Again the statistics still show there is an issue, multiple videos showing the same thing is not anecdotal. If it's repeatable which it is. Then it clearly supports at certain points in the airframe damage is not transferred or portrayed correctly. That is true with the 15,20 and 30 mm. Video real world video evidence shows the effects, that 41 page report shows in certain instances it is survivable but rarely. More often than not you are going into the dirt. Il2 does not simulate bad shells as far as I know. So I can not say that point is valid although I know I did happen often in ww2 and in that sense is very valid. As you said it works sometimes and at other times doesn't. As this is a sim it should try to portray it as perfectly as you could possibly get it. Which the developers are doing. They have very much said they are working on this, but as this is a forum problems are posted here talked about and discussed then they deal with them as they see fit and in their own time. As long as it has been identified and acknowledged I'm perfectly fine with that, in fact it makes me happy. But you cannot say there isn't an issue with it. That is my issue with what Denum is saying. 

Multiple videos showing an issue is multiple anectotes, it doesn't make it statistics. You've already pre-selected on videos that shows your perceived issue. That means that, by its very nature, 100% of your videos show this issue. Which doesn't tell us anything as far as statistics go.

 

Your claim, "I should not have to put 10-15 rounds in a mig or yak to bring it down. It all feels a bit weak. Historically a 151/20 cannon will take off a spitfire's wing and or tail section in 1-3 solid hits," is a statistical claim. You should use statistics to either prove or disprove it. Single videos are not statistics, neither are multiple videos unless they are part of a pre-determined test and collected without cherry-picking those videos that show the "issue". An average of around 1000 hours of flight, however, *is* statistics.

[ghostly_doggo]

4 hours ago, Guster said:

If you lads don't mind my changing the subject, I've got to say I'm thoroughly enjoying the P-51B. Impressive performance aside, the cockpit has atmosphere in spades and I find the 4x50s more than adequate for bringing down enemy planes.

 

I know this is old news, but on a side note the Typhoon and the Razorback Jug are lovely birds as well. Down low the P-47 feels like a single engine B-17 only without the defensive armament, but up high it's a different beast, especially with 150 grade fuel where it really shines, though I'm not sure exactly when this was introduced.

Absolutely, I'm still trying to get a feel for the 47 It's a childhood favorite. Its hard to get it to a good fighting alt in career mode. Probably have to fly it with PWCG but I agree with you about the 51 b honestly I think it looks better with the Malcom hood than the 51 D, the extra speed doesn't hurt either haha.

[Denum]

@Guster

 

Make sure you have a boost button mapped also. At 81" it absolutely boogies. Landing gear has got me in trouble a time or two now. Need to give it a bit longer 

Edited January 3, 2022 by Denum

[ghostly_doggo]

27 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Multiple videos showing an issue is multiple anectotes, it doesn't make it statistics. You've already pre-selected on videos that shows your perceived issue. That means that, by its very nature, 100% of your videos show this issue. Which doesn't tell us anything as far as statistics go.

 

Your claim, "I should not have to put 10-15 rounds in a mig or yak to bring it down. It all feels a bit weak. Historically a 151/20 cannon will take off a spitfire's wing and or tail section in 1-3 solid hits," is a statistical claim. You should use statistics to either prove or disprove it. Single videos are not statistics, neither are multiple videos unless they are part of a pre-determined test and collected without cherry-picking those videos that show the "issue". An average of around 1000 hours of flight, however, *is* statistics.

I'll post some videos for you. I'm not trying to make a baseless claim, I don't believe in wasted words.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Wait, the B Mustang has a boost button?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

3 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Wait, the B Mustang has a boost button?

Yes.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[chris455]

13 hours ago, ghostly_doggo said:

 "Although flak rounds are constructed completely differently than cannon rounds". 

Other than fuzing, explain "completely differently" please.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Indeed, last I checked, flak rounds are/were cannon rounds.

[BillPowell]

Fantastic, that did it. Thanks.

[Jason_Williams]

Hey guys,

 

Please no more off-topic discussion in this thread. Derails the point of it.

 

Jason

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Wait, the B Mustang has a boost button?

 

Yes, unlike the D, the pilot has to pull a red handle on the front panel to enable boost. 

[Denum]

The new effects are super nice ?

[56RAF_Roblex]

On 12/29/2021 at 6:43 AM, Hanu said:

Not poking or arguing, but just want to understand what is so special about P-51B as so many seem to be almost as thrilled? Its looks, performance, historical value, personal affinity?

 

Contrary to what you might expect,   the B is faster than the D at all altitudes. At sea level with the V1650-7 engine and 150 Octane fuel it is about 19MPH faster than a D with the same fuel! It also handles slightly better because it is lighter (19 seconds to do a full circle while the D takes 20) and is also more stable, probably because of the taller fuselage.   Where the D is better is the visibility,  especially to the rear which many would prefer instead of getting a few MPH extra or climbing faster etc.
 

[CountZero]

18 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

Contrary to what you might expect,   the B is faster than the D at all altitudes. At sea level with the V1650-7 engine and 150 Octane fuel it is about 19MPH faster than a D with the same fuel! It also handles slightly better because it is lighter (19 seconds to do a full circle while the D takes 20) and is also more stable, probably because of the taller fuselage.   Where the D is better is the visibility,  especially to the rear which many would prefer instead of getting a few MPH extra or climbing faster etc.
 

From what i see in game D and B with -7 engine have close to same speed using 61" 67" or 75" on all alts, B using 81" is faster at few altitudes by 10-20kmh. Are you sure your not comparing D speeds before update that made it faster ? , tech info for D is old speeds.

 

[CUJO_1970]

6 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Wait, the B Mustang has a boost button?

 

Yes, bro - no other way to get the techno to read 432 mph on the deck without hitting that "b" key:

 

 

And it works way better than that silly old "b" key on the Dora ?:

 

 

 

 

[A_radek]

48 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Yes, bro - no other way to get the techno to read 432 mph on the deck without hitting that "b" key:

 

 

And it works way better than that silly old "b" key on the Dora ?:

 

 

 

 

Would anything support this? 57mph difference on deck seems hefty.

[Beebop]

So few people use it which is probably why I haven't seen this posted before....

Aerobatic Smoke no longer works.

 

Setup:

Plane is 'Empty'.

"Aerobatics" smoke is chosen.  1, 2 emitters, any color, doesn't matter.

In game use default 'B' key.  (this used to start smoke coming from emitter cartridges)

Emitter cartridges are dropped from plane.  No smoke.

 

Fixing this is most likely below the bottom of the pile of things to do.

[ghostly_doggo]

It's crazy how much faster the 51 is on the deck im not sure if thats 100% correct but should be closeish, im not in the know with the 51s. Although it says the Dora can do over 400 at about 4000 ft. And at a 1000 ft around 385ish.

[CUJO_1970]

1 hour ago, aa_radek said:

Would anything support this? 57mph difference on deck seems hefty.

 

Well it's only 92 kph using the metric system.

 

Doesn't sound so bad now eh? ?

[ghostly_doggo]

3 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Well it's only 92 kph using the metric system.

 

Doesn't sound so bad now eh? ?

All about perspective lol

[Guster]

14 hours ago, Denum said:

@Guster

 

Make sure you have a boost button mapped also. At 81" it absolutely boogies. Landing gear has got me in trouble a time or two now. Need to give it a bit longer 

 

Cheers!

[ACG_Cass]

Again, the D9 uses an air mass regulator instead of a fixed boost one like most of the other planes.

 

In the colder, denser (more mass) air the D9 regulator will restrict it's boost so it won't be able to utilise it in the same way as an aircraft that is regulated to it's full boost.

 

I've no idea what the speed increases would be across the board, but in colder, denser air at those speeds, the idea that the P51 B/C with it's low drag design can take most advantage doesn't seem too far fetched.

 

 

@ghostly_doggo

Sorry hadn't read the whole thread before responde that. I just meant that heavy flak was mostly designed as a frag grenade, as direct hits were rare, and HE aircraft guns were meant for direct hits.

Edited January 4, 2022 by ACG_Cass