Pilot killed without being hit.

[-332FG-Zephyr096]

17 minutes ago, jdoe33 said:

The issue is definitely not the .50 cals or other gun models. I simply think the hitbox of the pilot and how pilot health is modeled are a much bigger issue. I am pretty sure that no matter where a .50cal will hit the pilot it will cause fatal damage (at least i've not been partially injured by a .50cal burst before in over a thousands hours of online play, yes this is ambigious information and doesen't have to mean anything).

A .50cal or any other AP gun won't immediately kill you if it pierces your hand or certain parts of legs/feet/shoulders (graze shot)/arms, as long as it doesen't pierce an artery, even in that case you'd still have 2-3 minutes to live till you bleed out (ik it's ridiculous to request having it modeled that accurately). You could be shot in the foot and in the hand and live on another day but the game PROBABLY (judging this by my own experience) would already consider you dead simply by having a finger and a toe hit just because of how Pilot HP works. 100HP - 2x50HP = 0 HP. It's most likely THAT simple. 

I'm fairly convinced that in the current model combined with bad netcode many times a pilot will die even though the bullet would've gotten nowhere near close to penetrating ANY lethal part of the body. Combined with the fact that probably the whole upper chest serves as a "hit this=pilot dead" hitbox even though that's most likely not how it would work in real life. THAT is why we see SO many pilot snipes and what Krup said about ppl being in a much more optimal environment. 

A single .50 hit anywhere on your torso/head/upper leg would most likely result in a quick death IRL. Smaller caliber bullets are iffier. Arms/lower leg a .50 cal would still likely do lethal damage in the context of a fighter where there's no medic available to tourniquet the remains of a limb.

Basically any bullet we have in the game bigger than .30 caliber should be a PK for any direct hit to the pilot, regardless of where it hits on the body. Lower leg or arm is maybe a few minutes to bleed out.

I will agree that a stronger "wound" mechanic and less of an "instant death" mechanic could be good, but being hit by a .50 cal while in a single-seat aircraft and no one around to give first aid is likely going to result in you going into shock and bleeding out very quickly if you don't die immediately.

I think it would be fair to have a head/torso hitbox and a leg/arm hitbox, where if you get hit in the arm or leg it gives you a minute or two before you succumb to wounds for anything bigger than a .30 cal. The .303/.30 cal is going to most likely kill if it hits torso/head, but not anywhere near the death sentence a single .50 hit would be; that being said, when you have 12 .303s firing from a Hurricane the likelihood that only one bullet hits the pilot from a well-aimed salvo would be low I would think.

[MeoW.Scharfi]

B17 gunners had the worst overclaim in history of aerial warfare.

[6./ZG26_Loke]

No pilot killed.

[=RS=EnvyC]

42 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

No pilot killed.

 

Those aren't .50s and that's a very different aircraft with a lot more in the way of the pilot from 6 o'clock.

 

Like, you are aware that the Mk1 Spit carried 8x.303s and that's a Heinkel not a 110 right?

Edited January 24, 2022 by =RS=EnvyC

[357th_Dog]

31 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Loke said:

No pilot killed.

The fact they were .303's and the aircraft involved is a medium bomber isn't the same as a 110 getting PK'd with 20mm's with a glasshouse cockpit

Congrats on a non sequitur reply though 

[Denum]

I can't recall which model 109 it was but after a certain point the .303s were ineffective. As they can't penetrate the pilots seat armor. 

 

The HE111 had several armored bulk heads so.. yeah that picture adds up for me. The only way that plane was going in was if it lost an engine. 

 

Some pilots preferred the .303s as uh... Well you couldn't shoot the plane down but it was certainly demoralizing for the enemy to remove the dead crew from the back...

 

 

Also I thought using one images and anecdotes was strongly discouraged? 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Denum

[ACG_Cass]

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Those interested in the article here is the link: 

 https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0491gunners/

They were in massive, specially designed formations where a luftwaffe pilot could have up 100 guns firing at him at one point.

 

A single bomber might be able to fend off a bad slow approach but it would be lucky to hit anything moving quickly. Even the B17s were considered pretty much dead I'm the water when they were by themselves.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

5 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

They were in massive, specially designed formations where a luftwaffe pilot could have up 100 guns firing at him at one point.

I understand that, however, The gunners are next to useless at this point. Even If you fly straight and level, fighters can approach your six and swat you out of the sky with little to no danger from rear gunners.  I think this is a combination of things that maybe creating many perceived instant kills among ground attackers. Little to no defence from the gunners and a change to ammunition parameters. This is not an imagined event. There is a thread at the moment in general discussion with videos showing just how ineffective rear gunners have become.

Some gifs that demonstrate this innaccuracy:

https://imgur.com/CGOdhH3

https://imgur.com/1vYyILN

Video's courtesy @[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain

[jdoe33]

1 hour ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

 

Those aren't .50s and that's a very different aircraft with a lot more in the way of the pilot from 6 o'clock.

 

Like, you are aware that the Mk1 Spit carried 8x.303s and that's a Heinkel not a 110 right?

And yet i get pilot sniped first burst from people shooting dead six 0 deflection at a 111 almost every time i get shot at, the chance to hit the pilot there is next to nothing because after it penetrates anywhere in the rear fuselage it should get slightly deflected and it would have to penetrate several more objects inside the plane to reach the pilot without deflecting out of the plane and THEN deal a fatal wound. 

 

2 hours ago, -332FG-Zephyr096 said:

A single .50 hit anywhere on your torso/head/upper leg would most likely result in a quick death IRL. Smaller caliber bullets are iffier. Arms/lower leg a .50 cal would still likely do lethal damage in the context of a fighter where there's no medic available to tourniquet the remains of a limb.

Basically any bullet we have in the game bigger than .30 caliber should be a PK for any direct hit to the pilot, regardless of where it hits on the body. Lower leg or arm is maybe a few minutes to bleed out.

I will agree that a stronger "wound" mechanic and less of an "instant death" mechanic could be good, but being hit by a .50 cal while in a single-seat aircraft and no one around to give first aid is likely going to result in you going into shock and bleeding out very quickly if you don't die immediately.

I think it would be fair to have a head/torso hitbox and a leg/arm hitbox, where if you get hit in the arm or leg it gives you a minute or two before you succumb to wounds for anything bigger than a .30 cal. The .303/.30 cal is going to most likely kill if it hits torso/head, but not anywhere near the death sentence a single .50 hit would be; that being said, when you have 12 .303s firing from a Hurricane the likelihood that only one bullet hits the pilot from a well-aimed salvo would be low I would think.

As I said, I don't see the issue with the .50 cals and i am not asking to change anything regarding them. I am asking for accurate hitreg and a proper pilot health model. It's annoying as hell that whenever any AP ammo plane sprays your screen just turns black in an INSTANT. The only time that should happen is if you get headshot or some vital organ like your heart would be hit. I've definitely seen myself getting pilot sniped on tracks on multiple occasions when there was no lag going on where the bullets clearly struck the cockpit but their path would never hit the pilot and almost every time i die. It's just as bad that shrapnel damage on wings  over a meter away from the cockpit will sometimes INSTANTLY blackscreen you or even knock you out, like c'mon. It's a 2cm bullet and not a hand grenade. 

Il-1946 already had a bleedout modeled and we need it here too. 

I would bet even bullets that don't physically touch the pilot ingame still count as hits just because of inaccurate hitreg and oversized/bad hitboxes. 

[357th_Dog]

Since we were told this for a year or more before an admitted error in .50 cal stats was found..

Have you considered just..not being hit..better?  

Sounds like maybe a skill issue to me, not a game issue. 

[=RS=EnvyC]

1 hour ago, jdoe33 said:

And yet i get pilot sniped first burst from people shooting dead six 0 deflection at a 111 almost every time i get shot at, the chance to hit the pilot there is next to nothing because after it penetrates anywhere in the rear fuselage it should get slightly deflected and it would have to penetrate several more objects inside the plane to reach the pilot without deflecting out of the plane and THEN deal a fatal wound. 

 

Stay on topic please. My quote was referencing a picture of a 111 being shot by .303, a .50 isn't a .303, your anecdote isn't relevant.

[purK]

1 hour ago, jdoe33 said:

It's annoying as hell that whenever any AP ammo plane sprays your screen just turns black in an INSTANT. The only time that should happen is if you get headshot or some vital organ like your heart would be hit. I've definitely seen myself getting pilot sniped on tracks on multiple occasions when there was no lag going on where the

For .50 cals at least, it doesn't need to be a direct head or heart shot to be lethal. The kinetic energy alone is enough to incapacitate, or cause you to bleed out in a matter of seconds. Even so, pilots can still occasionally get wounded by .50s in game and survive.

The devs have even confirmed that our pilots already have superhuman abilities, for example, does this video seem very realistic to you? ?
 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

https://imgur.com/CGOdhH3

 

This post shows just how terrible AI gunners are now. 

This is maybe why bombers are getting swatted out of the sky with ease? 

[357th_Dog]

20 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

https://imgur.com/CGOdhH3

 

This post shows just how terrible AI gunners are now. 

This is maybe why bombers are getting swatted out of the sky with ease? 

Have you considered that there is a reason the 110 was generally withdrawn from daylight operations in 1942? 

[86th_Buzzi]

50 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

https://imgur.com/CGOdhH3

 

This post shows just how terrible AI gunners are now. 

This is maybe why bombers are getting swatted out of the sky with ease? 

 

Maybe the gunners were adjusted too far. But a single clip without context is difficult to draw anything from. Was the gunner hypoxic? Wounded? Coming down from a week long Pervitin binge? Or a human player?

 

From this one clip it could be any one of these possibilities. Or maybe all of them.

[357th_KW]

20 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

One thing that would be interesting to know is how many aircraft were claimed as shot down by Bf110 zerstorer units, particularly by the rear gunner. There certainly seems to be a problem with the accuracy of the AI Gunners (possibly dependant on server-side settings) at the moment. I will concede that they used to be far too accurate but now even if you're flying straight and level the Gunners don't seem to be able to hit the Broadside of a barn. 

 

I spent a few minutes doing a quick pass through the same source, looking at the same period and units and came up with 30 claims against fighters from the zerstorer units (both 110 and 410).  There's no way of knowing how many of those came from forward armament vs the rear gunners (or potentially even both?), and I made no attempt to correlate those with Allied losses, so it's probably a slightly optimistic number.  That is in comparison to roughly 650 aircraft lost or damaged - we can't say for certain how many actual engagements there were with Allied fighters, as some losses could be from bomber gunners etc and we have no way of accounting for inconclusive engagements.  That said, it would be pretty safe to assume that at least 650 individual engagements occurred, possibly well over 1000.  Ultimately, the sheer disparity in the numbers makes it pretty clear that the defensive armament of the 110 and 410 just weren't up to the task of fending off US fighters at that point in the war.

Edited January 25, 2022 by VBF-12_KW

[Yogiflight]

For me the gunners of the B-25 (with high difficulty) were the most believable the way they were before the change. I could pretty easily shoot them down, attacking with a Me 262, because of the high speed advantage, but attacking slower made it quite dangerous to attack them in formation.

Attacking a Pe-2 or two seater IL-2, though, was like flying for the suicidal squad.

So in my eyes making the gunners the way the B-25 gunners were would be the best way to model them, at least for SP. For MP it might make sense to make them a bit better to give players, who fly a lonesome bomber mission, a chance to survive an attack.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

6 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

Have you considered that there is a reason the 110 was generally withdrawn from daylight operations in 1942? 

Check those videos, the AI gunners are useless. 

6 hours ago, QB.Buzzi said:

From this one clip it could be any one of these possibilities. Or maybe all of them.

Or it could be that the AI has been adjusted to the point where the gunners can't hit anything even when flying straight and level? 

[jdoe33]

9 hours ago, Krupnski said:

For .50 cals at least, it doesn't need to be a direct head or heart shot to be lethal. The kinetic energy alone is enough to incapacitate, or cause you to bleed out in a matter of seconds. Even so, pilots can still occasionally get wounded by .50s in game and survive.

The devs have even confirmed that our pilots already have superhuman abilities, for example, does this video seem very realistic to you? ?
 

 

Thank you for this video. It proofs my point that pilot HP is modeled poorly AND that there's probably no such thing as proper hitboxes on different parts of the body. The pilot is probably just 1 huge, bigger than real human polygon that loses HP dependant on ammo, can anyone confirm/deny this?.  All of those look like headshots to me. Because if that SHOULD be the case that means that damage done to a pilot when struck by a bullet or shrapnel is randomly calculated. As you said it is possible to survive .50 cal hits, even though i've never got a bloodied face from them before, just blackscreens, and at this point i doubt that it matters where the bullet actually hits, head and foot are probably the same randomized damage calculation going on. 

The OP complained about dying to projectiles that didn't seem to strike the pilot at all and i can confirm this experience from my side. Not an issue of the .50cal .303 or MG151, all projectiles have this issue. Causing damage where they shouldn't. 
Pilots sometimes die from projectiles that were nowhere near them or would've otherwised completely missed. Just yesterday i pilot "sniped" an LA-5 with 1 MG151 HE that perfectly struck the middle of the wing.

 

It's not about projectile damage, it's about accurate hitreg. For that, you need proper hitboxes. 

Edit: Btw i remember a veteran report from the Elbe kommando saying being hit by a B-17 tailgunner in the arm before ramming and afterwards bailing out. Isn't the defensive armament of a B-17 .50cals too? I doubt that a lower arm/leg shot will knock you unconsicious, i would think it's probably quite survivable actually but i'm no expert by any means. I will try to find it

 

 @32:50 minutes he starts narrating. 
According to him he had been hit by a P-51 Mustang in the left arm where it connects to the shoulder and it completely fractured his humerus bone.  He was not able to use that arm anymore claiming he was surprised that he was not able to move the throttle anymore since his hand just fell off it but didn't experience any pain. I can imagine that's one of the worst spots for the bullet to hit regarding blood loss, and he lived through it. He even went on to RAM a B-17 after recovering a "stall" and then bailing out. 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by jdoe33

[MeoW.Scharfi]

1 hour ago, jdoe33 said:

Edit: Btw i remember a veteran report from the Elbe kommando saying being hit by a B-17 tailgunner in the arm before ramming and afterwards bailing out. Isn't the defensive armament of a B-17 .50cals too? I doubt that a lower arm/leg shot will knock you unconsicious, i would think it's probably quite survivable actually but i'm no expert by any means. I will try to find it

 

You can get injured by 50s as well in IL2, happend more than i could count. So yes it works as intended. ?

[jdoe33]

14 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

You can get injured by 50s as well in IL2, happend more than i could count. So yes it works as intended. ?

Krup posting a video of him headhshotting a pilot 3 times till he dies. "Working as intended" yea.... difficult statement. If that's  intended then OP is indeed right, this is an arcade game. 

[purK]

2 hours ago, jdoe33 said:

Thank you for this video. It proofs my point that pilot HP is modeled poorly AND that there's probably no such thing as proper hitboxes on different parts of the body. The pilot is probably just 1 huge, bigger than real human polygon that loses HP dependant on ammo, can anyone confirm/deny this?.  All of those look like headshots to me. Because if that SHOULD be the case that means that damage done to a pilot when struck by a bullet or shrapnel is randomly calculated. As you said it is possible to survive .50 cal hits, even though i've never got a bloodied face from them before, just blackscreens, and at this point i doubt that it matters where the bullet actually hits, head and foot are probably the same randomized damage calculation going on.

Sorry you are wrong, the pilot does have different hitboxes, and they are no bigger than the 3D model itself. Each ammo type has its own calculated damage values based on a bunch of factors, it's not "random". Yes the pilot can sustain more severe injuries than a normal pilot could, but this was a game decision by the devs, otherwise players would get pilot killed even more often and there would be even more complaining than what half this thread is about. You can learn all of this by searching through the change logs.

My point of posting that video was to show how strong our pilot is, because it seems like some here would want to see him become even stronger, which is totally unnecessary.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Krupnski

[MeoW.Scharfi]

3 hours ago, jdoe33 said:

Edit: Btw i remember a veteran report from the Elbe kommando saying being hit by a B-17 tailgunner in the arm before ramming and afterwards bailing out. Isn't the defensive armament of a B-17 .50cals too? I doubt that a lower arm/leg shot will knock you unconsicious, i would think it's probably quite survivable actually but i'm no expert by any means. I will try to find it

 

It could have been anything that hit his arm. But a direct 50 cal hit in the arm is deadly. Especially when you can't put a tournniquet on.

[=[TIA]=I-Fly-Central]

25 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

 

It could have been anything that hit his arm. But a direct 50 cal hit in the arm is deadly. Especially when you can't put a tournniquet on.

 

Yep, and even if he was hit by the bullet; it would have lost a lot of energy already from going through various parts of his plane. A direct hit from a .50BMG within it's effective range, on just about any part of the human body, is going to be deadly without immediate medical attention.  

[86th_Buzzi]

8 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Check those videos, the AI gunners are useless. 

Or it could be that the AI has been adjusted to the point where the gunners can't hit anything even when flying straight and level? 

Yeah, as I said in my post; if the clip is truly a healthy AI gunner, then gunner accuracy should be looked at and a slight improvement may be warranted. However, their [edit: gunners in smaller single engine/twin engine attack/heavy fighter aircraft]

performance pre-patch was wildly optimistic and wasn't grounded in reality, especially when you reference known losses and historical pilot accounts.

 

It's an anecdote, but we once had a single 110 gunner shoot down two P-47s, and severely cripple a third all while getting peppered with 50 cal. It was complete silliness.

Edited January 25, 2022 by QB.Buzzi

[6./ZG26_Custard]

31 minutes ago, QB.Buzzi said:

Yeah, as I said in my post; if the clip

There are two clips and the clip showing the two Pe-2's with the 109 on their 6 flying straight and level with neither gunner landing a hit makes it seem glaringly obvious that something seems to be amiss. The defensive capability of Bombers seems to have been made totally redundant. 

[purK]

7 hours ago, jdoe33 said:

Krup posting a video of him headhshotting a pilot 3 times till he dies. "Working as intended" yea.... difficult statement. If that's  intended then OP is indeed right, this is an arcade game. 

First the complaints were about dying too quickly, now you still seem unsatisfied after I've shown you how strong the pilot is. That's really quite the contradiction, I have no idea what you guys want anymore.
 

[VA_chikinpickle]

9 hours ago, jdoe33 said:

Thank you for this video. It proofs my point that pilot HP is modeled poorly AND that there's probably no such thing as proper hitboxes on different parts of the body. The pilot is probably just 1 huge, bigger than real human polygon that loses HP dependant on ammo, can anyone confirm/deny this?.  All of those look like headshots to me. Because if that SHOULD be the case that means that damage done to a pilot when struck by a bullet or shrapnel is randomly calculated. As you said it is possible to survive .50 cal hits, even though i've never got a bloodied face from them before, just blackscreens, and at this point i doubt that it matters where the bullet actually hits, head and foot are probably the same randomized damage calculation going on. 

The OP complained about dying to projectiles that didn't seem to strike the pilot at all and i can confirm this experience from my side. Not an issue of the .50cal .303 or MG151, all projectiles have this issue. Causing damage where they shouldn't. 
Pilots sometimes die from projectiles that were nowhere near them or would've otherwised completely missed. Just yesterday i pilot "sniped" an LA-5 with 1 MG151 HE that perfectly struck the middle of the wing.

 

It's not about projectile damage, it's about accurate hitreg. For that, you need proper hitboxes. 

Edit: Btw i remember a veteran report from the Elbe kommando saying being hit by a B-17 tailgunner in the arm before ramming and afterwards bailing out. Isn't the defensive armament of a B-17 .50cals too? I doubt that a lower arm/leg shot will knock you unconsicious, i would think it's probably quite survivable actually but i'm no expert by any means. I will try to find it

 

 @32:50 minutes he starts narrating. 
According to him he had been hit by a P-51 Mustang in the left arm where it connects to the shoulder and it completely fractured his humerus bone.  He was not able to use that arm anymore claiming he was surprised that he was not able to move the throttle anymore since his hand just fell off it but didn't experience any pain. I can imagine that's one of the worst spots for the bullet to hit regarding blood loss, and he lived through it. He even went on to RAM a B-17 after recovering a "stall" and then bailing out. 

 

 

So lets discuss this. People survive lots of crazy shit. Have people survived taking a .50bmg round? Im sure its happened. An airman fell out of a B17 at 20,000 feet without his parachute and survived the fall.

There was a dude in the US ten years ago who had an 800lb boulder crush his arm, and he cut it off after 5 days and hiked 4 hours to be rescued.

 

All I have to say about that is, Id rather be lucky than good.

 

Lets take a look at what the .50 BMG does to an approximation of a human body (you can find real pictures of people shot by them if you look in the right place. Im not going to post that, its horrible).

 

 

 

 

Majority of people are going to be fucked up by a 50 round. That guy who got shot in the shoulder and lived? Lucky. Plain and simple. Sometimes its just not your day to leave. 

 

Please dont mistake what happens in the movies for IRL. Getting shot with a high caliber rifle IRL makes you bleed out without immediate medical attention.

[MeoW.Scharfi]

33 minutes ago, VA_chikinpickle said:

So lets discuss this. People survive lots of crazy shit. Have people survived taking a .50bmg round? Im sure its happened. An airman fell out of a B17 at 20,000 feet without his parachute and survived the fall.

There was a dude in the US ten years ago who had an 800lb boulder crush his arm, and he cut it off after 5 days and hiked 4 hours to be rescued.

 

All I have to say about that is, Id rather be lucky than good.

 

Lets take a look at what the .50 BMG does to an approximation of a human body (you can find real pictures of people shot by them if you look in the right place. Im not going to post that, its horrible).

 

What people don't think of is that when it hits your arm or your leg, it crushes the bones so hard and those bones become sharpnel, to be exact parts of it become sharpnel flying around destroying more of your body.

 

Discussing that a human can survive direct 50s hits in here is soooo odd. If something has to be discussed then it has to be why you sometimes "just" get injured after getting hit by 50s.

 

P.S. the penetration inceases when your speed is faster than that of your victim, for example you dive on him. ?

Edited January 25, 2022 by MeoW.Scharfi

[purK]

.50s or any large AP round usually have a tendency to tumble once they hit something hard. So while it may not have the same kinetic energy after penetrating armor, the bullet might be flying sideways now which is gonna cause some massive holes in you or the plane. This is part of the reason aerodynamic and systems damage is lacking for AP ammo, tumbling effects and such which would cause significantly more skin or internal damage isn't simulated.

[JG1_Wittmann]

The  pilot kill  "latest addition"   to the game   does seem to be  somewhat  off.  A 50cal hitting    pretty much anyone  center mass,  or in the head  should be a kill  90% of the time  or more for sure.    However,  it does not seem as if anyone ever gets  injured anymore.  IF the game thinks the bullet hit you you die,  and instantly.  There are  documented cases, from ww2  ,  didn't Saburo Sakei  take a 50 call that blinded him ,   and then flew hundreds of miles home ?   THe game  code is not sophisticated enough to know where the round hits,  it just   is  50 cal bullet hits pilot hit box = pilot dead.    The canopy shots, exposed shots   are  not unrealistic.   But arguing all of the rear pilot kills  are realistic because a 50 cal penetrates more mm than the armor  is a very flawed argument.  It may,  and is tested against a plate.  The shots from the rear have to go through  other parts before it reaches the armor,  and the modelling is just not detailed enough to factor that in because it will encounter different things from even slightly.

different angles.   What is the measured velocity of the round after it penetrates the armor plate, aircraft skin, fuel tanks, radio sets,  framing, etc etc.  How does that  manifest before hitting  a pilot in the back ?   What then if the bullet strikes a rib ?   The velocity of the round after penetrating all of that  is very  important.  IT is certainly going much slower than muzzle exit,  and a 50 cal round would then be survivable.  A shot  though the canopy,  mostly dead, or badly injured.  Through the rear,  definitely  not  nearly the same rate.

[MeoW.Scharfi]

6 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

  didn't Saburo Sakei  take a 50 call that blinded him

 

That's not how a human look like after he ate a 50cal in the head that blinded him.

 

 

Most german fighter pilots in the west died by the way, their deathrate was similiar to U-Boot crews even the absolute number is still higher on the U-Boot crews.

You think they got shot down, took another 109/190, got shot down, took another 190/109 ran out of luck and crashed. Most died in their cockpit unable to try again.

The ones who survived got injured before by different reasons.

 

[purK]

12 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The  pilot kill  "latest addition"   to the game   does seem to be  somewhat  off.  A 50cal hitting    pretty much anyone  center mass,  or in the head  should be a kill  90% of the time  or more for sure.    However,  it does not seem as if anyone ever gets  injured anymore.  IF the game thinks the bullet hit you you die,  and instantly.  There are  documented cases, from ww2  ,  didn't Saburo Sakei  take a 50 call that blinded him ,   and then flew hundreds of miles home ?   THe game  code is not sophisticated enough to know where the round hits,  it just   is  50 cal bullet hits pilot hit box = pilot dead.    The canopy shots, exposed shots   are  not unrealistic.   But arguing all of the rear pilot kills  are realistic because a 50 cal penetrates more mm than the armor  is a very flawed argument.  It may,  and is tested against a plate.  The shots from the rear have to go through  other parts before it reaches the armor,  and the modelling is just not detailed enough to factor that in because it will encounter different things from even slightly.

different angles.   What is the measured velocity of the round after it penetrates the armor plate, aircraft skin, fuel tanks, radio sets,  framing, etc etc.  How does that  manifest before hitting  a pilot in the back ?   What then if the bullet strikes a rib ?   The velocity of the round after penetrating all of that  is very  important.  IT is certainly going much slower than muzzle exit,  and a 50 cal round would then be survivable.  A shot  though the canopy,  mostly dead, or badly injured.  Through the rear,  definitely  not  nearly the same rate.

Saburo Sakai attacked and was hit by an SBD gunner, which are .30 caliber rounds not .50. It's more likely he was hit by shrapnel to survive a face shot, either way it's not a .50 or he'd be missing a lot more than an eye.

Again, search the change logs and posts by the devs, and you will see that all of this is calculated. Relative speeds, impact angles, armor, fuel tanks, etc etc. Also as I mentioned, once a .50 cal hits something hard it tends to tumble, then cause even more severe damage, but this last part is not simulated.
 

 

[Bremspropeller]

5 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

Saburo Sakai attacked and was hit by an SBD gunner, which are .30 caliber rounds not .50. It's more likely he was hit by shrapnel to survive a face shot, either way it's not a .50 or he'd be missing a lot more than an eye.

 

Didn't he fly back to base for several hours? That alone excludes a critical hit.

It was most likely either a riccochet, or indeed shrapnel/ debris that got him.

 

16 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

Most german fighter pilots in the west died by the way, their deathrate was similiar to U-Boot crews even the absolute number is still higher on the U-Boot crews.

 

I read a similar thing somewhere, but haven't seen any exact numbers. Do you possibly have more info on that?

 

 

 

 

Günther Rall lost a thumb to a 50cal and was lucky.

Lucky he survived and lucky his badly healing stump kept him from flying for a long time, which most probably made him survive the war.

[SCG_motoadve]

5 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

Saburo Sakai attacked and was hit by an SBD gunner, which are .30 caliber rounds not .50. It's more likely he was hit by shrapnel to survive a face shot, either way it's not a .50 or he'd be missing a lot more than an eye.

Again, search the change logs and posts by the devs, and you will see that all of this is calculated. Relative speeds, impact angles, armor, fuel tanks, etc etc. Also as I mentioned, once a .50 cal hits something hard it tends to tumble, then cause even more severe damage, but this last part is not simulated.
 

 

Its ok .50s .30s will kill pilots for sure . but now is just happening way too often.

Quick combat shot down 6 planes, 5 of them are pilot kills.

I know you will not be convinced , I will not be convinced either, and seems you will never give up trying to convince everyone, you might like quick pilot kills in game, which is ok.

 

Some of us just don't feel is realistic, and makes the game less fun, whatever the argument is, just not fun to get kills so easily, and many of those with the first round fired.

 

 

[JG1_Wittmann]

Any  bullet that hits  enough objects will tumble,  that is not  exclusive to 50 cal rounds.  So if a guy gets hit from 6  and that 50 cal hits some fuselage items  ( it will to get to the armor )   then is it tumbling ?  What is  the velocity ?   IF it goes through  " X "  item,  what is the velocity ?  Has the angle changed ?   Are you seriously trying to convince anyone here that all of that is modeled ?   Did the 50s  in aircraft  fire all AP  or did they fire ball ammo ?    It would seem that  softer round in A2A loadouts  would be preferred

[QB.Shallot]

7 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Its ok .50s .30s will kill pilots for sure . but now is just happening way too often.

Your entire argument hold zero weight because it is purely grounded in the selfish interest of fun instead of the pursuit of an accurate simulation, which is what the entire focus of this product is. "Happens way too often" means nothing.

 

"I want to be able to turn as hard as possible in my P-51, but I black out way too often. No I don't care that it's accurate, I want to pull 12Gs"

7 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Some of us just don't feel is realistic, and makes the game less fun, whatever the argument is, just not fun to get kills so easily, and many of those with the first round fired.

Well its been proven multiple times to be realistic. I don't understand how this community has regressed so far that we're arguing if a bullet developed to deal with emplaced targets can kill a human being. And not a single machinegun at that, but a battery of 6-8 of them perforating a target at convergence. By the time a server tick will register damage, your aircraft may have sucked up as many as 40 rounds, of which every single one has the potential to kill your pilot. 

Edit:

5 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

It would seem that  softer round in A2A loadouts  would be preferred

You're wrong, A2A loadouts were a mix of AP/I until API was introduced, by which point USAAF aircraft ran full belts of API ammunition, which had nearly identical penetration capabilities to a full AP slug. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by QB.Shallot

[SCG_motoadve]

3 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:

Your entire argument hold zero weight because it is purely grounded in the selfish interest of fun instead of the pursuit of an accurate simulation, which is what the entire focus of this product is. "Happens way too often" means nothing.

 

"I want to be able to turn as hard as possible in my P-51, but I black out way too often. No I don't care that it's accurate, I want to pull 12Gs"

Well its been proven multiple times to be realistic. I don't understand how this community has regressed so far that we're arguing if a bullet developed to deal with emplaced targets can kill a human being. And not a single machinegun at that, but a battery of 6-8 of them perforating a target at convergence. By the time a server tick will register damage, your aircraft may have sucked up as many as 40 rounds, of which every single one has the potential to kill your pilot. 

No fun because it does not feel realistic.

I am all for realism.

There were many pilots shot down more than a dozen times and flew again, this cannot happen in game, if you get shot down 12 times probably 8 will be pilot kills, so yes its too often.

[354thFG_Rails]

I don’t think you realize the casualty rate of pilots In the war. The odds were not in your favor. 

[purK]

11 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

  Did the 50s  in aircraft  fire all AP  or did they fire ball ammo ?    It would seem that  softer round in A2A loadouts  would be preferred

No.. lucky for axis players, we only have .50 cal ball ammo in game, whereas in reality US planes were using almost entirely API rounds by 1944, which are far more deadly.