Depot rendering, heavy landing (and not only...) pk issues, short range effectiveness...

[Crious]

Hi

Last updates was welcomed due mostly to new clouds appearance which are fascinated indeed. 

Appart from that and other nice things serious problems arose.

In more than 5 missions our squadron (335) tried to bomb an enemy depot at 5000 to 6000 meters high.  At least 8 members engaged to the missions for over one hour (each of us) only to realize that the undamaged enemy depot appeared at the last moment when we were just above it. So missions failed. Its very weird because on the root to the target other targets e.g. dugouts were very visible. This way high level bombing even in clear weather is not feasible. Blue teams depends heavily on high altitude level bombing because of plain inferiority at low altitudes. So if the developers want a balanced game they have to fix this issue. 

Heavy landings pilot killed comes very often now more than  it should be. The reason i assuming that is that there are times i get killed very easy (instantly) when i pass over trees and I just touched the very top of their branches. .. There may be a correlation to the pilot killed i received very easily when i get hit in a ju88 from behind !!! Something has been too sensitive in the fuselage of the plains or in pilots health...

One other thing that should be corrected in my opinion is the ammount of damage a plain gets when is getting hits in point blank range. Contrary to the easy pk from far distances an airplane doesn't disintegrate or became uncontrollable when getting hits in less than 60-70 meters... Even a plane like il2 should became uncontrollable after such a punch. I now that this is a sensitive matter but taking into account that Hartmann and krupinski achieved more than 60 kills of il2 each in their bf 109 in JUST ONE PASS is the evidence of my statement / approach. What it should be done i thing is the change of the ballistics in short range. I am not a program developer so i dont know how this could be done. If the above has to do with the il2 durability imagine the impact in other softer targets...  

Best regards

335th_GRAlbatros 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

In more than 5 missions our squadron (335) tried to bomb an enemy depot at 5000 to 6000 meters high.  At least 8 members engaged to the missions for over one hour (each of us) only to realize that the undamaged enemy depot appeared at the last moment when we were just above it. So missions failed. Its very weird because on the root to the target other targets e.g. dugouts were very visible. This way high level bombing even in clear weather is not feasible. Blue teams depends heavily on high altitude level bombing because of plain inferiority at low altitudes. So if the developers want a balanced game they have to fix this issue. 

This is a known problem. IL2 only begins rendering objects at a certain distance. This is done to increase FPS. The Devs might be able to increase the render distances when looking through the bombsight without causing a huge FPS hit, but that really depends on how they implemented it and I wouldn't get your hopes up.

 

Anyhow, the distance at which objects are rendered differs per object, and I consider it the responsibility of the mission designer to ensure that the target is visible. If a target is meant to be level-bombed from high altitude, it should be constructed from objects that are visible from a distance. If that's not the case, you might want to contact the mission designer who created that mission; he should be able to fix this to some extent.

 

3 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

Heavy landings pilot killed comes very often now more than  it should be. The reason i assuming that is that there are times i get killed very easy (instantly) when i pass over trees and I just touched the very top of their branches. .. There may be a correlation to the pilot killed i received very easily when i get hit in a ju88 from behind !!! Something has been too sensitive in the fuselage of the plains or in pilots health...

There's already a couple of threads about this subject over at the Complaints section, for instance this one:

I haven't got any problem with the current system, surviving all my crash landings without any difficulty whatsoever, but I'll leave any discussion to the thread above. As for hitting trees - flying into trees is always a bad idea when piloting an aircraft. Try not to hit them.

 

3 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

One other thing that should be corrected in my opinion is the ammount of damage a plain gets when is getting hits in point blank range. Contrary to the easy pk from far distances an airplane doesn't disintegrate or became uncontrollable when getting hits in less than 60-70 meters... Even a plane like il2 should became uncontrollable after such a punch. I now that this is a sensitive matter but taking into account that Hartmann and krupinski achieved more than 60 kills of il2 each in their bf 109 in JUST ONE PASS is the evidence of my statement / approach. What it should be done i thing is the change of the ballistics in short range. I am not a program developer so i dont know how this could be done. If the above has to do with the il2 durability imagine the impact in other softer targets...  

The ballistics system of IL2 is actually pretty good (which is separate from the damage model, which may or may not be good depending on whom you ask). It already takes distance into account (or rather speed; distance itself has nil effect). For HE shells, most of the damage comes from the explosives, the effect of which doesn't change much with distance. 72 grams of explosives in a 30mm Minengeschoß shell fired from 60m are still 72 grams of explosives when fired from 600m.

[Crious]

5 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

This is a known problem. IL2 only begins rendering objects at a certain distance. This is done to increase FPS. The Devs might be able to increase the render distances when looking through the bombsight without causing a huge FPS hit, but that really depends on how they implemented it and I wouldn't get your hopes up.

 

Anyhow, the distance at which objects are rendered differs per object, and I consider it the responsibility of the mission designer to ensure that the target is visible. If a target is meant to be level-bombed from high altitude, it should be constructed from objects that are visible from a distance. If that's not the case, you might want to contact the mission designer who created that mission; he should be able to fix this to some extent.

 

There's already a couple of threads about this subject over at the Complaints section, for instance this one:

I haven't got any problem with the current system, surviving all my crash landings without any difficulty whatsoever, but I'll leave any discussion to the thread above. As for hitting trees - flying into trees is always a bad idea when piloting an aircraft. Try not to hit them.

 

The ballistics system of IL2 is actually pretty good (which is separate from the damage model, which may or may not be good depending on whom you ask). It already takes distance into account (or rather speed; distance itself has nil effect). For HE shells, most of the damage comes from the explosives, the effect of which doesn't change much with distance. 72 grams of explosives in a 30mm Minengeschoß shell fired from 60m are still 72 grams of explosives when fired from 600m.

So you are telling me that depot rendering is a server issue. This is an explanation. 

Heavy landings needs a less sensitive approach.

And finally there are not only HE shells but AP  also. If its not a balistic problem then its a damage model problem for sure and SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE FROM THE DEVELOPERS. PS. The explosives of an HE shell may have the same resolt at 600 meters but the effectiveness of the impact on a softer moving surface like ailerons flaps rudder considering the differences in the Kinetic energy is not the same even for a smaller caliber HE shell. 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 minutes ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

So you are telling me that depot rendering is a server issue. This is an explanation.

Well, strictly speaking there *is* an issue with the game as not all objects are rendered at a distance where level bombing is possible from the bombsight, but the mission creator has the possibility to workaround the problem by selecting different objects as targets.

 

16 minutes ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

And finally there are not only HE shells but AP  also. If its not a balistic problem then its a damage model problem for sure and SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE FROM THE DEVELOPERS. PS. The explosives of an HE shell may have the same resolt at 600 meters but the effectiveness of the impact on a softer moving surface like ailerons flaps rudder considering the differences in the Kinetic energy is not the same even for a smaller caliber HE shell. 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE.

Differences in kinetic energy from both mass and speed are already taken into account for the various shells.

 

The damage model has already been discussed in the complaints section as well, for the IL2 specifically in the following thread:

If you think you have anything to add, you might want to put it there.

 

One thing though, is that whatever Hartmann or Krupinski did is anecdotal evidence. Did they *really* only need a single pass for each of those 60 IL2s, or did they embellish their accounts? With how many shells did they hit each IL2? Where did they hit? How did they kill the IL2s (pilot kill/structural damage/engine damage/whatever)? Those are all questions that these accounts likely do not answer but which are very important in order to attach any significance to them.

[Crious]

30 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Well, strictly speaking there *is* an issue with the game as not all objects are rendered at a distance where level bombing is possible from the bombsight, but the mission creator has the possibility to workaround the problem by selecting different objects as targets.

 

Differences in kinetic energy from both mass and speed are already taken into account for the various shells.

 

The damage model has already been discussed in the complaints section as well, for the IL2 specifically in the following thread:

If you think you have anything to add, you might want to put it there.

 

One thing though, is that whatever Hartmann or Krupinski did is anecdotal evidence. Did they *really* only need a single pass for each of those 60 IL2s, or did they embellish their accounts? With how many shells did they hit each IL2? Where did they hit? How did they kill the IL2s (pilot kill/structural damage/engine damage/whatever)? Those are all questions that these accounts likely do not answer but which are very important in order to attach any significance to them.

As far as i am concerned Hartmanns and Krupinskins anecdotal evidences are the only sirius evidences.  Here is why: They scored these victories which means that they were very effective in their close range firing approach and it doesn't matter if there was a pk or a aircraft failure, the resolt is the same il2 down... And secondly and more  important they survived to tell the story, why, because they dissangaged as the enemy pilot eluded them. Multiple passes would made them to loose energy and fall victims of the better low altitude performance Soviet fighters. How many bullets? As many as a short close burst can provide. If we dont believe them (not only them but all of whom reassure their credits) then what we believe? Soviet airforce lost more than 10000 il2 in war and not all of them felt victims of aa guns. In fact a large portion of this number shutdown by axis fighters. As i wrote above il2 ruggedness is a sensetive matter. It was really a hard aircraft to shoot down but was not the holly gray that appears in the game (it had to its sweet spots, wing roots was one of them) Thank you one more time for your time and effort to make this game even better. If i was sure that nothing would changed i wouldn't be bothered to wright anything i consider fault. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

12 minutes ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

As far as i am concerned Hartmanns and Krupinskins anecdotal evidences are the only sirius evidences.

Anecdotal evidence is *never* good evidence. I'll try to explain by the quotes below.

 

8 minutes ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

it doesn't matter if there was a pk or a aircraft failure, the resolt is the same il2 down...

It does matter. The in-game IL2s also have their weak spots (notably the radiator). You can only compare it with real-life results if the hit locations match up. Perhaps Hartmann or Krupinsky aimed specifically for the radiator. In which case the in-game damage would be completely realistic.

 

13 minutes ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

Multiple passes would made them to loose energy and fall victims of the better low altitude performance Soviet fighters.

I'm not convinced there were Soviet fighters around for every single kill, nor that they wouldn't have used energy-retaining maneuvers such as Yo-Yos.

 

4 minutes ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

How many bullets? As many as a short close burst can provide.

And how many is that exactly? How "short" is this burst? 1 Second? 10 Seconds? Even if only considering bursts between 1 and 5 seconds, this can potentially mean a difference of 40 (!) 20mm hits.

 

16 minutes ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

If we dont believe them (not only them but all of whom reassure their credits) then what we believe? Soviet airforce lost more than 10000 il2 in war and not all of them felt victims of aa guns. In fact a large portion of this number shutdown by axis fighters.

I'm not discounting their kill claims. But people's memories tend to fail. Was that really a one-second burst, or did we in fact riddle the target with 20mm shells for five seconds straight? Remember that this all happened in the heat of battle and was only written down 30min or so later, after returning to base. Details get lost and things are remembered wrongly. Or things may be observed wrong when speeding by at over 300kph. Or we simply misinterpret whatever they wrote down. Case in point: if you look at Hartmann's list of kills, you'll find that the first Yak fighter he claims is in October 1944. Do you honestly believe that until nearly the end of the war, he only shot down LaGG fighters? It sounds much more likely to me that at least some of those LaGGs he claimed were in fact Yaks, and he either misidentified those or he simply marked down every fighter as an LaGG.

 

I don't think that Hartmann on purpose or with ill intentions misclaimed those kills. But it does mean that the details of these kill claims are not 100% correct. And that means that if we want to make general claims about an aircraft ("the IL2 is too tough"), we cannot rely on anecdotal evidence, but instead are much better served by relying on statistical data, official tests or physical simulations.

[Noisemaker]

Trees kill tanks in IL-2.

 

In mother Russia, tree clips you.

[Crious]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Anecdotal evidence is *never* good evidence. I'll try to explain by the quotes below.

 

It does matter. The in-game IL2s also have their weak spots (notably the radiator). You can only compare it with real-life results if the hit locations match up. Perhaps Hartmann or Krupinsky aimed specifically for the radiator. In which case the in-game damage would be completely realistic.

 

I'm not convinced there were Soviet fighters around for every single kill, nor that they wouldn't have used energy-retaining maneuvers such as Yo-Yos.

 

And how many is that exactly? How "short" is this burst? 1 Second? 10 Seconds? Even if only considering bursts between 1 and 5 seconds, this can potentially mean a difference of 40 (!) 20mm hits.

 

I'm not discounting their kill claims. But people's memories tend to fail. Was that really a one-second burst, or did we in fact riddle the target with 20mm shells for five seconds straight? Remember that this all happened in the heat of battle and was only written down 30min or so later, after returning to base. Details get lost and things are remembered wrongly. Or things may be observed wrong when speeding by at over 300kph. Or we simply misinterpret whatever they wrote down. Case in point: if you look at Hartmann's list of kills, you'll find that the first Yak fighter he claims is in October 1944. Do you honestly believe that until nearly the end of the war, he only shot down LaGG fighters? It sounds much more likely to me that at least some of those LaGGs he claimed were in fact Yaks, and he either misidentified those or he simply marked down every fighter as an LaGG.

 

I don't think that Hartmann on purpose or with ill intentions misclaimed those kills. But it does mean that the details of these kill claims are not 100% correct. And that means that if we want to make general claims about an aircraft ("the IL2 is too tough"), we cannot rely on anecdotal evidence, but instead are much better served by relying on statistical data, official tests or physical simulations.

Wait Erich wait 100m 80m 50m 30m fire. This is absolutely less than a second burst for me... and no we can rely on the best pilots of their era. Statistical data is fine but it has to do with the aircraft managed to return not the more than 10000 ils that was shutdown. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

for me

And that's the point. For you. You think he means less than a second. But do you know that he means less than a second? And even if you knew, did he accurately remember it or did he forget a couple of details while flying back to base? And even if he accurately remembered it, did he also accurately and truthfully describe it or did he add a couple of embellishments for dramatic effect? And even if he truthfully described it, does it count for each and every IL2 he shot down, or is it an account of a single IL2 he shot?

 

There's just too many assumptions you're making here.

 

2 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

and no we can rely on the best pilots of their era.

So you do believe then that Hartmann didn't shoot down a single Yak from 1942 until October 1944? After all, in your words, we can rely on the best pilots' accounts. You cannot on the one hand discard as nonsense the notion that he never shot down Yaks but only LaGGs (statistically very unlikely), while at the same time accepting at face value the other details of his kill claims.

 

EDIT:

2 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

Statistical data is fine but it has to do with the aircraft managed to return not the more than 10000 ils that was shutdown. 

Statistics has been around for more than a thousand years. Many minds much brighter than you and me have spent years to develop ways to solve exactly this problem of drawing conclusions based on a non-representative sample set (one interesting related real-life WW2 scenario that comes to mind is how the Allies accurately guessed the monthly German tank production based on only captured tanks). While statistics is definitely not perfect, it does allow us to make claims with some amount of certainty (and even to quantify this amount of certainty). There's a reason science relies on it instead of on anecdotes.

Edited January 26, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[[GCA]T1m270]

Upping for LOD distance on gameplay objects like warehouses, defences etc should be tweaked. We only need the last lod (rectangle) to still show at 4-5km still, its always very annoying to do high level bombing and objects only just render when you are finally directly overhead preventing you from getting a good line up.

[Crious]

8 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

And that's the point. For you. You think he means less than a second. But do you know that he means less than a second? And even if you knew, did he accurately remember it or did he forget a couple of details while flying back to base? And even if he accurately remembered it, did he also accurately and truthfully describe it or did he add a couple of embellishments for dramatic effect? And even if he truthfully described it, does it count for each and every IL2 he shot down, or is it an account of a single IL2 he shot?

 

There's just too many assumptions you're making here.

 

So you do believe then that Hartmann didn't shoot down a single Yak from 1942 until October 1944? After all, in your words, we can rely on the best pilots' accounts. You cannot on the one hand discard as nonsense the notion that he never shot down Yaks but only LaGGs (statistically very unlikely), while at the same time accepting at face value the other details of his kill claims.

 

EDIT:

Statistics has been around for more than a thousand years. Many minds much brighter than you and me have spent years to develop ways to solve exactly this problem of drawing conclusions based on a non-representative sample set (one interesting related real-life WW2 scenario that comes to mind is how the Allies accurately guessed the monthly German tank production based on only captured tanks). While statistics is definitely not perfect, it does allow us to make claims with some amount of certainty (and even to quantify this amount of certainty). There's a reason science relies on it instead of on anecdotes.

You say again and again that he never shutdown a yak. Even if he misunderstood the type of the engaged aircraft (some types are very similar in appearance) its very difficult to misuderstood the shape of il2. After the war when he was in the us for training reasons looking gun camera footage from ww2 engagements he insisted that pilots started firing too far away from the target and he told them that he opened fire in the very last moment. Did he say the same lies again and again in logbooks, training, interviews and autograph for more than 40 years? There was no need for that he was (and is) the toping fighter pilot.  By the way there is a huge difference in the penetration ability of an 8 or even a 12 mm armor plate against a 20mm ap bullet firing in less than 100m than firing from 300m and thats the hole point of my reference here.

[LLv34_Temuri]

18 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Anyhow, the distance at which objects are rendered differs per object, and I consider it the responsibility of the mission designer to ensure that the target is visible. If a target is meant to be level-bombed from high altitude, it should be constructed from objects that are visible from a distance. If that's not the case, you might want to contact the mission designer who created that mission; he should be able to fix this to some extent.

This would be a whole lot doable if there was a comprehensive list of rendering ranges of objects somewhere. It's immensely frustrating to test each and every object's rendering distance.

[Crious]

1 minute ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

This would be a whole lot doable if there was a comprehensive list of rendering ranges of objects somewhere. It's immensely frustrating to test each and every object's rendering distance.

My friend it was in Finnish server where we couldnt see the depot. I was hoping for your reaction in my post because i believe that by exchanging information all the community (il2 developers, server developers, and players) become becomes better. Thank you.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

You say again and again that he never shutdown a yak. Even if he misunderstood the type of the engaged aircraft (some types are very similar in appearance) its very difficult to misuderstood the shape of il2. After the war when he was in the us for training reasons looking gun camera footage from ww2 engagements he insisted that pilots started firing too far away from the target and he told them that he opened fire in the very last moment. Did he say the same lies again and again in logbooks, training, interviews and autograph for more than 40 years? There was no need for that he was (and is) the toping fighter pilot.

Did you understand a word of what I'm saying?

 

*Please* read at least the following Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence. I quote:

"Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information. Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. [...] A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as [the assumption] that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second."

 

Yes, it's Wikipedia, I know. But having had a scientific education, I can confirm that it matches what's being taught in the highest levels of education. If you're saying that Hartmann's claims should be taken at face value just because he's one of the "best pilots of his era", just because he "was in the US for training reasons", just because he "told them he [fired from up close]" - then you're in fact saying that the whole basis of modern science is wrong. When you're implying that Hartmann's claims have even remotely the value of physical calculations and statistical evidence, you're implying that scientists and philosophers from Aristotle to Newton and from Descartes to Einstein were wrong.

 

Now, I don't want to offend you, but I don't think you're smarter than any of those.

 

2 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

By the way there is a huge difference in the penetration ability of an 8 or even a 12 mm armor plate against a 20mm ap bullet firing in less than 100m than firing from 300m and thats the hole point of my reference here.

Wait - you're not just using anecdotal evidence; you're using anecdotal evidence about firing distances to make claims about penetration values

 

FYI, the main reason the Luftwaffe told its pilots to hold fire until they're close was not because of greater damage, but to increase their chances to hit anything. And yes, I do have relevant documents to prove that.

[grcurmudgeon]

Heck, just go find the show Brain Games - despite being entertaining, you'll never trust your own brain again, let alone what others' brains have told them to tell you...

[Crious]

6 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Did you understand a word of what I'm saying?

 

*Please* read at least the following Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence. I quote:

"Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information. Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. [...] A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as [the assumption] that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second."

 

Yes, it's Wikipedia, I know. But having had a scientific education, I can confirm that it matches what's being taught in the highest levels of education. If you're saying that Hartmann's claims should be taken at face value just because he's one of the "best pilots of his era", just because he "was in the US for training reasons", just because he "told them he [fired from up close]" - then you're in fact saying that the whole basis of modern science is wrong. When you're implying that Hartmann's claims have even remotely the value of physical calculations and statistical evidence, you're implying that scientists and philosophers from Aristotle to Newton and from Descartes to Einstein were wrong.

 

Now, I don't want to offend you, but I don't think you're smarter than any of those.

 

Wait - you're not just using anecdotal evidence; you're using anecdotal evidence about firing distances to make claims about penetration values

 

FYI, the main reason the Luftwaffe told its pilots to hold fire until they're close was not because of greater damage, but to increase their chances to hit anything. And yes, I do have relevant documents to prove that.

First of all anecdotal evidence is just that ANECDOTAL. In hartmann's (and not only) statements we dont have just "anecdotal evidents" All these are already written in his autograph and in many interviews and in this case we have primary sources of history that according to social anthropologists are very much valideted in case that can be confirmed. 352 is more than a conformation

  19.20 to 19.40 if you dont want to see all the video "22mm at 91 meters and 19mm at 500 meters" for a 12.7 api bullet. Your scientific information... I know the angle of impact has to do with that also but the difference of 1 to 4 mm may be the difference between life and death. And again 352 is more than evidence it is PROOF.   Next time you may appear more moderate but i doubt...

[[CPT]Crunch]

Isn't render range on certain things tied into horizon distance setting?  Pretty sure it is for aircraft.

[FuriousMeow]

3 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

And again 352 is more than evidence it is PROOF.  

 

No, no it isn't.

[Crious]

8 hours ago, FuriousMeow said:

 

No, no it isn't.

Did you see Gregs video and his reference to the armor plate penetration? YES but you selected not to make a comment about that. Isn't this a scientific approach? 10000 rubles for Hartmanns head and 10 years in captivity WHY? REVENGE  is the answer. For what is the next question. Because of the enormous loses and deaths of aircrewman the soviet air forced suffered by hartmanns last moment firing approach. And this is the biggest proof of hartmanns ability to kill in very close range.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

Did you see Gregs video and his reference to the armor plate penetration? YES but you selected not to make a comment about that. Isn't this a scientific approach? 10000 rubles for Hartmanns head and 10 years in captivity WHY? REVENGE  is the answer. For what is the next question. Because of the enormous loses and deaths of aircrewman the soviet air forced suffered by hartmanns last moment firing approach. And this is the biggest proof of hartmanns ability to kill in very close range.

You still don't get my point.

 

Nobody is disputing that a shell's penetrating power decreases with distance. I already acknowledged that fact above, and as I already said, so do the Devs who already have a pretty good ballistics system. We don't need to make a comment about that because everyone agrees with it.

 

Also nobody is doubting Hartmann's kill claim of 352, or his ability to shoot down airplanes. We don't need to make a comment about that either.

 

The problem is that you're using Hartmann's kill count (coupled with one or two statements of his and a *lot* of assumptions of yourself) to make quantative statements about the effect fire distance has on the effectiveness of HE shells on IL2s. That's beyond comparing apples and oranges - it's like taking the amount of apples on the apple tree in your grandmother's back garden on August 1st, and use that to make claims about the average height of an orange tree in China.

Edited January 28, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

16 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

All these are already written in his autograph and in many interviews and in this case we have primary sources of history that according to social anthropologists are very much valideted in case that can be confirmed. 352 is more than a conformation

As much as I love the social sciences (history is one, after all), what we're discussing here is not about historical perceptions or motivations, but about technological capabilities in a technological simulation. In this field, memoirs are not a substitute for cameras, blueprints, and ballistics testing*. Erich Hartman was just a soldier, his words on this are not intrinsically more valuable then any of the other millions.

 

* And it isn't in any other field either, mind you, since a lot of people that talk about their accomplishments have plenty of reasons not to be honest about them. Consider what Julius Caesar wrote about the gauls and how a lot of it doesn't match up with archeological evidence.

Edited January 28, 2022 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LLv34_Temuri]

16 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Isn't render range on certain things tied into horizon distance setting?  Pretty sure it is for aircraft.

No.

 

Edit: Unless there's a bug. Some static blocks don't render from as afar as others.

Edited January 28, 2022 by LLv34_Temuri

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

Does the "render distant buildings" graphics setting and other options or the mission generation distance options tie into mission placed objects in any way?

Edited January 28, 2022 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[Crious]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

You still don't get my point.

 

Nobody is disputing that a shell's penetrating power decreases with distance. I already acknowledged that fact above, and as I already said, so do the Devs who already have a pretty good ballistics system. We don't need to make a comment about that because everyone agrees with it.

 

Also nobody is doubting Hartmann's kill claim of 352, or his ability to shoot down airplanes. We don't need to make a comment about that either.

 

The problem is that you're using Hartmann's kill count (coupled with one or two statements of his and a *lot* of assumptions of yourself) to make quantative statements about the effect fire distance has on the effectiveness of HE shells on IL2s. That's beyond comparing apples and oranges - it's like taking the amount of apples on the apple tree in your grandmother's back garden on August 1st, and use that to make claims about the average height of an orange tree in China.

This a much more moderate approach. Still you prefer to refer to HE shells but there were AP too and there is not an oranges - apple comparison.

As for  balistic and damage model system of the game there is a very clever statement from jason just today in another thread related to mk 108 gun.

So it would be clever to not appear as a defender for the developers product while they are clever enough to leave space for furher improvements in the future in this area.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

This a much more moderate approach.

That's a strange remark since I didn't change anything about my approach. I never claimed a shell's destructive power doesn't decrease with distance. I never claimed Hartmann doesn't have around 350 kills. I still claim that Hartmann's statements are neither relevant nor usable as evidence here.

 

2 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

there is not an oranges - apple comparison.

I and others have explained many times why Hartmann's statements are anectodal and not admissable as evidence. You can repeat that they are until the end of times - wishful thinking doesn't make it true.

 

2 hours ago, 335th_GRAlbatros74 said:

As for  balistic and damage model system of the game there is a very clever statement from jason just today in another thread related to mk 108 gun.

So it would be clever to not appear as a defender for the developers product while they are clever enough to leave space for furher improvements in the future in this area.

Jason's statements have nothing at all to do with the relationship between distance and damage. Over the years, there have been many claims that certain types of ammo are not performing as they historically should. This is what Jason is referring to. Many of these claims have been supported by actual evidence beyond "Hartmann was a successful pilot and he tended to shoot from a short distance so therefore the relationship between distance and damage in IL2 must be wrong".

 

You're the first person I've ever seen to claim that this relationship between distance and damage in IL2 is wrong. If you want to argue this, please come up with actual evidence instead of some irrelevant anecdotes about Hartmann.