Discussing the DM update!

[Denum]

Again. 

 

Not wasting my time. 

 

Have fun whining with no supporting data. 

 

 

[oc2209]

3 minutes ago, Denum said:

Again. 

 

Not wasting my time. 

 

Have fun whining with no supporting data. 

 

 

 

Somebody already showed you real world data, which you promptly dismissed on fallacious grounds.

 

Until you can find data that indicates a P-51's rear fuselage can be hit by 4x30mm and not fall apart, you're the one who's making baseless claims.

 

Real world data shows planes of comparable size being blown apart by a single hit. Extrapolate what 4 hits to the same area would look like.

 

That's factual supposition.

 

What you're dealing in is not fact, but unabashed bias.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The same old song and dance, for over 20 years.

[Denum]

25 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The same old song and dance, for over 20 years.

We learned. 

You bring actual data to the devs, they'll take a look. 

You bring pictures and opinions. It hits the bin faster then a used tissue. 

[ST_Catchov]

 

[the_emperor]

,

-> Semi-Monocoque airframes (e.g. all metal fighter aircraft) are much more prone to damage by the german 20/30mm mineshells, since the resistance of the airframe increases the delayed blast and pressure effect, since the aircraft skin is also load bearing. On the other hand more "primitive" airframes, where the main load is born by the rips/cage and the frames skin is just a cover, as the above Ju-160  (e.g. soviet wood or earlier fighter aircraft like the Hurricance or the Wellington Bomber) are less effected.

Overall I think the current damage model feels very convincing. they really did a very good job. 

But I also think, that the engine/game/DM/FM is currently not able to simulate the way the German Mineshell works, as it was a highly specialized round designed for use against a very special target (WW2 all metal Monocoque aircrafts).

But again, Iam really happy with the current damage model.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by the_emperor

[6./ZG26_Custard]

It's hard to believe that when anyone questions the effectiveness of the .50 cals in game you tend to get dogpiled and accused of spreading disinformation but when showing real world video data of the devastating effects of the 30 mm we are so wrong, go figure. 

 

Edit: The 30 mm certainly doesn't seem to be as effective as in real life tests, particularly against some fighters.

Edited September 19, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[354thFG_Panda_]

After playing around a lot with the new update and really getting a real feel for the new DM, I must say it is most welcomed and the Devs have done a great job. How they managed to launch Normandy and squeeze this in is quite remarkable. They deserve a good holiday.

 

The changes to the high explosive heavy machine gun rounds didn't really feel any different in fights and the ease of pilot kills from the corrected pilot health model make it similar effectiveness from before. Another thing to consider is guns like Breda, UBS & 131 have an AP component that had been increased in damage so the average damage from the gun from the combination of bullets types hasn't really been that reduced that much. It has been compensated by the increased pilot kill chance and for fighters increased firepower of the main cannons (which also feature stronger AP rounds). Generally doesn't make much of a difference and probably in the ballpark of what one would expect.

 

The larger HE shells 37mm/30mm/50mm do much more structural damage and easily pilot kill. There is now good reason to pick them over the smaller cannons, especially against heavy targets. Personal favourite it taking the 190A8 with 30mm mod and shredding everything. From the images and videos in this thread they could probably be increased in structural strength a bit more. If one of those it a vertical and horizontal stabiliser, would expect the that surface to be mostly ineffective or gone. If one hits the narrow connection between the tail and body, depending on the plane of course, that section should collapse under aerodynamic loads. From the numbers posted above for wing hits from @Roland_HUNter they are probably alright as averages for glancing blows with a few exceptions. Would probably be better if reduced by about 2 hits average but for planes like the spitfire with a smaller thin wing than something like a thunderbolt one would be sufficient. I have noticed it is incredibly easy to set fires with these rounds now too, not sure if it is directly from the 30mm or from the side guns.

 

The armour piercing rounds seem to be good enough that you can reliably boom and zoom a target. They are in a great spot being good enough but cannons are much much better as they should be. There are still instances where planes soaks 100s of rounds but not without severe consequences. Planes like the p47 known for good firepower and usually abandoned in multiplayer now shine more and people starting to use it. 

On the receiving end you have to be careful no matter what side you fly now since everyone has armour piercing bullets that can end you quickly. What's left is to include more systems to damage(hydraulic, pneumatic), incendiary rounds and maybe some sort of bullet tumbling modelling for larger aircraft.

Edited September 19, 2022 by theRedPanda

[Hitcher]

Did a quick test on the spitfire, on average it takes 4 30mm to detach the tail and takes 22 20mm.

My guess is tail hit points are too high across the board, probably a hold over from the first DM update.

[Irishratticus72]

I walked about 20 131s and a half dozen 151s up the fuselage of a P47, totally flamed it. I'm happy.

[354thFG_Rails]

5 hours ago, the_emperor said:

,

->  Monocoque airframes (e.g. all metal fighter aircraft) are much more prone to damage by the german 20/30mm mineshells, since the resistance of the airframe increases the delayed blast effect, since the aircraft skin is also load bearing. On the other hand more "primitive" airframes, where the main load is born by the rips/cage and the frames skin is just a cover, as the above Ju-160  (e.g. soviet wood or earlier fighter aircraft like the Hurricance or the Wellington Bomber) are less effected.

 

 

 

 

all metal aircraft are semi-mono for the most part, where the skin and structure combined share the loads. These would be less susceptible to explosive rounds than monocoque. How much I have no clue. Planes like the mosquito and some Russian fighters like the la-5 are monocoque. Which the aircraft skin is the primary load bearer. These planes are more fragile and more susceptible to HE rounds. 
 

Personally I think the 30mm is working fine. A couple of rounds and the plane is out of the fight or destroyed from what I’ve seen. I’m not sure what people are wanting is a better shockwave simulation or soft body physics. But I think this is just a limitation of the game. I think the DM revision is great and I think aircraft are going down in a more realistic looking fashion. Great job devs ?

Edited September 19, 2022 by 86th_Rails

[the_emperor]

@86th_Rails

I think you are right. The German Report says "Schalenbauweise" which is probably closer to Semi-Monocoque.

As I said, I am very happy with the new DM and recognize that the game has its limits in presenting these highly specialized M-Geschosse.

Edited September 19, 2022 by the_emperor

[Denum]

13 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

@86th_Rails

I think you are right. The German Report says "Schalenbauweise" which is probably closer to Semi-Monocoque.

As I said, I am very happy with the new DM and recognize that the game has its limits in presenting these highly specialized M-Geschosse.

 

 

I think all things considered they did a really good job. I'm eager to see what they do in the future as they're always improving aspects of the sim, if there's things we'd like to see improved its ultimately in our best interest to help them by finding useful data. 

Like many of us, perfection is desired but often unattainable. So like any company its about hitting that 80%. If 80% of the people are happy. Good enough. 

If you happen to fall into that 20%. You're going to have to put some honest work in to (maybe) see those changes.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

A few things

 

-AP rounds overall still dont do enough structural damage.

 

-MK108 needs a shot in the arm..i have seen several Spits eat 3 or 4 shots and still fly lately. 

 

-too many pilot kills. Yesterday I shot down 5x 109's flying my Yak 1b and they were all pilot kills. One was badly damaged. One has its engine on fire. The 3 others? They were damaged so lightly it almost looked like phantom kills.

 

Another case of an overhaul that seems to create as many new issues than solving old ones....

[Hitcher]

12 minutes ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

A few things

 

-AP rounds overall still dont do enough structural damage.

 

-MK108 needs a shot in the arm..i have seen several Spits eat 3 or 4 shots and still fly lately. 

 

-too many pilot kills. Yesterday I shot down 5x 109's flying my Yak 1b and they were all pilot kills. One was badly damaged. One has its engine on fire. The 3 others? They were damaged so lightly it almost looked like phantom kills.

 

Another case of an overhaul that seems to create as many new issues than solving old ones....

Disagree with AP, if AP was more effective than it is now it would look kinda silly.

It's already effective at removing wings and other small control surfaces... unless you have some data? 

 

Agree the large cannons still act strange when shooting the fuselage but that's more of a global DM issue than a mk108 issue.

 

I agree pilot kills/incapacitation are too high but only in the case of shrapnel hits, if my pilot gets hit directly by an AP round I'm expecting him to be heavily wounded/dead.

 

I test the damage model alot and think the range of HE shrapnel needs to be adjusted. Testing with a modified pistol that shoots 20mm HE, shots to the wing tips can damage fuselage structures such as engines, fuel tanks, injection systems, the pilot, etc... this probably contributes to the frequent pilot kills.

 

Shooting 30mm into the wing my pilot was being killed 100% of the time from a hit 9-10ft away, which I think is excessive.

 

Recently a player posted a clip of a wing tip 20mm hit causing an engine fire, 15ft away. Phenomenon like this lead me to think shrapnel should be the next thing to be addressed with the damage model. 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Hitcher said:

...

 

I test the damage model alot and think the range of HE shrapnel needs to be adjusted. Testing with a modified pistol that shoots 20mm HE, shots to the wing tips can damage fuselage structures such as engines, fuel tanks, injection systems, the pilot, etc... this probably contributes to the frequent pilot kills.

 

Shooting 30mm into the wing my pilot was being killed 100% of the time from a hit 9-10ft away, which I think is excessive.

 

Recently a player posted a clip of a wing tip 20mm hit causing an engine fire, 15ft away. Phenomenon like this lead me to think shrapnel should be the next thing to be addressed with the damage model. 

I dont understand why they didnt adjust this also in new DM, this was reported as problem on old DM and its same in new DM. If they were revising DM they should adjust this also, or they belive that hist in wingtips should kill pilots ? and this is ok.

[oc2209]

On 9/19/2022 at 4:33 AM, Hitcher said:

Did a quick test on the spitfire, on average it takes 4 30mm to detach the tail and takes 22 20mm.

My guess is tail hit points are too high across the board, probably a hold over from the first DM update.

 

This is against a stationary target, I assume? In normal air combat, I can't reliably manage to hit the waist of the plane with 4x30mm. Thus I never see detachments.

 

Here's a quick sampling of a single 109 attack, followed by 3 Me-262 vs Spitfire XIV (the AI got 2 of the 3):

 

Starting with the 109:

 

Spoiler

 

 

262 vs Spitfire:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Another:

 

Spoiler

 

 

And this is my own, not AI, 262 attack:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The Spit went on to fly for 5+ minutes, during which time I embarrassingly tried and failed to finish him off, wasting all my remaining ammo with no strikes. He was moving about as quickly as a biplane (but still evading me in turns), as his engine must've been near seizing. For some reason, my AI wingmen ignored him.

[SCG_motoadve]

10 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

too many pilot kills. Yesterday I shot down 5x 109's flying my Yak 1b and they were all pilot kills. One was badly damaged. One has its engine on fire. The 3 others? They were damaged so lightly it almost looked like phantom kills.

I am with you here, too many pilot kills.

[BCI-Nazgul]

19 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

I am with you here, too many pilot kills.

I understand the feeling, but can you justify it with some historical data that shows pilots should be killed less often?  From my perspective if the reason for pilot kills is just due to the reduction in survival by 1C (see below) I think you're wrong. 

 

26. Aircraft DM: the several years old ‘crew health cheat’ (they required four point-blank 7.62 bullets in the torso or two in the head to be killed) has been removed. Now their ability to sustain damage is much more close to reality.

 

I wouldn't expect someone to survive more than one 7.62 hits and even one .50 hit in real life.  If it's because of some other factor you might have an argument. 

[CountZero]

3 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

I understand the feeling, but can you justify it with some historical data that shows pilots should be killed less often?  From my perspective if the reason for pilot kills is just due to the reduction in survival by 1C (see below) I think you're wrong. 

 

26. Aircraft DM: the several years old ‘crew health cheat’ (they required four point-blank 7.62 bullets in the torso or two in the head to be killed) has been removed. Now their ability to sustain damage is much more close to reality.

 

I wouldn't expect someone to survive more than one 7.62 hits and even one .50 hit in real life.  If it's because of some other factor you might have an argument. 

ok if it hit pilot from 20 or 30 hit in wings ? i think this is what they should recheck

[Hitcher]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

This is against a stationary target, I assume? In normal air combat, I can't reliably manage to hit the waist of the plane with 4x30mm. Thus I never see detachments.

 

Here's a quick sampling of a single 109 attack, followed by 3 Me-262 vs Spitfire XIV (the AI got 2 of the 3):

 

Starting with the 109:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

262 vs Spitfire:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Another:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

And this is my own, not AI, 262 attack:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

The Spit went on to fly for 5+ minutes, during which time I embarrassingly tried and failed to finish him off, wasting all my remaining ammo with no strikes. He was moving about as quickly as a biplane (but still evading me in turns), as his engine must've been near seizing. For some reason, my AI wingmen ignored him.

Yes stationary targets, tested a wide range of aircrart(every aircraft in the game almost) and the results vary alot and dont make much sense. 

 

109 tail takes roughly 10 30mm hits to fall off, yak9T tail took over 20 30mm hits (not joking), the average seemed to be 3-4 with most fighters but you have to hit the same spot a few times which is hard to do, the tail that fell off the easiest was the IL2s tail which took 2 hits.

 

You can test it in QM with a 30mm armed aircraft and shoot the tail clean off reliably.

 

Looks like the tail durability of most planes needs a look at.

[BCI-Nazgul]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

ok if it hit pilot from 20 or 30 hit in wings ? i think this is what they should recheck

The wings are close to the cockpit.  I think you need to supply more info.   Don't forget that HE rounds have fragmentation that can hit the pilot at a distance.  If you are saying that you know for sure that 20 or 30 rounds of AP ONLY hit the wings then MAYBE you might be right.  Or maybe a round of AP also hit the cockpit...it's really hard to say.

Edited September 21, 2022 by BCI-Nazgul

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Hitcher said:

Yes stationary targets, tested a wide range of aircrart(every aircraft in the game almost) and the results vary alot and dont make much sense. 

 

109 tail takes roughly 10 30mm hits to fall off, yak9T tail took over 20 30mm hits (not joking), the average seemed to be 3-4 with most fighters but you have to hit the same spot a few times which is hard to do, the tail that fell off the easiest was the IL2s tail which took 2 hits.

 

You can test it in QM with a 30mm armed aircraft and shoot the tail clean off reliably.

 

Looks like the tail durability of most planes needs a look at.

 

I'm glad about the stationary target thing. My ego couldn't take it if someone could routinely put 3+ 30mm into a Spitfire's wasp waist.

 

And yeah, I can confirm the Sturmovik's glass tail. It seems a little too weak, especially considering the size of the plane compared to most fighters.

 

I've never been a proponent of automatic one-shot disintegrations regarding the 30mm; what I do want to see, is 2-3 shots to the same area on a fighter equaling certain death. Like in the case of those two shots I tucked under and behind the Spitfire's pilot; that seems like a fairly vital area (forgetting the possibility of pilot injury/death) both in terms of its proximity to fuel lines, the fuel tank, control cables, etc, as well as the structural integrity of the plane's spine.

 

As for the extremes of 10-20x30mm hits for the 109 and Yak, even being able to absorb 3-4 hits on a fighter renders it practically invulnerable to structural failure; since the probability of nailing the same spot on the fuselage more than twice is very low.

 

12 hours ago, Hitcher said:

I agree pilot kills/incapacitation are too high but only in the case of shrapnel hits, if my pilot gets hit directly by an AP round I'm expecting him to be heavily wounded/dead.

 

Unfortunately, if 30mm HE killing potential (pilot-specific I mean) is reduced, then we're going to go right back to situations where the unbreakable fuselage can eat multiple 30mm with no effect. The 30mm is already pretty inconsistent at getting pilot kills when it impacts directly forward and aft of the cockpit; only the wing hits beside the pilot are effective at killing him. While the current shrapnel radius does seem too large, reducing it will simply allow certain parts of the plane to be invincible.

 

In other words, for a net gain to realism, the devs would need to significantly reduce shrapnel radius and dramatically increase structural damage (near the point of impact) for the 30mm.

 

The result would hopefully eliminate the one-shot kills to the pilot from wing hits, while increasing the probability of catastrophic structural failure (beyond just flaps and stabilizers, I mean) on multiple hits.

[BCI-Nazgul]

16 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

 

And yeah, I can confirm the Sturmovik's glass tail. It seems a little too weak...

Wasn't the IL2 partly wood construction?   I wouldn't expect a wooden tail to stand up well against HE.

[oc2209]

45 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Wasn't the IL2 partly wood construction?   I wouldn't expect a wooden tail to stand up well against HE.

 

We'd have to know what parts were wood and what were metal. I doubt the entire fuselage aft of the pilot's armored bathtub is made of nothing but wood.

 

More than likely large portions of the stabilizers are; but that's not the part I'm talking about breaking too easily.

[Charon]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

We'd have to know what parts were wood and what were metal. I doubt the entire fuselage aft of the pilot's armored bathtub is made of nothing but wood.

That's certainly the impression I got. The outer wings, too. The M41 is all metal, but that was dropped early in the war.

 

I don't have a traditional source handy, but you can see where the wooden tail begins if you open up the official skin templates for the M42 plane: check the weathering > wood layer.

 

Edit: Although I see now that you were shooting an M41, which is all metal.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Charon

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, Charon said:

That's certainly the impression I got. The outer wings, too. The M41 is all metal, but that was dropped early in the war.

 

I don't have a traditional source handy, but you can see where the wooden tail begins if you open up the official skin templates for the M42 plane: check the weathering > wood layer.

 

Edit: Although I see now that you were shooting an M41, which is all metal.

 

The big issue here (and I'm also shooting at the early version in the following clip), is how the 30mm impact location doesn't need to come near the seam split. Which makes me wonder how the damage is being registered/applied. As in, does it read that X number of damage has been done to a total structural 'zone' within a plane, and when that number is exceeded, then the breakable area closest to it fractures? Or is it by some other means?

 

This is what I'm talking about:

 

Spoiler

 

This is a still shot I took of the following recording. You can see the waist seam has opened up after only two impacts. More to the point, the one impact is on the far end of the tail itself; which should not, realistically, cause the whole tail to detach.

 

Full recording:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Note the difference between how many 30mm impacts it takes to break the plane's back, versus the wing.

 

Now, here's a woodier plane, the Mosquito. Interestingly, the wing snaps after a single hit (also well apart from the seam); but concentrated strikes do nothing to the fuselage (at least 6x30mm hits in a tight cluster):

 

Spoiler

 

 

It's the opposite of the Sturmovik example; the wing breaks very easily (too much so?), while the fuselage is indestructible (practically).

 

I'm not seeing a lot of rhyme or reason to either result; other than the Sturmovik's fuselage is among the most breakable in the entire sim. But I don't think that's the sim's way of representing partial wood construction (even if this wasn't the early war Sturm). At face value, it appears as though the Sturm simply doesn't have the same level of fuselage invincibility as most other planes have here.

 

I wouldn't want other planes to break apart from two 30mm hits as far apart as I showed above. It doesn't feel like a logical result. I'd much rather have the Mosquito break in half from 6x30mm to the same small area.

[ACG_Cass]

A single 30mm can completely dissassemble a B26 tail as well so it does appear as though there are discrepancies in terms of durability.

 

This may be a placebo, but after the change it does feel like in MP that players just aren't bailing unless the plane has completely fallen apart. It could be to do with the a lot of fighting happening over the channel but every aircraft I've shot down needs to be absolutely put down.

[CountZero]

10 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

The wings are close to the cockpit.  I think you need to supply more info.   Don't forget that HE rounds have fragmentation that can hit the pilot at a distance.  If you are saying that you know for sure that 20 or 30 rounds of AP ONLY hit the wings then MAYBE you might be right.  Or maybe a round of AP also hit the cockpit...it's really hard to say.

I was talking about 20mm or 30mm bullet hiting far parts of wing and that kiling pilot (not 20-30 bullets), it looks same as before, and combined with reduced pilot durability = more pk we see.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by CountZero

[BCI-Nazgul]

8 hours ago, CountZero said:

I was talking about 20mm or 30mm bullet hiting far parts of wing and that kiling pilot (not 20-30 bullets), it looks same as before, and combined with reduced pilot durability = more pk we see.

 

 

Oh, OK, LOL!  I understand, but I really don't have a problem with it at the moment.  As long as you keep your cockpit closed you don't get killed too often IMO.

[oc2209]

20 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

A single 30mm can completely dissassemble a B26 tail as well so it does appear as though there are discrepancies in terms of durability.

 

I turned on invulnerability so I could place my nose essentially up the B-26's ass:

 

Spoiler

 

 

It appears to me (smoke makes it difficult to see the second impact flash) that nothing was going to detach from the first hit. The second hit, however, blew everything off.

 

I'm not saying that a single hit is incapable of detaching all the control surfaces; just that it's not quite as reliable as cutting a Sturmovik in half from two hits.

 

21 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

This may be a placebo, but after the change it does feel like in MP that players just aren't bailing unless the plane has completely fallen apart. It could be to do with the a lot of fighting happening over the channel but every aircraft I've shot down needs to be absolutely put down.

 

I'm guessing it's from the reduction in aerodynamic damage. Before, one HE hit almost anywhere on a wing would cripple a plane's lift capabilities.

[oc2209]

Here's a clearer recording, this time with MK 103s:

 

Spoiler

 

 

For the record, the B-26 was hit twice before the recording began: once near the top of, and once on the bottom of, the port engine nacelle.

 

After the recording ends, the vertical stabilizer takes one more hit midway towards the top, in the hollow where the rudder used to be. It doesn't cause any further damage to the vert. stab. or the remaining horizontal stab/elevator.

[ACG_Cass]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

It appears to me (smoke makes it difficult to see the second impact flash) that nothing was going to detach from the first hit. The second hit, however, blew everything off.

I'm confused. That video shows a single hit removing all 3 control surfaces from the tail section?

[oc2209]

11 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

I'm confused. That video shows a single hit removing all 3 control surfaces from the tail section?

 

It's actually 2 hits, with the second being easy to miss.

 

First impact occurs at 6 seconds. Second occurs at about 9 seconds. Watch the increased dark smoke propagation from 10-11 seconds. There's no reason a second puff of smoke should start long after the original one.

 

*Edit: also, this is being played back in 1/32 speed, so the real time between impacts is not 3 seconds. I fired a single two-shot burst, because the MK 108 can't be fired one shell at a time (unless it's just my trigger being sloppy).

 

*Second edit: yeah, my trigger was the problem. I switched to a different one, and it was much easier to fire single rounds.

 

Here's an example where I was very careful to only fire once:

 

Spoiler

 

 

By the way, the tail gunner died as a result of that shot, but nothing else seemed to happen.

Edited September 23, 2022 by oc2209

[Hitcher]

Realistically wouldnt expect much else to happen with that shot apart from the gunner station being destroyed.

[oc2209]

35 minutes ago, Hitcher said:

Realistically wouldnt expect much else to happen with that shot apart from the gunner station being destroyed.

 

I wouldn't either, I was just making the point that the 30mm doesn't consistently blow the control surfaces off the B-26's tail in one hit.

 

It looks like 2 hits to the general tail area will knock stuff off willy-nilly.

[CountZero]

on any airplane i check in game 1-2x30mm HE hit in tail and hes done by losing rudder and elevators controls, p-47 even loses whol tail part holding rudder.

[CountZero]

 

8 fighters (Hurri, 47, 51, spit9 each 2 times ) and A-20, B-26, B-25and C-47 hit from 6 in tail, so 11 airplanes total 24x30mm

 

7 fighters (Hurri, 47, 51, spit9 each 2 times 14x30mm for 7 airplanes hit from 6 in tail) 

 

8 fighters (Hurri, 47, 51, spit9 each 2 times 13x30mm for 8 airplanes hit from 6 in tail) 

 

all from SP, 30mm is ok

[Avimimus]

I did my own tests... A B-26 down in flames with 3x30mm rounds. I shot down two Mosquitoes with 2x30mm rounds each, and one with a single 30mm round. I'm not sure what people are complaining about. All done in single player.

 

Honestly, I suspect that not every Mk-108 round would detonate within the wing - some would fail to detonate or detonate after passing through. So the idea that a fighter might survive contact with three or so 30mm rounds without being destroyed seems quite plausible - just as sometimes a B-17 would be taken out by a single 30mm hit. I haven't tried it against fighters recently though... as it would be harder to fire short bursts and know for sure how many hit.

[CountZero]

13 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

I did my own tests... A B-26 down in flames with 3x30mm rounds. I shot down two Mosquitoes with 2x30mm rounds each, and one with a single 30mm round. I'm not sure what people are complaining about. All done in single player.

 

Honestly, I suspect that not every Mk-108 round would detonate within the wing - some would fail to detonate or detonate after passing through. So the idea that a fighter might survive contact with three or so 30mm rounds without being destroyed seems quite plausible - just as sometimes a B-17 would be taken out by a single 30mm hit. I haven't tried it against fighters recently though... as it would be harder to fire short bursts and know for sure how many hit.

Complains are mostly that visual look of it dont match to what they se on pictures on net, so if when bigger cal hit airplane you would see more destruction i think ppl would not get fealing that its bad, test shows even 1 or 2 hits and your in big truble, but visaly it dont seam so.