Pilot kills

[357th_KW]

12 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Well I stopped flying them, so on type, my survival rate is now 100%.

 

I have heard every counter argument in the book at this point, there is dying and then there is laser beam insta-death on the larger aircraft. If the pilots of "real life" bombers were killed in a nanosecond like they are now, not one of them would have survived in real life. Pilot reports like gun cam footage can be unreliable but just look at the amount of damage that bombers take in some of the gun reels from 20 and 30 mm and they keep flying. Some fighters seem to be able to soak up more damage than the larger aircraft in game at this point. Anyway, it's great for the fighter boys, and girls now because the bombers are target drone death traps with effectively little to no defensive capabilities.  

What should happen when a burst of hmg bullets or cannon shells hits a pilot?  When we look at the recorded stats online, last month on FVP, the Ju88A averaged 90 hits of .50 BMG per death, or 35 20mm Hispanos, or 21 20mm + 32 .50.  Pilot survivability was listed at 53%.  And we’re talking about a bomber where the pilot sits in a glass greenhouse.  
 

There’s a reason why most air forces quickly gave up on flying bombers in daylight when they didn’t have air superiority.  The nature of most multiplayer is a “neutral” battlefield where neither side has any significant advantage.  Perhaps someone needs to make some sort of asymmetrical server that is more reflective of an actual battle scenario?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

11 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

You can accept this fact, or you can get extremely bent out of shape and hate the entire sim for purely online factors that really aren't an indictment of the sim's overall quality.

 

Your choice.

I've spent thousands of hours flying ground attack and something has fundamentally changed in that pilots are now getting "sniped" at absolutely ludicrous levels.

 Hey, if you want to accept that then that is your choice.

    

5 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

What should happen when a burst of hmg bullets or cannon shells hits a pilot?  When we look at the recorded stats online, last month on FVP, the Ju88A averaged 90 hits of .50 BMG per death, or 35 20mm Hispanos, or 21 20mm + 32 .50.  Pilot survivability was listed at 53%.  And we’re talking about a bomber where the pilot sits in a glass greenhouse.  

No disrespect meant but I have heard it all at this point.

[oc2209]

1 minute ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I've spent thousands of hours flying ground attack and something has fundamentally changed in that pilots are now getting "sniped" at absolutely ludicrous levels.

 Hey, if you want to accept that then that is your choice.

 

If the pilot physiology was changed so that they can't take multiple bullets to the head anymore, I'm not sure what the problem is. Other people here are also bringing up the online death rates, and they don't seem much changed. If the death rates were hugely increased, then we'd have a strong, non-subjective indicator of a bug or flaw.

 

This seems very much like a perception problem on your end. I'm not saying this in a dismissive way. I've grown to hate other competitive online games in the same way; which is one of several reasons I don't bother with multiplayer here.

 

You can either change your perception, or get bitter. If the general online stats don't back up your perception, then those are your only options. No changes will be forthcoming unless somebody can decisively show a major calculation error.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 minute ago, oc2209 said:

This seems very much like a perception problem on your end. I'm not saying this in a dismissive way. I've grown to hate other competitive online games in the same way; which is one of several reasons I don't bother with multiplayer here.

It's nothing to to do with my perception problem. It to do with the instant 1 shot kills that happen at ridiculous rates on larger aircraft. Some fighters can take multiple hits from 30 mm and keep flying but the magic first bullet will take out a bomber pilot in a nanosecond. It never used to happen anywhere even close to how many times it occurs now.

Anyway this is just going nowhere. Maybe more focus should be placed on the cardboard 109 wings, if most think that there is no problem with the pilot kills.  I'm out.  

[oc2209]

4 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

 but the magic first bullet will take out a bomber pilot in a nanosecond.

 

No, statements like this show it's a perception problem.

 

There's no evidence that this is a repeatable phenomenon akin to a bug or a poorly implemented feature. Online stats don't bear it out, and offline testing doesn't bear it out. You're choosing to ignore facts in order to feed your negative perception.

 

If you want to give us some useful data, either record your online flights for a while, or at least write down the number of instant deaths that occur as a ratio of all deaths, we might get somewhere.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

6 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

No, statements like this show it's a perception problem.

Don't assume what "my" perception problems are, you know absolutely nothing about me. I leave it there and exit this thread. You can spend your time in the thread telling other people how clever you are at knowing what is going on with other peoples perceptions.

 

[oc2209]

18 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Don't assume what "my" perception problems are, you know absolutely nothing about me. I leave it there and exit this thread. You can spend your time in the thread telling other people how clever you are at knowing what is going on with other peoples perceptions.

 

I didn't mean to offend. I'm just looking at the issue with as much indifference as a calculator would have.

[Enceladus828]

I did two Hurricane missions yesterday on the BoM Career. The first mission, a Bf-109F-2 came at me from by 2 o'clock position, injured the pilot and set the engine on fire. As I was recording, replaying showed the bullets hit the engine and cockpit, so nothing wrong in that case with the pilot being injured.

 

The second mission, I was being chased by 109F-2s at tree top level, moving up and down to evade the bullets that were flying around me. Then I got hit for the first time, a bullet aimed at the right wing that blew the right aileron off. Even though no bullets hit anywhere near the cockpit, the loss of the right aileron seriously injured the pilot. Within a minute I flew over home base and the AA gunners took care of the 109s and I received no further hits.

 

Following the second mission, I have to say that the pilot damage model in this game is very weak -- in some cases with collisions with objects on the ground, we've gone back to CFS3 survivability rates (which is really slim) ? 

[R33GZ]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons.... I just finished reading a book about the 160th SOAR and although it is modern day ammunition, an AH6 took out a T55 MBT and all crew inside with a Gau19 .50 SLAP and Raufoss

 

In short, if a .50 round hits a human its curtains.

[357th_KW]

1 hour ago, Enceladus said:

I did two Hurricane missions yesterday on the BoM Career. The first mission, a Bf-109F-2 came at me from by 2 o'clock position, injured the pilot and set the engine on fire. As I was recording, replaying showed the bullets hit the engine and cockpit, so nothing wrong in that case with the pilot being injured.

 

The second mission, I was being chased by 109F-2s at tree top level, moving up and down to evade the bullets that were flying around me. Then I got hit for the first time, a bullet aimed at the right wing that blew the right aileron off. Even though no bullets hit anywhere near the cockpit, the loss of the right aileron seriously injured the pilot. Within a minute I flew over home base and the AA gunners took care of the 109s and I received no further hits.

 

Following the second mission, I have to say that the pilot damage model in this game is very weak -- in some cases with collisions with objects on the ground, we've gone back to CFS3 survivability rates (which is really slim) ? 

This is happening due to the exceedingly generous blast radius of cannons in game.  The blast radius of the 151/20 is 5.7 meters in game - enough for it to reach your cockpit from the wingtip or tail of a Spitfire.

[Lusekofte]

11 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

This is happening due to the exceedingly generous blast radius of cannons in game.  The blast radius of the 151/20 is 5.7 meters in game - enough for it to reach your cockpit from the wingtip or tail of a Spitfire.

Tried C 47 yesterday on MP. No kidding. 

got killed instantly. That goes in a long line of bombers ended the same way. 
Nah, leave the servers to the fighters

Edited November 29, 2022 by Wardog5711
Replaced profanity

[oc2209]

14 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

This is happening due to the exceedingly generous blast radius of cannons in game.  The blast radius of the 151/20 is 5.7 meters in game - enough for it to reach your cockpit from the wingtip or tail of a Spitfire.

 

Remind me to upgrade to this mythical cannon at some point. Because all I have is this rather inconsistent one:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The actual lethality radius of the 20mm is inboard of the P-47's guns (or P-51 or Spitfire, etc). Sometimes a 20mm can detonate right beside the pilot on the wing root and kill him, sometimes not.

 

Also, no, shrapnel from a tail hit cannot penetrate seat armor. Not even from a 30mm hit. A 20mm can detonate inches behind the cockpit and nothing happens (skip ahead to 3:00 minute point):

 

Spoiler

 

 

13 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

Tried C 47 yesterday on MP. No kidding.

got killed instantly. That goes in a long line of bombers ended the same way. 
Nah, leave the servers to the fighters

 

Sorry, have to re-use this one:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Whatever's killing you in MP has little to do with blast radii.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Wardog5711
Replaced profanity

[oc2209]

Even 50mm HE isn't a sure thing with crew/pilot kills.

 

4 hits to the belly of a C-47 resulted in 1 crew death:

 

Spoiler

 

 

A single hit near the tail resulted in zero deaths:

 

Spoiler

 

 

And an engine hit killed the navigator (the first detonation was a prop hit, which evidently did no significant damage):

 

Spoiler

 

 

[oc2209]

7 hours ago, Enceladus said:

The second mission, I was being chased by 109F-2s at tree top level, moving up and down to evade the bullets that were flying around me. Then I got hit for the first time, a bullet aimed at the right wing that blew the right aileron off. Even though no bullets hit anywhere near the cockpit, the loss of the right aileron seriously injured the pilot. Within a minute I flew over home base and the AA gunners took care of the 109s and I received no further hits.

 

I'd be willing to bet 600 bajillionty dollars that what you think happened, didn't actually happen.

 

First of all, if you're not going to show us video, at least take a screen so we can see the level of damage and DVD hit locations. Secondly, if you're going to describe a scene without using any visual aids, then do so with technical precision.

 

Using the word 'bullet' is totally meaningless. The F-2 can fire light machine gun bullets, or 15mm shells, or 20mm shells. We need to know which. AP or HE in the case of a cannon.

 

I can tell you right now that a 15mm HE won't do what you described:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I then tried to blow the aileron off with a 20mm, and six hits couldn't do it:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Are you absolutely sure, for example, that you didn't clip a tree? That often detaches a control surface, and can injure pilots.

[Enceladus828]

9 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

First of all, if you're not going to show us video, at least take a screen so we can see the level of damage and DVD hit locations.

Here you go, this is the damage done and the DVD hit locations by the Bf-109F-2

 

[Lusekofte]

12 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Sorry, have to re-use this one:

I expected to die quickly. Going in a hot spot low to drop paratrooper 

My frustration is mostly about ai gunnery from flak. You can not reproduce reality due to snipergunners. And to make career survivability it is set to low. I can’t find usage for this plane, and yet it is the best in game. 
 

[oc2209]

14 hours ago, Enceladus said:

Here you go, this is the damage done and the DVD hit locations by the Bf-109F-2

 

Thanks for sharing that.

 

So, from the DVD, we can tell that it was using 20mm.

 

Taking your original statement at face value, an aileron hit wounded the pilot. Yet the DVD hole is well inside of the aileron. Is that still a realistic shrapnel distance for a 20mm HE? No, probably not. But it's hardly the 'can kill/injure you from the wingtip' claim, either.

 

As I said regarding the P-47/51/Spitfire, etc, anything inboard of the wing guns can hit the pilot. Which means the actual shrapnel radius of a 20mm is closer to 2.5m than 5.7m.

[oc2209]

Doing a few experiments with the 410's quad 20mm configuration. It's something I ignored up to now, because there are so few planes you can (accurately) hit with them, without also needing to worry about return fire. It makes them largely useless for testing purposes. But I did have a few successes.

 

One oddity I've noticed about HE impacts, is that ones forward of the cockpit never seem to kill the pilot:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Which means that between the seat armor and whatever's blocking shrapnel from the front, only the side cockpit walls and side canopy are vulnerable to shrapnel spray.

 

In another test, I put at least 20x20mm hits into the upper and lower surfaces of a C-47's port nacelle. The navigator died, presumably from shrapnel proximity, but both pilots lived. Also interesting to note that the wing cracked but failed to detach:

 

Spoiler

 

 

[SvAF/F16_Dark_P]

Every death i have had when shoot at have been a pilot kill, something feels of here?

[RossMarBow]

I don't know what people want. If you get shot that is a skill issue. 

 

Maybe a poem?

If you get shot you die.
No time to think as you die.
You probably won't be able to fly.
In the great big blue sky.

 

 

[Otto_bann]

50 ammunition modeling has been changed recently with excess IMO.

These ammunition that I often used IRL (on ground target training) when I was soldier are not effective on hard targets and or with armored parts, because their internal charge of destruction is too limited (their diameter and their length are insufficient to carry enough charge destruction).

They are effective on the living (pilot or hunters on animals), that's all.

Last month on the Cbox server, the 25% of the most accurate pilots in P-51 and P-47 succeeded only 5.3% average on their targets. In other words, on the P-51 for example, on ~2060 BMG .50 fired, ~1950 bullets did not hit any target... that's for a quarter of the most accurate pilots! Out of ~3600 players in October 2022, ~1500 will achieve between 0 and 1% accuracy... It's why WAS the real reason for the inefficiency of this ammunition in the simulator: no or so few internal charge + pilots inaccuracy.

All experienced players who regularly practice this simulator have noticed the glaring difference with this ammunition since lastest update. It has nothing to do with reality, believe me.

Perhaps this transformation was intended to bring some balance between the other ammos, but it's excessive now in addition to sacrificing the realism. If this is the case, it is an error in my opinion and for several reasons including these ones :

- there are fewer and fewer altitude bombers on the German side. Gunners having already been made stupid in a previous update and now with enemy ammo (laser.50 + Hispano), to fly as a German bomber is became a suicidal project.

- german pilots, even the most experienced, begin to avoid combat and take less risk. It's against the interest of the game but to be cutted in half or incendiared at 400m and more from a short .50 burst is as tiring as highly improbable normally. It happens very often now.

- even the best pilots are taken down by beginners easily now, because these newbies don't need to approach anymore.

 

- same problem on ground target, etc...

It is easy to verify that this ammunition was used so much at ww2 by allied aircraft during ww2, not for their effectiveness but by  questions of cost and logistic advantages.

They have tried to compensate this low efficiency by multiplying the mounts by 4, 6 or 8 on the P-47, because in theory, multiplying the mountings can to a certain extent be compared to 1 or 2 ammunition of larger caliber allowing to bring a large internal power of destruction . But this is only theory, because for this equivalence to be valid, all the 4, 6 or 8 bullets would have to hit at same place at same time. And we know that in the simulator, only around 5.3% average of the .50 hit their target last October... for the 25% best shooters.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Otto_bann

[DD_Arthur]

29 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

50 ammunition modeling has been changed recently with excess IMO.

No it hasn’t.
Otto, they’ve changed the way they calculate pilot damage.

Previously, in the old RoF damage model it took 4 x 7.62 to kill the pilot.

Now it takes 2 x 7.62.

 

As you will recall from your days in the military, if you could survive 3 x 7.62 then you would be ‘superman’ no?

 

This change in the calculation also means heavier calibers are also more lethal.

 

It’s certainly a change and a change we’ll have to get used to but is it more realistic? I’d say yes.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Otto_bann said:

50 ammunition modeling has been changed recently with excess IMO.

These ammunition that I often used IRL (on ground target training) when I was soldier are not effective on hard targets and or with armored parts, because their internal charge of destruction is too limited (their diameter and their length are insufficient to carry enough charge destruction).

They are effective on the living (pilot or hunters on animals), that's all.

Last month on the Cbox server, the 25% of the most accurate pilots in P-51 and P-47 succeeded only 5.3% average on their targets. In other words, on the P-51 for example, on ~2060 BMG .50 fired, ~1950 bullets did not hit any target... that's for a quarter of the most accurate pilots! Out of ~3600 players in October 2022, ~1500 will achieve between 0 and 1% accuracy... It's why WAS the real reason for the inefficiency of this ammunition in the simulator: no or so few internal charge + pilots inaccuracy.

All experienced players who regularly practice this simulator have noticed the glaring difference with this ammunition since lastest update. It has nothing to do with reality, believe me.

Perhaps this transformation was intended to bring some balance between the other ammos, but it's excessive now in addition to sacrificing the realism. If this is the case, it is an error in my opinion and for several reasons including these ones :

- there are fewer and fewer altitude bombers on the German side. Gunners having already been made stupid in a previous update and now with enemy ammo (laser.50 + Hispano), to fly as a German bomber is became a suicidal project.

- german pilots, even the most experienced, begin to avoid combat and take less risk. It's against the interest of the game but to be cutted in half or incendiared at 400m and more from a short .50 burst is as tiring as highly improbable normally. It happens very often now.

- even the best pilots are taken down by beginners easily now, because these newbies don't need to approach anymore.

 

- same problem on ground target, etc...

It is easy to verify that this ammunition was used so much at ww2 by allied aircraft during ww2, not for their effectiveness but by  questions of cost and logistic advantages.

They have tried to compensate this low efficiency by multiplying the mounts by 4, 6 or 8 on the P-47, because in theory, multiplying the mountings can to a certain extent be compared to 1 or 2 ammunition of larger caliber allowing to bring a large internal power of destruction . But this is only theory, because for this equivalence to be valid, all the 4, 6 or 8 bullets would have to hit at same place at same time. And we know that in the simulator, only around 5.3% average of the .50 hit their target last October... for the 25% best shooters.

11. Aircraft DM: like the previously released change for larger caliber ammo, now all projectiles in the game loose integrity and stability after penetrating a significant armor thickness which affects their remaining ability to penetrate armor.
12. Aircraft DM: the relative speed of the target is correctly accounted for projectile penetrations calculations.
13. Aircraft DM: AP bullets and shells make slightly bigger holes in the airframe and aircraft skin.
14. Aircraft DM: powerful HE rounds explosions cause more damage to the airframe, aircraft skin and components.

 

So how is that change to .50 cal bullet to make it uber ? your paranoya is showing of, like Arthur say more pk is more to do with less strong pilots then uber .50 cal bullets. 

 

Last change to .50 cal was long time ago, and pk incress reported by players was started to be complained about after this 5.001 update that changed pilot survivability by removing something no one know was there and no one complained about... 

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.

Edited December 3, 2022 by CountZero

[Otto_bann]

You can believe anything you are told: it is the best way to credulity.

 

I've been playing this game almost every day for a long time now, and I can see when things have changed, even if I'm told otherwise.

[CountZero]

23 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

You can believe anything you are told: it is the best way to credulity.

 

I've been playing this game almost every day for a long time now, and I can see when things have changed, even if I'm told otherwise.

if what you belive is true, and devs are lying to us in update logs all of suden, and are somehow incresing only AP ammo on .50 cal in secret, and thats the reason for pk , then why is same posible with airplanes that dont have .50 cal, why its easyer to kill pilots with axis or vvs guns and ammo... or you run tests and can show us that devs are lying and your right that only .50 is culprit for incress in pk, and not all types...

 

Devs made pilot easyer to be killed, they say so... after that update players complain that pilots are dying more, in all airplanes... you come and say devs are buffing .50 AP ammo and thats the reason... lol so simple answer is not correct its conspirecy one...

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

The 99% of PK hits I ever got with .50s was pure glass or side panels - neither of which offer any real armor to speak of.  Meanwhile, the 7+ meter splash damage from German 20mm almost guarantees that even wingtip hits will cause pilot injury.

 

Another interesting thing to consider it the angled "G-seat" on the 109s and 190s. It's not a huge angle change from the "sitting straight up" style used by Allies but, if you draw a side diagram of the G-seat and place a pilot's body in the seat then, draw bullet paths 75 to 90 degrees down onto the cockpit area, you will see that there's more possible torso and upper leg area that can be directly hit from high angle shots through pure glass compared to the sitting straight style of seating. Considering that a single .50 can amputate a leg directly at the hip joint, which would certainly be fatal, I wouldn't be so prone to pull max AoA break turns in a 109 or 190 unless I was absolutely sure I wouldn't be hit by a high angle deflection shot.   Just some food for thought.  

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Otto_bann said:

You can believe anything you are told: it is the best way to credulity.

 

I've been playing this game almost every day for a long time now, and I can see when things have changed, even if I'm told otherwise.

 

That...makes no sense. If you still have ROF installed on your computer, boot it up and see how difficult it is to kill a pilot with rifle-caliber ammo, and then compare it to what we have here. The difference is night and day.

 

5 hours ago, Otto_bann said:

These ammunition that I often used IRL (on ground target training) when I was soldier are not effective on hard targets and or with armored parts, because their internal charge of destruction is too limited (their diameter and their length are insufficient to carry enough charge destruction).

They are effective on the living (pilot or hunters on animals), that's all.

 

Yeah, also not in the realm of reality.

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 Meanwhile, the 7+ meter splash damage from German 20mm almost guarantees that even wingtip hits will cause pilot injury.

 

Every time this lazy lie is repeated, I'm gonna show this:

 

Spoiler

 

 

And this:

 

 

And this:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Cheap, stupid lie. And I'll call it that, every single time.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

6 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

Every time this lazy lie is repeated, I'm gonna show this:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

And this:

 

 

And this:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Cheap, stupid lie. And I'll call it that, every single time.

 

None of these examples indicate any injury state that the pilot may (or may not have) received.  

[Wardog5711]

Quote

Cheap, stupid lie. And I'll call it that, every single time.

 

Enough!!

Dial it back a bit or I will start dropping the hammer. 

 

 

[oc2209]

27 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

 

Enough!!

Dial it back a bit or I will start dropping the hammer. 

 

 

I'm sorry, but the statement he made is a lie. First the shrapnel radius of a 20mm was claimed to be 5.7m by somebody else, and now it's magically 7+ meters. People shouldn't be allowed to spread negative misinformation that serves no purpose other than to undermine the legitimacy of the sim's mechanics***. I won't call the person names, but if a statement is a lie, I will call it a lie.

 

If you end up disciplining me for that, so be it, I won't object.

 

***Edit clarification: For the record, if people want to state an opinion that the 20mm's damage radius is too large, that's another matter entirely. But when they claim it has a certain reliable effect out to X meters, with no proof to back that claim up, that's when it becomes a lie and not an opinion.

 

1 hour ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

None of these examples indicate any injury state that the pilot may (or may not have) received.  

 

If 10+ shells explode in the supposed shrapnel radius of the pilot, and he doesn't die, then are you suggesting he's merely wounded repeatedly? Despite pilots no longer being able to soak up multiple wounds?

Edited December 3, 2022 by oc2209

[Wardog5711]

Everyone needs to chill. 

I don't want to discipline anyone but I also do not want another keyboard war starting.

If I get more formal complaints, I will just lock this thread and go enjoy my Saturday afternoon in peace.

Or, things can go back to a more relaxed tone and the discussion can continue.

 

[oc2209]

4 minutes ago, Wardog5711 said:

Everyone needs to chill. 

I don't want to discipline anyone but I also do not want another keyboard war starting.

If I get more formal complaints, I will just lock this thread and go enjoy my Saturday afternoon in peace.

Or, things can go back to a more relaxed tone and the discussion can continue.

 

 

I am genuinely sorry to cause any trouble. I do use excessively harsh wording at times, but I'm not quivering with nerd rage even when it sounds like I am. I just like to get my point across in unequivocal terms, but I have no interest in getting into a knock-down drag-out with anybody.

[Wardog5711]

?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

3 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

Everyone needs to chill. 

I don't want to discipline anyone but I also do not want another keyboard war starting.

If I get more formal complaints, I will just lock this thread and go enjoy my Saturday afternoon in peace.

Or, things can go back to a more relaxed tone and the discussion can continue.

 

 I just got here with that one post.  I'll stay chill but, thank you for intervening before I did get started. 

 

3 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

If 10+ shells explode in the supposed shrapnel radius of the pilot, and he doesn't die, then are you suggesting he's merely wounded repeatedly? Despite pilots no longer being able to soak up multiple wounds?

 

Unless you can show the pilot's pov for each of these examples, then I guess world will never know.

Besides, why does it have to be shrapnel damage?  Is concussion damage not modeled?  If so, wouldn't concussion damage be generally less fatal?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

On 11/23/2022 at 8:07 AM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'll say it again, it's not the pilot kills it's the insta-death. We can study pilot reports all day long but I don't see any pilot reports from WWII stating, I depressed the trigger and a nanosecond later the pilot was killed. I've unloaded rounds of 30 mm into fighters numerous times and no pilot kills and the aircraft can still fly...after a fashion.  Flying bombers and larger aircraft sometimes you just need to nick them and the pilot is sent off the digital heaven. Either the armour piercing capabilities of rounds are now off kilter or the dev need to seriously look at the damage model with ammunition travelling through spars, systems, guns, several layers of armour plate, bodies and pilots, with no deviation, deflection and no tumbling just that laser beam straight line.

You could record tracks of this in multiplayer and review them, see where the rounds hit and what are their paths. If the hits themselves are captured in the track they will show up in DVD, except for those hitting the plexiglass canopy directly, those would be the most likely to cause pilot kill on the first hits.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Besides, why does it have to be shrapnel damage?  Is concussion damage not modeled?  If so, wouldn't concussion damage be generally less fatal?

 

You throw around figures like you have actual knowledge of the sim mechanics, but you seriously think that a 20mm shell has "7+ meters" of concussion damage? 

 

1 hour ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Unless you can show the pilot's pov for each of these examples, then I guess world will never know.

 

Ha ha! Yeah, such a mystery. 

 

The C-47 takes several seconds of quad 20mm hits, well within your totally made-up "7+ meter splash damage" radius, and you're saying that the cumulative damage of any type wouldn't be fatal?

 

There are well over 20 impacts to that C-47. Why it didn't explode outright or have the wing break off is much more of a mystery than why the pilots survived.

[oc2209]

Here, this is what pure concussion damage looks like:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Pilot's view, skip ahead to 2:50 mark:

 

Spoiler

 

 

If I can pass through the concussive force of an ammo truck explosion at point-blank range, with no injury, then I'm pretty sure a 20mm's concussive damage isn't going to kill or injure from 7 meters.

 

Pretty sure.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

6 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

1). You throw around figures like you have actual knowledge of the sim mechanics, but you seriously think that a 20mm shell has "7+ meters" of concussion damage? 

 

 

Ha ha! Yeah, such a mystery. 

 

2).The C-47 takes several seconds of quad 20mm hits, well within your totally made-up "7+ meter splash damage" radius, and you're saying that the cumulative damage of any type wouldn't be fatal?

 

There are well over 20 impacts to that C-47. Why it didn't explode outright or have the wing break off is much more of a mystery than why the pilots survived.

 

1).  Well, I suppose we'll need somebody who can actually look at the raw code to see how it really works.

 

2).  The C-47 was developed by an outsourced company. Maybe that's a factor. How can it load all that cargo without the wings folding like a taco shell?

Why does cumulative damage have to be fatal.  10 hits to the head with a hammer is one thing, 10 strong punches is another. 1 is most likely fatal. The other can range from very disorienting to fatal.  Such a mystery.

3 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Here, this is what pure concussion damage looks like:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Pilot's view, skip ahead to 2:50 mark:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

If I can pass through the concussive force of an ammo truck explosion at point-blank range, with no injury, then I'm pretty sure a 20mm's concussive damage isn't going to kill or injure from 7 meters.

 

Pretty sure.

 

So? 1 example of a force strong enough to break a wing not hurting the pilot.  Once again, unless somebody who can see how it's actually programmed can confirm or deny, I guess we're both snookered.  We don't even know if concussive effect from ground explosions is applied in the same manner as from High Explosive shells or if it's even applied uniformly over different types of HE shells.

[oc2209]

3 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

1).  Well, I suppose we'll need somebody who can actually look at the raw code to see how it really works.

 

 

So you're saying you don't actually know what the damage radius is for a 20mm HE shell? Nobody really does, except for the developers who put it all together.

 

Even if somebody (i.e, a player) goes in and reads the code, that doesn't mean the effective range is the same in the sim as it is on paper. Because I doubt anybody but the devs knows how many variables are at work, and how the end result is calculated. 

 

What we can do, as players, is record instances of ballistics doing whatever they should or shouldn't do.

 

7 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

Why does cumulative damage have to be fatal. 

 

Because this is a video game, where pilots have finite 'hit points' or the equivalent.

 

10 paper cuts doesn't kill us in real life, but in a video game, yeah, 10 paper cuts can be fatal.