Pilot kills

[Bilbo_Baggins]

Taking a P51D up against a Heinkel very often in QM it's surprising how heavy a volley of 50BMG from the dead 6 position is needed to kill that crew there standing/lying in the rear fuselage. That said, I really don't know what armour the Heinkel had there in the back.

 

What's peculiar is the pilot seems quite easily killed compared to the rest of the crew. 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Bilbo_Baggins

[[DBS]Browning]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

 The AI should do no deflection shooting unless fitted with [a gyro sight] and then, they should only shoot as long as the reticle is actually on the glass, and the target visible above the cowling.

 

Although it isn't the experience for everyone, many players already find even the ace AI ridiculously easy, especially compared to online play.

An AI that didn't take deflection shots would be game-breaking for many players.

 

Whilst I suspect you are right that many pilots struggled with deflection shooting when inexperienced (just as new sim pilots do), there can be little doubt that other real pilots used it as a matter of course. It was certinally heavily emphasized in pilot training of the time.

That said, even pilots with hundreds of kills in the war, likely had poorer deflection gunnery than sim pilots with thousands of kills in-game.

[Stonehouse]

FYI HE111 cockpit definition has 10 point armour at the back. It has 2 at the front, top and sides and 5 for the bottom. But for bullet (non-fragmentation) damage the pilot life rate and head rate are halved to 250 and 50 respectively. A single 50 cal bullet does 62 points of damage through 12 level armour at 1000m or less and 113 through 19 level armour at 500m or less. So, a single head hit will kill the HE111 pilot at 1000m or less from the rear if it gets to the cockpit armour and hits their head and ditto for 5 rounds at 1000m to the body and 3 at 500m. I don't know how the game models the intervening fuselage etc. and attacks from directly rear. 

 

Personally, I think that with DVD hit location positioning is now much better, but the damage modelling has to catch up now (I think that was mentioned in the livestream?). From what I can see it looks like certain systems like the engine or water cooler or turret or cockpit has a hit box around it with armour values for 6 directions and I think energy loss for a projectile entering and exiting such a box has modelling, but I don't know if the sections between the systems slow projectiles as they pass through them. If not, that may explain some things people complain about. I do see "armour" as an energy loss group with a number of entries but don't see any positional info to indicate what each entry represents. It may be part of the 3d model. DCS does it something like that, I think.  The other main issue from an AI point of view is that aces are modelled as snipers. They are better shots and pilots and open fire once they hit 800m from target. High skill is 600m, normal is 500 and rookie is 400m. So it isn't really surprising that aces can kill the pilot in target from 800m away given the information I've posted. This is the aspect I tried to address in the AI gunnery mod.  

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

It seems that the current long-standing stance of this iteration of IL-2 has been to not follow as much of the original title (IL2-46) as possible but there are two features I would love to have re-instated:

 

1)  In Il2-46's cfg. file, there's an option to toggle "Arcade mode".  For those who don't know what that is...  It was a mode that tracked your bullet hits on the target by sticking 'arrows' into the target on the trajectory line of your shots.  I don't recall if it tracked shrapnel from explosive shells as well.

 

2) IL2-46's Quick Mission mode (QMB mode for BoX) had a personal stats record that tracked things like gunnery accuracy, kills, losses, and such.  It was a good tool to use for practice.    

 

I think both of these things would be very useful for resolving debates like this without having to use 3rd part programs like TacView.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Whilst I suspect you are right that many pilots struggled with deflection shooting when inexperienced (just as new sim pilots do), there can be little doubt that other real pilots used it as a matter of course. It was certinally heavily emphasized in pilot training of the time.

In the US, maybe, but other nations often didn't have nearly the capabilities to train their pilots like that. Also, keep in mind that only the US had any sort of "live" gunnery training, via a special "pinball" version of the P-63. No YouTube videos, no simulator training, only charts and an occasional grainy film reel, neither of which showed the important things, namely how does the target actually look in the gunsight. Not to mention that even when they were trained for them, those weren't high deflection shots, they were rear aspect low deflection tracking shots. Definitely not like the current AI, able to nail you at damn near 90 degree aspect with multiple shots. Currently Ace AI is easy to outfly in a duel (but in this case, deflection shooting never comes into play, anyway), but in a furball, I often saw shots, from both friendlies and enemies, which should simply not be possible due to being unable to see the target below the engine cowling.

[dburne]

15 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

It seems that the current long-standing stance of this iteration of IL-2 has been to not follow as much of the original title (IL2-46) as possible but there are two features I would love to have re-instated:

 

1)  In Il2-46's cfg. file, there's an option to toggle "Arcade mode".  For those who don't know what that is...  It was a mode that tracked your bullet hits on the target by sticking 'arrows' into the target on the trajectory line of your shots.  I don't recall if it tracked shrapnel from explosive shells as well.

 

2) IL2-46's Quick Mission mode (QMB mode for BoX) had a personal stats record that tracked things like gunnery accuracy, kills, losses, and such.  It was a good tool to use for practice.    

 

I think both of these things would be very useful for resolving debates like this without having to use 3rd part programs like TacView.

 

I often wonder - how could a team that got so much right with the original IL-2 and then the Forgotten Battles followed by Pacific Fighters culminating in il-2 1946 then follow that up with something like we got with the original CLoD.

46 was very nice but we will never have another - technology has moved too far along and too much stuff has to be calculated/predicted/placed/etc computers just can't handle it all anymore especially with the advanced flight models and level of detail of the aircraft and scenery.

 

Still though I will take what we have today for sure.

Edited December 7, 2022 by dburne

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

12 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

I often wonder - how could a team that got so much right with the original IL-2 and then the Forgotten Battles followed by Pacific Fighters culminating in il-2 1946 then follow that up with something like we got with the original CLoD.

46 was very nice but we will never have another - technology has moved too far along and too much stuff has to be calculated/predicted/placed/etc computers just can't handle it all anymore especially with the advanced flight models and level of detail of the aircraft and scenery.

 

Still though I will take what we have today for sure.

Great Battles is on the path to being the new 1946, but it will still take another 5-10 years and many more improvements to be worthy of that title.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

9 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

I often wonder - how could a team that got so much right with the original IL-2 and then the Forgotten Battles followed by Pacific Fighters culminating in il-2 1946 then follow that up with something like we got with the original CLoD.

46 was very nice but we will never have another - technology has moved too far along and too much stuff has to be calculated/predicted/placed/etc computers just can't handle it all anymore especially with the advanced flight models and level of detail of the aircraft and scenery.

 

Still though I will take what we have today for sure.

 

Different convo for a different thread so, I'll be quick and then get back to the regularly scheduled programming.   CloD most likely came out under-cooked due to legal agreements that forced a rush job. Also, budget constraints that wouldn't allow the extra year or three it really needed to come out right.

 

[dburne]

Just now, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Different convo for a different thread so, I'll be quick and then get back to the regularly scheduled programming.   CloD most likely came out under-cooked due to legal agreements that forced a rush job. Also, budget constraints that wouldn't allow the extra year or three it really needed to come out right.

 

 

Yeah you are right - sorry about the mis-direction there - back to Pilot Kills! That is ancient history now anyways.

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

As an addendum to what I said earlier in this thread, I agree with what others say about shooting being far easier in IL-2 than even other sims like DCS, 1946, and CLoD. I really think the best solution to these perceived problems would include:

 

1. Realistic (increased) dispersion patterns for all guns.

2. Realistic torque/gyro effects for all planes.

3. Realistic recoil effects.

4. Adjusted AI gunnery behavior.

[[DBS]Browning]

54 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In the US, maybe, but other nations often didn't have nearly the capabilities to train their pilots like that. Also, keep in mind that only the US had any sort of "live" gunnery training, via a special "pinball" version of the P-63. No YouTube videos, no simulator training, only charts and an occasional grainy film reel, neither of which showed the important things, namely how does the target actually look in the gunsight. Not to mention that even when they were trained for them, those weren't high deflection shots, they were rear aspect low deflection tracking shots. Definitely not like the current AI, able to nail you at damn near 90 degree aspect with multiple shots. Currently Ace AI is easy to outfly in a duel (but in this case, deflection shooting never comes into play, anyway), but in a furball, I often saw shots, from both friendlies and enemies, which should simply not be possible due to being unable to see the target below the engine cowling.

 

This really isn't true.

Several countries, other than the US had live shooting against aerial targets as part of their fighter pilot training.

The RAF had a dedicated Gunnery School at RAF Sutton Bridge and the training included live fire against target drones.

 

Both the British and Germans also had an excellent teaching system that involved scale models moving at scale speeds to accurately simulate deflections shots

[Stonehouse]

Some irony for you - the DCS post I mentioned talking about headrest and seat back armour for the P51 and P47 was saying that the DM for the DCS version of these planes had the armour at 22mm thick instead of the real-life values I quoted above. Meaning that pilot kills were too hard to get in DCS..............................

 

Also I have been doing some more russian to english translation (which is often unreliable). Seems like the front/side/top/bottom/back armour values might be for fragmentation damage only. After translating some comments next to the energy loss entries it appears the armour entries are for different bits of armour plate in the aircraft and the energy loss in joules for a projectile entering and exiting the hit box for the component.......two armour entries match headrest and back armour for fighters. So only my wild guess but it seems like there is a fragmentation system as I described earlier and then an energy loss system for non he ammo that determines transfer of damage. I've no idea of how that works however. It does seem like anything not covered by a "sphere of protection" for frag damage or an energy loss entry is likely not going to affect a projectile or the damage it inflicts. So maybe it is possible you could get a round missing intervening spheres and defined energy loss places and go from front to back through the plane. Especially if the firer was slightly high or low. However it really is all guessing.

[SCG_motoadve]

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

As an addendum to what I said earlier in this thread, I agree with what others say about shooting being far easier in IL-2 than even other sims like DCS, 1946, and CLoD. I really think the best solution to these perceived problems would include:

 

1. Realistic (increased) dispersion patterns for all guns.

2. Realistic torque/gyro effects for all planes.

3. Realistic recoil effects.

4. Adjusted AI gunnery behavior.

5. Wake turbulence, this really will get your aiming off, if you get into it.

 

[69th_Panp]

Germany had live aerial target practice for their pilots, it was called  the Spanish Civil War It represented a dress rehearsal for World War II

many german pilots were cycled through this war to get their training.

Edited December 8, 2022 by 69th_Panp

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

38 minutes ago, 69th_Panp said:

Germany had live aerial target practice for their pilots, it was called  the Spanish Civil War It represented a dress rehearsal for World War II

many german pilots were cycled through this war to get their training.

 

The Allies had a similar thing. I think they called it 'the luftwaffe'. Was pretty mismanaged though, they started to run out of targets by late 1944. A hymn to the dangers of over-predation. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

As an almost exclusively online player and flying ground attack or bomber aircraft the changes that have taken place over the last year or so has killed ground attack and "elevated" this game to a fighter pilots paradise. I have flown online in GB for more than 8 years as in it current iteration. That is a lot of hours and far too many sorties to count. 

The major changes and or revisions to gunner Ai, ammunition penetration values, pilot physiology and the lack of modelling of ammunition passing though all the systems, armour equipment and bodies present in a bomber aircraft has destroyed any real fun to be had as a bomber pilot.

The survival rates prior to these changes online was around 50%, similar to IRL with what was admittedly, ridiculous gunner AI. Now you are lucky if it 10%. At this point I have heard "every" argument under the sun but it really takes the biscuit when you are "told" it's in your mind or it's just your perception.

We are not in real life we are in a game. More than 50% of all bomber crew injuries were from shrapnel, fighter pilots had a fear when attacking large bomber steams and wouldn't just line up behind a bomber without a care in the world. IRL The 8th Air Force Bomber groups claimed higher kill rates than the fighter wings,which of course is probably absurd but people rely "so" heavily on pilot accounts. Ammunition didn't act like a laser beam IRL and travel in a straight line to insta-kill pilots, it had to tumble, penetrate and ricochet through a massive bomber with multiple/systems items to hit on the way to the pilot. Any hit to the head or body will ruin anyone's day but there is an awful lot of aircraft (and stuff) to travel though before hitting the pilot 

 

At this point the bomber game is dead and buried for me. The best way to experience sometime and learn from it is to do. It's no good some fighter jock telling us we are wrong by sitting in a shiny CGI cockpit spouting about how it was in real life. My recommendation to anyone who doubts is to climb out of your Spit, Tempest and Mustang and fly as a bomber pilot for a year, online and when you come back we can have a chat about how it's in the mind or just a perception.   

 

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

As an almost exclusively online player and flying ground attack or bomber aircraft the changes that have taken place over the last year or so has killed ground attack and "elevated" this game to a fighter pilots paradise. I have flown online in GB for more than 8 years as in it current iteration. That is a lot of hours and far too many sorties to count. 

The major changes and or revisions to gunner Ai, ammunition penetration values, pilot physiology and the lack of modelling of ammunition passing though all the systems, armour equipment and bodies present in a bomber aircraft has destroyed any real fun to be had as a bomber pilot.

The survival rates prior to these changes online was around 50%, similar to IRL with what was admittedly, ridiculous gunner AI. Now you are lucky if it 10%. At this point I have heard "every" argument under the sun but it really takes the biscuit when you are "told" it's in your mind or it's just your perception.

We are not in real life we are in a game. More than 50% of all bomber crew injuries were from shrapnel, fighter pilots had a fear when attacking large bomber steams and wouldn't just line up behind a bomber without a care in the world. IRL The 8th Air Force Bomber groups claimed higher kill rates than the fighter wings,which of course is probably absurd but people rely "so" heavily on pilot accounts. Ammunition didn't act like a laser beam IRL and travel in a straight line to insta-kill pilots, it had to tumble, penetrate and ricochet through a massive bomber with multiple/systems items to hit on the way to the pilot. Any hit to the head or body will ruin anyone's day but there is an awful lot of aircraft (and stuff) to travel though before hitting the pilot 

 

At this point the bomber game is dead and buried for me. The best way to experience sometime and learn from it is to do. It's no good some fighter jock telling us we are wrong by sitting in a shiny CGI cockpit spouting about how it was in real life. My recommendation to anyone who doubts is to climb out of your Spit, Tempest and Mustang and fly as a bomber pilot for a year, online and when you come back we can have a chat about how it's in the mind or just a perception.   

 

 

I disagree with this post BECAUSE when I encounter bombers in il2 online, it is usually either one bomber flying solo on the deck with no escort, or in groups of two with no escort. In real life, bombers flew in tight groups with dozens of others, escorted by fighters circling above. When they did not do this, they were slaughtered.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Force Bomber groups claimed higher kill rates

Actually in 43 and early 44 came home with fighters where almost all had bullet holes in them. Hitlers dream of 1 fighters up equals 1 bomber down was utopia. In this game you should be able to shoot down six medium bomber without running out of ammo. 
It is a policy from the devs to please the fighter jockeys. 
But I admire your consistency, I fly coop only. 
it is also impossible in a bomber. So we fly faster fighter bombers. So I do not fly every week. I hate or rather get tired of streamlined wondercrafts. 
In clod you are almost at 70 % survival chance flying a Heinkel attacked by only one. 
you are at least pretty sure to survive and try to emergency land. Biggest treath a fighter has in this game is debris from the bomber they obliterated. People want Hollywood and they are getting it

[6./ZG26_Custard]

6 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I disagree with this post BECAUSE when I encounter bombers in il2 online, it is usually either one bomber flying solo on the deck with no escort, or in groups of two with no escort. In real life, bombers flew in tight groups with dozens of others, escorted by fighters circling above. When they did not do this, they were slaughtered

YES and we are not dealing with real life are we? Bombers would fly in huge steams with mutual protection try getting that on line, It's a fighter game now it's that simple.  

1 minute ago, Lusekofte said:

It is a policy from the devs to please the fighter jockeys. 

100%

 

[Lusekofte]

12 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I disagree with this post BECAUSE when I encounter bombers in il2 online, it is usually either one bomber flying solo on the deck with no escort, or in groups of two with no escort. In real life, bombers flew in tight groups with dozens of others, escorted by fighters circling above. When they did not do this, they were slaughtered.

You can disagree all you want because you like big fat slow targets and the bazookas  you are equipped with. 
And you can have it. The ones you meet are just testing bombers. You won’t meet them again. They are pretty sure fed up by the end of that evening. 
it is fps players like you that make it difficult getting a proper war game out of it. 
This sim will end up with only ai bombers and counterstrike players

Edited December 11, 2022 by Lusekofte

[CountZero]

4 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I disagree with this post BECAUSE when I encounter bombers in il2 online, it is usually either one bomber flying solo on the deck with no escort, or in groups of two with no escort. In real life, bombers flew in tight groups with dozens of others, escorted by fighters circling above. When they did not do this, they were slaughtered.

And thats why bomber gunners didnt have to be nerfed like they are now, they were perfect before on ace skill that was used for the in MP. You either make it so when human player in bomber can select to spawn with his flight of bombers 4-8 or more (but we all know game cant handle that), or you give human bombers gunners that can deal fear in fighters, not this crapy AI gunners we have now...

 

They are making problems constantly from nothing, nerfing AI gunners because hartmans cant be shoot down 1 in 10 flights, and now this removing "crew helth cheat" no one know is there and no one complained about it... no wonder this game is known as fighter player game.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by CountZero

[=621=Samikatz]

IMO they really need to tone back the gunner nerf, they're unrealistically hopeless even in level flight right now. One bullet killing a pilot is fine but the aircraft attacking the bomber should have to worry about bullets coming back

 

Honestly I would be fine with the nerf being totally undone, I am primarily a fighter pilot and the only time I ever died to bomber gunners is when I would get really lazy and start tail sitting, in which case I deserved it

[Barnacles]

7 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

As an almost exclusively online player and flying ground attack or bomber aircraft the changes that have taken place over the last year or so has killed ground attack and "elevated" this game to a fighter pilots paradise. I have flown online in GB for more than 8 years as in it current iteration. That is a lot of hours and far too many sorties to count. 

The major changes and or revisions to gunner Ai, ammunition penetration values, pilot physiology and the lack of modelling of ammunition passing though all the systems, armour equipment and bodies present in a bomber aircraft has destroyed any real fun to be had as a bomber pilot.

The survival rates prior to these changes online was around 50%, similar to IRL with what was admittedly, ridiculous gunner AI. Now you are lucky if it 10%. At this point I have heard "every" argument under the sun but it really takes the biscuit when you are "told" it's in your mind or it's just your perception.

We are not in real life we are in a game. More than 50% of all bomber crew injuries were from shrapnel, fighter pilots had a fear when attacking large bomber steams and wouldn't just line up behind a bomber without a care in the world. IRL The 8th Air Force Bomber groups claimed higher kill rates than the fighter wings,which of course is probably absurd but people rely "so" heavily on pilot accounts. Ammunition didn't act like a laser beam IRL and travel in a straight line to insta-kill pilots, it had to tumble, penetrate and ricochet through a massive bomber with multiple/systems items to hit on the way to the pilot. Any hit to the head or body will ruin anyone's day but there is an awful lot of aircraft (and stuff) to travel though before hitting the pilot 

 

At this point the bomber game is dead and buried for me. The best way to experience sometime and learn from it is to do. It's no good some fighter jock telling us we are wrong by sitting in a shiny CGI cockpit spouting about how it was in real life. My recommendation to anyone who doubts is to climb out of your Spit, Tempest and Mustang and fly as a bomber pilot for a year, online and when you come back we can have a chat about how it's in the mind or just a perception.   

 

 

I literally have never flown ground attack more than I have now. The guys at Combat Box https://discord.gg/combatbox 

have created an excellent dynamic campaign which has been in testing on their public server. I really recommend you try it, it's a ground attack centric server and I'm sure you'll love it.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

48 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

I literally have never flown ground attack more than I have now. The guys at Combat Box https://discord.gg/combatbox 

Thanks for the tip but combat box is one of my least favourite servers, no disrespect meant.

 

1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Honestly I would be fine with the nerf being totally undone, I am primarily a fighter pilot and the only time I ever died to bomber gunners is when I would get really lazy and start tail sitting, in which case I deserved it

I just can't see it happening the fighter pilot complaints would be deafening (As they were regarding nerfing the gunner AI and changing pilot physiology because there were too many blackouts) . A lot of fighter pilots have got exactly what they wanted, target drones that have little to no defensive capabilities there are some fighters that seem to be able to soak up damage better than bombers.    

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

8 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

You can disagree all you want because you like big fat slow targets and the bazookas  you are equipped with. 
And you can have it. The ones you meet are just testing bombers. You won’t meet them again. They are pretty sure fed up by the end of that evening. 
it is fps players like you that make it difficult getting a proper war game out of it. 
This sim will end up with only ai bombers and counterstrike players

I have never played Counterstrike nor a fps game, nice red herring. 

 

Seriously, what is it with you guys? The team fixed pilot physiology because it was WRONG before. They did the same with AI gunners because they acted like snipers at times. Maybe they overdid it, but before it was the opposite. 

 

Again, why should any medium bomber not get blown out of the sky flying solo in broad daylight with no escort against a fighter that is twice as fast and packing multiple cannons like most of the fighters in the sim? Attacking a big slow target is like shooting fish in a barrel and I personally still don't make a habit of sitting on a bombers 6, but instead make slashing attacks from above, below, the sides, and front. If bombers employed such absurd tactics in real life, I assure you almost none would have made it back. The idea to spawn with wingmen is a good one though.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

20 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

personally still don't make a habit of sitting on a bombers 6, but instead make slashing attacks from above, below, the sides, and front

Why are you even bothering? You can pretend it's real life because that's what real pilots would do because they didn't want to get hit by a return fire but the gunners in game can't hit the board side of a barn. And it's not about just shooting down bombers it's about instant pilot death and ammunition seemingly passing through bombers in a straight line with no deviation. Laser beam death! Seriously, what is wrong with you guys? We are not dealing with real life we are dealing with a computer game that has decided (because of howls of derision) to nerf gunners AI  and so whatever reason doesn't seem to model large aircraft soaking up damage. Rounds just take that straight line through a mass of aircraft and systems to instantly kill the pilot. Purposely or inadvertently this has turned great battles into a fighter game.  

[Noisemaker]

11 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Why are you even bothering? You can pretend it's real life because that's what real pilots would do because they didn't want to get hit by a return fire but the gunners in game can't hit the board side of a barn. And it's not about just shooting down bombers it's about instant pilot death and ammunition seemingly passing through bombers in a straight line with no deviation. Laser beam death! Seriously, what is wrong with you guys? We are not dealing with real life we are dealing with a computer game that has decided (because of howls of derision) to nerf gunners AI  and so whatever reason doesn't seem to model large aircraft soaking up damage. Rounds just take that straight line through a mass of aircraft and systems to instantly kill the pilot. Purposely or inadvertently this has turned great battles into a fighter game.  

I fly exclusively SP, and that about 80% in ground attack and bomber, and I haven't noticed an increase in PK.  I have noticed the reduction in my gunner's ability, but with the recent improvements to the AI and mission design, I'm usually able to drop bombs on target and egress without getting killed from enemy fighters (AAA is still an issue, as it was in real life). 

[Dragon1-1]

I haven't noticed an increase in PK, either. Shooting up the engines still seems to work best, TBH. As long as your guns are not some peashooters like the German 15mm, you can usually light them on fire. I'm not great at attacking bombers, but the gunners seemed reasonably accurate to me. If you do something stupid like slowly creep up to the bomber from the tail, they'll first spray around you, and then, after firing a few bursts, zero in on you and start scoring hits. If you're smart, they'll never be able to pull enough lead to catch you.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

4 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

And it's not about just shooting down bombers it's about instant pilot death and ammunition seemingly passing through bombers in a straight line with no deviation. Laser beam death! Seriously, what is wrong with you guys? We are not dealing with real life we are dealing with a computer game that has decided (because of howls of derision) to nerf gunners AI  and so whatever reason doesn't seem to model large aircraft soaking up damage. Rounds just take that straight line through a mass of aircraft and systems to instantly kill the pilot. Purposely or inadvertently this has turned great battles into a fighter game.  

This is fair. I agree pilot kills seem to be out of hand and a bit ridiculous. I got sniped last night on Combat Box in a fighter without any warning so it's the same thing. I believe the solution would be:

 

1. Realistic (increased) dispersion patterns for all guns.

2. Realistic torque/gyro effects for all planes.

3. Realistic recoil effects.

4. Adjusted AI gunnery behavior.

5. Wake turbulence, this really will get your aiming off, if you get into it.

 

Again, no one is disputing there are problems, but to think bombers flying in small groups at low altitude in broad daylight without escort should be survivable is a bit laughable and disingenuous. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by drewm3i-VR

[Charon]

8 hours ago, CountZero said:

no wonder this game is known as fighter player game.

I do find it interesting how forward firing guns never jam*, despite abundant historical testimony of them doing just that... meanwhile flexible guns jam like a Tec-9 that's been dragged through a sandbox.

 

*: Or jam so rarely that I can't recall ever seeing it in WWII planes.

[Oyster_KAI]

Anyway I think there are too many arcade elements in the game...
I had a short burst of .50cal for 0.3 seconds yesterday, made 190 wing root explode and be fragmented at 300 meters, I feel particularly unrealistic.
And also tired of 80%+ kills were killing pilots in a short amount of time.
In addition to the previously discussed lack of wake turbulence, torque, recoil, and bullet dispersion,

sometime it is easier to shoot down a twin-engine plane than a single-engine plane in the game...it's weird.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Oyster_KAI

[Charon]

1 hour ago, Oyster_KAI said:

I had a short burst of .50cal for 0.3 seconds yesterday, made 190 wing root explode and be fragmented at 300 meters, I feel particularly unrealistic.

I've seen that before and believe it's simulating a hit on the 20mm ammunition in the wing.

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

1 hour ago, Oyster_KAI said:

Anyway I think there are too many arcade elements in the game...
I had a short burst of .50cal for 0.3 seconds yesterday, made 190 wing root explode and be fragmented at 300 meters, I feel particularly unrealistic.
And also tired of 80%+ kills were killing pilots in a short amount of time.
In addition to the previously discussed lack of wake turbulence, torque, recoil, and bullet dispersion,

sometime it is easier to shoot down a twin-engine plane than a single-engine plane in the game...it's weird.

 

 

The 190's wing has a fairly large amount of ammo stored in it, .50 cals are more than capable of causing it to detonate if you're lucky (or unlucky, depending on where you're sitting). Gun camera footage of this happening is fairly common. Example: 

Timestamped to 8:51. I've seen a fair few other examples of the same thing, where a 190's wing explodes and violently snaps in half. It's a very rare event in game, and certainly not unrealistic. 

[Oyster_KAI]

20 minutes ago, Charon said:

I've seen that before and believe it's simulating a hit on the 20mm ammunition in the wing.

Yes... I'm understand with the simulation, but for the easy 0.3 second one hit kill i feel unreal?

[Lusekofte]

13 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

I fly exclusively SP, and that about 80% in ground attack and bomber, and I haven't noticed an increase in PK.  I have noticed the reduction in my gunner's ability, but with the recent improvements to the AI and mission design, I'm usually able to drop bombs on target and egress without getting killed from enemy fighters (AAA is still an issue, as it was in real life). 

Depends on from what period you compare from. 
My reason for abandon GB all together is the dead environment in SP and just no chance of survival at all when attacked. 
It is clear to me that dramatic results from big guns are the priority, it is not going to change.  Not before there are another level of complexity in DM. 
It is a reason for ROF and clod still is going. 
We can discuss this over and over again, I am happy if anyone see use in this game. For the moment I do not. Hope that will change

[Talon_]

16 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Thanks for the tip but combat box is one of my least favourite servers, no disrespect meant.

The server is a very different environment now it's running the dynamic campaign

[SCG_motoadve]

Simplistic DM, simplistic FM, and realistic pilot health, how can we expect to have realistic pilot survival rate, if IL2 is super easy to shoot down other planes? Then comes the nerds showing all the ballistics and try to prove pilot should die if hit by a .50, of course he will die, but time after time first bullet instant kill even on bombers? Something definitely not right both SP and MP, feels very arcade, it is ruining IL2 and people are leaving (good thing CLOD will have VR soon)

 

If you guys think this kills are realistic, then also is it realistic not having recoil, wake turbulence, pilot workload, real torque forces, pilot strength, dispersion patterns for all guns?

 I know some of you feel good having easy kills, and stats, please do not claim it is realistic, because it is arcade.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

43 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Then comes the nerds showing all the ballistics and try to prove pilot should die if hit by a .50, of course he will die

This is what has become so frustrating, it's not about the pilot dying it is about the absurd way they get insta-killed.

44 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

If you guys think this kills are realistic, then also is it realistic not having recoil, wake turbulence, pilot workload, real torque forces, pilot strength, dispersion patterns for all guns?

 I know some of you feel good having easy kills, and stats, please do not claim it is realistic, because it is arcade.

Unfortunately, with some of the changes that have been made but more importantly some of the changes that should have been made, but weren't, there is most certainly an arcade feel that has crept in. I never thought I'd be saying that about a game I genuinely loved. 

[6./ZG26_Loke]

Funny thing, is that the people who claim the pilot kills is realistic, are the same people who once claimed that the reargunners hit to good. Go figure. 

 

Only real thing getting killed here, is the game it self. Just take a look at the MP servers, they are loosing more and more players. Simply because of the PK and nerfed reargunners. 

[SCG_motoadve]

26 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Unfortunately, with some of the changes that have been made but more importantly some of the changes that should have been made, but weren't, there is most certainly an arcade feel that has crept in. I never thought I'd be saying that about a game I genuinely loved. 

I have the same feeling, that its becoming more arcade.

IL2 is becoming boring, and way too easy.

Edited December 12, 2022 by SCG_motoadve