Pilot kills

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

28 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

He posted them in the other thread.  
 

 

Thanks BSR

45 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

You have no idea. I've spent 6,500 hours of my life playing/testing this game, I can tell you for certain there is little difference in the percentage of pilot kills compared to previous damage model updates. Several other testers also with thousands of hours in this game will tell you the same thing. It's only the few that barely play the game, or limit themselves to only flying one side that think there's an issue.. strange, surely there's no bias there. ?

As I mentioned in your other thread, and for everyone else, feel free to look at some statistics and you'll see it for yourself.

The Pilot Snipe% stat is nearly identical across the board, before and after the dm updates.

https://combatbox.net/en/

http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/

http://stats.jasta5.org:8000/en/

Would love to see those stats for FC, both before and after November. Also can you explain how the "pilot snipe" is calculated?   I ask, because it's the one hit wonders that started in November iirc.   Thanks in advance

Edited December 22, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[purK]

5 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Would love to see those stats for FC, both before and after November.  Thanks in advance

You can easily see the stats yourself. stats.jasta5.org:8000/en/ > Rankings > Aircraft Rankings > Offensive Ammo Breakdown

For example here are some Dr.1 stats, one of the most flown ww1 planes, pilot snipe% as I mentioned nearly identical.

Dr.1 2st Quarter 2022 (before DM update)



Dr.1 4th Quarter 2022 (after DM update)

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

22 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

You can easily see the stats yourself. stats.jasta5.org:8000/en/ > Rankings > Aircraft Rankings > Offensive Ammo Breakdown

For example here are some Dr.1 stats, one of the most flown ww1 planes, pilot snipe% as I mentioned nearly identical.

Dr.1 2st Quarter 2022 (before DM update)



Dr.1 4th Quarter 2022 (after DM update)

Ok, thanks.  How is "snipe" calculated?  Worth mentioning is that those numbers are averages. And as any student of math knows, averages tend to mask extremes.  Extremes will very minimally effect an average.

Edited December 22, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Well, you've got 9 pages of people telling you the super sniper pilot kills is a problem.  I'm done.  Thanks for the responses

[purK]

More like 9 pages of the same few people complaining, while the majority explain why it really isn't an issue based off statistics and actual testing.

[SCG_motoadve]

Just now, Krupnski said:

More like 9 pages of the same few people complaining, while the majority explain why it really isn't an issue based off statistics and actual testing.

Its pointless trying to argue with you, a total waste of time.

You will are never open minded.

You seem to like an easy IL2 kind of game, anytime something gets challenging, you and your gang back each other and complain and say things are realistic if they are easy or unrealistic if they are hard.

Like DM fragile planes , explosions, fires, wings breaking, super pilots that dont get tired or have no workload, powerful guns.

Anything that makes for easier kills.

Pilot kills are a big problem, specially insta first bullet kill.

Are stats that important that the game has to be ruined?

 

All this is turning IL2 into an arcade game towards a War Thunder kind of game, and has become boring, and people are not happy and leaving.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

22 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Well, you've got 9 pages of people telling you the super sniper pilot kills is a problem.  I'm done.  Thanks for the responses

9 pages of people who are wrong, apparently.  These stats pretty much kill your argument .

1 minute ago, SCG_motoadve said:

 

Are stats that important that the game has to be ruined?

 

Actually, the stats prove that the game isn’t being ruined by pilot kills.  The % of pilot kills has not significantly changed.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

59 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

What does distance matter? It's a rifle caliber bullet with no armor in the way... If it's still moving fast enough to hit you, it's likely able to kill you.

 

12 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

9 pages of people who are wrong, apparently.  These stats pretty much kill your argument .

Actually, the stats prove that the game isn’t being ruined by pilot kills.  The % of pilot kills has not significantly changed.

Last comment, read up on averages and statistics. 

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

 

Last comment, read up on averages and statistics. 

I have a BS in mathematical sciences.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

I have a BS in mathematical sciences.

Then you should know better... nighty night

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Then you should know better... nighty night

I do know better, apparently.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

I do know better, apparently.

Apparently not.

[BraveSirRobin]

Dude, he provided definitive evidence that pilot kill % has not increased.  It’s not even a close call.  You’re going to need more than “learn about maths” to win this argument.  You’re going to need actual maths based evidence.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

Dude, he provided definitive evidence that pilot kill % has not increased.  It’s not even a close call.  You’re going to need more than “learn about maths” to win this argument.  You’re going to need actual maths based evidence.

Not really.  His numbers don't include ground fire or factor in distance (the primary factor).  Good night dude, and remember, you can prove anything with statistics. It's all about the sampling. 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Not really.  His numbers don't include ground fire or factor in distance (the primary factor).  Good night dude, and remember, you can prove anything with statistics. It's all about the sampling. 

He doesn’t need to provide any of that.  The argument was that pilot kill % has increased.  There was no argument that they only increased under certain circumstances.  Just that it has increased.  He proved definitively that it has not increased.  The “well, distance is the real factor” is known in the statistics community as “trying to move the goalposts when someone proved that I’m wrong”.
 

And you can’t “prove anything with statistics”.  You might be able to convince someone who doesn’t understand statistics.  But that is not the case here.

[purK]

38 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Its pointless trying to argue with you, a total waste of time.

You will are never open minded.

You seem to like an easy IL2 kind of game, anytime something gets challenging, you and your gang back each other and complain and say things are realistic if they are easy or unrealistic if they are hard.

Like DM fragile planes , explosions, fires, wings breaking, super pilots that dont get tired or have no workload, powerful guns.

Anything that makes for easier kills.

Pilot kills are a big problem, specially insta first bullet kill.

Are stats that important that the game has to be ruined?

 

All this is turning IL2 into an arcade game towards a War Thunder kind of game, and has become boring, and people are not happy and leaving.

 

Me and my gang.. you mean the testers who actually play the game and have the common sense to understand what is right and what is wrong, what feels realistic and what does not.

Let me remind you, that you thought this was perfectly fine and realistic:

 

 

[Charon]

That video is causing me physical pain.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I really don't understand how people can think their anecdotal experience is more valid than demonstrable statistics with thousands of samples. There are many things wrong with IL2 right now, however there is clearly little basis for these claims about pks having increased exponentially. Are they are a problem? Maybe. Are they historically accurate? Possibly not. HOWEVER, the evidence from EVERY server clearly shows there has been little change in regards to the frequency of pilot kills. One burst snipes have happened for years and I'm sure they happened in real life too, to what extent, who knows. Personally I think this is just what happened when you have super players who don't have to battle misfires/jams from overheating guns, little recoil, planes without much torque, no prop wash, point convergence, etc.

 

 

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 hours ago, Krupnski said:

You can easily see the stats yourself. stats.jasta5.org:8000/en/ > Rankings > Aircraft Rankings > Offensive Ammo Breakdown

For example here are some Dr.1 stats, one of the most flown ww1 planes, pilot snipe% as I mentioned nearly identical.

Dr.1 2st Quarter 2022 (before DM update)



Dr.1 4th Quarter 2022 (after DM update)

 

The ,% didn't change, I wander if time to kill pilot did. Dr.1 is not good example because it's very unstable gun platform and somehow harder to kill pilot in Dr 1 (personal experience) In WW1 most kills are pilot kill, just how quickly you died might change and it's enough for someone to complain. 

 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

@dogefighter  What a class act ?Thanks, just keep the personal attacks coming, I'm sooo used to it at this point. Why don't you take my place as a tester. Email the Devs and you're welcome to it. 

 Edit: pretty much sums up the attitude of so many other people ??

I'll message the Dev right now and ask them to swap my testing place with you. Good luck and god's speed ?

Edited December 22, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[6./ZG26_Custard]

@dogefighter Good luck sky jockey! I have asked the devs to swap me for you. hopefully your charming personality, wit and your years of skill and dedication will win them through ??

[6./ZG26_Loke]

@dogefighter.

You call people names on the forum, and want to be a tester? Good luck with that! 

You have be reported. 

 

Suggest you apply at WarThunder instead, as it seems you prefer their un-realistic type of game, with laser guided over powered guns, with their oversized damage model. 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Loke

[dbuile]

One item I notice is pilots are modelled as 2 components?  A head, and a body.   

I'm curious as to the "shape" of the body, and whether it should be a little more fine-grained.  If a hit to a lower extremity (lower leg, forearm) exceeds the hit points allowed to the body (which it can, based on the data posted), then I assume the game renders this as instant black screen death.

 

I think that's misleading (potentially the "insta-death" or "insta-kill" feeling) , and probably inaccurate.  To "fix" that user-experience issue would require quite a lot of work.   Quick question: when the pilot is blacked-out, are control inputs disabled?

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

8 hours ago, Charon said:

Why would the "wide steel bars" of the canopy make any difference? Those bars are thin metal, never designed as armor.

so the methacrylate of the allied bubble canopies is stronger or better armor?  .... are you kidding me?

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

8 hours ago, Charon said:

Quote

But then we see the Me begin it's landing approach with the Mustang about 30 meters behind it. The only burst the American fired was on target. The Mustang broke away and the Bf 109 landed smoothly. It rolled to a stop. We hurried over and lifted Fönnekold out. He was dead. A single bullet had gone through the fuselage, pierced the armor plate and struck Fönnekold right in the heart."

The War Diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert, p134

An "unimportant" detail the P-51 shoot him from 30 meters of distance, at low speed in final approach to landing. In game they kill your pilot from 500 metres.

Edited December 22, 2022 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Wardog5711]

OK, this thread has run off the road and one ban has already been issued.

We are all adults here, but profanity is against the rules as is calling people names. 

Everyone TRY to continue the discussion in a calm, rational manner or I'll have to lock it down.

 

[Charon]

22 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

so the methacrylate of the allied bubble canopies is stronger or better armor?  .... are you kidding me?

Cardboard vs Drywall.

 

Perhaps it's better protection in some academic sense. Maybe the 109 cockpit frame will stop .50 BMG at 5200m and the bubble canopy only at 5800m. I don't know. Does that difference matter?

 

The canopy framing itself appears to be welded tube steel and sheet metal, not armor. It's well documented that even handgun rounds will readily punch through car doors. Rifles will punch through both doors. I've personally seen 5.56 ball punch nice clean holes through mild steel tubing (1/16"?) of a target stand frame at 200m. And here we're talking about AP rounds weighing 10x as much.

 

Based on my experience shooting holes in stuff with much smaller guns, I would not expect the canopy frame to provide meaningful protection at any even vaguely plausible engagement ranges.

 

18 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

An "unimportant" detail the P-51 shoot him from 30 meters of distance, at low speed in final approach to landing. In game they kill your pilot from 500 metres.

 

I don't recall seeing a PK through a 109s rear armor at 500m. Indeed when I tested P-51s against Bf 109G I found I the "ace" AI never got pilot kills against an auto-level 109 because it consistently took a wing off first, right as it reached 500m. When I've been killed by rear aspect shots by .50 BMG (just tonight, in fact...), it has been from planes that got much closer.

 

Likewise, this recording presented earlier shows a kill at... perhaps 200m? 250?

 

 

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

23 minutes ago, Charon said:

 

The canopy framing itself appears to be welded tube steel and sheet metal, not armor

Soo You think WWII methacrylate layer of a bubble canopy is able to divert a bullet, and steel tube bird-cage frames are not?? .. still kidding me?  .. yes it´s not an armor, but plastic bubble is not too, even it would be less protection for the pilot.
 

23 minutes ago, Charon said:

I don't recall seeing a PK through a 109s rear armor at 500m. Indeed when I tested P-51s against Bf 109G I found I the "ace" AI never got pilot kills against an auto-level 109 because it consistently took a wing off first, right as it reached 500m. When I've been killed by rear aspect shots by .50 BMG (just tonight, in fact...), it has been from planes that got much closer.

 

Likewise, this recording presented earlier shows a kill at... perhaps 200m? 250?

AI pilot and planes in this game work totally different to human pilot, you can´t compare the performances or endurance with human in multiplayer.

[354thFG_Panda_]

6 hours ago, Krupnski said:

Let me remind you, that you thought this was perfectly fine and realistic:
 

 

 

The video is absolutely disgusting.

 

Reading through this thread(and many before), I feel I have to expose what is going on. If I get banned then so be it. I want the game to be as realistic as possible and will continue to support the devs. The fact that:

• Someone(s) thinks this video is realistic and has tried to argue so 
• Completely refusing so much valuable server statistical evidence of what is going on instead using cherry picked failures to learn basic defensive flying (to which they had years and years to do).
• Also equating a 2~3 ship formation of heavy fighters/medium bombers to the massive B17 formations while refusing to fly with escorts and flying completely straight when an enemy is on your 6.
• Complete sense of entitlement they are right cause they have been playing sims for such a long time 
• They set up threads like this one to rally up supporters for not having their way in the beta testing forums and failed miserably
• Complained/mislead in the past about aircraft explosions blaming the weaponry which was not causing the issue (AP vs HE, AP rounds is what allied aircraft who shoot their aircraft mainly use)
• acting like victims as soon as challenged
• refusing to send tracks

All of this paints a perfect picture of what is going on, it is not the aim to make the simulator more realistic it is the aim to systematically mislead to get what they want and they will lie if they have to to keep their "meta" over the years that was lost with the last few changes to improve the simulation. Their ears are completely closed on the issues and are unsuitable to be testers at all. 

 

They are however right about the gunners being too bad and it would be great if ballistics were better modelled with a more detailed damage model which seems to be what we will get in the future.

Edited December 22, 2022 by theRedPanda

[Trooper117]

... here we go then.

[ST_Catchov]

 

Uh-oh ....

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

12 minutes ago, theRedPanda said:

All of this paints a perfect picture of what is going on, it is not the aim to make the simulator more realistic it is the aim to systematically mislead to get what they want and they will lie if they have to to keep their "meta" over the years that was lost with the last few changes to improve the simulation. Their ears are completely closed on the issues and are unsuitable to be testers at all. 

So we are liars now too, thanks for the heads up. However, I'm glad that you can agree with us that the gunners are nerfed and the ballistic damage model could be better. What a dreadful place il2 has become.  

[Wardog5711]

And with that, we are done.

For those that still play, now would be a great time to go back to  it. For those that don't, it's a good time to do whatever it is you do for fun now.