Magic Bullet dev question.

[Art-J]

@RNAS10_Mitchell The devs first and foremost request posting tracks, mission files, logs etc. both from their own testers and players alike to even bother looking at issues. Whether you think posting these is a waste of time or not is irrelevant. Your 40 years of experience in other software troubleshooting, if done differently, is irrelevant as well. They do things here the way the do and that's that (and they're not alone in flight sim industry - you would get exactly the same response from ED support and testers if you played DCS).

 

Guys reporting AI cross-eyed gunners unable to hit anything backed it up in dedicated thread with tracks and vids showing results of tests in controlled environment. Even if solving that issue is clearly loooong overdue (no disagreement from me on that one, that's for sure!), at least something other than just "That ain't right" was posted.

 

It's simple maths, really. If you do some testing and post tracks, there is some non-zero percent chance (not a guarantee but still) that it's going to get looked at. If you decide not to post these, there's a 100% guarantee it won't get looked at at all.

On a more general note to everyone, aren't there two noticeably separate cases discussed here anyway? I have an impression that Mitchell puts more emphasis on what happens on the FC-side, and here the distance vs penetration is less of a factor (with no armor and no metal airframes in FC planes, the 7.7-7.92 mm rifle bullet is equally deadly against unshielded pilot from 150 yds as from 1050 yds. Mind you I'm not talking about dispersion, aiming etc., only the hit itself). At the same time, Custard seems to be talking more about WWII bombers and this is where simulation of distance vs penetration becomes much more complicated and requires more thorough investigation. Who knows, apart from HE cannon shells, which don't care from how afar they hit, maybe there is some of a problem in GB with how effective AP shells and bullets are at various distances against WWII bombers. There still needs to be some in-game recorded data though, to even think about bringing it up to the devs. Just writing about it won't do.

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

It never ceases to impress me when updates get released and I see all the work the devs have done.

For me at least, the problem has been a failure to recognise a few major problems and give them absolute priority.

Gunners for example as mentioned above - last time I flew a Bristol I look back and the gunner is firing at thin air, wasting bullets all over the shop.

It's farcical to watch and means you've effectively no protection. Does one really have to upload tracks for something as blatant as this ?

In ww2 when ground-attacking targets in my 110 I used to be able to escape maybe 50% of the time if engaged. Now it's maybe 10% if I'm lucky. Can't remember the last time my gunner disabled any fighter.

This is a serious issue which should have been looked at right away, then you get an update with new pilot models and all sorts of miscellaneous stuff that doesn't affect gameplay much, whilst show-stopping issues like your gunner firing at clouds until he runs out of ammo persist.

 

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

20 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

It never ceases to impress me when updates get released and I see all the work the devs have done.

For me at least, the problem has been a failure to recognise a few major problems and give them absolute priority.

Gunners for example as mentioned above - last time I flew a Bristol I look back and the gunner is firing at thin air, wasting bullets all over the shop.

It's farcical to watch and means you've effectively no protection. Does one really have to upload tracks for something as blatant as this ?

In ww2 when ground-attacking targets in my 110 I used to be able to escape maybe 50% of the time if engaged. Now it's maybe 10% if I'm lucky. Can't remember the last time my gunner disabled any fighter.

This is a serious issue which should have been looked at right away, then you get an update with new pilot models and all sorts of miscellaneous stuff that doesn't affect gameplay much, whilst show-stopping issues like your gunner firing at clouds until he runs out of ammo persist.

 

 

Post a track.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

17 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Post a track

How about some videos? 

 

 

 

Not sure if these are good enough?

[Jaegermeister]

This issue was discussed in the tester forum at great length before the .50 cal ballistics and pilot damage model changes were put in place. Everyone knew that some people were not going to like a more realistic damage model where 1 bullet to the head of a pilot will be lethal. I recall it took 3 at the time. What we have now is closer to reality as I think anyone can imagine what happens if you get hit in the head by 40 grams of lead traveling at 3000 fps.

 

The decision was made by the team to increase the lethality of the .50 cal at the expense of "playability" which previously allowed the virtual pilot to survive more damage than they normally would. The size of the pilot hit box has also been incrementally reduced a couple of times to make it more acceptable to the people most likely to complain.

 

When those people complain that not enough damage is done, they increase lethality. Then when other people complain about "golden bullets" and unrealistic sniper abilities, they reduce lethality, etc, etc. It's not about what is realistic, It's about finding the balance that is acceptable to the most people and everyone will not always like it. You can demonstrate proof for either side at any time.

 

The same issue applies to rear gunners in bombers. When enough people complain about them being too accurate, the Devs reduce accuracy. Then people complain that they are useless and have no protection (like now) so they increase lethality and the complaints start about how unrealistically accurate they are, etc, etc. The accuracy of AI gunners is controlled by how many times the program tells them to miss before they are allowed to hit what they could have hit with the first bullet. You can record videos of that all day long.

 

I believe they have achieved good balance now, but I am also sure it will get changed again later on. If you don't like how it is now, wait about 6 months or a year and it will go back the other way, and the complaints from the other side will start again. Don't expect them to backpedal right away.

 

Blaming this cycle on the testers for not doing their job is unfair and inaccurate. Threatening to take your ball and go home will eventually have the desired result, which is why this open forum exists to begin with. Everyone's opinions do matter and have an effect on the decisions made, but it takes some time to see what is reactionary and what is a trend.

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

7 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

I believe they have achieved good balance now

Whilst I will agree with you in principle, I can't agree that the gunners are a good balance. I'm happy for the health "buff" to be removed, but if gunners stay the way they are now and ballistics don't factor into to damage modelling then the bomber "game" will be pretty much over.

[dbuile]

Is it worth adding complexity to the pilot damage model?  I see insinuation that the pilot has a "body" and a "head".  I don't know the shape and size of the body collision detection is, but it's not hard to imagine a .50 shot to the ankle not killing you outright.  If I understand the game mechanic, it probably results in the instant black death screen at common ranges. 

 

I realize it opens a can of worms the DEV team probably discussed ad nauseum...  injury that knocks someone hors de combat is expensive to simulate/incentive in a game.  And is it worth it?  Will the community be equally reactionary when their screen is mostly black and fading, barely deflect control surfaces, their head inputs mostly ignored... not able to avoid crashing or being a sitting duck for the next pass?  ("You guys wasted all that dev time just to paralyze me?!?") Or would they rather just die immediately and respawn and fly again.  I dunno!  

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The fighter boys (and girls) have got what they want haven't they. 

Come to think about it. After years with luftwhining. 
this is a debate fighters vs bombers. 
those flying fighters give a rat ass if there is bombers online. And you can not expect them to. 
look at the dates most have , joined from wt a couple of years ago. It is a step up. 
In the long run , just a few keep at it. I myself had an average on 1 hour on servers in two weeks. Past years. If you do not like fighter service. It contain very little sustainable long run activity. 
And as they say , how can you expect to survive alone. 
It is a lost cause. And I care no more. This game turn for the worst possible road I could imagine. No tactics, no strategy just kills. 
By the ambition from the devs, result became sustainable economic future. They forgot new players do not mean old stay. I know there are still old players occasionally in for coop and sp. 
I just hope for more complexity in dm when this new thing comes. Then I reinstall this. 
 

[dbuile]

4 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

In the long run , just a few keep at it. 

 

I came back to ww2 flight sims after a 20 year layoff.  The forum rants are almost EXACTLY the same as 20 + years ago    I'm not kidding... 

 

User retention, new users, bombers are now useless, fighter mafia getting their way, long range gunnery too easy, my pilot gets killed too easy, but not the other side's pilot, the "other side's" plane is overmodelled/overpowered, the game is biased against "my side"... it's all the same as 2 decades ago.   Don't worry about burning out.  It's a normal cycle...

 

Back then, took me maybe 4-5 years to burn out?  The multiplayer arenas were unsatisfying for me.  Only organized scenarios, pretty much the same as today's ACG/FTC, held any interest.

 

Only difference is now, I don't have the same youthful energy and eyesight ?   And my machine blew up last week so I'm wasting way too much time in the forum...

[6./ZG26_Custard]

9 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

I just hope for more complexity in dm when this new thing comes. Then I reinstall this

I really hope so too. Unfortunately the "majority" are more than happy with "realistic" armour penetration values, realistic health for the pilot. And they don't seem to care that there is lack of a realistic ballistic damage model for large aircraft, reports of excessive pilot deaths, and gunners that are so nerfed they are a waste of space. At this point we have been branded conspiracy theorists, liars, accused of actively spreading disinformation, been insulted multiple times and of been told wanting an arcade experience. Hopefully something will give but I doubt it.

[Wardog5711]

Quote

I came back to ww2 flight sims after a 20 year layoff.  The forum rants are almost EXACTLY the same as 20 + years ago    I'm not kidding... 

  LOL. The tabletop gaming world is no different. Rules lawyers and power gamers howl when their favorite rule exploit is removed. I see the same arguments today that we had in 2002, just a different forum.

[CountZero]

51 minutes ago, dbuile said:

Is it worth adding complexity to the pilot damage model?  I see insinuation that the pilot has a "body" and a "head".  I don't know the shape and size of the body collision detection is, but it's not hard to imagine a .50 shot to the ankle not killing you outright.  If I understand the game mechanic, it probably results in the instant black death screen at common ranges. 

 

I realize it opens a can of worms the DEV team probably discussed ad nauseum...  injury that knocks someone hors de combat is expensive to simulate/incentive in a game.  And is it worth it?  Will the community be equally reactionary when their screen is mostly black and fading, barely deflect control surfaces, their head inputs mostly ignored... not able to avoid crashing or being a sitting duck for the next pass?  ("You guys wasted all that dev time just to paralyze me?!?") Or would they rather just die immediately and respawn and fly again.  I dunno!  

Everything worked fine with pilot for 8+ years, untill few updates ago they removed crew health cheat... to me its simple to fix this and make it so it works fine again for next 8+ years... who knows why they tuched and mess with something that worked fine... and no one knew why and how it works fine, or complained about it or that pilots are to durable... and no one complained that fun fights last more then 5s... and we need fights to end instantly how its now... with pk galors 

Edited December 22, 2022 by CountZero

[Koziolek]

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 That's why track files are needed to see what's going on. It's not some over-complicated request. ?

I'm afraid it might be a super complicated request. ?

As I can see from the 9 pages of recently closed topic the people who complain the loudest are flying the least. Or not at all

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, dbuile said:

I came back to ww2 flight sims after a 20 year layoff.  The forum rants are almost EXACTLY the same as 20 + years ago

 

lol... no they are not... the banana forums for the 'real' IL2 were far worse than anything going on here.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

In single player, 1 thing that seems odd is that - even if the shot should be a miss - once a certain minimum lead range is placed in the gunsight, the first bullet is a guaranteed hit.  There is no travel time for the bullet, it's instant, like an actual laser.  The enemy plane gets nailed instantly the moment the trigger is pulled, often times before the tracers reach the target.  Even if the next round up to be fired is the tracerless part of the belt, it's way faster than the rest of the following shots.  I''ve already pulled the trigger on target practice planes from medium/long range (500+meters, very low closure rate) and gotten the "enemy plane destroyed"/ pilot killed message way before the bullets should have reached the target. I know it's a matter of milliseconds but, as best as I can perceive it, somehow, when it happens, it's instant.

[Denum]

The AI pilots are extremely accurate and if you fly straight at them, they are going to clap your cheeks every time. They open fire before most players will and won't miss if you don't move. I'll chuck out a quick burst on the merge to discourage this but tend to avoid head-ons for this reason. 

 

In regards to magic bullets. I haven't been PKd in quite a while. 

 

I don't think there's anything wrong there. I think the issue is the players giving their enemy a wide open shot when they have guns on. 

 

If I think someone is likely to hit me in scissors I don't point my cockpit at them. 

 

As Regingrave has said with the gunners. Half the people still think they're too good. So they've hit a middle ground and aren't likely to change it.  

 

18 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

I Invite you to do a quick mission you in a P51D against 8 FW190s, and see how stupidly easy is to shoot them down , get many pilot kills, set them on fire with jus a little 1 sec burst etc, very boring.

Then make it harder?

 

Are the 190s on Ace? 

 

Throw 4 109s in there and see how you do. Just because you make it easy doesn't mean something is wrong with the game.

 

Better yet. Fly the 190 against 8 P51s. 

18 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Lots of guys from my squad had mention that are bored, some left, in other Discord groups too, and see it for yourself here in the forums, how many unhappy customers saying they dont play anymore, this plus people that left for good quietly.

Il2 turning towards an arcade sim, is loosing customers.

 

I disagree. The recent changes they've made have made the game much better. Online is busier then it's been in a long time. We often find ourselves having to cue for busy nights. 

 

I know alot of axis players aren't happy but I suppose who would be.

 

Having the illusion of skill because of a DM that benefited them heavily pulled out from under them would have been quite jarring. There's an awful lot of players that disappeared when the 13mm was no longer an instant win weapon.

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

39 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

In single player, 1 thing that seems odd is that - even if the shot should be a miss - once a certain minimum lead range is placed in the gunsight, the first bullet is a guaranteed hit.  There is no travel time for the bullet, it's instant, like an actual laser.  The enemy plane gets nailed instantly the moment the trigger is pulled, often times before the tracers reach the target.  Even if the next round up to be fired is the tracerless part of the belt, it's way faster than the rest of the following shots.  I''ve already pulled the trigger on target practice planes from medium/long range (500+meters, very low closure rate) and gotten the "enemy plane destroyed"/ pilot killed message way before the bullets should have reached the target. I know it's a matter of milliseconds but, as best as I can perceive it, somehow, when it happens, it's instant.

I have never noticed anything like this, in many hours of singleplayer. Do you have any track files showing this issue?

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

6 hours ago, Art-J said:

@RNAS10_Mitchell The devs first and foremost request posting tracks, mission files, logs etc. both from their own testers and players alike to even bother looking at issues. Whether you think posting these is a waste of time or not is irrelevant. Your 40 years of experience in other software troubleshooting, if done differently, is irrelevant as well. They do things here the way the do and that's that (and they're not alone in flight sim industry - you would get exactly the same response from ED support and testers if you played DCS).

 

Guys reporting AI cross-eyed gunners unable to hit anything backed it up in dedicated thread with tracks and vids showing results of tests in controlled environment. Even if solving that issue is clearly loooong overdue (no disagreement from me on that one, that's for sure!), at least something other than just "That ain't right" was posted.

 

It's simple maths, really. If you do some testing and post tracks, there is some non-zero percent chance (not a guarantee but still) that it's going to get looked at. If you decide not to post these, there's a 100% guarantee it won't get looked at at all.

On a more general note to everyone, aren't there two noticeably separate cases discussed here anyway? I have an impression that Mitchell puts more emphasis on what happens on the FC-side, and here the distance vs penetration is less of a factor (with no armor and no metal airframes in FC planes, the 7.7-7.92 mm rifle bullet is equally deadly against unshielded pilot from 150 yds as from 1050 yds. Mind you I'm not talking about dispersion, aiming etc., only the hit itself). At the same time, Custard seems to be talking more about WWII bombers and this is where simulation of distance vs penetration becomes much more complicated and requires more thorough investigation. Who knows, apart from HE cannon shells, which don't care from how afar they hit, maybe there is some of a problem in GB with how effective AP shells and bullets are at various distances against WWII bombers. There still needs to be some in-game recorded data though, to even think about bringing it up to the devs. Just writing about it won't do.

 

To be clear, I fly FC ONLINE pretty much exclusively.  In that arena, since November, myself and others have noticed and Increase in long range single shot pilot kills.

From both air and ground objects.  

 

You are correct, that I am unaware of the beta testing interactions that are on place in this environment.  Perhaps its different here.  If so , imo they missing the opportunity to streamline the debugging effort.  You can disagree, or dismiss as irrelevant if you desire.  No skin off my back.

 

During the wingoff cluster fudge we experienced in FC, numerous tracks were submitted, and they were ignored for over a year.  It was not effective.  That is why I was asking for some assistance from a beta tester.  Someone who perhaps might have an inside track to the proper development team.

 

As I'm learning, WW2 fliers are playing a different game.  Same said for bomber v fighter.   Again, my intention was to bring the single bullet, long range snipe, from long distance (both air and ground) in FC, to the attention of the devs.    Wasn't expecting to hear condecening remarks from a tester, that this was not real, and just a few loud mouths spouting nonsense.  

 

That's it.  Not targeting beta testers, just asking for their assistance.   Love the game, no intention of quitting, engaging trolls, or any of that nonsense.

 

Peace out..

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[migmadmarine]

I do agree that it would be nice for FC to have ROF levels of gun dispersion probably. 

 

But as to the wing off problem "being ignored", it's fixed, ain't it? Yea, it sucked having it take as long as it did, but I figure the long lead time between reports and resolution is a result of limited man hours rather than a deliberate choice to shove their fingers in their ears. Especially if it isn a quick and easy fix, you only have a finite number of man hours, and loads of other things that need doing, a long lag time is pretty understandable, as much of a drag as it is. 

[Jaws2002]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

lol... no they are not... the banana forums for the 'real' IL2 were far worse than anything going on here.

Nah man, UBI ZOO was the biggest whine fest of them all....   Trim on a slider, FW-190 "BAR", concrete Lagg3, butterfly G2, Mine Shells for German fighters, and the three plus years of  fifty cal whine fest, were legendary.  ?

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, dbuile said:

Is it worth adding complexity to the pilot damage model?  I see insinuation that the pilot has a "body" and a "head".  I don't know the shape and size of the body collision detection is, but it's not hard to imagine a .50 shot to the ankle not killing you outright.  If I understand the game mechanic, it probably results in the instant black death screen at common ranges. 

 

I realize it opens a can of worms the DEV team probably discussed ad nauseum...  injury that knocks someone hors de combat is expensive to simulate/incentive in a game.  And is it worth it?  Will the community be equally reactionary when their screen is mostly black and fading, barely deflect control surfaces, their head inputs mostly ignored... not able to avoid crashing or being a sitting duck for the next pass?  ("You guys wasted all that dev time just to paralyze me?!?") Or would they rather just die immediately and respawn and fly again.  I dunno!  

 

I don't know how detailed the pilot body is, but this is a pretty interesting diagram about pilot injury/death probabilities from WWII. Not sure of how the test was conducted, though it probably is related to shrapnel effects:

 

https://www.theriggerdepot.com/flak-vest.html

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by LukeFF

[dbuile]

9 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

this is a pretty interesting diagram about pilot injury/death probabilities from WWII. Not sure of how the test was conducted, though it probably is related to shrapnel effects:

Haven't watched this video, but this guy's channel (WWII US Bombers) presents detailed reports produced by the USAAF:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNqwML6Kxsc

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I watch that guys channel a lot and it's very interesting. 79% of wounds were caused by low-velocity projectiles. I just hope that in the future ballistics coding and more effective damage modelling will allow bombers to at least have a chance. 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I don't know how detailed the pilot body is, but this is a pretty interesting diagram about pilot injury/death probabilities from WWII. Not sure of how the test was conducted, though it probably is related to shrapnel effects:

 

https://www.theriggerdepot.com/flak-vest.html

 

Would appear upper torso 2% more lethal than head?  Maybe not reading that correct?

Edited December 22, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Jaws2002]

8 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Would appear upper torso 2% more lethal than head?  Maybe not reading that correct?

Bigger area, easier to hit.

[BlitzPig_EL]

29 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Bigger area, easier to hit.

Yeah, just like bombers.

 

[dbuile]

45 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Bigger area, easier to hit.

My guess is not that, because all these figures are already hits.  The "easier to hit" concept might show up in total numbers.

 

As for 2% more lethal, it's probably all considered equally lethal within margins of error of the report.

 

 

[Charon]

Someone asked the other day about testing B-26, and testing online. While I'm not willing to do this systematically, I did happen to fly a PVP Co-Op involving B-26s with some JG52 people last night. The track is 50MB (sorry), but the kill 2m50s is maybe interesting, so you can download it here if you'd like.

 

3x Fw 190 A-8 (stock; yellow 7 with the 30mm Mk 108s, but not a factor as things turned out).

3x P-51D

6x B-26 (High/Ace AI)

 

Results of the sortie:

 

5 B-26 down, 2 of them pilot kills.

Two Fw 190A-8 pilots killed: one at short range (100m?) from the dorsal (?) guns of a B-26, and the other at short range (150m?) from a P-51.

 

Detailed Account:

 

I (yellow 2) lead a disorganized high-speed attack on the B-26s. I scored poor hits on one bomber, removing the rudder and damaging the left wing, causing a loss of control. No crew casualties.

 

Yellow 3 then made an attack, landing hits on the tail and left wing of one bomber. Both elevators and the left horizontal stabilizer were removed. Tail, dorsal, and waist gunner appear dead; 3 chutes seen.

 

I observed no defensive fire in either pass.

 

Yellow 3 made a second pass, again from the stern, this time facing return fire. They fire into the trailing plane from 300m and slightly below, killing the pilot, tail, dorsal, and waist gunners and also removing both elevators and the rudder. The wing catches fire.

 

Yellow 3 switches target and fires into the next plane from about 7 o'clock and 200m, killing the pilot instantly. 3 chutes seen.

 

Yellow 3 fires into the lead plane from short range, removing both elevators and the rudder, and is then killed by return fire (from the dorsal gunner?), apparently with some angle off. I was fairly far away at the time, so this part of the track is desynchronized and it's hard to be sure what happened. At least 5 chutes seen.

 

Concurrently, I was attacked by a P-51 but bunted and escaped with only superficial hits to the wing roots from about 300m behind.

 

Yellow 7 was also bounced from behind and received apparently solid hits to the fuselage and canopy from 200m, but due to a timely call-out was able to split-s and escape.

 

 

We then disengaged, but were stalked back to our field, where I was attacked by 3 P-51s. I evaded the first attack, but lost tally and was shot at short range (150m?) from dead six and was killed instantly (not recorded).

 

----

 

Remarks:

 

The gunners were inconsistent. They were very slow to start shooting and provided little effective stern fire, even when offered easy shots with no deflection. We were never punished for our disorganized attack. Going in alone, I should have faced fire from 12x .50 tail guns -- but nothing. There was no need to coordinate our attack and saturate defenses.

 

The lead plane (Ace AI) also landed a tracking shot on yellow 3, apparently from the side. This should be lethal, no magic about it, but a difficult shot. It feels as though gunners are essentially random as to whether they hit, and this is frustrating (including from a fighter pilots perspective!) as this seems to erase any benefits from skill or tactics in attacking bombers. I suppose there is always going to be quite a lot of randomness when going against gunners... but in general it feels like "dumb" attacks aren't punished enough.

 

20mm was more effective than .50 BMG at punching through bombers to kill the pilot. Yellow 3's second pilot kill seemed reasonable; the oblique angle meant slugs might perhaps have entered the mid-fuselage and only had to punch through the seat back armor.

 

The first pilot kill, on the other hand, seems dubious to me:

 

 

The pilot was killed in this burst, and is already dead (the copilot has started the bail-out animation). It appears the pilot was killed either by a 20mm slug striking the tail, penetrating the gunners armor, the gunner, the rear bulkheads, the bomb bay, and then the pilot's seat; or by shrapnel from 20mm HE striking the engine and/or prop. Both seem a bit much for me.

 

The Fw 190s armor did provide some protection. While I was ultimately pilot sniped, there was nothing magical about that: I lost SA, let a P-51 get on my six, and was punished for it. Nothing about that kill seemed unreasonable.

 

It does seem like HE removes control surfaces too easily, and it looks goofy when e.g. the rudder and both elevators all separate at once. It's quite hard to find photos of real planes with control surfaces fully removed! A few patches ago we started seeing more controls being shot out, which I think is great, but I think in general I'd prefer to see the surfaces themselves stay attached, just with damage decals (unless the wing/stabilizer itself is removed.)

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Charon

[migmadmarine]

That seems fairly consistent with much of what has been concluded about gunners in the testers forum; a big thing that makes them so frustrating for both parties is that when they should fire and have the easiest time hitting, they either don't, or miss by absurd degrees (frustrating to the bomber pilot) and when they do hit it is (often enough to perhaps not actually be a majority, but enough to feel like one) at high deflection and directly to something vital, like engine or pilot, frustrating for the attacker. While this is not as bad as pre-changes gunners, it is still the case that when you get hit by a gunner it is rarely just a hit to the wings or even near enough misses to make you jink and botch your attack. 

[Charon]

9 hours ago, Charon said:

It appears the pilot was killed either by a 20mm slug striking the tail, penetrating the gunners armor, the gunner, the rear bulkheads, the bomb bay, and then the pilot's seat; or by shrapnel from 20mm HE striking the engine and/or prop. Both seem a bit much for me.

 

Couldn't sleep, so I tried to reproduce this and wasn't able to, despite putting quite a lot of MG 151/20 into both the left engine nacelle and the rear fuselage of a target drone:

 

 

However, then I realized that my target drone crew was wearing helmets and flak vests, while the crew in the co-op mission did not. Does anyone know what determines how they're outfitted?

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Charon said:

However, then I realized that my target drone crew was wearing helmets and flak vests, while the crew in the co-op mission did not. Does anyone know what determines how they're outfitted?

 

It is supposed to be based on the proximity of enemy fighters and/or flak guns. 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

On 12/22/2022 at 10:37 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I have never noticed anything like this, in many hours of singleplayer. Do you have any track files showing this issue?

 

I'll set up my Nvidia game recorder to use the delayed capture option.  (Saves 3 minutes and doesn't actually keep them until I press the button)  

I'll see if I can get a capture of it.  It doesn't happen often, but if it does, I'll try to get at least something to review.  

It could just be my perception, I admit.   

[Charon]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It is supposed to be based on the proximity of enemy fighters and/or flak guns. 

Ah, I see now they put them on instantly in flight, not at the start of the mission. This is likely a red herring; the co-op track shows them without armor, but that's probably a quirk of the recording. Thanks.

 

16 hours ago, Charon said:

It appears the pilot was killed either by a 20mm slug striking the tail, penetrating the gunners armor, the gunner, the rear bulkheads, the bomb bay, and then the pilot's seat; or by shrapnel from 20mm HE striking the engine and/or prop.

I'm now convinced that this is a problem with HE, not with AP as I first assumed, and I have a track to prove it (which is longer than it really needs to be; jump to 1m30s): targetdrone.2022-12-23_11-29-07_00.zip

 

With 100m convergence and MG 151/20 only, I fired into the left nacelle of this unarmed B-26. I was careful with my aim; I made sure no rounds hit the fuselage or wing.

 

 

The pilot 2.5m away was killed by concussion or shrapnel from these shells. This seems unreasonable to me.

 

Real Life

 

Quote

Splinters from 20-mm cannon shells are embedded deeply in both hands. [...] One shell exploded in the cockpit, next to my left hand; this is the blast that ripped away the flap handle.

Robert S. Johnson, Thunderbolt (kindle ed), p129

 

Shells also hit close enough to jam his canopy, yet he survived and was able to fly home.

 

Quote

Pilot, Minerich crew. 381st BG, 535th BS. Killed in Action. 8 October 1943, on Mission #36 to the shipyards at Bremen, Germany. 1Lt Minerich was flying B-17 #42-5846 'Tinker Toy' when he was decapitated by a 20mm shell. The co-pilot, 1Lt Sellers was wounded in the arm by another 20mm shell. He flew the aircraft back to base and was later awarded the DSC.

American Air Museum

 

Conclusions

So we've got multiple accounts of real pilots surviving 20mm shells exploding within the cockpit. But 20mm is killing from quite a bit further away in the sim, and outside the cockpit. Yes, survivor bias. But if we've got accounts of crew kills from distant 20mm fragments, I'd like to hear it.

 

I speculate that bomber pilots are more likely to experience this because they're well armored from behind, and because attackers are likely to target engine nacelles, which present a convenient place for shells to burst within range of the pilot. Fighter pilots probably die in this way as well, but are more likely to write it off as AP punching through armor.

 

I'm still strenuously opposed to bringing back the crew health cheat, except possibly as an optional realism setting. Humans surviving and functioning after bullet hits to the head or core has no place in a simulation. And from a gameplay perspective, it contributed to an era  where AP-only fighters just did not function.

 

I suggest reducing the anti-personnel effects of HE, without reducing it's effectiveness against airplane structures.

 

Edit: To the testers, I don't know how your bug triage works. Is it worthwhile for me to re-post this in the Bugs forum, or is that unnecessary?

Edited December 23, 2022 by Charon

[purK]

It's already known that HE shrapnel range is quite significant and we've brought it up before. It's one of those things that will likely be tuned eventually, but until then we just have to wait awhile.

[Guest deleted@134347]

do similar PK's happen if you fly the IL-2 (either 41, 42, or 43 version)?   If they don't then it seems like a matter of the material toughness around the pilot...  But if you get PK's in Il2 then it's definitely a much bigger issue... probably..

[Stonehouse]

On 12/24/2022 at 7:21 AM, Charon said:

Ah, I see now they put them on instantly in flight, not at the start of the mission. This is likely a red herring; the co-op track shows them without armor, but that's probably a quirk of the recording. Thanks.

 

I'm now convinced that this is a problem with HE, not with AP as I first assumed, and I have a track to prove it (which is longer than it really needs to be; jump to 1m30s): targetdrone.2022-12-23_11-29-07_00.zip

 

With 100m convergence and MG 151/20 only, I fired into the left nacelle of this unarmed B-26. I was careful with my aim; I made sure no rounds hit the fuselage or wing.

 

 

The pilot 2.5m away was killed by concussion or shrapnel from these shells. This seems unreasonable to me.

 

Real Life

 

Robert S. Johnson, Thunderbolt (kindle ed), p129

 

Shells also hit close enough to jam his canopy, yet he survived and was able to fly home.

 

American Air Museum

 

Conclusions

So we've got multiple accounts of real pilots surviving 20mm shells exploding within the cockpit. But 20mm is killing from quite a bit further away in the sim, and outside the cockpit. Yes, survivor bias. But if we've got accounts of crew kills from distant 20mm fragments, I'd like to hear it.

 

I speculate that bomber pilots are more likely to experience this because they're well armored from behind, and because attackers are likely to target engine nacelles, which present a convenient place for shells to burst within range of the pilot. Fighter pilots probably die in this way as well, but are more likely to write it off as AP punching through armor.

 

I'm still strenuously opposed to bringing back the crew health cheat, except possibly as an optional realism setting. Humans surviving and functioning after bullet hits to the head or core has no place in a simulation. And from a gameplay perspective, it contributed to an era  where AP-only fighters just did not function.

 

I suggest reducing the anti-personnel effects of HE, without reducing it's effectiveness against airplane structures.

 

Edit: To the testers, I don't know how your bug triage works. Is it worthwhile for me to re-post this in the Bugs forum, or is that unnecessary?

 

Background info for you, the way I read things right and left side armor is 6 so assuming I understand how this works correctly (which may not be the case) it should not be the explosive impact or shrapnel fragments penetrating the cockpit unless the armor degrades with successive hits (ie you hit in this location multiple times and successive damage overwhelmed the armor, I do not know if it works like this) - if you have a track of this it is likely worth passing to the devs to study.

 

<edit> I guess there may be another set of armor values for the B26 cockpit for purely explosive damage that I haven't seen or realised what the values are for. It's all guesswork on my part after all based on comments in files. If the armor for explosive damage is 0 and you hit a few times at less than 1.9 m I suppose it is possible that 50 points of damage transferred enough times. Still worth a track to the devs in my opinion.

 

Round is he_020mm_92g_20g_object.txt

Spoiler

 Options Sphere Hit, external burst

Radius=5.7 // The radius of the sphere of influence of the explosion, which determines the selection of objects
TNT_equ=0.02 // TNT equivalent for atmospheric shock wave simulation

// Explosive Impact: range, (-1 not used), pairs (armor, damage behind armor)
ArmorFoug=0.0,-1, 2,899,  0,1798
ArmorFoug=0.6,-1,              0,455
Armor Foug=1.2,-1,              0,127
Armor Foug=1.9,-1,              0,50

// Shrapnel impact
ShrapnelQuantity=41
FragmentMass=0.0007
// Single shard: range, speed, pairs (armor, damage behind armor)
ArmorShr=0.0,1069, 4,40, 3,101,          0,162
ArmorShr=2.8,964,            3,33, 2,82, 0,132
ArmorShr=5.7,861,                       2,26, 0,105

 

B26 cockpit fragmentation sphere of protection info

Spoiler

SphereHitProtection=0 //Armored gunner/pilot protection from shrapnel when the cockpit is closed

[SphereProtectionBoxOpen] // If this block exists, then the pilot's armor against fragments is set on the sides, if there is no block, then the general parameter SphereHitProtection= is used
FovH=90 // The full angle of the horizontal opening of the pyramidal bell of the angles of the normal to the cladding, according to which the cladding face is determined as ArmorFront
FovV=90 // Full angle of the vertical opening of the pyramidal flare of the angles of the normal to the cladding, according to which the cladding face is defined as ArmorFront
// The remaining 5 flares are determined automatically by the central symmetry relative to the front
ArmorFront=12
ArmorBack=9
ArmorTop=6
ArmorBottom=0
ArmorRight=6
ArmorLeft=6
[end]

SphereProtectionBoxClose] // If this block exists, then the pilot's armor against fragments is set on the sides, if there is no block, then the general parameter SphereHitProtection= is used
FovH=90 // The full angle of the horizontal opening of the pyramidal bell of the angles of the normal to the cladding, according to which the cladding face is determined as ArmorFront
FovV=90 // Full angle of the vertical opening of the pyramidal flare of the angles of the normal to the cladding, according to which the cladding face is defined as ArmorFront
// The remaining 5 flares are determined automatically by the central symmetry relative to the front
ArmorFront=12
ArmorBack=9
ArmorTop=6
ArmorBottom=0
ArmorRight=6
ArmorLeft=6
[end]

energyloss="",true,0.23,300 // Bullet energy loss on impact, first equivalent armor on entry and exit, second joules per meter of travel inside the hitbox

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by Stonehouse

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 12/22/2022 at 9:56 AM, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

In single player, 1 thing that seems odd is that - even if the shot should be a miss - once a certain minimum lead range is placed in the gunsight, the first bullet is a guaranteed hit.  There is no travel time for the bullet, it's instant, like an actual laser.  The enemy plane gets nailed instantly the moment the trigger is pulled, often times before the tracers reach the target.  Even if the next round up to be fired is the tracerless part of the belt, it's way faster than the rest of the following shots.  I''ve already pulled the trigger on target practice planes from medium/long range (500+meters, very low closure rate) and gotten the "enemy plane destroyed"/ pilot killed message way before the bullets should have reached the target. I know it's a matter of milliseconds but, as best as I can perceive it, somehow, when it happens, it's instant.

Can you provide a track? Shouldn't be too hard.

[Lusekofte]

On 12/22/2022 at 2:08 PM, dbuile said:

came back to ww2 flight sims after a 20 year layoff.  The forum rants are almost EXACTLY the same as 20 + years ago    I'm not kidding... 

no it was far worse in banana forum. I was not that active in there. But it got similarity. 
What you see here is frustration and worshipping of everything devs do. 
both come from same place , passion for ww2 cfs. 
I am not a rivet counter. I care less about all that. 
what I care about is far more visual. 
I fly a JU 52 and a split second pass disintegrate the aircraft every time. Devs worshippers say it’s normal. Like this is how it should be. Not once online is one or two engines taken out. It bloody explode or you get pk. 
They say it is normal. 
take a C 47 and same thing happens. Fly a bomber and look how gunners shoot after anything else than the plane on your dead six. The gunners bail out without a wound. Pilot is pk. Every time except when the plane explode. And they say I have to film it.  
we are a bunch of lads liking flying underdogs in coop. We had to start flying fighters due to this claimed normalness.  
So majority witch is people been here not for very long, and probably abandon this in not very long time and devs utter negligence of this. Will force this game into a WT focused arcade. 

[SCG_motoadve]

24 minutes ago, Lusekofte said:

no it was far worse in banana forum. I was not that active in there. But it got similarity. 
What you see here is frustration and worshipping of everything devs do. 
both come from same place , passion for ww2 cfs. 
I am not a rivet counter. I care less about all that. 
what I care about is far more visual. 
I fly a JU 52 and a split second pass disintegrate the aircraft every time. Devs worshippers say it’s normal. Like this is how it should be. Not once online is one or two engines taken out. It bloody explode or you get pk. 
They say it is normal. 
take a C 47 and same thing happens. Fly a bomber and look how gunners shoot after anything else than the plane on your dead six. The gunners bail out without a wound. Pilot is pk. Every time except when the plane explode. And they say I have to film it.  
we are a bunch of lads liking flying underdogs in coop. We had to start flying fighters due to this claimed normalness.  
So majority witch is people been here not for very long, and probably abandon this in not very long time and devs utter negligence of this. Will force this game into a WT focused arcade. 

Fighter pilots who fly online and worry only about getting easy kills and their stats , and say whatever they can to convince developers the fragility of airplanes and instant pilot kills are normal.

Shooting down bombers or transports in IL2 is so arcade!

They have no durability at all.

 

Most of these people come from War Thunder, so anything challenging to make kills hard piss them off.

This has ruined SP and MP gaming, IL2 has become boring, and lots of people are leaving IL2 .

[=RS=EnvyC]

Its a well known phenomenon that many larger aircraft, in particular the B24, are practically made out of papermache.

 

https://gfycat.com/heavenlyoptimalbetafish

 

I mean, I think we can all agree this is just a little bit ridiculous no?

Edited December 25, 2022 by =RS=EnvyC