PDA

View Full Version : "VISUAL" and "ACTUAL" damage. (Test preview)



F19_Ob
08-12-2004, 06:20 AM
""I belive the fact that some are not happy with some guns and the damage they do, may be an issue of differences between "ACTUAL" damage and "VISUAL" damage model.""

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ok, I admit......it seems a bit strange to do a preview to a later post ( or discussion), but I know some of u have interest in this matter.
Personally, these "investigations" I do
makes me gay (meaning happy).
All my tests, past and future ones too may not show the absolute true story. They are done out of curiosity and amusement and kind of a substitute for other things I'm unable to do anymore. Some may enjoy and contemplate on the results, while others may not......wich is fine.

---------------------------------------------

Anyway, One of my views on damage in FB is following:

Nowadays I think most weapons work pretty good( after my tests). I belive the fact that some are not happy with some guns and the damage they do, may be an issue of differences between "ACTUAL" damage and "VISUAL" damage model.

I suspect many have no real grip of this "relation" since it requires many hundreds of tests and most normal, working people haven't the time to spend on that.
I'm sadly unable to do many things at all (due to a medical condition) but this kind of tests I still manage, and actually I get some of my old feelings of occasional sharpness back.
Detailed comparisons and variations in all fields has always been a hobby ( wierd ,I know) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif


--------------------------------------------------

Simply put, I test the visual damage by shooting a plane so full of holes as I can, before it crashes to determine the available "visual" damage, wich takes very long time.

When I have a clue of the visuals, I test how it is to be in the receiveing end of the rounds, both online and offline. I must note how many rounds hit, where, and what happens in the ac.
I think many testers forget this part of the damagetesting.

I have "only" done a few hundred testmissions(short) so far. this may sound much but u cant test one or a few planes only. (cant test all either)...so I'll keep on as long I find it amusing.......( I guess I dont easily get bored ).

---------------------------------------------------

I welcome any questions, thoughts, advice and criticism..........feel free to comment.

What say U http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[This message was edited by F19_Ob on Thu August 12 2004 at 07:36 AM.]

F19_Ob
08-12-2004, 06:20 AM
""I belive the fact that some are not happy with some guns and the damage they do, may be an issue of differences between "ACTUAL" damage and "VISUAL" damage model.""

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ok, I admit......it seems a bit strange to do a preview to a later post ( or discussion), but I know some of u have interest in this matter.
Personally, these "investigations" I do
makes me gay (meaning happy).
All my tests, past and future ones too may not show the absolute true story. They are done out of curiosity and amusement and kind of a substitute for other things I'm unable to do anymore. Some may enjoy and contemplate on the results, while others may not......wich is fine.

---------------------------------------------

Anyway, One of my views on damage in FB is following:

Nowadays I think most weapons work pretty good( after my tests). I belive the fact that some are not happy with some guns and the damage they do, may be an issue of differences between "ACTUAL" damage and "VISUAL" damage model.

I suspect many have no real grip of this "relation" since it requires many hundreds of tests and most normal, working people haven't the time to spend on that.
I'm sadly unable to do many things at all (due to a medical condition) but this kind of tests I still manage, and actually I get some of my old feelings of occasional sharpness back.
Detailed comparisons and variations in all fields has always been a hobby ( wierd ,I know) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif


--------------------------------------------------

Simply put, I test the visual damage by shooting a plane so full of holes as I can, before it crashes to determine the available "visual" damage, wich takes very long time.

When I have a clue of the visuals, I test how it is to be in the receiveing end of the rounds, both online and offline. I must note how many rounds hit, where, and what happens in the ac.
I think many testers forget this part of the damagetesting.

I have "only" done a few hundred testmissions(short) so far. this may sound much but u cant test one or a few planes only. (cant test all either)...so I'll keep on as long I find it amusing.......( I guess I dont easily get bored ).

---------------------------------------------------

I welcome any questions, thoughts, advice and criticism..........feel free to comment.

What say U http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[This message was edited by F19_Ob on Thu August 12 2004 at 07:36 AM.]

Extreme_One
08-12-2004, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:
...I belive the fact that some are not happy with some guns and the damage they do, may be an issue of differences between "ACTUAL" damage and "VISUAL" damage model.

I suspect many have no real grip of this "relation"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that has a lot of credibility although I'm not sure if you could actually prove this to anyone...

Good luck in your tests and more importantly keep enjoying it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-Ex_1_sig.jpg

Submit your files to the IL2 website (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=788102065)
il2submissions@ubisoft.co.uk

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 06:37 AM
the visual damadge in FB is " PRE DRAWN "

its done by the planes moddeler & the program (FB) decides what to show according to how its programmed

so . . . .

visual damadge in FB is NOT related to actual damadge given out

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-12-2004, 06:38 AM
an example is the LaGG's

you can fire a lot of small MGs at it & there will be nothing to show for it

notably out of the new planes is the I-185 which also show very little after being hit multiple times

(both fly like new too , but thats another matter)

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F19_Ob
08-12-2004, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the visual damadge in FB is _" PRE DRAWN "_

its done by the planes moddeler & the program (FB) decides what to show according to how its programmed

so . . . .

_visual damadge in FB is NOT related to actual damadge given out_

.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thnx for the input Badsight....

Yes its important to know that all visual damage is pre-drawn. So every bullet wont make visual impact on the skin.

But I belive it is related to the actual damage in the sense that u need to hit a plane in an area (hitbox) a certain amount of times before the visual damage shows.
The rounds from the different weapons must have different values aswell. meaning that one cannonhit has greater value than a mg bullet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my test so far, it seems that the value doesnt change with range. So if u can hit from long range it still takes about the same amount of hits to make the visual damage to show......(not done with this yet).

Sometimes it can appear that there is more damage when u hit from close range, but its because more of the rounds hit than on long range.......especially with mg's.
I tested this by shooting at the same wing on a 109 with a hurricane, trying to keep 300m range all the time and count the hits on the track. It took a while to get equally many hits on one wing from 300m as it does on 100m. (Best way was to do many short bursts.) So damage was the same.

F19_Ob
08-12-2004, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
an example is the LaGG's

you can fire a lot of small MGs at it & there will be nothing to show for it

notably out of the new planes is the I-185 which also show very little after being hit multiple times

(both fly like new too , but thats another matter)

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The damage is there on the laGG's too, but u normally have shot it down before u have hit enough times for it to show.

Its actually this "relation" I'm trying to explain. I "feel" that many planes have visual damage to spare, meaning that mostly its possible to shoot down a plane before the visuals show....but they all have visual damage.
I will post some "visual" pics later.

F19_Ob
08-12-2004, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Extreme_One:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:
...I belive the fact that some are not happy with some guns and the damage they do, may be an issue of differences between "ACTUAL" damage and "VISUAL" damage model.

I suspect many have no real grip of this "relation"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that has a lot of credibility although I'm not sure if you could actually _prove_ this to anyone...

Good luck in your tests and more importantly keep enjoying it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

_S! Simon_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thnx extreme..........

Well actually I'm not very interested in "proving" my views.
I just do the test and explain it as well as I can.
I just hope I add a few more sound (in my view) arguments to this this discussion.

My explanation is very short here...but its still long for the board.....so I cant even be sure anyone will take the time to read it fully.
Perhaps people will think I atlest do a honest "try" at this...since it involves many hundreds of missions only to this point. Not just a few...

there it is. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWSensei
08-12-2004, 07:38 AM
FWIW, Oleg has stated only about 10,000 times that visual damage and actual damage are not one to one. It's why it can appear a control surface ahs been shot off (visually) but in "reality" part of it is still there.

F19_Ob
08-12-2004, 07:44 AM
thanks for the addition Sensei!