PDA

View Full Version : faster speed approach = greater damage made ?

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:03 AM
Example: You are approaching a bandit, you are moving much faster than him, your speed is 300km/h or 600km/h, then you open fire successfully damage him.

Qustion: Is the damage that you made gonna be different if you put same amount and type of bullets into the same location of that bandit?

In reality, IMHO it would be different, but how about in FB? has Oleg considered it and made this game in that way? thx ppl /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:03 AM
Example: You are approaching a bandit, you are moving much faster than him, your speed is 300km/h or 600km/h, then you open fire successfully damage him.

Qustion: Is the damage that you made gonna be different if you put same amount and type of bullets into the same location of that bandit?

In reality, IMHO it would be different, but how about in FB? has Oleg considered it and made this game in that way? thx ppl /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:25 AM
No, it will be the same because the bullets travel relative to you.

/m

http://www.world-data-systems.com/lomac/pirhana.jpg

Tully__
07-01-2003, 10:30 AM
It should be more at higher closing speeds (for non-HE bullets anyway) but I don't know how it's modelled.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>

Salut
Tully

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:37 AM
in real life it would. As the speed of the bullet relative to its target would be higher, and therefor hit with more energy. And since velocity component of kinetic energy is squared, this should cause a measureable(not insignificant) effect on its damage output.

but i dont think this effect is moddled in fb, or anyth combat flight sim for that matter. i'm not sure how hard something like this would be to implement, but it would be a significant step in terms of realism.

the next sim perhaps http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:41 AM
It would in real life but I donâÂ´t know how theyâÂ´ve made it in FB. The faster a projectile travels the more damage it should do as it has greater energy. Say you travel at 600 km/h (airspeed) & you fire a bullet going 1000 meters/second = approx. 3600 km/h (muzzle velocity) - your bullet will travel at 4200 km/h when it leaves the barrel relative to air & thereby give more energy on impact. As a rule of thumb you can say that impact energy = velosity X weight. I should be noted that some projectiles lose almost half their energy on the first 100 meters they travel due to drag.

S!

M0NS

"Blow up the outside world"

http://www.flugwerk.de/images/01k.jpg
My garage!

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:46 AM
mattduggan wrote:
- No, it will be the same because the bullets travel
- relative to you.

If you fly your bird much faster, you give your bullets more energy to travel faster when open fire. It's like you impact your target with your plane nose with 300km/h or 600km/h, the damage result must be different.

from your point of view, if a plane opens fire when it travels very very very very fast, then your bullets will hit your own wind screen finally.

of course all IMHO /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:49 AM
lol, you guys have explained already, thx for your replys. so no one knows if it is modeled in this game or not, could someone test it? or we'd better ask Oleg himself.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:52 AM
and btw if it is modelled in this game, it will be very good for those B&Zers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:55 AM
doh - I never read the original post properly, I though it was the same speed :-|

I'll get me coat http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.world-data-systems.com/lomac/pirhana.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 12:54 PM
The manual alone speaks of keeping aware of your shooting distance.

And they write it's not only about dispersion but about kinetic energy as well, that's why I assume IL2FB does indeed reflect speed of impact - PKs excluded /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

S! muffinstomp.

michapma
07-01-2003, 01:18 PM
The energy of the bullets relative to target is modelled. That's why you do more damage in the sim from close up than from 500m: the rounds lose energy en route to the target. Ballistics are pretty well modeled in this sim, very probably better than in any other. Incidentally, Oleg has also mentioned a while back that they are reworking (by now have reworked) smaller-caliber damage models.

Mike

Edit: Forgot to finsish a sentence.

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center"><font color="#">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project</font> (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%"><font color="#">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</font></td><td align="center">

<font color="#">SKULLS_Chap

<a href="http://www.skulls98.netfirms.com/il2/index.html" target="_blank" style="color: #191970; font-size: medium">The
SKULLS</a></font></p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"><font color="#">Hardware issues:
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</font></td></tr></table>

Message Edited on 07/01/0302:19PM by michapma

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 01:22 PM
I notice a distinct difference between shooting from behind at the same speed and shooting in a dive as you zoom past. Planes come apart much easier when your using what appears to be kinetic energy. Try both scenarios against a tb-3 and you should get the same results.

(try them both with cannons, you can shoot a tb3 all day from any side with MG's)

Message Edited on 07/01/0312:32PM by Phist25

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:04 PM
another way to see that it is modeled is to use rockets against some of the larger tanks. Attack them in a shallow dive and your rockets are usless. Attack them in a dive and they die right off.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:26 PM
Phist25 wrote:
- another way to see that it is modeled is to use
- rockets against some of the larger tanks. Attack
- them in a shallow dive and your rockets are usless.
- Attack them in a dive and they die right off.
-
-

Kinetic energy is not the key in case of damage caused by rockets. Because rockets explode on impact, it doesn't matter how fast the projectile hits its target.

Tanks are much easier to destroy from straight above because of their weaker top armor.

-J

http://koti.mbnet.fi/jellis/IL2-FB/voiper109g2mv.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:38 PM
Davinci.. wrote:
- in real life it would. As the speed of the bullet
- relative to its target would be higher, and therefor
- hit with more energy. And since velocity component
- of kinetic energy is squared, this should cause a
- measureable(not insignificant) effect on its damage
- output.

Yes, but remember, that the air resistance will also play a big part. I have a BS in physics and the function of air resistance is not a linear formula, its quite complicated and it is affected by velocity, about half of energy will be lost. The important thing is distance because at x/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif , the wind effect is zero and it remains small for small values of x or distance.

http://frenchaces.free.fr/avions/regia/g50.jpg

Incocca!
Tende!
Scagua!

michapma
07-01-2003, 02:41 PM
I wonder if the effect of wind (when it's present) is actually programmed to change ballistics?

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center"><font color="#">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project</font> (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%"><font color="#">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</font></td><td align="center">

<font color="#">SKULLS_Chap

<a href="http://www.skulls98.netfirms.com/il2/index.html" target="_blank" style="color: #191970; font-size: medium">The
SKULLS</a></font></p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"><font color="#">Hardware issues:
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:44 PM
I don't think wind is, but you definately gotta get close

http://frenchaces.free.fr/avions/regia/g50.jpg

Incocca!
Tende!
Scagua!

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 02:57 PM
I thought about that. Then I guess they have the angles on the top armor modeled thicker. You have to be in a straight dive for the rockets to work. Hitting the top armor from even a small angle usually yields nothing.

I think it was the history channel and the color of war, but didnt they fix the weak top armor on later pz's? I recall that they had to bounce ammo off the ground in order to penetrate the weak spot

Message Edited on 07/01/0302:01PM by Phist25

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:23 PM
Only the difference in speed between the two planes factors into the equation.

<font face="Courier New">
â â â â â â â â &nbspBaldieJr
â â â â â â _____ | _____
â â â â â â â _\__(o)__/_
â â â â â â â â â â ./ \.
Whiners don't play vulchers
â â â â â â (er, winners)
</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:26 PM
M0NS wrote:
- thumb you can say that impact energy = velosity X
- weight.

1/2 m v^2

m = mass (not weight)
v = velocity

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:32 PM
mike_espo wrote:
- Yes, but remember, that the air resistance will also
- play a big part. I have a BS in physics and the
- function of air resistance is not a linear formula,

In general you the rate of loss of kinetic energy
will be greater when the velocity of the round is
higher (all other things being equal).

E.g. at 500 m/s you might lose 5 units of energy
in the first 100m

At 1000 m/s you might lose 25 units of energy.

You have more to lose, but you lose it more quickly.

It's similar to Newton's Law of Cooling - the rate
of cooling of hot bodies is greater, they just have
more energy to lose in the first place, so stay
hot for longer. (It is why just dropping your
themostat on your heating down a small notch can save
quite a bit of money, though).

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:01 PM
I've noticed that shooting at a bomber head on is MUCH MORE damage than from behind. I always chalked it up to ballistics and closing speed