PDA

View Full Version : Weapon effectiveness observations (again, for anyone interested)



Danschnell
07-02-2004, 03:24 PM
Hi.
So I can get my opinion in before the release of the next patch, here goes again.

Many planes are much more vulnerable to the .303 and 7.62 shkas than to the 20mm, because of fires. I personally disagree that the small calibre weapons were more effective than cannons, especially because cannon rounds carried so much more explosive, the .303 should really be proportianetly worse at causing fire, the same as for structural damage.

Not all planes catch fire too easily, and some really SHOULD catch fire easily, but the Ju87, Fw190 and B-17 are probably the most obvious planes that catch fire way too easily. If you want to down those structurally strong aircraft, use .303. Its the best weapon at the moment in IL2 against these planes, but it is a wrong DM, be sure.

My other observation is that pilot kills are too easy. Gunners tend to be immune to being killed in AI planes, whereas the human pilot is most easily killed, again, in the planes you'd least expect.

I flew online last night and was shot down from the first hit, four times in a row, by my pilot dying in a P-47! This surely can't be right. If you fly against bombers, be sure you can't kill the gunners, but you'll always kill the pilot nearly instantly.

Perhaps the DM is too simplified. In the same way that hits on any areas of the 190 cockpit connect to the gunsight breaking, it seems that on AI bombers all areas of the cockpit relate to the pilot dying, but nobody else, and on human controlled fighters they relate to the pilot dying.

FB damage models seem to ignore pilot armour levels in human controlled fighters, like in the P-47, and they seem to ignore amourglass thikness for other planes. For example the Hs129, which you'd think would never have pilot kills because it was most armoured cockpit of the Luftwaffe, in fact in FB you can kill the pilot just the same as for any other aircraft.

Danschnell
07-02-2004, 03:24 PM
Hi.
So I can get my opinion in before the release of the next patch, here goes again.

Many planes are much more vulnerable to the .303 and 7.62 shkas than to the 20mm, because of fires. I personally disagree that the small calibre weapons were more effective than cannons, especially because cannon rounds carried so much more explosive, the .303 should really be proportianetly worse at causing fire, the same as for structural damage.

Not all planes catch fire too easily, and some really SHOULD catch fire easily, but the Ju87, Fw190 and B-17 are probably the most obvious planes that catch fire way too easily. If you want to down those structurally strong aircraft, use .303. Its the best weapon at the moment in IL2 against these planes, but it is a wrong DM, be sure.

My other observation is that pilot kills are too easy. Gunners tend to be immune to being killed in AI planes, whereas the human pilot is most easily killed, again, in the planes you'd least expect.

I flew online last night and was shot down from the first hit, four times in a row, by my pilot dying in a P-47! This surely can't be right. If you fly against bombers, be sure you can't kill the gunners, but you'll always kill the pilot nearly instantly.

Perhaps the DM is too simplified. In the same way that hits on any areas of the 190 cockpit connect to the gunsight breaking, it seems that on AI bombers all areas of the cockpit relate to the pilot dying, but nobody else, and on human controlled fighters they relate to the pilot dying.

FB damage models seem to ignore pilot armour levels in human controlled fighters, like in the P-47, and they seem to ignore amourglass thikness for other planes. For example the Hs129, which you'd think would never have pilot kills because it was most armoured cockpit of the Luftwaffe, in fact in FB you can kill the pilot just the same as for any other aircraft.

WWMaxGunz
07-02-2004, 03:38 PM
Quite a few good points! AI DM's are simplified and I also hope they'll be looked at
*as a whole* before the last patch is out. That patch will define the game and a good
deal of 1C's reputation since FB (or will it be PF) is the end of the IL2 line.

One thing about MG's is the number of shots they tended to put out, especially when
they are massed. Lots of golden BB's just looking to hit weaker criticals by pure
chance.

Have to agree about armor glass being weak too. Many times I've lost a pilot due to
one 7mm shot that goes right through the FW front glass like it's plastic wrap. I am
sure it's only a matter of oversight, one detail in 1,000's.

Fires... was the B-17 really like that? Many planes had fuel tank empty space flooded
with exhaust fumes (Russian) or other non-oxidizing gasses like CO2. Most US planes
and many others had self-sealing fuel tanks. The B-17 doesn't seem to have either.

Hey Butch! What about that?

B-17 engines had fire extinguishers but the way the sim works, why bother?


Neal

Danschnell
07-03-2004, 02:00 AM
Yeah, but there doesn't seem to be a point to having an armoured fighter over a non-armoured fighter because the pilot will die anyway in FB.

I understand that lots of small calibre will have greater chance of hitting the weaker critical spots on a plane, but I still find it silly that on FB the .303 armourments can cause critical damage way faster than 20mm can. It makes the .303 more effective, which was definately not true in real life!

If an explosive 20mm hits a plane, surely the splinters and penetration will make each round much more likely to hit a weak critical point than a single .303 that doesn't make splinters or penetrate far? I think the .303s are too powerful, but the 20mms and 30mms are fine.

Brain32
07-03-2004, 05:40 AM
I don't think 20 & 30mm's DM is good, at least offline for example I was flying Bf109E7 against HurricaneMk2b...I hit him with 4 20mm's (I know I hit him, I was 12m behind him and exactly at his six) but that was not enough so I started to shoot at him from point blank range (about 3-4m) with my 7.9mm's after 2-3 seconds of constant fire, the pilot finaly left the plane. The only visual manifestation of damage was fuel tank leakage!!!
Of course he only needed two 1 second bursts with his 7.6mm's(.303) to make my life miserable!!!
I really don't believe this is realistic...

Danschnell
07-03-2004, 07:39 AM
I don't think that 2 or three seconds of constant fire with those 7.92s is enough to cause major damage in real life anyway. 7.92 was famous for only 'scratching paintwork'

As for the 20mm, I still think they are accurately modelled. You say you hit him on his exact 6. Thats the worst place to hit. At least it did cause damage. You know you hit him, but probably not many times? We'd all complain if planes went down with a couple of 20mm hits anyway.

As for the 30mm, 1 hit is usually enough to destroy a fighter on FB, as in real life. People complain that it sometimes takes more than one hit, but this is still realistic. It took an average of 1 hit in real life, but by the laws of averages this means it could still take more. (unfortunately the law of averages cannot take into account less than 1 hit!)

If a 30mm round scrapes by the tip of the tail or something or through one surface of a wingtip and out the other side its not going to down the plane, no matter how light the plane is. 1 DIRECT hit on the body of the fighter brings it down.

FB is very realistic with DM. It is only the .303s which are too powerful, and the pilot kills are too common.

Danschnell
07-03-2004, 07:51 AM
correction... it is only the .303 ability to CAUSE FIRES and pilot kills which is too powerful.

Of course some planes should catch fire easily but the B-17, Ju87, Fw190, Ju88 definately aren't in that list!

Magister__Ludi
07-03-2004, 07:58 AM
Fires & fumes were the number 1 cause for plane losses in ww2. Not only that fires are not exagerated, they are too rare, especially for some planes. .30 were perfectly capable to set a plane on fire, even though it should take at least double number of .50 hits to start a fire.

I do agree that planes that had tanks filled with inert gases should catch fire after more hits, but those systems were useless against cannon hits. Self sealing does not work against cannon hits and without a sealed tank the inert gas systems do not work either.

I would also like a good DM for bombers: to see that hits against fuel tanks, engines, turrets and crew are taken into account like they are in the case of fighters. Right now all bombers have a simplified DM and a very inconsistent one.

Danschnell
07-03-2004, 09:29 AM
That does mostly confirm my point.

the .303, which should be one of the least able to cause fire, causes fire all the time.
But the 20mm, which should cause loads of fires... doesn't.

I think that planes like the Bf110, BF109s, Yaks, Migs, P-39s should be easily set ablaze, esp. by 20mm, but lesser so by .303.

At the moment the wrong planes are setting alight with the wrong kinds of ammunition. Of course, .303 can set all planes alight, but the game balance is wrong.

As for AI bombers, I agree, AI turrets don't seem to take damage, whereas pilots in all planes seem easy to kill. (human turrets are damaged like youd expect, its ai turrets that don't die.) For human planes, the P-47 and 190 is easy to kill a pilot, but youd think those pilots would hardly ever die compared to open cockpit planes, or planes like He-162 which had no armourglass at all.

Nub_322Sqn
07-03-2004, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
That does mostly confirm my point.

the .303, which should be one of the least able to cause fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is that?
The 7.7mm MG's used incendairy ammo, I even read that during BoB they started to load their guns with the same ammo types for each gun, and it noted that when using 2 guns completely loaded with incendairy rounds it improved the kill rate against enemy planes a lot.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Danschnell
07-03-2004, 10:49 AM
Yes but...
20mm still carry way way more incendiary than a .303 incendiary... its all a question of game balance.

heywooood
07-03-2004, 10:58 AM
Fire is bad. If you can get an enemy plane to burn you should win the engagement. Incindiary bullets ,unlike incindiary threads, were harder to come by. They were also less likely to travel a good trajectory like the solid brass bullets do. I dont know as much about the eastern front pilots and armorers as I would like to yet, but US pilots in the ETO used something like a 1-5 ratio - every sixth round was incindiary...in the PTO a higher ratio was used because of the magnesium alloys and non self-sealing fuel tanks of the IJ planes. I think the reason a full load of 100% tracer rounds was not used is that they would cook the MG barrels pretty quickly,no?



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

WWMaxGunz
07-03-2004, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brain32:
I don't think 20 & 30mm's DM is good, at least offline for example I was flying Bf109E7 against HurricaneMk2b...I hit him with 4 20mm's (I know I hit him, I was 12m behind him and exactly at his six) but that was not enough so I started to shoot at him from point blank range (about 3-4m) with my 7.9mm's after 2-3 seconds of constant fire, the pilot finaly left the plane. The only visual manifestation of damage was fuel tank leakage!!!
Of course he only needed two 1 second bursts with his 7.6mm's(.303) to make my life miserable!!!
I really don't believe this is realistic...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How you know 12m? Or 3-4m? The icon ranges only go down to 10's of meters. The unit presented
is kilometers, which is 1000m. You see .12 then you are seeing 120m. .04 is 40m. Both are
very close with 40m being just short of a crash should one plane change speed the right or wrong
way, depending on your view. That close with convergence not set that close and many of
your shots would go underneath the target. There is also that from dead six most every
surface you hit is angled very strongly against you, you will get lots of ricochets.
Another thing from dead six is that is where the armor inside the plane is best set to
cover against and them LMG shots don't do well against that. So try some deflection if
you want to get results instead of something to cry over. I'm sure when you get hit and
downed so easy it is not from dead six but off to some decent degree.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
07-03-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
Yes but...
20mm still carry way way more incendiary than a .303 incendiary... its all a question of game balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Per hit. Incendiary round hit. Take your 20mm gun x ROF x guns. Now do the LMG's.
Depending on the planes compared entirely, that way more may or may not be true when
considering hits over time. Still more, but 2 x 20mm with 2 in 5 HEI vs 8 or 12 x .303
with 1 in 2 incendiary (or all API) and it's not so clear which plane should make the
better results at ranges 150m and less, is it? Even a little fire in the right place
will do as well as a lot. Big plus of 20mm is defeating the fuel tank protection and
that may take more than one hit. Enough small holes in the same small area and I bet
those tanks lose ability to seal also. MMG's will chop trees down surprisingly quick
on ground and that is with just one gun.


Neal

Trigger_88
07-03-2004, 12:07 PM
have any of u watched real gun cam of bob with vidios of spits hitting 109s with the 303s? how bout German 20mm hitting spits and hurricanes? have you seen gun cam of mustangs hitting 109s and 190s? the gun cam ive seen on tv says the 303s shred and do the same or slightly more than german 20mm but ive never seen 303s blow off wings and start fires same for german 20mm but ive seen many 50s blow wings off.

Nub_322Sqn
07-03-2004, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
Yes but...
20mm still carry way way more incendiary than a .303 incendiary... its all a question of game balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The rate of fire of the Browning .303 MG is way higher then a 20mm cannon, not to mention the Hurricanes have 8 and the IIb even 12 MG's.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Danschnell
07-04-2004, 05:18 AM
I found the ROF irrelevant when setting things alight with the .303.
1 round sets the Ju87 alight a lot of the time!

Brain32
07-04-2004, 05:18 AM
OK a really serios question, when icon shows 0.12 that means 120m? I really didn't know that and I would still like some confirmation about that. If this is true I usually down (KILL!!!) planes from 400-300m distance(icon says 0.40-0.30)!!!

WWMaxGunz
07-04-2004, 05:57 AM
Icon ranges are shown in kilometers.
Kilometer is 1000m. Kilo means 1000.
.1 kilometer is 1/10th kilometer is 100 meters.

You are a better shot than you thought you were.


Neal

Nub_322Sqn
07-04-2004, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
I found the ROF irrelevant when setting things alight with the .303.
1 round sets the Ju87 alight a lot of the time!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what you claim is that when you fire with 8 or 12 .303 guns only one round actually hits the Ju87 and all the others miss?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Magister__Ludi
07-04-2004, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
I found the ROF irrelevant when setting things alight with the .303.
1 round sets the Ju87 alight a lot of the time!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what you claim is that when you fire with 8 or 12 .303 guns only one round actually hits the Ju87 and all the others miss?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No. He looks at replay in slow motion and counts how many bullets hit the engine before igniting it. This is standard weapon effectiveness testing procedure, I suppose you never did it before.

Danschnell, if you want to better support your conclusions, it is much better to post tracks.

Nub_322Sqn
07-04-2004, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
I suppose you never did it before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You supposed wrong as usual.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Magister__Ludi
07-04-2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nub_322Sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
I suppose you never did it before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You supposed wrong as usual.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Then your reply was out of line.

Nub_322Sqn
07-04-2004, 12:31 PM
LOL, yeah sure Huck, whatever. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Besides, your reply made no sense what so ever since the Stuka's are more likely to catch fire at the wing root where the fuel tanks are then in the engine.

Since you claim to know so much about weapon testing you should have known that.

The one .303 bullet setting a plane on fire is complete bull.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Enofinu
07-04-2004, 07:06 PM
funny that u can make fuel leaks in every fighter/bomber there is, but how many times u were able to ignite that leakin fuel which leaked inside plane structures?? sure there was incendiary ammo and at least i know that it was able to ignite leaked fuel on fire.and of course was able to ignite fuel tanks too. funny how rarely we now can put up fire, i at least want that every plane should be some 4 times easier to light up when hit on certain places (engine, fueltanks, oil systems etc.)

WWMaxGunz
07-04-2004, 09:21 PM
You mean like B-17's now?

Jetbuff
07-05-2004, 12:26 AM
I agree with Danschnell's observations. There is a slight slant (relating to incindiary behaviour only though) in favour of LMGs. This is further complicated by some rather historically rugged planes catching fire too easily. (P47, B17, 190 to name a few)

It's not a show-stopping issue just an interesting one. Setting heavy bombers alight (Ju-88's and B17's alike suffer from this) from just a few MG rounds to the engines is amusing.

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

Fehler
07-05-2004, 04:25 AM
Hey here is a test I conducted online in the 190. Regardless of who was shooting what at me Spit, P-47, P-51, P-38, P-40, P-63:

My last 50 times of being hit by an enemy's fire v 2.01.

Results:
46 times the first hit(s) caused a fuel leak!
That's 92% of the time, the initial volley of round WILL cause a fuel leak in the plane! Although 92% of the plane is NOT a fuel cell. And believe me, the last 50 guys that shot at me were not 92% effective in their accuracy to target the fuell cell first. BUG!

4 times, no leak.

Of the 46 fuel leaks, 33 times the fuel gauge became inoperative at the same time. Why does the silly fuel gauge break when you get a fuel leak? I mean, if the guage didnt work properly because the float or something got ripped out, OK that's believable. But the gauge's needle just falls out of the gauge.


No, I didnt record tracks of the engagements, sorry, you will have to take my word for it. I simply made a tally sheet beside my computer because I felt like the FW190 was a little on the "Leaky" side.

Lag was not an issue as these hits were recorded on Warclouds over the last few weeks at various times of the day. (Typically the Europeans that join in the afternoon have worse ping than the US/Canadians that fly in the evening) So this happens when pings are good and when they are bad.

I also noticed that a large number of the hits I received were not located in an area the plane had fuel tanks. ie. wing tips, rudder, etc.

My conclusion? Something is still off on the 190's DM. This is, of course the A-4 through the D-9. The Ta-152 still has the gunsight problem. Perhpas the game is seeing an oversized hot box or something, OR that hitbox is too vulnerable. But no one here is dumb enough to believe that 92% of ALL first hits SHOULD cause a fuel leak. It really has to be a bug.


It usually takes a larger round (Cannon) to rip a FW wing off, or a concentrated volley of fire from HMG. That seems correct. But small caliber rounds are more than enough to make it leak fuel, or make a wing (Usually the right side one) feel like you have Bertha Big-Butt riding on your aileron. The wing heaviness may be correct, and probably is.

I for one am glad the FW finally got a complex DM. It makes flying the bird fun, and you can now tell when you need to try and escape or you can stay in a fight. But some things, like the leaky fuel tank on the first hit(s) are just a little more than annoying.

Oh, one more thing to think about concerning the MG's and HMG's. I have seen guys mash the trigger on line for as long as 12-15 seconds while wiggling their nose up and down to try and hit a zooming plane. They usually hit, causing some damage (In the 190 they make them leak fuel) The question here is, how long could you really hold the trigger on a HMG in real life? Those HMG barrels got pretty hot. Even with todays steel and/or chrome plated steel barrels, warping is a concern when talking about sustained rates of fire. I know this is not modelled into FB, but it would be very cool if it were modelled into BoB.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

Nub_322Sqn
07-05-2004, 05:29 AM
So basicly it's a DM issue on some planes instead of a weapons effect issue.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

Fehler
07-05-2004, 05:57 AM
Actually I think it is a mixture of both. For example, I personally get better results using the MG's on the FW against the P-63 than the cannon. The P-38 will go down if you hit it with the 20mm of the D-9, but you have to hit it a lot and in the right spots. I sure see the P-51 prop seize up a lot and at times, when I dont think I quite hit the engine cowling. The Spitfarter breaks in half better than any other plane in the game. The 50 cals (In this current version) shoot like a shotgun, but hit like a truck. Even a few hits can render a plane non-effective in combat.

THings are kind of screwy. A lot different than pre-AEP. And the long delay in waiting for a patch seems (To me) to infer that Oleg is working on fixing a lot of issues.

I am hoping for a little more consistancy in the various aricraft DM's and a little more consistancy in the weaponry. It's not too far off now, if you ask me, but there are a couple of small annoyances.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

stef51
07-05-2004, 11:02 AM
Does anyone knows if the game takes into account how much fuel there is in the tank when you get hit? I read a while ago about car crashes and a fireman talking about how nervous he was with an almost empty fuel tank compared to a full one because there is a bigger probability of explosion inside the tank. So technically you have a better chance to damage an aircraft with less fuel in the tank. Since a lot of people use 25% on Hyperlobby, this should bring lots of explosions in the combat area.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stef

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/avatar.jpg

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

Hoarmurath
07-05-2004, 11:06 AM
Combat planes tanks usually don't explode because they are near empty... They are filled with inert gas in replacement for used fuel to avoid such occurences.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Covino
07-05-2004, 12:52 PM
Fehler, I hope you understand that in MP, you never actually see exactly where your enemies bullets land.

A bullet that seemed to not hit you or hit your rudder or somthing could have indeed registered as a hit on a fuel tank for the server no matter what the lag.

I could go on to explain the netcode of most flight sims but I'm too lazy, just take my word for it.

Haven't you ever been chased by an MK108 sprayer and you never saw a shell touch you but then your wing pops off after the attacker has flown away?

Although the 190 might very well have DM problems, gun tests are meaningless unless conducted offline (and I'm sure the results would be much more reasonable).

Covino
07-05-2004, 12:58 PM
And another thing...

If your opponent spreads 5 shots on you within a second. Your PC might download all these shots at once and then apply the damage to your plane at once.

This may make 5 shots (only one of them hitting your fuel tank) seems like one shot.

WWMaxGunz
07-05-2004, 01:27 PM
If you're being fired on by US planes, chances are very high you're getting hit all-@#$%-over.
But without arcade mode, you only see the tracers. EvilBen, yeah 5 hits in the time it takes
a ping is not out of line given enough guns and 10-12 per second fired from close enough to
get a majority making hits.


Neal

VW-IceFire
07-05-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oh, one more thing to think about concerning the MG's and HMG's. I have seen guys mash the trigger on line for as long as 12-15 seconds while wiggling their nose up and down to try and hit a zooming plane. They usually hit, causing some damage (In the 190 they make them leak fuel) The question here is, how long could you really hold the trigger on a HMG in real life? Those HMG barrels got pretty hot. Even with todays steel and/or chrome plated steel barrels, warping is a concern when talking about sustained rates of fire. I know this is not modelled into FB, but it would be very cool if it were modelled into BoB.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've read that constant firing would melt the barrels out and that they should be fired in bursts. I tend to fire in bursts myself because I'm constantly checking aim...so no longer than 3 second bursts followed by checking target and then firing again. Its tactically sound but it apparently would keep the barrel in good order too. I can't wait till they model the barrels melting...people will stop their spray tactics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Fehler
07-06-2004, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If you're being fired on by US planes, chances are very high you're getting hit all-@#$%-over.
But without arcade mode, you only see the tracers. EvilBen, yeah 5 hits in the time it takes
a ping is not out of line given enough guns and 10-12 per second fired from close enough to
get a majority making hits.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you and EvilBen are missing my point. I am not saying that hitting the fuel tank would not cause a leak. I am saying that hits nearly ALWAYS hit the fuel tank, or trigger fuel tank damage.

This happens in the same way hits would trigger loss of gunsight in all 190's in v2.00.

It seems that there is a triggering system on some if not all of these planes. Hits on the P-63 for example, cause the engine to smoke. More hits cause it to burn.

The fuel tank on a 190 was not in the wing. The fuel tank was self-sealing. Yes, I imagine a rip in the fuel cell would not seal properly and would cause a fuel leak, I am not saying that it shouldnt. What I AM saying is that 92% of the time (As I documented) hits cause fuel leaks. If you visualize the size of the tank compared to the rest of the plane, even the law of averages would suggest that this cannot be correct.

Lag is credited with a large portion of anomalies in the game, and I agree. But it is hardly scientific or even logical that people who usually hit less than 10% of the time will hit with those 10% bullets at a rate of 92% frequency, a single specific area of the plane they are attacking. And if you believe that CAN be accomplished, remember that they do this (Again according to my documented experiences) 100% of the time with their first hits.

No, that does not even appear to be remotely logical. Thus another hypothesis must be formed. Given that we just recently had a DM problem with the gunsight, one could easily deduce that this is only caused by a strange bug in the damage model for this plane.

Again, the FW190 is not the only plane that I see odd reactions to damage. The P-63 (Paper engine, titanium body) is another example.

The reason I am so interested in the 190 is simple. I fly it everyday, and exclusively, unless I am forced to fly something different. To illustrate this, I have only flown the 109 for possibly 4 sorties since two patches prior to AEP! Yet I fly LW nearly all the time. The main reason for this is I have been forced to set my joystick controls to accomodate the 190's slippery stall-ness. So with all the "Seat time" hours in a 190, a guy like me can definately get a feel for her from patch to patch, dont you think? At least more so than the casual 190 flyer.

Another illustration is this: Currently, this is how I decide which 190 I am going to fly. I hit "S" in a dogfight and see what the other guy is flying. If he is flying P-63's I take the D-9 because smaller caliber rounds are better on them. If he is flying the P-38 I fly the A-9 with wing cannon because the P-38 will eat up all my 20mm ammo in the D-9 or A-5/6, but doesnt react well to 30mm gunfire. If he is in the P-51 I can choose between the D-9 or A-9, but I always try and pull a lead shot for engine kills. If he is in a Spit, I tend to fly the A-5/6, although they come apart nicely with 30mm, but as a whole I really hate to use the bigger guns. Now, why do I even bother to write this? Because I, like so many others have learned to "Game the game." The above is what gives the best results. Through good and bad pings (I nearly always ping under 25 on the servers I fly) the results are consistant.

Just like my test results. Consistantly, I am getting fuel leaks on the FIRST attack pass at a rate of 92% of the time. Taking into consideration lag, good and bad pingers are causing leaks 92% of the time. Yet, checking gun efficiency of most flyers online (10% at best) it appears that people are not snipers. So how do they do it 92% of the time on the first pass?

I know this post seems a bit redundant.. much like the fuel leaks in the FW-190. I see that over and over and over again too.

I am a pretty logical person, and I can only deduce that there is something slightly off with the DM on the 190's. It is almost as though the gunsight anomaly has been replaced with the fuel leak anomaly. Is this likely? In as much code as this game has, I imagine that it is highly likely. Not intentional, but nevertheless just as irritating.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

WWMaxGunz
07-06-2004, 07:19 AM
It is most likely errors in the DM. DM has a whole lot of locations and most likely each
has a link or code in the rest of its' data that says what to run when hit. But it just
would look like numbers if you didn't have some visualizing tool which the chances of that
are slim. So maybe the wrong code has been put in for so many spots or new codes were
added into the lists and all the spots were not changed to suit, or a tool to do the
changes automatic (when there's a whole lot, it's worth doing, also worth 2x checking)
wasn't right or got used on the wrong data or twice over.... the devil is in the details,
it is said, and always when a model gets wild with details (like code with features) it
becomes a major task getting them right and keeping them right throughout changes.

Of course, the work is always 'done' during a rush.

They have some neat tools but still, we get the gunsights and fuel tanks, etc.
Probably would have been nice if FB could have taken an extra year or two in making.


Neal

Danschnell
07-07-2004, 11:34 PM
First, just for the record, I make my claims on observations from offline arcade mode, so I know for certain that it was only one .303 round that set the Ju87 alight.

LMGs really are that powerful against the planes I mention, wheras the 20mm is much less effective.

I agree with whats said above about the 92% fuel tank leaks on the 190 on the first pass.

It made me realise that different aircraft suffer from a certain kind of damage that will always happen when hit anywhere by a bullet. For a lot this means engine fire. For others, like that P-47, pilot death. Yet others, like Ta-152 it means gunsight loss.

It makes damage models totally irrelevent really. This is the one thing in the game that is in danger of really spoiling the fun, because DMs don't matter, only the plane type dictates what serious damage the plane will always take... although the type of ammo you hit the plane with dictates how serious that one type of damage gets.

Nub_322Sqn
07-08-2004, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
First, just for the record, I make my claims on observations from offline arcade mode, so I know for certain that it was only one .303 round that set the Ju87 alight.

LMGs really are that powerful against the planes I mention, wheras the 20mm is much less effective.

I agree with whats said above about the 92% fuel tank leaks on the 190 on the first pass.

It made me realise that different aircraft suffer from a certain kind of damage that will always happen when hit anywhere by a bullet. For a lot this means engine fire. For others, like that P-47, pilot death. Yet others, like Ta-152 it means gunsight loss.

It makes damage models totally irrelevent really. This is the one thing in the game that is in danger of really spoiling the fun, because DMs don't matter, only the plane type dictates what serious damage the plane will always take... although the type of ammo you hit the plane with dictates how serious that one type of damage gets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tested again with the leaked 2.02 patch and the result for me was pretty much the same against the Ju87 and the .303 MG's.
It took several hits for the fuel tank to catch fire but on the other hand I was unable to make just one hit, even when I flew with the Spitfire who only has 4 .303 MG's.
The 20mm cannon set the fuel tank on fire much faster then the .303 MG's with far less hits.

I also used arcade mode both in the 2.01 and 2.02 patch.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
07-08-2004, 02:24 AM
I fly the FW190A and F series almost exlusively and I can confirm Fehler's observations.

Fuel tank-leak is almost always the first damage I suffer. Next in the line is PK and Cannon-destroyed.
All types of damage will result in a certain amount of wingdrop. ( to the side of BIg-Butt.... you name it..)

It's hard to resist the urge to bi*** about the inconsistencies when I sometimes try a different plane....

Speculations wont get us anywhere anyway and I think Fehler's approach to document it would be the best solution, although the godfather's crew would like to have tracks. reminds me of the bf110 reargunner problem, where they couldn't reproduce it but it was fixed in the patch... *g*

S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

Danschnell
07-08-2004, 05:50 AM
Fuel tank leaks are no big deal though. You can ignore them during a dogfight.
The serious issues are the pilot kills and engine fires which are inevitable the first damage to occur on some planes. These damages end the fight completely, and prematurely.

JG53Frankyboy
07-08-2004, 05:55 AM
a FueltankLeak in a Fw190 is unfortunatly very serious in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
you a unbelivable fast very "dry" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KG26_Alpha
07-08-2004, 09:13 AM
FW 190 fuel leak is serious especially if your online campaign mission is an hour long plus at times, not all of us are DF pilots that use these planes, and the comment on 7.9mm being "paint scratchers" just ask the RAF pilots hit and shot down by A4/A5 in Hurris and Spits about them.

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

Blutarski2004
07-08-2004, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
Fuel tank leaks are no big deal though. You can ignore them during a dogfight.
The serious issues are the pilot kills and engine fires which are inevitable the first damage to occur on some planes. These damages end the fight completely, and prematurely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If a PK or engine KO or fire is theresult of legitimatly good shooting, then I have no complaint about getting shot down by a single good burst. But if such damage is specially scripted for certain a/c then I would indeed have a problem with that.

BLUTARSKI

Danschnell
07-08-2004, 02:08 PM
You can bet your life its scripted for the Ju87!!!!

Just try shooting 10 down wiht a hurricane IIb

Its easy as pie. Fire fire fire and burn

Danschnell
07-08-2004, 02:34 PM
OK I went and tested.
I got on my high horse, then found that the Hurricane can only shoot down 5 or 6 Stukas, not 10.
I also tested to see how other planes with lots of machineguns would do. I thought the P-47 with its 8 .50s would have the same effect, but I only managed to kill 3 Stukas, and that was with extra ammo.

So its definately something about those .303s thats too incendiary, or at least about the way the DM of some aircraft react to LMGs when it comes to fires.

Nub_322Sqn
07-08-2004, 04:13 PM
Did a test with only 8 Stuka's.

P47D27 with extra ammo: Shot down all 8 Stuka's with 13 seconds of .50 ammo left.

Hurricane IIb: Shot down all 8 Stuka's with no ammo left.

If you ask me it's the AI that is the problem, if you park yourself behind and a bit below the Stuka they apply rudder to swing the tail to one side and this gives you a clear shot to the vulnerable fuel tank in the wing root.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

faustnik
07-08-2004, 04:19 PM
Or maybe the Stukas wing tank is not modeled properly like the B-17.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Nub_322Sqn
07-08-2004, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Or maybe the Stukas wing tank is not modeled properly like the B-17.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a lot more planes that catch fire right away after a few fuel tank hits.

So far none of the Stuka's caught fire when the first round hit, several hits where needed to set the Stuka's on fire from both the .50 and the .303 MG's.

I don't know how many rounds the Hurricane has per gun or the P47 with extra ammo but having 13 seconds of ammo left after shooting down 8 Stuka's is a lot compared to Danschnell who spend all his ammo to shoot down 3 Stuka's.

As for the fuel tanks, some planes are very hard to set them on fire but on plenty of them it's fairly easy once you figured out where they are located.

Then there are the flaming torch engines on another set of planes that make it too easy to shoot them down as well, like the Spitfires.
All you need is one 20mm round in the engine and down it goes.
Sometimes I even get hit with only one or two rear MG gunner round and oil splattered all over the wind shield and my engine on fire.

Since I fly the Spitfires a lot I am rather careful when it comes to shooting down bombers and I survive most of my missions now. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

WTE_Galway
07-08-2004, 09:49 PM
good practice technique for fragile planes:

- take up an Emil (slow and heaps of mg ammo)in QMB against the bomber of your choice (I use a he111 target)
- do NOT use the cannons only the 7.62mm mg's
- do not worry about downing the bomber if you do down it all the more kudos to you, just see if you can empty the Emil mg's with hits on the bandit and survive with an intact plane

I am not a particualrly good pilot but with an "average" he111 AI I can now survive 3 out of 4 times with an intact plane and winchester ammo and I usually bring the target down as well .. i am not crash hot yet against veteran or ace but am working on it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Danschnell
07-10-2004, 10:25 AM
I hope that flaming torch comment wasn't a complaint.
Very light aircraft like the Spitfire should have a flaming torch FM. A 20mm hole through an engine is extremely serious, and should be. When you're fighting bombers they hit you from the front, the most vulnerable part of a plane. They hit your engine as a matter of course.
Like the last poster said, good tactics can make it so you survive anyway. Bombers can't avoid fire as easily, and as such they shouldn't be as easy to set alight.

Danschnell
07-10-2004, 10:42 AM
Oh. and I just re-tried shooting down 8 Ju-87s in the P-47, Extra ammunition again.
I tried twice and I still can't get more than 3 Stukas compared to the Hurricane's 8. The .50s cause adequate structural damage but I can't start the magical fires easily enough. They happen, but not as easily as with .303s.
The other big problem is the P-47 isn't any less vulnerable than light fighters at sustaining frontal damage. The engine gets taken out and oil splatters the windscreen so easily its suicide in a P-47 to attack bombers. On this game the P-47 is no more armoured from the front than anything else.

Danschnell
07-10-2004, 11:11 AM
And while I'm on the topic again... (hmm my 3rd post in a row,) why do C-47s... famously the most vulnerable planes of WW2 with no armour or self sealing fuel tanks... take more ammo to down than Stukas, and why do their fuel tanks NOT catch fire anywhere nearly as easily as nearly all of the combat bombers'?
Ubi does get things turned on its head sometimes.

Nub_322Sqn
07-10-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
I hope that flaming torch comment wasn't a complaint.
Very light aircraft like the Spitfire should have a flaming torch FM. A 20mm hole through an engine is extremely serious, and should be. When you're fighting bombers they hit you from the front, the most vulnerable part of a plane. They hit your engine as a matter of course.
Like the last poster said, good tactics can make it so you survive anyway. Bombers can't avoid fire as easily, and as such they shouldn't be as easy to set alight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it wasn't a complaint.
I don't complain that much about the FM/DM.
However since you agree that an engine should burst into flames after receiving one 20mm hit in the engine then I wonder why you haven't said anything about the planes that can sustain several 20mm rounds in the engine and just keep on flying Danschnell?

All you did so far was complain about the .303 MG's.
I found it a lot easier to shoot down the Stuka's with the P47 then with the Hurricane, I even had .50 ammo left.
Also I flew with the Hurricane IIb with the 12 .303 MG's instead of the regular one with 8 .303 MG's.
And with a fighter armed with 20mm cannons I find it easier then with a P47.

I don't think the problem lies with the .303 rounds but with the damage models of a few planes since the .303 rounds don't do the so called "magical" damage to all planes, just a select few.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

609IAP_Recon
07-10-2004, 12:00 PM
Just to make sure there is balance in this conversation:

One minor hit to p40 takes out engine easily. This just isn't the Axis aircraft.

Getting someone smoking is VERY common in this game - not just Axis aircraft.

I sometimes wonder if that is how 1C likes to show you that someone is damaged, by showing smoke.

The question that begs to be answered that has not been brought up is 'How does performance decrease occur after being hit'

&gt; I suspect to be damaged when hit - so all those whining about that strike me as being way off target - you get hit = you get hurt

&gt; Now, to start real argument: If Yak1B gets hit and is smoking and 109F4 gets hit and is smoking, what is performance difference? Well, if we are talking human only (AI don't seem to fly any different when hurt for Yak1B I noticed) - typically you will have a speed decrease, if hit in wing, your wing will tip, etc...

As far as gunner AI accuracy and damage, they are very accurate. I don't think gunners could be that accurate unless you park on their six and fly level. But when doing slash attacks, they have radar accuracy.

As far as PK's - I can only go by books, I can't show charts - but I know Robert Johnson and Bud Anderson mention unleasing their .50's on a 190 - then they say 190 doesn't respond and goes down hard - many pilots were killed by PK in real life.

Also, if you look to real life - they flew twice as many sorties with half the encounters than we do. We have encounters 90% of the time - therefore your odds of PK are substantially higher.

Also - in real life, they hardly flew how we do. They took bnz serious - but, I see pilots in this game tnb in 109 then come whine how it's easily shot down. If I fly tnb carelessly in this game - I would expect to die often.

Stuka catching fire: before we rant about this -I have seen film footage of hurri's hitting stuka's and their wings falling off, catching fire, etc... Same with B17's.

It was mentioned in one post on this thread that p39 would catch fire often? I'd like to know where that information comes from?

Lastly, 190 firepower is absolutely highly destructive fellows. I don't care if you see visible damage or not - go offline and let a 190 rip you up in 1-3 seconds: you'll see how devastating it really is - same with 109G2 and 20mm, go let them fire at you within range. They certainly aren't weak http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Salute!

7thFS_Recon, CO
http://www.forgottenskies.com/ScreaminDemons.gif
Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)