PDA

View Full Version : Damage Model.



IIZG1Wespen
08-05-2009, 05:22 AM
S!

First of all I'd like to congratulate all the Madox team for the great work on IL series.

Now my doubt and let's see if anyone here can help me out.

I'm quiet interessted and fond of Damage Modelism and I would like to know how it has been done in Ilyushin Series because sometimes I don't agree with the way it goes.

How many 20mm shells are necessary to blow-off an Me-109 wing? Which calliber? which distance?

What is it based in? real episodes? a book with this relationship? the programers decided to it be in that way? What is the source.

How is it created guys? can you help me?

Best regards,

Phelipe

IIZG1Wespen
08-05-2009, 05:22 AM
S!

First of all I'd like to congratulate all the Madox team for the great work on IL series.

Now my doubt and let's see if anyone here can help me out.

I'm quiet interessted and fond of Damage Modelism and I would like to know how it has been done in Ilyushin Series because sometimes I don't agree with the way it goes.

How many 20mm shells are necessary to blow-off an Me-109 wing? Which calliber? which distance?

What is it based in? real episodes? a book with this relationship? the programers decided to it be in that way? What is the source.

How is it created guys? can you help me?

Best regards,

Phelipe

DKoor
08-05-2009, 05:48 AM
It works pretty fair if you ask me.
All things considered.

I was amazed short time ago when I realized just how weak IL-2 series wings are. Try to shoot at them with 20mm. Takes few rounds to remove wingtip and effectively shot down aircraft.
From now on I always aim at outer wing (ailerons preferably) on supposedly "tough" aircraft. They are all very vulnerable to area.

Friendly_flyer
08-05-2009, 06:04 AM
There is no simple numerical answer to your question. Damage in IL-2 is not cumulative "chip-away" style like in many older sims and games. How many hits you need depend on where you hit and from what angle. A single well place 20mm grenade will indeed tear of a wing if it hit the right component (an ammo-box for instance). Other times, you may expend your whole load of grenades and hit nothing important. The enemy plane will probably not be able to make it back, but may come out of the hailstorm intact enough to make a forced landing.

What damage any ammunition does to aeroplanes is calculated based on speed and weight of each single projectiles as well as any explosive damage. Secondary damage from shrapnel and incendiary property of ammunition is also calculated. The internal structures of the planes are modelled, so that you may hit a main spar, petrol tank, ammo, weapon, engine, pilot, control cables or nothing important at all. The relative placement and toughness of these elements will vary from plane to plane. An IL-2, P-47 or FW 190 will usually require quite a few hits as they are rather tough, a Zero or a Hurricane will be crippled by a few hits and burn easily. Depending on what plane your are shooting at you can empty your 20mm-load into an enemy from dead astern and do nothing more than chew up the rudder and fray the trailing wing edges, while a single MG-round with tracer hitting the petrol tank may make the whole plane blow up.

MD_Titus
08-05-2009, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IIZG1Wespen:
S!

First of all I'd like to congratulate all the Madox team for the great work on IL series.

Now my doubt and let's see if anyone here can help me out.

I'm quiet interessted and fond of Damage Modelism and I would like to know how it has been done in Ilyushin Series because sometimes I don't agree with the way it goes.

How many 20mm shells are necessary to blow-off an Me-109 wing? Which calliber? which distance?

What is it based in? real episodes? a book with this relationship? the programers decided to it be in that way? What is the source.

How is it created guys? can you help me?

Best regards,

Phelipe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
sometimes the plane takes a lot of damage and keeps on ticking, sometimes you lose all controls to a couple of 7.7mm rounds. random chance.
pretty much as it was, considering the tales of planes coming back with 200 holes of varying sizes, and others taking far less and not doing.

M_Gunz
08-05-2009, 07:41 AM
How it works? There is a detailed 3-D model of the plane with many parts inside as we have been shown.
Each shot has speed that is affected by air drag, each has mass and chemical energy. Each strike has relative speed
of the projectile and the plane as well as striking angle. When a 3-D part is hit, it has a strength and that is
reduced until zero when it is broken. If the projectile still has destructive power it moves straight to the next
part if one is along the path. You can see the hit paths by setting arcade=1 in conf.ini. Explosive shells have
shrapnel that each piece becomes a projectile, also shown in arcade mode. Incendiary have not, it is possible to
tell in arcade by the burst without shrapnel arrows.

All this runs on a PC. It is not perfect but what Oleg used to write here.. "find me another better!".
What it would take to run that that would satisfy all but the biggest whiners won't fit on any desk top.

As of Forgotten Battles we were being shown engines with 12 to 20 parts, the engines alone, you should see the rest.

20mm is not as big around as the ball of an average mans' thumb. It is not a hit-anywhere aircraft killer even though
many places it will do just that.

Just play the game until better comes out, **maybe** next year September if I read the last announcement correctly.

SILVERFISH1992
08-05-2009, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IIZG1Wespen:
S!

First of all I'd like to congratulate all the Madox team for the great work on IL series.

Now my doubt and let's see if anyone here can help me out.

I'm quiet interessted and fond of Damage Modelism and I would like to know how it has been done in Ilyushin Series because sometimes I don't agree with the way it goes.

How many 20mm shells are necessary to blow-off an Me-109 wing? Which calliber? which distance?

What is it based in? real episodes? a book with this relationship? the programers decided to it be in that way? What is the source.

How is it created guys? can you help me?

Best regards,

Phelipe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welcome!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You seem to be a real nice person.

I hope you post in the forums every day and not just a couple posts in a month.

Friendly_flyer
08-05-2009, 09:49 AM
To give you an idea of what goes into a damage model, here's the internal structure of the IK-3 project. It is a mod (and not a a part of Il-2: 1946 as such), but gives a fair idea of the general idea:

http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp72/Zimbower83/pic3-1.jpg

Flight_boy1990
08-05-2009, 10:03 AM
What's the polygon count on the LOD 0 of the IK-3 above?

Also the Damage Model/Internals is too much detailed.Such a big detail on the invisible parts is useless.

BillSwagger
08-05-2009, 11:17 AM
I've asked this question before, and i got a wide variety of replies.
The one that made the most sense was that the game uses a random number generator when it calculates damage. So in a way, its like rolling a set of dice to calculate how much damage is inflicted.
There are several damage boxes that will use different levels of damage based on the caliber used and the randomness applied. Its also been told to me that the program can calculate a hit even when the bullet is missing, the same way a miss can be calculated when a bullet is actually hitting.

So it is possible to score a hit, a pilot kill for example, by just getting near the damage box.

It's frustrating having to shoot with 50 cals, but i've even raked planes wing tip to wing tip, with 20mm, only to have them continue flying.
There is a huge inconsistency as well. When i fire into a B-25 and take its wing off, and a similar burst doesn't even phase a Spitfire, then i ......syntax error.....

this might be a lost cause.

megalopsuche
08-05-2009, 11:53 AM
The Mk 108 is nerfed. It's been that way in every WWII sim I've ever tried.

KG26_Alpha
08-05-2009, 12:24 PM
Remember never use the word "balanced" regarding IL2 series.

A few patches ago the MG151/20mm had its fire power reduced, then put back to an acceptable level, but of course this wasn't to "balance" anything in the sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ammunition power is still bias to the allied aircraft with alot of the axis weapons underpowered.

Oleg_Maddox
Rank: Creator of IL-2 Sturmovik:FB
Date: 08/14/02 12:56PM


T - Tracer bullet
AP - Armor-Piercing bullet
APT - Armor-Piercing with Tracer
API - Armor-Piercing Incendary
APIT - Armor-Piercing Incendary Tracer
HE - High-Explosive shell
HEI - High-Explosive Incendary shell
HET - High-Explosive with Tracer
HEIT - High-Explosive Incendary Tracer
MG - M-Geschoss, thin-shell High Explosive )

Following order assigning combination of bullets/shells:
For example:
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API
Power – (both bullets/shells & splinters) – in modelled explosive equivalent.


Table
==========================

------ ShKAS 7.62 Machinegun (Russia)
// APIT - API - T - API

APIT
bullet weight = 0.0096
velocity = 869.0 <span class="ev_code_RED">true = 750</span>
power= 0.0005

API
bullet weight = 0.0096
velocity= 871.0 <span class="ev_code_RED">true = 750</span>
power= 0.0005

T
bullet weight = 0.0096
velocity= 869.0 <span class="ev_code_RED">true = 770</span>
power = 0

------ Browning .303 (USA)
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

API/APIT
bullet weight = 0.010668491403778
velocity = 835.0 750 m/s
power= 0.0018

AP
bullet weight= 0.010668491403778
velocity= 835.0 750 m/s
power= 0

------ Browning .50 (USA)
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
bullet weight= 0.0485 43,3
velocity= 870.0 <span class="ev_code_RED">true 750-850 m/s</span>
power = 0.002

AP
bullet weight= 0.0485
velocity= 870.0 <span class="ev_code_RED">true 750-850 m/s</span>
power = 0

HE
bullet weight= 0.0485
velocity= 870.0 <span class="ev_code_RED">true 750-850 m/s</span>
power = 0.00148

------ MG 17 7.92 machinegun (Germany)
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
bullet weight = 0.010
velocity = 810.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 905m/s</span>
power = 0

------ MG 81 7.92 Machinegun (Germany)
// AP - APT

AP/APT
bullet weight = 0.010 11,5g
velocity = 920.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 755-838 m/s</span>
power = 0

------ MG 15 machinegun (Germany)
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
bullet weight = 0.0128 64,5g
velocity = 760.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 905m/s</span>
power = 0

------ MG 131 13mm machinegun (Germany)
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
bullet weight= 0.035
velocity = 710.0
power= 0.00148

AP
bullet weight= 0.034
velocity= 750.0
power= 0

------ UB 12.7 machinegun (Russia)
// APIT - AP - HEI

APIT
bullet weight= 0.0448
velocity = 850.0
power = 0.001

AP
bullet weight= 0.051
velocity = 850.0
power = 0

HEI
bullet weight = 0.0428
velocity = 850.0
power = (0.00114+0.0012

------ MG 151/15 15mm cannon (Germany)
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
bullet weight= 0.057
velocity = 960.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 1040 m/s</span>
power = 0.0019

AP
bullet weight = 0.072
velocity= 859.0
power = 0

------ ShVAK 20mm cannon (Russia)
// APIT - HE

APIT
bullet weight = 0.096
velocity= 800.0 <span class="ev_code_RED">true 750-770 m/s</span>
power= 0.001

HE
bullet weight = 0.0676
velocity= 800.0
power = 0.0068

------ MG 151/20 20mm cannon (Germany)
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

APIT
bullet weight= 0.115
velocity= 710.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 860 m/s</span>
power= 0.0036

HE
bullet weight= 0.115
velocity = 705.0
power = 0.0044

MG
bullet weight = 0.092
velocity= 775.0
power= 0.0186

------ MG/FF 20mm cannon (Germany)
// APIT - HE - HE - MG

APIT
bullet weight = 0.115
velocity= 580.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 700 m/s</span>
power= 0.0036

HE
bullet weight = 0.115
velocity= 585.0
power= 0.0044

MG
bullet weight = 0.092
velocity = 690.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 700 m/s</span>
power = 0.0186

------ Hispano Mk.I 20mm cannon (England)
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
bullet weight =0.129
velocity= 860.0
power = 0.012

AP
bullet weight = 0.124
velocity = 860.0
power = 0

------ VYa(??-23) 23mm cannon (Russia)
// SIT - API - API

SIT
bullet weight= 0.195
velocity = 890.0
power = 0.0156

API
bullet weight= 0.201
velocity = 890.0
power = 0.008

API
bullet weight= 0.201
velocity = 890.0
power = 0.008

------ MK 103 30mm cannon (Germany)
// APT - MG - MG - HE

APT
bullet weight = 0.502
velocity = 752.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 860 m/s</span>
power = 0.0 5.6

MG
bullet weight= 0.330
velocity = 900.0
power= 0.072

HE
bullet weight = 0.455
velocity = 800.0
power = 0.024

------ MK 108 30mm cannon (Germany)
// HEIT - MG

HEIT
bullet weight = 0.455
velocity = 500.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 540 m/s</span>
power = 0.024

MG
bullet weight = 0.330
velocity = 525.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 540 m/s</span>
power = 0.072 7.3

------ M4 37mm cannon (USA)
// HET - (APT/HET)

HET
bullet weight = 0.604 680g
velocity = 612.0 <span class="ev_code_BLUE">true 580-610m/s</span>
power = 0.044 2.8 kW/kg

------ ?S-37 37mm cannon (Russia)
// HEIT - APT

HEIT
bullet weight= 0.735
velocity = 900.0
power= 0.0406

APT
bullet weight = 0.760
velocity= 880.0
power = 0

------ ?S-45 45mm cannon (Russia)
// HEIT - AP

HEIT
bullet weight = 1.065
velocity = 780.0
power= 0.052

AP
bullet weight= 1.000
velocity = 850.0
power = 0.0


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

Oleg Maddox 1C:Maddox Games

koivis
08-05-2009, 03:38 PM
MG 151/15
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HE/HET
bullet weight= 0.057
velocity = 960.0 true 1040 m/s
power = 0.0019 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MG 151/20
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">APIT
bullet weight= 0.115
velocity= 710.0 true 860 m/s
power= 0.0036 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MG FF
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">APIT
bullet weight = 0.115
velocity= 580.0 true 700 m/s
power= 0.0036 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These seem to be quite exaggerated numbers. What is your source? You are right, some numbers seem a bit weird, and in some cases you are absolutely correct. But the 3 above... no way.

My source (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)

KG26_Alpha
08-05-2009, 04:39 PM
In your own provided link the bullet weight gives the velocity.

M_Gunz
08-05-2009, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The one that made the most sense was that the game uses a random number generator when it calculates damage. So in a way, its like rolling a set of dice to calculate how much damage is inflicted.
There are several damage boxes that will use different levels of damage based on the caliber used and the randomness applied. Its also been told to me that the program can calculate a hit even when the bullet is missing, the same way a miss can be calculated when a bullet is actually hitting.

So it is possible to score a hit, a pilot kill for example, by just getting near the damage box. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might make sense to you but that is not how IL2 damage works at all. We've been told and shown how it works many times.

deepo_HP
08-05-2009, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
In your own provided link the bullet weight gives the velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi alpha,

in the link provided by koivis, both bullet weight and velocity confirm the game-data.

but what is your source?

ImMoreBetter
08-05-2009, 04:49 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif There are many different sources that say many different things...

I once took a look at the "True" numbers that Alpha had posted. Those numbers are at the very maximums (if claiming undermodelling)or minimums (if claming overmoddeling) of what different sources will tell you. The data may have been selected that way. Darrell Huff wrote a book about just such selection.

deepo_HP
08-05-2009, 04:51 PM
well, just start by posting some.

ImpStarDuece
08-05-2009, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by koivis:

These seem to be quite exaggerated numbers. What is your source? You are right, some numbers seem a bit weird, and in some cases you are absolutely correct. But the 3 above... no way.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ShKAS and US M2 Browning numbers are being understated as well...

M_Gunz
08-05-2009, 08:01 PM
WWII M2, depending on the barrel length has different muzzle velocities.
Wish I knew where I put that chart, IIRC 36" or 45" barrel but please correct me?

850 m/s is 2790 f/s -- consider 2800 f/s at muzzle rounded off to the next lowest 10 m/s.

Zorin2008
08-05-2009, 08:12 PM
Official documents for the Luftwaffe ammunitions:

http://www.histavia21.net/amaviapag/Lw-Ammos.htm

BillSwagger
08-05-2009, 09:45 PM
still muzzle velocity isn't power in this game.
there is a separate number for that.
And if you think the allied 50 cal is over powered in the game you need to take a better look at ammo penetration figures.
http://www.answers.com/topic/m2-browning-machine-gun
The AP round was designed to puncture 19" steel plates at 500M. I don't get the sense the 50 cal hits anywhere near that hard. It only hits well in the first 180M. It ought to retain 80 percent of its power at 549M.


here it is again...........
this table shows APM1 figures for 50 cal , along wiht hispano 20mm AP rounds, and he rounds.



http://img59.exs.cx/img59/919/ap19az.jpg

na85
08-05-2009, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The AP round was designed to puncture 19" steel plates at 500M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S~

Your image seems to state that at a range of 400 yards the Browning .50 will penetrate a mere 18 millimeters, not 19 inches.

BillSwagger
08-05-2009, 10:18 PM
The test indicates the use Browning 50 cal with an M1 round.
M1 is basically a test caliber.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/mili...ntry/mg/50_ammo.html (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html)



M2 AP is a bit different.

http://www.answers.com/topic/m2-browning-machine-gun

All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875" (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m), and 0.75" (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m).[7] The API and APIT rounds left a flash, report, and smoke on contact, useful in detecting strikes on enemy targets; they were primarily intended to incapacitate thin-skinned and lightly armored vehicles and aircraft, while igniting their fuel tanks.[8]

M_Gunz
08-05-2009, 10:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
still muzzle velocity isn't power in this game.
there is a separate number for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The number labeled "power" is the power of the chemical mixture in the round as equivalent of kilograms of TNT, not actual mass.

For solid AP shot the kinetic energy of an impact is equal to 1/2 mass x striking speed squared. Striking speed varies with
the speed of the shot when it hits relative to the target including the angle of the strike. There is no random factor except
which directions shrapnel of HE shots will go and that may be by stored pattern, generating random values takes more cycles.

What I don't understand is why people think they can look at labels and decide as certain what they actually mean. Don't ask,
don't find out, just "hey this means that because that's what makes sense to me". I go back almost 30 years of seeing this in
business and technical work, it's at the crux of a lot of mistakes. I am sure that there are many such made from people who
look through the hacked IL2 files, only by looking at just how the value is used can you really know the true meaning.

BillSwagger
08-05-2009, 10:25 PM
then why is the 50 cal so weak despite a slightly higher than average muzzle velocity.

actually it should be worded a bit differently, it is effective with in 180 meters. But like i said it is much less than 80 percent effective at 500M, so this perception that the 50 cal is weak, probably starts with the fact that the game modeling is off for longer ranges.

na85
08-05-2009, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The test indicates the use Browning 50 cal with an M1 round.
M1 is basically a test caliber.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/mili...ntry/mg/50_ammo.html (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html)



M2 AP is a bit different.

http://www.answers.com/topic/m2-browning-machine-gun

All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875" (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m), and 0.75" (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m).[7] The API and APIT rounds left a flash, report, and smoke on contact, useful in detecting strikes on enemy targets; they were primarily intended to incapacitate thin-skinned and lightly armored vehicles and aircraft, while igniting their fuel tanks.[8] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your links show that the M2 browning has a LOWER muzzle energy than the M1 (45 kJ versus 42 kJ)

So the test results for the M1 seem even a tad optimistic.

BillSwagger
08-05-2009, 10:34 PM
claims on muzzle energy will vary on source.

The main point to take away from this is that the 50 cal as well as the 20mm, retain 80-90 percent of their AP effectiveness at 500-550M.

The He rounds are less effective at putting holes in armor. (20mm)probably because they detonate before they can penetrate the armor.
and more grainage (??) often softens the projectile.
Even API is slightly less effective at armor penetration.

M_Gunz
08-05-2009, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The test indicates the use Browning 50 cal with an M1 round.
M1 is basically a test caliber.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/mili...ntry/mg/50_ammo.html (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html)



M2 AP is a bit different.

http://www.answers.com/topic/m2-browning-machine-gun

All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875" (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m), and 0.75" (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m).[7] The API and APIT rounds left a flash, report, and smoke on contact, useful in detecting strikes on enemy targets; they were primarily intended to incapacitate thin-skinned and lightly armored vehicles and aircraft, while igniting their fuel tanks.[8] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The historic page you show says A.P.M.1.(RA/40) and is the ONLY .50 cal shown on the page which seriously suggests that's
what they had at the time (mid 1942) which is not to say that they did not have M.2. ammo before the end of the war.
The second source above does say WWII through Vietnam, are you sure there were no improvements in that time?

18mm = .708", at 400 Yards (366 m)... that's a tested value, not a design specification.

na85
08-05-2009, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
then why is the 50 cal so weak despite a slightly higher than average muzzle velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure it's so weak? Is that a fact or a feeling?

BillSwagger
08-05-2009, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The test indicates the use Browning 50 cal with an M1 round.
M1 is basically a test caliber.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/mili...ntry/mg/50_ammo.html (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html)



M2 AP is a bit different.

http://www.answers.com/topic/m2-browning-machine-gun

All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875" (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m), and 0.75" (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m).[7] The API and APIT rounds left a flash, report, and smoke on contact, useful in detecting strikes on enemy targets; they were primarily intended to incapacitate thin-skinned and lightly armored vehicles and aircraft, while igniting their fuel tanks.[8] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The historic page you show says A.P.M.1.(RA/40) and is the ONLY .50 cal shown on the page which seriously suggests that's
what they had at the time (mid 1942) which is not to say that they did not have M.2. ammo before the end of the war.
The second source above does say WWII through Vietnam, are you sure there were no improvements in that time?

18mm = .708", at 400 Yards (366 m)... that's a tested value, not a design specification. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ammo itself was primarily the same, however the guns that fired the ammo may have seen improvements...sure.

The 50 cals do there job at closer ranges, but yes, they are factually "weak" at longer ranges.
Their hitting power drops considerably more than 80 percent beyond 500M. Actually their hitting power drops considerably beyond 300M in the game.

Just an observation. I don't expect programmers to hop on this right away, but when someone throws numbers from the game against the wall and says, "look, the allied guns are actually over powered"...i can't resist showing otherwise.

In light of a few other discoveries in the game, i'm finding it harder and harder to take this game seriously, but it is just a game and i have fun with it.

DKoor
08-05-2009, 11:51 PM
Hey Bill have you tested those distances when firing from static aircraft to static aircraft target or...? Speed may play part in all that.

Also the unit designation is not "M" but "m", from wikipedia "The symbol for metre is a lower case m". Not nitpicking, but that is something that caught my eye since it's used very often...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre

BillSwagger
08-06-2009, 12:26 AM
dkoor,
you might remember when i tested convergence at different ranges.
They were tested on aircraft going at more or less the same speed (300-350kph) Anything beyond 300M was noticeably less effective, while it could be considered effective if you exhaust your ammo to the point of absurdity.

So its either the damage model or the guns impact energy.
either way, its a dead horse.
I can see why most people resort to flying anything with cannons.

M_Gunz
08-06-2009, 12:51 AM
You get fewer hits with more dispersion (spread) at longer range. These guns do have dispersion, not every shot goes
exactly to one point and it is wider with longer range. There have been static tests showing this for IL2.

Or did you check the hits, how many and where with arcade=1? That can be done.

Also you understand that what the .50 can penetrate at under 300m it may not penetrate at over 300m so hits in those
places will no longer get the same results. There is more to a plane than the armor behind the seat.

BillSwagger
08-06-2009, 01:34 AM
I appreciate your explanations, and i understand the mechanics involved with aiming and such, where the further the target is the less shots land. However, there is less dispersion with the proper convergence, and that's what was tested. i also wasn't shooting beyond 400m. I thought that a realistic combat range was with in 400m, but the bullets do not take considerable effect until you are much closer.

You'd be surprised to know that at under 200M range, any convergence under 450M had a similar effect. It was just a matter of where your shots were placed.

no offense, but this is a tired argument for me.
I've done the math, the tests, and even reviewed encounter reports, and Il2 doesn't quite add up.

robtek1957
08-06-2009, 02:24 AM
when i just overlooked this .50 ca. discussion i wondered that the penetration tests might be done stationary on the ground, when those bullets are fired from a moving plane the effective range must be lower because of the higher air drag.
The muzzle velocity on the ground is 798m/s, when fired from a 300 mph (134,11m/s) fast plane the resulting muzzle velocity is 932m/s according to the sourrounding air with the resulting, much higher, air drag.
Secondary influence is the added distance.
When fired i.e. at a distance of 400m the bullet needs, without drag, 0,5s to reach the target which has moved about 67m during that time.
Those 2 things might explain the "low effectiveness" of the .50 cal. me thinks.

deepo_HP
08-06-2009, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
However, there is less dispersion with the proper convergence </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

dispersion has nothing to do with convergence... it is an effect caused by the characteristics of individual guns/cannons in first order.
but also barrels of the same kind of weapon have different dispersions depending on bore, state of maintenance, frequency of use and such.
adjusting the convergence in best case bríngs the center of dispersions of the single guns together. i don't know, how many shots are fired on adjusting the weapons, but then again dispersion is less a factor on short range, of course.
but over the distance, dispersion only gets worse increasingly - i think, this is, what m_gunz was adressing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You get fewer hits with more dispersion (spread) at longer range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BillSwagger
08-06-2009, 02:53 AM
The crux is that the caliber is clearly 80 percent effective at 549m, as it is at 180m.
As the tests indicate.

Its also a caliber that retains most of its muzzle velocity when fired from higher speeds.

The distance traveled makes the most sense, but that 67m doesn't account for the amount of energy loss beyond 200m.
Id say its only 50-60% effective at 300m as it is at 180m.
It would be a great improvement to see it 80 percent effective even at 300m. Historical accuracy would probably demand that it be improved to 80 percent effective at 400m, if you want to factor in the worst case bullet travel at high speeds. (provided opponent is going the same speed)

This still leaves a 150m margin of error that would account for that bullet travel.

There are numerous texts that even suggests the guns on aircraft were detrimental beyond 1000 yards, but would require a steady shot on a steady target.
If it isn't hitting armor plating, then imagine what it could do, at closer ranges.
I've often associated shots at convergence as similar to a shot gun blast.

M_Gunz
08-06-2009, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robtek1957:
when i just overlooked this .50 ca. discussion i wondered that the penetration tests might be done stationary on the ground, when those bullets are fired from a moving plane the effective range must be lower because of the higher air drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depending on altitude the drag changes but yes, higher muzzle velocity sheds speed more quickly.

M_Gunz
08-06-2009, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
However, there is less dispersion with the proper convergence </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

dispersion has nothing to do with convergence... it is an effect caused by the characteristics of individual guns/cannons in first order.
but also barrels of the same kind of weapon have different dispersions depending on bore, state of maintenance, frequency of use and such.
adjusting the convergence in best case bríngs the center of dispersions of the single guns together. i don't know, how many shots are fired on adjusting the weapons, but then again dispersion is less a factor on short range, of course.
but over the distance, dispersion only gets worse increasingly - i think, this is, what m_gunz was adressing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You get fewer hits with more dispersion (spread) at longer range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly and this has been gone over before during the 50 cal brouhaha. Every .50 cal shot has some randomness that
was adjusted to from 0 to 8 mils down from 0 to 20 mils after historic documents were produced and accepted. There
are people who I am sure still feel bad about it. Bill should try AEP 2.0 to really see 50 cal scatter!

So even though the guns may be aimed at a point the bullets do not all go straight to that point, AS IS REAL.
The longer the distance, the wider the scatter because that's how angles work. Perhaps do the geometry as well as
the math? Funny, to me they are the same, wanna go for trig Bill?

No need to do all that. Make the track, set arcade=1 for playback and check the hits. THEN account for everything
in the plane that is hit before saying "it should make X damage". Hello tailwheel, my bullet should ignore you....

Sorry but the DM is not by D&D hit points or EAW hit bubbles or another sims' hit box or random number. You can't
just measure range and say if it takes X bullets to kill at 150m then it should take 8/10's as many at 300m. That
is oversimplification fit for a sim far more arcade.

M_Gunz
08-06-2009, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
TThe distance traveled makes the most sense, but that 67m doesn't account for the amount of energy loss beyond 200m.
Id say its only 50-60% effective at 300m as it is at 180m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I set up a .7" armor plate at 500 yards and the .50 penetrates it.
But at 600 yards it does not.
Does that mean the bullet has lost all power in the 100 extra yards?

What if the plate is .85"? What if you don't know how thick the plate is?
Out to some range it penetrates and beyond it does not.

However what do you conclude if the plate thickness varies ==&gt; unevenly &lt;==? because THAT is the plane
You make 100 hits each at different ranges and count how many got through, then what do you know?
Can you draw conclusions about the penetrating power of the bullets JUST on how many got through?
Hell NO!

If you don't know just what you are hitting then how do you judge?

Friendly_flyer
08-06-2009, 04:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The crux is that the caliber is clearly 80 percent effective at 549m, as it is at 180m.
As the tests indicate.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's only one way to test if this holds true in IL-2, that's to test a handheld (gun-tower) gun from a stationary plane on another stationary plane. You need to use arcade-mode so that you can count the actual number of hits required to inflict some measurable damage (sawing off a wing for instance) at the two distances.

I used to do this to test how well various HMGs started fire. used a B-25. Since I was not interested in distance performance, I could shoot a fairly close range, and did not need arcade-mode to see if my bullets hit the mark. Here's a screenie I made back then:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/He-111.jpg

DKoor
08-06-2009, 05:24 AM
It is the best way to test by far.

Also there is workaround in which you can actually test fighters too!
Just need to find a bit elevated terrain so that aircraft nose aims at something. I know some people tested that way...
Perhaps with some mods & whatnot it is even easier.

AndyJWest
08-06-2009, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
It is the best way to test by far.

Also there is workaround in which you can actually test fighters too!
Just need to find a bit elevated terrain so that aircraft nose aims at something. I know some people tested that way...
Perhaps with some mods & whatnot it is even easier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try P38, P39 MGs - Tricycle Undercarriage means you can fire horizontally on ground.

DKoor
08-06-2009, 09:02 AM
Yeah but the way I described you can test proper convergence for wing mounted setups on P-47 for example. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

muffinstomp
08-06-2009, 04:18 PM
...mh. Note that convergence IRL is set for level shooting configuration. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Shooting up (as in Il2 static condition) or down results in your bullets hitting slightly high of your target. *pickpick*

At the same targeting distance your trajectory is not as efficiently deflected by gravitational forces when facing up or down as if firing strictly horizontal.

2cts

Greets,
muffinstomp

ASH_HOUSEWARES
08-06-2009, 05:10 PM
IMHO damage models is what will seperate good sims from bad in the near future.

In that flight models are about as good as they can get on a PC.. Unless they switch from 6DOF to fluid mechanics, at which point that would take most if not all current crop of PCs. So that is a ways off, the only limit to 6DOF now is finding the values to plug into it.

So IMHO the damage model area is wide open and is where developers can really set thier sim apart from other sims

That along with the ever increasing eye candy and sound improvments that are in lockstep with hardware improvments.

Thus damage modles is about the only place a sim maker can be creative, that and AI, but who cares about AI when we got real people to pwon online! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
08-06-2009, 05:13 PM
Remember firing at smokestacks at 150m with arcade=1 to cause the white dots and how wide the spread was?
Just saying, even close up it's better not to ASSUME all the shots hit the same spot.

Perhaps someone knows Fatcat well enough to ask for help answering or determining details of the DM and bullet models?
He is part of the group finishing 4.09 and changes beyond that, he would not be making half-fast guesses.

IIZG1Wespen
08-07-2009, 05:54 AM
S!

Whow guys, I thought I wouldn't find so much help but now I can see how helpful and sympathic are you people, that's amazing.
I'm realy happy for all the replies and my time is quiet few so I promise I'll be looking into all the messages and reply them.

IIZG1Wespen
08-10-2009, 04:03 AM
Salut!

I've read all the posts and it was realy nice.

But what I ask you at the most guys, are historical sources in which can the DM be based on.

Distances, AoA, projectile type (HE, AP) it can all be programmed by computers and without any historical documents, only with math.

But what I'm realy looking for are those documents and historical facts about the real DM in WW2, documents, war reports, anything related to the DM in the WW2 period, IMHO that what comes first, then math...

I tried looking into the internet but wasn't unable to find anything good for real and as it is a IL2 sim comunnity in which I believe is the best WW2 air combat simulator, you could have some info regarding that.

So all help is extremely wellcome!

Best regards,

Phelipe

Friendly_flyer
08-10-2009, 04:27 AM
I think the modders will be better at answering this than I, but from what I uderstand, each component of the damage model (cables, gear, spars etc) are given a strength and a inflameable stat. What forms the basis of these I have no idea, but I think they largely follow from mathematical consideration. A spar of a given size and section will have a strength according to the material it is made off.

Bearcat99
08-10-2009, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
However, there is less dispersion with the proper convergence </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

dispersion has nothing to do with convergence... it is an effect caused by the characteristics of individual guns/cannons in first order.
but also barrels of the same kind of weapon have different dispersions depending on bore, state of maintenance, frequency of use and such.
adjusting the convergence in best case bríngs the center of dispersions of the single guns together. i don't know, how many shots are fired on adjusting the weapons, but then again dispersion is less a factor on short range, of course.
but over the distance, dispersion only gets worse increasingly - i think, this is, what m_gunz was adressing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You get fewer hits with more dispersion (spread) at longer range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly and this has been gone over before during the 50 cal brouhaha. Every .50 cal shot has some randomness that
was adjusted to from 0 to 8 mils down from 0 to 20 mils after historic documents were produced and accepted. There
are people who I am sure still feel bad about it. Bill should try AEP 2.0 to really see 50 cal scatter!

So even though the guns may be aimed at a point the bullets do not all go straight to that point, AS IS REAL.
The longer the distance, the wider the scatter because that's how angles work. Perhaps do the geometry as well as
the math? Funny, to me they are the same, wanna go for trig Bill?

No need to do all that. Make the track, set arcade=1 for playback and check the hits. THEN account for everything
in the plane that is hit before saying "it should make X damage". Hello tailwheel, my bullet should ignore you....

Sorry but the DM is not by D&D hit points or EAW hit bubbles or another sims' hit box or random number. You can't
just measure range and say if it takes X bullets to kill at 150m then it should take 8/10's as many at 300m. That
is oversimplification fit for a sim far more arcade. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

If you look at many gun films yoiyu will see a randomness in tracer trajectory... consider that that randomness has to do with the stability of the plane.. as in a shaking gun platform... either by stick movement or whatever.

Hey FF that's a good idea for testing gun effectiveness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Put a plane on a hill side with a parked bird and pick away at it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASH_HOUSEWARES:
IMHO damage models is what will seperate good sims from bad in the near future.

In that flight models are about as good as they can get on a PC.. Unless they switch from 6DOF to fluid mechanics, at which point that would take most if not all current crop of PCs. So that is a ways off, the only limit to 6DOF now is finding the values to plug into it.

So IMHO the damage model area is wide open and is where developers can really set thier sim apart from other sims

That along with the ever increasing eye candy and sound improvments that are in lockstep with hardware improvments.

Thus damage modles is about the only place a sim maker can be creative, that and AI, but who cares about AI when we got real people to pwon online! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think therer is still some work that can be done on FMs.. but from what I understand SoW will have a DM that goes down to component level...

M_Gunz
08-10-2009, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IIZG1Wespen:
Salut!

I've read all the posts and it was realy nice.

But what I ask you at the most guys, are historical sources in which can the DM be based on.

Distances, AoA, projectile type (HE, AP) it can all be programmed by computers and without any historical documents, only with math.

But what I'm realy looking for are those documents and historical facts about the real DM in WW2, documents, war reports, anything related to the DM in the WW2 period, IMHO that what comes first, then math...

I tried looking into the internet but wasn't unable to find anything good for real and as it is a IL2 sim comunnity in which I believe is the best WW2 air combat simulator, you could have some info regarding that.

So all help is extremely wellcome!

Best regards,

Phelipe </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They used the actual blueprints of all the planes in the start and most of the planes since. Those are historic documents.