PDA

View Full Version : Test of damagemodels



zugfuhrer
02-26-2006, 12:03 PM
I have done some tests on Spit IX P-47 P-39 D2 -41
Me 109 G6 FW A4 and Ta 152.
Crimea map dogfight server outside view, speedbar and icons.

The Stuka (7.9 mm) and the SBD (0.303 cal 7,60 mm? ) stood on the ground and the targets rolled in position behind the reargunners.
This inflicted the angle of the target aircrafts.
I shoot short burst of 10-15 rounds and checked for message and damaged parts.
I counted the hits in stat-function of the chatbar.
Some tests are done two times with different guns like the reargunner of the 110 as nosegunner of the TB3 but they matched the one in the test.

I used the tailgunners of the stuka and the SBD-3 -42.
Angle 12 front, 3 side or 9 side and 6‚¬īaclock rear.

Explanations
OS = Oil smeared windscreen
PK = Pilot killed
PW= Pilot wounded
BS= Black smoke major Fuel leakage
LW= lost wing section
AIFL = Aileron function lost
AIL=Aileron lost
RFL=Rudder function lost
RL=Rudder lost
EFL = Engine function lost
ElFL = Elevator function lost
WS = White smoke minor Fuel leakage
LT=lost tail section
MG- = Machinegun/Cannon function lost
Expl = explosion
F= aircraft on fire


Distance 300 and 400m
Frontal aimpoint spinner
Side aimpoint cockpit
Rear aimpoint cockpit.
When I killed the pilot or stopped the engine I changed aimpoint to wings.

Spit rear 300m
18 OS
68 WS
76 ELFL
112 EFL
184 F

Spit side 300m
11 WS
101 PK

Spit front 300m
15 OS
56 EFL
131 F

Spit rear 400m
12 OS
93 BS
118 EFL
125 F

Spit side 400m
22 RFL OS
55 EFL WS
145 PK

Spit front 400m
8 WS
21 RFL
35 PK

P-47

P-47 rear 300m

220 PK

P-47 side 300m
51 MG-
63 RFL
112 PK

P-47 front 300m

10 OS
204 EFL
486 AIFL

P-47 rear 400m

120 AICL
179 ECL
471 LW

P-47 side 400m
79 RFL
123 PK

P-47 front 400m
44 OS
239 EFL
334 MG-
433 AIL

P-39 D2 -41

P-39 rear 300m
6 WS
36 BS
57 PK

P-39 side 300m
21 PK

P-39 front 300m

24 BS
63 PK


P-39 rear 400m

25 BS
88 F

P-39 side 400m
7 BS
9 F

P-39 front 400m
12 BS
26 PK

Me 109 G6

Me 109 G6 rear 300m
6 WS
36 BS
63 PK

Me 109 G6 side 300m
24 PK

Me 109 G6 front 300m
3 OS
20 WS
63 PK

Me 109 G6 rear 400m
3 BS
26PK

Me 109 G6 side 400m
8 BS
9 F

Me 109 G6 front 400m
25 BS
107 F

Fw 190 A4

Fw 190 A4 rear 300m
13 MG-
50 PK

Fw 190 A4 side 300m
17 MG-
61 MG- BS
74 PK

Fw 190 A4 front 300m
13 WS
54 F

Fw 190 A4 rear 400 m
4 MG-
14 WS
63 MG-
380 AIFL
494 EFL
502 Expl

Fw 190 A4 side 400m
16 MG-
39 WS
45 F

Fw 190 A4 front 400m
60 BS
137 EFL
161 F

Ta 152

Ta 152 rear 300m
17 WS
33 AIFL BS
56 PK

Ta 152 side 300m
26 WS
48 PK

Ta 152 front 300m
63 BS
76 F

Ta 152 rear 400m
22 WS
57 MG-
197 AIFL BS EFL F

Ta 152 side 400m
14 WS PW
51 BS
80 Expl

Ta 152 front 400m
21 WS
89 BS
91 expl

zugfuhrer
02-26-2006, 12:03 PM
I have done some tests on Spit IX P-47 P-39 D2 -41
Me 109 G6 FW A4 and Ta 152.
Crimea map dogfight server outside view, speedbar and icons.

The Stuka (7.9 mm) and the SBD (0.303 cal 7,60 mm? ) stood on the ground and the targets rolled in position behind the reargunners.
This inflicted the angle of the target aircrafts.
I shoot short burst of 10-15 rounds and checked for message and damaged parts.
I counted the hits in stat-function of the chatbar.
Some tests are done two times with different guns like the reargunner of the 110 as nosegunner of the TB3 but they matched the one in the test.

I used the tailgunners of the stuka and the SBD-3 -42.
Angle 12 front, 3 side or 9 side and 6‚¬īaclock rear.

Explanations
OS = Oil smeared windscreen
PK = Pilot killed
PW= Pilot wounded
BS= Black smoke major Fuel leakage
LW= lost wing section
AIFL = Aileron function lost
AIL=Aileron lost
RFL=Rudder function lost
RL=Rudder lost
EFL = Engine function lost
ElFL = Elevator function lost
WS = White smoke minor Fuel leakage
LT=lost tail section
MG- = Machinegun/Cannon function lost
Expl = explosion
F= aircraft on fire


Distance 300 and 400m
Frontal aimpoint spinner
Side aimpoint cockpit
Rear aimpoint cockpit.
When I killed the pilot or stopped the engine I changed aimpoint to wings.

Spit rear 300m
18 OS
68 WS
76 ELFL
112 EFL
184 F

Spit side 300m
11 WS
101 PK

Spit front 300m
15 OS
56 EFL
131 F

Spit rear 400m
12 OS
93 BS
118 EFL
125 F

Spit side 400m
22 RFL OS
55 EFL WS
145 PK

Spit front 400m
8 WS
21 RFL
35 PK

P-47

P-47 rear 300m

220 PK

P-47 side 300m
51 MG-
63 RFL
112 PK

P-47 front 300m

10 OS
204 EFL
486 AIFL

P-47 rear 400m

120 AICL
179 ECL
471 LW

P-47 side 400m
79 RFL
123 PK

P-47 front 400m
44 OS
239 EFL
334 MG-
433 AIL

P-39 D2 -41

P-39 rear 300m
6 WS
36 BS
57 PK

P-39 side 300m
21 PK

P-39 front 300m

24 BS
63 PK


P-39 rear 400m

25 BS
88 F

P-39 side 400m
7 BS
9 F

P-39 front 400m
12 BS
26 PK

Me 109 G6

Me 109 G6 rear 300m
6 WS
36 BS
63 PK

Me 109 G6 side 300m
24 PK

Me 109 G6 front 300m
3 OS
20 WS
63 PK

Me 109 G6 rear 400m
3 BS
26PK

Me 109 G6 side 400m
8 BS
9 F

Me 109 G6 front 400m
25 BS
107 F

Fw 190 A4

Fw 190 A4 rear 300m
13 MG-
50 PK

Fw 190 A4 side 300m
17 MG-
61 MG- BS
74 PK

Fw 190 A4 front 300m
13 WS
54 F

Fw 190 A4 rear 400 m
4 MG-
14 WS
63 MG-
380 AIFL
494 EFL
502 Expl

Fw 190 A4 side 400m
16 MG-
39 WS
45 F

Fw 190 A4 front 400m
60 BS
137 EFL
161 F

Ta 152

Ta 152 rear 300m
17 WS
33 AIFL BS
56 PK

Ta 152 side 300m
26 WS
48 PK

Ta 152 front 300m
63 BS
76 F

Ta 152 rear 400m
22 WS
57 MG-
197 AIFL BS EFL F

Ta 152 side 400m
14 WS PW
51 BS
80 Expl

Ta 152 front 400m
21 WS
89 BS
91 expl

zugfuhrer
02-26-2006, 02:15 PM
I took some time to fill in the figures, failed with cut n‚¬īpaste. Not so easy to read but whatever.....

Because there have been so many watchers I made this to put it back to top.

ploughman
02-26-2006, 03:44 PM
Those PKs from behind at 300m are interesting. None for the Spit, exclusively PKs for the P-47 and a mixed bag of predominantly PKs for the Fw/Ta.

But change it to 400m and the P-47 gets no PKs, and PKs drop off markedly for other 'vulnerable' types although as the P-47 proved to be the most vulnerable at 300m interesting that it was 'proof' at 400m.

Energy loss for a rifle calibre bullets over distance appears to be modelled.

That must've taken a long, long time to do. Thanks Zug.

horseback
02-26-2006, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P-47

P-47 rear 300m

220 PK

P-47 side 300m

51 MG-
63 RFL
112 PK

P-47 front 300m

10 OS
204 EFL
486 AIFL

P-47 rear 400m

120 AICL
179 ECL
471 LW

P-47 side 400m

79 RFL
123 PK

P-47 front 400m

44 OS
239 EFL
334 MG-
433 AIL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If this is historically accurate, no wonder we had to build over 15,000 of them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

I smell bacon.

cheers

horseback

Texan...
02-27-2006, 07:59 AM
190 DM will never be right in this game. Way too many hits allowed. Get real folks, tough maybe but it's still a @#$%%$# singe-seat fighter.


Fw 190 A4 rear 400 m
4 MG-
14 WS
63 MG-
380 AIFL
494 EFL
502 Expl

Nubarus
02-27-2006, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
the SBD (0.303 cal 7,60 mm?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

0.303 is 7,7mm.

Kocur_
02-27-2006, 10:02 AM
7,69mm x 56R Lee-Enfield http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But gunners mg in SBD was US .30-06 or in metric: 7,62mm x 63 Springfield. German mg cartridge was 7,92mm x 57 Mauser. All of them had very similar characteristics.

JG4_Helofly
02-27-2006, 11:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

The only thing i can say: wait for tbob and a precise DM. IL2 is simply to old! From a game which was made 3 years ago ( fb 1.0 ) you can not expect wonders.

This test shows again the problem of the old DM.

zugfuhrer
02-27-2006, 12:37 PM
It is amazing how weak the P-39 was during the test.

In real life with a fixed mg 7.62 NATO standard and fired 100+ hits from the distance of 200m in the front of an aircraft, aming for the engine, it wouldnt run for a long time.
Funny that the rudder-function was lost so often, the ruddersection was hidden by the aircraft frame, and the pedals should be well behind the engine.
There is much else to say about the test.

Nubarus
02-27-2006, 02:15 PM
The only one who doesn't see it is zugfuhrer, and so far he is the only one who really feels the need to complain about it to an extend it looks almost like an obsession.

So far this sim has the best DM I ever saw since even CFS3 still used a simple hitpoint system, that is without question pretty bogus to begin with.
I even could collapse fortyfied concrete bunkers with .50 rounds. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

For a game as old as IL2 it has a great DM system, especially if you look at the amount of flyable (and non flyable) planes that are available.

Be happy it's not a crappy hitpoint system and wait for BoB.

zugfuhrer
02-27-2006, 03:02 PM
Nubarus are you the selfproclaimed speaker/preacher of an unindentified "majority"?

If you care to read before you post, you should see that I am not complaining about the damagemodel:
1. only drawing conclusions from real life comparing it with the one in the game.

2. Pointing out one detail among others that is strange.
I have never said that it is bad or good.
I have done a test, without any bias and giving the data from it to the comunity.
Have you done unbiased test and contributing constructively?
What is your point, except for attacking my posts?

Nubarus
02-27-2006, 03:24 PM
I have done several things to assist the developement of this sim.(Provide data for Oleg and pictures for 3rd party modelers)

Thanks to me the Spitfires don't have the inaccurate forward view it had during the first cockpit screens that where posted here and the Hurricane can carry bombs, just to name a few things.

But unlike you I am not going to open topics about it here because it's pretty much useless to do so.

I used the "direct" link via email.

As for the majority comment, well all I can do is laugh about that one since I have seen the "major" responses you get on your topics.

It's pretty safe to say that the majority of this community doesn't care about your tests.

Haigotron
02-27-2006, 09:52 PM
I DO!

Thanks alot zug!

Its interesting to see such test data, it makes the game even more immersive
i was wodnering if you could maybe make graphs on excel?

zugfuhrer
02-28-2006, 01:39 PM
Nubbarus if what you say about your contribution to the game is truth, I thank you for it, and I am pleased that my threads makes you glad.

But you still dont seems to read the texts you are commenting full out.

My intension of the test was that perhaps my figures would chill down angry pilots who claims that the aircraft xxx is not effected by mg yyy.
Take the figures of leave them.

Haigotron I can put a statchart in excel but I dont know how to publish them. Give my your e-mail address and I can send you a word-doc with the figures.

Nubarus can you tell us about how the damagemodel is set in this game and how it differs from other games?

Have you been shooting a lot with a .50 MG or do you mean that you can collapse fortyfied conctet bunkers with the .50 in this game?
Perhaps you are an old UN-soldier with experience from peacekeeping?

The post about the undermodelled .303, was that a whine too or was that a constructive way to make a good game better, or havent they too seen whatever you are assuming with "The only one..."

Its to bad that you use words like neuroses, feck it up, your english grammar is really poor, and other patronizing word it would be great if you used other less insulting words.

Nubarus
02-28-2006, 02:58 PM
Zug, from all the people here you have got to be kidding about the grammar thing.

First off, you misspelled my name, then you proceed to misspell a word that I previously used in this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m...051004314#9051004314 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5151083314/r/9051004314#9051004314)

I said Neurosis as it is my favorate band that was asked in the topic.

Besides that it's still a real word anyway.
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsyneurosis.html (http://www.ship.edu/%7Ecgboeree/genpsyneurosis.html)

As for the comment about my reading skills, well what can I say. "So far this sim has the best DM I ever saw since even CFS3 that still used a simple hitpoint system, that is without question pretty bogus to begin with.
I even could collapse fortyfied concrete bunkers with .50 rounds."

Just to make it more clear to you, CFS3 = Combat Flight Simulator 3.
You know, the Microsoft WWII sims.

That sim uses a hitpoint system, each destructable object has an X amount of hitpoints and each weapon does X amount of damage, no matter where you hit it or from what angle you hit it at.

As for the damage model in this game, armor is modelled, as well as the angle of striking a hit, that's for sure.
Different ammo types are also modelled as well as ammo belt configurations.

All planes in this sim have parts that can be shot off but also parts that cannot be shot off, no matter how many times you hit that particular spot and that my friend is the reason why it can have some anomalies.
But at the same time the DM is much more complex and challenging because you actually have to aim at certain parts to make you kill.
On the other side the non destructable parts still have other parts worked into it that can either explode or set the plane on fire, but there are still spots, how few that are left that cannot be damaged what so ever, even with a 45mm round.

Just to clarify, the planes in IL2 have several locations that can be damaged and these spots have hitpoints as well but depending with what type of round you hit it is the damage calculated minus the armor that might be there or not.

Unlike for instance CFS3, there it's simply starts counting off the hitpoints and once it comes to 0 the plane will go down in a ball of fire.
So the objects and planes in CFS3 are just one giant hitbox with a bunch of hitpoints assigned to it.

Personally I prefer the IL2 DM system over the one in CFS3.

As for the "feck it up" thing, you might want to take a deeper look into that but I am afraid you won't see it on your own so here it goes.

Feck means ****, but as you can see the forum filter does what it's supposed to do.

And what post about the undermodelled .303?

Next time you want to tell someone off that his English grammar is really poor you might want to take a good deep look at your own posts because sometimes I have a hard time understanding what the hell you mean.
Normally I have no problem communicating with my English or Scottish friends and colleagues, even via Email and none of them ever commented that my grammar is so poor they didn't know what I am talking about.

Besides that fact it's not my native language either so even if I did make a mistake every now and then I don't feel the need to hang myself in shame. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Haigotron
02-28-2006, 03:12 PM
excellent! thank you very much!
ill have a long look at them and give you feedback!

its haigotron@hotmail.com


thanks a million againhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

zugfuhrer
03-05-2006, 03:47 PM
I am not complaining about your grammar you corrected a writer about his bad grammar, do you remember?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...961001904#4961001904 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8341012404/r/4961001904#4961001904)

If you read my text more carefull you would se that I dont write that your grammar is bad.

I should never post such "highbrow" comments.

This is the post about the undermodelled .303 MG.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2801039614/p/1

Where have u got this info about the damagemodel from?

How is the armour modelled?

How exact are the hits calculated?

Isnt the hitboxes in IL-2 family damageprofile only hitboxes that are smaller than the reargunner, or engine-box damagemodel of the CFS III?

How do you know that the angle of impact isnt calculated in CFSIII?

What version of CFS III are you talking about?

How about the .50 MG that you was sure about the effect of the fire, how many thousands rounds have you fired from a MG in general and with a .50 in particular?
And in how many times have you knocked down concrete constructions with a gun?

You could by blastering make holes in most things, if you blaster long enough. The bigger the kinetic engergy, the less hits you need to make a hole.

I have looked at your posts and you seems to pick on every post, in a most unpolite way, that questinize the way this game is done, if it will improve detailes the blue side.

I havent seen a line where you critisize a writer that will improve something on the red side.

What about the missing damagemodel of the radiators of the inline engines?

As far as I remember, it is included in CFSIII.

I have mailed pf@1c.ru about it but no comment.

Some other issues I have mailed to the same adress, The field of fire from the reargunner of the Me-110 is to narrow, no comment.

The AI-nosegunner of the He-111 dont shoot at enemies, no reply.

Bye the way what has the thread your favourite band to do with Pacific Fighters?

Nubarus
03-05-2006, 04:50 PM
I am sorry but your last post doesn't make any sense to me at all.

First you whine about my grammar and complain about the word Neurosis and the latter really makes me wonder why.
My guess is that you never heard of that word before and just assumed it doesn't exist.
It also shows that you have been playing around with the search option to find posts I made to have ammo for some kind of personal attack that kind of backfired on you.

I think I remember the writer I corrected about his grammar and as I recall it was so bad that nobody knew what he was trying to get across so I don't see why I should feel bad about it.

The info for the DM can be traced easy, all you have to do is look at the different damaged 3D models.
I have seen them all lined up on several planes while they where in developement.
But it can also be detected with ease when you run tests.
I am also not the only one who knows about it.
Just today I read a topic where IceFire stated exactly the same.

I find it rather weird that you didn't spot this yourself already.

And now I wrote so much about the .50?

When?

Where?

As far as I recall I pretty much stayed out of the countless .50 threads since I don't have an issue regarding the damage they do, just as well as the .303 threads for that matter.

Over the years playing this game I know how it works and know where to aim at what ever plane when using any type of weapon.

Here is a thread over at SimHQ with some comments from me regarding the .303 and .50 weapons in this game.

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=000788;p=1

I still have the 2 tracks here so you can see for yourself how effective the .303/.50 weapons on the Hawk can be as well as how devastating a classic B&Z attack can be in this game.

Tracks (http://members.chello.nl/j.kox23)

Over here are a few old screens from old tracks of mine that I used when other people here where complaining that their favorate weapon got shafted by Oleg.

http://www.cappadocian.demon.nl/

Nubarus
03-05-2006, 05:15 PM
My god, you just re-wrote your entire message while I was typing mine and now I am 100% certain you really are bad at reading English.

YOU complained about me using the word Neurosis and the favorate band topic was THE ONLY topic I wrote that word in so THAT is WHY I linked that post.

The STATEMENT about me being able to shoot FORTIFIED CONCRETE BUNKERS into RUBBLE was an EXAMPLE to show how BAD the DM is done in CFS3, so just to clarify, I NEVER DID THAT IN REAL LIFE BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DONE IN REAL LIFE.

I know for a FACT that angle of attack is NOT modelled in CFS3 because I could also destroy Jagd Tiger tanks flying low while only using .50 and 20mm rounds and shooting it from the front.

There is no way you can destroy a Jagd Tiger with 20mm rounds on it's frontal armor plating AT ALL.

I have used several weapons in real life while I was serving in the Army.

The Browning 9mm pistol, the 7.62mm FN FAL, the 7.62mm MAG and the 9mm Uzi the most since these weapons where used in the Army in my country at the time.

I have also fired a lot of .50 rounds and 25mm rounds since these weapons where mounted on the APC's and scout vehicles what where assigned to my unit.

As for you never getting any responses from the Dev team regarding your mails might have something to do that they are too whiny or too biased since I never had that problem myself with any mail I send to them.

LStarosta
03-05-2006, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DONE IN REAL FIFE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

zugfuhrer
03-07-2006, 12:45 PM
This is what I wrote to pf@1c.ru;
" Is the radiators of inline engines included in the damagemodel?

If not why not, and will they be included in the future"

I have said it before I have not declared my opinon about your english, and will never do this.

I agree with you that the damagemodel is in IL-2 games are better than the damagemodel in CFS III, but that doesnt make it a sacrilege to criticize the damagemodel of the IL2-games.

This thread has lost its focus and became a dialog without any interest of the rest of the readers, I think, this will be my last answer, you are free to have the last word.
If you are interested in continuing this I recomend that you post a private message to me.

I also notice with pleasure that you have changed the ugly word whine to criticize.
Good you are improving.