PDA

View Full Version : No fire with .50cal



DKoor
05-05-2008, 07:26 AM
For some time I'm playing with this training QMB scenario... P-51 vs 4 bandits at disadvantage altitude, loaded with bombs, wing cannons etc.
Basically they represent target drones.

Results of all these training sessions somewhat surprised me.

I rarely get some aircraft to burn!

And results are quite valid since all those scenarios are the same offline BnZ sessions. So no packet loss or whatever may be impairing online results.

Dewinging and cutting off parts of their planes is quite often.

At times I even cut them in half (fuselage break)!

But I'd say that probability of fire and probability that I'll cut E/A in half with .50s is about the same...

Now I may not be a rocket scientist but I don't think this is right following a simple logic.

However my QMB sessions were mostly vs ETO planes, FW-190, MC.205, TA-152, Bf-109, Go-229... therefore someone may get somewhat different results in PTO vs A6M, Ki-61 etc.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Aaron_GT
05-05-2008, 07:44 AM
The theory is that the 50 cal belting represents what the USSR used during WW2 and has less API than the USAAF generally used.

Xiolablu3
05-05-2008, 12:30 PM
I havent actually seen a lot of German planes light up on camera from 50 cal fire.

I see lots of Japanese planes light up however.

SeaFireLIV
05-05-2008, 12:44 PM
Most japanese planes light up easily with the 50s. It`s an easy way to get high kills by just lighting em up with a couple of shots then going to the next and next before even the 1st is down- 2 minutes later 4-5 kills!

European aircraft should not catch fire as easily at all, except maybe some early makes of FW190s.

waffen-79
05-05-2008, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The theory is that the 50 cal belting represents what the USSR used during WW2 and has less API than the USAAF generally used.

I don't get it, so for instance, the german planes perform as the captured for the russians?

Is this sim based in the POV of the russians? their reality?

Xiolablu3
05-05-2008, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The theory is that the 50 cal belting represents what the USSR used during WW2 and has less API than the USAAF generally used.

I don't get it, so for instance, the german planes perform as the captured for the russians?

Is this sim based in the POV of the russians? their reality? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it is, its made by Russians, just as if you made a game it would be 'your reality'.

However this doesnt mean they are great researchers and programmers.

Urufu_Shinjiro
05-05-2008, 01:12 PM
It's long been known and with the mods proven, that the API is almost non-existant in the .50 beltings for us planes, even the ones for PTO which should be mostly API and APIT. It's a travesty really and the wierd part is that Oleg knows this and it is easily changed but hasn't been done, nor will be.

Aaron_GT
05-05-2008, 01:12 PM
Is this sim based in the POV of the russians? their reality?

When first created the game was entirely set on the Eastern Front and so USSR belting made sense. To change the belting in the current code currently requires a new gun type to be put in a plane (not the ideal coding, but I don't think the expansion of the game to what it is now was envisaged). It's probably been on the 'to do' list and not updated, and it is a shame it hasn't been addressed, as armament changes are possible on many of the planes.

From what information has been released about BoB:SoW I think we will get many more belting options.

The other factor is that the German planes have self sealing tanks and so on and are less prone to burning directly from fuel tanks. If you go and shoot up some twin engined types with US 50 cals and hit the engines then engine fires are relatively easy to achieve.

Wildnoob
05-05-2008, 01:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWXkSsxJmy0&mode=related&search=

at beginning of this video a KI-84 fuel tanks caugth fire, but the self sealing tanks made their job well and counter it and don't let the fire spread.

PS : the video is a spoiler of US 1945 propaganda documentary - the last bomb.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The theory is that the 50 cal belting represents what the USSR used during WW2 and has less API than the USAAF generally used.

I don't get it, so for instance, the german planes perform as the captured for the russians?

Is this sim based in the POV of the russians? their reality? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that. As of the first IL2 v1.03 patch the German planes were based on German data.
Oleg stated that over and over again.

What the 50 cal belting is based on is the ammo used by Russians in lend-lease planes with 50's
particularly the P-39 in the 2001 demo and game release. It is correct for that.

Every different ammo mix requires a new gun with all the data the way the code engine works.
For whatever reason they did not make data table for 20+ extra guns we would wish for IL2.
What good is it to speculate why without knowing inside the code and code design decisions?

From my time in the industry I do know there is an inverse relation between knowledge of the
code and quickness to say what is possible. It is a sad truth about development and customers.

Urufu_Shinjiro
05-05-2008, 02:39 PM
My problem with this is that the mods have shown that it is not that hard to change the belting for the .50s. This is one of the few things I'm actually upset with Oleg for, he time after time did not change the belting on the .50's when it can obviously be done without too much trouble.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 03:15 PM
Correct for ETO is perhaps incorrect for Russian Theater and PTO?
Certainly to load different values in the tables is not that much. What is much is to add
code to software that is already spagettied to the point of being difficult to compile changes.

Been there, done it, wanted to strangle those who thought they were making easy demands and I
was working on much smaller code that did not have others dancing through it as well.
I promise you honestly, it's almost always harder than it 'should be' even when you know the
code but are trying something new. Even small 'safe' changes can have unexpected hangups
once the original design has been violated with enough 'just this' additions. The whys are
always an education in themselves and that's when you get the time to really find out why
which all too often the deadline syndrome enforced by micro-managing idiots rules out.
I can't stress that enough except to people who have worked on code near the limits of the
machines it runs on.. and they don't have to be told!

For sure it =could= have been done. Other bigger changes were made. What it would have cost
instead is not easy to see from outside the development process either. There may be 20 other
features that worked along the lines of the original design that could not have been done for
the time it would take to make that one thing work so saying "we didn't need this or that and
the extra guns or ability to switch should have been done instead" is blind speculation at
best.

In the end you either trust the team for the decisions they made or you don't. You can also
go to your local art museum and criticize the paintings rather than saying they are what they
are even if they are not photographs.
Simulation is also not absolutely real, there is a form of art in deciding what to include
and how to balance what can be done. It is a mistake to expect too much of any sim, one
that is repeated for every sim I've seen so far.

Urufu_Shinjiro
05-05-2008, 04:02 PM
Genereally I would agree with you except in this case a mod has been made in a reletively small amount of time, by one man, who didn't even know the code. Once he had extracted the correct files all he had to do was edit the values in a text file for carps sake. Now maybe it is the case that to have different loadouts for the different theatres would have required much more work, but at least a compromise .50 should have been made. I know someone is going to pipe up and say "well then it would no longer be accurate for the lend-lease AC", well, no, but it sure as heck is not accurate for the ETO or PTO US planes. In fact, IIRC it was discovered that the .50 had NO API rounds at all! A good all around compromise belting would at least ahve improved the .50 to an acceptable level, in the PTO it's laughable as the belting should be API-API-APIT, IIRC.

Aaron_GT
05-05-2008, 04:08 PM
I agree with you that it would be nice if there were all those options, Urufu, and I am not sure why it wasn't done, maybe it was just low down in the list of things to be done and too many other things ended up ahead of it. There are a whole host of bits and pieces. Sadly it wasn't done, and I can't see it getting done now, so it's going to be a case of waiting for BoB:SoW, or perhaps the belting will be changed in the Korean mod (if that is still going ahead - I don't know what the status of that is - RRG studios, wasn't it?)

Urufu_Shinjiro
05-05-2008, 04:16 PM
Well, the Korean mod is being made from the SoW engine. We'll never know why the belting wasn't changed, and it never will be changed now so it's sorta stupid to argue about. And until there is a solid way to filter out which mods are used online and which aren't, the modified weapons can only be a cheat online, although offline it can change the entire game for the better.

ElAurens
05-05-2008, 05:07 PM
The other night I flew in one of Aviar's fine coops. A fictional 1946 scenario with P-80s and P-51s vs. Me 262s and Dornier 335s. I flew a P-80, which is armed with six nose mounted .50 Brownings. I had no trouble setting the two Do335s and the one 262 I shot down on fire with a short burst to their engines.

They flamed up very nicely, very nicely indeed.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Choctaw111
05-05-2008, 05:21 PM
The 50's are really good if you set them at a good convergence (about 200-400 depending on your preference, but not too far out) and wait till your target is within 50 yards of your set convergence. If you hit the target when it is right on your convergence, the 50's are devastating.
The only thing about the 50's is that it takes a steadier aim, and to keep that aim on the target for a little bit. A couple hits from 50 cal rounds are not going to bring down your target...not like cannon rounds will.

DKoor
05-05-2008, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
They flamed up very nicely, very nicely indeed.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Pfft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Those pesky 262 engines would burn even if you hit them with a snowball...

Do-335's are tougher breed considering this issue; I've set them on fire in these cases;
-dewing
-thick black smoke, sometimes after (without my further intervention) fire appeared

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

Anyhow... I flew the similar scenario at 102nd_COOP_dedicated... was really fun.

VW-IceFire
05-05-2008, 05:33 PM
Those Do-335 pilots probably didn't know that the Do-335 is equipped with fire extinguishers. They do burn easier than many so its not surprising that the .50cals were able to set the Do-335 alight. The trick is to make the guy shooting you think you're stricken and get him to break off before firing off the extinguishers and carrying on back to base (damaged but flyable).

As for the .50cals...I was under the impression that even with the API change to the belting the change wasn't all that different. So either way it may be best to just make the change and make it API API API APIT instead of the current funky way of doing things. Course if the weapon is only a tiny bit more effective then we'll still have people complaining and then we'll start talking about the effectiveness of incendiary bullets in the game.

Sorry for my pessimism...just seen so many of these topics come and go.

I'm definitely all for updating the belting even if it causes some issues for the Russian front although it came to mind that there is probably two entries for the .50cal...one synchronized and one not? Perhaps just changing the one (unsynchronized) would sort of balance it out a bit.

DustyBarrels77
05-05-2008, 06:00 PM
Makes it fun to fly german and japanese planes usually surving a good burst of .50s and able to still finish them off.

I find it wierd even when flying the italian and some other 2x7.92 mgs flying against the american planes they seem to cause more fires and clip key cables very easy to give them no chance. I know the 190 buffs dont want to hear this but many times just stick yanking can have a couple planes run out of .50s on ya then just takes that 1 sec tap to explode them.. back in the day a solid 3 sec burst of .50s would snap all the 190 and 109s cables but seems to do it much less frequently after they (so called improved the .50 accuracy) when they shotgun effected seemed much stronger to me, i dont know if dms change or if they changed stuff due to the 190 control rods being stonger then cables.

I totally agree with the nerf weapons they need something like causing more fires to achieve a victory rather then taking 10x the amount in ground crew reports, guncams etc to achieve a victory. It would even up the cannon vs mgs that shoulf hit as hard as 1-2 or 4 20mm, the browning in terms of hitting power (mid to close ranges) spit out more lead mass then 2 browning for 1 20mm.. plus they were AEP and API. Dont get me wrong noway is a browning close to a 20mm, but 6 or 8 of them is same damn insane firepower in reality.

To me in this game its cannon or nothing. killing in 1 burst with air explosion torn off wings and tails even for the bombers, vs 2-4 passes in most cases with low convergence in a heavier super e bleeding wobbly tailed pos vs very percise and centered rudder ac makes it all so much easier... and im a german fanboi but do like to fly everything

DKoor
05-05-2008, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
It's long been known and with the mods proven, that the API is almost non-existant in the .50 beltings for us planes, even the ones for PTO which should be mostly API and APIT. It's a travesty really and the wierd part is that Oleg knows this and it is easily changed but hasn't been done, nor will be. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is this sim based in the POV of the russians? their reality?

When first created the game was entirely set on the Eastern Front and so USSR belting made sense. To change the belting in the current code currently requires a new gun type to be put in a plane (not the ideal coding, but I don't think the expansion of the game to what it is now was envisaged). It's probably been on the 'to do' list and not updated, and it is a shame it hasn't been addressed, as armament changes are possible on many of the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

At one point they introduced Italian Breda SAFAT's, entirely new HMG's.
I don't want to give my opinion about coding and stuff, I don't know much about that, but this sounds like a copy/paste issue to me.
http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/gm_shrug.gif


Originally posted by Wildnoob:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWXkSsxJmy0&mode=related&search=

at beginning of this video a KI-84 fuel tanks caugth fire, but the self sealing tanks made their job well and counter it and don't let the fire spread.

PS : the video is a spoiler of US 1945 propaganda documentary - the last bomb. Nice vid. Most of these JAAF aircraft caught fire after being hit, small fires big fires, some of the fires are probably induced by the rounds themselves!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Every different ammo mix requires a new gun with all the data the way the code engine works.
For whatever reason they did not make data table for 20+ extra guns we would wish for IL2.
What good is it to speculate why without knowing inside the code and code design decisions? MG151/20 had some issues... they were fixed. No new cannon was made then.

But now the $ 1 million dollar question is;

What the heck was in the Bf-109 nose in comparison to what was in under-wing gondollas if not the same cannon with different belting?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by Wildnoob:
My problem with this is that the mods have shown that it is not that hard to change the belting for the .50s. This is one of the few things I'm actually upset with Oleg for, he time after time did not change the belting on the .50's when it can obviously be done without too much trouble. +1

DKoor
05-05-2008, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Those Do-335 pilots probably didn't know that the Do-335 is equipped with fire extinguishers. They do burn easier than many so its not surprising that the .50cals were able to set the Do-335 alight. The trick is to make the guy shooting you think you're stricken and get him to break off before firing off the extinguishers and carrying on back to base (damaged but flyable). LoL I never knew that Dornier had fire extinguishers... good thing that most humans and Ai don't know about it either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif .

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
The 50's are really good if you set them at a good convergence (about 200-400 depending on your preference, but not too far out) and wait till your target is within 50 yards of your set convergence. If you hit the target when it is right on your convergence, the 50's are devastating.
The only thing about the 50's is that it takes a steadier aim, and to keep that aim on the target for a little bit. A couple hits from 50 cal rounds are not going to bring down your target...not like cannon rounds will.

If you're firing with a high rate of closure then fire 'long' on that convergence range.
The farther the convergence distance and the higher the closure rate, the farther ahead
to fire.
It has to do with the relative motion of the target, it comes closer even as the bullets
fly. The longer the range the more time it shortens range and the faster the closure the
faster it shortens range. For every 100kph of closing speed you get 28m per second against
bullet time of flight.
If you close on his side, 3 or 9, then your full speed is the delta-V. Closing from 4-5 or
7-8 then it's like your speed difference plus half your speed for quick calculation so don't
dismiss the closure in deflection as minor!
The range at which you fire determines what fraction of a second to apply the closing speed
range correction to. If your convergence is short then figure one or two tenths of a second,
closing at 200kph from dead 6 and firing from 100m or less you would only fire from +5m
while closing at 200kph from his 4-5 and you're moving 600kph and firing from 300m the
correction is more like (2x28m + 3x28m) x .3 ~= 40m-50m... you'd fire at 340-350m to hit
at about 300m from where you fired in relative terms and yes I am guessing .3 seconds for
the bullets to travel 300m.

If your convergence is 250m and you at zero closing speed would fire from 200m to 300m
then with a high delta-V zoom and moderate deflection should try shooting at about 350m.

Even shooting close, deflection can easily add 10m-20m (or more) to trigger range.

In practice it's more like when closing damned fast and shooting mid-range or longer, add
30m-50m or more to your effective range and trigger your ranging shots from there. You
want to get into that ballpark because convergence includes where your shots cross the
pipper rather than pass above or below it. These numbers only serve me as a rough guide
but they're better than nothing.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Every different ammo mix requires a new gun with all the data the way the code engine works.
For whatever reason they did not make data table for 20+ extra guns we would wish for IL2.
What good is it to speculate why without knowing inside the code and code design decisions? MG151/20 had some issues... they were fixed. No new cannon was made then.

But now the $ 1 million dollar question is;

What the heck was in the Bf-109 nose in comparison to what was in under-wing gondollas if not the same cannon with different belting?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No new cannon was made then because there were already TWO MG151/20's modeled!

The problem was that the ammo mix for each was reversed. Gondola ammo was supposed to be AP
heavy mix used in Russia for attacking IL-2 Sturmo's by specific German order. Instead the
gondolas got the regular mix with the 2 MG shells and the other ones got the AP mix with one
MG shell.

Tiger Talon is a hero for discovering this and pointing it out while others cried about the
MG shells being ineffective and the dev team again and again tested the MG shells that in
themselves were fine!

No new cannon was made, only the data for the two was switched. It's relatively easy to change
the data, esp if it is loaded at run time rather than compiled in hard code -- but even that
is usually safe to do. Well, when the data you are changing to already runs okay then your
safety against bug is even higher.

BTW, by definition a Program is Code plus Data. I won't say how many programmers have been
sent to change code when the real error was in the data. It's a real hair-tear. First place
to look is practically always the data. Even if it is right, it will usually show where the
code needs fixing.

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
It would even up the cannon vs mgs that shoulf hit as hard as 1-2 or 4 20mm, the browning in terms of hitting power (mid to close ranges) spit out more lead mass then 2 browning for 1 20mm..

Really by all assessments of experts and even USAAF, 1 20mm hit is more equal to 3 50 cal hits.

And the 50 cal hits have to be on the same place, the 1 20mm will always be on the same place.

If the 20mm is MG shell then it counts for more.

You know that if you crank and engine up high enough it makes a whining sound?

If the .50's are nerf then these planes are damp tissue paper.

DKoor
05-05-2008, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Tiger Talon is a hero for discovering this and pointing it out while others cried about the
MG shells being ineffective and the dev team again and again tested the MG shells that in
themselves were fine! First thanks for clearing that up...

But still I see a big problem with this...

All it took is one look at the code.

But it's ok at this point...

M_Gunz
05-05-2008, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Tiger Talon is a hero for discovering this and pointing it out while others cried about the
MG shells being ineffective and the dev team again and again tested the MG shells that in
themselves were fine! First thanks for clearing that up...

But still I see a big problem with this...

All it took is one look at the code.

But it's ok at this point... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Biggest problem was all the forum noise saying it was the wrong thing and no proof, only feel.

Try to imagine that in Moscow is a small company trying to work hard on the next thing to pay
the rent and salaries and they keep getting shouted at to check on something they have already
done so more than once. You tell a programmer "check this" and if he is busy with something
else then he only checks that, not the whole Black Forest for anything that could have to do
with that. He needs to get back to his real job. So he checks the MG shells and they are
what they should be. There is 151/20 data with those.. fine. Obvious is he does not check
the models to see which cannon they point to, to use. That is not his department, programmer
does not make models!
Models btw are DATA, not code. Program is both. I say again check data first is best!
My experience as paid programmer only lasted 19 years though.

Anyway as to above small company in Moscow with justified pride in its work. After a while
of checking and "really, MG shells are not a problem" the complaints are no longer regarded
with joy or anything remotely like it. Not for almost TWO YEARS because of aggravation and
still nothing like proof. I said before then on other issues and since: to make a huge fuss
without solid evidence is a huge mistake, it ensures that either nothing or the wrong thing
(the first trim fix!) gets done.

And then The Hero, Tiger Talon makes a simple test. He fires shells from 151/20 onto concrete
strip from above and makes screen caps, I guess from track. Then he does the same with 151/20
in gondolas. Lo and Behold! The proof is there, it is soon deduced about the mixup.

After that it took only a couple months or so for the fix. Oleg had to be convinced to look
and then be persuaded to have the change made which he did not want to divert someone to do.
Every change must be tested for any mistake, any slip that could change the wrong thing or
something else, then beta tested along with the then current upcoming patch -- so there is a
pipeline of month or more (JOKE ONLY: 2 weeks in Moscow, it only seems like forever) between
"Okay, we do it" and rejoicing in the community (except for whiners, there's ALWAYS whiners!).

Hope you like the more detailed story with same happy ending. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Moral is that nothing is easy, whining only slows things down and the good way won the day!

BTW -- if you are bad then I will tell about the 50 cals.

Hawgdog
05-06-2008, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:


Is this sim based in the POV of the russians? their reality?

Priceless. And sigquoatable! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hawgdog
05-06-2008, 06:15 AM
Ok, I've read the entire thread carefully now.
I have to say, this is the first, and most well thought out, best written threads on this topic I've seen since we got the P.11.
I understand way more than ever before on programming, data, 2 weeks and other stuff.
Brilliant. And somehow not one post on 50's flipping a tiger over http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

~S~

TinyTim
05-06-2008, 06:54 AM
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 DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Tiger Talon is a hero for discovering this and pointing it out while others cried about the
MG shells being ineffective and the dev team again and again tested the MG shells that in
themselves were fine! First thanks for clearing that up...

But still I see a big problem with this...

All it took is one look at the code.

But it's ok at this point... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Biggest problem was all the forum noise saying it was the wrong thing and no proof, only feel.

Try to imagine that in Moscow is a small company trying to work hard on the next thing to pay
the rent and salaries and they keep getting shouted at to check on something they have already
done so more than once. You tell a programmer "check this" and if he is busy with something
else then he only checks that, not the whole Black Forest for anything that could have to do
with that. He needs to get back to his real job. So he checks the MG shells and they are
what they should be. There is 151/20 data with those.. fine. Obvious is he does not check
the models to see which cannon they point to, to use. That is not his department, programmer
does not make models!
Models btw are DATA, not code. Program is both. I say again check data first is best!
My experience as paid programmer only lasted 19 years though.

Anyway as to above small company in Moscow with justified pride in its work. After a while
of checking and "really, MG shells are not a problem" the complaints are no longer regarded
with joy or anything remotely like it. Not for almost TWO YEARS because of aggravation and
still nothing like proof. I said before then on other issues and since: to make a huge fuss
without solid evidence is a huge mistake, it ensures that either nothing or the wrong thing
(the first trim fix!) gets done.

And then The Hero, Tiger Talon makes a simple test. He fires shells from 151/20 onto concrete
strip from above and makes screen caps, I guess from track. Then he does the same with 151/20
in gondolas. Lo and Behold! The proof is there, it is soon deduced about the mixup.

After that it took only a couple months or so for the fix. Oleg had to be convinced to look
and then be persuaded to have the change made which he did not want to divert someone to do.
Every change must be tested for any mistake, any slip that could change the wrong thing or
something else, then beta tested along with the then current upcoming patch -- so there is a
pipeline of month or more (JOKE ONLY: 2 weeks in Moscow, it only seems like forever) between
"Okay, we do it" and rejoicing in the community (except for whiners, there's ALWAYS whiners!).

Hope you like the more detailed story with same happy ending. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Moral is that nothing is easy, whining only slows things down and the good way won the day!

BTW -- if you are bad then I will tell about the 50 cals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well summed up, tho the credits for finding what the problem really was, should go to SerpentBlade, as he was the first to notice and bring our attention to the fact that when you shoot at a B-17 with 109 nose cannon only, you only get "small" explosions in the size of prop arc, but when you fire wing gondolas, you also get "big" explosions, approx. twice as large as the prop arc. This was, however, enough for me to conduct my own deep testing and report it as nicely as I could to 1C.

It is also interesting that MG shells (which were present only in 109 gondolas) got stronger and stronger with every patch due to whining, so in version 3.04 109 gondolas were at least on a par with todays VYa-23! After that, they included MG shells in all of the cannons, but toned them down to realistic levels.

Today, we have two Mg-151/20 beltings. Mg-151/20 on most of the planes have Tracer-AP-MG-MG-MG, while others have Tracer-AP-MG.

For anyone interested, here is the original thread which forever changed 151/20 (lol):
Link. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2111099562/p/1)

Many scrshots are unfortunately gone... Also notice how many (also prominent) board members claimed:"Drop it guys, its a DM related problem..." and similar without even looking carefully at the screenshots and tracks. Something very similar to what is going on now whenever someone starts a .50 cal thread.

M_Gunz
05-06-2008, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
This was, however, enough for me to conduct my own deep testing and report it as nicely as I could to 1C.

That's why I credit YOU!

You made it work, without that there would have been no change!

You are the Wright Brothers of IL2 151/20's!

Urufu_Shinjiro
05-06-2008, 11:11 AM
[sorry - no discussion of game mods, please]

Aaron_GT
05-06-2008, 12:27 PM
At one point they introduced Italian Breda SAFAT's, entirely new HMG's.

Ah, the Italians had a presence on the Eastern Front too!

Blutarski2004
05-08-2008, 10:01 AM
Some insights into ammunition 50cal belting issues during WW2.

Taken from "OPERATIONS ANALYSIS IN THE U. S. ARMY EIGHTH AIR FORCE IN WORLD WAR 2", page 93 (You can find it at Books.Google.com)":

Quote -

... All of the American planes - both fighters and bombers - were heavily armed with .50-caliber machine guns. It had become standard practice to use mixed ammunition consisting of armor-piercing (AP), indendiary (I), or a combination of armor-piercing and incendiary (API) projectiles. Taylor said "there was a great deal of voodoo about the selection of these."

The British had collected and analyzed a great deal of German aerial equipment. They calculated, for instance, the relative vulnerability of different portions of a plane to different kinds of ammunition. For example, in a given type of German bomber, 20 percent of the target might be vulnerable to incendiary ammunition (I), 30 percent to armor-piercing (AP), and 50 percent to armor-piercing, incendiary (API) ammunition. Accordingly guns would be belted with ammunition in the ratio of 2-I to 3-AP to 5-API cartridges. Besdies this, there were arguments as to whether you should put all five API together or distribute them in some other way.

What should have been obvious, but clearly was not, was the fact that if any plane was more vulnerable to any one kind of ammunition than the other it was a pure dilution of ammunition to put in any except the most effective. Ralph Johnson, who was the first one of us to notice this fact, was so dumbfounded that he was almost afraid to mention it. When it was brought up at the top echelons they were skeptical at first. Then when they saw the truth of it, even the 'high command' had a terrible time in convincing the squadrons at the fighting level that they should stop this silly dilution of ammunition.

The section's first report was written by Ralph Johnson on "Mixed Beltimg of Ammunition for the P-47" and was dated 21 July 1943.

The analysts visited a number of fighter and bomber bases to convince the appropriate people that the analysis was valid. The effort paid off; two groups agreed to participate in an experiment. One group loaded ammunition the way the analysts recommended, all API, and another group loaded ammunition in the mixed-belt manner. Both groups went out on fighter escort for the same mission of B-17s.

As luck, or statistics, would have it, the group with API ammunition clobberedthe German fighters whereas the group with mixed ammunition had poor hunting. None ofthem stopped to think about the luck or what it would be like tomorrow with the group positions reversed or a variety of other things. The result was that there was not enough API ammunition in all the UK to supply the overnight demands of the VIII FC [Fighter Command]. Nevertheless, knowledge and acceptance of these results came about slowly in come commands, and not at all in others.

The validity of the section's work on ammunition belting was established both theoretically and experimentally back in the States. Dr William L Duren Jr, a mathematician and outstanding gunnery operations analyst with the Second Air Force in the United States, specialized in gunnery problems of the B-29. In his memoir, however, he told how he also tried to act as liaison between mathematicians in civilian research centers writing papers that "would never be read" and the military men for whom they were intended. Duren gave an example.

"Jacob Wolfowitz had written an elegant statistical analysis of the question, what was the best mixture of the several available types of ammunition to load on the belts of the .50-caliber machine gun against enemy fighters. His answer was clear cut, >>based on his assumptions<<. The conclusion was that the belts should be loaded 100 percent withthe one API (armor-piercing incendiary) type. The assumptions, based on actual experiments at Wright Field, were that serial correlation in several successive hits wassmall or zero and thus that the probability of a kill in any shot was independent. Under these conditions the belts should be loaded entirely with bullets that had the highest probability of downing the fighter with one hit. This, the Wright Field tests showed, was the API. Not only did the ordnance sergeants not read Wolfowitz's report, but, in defiance of orders from the top, they considered it their right to load those guns as they deemed best. Each one had his own mixture formula including tracers and incendiaries as well as armor-piercing bullets. On each base, I undertook to "sell" Wolfowitz's result. The argument could be put on a common sense basis, free of the technical statistical qualification. But I do not know how successful I was."

I will add a personal note on the ammunition belting procedures. Because I was the bombardier, I was also the gunnery officer of the crew. However, the crew had nothing to do with selecting the ammunition for the belts of our machine guns. We shot, as the occasion arose, whatever ammunition was provided for us. Our most memorable gunnery episode occurred on 2 November 1944 while bombingthe synthetic oil refineries at Merseburg-Leuna near Leipzig, Germany. Of 1,100 heavy bombers in five seperate forces sent to Germany that day, 683 B-17s were sent to the notorious Merseburg oil refineries. A major air battle lasting forty minutes took place between the escorting fighters of the Eighth Fight Command and the Luftwaffe in the Merseburg area. Hundreds of fighters on both sides were involved. The largest formation of German fighters encountered during the Merseburg battle was a force, mostly Me-109s, estimated at 150, 200, or 250 planes. The largest group of German jet fighters yet to be encountered, about fifteen Me-163s, rose to attack the bombers that day. At least nine broke through our fighters and made individual passes at the B-17s. Two attacked our group, the 493rd Bomb Group, and one made two passes, from behind and overhead, at our squadron. I vividly recall the Me-163 - a flying wing - going over us twice with trajectories of tracer bullets from our guns, especially the top turret guns, apparently going through the plane. Yet the fighter flew away without disintegrating. As late as 2 November 1944 and probably for the rest of the war, the ordnance sergeants of the Eighth Bomber Command were still mixing or diluting the ammunition in the ammunition belts. Although the glowing, visible tracers made us feel that we had come close to our target, if all our bullets had been API's we might have destroyed our adversary.

- Unquote

Diablo310th
05-08-2008, 11:36 AM
BLUTARSKI.....great find. I had not seen this one. It only backs up all the other evidence that Monguse and I had found in the past to substantiate our beliefs.

JG53Frankyboy
05-08-2008, 11:49 AM
was there a difference in armour piercing ability between the AP and the API round ?

Urufu_Shinjiro
05-08-2008, 12:47 PM
This just points out the fact that Il2 has NO API in the .50cal belting is a terrible oversight.

Blutarski2004
05-08-2008, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
BLUTARSKI.....great find. I had not seen this one. It only backs up all the other evidence that Monguse and I had found in the past to substantiate our beliefs.


..... I bumped into it purely by accident on a recent "surfing safari". Luckily I remembered where it was. Same book has a fair amount of other interesting material.

DKoor
05-08-2008, 12:54 PM
Being on the bottom of the desirable rounds in the IL2 A2A combat, I can easily live with absolutely no AP rounds at all.
IL2 as a game is designed in a way that things that penetrate and make a hole at some point aren't as dangerous as those which will either explode or inflict fire easily when at contact with target.

Bottom line. Just give me those incendiaries full belt... I want to burn stuff.

Blutarski2004
05-08-2008, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
This just points out the fact that Il2 has NO API in the .50cal belting is a terrible oversight.


..... In principle I agree (as the unofficial IL2 50cal worshipper and forum representative). But to be honest, I don't think the current in-game (off-line anyways) effect of the 50's is terribly far off the mark. A one or two second burst at convergence produces 15 to 30 hits which pretty reliably knock the target down. Maddox may have gotten there by accident in the process of their "adjustification" of 50cal damage effectiveness (simming is not altogether an exact science after all).

Urufu_Shinjiro
05-08-2008, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
This just points out the fact that Il2 has NO API in the .50cal belting is a terrible oversight.


..... In principle I agree (as the unofficial IL2 50cal worshipper and forum representative). But to be honest, I don't think the current in-game (off-line anyways) effect of the 50's is terribly far off the mark. A one or two second burst at convergence produces 15 to 30 hits which pretty reliably knock the target down. Maddox may have gotten there by accident in the process of their "adjustification" of 50cal damage effectiveness (simming is not altogether an exact science after all). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the most part you are correct, the real problem is in the PTO where the non-sealing fuel tanks on most japanese AC were absolutely devestated by the API rounds. The ingame .50s damage may be about right for the ingame ETO planes, but the ingame damage to the PTO planes is farther off the mark.

JG53Frankyboy
05-08-2008, 02:07 PM
but does this not depend in game more how the japanese plane is programmed - DM wise...........

Ki-43, A6M and Ki-84 as examples are burning relative easy.
others, well............. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
G4M, Ki-21 , Ki-27 are more of the "fire department" like side.

ElAurens
05-08-2008, 03:44 PM
I've never had any problem setting Bettys alight.

R_Target
05-08-2008, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
but does this not depend in game more how the japanese plane is programmed - DM wise...........

Ki-43, A6M and Ki-84 as examples are burning relative easy.
others, well............. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
G4M, Ki-21 , Ki-27 are more of the "fire department" like side.

The Betty is a strange case. The tanks don't seem to ignite, but I aim at the engines and they flare up quickly.

Gibbage1
05-08-2008, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I've never had any problem setting Bettys alight.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/burn.jpg

Betty's engines will burn, but the fuel tanks are another matter. Also, for those who dont know, the Betty had a "wet" wing, in that the entire wing was a fuel tank. So in reality, ANY hit in the wings, SHOULD hit the fuel. Thats why it had such a bad reputation for being a Zippo in real life. In IL2, its rather flame resistant.

TinyTim
05-09-2008, 12:24 AM
Not to speak about Ki-21! It has fuel tanks only on the inner portion of the wings, but is incredibly hard to set aflame (the fueltanks, not the engines).

Blutarski2004
05-09-2008, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
For the most part you are correct, the real problem is in the PTO where the non-sealing fuel tanks on most japanese AC were absolutely devestated by the API rounds. The ingame .50s damage may be about right for the ingame ETO planes, but the ingame damage to the PTO planes is farther off the mark.


..... Oops. I forgot about that part (haven't flown the Pacific). If that's the case, then something ought to be done about incendiary effect at least.

DKoor
05-09-2008, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Not to speak about Ki-21! It has fuel tanks only on the inner portion of the wings, but is incredibly hard to set aflame (the fueltanks, not the engines). Yes. I noticed that engines in general, burn better than fuel tanks in game.
I can set them on fire with cannons, machine gun fire... every weapon.

VW-IceFire
05-09-2008, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Not to speak about Ki-21! It has fuel tanks only on the inner portion of the wings, but is incredibly hard to set aflame (the fueltanks, not the engines).
I think somethings up with the Ki-21. Hit it with ShKAS machine guns from a I-16 and it will not do anything...turn those same machine guns on a Zero or Oscar and its like a summer BBQ.