PDA

View Full Version : How does one define a plane's solidity in flight sims?



Metatron_123
04-09-2009, 08:20 PM
I was wondering what rules apply when creating a plane's damage model. Obviously an armoured plane like an Il-2 is more robust, a light plane like a Ki-43 is fragile.

But some things don't seem as obvious. For example why is a I-153 much harder to bring down than a Cr-42, when they are both of seemingly similar construction materials? Is there a way to determine what design methods lend themselves to robustness?

I'm curious how one researches this subject. Is a lot of it guesswork based on personal accounts, or does a more detailed examination of the plane's design and materials used take place?

Metatron_123
04-09-2009, 08:20 PM
I was wondering what rules apply when creating a plane's damage model. Obviously an armoured plane like an Il-2 is more robust, a light plane like a Ki-43 is fragile.

But some things don't seem as obvious. For example why is a I-153 much harder to bring down than a Cr-42, when they are both of seemingly similar construction materials? Is there a way to determine what design methods lend themselves to robustness?

I'm curious how one researches this subject. Is a lot of it guesswork based on personal accounts, or does a more detailed examination of the plane's design and materials used take place?

DKoor
04-09-2009, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
For example why is a I-153 much harder to bring down than a Cr-42, when they are both of seemingly similar construction materials? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your question already contains an answer... because the DM aren't exactly right?

You will also find that some of the older planes (older meaning introduced in the earlier game versions) have "tougher" DM.... some said it was that way because of the DM simplification.
Some like LaGG didn't get that DM updated. Ai MC.202 was a tank too.

ImMoreBetter
04-09-2009, 09:25 PM
Measuring the amount of damage different planes can absorb is limited at best.

The biggest problem is the limit of technology.
If we were able to model every single part inside of a plane and exactly how each part is protected, that would probably be the closest we will ever get.

triad773
04-10-2009, 01:18 AM
Best solution, and pardon me for sounding like the 'Master of the Obvious,' don't get hit in the first place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Otherwise, it's just an endurance contest with the last (plane) standing.

Romanator21
04-10-2009, 02:31 AM
I am almost certain that it is just a sort of DM simplification, especially for the older models. Il-2 doesn't use hit bubbles, but I am sure that each component of the plane can take a certain amount of "energy" from bullets (more small caliber shots, fewer cannon shots). When that specific benchmark is achieved, the damage texture appears, or components fall off.

The older planes, such as the MiG-3 and G-50 are fairly tough, but the R-10 can be de-winged by spitting at it.

Metatron_123
04-10-2009, 05:00 AM
This isn't about my personal score Triad, I was simply curious...

I see the older model issue seems to make sense. For example P.11s seem to be able to absorb copious amounts of small caliber fire.

Then again so does the Ki-27, but I get the feeling a lot of this has been discussed before...

Thanks for the replies.

M_Gunz
04-10-2009, 05:33 AM
The DM uses 3D objects the "bullet" has to hit the object to affect it.
It's there until damaged 100% and then it isn't. One shot *can* destroy more than one object, it goes in
a straight line only though. The arrows in Arcade=1 mode show that path only, the bullets may stop along it.

When FB was coming, engines would become IIRC over 20 parts. We saw the renders.

Landing gear behind a bomber engine (Tu-2) can soak up a lot of 20mm before it's destroyed to let shots through
and hit the daggone engine. I remember asking and being shown the screenies of lowering the gear of my target.
Oh.. that's where all my ammo went. Did he have a hard time landing? I forget.

Hit-bubbles... you see how close a bullet-as-a-line comes to the center and if it's less than the tabled radius,
it's a hit. The line is where the bullet goes in one frame's time. Did the bullet line intersect the hit bubble?
EAW gunnery and DM is a joke by comparison to IL2 but it allowed a 300mz PC to run 100's of planes at once (but
only 8 humans online or LAN. AI wasn't so bad if you kept yours in line and coops could have AI. Not bad for
1999 except the online part; Red Baron was running over 80 online in late 1998 on DF servers.
The hit bubbles could be shrunk. I found that at around 70% original radius, the AI was getting hardly any kills
so I had to wing them back around 80% which is almost the same size yet cuts the golden BB's more than half. It
did make shooting a bit closer to a challenge. Red Baron was worse, the fire scattered wide like 10 degrees but
you do get hit-boxes instead of the bubbles so for instance wings can be thin.
I enjoyed both of those but then I ran 233 to 300mz AMD's and megs of ram, I didn't expect so much. Things change.

VW-IceFire
04-10-2009, 09:00 AM
Some of the problem is that IL-2s damage models range from very sophisticated in the most recently released models to much less sophisticated in some of the ones that came with IL-2 back in the early days. I think most of those received upgrades of one kind or another but they aren't quite all to the same standard.

M_Gunz
04-10-2009, 10:29 AM
Exactly on the Standards bit. Patch to patch would be upgrade changes you couldn't always see but that first I-16 DM....