PDA

View Full Version : general DM testing thread, post your findings here!



JG54_Arnie
06-13-2005, 04:02 AM
Ok people, there's been several threads where strenghts of guns have been mentioned, or doubted. Threads about the power of guns are often started and I fear also often based on experience with one or few planes as target.

The goal of this thread: to test DM models of several planes from all sides, mainly by using the german 151/20's, Svak, .50's and hispano's. There's been a few people testing a few guns already, we can use that, and extend it to get a better and bigger picture. My feeling is that a few planes are too tough and that people easily feel that a gun is too weak because that particular plane wont go down. So make nice tables, compare the DM's. Dont go jumping to conclusion after a few tests, we can do that when we have enough info. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Von Zero's test in this thread is a good example of how to do it.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4101001923
Although, ofcourse, 4.00 isnt defenite at all and likely to have changes in 4.01 it keeps us busy for sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif So fire away! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

one last remark: To keep it easy to view the results, only fire at convergence distance and if possible use 200M for everything.

JG54_Arnie
06-13-2005, 04:34 AM
P-40 vs several targets, conv. 200M, results are average of shooting at 4 targets each run. Each run having 4 planes of the same type.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
zero 1 second burst, instant death
P-39 1 second burst, instant burning
FW190 5 second burst, some control surfaces lost, PK, no fuelleaks or structural damage
ME109 3-5 second burst, light or black smoke, no fires, goes down due to PK or control loss.
ME110 1-2 second burst, instant burning
</pre>

tigertalon
06-13-2005, 05:37 AM
Good idea mate!

Would just like to add that IMO some rules should be applied (to get more reliable results) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So:

FMB: Crimea map, perfect whether, noon, no wind, no enemy objects
Target: friendly, 100%fuel, default weapons, altitude 1000m, speed 300km/h. Make them fly straight for as long as possible (across entire map).
And turn arcade mode on.

Did I forget something? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG54_Arnie
06-13-2005, 06:15 AM
Hmm, good addition! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif This should do I think. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maybe its also handy if everyone records tracks, archives them, in case we find really weird, completely different results? Might be overdone, but just in case.

That should be it.

JG54_Arnie
06-14-2005, 04:00 AM
Well, here's my first series of tests. Interesting to do this really. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Doing this shows the differences between the weapons and certain weaknesses in the DM's of planes. I shot them all from deadsix, it seems especially the hispano and 151/20 have a lot more edgehits on the tails, especially with tougher planes like the FW and the P-47. The P-47 came out tougher than I expected. Feel free to critizise, add your own findings etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Shot five times with each plane on each target. The table shows the hits needed to cause the damage.
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
PK = Pilot Kill
FF = Fueltank Fire
EF = Engine Fire
WO = Wing Off
FU = Fuselage broke
E = Explosion
CL = Control Loss

weapon Lagg(35series) zero(a6m5) La5 109G2 190A6 P-47(22) P-39(N)
Svak
5 PK 4 WO 4 WO+FF 8 FU+FF 1 PK (3 E) 13 FU 9 EF+WO
7 FF 2 WO 11 WO+FF 6 FU+FF 11 PK 12 FU 4 EF
11 E 2 FF 9 E 6 WO 9 PK 20 FU 5 PK
5 PK 1 FF 9 FU 9 FU+FF 2 PK 13 FU+FF 4 WO+EF
5 FU+PK 5 WO 4 FU+FF 4 FU+FF 10 E 13 FU 2 WO
151/20
1 FF 2 WO 2 WO 1 FU+FF 15 FU 2 FU+FF 4 FF+WO
3 FU 3 WO 3 WO 3 WO 3 PK 20 crash ** 8 EF
2 PK 2 FU 4 PK 6 WO+FU 12 FU 8 FU 1 FU+EF
7 FU 2 FU 8 FU 2 WO 7 WO 10 FU 4 FU+EF
4 FF 3 WO 1 FU 2 FU+FF 2 WO 4 FU 3 FF
.50's
40 FF+PK 8 WO 25 FU+PK 25 WO 40+ CL+EF 40+ PK *** 12 FF
20 FF 6 FF 25 FU 30 FF 50+ crash 10 FF 10 EF
30 CL 10 FF 15 WO+FF 30 PK 15 PK 20+ED/30+FU 15 WO
30 FF 5 FF 10 EF 35 WO 30 WO 20+ED/50+E 30 WO
30 PK 5 FF 15 FU 30 PK 50+ PK * 20 FF 15 EF
Hispano
3 WO 4 WO 6 FU 5 WO 4 WO 8 FU 3 EF+FU
5 PK 4 WO 5 CL 4 FU+FF 5 FU 3 FF 6 WO
1 WO+FF 1 FF 6 FU 5 WO 6 CL 8 PK 6(4ap) WO+FF
2 PK 3 FU 7 FU 6 FU+FF 4 FU 13 FU 5 WO
4 PK+FU 5 WO 9 FU 3 WO 5 WO 4 FU 1 WO+FF
</pre>
*engine went dead after 20+ hits
** picture check this link http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://home.student.utwente.nl/a.j.vansteenwijk/IL2/P-47%2020.jpg
*** little bit of outer wing also came off

Averages (only out of five, so not always representing the actual hits needed):
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
weapon Lagg(35series) zero(a6m5) La5 109G2 190A6 P-47(22) P-39(N)

Svak 6.6 2.8 7.4 6.6 6.6 14.2 4.8

151/20 3.5 2.4 3.6 2.8 7.8 8.8 4

.50's 30 6.8 18 30 37 25 16.4

Hispano 3 3.4 6.6 4.6 4.8 7.2 4.2
</pre>

Will try to do more to get a better average but so far every weapon has a good chance of killing its opponent with very few hits. Its possible that the edgehits do color this test somewhat. But overall it gives a nice idea of how each plane takes damage.
PK happened especially when I was just a little bit off the six position and got a clear shot past the tail.
Although the Svak shows no explosion on impact of the AP round, that round causes major damage when going through a vital part of the plane.

mynameisroland
06-14-2005, 08:24 AM
Thanks for the tests they are very useful Wish I could try it too but I was a fool and thought that the patch would be out last friday so decided to play it by the book. Never again!

What are your general impressions? From a Luftie point of view Im interested in the comparitive power of the Fw 190 armed with 4 x Mg151's against a Mustang or a Spitfire testing the destructive capacity of each. The Fw with 4 wing guns should be the most powerfully armed 20mm flyable plane. Does this translate across ie does it take half the time in an Fw A6 compared with a Spit IX to kill a La5 for exapmple due to the Fw having more guns?

JG54_Arnie
06-14-2005, 10:18 AM
Hmm, its a little too early to say a lot about it. But the 151/20 and Hispano are very close in comparison. I didnt test any 4 cannon planes yet. These tests were all done with single cannon mounts.

More later. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EDIT: But for sure: the FW really has teeth now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG54_Arnie
06-15-2005, 12:17 PM
*** NOTE: Added P-51C
Extension, previous post is taken into this one, so totaly number of tests on each plane is 15.
The first table shows the number of shells needed to cause terminal damage to the targeted plane. ES and CL is in the list mainly because the FW and 109 often went down with smoking engine and lost controls. I couldnt get the 50's to destroy a 109 or 190 enough times without it crashing. Remember, this is all from dead 6 shooting. And rather to check DM's than weaponstrenght, although it gives a nice comparison.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
damages: PK = Pilot Kill
FF = Fueltank Fire
EF = Engine Fire
WO = Wing Off
FU = Fuselage broke
E = Explosion
CL = Control Loss
ES = Engine Smoking (black)
ED = Engine Stopped (death)
S = Stabilizer shot off.

weapon Lagg(35series) zero(a6m5) La5F 109G2 109G2(4.01) 190A6 P-47(22) P-39(N)
Svak
5 PK 4 WO 4 WO+FF 8 FU+FF 2 FF+PK 1 PK (3 E) 13 FU 9 EF+WO
7 FF 2 WO 11 WO+FF 6 FU+FF 10 FU+FF 11 PK 12 FU 4 EF
11 E 2 FF 9 E 6 WO 4 WO 9 PK 20 FU 5 PK
5 PK 1 FF 9 FU 9 FU+FF 7 PK 2 PK 13 FU+FF 4 WO+EF
5 FU+PK 5 WO 4 FU+FF 4 FU+FF 5 CL+bail 10 E 13 FU 2 WO
5 FU 5 FU 3 WO+FF 9 WO 10 WO 5 FU 14 PK+FF 6 FF
10 PK 1 FU(2 E) 9 FU 6 PK 11 FU+FF 19 WO 9 PK 9 EF
11 PK 4 E 2 WO 8 FU+FF 4 WO 10 PK 16 PK 5 WO+FF
7 WO+FF 3 WO 10 PK 14 WO+FU 13 WO 10 PK 18 FU 5 FU+EF
9 WO+FF 1 EF 10 FU 5 FU+FF 9 CL+bail 12 E 16 PK 1 WO
12 WO+FF 2 EF 8 PK 4 FU+FF 6 WO 3 PK 12 FU 6 FU+EF
12 PK 6 EF 4 WO 4 FU+FF 9 FU+FF 6 PK 10 PK 7 EF
9 FU 1 FF 9 PK 5 WO 8 FU+FF 14 PK 6 PK 4 EF
7 FF+WO 4 FU+WO 7 WO 4 WO 6 WO 12 PK 12 FU 6 FF
4 PK 1 WO+FF 11 FU 7 WO 10 WO 12 FU 3 PK 7 FU
151/20
1 FF 2 WO 2 WO 1 FU+FF 2 WO 15 FU 2 FU+FF 4 FF+WO
3 FU 3 WO 3 WO 3 WO 14 WO 3 PK 20 crash ** 8 EF
2 PK 2 FU 4 PK 6 WO+FU 4 FF 12 FU 8 FU 1 FU+EF
7 FU 2 FU 8 FU 2 WO 2 FU+FF 7 WO 10 FU 4 FU+EF
4 FF 3 WO 1 FU 2 FU+FF 1 FF 2 WO 4 FU 3 FF
8 FU 3 E 2 WO 8 WO 4 WO 6 FU 10 E 1 WO
3 FU+FF 2 FU+FF 3 WO 2 WO 9 FU 4 WO 13 FU 4 WO
5 WO+FF 1 FU+FF 5 FU 8 WO 7 WO 1 PK 2 FF 2 FF
6 PK 2 E 12 PK 3 FU+FF 5 FU+FF 3 PK 12 FU 2 FF
4 WO 2 FU+FF 3 PK 4 FF 7 FU+FF 7 E 5 WO 6 WO+FF
2 WO 5 FU 3 WO+FF 8 WO 2 FU+FF 2 PK 4 PK 2 EF
3 WO 2 FU(3 E) 13 FU 7 FF 3 PK 18 WO 3 FU 3 EF+FF
8 FU 2 PK 6 E 6 FU+FF 8 WO 5 PK 3 WO 8 FF
6 WO+FF 3 E 3 PK 6 WO 7 PK+ES 9 WO 5 FU 5 FF
7 WO+FF 3 EF 3 FU 3 FU+FF 2 FU+FF 11 PK 5 FU+FF 3 FF+WO
Hispano
3 WO 4 WO 6 FU 5 WO 7 FF 4 WO 8 FU 3 EF+FU
5 PK 4 WO 5 CL 4 FU+FF 4 FU+FF 5 FU 3 FF 6 WO
1 WO+FF 1 FF 6 FU 5 WO 7 FU+FF 6 CL 8 PK 6(4ap)WO+FF
2 PK 3 FU 7 FU 6 FU+FF 4 FU+FF 4 FU 13 FU 5 WO
4 PK+FU 5 WO 9 FU 3 WO 3 FU+FF 5 WO 4 FU 1 WO+FF
3 FU+FF+WO 2 FU 5 PK + FF 7 WO 2 FU+FF 9 WO 6 FU 2 WO+FF
10 FU 4 WO 3 PK 8 FF+FU 4 WO 10 PK 2 FU 9 WO
3 PK 3 FF 5 FU 3 WO 5 EF 3 PK 7 FU 5 WO
2 FU+FF 1 FU 5 FU 4 WO 3 WO 3 FF+WO 6 PK 2 EF+WO
6 FF 4 WO 6 FU 6 WO 5 PK 3 WO 6 WO 4 FU
5 PK 2 FU 9 PK 10 FU+EF 8 FU+FF 4 WO 7 FU 4 EF
4 FU 1 FF 2 ED 6 WO 6 WO 6 FU 3 FU 5 FF
3 PK 4 WO 7 WO 6 WO 6 PK 4 PK 8 FU 6 FU
2 FF 2 PK 10 FU 1 ED 4 WO 4 PK 4 PK 5 EF+FU
2 PK 4 E 10 FU 6 FU+FF 7 WO 13 WO 7 FU 5 WO+FF
.50's
40 FF+PK 8 WO 25 FU+PK 25 WO 25 FU+FF 40+ CL+EF 40+ PK *** 12 FF
20 FF 6 FF 25 FU 30 FF 20 FF 50+ crash 10 FF 10 EF
30 CL 10 FF 15 WO+FF 30 PK 25 CL/ES 15 PK 20+ED/30+FU 15 WO
30 FF 5 FF 10 EF 35 WO 35 FU+FF 30 WO 20+ED/50+E 30 WO
30 PK 5 FF 15 FU 30 PK 30 PK 50+ PK * 20 FF 15 EF
15 PK 5 FF 15 FU 50+ES+CL 45 ES/CL 45 PK 20 FU 20 WO
35 PK 10 WO 15 FU 30 ES CL 35 PK 40 CL 15 FF 10 EF
30 PK 3 FF 20 FU 50 CL 25 FF 50 WO 20 FU 10 EF
15 PK 5 EF 20 FU 40+FF+WO 20 FF 45 CL 10 FU 15 EF
10 PK 3 EF 5 PK 40 ES+WO 15 FF 30 PK 10 FF 10 EF
15 FF 10 WO 15 FU 50 FU+FF 20 FU+FF 50 CL 50 FF 15 EF
20 WO+FF 3 EF 20 FU 50 FU+FF 25 FU+FF 40 CR 15 FF 20 EF
50 PK 15 WO 5 WO 30 FU+FF 15 FF 10 PK 15 FF 15 EF
20 PK 10 PK 15 FU 35 FF 10 FF 30 WO 25 FF 10 EF
10 PK 15 WO 10 FU 40 ES+CL 20 FU+FF 50 CL 50 FU+FF 15 EF

P-51C
Svak
15 EF+WO
4 EF
3 ED
3 ED
13 E
5 S
8 WO
8 ED
10 WO
3 PK
16 WO
9 PK
13 WO
2 PK
2 WO
151/20
9 ED
8 WO
1 ED
6 FU
10 WO
1 EF
10 EF
7 WO
5 ED
7 ED
3 WO
1 PK
3 WO
8 WO
8 ED
Hispano
6 ED
6 EF
3 PK
8 EF
2 WO
1 WO
7 EF
6 EF
3 ED
6 E
5 ED
3 EF
8 ED
6 WO
2 FU
.50's
10 EF
15 ED
30 ED
15 EF
10 EF
25 EF
10 ED
5 ED
10 ED
20 ED
15 EF
5 ED
10 ED
15 ED
10 ED
</pre>
*engine went dead after 20+ hits
** picture check this link http://home.student.utwente.nl/a.j.vansteenwijk/IL2/P-47%2020.jpg
*** little bit of outer wing also came off

Average number of shells needed:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
weapon Lagg(35series) zero(a6m5) La5F 109G2 109G2(4.01) 190A6 P-47(22) P-39(N)

Svak 7.9 2.8 7.3 6.6 7.6 6.6 12.5 5.3

151/20 4.6 2.5 4.7 4.6 4.8 7 7 3.7

Hispano 3.7 2.9 6.3 5.3 5.5 5.5 6.1 4.5

.50's 25 8 16 38 26 38 24 15


P-51C

Svak 7.6

151/20 5.8

Hispano 4.8

.50's 15
</pre>

Some observations: very few fuelleaks on the 109, none on the FW, very few also on the LAGG and LA
.50's caused most fuelleaks, especially on the P-47 and anything that is not a 190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Things that jumped out:
The .50's are quite strong still. Its the changes to the 109 and 190's DM that make it look weak. Even though the .50's dont destroy a 190 and 109 structurally, they do tear its wings and controls appart. I didnt count the number of shells needed to bust controls of the 190 and 109, but for both it happened roughly after 20/30 hits, sometimes 10.
Striking was that the .50s tore through the fuselages of both the P-47 and LA5 often. And that the fueltank on the P-47 is easily set on fire by the .50's.
Seems to me that heavy armour on the german planes gives the .50's a hard time. US pilots should never fire from dead six on these planes, deflection shots will give them the chance to hit fueltank and pilot by bypassing the armour in especially the 190 (EDIT: after some testing this seems incorrect. The fueltank only burns if the fuselage is severed, bar one situation which was rare). I had one HE round of the Hispano setting the FW's fueltank on fire and this happened when it hit the wing right next to the fueltank, the scrapnel of this HE round then hit the fueltank from the side, bypassing the armour and instantly setting it on fire. This only happened once though. So its unusual. Never have I seen a FW leak fuel in this version so far. Its main problem. Even though its structurally too strong, its controls can be severed, its wings become zwiss cheese after enough hits rendering it unflyable.

DM wise, the lagg and La arent really strong, every plane has the occasional "soaking up damage session". Although the Lagg is still questionable. The P-47 is somewhat weak, mainly its fuselage, although can take up to 20 20mm rounds on occasion. But not often (enough?).
On the P-39 no PK's happened, might be because it flames before this can happen and that the engine also takes all hits before they reach the pilot.

20mm guns: (from the game, does this sound like reality? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
151/20 really blows the lightly armoured planes appart, its having a little bit more difficulty with the armoured planes.
Svak is the top pilot killing gun. Does it have 2 AP rounds in a belt of five? Thats what it seems like. It seems that due to its mainly AP capacity it has a harder time with massive planes like the P-47. The P-47 really soaked up its HE rounds. Although the ratio compared to the other two 20mm guns seems to remain the same compared to other targets.
The Hispano is a good combination of both. Scores the necessary PK's and also has some very good HE power. Also has 2 AP rounds in the belt?

Gunnerytips:
-always go for deflection shots if possible, even a very little deflection (shooting past the tail onto the cockpit or fuselage) can make a huge difference. The tails of airplanes can take a lot of 20mm shells that do very little to no damage there and make airplanes seem tough. contrary to what I said before, edgehits happen a lot with all 20mm guns (not just the Hispano and 151/20).
- Get the P-47 in its belly, the fueltank there lights up like a christmas tree.
- P-39: just hit it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
- La and Lagg: wingroots!!!
- going up against the LW? Make sure to bring a 20mm gun (or two).


Any suggestions for other DM's that need testing or guns even? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Not gonna test for a few days now though, I feel like a madman now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
I know 4.01 is on its way, but this stuff is interesting nonetheless. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Hopefully some other folks can do some more testing, or add from what has been tested already. F19_Ob? Von_Zero? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Main DM issues:
FW doesnt leak fuel and is structurally too strong.
P-47's fuselage is too weak, Fueltank set on fire way too easily and its engine is very weak.
Lagg sometimes!! too strong? (how was it historically?)

JG54_Arnie
06-15-2005, 02:31 PM
Hmm bad timing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif although I dont think a lot has changed.. but will check out if there has been changes.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FritzGryphon
06-16-2005, 03:28 AM
Lol, that LaGG-3 could really use some more pilot armor. PK PK PK PK PK...

JG54_Arnie
06-16-2005, 06:58 AM
indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .50's seem to be excellent VVS killers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Updated with 4.01 109 in the list. Seems the cannons hit it equally hard, but the .50's blow it to pieces now.
From trying shooting the other planes some more as well, it seems the .50's have the same power. Weird as the test makes it look like the .50's did get stronger.
Could have to do with the edgehits though.

Interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG54_Arnie
06-17-2005, 01:46 PM
No one finds this really interesting? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Pirschjaeger
06-19-2005, 07:57 AM
Bump!

Pirschjaeger
06-20-2005, 11:46 AM
rebumped!

Hunde_3.JG51
06-20-2005, 12:11 PM
I have an offline test track where the Dora I am flying in gets its tail ripped off by a Mustang III with approx. 2 to 4 .50 rounds.

I also had a track where I ripped a P-47 in half from 450 meters with 1 or 2 20mm rounds, looked ridiculous. I lost this one when I went from 4.0 to 4.01, to uninstall and 3.04 to 4.01. Forgot to save it but I am sure it will happen again.

Not sure if this is on topic, just thought it was interesting that a Dora's tail gets cut off by a couple mg rounds and a P-47 gets torn in half by 1 or 2 151/20 rounds. Both look wrong and I have a track of one, I can probably repeat the other.

FatBoyHK
06-20-2005, 12:44 PM
excellent test http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I second that 50cals are actually more powerful than in v304. Finally I can do real damage on a He111 and Bf110. It must be the DM change that make 50cals look weaker than they should be.

It is quite questionable that a 190, or even a 109, would be able to take more damage than a Jug.

Stigler_9_JG52
06-20-2005, 12:59 PM
Well, I'm just glad that the German 20mm works finally. Now you don't absolutely have to take a Mk108 cannon to hope to do damage to a target.

JG54_Arnie
06-20-2005, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I have an offline test track where the Dora I am flying in gets its tail ripped off by a Mustang III with approx. 2 to 4 .50 rounds.

I also had a track where I ripped a P-47 in half from 450 meters with 1 or 2 20mm rounds, looked ridiculous. I lost this one when I went from 4.0 to 4.01, to uninstall and 3.04 to 4.01. Forgot to save it but I am sure it will happen again.

Not sure if this is on topic, just thought it was interesting that a Dora's tail gets cut off by a couple mg rounds and a P-47 gets torn in half by 1 or 2 151/20 rounds. Both look wrong and I have a track of one, I can probably repeat the other.

Well sure, something must be messing things up there, when a few hits brake a plane in half, this is something in the DM that has to be adressed. The whole point of this thread actually. Its a pity that others didnt add their findings yet. There were many more tests which could fit well in here.

Overall I think fuselages torn in two too easily actually. And it happened an awefull lot on russian planes. But the Jug is a good contender also, really strange to have a plane known for being very strong, snap in half due to one 20 mm shell.

JG54_Arnie
06-20-2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
excellent test http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I second that 50cals are actually more powerful than in v304. Finally I can do real damage on a He111 and Bf110. It must be the DM change that make 50cals look weaker than they should be.

It is quite questionable that a 190, or even a 109, would be able to take more damage than a Jug.

tnx. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

True, its quite clear that the Jug is quite a bit too weak.
Since the DM of the 109 and 190 changed in the new version ofcourse people thought the 50's became useless. Its the main target for the .50's.

FatBoyHK
06-21-2005, 02:35 AM
once they fly against some Japanese plane, they will find out that 50cals are actually better in this patches.

FritzGryphon
06-21-2005, 02:51 AM
The HE-111 DM also changed. You can light fires where you could not before, and this applies to all weapons.

The DMs of individual planes may change, but the data used for the weapons always stays the same. I'd venture a guess the .50 hasn't changed since IL-2, save for the reduced dispersion.

JG54_Arnie
06-24-2005, 06:37 AM
Here's a track about the FW's DM. I did some testing with a squadmate, Gryphon.

It pretty much speaks for itself.
The FW certainly is beatable, but structurally way too strong.
The wings are very tough unless you hit the one specific spot where it snaps off. This spot is hit a few times in these tests and you will see that it only needs one hit there. But if you dont hit that spot you can keep on shooting, but the wing keeps on taking hits.
As said before, no fuelleaks. No fueltank fires, those only occur when they tail snaps off.
The engine does get damaged, this seems pretty good.
The only real chance of killing it are hitting its controls, the engine and the pilot. The engine is still hard to hit from behind, so basically the controls and pilot remain.

FW DM model test (http://www.easternhotshots.com/tracks/FW%20damage%20test.ntrk)

Gibbage1
06-28-2005, 10:00 PM
Is it just me, or is the 109 a rather tough aircraft? I have never once heard the 109 referred to as a damage resistant aircraft and in all accounts when down with just rather short birst's. It takeing more hits then the P-47 is simply OUTRAGIOUS!

JG54_Arnie
06-29-2005, 12:50 AM
True, structurally its quite strong, although it takes a little less cannon rounds than the P-47 to kill its indeed too strong in comparison, but I think the P-47 should get tougher, especially the fuselage, fueltank and engine.

The 109 is still very weak on the engine, hit that with a few hits and he's out of action.

Genie-
06-29-2005, 01:33 AM
great tests and great thread!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
The 109 is still very weak on the engine, hit that with a few hits and he's out of action.

Im sorry, but the 109 is taking more hits then the P-47, LA5, LAGG and P-39 and is only out-classed in dm by the FW but somehow it was not even on your radar? The 109 was never known as a strong aircraft, but in IL2 its stronger then most radial engine aircraft and all inline's. That should send up red flairs that there is something very wrong. Not just with the P-47's DM. Yes, it needs to be upped a bit VS HMG's and maybe a little Vs 20MM, but the 109 DM needs to be toned down a lot to put it in with the rest of the weak inlines were it belongs. I bet you if you throw in the P-51 it will be the weakest of the group (besides the Zero) and the P-51 should be a big stronger then the 109 just due to mass and typical American over-construction.

anarchy52
06-29-2005, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Im sorry, but the 109 is taking more hits then the P-47, LA5, LAGG and P-39 and is only out-classed in dm by the FW but somehow it was not even on your radar?

I respect for your modelling work, but now You're sounding like a raving lunatic.

109 tough?!?
Tougher then LaGG-3? P-47?
Nuts!

JG54_Arnie
06-29-2005, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
The 109 is still very weak on the engine, hit that with a few hits and he's out of action.

Im sorry, but the 109 is taking more hits then the P-47, LA5, LAGG and P-39 and is only out-classed in dm by the FW but somehow it was not even on your radar? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll put in the P-51 today when I find time.

But no, it doesnt take that much more hits than the La, Lagg and especially not then the P-47. At least, cannon hits.
The .50's seems weak against it, but that is structurally only.
I ran the 109 test again in 4.01m and it was a lot better there. Not sure what happened there, but it took the same amount of cannon hits and less .50's hits.
Compared to the other planes its not that tough. Anyways, will bump this up when the P-51 is in there also http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG54_Arnie
06-29-2005, 05:59 AM
Added the P-51C, quite interesting.

Not quite like the zero Gibbage. Structurally also a strong plane.
And as we all know the engine is very weak, the .50's show this very well.
Brings it on par with the P-39 in terms of engine weakness when fired upon with .50's.
Does the 109's engine be as weak as the one on the P-51, then you might have a point. But other than that the planes are close in their DM's.
Pretty much all planes are capable of sucking up a big amount of shells at times.

Looking at it now, its strange that the FW, although obviously so strong is now not even that much stronger than quite a few other planes.
Ofcourse, its main problem though is the fueltank being invulnerable.

Tater-SW-
06-29-2005, 06:11 AM
It'd be interesting to see what happens to F4Fs given my most common damage seems to be "aileron control."

Not sure if convergence is best tast in that regard, might be better to see scattered rounds all over the plane for that.

tater

JG10r__Dutertre
06-29-2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Is it just me, or is the 109 a rather tough aircraft? I have never once heard the 109 referred to as a damage resistant aircraft and in all accounts when down with just rather short birst's. It takeing more hits then the P-47 is simply OUTRAGIOUS!

IF you use .50 only to compare P-47 and 109 maybe you can get the impresion that 109 is stronger than a p-47. This is because a few .50 hits on a p-47 will put it in fire.

Try using german weapons to down a p47
and use allied weapons to down a 109.

109 is paper plane. maybe the weaker dm on the set of most common used planes (Leaving aside the Mig and other less used planes)

JG10r__Dutertre
06-29-2005, 01:30 PM
Gibbage, watch the track posted by JG54_Arnie
At end, you will see several test of allied planes against 109.

There you can see in all cases something like this:

http://webs.advance.com.ar/nacho72/109dm_01.jpg

http://webs.advance.com.ar/nacho72/109dm_02.jpg

109 after this engine damage has few minutes, if not seconds, to start engine fire and later explode.

Once you get engine damage you cant keep combat because lack of power. Aditionaly, if you fly close cocpit (like most online wars) you have a big visual problem. The best thing to do is to try disingage and land.

But still you can be chased, or your engine can explode before you make to home. Most of times if you are inside enemy territory (speaking about online wars) you will have big trouble to
reach friend zone just to bail.

109, for sure, is a weak plane and the only way to fly it is puting yourself in a situation you never get hit, because it can be the bigining of end.

Gibbage, you are not serius.. and plase tell us what are you looking for? You asking for weaker 109, a weaker 190, and stronger P47 and more deadly .50?.

Sorry buy im using Oleg-IL2 version and i dont like Gibbage-IL2 proposed version.

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 02:05 PM
Yes, once a 109 is damaged, its going home. That is the differance between the 109 and P-51, it can make it home! P-51 can not. Most of the time the prop stops instantly were the 109 still has a few minutes to make it back into friendly teritory. There should be no reason for this at all since both engines are inline and should be both very weak. Dutertre, did you look at the test from the P-51 before you posted?

.50 cal.
10 EF
15 ED
30 ED
15 EF
10 EF
25 EF
10 ED
5 ED
10 ED
20 ED
15 EF
5 ED
10 ED
15 ED
10 ED

Every single kill was due to the engine. To say the P-51 has a glass engine is a bit of an understatement. Dont you agree? Lets compair the 109.

2 WO
14 WO
4 FF
2 FU+FF
1 FF
4 WO
9 FU
7 WO
5 FU+FF
7 FU+FF
2 FU+FF
3 PK
8 WO
7 PK+ES
2 FU+FF

Note on the 109 that

#1, only 2 ES (Engine Smoke, still operational) compaired to the P-51's 10 EF and ED (Engine fire and Engine dead). The P-51 is 5 times more likly to loose its engine in this test. 5X!

#2, The average number of hits to bring a P-51 down is 20.5 and the average for a 109 in 4.01 is 26. That seams close, but its not. 109 takes about 20% more dmg when it should take less since its about half the P-51's weight.

#3, The minimum rounds to kill a 109 with M2 was 15 and that happened twice. Max was 45. Minimum for the P-51 was 5!!!!!! JUST 5!!!!! And that happened twice also. LOTS of 10's, and max was 30. THAT should tell you a LOT. The average number of kill's was acheaved in 10 hits (6 out of 10 kills) in a P-51. The average for the 109 was 20 (4 out of 10 kills).

So please explain why the 109 is so much stronger then the P-51? And dont give me this "well the 109 DOES get damaged!" BS. There is a big differance between damaged and dead. P-51 does not get damaged, it gets DEAD.

JG10r__Dutertre
06-29-2005, 02:34 PM
Try using german weapons to down a p47
and use allied weapons to down a 109.

So you are saying in resumme that 109 are stronger than P51.

Your conclusion is based on .50 rounds fired to both planes.

Letme remeber you that .50 seems they are doing big damage on allied planes, (example, the P47) so the method you are using to compare them is not valid.

If you like to do serious comparision, try to use different weapons. Using allied weapons against allied planes seems (for me) to be a biased test.

Have you ever tested the Mk108 on P51, P47, P(wahtever)? Do those planes are strong enought, or its is mk108 weak?

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 02:52 PM
Well in reguards to 20MM, they seem to be doing there job to all aircraft. Bigger aircraft take more. P-51 takes 5.8 hits on average of MG151/20 and 109 takes 5.1. So I dont see an issue there. The issue I am pointing out us US M2's downing 109's. There is no reason they should take more hitst then all other inline watercooled fighters. I tossed in the P-47 as an example. But the 109 still takes more damage then the P-39, LAGG and P-51. That should not be.

P.S. My math was wrong. I was deviding between 10 thinking there are 10 test's when there is 15.

P-51 takes on average 13.6 hits per kill
109 G2 takes 26 hits per kill. 109 takes almost TWICE the damage as a P-51 when using .50 cal. Thats wrong. Very wrong.

Im saying VS .50 cal, the 109 is too strong, and the P-51's engine too weak.

JG10r__Dutertre
06-29-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
P-51 takes 5.8 hits on average of MG151/20 and 109 takes 5.1. So I dont see an issue there.

So.. this test shows they takes almost same to bring down this 2 inline watercooled fighters.


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The issue I am pointing out us US M2's downing 109's. There is no reason they should take more hitst then all other inline watercooled fighters.


So what? you can only say the p51 is weaker than 109 when using .50 cals
This is not enought proof to make a stronger p51 (or a weaker 109).
If some change is introduced because this, people who likes to fly german will be perjudiced.

Anycase, just ask to oleg to make the P51 and P47 stronger to the .50 cals, but keep other aspects untouched.

btw, you said you need 26 .50 cals to down a 109. And a p51 carry 1800 of those rounds.
you have ammo to bring down many 109 (say 7 planes) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You can also ask to make the 109 killiable with 13 rounds in average, so you can still kill more 109 in a mustang.. say now 14 planes in one sortie.

JG10r__Dutertre
06-29-2005, 03:21 PM
You changed your post while i was replaying.

Seems now we are speaking about the same:


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Im saying VS .50 cal, the 109 is too strong, and the P-51's engine too weak.

But makingin 109 more weaker will be a joke.

Remember that making the 109 weaker, you are making 50% german fighters weaker, because german fighters universe are 109 and 190.

Will be unfair to get weaker 109's because this small issue with .50 cals. Making the P51 (and other allied planes with same problem) stronger to .50 will be more rasonable, and will not bring a worst performance to all colection of 109's.

S!

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by JG10r__Dutertre:

So what? you can only say the p51 is weaker than 109 when using .50 cals
This is not enought proof to make a stronger p51 (or a weaker 109).
If some change is introduced because this, people who likes to fly german will be perjudiced.



Your only reading what you want to read. I said that ALL inline aircraft in this test is weaker, not just the P-51. This is not historical. And you say "So what?"




Anycase, just ask to oleg to make the P51 and P47 stronger to the .50 cals, but keep other aspects untouched.



Noted. Like I siad, I dont see an issue with 20MM. They seem to be good. The issue is HMG's and all sides are armed with them. Even the 109's and FW-190's. By there is no reason for the Luftwaffe's two star aircraft to take considerable more damage then similar aircraft. None. Like I said many many times, the 109 was much lighter then a P-51 and had less structure to resist damage and should take less HMG rounds. The engine kills is a dead giveaway that there is something wrong with the P-51 and the 109. The fact that ALL kills on the P-51 with HMG was engine related and NONE but 2 out of 15 on the 109 should tell you something is very wrong. Also, not only the average number of hits is way off, but the minimum and maximum is also way off. There is something wrong weather you want to admit it or not.



btw, you said you need 26 .50 cals to down a 109.


Wrong. Arnie did. I was just quoting his findings.




And a p51 carry 1800 of those rounds.
you have ammo to bring down many 109 (say 7 planes) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Just because you CAN down an aircraft does NOT mean there is not something wrong. Look at the FW-190's fuel tank. Sure you can kill a FW, but there is still something wrong. Do you remember when the P-63's DM was bugged and HE shells would go through the wings without exploding? That was also something wrong with the DM. The numbers alone prove that there is something wrong with the 109 in reguards to HMG's. The P-51 taking too little and P-47 taking too little are seperate issues at the moment.

You can also ask to make the 109 killiable with 13 rounds in average, so you can still kill more 109 in a mustang.. say now 14 planes in one sortie.[/QUOTE]

JG54_Arnie
06-29-2005, 06:12 PM
Wow, you guys are having fun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But Gibbage, a few posts up you quoted the results of .50's against the P-51 vs 151/20's against the 109? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Anyways, I think testing the .50's vs the various planes is quite usefull as it shows those guns do have a good punch. And it does surprise me that the German planes are very resistant to 50 cal fire. Why would that be?
Dutertre, could you explain that difference to me? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You seem so sure that its not right to compare them, but why?

It seems the 109 and 190 are more armoured in the game and therefore able to withstand Heavy MG fire better. But is this correct?
It is kinda weird that the .50's are so very effective against allied targets only. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 06:52 PM
After looking at your test, it seems to validate to me that there are 2 types of damage. Structure damage and system damage. Structure damage are things like wings falling off, tails, ailerons and so on. System damage are things like fuel tanks, engines, pilots and other systems inside the aircraft. 20MM and other cannons primaraly deal structure damage, but the shrapnal can damage systems. HMG's deal almost exclusivly system damage, but with enough hits, CAN deal structure damage.

The thing that pops up in my mind when looking over your findings is that the LW aircraft fail more to structure damage then system when getting hit with HMG's. The systems inside the 109 and 190 are a LOT more damage resistant then other aircraft. A good example is the P-51's glass engine as apposed to the 109's. The German engine was very very complex and had extreamly tight tollerances. Not good for durability. It should be stopped with very little hits. But its not getting stopped! It smokes, and can get stopped with enough hits, but a P-51 in the same situation goes dead instantly. Thats wrong. They should be the same or very similar, not vastly differant. Same with the R-2800 instantly stopping with 5 hits and the BMW 801's surviving 70+ hits before it stops.

I think the DM system in IL2 needs a major re-work. The majority of the Luftwaffe pilots are more then happy with the current systems, but because it greatly favors there side. These test's clearly shows it.

Gibbage1
06-29-2005, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

I respect for your modelling work, but now You're sounding like a raving lunatic.

109 tough?!?
Tougher then LaGG-3? P-47?
Nuts!

It looks like im not the raving lunatic you thought I was. From the test's, it shows the 109 takes almost twice the damage from HMG's as the P-51 does. Am I still crazy?

LeLu_Repo
06-30-2005, 12:46 AM
Few things to Ami-whiner Gibbage.
You are still on your crusade LOL!

1. Nothing wrong with .50s, shoot at convergence, dont just spray and pray.
You actually need to hit your target you know.

2. P-51 engine should be weak as it is now. 109s engine is weak also against .50s. You hit engine of 109s and fight is over.

3. Fuselage of P51 is ridicilous strong against 20mm and mk108. Most of the times the only way to down P51 is to hit it in engine.

4. I see that you are complaining about weakness of P51s engine, not about it ridicilous sturctural strength, you are as biased as all of ushttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ONE THING I AGREE THOUGHhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
FW damage model needs to be toned down.

PS: I think problem is that P51 has very simple engine DM compared to 109s.

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by LeLu_Repo:
Few things to Ami-whiner Gibbage.
You are still on your crusade LOL!


Nice. Start out a debate with insults.



1. Nothing wrong with .50s, shoot at convergence, dont just spray and pray.
You actually need to hit your target you know.


Im not saying the .50's are weak. Not once did I say that. The debate here is aircraft DM's, not aircraft weapons.



2. P-51 engine should be weak as it is now. 109s engine is weak also against .50s. You hit engine of 109s and fight is over.


Yes. I agree that both should be weak. But an engine hit on a P-51 instantly stops the engine or lights it on fire. A 109 however can still fly for minutes. Thats a big differance. Lets say your a 109 flying over enemy teritory and your engine gets hit. Your hearing the sound of many choaking hampsters comming from under your cowel and you dive for the clouds, evade your attacker, and limp home. Now lets try that same thing in a P-51. Your engine takes damage, and your prop stops instantly. There is no returning home. BIG DIFFERANCE!!!!

Also, look at the test's. All kills from the P-51 came from engine. 5, 10, 15 hits. Averaging 13 or so hits. Now look at the 109 averaging 26 hits with very little engine damage. Smoking yes, but you can still make it home. Thats a huge differance and I am rather suprised that you brush it off so easly. Im guessing you fly blue?



3. Fuselage of P51 is ridicilous strong against 20mm and mk108. Most of the times the only way to down P51 is to hit it in engine.


Not true. Again, look at the test. It takes 5.1 20MM's to down a 109, and 5.9 to down a P-51. Thats more yes, but the P-51 was a much bigger aircraft. Twice the weight of the 109!!! It SHOULD take more damage then the flimsy 109.



4. I see that you are complaining about weakness of P51s engine, not about it ridicilous sturctural strength, you are as biased as all of ushttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


An average of 6 20MM MG151/20 rounds was needed to bring down the P-51. 5 for the 109. I dont see "ridiclous structural strength" in those numbers. But the fact is, the P-51 did have ridicilous structure, and that in turn gives is structureal strength.

In fact, in the posted test, it took NO MORE then 10 MG151/20 rounds to bring down the P-51. But!! On the other hand, it took as much as 14 to bring the 109 down in 1 test. Your "P-51 has uber structure" therie is flawed, big time. Maybe you should go back into page 1 and read the numbers before making any more claims.



ONE THING I AGREE THOUGHhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
FW damage model needs to be toned down.


At least SOMETHING we can both agree on. If I may ask, was it my testing that convinced you? I can admit that yes, I am a US pilot and yes, if I see something unfair against US pilots in IL2 I am all over it, but I am not going to make up test's or false info. I dont need to. The truth is there for people to see it, if they want to see it. The thing is, I did not do this test. I am just pointing out some numbers on someone else's test that clearly shows the 109 is way too tough VS .50 cal HMG's.



PS: I think problem is that P51 has very simple engine DM compared to 109s.

That could be. The thing is, the 109 was flyable first. Before Oleg implamented his "complex" DM system. P-51 and P-47 was after and "should" have the same complex DM the 109 has. Same goes for the FW-190. The lack of complex engine DM is sevearly hampering the Allied aircraft. But thats only 1 variable in this equasion. Remember, VS .50's the 109 only suffered "engine smoke" twice when hit (But not engine dead or engine fire), but the P-51 lost its engine all 15 times and not a single engine smoke. Thats wrong and there is no way you can put up smoke and mirrors to cover that up.

Its my openion that the 109's engine must be toned down to match not the P-51's engine DM, but the rest of the inline engines in the game, and that the P-51's engine must be raised to match the rest of the inline engines in the game. The simple fact is no fighter had engine armor and all inlines were fragile. None should stick out like a glass engine or an armored engine. True?

LeLu_Repo
06-30-2005, 01:51 AM
ONE THING I AGREE THOUGHhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
FW damage model needs to be toned down.


At least SOMETHING we can both agree on. If I may ask, was it my testing that convinced you? I can admit that yes, I am a US pilot and yes, if I see something unfair against US pilots in IL2 I am all over it, but I am not going to make up test's or false info. I dont need to. The truth is there for people to see it, if they want to see it. The thing is, I did not do this test. I am just pointing out some numbers on someone else's test that clearly shows the 109 is way too tough VS .50 cal HMG's.



PS: I think problem is that P51 has very simple engine DM compared to 109s.

That could be. The thing is, the 109 was flyable first. Before Oleg implamented his "complex" DM system. P-51 and P-47 was after and "should" have the same complex DM the 109 has. Same goes for the FW-190. The lack of complex engine DM is sevearly hampering the Allied aircraft. But thats only 1 variable in this equasion. Remember, VS .50's the 109 only suffered "engine smoke" twice when hit (But not engine dead or engine fire), but the P-51 lost its engine all 15 times and not a single engine smoke. Thats wrong and there is no way you can put up smoke and mirrors to cover that up.

Its my openion that the 109's engine must be toned down to match not the P-51's engine DM, but the rest of the inline engines in the game, and that the P-51's engine must be raised to match the rest of the inline engines in the game. The simple fact is no fighter had engine armor and all inlines were fragile. None should stick out like a glass engine or an armored engine. True?[/QUOTE]

I think 109s engine DM is just fine. What I would like to see is similar DM on P51 and all other inline engines. I think this we agreehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I agree that too often P51 engine just stalls when hit, no smoke or anything, but I dont agree that 109 engine is too tough. It just has more complex DM thats all. But I have flown against 109s and flown in 109 (in game offcourse) and I can say that once that engine is hit (smoke or anything) you are lost. Immediate power loss, engine over or under revving etc. I have not experinced these on P51 yet (only the engine stall) when hit.
So I'd say that P51 engine dm is too simple. I have not tested other inline engines.

And about FW DM, tested it myself and found that 109s are easy targets for .50s, but FW just seems wierdly tough.

Anway

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 02:36 AM
Im not sure about increasing the P-51 up to the 109's DM. Small fighters in general seem to take 15 hits of HMG (LA5, P-39, and P-51 all seem to take the same HMG's) with the exception of the LAGG and 109. We have delt with the Delta wood on the LAGG forever and Oleg has explained many times that it WAS a tough aircraft, but the 109 has no excuse. Its twice as strong as the LA5, P-39 and P-51. Im betting most inline light fighters like the Ki-61, Yak-3, Spitifre and others have similar DM's to the P-39, LA5 and P-51 in reguards to HMG, so are you suggesting upping the DM of almost every inline small fighter to MATCH the 109?

F16_Abe
06-30-2005, 03:06 AM
I didn't see this thread util now, so I would like to thank Arnie for a good job.

Having said that I would beg the people around here to consider that these findings are obtained by firing on the dead 6. This is of course the only way to make a fair test with a relative small amount of data. However, my experience tells me that the result of firing a weapon is very dependent of the angle of deflection. I will even venture to say that Arnies only tests one part of the DM and far more tests with deflection shooting would be needed to say anything about the DMs for the tested planes.

Arnies data may not be enough to start discussing damage models, but it sure gives an hint on how and where to shoot for maximum effect on different planes with different weapons. So thank you again Arnie for sharing your findings!

/Abe

LeLu_Repo
06-30-2005, 03:19 AM
so are you suggesting upping the DM of almost every inline small fighter to MATCH the 109?


No, I am saying that 109s engine is not tough at all acdcording to my tests. Because once you get hit on its engine it is all over. I am only saying that P51s engine should have similar kind of DM, not just engine stall when hit.

I explain a little more what I have experienced.

109 engine DM possibilities when hit in engine

1. Engine overreving (rpm not responding). -> Fight over in couple of seconds because only way to control engine is with magnetos in this case. --> Fight is overhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2. Engine not responding to power input.
Figure out what this means. If you were lucky you had power input at 100 when hit. -> In some cases you are able to fight.

3. Engine smoking, few mins left to fly. Head home. -> Fight over. Note: Very black smoke and you better bail immediately.

4. Rare cases that engine simply stalls.-> Fight over.

Same for P51.

1. Engine stall->Fo
2. Engine stall->FO
3. Engine stall->FO
4. Engine stall->FO
5. In very rare cases engine start smoking.
->Jus head home, no immediate power loss.

So maybe this explains what I mean. Result of fight is same. But in too many cases P51s engine just stalls.

I have not flown Russian birds so I cant say anything about them. But I have no trouble downing them.

Simply put: In my opinion and experiences 109s engine is not tough.

JG54_Arnie
06-30-2005, 04:25 AM
Thanks Abe, but yes, its still very limited. Gives a nice idea of the relative DM though.

Gibbage, for the engine differences between ther P-51 and 109 it would perhaps be usefull to set up a test where you come in from high 6 and fire directly onto the engine, it could be that the fuselage of the 109 stops more bullets from the dead six than the P-51 does. Such a test would give a better idea of the engine only, reacting to the .50's

As for deflection, its ofcourse always gonna give better results than firing from dead six. I tried to set something up where I'd fire from for example 90 degrees, but its not possible to hit consistently enough for a test. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IvanoBulo
06-30-2005, 04:55 AM
Gibbage, could you please stop whining and bring some data which proves that P51 was toughter or the Bf109 was weaker? Also, why didn't you try to fly on the oposite side for some period?
I guess it would be enjoyable for you because of "unfair advantage of the blue side"... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

PS. I just imagined a pilot of WWII who wasn't able to shot the FW190. And then starts writing a message to Kurt Tank asking to reduce amount of armor because it is "unfair" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JG54_Arnie
06-30-2005, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
After looking at your test, it seems to validate to me that there are 2 types of damage. Structure damage and system damage. Structure damage are things like wings falling off, tails, ailerons and so on. System damage are things like fuel tanks, engines, pilots and other systems inside the aircraft. 20MM and other cannons primaraly deal structure damage, but the shrapnal can damage systems. HMG's deal almost exclusivly system damage, but with enough hits, CAN deal structure damage.

The thing that pops up in my mind when looking over your findings is that the LW aircraft fail more to structure damage then system when getting hit with HMG's. The systems inside the 109 and 190 are a LOT more damage resistant then other aircraft. A good example is the P-51's glass engine as apposed to the 109's. The German engine was very very complex and had extreamly tight tollerances. Not good for durability. It should be stopped with very little hits. But its not getting stopped! It smokes, and can get stopped with enough hits, but a P-51 in the same situation goes dead instantly. Thats wrong. They should be the same or very similar, not vastly differant. Same with the R-2800 instantly stopping with 5 hits and the BMW 801's surviving 70+ hits before it stops.

I think the DM system in IL2 needs a major re-work. The majority of the Luftwaffe pilots are more then happy with the current systems, but because it greatly favors there side. These test's clearly shows it.

Yep, thats indeed what it looks like.

JG10r__Dutertre
06-30-2005, 06:48 AM
So far, this is what i interpret:

1) p51 shuld be at least same resistant than a 109 (Gibbage)
2) .50 kills a p51 with 13 rounds average, and 26 rounds avg. for a 109 kill. (tests)

suppose (1) is true and tests (2) are correct:
P51 has to be stronger, 109 has to be turned weaker. (Gibbage conclusion)



But there is other test that shows:
1) p51 shuld be at least same resistant than a 109 (Gibbage)
2) 151/20 kills a p51 or a 109 with 5~6 rounds in average (tests)

So, there is no need to change DM. (my conclusion)

Still i recon (if test are correct) that there is a problem with .50 cals, that seems to do much damage on allied planes. For example a small brust of .50 into a P47 is enought to bring it into fire.

So the problem of a P51 been killed with 13 .50 rounds in average, not necessary has to be used to turn 109 DM into a weaker state. I prefer to say (because there are some evidences) that allied planes DM has a problem when taking damage from .50


Still Gibbage has to proof point (1)
And we can think that this kind of test, probably, they are not the best way to take a conclusion about DM.

For my pleasure, im confident Oleg will not change 109 DM because this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And for the ones saying the FW190 is unkillable, please watch JG54_Arnie track (http://www.easternhotshots.com/tracks/FW%20damage%20test.ntrk) JG54_Arnie track. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG54_Arnie
06-30-2005, 07:10 AM
Yes, its not unkillable, but its is still way too tough, thats what the track shows. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S.taibanzai
06-30-2005, 10:28 AM
Fw 190A
General Characteristics:
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.
They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.


The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4





Yes German planes where weak very weak http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


its a shame that in real live a fw 190 with 200 hole's stil was able to fly

LeadSpitter_
06-30-2005, 10:36 AM
instead of bashing someone and calling them a whiner listen up for a change and respect people who fly all aircraft in the game not just one side.

Listen to both sides and discuss things thats what forums are for. If you dont agree with someone dont call them a whiner.

Ubi should make the term whine or whiner a ban word and kick these name callers off the forums rather then having them ruin it. Theres no point in them being here.

faustnik
06-30-2005, 10:43 AM
instead of bashing someone and calling them a whiner listen up for a change and respect people who fly all aircraft in the game not just one side.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Is this the same Leadspitter who called the blue side "pathetic whiners" for questioning the Mg151 loadout in 3.04 (the loadout which was discovered to be incorrect)???

Interesting new tactic Leadspitter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ljazz
06-30-2005, 11:18 AM
This is really interesting!

I've always wondered about the Jug in this sim. Looking at the results makes me wonder how in the heck you can blow the thing in half from a dead six shot. I've often wondered this while online too.

Years ago, I remember a live chat event on an Air Warrior squads page years ago. They had this WW2 BF109 veteran in there for the event. Someone asked about the different planes he used to come up against and what he thought of them. I'll always remember him saying that if he ever met up with a Jug, he always hoped he had enough ammo left to atleast hurt it enough to make it limp home. He said it was unbelievable the amount of ammo it would soak up, yet still fly.

I wish to heck I could remember that guys name!

Anyway, I guess we're stuck with what we have. I don't think there is any chance of these things getting changed. What's unfortunate about this is that the Jug had only a few characteristics that made it formidable..... the amount of damage, as we've heard from the veterans, was one of them.

One thing I've spent the last few days doing is searching for accounts or guncam footage of a jug being cut in half..... no luck. I can't even find anything noting a wing being blown off.

Maybe one of you have something?

ljazz

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
Fw 190A
General Characteristics:

Yes German planes where weak very weak http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


its a shame that in real live a fw 190 with 200 hole's stil was able to fly

We are not talking about the FW-190. Thats already been deturmined to be bugged. BTW, just because it happened once does not mean it represents every FW-190 ever flown. Please provide proof this happened many times.

On the otherhand, this happened many times with the P-47 and it did come back home. Its ability to take damage and bring people home was legendary. Nobody can deny this.

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by JG10r__Dutertre:
So far, this is what i interpret:

1) p51 shuld be at least same resistant than a 109 (Gibbage)
2) .50 kills a p51 with 13 rounds average, and 26 rounds avg. for a 109 kill. (tests)

suppose (1) is true and tests (2) are correct:
P51 has to be stronger, 109 has to be turned weaker. (Gibbage conclusion)


But there is other test that shows:
1) p51 shuld be at least same resistant than a 109 (Gibbage)
2) 151/20 kills a p51 or a 109 with 5~6 rounds in average (tests)

So, there is no need to change DM. (my
conclusion)



Your very desperate and your logic is very flawed. As I explained, 20MM and .50 cal are two differant guns and two differant types of damage. System and Structure. 109's 20MM DM seems to be fine, its the HMG (system dmg) thats flawed, like your logic.




Still i recon (if test are correct) that there is a problem with .50 cals, that seems to do much damage on allied planes. For example a small brust of .50 into a P47 is enought to bring it into fire.



Why is it that you asume that because there is an error with 2 aircraft, its the gun even though all other aircraft react to that gun in a realistic way? Again, your logic is flawed. I bet you if only the P-51 took 20-30 rounds of MG151/20 you would be screaming bloody murder about the P-51's DM, not the MG151/20's modeling. But as it turned out, the MG151/20 was weak VS all aircraft. The M2 .50 cal is NOT weak to all aircraft. In fact, its rather tough to all aircraft but the FW-190, LAGG and 109. But you still asume its the M2? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif




So the problem of a P51 been killed with 13 .50 rounds in average, not necessary has to be used to turn 109 DM into a weaker state. I prefer to say (because there are some evidences) that allied planes DM has a problem when taking damage from .50



What part of the Allied aircraft has problems? Like the glass engine? Or the P-47's fuel tanks? Yes. Those are problems. I bet if the glass engine on the P-51 was fixed, it would put the DM somewere around the 109.



Still Gibbage has to proof point (1)
And we can think that this kind of test, probably, they are not the best way to take a conclusion about DM.



Can you find a better way of testing? The test was level and performed in the same way vs all aircraft. Aircraft in the game ARE typically shot from dead 6. Especially the FW-190 and BF-109 since they are B&Z fighters and not turning fighters so all the Allies have is dead 6 shots.

Now, think of this. The primary weapon used VS 109 and 190's is the .50 cal. The primary use of the .50 cal vs those aircraft is from dead 6. But for some reason the 109 and 190 are #1, VERY resistant to .50 cal unlike all other aircraft, and very resistant from dead 6 unline all other aircraft. That means those two aircraft have an advantage over all other aircraft in the game. Why?




For my pleasure, im confident Oleg will not change 109 DM because this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And for the ones saying the FW190 is unkillable, please watch JG54_Arnie track (http://www.easternhotshots.com/tracks/FW%20damage%20test.ntrk) JG54_Arnie track. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OK. Who is saying the FW190 is unkillable? Please quote this. FIND IT! I DARE YOU! Nobody is saying that. The fuel tanks are not burnable. Again, giving that aircraft an advantage over all other aircraft in the game.

You dont read, your logic is flawed, and I am guessing your fly the 109 and very much like the advantages and are fighting desperatly to keep them. Your putting up a rather poor fight.

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by IvanoBulo:
Gibbage, could you please stop whining and bring some data which proves that P51 was toughter or the Bf109 was weaker? Also, why didn't you try to fly on the oposite side for some period?
I guess it would be enjoyable for you because of "unfair advantage of the blue side"... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


P-51's empty weight 7000lb

BF109G's empty weight 4100LB

Thats not including fuel and ammo. Thats all just structure and engine. A bigger and heavier structure is more damage resistant.

Also, all US aircraft were over built. The 109 itself was more of a hotrod. The minimum aircraft with the maximum aircraft. The Cadalac is a lot more crash resistant then a Porsche.

Pure logic. Im not asking for the P-51 to be twice as damage resistant as the 109, but more even then it is now. There is no reason why a 109 would take twice the dmg of a P-51. Why dont YOU provide proof that it should?

Jetbuff
06-30-2005, 02:22 PM
Nothing scientific mind you, but my tests were quite revealing:

Using the spitfire's hispanos, it did take some time to down a 190. Then I switched to an F-4 and 9 times out of 10 the 190 went down in flames, sans-wing, in an controllable spin/spiral or with a PK within 5 rounds. I found this surprising at first so I analyzed what was different between the two tests. When I redid the test with the spitfire and arcade mode on I noticed just how haphazzard my shooting was. I was often striking with only MG's or one of the hispanos as opposed to both. So, even though the visual indications of the strikes were impressive, the actual "arrows" were quite few and dispersed. What I realized was that the spitfire, having no slip indicator that I could see, was incredibly hard to aim precisely. Also, the lack of high explosive rounds meant that the round had to strike a vital component directly whereas minengeschoss rounds, even if they struck the wrong location, had a much higher probability of striking something vital indirectly. (easily discernible in arcade mode)

My current conclusions are:

1. The MG151/20 is probably so potent because it appears to be sporting 3 MG shells out of every 5 fired. That's a LOT of take-down power and may be inaccurate as, iirc, the commonest loadout was HEIT, API, API, MG, MG, i.e. only 2 explosive MG rounds per 5 shells. Remember how weak it was before? The MG round's power has actually been reduced since 3.04, but with a pure HEIT/API loadout before it was like shooting spit-balls.

2. Without the aid of a slip indicator and given the wing-mounting of the cannons, it is really hard to aim accurately with the Spitfire. You need to be on-the-ball and at convergence to replicate the spectacular results from 3.04, which aside from the absence of any fuel leaks, appears to be unchanged.

3. Often, even with imprecise shooting, one or two rounds from any cannon will incapicitate a 190. (turn on arcade mode and watch how "RTB", "On fire" and "PK" messages often come up while the 190 "appears" to be undamaged) Personally, I am satisfied that the 190's DM is not really as "uber" as the mass-hysteria would have us believe.

4. The 109 (except the F series) are the real monsters in terms of DM. Yes, they still suffer catastrophic failures, particularly to the engine, pretty quickly. (as they should) However, the resilience of their airframes is puzzling since they were historically much weaker planes than say the 190 or P-47.

5. The effect of all AP rounds is really weak whether fired from cannons or MG's. They penetrate fine and will score PK's, sever controls and kill pilots. However, there does not seem to be any serious threat to the airframe itself unless you land a whole bunch of them in a concentrated area. When you factor in the increased torque of 4.01 and the wing-mounting of most 0.50's it explains the lack of "spectacular" results when using them.

6. Regarding point #5, perhaps someone with some ballistics expertise can correct me, but I was under the impression that AP rounds, more often than not, didn't just "punch a hole" in an aircraft's skin, especially if the strike angle is less than 90? and the surface is rigid and/or stressed. i.e. I always thought that a lot of the bullet's energy would be released as a shock-wave or what have you resulting in a higher likelihood of structural failure either immediately or subsequently. Furthermore, I believe that often an AP bullet would "tumble" after the initial penetration resulting in a lot more damage than if it simply passed straight through - much like how entry and exit wounds can easily be differentiated in forensics. I doubt that either effect is modelled.

Cheers...

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 02:30 PM
When compairing Hispano to the MG151/20 its best to use the P-38 and 109 since both aircraft have 1 cannon and both are nose mounted for accuracy.

IvanoBulo
06-30-2005, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

P-51's empty weight 7000lb

BF109G's empty weight 4100LB

Thats not including fuel and ammo. Thats all just structure and engine. A bigger and heavier structure is more damage resistant.
Each aircraft has its weak spots. It doesn't matter what weight of his engine it will be weak anyway. Also why do you think more weight makes it resistant to damage? Got any proofs that additional weight of the P51 was used to make it toughter structurally? Anyway, the P51 IS structurally tought enough in the game, but the engine is weak, but why it should be made more resistant to the damage?


Also, all US aircraft were over built. The 109 itself was more of a hotrod. The minimum aircraft with the maximum aircraft. The Cadalac is a lot more crash resistant then a Porsche.
Any military equiment in any cuontry is over built. Who told you that germans not over building their planes?


Pure logic. Im not asking for the P-51 to be twice as damage resistant as the 109, but more even then it is now. There is no reason why a 109 would take twice the dmg of a P-51. Why dont YOU provide proof that it should?
Because I don't care about the Bf-109, when I'm flying Yak or La(GG) I'm shooting down 109 without problems - just few hits into engine or pilot area and I let him go. After a minute or two the message notifies me about his crash. I don't fly much on american planes but I had very successfull dogfight on P47 last week - 8 downed planes in 3 sorties.
PS. Most of the time I'm flying FW190. Even when he had glass wings, gunsight, mistical fueleak and easy fire-catching tank.

JG10r__Dutertre
06-30-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
P-51's empty weight 7000lb

BF109G's empty weight 4100LB

Thats not including fuel and ammo. Thats all just structure and engine. A bigger and heavier structure is more damage resistant.
...
Pure logic. ...

LOL, And YOU are saying my logic is flawed? after such comment.

BTW, you are the one starting to speak of a possible 2 types of DM, system and structure

"After looking at your test, it seems to validate to me that there are 2 types of damage. Structure damage and system damage. Structure damage are things like wings falling off, tails, ailerons and so on. System damage are things like fuel tanks, engines, pilots and other systems inside the aircraft." -- Gibbage

And later you speak like thos 2 types of DM are really there. Sorry, but where did Oleg or any other M1C member confirmed your suppositions?

Look, if you think my logic is flawed, its ok, you have ther right. But i have the right to think that your brain does not work ok. It makes sense you are displaying things as wrong, when they can be logical right, because your flawed brain.

Of course, I assume you can neider undertand upper phrase. Specially the part about your right and mines.

S.taibanzai
06-30-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
instead of bashing someone and calling them a whiner listen up for a change and respect people who fly all aircraft in the game not just one side.

Listen to both sides and discuss things thats what forums are for. If you dont agree with someone dont call them a whiner.

Ubi should make the term whine or whiner a ban word and kick these name callers off the forums rather then having them ruin it. Theres no point in them being here.


Starting with you Leadspitter you are the biggest whiner here Wooohahaha http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

S.taibanzai
06-30-2005, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
Fw 190A
General Characteristics:

Yes German planes where weak very weak http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


its a shame that in real live a fw 190 with 200 hole's stil was able to fly

We are not talking about the FW-190. Thats already been deturmined to be bugged. BTW, just because it happened once does not mean it represents every FW-190 ever flown. Please provide proof this happened many times.

On the otherhand, this happened many times with the P-47 and it did come back home. Its ability to take damage and bring people home was legendary. Nobody can deny this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah we now Us planes have tank armouring and fly's like a bee and have super guns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Back to topic it happend realy quit ofend

my deare friend

Fw 190 was now for its strengt in saoking up bullets also not only the jug

Ah wait, no that means when a fw 190 was a paper plane like you wanted it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yet it was maded for highspeed passes,dive's etc
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Thos german engineers did a good job making a paper plane that would do that kind of stuf meaning high speed fighting and taking in bullets
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

S.taibanzai
06-30-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IvanoBulo:
Gibbage, could you please stop whining and bring some data which proves that P51 was toughter or the Bf109 was weaker? Also, why didn't you try to fly on the oposite side for some period?
I guess it would be enjoyable for you because of "unfair advantage of the blue side"... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


P-51's empty weight 7000lb

BF109G's empty weight 4100LB

Thats not including fuel and ammo. Thats all just structure and engine. A bigger and heavier structure is more damage resistant.

Also, all US aircraft were over built. The 109 itself was more of a hotrod. The minimum aircraft with the maximum aircraft. The Cadalac is a lot more crash resistant then a Porsche.

Pure logic. Im not asking for the P-51 to be twice as damage resistant as the 109, but more even then it is now. There is no reason why a 109 would take twice the dmg of a P-51. Why dont YOU provide proof that it should? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and stil the heavy p-51 can turn on a dime

and not heavy bf-109 cant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Proof man proof http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG10r__Dutertre
06-30-2005, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
We are not talking about the FW-190. Thats already been deturmined to be bugged.


Determined by WHO?
You think FW-190 is bugged -and accepted- because posts turned into a P51 vs 109 comparations?
NO WAY.

Your comments are flawed.

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by IvanoBulo:

Each aircraft has its weak spots. It doesn't matter what weight of his engine it will be weak anyway. Also why do you think more weight makes it resistant to damage? Got any proofs that additional weight of the P51 was used to make it toughter structurally? Anyway, the P51 IS structurally tought enough in the game, but the engine is weak, but why it should be made more resistant to the damage?
[QUOTE]

The P-51 and 109 shared a common weak spot. The engine. Beyond that, the P-51 had more structure. If you cant figure out why thats important, take a look at how fragile the A6M zero is, and compair it to that of the P-47. Both were radial engine aircraft, but the construction of the A6M was ultra light.

Here is an example of how minimul the 109's construction was.
http://www.flugwerk.com/new/images/me109/109-0963_img.jpg

Those spars and stringers are not very thick. 1 .50 cal will do a LOT of damage and weaken the section. P-51's sections are a lot thicker and there are more of them. Thats were the added wait comes from.

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by JG10r__Dutertre:

Determined by WHO?
You think FW-190 is bugged -and accepted- because posts turned into a P51 vs 109 comparations?
NO WAY.

Your comments are flawed.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/1791038033

JG10r__Dutertre
06-30-2005, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
P-51's empty weight 7000lb
BF109G's empty weight 4100LB

and stil the heavy p-51 can turn on a dime
and not heavy bf-109 cant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Proof man proof http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif good point.
Explect comments like wingload, special p51 flaps and BS like that.

BTW, you can have a heavy plane, bad designed, with seriuos structural problems. This little detail not taked into account by Gibbage explains the kind of "pure logic" comming from his brains.

And whats the problem with porsche?

JG10r__Dutertre
06-30-2005, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG10r__Dutertre:

Determined by WHO?
You think FW-190 is bugged -and accepted- because posts turned into a P51 vs 109 comparations?
NO WAY.

Your comments are flawed.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/1791038033 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? I dont see any Oleg post confirming the bug. The topic is just full of post from your person and other people looking to reduce FW-190 DM.

By having at least one person claiming that 190 is ok, we can not agree on nothing, unless Oleg confirms the bug.

Again, you is wrong. Unless Oled did confirmed the bug, in that case, you are right.

Jetbuff
06-30-2005, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
When compairing Hispano to the MG151/20 its best to use the P-38 and 109 since both aircraft have 1 cannon and both are nose mounted for accuracy.
Thanks I'll try that. I expect the results to be "clearer" that way but still not comparable to the MG151/20. (less explosive content in the hispano's rounds iirc) I'll be offline for a few days though as I'm moving but if I do get around to testing it, I'll definitely post back.

faustnik
06-30-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Those spars and stringers are not very thick. 1 .50 cal will do a LOT of damage and weaken the section. P-51's sections are a lot thicker and there are more of them. Thats were the added wait comes from.



I looked for a P-51 armor chart but, can't find one and it's pissing me off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif I agree with Gibbage on the P-51 structure being strong, just compare structural diagrams. The only question I have with the P-51s vunerability is the huge oil and coolant radiator placed right in the "shoot here" spot behind the intake duct, how was it protected?

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The only question I have with the P-51s vunerability is the huge oil and coolant radiator placed right in the "shoot here" spot behind the intake duct, how was it protected?

It was not. The radiator and oil cooler was just as vulnerable as any other water cooled aircraft. The wing radiators on the 109 had no protection at all. At deflection, the round would travle through a LOT of body to get to the rad/oil cooler on the P-51. Not the same can said for the 109.

The only armor for both aircraft besides pilot armor was a plate of armor for the 109 behind the fuel tank. If I remember, that was 6MM thick. An M2 can punch through 12MM. Not a big problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 09:13 PM
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p51tail.gif

Here is an example of the P-51's construction. Compair it to the 109's tail section photo I posted above and you can see how much more there is. The 109's tail is compleatly hallow, so once a bullet gets in through the skin (not a hard thing at all) nothing will contact it till it hits the fuel tank or pilot armor. Compair it to the P-51 and you have 2 solid bulkheads to pass through and lots of other crud. This wont stop an HMG, sure, but it will alter its path and absorb a good deal of energy. Also, all of this extra structure acts as redundancy when something fails. The 109 has none of this. If a 20MM HE gets in there, the tail would fall off.

A good example is that Spitfire tail that was hit by the Mk-108 that the Lufties love to show off. The tail was hanging on by the ribs and stringers. Its still a critical hit, but if the same thing happened to a 109, there are no ribs and stringers. It would just come off. Yes, the damage would be critical in both cases, but in the 109 it would be more sevear.

Xiolablu3
06-30-2005, 09:25 PM
I have to say that I have not done any proper testing BUT : I always groan when I find out the plane I am behind is either a YAK or a LA because I know I am likely to have to us ALL my ammunition to down it and then STILL not get a a certain kill.

Yaks and Las are far tougher than any other fighter, even the P47 is easier to down in my opinion.

Remember this is not scientific but just obvious from playing the game.

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Yaks and Las are far tougher than any other fighter, even the P47 is easier to down in my opinion.

Remember this is not scientific but just obvious from playing the game.

For me, it was always the LAGG's that was hard to kill. Have you played much against them in the new 4.01 patch? I have not, but the LA5F in Arnie's test did NOT take much damage at all. LAGG still has its delta wood.

Xiolablu3
06-30-2005, 09:43 PM
I have ONLY played in 4.01 m8 as I'm a bit of a noob at online.

But I've clocked about 50 hours on 4.01 now.

I just have that 'feeling' remember, its not scientific in any way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Many times a Yak Or La7 has taken 2 cannon shells and MG just to come back and shoot me down, its doesnt happen often in ANY other plane, but often enough with those Russian planes.

Its the La's and Yaks used on the 334th server, I'm not sure of the exact models sorry.

I fly on there a lot now under the name 'Xiola' They are nice guys.

Often I have HAMMERED a plane with like 10 cannon shells and MG and its not gone down, its always a LA of some kind or YAK.

Gibbage1
06-30-2005, 11:28 PM
Ya. There has always been a problem with online servers. It seems that in some cases, you see the hits, but the server does not. Or that for some reason the hits dont count as much as they should. In QMB, aircraft always go down faster then online.

I have yet to shoot at a Yak or LA since the new patch. It seems that most online servers is US vs GE now.

JG54_Arnie
07-01-2005, 12:00 AM
Jump into EasternHotshots some time Gibbage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Plenty of Russian tools to shoot at. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


JG10r__Dutertre, you're not gonna tell me that you think there is no problem with the FW?
Did you ever have a fuelleak in the (I suppose) very long time you have been flying it in 4.01? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Jetbuff, here's the planes I used.
P-39-D1
Yak-9
Bf109-G2
P-40 E fieldmod

The P-39 doesnt have much ammo, so it did require a retry sometimes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But its easier to fly and aim on direct six than the heavy P-38. If you miss a few shots its gonna be hard to down the FW sometimes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
07-01-2005, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
Jump into EasternHotshots some time Gibbage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Plenty of Russian tools to shoot at. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



I just may some time! I never had much of a problem fighting against them or shooting them down. I do however remember some patches made the Russian kits rather tough vs ANYTHING! I have seen some Yak's take 5+ Mk-108 hits with little to no visable damage back in the old IL2 1.2 days. Im glad those are long gone, but there are still issues.

Odd, I find the P-38 a great test platform. The fact she is heavy helps keep the guns in line, and the airbrakes help a lot. Plus everything is in the nose. To each there own http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG54_Arnie
07-01-2005, 12:36 AM
Indeed, its much better now. There will always be some sort of issue ofcoure, but it seems we're getting closer to what it should be, I think. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Once Oleg gets the 190, hopefully the P-47 and if necessary the 109 sorted that is.

Yes, its a nice and stable platform, but when more manouvering at slow speed is needed, which was sometimes as targets slowed down, the P-39 did better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IvanoBulo
07-01-2005, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IvanoBulo:

Each aircraft has its weak spots. It doesn't matter what weight of his engine it will be weak anyway. Also why do you think more weight makes it resistant to damage? Got any proofs that additional weight of the P51 was used to make it toughter structurally? Anyway, the P51 IS structurally tought enough in the game, but the engine is weak, but why it should be made more resistant to the damage?
[QUOTE]

The P-51 and 109 shared a common weak spot. The engine. Beyond that, the P-51 had more structure. If you cant figure out why thats important, take a look at how fragile the A6M zero is, and compair it to that of the P-47. Both were radial engine aircraft, but the construction of the A6M was ultra light.

Here is an example of how minimul the 109's construction was.
http://www.flugwerk.com/new/images/me109/109-0963_img.jpg

Those spars and stringers are not very thick. 1 .50 cal will do a LOT of damage and weaken the section. P-51's sections are a lot thicker and there are more of them. Thats were the added wait comes from.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So? The .50 bullet just goes in and then it goes out lefting two small holes in the skin. BTW, this is a F-series rear fuselage which was not much different from the E-series:
http://www.aviationshoppe.com/catalog/images/Messerschmitt-BF-109e.jpg
The image is small but you'll still able to see that there is some construction inside it. This construction should stop some bullets too, I suppose.
Also, please note that Arnie in his tests used G2 which has better tank protection. The F2 and F4 are much easier to kill - their tanks burns and blows very often and it historically correct.

JG10r__Dutertre
07-01-2005, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
JG10r__Dutertre, you're not gonna tell me that you think there is no problem with the FW?
Did you ever have a fuelleak in the (I suppose) very long time you have been flying it in 4.01?

Havent see a fuel leak. But you are telling me that all this mess is because FW-190 has no fuel leaks? come on! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, this ubi forums are not for me. I can not whinne at same rate than others.

S!

Gibbage1
07-01-2005, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by JG10r__Dutertre:

Havent see a fuel leak. But you are telling me that all this mess is because FW-190 has no fuel leaks? come on! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, this ubi forums are not for me. I can not whinne at same rate than others.

S!

So, having an unfair advantage over all other aircraft is OK with you? Without fuel tanks in the DM, there is a lot less ways of shooting down a FW. When other aircraft would burn, the FW wont. When other aircraft would run out of fuel from a leak, the FW wont. This is NOT OK. Maybe for some FW pilots (Im guessing your one) but not for the rest of the pilots. There is something wrong, so it should be fixed. Pure and simple.

S.taibanzai
07-02-2005, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG10r__Dutertre:

Havent see a fuel leak. But you are telling me that all this mess is because FW-190 has no fuel leaks? come on! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, this ubi forums are not for me. I can not whinne at same rate than others.

S!

So, having an unfair advantage over all other aircraft is OK with you? Without fuel tanks in the DM, there is a lot less ways of shooting down a FW. When other aircraft would burn, the FW wont. When other aircraft would run out of fuel from a leak, the FW wont. This is NOT OK. Maybe for some FW pilots (Im guessing your one) but not for the rest of the pilots. There is something wrong, so it should be fixed. Pure and simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<Hmmlest see here

First your right every plane must have same dammage

BUT !!!!



Wat we see here is first most plane's

roll's with FW 190 at high speeds Peeep ring a bell here ???? Only p-47 was able to do that some time's

try to turn with FW 190 agaisnt p-47 nose up attitude horizontal turn

Turn against p-51 at high alt with FW 190

Wat do you see ???

p-47 turns bether then FW 190 and also p-51

Yet i have real Guncams that shows fw 190 easly turn in cirkel of p-47 at mid to low alt and shoot at it turn with p-38 and shoot at it

Also FW 190 outclimbs against p-51 at high alt turn on him at high speed shoots at it

why not do some test like this and say this also ???

Gibbage1
07-04-2005, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
Wat we see here is first most plane's

roll's with FW 190 at high speeds Peeep ring a bell here ???? Only p-47 was able to do that some time's

try to turn with FW 190 agaisnt p-47 nose up attitude horizontal turn

Turn against p-51 at high alt with FW 190

Wat do you see ???

p-47 turns bether then FW 190 and also p-51

Yet i have real Guncams that shows fw 190 easly turn in cirkel of p-47 at mid to low alt and shoot at it turn with p-38 and shoot at it

Also FW 190 outclimbs against p-51 at high alt turn on him at high speed shoots at it

why not do some test like this and say this also ???


So, let me get this straight. Your saying that since a FW-190 CANT out turn a P-51, it should be OK to have an unfair DM advantage? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Thats the biggest load of BS I have heard from this forum yet.

BTW, guncam footage does NOT tell if plane A can turn tighter then plane B. It only shows that plane A shot down plane B since it cant show you the full situation. Maybe plane B was not turning? Or it suffered damage before that so it could not turn as well? Its not proof at all.

BTW, take a look at the wingloadings of the FW-190. Depending on the fuel load, it was worse then the P-47, and the P-51 was had much better wing loading then the FW-190 so it SHOULD out-turn it. Same for the P-38.

szala11
02-17-2007, 01:08 AM
BTW guys... Did you notice, it is modelled well when u dive in a P47 lets say at 700km/h and shoot at a FW190D, i tore it's left wing apart just with a few bursts... in 4.08m, yes in 4.08m... (!!!) Yes JG54_Arnie... ( convergence set to 300m )
So i wanna say it is well modelled in this sim, when u attack from a high angle at a high speed, rounds have bigger, stronger stopping power compared to the other case when u fly at 350-400km/h slowly on the six of an enemy plane... Many case i set aflame a Lagg3 (which i think is well armoured ) attacking from above, diving on it at 700-750km/h in a BF109 using just the two 7.92mm MG (!)... So i think only those guys have problem with the damage modelling who can't aim / shoot well so they alway want the weapons to be remodelled... I think everything is allright in 4.08 for me... There will be always guys who will / (or rather want???) to find problems... This is not good, that is not good... Why don't you make yourself a better >*arcade*< sim where only 1 (!) hit sets a whole space-ship on fire or just blasts it apart like hell...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

AnaK774
02-17-2007, 01:45 AM
Posted Mon July 04 2005 14:41

Bit old net...
Little bit cleaning and its good for fishing?

TheBandit_76
02-17-2007, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
Fw 190A
General Characteristics:
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.
They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.


The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4





Yes German planes where weak very weak http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


its a shame that in real live a fw 190 with 200 hole's stil was able to fly

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,

Kit Carson talks about the 190 and he's spot on.

Kit Carson talks about the 109, he knows nothing.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

HellToupee
02-17-2007, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:

The P-39 doesnt have much ammo, so it did require a retry sometimes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But its easier to fly and aim on direct six than the heavy P-38. If you miss a few shots its gonna be hard to down the FW sometimes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

for testing the ulimited ammo switch is perfectly ok http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CUJO_1970
02-17-2007, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:

Kit Carson talks about the 190 and he's spot on.

Kit Carson talks about the 109, he knows nothing.




This is a fairly accurate statement.

HellToupee
02-19-2007, 03:16 AM
it should be revised to

kit carson says german plane must be ub3r

correct

kit carson says german plane isnt ub3r

incorrect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In the end a persons views are only correct if they coinside with ur own.