PDA

View Full Version : Opinions of the Fw damage model in 4.04?



Grey_Mouser67
02-26-2006, 02:28 PM
Prior to the patch some folks did some controlled test that indicated the BMW took many rounds of damage compared to a P&W to knock out....

Since 4.04, and now I've had a chance to fly it a bunch, I don't think I have lit a Fw on fire....in fact, if I put on arcade mode and count arrows...I am seeing that it is taking a minimum of 25 hits and even up to 50 hits to knock them down.

This plane, while not invulnerable to .30cal rounds like the lagg, seems to have gone back to its armored self...and it was verrry tough in 4.04.

Anyone else notice this or not noticed this? And I'd like to hear from guys that shoot at Fw's not Fw drivers that don't like getting shot down....please note whether your experiences are online or offline as offline things have changed a whole bunch.

Grey_Mouser67
02-26-2006, 02:28 PM
Prior to the patch some folks did some controlled test that indicated the BMW took many rounds of damage compared to a P&W to knock out....

Since 4.04, and now I've had a chance to fly it a bunch, I don't think I have lit a Fw on fire....in fact, if I put on arcade mode and count arrows...I am seeing that it is taking a minimum of 25 hits and even up to 50 hits to knock them down.

This plane, while not invulnerable to .30cal rounds like the lagg, seems to have gone back to its armored self...and it was verrry tough in 4.04.

Anyone else notice this or not noticed this? And I'd like to hear from guys that shoot at Fw's not Fw drivers that don't like getting shot down....please note whether your experiences are online or offline as offline things have changed a whole bunch.

joeap
02-26-2006, 02:43 PM
Shot the tail of one offline yesterday it spun in and boom. I was flying a P-51. No so no problems as such but then I haven't had enough experience yet.

RedDeth
02-26-2006, 02:55 PM
online damage models for planes differ from offline in my opinion

zugfuhrer
02-26-2006, 02:58 PM
Take a look at my test. I used the rearguner of the SBD-3 and it got two .303 MG. I dont think that the no aircraft is invulnerable to it.

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-26-2006, 03:19 PM
As stated soooo many times before, the FW SHOULD be tough as nails. Especially the engine which still seems a bit soft IMO. I would still like to see the R2800 powered rides get a bit tougher (a single strike from a .30 cal seems to neuter it every time...for me at least).

But what do I know. I have absolutely no tracks, documentation or real-life experiences to back up my claims. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

TX-Zen
02-26-2006, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
As stated soooo many times before, the FW SHOULD be tough as nails. Especially the engine which still seems a bit soft IMO. I would still like to see the R2800 powered rides get a bit tougher (a single strike from a .30 cal seems to neuter it every time...for me at least).

But what do I know. I have absolutely no tracks, documentation or real-life experiences to back up my claims. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


+1

The 190 was regarded as being almost as tough as the P47. One of the American aces told that classic story of firing 2000 rounds at one from point blank and it flew away smoking. He assumed 10% hits and estimated 200 holes. IIRC he was being conservative on his estimate, he felt he might have hit alot more than that.

Do we have that in game and appropriately done?

I don't think so, but it's not because the 190 is too weak or too tough. It's just that it handles damage inappropriately overall, almost as though it still has the non complex DM.

When I'm hosing a 190 down with 50 cal, it just doesn't feel right. (and not because I am a 190 pilot by trade http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

There's not enough visual indication of damage...by comparison saddling up on a 109 looks and feels right, about what you'd expect to see after watching gun cam footage.

Getting hit by 50 cal while flying a 190 isn't much fun either. It often seems the tiniest burst takes out engines and puts holes in the wings...there is not enough of a sensation of taking damage either which for me decreases the immersion factor.

It's also been a long time since I've seen the cockpit smashed out, but then I generally fly very conservatively and don't get hit by long sustained bursts very often...but still, I feel something continues to be off with the 190 DM.

I don't really like the effects I see when I shoot at them, and am way less than impressed with what I see when getting shot while flying them.

The P47 and the 109 are both much better done imho.

OldMan____
02-26-2006, 06:43 PM
To make a FW an 100% dead meat... its tough.. takes lots of hits (but 25 from .303 is NOT what i consieder a lot of hits... these are weak guns). But to make it out of combat shape you donÔ┬┤t need much ( usually 3 or 5 .50 hits do the job)

Jaws2002
02-26-2006, 07:55 PM
The Foke Wulf should be very tough from dead six and head on, but should be eassy to set on fire from above or below. I say this looking how the armor is placed on it.
I don't think the game is far off in this respect.

Grey_Mouser67
02-26-2006, 08:20 PM
I still haven't set one on fire...in real life, Luftwaffe aircraft took about 20HMG hits to down...Fw's and 109's.

They should be tough, not like they are in this game though. No fires, no ammo boxes exploding...ai flying around in burning planes shooting at me...one today flew past 4 friendlies into heavy flak to get shots at me.

Well I'll keep looking for fires...I have a feeling the Fw gained some asbestos armor. Great if you are an online Fw junkie...I actually fly the Fw online alot, but I also like to fight against it both online and offline. Wait and see...the HMG fire is going to start raging again and it will be fueled by a bad DM on the Fw...sometimes I have the ability to see into the future he he he...this one isn't that hard to see.

FritzGryphon
02-26-2006, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">no ammo boxes exploding...ai flying around in burning planes shooting at me...one today flew past 4 friendlies into heavy flak to get shots at me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which applies to all planes in PF, not just the FW-190.

Personally, I'm glad to see fuel leaks now on the FW, opposed to the insta-fires seen in previous versions.

I'd be curious to see, on average how many hits it takes to down FW-190s in their current incarnation. I think I'll go try that.

VW-IceFire
02-26-2006, 08:36 PM
Not much experience with the 4.04 FW190 so far...today I had a nice little battle of 6 Tempests VS 8 FW190D-9s and the battle was quite interesting. In terms of hits on the D-9s...it really didn't take all that much with the Tempests firepower...but I was surprised at the toughness nonetheless.

I haven't tried with a .50cal armed aircraft yet. They should be tough...as they were a small, compact, structurally strong, and well built sort of aircraft but I have no idea how tough.

Bearcat99
02-26-2006, 08:39 PM
Like someone else said too... all weps tests should be run offline.

fordfan25
02-26-2006, 10:29 PM
from my reading the FW was a tough plane. i dont think the FW needs toneing down. just other planes need toneing up,like the 47,hellcat and hog. thats whats realy makeing the FW stand out in this game. when just a few hits will rip apart a stang or even tear off the tail of a 47 or 38 it makes seeing the FW take 90+ hits from .50s and keep going a tough pill "as i have "

GR142-Pipper
02-27-2006, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Prior to the patch some folks did some controlled test that indicated the BMW took many rounds of damage compared to a P&W to knock out....

Since 4.04, and now I've had a chance to fly it a bunch, I don't think I have lit a Fw on fire....in fact, if I put on arcade mode and count arrows...I am seeing that it is taking a minimum of 25 hits and even up to 50 hits to knock them down.

This plane, while not invulnerable to .30cal rounds like the lagg, seems to have gone back to its armored self...and it was verrry tough in 4.04.

Anyone else notice this or not noticed this? And I'd like to hear from guys that shoot at Fw's not Fw drivers that don't like getting shot down....please note whether your experiences are online or offline as offline things have changed a whole bunch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you. The worst of 190 family in my view is the TA-152....very unrealistic. The TA-152 and the Ki-84 are the two aircraft that seem to be able to take far more punishment than any other plane.

GR142-Pipper

anarchy52
02-27-2006, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
I agree with you. The worst of 190 family in my view is the TA-152....very unrealistic. The TA-152 and the Ki-84 are the two aircraft that seem to be able to take far more punishment than any other plane.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LaGG-3?
P-38?
B-25?
Hurricane?
P-39
Ta-152 is not tougher then other FW-190s. Structural failures are overdone in FB anyway.

carguy_
02-27-2006, 05:36 AM
Being blown out of the sky by new AI recently,I got a nice opportunity to compare DM of different aircraft.

I saw that Hurricane,P40,Hawks and P47 have very good control even with a big fat hole in the wing.You can`t like fight on the envelope but normal flying aswell as intermediate maneuvers work like a charm.

In all FW190 I get few hole and the fight is over.Get a big hole and the plane requires full opposite rudder to maintain horizontal stability.

SeaFireLIV
02-27-2006, 06:40 AM
FW190s do appear tougher than previously, but no complaints. They were tough and should be. Just cos you ain`t seeing fuel streaming yet, doesn`t mean it won`t. You just haven`t hit the sweet spot yet. Remember, FB`s damage-modelling is the most realistic yet in any sim. You shouldn`t be able to make such specific things (such as fire) happen to a plane on order just by shooting at it a lot. It depends on WHERE YOU HIT and the CIRCUMSTANCES.

Xiolablu3
02-27-2006, 07:57 AM
I have always considered the FW190 to be around 2x as tough to down as a Me109 or Spitfire. I always groan if I see it a fw190 because I know I will use up over half my ammo load trying to get him down.

Sure you can damage them but they get home ok most of the time.

When you are in a 190 damage sure causes you to drop out the fight, as a hole in your wing causes a lot of problems, but you can still stand a lot of damage and you usually get home if you can disengage.

As for fire, I cant remember, I will keep an eye out now.

JtD
02-27-2006, 08:51 AM
Yesterday I killed 3 FW one sorite in the P-38J, the last one with only .50 remaining. I set one on fire. They burn.

JG4_Helofly
02-27-2006, 10:03 AM
http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/5927/190vunerabilityadj9jd.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/7340/190vunerability2adj9jo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

JG4_Helofly
02-27-2006, 10:11 AM
Also I read a story in the book "Feindber├╝hrung" Julius Meimberg. Meimberg flew with the JG2 on the england front. After a mission he saw a fw 190 comming to land and that plane made strange noises. After the landing of the 190 he saw big holes in the engine ( 20mm of spitfire ) and an engine liquid which was all over the plane.

The damage was the following: one "Pleulstange" ( conrod ) was broken and a cylinder was totaly destroyed. For the BMW engine this was not a major problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. With this damages the pilot flew across the see from england to france !!!

RegRag1977
02-27-2006, 10:42 AM
He, he, made in Germany http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Grey_Mouser67
02-27-2006, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
I agree with you. The worst of 190 family in my view is the TA-152....very unrealistic. The TA-152 and the Ki-84 are the two aircraft that seem to be able to take far more punishment than any other plane.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LaGG-3?
P-38?
B-25?
Hurricane?
P-39
Ta-152 is not tougher then other FW-190s. Structural failures are overdone in FB anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm totally with you on the Lagg and the forever oil leaking P-39 but the lightning loses controls and booms super easy in 4.03...don't know about 4.04. I have blown up several Hurricanes in a 109E, to the degree that I was asking about a potential bug. Have the Mitchells been altered in 4.04? In 4.03 they burned real easy from cannon fire...I had several 7 kill sorties in 4.03, online, using a Fw 190A4 vs. Spit MkV's and B-25's....that map is really bad news if you like to fly allied http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Anyways, I still haven't gotten a Fw to burn. In terms of toughness, I've read and seen interviews with American airmen who stated the Fw was slightly tougher than the 109, primarily due to engine but again, nothing that HMG's couldn't or wouldn't deal with.

That is all anecdotal stuff...what is real is the study done that indicated approximately 20 rounds to "shoot down", not get a smoker to land, but shoot down Luftwaffe aircraft. That is not subjective, nor anecdotal.

I'm looking forward to the test results.

Kocur_
02-27-2006, 12:06 PM
There is a game's feature, that makes things difficult to judge objectively if experiences of different playes are to be discussed. That feature is dramatic loss of weapons effectiveness with incerace of range. That affects all kinds of weapons - I observed many, many times how equal number of hits from 4 x MG151/20 made a plane explode at 100m but did practically no damage at 400m - and Im talking about number of hits, not rounds fired. The same 'works' for .50s. At distances up to about 100-150m .50 do kill planes with 20-30 hits, but at 300m those hits will have only friction of their effeciveness they had at short distance. I find it pretty major bug both in case of HE of any caliber and .50s. In former - because HE content explodes the same way at any distance (apart from difference in penetration depth between igniting fuse and actual explosion depending on velocity at impact). In latter - because .50 projectiles loss of velocity was very slow down the range - only ~130m/s at 300m.

BaronUnderpants
02-27-2006, 12:24 PM
One word: Firehosefuelleak.

Still there.

As for the B-25, shot the tail of one online the other night, and i do mean ALL of the tail, nothing left but the fuselage itselfe....did it spin out of controle, did i crasch? Nope...it blew up shortly after because both its engines had been on fire for a good 5 min. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

From time to time all the ac suffers from ovemoddeled DM....or they are possesed by the devil. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

Oh yah...did i mentioned that the rear AI gunner took my controles out and wonded my pilot on my last pass....u know, the gunner at the end of the fuselage with no tail left what so ever. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG4_Helofly
02-27-2006, 02:52 PM
On the documents I posted you can see that from direct six the 50 cal can not do very much. Only fuel tanks can be hit but not burn and all bullets are deflected away from the engine. The problem is that the old il2 DM simulate all engines the same. An exemple: A BMW Sternmotor will die the same way as an inline engine only the number of needed bullets is different. At the moment you can destroy all you want with very small bullets if you have enough time and ammunition http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I hope that in tbob the engines will react like in RL. Than an air cooled engine will have advantages over an inline liquid cooled one.

Kocur_
02-27-2006, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only fuel tanks can be hit but not burn </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Note however what kind of projectiles had ammo fired in that test. The document says about .50 B Mk.II. I dont know what ammo this British designation stands for, but I can identify .303 MkVII - its regular ball projectile - as B - 'Ball' suggests. Appearently they didnt use incendiary or armour piercing incendiary ammo in that test for mg and hmg. Not than I or API hits caused fires everytime - heck no, but there would be no "no chance of causing fire".

Tachyon1000
02-27-2006, 07:08 PM
I don't know. The 190 seems to take a hit to the wing pretty easily for me and once it does it is largely unflyable as you have to cross-control to keep the plane flying level. It may not be readily explodable, but once it takes a wing hit it is pretty useless.

GR142-Pipper
02-28-2006, 12:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
FW190s do appear tougher than previously, but no complaints. They were tough and should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem is one of relative differences. There is no reason why a Ta-152/FW should be any tougher than a P-47, F6F or F4U but they are...by a long shot. Not only are their damage models more resiliant but the U.S. 50's are not effective. In real life, the 50's were very effective and the P-47, F6F and F4U were well known to be able to sustain an incredible amount of damage. This game doesn't presently reflect that relative to the FW/Ta-152/Ki-84.

GR142-Pipper

OldMan____
02-28-2006, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
FW190s do appear tougher than previously, but no complaints. They were tough and should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem is one of relative differences. There is no reason why a Ta-152/FW should be any tougher than a P-47, F6F or F4U but they are...by a long shot. Not only are their damage models more resiliant but the U.S. 50's are not effective. In real life, the 50's were very effective and the P-47, F6F and F4U were well known to be able to sustain an incredible amount of damage. This game doesn't presently reflect that relative to the FW/Ta-152/Ki-84.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone that sitson front of them in game wonÔ┬┤t tell they are innefective. They are less effective than a 20mm but they SHOULD.

FW still have that issue with high (uite high) PK ratio. Tha compensates a lot of it toughness since there isa LARGE piece of its back that any hit of a .50 is a PK.

Xiolablu3
02-28-2006, 03:41 AM
That long FW190 damage report is only from the 'dead 6' shot.

The plane only has to turn a little and you are no longer shooting at his dead 6.

Stoyanov
02-28-2006, 05:27 AM
for those who think that FW cant catch fire, try to shoot it with Yak-3 it needs 2-3 rounds max....

Cobra-84
02-28-2006, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
They are less effective than a 20mm but they SHOULD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sound like someone is comparing a 9mm to a 155mm. The difference between 12.7mm and 20mm isn't that big, not the 5x or more that is in game. When 1 20mm is better than 8 .50s, I think there is a problem.

The .50/cannon ratios are fine for engine damage (cannons 2-3 times more powerful). Structural damage is a huge problem.

FW-190A-9 Outer wing section removal
Type-99 - 2-8 hits, 5 hits was the most common
M-2 - 38, 40 hits

In the best case, the type-99 (one of the worst 20mm cannons) is 5 times more powerful than the .50s at inflicting structural damage, is should be half that.

The Hispanos should be 3x more powerful than the .50. Try flying the P-38, use only the 20mm or the 4 .50s. They SHOULD be equal, maybe even a slight advantage to the 50s. They aren't equal in game, the one Hispano more effective than the 4 .50s. Even against planes that .50s can shoot down easily, single Hispano is a noticibly better weapon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FW still have that issue with high (uite high) PK ratio. Tha compensates a lot of it toughness since there isa LARGE piece of its back that any hit of a .50 is a PK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW-190 has one of the lowest PK/shot ratios. Just because you get PKed a lot doesn't mean anything, its one of the few ways to bring down a FW-190 with a HMG. I've had multiple AP rounds go straight through the canopy glass into the pilots head, didn't get a PK. If you want to complain about PKs, go fly the F4U.

"Tough" planes are ridiculous in the game. The P-47's wings are about 8x stronger than those of the P-51, the FW-190 - Bf-109 comparisons are similar. Anyone want to claim thats is correct? There far to many over/under done damage models or even parts of the DM (P-47s godlike wings, but a 2 hit kill engine and paper tail). No single engine, aluminum plane should be 10 times more damage resistant than another.

I doubt the many DM/FM problems will ever be fixed, so it's not really worth arguing about. $100+ spent on this series and major problems are rarely fixed. Lets pay $50 for BoB to get things fixed! They are using the sports game business model on a flight sim, start game(IL-2)-sell new version with only a roster update (FB, AEP, PF)-Start over, fix bugs sell again with reduced features(BoB). If the Il-2 series worked properly I wouldn't have any incentive to buy BoB, a slight graphics update with some planes I don't have much interest in.

OldMan____
02-28-2006, 11:00 AM
You are making extrapolations that are not based on relaible information. .50 are supposed to be /13 of a 20mm cannon efficiency at SHotting planes donw! Not specifically at making structural failure!

If you expect API damage to be same type of a HE or MG damage... you are really lost in this one.



And it seems you don fly the FW190 a lot. Every pilot of it (at least anton, I don't fly dora) knows that it extremely easy to be PKed from 6 and above. I have personal log of every death of mine online. Exluding accidents.. my deaths in FW are almost 70% PK. In other planes this number is barelly above 30%.

Cobra-84
02-28-2006, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
You are making extrapolations that are not based on relaible information. .50 are supposed to be /13 of a 20mm cannon efficiency at SHotting planes donw! Not specifically at making structural failure! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its a simple damage model, not a complex interal strutures and some big mathematical fomula to calculate damage to tiny individual parts. Likely was of figuring out damage - Each section has hit points, projectile damage = mass * velocity, and number of fragments = HE content. Damage levels are just Hp - X amount of damage and parts are removed when HP = 0. There are some other things like fires and control cables, bug they are probably just as simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you expect API damage to be same type of a HE or MG damage... you are really lost in this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are really overrating the DM complexity, its slightly above Janes WW2 Fighters. The damage from a He or AP to the hit section is about the same, only difference is the AP can pentrate into other sections and the HE fragments can hit other sections.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And it seems you don fly the FW190 a lot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've actually flown the FW-190 a lately. Its very easy to fly, much better than the P-47 in all areas. 3 kills in my flight alone. I have been shot down only a few times, maybe 1/8 of the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">my deaths in FW are almost 70% PK. In other planes this number is barelly above 30%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never personally been PKed in the FW-190 and I rarely PK a FW-190 or even shoot them down at all. Your high PK % is due to the FW-190s toughness. Most other planes and actually be shot down by other means, if they were as tough as the 190 I'm sure the PK % would rise. You just want to complain about one of the few ways to shoot down your plane.

Kocur_
02-28-2006, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FW-190A-9 Outer wing section removal
Type-99 - 2-8 hits, 5 hits was the most common
M-2 - 38, 40 hits

In the best case, the type-99 (one of the worst 20mm cannons) is 5 times more powerful than the .50s at inflicting structural damage, is should be half that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you knew more on Fw-190 wing design you would that find quite acurate IF proportions in game are such. Fw-190 wing was a caisson design. What looks like conventional spars are in fact also front and rear wall of a caisson, which upper and lower 'walls' are upper and lower skin. Think of it as a huge spar of rectangular cross section with leading edge and flaps/ailerons attached, constructed much like semi-monocoque fuselage, flat naturally. Structural failure you could expect from damaging spar by large numbers of .50 hits (a lucky event considering inevitable spread of hits) would not be just occur yet, as very large proportion of stress is carried by skin with its stiffners. In another words Fw-190 wings would be much more resistant to .50 fire, than say Bf-109's. OTOH cannon HE projectiles would make big holes in skin, thus removing large proportion of Fw-190 wing strenght.

Grey_Mouser67
02-28-2006, 05:45 PM
Fw's suffered wing failure in real life when their ammo boxes were struck by HMG fire. Also, when wheel components, struts, cannons and such were struck by AP ammo, there were bullet fragments and other fragments flying around inside the wing structure creating damage, weakening the structure itself and decreasing performance.

We really could argue the "mode of failure" endlessly because of limitations of damage modelling...however a plane goes down...it is important that it goes down within a reasonable number of rounds relative to real life experience...it does not do that currently.

I fly the Fw ALOT online and I can say that I get PK'd alot in it, but only by cannon fire...La's and Spitfires are notorius for PK'ing me. HMG fire does not PK me unless I am in strong deflection and my armor is missed. The best plane ingame, for resisiting PK's, is the 109 imho.

I don't necessarily think the Fw is wrong either...I think lots of pilots were killed and wounded while flying and fighting. Just because something had armor on it, doesn't mean that armor can't be defeated! Especially from dead six with no deflection!

20 rounds...that is where it is at...probably a few more with a fw and a few less with a 109. You won't reproduce that statistic ingame....especially if you take out the cheap "smoker" kills.

No fires..no joy

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-28-2006, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
I agree with you. The worst of 190 family in my view is the TA-152....very unrealistic. The TA-152 and the Ki-84 are the two aircraft that seem to be able to take far more punishment than any other plane.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LaGG-3?
P-38?
B-25?
Hurricane?
P-39
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...N1K1?!?!?!!?!?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

FritzGryphon
02-28-2006, 06:20 PM
Tried an informal kind of test with mounds of FW-190A4 versus my P-51. General fighting, shooting from various ranges and angles.

For 39 kills I scored 2100 hits, roughly 3/4 of which could be counted as being pre-kill. About 35-40 hits per kill.

I like that the fuel tank will be holed from certain angles and ranges, burned from others. But it does seem an excessive number, easily the most of a conventional fighter type.

But hardly the worst DM in the game. You've not tried the Bi-1? It has no fuel tank, or engine for that matter, in the DM. The airframe survives hits that would explode a FW-190. As far as I can tell, it has no control cables either. It only dies, only, via pilot kill. Certainly my nomination for worst DM.

Runner up, the Ohka, who's engine still runs after the tail (and engine) has been shot off. Relegated to second place because it's AI only.

F6_Ace
02-28-2006, 06:27 PM
What kind of P51?

I torched a 4.04 190A5 with a Mustang III with a burst of around 3/2 seconds from dead 6 online

The flames only lasted for 2 seconds as his high speed dive put them out

That was unusual but they can be set on fire

ImpStarDuece
02-28-2006, 06:43 PM
A single Hispano HEI round should be between 3.5-4.5 times more effective than a single Browning M8 API round, based on kinetic and chemical energy measurements. At combat ranges of 300m or less it has just under 3 times the kinetic energy and around 8 times the chemical energy. A 20mm SAPI round should be around 4 times more effective than a Browning M2 Ball round.

Because of it's lower rate of fire compared to the Browning, a single Hispano cannon should be equavilent to around 3 to 3.5 M2 Browning HMGs, depending slightly on the belting mix and time period. A Mk V Hispano, with higher rate of fire than the Mk II, should be about 15% more effective than the earlier version. So, something like the Spitfire V/IX with its mixed cannon and MG armament should put around 25% more firepower on target than the 6 gun homogenous HMG layout of the P-51, and about the same as the 8 gun homogenous HMG armament of the P-47.

The problem with the damage model in the game is twofold:

1) The effectiveness of HE rounds causing several structural damage is somewhat overstated. Engine failure, fire and light structural damage (wing tips, tails, tailplanes) were far more common damage than the complete shedding of wings and tail sections that we see in the sim.

2) The lack of internal systems for HMG rounds to damage. AP class rounds like the M8 API or .303 deWilde ammunition relied on a large number of rounds entering the target and hitting critical subsystems such as oil/fuel tanks, hydraulic resivoirs, oxygen tanks, cooling systems, the pilot, radios, radiators, ammunition boxes, control linkages, turbosuperchargers and the engine. While some of these are modeled, others aren't, so the AP rounds are slightly hard done by.

If it were a perfect world, it would require more firepower to sever wings and tails, but less firepower to cause some form of crippling damage. The effectiveness of cannon armed aircraft in bring down opposing planes is fine, however I feel the abilty to rip wings off ect is overdone. The place where 12.7mm class weapons lose out is a lack of subsystems for them to hit and damage, which slightly underdose the destructive ability of AP weapons

Bearcat99
02-28-2006, 06:49 PM
Yeah.. then they fly around in a loop and shoot you down...LMAO.

Bearcat99
02-28-2006, 09:01 PM
Generally I think most of the U.S. planes are sub par...

fordfan25
02-28-2006, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Being blown out of the sky by new AI recently,I got a nice opportunity to compare DM of different aircraft.

I saw that Hurricane,P40,Hawks and P47 have very good control even with a big fat hole in the wing.You can`t like fight on the envelope but normal flying aswell as intermediate maneuvers work like a charm.

In all FW190 I get few hole and the fight is over.Get a big hole and the plane requires full opposite rudder to maintain horizontal stability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> *sigh* visual damnge means all but nothing in this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Grey_Mouser67
03-02-2006, 06:21 PM
Well I still haven't lit one up with HMG's!

It would be nice if six .50's were close to the effectiveness of 2 hispanos...would be nice if the Fw would go down with approximately 20 hits.

I've seen more than one person do informal tests on Fw's by virtue of counting hits till "shootdown" and I've yet to see a number under 35...and as high as 50. Probably somewhere in between, but nowhere is it 20 except in real life.

GR142-Pipper
03-03-2006, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Well I still haven't lit one up with HMG's!

It would be nice if six .50's were close to the effectiveness of 2 hispanos...would be nice if the Fw would go down with approximately 20 hits.

I've seen more than one person do informal tests on Fw's by virtue of counting hits till "shootdown" and I've yet to see a number under 35...and as high as 50. Probably somewhere in between, but nowhere is it 20 except in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Indeed. Unfortunately as far as the P-51/47/38/F4U/F6F in this game are concerned, real life is nowhere to be found. 4.04 even reduced the P-38 back to porkdom. It was fine in 4.02/4.03 except for the phoney elevator compression. Oh well.

GR142-Pipper

JG4_Helofly
03-03-2006, 04:49 AM
An other thing is important too. In a dogfight you often have a hit rate between 5 and 10 %. If I dive on the target with a 109f4 with 20 mm one or two hits are effectif. If I do the same with a p 51 I hit maybe with 4 bullets but I have not the same effectivness. The problem is that you have not enough time to hit with enough bullets if the ennemi does evasiv manoeuvres. With the 20mm I need only a few hits, with the 50 cal I need much more and the most of the ammunition don't hit the target.