PDA

View Full Version : Savoia Marchetti SM.79



Pages : [1] 2

TinyTim
10-02-2009, 06:11 PM
What a baby... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

I gave her a few rides and fell in love instantly.

It's one of the rare axis bombers with heavy machinegun defensive armament (three heavy and two light MGs). Despite their bad reputation, when shooting at fighters from their front, those Bredas eat cocky spitfire and hurricane inline engines and even wings for breakfast! You also have one fixed Breda, firing forward. Not much, but at least you have something.

Secondly, it's sturdy as hell (probably too sturdy). It's very hard either to set it on fire or to cause structural damage with light MGs, or even to cause any kind of leaks. If, however, any of your engines caughts fire, there's a handy fire extinguisher that can be used 3 times (on each engine).

It's also quite fast (you can squeeze 360kph out of her at the sealevel, that's on par with He111 - 370, and a tad slower than Ju88 - 390). This gives you a good escape chance versus Gladiators.

Combination of guns, sturdiness and speed makes surviving against 4 ace AI hurricanes relatively easy.

Next - you can drop bombs one by one (not in pairs). With 5x250kg or 12x100kg you can sink quite some shipping or hit a nice number of different targets.

You need some time to get used to automatic flaps and two-pitch propellers (you should reduce pitch below 50% for level flight or you'll overrev, use >50% only for climb and slow flying). There's also a neg-g cutout, which makes evasive maneouvers against fighters a bit harder.

I really can't wait to try her online in pre- and early-war scenarios.

Together with the superb MTO map, this new birdie opened whole new world in this sim. Very well done, team Daidalos, hats off to you.

http://www.shrani.si/f/3i/MF/2SuXpkOO/sm79.jpg

TinyTim
10-02-2009, 06:11 PM
What a baby... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

I gave her a few rides and fell in love instantly.

It's one of the rare axis bombers with heavy machinegun defensive armament (three heavy and two light MGs). Despite their bad reputation, when shooting at fighters from their front, those Bredas eat cocky spitfire and hurricane inline engines and even wings for breakfast! You also have one fixed Breda, firing forward. Not much, but at least you have something.

Secondly, it's sturdy as hell (probably too sturdy). It's very hard either to set it on fire or to cause structural damage with light MGs, or even to cause any kind of leaks. If, however, any of your engines caughts fire, there's a handy fire extinguisher that can be used 3 times (on each engine).

It's also quite fast (you can squeeze 360kph out of her at the sealevel, that's on par with He111 - 370, and a tad slower than Ju88 - 390). This gives you a good escape chance versus Gladiators.

Combination of guns, sturdiness and speed makes surviving against 4 ace AI hurricanes relatively easy.

Next - you can drop bombs one by one (not in pairs). With 5x250kg or 12x100kg you can sink quite some shipping or hit a nice number of different targets.

You need some time to get used to automatic flaps and two-pitch propellers (you should reduce pitch below 50% for level flight or you'll overrev, use >50% only for climb and slow flying). There's also a neg-g cutout, which makes evasive maneouvers against fighters a bit harder.

I really can't wait to try her online in pre- and early-war scenarios.

Together with the superb MTO map, this new birdie opened whole new world in this sim. Very well done, team Daidalos, hats off to you.

http://www.shrani.si/f/3i/MF/2SuXpkOO/sm79.jpg

stalkervision
10-02-2009, 06:26 PM
looks like a lot of fun T/T http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
10-02-2009, 07:09 PM
Ditto to all TT said.. my experiences as well.

Probably most important aspect in that sturdiness part is that it really takes time to catch fire under 7,62mm, probably the most fire-proof bomber in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . In combination with fire extinguishers it makes 79 really tough customer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif .

That being said I'm off to med to sink some shipping... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
10-02-2009, 09:42 PM
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/672/sm79.jpg

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

BTW, the 672 2kg. bomblet loadout is great against rows of parked aircraft.

WTE_Galway
10-02-2009, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Despite their bad reputation, when shooting at fighters from their front, those Bredas eat cocky spitfire and hurricane inline engines and even wings for breakfast! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Breda's are not near as effective as the US 0.50 cal Browning on paper.

However in the end a 0.50 cal machine gun is .. well .. 0.50 cal ... and regardless of the US gun being even better still ... the Breda is still going to be much more effective than any 7.62mm gun.

ElAurens
10-02-2009, 09:55 PM
I made some intercepts against the SM 79 in Hurricane IIbs and Tomahawks.

Head on is the best attack vector.

Be sure.

As in all other bombers in the sim the sniper AI are deadly from astern, and not too shabby if you make high quartering attacks either.

The port gunner pinged my Hurri's engine with one shot, set it ablaze and that was that.

The ventral gunner sniped my P40 from fair distance and set the engine alight and destroyed the elevator and rudder controls, by somhow putting that underpowered Breda round end to end through a one ton + Allison V12.

Some things never change, I hope the sniping bastage AI gunners get taken down several notches in the next installment.

Ba5tard5word
10-02-2009, 10:39 PM
Yeah they kill your engine with one blow, be careful when attacking from the side!

AndyJWest
10-03-2009, 07:32 AM
For those that haven't spotted it yet - elevator trim indicator:

http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/SM79-ElvTrim.jpg

The automatic flaps definitely take getting used to - if you slow to say 140 km/h to extend fully, then try to approach too steeply when landing, they may partially retract. Rather disconcerting, but recoverable - increase power, pull the nose up (gently) then slow again as they extend. I think it needs practice to get landing approach right, and avoid this in the first place. Take care with the brakes too, it is a little tippy.

ffb
10-03-2009, 08:27 AM
distributing confetti at the royal wedding

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c188/fabianfred537/tower2.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c188/fabianfred537/tower.jpg

Sharpe26
10-03-2009, 10:33 AM
okay, i'll bite. I thought that wouldn't be possible.....

Maraz_6S
10-03-2009, 11:02 AM
Head-on attack is the best tactic against SM.79. You can damage two or three engine with a single pass with 0.303 cal. machine guns. From behind, you have to shoot from really very close distance to make serious damage.

Maraz

na85
10-03-2009, 11:17 AM
FFB I notice it says "bay doors open"

Is that (manual opening/closing of bomb bay doors) from the bomb bay doors mod or did that feature get put into 4.09?

Uufflakke
10-03-2009, 12:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Wow FFB! Those guys at SAS are real quick with their V4.09m modactivator.

DKoor
10-03-2009, 12:58 PM
No protection = insta hack.

I guess (read=hope) that will change in the future.

ffb
10-03-2009, 02:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
FFB I notice it says "bay doors open"

Is that (manual opening/closing of bomb bay doors) from the bomb bay doors mod or did that feature get put into 4.09? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The manual opening and closing of the bomb bay doors was a mod..... but I was surprised when it worked with this....

SAS won the race....

Romanator21
10-03-2009, 03:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...PA&feature=quicklist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY2PQzxgbPA&feature=quicklist)

Choctaw111
10-03-2009, 03:22 PM
I didn't even know about SAS before today.
I will wait and see what happens with this at AAA.

stugumby
10-03-2009, 03:35 PM
can anyone sugest the mix to get decent speed.

Im not getting over 300kph, im using 85% power 80% pitch at 3000m trying to stay at approx 2200 rpm etc. Tried lower 40 pitch etc but just dosnt seem right all that grab for cruise etc, and cant get over 300kph that way either.

wheelsup_cavu
10-03-2009, 03:53 PM
I can't wait to try this plane.
Patch download just got done. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Wheels

Waldo.Pepper
10-03-2009, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...PA&feature=quicklist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY2PQzxgbPA&feature=quicklist) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is clearly from a theatrical film release. Does anyone know it? Cause I sure don't and it doesn't look like there is any info at youtube.

JG52Uther
10-03-2009, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stugumby:
can anyone sugest the mix to get decent speed.

Im not getting over 300kph, im using 85% power 80% pitch at 3000m trying to stay at approx 2200 rpm etc. Tried lower 40 pitch etc but just dosnt seem right all that grab for cruise etc, and cant get over 300kph that way either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In level flight use 0-49% 'pitch'.If you look at the 'pitch' lever by the throttles,you will see they are either fully up (50-100%) or fully down (49-0%)
It is either fine pitch or coarse pitch.Its all in the readme.

berg417448
10-03-2009, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...PA&feature=quicklist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY2PQzxgbPA&feature=quicklist) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is clearly from a theatrical film release. Does anyone know it? Cause I sure don't and it doesn't look like there is any info at youtube. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may be from a movie called "They who Dare".

http://www.imcdb.org/movie_464...73486b7e4b9588d0f1a9 (http://www.imcdb.org/movie_46421-They-Who-Dare.html?PHPSESSID=e88276620be873486b7e4b9588d0f1 a9)

Uufflakke
10-03-2009, 05:15 PM
Don't know that movie but it is posted by someone called Auldm and he used to post here as Mauld.

Waldo.Pepper
10-03-2009, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
It may be from a movie called "They who Dare".

http://www.imcdb.org/movie_464...73486b7e4b9588d0f1a9 (http://www.imcdb.org/movie_46421-They-Who-Dare.html?PHPSESSID=e88276620be873486b7e4b9588d0f1 a9) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you nailed it there Berg. Thank you so much - there is even a torrent for it at Mininova. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

From imdb

"This film will be of great interest to WW2 Aviation enthusiasts as it features several authentic Italian Savoia - Marchetti S.M. 79 three - motor bombers. These aircraft were provided by the Lebanese Air Force which was the last operator of the type."

I wonder what became of the Lebanese SM 79's? EDIT [wonder no more]

The Lebanese had 4 that they used as transports. One of the ex-Lebanese aircraft is now on display at the Museo Storico dell' Aeronautica Militare Italiana at Vigna di Valle, north of Rome. A second one is on display at the "Museo dell'Aeronautica Gianni Caproni" at Trento.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc6/warhog59/SiaiMarchettiSM79Sparviero-001.jpg

Italian Air Force Museum (http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/Sitoam/default.asp?idnot=23029&idsez=3347&darg=&idente=1404)

Airliners.net link to SM 79 (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?search_active=1&search=&sheadline=&domains=Airliners.net&sitesearch=Airliners.net&client=pub-8297169501225184&forid=1&channel=1924797129&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23E6E8FA%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23000000%3B VLC%3AE6E8FA%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3A45678C%3BLBGC%3 A45678C%3BALC%3AE6E8FA%3BLC%3AE6E8FA%3BT%3AC4C8CC% 3BGFNT%3AC4C8CC%3BGIMP%3AC4C8CC%3BLH%3A36%3BLW%3A6 39%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Fgraphics%2Fopen_file_header_im age.jpg%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.airliners.net%3BFOR ID%3A1%3B&hl=en&search_field=datedesc&q=Savoia+Marchetti+SM.79&submit=)



Learn something new everyday. Thanks again.

Brownba
10-03-2009, 07:53 PM
Love the SM.79! Been searching for info about it and thought this was interesting:

http://www.lonesentry.com/arti...it_bomber/index.html (http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/it_bomber/index.html)

It's just a brief intelligence report from Jan, 1943.

larschance
10-04-2009, 09:05 AM
The Italian Air Force history book 'Courage Alone' has just been reprinted by Crecy Ltd in England. This gives a detailed unit by unit history including all S79 units as well as some technical info. Amazon are selling it now.

mortoma
10-04-2009, 11:32 AM
Spent some time in QMB as a gunner ( usually the dorsal gunner ) against a variety of enemy fighters and my gunning allowed us to return to base nine out of ten times! I actually de-winged an enemy fighter one time. If P40s attack my bomber they are toast every time with their paper mache engines. They only can win if they kill my gunner early on.

How late into the war did this bomber serve? Maybe 1943??

TinyTim
10-04-2009, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
How late into the war did this bomber serve? Maybe 1943?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It served even postwar, last examples in postwar Italian Air Force (Aeronautica Militare) were retired in early 50s. Truly magnificent airplane, considering prototype flew in 1934.

Jure_502
10-04-2009, 12:02 PM
I think I have a new favorite bomber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

And I like it that is tough to knock down, I love to fly bombers online and when online sharks smell big blood....

JG52Uther
10-04-2009, 12:03 PM
The sharks will smell 300 points,and might get a nasty surprise! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

wheelsup_cavu
10-04-2009, 01:16 PM
Thanks for figuring it out so quickly Berg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Interesting plane.
Thanks for the pics and IMDB info Waldo.


Wheels

gorillasika
10-04-2009, 01:19 PM
This plane is a true early Hurricane killer.
I spent couple of hours flying early Hurri and trying to shoot an average SM 79 down. Finally I concluded that if I don't get him on the first head on pass, I might just as well give up. So in couple of hours I think I finally shot one down without crashing myself.

So I decided to jump to the gunner seat of the SM 79 and put four average early Hurricanes against me. In about ten minutes and two flights I had shot down five Hurris and sent rest of them smoking home. I even followed one of them and strafed it with the nose gun when it had landed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

This plane truely is an insta ace maker against early hurricanes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ffb
10-04-2009, 06:57 PM
How come ours doesn't have a dual torpedo loadout?

stugumby
10-04-2009, 08:24 PM
Still baffled with pitch issues, tried to just ride along as observer with auto pilot set and pitch levers stayed up all the time, had nearly 100% power to keep at 300kph IAS from the cockpit panel at 700m.
Can anyone share their rpm and throttle settings and describe levers up or down, i tried them and heard engine noise change so it must be working, i think im backazwards. Fine for cruise here is actually coarse to keep from over revving??

Rickustyit
10-05-2009, 02:17 AM
Damages on SM79s....

http://www.aerei-italiani.net/Fotostoriche/DanniSM79.jpg

http://www.eagle42.eu/crash11.jpg

http://www.aviationartstore.com/images/Dal_S.79_DAMAGE2.jpg

http://www.aviationartstore.com/images/Dal_S.79_DAMAGED.jpg

And this cool diagram picture...

http://dida.fauser.edu/dispro/ProgettoAER/images/SM79.gif

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SM79Sparviero-Aerosiluranti1.jpg

My new favourite!

TinyTim
10-05-2009, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stugumby:
Still baffled with pitch issues, tried to just ride along as observer with auto pilot set and pitch levers stayed up all the time, had nearly 100% power to keep at 300kph IAS from the cockpit panel at 700m.
Can anyone share their rpm and throttle settings and describe levers up or down, i tried them and heard engine noise change so it must be working, i think im backazwards. Fine for cruise here is actually coarse to keep from over revving?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This plane does not have a continuous variable pitch propeller. It's pitch only has two settings. One is for climbing / slow speeds, the other for high speeds. Once you reach 300khp or so, you must reduce your pitch from above 50% to below 50%, so the engine does not overrev and you will achieve higher speeds (you will see/hear the rpm drop at first tho, but look at speed). It's like manual, two geared car. As long as your prop pitch setting is above 50%, it really doesn't matter what value is chosen, since all values above 50% mean the same - the "lower" gear, for climb and slow speeds, while values belove 50% represent the "higher" gear for high speeds.

Viikate_
10-05-2009, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ffb:
How come ours doesn't have a dual torpedo loadout? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maraz can give you more detailed answer, but I recall that the dual torp loadout was only used in propaganda photos.

stugumby
10-05-2009, 09:02 AM
It might be a map issue, i tried the italy online map at altitude and still no speed, but tried mto map and acheived 330kph at 90% power 2000 rpm 45% pitch, lever down, at 3000m. 50% fuel 12 100kg bombs.

Im trying to find a reasonable cruising speed for mission building, my interpretation is i cruise at 80% throttle, acheiving 300kph or higher plane type dependent of course.

With 20% remaining for adjustments etc. I try to build missions that have the plane at bombing speed along the waypoints.

Im highly impressed with the sm-79, just trying to get good at it.

buchtik
10-05-2009, 11:05 AM
The SM.79 is pretty tough to bring down.I flew it against 4 Hurricanes IIb.They only caused me a minor fuel leak and I shot down 3 of them from top gunner's position.

Jure_502
10-05-2009, 11:52 AM
Everybody complains how it's impossible to shoot down SM in Hurri, then I took Spitfire and those cannos ate SM's, shot down four (4) of them in a row with just a couple hits received.

Conclusion: This greatly lowers the number of dangerous opponents in online fights, wich I like haha http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Sillius_Sodus
10-05-2009, 12:10 PM
The He-111 isn't exactly easy to bring down with light mg's either.

Maraz_6S
10-05-2009, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How come ours doesn't have a dual torpedo loadout? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,
while SM.79 was originally designed to carry two torpedoes, it was soon found that the aircraft was too heavy with such a loadout. Agility was needed during the torpedo run. So only one torpedo was used in operational sorties.

Two torpedoes were carried only for propaganda shots and for ferry flights (when it was needed to carry torpedoes to some distant base).

Bye
Maraz

Jure_502
10-05-2009, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
The He-111 isn't exactly easy to bring down with light mg's either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my He-111 experience, it losses controls quite easily, upper gunner is KIA soon after few Hurri bursts and ufcourse, headon is pure massacre...

Ju-88 on the other hand can take a lot more damage apart from the He-111 if you aren't lucky enough that your entire crew isn't dead after few burts of enemy fire.

Sillius_Sodus
10-05-2009, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jure_502:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
The He-111 isn't exactly easy to bring down with light mg's either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my He-111 experience, it losses controls quite easily, upper gunner is KIA soon after few Hurri bursts and ufcourse, headon is pure massacre...

Ju-88 on the other hand can take a lot more damage apart from the He-111 if you aren't lucky enough that your entire crew isn't dead after few burts of enemy fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough Jure_502, the -111 can be vulnerable except from dead six, but it's still a lot of work. I haven't tried 4.09 yet but it sounds like the SM.79 is like that too.

TinyTim
10-05-2009, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
The He-111 isn't exactly easy to bring down with light mg's either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. He-111 and, ironically, Ki-21 are two of the most fireproof bombers in game (besides our new absolute winner SM.79). B-25 on the other side, or A-20 torch up like a roman candle when hit with a few light MG bullets into a fuel tank area. It's just that these two are rarely attacked by only light MG equipped planes, so it's harder to notice.

Ju-88 bursts into flames quite easily too when exposed to light MG fire, much easier than He-111.

ElAurens
10-05-2009, 03:52 PM
More evidence of incorrect ammo belting for some types me thinks.

Ba5tard5word
10-05-2009, 05:58 PM
A-20, Fw-200 and Ju-88 all seem like they are almost based on an older damage model or something. They all break apart really easy compared to almost any other bomber, and break apart in a less convincing-looking way. Maybe it's just me though, most other bombers seem a lot tougher and fall apart more realistically.

WTE_Galway
10-05-2009, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
A-20, Fw-200 and Ju-88 all seem like they are almost based on an older damage model or something. They all break apart really easy compared to almost any other bomber, and break apart in a less convincing-looking way. Maybe it's just me though, most other bombers seem a lot tougher and fall apart more realistically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


ju88 certainly seem super vulnerable to pilot kills.

Romanator21
10-05-2009, 06:59 PM
Because it was easy to get PKs. Also the A-20 was known to have a weak spar for whatever reason. I don't know about the Fw-200. But in all my flights with the SM.79 I've lost at least one out of 4. I took a flight of 4 against 4 Average Hurris Mk1, and the SMs were decimated, 2 fell from fires, another lost control surfaces and spun out. One managed to land, but then skidded off the runway and crashed. Against P-40s, even worse.

While it is harder with the .303, the .50 does excellently, though the SM didn't encounter these until later in the War. Aim for the engines and your life will be easy.

TinyTim
10-05-2009, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
I took a flight of 4 against 4 Average Hurris Mk1, and the SMs were decimated, 2 fell from fires,... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is there any way to see the track? We must obviously be playing different game here. I took 1v1 (SM79 vs HurriI), the Hurri was an AI ace, I was flying straight and level (to present the easiest possible target), I selected empty loadout (so that my bomber gunners didn't shoot back), and the Hurri didn't manage to shoot me down even once in ten tries - before his ammo ran out (!!). And I uploaded tracks.

TinyTim
10-05-2009, 08:20 PM
Actually I've just tried it - like you said, 4 Sparvieros versus 4 Hurricanes MkI, all Average. It was over in a minute or two, Hurries got pwned! All Hurricanes were shot down, and only one Savoia was damaged, suffering visual damage and fuel leak, but had no problems staying in formation:

http://www.shrani.si/f/a/9G/2qtz0zEC/sm.jpg

Track. (http://www.filefront.com/14665421/quick0008.ntrk)

PanzerAce
10-05-2009, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
A-20, Fw-200 and Ju-88 all seem like they are almost based on an older damage model or something. They all break apart really easy compared to almost any other bomber, and break apart in a less convincing-looking way. Maybe it's just me though, most other bombers seem a lot tougher and fall apart more realistically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering that the Fw-200 was a civvie design really, I'm not surprised. And they did tend to have a problem with the back snapping IIRC.

JtD
10-06-2009, 12:14 AM
It's possible to kill a full flight of SM.79's in a Hurricane IIb if you fly proper attacks. I think it's cool that the bomber has a good chance of survival against the 6 o'clock attack. Stupidity shouldn't pay every time.

Btw, it still burns, even when attacked from 6 o'clock.

TinyTim
10-06-2009, 03:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's possible to kill a full flight of SM.79's in a Hurricane IIb if you fly proper attacks. I think it's cool that the bomber has a good chance of survival against the 6 o'clock attack. Stupidity shouldn't pay every time.

Btw, it still burns, even when attacked from 6 o'clock. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question is not "How to do it?". The question is "Is it historical?".

I find it hard to believe real SM79 was so resistant to light MG fire as our virtual counterpart, when attacked from 6 oclock (the way most bombers in WW2 were attacked).

Romanator21
10-06-2009, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aim for the engines and your life will be easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should I say it again? Also, the Fuel tanks are outboard of the engines, not inboard, so aim there.

I don't have the track of the exact event I mentioned, because I didn't bother at the time. But since you asked, I have 8 more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Where can I upload them?

JtD
10-06-2009, 04:01 AM
At any rate, it's far from impossible to light them up from 6 o'clock, they need a short burst from close distance hitting them just outside the engine and they go down in flames. If the AI can't manage to employ proper methods, fine, I can and so can any other human being on this planet.

They'll also go down due to accumulated wing damage, what's hard is the fuselage and the thick inner wing sections. What would one expect to achieve there with a 7.7 mm round anyway?

TinyTim
10-06-2009, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aim for the engines and your life will be easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should I say it again? Also, the Fuel tanks are outboard of the engines, not inboard, so aim there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me say it again - it's not about how to bring SM-79 down, it's about how historically correct it is. With your argument, a complete plane could be made invulnerable, leaving only the tip of the left wing damageable, and you'd say:"Aim for the wingtip, duh!" If a plane can take literally thousands of light MG hits, and not take any serious damage, then, in my humble opinion, something must be wrong. That's all I'm saying. If we don't give a damn about historical accuracy, I might as well be off playing Crimson Skies or some Star Wars game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:I don't have the track of the exact event I mentioned, because I didn't bother at the time. But since you asked, I have 8 more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Where can I upload them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I use and reccomend filefront for such small uploads. Free service, fast upload, immediate download.

JtD
10-06-2009, 04:41 AM
The question still is what do you expect from a 7.7mm round hitting the fuselage?

It could be like firing it against a concrete block and expecting the block to miraculously catch fire.

TinyTim
10-06-2009, 04:55 AM
No, the question is still about historical accuracy.

JtD
10-06-2009, 05:02 AM
So I say it's historically accurate. Vulnerable parts get damaged easily, damage resistant parts much less so. Perfect.

TinyTim
10-06-2009, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The question still is what do you expect from a 7.7mm round hitting the fuselage?

It could be like firing it against a concrete block and expecting the block to miraculously catch fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I really wonder whether the opinion of crews of WW2 bombers that were exposed to hurricane attacks would agree with yours.

Maraz_6S
10-06-2009, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
A-20, Fw-200 and Ju-88 all seem like they are almost based on an older damage model or something. They all break apart really easy compared to almost any other bomber, and break apart in a less convincing-looking way. Maybe it's just me though, most other bombers seem a lot tougher and fall apart more realistically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ju88 certainly seem super vulnerable to pilot kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, some aircraft have a quite old damage model, that does not include all hitboxes (fuel tanks, engines, pilot's armour, spars, etc.). Most of them are AI-only, with the remarkable exception of Ju.88, that is flyable. So the Ju.88 is very subject to pilot kill, and has only simple damage modelled. We hope to be able to improve this in the future.

Of course all new planes introduced in 4.09 have a full damage model.

Bye
Maraz

JG52Uther
10-06-2009, 08:57 AM
The Ju88 was one of the biggest disapointments to me when it became flyable.A great plane ruined by the instant PK.It is great news that DT will look at it in the future!
The SM79 is just brilliant however!

DKoor
10-06-2009, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maraz_6S:

Of course all new planes introduced in 4.09 have a full damage model.

Bye
Maraz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes I certainly have feeling that new aircraft have improved DM in comparison to older models. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

mortoma
10-06-2009, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maraz_6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
A-20, Fw-200 and Ju-88 all seem like they are almost based on an older damage model or something. They all break apart really easy compared to almost any other bomber, and break apart in a less convincing-looking way. Maybe it's just me though, most other bombers seem a lot tougher and fall apart more realistically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ju88 certainly seem super vulnerable to pilot kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, some aircraft have a quite old damage model, that does not include all hitboxes (fuel tanks, engines, pilot's armour, spars, etc.). Most of them are AI-only, with the remarkable exception of Ju.88, that is flyable. So the Ju.88 is very subject to pilot kill, and has only simple damage modelled. We hope to be able to improve this in the future.

Of course all new planes introduced in 4.09 have a full damage model.

Bye
Maraz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My question is whether or not "full damage model" is necessarily a realistic damage model. It seems to me that all the 4.09 aircraft are tough to kill compared to most older aircraft. Although none are impossible to kill, they are quite difficult. I easily noticed that in general, the Fiat G.55 is noticeably harder to kill than any FW-190 A or D model, when you are fighting in a P-51 or P-47 with the .50 BMG guns. I can light an FW on fire in many instances but have yet to light up a G.55 at all.

Also, the older, simpler damage modeling is not always mean a plane is easy to kill. Sometimes quite the opposite, as in the case of the LaGG aircraft family. Their engines are totally impervious to Mg and cannon, for example.

I sincerely hope that the Daidalos team is able to fix the super tough simple damage models as well as the super fragile ones.

JtD
10-06-2009, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

Hmm, I really wonder whether the opinion of crews of WW2 bombers that were exposed to hurricane attacks would agree with yours. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're aware that the quote you made is hypothetical?

But I've been shooting SM.79 with Hurricanes to no end now and have little reason to doubt that the damage model is ok, certainly on the better side of what we have in game. Ok, it takes close to all the ammo of a Hurricane MkI to cut off a wing or cut the fuselage in half from behind, but frankly that's what I'd expect from a rugged bomber if fired upon with small caliber arms. There is a reason bigger guns and more effective ammunitions kept being introduced throughout the war. Interestingly, there are accounts of pilots moaning the same way you are right now - they've put all their LMG ammo into the enemy bomber and it would not go down.

What I don't get is how you can keep saying "this is wrong" but cannot be convinced to state how it should be. Do you expect incendiary ammo, that explodes upon contact with the wing surface, to penetrate not only the wing surface, but also the main wing spar, the self sealing fuel tank behind that and still cause a fire there?

It's possible that the inner wing fuel tanks are missing (couldn't 'find' them as well), but I wouldn't believe that this was an oversight on behalf of team Daidalos.

Ba5tard5word
10-06-2009, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Because it was easy to get PKs. Also the A-20 was known to have a weak spar for whatever reason. I don't know about the Fw-200. But in all my flights with the SM.79 I've lost at least one out of 4. I took a flight of 4 against 4 Average Hurris Mk1, and the SMs were decimated, 2 fell from fires, another lost control surfaces and spun out. One managed to land, but then skidded off the runway and crashed. Against P-40s, even worse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


For what it's worth, AI fighters are really good against bombers, and less good against fighters. AI fighters in your flight will always shoot down enemy bombers very easily but generally be weak against fighters if not useless--if I'm flying offline I generally order my AI guys to attack bombers and then I go keep any escort fighters busy. Sometimes the AI takes too long against bombers but if they get locked on to them they **will** shoot them down, and they seem less prone to taking damage from bomber fire than I am.

I think to determine whether the SM.79 is tough to shoot down you have to try and shoot it down yourself, it's definitely a tough bird to shoot down.

DKoor
10-06-2009, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

Hmm, I really wonder whether the opinion of crews of WW2 bombers that were exposed to hurricane attacks would agree with yours. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're aware that the quote you made is hypothetical?

But I've been shooting SM.79 with Hurricanes to no end now and have little reason to doubt that the damage model is ok, certainly on the better side of what we have in game. Ok, it takes close to all the ammo of a Hurricane MkI to cut off a wing or cut the fuselage in half from behind, but frankly that's what I'd expect from a rugged bomber if fired upon with small caliber arms. There is a reason bigger guns and more effective ammunitions kept being introduced throughout the war. Interestingly, there are accounts of pilots moaning the same way you are right now - they've put all their LMG ammo into the enemy bomber and it would not go down.

What I don't get is how you can keep saying "this is wrong" but cannot be convinced to state how it should be. Do you expect incendiary ammo, that explodes upon contact with the wing surface, to penetrate not only the wing surface, but also the main wing spar, the self sealing fuel tank behind that and still cause a fire there?

It's possible that the inner wing fuel tanks are missing (couldn't 'find' them as well), but I wouldn't believe that this was an oversight on behalf of team Daidalos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I for one can understand why TinyTim is thinking the way he does and quite frankly I'm quite surprised to see that you don't find it curious to see that SM bomber is actually tougher than American heavy bombers when shooting from behind. B-17, B-24 & B-29 are all softier compared to SM.79 in this regard (black smoke pours from wing tanks, bomber is effectively doomed from further action and in most cases - a kill).

Was it really like that?

I don't know and as of now I don't even care much... because we wont be able to figure it out. The only thing we can do is stop arguing over it everyone keeps its opinion for himself and everyone is happy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

FatCat_99
10-06-2009, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's possible that the inner wing fuel tanks are missing (couldn't 'find' them as well), but I wouldn't believe that this was an oversight on behalf of team Daidalos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inner fuel tank is between spars so it's possible that it is well protected from hits from behind.

Try to shot at it from bigger angle. Vertical attack from above should be very effective. Tank is relatively big target when looked from above.

FC

JtD
10-06-2009, 01:07 PM
I've tried that, FatCat, and still failed to light it up. But it hasn't been a test, just a few tries. Most importantly I've only tried with LMG rounds against which it might be protected fairly well, even from steep angles. I don't know the details of the construction.

Edit: Just tested the heavy machine guns and managed to light the fuel tank up. So the LMG's just lack the punch. Imho, splendid work!

JtD
10-06-2009, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I for one can understand why TinyTim is thinking the way he does and quite frankly I'm quite surprised to see that you don't find it curious to see that SM bomber is actually tougher than American heavy bombers when shooting from behind. B-17, B-24 & B-29 are all softier compared to SM.79 in this regard (black smoke pours from wing tanks, bomber is effectively doomed from further action and in most cases - a kill). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But why does it have to be the SM.79 that is wrong? If the B-17 would just light up under two seconds of LMG fire, why did the German use ever larger cannons to attack them?

TinyTim
10-06-2009, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Interestingly, there are accounts of pilots moaning the same way you are right now - they've put all their LMG ammo into the enemy bomber and it would not go down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rarely, with far lower hit ratio, sure, why not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
What I don't get is how you can keep saying "this is wrong" but cannot be convinced to state how it should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I, on the other hand, am surprised about how you are maintaining that SM.79 can receive 1000-ish hits from light machinegun, and not suffer any critical damage let alone go down - as a rule, rather than exception - to be historically correct. Again - 1000 hits from a .303 machinegun into something that 1. has to fly, and 2. is filled with gasoline and explosives.

I don't know how it should be. I think I know how it shouldn't though. Ace Hurricane, discharging entire ammoload into a straight flying and empty SM.79, ten times in a row, failing to destroy the bomber one single time - is, in my opinion, how it shouldn't be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Do you expect incendiary ammo, that explodes upon contact with the wing surface, to penetrate not only the wing surface, but also the main wing spar, the self sealing fuel tank behind that and still cause a fire there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How on Earth can, using the same logic, incendiary ammo light up other aircraft with similar tank layout way easier then?

Some bullets pierce the tank, others ignite the fuel that's pouring out. Only if you are very very lucky an incendiary bullet will cause the fumes in the tank to explode without plane being on fire before. I don't expect a fuel tank to burst aflame after one or two hits. But 100, that's another story. Fuel pouring out, incendiary bullets still hitting, sparks everywhere...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It's possible that the inner wing fuel tanks are missing (couldn't 'find' them as well), </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Holy cow, what happened? I'm... how to say... astounded by the fact that the denial syndrome failed to kick in this time, and that you actually agree with something I said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:but I wouldn't believe that this was an oversight on behalf of team Daidalos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With absolutely no offense to team Daidalos (more a compliment), I'd be amazed if they could bring such a masterpiece like the flyable SM.79 with enormous quantity of programming to us completely bug-less. Obvious bugs can be found and corrected easily before releasing, but missing hitboxes for fuel tanks are a well hidden bug.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
But why does it have to be the SM.79 that is wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you should know the answer, since you are the one advocating the SM.79 should historically be far tougher to set on fire than anything else that flies in this sim (apart from He-111 and, ironically, Ki-21).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:The only thing we can do is stop arguing over it everyone keeps its opinion for himself and everyone is happy Smile . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wise words. I tried a bit more though - to help improve the sim and this otherwise excellent and much needed flyable AC by pointing out what is in my eyes an obvious flaw. But sometimes I get the feeling that even if Oleg or TD mistakenly modelled a King George V battleship damage model on a Ki-27 fighter, there'd be people around here advocating it as "historically correct" and prompted you to "stop moaning and learn to shoot".

Waldo.Pepper
10-06-2009, 01:34 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/Typicaldamage.jpg

joeap
10-06-2009, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The question still is what do you expect from a 7.7mm round hitting the fuselage?

It could be like firing it against a concrete block and expecting the block to miraculously catch fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I really wonder whether the opinion of crews of WW2 bombers that were exposed to hurricane attacks would agree with yours. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gents a couple of quick points, maybe it was hard to shot down bombers with LMGs in real life...because it was hard to get 1000 hits in real life. 1000 hits "maybe" ought to have been fatal..."maybe." So no bomber in our sim should be able to survive that? Especially since it is far easier to be an ace in this game than during the war.

TinyTim
10-06-2009, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/Typicaldamage.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks a lot for posting this Waldo! 200 hits on several occasions... Here we have <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">~1000</span> hits on a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">non evading</span> and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">non-fighting back</span> SM.79 from <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">1936</span>, and all that <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ten times in a row</span> - failing to destroy it <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">one single time</span> .

If this is not an eye opener, I don't know what is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Gents a couple of quick points, maybe it was hard to shot down bombers with LMGs in real life...because it was hard to get 1000 hits in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sure was, but maybe also because the plane went down much sooner.

JtD
10-06-2009, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

Rarely, with far lower hit ratio, sure, why not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Several hundreds of hits, reportedly. Crew members injured, crew members dead, but no critical damage to the plane or it's ability to stay airborne. And, as it is, not rarely.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I, on the other hand, am surprised about how you are maintaining that SM.79 can receive 1000-ish hits from light machinegun, and not suffer any critical damage let alone go down - as a rule, rather than exception - to be historically correct. Again - 1000 hits from a .303 machinegun into something that 1. has to fly, and 2. is filled with gasoline and explosives. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you found a reliable way of putting a 1000 hits into something without killing it, I'm sure it can be reproduced as often as you wish. It's not like that is a result of a large number of experiments, it's one experiment repeated over and over.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't know how it should be. I think I know how it shouldn't though. Ace Hurricane, discharging entire ammoload into a straight flying and empty SM.79, ten times in a row, failing to destroy the bomber one single time - is, in my opinion, how it shouldn't be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my series of 10, the SM.79 went down eight times, landed twice. Used a Hurricane IIb. Hm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How on Earth can, using the same logic, incendiary ammo light up other aircraft with similar tank layout way easier then?

Some bullets pierce the tank, others ignite the fuel that's pouring out. Only if you are very very lucky an incendiary bullet will cause the fumes in the tank to explode without plane being on fire before. I don't expect a fuel tank to burst aflame after one or two hits. But 100, that's another story. Fuel pouring out, incendiary bullets still hitting, sparks everywhere... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the bullets don't penetrate the tank, so where's the leaking fuel supposed to come from?

And why is it so easy to set a B-25 on fire with LMG's? Maybe because its damage model sucks when compared to the SM.79's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Holy cow, what happened? I'm... how to say... astounded by the fact that the denial syndrome failed to kick in this time, and that you actually agree with something I said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that's funny in two ways.
Firstly, the fuel tanks are there, I set them on fire with the Browning .50 HMG. Easily. Just checked that out.
Secondly, you're disagreeing with me as much as I disagree with you. But I'm supposed to be the mental case? Thanks for the respect, man! Over and Out.

Romanator21
10-06-2009, 02:13 PM
I think the differences have to do with the Sm.79 construction. In metal planes, the strength is in the skin. In the Sm, the skin is fabric, and the strength is the metal tubing. While the visual DM shows many holes, the structure is not affected. To cause catastrophic failure you would need to pierce each little tube. Even with 1000 shots, it's not likely. Also, wood is way better at absorbing small caliber shots than metal skin. I am not surprised at all if nearly all of the .303 energy is lost passing through the spars and skin and then the armored tank.

If the issue is historical accuracy, then note that pilots had a hard time downing this plane.

If anything, the only problem with the SM, is the PK for the gunners is maybe too hard, and of course, AI accuracy. Historically, the same reports lauding the Sm79s toughness also mention that some/most crew were killed. This is a general issue though, not specific to the plane. I think DT mentioned these would be fixed.

Here are the Tracks. All planes are Average, unless otherwise stated:
Test 1 (http://www.filefront.com/14670335/sm79%20test%201.trk) MTO map, 3 SM79, 4 Hurri IIb. All Sm79 went down, 1 hurri had leaking oil. This was my first mission in the new plane, and it didn't make my day.
Test2 (http://www.filefront.com/14670337/sm79%20test%202.trk) Crimea 4 Sm79, 4 P-40 kittyhawks. 2 exploded, 1 lost control surfaces, 1 simply bailed. No damage to P-40s.
Test3 (http://www.filefront.com/14670341/sm79%20test%203.trk) Smolensk 4 Sm79, 4 Hurri mkI. 2 down to fires, one of these exploded causing a third fire/crash. 2 Hurris down.
Test4 (http://www.filefront.com/14670347/sm79%20test%204.trk) 4 Sm79, 4 Hurri mkI. 2 Fires, one of which exploded, bringing down 1 nearby Hurri. 2 other Hurris leaking oil.
Test 5 (http://www.filefront.com/14670357/sm79%20test%205.trk) My turn in the cockpit: 1 P-40 kittyhawk 1 Sm79. My first kill without a joystick/keyboard only besides ramming.
Test 6 (http://www.filefront.com/14670359/sm79%20test%206.trk) 4 Sm79 4 Hurri IIb. 2 lost to Fires, no damage to Hurris
Test 7 (http://www.filefront.com/14670365/sm79%20test%207.trk) Ditto except Hurris are ACE level (not Average) 1 Fire, 1 Crash, 2 Hurris leaking oil.
Test 8 (http://www.filefront.com/14670371/sm70%20test%208.trk) 4 Sm79, 4 P-40 kittyhawk (ACE) 2 with wing spars chopped, 2 exploded. 1 P-40 leaking oil, 1 smoking.

X32Wright
10-06-2009, 02:40 PM
Yeah this plane was called 'Gobbo Meledetto' for nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif it was well loved by the aircrews who served flying her.

hathu2009
10-06-2009, 03:21 PM
An ugly plane, that's for sure.

No problems shooting it down or get it at least smoking with a Hurricane here.

TinyTim
10-07-2009, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
Here are the Tracks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for sharing these! A couple of them appears to be corrupted though - I see you shooting into empty air and then crashing for no reason while SM.79 flies on untouched etc., but most worked. Happens here and there with .trk, that's why it's always best to use .ntrk, or so I heard.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
Test2 (http://www.filefront.com/14670337/sm79%20test%202.trk) Crimea 4 Sm79, 4 P-40 kittyhawks. 2 exploded, 1 lost control surfaces, 1 simply bailed. No damage to P-40s.
Test 5 (http://www.filefront.com/14670357/sm79%20test%205.trk) My turn in the cockpit: 1 P-40 kittyhawk 1 Sm79. My first kill without a joystick/keyboard only besides ramming.
Test 8 (http://www.filefront.com/14670371/sm70%20test%208.trk) 4 Sm79, 4 P-40 kittyhawk (ACE) 2 with wing spars chopped, 2 exploded. 1 P-40 leaking oil, 1 smoking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, .50 cals do the job just fine, there was never any argument around this. Wooden planes in IL-2 don't absorb heavy machinegun fire very well (especially the wings in my experience) and that's also the case with SM.79. 20mm cannons are also adequate for the job, they can saw wings off nicely.

So, let's see the light MG tracks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:Test 1 (http://www.filefront.com/14670335/sm79%20test%201.trk) MTO map, 3 SM79, 4 Hurri IIb. All Sm79 went down, 1 hurri had leaking oil. This was my first mission in the new plane, and it didn't make my day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't see the reason for your bailout. 4 Hurris attacked you flight of 3 Savoias, scored some hits on you, your plane had some visual damage (which always appears very soon), and a minor fuel leak, then you bailed out, yet the plane was still perfectly flyable (engines intact, no oil leaks, no loss of controls, no dead engines).

This effectively left two SM.79 versus 4 Hurricanes MKII, which together managed to down one SM.79, the last SM.79 at the end of the track survives with no apparent critical damage.

Plus - you flew over ground targets that you were trying to bomb. There was obviously flak shooting at you as well. For such tracks to make any sense, testing must be performed in a sterile environment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
Test3 (http://www.filefront.com/14670341/sm79%20test%203.trk) Smolensk 4 Sm79, 4 Hurri mkI. 2 down to fires, one of these exploded causing a third fire/crash. 2 Hurris down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?!? Please download this track and review it again. I see 4 Hurricanes MK1 getting owned by SMs. At the end, all SMs are flying in formation with minor damage as you can see below, (no fires, no smoke, no dead engines etc.), while one hurricane went down in flames, another two are smoking, and the last one disengaged after running out of ammo (which probably saved him). If anything, this track portrays my point beutifully.

This is how the SM flight looks at the end of the track:

http://www.shrani.si/f/3D/K/4OjT63Po/sm.jpg


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:Test4 (http://www.filefront.com/14670347/sm79%20test%204.trk) 4 Sm79, 4 Hurri mkI. 2 Fires, one of which exploded, bringing down 1 nearby Hurri. 2 other Hurris leaking oil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, are you sure you uploaded correct files? I see 4 SM79s attacked by 4 Hurricanes MkI, they all concentrate their fire to SM79 number two and manage to bring it down after they all make several passes with long bursts, and then disengage after their ammo is depleted. All Hurris flying, two smoking, and three SM.79s flying on, looking pretty good:

http://www.shrani.si/f/c/lU/3bJlZ80z/sm1.jpg

Again, an excellent display of my point - 4 hurris needed to bring their effort together to a single plane, and pump majority of their total ammo into it to bring it down.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21: Test 6 (http://www.filefront.com/14670359/sm79%20test%206.trk) 4 Sm79 4 Hurri IIb. 2 lost to Fires, no damage to Hurris
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One SM79 explodes suddenly when under fire. This happens very very rarely, but OK. The second one catches fire. Again, a very rare thing. This is actually the first track which looks, in my humble opinion, the way most of them should. But it's, obviously, a very rare case. All 4 hurricanes disengage after running out of ammo (and that's about 4.000 bullets each). This track should be, in my opinion, a rule, but it's an exception.


Nice tracks, thanks again. I can only wish for a utility (mod?) that would allow a player to see how many hits he scored or how many hits he took, so we could see the average number of hits on all those SM79s in upper tracks that managed to survive without serious damage. Or the average number of hits on those who went down. There is no way any other bomber in IL-2 could sustain anything even remotely close to this.

This said, I'm done with this. There's absolutely no point in continuing something that was ment to be a contribution to the community via further improving the simulation and an excellent new flyable plane (for which, again, hats off to TD), but nearly got turned into flamefest. If some people believe it's historically accurate for a plane like SM.79 to still fly with no critical damage after absorbing on average (again, on average, not in rare cases)800 or 1000 bullets, then there is no point at all in continuing the debate.

DKoor
10-07-2009, 07:36 AM
Haha I tested it as well... hilarious.
4 fighters vs 4 unarmed SM.79's... sometimes one SM.79 gets thru to base to land... and that is because all other Hurricane Mk.IIb's are winchester http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif .

Now the same test with armed SM's wouldn't pass that easy for Hurris http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif .

BTW guys if you are to post .TRK's never use time acceleration or tracks will end up goofed for everyone and possibly for you too.
.TRK mostly work fine if you don't use time accelerate or record on heavily populated map.

Hope this helps.

Lt_Letum
10-07-2009, 07:55 AM
1000 hits in the wrong places is no substitute
for one hit in the right place.

Whilst I agree that the gunners are a bit
bullet proof, Team.D have already said that
they are going to make ALL gunners easier to
kill.

.303s are not the weapon of choice for causing
structural damage or fire. We shouldn't
expect them to be.

It takes very few cannon hits to down the '79.


(Hurri MKI)
http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/oneright.jpg

Bremspropeller
10-07-2009, 09:52 AM
Proof:

But a black cross on it and it's gonna burn like mother http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DKoor
10-07-2009, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
1000 hits in the wrong places is no substitute
for one hit in the right place.

Whilst I agree that the gunners are a bit
bullet proof, Team.D have already said that
they are going to make ALL gunners easier to
kill.

.303s are not the weapon of choice for causing
structural damage or fire. We shouldn't
expect them to be.

It takes very few cannon hits to down the '79.


(Hurri MKI)
http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a41...c6296b3/oneright.jpg (http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/oneright.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First of. I am not sarcastic ironic nor I hold second thoughts.

But explain me if you can - because I don't understand.

I guess you have your logic which tells you that SM.79 is the most resistant bomber of all to 7,62mm fire in the game.

What logic or knowledge do you use to conclude that? Have you read something about aircraft structure that would tell you so... or something else...?

Can you explain because I don't understand.

About shooting SM down... I think we have all passed that stage long time ago, this issue is not about whether SM can or can't go down under fire but rather why is it most resistant bomber to 7,62mm fire in game.
All other bomber will start emitting thick black smoke much sooner when exposed to 7,62mm fire from dead 6?

So any ideas why?

Any at all?

JtD
10-07-2009, 10:13 AM
Because their damage model sucks. Said it couple of times by now.

I'd also like to mention that I got a dozen of them in Hurricane IIb and still had ammo to spare. So if the average is 1000 hits per kill, I'd like to see a dozen SM.79 that take 2000 before they go down. Because that's the meaning of average.

Lt_Letum
10-07-2009, 10:51 AM
I don't claim that is is the most resistant.
Ever tried attacking an IL2I? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Even the he111 can survive 1000 hits if they are
all in the wrong places, not to mention the TB3.

Besides, it tends to be the planes that aren't
resistant to gunfire that survive the best.
It doesn't matter how many rounds you put into
part of a plane that just contains a bit of
canvas.

DKoor
10-07-2009, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Because their damage model sucks. Said it couple of times by now.

I'd also like to mention that I got a dozen of them in Hurricane IIb and still had ammo to spare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
1.
I'm not sure I follow mate... I take you mean that the old bombers DM sucks?

2.
You can kill dozen SM.79's with Hurricane from dead 6? I don't think I can be sure of downing 4 of them every time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
So if the average is 1000 hits per kill, I'd like to see a dozen SM.79 that take 2000 before they go down. Because that's the meaning of average. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure I follow this... if average is 1000 then what 2000 has to do with it?

And BTW in one instance when Wildnoob shoot up my SM, it took about 2000 hits and didn't go down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , but it was damaged beyond repair http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif .

DKoor
10-07-2009, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
I don't claim that is is the most resistant.
Ever tried attacking an IL2I? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Even the he111 can survive 1000 hits if they are
all in the wrong places, not to mention the TB3.

Besides, it tends to be the planes that aren't
resistant to gunfire that survive the best.
It doesn't matter how many rounds you put into
part of a plane that just contains a bit of
canvas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Most hits are aimed to engines in the tests we made from dead 6 on a bomber that had disengaged gunners and was flying on level autopilot. But anyhow.
Want to point out that technically speaking IL-2I is not a bomber, it is Sturmovik dedicated to a fighter role... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

DKoor
10-07-2009, 11:32 AM
Just flew one sortie in QMB; shoot with Hurri mostly from under 200m...

http://www.imagesforme.com/upload/bdf42b13.gif

http://www.imagesforme.com/upload/24afbef7.gif

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif I'm off to gym now, will fly few more sorties when I come back... haha always in for a fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

I think I started to get it... these bullets mostly do not penetrate, because if they do SM would go down much, much sooner.

I'll try to test it from point blank range to see the results.

FatCat_99
10-07-2009, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:

I think I started to get it... these bullets mostly do not penetrate, because if they do SM would go down much, much sooner.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly, arrow in Arcade mode doesn't show what really happened, just hit and direction. Most of the hits from your screenshots ended in wing spar.

I tried Hurri II against SM79 and outer fuel tank is easy to flame, often in one pass if you allow yourself 20-30 deg deflection from above.

I can agree that SM79 is not an easy target but I'm not sure that it is too hard, it's more likely that some other bombers are too easy to shot down.

FC

Manu-6S
10-07-2009, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
I can agree that SM79 is not an easy target but I'm not sure that it is too hard, it's more likely that some other bombers are too easy to shot down.
FC </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bang!!!

Thinking to a german plane released without any armored protection. (ju88 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

JtD
10-07-2009, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:

1.
I'm not sure I follow mate... I take you mean that the old bombers DM sucks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some, yes. It's hardly realistic for a B-25 to go down after hit by like 4 7.62 mm hits, is it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2.
You can kill dozen SM.79's with Hurricane from dead 6? I don't think I can be sure of downing 4 of them every time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, killed them from 12 o'clock.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not sure I follow this... if average is 1000 then what 2000 has to do with it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since I killed mine with like 20 and 1000 is claimed to be the average, someone else needs to score like 1980 for each of mine before they goes down to get the 1000 average.

Oh, and for what it's worth:
The wingtip of the SM.79 comes off after about 300 LMG hits. The wingtip of the B-25J does not come off with 10 times as many (put 2400 into it to be precise). So, if you are interested in putting as many round as possible into a bomber, try that for a change. You can then post about 5 digit averages a B-25J needs to be killed.

M_Gunz
10-07-2009, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Most hits are aimed to engines in the tests we made from dead 6 on a bomber that had disengaged gunners and was flying on level autopilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did that before shooting Tu-2 engines with 20mm and got nowhere. Then I was showed screenshots where the landing gear
stows right behind the engines... doh, no wonder I did not get through!

Romanator21
10-07-2009, 01:41 PM
Well, regarding those tracks, that's not how they should go at all. DKoor mentioned Time acceleration may cause changes, so I'll try again. The descriptions I gave are accurate to how I saw and played the game, I have no reason to lie, I have more dignity than that.

With regards to flak, it was in 1 map only, and I decided to fly a somewhat plausible "historical" mission. So did Sm.79 never encounter Flak? Maybe I should revise my thinking. Thanks for pointing this out.

@ DKoor: is there any way I can re-record the same tracks? Or are they lost on any computer but my own?

"So any ideas why?

Any at all?"

Yes: The SM.79 is the only bomber to have 3 Main spars in the wing. Most have 1 or 2. Hitting from dead 6 is not the way to get a round to enter the tank. It's been said countless times. AI sucks at making any other attack.

Also, like I said, it's made of tube and fabric. In metal skinned planes, the strength is in the skin. Poke some holes, and it is structurally compromised. Do the same for the Sm.79, you are a ripping through the fuselage, but doing nothing. You are not hitting anything of structural value. Same principles apply to the Vickers Wellington, but it goes one step further with geodesic structure. It will be a beast in SOW. With that though, only the gunners in my opinion are too hard to kill. That's all.

DKoor
10-07-2009, 02:09 PM
Mate you can re-record the tracks sure, in .NTRK format.
Then record will be shown (almost) exactly like you see it.

I had some tracks which are impossible to salvage tho... now check this out - they don't show up good when I try to re-record them but when I replay them they are fine!

And I haven't used acceleration or deceleration of time at any point...

The only problem was - I guess heavily populated map.
It was PTO QMB map.

I even posted the track on these boards but no one was able to rerecord it into .NTRK. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Therefore you can make goofed track even without time alterations, a bit too much objects to render and bang... game is goofed.

But good news... Crimea QMB map works every time, Smolensk QMB map too - these two are 100% certain to give good track without time alterations. Moscow1 QMB map was fine so far, but I haven't thoroughly tested it to guarantee 100% efficiency in this regard. Therefore Smolensk & Crimea FTW! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
10-07-2009, 02:44 PM
i might get some heat for saying this but i think the DM is fine, and i hope that TD doesn't make any changes.

I've had no problems downing the bombers with reasonable amounts of ammo. I also think the gunners are more realistic this way. It would be easier to shoot from a bomber than from a fixed gun platform of a fighter plane. Pilots should learn proper combat tactics instead of parking on the six and firing away. Of course that would get you killed, and most bombers are designed to handle the majority of punishment coming from the rear of the plane. Both gunners and armor (when relevant) are positioned this way.

Lets not forget that light machine guns were not the weapon of choice for downing bombers.

i actually think this is one of the more accurately modeled bombers in this regard. Most other bombers I can get away with parking on their six and still absorbing a few shots while the few shots that i might get off actually bring down the big armor plated, 4 engined bomber.
Were these bombers butchered because people also complained?

I recognize that this is a small minority of people, and that most other folks are satisfied with this patch, as well as the new planes and their DMs. You are probably less likely to hear from them because the nature of the net only seems to attract negativity and nay saying.

With that said, i'd prefer the refining of a realistic sim, rather than the catering to a small minority.


Bill

Romanator21
10-07-2009, 03:15 PM
Ok, thanks for the tips DKoor. Will keep this all in mind next time.

I would agree that some bombers are too easy to down. The Sm.79 is relatively hard, but I believe not impossibly, or unrealistically so. In battle pilots could rarely hope to kill a bomber, but at least make sure it can't reach the target. I takes more ammo to destroy one bomber, than to make 3 go home. If in the Battle of Britain, for instance, pilots focused on kills, more He-111s would get through.

But yeah, it's a game, and it's more fun to see the destruction of your opponents http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gorillasika
10-08-2009, 04:19 PM
This plane surely is tough to bring down. I wonder if in the war there really was time to always fly ahead of these and attack from their 12, I guess not.

I made a test of me in Hurricane IIb against different bombers and planes in QMB Smolensk map. I always put four friendly planes and attacked from their six.

SM 79 was clearly the hardest to bring down of all the multiengined aircrafts. I could spend all my ammo on one wing of one plane and seeing only small fuel leak at the end.

Of the other planes IL2/ IL10 was as hard, but they were more fun to watch, as the bullets bounced of them.
P47 came close also, but one went down gradually as I chimed enough. FW190's were a minor surprise as they torched so easily.

I don't know if the SM 79 is realistic or not, but I surely like to be flying it against Hurricanes and not vice versa.

DKoor
10-08-2009, 04:36 PM
Big issue against bomber survival will be when Team Daidalos porks AI bomber gunners, I also hope to see porking defensive machine guns when humans mount them... as of now it is possible with relative ease (a lot of practice needed tho) to hit targets up to 600m. Machine guns are very stable, their barrels do not overheat so you can shoot all bullets very precise without stopping firing.

Once when brought near historical level all bombers survival vs fighters will heavily drop as it should be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

I also hope to see some of the more popular bombers brought at least near to SM.79 level regarding DM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . Namely Ju-88, He-111, B-17, B-24, B-29...

It is an exciting prospect.

Romanator21
10-08-2009, 06:20 PM
Yeah, I think DT mentioned they would do this. Have you tried to shoot down the Letov yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif not fun. They made it tough so it would remain relatively so when all AI accuracy/survival was reduced.

With this I agree: some bombers are too easy to down, while the gunners are too hard to dispatch. The Sm.79 is fine, but B-25, for instance is relatively easy to light. With regards to player gunnery, I think that the gun's heaviness should be modeled: it should have some inertia, so it doesn't move quickly or precisely with regards to mouse movement, not like cockpit panning. Also recoil, overheat, and short pauses representing reloading could be implemented.

telsono
10-08-2009, 07:05 PM
I have tried the "Hunchback" a couple of times so far and I do like it. I also have the perfect shirt to wear while flying it.
http://www.avionshirt.com/sm-79-sparviero-p-72.html

Romanator21
10-08-2009, 09:56 PM
Too cool! I want one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The Fiat Cr.42 is niiiice!!

DKoor
10-08-2009, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
Yeah, I think DT mentioned they would do this. Have you tried to shoot down the Letov yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif not fun. They made it tough so it would remain relatively so when all AI accuracy/survival was reduced.

With this I agree: some bombers are too easy to down, while the gunners are too hard to dispatch. The Sm.79 is fine, but B-25, for instance is relatively easy to light. With regards to player gunnery, I think that the gun's heaviness should be modeled: it should have some inertia, so it doesn't move quickly or precisely with regards to mouse movement, not like cockpit panning. Also recoil, overheat, and short pauses representing reloading could be implemented. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah I agree... I have no doubts that they will do a good job http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Also some time ago, I used to practice Bf-109F vs 2xB-25. I shot both of them down using only 2xMG17 in nose cowling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif (aimed between engine and fuselage).
Also used to shot down Il-2's using only cowling MG's... they go down really fast when shot in ailerons-&gt;wingtips (spin of death).

SM is vulnerable to 7,62 fire but mostly from very close range, point blank range.
It is also extremely vulnerable to head on attacks, although very few fighters of that time can actually afford head-ons on SM (they are slooow) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif .

I'll try Letov S.328 now... I suppose gunner is da bomb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif .

Also somehow Regianne Re.2000 appeared in game without catching much attention... and it is a really nice plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif .
I really hope to see most of these new planes flyable they are interesting to boot...

Ba5tard5word
10-09-2009, 12:59 AM
http://www.avionshirt.com/images/Polo.SM.79.Buscaglia.jpg

Haha, nice.


Yeah the 79 is a tough bird, I tried going up against one in QMB with a Hurricane and I filled it up with bullet holes but it killed my pilot and engine pretty quickly...

DKoor
10-09-2009, 02:21 AM
Those polo shirts are shinizzle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif .

na85
10-09-2009, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:

1.
I'm not sure I follow mate... I take you mean that the old bombers DM sucks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some, yes. It's hardly realistic for a B-25 to go down after hit by like 4 7.62 mm hits, is it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B-25 is easier to down than that. While flying a Zero online I just downed a B-25 with a single burst of 20mm cannon. Hit it right in the top of the fuselage near the pilot, and it exploded instantly.

Tipo_Man
10-09-2009, 06:14 AM
My post in another forum...

So here it is, the impervious pilot of the SM.79.
As you see, shooting from the dorsal machine gun of a He-111 from a point black range has no effect on the pilot...

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/cabbin_hits1.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/dorsal.jpg

I knew the italians are tough guys.... but still.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Also could somebody explain me what exactly stops the bullets here from killing the gunner and the pilots?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/gunner.jpg

Hmmm.. some thin wood stops a MG bullet?!


And here is a cutaway drawing of SM.79.

http://dida.fauser.edu/dispro/ProgettoAER/images/SM79.gif

No 52, 53, 139 are fuel tanks...
What actually protects them from getting exploded?
As you see, I put quite an amount of bullets into them... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
10-09-2009, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No 52, 53, 139 are fuel tanks...
What actually protects them from getting exploded? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The not very well drawn in rear, mid and front spars?

Hey Tipo, long time no see!

JtD
10-09-2009, 08:24 AM
I found the crew very hard to kill as well, but already did manage that.

MicroWave76
10-09-2009, 09:57 AM
Let's get some myths sorted right away.
1) Pilot can be killed with .303 (bullets fired by G4M1 Waist Gunner):
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/Hot31Rod/Il2/SM79_Headshot.jpg
2) Engine kills are easy.
One engine dead:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/Hot31Rod/Il2/SM79_EngineKill.jpg
All three engines out of action:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/Hot31Rod/Il2/SM79_3EngineKills.jpg

TinyTim
10-09-2009, 11:07 AM
Myths?

1. If you can kill a pilot from a specific angle, this doesn't automatically make it OK., and historically correct. If however you can't kill him the way Tipo Man tried, it does make it not OK, and historically wrong.

2. Nobody ever denied that the engines are weak when shot from front.

M_Gunz
10-09-2009, 11:13 AM
Look where the main gear stores. What you hit when you shoot the nacelle from behind while the gear is up?

TinyTim
10-09-2009, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Look where the main gear stores. What you hit when you shoot the nacelle from behind while the gear is up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about those engines that don't have the gear stored in them? They don't appear to be easier to damage from behind at all.

DKoor
10-09-2009, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Myths?

1. If you can kill a pilot from a specific angle, this doesn't automatically make it OK., and historically correct. If however you can't kill him the way Tipo Man tried, it does make it not OK, and historically wrong.

2. Nobody ever denied that the engines are weak when shot from front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately I have to agree with TinyTim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif .

This thread is not about how to get a PK, kill engines or shot down a SM... it never was really. It is about to get this thing as close to reality as it gets... it seems to me that these bullets on pics from TipoMan simply haven't penetrated to fuel tanks, (fuel) lines or engines... I'd like to have some sort of way to verify this unfortunately I don't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.

Make no mistake you guys from Team Daidalos did awesome work on new patch I immensely enjoy your work! And fly all those new stuff that is available... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I also understand that you will improve Ai gunners in the future so that they aren't snipers any more... is it doable to make it more hard for human gunners too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks!

MicroWave76
10-09-2009, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:

So here it is, the impervious pilot of the SM.79.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was referring to this post. Pilot CAN be killed. QED
Engine kills show that S.M.79 has weak spots as any other plane. And also relates to Tipo_Man's post(s) on 'the other forum':
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=10343

M_Gunz
10-09-2009, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Look where the main gear stores. What you hit when you shoot the nacelle from behind while the gear is up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about those engines that don't have the gear stored in them? They don't appear to be easier to damage from behind at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SM79 in the screenshots has 3 engines. The wing nacelle engines have landing gear that raises into the nacelle behind
the engines. That leaves the nose engine and what's behind it to stop bullets first and the only one without gear behind.

That's the best I can find on the SM79, please tell what others. Perhaps there's an APU in the rear fuselage?

M_Gunz
10-09-2009, 01:47 PM
I think that for many here it will take an 8+ core CPU running at least 3 Gz and at least 4G of RAM to just -begin-
to have the power to reach the minimum no-b!tch realism level, including 30+ framerate. Until then the rest of us
can marvel at how far things have come in the past 10 or so years compared to the 10 or so before.

There's what you want and there's what's possible with reasonable effort and time. Not everyone gets both.

BillSwagger
10-09-2009, 04:58 PM
I'm not making any accusations here, but i have to wonder how many attempts it took to get the results in that photo, tipo man.

I haven't been able to duplicate those results in 5 attempts, although i'm sure if i took careful consideration of where and when i shot i could make any plane look impervious to even a 30mm cannon.

Drilling your point off of the same photo isn't really that convincing, especially when my results are so different. If this is a reoccurring problem for you, then i'd suggest reinstalling the game. Perhaps a DM or weapons model is corrupted.

If you have already done this, then you are just unlucky, because those results are not typical, at least in the English version of the game.



I'm also looking forward to seeing a flyable version of the re 2000. How long, TD?



Bill

FatCat_99
10-09-2009, 05:40 PM
Few facts:
1. SM79 is big plane, you can drill many small holes in it without causing significant damage.
Lets say that small 7,9mm bullet will make 10x10mm hole, calculate how big will be the hole if you score 1000 hits and you will see that planes were returning home with way bigger damage than that.

2. With small caliber bullets you need to hit critical component to bring plane down, Spraying all over the plane is not efficient.

3. Pilots DM in game is not very good, it is too hard to kill them in all planes.

4. Not every bullet that penetrate fuel tank will cause fire and explosion. In fact self sealing tanks were considered as secondary protection to pilot in RL(Check various planes manuals).

5. We can make mistake, we can admit it and correct them when they happen. In case of SM79 we might tweak DM but if we do it changes will not be big.

6. We appreciate the effort of all people who are doing tests.

FC

DKoor
10-09-2009, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
Few facts:
1. SM79 is big plane, you can drill many small holes in it without causing significant damage.
Lets say that small 7,9mm bullet will make 10x10mm hole, calculate how big will be the hole if you score 1000 hits and you will see that planes were returning home with way bigger damage than that.

2. With small caliber bullets you need to hit critical component to bring plane down, Spraying all over the plane is not efficient.

3. Pilots DM in game is not very good, it is too hard to kill them in all planes.

4. Not every bullet that penetrate fuel tank will cause fire and explosion. In fact self sealing tanks were considered as secondary protection to pilot in RL(Check various planes manuals).

5. We can make mistake, we can admit it and correct them when they happen. In case of SM79 we might tweak DM but if we do it changes will not be big.

6. We appreciate the effort of all people who are doing tests.

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

larschance
10-10-2009, 05:00 AM
First Congratulations to the TD team for an excellent addition to the sim. I look forward to future additions which will keep me flying for years to come.Even if SOW and PC set up becomes affordable.
Regarding the damage mode on S79 there are many photos of bombers returning to base with 100 or even 200 hits from lmgs where no vital area has been hit.e.g.Do17s and He111s in BoB.
I have read combat reports where pilots with lmg weapons only have been frustrated by emptying all their ammo at a target aircraft with no apparent effect. This is especially true of early war combats over Europe and the Med when armour and self seal was first introduced. Even non protected aircraft could be difficult to down.
In RL many pilots aimed deliberately at the cockpit area on every sortie to kill the pilot so he could not return to attack again.
I too look foward to flying the Re2000 as the Heja in the Hungarian Air Force.
Keep up the good work TD.

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by larschance:
Regarding the damage mode on S79 there are many photos of bombers returning to base with 100 or even 200 hits from lmgs where no vital area has been hit.e.g.Do17s and He111s in BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were some cases when this indeed happened, that's understood. Waldo Pepper already posted a document a few pages back describing "several well authenticated accounts" of planes receiving more than 200 light machinegun rounds, and returning.

But, yet again, here you need roughly 1000 rounds <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">on average</span> to bring SM.79 down, using historical tactics (some attacks headons, most from sides and rear hemisphere). SM.79 is/was so fast, you can't do much more than a single head on pass (and even that only if you approach the bombers from their front in first place), since even Hurricane (let alone Gladiator or early I-16s) enjoys only limited speed advantage over the Sparivero.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by larschance:I have read combat reports where pilots with lmg weapons only have been frustrated by emptying all their ammo at a target aircraft with no apparent effect. This is especially true of early war combats over Europe and the Med when armour and self seal was first introduced. Even non protected aircraft could be difficult to down.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a moot argument. How did these pilots check their hit ratio? How could they even know they were hitting? How could they ever be as skilled shooters as many people here are, with 1000 hours of experience in many planes, and also many deaths (which real pilots couldn't afford)? How could they let go the fear of death and jump into a "gameplay" mode we are all in? What would make them being sincere and honest, especially after they failed to bring down the bomber ("I emptied entire ammo into him and he just flew on." sounds much less shameful than "I was unable to hit him."). They were firing at real aircraft, crewed with real human beings, who were really shooting back. It was not a game for them. They were nervous and scared. If they exaggerated at kills, what would stop them from exaggerating here? They were at war, they put their life at risk, there were real machineguns firing at them, they were under pressure from their superiors... you can't compare this with our ingame experience.

One thing that still remains open is - why is SM.79 so much harder to bring down compared to contemporary bombers (again, using an average historical attack)? Was the SM.79 historically that much tougher, or was bomber DM in all these 8 years of IL-2 utterly wrong and they should all be flying Königstigers?

As it is now, He-111 and Ki-21 are already pretty hard to down with light machineguns. Some other bombers on the other hand are extremely easy, B-25 or DB-3 to name two (probably too easy).

potver
10-10-2009, 07:04 AM
Team Diadalos;

When you belly-land, the engines (propellors) keep on turning.
And perhaps some more instruments light for better reading.

For the rest it,s a beautifull achievement.

ElAurens
10-10-2009, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
3. Pilots DM in game is not very good, it is too hard to kill them in all planes.
FC </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This.

Some of you old timers may remember Oleg posting here in the first year (as I recall), that if he made pilot "DM" realistic, no one would play the game.

This was a decision made a very long time ago for game play reasons, and I feel it is a sound one. We "fly" the sim for enjoyment, it's a hobby for most and an addiction for some. It would not be much "fun" if on the majority of sorties you were "PK'd", as would happen with a real human damage model.

Can you imagine the howls on this board if it were so? The game would have been dead the first year.

Be sure.

Lt_Letum
10-10-2009, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

But, yet again, here you need roughly 1000 rounds <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">on average</span> to bring SM.79 down, using historical tactics (some attacks headons, most from sides and rear hemisphere). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are doing something wrong.

And "historical tactics" being mostly attacks from the rear?!
Pull the other one! Rear attacks are arcade server tactics.

(all hurri IIb)
http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/countinghitsissilly.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
SM.79 is/was so fast, you can't do much more than a single head on pass (and even that only if you approach the bombers from their front in first place), since even Hurricane (let alone Gladiator or early I-16s) enjoys only limited speed advantage over the Sparivero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be why there are few, if any cases
of i-16s or JA8s shooting at the SM79.

The hurricane enjoys a 100kmh+ speed advantage.
A lot more than that if the SM is in formation.
That means it takes ~6 mins to pull 1km ahead
of the SM79. Fast enough to only use head-on
attacks.

Why would you ever want to attack from the 6oc
when there are no guns on the 12oc?

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 08:36 AM
Letum, would it be possible to see these tracks?

There is no way for me to light them up like this, or ace AI neither for that matter, I ran an empty SM79 vs ace Hurri ten times, and he always ran out of ammo before shooting me down. Tracks posted in "bug reports" thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
The hurricane enjoys a 100kmh+ speed advantage.
A lot more than that if the SM is in formation.
That means it takes ~6 mins to pull 1km ahead
of the SM79. Fast enough to only use head-on
attacks.

Why would you ever want to attack from the 6oc
when there are no guns on the 12oc? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, for 1000th time. It's not about how to bring the SM.79 down. It's about how historical it is. I firmly believe most fighter attacks on the SM.79 were not from front.

Lt_Letum
10-10-2009, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Letum, would it be possible to see these tracks?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't bother saving any, but it won't take me long to make a few. I'll be back with tracks soon.

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 09:08 AM
I just made a track - I shot down 8 SM.79 using various attack angles, also from front, with a Hurri MkII (I used unlimited ammo and invulnerability). Result:

http://www.shrani.si/f/1J/1j/2kebiqnK/sm79.jpg

Track available here: http://www.filefront.com/14693879/quick0023.ntrk (http://here.)

This makes it 980 hits per kill (and I stopped shooting immediately when plane started burning, lost a wing or any other kind of critical damage). It's had for me to believe that this many hits were needed on average for similar planes IRL, especially in spite of historical documents describing "instances, when bomber returned after receiving more than 200 hits."

JG52Uther
10-10-2009, 09:11 AM
Strange,others can shoot the SM79 down with 9 hits,yet you are taking over 7000 lol!
I think you need some practise.

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Letum, would it be possible to see these tracks?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't bother saving any, but it won't take me long to make a few. I'll be back with tracks soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm asking especially because I can see you also managed to set the inner tank on fire, not only outter one. I haven't been able to do it despite many tries - it was always wing that broke off after pumping thousands of bullets into a wingroot(!), but you obviously did it, and it seems relatively easy.

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Strange,others can shoot the SM79 down with 9 hits,yet you are taking over 7000 lol!
I think you need some practise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not bullets fired, it's number of hits. Plus, 9 bullets is a single cherry picked event, I shot down 8 in a row.

JG52Uther
10-10-2009, 09:18 AM
OK a 1000 bullets to take each one down!
I still think you need some practise!

Lt_Letum
10-10-2009, 09:23 AM
Ah, I don't have a track with the inner fuel tank
on fire because I thought you wanted to see 6oc
attacks.

Anyway, I made one where I down 5 SM70s with
limited ammo on by setting the outer tanks on
fire.

It's not a very interesting track and certainly
isn't an instruction on how to down bombers.
All the attacks are slow and from the 6.

If you want to see it anyway I can upload.

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
OK a 1000 bullets to take each one down!
I still think you need some practise! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you could share with me some secrects on how can I improve my poor 30% hit ratio then? Or at least upload some tracks about the issue (let alone review those posted by me) instead of contributing empty mockery?

Lt_Letum
10-10-2009, 09:32 AM
Which part of the plane do you aim for?
If it's an important bit then you must be missing it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
Ah, I don't have a track with the inner fuel tank
on fire because I thought you wanted to see 6oc
attacks.

Anyway, I made one where I down 5 SM70s with
limited ammo on by setting the outer tanks on
fire.

It's not a very interesting track and certainly
isn't an instruction on how to down bombers.
All the attacks are slow and from the 6.

If you want to see it anyway I can upload. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really would appreciate that. Because, as stupid as this may seem, I'm starting to think the sim behaves differently on different platforms for some reason.

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
Which part of the plane do you aim for?
If it's an important bit then you must be missing it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wings. I'm aiming for the area about the wingroot/engine. Plus - I know how to bring bombers down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I'm playing this sim from day 1.

Lt_Letum
10-10-2009, 09:42 AM
Not the best flying, not the way to attack
bombers, just to show that the SM.79 isn't so
hard to down from the 6oc. Why you would want
to attack from the 6oc is still beyond me.

http://www.mediafire.com/?shar...95c04df0d6082f1c2cd0 (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=b2da9002a20b687d391d7d881749d3a757b640c1 5cbf95c04df0d6082f1c2cd0)


Ed: can you tell me how you got the gunstat like that?
I spent too long counting arrows.

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:http://www.mediafire.com/?shar...95c04df0d6082f1c2cd0 (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=b2da9002a20b687d391d7d881749d3a757b640c1 5cbf95c04df0d6082f1c2cd0) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for sharing, appreciated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
Why you would want
to attack from the 6oc is still beyond me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because we are not discussing the techniques on how to bring the SM.79 down. We are discussing the historical accuracy of the DM of that plane. And, since it was historically attacked mostly from rear (at least in case of light machinegun armed planes), we should try to recreate that. Of course it's much easier to down any bomber from front. That's understood. But it has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
Ed: can you tell me how you got the gunstat like that?
I spent too long counting arrows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Build the mission in FMB, and save it into one of the coop multiplayer folders. Then go multiplayer-&gt;create server-&gt;coop-&gt;pick a mission you created, and start it.

You have certain limitations of course (no time skip or acceleration, no pause etc), but you can check gun accuracy. Open chat and type: &gt;user Letum STAT (caps sensitive), assuming Letum is your nickname in game.

gorillasika
10-10-2009, 10:25 AM
I think there must be something goofy, if somebody can put the plane on fire with just 9 shots. I can spend my whole ammo attacking from different angles and not see any fire.
I'm beginning to think it's maybe my little bit older computer, which just hasn't got enough computing power.

Anyway, here's my tries with Hurri IIb from straight six o'clock.
All the ammo spent basicly on one wing on several short burst, except on the case of the fire, when I had some ammo left.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/gorillasika/sm79-damage-02.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/gorillasika/sm79-damage-03.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/gorillasika/sm79-damage-04.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/gorillasika/sm79-damage-05.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/gorillasika/sm79-damage.jpg

So best was fire and worst was just couple of fuel leaks.
With engine smoking the plane also just kept on flying, it may or may not crash after several minutes.
Also they all seemed to be totally under control, so didn't seem to be any cut cables etc except again on the case of fire.

Lt_Letum
10-10-2009, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I'm beginning to think it's maybe my little bit older computer, which just hasn't got enough computing power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that.

The vast, vast majority of your hits are in
empty parts of the plane where there are no
engines, fuel tanks or pilots just support
spars, covering etc.
Your not gong to damage the engine from behind
because of the gear, wing, main spar and
firewall.
.303 isn't going to consistently set the fuel
tank alight unless you aim for it. It is clear
you haven't.
The pilot is safe behind the fuselage at that
angle.

What do you expect these .303 bullets to do to
the plane from there?

It's not the number of bullets that are
important. It is where you put them.

gorillasika
10-10-2009, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
What do you expect these .303 bullets to do to
the plane from there?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I expect them to rip the surface of the wing basicly apart. The control surface should look like Swiss cheese and come off if the plane still manages to turn. I would expect the fuel tanks to be full of holes and at least some control cables cut.

About the fire: I can set the plane on fire, just not as easily as you seem to describe. I can shoot on high deflection angles on the wings and not see any fire.
Pray tell me, what is different on the place of the arrows on the pictures you have posted earlier, except that I have more hits on same places.

TinyTim
10-10-2009, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
What do you expect these .303 bullets to do to
the plane from there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same thing they do to other planes. Using the same setup I used to down the 8 SM.79s, I tried downing 8 DB-3s and 8 Ju-88s. In both cases I needed around 1300 hits, that's 160 hits per plane, and this sounds quite historical. (In SM.79 case I needed nearly 8000 hits for 8 planes, that's 1000 hits per kill)

This means (under the assumption our SM.79 is just fine) - it was either a SM.79 that was historically so tough, or all other bombers had waaaay to weak DM up to now.

Let's not forget, those are 12 machineguns shooting at a flying tincan filled with gas, explosives, oxygen bottles, control cables, human bodies and much more...

Lt_Letum
10-10-2009, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gorillasika:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
What do you expect these .303 bullets to do to
the plane from there?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I expect them to rip the surface of the wing basicly apart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With a .303 gun?! that's nuts.
There is a reason air-to-air guns got as big as 37mm.

The_Stealth_Owl
10-10-2009, 12:04 PM
I would not expect them to penatrate an aircraft.


However, I wuold expct the .30s to poke holes in the aircraft and get lodged into the aircraft.

Also, they could bounce off, or could catch fabric covered aif=rcraft on fire.


TRhats the way it is in a B-534 or a hurri shooting a plane.

It's more likely different with defencive gunners.

DKoor
10-10-2009, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by larschance:
I too look foward to flying the Re2000 as the Heja in the Hungarian Air Force.
Keep up the good work TD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
10-10-2009, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
OK a 1000 bullets to take each one down!
I still think you need some practise! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you could share with me some secrects on how can I improve my <span class="ev_code_red">poor</span> 30% hit ratio then? Or at least upload some tracks about the issue (let alone review those posted by me) instead of contributing empty mockery? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

gorillasika
10-10-2009, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gorillasika:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
What do you expect these .303 bullets to do to
the plane from there?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I expect them to rip the surface of the wing basicly apart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With a .303 gun?! that's nuts.
There is a reason air-to-air guns got as big as 37mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This from wikipedia:
"The wings were of all-wood construction, with the trailing edge flaps and leading edge slats (Handley-Page type) to offset its relatively small size. The internal structure was made of three spars, linked with cantilevers and a skin of plywood."

Now what would you expect a sheet of plywood look like when hit with couple of hundred rounds and stressed to some g's?
One can try this by drilling holes to a plywood sheet and then bending it.
Or better yet, by taking a hammer and slamming some holes to the plywood and watching it splinter apart.

Riccioman
10-10-2009, 03:19 PM
There really seems to be a problem with the Savoia's DM...

Ok, understood that you have to aim carefully and all... but it happens a lot, that one can score hundreds of rounds inside an armoured-free structure and still all the crew is alive.

From behind, a mass of 7,7mm bullets ripping through should have a devastating effect, killing AT LEAST the guys in the back of the plane. Instad I NEVER saw the bombardier or the lateral gunner die. I tried both flying the SM79 and firing against it with the Hurricane.
It was a very strong plane structurally,ok,but bullets were free to move inside a pratically "open" space, no armour at all...

There's something wrong here IMO...

BTW, this is my most loved plane so far, I really really like it a lot, and its firepower is really good against early war planes.

Only its DM should be corrected in my opinion.

Cheers!

Rick

-----
http://consilianews.net
The Quality in Life

DKoor
10-10-2009, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Riccioman:
BTW, this is my most loved plane so far, I really really like it a lot, and its firepower is really good against early war planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

I adore SM.79.

What an easy, simple & effective plane to fly and fight in... it's also a multi role bomber, anything but dive-bombing can pass http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif .

That bombsight is IMHO even easier than Pe-2 one... and I never thought I'd say that some bomber has easier sight than pe-2 (also wonderful, easy 'n effective).

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

koivis
10-10-2009, 04:23 PM
Now, PLEASE someone build a replica of the wooden SM.79 wing with full fuel tanks. Then get a machine gun loaded with inciendary, ball, and tracer bullets (MG42 would do just fine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) and shoot it into pieces. Maybe pause and go check the damage after a belt of say, 250 rounds.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DKoor
10-10-2009, 04:33 PM
ROFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

M_Gunz
10-10-2009, 07:02 PM
Remembering that the actual plane did fly loaded with bombs and that no simple sheet of plywood begins to be so strong,
why is what would happen to a sheet of plywood any measure for a strongly built wing of a 3 engine bomber? Perhaps
unreal ideas and expectations are making much more out of modeling errors than the modeling errors actually are?

We already know that the DM parts must be destroyed before fire passes beyond them to damage the next part. We
-should- understand that a DM that goes into farther detail would be fatter and run slower if it could even fit
in an average gaming PC and run more than about 4 planes at once.

Imagination takes no CPU cycles since it runs on otherwise 99% idle peripheral wetware.

M_Gunz
10-10-2009, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
3. Pilots DM in game is not very good, it is too hard to kill them in all planes.
FC </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This.

Some of you old timers may remember Oleg posting here in the first year (as I recall), that if he made pilot "DM" realistic, no one would play the game.

This was a decision made a very long time ago for game play reasons, and I feel it is a sound one. We "fly" the sim for enjoyment, it's a hobby for most and an addiction for some. It would not be much "fun" if on the majority of sorties you were "PK'd", as would happen with a real human damage model.

Can you imagine the howls on this board if it were so? The game would have been dead the first year.

Be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's one I had forgotten! I wonder if a mod that took the flak suits and helmets away from pilots (and crew?) might
get made to show what it would be like.. just for people to be sure.

ADD: BTW the pilots must be some vulnerable since bomber gunners PK mine with shot # 1 many times!

HarryVoyager
10-10-2009, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
[...]
Because we are not discussing the techniques on how to bring the SM.79 down. We are discussing the historical accuracy of the DM of that plane. And, since it was historically attacked mostly from rear (at least in case of light machinegun armed planes), we should try to recreate that. Of course it's much easier to down any bomber from front. That's understood. But it has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing here.
[...]
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have anything that supports that? Everything I've found so far (which is pretty limited) on the SM.79 seems to indicate that it operated with impunity until significantly faster aircraft, such as the Hurricane and Spitfire showed up. The only Gladiator kill I've seen a description of involved the Gladiator having a height advantage and shooting out an engine, but that was on Wikipedia, so you picks your poison, you takes your chances.

I also ran into a 1943 intelligence report that indicates that the SM.79 units are believed to have the highest moral of any Italian air unit, which would seem indicate a good survival rate for the crews (with dieing being strongly contra-indicated for moral), but is not conclusive, just suggestive.

I don't see that we can argue the historical accuracy of tactic success rates without having a firm knowledge of what in fact the historical tactics actually were.

DKoor
10-11-2009, 04:47 AM
I think many of you guys will go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif when SoW actually gets out...

In a terms of just how effective an accurate 7,62 spam can be from point blank range.

That is of course if something else doesn't 'blocks' it for the sake of playability.

Feathered_IV
10-11-2009, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatCat_99:
3. Pilots DM in game is not very good, it is too hard to kill them in all planes.
FC </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This.

Some of you old timers may remember Oleg posting here in the first year (as I recall), that if he made pilot "DM" realistic, no one would play the game.

This was a decision made a very long time ago for game play reasons, and I feel it is a sound one. We "fly" the sim for enjoyment, it's a hobby for most and an addiction for some. It would not be much "fun" if on the majority of sorties you were "PK'd", as would happen with a real human damage model.

Can you imagine the howls on this board if it were so? The game would have been dead the first year.

Be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's one I had forgotten! I wonder if a mod that took the flak suits and helmets away from pilots (and crew?) might
get made to show what it would be like.. just for people to be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I'd often thought that a "reality mod" would be an interesting thing.

JtD
10-11-2009, 07:02 AM
You guys are aware that damage in this game in general does not reduce g-limits of the damaged airframe? Cracks don't widen, fabric does not get torn apart - it's all binary, either it holds up to 15g, or falls apart. This applies to each and every plane. So while the loss of structural strength from several small caliber rounds may have proven fatal to an airframe in real life, say when it flew through a small turbulence an hour after being shot at, it has no effect in game.

However, the SM.79 is far better than the majority of plane we have in game - since the LMG rounds do at least have some effect on the structural strength. Some planes you can put tens of thousands of hits into and they still won't disintegrate.

It also has reasonably well protected fuel tanks, as opposed to some other bombers with ridiculous damage models in game.

Overall, the damage model of the SM.79 is much more realistic than say that of a B-25 and imho needs very little improvement. Very definitely, time invested into improvements here could be much better used elsewhere.

thefruitbat
10-11-2009, 07:12 AM
i find it amusing all of these people who have cast there expert opinion of how 303's couldn't penetrate planes armour.

good job no one told the british in the BoB.

Feathered_IV
10-11-2009, 07:49 AM
Eh?

Eow_TK
10-11-2009, 08:06 AM
If its that bad (i didnt get it yet), i would just cheat and get out the hispano's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
10-11-2009, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
i find it amusing all of these people who have cast there expert opinion of how 303's couldn't penetrate planes armour.

good job no one told the british in the BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What posts are you reading to get that?

thefruitbat
10-11-2009, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
i find it amusing all of these people who have cast there expert opinion of how 303's couldn't penetrate planes armour.

good job no one told the british in the BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


admittedly i only skim read, but,

quote:
Originally posted by gorillasika:

quote:
Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
What do you expect these .303 bullets to do to
the plane from there?



I expect them to rip the surface of the wing basicly apart.


With a .303 gun?! that's nuts.
There is a reason air-to-air guns got as big as 37mm.
What posts are you reading to get that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

"I would not expect them to penatrate an aircraft.


However, I wuold expct the .30s to poke holes in the aircraft and get lodged into the aircraft.

Also, they could bounce off, or could catch fabric covered aif=rcraft on fire.


TRhats the way it is in a B-534 or a hurri shooting a plane.

It's more likely different with defencive gunners."

as i said, i only skimmed the last page, maybe my bad for out of context.

M_Gunz
10-11-2009, 08:42 AM
Well Stealth Owl is like 13 years old and the others... what armor? The plywood wing skin?

IRL .303 should go through maybe 2+ feet of hardwood but IL2 doesn't model enough detail to account for that.
Some posts are about real and some are about IL2.

IMHO a completely different approach to DM would satisfy a lot of members here more even with fewer outcomes,
ie less detail, to taking hits but since *I* never made a flight sim that is not saying a whole lot is it?

HarryVoyager
10-11-2009, 10:00 AM
2 feet is about the diameter of a mid sized tree. You are saying that if you hauled a .30-06 or a .303 rifle out to the woods, and shot a tree, it would come out the other side.

I'm thinking more like 3 inches.

Lt_Letum
10-11-2009, 10:04 AM
Even 3 inches of hardwood seams optimistic at the
range of 200m/600ft that bombers are usually
attacked from.

JtD
10-11-2009, 10:23 AM
About two feet of wood is realistic for a light machine gun round at a range of 200m. Depends of course on the type of wood used, but it's in that region.

GrinderX9
10-11-2009, 10:29 AM
Enyone atemted to do level bombing whit this thing? Cant hit enything from 2000 m. Normaly I can hit acuratly from 6-8000 meters whit the more advanced american and german bombsights.

Erkki_M
10-11-2009, 11:06 AM
I dont think 2 feet is too much... I've visited an Army live ammunition practice area, it was woodland and just about every pine there had holes, and there was an exit hole for every hole going in... Some trees were as thick as a meter or so, or 3 feet. Not saying all the rounds(very few) went right in the middle of them, but still...

More than 99% of the ammunition used there must have been 7.62 x 39mm(AK cartridges) and shot at close range. 400m away I doubt they'd penetrate more than half or one third of that roughly meter. Now, notice that the cartridges used in rifle calibre guns at that time were typically much longer(had much more explosive materiel). The muzzle velocity of the 7.62mm round with 39mm cartridge from an RK62 or 95 TP used there is 700-720m/s, where Spit's .303 7.7 x 56mm R cartridge has 760m/s and the bullet weights more...

HarryVoyager
10-11-2009, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
About two feet of wood is realistic for a light machine gun round at a range of 200m. Depends of course on the type of wood used, but it's in that region. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was about to say, let's find documentation, except, I just found documentation; I just can't read it. The Ballistics 18th International Symposium (1999) has a whole paper on the performance of wood plates under ballistic impact, and it is about 100 pages past the Google Preview limit. mmrrrr...

Harry Voyager

TinyTim
10-11-2009, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GrinderX9:
Enyone atemted to do level bombing whit this thing? Cant hit enything from 2000 m. Normaly I can hit acuratly from 6-8000 meters whit the more advanced american and german bombsights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's accurate as hell. Make sure you input TAS, not the IAS (you need to convert the IAS that's displayed in the plane gauge to TAS via some external device or tables, I use a small program called Bombsight Table 2).

I just tried to bomb a british aircraft carrier with SM.79 from 5000m. Loadout was two 500kg bombs.

Drop point:

http://www.shrani.si/f/3G/eX/1Sq2gir6/sm79bombing1.jpg

Result:

http://www.shrani.si/f/3t/fe/2BOSjkBk/sm79bombing2.jpg

Track (if you'll find it helpful):

http://www.filefront.com/14702349/quick0025.ntrk

M_Gunz
10-11-2009, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
2 feet is about the diameter of a mid sized tree. You are saying that if you hauled a .30-06 or a .303 rifle out to the woods, and shot a tree, it would come out the other side.

I'm thinking more like 3 inches. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You wouldn't get me to stand behind 6 inches of oak being fired at by 30-06 or .303! It might be safe but I doubt it!

Okay, white pine -- the 303 went over 8" deep, hunting round not military. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcsC2cly9Y)

I'm trying to remember here from military training, cover was 3 ft of packed dirt, or wood or was it 18 in of wood?
I know there's more recent veterans here than myself who could easily say.

No hardwood here but bricks, cinderblocks, wooden dummies in flak jackets and metal furniture might count for something.
Marines on penetration video, includes 7.62mm. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXxuuA1lFOg)

Well anyway maybe some of this gives some idea of penetration BUT all these shots are from close up.

pistol shots through softwood. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8CuOybgmxQ)

Ruger .223 vs 10.5" pine. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7aG86cqkJ0&feature=PlayList&p=F120FA0E4E422C8F&index=4)

stoppingpower.info .308 vs 10.5" pine (http://stoppingpower.info/category/wood-block-shooting-videos/)

.223 FMJ vs 6 "2x4"'s... 10" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_IgVnI01E&feature=PlayList&p=F120FA0E4E422C8F&index=5)

EDIT:ADD
For what it's worth, bullet penetration does get discussed at bit! (http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=56222)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In his With a Machine Gun to Cambrai George Coppard gives the following list for penetration by a .303 bullet:

clay 60 inches
earth 40
loose sand 30
sandbags 18
oak 38
dry turf, 80.

Does anyone know if he is correct?

Cheers,
Nathan </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't see any reason to doubt George. He does, after all, have the tee-shirt! Squirrel is, however, correct but the Field Service Pocket Book goes into things even more finely:

Steel plate, best.........................................7/16"
Steel plate, ordinary mild, or wrought iron....3/4"
Shingle........................................... ...........6"
Coal, hard.............................................. ....6"
Brickwork, cement mortar............................9"
Brickwork, lime mortar.................................14"
Chalk............................................. ............15"
Sand, between boards or in sandbags............18"
Sand, loose............................................. .....30"
Hard wood, e.g. oak......................................38"
Earth, free from stones (unrammed)..............40"
Soft wood, e.g. fir.........................................58"
Clay.............................................. ..............60"
Dry turf or peat............................................80"

Failing that - duck!

Cheers,

Ian </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Figures seem to fit; I recall seeing an infantry section (in the early 70s) chop down a fairly mature fir tree with a GPMG. It was done as an object lesson in choosing cover from fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, the Mythbusters concluded that you can't cut a tree down with a GPMG. But that was the young ones trying it.

RSS-Martin
10-11-2009, 12:59 PM
This plane is a unexpected high light, and I do hope it does not get porked due to the usual whinning that goes on with every new plane!

I have been shot down in the SM79 a few times by Gladiators and bei I-16s although those where AI.

As to that with those .303 rounds, anyone really think they are going to travel straight after having passed through a piece of wood, then coming into open space and then hitting wood again? Usually a bullet will start to tumble once it has gone through something solid and reaches open space again.

This plane is also wonderful for buzzing enemy airfields especially with those little bomblets!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Flugzeuge/Marchetti.jpg

GrinderX9
10-11-2009, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

It's accurate as hell. Make sure you input TAS, not the IAS (you need to convert the IAS that's displayed in the plane gauge to TAS via some external device or tables, I use a small program called Bombsight Table 2).

I just tried to bomb a british aircraft carrier with SM.79 from 5000m. Loadout was two 500kg bombs.


Track (if you'll find it helpful):

http://www.filefront.com/14702349/quick0025.ntrk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for the reply http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . I will watch the track when Im home from work tomorow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Waldo.Pepper
10-11-2009, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
2 feet is about the diameter of a mid sized tree. You are saying that if you hauled a .30-06 or a .303 rifle out to the woods, and shot a tree, it would come out the other side.

I'm thinking more like 3 inches. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A round from an M1 (Carbine) will go through and through a pine tree of 14 inches, at the muzzle. With plenty of power to spare.

It was at the muzzle, not at a hundred yards or so.

It was fun. Lots of splinters. But now that I am older and wiser I would not do it again.

DKoor
10-11-2009, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
2 feet is about the diameter of a mid sized tree. You are saying that if you hauled a .30-06 or a .303 rifle out to the woods, and shot a tree, it would come out the other side.

I'm thinking more like 3 inches. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You wouldn't get me to stand behind 6 inches of oak being fired at by 30-06 or .303! It might be safe but I doubt it!

Okay, white pine -- the 303 went over 8" deep, hunting round not military. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GcsC2cly9Y)

I'm trying to remember here from military training, cover was 3 ft of packed dirt, or wood or was it 18 in of wood?
I know there's more recent veterans here than myself who could easily say.

No hardwood here but bricks, cinderblocks, wooden dummies in flak jackets and metal furniture might count for something.
Marines on penetration video, includes 7.62mm. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXxuuA1lFOg)

Well anyway maybe some of this gives some idea of penetration BUT all these shots are from close up.

pistol shots through softwood. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8CuOybgmxQ)

Ruger .223 vs 10.5" pine. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7aG86cqkJ0&feature=PlayList&p=F120FA0E4E422C8F&index=4)

stoppingpower.info .308 vs 10.5" pine (http://stoppingpower.info/category/wood-block-shooting-videos/)

.223 FMJ vs 6 "2x4"'s... 10" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_IgVnI01E&feature=PlayList&p=F120FA0E4E422C8F&index=5)

EDIT:ADD
For what it's worth, bullet penetration does get discussed at bit! (http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=56222)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In his With a Machine Gun to Cambrai George Coppard gives the following list for penetration by a .303 bullet:

clay 60 inches
earth 40
loose sand 30
sandbags 18
oak 38
dry turf, 80.

Does anyone know if he is correct?

Cheers,
Nathan </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't see any reason to doubt George. He does, after all, have the tee-shirt! Squirrel is, however, correct but the Field Service Pocket Book goes into things even more finely:

Steel plate, best.........................................7/16"
Steel plate, ordinary mild, or wrought iron....3/4"
Shingle........................................... ...........6"
Coal, hard.............................................. ....6"
Brickwork, cement mortar............................9"
Brickwork, lime mortar.................................14"
Chalk............................................. ............15"
Sand, between boards or in sandbags............18"
Sand, loose............................................. .....30"
Hard wood, e.g. oak......................................38"
Earth, free from stones (unrammed)..............40"
Soft wood, e.g. fir.........................................58"
Clay.............................................. ..............60"
Dry turf or peat............................................80"

Failing that - duck!

Cheers,

Ian </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Figures seem to fit; I recall seeing an infantry section (in the early 70s) chop down a fairly mature fir tree with a GPMG. It was done as an object lesson in choosing cover from fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, the Mythbusters concluded that you can't cut a tree down with a GPMG. But that was the young ones trying it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We had people in Oleg Maddox Room that were swearing that .50cal can't penetrate a tinfoil armor from 200m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Why would this be any different? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

But hey... any evil for some good... now I know which ones of you guys I would never go hunt with http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

Doe: "Hey DKoor, that you behind that tree?"
DK: "Yep"
Doe: "BANG" *shoots*
DK: "..grgh..." *hits the dirt"
Doe: "Hey mate! Hehe I was only kidding"
DK: "..."
Doe: "M8?!!?"

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

joeap
10-11-2009, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
This plane is a unexpected high light, and I do hope it does not get porked due to the usual whinning that goes on with every new plane!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This...

I also like it and have been shot down as well...ok mid-war planes are much more deadly against it but that's to be expected no?

thefruitbat
10-11-2009, 04:33 PM
I think most people just don't understand the power of guns, simply because films are there reference.

I've seen a 30mm cannon being fired before on an apc on a range, and while admittedly it had about twice the muzzle velocity of a mk108, it was quite simply devestating (rarden cannon on a warrior).

I also remember the first time i was on a range, in the butts, when a GPMG was firing overhead. 8 of them firing at me, i'd want to be behind something pretty serious.

fruitbat

DKoor
10-11-2009, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
I also remember the first time i was on a range, in the butts, when a GPMG was firing overhead. 8 of them firing at me, i'd want to be behind something pretty serious.

fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Behind SM.79's wing?

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

edit
sorry couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
10-11-2009, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Hard wood, e.g. oak......................................38"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, from my days as an M60 Gunner in 1/75th, I was taught there that 7.62mm would penetrate 48 inches of soft pine.

All the best,

Crumpp

TinyTim
10-11-2009, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
I also remember the first time i was on a range, in the butts, when a GPMG was firing overhead. 8 of them firing at me, i'd want to be behind something pretty serious.

fruitbat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Behind SM.79's wing?

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

edit
sorry couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or in a duralumin, plywood and fabric covered fuselage. Just what can you expect from shooting there, remember?

Sometimes it seems to me we are discussing raindrops rather than 7.62mm bullets here.

DKoor
10-11-2009, 06:38 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
10-11-2009, 08:20 PM
So the bullet goes through the back of the wing and into/through the rear spar before hitting the fuel tank which
must be made of tissue paper or balsa wood and filled with fuel that does nothing to slow the bullet down.
Question is at that point is there any tracer or incendiary left after plywood skin and spar.

Yes it is about raindrops on tissue paper. We must have all extremes, raindrops must become 5000 deg C depleted
uranium and the tissue paper is wet.

With the way the DM works I would guess that 4 303 hits could de-wing the SM.79 and people would concentrate on
the first three not getting all the way through.

Romanator21
10-11-2009, 08:21 PM
Are then engines behind the fabric? Whoa.

A bullet might go through 3 feet of wood at point blank, but do it at 200 meters and maybe it's down to 2 feet. Ok, no biggie.

Now factor in that it is going though a piece of wood, exits, and then tumbles. A bullet entering a piece of wood sideways is not going to go as far. Right?

Now, it has to go through the skin (no biggie, sure) then through THREE spars where it is tumbling after each one( and where the total thickness of these spars is at least 3 feet), maybe through some landing gear , which is solid steel, and maybe through a firewall, maybe the fuel tank full of liquid which slows projectiles faster than air (and it doesn't have to ignite after one hit, that is just too much to expect; it's gas, not Nitro Glycerin) and then FINALLY bury itself in a vital engine component?

No one is saying .303 are rain drops, but they are not unstoppable either. Hit the engines and tanks from six above, six below, or from the front. Don't park dead six and expect a massacre.

I like those screen shots where there are 1000 shots all across the wing. Only about 1/3 of that wing contains vital components, and those are not easy to get through from dead six.

You want realism? work as a team with your flight; pilots didn't hunt bombers solo. Give those snipers more than one thing to shoot at. Stop aiming at the empty wing, complaining about 30% accuracy when none of those are hitting anything of value. Stop parking at dead six 10 meters away and complaining of sniper gunners killing your engine, which btw is at the FRONT of your plane, protected by a sheet of aluminum, while theirs are protected by all the crap I just described. Who knew? That's why it's called DEAD six http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Because bombers are relatively stationary targets doesn't mean you should be too.

M_Gunz
10-11-2009, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
(all hurri IIb)
http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/countinghitsissilly.jpg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those hits all look like they are from straight behind. Is it magic or are these the few that worked
out of 100's of tries?

EDIT: oh wait, the last pict there, the shots are from above! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

LOL! I just realized that if 9 hits can flame one then there WILL be threads on too easy to catch the
SM.79 on fire by people shot down "too quickly"! Oh this is gonna be rich!

Romanator21
10-11-2009, 08:48 PM
To some, it really is magical. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Adamantium SM.79 LOL.

Blottogg
10-12-2009, 01:55 AM
There's some good information in this thread, but a lot of it is WAY beyond what's modeled in the game. A couple of things to keep in mind with the Il-2 damage modeling:

1) Like R rated movies, penetration isn't modeled. If a bullet hits a control surface, it stops there. This is one reason attacks from dead 6 are pretty pointless. The control surfaces and fixed fins act like armor plating until they've reached their damage limits and are blown off. A real round would sail through the canvas and keep doing damage.

2) Material type is modeled (I think) but very simply. Shooting a fabric covered plane does little damage (it probably has a low damage coefficient in the model), on the assumption that you're just poking holes in fabric. Years ago, similar gripes came about concerning the I-16, and Oleg tweaked the value to allow more damage. And let's not forget the dreaded Delta Wood debate...

3) As mentioned earlier, crew DM's are simplified, and "resilient" to say the least. IIRC, you've got to hit them in the head to kill them. Early Il-2 gunners, sitting on a canvas sling behind the pilot's armor plate, were a good way to see this effect in action. I hadn't heard that this had been done for playability before, but if so, it sounds like it was done at some point, and not retrofitted to some of the older DM's (the Ju-88 PK's?).

4) Some of the older plane DM's have some obvious compromises. The "glass chins" on the Allison engined aircraft and the P-47, prop governors that take up the entire spinner instead of a smaller cylinder within the spinner, control cable damage boxes seemingly a meter wide...

I haven't installed 4.09 yet (waiting on a backup drive so I can re-install Windows and hopefully cure a recurring Windows memory error...), but from what I've read, the SM79 DM sounds more in line with combat reports I've read of rifle caliber MG damage, given the limitations of the Il-2 engine damage modeling. BoB RAF pilots often emptied their guns into a bomber only to have it fly home. Granted, they often opened up at longer range, with a lower hit percentage than we do, since they couldn't hit "refly". FWIW, 30% hit rate is actually pretty damn good, and certainly better than the average combat pilot was achieving in real life.

Finally, since this new aircraft has exposed yet another hole in my paper library, does anyone know if the SM 79 had self-sealing tanks? It was developed from an airliner proposal in 1934, so I doubt it had them from the start, but I don't know what in the way of armor or self sealing tanks it may have been retrofitted with. In the cutaway posted earlier, I think that the forward most tank in the wing root is actually an oil tank for the wing engine. Not that it makes much difference (oil burns, too). Anybody got a key to this diagram that they can post?

larschance
10-12-2009, 07:45 AM
According to Ali D'Italia no 28 profile on the S79 there were ten fuel tanks positioned between the three wing spars and two more that could be added behind the engine nacelles. Each engine had its own oil reservoir. None of these were armoured or self sealing and all fuel tanks were interconnected so fuel could be diverted if necessary.
The wing was entirely wood with plywood covered ribs. The fuselage was welded steel tube with duraluminium and plywood covering at the forward half and fabric and ply at the tail half. A fireproof bulkhead was placed between the cockpit and nasal engine. Control surfaces were steel tube with fabric covering.
Incidentally I have learned from ex aircrew that the Fiat BR20 and Cant Z1007 were steadier to fly in bad weather and more accurate in level bombing. However the S79 was more manouevrable at low level. This was why the latter was chosen for torpedo bomber operations. Despite their lack of protection all types could take punishment unless they were hit in vital spots of course, which goes for all types. Cannon fire is a different ball game.
The DM I believe reflects a more accurate affect without taking away the playability. In RL pilots averaged point two of a percent hits unless they were a natural shooter who understood deflection shooting. To make the sim more rewarding I understand the odds are raised to thirty per cent otherwise few players would persevere to obtain kills. At some stage the DM could be addressed for older models to bring them all uptodate. For now I am thankful to TD for the extra material to enjoy. Long may they continue.

Blottogg
10-12-2009, 09:45 AM
Thanks for the info, larschance. Assuming TD modeled the materials correctly (and I think they did), I'm now more inclined to believe problems folks are having are just limitations in how the DM is mechanized in the game. I think that from dead 6, the control surfaces and rear wing spar are absorbing all the damage, and keeping the wing tanks from brewing up. Short of toning down the front and aft spars, and putting most of the strength in the center spar (if indeed all three spars are modeled in the DM) to allow for real world rounds going through the aft spar to the tanks, I don't see an easy way to make dead 6 attacks react more realistically. Screen shots of higher angle-off attacks seem to show that the tanks will brew up nicely if hit at higher angles.

Dead 6 attacks were a bad idea in RL, in part because it solved the defenders angle-off problem. In the game, the Ai gunners can pull perfect deflection no matter what aspect, so this isn't as obvious. There isn't any aiming error for the gunners, just a delay before firng for the less experienced Ai. The guys at 1C turned up the "dither" or spread of fire after enough complaints about the Ai "snipers", and that's about all that reduces the Ai's hit percentage. What saves you in-game is distance, and/or changing direction more often than once every time-of-flight (as in a angle-off, curve of pursuit attack).

The net result is that real-world tactics work in-game, if not always for real-world reasons.

Wildnoob
10-12-2009, 10:24 AM
Also, apart from the accuracy of the DM tread, in RL pilot's usually divided their force, with not only one but often several aircraft of the squadron making firing passes on a single target. This not only would save ammunition but also meant it wasn't necessary a single figther to get exposed and keep turning around to make the required passes in a same aircraft.

For those with a squadron, try share your work with a same bomber. The results are usually excellent.

Wildnoob
10-12-2009, 10:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuI0gFUq3HY

Guess this part of the Battle of Britain movie depicts well what I mean.

Of course that's not easy do this in the heat of battle, especially when there's figther oposition, but teamwork was vital for sucess in RL for the case of low caliber guns.

TinyTim
10-12-2009, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
(all hurri IIb)
http://www.shrani.si/f/22/Y4/2H6TMwaU/smfire.jpg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never ever managed to set the inner fueltank on fire with LMG, despite extensive testing, no matter what angle I attacked from.

http://www.shrani.si/f/t/f5/iT5Cfom/sm2.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/f/1n/vz/12ULVjYe/sm3.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/f/3p/dc/4WIcFZQw/sm4.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/f/2l/ls/2R4mIqQD/sm1.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/f/26/15/3fgp4ay4/sm7.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/f/P/id/4mzCsmr4/sm8.jpg

Any volunteers to count the arrows? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

KinsellaK
10-12-2009, 12:24 PM
Downloaded the 4.09 patch (20 mins!) and I am loving the features on the SM.79, especially the opening gun turrets and two stage prop pitch.

I find the SM.79 to be very resilient to all kinds of fire, I have used a spit against it with the cannons with not much effect (from dead six), best way to attack it is dead on and hope to kill the pilot...

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn289/Chugapunky/SM79shootdown.jpg

Sorry about the paintschemes, I was messing around in QMB, as you can see the crew are preparing to bail out after my first burst.

Dead on and cannon are the key!

Romanator21
10-12-2009, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any volunteers to count the arrows? Big Grin </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something just came to mind: What is the fuel load of the SM in these shots? How are each of the fuel tanks emptied in the plane (all at once, outer first, or inner first?) Maybe there is no gas in those inner tanks. I'm noticing in the last pic that there is not even a fuel leak despite a gaping hole. Obviously this can not just be an oversight in the model by DT.

AndyJWest
10-12-2009, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
...
Something just came to mind: What is the fuel load of the SM in these shots? How are each of the fuel tanks emptied in the plane (all at once, outer first, or inner first?) Maybe there is no gas in those inner tanks. I'm noticing in the last pic that there is not even a fuel leak despite a gaping hole. Obviously this can not just be an oversight in the model by DT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fuel vapour in the right mix is explosive, whereas a full tank might absorb an incendiary hit with no effect beyond a leak - so depending on the DM, near-empty tanks might be more vulnerable.

M_Gunz
10-12-2009, 01:31 PM
I just hope that Tim and DT can get together since they have the tools to investigate what is happening that
just looking at the graphics won't tell.

If the lightbulb needs changing and you can't do it then you have two choices. One is to get someone who can
and the other is to b!tch in the dark about it.

TinyTim
10-12-2009, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
Something just came to mind: What is the fuel load of the SM in these shots? How are each of the fuel tanks emptied in the plane (all at once, outer first, or inner first?) Maybe there is no gas in those inner tanks. I'm noticing in the last pic that there is not even a fuel leak despite a gaping hole. Obviously this can not just be an oversight in the model by DT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fuel load on all shots was 100%, loadout was default, plane was friendly. It's easy for anyone to reproduce.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If the lightbulb needs changing and you can't do it then you have two choices. One is to get someone who can
and the other is to b!tch in the dark about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem here is that it's so dark that many people can't see the bulb needs to be changed.

robtek1957
10-12-2009, 03:44 PM
Btw, are the tb3 gunners using incendary ammunition or just ball with tracer?

DKoor
10-12-2009, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robtek1957:
Btw, are the tb3 gunners using incendary ammunition or just ball with tracer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know about that I only know that I don't have much problems setting my own wings on fire while flying TB-3. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
My best guess is that 7,62 on TB-3 isn't much different than any other ShKAS in game.

M_Gunz
10-12-2009, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If the lightbulb needs changing and you can't do it then you have two choices. One is to get someone who can
and the other is to b!tch in the dark about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem here is that it's so dark that many people can't see the bulb needs to be changed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You miss the whole point.
One, the DARK is about lack of inside detail of what is happening.
Two, the only people who need to see the bulb are the ones who can change the bulb if it is truly the bulb that is bad.
Problem may be the light switch or something else.

In place of knowing there is speculation based on graphics. The light is sometimes off, it is speculation as to why.

If you want anything to change then it would be best to contact the people with the tools to do it right. Just be ready
to find out that things are not as you think for reasons you haven't imagined.

TinyTim
10-12-2009, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robtek1957:
Btw, are the tb3 gunners using incendary ammunition or just ball with tracer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the TB-3 gunner had absolutely no problems lighting up A-20, Ju-88, Mossie, Pe-2 and Betty under exactly the same setup after a carefully aimed burst of a few tens of bullets into a fueltank:

http://www.shrani.si/f/1Q/l8/2sLGLC3C/1.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/f/3V/mR/2ndOczYK/2.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/f/n/OP/zLY1VMD/3.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/f/3y/Vy/4WiiSB4y/4.jpg

http://www.shrani.si/f/p/wM/1odM8vZD/5.jpg

to be compared with:

http://www.shrani.si/f/33/Kt/33McrQQB/9.jpg



Just to prove that there is an inner fueltank modelled on SM.79 - you can set it alight with heavy machinegun, here I did it with UBS mounted on Pe-2 (you have to be lucky tho, wing tends to be sawn off before fuel tanks ignites):

http://www.shrani.si/f/1R/9z/1xn6NM2C/10.jpg

Tipo_Man
10-13-2009, 03:09 AM
Well,
Last night I looked at the damage modelling of the SM.79.
I must say, it is rich and well detailed, but has same very strange numbers coded.
The toughness and armour of some elements (wing, tail) is several times bigger than that of a He-111 for example.
Furthermore the bullet energy needed to light a fuel tank was 20 (twenty) times bigger than that of a SB for example.
I tweaked some of the values and the plane started burning like a torch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I'll post tomorrow examples and pictures...

R_Target
10-13-2009, 06:00 AM
The return of Delta Wood.

DKoor
10-13-2009, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Furthermore the bullet energy needed to light a fuel tank was 20 (twenty) times bigger than that of a SB for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I also started to think that these bullets simple have a very hard time penetrating.
While they can reasonably easier penetrate other planes they simply penetrate the SM.79 skin very hard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif that is why that plane doesn't burn so often.

JG52Uther
10-13-2009, 06:48 AM
Perhaps the other bombers are under modelled,rather than the SM79 being over modelled?
I have no idea,but the SM79 is brand new,whereas the other bombers are years old.
Maybe DT will up the DM on the other bombers,then us bomber pilots can sit back and enjoy the fun on the forums. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Blottogg
10-13-2009, 07:24 AM
Wildnoob, good clip to show teamwork. Concerning the DM, I was thinking of this footage gun camera (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBXkX8nln_E). This shows pieces/parts flying off, but no real brew-ups (aside from the Stuka at the end, which may be gunner ammo or the oil tank, since it isn't a sustained fire). There's no way for me to measure distance either, but subjectively the RAF pilots seem to open fire from a greater distance than we typically do in-game.

Tipo_Man, thanks for the info. I'm not smart enough to get into the DM coding, so I appreciate it. Again, it may be a case of setting a new standard for DM modeling, with the older aircraft left playing catch-up. Never having shot an actual S.M. 79, I don't know how easily they brew-up. If the tanks aren't self-sealing, then I would think it would be about as easy to set on fire as a G4M was historically. The first rounds wouldn't necessarily light it off, but after the leaks start mixing fuel and air, any additional incendiary rounds should set it right off. The wing/tail numbers may again be the credit given to the wood, tube and fabric construction that had some folks (including me) griping about the I-16 back in the day.

major_setback
10-13-2009, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
The return of Delta Wood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never understood what this is, 'Delta wood'. I tried googling, but it didn't help. I was still curious. I tried gargling too, but was still unaware. Please tell me - what is Delta wood?

AndyJWest
10-13-2009, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have never understood what this is, 'Delta wood' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I understand it, Delta Wood was originally used for aircraft construction in the Soviet Union, until it was discovered that it had the unfortunate property that bullets not only penetrated it without difficulty, but gained speed as they went through. Nowadays it is only found growing on shooting ranges in the United States.

M_Gunz
10-13-2009, 08:24 AM
Birch plywood with some kind of plastic bonding agent pressed in or injected at high temperature and pressure.
For one thing, it was heavy stuff. The strength is legendary.. literally.

Erkki_M
10-13-2009, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have never understood what this is, 'Delta wood' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I understand it, Delta Wood was originally used for aircraft construction in the Soviet Union, until it was discovered that it had the unfortunate property that bullets not only penetrated it without difficulty, but gained speed as they went through. Nowadays it is only found growing on shooting ranges in the United States. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never been to the US. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

We use heavier caliber in assault rifles here, bullets have more than twice the kinetic energy of the M1/M16 bullet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

7.62 x 39mm from close range I think is comparable in penetration to Spit/Hurri's 7.7 x 53mm shot at 200-300m...

Lt_Letum
10-13-2009, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lt_Letum:
(all hurri IIb)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

LOL! I just realized that if 9 hits can flame one then there WILL be threads on too easy to catch the
SM.79 on fire by people shot down "too quickly"! Oh this is gonna be rich! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The second one is from a head on.
They are not the result of 100s of tries. For
proof of that see the track I posted in this
thread. I light up 5 SM79s in a row with limited
ammo on.
I can make as many different tracks like that
as you like in onl;y the time it takes to fly.

I do think 9 hits is flukey tho.

Romanator21
10-13-2009, 03:16 PM
The TB-3 also can't light its own fuel tanks on fire with the gunners. I emptied every gun into the wing, and nothing.

So, the Sm-79 is different. Ok, no problems here. Now, the question has been for the last 10 pages, is it the Sm that is wrong, or every other bomber?

And yeah, I light at least one Sm.79 each time with .303. in limited ammo mode. It is harder, but not impossible/unrealistic. Those 1000 shots into the wing just stun me. I've never had a problem.

DKoor
10-13-2009, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have never understood what this is, 'Delta wood' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I understand it, Delta Wood was originally used for aircraft construction in the Soviet Union, until it was discovered that it had the unfortunate property that bullets not only penetrated it without difficulty, but gained speed as they went through. Nowadays it is only found growing on shooting ranges in the United States. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DKoor
10-13-2009, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
The TB-3 also can't light its own fuel tanks on fire with the gunners. I emptied every gun into the wing, and nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you not replicate this results; 5 times in row I set four wing tanks on fire (all?), every time.
Things I observed... fuselage gunners have A LOT of ammo. I shoot and shoot and shoot and only once (deliberately) I've run out of ammo.
TB-3 once on fire, can endure burning quite a bit.
Outer fuel tanks are much easier to set on fire than inner (maybe, a big maybe, the gunner position has something to do with this).

Here are the tracks;
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-5e90e42f.html
http://www.imagesforme.com/upload/4bc6662a.gif

Romanator21
10-13-2009, 04:15 PM
What I noticed was it was easier to light the Tb-3 with the hurricane than its own gunners, which I found ironic. I guess it works though.

TinyTim
10-13-2009, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
So, the Sm-79 is different. Ok, no problems here. Now, the question has been for the last 10 pages, is it the Sm that is wrong, or every other bomber? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair question, I've repeated it a few times in this thread myself. Anyway, thinking out of the box for a second (meaning - for a moment forget you ever played IL-2, and apply real life experience): what would you expect from shooting a machinegun with tracer, ball, AP and incendiary ammo into a gasoline canister,

this:
http://www.shrani.si/f/q/wv/21qyeJGG/9b.jpg

or this:
http://www.shrani.si/f/7/94/14TNklpF/1b.jpg

Next one (still thinking out of the box), what would you expect to happen inside a tube framed crate, covered with plywood and fabric, filled with explosives, ammunition, oxygen bottles, live human beings etc... when exposed to fire from 12 machineguns, like this:

http://www.shrani.si/f/1H/GS/3Lvti3pN/smfuselage.jpg

Well, in game this bomber managed to take off with no apparent damage whatsoever (no PK balloon, no fire or leaks, only damage texture applied):

http://www.shrani.si/f/3t/ni/pBGNeTl/smfuselage1.jpg

I kinda doubt this would have happened in RL.

BillSwagger
10-13-2009, 07:52 PM
I see your point TinyTim, but i think putting planes through such tests is more of a limitation of the detail allowed by the DMs in the game. I'd rather an accurate DM in flight, than have an eggshell representation.
There are several bombers that are flawed in this regard, and quite possibly the incendiary effect of the 303s is over modeled. I'm not looking to debate this either, but I also read that the Italian light calibers were some of the most efficient in regards to their incendiary effects.

In other words, this sim is not real life. Its a game, so enjoy it as such.

If you've ever been speeding after a Zeke in a P-47 you might notice the 47s inability to roll faster than a Zeke above 300IAS. In fact the Zeke has no trouble rolling out of the way.
This is more inaccurate than the DM of a historically tough plane.

If we are to go over this sim with a fine tooth comb, then why not fix the bigger discrepancies first. Otherwise, leave it alone.
I think TD is on to something, modeling bombers this way.


Bill

Romanator21
10-13-2009, 11:01 PM
"ell, in game this bomber managed to take off with no apparent damage whatsoever (no PK balloon, no fire or leaks, only damage texture applied):"

PK will be addressed I beleive. And that doesn't look like that is at an angle to start a fire.

However, I will say that for shots from the top, it seems odd.

As an aside, not related to the SM.79 in particular, I wonder how easy it was to explode bombs in the plane with light machine guns. Was it even possible? I'm thinking that if 1000 kg of TNT went off in such a small space that a sizable portion of the formation would be severely damaged. It would seem that to set off a bomb one would need to hit it with an explosive round. This does not appear likely as these would explode on the skin of the aircraft first.

I think the DM engine is too simple to model the thin skin on top, yet 3 layers of spars through the back. If it can be done, I'm sure it will be considered. After all, it is a 10 year old game.

I understand what you mean Bill. Apparently this happened because the wings bent in the Zero?

However, all things considered, what we have is a compromise. We can have a 10 aircraft sim without as many inaccuracies, yet low playability, inability to run on most machines, small community, short life span, etc. Or we can have this. For all its inadequacies it's the best there is. Even 2004 CFS can't compare.

We would all like to see more. I would like to see Angular Momentum modeled. A de-winged bomber flops like a toy, and it kills the scale. I feel like I'm flying a plastic model. If airframe stresses were modeled, Zeros and La-s with holes in the wing would break if pulling tight turns. Hispano cannons would jam under high G turns. P-38 wouldn't become a lawn dart at sea level if atmospherics had a super-advanced model. If CoG changed with fuel consumption the Mustang wouldn't wobble. I want to have random engine failure/gun jams/delamination of wooden aerofoils/Yak canopies that become opaque after a month in the sun/worry about birds around the runway/AI which behaves like a 19 year old with a .50 cal in his hands, full of fear and drenched in sweat, even at the -50 of 30,000 feet. Yeah.

But then, who could run such a game? probably a 10 core with 16 GB RAM at least.

I'm excited for the future. Until then I will enjoy what we have. As Oleg would say, "Show me one batter" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RSS-Martin
10-13-2009, 11:29 PM
If you know anything about bombs then you should know that firing a few rounds at them is not going to set them off!
As first of all they are not set as "live" in the plane, that usually happens when they are dropped and the detanator mechanisim is set. Also the detanator works on the basis of chain reaction, small charges setting off bigger ones till the bomb goes off, that means pop shots to the bomb will most likely only scar the bomb shell but thats about it. Also with out the detinator on, tnt usualy only burns and does not explode.

DKoor
10-13-2009, 11:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
If you know anything about bombs then you should know that firing a few rounds at them is not going to set them off!
As first of all they are not set as "live" in the plane, that usually happens when they are dropped and the detanator mechanisim is set. Also the detanator works on the basis of chain reaction, small charges setting off bigger ones till the bomb goes off, that means pop shots to the bomb will most likely only scar the bomb shell but thats about it. Also with out the detinator on, tnt usualy only burns and does not explode. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You are right.
However *I think* I've exploded one He-111 in the way that its bombload went off!

Here is the track:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/7bed...DKoor40M-4xHe111-405 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/7bed0e22-1bc3-4ed4-b270-f3ecfcdefa4c/DKoor40M-4xHe111-405)

Granted I did the shooting with 12,7mm.

RSS-Martin
10-14-2009, 12:17 AM
Yes I know in the game it is possible, one of those many little flaws, but it is a game....
Just like wreckage which disappears with in a few seconds, so that following planes land without anything happening to them.
Oh well compared to the early games I guess one can not complain.

DKoor
10-14-2009, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Oh well compared to the early games I guess one can not complain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

TinyTim
10-14-2009, 02:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I see your point TinyTim, but i think putting planes through such tests is more of a limitation of the detail allowed by the DMs in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why are the other bombers modelled much more historicaly in this regard? You are on average going to need 150-200 rounds to down a Ju-88 or a DB-3, with SM.79 you'll need 1000? (compare with this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/Typicaldamage.jpg
... and we haven't even raised the question (or addressed it) on whether SM.79 had sealing fuel tanks like the He-111 did, or armour seats.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:In other words, this sim is not real life. Its a game, so enjoy it as such. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand that, but yet again, it's supposed to be a simulation. But if we don't give a damn about historical accuracy, then it doesn't matter whether we play Crimson Skies or some X-Wing vs Tie Fighter "simulation".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:If you've ever been speeding after a Zeke in a P-47 you might notice the 47s inability to roll faster than a Zeke above 300IAS. In fact the Zeke has no trouble rolling out of the way.
This is more inaccurate than the DM of a historically tough plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 100%! Guess what, when I started a thread about it, people attacked me ("Learn how to fly" etc... which is remarkably similar to "Learn how to shoot" which we saw all over in this thread)! Although I wouldn't agree it's more inaccurate. Here the DM of historically very important plane which is to be included on many maps is several times to tough for LMGs, and virtually indestructible for early war fighters.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:If we are to go over this sim with a fine tooth comb, then why not fix the bigger discrepancies first. Otherwise, leave it alone.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine tooth comb? We need a buldozer for this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
And that doesn't look like that is at an angle to start a fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was not trying to start a fire. I was trying to do damage (like kill the crew) inside the fuselage.

TinyTim
10-14-2009, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
If you know anything about bombs then you should know that firing a few rounds at them is not going to set them off! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you know anything about human body then you should know what firing a few rounds at them is going to do!

JG52Uther
10-14-2009, 02:41 AM
So don't fly it/against it! You think its overmodelled,others think the other bombers are undermodelled.
You are taking 1000 shots to take one down,others are taking less than 20.
Do you think the instant PK in the JU88 (from dead 6,through an armoured seat) is correct?
A B25 bursting into flames with a couple of hits?
A B17 burning after a couple of hits?
I hope DT change the DM on all the other bombers to a realistic level,then people will have to work harder for their 200/300/400 points.In WW2 I doubt pilots thought 'great, a bomber,time for an easy kill' when they had to attack.
What are you going to do if in SoW/BoB it takes a flight of 3 spitfires their entire ammo to shoot down a HE111?

M_Gunz
10-14-2009, 02:44 AM
(Military) Bombs for Beginners (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/bombs.htm)

Modern military bombs aren't a whole lot different than the WWII except for using more powerful explosives in general and
a whole slew of specialty bombs and guidance systems now that were not possible then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Approximately 50-percent of the General Purpose [GP] bomb's weight is explosive materials. These bombs usually weigh between 500 and 2,000 pounds and produce a combination of blast and fragmentation effects. The approximately one-half-inch-thick casing creates a fragmentation effect at the moment of detonation, and the 5O-percent explosive filer causes considerable damage from blast effect.

Only ten to twenty percent of a fragmentation bomb's weight is explosive material; the remainder include specially scored cases that break into predictably sized pieces. The fragments, which travel at high velocities, are the primary cause of damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'd have to shoot through 12+ mm of shell and still have enough kinetic energy to set the explosive off. Good luck,
it takes a really hard whack to even get a low-order (like black powder) explosion. If you hit into the cap OTOH then
kaboom! The cap fulminate is touchy stuff indeed!

IMO 20mm AP should do the job inside some weapon-and-bomb-range-and-angle-of-impact-etc condition.

TinyTim
10-14-2009, 02:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
You are taking 1000 shots to take one down,others are taking less than 20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I uploaded the track, and I shot down 8 bombers in a row. Now, please, show me a track where someone shoots 8 SM.79 down in a row with 20 hits on full real settings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Do you think the instant PK in the JU88 (from dead 6,through an armoured seat) is correct? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You didn't see the thread I started about this very issue a few days ago, did you? At least I tried to do something about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:A B25 bursting into flames with a couple of hits? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This one is defenitly bugged and too easy to set alight (which, btw, I already mentioned in this very thread), especially when compared to G4M which is tougher to set ablaze, not to speak about Ki-21.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:A B17 burning after a couple of hits?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never had problems with B-17, isolated events aren't representative. What exactly do you have in mind here?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
What are you going to do if in SoW/BoB it takes a flight of 3 spitfires their entire ammo to shoot down a HE111? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder the same for you if the DM will be more complex than here (which it will) and will allow bullets to penetrate the surfaces and do damage to interior, damage to hydraulic systems (gear drop was very common on He-111 after receiving hits), killing the crew, weakening structural integrity...

M_Gunz
10-14-2009, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
If you know anything about bombs then you should know that firing a few rounds at them is not going to set them off! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you know anything about human body then you should know what firing a few rounds at them is going to do! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scare them usually when you fire at them. Hits OTOH tend to do terrible things to people.

Wounds and death on par with real would include the players and their crews if any. <span class="ev_code_RED">It should be a realism toggle!</span>

M_Gunz
10-14-2009, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Fine tooth comb? We need a buldozer for this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the equivalent in hours of development. Many, many, many unpaid hours of effort with periodic releases to a patch
demanding crowd that picks and b!tches about everything over and over regardless of explanations what is possible and
what is not yet even in hand being changed. 33% of the complaints will demand the opposite of another 33% so no matter
what you do you are damned and cut down. It's like working for a-holes in some corporate mill except you don't get paid
at all instead of just being cheated on bonus and whatever else they can defer. Question is where do you find enough
people with ability to do the work who will even venture to do the work? Just know that they mostly do it for themselves,
each other and the people who appreciate it enough to be polite, careful, and sparing with criticism.

You want to "at least do something" them PM a Team Daidalos member instead of standing the the "public square" 'screaming'
deprecations. How much attention and sympathy do you have for those near flat-earthers who protest your job?

DKoor
10-14-2009, 03:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How much attention and sympathy do you have for those near flat-earthers who protest your job? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I've talked with TT regarding this... I also agree with you about this.

TinyTim did a lot of work; I think too much work for simple 2 sec "no yuo is wrong" Reply on an internet forum.

My only comment about the situation was the following... remember MG151/20 issue, fuel leaks, and some others in the past that were wrong but got fixed - but in the meantime were subjects of some really heated debates?... well I never saw those 2 sec Reply "yuo is wrong" commandos that were so eager to show that everything "is right" apologized for anything.
That was kinda eye opener for me...
in a sense that you can reasonably accomplish nothing in this regard on this forum.

The only correct course of actions in to inform devs about the problem and the tests you performed etc. and wait some constructive response from them.

Of course "learn to shoot" not being too much constructive answer of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

DKoor
10-14-2009, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
(sow)...if the DM will be more complex than here (which it will) and will allow bullets to penetrate the surfaces and do damage to interior, damage to hydraulic systems (gear drop was very common on He-111 after receiving hits), killing the crew, weakening structural integrity... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know if I posted in this thread or the other... but many people will be surprised what a greatly improved DM and bullet models will do for game experience. In combination with gunner ******ization bombers will just be nothing more than big fat juicy targets that they really were in WW2. I just hope there will be no room for any compromises about anything... especially not the because of playability.

M_Gunz
10-14-2009, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
My only comment about the situation was the following... remember MG151/20 issue, fuel leaks, and some others in the past that were wrong but got fixed - but in the meantime were subjects of some really heated debates?... well I never saw those 2 sec Reply "yuo is wrong" commandos that were so eager to show that everything "is right" apologized for anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember an H of a lot more than "you is wrong" and "learn to shoot" on the issue. I remember people going off about
MG rounds when it was shown time and time again to be not MG rounds they were showing and they wouldn't accept that.
Stalemate was whose fault? And who should take the next step but refused but the ones making the noise? Oh no, they
had something to b!tch about which AFAIC is what they wanted more than any fix. Apologize for what?

There was nothing bad about the MG round effects which is what the howling was saying. Somebody had to be taken off what
they were doing on patch work that was being insanely screamed for to spend time checking those MG rounds again and again.
That is more than simple dismissal that multiple times the checking was done AS DEMANDED.

The problem was elsewhere, the demands about the MG shells only caused wasted time and frustration, who should apologize?

You know what it took to get that straightened out? Clear thinking, good tests, a number of very polite and apologetic
to Maddox Games emails +plus+ the good will in Moscow to make the change <span class="ev_code_RED">in the face of the usual BS they get no matter what.</span>

If you cross-thread a bolt and still turn it with force then all you do is ruin the threads. Should you be thanked for
"doing all that work"? Answer is to work smarter which is what Tiger_Talon finally got through with.

Did any of the ones demanding and making boycott threats while spamming multiple forums about how screwed up IL2 was
even APOLOGIZE to Maddox Games? Did they make it known how wrong they were in the same places they threw their tantrums?
Did they make up for impact on UBI and Maddox Games? Oh no, they need apologies and cuddles and a few free beers.

JG52Uther
10-14-2009, 04:35 AM
Tim send your finding to DT.You might get the answer you are looking for,as they made the SM79.

M_Gunz
10-14-2009, 04:38 AM
I think that Letum's screenshots show that the bullets do penetrate the skin. That is not the problem.

RSS-Martin
10-14-2009, 04:59 AM
Well when you look at gun camera footage, you donīt have those big bangs really happening, especially when you look how close those guys flew onto a enemy bomber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Y7Lo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIpdhi6Y7Lo&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...kRbk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe36UMRkRbk&feature=related)

Razor1uk-LMC01
10-14-2009, 11:27 AM
Having trawled through all the smoking posts (some were almost as incendary as the nerco'd bullet/shell debate which was so many, many years ago,) I can say, I don't really care what the ranters are saying; although occasionally they do hit a nail on the head, but from what range, & angle, with what hammer, and is their thumb/hand/brain in the way?

Certainly gathering from the 'intel' in the thread, the DM for the SM.79 sounds closer to being semi realistic considering what is a many time modded/pathced/upgraded 7+ year old game engine.

Funnely enough some are expecting the LMG bullets to set Plywood and Fabric on fire instantly using Metal Skinned A/C as a comparison; where the metal skin would naturally produce a harder and more 'spark' productive object, where as Ply & Fabric needs mostly heat with sparks to burn, Metal doesn't burn well, but because its harder, more heat and hot shrapnel is created by A hit. Plywood is also a poor thermal conductor, lots more hot sparks, shrapnel from damage metal components are needed to start a fire, but it is naturally easier to start a fire versus metal.
But because this is a game, trying to simulate, it cannot do near enough what we would love to have Perfectly.

As always some are calmly discussing, others talking, a few simmering in controlled debate, and then those who are ranting with reason and others just trying to drown out play score number 'posts' points game.

I welcome the fact that IC Madox has let an non IC Madox team help create A/C & maps ect for Il-2/1946. I also give my thanks and honour them with a vrtual pint in recognistion for putting up with the less mannered typists, and event more, for slowly trying to improve and expand this very respected and long lived sim.

Of course pathces, planes, DM's, weapons, minds, opinions & people are never perfect, neither will this simulation game, but please lets give em' a chance to be bothered to go 'checking the threads' by being 'calmer' and polite/better mannered.

And to those whom might decry me as sucking up, well, if you think so, they you should go play some 'uber' unrealistic arcadey games and ask you parents for Anti Attention Deffacit Disorder pills.

I haven't yet got 4.09m yet, but it alread sounds good, and if theres a hint of at least partial solving the older A/C's DM's then I like the way its going!

And I concur with some others in saying a realistic pilot/gunner option might be a good idea, just so we can all whine about it eventually and end up with a 'medium' damagable pilot/gunner version who shoots like a terrified 19 year old on Rookie. (I forgot who said it and couldn't find the post within the last few pages).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">M_Gunz; Imagination takes no CPU cycles since it runs on otherwise 99% idle peripheral wetware. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Romanator21; I'm excited for the future. Until then I will enjoy what we have. As Oleg would say, "Show me one batter" Smile </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I have offeneded you, I am sorry.
If someone percieves me as worthy of their flaming then it doesn't say much about them.

M_Gunz
10-14-2009, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Well when you look at gun camera footage, you donīt have those big bangs really happening, especially when you look how close those guys flew onto a enemy bomber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Y7Lo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIpdhi6Y7Lo&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...kRbk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe36UMRkRbk&feature=related) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another thing not modeled due to taking too much CPU time is the German (30mm shell) incendiary fuse that -only- goes off
when immersed in liquid. Mk108 has them and I never checked but maybe the 103 too. Instead they go off instantly on
contact with the skin of the plane and make the huge yellow-gold bursts. Looked at with the arcade=1 arrows on you will
see -no- fragment arrows that the HE shells have and that's how to tell, just the one arrow of the shell hitting.

That much down I begin to wonder if any incendiaries flash inside the planes at all? Funny I haven't thought of that in
all these years! Oh well, my failure, sue me for negligence, LOL!

Romanator21
10-14-2009, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Romanator21; I'm excited for the future. Until then I will enjoy what we have. As Oleg would say, "Show me one batter" Smile



If I have offeneded you, I am sorry.
If someone percieves me as worthy of their flaming then it doesn't say much about them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who was offended? I don't understand what you are wanting to say. I don't see how what I said is flaming anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
quote:
Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
If you know anything about bombs then you should know that firing a few rounds at them is not going to set them off!



If you know anything about human body then you should know what firing a few rounds at them is going to do!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, besides the people, you also seemed surprised that no bombs exploded.

DT has said they would address the gunners.

RSS-Martin
10-15-2009, 05:00 AM
One thing that would be neat, is when you look at those gun camera footages, you see the area where the undercarrage und wheel is under sometimes very heavy fire. I wonder how landings where? As I can hardly imagine that those tires where still inflated after being shot at? Thinking of incedents of modern jets landing with flattires is usually rather bumpy, I could imagine a bomber that is shot up like that would also have a rather bumpy landing due to ruined tires?

M_Gunz
10-15-2009, 06:34 AM
Didn't landing accidents get accounted as non-combat losses? Or perhaps if the gear was all shot up they didn't?
Might be nice to know....

MatoKKK
10-15-2009, 06:52 AM
Ok, thank you for your dicussion guys. Daidalos Team is committed to continue supporting 4.09 after its release.

SM.79 update: Right now we are going to test a new minor tweak in SM.79 damage model. It should make the crew and some critical parts less immunune to low caliber guns. HOWEVER, if this fix is approved, do not expect a major OVERHAUL in the DM. You will not cause a severe structural damage to SM.79 with those weak .303s especially from dead 6 position. Yes, you may have a bigger chance to kill the crew or damage some mechanical parts or fuel tanks, but that's about it. Light machine guns were not effective anti-bomber weapons.

And yes, SM.79 had both self-sealing tanks + armored seats.

Plus we would like to take a closer look at DM of older (especially flyable) bombers in the future. No promises though.

Martin
Daidalos Team

gorillasika
10-15-2009, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MatoKKK:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the update and thanks for the great plane!

DKoor
10-15-2009, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MatoKKK:
Yes, you may have a bigger chance to kill the crew or damage some mechanical parts or fuel tanks, but that's about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think this is great news, and I think the story was about this all along anyway.

PS. thank you for your response and your game support in the first place. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG52Uther
10-15-2009, 09:10 AM
Thanks MatoKKK!

Kettenhunde
10-15-2009, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Light machine guns were not effective anti-bomber weapons.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why rifle caliber machineguns became obsolete by mid-1940..........

RSS-Martin
10-15-2009, 10:13 AM
I wouldnīt bet on that....the MG42 and the K98 rifle had the same caliber....unless you donīt count the mg42 as a machine gun?

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/blush2.gif

ElAurens
10-15-2009, 11:06 AM
RSS-Martin, Kettenhunde is talking about LMGs as used in aircraft.

As an infantry weapon the LMG is still a vital part of the inventory of any army.

And to throw some fuel on the fire, the K98 Mauser was as obsolete as any other bolt action rifle used in WW2. The M1 Garand was the future, and made bolt guns history, even though they continued in use for a further 5 to ten years in some cases.

Razor1uk-LMC01
10-15-2009, 11:30 AM
Romanator21, I wasn't meaning to imply the though, that you would flame me, I simply included one of your comments as a positive & a compliment.
I have a personal habit where I tend to include quotes either at the top, or the the bottom of my posts. Where I have ranted a bit about a topic I am interested in, I will include a general issue a notice of apology & anti 'flamer baiting' at the end of my post.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Sorry for the crossed wires.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">RRS-Martin; Posted Thu October 15 2009 09:13
I wouldnīt bet on that....the MG42 and the K98 rifle had the same caliber....unless you donīt count the mg42 as a machine gun? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they were the same caliber and cartridge design, and be used in either, infact the ball & ball tracer rounds were the same; to simply some of the logistics. Only specific Aircaft Only rounds differed in bullet/designs.and sometimes in powder compositions
Although the K98 could handle the some of the 'hotter' rounds that were either filled to the brim with propellant (or had more powerful powders); because the k98 had a strong enough bolt, reciever and chamber to handle them, it did so with increased barrel wear/burn-out.

Assuming ammunition supplies were available in sufficient amounts, this would allow any ground forces being attacked by low level ground attakers to use all sufficient weapons of LMG size and bigger in Light Anti Aircraft roles; unless they wished to remain concealed, or to repel enemy ground forces.
So MG34's, MG42's, FG42's, K98's etc and ground deployed versions MG15's & a rare few modified MG17's, would/could have been used to bolster moral and try to put as much 'lead/metal' in the air as possible for moral and the hope of dissuading attackers, let alone hoping they could damage and 'down' one.

But LMG's under 12.7mm were largely found to be efficiently ineffective in Airel Mountings against Bombers or other reasonable armoured A/C certainly at usual ranges; meaning many many more rounds would on average be needed to force a damaged or a kill. Rifle calibers used by gunners were only efficient when enough A/C were only reasonable effective in tigher formations, and even then, it was more effecive as a moral booster/keeper than in damaged or kill claims verses such equipped A/C destroyed.

Why do you think US Bombers had .50's/12.7mm's for more damage and moral effect; ignoring the fact that the Brownings were available in vast numbers. If the 8th AF had used only 7.62's, or .303's for defencve positions, I think they wouldn't have lasted as long for the P51B to become operational and help save them later in the war.

But I am afraid I am getting off-topic.

BillSwagger
10-15