PDA

View Full Version : HMG - WARNING: a lot of pics (linked to ".50 cals a bit underwhelming?" thread)



DKoor
09-19-2009, 09:36 AM
I made a few tests of combat .50cal capability and I had very hard time restricting myself to post this... as you can see I failed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

So here it is...

Here I jumped flight of four.
Selected FW no.4 in formation and started with my tune;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_00.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_01.jpg


...after several hits, Ai had RTB in mind;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_02.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_04.jpg


...I kept trigger pressed nevertheless;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_05.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_06.jpg


...still shooting...
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_07.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_08.jpg


...then I disengaged from him and turned my attention to his comrades which by the time were quite angry with my presence;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_12.jpg


...after my initial dive pass was unsuccessful, I tried another one;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_13.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_14.jpg


...kept hitting that FW hard from point blank range;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_18.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_19.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_23.jpg


...ok. are my guns working?
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_24.jpg


...yep they are happily singing the tune...
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_26.jpg


...so what is going on wrong? It ain't gunnery;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_28.jpg


...it ain't my convergence;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_29.jpg


...it ain't large distance;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_31.jpg


...heck I better get out of there before his comrades turn their attention to me again;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_32.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_33.jpg


...he eventually crashed. But believe me when I tell you that it was a true, unadulterated miracle that this aircraft was still in one piece after all this shooting. And pilot alive too.

If you are interested you can find the track (TRK+NTRK) here:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/6dce...b/dkoor51c_4a6_409b1 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/6dceb65e-884d-41f9-8a91-62de52778c8b/dkoor51c_4a6_409b1)

The funny part of the story is: this isn't exception http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif it happens lot in game.
And is not a .50cal whine either... it just is what it is.
I'm just sorry that I can't count how many hits that FW received http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif.

DKoor
09-19-2009, 09:36 AM
I made a few tests of combat .50cal capability and I had very hard time restricting myself to post this... as you can see I failed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

So here it is...

Here I jumped flight of four.
Selected FW no.4 in formation and started with my tune;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_00.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_01.jpg


...after several hits, Ai had RTB in mind;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_02.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_04.jpg


...I kept trigger pressed nevertheless;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_05.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_06.jpg


...still shooting...
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_07.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_08.jpg


...then I disengaged from him and turned my attention to his comrades which by the time were quite angry with my presence;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_12.jpg


...after my initial dive pass was unsuccessful, I tried another one;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_13.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_14.jpg


...kept hitting that FW hard from point blank range;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_18.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_19.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_23.jpg


...ok. are my guns working?
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_24.jpg


...yep they are happily singing the tune...
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_26.jpg


...so what is going on wrong? It ain't gunnery;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_28.jpg


...it ain't my convergence;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_29.jpg


...it ain't large distance;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_31.jpg


...heck I better get out of there before his comrades turn their attention to me again;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_32.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/fw_vs_50cal_33.jpg


...he eventually crashed. But believe me when I tell you that it was a true, unadulterated miracle that this aircraft was still in one piece after all this shooting. And pilot alive too.

If you are interested you can find the track (TRK+NTRK) here:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/6dce...b/dkoor51c_4a6_409b1 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/6dceb65e-884d-41f9-8a91-62de52778c8b/dkoor51c_4a6_409b1)

The funny part of the story is: this isn't exception http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif it happens lot in game.
And is not a .50cal whine either... it just is what it is.
I'm just sorry that I can't count how many hits that FW received http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif.

general_kalle
09-19-2009, 09:44 AM
its not a paper zero, its an armor plated FW190. it should be able to take some rounds.

however i'd say that a little more dammage would probably be about right.

Warrington_Wolf
09-19-2009, 09:56 AM
You will have difficulty downing anything with only 4 .50s especially a tough aircraft like that, if you did the fight with the F4F-3 you will get the same result (if the FW-190s don't tear you a new one first). Try setting up the same scenario again but fly either the P-40 (six .50s), P-47 (eight .50s) or the P-51D (six .50s), the P-47 would be my personal choice because I've blown wings off and set engines alight with it.

crucislancer
09-19-2009, 09:58 AM
I think part of the problem is that hit location is very important. Judging from your screen shots, it looks like most of the hits on that second FW went into the wings and behind the cockpit, with a few hits in the engine. Sure, you are hitting him, just not in an area that's doing critical damage at the time, though you might have shot out a control cable. I've had the problem even going against Japanese planes, getting right behind them and putting all that firepower into a location that doesn't have anything in it.

Erkki_M
09-19-2009, 10:00 AM
You only see the exterior damage on him. You do not know if he has cut control cables, if hes wounded, if his engine is losing power(despite no smoke), etc. etc. Also, knowing the FW I can tell you that with holes like the ones your AI opponents had a human player will have hard time just staying in the air, with top speed most probably reduced by at least roughly 100kmph.

On my experiences it usually takes max a 2 se burst from dead six with P51 to dewing or lit an FW190, with(online) an average of some 35hits/kill. With 20% accuracy you can deliver the lethal amount of lead in 2sec if you sit in a P-51D.

robtek1957
09-19-2009, 02:43 PM
when i view those pictures i see that if your convergence is more than 100m most shots will miss. It looks as if you where about 50 to 70 m behind that fw and if your convegergence is the usual 180 m to 200 m and your wings are not even with the fw wings you miss with the most of your shots.

DKoor
09-19-2009, 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 general_kalle:
its not a paper zero, its an armor plated FW190. it should be able to take some rounds.

however i'd say that a little more dammage would probably be about right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You are right... however in real world judging from many books I've read this aircraft would probably just spin down out of control (because I think I've ripped all aluminium from wing roots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif), or maybe even the pilot would bail out. In game Ai is in control so I guess that is the key behind the good straight flying after all the shooting (honestly I don't think that is possible with human manned aircraft in that condition). After few minutes it just lawn darted.

DKoor
09-19-2009, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
You only see the exterior damage on him. You do not know if he has cut control cables, if hes wounded, if his engine is losing power(despite no smoke), etc. etc. Also, knowing the FW I can tell you that with holes like the ones your AI opponents had a human player will have hard time just staying in the air, with top speed most probably reduced by at least roughly 100kmph.

On my experiences it usually takes max a 2 se burst from dead six with P51 to dewing or lit an FW190, with(online) an average of some 35hits/kill. With 20% accuracy you can deliver the lethal amount of lead in 2sec if you sit in a P-51D. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, just like I said I fail to see how that aircraft can stay airborne let alone flying straight, the only modus for that is that Ai is flying this thing.

Online or IRL I would put my money on spin out of control http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif.

PS. I think you'll agree with me that if someone have consistent gun hitrate above 10% he is outstanding shot, above 20% he is Godlike - no one deserves to meet that guy in the air http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . In online reality anything above 5% is a fair shot.

DKoor
09-19-2009, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robtek1957:
when i view those pictures i see that if your convergence is more than 100m most shots will miss. It looks as if you where about 50 to 70 m behind that fw and if your convegergence is the usual 180 m to 200 m and your wings are not even with the fw wings you miss with the most of your shots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank God for arcade mode so you can see where I hit himhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

My convergence was 120m, and it seemed to me (at least) that I spent most times shooting out of my convergence range http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.

DuckyFluff
09-19-2009, 03:38 PM
Whats your problem?? you have critically damaged those 190s they are out of the fight and will most likely crash before getting to base.

Your initial attack severly damaged the first 190, so much so he was RTB that would equate to a human pilot barely being able to keep it in the air.

Trust me a human pilot is going to be running for home on your first hits alone, just because they dont explode or appear to be ok doesn't mean they are not critically damaged.

The trouble is the visual representation of .50 hits, because you dont get a big flash and puffs of smoke you think you aren't damaging him. Believe me you are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
09-19-2009, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
Whats your problem?? you have critically damaged those 190s they are out of the fight and will most likely crash before getting to base.
Trust me a human pilot is going to be running for home on your first hits alone, just because they dont explode or appear to be ok doesn't mean they are not critically damaged.

The trouble is the visual representation of .50 hits, because you dont get a big flash and puffs of smoke you think you aren't damaging him. Believe me you are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No... I have no prob, I was just expressing my amazement that that thing is actually flyable on any terms http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.
I think I wasn't clear enough, what I meant is that I expected that crate to go down without any meaningful control. Structure damage was severe (yes I agree with other posters when they said that we shouldn't rely on visual damage model).

But I guess IL-2 is like that, if you aren't dewinged, PK-ed you will have control of your aircraft... I've landed aircraft without elevator control indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Fact that Ai is flying that thing doesn't help either, it only pronounces... "problem". I think Ai can fly straight and level all the way until you dewing them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

DuckyFluff
09-19-2009, 04:04 PM
Yes...some of the DMs for AI are weird....try shooting down a Gladiator in an Emil.... but back to subject, you have to have faith and confidence if you see you shots hitting you can pretty much skip wasting any more ammo and move on to the next guy.
Obviously keep an eye out in case the first one decides to re-enter the fight, but you can be pretty confident he wont be flying well and can be dealt with at leisure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
09-19-2009, 04:40 PM
All targets from the supposedly invincible (due to armor) rear are FW-190D9's.

Choppin' (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2537671134226307336&ei=AV21SqLhDIHKqgPfiLGGAg&q=choppin%27+il-2&hl=en#)

JtD
09-19-2009, 04:42 PM
Well, so I hopped into a P-51C and took on two AI-Veterans in their 190A-6. Got a good advantage on them and as they climbed up, came down to shoot at number two. I gave it a two second burst and I managed to land about 20 hits, damaging the left wing beyond flyable, causing the bad fuel leak (tm) and topped it off with killing the pilot. Being happy with having killed that one three times in a single pass, I swoop up and check for number one. He's doing some AI silly stuff so I settle on his 6 and as the opportunity comes, I let it rip for about a second. Ten projectiles strike, and he bursts into flames. I call it a day and break off.

All the way home I swear at the ineffective .50. I mean, three seconds of fire from four guns for just two kills? Where's the relation!

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/51.jpg
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/52.jpg

Erkki_M
09-19-2009, 05:00 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 DuckyFluff:
Whats your problem?? you have critically damaged those 190s they are out of the fight and will most likely crash before getting to base.
Trust me a human pilot is going to be running for home on your first hits alone, just because they dont explode or appear to be ok doesn't mean they are not critically damaged.

The trouble is the visual representation of .50 hits, because you dont get a big flash and puffs of smoke you think you aren't damaging him. Believe me you are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No... I have no prob, I was just expressing my amazement that that thing is actually flyable on any terms http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.
I think I wasn't clear enough, what I meant is that I expected that crate to go down without any meaningful control. Structure damage was severe (yes I agree with other posters when they said that we shouldn't rely on visual damage model).

But I guess IL-2 is like that, if you aren't dewinged, PK-ed you will have control of your aircraft... I've landed aircraft without elevator control indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Fact that Ai is flying that thing doesn't help either, it only pronounces... "problem". I think Ai can fly straight and level all the way until you dewing them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats because in real life no one in his sane mind stays in a badly hit plane, if he can bail out. In real life there were only few pilots who were hit repeatedly and knew how damage could effect his aircraft(Krupinski?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif). What did you do at the first times of getting hit in a flight sim? I bet ejected/bailed, or died a few seconds later after losing control of your machine.

stalkervision
09-19-2009, 05:18 PM
I believe your convergence setting are off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Gumtree
09-19-2009, 05:51 PM
I feel that the issue is that not that the damage model is off, but the fact that the game is old and now really showing its age.

Newer games with superior graphics and modeling are about and spoil us for want of a better word.

Whilst we wait patiently for Oleg and his team to place the final stroke of magic on that blade of grass or make the roof tiles on that barn just right to reflect that glint of Sun light we have to either enjoy this sim or move on.

I recently bounced a FW-190 A3 in an online battle and struck his left wing / wing root and engine with multiple .303 and 20 mm fire only to watch him dive away at 800+ kph with out a thought for his left wing that had suffered 9 detonating strikes by the 20mm in the bounce.

I cussed and cursed Oleg and his team for the rubbish damage modeling and swore that I would not play this again.

Well that thought lasted for approximately 5 minutes as on the return home my wingman and I were involved in a 15 minute duel with 3 109's that had us on the edge of our seats.

We replayed the fight over and over afterwards it was such an intense blast.

I suppose what I am saying is that yes the guns may not do the damage we expect by today's high standards of graphics but hell. This is still my favorite game.

P.S. The jibes at Oleg and his team are made in frustration at waiting for so long! I fully understand the mountain of work that needs to be done before BOB comes about.

TS_Sancho
09-19-2009, 07:12 PM
Is the damage model of the FW190 A3 Maddox and co.?

I believe the FW190 A3 is the product of the second stringers is it not?

tragentsmith
09-19-2009, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Is the damage model of the FW190 A3 Maddox and co.?

I believe the FW190 A3 is the product of the second stringers is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, Oleg's FM are also goofy...

Once, online, I wanted to have fun and chased a P47 with MGs only (flying a 110G2, that's 4x7.92 mm...) He was already shot by some of my 20mms and couldn't manoeuvre much.

I opened fire and litterally emptied my MG magazines on him. Scored over 800 rounds on him (using the &lt;gunstats command to see how many rounds I scored) and the 47 flew as if nothing happened to him.

After 3-4 minutes of MG, I finally switched to cannons and had to score additionnal 25x20mm rounds to finally down it...

M_Gunz
09-19-2009, 09:29 PM
So IL2 is so bad then why not play one of the many sims that does what you expect in a closer to perfect way?
Or is it just in your dreams that everything is right?

DKoor
09-20-2009, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
All targets from the supposedly invincible (due to armor) rear are FW-190D9's.

Choppin' (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2537671134226307336&ei=AV21SqLhDIHKqgPfiLGGAg&q=choppin%27+il-2&hl=en#) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry but this screams no "Realistic Gunnery" settings all over... with all due respect.

Make a flight of 8 friendly FW-190D9's in QMB and shoot them with P-40E close convergence.
Then try with some other planes. But with realistic gunnery.

Bearcat99
09-20-2009, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
All targets from the supposedly invincible (due to armor) rear are FW-190D9's.

Choppin' (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2537671134226307336&ei=AV21SqLhDIHKqgPfiLGGAg&q=choppin%27+il-2&hl=en#) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is priceless.. stock sim too...

JtD
09-23-2009, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:

Sorry but this screams no "Realistic Gunnery" settings all over... with all due respect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just tried it out, it is very easy to set a B-17 on fire with 4x.50 as seen in the video. Fw work the way shown as well. So I don't see a reason for realistic gunnery to be not on.

CUJO_1970
09-23-2009, 07:47 AM
But...then we might not be able to start more .50 cal threads http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

We need to keep at least two running side by side at all times.

DKoor
09-23-2009, 08:43 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:

Sorry but this screams no "Realistic Gunnery" settings all over... with all due respect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just tried it out, it is very easy to set a B-17 on fire with 4x.50 as seen in the video. Fw work the way shown as well. So I don't see a reason for realistic gunnery to be not on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Attacking from dead 6 from 200m and you think that 1,5sec burst will kill your average FW target?
Another clip and he flamed it after less that one second burst, same distance.
3rd clip he dewings FW after 2-3 sec burst (of which most bullets missed). "Look at those chips fly?" Yeah, right.

What happened to you on your test then? Why did you put more than 20 bullets in one area of FW wing from favourable position (vertical attack) and not dewing it? They were give it or take it converged hits too.
Heck you should explode it then to match the clip effectiveness http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.

What happened to me in my test? I hit that FW more than 50 times, didn't dewing it, nor set it on fire, nor pk it... ok it usually tooks half of that beating to destroy FW (structure failure/fire/pk/controls) but here I stuck on this one... also practically all dead 6 hits from very close range.
Just like you I set FW on fire with one lucky hit from dead 6, can happen every time, but doesn't have to even after 50 hits.

Anyhow good luck to everyone repeating clip effectiveness in game vs non-******ed targets, i.e. Ai aces which aren't nowhere near effectiveness of more experienced online "targets" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . Would like to see clip author converging his hits on them during dogfights http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

BillSwagger
09-23-2009, 09:58 AM
If that video is on realistic gunnery, then its some fancy cherry pickin', although head on into a bomber is easy to light up an engine.
I'm sure i could spend a half hour and put some clips together to show that shooting the FW is like shooting a solid chunk of iron, even though they are vulnerable if you hit them right.

My results are usually effected by angle of deflection, convergence, and human piloting. To sit here and argue over offline displays has many oversights.
I know that when i use to play online, i'd end up chasing FWs all over the map until i was out of ammo or they finally crashed, or i get bounced by their entire team (cause i'm that good... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif)

One thing i learned was if you are aiming for the tail, then you really have to hit it many more times before it finally goes down. For a long time i was pulling my hair out because i would routinely spray an FW opponent from a BnZ position purposely aiming at the tail because my thinking was that planes tend to not fly well when the elevators are beaten up. This is not as effective in IL2 unless you have cannons, especially against the FW. i've had much better luck aiming for the nose. I usually can sweep the engine or find a pilot kill which seem to be the easiest way to get that plane down. Hits in the wings and tail have little effect in slowing its maneuverability (unless its AI), and really won't lead to a kill with out expending much more ammo into those areas. In a dog fight, however, your goal is to land shots where ever you can, so i would pay more attention to where my spotters are landing, which could also let me know how much real damage I'm doing. I know if i hit the wings, I'm merely grazing the FW, but a Zero goes up like a roman candle. So i've just learned to expect different results depending on where the plane is struck, and for that reason you really need to hit the Fw in the core to get the results that you might expect shooting at other planes.



Bill

JtD
09-23-2009, 10:27 AM
DKoor, I agree with Bill here. It is a selection of kills where the .50 worked very well. You can shoot off a wing of a Fw on occasion with very few hits, you can PK the pilot very easily from near 6 angles and you can set it on fire sometimes with just a few hits. I've done all that myself. You just can't expect it to work that way every time.

I'm just saying you can produce these situations with realistic gunnery on. Not that you always will.

TinyTim
09-23-2009, 11:40 AM
The fact that on rare occasions you can down a plane with just a few (or even single) .50 cal bullet(s) proves nothing. You can do it with stone and slingshot if you're lucky enough.

The fact however that there are (not so) rare occasions when you pump 50+ or even 100+ .50 cal bullets into a single engined plane (many times renown for its vulnerability) and they carry on flying or even fighting like nothing happened does prove something is wrong.

My personal record is a Ki-61 that I discharged entire Hellcats ammosupply into (online), that's 1880 bullets. With a hit ratio of 12%, I scored 217 .50 cal hits on him. Here is the result:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Ki-61.jpg

As you can see, no smoke, no leaks. He fought on and then landed succsessfuly. Unfortunately I don't have the track.

Things like this shouldn't happen, while setting an engine on fire with a single hit should and thus proves nothing.

In the days before I finally gave up on the .50 cals I ran extensive tests, firing .50 cals (and other ammo) into fuel tanks accurately. First picture portrays .50cals HMG, second one ShKAS light MG.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Heavy.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Light.jpg

JtD
09-23-2009, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact that on rare occasions you can down a plane with just a few (or even single) .50 cal bullet(s) proves nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, it proves that on occasion you can shoot down a plane with just a few shots. This is an as valid argument as bringing up occasions where the .50 cal fails to kill a plane with a lot of hits.

WRT to your 217 .50 cal hits, I've put 6 MK 108 rounds into a Spitfire and it still flew. So what. My current online average is 3 MK 108 hits for a fighter and 22 .50 for a fighter. Now if anything is wrong here, it isn't the .50.

Manu-6S
09-23-2009, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
My current online average is 3 MK 108 hits for a fighter and 22 .50 for a fighter. Now if anything is wrong here, it isn't the .50. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

/thread

The game is old... we must have faith in SoW... on in the modder community.

Xiolablu3
09-23-2009, 02:40 PM
I also have trouble downing stuff with the 50's. I much prefer the cannons.

Maybe its our convergeance Dkoor? You do look extremely close in your pics. Almost too close. Maybe try convergeance at 100m and shooting from 100m ? see how it goes?

I dont have my joystick rigged up right now otherwise I would test it to see if its where I am going wrong?&gt; I have no problems with cannon, but troubles downing stuff with 4x.50's.

Not bad with 8x.50's of the P47 vs the Japanese, but still not great vs German planes..

WTE_Galway
09-23-2009, 04:45 PM
Without getting to technical ... talking about average hits to kill without also knowing the variance is fairly pointless. The numbers look good but are meaningless.

Lets assume an average of 50 hits of ammo xxx are needed for a kill ... here are two scenarios:

a) Quite often you get a kill in 5 or 10 hits but otherwise it usually takes about 200 ... it averages at 50.

b) You always need to pump at least 40-45 shots into an aircraft to get a kill but by 60 its definitely down, the average is 50.

same average ... totally different picture.


My suspicion (no evidence) is HMG has a much bigger variance in shots need.

DKoor
09-23-2009, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I also have trouble downing stuff with the 50's. I much prefer the cannons.

Maybe its our convergeance Dkoor? You do look extremely close in your pics. Almost too close. Maybe try convergeance at 100m and shooting from 100m ? see how it goes?

I dont have my joystick rigged up right now otherwise I would test it to see if its where I am going wrong?&gt; I have no problems with cannon, but troubles downing stuff with 4x.50's.

Not bad with 8x.50's of the P47 vs the Japanese, but still not great vs German planes.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Mate I had to be close, my preferred convergence for .50cal is 120m, so it was on that pics/track http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . From my opinion/experience, convergences between 100-200 works best with .50cals. 120m is really good. I would probably be worse with greater convergence.
I did bulk on that shooting from even closer ranges, but as you can see from the points where arrows show hits were fairly converging, not great but I'd still say fairly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif .
Note also that FW was full of arrows twice, that fact may slip thru... first I fill it going directly vertical with horizontal finish, then all arrows were cleared from that FW number 4 while I dealt with his buddies, after that I turned my attention to him again. And again filled it with lead, it wasn't so hard since he was already damaged from first pass so I quickly caught up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

I don't whine about heavy machine guns I just point out how fishy it often gets when one uses machine guns.

And I agree with you 100% when you say cannons.
This just isn't worth the fuss.
That is why I always rated Tempest as the most deadly allied late war conventional fighter in this game. There simply isn't room for messing around with that killing machine, one burst and good night salute to E/A.

Maybe Team Daidalos will include some other planes on allied side that also feature quad 20mm combo... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif I know that the P-61 wont be in (imagine the Bf-110G night fighter + P-61 with fully working radar combo in one patch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif).

TinyTim
09-23-2009, 05:21 PM
<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">The fact that on rare occasions you can down a plane with just a few (or even single) .50 cal bullet(s) proves nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, it proves that on occasion you can shoot down a plane with just a few shots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are right, I stand corrected. However, nobody is trying to prove that .50 cals occasionally do work as they should. We all know that. We are trying to prove that occasionally they don't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
This is an as valid argument as bringing up occasions where the .50 cal fails to kill a plane with a lot of hits.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I respectfully disagree. Since I can't find a way to express myself in English, let me give you an analoguous example:

Let's have a malfunctioning rifle (when you press the trigger there is a 20% chance the rifle will fail). Someone picks up a rifle, presses a trigger, rifle fires, and he shouts:"See? It works just fine!"

If you want to prove the rifle doesn't "work just fine", you have to get a malfunctioning shot. It's easy to see the analogy between the working rifle and small amount of .50cal hits, and failing rifle and large amount of .50cal hits.

While setting a plane on fire with 1 or 2 bullets still doesn't prove weapon always works as it should, not being able to shoot one down with 217 hits proves this beyond any doubt.

DKoor
09-23-2009, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
The fact that on rare occasions you can down a plane with just a few (or even single) .50 cal bullet(s) proves nothing. You can do it with stone and slingshot if you're lucky enough.

The fact however that there are (not so) rare occasions when you pump 50+ or even 100+ .50 cal bullets into a single engined plane (many times renown for its vulnerability) and they carry on flying or even fighting like nothing happened does prove something is wrong.

My personal record is a Ki-61 that I discharged entire Hellcats ammosupply into (online), that's 1880 bullets. With a hit ratio of 12%, I scored 217 .50 cal hits on him. Here is the result:

http://img.photobucket.com/alb...egeeaddict/Ki-61.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Ki-61.jpg)

As you can see, no smoke, no leaks. He fought on and then landed succsessfuly. Unfortunately I don't have the track.

Things like this shouldn't happen, while setting an engine on fire with a single hit should and thus proves nothing.

In the days before I finally gave up on the .50 cals I ran extensive tests, firing .50 cals (and other ammo) into fuel tanks accurately. First picture portrays .50cals HMG, second one ShKAS light MG.

http://img.photobucket.com/alb...egeeaddict/Heavy.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Heavy.jpg)

http://img.photobucket.com/alb...egeeaddict/Light.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Light.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mate those pics are downright outrageous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
I mean I really never imagined that it is possible that aircraft (fighter!) flies after over 200 HMG hits (I suspect that B-25 didn't received much less than that either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif ). Amazing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif.

julian265
09-23-2009, 05:45 PM
I did the same test a while ago with a P38 (firing .50s only) and 190D9s. Most often, I could almost not see the plane for the arrows, and they'd still be flying.

However, most importantly, to mean anything this test needs to be done repeatedly, from the same angles, and with the 190s set as friendly to remove the variable of their maneuvers.

VW-IceFire
09-23-2009, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Is the damage model of the FW190 A3 Maddox and co.?

I believe the FW190 A3 is the product of the second stringers is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, Oleg's FM are also goofy...

Once, online, I wanted to have fun and chased a P47 with MGs only (flying a 110G2, that's 4x7.92 mm...) He was already shot by some of my 20mms and couldn't manoeuvre much.

I opened fire and litterally emptied my MG magazines on him. Scored over 800 rounds on him (using the &lt;gunstats command to see how many rounds I scored) and the 47 flew as if nothing happened to him.

After 3-4 minutes of MG, I finally switched to cannons and had to score additionnal 25x20mm rounds to finally down it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a story where a FW190 ace engaged a damaged P-47 ...the FW190 had only the light machine guns in the nose remaining. He emptied the entire load into the back of the P-47. The P-47 pilot lived to tell the tail. I'm sure someone can pipe up with the details. That P-47 sustained over 100 machine gun hits and several cannon hits.

Truth is often stranger than fiction...in this case its definitely not unusual for a Thunderbolt to absorb large amounts of light machine gun fire. Especially considering the construction of the aircraft and the location of the turbosupercharger gear which acts like a second armour plate.

Waldo.Pepper
09-23-2009, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Sorry but this screams no "Realistic Gunnery" settings all over... with all due respect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So basically you just called me a liar. If I was the type who held grudges I may remember that,

Full real.
Stock game.
No cherry picking.
No BS.

Note the 3rd D9 is merely a PK (it would seem as there is no visible damage.) If I had cherry picked - don't you think I would have picked something more spectacular for f sakes?

Try it. If it doesn't work for you I can't help you. But I have always found the 50's effective enough.

BillSwagger
09-23-2009, 10:25 PM
Actually, if thats the same story of Johnson, afterward he began counting the holes in the plane. After he counted over two hundred holes on one side of the aircraft, he stopped counting. His plane also absorbed many cannon shells which had injured his left arm while damaging the throttle quadrant.

There are many similar tails to this one, particularly stories of absorbing several direct hits from flak.
There is a story of friendly fire, where a P-47 pilot was breaking in a new plane. He was mistaken for enemy aircraft so the allied AA guns were shooting the new proximity fused flak. He reported more holes in his plane from that accident than anything he ever encountered flying over the enemy.
I've also found a couple reports where the planes flew through their own bomb blasts and were still able to fly, though heavily damaged.
There's even an encounter report from Gabreski where he describes flying through the wreckage of a Bf110 as he shot it down. Later he realized he had collided damaging the wing and scuffing the top side of the plane.

It was a remarkably tough plane, but in many situations it was also shot down. There are many stories of survival which show the ruggedness of the plane, but there is a great documentary out there that also describes the violent ways some of these pilots died. A lot of times living and dying in the plane was a matter of millimeters. When flak shells sent shrapnel through the plane, it was really a matter of luck whether the pilot was killed or if any significant vitals were hit.

WTE_Galway
09-23-2009, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Actually, if thats the same story of Johnson, afterward he began counting the holes in the plane. After he counted over two hundred holes on one side of the aircraft, he stopped counting. His plane also absorbed many cannon shells which had injured his left arm while damaging the throttle quadrant.

There are many similar tails to this one, particularly stories of absorbing several direct hits from flak.
There is a story of friendly fire, where a P-47 pilot was breaking in a new plane. He was mistaken for enemy aircraft so the allied AA guns were shooting the new proximity fused flak. He reported more holes in his plane from that accident than anything he ever encountered flying over the enemy.
I've also found a couple reports where the planes flew through their own bomb blasts and were still able to fly, though heavily damaged.
There's even an encounter report from Gabreski where he describes flying through the wreckage of a Bf110 as he shot it down. Later he realized he had collided damaging the wing and scuffing the top side of the plane.

It was a remarkably tough plane, but in many situations it was also shot down. There are many stories of survival which show the ruggedness of the plane, but there is a great documentary out there that also describes the violent ways some of these pilots died. A lot of times living and dying in the plane was a matter of millimeters. When flak shells sent shrapnel through the plane, it was really a matter of luck whether the pilot was killed or if any significant vitals were hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Planes in real life taking massive damage and getting home seems to have happened a bit.

I have a photo at home of the famous Dornier 17 that made it safely across the channel and back to France during the BoB with over 200 bullet holes in it. Might scan it one day.

Admittedly they would have been .303 hits from mkI spits and hurri's but still 200 hits is 200 hits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
09-23-2009, 10:47 PM
I suggest recording 160 kills against each target of interest.

Infinite ammunition, and 4 flights of 4 in QMB should make this reasonably quick.

A track showing 16 kills in a row should avoid accusations of cherry picking.

The combination of 10 of these tracks should provide enough kills to be statistically significant.

Personally I think that it's reasonable to use unarmed enemy aircraft for the simple reason that the majority of kills are bounces, but you may disagree...

M_Gunz
09-23-2009, 11:20 PM
DM is about hits and damage, not gunnery and dodging.

julian265
09-24-2009, 01:21 AM
+1
Hence they should be friendlies.

If I get time tonight, I'll try to record a few tracks.

JtD
09-24-2009, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TT:
You are right, I stand corrected. However, nobody is trying to prove that .50 cals occasionally do work as they should. We all know that. We are trying to prove that occasionally they don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now where would be the point in that? Can you name one weapon that always works as it should? We all know that all weapons in game occasionally don't work as they should.

M_Gunz
09-24-2009, 02:25 AM
The *weapon* works as it should....

JtD
09-24-2009, 02:38 AM
Hehe, ok. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

julian265
09-24-2009, 04:25 AM
I did a few tests offline, with arcade mode on, against both friendly and enemy 190s, firing .50s from a P38, P40 and P51, usually from astern, or slightly off, at all sorts of ranges.

I had no trouble with the .50s at all, with the 190s usually loosing parts or burning, after receiving a good burst.

My online experiences, with accuracy between 5 and 15%, are different with *190s*, but I don't have any evidence to present, so I'll leave it at that.

TinyTim
09-24-2009, 04:39 AM
AndyJWest, could you please then explain these two (already posted in this thread)?


Setting fuel tanks on fire with MG-17 (Youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ikqYKsJNs)


Setting fuel tanks on fire with .50cals (Youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIeBZpXXI2A)

It can't be cherry pickin, it's 10 planes in a row, shooting fuel tanks specifically, trying not to hit anything else.

Manu-6S
09-24-2009, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by julian265:
I did a few tests offline, with arcade mode on, against both friendly and enemy 190s, firing .50s from a P38, P40 and P51, usually from astern, or slightly off, at all sorts of ranges.

I had no trouble with the .50s at all, with the 190s usually loosing parts or burning, after receiving a good burst.

My online experiences, with accuracy between 5 and 15%, are different with *190s*, but I don't have any evidence to present, so I'll leave it at that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that I'm the only one who gets his *** kicked by .50cal (P51) during the my squad's training dogfights.. me and my squadmates who are flying FW190, of course.

Pk, lost controls and "strange little holes who make my left wing heavy + create some sort of "generated" drag.

So IMO, sometimes they do more damage than they should, sometimes they do less damage then they should.

It's not a problem of the weapon, but a problem of the DM itself, at least against FW190s... if instead we look at ammunition real effects (russian ammo FTW!), this is another story.

julian265
09-24-2009, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
"strange little holes who make my left wing heavy + create some sort of "generated" drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know exactly what you mean there. It's as if the high roll rate of the 190 has been translated into higher torque from damaged wings, than with all other types.

What makes me opinionated here, is that I don't have trouble online with the .50s, except against 190s.

TinyTim, I do agree that they don't start enough fuel fires though. However IMO they're strong enough (IMO slighlty too strong) against the 109 and A6M, for example, that it doesn't usually matter to me.

JtD
09-24-2009, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:

Of course there is a big point in this, since we know exactly what job .50cals fail at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, if everybody knows, where is the point in trying to prove it?

Also, what do you expect from incendiary rounds? I tested it against the fuel tank of the Fw 190 and I need between 4 and 7 APIT/HE hits to ignite a fire. This is wrong by exactly how much?

Edit: This is the setup I used for the testing, a short track with 5 APIT hits into the fuel tank before a fire starts. (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/apit.trk)

Edit2: I also checked a couple of online tracks of me in the P-51D. From 10 passes at enemy fighters I manage to get a firing solution in about 7, which will result in about 4 kills. So it's 2.5 attacks per kill and 1.75 firing solutions per kill. I usually fire about 2 seconds and have an accuracy of about 10%. That makes about 30 hits per kill.
One out of ten will take a lot more punishment, but nine will go down with what I described above.

DKoor
09-24-2009, 05:42 AM
<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 DKoor:
Sorry but this screams no "Realistic Gunnery" settings all over... with all due respect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So basically you just called me a liar. If I was the type who held grudges I may remember that,

Full real.
Stock game.
No cherry picking.
No BS.

Note the 3rd D9 is merely a PK (it would seem as there is no visible damage.) If I had cherry picked - don't you think I would have picked something more spectacular for f sakes?

Try it. If it doesn't work for you I can't help you. But I have always found the 50's effective enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry it is cherry picking. A lot. You don't have a different game than me, nor your .50cals hits harder nor you aim better with your point convergence; you simply can't expect from two second bursts to consistently kill FW-190D's as shown on those tracks... so you better try it again. I tried a lot of times, countless times in fact in fact I have a few tracks on my track page that feature P-51 & P-47 in successful actions. Even my track I show here is fairly successful, as I downed four FW-190's with entire P-51C ammo load. It usually takes a bit less ammo, and there is a high probability that I could achieve that if I left alone that FW (Ai piloted, it would probably crash 'cos of wing damage during some turn while RTB). But I didn't, I pushed it.

But you turned in here acted aforethought posted some link and now you show me generosity in form that you wont hold grudges against me? And no, with no words I called you a liar nor that was my attention. At worst I just meant "I disagree" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Here I have track where I shot down four FW's every time I made a pass on them;
http://www.esnips.com/doc/0de7...48839/Power-of-50cal (http://www.esnips.com/doc/0de7e3f5-b790-44ad-bb5a-e9b6dc648839/Power-of-50cal)
...it is also realistic gunnery and so on.

But those are all exceptional shots (probably point converged) that aren't easy to make http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , nor to repeat (probably near impossible on experienced human target formation). Anyone who spend decent amount of time in .50cal equipped planes knows that... if you don't do point convergence or near that, you will have major problems downing FW's. And you can hit them a lot, it doesn't matter as my initial track shows, TinyTim's pics... etc.

I can beyond doubt produce you a few quick tracks/pics more that will show same thing, no fancy cherry picking in very short amount of time... I'm unsure of reaction because most people that turned up on this thread already have 100% formed opinion on matter. Maybe if I can show that my HMG hits turned FW into a pink elephant with white dots... maybe I could produce some reaction other than wise old "learn how to hit/fly".

DKoor
09-24-2009, 05:52 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:

Of course there is a big point in this, since we know exactly what job .50cals fail at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, if everybody knows, where is the point in trying to prove it?

Also, what do you expect from incendiary rounds? I tested it against the fuel tank of the Fw 190 and I need between 4 and 7 APIT/HE hits to ignite a fire. This is wrong by exactly how much?

Edit: This is the setup I used for the testing, a short track with 5 APIT hits into the fuel tank before a fire starts. (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/apit.trk)

Edit2: I also checked a couple of online tracks of me in the P-51D. From 10 passes at enemy fighters I manage to get a firing solution in about 7, which will result in about 4 kills. So it's 2.5 attacks per kill and 1.75 firing solutions per kill. I usually fire about 2 seconds and have an accuracy of about 10%. That makes about 30 hits per kill.
One out of ten will take a lot more punishment, but nine will go down with what I described above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Mate... don't you think that if you shot a fuel tank with incendiary round and it really gets thru and bursts on fuel that it should ignite? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My best guess (no irony) is that it should do it every time in game... only by some miracle (maybe full fuel tanks, without oxygen) of false round it shouldn't.

However, I still can't say much more about the issue I am amateur on matter I guess gun experts will know the most correct answer. But I said my opinion that 4-7 APIT's required are 3-6 too much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Also what is the point in showing that you are outstanding shot (as you almost certainly converge your hits on targets) in relation to guns and their effects on planes? You would probably down those targets with any weapon, 7,62mm included http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

In this thread we have focused on those ridiculous situations where you have airborne targets that are literally filled with arrows yet they don't go down (out of control or anything else) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif.

JtD
09-24-2009, 09:47 AM
DKoor, if you think that a single APIT round will always ignite a well protected self sealing fuel tank you are certainly expecting too much.

This, however, is the result of a SINGLE 0.50 APIT hit into the unprotected drop tank of an A6M2. I had no problem with reproducing this result.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/53.jpg

M_Gunz
09-24-2009, 11:12 AM
The Russians started venting cooled engine exhaust into their tanks before too far into the war, some others used CO2 in
theirs, but I don't have a list of what planes had such anti-incendiary measures. We were told early on that such things
are modeled as well as self-sealing tanks. How many fire resistant planes still flare up when hit by other than 50 cals?

R_Target
09-24-2009, 05:58 PM
F6F goes up roman candle style with a light sprinkling from Ki-43Ia.

http://i37.tinypic.com/2hdcosz.jpg

TinyTim
09-24-2009, 06:15 PM
Precisely, R_Target, since Ki-43_Ia uses light machineguns. Trying this with the 43_Ic which sports two heavy MGs I bet the wing will fall off before the fuel tank will catch fire in majority of cases. And the wing certainly does not fall off the F6F easily.

Gibbage1
09-24-2009, 06:34 PM
Wanna really see how poor the API properties of the 50's are?

QMB, 3 flights of 4 Betty Bombers. Down them all in a P-47 with unlimited ammo or whatever .50 cal armed aircraft you want.

Out of the 16, I was only able to light up 2 or 3 at most. Historically, the Betty bomber was notoriously flammable. Its entire wing is a fuel tank. There was no protected fuel tanks. Its simple. .50's cant light fires. There are rare instances were they can, but those are the exception, not the rule.

If you think its a problem with the Betty DM, fly something armed with .30 cal's and youll see some roman candles.

DKoor
09-24-2009, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Wanna really see how poor the API properties of the 50's are?

QMB, 3 flights of 4 Betty Bombers. Down them all in a P-47 with unlimited ammo or whatever .50 cal armed aircraft you want.

Out of the 16, I was only able to light up 2 or 3 at most. Historically, the Betty bomber was notoriously flammable. Its entire wing is a fuel tank. There was no protected fuel tanks. Its simple. .50's cant light fires. There are rare instances were they can, but those are the exception, not the rule.

If you think its a problem with the Betty DM, fly something armed with .30 cal's and youll see some roman candles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This precisely is true 100%.
Long time ago I've noticed tendency of LMG to ignite fires at greater rate than HMG's... Those Hurris light enemy bombers fairly quickly... I set three Ju-88's on fire with Chaika the other day too, they were doomed.
That is 4 LMG's, and I had plenty of ammo left... I just aimed between fuselage and engine and concentrated fire there... I really don't think that is repeatable with P-51C for instance at any comparable rate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif.

However with HMG that is not the case at such rates, so structure failures are much more often and common since of heavier HMG punch.

But believe me for going vs bombers 7,62 are extremely effective, it would be really interesting to make a test between 7,62 and 12,7 effectiveness (vs friendly bombers so no return gunner fire).

Waldo.Pepper
09-24-2009, 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 DKoor:
Sorry it is cherry picking. A lot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is twice you have called me a liar.

You think/believe that it is cherry picking (I think) because you cannot replicate it often enough.

If you tried it, good for you. That is all my modest film suggests people who are having trouble do. My film does NOT say that the 50 are perfect. They are far from it. But they are not as bad as some claim.

However, if you use proper convergence - it helps. If you attack while traveling at high speed it helps. If you centre the ball - it helps.

Remember when I said the following...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
If it doesn't work for you I can't help you.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am here to tell you that I made the film honestly.If you choose not to believe me that's too bad for you, and I can't help you again.

Editted - to add a further comment.

JtD
09-25-2009, 12:35 AM
So the problem is that light machine guns light up fuel tanks far too easily.
Which means it is pointless to use them for reference as to what heavy machine guns should do.

Manu-6S
09-25-2009, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
So the problem is that light machine guns light up fuel tanks far too easily.
Which means it is pointless to use them for reference as to what heavy machine guns should do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they both are weird... :|

DKoor
09-25-2009, 07:40 AM
<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 DKoor:
Sorry it is cherry picking. A lot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is twice you have called me a liar.

You think/believe that it is cherry picking (I think) because you cannot replicate it often enough.

If you tried it, good for you. That is all my modest film suggests people who are having trouble do. My film does NOT say that the 50 are perfect. They are far from it. But they are not as bad as some claim.

However, if you use proper convergence - it helps. If you attack while traveling at high speed it helps. If you centre the ball - it helps.

Remember when I said the following...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
If it doesn't work for you I can't help you.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am here to tell you that I made the film honestly.If you choose not to believe me that's too bad for you, and I can't help you again.

Editted - to add a further comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You think being rude will help?

Because that is what you are especially on that video clip with the Gregory Peck inserted.
I show you FW that was being hit over 50 times, TinyTim posted a picture of Ki-61 riddled with hundreds of bullets same with B-25, Gibbage's already famous P-38's pic where he hits Betty with dozens of bullets in one wing etc. there are tons of examples. And the best you could came up here is one funny video?
Just one line of text and link in one nip post and that is it from Grand Master.

I salute you!

"If it doesn't work then I can't help you?"

There is no help required from you here, nor can you provide one - can you understand that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
09-25-2009, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
So the problem is that light machine guns light up fuel tanks far too easily.
Which means it is pointless to use them for reference as to what heavy machine guns should do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they both are weird... :| </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember when finding out about the ammo mixup for 151/20?

RegRag1977
09-25-2009, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
So the problem is that light machine guns light up fuel tanks far too easily.
Which means it is pointless to use them for reference as to what heavy machine guns should do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

JtD
09-25-2009, 09:00 AM
The FW 190 fuel tank that lit up after 5 APIT hits from the .50 can take the entire ammo load of a He-111H2 nose gun (150 rounds) without lighting up or 7 incendiary hits from a G4M nose gun.

M_Gunz
09-25-2009, 09:43 AM
If the aircraft viewer also had a gun you could choose and aim at any part.... possible to see in future patch?

TinyTim
09-25-2009, 10:25 AM
These testings have very little value without statistical approach, one time (cherry picked) events are close to meaningless. Does anyone know of a way to measure fired/hit statistics offline (similar to &lt;gunstat command on some online platforms)? Does such a mod exist anywhere?

DKoor
09-25-2009, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
These testings have very little value without statistical approach, one time (cherry picked) events are close to meaningless. Does anyone know of a way to measure fired/hit statistics offline (similar to &lt;gunstat command on some online platforms)? Does such a mod exist anywhere? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Only way I know is to select COOP mode (but of course while offline) and after shooting user types in console (bring console with SHIFT+TAB);

user TinyTim STAT

...case sensitive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Another way is to count arrows and that can be at times inaccurate.

BillSwagger
09-25-2009, 10:56 AM
I don't have statistical data, but i've spent countless hours just target practicing with the 50s.
I have my convergence set at 250-300m, cause for me, that seems to give me more consistency with deflection shots.

Another shot i practice is getting in close under 100m and firing so the bead from the wing goes down the middle of the fuselage. This means actually aiming to one side or the other to get the bead where its needed, but after awhile it becomes second nature.

I know many people get a lot more out of the 50s when they use a tighter convergence under 200m. For me i think it has less to do with convergence and the fact that you are closer to plane so more shots will land and hit harder. It is easier to aim, but one reason why i practice closer shots is so i can have a grasp on where i need to be shooting to get a quick kill.


I will say it again, i just think that when using the 50s you have to know where to hit the plane you are shooting at. The FW will absorb a lot of shots if its not in the core part of the plane.

Gibbage1
09-25-2009, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I will say it again, i just think that when using the 50s you have to know where to hit the plane you are shooting at. The FW will absorb a lot of shots if its not in the core part of the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then explain away this.

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

Like I said over and over and over, the Betty has a wing full of fuel thats completely unprotected. Yet its invulnerable to .50 cal. Also its not a problem with the Betty's DM since other guns CAN light it.

AndyJWest
09-25-2009, 01:10 PM
Guys, I don't want to take sides in this, but out of curiosity, I've just run a QMB P-38 vs friendly Betty scenario: this was first pass:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/Flamer.jpg
Looks like an engine hit, but it is certainly alight.

The Second Betty went down emitting black smoke, third I filled with holes and it ditched while spewing fuel. I didn't bother to save the track as is should be dead simple for anybody to reproduce (unless I was very lucky with the first pass - maybe I should try again?). I've run P-38 vs Betty several times before, and from what I remember, they caught fire often enough, though I'd be doing passes from their 3 or 9 o'clock, rather than a dead six (safer when they are shooting back).

One factor that could possibly be significant is fuel load - there were 50%. A full tank might be harder to ignite? This should be true in real life as it is the vapour that burns.

EDIT --------------

Doh! I am an eejit: I'd forgotten that the P-38 also has a 20mm cannon - the above proves nothing. Carry on as before...

JtD
09-25-2009, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
These testings have very little value without statistical approach, one time (cherry picked) events are close to meaningless. Does anyone know of a way to measure fired/hit statistics offline (similar to &lt;gunstat command on some online platforms)? Does such a mod exist anywhere? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't need a game counter to count to ONE ten times in a row. But you can do as DKoor said, I'Ve done that plenty of times.

TinyTim
09-25-2009, 01:43 PM
AndyJWest, could you please then explain these two (already posted in this thread)?


Setting fuel tanks on fire with MG-17 (Youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ikqYKsJNs)


Setting fuel tanks on fire with .50cals (Youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIeBZpXXI2A)

It can't be cherry pickin, it's 10 planes in a row, shooting fuel tanks specifically, trying not to hit anything else. Maybe JtD can help with counting the hits.

BigKahuna_GS
09-25-2009, 02:23 PM
Andy West--Doh! I am an eejit: I'd forgotten that the P-38 also has a 20mm cannon - the above proves nothing. Carry on as before...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Andy you can try the same test only using the .50cals in the P38.

AndyJWest
09-25-2009, 02:43 PM
TinyTim

As I added in an edit to my last post, I've made a basic error, as I forgot that the P-38 has a 20mm cannon too, so I didn't prove anything one way or another. Sorry about that - brain not fully engaged or something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

The videos certainly seem to suggest that .50 cals have less incendiary effect than the 7.92mm MGs on the Bf 109. As to which is more authentic, I couldn't say. This is a simulation after all, and an old one at that: we can't expect everything to be right - I'd rather have this than a lot of the more recent eye-candy about, anyway.

Edit

Kahuna: I'll do that - sometime soon - .50 cals only....

Xiolablu3
09-25-2009, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
AndyJWest, could you please then explain these two (already posted in this thread)?


Setting fuel tanks on fire with MG-17 (Youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ikqYKsJNs)


Setting fuel tanks on fire with .50cals (Youtube) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIeBZpXXI2A)

It can't be cherry pickin, it's 10 planes in a row, shooting fuel tanks specifically, trying not to hit anything else. Maybe JtD can help with counting the hits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TT your framerate looks really low.

What are your PC specs? I may have some kit you can have which could boost your framerate?

ALso where do youy live?

M_Gunz
09-25-2009, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Doh! I am an eejit: I'd forgotten that the P-38 also has a 20mm cannon - the above proves nothing. Carry on as before... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can set it up so the trigger only fires the MG's.

M_Gunz
09-25-2009, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
These testings have very little value without statistical approach, one time (cherry picked) events are close to meaningless. Does anyone know of a way to measure fired/hit statistics offline (similar to &lt;gunstat command on some online platforms)? Does such a mod exist anywhere? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Run MP as on a one PC LAN. Offline-Online with no lag.

BillSwagger
09-25-2009, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I will say it again, i just think that when using the 50s you have to know where to hit the plane you are shooting at. The FW will absorb a lot of shots if its not in the core part of the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then explain away this.

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

Like I said over and over and over, the Betty has a wing full of fuel thats completely unprotected. Yet its invulnerable to .50 cal. Also its not a problem with the Betty's DM since other guns CAN light it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't disagree with you Gibbage, and I've seen plenty of demonstration that the 50 cals lack the incendiary punch that the 303s have, but i was able to lite up a Betty most of the time in P-47, and when it didn't catch fire it was because it lost a tail, or wing and went into a spin.
Igniting it was not all that difficult, with just a brief burst, though some were a bit more stuborn but they did ignite.

Now interestingly, i wanted to compare this with the effects of the 303s which are known for being better at starting fires. I used the Hurricane because it also uses eight guns and would be easy to compare.

I can't say whether it was easier or harder to ignite the Betty with either caliber. There were times i emptied all my rounds of 303s into the plane and it flew on with a bit of smoke or fuel leaks. Other times a short burst resulted in an immediate fire. Results with the 50 cal were very similar, but i never emptied all my rounds with out the plane going down.
Here are some screenies, of course using realistic guns, and a nilla version of the game.
I'm not trying to make the argument here, its just my observations.

P-47


http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/il2fb2009-09-2519-12-46-26.jpg

http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/il2fb2009-09-2519-14-19-50.jpg

http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/il2fb2009-09-2519-18-59-67.jpg

http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/il2fb2009-09-2519-22-09-00.jpg



Hurricane

http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/il2fb2009-09-2519-24-37-95.jpg

http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/il2fb2009-09-2519-28-39-68.jpg

http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/il2fb2009-09-2519-30-15-00.jpg



Obviously, i don't have the time or capacity to post every pass, but i will say that these are easily duplicated, but certainly doesn't occur every time. I do think it demonstrates a certain level of randomness, and in all fairness the Betty DM is not as flammable as you might think.


Bill

M_Gunz
09-26-2009, 01:34 AM
It's kind of pointing towards IL2 having a really weak RNG more than anything else.
For those who don't know, RNG is Random Number Generator and all kinds of programs have poor ones.

deepo_HP
09-26-2009, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
You think being rude will help?

Because that is what you are especially on that video clip with the Gregory Peck inserted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i can't see, where waldo.pepper is rude, not in that post you replied to...
i am not sure, what ol' greg said in the video, but i found it quite a smart way of cheering the discussion up a bit. rude? well...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Gibbage's already famous P-38's pic where he hits Betty with dozens of bullets in one wing etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>just by numbers of evidence, waldo.pepper has provided more than you and gibbage together.
if you consider waldo.pepper's show-off as cherry picking, i don't know, what your opener is then?
it also could be argued, that some of your screens perhaps represent the same hits (like some of the opening sequence, 12/13, 16-18) to make more of an argument? linking to other (single) evidences, i then would like to know, what the betty in the 'famous' pic did after the screen was taken - maybe catching fire? not that i say, it did, but to point out, that i don't see more than single occasions in a dramatic representation.

i find the .50s in game pretty convincing in taking down all kind of other planes. if there are some crafts which don't catch fire as easily as they should (like betty) i don't know... probably.
compared to other characteristics, which this game doesn't, or can't, simulate in all detail, i find the question of the .50's belting more than meaningless - this weapon doesn't seem to do less general damage than it is supposed to do. for anything to prove, it would need quite a lot more statistical analysis (also in comparison to other equivalent and non-equivalent weaponry) than presenting screenshots of single evidents.

Erkki_M
09-26-2009, 09:16 AM
MG131:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8293/il2fb2009092520335476.png

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

FW was known(among Luftwaffe pilots mostly, though) to be heavily armoured and had a strong structure. I think its mostly il2's limitation in the details of damage that single or couples of machine gun caliber hits rarely do any damage to it. OTOH once you damage it, it becomes a nightmare to fly and loses performance A LOT(especially compared to similarly damaged Spitfires).

EDIT:

I find the .50 to be rather effective against most other aircraft, including bombers, and of German aircraft the 109 being especially vulnerable. And the Jap planes apart from N1K and J2M... They usually explode or get torn into pieces from short bursts. Even Soviet machines(often mentioned as overmodelled in many aspects, structural strength and weaponry more often than others) go down fairly quick.

M_Gunz
09-26-2009, 09:33 AM
The more highly wing-loaded a plane is the more that any same-sized spot of wing damage will affect the flight.

Erkki_M
09-26-2009, 09:39 AM
I didnt mean only wing damage. A few holes in the engine cowl or rear fuselage will have a huge effect on FW's top speed as well. As an example in a practice duel with a friend my A6 got two holes in engine cowling + a small hole in the root of the left wing(from a P51B, btw), and its top speed was reduced to 420kmph IAS(!) at deck when perfectly trimmed. And no engine power was lost. I know many have similar experiences on its damage model...

M_Gunz
09-26-2009, 10:00 AM
There are limited damage graphics so you can't go by how it looks. It's one of the not so great parts of IL2 but
how else could they fit and run it all in back when 1Gz single-core CPUs were average and many were less?

Erkki_M
09-26-2009, 10:02 AM
Nope. You never get invisible holes that affect the performance. You either have no holes and no reduced performance(engine damage, controls, hydraulics, jammed guns etc. not, of course, counting), or holes and reduced performance. Thats been tested.

DKoor
09-26-2009, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
You think being rude will help?

Because that is what you are especially on that video clip with the Gregory Peck inserted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i can't see, where waldo.pepper is rude, not in that post you replied to...
i am not sure, what ol' greg said in the video, but i found it quite a smart way of cheering the discussion up a bit. rude? well... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Video isn't rude itself it was the context it's been put in, where when I comment on how, if it is realistic gunnery video then it is cherry picking, a man accused me of calling him a liar.
By the same analogy I can call every single one of you that disagree with me a liar http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.

Here then explain this;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
If that video is on realistic gunnery, then its some fancy cherry pickin', although head on into a bomber is easy to light up an engine.
I'm sure i could spend a half hour and put some clips together to show that shooting the FW is like shooting a solid chunk of iron, even though they are vulnerable if you hit them right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I'm pretty sure that not only Bill thinks so here. Check out some of the things TinyTim posted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Gibbage's already famous P-38's pic where he hits Betty with dozens of bullets in one wing etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>just by numbers of evidence, waldo.pepper has provided more than you and gibbage together.
if you consider waldo.pepper's show-off as cherry picking, i don't know, what your opener is then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is cherry picking too, in same manner as he did it in his funny vid. But I already mentioned that earlier on, go do your homework better, solicitor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
it also could be argued, that some of your screens perhaps represent the same hits (like some of the opening sequence, 12/13, 16-18) to make more of an argument? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh no, that simply isn't the case. If you find the time (I see you have it since you are replying) then please load up provided track and see arrows for yourself, and then count them for yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
linking to other (single) evidences, i then would like to know, what the betty in the 'famous' pic did after the screen was taken - maybe catching fire? not that i say, it did, but to point out, that i don't see more than single occasions in a dramatic representation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Point of the story wasn't whether Betty caught fire later on, point was that you can pump a lot of incendiary HMG rounds from very close range in unprotected WING FUEL TANK and still not set it on fire. I intentionally bolded and CAPS'ed wing fuel tank since I see people shooting engines which is completely different matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
i find the .50s in game pretty convincing in taking down all kind of other planes. if there are some crafts which don't catch fire as easily as they should (like betty) i don't know... probably. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think I'll have a hard time finding you an opposition for that claim... I also agree with you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepo_HP:
compared to other characteristics, which this game doesn't, or can't, simulate in all detail, i find the question of the .50's belting more than meaningless - this weapon doesn't seem to do less general damage than it is supposed to do. for anything to prove, it would need quite a lot more statistical analysis (also in comparison to other equivalent and non-equivalent weaponry) than presenting screenshots of single evidents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree with this, if for anything than for instance if you can down only one plane more on every 20 you down because it caught fire more easily or something then it is worth the checking etc.
People were so persisting with the MG151/20 ages ago (like M_Gunz already mentioned) in their claims that those wing mounted gondollas do more damage than other MG151/20 and after all the fuss it really showed up that way.

But they took hell of a flak from UBi duty officers. And I mean a lot.

So why fear checking some aspect especially if it looks almost certainly goofed when comparing to LMG's I ask you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But only some answer apart from "no yuo is wrong be sure" really counts.

horseback
09-26-2009, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As an example in a practice duel with a friend my A6 got two holes in engine cowling + a small hole in the root of the left wing(from a P51B, btw), and its top speed was reduced to 420kmph IAS(!) at deck when perfectly trimmed. And no engine power was lost. I know many have similar experiences on its damage model... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The number of holes depicted does not have a direct relationship with the damage experienced.

Over the years I have had LOTS of holes put in my wings and fuselage, and there are a limited number of ways in which these holes are depicted for each aircraft type. Bullet hole pattern x on your outer wing can mean a variety of things: little or no effect on your speed or handling, or it can mean anything up to & including serious problems with handling and speed.

It seems to me that each aircraft has a DM 'menu' of both visual and FM effects, and the visual (and audio) depictions are much more limited than the FM effects. This is particularly true of the 'original cast' of aircraft that have been part of the inventory since the original game, like the FW 190 or Yak-1b.

There have been no 'new' visual damage depictions on the scale and sophistication of that depicted on the latecomers like the Tempest, for example.

While your buddy had two holes in his cowling and another in his wingroot visible, the DM 'effect' may have been from loss of a cowling section or panel or even a holed engine that didn't affect the audible part of the FM.

cheers

horseback

Erkki_M
09-26-2009, 10:36 AM
Exactly.

FW's DM skips the light damage(= few hits = no damage, visual or real, at all), but once it gets hit enough it goes right to the heavy damage part.

Too simple DM, as I stated before. Just the opposite to many other aircraft where you get first light damage, then for long no added damage at all before losing wing/explosion.

DKoor
09-26-2009, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
Exactly.

FW's DM skips the light damage(= few hits = no damage, visual or real, at all), but once it gets hit enough it goes right to the heavy damage part.

Too simple DM, as I stated before. Just the opposite to many other aircraft where you get first light damage, then for long no added damage at all before losing wing/explosion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope Team Daidalos may fix some hot issues with these old DM's... at least for those more popular planes, like LaGG-3 or even FW if there is a problem with it in that regard. Old DM... new DM... differences... I simply don't know that area of programming enough to make some assertion.

But I think that after miraculous PDF 4.09 Guide they released nothing is impossible from them. Stuff they made and announced are beyond belief... I just couldn't believe some stuff when I saw it, so there is a possibility that they go ahead and rectify some old problems in future patch(es?)/add-ons.

K_Freddie
09-26-2009, 02:01 PM
There's never been a problem with the DMs, it's just aspects of the users gunnery - focal point, etc..

As an example I sent a whole seconds worth of FW gunfire into a spit before I broke it's wing. I was 'out of focus' - and sweeping my fire with rudder control.
At times it takes a 1/4 seconds worth to rip a plane apart - in focus of course.

The DMs are not perfect, but there's no real problem with them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
09-26-2009, 02:19 PM
I think there is no big problems with DM, at least my opinion, however I think there is room for some fine tuning left http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

M_Gunz
09-26-2009, 03:20 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 there is no big problems with DM, at least my opinion, however I think there is room for some fine tuning left http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif and a missing emoticon with lightbulb going on!

tragentsmith
09-28-2009, 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 VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Is the damage model of the FW190 A3 Maddox and co.?

I believe the FW190 A3 is the product of the second stringers is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, Oleg's FM are also goofy...

Once, online, I wanted to have fun and chased a P47 with MGs only (flying a 110G2, that's 4x7.92 mm...) He was already shot by some of my 20mms and couldn't manoeuvre much.

I opened fire and litterally emptied my MG magazines on him. Scored over 800 rounds on him (using the &lt;gunstats command to see how many rounds I scored) and the 47 flew as if nothing happened to him.

After 3-4 minutes of MG, I finally switched to cannons and had to score additionnal 25x20mm rounds to finally down it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a story where a FW190 ace engaged a damaged P-47 ...the FW190 had only the light machine guns in the nose remaining. He emptied the entire load into the back of the P-47. The P-47 pilot lived to tell the tail. I'm sure someone can pipe up with the details. That P-47 sustained over 100 machine gun hits and several cannon hits.

Truth is often stranger than fiction...in this case its definitely not unusual for a Thunderbolt to absorb large amounts of light machine gun fire. Especially considering the construction of the aircraft and the location of the turbosupercharger gear which acts like a second armour plate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P47 had already suffered lot of damages from multiple 108s (that's why he couldn't manoeuvre. Then he took 800 + 7.92 mm rounds. Still didn't go down. Controls were not even damaged. Then I had to get another 20 - 25 x 20mm rounds to down it... It might happen that a plane can take that much damage.... But on the 47, MGs are just useless. Even 108s have trouble to get it down.

And that's the effect a 108 should do to a plane : http://farm1.static.flickr.com...329_dee07050e0_o.jpg (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/469646329_dee07050e0_o.jpg)

M_Gunz
09-28-2009, 09:21 AM
They used to burn people for witchcraft.

Kettenhunde
09-28-2009, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The more highly wing-loaded a plane is the more that any same-sized spot of wing damage will affect the flight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aircraft are a system not one characteristic.

High wing loading gives you a smoother ride in rough air and is less susceptible to gusting.

Wing damage is wing damage and the effects have nothing to do with the loading. Remember the aircraft is a system and designed as such. The aircraft was designed around a specific performance points generated by a specific wing design.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
09-29-2009, 01:16 AM
So there is not more pressure per square area on a higher loaded wing then?

BillSwagger
09-29-2009, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:


And that's the effect a 108 should do to a plane : http://farm1.static.flickr.com...329_dee07050e0_o.jpg (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/469646329_dee07050e0_o.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a photo of a plane that took a shot on the ground? or was it in the air and crashed?

I think the 108s do plenty of damage and the majority of the time any German cannon in Il2 seems to completely disintegrate a fighter plane, even the P-47. I'm not sure how real that effect is, although getting hit by 30mm at convergence was not good. However, there are plenty of photos of allied aircraft making it home after being peppered with 30mm and 20mm cannon shells. These guns were not the end all solution in air to air combat. I don't even need to go into the endless amounts of guncam footage that show the fortress bombers absorbing large amounts of punishment from these calibers. Anyone who complains about the cannons in Il2 really has it backwards.

I hate to say this too, but its been my experience that some people might be tampering with the damage models.
The only other explanation is that ping might be robbing some of the perceived hits from whats actually recorded on the server. I know there is a counter to track hit counts, so this is where it gets fuzzy for me.
What i do know is that offline i seem to have much better consistency when downing opponents. I never have to chase my opponent after hitting him with a good solid burst. Planes taking exaggerated amounts of punishment seems to be an online phenomenon. So for me, i don't play online....problem solved.

JtD
09-29-2009, 02:40 AM
The Spitfire in the picture was subjected to a test on the ground.

M_Gunz, while you're right in the given context (where the Fw has both a higher weight and a smaller wing) and for giving a general trend, it's force per area or just pressure not pressure per square area. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Manu-6S
09-29-2009, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:


And that's the effect a 108 should do to a plane : http://farm1.static.flickr.com...329_dee07050e0_o.jpg (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/469646329_dee07050e0_o.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a photo of a plane that took a shot on the ground? or was it in the air and crashed?

I think the 108s do plenty of damage and the majority of the time any German cannon in Il2 seems to completely disintegrate a fighter plane, even the P-47. I'm not sure how real that effect is, although getting hit by 30mm at convergence was not good. However, there are plenty of photos of allied aircraft making it home after being peppered with 30mm and 20mm cannon shells. These guns were not the end all solution in air to air combat. I don't even need to go into the endless amounts of guncam footage that show the fortress bombers absorbing large amounts of punishment from these calibers. Anyone who complains about the cannons in Il2 really has it backwards.

I hate to say this too, but its been my experience that some people might be tampering with the damage models.
The only other explanation is that ping might be robbing some of the perceived hits from whats actually recorded on the server. I know there is a counter to track hit counts, so this is where it gets fuzzy for me.
What i do know is that offline i seem to have much better consistency when downing opponents. I never have to chase my opponent after hitting him with a good solid burst. Planes taking exaggerated amounts of punishment seems to be an online phenomenon. So for me, i don't play online....problem solved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even ingame it's not sure that a single 30mm shell impact can make an explosion... it always depends on which part of the plane you hit.

Think that during a IL2War I've exploded a Pe2 with a single burst from a 109F2 (15mm).

In every case in real life an "inflight" fighter hitted by a 30mm shell results as destroyed, the damage is too big.. even for the mighty P47.

A mk108 damages the structure of the plane: look at the video of the Spit hitted on the wing (a ground test): only a big hole, but look at the internal damage (somebody posted the datail some days ago).. and the shock of the explosion + the wind forces, I guess, that wing would collapse immediately.

Mine are speculation of course... I've never seen a guncam with mk108s, but many 20mm (can somebody give me some links?)

Kettenhunde
09-29-2009, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So there is not more pressure per square area on a higher loaded wing then?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

......


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Aircraft are a system not one characteristic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The aircraft was designed around a specific performance points generated by a specific wing design.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Viper2005_
09-29-2009, 05:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Mine are speculation of course... I've never seen a guncam with mk108s, but many 20mm (can somebody give me some links?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPWlYhfhLrI

JtD
09-29-2009, 05:42 AM
I've tested the .50 against the A6M2's drop tank a couple of times now. It appears that there is an about 50% chance to set it on fire with an APIT hit. I'm a bit surprised by this, as the testing setup was identical and I still got varying results. There appears to be more randomness in the game than I thought there was.

Interestingly it takes only 3 to 4 hits to take off the wingtip. Considering that only 1 out of 4 is APIT, it's more likely to rip off a wingtip than to set a drop tank on fire.

Well, I guess we all knew this already, but now it's not just an impression anymore.

Manu-6S
09-29-2009, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Mine are speculation of course... I've never seen a guncam with mk108s, but many 20mm (can somebody give me some links?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPWlYhfhLrI </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks viper, but as I've stated in my post I've just seen that video.

I was thinking at BillSwagger's words "there are plenty of photos", ect.
Probably those planes were the few who could survive after been hitted by 30mm shell... how can we know.

BillSwagger
09-29-2009, 08:06 AM
The 30mm certainly packed a punch, but i think the reality is that its use in a dog fight was rare. It was a low velocity weapon, primarily intended for destroying heavy bombers. If you could imagine trying to shoot planes with a grenade launcher. I think the strategy behind its use was relying on the planes speed to also help get the projectile to the target.

Testing it on an aircraft parked on the ground was probably the only way they could guarantee a successful strike.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

It is just my opinion, and there are photos already on this forum, posted over the last few months. just do a search under 'damage model'.
Most of twhat i've seen were probably 20mm strikes, but you also have to consider that many allied planes, especially the P-47, were able to absorb punches from flak which can be much larger than a 30mm cannon shell. In any case, it would not be good for the plane and probably would incapacitate the aircraft, but this idea that one 30mm shell, though certainly capable, would bring any fighter plane down is heavily rooted in biased and propaganda.

I still haven't found gun cam footage that shows the 15mm or 20mm completely exploding its intended targets.
I really think its the effect that is over done, but there is no doubt that getting hit at convergence would be bad news for the pilot.

Bill

Manu-6S
09-29-2009, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The 30mm certainly packed a punch, but i think the reality is that its use in a dog fight was rare. It was a low velocity weapon, primarily intended for destroying heavy bombers. If you could imagine trying to shoot planes with a grenade launcher. I think the strategy behind its use was relying on the planes speed to also help get the projectile to the target.

Testing it on an aircraft parked on the ground was probably the only way they could guarantee a successful strike.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

It is just my opinion, and there are photos already on this forum, posted over the last few months. just do a search under 'damage model'.
Most of twhat i've seen were probably 20mm strikes, but you also have to consider that many allied planes, especially the P-47, were able to absorb punches from flak which can be much larger than a 30mm cannon shell. In any case, it would not be good for the plane and probably would incapacitate the aircraft, but this idea that one 30mm shell, though certainly capable, would bring any fighter plane down is heavily rooted in biased and propaganda.

I still haven't found gun cam footage that shows the 15mm or 20mm completely exploding its intended targets.
I really think its the effect that is over done, but there is no doubt that getting hit at convergence would be bad news for the pilot.

Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course the mk108 was not created to be a "fighter vs fighter" weapon, but they could do their job, probably only if the victim was unaware (close dogfight).

This is well simulated in IL2, snap shots wiht single mk108 are really difficult cause their low rof, but this is also why some pilots fire only under 150m... and if you think to the poor quantity of 30mm ammo then I'm used to pull the trigger only at the right moment (and usually BOOMM!!)

So you can still use it against fighter ingame as in reality.. all you need is to ambush the enemy... something who happened most of the time.

There is a thing that I stated long time ago.. that probably target box on DM were too big (after I succeded to hit a bailed pilot with a single 30mm, it was my squadmate during a funny dogfight... ).

Anyway you saying "but you also have to consider that many allied planes, especially the P-47".. is this not propaganda too? "Many". How many P47s could return to home with a 30mm hole? how many could not?.

If it's a 1 on 3 planes I would say that the inefficence of the 30mm is not the rule here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EDIT: And I add that guys with 10 hours of training could not fly well.. think only if they could shoot well too!! I'm 100% sure that a mk108 in the hands of guys like Hartmann, Graf and the other "veterans" could be quite a "1 burst = 1 kill". The other rookies... they would finish ammo after one single long burst (ruining the weapon) from distance like il2 noobs do.

M_Gunz
09-29-2009, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even ingame it's not sure that a single 30mm shell impact can make an explosion... it always depends on which part of the plane you hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! Manu, the 108's do not fire all MG shells. HEIT has 1/3rd the explosive power of MG and less muzzle velocity
but 38% more mass. IRL the trajectories of MG and tracers must diverge here and there, very slight at close to
medium range though but note the thickness of a wing from behind is also very slight! HEIT has tracer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From long ago Oleg post in the Ready Room:

MK 108
// HEIT - MG

HEIT
mass = 0.455
speed = 500.0
power = 0.024

MG
mass = 0.330
speed = 525.0
power = 0.072
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Manu-6S
09-29-2009, 08:45 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:
S! Manu, the 108's do not fire all MG shells. HEIT has 1/3rd the explosive power of MG and less muzzle velocity
but 38% more mass. IRL the trajectories of MG and tracers must diverge here and there, very slight at close to
medium range though but note the thickness of a wing from behind is also very slight! HEIT has tracer.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Because of this you need to fire only from close distance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
09-29-2009, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The 30mm certainly packed a punch, but i think the reality is that its use in a dog fight was rare. It was a low velocity weapon, primarily intended for destroying heavy bombers. If you could imagine trying to shoot planes with a grenade launcher. I think the strategy behind its use was relying on the planes speed to also help get the projectile to the target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC from service (over 30 years ago) M203 grenade launcher fires at about 55 ft/s (37.5 mph) while Mk108 fires 500 and 525
m/s. It's not quite so bad, such a big shell will hold onto speed better than smaller bullets in general. Still, it is
slow and the rise and drop is greater not to mention they need more lead when shooting deflection. M203 is good to about
450 m range, again IIRC from the 70's.

BillSwagger
09-29-2009, 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 Manu-6S:


Anyway you saying "but you also have to consider that many allied planes, especially the P-47".. is this not propaganda too? "Many". How many P47s could return to home with a 30mm hole? how many could not?.

If it's a 1 on 3 planes I would say that the inefficence of the mk108 is not the rule here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Short of looking at loss rates and combat sorties, which still only tell a partial picture, I guess i'm basing my opinion on what I read from direct sources and what fighter pilots attest to happening to them and seeing what happened to their buddies who perished. Its not really an opinion in this matter, because the P-47 was also shot down, but there are also several, dare i say "many", pilots who took heavy damage from flak and still returned home, repeatedly mission after mission. Could a 30mm mk108 shell knock down a P-47 in one shot?? Sure...would it be 1 in 3 or 1 in 4? I'd have to say significantly less than that. In all, its speculation anyway, and what we see in the game is probably accurate to some degree, but one shell from the 108 will take a wing off 3 out of 4 times, when i think it would be much less than that, in regards to the 47.
If it were a Spitfire...lol...then yes. In fact, i think only German cannons can de-wing a Spitfire. kidding..

On another note, there are also stories of German pilots gunning down entire elements of P-51s in one pass.
I doubt they all exploded, but i think the power of the gun is there. I just don't think you should base a guns strength on an Ace pilot who lines up perfectly when bouncing an unsuspecting squadron.
When i see combat reels of the gun in use, and compare it to Il2, the effects of it seem to be over done.

Manu-6S
09-29-2009, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Short of looking at loss rates and combat sorties, which still only tell a partial picture, I guess i'm basing my opinion on what I read from direct sources and what fighter pilots attest to happening to them and seeing what happened to their buddies who perished. Its not really an opinion in this matter, because the P-47 was also shot down, but there are also several, dare i say "many", pilots who took heavy damage from flak and still returned home, repeatedly mission after mission. Could a 30mm mk108 shell knock down a P-47 in one shot?? Sure...would it be 1 in 3 or 1 in 4? I'd have to say significantly less than that. In all, its speculation anyway, and what we see in the game is probably accurate to some degree, but one shell from the 108 will take a wing off 3 out of 4 times, when i think it would be much less than that, in regards to the 47.
If it were a Spitfire...lol...then yes. In fact, i think only German cannons can de-wing a Spitfire. kidding..
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course my friend, we can only speculate, because books and accounts do not stated the same things... as I said before, mine are speculation, it's impossible to find facts on this argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I doubt they all exploded, but i think the power of the gun is there. I just don't think you should base a guns strength on an Ace pilot who lines up perfectly when bouncing an unsuspecting squadron.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My fault here.. I was not speaking about the mk108 itself (I've edited the post above), but more the 30mm entire weapon range.

Of course I don't claim the mk108 a good weapon against fighters, as I did not in the past, claiming that the better AA weapon it's for probably the .50cals since they are very "user friendly" and do their job against medium-light armoured airplanes.

However that I still claim is that IMO the 30mm weapons were still a good weapon in the hands of an expert pilot.

BillSwagger
09-29-2009, 09:55 AM
It appears then that anyone who uses the 30mm in Il2 is an expert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Manu-6S
09-29-2009, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
It appears then that anyone who uses the 30mm in Il2 is an expert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they are, they have so many hours of flight, they have died so many times... PLUS their victims have the SA of a cat on heat... it's not difficult to bang a Spitfire who flies straight.. following the usual 190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Erkki_M
09-29-2009, 10:09 AM
Definately not...

A weapon is of use only if you get to hit with it... Which aint easy, especially not against a hard-maneuvering target, with the MK-108. I pick the MG151/20 over it any day. I rather hit with 1-3 rounds that have 10 to 30% chance of downing the enemy 90% of the times I pull the trigger than hitting with a single round having 60% chance to kill the enemy 20% of the time I shoot.

Just hitting the enemy, damaging him even a little, might be able to win a fight, but 3-4 firing windows and not a single hit using the Mk-108 doesnt make it a great gun even if it would almost surely rip the Spit you're scissoring with into pieces.

Besides to me it seems that the 108 has to hit either the root of the wing, engine or mid-hull(missing tail when shot from behind) to kill a fighter with even 80% chance. Way too often I hit fighter in very tail and wings multiple times and yet see them fly away...

Against surprised enemies, of course its a great weapon, but 1.5 sec(reaction time the enemy has if he completely surprised) combined with MG151/20 will do exactly the same, leaving you with more rounds, more firing time(17sec in MG151 vs. 6 seconds of Mk108) and ability to hit from high deflection too, if you happened to make a mistake later. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BillSwagger
09-29-2009, 10:47 AM
it appears anyone who uses the MG 151/20 in Il2 is an expert. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
09-29-2009, 10:51 AM
I have difficulties hitting with the MK108, but I like the punch. I wouldn't know if I preferred the MG151/20 in the late war 109's because I could never try it, but I like the MK108 here. I prefer a kill over a damaged bandit even if it's less likely to happen. I don't like to stick around and mix it, it is a recipe for getting killed. Better to get the maximum out of the single pass I do. I don't think I'd be happy with the single 20mm cannon, it's not better than the 4x.50 on the P-51B/C and I find them insufficient as well.

Manu-6S
09-29-2009, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I have difficulties hitting with the MK108, but I like the punch. I wouldn't know if I preferred the MG151/20 in the late war 109's because I could never try it, but I like the MK108 here. I prefer a kill over a damaged bandit even if it's less likely to happen. I don't like to stick around and mix it, it is a recipe for getting killed. Better to get the maximum out of the single pass I do. I don't think I'd be happy with the single 20mm cannon, it's not better than the 4x.50 on the P-51B/C and I find them insufficient as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kudos. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

When I'm flying a109 G6Late against well flown Spitfires I usually have only ONE chance (the ambush); I want to do the max damage in that moment because after 5 seconds I know the Spits get advantage and I have to exetend (if there are clouds.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif )

M_Gunz
09-29-2009, 01:39 PM
Did Hartmann have a preferred cannon?

julian265
09-29-2009, 06:24 PM
A while ago, I bounced a P47 when flying a 190 with 108s and 151/20s. I saw explosions literally from wing tip to wing tip (probably too much rudder input).

The P47 had heavy wing panel damage, but was still flyable. It most certainly should have gone straight down.

I've also sat behind a damaged P47 in a K4, emptying the 13s into it, to no effect.

Other times, flying the P47, a single 13mm hit has stopped my prop.

IMO the random element is too large. Just because a real P47 survived eleventy billion hits and still flew home, doesn't mean I'd like to see it in-game. Things are random enough when flying online with a ping around 270.

Erkki_M
09-30-2009, 01:45 AM
Julian, except for that in il-2 your ping doesnt matter any... If you see hits on your screen the bad guy will receive those - in that 270ms or whatever your and his pings are. This has been tested. You may even unplug your web cable, shoot at someone, plug it again and see him explode, if server hasnt kicked you yet! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TinyTim
09-30-2009, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
Julian, except for that in il-2 your ping doesnt matter any... If you see hits on your screen the bad guy will receive those - in that 270ms or whatever your and his pings are. This has been tested. You may even unplug your web cable, shoot at someone, plug it again and see him explode, if server hasnt kicked you yet! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, interesting. Once I was dogfighting a friend, and clearly saw a Mk108 shell hit him, yet he flew on like nothing happened. He never felt being hit, had no visual damage and experienced no performance loss.

The weirdest thing: The MK108 hit was clearly visible on my track, but not on his.

He was hosting, maybe that has got something to do with it, since it was not a dedicated server.

I really wish I still had those tracks.

M_Gunz
09-30-2009, 06:59 AM
Packets get lost and just might be ignored if delayed too long, but how long too long is....

In Red Baron 3D MP it was see it hit, it's hit. Ever been shot by someone pointing 90 degrees away from you?
They fire off into the air and you get hit? Or in a really bad case hit by the plane you're following who sees
on his screen he is following you? Two lose at the same time and neither knows to jink.

BillSwagger
09-30-2009, 08:10 AM
I think ping can effect how many shots that land, and what you perceive as a hit. The server is actually suppose to compensate for this, but all it really does it makes sure that you are seeing the same thing your opponents see. It also has to calculate your oppenents' and friendly positions which all have a varying degree of ping. There is likely to be some delay between what you see happening, and what the server calculates as happening, but that delay won't be as high as your ping.

As far as I know, the hit counter is server based. So that gives you a good idea on whats landing, and what isn't. I have to say that it is accurate, and i really can't tell much difference because of ping, however that difference is there. I also think that difference can fluctuate and will depend on your connection speed, internet traffic, and overall server load.
You really know when you're being robbed of hits if you see them landing, but your hit count comes back really low.

When i compare offline and online play, the planes always go down faster and more consistantly, offline. There is much less randomness. So when i have a high hit count into a plane that is eating cannon shells and still flying like nothing has happened, then i have no choice but to think he is cheating. There is really no other explanation when the server has recorded the hits.

Erkki_M
09-30-2009, 08:38 AM
No. Il-2 is not like a typical FPS game, BillSwagger. Ping doesnt matter any. Your bullets might, in your victim's game, miss you by a meter or two, but it doesnt matter as long as you're hitting at your own screen. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As long as the connection is stable(packetloss too), if you hit, thats a hit. Period. He will get damaged(or not, but he will be hit) as long as the packet is not lost due to poor connection of either client. Watching tracks afterwards might show different damage, because the reply is not 99% the same. However controls cut, dewings, control surfaces disconnecting, pilots killed etc. will be the same.

Just run a logfile yourself... Server and log will show the same rounds shot and hits values. Always.

What might bring planes down easier in offline is that offline the planes are moving exactly where their nose points, while in online there might be some difference and the aircraft might be "warping" just a little. Another factor is the AI's inability to control a damaged aircraft, even if it had only lost the rudder cables. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BillSwagger
09-30-2009, 11:05 AM
I have to question what causes the warping, as little as it i might be to effect shots online?

M_Gunz
09-30-2009, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
Your bullets might, in your victim's game, miss you by a meter or two, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My bullets might miss me? Uhhhhhhhhhhh, language trouble?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As long as the connection is stable(packetloss too), if you hit, thats a hit. Period. He will get damaged(or not, but he will be hit) as long as the packet is not lost due to poor connection of either client. Watching tracks afterwards might show different damage, because the reply is not 99% the same. However controls cut, dewings, control surfaces disconnecting, pilots killed etc. will be the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure that your client is calculating damage for the target? Not just think so on basis of what you see in game
but exactly sure?

I had no idea that anyone could see all the bullets paths online or offline. *I* can only see the tracers even on tracks. With arcade=1 I can see hit arrows sprout where tracers never hit at all, in offline tracks or live. How do you know
where every shot goes to be so sure?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just run a logfile yourself... Server and log will show the same rounds shot and hits values. Always. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As the server very well may be the source of the log, (STAT _is_ a server command) what does that prove?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What might bring planes down easier in offline is that offline the planes are moving exactly where their nose points, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean that only as figurative?

Erkki_M
09-30-2009, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> My bullets might miss me? Uhhhhhhhhhhh, language trouble? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry, English is my 3rd.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Are you sure that your client is calculating damage for the target? Not just think so on basis of what you see in game
but exactly sure?

I had no idea that anyone could see all the bullets paths online or offline. *I* can only see the tracers even on tracks. With arcade=1 I can see hit arrows sprout where tracers never hit at all, in offline tracks or live. How do you know
where every shot goes to be so sure? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Even if I was the host of the game a high-pinger's rounds seemingly missing me will cause damage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As the server very well may be the source of the log, (STAT _is_ a server command) what does that prove? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats easily testable by firing a single 37mm round that hits an aircraft from high deflection. You will see one hit, your log reports one hit and so does server's. You can do that a hundred times and it remains the same. Sometimes the server "eats" your gunnery stats(0 shots 0 hits) with bomb drops/hits but I can live with that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I do not know if its server of client calculating the damage, probably server I think, but hits are definately clientside. Should be no difference though if theres no randomness in game.

Kettenhunde
09-30-2009, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The aircraft was designed around a specific performance points generated by a specific wing design.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That means it is all relative to the design!

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4082/collision.jpg (http://img183.imageshack.us/i/collision.jpg/)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The flight crew successfully returned to Baghdad and landed the aircraft despite serious damage to the wing and wing devices, and the aircraft came to a stop in the dirt off Baghdad International's main runway.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/oo-dll/3.shtml

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/oo-dll/4.shtml

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/oo-dll/5.shtml

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/oo-dll/6.shtml

julian265
09-30-2009, 05:06 PM
I know that hits are according to the shooter, but:

I see some players' planes twitching in a physically impossible way sometimes (as do other people, so it's not my connection), which makes them much harder to hit.

I also occasionally see planes bouncing forward and backward along their path, which makes it almost impossible. Once again, other players noticed the same person doing it, so it wasn't on my end.

And of course, minor warps. None of these problems occur offline, hence it's easier to kill offline.

On another note, tracks do not reflect what actually happened, with regard to gun hits. They also look completely different when you compare the shooter's track to the target's track - each player is 5-50 m ahead of where everyone else sees them, dependent on their ping.

julian265
09-30-2009, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
That means it is all relative to the design!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if you have a surface of 10 square meters, with a pressure of 1000 kpa under it, and another surface of 5 square meters with a underside pressure of 2000 kpa (so they're lifting the same weight), and you subtract 1 square meter of lifting area from each one (hypothetically identical damage), you're saying that the smaller, higher loaded surface won't lose more lift than the other?

Kettenhunde
09-30-2009, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So if you have a surface of 10 square meters..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I said applies to an airplane design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crump says:
Aircraft are a system not one characteristic.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The engineer when he designs the stability and control of the aircraft must account for the design performance parameters.

Wing damage is wing damage IF we are talking about an AIRPLANE.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> you're saying that the smaller, higher loaded surface won't lose more lift than the other? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we are talking about square sheets of metal in a physics lab then this fact is important. That is not the topic, airplanes are the topic and the premise was a higher wind loaded aircraft suffers more from wing damage. That would be true in an aircraft designed after 1927 only if the designer was an idiot and did not put a correctly designed control system on the aircraft.


Yes it deals in higher pressures but NO!, it does not "suffer" more than any other aircraft.
Wing damage is wing damage IF we are talking about an AIRPLANE.

Just like I said....

That means it is all relative to the design!

Have you got it out now?

All the best,

Crumpp

julian265
09-30-2009, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Yes it deals in higher pressures but NO!, it does not "suffer" more than any other aircraft.
Wing damage is wing damage IF we are talking about an AIRPLANE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you explain why basic physics does not apply, or applies in a way that I have not considered?

You are quick to denigrate the simplification of a physical situation, when you are aware that it is a valid method (within limits), and one which you have used many times before. If that example is not relevant, please provide another to illustrate your point.

Saying "it is all relative to the design" means little to me.

I am questioning you, because your responses on the matter have up to now appeared to me to be like saying "the sky is blue because it is", when I'd rather understand your viewpoint, and what your reasoning is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If we are talking about square sheets of metal in a physics lab then this fact is important. That is not the topic, airplanes are the topic and the premise was a higher wind loaded aircraft suffers more from wing damage. That would be true in an aircraft designed after 1927 only if the designer was an idiot and did not put a correctly designed control system on the aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're cryptically saying that the smaller wing would indeed suffer a larger loss of lift from the same damage as a larger wing, if the designer did not include ailerons ("control system", in your words) in the design?

In IL2, there have been plenty of times when wing damage has made it hard to keep the wings level, or increasingly hard to impossible, depending on speed, despite aileron input. Hence, the loss of lifting capability of a wing, without consideration of aileron input, is quite relevant to fighting aircraft. The more the damage on one wing, the more aileron input is required to keep level, and eventually the aileron can no longer make up for the lifting difference of the wings.

Kettenhunde
09-30-2009, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Can you explain why basic physics does not apply, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basic physics does apply along with more complicated concepts as well, LOL. It is the linking of all these concepts that is missing in your thinking.

There is nothing cryptic in anything I wrote. It is pretty straight forward stuff.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Saying "it is all relative to the design" means little to me.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got that much.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So you're cryptically saying that the smaller wing would indeed suffer a larger loss of lift from the same damage as a larger wing, if the designer did not include ailerons ("control system", in your words) in the design?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I did not say anything of the sort. Any design will be affected by wing damage.

M_Gunz
09-30-2009, 08:01 PM
So it is more than just the wingloading?

I know that people have lost pieces of wing. I also know that they 'nursed' them home. Two different systems change
from the same size hole, they change differently even if wingloading isn't the only factor. I expected that wingloading
would be the biggest factor in how much air bled from under the wing out through the top. I am sure that does make
more drag and harder to control simply because that is what happens when wings got holes in them IRL.

julian265
09-30-2009, 08:13 PM
Crumpp, it's a pretty simple topic we're 'discussing', and yet you refuse to explain your logic behind your statements, instead starting out with subtle digs at my intelligence, and the generic "linking of concepts" line which you've used before.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
So you're cryptically saying that the smaller wing would indeed suffer a larger loss of lift from the same damage as a larger wing, if the designer did not include ailerons ("control system", in your words) in the design? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No I did not say anything of the sort. Any design will be affected by wing damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The my statement which you quoted did not imply that any design would NOT be affected by wing damage, so you've contradicted a point that wasn't made. You really shouldn't do that.

I shouldn't bother discussing anything with you Crumpp, you seem to have a completely different idea about what discussion means than anyone I've ever met online or off. But, as the topic was simple, I initially thought you might have something direct and informative to say about it.

This is a forum, and most of us are here because we like learning and sharing knowledge.

Edited for clarity.

M_Gunz
09-30-2009, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by julian265:
Wow. It's a pretty simple topic we're 'discussing', and yet you refuse to explain your logic behind your statements, instead starting out with subtle digs at my intelligence, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be mine too since I posted about it first. But I don't believe that intelligence is the issue here at all
unless of course one does not learn or try to learn from the exchange, it is about knowledge which I do admit I have
no real training beyond the simple basics and some views into the subject given by those who have.

No one is stupid for merely not knowing something. It's when you can't or won't and stubbornly choose wrong views
that inability or ignorance come out. Anyone else can learn and given opportunity it is up to the person to take it.

Kettenhunde
09-30-2009, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So it is more than just the wingloading?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Control surface sizing is based on the stability margins. The coefficient of moment is:

Cm = Mcg/qSc

The area of the wing is factored into our control design in all aircraft. You already know about V-speeds M_Gunz so I am sure you can see the significance of dynamic pressure in the equation as well.

Glauert first linked control surface design to aerodynamic theory in 1927. This was improved upon by WG Perrin in 1928 who took the next logical step by incorporating Anton Flettner's ideas on trim control design.


All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
09-30-2009, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if the designer did not include ailerons ("control system", in your words) in the design? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't understand the sense in excluding the control system for an aircraft.

If you cannot control the aircraft you will crash.

It does not make any difference how large or small your wings are as the control surfaces are sized appropriately by design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I shouldn't bother discussing anything with you Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then don't.

You seem to be rather nasty about the facts I have already told you. Your edit is much nicer but frankly I don't care to have another 20 pages of abuse on more fantasy notions about airplanes.

I will be happy to ignore you. Otherwise, stow your ego, learn, and enjoy the discussion.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
10-01-2009, 12:12 AM
The original statement referred to a loss of performance, not to a loss of control, though that is a valid point as well.

WRT control issues, there's obviously only a limited amount of asymmetric lift you can compensate with the given controls, mostly the ailerons here. It's also obvious that damage to a wing with a high wing loading will create more asymmetric lift than the same damage will cause on a wing with a low wing loading. What's not obvious is what aileron is fitted to what wing, that's a matter of choice in the design.

If you wanted to make the issue simpler, you could take the same plane in different loading conditions, which would leave possible design differences out but still had different wing loading.

The perspective of the FW wing damage picture is interesting. It makes it look as if like half the wing was missing, but if you check it more detailed, it's just like a meter or so.

julian265
10-01-2009, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You seem to be rather nasty about the facts I have already told you. Your edit is much nicer but frankly I don't care to have another 20 pages of abuse on more fantasy notions about airplanes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My edit put "Crumpp" at the start of the post so that it wouldn't seem like it was directed at Gunz, who posted just before it. There were no other changes apart from "edited for clarity". Why would you make a false accusation like that? You are yet again trying to alter my words in the eyes of others.

I have a very short fuse when it comes to your posts because you seem to pull the same tricks each time, avoiding direct answers, and responding to points that were never made.

This time, I thought you might be capable of explaining your reasoning on such a simple issue, but for some wacked out reason you waited until your last and second last posts to do so. Was it so hard?

I wanted your reasoning so that I could perhaps learn something new and correct my opinion. And yet you tell me to stow my ego...

Anyway, back on topic... From Crumpp's last two posts, and JtD's, I think Crumpp has now conceded that smaller wings do indeed lose more lift (than from identical damage to a larger wing), but he is saying that the effect is offset by the designer increasing aileron authority, thus enabling the pilot to correct the wing drop.

JtD, I must have interpreted Gunz's "The more highly wing-loaded a plane is the more that any same-sized spot of wing damage will affect the flight." differently!

In IL2 the 190's ability to keep the wings level seems to be lost to damage, faster than other types... Is IL2 wrong is this regard?

Xiolablu3
10-01-2009, 02:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Otherwise, stow your ego, learn, and enjoy the discussion.



Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Yeah! Stow your ego and actually discuss something with someone rather than dictate to everyone!

If they refuse to agree with you then threaten to ignore them!

DKoor
10-01-2009, 03:01 AM
Yaks among some other types in IL2 are also tough to fly regarding battle damage to wings.
Heck they are tough to fly around without damage to wings.
How that resembles reality is unknown to me but that is I guess largely extremely complex question anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif .

JtD
10-01-2009, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JtD, I must have interpreted Gunz's "The more highly wing-loaded a plane is the more that any same-sized spot of wing damage will affect the flight." differently!

In IL2 the 190's ability to keep the wings level seems to be lost to damage, faster than other types... Is IL2 wrong is this regard? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erkki_M initially said

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OTOH once you damage it, it becomes a nightmare to fly and loses performance A LOT(especially compared to similarly damaged Spitfires). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To which M_Gunz replied what he did. So I think it's both performance and control, I probably focused a bit too much on performance though (but there was a capital "A LOT"). I wouldn't know what M_Gunz thought when he posted, obviously, so I'm just going by what was written.

From my experience in game, control is not really an issue in level flight. It becomes an issue in high lift situations, though, where the small ailerons can no longer compensate the highly asymmetrical lift.

What you'll always lose is performance, the damage itself will cause more drag, and the measures you take to reduce the effects will cause more drag, and that in all flight conditions.

In the Focke Wulf, with one wing shot up pretty bad, you can still take off and land, but your top speed at sea level is about 400 instead of 550. For control, all you need to do is use the ailerons.

Bremspropeller
10-01-2009, 03:49 AM
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-06l.jpg

To be fair, one should mention the F-14 is a design where lots of lift is produced by the fuselage.
But it's still an impressive picture - not quite the one-winged F-15, but there are no pictures of it flying.

Kettenhunde
10-01-2009, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> From Crumpp's last two posts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are ignored.
Folks can make all the silly conclusions they want, it's not my privy or desire to correct misconception on the internet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The original statement referred to a loss of performance </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why we would want to isolate the control system escapes me. Does that somehow change the results in peoples mind?

However, the size of the wing does not affect the results. This can easily be seen in the most basic of aerodynamic formulas, the lift formula.

CL = Lift / qS

Lift will always meet the amount of force required. Damage to the wing will change the CL required usually thru the drag relationship and as long as we do not exceed the stall AoA, the lift forces will meet the amount required. The wing either flies or it does not, there is no middle ground.

Higher wing loaded aircraft must travel at higher V-speeds, which means a higher dynamic pressure.

As I said in my first post on this subject in a straight forward manner:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Aircraft are a system not one characteristic.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The aircraft was designed around a specific performance points generated by a specific wing design.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Wing damage is wing damage IF we are talking about an AIRPLANE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
10-01-2009, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The original statement referred to a loss of performance... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, the size of the wing does not affect the results. This can easily be seen in the most basic of aerodynamic formulas, the lift formula... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since drag is dependent on both lift and wing area, wings of different sizes and with different loadings will behave differently when damaged in the same manner, which therefore leads do different performance changes. In case of a damaged wing, meaning wing area destroyed for lifting purposes or effectively a reduction of the wing area, the induced lift formula shows a higher drag increase for the wing with the higher loading, being it a
1. higher lift requirement due to higher mass with the same wing area or
2. a smaller wing area with the same mass (lift requirements) or
3. anything in between.

A higher wing loading has the general effect as stated by M_Gunz.

p.s. I replied to your original post where one paragraph wasn't there yet.

Kettenhunde
10-01-2009, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
Lift will always meet the amount of force required.Damage to the wing will change the CL required usually thru the drag relationship and as long as we do not exceed the stall AoA, the lift forces will meet the amount required. The wing either flies or it does not, there is no middle ground.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
Higher wing loaded aircraft must travel at higher V-speeds, which means a higher dynamic pressure.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
However, the size of the wing does not affect the results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
Aircraft are a system not one characteristic.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
The aircraft was designed around a specific performance points generated by a specific wing design.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
Wing damage is wing damage IF we are talking about an AIRPLANE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is nothing new to be added, JtD. I have explained how it works.

It goes right back too:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
It's not my privy or desire to correct misconception on the internet.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz
10-01-2009, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So it is more than just the wingloading?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Control surface sizing is based on the stability margins. The coefficient of moment is:

Cm = Mcg/qSc

The area of the wing is factored into our control design in all aircraft. You already know about V-speeds M_Gunz so I am sure you can see the significance of dynamic pressure in the equation as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can 'see' it like I can guess where a bee is behind me by the buzzing. If I was able to calculate it and put that all
together then I might say I can 'see' it but I'm past old and injured to be picking it up to that level, trust me.
Honestly, from the technical work I used to do I have strong definition of what 'sure' means and I can only guess at
the significance of dynamic pressure. I just figured the more there is, the more that any change should make.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Glauert first linked control surface design to aerodynamic theory in 1927. This was improved upon by WG Perrin in 1928 who took the next logical step by incorporating Anton Flettner's ideas on trim control design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps in a few weeks or so I could -begin- to 'see' why (okay, the first thing to me is HOW) this impacts to that.
How long was it before I began to catch on to vortex and still do I fully get that? 10+ years ago, no problem but
that was then and above the waterfall I am afraid.

M_Gunz
10-01-2009, 09:42 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 original statement referred to a loss of performance, not to a loss of control, though that is a valid point as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake using the word control. I meant both so maybe screwed the pooch right there.

M_Gunz
10-01-2009, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
Lift will always meet the amount of force required.Damage to the wing will change the CL required usually thru the drag relationship and as long as we do not exceed the stall AoA, the lift forces will meet the amount required. The wing either flies or it does not, there is no middle ground.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's fine but a higher AoA does make more drag does it not? The wing flies as long as the propulsion can push it
fast enough to make the required lift. Will holes in the wing increase the necessary AoA and resulting drag or not?
Will the same holes in a less loaded wing result in a smaller increase in drag? Maybe not? I thought that AoA:drag
change in the induced drag formula is by square of AoA but then yes it is also by surface area too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:
Higher wing loaded aircraft must travel at higher V-speeds, which means a higher dynamic pressure.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just imagine a Spitfire and a FW both going 400 kph and both getting a 1/2 meter hole in middle left wing just to
cut down on the number of variables. Perhaps we can tell how much power increase each one needs to maintain 400 kph?

Bremspropeller
10-01-2009, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The wing flies as long as the propulsion can push it
fast enough to make the required lift. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can always nose over and glide - even with "power on".

M_Gunz
10-01-2009, 03:32 PM
Wouldn't that be in the realm of reduced performance?

Kettenhunde
10-01-2009, 04:04 PM
Both aircraft will have reduced performance as wing design is relative. It is pretty easy to estimate.

Viper2005_
10-01-2009, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-06l.jpg

To be fair, one should mention the F-14 is a design where lots of lift is produced by the fuselage.
But it's still an impressive picture - not quite the one-winged F-15, but there are no pictures of it flying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch.

But actually all that you need to fly is control authority & Q...

Kettenhunde
10-01-2009, 06:46 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif