View Full Version : for BoB?

05-17-2004, 12:36 PM
how close are we to single bullet damage modeling?

Do you think by 2007 computers will be able to handle it?

05-17-2004, 12:36 PM
how close are we to single bullet damage modeling?

Do you think by 2007 computers will be able to handle it?

05-17-2004, 01:27 PM
It is partially because computers, but mostly not. For example when I fly biplane (not like I153), which have 2-4 .303 caliber machine guns against the same class aircraft I feel the game was not supposed to handle this. Hmm... Lets say so. There was a game - Red Baron II about airplanes of WWI. There was nice damage modelling of that stuff for that time (I mean small caliber guns). It was, if I remember correctly, in 1998. As not about bullets there was a feature about damage caused by a wind, when you try a hard manoeuver on large speed. That just an example of what Il2 lacks.
As for guns - now it, at least by a half, depends on quality damage modelling, not on processor power.

Damage modelling for Il2 (as I know) was created by the time of first release of Il2. And from that time I hadn't noticed much differences between original Il2 and FB, AEP.

As I suppose lack of damage modelling was due to mid level Russian/German fighters did have 20 mm or larger cannons, so developers focused on modelling them. For that time it was not a such a mistake to miss precise modelling of small caliber guns (it was (and is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) hard and there were some more important things to do). And when time came for Brittish/American fighters, which mostly used .505 caliber machine guns... You see my point. Damage modelling hasn't generally changed from that time.

To BoB MG modelling might change... At least I hope so. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Of course I see that your question was not about good or bad modelling of small caliber guns, but I post that large answer also for everyone who might get interested in it. Sorry if I'm a bit overconfident. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

05-18-2004, 02:23 AM
The sim DOES track every bullet, regardless of size. It also tracks / generates shrapnel, explosive effects, and fragmentation of varying sizes.

Oleg did have per-bullet hit effects working at one point, but they were a huge resource hog, so they got nixed.

The other problem is the fidelity of the damage models. Right now, we have 'chunks' of the aircraft laid out, with important components--engine, main wing spars, fuel tanks, etc--as 'sub-chunks'.

Once we can get the damage model fidelity down to wing formers, secondary spars, electrical / hyrdaulic cables, fuel lines, secondary equipment like batteries, oxygen tanks, radio gear, etc, and the modeling of weight bearing points vs the various material strengths of different structural components (especially important with cantiliver wing aircraft), you'll start seeing the difference. This appears to be the direction BoB is taking a big jump in.

One obstacle in the way of all of this: it's a serious challenge finding that kind of structural documentation on even well known warbirds like the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire, much less rarer ones like the Bf-109, or Fw-190, and God help us when we want to add really rare aircraft like the Me-262, P-39, Mig-3, Lagg-3, IAR-80, etc...

Right now, it's just raw processing power, RAM, and frontside bus capability. Once you can go from the trillions of operations we're doing right now to quadtrillions or quintrillions, you can start really cranking up the intricacy without affecting playability.

04-05-2008, 07:09 PM
very good info planeeater. i can't wait for a sim with the damage model you described. hope BoB is going in that direction. any more info on this?

04-06-2008, 07:59 AM
I think that level of damage modeling will necessitate some creative modeling to get the effect right even if that data only partially exists. Hopefully Oleg doesn't raise the bar so high as to make it impossible to accurately model aircraft with less detailed historical archives.