PDA

View Full Version : DM Tracks Posted



Zen--
03-16-2004, 09:29 AM
Here you go Hunde, hope this is what you're looking for.

http://209.163.146.67/tracks

(look for Hunde's DM Tracks)



Track notes:

FW190_Strange_MgJam.trk: I am hit by a single 20mm round in my right wing and my left MG-17 gets knocked out!

FW190_vs_Lagg3__20mm_Ineffectiveness.trk: It shows the Lagg-3 taking too many cannon rounds. Please note the one pass where 5-6 20mm cannon shells hit from vertical position and do minor paint damage. I may post a better one later.

Hurrican_vs_Lagg3_303_No_Damage.trk: Lagg-3 takes numerous (and I mean numerous) .303 hits with no damage at all.

Hurricane_vs_P47_303_Heavy_Damage.trk: This is to contradict the Hurricane vs. Lagg track. I kill the P-47 and set him ablaze with few hits.

Ta152vsP63__5-6_MK108hits.trk:The P-63 takes 5-6 30mm rounds before going down and no structural failures.

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

Zen--
03-16-2004, 09:29 AM
Here you go Hunde, hope this is what you're looking for.

http://209.163.146.67/tracks

(look for Hunde's DM Tracks)



Track notes:

FW190_Strange_MgJam.trk: I am hit by a single 20mm round in my right wing and my left MG-17 gets knocked out!

FW190_vs_Lagg3__20mm_Ineffectiveness.trk: It shows the Lagg-3 taking too many cannon rounds. Please note the one pass where 5-6 20mm cannon shells hit from vertical position and do minor paint damage. I may post a better one later.

Hurrican_vs_Lagg3_303_No_Damage.trk: Lagg-3 takes numerous (and I mean numerous) .303 hits with no damage at all.

Hurricane_vs_P47_303_Heavy_Damage.trk: This is to contradict the Hurricane vs. Lagg track. I kill the P-47 and set him ablaze with few hits.

Ta152vsP63__5-6_MK108hits.trk:The P-63 takes 5-6 30mm rounds before going down and no structural failures.

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

Kwiatos
03-16-2004, 09:45 AM
Did you send these tracks to 1C and report bugs in DM?

Zen--
03-16-2004, 10:09 AM
I didn't send them to 1C but I believe Hunde did. These are his tracks, I am just helping to host them. They are pretty interesting though.

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

03-16-2004, 01:37 PM
Interesting tracks.

I watched all of them, but didn't quite analyze them yet.. but as for the first track concerning "AI Questionable E bleed", I can say it's not questionable at all.

ucanfly
03-16-2004, 03:29 PM
Just a question is it or is it not true that when you hit a plane with bullets that you do not always see the damage graphically (e.g. bullet holes). I find when I review tracks with arcade mode I see arrows but no graphical bullet holes (seen esp in Yak3 AI). SOmetimes I have seen planes downed with no graphical bullet holes or smoke/fire and no PK either.

Just wonder if that is a known feature or bug.

03-16-2004, 03:34 PM
ucanfly, the portrayed visual damage is merely cosmetic. It's merely a system of a certain surface part taking "X amount of damage = display Y type of graphic".

Visual damage can play an indicator of real damage up to a certain point, but it cannot provide any kind of serious proof concerning DM discussions.

As said, it's just "powder and make-up".

Hunde_3.JG51
03-16-2004, 03:46 PM
Thanks alot Zen, I appreciate it.

Just wanted to say a few things. First, in the Lagg-3DM track I meant to say/draw attention to the 5-6 20mm rounds that hit vertically on the wing of the Lagg in a fairly tight area and do little/no damage. Still, there are other hits with little/no effect.

Second, and this is important, I am not claiming anything (except with two of them, see below) by making these tracks, they are simply being put up for consideration.

Third, I only sent the FW-190 Mg-jam track and the Lagg-3 not taking any damage from numerous .303 hits track to Oleg.

Finally, in the P-63 track it is 5 hits. What I wanted to show was that after all the hits not one piece is missing from the P-63, only small hole in one wing before it goes down from wounded pilot or damaged controls.

Please use arcade mode and just go to external of opposing plane (except in FW-190Mg-jam track) to see damage.

Kweasa, any input is certainly welcome but I don't understand how two planes can merge going over 500+ km/h and one takes a snap shot, turns around 180 degrees, and shoots down the other (which is a faster plane also) while barely fading away when the other plane didn't turn and barely climbed. Where is the energy bleed? That track was from the start of a QMB and I went full out right from the start so energy should have been equal. I just don't see how 2 planes merge that fast and the other turns around and shoots the other without bleeding a huge amount of energy. I may very well be wrong, but I just don't see how it is possible. Btw, everyone please don't focus on this track too much since I just threw it in for fun. As I said though, any comments are welcome and that is why I made them. I may disagree or agree (and either is fine), but I would still like to hear opinions.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Tue March 16 2004 at 03:00 PM.]

JG7_Rall
03-16-2004, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
Interesting tracks.

I watched all of them, but didn't quite analyze them yet.. but as for the first track concerning _"AI Questionable E bleed"_, I can say it's not questionable at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, a Yak3 driver for sure.

Maybe the E bleed would not be so questionable in a world without physics. Do me a favor and jump off a building, and you tell me if the laws of nature are real or not.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

03-16-2004, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ah, a Yak3 driver for sure.

Maybe the E bleed would not be so questionable in a world without physics. Do me a favor and jump off a building, and you tell me if the laws of nature are real or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try chump. But unfortunately, the samething can be done with any plane.

It's a simple technique in management of the flight path, and if you don't immediately recognize just what the enemy plane did, and start on insulting an official Luftwhiner since 1996, then I suggest you don't mess with things you cannot finish.

..

Hunde, if the enemy was gaining on you after the merge, it would not have made sense.

Basically, it's a timed early-turn with a "dip" - it's common for people to make that mistake thinking a plane turning 180 will always be slower than you. In almost every case, that is true. Even the track you have posted, you were gaining separation from the enemy.

However, the problem is, him being slower than you does not mean he cannot come within firing range.

Look at the track closely, you tried to gain separation by ignoring the enemy's turn into you and duping him into a classic rope-a-dope.

However, your flight path was predictable and much too straight. Look at the flight path the enemy manages. He engages a turn earlier than usual cases by about "half a beat" with a diving turn.

When he finishes the move, the distance between you and the enemy is inside 300m. It's not impossible. It just takes experience to gain that kind of timing, which normally you don't see in average pilots.

Now, after he finished the turn and landed behind you so close, if he was gaining on you, or was able to follow you all the way up, it would have been a flaw in E retention.

But look closely - the enemy literally sprays everything he got onto you, and knocks your right wing before you gained enough separation, which you eventually, and logically would have gained - had you not received those hits.

..

The same principle can be easily seen in the case of the "early Immelmann" - two plane start a head-on merge. Then, one plane begins a power dive with a steep angle. The other plane, thinking the enemy is diving away, simply decides to ignore him, thinking he will never catch up. In the mean while, the plane that commenced the power dive, turns into the other plane at his blind spot under the belly, and times the Immelmann so when he finishes, he momentarily lands within some 200~300m - firing range. If, that guy is skilled enough in gunnery, that crucial moment may be all he needs.

It's basically no different from two planes passing by, and the higher one turns into the lower one and lands behind him within firing range, with a well-timed split-S. Except, in that case, the higher plane with his split-S would be gaining on the enemy.

About nine out of ten cases where people exclaim "bullshi*!", is simply a misunderstanding.

..

As an alternative, if I were in your shoes, I'd have slightly turned into the enemy, so the first merge and pass-by occurs within very close vicinity of each other.

This is a simple precaution that deprives the crucial maneuvering space required for an enemy doing an early-turn move.

It messes up with the timing, as the angle the enemy must turn to land behind me, would have greatly increased if I distorted his flight path by turning into him.

JG7_Rall
03-16-2004, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ah, a Yak3 driver for sure.

Maybe the E bleed would not be so questionable in a world without physics. Do me a favor and jump off a building, and you tell me if the laws of nature are real or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try chump. But unfortunately, the samething can be done with any plane.

It's a simple technique in management of the flight path, and if you don't immediately recognize just what the enemy plane did, and start on insulting an official Luftwhiner since 1996, then I suggest you don't mess with things you cannot finish.

..

Hunde, if the enemy was gaining on you after the merge, it would not have made sense.

Basically, it's a timed early-turn with a "dip" - it's common for people to make that mistake thinking a plane turning 180 will always be slower than you. In almost every case, that is true. Even the track you have posted, you were gaining separation from the enemy.

However, the problem is, him being slower than you does not mean he cannot come within firing range.

Look at the track closely, you tried to gain separation by ignoring the enemy's turn into you and duping him into a classic rope-a-dope.

However, your flight path was predictable and much too straight. Look at the flight path the enemy manages. He engages a turn earlier than usual cases by about "half a beat" with a diving turn.

When he finishes the move, the distance between you and the enemy is inside 300m. It's not impossible. It just takes experience to gain that kind of timing, which normally you don't see in average pilots.

Now, after he finished the turn and landed behind you so close, if he was gaining on you, or was able to follow you all the way up, it would have been a flaw in E retention.

But look closely - the enemy literally sprays everything he got onto you, and knocks your right wing before you gained enough separation, which you eventually, and logically would have gained - had you not received those hits.

..

The same principle can be easily seen in the case of the "early Immelmann" - two plane start a head-on merge. Then, one plane begins a power dive with a steep angle. The other plane, thinking the enemy is diving away, simply decides to ignore him, thinking he will never catch up. In the mean while, the plane that commenced the power dive, turns into the other plane at his blind spot under the belly, and times the Immelmann so when he finishes, he momentarily lands within some 200~300m - firing range. If, that guy is skilled enough in gunnery, that crucial moment may be all he needs.

It's basically no different from two planes passing by, and the higher one turns into the lower one and lands behind him within firing range, with a well-timed split-S. Except, in that case, the higher plane with his split-S would be gaining on the enemy.

About nine out of ten cases where people exclaim "bullshi*!", is simply a misunderstanding.

..

As an alternative, if I were in your shoes, I'd have slightly turned into the enemy, so the first merge and pass-by occurs within very close vicinity of each other.

This is a simple precaution that deprives the crucial maneuvering space required for an enemy doing an early-turn move.

It messes up with the timing, as the angle the enemy must turn to land behind me, would have greatly increased if I distorted his flight path by turning into him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for the thorough explaination-but I still have one question.

If the enemy plane goes into a power dive such as you described, although that would add speed thus compensating for hte speed lost during the reversing of direction, wouldn't it also increase the separation since you're going faster in the opposite direction? If that's the case, how do you land 200-300m after the turn-around when you've lost so much distance between your enemy?

An honest question, not meant to flame. My other remark was out of frustration, sorry for the mean tone. I'm just having trouble buying it.

PS-I'm am a more hardcore Luftwhiner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-16-2004, 08:21 PM
Kweaasa, I know how to handle the merge I was just doing some DM testing stuff so this is not indicitive of my flying. After doing QMB mission after QMB mission after QMB mission....and so on you start to get lazy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. And just to clarify I never cried BS.

I don't have a problem so much with him turning and getting into firing range very briefly, it is more of the rate of me pulling away, it should be much higher IMHO especially when merging at higher speeds. If you look in the track I was not pulling away very fast. Also, at those speeds to perform a turn that fast would likely black-out the pilot (which the AI ignores).

I certainly respect your opinion and am glad for the feedback. I do disagree however that this would/should be possible but its no big deal.

I would really like more input on the other tracks as they were the real point of me making them.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Charos
03-16-2004, 10:15 PM
Thanks for Posting these Tracks .

I just watched the "FW190_vs_Lagg3__20mm_Ineffectiveness.trk"
and Im in mild shock.

The performance of the Lagg seemed unimpeded and even when the Engine did deside to Die there was never any sign of Smoke - Fire etc.

Thanks for putting some weight behind our Initial Observations.

Will have to check the Other Tracks when I get a Min.

Awsome Work. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

clint-ruin
03-16-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I would really like more input on the other tracks as they were the real point of me making them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had a bunch of shots made up of these .. went to post them .. then couldn't find them .. then remembered that FB likes to OVERWRITE screen-caps every time you take a new set from a new track.

Short version - The FW-190 MG jam is something I would attribute to bugs Oleg is aware of in its DM [missing deflection / penetration data]. Be aware that deflected bullets will never show up in arcade mode, only the original angle of impact. You can get some pretty weird effects, sometimes. One of the tracks in the 151/20 thread on ammo belt composition shows a B-17 being hit in the tail at a shallow angle, then - for some reason - engine #1 starts trailing smoke. We do have some 'magic bullet' modelling in this game :&gt;

The P-63 is something I went testing for myself, and I've submitted another track which perhaps shows it a little better. The problem with the P-63 track is that the majority of the damage you do is from the HEIT rounds rather than MG. It's fairly easy to end up in this situation given that you have a 50/50 chance each shot of getting one or the other. Same story with the NS37 and MK103 - tracer slams into the target, big explosion appears .. check arcade mode out and see that it was actually just an AP round.

Looked at the Lagg track, definitely something that needs the screenshots re-done to take a look at it. More on that later.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
03-16-2004, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Thanks alot Zen, I appreciate it.

Just wanted to say a few things. First, in the Lagg-3DM track I meant to say/draw attention to the 5-6 20mm rounds that hit vertically on the wing of the Lagg in a fairly tight area and do little/no damage. Still, there are other hits with little/no effect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/lagg3-1.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/lagg3-2.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/lagg3-3.jpg
http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/lagg3-4.jpg



http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/lagg3-5.jpg

One MG/HE round is all it takes to advance the inner wing root to the next damage texture stage.

You need to hit the same section over and over, not the whole plane over and over. There is no "HP" or "Con" factor in FB. It is all about getting the shells to hit either the same DM space, or a similar enough DM space that fragments from explosive rounds damage components near each other.

By the end of the track you have killed the engine, and put the tail, both wing roots, and the engine cowling to their next DM texture stage. All of those shots landing on the same wing root would result in a snapped wing. All those shots landing on the engine would result in a dead engine.

All those shots landing all over the plane results in what we see in the track.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-17-2004, 01:53 AM
Clint, glad you agree the 190 mg-jam is a bug. As for the bullet deflection thing it would still, as I said, have to go through the cowl, probably part of the engine, and through the right Mg-17 to get to the left Mg-17 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

As for the Lagg 20mm track please look at screenshot #2 that you posted, this was my main point in posting this track not the damage overall (as was noted above). 5-6 20mm rounds hit in a fairly small area of the wing and there is not even a single hole, this seems correct to you? It advanced the DM to the next stage which is basically scratched paint if there is no hole.

Any comments on the Hurricane vs. Lagg-3 track when compared to Hurricane vs. P-47 track? I welcome everyone to do this, take a Hurricane IIb against FW-190, P-47, P-38, etc., then take the Hurricane vs. the Lagg-3 (I'll have to check vs. some other planes also).

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Wed March 17 2004 at 01:14 AM.]

clint-ruin
03-17-2004, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Clint, glad you agree the 190 mg-jam is a bug. As for the bullet deflection thing it would still, as I said, have to go through the cowl, probably part of the engine, and through the right Mg-17 to get to the left Mg-17 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, that's why I think something's fishy in that instance. That and that Oleg has mentioned there are deflection/internal DM issues with the 190s new CDM. The B-17 / engine #1 deflection damage track I mentioned is in http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/109amms.zip

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for the Lagg 20mm track please look at screenshot #2 that you posted, this was my main point in posting this track not the damage overall (as was noted above). 5-6 20mm rounds hit in a fairly small area of the wing and there is not even a single hole, this seems correct to you? It advanced the DM to the next stage which is basically scratched paint if there is no hole.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am afraid I must disagree with that assessment.

Have a look at this:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/unfortunatecircumstancesresultinthefollowingdisapp ontmentforhunde.jpg

Aileron.

Outer wing tip.

Wing midsection.

Take a look at where the large arrowpoints come from - you are hitting 'the wing' but each section has its own little 'max damage' value. This is what tends to piss people off the most with rear aspect shots - each shot is hitting 'the tail' but for the purposes of the DM, it only matters which little piece of the tail you are hitting. Same story here - though you are hitting with the absolute best angle for penetration, you are still not hitting the same spot often enough to trip it over. AP rounds basically do nothing unless they hit a) a spar, or b) have an interesting system to burrow into in their path. One AP through the aileron at 90degrees deflection is going to make a 2cm hole and do absolutely nothing else.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Any comments on the Hurricane vs. Lagg-3 track when compared to Hurricane vs. P-47 track? I welcome everyone to do this, take a Hurricane IIb against FW-190, P-47, P-38, etc., then take the Hurricane vs. the Lagg-3 (I'll have to check vs. some other planes also).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You will find some similar issues with the .303s against other planes, or at least I did when I last went testing. The FW190s engine is very, very vulnerable to .303s at the moment - I think I was actually the first here to mention this, right after I'd taken the spit vs 190 matchup when I got AEP. I've looked at the Hurricane tracks but again, more later on that when I get the screenshots re-done.

Just another small point about methodology - I have found it infinitely better for my patience to do DM testing against 'friendly' targets rather than opposition AI - this also allows you to more easily target an individual component of the DM. It's 6 and a half minutes before there's any damage occuring in that 190 track, might help if you tell Oleg -when- as well as what he's looking for in the track :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-17-2004, 03:14 AM
Forget it clint, I'm done with this stuff anyway. I've wasted too much time on it anyway. Like I said, I could say "the sky is blue" and you would come up with some long-winded, babble of an explanation as to why that is not so. That pretty much covers 98% of your posts.

And I didn't send the Lagg-20mm track to Oleg. I've said this numerous times but then you don't listen anyway so whats the point. So go ahead and make you ignorant statements thinking you are being cute with your sarcastic smilies. It just makes you look even more stupid.

I may come off as looking like the bad guy but remember this whole thing started by you naming me in something I never even came close to claiming as fact. As it turns out most people now easily notice the lack of structural failures now, and the effects the DM is having on 20mm and heavy mg's. I never said one word about whether it was realistic or not, I never said one bias comment (again show me where), I never claimed anything as fact, and I never said one bad word towards Oleg or the game. All I said was that I noticed a change since AEP in DMing especially in 20mm cannons and heavy mg's of ALL planes and you felt the need to insult me for whatever reason (see: lack of class). I even asked others what they thought because I wasn't sure if it was just coincidence or if something had in-fact changed. Well, the likely DM changes seems pretty much accepted now so it would appear that I was right from the beginning. Sorry if you can't accept that Judge Ruin. Your ignorance and insulting comments, that is really the main point and the reason this all started. I really don't even care about these tracks, I just put them up to look at for consideration, not to get smart-a$$ comments from someone I have absolutely no respect for. Like I said, I've wasted too much time on this, and you already. I won't bother to respond to your posts as they mean nothing to me, in fact I'm mad at myself for bothering to even try knowing how you are. Maybe/hopefully in the future you won't be so quick to insult people unjustly and be able to carry out a civil discussion without making hidden little wisecracks that are the result of you not listening in the first place. Maybe you get off on this kind of thing, provoking people and then arguing with them. If that's the case you are even more sad than I initially thought (which was pretty sorry to begin with).

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Wed March 17 2004 at 02:23 AM.]

clint-ruin
03-17-2004, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Forget it clint, I'm done with this stuff anyway. I've wasted too much time on it anyway. Like I said, I could say "the sky is blue" and you would come up with some long-winded, babble of an explanation as to why that is not so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm simply saying that each section of the DM has its own idea about how much damage it can take. If you concentrate fire on one section, it flies off.

If you spray 20 shots all over an aircraft, it does not count as hitting the aircraft 20 times - it counts as hitting each individual section one after another. There is no "HP" rating for a Lagg or a 109 - just individual sections with their own tollerances.

You can see the effect of this by flying down at low level and dragging a wingtip on the ground, gradually, while applying opposite rudder - watch as the tip/aileron, midsection, and wing root fall off as stress is applied to them individually. Your shots have the same effect. The only way to guarantee affecting a section you're not shooting is to kill something it's "chained" to [ie wing root, fuselage, etc] in the DM.

This behaviour is unchanged.

I have discussed the limits of the testing methodology I've used - deflection/fragment changes won't show up in any meaningful way, for one. I have never said there have been no changes - and have had to post that this is my position quite a number of times. My point is that noone has shown that there are changes, and two different peoples attempts to find them have resulted in wasted time and naught else.

People have been posting threads about "20mm ineffective" or "the .50 cals are too weak" or "Mk108 is biased" since the game came out. I would be more certain that something had really changed if these stopped appearing :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

03-17-2004, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the enemy plane goes into a power dive such as you described, although that would add speed thus compensating for hte speed lost during the reversing of direction, wouldn't it also increase the separation since you're going faster in the opposite direction?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. As I said, it's all in the timing. If two planes are coming in a head-on merge, the distance between the plane that's overhead, and the one powerdived underneath it provides a crucial room of maneuvering. The separation rate can e determined by just how perfectly one manages its timing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If that's the case, how do you land 200-300m after the turn-around when you've lost so much distance between your enemy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The key to this is turning and landing 200~300m BEFORE losing any more distance - that's why the executing plane needs to start his turn half a beat earlier than usual.

...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't have a problem so much with him turning and getting into firing range very briefly, it is more of the rate of me pulling away, it should be much higher IMHO especially when merging at higher speeds. If you look in the track I was not pulling away very fast. Also, at those speeds to perform a turn that fast would likely black-out the pilot (which the AI ignores).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my opinion Hunde, the critical point of the track was that 1) the LaGG was higher than you, and 2) you started a shallow climb too early.

About at 00:44 of the track, you started a shallow climb with initial speed of 561km/h TAS.

At 00:52, your speed is down to 522km/h.

00:53, is the apex of the LaGG's diving turn, which he is probably holding the fastest speed he's ever done in this track.

At 00:57. You are hit for the first time doing 430km/h, with the enemy behind you at about 330~340m.

It would be really great to see how fast the LaGG is doing, but it's not impossible to take a good guess.

From the looks of it by my analysis, when the LaGG started shooting at you, the separation rate is about 40m/s - 144km/h difference in speed. The LaGG was doing merely 270~290km/h (286km/h TAS in my calculation) when he was shooting at you.

If assuming by the apex of his early turn he was about 500~550km/h, he used some 220~270km/h of speed in mere seconds to get behind you.

144km/h difference in speed is not a small rate of separation. (though, this figure would also have changed by the second, since by that time both planes are climbing upwards) If you could hold on longer for about 2 more seconds, you'd pass 400m and have been out of his effective firing range.

It's a case of really good timing for the LaGG, and a really unlucky structural failure for you - that is my view of this.

Functio
03-17-2004, 08:03 AM
This seems to be an arguement based more on graphical representation than about DM.

Okay, so damage isn't always represented well on any given plane you hit. Combine this with the way AI planes can fly pretty much as normal despite being damaged, and it's still not too suprising.

Howver, I think the arguement still doesn't really hold water WRT it being an asessment of the DM. The proof positive about whether the DM is working is to fight against, say, the LaGG-3 when it's flown by a human pilot. Even if the damage doesn't show, if the plane that's being damaged suffers accordingly, then that is the most important thing.

If, however, the aircraft seems to just shrug off such damage and the human pilot can carry on as normal, then that would point to a possible bug in the DM. But IMHO looking for damage textures and the way the AI behaves after being hit is not going to really tell you much about whether the DM modelling is not up to par.

Hunde_3.JG51
03-17-2004, 08:05 AM
Kweassa, I still don't think it is possible due to blackout, also the track was the start of a QMB with no advantage. With me going full throttle from the start if he climbed he should have been going much slower. My opinion is thats its still wrong, but who knows maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, I'll take what you say into consideration and I appreciate your input in a constructive, polite manner. Informative and to the point.

But as I said, please examine other tracks if possible with arcade mode on, that was my real intention of posting the tracks. It's my fault, I should have left the AI one out or put it under a seperate thread for discussion.

Thanks again, take care.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Fehler
03-17-2004, 09:42 AM
Hunde,

I have been thinking about all of this lately, and made a comment in another thread.

The only question I have for Oleg is, is it possible that changing some lines of code has actually had another affect on the weapons in the sim. To me it is pretty obvious that ALL the cannon rounds are less effective than they were a few weeks ago (1.22). I think that is all anyone is really saying. Weather it is more or less realistic, I really dont know. Unfortunately, the way a bullet hits and causes damage is really up to the interpretation of the game designer. So, if Oleg is OK with the way things are working now, then we will all have to learn to live and work with it.

Track file this, image that, the bottom line is I know that what I was doing just a few short weeks ago is not nearly as effective as it is now.

I am also quite confident that none of the changes were made intentionally, as Oleg himself has stated that nothing was done to the guns in the game.

In 1.22, the 30mm seemed perfect to me. The 20mm, although not uber by any means, was effective with well placed hits. It truly feels as though this has changed, and I seriously doubt my gunnery skills have diminished in the few minutes it took me to install AEP! At least this HAS happened across the board and not to a particular 20mm gun.

The other issue I would like to point out is the stall characteristics of all the planes now. I doubt I have put myself into more flat spins as I have this past week while flying online. I wonder if this is a side effect of increased engine torque that was modified.. again, another coding question. It is NOT, however caused by a change in my flying style or my joystick settings as I cut and paste all the settings from my original .ini to the new clean one in AEP... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I dont pretend to know the answers to these questions. And I also dont pretend to know if they are realistic or not. I do know, however that these things have changed, weather intentionally or unintentionally from 1.22.

I am not inclined to comment on individual plane characteristics. The P-63 does seem to absorb a lot of damage with no ill affect for it's human pilot on line. Other bugs like the "Magic Revi seeking bullet" are well noted and should get repaired. Delta wood has been proven to be a unique and strong material, and Olegs information about this has greatly added to my understanding of how wooden planes can actually be tougher than all metal ones.

Some bugs are already being looked at. The sound dropping .dll was corrected very quickly, so I know Oleg and his team is working on improvements, probably as we speak (Type). With a closed source code, we are kind of at his mercy to correcting problems, and that in itself is a good thing. It levels the playing field for all.

In conclusion, all I hope for is that Oleg re-examines these issues to see if what has obviously happened is what he himself intends to convey.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

clint-ruin
03-17-2004, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Hunde,

I have been thinking about all of this lately, and made a comment in another thread.

The only question I have for Oleg is, is it possible that changing some lines of code has actually had another affect on the weapons in the sim. To me it is pretty obvious that ALL the cannon rounds are less effective than they were a few weeks ago (1.22). I think that is all anyone is really saying. Weather it is more or less realistic, I really dont know. Unfortunately, the way a bullet hits and causes damage is really up to the interpretation of the game designer. So, if Oleg is OK with the way things are working now, then we will all have to learn to live and work with it.
...
Track file this, image that, the bottom line is I know that what I was doing just a few short weeks ago is not nearly as effective as it is now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's fine as an observation. My issue is more with - if this has happened - and now a couple of people have had a go at trying to bring out differences in 1.21/2.0 behaviour and failed - how is Maddox going to replicate this issue to fix it? Especially if as far as Oleg and team are concerned, there hasn't been anything changed at all .. and digging into doing their own testing work on it with FB's development cycle soon to wind up may not be what they're looking to spend their time. Definitely helps if the change can be shown to exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I am not inclined to comment on individual plane characteristics. The P-63 does seem to absorb a lot of damage with no ill affect for it's human pilot on line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've finally managed to bring out some weird P-63 behaviour in this track here, which got sent to il2beta@1c.ru:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/test-p63-oddity.zip

First three .. no problems .. same old 1.21 stuff .. 4th plane is truly something that needs looking at. Though in truth this is the 76th one downed in different aspect tests in 2.0 and it only came out then. Over a long enough period of engagements that's bound to show up for a few people. Lots of the HEIT hits will often produce big bangs and not much damage, but MGs upon MGs upon MGs practically the same DM section ..

I think Neal said it best a while ago - I think the post has been deleted along with many others - but the gist of it was:

user to oleg: gunnery has changed.
oleg to team: has gunnery changed?
team to oleg: gunnery has not changed
oleg to user: gunnery has not changed

Which may be what we're dealing with.

I think that as the development cycle of Il-2 winds up we're [both as players and "beta testers"] going to need to be a bit more professional about submitting bugs -with- a track first off, rather than sending Oleg on chasies for changes that may or may not exist.

Thanks for a very well written and well thought out post, btw.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Flamin_Squirrel
03-17-2004, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

It's fine as an observation. My issue is more with - if this has happened - and now a couple of people have had a go at trying to bring out differences in 1.21/2.0 behaviour and failed - how is Maddox going to replicate this issue to fix it? Especially if as far as Oleg and team are concerned, there hasn't been anything changed at all .. and digging into doing their own testing work on it with FB's development cycle soon to wind up may not be what they're looking to spend their time. Definitely helps if the change can be shown to exist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does indeed help if you can prove that something has changed, but we cant. Imo, this makes the impressions of experienced players noticing a difference very important. If while playing the game people notice a change, thats far more valuble in coming to a conclusion than attempting a scientific test when you can only guess how the DM's coded (and even more so when you cant exactly place bullets where you want to every time).

clint-ruin
03-17-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
It does indeed help if you can prove that something has changed, but we cant. Imo, this makes the impressions of experienced players noticing a difference very important. If while playing the game people notice a change, thats far more valuble in coming to a conclusion than attempting a scientific test when you can only guess how the DM's coded (and even more so when you cant exactly place bullets where you want to every time).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, with respect, I would say that the amount of testing work I've gone through with 1.21 gives me a pretty good picture on what DM/gunnery results were, and what they are now, too. There are limitations both to my approach of testing and to recollections of randomised fire at targets in gameplay, though.

As mentioned, there are couple of factors that could have been changed that would only show up slightly in specific component-DM testing. If fragmentation or deflection values have changed [and deflection/fragment interception is probably more related to the DM than the gunnery model], then that is much less likely to show up from plinking the same DM section repeatedly.

I am not seeing anything other than the typical variation on hits to remove any structural component, or kill any one subsystem of a plane. The only thing that shows a very remarkable difference is the FW-190, but that's a case where we absolutely know that the DM has changed [and has been acknowledged to have some bugs in it by Oleg]. I did not test against planes that were AI and are now flyable such as the He-162 or G-50, so any changes there are also going to be unnoticed, and the new planes weren't there to test against. P-63 seems to have some issues, but I haven't tested anything else yet, other than the Spit '41.

The problem I have with the "the difference is obvious" line of reasoning is that if it's -really- obvious then the difference should be marked enough to be able to be shown on a track or a set of repeated experiments. If it's a very, very minor difference - or totally indistinguishable from 1.21 - then it won't.

It doesn't seem to show up. Single MG hits on an elevator of any single engine fighter from the Mk108 still remove the tailplane. Single 151/20 AP rounds in the engine block from any angle inside 400m still set fire to the engine for inline engined planes - even the new ones in AEP. Single MG rounds from 12 o'clock 400/400kmh combined target/shooter velocity still take off the Yak9s vertical tailplane. M4 HE rounds still exhibit the same variation [1 min 3 max hits for terminal damage on Bf109 fuselage, 1 min 2 max hits for La5 rudder, etc] from any angle/speed. I do not yet have the same size sample pool to compare against, but I am yet to see any variation in min/max rounds per kill. I am quite seriously not seeing one single difference show up.

This is why I am not entirely sure that any change has occured. The other thing is that we have not exactly been short of "weapon z should do more damage to target y" posts in the past - whatever version of Il2 or FB was current at the time :&gt;

If someone could show a track of differences in 1.21 / 2.0 - via ntrk or just saying "it should take bla to do this but now it does not" that would actually be very useful for my tests. Also quite likely, very useful if a person wants to get it changed back to the way it was/may have been before.

Some publicly posted tests that can be compared against can be found here: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/weapons.html

Without a bunch of tracks to go with them, and dispersion/frag effects varying between tests, you're only going to get so close to JtDs averages, but at the very least it provides a good picture of FB 1.11 gun effects.

Another long winded post :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-17-2004, 02:38 PM
"The only question I have for Oleg is, is it possible that changing some lines of code has actually had another affect on the weapons in the sim. To me it is pretty obvious that ALL the cannon rounds are less effective than they were a few weeks ago (1.22). I think that is all anyone is really saying. Weather it is more or less realistic, I really dont know."
_______________________________________________


Excellent post Fehler, it sums up exactly the way I feel (and what I have been saying) and it is good to hear it from someone else. Thanks for your post, it is much appreciated.

I even mentioned the radiator drag situation where Oleg and team changed flight models which unknown to them made changes in radiator drag for all planes. In short radiator drag was far too strong and was the completely unintended result of something else changed in code.

I suspect this is what happened, or Oleg and team simply felt the new way damage is calculated and represented is more accurate (which is fine by me). I just wanted to know that a change did occur and posts like yours definitely help.
_____________________________________________
"Track file this, image that, the bottom line is I know that what I was doing just a few short weeks ago is not nearly as effective as it is now.

I am also quite confident that none of the changes were made intentionally, as Oleg himself has stated that nothing was done to the guns in the game.

In 1.22, the 30mm seemed perfect to me. The 20mm, although not uber by any means, was effective with well placed hits. It truly feels as though this has changed, and I seriously doubt my gunnery skills have diminished in the few minutes it took me to install AEP! At least this HAS happened across the board and not to a particular 20mm gun."
_____________________________________________


Exactly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I think some of the problem may be as was said, more experienced players noticed a difference right away, for others it may not be as obvious. Also, I would put heavy machine guns in the "seems weaker" list as well. But again, I think structurally planes are just much stronger now, especially in wings. Which is more accurate? I don't know, I just know its not the same as before I installed AEP.

And I totally agree about the stalls/spins as I have posted about this also. I never spun my 190 before, after 1.21 and new engine torque sometimes I would get thrown around at top of hammerhead and go into spin if I was sloppy. Now I stall/spin fairly easily and have done so more times since AEP than in all the previous times I have flown. This may be the case for all planes but others would have to share their input (please do) but there certainly is a difference for 190.

Anyway, thanks for an excellent post.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

609IAP_Recon
03-18-2004, 05:25 AM
I'm continually seeing inconsistency with the DM.

ie. one pass with 190 on spit- close range, completely fill the spit with lead. Nothing but a slight oil leak, no performance change.

I follow him for 30km back to base, pass after pass, no change, he breaks hard, no problems. Continually I light him up with the 190A5 until I'm practically out of ammo. I hit him all over. This has happened over and over again.

10 minutes later I bounce another spit - sitting on his six holding down the fire button until his wing breaks off.

I continually notice this - what seems like great shots with explosions, etc do nothing?

I am a 109 pilot flying a 190 simply to offset this DM inconsistency, but as with last night, it doesn't seem to do much good.

Salute!

JG50_Recon

http://jg50.com/images/JG50_SIGG.gif
----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

609IAP_Recon
03-18-2004, 05:27 AM
"I think structurally planes are just much stronger now, especially in wings. Which is more accurate? "

Yes, and I am wondering why the change?

Is this a philosophy switch by Oleg's team - they think aircraft are all too weak?

Personally, I have felt they are all too strong

Salute!

JG50_Recon

http://jg50.com/images/JG50_SIGG.gif
----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com