Planes should burn and disintegrate more easily

[MajorTom]

Have been reading "Poles in Defence of Britain" book with hundreds of real life accounts from the Battle of Britain and noticed that there is big difference what happened to planes when shot IRL vs this simulation.

IRL fighter planes catched fire in most cases very easily and became a fiery disintegrating comet very fast.

Bombers engines catched fire also quite easily even .303's were quite ineffective against those big machines.

After the patch I did plenty of DM testing with 100m convergence and different ammo sets.

In this sim the planes rarely burn and if burn no damage is done to the plane and they continue flying almost eternity.

You just have to hit the plane with dozens of 20mm hits or hundreds of .303 hits and after that it goes down only with small leaks or you have to get the pilot.

That’s why I prefer AP shots now on 20mm. You can get the pilot much more easily. HE ammo for 20mm is almost useless.

[drewpee]

Firing 20mm is like throwing rocks, you can knock off loose bits of a plane and not much else. Considering the shutter of recoil that goes through the it pretty disappointing.

[xnomad]

I flew a Spitfire for several minutes with my engine in flames and I thought any second now it would spread to the cockpit or blow up. It never did.

The 20mm is pretty unsatisfying. Today I pulled up behind several Beaufighters and just let the 20mm rip (no MG) and it just made big holes here and there that don't seem to affect the AI's handling.

I often knock tail planes off and leave big holes in the AI aircraft from cannon shells and they fly on unaffected, even out flying me in terms of speed and maneuverability.

When I did the same to the Blenheims with the MG only the engines start to burn instantly and the crew bail out.

I think most of the planes I shoot down in the 109, fall because of MG fire. I sometimes fight with just the cannon to compare, and and it just isn't as effective.

I can't wait for a Bf109 E1 with 4 MG's instead of this crap cannon it will own the skies! :D

[drewpee]

In the manual there's a type of ammo called M-Geschoss (German High Explosive Shells) but they're not available in the game.:confused:

[AnarchyZG]

I think it's a matter of perception. In Il-2 the damage was almost always spectacular and exaggerated. In CoD, the damage effects are more subtle and realistic. For example, the other day I got hit by a short although accurate burst by a Spit, the only thing the Spit pilot noticed was a tiny vapor trail while I had dozen or so systems knocked out or damaged. Now I would not be surprised if he felt that .303 were ineffective, however that was not the case.

Same thing the other way around, most of the time it's not obvious just how much you damaged your target, most of the time the enemy seems to lose control, slows down or exhibits the signs of reduced maneuverability with very little visual cue on the damage inflicted (although with external views the damage gets more obvious).

I agree that at the moment cannons do seem to be under performing compared to machine guns. As if 20mm API shells do not have a significantly more chance to set something on fire (compared to MGs) while HE shells seem to work well only on control surfaces.

Anyway it is difficult to test those assumptions, perhaps in the future when we get the SDK we could build a test rig where you'd place an aircraft on the ground and shoot at it in a controlled manner to test the effects :)

[Ze-Jamz]

I think it's a matter of perception. In Il-2 the damage was almost always spectacular and exaggerated. In CoD, the damage effects are more subtle and realistic. For example, the other day I got hit by a short although accurate burst by a Spit, the only thing the Spit pilot noticed was a tiny vapor trail while I had dozen or so systems knocked out or damaged. Now I would not be surprised if he felt that .303 were ineffective, however that was not the case.

Same thing the other way around, most of the time it's not obvious just how much you damaged your target, most of the time the enemy seems to lose control, slows down or exhibits the signs of reduced maneuverability with very little visual cue on the damage inflicted (although with external views the damage gets more obvious).

I agree that at the moment cannons do seem to be under performing compared to machine guns. As if 20mm API shells do not have a significantly more chance to set something on fire (compared to MGs) while HE shells seem to work well only on control surfaces.

Anyway it is difficult to test those assumptions, perhaps in the future when we get the SDK we could build a test rig where you'd place an aircraft on the ground and shoot at it in a controlled manner to test the effects :)

Couple of things...im no expert nor are we, nor can we judge what is accurate and whats not though id like to see the ammo a lil more powerfull to use a better word..

When i get a plane on fire or i see a wing fall off im almost surprised it happened, i have alot of time when flyinh the 109 hit AC with 20's just to see a few bit fall off and they bank away to evade, yes you do get this is some cases but its happening more than 'not'..

But then i can pepper a 109 with 303's thinking that wasnt a decent deflection shot, look over my shoulder and hes streaming white smoke..

It is however harder to get kills in this game than in Il2 and it should be the FM and DM's are miles apart...its a pitty the devs didnt have a slider that they could turn down which is called ''How many rounds to do this amount of DMG'' So we could try it and give feedback.. :)

Anyhewww..

It would also be cool though i do appreciate there is alot of info on screen as it is have another box that tells us what DMG weve done to the EA..now that would be usefull

[whoarmongar]

To be honest I wish the accursed damage info box was not available, Its patently stupid that whilst playing online on a full real server that this info is available to you

[SG1_Lud]

...its a pitty the devs didnt have a slider that they could turn down which is called ''How many rounds to do this amount of DMG'' So we could try it and give feedback..

Just thought you might want to read this
http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,3892.0.html

Scroll down to the weapons section ;)

[Ze-Jamz]

Just thought you might want to read this
http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,3892.0.html

Scroll down to the weapons section ;)

Yea ive read parts of this mate however what im revering too is the devs having a slider that will allow more dmg of weapons across the board so everyone got kills easier...sounds a bit silly now but it was in context with the post :)

[SG1_Lud]

Yea ive read parts of this mate however what im revering too is the devs having a slider that will allow more dmg of weapons across the board so everyone got kills easier...sounds a bit silly now but it was in context with the post :)


Ah ok :)

But then don't be shy, ask them if they could put amraams too just in case the damn plane doesn't explode. (j/k)

[brando]

Have been reading "Poles in Defence of Britain" book with hundreds of real life accounts from the Battle of Britain and noticed that there is big difference what happened to planes when shot IRL vs this simulation.

IRL fighter planes catched fire in most cases very easily and became a fiery disintegrating comet very fast.

Bombers engines catched fire also quite easily even .303's were quite ineffective against those big machines.

After the patch I did plenty of DM testing with 100m convergence and different ammo sets.

In this sim the planes rarely burn and if burn no damage is done to the plane and they continue flying almost eternity.

You just have to hit the plane with dozens of 20mm hits or hundreds of .303 hits and after that it goes down only with small leaks or you have to get the pilot.

That’s why I prefer AP shots now on 20mm. You can get the pilot much more easily. HE ammo for 20mm is almost useless.

I haven't found much trouble getting German bombers to burn when using 25% of De Wilde .303 rounds in the load-out. Of course, it's necessary to get a good burst into a fuel tank to do that.
But I do agree about the modelling of the collapse of a plane after it has been set on fire. That seems to have been less well thought through than it could have been.