4.12.2 de-bugging

[SPAD-1949]

I noticed exactly the same, AI planes can't land on airfields build with the new runway tiles and also not on the invisible test runways.


OK, I took myself some time for testing.
Runway 1 and 2 (static ships) are not even to the ground.
Planes set on them will bounce when loading and crash immediately.

OK, I found out, since its in the choice box of ships, you need to treat this runways like a ship and assign the starting point to the runway icon.

Runway 3 and 4 5 & 6 work.
You can arrange 3 and 4 with many of them to larger areas and set take of to start waypoints.
5 and 6 are large flats, they work.
Most important, what I learned, by default, they are assigned to the red party.
This does not work with blue party planes unless you change the runway to the same colour as the aircraft or neutral.
Then you can proceed as it was a real airport.
Now you can create yor airport with runways and taxiways and stuff.

Sometimes it takes a little time :-)

[Juri_JS]

Thanks SPAD, this solved the problem.

I wished placing the runways would automatically remove the random trees. At the moment I am trying to build the historical airfield at Losonc/Lucenec on the Slovakia map, but all suitable locations are crowded with trees.

[Pursuivant]

At least on the P-400 and the Ju-87D2 fuel fires continue even after the plane is out of fuel!

On the P-400, fires continue even after the plane is completely submerged! (And this isn't just a cool "oil fire on the water surface effect, it's a flame effect which emerges from the plane).

[Baddington_VA]

Using the client 4.12.1m as a server in dogfight mode to play the attached mission, you can see a V1 rocket at Argentan Home Base.
If you play the same mission with the 4.12.1m Dedicated Server in dogfight mode you don't see it.

Is it a bug or a bad usage of the IL2 1946 4.12.1m Dedicated Server?

Tested on 412.2
Tested a mission today with V1 launching.
Offline in multiplay they work as intended.
Loaded onto an online server, the launch ramps do not appear and no rockets are launched.

I remember the V1 launchers were working online back around 4.09 - 4.10

[Janosch]

More mirror stuff: I just noticed that the circular mirrors of P-47D and P-47D-27 don't block the sun. It would appear that the earlier model rectangular mirrors work ok.

[ImpalerNL]

P-40E fuel gauge doesnt work.
When the low fuel light goes on, the fuel gauge says its at 50%.
When running out of fuel it goes from 50% to 0.
Also the low fuel light says slo instead of low.

Yak-1B and I-16 mixture levers dont move/work.

[ImpalerNL]

After a few QMB dogfights i see that the AI pilot doesnt bail out of his burning aircraft and keeps maneuvering.

[Notorious M.i.G.]

The Fulmar can fire its guns with wings folded. Also, artillery that requires a spotter will continue to fire on targets after the spotter aircraft is shot down.

[baball]

B-29's rear gunner's head disapears when he's killed.

[gaunt1]

B-29's rear gunner's head disapears when he's killed.

No it doesnt disappear. Its behind the body. I think it should not be fixed. Quite cool :grin:
Anyway, I think a 20mm, maybe even a 12.7mm should be able to to decapitate the gunner.

[Baddington_VA]

Setting Bridges as targets for an online mission.

Tested in IL2 multiplay the bridge is destroyed by 2 x 1000lb bombs, the target is closed.

When tested online with the same loadout, the bridge cannot be destroyed.
The target cannot be closed.

This has been tested over several days with no change in the result.

[idefix44]

Setting Bridges as targets for an online mission.

Tested in IL2 multiplay the bridge is destroyed by 2 x 1000lb bombs, the target is closed.

When tested online with the same loadout, the bridge cannot be destroyed.
The target cannot be closed.

This has been tested over several days with no change in the result.

It works fine for me. Using IL2 Dedicated Server 4.12.2m.

Merry XMas all.

[Wolkenbeisser]

Thanks for the great work TD :). Enjoing IL-2 since it's first hour (more than 10 years ago).

In MDS (hosted dogfight Mission with 4 - 10 players) the position of a moving carrier is not on the same place for all players. It seems that the position is not synchronized on the clients. I can regularly see planes spawning (and take off or land) from an invisible deck appearing some hundred meters behind or in front of the carrier (it moves with it). For the Client which takes off, everything looks normal, but on the other machines the carrier is not on the same position.

The Problem exists already since carriers can move in df-missions (afaik). I thought it's not a bad Moment to report it now. I hope it can be fixed with one of the next patches.

Has anyone seen the same Problem so far? I don't think I'm the only one with this Problem, am I?

[Tolwyn]

I have seen it in track playbacks; because tracks are essentially network packet recorders, yes. It's a confirmed "bug."

Albeit a cosmetic one, but still fairly significant when/if you consider movie making or something like that.

Thanks for the great work TD :). Enjoing IL-2 since it's first hour (more than 10 years ago).

In MDS (hosted dogfight Mission with 4 - 10 players) the position of a moving carrier is not on the same place for all players. It seems that the position is not synchronized on the clients. I can regularly see planes spawning (and take off or land) from an invisible deck appearing some hundred meters behind or in front of the carrier (it moves with it). For the Client which takes off, everything looks normal, but on the other machines the carrier is not on the same position.

The Problem exists already since carriers can move in df-missions (afaik). I thought it's not a bad Moment to report it now. I hope it can be fixed with one of the next patches.

Has anyone seen the same Problem so far? I don't think I'm the only one with this Problem, am I?

[IceFire]

Thanks for the great work TD :). Enjoing IL-2 since it's first hour (more than 10 years ago).

In MDS (hosted dogfight Mission with 4 - 10 players) the position of a moving carrier is not on the same place for all players. It seems that the position is not synchronized on the clients. I can regularly see planes spawning (and take off or land) from an invisible deck appearing some hundred meters behind or in front of the carrier (it moves with it). For the Client which takes off, everything looks normal, but on the other machines the carrier is not on the same position.

The Problem exists already since carriers can move in df-missions (afaik). I thought it's not a bad Moment to report it now. I hope it can be fixed with one of the next patches.

Has anyone seen the same Problem so far? I don't think I'm the only one with this Problem, am I?
We run a dozen scenarios that utilize aircraft carriers on Battlefield1 and at no point have I seen this particular issue. We've faced our share of challenges, many stemming from MOD use (HSFX was particularly bad, we've found SAS to be very much more compatible), but not this one.

This is a 4.12.2 dedicated server running the stock game only with FBDj running as our server daemon (not that that part should make any difference). No issues with clients.

Are you running a dedicated server?

[shelby]

missing markings for france and new zealand in h75a4 and mohawk

[Wolkenbeisser]

@IceFire: Ist a no-mod clean IL-2 Installation, version 4.12.2m, which is hosted on my own machine (via hyperlobby), played with two or three friends. It happens in every mission with a moving carrier. I can send you the sample Missions, if you want.

[IceFire]

@IceFire: Ist a no-mod clean IL-2 Installation, version 4.12.2m, which is hosted on my own machine (via hyperlobby), played with two or three friends. It happens in every mission with a moving carrier. I can send you the sample Missions, if you want.
Biggest difference is that you're running a server while playing the game and we have a dedicated server. That may be where the bug exists.

I suspect the mission file wouldn't reveal all that much. Standard home base with a carrier in its circle? No overlap?

[Ventura]

N1K1-Ja

Not sure if this was posted yet but, the cockpit slides forward when AI N1K1-Ja is taxiing (repeatable. Kyushu/Ayisha Airfield 3/45).
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c337/MF--C/niki-ja.jpg (http://s30.photobucket.com/user/MF--C/media/niki-ja.jpg.html)

[SPAD-1949]

N1K1-Ja

Not sure if this was posted yet but, the cockpit slides forward when AI N1K1-Ja is taxiing.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c337/MF--C/niki-ja.jpg (http://s30.photobucket.com/user/MF--C/media/niki-ja.jpg.html)

Looks OK at my computer, but the reticle is way to bright on the N1K1.
You cant aim throug it.

[Juri_JS]

I have noticed that for the winter objects 118 and 119 (barrels) and 123 (tank) the summer textures can be seen at a certain distance.

I am not sure if this is an old problem or caused by the new textures.

[Wolkenbeisser]

...Standard home base with a carrier in its circle? No overlap?

Yes, that's correct. Nothing special here. Hosted Mission, as you describe it. Perhaps too many objects on the map, not sure... :???:

[yak9utpro]

a great bug is on the P-39 when the engine is on fire the pilot gets hit something that shouldn't happen acording to the cutaways and wikipedia and if the aircraft moves forward (i think there is no reverse but anyway).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=41511

[GROHOT]

I find little unfortunately bug.
Customization.ini doesn't work.
I have this file in folder I-16 type 6.
I can editing and save this file.
But when I Alt+Tab from game to Windows I don't see any files in Cache folder...
You have too this problem on 4.12.2?
How version work correctly, only 4.09?

[Janosch]

Customization.ini doesn't work.

The instructions in the customization.ini are a bit unclear. When you select a custom paintscheme, then alt+tab from the plane selection menu, only a folder called I-16type6 appears in the Cache folder. It seems that you have to actually hit the Fly - button, then alt+tab. Then a new folder appears, with a name something like -8853136334215745202, whis is the checksum.

Btw, alas, customization doesn't seem to work on dogfight servers, only on singleplayer or coop missions.

[GROHOT]

Dear Janosh, doesn't work now too.
I think maybe something problem in instalation or something else...
I want reinstall Il-2 and try again on 4.09, 4,10, 4.11, 4.12 etc.

[Treetop64]

I have noticed that for the winter objects 118 and 119 (barrels) and 123 (tank) the summer textures can be seen at a certain distance.

I am not sure if this is an old problem or caused by the new textures.

Indeed, on winter maps the legacy winter textures for some ground objects are shown (the old airfield building textures, old barrel textures, etc.) but on summer maps the new textures for those same objects are shown.

[shelby]

rework the canopy for h75, p40b p40c tomahawks and flying tiger. it is different from outside and inside view

[SPAD-1949]

It just came to my attention, that Artillery like 15cm guns dont fire at ships, whilst ships fire as long as it takes to take the guns out.

[Aviar]

It just came to my attention, that Artillery like 15cm guns dont fire at ships, whilst ships fire as long as it takes to take the guns out.

Incorrect. I just made a quick test mission (4.12.2m) and that particular unit does fire on enemy ships (see screenshot).

The enemy ship(s) in your mission may be out of range.

Aviar

[Tolwyn]

Slight netcode tweak/check.

An airborne V1 rocket will not be captured in an NTRK recording (if started when V1 is in the air).

Also... would love ground object camera mode (or at least, V1 Rocket camera mode).

:)

[SPAD-1949]

Oh, really, but if I take howitzers they dont adjust and they need direct sight.
Also the Karl Gerät does not fire over hills, lke it should

[HBPencil]

A small visual glitch, on the type C and E wing Spitfires no empty 20mm casings are visible coming from the ejector chutes.

[Aardvark892]

Team Daidalos,

I first noticed a problem with the He-111H6 and it's ability to do torpedo runs after the release of 4.10. I created a QMB pack called "Torpedoes Away" that uses several maps all centered on torpedo run missions. During testing, design, and troubleshooting, I noticed that the H6 model will not perform torpedo runs accurately during any QMB mission. They just drop their torpedoes from cruising altitude and speed at the "target" waypoint. What makes this more unusual, is if I take that QMB mission and import it directly into Single Mission, they do the run just fine, but it just doesn't work in the QMB. I've tried dozens of alternate waypoints, and in all cases all the other torpedo capable aircraft will do a good run, but those H6's still refuse to cooperate. I've attached a zip file that contains a .ntrk that I just made, as well as the QMB torpedo pack for you to take a look at. Please let me know if there is any other information you need. Thanks for your time and work!

P.S. I did submit this error with 4.10, but never heard anything about it, so I thought I'd just repost it in case it got missed.

Tim

[Baddington_VA]

Soviet Studebecker Rocket Launcher Column.

When used online,
It can be damaged when moving,
but it will survive direct hits undamaged by bombs when the column is waiting static at a waypoint.
Yet is vulnerable to cannon or machine gun fire from aircraft when static.

[Aviar]

Soviet Studebecker Rocket Launcher Column.

When used online,
It can be damaged when moving,
but it will survive direct hits undamaged by bombs when the column is waiting static at a waypoint.
Yet is vulnerable to cannon or machine gun fire from aircraft when static.


Sorry, but my test results in an online coop mission were different than yours. I bombed the static column with two 1000 lb. bombs from a P-38L. As you can see from the sequence below, the bombs made a direct hit and took out several vehicles.

The column had been stopped for at least one minute.

Are your bombs actually exploding? Can you post a screenshot with your bombs exploding near the column with no damage to any vehicles?

Aviar

[Baddington_VA]

The mission is up on a running server.
I will try to get pictures next time it comes up.
The server does not allow external views when flying.
I have dropped 1000kg bombs on them, which destroys all the surrounding buildings and leaves a crater, but leaves the vehicles intact.
I've then strafed them, and bullets work fine on them.

The situation has been : Flying AR234 with 1x1000 +2x 250 SC bombs(long fuse).
First drop is the 2x250kg onto static rail wagons and trucks, A lot of damage done. Turn back and drop the 1000kg on the convoy.
Explosion seen on the convoy, but no damage.
First few times I put it down to "maybe bad aim" but the crater indicated a hit. It started becoming a persistent event.

I have hit these same convoys when they're moving.
Bombs seem to work on them at that stage.


But this is not the first time I have encountered such a problem.
Tested offline on the multiplay, the IL2 game features work.
Once up on a dedicated server, they don't work.
I've had to scrap missions because of this.

The V1 launchers are no longer in game.
Some Bridges can no longer be damaged or destroyed.

[IceFire]

The mission is up on a running server.
I will try to get pictures next time it comes up.
The server does not allow external views when flying.
I have dropped 1000kg bombs on them, which destroys all the surrounding buildings and leaves a crater, but leaves the vehicles intact.
I've then strafed them, and bullets work fine on them.

The situation has been : Flying AR234 with 1x1000 +2x 250 SC bombs(long fuse).
First drop is the 2x250kg onto static rail wagons and trucks, A lot of damage done. Turn back and drop the 1000kg on the convoy.
Explosion seen on the convoy, but no damage.
First few times I put it down to "maybe bad aim" but the crater indicated a hit. It started becoming a persistent event.

I have hit these same convoys when they're moving.
Bombs seem to work on them at that stage.


But this is not the first time I have encountered such a problem.
Tested offline on the multiplay, the IL2 game features work.
Once up on a dedicated server, they don't work.
I've had to scrap missions because of this.

The V1 launchers are no longer in game.
Some Bridges can no longer be damaged or destroyed.

I'll test this issue with the Studebaker rocket launchers online soon.

What other features? The V-1 issue is there. Not confirmed yet on this one. What else?

[Aviar]

You may be correct that this may be a DS issue. Let's see what DT has to say about it. My experience with DT is that they like to see proof of reported bugs. My advice is that you try and get screenshots or a track that can then be sent to DT.

Have you tried this scenario with other columns? It would be useful to know if other columns are also affected.

Aviar

[majorfailure]

You may be correct that this may be a DS issue. Let's see what DT has to say about it. My experience with DT is that they like to see proof of reported bugs. My advice is that you try and get screenshots or a track that can then be sent to DT.

Have you tried this scenario with other columns? It would be useful to know if other columns are also affected.

Aviar
Please do that. I have seen this "indestructible" vehicle columns a few times, and it turned out to be the location in which they were was to blame, not the vehicles themselves - and IIRC it seemed like there was some invisible net or trees above them, and from some angles the were partially touchable - it may be different in your case though.

[Baddington_VA]

What other features? The V-1 issue is there. Not confirmed yet on this one. What else?

The other one I found was bridges.
The large box girder type.
First test of the mission is offline in multiplay.
Set up as targets, a couple of 1000lb bombs could destroy the bridges.
Once on a dedicated server, the same direct hits did nothing to the bridges.

Maybe servers can choose to multiply the strength of bridges.
If they do, the server operators never mentioned it.

Have you tried this scenario with other columns? It would be useful to know if other columns are also affected.

The same mission has T44 tank columns, which show no problems.
One or two tanks can be destroyed with a single bomb run.
There are also various German supply columns in the same mission, none of which display the same effect as the Studebecker column.

The Studebecker columns at this point have parked themselves in the main streets of Lucenec on the Slovakia winter map.
I've never had a problem with bomb runs against vehicles in streets until this one.
I came back with an Me262/2a, dropped bombs into the street, and nothing destroyed, then turned back and fired the 108s at it, and I get Enemy vehicles destroyed.

Please do that. I have seen this "indestructible" vehicle columns a few times, and it turned out to be the location in which they were was to blame, not the vehicles themselves - and IIRC it seemed like there was some invisible net or trees above them, and from some angles the were partially touchable - it may be different in your case though.

It could be the buildings either side.
There are two columns, two different streets. Same thing happens.

I am going to try and get the mission put up looped on a test server so I can get a track or pictures.

[Baddington_VA]

Got it up on a test server, the result was the whole convoy went up with one hit.
Went back to the public server to try and repeat this.
2x 250 kg bombs knocked out 2 trucks, came back around and the 1000kg did nothing but destroy buildings either side of the street.
Repeated the attack on the second convoy with 1000kg
and got this result.
This is what I have been seeing for some time.
Track is included.

Images are taken from the .ntrk using external view.
1. Point of impact on road. SC1000
2. The bomb goes off, damage to buildings can be seen happening for some distance.
3. The crater with trucks undamaged.

[KG26_Alpha]

This is nothing new with SC1000kg

It been messed around with too much and is now classed as a demolition bomb.

Vehicles in towns (targets) will survive but buildings wont.

It just plain silly whats been done to the bombs and torps of late.

There's no hard and fast guide to whats been done and any recommended method of their usage has extremely inconsistent results.

Good thing is you can always go back to the old arming system and turn off bomb fuzes & fragile torps but you cant change the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the SC1000 & SC2000 bombs.










.

[Baddington_VA]

There's no hard and fast guide to whats been done and any recommended method of their usage has extremely inconsistent results.

There was time for one sortie after that.
The bombs took out the whole convoy.:confused:
It could be the proximity of buildings.
Like most flyers of IL2, I know what happens, but not always how.

The 1000 knocks out tanks on the open road, being a demolition bomb, it should be no more effective than a 500 at that task.

[Juri_JS]

During testing of a new mission type for Asura's DGen we have discovered a FMB problem. When the campfire object "vehicles.stationary.Campfire$CampfireAirfield" is set to "Army: Red/Blue" and the mission saved, the campfire will be automatically reset to "Army: none" when the mission is opened again in FMB.

[Aardvark892]

TD!

I've just flown a 1937 I-16; my wingman and I against a couple of Finnish Gladiators. I started a .ntrk as soon as the mission started (QMB). Unfortunately, the recording shows the wrong gunsight... one with a cover (the long tube kind... sorry if I don't remember the name).

Also, was it just my terrible gunnery skills (which are truly terrible) or did the Gladiator I followed to the deck seem "nigh invincible"? I know that particular I-16 I was flying didn't have very powerful guns, but this seems just a bit ridiculous.

I've attached the .ntrk to this post if you'd like to see it... but I know you guys are all pretty busy.

Thanks!

[gaunt1]

Its much more effective if used vs german planes, but indeed, ShKAS needs fixing. The problem is that you can fire it all the day, while doing minimal damage, just like the MG15/17 or .30 Browning. Seems like rate of fire isnt modeled properly.
ShKAS should run out of ammo very quickly, but in exchange, should do massive damage compared to guns mentioned above.

[Janosch]

Based on a test firing, QMB stats, wikipedia and calculations, I say that the ShKAS rate of fire is modeled correctly, at least on paper. But I would have to fire and hit with every round to be sure...

Gladiators may well feel overly strong, being able to fly while looking like Swiss cheese, but it's possible that nothing vital was hit. But it's actually like breakfast cheddar. You poke it and you get cheese on your fingers: firing from behind, you don't have the option to aim precisely at a weak spot. I thought I was aiming well with Cr.42, and shot at the fuselage, seemingly wasting tons of ammo, but a lucky close range short burst from a different angle took out the Gladiator's wing.

Wing mounted ShKAS are tricky weapons, especially with a plane that has poor gunsights, high instability and no elevator trim. The key is to set weapon convergence to much less than 150m and fire at close range. With a bit of luck and an angle that just exposes e.g. the target's engine, even a short burst does the job.
The problem is that even AI may start evading properly once you get to an effective range. And that imho is what makes early 109 sauerkraut guns (e.g. if the cannon is damaged) sometimes feel underpowered, too.

[Pursuivant]

Gladiators may well feel overly strong, being able to fly while looking like Swiss cheese, but it's possible that nothing vital was hit. But it's actually like breakfast cheddar.

Something that IL2 doesn't model, or model well, is the fact that many 1930s era planes which had fabric over wood or metal frame construction were actually quite resistant to gunfire.

Many bullets would just punch through or shred the fabric without hitting any part of the frame. Additionally, explosive rounds might not be triggered if they just hit fabric. Or, if they do explode, they just blow away the surrounding fabric with little actual damage to the airframe (since there is very little solid structure to contain the blast and increase its intensity).

So, it's realistic for planes like the Cr.42, Gladiator or Hurricane to still be able to (sort of) fly if their fabric is shredded.

Obviously, any hit of that sort will cause increased drag, though. Also, hits to the wings can easily cause strips of fabric to tear away due to slipstream effects, causing bigger problems in maintaining lift than the same damage to a monocoque or metal-skinned plane.

[sniperton]

Yep, but what about the Wellington? They do fly with 1/3 (or even more) of their wing surface gone due to MG hits. They are not like cheese, they're like flying skeletons.

[Woke Up Dead]

Yep, but what about the Wellington? They do fly with 1/3 (or even more) of their wing surface gone due to MG hits. They are not like cheese, they're like flying skeletons.

Keep in mind that those are graphical representations of damage, and don't necessarily correlate to actual damage. For example, maybe you hit the Wellington's wing with one bullet just enough to do some damage, and the graphical representation of that damage looks like you hit it with dozens of bullets. The 109's wing's damage is another good example of this: you hit it hard with a single machine gun bullet and you might get those two basketball-sized holes to appear that look like they could have only been caused by cannon shells.

[sniperton]

Keep in mind that those are graphical representations of damage, and don't necessarily correlate to actual damage.

That's one of my points. 'Cause it means that the graphical representation is disproportional to the actual damage. My other point is that the Wellington is nearly invulnerable to structural damage. I've never ever succeeded in bringing down a Wellington other way than by flaming its engines, no matter whether I used HMGs or cannons. Dunno whether it's realistic, hence my question.

[IceFire]

That's one of my points. 'Cause it means that the graphical representation is disproportional to the actual damage. My other point is that the Wellington is nearly invulnerable to structural damage. I've never ever succeeded in bringing down a Wellington other way than by flaming its engines, no matter whether I used HMGs or cannons. Dunno whether it's realistic, hence my question.

Wellington's were known for their battle toughness...

The Wellington used a geodesic construction method, which had been devised by Barnes Wallis inspired by his work on airships, and had previously been used to build the single-engined Wellesley light bomber. The fuselage was built up from 1650 elements, consisting of aluminium alloy (duralumin) W-beams that were formed into a large framework. Wooden battens were screwed onto the aluminium, and these were covered with Irish linen, which, once treated with many layers of dope, formed the outer skin of the aircraft. The metal lattice gave the structure tremendous strength, because any one of the stringers could support some of the weight from even the opposite side of the aircraft. Blowing out one side's beams would still leave the aircraft as a whole intact; as a result, Wellingtons with huge areas of framework missing continued to return home when other types would not have survived; the dramatic effect was enhanced by the doped fabric skin burning off, leaving the naked frames exposed (see photo).

In one incident, a German Bf 110 night-fighter attacked a Wellington returning from an attack on Münster, Germany, causing a fire at the rear of the starboard engine. Co-pilot Sergeant James Allen Ward climbed out of the fuselage in flight, kicked holes in the doped fabric of the wing for foot and hand holds to reach the starboard engine and smothered the burning upper wing covering. He and the aircraft returned home safely, and Ward was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Wellington

The graphical representations work like this. There are 3 states of damage: 1) Undamaged 2) Light damage 3) Heavy damage

All of these states are done by the visual artist for the model. If the artist overdoes it a bit on any one of these it may make it look worse than it actually is. The damage states give you a clue as to how much damage you've done but not the full picture.

As always, it's best to do damage to vulnerable areas. Particularly on bombers you aim for fuel tanks, engines and the cockpit. You avoid firing on the structural elements as many bombers are fairly tough and aircraft like the B-29, Wellington, B-17 and others were well known for being able to absorb incredible punishment and still staying aloft.

[Pursuivant]

All of these states are done by the visual artist for the model. If the artist overdoes it a bit on any one of these it may make it look worse than it actually is.

This is also the reason that destroyed planes sometimes seem to have damage that should allow the plane to still fly. For example, many planes could still fly (sort of) with the outer third or quarter of one wing removed, but in IL2 they cannot.


As always, it's best to do damage to vulnerable areas. Particularly on bombers you aim for fuel tanks, engines and the cockpit.

And, if possible, try to attack a bit from above, below or to the side so you maximize target area and have a better chance of hitting vulnerable areas, rather than just chewing up the plane's tail or the trailing edge of its wing.

The exception is for head-on attacks where you want to try to align yourself perfectly with the oncoming enemy plane so you don't have to correct for deflection in the very limited time you have to shoot. Otherwise, when making a head-on, try to attack from slightly above and to the target plane's left side, so you have the best chance of hitting the pilot and the port side engines and fuel tanks.

If you go online, you can sometimes find field manuals which show a certain plane's weak spots. If that information isn't available, it's generally a good strategy to aim at the wing roots, since there will usually be a fuel tank there. Also, if you miss slightly, there will usually be a fuel tank or bomb bay in the plane's fuselage, right where the fuselage and the wings cross (typically, that's the plane's Center of Gravity).

Finally, give yourself a bit more lead than you expect when making high deflection shots against bombers. Most of the really vulnerable stuff (cockpit, engines, fuel tanks) is up front.

Hits to the rear fuselage are mostly a waste of ammo. About the only thing that's a really good target in the rear of the plane are the rear gunners. Take out the tail gunner or top gunner and if you choose your angle right you can get in close to deliver the coup de grace without getting zapped by the bomber's other guns.

[sniperton]

Thanks for the info! Anyway, admitting that my gunnery and attack skills are mediocre at best, you can see on the attached image that first I disabled the tail gunner, went closer (<150m), and attacked exactly those vulnerable parts you suggested (cockpit, wingroot, engines). I was flying a Tomahawk IIRC. Probably my attack was not steep enough to hit anything vital well inside the plane's structure, but I'm pretty sure that the engine cowlings (which remained intact) got the same amount of bullets as the inner wing area nearby.

[majorfailure]

Thanks for the info! Anyway, admitting that my gunnery and attack skills are mediocre at best, you can see on the attached image that first I disabled the tail gunner, went closer (<150m), and attacked exactly those vulnerable parts you suggested (cockpit, wingroot, engines). I was flying a Tomahawk IIRC. Probably my attack was not steep enough to hit anything vital well inside the plane's structure, but I'm pretty sure that the engine cowlings (which remained intact) got the same amount of bullets as the inner wing area nearby.

Looks like your bullets went all over the place. And If you really flew a Tomahawk, then it is not the best idea to attack from behind, Wellingtons and other tough planes,e. g. He-111, SM79 ... can soak up lots of non-cannon size bullets if they come from behind - but a few well placed bursts into the cockpit or engines do the trick.

Edit:
Just tried it myself, one long burst form ~200m and closing into the the Wellingtons right wing, and the inboard and outboard fuel tank burned, as well as right engine dead.

[Pursuivant]

Thanks for the info! Anyway, admitting that my gunnery and attack skills are mediocre at best, you can see on the attached image that first I disabled the tail gunner, went closer (<150m), and attacked exactly those vulnerable parts you suggested (cockpit, wingroot, engines). I was flying a Tomahawk IIRC. Probably my attack was not steep enough to hit anything vital well inside the plane's structure, but I'm pretty sure that the engine cowlings (which remained intact) got the same amount of bullets as the inner wing area nearby.

It looks like heavy damage to the plane's fuselage and inner wings, but no concentrated hits on any vital part of the plane.

If you really want to know where your bullets go, and what effect they're having on your target, play using Arcade mode. To set it up, edit your conf.ini file so that Arcade=1.

Once it's set up, any bullet that hits its target will show as a big arrow stuck through the plane, and any cannon shell that hits will show a "star" of arrows. If you inflict serious damage on your target, you'll see a cartoon "thought bubble" over the plane when it suffers a crew hit or critical or fatal damage. It's a very good training aid to improve your deflection shooting.

[Pursuivant]

And now an actual bug report. It seems that the RPM gauge on the Tomahawk MkIIb is miscalibrated. When you throttle back the engine and the prop pitch, the needle goes "below zero" and hovers near the 18,000 rpm mark.

When you put the plane in a long dive with 100% prop pitch, such that you're above 730 kph and the plane is buffeting due to compression, engine RPM hover at just over 6,000 rpm.

[IceFire]

Thanks for the info! Anyway, admitting that my gunnery and attack skills are mediocre at best, you can see on the attached image that first I disabled the tail gunner, went closer (<150m), and attacked exactly those vulnerable parts you suggested (cockpit, wingroot, engines). I was flying a Tomahawk IIRC. Probably my attack was not steep enough to hit anything vital well inside the plane's structure, but I'm pretty sure that the engine cowlings (which remained intact) got the same amount of bullets as the inner wing area nearby.

From your screen shots I see a lot of damage to both sides of the aircraft as well as a lot of damage across two different fuselage areas and the back elevators as well. To me it looks like you spread a lot of firepower across the entire aircraft... against something like the Wellington or even a Heinkel or Ju88 its not often going to be enough to cripple.

Pursuivant is right that coming in from an angle is the best approach. I prefer above because you are able to put fire from an angle into the fuel tanks and engines and you have speed to disengage and position for a second attack. Dead 6 (or right behind) is a bad place to be because of defensive fire and because you're wasting a lot of bullets on structure that doesn't matter as much.

With a P-40C (Tomahawk II) you also have somewhat limited firepower. A pair of .50cals plus four .30cals. The .30cals pretty much don't count against anything except the engines and fuel. The .50cals will do structural damage, however, you only have two of them which is enough weight of fire to matter against a fighter but not enough to matter against something as well constructed as a Wellington. With cannons you can be indiscriminate because a high explosive 20mm or especially a 37mm will blast whole areas of the plane and cause structural and system damage. With machine guns you want to aim for things that matter.

So try and come in from an angle (use deflection shooting), aim for fuel/engines/cockpit and concentrate fire in one area. Pour it on. All into the engine or into the wingroot. If you make more than one pass then put your shots into the same area.

[Pursuivant]

Dead 6 (or right behind) is a bad place to be because of defensive fire and because you're wasting a lot of bullets on structure that doesn't matter as much.

It's especially bad vs. the Wellington because there's a power turret in the tail with twin guns and a very good field of fire.

If you do have to hang out behind a bomber and can't overtake them quickly (about 50-75 kph faster), try to hang out at 300-500 m and take "sniper" shots at one of the engine nacelles. Usually there will be a fuel tank behind or adjacent to the engine and you might get lucky and start a fire.

Ideally, you'll have your guns converged for your preferred firing distance before you take your sniper shots. This is particularly important for planes with wing-mounted guns, less so for planes with nose-mounted cannons or with guns in the wings which are mounted quite close to the fuselage.

If you have to get within 300 m, try to shift around after each shot you take and don't stay in one place (relative to the bombers gunners' point of view) for more than a second or so. Plan your shot at a vital part a second or so in advance as you jink around above and below the gunner's field of fire and make "snapshots" as your target comes into your sights.

Also, practice your gunnery. Try to challenge yourself by taking increasingly tricky high-speed, high deflection shots. Just set up an easy mission in the QMB, give yourself unlimited ammo and go.

If you're not used to how a particular plane's guns work, there is a program called "Sniper's Corners" which turns an Excel spreadsheet into a sort of gunnery calculator. Using it, you can get a sense of how much lead you need to give a target in different attack scenarios.

With a P-40C (Tomahawk II) you also have somewhat limited firepower.

More to the point, in IL2 the entire P-40/Hawk 87/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk series is very vulnerable to damage from the front. Just about any bullet in the nose is going to kill the engine and/or oil coolant system. Bullets that miss those systems WILL go through the windshield (where the armor glass isn't modeled) and will kill the pilot. If that doesn't happen, your control cables will get hit. I can't count the number of times I've quit a P-40 bomber intercept mission with the pilot dead, engine stopped and/or control cables severed.

If you can learn to live with its crummy high altitude performance and vicious spin recovery characteristics, the P-39/P-400 or P-63 are my bomber interceptors of choice. Even better, for some reason IL2 does a poor job of modeling hits to the guns in the P-39/P-400s nose, and the hits to the oil/coolant system take 20+ minutes to finally kill the engine, so you can take a lot of abuse and keep on blasting away. Your only risk is a pilot hit through the windscreen (again, bulletproof glass and armor plate between the cockpit and the nose guns not modeled).

But that's not an excuse to just hang out behind a bomber formation and soak up bullets. Practice your deflection shooting!

[sniperton]

Thanks guys for the advice, but as I wrote, first I took out the tail gunner from a quick pass from upper right (hence the damage on the right elevator and on the tail section on the fuselage), then I cut back on throttle and sneaked closer, hanging around in a distance of about 150 to 200, yo-yoing from upper right to upper left, aiming at vulnerable parts, but I didn't have a rudder pedal in those times, so I had to rely on a sort of spray and pray tactics. What astonished me, and it was my original point, that the Wellington LOOKED severaly damaged, and still it flew. I think its damage layer is a bit overdone.

[IceFire]

Thanks guys for the advice, but as I wrote, first I took out the tail gunner from a quick pass from upper right (hence the damage on the right elevator and on the tail section on the fuselage), then I cut back on throttle and sneaked closer, hanging around in a distance of about 150 to 200, yo-yoing from upper right to upper left, aiming at vulnerable parts, but I didn't have a rudder pedal in those times, so I had to rely on a sort of spray and pray tactics. What astonished me, and it was my original point, that the Wellington LOOKED severaly damaged, and still it flew. I think its damage layer is a bit overdone.

Possibly a matter of taste... but I think the artist was trying to show the unique construction off the aircraft.

Wellington battle damage sometimes looked like this:

http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Wellington-bomber-fire-damage.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q137/DavidLayne/raf%20items/Wellington1.jpg

Remember, in a typically constructed aircraft using monocoque design the external skin is supporting the load (like an egg). With the Wellingtons geodesic construction, its the framing under the skin that keeps it together. The skin can be torn of burnt off which looks horrible but it doesn't mean that the airframe wasn't still capable of being held together.

BTW: I did some shoot em up with the Wellington tonight and the point you want to aim at is the wings on the outside of the engine. The fuel tanks don't take too much before they light on fire.

[sniperton]

OK, thanks a lot for the pictures, now I see it was my ignorance that misled me: I simply didn't take into consideration that it was an uncommon construction with uncommon (and therefore 'unbelievable') damage resistance. :)

And of course I should have studied the plane's general design: I expected the fuel tanks inside, not outside the engines... :oops:

[Pursuivant]

BTW: I did some shoot em up with the Wellington tonight and the point you want to aim at is the wings on the outside of the engine. The fuel tanks don't take too much before they light on fire.

Yep. Almost too easy to set them on fire. Amazingly tough airframe, amazingly vulnerable fuel tanks. They light up just like Bettys (G4M1). I'm assuming that the early versions didn't have self-sealing fuel tanks. Assuming it's not an error in modeling, it was badly misplaced design priorities by Vickers.

[IceFire]

Yep. Almost too easy to set them on fire. Amazingly tough airframe, amazingly vulnerable fuel tanks. They light up just like Bettys (G4M1). I'm assuming that the early versions didn't have self-sealing fuel tanks. Assuming it's not an error in modeling, it was badly misplaced design priorities by Vickers.

Agreed. Not sure if its meant to be that way or not but they are surprisingly easy to bring down if you aim for just on the outboard of either engine... the crew will bail fairly quickly.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

I had a weird bug in il2 sturmovik while flying online with other 40 pilots. I do not know if it was because of the hsfx7.01 or because of the 4.12.2, but what happened was my bombs exploded just when they hit the ground although I had selected the electric fuze (long). You can see in the video below I have selected the long fuze before releasing the bombs so the delay should be 8 sec, am I right? but as you can see at the end of the video the bombs exploded just when they hit the ground killing me in the process. The game was in full real and obviously the fuzes were activated.

I have tried many times after the incident to reproduce the same incident offline with no success.

Can anyone bring some light into this mystery? It is in Spanish I am afraid, but it is explained above.

Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbb982i3OFs&feature=youtu.be)

[KG26_Alpha]

I had a weird bug in il2 sturmovik while flying online with other 40 pilots. I do not know if it was because of the hsfx7.01 or because of the 4.12.2, but what happened was my bombs exploded just when they hit the ground although I had selected the electric fuze (long). You can see in the video below I have selected the long fuze before releasing the bombs so the delay should be 8 sec, am I right? but as you can see at the end of the video the bombs exploded just when they hit the ground killing me in the process. The game was in full real and obviously the fuzes were activated.

I have tried many times after the incident to reproduce the same incident offline with no success.

Can anyone bring some light into this mystery? It is in Spanish I am afraid, but it is explained above.

Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbb982i3OFs&feature=youtu.be)

Launch your stock game and repeat the procedure that killed you before.

Launch HSFX 7 v.x repeat again and see if it still persists.

If its not killing you instantly in stock game and it is isn't killing you in HSFX 7 v.x then there probably is a server client and or client to client mismatch in HSFX 7 v.1 or v.2 you have to make sure everyone's on the same version or low level bombing becomes a mess.

If the server allows stock 4.12.2 clients with HSFX 7 clients this can be the problem also.

Edit:

Just to add it was to do with the bomb synchronization TD did between clients seeing the same as each other when bombs hit the ground, this causes the "low level insta death" of the person dropping their bombs if the clients game versions are mismatched.

[Pursuivant]

When the Wellington is very heavily damaged, such that both the left inner and outer wings are completely blown away, the damage end cap for the left inner wing is still visible.

When the nose (forward fuselage) is blown off and the nose gunner/bombardier is killed, rather than vanishing the body remains suspended in space ahead of the rest of the plane.

[majorfailure]

Kursk map, Quadrant H3:
There is a rail bridge in place of a road bridge - roads lead to and from it, so it is neither usable for trains or vehicles

[dFrog]

Kursk map, Quadrant H3:
There is a rail bridge in place of a road bridge - roads lead to and from it, so it is neither usable for trains or vehicles

The opposite is in Normandy maps. There is road bridge instead of a rail bridge south of Caen. I reported this more than year ago and nothing happened.

Many maps have bugs, but none was fixed.

[sniperton]

Yep

Old bug, dunno whether reported before:

Normandy map, near Caen, to the South of Louvigny, at 76.5:59.1, a wrong object, a vehicular road bridge is connecting two rail sections, making East-West rail traffic practically impossible for the whole Caen region.

Near this bridge, going west, at Eterville, a house at 75,36:59,36 and a shack at 75,47:59,47 straddle the railway.
I guess that they don't help the traffic... :rolleyes:

When 4.13 comes out (in two weeks, for sure), we'll see what happened to them ;)

[Pursuivant]

When 4.13 comes out (in two weeks, for sure), we'll see what happened to them ;)

Maybe those misplaced railroad bridges and buildings represent the work of the French Resistance!

Very clever Maquis, to replace a road bridge with a railroad bridge and to make buildings straddle the rail line, rather than just using dynamite!

:) :) :)

[majorfailure]

Again Kursk map:
Quadrant E7 near Dimitriev-Logovskiy - there is a road bridge where a rail bridge should be. This makes the western part of the railroad network pretty useless.
Quadrant F3 near Lgov - rails across a river without a bridge - not tested if trains will drive across despite that.
Quadrant I3 there is a railway crossing with a road, but instead of going across the road, there is a gap in the rails. Now the western part of the railroad network is totally useless.

I'm a bit astonished noone ever discovered this or if so it wasn't corrected

[Oscarito]

"Next Enemy View" key still shows the "Stationary Camera View" in adition.
Think there is no reason for this anymore since 4.12v provides a key to cycle through cameras.

[Treetop64]

Again Kursk map:
Quadrant E7 near Dimitriev-Logovskiy - there is a road bridge where a rail bridge should be. This makes the western part of the railroad network pretty useless.
Quadrant F3 near Lgov - rails across a river without a bridge - not tested if trains will drive across despite that.
Quadrant I3 there is a railway crossing with a road, but instead of going across the road, there is a gap in the rails. Now the western part of the railroad network is totally useless.

I'm a bit astonished noone ever discovered this or if so it wasn't corrected

There are several such bugs on the Kurland Peninsula map as well. At least two airfields (Cranz and one other I can't remember at the moment) have AI parking nodes on a taxiway, resulting in AI aircraft taxiing and crashing into other AI machines parked on the taxiway, rendering those airfields all but useless for AI aircraft.

A rail line in the mid-eastern and north-eastern part of the map is missing bridges, rendering those rail lines useless.

[Vendigo]

When ejecting from a He-162 with the engine on fire, the pilot's "life" stays attached to the plane not the pilot figure until you fall out your eject seat in midair. Just like the third person view during ejecting. Can this be corrected?

[Pfeil]

When ejecting from a He-162 with the engine on fire, the pilot's "life" stays attached to the plane not the pilot figure until you fall out your eject seat in midair. Just like the third person view during ejecting. Can this be corrected?

The same happens with the Do-335. The aircraft remains controllable as long as the pilot is attached to the falling seat(IIRC you can actually switch back to F1 cockpit view during this time).

Presumably there's a technical reason for this, as most of these advanced features seem to work around engine limitations.

[Oscarito]

Hi TD!

I think that a subtle fine tunning is needed on "Takeoff Line" and "Landing Straigh in" features.

Takeoff Line:
Whenever the leader (plane 1) is not the first to get airborne the flight goes into a mess as soon as it reaches the second waypoint (normfly) in which the AI planes are firstly instructed to keep formation (whatever the type). Usually one or more planes crash to the ground while trying to find their place through erratic flight behavior. I wonder if it would be possible to make the leader begin takeoff procedure some seconds before the others to avoid the mess...
(BTW, the leaders should always go first don't you think so? :mrgreen:)

Land Straight in:
Planes land too close to each other to the point that some of them start chewing the tail of the guy ahead.
I've found that "plane 4" uses to be the trouble maker because I don't notice this problem when I set the flight with only three planes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obs. v4.12..............The Best Patch Ever!!!:grin::grin:

[Aviar]

Hi TD!

I think that a subtle fine tunning is needed on "Takeoff Line" and "Landing Straigh in" features.

Takeoff Line:
Whenever the leader (plane 1) is not the first to get airborne the flight goes into a mess as soon as it reaches the second waypoint (normfly) in which the AI planes are firstly instructed to keep formation (whatever the type). Usually one or more planes crash to the ground while trying to find their place through erratic flight behavior. I wonder if it would be possible to make the leader begin takeoff procedure some seconds before the others to avoid the mess...
(BTW, the leaders should always go first don't you think so? :mrgreen:)

Land Straight in:
Planes land too close to each other to the point that some of them start chewing the tail of the guy ahead.
I've found that "plane 4" uses to be the trouble maker because I don't notice this problem when I set the flight with only three planes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obs. v4.12..............The Best Patch Ever!!!:grin::grin:

I agree with both of these points. I've seen each one many times and it would be nice to fix them if possible.

Aviar

[Vendigo]

There is a problem with planes taking off big US carriers, most of the times one or two aircraft will crash into the superstructure deck. As Japanese carriers have much smaller superstucture deck, their planes don't crash into it.
It began since 4.12 or 4.11 I think as in old Pearl Harbour everything worked fine. It's very frustrating, hopefully the AI for US carrier take off can be revised.

[Igo kyu]

There is a problem with planes taking off big US carriers, most of the times one or two aircraft will crash into the superstructure deck. As Japanese carriers have much smaller superstucture deck, their planes don't crash into it.
It began since 4.12 or 4.11 I think as in old Pearl Harbour everything worked fine. It's very frustrating, hopefully the AI for US carrier take off can be revised.
Some of the planes always used to clip the islands when taking off, but for some reason they didn't crash when they did. A fix that means the aircraft taking a better route along the deck may therefore involve finding and fixing a bug in the original code, so it's probably not simple to do.

[KG26_Alpha]

There is a problem with planes taking off big US carriers, most of the times one or two aircraft will crash into the superstructure deck. As Japanese carriers have much smaller superstucture deck, their planes don't crash into it.
It began since 4.12 or 4.11 I think as in old Pearl Harbour everything worked fine. It's very frustrating, hopefully the AI for US carrier take off can be revised.

Hi please attach the mission here or copy and paste it.

thanks

[zakkandrachoff]

i dont read before, and i have a problem. Already install 4.12.2 and touch all off labels on the HUD, but i still see the identification labels of the aircraft i see and i cant quit this! what im missing??? :confused:

[sniperton]

There's a shortkey for changing icon types, default is Ctr-I, IIRC.

[idefix44]

1- At location 47000 54300 is a little village. Its name (Velke Ostratice) is located at 52500 53000.
2- The railroad is broken from Slovenska Lupca to Lucatin at location 121300 67700.

One of the most beautiful map of the game.

Thx.

[Pursuivant]

Back to abusing fighters by flying them badly against bombers. This time it's the Ki-61-II Otsu's turn.

Normally, I wouldn't complain about critical damage to the pilot, cooling systems and engine from the front, since even the best armored Japanese planes weren't armored as well as those in the West, but . . .

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14554&stc=1&d=1402964416

Please notice the Aileron Control hit when neither of the two bullets passed anyplace close to the aileron controls or cable runs! That's a definite error in the DM! (While it's blocked by the speech bubble, the tail end of the bullet path gets nowhere near the cable runs.)

Compare this to a 3-view of the actual airplane:

http://airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ki61/ki61-2.gif

You'll notice that the aileron cable runs are just ahead of the flaps towards the wing's trailing edge. Bell cranks and so forth are directly beneath the pilot and a bit ahead.

The Pilot Killed result is legitimate - no armor glass on this airplane, and the bullet would have missed the glass anyway.

Both hits were from a Ace Wellington III tail gunner, with two different bursts. Shots were from approximately 250 m against a slightly maneuvering target more or less to the bomber's 6 o'clock. Very impressive shooting, but at least it's not a 600 m sniper shot that penetrates a fuel tank or armored firewall to take out the pilot.

[Pursuivant]

More fighter abuse. This time the victim was a P-39Q-10.

What I intended to demonstrate was the relative difficulty of damaging the nose-mounted guns on the P-39 series, but what I got instead was a nice example of some weird damage modeling I'd previously missed.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14555&stc=1&d=1402967321

Notice the fatal bullets in the center of the picture - the first hit just ahead of the air intake, the second just a bit behind it. On the P-39Q, both would be solid engine hits (both were fired from about 150m by yet another Ace AI Wellington III gunner), but rather than showing any sign of engine damage I instead got a massive fire which started instantly after just two bullet hits!

I guess it could happen if a fuel line was severed and sprayed hot fuel on the engine, but it seems weird that there was just fire and not engine problems.

Prior bursts of fire from ahead and below managed to not hit the radiator or oil cooler systems. That was just luck, not bad modeling.

[Baddington_VA]

I guess it could happen if a fuel line was severed and sprayed hot fuel on the engine, but it seems weird that there was just fire and not engine problems.

There is a thread on this P39 problem.
Lots of fire and smoke with no real damage at all.
The P39 has been frowned upon and even banned from missions on some online servers because of this.
There have been and probably always will be pilots that game the system with it.
Using it to feign serious damage and relying on others not wanting to be kill stealers.

[Pursuivant]

There is a thread on this P39 problem.
Lots of fire and smoke with no real damage at all.

Yep. But that's a different issue. As you said, the P-39, P-400 and P-63 series are notorious in the game for smoking easily, but not losing power or failing.

In this case, the P-39 was unusual in that it instantly burst into flame after just one or two rifle-caliber bullet hits for no logical reason. But, since it is a P-39, I probably could have flown it for several more minutes with no loss of power to the engine, though!

By contrast, the Alison engine P-40s, which used the same damned engine, are remarkably vulnerable to engine damage - just about any hit will kill or seriously damage them.

What I'm trying to do with my series of screen shots is clearly demonstrate places where existing DM is outright wrong or fails to adequately model armor, armor glass and self-sealing fuel tanks.

[Pursuivant]

More fighter abuse. While the early war Japanese fighters are justifiably modeled as being fragile and flammable, there are a few DM problems.

Here is a picture of some cockpit hits (Ace Wellington III gunners at ~250 m range). While the picture doesn't clearly show it, none of the bullets which penetrated the cockpit touched either the pilot's leg or any part of the joystick, bell-cranks or cable runs for the aileron controls!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14565&stc=1&d=1403386593

I can accept that the DM has to have a bit of "fudging" in it to reflect hits on a moving target such as a pilot, but elevator, aileron and rudder controls mostly stay in one place, so I think that this is a clear case of how the "critical hit zones" for hits to control surfaces are far too big, or are otherwise badly modeled for many planes in the game.

And, here is Exhibit A as to why IL2 gunners are far too hard to kill. The explosion is from a 20mm cannon shell, just a foot from the gunner's head! While the game models shrapnel hits against aircraft and ground targets reasonably well, it obviously doesn't model blast concussion effects against human targets. Realistically, the upper half of the gunner's body should have been reduced to paste.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14566&stc=1&d=1403386891

[Pursuivant]

Swapping over to the Soviet fighters. Here's an example of the level of toughness I think that an inline engine fighter should have against long-range rifle caliber bullet hits.

The target is a Yak-1, the gunners are more of those crazy accurate Wellington III Ace tail turret guys, this time doing their thing at ranges of anywhere from 700(!!) to 300 m against a slowly maneuvering target.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14581&stc=1&d=1403464421

What you will notice is absence of smoke and flames, and an engine which still runs pretty well.

This picture actually represents the second and third bursts of long-range gunfire into the engine. The first burst had about 3 scattered hits into the engine block, all hits which would have had a Bf-109 or P-40 engine shut down cold or spewing clouds of black smoke.

A fourth burst of gunfire actually shut down the engine, but I was able to start it back up and continue the fight. A fifth burst of 3-4 shots eventually made the engine lose enough power that I couldn't keep up with the bombers, but I was still able to fly back home.

Further testing basically proves the same thing - the Yak-1 DM makes its engine a lot tougher than other contemporary inline engined planes. So, there is at least one inline fighter in the game which doesn't die instantly when it gets hit in the nose. I will leave it to TD to determine if this is intentional or not.

[Nephris]

a)We noticed an issue with carrier starts since the latest version in coop online play. The planes start airborne but not from the assigned carrier anymore.
The relates to AI and player squadrons.

We discussed about that issue already in the DCG Forum of Lowengrin.com (http://forum.jg1.org/index.php?showtopic=1433&page=5) as we expected DCG to be the bugger but none.

Of course this relates to stock 4.12.2 (mod versions also).


b)Is there any chance to receive a trigger to enable and disable bomb ballistics of 4.09 in an upcoming patch?

[Aviar]

a)We noticed an issue with carrier starts since the latest version in coop online play. The planes start airborne but not from the assigned carrier anymore.
The relates to AI and player squadrons.

We discussed about that issue already in the DCG Forum of Lowengrin.com (http://forum.jg1.org/index.php?showtopic=1433&page=5) as we expected DCG to be the bugger but none.

Of course this relates to stock 4.12.2 (mod versions also).


b)Is there any chance to receive a trigger to enable and disable bomb ballistics of 4.09 in an upcoming patch?

Can you post a mission so we can test it please. Thank you.

Aviar

[Notorious M.i.G.]

There is a thread on this P39 problem.
Lots of fire and smoke with no real damage at all.
The P39 has been frowned upon and even banned from missions on some online servers because of this.

I seem to abruptly explode within seconds of engine damage in the P-39. Honestly, I feel much safer in a Ki-43 at this point, given how easily the Cobra becomes a fireball. :(

[Pursuivant]

I seem to abruptly explode within seconds of engine damage in the P-39. Honestly, I feel much safer in a Ki-43 at this point, given how easily the Cobra becomes a fireball. :(

That doesn't match with my experience. Typically, the P-39/P-400 series is damned near invulnerable to engine damage.

OTOH, I guess that once the engine catches on fire, it explodes fast. Realistically, that seems unlikely given that the fuel tanks and engine on the P-39 were separated (engine in the body, tanks in the wings), but at this point, nothing would surprise me about how crappy the P-39 DM is.

Playing with the P-39D-1, I regularly get unstoppable fuel leaks following just one rifle-caliber bullet hit (i.e., EXACTLY the sort of damage self-sealing fuel tanks were designed to cope with), fuel tank fires following just a couple of rifle-caliber bullet hits from different burst (again, EXACTLY the sort of damage self-sealing fuel tanks are designed to cope with), but near invulnerability to engine damage (despite coolant leaks and smoke) and gun damage.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14596&stc=1&d=1403848095

Note two shots right down the barrel of the 20mm cannon, yet the gun keeps on working!

I also get fuel tank leaks even from bullets no place near the tank:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14598&stc=1&d=1403847783

Notice leak in starboard side wing fuel tank despite complete absence of nearby bullet hits!

Also, coolant leaks from hits to the engine which are no place near any coolant lines:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14596&stc=1&d=1403847783

Kind of a crummy screenshot, but you'll notice that none of the shots is anyplace near the P-39's coolant systems, and the bullet that allegedly holed the engine is at such high deflection that it probably would have missed or ricocheted off of the P-39-D1's engine block.

Not that those coolant leaks do anything, mind you, but if they don't do anything at least TD could make them go away.

Of course, those amazing sniper AI gunners don't make things any easier:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14597&stc=1&d=1403847783

"Wonder Woman" view of the opposition shooting at me in a P-39. Note the Ace Wellington III tail gunners shooting and scoring hits at over 600 m range against a small and (somewhat) maneuvering target!

FWIW, I will point out that historically doctrine was for bomber gunners to hold their fire until the enemy got within about 300-500 m because fire beyond that point was ineffective. :(

[Pursuivant]

On the theory that Soviet inline fighters might be a bit more "durable" than their Western or Axis counterparts, I flew some missions using the LaGG-3 Series 3, against my nemesis the Ace Wellington III squadron.

As with the Yak-1 series, I was gratified by the ruggedness of the Klimov engine, which was able to absorb 5-6 times as many hits as those powering inferior planes such as the P-40, P-51, Spitfire or Bf-109, with only a slight coolant leak which didn't diminish performance at all:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14599&stc=1&d=1403850536

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14600&stc=1&d=1403850536

Additionally, you will notice that the pilot was only very slightly wounded by a clean shot to the chest at about 300 m by a rifle-caliber bullet, despite the lack of armor glass in the LaGG-3. Obviously, the copy of Das Kapital in his breast pocket saved him from more serious injury! (In fairness, I later collected a leg hit which slowed me down a small bit, and ultimately succumbed to a head shot, so LaGG pilots aren't invulnerable.)

Had I been flying a Decadent Capitalist Imperialist fighter, the results would have been very different! Truly the designs of the Revolutionary Proletarian LaGG design bureau, and the Inspired Labor of the Peasants, Workers and Soldiers, have yet again proven their worth in the Glorious Defense of the Motherland against the Fascist Butchers!

Mind you, I'm not saying that Soviet inline engined fighters are deliberately tougher than their foreign equivalents, but given that the notably delicate (at least in IL2) Bf-109 and P-40E series were modeled in the game at roughly the same time as the Yak and LaGG series, I'm thinking there are some mistakes in DM which make the Soviet fighters a bit too tough, and the Axis and Western fighters a bit delicate.

Additionally, while the screenshots don't show it, it seems to be virtually impossible to get a leak or fire in the LaGG-3's wing tanks. On a different flight, my LaGG-3 was turned into a sieve due to engine and wing hits, yet all I got was smoke from the engine (but no noticeable loss of performance). Ultimately, what got me was another head shot; the plane was flying just fine before that, and actually performed some impressive posthumous acrobatics before it finally crashed.

[Pursuivant]

And about those Ace gunners . . .

Head shot against the pilot of a maneuvering Me-262 traveling at nearly 650 kph, at over 350 m range, at the extreme edge of the Wellington's front turret arc of fire, at what had to be at least 60 degrees of deflection when the gunner began to track me, and which was still 20 degrees or so of deflection at the time of the hit. Screenshot was taken a second or so after the kill; I was slightly climbing and banking at the time.

Realistically, I'm not even sure that the Wellington's turrets can track that fast, nor would the gunner have much chance to acquire his target and aim against such a fast-moving and distant target.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14601&stc=1&d=1403857587

That's the sort of accuracy that aerial gunners could only dream about during WW2, but in the skies of IL2, it happens every day.

At least the damage modeling was good this time - the bullet just missed the armor glass behind the pilot's head.

[Mabroc]

P-39 and P-63 engines just got the same coat of Adamantium paint when assembled or painted on Russia that the local planes, be sure.

From a post I made several years ago:

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=17831.0

"The DB and Jumo engines cook very quickly when damaged, if the engine is smoking it dies in 3 or 4 minutes (depends on the power setting), if you are leaking it start to overheat pretty quickly at combat power and dies in 5m top, only going to cruise power give you more time to escape, but in no way you can pull the crazy stunts the P-39/63 does at full power when leaking or even smoking.

Very few times I got a engine instantly stop with the dead prop, but it happens, sometimes I saw hits then a high pitch from the RPM controller going out of control and the engine seized. The radial engines can survive hits and still work for long times, giving less power off course (less pistons working) if you are not loosing much oil or fuel (usually the fw190 get the fuel lines leaking on the cowling and even when the engine still works you loss all your fuel in 3m). Sometimes I noticed hits on La-5 cowling (little bullet holes) and no leaking whatsoever but that could be right or error on the damage decal.

There are several DM errors on the planes, a structural weakening MOD by damage limiting the maximum G stress allowed would fix for example when you put 1 or 2 MK108 shells in a P-51 wing or P-47 mid fuselage (did that yesterday) and the damn plane keep fighting, turning, diving at full combat power. Only showing some holes on the skin instead of breaking the plane. The now very limited G stress will only allow for a escape run, if the plane keep tryng to fight, it should break right there. So the errors on the DM would now be atoned at least in a simple and broader way. No need to check and fix every f%&%ck·$ing plane DM."

and

OK guys, after 90m of searching, quick resume:

OIL (pilot manual) 9.4 gallons (35.58 Litres) for the P-39 L/K
P-39Q 8.2 US Gallons (31.04 Litres)
P-63 used the same engine (more advanced model only) and similar airframe, couldnt get the manual but from all the warbirds I found OIL tank info, they were pretty much equal size, even the P-38 had a similar sized tank for each engine to the Spit or Mustang

For comparison:
The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 US gallons of oil.

Bf-109G2 One light-metal oil tank, type NKF. Oil capacity 8.1 gallons (30.66 Litres) with an additional air space of 1.3 gallons.

The Mustang III with maximum fuel load has between 1.5 and 1.75 the range of a Spitfire IX with maximum fuel load. The fuel and oil capacities are 154 gallons and 11.2 gallons respectively, as opposed to 85 gallons 7.5 gallons of the Spitfire IX, both without long-range tanks
NOTE: PROBABLY IMPERIAL GALLONS BECAUSE 7.5 Imperial gallons = 9.00712816 US gallons

SOURCES:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical-requests/spitfire-viii-manual-info-10838.html
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-39-airacobra-pilots-flight-operating-instructions-20503.html
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET-109Gtrop_WdimPerf.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-tactical.html

So.....can we get a ending to the "Highlander" Allison engines now??? By the way, the oil tank on the P-39 is behind the engine, close to the tail, so when you get a 6 o clock shot at them that is the first thing to get screwed.

AND REMEMBER GUYS THAT BESIDES THAT "BUG" I WAS WONDERING ABOUT A "COMBAT DAMAGE REDUCING G STRESS ENVELOPE LIMIT" MOD

[ElAurens]

"Highlander" Allison?

You have obviously never flown a P 40 in this sim.

It's the king of the rifle caliber one shot insta stop.

[Igo kyu]

That doesn't match with my experience. Typically, the P-39/P-400 series is damned near invulnerable to engine damage.

OTOH, I guess that once the engine catches on fire, it explodes fast.

"Highlander" Allison?

You have obviously never flown a P 40 in this sim.

It's the king of the rifle caliber one shot insta stop.

To me, the strangest thing is how different the engine damage models of the P39 and P40 are, despite the engines being the same. Flying the P39 you almost never have time to bail out after the engine is seriously hit, which seems to be after fewer hits than other engines. The P40 loses engine power frequently, but it's engine never blows up killing the pilot like the P39s engine always does. All of this from playing single player, mostly in the Forbidden Battles careers.

[gaunt1]

"Highlander" Allison?

You have obviously never flown a P 40 in this sim.

It's the king of the rifle caliber one shot insta stop.

+1000

Please TD, make the P-40's engine tougher!

Also, I'd recommend altering the DM of all VK-107 engined aircrafts, this was maybe the most delicate engine of WW2, it was incredibly unreliable and terribly sensitive to damage. Yet, ingame aircraft with engines emitting black smoke are flying without any performance penalties for a long time.

[IceFire]

The older the aircraft, the less consistent the damage model seems to be. And by "older" I mean the time when it was implemented into the game.

[ElAurens]

I'm hoping the new P 40s, when they are implemented, will solve some of these nagging issues that date from the P 40's original implementation.

Of course the one's we have now are still way better than they were initially.

Remember when they would just blow up if you exceeded 400mph?

[Pursuivant]

The radial engines can survive hits and still work for long times, giving less power off course (less pistons working) if you are not loosing much oil or fuel (usually the fw190 get the fuel lines leaking on the cowling and even when the engine still works you loss all your fuel in 3m).

On small correction to your otherwise excellent post - the FW-190D was powered by an inline engine. The other versions were radial-powered.

Another issue that doesn't seem to be modeled in the game is that radial engines are not immortal. It is possible for a radial engine to seize up due to oil leaks, although it takes time. Also, a serious hit to the camshaft can make the engine fail instantly.

Two types of engine damage which the game doesn't model are throttle damage and runaway propellers.

Throttle damage either means that your throttle speed is stuck at the current level, or stuck within a limited range.

Runaway propellers can occur when the constant propeller speed mechanism fails, or where the prop on a failed engine can't be feathered (usually due to hydraulic failure). Unless oil is still pumping through the engine, the "windmilling" effect can heat the prop shaft up to the point that the shaft fails, possibly sending the propeller flying into the plane if the failure occurs to an inboard engine on a multi-engined plane. This takes a bit of time (minutes) and also creates drag.

[Pursuivant]

To me, the strangest thing is how different the engine damage models of the P39 and P40 are, despite the engines being the same.

Yep, and the P-38 engine damage model seems to be different from those two, and it also used the same engine.

What I'd really like TD to do is take a close look at engine damage models for all planes. Unless there is documented evidence that changes to radiator and/or coolant systems affected the engine's durability, or that a particular plane's engine was armored, the effects of engine damage should be based on the engine, not the plane.

That is, X amount of damage in Y location to an Allison V-1710 engine mounted in a P-38, P-39, P-40, or P-51A will make that engine fail in a more or less identical fashion. No more "immortal" P-39 engines and fragile P-40 engines.

There should also be some consistency in damage modeling for all nationalities. If the Yak series and LaGG-3 engines are tough to kill, then the Bf-109, Macchi MC.205, MS.406, Ki-61, Hurricane, Spitfire and P-51 engines should be just as tough. Conversely, if TD's research indicates that inline engines should be fragile, then all the Soviet inline fighters will have to be "nerfed" in terms of their ability to withstand engine damage.

My ignorant opinion is that "reality" lies between the current extremes. A "one shot kill" that instantly knocks out an inline engine should be impossible for a rifle-caliber bullet at all but the closest ranges, and very rare for 0.50 caliber bullets and cannon shells at any range. Such hits should only represent the sort of damage that makes the engine fall apart - like a crankshaft breaking or cylinders flying out of the engine block.

Instead, there should be some chance - based on angle of deflection and caliber of the bullet, that a bullet will penetrate the engine block and cause loss of coolant, oil and/or compression (for hits that penetrate the cylinder).

Depending on bullet caliber and number of hits, that should make the plane lose coolant and oil at a more or less fixed rate, with accompanying rise in engine temperature, which ultimately makes the plane's engine seize.

In no case should a plane's engine explode due to fire, and turning off the engine (but cutting off fuel to it) should give the pilot a chance of controlling a fire by letting it self-extinguish, unless there is a fuel or oil tank right next to the engine without an intervening firewall.

The problem is that while it's comparatively easy to model flight characteristics, there isn't nearly as much information available on ability of airframes and aircraft components to withstand damage, and the limitations of the game make it necessary to model certain types of damage in an unrealistic fashion (e.g., blowing off the wing of a B-17 or the rear fuselage of a Wellington).

[TexasJG]

Burma Map, low river bridges are just underwater, or flooded. Vehicles will cross the bridge, although it would be cool if the vehicles would leave a water wake as they crossed the bridge. Same anomaly could be other maps also, noticed it in Burma.

[ElAurens]

runaway propellers.



Happens to the Spitfire and P 40 with some regularity, more so in the P40s.

The props never come off, but they will seize the engine fairly quickly.

[Pursuivant]

Happens to the Spitfire and P 40 with some regularity, more so in the P40s.

The props never come off, but they will seize the engine fairly quickly.

I assumed that was just a "special effect" of critical damage to the crankcase, since realistically it takes more than just a few seconds for the crankshaft to heat to the point that it fails. But, yeah, the "whine of death" is one of my least favorite sounds to hear when flying a P-40 or a Spit.

At least you get a warning with those planes. With the Bf-109, the first warning you get that your engine is dead is a shut-down propeller blade in front of you.

[Pursuivant]

Tonight's fighter abuse features the Hurricane Mk I vs. the Ace Wellington III squadron.

Notable features of craptastic damage modeling include both elevator and rudder control hits despite the fact that none of the bullets got anywhere near any part of the elevator and/or rudder controls! To hit any part of the elevator or rudder controls, the four bullets which hit the leading edges of the horizontal stabilizer assembly would have had to punch through several layers of aluminum and then wipe out the cables and pulleys for both elevators and the control rods and pulleys for the rudder. The only problem is that those assemblies are directly below the vertical stabilizer, where none of the bullets hit, and that the control rods for the rudder and the cables and pulleys for the elevators are in different places!

Just to clarify, we're talking about hits by .303 bullets at 150-250 m ranges; so no explosive effects, and a bullet that's not particularly likely to shatter or tumble.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14610&stc=1&d=1404019896

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14611&stc=1&d=1404020213

The serious oil and coolant leaks from just one bullet to the radiator and 3 bullets to to the engine are just bonuses.

In general, it seems to be far too easy to get control surface hits against just about any plane in IL2. Given that most early WW2 planes used metal cables to control the surfaces and only a close hit by explosives or a direct hit by a bullet could knock them out, it seems like sloppy damage modeling that they occur so often.

I also seems strange that direct damage to control surfaces doesn't reduce control authority, and that direct hits to control surface hinges don't have the ability to make individual control surfaces lock, move in just one direction, or flutter randomly.

There also doesn't seem to be any progressive loss of control authority due to hydraulic system damage to planes with hydraulic or hydraulic assisted controls.

Finally, AI crew seem far too ready to bail out of planes with any sort of control damage, despite the fact that losing rudder authority, and possibly even elevator authority, doesn't make a plane unflyable. At the very least, AI crews which lose rudder control, and possibly horizontal stabilizer control, should try to fly back to friendly territory before they bail out.

[Pursuivant]

Bonus tonight; two rounds of fighter abuse, with the second victim being the Yak-9UT. The damage is from that immortal Ace Wellington III squadron, with their crazy accurate tail gunners, shooting from 150-250 m.

Two things pop out for crappy damage modeling on this plane, bonus points if you can catch them both.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14612&stc=1&d=1404023815

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14613&stc=1&d=1404023815

You win if you detected a distinct lack of engine damage to the notably fragile VK-107 engine despite it being filled with holes (Hint to TD: a P-40, Spitfire or Bf-109 would be a glider given the same amount of damage), and damage to the rudder controls despite any plausible hits to the joystick, cable runs or control cranks in the first screenshot.

In the second screenie, you win if you noticed damage to the pilot's leg despite a) the bullets that could have inflicted the damage having to penetrate the engine and forward firewall first, b) missing the pilot's leg!

The hit to the aileron controls in the second screenshot was just, conceivably, maybe possible, since two bullets hit the trailing edge of the starboard wing in approximately the same place where the aileron control cables would run. The idea of a bullet about 9mm in diameter perfectly intersecting with a braided metal cable of about the same diameter to sever it is highly unlikely, but in combat anything can happen!

Of course, it's only due to the magic of IL2's damage modeling that our unfortunate Yak pilot lost control to both ailerons despite cable hits to just one of them! Had this been a real Yak-9, he would have had one aileron cable that fluttered randomly, and another one that still responded to his control.

[majorfailure]

Finally, AI crew seem far too ready to bail out of planes with any sort of control damage, despite the fact that losing rudder authority, and possibly even elevator authority, doesn't make a plane unflyable. At the very least, AI crews which lose rudder control, and possibly horizontal stabilizer control, should try to fly back to friendly territory before they bail out.
IMHO AI should try to asses the damage and consider flying to friendly territiory in these situations, given the plane is still controlable enough.
Maybe even try to land with rudder or aileron gone.

And keep testing the DM's - explains a lot of strange things happening.
(I always thought in an IL-2 you were invulnerable to machinegun fire. Till recently got shot&wounded by a Bf110 gunner. )

[Pursuivant]

I finally got a chance to abuse the P-38, specifically the P-38H.

Thanks to TD's recent rework of this plane, it DM actually isn't that bad, although it is still far too vulnerable to control and machine gun hits.

There are no gaps between the armor glass and the armor plate - if a .303 bullet hits the armor glass, it gets stopped. If it hits armor plate, it gets stopped.

Fuel tank hits by single rifle caliber bullets actually seal after 30-60 seconds. Hits by multiple rifle caliber bullets in the same place will quickly cause a fire, but that's not unreasonable if one of the bullets is explosive or incendiary.

The engine damage model looks good - a bullet that hits the oil cooler or radiator will cause a leak, bullets that come close but miss don't. Once a leak starts, you get several minutes of flying time before overheat, and about 5 minutes of flying time before the engine starts to really suffer. You lose some power due to engine hits, but not much. It seems like it takes a LOT of damage to make an engine stop cold.

If anything, engine durability is a bit too generous; more along the lines of the P-39 than the P-40. But, at least you can lose power and actually damage the engine due to overheating, unlike the P-39.


But, here are the problems.

Control hits - like many planes in the game they are too easy to achieve, and can occur even when bullets don't hit anyplace close to control runs.

The only way I can explain it is that the game doesn't take the presence of full fuel tanks into account when determining bullet trajectories. That is, it counts fuel tanks as "empty space" rather than being filled with liquid which will slow or stop a bullet.

Likewise, the game doesn't take into account that there are layers of aluminum between a hit to the leading edge of the wing and the trailing edge, which might slow a small caliber bullet or a bit of shrapnel, or make it shatter.

Machine Gun Hits - At face value, it seems like good damage modeling to have any hit to the P-38's guns cause a jam. There's a lot of guns and ammo packed into the P-38's nose, and no armor plate in front of them or to the side, so any bullet hitting that area is likely to cause some sort of problem.

But, most of that space is taken up with ammunition. That means that there's a fair chance you'll get just one or two rounds of ammunition that are damaged by the passing bullet. This might cause an immediate jam the bullet deforms the feed chutes or ammo containers sufficiently that the bullets can't advance, but it's more likely to just create a dud bullet which will cause a jam at some time in the future.

So, for just about any hit to ammo runs by shrapnel and small caliber bullets, there should be the possibility of a) immediate stoppage/dead gun, b) unfixable stoppage after X amount of the gun's remaining ammo is fired, c) fixable stoppage after X amount of gun's remaining ammo is fired.

Hits by big bullets, explosions, and large pieces of shrapnel should create a very high chance of immediate unfixable stoppage, but with a tiny chance of the other two possibilities.

Edit: There's also two more options:

d) No effective damage. That is, the bullet hits some part of the bullet feed mechanisms or magazines which aren't currently occupied by ammunition, or otherwise manages to pass through the vital area without doing any serious damage. For example, if you shoot 50% of your ammo, and then you get a machine gun hit, the game currently treats it identically to a hit on the ammunition before you fired a shot, even though there's a 50% chance that the bullet actually just hit empty space.

e) Bang! Some sort of ammo explosion. This is extremely unlikely, even for cannon shells, but it could happen. To complicate fuel fires for tanks close to ammunition magazines, there's also the possibility of a fire causing bullets or shells to "cook off" - exploding due to heat.

A final problem which appears to be unique to the P-38 is that you can get machine gun hits for guns which have already been knocked out. That is, if both your starboard MG get hit, and you get a third bullet into a starboard machine gun, the DM counts it as a hit to a port-side machine gun!

Supercharger Hits - IL2 doesn't model supercharger damage. The P-38's turbocharger is mounted on top of the engine, with a very vulnerable flywheel protected by just an aluminum deflector and a tiny bit of armor plate on the inner side of the engines - mostly designed to keep flywheel blades from hitting the pilot. I got a few hits which realistically would have really wrecked the supercharger.

Engine Control Hits: The P-38, like other multi-engined planes had cable runs to the engine, which control things like radiator louvers, prop pitch and throttle. They're right behind the reserve fuel tanks in the inboard wing and are ripe targets for damage to the wing. But, IL2 doesn't model such things.

Here are pictures of the carnage:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14619&stc=1&d=1404087241

The obligatory picture of long-range sniper shots by the Ace Wellington III gunners. Two hits, two machine guns down. Typically, flying the P-38 as an interceptor results in your losing half your guns in the first few attack runs!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14620&stc=1&d=1404087241

Same flight a few seconds later. Notice a bit of engine damage to the port engine, but also another couple of bullets in the nose that took out another machine gun. The problem is, none of those bullets could have taken out the remaining two starboard machine guns, or their ammo reservoirs!

So, still 300 m out on my first attack run and I've lost 3/4 of my machine guns!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14621&stc=1&d=1404087241

Same attack run, closer in. Crummy screenshot due to a pilot kill. Unless you go straight in at an enemy bomber the P-38 is a flying coffin because the gunners not unreasonably aim directly at the plane's center of mass; which is the cockpit.

Mind you, I'm not complaining about the PK, which I think was fair. I chose this one because I think it illustrates how easy it is to get control hits. None of the bullets came anyplace close to hitting the control runs. (Damage to the nose would have had to penetrate 1/4 to 3/8 inch - 6-10 mm - of armor plate to hit the rudder pedals or rudder pedals in the cockpit.) Furthermore, the P-38 has twin rudders, and virtually all of the damage is to plane's port side.

Realistically, assuming that just one cable run was severed, you'd get just the port side rudder fluttering or jammed, but the starboard rudder might still work. It would have to be remarkable luck or skill for less than a dozen .303 bullets to completely disable the plane's rudder control!

[Pursuivant]

I finally got a chance to abuse the P-38, specifically the P-38H.

Thanks to TD's recent rework of this plane, it DM actually isn't that bad, although it is still far too vulnerable to control and machine gun hits.

There are no gaps between the armor glass and the armor plate - if a .303 bullet hits the armor glass, it gets stopped. If it hits armor plate, it gets stopped.

Fuel tank hits by single rifle caliber bullets actually seal after 30-60 seconds. Hits by multiple rifle caliber bullets in the same place will quickly cause a fire, but that's not unreasonable if one of the bullets is explosive or incendiary.

The engine damage model looks good - a bullet that hits the oil cooler or radiator will cause a leak, bullets that come close but miss don't. Once a leak starts, you get several minutes of flying time before overheat, and about 5 minutes of flying time before the engine starts to really suffer. You lose some power due to engine hits, but not much. It seems like it takes a LOT of damage to make an engine stop cold.

If anything, engine durability is a bit too generous; more along the lines of the P-39 than the P-40. But, at least you can lose power and actually damage the engine due to overheating, unlike the P-39.


But, here are the problems.

Control hits - like many planes in the game they are too easy to achieve, and can occur even when bullets don't hit anyplace close to control runs.

The only way I can explain it is that the game doesn't take the presence of full fuel tanks into account when determining bullet trajectories. That is, it counts fuel tanks as "empty space" rather than being filled with liquid which will slow or stop a bullet.

Likewise, the game doesn't take into account that there are layers of aluminum between a hit to the leading edge of the wing and the trailing edge, which might slow a small caliber bullet or a bit of shrapnel, or make it shatter.

Machine Gun Hits - At face value, it seems like good damage modeling to have any hit to the P-38's guns cause a jam. There's a lot of guns and ammo packed into the P-38's nose, and no armor plate in front of them or to the side, so any bullet hitting that area is likely to cause some sort of problem.

But, most of that space is taken up with ammunition. That means that there's a fair chance you'll get just one or two rounds of ammunition that are damaged by the passing bullet. This might cause an immediate jam the bullet deforms the feed chutes or ammo containers sufficiently that the bullets can't advance, but it's more likely to just create a dud bullet which will cause a jam at sometime in the future.

So, for just about any hit to ammo runs by shrapnel and small caliber bullets, there should be the possibility of a) immediate stoppage/dead gun, b) unfixable stoppage after X amount of the gun's ammo is fired, c) fixable stoppage after X amount of gun's ammo is fired.

Hits by big bullets, explosions, and large pieces of shrapnel should create a very high chance of immediate unfixable stoppage, but with a tiny chance of the other two possibilities.

A final problem which appears to be unique to the P-38 is that you can get machine gun hits for guns which have already been knocked out. That is, if both your starboard MG get hit, and you get a third bullet into a starboard machine gun, the DM counts it as a hit to a port-side machine gun!

Supercharger Hits - IL2 doesn't model supercharger damage. The P-38's turbocharger is mounted on top of the engine, with a very vulnerable flywheel protected by just an aluminum deflector and a tiny bit of armor plate on the inner side of the engines - mostly designed to keep flywheel blades from hitting the pilot. I got a few hits which realistically would have really wrecked the supercharger.

Engine Control Hits: The P-38, like other multi-engined planes had cable runs to the engine, which control things like radiator louvers, prop pitch and throttle. They're right behind the reserve fuel tanks in the inboard wing and are ripe targets for damage to the wing. But, IL2 doesn't model such things.

Here are pictures of the carnage:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14619&stc=1&d=1404087241

The obligatory picture of long-range sniper shots by the Ace Wellington III gunners. Two hits, two machine guns down. Typically, flying the P-38 as an interceptor results in your losing half your guns in the first few attack runs!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14620&stc=1&d=1404087241

Same flight a few seconds later. Notice a bit of engine damage to the port engine, but also another couple of bullets in the nose that took out another machine gun. The problem is, none of those bullets could have taken out the remaining two starboard machine guns, or their ammo reservoirs!

So, still 300 m out on my first attack run and I've lost 3/4 of my machine guns!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14621&stc=1&d=1404087241

Same attack run, closer in. Crummy screenshot due to a pilot kill. Unless you go straight in at an enemy bomber the P-38 is a flying coffin because the gunners not unreasonably aim directly at the plane's center of mass; which is the cockpit.

Mind you, I'm not complaining about the PK, which I think was fair. I chose this one because I think it illustrates how easy it is to get control hits. None of the bullets came anyplace close to hitting the control runs. (Damage to the nose would have had to penetrate 1/4 to 3/8 inch - 6-10 mm - of armor plate to hit the rudder pedals or rudder pedals in the cockpit.) Furthermore, the P-38 has twin rudders, and virtually all of the damage is to plane's port side.

Realistically, assuming that just one cable run was severed, you'd get just the port side rudder fluttering or jammed, but the starboard rudder might still work. It would have to be remarkable luck or skill for less than a dozen .303 bullets to completely disable the plane's rudder control!

[TexasJG]

This may be an old bug report, but I think the heavy cruisers class ship radar's are inoperative in 4.12.2.

[TexasJG]

Could be another old bug, but at sometime the position point for the look down view ("Toggle Gunsight") in the Lerche_III has been changed. So it it now not possible to see the Variometer / ultra-sound altimeter. Which fairly much makes it impossible to land in a chosen spot, or at all.
Are there and modes which will move the view back or down a little as a work around for now?

[Igo kyu]

One thing that annoys me is the iron sights to the right of the reflector sights in some soviet aircraft have a spurious random pixel that is dark when it should be transparent. It is as if the rounded off corner was cleared except for the very corner pixel, which for some reason was left dark. It sometimes flickers a bit as the sight moves on the screen, but it's very much there.

This is in code version 4.07, on a 1920 x 1200 pixel screen, any of which may be relevant I suppose.

[Pursuivant]

No pictures today, just a few more bug reports.

Wellington III - The nose and tail turret gunners don't pivot their turrets back into line with the plane's long axis before bailing out.

While you CAN bail out of the plane by turning the turret to the side and just going out through the turret entry doors, there's just one problem; Wellington nose and tail gunners (or any gunner in the Boulton-Paul turret) didn't wear parachutes!

For this reason, gunners were carefully cautioned to make sure the entry doors to their turrets were carefully closed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZKG1cc8Bgg

Realistically, Wellington gunners should try to pivot their turrets back in line with the plane's fuselage, then spend several (like 10+ seconds) getting out of the turret, running for their parachutes, and buckling them on, before bailing out.

There's also the complication for just about any electrical or hydraulically powered turret that in some cases turret power depends on engine power. That means that engine damage might prevent the turret from rotating back into position.

Then, there's also the gunner's nightmare of not being able to get the turret back into position so that he can exit, or having fire or g-forces between him and his parachute. Plenty of Avenger, Defiant, Wellington, Lancaster tail gunners died that way.

Additionally, you'll sometimes get a hero/idiot who stays at his guns even after the bailout order has been given.

Finally, there's the complication that damage to the intercom system could prevent crew from knowing that the bailout order had been given. That means that the flight deck crew might bail out, but the guys in the rear of the plane never get the message.

A6M7-63 - Just a few rifle-caliber bullets will create massive fuel tank leaks which will run the plane out of fuel in just a few minutes if they don't start a fire first. Self-sealing measures seem to totally fail, and the rate of fuel loss seems to be much higher than for other planes with the same damage.

Ace bomber formations in the QMB - Just about any Ace bomber formation seems to have trouble holding its formation. Trailing planes will fall out of formation when the formation is attacked, and they often collide while maneuvering. By contrast, Rookie AI is much better, since at least the planes don't collide.

Multi-crew player-controlled planes - If the pilot of a single-pilot plane is killed, at least in some planes (specifically the A-20C, and a few others I've forgotten), the rest of the crew doesn't automatically bail out. I guess it could be possible for the player to hit Ctrl-C to switch to a new crew position and then order the bailout, but that seems a bit silly.

While it's mostly eye candy for offliners, since a dead pilot on a player-controlled plane basically means "end of mission, time to refly/respawn", AI crewmen should automatically try to bail out when the pilot is killed. I guess it might make a difference if anyone is keeping track of overall crew casualties in multi-player servers/campaigns.

[Tempest123]

"Control hits - like many planes in the game they are too easy to achieve, and can occur even when bullets don't hit anyplace close to control runs."

Totally agree about this on more than a few planes, single bullets taking out ailerons and rudders etc. Hitting exactly the cable or rod would be possible but rare, probably more common to have Flak damage the sheet metal and jam the control surface.

[Pursuivant]

Totally agree about this on more than a few planes, single bullets taking out ailerons and rudders etc. Hitting exactly the cable or rod would be possible but rare, probably more common to have Flak damage the sheet metal and jam the control surface.

Furthermore, there are exactly ZERO places on your average WW2 airplane where a single bullet - even a big one - can simultaneously wipe out rudder, ailerons and elevators, yet it happens occasionally in IL2.

You also bring up another control damage option I forgot to mention - limited range of motion for damaged control surfaces.

Currently, you have loss of control surfaces, complete loss of control of control surfaces, and partial loss of authority from control surfaces. But, you don't have limited range of motion from damaged controls, such as a rudder that you can only turn right, or which only travels through 50% of its full arc when turned to the right.

[western0221]

4.12 made a new great function, multi-turret tanks.
I'm glad in this implement.

Today's bug report is T-35 tank's weapon parameters.
T-35 has 5x turrets and in 4.12 they all work.
But thier parameters are not correct.
T-35's armaments were
- 1x 75mm cannon
- 2x 45mm cannon
- 2x 7.62mm machine-gun
in historical.
In 4.12.2 , all 5x turrets are set as 75mm cannon.
Please remap armaments.

[Pursuivant]

Troubleshooting the A-20G Damage Model:

This one has a lot of little problems, but the big problem is FUEL TANKS

A) The damage model assumes that the fuel tanks are contiguous with the plane's skin, which was not the case. That means that many glancing hits to the wing and fuselage which realistically would have missed the tanks cause punctures.

B) In a few cases, bullets which completely miss the tanks still cause fuel leaks. Like here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14622&stc=1&d=1404378042

Note that damage which is just to the starboard engine nachelle has somehow managed to start a leak in the outboard fuel tank!

C) As is typical for just about all the planes in the game, single rifle caliber bullets cause much worse leaks than they should and ignite fires far too often.

Remember, by about 1940, at least for most planes, self-sealing tanks weren't just self-sealing, but usually blanketed by engine exhaust.

That means that you have to tear open the fuel tank to the point that the CO2 blanket no longer is effective, you also need to have way of vaporizing the gasoline (admittedly, not hard when there's a 200 mph wind blowing through a hole in the plane's skin), and you need a spark. Sparks are a bit harder to come by since aluminum doesn't spark and only something like every 10th bullet in the belt was Incendiary, tracer or explosive.

So, two .303 bullets in rapid succession against a full fuel tank are very unlikely to cause a fire because the gas hasn't had time to spill or vaporize and the integrity of the tank is still good. A burst of .303 bullets might do the trick if it tears apart the fuel tank and the fuel then contacts a hot engines. But, that's not an option for a fuel tank mounted at a distance from the engine.

What might cause a fire is several bursts of .303 fire which tear up the tank, followed some seconds later by another big burst of .303 gunfire, which can be assumed to contain an Incendiary, Explosive or Tracer bullet in the mix, and which hits gasoline vapor.

Example of bad damage modeling here, where two .303 bullets from the same burst started a fire in a previously undamaged fuel tank.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14624&stc=1&d=1404378818

The other bullets which hit near the burning fuel tank actually hit behind the fuel tank, so the damage looks worse than it is.

E) Fuel fires don't go out when fuel is exhausted.

Example here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14625&stc=1&d=1404378916

This screenshot was taken about a minute after I lost fuel due to the fire. Since the fire presumably drew fire from other tanks, it's unlikely that there was any remaining fuel in the burning tank for it to use!


F) Fuel fires also deplete the fuel from ALL tanks, not just the tank where the fire is. I know that IL2 doesn't and can't really model fuel transfer or fuel shutoffs, but it wouldn't be hard to specify that a fuel fire just takes some percentage of fuel and then goes out.

[Pursuivant]

More A-20G DM problems.

1) Pilot injury.

A) Forward Armor Plate Not Properly Modeled: In a few cases, bullets will penetrate the forward armor plate to kill the pilot - just as if the plate wasn't there. This despite the fact that most marks of A-20 had armor plate ahead of the pilot:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/A20/PilotArmorDia.pdf

Unfortunately, no pictures of this one. I got three PK in quick succession and several pilot wounded results from frontal attacks which penetrated the forward armor, but didn't think to take screenshots of them. After that, I couldn't replicate the problem.

B) The armor glass in front of the pilot is mostly well modeled, with a few exceptions:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14626&stc=1&d=1404379563

Note the hit to the edge of the armor glass, which, rather than being stopped or deflected penetrated to hit the pilot's arm. This isn't just an artifact of the cockpit model not quite matching up to the exterior model, the hit looked just as strange from the outside.

Typically, however, the armor glass does its job except at close ranges were it can be penetrated.

C) Pilot damage modeling is a bit weird. In one instance I got a bleeding wound from a bullet which just missed the pilot. At best, it would have been a grazing wound.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14627&stc=1&d=1404380010


2) Gun damage. Unlike planes like the P-38 where just about any hit to the nose is a gun hit, it's quite difficult to hit the guns on the A-20G. While they can happen (unlike, say, the P-39 or P-400), I have to wonder if the ammunition runs for the guns could be a bit better modeled.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14628&stc=1&d=1404380214

Notice loads of hits which might damage the guns or ammo runs, including one hit that goes straight down the barrel of one of the guns, but no damage.

3) Missing Crewman. This isn't bad DM, it's just a bug. The rear gun pivots, but no gunner is visible. He's either not modeled, or he is hiding someplace inside the plane rather than manning his gun. He is visible when it's time to bail out, though!

Finally, this technical report provides lots of good cutaway drawings of various A-20 engine, fuel and control systems:

http://legendsintheirowntime.com/A20/A20_draft_2.pdf

[Treetop64]

Just a side note on this issue regarding the SB-2:

The SB-2 had four fuel tanks, one on both sides of each engine. They were not protected with either armor or sealant. So, as it should be, taking a penetrating hit to a fuel tank will cause a leak until the tank runs dry.

The problem is that there is no way of isolating the leak to the affected tank. For example, if the no.2 tank got penetrated, the resultant leak will continue to run until all four tanks are empty. The aircraft's entire fuel supply from the remaining untouched tanks will drain out even if only one tank was damaged.

Though lovely and an enjoyable aircraft to fly, the SB-2 is already delicate enough without this crippling bug.

[Baddington_VA]

Though lovely and an enjoyable aircraft to fly, the SB-2 is already delicate enough without this crippling bug.


That goes for every aircraft in IL2.
If the leak doesn't stop, it sucks out fuel from every tank.

[Tempest123]

Furthermore, there are exactly ZERO places on your average WW2 airplane where a single bullet - even a big one - can simultaneously wipe out rudder, ailerons and elevators, yet it happens occasionally in IL2.

You also bring up another control damage option I forgot to mention - limited range of motion for damaged control surfaces.

Currently, you have loss of control surfaces, complete loss of control of control surfaces, and partial loss of authority from control surfaces. But, you don't have limited range of motion from damaged controls, such as a rudder that you can only turn right, or which only travels through 50% of its full arc when turned to the right.

Yup, I would like to see the instant disabling effect (which is a little arcade IMHO unless the whole surface is blown off) replaced with degrees of limited movement, i.e 20% to 70% (or whatever) of total movement through the full range of motion to simulate damaged surfaces.

[TexasJG]

Version 4.12m, the “Scan MAX Range” function of FOW seems to be inoperative.

[Aviar]

Version 4.12m, the “Scan MAX Range” function of FOW seems to be inoperative.

Just for your information, DT normally needs more proof/information regarding possible bugs.

However, if you post an example mission, I would be happy to test/confirm this issue for you.



EDIT: I made a quick test mission and it seems to be working fine in both Coop and Dogfight modes. Have you read the MDS Guide which came with the 4.10 patch?

Aviar

[Pursuivant]

That goes for every aircraft in IL2.
If the leak doesn't stop, it sucks out fuel from every tank.

Fire in a fuel tank also means that you lose fuel from the tank - probably at an accelerated rate from just a bad leak.

So, in addition to wing tank fuel fires not weakening the wing at all, they will also suck fuel from all the other tanks at a very rapid rate. This means that a plane like the A-20, with a range of over 1,000 miles and 100% fuel can be completely drained of fuel by a fuel tank fire in just a few minutes.

While it would probably be far too much effort to simulate fuel transfer, or even fuel shut-off, a simple fix for this problem is to just limit the maximum amount of fuel that can be lost from a fuel tank leak or fire to Percentage of total fuel stored in that tank/percentage of remaining fuel.

For example, if 25% of the plane's total fuel is stored in the outport port wing tank, you've got 50% fuel left, and that tank gets holed or set on fire, the maximum fuel you can lose is 50% of 25% or 12.5% of your original fuel load.

Realistically, that's bit simplistic, since it assumes that a leak will completely drain the tank, which isn't always the case, but it's good enough.

[Pursuivant]

Troubleshooting the A-6M Zero/Zeke/Reisen series this time.

Because the early variants are so fragile, I didn't use my standard bad tactics and just hang out at the bomber formation's 6 o'clock. Also, it's a Zero, and how can you NOT climb and turn in a Zero?

Instead, I used modified "boom and zoom" and high-side attacks, keeping my speed up and making fast diving attacks from above and behind, usually starting from 5 o'clock or 7 o'clock high and describing a gentle "S" as I dove to attack from at least a 300 m height advantage.

This turned the A6M2 series into an effective bomber interceptor, but even so I picked up enough hits to effectively pick out any faults in DM.

All in all, the DM isn't that bad. The engine is reasonably robust against small caliber bullets, as is the airframe, and the later series (A6M5 and later) planes are about as good as most Western planes in their ability to take damage.

The early marks catch fire almost too easily - just one or two rifle caliber bullets are enough to make the wing fuel tanks catch on fire even on a full tank of gas.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14658&stc=1&d=1404791035

For example, in the picture above, two rifle caliber bullets in a single burst instantly made the port side wing fuel tank burst into flame.

All of the variants are vulnerable to fuel tank fires, and any fuel tank fire is more likely to run the engine out of fuel than burn the wing off, although on the early versions you might get a fuel tank explosion.

In a very few cases, the "bug" that the DM doesn't recognize that a fuel tank is filled with fuel also comes into play. As in this case where the bullet not only punched through the forward fuel tank but also injured the pilot:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14659&stc=1&d=1404791269

Other than systemic bugs in IL2's damage modeling mentioned above, there are also a few cases where clear fuel tank hits DON'T start fuel tank leaks:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14660&stc=1&d=1404791602

A6M5 - Notice two penetrating bullets to port wing fuel tank but no fuel tank leak.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14661&stc=1&d=1404791705

A6M3 - Ditto. Although on second look it appears that the bullets might be a bit outboard of the tank, in which case they might have damaged the wing cannon.


A6M7 - Congratulations to whoever did the damage modeling on this one. Not only are damage results reasonable, but FUEL FIRES GO OUT WHEN THE PLANE RUNS OUT OF FUEL!

Edit: Fuel tank fires only go out and stay out when: A) You run out of fuel, B) The fuel fire has already been reduced to black smoke due to a long-hard dive which partially extinguishes the fire.

Other than that, they keep on blazing away even after you've run out of fuel.

[Pursuivant]

Two more planes:

B-239 Buffalo - I had trouble testing this one because it was so slow that it couldn't keep up with the bomber formation.

DM seems reasonably sound, except that the engine seems quite vulnerable for a radial engine, consistently smoking badly and losing lots of power after just a few hits.

Fuel tanks might be hard to damage; I got few leaks and no fires.

Guns might be hard to damage; I got no gun hits.

Mostly, the bombers just shredded the engine enough that I had to abort.

B-25H - Damage model seems reasonable, except for the usual problems.

* Nominally "self-sealing" fuel tanks don't - even when hit by just a few scattered rifle-caliber bullets.

* Wing tank fires start far too quickly and easily - just a few rifle caliber bullets in the same burst will consistently start fires if they hit a wing tanks.

Remember, the B-25 and other bombers usually blanketed the fuel tanks with exhaust gasses to reduce the chance of a fuel fire. IL2 doesn't seem to take this feature into account.

* Fuel fires don't weaken the wing or make it fail, but they will quickly run the plane out of fuel in just a few minutes.

[Pursuivant]

Troubleshooting the DM on the Beaufighter this time.

Cockpit armor and armor glass does what it's supposed to against frontal hits, although it can be penetrated at close range.

One oddity is that compared to most other recently added planes, it's damned near impossible to set the plane on fire or start a fuel leak. Engines are also extremely tough compared to the same engine when mounted in the Wellington, which can be made to die VERY quickly.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14702&stc=1&d=1405722665

Notice the Beaufighter with it's engines and the leading edges of its wings - directly forward of the inboard fuel tanks - turned into a sieve with no leakage and little damage to the engines.

Unless there's some armor plate there that I don't know about, those fuel tanks ought to be leaking or on fire with that much damage!

[Pursuivant]

Troubleshooting the DM on the Bf-109E series.

This is an old DM and it shows. While I've complained previously about the tendency for the engine to shut down after just a few hits from rifle-caliber bullets fired at extreme range, I've also noticed a few more bugs.

1) The rear fuselage fuel tank is extremely vulnerable - even to hits from the front. Hits from 1 o'clock or 11 o'clock can just bypass the pilot's armor plate to hit the fuel tank, and even one or two rifle-caliber bullets are sufficient to cause unstoppable leaks or even fires. While this is realistic in that the pilot's armor plate didn't fully protect the fuel tank from the front, it's unrealistic for the same reason that a couple of small caliber bullets are unlikely to start a fire in any other self-sealing fuel tank with exhaust gas blanketing.

2) There is a gap between the armor glass and the forward armor plate (for planes where it was fitted).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14703&stc=1&d=1405745821

This screen grab shows two major problems with the Bf-109E-4 damage model - two rifle caliber bullets fired from about 300 m were sufficient to stop the engine cold. Another bullet has penetrated the gap between the armor glass and the forward firewall (which might not have been armored in the E series) to wound the pilot.

Also notice a penetrating bullet hit from the side which also passes through the pilot model, but which doesn't kill or cause injury.

3) It's very hard to get coolant leaks for the radiators which are located just outboard from the cockpit. But, there's plenty of gun camera footage showing exactly this sort of damage for the Bf-109 series (albeit mostly for the G model).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6OTxPiViHk

4) Hits to the oil tank just ahead of the pilot don't seem to stop bullets, nor do they start oil leaks.

5) It's way too easy for a single rifle-caliber bullet to take out aileron, elevator and/or rudder controls.

[Pursuivant]

Ace level AI bombers regularly crash into each other when maneuvering in formation, at least on the Bessarabia map and when setting up QMB missions.

On a similar note, often the third plane in a four plane formation will arbitrarily go into a very steep dive of at least 300 m, then climb to rejoin the formation, possibly to avoid collisions.

By contrast, rookie AI never seems to have this problem, perhaps because they're either slower to react to nearby planes, or because their formations aren't as tight.

I don't know if this is a QMB problem or an AI problem.

In either case, the cause of the problem seems to be that the AI isn't "thinking ahead" far enough to accommodate the very tight turns built into the AI flight paths created for QMB maps.

The quick and dirty solution would be to set QMB AI flight paths so that the turns are much gentler.

The better solution would be to alter AI formation behavior so that the formation "opens up" prior to a sharp turn, with planes on the outside of the formation speeding up prior to the turn and turning later to keep station, and planes on the inside slowing down and starting their turns earlier to keep station. Alternately, planes in formations of four could "cross over", so that the number 1 plane in the formation becomes number 4 and vice-versa. (Not always historical, but it works.)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14704&stc=1&d=1405747271

Screen grab of two Ace AI Wellingtons about to collide.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14706&stc=1&d=1405747840

Oops!

[Pursuivant]

Troubleshooting the Corsair I DM

Not surprisingly, there are a few oddities.

1) The fuel tank seems very vulnerable to small caliber bullets.

The armor plate in front of the oil tank, which also provided partial protection to the fuel tank from the front, doesn't seem to be modeled.

Even one hit by a .303 bullet to the fuel tank often starts a big, unstoppable fuel leak. It's as if the fuel tank isn't self-sealing at all.

Regardless of where a bullet hits the fuel tank (i.e., whether above or below the fuel level) you still get a fuel leak. For a big, basically rectangular fuel tank like on the Corsair, that doesn't make sense.

While you don't get the "one shot, instant fire" effect like on some planes, even one later .303 bullet will often start a fire. It's as if every bullet in the game is an Incendiary, API or APEX round.

The overall effect is that the Corsair's fuel system seems very vulnerable, almost as if it were a A6M2.

2) The engine is comparatively vulnerable.

While I haven't compared the Corsair's DM to that of the Hellcat, compared to the P-47D-10, which used virtually the same engine, the Corsair can stand far less damage before the engine conks out. Counting the bullets, I'd say that the same R-2800 engine mounted in a P-47 can take 50% to 100% more damage than if it was mounted in a Corsair.

Additionally, just about any hit to the engine seems to be a cylinder hit, when much of the volume of any radial engine was radiator fins. This might be realistic for .50 caliber and larger bullets, but for a .303 bullet, there's actually a good chance that you'll miss the cylinder.

This isn't a problem unique to the Corsair, but it's one of the ways in which .30/.303 bullets are overmodeled in the game.

3) While it's not exactly an engine-modeling flaw, the Corsair's forward fuselage - the area between the engine and the the fuel tank where the supercharger, etc. were seems to be very vulnerable to damage. Even a very few .303 bullets in the engine, none anywhere near this area of the plane, will trigger a "light damage" result.

This seems strange since contemporary U.S. reports hold that the Corsair was about as tough as the P-47.

4) The machine guns aren't well modeled. Hits to a MG which go right down the barrel don't disable the gun, but hits which arguably might have missed the gun receivers or ammo trays always cause a gun jam. This is a very typical DM problem, especially on the older planes.

5) The wing oil coolers aren't modeled. Bullets that go right into the oil cooler don't cause oil leaks.

6) There's no logic to pilot hits. On one mission I collected an arm wound when none of the bullets actually hit the pilot's arms. On another mission, I merely got a "pilot wounded" result from a bullet right between my pilot's eyes. Normally, that would be a straight "PK" result, or at the very least a "Serious Wound."

Maybe this is a systemic problem, but it seems especially bad on the Corsair I.

7) The armor glass seems to be undermodeled. While I can't say for sure, since I collected most of my "PK" results at relatively short ranges where a rifle caliber bullet might conceivably penetrate armor glass, out of the many QMB missions I flew, I'd estimate that about 15% resulted in PK results through the armor glass.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14712&stc=1&d=1406108019

Bad DM for the machine guns. Notice a bullet that goes right down the barrel of one gun but doesn't result in a gun hit.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14713&stc=1&d=1406108155

About those Ace gunners. . . Lots of hits on a fast-moving and maneuvering target at 400+ meters.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14714&stc=1&d=1406108337

The forward fuselage is extremely vulnerable to damage, as is the engine. Strange considering that the Corsair was considered to be as rugged as the Hellcat and the P-47. Notice, there are more and bigger bullet holes in the light damage texture than there are actual bullets in the plane!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14715&stc=1&d=1406108531

Just one .303 bullet in the fuel tank starts a gigantic, unstoppable fuel leak.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14716&stc=1&d=1406108677

A direct hit to the oil cooler doesn't start an oil leak.

[Pursuivant]

Hellcat F6F-3 DM

The engine can survive about as many small caliber bullets as the P-47D-10 can. The armor glass does what it's supposed to. It doesn't seem to pick up fuel tank hits like the Corsair does, and the tank hits it gets stop fairly quickly.

Those are the good points.

1) The forward fuselage between the engine and the cockpit picks up damage at a ridiculous rate. The light damage texture actually shows up more and bigger bullet holes than are required to trigger that texture!

2) The cockpit is also tremendously vulnerable to damage, with just two rifle caliber bullets knocking out the gun sight and several gauges even though they actually never got near the control panel. The damage model actually knocked out more gauges than there are bullets to hit them! This isn't a unique problem to the F6F, but it really shows badly here.

The damage model doesn't take into account the fact that the armor glass is slightly angled, and extends slightly below the level of the cockpit, so bullets fired from 12 o'clock level can get in through the gap to knock out the gunsight or wound the pilot.

3) The wing damage model outright sucks. I don't say that lightly, but it appears that the damage model is offset from the physical model, so that the game thinks that bullets which should actually miss the plane's wing hit it.

As with all other machine gun damage models in the game, the game engine can't tell which hits would cause instant stoppage (e.g., barrel, receiver), which parts will cause eventual stoppage (e.g., ammo boxes), and which parts aren't going to have an effect on the gun's functionality (ejection ports, empty ammo boxes).

Perhaps because of the offset wing DM, hits that should miss the guns actually hit them.

When you're flying the F6F-3, expect to lose at least 20% of your guns within the first few passes against ace bombers.

Lots of aileron hits. A common problem with all the older planes' DM, but especially unrealistic against rifle caliber bullets which produce minimal shrapnel and basically have to intersect perfectly with cable runs or bellcranks to sever or jam even one control surface.

I collected several of these hits over several missions despite just one or two rifle caliber bullets getting anyplace near the actual cable runs.

As is normal for IL2, any control cable hit results in complete loss of control authority, even when it's not possible in real life.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14708&stc=1&d=1406107200

Proof that the F6F-3's damage model is offset from the visual model. Note the bullet trajectory that missed the wing, but still counts as a hit!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14709&stc=1&d=1406107466

Proof that the F6F-3's DM for its machine guns is weird - two guns knocked out by two .303 bullets, both of which realistically would have passed under the guns.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14710&stc=1&d=1406107568

Picture of the gap where the armor glass should be, allowing a bullet to penetrate the cockpit.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14711&stc=1&d=1406107651

Same hit from the inside. You can see that the bullet that nominally knocked out the gunsight should actually have been stopped by the armor glass.

Also notice overmodeling of cockpit damage. There are two potentially penetrating bullets, one of which should have been stopped by the armor glass, but three damaged cockpit instruments!

[Pursuivant]

Testing the Corsair II and III DM

These aren't as bad as the Corsair I. The engines are equivalent to the Hellcat and P-47 in their ability to take damage before dying. The machine guns aren't as vulnerable to being knocked out by any random .303 hit. Armor glass works like it's supposed to. It's harder to trigger a minor damage result to the forward fuselage. Light damage to the cockpit isn't overmodeled so that it knocks out multiple gauges or the gun sight.

The problems are:

1) Hits to the oil cooler in the wing still don't trigger an oil leak.

2) Aileron Control hits are still too easy to achieve.

3) Hits to machine gun barrels still don't damage the gun.

4) There is still a gap between the armor glass and the forward cockpit armor that allows bullets to get in.

5) The vulnerability of the fuel system is just as bad as in the Corsair I. That is, even one .303 bullet starts a gigantic fuel leak that doesn't stop, catches fire easily, and runs the engine out of fuel in very short order. This occurs even for hits very high in the tank that would realistically be above the fuel fill level, especially after a leak.

[Pursuivant]

Taking a break from getting shot up by Wellingtons, to getting shot up by TBD Devastators. Why? Because there are some flyable planes in the game that can't keep up with the Wellingtons.

I initially tried a formation of 4 U-2VS and discovered that not only are they armed with 12.7mm tail guns (odd, since most of the specifications I've seen have them with 7.62 mm), but was unpleasantly reminded that they're one of the most overmodeled planes in the game in terms of accuracy and effectiveness of their guns. There are modern guided missile batteries that would envy the anti-aircraft effectiveness of the U-2VS in IL2.

So, I chose one of the most hapless planes in the game, the TBD. One formation of 4 Ace TBD Devastators vs. whatever I'm testing, so 4 .30 caliber MG aimed my way.

B-534: First off was the B-534, and I'm happy to report few problems.

The engine can take a fair bit of damage, possibly even a bit too much, before it dies.

The machine guns jam when the barrels are hit.

The fuel tank can take a bit of damage, but just one bullet won't ignite it. Even so, just a few rifle caliber bullets are sufficient to start a fire. Perhaps a bit too vulnerable there, although the tanks weren't self-sealing.

No weird control hits, but then I didn't collect that many bullets on the wing.

The pilot dies frequently, but then the B-534 didn't have any sort of armor glass or armor.

B-239: Next was the B-239 Buffalo. This one's a lot more problematic.

The main problem is the remarkable vulnerability of the engine, which suffers severe loss of power after just a few rifle-caliber bullet hits and dies after just a few more.

It's not just a Buffalo problem, but one of the systemic problems with IL2's damage modeling is that multiple hits to the same part of the engine count multiple times when they should count only once.

For example, in the picture below you'll see that the B-239 has taken a nose full of lead.

Normally, you'd think that it would be fair for the engine to die after that much abuse, but look more closely and you'll notice that many hits miss the engine and just shoot up the cowl, pass between the cylinders, or hit the same cylinders multiple times.

Look more closely, and you'll notice that the bullets really have only damaged 3 cylinders, and possibly some of the spark plugs/ignition harness and possibly put some holes in the crankcase. Since the bullets were fired from several hundred meters, you will have a severely damaged engine, but perhaps not a dead one.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14717&stc=1&d=1406486898

And what's going on with that big, black stain behind the engine? That's a severe damage texture and few of the bullets actually hit the forward fuselage.

The Buffalo is also vulnerable to strange control hits, where one bullet will take out one or more control surfaces.

It is also vulnerable to fuel tank hits, but then again, it didn't have self-sealing tanks. Despite that, it still takes several bullets to start a fire, so good damage modeling there.

TBD: Finally, let's look at the TBD damage model. I think that TD overmodeled just how fragile the TBD was. At the time of its introduction, the TBD was the first all-metal, stressed skin monoplane in the U.S. navy's inventory. For its time, it was reasonably tough.
But, in the game, it's incredibly vulnerable.

Additionally, they just made some DM mistakes.

Hits in these pictures are .50 caliber hits from a B-239.

Look at the screenshots below.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14718&stc=1&d=1406488117

1) The damage model for the wing is offset so that a bullet that actually missed the wing is modeled as if it hit it.

2) Hits to the inboard wing section trigger a damage texture on the outboard wing.

3) Two 0.50 MG hits are enough to trigger a Light Damage texture in the wing, giving the odd situation of more bullet holes than bullets which actually hit the plane!

4) While you can't really see it, one bullet in the horizontal stabilizer was enough to trigger a severe damage texture for that part, with a completely shredded control surface.

5) This damage is also somehow severe enough that the AI considers it to be worth aborting the mission.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14719&stc=1&d=1406488117

In the second screenshot, notice that damage to the middle fuselage actually triggers a light damage texture for the rear fuselage, and that one glancing hit to the inner wing is sufficient to trigger the light damage texture for that part.

Again, you've got the odd situation of more holes in the plane than there were bullets that hit it!

Ignore the "I'm on Fire" result, that's just part of the AI bailout routine triggered by the PK hit.

[Woke Up Dead]

You guys remember "the bar" in the 190? I think other cockpits may also be suffering from the bar, particularly the Yak 9. Someone on another forum posted a good video showing why the 190 bar should be reduced in game due to refraction of light through glass, it might apply to "bars" at the top of many gunsights and to armored glass in other planes as well; details in this thread: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=705972#post705972.

[Woke Up Dead]

A minor bug: I have edited my ffb files so that I don't get my Microsoft FFB joystick shaking when I squeeze the trigger. I still get a small "bump" when I release bombs or rockets from a fighter. Funny thing is, I then still get that bump when I squeeze the trigger for the machine guns or cannons. This does not happen if I don't add bombs or rockets to the loadout in the first place.

[Pursuivant]

You guys remember "the bar" in the 190? I think other cockpits may also be suffering from the bar, particularly the Yak 9.

I think you're right. Just about all the cockpit models in IL2 fail to take the refractive properties of armor glass into account. I didn't realize exactly what was going on myself until I saw the video.

Just about any cockpit with a thick bottom portion of the armor glass frame, or where armor glass is faired into the aircraft's fuselage, is going to have some degree of refraction which reduces the apparent size of the frame or fairing.

Realistically, though, this also means that any damage to the armor glass that destroys the refractive properties is also going to make the "bar" (i.e., fairing or frame) suddenly appear, as well as making any image seen through the armor glass appear is if it were reflected in a cracked mirror.

Also, the refractive properties of the glass will be obvious as a "step down" between the view in the armor glass and the view through the unarmored adjacent canopy areas.

[sniperton]

Just about all the cockpit models in IL2 fail to take the refractive properties of armor glass into account.

Yep, but to correct this, all cockpits should be re-coded in a way that each armour glass is dealt with as a 'forward' mirror reflecting a computed image just as 'backward' mirrors do in some planes. Seems near hopeless... :-?

[KG26_Alpha]

Ye gads ..............not the FW190 bar...........again :)

Along with ".50 cals won the war" its been done to death.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=45807&postcount=4

Simply removing the frame render would be a solution from inside the cockpit.

And gun-sights have the "3d" effect removed from the edges.

No complicated stuff needs to be done, but the time and effort to re-work all the pits is going to be the problem.

[Janosch]

So, the bar on Yak-9 is basically solid, as in you can't see through it. In A6M5c, there's transparency - I'm assuming that's the armor glass I'm looking at...

Could the bars be, in theory, result of poor cutting or handling of the glass during plane assembly or manufacturing the parts themselves?

[Woke Up Dead]

So, the bar on Yak-9 is basically solid, as in you can't see through it. In A6M5c, there's transparency - I'm assuming that's the armor glass I'm looking at...

Could the bars be, in theory, result of poor cutting or handling of the glass during plane assembly or manufacturing the parts themselves?

I don't think so. Why realistically represent one element whose faultiness was caused by bad manufacturing, while so many other elements on Soviet and other planes known not to be manufactured well are represented in the game as working just fine? Also, I don't think refractive properties of glass can change because of bad cutting technique of its edges.

Within the Yak family it's only the Yak-9 series that have this problem with the armored glass (they all have it with the top of the gunsight). The very similar Yak-1B does not, the fairly similar Yak-7 and 1 do not either. Was the Yak-9 the first Yak in game?

[Igo kyu]

I don't think so. Why realistically represent one element whose faultiness was caused by bad manufacturing, while so many other elements on Soviet and other planes known not to be manufactured well are represented in the game as working just fine? Also, I don't think refractive properties of glass can change because of bad cutting technique of its edges.

Within the Yak family it's only the Yak-9 series that have this problem with the armored glass (they all have it with the top of the gunsight). The very similar Yak-1B does not, the fairly similar Yak-7 and 1 do not either. Was the Yak-9 the first Yak in game?
I think the Yak 9 is the earliest plane in the game to have armoured glass windscreens, despite Hurricanes, Wildcats, P40s having them earlier in real life.

[sniperton]

Simply removing the frame render would be a solution from inside the cockpit.

It's not that simple, I'm afraid. Refraction works here like a sort of periscope: looking through a thick glass, the pilot sees on its lower surface what he would see through its upper surface if his eye level was a few centimeters higher. The pilot can see the engine cowling slightly from above even when his eye level is slightly below that. Simply removing the frame render would be only a partial solution as it wouldn't restore realistic forward visibility (the 'periscope effect'). No offense, just some thoughts. ;)

[KG26_Alpha]

It's not that simple, I'm afraid. Refraction works here like a sort of periscope: looking through a thick glass, the pilot sees on its lower surface what he would see through its upper surface if his eye level was a few centimeters higher. The pilot can see the engine cowling slightly from above even when his eye level is slightly below that. Simply removing the frame render would be only a partial solution as it wouldn't restore realistic forward visibility (the 'periscope effect'). No offense, just some thoughts. ;)

The bottom of the armoured glass is below the engine cowling so removing the frame and transposing the forward view above the cowling fixes the problem.

http://home.arcor.de/fw190d9/sonstiges/fw190_il2_sicht/Fw190sicht.jpg

[sniperton]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'transposing the forward view above the cowling'. If you raise the camera/head position, it will affect side and rear view as well.

[Pursuivant]

The bottom of the armoured glass is below the engine cowling so removing the frame and transposing the forward view above the cowling fixes the problem.

Thanks for that picture. In addition to showing exactly how the armor glass is faired into the canopy and how the pilot's sight line shouldn't include the "bar," it also demonstrates how there was no gap between the armor glass and the forward armor plate for many fighters.

In my experiments so far with the Arcade view and taking on bombers from the rear, I've noticed that there's often a gap between the armor glass and the forward firewall which lets the occasional bullet through when fired from 12 o'clock high, with disastrous results for the pilot. While that's realistic for some planes, for others, it's bad damage modeling.

[Janosch]

Wait! Don't release the patch just yet! :) This just in:

The gunsights in Ki-43-II and Ki-43-II-Kai behave differently than other similiar gunsights. When you move/tilt pilot head up, the yellow reticle is drawn on the top edge of the gunsight. Probably left and right edges too. In planes like Ki-61, Zero, Ki-45 (well, the lower sights at least) and Ki-84, it isn't! Ki-84 has a peculiar area for the reticle to be visible, move head left and right and you'll see. Could there be an oversight in the Ki-43 sights?

[cacha]

It looks like the IL-10 AI can't use PTAB 2.5 bombs. They keep circling the target but never drop the bombs or try to use their guns. This happens on quick mission and on the Sturmoviks over Manchuria campaign.

[shelby]

missing markings
http://s26.postimg.org/6dkjpcduh/2014_09_14_11_57_55.jpg

there are difference in the canopy of p40b p40c and tomahawks
http://s26.postimg.org/u4oz4kkd5/2014_09_14_12_04_15.jpg
http://s26.postimg.org/7q28r8ba1/2014_09_14_12_06_35.jpg

missing navigation lights markings in lagg3 series skin
http://s26.postimg.org/q6wni1r89/2014_09_14_12_09_14.jpg

trees on the road in bougainville solomons 1943
http://s26.postimg.org/vz1tmb7dl/2014_09_14_12_39_52.jpg
http://s26.postimg.org/xs4qamsk9/2014_09_14_12_40_34.jpg
http://s26.postimg.org/5takjrqxl/2014_09_14_12_43_15.jpg

[Pfeil]

trees on the road in bougainville solomons 1943

Is this a bug? In the quick mission on the Solomons with the target set to armor(on Stirling island), most of the armor drives on a road entirely overgrown with trees. I just figured it was supposed to be a road through the forest/jungle.

[Vendigo]

There is no way to make bombers like A-20, B-25 (that have nose guns) perform level bombing, as they always begin to strafe ground targets.
Sample mission is in attachment.
Could you fix this, DT, thanks!

[ElAurens]

The A 20 and B 25 versions with guns in the nose are pure ground attack aircraft, they have no bombardier, hence they won't, and should not, level bomb.

[IceFire]

The A 20 and B 25 versions with guns in the nose are pure ground attack aircraft, they have no bombardier, hence they won't, and should not, level bomb.

I don't know... the A-20G even without a bombardier worked with glass nosed A-20Js in mixed formations for level bombing. The A-20C has nose guns but does have a bombing station as does the B-25J which could perform as either.

The suggestion I made years ago is to add an options dialogue/AI switch to the GATTACK waypoints where you can specify the type of attack you want. This could go into more detail like telling IL-2s to perform the "wheel of death" or tell Corsairs to make a "one and done" all out bombs and rocket attack or convince the Ju88s to use either a level bomb, straight down dive bomb, or angled (Stuvi-assisted) attack.

Probably easier to conceptualize than it is to build in the AI routines.

[IceFire]

Is this a bug? In the quick mission on the Solomons with the target set to armor(on Stirling island), most of the armor drives on a road entirely overgrown with trees. I just figured it was supposed to be a road through the forest/jungle.

Don't think it's a bug... it looks intentional. There are also some marshy areas with water and jungle overlapped.

[Baddington_VA]

Trees have been across the roads even as far back as the Slovakia maps.
Unlike aircraft, vehicles have no trouble passing through the Oleg trees.

[Pursuivant]

Another small bug report - no markings visible on Wellington bombers - at least British markings in the QMB.

[Vendigo]

the A-20G even without a bombardier worked with glass nosed A-20Js in mixed formations for level bombing. The A-20C has nose guns but does have a bombing station as does the B-25J which could perform as either.

That's my point and I remember in old version I could choose strafing type of attack by assigning a stationary ground target for GATTACK waypoint or I could choose level bombing by simply placing a GATTACK waypoint over the targeted area but without a specific ground target assigned.
Such option is not available now, could it be brought back?

I also think that it would be helpful if mission builders where able to set attack routine for dive bombers like Stuka and Val - either just drop bombs and head for home or drop bombs and then strafe ground targets with guns.

[Brandon55Lunsford]

It's a bit odd!

[IceFire]

That's my point and I remember in old version I could choose strafing type of attack by assigning a stationary ground target for GATTACK waypoint or I could choose level bombing by simply placing a GATTACK waypoint over the targeted area but without a specific ground target assigned.
Such option is not available now, could it be brought back?

I also think that it would be helpful if mission builders where able to set attack routine for dive bombers like Stuka and Val - either just drop bombs and head for home or drop bombs and then strafe ground targets with guns.

There was a slight behavior change between GATTACK with a set target and without a set target but the A-20G would still go down to strafe since day 1. That's been a pet peeve of mine for a while.

[KG26_Alpha]

B25 become fighters, and many multi engines bombers seem to have the AI characteristics of twin engined fighters.

Makes the mission a bit strange having B25 attacking enemy fighters low level after they have level bombed a target at high altitude.

[Janosch]

For all A6M5b Zero and later types, when you pick IJN or IJA as the airforce, having markings ON draws some extra clutter on the left side of fuselage. Right side is normal, they don't appear there. I have highlighted the "smudges":
http://i57.tinypic.com/2qa4i2s.jpg
They seem to be some number graphics that have gotten "lost", as they're the same colour as the fuselage number. I'm currently using vanilla 4.12.2m without any jsgme shenanigans, but I'm not 100% sure if it's my install. But is not fatal bug.

Also, the Luftwaffe Do-335 rudder number (when markings are on, of course) on the left side is drawn a bit too close to the leading edge, so it's drawn only partially.

[Baddington_VA]

B25 become fighters, and many multi engines bombers seem to have the AI characteristics of twin engined fighters.

Makes the mission a bit strange having B25 attacking enemy fighters low level after they have level bombed a target at high altitude.


I have seen that done by Ju88 A4s back in the original IL2.
I have recently found myself being chased by AI B25s and even AI Ju88A17s in IL21946.
Maybe it's not such a bad thing.

[Notorious M.i.G.]

I didn't see it noted in the 4.13 changelist (although obviously not final), but I thought I'd just drop a quick reminder that the AI refuse to engage at all when armed with X-4s. They won't even maneuver or resort to guns.

Also, the Fulmar can fire its machine guns with the wings folded, but until it gets a pit nobody will probably notice that :P

[Pursuivant]

I have recently found myself being chased by AI B25s and even AI Ju88A17s in IL21946.
Maybe it's not such a bad thing.

I think that the new AI allows for Average or better attack planes to act like fighters against larger or slower planes, especially when the attacker's aren't carrying ordinance.

For example, I've recently had fun flying a TB-7 against a flight of Ace TBD Devastators! In that case, they dogfight fairly effectively, rather than being the usual hapless targets.

In any case, it's realistic for attack bombers to behave in this fashion as long as the opposition is inferior or evenly matched. There are numerous documented cases where patrol bombers dueled it out - like Ju-88 vs. Sunderland flying boats over the Bay of Biscay.

The only thing that's unrealistic, is that often the attackers will behave as if they were fighters with full aerobatic capability, so you see things like A-20s or B-25s doing loops and pulling high-G turns that would realistically damage the plane and its occupants.

[Woke Up Dead]

Minor bug: the "bomb bay doors open" light in the B25 does not light up when the bomb bay doors are open.

[Pursuivant]

More troubleshooting DM against 0.30 caliber guns from bombers, using the Arcade Mode to spot problems.

This time, it's the Buffalo Mk I vs. a flight of 4 Ace D3A1 "Vals" since the Buffalo is too slow to keep up with the Wellingtons.

As for the B239, the engine is incredibly fragile, with just 2-4 bullets consistently being sufficient to make it instantly lose most of its compression, and 3-5 bullets being sufficient to render the engine inoperable.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14851&stc=1&d=1410990532

This screenshot shows damage sufficient to reduce engine power by about 25%, even though only two bullets actually hit the engine (the others passed between the cylinders or just hit the cowl).

No screenshot, but the armor glass in front of the pilot doesn't seem to have been modeled. Shots to the cockpit front go right through to kill or wound the pilot. The Buffalo I gave up a lot of performance for the sake of its armor plate, so it would be nice to actually have it.

Damage to the guns appears to be fairly well modeled, as are control cable hits since those hits don't seem to appear very often. Fuel tank leaks are fairly rare and reasonably well modeled - no leaks that result in fast loss of fuel or fires after just a few hits.

On the other hand, the damage model for the D3A1 overstates just how fragile the plane was. I was consistently getting kills (mostly central fuel tank fires) with just a few bullets - albeit possibly 0.50 caliber shots.

More to the point, the amount of damage required to trigger the "light damage" texture for the fuselage doesn't square with the amount of damage inflicted.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14852&stc=1&d=1410991223

Notice that just 3-4 bullets in the rear fuselage (possibly .50 cal) is enough to trigger the light damage result.

Keep in mind that the D3A was a fully aerobatic dive bomber, so there was nothing inherently weak about the airframe. Lack of armor and fuel tank protection isn't the same thing as ability to take structural damage.

[Woke Up Dead]

Hi Pursuivant, are you aware that those arrows from arcade mode in your screenshots represent only the direction the bullets were traveling when they hit the first solid object, and not their actual path? So if a bullet is traveling towards the pilot's head but is stopped by the armored glass, the arrow will still go through the pilot's head.

So for example you can have a screenshot of the pilot looking like Hellraiser with all those arrows in his face, but in game all those bullets were actually stopped by the armored glass.

Also, 2-5 bullets to reduce power or completely kill an engine does not sound unrealistic. Neither do kills from "a few" bullets to unprotected fuel tanks.

Finally, the only effect of light damage on the fuselage is a small aerodynamic penalty. Again, it does not seem like an unrealistic result of taking eight or nine .50 caliber bullets like the Val in your screenshot.

[Pursuivant]

Hi Pursuivant, are you aware that those arrows from arcade mode in your screenshots represent only the direction the bullets were traveling when they hit the first solid object, and not their actual path? So if a bullet is traveling towards the pilot's head but is stopped by the armored glass, the arrow will still go through the pilot's head.

Yes. Using the arcade mode bullets is just the first step. Any screenshot that looks odd, or which results in odd damage gets compared against a 3d view of the appropriate aircraft.

So, there are plenty of cases where I've seen "arcade arrows" skewer my pilot with no ill effects because armor glass and armor are doing their job at stopping the actual bullet.

Likewise, there are plenty of screenshots I've taken where the damage subsequently makes absolute sense, such as when a bullet goes right down the barrel of a gun and IL2 records it as a gun hit.

Where it's appropriate, I call out good DM work as well as bad.



Also, 2-5 bullets to reduce power or completely kill an engine does not sound unrealistic. Neither do kills from "a few" bullets to unprotected fuel tanks.

Radial engines were noted for being able to take damage and still keep running, so it seems odd that the Buffalo series has engines that are as fragile as those of an inline engine plane such as a Spitfire or Bf-109.

Here's the problem with IL2 and engine hits.

First, there doesn't seem to be any consistency as to how damage to a particular engine is modeled. For example, damage to a Wright-Cyclone R-1820 engine mounted on a C-47 might make it behave differently than the same damage to the same engine mounted on a P-36, SBD, FM-2 or B-239.

My guess is that the creators of the B-239 DM assumed that the R-1820 wasn't a durable engine, since the Finns reported trouble with oil leaks and other problems with the used engines supplied with their planes. Since the engine didn't change for the F2A or Buffalo Mk I, whoever did the DM for those models just used the engine DM for the B-239.

The problem is that there's plenty of evidence that, apart from overheating problems, the R-1820 was a very good engine.

Second, many DM seem to just model the engine as a homogenous block, and fail to distinguish between empty space between cylinders in a radial engine, hits to the crankcase (potentially quite devastating), hits to cylinder cooling vanes (trivial damage) and hits to cylinders (damaging, but not immediately lethal).

While realistic engine damage models are probably beyond IL2's limits, the model could be tweaked a bit so that bullets that don't actually hit the engine don't damage it, and so that bullets which hit near the same place on the engine don't do any extra damage. After all, you can only destroy the same cylinder once!

Third, the bullets that are consistently killing the Wright Cyclone R-1820 engine on the Buffalo series are 0.30 caliber bullets being fired from anywhere from 50-300 meters distance, and they cause near instant engine-stoppage or serious power loss, regardless of where they hit. We're talking about bullets that make small holes and which might not have much power on them when they hit.


The problem with fuel tank hits in IL2 is that I don't think that the DM takes into account fire suppression measures, all bullets are treated as being incendiary, and self-sealing tanks aren't always well modeled. (There are a few planes where the self-sealing tanks actually work, though.)

Realistically, perhaps 1 in 5 or 10 bullets is going to be tracer, incendiary, explosive, API, or similar. The bulk of the bullets are going going to be plain ball ammo. That means that you basically only have a 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 chance of getting a hit with a bullet that has a chance to start a fire.

Next, the first bullet to go through a container of gasoline isn't likely to start a fire, since it's going through liquid (or possibly through a blanket of cold exhaust gasses protecting the empty space in the tank). That bullet is likely to create a spray of gasoline vapor, which might ignite if the bullet is explosive or incendiary, but a ball bullet on its own is just going to set things up for a subsequent bullet (or a spark, or heat from an engine) to start a fire.

Multiple ball bullet hits are most likely to further shred the fuel tank and splash the fuel around, rather than starting fires.

Third, fires start instantly and automatically appear at full size. In most cases, this is just cosmetic since IL2 does a really bad job of modeling fire damage to airframes, but fire size makes a difference when determining damage to the pilot and risk of explosion.

Realistically, what might happen is that a bullet hit to a fuel tank splashes fuel around and creates pools of uncontained gasoline that get vaporized by contact with the wind blowing through the bullet holes in the airframe.

A second bullet with explosive or incendiary qualities hits and ignites the vapor. The fire spreads more or less quickly to involve all the vapor (possibly creating an explosion if there's a lot of oxygenated vapor in a small place), then starts volatilizing and burning the remaining liquid. Fuel in the tank won't have that much oxygen to burn it, but spilled fuel is likely to burn quickly.

So, you'll get small fire to start with (sometimes well modeled by black smoke in the game) that burns the spilled fuel, followed by a big "fully involved" fire that starts to volatilize fuel stored in the tank.


Finally, the only effect of light damage on the fuselage is a small aerodynamic penalty. Again, it does not seem like an unrealistic result of taking eight or nine .50 caliber bullets like the Val in your screenshot.

True. Because of the way that IL2 "paints" light and heavy damage textures you have to ignore the appearance of the damage textures vs. their actual effect.

But, the hole made by a 0.50 caliber bullet in aluminum is going to be the thickness of a man's thumb. Exit holes are perhaps going to be a bit bigger, as might holes made if the bullet enters at an oblique angle or tumbles after impact (although bullet tumbling or fragmentation is unusual for the 0.50 BMG round).

Like you said, that's going to cause drag. My point, however, is that 8-9 bullets shouldn't be enough to cause much more than drag, like making the airframe fail under stress.

Since damage modeling is an art, it seems to me that IL2's developers have made planes that were notably vulnerable in combat for any reason excessively vulnerable to any sort of damage.

That means that planes like the TBD and D3A1, which were mostly vulnerable because they were slow and didn't have good armor and fuel protection, are potentially too vulnerable to airframe damage.

[Pursuivant]

Further information about fuel tank fires.

Ball bullets not causing fires in fuel tanks isn't just my opinion:

Small caliber bullets vs. gas tank:

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/shooting-gas-tank.htm

0.50 caliber sniper rifle at 20 yards vs. unarmored car fuel tank:

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/penn-teller-tell-a-lie-two-bullets-blow-up-a-car.htm

The latter clip pretty much proves my point about how hard it really is to start a fuel tank fire using just ball bullets. Massive bullet at close range against a small unsealed fuel tank, which splashes lots of fuel around and pretty well makes the fuel tank useless. Even so, the shooter has to wait 10 minutes for the gas to properly volatilize to ignition point and then his second shot with a ball round fails to ignite the fuel!

If you look at the video, the firemen give a very good explanation as to why bullets aren't likely to start gasoline fires.


To take things to further extremes, this video shows a 0.50 BMG sniper rifle at perhaps 50 yards firing a Raufoss (NATO general purpose Incendiary explosive round) against a PROPANE TANK with no result other than puncturing the tank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57nmiaplP1Q

Here's a video of API 7.62mm vs. a pressurized can of engine cleaner fluid (highly flammable):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SG0XoAWY70

The API round causes a brief fireball, but due to lack of oxygen and fuel mixing, the fire isn't sustained.

Summary: Even a large-caliber incendiary bullet going through an unarmored fuel tank filled with highly volatile gas or vapor isn't going to start a fire if there's no air present to allow combustion to occur.

This means that the first bullet hit will NEVER start a fire unless the tank already has a leak in it and there has been enough time for oxygen and fuel to mix.

Multiple ball bullets are also unlikely to start fires. Multiple bullets incendiary or explosive bullets are required, preferably with some sort of interval to allow the gasoline vapor to volatilize. That's why gun camera footage shows even notably flammable planes like the A6M2 or D3A only bursting into flames after they take multiple bullets to their fuel tanks.

While I hate to say it, currently the ease at which all planes in the game burst into flames following a fuel tank hit is pure Hollywood.

Likewise, unless you get something like a fuel line rupture, which allows pressurized fuel to spray over a hot engine block and subsequently ignite due to a spark, it's also extremely unlikely that you'll get engine fires. My guess is that big clouds of smoke from damaged engines more likely represents burning oil or clouds of steam from damaged coolant systems.

[Pursuivant]

Harping further on damage model flaws to fuel tanks.

I was finally able to get information about how self-sealing fuel tanks worked in WW2.

Basically, they were multiple layers of rubber and/or leather, that self-sealed by allowing raw rubber to flow into the hole to seal it. Also, they were all soft-sided so that they wouldn't rupture as a bullet passed through them.

Patent application for one form of self-sealing fuel tank here:

http://www.google.com/patents/US2401627.pdf

Contemporary article on the Ju-88 which explains the self-sealing fuel tanks in detail:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%203429.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%203430.html

Note that the Ju-88 was equipped with fuel dumping capability for its fuselage tank, although the fuel tanks don't appear to have been blanketed with engine gasses as a fire-protection measure.

Advertisement for self-sealing fuel and oil-tanks, which claims that they will not ignite even when hit by tracer, incendiary or ball ammo.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%202064.html

This video is extremely helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwvlZISfMeg

Notice that the U.S. self-sealing fuel tanks used in the B-24 bomber (and presumably all other U.S. types) INSTANTLY self-seal against .50 BMG shots fired at close range. They do not rupture due to fluid pressure when the bullet exits the tank. They also self-seal against multiple hits with no apparent loss of integrity.

U.S. Navy reports indicate that self-sealing tanks used on U.S. planes instantly sealed against 0.50 caliber bullets, and occasionally against 20mm shells.

Summary: Single small caliber bullets or shrapnel hits should not be able to start fuel leaks in planes with self-sealing tanks. Single 0.50 caliber bullets should also not be able to start fuel leaks in such planes unless they are also explosive. Even 20 mm shells might not cause a fuel leak (assuming they fail to explode)!

Multiple bullets hitting very close together, or an explosion, are required to get self-sealing tanks to leak.

This means that slow-to-stop fuel and oil tank leaks in the game are bad Damage Modeling. It also means that it should be even harder to set planes on fire.

[Pursuivant]

Another period video showing exactly how rifle caliber MG fire works against both unsealed and sealed fuel tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjOXKCuQDRI

Both guns appear to be .30 caliber MG, firing from about 20 yards with a mixture of tracer and ball.

Notice that against the unsealed tank, the initial burst of bullets DON'T cause a fire, nor does the fuel in the tank ignite. Instead, several seconds after the bullets hit, once sufficient fuel has spilled, the incendiary or tracer bullets ignite the spilled fuel. The fuel in the tank itself only starts to ignite several seconds after that, once the heat from the spilled fuel fire has had a chance to volatilize the contents and make gasoline vapor spill out of the tank to mix with air.

In the second part of the video, you have a self-sealing tank filled 3/4 full of AvGas. Multiple 0.30 bullets which penetrate and exit the otherwise rigid tank fail to produce serious fuel spills and do not ignite the tank.

I count 8 entrance holes and 6 exit holes in the tank, with some obvious tumbling by a few of the bullets.

Notice that almost no fuel has spilled, since the tank stops leakage almost instantly.

This video is circa 1940, so represents equipment that would be installed on Western Allied planes by late 1940 to 1941.

As a side note, some planes (e.g., the LaGG series) vented exhaust gasses into the fuel tanks to prevent fuel vapor and air from mixing. This is now standard on most planes, but many WW2 planes didn't have this technology. In part, this was because the hydrocarbons in the fuel exhaust interacted badly with the rubber material that made up the fuel cell.

[Buster_Dee]

This is not relavent to the discussion, but which C-47 had Wright R-1820? I only know of P&W R-1830. Both reliable, but very different.

[Pursuivant]

This is not relavent to the discussion, but which C-47 had Wright R-1820? I only know of P&W R-1830. Both reliable, but very different.

You're right. I made a mistake. I assumed that at least some versions of the C-47 still used the R-1820 that powered the DC-3, but one of the many changes for the military version of the DC-3 was a switch over to P&W R-1830.

My point still holds, though, that the amount of damage an engine can absorb should be independent of the plane it's mounted in.

While the worst offender in the game is probably the Alison V-1710 (immortal in the P-39, P-400 and P-63, made of thin glass when mounted in the P-40), there are other engines, like the R-1820, which vary widely in their ability to absorb damage in the game.

Mind you, I'm only talking about the engine and its ability to absorb damage before losing power or stopping.

Oil and coolant installations are a different story entirely, so time until overheat can vary, as can amount of damage to oil and coolant systems required to make the engine overheat and shut down.

[Woke Up Dead]

Somewhere in this thread (I can't find your exact quote now), you say that you suspect that engines are modeled as one big block. There are threads a year or two old here that deal with damage modeling, they show that damage models are more sophisticated than you believe them to be, there are inf fact several small components modeled in each engine. I think there are only two or three planes in game (P-39 being one of them) that have a simple, old damage model like you describe. So if your Buffalo's engine loses power after only 2-5 bullets, that means one of those bullets hit an important component.

You also say that the engine on a Buffalo seems to damage differently than the same one on a C-47. Are you taking shots to the engines from the same angle for both planes? I.e., are you chasing a Wellington or Val with the C-47 to take hits from the front?

"The bullets that are consistently killing the Wright Cyclone R-1820 engine on the Buffalo series are 0.30 caliber bullets being fired from anywhere from 50-300 meters distance, and they cause near instant engine-stoppage or serious power loss, regardless of where they hit. We're talking about bullets that make small holes and which might not have much power on them when they hit."

Don't rifle-caliber bullets have plenty of energy even after traveling 300m, never-mind just 50m?

"all bullets are treated as being incendiary"

Sorry, you're simply wrong here, check the fourth post of this thread: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40924&highlight=belting


"Since damage modeling is an art, it seems to me that IL2's developers have made planes that were notably vulnerable in combat for any reason excessively vulnerable to any sort of damage."

No, just look at the Zero. Famously fragile, and in-game the early-war Zeros are particularly easy to set on fire, but have you ever had a damaged or stopped engine in a Zero? Fragile fuel tanks in wing-roots, but super-tough engines.

[Pursuivant]

Somewhere in this thread (I can't find your exact quote now), you say that you suspect that engines are modeled as one big block. There are threads a year or two old here that deal with damage modeling, they show that damage models are more sophisticated than you believe them to be,

Regardless of how various engine systems are modeled, I'm getting very consistent results. So, it's not some sort of random "critical hit," unless I'm really running afoul of the law of averages.


You also say that the engine on a Buffalo seems to damage differently than the same one on a C-47. Are you taking shots to the engines from the same angle for both planes? I.e., are you chasing a Wellington or Val with the C-47 to take hits from the front?

I was actually wrong about the C-47. It didn't use the R-1820 engine (although the DC-3 did).

Flyable planes in the game with versions of this engine are the Buffalo series, the SBD, and the CW-21. I will try to fly them all to see if it's a problem with how the engine is modeled, or how the engine is modeled in the Buffalo series.
The P-36 also used this engine but it's not flyable.

My procedure is to get up a QMB flight in arcade mode using Ace Wellington III (or TBD-1 for the slower planes), then deliberately use stupid tactics by overtaking them from 6 o'clock level without maneuvering much. It's a good way to get a nose full of lead and test engine and front armor DM. Arcade mode lets me see exactly where the bullets hit. I then compare odd results against a 3-view drawing to see if they actually make sense.



Don't rifle-caliber bullets have plenty of energy even after traveling 300m, never-mind just 50m?

Yes, they do, but smaller bullets lose energy at a proportionately faster rate than larger rounds, so a rifle caliber bullet hit at 300 meters isn't nearly as dangerous to machinery as a hit from 50 meters or less.

It's very realistic for a .30 bullet to punch into an aluminum engine block or go through 20 mm of armor glass at 50 meters or less. But, at 300 meters, armor glass should easily be able to defeat most .30 caliber rounds, and there's even a chance that a bullet might be stopped or deflected by an engine block.

Early war planes with armor plate were specifically armored to be protected against .30 caliber bullets fired at even close combat ranges, so at anything other than point-blank range, armor plate should stop them.


"all bullets are treated as being incendiary"


Sorry, you're simply wrong here, check the fourth post of this thread: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40924&highlight=belting

Thanks much for this information, since it sort of proves my point.

First, you'll notice that there is no ball ammo in the mix for any of the guns listed. It isn't even modeled! That's highly unrealistic, since supply shortages or deliberate loadout choices might have meant that ball ammo was used.

Second, you'll notice a very high percentage of bullets that can start fires - HE, API, Tracer, APIT, Minengeschoss, etc. They're not all incendiary, but they might as well be! In some beltings, there's a 5/6 chance that a particular bullet is a potential fire starter!

Third, you'll notice that many beltings have a very high ratio of tracer bullets, sometimes as low as 1:3! 1:5 or even 1:10 was more typical.


"Since damage modeling is an art, it seems to me that IL2's developers have made planes that were notably vulnerable in combat for any reason excessively vulnerable to any sort of damage."

No, just look at the Zero. Famously fragile, and in-game the early-war Zeros are particularly easy to set on fire, but have you ever had a damaged or stopped engine in a Zero? Fragile fuel tanks in wing-roots, but super-tough engines.

My point here wasn't that all notably fragile planes have been made too fragile, but that some of them have been.

I'd also suggest that the A6M2 is another exception that proves the rule. It's very flammable - perhaps too flammable - and falls apart nicely if it's hit by a few cannon shells or a solid burst of 0.50/12.7 mm MG fire. Seemingly realistic.

But, since the A6M2 was a wonderful, well-liked airplane, and early war Sakae 21 engines were very good, arguably the designers went the other way and made the engine "too tough" (or "just right" depending on how you look at it).

After all, in terms of power, mass, compression ratio and power to mass ratio what makes the Sakae 21 so much better than contemporary radial engines like the R-1820 or Bristol Hercules?

[Pursuivant]

A couple of quick missions using the H.75-4, testing the P&W R-1830 Twin Wasp engine.

There isn't the same problem with massive loss of power like in the Buffalo, but the bad engine damage model here is that even a very few .30 caliber bullets in the engine at 100-200 meters are sufficient to trigger a massive fuel leak (i.e., one that triggers the RTB result when the autopilot is on).

Comparing these hits to a 3-view drawing of the H.75, I can see nothing which could realistically cause a massive fuel leak. After all, even if the bullets hit the fuel intake to a particular cylinder, or punch a hole in the cylinder itself, there's not much more loss of fuel than that cylinder would consume normally.

3-View here:

http://www.histaviation.com/Hawk_75_A-2_Drawing_1424x926.jpg

2 .30 caliber bullets in the engine from about 100-200 meters away. Notice giant fuel leak and "RTB" message from AI

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14874&stc=1&d=1411449277


Same hits, but a different angle. Notice that there's no way that the bullets in the engine could have hit the fuel tank.

Different mission, same result:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14876&stc=1&d=1411449337

Different view of the same hit:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14877&stc=1&d=1411449337

[ElAurens]

The Hawk 75-4 used the Wright Cyclone R 1820 single row engine, not the P&W Wasp R-1830 twin row engine.

Better do your research before posting any more of your subjective "findings".

[Woke Up Dead]

"all bullets are treated as being incendiary"

Thanks much for this information, since it sort of proves my point.


Doesn't it actually directly disprove your point? You say "all bullets are treated as incendiary" I show you they're not, you say "my point is proven?"

My research shows that at the beginning of the war incendiary bullets were in short supply for the RAF's .303 guns, but that by 1942 typical belting was 50/50 armor-piercing/some type of incendiary. This source shows that in 1944 German LMGs were also 50/50, while two out of three HMG bullets were incendiary: http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-am.html

Since belting can't change from year to year in the game it's probable that the designers chose mid-war or late-war belting for the guns, when incendiary bullets were available and highly used. In that case half or even 5/6 bullets having incendiary capabilities is historically accurate.

"You'll notice that there is no ball ammo in the mix for any of the guns listed. It isn't even modeled!"
Was ball ammo used in air forces? I could only find references to armor piercing, incendiary, explosive/incendiary, tracers.


"Different mission, same result:"
There's those two or three arrows down low that could have gone through one of the two underfloor fuel tanks, #47 and #48 in the diagram you supplied, assuming the layout of the fuel tanks is the same in the 1830 and the 1820 engined versions.

[TexasJG]

Has anyone looked into the java coding to see how ballistics are actually calculated?
Other than DT I mean...

[Pursuivant]

Doesn't it actually directly disprove your point? You say "all bullets are treated as incendiary" I show you they're not, you say "my point is proven?"

True. I didn't make my point clear. What I was trying to say was that there is an unrealistically high percentage of bullets that can start fires (tracer, incendiary, explosive) in the standard beltings. AP and ball ammo make holes in things, other types of bullets start fires.

So, if you look at the beltings, you have a very high percentage of bullets that can start fires.


My research shows that at the beginning of the war incendiary bullets were in short supply for the RAF's .303 guns, but that by 1942 typical belting was 50/50 armor-piercing/some type of incendiary. This source shows that in 1944 German LMGs were also 50/50, while two out of three HMG bullets were incendiary: http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-am.html

That squares with my research, too, but I'm sure that you've done more work on the subject.


Since belting can't change from year to year in the game it's probable that the designers chose mid-war or late-war belting for the guns, when incendiary bullets were available and highly used. In that case half or even 5/6 bullets having incendiary capabilities is historically accurate.

That makes sense. After all, IL2 models planes at the peak of their performance.


Was ball ammo used in air forces? I could only find references to armor piercing, incendiary, explosive/incendiary, tracers.

It was used for early war beltings by the RAF due to shortage of better bullets. I could also see it being used by other air forces which had supply problems, or for ground attack missions against personnel and light vehicles. But, getting good info is very hard and I'm not an expert.


"Different mission, same result:"
There's those two or three arrows down low that could have gone through one of the two underfloor fuel tanks, #47 and #48 in the diagram you supplied, assuming the layout of the fuel tanks is the same in the 1830 and the 1820 engined versions.

Possibly, but the two suspect bullets exited the side of the plane just behind the engine. They might have penetrated the turbocharger/fuel injection system, though, which could also have triggered a big fuel leak. In either case, I could possibly see the hits starting a big fuel leak.

There's also the issue of the bullet completely blowing through an engine cylinder to penetrate whatever is behind the cylinder. That's a lot of energy for a small caliber bullet at 200-300 m, even if it is AP.

But, the big problem is that I was consistently getting that particular result. When I post a screenshot, it might represent a sample of 10 or more trials. I don't post weird "on-off" results, since in combat anything can happen.

That said, I think that the H.75 series isn't bad in terms of damage modeling, although it might be a bit too vulnerable to control run hits, and like all the other planes in the game it's a bit too flammable in that bullets instantly start fires. I'm also still trying to determine which models had armor glass and self-sealing fuel tanks. There are just so many variants!

[Pursuivant]

Woke Up Dead inspired me to run a lot of QMB missions flying planes equipped with the R-1820 engine to see if it's problem with the engine or the DM for particular planes.

As I suspected, it's a DM problem with the Buffalo series, particularly the B-239 (old model, initially had problems with oil leaks) and Buffalo MkI (serious design flaw which meant that the engine was highly vulnerable to overheat, especially in the tropics).

The SBD had a reputation for ruggedness, which carries over in engine DM. The CW-21 was such a rare bird that it didn't have much of a reputation either way, and as a much later model in the game, the DM is better. DT does very good FM and DM work.

Again, screenshots are representative of trends - 10-20 missions flown in QMB.

Dauntless - takes a licking and keeps on ticking!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14880&stc=1&d=1411517213

CW-21 Demon - a bit more vulnerable to engine damage, but not bad. I had far more problems with fires (unsealed tanks) and pilot kills (no forward armor).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14881&stc=1&d=1411517213

F2A - Could the fact that it was a lousy airplane, forced into a role it was never designed to fill, which had to fight at a disadvantage against vastly superior foes have influenced DM decisions?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14883&stc=1&d=1411517213

[Woke Up Dead]

True. I didn't make my point clear. What I was trying to say was that there is an unrealistically high percentage of bullets that can start fires (tracer, incendiary, explosive) in the standard beltings. AP and ball ammo make holes in things, other types of bullets start fires.

So, if you look at the beltings, you have a very high percentage of bullets that can start fires.

(...)

That makes sense. After all, IL2 models planes at the peak of their performance.



So in the end I think we agree while still thinking we're disagreeing. There might be too many incendiary bullets for 1939-1941 planes and scenarios, but by 1942 the beltings in-game start to look like like they did in the war. It would be nice if players or mission builders could pick their beltings, but that may not be so easily done.


"There's also the issue of the bullet completely blowing through an engine cylinder to penetrate whatever is behind the cylinder."
But without knowing what the modeled components look like, we can't actually tell what the bullet went through, right? I can't find the thread that showed an image of the components of a radial engine in-game, but I remember that it wasn't just a disk, it was detailed enough that there were V-shaped spaces between the cylinders. So a bullet could pass freely through the V to hit something behind the engine.


"But, the big problem is that I was consistently getting that particular result. When I post a screenshot, it might represent a sample of 10 or more trials. I don't post weird "on-off" results, since in combat anything can happen."
It could be that there are enough critical components modeled in and behind the engine that when you test the way you do (flying directly behind a bomber's six and eating bullets), you will consistently take critical damage.

To simplify things, think of the engine is a big, two-dimensional disk when you look at it head-on. What percentage of the disk's surface area is taken up by components that would cause decreased power, leaks, or other damage that you experience: 20%, 30%, 50%? Let's say that 25% of that disk is vulnerable. If you hit the disk with 3 bullets, your chances of hitting a critical component are already 58% (http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx). If you assume that 30% of that disk is vulnerable, then your chances of sustaining damage with at least one of the 3 bullets is 66%. If half of that disk is vulnerable then at least one of those 3 bullets will hit a vulnerable spot 88% of the time.

[Pursuivant]

So in the end I think we agree while still thinking we're disagreeing. There might be too many incendiary bullets for 1939-1941 planes and scenarios, but by 1942 the beltings in-game start to look like like they did in the war. It would be nice if players or mission builders could pick their beltings, but that may not be so easily done.

Custom beltings is one of those things on my very long wishlist of improvements.

There was a huge amount of change in aircraft armament during WW2, as plane designers quickly realized that rifle caliber bullets weren't good enough, and even 12.7 mm/0.50 caliber guns weren't effective against big planes. For guns that were used from the first to the last day of fighting, it really makes sense to have custom beltings.

What TD could possibly do is link beltings to scenario dates, creating beltings like "0.50 BMG 1942" or "0.303 BMG 1940".


But without knowing what the modeled components look like, we can't actually tell what the bullet went through, right?

Yeah, that's the problem. Compound the problem, some radial engines are basically "just a star" with the crankcase and fuel injection systems in the center and gaps between cylinders. Other engines were twin ranks, with staggered rows of cylinders and big turbo supercharger mechanisms directly behind the cylinders and crankcase, which means that just about the entire engine is vulnerable.

But, figuring out what really happens when you punch a hole in a part of that complex mechanism really requires much more complex simulations or historical data than I can hope of doing. All we've got is the received wisdom that radial engines were tougher than inline engines, but I have no idea how much tougher they were.

All I can do is point out discrepancies between damage models where there are common elements - like the engine in the SBD being tougher than the CW-21, which is tougher than the Buffalo. Which model is right, I can't say.

I like the idea of all the planes in the game being tougher, especially against small caliber bullets, but that's my preference.


It could be that there are enough critical components modeled in and behind the engine that when you test the way you do (flying directly behind a bomber's six and eating bullets), you will consistently take critical damage.

True. I'm expecting to get shot up, and the more hits you take the more of a chance that you get a critical hit. But, for reason I described above, I'm looking for consistency across damage models, unless there's something that's clearly different about a particular plane.

For example, one of the many faults of the Buffalo MkI was that the RAF purchasing commission screwed up and ordered the plane with too small of an oil tank. That meant that the Buffalo Mk I was more prone to overheat than other marks of the Buffalo, and it would make sense that a hit to the Buffalo's oil tank would shut down the engine faster. But, the Buffalo Mk I doesn't seem quite as vulnerable to engine hits as the B-239, which by all accounts was the better, more reliable, airplane (once Brewster's trick of supplying planes with used, worn-out engines was fixed).

So, if TD feels the urge to wade through all my posts, perhaps they could stomp some more bugs. It looks like they've already got some kills to their credit, since there are some DM changes to planes like the Mustang and Spitfire forthcoming in the 4.13 patch. Go Daidalos Team!

[gaunt1]

All we've got is the received wisdom that radial engines were tougher than inline engines, but I have no idea how much tougher they were.
Hmmm, P-47 returning home with several shot-off cylinders? Or similar story with Fw-190? Both happened in ww2, their engines were very tough, just like other radials.

BTW, please, do some tests with La-5/7 and Yak-9U too!

[Pursuivant]

Hmmm, P-47 returning home with several shot-off cylinders? Or similar story with Fw-190? Both happened in ww2, their engines were very tough, just like other radials.

I think you're right. IMO, all radial engines should be pretty damned tough to knock out, although the PW R-2800 was notably tough. That said, I think that they should be toughest against blown out cylinders. Bullets, especially big ones, through the crankcase should be much more effective at stopping the engine.

I think that the best way to create DM for engines is to base the amount of damage an engine can absorb on mass. Lighter engines can take less damage, larger ones can take more. The exceptions might be if you've got an engine with a radically different design which makes it more or less vulnerable to damage - like the early jet engines.

BTW, please, do some tests with La-5/7 and Yak-9U too!

This isn't a closed shop! You can do DM testing, too.

1) Set Arcade Mode = 1 in Conf.ini.

2) Go into QMB, choose a flight of early war bombers or attack planes with .303, .30 or 7.62 mm defensive guns as your targets, give them Ace AI and enough altitude that you can maneuver above and below them. Choose your plane and start flying.

You want Ace AI because it makes the tests go quicker, and also helps pick out bad DM modeling because the Ace AI will start hitting you at 600+ meters, when most rifle caliber bullets are going to seriously lose energy. (For example, a .30 caliber M2 ball round is going to lose about half its energy at about 400 yards.)

You want small caliber guns shooting at you to eliminate the possibility of getting hit by HE rounds or big bullets which can mess up experiments.

0.50 caliber or larger bullets do enough damage, even at range, that any hit from them is likely to be realistic in its effects, especially if it's a HE bullet.

3) Deliberately use stupid tactics like slowly overtaking the formation from 6 o'clock level.

Ideally, you're looking for hits at long range (~400+ meters), where armor plate, armor glass and even a thick plate of mild steel should be able to defeat a rifle caliber bullet.

4) Use the pause function and external view to periodically take a look at the damage you've collected. Take screenshots of any damage result that seems weird.

5) Try to keep track of how far away you were from the guns when you got hit. Some planes have unrealistically accurate gunners. That's a bug report, too.

6) Repeat 10+ times to see if you can get repeated results for the weird damage results. You're looking for "critical hits" that seem out of place - things like a very high percentage of control surface hits, loss of engine power, engine inoperable, fuel leaks, fires or pilot killed/wounded.

7) Once you've gotten a sense of the trends, and/or you get tired of being an aluminum clay pigeon/flying pinata, hop onto the internet and find a good cutaway drawing of the plane you just flew. Compare your screenshots to the drawing.

Sometimes a hits that "seem weird" turn out to be valid. For example, some planes really did have gaps between armor plates and armor glass to the pilot's front, or an oddly-shaped fuel tank in front of the pilot (e.g., F4U Corsair).

8 ) Once you've gotten a sense of the trends, start looking at similarities between planes. For example, look at how the same engine takes damage when mounted in different planes. (e.g., Alison V-1710 - immortal in the P-39/P-400/P-63, less tough in the P-38, substituted for something made of crystal and tissue paper in the P-40/Hawk 81/Tomahawk).

9) Post your results to this list and make Team Daidalos's lives harder. ;)

[gaunt1]

This isn't a closed shop! You can do DM testing, too.
6) Repeat 10+ times...

I'd do this gladly, but I lack one very very important thing: time.

[Buster_Dee]

Gotta love those round engines. I was going to argue that crankcases (I would include nose case and rear accessory section) were not necessarily the "weaker" component. But, considering that a lot was packed into a small space, it's hard not to hit something important. On the other hand, a hole, by itself, is not like a hole in an oil pan. Dry sump oiling (and large oil tanks) are a different animal when you consider that the often-reported survival despite the loss of a "jug" was definitely a hole in the crankcase.

[KG26_Alpha]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/DSCF0085.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/alpha1/media/DSCF0085.jpg.html)
^Definately not modelled in IL2 1946 ^


All combat aircraft have their stories of survival and getting home against incredible odds,
but there's more that didn't make it home and we shouldn't want to model the aircraft to represent the "few" but the many.


Perhaps some engines need "balancing" as the damage modelling seems strange when you start to compare engine v engine hit for hit,
some were tougher than others but some seem unbreakable where others have a glass jaw.

[shelby]

here is a bug in p47d10 cockpit
http://s26.postimg.org/j6e7tap7d/2014_09_25_15_59_30.jpg
http://s26.postimg.org/3m6u2rf2x/2014_09_25_16_01_57.jpg

[Woke Up Dead]

Bug: the P-39 has FLIR (Forward Looking Infra Red). Fly a P-39 during a night mission and turn on the cockpit light to see what I mean.

Similarly, pushing the stick forward until you start redding-out from negative G's gives all pilots a brief moment of infra-red vision.

[Pursuivant]

The Hawk 75-4 used the Wright Cyclone R 1820 single row engine, not the P&W Wasp R-1830 twin row engine.

Hmm. I though that it was the other way around, and that the P-36 used the R-1820 and the Hawk 75-4 used the PW R-1830.

Thanks for the correction.

In my defense, I'll say that it's a pain trying to find technical details about all the various Hawk 75 models. Curtiss would sell to anyone and they'd customize just about anything but the basic airframe to make the sale. P-36, French Hawk 75, Finnish Hawk 75, Thai Hawk 75, British Mohawks, etc. It gets confusing!

[Pursuivant]

All combat aircraft have their stories of survival and getting home against incredible odds, but there's more that didn't make it home and we shouldn't want to model the aircraft to represent the "few" but the many.

Actually, I think that IL2 does a pretty good job of modeling collisions, even if the damage textures don't show it.

Since all my bad tactics in the QMB often results in the mission ending with my plane in pieces after a collision with a bomber (e.g., control cable taken out, PK or wounded, or just overtaking too fast and misjudging distance on the breakaway) I've gotten a good sense how often your plane dies due to a collision.

Usually, you die horribly, but sometimes you get away with just a dead engine or a missing tail, while the other plane breaks up (especially if you hit a wing or tail that's already shot up). But, occasionally, even after a solid hit, the other plane survives, like the Me-410 in Alpha's picture.

The main reason that it <i>seems</i> like planes do or don't survive damage or collisions as well as they should is due to the damage textures. Those are based on the artist's whim, and are more representative of what "looks cool" than the sort of damage that would really kill or damage a plane.

For example, planes like the P-40, P-47 or Corsair could get back to base after suffering wing damage equivalent to what the IL2 damage textures considered to be "destroyed."

If you're a connoisseur of bullet-shredded aluminum as I've become, that's a bit of an immersion killer, because you say, "Why can't I fly this damned thing! There's a picture in Osprey/Squadron/Mushroom/Whatever book No. X which shows a plane with the exact same damage that got back to base!"

But, once you learn to sort of overlook the damage textures and think in terms of "light," "heavy" and "destroyed" the damage modeling to the airframe and collision results make more sense.

[Pursuivant]

By request, last night I was able to test the La-5.

This is actually a good airplane to test, since it's one of the models from the original IL2 game, so the damage model is likely to be crappy. It's also Soviet, an outstanding design, it was well-liked by pilots and mechanics alike, and was one of Ivan Kozedub's favorite planes, all of which might have made the damage modelers a bit generous.

What we've got is a lightly-built mid-war plane with an excellent engine and pair of excellent cannon, but short range and some other quirks the game can't model.

In terms of mass, it's about 60% the loaded take-off weight of a P-51, 15% lighter than a Spitfire Mk V, and 20% lighter than a Fw-190A.

Targets were the usual Ace AI Wellington III squadron, this time wearing German colors. Altitude started at 5,000 meters, which didn't exactly favor the La-5.

Airframe damage absorption seems to be quite good, the the plane registering about a dozen small caliber bullet hits before the light damage textures appear on the wings or fuselage, and virtually unlimited ability to absorb damage from small caliber bullets before the heavy damage textures appear. But, I didn't get much of a chance to test this, since other types of hits took out the plane first.

If anything, airframe damage models might be too generous for such a lightly built plane, especially for early models which had the typical Soviet production problems.

Engine damage absorption also seems to be quite good. The plane can consistently take 2-3 bullets to the engine at moderate to long range (300-600 meters) without loss of power. It can absorb about half a dozen bullets at medium to short range with some loss of power, and maybe about a dozen with severe loss of power and eventual engine failure.

For a small radial engine, this is pretty good, but not quite as good as the SBD Dauntless, perhaps because the engine is twin row. In any case, it "seems right", and there are no anomalous results like the engine stopping instantly or losing massive amounts of power after just one hit at long range.

Control Hits: Like many early game DM, I think the La-5 is too vulnerable to critical hits, especially control hits.

Remember, a rifle caliber bullet basically has to intercept a control cable or bell crank to sever it, and they're not likely to tear the aluminum skin of an airplane up sufficiently that they'll jam something. Even so, in the 20 or so missions I flew, I picked up something like 4 control cable hits, mostly due to hits to the wings.

Also, while it's just a damage texture issue, the light damage texture for the wings is "burned canvas on the aileron" which seems out of place since almost all the wing damage was to the inboard wings, and none of it was to the ailerons.

Another item for the IL2 wishlist: Separate damage texture modeling for the control surfaces.

Fuel Fires: Another issue is the vulnerability of the wing tanks to fuel fires. I've worried that topic to death elsewhere, but to recap.

1) Unless it's explosive, it's the second or later bullet that starts a fuel tank fire.

2) There needs to be time between bullets to start a fire since fuel has to leak and vaporize.

3) Even Incendiary or tracer bullets can't ignite liquid gasoline.

4) Self-sealing fuel tanks prevent fuel from escaping, minimizing the chance that subsequent incendiary hits will start a fire. They work almost instantly and almost perfectly against bullets of up to 0.50 caliber (except for 0.50 caliber HE bullets).

Additionally, the La-5 had a unique system that vented exhaust gasses into the fuel tank to act as a fire extinguisher.

So, the La-5 should basically be fireproof, especially against small caliber bullets.

As it is, just 2-3 closely spaced bullet hits in a single burst was enough to start a fire in the fuel tanks. This was the main way that I died.

As another damage modeling bug, fuel fires continue long after the fuel is exhausted! But this seems to be a consistent bug for all the planes in the game. Remember: No fuel, no fire!

Gun Hits: A final damage bug seems to be a high proportion of cannon hits. In part, this is because the cannons are near the engine, and the engine is the gunner's target of choice when aiming at an incoming attacker. Even so, most of the vital parts of the guns and ammo runs were behind the engine and should be somewhat protected.

I did get a few gun hits which were quite fair, though, with the bullet going straight down the barrel!

Pilot protection: Pilot protection seems good, with a relatively low number of pilot kills or injured results. Those that occur seem fair, since the La-5 didn't have armor glass. Mostly, the very low percentage of PK results come from the very low profile cockpit. The engine absorbs most of the damage.

Typical engine damage required to get the engine to really start slowing down. The engine lost about 50% power and died about 2 minutes later:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14884&stc=1&d=1411712499

Cannon hit, maybe a bit weird since the bullet hit runs exactly parallel to the barrel and might just miss the breach or ammo feeds (need a better 3-view to be sure):

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14885&stc=1&d=1411712499

Weird burned aileron light damage texture (note: not all damage to wing shown, the wing had previously a few more hits, but all inboard of the aileron).

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14886&stc=1&d=1411712499

[gaunt1]

Thank you for the test!!! :)

Seems like DM of the engine is quite correct. But airframe should be weaker in 4.14+

[KG26_Alpha]

Actually, But, occasionally, even after a solid hit, the other plane survives, like the Me-410 in Alpha's picture.



Seriously !!!!

:rolleyes:

PS: Im going to have to put you on spamming alert, unless you clean up your posts, and start paying attention.

:)

[Janosch]

It appears that you can lock tailwheel on a B-25, despite it having a tricycle landing gear! With the "tailwheel" locked, takeoff becomes a challenge to say the least, and landing is very hazardous!

Yet more mirror surface bugs: the sun shines through the mirrors of all Macchi C.202 and C.205 models.

[Pursuivant]

Testing the La-5F

In terms of DM, almost the same plane as the La-5, although a bit more vulnerable to engine damage, perhaps due to the bigger and more complex engine. In a very few cases, the engine can be badly damaged by just a few small caliber bullets.

Other than that, the Shvetsov ASh-82 is one of the toughest engines in the game, perhaps even better than the P&W R-2800, an engine approximately 200 kg heavier and noted for its ruggedness.

The only DM problems are that the plane is rather vulnerable to control cable hits - especially elevator control hits.

Also, the plane is a bit too flammable, especially since it had the exhaust gas fuel blanketing system in addition to self-sealing tanks. Since the exhaust blanket system was only turned on prior to entering combat, it might be simplest and easiest to model it as a form of fire extinguisher for the fuel tanks.

Armor glass seems to work realistically, although given the narrowness of the cockpit I collected a number of pilot kill results from hits around the armor glass. That's not a DM problem, just a fault with the plane itself. The few bullets that hit the armor glass at range seem to have been stopped, the bullets that hit the armor glass at close range went right through - which might be realistic for AP bullets, maybe not so realistic for tracer or incendiary.

Edit: La-5FN DM seems identical.

[RPS69]

Seriously !!!!

:rolleyes:

PS: Im going to have to put you on spamming alert, unless you clean up your posts, and start paying attention.

:)


I believe that your rightfull irony wasn´t caught. :roll:

[Pursuivant]

I believe that your rightfull irony wasn´t caught. :roll:

I took KG26_Alpha's "warning" as being ironic, rather than serious.

But, if the moderators believe that my DM testing is spamming, then I'll stop.

[KG26_Alpha]

Hehe just some "fun".......

When someones mistakes a He111 for a Me410 after so many "bug reports" posted.....

It was a polite "poke" that's all :)

[shelby]

here is another bug in tb3's cockpits
http://s26.postimg.org/6jdm84t95/2014_10_02_19_52_13.jpg
http://s26.postimg.org/4sul6nbq1/2014_10_02_19_52_55.jpg

[sniperton]

IMHO it's not a bug, it's only a problem. The solution is called 'elevator trim'. ;)

[shelby]

what do you mean?

[KG26_Alpha]

This is level flight.

You are looking down at the gauges at an angle not at eye level



http://s26.postimg.org/6jdm84t95/2014_10_02_19_52_13.jpg

[sniperton]

The plane's position is not necessarily horizontal in a horizontal/level flight. Much depends on speed and trimming. E.g. at slow speeds the plane is usually in a 'nose-up' position in order to keep altitude.
There is only ONE speed at which a plane can fly BOTH level AND in a horizontal position. If your speed is lower, you'll fly slightly nose-up; if your speed is higher, you'll fly slightly nose-down.

[shelby]

The plane's position is not necessarily horizontal in a horizontal/level flight. Much depends on speed and trimming. E.g. at slow speeds the plane is usually in a 'nose-up' position in order to keep altitude.
There is only ONE speed at which a plane can fly BOTH level AND in a horizontal position. If your speed is lower, you'll fly slightly nose-up; if your speed is higher, you'll fly slightly nose-down.I see... Thanks for explanation sniperton

[Vendigo]

Can you DT please make a fix so that the kill is credited even after the player's aircraft has been destroyed. For example, in offline campaign it is frustrating to ram a bomber and not have your kill scored only because your plane hits the ground before the bomber does.

[KG26_Alpha]

Can you DT please make a fix so that the kill is credited even after the player's aircraft has been destroyed.
For example, in offline campaign it is frustrating to ram a bomber and not have your kill scored only because your plane hits the ground before the bomber does.

Attribute the points to the pilot not the aircraft,
the pilot has to successfully bail out and parachute to the ground ?

[Vendigo]

Attribute the points to the pilot not the aircraft,
the pilot has to successfully bail out and parachute to the ground ?

Yes, that's what I mean, as soon as the player's plane is destroyed, kills are not credited though the player is still alive (bailed out). Can it be fixed by attributing points to the "pilot" not his plane? Thanks a lot!

[igorlikesP-38]

Hello

I have a question regarding bridge-kill statistics - in Quick Missions if I hit and destroy a bridge I get a certain amount of ground vehicles-kills and bomb hits statistics goes up, but not the brdge-kills one.
I apologise if this question has been raised before & thank you for any pointers as to solving this problem.

[Pursuivant]

Yes, that's what I mean, as soon as the player's plane is destroyed, kills are not credited though the player is still alive (bailed out). Can it be fixed by attributing points to the "pilot" not his plane? Thanks a lot!

I've proposed these ideas before, but they bear repeating:

There's an even simpler and better way to credit kills. In the arcade mode, when a plane takes fatal damage, it issues a "Pilot Killed" or "Bailing out" message to the AI.

I've never understood why those messages shouldn't also instantly trigger credit for a kill. It seems like an incredibly simple bit of coding.

This fix would also solve the annoyance of not getting credit for a kill when an enemy plane crash lands. After all, the act of crashing automatically triggers a "Bailing out" message, since all the plane's engines are rendered inoperable.

If you wanted to get slightly more detailed about kill claims, you could also automatically credit the player with a "probable" kill after an AI plane takes enough damage to generate a "Return to Base" message, and a "damaged" claim after the player scores any damage on an enemy.

Allowing credit for probable and damaged planes then opens the way for realistic kill claiming based on nationality.

Japanese pilots could get full credit for "kills" which any other air force would consider to be "probables," or even for "damaged" planes.

Germans and most other air forces would get no credit for shoot-downs behind enemy lines unless there was another friendly plane close enough to observe a crash (the "confirmed kill" message in the game).

Planes equipped with gun cameras would get credit for enemy planes which break up in air or where the crew bails out while the player is shooting at it.

Allowing credit for damaged or probable kills would also allow simulation of the rather complex German kill credit system described here:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/9271-Luftwaffe-Claims-Confirmation-Procedure-Forums

In game terms:

Single-engined fighter - no partial kill, 1 "kill" for a Asschuss (shoot down).

2-engined bomber - 2 "kills" for a shoot-down, 1 "kill" for a Herausschuss (Separation = Damage severe enough for a RTB message), 1/2 kill for a Endgueltige Vernichtung (Final damage = kill on plane which already had enough damage to generate a "RTB" message). Auschuss supersedes points for Herausschuss or Endgueltige Vernictung.

4-engined bomber - 3 "kills" for a shoot-down, 2 for a herasschuss, 1 for a Endgueltige Vernictung. Auschuss supersedes points for Herausschuss or Endgueltige Vernictung.

For units where pilots didn't get individual credit for their kills (like many US Navy units), you just tally up the number of kills/probables/damaged planes the player's formation racked up and divide by the number of planes in the formation.

Finally, while it would require more book keeping in campaign mode, and favors realism in favor of fun, you could also have "delayed kills".

Most air forces didn't award credit for kills immediately. Instead, credit was only awarded after intelligence officers got sufficient proof to credit the pilot with a kill. Until then, the pilot would have to settle for a "probable" kill.

This meant that, unless there was a crash site on friendly territory that civilians or ground forces could easily inspect, credit for a kill might be delayed for months or even years. (In a few cases, pilots only got credit decades after the fact, once investigators finally discovered the crash site, or historians finally corroborated one side's loss records for a particular time and location to kill claims made for the same time and place by the other side.)

In game terms, this might mean that you only get credit for kills scored on a previous mission after a later mission, or you might never get credit for a kill.

On the other hand, you might also get credit for a kill that was actually just a "RTB" result. Even in the best run air forces, fighter pilots typically overclaimed by a 2:1 ratio, and gunners might overclaim by a ratio of up to 10:1.

[sniperton]

+1

[Tolwyn]

Althought I like this feature, it still is plagued with too many inconsistencies.

Taxi to Takeoff works for any OnlyAI flight;
Taxi to Takeoff in SP mode is great for humans if you use the overhead "guide" graphic (otherwise, it's not really needed).

But for OnlyAI flights, in SP or COOP, the delay tag is INCONSISTENT!

Below, I have a flight where Plane1 starts tagged to a stationary plane. This flight is AI only.



[r0100_Way]
TAKEOFF_005 172819.92 133867.21 0 0 &0
TRIGGERS 0 0 5 0
TAKEOFF_005 172763.92 133838.48 0 0 &0
TRIGGERS 0 2 5 0
TAKEOFF_005 172678.29 133898.70 0 0 &0
TRIGGERS 0 2 5 0


Nine times out of ten, this flight will NOT delay 2 minutes at waypoints 2 and 3. Or, they will delay at the WRONG waypoint.

What gives with this feature and can we have a more definitive instruction set than what came with the readme? As it's too ambiguous or the feature is broken... ?

[Tolwyn]

Can TD give an official response to the delay in the takeoff_005 waypoint delay setting for AI planes?

Aviar posted this last year, too:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=507713&postcount=14

[Janosch]

When a plane gets a see-through hole, markings may be partially drawn on top of thin air. Pictured is the left side of a RAF BuffaloMK1, and there are gaping holes in the fuselage, with the interior and a small area of green grass visible, and the marking QV is fully drawn.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2yyr4ab.jpg

This is not exactly a bug, maybe more like a limitation of the engine. For comparison, a direct hit once completely removed a red star from a P-39N's wing, and it didn't look fake. Workarounds might be a lot of work, though, since markings are displayed in various places and sizes depending on plane, squadron, number and air force.

But there's more! The mirrors of P-51C-NT and MustangIII - you guessed it - don't block the sun.

[Woke Up Dead]

Hello DT, the Fw 190 D-9 1945 engine overheats and dies quickly in a power-dive above 700km/h. It's like the auto-pitch mechanism doesn't know what to do at super high speeds. More details in this thread: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=228928.

[Janosch]

It seems that the jettison stores - command doesn't work with the wonder weapons X-4, Hs 293, Fritz X or Bat bomb. Normal bombs/rockets can be jettisoned even when standing still on a runway, so I don't think airspeed is the issue.

[shelby]

Missing years and text
http://s26.postimg.org/n09f2tpcp/2014_12_19_22_59_25.jpg

http://s26.postimg.org/6b7z6wsrd/2014_12_19_23_01_00.jpg

[Tolwyn]

I don't agree with this.

You have to get your plane back to base so the "guncam footage" can proved you killed something.



Yes, that's what I mean, as soon as the player's plane is destroyed, kills are not credited though the player is still alive (bailed out). Can it be fixed by attributing points to the "pilot" not his plane? Thanks a lot!

[shelby]

Missing mirror in the mc200 series cockpit

Here is a bug in hurricane models when you gear up or down the wheels
http://s26.postimg.org/ux332jfkp/2014_12_20_18_07_06.jpg

[Vendigo]

I don't agree with this.

You have to get your plane back to base so the "guncam footage" can proved you killed something.

This is completely irrelevant.
First, what "guncam footage" was ever used by a Zero or an I-16?
Second, in the game you still get a score if you ditch your plane in sea and your guncamera drowns.
Third, I just rammed a B-29 and I had my wingman as a witness but I didn't get a kill because my plane crashed before B-29 did.
So I pointed out a simple problem of scoring system employed by the game's engine. I believe this should and can be fixed.

[sniperton]

In Il-2, the problem is that the kill is credited to the plane and not to the pilot. If the attacking plane crashes before the attacked plane does so, then the kill is lost for the surviving pilot who in RL could still claim that kill.

[Treetop64]

Missing mirror in the mc200 series cockpit

Here is a bug in hurricane models when you gear up or down the wheels
http://s26.postimg.org/ux332jfkp/2014_12_20_18_07_06.jpg

What, specifically, is the bug you're mentioning...?

[shelby]

What, specifically, is the bug you're mentioning...?I hope to see it better from this screenshots

http://s26.postimg.org/sme7pujkp/2014_12_21_13_13_47.jpg

http://s26.postimg.org/idlqk0vix/2014_12_21_13_18_50.jpg

[Pursuivant]

This is completely irrelevant. First, what "guncam footage" was ever used by a Zero or an I-16?

Agreed. Different nations used different standards for kill claiming, and for nations where kill claims were hard to verify, it could take years, or even decades, to get confirmation for a kill.

In some ways, as frustrating as it is, the current kill scoring system is incredibly generous since it usually counts planes that crash as a result of damage that isn't immediately fatal. Realistically, those kills would only count as "probable kill" or "damaged" claims.


So I pointed out a simple problem of scoring system employed by the game's engine. I believe this should and can be fixed.

Yep. I've pointed out one simple way to fix this problem. Other folks have also made good suggestions. It seems like a simple programming fix, so no reason to to do it.

* Assign kills to the pilot, not the plane.
* Assign kills as soon as a plane catches fire, break up, has a pilot & co-pilot kill result, or when the AI prompts the crew to bail out.
* Instantly assign kills when a plane ditches or force lands (i.e., anything but a wheels down landing at an airfield).

[shelby]

the same on FW and tempest models
http://s26.postimg.org/qv3mdwtqx/2014_12_22_13_06_44.jpg

[majorfailure]

the same on FW and tempest models


You mean the asymetrical retraction of the landing gear? Probably intentional and historically correct. Don't know for Hurri+Tempest, but for Fw I'm 95% sure, and AFAIR also Zero and Bf109.

Yes, seems to be so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SkZqXFWg4

[stovak]

You mean the asymetrical retraction of the landing gear?

No, he's talking about the clipping. Part of the gear (actuator) pokes through the wings briefly during the up/down animation.

[shelby]

The bug it is outside of the cockpit in the wings

http://s26.postimg.org/yde1efna1/2014_12_23_17_18_26.jpg

http://s26.postimg.org/wo9jk3wyh/2014_12_23_17_18_37.jpg

http://s26.postimg.org/y216few7t/2014_12_23_17_18_45.jpg

http://s26.postimg.org/fwjmnm7bt/2014_12_23_17_18_56.jpg


No, he's talking about the clipping. Part of the gear (actuator) pokes through the wings briefly during the up/down animation.That's right

[IceFire]

There's quite a few aircraft with those clipping issues with the landing gear.

Also the see through wings at wind angles is an age old problem. When asked about it years ago, Oleg said it wasn't an easily solvable issue. Something to do with the graphics engine. It's not aircraft specific although its certainly worse or more visible on some than others.

[shelby]

Missing mirror? on p51c and mustangIII

http://s26.postimg.org/m4ni0z995/2014_12_25_19_45_29.jpg

http://s26.postimg.org/jbuagy8wp/2014_12_25_19_46_05.jpg

[shelby]

Here is a bug that appears when the wings of p51b are hit
http://s26.postimg.org/bqaczpo61/2015_01_19_13_11_20.jpg

[Treetop64]

the same on FW and tempest models
http://s26.postimg.org/qv3mdwtqx/2014_12_22_13_06_44.jpg

Also, with one or two other aircraft (don't remember which), part of the main wheel clips through the upper surface of the wing after the gear is fully retracted.

Didn't know that about the Hurri's and FW's gear mechanism, though...

[dlian]

Anyone noticed online style lag stutters when playing ntrk recordings of offline (ie QMB) fights? I didn't notice these odd stutters (eg recording playback skips quite a few frames like in online lag) before v4.12.2m - but I could be wrong.

My actual dogfights are very smooth averaging 120+ fps using the the built-in fps meter.

When I playback stock recordings like The Black Death, the stutters don't seem to appear. So the stutters seem to have been introduced by v4.12.2 perhaps?

It's a shame because I can't make nice smooth videos anymore.

Has anyone figured out how to fix this problem via some Win 7 settings?

[_352FG_PZ_X]

There is a problem with the fuel loading on the Mustang. This I believe effects the CG and causes bad handling. In practice the 85 gal tank behind the pilot was used first, if it was loaded at all. Only on long missions was it used, then pilots switched to it after take off, to burn it down before switching to drops if used. In this game fuel is loaded into rear tank first and the handling shows it as it would in real life. This should be changed to make this airplane handle like it would if properly loaded.
This is my first post since this game came out.
Bill. ( 352FG_PZ_X)

[majorfailure]

There is a problem with the fuel loading on the Mustang. This I believe effects the CG and causes bad handling. In practice the 85 gal tank behind the pilot was used first, if it was loaded at all. Only on long missions was it used, then pilots switched to it after take off, to burn it down before switching to drops if used. In this game fuel is loaded into rear tank first and the handling shows it as it would in real life. This should be changed to make this airplane handle like it would if properly loaded.
This is my first post since this game came out.
Bill. ( 352FG_PZ_X)

IL2 is AFAIK incapable of shifting CoG. And as this was asked for before at least n-times and has not been changed since, I would assume its not easily fixable.

That aside, Mustang handles quite okay when not selecting full fuel load and has still enough left to stay in the fight for quite some time. And then it behaves okay, and boy it is fast. If it only were armed with Hispanos...

[KG26_Alpha]

50% is an hours flying approx

[IceFire]

IL2 is AFAIK incapable of shifting CoG. And as this was asked for before at least n-times and has not been changed since, I would assume its not easily fixable.

That aside, Mustang handles quite okay when not selecting full fuel load and has still enough left to stay in the fight for quite some time. And then it behaves okay, and boy it is fast. If it only were armed with Hispanos...

Yep! We all have to remember that the fuel gauge isn't real and it doesn't represent fuel tanks that are full or empty individually. Just one big tank really.

A Mustang Mark IA with the four 20mm Hispano cannons would be a nice addition (and a P-51A and a A-36 Apache :cool:).

[Pursuivant]

Yep! We all have to remember that the fuel gauge isn't real and it doesn't represent fuel tanks that are full or empty individually. Just one big tank really.

This is more of an issue with damage modeling. One fuel leak can quickly drain your tanks dry.

While dynamic CoG is either beyond IL2's limits, or would require too much re-coding to be feasible, having fuel shut-offs for damaged tanks might not be unreasonable.

This wouldn't even need a command in the game; it could be assumed as part of the DM as a reflexive "damage control" action on the pilot's part. For example, if you get a hit in a fuel tank that holds 85 gallons of gas, the fuel leak could automatically stops after you lose 85 gallons (or 85 gallons * whatever percentage of fuel you had when the leak started).

[RPS69]

Also, with one or two other aircraft (don't remember which), part of the main wheel clips through the upper surface of the wing after the gear is fully retracted.

Didn't know that about the Hurri's and FW's gear mechanism, though...

On the FW190 that's not a bug. It was an indicator that the wheels were up.
It's a small rod, that shows that wheels are efectively down/up.
There is an anecdote about one of this rods being jammed, and the pilot arriving to wrong conclusions not knowing of this plane problem and executing a belly landing believing that his gear was still up.

Actually it's a nice detail.

[Janosch]

- When using the Go-229, the pilot model's head tilts way too much up and down. It seems that the X and Y axis are reversed - if you look up/down in the cockpit, the pilot external model looks slightly left/right. When you look all the way left and right, the pilot head tilts very, very unnaturally!

- Another .ntrk recording bug: if you select a B-239 as an opponent in the QMB, set map as Normandy1 and look at the B-239, it sports an unpainted, metallic skin. However, if you record this as a .ntrk and watch it, it has the default FAF brownish/green paintscheme instead. This bug appears at least when the B-239 is Finnish, and it doesn't seem to appear on the Crimea map.

[baball]

The rear gunner of the B-29 gets decapitated when he is killed.

[Oscarito]

Hmm... ISIS operated flak? :roll:

[baball]

When flying the yak-7 series I've noticed that the center of gravity of the plane is still too much backward (the camera is centred on the antenna pole) and that they seem to overheat to fast IMO. I've also noticed the problem of COG on the Pe-8 where it is behind the wings.

[Pursuivant]

The rear gunner of the B-29 gets decapitated when he is killed.

THAT will mess with the ESRB rating! At least if it's intentional. . . :O

[stugumby]

Instrument lights and cockpit lights both come on when selecting lights. Map reading lights are whitish and seem to flicker due to prop blur effects.
Also bombsight article has no brightness control.

[sniperton]

Player AI doesn't seem to use/adjust pitch control.

Test: QMB, scramble, Brewster. Set pitch to 40 or 60, then hit 'Auto'. You'll cook the engine. (Hurri can take off, but with huge difficulties, and with overheated engine.)

Generally, after returning to manual mode, you always find prop pitch set to where you left it before hitting 'Auto'.

Mixture control appears to be working similarly.

Can anyone confirm who has these assigned to axes? (Unlike throttle, which works correctly, these are assigned to buttons in my config.)

Thanks