That might not be a special damage effect, but just the way that IL2 models the death of the FW-190s engine due to cumulative damage. There are several other planes in the game which have similar "engine death" effects.

But, if that effect is actually modeled, it's a nice bit of work.

Partially agreed, but the materials and construction techniques of the era were more or less the same, although quality certainly did vary. Those facts can be used to give us a baseline for airframe durability, and possibly engine durability.

My damage model testing has also shown that there are some huge discrepancies between a plane's ability to take damage in the game as compared to a similar plane's ability to absorb damage. For example, identical engines can vary widely in their ability to take damage depending on which aircraft they're mounted in.

Yes, but what counts as heavy damage? And, why is it that no amount of .50 caliber MG fire can break the wing of a FW-190 or P-51, when its possible for .50 caliber MG to break the wing of a Spitfire MkIX, a P-63, or a dozen other fighters of similar vintage and size?

The way that IL2 models wing damage and breakage seems to be highly subjective, and wings seem to be far more fragile than they should be.

My guess is that this is because IL2 doesn't have a mechanism for modeling progressive weakening of a given part due to damage, nor a method of accurately modeling the effects of G-forces and air resistance on those damaged parts.

Notice the P-51's in the background ;)

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/...1.jpg~original

Then it appears that IL2 actually does have some mechanism that allows wing failure due to air resistance or G forces, because shooting at a static target it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove a FW-190's wing using .50 cal BMG fire.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1445185349

Statics use an entirely different damage model. And to be honest, I'm just happy
that they blowup/burn when strafing an airfield. Its not like your sitting there
in a helicopter continually shooting at a 190's wing. :)

Hmmm... try to break it without the mortars. Maybe what is modeled is the mortar explosion there.
You could check it on the ground too, Pursuivant.

Sorry that I wasn't clearer. In my test mission I use the flying models. I just have them start on the ground so that I have a very close range, non-moving target so that there can be no mistakes about what part I hit, how often I hit, and whether a particular gun loses effectiveness at range.

I also use Arcade Mode so I can determine exactly where my bullets hit, and what effect my firing has on AI.

Yes, it's a very artificial test environment, but it's taught me a lot about the IL2 damage model and about how the actual planes were built.


So, I repeat: on the ground, against a flyable FW-190, it is impossible to break that aircraft's wing using .50 caliber BMG. I've tested this something like 25 times now and I always get the same result.


Where I'm obviously wrong is that it appears that IL2 actually does have some mechanism where parts weakened by gunfire can break under G-stress or high speeds. That's very good news indeed.

Now if they just extend that same effect to fires rather than having a "plane explodes" effect set to trigger sometime after the plane is set on fire.

Hey Ice, you sure this was unmodded?

I couldn't repeat your results on more than 100 trials with friendly targets.

Done, using the FW-190A-4 in my test mission environment, although I only made two trials.

In both cases, the Wgr.21 didn't cause wing breakage because the rocket is immune to weapon fire. It has no DM.

That means that my guess in my previous post seems more likely - IL2 actually has some mechanism that allows parts weakened by damage to break under G-stress or high air resistance.

If so, that's really good news. Not only is it realistic, but a very similar effect could be used to simulate progressive damage and weakening of surrounding parts due to fires.

(Currently, it appears that fires either burn forever, burn until the plane's fuel runs out, or burn for some number of seconds until they trigger an explosion, depending on the plane.)

I think there are two stages of fire - at least for fuel tanks. One that burns forever, and does not do any damage, and another that eventually will lead to explosion of the tank. And I also think it is now possible that a fire reaches "second stage" on its own. Also it is possible to turn fire stage one into full blown with only a (few) hit(s) of incendiary ammo.