Damage Model Bug Stomping - Part 2
 

The results of my M2 .50 caliber vs. damage model tests are in.

The following report is an expanded and reworked version of my results described in this thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=229427

In the attached file, I've recorded my test results for .50 caliber M2 fire against every plane in the game, both from the front and from the R or L rear quarter at an approximately 45 degree angle.

The report is in a tab-separated text file which can be turned into a proper table using your favorite word processor or spreadsheet.

I've also included my mission files so you can repeat my experiments.

My test method was unchanged from my previous thread.

If any members of TD are reading this thread and care to fix some of the DM problems, I'd suggest the following planes as as being most critically in need of improvements: Bf-109 series, DC-3 series, Ju-88A series, Ki-45 series, Me-163B-1a, Me-321/323, MiG-3U, MiG-9 series, Mosquito series, P.11c, P-38 series, P-39 series, P-63, TBF series, Tu-2S, Wellington III, Yak series.

All I can say is that it's a testament to IL2's many excellent properties that fans of the series have put up with such shoddy and outright incorrect damage modeling work for so many years.

To be fair many planes do have solid damage models, but a significant number of planes seem to have DM based on anecdotal evidence, whining from fans, developer bias, or other non-scientific origins.

Additionally, many planes are missing damage models for certain parts, or have the "hooks" that trigger certain results in the wrong place.

I've noticed the following problems are nearly universal. These are limitations of the game and might not be fixable.

*All propellers are invulnerable to damage.

* Landing gear collapse effects often have plane settling slowly to one side rather than quickly falling.

* Flaps typically don't have damage models and can't be hit or broken due to damage.

* Wheels typically break off rather than going flat and are much less vulnerable to bullet damage than they should be.

* Many planes - especially the oldest planes in the game - have highly unrealistic breaking parts animations that make parts "jump off" or spin wildly - even when these animations aren't appropriate.

* Many planes have damage models which cause damage to an adjacent part, even when that part isn't hit. For example, ailerons might break due to wing damage, or rudder damage might cause damage to the vertical stabilizer.

* Many planes - particularly the oldest planes in the game - have explosion effects for fatal damage to the engine, wing or fuselage - even when there is nothing in those sections to trigger an explosion.

* Most planes don't have pilot/crew bail out following landing gear collapse.

* Wing damage models and damage textures are highly unrealistic. It is usually far too easy to break a plane's wing, and damage to wingtips often breaks the wing at mid-wing or even the wing-root. This makes planes in the game much more vulnerable than they should be.

* Wing breakage causes all outboard wing sections and engine nachelles to break as well. This is unrealistic.

* Most planes are highly vulnerable to breakage of control surfaces.

* There is no consistency in engine damage modeling. Often, the same engine mounted in a different plane will have very different damage properties. Or, engines of equivalent mass, power, compression, etc. will react differently to damage. For example, the Merlin and Packard Merlin engines are incredibly vulnerable, while the DB605 engine is a bit tougher. DB601 or DB605 engines built under license in Japan or Italy behave differently than German-built originals.

* There is no consistency as to the amount of damage which will trigger damage textures or cause breakage. Often, planes of similar size, mass & construction will vary considerably in their ability to absorb punishment. For example, the Ki-43 series is far more durable than the A6M series.

My report also includes a quick ranking of damage ratings, on a scale of 1 (incredibly fragile) to 7 (invulnerable). This is for convenience and as an aid to those whose native language isn't English.

These ratings are somewhat subjective, but are roughly as follows:

1 = Incredibly fragile - very few hits needed to damage/destroy part based on size/mass/construction. Extremely unrealistic.

2 = Very fragile - Just 1 second of sustained fire needed to damage/destroy part or excessively vulnerable to damage given size/mass/construction. Probably unrealistic damage results.

3 = A bit fragile - Just 1-2 seconds of sustained fire required to break/damage part, but results might be realistic for some aircraft.

4 = A bit tough - 3-5 seconds of sustained fire needed to break/damage part, but results might be realistic for some aircraft.

5 = Very tough - 5-10 seconds of sustained fire needed to break/damage part, but results might be realistic for some aircraft.

6 = Almost impossible - 11+ seconds of sustained fire needed to break/damage part. Results might be realistic for certain aircraft.

7 = Invulnerable. Can't be damaged or broken. Highly unrealistic.

Thanks for your efforts!
It is possible to upload the file in different format? its a bit hard (tiring) to read it in .txt

BTW, what I was talking about a since a while: obvious bias for some soviet planes, for example the VK-107 powered Yaks: "Hits to oil & coolant tanks & radiators not modeled."
VK-107 was extremely sensitive and fragile engine in RL, its weak points were exactly the oil and coolant. Is it by accident that exaclty these are not modeled? I doubt.

I’ve already expressed my appreciation for Pursuivant’s excellent job. Reading through the results, looks like some of the claims about planes being “too fragile” or “too tough” are not substantiated by facts. Of course, would be great to have the data in a better format, such as a spread sheet. Anyone can give a helping hand to Pursuivant?



:)And now we have our conspiracy theory: 1C altered real data to allow Soviet planes to win WWII, while everyone knows that Germany won.;)

There are only a few soviet planes that are affected by this. For example, all VK-105 Yaks are very well made. (in terms of FM at least) Only La-5/F/FN/7 and Yak-9U are clearly overmodeled, but its for another discussion, it is offtopic here, so dont continue.

You’re right: it’s off topic. Pursuivant just demonstrated that some claims about overmodelling or undermodelling are subjective. Perhaps even yours. Surely not mine, as I don’t claim anything here.


Agreed on that.:)

Great work.

But, indeed, it's somewhat difficult to convert current .txt file into easy readable spreadsheet.

Pursuivant,
One question.
While doing your tests, did you ever see a damage caused by the projectile which MISSED target aircraft?
I recall one "theory" about fragility or P-38 in IL2: allegedly, the whole space between fuselage, tail beams and stabiliser was included in damage model.
It was difficult to prove, obviously.

At least in Excel it should work like this: Open, select seperared type of data, next select Tab as separator, and that should do it.

I'm limited in the formats that I can use to upload files to the forum and the amount of data I can upload. Zipped text files is the only way to do it. Not my preferred choice!

To get the files into something you can read, cut and paste the file into MS Word, then use the "convert text to table" function. Alternately, you can just cut and paste the text file into MS Excel.

Things ought to work similarly for other word processors or spreadsheets.

Originally, the table was created in MS Excel 2013.

I've seen no evidence of pro-Soviet bias in damage modeling. What I have seen is good evidence that the earliest planes in the game are some of the most sloppily modeled, regardless of nationality.

The Yak series of fighters is incredibly fragile. While the engines arguably are tougher than they "should" be, it hardly matters since their wings fall off so easily. If you're fighting a Yak, aim for the wing - at least if you've got .50 caliber or better guns.

The Yak-1, Yak-7 and Yak-3 series are quite fragile across the board - easy to flame engines, or to break control surfaces or wings. the only place that it's "overmodeled" is the fuselage - and that's probably correct. The Yak-9 series is much tougher - arguably exactly where it should be for all systems other than the engine - except for those incredibly fragile wings.

The only reason that the Yak series stands out as being "tough" is because some of the other important fighters in the game, like the Bf-109 series, are so fragile.

A very important fact to remember.

My ratings for how tough or fragile a particular plane's parts are are somewhat subjective.

They are primarily based on how many .50 caliber bullets are needed to break the part. That's objective. I've also described what parts will or won't break when exposed to unlimited gunfire, which is also objective.

But, my ratings are subjective because I've also included my opinions as to how tough that part "should" be - based on real life and compared to similar planes in the game.

For example, if a small, single-engined plane like the U-2VS requires 5+ seconds of sustained fire to break a wing or fuselage, then it's probably "over modeled" and gets a rating of "Very Tough" or "Incredibly Tough" (5 or 6 rating). But, if the same amount of gunfire is required to break the wing or fuselage of a heavy bomber, then I'd probably give that part a rating of "Very fragile" or "A bit fragile (2 or 3 rating).