Quote:
Originally Posted by falconilia
Started QMB mission test vs 2 ACE Wellington III bombers and the results are not looking good....no fire at all,only minor damaged engine.
But VS 2 Ace B17 Bombers i had lot of main fuel tank fire.
Still no Engine fire.
|
Stick with opponents equipped with just .30 caliber/7.62 mm flexible guns.
Historically, 0.50 caliber/12.7 mm guns were extremely effective fighter killers, with just a few shots being able to stop an engine or cause a fuel tank to explode, even at extreme limits of gunner accuracy. That effectiveness makes it harder to pick out oddities with the DM.
By contrast, being "nibbled to death" by .30 caliber fire helps to pinpoint problems.
Another tool which is helpful when bug-stomping damage models is a good cut-away drawing of the plane you're testing which show the placement of all internal systems.
If you pause the game and compare the drawing to a bullet's trajectory, sometimes you'll be pleasantly surprised when a hit that seems to prove a DM fault turns out to actually be good damage modeling.
For example, I've had bullets "seem" to penetrate armor like it wasn't there, but careful examination shows that the bullet actually passed through gaps in the armor to hit a vital system.
If you get a really strange damage result, immediately pause the game, take a screenshot, and make a note of the circumstances (range, what you were doing when you got shot).
Screenshots and statistics are the most valuable way to make your case.
If you can say, "I flew 25 missions with the Fw-190A vs. a bunch of Ace Wellington III (or B5N2, or SBD-3, TB-3), each time attacking from 6 o'clock level at 250 kph until I got shot down or couldn't keep up with the bomber stream. These are the stats of how I got shot down . . . none of them involve engine fires, even though these screenies show that my engine was filled with holes" then you might have a good case that the Fw-190 DM for engine fires is porked.