I realized that comprehensive damage model testing reports aren't suitable for a standard forum thread. So, I'm in the process of creating a spreadsheet.
Results will be up in a few days once I've finished testing. At this point, I'm about 60% done. With 300+ aircraft in the game it's a lot of work!
I've also expanded the DM test to determine how all parts of the various planes stand up to concentrated .50 caliber fire from the front, as well as how AI handles damage.
Discoveries so far:
* The way that IL2 models wingtip damage is just wrong. Realistically, unless it's very lightly built or underpowered, almost any military plane should still be able to fly (sort of) if it's missing the outermost 10-15% of its wing.
Some very powerful and tough planes, such as the F4U, were noted for being able to fly home with up to a third of their wing missing!
But, IL2 models damage such that hits to the extreme wingtip cause a wing breakage at mid-wing - triggering fatal damage. For example, bullets which hit the last few feet of the wing will often cause the wing to break 3-5 yards inboard from the damage!
This might seem like a minor problem, but it means that most planes are far more vulnerable to wing hits than they should be, especially for ground attack missions (flak) or in hard-turning dogfights where sometimes the only shot your opponent can make on you is a wingtip shot.
* There is little consistency to wing breakage models. Aircraft like the P-51 can't have their wings broken by .50 caliber fire, but other planes of equivalent mass and construction (like the F6F or Tempest) can have their wings broken.
* The P-38, P-51 & P-47 series are invulnerable to wing breakage from .50 caliber bullets. This gives the late war USAAF fighters a huge and unfair advantage.
* The Buffalo series is invulnerable to wing damage. That explains why the B-239 is my favorite Finnish fighter!
* The A5M2 and A6M series are terribly vulnerable to wing breakage, perhaps unrealistically so. Just 3-5 .50 caliber bullets in any given wing section is enough to break a wing. In fact, the wing usually breaks before you can ignite the wing fuel tanks!
* There is little consistency in wing damage models. Planes like the Bf-109, FW-190, or Spitfire can have their wings shredded by fewer than a dozen .50 caliber bullets, while other planes of equivalent wing area can take far more damage before they show heavy damage textures.
* The Bf-109K series has slightly tougher wings than the earlier Bf-109s - despite having the worst production quality of the entire Bf-109 family. (Seriously, they were assembled by concentration camp inmates working in salt mines, made from parts shipped in from all over Occupied Europe, and their airframe lifespan was measured in terms of dozens of hours.)
* Engine damage models are a bit more consistent, but there is still some variation in the ability of the same engine to take damage based on the plane in which it is mounted. For example, the R-2800 mounted in the P-47 is much tougher than the same engine mounted in the F4U or F6F.
* The Rolls-Royce Merlin and Packard Merlin series engines are consistently very fragile, requiring slightly fewer hits to stop or to set on fire than the DB605 or Klimov M-105 series.
* Modeling of whether an engine catches fire seems to be linked to whether it stops - at least for most plane. The progression seems to be light damage > heavy damage > stop > fire. Realistically, once you get engine damage (i.e., chance of fuel or oil leak) the chance of engine fire should be separated from chance of engine stoppage. That is, you can still have an engine that runs - at least for a while - while it's on fire. For inline engines, which seem to catch fire almost as soon as they stop, there should be the chance of engine stoppage without fire.
* Fire results seem to be a bit extreme. Any damage which triggers a fire instantly causes a full-sized fire, rather than triggering a small fire which grows.
* Most crew won't bail out following a landing gear collapse on the ground.
* Damage modeling for landing gear is often quite crude - with tail wheels and landing gear struts often not being modeled. This is particularly true for the older planes in the game.
* There is no DM for flaps or air brakes - they don't take damage, can't be broken off & don't seem to contribute to wing damage.
* On many aircraft various externally-mounted vents and coolers aren't modeled. For example, the wing-mounted coolant radiators on the Bf-109 and Spitfire series aren't modeled. Kind of a big omission!
* Some planes, especially the really old ones, will have an explosion as a fatal damage effect - even if there are no bombs, ammo, or fuel in the fatally damaged areas.
* Broken parts, or sometimes the fuselage itself, will bounce around or tumble unrealistically, even on the ground. This is particularly true of some of the older planes.
|