DM - Spitfire wings made of concrete?

[spiderschwein]

After playing on the repka dog fight server several times I have some doubts regarding the DM.

Is it only me who feels the DM of the Spit is a bit off compared to the Hurri and the 109?
The Spit seems to be able to absorb much more damage than any other fighter plane in the game at least at the wings.
For example, I was never able to cut the wing of a Spit (and I shot a lot of them...), while the wings of a 109 or Hurri seem to fall off quite regularly when treated with the Minengeschoss.. though I could remove the tail of a spit a couple of times.
The effect of missing elevators or holes in the wings seems also a bit under modeled on all planes (compared to the old Il-2)...

[JG53Frankyboy]

i would call almost everything in game as WIP in the moment.

[SEE]

DM is to be addressed - problems will all ac at the moment, not just a particular one.

[Sven]

I've also noticed this whilst engaging Hurricanes and Spits. But the Hurri's wings were made of mainly wood right, instead of steel?

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy

i would call almost everything in game as WIP in the moment.

And you would be kind in doing so!

[JG53Frankyboy]

as long ( the so expectet, i have the impression ) 'mother of all patches' is not released by 1C , i dont think its worth to complain anymore

[TomcatViP]

Wood ?

[Sven]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Wood ?

Oh sorry it was the Yak with wooden wings, now I remember.

[Kurfürst]

Probably related to the size of the wing, and associated "hit points". The Spit has big wing, probably and so more 'hit points'.

The old Il2 DM model worked I believe the following way: the wing was divided up to two or three sections, each had a number of hit points before failure. Looking at the numbers, it simply seem to have been related to the wing area of the plane. This basically made larger wings stronger and harder to destroy, which I believe is a bit a simplistic, since it is large the failure of wing spars that causes catastrophic damage, blowing the skin off (which's hit point does seem to be right if related to skin area) will just larg. It also ignored different thickness of sheeting and construction tecnhiques used on wings, ie. in case of the Spitfire, the leading edge was quite thick material, 1.5-2mm thick I believe, and beared the loads supported by a relatively thin but ductile spar, the rest of the skinning being pretty thin. On the 109 a different techique was used, a single robust spar was used in the centre, along with a rather thick skin all the way, not just the leading edge.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Probably related to the size of the wing, and associated "hit points". The Spit has big wing, probably and so more 'hit points'.

The old Il2 DM model worked I believe the following way: the wing was divided up to two or three sections, each had a number of hit points before failure. Looking at the numbers, it simply seem to have been related to the wing area of the plane. This basically made larger wings stronger and harder to destroy, which I believe is a bit a simplistic, since it is large the failure of wing spars that causes catastrophic damage, blowing the skin off (which's hit point does seem to be right if related to skin area) will just larg. It also ignored different thickness of sheeting and construction tecnhiques used on wings, ie. in case of the Spitfire, the leading edge was quite thick material, 1.5-2mm thick I believe, and beared the loads supported by a relatively thin but ductile spar, the rest of the skinning being pretty thin. On the 109 a different techique was used, a single robust spar was used in the centre, along with a rather thick skin all the way, not just the leading edge.

My guess is that direct hits to the spar or spar attachment points are required to take a wing off and that hits on non-structural skin will do very little harm.

I've dug out 2 pictures of the Spit and 109 showing the hitboxes around the spars - unfortunately I don't have a Hurri pic showing the hit boxes but I include one of the spars.

Strangely, the spit damage model doesn't seem to have hitboxes for the rear spar at all...I may need my eyes testing of course! The objects to the rear of the wing are cables and air pipes to the guns I believe.
I attach a diagram of a real spit wing and the rear spar is shown. It is much smaller than the front spar and maybe the devs skipped it as it wasn't considered structurally significant. What I do know is the front spar and leading edge on the Spit formed a strong box structure which was incredibly strong. The front upper and lower spar members are big tubular affairs in real life - pic attached (5 tubes within tubes!) - and these are shown in the model with realistically sized hit boxes. But the rear spar is completely missing I think. If this is the case then this fact could make a difference as only hits to the front of the wing would be fatal. It is also possible that the devs gave the thicker spar members a higher damage score? Can't see the wing attachment points modelled but they may be there.

The 109 has front and rear spars modelled with smaller spar members which I think is accurate. Having front and rear spars gives the attacker a better chance of hitting something important and the thinner spar members may have a reduced damage score too perhaps? I can definitely see the wing attachment points shown as hitboxes on the 109 which act as additional wing failure points.

I can't really comment on the Hurri as I don't have an image showing the purple hit boxes but the front and rear spar appear to be included, at least on the inner wing. However, Hurris do have fuel tanks in the wings while the Spits don't - I guess an exploding fuel tank could easily cause wing failure.

I have my doubts whether damage to structural skin areas is modelled in CloD but it may be. So with regard to the chances of losing a wing, I think it might just come down to positioning, size and number of spar members and from the images the Spit might just have an advantage there.