Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #661  
Old 06-04-2014, 05:55 PM
Tolwyn Tolwyn is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 250
Default

XP

Quote:
Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha View Post
What operating system ?
Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 06-04-2014, 08:51 PM
Ventura Ventura is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
Despite what I posted above, I think there are some places where shots between gaps in armor are realistic. While complete armor diagrams are hard to come by, especially for Soviet planes, it appear that there could be gaps in armor, especially between armor glass and the forward armored firewall.

For example, on many planes, there is a slight horizontal gap between the firewall armor and the armor glass. This means that shots from directly ahead and slightly above can get through the gap to injure the pilot.
Please excuse my ignorance since I don't delve too much into the arcade portion that shows the bullet strikes.

Do each one of those bullet lines represent one bullet or a volley? I ask because in game, planes do occasionally fly through a stream of gunfire.

I do agree that larger planes/Bombers tend to fall apart too easily. But given a simplified factor (I'm assuming it's much more complicated) how much more 'tougher' would you make the larger panes closer to a realistic catastrophic failure?
Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 06-05-2014, 08:51 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ventura View Post
Do each one of those bullet lines represent one bullet or a volley? I ask because in game, planes do occasionally fly through a stream of gunfire.
IL2 models individual bullet trajectories and does a good job of it. Each arrow represents one bullet. "Starbursts" represent fragments generated by explosions.

You can set up arcade mode by setting "arcade = 1" in your conf.ini file.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ventura View Post
I do agree that larger planes/Bombers tend to fall apart too easily. But given a simplified factor (I'm assuming it's much more complicated) how much more 'tougher' would you make the larger panes closer to a realistic catastrophic failure?
I'd alter damage models for twin-engined to 4-engined bombers so that wing or fuselage failures only appear if the plane is involved in a collision with a plane of similar size, is hit by an explosive shell of 30 mm or larger, has its bombs or fuel blow up, suffers a prolonged and severe fire (i.e., a massive fuel fire that goes on for at least 5 minutes), goes into a long high-speed dive, or suffers prolonged and extreme g-forces (i.e., in excess of 3 G for at least a minute).

For cumulative damage from 20mm and smaller rounds, and from collisions with small planes, there should be some other mechanism to indicate "the plane doesn't fly anymore". Possibilities include extreme levels of drag or loss of lift, or inability to control the plane due to damage cable runs and control surfaces.

I think that this would be easy to implement, since all the developers would need to do is set an energy threshold required to trigger a particular breaking part effect. As a very rough guess, I'd say that for light bombers and dive bombers this would be .50 caliber, for lightly built medium bombers and transports it would be 20 mm, and for anything bigger it would be 30 mm.

I believe that this is realistic because if you look at film footage of bomber shoot-downs by fighters, the lethal damage is almost always from engine failure, fire, or pilot kills. Rarely, you get a bomb hit or fuel explosion which blows the plane apart. Control surfaces might come off, but the plane itself is never broken apart just by gunfire.

The pictures of bombers you see falling in pieces are due to the plane suffering a direct hit by flak, from its bombs or fuel exploding, or from it being torn apart by air resistance or g-forces.

Remember, the Luftwaffe estimated in 1943 that an average pilot required 20 20mm cannon hits to bring down a B-17 from the rear. There's no way that a B-17 or any other big, heavily built plane (B-29, B-24, Ju-88, Wellington) is going to fall apart after just 5 or so 20mm cannon hits, as I've often seen when flying IL2.

Last edited by Pursuivant; 06-05-2014 at 08:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 06-06-2014, 04:18 PM
RPS69 RPS69 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant View Post
There's no way that a B-17 or any other big, heavily built plane (B-29, B-24, Ju-88, Wellington) is going to fall apart after just 5 or so 20mm cannon hits, as I've often seen when flying IL2.
I really want to see some proof about this statement.

BTW, some few extintions back, when most of us were young, someone complained against the effect of buzzaw as something missing on il2, when using .50s

but even then, 5 20mm shots to brake a B-17's wing, is absolutelly outstanding in my game experience.
Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 06-06-2014, 04:59 PM
Buster_Dee Buster_Dee is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 219
Default

The B-17 had warren truss rather than spar. It was notoriously hard to bring down if trying to "saw the wing off." The B-24, with large spar, was more accommodating.
Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 06-06-2014, 10:09 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster_Dee View Post
The B-17 had warren truss rather than spar. It was notoriously hard to bring down if trying to "saw the wing off." The B-24, with large spar, was more accommodating.
A good example of exactly how the B-24 wing spar would fail under stress is here:



About 1 minute in.

The B-17 wing could fail if you got enough cannon shells in just the right place.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/432815-4...oyed_by_Me-262

Assuming that the caption is correct and the Me-262 was able to "buzz-saw" the B-17's wing at the wing root, rather than just weaken the wing sufficiently that wind resistance and gravity finished the job, that still indicates that it took four closely spaced 30mm cannon hits to take a wing off a B-17!

Perhaps I'm overstating the case that 20 mm or .50 caliber hits should never be able to take the wing off a 4-engined bomber, since in combat anything can happen, but I think it should be a very rare event - perhaps 1 in 100 or 1 in a 1000. Certainly, I shouldn't be able to consistently and quickly take the wings off a B-17 using a Bf-109G firing a few 20 mm shots from 300 m.

What I'd find to be much more realistic is those same bullets starting catastrophic fires that spread, then having the wing fail under stress after a few minutes as the fire softens up the aluminum. Or, have damage that makes the plane enter a spin or steep dive which causes wing failure.

For more lightly-built and smaller planes, the "buzz saw" effect is highly realistic and well implemented in IL2.
Reply With Quote
  #667  
Old 06-07-2014, 03:23 AM
RPS69 RPS69 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 364
Default

Well... you may cut a B17's wing with 20mm fire from german planes, but this will require a Bf110, or a 190. Doing that with a 109 is absolute suicide. You really need to place a very good burst to acomplish that. It is better to just go for the fire. After they are on fire you may just choose another target.

I ratherly enjoy looking at the planes on fire those 20mm generate, but they go down slowly from it. Only when there is an explosion, and generally in the engines. Also, they need lots of impacts to start a fire.

Self sealing tanks should work fine against machine guns, but against canons their efectiveness will be far less.

One thing I will complain about bombers, it's the high life expectancy of gunners in ALL bombers. It wasn't like that a lot of patches away, but right now, killing a gunner, even on very exposed positions, is much more difficult than before.
Reply With Quote
  #668  
Old 06-07-2014, 11:11 AM
jameson jameson is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 222
Default

Arnie's still flying rear gunner in the IL2 !
Reply With Quote
  #669  
Old 06-07-2014, 08:02 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPS69 View Post
Well... you may cut a B17's wing with 20mm fire from german planes, but this will require a Bf110, or a 190.
Like I said, taking off a B-17's wing with 20mm fire should be possible, but quite rare.

Perhaps there could be some sort of tracking mechanism in the game that would register how close various .50 caliber and 20mm hits are to each other and only trigger the most catastrophic effects in big planes if there are sufficient hits within a certain radius.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RPS69 View Post
Self sealing tanks should work fine against machine guns, but against canons their efectiveness will be far less.
Self-sealing tanks were mostly designed to survive hits by shrapnel and single rifle caliber bullets. Also, they didn't seal instantly, so any hit to a fuel tank will result in some leakage. While it should be extremely rare, or even impossible, for a single flak fragment or .30 caliber/7.62 mm bullet to start a fire in a self-sealing fuel tank, a concentrated burst of fire from a .30 caliber MG, a few hits by a 0.50 caliber MG or even a single hit by a 20 mm gun should have the POTENTIAL to start a fire or unstoppable fuel leak. It shouldn't be a sure thing, but he risk should be there

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPS69 View Post
One thing I will complain about bombers, it's the high life expectancy of gunners in ALL bombers.
I have to partially disagree. In comparison to an airplane a human is a small target, and for many gun positions the gunner was an even harder target because he was hidden behind armor or was seated, kneeling or crouching which made him a harder target. So, getting a solid hit on a gunner is quite tricky, especially at range.

But, what I've notice in IL2 playing in Arcade mode, is that the "instant kill" locations on a human figure in the game are tiny. To get a "pilot kill" or "crew killed" result you have to get a head shot - right through the middle of the head. To get a pilot wounded/crew wounded result, you have to hit the torso. I haven't yet figured out the parameters for arm or leg hits, but I think that they only are triggered by hits to the thigh or upper arm.

But, realistically, any hit by a .30 caliber fired from a MG through the neck or torso is likely to result in serious injury or death. Should the victim survive, they are also likely to have serious bleeding and are likely to quickly go into shock due to blood loss and pain. Functionally, that means they're dead, since they're out of combat.

While modeling effects of gunshot wounds is tricky, as a very rough model, the farther you get from the heart and spine, the longer the victim has to survive. If TD wanted to make crew more vulnerable, they could expand the "instant kill" area for .30 caliber bullets to cover the entire head, all of the neck, and line down the torso centered on the spine and extending about 15 cm to each side. While not all of these hits will result in an "instant kill" functionally, the effects are the same.

The exception is that there should be a small chance that rifle caliber bullet hits to the head not kill, but will result in unconsciousness for some period of time. This allows the game to model what happened to Saburo Sakai, and a few other extremely lucky but less famous pilots. But, if this option is implemented, the game would need to have some method of telling the player that the "black screen of death" just represents the pilot being knocked unconscious.

ANY hit by a .50 caliber or larger bullet is likely to render a crewman non-functional, and is almost certainly going to result in immediate death or severe bleeding which quickly leads to death. One of the reasons that .50 caliber is preferred for sniper rifles these days is because just about any hit is likely to result in fatal injury.

Likewise, it doesn't appear that gunners are rendered less effective by any sort of hit other than outright kills (although crew are vulnerable to bleeding. A few times, I've seen delayed "gunner down" messages when playing in arcade mode.) I hope I'm wrong, but it appears that the game engine ignores the effects of wounds to gunners, other than bleeding.

Were the game to properly model arm wounds to gunners, gunners manning hand-held guns would have a very difficult time moving their guns around or holding them steady following an arm hit. Gunners manning turret guns would have difficulty elevating, turning or firing their guns based on which hand was hit.

Leg hits wouldn't be as big a deal for gunners as for pilots, except:

1) gunners who have to stand or kneel to man their guns are effectively out of combat.

2) gunners who must use foot pedals to control a gun turret (e.g., the ball turret gunner on the B-17 or B-24) couldn't elevate or depress their guns.

3) Seated gunners who must use their legs to brace themselves in place would have a much more difficult time firing their guns.

So, Aviar's comment that Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his role as Terminator, is manning all the guns isn't far off the mark!
Reply With Quote
  #670  
Old 06-07-2014, 10:30 PM
Buster_Dee Buster_Dee is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 219
Default

I just wanted to point out that the B-17 and B-24 Sperry ball turret pedals didn't control the turret in the way you suggest. The left pedal moved and was used to adjust range to target, as indicated by the site reticule changing in width. The gunner moved his left foot to adjust the "uprights" as needed to keep the target wingspan framed as the enemy got closer. That "told" the computing sight the rate of closure. Using hand grips, the gunner also kept the target framed laterally, "telling" the computing sight how the target was moving left-to-right, etc. The site also received own-aircraft altitude, own-aircraft speed, and it's elevation and azimuth position with respect to own-aircraft.

The right pedal was a footrest. However, some turrets had a back-up foot switch to fire the guns when failures forced the gunner to disengage the drives and crank the turret by hand. I don't think the Sperry ball had that.

Last edited by Buster_Dee; 06-07-2014 at 10:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.