FWs Durabillity

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by falconilia

Yesterday i played a QMB with a Yak3 P.
I destroyed Fws wing with ONLY 2 hits from my pair of 12.7mm!(i didnt use 20mm cannon).
That means that there is an issue between US 12.7mm and FW.
Ill try with a KI 43 Oscar but im not sure if they use US 12.7mm and not sure if i can hit it(to fast to reach it).

As already pointed out, the Yak-3P has a 3xB-20 20mm cannon arrangement in the nose. Quite a lot of hitting power. The standard Yak-3 has two 12.7mm UBS and and one 20mm ShVAK cannon.

The Ki-43-Ic has two Ho-103 machine guns. The Ki-43-II and II-Kai also have two Ho-103 machine guns. In past patches the Ki-43-II was incorrectly armed with US .50cal machine guns but I researched and ensured that it was fixed (like the incorrect Yak-9UT armament before it) in 4.12.

[gaunt1]

Just dont forget that if you hit the FW's wing even with just a few light MG shots, you render it barely flyable! I highly doubt its realistic. This needs to be fixed too.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Just dont forget that if you hit the FW's wing even with just a few light MG shots, you render it barely flyable! I highly doubt its realistic. This needs to be fixed too.

If a human is flying it yes, its time to RTB
AI seem to be less affected for some reason.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Actually, I will really like to see any proof of severing a wing from a 190 on reality using .50s. Wings got severed not by enemy fire itself, but by a weakening of it's structure and spars that are subjected to high pressure. Also you could got the ammo rack exploded if it was simulated on il-2 at all, but it is not.
190's were really sturdy for their time. Much more so than a 109.
Even so, on the popular plane lists, it is the one that suffers more from single damage. It becomes almost impossible to land safely after any single shot on it's wings.

My findings as well for a long time now,
even worse is the length of runway needed for landing now compounding the DM problem when RTBing

[IceFire]

My perspective on this has changed over time but I honestly think that everyone is making some good... no... excellent points! But this may be a case of missing the forest for the trees. The damage model has been adjusted a half dozen times over the years in an attempt to make things work. The FW190 has been one of the harder ones to get right - for whatever reason.

I suspect a variety of reasons but I think the big one staring us all right in the face is that the simulation is just not complex enough.

I think it's pretty good right now - having seen some of the worst adjustments over the years. It's not super or even great but its ok and maybe mucking around with it would only make things worse.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by IceFire

My perspective on this has changed over time but I honestly think that everyone is making some good... no... excellent points! But this may be a case of missing the forest for the trees. The damage model has been adjusted a half dozen times over the years in an attempt to make things work. The FW190 has been one of the harder ones to get right - for whatever reason.

I suspect a variety of reasons but I think the big one staring us all right in the face is that the simulation is just not complex enough.

I think it's pretty good right now - having seen some of the worst adjustments over the years. It's not super or even great but its ok and maybe mucking around with it would only make things worse.

Or, possibly, a simplification could be the answer. Generally speaking, all WWII types were very susceptible to battle damage. Yes, I know: rifle calibre machine guns were largely ineffective, and some types were able to absorb a lot of damage and return home, but that’s exactly the point: they returned home, being unable to press on combat and reach their target.

Any fighter, not just the FW190, with a 20 mm. shot in a wing or in the engine became unfit for combat.

A possible improvement (I don’t dare to say “solution”) could be to use a single damage model, with simple tweaking. An armoured engine (Il2) should resist more than an unarmoured radial, a radial engine more than a liquid cooled one. A metal wing should resist a little more than a wooden one. An unprotected fuel tank should catch fire more easily than a self-sealing one. Pilot protection with armour plates and glass should be taken in account, but that’s all. Three, four variables at most for airframe, fuel tank, engine and crew.

It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would avoid seriously “porked planes”.
To complement this simplification, an effective “return to base” routine for damaged planes should be implemented. Here also I’m not talking of complicated calculations. Any plane with serious damage should immediately quit combat and RTB.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

Any fighter, not just the FW190, with a 20 mm. shot in a wing or in the engine became unfit for combat.

Generally, this is already the case. In a dogfight a single 20mm shot in the wing or engine will put you at enough of a disadvantage that it's time to find a way to disengage.

Originally Posted by Furio

A possible improvement (I don’t dare to say “solution”) could be to use a single damage model, with simple tweaking.

I'd love to see this, since it would simplify DM production and would settle a number of arguments about whether a particular plane is "nerfed" or "uber".
Maybe it's already in place, and we peasants don't know about it.

Base "hit points" for airframe parts on aircraft empty mass, minus mass of engines and fuel tanks, divided by surface area of that part. (Surface area is easily determined in a 3D modeling program.) Modify as necessary.

Similar formulas could be used to get basic HP for engines/coolant/turbocharger systems & fuel tanks/lines.

Damage modeling to humans would be a bit more complex, but unless you get hit by shrapnel or a 3.03/.30 caliber/7.62 mm bullet you're going to be seriously wounded at best, most likely dead. That simplifies things a lot!

Originally Posted by Furio

Pilot protection with armour plates and glass should be taken in account, but that’s all.

IL2 already does a great job of modeling armor/armor glass. And, I believe that it actually works on real ballistic calculations of bullet energy vs. armor thickness, which makes it more accurate than any simplified model based on "hit points."

Originally Posted by Furio

To complement this simplification, an effective “return to base” routine for damaged planes should be implemented. Here also I’m not talking of complicated calculations. Any plane with serious damage should immediately quit combat and RTB.

In Arcade Mode, a "speech bubble" pops up over the damaged aircraft when it takes enough damage that it should RTB. It actually reads "RTB". For the life of me, I can't understand why that calculation hasn't yet made it into the AI programming!

So simple. Enough damage to trigger RTB message in arcade mode = actual freakin' AI RTB routine!

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by IceFire

The damage model has been adjusted a half dozen times over the years in an attempt to make things work. The FW190 has been one of the harder ones to get right - for whatever reason.

That is a problem. If DM creation is as tricky as I imagine it to be, all those progressive changes to DM might have introduced progressive errors as well!

Perhaps all that is needed is for all the remnants of past attempts to fix the DM model be removed.

But, assuming that getting the FW-190's DM is possible, and that the sim can handle the complexities of how a brilliantly designed, well-built, but smallish aircraft falls apart, here's what I think needs to happen for the FW-190.

These suggestions assume that DM operates on a "hit point" or "life bar" model - where damage progressively reduces a particular part's ability to take future damage in a linear fashion.

Engine: Reduce threshold between hit points required to get the "serious damage" texture/smoke, and that required for "engine fire". (Assuming those two damage results are linked.)

Wing: Slightly increase threshold required to get light damage result, increase threshold required for light damage to turn into heavy damage. Decrease threshold for heavy damage to turn into fatal damage/wing breaks.

Control surfaces: Slightly increase threshold required to get damage & destruction/part falls off result.

Vertical & horizontal stabilizer: Slightly reduce threshold required to turn heavy damage into fatal damage/part breaks off.

These changes both address the "one shot and it's unflyable" complaints of FW-190 fans, and the "you can't kill it" complaints of its opponents.

In any case, the FW-190 should be about as tough as contemporary planes of equivalent quality, design, and mass (e.g. P-51 & Spitfire). Certainly less durable than heavier aircraft like the Tempest, P-47 or F6F.