Damage Model Bug Stomping - Part 2

[gaunt1]

Thanks for your efforts!
It is possible to upload the file in different format? its a bit hard (tiring) to read it in .txt

BTW, what I was talking about a since a while: obvious bias for some soviet planes, for example the VK-107 powered Yaks: "Hits to oil & coolant tanks & radiators not modeled."
VK-107 was extremely sensitive and fragile engine in RL, its weak points were exactly the oil and coolant. Is it by accident that exaclty these are not modeled? I doubt.

[Furio]

I’ve already expressed my appreciation for Pursuivant’s excellent job. Reading through the results, looks like some of the claims about planes being “too fragile” or “too tough” are not substantiated by facts. Of course, would be great to have the data in a better format, such as a spread sheet. Anyone can give a helping hand to Pursuivant?

Originally Posted by gaunt1

VK-107 was extremely sensitive and fragile engine in RL, its weak points were exactly the oil and coolant. Is it by accident that exaclty these are not modeled? I doubt.

And now we have our conspiracy theory: 1C altered real data to allow Soviet planes to win WWII, while everyone knows that Germany won.

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by Furio

And now we have our conspiracy theory: 1C altered real data to allow Soviet planes to win WWII, while everyone knows that Germany won.

There are only a few soviet planes that are affected by this. For example, all VK-105 Yaks are very well made. (in terms of FM at least) Only La-5/F/FN/7 and Yak-9U are clearly overmodeled, but its for another discussion, it is offtopic here, so dont continue.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

There are only a few soviet planes that are affected by this. For example, all VK-105 Yaks are very well made. (in terms of FM at least) Only La-5/F/FN/7 and Yak-9U are clearly overmodeled, but its for another discussion, it is off topic here

You’re right: it’s off topic. Pursuivant just demonstrated that some claims about overmodelling or undermodelling are subjective. Perhaps even yours. Surely not mine, as I don’t claim anything here.

Originally Posted by gaunt1

so dont continue.

Agreed on that.

[dimlee]

Great work.

But, indeed, it's somewhat difficult to convert current .txt file into easy readable spreadsheet.

[dimlee]

Pursuivant,
One question.
While doing your tests, did you ever see a damage caused by the projectile which MISSED target aircraft?
I recall one "theory" about fragility or P-38 in IL2: allegedly, the whole space between fuselage, tail beams and stabiliser was included in damage model.
It was difficult to prove, obviously.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by dimlee

While doing your tests, did you ever see a damage caused by the projectile which MISSED target aircraft?

Using arcade mode, it's very easy to see if projectiles which miss the aircraft's physical model hit the damage model. You'll see "arrows" hanging in space where they hit the damage model.

There are a very few cases where the DM doesn't match the physical model, but they are mostly landing gear models and a few cases where the tail surfaces aren't properly modeled.

I saw no evidence that the P-38's damage model was so bad that it modeled the area between the horizontal stabilizer, tail booms and trailing wing edge as part of the plane.

What I did see is incredibly bad damage modeling that makes it far too easy to break the P-38's control surfaces, stabilizers or tail booms, and which doesn't model important engine systems.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by dimlee

Great work.

But, indeed, it's somewhat difficult to convert current .txt file into easy readable spreadsheet.

At least in Excel it should work like this: Open, select seperared type of data, next select Tab as separator, and that should do it.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Furio

I’ve already expressed my appreciation for Pursuivant’s excellent job. Reading through the results, looks like some of the claims about planes being “too fragile” or “too tough” are not substantiated by facts.

A very important fact to remember.

My ratings for how tough or fragile a particular plane's parts are are somewhat subjective.

They are primarily based on how many .50 caliber bullets are needed to break the part. That's objective. I've also described what parts will or won't break when exposed to unlimited gunfire, which is also objective.

But, my ratings are subjective because I've also included my opinions as to how tough that part "should" be - based on real life and compared to similar planes in the game.

For example, if a small, single-engined plane like the U-2VS requires 5+ seconds of sustained fire to break a wing or fuselage, then it's probably "over modeled" and gets a rating of "Very Tough" or "Incredibly Tough" (5 or 6 rating). But, if the same amount of gunfire is required to break the wing or fuselage of a heavy bomber, then I'd probably give that part a rating of "Very fragile" or "A bit fragile (2 or 3 rating).

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Thanks for your efforts!
It is possible to upload the file in different format? its a bit hard (tiring) to read it in .txt

I'm limited in the formats that I can use to upload files to the forum and the amount of data I can upload. Zipped text files is the only way to do it. Not my preferred choice!

To get the files into something you can read, cut and paste the file into MS Word, then use the "convert text to table" function. Alternately, you can just cut and paste the text file into MS Excel.

Things ought to work similarly for other word processors or spreadsheets.

Originally, the table was created in MS Excel 2013.

Originally Posted by gaunt1

VK-107 was extremely sensitive and fragile engine in RL, its weak points were exactly the oil and coolant. Is it by accident that exactly these are not modeled? I doubt.

I've seen no evidence of pro-Soviet bias in damage modeling. What I have seen is good evidence that the earliest planes in the game are some of the most sloppily modeled, regardless of nationality.

The Yak series of fighters is incredibly fragile. While the engines arguably are tougher than they "should" be, it hardly matters since their wings fall off so easily. If you're fighting a Yak, aim for the wing - at least if you've got .50 caliber or better guns.

The Yak-1, Yak-7 and Yak-3 series are quite fragile across the board - easy to flame engines, or to break control surfaces or wings. the only place that it's "overmodeled" is the fuselage - and that's probably correct. The Yak-9 series is much tougher - arguably exactly where it should be for all systems other than the engine - except for those incredibly fragile wings.

The only reason that the Yak series stands out as being "tough" is because some of the other important fighters in the game, like the Bf-109 series, are so fragile.