Damage Model Bug Stomping - Part 2

[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.

[Pursuivant]

The limits on .zip files are far more generous than I realized.

For convenience, I have uploaded my original spreadsheet, plus new work in progress. But, the tabs for Breda-Safat and Breda MG aren't complete or correct.

The files are in MS Excel 2013 and PDF format.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

Thanks. Probably "empty space damage" was a myth.
Agree with your last sentence. Those tails...

[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.