Damage Model Bug Stomping - Part 2

[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]

First: Thank you for the enormous effort.
It tells me some of my ingame perceptions are not too far off. Fw190s do obviously suffer from overdone damage from a few hits - while quite alot of hits are survivable, though the landing will be no fun.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

I don't think the Yak family stands out for being tough because the Bf109 is so fragile. It stands out for being tough because it has an inline engine that is close to indestructible - while other planes, notably the P-40 and P-51 (though Bf109 not far off - and don't let me get started about the MiG-3 series - that thing burns no matter where and what hit it) have engines that regularly die from a few rifle caliber bullet hits. Wings may be too fragile, but Yaks are small and light, so damage should harm them more than bigger, tougher planes.
Bf109 not tough -yes. But maybe that is okay, there is nearly no part of that plane that can be hit without damaging something of value.
And compared to its "natural" counterpart - the Spit - it does not feel overly fragile IMHO.

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I don't think the Yak family stands out for being tough because the Bf109 is so fragile. It stands out for being tough because it has an inline engine that is close to indestructible - while other planes, notably the P-40 and P-51 (though Bf109 not far off - and don't let me get started about the MiG-3 series - that thing burns no matter where and what hit it) have engines that regularly die from a few rifle caliber bullet hits.

Yak engines don't die, but they do sometimes go to an "almost dead" state when hit where they only get 5-10% of normal power out of them; only good enough to extend your glide towards home a little bit. But to the outside observer it may look like the engine is not damaged because it's not smoking, the prop is still spinning, and the engine is making a little bit of "running" noise.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Fw190s do obviously suffer from overdone damage from a few hits - while quite alot of hits are survivable, though the landing will be no fun.

Agreed. My impression of the FW-190 series is that "they're easy to bend, hard to break."

Originally Posted by majorfailure

I don't think the Yak family stands out for being tough because the Bf109 is so fragile. It stands out for being tough because it has an inline engine that is close to indestructible

Respectfully, I disagree. Please play the mission I've uploaded, choosing any of the Yak series as your targets, and you'll see that their engines are actually quite fragile.

Because your posts are generally spot on, you had me worried that my tests were incorrect. So, I went back and tried shooting the Yak series fighters (Yak-1, Yak-3, Yak-9) from different angles. I repeatedly got the same result as I got before - about 1 second of .50 cal MG fire was sufficient to trigger engine failure and/or fire, and to convince the AI pilot to bail out. The Yak-9 is only tougher than the other Yaks because engine fires tend to quickly self-extinguish.

The important trick is to aim for the first third of the front fuselage - just behind the propeller spinner. Hits further back on the front fuselage - just ahead of the pilot - hit the guns or parts that aren't modeled.

Additionally, there seems to be some randomness or error built into damage results, so there will be times when some parts just won't break. You have to "fly" the same mission 4 or 5 times before you can start getting a sense of where the average lies.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

other planes, notably the P-40 and P-51 (though Bf109 not far off - and don't let me get started about the MiG-3 series - that thing burns no matter where and what hit it) have engines that regularly die from a few rifle caliber bullet hits.

Agreed. Inline engines are far too vulnerable across the board.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Wings may be too fragile, but Yaks are small and light, so damage should harm them more than bigger, tougher planes.
Bf109 not tough -yes. But maybe that is okay, there is nearly no part of that plane that can be hit without damaging something of value.

But, I'm consistently seeing results where just 5-10 .50 caliber bullets scattered across a Yak's (or Bf-109's or Spitfire's) tail surfaces or wings will trigger collapse when it's sitting on the ground. Basically, the plane falls apart because you punched half a dozen or a dozen random 1 inch/25mm-wide holes into several square yards/meters of aluminum or plywood.

Yes, realistically, those 5-10 bullets might break a part, but only if they all hit in the same place while the aircraft was pulling high-G maneuvers. Scattered across a wing or control surface, that sort of damage result makes no sense.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Yak engines don't die, but they do sometimes go to an "almost dead" state when hit where they only get 5-10% of normal power out of them; only good enough to extend your glide towards home a little bit.

My tests can't test for reduced power output, other than determining if the prop speed is reduced.

But, my impression is that many engines - particularly radials - behave as you describe. It's not just Yaks.

[gaunt1]

A while ago, I did some tests against a Yak-9U. I flown a La-7 (needed something that is really uber, that is superior to Yak9U in every aspect), and I deliberately shot at the engine of the Yak. Just a few hits were enough to make the engine emit a thick black smoke. I continued with the test, and did not shoot down the yak. I got bored following its tail around 8-10 minutes, and eventually downed it, but during this time, I did not notice any decrease in the performance of the Yak despite heavy engine damage!
It was a few years ago, around 4.11, dont know if it was fixed or not since.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Respectfully, I disagree. Please play the mission I've uploaded, choosing any of the Yak series as your targets, and you'll see that their engines are actually quite fragile.

Because your posts are generally spot on, you had me worried that my tests were incorrect. So, I went back and tried shooting the Yak series fighters (Yak-1, Yak-3, Yak-9) from different angles. I repeatedly got the same result as I got before - about 1 second of .50 cal MG fire was sufficient to trigger engine failure and/or fire, and to convince the AI pilot to bail out. The Yak-9 is only tougher than the other Yaks because engine fires tend to quickly self-extinguish.

The important trick is to aim for the first third of the front fuselage - just behind the propeller spinner. Hits further back on the front fuselage - just ahead of the pilot - hit the guns or parts that aren't modeled.

Additionally, there seems to be some randomness or error built into damage results, so there will be times when some parts just won't break. You have to "fly" the same mission 4 or 5 times before you can start getting a sense of where the average lies.

Last campaign I played I shot down a few (hundred or so) early war Yaks of all colours - and it may be my aiming, but I rarely got their engine. Pilot dead, controls shot out, structural damage leading to crash were IMHO the most common deaths, structural total failure of fuselage or wings also common.
Fuel tanks punctured and engine losing a little or some power, smoking, total kaboom, seen that happen.

Vs. P-40, engine dead is among the most common deaths, vs. Bf109&Mc202 too. Vs MiG-3 it is about the only death -though I sometimes think there must be a fuel tank behind the engine that burns like that, vs. LaGG it happens at least to be noticed.

Just form feeling, I'd say Yak has highest initial turn rate of all of these, high speed, good roll, small plane. I may be aiming for the same point I would get good hits on a P-40 - but I may end up a little too far and hit pilot/tail section, or wings (if aim not on center but off left/right). So maybe in the end it is ME that is responsible for not getting engine dead regularly on a Yak.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

But, I'm consistently seeing results where just 5-10 .50 caliber bullets scattered across a Yak's (or Bf-109's or Spitfire's) tail surfaces or wings will trigger collapse when it's sitting on the ground. Basically, the plane falls apart because you punched half a dozen or a dozen random 1 inch/25mm-wide holes into several square yards/meters of aluminum or plywood.

Yes, realistically, those 5-10 bullets might break a part, but only if they all hit in the same place while the aircraft was pulling high-G maneuvers. Scattered across a wing or control surface, that sort of damage result makes no sense.

Put like that it seems weak, though from ingame performance, sitting in a Yak as well as shooting at Yaks I never percieved them as structurally especially weak except when you try to dive them.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Last campaign I played I shot down a few (hundred or so) early war Yaks of all colours - and it may be my aiming, but I rarely got their engine. Pilot dead, controls shot out, structural damage leading to crash were IMHO the most common deaths, structural total failure of fuselage or wings also common.

Due to the distances and angles at which I was firing, and because I'm fairly confident that IL2 models armor correctly, I didn't test crew vulnerability. (Realistically, at <50 m a .50 caliber AP shell should penetrate at least 26-28mm of armor.) Other than that, your experience squares with my tests for the Yak-1 & Yak-7.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Fuel tanks punctured and engine losing a little or some power, smoking, total kaboom, seen that happen.

In the earlier planes in the game, explosion is a very common "fatal damage" effect, even for parts of the plane that realistically wouldn't explode. Fuel tanks will also explode if they take enough damage - which might or might not be realistic depending on the aircraft.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Vs. P-40, engine dead is among the most common deaths, vs. Bf109&Mc202 too. Vs MiG-3 it is about the only death -though I sometimes think there must be a fuel tank behind the engine that burns like that, vs. LaGG it happens at least to be noticed.

Most inline engines will have a big oil tank just behind the engine. That tank is typically quite vulnerable to gunfire and will sometimes even explode.

My tests show that the MiG-3 series is about as vulnerable to wing and tail damage as the Yak 1, 3 or 7 series. The engine is a bit tougher than the Yaks, but not by much.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

So maybe in the end it is ME that is responsible for not getting engine dead regularly on a Yak.

Fly on arcade mode using the QMB to test your gunnery accuracy. In the absence of realistic damage textures which show exactly where each bullet hits, that's the only way to do it.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Put like that it seems weak, though from ingame performance, sitting in a Yak as well as shooting at Yaks I never percieved them as structurally especially weak except when you try to dive them.

Keep in mind that I was shooting at aircraft sitting on the ground -1 G of positive G force, no wind resistance. Other than recording breaking parts, I have no way of knowing how damage effects affect a flying aircraft.