Quote:
Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha
All combat aircraft have their stories of survival and getting home against incredible odds, but there's more that didn't make it home and we shouldn't want to model the aircraft to represent the "few" but the many.
|
Actually, I think that IL2 does a pretty good job of modeling collisions, even if the damage textures don't show it.
Since all my bad tactics in the QMB often results in the mission ending with my plane in pieces after a collision with a bomber (e.g., control cable taken out, PK or wounded, or just overtaking too fast and misjudging distance on the breakaway) I've gotten a good sense how often your plane dies due to a collision.
Usually, you die horribly, but sometimes you get away with just a dead engine or a missing tail, while the other plane breaks up (especially if you hit a wing or tail that's already shot up). But, occasionally, even after a solid hit, the other plane survives, like the Me-410 in Alpha's picture.
The main reason that it <i>seems</i> like planes do or don't survive damage or collisions as well as they should is due to the damage textures. Those are based on the artist's whim, and are more representative of what "looks cool" than the sort of damage that would really kill or damage a plane.
For example, planes like the P-40, P-47 or Corsair could get back to base after suffering wing damage equivalent to what the IL2 damage textures considered to be "destroyed."
If you're a connoisseur of bullet-shredded aluminum as I've become, that's a bit of an immersion killer, because you say, "Why can't I fly this damned thing! There's a picture in Osprey/Squadron/Mushroom/Whatever book No. X which shows a plane with the exact same damage that got back to base!"
But, once you learn to sort of overlook the damage textures and think in terms of "light," "heavy" and "destroyed" the damage modeling to the airframe and collision results make more sense.