View Single Post
  #9  
Old 10-01-2015, 09:40 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furio View Post
The gun was an Mg15 (Stuka gunner) and my plane an armoured Il2… Hardly realistic.
I beg to disagree. The IL2's armor makes it very tough, but not invulnerable. There are gaps in its armor which you can exploit.

It is quite vulnerable to hits to the oil cooler and coolant radiator. The sort of damage you describes perfectly matches the effects of a hit to either of those.

Additionally, there are gap in the armor where the exhaust stacks emerge from the engine - so a hit there will quickly stop the engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furio View Post
In another occasion, while flying with a cannon armed La5, I set on fire a PZL P11. It burned furiously, and went ahead for a loooong time flying excellent evasive manoeuvres without any hint of diminished performances (or pilot’s cooking).
The PZL P.11c is one of the worst modeled planes in the game. Only the Me-323 is worse. While my tests can't test for effects on crew (other than death, injury or bail-out), it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the modeling for the P.11c doesn't include instructions that cause fire damage to damage the pilot.

That said, the P.11c had the unusual ability to jettison the fuel tank in event of a fire. Realistically, if you're in a burning P.11c, you dump the fuel tank and try to glide away from the fight.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Furio View Post
I think sometimes strange things happen, and are almost certainly result of random errors, having nothing to do with damage models.
Occasionally, I'll load up the game and discover that parts that broke before refuse to break, or are harder to break. There's some randomness deliberately built into damage models - and there should be - but occasionally I think that there's just an error in the program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furio View Post
I think that reports about single events are of little value. What we need are consistent experiments, repeatable by others, like a sort of peer review.
Speaking of which, I welcome peer review. Don't just take my word about damage results, please try to reproduce them!
Reply With Quote