Quote:
Originally Posted by majorfailure
My perception is the exact opposite, especially when flying planes with less powerful armament against tough foes (e. g. Hurricane vs. SM79 ) you got to hit one spot hard, and you get results, else you get an enemy plane in mint condition with a few scratches dents and holes. And when you hit with a P-47 in one spot at full convergence it is incredibly destructive, spray and pray and even eight 0.50 cals will only give you lucky kills.
|
This is my perception as well.
I also think that IL2 does a good job with getting the size of "critical hit" systems (fuel, oil, coolant, engine, guns, crew) more or less correct. The 3D damage models I've seen look pretty good.
I'd like to see the way certain critical hits handled a bit differently (e.g., hits to ammo runs shouldn't cause instant jams, hits to self-sealing fuel tanks by shrapnel and small caliber bullets should seal within a few seconds if they leak at all).
Errors in DM come from coding errors, misplaced "hooks", or unrealistic assumptions about airframe durability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majorfailure
The problem is that to give small guns some power their incendiary capabilities are exaggerated IMHO Also players are too good shots, the better ones aim for cockpits/other valuables and make those shots on a basis that might even exceed the best shots of WWII - and it just does not matter if you hit the pilot with 7,62 or 37mm, only with 7,62 you got an incredible fire rate.
|
Agreed. I think that IL2 does an excellent job with exterior ballistics (i.e., how a bullet flies) and a pretty good job with terminal ballistics (i.e., how much damage it inflicts when it hits) - with the exception that non-explosive, small caliber rounds seem to do a bit too much airframe damage.
In some cases, it's also a bit too easy to start fires. Realistically, the first bullet to hit a fuel tank isn't going to start a fire - it's going to start a leak (assuming the self-sealing tank doesn't close sufficiently fast).
The next bullets might start a fire if they are incendiary or HE, or if they happen to generate sparks, and there happens to be enough vaporized fuel to serve as fuel.
Of course, for non-self-sealing fuel tanks, if there is oxygen mixed with gasoline vapor in the tank, then all bets are off. One bullet that sparks as it penetrates the fuel tank could effectively create a fuel-air explosion.
There's nothing that can be done about some players having vastly better gunnery skills than your average WW2 pilot. If the guys who actually fought the war had the chance to spend hundreds of hours practicing their gunnery skills in a reasonably realistic simulator, they'd be just as good as we are - if not better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majorfailure
At first I thought of the Wellingtons armament as puny, and made the mistake to approach from the rear, with expected results. Now I either hit them with excess speed from above or in a head on, usually ME 1 Wellington 0. The Lanc will fare no much better when unescorted.
|
Since the Wellington was my AI plane of choice for trying to figure out vulnerability of aircraft to front end damage, I have to agree!
Before I started doing DM testing using aircraft standing on the ground, I used to set up a QMB mission with a bunch of Ace Wellingtons and fly my test aircraft straight and level up their rear. It was like running into a buzz saw.
Of course, it helps that those .303 caliber MG effectively have their muzzle velocity increased by 50% because you're flying into the bullets at 500 kph.