The (Almost) Invicible Spit!

[Hellbender]

Well, with a 109 I try to get very close to Hurricanes and Spitfires in order to score as many cannon hits as possible since the recoil is shaking your plane and subsequently also your aim. From the direct 6 o´clock position you can shred of the tail, disable the elevator controls and the rudder controls. With shredded elevators, the target is most liekly doomed.

Most of the time I play on the receiving end in SPitfires and I see 109s opening up at a relatively moderate distance (200-300) at you. In the cockpit , one can see all the nice tracers passing you and often in these situations you´ll get soem wholes in the wings. SOmetimes it also shreds the controls in the wings.

Definte negative effect with hits i nthe wings is that it loses soem lift and your turning rate is increased, as well as the tendency to stall in a turn due to the additional energy loss due to the whole(s).

[CWMV]

I don't need help in shooting stuff down, has nothing to do with what I posted.
In old IL2, when you dropped a few 20mm shells on an enemy aircraft something would simply fall off, like a wing, which would pretty much kill the aircraft.
Now, if you don't hit it in a vital spot, your not going to get the kill. The wings don't just drop off anymore at the drop of a hat. A well placed burst will remove pieces sure, but not in the same way IL2 was.

EDIT: Since when is 200-300 meters a moderate distance? I thought that was WAY out there. I usually only open up at around 50 meters.
Here you have to have some gunnery skill, or at least more than in IL2.

[Hellbender]

I have no clue how severe the effects with the MG/FF was on enemy planes in the Battle of Britain in reality, so I have no comparison for reality and modeled in-game.
I have to agree o nthe effects of the 20mm cannons in the Il-2 series. But I have no clue wehter that was close to reality or not as I stated above .

The latest info on that was this website link posted here i nthe forums about the damage of WW2 rounds: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

[ZaltysZ]

It seems MG/FF M shells explode on contact and rarely do internal damage. I still think that E-1 with H ammo is an ultimate weapon.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by CWMV

I don't need help in shooting stuff down, has nothing to do with what I posted.
In old IL2, when you dropped a few 20mm shells on an enemy aircraft something would simply fall off, like a wing, which would pretty much kill the aircraft.
Now, if you don't hit it in a vital spot, your not going to get the kill. The wings don't just drop off anymore at the drop of a hat. A well placed burst will remove pieces sure, but not in the same way IL2 was.

I really like it this way, and hope they don't change it. I always felt the aircraft in IL2 were too fragile.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Sometimes I really wonder how many here work on planes and I mean really maintain and dig in them etc. You would see that 20mm HE inside structure is NOT good Nor will a stream of bullets make your wing aerodynamically better when losing panels or getting gaping holes.

What we have is a game that has to make compromises between playability and performance. So only thing we can really ask for is that the DM is consistent and tweaked accordingly.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Sometimes I really wonder how many here work on planes and I mean really maintain and dig in them etc. You would see that 20mm HE inside structure is NOT good Nor will a stream of bullets make your wing aerodynamically better when losing panels or getting gaping holes.

What we have is a game that has to make compromises between playability and performance. So only thing we can really ask for is that the DM is consistent and tweaked accordingly.

Exactly people seem to think that damage won't cause a great deal of problems but in reality you would either bail from the aircraft or try not to induce loads in it from turns etc.. But noooo that's just visual damage HELLO the skin is part of the structure as well it has to deal with loads... Back in il2 if my 109 got a cannon hole in the wing my manoeuvrability was impeded the balance was screwed and I would be running for home. The only reason I was running for home in that spit was due to the engine damage apart from that i could still out turn a 109 lmao....

They really need to work on the damage model and fm now

[klem]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Exactly people seem to think that damage won't cause a great deal of problems but in reality you would either bail from the aircraft or try not to induce loads in it from turns etc.. But noooo that's just visual damage HELLO the skin is part of the structure as well it has to deal with loads... Back in il2 if my 109 got a cannon hole in the wing my manoeuvrability was impeded the balance was screwed and I would be running for home. The only reason I was running for home in that spit was due to the engine damage apart from that i could still out turn a 109 lmao....

They really need to work on the damage model and fm now

Luthier on Steam patch release:

Our main priorities now are:

1. Physics and FM. This means plane behavior in the air, brand new landing gear model on the ground, collision modeling including tree collision (if performance allows), and improved vehicle physics.
...............

There should be aerodynamic effect/degradation with aircraft damage, especially some wing lift but I think the wing would still perform basically with some panels missing, in IL_2 there was noticeable loss of lift on the damaged wing.

He did say once before he was going to turn the pilot into a crisp when the a/c fireballed.

I think the flames on the 109 that go out are perhaps modelling self sealing tanks?

[JG52Krupi]

The spitfire used a stressed skin this means it was designed to take more loads allowing the designers to remove weight from the spars and ribs therefore it makes more sense that when it is damaged it is likely to have a big impact on it's performance and the loads it can deal with!!!

That's why this "it's only panels is completely wrong!