4.12.2 de-bugging

[Pursuivant]

More fighter abuse. This time the victim was a P-39Q-10.

What I intended to demonstrate was the relative difficulty of damaging the nose-mounted guns on the P-39 series, but what I got instead was a nice example of some weird damage modeling I'd previously missed.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1402967321

Notice the fatal bullets in the center of the picture - the first hit just ahead of the air intake, the second just a bit behind it. On the P-39Q, both would be solid engine hits (both were fired from about 150m by yet another Ace AI Wellington III gunner), but rather than showing any sign of engine damage I instead got a massive fire which started instantly after just two bullet hits!

I guess it could happen if a fuel line was severed and sprayed hot fuel on the engine, but it seems weird that there was just fire and not engine problems.

Prior bursts of fire from ahead and below managed to not hit the radiator or oil cooler systems. That was just luck, not bad modeling.

[Baddington_VA]

I guess it could happen if a fuel line was severed and sprayed hot fuel on the engine, but it seems weird that there was just fire and not engine problems.

There is a thread on this P39 problem.
Lots of fire and smoke with no real damage at all.
The P39 has been frowned upon and even banned from missions on some online servers because of this.
There have been and probably always will be pilots that game the system with it.
Using it to feign serious damage and relying on others not wanting to be kill stealers.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Baddington_VA

There is a thread on this P39 problem.
Lots of fire and smoke with no real damage at all.

Yep. But that's a different issue. As you said, the P-39, P-400 and P-63 series are notorious in the game for smoking easily, but not losing power or failing.

In this case, the P-39 was unusual in that it instantly burst into flame after just one or two rifle-caliber bullet hits for no logical reason. But, since it is a P-39, I probably could have flown it for several more minutes with no loss of power to the engine, though!

By contrast, the Alison engine P-40s, which used the same damned engine, are remarkably vulnerable to engine damage - just about any hit will kill or seriously damage them.

What I'm trying to do with my series of screen shots is clearly demonstrate places where existing DM is outright wrong or fails to adequately model armor, armor glass and self-sealing fuel tanks.

[Pursuivant]

More fighter abuse. While the early war Japanese fighters are justifiably modeled as being fragile and flammable, there are a few DM problems.

Here is a picture of some cockpit hits (Ace Wellington III gunners at ~250 m range). While the picture doesn't clearly show it, none of the bullets which penetrated the cockpit touched either the pilot's leg or any part of the joystick, bell-cranks or cable runs for the aileron controls!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403386593

I can accept that the DM has to have a bit of "fudging" in it to reflect hits on a moving target such as a pilot, but elevator, aileron and rudder controls mostly stay in one place, so I think that this is a clear case of how the "critical hit zones" for hits to control surfaces are far too big, or are otherwise badly modeled for many planes in the game.

And, here is Exhibit A as to why IL2 gunners are far too hard to kill. The explosion is from a 20mm cannon shell, just a foot from the gunner's head! While the game models shrapnel hits against aircraft and ground targets reasonably well, it obviously doesn't model blast concussion effects against human targets. Realistically, the upper half of the gunner's body should have been reduced to paste.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403386891

[Pursuivant]

Swapping over to the Soviet fighters. Here's an example of the level of toughness I think that an inline engine fighter should have against long-range rifle caliber bullet hits.

The target is a Yak-1, the gunners are more of those crazy accurate Wellington III Ace tail turret guys, this time doing their thing at ranges of anywhere from 700(!!) to 300 m against a slowly maneuvering target.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403464421

What you will notice is absence of smoke and flames, and an engine which still runs pretty well.

This picture actually represents the second and third bursts of long-range gunfire into the engine. The first burst had about 3 scattered hits into the engine block, all hits which would have had a Bf-109 or P-40 engine shut down cold or spewing clouds of black smoke.

A fourth burst of gunfire actually shut down the engine, but I was able to start it back up and continue the fight. A fifth burst of 3-4 shots eventually made the engine lose enough power that I couldn't keep up with the bombers, but I was still able to fly back home.

Further testing basically proves the same thing - the Yak-1 DM makes its engine a lot tougher than other contemporary inline engined planes. So, there is at least one inline fighter in the game which doesn't die instantly when it gets hit in the nose. I will leave it to TD to determine if this is intentional or not.

[Nephris]

a)We noticed an issue with carrier starts since the latest version in coop online play. The planes start airborne but not from the assigned carrier anymore.
The relates to AI and player squadrons.

We discussed about that issue already in the DCG Forum of Lowengrin.com as we expected DCG to be the bugger but none.

Of course this relates to stock 4.12.2 (mod versions also).


b)Is there any chance to receive a trigger to enable and disable bomb ballistics of 4.09 in an upcoming patch?

[Aviar]

Originally Posted by Nephris

a)We noticed an issue with carrier starts since the latest version in coop online play. The planes start airborne but not from the assigned carrier anymore.
The relates to AI and player squadrons.

We discussed about that issue already in the DCG Forum of Lowengrin.com as we expected DCG to be the bugger but none.

Of course this relates to stock 4.12.2 (mod versions also).


b)Is there any chance to receive a trigger to enable and disable bomb ballistics of 4.09 in an upcoming patch?

Can you post a mission so we can test it please. Thank you.

Aviar

[Notorious M.i.G.]

Originally Posted by Baddington_VA

There is a thread on this P39 problem.
Lots of fire and smoke with no real damage at all.
The P39 has been frowned upon and even banned from missions on some online servers because of this.

I seem to abruptly explode within seconds of engine damage in the P-39. Honestly, I feel much safer in a Ki-43 at this point, given how easily the Cobra becomes a fireball.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Notorious M.i.G.

I seem to abruptly explode within seconds of engine damage in the P-39. Honestly, I feel much safer in a Ki-43 at this point, given how easily the Cobra becomes a fireball.

That doesn't match with my experience. Typically, the P-39/P-400 series is damned near invulnerable to engine damage.

OTOH, I guess that once the engine catches on fire, it explodes fast. Realistically, that seems unlikely given that the fuel tanks and engine on the P-39 were separated (engine in the body, tanks in the wings), but at this point, nothing would surprise me about how crappy the P-39 DM is.

Playing with the P-39D-1, I regularly get unstoppable fuel leaks following just one rifle-caliber bullet hit (i.e., EXACTLY the sort of damage self-sealing fuel tanks were designed to cope with), fuel tank fires following just a couple of rifle-caliber bullet hits from different burst (again, EXACTLY the sort of damage self-sealing fuel tanks are designed to cope with), but near invulnerability to engine damage (despite coolant leaks and smoke) and gun damage.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403848095

Note two shots right down the barrel of the 20mm cannon, yet the gun keeps on working!

I also get fuel tank leaks even from bullets no place near the tank:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403847783

Notice leak in starboard side wing fuel tank despite complete absence of nearby bullet hits!

Also, coolant leaks from hits to the engine which are no place near any coolant lines:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403847783

Kind of a crummy screenshot, but you'll notice that none of the shots is anyplace near the P-39's coolant systems, and the bullet that allegedly holed the engine is at such high deflection that it probably would have missed or ricocheted off of the P-39-D1's engine block.

Not that those coolant leaks do anything, mind you, but if they don't do anything at least TD could make them go away.

Of course, those amazing sniper AI gunners don't make things any easier:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403847783

"Wonder Woman" view of the opposition shooting at me in a P-39. Note the Ace Wellington III tail gunners shooting and scoring hits at over 600 m range against a small and (somewhat) maneuvering target!

FWIW, I will point out that historically doctrine was for bomber gunners to hold their fire until the enemy got within about 300-500 m because fire beyond that point was ineffective.

[Pursuivant]

On the theory that Soviet inline fighters might be a bit more "durable" than their Western or Axis counterparts, I flew some missions using the LaGG-3 Series 3, against my nemesis the Ace Wellington III squadron.

As with the Yak-1 series, I was gratified by the ruggedness of the Klimov engine, which was able to absorb 5-6 times as many hits as those powering inferior planes such as the P-40, P-51, Spitfire or Bf-109, with only a slight coolant leak which didn't diminish performance at all:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403850536

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1403850536

Additionally, you will notice that the pilot was only very slightly wounded by a clean shot to the chest at about 300 m by a rifle-caliber bullet, despite the lack of armor glass in the LaGG-3. Obviously, the copy of Das Kapital in his breast pocket saved him from more serious injury! (In fairness, I later collected a leg hit which slowed me down a small bit, and ultimately succumbed to a head shot, so LaGG pilots aren't invulnerable.)

Had I been flying a Decadent Capitalist Imperialist fighter, the results would have been very different! Truly the designs of the Revolutionary Proletarian LaGG design bureau, and the Inspired Labor of the Peasants, Workers and Soldiers, have yet again proven their worth in the Glorious Defense of the Motherland against the Fascist Butchers!

Mind you, I'm not saying that Soviet inline engined fighters are deliberately tougher than their foreign equivalents, but given that the notably delicate (at least in IL2) Bf-109 and P-40E series were modeled in the game at roughly the same time as the Yak and LaGG series, I'm thinking there are some mistakes in DM which make the Soviet fighters a bit too tough, and the Axis and Western fighters a bit delicate.

Additionally, while the screenshots don't show it, it seems to be virtually impossible to get a leak or fire in the LaGG-3's wing tanks. On a different flight, my LaGG-3 was turned into a sieve due to engine and wing hits, yet all I got was smoke from the engine (but no noticeable loss of performance). Ultimately, what got me was another head shot; the plane was flying just fine before that, and actually performed some impressive posthumous acrobatics before it finally crashed.