4.12.2 de-bugging

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

So in the end I think we agree while still thinking we're disagreeing. There might be too many incendiary bullets for 1939-1941 planes and scenarios, but by 1942 the beltings in-game start to look like like they did in the war. It would be nice if players or mission builders could pick their beltings, but that may not be so easily done.

Custom beltings is one of those things on my very long wishlist of improvements.

There was a huge amount of change in aircraft armament during WW2, as plane designers quickly realized that rifle caliber bullets weren't good enough, and even 12.7 mm/0.50 caliber guns weren't effective against big planes. For guns that were used from the first to the last day of fighting, it really makes sense to have custom beltings.

What TD could possibly do is link beltings to scenario dates, creating beltings like "0.50 BMG 1942" or "0.303 BMG 1940".

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

But without knowing what the modeled components look like, we can't actually tell what the bullet went through, right?

Yeah, that's the problem. Compound the problem, some radial engines are basically "just a star" with the crankcase and fuel injection systems in the center and gaps between cylinders. Other engines were twin ranks, with staggered rows of cylinders and big turbo supercharger mechanisms directly behind the cylinders and crankcase, which means that just about the entire engine is vulnerable.

But, figuring out what really happens when you punch a hole in a part of that complex mechanism really requires much more complex simulations or historical data than I can hope of doing. All we've got is the received wisdom that radial engines were tougher than inline engines, but I have no idea how much tougher they were.

All I can do is point out discrepancies between damage models where there are common elements - like the engine in the SBD being tougher than the CW-21, which is tougher than the Buffalo. Which model is right, I can't say.

I like the idea of all the planes in the game being tougher, especially against small caliber bullets, but that's my preference.

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

It could be that there are enough critical components modeled in and behind the engine that when you test the way you do (flying directly behind a bomber's six and eating bullets), you will consistently take critical damage.

True. I'm expecting to get shot up, and the more hits you take the more of a chance that you get a critical hit. But, for reason I described above, I'm looking for consistency across damage models, unless there's something that's clearly different about a particular plane.

For example, one of the many faults of the Buffalo MkI was that the RAF purchasing commission screwed up and ordered the plane with too small of an oil tank. That meant that the Buffalo Mk I was more prone to overheat than other marks of the Buffalo, and it would make sense that a hit to the Buffalo's oil tank would shut down the engine faster. But, the Buffalo Mk I doesn't seem quite as vulnerable to engine hits as the B-239, which by all accounts was the better, more reliable, airplane (once Brewster's trick of supplying planes with used, worn-out engines was fixed).

So, if TD feels the urge to wade through all my posts, perhaps they could stomp some more bugs. It looks like they've already got some kills to their credit, since there are some DM changes to planes like the Mustang and Spitfire forthcoming in the 4.13 patch. Go Daidalos Team!