Ki-27 too durable & strange behavior

[RPS69]

Pursui...
One of hte biggest asset Oleg made at BOB when still in charge, was that there was a far better damage model in BOB that the best thing they can do on IL-2.
Damage boxes on il2 are BIG.
Normally they react under a given number of colliding bullets.
This is just a big compromise. On some planes results are better than others.
They can tweak them a bit, but they will be always far from perfect.

Really, at this point it would be nicce to see how the damage boxes were placed on the mos common models.

Maybe it is a bad idea that will make all of us dissapointed.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Damage boxes on il2 are BIG.
Normally they react under a given number of colliding bullets.
This is just a big compromise. On some planes results are better than others.

There's nothing wrong with a simple "hit point" model for a given aircraft part to model airframe damage. I'd just like to see it standardized based on some sort of engineering or physics calculations. (One simple way to do it would be to calculate (mass - engine, fuel, oil, and armor)/volume) to get "density" and calculate Hit Points based on "density x cm of surface area" for a given part.)

I suspect that the only "problem" for more realistic modeling of airframe damage would be that all aircraft become much less vulnerable to airframe damage on its own.

If Damage Modeling, "hooks," and programming are done right, IL2 actually does a good job with critical hits. But, I'm not sure that all aircraft have things like wing main spars modeled, which is important. Even a very tough plane could lose its wing if there was sufficient damage to the wing spar.

I'll accept that vital systems like electrics, hydraulics, oxygen, communications, pumps, superchargers/turbochargers, and various oil/fuel lines aren't aren't modeled.

IL2 also seems to do a good job with having aircraft fall apart due to overspeed, and in the last release, planes allegedly take damage from excessive G maneuvers (although I've never broken a plane yet due to high Gs).

I'm not sure if airframe damage will lower a plane's ability to survive high G maneuvers or high speeds, however. But, that could be modeled easily enough.

It's also clear that fires only consume fuel and trigger some risk of explosion (which doesn't seem to be consistent from plane to plane).
They don't do damage to surrounding parts of the aircraft, which should be a big deal for wood and/or canvas planes, or for fuel tanks next to an engine or wing spar. But, fires adjacent to crew compartments will injure or kill crew, so it should be possible to model effects of cumulative fire damage to other parts of the plane using a variant of the fire damage to crew model.

[RPS69]

Then TD may publish this boxes, and the triggers asociated with them, and we may reach some agreement on what will be better.
Things are much more civil around here nowadays.

[Ice_Eagle]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

But, I'm not sure that all aircraft have things like wing main spars modeled, which is important.

A quick look at Ki-27's model shows a wing spar.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Ice_Eagle

A quick look at Ki-27's model shows a wing spar.

He was talking about a wing spar hit box, not the wing spar representation itself.

[taly001]

The Ki-27 bounces its tail skid on the ground under takeoff power when stationary - propellor wash on elevator? Maybe the fuselage damage model was made tough too prevent this snapping apart on ground. But the Ki-27 certainly can't take much damage in il2 air battles!

What confuses me more is that the Ki-27 is a super-stable gun platform? Almost laser gun like!

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by taly001

The Ki-27 bounces its tail skid on the ground under takeoff power when stationary - propeller wash on elevator?

That seems unlikely. I don't think that IL2 models prop-wash effects on control surfaces (or following planes)

I'm guessing that the FM has the engine generating enough thrust and torque at full power that it starts to lift the plane's tail.

The idea that the Ki-27 "didn't want to sit still" if the engine was run up to full power while it was stationary might just make sense since you've got a somewhat lightly built plane with a reasonably powerful engine.

I bet that the plane won't "buck" if you use bind a key to use the "place wheel chocks" command before running the engine up.

Originally Posted by taly001

Maybe the fuselage damage model was made tough too prevent this snapping apart on ground.

IL2 doesn't simulate that sort of fuselage damage. I've never seen a plane in IL2 "break its spine" due to a hard three-point landing, even after suffering heavy fuselage damage. Such behavior would be very realistic, however, especially for planes like the FW-200, the B-24 (if ditched in water), and many carrier-based planes.

Originally Posted by taly001

What confuses me more is that the Ki-27 is a super-stable gun platform? Almost laser gun like!

I've got no problem with the Ki-27 being a stable gun platform. Soviet tests of captured examples, described it as being light on the controls, and possessing exceptional stability. But, IL2 doesn't model random turbulence which can affect even the most stable aircraft in flight (you see it on gun cameras where the shooting plane sometimes bounces around as it flies). Also, the Ki-27 vibrated constantly in flight, especially at high speeds as the wings started to get stressed. That would also affect accuracy. (Ditto for the P-39 which was also noted for vibrating during flight.)

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/G...esky_of_vi.htm

"One well-preserved trophy Type 97 tested at the NII VVS, yielded very favorable flight evaluations. The fighter combined good speed with magnificent maneuverability, it had outstanding stability, and its flying characteristics were extraordinarily straightforward."

"Together with its strong side there were also deficiencies: The decreased weight led to complications in operation and transportation (the wing became detached), and most important, led to a decrease in durability and survivability. The aircraft lacked armor plating, the fuel tanks were unprotected, and were not filled with neutral gas, due to an absence of motor shock absorbers, the airplane vibrated continually in flight. Inadequate durability limiting the duration of a dive to about 500 to 700 m, was another deficiency of the Ki 27. Captured Japanese pilots testified that during a dive the wings began to vibrate, particularly the outer panels (on occasion resulting in their failure), and the motor quickly super.-cooled and might even stop."

"The greatest virtue of the Japanese fighter appeared to be its stability and ease of flying, which gave the pilot confidence, simplified the conduct of battle and gave a definite advantage. Thanks to its stability, the Ki 27 was able under all regimes of flight, with two machineguns, with the usual rate of fire of 1800 rounds a minute, bring sufficiently accurate and effective fire in battle . . . Another great virtue of the Ki-27 was the provision of a radio; there was a receiver on all aircraft, and on the machines of the flight commanders and higher a transmitter."

[Pursuivant]

Some evidence that perhaps the Ki-27 wasn't as fragile as the game makes it out to be:

http://img.imagesia.com/fichiers/d6/...d6am_large.jpg

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Ice_Eagle

A quick look at Ki-27's model shows a wing spar.

Good. I lack the tools to view DM, hook placement, etc. so I have to guess about a number of things.

My experience is that actual physical models, including the model which includes "critical hit" areas, are OK for the planes included in Pacific Fighters, but that they sometimes suffer from errors in hook placement, and inconsistent or incorrect assumptions about engine and airframe durability. The planes which have the worst DM are the planes from the earliest games in the series, and the earliest fan-produced models. The Me-232 and Me-231, Ar-196, and PZL P.11 are probably the worst offenders, but there are problems with other planes.

My testing revealed a lot of cases where "hooks" (i.e., placement for origin point for things like smoke, fire, fuel leak effects) were improperly placed, were reversed, or were missing. In a few cases, it looks like coding errors "moved" vital systems within the plane so hits to what should be "empty" areas of the airplane result in damage.

Much more commonly, there are inconsistent or incorrect assumptions about how much damage a particular system can take. For example, the F4U, F6F and P-47 all used the same engine, but there are variations in how much damage it take to destroy each plane's engine. (I forget which plane is the most vulnerable in the group, I think it's the F6F.) As another example, the "fatal damage" textures for the TBF's wing show the wing missing less wing surface area than the plane was historically able to survive!

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/a...129573.jpg?v=1