|
|
|
|
#1
08-25-2015, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But, Gunstat looks like a valuable tool for those lucky enough to be able to play online. If you were playing unmodded IL2, and if the FW-190's damage model hasn't been changed subsequently, then there's definitely an issue. 50 or 100 .50 caliber bullets into any single-engined fighter (except maybe brutes like the F6F or P-47) should be enough to make it unflyable. If its a one-off event, then its a case of a very lucky FW-190 pilot. If you're getting the same result on a more or less regular basis, its a DM problem. 
|
|
#2
08-26-2015, 09:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've seen the light and have converted to the belief that the FW-190's DM is broken, at least with respect to not being able to take off its wing using .50 caliber guns.
To test this assumption, I set up a flight of friendly FW-190s, with me flying a P-47D-27, which is about as many .50 caliber guns as you're going to get on a reasonably maneuverable aircraft. Guns converged for 300 meters. I'd pull up behind each FW-190 at 6 o'clock level, at about 100-200 m so that bullet convergence would go through the wings, and start shooting. Arcade mode on so I could tell where my bullets were hitting. 1) It seems like a very few hits to the fuselage (5-6 hits) were sufficient to trigger the heavy damage textures and make the pilot bail out. No control cable hits from what I could tell. So, the FW-190 seems to be a bit undermodeled there. 2) A burst of a two or three bullets in the fuel tank will set the FW-190 alight. Arguably, that's a unrealistic since it should take a bit of time for fuel to leak or get splashed about before a fire can start, and most self-sealing fuel tanks could take a couple of .50 caliber bullets without leaking too badly. But, all planes in IL2 seem to be a bit too flammable, and the FW-190 doesn't seem to be any more or less vulnerable than comparable fighters in that respect. 3) I put plenty of concentrated .50 caliber fire directly through the wings (through the spars), sufficient to trigger plenty of "heavy damage" textures to both the inboard and outboard wings. But, despite repeated attempts, I never could get the FW-190's wing to separate. I think there's a bug there, at least with respect to .50 caliber MG fire. 4) Elevators and rudder seem to be quite vulnerable to damage - heavy damage textures appear after just one or two hits. But, the vertical stabilizer itself seems to be about as invulnerable to concentrated HMG fire as the wings. (Although the AI will always bail out after elevators and rudder are shredded.) 5) Not really testing for it, since I was taking shots from the rear and aiming at the wings and rear fuselage, but while I was able to get a number of smoking engine results, I was never able to get an engine fire. 6) Again, not testing for it, and it should never be common if it is modeled, but I never got that 20mm magazine explosion I've seen in gun camera footage. 7) Armor plate is well modeled, with the plate behind the pilot repeatedly stopping .50 caliber bullets at 100-200 meter ranges. I can't speak to the accuracy of frontal armor/armor glass modeling. So, in some ways the DM of the the FW-190 is overmodeled, and some ways it's undermodeled. Durability of control surfaces might be improved slightly (they were fabric covered, so many bullets should just go through leaving only a small hole, rather than tumbling or exploding). Rear fuselage definitely needs to be a bit tougher. Wings and vertical stabilizer need to be made a bit more vulnerable to HMG fire.
|
|
#3
08-26-2015, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've seen the light and have converted to the belief that the FW-190's DM is broken, at least with respect to not being able to take off its wing using .50 caliber guns.
To test this assumption, I set up a flight of friendly FW-190s, with me flying a P-47D-27, which is about as many .50 caliber guns as you're going to get on a reasonably maneuverable aircraft. Guns converged for 300 meters. I'd pull up behind each FW-190 at 6 o'clock level, at about 100-200 m so that bullet convergence would go through the wings, and start shooting. Arcade mode on so I could tell where my bullets were hitting. 1) It seems like a very few hits to the fuselage (5-6 hits) were sufficient to trigger the heavy damage textures and make the pilot bail out. No control cable hits from what I could tell. So, the FW-190 seems to be a bit undermodeled there. 2) A burst of a two or three bullets in the fuel tank will set the FW-190 alight. Arguably, that's a unrealistic since it should take a bit of time for fuel to leak or get splashed about before a fire can start, and most self-sealing fuel tanks could take a couple of .50 caliber bullets without leaking too badly. But, all planes in IL2 seem to be a bit too flammable, and the FW-190 doesn't seem to be any more or less vulnerable than comparable fighters in that respect. 3) I put plenty of concentrated .50 caliber fire directly through the wings (through the spars), sufficient to trigger plenty of "heavy damage" textures to both the inboard and outboard wings. But, despite repeated attempts, I never could get the FW-190's wing to separate. I think there's a bug there, at least with respect to .50 caliber MG fire. 4) Elevators and rudder seem to be quite vulnerable to damage - heavy damage textures appear after just one or two hits. But, the vertical stabilizer itself seems to be about as invulnerable to concentrated HMG fire as the wings. (Although the AI will always bail out after elevators and rudder are shredded.) 5) Not really testing for it, since I was taking shots from the rear and aiming at the wings and rear fuselage, but while I was able to get a number of smoking engine results, I was never able to get an engine fire. 6) Again, not testing for it, and it should never be common if it is modeled, but I never got that 20mm magazine explosion I've seen in gun camera footage. 7) Armor plate is well modeled, with the plate behind the pilot repeatedly stopping .50 caliber bullets at 100-200 meter ranges. I can't speak to the accuracy of frontal armor/armor glass modeling. Unlike you i play for years online with historical missions but with cockpit off.Gunstat is the same.you see the % hits on air or on ground. Real players cant do so many crazy evasive or hard moves as AI does. When they see you they usually run or turn hard so you have a good deflection shoot. After long discussion with some friends using P51 or P47 we had some conclusions about 0.50s convergence and FWs: 200 to 300 convergence u may destroy some controls easier 300 to 500 convergence several damage to wing but also no matter how close you are you hit main fuselage tank many times. Also engine damage but not so often. 500 to 820 lots of PK!!!,and wing damage. Average firing distance is about 300mts. Elevators as you said can be completely removed but ailerons can be disabled still never be removed. Yesterday i played a QMB with a Yak3 P. I destroyed Fws wing with ONLY 2 hits from my pair of 12.7mm!(i didnt use 20mm cannon). That means that there is an issue between US 12.7mm and FW. Ill try with a KI 43 Oscar but im not sure if they use US 12.7mm and not sure if i can hit it(to fast to reach it).
|
|
#4
08-26-2015, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
08-27-2015, 02:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't think that it should be easy for .50 caliber fire to take off a wing, even off of a small fighter like the FW-190. But, it should be possible with sufficient damage. Perhaps it is, but I my gunnery skills aren't good enough.
|
|
#6
08-27-2015, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
190's were really sturdy for their time. Much more so than a 109. Even so, on the popular plane lists, it is the one that suffers more from single damage. It becomes almost impossible to land safely after any single shot on it's wings.
|
|
#7
08-28-2015, 09:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Instead, as you point out, what happens is that the gunfire sufficiently weakens the airframe that the forces of gravity, g-forces, and air resistance take over and cause structural collapse. If you look at combat films where an aircraft's wing fails, often you'll see a slight delay before the wing comes off. Sometimes, you'll even see the wing "fold" as it collapses. That means that the gunfire/fire just fatally weakened the wing and gravity and air pressure finished the job. I don't know if IL2 can model progressive weakening of damaged parts. Obviously, the game models parts pulling off due to overspeed flight, but I'm not sure if the game progressively reduces the top speed and maximum G load a damaged part can sustain without failing. For the experiments I did with the FW-190, they were mostly in level flight or making relatively low-G turns, and were never traveling at excessive speeds. So, I have no way of knowing if the FW-190's wing might have failed had it been exposed to greater stresses, assuming the game even models that sort of failure. Quote:
Quote:
The real question is whether the FW-190 was any tougher than aircraft of equivalent quality of construction, designed in the same year, and with roughly equivalent mass. For example, should the FW-190's AIRFRAME be any tougher than that of the P-51 D (designed 1939/40, 3,465 kg empty mass) or the P-40E (designed 1938, 2,753 kg empty mass)? Unless you have a novel structural design which was famed for its structural strength or weakness - like the geodesic wing and fuselage structure of the Wellington or the delamination problems that some of the LaGG-3 series suffered - then really all you can do is base a plane's ability to absorb punishment on its year of production and its empty mass. Perhaps divide by the number of engines and/or omit the mass of the engines as well. Pilot reports of relative combat durability of their aircraft have to be read skeptically, because they're based on the accounts of the men who survived and came back to tell the tale. If a plane was well-liked by its crew, they were likely to overlook its lesser faults and sing its praises. If they disliked the type, they were likely to overlook its merits. Also, unless you're reading the reports of a test pilot or an engineering commission, where the writer(s) had a chance to examine multiple different aircraft, the writer - even if he's an experienced combat veteran - might not necessarily be in the best position to make comparisons. Quote:
In some ways it seems like it's far too easy to damage the FW-190, in other ways it seems to be invulnerable. Too weak: Far too vulnerable to having minor wing or fuselage damage turn into serious damage. Probably a bit too vulnerable to having control surfaces shot off/seriously damaged. Perhaps a bit too vulnerable to fuel tank fires (but no more vulnerable than equivalently equipped planes in the game). Too easy to snap the fuselage due to damage (but this is IL2's method of modeling fatal fuselage damage that renders the plane unflyable. Since IL2 can't make airframes bend or shake, it breaks them instead.) Too strong: Seems quite difficult for heavy damage to the wing (at least from .50 caliber guns) to convert to fatal damage - either directly or by causing structural failure under G-loads. Probably far too difficult to start an engine fire. Possibly too difficult to seriously damage/destroy vertical stabilizer. Just right: Armor modeling, cockpit/crew hits, hydraulic failure which causes landing gear to begin to extend. Engine durability (excluding fires). Missing/Not modeled (AFAIK): Potential "critical hit" to loaded 20mm cannon magazine can cause secondary explosion sufficient to instantly separate the wing.
|
|
#8
08-27-2015, 12:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
08-27-2015, 05:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Ki-43-Ic has two Ho-103 machine guns. The Ki-43-II and II-Kai also have two Ho-103 machine guns. In past patches the Ki-43-II was incorrectly armed with US .50cal machine guns but I researched and ensured that it was fixed (like the incorrect Yak-9UT armament before it) in 4.12.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
