|
|
|
|
#1
09-13-2015, 09:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I realized that comprehensive damage model testing reports aren't suitable for a standard forum thread. So, I'm in the process of creating a spreadsheet.
Results will be up in a few days once I've finished testing. At this point, I'm about 60% done. With 300+ aircraft in the game it's a lot of work! I've also expanded the DM test to determine how all parts of the various planes stand up to concentrated .50 caliber fire from the front, as well as how AI handles damage. Discoveries so far: * The way that IL2 models wingtip damage is just wrong. Realistically, unless it's very lightly built or underpowered, almost any military plane should still be able to fly (sort of) if it's missing the outermost 10-15% of its wing. Some very powerful and tough planes, such as the F4U, were noted for being able to fly home with up to a third of their wing missing! But, IL2 models damage such that hits to the extreme wingtip cause a wing breakage at mid-wing - triggering fatal damage. For example, bullets which hit the last few feet of the wing will often cause the wing to break 3-5 yards inboard from the damage! This might seem like a minor problem, but it means that most planes are far more vulnerable to wing hits than they should be, especially for ground attack missions (flak) or in hard-turning dogfights where sometimes the only shot your opponent can make on you is a wingtip shot. * There is little consistency to wing breakage models. Aircraft like the P-51 can't have their wings broken by .50 caliber fire, but other planes of equivalent mass and construction (like the F6F or Tempest) can have their wings broken. * The P-38, P-51 & P-47 series are invulnerable to wing breakage from .50 caliber bullets. This gives the late war USAAF fighters a huge and unfair advantage. * The Buffalo series is invulnerable to wing damage. That explains why the B-239 is my favorite Finnish fighter! * The A5M2 and A6M series are terribly vulnerable to wing breakage, perhaps unrealistically so. Just 3-5 .50 caliber bullets in any given wing section is enough to break a wing. In fact, the wing usually breaks before you can ignite the wing fuel tanks! * There is little consistency in wing damage models. Planes like the Bf-109, FW-190, or Spitfire can have their wings shredded by fewer than a dozen .50 caliber bullets, while other planes of equivalent wing area can take far more damage before they show heavy damage textures. * The Bf-109K series has slightly tougher wings than the earlier Bf-109s - despite having the worst production quality of the entire Bf-109 family. (Seriously, they were assembled by concentration camp inmates working in salt mines, made from parts shipped in from all over Occupied Europe, and their airframe lifespan was measured in terms of dozens of hours.) * Engine damage models are a bit more consistent, but there is still some variation in the ability of the same engine to take damage based on the plane in which it is mounted. For example, the R-2800 mounted in the P-47 is much tougher than the same engine mounted in the F4U or F6F. * The Rolls-Royce Merlin and Packard Merlin series engines are consistently very fragile, requiring slightly fewer hits to stop or to set on fire than the DB605 or Klimov M-105 series. * Modeling of whether an engine catches fire seems to be linked to whether it stops - at least for most plane. The progression seems to be light damage > heavy damage > stop > fire. Realistically, once you get engine damage (i.e., chance of fuel or oil leak) the chance of engine fire should be separated from chance of engine stoppage. That is, you can still have an engine that runs - at least for a while - while it's on fire. For inline engines, which seem to catch fire almost as soon as they stop, there should be the chance of engine stoppage without fire. * Fire results seem to be a bit extreme. Any damage which triggers a fire instantly causes a full-sized fire, rather than triggering a small fire which grows. * Most crew won't bail out following a landing gear collapse on the ground. * Damage modeling for landing gear is often quite crude - with tail wheels and landing gear struts often not being modeled. This is particularly true for the older planes in the game. * There is no DM for flaps or air brakes - they don't take damage, can't be broken off & don't seem to contribute to wing damage. * On many aircraft various externally-mounted vents and coolers aren't modeled. For example, the wing-mounted coolant radiators on the Bf-109 and Spitfire series aren't modeled. Kind of a big omission! * Some planes, especially the really old ones, will have an explosion as a fatal damage effect - even if there are no bombs, ammo, or fuel in the fatally damaged areas. * Broken parts, or sometimes the fuselage itself, will bounce around or tumble unrealistically, even on the ground. This is particularly true of some of the older planes. 
|
|
#2
09-14-2015, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pursuivant, after reading your post, I'm feeling guilty.
It is nice to do some tests, but we all know this game has it's flaws and limitations. And unless someone on Daidalos team cares about what you are doing, it is almost a useless effort. It will only help you to look at the game as a flawed one. Take it easy pal.
|
|
#3
09-14-2015, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I recognize that some things are impossible in the game, and that other things just aren't a big enough deal that DT needs to fix them. In any case, DT, or modders, can pick and choose which DM errors they wish to fix. Last edited by Pursuivant; 09-14-2015 at 09:48 PM.
|
|
#4
09-14-2015, 09:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The results are in. Attached is a tab-separated text file which shows the results of point-blank twin .50 caliber MG fire against all the planes in the game. It can easily be turned back into a proper table in the word processor or spreadsheet of your choice.
In addition to lots of stuff that really can't be fixed, like the way that IL2 models wing damage and breakage, there are many things which can be fixed, including outright "hook" problems and DM omissions. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1442263874 All of what I mentioned in my previous posts still stands. But, I'll add that many of the Japanese aircraft have really odd DM choices. For example, in terms of survivability, the Ki-43 series is far tougher than the A6M series, even though they were planes of comparable mass and size. The Ki-21 series also seems to be quite durable - possibly moreso than the G4M series. Arguably, the Japanese Navy aircraft should be made more durable. In any case, it's clear that DM modeling is technically quite tricky and that there's no really good formula for doing it. Last edited by Pursuivant; 09-14-2015 at 10:02 PM.
|
|
#5
09-15-2015, 08:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thank you, Pursuivant, an excellent job!
I don’t think that our game is “flawed”. In my opinion it is (relatively) simple, but this simplicity allow us to have an unequalled planeset, today covering almost all major combat types and a lot of minor ones. My feeling is that many of the inconsistencies tend to level out each other. For example, I never noticed that B239 wings are unbreakable, because it is relatively easy to break up its fuselage. But the real value of your experiment is for us all. Now we have a lot of facts to read and ponder about, a reality check for all the claims about “porked” or “uber” planes. Thanks again.
|
|
#6
09-15-2015, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So to minimize your results maybe you should test only vs Axis planes. You will save time and strength! 
|
|
#7
09-15-2015, 07:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Many thanks for your work. The table is impressive.
Just two notes: I-153 was indeed very vulnerable plane. According to German reports, it used to get fire quickly if hit by MG from the side. Regarding "unfair advantage" of late USAAF fighters... Well, if P-38 does have any advantage it is annuled by ridiculous fragility of horisontal stabilisers and tail beams.
__________________
Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47? A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! (Gunther Rall's lecture. June 2003, Finland)
|
|
#8
09-16-2015, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If anything, they're a bit too flammable, because fires start instantly once enough bullets hit a fuel tank, rather than starting out small and growing as more fuel spills from the tank. A few planes are quite vulnerable to explosions. In particular, jet aircraft are quite prone to explosion, despite the fact that they either used regular 100/130 octane AvGas (i.e., no more flammable than any other fuel modeled in the game) or less flammable kerosene. Oddly, the ME-163, which was fueled by a witches' brew of two highly flammable, corrosive chemicals can't be exploded! Quote:
In general, most aircraft in the game lose their control surfaces far too easily. Yes, the breaking parts effect is supposed to model lethal damage to a particular part, but often it's overdone. It's quite strange to see a giant piece of a bomber fall off due to just a dozen or so .50 caliber bullets.
|
|
#9
09-16-2015, 03:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Some Italian fighters have .50s as their only weapon. And they ARE vulnerable to .50s fire. I also tested the effect of .50's on 190's, and even if they won't break their wings, it will become so unwieldy, that even an alive AI won't be capable of controlling it. That won't happen on a P51. Not with the same amount of fire.
|
|
#10
09-16-2015, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
