PDA

View Full Version : plane explodes into million pieces



XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:02 PM
seems to happen alot more now then it did before

kinda takes away from the damage model if you shoot something and it just explodes nearly every time

----------------------------------------

Message Edited on 08/14/0302:03PM by Rifleman75

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:02 PM
seems to happen alot more now then it did before

kinda takes away from the damage model if you shoot something and it just explodes nearly every time

----------------------------------------

Message Edited on 08/14/0302:03PM by Rifleman75

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 08:57 PM
It's just that the weapons in the game have, in general, been made more powerful, and the DMs have been tweaked as well. This means the planes now react to your bullets more like they would in RL, but the damage model is still quite noticeable - the Stuka I shot up today which got home with engine smoking, fuel pouring out and without a wheel will confirm this /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 09:37 PM
flying the p47 yesterday outa 5 times i got shot down, 3 of them were complete explosions, not from huge rounds either, which still shouldnt blow the whole thing up, just put really big holes or blow part of the plane off, wing, tail whatever

has anyone ever seen any war footage that showed a plane blowing to a million pieces that didnt have a bomb it was carring hit by a shell?



----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 09:42 PM
Not every death should be a huge fireball with little pieces of the plane everywhere, not even 50% is a realistic number. I would expect the number to be more like 5% but FB is the best we have, I'm not going to complain because a plane exploded when it's wing should have fallen off, either way the plane is a gonner so let it be.

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/agrill101/Sig.jpg.txt"

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 09:49 PM
I don't believe this is really out of line. I was doing some gunnery practice last night and I did notice frequent explosions but only as the result of concentrated cannon bursts into bombers from a firing position other than the 6 o'clock.

80-90% of the kills were very unspectacular smoke-trailing wingovers.

<center>
http://members.verizon.net/~vze2cb22/KosSig.gif

America: #1 military...#15 in literacy...
Because right wingers run our military
and leftists run our schools!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 09:51 PM
I was flying about in a FW-190A8 the yesterday and I was out of big gun ammo, so I was chewing up a PE-2 with just the little pop guns, I pull up behind it and a quick squeeze of the trigger and the whole plane just exploded. Thought it was a bit weird at the time. And realisitic gunnery was on etc...

<center>http://rageman.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sigs/su25.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 09:56 PM
even with concentrated cannon fire the WHOLE ENTIRE THING should not blow up

if it isnt carring a bomb, then there is no reason for the whole thing to explode

if the huge explosion only took place if a plane had a bomb, and the bomb got hit, then that would be a cool effect

but other wise it just seems silly and arcade like

----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:01 PM
They werent carrying any bombs either :S

<center>http://rageman.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sigs/su25.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:20 PM
Let's see.... Rifleman wrote...

even with concentrated cannon fire the WHOLE ENTIRE THING should not blow up

if it isnt carring a bomb, then there is no reason for the whole thing to explode

if the huge explosion only took place if a plane had a bomb, and the bomb got hit, then that would be a cool effect

but other wise it just seems silly and arcade like


Ok, here's what I want you to do. Go down to your local small aircraft airport. Find a small, single engine plane. Just pick one, any plane will do that is a single engined plane. Examine it carefully and grab ahold of the end of the wing. Give it a gentle shake.... not too much or you'll own the thing real fast!!! I hate to break the news, but even military aircraft are light weight, flying gas bombs with live ordinance snaked both inside and outside the aircraft. When I was in the Army, stationed over in the Philipines, the enemy would throw sticks up in the air in a not so vain attemt to bring down the opposing aircraft. Even self sealing gas tanks do not react well to tracer rounds! The arcade graphics are when I put 100 rounds into you and you keep on flying. I know, reality bites, but it is a game trying to be a reality based game. Most film from gun cameras show that less than 3 seconds of effectively placed machine gun fire ends the plane's day on a sour note, period!!!

The bad news is, the patch has changed some characteristics of your game.

The good news is, the same is true for your opponent!

Try not to get shot so much and have fun with the realistic version of the game.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:20 PM
I agree! I was NEVER able to explode a plane before in my bf109f4, now every kill I get is by complete explosion. And it's never gradual - visible damage, fire, then explode.

It's either no damage or explosion. No wings breaking off, etc.


I just wish it wasn't always a complete disintergration. Maybe a smaller poof of fire and the plane breaks in half.

Message Edited on 08/14/0309:23PM by Achilles97

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:37 PM
got a question, what is exploding

it explodes as if a bomb or rockets hit it

fuel burns, it doenst explode


about light planes, i can go out the back door and have one of the lightest around, KitFox ultralite, the whole plane is only 250pounds, you can grap the wing and shake it all you want and you wont hurt it as long as you dont poke a hole in the fabric

any plane that you can shake the wing on and break it is either not flight worthy and or of very poor workmanship

----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 10:51 PM
The T.W.A. 800 flight that as the newspapers put it, "exploded"! Yes, technically, it was a fast burn; so is gunpowder. But I'm sure if you could poll the passengers of that flight, they would say (and so would the F.A.A.) that it was explosion enough to go around. That event was determined to be caused by a simple short in an electricly driven fuel pump inside the belly gas tank. This explosion was caused by jet A, which is a kerosene like fuel, not volitile 100 Octane AVgas. The Boeing 747B is considered a very stout airplane and it went boom with just the smallest spark.

Let's see.... every 4th round or so is a tracer.... you do the math!

Nitroglycerin on the other hand, in a true chemical sense, explodes, but for our discussion here today, the fast burn will do as an explosion.

And before you start with your lawn mower powered kite stories, yes, I learned how to fly when I was 11 years old in a 400 H.P. stick controlled plane. I'm instrument rated and have seen planes go down in real battle with my own eyes.

Welcome to reality based games!

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:00 PM
ok, if you have seen actual combat, what do you think of the muzzle flashes many here think they are way over done, so do i

then maybe this HUGE *** EXPLOSION is also just something that is way over done

but i still believe it happens too much and too easily



who here would say that the planes that explode into a million pieces is more like a bomb explosion then fast burn by fuel

----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:07 PM
An aerosol cloud of aircraft fuel from a leaking tank will explode if the saturation vapor:air is sufficent and if it is ignited by a spark, flame or detonation of an HE round in the proximity. Thermobaric weapons, or fuel air explosives make use of this effect by dispersing a cloud of fuel, which is ignited by an embedded detonator to produce an explosion.





============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:18 PM
can anyone here come up with an actual account of a ww2 pilot saying a plane "just blew up after it was shot"



@ Oak_Groove

yes, i know about that, but for a fuel tank to explode like that it would have to have nearly perfect conditions

im sure it happened some, but i dont see how it happened nearly as much as in FB 1.1

----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:26 PM
- can anyone here come up with an actual account of a
- ww2 pilot saying a plane "just blew up after it was
- shot"

Wait a sec, i see if i can find the vid. Basically a ME-109 disintergating into a cloud of white smoke and smoldering pieces after being obviously hit by defensive fire from a B-17 formation.

============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:31 PM
Actually Erich Hartmann describes exactly that happening to him on more than one occasion. His own Me-109 was brought down by the debris of his exploding victims a couple of times. I haven't read "The Blonde Knight" but I'm sure someone reading this has and can give us the details.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

54LUT3!

"Fighter Aces don't win wars" -- el Zed

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:56 PM
For what it's worth, since the patch arrived, I tried a 190A8 w/ MK103 pods vs four fully loaded Pe-2 359's (figured it would prove the change in weapons). All kills from astern. (Between 4 - 8 o'clock angles)

- First one lost port wing outside engine, spun left and crashed.
- Second one lost port engine and port wing, dived leftward and crashed.
- Third one last rear fuselage, nosed dived and crashed.
- Fourth one lost both engines and tailplane, plunged and crashed.

No bombs hit, no huge explosion (which usually comes with fully-laden bombers), especially with use of 103's.

And later on I had a Hurricane IIc vs 4 88's, Shot down three (one head on which blew off the port wing). Again no big bangs, yet they were all full of fuel and bombs.

So far I haven't seen anything different in the patch vs the original FB. Unless something has changed with the machineguns that is. But the blowups from fuel leaks etc seem the same. But hey, at least the P40 doesn't explode at 500 anymore. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

----------------------------------------

Beauty is only skin deep. Ugly, on the other hand goes all the way to the
bone.

Lt.Percy: "If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do ?"
Blackadder: "Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area."

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 11:57 PM
Found it, Combat America Part IV.

http://webdev.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=18985d


For Parts I-III:

http://webdev.archive.org/movies/movieslisting-browse.php?collection=prelinger&cat=World%20War%20II:%20Army%20Air%20Forces

============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:18 AM
First let me apologize about the way my comments appeared about your ultra-light craft. Looking at them now makes me shrink with shame. I never intended the comment to have such a tone to it. (better proof-read my stuff!). I'm sure you are a responsible and knowledgeable pilot.

As far as the muzzle flash thing goes, yes, it seems at first glance to be somewhat overdone. Many factors in reality go into how pronounced the flash is. Some of them are, but are not limited to....

1) The amount of ambiant lighting. In bright sunlight, unless you are looking straight at it, you can't see hardly any flash, especially from any appreciable distance. At night they can be like strobe lights going off.

2) The veiwers' angle to the flash. Looking directly at the flashpoint, not from a side angle gets the best view (a view we worked hard to avoid in the Army at least!)

3) Distance to flash origin.

4) Temperature and humidity. Cold temperatures and high humidity, such as is found along the coast of Russia can amplify flash affect.

5) Type of round being used. Differing types of gunpowder and tracer rounds can give differing results as well.

6) Type of flash suppressing system used


Scientists quickly learned in WWII how to make their bullets deadlier by including ingredients that would facilitate gasoline explosions. Yep, if a pilot in WWII was unlucky enough to let an opponent close to the distances we shoot at in this game, an explosion results. I remember watching gun camera footage from a P-51 that closed very tightly with a 109-D. Less than 1.5 seconds of fire produced an explosion or fast burn or whatever you want to call it enough to damage the P-51 and send it home. Anything short of a competent landing, much less being punched full of pyrotechnically enabled shot will leave you with millions of little pieces to pick out of the resulting fireball.

I'm sure the modelling is not perfect, but I'd rather have it like this than the laughable arcade graphics you get when tracer rounds go in and all you get is a little bit of dust. Even the toughest of aircraft are by their very nature, quite fragile. I guess your question really relates back to how scaled graphics can be. Well, they can scale them considerably, but it would take a liquid cooled mainframe to run the program! Try and remember that as little as 4 years ago the military and aerospace industry put zillions of Zloty's into making even the most basic of flight simulators run on liquid cooled mainframe systems. I think you are asking for a few too many "if" statements to be calculated by your air cooled oriental electronics waifer to handle.

In short, I'd rather see the flash and know the bugger is trying to punch my ticket! I'm glad to see real world consequenses to taking fire, diving or turning too fast and pushing powerplants and airframes too far, too fast and hard.

The bad news is, you are now subject to these forces more than in the old version of this game.

The good news is that your opponent has the same set of problems!!

Think man, think of the possibilities for a smart pilot who knows how to push his limits and break the limits of his opponent!!!!!!!


Good luck and enjoy the game!!!

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:30 AM
apology accecpted

flying is flying, just some people can afford more than others


thank you for your very informative post


i have one more serious question

what do you think of the ground handeling for the taildraggers in game

i know its nothing like it is in small light planes, i also fly radio control planes to

but i would think that warbirds would behave similar, just not quite as quickly, since the warbirds are so much bigger and heavier

----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:33 AM
still explosive shells in unsealed gastanks didnt cause a huge explosion. Just a huge fire ball with secondary explosions, kind of like how you can shoot the tail off a plane and it falls to the ground burning.


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:34 AM
heard about this blowing up thing before, but I hate the fact that no-one gives any details. What`s wrong with these moaners? You must give at least cases of how and when this has happened.

I have been playing the Campaign on nearly full Real ( outside views on to view my own planes and fights if I bail). I`m now at Moscow in Yak. Have used I16 and Lagg 3 so far. I have not seen this `blowing up thing.
I say again:

Planes I have shot have died in many ways: wings fall, spins, dives, pilot bails, accidental crashes and explosions to name a few. I have not noticed planes just blowing up all the time.

Are you playing in QMB? What plane? Enemy plane? Arcade mode? Unlimited ammo? Online- offline? Explain the situation ,,Rifleman75 don`t just make dumb posts or noone`s gonna bother trying to see if there`s a problem.

I have not seen this problem you speak of.


HAS NOONE EVER HEARD OF RESEARCH FIRST?



"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.




Message Edited on 08/14/0311:35PM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:49 AM
seafire buy the dvd or vhs called cancamera of wwii they have alot of german guncam footage with 108 cannon see how many shots a mustang take theres hugh fuel tank explosions in many of the different p47 and p51 kills that throw off a damn lot of big debris you see the 109s avoid but never in one occassation have i seen or heard of planes exploding in a millions pieces.


I think oleg read some black cross red stars where the pilots talk about the huge fire ball as exploding into a million pieces from all the debris it caused


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:49 AM
you seem to be aweful negative lately seafire


i pretty much only play online, and so thats when its happening

and i dont fly in easy or arcade mode or whatever

and if you read the whole post i already said i was in a p47 and 3 outta 5 times i got shot down it blew up completely, and thats in a p47, a plane known for being tough

----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:55 AM
If yo uwould like to seee the blowing up problem clearly in FB, try P-47 vs Hurricane or La-5/7 vs P-47.

Hurri blows into bits with 50cal hit to the fuel tank. P-47 blows up with shvak hit to fuselage.

Also, the I-16 likes blowing up now, from pretty much anything.

I think Oleg has taken too literally the term "blow up" in pilot reports, because seeing guncam footage, even after fuel tank has blown up, most of the airframe, though mangled, is still together. Even when zero "blows up", it is just on fire, tumbling in a twisted mass.

<div align=center>http://www.members.shaw.ca/fennec/plane.jpg </div><font size=-9>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:57 AM
Forgive me if this is not accurate of every flying force in WWII, but at least the Navy/Marine flyers in the PTO were known to use not just tracers every fifth round, but every round was .50cal API--armor piercing incendiary--to take advantage of the then-well known fact that Japanese planes were light on armor and did not, for the most part, employ self-sealing gas tanks. It does seem that every force would employ something similar, if not identical, for no other reason than to have the chance of blowing up the fumes in a partially full fuel tank and catastrophically destroying the enemy aircraft.

Blowing up aircraft, especially at close range, doesn't seem all that unrealistic given that the gun type is capable of the ammo effect.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 12:59 AM
Rifleman75 wrote:
- can anyone here come up with an actual account of a
- ww2 pilot saying a plane "just blew up after it was
- shot"
-
-
-
-

Exerpt of Oberleutnant H. Setz March 19 discussing the power of the new MG151/20 Taken from Black Cross/Red Star Vol II.

'The impact of the new cannon really impressed me. I remember the the problems we had with some of these russian aircraft previously, and now they are totally blown apart.'

refering to a bomber/escort intercept

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:12 AM
Fennec has a good point



@ Bastables

thanks for the quote

but "blown apart" could mean lots of differnt things, like, just severe damage, blowing wings, tails off, doesnt exactly mean exploded completely

----------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:19 AM
I do not complain about much, but, yes, the planes blowing up is way too much. This, and the below, are some of the first things I noticed in FB from the original IL-2.

Also, the trailing black smoke does not look as 'full'/good. Just, for the most part, perfect round black smoke 'puffs'. Looks like those may be individual sprites, and the number of them was just cut in half, maybe to save on FPS. Don't know. But, does not look as good as the original.

Again, the excessive plane blowing to complete peices really needs to go.

Yes, anyone can live with some things in FB, such as these, but considering they are always working on visuals, (like, now, prop wash over water and land), I was really suprised, and dissapointed, when I saw this. After all, those two things are a big part of the visuals in FB.

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:29 AM
HHHhhhhhmmmmmmmmm! Ok, I haven't really given this one much thought. When you play this game, there are usually rules about vulching, so I just deal with whatever the game throws at me. As a result, I don't have to worry so much about manuverability on the ground.

I grew up on a wheat and cattle operation and we had two military surplus planes that we used for crop dusting. I used to complain that our Widowmakers' *** was in love with whatever piece of ground it was sitting on. This problem was made even more pronounced when fully loaded with agricultural spray. An aeronotical engineer told me it was because the craft was originally intended to manuver best at high speed flight which does not require larger (proportionately) control surfaces, like a small personal aircraft. This statement seemed to hold true when you lined up our planes next to something like a Cessna Ag-Truck. The Cessna has a much bigger maintail and deflector on same. As a result, WWII fighters were buggers to turn and yes, you can find archive shots of ground crews helping turn a plane on the ground. In contrast, we had a Piper J3 CUB (the only plane I ever reached Z1 going backwards in!!!!) that you could just give a little jolt of throttle and whatever rudder and spin the fabric firetrap right around.

Actually, I think compared to reality, they turn too easy on the ground, but not by much. From what I remember (and it's just an impression) they seem to drag around at the same rate whether on concrete or grass in IL-2 forgotten Battles and that's in a very picky sense, not exactly right. Remeber, it's a little waifer of oriental silicon trying to do mainframe work! As a result, they are going to make a decision to cut the cake somewhere programming wise. A tail dragger on grass has a much tougher time turning in the real world than it does on a prepared surface. If it was a civilian plane, I would laugh that the characteristics were much too slow and sluggish. I never flew any of these planes except P-47 (what a bucket!) and that was just one time for a half hour at an air show. Yes, it's not quite as much of a pig in a turn as they make out in IL-2 forgotten Battles, but enough has been said on that subject already!!! My sientific, wild-assed guess (also known in aeronotical engineering circles as a SWAG) is that the modeling is ok. But then again, if you be on the ground, you be in the wrong air space!!! So as a result, I've not put much thought into it and don't intend to.

Remember, the man flying the Sky King is no more flying than you are in your ultra-light. I'm too poor and in too poor of physical health to fly right now. Maybe someday though! I hope my SWAG at your question about tail draggers has helped and good hunting!!!!!!!!!!

The secret to this game should not be flight modeling, but brains and how you respond to the flight modeling given to you. I'll say it one more time!!!!

The bad news is, the flight modelling has changed

The good news is, it has changed for your opponent as well!!!!

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:37 AM
Video of 3 Hurri explosions. The first is kind of pushing it, the second guy took a few hits, and the third guy blew up when I looked at him funny.

&lt;embed src="http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/boom2.AVI">


and for download

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/boom2.AVI





Message Edited on 08/14/0306:40PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:37 AM
Well, I`m still testing and haven`t got round to p47s yet or Hurris, etc, I like to run things thru the campaign to get a good feel of ALL aspects of the sim. Not just one little bit that I don`t particularly like.

I`ve discovered that with Olegg, his patches are more like a boring looking Fruit Cake or maybe a Sheperd`s Pie ... You don`t get the GOOD stuff until you start getting inside the thing. Then you REALLY start to enjoy it.! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

PS2 Xbox, acady PC games are the reverse: Lovely big Burgers , but once eaten is over quickly, not filling and easily forgotten. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

This is why I get a little impatient with complaints that give the impression they aren`t really objectively worked out. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I`ll have my REAL thoughts on Good and Bad points in about a week or so. (Not that my thoughts matter, but at least I will have giving it a real play first and balanced it out).

And I haven`t come across this explosion thing at all so far...

"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

Message Edited on 08/15/0301:39AM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:42 AM
Great Movie!! The second one look more like historicall, to say so.., first lost a wing then BOOM!!
The third one exploded from nothing realy only ashort burs there wasnt more then max..8 bullets fired, and less may have hitted him, so...

<center>"The show must go on..."<center>
<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~jj_b/vaw/images/iar81t.jpg </center>
<center>A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again<center>

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 07:42 PM
Rifleman75 wrote:
- even with concentrated cannon fire the WHOLE ENTIRE
- THING should not blow up

Not even with multiple exploding cannon rounds hitting an ammo store or a fuel tank?

I'm thinking that the full explosion might have proved to be easier on the frame rate than just a little one which results in many large pieces to be tracked and graphically represented by the program.

I'm noticing that this seems to happen more to AI planes than to human piloted ones.

<center>
http://members.verizon.net/~vze2cb22/KosSig.gif

America: #1 military...#15 in literacy...
Because right wingers run our military
and leftists run our schools!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </center>