PDA

View Full Version : Weapons Damage (tracks)



XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 04:56 PM
Hey all, I've been concerned with the differences in my pericieved ability to down an enemy fighter with a given amount of ammunition/firing time, verses what I have read about the experiences of pilots during WWII.

Rather than being rude and slinging accusations of bias, I thought I would take some tracks

Therefore, i decided to do a semi scientific test and post the tracks here.

The 3 Aircraft I used for testing purposes where the FW190 D-9 1944, The P47 D27 and the Yak 3. All weapons convergence is set to 200 meters.

P47Track (http://www.tripnicks.com/downloads/bs3.ntrk>FWTrack</a>

This)

This track reverses the roles of the P47 and the Fw190. Similarly, despite the point blank firing distance and the amount of ammo expelled, there is virtually no effect on the FW.

Yak1Track (http://www.tripnicks.com/downloads/yakbs.ntrk>YakTrack</a>

This)

This track features the yak3 again, this time on the tail of the p47. As you can see a slightly longer burst relegates the P47 to the same firey fate of the FW190.

<a href=http://www.tripnicks.com/downloads/bfvsbf.ntrk>FWvsFWrack</a>

This final Track features an FW on the Tail of another FW. As you can see, at point blank range, with quite a lot of ammo going into the tail. Pretty much nothing happens.


Conclusion:

Far from being an overmodelled uberplane, I believe that the Yak3's firing capacity is 100 percent correctly modelled. However, this leaves both the FW and the P47 with less than lethal weapons. There is argueably no way any of these aircraft should have been able to survive being bounced and hit with all the weapons of a particular aircraft at point blank range.

This quote is Taken From FIGHTER COMBAT, TACTICS AND MANEUVERING by Robert Shaw. It is a quote from Major John Godfrey, recalling his first victory in a p47 over a bf 109

"The 109 flew as straight as an arrow, with no weaving. As his plane filled my gunsight i pressed the tit. The results were incredible. No sooner did I feel the plane shudder as the machine guns went off, than a huge flame engulfed the 109, followed imediately by a black cloud of debris extending 50 feet in all directions in front of me."

This is an example of the lethality of weapons at close ranges.

I believe that the fundamental problem with this sim is the hobbled weapons damages at close range. Because it takes several seconds of firing to take down an enemy, the BnZ'er is at a severe disadvantage against the TnB'er. The energy fighter usually only gets a quick snap shot at the enemy. As we see from these tracks, this is generally not enough to take down an aircraft, unless you are lucky and hit the pilot or the engine. The TnB'er on the other hand, can use prolonged tracking shots due to the better turning ability of the his aircraft. I believe this is responsible for much of the percieved "Bias" of the russian aircraft in FB.

I for one am so grateful to Oleg for creating the greatest flight sim ever. Unfortunately, for him, when a product is as close to perfection as FB is, every minor deficiency tends to stand out, as we lose perspective of just how great a resource we have here. While there are problems with FB, they are all things which can be adjusted if people would put aside their mindless griping and begin to focus on the sim with a "Problem = Solution" mindset, rather than a "Whining till I get my way" mindset.

{555} Puck



Message Edited on 10/11/03 03:59PM by Puck-555

Message Edited on 10/11/03 04:00PM by Puck-555

Message Edited on 10/11/0304:01PM by Puck-555

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 04:56 PM
Hey all, I've been concerned with the differences in my pericieved ability to down an enemy fighter with a given amount of ammunition/firing time, verses what I have read about the experiences of pilots during WWII.

Rather than being rude and slinging accusations of bias, I thought I would take some tracks

Therefore, i decided to do a semi scientific test and post the tracks here.

The 3 Aircraft I used for testing purposes where the FW190 D-9 1944, The P47 D27 and the Yak 3. All weapons convergence is set to 200 meters.

P47Track (http://www.tripnicks.com/downloads/bs3.ntrk>FWTrack</a>

This)

This track reverses the roles of the P47 and the Fw190. Similarly, despite the point blank firing distance and the amount of ammo expelled, there is virtually no effect on the FW.

Yak1Track (http://www.tripnicks.com/downloads/yakbs.ntrk>YakTrack</a>

This)

This track features the yak3 again, this time on the tail of the p47. As you can see a slightly longer burst relegates the P47 to the same firey fate of the FW190.

<a href=http://www.tripnicks.com/downloads/bfvsbf.ntrk>FWvsFWrack</a>

This final Track features an FW on the Tail of another FW. As you can see, at point blank range, with quite a lot of ammo going into the tail. Pretty much nothing happens.


Conclusion:

Far from being an overmodelled uberplane, I believe that the Yak3's firing capacity is 100 percent correctly modelled. However, this leaves both the FW and the P47 with less than lethal weapons. There is argueably no way any of these aircraft should have been able to survive being bounced and hit with all the weapons of a particular aircraft at point blank range.

This quote is Taken From FIGHTER COMBAT, TACTICS AND MANEUVERING by Robert Shaw. It is a quote from Major John Godfrey, recalling his first victory in a p47 over a bf 109

"The 109 flew as straight as an arrow, with no weaving. As his plane filled my gunsight i pressed the tit. The results were incredible. No sooner did I feel the plane shudder as the machine guns went off, than a huge flame engulfed the 109, followed imediately by a black cloud of debris extending 50 feet in all directions in front of me."

This is an example of the lethality of weapons at close ranges.

I believe that the fundamental problem with this sim is the hobbled weapons damages at close range. Because it takes several seconds of firing to take down an enemy, the BnZ'er is at a severe disadvantage against the TnB'er. The energy fighter usually only gets a quick snap shot at the enemy. As we see from these tracks, this is generally not enough to take down an aircraft, unless you are lucky and hit the pilot or the engine. The TnB'er on the other hand, can use prolonged tracking shots due to the better turning ability of the his aircraft. I believe this is responsible for much of the percieved "Bias" of the russian aircraft in FB.

I for one am so grateful to Oleg for creating the greatest flight sim ever. Unfortunately, for him, when a product is as close to perfection as FB is, every minor deficiency tends to stand out, as we lose perspective of just how great a resource we have here. While there are problems with FB, they are all things which can be adjusted if people would put aside their mindless griping and begin to focus on the sim with a "Problem = Solution" mindset, rather than a "Whining till I get my way" mindset.

{555} Puck



Message Edited on 10/11/03 03:59PM by Puck-555

Message Edited on 10/11/03 04:00PM by Puck-555

Message Edited on 10/11/0304:01PM by Puck-555

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 05:40 PM
It's pretty rare that people provide support for what they claim. However your quote at the end of your post is about the Bf 190, which was supposedly much more fragile than the P 47 and the Fw 190, which were some of the toughest planes.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 05:43 PM
Puck-555 wrote:
- As we see from these tracks, this is generally not
- enough to take down an aircraft, unless you are
- lucky and hit the pilot or the engine.

It's even worse than that.

The engine of LaGG and La series is nearly invulnerable.

Now let's see: the situation is generally this:
1. overmodelled FM vs undermodelled FM - so it's easier to get into firing position in VVS birds.
2. overmodelled weapons vs undermodelled weapons - it's easier to score hits with VVS weapons. Less recoil, less slowdown, less loss of energy.
3. overmodelled DM vs undermodelled DM - when the bullets do hit, they do almost nothing if they hit a VVS bird. Whereas the slightest hit renders an 109 unusable, every time. Even the FW, while not going down, turns into a brick when a rifle-caliber gun hits it.

The way things are is the way things have been pretty much the whole lifetime of IL-2. If you're in 109 and get hit, it's game over, every time. Oil on screen, engine fuxxored or wing missing. Whereas in russian birds you go down only after ridiculous amounts of pounding.

Online, yesterday, I did three dives at an I-153 in an Emil. Multiple times I scored multiple hits with wing cannons, and nothing happened. Running out of ammo, I rammed the thing, and the Emil went down - I-153 still was not damaged, and succeeded in downing another 109.

The situation is so wrong I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.


http://sivusto.servepics.com/~lahnat/werre2s.jpg

prkl

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 06:06 PM
i think the collison online maybe dodgy
the i 153 is like a tank :\
109 had fuel tank in the rear, easy to set fire to it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 06:41 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- It's pretty rare that people provide support for
- what they claim. However your quote at the end of
- your post is about the Bf 190, which was supposedly
- much more fragile than the P 47 and the Fw 190,
- which were some of the toughest planes.
-
- Nic

Ok Fair Enough Nic, but truthfully it makes no difference. For your edification here is a track of a P47 on the Tail of a BF109K same situation as described in my quote. Again, regardless of the point blank firing range the 109 stays intact.

<a href=http://www.tripnicks.com/downloads/p47vs109k.ntrk>P47vsBF109</a>

From this track you can see a pretty clear discrepancy between the real world and the one we fly in.

{555} Puck

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 06:59 PM
Ok, and just because I can't resist. Here is a track showing a Yak 3 on the six of a BF109K4. Boom!

<a href=http://www.tripnicks.com/downloads/Yakvs109.ntrk>YakVs109</a>

{555} Puck

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 07:07 PM
How about we see the effectiveness of the P-39s, P-40s and B-239s guns on P-47s, Yaks and Fw-190s?

Also, the effectiveness of a P-47's guns on a Yak-3.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 06:35 AM
Ok Here is a LA5FN vs a P47. As you can see. the P47 disintegrates before its guns.

<a href=http://www.tripnicks.com/downloads/La5vsP47.ntrk>La5vsP47</a>

I'm getting really depressed by what is seeming to me to be a major bias toward WS aircraft. I've done some preliminary turn testing, and its a major joke. LA5fn loses very little energy in a 180 degree turn. Will post tracks soon.

{555} Puck

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 08:42 AM
try a ntrk LAN or with people on HL.

Flying ai aces bail out from very light hits of any caliber

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 09:51 AM
Here are my own views, these are purely my own and from my own observations. I have a huge amount of time flying online mostly FW190s, and alot of time offline, mainly FW190A4s, and a reasonable amount of exposure to guncam footage and pilot accounts.

-planes ingame are not as flammable as in real life.

-there are ways to be damaged irl that would cause a pilot to bail out that cannot happen ingame (hydraulic failure, electrical failure come to mind). This tends to make all planes seem too tough to bring down/cripple out of the fight. I think this may have something to do with why explosive power seems much less useful than KE.

-explosive forces are less effective ingame than KE/penetration. I know shrapnel is modelled, I have seen the arrows in arcade mode that show an engine being damaged from a cannon round that went through the wing and exploded on the other side, sending an arrow through the engine from below, nevertheless a round that has the KE to penetrate armour is far more effective ingame than a round with much more explosive power but that can't penetrate some particular armour.

-Soviet weapons tend to have more KE than similar US/German weapons, so that they can penetrate armour from angles that US/German weapons cannot. Since getting a PK or instantly exploding the enemy plane is a matter of penetrating certain armour from a certain angle, it can make Soviet weapons seem overwhelmingly superior when tests are done at targets/angles where the Soviet weapons penetrate and others don't. This is particularly true of attacks directly from the rear, either the round can penetrate the fuel tank armour or it cannot.

-the arcade mode arrows I mentioned above lead me to believe there could be problems with how cannon explosions are modelled. The round in question hit the top of the wing at a somewhat shallow angle and created an arrow through the side of the engine from below and in front of the wing (as well as the arrow through the wing itself). The geometry of the situation was such that the only explanation was that the cannon round was modelled as having passed completely through the wing and exploding well on the other side, rather than exploding inside the wing.

I will look at your tracks and see if I notice anything unusual.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:52 PM
Hrmm. These tracks are not too well done and don't show what you say in some cases.

The first track shows alot of misses, and alot of hits spread around alot, no concentration of hits anywhere. The rudder is damaged and there is fuel leak (light smoke) and oil leak (darker smoke), irl this P47 would not make it back to base unless his base was extremely close by, and maybe not then. Both wing roots were hit, so top speed maybe lower, but nothing to take the wings off.

The second track shows that you should fire at your convergence rather than 50m closer (better yet set convergence to 150m which is where you fire from), and aim for a vulnerable spot. In any case all the rounds that hit were around the rear fuselage. I dunno if 50cal should be able to penetrate fuel tank armour from there, nothing else to hit. Flying the brewster against I16s and changing gun convergence from 200m to 150m was the difference between emptying all ammo on an I16 and not bringing it down (200m) and bringing down multiple planes per flight (150m. Took off wing of I16 with 1 burst, then another burst for another I16 took his wing off, then flamed a Mig, then ran out of ammo on the last I16 that sortie. Absolute world of difference on that map [Greatergreen server, played that map alot since and the Brewster dominates]).

Third track shows perfect hits from the Yak cannon, dead center of the fuselage just below the level of the pilots head penetrates the fuel tank armour. Note the high rate of fire of the cannon, multiple rounds impacting the same location right at the center.

Fourth track actually shows quite a bit of not quite perfect hits on the P47 doing about the same as what the FW190 did in the first track. Until the end where you get multiple cannon hits on the outer edge of the right wing and the wing comes off. Note the high ROF nose cannon gives multiple hits in the same location, and that location is near the tip of the wing rather than the root (you got some root hits as well, but like in the first track root hits don't take the wing off a P47).

The final track shows terrible gunnery, most of the rounds miss. You get enough good hits on the right wing root for visible damage (it will be slower and right wing will lack lift, no longer able to fight, and make landing tough), a couple hits on the lower rear fuselage, no way to penetrate fuel tank from there, a couple hits on outer left wing, but not enough to take it off.

P47vsBF109 - worst, gunnery, ever. At least 90% of your rounds missed. You can see by the tracer pattern that you're firing at a range much different than the convergence of your guns. Even so you got some hits on the radiators in the wings which irl would force the 109 pilot to bail. Ingame it seems not hard to rtb without coolant. I notice you interpret your quote as referring to a dead 6 shot, which isn't necessarily the case. I'm not sure 50cal will penetrate fuel tank armour from dead 6, but I know they will with a little deflection (and I mean ingame).

YakVs109 - multiple cannon hits on the same part of the wing put a hole in it. The decisive blow was to the engine, setting it on fire. Maybe you would have done the same in the P47 if you had hit the engine?

La5vsP47 - look back at my description of the third track. The P47's fuel tank is vulnerable from exactly the same place as the FW190's, center fuselage just below the level of the pilot's head. The LA5 is nice because it has 2 nose (cowl) cannon, the FW190 just has the MG131s (MG17 on earlier ones) on the cowl, and they just don't have the same punch.

Conclusions:

High ROF nose mounted cannon are the best weaponry for a fighter against a fighter. With wing mounted guns firing at your convergence range is very important.

What you hit is all-important. Multiple hits in the same location, hits to critical locations (wingtips, fuel tank, engine, cockpit). Tough and/or non critical locations require alot of concentrated hits, and even then you may not have much results.

Your accuracy with the wing mounted guns is terrible, I think alot of this is due to firing at a range much closer than your convergence setting from dead 6, your rounds pass beside the target and converge beyond/in front of it, so that your hits are dispersed around the outside of the fuselage and many pass above/below the wings rather than into them.

The convergence pattern of the P47 is of the shotgun type. I have read that Hurricanes were set up like this very early on and it was found to be inferior and they were changed to a more concentrated form. I have no idea how P47s' gun convergence was set up, but the shotgun pattern is very poor for dead 6 shooting.

The wing cannon of the FW190D is in the roots, so closer together than most wing guns, but still not comparable to nose/cowl mounted guns. Dead 6 shooting just amplifies the problems with shooting outside your convergence setting. If you aim at the wings and are not perfectly aligned then your rounds will pass above/below.

My experience with the Brewsters caused me to change the convergence on all the planes I fly and my results have improved considerably. I cannot stress enough how important it is to get your rounds hitting the same part of the target.

"However, this leaves both the FW and the P47 with less than lethal weapons."

your tracks show FW190D and P47 getting hit in the perfect spot to blow the fuel tank by Shvak cannon, but I don't see any hits by 50cal or MG151/20 in those locations, so who's to say they are not lethal (I already know 50cal takes wings off 190, I16, and blows fuel tank of 109, and MG151/20 takes the wing off anything and blows fuel tank of P47 cause I have seen/done all those things online).

"This is an example of the lethality of weapons at close ranges."

there are also examples of inneffective fire at close range. I had guncam footage (forgot to save before a reformat some time ago /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif ) showing FW190 shooting a P47, hitting the wing and no real effect (see fuel leak for a moment, but it seals), shooting a Yak (or LaGG I forget) and getting several hits, see pieces flying, but no explosion, no smoke, just a chunk out of the rudder.

"There is argueably no way any of these aircraft should have been able to survive being bounced and hit with all the weapons of a particular aircraft at point blank range."

I think you greatly overestimate the number of hits you scored with some of those.

"Similarly, despite the point blank firing distance and the amount of ammo expelled, there is virtually no effect on the FW."

expelling ammo doesn't do any good if they miss, hitting the rear fuselage does no good if you do not penetrate the fuel tank. You did damage his left wing, but really, now, look at that in slow motion and pause repeatedly and see the overwhelming volume of shots that just plain miss. Look at it from the FW veiw, looking behind from a pov just in front of the FW and pause at I think the 47 sec mark and you will see the problem with having convergence 200 and firing from dead 6 at 150 with a shotgun pattern.

The big difference between the tracks with you in the LA and Yak vs you in the P47 and FW is that when you are in the LA and Yak you not only get alot of hits, but they are quality hits. Notice in your Yak shooting P47 track that you really don't do anything to the P47 that you didn't when you were in the FW, until the very end when you get several rounds into his wingtip (you never hit the P47's wingtips when you were in the FW, just the roots), before that it was just the same fuel and oil leaks you got when shooting with the FW. Obviously the LA's cannon is very effective at igniting the 109's engine. Don't know about the 50cals, because you never got good engine hits with them.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 12:56 PM
Just a note:
IIRC the arrows in arcade mode only show the point of impact. Consequently, it is completely possible for a bullet to hit the plane at a shallow angle and just bounce cleanly away, while the arrow will lead you to believe the bullet has penetrated the airplane.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:11 PM
yes, I understand that, but what I saw was I fired from behind and slightly above the enemy and an arrow appeared where my bullet hit his wing. The arrow went down into the wing at a shallow angle, while at exactly the same time two other arrows appeared, one of which was pointing into the side of the engine (a single engine fighter) from below and to the side, such that it's origin had to be below and ahead of the wing I had just hit, plus the second arrow that appeared was pointing back towards the fuselage, emanating from that same point where the one through the engine came from, which would be ahead of and below the wing I hit. There were only the two of us on the whole map and no gunfire could have caused those other two arrows. The only explanation I can see is that those other two arrows emanate from my cannon round exploding after it had passed through the wing.

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 01:42 PM
I think I know what this guy is getting at. Yesterday, online, I fired 3 37mm shells from my P-39Q-10 directly into a P-47D-22's cockpit. I saw them hit. But there was no damage to the pilot, or plane in any way. I had my guns converged to 150m for MG's and 145m for Cannons. I was also at Point blank range. I was flying at 370kph on a diagonal course downward, fired my shots, and dove underneath him.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>It's your fault... <center>
Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW
http://www.uploadit.org/files/220903-Boosher%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 03:40 PM
As a frequent Yak driver (I drive everything frequently http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), I don't think these tracks show the whole picture. You'll get much better high angle deflection shots with the FW and P47, I know I do. When I'm flying a Yak, I will only ever fire when I am 100% sure of a good hit, since it carries so little ammo. A good string of ShVAK hits will destroy anything, but so will a good string of 151/20 hits from the nose gun of an F4, or even a set of 151/15 hits from the F2. It's very rare in the game to get a one-hit ShVAK kill as shown here, at least for me.

I said in the other gun damage thread that I'm not adverse to the LW and US planes being souped up a little, but don't get the idea they should be as accurate and powerful as the UB, ShVAK or Hispano. They're different in the game because they were different in real life.

Flying the FW or the P47, I am 100% satisfied with the guns right now - in the campaign, I can get 4 or 5 or more kills with one load of ammo on the FW, I usually get 1-3, at most 4 with the Yak-3, then the ammo's gone. I waste a lot more on the FW, since I know there's plenty more too.

I think the P47 does use pattern rather than point convergence in the game, which would explain why the P40 and B239 seem to be more powerful. P47 offers a bit more help for spray and pray.