PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion for accurate DM "realism"



stef51
06-17-2004, 08:13 AM
First, I am not suggesting that people here are ignorant about their DM knowledge during combat. However, many times we see contradictions, or heated arguments about the damage models and it is my opinion that we really need what I consider the minimum in creating accurate DM realism.

I personally believe that the programmers/consultants need to analyse first and foremost as much as possible... :

1---all available combat footage. You can't be more accurate than that. Obviously as much infos as possible would be required about the footage before analysis.

2---Testing done by pilots who actually flew during combat. I think that many pilots would be quite happy to beta test the game. Although quite complicated to do I imagine, even one pilot who flew a P-51 against a 109 for example would be a quite valuable asset. Let him fight against a plane he fought and see if he agrees with the damage... If he was there at the time, he sure knows how long a burst he needed to shoot down the 109 and may even add more anecdotes as he plays the game.(bring back memories).

I personally believe that unless Oleg and Co consider doing the 2 suggestions above, I'm afraid the game will never satisfy everyone ever.

Stef

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/avatar.jpg

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

stef51
06-17-2004, 08:13 AM
First, I am not suggesting that people here are ignorant about their DM knowledge during combat. However, many times we see contradictions, or heated arguments about the damage models and it is my opinion that we really need what I consider the minimum in creating accurate DM realism.

I personally believe that the programmers/consultants need to analyse first and foremost as much as possible... :

1---all available combat footage. You can't be more accurate than that. Obviously as much infos as possible would be required about the footage before analysis.

2---Testing done by pilots who actually flew during combat. I think that many pilots would be quite happy to beta test the game. Although quite complicated to do I imagine, even one pilot who flew a P-51 against a 109 for example would be a quite valuable asset. Let him fight against a plane he fought and see if he agrees with the damage... If he was there at the time, he sure knows how long a burst he needed to shoot down the 109 and may even add more anecdotes as he plays the game.(bring back memories).

I personally believe that unless Oleg and Co consider doing the 2 suggestions above, I'm afraid the game will never satisfy everyone ever.

Stef

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/avatar.jpg

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

BitwiseOp
06-17-2004, 09:37 AM
The game will never satisfy everyone ever anyway... there will always be people who will complain about the smallest inaccuracies - and their views of 'how things were'. It's pretty much impossible for anyone to be totally objective and even the views of an old pilot who flew one of these planes in combat would be colored by their own experience and further by the passage of time ...maybe they were a particularly good / lucky (or bad / unlucky) shot...

Chuck_Older
06-17-2004, 10:30 AM
Stef-
could you give an example of the problem that this would fix?

While I agree that first hand knowledge is good, these events happened 60 years ago. I'm only 32, but I can't remember things from 15 years ago with absolute clarity. I remember what happened, for example, when I wrecked my car when I was 17. But I don't recall the size and trajectory of the pieces that flew off, or how hard the landing was, or even how far into that yard I went. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

WB_Outlaw
06-17-2004, 10:47 AM
An accurate damage model requires much more information than gun camera footage can show us. Not every round that hits gives a visual cue, likewise, tracers make up a relatively small percentage of the rounds downrange.

There have been many studies showing that reports from eye-witnesses and participants in battle can be very inaccurate. That is why combat debriefings are done as soon as possible after the action. Thousands of rounds have been fired at friendly planes by pilots who were convinced that they were shooting at the enemy. To this day, the New York Subway shooter Bernie Getz (sp?) still claims that he shot one of the assailants/victims in the back while standing over him. None of the wounds were inflicted in that manner.

First person accounts are nothing more than anecdotal. If the first round fired goes through the enemy pilot's head, then the kill was made with one round. Of course, the shooter didn't know this so he fired a four second burst. His report will show that it took a four second burst to bring down the target. He could have missed with every round except the first and still gotten the kill!

Gun camera footage and pilot reports only show the RESULTS of damage. A damage model needs to know HOW those results came about.

During and after WW-II many thousands of test rounds were fired at various aircraft structures to determine the results of damage. I'm sure Oleg has his hands on enough of those to make an accurate damage model. If not, I may be able to get in touch with at least one person who has had many of them in his hands.

It is probably a waste of time though b/c most people don't want an accurate damage model. They want cool visuals and explosions. Read some combat reports and the majority of kills read like, "...approached the target from behind, high on the starboard side and fired a 2 second burst. Black smoke was seen coming from the engine compartment on the port side. The target rolled over and dove towards the ground. Target never pulled out of the dive and the pilot did not bail out...".

To me, the aircraft damage model is not bad, but the aircraft system damage model is practically non-existent. For example, I have never had a hydraulic failure, an oxygen failure, a flat tire, landing gear lock, or an electrical failure of any kind (unless represented by an inability to turn on both magnetos). Combine several system failures and you've got a kill. Not only a kill, but a more realistic kill.

What I REALLY want to see is better engine modeling. Besides water/cylinder head temperature, most of the gauges are useless to start off with and even those that do move don't read any/much different when the engine is damaged. I want to see things like fuel, oil, and water pump equipment and associated piping damage modeled. Engine vacuum, wastegates, and blower/turbocharger casing damage modeling with an associated change in the instruments such as overboosting, an inability to develop manifold pressure, and vacuum driven instrument failures. Ignition problems/failures would also be cool with results like engine misfires and backfires.

I don't have my hopes up for any of this though b/c like I said before, the masses just want to see things blow up.

I'll shut-up now.

-Outlaw.

RCAF_Hawk2
06-17-2004, 11:14 AM
I agree outlaw with the first hand reports and gun camra footage is questionable. But there is enough test data to get a very close model. when FB was first released I remember getting hydlic failures but not since then. I would love to see more system related damage modeling done.I love fling bombers "he-111 mostly" so having certain systems go out would make it alot more intresting to say the lest. Im looking foward to BoB for these features, il-2 IMHO is gone as far as they are going to take it except for what we get in PF .

<BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://www16.brinkster.com/hawkspage/hawkssig.jpg"><BR>Your not getting my buffalo wings <BR></span></td>

stef51
06-17-2004, 11:20 AM
All valid points guys. But like I said, I believe the minimum to be done includes combat footage and pilots recording to get an "overall" aspect of battle.

For example, if there is a footage that shows 2 20mms guns from a 109e firing at a hurricane from dead 6 and the aft section breaks off, and judicious analysis shows approximatively how much rounds were needed, then it's an approximation of what the game should do. If it takes 3 times as much ammos in the game, then it's something that should be taken into account. I'm convinced there are some footage, maybe rare ones that could help the programers.

For the dm itself, that's another ball game I agree. There are too much things missing. But that's another story and that's why it's not included in my message.. I remember a Hurricane pilot that got 20mms rounds in his wing and they actually managed to hit the controls for the ailerons without breaking them and the pilot felt his controls moving to the right and that automaticaly made the plane in evasion mode. The rounds also hit oxygen bottles or something like that and he lost hydraulic for his gears.. All at the same time... Imagine the coding to do that... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

As for the pilots, it's sad to say but yes, we would need those with a sharp mind even today.

But.... at least my message got good responses, hope Oleg will see it be sure... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Stef

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/avatar.jpg

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

Bearcat99
06-19-2004, 04:14 PM
I think these damage models are about as good as they can be giving consideration to the various rigs and rthe current state of tecnology. I have not seen any that even come close to this.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

TooCool_12f
06-20-2004, 03:07 AM
the problem with footage is that the only footage you will find nowadays is the most "spectacular" one.

from 1943 on, basically every US built fighter plane had a gun camera... and almost all film has been destroyed since, considered "not informative, useless, etc, etc..."

besides, on some films you'll see a plane break apart with a single hit of 30mm, on others he'll take several, seemingly identical, hits and fly away...


footage can be interesting for learning, demonstrating the possibilities, but for accurate modeling of damage, it's all but an accurate source http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stef51
06-20-2004, 04:59 AM
I agree that the footage might not be 100% accurate but I would find them more useful than reading 100 messages about how effective P-51's guns are.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Stef

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/avatar.jpg

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

Hoarmurath
06-20-2004, 05:14 AM
and how do you think Oleg and co decided on IL2 damage model?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

stef51
06-20-2004, 05:44 AM
One thing for sure, he seems determined to use accurate informations only, then adjust them from patches to patches to stop the whinning... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stef

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/avatar.jpg

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

Bearcat99
06-20-2004, 06:20 AM
From what i have seen of Oleg the whining has less to do with anything than the fact that people come up with reasonable data to back thier claims.. or 1C finds the info themselves. Olg is a businessman and 1C is his business. I doubt very seriously that he will hinge his or his company's reputation on the opinions of a few Johnny come lately armchair engineers. Would you if you were in his shoes? I think with each patch all the things that make FB the best WW2 flight sim on the market just get improved for the most part.. from the FMs,& DMs to the AI.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

stef51
06-20-2004, 07:17 AM
Well check very old messages about whinning with the LA and yaks. He lowered the fm of the yaks and when somebody complained about again he replied that he already lowered the fm and can't believe people want him the lower the fm much more. So he does change the game according to people's reaction. Not much but he does change it. I for one would always stick to accuracy.

Unfortunately, Oleg does not want or has no time to justify his actions. This does not help because we can't verify his informations...

Stef

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/avatar.jpg

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

Blackjack174
06-21-2004, 09:28 AM
"he lost hydraulic for his gears"

avtually its modelled in the game ! but with its so uncommon that i had allready forgotten about it completely until reading your sentence, on 3 occasions flying the old il2 and FB online i had a hydraulic failure and on 2 times i was able to extend the gears manually (keys like in the rata for manual gears up/down) , i think i needed 30 sec or so to do so each time...
i really wonder if there is any point to shot in all the new planes (and old ones) that gets you a hydraulic failure... or maybe it was buggy and trashed completely out of the sim ?!? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

WOLFMondo
06-21-2004, 09:48 AM
The problem I find with gun camera footage is we don't know the state of the A/C thats being shot at. It might be an older plane thats had allot of stress on the airframe so is weak, metal fatigue due to this or poor manufacture or build, lack of maintenance, the a/c could be previously damaged or put together from different a/c's that have crashed, it might have already taken a large round through a supporting structure like a wing spare and it just takes a few g's and 1 0.50 cal round to make the damage fatal Who knows, its very hard to say.

Theres also a chance of deflection. If your shooting an aerodynamic wing some rounds will simple slide of the metal rather than penetrate, thats a guess but it seems sound.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I think these damage models are about as good as they can be giving consideration to the various rigs and rthe current state of tecnology. I have not seen any that even come close to this.

http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html_vflyer@comcast.net_ http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat
http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html | http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/ | http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959 | http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm

_IMMERSION BABY!!_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree there, until BoB with its more complex aircraft in a newer engine (no doubt Oleg and team will look at all the short comings of the IL2 engine which is old) we have a pretty good DM as it is.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

Snuffy_Hadden
06-21-2004, 11:07 AM
I'm not as smart as a lot of people here appear to be, but let me ask this question.

Based on gun footage/first hand accounts, and as has been mentioned by Wolfmondo, what if a randomness was designed into the DM rather than an absolute?

I don't know how difficult a thing that would be to do ... but if the AI drew a random that would determine how a plane would react under attack and by what weapons, I think a simulation of the randomness of 10 to 100 shells in a plane could be engineered.

Any other thoughts on this?

*** "Proud Member of the White Star Protectorate Society!" ***

stef51
06-21-2004, 02:01 PM
Blackjack...

Actually your message made me look a little stupid because I also forgot about it... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

There are reports the sometimes the gear would go down to when you get hit and I don't think that's in the game. Would be great to. Though I imagine there are some kind of locking mechanism to prevent that,I imagine that too could be damaged...

Wolfy...

Yes all valid point. But then again, it's possible that the plane would be similar to what is in the game. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

But overall, I'm sure knowledgable people could be assigned to watch those footages and come up with something better than arguing over a hundred messages... People who saw real firing of ammunitions or things like that would surely have some expertise, or feelings that the footage was in fact very close to the truth or if there was someting fishy about it..


Snuffy...

We don't need smart or stupid people here, we need suggestions... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Since we don't have much ideas about how the dm works, I don't know if randomness is implemented. Judging Oleg's obsession with accurate datas. I'm sure the word randomnmess is not in his vocabulary... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

However, if a random dice could be implemented to a planes to simulate old or weak metal fatigue before a mission based by the year in which the mission is taking place then that's another thing. Especially in campaign mode; your plane would be more fragile from missions to missions. Of course, all of this would be a rare occasion but it would again be more realistic...

Stef

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sbmel/avatar.jpg

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

Philipscdrw
06-21-2004, 04:20 PM
I agree with Outlaw, better systems damage would be extremely welcome. Allegedly the He-111 gear was only held up by the hyraulic pressure, so when the hydraulic lines were hit the undercarriage would come down. I really really want to see that level of damage modelling.

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here (http://www.aerosociety.com/raes/news/SimReview.pdf) and discuss it here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

609IAP_Recon
06-21-2004, 10:10 PM
I think we'll need to look to BoB for that level of detail in DM.

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

Antisubs
06-26-2004, 03:08 AM
....randomness... ... random dice...

I can see something like that being useful in campaign mode, as suggested, but ceretainly not in online play. There are enough threads and whines now about sniper bomber gunners and AAA, and how "such and such uber plane outflew/outshot/outwhatever whiner's favorite plane which was clearly documented as being far superior, and did it while it's engine was on fire, to boot". All we need is another excuse to whine. We all want to consider ourselves "ace" pilots, and want to assume our plane is in perfect condition. Having a randomness factor arbitrarily kill us won't go over well with the community as a whole. I'll certainly take anything that knocks YOUR plane out of the air easier, but will scream bloody murder the first time it happens to ME.

Just my thoughts... :-)

Bearcat99
06-26-2004, 05:43 AM
I think Oleg dumbed down the Las and Yaks because they were over done.. and people proverd it. All the things you mentioned are in the sim as far as randomness.. just not as fully as some woyldlike but certainly more so than any other non professional sim on the market.. commercial or combat.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!