PDA

View Full Version : MG151/20 messed up? again?



XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 03:55 PM
I did some testing with the MG151/20s

The damage done in 1.11 is MUCH less than in Beta 07/08/09 and even far less than in V1.1b

Why was the MG151/20 changed in V1.11? To make planes "competitive" again or something?

Somebody stated in a thread i started some time ago that it took 10x20mm hits to knock out a fighter, but if that's so, then why does it only take twice as much rounds to knock out a plane many times bigger than a fighter (B-17 vs fighter)?

For the people that read German, here is a report on 20mm effectiveness

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe2/Bewaffnung/20mm_Geschoss.pdf


My own tests regarding damage incurred by various weapons platforms:
All shooting was done from the 6 o clock position at .30 (Convergence distance) and fired at the wing root.

Tests were done 3 times and results were averaged. (Deviation +- 1 counted hit)

Arcade = 1

Yak 9D vs Fw-190-A5 - counted 3.7 hits until critical damage occured (1x20mm starting from convergence distance until .25)
Fw-190-A5 vs Yak-9 - counted 10.3 hits until critical damage occured (4x20mm starting from convergence distance until .21)

Me-109 G6 vs La-5FN - counted 12 hits, no critical damage occured (1x20mm starting from convergence distance until .05)
La-5FN vs Me-109 G6 - counted 3.3 hits until critical damage occured (2x20mm starting from convergence distance until .20)

Critical damage = wing sawed off, football sized holes, loss of control surfaces, pilot kills, fuel tank hits (resulting in explosion).

Conclusion: The MG151/20 severly lacks penetration power, almost no blast damage occurence.



<center><img scr="http://www.angelfire.com/pe2/gryphon/tiger_s.jpg"></center>

<center>Take a look to the sky just before you die.. it's the last time you will!</center></br>



Message Edited on 10/19/0302:56PM by TiGeR-----

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 03:55 PM
I did some testing with the MG151/20s

The damage done in 1.11 is MUCH less than in Beta 07/08/09 and even far less than in V1.1b

Why was the MG151/20 changed in V1.11? To make planes "competitive" again or something?

Somebody stated in a thread i started some time ago that it took 10x20mm hits to knock out a fighter, but if that's so, then why does it only take twice as much rounds to knock out a plane many times bigger than a fighter (B-17 vs fighter)?

For the people that read German, here is a report on 20mm effectiveness

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe2/Bewaffnung/20mm_Geschoss.pdf


My own tests regarding damage incurred by various weapons platforms:
All shooting was done from the 6 o clock position at .30 (Convergence distance) and fired at the wing root.

Tests were done 3 times and results were averaged. (Deviation +- 1 counted hit)

Arcade = 1

Yak 9D vs Fw-190-A5 - counted 3.7 hits until critical damage occured (1x20mm starting from convergence distance until .25)
Fw-190-A5 vs Yak-9 - counted 10.3 hits until critical damage occured (4x20mm starting from convergence distance until .21)

Me-109 G6 vs La-5FN - counted 12 hits, no critical damage occured (1x20mm starting from convergence distance until .05)
La-5FN vs Me-109 G6 - counted 3.3 hits until critical damage occured (2x20mm starting from convergence distance until .20)

Critical damage = wing sawed off, football sized holes, loss of control surfaces, pilot kills, fuel tank hits (resulting in explosion).

Conclusion: The MG151/20 severly lacks penetration power, almost no blast damage occurence.



<center><img scr="http://www.angelfire.com/pe2/gryphon/tiger_s.jpg"></center>

<center>Take a look to the sky just before you die.. it's the last time you will!</center></br>



Message Edited on 10/19/0302:56PM by TiGeR-----

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 06:05 PM
This is one of things that will never be fixed permanently unless source code leaks and some sort of Falcon-like superpak is generated.

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 06:58 PM
Bump

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 07:04 PM
I don't understand the reasoning behind doing tests like this in the first place. The game is a fantastic game, so what if it isn't 100% accurate? It's no wonder Oleg is fed up. He and his team created one of the best WWII flight sims to hit the market, and people find even the smallest errors to exploite and complain about. There's nothing to gain by doing these so called tests, other than looking for something to complain about.

<font color=white font size="3" face="arial"LtCol. "Guns" CO
<font size="3"><font face="bd hanover">352nd Fighter Group </font> [VR]
<font face="bd hanover">328th Fighter Squadron</font>
<font><font color="#330099"><font size="5"><font face="brush script mt">"Second To None!"</font>

<font>[b]<font size="2" font color=black>[(HL)_352FG; (UBI) USAAF_352FG]: The<font><font color=#330099 face="brush script mt"font size="5">"First"</font><font color=black font size="2"> 352FG in IL-2FB</font>

"Take-offs are optional. Landings are mandatory."

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 07:16 PM
I expected a fanboy answer like this to show up very soon.

...so what if the Jugs roll rate is about the same of a coffeepot, so what if the 50 cals are waterpistols, so what if the turbo rpm gauge in the jug still doesn't work after tons of requests and many moons....

Get my drift?

If it don't matter that it's 100% accurate, or even 80% accurate, then somebody tell oleg to stop advertising things like "the most accurate historical flightsim every created" on the box.

Gun damage is one of the most important things in a COMBAT sim, so i'd like to see it corrected thank you.

Regards




<center><img scr="http://www.angelfire.com/pe2/gryphon/tiger_s.jpg"></center>

<center>Take a look to the sky just before you die.. it's the last time you will!</center></br>

Message Edited on 10/19/0306:17PM by TiGeR-----

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 08:00 PM
I love this game and can live with it, makes it harder to be axis/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 09:19 PM
I think he's right, depending on the amount of inaccuracy though. The question is, how far off is the damage of the MG151/20 from the real thing? If it's something like 20% off, I think USAAF352_PE_C is absolutely right and you should shut the fneb up and go enjoy the game, because it ain't gonna get any better. If it's something more like 50% off, then you have a point and can ask for this to be fixed.

By the way: funny thing, but I find the Jug's .50's pretty damn awesome.

Also, Oleg did not lie on the box about "the most accurate
- historical flightsim every created". Show me a more accurate WWII flight sim, and I'll show you why you're wrong.

TiGeR----- wrote:
- I expected a fanboy answer like this to show up very
- soon.
-
- ...so what if the Jugs roll rate is about the same
- of a coffeepot, so what if the 50 cals are
- waterpistols, so what if the turbo rpm gauge in the
- jug still doesn't work after tons of requests and
- many moons....
-
- Get my drift?
-
- If it don't matter that it's 100% accurate, or even
- 80% accurate, then somebody tell oleg to stop
- advertising things like "the most accurate
- historical flightsim every created" on the box.
-
- Gun damage is one of the most important things in a
- COMBAT sim, so i'd like to see it corrected thank
- you.
-
- Regards
-
-
-
-
-
- <center><img
- scr="http://www.angelfire.com/pe2/gryphon/tiger_s.
- jpg"></center>
-
- <center>Take a look to the sky just before you die..
- it's the last time you will!</center></br>
-
- Message Edited on 10/19/03 06:17PM by
- TiGeR-----



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

Buzz_25th
10-19-2003, 09:29 PM
Tiger,

Maybe if you show some tracks it will have more meaning. I know if I give the La7 a short burst from an A5 it blows up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg