PDA

View Full Version : Damage model of G-50 and PZL-11?



lesterhawksby
10-02-2008, 03:52 AM
I've been flying the sim's earliest planes recently and am getting a little puzzled by one thing. Every other aircraft I shoot at with machine guns shows holes all over it, leaks streams of fuel, and all the rest. G-50s and PZL-11s I know I'm hitting - there are sparks and fragments fall off - but then the planes fly on looking factory-fresh. This even after that Fiat's been on the receiving end of my Gladiator's entire bucket of ammunition from 150m.

Offline, the only time I've ever seen one of these fiends die is when I can force the AI to panic into the ground. I quite enjoy doing this but where are the bullet holes/flames/smoke/fuel leaks/explosions? Are my settings wrong or is something up with my game? (4.09b, no mods)

x6BL_Brando
10-02-2008, 05:25 AM
I've knocked down both a few times and they do register damage, though I agree that a) they're difficult to down, and b) they don't have particularly well-modelled visuals for damage. Usually the P11 will produce smoke from a damaged engine, and iirc the best way to bring down the G50 is by damaging the rudder and elevators. Both are vulnerable to a well-placed burst in the cockpit area.

It may be that damage from .303 isn't particularly well-modelled. Make sure your convergence is set for your preferred firing distance too, and try to achieve merging passes rather than blazing away from the 6 o'clock position.

B

M_Gunz
10-02-2008, 11:43 AM
Damage graphic is not damage model. And some of the models are not as good as others.

Best way to tell is fly one and have someone else shoot it up then see how it handles/works.

Lurch1962
10-02-2008, 07:45 PM
I too have noticed a rather large range in visual detail from plane to plane where the representation of damage is concerned. Most planes can show damage textures all over their frames, and *especially* for some, holes you can see sky through (Yay!). So it's doubly disappointing when the relatively small number of other planes look virtually factory-fresh for lack of textures, even when the damage model has them on the verge of spontaneously disintegrating into wreckage.

WTE_Galway
10-02-2008, 07:50 PM
Yep what you see is not necessarily a reflection of how much damage you have done.

That said, the p11c is oddly tough. I have had a number of cases of mid air collisions with 109's where the p11c has ripped a wing off or cut the fuselage in half and flown on unscathed.

They do lose the wheels in a dive at 500 kmh though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Which is 50 kmh less than the rated Vne for the p11c.

Kocur_
10-03-2008, 12:00 AM
That would be exactly 196 km/h lower according to the P.11c manual.

P.11c should be as easy to be downed by PK or controlls kill as any plane with no armour.
When it comes to fuel fire, the main tank in fuselage could be dropped, which would leave small auxiliary tank in right wing root. Dropping tank would be useless if the airframe aluminium cough fire, but if that hadn't yet happen, it did work, as there are examples from September 1939 when P.11c pilots dropped burning tanks and landed.

As much as airframe is concerned, accidentally P.11c was tough bulit. "Accidentally" because it was derived from P.7a, which was the very first serial fast plane by the PZL and in far less than perfect knowledge on stresses at then-high speeds, they overbuilt it, just to be sure. When P.24 was designed they just took P.7/P.11 wings even though the GR14K engine was heavier than Bristol Jupiter and Mercury, after finding out in static test, that those wings load factor was 19 g (and 12.8 g in heavier P.24).
Above certainly does not mean that P.11c should leave undamaged from crash with Fw 190! It just means than catastrophic failures of P.11c (a crap plane but entirely metal built - including control surfaces skinning) should be expected to be far less often than more carefully built planes, say Japanese fighters.

WTE_Galway
10-03-2008, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
That would be exactly 196 km/h lower according to the P.11c manual.

P.11c should be as easy to be downed by PK or controlls kill as any plane with no armour.
When it comes to fuel fire, the main tank in fuselage could be dropped, which would leave small auxiliary tank in right wing root. Dropping tank would be useless if the airframe aluminium cough fire, but if that hadn't yet happen, it did work, as there are examples from September 1939 when P.11c pilots dropped burning tanks and landed.

As much as airframe is concerned, accidentally P.11c was tough bulit. "Accidentally" because it was derived from P.7a, which was the very first serial fast plane by the PZL and in far less than perfect knowledge on stresses at then-high speeds, they overbuilt it, just to be sure. When P.24 was designed they just took P.7/P.11 wings even though the GR14K engine was heavier than Bristol Jupiter and Mercury, after finding out in static test, that those wings load factor was 19 g (and 12.8 g in heavier P.24).
Above certainly does not mean that P.11c should leave undamaged from crash with Fw 190! It just means than catastrophic failures of P.11c (a crap plane but entirely metal built - including control surfaces skinning) should be expected to be far less often than more carefully built planes, say Japanese fighters.

A Vne of 696 kmh ? That is impressive indeed. You definitely do not keep your wheels at anything like that speed in game.

Feathered_IV
10-03-2008, 02:04 AM
The P.11c has two low res/low detail .tga's that represent the visual damage. It has not seen any kind of enhancement over the years. Unlike some, such as the I-16. Below are the 2 tga's in question. If you were to overlay them on top of a P.11c skin, you'd see exactly where they occur.

Now if anyone cared to make them look a bit more pretty.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/damage2o-2.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/damage1o.jpg

Kocur_
10-03-2008, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
A Vne of 696 kmh ? That is impressive indeed. You definitely do not keep your wheels at anything like that speed in game.

Oleg was approached by Polish community with proofs, namely the manual, but the answer was along usual "be sure" lines.

lesterhawksby
10-03-2008, 03:23 AM
Thanks for all the answers!

I hadn't realised there could be that much of a disconnect between visible damage and recorded damage. Some of those crashes I saw might actually have been caused by my damage after all.

Brando, you're right about sitting on people's sixes (at least with .303 - works just fine with 37mm :-) and I admit the "entire bucket of ammunition" situation was like that, but my diagonal passes don't seem to achieve much either. (On many planes tail-sitting can do an awful lot of *visible* skin damage without knocking out anything important!)

Feathered, your posting of the damage texture is impressive, thank you. I wonder if the .303s on these early planes aren't triggering the damage texture as readily?

WTE-Galway, it's interesting to hear about the collisions - I was once surprised to take an enemy's wing off at the root, with the tip of my P-11's own, in a near-miss situation. I never tried to repeat the feat!

Thanks everyone. I'll keep experimenting.

Kwiatos
10-03-2008, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
A Vne of 696 kmh ? That is impressive indeed. You definitely do not keep your wheels at anything like that speed in game.

Oleg was approached by Polish community with proofs, namely the manual, but the answer was along usual "be sure" lines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea Oleg dont belive that P-11 coud dive faster then russian birds such like Lagg3 dont even mention Chaika or I-16.
RL P-11 has very short take off run and great maximum dive speed but in game P11 taking off like the Ju52 and in dive the engine is broken at 450 km/h http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

DKoor
10-03-2008, 12:26 PM
I remember also MC.202 as being insane in this regard (tough DM).
But truth to be told, I think they just have old DM (not updated).
Can't be sure tho...

WOLFPLAYER2007
10-03-2008, 09:43 PM
In the mc.202 you can see the damage like holes and all when they got hit, italian planes are very dificult to bring down in this game, i already noted this, if you are flying around with a plane equipped with only machineguns, you will have a lot of time to take'em out, especially the older ones like the Fiat g.50 and the mc.200.

lesterhawksby
10-04-2008, 02:59 AM
I noted that the CR.42 biplane is very tough, but I have no problems covering it with visible bullet holes - it just keeps flying. As it is a simple but wellbuilt plane with its vulnerable parts highly concentrated, I'm ok with this - it behaves more or less as I expect when attacked with 303. The total lack of apparent damage on the G.50 was much more of a surprise!

Heliopause
10-04-2008, 03:10 AM
I happen to have a GRAB pic about this Veltro wing:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/PauseHelio/Veltrowing.jpg

lesterhawksby
10-09-2008, 07:14 AM
Well, I've had the chance to do a few tests and come to the conclusion that the damage paint is fine - it just rarely gets triggered by a pair of 303-size machine guns! Put any of the machines I wondered about up against a more destructive plane and all is revealed :-)

http://pics.livejournal.com/raygungothic/pic/000f7ar8

(I'm learning to skin; this is the basecoat of my first-ever, very plain colour paintjob - markings and decoration turned off - utterly rough and unfinished but it showed up the damage very clearly!)