PDA

View Full Version : P40B-C damage model



Widowmaker214
01-22-2007, 10:44 PM
When we got 1946, I and my squad mates were very excited about running some Flying Tiger campaigns. So after recieving the game I made a couple with DCG. P40B/Cs and tomahawks vs A5Ms, KI21s, 27s Ki-43s....

Now, we are not so excited about it.
Could someone look into the P40B/Cs and Tomahawks?
They are like flying a tissue box. In a majority of flights we end up pilot killed or the engine shot out on the first burst applied. A very high HIGH rate of hits end in catastrophic failure of some sort. a pilot death , severe engine damage or your controls shot out.
the A5Ms are RUTHLESS pilot killers.
At any rate.. so much for our Flying TIger campaigns.

Widowmaker214
01-22-2007, 10:44 PM
When we got 1946, I and my squad mates were very excited about running some Flying Tiger campaigns. So after recieving the game I made a couple with DCG. P40B/Cs and tomahawks vs A5Ms, KI21s, 27s Ki-43s....

Now, we are not so excited about it.
Could someone look into the P40B/Cs and Tomahawks?
They are like flying a tissue box. In a majority of flights we end up pilot killed or the engine shot out on the first burst applied. A very high HIGH rate of hits end in catastrophic failure of some sort. a pilot death , severe engine damage or your controls shot out.
the A5Ms are RUTHLESS pilot killers.
At any rate.. so much for our Flying TIger campaigns.

JG52Karaya-X
01-23-2007, 01:56 AM
1) The early P40s didnt have a lot of pilot armour and/or armoured glass so it is perfectly possible to get killed by those planes.

2) It has an inline engine, in FB most of these (except the Russian concrete engines) will die and/or cough smoke or fire after taking just a few rifle caliber rounds, try a Bf109 or Spitfire or Mustang and get shot into the engine...

3) You were flying against the AI and depending on which skill-level it is set it has a deadly aim (on Veteran and Ace settings that is) so dont let yourself get shot at in the first place.

4) In my experience the P40B/C are quite sturdy, much more so than the Bf109s and Spitfires and do not suffer structural failures that often.

XyZspineZyX
01-23-2007, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
When we got 1946, I and my squad mates were very excited about running some Flying Tiger campaigns. So after recieving the game I made a couple with DCG. P40B/Cs and tomahawks vs A5Ms, KI21s, 27s Ki-43s....

Now, we are not so excited about it.
Could someone look into the P40B/Cs and Tomahawks?
They are like flying a tissue box. In a majority of flights we end up pilot killed or the engine shot out on the first burst applied. A very high HIGH rate of hits end in catastrophic failure of some sort. a pilot death , severe engine damage or your controls shot out.
the A5Ms are RUTHLESS pilot killers.
At any rate.. so much for our Flying TIger campaigns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, no worries about A5Ms- the Flying Tigers didn't face them. Or A6Ms for that matter. The AVG fought the Japanese Army, not Navy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Next, although I'm fairly convinced the P-40B and the H81A-2 are exactly the same plane in the sim, fly the H81A-2 for testing, instead of P-40B and/or C, simply for the reason that on one hand, it removes the variables you are introducing by use of the B or C model, and on the other, the H81A-2 is by default supposed to be our 'Flying Tiger' aircraft

Next: well the object is not to get shot, obviously. If the engine dies, you can sometimes re=start it.

You've done a little testing. A few days' worth? A week's worth?

I've been doing this testing with this plane since we got Pacific Fighters over a year ago http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI've shot down hundreds and hundreds of AI planes with the H81A-2, and been hit LOTS of times too. I've been flying this bird almost exclusively for 14 months or so, almost every day

The object is not to allow your tank-like Flying Tigers plane to absorb damage while you bore in on the target

A5M- don't use this plane in your planeset. I don't know why you feel they fought the AVG, perhaps it's because of Ki-27s with the canopies removed

Ki-21- attacks against the Ki-21 are easy. if you attack from high up on either side, dive down and fire at close range, then allow your speed advantage to carrty you out of defensive fire range, the Ki-21 CANNOT harm you

Ki-27- your advantages are firepower and SPEED. Do NOT turn with this fighter more than it takes to correct your aim. Stay FAST and keep him in SIGHT. he is slow to accelerate after climbing- exploit it. Use rolling scissors if you are trapped- your roll rate is quite good

Ki-43- you can actually get away with dogfighting this plane for breif periods, but don't get too slow, or he will out accelerate you if you try to leave the turn-fight. Try rolling scissors as above

Other planes:

"Ki-48"- substitute the SB2M-100a. The Ki-48 was based on this plane to a fair degree. This bomber has a blind spot in it's dead six, if you have the nerve and skill to exploit it

"Ki-49"- substitute the DB3-F. Similar aircraft. Easy to set wings on fire

Use the tactics Claire Chennault taught his pilots. I don't know how you are trying to fight these enemies but you are likely matching your weak points to their strong ones instead of vice-versa

"Dive, Squirt, Pass, Run" was Chennault's doctrine. Try it out-

Dive from superior altitude

Squirt lead all over the target. Don't miss

Pass underneath the target at speed. Don't stay and fight

Run away and regain altitude advantage

Widowmaker214
01-23-2007, 08:53 AM
Excuse me? You don't know why I feel the AVG fought A5Ms. First of all, you can get off your high horse. I never SAID I believed that. But I did add them for variety. I never claimed this was a 100% accurate campaign. You and your infinite wisdom assumed that on your own. Then in nearly the same breath you turn around and tell me what planes I CAN use as replacements? Please, take the realism police badge elsewhere.
Its amazing the attitudes of some people on here.
Ok buddy. Yeah.. we tested it ALOT. How is that. More than a week. That enough for you?
Im sorry that our testing has not been up to your standards.
The tips on flying are funny. Thank you, I didn't know the object was to not get shot.
Yes you are so right. We dont really have your mentality and we are LIKELY, as you so put it, unware of these aircraft and are flying to thier strong points.
Thanks God. You figured it all out for us.

This place is turning out to be quite like SimHQ.
A bunch of persona non grata that like to stomp around with a condesending tone.

JG52Karaya-X
01-23-2007, 09:16 AM
Well why do you think the P40s damage model needs to be looked at?

Because you can get pilot-killed by machine gun bursts in it? Same for most or all planes of its time frame.

Because the engine dies out or lights on fire easily? So do most inline engine except the magic russian engines.

Again the problem is that you were flying against the AI which has a very good aim at higher settings and almost always hits something vital with its bursts.

As for the request: Up to now you've only expresses feelings and thoughts, nothing that holds anything substantial. The P40 is perfectly ok regarding its sturdiness (compared to other planes in its class)

Tater-SW-
01-23-2007, 09:40 AM
Widowmaker, no need to get defensive. You pointed out that the A5Ms were ruthless PKers, and that was part of the reason your AVG campaigns were now off the table. A suggestion to remove them for that reason on top of history seems like a good idea. The guy who responded to you is the author of When Tigers Could Fly, the (excellent) AVG campaign made before we had all the right planes---which is where his plane substitution suggestions come from. His new version, White Sun, Blue Sky, with all the new planes is probably the most anticipated campaign for Il-2 right now by far. He's the resident AVG expert.

On topic, I have always thought the DM for many of the US planes is flawed. You can certainly survive in them if you fly BnZ, but AI gunners, particularly at higher skill levels are snipers, tis true. The USN version are the Grummans, look at them funny and they lose aileron control. To a certain extent the only work-around is to do as suggested---slashing attacks that don't give AI gunners a solution since the first hit has a good chance of mission-killing the aircraft (this is true for many/most planes in Il-2, IMO, not just the P-40s).

The AI is a big issue as well since they cheat (no blackouts, dive limits, etc). For your campaign (coop?) I might suggest lowering the AI skill levels (can DCG do %s at different skills?).

Widowmaker214
01-23-2007, 10:07 AM
Yes, exactly. That was a simple request really.
It is not like we are new to this sim or flying in general. Our observations were that it seemed way to easily neutralized. A single plink or two and the aircraft is rendered useless far too often. And that is as well compared to our flying of other inline engined aircraft. The P39/400, The P40E/M, even the P51. As well the AI was not set to the higher skill rates. On ACE they are cockpit drillers. So we tend to back off that for those reasons in campaign flights.

"As for the request: Up to now you've only expresses feelings and thoughts, nothing that holds anything substantial. The P40 is perfectly ok regarding its sturdiness (compared to other planes in its class)"

This.. is a simulation. What do you want thats substantial??? All you can go on is your feelings and thoughts from flying it.

This is one of the few aircraft I've taken notice of. Certain aircraft seem prone to certain types of damage more than others. Early P47s seem to loose thier control surfaces more easily than others. (though that seems to change once you get to the bubble canopied version). A bullet in the top tank of the P51 ends your afternoon, though that was always a problem with that engine.
Our observations were simply that it seems this aircraft suffered catostrophic failure far to easily.

XyZspineZyX
01-23-2007, 10:20 AM
Hmmm

From your reply, I honestly have to ask myself whether you're looking for help, or whether you want me to nod in agreement and say, "Yep, the plane is wrong"

Let's go through your reply, and I hope I can clarify some things for you

Excuse me? You don't know why I feel the AVG fought A5Ms. First of all, you can get off your high horse.

No excuses needed. I also can't see how you get worked up over this; it was "fact" at one time that the AVG fought A5Ms. As I noted, this was a case of mis-identification, and the planes were in reality Ki-27s. Deletion of the A5M solves some of your problems, but it seems to me you'd rather yell at me about it than address the trouble. I made the mistake of thinking you knew this; however, you express concern over making "Flying Tiger scenarios" so, this is where I get the impression you've made a mistake- from your description

I never SAID I believed that. But I did add them for variety. I never claimed this was a 100% accurate campaign

Yup, you never said that. Add what you like for variety, but bear in mind that fighting the A5M is going to need the same tactics as fighting the Ki-27, a plane you also have trouble with it seems, and a plane I also already attempted to give you tips for fighting

You and your infinite wisdom assumed that on your own

Not hardly; I got this from your statement, quote: "I and my squad mates were very excited about running some Flying Tiger campaigns". Now, you are asking me to do some assuming right now: you want me to read that statement and understand you mean "I and my squad mates were very excited about running some Flying Tiger campaigns that are based on some variations of actual events". I do the same thing as you do in this regard, but in a different way. But when I read "Flying Tiger Campaign" and "A5M" in the same sentrnce, I point out the possibility of a mistake; which I did. Incidentally, that was help you out- removing the plane that's causing this trouble is not only historically accurate, it simplifies your overall trouble. If you notice, I never said anything like "hey dummy, they didn't fight that plane", but instead I explained why you could discard it from your planeset.


Then in nearly the same breath you turn around and tell me what planes I CAN use as replacements? Please, take the realism police badge elsewhere.

I like this one. I gave you input on planes you might use, you don't like it, so now I'm the enemy. I'm giving you options and reasons to do, or to not do things. But you see this as me telling you what's what and what you should do

Its amazing the attitudes of some people on here.

I'll take "Irony" for $2000, Alex

Ok buddy. Yeah.. we tested it ALOT. How is that. More than a week. That enough for you?

No. Because you obviously are still doing it wrong. I suggested you try the real tactics, but that's not good enough for you, buddy, so until you test and test and test until you find the tactics used in real life work, then no, it's not enough for me buddy. The sim isn't going to get changed just so you can use bad tactics to win an aerial fight, I'm sorry. You never give a SINGLE indication of what's the specific problem, you just complain that the DM of the P-40B and C is too weak. Well not only don't you prove that at all even though you could be right, you also don't seem to take into consideration that your first mistake is to use tactics that get you SHOT in the first place! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Have I stressed that enough? I told you already how to fight the Ki-21 so that you will NOT get shot, for example. In fact, I gave MUCH more info on how to fight these planes than you did on what the problems are

Im sorry that our testing has not been up to your standards.

Me too. If they were, you'd know how to win these engagements. I've given you the basic info that was really used in real life, and it really works. Not using the info is YOUR problem, not mine. if you insist on 'mixing it up' with A5Ms or Ki-27s and you get shot down, who's fault was it? Mine? Your tactics are to blame- if you are getting shot, take it as a hint that you're doing something wrong!

The tips on flying are funny. Thank you, I didn't know the object was to not get shot.

Obviously you don't know it; you seem to not grasp the concept

Yes you are so right. We dont really have your mentality

You mean, the mentality to win the fight by denying the enemy a chance to do the same? Obviously we agree


we are LIKELY, as you so put it, unware of these aircraft and are flying to thier strong points.

True again. If you were aware, you wouldn't present your opponents with all the advantages while hamstringing yourself

Thanks God

An understandable case of mistaken Identity. God's actually better looking than me. If you can't take criticism when it's constructive, don't ask for help. You are disappointed that you can't tool around and squash the japs with your preconceived notions of how to fight. that's YOUR failing, not mine. When I know how to solve the problem and you don't want to hear it, that's not me being God, that's you displaying your arrogance and ignorance

You figured it all out for us

Wrong again. Claire Lee Chennault figured it out before the Flying Tigers ever flew. He was right, and these are his tactics, not mine. They also work, and until you try them out, you will deal with frustration flying these scenarios. When you perform them right, especially with human squadmates instead of AI, you'll have much better results. I can't understand why you let the enemy do these things to you- you are supposed to do things to them. Keep them under your thumb. Don't let them use their strengths. If you don't know their capabilities and you don't know your own, how can you choose tactics? This goes back to testing- no, you haven't done enough. You don't even know what your enemy's machines can do, obviously!

This place is turning out to be quite like SimHQ

Disagree. If it were, there would be cryptic replies galore. I'm giving you the straight dope, you just don't want to hear it

A bunch of persona non grata that like to stomp around with a condesending tone.

Unjustly accused, since I despise that quality of the HQ. They like to feel very superior and elite, while slinging mud. The only condescending tone here is yours. If you run through this thread again, I have given you all the tools you need to succeed in these scnarios, no matter how you wish to play- realistic, semi-realistic, or non-realistic, doesn't matter, I've given you the tools

If that ever dawns on you, ask yourself why I bothered to give you all those tools. Was it because I wanted to put you down, or was it because I wanted to help you out

Telling you off is easy. I could have done it in one sentence.

Helping you out is hard, especially if you don't want to get the help.

msalama
01-23-2007, 11:25 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif @ Chuck

JG52Karaya-X
01-23-2007, 11:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

AVGWarhawk
01-23-2007, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Hmmm

From your reply, I honestly have to ask myself whether you're looking for help, or whether you want me to nod in agreement and say, "Yep, the plane is wrong"

Let's go through your reply, and I hope I can clarify some things for you

Excuse me? You don't know why I feel the AVG fought A5Ms. First of all, you can get off your high horse.

No excuses needed. I also can't see how you get worked up over this; it was "fact" at one time that the AVG fought A5Ms. As I noted, this was a case of mis-identification, and the planes were in reality Ki-27s. Deletion of the A5M solves some of your problems, but it seems to me you'd rather yell at me about it than address the trouble. I made the mistake of thinking you knew this; however, you express concern over making "Flying Tiger scenarios" so, this is where I get the impression you've made a mistake- from your description

I never SAID I believed that. But I did add them for variety. I never claimed this was a 100% accurate campaign

Yup, you never said that. Add what you like for variety, but bear in mind that fighting the A5M is going to need the same tactics as fighting the Ki-27, a plane you also have trouble with it seems, and a plane I also already attempted to give you tips for fighting

You and your infinite wisdom assumed that on your own

Not hardly; I got this from your statement, quote: "I and my squad mates were very excited about running some Flying Tiger campaigns". Now, you are asking me to do some assuming right now: you want me to read that statement and understand you mean "I and my squad mates were very excited about running some Flying Tiger campaigns that are based on some variations of actual events". I do the same thing as you do in this regard, but in a different way. But when I read "Flying Tiger Campaign" and "A5M" in the same sentrnce, I point out the possibility of a mistake; which I did. Incidentally, that was help you out- removing the plane that's causing this trouble is not only historically accurate, it simplifies your overall trouble. If you notice, I never said anything like "hey dummy, they didn't fight that plane", but instead I explained why you could discard it from your planeset.


Then in nearly the same breath you turn around and tell me what planes I CAN use as replacements? Please, take the realism police badge elsewhere.

I like this one. I gave you input on planes you might use, you don't like it, so now I'm the enemy. I'm giving you options and reasons to do, or to not do things. But you see this as me telling you what's what and what you should do

Its amazing the attitudes of some people on here.

I'll take "Irony" for $2000, Alex

Ok buddy. Yeah.. we tested it ALOT. How is that. More than a week. That enough for you?

No. Because you obviously are still doing it wrong. I suggested you try the real tactics, but that's not good enough for you, buddy, so until you test and test and test until you find the tactics used in real life work, then no, it's not enough for me buddy. The sim isn't going to get changed just so you can use bad tactics to win an aerial fight, I'm sorry. You never give a SINGLE indication of what's the specific problem, you just complain that the DM of the P-40B and C is too weak. Well not only don't you prove that at all even though you could be right, you also don't seem to take into consideration that your first mistake is to use tactics that get you SHOT in the first place! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Have I stressed that enough? I told you already how to fight the Ki-21 so that you will NOT get shot, for example. In fact, I gave MUCH more info on how to fight these planes than you did on what the problems are

Im sorry that our testing has not been up to your standards.

Me too. If they were, you'd know how to win these engagements. I've given you the basic info that was really used in real life, and it really works. Not using the info is YOUR problem, not mine. if you insist on 'mixing it up' with A5Ms or Ki-27s and you get shot down, who's fault was it? Mine? Your tactics are to blame- if you are getting shot, take it as a hint that you're doing something wrong!

The tips on flying are funny. Thank you, I didn't know the object was to not get shot.

Obviously you don't know it; you seem to not grasp the concept

Yes you are so right. We dont really have your mentality

You mean, the mentality to win the fight by denying the enemy a chance to do the same? Obviously we agree


we are LIKELY, as you so put it, unware of these aircraft and are flying to thier strong points.

True again. If you were aware, you wouldn't present your opponents with all the advantages while hamstringing yourself

Thanks God

An understandable case of mistaken Identity. God's actually better looking than me. If you can't take criticism when it's constructive, don't ask for help. You are disappointed that you can't tool around and squash the japs with your preconceived notions of how to fight. that's YOUR failing, not mine. When I know how to solve the problem and you don't want to hear it, that's not me being God, that's you displaying your arrogance and ignorance

You figured it all out for us

Wrong again. Claire Lee Chennault figured it out before the Flying Tigers ever flew. He was right, and these are his tactics, not mine. They also work, and until you try them out, you will deal with frustration flying these scenarios. When you perform them right, especially with human squadmates instead of AI, you'll have much better results. I can't understand why you let the enemy do these things to you- you are supposed to do things to them. Keep them under your thumb. Don't let them use their strengths. If you don't know their capabilities and you don't know your own, how can you choose tactics? This goes back to testing- no, you haven't done enough. You don't even know what your enemy's machines can do, obviously!

This place is turning out to be quite like SimHQ

Disagree. If it were, there would be cryptic replies galore. I'm giving you the straight dope, you just don't want to hear it

A bunch of persona non grata that like to stomp around with a condesending tone.

Unjustly accused, since I despise that quality of the HQ. They like to feel very superior and elite, while slinging mud. The only condescending tone here is yours. If you run through this thread again, I have given you all the tools you need to succeed in these scnarios, no matter how you wish to play- realistic, semi-realistic, or non-realistic, doesn't matter, I've given you the tools

If that ever dawns on you, ask yourself why I bothered to give you all those tools. Was it because I wanted to put you down, or was it because I wanted to help you out

Telling you off is easy. I could have done it in one sentence.

Helping you out is hard, especially if you don't want to get the help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You da man!!!!! Check out my sign on name and you will see why I agree with every statement in his previous post and this retort to a over-driven hormonal responding participant in this discussion....

chris455
01-23-2007, 01:13 PM
I think it's unfortunate that this thread has developed the way it has.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Everything Chuck (oops, excuse me, Chris http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) has said is perfectly true, and the tactics DO work- but, much of what the original poster wrote is also valid,(except the personal stuff) to wit:
The P-40 is certainly no shoe-in for the "best fighter of WWII" nomination. In fact, the word "mediocre" is oftentimes associated with it. It can be argued that it's main asset was simply it's availability in large numbers, followed by it's ruggedness.

And it is in the area of ruggedness that I find it's modeling to be it's least realistic aspect.

In fact, it sometimes seems as though it's damage model more closely emulates what one would expect from it's far more lightly built Japanese adversaries! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I know, I know. Many aircraft in FB suffer from glass jaws when it come to engine damage. Even the mighty P-47 can be annoying to fly when a handful of rifle caliber hits put it (and YOU) out of commission.

But I think the complaints are valid and serve to remind us that there remains much to do- and hope for- in the field of realistic combat flight sims.

So, boiled to it's essence, my point is: be prepared to learn- and teach- tactics that give us ascendancy over the enemy while at the same time, be willing to at least acknowledge that in some ways, we still have a long way to go before we reach a level of realistic modeling wherein complaints like this are few and far between.

Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised when SoW BoB arrives. I hope so.

In the meantime....I think I'm going to go strap on a Hawk 81A2 and take down a coupla Ki-27s over the Burma map.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


Peace,
Chris

mynameisroland
01-23-2007, 01:33 PM
Everything the origional poster has said about the P40 b and c can be levelled at the Hurricane too. As someone here has already said all early war non VVS inline fighters are very vulnerable.

AVGWarhawk
01-23-2007, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, boiled to it's essence, my point is: be prepared to learn- and teach- tactics that give us ascendancy over the enemy while at the same time, be willing to at least acknowledge that in some ways, we still have a long way to go before we reach a level of realistic modeling wherein complaints like this are few and far between. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This will never happen because we are using numbers to simulate real world dynamics. Can we get close? Sure. Can we satisfy everyone with the FM? It will never happen. Sometimes you just have to say, 'It is what it is'. What I find funny are the arguments that this plane did this and this plane had flown like this, etc etc. How do you know? Did any of them get in the seat and take off with one? They certainly did not. Furthermore, there are no real world effects on engine performance in the game. I do not think Oleg considered ambient air temps, mass air pressure etc. These have great affect on engine performance. There are just to many variables in real life as opposed to a world of numbers, colors and a computer chair we are flying in. This issue has gone on for 5 years and I just love hearing from all the "arm chair experts" on these planes and the performance of each. I find it to be a real hoot.

VW-IceFire
01-23-2007, 04:32 PM
I posted this two or three months ago and nobody took note. I figured nobody else cared. The DM for the P-40B, P-40C, Tommahawk IIb, Tommahawk IIc, and Hawk 81 are all fairly weak to enemy fire. Even 7.7mm machine guns will disable these guys in a quick burst. It seems very weak for a fairly well built plane (minus armor and plus the vulnerable inline engine). Its got engine insta-stop behavior too.

I guess we're doing well that less common/less used aircraft are now the subject of debate.

chris455
01-23-2007, 05:26 PM
I agree IceFire,
I entered into a fairly good amount of dialogue with either Oleg or Ilya via e-mail shortly after the release of 3.0 on this very subject, the P-40's one shot kill engine. I used a scenario with a P-40B vs Val gunners. 1C said they were "unable to re-create" the problem. After the release of 3.01, the P40B it seemed was a bit more robust, but now, all seem to be very vulnerable to any kind of damage from the front. Taking fire From the rear, a very different profile emerges, one that is much more believable. Maybe when and if the source code is released at some future time, these issues will at long last be addressed. I prefer to remain positive about it. This sim never ceases to spring a surprise or two on the community. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JamesBlonde888
01-23-2007, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
They are like flying a tissue box. In a majority of flights we end up pilot killed or the engine shot out on the first burst applied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um I thought this was normal, it happens to me every time I get hit flying anything in this game. I never lose a wing or big damage always just enough to kill the pilot, engine or controls. I just figured that this is what happens when you get hit by bullets. Even though the a/c I shoot at seem to absorb damage like they were Flying Tigers (Tanks that is, pardon the pun)

Nimits
01-23-2007, 10:49 PM
My reading about P-40 combats leads me to believe the P-40 DM is at least plausible relative to the rest of the Il-2 plane set. The liquid-cooled engine was something of a glass jaw on the Warhawk in head-on or air-to-ground runs, as it was to one extent or another in just about any fighter powered by liquid-cooled engines. It is just that the sometimes hyper-accuracy of AI gunners and fighters shooting at you head on tends to exagerate this weakness.

The real travesties in US DMs are radial-engined P-47, F4U, F4F, and F6F. Their radial engines could take serious damage and continue operating at least well enough to get the pilot home, and sometimes even allowing them to stay in the combat area. In the sim through 4.06 (have not flown much 4.07 yet, but I suspect it has not changed), the radial engines seemed to be just as vulnerable to damage as inline engines. Not to metion I have never read anything indicating a particular vulnerability of the ailerons or aileron controls in the F4F and F6F, yet in the sim one often loses them on the first hit.

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Widowmaker214:
This place is turning out to be quite like SimHQ.
A bunch of persona non grata that like to stomp around with a condesending tone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No better indictment on ya than that.

Face it dude... it's you with the problem.

JG52Karaya-X
01-24-2007, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I posted this two or three months ago and nobody took note. I figured nobody else cared. The DM for the P-40B, P-40C, Tommahawk IIb, Tommahawk IIc, and Hawk 81 are all fairly weak to enemy fire. Even 7.7mm machine guns will disable these guys in a quick burst. It seems very weak for a fairly well built plane (minus armor and plus the vulnerable inline engine). Its got engine insta-stop behavior too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Ice, but the main point is thats its relative sturdiness compared to say the Bf109s and Spitfires is ok, if it got changed we would have to change those as well. If you guys moan about how "weak" the P40 is then you havent flown a 109 in a long time...

FritzGryphon
01-24-2007, 03:44 AM
I think it'd be prudent to not make any assumptions from past exerience, and test such things from a fresh perspective before answering.

Because when one lines up P-40s next to 109s, and hoses them down with a 30cal tailgun, the P-40 engines do actually die quicker than 109.

I'd post a track, but I don't think anyone would look. Please, the next time anyone replies to a thread, even one that seems like an usubstantiated whine, do your own test. It takes all of 2 minutes to do this, and you will end up with an opinion that isn't based on a handful of objective online fights.

I'm not trying to be insulting or judgemental, but far too often these kinds of discussions degenerate into un-constructive ego matches.

There -is- something useful to be learned in any observation of the game, things you can apply to your own style of playing. But that's only if you test, and in accurate, controlled conditions. Forming a bias and arguing it without thinking doesn't help you play the game better.
---------------------

Anyway, I tested P-40B and 109G2 relative engine durability to 30cal from G4M.

Range 50m. The target was the center of the exhaust stacks. An engine 'kill' is a propeller stoppage, black smoke, or a fire.

Did 5 trials of each.

P-40: 10 (stop), 1 (fire), 2 (stop), 11 (stop), 5 (stop)

109G2: 7 (blksmoke), 15 (blksmoke), 25 (blksmoke), 34 (blksmoke), 11 (blksmoke)

Even with small number of trials, it is clear that the P-40 engine is vulnerable to 30cal hits. In one case, only 1 hit was needed to flame the engine. I think these results closely mirror the experience of P-40 pilots.

The Bf-109 engine survives more, and even though they started smoking, continued to run.

chris455
01-24-2007, 08:35 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

VW-IceFire
01-24-2007, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I posted this two or three months ago and nobody took note. I figured nobody else cared. The DM for the P-40B, P-40C, Tommahawk IIb, Tommahawk IIc, and Hawk 81 are all fairly weak to enemy fire. Even 7.7mm machine guns will disable these guys in a quick burst. It seems very weak for a fairly well built plane (minus armor and plus the vulnerable inline engine). Its got engine insta-stop behavior too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Ice, but the main point is thats its relative sturdiness compared to say the Bf109s and Spitfires is ok, if it got changed we would have to change those as well. If you guys moan about how "weak" the P40 is then you havent flown a 109 in a long time... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure of that. I'm not about to go and do some tests on it because I'm tired of all the whining and whatnot that goes on here (and virtually nobody takes you seriously when you do) but my feel is that the early P-40 models are way off the Spitfire or 109 or anything like that. The P-40E, M, and Field Mod are fine. Case in point, even the Italian machine guns do damage to them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Not even the 109 is that weak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

chris455
01-24-2007, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-40E, M, and Field Mod are fine </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
IceFire,
If you are going to go ahead and conduct tests, you may want to include these as well. IMHO, ALL P-40 models are excesssively vulnerable to fire to the front,
Just a thought-
Chris

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-24-2007, 06:19 PM
I think as far as airframe goes the P-40B/C stand up well. But the motor is plain ridiculous. Often it will come to a screeching halt from one .30cal round alone. But this has been brought up hundreds of times in the past and its like beating a dead horse. So trust me when I tell you that we feel your pain.