PDA

View Full Version : Cannons vs Guns: Is damage modeling correct?



arrowtalon
02-27-2007, 05:11 PM
Ah yes, another poll sure to invoke strong emotions against our fellow man (or woman--btw, are there any women on here?)

FritzGryphon
02-27-2007, 05:46 PM
1 and 4.

Bigger booms would make them seem stronger, too. When you don't see them you'd know you are missing.

horseback
02-27-2007, 06:50 PM
The limitations of the game include a simplified damage model; the hydraulics, the cooling systems, oxygen bottles and the ammo boxes are not part of the damage model, yet these were the things that lots and lots of HMG bullets (as opposed to two or three HE cannon rounds) might be expected to take out in order to disable an enemy aircraft.

Other than that, the HMGs do damage proportionate to the cannon.

cheers

horseback

Manu-6S
02-28-2007, 03:51 AM
I think tht it's a problem of DM.

But there is one thing I would like to see in SoW: a realistic recoil, that i don't feel is well modelled in the game.

Looking at on plane that fires with 4 wing cannons at stall speed without spinning is pissing...

arrowtalon
02-28-2007, 12:05 PM
That's a good point by horseback...

One thing that has always frustrated me is the vulnerability to virtually any plane to small cannon fire.

The Hellcat pilots, for example, relied heavily on head-on fights with Zeros because they had more armor and their MG's packed a punch.

In-game, running head-on with a cannoned fighter is virtual suicide. If the other fella is a decent shot, that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

arrowtalon
02-28-2007, 12:08 PM
I do think that if the tracer color was brighter, you'd be able to see hits more clearly.

I think the innermost color on the tracers in-game are too deep red. If they were a brighter red it would be a bit easier on the eye.

tigertalon
02-28-2007, 01:03 PM
As long as it takes 5 times more heavy machinegun than light machinegun hits to set the fuel tank on fire, I stand firmly behind an opinion that all heavy machineguns in PF are too weak in this regard. On the other hand in my opinion their penetrating power and power to cause structural damage is spot on (if not even slightly overmodelled).

Starting fire with cowling two .50cal guns on a buffalo: (clickable video)

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_50cal_1.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=50cal_1.flv)

And doing the same with light two machine guns in a cowling of a Ki-43-Ia:

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/th_30cal_1.jpg (http://s155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/?action=view&current=30cal_1.flv)

arrowtalon
02-28-2007, 10:00 PM
One other thing I've noticed is that the US planes seem to be more in line with reality against Japanese planes than German ones.

US planes were better in the vertical, mediocre in the horizontal.

Against German planes in-game, their better running away.

Manu-6S
03-01-2007, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by arrowtalon:
Against German planes in-game, their better running away.

Strange... the US fighters are the only one that scare me after the 4.08 patch...

If you are flying a FW190 and you find a P51 over yopur head you are almost dead: imo new P51's FM is better the before, P51 is superior to the Anton in all aspect except weapons (but usually they do their job) and engine damage. And P47 still rules over 6000m.

Fork-N-spoon
03-01-2007, 02:13 AM
Oh I haven't done this in a while...

"It's a bloody poll not a discussion!"