PDA

View Full Version : Damage models for some planes still way off?



Danschnell
05-21-2004, 02:45 PM
I have just downloaded the patch and shot down about 100 planes.
OK so not a scientific test, but I think that all the whining about 'the damage model is too tough!' has made Ubisoft to do what anyone with any foresight could've predicted they'd do.
It was perhaps inevitable that they would ignore issues of planes being too weak, and just go and make the same mistake in the opposite direction. Ubi are like that.

I am extremely pleased that all the light Russian planes and Bf109s now take hardly any shots to kill, but this pleasure is totally ruined by all the famously tough planes being exactly the same... easy to kill. See the 2 examples below.

For example:B17 has been totally ignored as being too weak. Its just as easy to shoot down the famously tough B-17 as any other plane. Its fuel tanks and engines just light up the same as a light fighter. My 190 without any external guns shot down all 4 B-17s I set in QMB twice in a row. It makes 30mm guns or any gunpods irrelevant really. What was the point of the Sturmbock in real life if this is a real life damge model?

Fw-190: 7.92mm wrecks the engine and control surfaces very quikly, when a 190 should be virtually imune to 7.92. Any larger calibre weapon than 7.92 sets it alight after 2 or 3 rounds and the pilot instantly dies from the flames. I shot down all 4 Fw190 I set in QMB twice in a row with a Spitfire the first time then in a Yak1. Really... where is the famous toughness?

Ubisoft have made all planes easy to kill, when before the patch they made all planes hard to kill.

My suggestion is... make the famously tough planes like Fw190, He111, B-17, Il-2 like they were in 2.0, and keep all the others like they are in 2.1.

Alternatively, just bring back the 1.22 damage model! It was perfect. Nobody ever complained about it. Ubisoft could have taken note that 1.22 was proven and 1.22 worked. The damage model was good so why didn't they just go back to that one?

Danschnell
05-21-2004, 02:45 PM
I have just downloaded the patch and shot down about 100 planes.
OK so not a scientific test, but I think that all the whining about 'the damage model is too tough!' has made Ubisoft to do what anyone with any foresight could've predicted they'd do.
It was perhaps inevitable that they would ignore issues of planes being too weak, and just go and make the same mistake in the opposite direction. Ubi are like that.

I am extremely pleased that all the light Russian planes and Bf109s now take hardly any shots to kill, but this pleasure is totally ruined by all the famously tough planes being exactly the same... easy to kill. See the 2 examples below.

For example:B17 has been totally ignored as being too weak. Its just as easy to shoot down the famously tough B-17 as any other plane. Its fuel tanks and engines just light up the same as a light fighter. My 190 without any external guns shot down all 4 B-17s I set in QMB twice in a row. It makes 30mm guns or any gunpods irrelevant really. What was the point of the Sturmbock in real life if this is a real life damge model?

Fw-190: 7.92mm wrecks the engine and control surfaces very quikly, when a 190 should be virtually imune to 7.92. Any larger calibre weapon than 7.92 sets it alight after 2 or 3 rounds and the pilot instantly dies from the flames. I shot down all 4 Fw190 I set in QMB twice in a row with a Spitfire the first time then in a Yak1. Really... where is the famous toughness?

Ubisoft have made all planes easy to kill, when before the patch they made all planes hard to kill.

My suggestion is... make the famously tough planes like Fw190, He111, B-17, Il-2 like they were in 2.0, and keep all the others like they are in 2.1.

Alternatively, just bring back the 1.22 damage model! It was perfect. Nobody ever complained about it. Ubisoft could have taken note that 1.22 was proven and 1.22 worked. The damage model was good so why didn't they just go back to that one?

Art-J
05-21-2004, 04:50 PM
1.22 DM perfect? I tend to disagree, example: old "box" DM for Fw-190 series, with it's concrete fuselage and porcelain wings... Let's not idealize it, It had some flaws.
But I agree with you about tough A/Cs not being so tough anymore. As for the "mixing DM versions" solution, I'm really afraid of that, since I see one thing: whenever they try to "tweak / adjust" DMs between patches, they really improve ones and mess others at the same time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Haribo-Zeke_small_3_txt.jpg

Giganoni
05-21-2004, 05:23 PM
They did not touch the B-17 DM in the patch..and I would never call the B-17 the flying fortress. It was designed for High flying strategic bombing and able to go alone, without escort fighters. As history has shown, the designers made a grave error in their confidence. I've never thought the B-17 was tough in the game. It is easy to aim at those engines and blow that plane in two.

Danschnell
05-21-2004, 05:33 PM
True.
Oleg has done everything in this sim brilliantly at some point, the trouble is getting all the good things into just ONE definitive version.
Maybe one day they'll fix the B-17 and the 190 and the 111... but they'll only end up making I-16s tough again along with it!

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-21-2004, 05:43 PM
Please mention the one of the tuffest planes of WW2 nexttime. And that would be the P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


=S=

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

BerkshireHunt
05-21-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
My suggestion is... make the famously tough planes like Fw190, He111, B-17, Il-2 like they were in 2.0, and keep all the others like they are in 2.1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm.
Apart from its so- called 'Sturmbock' versions the FW190 should be no "tougher" than any other stressed skin, all- metal, radial engined fighter. Are you claiming it was clad with steel sheet and made from titanium? I don't understand why so many people on this forum believe it was tremendously 'tough'.
Structurally, it was entirely conventional, its one advantage from the 'combat survivability' point of view being the absence of radiators and coolant lines.
But this was an advantage shared by the A6M5, G50, I-153, I-16, IAR80, Ki84, La5FN, La7, P36 and P47. Some of these were of partially wooden construction or did not have self- sealing or armour protected tanks and so were almost as vulnerable as aircraft with liquid cooled engines.
Amongst those which had similar protective measures to the FW190 (the P47, IAR80, Ki84, La7) only the P47 gained a reputation for being 'tough to shoot down'- but that was mainly because of its size- it dwarfed all the others and simply had a greater ability to absorb the impact/explosive energy of shells without a catastrophic structural failure occurring. Rather like a B17.

The IL2 was designed from the outset as an armoured ground attack aircraft with very specific features which improved its combat survivability so, yes, it should be tough.

The He111? I can't agree there. Perhaps you meant Ju88?

Magister__Ludi
05-21-2004, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:

The He111? I can't agree there. Perhaps you meant Ju88?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


A medium bomber capable of sustaining 7G pull out of dive was of course tough - Ju-88 was the toughest medium bomber. The is the main reason why the other bombers were not capable even of a gentle dive, the pull out would simply ripped their wings off (if they would not loose the controls even before that). It was extremely difficult to make a bomber the size of Ju88 capable of a 70 degree dive bomb run.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
05-21-2004, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Please mention the one of the tuffest planes of WW2 nexttime. And that would be the P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


=S=

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

http://www.vmf-214.net
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO not needed ,the DM is ok to me P47 can take up to 4/5 mk108s and up to 7/8 Mg151 hits ,seems about right to me?
ofcourse one can have a lucky hit and nock its engine/PK/control surfaces out but that goes for all planes

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

VVanks
05-21-2004, 10:25 PM
Wait till 2.2 comes out. Be patient. just play the game for now.

Cheers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://rle.homeip.net/wyn/plane.jpg (http://wyn.vze.com)

Spinne_3.-JG51
05-21-2004, 10:52 PM
2 weeks?

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg

Danschnell
05-22-2004, 05:07 AM
OK
I didn't mention the P-47 because its damage model seems fine with this patch.
When I mentioned the Sturmbock it was not to say that it should've been considered an armoured superplane, although it had more armour than other planes. I mentioned it because of all its guns, which wouldn't be needed on AEP but was hurredly developed IRL.
Yes I agree with people about the Ju88 too. The Ju88 too should be tough as nails, like the B-17... but of course it isn't.

Kurfurst__
05-22-2004, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
Apart from its so- called 'Sturmbock' versions the FW190 should be no "tougher" than any other stressed skin, all- metal, radial engined fighter. Are you claiming it was clad with steel sheet and made from titanium? I don't understand why so many people on this forum believe it was tremendously 'tough'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it had a reputation of being tough and it was tough. The structure was heavy, the plane being 4 tons at a rather small size, and strongly built - need evidence? It carried the heaviest cannon armament of war, it could carry the heavies bomb for any single engined fighter at 4000 lbs. I consider an airframe that can do this: tough. Not much better armored than other, but the structure itself could take punishment. There was material in it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The IL2 was designed from the outset as an armoured ground attack aircraft with very specific features which improved its combat survivability so, yes, it should be tough.

The He111? I can't agree there. Perhaps you meant Ju88?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe look up British references or test reports on He 111 of the BoB period. It was rather heavily armored, and the airframe could take hundreds and hundreds of small caliber hits and still fly (one plane returned with over 1000 hits). It certainly wasn`t flimsy.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Eagle_361st
05-22-2004, 06:34 AM
Is that why a FW-190 flew thru the wing of my P-47 last night sawing off my wing and killing me, yet he flew around for the rest of the mission with nothing other than rudder damage. It will never be perfect, but I am figgin sick and tired of all you people and your incessant whinning. Nothing is ever good enough. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif Learn to live with the ironies of the game or go fly CFS3 or even better STFU.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

Zen--
05-22-2004, 07:22 AM
Amen Eagle

&lt;S!&gt;

-Zen-

Danschnell
05-22-2004, 05:04 PM
Your comments were not helpful. A mid-air collision is a freak event anyway, and its not too important in the scheme of things.

I rarely whine on this forum. I just feel that this issue is a very serious one. Damage models are one of the most talked about topics, and effect the game in the most major way. All planes have guns.

It is true that all planes seem to be just about as easy as each other to down. I've not had difficulty downing any plane in any plane yet. I just shot a B-25 down with only half the ammo from my single 15mm in a 109F. (Rediculous really.)

Take note of what Kurfurst said about the He-111 damage reports. I also remember reading a thread here about an already heavily damaged B-29 taking ALL the ammo from a Black Widow's 4 20mm and 4 .50 guns to down.

The truth is... aircraft ranged from taking 5 or 6 lucky rounds to kill all the way up to taking the ENTIRE ammo supply of the attacking aircraft and still making it back to base!

IL2 2.1 doesn't reflect this at all! We need extreme toughening of:

He-111
Fw-190
B-17

I haven't properly tested the other 'hard' planes yet but I'm sure the Ju-87, Ju-88, and B-25 should be added to that list too.
The P-47 seems fine.
The IL-2 seems fine except I've taken off IL-2 wings with single 20mm rounds a few times now. Maybe just fluke though.

Danschnell
05-23-2004, 03:12 PM
To clarify... the problem with the B-17 and the Fw-190 probably isn't structural weakness... more the proprensity of the engines to burst into flames from even minor damage.
Fw-190s and B-17s always burst into flames and then explode after a very very few hits. It ruins the fun.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-23-2004, 03:28 PM
i made a tests for FW190A , using Cal .303 and Cal .50 to shoot them.

i was realy suprised how easily the start to burn.

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

Curly_109
05-23-2004, 03:32 PM
Don't know really... B-17 is tough, but when Fw is in question there is no tough A/C's in game --- Fw just rocks with armament... but I've noticed that exploding thing (two times when flying A-6 & A-4). But I found it to be nothing unusual. Just don't let 'em to hit u http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
About immunity of any A/C's on 7.62mm... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif