PDA

View Full Version : 16 hits and no visual effect



zugfuhrer
03-16-2004, 06:13 PM
I have found out how to set the arcade mode and can now see my hits when I watch the trackfiles.
I recommend to set the trackmode on sometimes, it most interesting so se how you shoot.

I dogfighted a Yak3 with a Me109g2 on QMB and hit him 16 times, there are at least 16 "arrows" going into the frame.
I use the FB V 1.22.
Four in the radiator, two in the wingroot oilcooler?.
2 in the cockpit, the arrows passed the pilots head and upperbody, and 8 hits in the rudder-, elevator area.
The yak hit me once in the radiator of my wing and finally 6 shots in the wing, or was it a shell.

When I thought that the yak was dead, the tailarea was bursting with flames, he hit my wing with 6 rounds and the wing fell of.
I have it all on a trackfile.

As far as my limited knowlegde reaches would my radiator start to leak, and his eaven worse.
His oilcooler would get damaged, and his rudder elevator would be very damaged, and the pilot should be killed because the hit was high in him.
And my wing should been shoot of.
How is the damage calculated?

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Wed March 17 2004 at 12:56 PM.]

zugfuhrer
03-16-2004, 06:13 PM
I have found out how to set the arcade mode and can now see my hits when I watch the trackfiles.
I recommend to set the trackmode on sometimes, it most interesting so se how you shoot.

I dogfighted a Yak3 with a Me109g2 on QMB and hit him 16 times, there are at least 16 "arrows" going into the frame.
I use the FB V 1.22.
Four in the radiator, two in the wingroot oilcooler?.
2 in the cockpit, the arrows passed the pilots head and upperbody, and 8 hits in the rudder-, elevator area.
The yak hit me once in the radiator of my wing and finally 6 shots in the wing, or was it a shell.

When I thought that the yak was dead, the tailarea was bursting with flames, he hit my wing with 6 rounds and the wing fell of.
I have it all on a trackfile.

As far as my limited knowlegde reaches would my radiator start to leak, and his eaven worse.
His oilcooler would get damaged, and his rudder elevator would be very damaged, and the pilot should be killed because the hit was high in him.
And my wing should been shoot of.
How is the damage calculated?

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Wed March 17 2004 at 12:56 PM.]

ucanfly
03-16-2004, 06:31 PM
The arrows do not indicate how far your rounds penetrated. OLeg said ssomething about the YAK wood. I guess Yak wood = Bullet Resistant. It seem you have to shoot the tail off or hit the engine to do any harm to those Yaks in a 50 cal spitting plane.


I 've gotten run down and shot by Yaks and Ki84s spewing smoke and fuel several times offline. The Russian and Japanese AI is very persistent - LOL. Once against he Ki 84 I counted 16 shots in right wing then 16 shots in left wing with fuel spewing out of both. Then later he came up and got my while I was on final about 20 minutes later.

Fillmore
03-16-2004, 06:34 PM
You also need to see which guns you are hitting with, the MG17s don't do much (not enough power to penetrate much). Especially note that the arrows only show entry vector, they may be deflected/stopped right there but the arrow will show straight trhough anyway.

chris455
03-16-2004, 07:40 PM
Actually, .50 cals SHRED the Yak series; It's MG 151 series weapons that seem to lose some of their punch with that family of AC-

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/P47.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-16-2004, 08:25 PM
Agreed Chris, .50's have always been very effective against VVS planes. Alot of good that does me since I never fly on open plane-sets http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. Not a complaint, just an observation.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

WWMaxGunz
03-16-2004, 08:28 PM
Zug, what angles did you hit from?

Not all the Yak was wood. I dunno the seatback armor for one. If there's a couple mm on the engine side and you hit from a tight angle then draw two parallel lines and cross those with another at the same to see how the effective thickness is so much greater. A 45 degree angle and the effective is about 1.4x but at less than 10 degrees it really comes to something. Seat armor is usually heavier because shots from the rear strike it near dead-on. There's usually something angled back there too.

I've been shooting targets and do note how damn hard it is to get PK's on AI. Very. Sent a track in and got back that they will be evaluating. Hope for the best. I put two 20mm HE's through the front glass of a Tu-2 in one pass on that with both exploding on pilot and gunner and nothing... more on gunners and pilots from all sides and some going straight through the gunport openings from rear to pass through gunner heads and occasionally the pilot (no way a 20mm AP gets stopped by just 1 head!) and nothing!

But I do make engine damage from as little off to the side as 5 or 7 o'clock and got some fires going on the Tu's.

Hopefully it's a simple thing in the shots passing through code itself and not rearranging all the DM datas. I just don't know, it was easier to kill gunners in He-111 and B-17 but not real easy on them.

If true through the cockpit hits are made right then planes will be going down much more often without need to blow wings and tails off. It will become a matter of who can get good shots on crew or engines fromother than seatbacks from > 100m-200m depending on gun used.

Then we will see complaints of being killed too easy and making too easy kills! but I think at least some of the names complaining will change.


Neal

clint-ruin
03-16-2004, 10:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
But I do make engine damage from as little off to the side as 5 or 7 o'clock and got some fires going on the Tu's.

Hopefully it's a simple thing in the shots passing through code itself and not rearranging all the DM datas. I just don't know, it was easier to kill gunners in He-111 and B-17 but not real easy on them.
Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there's definitely a set distance that any round will penetrate in FB, as well as a set number of individual surfaces it will be able to pass through. Don't know for sure how many that is, though. Probably something that is done for the purposes of making a flightsim on a PC rather than a million dollar ballistics simulator.

Glad you found the trick to killing Tu-2s. You would be pretty amazed at just how few actual hits most planes need to go down, it's just a matter of doing damage where it matters.

The recent debacle with the FW-190s CDM should give a fairly clear impression of how internal DMs work - a seperate set of 3d objects inside the main plane model. Bad things happen when the outside / inside models disagree on delfection and penetration.

From memory "Deltawood" [wood impregnated with tar/ersatz glue] is actually stronger per volume area than aluminium by quite a large margin, just not per weight [the problem the soviets eventually ran into with it].

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
03-16-2004, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
hit him 16 times.
Four in the radiator, two in the wingroot oilcooler?.
2 in the cockpit, the arrows passed the pilots head and upperbody, and 8 hits in the rudder-, elevator area.
The yak hit me once in the radiator of my wing and finally 6 shots in the wing.

When I thought that the yak was dead, the tailarea was bursting with flames, he hit my wing with 6 rounds and the wing fell of.
I have it all on a trackfile.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd actually be interested to see that - was this vs AI? When an aircraft gets set on fire [whether black smoke or 'fire' fire] the AI is supposed to set itself to "I'm on fire!", then "I'm RTB" in the thought bubbles [plane will either head for the nearest friendly/neutral airbase or bail out]. Neither of which should result in it still engaging targets. That's definitely weird if it kept shooting, may be worth sending to il2beta@1c.ru.

I can host if you like, PM me for my email.

The Yak3s engine can be turned to muck by one AP round, as with most inlines.

Be careful what you attribute as a 'hit' to a component - any intersecting surface stands a fair change of deflecting the shot. HE rounds tend to need to land -in- the cockpit/turret glass area for the fragments to kill the pilot. Just because the arrow goes through something, doesn't mean the bullet hit it - deflection off a surface isn't shown by the arrows.

As with most things it's all about the hit location - the 6 shots in the wing you took may have snapped a spar, or been concentrated on the one single wing DM section. In contrast, hits all over the tailplane are some of the least effective shots you can take in FB - a hit on the rudder damages the rudder, a hit on the left elevator damages the left elevator, and so on.

This is all guesswork til we can actually see the track, though.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

zugfuhrer
03-17-2004, 03:34 AM
The hits in the radiator was fired from head to head position at aprox 100-200m. This would increase the kinetic energy with 200-300m/s.
Some went in the radiator-spoiler? without hitting anything earlier the other hit in the metal-frame nearby. The hits in the cockpit/pilot and the rudder/elevator where shoot from 100 m distans and from 25 degr above, 5 aclock. One hit in the ****-pit passed through the canopy and theradio-box? the rest hit the metal aprox 1/2m behind the cockpit.
Where do I send the trackfiles?
There are some strange vectors in a hit, is this schrapnels from exploding granates?
In that case there where not so many hits, only schrapnels.
Everytime I fired all weapons.
It was a QMB. Does arcade-mode works in scenario/missions?

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Wed March 17 2004 at 02:52 AM.]

SeaFireLIV
03-17-2004, 03:46 AM
This always happens. Give someone the secret to that `arrow` arcade mode and everyone suddenly becomes an expert on everything Oleg does... Zugfuhrer only just discovered this secret a couple of days ago and already, a whine.

I have seen it so many times.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg
Soon... Very soon....

zugfuhrer
03-17-2004, 04:03 AM
Dear Mr SeaFireLIV
It must be hard to be so experinced and see everything "von oben".
I only want to understand how this works, I have not mentioned anything about expertice if you dont think that my limited knowledge is a call for it. If you call that whining? I hope that you dont work with education.

clint-ruin
03-17-2004, 04:12 AM
Hi zugfuhrer,

I've left you my email in a private topic.

Very grateful if you could send along the track so that people don't have to guess at what is happening :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Fehler
03-17-2004, 05:17 AM
Cmon Seafire, where do you see him whining? He is making an observation and asking questions. Would he be whining if he were making the same observations while flying a Spit against a 109 or a FW?


Now, you may not see it, or you may even like it, but the energy fighters are having a harder time scoring because they depend on slashing attacks to inflict fast heavy damage (As they did 2 weeks ago). But when 1, 2, or 3 passes yields nothing but a massive drop in energy for the E fighter, then something IS wrong.

I seriously doubt anything was "Done" in an intentional manner. I also dont claim to know a thing about coding of DM, FM, or any other kind of "M". But dont you think it is quite possible that "Something" has been knocked off a little from 1.22 when over half of the people here can see it?

Sometimes when it actually looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and smells like a duck.. it actually IS a duck.

For myself, the new planes are a blast. They look great, are fun to fly, and are a challenge to get to know. But on the other hand, I can see (With my own eyes) that every plane is taking more damage than it did just 2 weeks ago. Some have weird little quirks (That Revi thing - although being fixed - is a prime example), but in all, (ALL) planes are now highly resistant to damage. And guess what... That gives a strong advantage to turn fighters since they can stay in a fight a lot longer than they used to. It takes away from the advantage the energy fighters used to have and quite frankly takes away some of the enjoyment of flying in or against them.

Yes, you can still kill a Yak in a FW. That's not what anyone has said. What has been said is that the SAME thing you could do 2 weeks ago cant be done now with the frequency that it used to happen. And all anyone is asking is that Oleg take a look at it before he releases the patch and see if this is what he wants, or maybe tweak it a little.

Actually, I am confident that he IS looking into it because I have noticed that he hasnt posted here in a few days, which lends me to believe he is hard at work doing something to something.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And most of the time that means something good for us, the end customer.

Also, for those of you that dont think a rifle bullet can take out your engine, then bring your car over to my house and Ill shoot the block once with my 7.62mm rifle and see how long you can drive with it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Even a glancing round can cause a lot of damage. Sure, you may not sieze up the engine on one hit, every time, but you can cause the engine to become ineffective very rapidly. I know because I have actually shot at engines with 5.56 and 7.62 mm rounds to see which rifle I wanted to carry every day in my work. (The 7.62 was especially nice!)

On a side note, please dont take Zug's post as a whine. English is not always his strong suit, believe me. He is a very nice guy, however, and I am very confident that he is just looking for answers - he IS the inquisitive type. I fly with him and talk to him nearly every day. He is the kind of guy that looks at something - anything - and says, Hmm, how does that work. Then starts taking it apart until he either figures out that A.) He cant put it back together, or B.) Realizes he needs a bigger hammer to make it work. LOL

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

SeaFireLIV
03-17-2004, 06:25 AM
ok, ok, maybe I spoke too fast. Carry on.

WWMaxGunz
03-17-2004, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
The hits in the radiator was fired from head to head position at aprox 100-200m. This would increase the kinetic energy with 200-300m/s.
Some went in the radiator-spoiler? without hitting anything earlier the other hit in the metal-frame nearby. The hits in the cockpit/pilot and the rudder/elevator where shoot from 100 m distans and from 25 degr above, 5 aclock. One hit in the ****-pit passed through the canopy and theradio-box? the rest hit the metal aprox 1/2m behind the cockpit.
Where do I send the trackfiles?
There are some strange vectors in a hit, is this schrapnels from exploding granates?
In that case there where not so many hits, only schrapnels.
Everytime I fired all weapons.
It was a QMB. Does arcade-mode works in scenario/missions?

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Wed March 17 2004 at 02:52 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The places you see many arrows diverge from one point on or in the plane, that is the directions the fragments went. All arrows are directions and not actual paths -- the projectile may have stopped or exploded. I don't see ricochet paths and think maybe only paths that strike the plane are shown except for fragments -- and that picture/explanation doesn't fit cleanly.

I see too many times AI crew should be badly injured or dead and are not. Maybe it will change and maybe it is there for a reason. I know I'd like to see a change or know have a good idea why not but that is only what I would like.

Send full tracks (.trk files, not .ntrk) to mado@1c.ru and do not flood the man! Short explanations probably will help not to get ignored or misunderstood. I got a reply to the one track I sent in, the bursts were right in the cockpit from the front and close range all in the first under 30-60 seconds of the track. Easy to find. Perhaps a screenshot taken from track playback could help ID a spot, just a guess.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-17-2004, 10:32 AM
Definite agreement with Feheler.

And Zug is showing a very good attitude and approach. He sees, he learns, he gives room.


Neal

faustnik
03-17-2004, 10:36 AM
I have been flying the IAR80 campaign lately and fighting Laggs with the light MGs is funny. You can park on their six, let loose with all four guns and watch all the little pieces come off. BUT, no smoke or fire, only a little vapor trail if you are lucky. Even repeated firing into the radiator does nothing. No wonder the LW called the light MGs "door knockers". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

clint-ruin
03-17-2004, 10:43 AM
For better or worse, here's Zugs track:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/cheat.zip

His choice of filename, by the way :&gt;


edit:

Zugfuhrer, could you please tell us which FB version this track is for?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Cragger
03-17-2004, 01:35 PM
LaGG series still has the simple damage modeling of the original IL2. Just like the FW190 did until 1.22 I think. However, there has been no indication that the LaGG will recieve a more advanced damage model like the 190 did.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.png

zugfuhrer
03-17-2004, 02:29 PM
Could it be this way;
If the game was produced mainly for non on-lineplayers.

It is hard to make an realistic AI-oponent.

Then;
The damagemodel must be harder than in real world. If it was realistic, the main-gamer would loose his/hers interest, because he would be sucessful to easy. Then it wouldâ´nt be any challenge.

This can be one of the answers to why B&Z isnt paying of like it did during WWII. If the fighters where more fragile or the hits where more destructive, it wouldnt take a 5 minutes dogfight with more than 10 hits to down an oponent. Maybe one or two 20mm hits in some vital parts would be enough to put it out of fighting order.


About ammo

I have been shooting some rounds myself.
Among other ammo, the 8mm armour-penetrating hardened solid steelshots (vo 820 m/s). Whe shoot it at among ordinary targets also at 7mm ordinary steel construction H-girder. Whe shoot at all angles from distances around 200-250 m.
The angle must be very small to create ricochets. Many shoot carved a S-shaped channel in the steel. A wellknown occasion for tank-crews.

I have had cars as targets as well and a shoot at almost no angle make marks like a canopener.
By the way what is this deltawood?

Addendum
The oilcooler is surely included in the damagemodel of the Me.
One and one only bullet/penetrated the oil cooler in the nose of the Me. Its trajectory didnt seem go into the engine, but passed out through the frame, and my windshield was smeared with oil and my engine lost power.
This was in a single mission so the trackfile dont show the "arcade-state".
I hope that all aircrafts will get this perfection in their damagemodels as well.

[This message was edited by zugfuhrer on Wed March 17 2004 at 03:00 PM.]

Fehler
03-17-2004, 07:35 PM
Zug:

Here is the Quote from Oleg on Delta Wood.. You had asked for the information in this or abnother thread, cant remember which one, so I just posted it here..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg Maddox:
Can I tell you one secret thing about that wood tha named "delta-drevesina"?
This "wood" making the plane really more durable than metallic for your sure.
The technology of deltawood was copied by Germans in the end of the war making wings of Me-163 and He-162 when they had the same problems with metal like russians till 1943...
Don't you think that about 30% of UK aircraft had wooden details? Lets recall Mosquito? It seems that this plane wasn't easy to shot down not only because of speed isn't it?

Now back to delta-wood. It is technology that make wood like carbon. And all LaGG and La fighters of that period were made using this technology. Its why they had more weight than Yaks in general and why with the same engine as Yak, LaGG was worse then Yak of the same year.
Deltawood worse than carbon in followint case : weight. Carbon is lighter with the same durability.

So better to know more about technologies that to speak easy that if it is wooden then it is simply bad. For you sure fully mettalic Yak-3 with the same engine shown worse result than wooden... So?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting!

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

zugfuhrer
03-18-2004, 06:01 AM
That technology sound very interesting.
I must check this out.
He didnt explain what he ment by durable?

Once I bought a thing that should be delivered in an uncrushable packet.

It was delivered in a plastic bag. That is correct but not what I hade in mind :-).

clint-ruin
03-18-2004, 06:16 AM
All from http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/deshist.html

There's probably some other sites about with more details about the production process, but this at least refers to actual in-service aircraft.


1939

"Even if only one small grove of trees is left in Russia" said Gorbunov, "even then we shall still be able to build fighters."

The world was equipping its self for war and all majors powers were designing and building new aircraft for it. The key material of choice was duralumin (duraluminium). This light but strong aluminium alloy was, by 1939, well proven in the structural members of airframe design for fighter and bomber applications. Many aircraft also used other aluminium alloys for outer frame skins.

Aluminium was scarce in Russia and any aircraft dependant on it wholly would find its production capacity also dependant on its supply and hence restricting output at the very time that it should be increased.

Vladimir Gorbunov (Peoples Commissariat of the Aircraft Industry) put forward in 1939 the concept of an all wooden airframe (and skin) combat fighter arguing the ability to greatly increase the out put of combat fighters over that caused by the lack of aluminium.

The main contributer to this design study was one Semyon Lavochkin latterly aided by Mikhail Gudkov. The key component originally envisioned was the use of a phenol-impregnated wood as developed by German engineers for wooden propellor design. However co-incidentally Leonty Ryzhkov (Chief engineer Kuntsovo propeller / ski factory) had developed a process based on the use of impregnation using birch tar. Such impregnation made the wood heavier, much stronger and fire resistant. The design, forwarded in spring 1939, used this process for all primary load bearing structures such as wing spar caps and fuselage longerons.

The design was approved in May 1939 and 2 prototypes were ordered in June. Without a production facility Lavochkin, Gorbunov and Gudkov were transferred to GAZ No.301 ( a former furniture factory) which had just undergone the cancellation of a programme(whilst still preparing for) to manufacture French Caudron aircraft under license.

Progress was slow, manufacturing facilities were not suited and personnel were not experienced for modern aircraft development. Although the bureau had 93 workers in December 1939, it was still disorganised. Further the three key designers constantly disagreed and eventually it was decided that one should be appointed to take responsibility. Semyon Lavochkin was chosen.

Other problems had yet to be solved. The adhesive chosen was still in its development stage. It contained phenolic acid and so caused serious irritation to workers skin. After handling instructions had been drawn up, it, however, also proved to be a particularly strong adhesive compensating for machining inaccuracies and filling clearances between joints upto 3mm in width.

...

Aerodynamic properties of the aircraft were considered excellent from the point of view of surface drag. The birch ply was filled and sanded to a very smooth finish and subsequently lacquered to give a finish much better than that found when using rivetted panels. This finish was later found to be retained even through repair throughout the life of the craft. Where as aluminium panels became upset and distorted by repair.

...

Although more robust and with higher survivability under fire than the Yaks the LaGG-3 was considered too heavy and despite some modification to armament and stripping out all non essential equipment was branded by many pilots as the Lakirovannii Garantirovannii Grob ( varnished guaranteed coffin). This was further made worse by continued defects appearing in front line aircraft due to poor production disciplines.

...

In his initial choices of birch and pine Gorbunov had indeed allowed the mass production of fighter aircraft using material native to Russia. Aircraft when manufactured were done so with a life expectancy under combat conditions of months rather than years. The wood was not treated with any preservative and so its natural life was not long by "normal air craft" standards. In deed only 2 examples of the La mark survive today. (Both La-7's one at Prague Kbely museum the other at Moscow Monino Museum) In fact the frames were so vulnerable to fungicidal attack that when a squadron was sent to a subtropical climate (after the war) all planes were grounded and lost due to weakened structural members so attacked.

One post war incident does reflect the design considerations undertaken by Lavochkins engineers. The country to operate La-7's and La-5FN's longest was in fact Czechoslovakia who maintained them operationally until 1950(Russia dropping the mark by 1947). In 1946 they grounded all but 2 of the mark on the basis of structural degradation. An investigation was conducted to find that the air frame strength had been reduced by half. After initial alarm it was later discovered that Lavochkins engineers had allowed for this in their calculations and that the craft were still fully combat worthy!

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg