That game I've unloaded entire ammo clips into fighters in a plane with 2x7mm and 1x20mm weapons, and not brought it down. I've unloaded 5+ 37mm rounds from a P-39 point blank up the arse of an enemy fighter (and got the big fireball explosions) and had it fly away damaged but intact.
Got a .trk file?
Basically, I don't trust your gunnery, nor your memory. I can produce roughly the same results as 2bighorn's above, and if you wish I can always record the test sortie and send you the trk file. I'll bet 2bighorn would also be able to send you the file... therefore, I'd naturally expect you can do the same.
If it isn't some oneshot freak bug, or a crappy net connection, or just plain exaggeration of a bad gunnery, then I'm sure you'd be able to reproduce the results and show us the .trk file, on how a fighter plane is hit with 5x37mms at point-blank and survive, no?
The guns in IL-2 does what it is intended to do. The only people I've seen who'd remark as you did were very typically the people who'd fly IL2 series for maybe one hour every month, get frustrated by the fact that they can't adapt to it, and just leave it alone until the next month when they'd get another impulse, fly it again for an hour, get frustrated again, and then would post a thread on how much IL2 sucks, without actually understanding the subtle differences between the games.
30mm are god-like weapons, blowing wings off of TB-3s and B-17s as if the target were an A6M instead.
Nothing about the game is accurate, vis a vis real world comparisons.
The funny thing is, none of your remarks on the IL2 is accurate, vis a vis real game experience. Frankly I'd equate your remarks a blatant slander against the game, coming from a serious bias against it.
It may all come together into a nice offline game, but it cannot be considered "more accurate" by any sense. It has a "more complex" damage system, but that does not make it more accurate.
That's like saying
"bears have more strength and pointy claws than humans, but that does not make them more dangerous." I find quite intriguing to see so many people, otherwise very reasonable and experienced, can be so much troubled when confronting the fact that some games may actually have better performing aspects then their own game. When confronting these differences, instead of trying to understand they mark it as some sort of inferiority, and then immediately dump it away for some more pom-pom cheerleading for their own favorites.
With no disrespect to Yeager or Karnak, just look at what they wrote;
the fact that IL2 models the BMG 50 Cal equivalent to a farm yard .22 pretty much ended my relationship with that sim. Still, a beautiful looking deal.
30mm cannons rip things up. 20mm feels like .303s. .50s feel like 5.56mm.
Now, I'm not sure just how long Yeager or Karnak flew IL2, nor if they ever flew it extensively online against other players. With that into mind, what the say in the above quotes is actually a very typical case of misunderstanding on the differences that comes from having a more detailed DM and GM.
Some people say IL2 gunnery isn't any more difficult than AH, and they can achieve the same firing distance in IL2 as they can do in AH (approx. 400~500m). But what Karnak comments is a very clear indication that gunnery in IL2 is very different. Like 2bighorn said, a well put consecutive hit of 20mm shells will bring down a plane as easily in IL2 as in AH, but the difference is it's easier to acheive that concentrated shot in AH, whereas in IL2 it is more diffucult, requires a much closer distance (preferably under 150m for a 'sure kill'), and visual confirmation can be sometimes confusing, since IL2 models individual rounds which mixes up AP rounds with HE rounds even in 20mms.
(I mean, with the 'arrows' hit indicator option, I've even actually seen these instances such as;
* a cannon shell fired at 90 degress against an enemy wing at point blank range, that punched through the wing, and detonated at the other side in empty air.
* 30cal ammunition fired at wrong angles actually being deflected off the surface of an IL-2 wing
I'm not kidding when I say visual confirmation of a hit is much more difficult in IL2 - there are a lot more variables than you'd imagine)
People coming from AH don't understand that fact, fires a shot as they might have done in AH, thinks he landed a lot of hits (which in fact, landed a lot less than it would have been in AH), and then thinks
'gee, IL2 guns are retarded'. Close in about 200 more meters than you would in AH, fire longer and steadier bursts of guns (don't expect those 'snapshot' kills of AH will happen as easily as in AH), and try to visually confirm your blows.. and one soon realizes the IL2 approach is worth a lot more than one would have imagined.
Now, look at Yeager's comments.
That's exactly the kind of misunderstanding in with different DM approach. In AH, a burst of 50cal causes structural failures as easy as cannons. AH doesn't have any internal structural modelling in such parts as the wings or fuselage, and therefore any surface hit causes loss of structural integrity as a whole. Therefore, 50cals in AH snap wings and tails off, giving you an immediate kill.
Not so in IL2. To snap off a wing in that game, you must either hit the ammunition box or a fuel tank to cause a fire that eats away the integrity, or, actually land enough hits to blow off spars and supports so that the wing cannot support the force of flight and buckles. It's like trying to snap a wooden table in two using guns - it's possible, but you need to land that much consecutive hits on a very very small spot to cause it to fail. Counting in the dispersion and convergence factors its a very difficult task.
Therefore, in IL2, when you are on the receiving end of the 50cal, your wing may stay intact, but the flying experience becomes miserable. Your oil blows, your engine is damaged and starts draggins smoke and fumes, your pilot is wounded and bleeding, the instruments are busted, aileron or elevator cable/rods are busted and rendered useless, wing or tail loses lift and your plane begins to lose stability.
I mean, there are times when I actually wish that the DM was like AH - at least, in AH, even if you are hit you don't suffer from anything unless the damage exceeds the set values that make it snap off. Much more variables means much more things can happen, and somtimes, even a half-hearted shot from a 50cal weapon can kill your elevator control cables.. and when that happens all you can do is just bail. In these times the 50cals actually feel much stronger than even AH !!)
In real life all this is enough to make the pilot bail. However, being a game, people stay inside their planes and still try to maneuver away.
From an AH gamer's point of view, he thinks that he landed enough hits to kill it in AH, but sees the enemy plane still flying, and thinks that the bullets in IL2 are messed up.
However, from an IL2 gamer's point of view, the 50cals did their work. The enemy plane is almost as good as dead, and he is most definately out of the picture. The chances are, wait a few more moments and the enemy plane will point downwards and crash to the ground, because the elevators aren't functioning any more. The best the pilot can manage is to bail out to safety, or try a ditch which is also much more difficult than AH.
Or, with a bit more patience and bullets, the enemy plane will burst to flames in any moment and you'll see the enemy pilot bail.
50cals aren't weaker than in AH. It just damages the plane differently. And it is these kind of differences that AH gamers who try out IL2, most usually do not understand.
