Thoughts on Damage Model

[Stoney]

Sax, if a 20mm round is 4X times more powerful than a caliber .50 round, the wing will pop off after you put 4X as many caliber .50 rounds into the wing.  Thus, its a wash like Booze says.

Second, don't think of describing it as damaging the "airfoil".  AH uses multiple spanwise stations to determine lift and other associated aerodynamic effects.  Also, accurately modelling the effects of damage on airfoil efficiency would be truly difficult to do accurately.  Now, the affect on control surfaces--that would be much easier to approximate.

The strength of your argument initially was the usefulness of MG at affecting systems.  Rate of fire makes the difference, not the overall strength of the round.  I don't have any rate of fire info in front of me, but 1 20mm round has a local affect, whereas a burst of MG that takes the same amount of time (and is spread across a section of airframe) may strike a number of locations, and perhaps have a greater chance of affecting those hydraulic lines and such you mentioned.  Especially considering the higher kinetic energy of MG rounds at the same time compared to after a cannon warhead explodes.  The fragments of the cannon shell travel at very low relative velocities.  As stated by the USAAF during the war, using MGs instead of cannon was a result of desiring increased hit percentages and higher volumes of fire versus damage.

Lastly, if you look at most of the gun camera footage from the ETO, almost all kills are dead-6 shots at very close range, with very little maneuvering.  In-game, high deflection shots are much more common, and therefore reward cannon armed planes much more.  That's not really a game mechanic, but more a reflection of how MA behavior is different than real life.

[Saxman]

The question then becomes, which will be easier to model: damage to internal components like fuel, oil and hydraulic lines, control cables, etc., or damage impacting lift?

hitech already said he doesn't want to leave component damage to random chance. Theoretically that means EVERY aircraft would need to have those additional components given hitboxes, so the game knows exactly when a round cuts your control cables. I'm not familiar with the finer details of how the game engine works, but it strikes me that tracking this additional information for hundreds of aircraft at once is bound to add to the load. Having this internal component damage would certainly be ideal, but can it be done in a manner that it's neither random NOR impacts performance?

By contrast, it at least seems to me on the surface that with the airfoil it would be possible to institute a "blanket" effect that results in "Damage X = Effect Y." From what you describe the way lift is handled is somewhat more complicated, but it still sounds like this would be easier to implement than internal components.

[Stoney]

Well, you may be right.  The problem as I see it with the "loss of lift" model is that I'm not sure we could be assured of an accurate result that was consistent with what would happen aerodynamically.  Just as we don't want an arbitrary system hit, we wouldn't want something similar with the wing efficiency. 

I agree with the overall concept--that a more detailed, system based damage model would add to the overall experience, and that it would help to mitigate the advantage cannon have in the game.  I'm just not sure what would be the best way to implement it.

[Saxman]

I'm sure HTC could come up with some sort of equation that would at least approximate the effect of having your airfoil riddled with bullets, even if it's not 100% accurate to real life.

[BnZs]

I think before we proceed, we must have some ballpark figure on what punching a bunch of holes in the skin of a wing should do.

It is possible HTC things the effect is too negligible to be modeled.

Sax: What I wonder about is the "iron tail" problem, or angles in general where you *think* a hail of close range 50 cals would *have* to get the pilot but doesn't. This seems to happen abit both from dead six and also belly shots.

[Saxman]

I think before we proceed, we must have some ballpark figure on what punching a bunch of holes in the skin of a wing should do.

It is possible HTC things the effect is too negligible to be modeled.

It'd be surprised if that were the case, as I've read plenty of pilot accounts where they've taken fire into a wing and the aircraft started trying to roll to that side due to loss of lift.

[BnZs]

It'd be surprised if that were the case, as I've read plenty of pilot accounts where they've taken fire into a wing and the aircraft started trying to roll to that side due to loss of lift.

Well, that is a data point. Increase in drag I suppose too. I tend to like your idea.

[morfiend]

Sax,
  You have a valid arguement,I support it entirely.Personal I always thought the "all or nothing" the cannon birds.
 I wont argue effectiveness and the like but if anyone read the lastest update release from HTC,they'd see that ammo loadout points and damage points were quadrupled.

 The how and what of this implentetion,I'll leave to the people who understand it.

 This I hope will be a step towards exactly what your looking for Sax!

   

[rabbidrabbit]

I don't know how the current system works so that's most likely the determinant of how the system develops.  Frankly, leaving out the element of random damage is probably not the the best choice.  If a round impacts a mechanical structure, what are the odds of it doing damage?  With a machine gun, you can fire dozens of rounds through a wing to little effect.  The additional holes cause some drag effects but little beyond that.  There is also the chance that one round strikes something critical like a aileron hinge or fuel line and causes considerable damage.  If you want high fidelity you can track each exact hit location and each component within the structure and plot the related damage.  This would require identifying and plotting the sub systems within a structure and mapping it all out as well as the odds of a hit damaging or destroying it.  For instance, in a wing you would need to identify guns, fuel tanks, landing gear, control wires and ailerons, flaps etc The easier way out is to figure there is a relative chance of each hit of each weapon type causing damage that matters.  For example, if all you are tracking is whether or not the round impacts a object and not where on the object then your best bet is to assign odds for each type of round to cause certain damage.  You guys seem to be focused on percent of damage so it looks like the old hitpoints model where you have to hit something x amount of times then something certain happens.  While there is some value to consistency, I would argue there is always a element of random chance of individual rounds causing catastrophic damage.  How many planes sustain huge amounts of damage yet make it home while others are brought down by just a few rounds that got lucky?

[Saxman]

The problem that hitech outlined in the previous thread, rab, is the minute you start moving into random effects, people are going to start complaining HARD. People don't like things like random chance intruding on their ability to fly and enjoy the game, because taking skill out of the equation makes it much less about your abilities, and more about the computer making random choices.

There's enough random chance within the game's mechanics as it is. Sometimes that snapshot takes your wing off, sometimes you luck out and maybe one or two rounds miss, saving your wing. However this isn't the game randomly deciding, "Oh hey, I'll have his wing pop off this time" but a product of whatever mathematical model is at work determining the amount of damage inflicted.

[rabbidrabbit]

I hear you.  If they can map where exactly the round impacts on each object then great.  If you are only mapping the fact that each object got hit and don't know the angle then you are pretty much stuck either doing the hitpoints thing which isn't very realistic or the odds thing which in all honesty, I think you can admit is more realistic.  How else can you take account of the semi random odds of a given bullet striking or ricocheting into a sub component?  Isn't that pretty much how things happened in reality?  Sometimes things get broke, other times just damaged.  I would rather have more types of damage than complete loss of certain structures which are consistent each and every time.  What we have now is hardly realistic and rather boring.  It presents few combinations of challenges to taking hits.  Personally, I would like to know each round did something but some rounds had odds of knocking the hinge off an aileron causing it to flap or jammed the flaps shut.  I see it as some damage happening but some hits striking critical hits.  Hey, it's not my game but that's my opinion.   

[hitech]

I have a feeling HiTech is sipping coffee from his I heart HTC mug, slowly reading over this thread and raising his eyebrows at some of the interesting points brought up in this thread...

Hey, nobody said I couldn't wish here in the wishlist! 

Give ye olde damage model an update, eh? 

More like, Rolling on the floor in laughter, thinking people do not really think much about the consequences of what they ask for.

Step 1.
Do you wish planes to die more quickly or less quickly, or the same.

Step 2.
Do you wish to be at more of a disadvantage with 1 bullet hit so fights will tend to be, who ever lands the first bullet wins.

Step 3.
How will any damage model change, change the tactics used in the game.

HiTech

[Masherbrum]

More like, Rolling on the floor in laughter, thinking people do not really think much about the consequences of what they ask for.

Step 1.
Do you wish planes to die more quickly or less quickly, or the same.

Step 2.
Do you wish to be at more of a disadvantage with 1 bullet hit so fights will tend to be, who ever lands the first bullet wins.

Step 3.
How will any damage model change, change the tactics used in the game.

HiTech

    Perfectly stated.   

[Saxman]

More like, Rolling on the floor in laughter, thinking people do not really think much about the consequences of what they ask for.

Step 1.
Do you wish planes to die more quickly or less quickly, or the same.

Obviously there's going to be a degree of balancing that would need to be done. If wearing away at the wings suddenly makes the plane more difficult to control even before the part is blown off entirely, the amount of damage inflicted by successful hits may need to be adjusted with it to get the right balance of effect.

Step 2.
Do you wish to be at more of a disadvantage with 1 bullet hit so fights will tend to be, who ever lands the first bullet wins.

To a degree this is already the case, especially if you're in a plane armed with MGs and your opponent has cannon. More often than not, a cannon-armed plane will decide the fight the minute he gets a shot in, while an MG-armed aircraft may need two or three snapshots, or one good tracking shot to do the same. This is why I say MGs would gain more benefit, because cannon already have the capability to decide the fight on the first round, wherease with the all-or-nothing model damage the MGs ARE capable of inflicting that might do the same doesn't have the effect it should.

Step 3.
How will any damage model change, change the tactics used in the game.

I can imagine a couple scenarios:

1) Players may opt for more low-risk tactics. BnZ, hording, etc.

2) Players may develop better ACM so they can avoid getting hit in a tight fight.

3) Players who have sustained sufficient damage their aircraft becomes too difficult to fight with may opt to find an exit rather than push when they can't win.

4) Players are going down anyway, so they're going to push as hard as they can before they go down.

In other words, while mentality of individual players might change to accomodate the new model, I think the overall balance wouldn't see TOO much of a difference from the way the game is played now. Some people are always going to go for the least risk, others are going to focus on getting better. Some will find a way to get out of a fight if they're trailing smoke or fuel, passing out from P/W's, or find themselves missing important things like wingtips, and others are going to do everything they can to take their opponent with them.

[hitech]

Saxman: You did not do any of the steps.

You did not answer what your goal is. I.E. what you wish to happen.