Thoughts on Damage Model

[rabbidrabbit]

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

The obvious answer is people are asking for a more credible damage model which has little relevance to your points.  They are sincerely offering ideas on how to improve the immersion and overall gameplay which benefits everyone, especially you.  People are glad to see some recent improvements and wish to see more.  Just because they are participating in the thread does not mean they are criticizing you personally or demeaning your work.  While you tend to be highly defensive it would be in your best interest to consider the intent of someones actions instead of your immediate interpretation regardless of whether you intend to act on it or not.

[hitech]

There is nothing defensive in my post. Those are real questions that are very important and pertinent to this discussion.  All you are doing is stating the blatantly obvious. People always want more imersion,

I think we should rename you Captain Obvious, champion of Dhuuuuu.

The problem is right now people are only seeing what they want to see in their vision of a change. They are not thinking threw what they ask for and analyzing the real results. And are not asking themselves the question. "Is this what I really was wishing for?".

Take the idea of adding control cables. Do you really want the possibility of more 1 shot 303 deaths and hence on average quicker kills? Maybe you do wish this, but when your trying to design something as you are in this thread, you best look at what you design will cause in game play.


HiTech

[Saxman]

That's mainly why in this thread I was focusing on having your wings (and other stabilizers) shot up affecting lift based on how much damage was inflicted, rather than internal components which can be single-pinged off. You wouldn't have the single golden BB clipping your control cable, but you would still have the accumulative effect of getting your wing, horizontal or vertical stab shot full of holes.

[Karnak]

Saxman,

Cannon were more effective and nothing done to make the game more realistic will even the power of machine guns compared to cannon.  A P-51D puts out 75 rounds per second, a Typhoon puts out 40 rounds per second.  That number isn't that different considering the difference in each round's striking power.  The USN concluded that an M2 20mm cannon (Hispano Mk II)  had the same firepower as a bank of three Browning M2 .50s.  That isn't a hit from the M2 20mm was equal to three hits from the M2 .50s, it was the firepower output, 10 rounds per second, was equal to the M2 .50 bank's output, 37.5 rounds per second.

I recall a Spitfire pilot's comment after hitting a Bf109 with a snap shot from his cannons and literally blowing it apart.  He hadn't flown much recently and he said he'd been momentarily surprised by the Bf109's destruction because he'd forgotten how powerful the cannons were.

That's mainly why in this thread I was focusing on having your wings (and other stabilizers) shot up affecting lift based on how much damage was inflicted, rather than internal components which can be single-pinged off. You wouldn't have the single golden BB clipping your control cable, but you would still have the accumulative effect of getting your wing, horizontal or vertical stab shot full of holes.

Lift generation doesn't really work like that though.  Putting a hole in the middle of the wing would have literally 0% effect on lift generation.  To affect the lift generation you'd really have to take a large chunk out of the leading edge of the wing.

[OOZ662]

nothing done to make the game more realistic will even the power of machine guns compared to cannon.

I don't believe that's what we're asking for.

[Karnak]

I don't believe that's what we're asking for.

Certainly sounds like it.  There is a lot of BS stressing the ROF of machine guns as some magical equalizer.

20mm cannons were simply superior weapons for air-to-air combat.  Yes, .50s were adequate, and they got the job done, but they were simply not as good at it.  There is very little in the pro side for .50s when compared with 20mms.

.50s do get the job done in AH too, it isn't like they are BBs.

[Saxman]

Nice selective reading, Karnak.

I'm not saying ANYTHING about "evening the power of machine guns vs. cannon." I'm saying that the way damage is modelled exaggerates the power disparity because effects that ALL guns would have aren't modelled, and that impacts the MGs more because cannon are more likely to take the wing off entirely, anyway, while that same plane might have still gone down from MG fire even though the wing itself was still attached.

And btw, I'll need to look it up but in one of my books there's an account of a pilot who received a hit which took a chuck out of the middle of his wing--nowhere near the leading or trailing edge. Right smack dab in the center--and he ended up having to fly home with his leg wrapped around the stick to keep the plane level.

[rabbidrabbit]

I simply want a more realistic damage model.  I believe Karnak is right, a cannon round does more explosive damage where machine guns tend to punch holes in things and damage systems.  A single 303 potentially can bring down any plane if it hits it in the right spot.  Doing so is statistically less likely than a 50 cal or larger round.  Them's the breaks.  As long as it's reasonable, people don't have much to complain about although that won't stop them.  Overall, people will still appreciate the effort in realistic modeling.  Adding up 1/2 inch holes in surfaces has little value as it has relatively little influence on the total effectiveness of the surface.  Having pieces of stuff torn off would affect aerodynamics. 

[Anaxogoras]

They have incremental damage in Il-2, and when I play that game with other humans, the sky doesn't fall.  Incremental damage to lift surfaces and stabilizers doesn't need a goal or a purpose; it only needs to be a credible representation of what might actually happen when an aircraft is damaged.

[Karnak]

Saxman,

There you go again.  You have it in your head, wrongly, that the damage model in AH unfairly favors cannons.  It doesn't.  You somehow think that a more realistic damage model, something I'd like to see too, will lessen the the firepower difference between, say, a Spitfire Mk VIII and a P-51D.  It won't.  The Spitfire Mk VIII has noticeably more firepower than the P-51D and a more realistic model will not change that.

As to your anecdote, was it a bullet hole or a gaping hole blown by a cannon round?  I was referring to bullet holes.  If the airstreams traveling above and below the wing remain separated then lift will still be generated.

[OOZ662]

Firepower difference? No, no change there. Effectiveness difference? Very much so.

[Saxman]

Firepower difference? No, no change there. Effectiveness difference? Very much so.

Exactly. And it wouldn't even displace getting a good, tight grouping within adequate range. Rounds scattered all over from several hundred yards out might not do much, which is the case of the damage model as it is anyway, but do you really believe that pouring 100 or so half-inch rounds into a zone about a foot across from 200yds won't knock a good-sized chunk out of the wing's surface skin? With the right hit you're not talking about individual bullet holes, because even MG fire can punch out a nice hunk of metal.

Someone mentioned gun camera footage earlier in the thread, and I've seen plenty credited to US aircraft firing MGs that show pieces of debris a good 2-3ft across flying off, so it's certainly well within the capability of the US .50cal to knock holes that big in the wing.

[Karnak]

Firepower difference? No, no change there. Effectiveness difference? Very much so.

If there is an effectiveness difference, the firepower has changed.  What sort of mealy mouthed sentence did you post?

You guys really think the machine guns should be more effective than they were?

[OOZ662]

No, it's that they aren't as effective as they were and we would like them to be made more in line with the damage they caused.

Firepower and effectiveness are two separate things. Firepower or lethality to me is represented by the "poundage" of damage it deals in Aces High. Effectiveness is its ability to cause problems for the other aircraft.

Should the base lethality for the gun be increased? No. Should its realistic ability to wear away at a still-intact component be modeled? I say yes.

Also, realize that cannons would benefit from this too, just so much as the MGs. Hitting in the middle "open area" of the wing with a 20mm and missing the internal components while blowing the skin off the wing would be a bit detrimental to the flight characteristics of the aircraft...

[Saxman]

Also, realize that cannons would benefit from this too, just so much as the MGs. Hitting in the middle "open area" of the wing with a 20mm and missing the internal components while blowing the skin off the wing would be a bit detrimental to the flight characteristics of the aircraft...

And the reason that I say that MGs would benefit more from this capability is because under the current damage model cannon are more likely to just blow the wing itself off outright, anyway.